A Commentary on Euripides' Iphigenia in Tauris 3110190990, 9783110190991

Citation preview

Poulheria Kyriakou A Commentary on Euripides' Iphigenia in Tauris

w DE

G

Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte Herausgegeben von Gustav-Adolf Lehmann, Heinz-Günther Nesselrath und Otto Zwierlein

Band 80

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

A Commentary on Euripides' Iphigenia in Tauris

,by Poulheria Kyriakou

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

© Printed on acid-frcc paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

I S S N 1862-1112 I S B N - 1 3 : 978-3-11 -019099-1 ISBN-10: 3-11-019099-0 Library of Congress — Cataίoging-in-Pl·lblication

Data

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the library of Congress

Bibliografische Information Der Deutschen

Bibliothek

Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at < http://dab, ddb.de >.

© Copyright 2006 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin Printing and binding: Hubert & Co., Göttingen

In memory of my mother Marianna and for my father Vassilis

Acknowledgments The greatest scholarly debt of most commentators is to their predecessors and I am no exception to this rule. I would like to thank James Diggle for permission to use the text and apparatus of his edition of the play. It is obvious from my decision to use the OCT text and from my discussion of several passages that I agree with the vast majority of the editor's choices. As is common with commentators who use another scholar's edition, I am skeptical or reserve judgment in some cases but these are extremely few and nowhere would I certainly make a different editorial choice. I have also used extensively the other editions and the commentaries of IT listed in the bibliography, without always explicitly acknowledging what I owe to them. The book has been several years in the making and I am very grateful to several others for their help. In particular, I would like to thank Martin Cropp for graciously sending me his commentary on the play before it was published. James Diggle, Richard Hunter, and Donald Mastronarde kindly read parts of earlier drafts of the commentary and offered trenchant criticism and many valuable suggestions. Daniel Jacob, formerly teacher and now very supportive colleague, and the editors of UaLG, especially Heinz-Günther Nesselrath, read the penultimate draft in its entirety and made comments that improved it substantially. None of these scholars is responsible for what I failed to include, correct, or modify. Many thanks are also due to the editors for accepting the book in their series and to Sabine Vogt, Annelies Aurich, Christoph Schirmer and the other members of the staff of Walter de Gruyter publishing house for the speedy and efficient production. Over the years, several of my students offered fresh perspectives on IT and other Greek texts. Apart from encouragement and generous support, the friends and colleagues Stavros Frangoulidis, Chrissanthi Tsitsiou-Chelidoni, and especially Yannis Tzifopoulos also provided various bibliographical items. In matters great and small, both related to the preparation of the book and in many others, the help and advice of the friend and colleague Antonios Rengakos has been invaluable. He has repeatedly and graciously shown himself to be a true friend, always

viii

Acknowledgments

finding time and ways to offer much needed support, when I asked for it and even without my having to do so, with his customary generosity and characteristic urbanity. The greatest debt I owe to my husband Theokritos Kouremenos who patiently endured the long years of the book's germination, from the very inception to the preparation of the camera ready copy, and the even more vexing moods of the author. For two decades now, he has been my most reliable source of sober criticism, thoughtful advice, and stimulating encouragement. I have not always been fable or willing to take full advantage of them but he has stood by me throughout, offering constant care, and sharing his multifarious intellectual explorations, caustic humor, and meticulous expertise. I can only hope that my gratitude and affection for him may be shown more clearly in deed than in word.

Thessaloniki, June 2006

Contents Introduction I. The play II. Myth and cult III. Characters and chorus IV. Production V. Date VI. The play's reception in literature and the visual arts . . VII.The text Commentary

3 3 19 30 37 39 41 47 51

Metrical analysis of lyric parts

471

Bibliography

483

Indexes

493

Introduction

I. The play1 a. Plot-structure and the question of genre (1) Plot-structure. The prologue (1-122) consists of a monologue delivered by Iphigeneia (1-66) and a dialogue scene between Orestes and Pylades (67-122). Iphigeneia comes out of the temple, introduces herself and briefly tells the story of the Aulis sacrifice. Artemis substituted a deer for the girl without letting the Greeks know and transported Iphigeneia to Tauris where she appointed her priestess of the local cult which includes abominable rites. Iphigeneia then explains that she came out of the temple in order to narrate a dream she had the previous night. She thinks that the dream announced the death of her brother Orestes and she now wishes to pour funeral libations for him in the company of her Greek slave-women. Seeing that they have not arrived yet, she goes back into the temple to wait for them. Orestes and Pylades enter furtively, anxious to avoid detection by locals. The two friends have just arrived by ship and wish to inspect the temple and its surroundings. Orestes' mission is to steal the wooden statue of Artemis and transport it to Athens because Apollo has promised him that successful completion of this labor would free him from the persecution of the Erinyes on account of his matricide. Dispirited by his sufferings and despairing of rising to the task, Orestes suggests immediate flight. Pylades dissuades him and suggests that they hide in a cave by the shore until nightfall when they should come back to the temple and try to break in to steal the image. The two exit to return to the shore. The slave-women, who form the chorus of the play, arrive and Iphigeneia informs them of her dream. She pours the libations and alternates with the chorus in a lament for the fate of her family and her per1

The name of the play in Latin means ' I p h i g e n e i a among the Taurians' and is often used as English for ' i p h i g e n e i a in the land of the Tauriansby analogy with Iphigenia in Aulis. In this introduction and commentary 'Tauris' will designate the land of the Taurians for reasons of convenience, although the land is not called Τ α υ ρ ί ς in the play or in any other ancient source. The play will be abbreviated as IT throughout.

4

Introduction

sonal sufferings (parodos, 123-235). A Taurian cowherd enters to bring the news of the capture of two young Greek men on the shore and tell the priestess to prepare for their sacrifice. In the first messenger speech of the play he narrates that he and his colleagues spotted the pair and were about to try to seize them when one of them suffered a fit of madness, attacked the cattle of the Taurians, and finally collapsed. The cowherds attacked and the two Greeks mounted a valiant resistance but eventually became worn out and were captured. Iphigeneia dispatches the messenger to bring the captives and delivers a speech in which she announces that the death of her brother has now made her insensitive to the plight of the captives. She nevertheless regrets the fact that the gods allow innocent people to arrive at Tauris and become sacrificial victims while Helen and Menelaus, the people responsible for her plight, escape their just deserts. She recalls her suffering at Aulis and reaches the conclusion that Artemis cannot condone human sacrifices: the savage Taurians enjoy killing people and they legitimize their murderous instincts by projecting them on the goddess (first episode, 236-391). The chorus react to the messenger's news in a similar but more guarded manner: they wonder about the origins of the men and their reason for undertaking the trip and wish for the punishment of Helen as well as for their own emancipation (first stasimon, 392-455). The captives arrive (456-66) and, despite her previous statement to the contrary (344-50), Iphigeneia addresses them with great sympathy. Although Orestes refuses to reveal his identity, she manages to overcome his reluctance to answer her questions about people and events in Greece. Iphigeneia thus learns the terrible story of her family following the sack of Troy but also that her brother is alive. She proposes to save the captive in exchange for his delivering a letter to Argos. Orestes accepts the proposal but refuses to escape himself and asks her to save Pylades. Iphigeneia goes into the temple to bring the letter (second episode, 467-642). After the chorus' lyrical expression of sympathy to the captives (an interlude instead of a stasimon, 643-57), the two friends discuss the amazing development. Pylades argues that he should die along with his friend. Orestes refuses and communicates his last wishes to his friend, expressing his bitterness at Apollo's deceitful behavior. Iphigeneia comes back with the letter and the two men recognize her when she names its recipient and recites its content so that Pylades can deliver an oral message in case the letter becomes lost in a shipwreck. Iphigeneia recognizes Orestes when he proves his identity to her through his knowledge of family heirlooms. The two siblings celebrate their miraculous recognition and reunion with a duet but their joy

I. The play

5

quickly gives way to apprehension as Iphigeneia realizes that she needs to devise a plan to save her brother but none suggests itself. The devising of the escape plan is delayed and becomes more difficult because Iphigeneia asks and learns about Orestes' mission. After his trial at the Areopagus some Erinyes remained unconvinced by the acquitting verdict and continued pursuing him. Apollo told him that he would be saved if he went to Tauris to steal the statue and bring it to Athens. Iphigeneia now needs to devise a plan that will ensure the escape of Pylades, Orestes and herself with the statue. Orestes assures her that he will not escape without her and makes a couple of fruitless suggestions. Finally Iphigeneia comes up with an ingenious plan: she will tell king Thoas that captives and statue need to be purified with seawater and secret rites because the captives are polluted matricides who defiled the statue. Thus the trio will have a reason to go to the shore with the statue and escape on Orestes' ship. The chorus agree to keep the secret. The trio go into the temple to wait for the king who will arrive shortly to check on the progress of the sacrifice (third episode, 6581088). The chorus sing of Iphigeneia's happy trip home and lament the loss of their pleasant civilized life in Greece (second stasimon, 10891152). The king arrives and is easily deceived by Iphigeneia. Priestess, statue and captives as well as servants carrying the implements for the purification sacrifice leave for the shore, accompanied by some of the king's men as escorts. The king goes into the temple to purify it (fourth episode, 1153-1233) and the chorus sing a hymn to Apollo (third stasimon, 1234-1283). One of the escorts arrives with a message to the king that the purification was a ruse. The chorus try to send the messenger away from the temple but he sees through their trick and tells his story to the king: Iphigeneia ordered the escorts to stay behind so that they would not witness the secret rites. They eventually became suspicious and intercepted the Greek fugitives as they were about to board the ship. Despite the attempts of the escorts to stop them the conspirators managed to board the ship but an adverse wind hindered it from leaving harbor and was about to smash it on the rocks when the messenger left for the temple. Thoas orders his citizens to pursue the fugitives by sea and land and announces that he will punish both them and the chorus without mercy. As he is about to leave for the shore, Athena appears and instructs him not to pursue the Greeks because Orestes acted on the authority of fate communicated by Apollo's oracle. She also orders him to free the women of the chorus and send them back to Greece and delivers instructions to Orestes and Iphigeneia from afar. When he reaches Attica, Orestes will found a temple for the statue and institute the cult of Artemis Tauropolos; Iphigeneia will serve as Artemis'

6

Introduction

of Artemis Tauropolos; Iphigeneia will serve as Artemis' priestess at the temple at Brauron and will receive posthumous heroine cult. Thoas piously obeys the goddess and the play ends with the chorus' expression of joy over their unexpected salvation (exodus, 1284-1499). (2) The question of genre. Iphigenia in Tauris, produced probably in 414 or 413 BC,2 is a play with most elements of a successful drama. Apart from the innovative version of the myths of Orestes and Iphigeneia (see II below) and the famous recognition of the two siblings, it features an interesting plot, an exotic setting, a clever intrigue and an end with some unpredictable elements. Praised already by Aristotle for its plot-structure and recognition (Poet. ch. 14, 1454a4-7, ch. 16, 1455al6-20, ch. 17, 1455b3-15; see also ch. 11, 1452b3-8), the play has commanded less scholarly attention than other plays of the same period that dramatize the same myth, e.g. Electra, Helen and Orestes. Scholars usually mention IT in connection with the Attic aitia it includes, those of the Choes festival (949-60), the cult of Artemis Tauropolos at Halae (1453-61) and Iphigeneia's heroine cult at Brauron (1462-67). 3 It is particularly remarkable that, despite Aristotle's praise of the play in a work that proved highly influential, the Poetics, so many scholars until recently found IT unlike "true" tragedy and pointed out, although not always disparagingly, that it contained funny or comic elements. 4 The 2 3

4

See V below. In a recent collection of articles on Euripides, Cropp et al. (2000), the only one devoted exclusively to the play deals with these rites (Tzanetou 2000); see also e.g. Wolff (1992), Sourvinou-Inwood (1997), Goff (1999), Scullion (2000). The book of M. Wright, Euripides' Escape Tragedies. A Study of Helen, Andromeda and Iphigenia Among the Taurians (Oxford 2005), has appeared too late for me to incorporate in my discussion. See e.g. Murray (1913) 142, 146, Platnauer v-vi, G.M. Grube, The Drama of Euripides (London 19612) 329-30, H.D.F. Kitto, Greek Tragedy (London 1961 3 ) 311, 315-16, T.B.L. Webster, The Tragedies of Euripides (London 1967) 167, Burnett (1971) 71-72, P. Vellacott, Ironic Drama (Cambridge 1975) 56, D.F. Sutton, "Satyric Qualities in Euripides' Iphigeneia at [sic] Tauris and Helen" RSC 3 (1972) 321-30, Knox (1979) 256-57, Seidensticker (1982), West (1987) 27-28, E. Hall, "Is there a polis in Aristotle's Poetics?" in M.S. Silk (ed.), Tragedy and the Tragic (Oxford 1996) 295-309, A. Sommerstein, Greek Drama and Dramatists (London 2002) 22, 58. For the opposite view see E. Belfiore, "Aristotle and Iphigenia" in A.O. Rorty (ed.), Aristotle's Poetics (Princeton 1992) 359-77 and cf. Cropp 42-43 who points out that labels such as 'tragicomedy', 'melodrama' or 'romance' are unsuitable to capture the play's complexity and individuality. It should also be stressed that none of these terms nor, much less, all of them together may be used to mark the generic affiliation of the play. They indicate genres much later than, and substantially different from, Greek tragedy, but, as argued below, the most important objection is that the play's tragic status should not have been

I. The play

7

play's failure to present violent, shattering clashes or the harm and destruction of any character, the subjects often associated in modern perception with serious drama, is probably responsible to a large extent for these views of the play. In any case, it is important to make clear, before proceeding to the play's analysis, that they do not reflect with Euripides' (and apparently any other ancient Greek's) view of IT and other supposedly non-tragic plays (e.g. Ion, Helen and Orestes). Apart from the fact that IT was presented as a tragedy in the dramatic competition organized in the framework of the Great Dionysia festival, it does not differ from plays perceived by moderns as fully tragic in any formal or objective, as it were, respect. Its choice of dramatic mode and subject-matter, diction, metre, its structure, number and presumably costume of actors, presentation of chorus, use of messenger speeches, appearance of the so-called deus ex machina at the end, all are also found in other tragedies, and especially Euripidean tragedies, whose tragic status has never been questioned. The scene of the play is a distant barbarian land but this is not unparalleled. Apart from Aeschylus' Persae, the scene of several tragedies is Troy and the titles of several lost plays possibly indicate foreign settings. A barbarian or even exotic setting is certainly not a sufficient reason on which to base an opinion on the play's generic difference. Similarly, the so-called happy end cannot be thought to undermine the tragic quality of the play. Among extant tragedies, Aeschylus' Eumenides, often associated with IT (see II[3] below), is a salient example of the kind of drama that ends well, or at least without damage, not only for the protagonist(s) but also for the city of Athens. The fact that it is the last play of a connected trilogy does not alter the view of the play and may even be thought to corroborate it. From Sophocles' plays, OC dramatizes the end of Oedipus' toils by pointing to at least some restitution for the hero and certainly benefits for the city of Athens. Perhaps more pertinent is Philoctetes, a play almost contemporary (409) with IT, that features several similarities with it. Like Iphigeneia, Philoctetes is an early "victim" of the Trojan expedition, afflicted with a predicament for which he carries no moral responsibility, and in a way cruelly deceived by Odysseus and

questioned anyway. Certainly the fact, if such it is, that Euripides' plays had an influence on New Comedy, for instance, which borrowed from them motifs such as rape, lost children, recognition and happy end cannot be used as evidence that they were not proper tragedies. For Euripides and New Comedy see Knox (1979) 250-74 and E. Segal, "'The Comic Catastrophe': An Essay on Euripidean Comedy" in A.J. Griffith (ed.), Stage Directions: Essays in Ancient Drama in Honour of E.W. Handley, BICS Supplement 66 (London 1995), 46-55.

8

Introduction

the Atreids. The hero spends many miserable years in a remote place, nursing his hatred for his enemies and trying to escape. Finally, two men, Odysseus and Neoptolemus, sail to Lemnos on a secret mission to steal his bow, an object that can bring about the end of the Greeks' toils at Troy. No character dies or is physically harmed and a deus ex machina appears at the end of the play to guide and reconcile the mortals. Themes such as the relationship between appearances and reality, truth and deceit, past and present, divine will and human suffering are also prominent in both plays, as indeed in most of Greek tragedy. Since, as far as I know, nobody has seriously doubted Philoctetes' tragic status, it is only plausible to consider IT too a full-fledged tragedy. Even if scholars accept that IT deals with serious issues, they often imply or suggest that they are not presented in a properly tragic way. The play's tone is light or funny and some of its scenes contain humorous, buffoonish or comic elements. Thus the play fails to arouse, at least consistently and to the degree that properly tragic plays do, the emotions associated with tragedy ever since Aristotle, pity and fear. These claims are the most subjective of those advanced, in the sense that they hinge on the definition of the attributes used and especially one's own perception of humor and emotion in general and in a specific play in particular. Thus such claims are both relatively easier and harder to dismiss than the rest. For the presentation of Thoas and the Taurians, the characters most often thought to provide much of the humor and the outlandish character of the play, see 111(3) below. For some serious reservations about the humor in the scene before the second messenger speech see on 1284-1326. Here let it suffice to say the very obvious, that the modern perception of humor is not necessarily the same as the ancient one and that, even if humor exists where moderns detect it, it does not necessarily alter or eliminate the tragic status of the play, especially as far as the ancients were concerned. By the same token, there is hardly any indication that the arousal of pity and fear, if Euripides may be thought to have aimed, primarily or at all, for it, is not adequately taken care of. In IT all Greek characters, especially the siblings and the chorus, have suffered substantially and are still suffering, not to mention emotively lamenting, predicaments that may reasonably be thought to excite pity in the audience. The Greek characters are also, either throughout or at some point, in mortal danger and the audience may be assumed to fear for them. One may object that the possibility that Iphigeneia will kill her brother is eliminated fairly early on, as soon as she announces her plan to send the captive to Argos with a letter to her friends (578ff.). Nevertheless, Orestes' sacrifice could proceed before the naming of the letter's recipient. Besides, even after the recogni-

I. The play

9

tion, the possibility that the Greeks may ultimately fail to escape certainly exists, although the brilliantly successful deception of Thoas (1153ff.), the cooperation of the chorus (1075-77) and the apparent favor of the gods (1012-16) point to an unproblematic escape. Still, even if one disregards the possibility that the arousal of fear did not belong to Euripides' objectives, the playwright may have envisaged the plot as fear-provoking and the first audience at least may have experienced the expected emotion. This, the ancient reaction to, or perception of, IT and other supposedly non-tragic plays is the last but by no means least piece of evidence against the common modern view of these plays and brings the discussion back to its point of inception. Neither in works contemporary with Euripides' plays such as Aristophanes' comedies nor in works of the fourth century such as Plato's dialogues, Aristotle's Poetics or the speeches of the orators is there any indication that some of Euripides' plays were not proper tragedies. Like moderns, some ancient spectators, readers and thinkers did not like some or even all of Euripides' tragedies but their personal, even if on occasion philosophically argued, opinion was not based on the plays' comic or non-tragic nature. In view of these objections, the claims of modern scholars to the effect that IT was not (conceived of as) a proper tragedy turn out to be unfounded and quite misguided. These claims, which are not supported by any piece of ancient evidence, do not reflect the tragedian's intention or the first audience's perception of the play but rather their authors' view of it, shaped by personal preferences and/or familiarity with later literature. It is obvious that personal and professional views of a work of art do not always (have to) coincide. In any case, as will also be argued in the discussion below, there can remain little doubt as to the full-fledged tragic, and artistically successful, status of IT.

b. The siblings and their family (1) Both the structure of the play and its main theme, salvation that follows long suffering as well as most unexpected reversals of fortune and is brought about through intrigue, are not unique in Euripides' work. Apart from Electra and especially Helen, as well as the fragmentary Andromeda, which are thematically very close to IT, Ion has a similar plot and Orestes too extends the limits of the same basic pattern. IT differs from the Atreid plays Electra and Orestes and is similar to Helen in

10

Introduction

its choice of exotic setting.5 The geography of Tauris and the Black Sea voyage of Orestes and Pylades are not described in detail but the sea, first mentioned very early in the prologue in connection with Aulis (see on 6-7), and especially the dangerous Euxine and the rocky Taurian shore feature prominently in the play. The motif enhances the remoteness and threatening nature of the barren, inhospitable Tauris that motivates the nostalgia and despair of the Greeks that land or live there: the Taurian land is marked off by perilous waters and its inhabitants worship a goddess that demands, or at least accepts, the sacrifice of sailors unfortunate enough to disembark on their shores. (2) Despite their troubles in this land, and their previous sufferings, Iphigeneia and Orestes are unlike their counterparts in other plays in that they escape to a large extent the corrosive influence of their family past. Their main source of emotional strength and willingness to restore the family fortunes seems to be their affection for each other and their sister Electra. This bond functions as virtually the only element of moral sanity amidst the trials and tribulations of the family. Cf. on 81126 and Ic(l) below. Like all tragic heroes, the siblings are certainly creatures of their past. Iphigeneia is traumatized by the Aulis sacrifice and Orestes suffers physically and psychologically as a result of the pursuit of the Erinyes. Neither sibling, though, is morally corrupt or emotionally crippled. 6 Orestes upholds the values traditionally associated with noble youths. He is brave (320-22, 486-91, 1366-74) and eager to contribute his services to a common goal (1020-22). He is a loyal friend who steadfastly refuses to allow Pylades to die for him or along with him (597-608, 687-94). Even when he is about to perish and feels betrayed by Apollo, he does not neglect the welfare of his sister Electra (706-15) and refuses to ensure his salvation at the price of his sister Iphigeneia's death (1007-11). Iphigeneia, who cherishes her siblings (372-79, 912-14), does not even hold a grudge against the father who sacrificed her (991-95). She also steadfastly refuses to consider the possibility of assassinating Thoas even to ensure her own and Orestes' escape (1021, 1023). She views the king of the barbarians as her host whose life she feels bound to respect, although she suffers in the service of the Taurian cult and she and her brother may be killed by Thoas. Such nobility of character, especially exhibited by two protagonists, is not found again in the plays of the same period and similar plots 5

6

For the similarities between IT and Helen cf. V below. For Ion and similar plays see e.g. Solmsen (1934) and Strohm (1957) 75-86; cf. K. Zacharia, Converging Truths. Euripides' Ion and the Athenian Quest for Self-Definition (Leiden 2003) 150ff. For the characterization of Iphigeneia and Orestes see also III(l) and (2).

I. The play

11

mentioned above. In Electra Orestes is at best reluctant to act and at worst a coward, and Electra is neurotic and ruthless. In Orestes both siblings (and Pylades) fail, although only when they reach the extreme of misery and despair, to transcend the murderous inclinations of the previous generations of the family and are ready to repeat their crimes without compunction. In a similar vein, Helen would presumably agree to Theoclymenus' assassination if his sister Theonoe were not a seer {HI. 1043-46), although his father Proteus had sheltered her (60-67) and Theonoe was favorably disposed to her (1022-27). Even Creusa's refusal to kill her husband cannot compare with Iphigeneia's respect for Thoas' life because Thoas was not related to Iphigeneia while Xuthus had been a good husband to Creusa in the past (Ion 976-77). Cf. on 1020-27. (3) The nobility of the siblings in IT is closely connected with the play's other major innovation, the handling of the family past. Apart from the Aulis sacrifice and Apollo's oracles to Orestes, the rest of this past, with its many internecine crimes, is either completely glossed over or very briefly alluded to in the play.7 Most strikingly, IT is the only surviving Atreid play where Aegisthus and his murder are not mentioned, even though Orestes narrates his story fairly extensively (77-94, 940-78) and Iphigeneia explicitly asks about her mother's motive for killing her father (926). (Aeschylus' Eumenides, the last play of a connected trilogy, also ignores Aegisthus but the omission is not significant. The first two plays of the trilogy deal extensively with Clytaemestra's adultery and the punishment of the guilty couple and 7

The play suppresses the family past so consistently and extensively that it glosses over not only criminal but also non-traumatic or salubrious events, Orestes' evacuation to Phocis and rearing at the house of Strophius as well as Pylades' assistance in the matricide (cf. on 708-10). Belfiore (2000) 27 suggests that Orestes committed the matricide without Pylades' help. This is not necessarily so. At 709, for instance, Orestes says that he and Pylades were brought up together. This does not by itself indicate that Orestes grew up in Phocis. If there were no other evidence to that effect, no one would think that 709 necessarily referred to Orestes' growing up in Phocis. An equally plausible interpretation of the line would be that for some reason Pylades grew up in Argos. However, given the popularity of the myth of Orestes' dispatch to Phocis (cf. on 917-19) and the lack of any evidence to the contrary in this play, it is most likely that the audience would interpret 709 as an allusion to Orestes' stay with Strophius. In the same vein, Orestes' references to Pylades as his dearest friend (607b-8, 708, 919), his helper in his many troubles (710) and indeed his savior (923) do not necessarily imply that Pylades was an accomplice in the matricide but they were most probably thought by the audience to do so, especially since the play does not state that Pylades did not participate in the matricide.

12

Introduction

Eumenid.es focuses on the trial of Orestes for matricide and its aftermath. Hecuba and Troades do not mention Aegisthus despite the prophecies they contain [He. 1275-81, Tr. 356-64, 445-50] but they are not Atreid plays and the function of the prophecies in them is fairly circumscribed. Likewise, Andromache mentions only Orestes' matricide [971-82, 1028-36].) This reticence does not imply that Clytaemestra's adultery is implicitly denied because at 927 Orestes implies that her motives for killing Agamemnon were less than honorable. It is unlikely that any audience would fail to interpret this as an allusion to Clytaemestra's adultery, especially since it is nowhere said in the play that Clytaemestra did not commit adultery or that she had other motives. See 11(3) below. Similarly, the crimes of the previous generation, that of Atreus and Thyestes, are alluded to only in passing (193-197, 81217), although the butchery of Thyestes' children by Atreus could conceivably function as a precedent for Agamemnon's treatment of Iphigeneia. (4) The story of Pelops receives relatively greater emphasis in the play (1-3, perhaps 192, 822-26) but his career is not necessarily a model for the travails of Iphigeneia and Orestes, as e.g. Sansone (1975), O'Brien (1988) and Hartigan (1991) 90 and 98 have suggested. If 38688 imply that his father Tantalus served his flesh to the gods, which is not certain (see on 385-91), the play certainly does not mention his rescue by the gods or their help to him in winning the contest with Oenomaus. Thus Pelops turns out to be a rather vague model for Iphigeneia, his great-granddaughter, whom Agamemnon intended to sacrifice but Artemis saved. It is also unlikely that Orestes' escape with Iphigeneia was modeled on the story of Pelops and Hippodameia. Apart from the obvious difference between the two pairs, brother/sister and suitor/bride-to-be, there is little similarity between the escape plot of Iphigeneia and Orestes and Pelops' contest with Oenomaus as presented in the play. Pelops won Hippodameia by killing Oenomaus with a spear. The traditional story that Pelops enlisted the help of Oenomaus' charioteer Myrtilus in order to defeat Oenomaus in the chariot race and then murdered his collaborator is completely suppressed. There is no intrigue or deceit involved, indeed even the chariot race is never mentioned and is at most implicit in the reference to the swift mares at 2 and, perhaps, to the winged horses at 192. Orestes did not travel to Tauris to save or win Iphigeneia and there is no similarity between Thoas and Oenomaus (cf. on 1325-26). Iphigeneia is not related to Thoas and she is his guest of sorts (cf. 1020-23). It is Artemis and not Agamemnon or, much less, Thoas, the supposed counterpart of Oenomaus, who arranged for Iphigeneia to spend a life of celibate exile in

I. The play

13

a barbarian land where human sacrifices are performed. Thoas' plan to pursue the Greek escapees at the end of the play (1422-30) is thwarted not by their trickery but by the intervention of Athena (1435-74). Very little, non-lethal, violence is involved in the escape of Orestes and Iphigeneia (1354-78). 8 If in IT Euripides had meant to draw clear analogies between the story of Tantalus and Pelops and that of Agamemnon and two of his children, he would have made these analogies much more explicit and would not have suppressed the crimes perpetrated by the protagonists' ancestors. There can be little doubt that the audience knew the stories but there is no indication that playwrights adopted a very allusive style. Even if some members of the audience recalled the story of Pelops, it is unlikely that Euripides would count on such associations to provide an important foil to the play. For the function of the repeated references to the story of Pelops in the play see on 822-26; on Pelops and Tantalus cf. also on 385-91. The choice not to dwell on the past of the family has enabled Euripides to present the long-suffering latest generation of the family as relatively unburdened by the successive internecine crimes or by a family curse. The only reference to inherited guilt and affliction is made by the chorus (198-202) but in the context of Orestes' death, a calamity that has not occurred. The lack of emphasis on past crimes contributes to the impression that the restitution of the family is indeed possible and perhaps imminent, although the ability of the siblings to save their house often appears to be in doubt because of their personal limitations or the intervention, and especially the lack thereof, of the gods in their affairs.

c. Gods and mortals (1) Apart from their affection for each other (see Ib[2]), the siblings rely also on their hope that the gods (will eventually) support them. 9 The entire play is indeed eminently concerned with gods and religion but their role is invested with complexities and ambiguities. The sheer number and variety of references to religious acts, rituals and festivals 8 9

On the other hand, and conforming with the play's suppression of violent stories, O e n o m a u s ' barbarous treatment of his daughter's suitors is never mentioned. Iphigeneia and Orestes assume that Apollo and Artemis are also motivated by affection for each other and the motif of divine sibling affection occurs several times in the play (1012-15, 1084-85, 1401-2; cf. 1488-89), bringing humans and gods closer together.

14

Introduction

are remarkable. They permeate the play literally from beginning to end, from Calchas' divination at Aulis (16-24) to the symbolic sacrifices to be instituted at Halae (1458-61) and the posthumous offerings to Iphigeneia at Brauron (1462-67). Prayers, consultation of oracles, funeral libations, tomb offerings, purification rites and purity restrictions as well as various Greek centers of worship such as Crete, Argos, Delos, Delphi and of course Athens are also mentioned at important junctures throughout. Most important of all, the Taurian human sacrifices, not least in their implicit association with the Aulis sacrifice and their connection with Iphigeneia's role as priestess and with the symbolic sacrifices at Halae, constitute the thematic backbone of the play. The sibling gods Apollo and Artemis, the divine patrons of the mortal siblings Orestes and Iphigeneia, have been the agents responsible for determining their fate for many years, but they never appear as characters in the play and seem to have little direct involvement in its events. They delivered their mandates before the dramatic time of the play - in the case of the Aulis sacrifice long before it. The behavior of Artemis is particularly intriguing. Her long-standing relationship to Iphigeneia is close, but no special intimacy between priestess and goddess is detectable in the play. Artemis apparently demanded the Aulis sacrifice (see below) but then secretly saved the victim and transported her far away from Greece in order to make her the priestess of a man-killing cult. These contradictions are never satisfactorily resolved in the play and are further compounded because the goddess implicitly agrees to have her cult image transported from Tauris to Greece and to be honored with a new cult at Halae that features a symbolic human sacrifice. The only attempt to rationalize Artemis' behavior is made by Iphigeneia who refuses to believe that the goddess demands human sacrifices. In the prologue (15-25) Iphigeneia insinuates that the seer Calchas misinterpreted the goddess' will at Aulis (23), apparently because Artemis did not allow the sacrifice to go through. At the end of the first episode she claims that the Taurians project their murderous instincts on the goddess because, in her opinion, no god can be evil and all crimes attributed to gods are human fabrications (385-91). This enlightened view is not corroborated by any evidence or hint in the play or indeed in any other Greek poem. 10 On the contrary, there are indications 10 The promotion of religious skepticism does not appear to have been a priority in tragedy: seers, oracles and dreams are never proven false in this or any other play (cf. on 20b-24a, 344-91 and 380-91). The view that Euripides was an atheist or promoted atheism is already found in Aristophanes; against it see W. Kullmann, "Deutung und Bedeutung der Götter bei Euripides", in W . Kullmann et al. (eds.),

I. The play

15

that the sacrifices were not foisted on the goddess by incompetent seers or murderous barbarians. Artemis did not castigate Calchas and the army for the decision to sacrifice Iphigeneia, did not hinder the departure of the Greek fleet from Aulis after the rescue of the girl and did not punish anyone involved in her sacrifice. If Artemis had nothing to do with human sacrifices, it would be plausible to speculate that she substituted the deer for the human victim at Aulis because she did not desire a human victim. Since a sacrifice had to take place because of Agamemnon's old vow (20-24), the goddess arranged for an animal victim. But, since Artemis kept the girl's rescue secret for many years and especially since she put the rescued victim in charge of the human sacrifices offered by the Taurians, it is implausible that she considered human sacrifices unacceptable. (The only conceivable explanation for the rescue of Iphigeneia is that the goddess ended up feeling compassion for the particular human victim; the reasons for her not revealing the rescue of the victim are not easy to imagine.) The assumption that a goddess would hide her displeasure at the Aulis sacrifice and would tolerate for several years the polluting human sacrifices of the Taurians without manifesting her aversion or punishing the mortal perpetrators of the crimes is naively absurd and cannot be supported by any tenet or parallel in Greek religion. Athena at the end of the play does not even mention the Aulis sacrifice and does not chastise the Taurians for their savage cult or admonish them to change their ways but prescribes a symbolic sacrifice at Halae so that Artemis may preserve her presumably cherished Taurian honors. The only divinity that appears in the play, Athena is actually the only character in a position to offer an authoritative account of past events but she focuses almost exclusively on the future. She mentions fate in passing (1438; cf. 1486), but the relationship of fate to the gods is not explored in the play. Even if fate is thought to be the main cause of the events in the play, Iphigeneia's rationalization of divine behavior cannot stand. Although gods cannot overrule fate (cf. on 1486), there is no indication in the play or elsewhere that it forces them to be subjected to the ultimate indignity of tolerating polluting and unwanted sacrifices for many years and for no reason. (2) The opaque ambiguity of divine will and behavior and thus the problem of communication between humans and gods is a motif that runs through the play, from the first mention of the Aulis sacrifice to Mythos. Deutung und Bedeutung (Innsbruck 1987) 7-22, Μ. Lefkowitz, " 'Impiety' and 'Atheism' in Euripides' Dramas" CQ 39 (1989) 70-82 and Sourvinou-Inwood (1997); cf. Mikalson (1991) 225 n. 85.

16

Introduction

the transport of Artemis' statue to Greece. Apollo's latest oracle to Orestes that sent him to Tauris is quite uninformative. Symbolic dreams cannot be relied upon to act as divine messengers because the delivery of their message depends on fallible human interpretation. The problems in human/divine communication are manifested through the force that humans experience as chance (τύχη), the unpredictable turn of events that can save or destroy humans suddenly and for no discernible reason. Both Iphigeneia and Orestes associate chance and the divine, and both acknowledge human lack of insight into their workings (47578, 570-75; cf. 721-22, 909-11). This realization of human limitations and the unpredictable mutability of human fortunes is a common motif in Greek poetry from Homer onwards (cf. on 719-22). In IT, however, it is combined with an uncommon and surprising twist: both Iphigeneia and Orestes (as well as the Taurians) reach confident conclusions about divine will and signs or pass judgment on divine behavior (42-58, 38591, 569, 711-15, 1414-19). When they have to assess difficult situations, especially when they themselves are involved in such situations, mortals apparently fail to take into account what they profess to be aware of, their own intellectual limits. Although events prove them wrong and belie their confident assumptions, they fail to become more cautious and to gain in understanding. Cf. 111(1 )c below. (3) Self-contradictions and especially the failure of mortals to exhibit due caution or prudence inform to some extent all tragic plays. Euripidean characters in particular are rarely in a position to take for granted benevolent divine interest in human affairs or the ready availability of divine assistance to mortals. Feeling largely alienated from the gods and being skeptical about divine morality, mortals need to rely on their own resources. In IT no mortal character suffers because of his or her decisions and actions, but the problems of mortals sketched above highlight the potential for disaster that is ever-present in the play (cf. on 727-36). The final salvation of the characters may be viewed as the result of divine protection, the fruit of a masterly divine plan. If such plan exists, it is remarkable that the proteges suffer at least two disturbing setbacks, one before and one within the dramatic time of the play: the division of the Erinyes, the plaintiffs in Orestes' trial at the Areopagus, into two factions virtually annuls the acquitting verdict (967-78), while the adverse wind that hinders the departure of the ship (139 lbff.) almost destroys the fugitives. (Iphigeneia's confident but wrong interpretation of her dream may be included in this list, although it has no impact on the course of events; cf. on 42-58.) Neither of these setbacks proves disastrous or causes irreversible damage but they are

I. The play

17

emblematic of the unpredictability of the future, or of the pervasive influence of fortune or chance. In IT and Greek poetry in general fortune or chance (τύχη as agent) is the entity to which mortals ascribe responsibility for the unpredictable mutability of their fortunes (τύχη or τύχαι as outcome), especially the unpleasant reversals of fortune, that the Greeks considered a given in human life (cf. [2] above). Mortals cannot foresee, influence or, most importantly perhaps, make (adequate) sense of the misfortunes they experience. As is the case in IT, it often turns out at the end of plays that the gods, one god, and/or fate were responsible for the events of the play and (the reversals of) the fortunes of the characters." Fate of course is just as inscrutable as chance to mortals and the two may be viewed as aspects of the same thing. Fate or Necessity decrees the course of human life and mortals perceive this course as a series of accidents or chance. In IT the failure of Athena to name the god that sent the wind as well as, for instance, the opaqueness of Artemis' attitude to the human sacrifices reinforce the impression that chance or accident may be considered as the cause of events. Even if gods may be thought to be responsible for all events, they certainly do not provide detailed explanations to the mortals involved in the events. On the other hand, the divine agents involved in them do not necessarily act or cooperate according to a plan that unfolds without obstacles or complications and leads mortals straight to salvation or destruction. To take again the example of the wind again, if a god sent it, his or her action was not part of the plan of fate (cf. on 1391bff.). If so, then the gods themselves, in this case Apollo and Athena, are not immune to unpredictable setbacks that may be labeled chance events or accidents, even if they do not suffer because of them. The gods are able to bring about what they want with minimal pain, but the problems they encounter, or the chance events that thwart their plans, if only momentarily, accentuate human vulnerability to chance. The destruction or salvation of humans is thus to an extent a result of chance, or at least of the interaction of gods and chance, i.e. of known and unknown and thus unpredictable agents, and not the result of unalloyed divine benevolence or relentless divine hostility crystallized in plans perfectly thought out in advance and magisterially executed. (4) The gods in IT mainly pursue their own goals and advantage without caring to explain themselves to mortals. Cooperation and har-

11 The relationship of gods and fate as well as that of gods and chance is fluid; see on 1486 and 89 respectively.

18

Introduction

mony among gods are also rather limited. The second messenger thinks that Poseidon sent the wind to punish Orestes for his father's role in the capture of Troy and Iphigeneia (also) for her betrayal of Artemis (141419). Athena and Poseidon cooperate to stop the wind (1442-45). Athena and Apollo also cooperated in Orestes' trial at the Areopagus but the verdict they promoted failed to persuade some of the Erinyes (970-71) who split from their sisters. At the end of the play Athena glosses over the role of Apollo in the trial and claims all the credit for the acquitting verdict for herself (1469-72). Rivalries and favoritism are not unknown, either. Apollo takes possession of the Delphic oracle by killing the chthonic dragon and driving out the previous owner, Earth's daughter Themis. When Earth retaliates by generating prophetic dreams, Apollo asks his father Zeus to help him. Zeus annuls the prophetic power of dreams so that his son may preserve the lucrative Delphic cult by monopolizing oracular power (1234-83). Such negative or unflattering hints are fairly mild in comparison with the stark portrayal of gods in other plays such as Hippolytus, Hercules or even Andromache. In IT divine morality does not directly bear on the fortunes of the mortal characters, and the gods do have positive attributes. They are generally benevolent but at their own pace. They are neither overly concerned with nor totally neglectful of human affairs. Humans have no valid reason not to trust or respect them but they cannot be certain of divine intentions. Artemis may have wanted the human sacrifices but she also saved Iphigeneia and consented to the transport of her image and priestess to Greece. Apollo was the aggressor at Delphi and he failed to save Orestes at the Areopagus. Nevertheless, the chorus hail him as a great prophet in the third stasimon, and his last oracle to Orestes leads to the salvation of the siblings and the restoration of their family. Similarly, the acquitting verdict pronounced by Athena in the Areopagus trial failed to convince all the plaintiffs, but the goddess assists Orestes again and enables him to escape with his sister and the statue of her sister Artemis, which she promises to escort to her beloved city of Athens (1487-89). She also rewards and saves the chorus (1467-69). The play is thus an intriguing indicator of the range of Euripides' creative abilities. Although portrayals of harsh gods and morally diminished mortals are common in his surviving work, IT seems to be an exception or an experiment. The play avoids casting anyone, mortal or immortal, as a vile villain or as a hallowed champion of goodness, with the possible, small and implicit, exception of the chorus. It does not suppress or tone down contradictions and ambiguities on either the human or the divine level, but it does not dwell on either pole of the con-

II. Myth and cult

19

tradictions. Many Euripidean (and other tragic) characters exhibit a mixture of positive and negative features -consider e.g. Clytaemestra and Aegisthus in Electra but especially such criminally inclined characters as Orestes in Andromache and Orestes.u In IT, however, the combination of this mixture with the lack of emphasis on the past, especially on the criminal motivation of distant and immediate ancestors, is unique. The play does not deal so much with the repetition of past wrongs or the punishment of past crimes as with mortal attempts to come to terms with incredible, seemingly accidental, reversals, the unexpected onslaught of disaster or emergence of salvation.

II. Myth and cult (1) No other extant play dramatizes the myth of IT and there survives no secure information about any previous treatment of this myth. Sophocles' Chryses (fr. 726-30) may have dealt with the escape of Iphigeneia and Orestes from Tauris and their pursuit by Thoas. If so, the eponymous character was Chryses, the illegitimate son of Agamemnon and Chryseis. She had become pregnant by Agamemnon before she was returned to her father Chryses, a priest of Apollo Smintheus, following the plague sent by the god to the Greek camp at Troy as a result of Agamemnon's initial refusal to return the girl to her suppliant father. Chryseis concealed the child's paternity and claimed that Apollo was the father. When the Greek escapees Orestes and Iphigeneia arrive at Sminthe, Chryses junior is ready to surrender them to their pursuers, but the truth about his relationship to the children of Agamemnon comes out. He then cooperates with Orestes in killing Thoas and thus ensuring the escape of the fugitives to Greece. One fragment of this play (727) surfaces in a paratragic context in Aristophanes' Aves (1240), dated to 414 BC. This makes Sophocles' play earlier than Aristophanes' and thus probably earlier than IT. The problem is that the only source of information about the plot of Chryses is Hyginus (Fab. 120.5-121) but it is far from certain that his summaries reproduce the plot of Sophocles' or of any play earlier than IT. As Platnauer (xii-xiii) suggests, Chryses may have dramatized the wanderings of the hero in search of Iphigeneia after the murder of Agamemnon.

12 See the remarks in the commentaries of Stevens 13-14 and Willink xlviii-lii.

20

Introduction

There may have been an old goddess Iphigeneia, who assisted in births, as her name perhaps indicates, and became eventually subordinated to Artemis and identified with the daughter of Agamemnon Iphigeneia or Iphimede. 13 Homer does not mention a daughter of Agamemnon by either name or the sacrifice of any daughter at Aulis. (The living daughter Iphianassa [II. 9.144] is not necessarily another version of Iphigeneia's name and Agamemnon's attack on Calchas [1.106-8] can be interpreted as an allusion to the Aulis story only by special pleading.) The story of Iphigeneia's sacrifice at Aulis, including the marriage intrigue, and salvation is found in Cypria, attributed to Stasinus and summarized in Proclus' Chrestomathia (p. 41 Bernabe): a deer was substituted for the girl who was transported to Tauris and immortalized by Artemis. It also surfaces in Hesiod's Catalogue of Women (fr. 23a) and in Stesichorus' Oresteia (fr. 215 = Phld. Piet. N248 III [p. 24 Gomperz]), whose source is identified as Hesiod (fr. 23b). The Catalogue says that Clytaemestra's daughter Iphimede was sacrificed by the Achaeans but saved by Artemis who substituted a phantom for the girl and immortalized Iphimede as her attendant under the name of Artemis Einodia. Philodemus in the work just cited and Pausanias (1.43.1) report that Iphigeneia became Hecate according to Hesiod. This points to a modification of the Hesiodic version on the part of Stesichorus or is simply a mistake. Stesichorus' fr. 217 perhaps also refers to the marriage intrigue. Herodotus reports that the Taurians sacrificed shipwrecked sailors and captured Greeks to a Maiden whom they identified

13 In some versions of the myth, Helen, herself originally a goddess of fertility and birth, is Iphigeneia's mother; see on 442-45. For the forms of Iphigeneia's name in different sources and its etymology, possibly f r o m ϊ ς 'strength' and γ έ ν ο ς , and meaning 'strong in birth' or 'causing the birth of strong offspring' or 'born beautiful', see Aretz (1999) 33-36 with discussion of previous literature. A goddess Iphemedeia (I-pe-me-de-ja) is found in a Linear Β tablet (PY 172 = Tn 316) but the etymology of this name and the function of the goddess are unclear. It is clear, though, that the name, which lacks an initial digamma, is distinct from Iphimede/Iphigeneia. See Kahil (1990) 706 with previous bibliography and cf. M . Rocchi, "Osservazioni a proposito di I-pe-me-de-ja" in E. de Miro et al. (eds.), Atti e memorie del secondo congresso internazionale di micenologia, Roma-Napoli, 1420 ottobre 1991 (Rome 1996) 861-67. In Greek myth minor divinities often became recast as mortal or immortalized companions of Olympian goddesses; see e.g. Larson (1995) 116 with earlier bibliography. For such heroines see also Johnston (1999) ch. 6 (238-241 for Iphigeneia). Cf. Stockert 51-52 and for suggestions about the origin of Iphigeneia's cult at Brauron see n. 25 below. For the different versions of Iphigeneia's myth see further A.O. Hulton, "Euripides and the Iphigenia L e g e n d " Mnemosyne 15 (1962) 364-68, Hollinshead (1985) 420-30, Brule (1987) 180-203, D o w d e n (1989) 10-24 and Aretz (1999) 47-229.

II. Myth and cult

21

with Iphigeneia and worshiped in a temple built on a cliff (4.103). 14 In most poetic treatments of the myth in the fifth century Iphigeneia dies at Aulis; see P. P. 11.22-23, A. Ag. 184-257, 1412-21, 1555-59, S. El. 530-76, and other plays of Euripides himself (An. 624-25, El. 1018-29, Tr. 370-72, Or. 658-59). (2) Thus, while the salvation of Iphigeneia and her transport to Tauris is not Euripides' invention, Orestes' trip to Tauris, the recognition of the siblings, their return to Greece with the statue and the cults at Halae and Brauron possibly are. Similarly, the reason given in IT for Iphigeneia's sacrifice has no known precedent: in earlier versions of the story Artemis withheld the winds or sent adverse weather to punish Agamemnon for an offense committed at Aulis (see on 15-16). In IT Calchas is said to have attributed the calm that prohibited the fleet's departure from Aulis to Artemis' anger caused by Agamemnon's failure to fulfill (properly?) the vow he had made to sacrifice the most beautiful animal of the year to the goddess in the year of Iphigeneia's birth. For this incautious vow and Artemis' demand for the sacrifice of Iphigeneia cf. Ic(l) above and on 17-34. It is unfortunate that the ending of Euripides' IA (1532-1609) is spurious. A fragment (857), perhaps of the original ending of the play, seems to belong to a prophecy by Artemis, presumably speaking as dea ex machina. It reveals that the daughter of the addressee, probably Clytaemestra, will be saved by the speaker who will substitute a deer for the girl without revealing the substitution to the Greek army (ελαφον δ' 'Αχαιών χερσιν ένθήσω φίλαις/ κεροΰσσαν, ήν σφάζοντες αύχήσουσι σήν/ σφάζειν θυγατέρα). This is compatible with the version of the Aulis sacrifice in IT but it is not known whether the girl would be transported to Tauris or not. What is more important, Stockert (79-87) plausibly argues that the fragment and

14 Hall (1989) 111-12 has argued that Euripides is heavily indebted to Herodotus for the portrayal of the Taurians and their sacrifices in IT. The Taurians sacrificed the victims either by hitting them over the head with a club or by decapitating them. The severed heads were then impaled and the bodies of the victims were either thrown down a cliff or buried. Herodotus also reports that the Taurians, who supported themselves by plundering and war, cut off the heads of their slain enemies, impaled them and put them up on their roofs to act as guardians of the houses. The only element from Herodotus' account that Euripides may have borrowed is the sacrifice of shipwrecked men and Greeks: the method of capturing the Greeks (by taking out to sea), the method of killing the sacrificial victims, the identity of the goddess and the display of trophies have no parallel in the play. It is likely that Euripides was familiar with Herodotus' account but it is improbable that the historian was his only or even a primary source.

22

Introduction

the ending it belonged to may also have been spurious. Cf. Aretz (1999) 110-14. (3) Euripides clearly wished to involve Iphigeneia in the restoration of the Atreid house but her involvement did not automatically dictate the specific plot of IT. Another possible option would be a play in which Orestes would be dispatched to Tauris to fetch Iphigeneia, either before the Areopagus trial or immediately afterwards, as a condition for his final restitution. At the end of Euripides' Electra and Orestes the hero has to undergo additional trials in order to achieve final restitution but the playwright's choice in IT has a number of advantages. The remarkable innovation of the Erinyes' split in the Areopagus trial and the continued persecution of Orestes by the recalcitrant group allows for the portrayal of a matricide with little credible hope of deliverance even after an acquittal. The failure of Apollo's oracle to mention Iphigeneia and her interpretation of her dream as announcement of Orestes' death generate suspense and ultimately open the way for the highly dramatic double recognition. IT was perhaps conceived, partly at least, in conscious contrast to Aeschylus' Oresteia and especially to Eumenides.15 If so, the inconclusive trial and Orestes' further troubles in IT presented an alternative to Aeschylus' story, although the final rehabilitation of the siblings was possibly inspired by, rather than meant to contrast with, Eumenides (cf. [5] below). On the other hand, the trial of Orestes at the Areopagus with the Erinyes as plaintiffs and a human jury as well as the acquittal of the defendant in case of a tie vote, institutionalized by Athena at the end of IT (1469-72), were most probably part of the legacy of Aeschylus' innovative treatment of the myth in his play.16 The survival of Iphigeneia does not expose the futility of the murders of Agamemnon and Clytaemestra, as Cropp suggests. In this respect the Euripidean play does not differ from the Aeschylean Oresteia. It is true that, unlike the Oresteia, IT is not concerned with the process of revenge and it touches very lightly on its relationship with justice (559-60; cf. 714-15). Still, the play does not dramatize the conse15 See e.g. Burnett (1971) 70-71, Seidensticker (1982) 202-3, W o l f f (1992) 328-29, Goff (1999) 116-23, Cropp 36-37, Dunn (2000) 22-23. Cf. n. 24 below. 16 Cf. on 954-46 and 1469b-72. Cf. also section (4) below. There is of course no way of knowing how influential Aeschylus' trilogy had remained several decades after its performance (458) and whether other treatments of the legend may have (also) influenced Euripides. Both Aeschylus (fr. 94) and Sophocles (fr. 305-12) wrote plays called Iphigeneia but their plot and the date of Sophocles' play are unknown. In Sophocles (fr. 305) Odysseus addresses Clytaemestra and thus he may have been responsible for the marriage intrigue or at least its execution. For the two plays see S t o c k e n 53-55 and Aretz (1999) 62-64 and 84-85.

II. Myth and cult

23

quences of human ignorance or misdirected emotion. As pointed out above (Ib[3]), IT suppresses completely the issue of Clytaemestra's motivation and, most strikingly, the fact that she killed her husband in order to avenge her daughter's death. Despite the prominence of both Iphigeneia and the Aulis sacrifice in the play, it is never suggested or even implied that Clytaemestra sought revenge for the killing of Iphigeneia. Cf. on 811-26. Even if one is willing to make the problematic assumption that the audience would recall Clytaemestra's (alleged) justified motive from previous treatments of the legend, there is no evidence that any pre-Euripidean source attributed the murder of Agamemnon exclusively or primarily to his wife's wish to avenge the sacrifice of their daughter. Thus, even if the audience drew a connection with the work of Euripides' predecessors, they would also recall the adultery and would hardly reach the conclusion that Clytaemestra would not have killed Agamemnon, had she known the truth about Iphigeneia's fate. If Euripides had meant to put forth such an innovative version of events, there is no conceivable reason why he would have chosen to include no reference or allusion to it in the play. Besides, the claim that Iphigeneia's survival exposes the futility of her parents' murders is undermined by the only reference to Clytaemestra's motivation in it. Although Aegisthus and the adultery are not mentioned, 927 provides a dark hint that Clytaemestra's crime had nothing to do with injured maternal feelings or even a partially justified revenge. Moreover, and irrespective of Clytaemestra's motivation, Orestes had to obey Apollo's oracle and kill his mother in order to avenge his father's death; see e.g. 714-15, 964-65 and cf. El. 1093-96, Or. 582-84, A. Ch. 269-305, Eum. 465-67, S. El. 580-83. IT does not endorse the matricide as morally uncomplicated or laudable, but it certainly does not present it as futile and does not criticize it or the oracle that led to it. Thus the play cannot be thought to share the theme of futile bloodshed with Helen, in which it receives considerable emphasis in the laments of the Greek characters for the suffering and slaughter of a war fought for the sake of an illusion. In IT the real Helen is responsible for the Trojan war and Calchas' interpretation of Agamemnon's vow for the Aulis sacrifice. Clytaemestra killed Agamemnon for reasons that should not be mentioned and Orestes killed her in retaliation for his father's death. The limitations of human knowledge are an important motif in the play (cf. Ic above) but not in connection with Iphigeneia' s survival, the murder of her father or the revenge of her brother on their mother and his subsequent travails in Athens and Tauris. (4) The prominence of Athens in IT is quite remarkable, although it is not unique in Greek tragedy -apart from Aeschylus' Eumenides, con-

24

Introduction

sider e.g. Sophocles' OC or Euripides' own Heraclidae and Supplices. The focus on Athens becomes noteworthy because of the exotic setting of IT and the absence of Athenian characters in the play. IT traces the aition of the Choes festival to the limited hospitality offered by some Athenians to the polluted matricide Orestes before his trial (947-60). More importantly, at the end of the play, the Taurian Artemis and her statue as well as Iphigeneia and Orestes are integrated into the Athenian cultic system under the guidance of Apollo's oracle and with the active cooperation of Athens' tutelary deity Athena. Orestes has to found a temple for the statue at Halae and institute a symbolic human sacrifice as compensation to Artemis for the cessation of the Taurian sacrifices. Iphigeneia will serve as priestess of the goddess at Brauron where she will eventually be buried and honored posthumously with the dedication of the clothes of women who die in childbirth. The prominence of Athens and especially religion in the play (cf. Ic[l] above) make the appearance of Athena as dea ex machina at the end and the announcement of cults and aetiologies less surprising or unexpected than in other plays, e.g. Medea (the heroine herself announces that she will bury her children at the temple of Hera Akraia and will institute rites for them, 1378-83), Supplices, Helen and Orestes. Nevertheless, despite the fact that cults and aetiologies are thematically germane, as it were, to the play, the aition of the Choes festival, announced by Orestes earlier (958-60), and especially the cults at Halae and Brauron, announced by Athena at the end, do not cohere with relevant evidence provided by other sources, both literary and archaeological (see on 1458-61 and 1462-67a). It is true that our evidence for many cults is exiguous and thus it is conceivable that Euripides is the only surviving source for the cults or aspects of them that are unattested elsewhere. On the other hand, since the archaeological evidence for the cults at Halae and Brauron cannot be reconciled with Euripides' account and, especially, since Euripides includes similar references to cults and their aitia in many of his plays, the conclusion that he invents the cults in question readily suggests itself. If it is sound, then it confronts scholars with two serious problems. First, should Euripides and other poets be used as sources for Athenian (and other) cults and rituals? Second, why did Euripides include invented aetiologies and cults in his plays? The first problem concerns primarily historians of religion and is thus largely beyond the scope of the present discussion. Concerning the second, it should first be made clear that the invention of aetiologies and the invention of cults have a quite different specific weight. Aetiologies are stories that purport to explain origins of existing things and

II. Myth and cult

25

practices, although there are also aetiologies for invented varieties, but these are of even less concern than the rest for the reasons indicated below. The Greeks had no sacred texts, no fixed religious dogma and no priestly class or hierarchy that claimed exclusive, authoritative sacred knowledge and controlled access to it but they did have a very long and varied poetic tradition that often dealt, in part or exclusively, with their gods. Thus aetiological stories could be invented quite freely, without causing harm or offense to individuals and groups. These stories were invested with the same (poetic) authority as other (invented) stories, and served various purposes, literary and/or civic.17 The invention of rituals and cults, such as the symbolic sacrifices at Halae and the posthumous cult of Iphigeneia at Brauron, cannot be easily accommodated in the same explanatory, or intentional, mold, although it seems quite clear that such invention could take place, only or mostly, in the framework of religious beliefs and practices that were varied and flexible. An example from Aeschylus' Eumenides, already discussed in (3) above as the possible model in contrast to which Euripides fashioned the myth in IT, may illustrate quite clearly the difference and the scholarly problem it poses. In Aeschylus' time there was in Athens both an Areopagus council and court that had been recently reformed and tried cases of intentional homicide (see on 945-46), and a cult of goddesses, the Semnai Theai, associated with the court (see on 968-69). The poet innovated by presenting a new version of the myth, or aetiology, of the court's foundation and by identifying the Erinyes with the Semnai. Quite simplified for the purposes of the illustration, a plausible reconstruction of his purpose for introducing the new aetiology would be that he sought to dramatize and celebrate the passage from the old order represented by the Erinyes to the new represented by Athena and Apollo, and, through them, Zeus. Moreover, and perhaps primarily, he wished to connect the revised myth with established Athenian cult and with the reformed Athenian civic institutions in order to foster the city's

17 Aetiologies have been viewed as one of Euripides' (and other poets') ways of linking the world of myth with contemporary reality and thus fostering Athenian civic ideology through the cults of polis religion. See e.g. A.N. Michelini, Euripides and the Tragic Tradition (Madison 1987) 107, Dunn (1996) ch. 4 and, more generally, R. Seaford, Reciprocity and Ritual (Oxford 1994). Another, and not mutually exclusive with the previous one, view of aetiologies is that they were ironic or self-conscious devices employed to problematize various aspects of the aforementioned ideological or cultural structures. See e.g. Wolff (1992), SourvinouInwood (1997) and Dunn (2000). For these views see (5) below.

26

Introduction

unity and celebrate the power it derived from them. 18 Now if Aeschylus had invented the Areopagus court (and of course the aition of its foundation) as well as the cult of the goddesses associated with it, then his purposes would have been much more difficult for scholars to guess and quite likely different anyway. This is precisely the case with Euripides' invented festivals, cults and the like. To focus only on IT, there was a Choes festival celebrated in Athens as well as a cult of Artemis Tauropolos and a festival of Tauropolia that took place at Halae. As mentioned above, though, the festivals, especially the Tauropolia, were quite different from those described in the play; see on 958-60 and 1458-61. Moreover, there was apparently no heroine cult of Iphigeneia at Brauron nor even a practice of offering clothes of dead women to any heroine or goddess anywhere in the Greek world. See on 1462-67a and 1464-67a and cf. n. 25 below. What conceivable purpose(s) did these inventions serve? If Euripides wished to explore, problematize, or criticize Athenian religion or cult through them, e.g. to suggest that Artemis and her cult had ambiguous or darker sides, it is difficult to imagine a reason why the invented cults would serve his purpose better than the actual ones, especially since he could easily invent aitia that would point to the aspects he wished to highlight. It could perhaps be assumed that Euripides preferred to present fictional cults and thus in a way fictional gods in order to explore or problematize aspects of actual religion indirectly and without running the risk of antagonizing members of the audience that might dislike such ventures. Such an assumption is belied by two related considerations. First, the Greeks apparently took much more kindly to poetic criticism (and, in the case of comedy, ridicule) of their gods than modern adherents of monotheistic religions usually do. Second, Euripidean characters in several plays, including IT, do criticize or debate the behavior of "real" gods.19 Besides, to take the example of Artemis in IT again, there is little conceivable point in a poet's going to some fictional lengths in order to suggest the ambivalent aspects of a divinity 18 See the discussion of Sommerstein (1989) 19-32. Dunn (2000), who generally fails to distinguish between invented aetiologies and invented cults, suggests that "rather than make a straightforward (and unproductive) connection between mythic past and civic present, Athena makes the false (and meaningful) assertion that they have an essential connection in Athenian judicial deliberations" (7) but Aeschylus' version is no more or less true, fictional, or rhetorically meaningful than other accounts and there is no indication that the audience would prefer (or reject) it as such. 19 Mikalson (1991) 204-7, though, suggests that tragic gods and cults are fictional, largely abstracted from deities actually worshipped and cults practiced in Athens.

II. Myth and cult

27

who was universally perceived as both protective and destructive by the Greeks, 20 as were indeed many of their gods. (5) In view of the above, the suggestion that Euripides (and the other tragedians) included references to rituals and cults, including those to their aitia, in order to reinforce civic ideology through them (cf. n. 17 above) is unconvincing. More generally, as the discussion of aetiologies and cults shows, the view of tragedy as a weapon in the arsenal of the democratic state ideology is implausible and interpretively unproductive because it is very difficult to substantiate on the basis of the available evidence. To be sure, tragic poets touched upon issues such as democratic values or sought to foster civic cohesion and pride by various means, including references to (the aitia of invented) rituals and cults consider again, for instance, Aeschylus' Eumenides, Sophocles' OC and Euripides' Heraclidae and Supplices. However, an examination of the evidence from all extant plays does not lead to the conclusion that problematization of Athenian religion or democratic ideology, exploration of Athenian collective identity, promotion of civic cohesion and similar were consistent concerns of the tragedians or the city of Athens, the sponsor and organizer of the public festivals that included the dramatic competitions. 21 It is more plausible and consistent with the available evidence to reach the conclusion that some tragedies included religious, ideological or civic themes as part of their thematic spectrum. This conclusion seems to apply to the question of invented cults and aetiologies in general and to the case of IT in particular. Concerning the latter, it seems more plausible that Euripides included the invented cults and aetiologies as part of his treatment of the myth, which he presumably fashioned to serve primarily dramatic purposes, rather than that he fashioned the myth in order to explore actual Athenian cults or foster Athenian civic ideology by means of the fictional cults and aetiologies. To take an extreme example of the view that privileges cults and rituals, maturation rituals for Athenian boys and girls perhaps took place at Halae and Brauron (see on 1458-61 and 1462-67a), and Orestes' mission as well as Iphigeneia's near-sacrifice, long exile and eventual return have been viewed as dramatic versions of male and female rites of passage respectively. These typically include the removal of the 20 For the double nature of Artemis see e.g. J.P. Vernant, Mortals and Immortals (Princeton 1991) 204. For her cruel and destructive side see also e.g. Burkert (1985) 152, Kearns (1989) 29. Cf. Cropp 51 n. 78. For her kourotrophic aspect see on 1464-67a. 21 For a succinct discussion of the problems of this approach see J. Griffin, "The Social Function of Attic tragedy" CQ 48 (1998) 39-61.

28

Introduction

boys and girls undergoing the transition from their normal surroundings, the performance of dangerous feats and/or the annihilation of their previous identity, often through mock-death experiences, and their eventual reintegration into their communities with a different identity or status.22 There are serious problems with this approach. First, it is quite likely that the rites in question were not rites of passage anyway (see on 1462-67a). Second, even if they were, the very vague similarities of Orestes' mission, and especially Iphigeneia's story, with initiatory experiences do not contribute to the play's dramatic effect and are thus probably accidental. Orestes in particular had already performed a very dangerous feat (matricide) that involved removal from his normal surroundings, deceit, and an attempt to return with a new status to his original community. Thus the Taurian mission could hardly count as his initiation exploit. Similarly, Iphigeneia's experience at Aulis and her posthumous cult at Brauron cannot be associated with successful rites of passage. Third, even if rites of passage took place at the Halae and Brauron sanctuaries, they are never mentioned or alluded to in the play and are replaced by varieties that have probably been invented and have nothing to do with maturation. As a result, the audience would be unlikely to associate the characters' mission and rehabilitation with the rites of passage that took place at the two sanctuaries. It is hard to think of a reason why Euripides would invent vaguely relevant aitia for rites of passage that he suppresses completely in the play. Euripides' aetiologies should be viewed in the framework of each play rather than that of Athenian cult, in other words in the framework of each play separately rather than collectively. In connection with IT, Dunn, for instance, suggests that the interplay between real and fictional in Athena's speech is part of the play's charm and of its reaction against Aeschylus' OresteiaP There is no doubt that it is the former, but it is that no matter what view of the aetiologies and cults one takes. 22 This model has been suggested by van Gennep (1960). For its application to IT see Tzanetou (2000) esp. 204-16 with earlier bibliography. Cf. C r o p p 55-56. Ekroth (2003) 64-67 discusses the evidence in detail and reaches the conclusion that no connection between Iphigeneia and the Brauronian ritual of the arkteia may be substantiated on the basis of the available, literary and archaeological, evidence. Cf. on 1462-67a. Nevertheless, Ekroth (98) suggests that Euripides placed Iphigeneia at Brauron because of the similarities of her story with the aitia of the arkteia mentioned in later sources. Apart from the fact that the importance of these similarities is denied earlier in the article (65), it is unclear why, if inspired by these myths, Euripides would suppress any association of the future heroine Iphigeneia with girls participating in rituals that could be linked to her story. 23 See n. 15 above.

II. Myth and cult

29

I am fairly skeptical about the latter (cf. [3] above), and the cults at Halae and Brauron have very little to do with Aeschylus' integration of mythic past and civic present.24 Euripides apparently wished to connect (further) the innovative version of the myth that he dramatized in the play with Athens, perhaps inspired by rather than reacting against Aeschylus. For Orestes, already connected with Athens through his trial at the Areopagus, he invented the aition of the Choes festival and the role as founder of the temple and the cult of Artemis Tauropolos. Iphigeneia could easily serve Artemis at any of her temples, including an Athenian or Attic one, but the goddess herself and her Taurian statue had to be given an Athenian cult associated with their Taurian past. The needed link was provided by the ingenious etymology of the cult epithet Tauropolos (1456-57). The cult of Artemis Tauropolos at Halae involved surrogate human sacrifices, which indicated that the goddess considered the Taurian sacrifices her inalienable prerogative and that she did not resent them. Cf. Ic(l) above. Consequently, the popular scholarly idea that, along with Iphigeneia, Artemis is "saved", "redeemed" or even "civilized", "tamed" through the transportation of her statue to Greece finds no support in the play. Iphigeneia continued to serve Artemis but all connection with her service in the Taurian land, the human sacrifices there and the statue she stole is severed: she did not become a priestess at Halae but at the Brauronian temple of the goddess. These arrangements certainly foster the impression that Orestes and, especially, Iphigeneia are rehabilitated. The latter will be offered cultic honors, which may be thought to compensate for her sufferings and perhaps for her failure to return home, although this is not broached in Athena's speech. This is a fitting end for the story Euripides tells in the play, although the audience, or some audiences, may be left wondering about Iphigeneia's reactions to the arrangement (cf. on 1462-67a). It is also an entirely invented end with no grounding in previous myth or contemporary cult. Iphigeneia was apparently never honored in cult in Athens, Brauron, or Attica and there is scant evidence for any cult of hers, except as a goddess subordinated to or merged with Artemis,

24 Dunn claims that Euripides uses the aetiologies to construct tendentious views of Greek culture which he then regularly demystifies or deconstructs. It is not clear, though, that deconstructing fictitious rituals and cults, or advertising one's difference from one's predecessors by means of such deconstruction, is rhetorically more effective than deconstructing the real varieties.

30

Introduction

anywhere in Greece.25 A non-Athenian cult would be irrelevant to the audience of the play anyway. Euripides apparently found it appropriate to end IT and several other plays by suggesting that some characters would be honored in, or associated with, cult, often in Athens or Attica. This makes good sense in the context of the plays but not in the context of Athenian religion or its use as a means of fostering Athenian civic ideology.

III. Characters and chorus Characterization, roughly in the sense of presenting a fictional hero with a unique mind, psychology or idiosyncrasy and personal history, including circumstantial details, is notoriously not a (major) concern of Greek literature in general and Greek drama in particular. 26 There is no doubt that in assessing the character of an ancient tragic figure various factors different from those that may shape the perception or study of modern fictional characters need to be taken into account. First, most tragic figures are well known, not only from myth but also from previous literary treatments, and thus the scope for innovation in their pres25 The information comes from Pausanias: a tomb of Iphigeneia at Megara (1.43.1), sanctuary of Artemis Iphigeneia at Hermione (2.35.1) and an ancient statue of Iphigeneia in the temple of Artemis at Aigeira (7.26.5), from the existence of which Pausanias infers that the temple was originally dedicated to Iphigeneia. Cf. Brule (1987) 186-200, esp. 199 fig. 27 and table 5, and Dowden (1989) 19-20. Some have thought that Iphigeneia was originally an ancient goddess, perhaps of prehistoric origin, at Brauron, who was eventually taken over by Artemis. Alternatively, Iphigeneia may have been a function or appellation of Artemis that later developed into a separate figure of cult. See the bibliography cited by Ekroth (2003) 74 nn. 7476. An association with Hecate (cf. [1] above), who after her introduction to Greece in the Archaic period became associated in myth with dying virgins such as Iphigeneia, also played a role in determining Iphigeneia's place in myth. Hecate was closely associated with Artemis inasmuch as their functions partially overlapped (see on 20b-24a) and, through Hecate, Iphigeneia's connection with Artemis was perhaps strengthened. For Hecate and dying virgins see Johnston (1999), esp. 241-49, and cf. Hollinshead (1985) 421-22. For Iphigeneia as an ancient birth goddess and faded goddess see η. 13 above. In any case, the archaeological evidence does not corroborate the existence of a classical cult of Iphigeneia at Brauron; cf. n. 22 above. 26 Much relevant material is collected in the volume edited by Pelling (1990); see especially the articles by Gill, Easterling, Goldhill and Silk. See also Gould (1978), Blundell (1989) 16-25, Seidensticker (1994) and W. Allan, The Andromache and Euripidean Tragedy (Oxford 2000) 86-90.

III. Characters and chorus

31

entation as well the need to provide a full characterization are more limited than in the case of modern characters. Second, Greek literature in general is not much concerned with realistic representation and tends toward the general or normative rather than the particular or idiosyncratic. Third, the norms of Greek and specifically Athenian culture (e.g. toward women, the old, persons of authority etc.), for which the evidence is often scant, ambiguous, or both, play a role in the presentation of tragic characters. These factors often complicate the modern study of tragic characters considerably more than that of their modern counterparts. IT is not untypical in these respects, but its characters, especially that of Iphigeneia, are sufficiently delineated so as not to be the product of a mere dramatic distillation of mythic figures and literary precedents or mere examples of standard moral types. Euripides' decision to handle a particular moment in a very popular myth by introducing various innovations (see II above) probably dictated many of his choices in the presentation of character but it is far from clear or self-evident that the plot could not work with fewer or other details.27 If so, then the characterization seems to have been pursued, to some extent at least, for its own sake and may be counted among the play's innovations or peculiarities. It is noteworthy that Iphigeneia's characterization is not complete until the deception of Thoas (1159ff.), more than two thirds into the play, if not until her last reported utterance, the prayer to Artemis to stop the wind and allow the passage of the priestess to Greece (13981402). This fairly full characterization is a source of dramatic interest, although it is remarkably consistent and none of its elements comes as a stark surprise to the audience. This consistency contrasts with, for instance, Orestes' contradictory impulses in Orestes, to die nobly and to preserve his life by unheroically supplicating Menelaus, and the reversal in Iphigeneia's character in IA, castigated already by Aristotle (Poet. 15, 1454a31-32). 28 27 Examples of such well-chosen but not necessarily plot-dictated details are Iphigeneia's magnanimity toward her father (549, 992-93) and her respect for T h o a s ' life (1020-23), Orestes' concern for Electra (706-7), Pylades' fear of public slander (676-86) and Thoas' esteem for the priestess (1202, 1214). Also, and in a similar vein, most of the plot-dictated details, e.g. Iphigeneia's dismissal of the escorts of the captives (470-71) or Iphigeneia's change of heart (472ff.) after her declaration of ruthlessness (348-50), are not particularly surprising or impossible to explain in psychological or characterological terms. 28 The contradictions and reversals in these late plays are not as glaring as they might at first seem; see Willink li-lii and Stockert 26-37; cf. Griffin (1990) 140-49 and more generally J. Gibert, Change of Mind in Greek Tragedy (Göttingen 1995).

32

Introduction

(l)a. At the beginning of the play Iphigeneia appears as a woman wounded by her traumatic past but not emotionally hardened (cf. Ib[2] above). She does not accuse the goddess or her father for the Aulis sacrifice but lays the blame at the door of the mortal strangers Calchas and Odysseus (23-25) and especially of the universally loathed Helen and Menelaus (8, 13-14, 354-58; cf. 520-26). Her desire for revenge is directed only against these individuals and does not include Agamemnon or all Greeks, as the Taurians assume and as she pretends in the deception of Thoas (337-39, 1186-87, 1205). Her love for her siblings has not been affected by the long separation and suffering. She feels pity for the victims of the Taurian sacrifices (224-27, 344-47), and her impression that she has changed after the supposed death of her brother (348-50) proves completely wrong. Her emotional resources are demonstrated by the kindness and patience she shows in her first encounter with the captives (472ff.). Her perseverance in the face of Orestes' initial failure to respond to her expression of sympathy and to answer her questions is crucial in bringing about the recognition. b. The plan to send a letter to her brother (582ff.) may also be viewed as a sign of emotional health, of her refusal to sink into despair and apathy following her transport to Tauris and appointment as priestess. Similarly, the ingenious escape plan (1029ff.) and her masterly deception of Thoas in the fourth episode show her ability to make the most out of the chance which she herself has to a considerable extent created, following long years of suffering as a helpless victim. She is able not only to take her life into her own hands but also to turn the family misfortunes into the key to common escape and salvation. Thus the cycle of the family's internecine self-destruction is finally broken. This is most conspicuously demonstrated by her offer to die, if necessary, in order to save Orestes (1004-6), who also rejects it and volunteers to die with her if things go wrong (1007-11). Iphigeneia's plans thus prove not only her emotional maturity, superior intelligence and resourcefulness but also her willingness to take risks both on the human and, potentially at least, the divine level, in order to achieve her goal. Thoas was bound to object to the escape of the priestess, and much more vigorously to the escape of priestess and captives with the statue,29 but the goddess might not condone it, either. Iphigeneia views her rescue at Aulis as proof of the goddess' rejection of the sacrifice

29 For Iphigeneia's rejection of Orestes' suggestion that they should try to escape by assassinating Thoas see Ib(2) above.

III. Characters and chorus

33

(28-29, 783-86, 1082-84) but she cannot be certain that the goddess wishes for her to return to Greece. c. Iphigeneia's experience at Aulis and her aversion to human sacrifices account for her conviction that Artemis rejects the Taurian sacrifices (380-91). Iphigeneia's rationale is not implausible or hopelessly flawed but her conclusion is certainly not the only one that may be reached on the basis of the premises she considers. Similarly, her failure to consider other possibilities in the interpretation of her dream and the decision to pour funeral libations for her brother bespeak excessive confidence that borders on delusion and may prove dangerous. Although she has experienced two most unexpected and radical reversals of fortune already at Aulis and she explicitly acknowledges the inscrutability of divine designs, she has no reservations in interpreting her dream and Artemis' attitude toward the sacrifices according to her beliefs. Even after another, major and joyous, reversal of fortune, the proof that her interpretation of the dream was wrong, and the double recognition, Iphigeneia (and the Greek crew) is still quick to assume that Artemis sent the wind and to address a prayer to the goddess for favorable weather (1397-1405). (The Taurians also assume that the gods, Poseidon and Artemis, are on their side, 1414-19, 1425-26.) Iphigeneia's assumption is plausible and never explicitly proven wrong in the play. Nevertheless, the failure of the prayer to bring about the desired result and especially the absence of any hint in Athena's speech that Artemis sent the wind indicate that she probably did not. In any case, Iphigeneia's failure to consider the possibility that another god or more than one god may be responsible for the wind and to formulate her prayer accordingly limit her chances of securing divine help. Thus, even at the very end of the play, Iphigeneia ironically remains unchanged, despite her being the most intelligent character and the person who has experienced the greatest number of extreme reversals of fortune. She has also been very close to Artemis, first as intended victim and then as priestess, for several years, and the prayers she addresses to the goddess are becomingly subtle and dignified. Still, she apparently enjoys no better insight in the workings of the divine and fortune than the rest of the characters, not even the murderous barbarians she tries to escape and save her brother from. (2) Orestes, less fully but no less sympathetically drawn than Iphigeneia, is the character that comes quite dangerously close to impiety in the play. Like Iphigeneia, he has suffered exile from home and cruel frustration of hopes for the future. Iphigeneia, though, has committed no crime, she was saved by Artemis at Aulis and is confident that gods, unlike mortals, are pure and moral. Orestes' situation before the recog-

34

Introduction

nition seems to be hopeless. He is a matricide relentlessly pursued and maddened by implacable Erinyes even after his acquittal at the Areopagus. Dispatched to the ends of the earth to perform a seemingly impossible labor, he is about to become a victim in a human sacrifice. His experience with Apollo offers him no comfort, and he blames the god for oracular ineptitude and calculating treachery (711-15, 723-24; cf. 77-79). Distraught by his sufferings after the matricide and overwhelmed by the magnitude of his new ordeal, he behaves aberrantly in the prologue when he suggests that he and Pylades should sail back to Greece without attempting to fulfill Apollo's oracle (100-3). When the captives are brought to the temple, Orestes initially fails to open up to Iphigeneia and seriously endangers the recognition. Nevertheless, he is not a morally or emotionally diminished man, and Euripides' portrayal of the hero as a noble youth is certainly the most positive in the surviving Atreid plays (and Ib[2] and Ic(4) n. 12 above). (3) The character of Pylades, Orestes' cousin, best friend, and brother-in-law, is more predictable than those of Iphigeneia and Orestes because his main feature, unalterable throughout tradition, is his loyalty to Orestes and willingness to offer him unconditional help. As suggested above (Ib[3] n. 7), there is no explicit indication that Pylades assisted Orestes in the murder of Clytaemestra, but Pylades' collaboration is standard in all other surviving plays that dramatize the legend of Orestes' matricide, and IT does not explicitly contradict this tradition. The portrayal of Pylades includes some less standard, individualizing touches. The most unusual is his concern with public opinion and fear of public opprobrium (cf. n. 27 above), which in part produces the fruitless suggestion that he should die along with Orestes (674-86). Pylades also wishes to leave nothing to chance (755-58), a feature he shares with Iphigeneia (727-36), and his reluctance to blame the gods is similar to the chorus' caution in that respect. He avoids offending the gods by disobeying their commands (104-5) or accusing them (719-20) and apparently hopes, without committing himself, that they may respond favorably to mortal piety. The role of Pylades is minor compared to that of Orestes or Iphigeneia, but his proposals bring out quite vividly the frequent inadequacy, or ultimate irrelevance, of sensible and even sensitive concerns (see on 674-86 and 755-58). (4) Thoas and the Taurians are dedicated to the worship of Artemis and cherish their local cult with the human sacrifices it involves. In that

III. Characters and chorus

35

respect they are portrayed as savage barbarians, 30 although graphic details of the sacrifices are kept to a minimum in the play (72-75, 224-28, 442-45). On the other hand, the cult is not repudiated by Athena at the end, and Thoas is even praised by the goddess for his compliance with her instructions (1486), a touch emblematic of the play's balanced presentation of the Taurians. In the extant plays praise of a mortal character's compliance with the mandates of a deus ex machina occurs only once again (Ion 1614). The Taurians are not portrayed as distinctly different from other mythical communities represented in tragedy, e.g. Argos or Thebes. They are fairly isolated (cf. on 517-69) but not uncivilized. They have a city (see on 595-96), a king and a large, luxurious temple (96-97, 128-29, 405-6). They also have horses (1423) and ships (1427) and engage in cattle-raising (237ff.), purple-fishing (263) and even in trade with foreign peoples, since they acquire foreign-born slaves such as the women of the chorus (1111-12). They believe in the same gods and share some of their values with the Greeks: piety toward gods and respect of parents, friends and guests. They even share with Greek characters their readiness to draw inferences about divine motives and behavior. In IT the protagonists have extensive interaction with barbarians and need to deceive them or otherwise neutralize their opposition in order to escape with their lives (and a prized sacred object). This scenario has remained popular from the pre-Homeric Argonautica down to modern adventure films and comedies in myriad versions but Euripides avoided portraying the Taurians as excessively naive or slow in comparison with the clever and enlightened Greeks. The polarity Greek-barbarian is a source of irony, especially in the deception of Thoas, but the irony is not searing and not at the expense of one side only. Thoas, who esteems the priestess (1180, 1202, 121214) and is viewed by her as the host whose life she feels bound to protect (1021-23), is easily deceived by Iphigeneia. Her success, however, is attributed not to her ethnicity but to her personal intelligence, which is superior to that of all other characters in the play (cf. on 1153-1233). Even the minor Taurian characters, the messengers and their colleagues, are not portrayed as simple-minded or very different from similar Greek groups in other plays, e.g. Euripides' Bacchae (660ff.) or Sophocles' Antigone (223ff.). The band of cowherds includes two quite naive and almost superstitious believers (267-74) but also a much more rational type (275-78). The escorts of the purification party respect the 30 Cf. on 1422-30. For the historical Taurians see Cropp 47-48 with a survey of archaeological literature and of the history of Greek settlements on the Black Sea coasts.

36

Introduction

priestess, as Thoas does, and are reluctant to disobey her by witnessing secret rites (1342-43). Nevertheless, they are not dupes (1334-35) and are willing even to take the risk of committing sacrilege in order to test their plausible suspicions and do their duty (1343-44). (5) The role of the chorus in the play is limited, as in most of Euripides' work, but it is managed with care and even sympathy. Born to good families and captured as unmarried girls by enemies who raided their city (or cities), the women were sold into slavery and now share Iphigeneia's exile in the barbarian land as well as service at the temple of Artemis. These common experiences are enough to create a bond between Iphigeneia and her slave-women but the chorus are also loyal to their mistress to the point of selfless devotion. They are ready to risk their lives, without expecting anything in return, for the sake of helping their friend and her relatives escape. As appears especially in the second stasimon, the women harbor no bitterness and do not envy Iphigeneia her imminent return home, although they themselves ardently wish to become free and resume their life in Greece. Their nostalgia for this happy life and regret for its loss are the main themes of the first two songs. The choice must have been partly dictated by the play's failure to dwell on the past of Iphigeneia's family but it is also obviously meant to highlight her plight and the women's closeness to her. Despite this closeness, the women refrain from tackling the issue of Artemis' attitude to the Taurian sacrifices, which Iphigeneia broaches before the first stasimon (380-91). The gods are virtually absent from the chorus' utterances, as objects of either praise or blame, until the third stasimon. This remarkable song stands out in the play: it does not refer to any previous theme, event or character, including the chorus themselves, but narrates the myth of Apollo's acquisition of the Delphic oracle and is a hymn to his oracular power. The play's only celebration of divine power before Athena's speech at the end, the song does not explicitly predict the success of the escape but it leaves little doubt that the women believe in the willingness of Apollo and his colleagues to assist the escapees. Nevertheless, the divine antagonism, favoritism and pursuit of lucrative cults evident, although not castigated, in the myth of the god's first exploit reveal a sober view of the divine. Concern about the well-being of humans is clearly not the gods' first priority and cannot be taken for granted (cf. Ic[4] above). This view, at odds both with Iphigeneia's confidence about Artemis' rejection of Taurian sacrifices and Orestes' certainty about Apollo's baseness, is first implied in Pylades' admonition to Orestes to fulfill the oracle (104-5) and in his reluctance to blame Apollo for Orestes' plight (719-20) but it goes well beyond it. Eurip-

IV. Production

37

ides' choice to have this view expressed subtly by this group of good women in their last song completes their portrayal in a memorable, although not idealized, manner. For the chorus' lack of privileged insights in divine behavior or future developments in the play see on 1234-83.

IV. Production Athenian dramatic competitions took place in the theater of the sanctuary of Dionysus Eleuthereus on the south slope of the Acropolis (cf. on 1068b-74). Apart from banked rows of seats for the audience, the theater featured a dancing area, the orchestra, and a rectangular wooden platform, perhaps slightly raised from the orchestra, which served as the acting space.31 Behind it stood the stage building, a temporary wooden structure with a flat roof and a central double door. This structure represented the temple or dwelling in front of which the action of Greek dramas takes place. IT is set in front of the temple of Artemis in Tauris (30, 34, 65-66) at sunrise or early in the morning (42-43). The building is described as a Doric peripteral temple emblazoned with gold (129) and featuring riveted doors (1286), beautiful columns (128-29, 405-6), high surrounding walls (95-96) and triglyphs (113-14). Some or all of these features may have been depicted on painted panels, perhaps of fabric, which were used to cover the front of the stage building on either side of its door. In front of the temple there is a blood-stained altar with the remains of sacrificed victims hanging from it (see on 7475). It has been suggested that this was the altar of Dionysus in the orchestra put to dramatic use32 but, given the grisly nature of the Taurian cult, the blood-stained altar was probably a different one on the stage.33

31 For the shape of the orchestra, circular from the fourth century onwards but perhaps rectangular or trapezoidal earlier, see Moretti (2000) 392-96. S. Scullion, Three Studies in Athenian Dramaturgy (Stuttgart 1994) 3-66, and D. Wiles, Tragedy in Athens (Cambridge 1997) 44-53, argue for the circular form. For the acting area cf. on 1068b-74. 32 See Cropp p. 57 n. 110. 33 For a similar arrangement see Seaford on Cy. 345-46 who points out that the altar in the cave of Cyclops is introduced so that the abominable sacrifice, which the chorus of satyrs reject vehemently, does not take place at the orchestra altar. For the altar in general see Arnott (1962) 45ff. and cf. J.P. Poe, "The Altar in the Fifth-Century Theatre" ClAnt 8 (1989) 116ff.

38

Introduction

The temple is near the sea (1196) but in the city or its outskirts since Iphigeneia urges the king to warn the citizens to stay at home when she and the captives will cross the city on their way to the shore for the supposed purification (1209-12). It is likely that the temple faced inland -the nearby shore may have been suggested by painted panels on the sides of the stage building.34 Since no action takes place on the coast near the temple and in view of the spectators, this detail, if present, would not contribute to the play's dramatic effect. Several props are used onstage: implements for the funeral libations and the purification sacrifice, the letter that leads to the recognition of the siblings, swords worn by Orestes and Pylades in the prologue, ropes for their hands as well as coverings for their heads. Thoas also probably carries a sword. Iphigeneia and the chorus wear masks of young women, Orestes and Pylades of bearded young men, Thoas and the messengers perhaps of older men and Athena perhaps a standard one for female divinities. The costumes of the main characters were more elaborate than those of the chorus and messengers. Only one parodos, or eisodos, is used for all the entrances and exits of characters that come from, and go to, the shore or the city and the palace of Thoas. The main evidence that one must cross the city to go to the shore is provided by Iphigeneia's instructions mentioned above (1209-12) and probably also by the assumption of the chorus that the cowherd, who arrives from Thoas' palace (333-35), comes from the coast (236-37). Verisimilitude was not necessarily one of Euripides' main concerns but there is no reason to assume that references to characters' movements in the play violated it. I will call this parodos 'right', following the convention but without commitment about the staging of the play.35 The left parodos may have been used for the entrance of the chorus and perhaps their exit but certainty is impossible because only one parodos may have been used for all entrances and exits in the play. The part of Athena was probably given to the main actor, or protagonist, impersonating Iphigeneia. The second actor (deuteragonist) played Orestes and probably also the two messengers and the third actor (tritagonist) had the parts of Pylades and Thoas. Other arrangements, e.g. Orestes-Thoas and Pylades-messengers or Orestes-Thoasfirst messenger and Pylades-second messenger, are possible. There are 34 Evidence for such panels or backdrops is virtually non-existent; see A.L. Brown, "Three and Scene-Painting Sophocles" PC PS 210 (1984) 1-17 and cf. M. Kuntz, Narrative Setting and Dramatic Poetry (Leiden 1993) 153-61. 35 On the parodoi in fifth-century theater see Hourmouziades (1965) 128-36, Joerden in Jens (1971) 409-10 and Taplin (1977) 449-51.

V. Date

39

also several extras in the play. Thoas enters with at least four and probably six or more attendants (see on 1207-8). Apart from the three and possibly more escorts accompanying the purification party to the shore, temple servants probably carry the implements necessary for the purification sacrifice (see on 1222-25). The exact number and movements of other extras pose more difficult problems, especially because some of them are addressed by Iphigeneia and ordered to perform tasks (468-71, 628, 725-26). At least one attendant assists Iphigeneia in the pouring of the libations (167-69). This person or persons may have accompanied her already in her first appearance (see on 1-66) and may be male or female. If the assistants were at least two men and they stayed on after the libations, they may be the servants told to guard the captives at 628 and dismissed at 725-26. In this case, the men addressed and dismissed at 468-71 are Taurian guards who brought the captives to the temple, with or without the cowherd. Alternatively, the captives may have been brought to the temple by the cowherd only and thus the men addressed at 468-71 are the assistants (or escorts and assistants may be dismissed together). If so, then the servants addressed at 638 are the chorus and those dismissed at 725-26 at least two men who accompanied Iphigeneia in her exit. This scenario has the advantage that no Taurians would be present during the interview and the negotiations between priestess and captives which included the agreement that she would save one captive by deceiving the king and cheating the goddess of one victim.36

V. Date There is no external information about the dating of the play. The main internal criteria are metrical, especially the frequency and types of resolutions in spoken iambic trimeters. The evidence from the study of resolutions in the dated plays generally indicates that the later the play the higher its resolution rate and the greater the number of resolution types it includes.37 Thus it is quite plausible, although by no means cer36 For the various possibilities and suggestions see the more detailed discussion on 468b-71,638 and 725-26. 37 The dated plays are Alcestis (438), Medea (431), Hippolytus (428), Troades (415), Helen (412), Orestes (408), Bacchae (406) and IA (406). The fragmentary Andromeda was produced with Helen in 412. Some other plays are dated approximately on non-metrical evidence, Hecuba (probably after 423 and before 418), Supplices

40

Introduction

tain, that a play with a relatively high resolution rate and a relatively great number of resolution types is relatively late. Based on resolution rate and using rigorous statistical methods unavailable to earlier researchers, Cropp and Fick (1985) 23 place IT between 417-412. In the Introduction to his commentary (60) Cropp also suggests that other data of a similar kind (types of resolution, the use of trochaic tetrameters [1203-33] and of choriambic dimeters in the stasima) narrow down the interval to 414-412. 38 This places IT very soon after the dated Troades, very close to Ion (probably 414 or 413), possibly before Helen and almost certainly before the plays produced in the last six years of Euripides' life. It is difficult to reach more precise conclusions. Ion may have preceded IT or vice versa. Alternatively, it cannot be excluded on metrical

(423-20), Phoenissae and the fragmentary Antiope and Hypispyle (411-409). See Cropp & Fick (1985) 20-23. Concerning Hippolytus, according to the testimony of the Aristophanic hypothesis (25-30) to the extant play (έδιδάχθη έπί Έπαμείνονος άρχοντος όλυμπιάδι πζ ετει δ. πρώτος Ευριπίδης, δεύτερος Ίοφών, τρίτος "Ιων. εστι δέ ούτος 'Ιππόλυτος δεύτερος, κ α ι σ τ ε φ α ν ί α ς προσαγορευόμενος. εμφαίνεται δέ ύστερος γεγραμμένος- τό γ ά ρ άπρεπες κ α ι κατηγορίας άξιον έν τούτωι διώρθωται τωι δράματι), the play was produced in the archonship of Epameinon (= Great Dionysia 428) and it appears to have been come second because it eliminates the improprieties presented in the first play by the same name. Scholars have questioned whether the extant play actually came second, as it is obvious that the ancient scholars, whether Peripatetic or Alexandrian, had two plays simply called Hippolytus and two production dates, and attempted to construct a plausible story for their dating. This is common in cases of homonymous plays. See recently the discussion of G.O. Hutchinson, "Euripides' Other Hippolytus" ZPE 149 (2004) 15-28 and O. Zwierlein, Lucubrationes Phi-lologae I (Berlin/New York 2004) 57ff„ esp. 88-90. Cf. also next n. 38 Smith & Kelly (2002) look into another stylometric index, the measuring of lexical richness, and suggest that it may be used, among other things, to date literary works. Since the widely varying lengths of single works and whole corpora affect the quantification of lexical richness, they propose to partition the works (and corpora) in quite small units of standard length (e.g. of 300 words) and statistically average their vocabulary richness in order to obtain text-length independent results. Concerning Euripides (421-24 and 427-28), they reach the conclusion that his lexical richness, in the iambic sections of fourteen plays studied (excluding, apart from Rhesus, Cyclops, Alcestis, Bacchae and M), increases over time but they suggest dates much later than those determined on the basis of metrical considerations for Electra and Supplices only. They too consider IT a late play, produced around 413. Other criteria that have been used by earlier scholars, e.g. the supposed reference to Delos' purification by the Athenians in 426/5 and subsequent events (see on 1096-1105) or the reflection of the Athenian hostility to seers after the failure of the Sicilian expedition in 570-75 (see Platnauer xiv), are now considered worthless.

VI. The play's reception in literature and the visual arts

41

evidence that either may have been produced along with Helen and Andromeda in 412. All three surviving plays share a basic thematic and structural pattern, salvation that involves recognitions and intrigues and follows long suffering. Especially IT and Helen are very closely connected. Both dramatize in innovative ways parts of the same saga, their dramatic time is quite close and their plot-structure very similar. In both the heroines escape after many years from remote barbarian places, the land of the Taurians and Egypt respectively, where they were transported by gods shortly before the beginning of the Trojan war without the knowledge of their families and compatriots. Following the arrival of a male relative, Orestes and Menelaus respectively, and after mutual recognitions, the women manage the escape by deceiving the local rulers and with the support of sympathetic choruses of Greek women slaves.39 Because of these similarities several scholars have thought that the plays cannot have been produced in the same year40 and that IT must be earlier because it is either less flamboyant or less successful than Helen.4I None of these assumptions, especially the latter, may be viewed as more than possible or, at best, likely. There is no compelling reason to assume that IT was produced in 412 but no cogent reason to exclude the possibility, either.

VI. The play's reception in literature and the visual arts (1) As there is no reliable evidence that any poet before Euripides dramatized the version of the myth that he presented in IT (cf. II[l]-[3] above), so there has survived no information that the Euripidean version exerted great influence on subsequent dramatic production. 42 The 39 For a more detailed comparison see Platnauer xv-xvi, Ludwig (1954), Matthiessen (1964) 16-62, 127-37, Burnett (1971) 1-14, and Cropp 61-62. Contrast, however, Strohm (1957) 77-78. 40 See e.g. Bruhn 11-16, Gregoire 100-6, Platnauer xv-xvi, Ludwig and Mathiessen (previous n.); for the opposite view see M. Hose, Drama und Gesellschaft (Stuttgart 1995) 14-17, 190-97. 41 See previous n. and cf. e.g. Murray (1913) 72-73 and A.J. Podlecki, "The Basic Seriousness of Euripides' Helen " ΤΑΡΑ 101 (1970) 417-18. G. Perotta, "L' 'Elena' e I' 'Ifigenia Taurica' di Euripide" SIFC 6 (1928) 5-53, suggested that Helen was produced first. 42 In the fifth century the only certain echo of the play (1-2) is Ar. R. 1232-33. For another putative echo see on 31-33. Aristotle says that Polyidus the Sophist came

42

Introduction

allusions to the play detected in the final scene of Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae (1160-1225) 43 are very tenuous. In that scene Euripides strikes a pact with the chorus of women celebrating the Thesmophoria. He disguises himself as an old procuress by the name of Artemisia and brings with him a dancing girl called Elaphion ('Fawn') in order to distract the Scythian archer who guards his kinsman. Artemisia has been associated with Artemis, the Kinsman with Iphigeneia, Elaphion with the deer substituted at Aulis, the archer with Thoas and the collaborating women with the chorus in IT. However, there is no direct verbal allusion to the tragedy, which would be surprising in a comedy that parodies so extensively and explicitly other plays by Euripides, the abduction of a child (actually a wine-skin) from Telephus (Th. 689-764) and especially the scenes from Palamed.es (Th. 768-75, 847-48), Helen (Th. 849-919) and Andromeda (Th. 1010-1135).44

up with an alternative kind of recognition of Orestes by Iphigeneia, "from reasoning" (τετάρτη δέ ή έκ συλλογισμοί)...και ή Πολυίδου τοΰ σοφιστοΰ περί της Ίφιγενείας- εικός γάρ εφη τόν Όρέστην σ υ λ λ ο γ ί σ α σ θ α ι δτι ή τ άδελφή έτύθη και αύτώι συμβαίνει θΰεσθαι, Poet. 16, 1455a4-8; cf. 17, 1455bl011): it was plausible for Orestes to think (and say) that he would be sacrificed as his sister had been before him, and thus be recognized by Iphigeneia, presumably after a series of inquiries. The text of the passage quoted is problematic because εφη is not in the best MSS. If it stays, then Aristotle does not indicate that Polyidus composed an Iphigeneia. He may have just written some work where he discussed Euripides' play and suggested an alternative recognition of Orestes by Iphigeneia. See G. Else, Aristotle's Poetics: The Argument (Cambridge, MA, 1967) 509-10 and cf. the translation of M. Heath, Aristotle's Poetics (Hammondsworth 1996) 27. Even if έφη is deleted, it is not clear that Polyidus' tragedy was composed after Euripides'. According to D.S. 14.46.6, Polyidus was a contemporary of the dithyrambic poets Timotheus (c. 450-360) and Philoxenus (435/4-380/79) and so he could plausibly have composed a poem that preceded IT. A Polyeidus of Selymbria won the prize for dithyramb between 399 and 380; see TGF 1 (Snell) 248 fr. 78, Τ 1-7. If Aristotle refers to a work of fiction by Polyidus, it cannot be excluded that the work was a dithyramb, although this seems unlikely, because, with the exception of Homer's Odyssey, all the other works Aristotle mentions in ch. 16 are tragedies. At any rate, whether dithyramb or tragedy, Polyidus' poem may have preceded IT. 43 See Bobrick (1991). Cf. E.M. Hall, "The Archer Scene in Aristophanes' Thesmophoriazusae" Philologus 133 (1989) 52 n. 71 and A. Sommerstein, Aristophanes. Thesmophoriazusae (Warminster 1994) 237. 44 Bobrick (1991) 71 suggests that Euripides does not quote from IT because his previous attempts to free his kinsman by pretending to be Menelaus and Perseus trying to free Helen and Andromeda and quoting at length from the tragedies named after these heroines had failed. But brief quotations of one or a few lines without role impersonation or verbatim reproduction of entire scenes could certainly be

VI. The play's reception in literature and the visual arts

43

What is more important, the supposed situational parallels involve multiple, alternative equations. This is a potentially unproductive and confusing strategy in paratragic or parodic scenes. Euripides in the guise of the old procuress Artemisia may be viewed as Artemis but also as Iphigeneia (in IT she is the one who deceives Thoas while Artemis does not appear in the play at all), Euripides' kinsman as Iphigeneia and Orestes (in IT he is the kinsman the deceiving woman needs to rescue from his barbarian captors), the dancing girl Elaphion as Iphigeneia at Aulis and in the Taurian land as well as the Taurian statue of Artemis (used extensively in Iphigeneia's deception of Thoas), and the Scythian archer as the Greeks at Aulis (!), Thoas and the second messenger (in the comedy the chorus even tries to deceive the "messenger" after "Thoas" has discovered the escape). The name Artemisia brings to mind much more readily the famous older female ally of Xerxes than the goddess Artemis. Artemisia, who is also mentioned in Lysistrata (675), followed Xerxes voluntarily, took part with distinction in the sea-battle of Salamis and offered very profitable advice to the king, impressing friends and enraging foes with her bravery and intelligence (Hdt. 7.99, 8.68-69, 87-88, 93, 101-103). The name Elaphion may indicate the daintiness of the girl's step, as the scholiast suggests, or her readiness to flee. The Suda reports that a certain Timesitheus composed a play Orestes and Pylades but the plot is unknown. The third-century comic poet Rhinthon also composed an IT (fr. 7 Kaibel). A fragment of a much later popular mime (probably second century AD) quite likely influenced, at least indirectly, by IT has also survived (P. Oxy. 3.413): Charition, a priestess among the Indians, escapes on the ship of her brother who has intoxicated the gibberish-talking barbarians. 45 The first tragedy that probably dramatized some version of the story of IT was the Iphigeneia of Gn. Naevius. Pacuvius' Dulorestes, whose first fragment (hymenaeum fremunt aequales,/ aula resonit crepitu musico) may echo IT 367-68, probably did not dramatize the story of Euripides' play but dealt with Orestes' revenge on Aegisthus and Clytaemestra. 46 used without harming the rescue attempt and for the sake of indicating clearly to the audience the tragedy alluded to. 45 See D.L. Page, Select Literary Papyri III (Cambridge, MA, and London 1954) 33649,1. Cunningham, Herodae Mimiambi (Leipzig 1987), Appendix 6. 46 For Naevius see Aretz (1999) 240. For Pacuvius see Sechan (1926) 380 η. 1 and cf. G. d'Anna, M. Pacuvii Fragmenta (Rome 1967). Sechan also mentions a fragment from an unknown play (tela famuli, tela, propere tela, sequitur me Thoas, 72 Ribbeck), which points to a pursuit of Orestes by Thoas and an armed clash between the Greeks and the Taurians.

44

Introduction

Among extant Roman works, those most clearly influenced by the myth of IT are Ovid's Tristia (4.4. 63-88) and Epistulae ex Ponto (3.2.39-96). Both poems mention the remoteness of the Taurian land and the ancient local habit of sacrificing strangers to Artemis at her temple with the heavenly-sent statue. They also refer to Thoas' reign and the story of Iphigeneia's service at the temple, the arrival of Orestes and Pylades, the recognition of the siblings and the escape with the statue. The second even mentions the letter (3.2.83-92). Despite these similarities, neither Apollo's oracle nor the sham purification is mentioned or implied. Instead, the trio escape clandestinely with the statue, as if the taking away of the statue were Iphigeneia's idea. Both poems emphasize the close friendship of Orestes and Pylades and the willingness of each man to die in order to save his friend -the more detailed Epistula even suggests that first Pylades volunteered to die and that the two friends fought a beautiful fight, their only one, while Iphigeneia went into the temple for the letter (3.2.85-90). The situation in IT is quite different because Pylades volunteers to die along with Orestes and not instead of him.47 Ovid also highlights details that arouse pathos but are not found in IT, the drawn sword of the priestess (Tr. 4.4.77) and especially her consecration of the captives (Tr. 4.4.78, Ep. 3.2.73-75), which may reflect visual representations of the myth. (2) Iphigeneia is not a particularly popular figure in iconography. Two episodes from the legend of Iphigeneia are most often depicted on vases, the Aulis sacrifice (mostly Greek vases) and Iphigeneia's sojourn in Tauris (mostly South Italian vases).48 These (14-31) show the influence of Euripides' IT, or of the myth dramatized in the play. Since most 47 T h e friendship of Orestes and Pylades and their willingness to die for each other are also praised by [Lucian] in Amores 47, which clearly refers to IT and even cites 311-12, 598-99 and 603b-605a. Their friendship and their achievements in Tauris are similarly and more amply extolled by the Scythian Toxaris in L u c i a n ' s dialogue of that name (1-7), which presents a different version of the myth. Honored in cult by the descendants of the enemies they fought, the men are said to have been shipwrecked and captured but freed due to their bravery. They managed to escape with Iphigeneia and the statue after killing Thoas and others and fending off an attack on the departing ship. The killing of Thoas, supposedly depicted on a mural in the courtyard of the Oresteion, is also mentioned by H y g i n u s fab. 121 and 261, Serv. In Verg. Aen. 2.116 and Myth. Vat. 2.202. 48 See Kahil (1990) 716-18. See also her "Le sacrifice d ' I p h i g e n i e " MEFRA 103 (1991) 183-96. For vase-paintings inspired by IT see also Sechan (1926) 379-88, 604 and Trendall & Webster (1971) 91-94. The works of art in this section are indicated by their numbers according to LIMC V . l 'Iphigeneia' = Kahil (1990) who discusses Greek works, and Linant de Bellefonds (1990) w h o discusses R o m a n ones.

VI. The play's reception in literature and the visual arts

45

vases are dated to the middle or the second half of the fourth century, the influence of a lost work or works that dramatized the same myth cannot be excluded. The oldest vase, the Attic red-figure calyx-crater of the Iphigeneia painter (19), is dated to the early fourth century. A few vases are from Campania (25, 27, 29) and several from Apulia (14, perhaps 15, 18, perhaps 20, 21-23), a region whose large vases were often decorated with paintings inspired by dramas, especially Euripides'. 49 All the vases that show the influence of the myth of IT display the usual, fairly high, degree of creative freedom vis-ä-vis the play,50 often depicting e.g. the goddess Artemis (18-24, on 21 even arriving on her chariot drawn perhaps by panthers) and sometimes also Apollo (18, 22, 24) or other divinities (23).51 They represent the trio Iphigeneia, Orestes and Pylades, 52 but Thoas also appears, fanned by an attendant as an oriental monarch, on a vase that reproduces several scenes from the play (19). Some vases also feature Taurian guards (14, 15, 23) leading the captives to Iphigeneia and female attendants of the priestess carrying ritual implements (18-20; cf. also 52-53, 58, 61, 67, 83) but not any members of the chorus. The paintings are inspired mainly by the second and third episodes of the play up to just before the recognition, the arrival of the captives (14-17), the conversations of Iphigeneia with the captives (18, 27) and especially the handing over of the letter (19-26). There is also a Campanian neck-amphora of the Ixion painter showing the escape of the fugitives with the statue (29), although it does not reproduce any part of the fourth episode or the exodus of the play: Iphigeneia carries the statue and emerges from the temple followed by one of the men, presumably Orestes. Both look back to see if they are followed while Pylades scans the horizon. A now lost painting by Timomachus of Byzantium depicted Iphigeneia and Orestes in Tauris (30). Pliny {NH 35.136) says that the painter was a contemporary of Julius Caesar (first century BC), but he provides no details about the painting. It may have depicted the arrival of the captives and may be the work that inspired an epigram (AP 16.128), or it may have depicted the departure of the purification 49 See Trendall & Webster (1971) 11. 50 See Kahil (1990) 718 and cf. Taplin (1993) 21-27. 51 Another element that cannot be reconciled with the play, or indeed a theatrical production, is the nudity of Orestes and Pylades (e.g. 27; cf. 19). The young men are represented without a beard (contrast IT 318) and often armed (e.g. 14, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27; contrast /Γ331-32, 1367). On 18, a well-known example, Orestes sits on the altar. 52 On 27 only these figures, the temple and the statue of Artemis appear. On 14 only one prisoner, probably Orestes, appears and on 22 and 25 only Pylades.

46

Introduction

party for the shore and may have influenced the mural from the socalled Casa del Citarista in Pompey (59). 53 All vases, beginning with the earliest extant mentioned above (19), represent the temple of Artemis in various degrees of elaboration. Some depict also wreaths and fillets and one (29) a severed head (cf. sarcophagus 75, with two heads). Iphigeneia almost always carries in her left hand the key which identifies her as the priestess of the temple (only on 27 and 29, the representation of the escape, there is no key). In her right hand she often holds the letter to her brother. Her costume and hairdo are elaborate and she also often wears jewelry. Her costume, as well as those of Thoas and the Taurians, has been thought to represent stage costumes, but Kahil (1990) 718 suggests more plausibly that it reflects the Italian artists' view of oriental attire. The artworks of the Roman period54 are more numerous and varied. They include a mosaic (65), murals (52-53, 58-62), reliefs (54, 69-73) and marble sarcophagi (56-57, 67-68, 74-84) and represent all episodes of the myth, from the arrival of the captives to the clash with the Taurians and the boarding of the ship. The painters concentrated mainly on these two episodes. Several sarcophagi (74-84) represent various scenes, beginning with Orestes' fit of madness, in narrative sequence. The artists clearly prefer the Taurian episode of the Iphigeneia myth. Two sarcophagi (68 and 77) include the murder of Aegisthus and Clytaemestra and thus inscribe the Taurian adventure into a larger sequence of episodes from the myth of Orestes rather than Iphigeneia. Noteworthy are also the scenes from two fragmentary sarcophagi of Attic marble that have no parallel in Roman art and seem to have been inspired by IT (or by an artwork inspired by the play or an imitation). In one fragment (67), which may represent the beginning of the fourth episode, Iphigeneia comes out of the temple alone carrying the statue of Artemis (and a branch) and meets Thoas. In the other (74), a Taurian, presumably Thoas, lights a torch on the altar outside the temple (cf. IT 1214-16). The mosaic shows only Iphigeneia and Orestes, who sits on the altar, a detail reminiscent of the Campanian neck-amphora (18). The only difference is that the scene follows the recognition, for the 5 3 S e e Sechan ( 1 9 2 6 ) 3 8 0 n. 3 and Kahil ( 1 9 9 0 ) 7 1 6 . 5 4 S e e Linant de Bellefonds ( 1 9 9 0 ) . Etruscan representations o f the Taurian story are few, all on alabaster funeral urns from Chiusi, and dated to the end o f the third or the beginning o f second century B C . T h e vases do not seem to have been influenced, at least not directly, by a Greek original and certainly not by IT. See I. Krauskopf, "Iphigeneia (in Etruria)" LIMC V . l (Zurich and Munich 1 9 9 0 ) 7 3 1 - 3 2 , 734.

VII. The text

47

letter rests against the altar and Iphigeneia carries the statue of Arte-

VII. The text56 The text of Euripides' nine so-called alphabetical plays {Helena, Electra, Heraclidae, Hercules, Supplices [i.e. Hiketides], IA, IT, Ion, Cyclops [i.e. Kyklops]) depends on a single manuscript, Laurentianus plut. 32.2 (L), now kept in the Laurentian library of Florence. It was copied in the early fourteenth century (1300-1320), perhaps in Thessaloniki, for the scholar Demetrius Triclinius57 and contains all of Euripides' surviving plays except Troades and a part of Bacchae (756ff.). The alphabetical plays were apparently copied from a manuscript which contained (part of) a collection of Euripides' plays in alphabetical order by title and without scholia.58 L also preserves, often in mutilated form, the hypotheses of most alphabetical plays. The copyist included some textual variants and explanatory notes in the margins. The text was corrected more extensively in three subsequent stages, distinguished primarily by the color of ink used,59 by Demetrius Triclinius. In the first stage Triclinius (Tr1) checked L against the exemplar and perhaps another manuscript 60 and introduced some corrections. His later and more numerous corrections (Tr2), made without the exemplar, mainly involved the text and colometry of lyric passages. After Triclinius made his first corrections, another extant manuscript (P), now partly in the Laurentian library in Florence (Laurentianus conv. soppr. 172) and partly in the Vatican library (Palatinus gr. 287, 55 For modern works inspired by the myth of IT, most f a m o u s a m o n g which is G o e t h e ' s drama Iphigenie, see J.M. Glicksohn, Iphigenie de la Grece antique ä l'Europe des Lumieres (Paris 1985) and J.D. Reid, The Oxford Guide to Classical Mythology in the Arts, 1300-1990s (Oxford 1993) 1.605-8. 56 For fuller information about the manuscripts see the introduction to the editions of the play by Diggle and by Sansone. 57 T h e copyist of the text of IT and a few other plays was probably his relative Nicolaus Triclines; see Turyn (1957) 229ff. Turyn also described L (222-58); cf. Zuntz (1965) 126-34, Tuilier (1968) 188-92 and Kannicht 1.98. 58 See B. Snell, "Zwei T ö p f e mit Euripides-Papyri" Hermes 70 (1935) 119-20 and cf. Zuntz (1965) 174-92. 59 See Zuntz (1965). The distinction is not always easy and there remain several uncertainties, especially in cases of writing over an erasure; see the reservations of D. Sansone, GGA 230 (1978) 238-41. Cf. Diggle (1994) 298-99 and Stockert 1.65. 60 See Zuntz (1963 2 ) 146-52.

48

Introduction

which contains the text of IT), was copied from L (c. 1320-25).61 Some scholars thought that it was a twin of L, copied from the same manuscript,62 but the arguments of Zuntz have now mostly settled the issue in favor of P's being a copy of L in the alphabetical plays. 63 Ρ contains corrections by the copyist and by a later hand (p),64 which included some of Triclinius' corrections that the copyist of Ρ missed, neglected or did not yet have, but its value consists primarily in preserving L's readings in places where L is illegible, often because it was corrected by Triclinius after the copying of P. Of later manuscripts, all apographa of L, fairly important are two Parisian ones, Parisinus gr. 2887 and Parisinus gr. 2817, of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century respectively. Laurentianus plut. 31.1, of the fifteenth century, is of minimal value. Small sections of the text of IT have also been preserved in fragments of papyri (Π). The oldest (280-40 BC) and most extensive (lines 174-91, 245-55, 272-86, 581-95, 600-29) is P. Hibeh 24 fr. a-m. The others are P. Hamb. fr. a col. i (lines 51-66), P. Berol. Inv. 21133 (lines 946-55), P. Colon. 303 (lines 35056).65 The papyri sometimes confirm the emendations of modern scholars (see e.g. on 252, 618 and 947) or offer an occasional alternative (see on 621).

61 For a description of Ρ see Turyn (1957) 258-64, Zuntz (1965) 135-40, Tuilier (1968) 192-95. 62 See e.g. Turyn (1957) 264-81 and Tuilier (1968) 196ff. K. Matthiessen, Studien zur Textüberlieferung der Hekabe des Euripides (Heidelberg 1974) 16, does not exclude the possibility that Ρ includes some independent readings. 63 See Zuntz (1965) 1-15 and cf. the works cited by Diggle (1994) 299 n. 3. See also Sansone v-vi. 64 For the different stages of correction in Ρ see O.L. Smith, "On the Scribal Hands in the MS Ρ of Euripides" Mnemosyne 35 (1982) 326-31. 65 For the last two see Luppe (1991).

Commentary

Hypothesis. Tragic hypotheseis may be grouped in three categories, roughly in descending order of sophistication: (1) those going back to the edition of Aristophanes of Byzantium and containing, among other things, information about literary precedents, valuable didascalic data and occasional aesthetic or critical comments (2) later summaries and (3) Byzantine compilations. See Zuntz (1963 2 ) 129-52, Kannicht 7-8 and Rüsten (1982) 357. It is not known whether Aristophanes' hypotheseis circulated at some point as a separate collection (on their standard form see Page [1938] liii-lv and van Rossum-Steenbeek [1998] 32-33) but the hypotheseis of the second group definitely did. As shown by papyrus finds, the collection featured the title, the first line and a summary of the plot of each play. The plays were arranged in alphabetical order by the first letter of the title and the summaries did not include didascalic information or critical comments; see van Rossum-Steenbeek (1998) 1-2 and cf. Rüsten (1982) 358 η. 4.' The IT hypothesis, incomplete as many others preserved in L, consists of two parts (lines 1-7 and 8-12). The first part seems to go back to the second group of hypotheseis. It focuses on Orestes and a part of it has been lost - L has five or six blank lines after line 7. It summarizes the plot up to the point where Orestes and Pylades are brought to the temple as sacrificial victims. The main problems with the text are the tautological participles έλθών (1) and παραγενηθείς (2), one of which has to go, and φανείς (4), probably a corruption of μανείς (Wilamowitz). The second part is a truncated descendant of Aristophanes' fuller notice. It gives standard information on the place of the drama, the chorus, the prologue speaker and the characters (with 'Απόλλων 1

On the basis of the evidence of later sources the collection of these hypotheseis has been attributed to Aristotle's student Dicaearchus of Messene. Rüsten (1982) has argued that the work bears the hallmarks of a much later period, probably first or second century AD. W. Luppe, "Dikaiarchos' υποθέσεις των Εύριπίδου μύθων (mit einem Beitrag zur 'Troarfej'-Hypothesis )" in J. Wiesner (ed.), Aristoteles: Werk und Wirkung (Berlin 1985) 610-12, and "Dikaiarchos und der 'Rhesos'Prolog" ZPE 84 (1990) 11-15, defends Dicaearchus' authorship. For further literature see van Rossum-Steenbeek (1998) 2-4 who believes that the source of the hypotheseis was a collection written by one person sometime between the fourth century BC and the first century AD. Cf. also M. Haslam, "The Authenticity of Euripides, Phoenissae 1-2 and Sophocles, Electro 1" GRBS 16 (1975) 152-56.

52

Commentary

mistakenly listed at the end; cf. on 1487-89) but omits reference to literary precedents and the didascalic information. 1-122. Prologue. As is common in Euripidean prologues, this prologue consists of two parts, the monologue of Iphigeneia (1-66) and the dialogue of Orestes and Pylades in front of the temple (67-122). For the various forms of tragic prologues see Schmidt in Jens (1971) 3-11, and for this prologue see also H. Erbse, Studien zum Prolog der euripideischen Tragödie (Berlin 1984) 190-204. It introduces Iphigeneia and Orestes, the siblings who are completely unaware of each other's circumstances, primarily each other's survival. The two parts of the prologue have important similarities. First, Iphigeneia and Orestes narrate essential parts of their story, although Orestes omits his inconclusive trial on the Areopagus, an account of which will be given much later (942-71). The siblings then concentrate on their most recent misfortunes, Iphigeneia on the supposed death of Orestes, announced to her, as she believes, in a dream she saw the previous night, and Orestes on the difficult task at hand, to steal the statue of Artemis from the Taurian temple. Iphigeneia plans to offer funeral libations to her dead brother and Orestes, after encouragement from Pylades, decides to break into the formidable temple. Both plans have to be postponed for the moment. Both siblings register at least some distress stemming f r o m their dealings with the gods. Though a pious priestess of Artemis, Iphigeneia is clearly unhappy with the sacrifices offered to the goddess by the Taurians. Orestes' trust in Apollo is shaken and it is obvious that he has greater faith in human than in divine assistance. 1-66. Iphigeneia's entrance and monologue. A young woman, who at 5 identifies herself as Iphigeneia, comes out of the main, and most likely only, door of the stage-building, which represents the temple of the Taurian Artemis (34). Since Greek dramas were performed in open theaters consecutively, the actors had to take their positions in full view of the audience. There was no way for the audience to know whether the first entrance of the actor(s) was part of the play or not until relevant information was provided in the prologue; see Taplin (1977) 13436 and cf. e.g. the introductory notes of Stevens on Andromache and Kannicht on Helen. In the case of IT the audience probably deduced that Iphigeneia was associated with the temple in some capacity but not, before she spoke, that her entrance was the beginning of the play, as is commonly assumed. Another unanimous scholarly assumption is that Iphigeneia enters and delivers the monologue unattended. In general, unless there is a

Commentary

53

special dramatic reason to the contrary, usually secrecy, all important mortal characters were most probably accompanied by a number of mute attendants in all their appearances; see Taplin (1977) 79-80 and cf. Bain (1981) 3. There is no good reason why the appearance of characters in the prologue would differ in that respect. Absence of attendants cannot be ruled out in Iphigeneia's case but it cannot be taken for granted, either. Her monologue contains nothing compromising or revealing that could not be mentioned in the presence of Taurians. Besides, the presence of mutes would not offend verisimilitude anyway, especially so early in the play (cf. on 468b-71). When Iphigeneia comes out again, she is accompanied by at least one attendant who carries a vessel for the funeral libations to Orestes (167-69). The presence of the same attendant(s) in the prologue would be likely to stimulate the audience's interest. For Iphigeneia's attendant(s) cf. on 123-25. The monologue is a typical Euripidean prologue speech. In the surviving corpus the shortest speech is found in Alcestis (1-27) and the longest in Phoenissae (1-87); Supplices has forty one lines and Medea forty eight but all the rest range from over fifty to seventy lines (Orestes). These speeches often include genealogical information about the speaker or the person the speaker refers to, an outline of the events that preceded or shaped the dramatic present and an account of the current situation. Iphigeneia's monologue is clearly structured and falls into three unequal parts, which correspond to those just mentioned: her genealogy (1-5), her sacrifice at Aulis and her transport to Tauris (6-41), her dream and her reaction to it (42-66). The entire monologue is dramatically unmotivated but the first two parts much more so than the third. 1-5. The succinctness of the genealogy is striking. Only the names of Iphigeneia's direct male ancestors are mentioned in catalogue form. Iphigeneia seems to want to establish her ancestry as succinctly as possible in order to move on to other issues. This is usually an indication of the relative thematic importance of the family past in a play. Helen is even more succinct and mentions only her parents {HI. 16-21). Contrast e.g. Electra's prologue in Orestes (1-27). In IT references to the internecine history of the Tantalids are kept to a minimum with the obvious exception of Agamemnon's sacrifice of Iphigeneia and Orestes' matricide; see Introduction Ib(3) and cf. on 811-26. In Aristophanes' Ranae (1232-33) Aeschylus mocks the beginning of this prologue, possibly as an example of Euripides' lack of originality in the composition of prologues (see Sommerstein on Ar. R. 1198-1247); for Euripides' fondness for genealogies in prologues cf. R. 946-47 and sch. on Ach. 47.

54

Commentary

Πέλοψ: for the prominence of Pelops in the play see Introduction Ib(4). ό Ταντάλειος: patronymic adjectives belong to the high style. This one occurs also at 988 and a few more times in the extant plays. More common are Τυνδάρειος (5) and Ά γ α μ ε μ ν ό ν ( ε ) ι ο ς (170, 1115, 1290); on the latter see Fraenkel on A. Ag. 1499. θοαΐσιν ΐπποις: cf. Ph. 3; a likely reference to Pelops' chariot but not to winged horses and thus not a definite clue as to the ownership of the horses at 192 (see n.). In tragedy teams of horses usually consist of mares; see Barrett on Hi. 231 and cf. Stevens on An. 1010. The phrase must probably be construed only with the participle μολών and not with γαμεΐ, although the reference to swift horses may have been enough to suggest to the audience the race for Hippodameia. γαμεΐ: registering present to denote kinship; cf. 23 and see e.g. Bond on Here. 7 and Mastronarde on Ph. 13; cf. also on 274. The singular παις at 3 has been considered corrupt by many. Fraenkel on A. Ag. 115 defends it and Diggle (1981) 75 provides a list of passages where a second subject is added after a verb in the singular. The objections of Sansone (1982) 37 are unfounded because at least three of Diggle's examples (Md. 734-35, Ion 64-65, HI. 412-13) are very similar to the present passage. In genealogies or accounts of family history individuals about whom more will be said next usually and conveniently come last, irrespective of seniority, although the order of mention often corresponds to the order of birth, if no other considerations interfere. See e.g. HI. 9-15 (order unknown) and 392 (order correct); El. 15-16 (order reversed); IA 49-51 (order possibly correct but Helen has to come last anyway). Μενέλαος: the Attic form of the name appears at 15, 357 and 521 for metrical reasons; see on 357. For resolutions, often used to accommodate proper names (in this play mainly 'Αγαμέμνων and 'Ιφιγένεια, which occasionally necessitates a double short, 19, 771, 1314, 1462; cf. IA 416), see the tables of Cropp & Fick (1985) 32-65. του δ': Schaefer's emendation is preferable to the transmitted τοΰδ' because connectives are extremely common in genealogies; for pronominal τοΰ in genealogies see also Ph. 8, Or. 11, fr. 929b.2. 6-7. For άμφί with acc. denoting proximity see Diggle (1981) 80. άμφί with acc. is not always different from άμφί with dat.; cf. Kannicht on HI. 182-87, Sansone (1982) 37-38 and on 702-5 below, κυανέαν: the adj. qualifies the color of seawater also at 392; cf. HI. 1502, Bacch. 13.124-25 and Stevens on An. 1010. For the image cf. Or. 1377-79 (the stirring of the sea by the cyclical Oceanus). For the importance of the

Commentary

55

sea and the coast in the play see Introduction Ib(l) and cf. Buxton (1992). 8-9. Following two lines of local specifications in a long hyperbaton, the verb εσφαξεν is placed at the beginning of 8 for maximum effect. The fact that the specification 'Ελένης οϋνεχ' comes before ώς δοκεΐ, which is more important for the plot of this play, hints for the first time at Iphigeneia's hostility toward Helen. For obvious dramatic reasons Helen is presented very unfavorably in Trojan saga plays, with the exception of Euripides' Helen. For literary invectives against Helen see the evidence collected by Seaford on Cy. 177-87 and 280-85. The Greek characters' hatred of Helen will appear much more openly later in the play (355-56, 439-45, 521-26). ούνεχ': for the use of this preposition, an Attic by-form of ένεκα, in drama see Barrett on Hi. 453-56. For οΰνεκα as a conjunction see on 783. δοκεΐ may be personal or impersonal, genuine present (of unchanged belief) or historic present. It is perhaps intentionally ambiguous. As will appear later, Iphigeneia knows that the Greeks remain unaware of her survival at Aulis (176; cf. 771, 831) and she does not know that her father is dead; cf. on 785. If impersonal, δοκεΐ points to the Greeks' ignorance of Iphigeneia's fate. If personal, with πατήρ as subject, the verb implies that Iphigeneia is ignorant of her father's fate. In either case the verb is probably genuine present; cf. HI. 35 with Kannicht's n. Άρτέμιδι: the goddess, first mentioned here in the play, had a much more active role in the sacrifice than Iphigeneia implies at present. Details will be given immediately below but it is significant that nowhere in the play does Iphigeneia attribute responsibility for the sacrifice to Artemis; cf. on 17-34 and 344-91. Aulis is mentioned last to provide a smooth transition to the story of the sacrifice, πτυχαΐσιν: tragedy favored πτυχαί over πτυχές; cf. 1082 and see Diggle on Pha. 174 (fr. 779.7) and Mastronarde on Ph. 84. The word is often used for the recesses of mountains (cf. 677) or the folds, however visualized, of the sky or aether; see Willink on Or. 1636. Here and at 1082, though, it may indicate the bays or inlets of Aulis but no exact parallel for such use exists, κλειναΐς: the adj. is probably not ironic; cf. on 140. Aulis acquired great fame because it served as the rallying point for the greatest expedition of the Greeks. Artemis was venerated at Aulis; see Μ 91, 185-86, 433-34, 1543-44, Paus. 9.19.6-8. 10-14. χιλίων νεών: the round number of ships was standard in poetry at least since Aeschylus (see Ag. 45 with Fraenkel's n.) and meant to stress the importance of the expedition; see e.g. 141 and for further ref-

56

Commentary

erences Stockert on I A 174. The sum total of the ships in the Iliadic catalogue is higher (1186) and Thucydides (1.10.4) mentions around 1200. The sacrifice of Iphigeneia was performed in the context of a great national expedition. Although Iphigeneia has just claimed that her father sacrificed her for the sake of Helen (8), she now allows that his motives for undertaking the expedition were actually twofold, public and private. The latter, to assist his brother Menelaus in taking back his wife Helen, apparently provided the stimulus for, but it was not the sole purpose of, the expedition. Under the command of Agamemnon, who in IT does not share the office of commander-in-chief with Menelaus, the domestic problems of the Atreids led to confrontation with an important adversary and eventually to glory for all Hellas. Nevertheless, already in the Iliad Achilles complains that he fights for the sake of hateful Helen (19.324-25) and shoulders the burden of a war that only benefits the Atreids (1.152-68, 9.321-33); cf. Od. 11.438, 14.68-71. In tragedy the issue of Agamemnon's motives for consenting to the sacrifice of his daughter in order to recover an adulterous woman is raised time and again; see e.g. A. Ag. 192-249, S. El. 530-48, An. 624-25; cf. Eur. El. 1020-29, IA 350-62, 511-42, 1194-95. στόλον: not exclusively but very often in Euripides in connection with nautical expeditions; see e.g. He. 1141, HI. 1427, IA 816, Hy. fr. 759a.83; cf. S. Ph. 71, 243-44, 247, 490, 499, 906. τον καλλίνικον στέφανον—Άχαιοΐς: cf. ΙΑ 1528-31. The article is deictic or emphatic "that famous crown"; cf. 543, 1242, Bond on Here. 1414 and KG 1.598. Cf. on 1366-67a below, καλλίνικον: the word is one of Euripides' favorites, used mainly in connection with Heracles. In extant literature it appears first in Pindar but was also perhaps earlier used by Archilochus; see Gerber on P. O. 9.1-4 and on 9.2. If there is irony in the statement, this adjective is likely to carry most of its weight; cf. Mastronarde on Ph. 1048. Άχαιοΐς: L's 'Αχαιούς leaves Agamemnon out of the circle of glory seekers. The Homeric designation 'Αχαιοί (cf. 527, 662) is used for Greeks, presumably as opposed to Trojans, in the context of the expedition; cf. on 359 (Δανάί'δαι). μετελθεΐν: for μετέρχομαι 'to go', 'to pursue to avenge', cf. Cy. 280-81 and An. 992. Μενέλεωι χάριν φέρων: cf. S. El. 576; the notion of Agamemnon's χάρις to Menelaus and the latter's obligation for reciprocation is a particularly prominent motif in Euripides' Orestes. 15-16. The problem that led to the sacrifice of Iphigeneia was either adverse winds (Cypria [Proclus, p. 41 Bernabe], A. Ag. 148-49, 192ff.) or lack of winds (IA 9-11, 88, 352, 1596-97, S. El. 564); for relevant information in later authors see Jebb on S. El. 564. Cf. Aretz (1999) 47 n.

Commentary

57

126. (Usually, sailing is said to have been prohibited by Artemis because Agamemnon offended the goddess by killing one of her favorite animals or boasting of his hunting skills or both; see Jebb on S. El. 569, Aretz [1999] 47 n. 125 and cf. next n.) All modern scholars agree that in this play Iphigeneia points out lack of winds as the problem facing the fleet, δεινήι δ' άπλοίαι: L's text δεινής τ' άπλοίας produces an impossible conjunction with πνευμάτων τ' ού τυγχάνων. The emendation (Rauchenstein [δ' Barnes]) produces a causal dat. joined with a causal participle (ού τυγχάνων); Diggle (1994) 53 has a list of similar examples, άπλοια, 'weather unsuitable for sailing', is first found in Aeschylus (Ag. 148-49) for the fleet's inability to set sail from Aulis because of unfavorable winds. The word is also used a number of times by Thucydides. Herodotus (2.119) uses it once in the context of a story unattested elsewhere but probably based on the legend of Iphigeneia's sacrifice: after recovering Helen and his stolen goods in Egypt, Menelaus could not sail because of unfavorable weather and resorted to the sacrifice of two local children. εμπυρ': burnt sacrifices, usually offered in order to divine the outcome of a prospective battle. The manner in which the entrails of the victim and their contents (e.g. bile) were consumed by the fire (whether they cracked, burnt evenly etc.) and the kind of flame they produced suggested the outcome of the battle. For the various kinds of augury see Burkert (1985) 112-14 and for burnt sacrifices see M.H. Jameson, "Sacrifice Before Battle" in Hanson (1991) 205; van Straten (1995) 156-57 discusses evidence from vase-painting depicting various stages of a burnt sacrifice. The subject of ήλθε must be Agamemnon, for otherwise the participle ού τυγχάνων would remain hanging in the air. The first clause provides the time and circumstances under which the action of the second takes place; for this use of καί see GP 293. 17-34. Artemis' anger at Agamemnon is the traditional reason for the unfavorable weather at Aulis; Calchas and Odysseus are usually those responsible for singling out Iphigeneia as the desired victim and for ensnaring her respectively. However, the cause of divine anger, the failure of Agamemnon to fulfill a vow to sacrifice the most beautiful animal of the year to Artemis, is novel; cf. previous n. The present version of the Aulis story absolves Agamemnon of hubris and makes him guilty of pronouncing an incautious vow. The motif of the incautious vow is widespread in both literature and folklore; for a collection of evidence see Frazer [Apollod.] Appendix XII and cf. West (1997) 44142. It is nowhere coupled with failure to fulfill the vow. Euripides may have improvised: perhaps the implication is that Agamemnon had failed

58

Commentary

to fulfill the vow correctly and not that he had failed to fulfill it altogether. The rationale of Artemis' demand for the Aulis sacrifice, secret rescue and transport of the victim to Tauris is difficult to understand. The play does not address these issues. The mortal characters make confident pronouncements about divine motivation and behavior (77-94, 380-91, 475-78, 570-75, 711-15, 1012-16, 1234-83, 1414-19) but they are more often than not wrong, partial or misguided; see Introduction Ic(2) and cf. 111(1 )c. The opaque role of Artemis in Iphigeneia's sacrifice and rescue provides the first indication in the play that the behavior of the gods is inscrutable to humans. 17-20a. ^Ω τήσδ' άνάσσων 'Ελλάδος στρατηγίας,/ Άγάμεμνον: the honorific address does not incorporate Agamemnon's lineage. The fullness of the address, an expanded version of the common epic formula (Άτρεΐδη κύδιστε) άναξ άνδρών Άγάμεμνον, in a way duplicates Agamemnon's office: he is said to be both king and general, literally the 'king of the military command'. For the construction cf. Η. II. 20.180 (a problematic line), Od. 24.30 and LfgrE 796.30. For the metaphor 'king of x', castigated by Aristotle (Rhet. 1405a28-30), see Kannicht on HI. 1039-40. ού μή + aor. (more rarely pres.) subjunctive expresses strong denial of a future possibility and + fut. indicative strong prohibition; see KG 11.221-23 and Schwyzer 11.293. πριν αν κόρην σήν Ίφιγένειαν/ "Αρτεμις λάβηι σφαγεΐσαν: = σφάγιον; cf. 558, Or. 658. For this construction, similar to the Latin ab urbe condita type, see Schwyzer 11.404. L's λάβοι was perhaps a mistake due to τέκοι at the end of the line. 20b-24a. The present version of Agamemnon's offense against the goddess is rather elliptical. Iphigeneia, or Calchas, does not specify when the vow was made. Agamemnon apparently made it in the year of Iphigeneia's birth and neglected to fulfill it or did not fulfill it properly with the result that the goddess now demands her dues. It is possible that Euripides left the audience in the dark about the time of Agamemnon's vow until the end of the seer's pronouncement in order to maximize the surprise they share with a presumably stunned Agamemnon who now faces the consequences of a long-forgotten vow or perhaps realizes that the sacrifice offered long ago had not been adequate. φωσφόρωι: in her capacity as huntress and goddess of marriage, Artemis is bearer of light (= torches), as is Hecate with whom she is often identified. For the identification see FJW on A. Su. 676 and cf. Aretz (1999) 40 n. 91 and Johnston (1999) 211-13. For Hecate φωσφόρος see

Commentary

59

Kannicht on HI. 569 and Diggle on Pha. 268 (fr. 781.59). For Artemis see e.g. S. OT 206-7, Tr. 214, Farnell 2.458, 573-74 and for her association with light cf. E. Parisinou, The Light of the Gods (London 2000) 46-48, 81-83, 151-56. θύσειν: for the meaning of the verb, originally 'to make an offering, usually burnt' see Casabona (1966) 69-85, esp. 75-80. Κλυταιμήστρα: the first of only two mentions of the name in the play (the other at 238). For the form and etymology of the name see on 208; for Clytaemestra in the play cf. on 210 and 811-26, 926-27. τό καλλιστεΐον εις εμ' άναφέρων: an indignant or bitter parenthesis, the outpouring of the speaker's feelings in the middle of reported speech. Tragic characters often express hostility or contempt, always unjustified, toward seers; cf. 532-33 and 574-75 and see e.g. Mikalson (1991) 92-101 and Stockert on I A 520-21. καλλιστεΐον or καλλίστευμα is the most beautiful offering or person (see Ph. 215 with Mastronarde's n.). Calchas awards to Iphigeneia the prize for supreme beauty. The choice of the verb αναφέρω in connection with the victim of the sacrifice may be ironic because the verb is commonly used by Euripides for the attribution of responsibility to a god (cf. 390). 24b-27. καί μ' 'Οδυσσέως τέχναις/ μητρός παρείλοντ' έπι γάμοις Άχιλλέως: with Lenting' s τέχναι the verb acquires an explicit subject but the emendation is not necessary. For the marriage intrigue see Introduction 11(1). As often in tragedy, Odysseus appears here as the wily double-dealer who masterminds plans to trick the innocent for the benefit of himself and/or his associates. Marriage to a warrior was a valid reason for a maiden to visit a military camp and Achilles was a natural choice for Agamemnon's son-in-law. Agamemnon's attempt in the Iliad (9.141-47) to propitiate Achilles by giving the insulted hero one of his daughters in marriage may owe something to the intrigue story. In IT, as in I A, Achilles is not among the masterminds of the intrigue but it is unclear whether he was aware of it or not. Unlike his counterpart in I A, he does not become involved in the sacrifice of Iphigeneia. In IT, moreover, Clytaemestra does not accompany her daughter to Aulis; cf. 365-68, 818-21. The reference to the actual sacrifice is brief (and replicated with minor changes at 783-86) but later on Iphigeneia will provide two emotional accounts of the brutal act (361-71, 852-61); cf. on 203-35. It is the background to the sacrifice that is of interest here. The dramatic reversal of the girl's fortune and the hint at her helplessness in the face of cruel deception underscore the pathos of her situation. The only sign of self-pity on Iphigeneia's part in the monologue is significantly positioned between the reference to her arrival at Aulis and to her sacrifice:

60

Commentary

the innocent becomes wretched (τάλαινα) as soon as she arrives at Aulis. έλθοΰσα δ' Αύλίδ': terminal accusatives appear also at 85, 341, 402, 480, 521, 534, 1124, 1138, 1216, 1421, 1449. The first and last mark the beginning and end of Iphigeneia's adventure, her arrivals at Aulis and at Athens. For terminal accusatives in fifth-century tragedy and lyric see Bers (1984) 62-85. ή τάλαιν': here 'miserable'; for the full range of meanings see Denniston on El. 1171 and J.R. Wilson, "Τόλμα and the meaning of τάλας" AJP 92 (1971) 292-300. έκαινόμην: inceptive or conative imperfect. 28-30. Wilkins on Hrcld. 399-409 notes that, when an animal is substituted for a human, a non-sacrificial animal is chosen as the substitute. In Greek myth this is the only substitution of an animal for a human sacrificial victim that the sacrificers do not perceive. The rescue of Iphigeneia would not necessitate an animal substitute unless the sacrifice was demanded by the goddess and had to be performed, which implies that Calchas interpreted the will of Artemis correctly. The goddess makes sure that the sacrifice takes place despite her abduction of Iphigeneia. If Artemis only meant to deceive the army, she would not have to provide a real sacrificial victim: she could substitute an image for Iphigeneia, as e.g. in the Hesiodic Catalogue (23a M-W); cf. the image of Helen that Hera gave to Paris in Euripides' Helen (3 Iff.). έξέκλεψεν...άντιδοΰσα: coincident use of the aor. part.; see on 593b. Artemis stole Iphigeneia away by providing a substitute, not as a result of providing a substitute; substitution and secret abduction are aspects of the same action, άντιδοΰσα suggests a fair exchange (e.g. 737, Al. 340, 956 El. 957), sometimes an exchange of favors (e.g. Hrcld. 220, He. 272, Here. 1337) - Artemis would not deprive her worshippers and herself of the opportunity to offer and receive a sacrifice. διά...αΐθέρα: cf. e.g. 889 (δι' όδούς) and contrast 890 (δια...πέτρας), Andr. fr. 124.2 (δια...αιθέρος); for the two constructions cf. Mastronarde on Ph. 1286. The aether is a natural highway for gods and their proteges in Euripides; see K. Matthiessen, "Zur Theonoeszene der euripideischen 'Helena' " Hermes 96 (1968) 699-701 and cf. Stevens on An. 1228 and Sommerstein on Ar. R. 892. τήνδ' indicates explicitly for the first time the location of the drama, although the audience must have already known or suspected it; see also on 34. The demonstrative is often used to designate the scene of the play in prologues; see Barrett on Hi. 12 and cf. R. Kassel, "Euripides Bakchen 23" ZPE 21 (1976) 3536 = H.-G. Nesselrath (ed.), Kleine Schriften (Berlin/N. York, 1991) 187-88.

Commentary

61

31-33. οΰ γης άνάσσει βαρβάροισι βάρβαρος/ Θόας: γης cannot be construed with οΰ because, apart from the awkwardness of the phrase, the verb, which takes the genitive, would have to be construed with the dative βαρβάροισι. Taking γης with the verb makes βαρβάροισι dat. of advantage (cf. Or. 1690); it can hardly be locative dat., as Bruhn implies, because the location has already been made clear by Ταύρων χθόνα at 30. For the interchangeability of the terms γη, χθών, πόλις, χώρα in tragedy see Collard on Su. 1194-5. αΐα, the much rarer epic synonym, occurs in this play at 402, 435 and 786, all for Tauris. βάρβαρος is not redundant after βαρβάροισι because a ruler is not necessarily of local extraction. The specification certainly does not indicate that Thoas' rule is arbitrary, as Cropp (49 n. 64) suggests. The name, or probably nick-name, of the king was very likely invented by Euripides. (Ar. fr. 373, which refers to the Lemnian Thoas, the father of Hypsipyle, as the slowest of mortals, has been thought to parody 32 but this assumption is rather gratuitous and the comedy may have preceded IT.) Given the common tragic motif of significant names, Iphigeneia's explanation of the name might lead the audience to suppose that its significance would eventually become manifest and Thoas would demonstrate his swiftness by pursuing or overtaking someone (cf. on 1325-26) but this does not come to pass in the play - at the end Athena stops Thoas from pursuing Orestes (1435-45). πόδα τιθείς: a fairly common idiom (see Collard on Su. 170-71), usually for walking; cf. Andr. fr. 124.3 (walking through the air or flying), A. Eum. 294 (dancing). Here it refers to running and may have been chosen because of the presence of θ in both participle and name. For significant names in Euripides see Kannicht on HI. 13-15; cf. Kambitsis on Ant. fr. 2 (fr. 181 182), Silk (1974) 175 n. 11 and Kraus (1998) 144. 34. The same demonstrative pronoun as at 30 indicates the temple in front of which the drama takes place. The audience have already noticed that the facade of the stage-building represents a temple. The occupant of the temple is named two lines below but it is obvious here already that she is Artemis. For the form ιερέα cf. 1399, Or. 261 and Ba. 1114 with Dodds' n. 35-[41], Iphigeneia now reaches the last and, for dramatic purposes at least, most important part of her story, her current duties as priestess of Artemis. The main problems with this passage are whether the explicit reference to human sacrifices is to be kept and how to construe the lines if it is. Editors have proposed various deletions or emendations; for a discussion of the problems with the language and syntax of this passage

62

Commentary

see Diggle (1994) 28-33 (cf. [1981] 75-76). Even if these problems are disregarded, Iphigeneia's declaration of reluctance to elaborate on the nature of the sacrifices for fear of offending Artemis and her almost simultaneous revelation of this nature is unacceptable. It is also unlikely, though not impossible, that Iphigeneia would specify that she continues the Taurian practice of sacrificing Greeks. There is no evidence, either in the play or elsewhere, that the Taurians sacrificed only Greeks (cf. 278), although the sacrifice of Greeks receives particular emphasis in the play for obvious dramatic reasons. For the question whether Greeks have been sacrificed by the Taurians before the arrival of Orestes and Pylades see on 258-59. Here Iphigeneia provides a dark hint as to the nature of the sacrifices but this nature will become clear only at 53 and 58. Her first mention of the sacrifices is brief and emotionally restrained, although it is clear that she finds them loathsome. This restraint is in keeping with the informative function of Euripidean prologues, which focus on facts rather than emotions. Iphigeneia's attitude toward her plight will first become apparent much later on (22428); cf. 344-47. όθεν: as a result of Iphigeneia's appointment to the priesthood. For introductory όθεν or όθενπερ 'as a consequence, as a result of which, for which reason' cf. 1366, Su. 894, Ion 24, Ph. 43, 322, 1065, Or. 816, 995, 1001, IA 587, Chrysipp. fr. 839.6; Mastronarde on Ph. 27 thinks that the adverb may be used in the temporal sense 'after which' here, ήδεται: for the choice of verb see on 384. εορτής...κατάρχομαι is not attested elsewhere but it is probably patterned on θυμάτων κατάρχομαι (e.g. Ph. 573; cf. Lyc. Al. 1188). For the ritual preliminaries to the sacrifice, which were Iphigeneia's responsibility, see on 244b-45 (κατάργματα). έορτή is used ironically; see Diggle (1994) 32. For σφάγια = 'blood-offerings' see Casabona (1966) 180-89. Collard on Su. 1196 points out that Euripides confines σφάγια to the middle of the line, as here, or to its beginning, as at 337. 41 seems to imply that the sacrifices take place inside the temple and thus it conflicts with 72. For 41 to stay, the specification εσωθεν τώνδ' ανακτόρων θεας would have to qualify αλλοισιν and not σφάγια...αρρητ(α). This is not the most natural construal of the phrase but it is not impossible; cf. on 624. άρρητ(α) is strange in a religious context because the rites were not mystical or orgiastic. It apparently has no religious connotations and reflects Iphigeneia's reluctance to speak about the sacrifices: these rituals are not secret but simply unspeakable. 42-58. Iphigeneia's dream. Symbolic dreams providing information about the past or predicting the future are quite common in Greek lit-

Commentary

63

erature in general and tragedy in particular. The dreams create an atmosphere of anxiety and foreboding, of impending doom; see e.g. Hecuba's dream in Hecuba (68-89, 702-8) or the queen's dream in Aeschylus' Persae (181-99). They also motivate important dramatic events: Clytaemestra's dream in Aeschylus' Choephori (32-46; cf. 52350, 928-29) prompts the dispatch of Electra and the chorus to Agamemnon's tomb where Electra meets and recognizes her brother. Sophocles' Electra contains an intriguing reworking of this scenario: Chrysothemis is dispatched to Agamemnon's tomb (404-27), finds offerings and correctly assumes that Orestes has returned (871-919) but the recognition is delayed because the tutor has already brought to Clytaemestra and Electra the false news of Orestes' death (673-763). Iphigeneia's dream, which comes very early in the play, creates an atmosphere of gloom and seems to prepare for later dramatic developments. Iphigeneia misinterprets its message and sinks into sorrow. Because of the distress it causes her, the dream will later appear likely to delay rather than facilitate, as it does in Aeschylus, the recognition of the siblings, although this will not come to pass. Thus the dream contributes to the creation of suspense but its primary function is not the foreshadowing of later events. The dream reveals Iphigeneia's wish to recover the life she was traumatically uprooted from and her affection for her brother. It is unlikely, however, that Euripides included a highly imaginative dream in the prologue and emphasized its interpretation merely in order to highlight the emotions of Iphigeneia. Unlike virtually all other dreamers of symbolic dreams, Iphigeneia interprets her dream all by herself and never doubts the correctness of her interpretation. The dream is not reinterpreted when she learns that Orestes is alive (568) or anywhere else in the play but merely dismissed as false (569). Mikalson (1991) 107-10 suggests that Euripides on purpose glosses over the accuracy of the dream's message because he means to stress the superiority of Apollo's oracles by denigrating dreams in the third stasimon. But the only dreams mentioned and certainly not disparaged in that song are those fashioned by Earth and abolished by Zeus as a favor to Apollo; cf. on 1234-83. Iphigeneia's confident interpretation of the dream, as well as her failure to reinterpret it later on, exemplify the problems mortals encounter in their attempt to understand the will of the divine and make informed decisions based on their interpretation of it and the knowledge they should have accumulated from their past mistakes. This is a major theme in the play and the handling of the dream contributes significantly to its articulation. For other instantiations of this

64

Commentary

motif, exemplified in the assumptions of virtually all characters in the play, see Introduction Ic(2) and cf. 111(1 )c. Mirto (1994) 56-66 has a good discussion of the dream and Walde (2001) an extensive overview of previous bibliography; J.-P. Schwindt, "Tragischer und epischer Traum: Euripides Iph. Taur. 42-64 und Homer, Od. 19.535-69" Hermes 126 (1998) 1-14, compares in detail the dream of Iphigeneia with that of Penelope in the Odyssey. Although there are obvious similarities between the two dreams, Euripides does not seem to have modeled the dream of Iphigeneia on that of Penelope. 42-43. καινά: 'new, startling and unpleasant'; cf. 1160, 1306 and e.g. Hi. 370, He. 689, Here. 530, 1118, Tr. 1118, 1126, Or. 875, 1503; see also on 239. ήκει...φέρουσα: the choice of tense underscores the vividness of the dream in the speaker's mind, ήκω, which often functions as a stage-direction in tragedy, is used in prologues together with a participle for the arrival of messengers; see 237 and cf. Kerkhecker (1999) 30-31. The night brought news to Iphigeneia in the form of a gloomy dream, νύξ: in Homer dreams are sent by Olympian gods but in Hesiod ('Th. 211-12) Night is the mother of dreams. In tragedy they are also believed to be sent by chthonic powers (He. 71); cf. Mikalson (1991) 103 and on 1263 below, φάσματα: φάσμα and φάντασμα are common for apparitions in dreams; cf. e.g. 1263, He. 70, A. S. 710, Ag. 274, S. El. 501, 644, and Theoc. Id. 21.30. 44 shows that here φάσματα means simply 'dreams', λέξω προς αίθέρ': narrating an ominous dream to the sun and the sky was believed to prevent the omens of doom from coming true; see e.g. S. El. 424-25 and for other ways of dealing with a bad dream see Parker (1983) 220 n. 71. Still today in Crete dreams are supposed to be narrated only by daylight, in the belief that darkness can reinforce their power of coming true, ε'ί τι δή τόδ' εστ' ακος: according to Platnauer εί.,.δή, which may express confidence or skepticism (see GP 223-24), here signifies confidence. It is hard to imagine what kind of remedy (άκος) Iphigeneia might expect since she will express no doubts about the interpretation of her dream and she will soon announce that she plans to pour funeral libations for her dead brother. 44-55. Iphigeneia's dream is narrated in two long and fairly uncomplicated periods. A string of infinitives for actions or events in the dream (45-47) depend on εδοξ(α) at 44. The infinitives at 52-54 depend on an understood εδοξε (from ώς εδοξέ μοι at 50); note also the anacoluthon at 46 and 53-55. Almost all the infinitives for Iphigeneia's actions are in the present tense indicating the vividness of her dream; cf. previous n. and Fraenkel on A. Ag. 1383. The accumulation of δέ in the account

Commentary

65

of the dream exemplifies Greek tolerance of word repetition; see GP Ixii. 44-46. One of the most intriguing and realistic features of Iphigeneia's dream is the fusion of the dreamer's past circumstances as virginal princess sleeping at Argos with her present ones as a priestess and a sleeper at Tauris. άπαλλαχθεΐσα: the verb is common in Euripides for leaving a land or place. Here, as often, it is used for leaving behind something hateful or dangerous and thus indirectly for relief from troubles. Mastronarde on Ph. 972 notes that in tragedy aor. passive forms in - λ λ α χ θ - far outnumber those in - λ λ α γ - παρθενώσι δ' έν μέσοις: Markland's first emendation in the play, adopted also by Cropp and Kovacs, for L's παρθένοισι δ' έν μέσαις. The maidens among whom Iphigeneia sleeps in her dream would presumably be her attendants but παρθένος without qualification does not designate an attendant. Besides, in Homer (Od. 6.18-19) only two attendants sleep on either side of the door-posts of their mistress' bedroom; in the Argonautica of Apollonius (3.838-40) the twelve attendants of Medea sleep in the vestibule of their mistress' bedroom, not with their mistress. Another problem is that, with the transmitted reading, Iphigeneia's paternal house would be mentioned first at 51. 50-55a. Porson's emendation μόνος λελεΐφθαι στΰλος εις έδοξέ μοι provides smooth construction but involves an asyndeton in a passage that piles up connectives; cf. on 44-55. Since there is no real problem with the text, it is better to preserve the main clause (with the connective), especially in view of the prominence of the pillar in the dream, έπικράνων: for other examples of the rare lengthening of prepositional prefixes before mute and liquid see Mastronarde on Ph. 586-87. φθέγμα...λαβεΐν: for this and similar expressions used in connection with miraculous utterances see Fraenkel on A. Ag. 37. τέχνην: probably neutral, = 'art' or 'office', but the word may also have a pejorative nuance suggesting that the office is a devious and unnatural art invented for nefarious purposes; cf. 24, 712-13, 385-91. τιμώσ': "practicing observantly"; cf. 748 with n., 776, A. Ag. 705. ύδραίνειν: for the meaning of the verb see on 161. 55b-58. The belief that children, especially sons, "save" the house and the family line is very widespread; cf. on 1006. What is unusual here is that Iphigeneia interprets the dream as an announcement of what has already happened and does not even entertain the possibility that it might pertain to the future, even though it was a common belief that

66

Commentary

dreams did; cf. on 42-58. Her assumption that her brother is dead may suggest that she has been conditioned by her misfortunes to view everything as irrevocably lost and irreparably damaged. The chorus will shortly follow suit and join in her lament without doubting her interpretation of the dream (178ff.). The dream seems to predict something that will not actually take place in the play, the consecration of Orestes for sacrifice. This is probably a teasing cue to the audience who may eventually imagine that Orestes' sacrifice will proceed to a much more advanced stage than it actually does before the recognition of the siblings or the intervention of a god who would interrupt the sacrifice. However, the dream is not necessarily mistaken or misleading. Perhaps the original divine plan included Orestes' consecration but Iphigeneia's actions, which will bring about the recognition, will not allow the consecration to take place. Ion, for instance, offers a striking example of Apollo's need to change his initial plan, announced in the prologue (67-73) by another god (Hermes), because of human action (1553-68). συμβάλλω: the verb is also used in contexts of interpretation of oracles (e.g. Md. 675, Hdt. 7.142, PL Cra. 384a; cf. S. 7V. 694, [Α.] PV775). κατηρξάμην: in view of the reference to the lustral water (54 and 58), the verb here seems to designate the sprinkling of the sacrificial victim with it. This was an important preliminary to the sacrifice and is mentioned several times in the play as Iphigeneia's responsibility. Elsewhere the verb is used in a broader sense covering several acts that precede the slaughter of the victim. For the sacrificial ritual and Iphigeneia's role in it see on 244b-45. 59-60. One of the clearest cases of interpolation in Greek literature, the negligent work of someone wishing to prepare the audience for Iphigeneia's failure to recognize Pylades' name (249). The lines were probably modeled on 920-21. For the text to make sense, φίλους must denote relatives other than a brother but this is never the case in Greek. Iphigeneia simply does not consider any relative other than Orestes and there is no reason why she should or would. If Strophius fathered a son after Iphigeneia's sacrifice, as he actually did, the death of this son would not affect the house of Agamemnon. The audience's enjoyment of the play would hardly be spoiled by Iphigeneia's ignorance of Pylades' name. If they did not think of the right explanation, they could easily assume that Euripides followed a different tradition about the relation of Pylades' family to that of Agamemnon, especially since this relation is not revealed until much later in the play; see on 917-19.

Commentary

67

61-62. άποΰσ' άπόντι: the best available emendation (Badham). L's reading παρούσα παντί is meaningless and the emendation παροΰσ' άπόντι (Canter) lacks point: Iphigeneia is certainly present (at Tauris) but the meaning of the phrase is that she is not present at Argos to offer the libations at her brother's tomb. Orestes is absent not because he is dead, as Cropp suggests, but because he is buried in Greece and Iphigeneia is at Tauris. ταΰτα γαρ δυναίμεθ' αν: also at ΙΑ 1215, spoken by Iphigeneia in her supplication of Agamemnon before the sacrifice. Here she sounds reserved and dignified in her sorrow: a young woman, transported under awful circumstances to a barbarian land, has not lost her pious affection for her loved ones and has the strength to fulfill, to the extent that she can, her duties as a bereft sister. The motif of sisterly service to a dead brother will reappear later in the play (627, 703). 63-65. The presence of Greek slave-women may be viewed as the only very slight ray of comfort in Iphigeneia's loneliness and grief but it also underscores her isolation. The audience would most probably imagine that these women would be the chorus of the play. In most tragedies the arrival of the chorus is not anticipated or announced; choruses usually introduce themselves and explain the reason for their arrival upon their entrance; cf. on 123-235. The hint at the imminent arrival of the chorus is meant to heighten the element of surprise: the audience expect the chorus but Orestes and Pylades will appear instead. For the fairly uncommon element of surprise in tragic entrances see Taplin (1977) 1112. Cropp correctly notes that the reason for Iphigeneia's exit is artificial but the delay of the chorus and Iphigeneia's ignorance of its cause provide a realistic touch at the end of a mostly unmotivated speech. In no other scene in extant tragedy do summoned servants fail to appear promptly. Ελληνίδας γυναίκας: the story of their enslavement will be told in the second stasimon (1106-18). It will appear from the parodos that they are maidens but the term γυνή indicates a married woman only when juxtaposed to παρθένος; see e.g. He. 354 and S. Tr. 148; Iphigeneia also will be called γυνή Έλληνίς by Thoas at 1153-54. For the use of άλλ(ά), equivalent to άλλα γάρ and άλλα μήν, to introduce a breaking-off formula expressing an observation and followed by the announcement of action in asyndeton see Mastronarde on Ph. 99. 66. The deletion of this line (Metzger) seems to be less justified than that of 41. The line provides information about Iphigeneia's living quarters and it is no more redundant than specifications in other announcements of entering, or returning to, a building. Without 66 the previous line would be quite, though not unacceptably, abrupt, τώνδ'

68

Commentary

ανακτόρων: the demonstrative qualifies either άνακτόρων or δόμων at 65. Iphigeneia may point to the building, the temple of the goddess, and identify it as her dwelling. Alternatively, she may identify the building as her dwelling and point out that this building is also the temple of the goddess, although the identity of the temple has already been made clear at 34-36. άνακτόρων is appositive to δόμων. Iphigeneia's return to the temple leaves the stage empty, but for a moment only; for such breaks cf. on 122 and see Taplin (1977) 368. 67-122. Entrance and dialogue of Orestes and Pylades. Instead of Iphigeneia's slave-women two male characters, Orestes and Pylades, enter from the right parodos, visibly trying to avoid any encounter with a third party. The two men may not be accompanied by attendants in order to minimize the risk of detection. However, in Euripides' Electra, for instance, Orestes and Pylades are accompanied by attendants (39394, 765-66), although they do not want to draw attention to themselves (87-101). But no task is given to attendants in IT and so they may not be there. Since the audience have heard that the slave-women are about to arrive (63-65), they may entertain the possibility that they will arrive while Orestes and Pylades are onstage. The audience may also imagine that Orestes and Pylades will attempt to avoid the women by departing (cf. e.g. Hi. 51-57, He. 52-54, Ph. 196-201) or by hiding and eavesdropping (cf. e.g. El. 107-11, Ion 76-82, A. Ch. 10-21, S. OC 111-16). In fact Orestes and Pylades leave before there is any sign of the women's arrival. For the structure of the scene see on 1-122. The scene introduces the theme of the friendship and solidarity between Orestes and Pylades as well as the pragmatic nature of Pylades (cf. on 104-17). For the presentation of Pylades cf. Introduction 111(3). Orestes shows emotional distress and has a negative attitude toward Apollo. These themes are not unknown in the tradition but are very prominent in this play, especially since Euripides presents a non-traditional version of the Areopagus trial and its aftermath (961-78). For Orestes' view of Apollo and the oracle that sent him to Tauris see on 77-103. On the mission cf. on 85-94a. As a character, Orestes has generally fared rather poorly at the hands of Euripides but in this play he is treated much less harshly than in Andromache, Electra or Orestes·, see Introduction 111(2). His failure to display his true nature in the prologue and his presentation as weak and emotionally unstable (102-3) are probably meant to prepare the audience for the attack of the Furies and the fit of madness he will soon suffer (281-308). On the other hand, if the audience is led to despise Orestes as a coward, his behavior at the shore after he recovers from his fit

Commentary

69

(320-22) will cause a reversal of their expectations and the recognition of his true nature. 67-68. Such admonitions and replies are standard in scenes of searching for someone, keeping watch and generally being on one's guard; see e.g. Or. 1261-80, 1291-95, A. Eum. 255-56, S. OC 117-37, Ar. Ach. 204-36, 77z. 654-66; cf. also Rh. 565-71 and Ph. 265-66 (Polyneices, who has just entered alone, urges himself to be on his guard). Verbs of caution and fearing take the usual construction with subjunctive object clause but also the more idiomatic indicative object clause; see KG 11.390-99 and cf. Schwyzer 11.676-77. The subjunctive object clause is equivalent to an indirect question tinged with apprehension or anxiety (cf. 995-96). The use of the indicative points to a fair degree of certainty on the speaker's part that what is feared may come to be true presently or that it may have actually materialized. For indicative object clauses see e.g. HI. 119, Or. 208-9, S. Aj. 278-9; cf. Ph. 93-94 (indicative, followed by subjunctive, to denote immediate danger and future consequences). It is probable that the object clause at 67 is indicative, όμμα: Barret on Hi. 246 points out that ομμα is not properly 'eye' but a verbal noun from όπ- (όπ-μα > ομμα), 'a seeing or looking', then the expression in one's eye(s) and then the eye(s) as manifesting that expression. It means 'eye' here (cf. 76 όφθαλμόν; cf. also on 1167) but 'face' at 1374. In the situation of Orestes and Pylades, however, the distinction between casting one's eyes and turning one's face in every direction is not sharp. Cf. Ion 205, Ph. 265, Or. 1266-67, 1457-58. πανταχήι: Monk's emendation of L's πανταχού is supported by parallels in several of the passages cited at the beginning of this n.; cf. Mastronarde on Ph. 265. For the different nuance in the meaning of the two adverbs as used in tragedy see on 517. 69-71. The address by name is an unforced way to reveal to the audience the identity of the speakers. The mutual address by name is much more natural here than, for instance, in the Electra prologue (82ff.). 70 has been athetized by Badham. It certainly sounds redundant and artificial. Orestes will give an account of his mission below and the ship will be mentioned a little later (102-3). Still, these are not sufficient grounds for deletion. A two-line speech also follows two lines of dialogue at Ion 936-37 and couplets appear quite often at the beginning or end of stichomythic sections or when there is a transition to a new topic. Cf. 49293, 735-36, 811-12, 1157-58 and see Diggle (1981) 110-11 for other examples and literature. A pair of couplets also occasionally precedes stichomythia; see Mastronarde on Ph. 387. σοι δέ συνδοκεΐν χρεών:

70

Commentary

"but you must think so too (if we are to be sure; I may be mistaken and you may have a different opinion)" rather than "and you must think so too (because this is definitely the temple)", although the latter is also plausible. It is, however, very abrupt and it would make Orestes' further inquiries otiose. 72-75. This is the first mention of the altar and the first completely unambiguous reference to the Taurian practice of sacrificing Greeks to the goddess (cf. 35-41 and 53, 58). At 74 Orestes registers his horror at the sight of spoils hanging from the copings of the altar. (They could also be the copings of the temple, but the two friends seem to be observing the altar only; cf. below.) War spoils (hence σκΰλα) were usually dedicated to the gods and fixed on the walls of their temples. For this custom see e.g. Hrcld. 695-97, An. 1121-22, El. 6-7, 1000-1, Tr. 575-76, Η. II. 7.82-83, A. S. 277-78, Ag. 577-79, Hdt. 5.95.1. Cf. Pritchett iii 240-95. It is unclear what exactly hangs from the Taurian altar: on the basis of the testimony of Amm. Marc. 22.8.33, the skulls of the victims may be meant 2 but Iphigeneia will later inform Orestes that the victims of the sacrifices are cremated, presumably whole, and the remains are thrown down a cleft or, less probably, that the victims are thrown down the cleft and burn there (626). Decapitation is nowhere mentioned in the play. It is thus not impossible that personal possessions of the victims, e.g. clothes or arms, hang from the altar, although Pylades' description of the spoils as άκροθίνια may have a sinister twang. The term indicates the best part offered from a heap or assembly of things (cf. 459 and Mastronarde on Ph. 203) and may be thought to suggest the skulls of the victims. Malalas (p. 136.13-15 Dindorf) mentions bones of the victims scattered near the temple. Familiarity of the audience with Taurian customs and the display of the skulls onstage may have rendered any explicit reference unnecessary. It should be noted, however, that the practice of hanging skulls from altars is not attested for Taurians in any source; see Introduction 11(1) n. 14. θριγκώματα is Ruhnken's emendation of the transmitted τριχώματα, 'strands of hair', presumably trickles of dried blood, τριχώματα 2

A severed head hanging from the architrave of the temple is depicted on a fourthcentury Campanian neck-amphora by the Ixion painter (LIMC no. 29; cf. the Roman sarcophagus no. 75), possibly inspired by IT. If taken at face value, it could serve to corroborate the suggestion that the spoils were the heads of the victims and that they were fixed on the copings of the temple. Nevertheless, the sources of the artist's inspiration are unknown and, even if he had IT in mind, he certainly took a great liberty with the play, as vase-painters commonly did. See Introduction VI(2).

Commentary

71

would be a bold metaphor but it is perhaps too bold for comfort and the possible echo of Iphigeneia's dream (51-52) in ξανθά is too feeble to be of significance (cf. Diggle [1994] 218), especially given the frequency of the adjective (cf. on 174). On the other hand, the echo works equally well with the emendation, θριγκοΐς at 74 might cast doubt on θριγκώματα because of the resulting repetition but it might just as well corroborate it: Orestes' eyes would remain fixed on the copings of the altar just mentioned by Pylades and he would ask another question about them. Έλλην οΰ καταστάζει φόνος: "dripping with Greek blood"; for adjectives used instead of a genitive in poetry see Kannicht on HI. 1582. The emphasis on Greek victims reflects the emotions of the speaker, as does καταστάζει. Cf. on 35-41. οΰ is either pronoun or adverb but probably the former; for the construction cf. He. 760, Here. 934 (with transitive verb), HI. 985. 76. L gives this line to Orestes, perhaps so as not to spoil the stichomythia but cf. on 70. If the line is given to Orestes, the effect of his outburst against Apollo is somewhat diminished. Pylades urges caution and, implicitly, concentration on the task at hand. It has been suggested that he walks around the temple looking for a way to break in while Orestes delivers his monologue and that he returns shortly before Orestes addresses him (94). It is more plausible that both men simply approach the temple looking around carefully before Orestes starts speaking. έγκυκλοΰντ' όφθαλμόν: cf. Ph. 364 and on 68. έγκυκλοΰντ' is probably acc. dual, not acc. singular, because both men are supposed to be on their guard. The participle may not be from έγκυκλόω 'to surround, encompass' but from έγκυκλέω 'to turn around' (έγκυκλέω, though, is more common in the middle). 77-103. This is the first substantial utterance of Orestes in the play. It falls in two unequal parts, a review of his story after the matricide in which he explains the reason for his sailing to Tauris (77-94; cf. on 79b-83 and 85-94a) and an appeal to Pylades for advice (95-103). The review of Orestes' story is as unmotivated as Iphigeneia's but it is much shorter and the presence of Pylades mitigates its artificiality, even though Pylades knows the story of Orestes very well. At this very critical moment in his life, when he reaches the vicinity of the object whose theft will mean the end of his troubles, Orestes declares the mission impossible before even trying to accomplish it. His distress is not surprising given his dismal situation. He is a matricide hounded by the Erinyes and the oracle he has received from Apollo offers no guidance or promise of help. Nevertheless, Orestes' readiness to

72

Commentary

jump to conclusions, his failure to express some hope in the accomplishment of his mission or confidence in the god whose commands he follows as well as his (and Pylades') failure to address a prayer to Apollo (or Artemis) indicate great, and not necessarily justified, disillusionment with the divine. (For the attitude of mortals toward gods in the play see Introduction Ic(l)-(2), III(l)c-(5); cf. on 827-99.) Contrast, for instance, the similar situation but very different stance of another longsuffering hero, Oedipus in Sophocles' OC. In the prologue of the play (84-110) Oedipus gives an account of the oracle in which Apollo promised him deliverance from his troubles but embeds it in a hopeful prayer for merciful assistance to the local goddesses, the Eumenides, in whose precinct he sits. 77-79a. Addresses to gods, especially to those involved (or believed to be involved) in the events of the play, are frequent in drama. They are usually prayers at the end of scenes requesting divine help with the task at hand and release from misfortune: see e.g. 1082-88, 1230-33, Cy. 350-55, 599-607, Hi. 522-23, HI. 1093-1106, 1441-50, Ph. 84-87, A. S. 69-77, Ag. 973-74, Dikt. 782-85, S. El. 1376-83, OT 149-50, Ph. 13334, OC 84-110. Another common form is the nouthetetic, or even castigating, address or prayer. Some of the addresses just cited have a nouthetetic element; cf. Seaford on Cy. 353-55 and for criticism of gods cf. on 380-91 below. Here the address has hints of criticism but it does not develop into a full-blown accusation. Orestes' distress is obvious from the beginning. His anxiety will mount during the speech and will culminate in the suggestion that he and Pylades flee immediately (1023). Markland and Blomfield put the question mark after χρήσας and suggest starting a period with έπεί γαρ (έπεί δέ) and deleting δ' after διαδοχαΐς at 79b. This is closer to 940-42, Orestes' other account of his troubles after the matricide, but unnecessary. Similarly, there is no reason to postulate a lacuna after 77 (Paley). ποΐ is used in the sense τίνα or τί = 'why'; for 'whither' in the sense 'why' see Willink on Or. 632 and cf. on 777 below (που ποτ' δνθ' ηύρήμεθα;). Orestes' question is in essence an expression of dismay. It does not so much refer to the murderous country Apollo's oracle drove him to as to Apollo's reasons for entrapping him in a new snare. The sense 'whither' is important because of the custom of the land just mentioned but it is not the only or the primary sense. άρκυς: 'hunting net, toil'. This word and the rarer άρκύστατον, usually in the plural, literally 'a place where toils are set up' but also used simply instead of άρκυς, occur a number of times in the Oresteia

Commentary

73

{Ag. 1116, 1375, Ch. 1000, Eum. 112, 147), where the image of net in connection with Agamemnon's murder is recurrent; see Garvie on Ch. 491-92. For hunting nets see Jebb on S. El. 1476 and Garvie on A. Ch. 998-1000. In Euripides the metaphor is used for deceit and imminent murder also at Md. 1278, El. 965, Here. 729, Or. 1422. Here the metaphor of the net, which may hark back to the Oresteia, highlights Apollo's duplicity and cruelty; cf. 711-15 and A. P. 97-99, another possible model of the present passage. 77 may be an echo of Cassandra's lament (A. Ag. 1138-39; cf. 1087). If so, the echo underscores Orestes' despair and the sense of imminent doom, a misleading hint to the audience. The metaphor is remarkable in that Orestes visualizes himself as the quarry of Apollo at the beginning of a speech where his pursuit by the Erinyes and his attempts to evade them will be mentioned (79b-83). Orestes implies that Apollo, his divine mentor, and the Erinyes, his divine tormentors, have treated, and indeed are treating him, similarly but Apollo's behavior is crueler because Orestes has followed the commands of the god and looked to him for guidance and assistance. Instead of rewarding his obedience by saving him, Apollo has driven him into a net. κατακτάς: coincident use of the aor. part.; see on 593b. 79b-83. After the recognition Orestes recounts the same story explaining that a group of Erinyes continued pursuing him despite his acquittal in the Areopagus trial (970-71). The present elliptical account could lead the audience to believe that Orestes is describing his predicament before the trial, according to the common version of the story; cf. on 85-94a. διαδοχαις...Έρινύων does not refer to different teams of Erinyes but to successive attacks of the dissenting Erinyes. For the number of the goddesses see on 284b-91a and for their capacity as avengers of family murders see Johnston (1999) 139-44, 250-58. ήλαυνόμεσθα: a metaphor from chariot-driving, εξεδροι χθονός: cf. e.g. Hi. 281, IA 419, Pha. fr. 773.68, S. OC 233. The emphasis here is on the dislocation from one's έδρα, one's proper place (cf. Barrett on Hi. 935; cf. also S. fr. 654, Ar. Αν. 275), and may thus imply Orestes' exile from his native Argos (cf. 136) but it is probably not a mere repetition of φυγάδες. It is more plausible to assume that it refers to Orestes' expulsion by the Erinyes from every land he fled to, not only his own. Besides, φυγάδες, too, does not primarily refer to Orestes' exile from Argos but to his status as fugitive; cf. 941-42. Being driven out of every land and being rejected by all elements, in life and even death, is a punishment for perpetrators of terrible crimes such as kin-killing and perjury; see Here. 1295-98, S. OT 1427 and cf. Hi. 1030, Or. 1086, Emped. DK 31 Β 115. δρόμους τε πολλούς έξέπλησα καμπίμους does not necessar-

74

Commentary

ily continue the metaphor from chariot-driving, κάμπιμος, a word that resurfaces only in the lexicographers (cf. Hesych. s.v. άκαμπτοι δρόμοι and κάμπειος δρόμος, Suda s.v. κάμπιος δρόμος), may allude to the diaulos, the double footrace. Orestes' frenzied wanderings could certainly be compared to a foot-race but in chariot races, too, the chariots had to turn at the post and return to their starting point, τροχηλάτου/ μανίας...ές τέλος πόνων τ' έμών: a hendiadys. τροχηλάτου may pick up the chariot-driving imagery but it may simply indicate the relentlessness of Orestes' wandering; for the metaphor cf. El. 1252-53, Or. 36-37 (West ad loc. suggests that it refers to hoopwhipping). It may also be meant to allude to the story of Ixion, the first mortal to shed kindred blood and one of the great mythological sinners in the underworld, who was punished by being bound to a spinning wheel, although not for the family crime but for his attempt to rape Hera; see Here. 1297-98 (και τον άρματήλατον/ Ίξίον' έν δεσμοΐσιν έκμιμήσομαι) with Bond's n. [84], Markland deleted the line because it is almost identical with 1455. It is necessary there but it adds nothing here, although this does not automatically warrant deletion. For repetition of lines within a play see the evidence and literature collected by Mastronarde on Ph. 143 85-94a. The oracle most likely comes as a surprise to the audience who must have expected an account of Orestes' trial on the Areopagus. If the audience initially thought that the story of the play would have nothing to do with the troubles of Orestes after the matricide, they would now reconsider and assume that the trip to Tauris takes the place of the trial or precedes it. Only after Orestes tells his story to Iphigeneia does the prehistory of the play become entirely clear (940-78), almost two thirds into the play, a delay unparalleled in the extant corpus of Euripides. Apollo fails to provide any instructions for, or to promise help with, the performance of the labor. At the end of the play (1440), Athena will mention Iphigeneia's evacuation from Tauris as one of the goals served by the oracle of Apollo (cf. 1015), but the god did not inform Orestes that Iphigeneia, or at least a potential helper, was in Tauris. The god's reticence is dramatically expedient because a detailed oracle reported at the beginning of the play would ruin suspense. It also exemplifies a recurrent theme in the play, the remoteness and inscrutability of gods that humans have to deal with; see Introduction Ic. The succinct oracle makes Orestes responsible for the success of the risky enterprise and this enhances his uncertainty.

Commentary

75

In the heroic age expiation or punishment for murder invariably involves exile and occasionally some kind of service or task, usually demeaning but not dangerous; cf. e.g. the periods of service imposed on Heracles and Apollo after the murders of Iphitus and the Cyclopes respectively (S. Tr. 248-57, Eur. Al. 1-7). The mission of Orestes, which could be considered as expiatory, entails travel to a foreign land and the theft of a guarded object of veneration. It has thus been viewed as an initiation exploit demanded of young men on the verge of adulthood in many cultures but see Introduction 11(5). 85-88. The report of the oracle ends at 92; 87b-88, perhaps 89 as well, and 91b are Orestes' own specifications and clarifications; cf. the next two nn. όρους, quite common in Euripides in the sense 'borders', does not necessarily imply that the temple of Artemis was situated at the border. However, the word may have been chosen because of the temple's location on the shore; cf. Ion 295. The heavenly origin of the statue, a widespread motif (cf. Burkert [1985] 91 n. 84), may be an indirect indication that the Taurian sacrifices were divinely sanctioned, although this is not Orestes' point here, αγαλμα θεάς: when preceded by a short syllable, θεός and θεά are rarely scanned with synizesis as here (also at 1014, 1307 and 1461); see Diggle (1994) 129-36, 474-76. φασιν: not a sign of skepticism but an identification of the speaker's source of knowledge. The popularity of the tale is evidence for its truth (cf. e.g. Willink on Or. 5, FJW on A. Su. 291, Sommerstein on A. Eum. 4) but, when available, personal experience is said to be the most reliable source of information and knowledge; cf. on 901. ένθάδε/ ές τούσδε ναούς: not necessarily tautological because the adverb specifies the land (cf. 93) and the phrase the exact location of the statue's landing. Alternatively, both may be there for emphasis. In any case, the suggestion ούνθάδε = οί 'νθάδε (Markland and Hermann) offers no advantage. 89. ή τέχναισιν ή τύχηι τινί: it is unclear whether this is Orestes' inference or a specification in the oracle (no similar specification is included in the account of the oracle Orestes gives to Iphigeneia at 97678, but this does not necessarily bear on the question), τύχη is 'chance' or 'fortune' (as cause) but also 'accident' or 'turn of events' (as effect). It is often related to divine agency in Greek thought (cf. e.g. Garvie on A. Ch. 138 and Giannopoulou [2000] 257-61) but the precise nature of this relation is not fixed in Euripides. Chance or fortune is sometimes said to originate from the gods or from a demon (e.g. 867, Md. 671, Hi. 371, 831, El. 890-92, Here. 509, 1393, IA 351, Aeolus fr. 37); see

76

Commentary

Busch (1937) 34ff. (who tends to overemphasize the role of divine agency) and cf. Bond on Here. 1393 and Giannopoulou (2000) 262 n. 25. In a unique, to my knowledge, variation of this motif, Euripides (fr. 974) suggests that god takes care of important issues but leaves small matters to chance (των άγαν γαρ άπτεται/ θεός, τά μικρά δ' εις τύχην άφείς έάι). Chance is elsewhere said to govern human but also divine affairs (e.g. Cy. 606-7, He. 488-93, Here. 1314-15, Ion 1512-14, fr. 901, S. Ant. 1158-60). At 909-11 Orestes may indicate that chance is nothing but the agency of the gods or that chance is itself a god who, by implication, brought about the recognition. The latter is perhaps slightly more plausible since references to traditional gods are virtually absent from the recognition (cf. 867 and 895-96). Chance will also be invoked by Iphigeneia when she first meets the captives (475-78; cf. 489, 722, 1067), and the wind at the end of the play may be an accident; see on 1391bff. and cf. Introduction Ic(3). Here Orestes can hardly imply that the gods will give him good luck because he thinks that the gods, and especially Apollo, have abandoned him. Orestes and Pylades will consider various ways of gaining access to the temple (96ff.), but it will ultimately be a combination of Iphigeneia's cunning (τέχνη, cf. 1032) and chance that will ensure the success of the mission. 90-92. έκπλήσαντ': cf. 81, El. 1290, HI. 735, Or. 293. χθονι δούναι is odd for setting up a statue (cf. 978) because the dat. with δίδωμι and similar (e.g. κρύπτω, καλύπτω) is fairly common for burying; cf. Here. 335 (νερτέραι δώσων χθονί). Here setting up the statue is probably visualized as planting, τό δ' ένθένδ' ουδέν έρρήθη πέρα: τό.,.ένθένδε is adverbial, probably acc. of respect; πέρα is pleonastic for emphasis. The parenthetical phrase does not mark the end of the oracle but encapsulates Orestes' annoyance at the god's failure to provide instructions, which would be made evident by the actor's delivery, άμπνοάς έξειν πόνων: άμπνοά designates respite from any kind of labor but especially from the exertion of running, an allusion to the pursuit of Orestes by the Erinyes, άμπνοάς...πόνων echoes τέλος...πόνων at 83: the god answers exactly the question Orestes put to him and volunteers no other information. For the oracle's succinctness cf. on 8594a. 93-94a. The end of the account of the oracle harks back to Orestes' exasperated question about the trap (77-78a): the land at which the longsuffering but obedient receiver of the oracle has arrived is unfamiliar, strange and inhospitable, i.e. murderous; cf. Cy. 91-92. πεισθείς σοΐς λόγοισιν: cf. on 714-15.

Commentary

77

94b-96a. Now that the oracle is about to be fulfilled Orestes does not pray for divine aid (cf. on 77-103) but turns instead to Pylades for advice and help. It may not be accidental that συλλήπτωρ and the cognate verb are often used in appeals for, and references to, divine aid to humans; see Fraenkel on A. Ag. 811. According to Denniston (GP 68) γάρ at 95 is anticipatory. This is true to an extent but what needs explanation is the address to Pylades and not the following question; the γάρ clause then naturally follows the address. Cf. GP 69 and on 96b below. 96b-103. The difficulty of the task becomes immediately obvious to Orestes as he sizes up the walls of the impressive building (cf. 128-29, 403-6). Lines 97-100a have suffered in the transmission. This much is clear, that Orestes considers and dismisses at least two alternative methods of breaking into the temple, using ladders to climb the walls (and then somehow slipping into the temple) or forcing the doors with crowbars. Examination of alternative ways of achieving a goal is not uncommon in tragedy. For instance, Medea, who plans to kill her enemies, rejects the first two possibilities she mentions because of the high risk of arrest and humiliation they carry and opts for her poisons (Md. 379-85). Similarly, Ajax examines his options after he recovers from his fit of madness and decides that the only honorable alternative to a life of disgrace is death (S. Aj. 457-80). Cf. Here. 1281-1310. Even the rash Eteocles announces several, although misguided, plans for fighting the invading Argive army (Ph. 712-33). The difference between these heroes and Orestes is striking. The young man is unable to formulate any plan, let alone an alternative plan, and suggests that he and Pylades flee empty-handed. As Pylades will soon point out, this is a startling proposal, given the hardships of their trip to Tauris and the issues at stake. For Orestes' loss of nerve cf. on 67-122. 96b-100a. άμφίβληστρα τοίχων: cf. Ph. 1357 (τειχέων περιπτυχαί). Aeschylus uses άμφίβληστρον 'fishing net, casting net' for the robe that entrapped Agamemnon (Ag. 1382, Ch. 492) and Sophocles for the one that entrapped Heracles (Jr. 1052). Fraenkel on A. Ag. 1382 suggests that Euripides here echoes Aeschylus' emphasis on the etymological derivation of the noun from αμφιβάλλω. If Euripides echoes the Oresteia passages, then Orestes implies that he and Pylades cannot enter the temple and escape unharmed. Cf. Garvie on A. Ch. 491-92. γάρ may again be anticipatory (cf. on 95) but it also explains why Orestes asked the previous question, which indicates his helplessness in the face of the enterprise. Both κλιμάκων (Kayser; δωμάτων L),

78

Commentary

προσαμβάσεις (Barnes; προς άμβάσεις L) and έμβησόμεσθα (Blomfield and perhaps L) are uncertain. If correct, προσαμβάσεις, which is part of a mere periphrasis for 'ladder' at Ph. 489, 1173, Ba. 1213 and A. S. 466, retains some of its force here because of the proximity of έμβησόμεσθα. χαλκότευκτα is hapax; cf. χαλκότορος (P. P. 4.147). μοχλοΐς: probably 'crowbars', not 'locking bars'; cf. Willink on Or. 1474-75. κλήιθρον, most often in the plural when used in connection with doors or gates, is anything that secures doors but also the closed or bolted doors themselves, as here. Doors and gates are secured from the inside by means of bars (μοχλοί) fastened with an iron pin; see Barrett on Hi. 577 and Garvie on A. Ch. 877-79. t&v ουδέν ΐσμενί: Holzner plausibly postulated a lacuna before 100. The sentence is unexceptional and an admission of ignorance and helplessness on Orestes' part suits the context well. Plausible emendations that produce a reference to gaining access to the temple are Köchly's ωδ' Ιερόν εσιμεν and Maehly's ώδ' οίκον εσιμεν. 100b-103. άνοίγοντες πύλας.,.έσβάσεις τε μηχανώμενοι: a hendiadys, "trying to devise an entrance by forcing the gates", έσβάσεις μηχανώμενοι does not refer to breaking in by means of scaling the walls with ladders because this alternative has already been rejected. If taken up again, it would have to be connected disjunctively with άνοίγοντες πύλας. έναυστολήσαμεν: for the verb see on 599. For Orestes' suggestion to flee cf. on 96b-103. 104-17. Pylades' first substantial utterance in the play brings out his main characteristics: loyalty to Orestes, ability to offer pragmatic advice, and a concern not to offend the god by not attempting to fulfill the oracle (see next n.). In other plays Pylades suggests a plan (Or. 1098ff.) or at least sticking to a plan (A. Ch. 900-2); here he has no concrete plan to offer and can only urge Orestes not to abort their mission. 11314a may have originally contained some suggestion; see n. As the text stands, Pylades' only suggestion is that he and Orestes hide in a cave, away from the ship, until nightfall and then return to the temple under cover of darkness. Ironically, Pylades' suggestion will not initially help the two companions achieve their immediate goal of avoiding detection but it will eventually facilitate the achievement of their ultimate goal. 104-5. Pylades rejects Orestes' suggestion to flee on moral and religious grounds. The objection that flight is intolerable and that he and Orestes are not used to fleeing may be an allusion to the killing of Clytaemestra; see Introduction Ib(3) n. 7 and cf. on 710 and 920; Pylades

Commentary

79

will return to the inappropriateness of flight at the end of his speech, τον του θεοΰ δέ χρησμόν ούκ άτιστέον: the transmitted οϋ κακιστέον is most probably corrupt. "We must not reproach the oracle" would be plausible here but, as England notes, κακίζω does not mean 'to reproach' in poetry. What is more important, Pylades is not interested in Orestes' opinion about the oracle but in persuading him to fulfill it. Orestes' declaration at 120-21 that he does not intend to be responsible for the oracle's remaining unfulfilled supports Valckenaer's emendation ούκ άτιστέον. Pylades' brief rejection of Orestes' suggestion is dramatically advantageous but it is also consistent with his cautious attitude toward the divine in the play: Pylades takes care not to offend the gods irrespective of the gods' willingness to help mortals; cf. Introduction 111(3). 106-9. άπαλλαχθέντε: for the verb see on 44-46. δέμας: cf. 119 and 685. It is often equivalent to a reflexive pronoun in Euripides; see Barrett on Hi. 131-34 and cf. on 1430 below, νεώς απωθεν...βίαι: it is clear that the Taurians will not fail to see the ship if Orestes and Pylades hide away from it. Pylades' point is that, by hiding in a cave away from the ship, the two friends may escape arrest and manage to complete the mission, even if the ship is detected or even captured. If this happened, Orestes and Pylades could, in theory at least, return to Greece by land, especially if they had divine protection. The ship is moored at a secret place (1328) but one cannot hide a ship as effectively as one can hide oneself. Proximity to the ship need not lead to the men's capture but it does increase the danger of arrest. 110-12. νυκτός ομμα λυγαίας: the eye of the night, as well as that of the day, dawn etc., is a fairly common metaphor; see Mastronarde on Ph. 543. λυγαίας, 'dark, gloomy', indicates that the moon cannot be implied here. The rare adj. occurs also at Hrcld. 855 and in S. fr. 525. Before the lexicographers it resurfaces mainly in Lycophron (351, 973) and Apollonius Rhodius {Arg. 1.218, 2.1120 [cf. sch. νύχθ' ύπο λυγαίην: την σκοτεινήν, παρά τό λύγος τό φυτόν- και γάρ εκείνο μέλαν], 3.323, 863, 1361, and 4.458). ξεστόν: the first explicit indication that the statue is a xoanon, although its having fallen from the sky (88) has already suggested its nature, πάσας προσφέροντε μηχανάς: the verb is "the proper word for applying siege-devices to a wall" (Mastronarde on Ph. 488). The goal of Orestes and Pylades is naturally to steal the statue but, as is suggested by προσφέροντε, they must gain access to the temple first.

80

Commentary

113-14a. Despite its vagueness and strange language, this barely understandable passage does not look like the work of an interpolator and should rather be assumed to be corrupt, perhaps marred by a lacuna of one line (Platnauer) or as many as twelve (England). Pylades seems to suggest a way of entering the temple through openings in the frieze between the triglyphs but δέ γ' is inappropriate (see Diggle [1981] 87 n. 2), and it is unlikely that there were once such openings. Fifth-century Doric temples like the one described in the play certainly lacked them (cf. Introduction IV); see J. Roux, "A propos du decor dans les tragedies d' Euripide" REG 74 (1961) 52-60, who suggests that the term triglyphs is used loosely to indicate the roof of the temple through which the two friends should slip into the building. In any case, the suggestion is too brief and, given the difficulties already pointed out by Orestes, unlikely to constitute a credible plan. Orestes does not comment on it at all. 114b-15. τους πόνους γάρ αγαθοί/ τολμώσι, δειλοί δ' εΐσίν ουδέν οΰδαμοΰ: too close to an all-purpose platitude for editorial comfort, especially if the next two lines are retained. The gnome is more likely to form the conclusion of the speech than to be its penultimate statement and, since it is appropriate to almost any tragic enterprise or situation, it may have been interpolated. On the other hand, it harks back to the beginning of Pylades' speech and expresses the general principle on he and Orestes should act by explaining why "fleeing is intolerable" (104); 122 may be considered Orestes' positive response to the gnome. Facing a seemingly impossible task and seeing his friend recoiling from it, Pylades invokes the willingness of an excellent man to undertake labors. Pylades implies that excellence consists in the excellent men's willingness to perform labors; cowards are nothing because they never do anything; cf. Meleager fr. 519 (δειλοί γάρ άνδρες ουκ εχουσιν έν μάχηι/ αριθμόν, άλλ' απεισι καν παρώσ' δμως.) είσίν ούδέν: cf. 7V. 1007, ΙΑ 351, 944-45, 968, 1251. For the idiomatic use of ούδαμοΰ = 'nowhere, of no account', a metaphor possibly from racing, see Stevens (1976) 50 and cf. Renehan (1985) 167. Since Pylades and Orestes behave excellently, they may also meet with success in the present enterprise. Willingness to undertake labors or even courage does not guarantee success, although it guarantees renown; cf. e.g. Η. II. 22.297305, P. 0.1.81-84. Courage is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for success; see e.g. Democritus DK 68 Β 269. Pylades does not imply that he and Orestes will succeed because they will show courage or that the god will help them because he will appreciate their willingness to

Commentary

81

act (cf. on 118-122 and 910-11). He only suggests that noble men do not shirk labors under any circumstances. At 105 Pylades had urged his friend to do what a cautious mortal, intent on not offending the god, should do, irrespective of the god's intentions. He now urges Orestes to behave as a noble man, intent on remaining true to his nature, should, irrespective of the chances of success. If he also alludes to fame, this is decidedly a secondary implication because fame is hardly a concern in this play. 116-17. Diggle (1981) 76-77 discusses in detail the attribution of these lines and the various transpositions that have been suggested. Deleting the lines is preferable to transposing them. If kept, they should in all probability be given to Pylades. They reinforce his previous point that brave men undertake labors (114b-15): it is unacceptable for such men to sail so far only to sail back upon arrival, νόστον: see on 527. 118-22. Pylades' advice helps Orestes bring his panic under control. He accepts the reasoning of his friend and agrees to carry on. His speech takes up Pylades' arguments roughly in reverse. He first admits that Pylades rightly rebutted his suggestion to flee (118a). This may be a general response to Pylades' speech but possibly to 116-17 in particular. He then accepts Pylades' proposal to hide in a cave until nightfall (118b-119). At the end (120-21) he echoes the beginning of Pylades' speech (104-5) and possibly 114b-15: Orestes, for his part, will not dishonor the oracle, and they should show boldness because young men are to undertake all labors, be they ever so hard. His substitution of νέοι (122) for Pylades' αγαθοί (114) is perhaps simply a variation but it may also suggest that Orestes views himself as a man willing to undertake labors on account of his youth rather than his excellence. For the association of youth and labors see e.g. El. 337-38, Here. 127-30, Archel. fr. 237, Cressae fr. 461; cf. fr. 880, 1052. Renehan (1976) 64-65 defends L's reading at 120 (τό του θεοΰ γ' αίτιον γενήσεται) arguing that at 120-22 Orestes expresses the common maxim "the gods help those who help themselves" (cf. on 910-11). This is implausible. At 120-21 Orestes explains why he agrees with the plan suggested by Pylades: he does not want to be (held) responsible for non-fulfillment of the oracle. Neither Orestes nor Pylades expresses confidence in the prologue that the god will help them and it is unlikely that Orestes' outlook changes radically now: he probably does not expect divine help but he decides not to abandon the mission. Heath's emendation τό του θεοΰ γ' αίτιος γενήσομαι is the best available. Weil's suggestions τι τούμόν γ' and τό τοΰδέ γ' αίτιον γενήσεται

82

Commentary

are also good because they do not require a change in the person of the verb. The young men exit by the right parodos to go to the seashore and the stage remains empty, as when Iphigeneia went back into the temple (65-66). 123-235. The parodos. For Iphigeneia's entrance see next n. The chorus enter, perhaps by the left parodos. If so, this parodos presumably leads to the precincts of the temple and the women's living quarters and it is used in the play only for their entrance and possibly their exit; cf. Introduction IV and on 1497-99. In the Atreid plays of Euripides (Electra, IT, Helen, Orestes, IA) the choruses consist of women sympathetic to the protagonists. Unlike the IT chorus (cf. 63-65), the other groups of women arrive of their own accord. (The commonest reasons for the chorus' arrival are request for information about something the chorus have heard or learned, response to a summons by a character, and extension of an invitation to a character; see Kannicht on HI. 179-90.) The parodos of IT is very similar to that of Helen, although the chorus of that play encourage their mistress not to sink into despair prematurely (306ff.). The similar circumstances of, and the resulting closeness between, Iphigeneia and the chorus are also reminiscent of Hecuba and Troades. The women enter addressing Artemis and ask Iphigeneia why she invited them (126-42). After they hear of her dream, they alternate with their mistress in a lament for her personal and familial woes. Iphigeneia's part (143-77, 203-35) is substantially longer than that of the chorus (178-202). The parodos is mainly Iphigeneia's song 3 (cf. 868-99) and develops themes touched upon in the prologue. The contribution of the chorus to the lament for the fate of Iphigeneia's family adds little to the thematic web of the play. This lack of elaboration is perhaps due to the fact that the women are not aware of the latest crimes in the family; cf. on 195-97. It is also in keeping with the avoidance of references to the past of the family (see Introduction Ib[3]) and it differentiates the chorus of this play from most of their counterparts, especially those in

3

Willink on Or. 140-207 notes that the dominance of the monodist is a feature of Euripides' later style and Csapo (2000) suggests that the increasing amount of singing in general and singing by actors in particular is a sign of the increasing professionalization of music observed in the late 420s under the influence of the so-called 'New Music'. Scullion (2002) 126 n. 64, though, points out that from Csapo's tables it appears that the difference between Euripides' earlier and later tragedies (before and after mid-420s) is actually quite small, as is the difference between Euripides and Sophocles who was not an adherent of the New Music.

Commentary

83

the other Atreid plays of Euripides. Nostalgia for Greece, a main theme in the next two songs, is first enunciated in the parodos. The women also meticulously avoid blaming Artemis or dwelling on the human sacrifices offered to her and they will also retain this attitude in the next two songs. For the chorus' attitude and choice of themes see also Introduction 111(5). Iphigeneia, too, laments her losses without blaming the goddess. Her affection for Orestes, already implicit in the prologue, becomes much more apparent in the parodos and will inform the play to the end. 123-42. L assigns 123-36 to Iphigeneia and 137-42 to the chorus. 12636 belong to the chorus because the women identify themselves as slaves of the priestess (130-31). It is possible to assign 123-25 to the chorus, although there is no compelling reason to do so. Diggle follows Taplin (1977) 194 n. 3 in assigning the lines to Iphigeneia but all other recent editors give them to the chorus, as did Tyrwhitt. Even if the lines are assigned to the chorus, Iphigeneia has to enter simultaneously with the chorus and not after 136 or 142 because, as Taplin (1977) 282-83 points out, there are hardly any parallels in tragedy for an actor entry during the parodos. The command for avoidance of ill-omened words, or ritual silence, is much more likely to be issued by the priestess, especially since she is about to perform a ritual, than by temple slaves unaware of her plan; see next n. 123-25. For the attribution of these lines to the chorus see previous n. Iphigeneia enters from the temple accompanied by at least one attendant who will assist her with the libations (167-69). If the servants addressed at 638 and dismissed at 725-26 are the attendants who enter with her now (cf. on 1-66), they are male and at least two; see, however, on 468b-71, 638 and 725-26. The command for ritual silence is addressed primarily to the chorus, the attendant(s) and any other person within earshot. There is no indication that the chorus arrive in ritual procession or, if the lines are attributed to them, that they demand avoidance of ill-omened words in their capacity as members of a religious procession. The processions of devotees who sing a cult hymn to Dionysus in Bacchae (64ff.) and of Athenians who escort the goddesses in Aeschylus' Eumenides (1032ff.) have been compared to the entrance of this chorus (Cropp, Hose [1990] 117-19). These processions, though, are very different from the entrance of temple slaves who answer the call of their mistress and will address a respectful greeting to the goddess (126-32). (Diggle [1994] 3 questions the aptitude of the term 'procession' in connection with the

84

Commentary

entrance of the Bacchae chorus.) 123-25, even if uttered by the chorus, definitely do not create "eine feierlich kultische Stimmung" (Hose [1990] 117) and the chorus do not arrive expecting to take part in cultic action (Hose [1990] 118, 119). They do not know, nor do they speculate about, the reason for Iphigeneia's summons. If anything, they expect something unpleasant rather than the opposite; cf. 137. εύφαμεΐτ': calls for avoidance of ill-omened words before a ritual act are quite common; see e.g. I A 1564, Pha. fr. 773.67 (cf. Ba. 70), A. Eum. 1035, 1038, S. fr. 893, Ar. Ach. 231, V. 868, P. 434, Th. 39, 295. ώ/ πόντου δισσάς συγχοορούσας/ πέτρας άξείνου ναίοντες: the first reference to the Clashing Rocks in the play underscores the remoteness of Tauris and sets the tone for the upcoming implicit contrast with Greece and Europe (133-36). The Taurians did not live near the Clashing Rocks but the very general proximity of their homeland to the dreaded landmark defines it, especially for those who arrive from Greece by sea. Cf. 241-42, the messenger's announcement of the arrival of the two young Greeks; cf. also 355, 746, 889-90, 1388-89. According to tradition, the Rocks stopped clashing after Jason and the Argonauts managed to pass through them unharmed. For literature on the various traditions about the Clashing Rocks, which were sometimes confused or conflated with the Πλαγκταί, the 'Wandering Rocks', see P. Kyriakou, Homeric Hapax Legomena in the Argonautica of Apollonias Rhodius (Stuttgart 1995) 21 n. 10 and 11. συγχωρούσας πέτρας: cf. πέτρας τάς συνδρομάδας (422). άξείνου: L's reading is εύξείνου; cf. 395, 1388, An. 1262, Here. 410. It has been emended in all passages, probably correctly. In this play forms of αξε(ι)νος appear at 218, 253, 341; cf. Md. 1264. It is much more likely that the Greek characters would consistently use άξε(ι)νος to designate the Black Sea -even a Taurian character uses it once (253). Gregoire notes (cf. W.S. Allen, "The Name of the Black Sea in Greek" CQ 41 [1947] 86-88) that αξε(ι)νος may have actually originated in an old Iranian word for 'black' (akshaeina). The euphemistic appellation εΰξεινος was later adopted by the Greek colonists in the region and eventually became standard. 126-29. The chorus address the goddess reverently, as people approaching a temple or statues of gods (should) do. See e.g. Hi. 99, 114-17, Ion 401, A. Ag. 518-21; cf. Ph. 631-35 and Bond on Here. 599. Invocations of divinities typically include references to their parentage, the opulence of their temples and/or the loveliness of divine haunts (cf. on 27074). The address to the goddess is brief and without glorification -

Commentary

85

contrast, for instance, the adulatory invocation of Artemis by Hippolyt s (Hi. 58-72; 73-87). ώ παΐ τας Λατοΰς: cf. 385-86, 1112, 1234. Δίκτυνν' ούρεία: Artemis is commonly identified with Diktynna who was worshipped in Kydonia in W. Crete (cf. Hdt. 3.59). The etymology of the name Diktynna does not appear to be connected with Mt. Dikte. Callimachus derives the name of the mountain from Diktynna, the Kydonian name of the nymph Britomartis, a companion of Artemis, who jumped into the sea and fishermen's nets (δίκτυα) to escape the advances of Minos (Η. 3.189-200). Strabo (10.4.12.15-23), however, objects that Callimachus takes liberties with geography (the mountain is in E. Crete). If the name is Greek, the derivation from δίκτυον, 'hunting net', is probable, although a Minoan-Mycenean derivation is also very likely. For Diktynna see R.F. Willets, Cretan Cults and Festivals (London 1962) 179-93, T. Hadzisteliou Price, Kourotrophos (Leiden 1978) 81-89, D. Gondicas, Recherches sur la Crete occidentale de I' epoque geometrique a la conquete romaine (Amsterdam 1988) 286-96 and K. Sporn, Heiligtümer und Kulte Kretas in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit (Heidelberg 2002) 323-25, 383-84. It is remarkable that this address to the goddess and 1113 are the only passing references to Artemis as goddess of the wild in the play; her hunting skills are never celebrated or elaborated upon, perhaps because they could be associated with the capture of victims for the human sacrifices. αύλάν is used for temples also in the parodos of Ion (185-86), for the Olympian dwelling of Zeus where Artemis lives at Hi. 68-69 (cf. S. fr. 951) and for the dwelling of the Hesperides at Here. 395. In his n. on the last passage Bond observes that the use of the word is not an intrusion of bourgeois domesticity but a reminiscence of H. Od. 4.74. The very rare χρυσήρεις occurs again only in Ion (157 and 1154). εύστύλων is hapax. Breitenbach (1934) 227-28 includes 128-134 in his list of lyrical passages featuring compounds with the same first component (here ε ύ - compound adjs.). The reference to the gilded copings, θριγκούς, of the temple serves to single out or, more likely, to suggest to the audience a feature of the stage-building (cf. Willink on Or. 137072 and Introduction IV). It is ironic that the chorus celebrate the impressive temple that so consternated Orestes a moment ago (69-70, 9697) and it is probably not accidental that the women do not mention the blood-stained altar on which the two men also commented (72-75). 130-31. Seidler's suggestion όσίας όσιον πόδα παρθένιον produces an anapaestic dimeter. L's text (πόδα παρθένιον δσιον όσίας) is more difficult to categorize metrically and probably corrupt; see Diggle

86

Commentary

(1994) 315-16. όσιας δσιον: for the meaning of δσιος, 'permitted or enjoined by the gods', see Parker (1983) 330. In tragedy this adjective and its opposite ανόσιος are used in connection with the observation and violation of fundamental moral laws, usually by humans but also by gods (Hrcld. 719; cf. Al. 10); cf. 872, 1194 and Mastronarde on Ph. 493. A person who is δσιος observes the limits imposed by those laws because their transgression incurs pollution or, more generally, offends the gods. At 1045, for instance, Iphigeneia says that touching the statue of the goddess is δσιον only for her, presumably because contact of the statue with non-priests would offend the goddess. A lay person would not become polluted by touching the statue but would suffer the same punishment as a perpetrator of polluting crimes for crossing a sacred line. This is probably the reason why the word and its cognates were used often by devotees of mystery cults (see Dodds on Ba. 370-72) for whom observance of strictures and avoidance of pollution was of paramount importance. Cf. Empedocles DK 31 Β 3. δσιος and ευσεβής overlap significantly, and so do ανόσιος and δυσσεβής/άσεβής (cf. e.g. 1194 and 1202, HI. 1021 and 1029), but ευσεβής designates more specifically a person who renders to the gods what is due to them [Fraenkel on A. Ag. 372], It thus refers to mortals as devotees and worshipers rather than subjects to inviolable laws. In this play δσιος is unsurprisingly used mainly in connection with Artemis and the human sacrifices (343, 465, 1037, 1045, 1161, 1194; cf. 871) and at the end in connection with the symbolic sacrifices at Halae (1461). See also on 945 and for the theme of όσια in the play cf. Wolff (1992) 318-19 and Mirto (1994) 82-83. κληιδούχου indicates the priestess in her capacity as holder of the temple's keys; cf. on 1153. For other references to this capacity see FJW on A. Su. 291. The key appears, presumably as an easily recognizable marker of Iphigeneia's office, in four of the six vase-paintings probably inspired by the play in Trendall & Webster (1971) III.3.27-31; cf. Introduction VI(1). 131 is one of the rare examples of hiatus after a paroemiac followed by a light pause; see Diggle (1981) 96. 132. εύίππου: the adj., used of peoples and countries, is not very common and is perhaps a rather unusual choice for a female chorus. The Taurians too have horses (1422-30), although the audience have not heard that yet. The implicit contrast here is apparently not between the presence of horses in Greece and their absence from Tauris but between the Greek custom of breeding fine horses and its apparent absence among the barbarians.

Commentary

87

133-36. χόρτων τ' εύδένδρων: descriptive gen.; see Diggle (1994) 418. εύδένδρων: a word of high poetry, first occurring in Pindar for Delphi (P. 4.74) and the grove at Olympia (Ο. 8.9). The lushness of Greece and Europe in general (the two names are placed at the beginning and end of the participial clause) is the second element in the praise of Greece after the reference to horses (132). Europe is mentioned because the chorus have been uprooted not only from their country but also from their continent (see below). Iphigeneia will also lament the barrenness of Tauris (218-19) but the contrast of Tauris with lush Greece (cf. on 399-406) reflects the emotions of the women rather than geographical facts. Tauris has woods and is suitable for cattle-raising (261, 324). It is rocky country (cf. Hdt. 4.99) but so is most of Greece and a fair part of Europe. έξαλλάξασ' Εύρώπαν: cf. the Trojan chorus' lament of their fate in Hecuba (479-83): έγώ/ δ' έν ξείναι χθονι δή κέκλη/μαι δούλα, λιποΰσ' Ά σ ί α ν , / Εΰρώπας θεραπναν άλλά/ξασ' "Αιδα θαλάμους. The Asian women exchange the chambers of Hades (where their loved ones are) for dwellings in Europe. They consider enslavement and their removal from Asia a fate similar to death; cf. Tr. 197-207. In favor of Barnes' emendation of Εύρώπαν to Εύρώταν Ε. Hall, "The Geography of Euripides' Iphigeneia Among the Taurians" AJP 108 (1987) 430-33, argues that fifth-century Greeks knew that Tauris is part of Europe. Cf. Diggle (1994) 418. On this emendation, the women are Spartan or at least Laconian. This isolated reference to Sparta or Laconia would make the chorus compatriots of Helen and Menelaus, an association bound to draw some comment in this play. Euripides probably disregarded geographical accuracy for the sake of arousing pathos; cf. Cropp (1997) 25-26. The chorus may not even come from the same city: the references to their woes and wishes do not rule out origin from different cities. πατρώιων οϊκων έδρας: the most personal note in this part of the parodos. The chorus' implicit expression of nostalgia for their home does not in itself suggest negative feelings about their duties at the temple: the women would obviously like to be home but they serve a virginal goddess and her holy priestess at a beautiful and opulent temple. Nevertheless, the audience have heard about the sacrifices in the prologue and they must assume that the women probably share their mistress' aversion to this cultic practice. They may also suspect that the women resent their present circumstances because of their former free status.

88

Commentary

137-38. For the possibility that Iphigeneia enters at this point see on 123-42. With their short questions, which form a tricolon crescendo, the women show their surprise at having been summoned to the temple apparently with some urgency: νέον (on which see on 237) and φροντίδα suggest that they expect bad news, προς ναούς means "in front of the temple" rather than "to the precincts of the temple" because the women live on the precincts, α γ α γ ε ς αγαγες: the first instance in the play of the figure of anadiplosis, which is common in Euripidean lyric and will be used again next (153, 155-56, 232); for the figure see Breitenbach (1934) 214-21 and cf. on 862-64 below. For a repetition in iambic trimeter see 721 and for repetitions in tragedy cf. P.E. Pickering "Verbal Repetition in Prometheus and Greek Tragedy Generally" BICS 44 (2000) 81-101. 139-42. The address to Iphigeneia is quite elaborate and equal in length to the women's reference to their own Greek origins (133-36). ω π α ΐ etc.: the mention of the glorious Trojan expedition headed by Iphigeneia's father is meant by the women as a tribute to her distinguished parentage but it inevitably recalls the Aulis sacrifice, thereby facilitating the transition to the latest misfortune to afflict their mistress, the last in a long series initiated at Aulis. χ ι λ ι ο ν α ύ τ α μυριοτευχοΰς: the first compound adj. is less rare than the second which is hapax. χιλιοναύτης is the same as the commoner χιλιόναυς, 'of a thousand ships'; for this round number cf. on 10-14. Both χ ι λ ι ο ν α ύ τ α and μυριοτευχοΰς may qualify τοΰ.,.έλθόντος (χιλιοναύτης, though, is not used elsewhere of a person); alternatively, they can be emended to χιλιοναύται (Aldina) and μυριοτευχεΐ (Barnes) so as to qualify κώπαι at 140. However, the commander-in-chief is a more plausible recipient of a glorifying characterization, especially since 142 seems to contain no praise of him. For the fame of epic heroes and sagas in tragedy see on 517-20 (cf. also Bond on Here. 38 for the use, often ironical, of κλεινός as a marker of royalty). 142 produces defective sense and metre. A lacuna before it (Hermann) is a possibility. The repetition of κλεινών after κλειναι at 140 is the least serious problem. If Ά τ ρ ε ι δ α ν is sound, in this context it can only refer to Agamemnon and Menelaus and thus the emendations of Dindorf ( Άτρειδαν) and Schöne (, οϊμοι, πατρίων οϊκων: σκήπτρόν are very closely connected but the combination is not a hendiadys. Both probably refer to Orestes, the

96

Commentary

male scion of the line and heir to the throne. Cf. Diggle (1981) 78-79. The description of persons as light = salvation is quite common and goes back to Η. II. 18.102-3. Cf. e.g. He. 841, El. 449, Here. 531, Ion 1439, Danae fr. 316, A. Ch. 131, 809, 961, S. El. 1354 (perhaps also 1224), Ant. 599. In Sophocles' OC (848, 1109) Antigone and Ismene are called σκήπτρα (= props) of their father. The chorus echo the lament of Iphigeneia for the loss of her brother (cf. previous n.) and do not refer only to the lustre and strength of the dynasty, as Cropp suggests. The reference to σκήπτρον introduces a new theme. Despite their sympathy for Iphigeneia the chorus are not as distraught as she is. They are thus able or willing to draw the obvious connection between the death of Orestes and the end of the Argive dynasty (Iphigeneia will pick up this theme at the end of her lament [235]; cf. on 658-724 and 928-31). With the death of Orestes the line is extinct but the royal family has been plagued by murders (and other crimes) for generations. The misfortunes of successive generations of Tantalids are hardly mentioned by Iphigeneia or Orestes in the play; cf. on 198-202. 189-90. 1"τίν' έκ των εύόλβων "Αργεί/ βασιλέων άρχάΙ: very difficult to restore with any degree of confidence. The beginnings of the family's troubles were probably mentioned somewhere in this section. The reference may be found in άρχά but it is just as likely, and perhaps likelier, that 191 and the following sentence, now lost in the lacuna, contained it. The point may have been that, though powerful and initially happy, the kings of Argos came to be afflicted by disasters. The pathos of the reversal of fortune would be enhanced by the family's royal status. As it stands now, the sentence has no verb. Murray's emendation, ην έκ των εύόλβων "Αργεί βασιλέων άρχά, provides acceptable meaning, "once upon a time happy kings ruled at Argos", although έκ is difficult, as Platnauer notes, and so is των. Besides, the statement seems to imply that a period of bliss, or even generations of blissful Tantalid rulers, preceded the onset of the family's troubles. The transition to these troubles is also quite abrupt. Diggle favors Murray's emendation but interprets άρχά as 'beginning' and supplements e.g. after it. (Kovacs places it before άρχά.) The sentence would then mean "the beginning of the present disaster lies with the happy kings of Argos." This is not implausible since family problems did not necessarily affect the status of rulers in Greek eyes (cf. 850-51 and e.g. Or. 34547). Wecklein's οΰκ εστίν έτ' and Köchly's ούκέτι των for τίν' έκ των also provide good meaning but they are palaeographically farther from the text and do not remedy the abruptness of the transition to the

Commentary

97

troubles of the family. Collard (apud Cropp) makes a more radical suggestion, to eliminate τίν' έκ and either "Αργεί or άρχά. The remainder, των εύόλβων "Αργεί βασιλέων, would then continue 188 but this would seem to differentiate the kings of old from Iphigeneia's family. Besides, with the first alternative, ά ρ χ ά is repetitious after σκήπτρον, and the second alternative seems somewhat redundant in connection with a dynasty. The problematic lines perhaps contained originally a phrase in apposition to 188, which would at least eliminate the need for a verb, although they have too many words for an apposition. 191-94. 191 is very likely the beginning of a new period, since δ' is probably continuative and not contrastive. Unfortunately, there is not much else in these lines that one can be even moderately confident about. The possible lacuna before or after 192, postulated by Dindorf and Kvicala respectively, may not be extensive but it has obliterated an important part of the song, the beginning of the flashback to the history of the Tantalids. Murray's suggestion, δινευούσαις ΐίπποισι πταναΐς, restores the text of 192-93 with a reference to the murder of Myrtilus. As several scholars have noted, however, the reference to the fact that the sun changed its celestial course (193-94) makes it highly probable that the chorus are referring to the winged horses of the sun, not those of Pelops. If this is so, δ' at 193 has to be deleted. In a review of the family history, a reference to Pelops, the owner of a famous team of winged horses and the founder of the dynasty in Greece, is to be expected. Nevertheless, the particle at 193 is very thin ground on which to base the assumption of a reference to him as the ancestor responsible for the family woes. Since nowhere in this play does Euripides attribute wrongdoing or cunning to Pelops (see Introduction lb [4] and cf. on 822-26), the beginning of the family troubles cannot be traced back to his treacherous killing of Myrtilus and it was probably attributed to the strife of his sons Atreus and Thyestes. A reconstructed version of the lines and 195 is printed by Sansone (δινευούσαις δ' ϊπποισι/ π τ α ν α ΐ ς ά λ λ ά ξ α ς {δ'} έξ έδρας/ ιερόν δμμ' α ύ γ ά ς / άλιος. άλλοτε etc.) and a very similar one by Kovacs (δινευούσαις ιπποισιν / πταναΐς ά λ λ ά ξ α ς έξ έδρας/ Ιερόν ίείς: the preposition is probably in common to both λαγόνας and πλευράς; for this construction cf. 889 and see KG 1.550, Breitenbach (1934) 212 and G. Kiefner, Die V'ersparung (Wiesbaden 1964) 27-29, 43. Reiske's insertion of Θ' is not absolutely necessary but it makes the syntax easier. (England suggests that Orestes pierces the ribs, the outer part, and injures the flanks, the inner part, λαγόνας being used for what lay beneath the skin as at El. 826. Köchly thinks that Orestes pierces the ribs and injures the flanks as he withdraws his sword.) Flanks and ribs are certainly not the most suitable places to strike a cow for slaughter but Orestes strikes where it is painful and potentially lethal for a human to receive blows (cf. 1370-71; the Erinyes are of course immortal), ίείς: the quantity of the first syllable of the verb is sometimes short, as here and mainly in lyric, but more often long in Attic poetry, as at 294, for a collection of instances see Mastronarde on Ph. 231 (p. 214). δοκών Έρινΰς θεάς άμύνεσθαι τάδε: τάδε is either internal acc. to the infinitive "thinking that he would ward off the Erinyes with these acts" or subject to the infinitive "thinking that these acts would ward off the Erinyes". Unlike their previous forms, the bovine form now supposedly assumed by the Erinyes offers to Orestes an opportunity to counterattack. 300. ώσθ' αίματηρόν πέλαγος έξανθεΐν άλός: Euripides seems not to have used ώς, L's reading here, but only ώστε with consecutive inf.; see Diggle (1981) 8-9. The metaphor "blooming red with blood" is particularly apt to cap the account. It conveys the impression of the profusion of blood appearing to spring and spread from underneath the waves, like a crimson blossom bursting open. It also has connotations of a sinister calamity, like a plague, breaking out in full force; cf. A. P. 821 and the medical use of the verb for the breaking out of ulcers or skin rashes (see e.g. [Hipp.] Morb. Sacr. 5.13). E.R. Borthwick, "The 'Flower of the Argives' and a Neglected Meaning of "Ανθος" JHS 96 (1976) 5-7, has argued that here and in other passages the sea-foam is

126

Commentary

meant. This is too restrictive for the present passage: all the water became blood-red, including of course the foam, πέλαγος...άλός: for examples of other tragic pleonasms see Diggle (1981) 79-80. 301-3. κάν τώιδε: cf. on 281. πας τις: a variation of the more common πας άνήρ (309), "one and all, every single man present", a combination of singling out without identifying individuals in a group and designating all individuals in a group. For a different variation see on 1407. πίπτοντα και πορθούμεν(α) would be a slight hysteron proteron if the second participle retained its primary meaning 'captured, conquered', but here both just mean 'slaughtered'. The second is used of animals, usually in the context of war or raid, and occasionally of people, in the sense 'ruined, killed' ( S. Aj. 1198, OT 1456). The choice of word may suggest a cattle raid by an enemy force here (cf. Rh. 293). έξωπλίζετο: the verb momentarily creates false expectations because it seems to indicate that the cowherds started arming themselves, at least with makeshift weapons. The prefix may suggest completeness, 'every man was arming himself to the full'; cf. Here. 466 with Bond's n. But 303 dispels any such illusions: all the Taurians did was to summon help by blowing on spiral shells, apparently the native alarm system; for κόχλους see Gow on [Theoc.] Id. 9.25 and add A.R. Arg. 3.859 to the passages cited there, συλλέγων: σύλλογος commonly designates an assembly of men (e.g. Hrcld. 335, Or. 730, IA 514, 825, Aeolus fr. 16 but cf. Al. 951) but here the participle may also have connotations of laborious, painstaking "collection" (cf. El. 81, Bel. fr. 286.14, Melan. fr. 507), indicating the cowherds' anxious summoning of help, έγχωρίους: not necessarily other cowherds, and definitely not soldiers, but probably rural folk. The reinforcements carried no arms either and thus they were no better equipped to fight the armed and noble youths: the advantage they conferred was to provide strength in numbers. 306. πολλοί δ' έπληρώθημεν: the statement is a conflation of "our ranks were filled" and "we became numerous". Following the comment on the stalwart physique of the two Greek youths (304-5), the statement points to the cowherds' insecurity or to their perception of the odds stacked against them. The cowherds felt that their numbers were deficient, as if members of the party that would be in a position to fight Orestes and Pylades, i.e. a very large party, were absent. When reinforcements arrived, they felt as if missing colleagues returned to their posts. The point of the messenger is "our ranks were filled so that we became many" with πολλοί used proleptically (England). Cf. Or. 884 (έπει δέ πλήρης έγένετ' Άργείων οχλος) and the use of πλήρωμα for

Commentary

127

a ship's crew, ού μακρώι χρόνωι: L's reading έν μακρώι is not problematic per se but, as Platnauer observes, it has seemed weak or wrong to many people, beginning with Tr2 who corrected it to έν μικρώι. Jebb on S. OC 88 points out that έν + adj. + temporal indication is the normal Attic usage but Euripides uses έν χρόνωι instead of the simple χρόνωι for "after a lapse of time" only at An. 782 (Diggle [1994] 344). For έν with the dat. in temporal sense cf. on 1379-80. 307-10a. Upon arrival of the other locals the end of Orestes' fit is an extra unexpected bonus to the cowherds who rush to take advantage of the development and overwhelm the fallen man and his comrade. It is not clear whether the Taurians realized immediately that the fit was over or the messenger speaks from the point of view of his subsequent knowledge; cf. on 315-17. πίτυλος: see on 1050. στάζων άφρώι γένειον: for the construction cf. Su. 586-87, A. Eum. 41-42, S. Aj. 9-10, Ph. 1. βάλλων άράσσων: the same asyndeton at An. 1154, He. 1175. For other examples of such asyndeta see Bond on Here. 602 who notes that they are not colloquial. Kannicht on HI. 930 observes that the second item explains or specifies the first. 310b-14. Tragic characters who suffer manic seizures or violent fits of disease usually become lethargic afterwards; see on 281-308. Here Orestes does not seem to be asleep or unconscious but he is clearly incapacitated, too weak and/or confused to realize what is happening and of course to react to the Taurian attack. The noble stance of Pylades is given a full account. He tries to be a nurse and a bodyguard at the same time. He has to comfort the sick man and try to defend him from the rocks that rain on them. Cf. the praise of [Luc.] Am. 47 who cites 31112 as proof of Pylades' affection. πέπλων τε προυκάλυπτεν εύπήνους ύφάς: προκαλύπτω also occurs at Md. 1147 and Ph. 1485-86 but with acc. of the thing covered; cf. Η. II. 5.315 and 17.132. For the construction of καλύπτω and its compound verbs see also Diggle (1994) 214. εύπήνους ύφάς: the phrase occurs only in this play (also at 814 [έν εύπήνοις ύφαΐς] and at 1465) and in the quotation of 312 in [Lucian], The adj. occurs once more in Aelian (NA 6.57.9) in a reference to venomous spiders' webs, which may have been inspired by 814-17 because εύμιτος, found only at 817 before Aelian, also resurfaces there (6.57.10). καραδοκών: "a frequent verb in E. (not in A. or S.); often neutral in colour, but vox propria for 'awaiting the outcome of a battle before deciding which side to join' (Hdt. 7. 163, 8. 67)" (Willink on Or. 702-3). Here the meaning is 'to watch out for and dodge'. Pylades gauged the direction from which the

128

Commentary

stones came and covered his friend to prevent injury. He himself was as much exposed to the stones as Orestes and perhaps even more vulnerable because his care for the incapacitated comrade presumably prevented him from protecting himself at all. 315-17. It is dramatically expedient that Orestes come around very quickly after his collapse marking the end of the fit and need no briefing about the incident; contrast e.g. Here. 1111-45, Ba. 1263-1305, S. Aj. 305-16 and cf. on 281-308 above, εμφρων δ' άνάιξας ό ξένος πεσήματος: Orestes' rising could be a sign of recovery, but only his sighs and especially his exhortation to Pylades (321-22) will indicate clearly that he has stopped hallucinating; cf. on 307-10a. εμφρων also occurs elsewhere in connection with the recovery of Orestes {Or. 44, A. Ch. 1026) and Ajax (S. Aj. 306); cf. also Ba. 1270, S. Ph. 818. άνάιξας... πεσήματος: άνάισσω suggests a sudden and vigorous springing up (cf. e.g. HI. 1600, Ph. 1460, Ba. 693). Mastronarde on Ph. 639-41 notes that πέσημα is a specifically tragic word and is "normally a nomen actionis, it serves in Eur. (like other abstracts in - μ α ) also as concrete 'thing fallen', either 'corpse'...or 'statue (fallen from heaven)' in IT 1384." For the use of - μ α nouns in tragedy see e.g. Fraenkel on A. Ag. 1557-58 and A. A. Long, Language and Thought in Sophocles (London 1968) 18-19. Cf. Breitenbach (1934) 178-79. Wecklein suggests that πέσημα refers to the place where Orestes had fallen, England to the state into which the fall had brought him. It refers to both: Orestes literally springs up from where he had fallen and out of the state of insanity, κλύδων, when not used literally for rough waters (756, 1379, 1393, 1397), usually takes inanimate or abstract complements; cf. e.g. Md. 362, Here. 1091, Su. 474, Ion 60, Ph. 859. It is aptly used to suggest the disorderly and raucous nature of the Taurians' assault, the urgency of which is underscored by the repetition of προσκείμενος (319, 325). Bothe deleted 317. Cropp notes that it distorts the syntax and interrupts the sequence of 316 and the first part of 318 but the interruption is not considerable, την παροΰσαν συμφοράν refers to the Taurian attack rather than the imminent sacrifice. Orestes and Pylades know that capture by the locals means sacrifice (cf. 72, 100-2, 109) but Orestes seems to expect that they will die there and then, fighting their enemies honorably (321-22). συμφοράν: the negative sense predominates in most occurrences of the word in this play (also at 549, 599, 606), as generally in Euripides (except Ion 58 and HI. 457), but a more neutral sense is to be detected at 1317 and perhaps at 850. By a quirk of the tradition,

Commentary

129

606 is the only instance with ξ - in the play; for the alternation of ξυνand σ υ ν - forms in the fifth century see Barrett on Hi. 40. 318. πέτροις: L's πέτρους , also at 1376, is probably wrong: the common construction of βάλλω is with acc. of the target and dat. of the medium of attack. 320-22. οΰ δή: the particle is emphatic; see GP 218-19. τό δεινόν παρακέλευσμ': for the nuance conferred by the article see on 1366; for the sigmatized form κέλευσμα instead of the older κέλευμα see on 1405. Orestes' brief exhortation to Pylades has an impressive pedigree that can be traced back to the paraenetic speeches that Homeric heroes deliver to their comrades on the battlefield. Here the martial incompetence of the foes is oddly incommensurate with the loftiness of the command (cf. on 260-339). As if to hammer home the point, before reporting the exhortation the messenger repeats that the Taurians fought with stones (318; cf. 327, 332). Their lack of martial prowess will be candidly admitted again below (324, 330; cf. 304-5). Stones of course can kill and one needs to defend oneself against anybody, however cowardly, who hurls them, but to couch, and especially to conceptualize, this necessity in terms reminiscent of heroic confrontations is far from self-evident and may be ironic. The similarity between the description of Orestes' assault on the cattle/Erinyes and on the Taurians is possibly meant to underscore the dissonant effect: both descriptions begin with an almost identical half-line (296 and 322) and end with the Greeks' falling down exhausted (307, 332-33). 323-24. The drawn swords of the pair send their enemies running for cover, δίπαλτα: there is no reason to assume that Orestes and Pylades brandish their swords with both hands, δίπαλτα just means 'two', 'twin' like δίπτυχοι at 242. φυγήι λεπαίας έξεπίμπλαμεν νάπας: cf. Su. 722, Ph. 1470-71. The adj. occurs only in Euripides (also at Hrcld. 394 and Hi. 1248). 325-27. The geography of the place and their numbers give the Taurians a clear advantage. Their front line can remove themselves from the, in any case limited, range of their enemies' weapons, catch their breath in the craggy thickets near the shore and enter the fray again, relieving comrades pressed by the Greeks. The latter become worn out by the constant shower of rocks and gradually approach the thickets, exposing their backs to attack. 325-26 echo 318-19. προσκείμενοι: cf. on 316 (προσκείμενον). ώσαίατο: an epic/Ionic borrowing; the Attic form is

130

Commentary

ώσαιντο. For other epic endings in tragedy, more common in lyric than in trimeter passages, see Barrett on Hi. 1247-48. νυν: 'just now'; cf. He. 1144. ήρασσεν: Aldina's emendation of L's ήρασσον normalizes the syntax and eliminates a potential ambiguity: τό νυν ΰπεΐκον could be either subject or object of the plural verb, although the context leaves little doubt that it is the subject. A verb in the plural may take a collective noun in the singular as subject; see KG 1.53 328-29. μυρίων...έκ χερών οΰδεί,ς...εύτόχει βαλών is syntactically loose. The numerical superiority of the Taurians is stressed here again for the last time in the speech. According to the usual interpretation of the lines, the messenger assumes that the goddess protected the Greeks from the stones so that they would be unblemished because sacrificial victims had to be in the best physical condition possible (cf. Poll. 1.29). If that had been the messenger's assumption, he would hardly have called the goddess' care for her victims απιστον. Besides, if the Taurians had believed that the goddess desired uninjured victims, they would probably have taken care not to injure the Greeks in the first place. The messenger does not find unbelievable the fact that the goddess' victims managed to escape injury because of her protection but that they managed to resist unhurt for so long despite the attempts of so many eager worshippers, who presumably enjoyed the favor of the goddess, to subdue them. Some members of the audience may have thought that the gods, including Artemis and more likely Apollo, protected the Greeks, as some modern critics (e.g. England, Platnauer, Cropp) have. Chance, however, suggested by ουδείς...ευτυχεί βαλών, may just as plausibly be thought to have aided the Greeks, ευτυχεί: D.J. Mastronarde, "Lautensach's Law and the Augment of Compound Verbs in EY-" Glotta 67 (1989) 101-5, has argued that all augmented forms of compound verbs beginning with ε υ - should be spelt with η υ - (in this play also έπευφήμησαν 1403). 330-33a. ού χειρούμεθα: a strong verb, used for the capture or killing of game {Ph. 1108-9) and metaphorically for the act of defeating or killing enemies visualized as hunted and trapped animals; at 359 Iphigeneia laments that the Greeks at Aulis manhandled (χεφούμενοι) and intended to slaughter her like a calf, έξεκόψαμεν: the choice between this emendation (Bothe) and L's έξεκλέψαμεν is difficult, έξεκόψαμεν is more straightforward and perhaps a little more likely, especially since the disarming of the Greeks did not involve any particular cunning or trick.

Commentary

131

333b-35. The conclusion of the confrontation is very swift: Greek poetry generally favors the build-up of tension with various retardation techniques over an elaborate, monumental finale, ές χέρνιβας: ές is Valckenaer's emendation of L's impossible τε. Härtung's επί is another possibility but it involves split first-foot anapaest, which is rare; see Diggle (1994) 133-34 who points out that in all instances the long syllable is long by nature; cf. Cropp & Fick (1985) 30, 56-59. Fritzsche suggested πρός. The eagerness of the Taurians to sacrifice the victims will be manifested again by Thoas later on (1153-54, 1190; cf. 108081). It is here stressed with the echo of 244b-45, in a kind of ringcomposition, at 334-35. The substitution of σφαγεΐ(α) (Musgrave's emendation of L's unmetrical σφάγι') for κατάργματα implies the imminence of the sacrificial slaughter. For the sacrificial ritual see on 244b-45. For Iphigeneia's role in it cf. on 442-45. 336-39. The conclusion of the speech puts the imminent sacrifice of the captured strangers in a larger perspective that includes Iphigeneia as priestess and as a previously victimized person. Note the address ώ νεανι at 336, which possibly indicates sympathy for Iphigeneia's past troubles and supposed present concerns. For the address cf. on 238, 482-83 and 619. The conclusion of the speech is ironic, although the irony would be lost on first time spectators or readers. It will soon appear that Iphigeneia wished for the arrival of Helen and Menelaus in order to punish them for her sacrifice (354-58; cf. 439-46). ηΰχου: Mekler's emendation of L's εύχου. The imperative, if such it is (see next paragraph), cannot stand without emendation of σοι ξένων to e.g. πολλά σοι (Paley) or σοι θαμά (Stadtmueller) because the qualifications needed to make it meaningful cannot be thought to be implied. L's text is impossible because the messenger cannot possibly urge the priestess to pray for victims of a particular kind immediately after his announcement that such victims have just been captured and are on their way to be sacrificed. Cropp (1997) 27-29 attempts to defend L's text by pointing out that Iphigeneia has not been shown to be eager to sacrifice Greeks and will state shortly that she will from now on, after the supposed death of her brother, show no compassion to her victims (344-50). The point about Iphigeneia's presentation in the play so far is correct and Cropp also plausibly rejects Sansone's view that Iphigeneia desired to kill Greeks in order to compensate for Aulis (cf. on 258-59). (For Iphigeneia's supposed bloodthirstiness, an unwarranted assumption, see also Belfiore [2000] 24-26.) But this does not make L's reading satisfactory of 336 and Mekler's emendation unnecessary.

132

Commentary

First, εΰχου may not even be an imperative but the unaugmented form of the imperfect. Diggle cites in the apparatus three other passages (21, 269, 1398) where L has unaugmented aorist forms of the simple verb and a compound. It is plausible that the imperfect would be treated similarly by scribes (cf. e.g. Or. 355) and thus εΰχου should be recognized as imperfect and emended along with the other unaugmented forms. Second, the adoption of the emendation does not necessarily involve attribution of vindictive bloodthirstiness to Iphigeneia. Thus it does not necessarily contradict the evidence of previous and subsequent passages according to which Iphigeneia hates her office and wishes to take revenge for Aulis by sacrificing only Helen and Menelaus (and presumably Calchas and Odysseus) but feels pity for all other Greek victims. The messenger says that Iphigeneia used to pray for victims such as the pair just captured. He does not state why, and it should not be assumed on the basis of his next statement about Aulis that he presents Iphigeneia's vindictiveness as a fact. It is plausible that the messenger merely projects the Taurian community's wishes on Iphigeneia, thinking that she, as a dedicated priestess, certainly prayed for the opportunity to offer suitable and abundant sacrifices to the goddess, as every pious Taurian presumably did. (Thus the question about the source of his knowledge of Iphigeneia's past prayers, not particularly problematic anyway, becomes irrelevant.) The messenger then comes up with the idea that the extermination of victims such as the recently captured pair holds an extra reward for Iphigeneia because it offers her the opportunity to take appropriate revenge for the Aulis sacrifice. The messenger's second statement does not contain any indication that the arrival of the strangers is the goddess' answer to Iphigeneia's prayers for that revenge. The Taurians take for granted that Iphigeneia hates all Greeks and should be eager to sacrifice all Greek victims that appear (cf. 1186, 1418-19). Third, even if the messenger assumes that Iphigeneia prayed for victims such as the recently captured strangers exclusively or in part in order to retaliate for Aulis, the statement cannot be dismissed on the grounds that it contradicts other passages. It is important that the statement is put in the mouth of a Taurian cowherd, whose perspective can hardly be broad or unbiased, and not, for instance, in the mouth of the chorus who are much more likely to have knowledge of Iphigeneia's wishes. The audience of course cannot be certain about Iphigeneia's attitude. The messenger's remark may have made at least part of the audience wonder whether she may have actually, at some point, harbored vengeful feelings. άναλίσκηις: the verb indicates total annihilation of the victim rather than merely the act of putting the victim to death; cf. An. 455-57,

Commentary

133

El. 681, Rh. 58; cf. also An. 1154 (for multiple wounds completely disfiguring Neoptolemus' body), Hi. 506 (a unique metaphor with sinister connotations, for Phaedra's giving way to suggestions which would lead to her destruction). Here the verb may imply both the annihilation of the victims in the ritual fire and Iphigeneia's supposed vindictive rage with which she, as a person, would perform her priestly duties, i.e. would oversee the completion of the sacrifices. The present should be kept and not emended into the aorist, as Mekler suggests, because the messenger thinks that retaliation for Aulis demands as many victims as appear, not just the present pair, no matter how noble these are. In his view the sacrifice of young and noble men is the appropriate penalty to be paid by the Greeks for their cruelty to the young Iphigeneia. άποτείσει...τίνουσα: for the use of the same verb or a simple verb and a compound in close proximity see the examples collected by Diggle (1981) 66-67. In this play Aulis is never far from anyone's thoughts, not even the Taurian cowherd's. Iphigeneia will exploit the Taurian conviction about her hatred of all Greeks and desire for revenge in her deception of Thoas (1187, 1204a). 340-41. This standard two-line choral comment in a play that has relatively few of them indicates the subtlety of the portrayal of the chorus (cf.on 576-77), highlighting the attitude and concerns of the women. They ignore the capture of the strangers, the imminent sacrifice, the role of Artemis and Iphigeneia in it and focus on the account of the stranger's fit of madness. They naturally want to know who their afflicted countryman is and how he arrived at Tauris (in the first stasimon they will speculate about the reasons of the captives' voyage). Their silence about the sacrifice implies that they disapprove of it but do not of course dare say so openly. θαυμάστ' ελεξας τον μανένθ': not "you have marvelously praised the man that suffered the fit" but "you have told a marvelous story about the man that suffered the fit" because, although the cowherd spoke appreciatively of Orestes' courage, his comments would hardly qualify as exceptional praise and he definitely also praised Pylades. What was extraordinary and most likely to be perceived as marvelous by the chorus was Orestes' fit of madness as recounted by the messenger. μανένθ' (Kaehler, Lakon) is a palmary correction since it is very close to L's φανένθ', which is unacceptable for the simple reason that two men and not only one have appeared. Orestes is not otherwise singled out or distinguished from Pylades except in the account of his manic seizure. Cropp and Kovacs retain L's reading and Cropp (1997) 29-30 unsuccessfully attempts to defend it on the grounds that the verb

134

Commentary

is used in contexts of divine epiphanies or divinely motivated appearances and that the chorus unconsciously point to Orestes' actual role as savior of themselves and Iphigeneia. But the participle can hardly be thought to carry such allusive weight here. Besides, the comment does have to make sense in its immediate context also and not only to point cryptically to future developments that not even the audience yet know anything about. If Orestes' appearance is singled out, then the marvelous element in it is his fit of madness and so, even without the emendation, the chorus refer to the account of Orestes' fit. δστις ποτέ: this and similar phrases will recur until the recognition, underlining its tantalizing proximity and elusiveness, in contexts ranging from indifference (350, 483) to curiosity (540) to pity (479, 628); cf. on 483. Έλληνος έκ γης: for the masculine adj. "Ελλην with a feminine noun cf. 495 and see Wilkins on Hrcld. 130-31. For the terminal acc. πόντον cf. on 26. 342-43. Without any comment on the report, Iphigeneia dispatches the messenger to bring the strangers to the temple. A mute wearing his mask and costume may reappear as part of the captives' escort at 456ff., but he will certainly not be missed by the audience if he does not. Usually messengers simply leave after completing their report, but here as well as at Ba. 1148-49 and IA 440 the messenger leaves for a reason or is explicitly dispatched by the person he reports to. For other exceptions to the common pattern of messenger departures see Taplin (1977) 89-90. εΐέν: for internal aspiration see Schwyzer 1.219. The interjection is colloquial, although Bond on Here. 451 notes that it may indicate a certain dignity when followed by a question. It often initiates speeches and indicates business-like concentration on a (new) task at hand, eagerness to proceed to action without (further) delays, with "a backward glance at what has been established" (Stevens [1976] 34); cf. Mastronarde on Ph. 1615. This glance may be consenting, dismissing or non-committal, as at 467 (extra-metrical interjection). Here, as Bruhn plausibly suggests, Iphigeneia rejects the cowherd's intrusion in her personal affairs, τά δ' ένθάδ' ήμεΐς δσια φροντιούμεθα: όσια is Reiske's emendation of L's meaningless οία. δσια is likely proleptic, "we will take care of things here so that they be ritually correct". Iphigeneia means to send the messenger away with as innocuous a response as possible. The audience may plausibly assume that she will also exit shortly after some brief comments on the messenger's report or the imminent sacrifice. Iphigeneia, however, will proceed to deliver one of her longest and

Commentary

135

most emotional speeches in the play (cf. next n.)· For Iphigeneia's statements in the presence of Taurians cf. on 467-68a. 344-91. Iphigeneia's speech. This is the second extensive speech of Iphigeneia after the prologue rhesis (1-66) and one of the longest Euripidean tailpieces; for such tailpieces see Taplin (1977) 110. The speech includes reminiscences of Aulis (cf. on 203-35) and provides the clearest insight into Iphigeneia's view of the gods and especially Artemis. Both topics were touched upon in the prologue rhesis to which this speech is similar in several respects. It is a virtual monologue despite the presence of the chorus and it is also structured in three parts: new attitude toward the victims caused by Orestes' death (344-53), memories of Aulis and short lament of Orestes' death (354-79), the attitude of Artemis to the human sacrifices (380-91). The occasion for the delivery of the speech (upon reception of important news, the capture of the strangers, and before a ritual act occasioned by it, the sacrifice) is also reminiscent of the prologue speech, which was motivated by the dream and preceded the funeral libations. These similarities notwithstanding, the extent and pathos of the memories of Aulis (cf. on 361-79) far outweigh the references to the sacrifice in the prologue. Equally important, Iphigeneia's attitude toward both humans and gods seems to have shifted considerably. In view of the aversion to her role in the human sacrifices expressed in the parodos (224-28), the assertion that Orestes' death has caused her to lose her compassion toward the victims (344-50) is unexpected, although at 229-31 she indicated that her grief for her brother's loss exceeded her anguish over the sacrifices. The audience would probably imagine that lack of compassion for the victims would block or complicate the recognition, a double false lead because there will be no lack of compassion and it will be Orestes who will delay the recognition. On the other hand, the performance of the sacrifices is not affected by Iphigeneia's compassion or lack thereof. Whether willingly or unwillingly, the priestess has to sacrifice the victims very soon after their capture (cf. 244-45, 1080-81, 1153-54). The assertion about her changed emotions does not imply that she will from now on enjoy sacrificing Greeks in order to retaliate for Aulis, as Sansone (1978) suggests. The imminent sacrifice of the captured pair will not satisfy her desire for revenge (only the sacrifice of Helen and Menelaus would achieve that) and will bring her no joy; it will only fail to arouse the emotional anguish that previous sacrifices did. On the declaration of lack of compassion toward the victims cf. on 472-75a.

136

Commentary

More surprising and unexpected, given Iphigeneia's god-fearing reticence in the prologue (36-37), is her questioning of Artemis' morality in the last part of the speech (380-84) and her theodicy at the end (385-91). This part of the speech is connected to the first, Iphigeneia's reference to the imminent sacrifice: after her reminiscences of Aulis in the second part, Iphigeneia returns to the matter at hand and reflects on the agent(s) responsible for the human sacrifice. The last part of the speech is also connected to the second, the Aulis flashback, but not in the way usually suggested, namely that Iphigeneia turns from her accusations of her father, the human perpetrator of the Aulis crime, to accusations of the goddess responsible for it and for the Taurian sacrifices. In the prologue Iphigeneia did not accuse the goddess of demanding her sacrifice but stated, and will state again later in the play (783-84, 108283), that the goddess saved her from the sacrificial knife (28-29). She presumably views her salvation as proof of divine benevolence toward the innocent victim and displeasure at the sacrifice. In Iphigeneia's opinion, the Aulis affair was entirely the product of base human motives. In this speech she turns from her Aulis reminiscences to the imminent sacrifice, i.e. from the recollection of past woes and crimes to the present unpleasant situation. (As mentioned above, the imminent sacrifice is unpleasant to Iphigeneia, her assertion of equanimity notwithstanding, because justice is violated when innocent people are killed; cf. on 354-58.) At first, Iphigeneia thinks that Artemis is responsible for the Taurian sacrifices and expresses her disapproval of the goddess' hypocrisy: Artemis prohibits polluted mortals from approaching her altar while she takes pleasure in highly polluting human sacrifices. Iphigeneia then quickly dismisses the tarnishing of her savior, which would lead to questioning of the goddess' role in the Aulis sacrifice, by assuming that the Taurians are responsible for the sacrifices. Humans invent strange stories about the gods and project their base instincts on them; cf. on 380-91. For Iphigeneia, the perpetrators of the Aulis sacrifice seem to belong to this category but her conclusion cannot be thought to represent the view of the play as a whole and much less the view of an enlightened Euripides; cf. Introduction Ic(l)-(2). 344-50. For previous sacrifices of Greek victims see on 258-59. ώ καρδία τ ά λ α ι ν α : the address to one's own heart, or other seats of emotion and/or thought, has its origins in older poetry and is usually paraenetic: the speakers urge their heart etc. to show (its customary) endurance or devotion to the task at hand. See H. Od. 20.13-24, Arch. fr. 128, Thgn. 695-96, 877-84, 1029-1033. Cf. Al. 837, Md. 1242, Bel. fr. 308, Cresph. fr. 448a.54, fr. 924, S. Tr. 1260. For other addresses to one's

Commentary

137

heart or soul cf. 837, 881, Ion 859, Or. 466, Ibyc. 317(b); cf. also Olson on Ar. Ach. 450-52. Here it underscores the terrible transformation brought about by Iphigeneia's latest misfortune, the death of Orestes: her long-suffering heart finishes by becoming different itself, abandoning its former compassion; for the ambiguity of τάλαινα see on 26. πριν μέν.,.νΰν δ': Cropp, Η. Jacobson, "Homeric Iphigeneia" CQ 50 (2000) 296-97, and Sansone (2000) 161 n. 24 claim that this echoes Achilles' rejection of Lycaon's plea for mercy (Η. II. 21.99-113). Achilles informs the supplicating youth that before Patroclus' death he used to take and ransom prisoners but now, after his friend's death, he will spare no one. The linguistic link between the two passages is quite weak and the similarity only superficial (cf. Lloyd [2002] 152) because Iphigeneia does not have the option to spare captives freely. ές θοΰμόφυλον άναμετρουμένη δάκρυ: an unusual metaphor for shedding tears, probably a conflation of "offering my tears to my countrymen" and "considering the bond of common ancestry", a combination of a purely emotional reaction and a more rational consideration of the duties of a fellow Greek. Cf. 630-35, Iphigeneia's promise to prepare a decent funeral for the fellow Argive. For the verb cf. El. 52, Ion 250, 1271, Temenid. fr. 739.4. ήγριώμεθα: the verb occurs also at Or. 226 and 387 for the physical appearance of the suffering Orestes and at 616 for the attitude of Electra toward her adulterous and murderous mother. Willink on Or. 226 also cites S. Ph. 226 and 1321 and correctly observes that the verb implies assimilation with savages. This may also, in a poignant way, be the case here: Iphigeneia may imply that she experiences a lack of compassion toward the victims similar to that of savages such as the Taurians. [349]: deleted by Nauck, the line is a rather lame and certainly unnecessary, although not certainly interpolated, explanation of 348. δύσνουν με λήψεσθ': Mastronarde on Ph. 754 lists examples of the verb with predicate adj.; the verb may hark back to 347, underscoring the reversal in Iphigeneia's attitude, οιτινές ποθ': cf. on 340-41. [351-53], Parts of lines 350-56 are preserved on a papyrus (P. Colon. 303) dated to the third or fourth century AD; see Luppe (1991). Like 349, 351-53 do not necessarily qualify for excision but they have several problems. 351 (και τοΰτ' αρ' ήν άληθές, ήχθόμην, φίλαι), with Seager's ήισθόμην for L's ήχθόμην, is the least problematic. Iphigeneia addresses the chorus in a virtual monologue but in the extant tragic plays only prologue speeches and the monologue of Ajax (S. Aj. 81565) are real monologues, delivered in the absence of other (speaking)

138

Commentary

characters. For the possible presence of attendants in prologues cf. on 1-66.

352-53 are much more difficult. L's text, ot δυστυχείς γαρ τοΐσιν εύτυχεστέροις/ αυτοί κακώς πράξαντες οΰ φρονοΰσιν εΰ, is not meaningless but αυτοί κακώς πράξαντες, which is preserved in the papyrus, is suspiciously inane. Reiske's καύτοΐς (αύτοις Kirchoff) κακώς πράξασιν would be an improvement if the Greek could be taken to mean "when the (previously) fortunate have now encountered misfortune" but it cannot. Besides, the gnome can hardly describe the situation of Orestes, Pylades and Iphigeneia. Can the captives be considered more fortunate than Iphigeneia, especially following the messenger's report of Orestes' fit of madness and Iphigeneia's ignorance of the men's previous circumstances? Similarly, Wecklein's τοΐσι δυστυχεστέροις arbitrarily limits the target of the unfortunate people's hostility: the gnome would imply that unfortunate people feel compassion toward those as unfortunate as themselves but not toward those more unfortunate. Iphigeneia, though, seems to indicate that the death of her brother has made her insensitive to the plight of all others. More radical emendations are needed if the lines are to be kept but excision is the simplest, most straightforward solution. 354-58. Iphigeneia complains bitterly that the criminal Helen and Menelaus have not been sent to Tauris by Zeus and escape the punishment they deserve for the Aulis sacrifice. She thus implies that, despite her lack of compassion for the newly captured strangers, the men do not deserve to die because they have not committed any crime for which they should be punished. This may be construed as a slight shift in her attitude: the innocent and undeserving of death do deserve some pity, even if she herself is not emotionally able to offer it. The shift may be thought to prepare for her compassionate reception of the captives in the next episode (472ff.). For Iphigeneia's complaint cf. S. Ph. 416-20, 428-30, 436-37, 44652, 1019-24. The target of her rage is primarily Helen. For the prejudice against Helen cf. on 8-9 and 525-26. Agamemnon is not mentioned, although he will figure prominently in the next lines (360-71). His daughter does not wish for his death (this will become more obvious at 549; cf. 992-93) but transfers the blame for the sacrifice to others. οΰτε...ού: for the combination, used almost exclusively in serious poetry, see GP 510-11. Διόθεν: perhaps an implicit protest against the behavior of the highest divine authority who fails to uphold the principles of justice he is supposed to protect. Μενέλεων: Barnes' metrically necessary substitution of the Attic form of the name for L's Μενέλαον.

Commentary

139

The name is trisyllabic here as at HI. 131, Or. 18 and Ar. Th. 901; for the forms of the name, chosen on the basis of metrical considerations, see Kannicht on HI. 131 and 564. την ένθάδ' Αΰλιν άντιθεΐσα της έκεΐ: for the use of an adverb in place of an adjective cf. e.g. 361, 524, 713, 1182, 1410, Md. 1045, HI. 63, 150. 359-60. After the main culprits, Helen and Menelaus, the whole Greek army takes the brunt of Iphigeneia's criticism. All were accomplices in the hideous sacrifice because they all agreed to, and performed, it without compunction, as in IA and Aeschylus' Agamemnon, ώστε μόσχον: a girl is sometimes likened to, or called, a heifer; see e.g. He. 205-6, 526, HI. 1476; cf. An. 711 and E. Kurtz, Die bildliche Ausdrucksweise in den Tragödien des Euripides (Amsterdam 1985) 229. In the context of Iphigeneia's sacrifice the victim is likened to a heifer (IA 1081-86) and a goat (A. Ag. 232), an animal sacrificed to Artemis Άγροτέρα before battle; see Fraenkel ad loc. and Burkert (1985) 60. Euripides chooses the more stately (and expensive) animal; cf. on 1115-16. Δανα'ί'δαι: Mastronarde on Ph. 430 notes that this form and Δαναοί are used in the Trojan war plays for the assembled Greeks; for 'Αχαιοί see on 13. χειρούμενοι: for the verb see on 330. In cinematic fashion the speaker's vision sweeps accusingly over the multitude and then picks out one prominent individual, the priest in charge of the sacrifice, who was her own father. The long period that began at 354 reaches a climax here and ends. 361-79. The mention of her father causes the young woman to moan and brings back a flood of painful memories. Her emotional account of the Aulis sacrifice does not provide details on the proceedings but focuses entirely on the person of the victim, her pleas to her father, the horror of the deception and the enormity of the crime. It is not accidental that Iphigeneia does not report her entreaties to her father to spare her life but lingers on the deception and the distortion of what would normally have been a girl's dream come true. The pathos is enhanced by her regret for the unceremonious separation from her young siblings. The choice of focus on significant "moments" and circumstantial details of the story is reminiscent of lyric narrative. For a good discussion of the unfolding of Iphigeneia's reminiscences see Burnett (1991) 295300. 361-64a. έξηκόντισα: for the javelin metaphor see Su. 456 and cf. Willink on Or. 1241. 363 is deleted by West but its syntax is not particularly difficult and it increases the pathos of the supplication. Iphige-

140

Commentary

neia not only touched but also clung to her father's knees (cf. Hi. 32526). The gravity of the situation and the urgency of the appeal certainly justify some emphasis on Iphigeneia's supplication of her father. Most suppliants in Euripidean plays supplicate by at least two body parts (e.g. right hand and knees, right hand and beard, or knees and face/beard) and/or by family members of the person supplicated; see e.g. 1068-70, Hi. 325-26, 605-7, He. 273-75, 752-53, IA 909-11, 121617, 1226-27, 1233-35; cf. Md. 324 and 339, An. 572-75. Cropp follows West and points out that 363 blurs the image of Iphigeneia trying in vain to supplicate her father physically. Even without the line, there is no indication that the girl did not manage to touch her father. If physical contact took place and was ignored, Agamemnon's refusal to yield to it is shown to be not only unfatherly but also sacrilegious: Cairns (1993) 277-78 points out that rejection of verbal supplication was comparatively easier for the supplicated but rejection of physical supplication required an actual turning away or shunning of the supplicated and was more likely to cause divine displeasure. For the religious pressure on the supplicated cf. e.g. A. Su. 347, 478-79, He. 342-45; see also Barrett on Hi. 333-35 and on 949-54 below. έξαρτωμένη: Euripides uses the verb almost exclusively for suppliants or other helpless persons (Al. 189, Hi. 325, Su. 735, IA 1226, Phoenix fr. 816.2). του τεκόντος: not redundant after 360 because Iphigeneia may have supplicated other people beside her father, Menelaus, for instance, and other leaders of the army, especially if the supplication echoes Aeschylus' Agamemnon (228-47), as is often suggested. λέγουσα τοιάδ': this common formula that introduces or sums up reported speech is used several times in Euripides (cf. A. Ag. 156, S. El. 288). It is a realistic detail inserted in this emotional account because the speaker reports her own speech but does not claim that she reproduces it verbatim. 364b-68. The ringing triple repetition of σέθεν underscores the father's responsibility. The ignominy of his crime and the girl's inability to escape his murderous designs are also stressed by the ring-composition and the choice of νυμφεύματ' αισχρά and αίματηρόν γάμον (371) which frame the speech. Cf. also the order of words in 365-66 (προς σέθεν- μήτηρ δ' έμέ/ σέθεν κατακτείνοντος) which juxtaposes mother and daughter to father; σέθεν κατακτείνοντος has been pushed before Άργεΐαί τε νυν in order to stress the pathos of the family drama: the father is murdering the daughter while the mother is celebrating the girl's wedding, αύλειται δέ παν/ μέλαθρον: for the passive construction see the parallels cited by Kambitsis on Ant. fr. 48.54

Commentary

141

(223.83). For wedding celebrations with songs and music see Oakley & Sinos(1993) 23-30. 369-71. The bridegroom turned out to be Death under the name of Achilles, the son of Peleus. Άχιλλεύς: Haslam suggested έκεΐνος but the emendation offers no clear advantage, ην αρ': the impf, with αρα is idiomatic for the sudden realization of a fact that has been true all along; cf. 569, Hrcld. 65, 1240, Hi. 359, An. 418, Tr. 109, 412, 1161, HI. 616, Or. 721, 1667 and see GP 36-37 and Stevens (1976) 62-63. προτείνας: Badham's suggestion, corroborated by HI. 28, for L's impossible προσεΐπας. Another good suggestion is Bothe's προσείσας, which provides a more vivid metaphor, οχοις: Bothe inserted μ' before δχοις but the object of έπόρθμευσας, the speaker and not Achilles, is easily understood, έπόρθμευσας: for the verb in this play see on 266. Cf. Tr. 568-76. The choice of word in the context may imply that Agamemnon functions here as the ferryman of the dead (νεκύων πορθμεύς, Al. 253), Charon, and the trip to Aulis as the passage to Hades, δόλωι is reserved for the very end of the speech to emphasize the treachery of the unworthy father. 372-77. The appeal ends at 371 without summation formula or other indication of closure. This section could be part of the appeal. In that case the reference to Orestes' death (374) would be parenthetical; cf. e.g. the parenthesis within Calchas' reported speech at 23. There is, however, an unmistakable shift in tone from 371 to 372: the expression of regret for the unceremonious separation from the younger siblings, pathetic though it may be, has little place in an appeal to a murderous father. After the Aulis reminiscences the focus shifts to Orestes in preparation for his appearance in the next episode. The last section of Iphigeneia's speech (380-91) will also indirectly focus on him qua victim of the impending sacrifice. 372-75a. λεπτών δμμα δια καλυμμάτων/ εχουσ': this is probably to be imagined as the bridal veil, which the bridegroom would lift in the άνακαλυπτήρια ceremony; see Oakley & Sinos (1993) 25. It will appear later, however, that Iphigeneia would take her prenuptial bath at Aulis (818-19) and so she could not have been dressed for the wedding when she left Argos. This is a very small inconsistency and unlikely to have troubled playwright or audience. England and Platnauer note that the adj. λεπτών denotes the fineness of the material and not the thinness of the veil because bridal veils were supposed to hide the bride's

142

Commentary

face. There is little doubt that the veil was of fine material but I know of no other instance where the adjective is used of luxurious but opaque garments (cf. Gow on Theoc. Id. 15.79). The function of the veil was apparently not to conceal the face completely but to render its features indistinct, signifying modesty and exciting the desire to see the face clearly. A fine veil can blur the contours of the face, especially if it falls loosely and forms pleats, which further shadow the face; cf. 1150-52. οΰτ' άνειλόμην: Tyrhwitt's emendation of the meaningless τούτον είλόμην. For the rare οΰτε...οΰ cf. on 354-55. ΰπ' αίδοΰς: Iphigeneia was embarrassed to acknowledge openly the reason for her departure, marriage to Achilles. For virginal reluctance to mention matters of a sexual nature see e.g. H. Od. 6. 66-67, Eur. El. 945-46, Or. 27-28, A.R. Arg. 3.681-87; cf. on 927 below. For the concept of αιδώς see also on 949-54. 377. αΰ πάλιν: this pleonastic collocation and αΰθις πάλιν are quite common; see e.g. Al. 188, Hrcld. 487, 708, Su. 1081, Here. 1101, HI. 262, 932 (πάλιν..,αΰθις αΰ), ΙΑ 108, 843 and S. Aj. 305, Tr. 342, 1088, Ph. 127, 342, 952 (αΰθις αΰ πάλιν), 1232, OC 364, 1418 (αΰθις αΰ πάλιν), fr. 487; cf. also Ar. Ν. 975. Here either αΰ or πάλιν would be enough to convey the idea of return, but the two adverbs are not tautological. πάλιν conveys the idea of return, a literal reverse of course, and αΰ the idea of repetition. Cf. on 779. The congregation of adverbs in this line underscores the certainty of the deceived girl. 378-79. The reference to Argos (377) reminds Iphigeneia of her brother's death and his loss of an enviable heritage; cf. the similar progress of her lament before the arrival of the messenger, from tender recollections of the baby brother to his missed future of regal power at Argos (230-35). The condition εί τέθνηκας, so soon after ος νυν ολωλεν (374), does not imply serious doubts about Orestes' fate but shows a slight shift from an emotional to a reflective state, a change which smoothes the transition to the last part of the speech. 380-91. For the connection of this part of the speech to the previous two see on 344-91. In several Euripidean plays characters tackle the issue of divine morality. They dispute the truth of stories involving divine immorality (e.g. Here. 1341-46, Tr. 971-90), accuse the gods of objectionable behavior (e.g. 711-15, Hrcld. 718-19, An. 1161-65, El. 971-72, 1245-46, 1296-97, 1302, Here. 339-47, Ion 384-89, 436-51, 878-922, Or. 285-87, 417, Bel. fr. 286; cf. Md. 516-19, Hi. 616-24, Su. 734-36), appear resigned to divine caprices and even urge the gods in

Commentary

143

prayers to behave in certain ways (e.g. Cy. 353-55, 599-607, Hi. 11720, HI. 1102-4, 1441-50, Ph. 86-87, Ba. 1348, Ant. fr. 223.11-14). See on 77-79a above and cf. Bond on Here. 339-47 and Mastronarde on Md. 516-19. Disbelief in, or outright rejection of, stories or actions that bespeak divine immorality or at least amorality is not justified in any play and IT is no exception to the rule. For the rationale of Iphigeneia's vindication of the goddess' morality see on 344-91. Iphigeneia is too quick to reach certainty based on equivocal evidence; Orestes will share the same attitude and delay the recognition. The audience may have found Iphigeneia's claim about the Taurians' murderous instincts plausible because of their possible cultural biases but the play does not endorse the claim and it is questionable whether Euripides meant it to appear plausible to the audience. In this speech Iphigeneia does not differentiate between Greeks and Taurians, although elsewhere in the play the difference in their ritual practices is clearly stated or implied (399-406, 463-66, 1086-1116, 123032), or between a Greek and a Taurian Artemis, as e.g. Hall (1989) 184 and Wolff (1992) 309-11 suggest. To Iphigeneia her sacrificers at Aulis, the fabricators of tales about immoral gods, and the Taurian devotees of Artemis are equally wicked whereas the gods are innocent of any crime humans commit and ascribe to them. After the emotional outburst of the reminiscences of Aulis with its looser style, the speech shifts back to longer, more complex and stately periods, which suit better the reflective content of this part. 380-84. Birth and especially death were considered major sources of pollution, especially in temples; see e.g. Parker (1983) 33 and 39 and Burkert (1985) 78-79. For obvious reasons, Iphigeneia focuses mainly on death; cf. 1213-16, 1230-31 and on 972-75. σοφίσματα: the noun implies not only cunning but also deception; cf. Mastronarde on Ph. 65, 871 and on 1031 below, ήν τις αψηται φόνου: "if one commits murder", "participates in murder" or more generally "comes in contact with the blood of a murdered person". Handling of corpses is also mentioned explicitly in the next line (382): there is no reason to delete it, as Badham does, because more than one source of pollution is likely to be mentioned by Iphigeneia and the line does not overlap with 381. μυσαρόν ώς ηγουμένη: possibly pleonastic, instead of μυσαρόν ηγουμένη or ώς μυσαρόν, but it may well be another jibe directed at the goddess: her ruse is to pretend that she cannot accept polluted people near her altars, putting on a holier-than-thou face, while in reality she does not care about purity because she herself rejoices in acts that pollute to a similar or greater degree, ήδεται: the choice of verb stresses

144

Commentary

the intense pleasure of the goddess in the human sacrifices; cf. 35 and 388. χαίρω is much more common in contexts of a god's positive reaction to acts of devotion such as performance of rituals, offering of sacrifices and singing of hymns; see IA 1525, Ar. Ν. 274, Th. 314, 977-81, Αν. 1743, Theoc. Id. 18.58. βροτοκτόνοις (cf. A. Eum. 421) clinches the verdict by underscoring the speaker's horror at the abominations favored by the goddess; cf. the characterization of the Taurians as άνθρωποκτόνους at 389. βροτοκτόνος appears again much later, mainly in Byzantine authors. 385-91. ή Διός δάμαρ: unsurprisingly used elsewhere to designate Hera (Md. 1285, Hrcld. 349, Here. 857, 1303), the phrase extols Artemis' genealogical credentials by suppressing the fact that her mother Leto was not Zeus' wife, άμαθίαν: the word denotes primarily intellectual but also moral deficiency, as is common in Greek. See Bond on Here. ?>A1, 1254 and cf. Mastronarde on Ph. 393-94 and Yunis (1987) 144. The agent in question is obtuse because of, or in addition to, his/her depravity. Cf. esp. Tr. 972 and 981. Iphigeneia indicates that Artemis would be obtuse if she failed to grasp and eliminate the flagrant contradiction between the purity strictures she places on her worshippers and her own acceptance of human sacrifices. Since the contradiction clearly involves also moral outrage, the killing of innocent humans, the goddess' failure to eliminate it is (also) a result of, or involves (also), moral callousness. έγώ: the prominent position of the pronoun is meant to demarcate as emphatically as possible the speaker's position from that of the people whose opinions and practices she despises but it also implies how confident she feels of her view, τά Ταντάλου θεοΐσιν έστιάματα/ απιστα κρίνω, παιδός ήσθήναι βοραι: for the verbal force of έστιάματα, which allows construction with dat., see Diggle (1994) 106 n. 48. It is unclear whether Iphigeneia disbelieves that Tantalus served Pelops to the gods or that the gods partook of the human fare Tantalus served to them or that they enjoyed it. The similarity between the behavior of the Taurians (389-91) and Tantalus is quite close if Iphigeneia asserts that Tantalus hosted the abominable banquet because he was wicked and thought or claimed that the gods enjoyed an offering of human flesh. If so, she probably denies that the gods partook of the meal, not that they ate but did not enjoy it. If the gods tasted the flesh of Pelops but did not enjoy it, this version of the story would be largely identical with the traditional one which Iphigeneia proclaims as false. Besides, tasting human flesh even without realizing or enjoying it is a

Commentary

145

serious outrage. Such behavior would call into question divine intelligence and integrity, the very attributes Iphigeneia seeks to defend. The primary point of Iphigeneia's theodicy has to be the denial that the gods partook of Pelops' flesh, whether Tantalus hosted the terrible banquet or not. The specification παιδός ήσθήναι βοραι may indicate that Tantalus committed the crime attributed to him in the tradition. Alternatively, Iphigeneia may imply that he never served his son to the gods and thus that he was also a victim of people's tendency to legitimize unacceptable practices by ascribing them not only to gods but also to heroes. (Whether Tantalus hosted the gods to an innocent banquet, as in Pindar's Olympian 1 [35ff.], is irrelevant to Iphigeneia's argument and an answer to the question cannot be deduced from the play.) If Iphigeneia denies that Tantalus served his son to the gods, the denial of this ancestral crime fits in well with the play's suppression or downplaying of family crimes, apart from the Aulis sacrifice. Cf. Introduction Ib(3)-(4). If Tantalus is innocent, then Iphigeneia does not associate him and the Taurians but the fabricators of the banquet story and the Taurians, a somewhat looser connection, ήσθήναι: see previous n. βοραι: see on 973. την θεόν: the transmitted τον θεόν is possible as a general reference to the divine but the suggestion of Markland's friend makes for a more specific reference which harks back to 380 in ring-composition, τό φαΰλον: 'meanness', 'evil'; for this meaning cf. Mastronarde on Ph. 94. άναφέρειν: Iphigeneia used the same verb at 23, in her report of Calchas' prophesy, which she considers spurious. The echo brings to the fore a central theme of the play, the similarities between Greeks and barbarians; see on 380-91. ούδένα: Nauck's emendation ουδέν finds support from passages such as Ion 1510 and S. OT 1195-96. But there is no reason for a change here. Iphigeneia possibly retires into the temple at this point but it is much more likely that she stays onstage during the stasimon, especially since there is no indication that she comes out at 467; cf. Taplin (1977) 110 n. 1. For actors staying on during stasima cf. also Mastronarde on Ph. 690. A silent exit and subsequent entrance, simultaneous with that of the captives, involves too many assumptions and offers no dramatic advantage. 392-455. The first stasimon. The song includes mainly speculations about the two captives. The first strophe (392-406) deals with the captives' origins and the antistrophe (407-21) lists their possible reasons for having embarked on the voyage. The second strophe (422-38) expresses the chorus' amazement at the strangers' dangerous trip to the

146

Commentary

Thracian Bosporus; the second antistrophe (439-55) is a lyrical echo of Iphigeneia's wish to punish Helen (355-58), with a touching personal coda. Two notable aspects of the song are the chorus' sympathy for Iphigeneia, already apparent in the lament for Orestes' supposed death (cf. on 178-85 and 198-202), and their reluctance to elaborate on the issue of the human sacrifices. Especially the role of the goddess in the sacrifices is left completely out of focus, an omission made very obvious against the backdrop of Iphigeneia's theodicy at the end of her speech (385-91). This may be a sign of disagreement with Iphigeneia's view or at least skepticism about it but it by no means indicates emotional distancing from her. The text has several problems but none serious enough to inhibit understanding. The language and style are smooth and elaborate, with long lyrical periods, abundant adjectives and rare compounds. The speculation about the origins of the captives takes the form of repeated questions underscoring the women's total lack of information about the captives' history. Nautical references are prevalent and the song effortlessly traverses the great geographical distance between Greece and Tauris, the realm of a vast and dangerous sea. The chorus express fairly strong emotions at the end (451-55) but there is no anguish or tension in the song. The women seem to be resigned to their harsh fate, as is also the case in the second stasimon. 392-97. Io was an Argive princess and priestess of Hera who was turned into a cow by the amorous Zeus and pursued in this form by a gadfly (οίστρος) the jealous Hera sent to torment her, for the legend see FJW 43-45. The Thracian Bosporus, addressed at the very beginning of the song, marks the passage of Europeans to the alien realm of Asia. (For Tauris as part of Asia in the play see on 133-36.) This passage was already mentioned in the parodos in connection with the chorus' arrival at Tauris (132-36); cf. on 123-25. The choice of Io as a mythical paradigm, too, seems to reflect the situation of the chorus and especially Iphigeneia, an Argive princess (and priestess) like Io, rather than the travails of the captives. They at least chose, for whatever reason, to undertake the dangerous voyage whereas all the girls were forced by their fate and the gods "to exchange Europe for Asia" (132-35, 396-97). Nevertheless, the knowledgeable audience may also recall the travails and wanderings of the Erinyes-maddened Orestes, who will be said at the end of the play to have roamed all over Greece goaded by the Erinyes (οϊστροις Έρινύων, 1456). The final release of Io through the agency of Zeus may also prefigure the salvation of the Greeks at the end.

Commentary

147

κυάνεαι κυάνεαι σύνοδοι θαλάσσας: for the pendant apostrophe cf. on 157-59a. Io crossed in her bovine form -hence the etymologizing of Βόσπορος from βοός πόρος, 'Cow-ford, Ox-ford', κυάνεαι, stressed by anadiplosis (cf. on 862-64), connects Bosporus with the ominous landmark near its mouth, the Symplegades (cf. 241, 746); for the adj. cf. on 7. ΐν' οίστρος t o πετάμενος Άργόθενΐ": ϊν' is Hermann's palmary emendation of the unmetrical and non-Doric ήν, perhaps a mere slip but more likely an attempt to provide an object for the verb. To restore exact responsion with 409, ποτώμενος (Tr2) has to replace πετάμενος; cf. on 409. Diggle suggests ϊν' οίστρος ό πετάμενος : for άξενον see on 125. Schoene's διεπέρασε is the likeliest supplement. Erfurdt's διεπέρασεν is also likely but it becomes impossible if Diggle's emendation of the previous line is adopted. Wecklein's suggestion διεπόρευσε (Kirchoff ) provides an explicit reference to Io and her travails but it involves emendation of the verb. For the use of έπί of motion over the sea see 409 and the other examples cited by Bond on Hy. fr. I iii.4 (752g.4); cf. Alcman fr. 26.3. Άσιήτιδα: for the adj. see on 180. διαμείψας: the description of Io's crossing in Aeschylus' Supplices (540-46) may have been an inspiration for this passage. The verb also occurs in another Aeschylean passage (5. 334) where the chorus envisage the cruel lot of newly enslaved young girls. 399-406. The chorus proceed to speculate about the strangers' city of origin, wondering whether they come from Sparta or Thebes. The two heroic cities are not named but designated through reference to their most famous natural features, the river Eurotas and the spring Dirce respectively. As in the parodos (132-36), there is probably an implied contrast between fertile Greece and the local land, which is to be understood as barren; cf. 218-19. Greece is presented as the land of the good sweet waters but Tauris is defined (literally and metaphorically) by the Euxine. The main contrast, however, is between Greece, with its nice cities and civilized customs, and the local land whose savage custom forbids civilized contact with strangers. The horrible nature of this land and its custom is further highlighted by means of another implicit contrast suggested at the very end of the stanza: instead of pure and nourishing waters, streams of human blood flow in Tauris. The first qualification of Eurotas, εΰυδρος, is borrowed from choral lyric (P. P. 1.79 and Bacch. 11.119). δονακόχλοον: δονακόχλοα (Tr1) is possible, especially given the state of the corresponding 413, but

148

Commentary

δονακόχλοον is probably backed by the authority of L. The adj. is hapax and likely coined by Euripides; cf. δονακόεις {HI. 209; cf. 349-50, 493) and δονακότροφος (Thgn. 785 and IA 179), also used as qualifications of Eurotas and in contexts of moving away from one's homeland. After the mention of Bosporus the arrival at the terrible land is also marked by one of the characteristic Euripidean anadiploses (εβασαν εβασαν); cf. on 137-38. αμεικτος is used mainly of mythological monsters (the Cyclops [Cy. 429], Cycnus [Here. 39], the Centaurs [S. Tr. 1095]). The dative κούραι δίαι ("for the sake of the maiden goddess" or "for the sake of Zeus' daughter") exemplifies the careful choice of neutral phraseology on the chorus' part, which indicates their reluctance to speculate on divine behavior (cf. on 392-455). The luxury of Artemis' Taurian temple was the first thing mentioned by the chorus in the parados (126-31). Here the women continue to give precedence to the same innocuous information. The inhabitants of the land could be considered responsible for the sacrifices but the chorus do not accuse them directly, either: the human blood is said to drench the temple, as if by itself or as if the land itself offered the sacrifices. Contrast 389-90. βωμούς και περικίονας/ ναούς is probably a hendiadys but the parataxis stresses the profusion of blood that is said to drench not only the altar but the entire luxurious temple, αίμα βρότειον: the specification of the kind of blood shed comes at the end of the stanza like a catapult: the position of the word conveys the impression that the chorus "recoil" from their own mention of the human sacrifices. 407-10. The main problems in the passage are the verb επλευσαν, the case and construction of κώπας and the construction of όχημα. πλέω is intransitive and thus it cannot govern any acc. as its direct object. The only way to retain the verb would be to construe όχημα as internal acc. (Mastronarde on Ph. 1139); cf. Here. 1041, 1081-82, Or. 988-89, Andr. fr. 114.2. This is difficult because όχημα is hardly ever used as an abstract noun similar to those in the passages just cited and thus it can hardly be thought to retain an active meaning. Plausible emendations include Rauchenstein's επεμψαν, Dindorf's πόρευσαν and Jackson's έλυσαν (an extension of λύειν πρυμνήσια 'to cast off the stern-hawsers' [in order to set sail]), but one hesitates to replace επλευσαν because the verb does seem to be the most natural choice in the context. Reiske's είλατίνας κώπας is preferable to L's έλατίνοις (είλ- Tr2) κώπαις, which produces a parallel and very similar qualification to ροθίοις in asyndeton. (In his apparatus Sansone suggests that ροθίοις is

Commentary

149

an adj. here and at 1133 but this is unlikely; see below.) κώπας can be either acc. plural or gen. singular. If the former, it is the object of the verb, which needs to be emended, and δχημα is in apposition to it. If the latter, it is subjective gen. to ροθίοις. This is slightly more likely, especially if έπλευσαν is to be preserved. ροθίοις: the neut. adj. ρόθιον is used as a noun in tragedy and designates the sound of a ship's oars as they pass through the water and also the sound of the waves; see Morrison & Williams (1968) 311, Kannicht on HI. 1269, Diggle on Pha. 80 (fr. 773.56) and Casson (1971) 279 n. 37. δικρότοισι: the compound δίκροτος is rare and its meaning difficult to determine. It is usually translated "(with) double surge" and thought to refer to the tracks or waves created by the oars on the sides of the ship. It is more plausible that it indicates a doublebanked pentecoter; see Morrison & Williams (1968) 194-95 and Casson (1971) 59 n. 82; cf. Diggle on Pha. 80 n. 1, Seaford on Cy. 468 and on 1124 below. The word occurs also at El. 775. Neither of the two suggested meanings in that passage, "with double-grooved cart-track" and "broad enough for two carts or chariots to drive side by side", is binding for the present one. εϊλατίνας: the light and strong fir timbers were widely used in ship-building; see R. Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford 1982) 118. έπι πόντια κύματα: for the preposition see on 395. Bergk's νότια for πόντια restores responsion with πετάμενος (394). Sansone reads πόντι' επί κύματα. λινοπόροις αΰραις: has been suggested by Wecklein to supply the missing short syllable between adj. and noun. Cf. A. Su. 136, P. P. 4.203, Bacch. 5.28. Erfurdt's λινοπόροισ and Monk's λινοπόροισ Markland) are possible (cf. the emendations of 433 suggested by Wecklein and Wilamowitz) but the latter postulates a closer link between αύραις and ροθίοις than is absolutely necessary. The adj. is hapax and possibly a coinage. Several λινο- compounds occur in Aeschylus (e.g. P. 68-69, Su. 120-21, 131-32, 134, Ch. 27) for linen clothing and ship equipment; cf. Bacch. D. 19.43 with Maehler's n. and on 1043 below. There is obviously no need for rowing when favorable breezes billow the sails. The implication is not that oars and sails were used at the same time but at different stages of the voyage; see on 1132-36. 411-12. φιλόπλουτον αμιλλαν/ αύξοντες μελάθροισιν: a remarkable phrase. It seems too elaborate to be a mere periphrasis for "competing to increase their families' wealth." Md. 557 (ούδ' εις αμιλλαν πολύτεκνον σπουδήν εχων) is usually cited as a parallel but its meaning is much more straightforward. Jason denies that he took a new wife be-

150

Commentary

cause he sought to compete in the number of children he sired. There is no need to ignore the first component of φιλόπλουτον in order to make sense of the chorus' phrase. The women suggest that households vie with each other in the competition for the title of the most wealthloving. This competition of course necessitates constant accretion of wealth but the chorus hint at the social and emotional aspect of the pursuit rather than its material background. The emphasis on the love of wealth and the competition it generates facilitates the transition to the gnomic second part of the stanza. 413-21. Human aspirations are insatiable and cause men to suffer. The vanity of human aspirations is a common theme in poetry; see e.g. Collard on Su. 479-80 and Wilkins on Hrcld. 433-34. The maxim seems to begin as a general statement but it quickly focuses on the situation of those who strive to acquire wealth in defiance of the perils of sea trade (416-19). The chorus finally suggest that only some men meet with success in this endeavor (420-21). Cf. on 416-19. 413-15. φίλα γαρ έλπίς 1'γένετ' έπι πήμασι βροχών'!"/ άπληστος άνθρώποις: φίλα is taken by most commentators as predicative but it is more likely attributive. There is one predicate in άπληστος and the emphasis is on the insatiability of the aspirations, not their allure, φίλα may not even mean 'dear' but simply 'their own', especially in view of κοιναι δόξαι (419), which may be thought to echo 413 in loose ringcomposition: all men's aspirations lead them to expect the same thing. For this sense of φίλος see Barrett on Hi. 199, 613. Only with Gregoire's emendation φίλα γαρ έλπίς έπί τε πήμασιν βροτών (or England's φίλα γαρ έγένετ' έλπίς εν τε παθήμασιν) is φίλα certainly predicative. The former is very close to the transmitted text and restores metre and responsion but it does not eliminate the repetition βροτών and άνθρώποις, which is unacceptable in such close proximity. The same objection applies to the emendations of Aldina (έλπίς έγένετ') and Wakefield (έγένετ' έλπίς). Daggering is the most prudent editorial option, especially since the verb and έπί πήμασι seem likely to be genuine. 416-19. For the perils of seafaring and the unpleasant nature of sea trade, a fairly common motif in Greek literature, cf. e.g. Hes. Op. 61894, Solon 13.43-45, S. fr. 555, PI. Grg. 467d, Lg. 704c-705a; for other references see West on Hes. Op. 618. ολβου βάρος: the idea that very prosperous mortals (with immoderate ολβος or πλούτος) very often suffer great disasters is quite common in archaic and classical poetry;

Commentary

151

see e.g. Solon 13.71-76, A. P. 163-65, Ag. 471-74, 1008-14, Eum. 56365. βάρος indicates a burden, literal or metaphorical (cf. 598), and underscores the ominous connotations of the sought-after wealth. The men pursue something excessive, a burden threatening to destroy them (with possible allusion to nautical disaster, the sinking of a ship with heavy cargo in a storm; cf. A. S. 769-71, Ag. 1008-13, Eum. 550-65). πλανήτες: πλάνης, πλανήτης and cognates are often used in contexts of forced or aimless wandering (cf. Hrcld. 878, HI. 774, 1676, Ph. 416, S. OC 3, 123) and sometimes in contexts of madness (Hi. 283, El. 1253). κοιναι δόξαι: L's κοιναι δόξαι is difficult as an apposition to the previous sentence or to 414-15. In the poem just mentioned Solon deals extensively with human aspirations and desires, primarily the quest for wealth, which often destroys mortals (43-76). Cf. Bacch. 1.172-81. Only the gods can save them from the consequences of their relentless pursuits. The seafarer most clearly exemplifies this condition and is mentioned first in the catalogue of human occupations with their dangers and high potential for failure. There is no evidence that Euripides meant to echo Solon in this song (cf. Bagordo [2003] 65-66 who also draws attention to the textual problems of both poems), but there are undeniable similarities, chiefly the identity of human aspirations, the unpredictability of the outcome and the success of some men. These parallels may not be accidental or due to common lyric stock. On the other hand, it is remarkable that the chorus gloss over the role of the gods, who are prominent in Solon's poem. Chance is also absent, although it may be thought to be implied. Mortal aspirations and calculations are the only causes explicitly mentioned. 420-21. In this gnomic conclusion the women mitigate the sweeping negative judgment about the pursuit of wealth that they have just voiced. They now allow that this pursuit is not entirely hopeless but depends on the ability to assess the situation correctly and seize the right opportunity: some people miss the mark but others enjoy ready success, γνώμα δ' οΐς μεν ακαιρος όλ-/βου, τοις δ' ές μέσον ήκει: γνώμα.,.ολβου is probably the subject of both clauses. I know of no exact parallel for γνώμη and objective gen. but it does not seem to be a particularly difficult turn of phrase. It is very similar to έλπις ολβου but with the emphasis on the cognitive rather than the emotional aspect of men's expectations. To some men the estimation of wealth comes inopportunely, i.e. they fail to realize that conditions do not favor the achievement of their goal. For the meaning of καιρός, primarily 'what is proper, appropriate, just right', in the fifth century see Barrett on Hi.

152

Commentary

386-87; cf. W.H. Race, "The Word καιρός in Greek Drama" ΤΑΡΑ 111 (1981) 197-213 and more generally M. Trede, Kairos (Paris 1992). ές μέσον: "in their midst", "within easy grasp". For this and similar expressions cf. Mastronarde on Ph. [1016] and Headlam on Herodas 6.81. Several scholars (Hermann, Weil, Wecklein, Platnauer, Cropp, Kovacs) think that ές μέσον refers to moderation in the pursuit of wealth (and that the first clause refers to the lack thereof). But moderation seems to be out of place in this stanza, especially if Solon 13 is taken into account (see previous n.), either as direct model or as a parallel. All wealth seekers are insatiable, all share the same expectation of success (κοιναι δόξαι, 419). What differentiates some from the rest is success in the enterprise. When a suitable καιρός presents itself, a favorable outcome of the enterprise is within reach, καίριος would indeed be very suitable after ακαιρος and would even fit the metre but the prepositional phrase stresses the epiphany, as it were, of the opportune estimation as a stroke of genius and the ease with which it leads some men to success. The fact that there were two captives and that the pursuit of wealth at sea involves groups of men facilitates the use of the phrase, γνώμη of course is neutral and does not by itself mean 'right judgment, opinion, thought'. Thus the suggestion that ολβος should be supplied as the subject of ήκει (Paley and England) may be correct. Nevertheless, the contrast with the previous clause would probably lead the audience to expect a reference to an opportune or fruitful kind of opinion and they could supply the necessary qualification without difficulty. 422-24. τάς συνδρομάδας πέτρας: the Rocks' usual name in classical literature is Συμπληγάδες (241, 260, 355, 1389) but συνδρομάδες is a lyrical alternative, reminiscent of Pindar's συνδρόμων.,.πετραν (P. 4.208-9), and taken up again in the Hellenistic age by Theocritus (Id. 13.22; cf. A.R. Arg. 2.346, σύνδρομα πετράων). For the passage through the Rocks see on 123-25 and 241-42. In an indicative example of Hellenistic learning Eratosthenes (fr. 35 CA) also uses the word in a dedicatory epigram for an instrument with sliding overlapping parts, the mesolabe or mean-taker, which he invented in order to take mean proportionals. Φινεΐδας |άύ-/πνους+ άκτάς: the much dreaded rocky coast of Salmydessus with its violent storms was notoriously treacherous; cf. Hipponax fr. 115, [Α.] PV 726-27, X. An. 7.5.12, Str. 7.6.1. Phineus was a prophet and a local king, married to Cleopatra, the daughter of Boreas, the North wind, and the Athenian princess Oreithyia. Phineus and Cleopatra had two sons who were blinded and incarcerated when

Commentary

153

their father divorced their mother and remarried. Eventually Phineus himself was blinded and tormented by the Harpies until liberated by the Argonauts Zetes and Calais, sons of Boreas. For a summary of the various traditions about Phineus, often treated in tragedy, see Griffith on S. Ant. 966-87. άύπνους is not found elsewhere as a characterization of a coast (cf. S. OC 685-86) and Wilamowitz suggested λιγύπνους but 'sleepless' is not an unthinkable metaphor for a stormy coast relentlessly battered by waves. Thus the adj. may be genuine but there is no responsion between 423 and 440. Rauchenstein's Φινεϊδάν, which restores responsion, is difficult because the masculine genitive cannot refer to the female Harpies (who can hardly be called 'Phineian' anyway) and there is no conceivable reason why the coast would be named after Phineus' sons instead of Phineus himself. A plausible emendation is Willink's αΰ πολύπνους (with L's Φινη'ί'δας retained and Λήδας inserted at 440). 425-26. έπ' Άμφιτρί-/τας ροθίωι: Amphitrite, a Nereid and granddaughter of Oceanus, became Poseidon's wife and Triton's mother by him (Hes. Th. 243, 254, 260, 930-33). She is mentioned in Homer in connection with sea-waves and sea-monsters. Most relevant to this passage is Od. 12.59-72, the description of the Planctae (cf. on 123-25); cf. also Od. 5.421-22. For ρόθιον see on 407. 427-29. όπου πεντήκοντα κοραν/ Νηρήιδων < > χοροί/ μέλπουσιν εγκύκλιοι: οπου probably indicates a dancing ground in or under the surge of Amphitrite rather than off Salmydessus. The Nereids are naturally said to dwell (and dance) in the depths of the sea (e.g. An. 126668, Η. II. 18.35ff„ Bacch. D. 17.101-8, A.R. Arg. 771, 779, 865). There is no evidence that they used to hold dances in the depths of the Black Sea, although Euripides may have wished to accentuate the extraordinary character of the place. For the Nereids see West on Hes. Th. 23537 and cf. Stockert on I A 1054ff. and J. Barringer Divine Escorts: Nereids in Archaic and Classical Greek Art (Ann Arbor 1995). For circular dances cf. Diggle on Pha. 247 (fr. 781.54) and Dunbar on Ar. Αν. 1379. The missing, probably trochaic, word at 428 was most likely an adverb qualifying the song of the Nereids, something like άβρά (West); Monk suggested Νηρέως κάλλιστα χοροί and Willink Νηρέως ώιδαΐσι χοροί. For μέλπω see on 221. 430-32. πλησιστίοισι: this is a rare word, which occurs only here in classical literature and resurfaces in Roman times. In Homer it is used in the description of Odysseus' visit to the underworld and the island of

154

Commentary

the Sirens (Od. 11.7 = 12.149). If no other poet before Euripides used the Homeric word, the borrowing probably suggests that the favorable wind ushered the strangers to an infernal realm, the murderous land of the Taurians. εύναίων πηδαλίων: in nautical contexts εύναΐος and εύνή refer to anchorage (e.g. Η. II. 1.436, A.R. Arg. 1.955, 1277, 3.574, 4.888). The adj. is not used elsewhere in connection with steering oars. It may mean that the oars are '"couched'...with the suggestion that the rudder-oar, unlike the ordinary oars, was never unshipped" (Platnauer) or "housed, i.e. secured with the blades feathered in the water. Thus they could be said to sleep, since they do not work" (Morrison & Williams [1968] 199). For steering oars cf. on 1354-57. 433-34. Wecklein suggested αΰραις νοτίαις and Wilamowitz is now supported by a papyrus (P. Berol. Inv. 21133); see Luppe (1991). ξένων: probably 'guest-friends' (cf. 955), as Orestes would be more likely to turn to them rather than to complete strangers for hospitality. In tragedy characters in distress often complain that friends do not treat them fairly (see e.g. Here. 55-59 with Bond's n.) but in his situation Orestes could hardly expect his guest-friends to welcome him; see 955-57. έκών: not "of their own free will" as opposed to "forced" but "with pleasure, eagerly" as opposed to "reluctantly". None of Orestes' guest-friends opened his house to him with pleasure, as is normal, and several turned him away; see next η. ώς θεοΐς στυγούμενον: ώς is used ambiguously. The speaker presents the reluctant Athenians' point of view but does not necessarily imply that they were wrong in their belief, στυγώ is quite often used in connection with moral outrages and especially offenses against the gods. The cognate noun, not found in Sophocles and Euripides, is common in Aeschylus, especially in the Oresteia\ see Garvie on A. Ch. 532-33. 949-54. All of Orestes' guest-friends were faced with a steep religious and moral dilemma: the guest-friend had to be given hospitality but the polluted matricide had to be shunned at all costs. Some of the Athenians, motivated by αίδώς, struck a compromise: they did not allow their guest-friend to suffer without food, drink or shelter but they did not offer the full traditional Greek hospitality which included a common meal and conversation. From Homer onwards, αίδώς, a central concept of Greek morality, is often invoked in contexts of friendship, supplication and hospitality. It prevents people from dismissing the claims of persons in need who are believed to be protected by the gods, notably Zeus (cf. on 361-64a). αιδώς stems primarily from a person's fear of divine punishment and social disapproval: one feels αιδώς toward suppliants and guest-friends and does not drive them away because lack of proper αιδώς incurs the anger of the gods and the disapproval of one's peers, αιδώς often springs also from a person's own sense of proper behavior, irrespective of the response of others, and from feelings such as sympathy or pity for the plight of those in need. For the treatment of the concept in Euripides see Cairns (1993), esp. 272-90. Cf. on 711-13 (αίδοΐ) above.

308

Commentary

At 949 αιδώς is usually (and inaccurately) translated as "pity" (Kovacs), "pitie" (Gregoire), "mercy" (Platnauer), or "Barmherzigkeit" (Wecklein). Pity or compassion, although often mentioned alongside αιδώς since Homer, is never synonymous with αιδώς. In the present context of grave pollution Orestes' hosts were not motivated only by pity, although some or all of them probably also felt pity. The hosts' primary motivation was religious: they felt obliged to offer some kind of hospitality to a guest-friend in need. The rest of Orestes' guestfriends probably reckoned that his entitlement to hospitality was annulled by the matricide and thus they did not feel αιδώς at turning him away. The crime made Orestes an enemy of the gods (cf. 948), unfit to enjoy divine protection and receive hospitality. The offer of hospitality to an enemy of the gods was wrong and likely to subject the hosts to the same divine punishment as the guest. Aeolus, for example, refused to help Odysseus a second time and sent him away because he interpreted his failure to reach Ithaca, despite the previous help he received, as a sign of divine hostility (H. Od. 10.72-75). Cf. the punishment Poseidon threatened on the Phaeacians for their help to all strangers who reached their land {Od. 8.564-71, 13.149-78) and the failure of all places to accept Leto when she was in labor because they feared the wrath of Hera (Call. H. 4.55ff.). The men who offered hospitality to Orestes did not apparently think that he had lost all rights to hospitality, i.e. to divine protection as a guest-friend in need, because of his crime. Cf. the account of the Choes aition provided by the scholiast on Ar. Eq. 95. Pandion, the king of Athens, to whom Orestes sought refuge after the matricide because he was a relative, was hosting a public banquet when Orestes arrived. The king did not turn Orestes away, αίδούμενος, but thought it impious to offer complete hospitality because of Orestes' pollution. He thus gave a separate jug of wine to each guest (ό τοίνυν Πανδίων παραπέμψ α σ θ α ι μεν τον Όρέστην αϊδούμενος, κοινωνησαι δέ ποτού και τραπέζης άσεβες ηγούμενος μή καθαρθέντος αύτοΰ τον φόνον, ώς α ν μή από του αύτοΰ κρατήρος πίνοιεν, ενα έκάστφ των κεκλημένων παρέθηκε χοΰν). Cf. also sch. Ar. Ach. 961, Phanod. FGrHist 325 F 11, Plu. Mor. 613b, 643a. Cairns (1993) 290 correctly observes that there was no social pressure on the men who showed αιδώς to accept Orestes because their peers had turned him away. The hosts acted out of their own, religiously grounded, strong sense of respect for the requirements of guestfriendship even toward a polluted man. The hosts thought that they would be subject to divine punishment if they offered no hospitality at all and if they offered complete hospitality. Wecklein (cf. England,

Commentary

309

Wolff [1992] 326 η. 50) suggested that αϊδεσις, 'reconciliation' or 'pardon', in the technical, legal sense of the term in Athenian homicide law, is relevant here. An exiled homicide could return home if the relatives of the victim, petitioned by the relatives of the perpetrator, granted pardon, αιδώς was sometimes used in a similar sense (for references and discussion see Cairns [1993] 224 n. 28), but the hosts were not involved in Orestes' legal problems, they were not relatives of the victim and their behavior would not influence the decision of the court. The arrangement thought up by the hosts is described in a long, fairly loose period, with some repetition, which indicates the uniqueness of the situation and the discomfort the deficient hospitality caused Orestes (949-54). The essence of the arrangement is encapsulated in ξένια μονοτράπεζα (949), "guest-fare at a separate table". This does not describe the whole situation, and Orestes proceeds to specify that the hosts stayed in the house but did not address him so that he had to eat and drink not only apart from the hosts but also in silence (950-52). Moreover, each person present drank an equal volume of wine from separate vessels (953-54). The emphasis on the drinking arrangement facilitates the transition to the Choes aition (958-60). 949-50. οι δ' εσχον αιδώ: for the meaning of αιδώς and the motivation of the hosts see previous η. ξένια μονοτράπεζά μοι παρέσχον: μονοτράπεζα, "at a table by myself', is hapax in Greek. For the various meanings of μονο- compounds in Euripides see Mastronarde on Ph. 1517-18. Each member of the host family drank from a separate vessel (953-54) but it is not clear whether each also had a separate table, as Orestes did. Thus it cannot be deduced from this passage whether participants in the festival of the Choes had a separate table, although this seems likely, οίκων οντες εν ταύτώι στέγει: οϊκων is defining gen.; cf. 742. L's τέγει is probably wrong because τέγος is not a tragic word. Orestes' specification is meant to dispel any assumption on the part of Iphigeneia that the hosts left the house or put Orestes in a separate room by himself. Admetus, for instance, arranges for Heracles to be hosted in guest-rooms away from the main palace (Al. 543-50), although for a different reason. The hosts thus ignored the prohibition not to offer shelter to a killer; cf. on 947-48. 951-52. σιγήι δ' έτεκτήναντ' άπρόσφθεγκτόν μ': this is not part of the eating and drinking arrangements, έτεκτήναντ' άπρόσφθεγκτόν μ' is an unusual periphrasis, with a concentration of harsh consonants, for "they contrived not to address me". For Greek compound adjs. in -τος, which may be active or passive, see Fraenkel on A. Ag. 12 and 238 and

310

Commentary

cf. Barrett on Hi. 678. The basic meaning of the privative adjs. is 'such that there is no x', here no πρόσφθεγμα. Cf. on 798-99 above. L's άπόφθεγκτον is difficult to accept: Weil points out that άπό has the force of ά - privative only when combined with nouns but e.g. άπόρρητος may be an exception. More serious is the objection that άπόφθεγκτος does not necessarily mean αφθεγκτος but would probably mean 'enunciated, spoken out'. The choice of the rare verb τεκταίνομαι brings out the artificiality of the arrangement: the unaddressed, isolated Orestes is a "construct" of the hosts, "put together" by them as if they were clever τέκτονες. (Similarly, the choice of δαίς, the Homeric word for the communal meal, often enjoyed on festive occasions, brings out the oxymoron of the separation of guest and hosts; cf. on 973.) Verbal contact with a polluted criminal causes pollution (see the passages cited on 947-48 and cf. El. 1292-94, Here. 1219, Or. 47, 75-76, 481), and murderers were obliged to remain silent before purification (see e.g. fr. 1008, A. Eum. 448, A.R. Arg. 4.693). Since Orestes had presumably not undergone purification yet (see on 947-48), he was still under the stricture. Since the play does not deal with the issue of Orestes' pollution and purification, here only the hosts' care not to address Orestes is mentioned. His own silence is either taken for granted or is a result of the hosts' failure to address him but it is never mentioned explicitly. There is no indication that verbal contact with a murderer was more polluting than other kinds of contact: the hosts presumably hoped that their observance of as many prohibitions as the compromise allowed would protect them from or at least mitigate divine punishment for their offering hospitality to the matricide. 953-54. μέτρημα πληρώσαντες: the measure is the capacity of the particular vessel and thus measure and vessel are used interchangeably; instead of "filling the vessel with an equal measure of wine" the metonymy produces "filling an equal measure of wine into the vessel". For nouns in - μ α see on 315. εΐχον ήδονήν: an unexpected specification in the context of the unique arrangement and the silent hospitality offered to the polluted matricide. This is the only oblique reference to the atmosphere of joyous revelry during the Choes festival; cf. also on 95860. 955-57. Orestes had to suffer the indignity of being an isolated, silent guest, but he did not show indignation or voice any protest. Instead, his distress, not so much at the hosts' treatment of him as at his own wretched state, became evident only through heavy sighing.

Commentary

311

κάδόκουν ουκ είδέναι,/ μέγα στενάζων ούνεκ' η μητρός φονεύς: England and Platnauer construe οϋνεκ' η μητρός φονεύς with ουκ είδέναι and not with μέγα στενάζων and suggest that Orestes pretended not to feel guilty about the matricide. According to Herwerden 957 is an interpolation because it is unlikely that Orestes would mention the matricide openly after 940. Platnauer agrees that the line is unnecessary and suggests that it might have been added by someone "desirous of (wrongly) particularizing είδέναι". None of these claims is particularly cogent, οΐδα with object clause can hardly mean "I have it on my conscience that etc."; σύνοιδα or similar compounds with participle would be the normal fifth-century idiom for such awareness (see Willink on Or. 396). Besides, nowhere in Greek literature, and least of all in Euripides, is Orestes presented as, or pretends to be, untroubled by the matricide, although he always claims that the act was necessary or even justified. Nevertheless, he always suffers on account of it, physically and emotionally. Why would he pretend not to feel guilty in Athens? Such a stance, which would in any case be hard to communicate in silence, would be likely to exacerbate his hosts' discomfort and possibly their fear of his miasma. Despite his observance of silence, Orestes' groans would then be, and be interpreted as, a sign of his distress at his treatment by the hosts and an embarrassing protest against them, which Orestes explicitly rejects at 955. The fact that Orestes takes care not to mention the matricide explicitly at 940 does not imply that he would avoid mentioning it everywhere (he mentions it again at 964). At 941 he calls his pursuers Erinyes and after two lines "nameless goddesses"; see n. and cf. Wolff (1992) 326 n. 51. μέγα στενάζων: it is not entirely clear whether Orestes' sighs were literal. If they were, they would not apparently infringe on the silence requirement because Orestes would hardly wish to upset his hosts. It is unlikely that the participants in the Choes festival let out ritual cries or groans, as Gregoire suggests: if ritual cries were part of the festival, then not only Orestes but also the hosts should be said to groan. Silence, separate drinking vessels and probably tables belong to the aition of the festival. Orestes' reactions are mentioned for dramatic, not aetiological, reasons. 958-60. This aetiological excursus is not unnecessary to an Athenian audience, as Platnauer thinks, because this objection would apply to all aitia and this one was quite likely invented by Euripides - all other references to it are post-Euripidean; cf. on 949-54. See also Scullion (2000) 226 and on 1462-67a below. Although brief and integrated into Orestes' account of his post-matricide travails, the excursus does strain the limits of dramatic plausibility. It is the only time in the extant cor-

312

Commentary

pus that Euripides puts in the mouth of a mortal character a religious/aetiological excursus that is not part of an oracle or prediction of the future; contrast Md. 1378-83, Hrcld. 1026-44, He. 1259-81, Here. 1331-33, Ph. 1703-7 (if genuine). More unusually, it is the only time that a character provides information, on the basis of hearsay, about rites inspired by his sufferings so soon after the institutionalization of the rites, κάτι τον νόμον μένειν would hardly be used by someone speaking at most one or two years after the institutionalization. There are two closely interrelated questions about the aition, why Euripides chose to put it in Orestes' mouth and why he chose to place it here. Unless aetiological surfeit at the end of the play was Euripides' concern, Athena could plausibly announce the institutionalization of the Choes festival along with the rites at Halai and Brauron and the acquittal of the defendant in case of a tie vote. The last one could certainly also, and perhaps more plausibly, be announced by Orestes after his account of the verdict (965-67) but Euripides did not make that choice. There is little doubt that the inclusion of aetiologies in tragic plays had a communal or civic function because it reinforced Athenian pride in the city's traditional role as a haven for people in distress and in its status as the favorite city of gods who took an interest in them; see on 947-48 and cf. Introduction 11(4). All aitia, especially those invented by Euripides, also and primarily served particular dramatic purposes. Wolff (1992) 325-29 thinks that with the Choes aition Euripides meant to emphasize the Athenians' successful negotiation of conflicting religious demands, the incorporation of the matricide into the polis through a new ritual, in order to foreshadow the eventual incorporation of the man-killing Artemis into Athenian religion. It is not implausible that Euripides wished to suggest that Athenian rituals commendably balanced "other" and "self', exclusion and incorporation. The cults at the end of the play, however, are prescribed by Athena (and indirectly by Apollo and Zeus) and do not depend on the community's successful defusion of ritual or ideological tension. The Choes festival is said to be a commemoration of an unsettling event, fraught with difficulties and embarrassing to both parties involved. There is no mention of the festival's jovial atmosphere or even the god Dionysus (see below): silence, suffering and attempts not to exacerbate an unpleasant situation are stressed. Presented from Orestes' point of view and concluding the narration of his troubles before the trial, the aition serves to confirm the enormity of his misery, which Orestes himself has stressed repeatedly so far (500, 514, 568, 694, 933) and which is now said to be memorialized in a ritual. There is no implication in his words that he has received honor or fame, that future gen-

Commentary

313

erations will sing of him, or that the festival compensates for his suffering in Athens; contrast 1454, Md. 1381-83, Hi. 1423-30, Tr. 1242-45. His misery is immortalized in the ritual, which is said to honor the wine-vessel and not him. The aition may have been perceived by the audience as a celebration of the Athenian community's cohesion and its successful negotiation of ritual/religious challenges. Euripides primarily chose to allow a glimpse of the other side, the afflicted individual's darker, though not critical, view of other people's reaction to his woes and his discomfort. This must be the primary reason why Euripides invented this kind of aition and put it in the mouth of Orestes at this point of the play: its unsettling background would be out of place at the end of the play and would undermine its effect. The Choes was part of the Anthesteria festival in honor of Dionysus. The festival took place around the end of February or beginning of March. There is some uncertainty about its duration and its components (private/public), but its atmosphere is unlikely to have been entirely somber. The festival apparently included three parts, possibly celebrated on different days, the Pithoigia (opening of the jars of the new wine), the Choes (competitive drinking of the wine from jugs) and the Chutroi (offering of seeds boiled in cooking pots). For the Choes festival see L. Deubner, Attische Feste (Berlin, 1932) 93-122, Burkert (1985) 237-42, R. Hamilton, Choes and Anthesteria (Ann Arbor, 1992) 10-33 and N. Robertson, "Athens' Festival of the New Wine" AJP 95 (1993) 197-250. See also Olson on Ar. Ach. 960-61, 1000-2. 960. χοήρες αγγος: the first explicit reference to the χους is made in the context of the ritual. The capacity of the vessel was a little more than three liters. The suffix of the adj. has no special significance; cf. 1050, 1347, 1472. 961-63. For the Areopagus tribunal see on 945-46. In Athens trials of murderers were held in the open; see MacDowell (1963) 39, 58, 70. To come in contact with a killer within the confines of a building does not by itself increase pollution, as Wecklein and England seem to suggest. Since the victim's kin were strictly prohibited from sharing a roof with the killer, the open-air trials were probably due to this stricture rather than the desire to protect the jurors from exposure to pollution; see MacDowell (1963) 145-46 and Parker (1983) 122. ές δίκην/ εστην: L's ές δίκην/ τ' εστην (= ές δίκην τ'/ εστην) is difficult because it would be the only instance of elision at the end of a spoken trimeter in Euripides. Thus Bothe's εστην and Elmsley's είπών : see previous n. For the exchange of speeches cf. Hrcld. 182. The procedure is not described in detail and no specific arguments used by either side are mentioned. Orestes focuses on the assistance of his helper deities, crediting Apollo with his salvation. The reference to salvation here and to victory at 967, consonant with the version of the myth of Aeschylus' Eumenides, keeps the audience on tenterhooks because by now they know that the trial was not the end of Orestes' troubles and that the Erinyes continued pursuing him. The reference to votes is the only hint at the presence of a jury: its members are apparently mortals, citizens of Athens, but nothing is said about their identity, number or selection; cf. on 945-46. ισας δέ μον/ ψήφους διηρίθμησε Παλλάς ώλένηι: Athena has a less prominent role in the trial than in Aeschylus' Eumenides but still a crucial one. Neither in IT nor in any other surviving Euripidean play does she cast the acquitting vote. The sentence is usually taken to mean that Pallas sorted out the votes and announced the acquitting verdict. There is no doubt that she did the latter, but it is implausible that she did the former or merely the former. Sommerstein on A. Eum. 742-43 and 749 notes that in fourth- and probably also fifth-century Athenian courts four members of the jury, chosen by lot, had the duty of distributing the ballots, emptying the urns and counting the votes. Since acquitting and condemning votes were cast in separate urns, sorting out was not necessary. On the other hand, even if Athena sorted out or counted the votes, acquittal could only ensue with the tie rule already in place. This rule, however, has not been mentioned so far. It is also clear from other testimonies and especially from the end of this play (146972) that Orestes was the first defendant to be acquitted on the basis of the tie rule and that his acquittal set a precedent. Thus Athena must have established the rule before the trial or before announcing the acquittal. In either case, this, and not her mere presiding over the proceedings or announcement of the verdict, is her most important contribution to the trial. This led to Orestes' acquittal, and that is why Athena's role

Commentary

315

here is presented as a counterpart to Apollo's salutary testimony. The goddess herself will say at the end of the play that she saved Orestes at the Areopagus (1469-71). διηρίθμησε: not "counted" but "sorted out, classified". This is the usual meaning; cf. Dodds on Ba. 209. Athena sorted out the equal votes in Orestes' favor, i.e. postulated the rule of the tie vote, or enforced the recently postulated rule, and thus acquitted Orestes. Similarly, at 147071 (Άρείοις εν πάγοις ψήφους ϊσας/ κρίνασ', Όρέστα) the point is not (only) that Athena judged the votes to be equal but (also) that she pronounced on the significance of the tie vote; cf. n. ώλένηι: the word is a favorite with Euripides, appearing 25 times in the extant plays, compared to a mere two in Sophocles (Tr. 926, fr. 483; cf. [Α.] PV 60), and drawing the ridicule of Aristophanes (R. 1322). Bond on Here. 1381 thinks that here as well as at Here. 1381 and Ba. 1125 the word means 'hand', a usage "...facilitated by the use of χειρ as 'arm' or 'arm and hand' ". A.L. Boegehold, "A Signifying Gesture to Euripides, Iphigeneia Taurica, 965-66" AJA 93 (1989) 81-83, suggests that the reference may signify a standard gesture, recognized by the audience, which signaled victory in various competitions. If such a gesture is implied, it would probably be the equivalent of a modern judge's thump of the gavel that follows the announcement of the verdict and marks the completion of the proceedings. 967. φόνια πειρατήρια is internal acc. to the participle νικών, which carries the verbal force of the sentence, άπήρα: for Euripides' use of the verb see on 511. Orestes' victory will soon prove fruitless. 968-69. Despite the clean verdict, only some of the Erinyes accepted Orestes' innocence and acquired a temple (and thus possibly a new identity) after the trial. No details about this development are provided and there is nothing similar to the glorious triumphal procession at the end of Aeschylus' Eumenides, a celebration of divine and civic harmony bathing the pious Athenian state in its pure light. In IT part of the prosecution continues doggedly pursuing the acquitted man and thus the verdict of the august tribunal presided over by Athena is virtually annulled. Orestes' hallucinations and peregrinations resume and this Kafkaesque turn of events marks a dark moment in his story and the play. The predicament forms a backdrop against which Orestes' chances of success in the present mission fail to look promising; see on 939-86. δσαι μεν οΰν εζοντο πεισθεΐσαι δίκηι: "those of the Erinyes sitting at the trial who were persuaded by the verdict", not "those who

316

Commentary

settled there". With the latter, 970 and the creation of the sanctuary would receive the greatest emphasis but the most important thing in this part of the story is that only some of the Erinyes were persuaded (the participle carries the verbal force here too as at 967). The verb is similarly used at El. 1259 (cf. A. Eum. 3). δίκη, in the fifth century 'justice', 'trial' or, more specifically, as here, 'outcome of the trial, verdict', is the equivalent of νόμος at 970. The choice is not a matter of simple stylistic variation. Orestes naturally believes that the verdict was just and so apparently did the persuaded Erinyes. The recalcitrant ones, on the other hand, thought that the verdict did not reflect justice but was the outcome of a flawed new practice, acquittal of the defendant in case of a tie vote, which was agreed upon by biased parties, νόμος (cf. νόμισμα, 1471) per se is neutral, indicating any law or custom observed (cf. 277, 465, 959, 1189), but 970 probably reflects the point of view of the disaffected goddesses. Weil suggests that νόμωι refers to the new law according to which murderers were subject to the jurisdiction of courts and not to the harsh law of retaliation. This is implausible because in IT the Erinyes do not dispute the authority of the court in general but only the particular verdict (cf. Wolff [1992] 328 n. 56). ψήφον: for the meaning see on 945. The temple mentioned is the cave-sanctuary of the Semnai Theai, goddesses associated with the Areopagus council and named in oaths taken before it, and located on the side of the Areopagus hill near the Acropolis. Euripides follows Aeschylus' Eumenides where the Erinyes are addressed at the end as Semnai (1041), perhaps renamed Semnai Theai and certainly identified with them; cf. Introduction 11(4). For the identification of Erinyes with Semnai Theai (and eventually, toward the end of the fifth century, with Eumenides), originally distinct groups of goddesses with similar features, see Sommerstein (1989) 6-12 and Johnston (1999) 267-68 who provides an overview of the literature on the problem of identification. For the sanctuary cf. also Sommerstein on A. Eum. 855. 970-71. Έρινύων: trisyllabic; see on 931. The split clearly indicates that there were more than three Erinyes; for the triad see on 284b-91a. νόμωι: see previous n. 971: cf. 80-81, 934-35, 941-42. ήλάστρουν: see on 934-35. 972-75. Orestes ends up again at the Delphic oracle where he asks, or rather in his despair tries to blackmail, the god to finally deliver him from his misery. The threat to die at the temple is serious because any death pollutes a sanctuary (cf. on 380-84) but the death of his own suppliant and protege in his own temple would be an intolerable disgrace

Commentary

317

to the god. A death from self-imposed starvation does not seem suitably violent for the infinitive used (cf. on 974) or even appropriate for a man but it is unlikely that Orestes would mention the detail of his fasting if it had nothing to do with his suicide threat. Cropp notes that Orestes wished to avoid responsibility for his own death in the temple. This may be so, although it is not clear whether death by self-imposed (or forced) starvation did not pollute the agent who took the initiative (cf. Griffith on S. Ant. 773-76) and whether Orestes, in his desperate and apparently still polluted state, would be afraid of additional pollution. Perhaps the implication is that a slow death from starvation would more efficiently blackmail the god than a quick, more violent mode of suicide. For a similar threat cf. Hdt. 7.141. The posture of lying in front of a holy precinct or temple instead of sitting or crouching, the more common suppliant postures, indicates the helplessness and despair of the suppliant. 972. αΰ: 'again', not, as Platnauer suggests, 'next'. Orestes had not set out for the temple but was forced to visit it again in order to seek deliverance. This is the third time that he goes to Delphi for guidance and help: the first time Apollo ordered him to kill his mother and the second to go to Athens for the Areopagus trial, πέδον "is regularly used of a sacred precinct" (Stevens on An. 314). 973-74. The suicide threat was not mentioned in the prologue (82-84) or before the recognition (711-15). It is not surprising that the threat is included only in the most detailed account of Orestes' problems after the matricide, accentuating the pathos of his situation, άδύτων: the word, not found in the other tragedians, is always used in the plural in Euripides; cf. on 1155. For the Delphic sanctum cf. on 1253-56. βοράς: the food of carnivores, man-eating monsters such as the Cyclopes, and wretched mythological heroes such as Tantalus and Thyestes is often called βορά; see e.g. Denniston on El. 425, Collard on Su. 47 and Bubel on Androm. fr. 9 (fr. 122). When used for normal human fare (e.g. Cy. 254, Hi. 952, Su. 865, HI. 502), the word designates food as the stuff necessary for nutrition and the preservation of life. It never occurs in connection with the sharing of food as a pleasurable social activity - a t 388 the banquet is unnatural and cannibalistic.16 βίον άπορρήξειν θανών: the infinitive indicates the momentary act of dying and the par16 Cf. the choice of words in the conversation of Electra and the farmer: when the meal to be offered to the guests Orestes and Pylades is mentioned, δ α ί ς is used (El. 414, 423; cf. IT 952); when the farmer declares that there are enough supplies for the guests to fill their stomachs for one day, he uses βορά (El. 425; cf. 429).

318

Commentary

ticiple the result of the action and the permanent state of being dead. The periphrasis usually indicates abrupt or violent death (cf. Tr. 756, Or. 864, A. P. 507) but no such death is implied here. It may have originally designated unexpected death under extraordinary circumstances. People who die in this way usually die violently but this is not always the case. 975. εί μή με σώσει Φοίβος, δς μ' άπώλεσεν: with its vivid indicative of direct speech in the protasis, the line is a dramatic reversal of 965 (Φοίβος μ' εσωσε μαρτύρων). 976-78. Apollo issues a clear-voiced mandate that sends Orestes to the ends of the earth with a renewed promise of salvation, which again involves Athens, τρίποδος έκ χρυσοΰ: for the sacred tripod see on 125356. λακών: for the verb see on 461. διοπετές: the word is first used by Euripides in extant Greek (also in fr. 971). For the statue cf. 88, 980, 986, 1384. έγκαθιδρΰσαι: cf. 1453, 148. 979-86. The peroration is fairly brief but rhetorically effective. It falls in two parts (979-82 and 983-86), the second more emotional than the first. The urgency of the peroration is stressed by the prominent ring composition. In the space of ten lines (977-86), the statue and Orestes' salvation are mentioned three times, naturally in close conjunction, to drive home the requisite point. The longest period in this part of the speech is 980-82, not accidentally Orestes' promise to take Iphigeneia back to their beloved home in Mycenae. The last appeal (983-86) begins with an emotional address to the sister (983) and stresses the intertwining of the fortunes of Orestes and the family line, chiastically arranged (984-85); for this association cf. 55-58, 148-56. As the last male representative of his immediate family, Orestes naturally cares very much about its survival; cf. on 695-97a. The survival of both Orestes and the house hinges on Iphigeneia's willingness and ability to help, a great irony in view of both Iphigeneia's gender and her history as an abused member of the family. The recognition has boosted Orestes' hopes of survival and success. Cf. on 909-11. 979. ήμΐν: this and the rest of the plurals in the appeal may designate Orestes only or both siblings, emotively reinforcing the peroration. The singular prevails in this scene, but unambiguous plural for singular also appears (929, 933, probably 940). Apollo of course mentioned only Orestes' salvation in the oracle (cf. 92), but Orestes now believes that

Commentary

319

the plan of the gods includes the salvation of Iphigeneia (see 1012-16 and cf. 1438-41). 981-82. Iphigeneia hears now for the first time that there is a ship ready to take the escapees back to Greece, στείλας: the verb is used by Euripides in a variety of contexts, usually for naval and military expeditions but also for other kinds of preparation. England correctly points out that the main idea is not that of Orestes' accompanying Iphigeneia but that of Orestes' contribution to the undertaking: "I will provide you with a many-oared ship", σέ is the object of both the participle and the verb, έγκαταστήσω: the verb appears only here in Euripides and may echo 978 ('Αθηνών τ' έγκαθιδρΰσαι χθονί): Orestes promises to settle his sister back in the land of Mycenae, as Apollo had ordered him to set up the statue of his own sister Artemis in Athens, but Iphigeneia will stay in Attica (1462-67). 983-84. ώ φιληθεΐσ': cf. He. 1000. Bruhn suggests that this is not simply equivalent to φίλη or φιλτάτη but indicates that Orestes had loved the sister even when she was believed to be dead. This is plausible but φιλώ and other verbs expressing affection occur commonly in the aor. when other tenses would be expected; see Gow on Theoc. Id. 7.60. ώ κασίγνητον κάρα: an affectionate address, common in tragedy. A loved (or hated) person's head and face/eyes were the primary seats of the speaker's emotions. For the head see Kannicht on HI. 835 and cf. Janko on Η. 11. 16.74-77. For the face/eyes see Stevens on An. 406, Mastronarde on Ph. 1702 and Garvie on A. Ch. 238. σώσον...εκσωσον: there is probably no difference of nuance between the simple and the compound and either one may follow the other; for examples see Willink on Or. 181 and Diggle (1994) 389. In the present case there is a possibility that the choice of the second verb was suggested by the fact that Orestes had to be smuggled out of Tauris. For έ κ - compounds, usually intensifying, in Euripides cf. on 1467b-69a. 985-86. τάμ'...κοά τά Πελοπιδών: for this type of phrase see on 766. For the significance of Pelops as an ancestor of the siblings in the play see Introduction Ib(4) and cf. on 822-26. ούράνιον: see on 977. ληψόμεθα: with p's reading ληψόμεσθα, there is synizesis in θεας. This, however, would be the only instance of synizesis preceded by a short syllable in the fifth foot; see Diggle (1994) 130-131 and cf. on 8588.

320

Commentary

987-88. L's text δεινή τις οργή δαιμόνων έπέζεσεν/ τό Ταντάλειον σπέρμα δια πόνων τ' άεί is obviously corrupt, άεί is impossible. The verb is not transitive in the sense required here, and it would probably need the dat. as intransitive; cf. He. 583-84 (δεινόν τι πήμα Πριαμίδαις έπέζεσεν/ πόλει τε τήμήι θεών ά ν ά γ κ α ι σ ι ν τόδε) and Ar. Ach. 321 (οίον α ΰ μέλας τις ύ μ ΐ ν θυμάλωψ έπέζεσεν). Herwerden's έπιζαρεί is the best suggestion available if one wishes to preserve τό. Alternatively, if the verb may be thought to be transitive, one could read δεινήι τις όργήι, as if the wrath were the fire on which the descendants of Tantalus were placed to "boil" (cf. Cy. 392 και χάλκεον λέβητ' έπέζεσεν πυρί). Härtung suggested δεινήν τις όργήν.,.διά πόνων άγων. But it seems preferable to preserve δεινή τις οργή. In all cases, Canter's άγει is the best emendation for the end of 988. The couplet is one of the chorus' rare interventions in the third episode; cf. on 658-1088 and 798-99. It is conventional in tone and function, but its content is not a random choice (cf. 340-41, 576-77, 900-1) because several other plausible choices could have been made at this point. For example, the chorus could have expressed cautious optimism about the siblings' prospects (cf. e.g. El. 401-3), addressed a prayer to the gods for assistance to the siblings (cf. e.g. HI. 855-56) or encouraged Iphigeneia to help her brother and family (cf. e.g. Here. 583-84, Or. 680-81). The couplet indicates that the women are cautious not to commit themselves to any position about the escape, presumably because some god(s) may become offended by it. Only after Iphigeneia devises her plan, and especially after she deceives Thoas, do they feel confident enough to sing the praises of Apollo in the third stasimon, although they never mention or address Artemis in connection with the escape plan; cf. on 1077. (For their reference to Apollo in the second stasimon see on 1089-1152.) Here the reference to Tantalid woes serves to shift the focus from the hopeful prospects of the family sketched in Orestes' peroration (979-86; cf. 909-11) to the problems of the difficult escape that lies ahead and seems to be another link in the long chain of family troubles. The couplet thus facilitates the transition to the speech of Iphigeneia and the initially fruitless search for an escape plan. Iphigeneia has already contemplated these difficulties in her aria and wondered in despair whether anybody, god or mortal or any other being, would help the siblings (895-99). The chorus too, always close to their mistress, apparently see no cause for hope and confidence yet, especially now that the full extent of Orestes' troubles has been revealed; cf. on 900-1. δεινή τις όργή: cf. Md. 520, He. 583. For the intensifying τις see on 615-16. δαιμόνων: the terms δαίμων and θεός, both in the singular

Commentary

321

and plural, are used in the great majority of cases interchangeably in the fifth century (cf. e.g. 390-91, 570, 867). See Mikalson (1991) 22-29. δαίμονες, originally = 'apportioned of a human's lot' and one's δαίμων = 'one's lot' (cf. on 198-202), became interchangeable with θεοί when the latter came to be viewed as regulators of the fate of humans. Later, perhaps under the influence of Plato's Symposium (202d-e; cf. Phlb. 107d), δαίμονες came to indicate lesser divinities or forces, intermediaries between humans and gods, that worked more often than not to harm humans or operated in opaque ways; see Burkert (1985) 179-81, 328-32. There are a few Euripidean passages that seem to differentiate between θεοί and δαίμονες (Md. 1391, He. 163-64, El. 123335, Tr. 55-56) and thus to anticipate the later distinction. If so, here too the choice of word may point primarily to the infernal Erinyes, although they are called θεαί at 934. έπέζεσεν: rare but graphic; see especially He. 583-84 (quoted above) and notice the attribution of responsibility for the destruction of the Priamids and Troy to the gods; cf. S. Tr. 840, Ar. Ach. 321 (also quoted above), Th. 468. προς Ταντάλειον σπέρμα: for the adj. see on 1. For Tantalus cf. on 385-91. The echo of the parodos (189-202) essentially rounds off the references to the siblings' ancestors, apart from Agamemnon, and to the troubles of the house (the Pelopids will be mentioned also at 1415; see n.). The Aulis sacrifice will remain a prominent motif until the end but from now on the characters will look almost exclusively to the future, δια πόνων τ' άγει: for the idiom see Mastronarde on Ph. 20. πόνος (cf. 92, 95, 114, 991, 1454), like μόχθος (122, 156, 191; cf. 1455), usually designates misfortune that involves physical hardship. 989-1006. Iphigeneia assures Orestes of her eagerness to help him. For the time being, she lacks the ability, i.e. a plan, to make her wish come true. This is the salvation of her brother, which guarantees the avoidance of fratricide on her part and the restoration of the house (989-998). Despite the lack of a plan, she has her priorities straight, and she starts discerning a chance for Orestes' salvation, even if she has to die in order to ensure it. Her decision to attempt the escape contrasts with her helplessness in the duet (874-99). Her willingness to save her brother and her line even at the cost of her own life (1002-6) indicates nobility, especially on the part of the Aulis victim. There is some irony in the justification of her offer to brave death through the invocation of the familiar gender stereotype of male supremacy because it will be rejected by Orestes and proven hollow by her role in the escape plan. Iphigeneia will start seriously considering her own inclusion in the salvation plan (1017-19) only after Orestes vows to escape or die along

322

Commentary

with her (1007-11) and reassures her that the goddess is unlikely to oppose their escape with the statue (1012-16). 989-90. Older editors considered these lines problematic because, from a strictly grammatical point of view, Iphigeneia says that she still wishes to see her brother while he is in her presence but Platnauer correctly points out that there is little need for emendation. All recent editors are of the same opinion. Before Orestes arrived, Iphigeneia harbored a double strong wish, to return to Argos and to see her brother again. The second leg of the wish has now been fulfilled but the first remains as distant as it was before the arrival of Orestes and Pylades. μεν: this is answered not by δ' at 991, which is copulative, but by δ' at 995. "Αργεί: for the dat. of place see on 156. 991-93. Linked with the copulative δ' (cf. previous n.) to the beginning of her speech, these lines complete the plain but touching exposition of Iphigeneia's feelings toward her house and family. Iphigeneia has even forgiven her father for sacrificing her. The close relationship between house-father and daughter is nicely illustrated by the participial clause ούχι τώι κτανόντι με θυμουμένη (992-93), wedged within the unit νοσοΰντά τ' οικον.,.πατρώιον όρθωσαν, μεταστήσαι: for the verb see on 775. κτανόντι: the most plausible emendation (Heath) of L's κτανοΰντι, the rare epic fut. (cf. on 291). The aor. does not indicate the completion of the act but presents it as completed for emphasis; cf. KG 1.166-67. Another possibility would be Elmsley's κτείνοντι, impf, part.; cf. on 802. Ιθέλοοΐ": Platnauer thinks that the repetition of the verb from 991 is acceptable and he provides a list of Euripidean passages with repetition of words (cf. also Al. 722) but none involves a verb and especially a verb of a clause in apposition to the previous one. Markland's πάλιν, supported by S. Ant. 163 and printed by Cropp, is the best available emendation. 994-95a. It is indicative of Iphigeneia's noble attitude that the benefits she expects from her brother's escape, the avoidance of fratricide and the restoration of the house, have a strong altruistic and religious component. γάρ does not refer only to the salvation of the house mentioned last in the previous sentence but also to that of Orestes mentioned in 991-93. χειρ': for the pollution localized on the murderer's hands see on 941. 995b-98. την θεόν δ' δπως λάθω/ δέδοικα και τύραννον: this is a conflation of two statements: "I do not know how to avoid detection (=

Commentary

323

escape punishment) by the goddess and the king" and "I fear detection (= punishment) by the goddess and the king". Iphigeneia does not seriously entertain the possibility of escaping the notice of the king (see esp. 1027, 1048-49, 1080-81) or, presumably, that of the goddess hence England's την θεόν δέ πώς λάθω; δέδοικα και τύραννον is plausible. Her main concern is to invent an adequate excuse for the removal of the statue from the temple. The fact that the wrath of the king receives greater emphasis than that of the goddess does not imply that Iphigeneia worries more about Thoas but that he is likely to become the instrument of the goddess' wrath. Orestes will try to defuse his sister's fear of divine wrath at 1012-16 and there will be no further mention of the goddess' (possible) objection to the theft until 1400 (see n.). κρηπΐδας...λαίνας: a realistic detail, the wooden statue had a stone pedestal. England suggests that the plural may have been used because the pedestal took the form of steps. 999-1001. Iphigeneia starts with the auspicious outcome, which she plainly considers improbable, and then focuses on the less desirable one (1002-3). εί μεν | έ ν τι τοΰθ' όμοΰ γενήσεταιΐ": the corruption is difficult to heal, όμοΰ is redundant after εν τι τοΰθ' and όμοΰ γίγνεσθαι or είναι is often used in contexts of chaotic confusion. Besides, at 1000-1 one would expect explanatory infinitives rather than futures, as Platnauer points out. The emendation closest to the transmitted text is Schmidt's αλλ' εϊ μεν ήμΐν ταΰθ'. εύπρύμνου: the adj., also used at 1357and I A 723, is a Homeric hapax (II. 4.248) from a context full of urgency, perhaps not accidentally. Ships are also said to have nice prows at I A 765. τό κινδύνευμα γίγνεται καλόν: "the risky enterprise becomes beautiful", the unpleasantness of taking the risk will be eliminated by the favorable outcome, κινδύνευμα is a tragic coinage (also S. Ant. 42, OC 564). It is probably active in sense here; for the flexible meaning of nouns in - μ α see on 315. 1002-3. The unfavorable outcome, in Iphigeneia's view much more likely than the opposite (note the certainty of δλλυμαι, which contrasts with the hope in άν...τύχοις), is mentioned second and elaborated upon. It is not entirely clear what Iphigeneia envisages at this point: if she tries to escape with Orestes and she is intercepted, it is unlikely that he will be able to escape. If she does not follow him, there is little possibility for her to board the ship, τούτου does not refer to κινδύνευμα but to her passage to Greece, as becomes obvious next, τό σαυτοΰ θέμενος εΰ: in tragedy ευ (and more rarely καλώς) τίθεμαι occurs often in euphemistic contexts that involve death; see e.g. Hi. 709, Here.

324

Commentary

605, 938, ΙΑ 672, S. El. 1434 and Bond on Here. 605. καλώς τίθημι is also found (euphemistically at He. 875, El. 648) but εΰ τίθημι is rare and not attested in tragedy except perhaps at Md. 926; see Diggle (1994) 263-65. Since the price for Orestes' return home is Iphigeneia's death, the "nice arrangement of Orestes' affairs" acquires an ominous nuance. 1004-6. The speech ends with no plan in place but with Iphigeneia's firm decision to die if that is the price to be paid for her brother's escape. The connection between the Aulis sacrifice and Iphigeneia's present offer of self-sacrifice is not particularly close. Iphigeneia does not internalize her identity as a victim but behaves as a true φίλη, not because of her past but irrespective of it. For the justification of her willingness to die on the basis of the importance of males to the family see on 989-1006. For the reasons invoked by people who volunteer to die see on 646. The last three sentences begin with ού (cf. 1007), as Iphigeneia rejects forcefully the idea that she may hesitate to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to save her brother. Note also τι in ού μην τι φεύγω γ' "I certainly do not shrink from anything". ού μήν τι φεύγω γ', ούδέ σ' εί θανεΐν χρεών σώσασαν: the syntax is problematic. Diggle (1994) 170 cites examples of interlacing of participial and verbal constructions but confusion may occur here because, until σώσασαν, the sentence may mean "not even if you must die", although this interpretation is unlikely in the context and oral delivery possibly eliminated misunderstanding, ού γαρ άλλ': common in Euripides and perhaps colloquial in origin; see GP 31 and Dodds on Ba. 785. άνήρ μεν έκ δόμων θανών ποθεινός: a conflation of "dead and lost to the family" and "dead and sorely missed by the family". For ποθεινός see on 515. 1007-16. Orestes responds first (1007-11) to his sister's last statement (1002-6) and then tries to alleviate her fear of divine wrath (995-96) by arguing that Artemis cannot oppose the escape of the siblings with the statue (1012-16). This is Orestes' main contribution to the devising of the escape plan; cf. next n. and on 1020-27. 1007-9. The prospect of any additional death in the family that might be attributed to him, even if not as the actual killer, understandably appalls the matricide Orestes. His nobility of character is never in doubt in this play, and he rejects Iphigeneia's offer with a noble conviction that matches hers. He demonstrated the same nobility when he rejected the priestess' offer to save him and sacrifice Pylades (597-608) and Py-

Commentary

325

lades' offer to be sacrificed along with him (687-99). Orestes is now in the position of Pylades: he will not volunteer to die instead of Iphigeneia because, apart from the fact that it would be almost impossible for Iphigeneia to escape without Orestes, he knows that his sister would not accept such an offer. His assurance that the siblings will either live or die together is meant to provide comfort to Iphigeneia as well as an extra stimulus to her to include herself in the potential escape plan; cf. on 1012-16. Even a cursory comparison with Or. 1039-40 (αλις τό μητρός αΐμ'· έγώ δέ σ' οϋ κτενώ,/ αλλ' αϋτόχειρι θνήισχ' δτωι βούληι τρόπωι), the first line of which echoes 1007-8a (ουκ άν γενοίμην σοΰ τε και, μητρός φονεύς·/ αλις τό κείνης αίμα), reveals the difference between the two scenes. In Orestes the brother is weary and he seems almost not to want to take the extra pain of killing his sister Electra, bluntly telling her to take care of her own suicide. ούκ: the fourth time a sentence is introduced with ού in four lines (1004-7); cf. on 1004-6. αλις: either εχω or, probably, έστί is implied, αλις εχω may be construed with acc. or with partitive gen.; see Kannicht on HI. 589, Willink on Or. 1039 and cf. Collard on Su. 1147b-49. κοινόφρων δέ σοι/ και ζην θέλοιμ' αν και θανών λαχεΐν ϊσον: cf. Or. 307-8. The compound κοινόφρων appears only here and at Ion 577. The tragedians were particularly fond of compounds in -φρων and many of these are hapax, apparently ad hoc creations, e.g. μελεόφρων (854), γυναικόφρων (Erechth. fr. 362.34), μονόφρων (A. Ag. 757), διχόφρων (Α. S. 899), άνδρόφρων (S. fr. 943). Others occur only a couple of times, e.g. βλαψίφρων (A. S. 725 and later authors), αίδόφρων (Al. 659, S. OC 237). Most commentators suggest that only the first component of κοινόφρων is meaningful but this would be a unique downgrading of the second component: in virtually all other cases both components are meaningful; cf. FJW on A. Su. 593-94. Here and in Ion common action and common principles are stressed. Xuthus seeks to persuade Ion to abandon his reservations concerning his parentage and to travel to Athens "in one mind with your father". Orestes not only wants to live and die with his sister but to do so in agreement with his sister. It is true that the idea of common life and death rather than that of common views is paramount in Orestes' mind, as is obvious from 1010-11. Nevertheless, the siblings' situation and Orestes' view of it suggested the choice of κοινόφρων. The siblings need to cooperate in order to devise a plan and escape together; if they fail, they should agree to die together. The inf. ζην is the equivalent of the participle θανών. Musgrave's emendation ζών, printed by Cropp, normalizes the syntax. The shift creates variety but was possibly motivated by the fact that like-

326

Commentary

mindedness is thought to be more appropriate to life and sharing another person's (bad) lot to death, θανών λαχεΐν ίσον: Cropp suggests that Orestes envisages a common tomb and commemorative honors but this is unlikely. After all the emphasis on the lack of proper burial in the previous scenes, Orestes cannot possibly expect burial honors if the siblings die at the hands of the Taurians. It is clear especially from 1010-11 that he has this kind of death in mind. Even if Pylades survives and returns to Greece, which is unlikely if the siblings are captured and put to death, the idea of burial honors is irrelevant in the context. What Orestes has in mind is companionship in death, not in funeral honors shared with his sister, λαχεΐν by itself does not suggest such honors: in the other passages cited by Cropp (Su. 309, 539 and Erechth. fr. 360.33), burial and funeral gifts are explicitly mentioned. 1010-11. άξω δέ σ', ήνπερ καυτός εντεύθεν περώ/ προς οίκον, ή σου κατθανών μενώ μέτα: L's text of 1010 (ήξω δέ γ', ήνπερ καυτός ένταυθοΐ πέσω) is obviously corrupt. Diggle (1981) 87-88 explains the rationale of the emendations he adopts, άξω δέ σ' (Canter) and εντεύθεν περώ (Seidler).17 With the emendations, 1008-9 and 1010-11 are almost tautological, but this is not a very serious problem, especially since the tautology is not absolute. The declaration of Orestes' decision to live or die with Iphigeneia is the core of his response to her offer of self-sacrifice and it is not implausible that he would stress his resolve with two extra lines. At 1008-9 Orestes declares his will to share his sister's fortunes in life and death and at 1010-11 he particularizes his decision to the present situation. σου κατθανών μενώ μέτα: cf. θανών αύτοΰ μενεΐς {ΑΙ. 488), κατθανών δ' αύτοΰ μενεΐ (Ion 1038) and the euphemistic εϊτ' αύτοΰ μενεΐς {Hl. 877). Dale on Al. 488 suggests that the phrase may echo a

17 The only plausible alternative is M a r k l a n d ' s suggestion ή ν π ε ρ μ ή α ΰ τ ό ς έ ν τ α υ θ ο ΐ π έ σ ω . The most serious objection involves the synecphoresis of μ ή α ύ τ ό ς . έντ α υ θ ο ΐ is an Attic form and it becomes a tragic one if it is kept in the text. Seidler also objected that with this text the sequence ή σ ο ΰ κ α τ θ α ν ώ ν μ ε ν ώ μ έ τ α is unacceptably redundant: "I will take you home if I myself do not fall here or (i.e. if I fall here) I will stay and die with you." The implied condition is not necessarily "if I fall here" but it may be "if you fall here". Besides, some redundancy is not unthinkable in an emphatic statement, meant to reassure Iphigeneia as strongly as possible: ήνπερ κ α υ τ ό ς έ ν τ ε ΰ θ ε ν π ε ρ ώ is also quite redundant because, to take Iphigeneia home, Orestes naturally has to escape death at the hands of the Taurians and travel home himself. Similarly, even with Seidler's emendation the implied condition "if I do not (manage to) travel h o m e " is equivalent to "if I fall here" and thus equally redundant.

Commentary

327

proverb. If so, Orestes modifies and adapts it to his situation, σου μέτα is in common to participle and verb as προς οίκον is to αξω and περώ. 1012-16. In the second part of his reply Orestes attempts to convince Iphigeneia that Artemis cannot oppose the theft of the statue and the siblings' return to Greece. Thus Iphigeneia should try to devise an escape plan that includes herself and not only Orestes (and Pylades) with the statue. He points out that Artemis' own brother Apollo ordered him to travel to Tauris in order to take the statue to Athens and so to be reunited with Iphigeneia. He claims that Apollo would not have given an oracle offensive to his sister Artemis and bound to prompt her to take action against it. Since Apollo and Artemis are on their side, the escape of the siblings with the statue is likely to succeed if Iphigeneia manages to devise a plan that would neutralize the opposition of the king. This is a rational and plausible conclusion but certainly not the only one that a mortal examining divine motives and behavior could reach. Especially the assumption of agreement and cooperation between divine siblings, probably inspired by the affection and cooperation between Orestes and his sisters, is not self-evident. If, for instance, Orestes recalled that the recalcitrant Erinyes opposed their sisters' decision to stop pursuing Orestes, he might be less confident about concord between divine siblings. For mortal confidence in the interpretation of divine signs and behavior see Introduction Ic(2) and cf. 111(1 )c. 1012-15a. γνώμης: not 'a thought' but 'opinion, outlook, view of the matter'; cf. e.g. 420, Hi. 290, 391, Here. 278-79. πρόσαντες: used in metaphorical sense first by Euripides; cf. Md. 381 and Or. 790. αγαλμα θεας πόλισμ' ές Παλλάδος: for the synizesis in θεάς after a short syllable see on 87. πόλισμα occurs several times in Euripides as a synonym of πόλις; for the use of the word in prose and poetry see Page on Md. 771 and Stockert on I A 777. The reference to Athena is likely intended to reassure Iphigeneia that not only the twin gods Apollo and Artemis but also their half-sister Athena, and presumably all Olympian gods, are favorably disposed to the escape of the siblings with the statue to Athens. The lacuna after 1014 has been postulated by Köchly because Apollo's oracle did not mention Iphigeneia but contained only the promise that the Erinyes would stop pursuing Orestes if he brought the statue to Athens. Even if Orestes included her in his reference to the oracle because the oracle led to the recognition of the siblings, scholars felt that this would hardly justify άπαντα in the next sentence; see next n. σον πρόσωπον είσιδεΐν: an unusual way of referring to the major

328

Commentary

event of the reunion and likely to depend on a verb in the lacuna rather than έθέσπισεν. The focus on the face points to Orestes' fraternal tenderness; on the importance of head, face, eyes etc. in affectionate contexts cf. on 983. 1015b-16. απαντα...συνθείς τάδ' εις εν: cf. Md. 747, He. 1184, Tr. 909, Protesil. fr. 657. άπαντα led some commentators (Wecklein, Bruhn, England, Platnauer) to speculate that the lacuna was extensive but this is not necessary. The only candidates for inclusion in the lacuna are the events in Tauris, and Orestes is unlikely to have reviewed them in detail at this point. Cf. An. 1116 (εις ην απάντων τώνδε μηχανορράφος) and Here. 1139 (μιας απαντα χειρός εργα σης τάδε): απαντα refers to one ruse (with two or three parts), Orestes' against Neoptolemus, and to the murder of Heracles' children and spouse respectively. What Orestes stresses is not the great number of things previously mentioned but the fact that all pieces of the puzzle, including the oracle, which he used to consider ruinous, finally come to fall into place and present a hopeful picture, είς έν: Jackson (1955) 240 cites several Euripidean passages with this phrase; add Tr. 1155. 1017-19. Iphigeneia does not dispute her brother's argument but fails to share his confidence, probably because the task of devising the plan falls on her shoulders. "How is it then (οΰν) possible for us both to survive and to get what we want (i.e. even if, as you say and I do not dispute, the gods are on our side)? This (and not the attitude of the gods) is the (main) problem with our return home. This (rather than the question whether the gods support us) is what we need to consider." For the double goal cf. the similarly phrased wish at Or. 1172-75: Orestes fantasizes that he, Pylades and Electra manage to take revenge on Menelaus and survive. τήιδε...νοσεΐ νόστος: L's τήιδε,.,νόει is obviously corrupt. For the disease metaphor cf. e.g. He. 306, Ion 363, HI. 581, Μ 965-66, 1403, Μ elan. fr. 497. ήδε βούλευσις πάρα: L's reading ή δέ βούλησις πάρα is not only intolerably weak, as Platnauer suggests, but it also and primarily fails to be a plausible response to Orestes' previous utterance. Everybody realizes and nobody has denied that the will to escape is in place. Orestes did not suggest that his sister lacked the will to devise a plan but that the siblings did not lack divine support. It would thus be at least odd for Iphigeneia to say "yes, but how can we find a way etc. This is the prob-

Commentary

329

lem but our will is in place." 18 Cropp (1997) 37 provides the following interpretation of the lines: "Iphigenia's first sentence (1017-18) indicates that they need to find a way of getting what they want...Her second sentence stresses that wanting is not enough: 'We know what we want, but how to do it is the problem.'" Iphigeneia of course indicates that they need to find a way of achieving their goal but she does not point out that their will is not enough - this is obvious to everybody and Orestes never suggested otherwise. What she cautions her brother about (and what opens the way for the devising of the escape plan) is that even divine support is not enough, unless they themselves find a way of escaping with the statue. The only problem with βούλευσις (Markland) is that it first occurs in Aristotle (e.g. EN 1113al2). In view of editorial scruples to accept a non-tragic form (ένταυθοΐ) retained by Markland a few short lines above (see on 1010-11), this may be considered a fairly serious concern. Still, slight editorial inconsistency is preferable to acceptance of a half-line with little relevance to what precedes. Besides, βούλησις is rare in poetry too (only at An. 702, in a suspect passage in which the scholiast perhaps read βούλευσις, and Here. 1305) and thus its preservation a matter of pure chance. On βούλησις and other abstract nouns in - σ ι ς in poetry see Bond on Here. 1305 and cf. Stevens on An. 696. 1020-27. In response to his sister's renewed call for a plan, Orestes makes two suggestions that come to nothing but function as a foil for Iphigeneia's masterstroke of ingenuity; cf. on 1007-16. It is fairly common for Euripidean plots to start with impractical suggestions, especially plans to kill people. These plans are then almost immediately rejected, on grounds of piety or chances of success, in favor of deception plots; see Md. 376-85, Ion 976-85, HI. 1043-50 and cf. He. 876-94. Orestes' suggestion that they kill the king shows again his courage and determination. Iphigeneia's refusal brings out her piety but also the peculiarity of her circumstances: tricked and treated as a sacrificial victim by her own father and people, she found a sort of refuge with the barbarian Taurians. Despite their custom of offering human sacrifices and her aversion to it, the Taurians and especially their king are Iphigeneia's hosts, and thus she does not wish to harm them. Euripides could make palusibly Iphigeneia counter her brother's suggestion by having her point out the extreme difficulty of the enterprise. However, he chose to stress again Iphigeneia's nobility and piety, after all she has

18 Sansone's suggestion ήδε βούλησις πάρα has the same problem: "this is the wish or the purpose we have" is not a plausible response to Orestes' argument.

330

Commentary

suffered and in a situation where she, her beloved brother and her whole line are in mortal danger. A comparison with Helen and Ion shows that Iphigeneia's objection was not a standard response of heroines in distress; see Introduction Ib(2). Iphigeneia's sense of obligation toward Thoas contrasts with the Taurians' savage treatment of foreigners, but the primary contrast is probably between her attitude and Orestes' suggestion. The fact that Orestes, a matricide pursued by the Erinyes, sees no particular problem in suggesting the perpetration of another murder indicates that he has burnt many more bridges than his sister. His determination can take extreme forms, although only for the sake of saving himself and his family. For Orestes' next suggestion see on 1024-27. 1020-23. The plural at 1020 includes not only Pylades but also Iphigeneia: the men would need Iphigeneia's help not only to approach the king but also to obtain weapons, ξενοφονεΐν: 'killing a host'; contrast 776 and cf. 53, He. 1247. The killing of the host primarily refers to Iphigeneia and not to the captives who can hardly be considered Thoas' guests, έπήλυδας: 'new-comers', either friendly or hostile. The word is first found in Aeschylus and Herodotus and is possibly Ionic; see FJW on A. Su. 195. ούκ α ν δυναίμην: because of moral scruples, not factual hurdles; cf. e.g. Md. 1044, He. 1250, S. Ant. 686. Iphigeneia uses the same verb and mode as Orestes (1020) to indicate the finality of her objection but she softens it with the praise of her brother's boldness; cf. Lloyd (1999) 39. The act is unacceptable for the reason she mentioned above, but he has shown that he is willing to act and does not expect everything from her. τό...πρόθυμον: perhaps an echo of 989. ήινεσα: for the aorist cf. 862 and see on 1161. 1024-27. Orestes' second suggestion, to hide in the temple (1024), presumably until a suitable opportunity for escape with the statue arises, is less offensive to Iphigeneia but equally, and probably more, impractical. In the prologue (106-12) Orestes and Pylades had briefly considered a similar plan, to hide in a cave and return to the temple to steal the statue at night. They were free men then but their patent inability to devise a plan revealed that they had little chance of stealing the statue without a miracle. A sort of miracle did occur with the recognition, but a plan remains elusive and the men's situation has changed in the meantime: their status as sacrificial victims in an imminent sacrifice gives Iphigeneia very little room for maneuvering. Time is of the essence and the presence of sacred guards in the temple (1027) clearly

Commentary

331

makes it very difficult to hide anyone there and especially the coveted victims. For the deletion of 1025-26 see on 1025-27. 1024. τί δ' εΐ με ναώι τώιδε κρύψειας λάθραι; for this type of question cf. HI. 1043, Ph. 732. Bond on Here. 302 points out that τί δέ was originally the elliptical apodosis to the protasis; cf. Barrett on Hi. 608 and Stevens (1976) 30-31. κρύψειας λάθραι: the redundancy stresses the extreme secrecy of the act. It may be a conflation of "what if you led me into the temple in secret?" and "what if you hid me in the temple?". 1025-27. 1025-26 do not add anything to the dialogue but this alone is not a serious enough reason for bracketing them. Their main problem is their ineptitude: the plural λαβόντες is strange and 1026 is a pithy aphorism which may have made sense in another play but not here. From a dramatic point of view, it is unlikely that Iphigeneia would consider this proposal for longer than one line: she knows that there is no way for her brother to hide in the temple. Cropp (1997) 37 suggests that it is desirable to preserve the reference to night at 1026 because Orestes' plan is to hide in the temple until nightfall, a modification of Pylades' plan in the prologue (see on 1024-27). But the night is not necessarily implied at 1024 and, even if it is, the similarity with the prologue plan would be enough to suggest it to the audience without explicit reference. Schwinge (1968) 119-20 η. 14 thinks that the deletion destroys the pattern observed in 1020-23 and 1024-27: suggestion, objection (in this case skeptical reaction), attempt to overcome the objection, final rebuttal. This pattern emerges only if the problematic lines are kept and there is no reason why strict correspondence between Iphigeneia's two answers should be considered a virtue. In Ion 977, for example, Creusa dismisses summarily the old man's second suggestion that she slay her husband (976) while the first and especially the third suggestion are discussed more amply (972-75, 978-83). Similarly, in Phoenissae Eteocles' third suggestion is rejected more summarily than the first two (724-33). Iphigeneia's οΰ λήσομεν (1027) does not necessarily echo αληθείας (1026), a word whose commonest meaning, 'truth', did not advertise its etymology, but much more plausibly λάθραι (1024). ε'ίσ' ένδον ίεροΰ φύλακες: L's reading ίεροι φύλακες or Markland's ίεροφύλακες is not impossible. The adj. ιεροί is not commonly attributed to guards but it may have been chosen here because of the responsibility of the particular officers, the guarding of the temple. Alternatively, since guards would normally be positioned outside the temple, Iphigeneia may not refer to actual guards but to officials inside the

332

Commentary

temple charged with guarding it in some capacity. The temple seems to be envisaged as a complex with many functionaries, probably charged with different duties (cf. on 1284). The gen. is in common to ένδον and φύλακες. 1029-30. The much hoped-for and long-awaited masterly plan is called καινόν έξεύρημά τι "some new invention." Tragic redundancies, at least those in non-lyric parts of the plays, are seldom totally fatuous. The implication is that the plan has nothing to do with the previous suggestions, έξεύρημά is used for all kinds of inventions, e.g. cloaks (Ar. Eq. 886), games (Hdt. 1.94), a kind of anapaestic cola that had the form of pherecrateans (Pherecr. fr. 84.2) and the musical instrument giggras (Athen. 4.76 = Amphis fr. 14.2, where καινόν έξεύρημά τι, perhaps an echo, appears). The noun is also used in negative contexts for insidious and harmful inventions {HI. 1103, A. S. 649, S. OT 378). ποιόν τι; δόξης μετάδος, ώς κάγώ μάθω: for the standard stichomythia filler "which (or what)? Tell me etc." cf. on 673. Some editors would like to delete 1030-31 but it is unlikely that the first mention of the plan would not elicit a question about it but would be followed by praise of female cunning. The present stichomythia is remarkably free of standardized lines: 1032, dubious on other grounds (see next n.), and 1036a are the only other possible candidates. 1031-34. There is no compelling reason for suspecting all or any of the lines from 1030 to 1034. For 1030-31 see previous n. The most suspect is 1032 because of its gnomic generality. It could suit, and thus be inserted in, a great number of plays but it is not particularly appropriate here: the first, without any specifics, announcement of the content of a plan, as that of the existence of a plan, would be more naturally followed by a question about it and not an acknowledgment of female cunning, especially since Orestes fails to grasp the plan immediately. On the other hand, female cunning is a staple of Greek popular morality as well as poetry (see on 1298-99), and this is as appropriate a place for it to be mentioned as any other in Greek literature. If 1032 goes and 1031 stays, then 1033 has to go in order not to disrupt the flow of stichomythia but the explicit mention of matricide enhances the dramatic effect of Iphigeneia's plot. If 1033 stays, then 1034 has to stay too. All lines may be safely kept because there is no real repetition, the flow of the dialogue is unproblematic and the exchange has an almost exact parallel in HI. 1050-52. Iphigeneia begins her exposition of the plan with the mention of the rationale behind it and she gradually fills in the details.

Commentary

333

1031. άνίαις: only here in Euripides, instead of e.g. the commoner κακοΐς (cf. 1034) or συμφοραΐς. Iphigeneia focuses on the emotions of her brother toward the matricide and not on the act itself, σοφίσμασιν: cf. 380. Iphigeneia might now be thought to align herself with a divinity she considered unworthy a while ago (380-84) and even to use trickery without qualms. It should be kept in mind, though, that she proceeded to absolve the goddess of the charge of hypocrisy and murderous inclinations (385-91). Besides, apart from the fact that the plot that led to the Aulis sacrifice is never called a σόφισμα in this play, there is no comparison between the two situations, especially since Iphigeneia has just refused to kill Thoas in order to achieve her goal. For Iphigeneia's plot cf. on 1153-1233. 1032-34. δειναί: for female cunning and deception, notorious in Greek poetry and acknowledged by both male and female characters in tragedy, see on 1298-99. According to Greek belief, any kind of murder is polluting and offensive to the gods (cf. on 380-84). People who come in contact with murder, especially the perpetrators, are in need of purification. Iphigeneia, then, did not necessarily have to come up with the matricide to deceive Thoas but the choice, suggested to her by the story of Orestes, was plausible because of the particular abhorrence of the crime, έξ "Αργούς: this detail, prompted also by Iphigeneia's knowledge of the real story, will not feature in the actual deception of Thoas. Orestes readily assents to his sister's plan; contrast e.g. the unease of Menelaus {HI. 1051) and especially Orestes (S. El. 59-66) whose supposed deaths will be used to deceive their enemies. In Euripides' plays characters believe that the mention of Orestes' matricide is to be avoided {IT 924-25, 940-41, Or. 392-93). Nevertheless, unlike the mention of one's death, the mention of one's matricide is not ill-omened, and this is perhaps the reason why Iphigeneia does not ask for Orestes' permission to use it in her ruse; contrast HI. 1050 and cf. Orestes' admonition to Pylades not to talk about death (687). κερδανεΐς: Menelaus uses the metrically equivalent κερδανώ {HI. 1051). The choice here implies that Orestes cannot imagine himself gaining anything from the mention of his matricide. 1035-37. ώς οΰ θέμις σε λέξομεν θύειν θεαι: the verb governs the object clause (with implied copula), pace Diggle (1981) 88 who takes ώς as emphatic introductory, an ellipsis of ϊσθι ώς. Iphigeneia's statement is not particularly emphatic and no other example of Euripides' use of emphatic ώς contains a verb of saying and a clause that may de-

334

Commentary

pend on it. δντα at 1037 is governed by σε. τίν' αίτίαν εχουσ'; the question is not a mere line-filler, αίτίαν εχειν and similar phrases may be active or passive; see Mastronarde on Ph. 773. αίτίαν εχειν usually means 'to have cause for accusation' or 'to be accused of something'. Here αίτίαν may simply mean 'reason, cause'; cf. 926, 1168, He. 1203 (ή συγγενής ων, ή τίν' αίτίαν εχων;). Orestes cannot be sure that Iphigeneia plans to allege that he is open to the charge of impurity, although he clearly imagines that she will. This is the main reason why Reiske's emendation εχονθ' for εχουσ', which is unnecessary since the text has no problem as it stands anyway, should not be adopted pace Platnauer: it commits Orestes to something of which he cannot yet be certain. Orestes' question, the correct answer to which is implied in his ύποπτεύω τι γάρ, does not indicate that he is particularly slow to grasp the plan because he cannot be absolutely certain that the Taurian cult requires pure victims, ΰποπτεύω τι γάρ: for the postponement of γάρ in tragedy see GP 96. τό δ' δσιον δώσω φόνωι: for the theme of holiness in the play see on 130. δώσω: as Markland noted, "I will say I will give" is the correct interpretation of the verb. Similarly at 1039 βουλήσομαι = "I will say I intend to", φόνωι: L's φόβωι is probably impossible. It would have to mean "I will excite the [Taurians'] fear of unholiness" but this meaning can scarcely be extracted from the Greek, and there are no parallels. For other examples of MSS corruption of φόνος and other words into φόβος see Diggle (1981) 54. 1038-40. Orestes does not inquire further about himself, presumably because he assumes that the revelation of his pollution will be enough to save him from execution and turns his attention to the statue (1038). Realistically, Orestes cannot imagine what Iphigeneia has in mind about the statue since he has not heard about the purification yet, not even his own. At 1039 Iphigeneia continues with the exposition of her plan: following her own train of thought, she mentions only Orestes' purification and thus he has to try again in order to learn the plan about the statue (1040). Denniston (1939) xxvii suggests that this is petulantly ironic, the venting of anger of a helpless man who depends on his sister for the devising of the plan. It might be, although the context is least accommodating to irony or even to petulance. 1038. δήτα indicates some impatience or at least great eagerness on Orestes' part to learn about the statue; cf. on 734. μάλλον: "more" = more easily (than before or otherwise), i.e. more easily than if Iphigeneia did not allege that it is impossible to sacrifice an impure victim, άλίσκεται: the statue is visualized as prey, a metaphor appropriate for

Commentary

335

a young man skilled in hunting (cf. 709) as well as for a party in an intrigue (cf. Or. 1315-16). 1039. πόντου...πηγαΐς is an unusual expression (contrast 1192, πηγαΐσιν υδάτων) but it combines the idea of clean, running water and the sea that "purifies all human ills" (1193; see n.). άγνίσαι: Iphigeneia will describe in greater detail later the purification she will supposedly perform (1223-25): here Orestes hears only what he needs to know. The purification of a murderer necessitated further shedding of blood, that of a sacrificial animal, plus further rites to appease the dead and the chthonic powers; see Parker (1983) 230, 370-74 and cf. Willink on Or. 429. Washing of the polluted person possibly formed part of the rituals but definitely not the most important part, βουλήσομαι: for the meaning see on 1037. έφ' ώι πεπλεύκαμεν: there is no reason to introduce emendations such as Weil's (έφ' δπερ έπλεύσαμεν) or Wecklein's (έφ' ö πεπλεύκαμεν βρέτας) that produce έπί + acc.: έπί + dat. of purpose is perfectly suitable in the context. 1041. Madvig's νίψει ν is simpler than the transmitted νίψαι. With the latter, βουλήσομαι would have to be supplied from 1039, which is cumbersome, or the sentence could be taken as an indirect command, which would be somewhat odd in the context: Iphigeneia refers to future allegations, not future commands, νίζω, with twelve occurrences in Euripides (five in this play plus έκνίζω at 1222), one in Sophocles (OT 1228) and none in Aeschylus, is commonly used of washing body parts, usually hands and feet, and removing stains (e.g. from blood, sweat and sea-salt). Purification involves the (metaphorical) removal of the blood stain; cf. Jebb on S. OT 1228. Statues and/or garments of goddesses were washed annually in festivals throughout the Greek world; see Parker (1983) 26-28, E. Simon, Festivals of Attica (Madison 1983) 4651 and Dillon (2002) 132-36. As Parker points out, there were several motives for such baths. Ritual cleansing and renewal was common but it was not the only reason. The annual festivals were certainly not purificatory in the sense Iphigeneia has in mind here because the statues had not suffered exposure to pollution, σου θιγόντος: cf. 1200-1; the mere presence of a polluted matricide in the temple would pollute it and the statue but Iphigeneia will allege that the matricide actually touched the statue in order to impress upon the king the urgent ritual need to purify it with sea-water. 1042-43. ποΐ δήτα; πόντου νοτερόν εΐ παρ' εκβολον; L's text is ποΐ δήτα; πόντου νοτερόν εΐπας εκβολον; This is probably the most dif-

336

Commentary

ficult line of the stichomythia. Iphigeneia has clearly said that she would pretend to have to wash the impure victim with sea-water (1039). Since she would claim that the statue also needed washing (1041), it is plausible for Orestes to assume that Iphigeneia will also purify the statue with sea-water. 1042 is the line that contains this or some similar question but, as transmitted, it apparently means "Where then? Do you mean a damp inlet (or, a damp promontory)?" Even with the plausible emendation εΐ παρ' (Reiske) for εΐπας, the reference to a promontory or inlet is strange. The most serious problem is that there is no conceivable reason why Orestes would think that Iphigeneia would take the statue to an inlet or promontory for washing. One should perhaps assume that Orestes' ship was moored at such a place. Orestes understands that Iphigeneia intends to take the statue to the shore and asks whether she plans to take it to his ship's mooring place, which Iphigeneia confirms. The meaning of Orestes' question would then not be whether Iphigeneia intends to go to a promontory but to the promontory. This would be compressed and certainly not immediately understandable to the audience because they have not heard (and will not hear) anything about a promontory or inlet as the ship's mooring place. Nevertheless, this is the only interpretation that does not make nonsense of the text. Iphigeneia's answer is a plausible response to it, although it implies that she knows where the ship is moored, but this is not a great problem. One may imagine that Orestes' reference to the inlet or promontory led her to imagine that this would be the ship's mooring place to which she had planned to go with the statue. Cropp (1997) 38 suggests that εκβολον, whose primary meaning is 'cast-off' (cf. 1424), means 'offthrow' and refers to breakers or the surf-dampened strand after the breakers recede, i.e. that it is part of a poetic periphrasis for 'damp shore'. A reference to the shore would certainly be desirable but there is no parallel for the periphrasis and a question about Iphigeneia's specific destination seems forced. ποΐ: pregnant construction instead of που because the idea of motion in the next question is already predominant in the speaker's mind, χαλινοΐς is a bold metaphor for ship-hawsers, accentuated by the rare λινοδέτοις, which also appears in Aristophanes (N. 763) and Tim. Pers. 74; cf. A. P. 68 (λινοδέσμοπ σχεδίαι) and on 410 above. Diggle (1994) 343 observes that the suffix -δετός in tragedy may be active (as here), passive (as in 1125 and in Aristophanes), or without appreciable meaning (Or. 821, A. S. 43, fr. 57.6). All Greek compound adjs., especially those in -τος, may be active or passive; cf. on 798-99.

Commentary

337

1044-45. Euripidean plotters are concerned about help, armed or otherwise, available to their opponents and about the best way of dealing with the helpers; see El. 615-16 and 628-33 and Or. 1110-15. This is probably the implication of Orestes' question here: if a Taurian man carried the statue to the shore, he would have to be dealt with. From Iphigeneia's answer, which is not part of the ruse, Orestes possibly infers that nobody will accompany the purification party to the shore (apart from servants, whom he probably considers unworthy of attention). There will be Taurian men, although unarmed, against whom he and Pylades will have to fight, but Iphigeneia may not have thought of them yet (see on 1208), or she may hope that they will cause no problem. She answers only Orestes' question about the carrier of the statue. Further details would be dramatically inappropriate at this point, as they would take out much of the drama of the next episode and the exodus, δσιον: see on 130. 1046-47. Πυλάδης δ' δδ' ήμΐν που τετάξεται πόνου; L's φόνου, which would be a reference to the matricide, is not impossible. But the matricide was mentioned last at 1033, a considerable while ago by the standards of the rapid stichomythic exchange, and it seems unlikely that Orestes would have any inkling as to what his sister has in mind about Pylades. Thus Brodaeus' πόνου is the easiest and likeliest emendation.19 The fact that Pylades is not mentioned earlier is indicative of Orestes' preoccupation with the statue. Now that he has been assured that a satisfactory plan is in place, he immediately turns his attention to his friend. Note the warm ethic dat. ήμΐν ("and our Pylades here [i.e. of course we should not forget about him!]") and the agonistic allusion in πόνου (cf. on 988), a young man's view of a woman's plan, which involves almost exclusively verbal deceit. Not accidentally, the last reference to Pylades by name in the play is as a partner in a struggle (and the audience will last hear of him as a member of the Greek pair fighting the Taurian escorts at the shore, 1367-71). λέξεται...εχων: for the participle instead of an inf. with a verb of saying see Fraenkel on A. Ag. 269, Kannicht on HI. 537 and KG 11.72 n. 2. The construction is not

19 W i n c k e l m a n n ' s χ ο ρ ο ΰ is an ingenious alternative but it is based on a Platonic passage (Euth. 279b8) which is playfully ironic. England suggests that a metaphor f r o m choral dance would be very plausible here because of the prominence of choral performances in Greece. Nevertheless, a reference to choral dance in this context and in connection with the actors and not the chorus would probably be odd even by Euripides' standards. Cf. Denniston on El. 668.

338

Commentary

very common and it seems to convey emphasis: "he will be said to have the exact same pollution on his hands as you do." 1048-49. For the synecphoresis η είδότος Bruhn notes that η and ει merge quite often in Sophocles and Euripides, and the second word is always a form of είδέναι. Before the recognition, too, Orestes' final question about the chances of Pylades' successful escape concerned Thoas (741), the obvious major impediment to the success of any escape plan. The theme of λανθάνειν appears here for the last time in the exchange of Orestes and Iphigeneia (cf. 995-96, 1004, 1007), and the reference to the deception of the king foreshadows the next scene. 1050-52. The transposition of 1051 before 1050 (Köchly) produces a smoother sequence, eliminating the abruptness in the transition of thought, but it is not absolutely necessary. Without the transposition, Orestes assures his sister that, if she manages to deceive the king, the ship will be ready to sail. She responds that indeed he should take care of all the rest (cf. HI. 1073), i.e. everything that concerns the ship and the sailing. He then points out the potential problem with the chorus. With the transposition, Iphigeneia points out to her brother that, after she deceives the king, the success of the enterprise depends on him. He assures her that, as far as the ship is concerned, there is nothing to worry about. Some editors, most recently Cropp, postulate a lacuna after 1049 (or 1051) and attribute 1052 to Iphigeneia. This does not really improve on the transmitted text and it is unlikely that, if she thought of the chorus herself, Iphigeneia would not immediately turn to them to ask for their cooperation but would do so only after Orestes' encouragement. An isolated 1052 would perhaps also sound unfriendly in the mouth of Iphigeneia because of the curt manner of referring to the women with a simple demonstrative pronoun (τάσδε). Besides, since Orestes just expressed concern about Thoas, it is plausible that he would also worry about the possibility that the women may thwart the escape. 1050. νεώς...πίτυλος εύήρης: Lee on Tr. 1123 notes that νεώς πίτυλος is not a mere periphrasis for ναΰς but indicates a ship ready for departure, εύήρης reinforces the idea of readiness, πίτυλος, a Lieblingswort of Euripides' in literal and metaphorical contexts (307, 1346, Al. 798, Hrcld. 834, Hi. 1464, Here. 816, 1187, Tr. 817, 1123, 1236, Melau, fr. 495.11), indicates a repeated rhythmic, usually strenuous, sound, here of the ship's oars hitting the water. See the detailed discussion of Barrett on Hi. 1464 and cf. Casson (1971) 279 and Hutchinson

Commentary

339

on A. S. 855-56. εύήρης: a Homeric adj. for oar (Od. 11.121, 125, 129, 23.268, 272), quite rare in post-Homeric literature. Teiresias' prophecy to Odysseus in the Nekyia involves a trip to a far-away land and expiation of an angry divinity. The similarity with the situation of Orestes, quite remote anyway, is probably accidental. 1052-54. After prolonged withdrawal to the background, the women of the chorus come into focus with unexpected urgency. The cooperation of the chorus is always crucial to the success of the protagonists' plans in Greek tragedy (see e.g. Barrett on Hi. 710-12 and Hose [1990] 299307). In this play the chorus can cooperate only at potential risk to themselves, and this may be one of the reasons why Orestes urges his sister to do her best to convince them. Still, this risk, although not difficult to imagine, is not immediately clear or necessarily self-evident to the audience. In Helen, for instance, the Greek slave-women of the chorus are in a similar situation because they witnessed the conspiracy of Menelaus and Helen. Theoclymenus, despite suffering a great loss and being enraged to the point of sororicide (1621-26), does not turn against the compatriots of the Greek escapees. The chorus in IT have no similarities to Theonoe, Theoclymenus' sister and especially a seer, and are thus not likely to become the main target of Thoas' anger. No Taurian can be certain of the chorus' complicity. The women will draw attention to their knowledge of the plot and thus become targets of Thoas' anger through their own attempt to mislead the messenger (1293-1312, 1431-34). But, since nobody knows that or Thoas' intentions yet, the anxiety of Orestes and Iphigeneia is understandable and explains in part the length of the appeal. The siblings also apparently fear that the chorus will resent their escape; cf. on 1056-74. ένός μόνου: for a list of Euripidean passages with initial εν, explained by apposition (as here) or by independent sentence, see Barrett on Hi. 715-16. 1053-54 is a sort of tricolon crescendo, ά λ λ ' : this use of the particle in commands and exhortations marks "a transition from arguments for action to a statement of the action required" (GP 14): Orestes' identification of the potential problem the chorus might cause is the implicit argument for action here, άντίαζε: the verb, literally 'to meet, go toward someone', here with specialization of meaning 'go to supplicate someone', is fairly rare but strong. It is used in Euripides by women (An. 572, Su. 272, Ion 1119) and Alcestis' boy (Al. 400) and in Sophocles by women (Aj. 492, El. 1009) and Philoctetes in the throes of the disease paroxysm (Ph. 809). These are individuals who have no power but whose cause is always just and protected by divine laws (usually in the context of formal supplication; cf. the first occurrence of

340

Commentary

the word in extant literature, H. Od. 6.193 and 7.293). εχει τοι δύναμιν εις οΐκτον γυνή: an active inf. of motion is implied with εις οΐκτον; cf. Ion 361, IA 653. When supplication is in order, suppliants likely to arouse pity because of their weakness or affiliation with the supplicated have much better chances of success (cf. e.g. He. 336-41, HI. 830), and the propensity of women to pleadings (and tears) is a fairly common motif; cf. Md. 928, Or. 1022, S. Aj. 579-80 and PI. Phd. 117c-e. 1055. τά δ' αλλ' ϊσως άν πάντα συμβαίη καλώς: the only way to keep L's άπαντα συμβαίη is to assume aposiopesis after 'ίσως (Verall) but Markland's emendation is preferable. 1056-74. The appeal is longer than all others addressed to a chorus in extant tragedy for the reasons discussed in the n. on 1052-54. Vellacott (1984) 172 suggests that Iphigeneia's passionate appeal after prolonged indifference toward the chorus' situation is insensitive and distasteful, a manifestation of the ruthless streak that the terrible circumstances of her life unleashed in her. The reversal of Iphigeneia's fortune is so radical and the need for escape so urgent that her earlier failure to express sympathy for the chorus can hardly be perceived as a sign of emotional deficiency. The women's lack of resentment and offer of unconditional help lend support to a different view of Iphigeneia's relationship to them. Cf. on 576-77. The speech is formally impeccable, with initial appeal (exordium, 1056-59), arguments in support of the case, invocation of female solidarity and the prospect of the chorus' own benefit from the protagonists' escape (argumentum, 1060-68), and final exhortation with supplication {peroratio, 1069-74). It is rich in pathos and emotion, with urgent repetitions and crescenda, but these virtues cannot disguise the very plain fact that Iphigeneia's case is actually very weak and her only hope of success is the chorus' sympathy. Her promise to save the chorus if she escapes (1067-68) is clearly hollow. She does not even try to strengthen her case by appealing to the gods' presumed favor toward the siblings' plan to escape (contrast 1012-16). Mistress and servants seem to be united, yet again, in their caution about divine involvement in human affairs and especially about Artemis' approval of the plan, although Iphigeneia will eventually appeal to the goddess for help (1082-88; cf. 1230-33 and 1398-1402). The chorus will not mention the goddess' help or her statue's possible move to Athens: they will only praise Apollo's oracular power in the third stasimon (1234-83; cf. 1125-31).

Commentary

341

1056-59. The request is not immediately stated, although it is certainly obvious to the chorus. In the introduction Iphigeneia aims for captatio benevolentiae by stressing her complete helplessness and the absolute power the chorus have on herself and her family. The emphasis on the speaker's helplessness is a common rhetorical device but this is one of the few cases in which the truth of the claim is not feigned or exaggerated. The introduction is divided in short paratactic cola, in ascending emotional order: each explains, reinforces, or amplifies the previous one; cf. on 1057-59. 1056. φίλταται: φίλος and especially φίλτατος are prominent in this speech (1058, 1065, 1069, 1070; cf. 1061). They stress the close bonds that unite the individuals involved, Iphigeneia and her family but more crucially Iphigeneia and the chorus, and the fact that, if the chorus fail to help her, she loses everything and her dearest kin at that, εις ύμας βλέπω: both literal and metaphorical, "I am looking at you" and "I am looking to you". There is no parallel for L's ώς ύμας βλέπω while είς and πρός are copiously attested with βλέπω; see e.g. Al. 206, 390, 1121, Md. 247, Hrcld. 225, Here. 81, 1227, HI. 1442, Ph. 458, IA 320, 1238; cf. HI. 267, S. Aj. 514, El. 954, Ant. 923. Cf. also on 928 above. 1057-59. The pathos of Iphigeneia's total dependence on the women is stressed by the isocolon in ή καλώς εχειν and ή μηδέν είναι, the homoioteleuton in είναι and στερηθήναι and the tricolon crescendo in πάτρας φίλου τ' αδελφού φιλτάτης τε συγγόνου. καί ταμ': Köchly suggested ώς for καί but the emendation is not necessary. As in the next line and at 1063, καί here explains rather than connects; cf. 1376, 1400 and see GP 291. ταμ': practically equivalent to the personal pronoun here; see on 766. Note that the subject of στερηθήναι and probably also of μηδέν είναι is not τάμά but an implied personal pronoun. Bothe's φιλτάτης for L's φιλτάτου is the minimal emendation needed to correct 1059 but there is something to be said in favor of Markland's emendation φίλης τ' αδελφής φιλτάτου τε συγγόνου because it is likely that Iphigeneia would designate her brother, who is present and known to the chorus, as "dearest" in order to arouse the women's pity for him and herself. Alternatively, it seems quite plausible that Iphigeneia already has in mind her upcoming reference to female solidarity and this idea colors the reference to her sister, which is meant to arouse the sympathy of the female chorus.

342

Commentary

1060. For the structure of the speech see on 1056-74. The formal announcement of its first part after the introduction is foreign to modern feeling, especially in the context of an emotional appeal to friends. It accentuates the gravity of the situation by implying the danger the speaker runs in case her plea fails and the importance of the first argument for her success; note the slight redundancy in πρώτα...τάδ' άρχέτω for emphasis; cf. Md. 475, Hi. 991, Alope fr. 110. For the verbal performance of Euripidean characters, usually presented as rhetorically self-conscious, see recently R. Scodel, "Verbal Performance and Euripidean Rhetoric" in Cropp et al. (2000) 129-44. 1061-62. Iphigeneia naturally brings up female solidarity first because this is the foundation of her bond to the chorus and there is precious little else through which she may win their consent. The fact that Orestes appears only indirectly in this part of the speech is calculated to stress Iphigeneia's own personal and gender bond with the women. (The chorus in their answer [1075] also mention only Iphigeneia.) For the motif of female solidarity see e.g. Md. 823, HI. 329, 830, Alope fr. 108 and cf. Hi. 293-94 and An. 954-56. The argument takes again the form of a tricolon crescendo (cf. on 1037-59). It starts with the biological, as it were, basis of the solidarity (γυναΐκές έσμεν) and proceeds to the emotional aspect of the relationship (φιλόφρον άλλήλαις γένος) in order to close with its manifestation (σώιζειν τε κοινά πράγματ' άσφαλέσταται). The speaker states what she hopes to achieve as an already well-established fact (note the emphasis in the superlative άσφαλέσταται at the end). σώιζειν τε κοινά πράγματ': things common to women, i.e. things that women share, not necessarily common interests. Iphigeneia's point is that women can be trusted to keep their female friends' secrets. Naturally, the keeping of secrets often safeguards common interests but it is unlikely that Iphigeneia would imply that her own interest, the escape, is shared by the women before she even makes her promise to save them (1067-68). τε has the same function as καί at 1057, 1058 and 1063: it does not so much introduce a new point as explains what female solidarity primarily consists in. 1063-64. The request, flanked by corroborating arguments, comes at the very center of the speech (1063), with a six-syllable verb at the end of the line and a possibly significant instance of enjambment; cf. on 582-87. σιγήσαθ': for the use of the verb in conspiratorial contexts cf. on 723. συνεκπονήσατε: the verb is commonly used with reference to active collaboration in a task; see e.g. Ion 740, HI. 1378, 1406, Androm.

Commentary

343

fr. 136.4. In the present passage the chorus are asked to help by not doing, i.e. not saying, anything. Contrast e.g. A. Ch. 581-82, Orestes' instructions to the chorus to keep a discreet tongue, to keep silent when necessary and say only what is appropriate, i.e. conducive to the success of the plot, ήμΐν and φυγάς are in common to both verbs. καλόν τοι γλώσσ' δτωι πιστή παρήι: for τοι cf. on 650. Barrett on Hi. 426-27 well explains the construction here: "...γλώσσα has pushed forward out of the δτωι clause and is half felt as subj. of καλόν (έστι) - a compromise between καλόν τοι γλώσσα πιστή and καλόν τοι δτωι γλώσσα πιστή παρήι"; cf. on 606. For the archaism of the subjunctive without άν in relative clauses cf. 671 and the passages cited by Page on Md. 516; for the phenomenon in fifth-century texts see Bers (1984) 142-64. 1065-66. τούς φιλτάτους would normally mean "your dearest" but Iphigeneia is perhaps carried away by her own emotions toward Orestes and Pylades. τρεις μία: juxtaposition of εις with other numerals (or adjectives, pronouns etc.) is common in tragedy; see Barrett on Hi. 1403 and cf. Willink on Or. 1244-45, a passage similar to this one. γης πατρώιας νόστος: L's νόστον is impossible; a close parallel to the explanatory ή γής πατρώιας νόστος ή θανεΐν is Η. II. 10.174 (ή μάλα λυγρός όλεθρος Άχαιοΐς ήέ βιώναι). For the two possibilities cf. HI. 1090-92. For νόστος with gen. of the destination cf. H. Od. 5.344-45; cf. also 1112 below, Cy. 108 and IA 816. The mention of τύχη and νόστος ties in with the next argument, the last before the peroratio. 1067-68a. The promise that, if she escapes, she will take the chorus too back to Greece is the only reward Iphigeneia can offer the women in exchange for their help and the potential danger it involves: this is the reason why she keeps it for the end. It is not clear whether Iphigeneia implies that, if she manages to reach the shore, she will devise some plan to take the women along on Orestes' ship or that she will save them after she returns to Greece with her relatives and the statue. Given the difficulties of the escape of the trio with the statue, it is unlikely that they would not flee immediately, as they will actually try to do. On the other hand, if Iphigeneia promises to return to Greece and send for the chorus afterwards, she makes a virtually impossible promise because of the difficulty of the enterprise and the possibility that the women will be killed by Thoas long before a ship arrives to rescue them. Iphigeneia clearly has no plan in place for the rescue of the chorus, although her promise is not necessarily meant to be viewed as insincere. There is no indication in the play that she would not actually wish

344

Commentary

to save the chorus if she could or that she would fail to try. (Helen makes a similar promise to the chorus but she couches it in less definite terms [HI. 1388-89].) For Iphigeneia's behavior toward the chorus see also on 576-77 and 1056-74. The promise raises the issue of the ultimate fate of the chorus but it provides no clue about it, although the reference to τύχη could be a hint that the women might eventually enjoy as unexpected a reversal of fortune as the siblings. σύ: the switch to second singular after and before plurals (1056-66, 1072-73, 1078) does not necessarily indicate that Iphigeneia turns to the leader while she initially addressed the group but it smoothes the transition to the more intimate singulars of the supplication of individual members of the chorus (1068b-69; cf. on 1078). For switch of numbers in addresses to the chorus cf. e.g. Md. 214-15 and 252-66, HI. 1369 and 1387-89; cf. Hi. 373-74, 391 and 419 and see Kaimio (1970). The use of almost any form of σώιζω, and especially two forms of the verb (cf. e.g. Ion 386), inevitably contributes to a discharge of a volley of sigmas (cf. e.g. 1489). 1068 surpasses the notorious Md. 476 in the number of sigmas (cf. also Or. 450, S. 0Γ425), although the stop probably dampens the effect; 1067 is also heavily sigmatic but obviously for no special effect; cf. on 678-79. 1068b-74. The supplication breaks out in mid-line. It is fairly typical but quite full, with mention of the hand, face, knees and loved ones of the women; cf. on 362-63. The actor may have approached the orchestra while delivering the speech and thus visually enacted the literal meaning of the verb ίκνοΰμαι. The emotional pitch rises toward the end of the appeal, a conventional rhetorical technique but here particularly useful because of Iphigeneia's heavy reliance on emotion (cf. on 1056-74). The urgency of the plea is indicated by the fact that the suppliant personalizes it by addressing individual members of the chorus, which is unique in extant tragedy. Unlike comedy, tragedy consistently avoided the individualization of chorus members - we never learn names, for instance.20 Cf. on 576-77. It would create a more vivid effect and would provide an excellent opportunity for a display of histrionic virtuosity if the actor actually moved agitated from woman to woman, touching their hands, faces and 20 On special occasions, individual members or subgroups of the chorus make separate statements, mainly in moments of crisis, especially when characters die offstage. An extensive and notable example is A. Ag. 1346-71; see also S. Aj. 866-78 and Eur. Or. 1258-60, 1278-80 and Hi. 782-85 with Barrett's nn. Cf. the parodos of Alcestis (77-111), Troades (153-96), and Ion (184-218). For other instances see Dale on Al. 77-135.

Commentary

345

knees, especially if physical displacement of the actor was unusual. England, though, correctly observes that an imitation of supplication would be enough for the purposes of the scene. In any case, it is a plausible assumption, consistent with archaeological evidence and the testimony of ancient sources, that the classical stage, if elevated at all, was raised to a height that allowed easy communication with the orchestra by a few steps. See Hourmouziades (1965) 58-81 and Taplin (1977) 441-42; for the classical theater of Dionysus Eleuthereus in Athens see Moretti (2000) 377-98, esp. 392-98. 1068b-70. άλλά: for the use of the particle see on 1053. For the order of words in supplications see Barrett on Hi. 503. Cropp (1997) 39 suspects 1070 because the reference to relatives of the chorus at home would be inappropriate since the chorus' city has been sacked and its population enslaved (1106-10) and the line spoils the rhetorical effect of the tricolon of 1069. There has been no mention of the sacking of the chorus' city (or indeed cities) yet, although Iphigeneia is supposed to know about it. Nevertheless, the poet would probably not feel constrained to scrutinize every potentiality of inconsistency or inappropriateness in his references to the chorus, especially since here the fullness of the supplication is dramatically important and the audience would be unlikely to remember such a detail for long. Besides, the chorus themselves wonder whether their parents are alive or dead (576-77) and express a wish to return to their hometown(s): this city or cities may have been sacked but not destroyed and the entire population may not have been enslaved. Since Orestes and Iphigeneia unexpectedly found each other under such extraordinary circumstances, Iphigeneia may well imagine that some of the chorus' relatives may be alive at home. As for the tricolon, its effect is not particularly pronounced. On the other hand, if 1070 stays, there is no formal tricolon but there is tripartite intensification in the appeal to right hand, face, and knees and loved ones together (with homoioteleuton in γονάτων.,.φιλτάτων). [1071], This line cannot be retained: the women are unmarried (130) and Iphigeneia should not be made to entertain the thought that some of them are single mothers. Besides, οτωι can hardly be used in connection with female subjects except when it is part of a statement of general truth (e.g. 1064). Cf. on 926. 1073-74. φθέγξασθε: the cry in parenthesis underscores the urgency of the plea: Iphigeneia does not even wait until the end of her second question, let alone for any signs of the chorus' reaction, but cries out

346

Commentary

"speak out!" in mid-sentence. This is the only parenthesis in Euripides with a second person imperative; the closest parallel is IA 631 (hortatory subjunctive); cf. Η. II. 23.407-8, A. 5. 200-1, S. Aj. 68-69. For other examples of parenthesis or δια μέσου construction in drama see Fraenkel on A. Ag. 318, Kannicht on HI. 873-75 and Diggle (1981) 116, (1994) 208; cf. IA 1413 and next η. γάρ: an instance of the explanatory use of the particle with compression of thought. It refers to the tone or an implication of the previous statement (cf. GP 62): "(I ask with such urgency because it is so important to me to assure your consent.) For, if you do not consent, I and my poor brother are lost." The speech ends in ring-composition with emphasis on the certain destruction of the siblings in case the chorus reject their plea. Pylades is left out for stronger emotional effect: the final appeal concentrates on the helpless pair of siblings whose life depends on the chorus' cooperation. 1075-77. The women of the chorus acquiesce graciously to their mistress' plea. Their poised and warm answer contrasts with the excitement and length of Iphigeneia's speech. Their subtle allusions to it underscore the nobility of their loyal and selfless stance. They address Iphigeneia as φίλη δέσποινα, taking up and espousing the notion of friendship she had stressed. They urge her to "have courage" (θάρσει), because she appeared particularly anxious, and to take care of her own salvation only (σώιζου μόνον), politely dismissing her promise to save them if she escapes (1067-68); cf. 1123-37. Note furthermore the juxtaposition εκ γ' έμοΰ σοι: "As far as I am concerned (εκ γ' έμοΰ), I will definitely keep silent for your sake." The use of γ' implies that the cooperation of the chorus cannot guarantee Iphigeneia's salvation. ώς: for emphatic introductory ώς, an ellipsis of ϊσθι ώς, cf. 1214 and see the other examples collected by Diggle (1981) 88. For 1035 see n. ιστω μέγας Ζεύς: another instance of parenthesis or δια μέσου construction (cf. previous n.). In this case the sense is fairly complete before the parenthesis; for such cases cf. Bond on Here. 222. The oath by Zeus is Homeric (II. 3.276-80; cf. 15.36) and undoubtedly very solemn (cf. on 749) but not customarily taken by women (Sophocles, for instance, uses it only for men, Tr. 1188, Ph. 1324) who naturally swear by female divinities, as Iphigeneia herself does (by Artemis) at 748. (Andromache also swears by Zeus, An. 37.) Artemis would be the most natural choice for the women of the chorus, too, since they serve at her temple. The fact that they fail to swear by the goddess on this important occasion indicates that they are reluctant to involve her in something she may disapprove of; cf. on 1056-74.

Commentary

347

1078. Iphigeneia's wish that the chorus attain happiness will become true very soon and unexpectedly (1467-69). The full, heartfelt expression of thanks matches the magnanimity of the promise. Note the double wish for the attainment of happiness: "may you profit from your words and become happy (through the reward you reap)"; cf. El. 231. Usually only εύδοαμονοίης (Ph. 1086, Hy. fr. 64.69-70 [759a. 1591] with Bond's n.) or övouo (HI. 1418, IA 1008, 1359, S. OC 1042) occur. Barrett on Hi. 715 suggests that the plural is used because the coryphaeus speaks and the other members of the chorus may make an assentient sound or gesture. In IT the women as a group are addressed in the singular only at 1067-68. The offering of thanks is naturally couched in the most inclusive terms possible. 1079-81. Orestes and Pylades are summarily dispatched into the temple in anticipation of Thoas' arrival, which is announced in some detail. This is virtually unique in extant tragedy and meant to suggest the predictability of Thoas and the ease with which Iphigeneia will manipulate him. According to older editors (Wecklein, England, Gregoire, Platnauer, Strohm), Orestes and Pylades enter the temple after 1081 and Iphigeneia after 1088. Cropp and Kovacs (and Morwood) think that all three enter together after 1088. It is possible that the men enter before Iphigeneia but there is no cogent reason for such an arrangement. Usually, characters leave before others because they have to or because the characters who linger onstage need to say a prayer or make a statement that should not be overheard. Nothing of the sort applies to Iphigeneia and the men. Iphigeneia's instructions do not imply that the men should enter the temple the moment she finishes speaking but that there is no point in their lingering outside the temple any longer. The king should find them in the temple with the statue they supposedly polluted. For what they are worth, two other indications support the common departure: it is more plausible that the captives would enter the temple accompanied by the priestess and that τούσδε at 1084 refers to people present onstage; cf., though, on 558. σον έργον may be a colloquialism or a solemn phrase of the high style (used in comedy paratragically); for different opinions see Stevens (1976) 39-40 and cf. Kannicht on HI. 830, Mastronarde on Ph. 444 and Dunbar on Ar. Αν. 862. τήσδε κοίρανος χθονός: the phrase appears also at AL 507, Md. 71, Here. 138 (cf. also 1287 below and S. OC 1287). Except for Al. 507, all the other instances refer to tyrants who plan to harm people but are eventually duped and/or punished (Admetus will also suffer and be reproached for accepting his wife's offer to die in his place), έλέγξων: L's ελέγχων may be retained but Mark-

348

Commentary

land's έλέγξων is slightly preferable because Iphigeneia is likely to state explicitly the very specific purpose of Thoas' visit; cf. e.g. 237, He. 141-43, Here. 601-2, Ba. 566-70, S. Tr. 1122. κατείργασται: a strong verb, used for conspicuous and difficult deeds, either destructive and repulsive (1173, Hi. 888, Ph. 1062, S. Ant. 57, Tr. 1094) or, less often, good and laudable (Hrcld. 1046, Here. 151, Ba. 1199, which could also belong to the other category: the frenzied Agave gloats over her catch but it will soon prove to be despicable). Here perhaps it indicates Thoas' eagerness for, as well as the nature of, the terrible sacrifice, which literally annihilates the victim; cf. HI. 106-7, A. Ag. 525-28. 1082-88. Before entering the temple, Iphigeneia addresses a prayer to Artemis, the first by a protagonist and the first of her three appeals to the goddess in the play (the others at 1230-33 and 1398-1402). The choice of addressee is natural because of Iphigeneia's close relationship to Artemis, Orestes' mission and the fact that the goddess' reaction to the imminent theft of her statue has not become clear so far. Iphigeneia has fairly good reasons to hope that Artemis will respond favorably to her prayer. After the recognition, the priestess has managed to put together an escape plan for herself and her relatives with the statue and to persuade the chorus to keep her secret. She has thus amply demonstrated the προθυμία that Orestes advocated at the beginning of the scene as a reinforcement of, or stimulus to, divine assistance (910-11; cf. 989). She has also honored the bonds of φιλία that, according to Orestes, determine the relationship of the sibling gods Apollo and Artemis (1012-15; cf. 1401-2). Moreover, Orestes and Pylades and even the chorus, although less energetic than Iphigeneia because of their circumstances, have also demonstrated the same virtues. From a formal point of view, the prayer is fairly typical (cf. on 27074): address to the goddess (1082), mention of previous help granted by her (1082-83), request (1084) and corroborating reasons why the request should be granted (1084-88). The prayer is based on the same themes that informed Iphigeneia's plea to the chorus for cooperation and had informed the exchange of the siblings after the recognition duet, affection for family and friends and personal benefit; see 1060-68, 979-86, 989-995, 1002-6, and 1007-11. Cf. on 1397b-1402. The goddess is asked to save again the young woman she had kindly saved years ago at Aulis, and to take care to preserve her brother Apollo's status as an oracular authority. The goddess will also benefit more directly, by moving to the blessed city of Athens. The prayer undoubtedly builds a plausible case both with what Iphigeneia chooses to include but also because of what she chooses to omit, the sensitive issue of Arte-

Commentary

349

mis' attitude toward the human sacrifices of the Taurians. This is only indirectly touched upon at the end of the prayer, which disparages the barbarian land as an unbecoming home for the goddess and praises Athens. For Iphigeneia's belief that the goddess rejects the Taurian cult cf. on 344-91. 1082. ώ πότνι': for the address see on 463. Αυλίδος κατά πτυχάς: for the metaphor and tragedy's preference for πτυχαί over πτυχές see on 9. This is the last mention of Aulis by Iphigeneia in the play; cf. on 1205. She hopes that the bond established between her and the goddess at Aulis will bring about her ultimate salvation. 1083. πατροκτόνου χερός: not "parricidal hand" but "hand of a murderous father". This meaning is readily understandable in the context but it is unique, πατροκτόνος and similar words are also used somewhat uncommonly elsewhere: they refer to the killing of the father of the speaker (Electra [Or. 193], Orestes [A. CA. 909, 974, 1015, 1028]) or addressee (Hyllus [S. Tr. 1125]) and not to the father of the killers (Clytaemestra and Deianeira respectively). See also H. Od. 1.299, 3.197, 307, Hes. fr. 23a29 and cf. Η. II. 24.506, [Α.] PV 860, Eur. Md. 1254, 1305. Diggle considers the line possibly spurious and suggests that the ellipsis of the verb that would result from its deletion is paralleled by Md. 1153 (φίλους νομίζουσ' ούσπερ αν πόσις σέθεν [= νομίζηι]). The ellipsis in Medea is not as harsh because the participle precedes the elliptical sentence but deletion of 1083 would certainly eliminate the problem with πατροκτόνου. The easiest emendations are Bothe's έκ χερός παιδοκτόνου and Herwerden's έκ τεκνοκτόνου χερός. Bothe's other suggestion, πατρόκτονον ("killed by the father"), is hardly more plausible than the transmitted text. 1088. εύδαίμονα: the adj. is commonly used of cities and countries; see 1482 and cf. e.g. Tr. 208-9, P. P. 4.276, S. OC 282-83, Hdt. 8.11, Ar. Αν. 37 and 905, X. An. 1.2. 1089-1152. The second stasimon. Left alone onstage after Iphigeneia and the men retire into the temple, the chorus lament, in the manner of an alcyon (1089-95), the sorrows of their exile. They cannot participate in Greek civilized gatherings, especially in the festival for Artemis Lochia on the sacred island of Delos (1096-1105). They recall and lament the cause of their grievous loss, the fall of their city (or cities) and their enslavement (1106-10). Their trip to Tauris on a slave-ship and their dismal situation as servants of a barbarian, man-killing cult consti-

350

Commentary

tute a terrible reversal of fortune for these freeborn Greek women (1111-22). Their misfortune is contrasted with Iphigeneia's lot, the prospect of her joyous journey home under divine auspices (1123-36). The song ends with the chorus' wish to fly back to their homes like birds and recover the joys of their earlier years, dances in the company of their friends, which provided an opportunity for competitive displays of charms and luxurious finery (1137-52). The song thus moves twice from the present of the women to their past. The only references to the future, with all the verbs in the future tense, are found in their description of Iphigeneia's imminent journey home. A stasimon that follows a long and complex episode full of dramatic tension and is sung by a chorus entirely sympathetic to the protagonists has one main function: to provide a "respite" to the audience by allowing emotions to subside through a shift in pace and tone. It usually echoes the previous episode and places the recent developments in perspective, often by means of mythological references. It also occasionally looks forward to upcoming developments. This song could very plausibly fit this pattern, for instance by means of a review of the fortunes of the Tantalids, which now seem poised to improve after longstanding troubles, or by means of virtually any mythological story of toils finally rewarded by the gods. Euripides rejected these options and brought about the desired effect through an unconventional thematic choice. Nothing is said in the song about the prehistory of the play, the recognition, the ploy just devised or the dangers still facing the siblings. It is plausible that the nostalgia of the Greek women would intensify because of the siblings' reunion and their prospects of repatriation. Emotional plausibility, however, is hardly the only reason why Euripides made the chorus' nostalgic recollections and laments the main theme of this song. The difference from the first stasimon is instructive in this respect. Most of that song (392-438) is a lyric comment on the messenger's report of the arrival of the two Greeks. The first half of the last stanza (439-46) echoes Iphigeneia's fantasy of taking revenge on Helen and Menelaus (354-58). Only at the very end do the women briefly express their own fantasy of deliverance and return home (44755), which may very well have been Iphigeneia's own. In the second stasimon, in the chorus' eyes at least, Iphigeneia is already gone, they have nothing to say about the story and concentrate on their own plight and fantasies, which include festivals and (implicitly) marriage and childbirth. The song in effect uses the happy prospects of Iphigeneia as a foil for the chorus' fate instead of the other way around. This choice also creates an opportunity for the lyrical narration of the story of these discreet women to the limited extent that Greek theat-

Commentary

351

rical conventions allow. It has already become clear in the play that the women are compassionate and loyal. The audience will soon see them go well beyond the call of duty in their selfless attempt to help Iphigeneia escape the lot they themselves expect never to escape (1293-1312). The chorus have only alluded very briefly to their life in Greece and their families so far (132-36, 447-55, 576-77), but now the audience hear that they were happy, well-bom girls who used to take part in dances like the Argive princess Iphigeneia (221). This information as well as the nobility of the chorus' lack of resentment enhances the audience's appreciation of the women's willingness to collaborate with the siblings. The focus on the chorus' rather than the protagonists' situation is not merely a consequence of the plot's development. This becomes evident through a comparison with the different thematic orientation of the song that precedes the deception of Theoclymenus in Helen (1107-64). The situation of the chorus in that play is very similar to that of Iphigeneia's servants, and the song even starts with an appeal to the nightingale in terms very similar to the address to alcyon at the beginning of this song. Despite these similarities, the song in Helen reviews the miseries the Trojan war generated for all parties involved and focuses on the inscrutability of divine will. Cf. on 1138-42. Gods appear quite prominently in the present stasimon, too, but what the chorus avoid is as significant as what they choose to mention. In a song that follows Iphigeneia's prayer and longingly recalls one of the most important centers of Artemis' worship in Greece, the chorus refrain from referring to Apollo's oracle (cf. on 1128) or the transport of Artemis' statue to Greece. This is a sign of religious caution but not a sign of special insight on the chorus' part (cf. on 1234-83). The women do not entertain any doubts about the success of Iphigeneia's deception plot and they are sure that the gods will look favorably upon her return voyage: they do not, for instance, pray for good weather or for divine escorts to the ship (cf. on 1487-89) but take for granted that the trip will be as swift and smooth as possible under the auspices of Pan and Apollo. The women also fail to consider the possibility that they too may find their way back to Greece, either soon along with their mistress or at least eventually. Despite their certainty that they will not escape their plight the women do not lament in strident tones (cf. on 392-455), and the beauty of the language (and presumably of the music) contributes significantly to the effect of the song. References to music, song and dance, and more generally movement and sound, permeate the stasimon. In the first stanza, the focus is on the cries of different birds, including that of the "wingless bird", the chorus. In the second, the women report of

352

Commentary

their laments as enemies dragged them to the ships and sold them for large amounts of gold. In the third, the musical instruments of the accompanying gods and the wind billowing the sails of the ship and, in the last, the adornment of the young girls, their hair-styles, festive garments and the movement of their feet in the dance predominate. Nevertheless, the song is not an escape ode. The women do not turn their attention to beautiful things unconnected with their plight in order to temporarily escape from it but focus on the beautiful things their cruel fate has deprived them of. The beauty celebrated highlights the harshness of their plight rather than directs attention away from it. The same effect may be observed in the first stasimon of Hecuba (444-83), whose end (479-83) was mentioned in connection with the parodos of IT (see on 133-36). The IT chorus' reference to the topography of Delos and the worship of Artemis on the island, the anticipation of Iphigeneia's trip to Athens and the recollection of the chorus' trip to Tauris, the lament for the lost homeland and the present servile status have "reverse" parallels in the newly enslaved Trojan women's anticipation of their trip to Greece and their arrival at Delos or Athens as wretched slaves. 1089-1105. The first strophe is one long lyrical period about song, both mournful and hymnal, starting and ending with the image of a singing bird. The mention of the lament comes as a surprise after the hopeful ending of the previous episode. The chorus also express their wish to be present at the festival of Artemis Lochia. Commentators have noted the dissonance between the virginal status of the women and their matronly yearnings but also the naturalness of such emotions. The strophe is structured around two nouns, alcyon and Artemis, and a relative clause qualifying each, the second much longer and more complex than the first. The reference to the chorus themselves occupies roughly the center of the stanza. 1089-95. The address to the alcyon is reminiscent of a formal prayer or hymnal invocation. The women mention the nature and name of the addressee (a bird, alcyon), her haunts, the area in which she excels and the reason why they, the singers, invoke her (they engage in laments like her). This pattern is exemplified more fully in HI. 1107-12 (see Kannicht's n.), the chorus' call on the nightingale to assist them in their lament. There is no suggestion that the alcyon or the nightingale is a divine or deified being. The circumstances of the heroines and their musical gift, acquired through divinely induced transformation into birds, make them suitable patronesses of the singing choruses.

Commentary

353

1089-90. όρνις...άλκυών: for the common stylistic device of mentioning both genus and species, usually in that order, of a creature see Dodds on Ba. 1026; cf. Renehan (1985) 148-49. The bird alcyon, or halcyon according to a false etymology (from αλς and κυειν), is commonly identified with the kingfisher. Descriptions in ancient sources do not match any one species exactly, although the main source, Aristotle (HA 542b4-17, 616al41ff.), fits both the European and the Mediterranean kingfisher observed in Greece; see Dunbar on Ar. Αν. 250-51. The bird was popularly (and incorrectly) believed to nest and rear its brood around the time of winter solstice (or in February) when the gods grant her calm weather for a few days before and after the solstice, the socalled halcyon days. It is not a musical bird, but its laments are mentioned already in Homer (II. 9.653). The mythological explanation was that Alcyon turned into a bird as she lamented on the shore the loss of her shipwrecked husband Ceyx (Ov. Met. 11.410-748). Cf. on 1092-93. According to an alternative version, the couple were transformed because they had boasted of rivaling Zeus and Hera (Hes. fr. lOd, [Apollod.] 1.7.4 [= 1.52]). See D' A.W. Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Birds (London and Oxford 1936) 46-51, Gow on Theoc. Id. 7.57, Börner on Ov. Met. 11.410-748 and J. Pollard, Birds in Athenian Life and Myth (London 1977) 96-98. The bird could be viewed as a symbol of loyalty in the face of loss but also of loneliness in adverse surroundings, rocky shores and the inhospitable sea; cf. e.g. A.R. Arg. 4.363, Nonn. D. 47.298ff. It is plausible that the choice of the alcyon and not, for instance, the nightingale as a model for the chorus' lament was due mainly to the latter. The chorus have lost their families and their chance of getting married: they lament their loss in a barbarian land with rocky shores near the inhospitable sea. δειράς, 'mountain ridge', here in the sense 'sea-cliffs', is a word that belongs entirely to poetry and especially to lyric. England suggests that it may have been used in connection with specific mountain ridges such as the one near Trachis, the hometown of Ceyx. It is also used in references to Delos, Apollo's birthplace (1240); cf. 1451, Ion 713, Ph. 206, S. Aj. 697, A.R. Arg. 2.705. 1091. ελεγον οΐτον άείδεις: οΐτος has been suspected and emended to οίκτρόν (Barnes). It is an epic word that appears only here in Euripides. One acc. with the verb forms a periphrastic transitive verb or a verbal phrase (ελεγον άείδεις) and the other acc. (οΐτον) becomes its object; for the double acc. see Diggle (1981) 58. ελεγον may also be thought to function almost as an adjectival qualification to οΐτον "you sing your

354

Commentary

miserable fate" or as a predicate "you sing your fate as a dirge" (Renehan [1976] 36). For ελεγος see on 144-47. 1092-93. εΰξύνετον ξυνετοΐς βοάν: cf. Ph. 1506, P. O. 2.86; for the verbal jingle cf. IA 465-66. βοή often designates indistinct cries or din (cf. 1307 and on 1385b-86a) but also shrill choral song, usually accompanied by the aulos\ see Dunbar on Ar. Αν. 857. (Similarly, κελαδεΐς suggests choral song, often encomiastic or hymnal [e.g. Here. 679, 694, P. P. 1.58, 11.10, N. 4.16, 9.54, Bacch. 14.21, D. 2.12] but also mournful [e.g. Tr. 121, HI. 371].) εύξύνετον βοάν is a mild oxymoron which stresses the acuity of the knowledgeable listeners: only they are able to perceive what to others are indistinct avian cries as a shrill lament but especially as the lament of a transformed woman for her lost husband (1093). The transformed Alcyon was said to cry out 'Ceyx', the name of her husband, as the nightingale called out the name of her son Itys, but this is likely not the point here, μολπαΐς: cf. on 221. 1094-95. έγώ σοι παραβάλλομαι/ θρήνους: both Stephanus' θρήνοις and Reiske's θρηνοΰσ', printed by Cropp and Kovacs respectively, are possible but there is no reason to change the text. 1096-1105. The chorus long to participate again in the festivities for Artemis Lochia on the sacred island of Delos. The island was the birthplace of both of Leto's twins or only of Apollo. According to one tradition ([Apollod.] 1.4.1-2 [= 1.21]), Artemis was born first and helped her mother deliver Apollo but the cult of Artemis on the island was probably the source of the tradition rather than vice versa. Literary descriptions of the sacred island typically include a tableau that comprises mount Cynthus, the circular lake, laurel, palm, olive-tree (for this see on 1099-1102) and singing swans. Despite the fullness of the description, neither the Delian maidens nor their dances (cf. He. 463-65, Here. 687-90, H. Hymn 3.156-66, Call. H. 4.304-6) are mentioned by this maiden chorus. The poet has reserved the reference to dances for the end of the song, for the recollection of dances in which the chorus used to participate in their hometown(s). There is no indication that the chorus come from Delos or that the play should be dated in the late 420s because the stasimon alludes to the purification of the island by the Athenians in 426/5 and to the subsequent re-establishment of the ancient Ionian festival on the island (Thuc. 3.104; cf. 5.1), as Markland suggested. For the supposed references to the events reported by Thucydides see also Bond on Here. 678 and Owen on Ion 919. Concerning the provenance of the chorus, it is

Commentary

355

one thing to be lyrically allusive and quite another to be vague or cryptic. Besides, familiarity with the topography of the sacred island was certainly not restricted to its natives, and references to Delos and its festivals are natural choices in both IT and Ion. For the dating of IT see Introduction V. 1098-99. α παρά Κύνθιον οχθον οί-/κεΐ: for divinities as inhabitants of their cult sites cf. 1A 91, A. Eum. 916. For the sanctuary of Artemis on the eastern slope of Mount Cynthus see P. Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes de Delos ä I' epoque hellenistique et a I' epoque imperiale (Paris 1970) 191-95 and cf. van Straten (1995) 86. 1099-1102. The olive-tree, mentioned third, receives special attention. The trademark Athenian tree was not part of the original Delian tableau (cf. on 1096-1105), and this is its first relevant mention in extant literature. Whether it originated with Euripides or not, the innovation apparently stoked Athens' pride and provided mythological/religious backing to her position of supremacy in the Delian League. Usually, the palmtree is associated with Leto's labor and the delivery of Apollo; see He. 458-62 (both palm and laurel), Ion 919-22 (both trees too), H. Hymn 3.117, Thgn. 5-7, Call. H. 4.209-11; for the Delian palm cf. H. Od. 6.162-67. Here the laurel and palm each receives a qualification in the form of a rare adj., άβροκόμαν and εύερνέα respectively, but the shoot of the olive-tree is the only one called ιερόν "sacred". θαλλόν: θάλλον (ed. Brubach.) is not likely because the paroxytone form is used only as a proper name. The neuter θάλος (Ρ) is used only metaphorically; cf. on 171. Λατοΰς ώδΐνι φίλον: L's Λατοΰς ώδΐνα φίλαν = "dear labor of Leto" or "Leto's own labor" cannot be accepted as an apposition to the mention of the trees. They had an important role in Leto's labor but this cannot be expressed with the transmitted apposition. Markland's other suggestion, φίλας, which would agree with έλαίας, is also plausible, ώδΐνι: either literal, 'birth-pang", or metonymic, 'offspring'. The former may be slightly more plausible: Apollo does not appear at all in this strophe and the reference seems too oblique for the god. It would also make the olive-tree especially dear to him, which would disadvantage the laurel and the palm, the trees traditionally associated with the god. The apposition also gives precedence to the olive-tree over the other two traditional "helpers" of Leto in labor: this was probably not meant to diminish the importance of the other trees but to explain the role of the olive-tree in the birth of Apollo, especially if this role was a (relatively recent) mythological innovation. At He. 460-61 a very similar expression also seems to refer to Leto's

356

Commentary

labor (Λατοΐ φίλο ν ώ-/δΐνος άγαλμα Δίας). For representations of Leto in labor see L1MC VI. 2.130; for Leto's childbirth posture cf. Gregory on He. 458-61. 1103-5. The oval-shaped lake is a body of water that has the same basic features as the Oceanus (cf. e.g. [Α.] PV 138-40): it has no feeding stream or outlet and moves continuously in a circle. Cropp suggests that the cyclical movement of the waters evokes cyclical dances (accompanied by the song of the swans). This is plausible but it is equally plausible that the image evokes more than one thing: the primeval quality of the lake suits the sacredness of the island. At He. 458 the palm is called πρωτόγονον. ενθα κύκνος μελαη-/δός Μούσας θεραπεύει: for the rich evidence on the singer swans, the last element of the tableau, see Bond on Here. 678 and Diggle on Pha. 78 (fr. 773.34); see also Dunbar on Ar. Αν. 769-72. In some sources swans were said to draw Apollo's chariot, μελωιδός: first found in Euripides, it is used of the nightingale at HI. 1109 and often in connection with the Muses. Μούσας θεραπεύει functions almost as a periphrasis for singing. Maehler on Bacch. D. 16.6 notes that the swan came to be viewed as a song-bird because of its association with the god of music and leader of the Muses. 1106-22. The antistrophe narrates briefly and without details the essentials of the capture of the women. In the strophe the women started with a reference to their present lament and expressed their longing for a Greek sacred island where Artemis is worshipped. Now they first recall a past lament of theirs and then express their aversion to the Taurian worship of Artemis. The gnomic generalization at the end of the stanza is the only point in the song that associates the chorus' situation with people other than Iphigeneia. For the affinities of this stanza with the parodos (126-36) see on 1111-16. 1106-10. There are several graphic descriptions of the enslavement of a captured city's women in Greek poetry; see e.g. An. 109-12, He. 44474, 7V. 1091-99; cf. also e.g. Η. II. 6.454-58, 22.59-65, 24.730-34, Od. 8.523-30 (in a simile), A. S. 326-68, Ag. 326-29. No details of the capture of the city (or cities) appear here and excessive pathos is avoided, ω πολλαί δακρύων λιβάδες/ αΐ παρηίδας εις εμάς/ επεσον: for initial pendant apostrophe see on 156. For the sentiment and especially the streams of tears cf. the more elaborate lament of Andromache: πολλά δέ δάκρυα μοι κατέβα χροός, άνίκ' ελειπον/ άστυ τε και θαλάμους και πόσιν έν κονίαις./ ώμοι έγώ μελέα, τί μ' έχρήν ετι φέγ-

Commentary

357

γος όράσθαι/ Έρμιόνας δούλαν; ας ΰπο τειρομένα/ προς τόδ' άγαλμα θεάς ίκέτις περι χεΐρε βαλοΰσα/ τάκομαι ώς πέτρινα πιδακόεσσα λιβάς (An. 111-16). λιβάς also occurs at An. 534, sung by a weeping Andromache again. For the use of λιβάς in tragedy cf. Casabona (1966) 275-76. The metaphor, from fresh water (of a stream, A. P. 613, or a river, S. Ph. 1215), often running or gushing down the smooth surface of a rock, goes back to the Iliad (16.3-4; cf. 9.14 and see Diggle [1981] 4). It is quite compressed here, highlighting the profusion of tears rather than their swift gliding on the smooth surface of the women's cheeks, although the use of the metaphor may have suggested beauty clouded by weeping; cf. e.g. HI. 1419, S. Ant. 526-30. επεσον may also suggest primarily dripping on a surface rather than the gliding of drops on it. πύργων: the women also mentioned the ramparts of Greek cities in the parodos (132) when they first "introduced" themselves. There is no explicit mention of the capture of their city there, although the audience could have easily surmised it. Cf. next η. έν ναυσιν εβαν: "I was forced to sail." 1111-16. This passage has similarities with the parodos (126-36): in both the women designate themselves as slaves of Artemis' priestess Iphigeneia, serving at the Taurian temple of the goddess. In the parodos the chorus did not mention the sacrifices which here form the culmination of the report of their predicament. The women are still cautious and discreet and the reference to the sacrifices is couched in a litotes (βωμούς τ' ού μηλοθύτας, 1116) at the end of the story of their enslavement; cf. their first mention of the human sacrifices in the play (403-6). There is no explicit condemnation of the goddess and her Taurian cult. The women's aversion to it can be deduced from the despair apparent in their envy of the constantly unfortunate (1117-22), but they refrain from uttering complaints or providing graphic details of the sacrifices. Contrast, for instance, Iphigeneia's much more graphic reference to the sacrifices (225-28), following a similar review of her story (203-24). 1111-12. ζαχρύσου δέ δι' έμπολας/ νόστον βάρβαρον ήλθον: both ζαχρύσου and νόστον contain an element of surprise because of the reversal of their usual positive connotations in the context. The former is a word used only by Euripides in classical Greek (Al. 498); cf. Rh. 370 and 439. έμπολάς: the word is also used in a very similar passage in Hypsipyle (fr. 759a. 1608). νόστον βάρβαρον ήλθον = νόστον γης βαρβάρου ήλθον. Kannicht on Hl. 1495-96 lists instances of the use of an adj. instead of a gen.; cf. 1066. Bers (1984) 69 argues that νόστον is

358

Commentary

not terminal but internal acc. and treated like e.g. κέλευθον, όδόν etc. in similar constructions. 1113-14. The description of the harsh new life of slavery (1113-16) is framed by two compounds, έλαφοκτόνου and ού μηλοθύτας: no sheep are sacrificed on the altars of the deer-killing goddess, έλαφοκτόνου: hapax in extant Greek, a variant of the traditional epithet έλαφηβόλος (e.g. H. Hymn 17.2, Hes. fr. 23a.21, S. Tr. 213); cf. S. OC 1092-93. Artemis, who substituted a doe for Iphigeneia on the Aulis altar, is often portrayed with a stag or doe (see Burkert [1985] 150) but, as huntress and goddess of the wild (Άγροτέρα), she also slays her favorite animal, an indication of her double nature as nurturer and killer, especially of the young. Cf. Introduction 11(4) n. 20. The choice of adj. piously evokes one of the goddess' traditional activities. It is the only explicit reference to Artemis' hunting prowess in the play, although the address Δίκτυvv' ούρεία at 127 also alludes to it. After the recollection of the festival of the life-bringing Artemis Lochia in the previous stanza and in the context of the chorus' service at the temple, the adj. may be a covert allusion to the goddess' cruelty, άμφίπολον κόραν: "virginal servant." The first noun functions as an adj. on the pattern of the Homeric άμφίπολοι γυναίκες (e.g. Od. 1.362, 4.751), even though logically it is this word that governs θεας. 1115-16. παΐδ' Άγαμεμνονίαν: for the patronymic adj. instead of a gen. see on 5. μηλοθύτας: also at Al. 121, Bacch. 8.17; cf. Ph. 632. Sheep were very common sacrificial animals, less expensive than the noblest choice, oxen (cf. on 359), and than adult pigs, but also less cheap than the cheapest offering, piglets; see Burkert (1985) 55, Olson on Ar. P. 374-75 and van Straten (1995) 175-81. 1117-22. δυσδαιμονία is harder on those who used to be happy than on those who have always been unhappy; see Here. 1291-93 (not genuine), Bel. fr. 285.15-18. A very similar motif is that those unaccustomed to misfortune suffer more in it than those accustomed to it (who may or may not have always been unfortunate); see e.g. Al. 926-28, He. 37579, HI. 417-19, Phrixus fr. 818c, A. Su. 68-72.21 21 Eur. Tr. 638-40 ( Ι ά λ γ ε ΐ γ α ρ ο ϋ δ έ ν τ ω ν κ α κ ώ ν ή ι σ θ η μ έ ν ο ς · + / ό δ' ε ΰ τ υ χ ή σ α ς ές τό δ υ σ τ υ χ έ ς π ε σ ώ ν / ψ υ χ ή ν ά λ ά τ α ι της π ά ρ ο ι θ ' ε ύ π ρ α ξ ί α ς ) is often cited by commentators as another example of the motif. The text of 638 (and 640) is difficult but the contrast is most likely not between the feelings of those accustomed and those unaccustomed to misfortune. Andromache probably contrasts the advantage that death brings to an unfortunate man with the disadvantage of a man who falls

Commentary

359

1117. ζηλοΰσα τόν: L ' s ζ η λ ο ύ σ ' ά τ α ν is difficult to accept because, as Platnauer points out, ά τ η can only be δυσδαίμων. Bothe's ζ η λ ο ΰ σ α τ ά ν is closer to the transmitted text but the generality of the statement favors the masculine, suggested by Greverus (Köchly suggested ζηλοΰσ' αΐσαν). 1119. κάμνει: Milton's emendation of L ' s κάμνεις, probably a product of dittography due to the following σύντροφος. The so-called ideal second person would be odd in lyric, especially in isolation, σύντροφος does not mean simply 'companion' but indicates someone or something that literally grows with one, a synonym of σύμφυτος, which is used in connection with one's inborn qualities, fortune and even life-span ( α ι ώ ν ) ; cf. on 1121-22. It is possible that the choice of α ί ώ ν at 1122 was suggested by σύντροφος. 1120. μεταβάλλειν δυσδαιμονία: this is Musgrave's emendation of L ' s μ ε τ α β ά λ λ ε ι δυσδαιμονία, which presents the most serious textual problem in 1117-22. The emendation is easy but it makes the line virtually tautological with 1121-22. Still, it is very close to the transmitted text and superior to other suggestions. Tautology for the sake of emphasis cannot be rejected out of hand (cf. on 1010-11). There is also a possibility that at 1120 the chorus highlight the pain, the moment as it were, of the reversal of fortune and at 1121-22 the misery of living in misfortune after happiness. Cropp (1997) 40 paraphrases 1117-22 with Musgrave's emendation as follows: "Constant ill-fortune is enviable. Change (of fortune) is (real) ill-fortune, and suffering ill-fortune after enjoying good fortune is painful." He then raises two objections against it: μ ε τ α β ά λ λ ε ι ν means 'change' and not 'change from good to ill-fortune' and δυσδαιμονία means simply 'ill-fortune' and not 'real ill-fortune', as if the chorus implied that the bad fortune of the constantly unfortunate were not real. The second objection is unfounded because the paraphrase of 1120 is arbitrary. Even the first objection is not damning because the context of the song and especially 1117-19 leave little room for ambiguity. The chorus do not imply that constant misfortune is not real but that people who experience a change from good to bad fortune experience a shock while those who are constantly unfortunate are not similarly shaken by the hardships their condition entails. In that respect, constant bad for-

from happiness to misery and has to endure a life of suffering ; see Lee on Tr. 638 and 640.

360

Commentary

tune is preferable, as e.g. Bel. fr. 285.15-18 also indicates. Sudden misfortune is not greater misfortune per se but only in the eyes of those who experience it. One's personal perception of the gravity of a situation does not affect the situation's quality: the gnome does not imply that there is an actual scala miseriae but hints at the two groups' reaction to their situation. Cropp prints Markland's emendation μεταβάλλει δ' ευδαιμονία and paraphrases: "Constant ill-fortune is enviable. Good fortune, by contrast, changes etc." Following the siblings' recognition and escape plan and just before the chorus proceed to contemplate the result of Iphigeneia's miraculous change of fortune, the thought or implication that only good fortune changes would be very strange. The Greeks considered constant good fortune rare but not impossible: for example, the Athenian Tellos and the Argives Cleobis and Biton (Hdt. 1.30-32) as well as fathers of victorious athletes (e.g. P. P. 10.12-29, N. 7.55-60, Bacch. 1.147-58) enjoyed it. The Greeks would find constant misfortune unlikely too, although likelier than constant good fortune. The gnome does not highlight the mutability of good fortune but the pain experienced by those who fall from good to bad fortune. For the motif of the mutability of fortune see on 719-22. The text of 1119-20 printed by Kovacs, σύντροφος ώι/ μεταβάληι δυσδαιμονία ("whose constant companion is shifting misery"), is no improvement: the idea of shifting misery seems irrelevant because the chorus focus on constant, unchangeable misfortune. Sansone daggers μεταβάλλει and adopts Bothe's δυσδαιμονίαι, a dat. with σύντροφος, conceivably preceded by a predicate corrupted into μεταβάλλει. This is not impossible but the dat. δυσδαιμονίαι seems somewhat redundant so soon after 1117-18. 1121-22. μετ' εύτυχίαν: it is difficult to choose between this emendation (Scaliger) and L's μετ' ευτυχίας (acc. plural). The abstract singular may be more appropriate in the context, but the plural is not unparalleled (e.g. Ion 482, 1505, Hyps. fr. 759a.l610, Ar. Eq. 1318, N. 1205, Eccl. 573, Thuc. 2.44.2.2). αιών: 'one's lifetime, apportioned lifespan', believed to "grow" with the individual, χρόνος is a more abstract concept, the limitless flow of boundless time. See Fraenkel on A. Ag. 105-6, 554; cf. Wilkins on Hrcld. 900 (Αιών is said to be the son of Χρόνος). Here the meaning of αϊών comes very close to that of fate, δαίμων; cf. on 198-202. 1123-36. The chorus imagine Iphigeneia's bright future, her imminent return voyage to Greece under the protection of Pan and Apollo, an ob-

Commentary

361

vious contrast with their own trip to Tauris on a slave-ship, lamented in the previous stanza. After a brief introductory reference to Iphigeneia's trip (1123-24), the stanza proceeds with the description of the divine escorts' wondrous musical assistance to the crew (1125-31). This part ends in ring-composition with augmentation (1124 οίκον αξει, άξει...'Αθηναίων έπί γαν, 1130-31). The chorus then contrast their own continued stay at Tauris, the only reference to themselves in the stanza, with Iphigeneia's happy departure (1132-33 έμέ δ'.,.πλάταις, 1123-24 σε μέν...άξει). The stanza is essentially complete at this point but the chorus go on to imagine the ship's actual sailing, first under oar and then under sail, a clear indication of the fascination the trip exerts on the women. For their lack of bitterness and their failure to mention Artemis see on 1089-1152. 1123. και σέ: the emphasis conferred by the use of καί with pronoun (see GP 320) is augmented by the position of the particle at the very beginning of the stanza, μέν is answered by δ' at 1132. πότνι': a very common form of address in Euripides, used in most cases for goddesses (see on 463), but also for mortal mistresses by loyal servants (El. 487 and 563, Tr. 292, Ion 704, HI. 225, Ph. 296, Or. 853, Hy. fr. 757.836), or by others as a sign of respect for the addressee (An. 492, Su. 54, Or. 1249). Here the only indication that the stanza is addressed to Iphigeneia and not to Artemis is the reference to the return home (οίκον) at 1124. 1124. πεντηκόντερος: this is the older form of the word and the later πεντηκόντορος should be emended in fifth-century texts; see Kannicht on HI. 1412-13. The fifty-oared ship is an anachronism in terms of fifth-century seamanship because the (three-banked) trireme had replaced the (two-banked) penteconter already by the sixth century (see Casson [1971] 59, 81) but Kannicht notes that it was also a reverse anachronism in the epic because it was not yet in use in the Bronze Age. Casson (1971) 43 and 49, however, points out that, although Homer generally describes ships of his own age, he chooses the opentype only and avoids committing flagrant anachronisms. Tragedy follows the Homeric tradition. 1125-31. The center of the stanza is occupied by the two divine musical escorts of the ship, Pan and Apollo. Wecklein suggests that gods escort the ship because it will carry Artemis' statue. This is possible (cf. 148889), but it should be noted that there is no reference or allusion to the statue in the song (cf. on 1089-1152). The women probably imagine

362

Commentary

that gods will play an active role in the trip because they favor the escape of the Greeks (cf. on 1012-16). The choice of Pan is rather unexpected as he has nothing to do with the events of the play. There was a sanctuary of the god in the Acropolis near the sanctuary of Apollo (see Ion 492-502 with Lee's nn.), and this may have suggested the pairing of Pan and Apollo as escorts of the ship. The primary reason for the choice was certainly the shrillness of the god's music, which makes him the most appropriate divinity for the role of the paradigmatic κελευστής, boatswain, or αυλητής (called in later sources τριηραύλης), ship aulos-player. In Greek ships the κελευστής set the stroke for the rowers by shouting rhythmically and the αυλητής piped the time accordingly; see Morrison & Williams (1968) 196, 267-68, Casson (1971) 300-4, 309 and Kannicht on HI. 1575-76. The roles of Pan and Apollo as musical escorts of the ship are not clearly differentiated and do not correspond exactly to historical analogues. Because of the instrument he plays and the reference to the oars, Pan may be thought to have been cast in the role of αυλητής. This would leave the role of κελευστής to Apollo who would provide the κέλευσμα with his song (Gregoire advocates this neat division of divine labor). But the two gods do not seem to cooperate as boatswains and aulos-players did, and Apollo could also be thought to fulfill the role of αυλητής, although by playing on his lyre and not the aulos, as Orpheus also does in Hy. fr. 752g.8-12 22 and A.R. Arg. 1.536-41. The uncertainty is reflected in scholars' notes on the role of Pan. He is called τριηραύλης by some (Bruhn, Weil, Kannicht), κελευστής by others (Wecklein, England, Bond, Morrison & Williams [1968] 196) and "κελευστής or rather τριηραύλης" by Platnauer. Pan straddles both roles and so does Apollo. The poet did not strive for a naturalistic effect but meant to suggest an exceptional voyage escorted by divine musicians. The women imagine that there will be abundant and excellent time-beating available to the rowers, but they will also indicate that the ship will sail under optimal weather conditions (1135-36). Under such conditions, rowing was limited to the beginning and end of the trip, for the departure and arrival maneuvers (see on 1132-36). With favorable breezes, sails could be used throughout the trip, and time-beating would no longer be necessary. It is plausible, then, that Pan as boatswain will set the stroke with his pipe at the beginning of the trip and Apollo will play the lyre and

22 The sound of Orpheus' music is said to provide κ ε λ ε ύ σ μ α τ α to the rowers (11-12), and thus Orpheus may be thought to act as κελευστής, but Morrison & Williams (1968) 196 think that he is a lyre-playing αυλητής.

Commentary

363

sing until the arrival at Athens, entertaining crew and passengers,23 presumably as a gesture of supreme divine favor. The chorus focus on this favor and not the casting of the two gods in specific roles of ship officers. 1125-27. συρίζων: the verb is also used at 431 for the festive sound of the ship's steering oar. For the syrinx of Pan see Gow on Theoc. Id. 1.129 and West (1992) 109-12. It produced higher-pitched and thus more piercing sound than the deep-toned αΰλός-pipe; cf. Willink on Or. 145-46. κηρόδετος: L's κηροδέτας is not attested elsewhere and it would probably mean 'wax-binding' rather than the required here 'waxbound'. For the suffix -δετός see on 1043. κάλαμος: cf. El. 702, IA 577, 1038, Ar. R. 230. 1128. ό Φοίβος θ' ό μάντις: for the definite article see on 711. The reference to Apollo's capacity as an oracular god is the only possible hint at the oracle given to Orestes; for the chorus' failure to touch upon the events of the previous episode or the prehistory of the play in this song see on 1089-1152. Most commentators suggest that the seer Apollo is the appropriate god to forecast the course of the ship and compare Η. II. 1.71-72 (Calchas led the ships to Troy). (England also recalls Phineus and his directions to the Argonauts.) However, Homer probably refers not to Calchas' navigational contribution to the expedition but to his interpretation of the portent at Aulis (2.299-332), which encouraged the Greeks to set forth; see e.g. Kirk and Pulleyn on II. 1.71-72. Mythological sailors and expedition leaders (e.g. Jason, Odysseus, Menelaus, Teucer) often needed mantic help with charting their route, but this would be Orestes' return trip, and it is nowhere said in the play that he encountered problems when he sailed to Tauris. Apollo in his capacity as a seer would definitely be helpful in any sea voyage, but the explicit reference to this capacity here, if significant, probably evokes the oracle. The chorus imagine the god as the musical escort of the sailors - a projection that will prove inaccurate anyway since Athena will accompany the ship to Athens (1488-89). 1129. Apollo will sing to the accompaniment of his seven-stringed lyre. The invention of the lyre was attributed to Hermes who fashioned it 23 Cf. e.g. the shift in Orpheus' role in the first book of Apollonius R h o d i u s ' Argonautica: Argo leaves the harbor under oar and Orpheus functions as aw/oi-player or boatswain (cf. previous n.). When sail-power takes over, Orpheus continues playing the lyre and sings a hymn to Artemis, entertaining the crew and charming the fishes (1.569-79).

364

Commentary

from the shell of a mountain tortoise and outfitted it with seven strings, the number current in the sixth century. By the middle of the fifth century, the number of strings had increased; see Allen-Halliday on H. Hymn 4.51 and Hordern on Tim. Pers. 230. 1130-31. λιπαράν...εΰ σ' 'Αθηναίων έπι γαν: Athens is praised with the same adj. by non-Athenian choruses at Al. 452 and Tr. 803; cf. Ar. Ach. 639-40 with Olson's n. At 1088 Iphigeneia called Athens εύδαίμονα, a characterization that also matched her own wishes, and at 1449 Athena will allude to Athens' long-standing favor with the gods and thus her piety ('Αθήνας τάς θεοδμήτους). λιπαράν fits in well with the other references to sensory splendor in the song; cf. on 1089-1152. εΰ σ': Bothe's emendation of L's impossible ες. Hermann deleted it (and changed 1146, see n.) but Bothe's emendation is corroborated by He. 1291, Rh. 216, A. Su. 219. 1132-36. The passage describes the ship's swift progress: she will set out under oar, as is normal, and will then be propelled by strong breezes. Cf. 407-10 and see Morrison & Williams (1968) 203 and Diggle on Pha. 86 (fr. 773.42). For the contrast between the prospects of the chorus and Iphigeneia as well as the chorus' switch to the description of the voyage after the mention of the arrival at Athens see on 1123-36. 1133. ροθίοις: only the noun ρόθιον is used in tragedy (see on 407) and thus ροθίοις is unlikely to be an adj. qualifying πλάτοας here. A genitive (e.g. πλάτας, suggested by Wecklein) would be a definite improvement with minimal intervention. 1134-36. |άέρι δ' ιστία πρότονοι κατά πρώιραν ύ-/πέρ στόλον έκπετάσουσιν πόδα1": a way of addressing satisfactorily all the difficulties of the passage has yet to be found. Apart from the metrical problems, the forestays (πρότονοι) cannot be said to extend the sheet (πόδα) of the ship, πρότονοι are the lines that run from masthead to the gunwale on either side of the ship and secure the mast; see Morrison & Williams (1968) 55. In nautical contexts πους normally means 'sheet', a rope attached to one of the lower corners of the sail to control it; see Morrison & Williams (1968) 56 who suggest (203 n. 70) that the word is used here in the non-technical sense 'sail'. Two main ways of emending and interpreting the passage have been suggested. (1) Bothe excised ιστία as a gloss on πόδα. Morrison & Williams (1968) 203 offer the following translation of 1134-37, as

Commentary

365

printed by Murray with Bothe's deletion (άέρι δέ [Ιστία] πρότονοι κατά πρώιραν ΰ-/πέρ στόλον έκπετάσουσιν πόδα/ ναός ώκυπόμπου): "...in the air the forestays (by dint of hauling up the mast) will spread out in the bow above the ram the foot of the swift-sailing ship (i.e. her sail)." (2) Other scholars prefer to retain ίστία and suggest or adopt emendations of πρότονοι and πόδα. For example, Seidler suggests έκπετάσουσι (Tr2) πόδες, which has been widely accepted, and Fix ίστί' προτόνοις; Platnauer suggests ίστία δ' ές πρότονον (or προτόνους); Sansone prints ίστία (Brunn) προτόνοις and Kovacs ίστί' πρότονον (Willink). The passage would then mean "in the air the (slackened) sheets will spread out the sails (i.e. cause them to spread out) against the forestays, over the prow and over the ram of the swift-sailing ship"; cf. Diggle (1994) 435 n. 61. Nowhere else are the forestays or the sheets said to perform the function attributed to them with these interpretations. Besides, the sails are said to billow to extravagant lengths.24 It is beyond reasonable doubt that the passage describes a fast-moving ship with its sails pressing against the forestays in the strong breeze (cf. He. 111-12, Pha. fr. 773.42), but the emendations suggested so far produce a text that seems strained or too elaborate for this fairly straightforward meaning. On balance, (2) seems slightly preferable to (1) which involves the lengthening of δέ before mute and liquid (πρότονοι) and a sense of πους unattested elsewhere. But the prominent role attributed to the sheets with (2) does not inspire much confidence. Bruhn's emendation of πόδα into πνοαί is worthy of attention: it is palaeographically plausible, it eliminates one of the most problematic words in the passage and, especially, it provides a reference to the favorable breezes that are not only supposed to fill the sails but also standard in descriptions of swift sailing. 1137. ώκυπόμπου: the compound may evoke not only the swiftness of the vessel but also the propitious, divine tutelage under which the voyage will be undertaken. The adj. occurs only in this play (also at 1427) and in Bacchylides (D. 17.90) in extant Greek. The dithyramb narrates an incident in the trip of Theseus and the Athenian youths destined for the Minotaur aboard Minos' ship: Theseus confronted the hubristic Mi24 Bruhn thinks that πρότονοι has replaced another word. T h e billowing of the sails described by the chorus cannot refer to the sails of the main mast but to those of a smaller foremast, the ι σ τ ό ς ά κ ά τ ε ι ο ς (see Morrison & Williams [1968] 293 and Casson [1971] 235-42), which was not secured by forestays. It seems quite unlikely, though, that the technical term π ρ ό τ ο ν ο ι would intrude in a passage that originally lacked it and that the chorus would not refer to the main sails of the ship in the description of its swift journey.

366

Commentary

nos who had harassed one of the Athenian maidens; challenged by Minos, the young Theseus performed a remarkable feat with divine help. The poem has thematic similarities with the play (a young man and a difficult labor, a foreign king, a sort of human sacrifice, divine help to the young hero) and more particularly with the stanza (a divinely guided journey with favorable breezes). Although a single word, whose actual frequency is unknown, cannot carry the weight of meaningful allusion (cf. Bagordo [2003] 164-65), if it was hapax before Euripides, the possibility that he chose it in order to evoke Bacchylides' poem cannot be ruled out. 1138-52. The last stanza matches the previous one in imaginative vibrancy and contains echoes of the others. The chorus wish to turn into birds, soar up in the sky and follow the sun's course to their home in Greece in order to resume the happy life of well-born girls in the company of their family and friends. The escape fantasy (for the motif see next n.) harks back to the end of the first stasimon (447-55), but the trip home is associated primarily with Iphigeneia's trip described in the previous stanza. The chorus' fantasy also harks back to the first and second stanzas. The women wish to undertake a swift journey home that would reverse their journey to Tauris described in the second stanza. Instead of lamenting like birds the loss of their happy life in Greece, as they do in the first stanza, the women now fantastically wish to actually become birds and fly home to recover it. The festive gatherings on Delos in honor of Artemis, also evoked in the first stanza, are now replaced by dances of young girls, perhaps at weddings. The chorus clearly do not expect their wish to come true: they do not even imagine a savior arriving at Tauris for them, as they did in the first stasimon, and they do not pray to any god for deliverance. This is the only stanza in the song in which gods are not mentioned at all. This contrasts primarily with the projected energetic involvement of Pan and Apollo in Iphigeneia's return trip celebrated in the previous stanza and subtly underscores the gap that the women perceive between their own situation and that of their mistress. Cf. on 1089-1152 and next n. 1138-42. The wish for escape from unpleasant or desperate situations, most often in the form of a bird, to the ends of the earth, the sky, or even the underworld, is a common motif, first found in Alcman (fr. 26); see Hi. 732-51, 1290-93, An. 861-65, Ion 796-98, 1238-39, HI. 147886, Or. 982-84, 1375-79. Cf. A. Su. 779-83, Ar. Αν. 1337-39 and for further references see Barrett on Hi. 1290-93 and L.P.E. Parker, The Songs of Aristophanes (Oxford 1997) 340-41. As far as its position in

Commentary

367

the song is concerned, the wish is closest to that expressed by the chorus in the third stanza of the last stasimon of Helen (1478-86), a song closely related to the present one and sung by a chorus in a very similar situation. After contemplating Helen's voyage to Sparta (1451-64) and her renewed participation in local festivals (1465-77), the chorus wish to soar up in the aether like birds in order to meet the migratory cranes and ask them to bring the news of Menelaus' imminent return to Sparta. The contrast with the present song is unmistakable: Iphigeneia's slaves focus on themselves rather than the heroine; cf. on 1089-1152. 1138-39. The choice of the initial image of the radiance and warmth of the sun's race-course may be meant to suggest the happiness of deliverance from bleak exile. Ιπποδρόμους implies the traditional image of the sun as a charioteer with winged horses; see El. 466, Or. 1001-2 and Diggle on Pha. 2 and 173 (fr. 771.2 and 779.6). βαίην: a wishful echo of the certainty of βήσηι (1134), the prediction of Iphigeneia's imminent departure, which was contrasted with the certainty of the chorus' stay at Tauris. εύάλιον...πΰρ: "nice fire of the sun" or "sun of the nice fire"; cf. Breitenbach (1934) 202. 1140-42. θαλάμων: not 'house' in general but their own maiden quarters, easing the transition to the recollection of their participation in maiden dances, θοάζουσα: "moving swiftly"; the verb, a Euripidean Lieblingswort, is usually transitive, as here (with πτέρυγας); see Dodds on Ba. 65 and 219, Bond on Here. 382 and Willink on Or. 335. The chorus' wished-for transformation into birds is spelt out only at the end of the fantasy. 1143-52. The description of the dances, which starts with a very simple main clause, develops in the long relative clause and becomes more detailed and ornate as it progresses. Interestingly, the temporal order of events is reversed: the reference to the girls' adorning themselves in order to outdo their age-mates in elegance and luxury should normally precede the reference to their joining the dance. The reversal of this sequence, from dance to preparations for it, probably reflects the progress of the chorus' recollections. The textual problems, mainly whether the chorus refer to wedding dances at 1144 and to their mothers at 1145-46, do not hinder overall understanding but resist easy fixing. 1143-44. Platnauer suggested χοροΐς δ' ένσταίην for L's χοροΐς δέ σταίην. The emendation accommodates the dative much better and is

368

Commentary

supported by Su. 896. Badham's χορούς δ' ίσταίην would be another option if the girls organized the dances they now recall and wish to rejoin but this is unlikely. In tragedy royal women are said to be in charge of choral celebrations and to function as leaders of the dance; cf. El. 178-92, 7V. 149-52, HI. 1465-70, IA 676; cf. Ph. 1755-56 (cf. next n.). The chorus in IT do not appear to have been as socially prominent as these women and thus cannot be imagined to have organized dances. Besides, if the dances in question were part of wedding celebrations, as is likely, the chorus could not have been their organizers. '("παρθένος ευδόκιμων γάμων is one of the most intractable phrases of the passage. All words could be relevant to the chorus but, as they stand, they cannot mean "a maiden destined for an illustrious wedding" (Weil's interpretation, rightly rejected by Platnauer). Sansone prints a comma after παρθένος, taking the gen. as descriptive with χοροΐς. "Dances of illustrious weddings" is odd and the isolation of παρθένος could misleadingly imply that the chorus are no longer maidens. Köchly suggests δόμων for γάμων and Mastronarde on Ph. 208/220 n. 2 εύδοκίμους γάμους "as object of 'dance in celebration of' " but both are subject to similar objections and the ellipsis of the verb in the latter is difficult. Badham's πάρεδρος or Nauck's πάροχος for παρθένος or Paley's more imaginative πάρος έν εύδοκίμοις γάμοις would be preferable, but, as Cropp notes, one hesitates to replace παρθένος. Bruhn thinks that a word like μελλόγαμος would be needed. This is plausible because the chorus would be as likely to allude to their now shattered prospects of marriage as to recall weddings of their friends. Besides, the details that follow fit any choral or circular dance and not wedding dances in particular. 1145-46. παρά πόδ' είλίσσουσα φίλας/ ματέρος ήλίκων θιάσους: the text is unmetrical and impossible to construe as transmitted, ματέρος should certainly be emended to ματρός (see metrical n.). The reference to mothers fits in well with the chorus' reminiscences and thus has a good chance of being genuine. Wecklein suggests that there were two dances side by side, of daughters and mothers, but this is a difficult conclusion to draw from the text and it seems much more plausible that the chorus would mention only their own dances in the company of their age-mates. The most serious problem is that είλίσσουσα...ήλίκων θιάσους cannot mean "dancing with my age-mates" and Ph. 234-36 (είλίσσων άθανάτας θεοΰ χορός γενοίμαν) and 1755-56 (Σεμέλας θίασον ίερόν δρεσιν άνεχόρευσα), which he adduces as parallels, are no parallels. The verb is different in the last passage, and the text of 234-36 is doubtful.

Commentary

369

Whether the participle is intransitive, as cited, or transitive (Diggle prints αθανάτους "celebrating the immortals in dance"), the difference from the present passage is obvious. 1755-56 probably implies that Antigone was the leader of the band, but the chorus of IT do not differentiate themselves from their age-mates; cf. previous η. πόδ(α) is almost certainly to be construed with είλίσσουσα (or περί.. .είλίσσουσα, see below) and not with ματρός. If it is construed with the latter, the participle would remain without construction since θιάσους cannot be its object. For είλίσσω, commonly used for dancing in Euripides, cf. El. 180, Here. 690, Tr. 332-33, IA 1055, 1480-81. παρά.,.φίλας ματρός: "leaving my dear mothers' side)", ήλίκων θιάσους, emended to ήλίκων θιάσοις (Lachmann), should probably be construed with 114752, although in sense it belongs also to 1145-46: the girls danced and competed with their age-mates. If ματρός goes, the best available emendation is Hermann's περί πόδ' είλίσσουσα φίλας/ προς ήλίκων θιάσους. He construes φίλας with άμιλλας at 1147 but the adj. should rather be emended to φίλων (Diggle) or φίλους (Köchly) to qualify ήλίκων or θιάσους. θίασος is a word at home mainly in religious and especially Bacchic contexts. In tragedy it occurs mostly in Bacchae. The only other Euripidean examples are Or. 319 (in an oxymoron that includes a Bacchic reference), Ph. 796 (in a corrupt passage, probably an oxymoron), 1756 (see above) and IA 1059 (with an allusion to the Centaurs' love of drink); cf. Rh. 362 (in a context of hard drinking and revelry). If the chorus refer to wedding dances, the word may suggest the vibrancy of those dances and the atmosphere of revelry in the celebrations. For θίασοι see Burkert (1985) 173-74 and cf. Dillon (2002) 145-49. 1147-52. The girls explain that the competition focused on beautiful hairstyles, ornaments and clothes, ές άμιλλας χαρίτων and εις εριν refer to the same thing, the beauty contest at the dance, but the latter introduces in apposition the specific means employed to win the competition. Mastronarde on Ph. 788 suggests that χάριτες refers to dancing in particular. If so, the girls would also compete in dancing skill, χαίτας is unmetrical in its present position. Tr 2 transposed after άβροπλούτοιο. If genuine, χαίτας indicates that the girls' main concern was their hairdo and the adornment of their hair, a major component of female charm; cf. e.g. Ph. 223-24, 1485-91, Alcman fr. 1.51-53, 3.71-72. χαίτας, however, should probably be corrected to χλιδάς (Markland) since the reference to luxury is appropriate in the context, άβροπλούτοιο suits χλιδάς much better and a double reference to hair in the space of a few lines (also at 1151) is strange.

370

Commentary

πολυποίκιλα φάρεα: the adj. is very rare; cf. El. 191 (πολύπηνα φάρεα). φάρος can be any kind of light garment but here it probably implies the head-cover: the girls used it and their tresses to shade their cheeks, περιβαλλόμενα γένυσιν: for the construction of the verb see on 796. γένυς is more often used of a man's cheek; see Denniston on El. 1213-17 (Addenda). There is no need to change the dat., although Markland's γένυας is plausible. If it is adopted, φάρεα και πλοκάμους is to be construed with περιβαλλομένα and γένυας with έσκίαζον. The small but significant detail of the shaded cheeks is developed at lyric length and closes the ode, with έσκίαζον the only verb in the long clause. The contrast with the women's present situation, presumably plain attire and perhaps sorrowful song and dance underscores their plight. 1153-1233. The fourth episode. Devoted entirely to the most crucial part of the escape plan, the successful deception of Thoas, the briefest episode in the play includes no complex dramatic developments and no surprises. Thoas enters with attendants to inquire about the progress of the sacrifice and Iphigeneia, who enters immediately afterwards carrying the statue, pretends that its purification is already under way and serves the king the story of the captives' pollution (1153-87). She easily arranges for the all-important purification of captives and statue with sea-water (1188-1202) and delivers instructions to Thoas and the Taurian citizens (1203-29). At the end she addresses a veiled prayer to Artemis for success (1230-33). The exchange of Thoas and Iphigeneia is stichomythic throughout and the switch to trochees (1202-33) further increases the tempo of the episode. The use of antilabe (1203-21) indicates the complete accord between Iphigeneia and the king, or the extent of Iphigeneia's success in deceiving him. The king is not a particularly intriguing character, at least not in the modern sense of the term, because the traits he exhibits in this episode (and in the exodus) have already been communicated to the audience. He is dedicated to the cult of the goddess and eager for the sacrifices (334-35, 996-97, 1080-81) as well as predictable and easy to deceive (741-42, 1048-49, 1080-81). Iphigeneia's rejection of Orestes' proposal to kill Thoas (1020-23) implied a civil relationship between priestess and king: she apparently respects him, at least in his capacity as her host. Thoas' praises (1180, 1202, 1212, 1214) indicate that he too respects and also highly admires her, entertaining no doubt about her devotion to the Taurian goddess and loyalty to the Taurian community. Euripides ironically makes Thoas espouse the stereotypes of the clever Greek (1180) and of the savage barbarian, although the latter in a dou-

Commentary

371

ble-edged exclamation (see on 1174). This irony notwithstanding, the deception hinges neither on Thoas' barbarian gullibility nor on his savagery, which receives minimal emphasis in the play (see on 1427-30). Except for the element of the human sacrifices, the deception of a Greek king could proceed along similar lines. Consider e.g. the deception of Creon and especially of Aegeus by Medea (Md. 292-347 and 708-58 respectively). Iphigeneia succeeds not because she is Greek and can thus easily dupe barbarians but because she is intelligent and has devised an excellent plan. The chorus are also Greek aristocratic girls like Iphigeneia but will soon completely fail to deceive a Taurian attendant of the king about a much simpler matter (1293ff.). Euripides chose to portray Thoas in relatively positive, or at least neutral, light in comparison with Polymestor in Hecuba and Theoclymenus in Helen, the other two barbarian kings deceived by women, a barbarian and a Greek queen respectively, in the surviving corpus. Thoas is a pious man and a decent host while Polymestor and Theoclymenus are offenders of guest-friendship and completely dominated by their passions. All three deceptions are based on superior knowledge or information the women plotters feign to possess, but their similarity ends there. Thoas' deception hinges neither on his ignorance of things Greek, as Theoclymenus', nor on his eagerness to transgress sacred laws in order to satisfy his passion, as Polymestor's, but on his concern with piety and ritual correctness. This concern and Iphigeneia's priestly office reduce Thoas' chances of seeing through Iphigeneia's ruse. Thoas is a non-Greek sacrificer of humans, but this is the limit of his alterity. Iphigeneia's performance in the deception also holds no surprises because not only her resourcefulness but also her persuasiveness has already become obvious (see on 582-87). Nevertheless, the flawlessness of her confident performance, except for one potential mistake (see on 1203-21), is bound to be perceived as extraordinary, especially since this is her last appearance onstage in the play. The helpless victim of Aulis, lured to the sacrificial altar by the guile of Odysseus (24-25), turns into a consummate manipulator herself, although with no intention to harm others. Not only does she not hesitate to deceive Thoas but she also dares to attribute to the goddess acts that never occurred, all the while pretending that she cares solely about piety and ritual propriety. A putative sacrifice to Artemis will be used to reverse the effects of the Aulis sacrifice. The old victim arranges to return to Greece not only with the help of the goddess but literally with her and the rescued victims, her own kinsmen, of the last missed human sacrifice. The success of the deception plot, followed by the expression of the chorus' confi-

372

Commentary

dence in Apollo's help in the third stasimon, fosters the impression that there is little room left for divine opposition to the escape of the Greeks or for the potentially disruptive action of chance but this assumption will prove premature. Cf. on 1391bff. For the chorus' part in this fast-paced episode see on 1156. 1153-55. Thoas enters from the right with a number of attendants (see on 1207-8). His inquiry about the progress of the sacrifice has been anticipated by Iphigeneia at the end of the previous episode (1080-81). The king addresses his questions to the chorus, as is common in tragedy when no other character is onstage (see on 1284-87), but he uses no form of address, not even a simple "women" or "slave-women". This is unusual for an entering character seeking information about another character's whereabouts and may be considered a sign of great urgency. Cf. El. 487-90 and Or. 470-75; cf. also S. Ant. 384-85 (the guard may be thought to respond to the chorus' expression of amazement that greeted the entrance of the captive Antigone [376-83]). Here it indicates Thoas' great eagerness for the completion of the sacrifice but possibly also some rudeness. Contrast e.g. Md. 1293-95 and Ion 1106-7 (entering characters address the women of the chorus despite the urgency of the situation), πυλωρός: cf. 1227. The priestess of the temple holds its keys (cf. on 131) and is thus not only the keeper of the gates but also its guardian in a more general sense. Reiske's ήδη suits the tone of Thoas' question better than L's ή δή, which is rare in tragedy; see Diggle (1994) 115. κατήρξατο: κατάρχομαι is the technical term for performing the preliminary rituals that consecrated the sacrificial victim to death (cf. on 244b-45). It would thus be strange for Thoas to inquire in the same breath whether the priestess has consecrated the strangers and whether their bodies are already glowing on the funeral pyre. Iphigeneia's statement at 1081 implied that the king would appear expecting the sacrifice to have been completed. If 1155 is spurious, the interpolator was probably motivated by some such consideration. Alternatively, Thoas, having Iphigeneia in mind, may have used κατήρξατο, the verb appropriate for her office, loosely and then added 1155 to clarify what he meant. (Bothe's insertion of τ' after άδύτοις normalizes the flow of Thoas' inquiries.) The burning of the victims took place within the temple, perhaps on an altar; see on 626. άδύτοις may be corrupt because the word is usually reserved for the sanctum of Apollo's Delphic oracle in archaic and classical literature, but at Ion 938 it is also probably used just for a shrine, σώμα λάμπονται πυρί, "their body glowing like fire" (cf. Η. II. 15.623, Hes. Sc. 145, Ar. R. 293-94 and the proper

Commentary

373

name Πυριλάμπης), sounds awkward for the burning of the victims on a pyre. Heimsoeth's σώμαθ' απτονται πυρί is a less unusual alternative. 1156. This line is the chorus' sole contribution in this episode. The women answer only the king's first question and simultaneously announce the entry of Iphigeneia. They do not, however, simply say "here she is and she will answer all your questions". They prudently refrain from providing any information about the sacrifice but indicate that some explanation is in order. The choice of σαφώς at the end shows the chorus already playing their small part in the deception of the king. Iphigeneia had only asked them to be silent about the plot (1063-64; cf. 1076-77): they do that here but they also reassure the king that Iphigeneia's explanations will be adequate and trustworthy. Euripides normally uses σαφής in its original Homeric sense 'true, reliable'; see Barrett on Hi. 346 and Bond on Here. 55. Here of course σαφώς also carries the closely connected meaning 'clearly'; (cf. on 1162). Later, the women will much more boldly and actively try to mislead the Taurian messenger (1293ff.). ήδ' έστίν: "here she is" not "this is she"; cf. 773, Or. 380, S. OT 1416-17, Ant. 386, OC 32 and 138. 1157-62. Iphigeneia comes out of the temple door, carrying the goddess' wooden statue in her arms. She had presumably kept watch near the door in order to exit almost simultaneously with the king's arrival. She would normally be accompanied by attendants (see on 1-66), but she may exit alone now because of the special nature of her task. If attendants accompany her, they are probably female and have no part in the episode: the orders to bind and fetch the prisoners are given to Thoas' men (1205-6). The unexpected appearance of the priestess with the statue naturally takes Thoas totally by surprise, but Iphigeneia makes him repeat his question three times (1157, 1160, 1162) before she starts spinning her yarn. She is perfectly in control from the beginning, and the story she tells the king is more elaborate than what she had outlined to her brother earlier (1033-43). Normally, entering characters speak first. Here the character already onstage, eager to establish contact as soon as possible, addresses the newcomer first. Cf. El. 552, HI. 1186, Or. 1321-22, A. CA. 732, S. OT 85, Ant. 531, 632, Tr. 227. Cf. also 1288 below: the women of the chorus address the messenger who has already spoken upon entrance (1284-87) but not to them. Iphigeneia first issues a command to the king and then hints at the fact that pollution is involved.

374

Commentary

1157-58. εα: this extra-metrical interjection, sometimes doubled (see e.g. Hi. 856, Here. 815, El. 747, Ba. 644), is common in Euripides and found a few times in the other dramatists. In the majority of cases it is an expression of surprise at a novel thing, usually a strange sight or sound, just noticed by the speaker; see e.g. Md. 1004, Hi. 905, Here. 625, Or. 1573 and Dodds on Ba. 644; cf. Kambitsis on Ant. fr. 48.51 (223.80). For a couplet introducing a stichomythia see on 69-71. τί: almost every question until 1168b, when Thoas starts perceiving the picture Iphigeneia paints for him, is introduced with τί (1160, 1162, 1164; cf. 1168a, 1172); cf. on 1168. έξ ακινήτων βάθρων: literally "from its immovable pedestal" but the adj. is here used in the metaphorical sense "not to be moved" = "disturbed"; cf. PI. Lg. 684el. It is of course the statue that can, and should not, be physically moved (the pedestal is immovable) but both pedestal and statue are "disturbed" by the removal of the latter, έν ώλέναις: for the use of ώλένη in tragedy cf. on 966. At 1044 έν χεροΐν is used for the exact same act. 1159-60. εχ': for the use of pres. and aor. imperatives in tragedy cf. on 239 and 1313, 1322. Here the aorist would be metrically acceptable; cf. e.g. S. OC 1169. έν παραστάσιν: Iphigeneia probably uses "vestibule" rather loosely here. There is no reason for Thoas to have approached the door of the temple because that would interfere with Iphigeneia's exit from it. If Thoas were actually so near the door of the temple, then the priestess and the king would have to be next to each other for the exchange of at least 1157-59. This is not impossible, but Thoas' approach to the door serves no purpose. Iphigeneia instructs him to proceed no further, to stay out of the temple, καινόν: see on 42. 1161. άπέπτυσ': not a description of an act of spitting just performed, as Kovacs' gloss implies, but a verbal substitute for the act, indicating strong negative reactions (of disgust, horror etc.) to, and meant to avert an evil omen present in, the word(s) (about to be) spoken or just heard. Such so-called performative tragic aorists substitute for an act, as here (cf. 862), or indicate polite distancing of the speaker, e.g. from the interlocutor's proposal (1023). See Lloyd (1999). Iphigeneia's statement is not a repudiation of Thoas' question but her reaction to the abominable, as she implies, situation he asks about. Such a vehement reaction, combined with the removal of the statue, can only point to godoffending pollution. Όσίαι γάρ δίδωμ' επος τόδε: cf. 1037. For the theme of holiness in the play see on 130-31. Iphigeneia's ritual rejection of the pollution goes some way toward restoring purity, mainly as far as the mention of the pollution is concerned.

Commentary

375

1162. νεοχμόν qualifies κακόν at Hi. 866-67 (cf. Ba. 216, A. P. 693) and τέρας in Ar. Th. 700-701 and R. 1371-72. Cf. Su. 1057, Evadne's allusion to the extraordinary act of her imminent self-immolation, and Tr. 231, the chorus' anxious reference to the message that the Achaean herald Talthybius is bringing, έξαύδα σαφώς: this is the king's third attempt to obtain information about the problem, σαφώς echoes the chorus' promise to the king (see on 1156) and is distinctly ironic in view of the deception plot. 1163-67. The "revelations" to Thoas proceed slowly: Iphigeneia mentions first the miasma of the captives and the reaction of the statue to it. Thoas makes an attempt to show informed skepticism in the face of what he perceives as possible excessive excitement and especially as an unwelcome complication to the completion of the sacrifice he cherishes. But his resistance is no match for Iphigeneia's cunning and it will not extend beyond 1166: from then on, he follows obediently and full of appreciation wherever she leads. Nevertheless, his demand for proofs and evidence is not different from Iphigeneia's similar request from Orestes, although 1166 in particular is probably ironic. 1163. Iphigeneia's statement has clear undertones of reproach in order to put the king on the defensive. Note the second plural ήγρεύσασθ', involving the king in the capture of the victims in which he had no part, and the ethical dative μοι, feigning indignation in the face of ritual negligence or outrage. Sacrificial victims are normally tame animals, but the victims of the Taurians are both human and caught as prey; cf. 280. 1165. Iphigeneia invents a portent in order to convince the king: she claims that the image of the goddess turned around. For portents involving statues cf. e.g. Hdt. 6.82.2, Thphr. HP 5.9.8, A.R. Arg. 4.1284, Plu. Alex. 14.8, Luc. 11.3, Cor. 38.1, D.C. 46.33, Ath. 12.521f, Arr. An. 1.11.2, Lyd. Ost. 8.2-3. 1166-67. Thoas' reluctance to believe the story prompts Iphigeneia to reinforce it with a further portent. δψιν...όμμάτων: the former is probably the seeing ability found in the latter; cf. Cy. 627-28, Or. 513, IA 233. For δμμα cf. on 68. 1168. ή: the particle, used to introduce questions that are suggested answers to a previous question (GP 283), also introduces 1176; cf. 1170. Its use is the first sign of Thoas' progressive "illumination" and confi-

376

Commentary

dence, both in his ability to draw inferences and in Iphigeneia's handling of the situation. This will culminate in his remarks about the supposed attempt of the captives to deceive Iphigeneia and her loyalty to the Taurian Artemis (1182, 1184, 1186). τό...μύσος refers back to 1163, Iphigeneia's first mention of the captives' pollution, and thus Dobree's τι is unnecessary. 1169-70. ήδ', ουδέν αλλο: Iphigeneia confirms Thoas' inference, the first correct one in the stichomythia (cf. previous n.), by formulating her answer so as to echo both αιτία and μύσος. The next step in the plot is to announce the exact nature of the pollution. She starts by providing a helpful hint to Thoas with δεινά, regularly employed in the context of murder. The hint is easily picked up at 1170. α λ λ ' ή: the combination gives "lively expression to a feeling of surprise or incredulity" (GP 27; cf. Barrett on Hi. 858-59). The audience know that Thoas has heard a report similar to the messenger speech (260-339). Thus he must know that no Taurian had been killed in the fight that led to the capture of the strangers. Iphigeneia's hint makes him consider the quite surprising possibility that the strangers may after all have killed someone on the shore, βαρβάρων: the word is used without racial bias by non-Greek characters in tragedy; see e.g. 1422, Tr. Ill, 1277, HI. 1210, 1258, Or. 1374, 1396, 1507, A. P. 255, 391, 423, 475, 798, 844); cf. on 1174. 1171-72. οΐκεΐον: the next hint is that the strangers killed not only a Greek (as opposed to a barbarian) but also a relative back home, τον φόνον: the article indicates that murder is indeed in question, as Thoas assumed, κεκτημένοι - εχοντες; cf. 1317, Or. 865 and Willink on Or. 489. εις έρον γαρ του μαθεΐν πεπτώκαμεν: cf. Βα. 813. The explanation is little more than a line-filler but it is consistent with Thoas' presentation as particularly eager to have the sacrifice completed as soon as possible and thus unwilling to waste any time. It is natural for such a person to want to justify an inessential question. His "love of learning" is limited: he never asks the obvious question about the motive of the hideous crime. This failure, primarily motivated by the dramatic concern of avoiding unnecessary retardation, adds an extra touch to Thoas' portrayal. 1173-75. Iphigeneia follows the plan most closely now, claiming that the strangers are brothers who killed their mother and adding the plausible detail that they are exiled from Greece. For the use of the matricide in the deception of Thoas see on 1032-34. κατειργάσαντο: for the

Commentary

377

verb see on 1081. κοινωνώι: this is usually a noun and thus Jackson's emendation κοινωνώ (ξίφους) is plausible but it does not inspire much confidence as an expression. Bruhn's κοινουργώι would be preferable if it occurred in classical Greek, διωγμοΐς ήλάθησαν; cf. 79-80, 94142, Or. 412. "Απολλον: Apollo is normally invoked as averter of evil ("Απολλον, "Απολλον αποτρόπαιε, Παιάν; see Bond on Here. 538) but he is the very god that instructed Orestes to commit matricide. Thoas cannot know or easily imagine such a thing, but his rashness to condemn the strangers without even asking about the background of their crime is another instance of the failure of mortals to demonstrate thoughtful restraint and withhold judgment; cf. Introduction Ic(2), 111(1 )c. Thoas' exclamation contains further irony in that the king espouses the Greek stereotype of barbarian savagery but points out that matricide is shunned even by barbarians. Cf. Tr. 764-65, Andromache's accusation that the Greeks have invented a crime of barbaric cruelty, the murder of the child Astyanax. Implicit ironic subversion of the Greek idea of barbarian moral inferiority or alterity is also found in Andromache: Hermione accuses the barbarians of committing internecine murders (175-76) but she herself belongs to a clan that boasted several such crimes. Cf. Md. 1329-45 (the disloyal Jason attacks Medea's barbarian savagery and readiness to harm her family), He. 328-31 (Odysseus disparages the barbarians as ungrateful and disloyal while he himself gravely harms his erstwhile benefactor Hecuba). 1176-77. The removal of the statue from the temple did not amount to purification, certainly not to adequate purification, but simply to the cessation of contact with the alleged matricides. There is no indication that pollution dissipated in the open air and exposure to pollution was even believed to affect the elements, especially the sun; cf. on 1207. (The narration of a bad dream to the aether, sky, sunlight etc. [cf. on 42-43] had a different, apotropaic function and did not pollute the elements.) The removal of the criminals from the temple also did not restore its purity: the temple will have to be cleansed after Orestes and Pylades leave it for the supposed purification at the shore (1215-16). μεταστήσω: for the verb see on 775. 1178-87. This is the last section of the stichomythia before the announcement of the necessity of purifying captives and statue with seawater (119Iff.). It does not adduce information important for the deception but contributes details that cement the already secure trust of the king in the highly intelligent, and supposedly dedicated to the barbarian

378

Commentary

cult, priestess. The inferences that Thoas draws boost his self-esteem and make him feel the equal of the revered priestess, further predisposing him favorably to her requests; cf. on 1203-21 and 1213. 1178 is probably the most naive question of the entire stichomythia, but at 1182 and 1184 Thoas grasps the point much more quickly than usual. Iphigeneia does not pretend that the strangers reported pleasant falsehoods about her brother and father to her. Thoas has presumably no better idea about the fate of her family than anybody else in Tauris, and she does not inform him about it. She claims that the good news reported by the captives is irrelevant to her because, as Thoas gladly infers (1186), she naturally hates all Greeks (1187): the captives did not know or did not understand this supposedly plain fact, and they naively thought that they would sway her by their, presumably true, good news. 1180-81. ώς ήισθου καλώς: for this causal use of the exclamatory ώς cf. Hi. 1054, 1413, S. 07" 345; see KG 11.370-71. και μην: the combination of particles introduces a new point (GP 351-53), but it also expresses agreement with the statement of the previous speaker (GP 35355). L's και νυν is colorless and unsuitable as an introduction to Iphigeneia's statement, φρενών: probably not with καθεΐσαν but objective gen. with δέλεαρ. The metaphor comes from angling, but both "fish" and "water" are virtually identical: the bait is lowered into Iphigeneia's mind in order to lure it into cooperating with the strangers. 1182. τών Άργόθεν: partitive gen. from τι. A simple Άργόθεν would be enough and τών (έν) "Αργεί more strictly correct: the dominant idea is that of the origin of the news and not of the location of those the news concerned; cf. e.g. 540, 1410, Md. 506, El. 280, Tr. 74, Ar. Λ v. 1304, X. Cyr. 3.3.48 and KG 1.547. The use of adverbs normally denoting the place whence to denote the place where is quite common in Aeschylus: see e.g. S. 68, Su. 597, Ag. 871, 875, Ch. 834, 835, 852, Eum. 297, 397. φίλτρον, here a predicate, denotes almost exclusively something that induces love or affection, often a love-charm; see Barrett on Hi. 509 and Stevens on An. 540. The change of metaphor from "bait" to "charm" is slight since a bait may be visualized as a charm for the fish. 1183-85. εύτυχεΐν: this lie harks back to Orestes' bitter remarks at 500 and 561; cf. 694 and 841. ώς δή indicates the scorn of the speaker at the captives' futile attempt to influence the steadfastly loyal priestess; cf. Ph. 873 and GP 232. σώσαις: for this form of the aor. optative instead

Commentary

379

of the commoner in - ε ι α ς cf. Md. 325, Hi. 469 with Barrett's η. γε: for the repetition of the particle here and in the next two lines see next n. 1186-87. τό της θεοΰ: for the periphrasis cf. Stevens (1976) 20. It is likely that it means simply "the goddess" but a nuance of "the interests of the goddess" (as opposed to those of the captives) may be present; cf. on 766. έξένευσας: probably not from έκνέω 'swim out', a reference to Iphigeneia's escaping the strangers' trap, but from έκνεύω 'shy back the head', like a horse, and thus 'change course'; cf. 1330, Ph. 920 with Mastronarde's n. Thoas suggests that Iphigeneia declined to follow where the strangers tried to lead and veered to the side of the goddess. The choice between έκνέω and έκνεύω would be more difficult if the supposed attempt of the captives stood any chance of success in the eyes of Thoas. Since the king believes that the captives were hopeless because of Iphigeneia's ingenuity and especially her hatred of Greeks, there is hardly any question of Iphigeneia's "swimming out" of their trap. Besides, είκότως makes much better sense with έκνεύω than with έκνέω. In the last three lines of this section (1185-87) the speakers pick up γε from each other's mouth and use it to corroborate the implications of their statements, in perfect agreement with each other in their scorn for the captives and wish to sacrifice them. The Taurians are convinced that Iphigeneia should hate all Greeks on account of the Aulis sacrifice and should enthusiastically embrace the Greek-killing practices of her adopted home; see 336-39 and 1418-19. 1188-90. Satisfied by Iphigeneia's account, Thoas turns to the measures to be taken concerning the pollution of the captives. His eagerness for the sacrifice (cf. 1153-54), already made clear before he appeared on stage (334-35; cf. 1080-81), is indicated by the parenthetic imperative φράζε (cf. 1073) and especially by his interpretation of Iphigeneia's reference to "the established custom" (τον νόμον.,.τόν προκείμενον). The priestess is careful to imply that there is only one way to deal with the situation and that this is dictated by established custom. Thoas mistakes this as a reference to the Taurian custom of sacrificing strangers. Bruhn thinks that the king's inference indicates the absence of purification rites among the Taurians. This cannot be the case because, except for the human sacrifices, the Taurian religion does not appear to differ from the Greek counterpart and Thoas acknowledges the efficacy of, as well as the need for, purification (1194, 1200). He is aware of pollution and some means of avoiding it (1178, 1194, 1200, 1207, 1210, 1214, 1218), and so he must also be familiar with some form of purification

380

Commentary

rites. Cf. next n. If the need for, or at the very least the desirability of, purification of polluted victims had been unknown to the Taurians, Iphigeneia could not have based her deception plan on their fear of offending the goddess by sacrificing polluted victims to her (1035-37). προκείμενον: the verb is frequently used in connection with human laws and decrees (see e.g. A. P. 371, S. Ant. 35-36 [with Griffith's n.], 481) but here νόμος is clearly 'custom' and not some law or decree about purification issued by Thoas. σέβειν: Fraenkel on A. Ag. 1612 discusses the meaning of the verb and its various nuances in several, mainly poetic, passages. The primary sense is not 'to revere, worship' but 'to practice (reverently)', always in the context of practices and attitudes involving something σεμνόν. Here, in the context of a religious practice, the difference between practice and reverence is very slight; cf. 648 and Sthen. fr. 661.15. οΰκουν: the particle is often used to introduce animated questions, here a question that betrays Thoas' eagerness; cf. 1196 and 810. ξίφος...σόν: the reference to the sword of the priestess does not seriously contradict Iphigeneia's references to her priestly duties elsewhere in the play, especially in the prologue (40) and in answer to Orestes' questions before the recognition (621-24). Iphigeneia does not actually kill the victims herself but she is mentioned as the slaughterer of the victims also at 442-45 (the chorus wish that Helen would be sacrificed by Iphigeneia) and 870-73 (Iphigeneia contemplates in horror the crime she would have committed by sacrificing her brother to the goddess). All three passages express strong emotions, here Thoas' eagerness, and keen awareness of Iphigeneia's cardinal role in the sacrifices. 1191-93. The purification of the victims is first explicitly mentioned to Thoas now, almost exactly midway through the episode, άγνοΐς καθαρμοΐς has a proleptic force. 1192 does not indicate ignorance of relevant rites but is a factual request for a specification. The question actually shows familiarity with the two usual ways of purifying those tainted by pollution; cf. previous η. θ α λ α σ σ ί α ι δρόσωι: for the adj. see on 236 and for the noun on 255. The prominent role of the sea in purification is reflected in the gnomic ring of 1193, which perhaps inspired the anecdote quoted by D.L. 3.6 (Euripides accompanied Plato to Egypt and fell ill; the Egyptian priests recommended a purification with seawater and Euripides pronounced 1193 on this occasion), κλύζει: the verb is rare and used in Euripides only once again (Hi. 654), for purification by flowing water. England suggests plausibly that the vast size of the sea rather than any actual property of sea-water made people believe that it had special purificatory power; on this power see Parker

Commentary

381

(1983) 226-27, 229-30. The presence of salt, though, "a purifying agent in its own right" (Parker 227), probably fostered the belief; cf. Theoc. Id. 24.97 with Gow's n. The sea absorbed all impurities and remained pure. 1194-95. όσιώτεροι harks back to 1161; L's όσιώτερον is possible but the predicate suits the passage better than the adverb. It is ironic that Thoas should care about pure victims for an (in Greek eyes, at least) impure sacrifice (cf. 464-66). γοΰν: Denniston (GP 452) notes that Euripides uses the particle "in the sphere of action to introduce a pro tanto reason for following a suggested course", τάμά: see on 766. The ambiguous comment here (cf. 1197, 1213, 1221), a wink to the knowledgeable audience, may also be viewed as ritually significant: Iphigeneia alludes to the desired outcome of her actions in order to bring it about. Her prayer to Artemis at the end (1230-33) indicates that ambiguity serves as her way of signaling her wishes to intelligent gods. 1196-98. Thoas' eagerness for the sacrifice now turns into eagerness for its prerequisite, the purification of the victims, as is indicated by the similarity between 1196 and 1190. He cannot wait for the purification to begin and points out the proximity of the purifying sea. Iphigeneia replies that she needs a place where no people are likely to approach. Purificatory rites are not secret, and there is no indication that the cult of Taurian Artemis was mystical or orgiastic. Thus the demand for secrecy is not self-evident in terms of the captives' ritual purification. Nevertheless, since the pollution of the captives is contagious and harmful to all who come in contact with it, as Iphigeneia will stress soon (1207-18, 1226-29), the need for isolation sounds plausible. Besides, Iphigeneia already has in mind the purification of the statue, which will be mentioned to Thoas at 1199. This probably involved the disrobing of the goddess, and thus the ritual was off-limits at least to men; see Dillon (2002) 132-33, 138. In any case, ritual details are not likely to bother Thoas who, once convinced, immediately concedes Iphigeneia's request. κλύδων: see on 316. οΰ φιλώ τάρρηθ' όραν: mild synaesthesia, inspired by the combination of Iphigeneia's reluctance to mention the supposed secret rites and Thoas' own habitual reluctance (note φιλώ 'be in the habit o f ) to witness them. It indicates his care not to come in contact with any source of potential sacrilege. 1199-1202. The issue of the statue's purification is taken care of in just two lines in contrast to the purification of the captives. From a realistic

382

Commentary

point of view, this is not surprising: the captives are the carriers of the miasma, and Iphigeneia had to explain their situation to the king at some length. Already her entrance with the statue presented Thoas with a ritual fait accompli. Once convinced that the captives have to be purified, he raises no objections about the statue and even praises the priestess at 1202 (and again at 1214). άγνιστέον μοι και τό της θεοΰ βρέτας: for the ritual washing of Greek statues of goddesses see on 1041. ειπερ γε κηλίς εβαλέ vi ν μητροκτόνος: the presence of the matricides in the temple would pollute it and the statue (cf. on 1177), but here perhaps Thoas implies that the men actually touched the statue, causing particularly grave pollution; cf. on 1041. The pollution of bloodshed is localized on the hands of the killer, here the matricides; cf. on 941. δίκαιος ηΰσέβεια και προμηθία: cf. S. OC 1043. Markland suggested χ ή προμηθία but the article clearly goes with both nouns and does not have to be repeated. Similarly, δίκαιος, feminine here (as at Hrcld. 901 [quoted below]; cf. on 236 θαλασσίους), does not need to be changed to neuter (Elmsley), although a neuter adj. as predicate to a masculine or feminine subject is idiomatic and well attested; see Barrett on Hi. 443-46. Justice is often associated with piety; cf. Hrcld. 901-3 (εχεις όδόν τιν', ω πόλις, δ ί κ α ι ο ν ου/ χρή ποτε τοΰδ' άφέσθαι,/ τιμαν θεούς), Α. S. 597-98 and 605-6 (juxtaposition of a man's justice with his fellows' impiety), and PI. Euthphr. lle-12. Thoas has already praised Iphigeneia's intelligence (1180) and now it is the turn of her piety (ευσέβεια); for the term cf. on 130-31. Iphigeneia's forethought (προμηθία) is motivated by, and demonstrates, her piety, προμηθία is the older poetic form of the later prosaic προμήθεια. Iphigeneia has not really shown forethought in taking the statue out of the temple and seeing to its purification because the statue has already been polluted by the matricides. Thoas may imply that a less diligent priestess would take care only of the most urgent need, the purification of the victims for the sacrifice, and put off the purification of the statue, which would potentially create problems for the community later. The end of the first part of the exchange comes full circle as 1201 echoes 1157. 1203-21. The metre changes to the lively trochaic tetrameter until the end of the episode (1233); antilabe is used until the end of the dialogue with Thoas (1221). For Euripides' use of trochaic tetrameter see W. Krieg, "Der trochäische Tetrameter bei Euripides" Philologus 91 (1936) 42-51, Μ. Imhof, "Tetrameterszenen in der Tragödie" ΜΗ 13 (1956) 125-43, Τ. Drew-Bear, "The Trochaic Tetrameter in Greek

Commentary

383

Tragedy" AJP 89 (1968) 385-405 and Kannicht on HI. 1621-41. The acceleration of pace brought about by the metrical shift shows how brilliantly Iphigeneia's deception has already succeeded: the king acquiesces to everything she asks for without any reservation. Her instructions and requests in this part lend further credibility to her plan, but none of them is essential or even conducive to the success of the plan; cf. on 1178-87. It is ironic that the request for Taurian escorts (1208), which is inessential and apparently not preconceived (cf. 1044-45), will bring the enterprise to the brink of disaster. The escorts will intercept the escape, and, although the Greeks will repel them, a sudden adverse wind will not allow the departure of the Greek ship until Athena intervenes to help the escapees (1343ff.). In no other extant play is there anything similar to be found: even in Helen, the closest parallel, the Egyptian crew of the ship are a necessary evil (1061-72, 1410-17). Iphigeneia has specified that the purification will include secret rites (1197), and she will order the escorts to stay away (1329-31), but she clearly courts trouble by asking to be escorted by a band of hostile, if unarmed, men (1367-68). The presence of Taurian escorts is dramatically expedient because one of them will act as messenger but it is not absolutely necessary because a Taurian servant, for instance, one of those who most probably carry the sacrificial paraphernalia (see on 1222-25), could bring to the king the news of the escape. Euripides' choice of having Iphigeneia ask for the escorts as opposed to e.g. having Thoas send them along of his own accord is significant. Even the perfect plan may be foiled, both by human mistake and by unpredictable events, as will become clear in the exodus. 1203-4. οΐσθά νυν α μοι γενέσθω: for the idiom see on 759. νυν: see on 554. σον τό σημαίνειν τόδε: for similar line-fillers in answer to similar questions cf. Hi. 91-92, He. 998-99, Su. 932-33, Ion 363, S. OT 1517. Diggle suggests ö or τάδε but a is more plausible in view of the number of Iphigeneia's requests and τόδε probably refers to 1203a as a whole and not specifically to α. δεσμά τοις ξένοισι πρόσθες: Iphigeneia's request for the binding of the captives contrasts with her order to the guards to release them when they first entered (468-69 and cf. 638). ποΐ δέ σ' έκφύγοιεν αν; escape from Tauris is very difficult, as Iphigeneia herself lamented in her aria (881-93). The rhetorical question of Thoas, who does not know that there is a ship waiting for the Greeks (the cowherds had not seen the ship), is doubly ironic: the king is certain about the impossibility of the captives' escape and thinks that the strangers would wish to flee from Iphigeneia.

384

Commentary

1205-6. πιστόν Ελλάς οΐδεν ούδέν: Iphigeneia uses Thoas' objection to the binding of the strangers to her advantage, turning it into an opportunity to stress once again her supposed hostility to all Greeks and her loyalty to Taurians. This is the last time a statement that may be interpreted as a reference to the Aulis sacrifice is made by Iphigeneia in the play. England correctly points out that most nations accuse their enemies of treachery and Wecklein notes that Iphigeneia adopts the barbarian viewpoint but in this play Taurians and Greeks are not enemies. The Aulis affair is the only evidence of Greek treachery and it is significantly the Greek victim of Aulis who pretends to mistrust and hate all her compatriots. Cf. on 1298-99. Besides, an attempt by captives to escape death as sacrificial victims would involve no breach of trust or disloyalty of any kind. Iphigeneia cunningly suggests to the king the idea of Greek duplicity in order to present the Taurians as honorable and to reinforce his conviction that the decent priestess favors them, ϊτ' έπί δεσμά, πρόσπολοι: Thoas' servants are immediately dispatched to bind the strangers (not merely to fetch shackles, as Thoas' command is translated by e.g. Gregoire, Cropp and Kovacs). Before they enter the temple Iphigeneia further asks them to bring the strangers out with their heads veiled (1207). At least two men go into the temple; for the number of Thoas' attendants and Iphigeneia's escorts to the shore see next n. 1207-8. κρατα is masculine acc. singular, not neuter acc. plural; see Kannicht on HI. 1599. L's κατακρύψαντες is unmetrical and meaningless. The captives have garments on: the guards are told to cover the men's bare heads, ήλιου πρόσθεν φλογός: according to Greek belief, pollution was highly contagious and both gods and men could be affected by it. Parker (1983) 145-47 points out that gods did not actually suffer from the pollution caused by mortals but this pollution rebounded on the offending mortals (and those they associated with) by making them targets of the wrath of the offended divinities and subject to divine punishment. This was perhaps the source of the idea voiced by e.g. Theseus (Here. 1232) and (the blasphemous) Creon (S. Ant. 104344) that mortals do not have the power to pollute the gods; cf. Parker (1983) 309-11 and Mikalson (1991) 141. The deception of Thoas is naturally no occasion to mention or allude to revisionist views. Traditionally, all gods must avoid exposure to pollution (see e.g. 381-83, Al. 22-23, Hi. 1437-38), but it was perceived as particularly grievous to the elements and especially the light of the sun; see Bond on Here. 123234. It is noteworthy that in this play Orestes' pollution is not a matter of

Commentary

385

great concern (except in this episode for the purposes of the deception); cf. on 951-52. Orestes does not worry about polluting Iphigeneia or the chorus, and the women never mention the possibility of their becoming polluted by him. σων τέ μοι σύμπεμπ' όπαδών: for the import of this request see on 1203-21. οΐδ' όμαρτήσουσί σοι: all the attendants of the king ordered to perform various tasks are present onstage. One will be dispatched as a messenger to warn the citizens to keep clear of the procession (120911). At least two have been told to go bind the captives and bring them out with their heads veiled (1205-7). There is a possibility that these attendants enter the temple after 1208 and Thoas specifies that they will also act as escorts. If so, they have to be at least three because this is the minimum number implied in the messenger report (1407-9 and cf. 1355-57). If three go into the temple, come out and accompany Iphigeneia to the shore, and one is dispatched to warn the citizens, then Thoas entered with at least four attendants. Alternatively, and more likely, the servants dispatched to bind the captives enter the temple before 1208 and other attendants are designated as escorts at 1208. If so, the latter have to be at least three and the former at least two. The addition of the messenger to the citizens brings the number of Thoas' attendants up to at least six. The attendants who bring the captives out stay until the end of the episode and enter the temple with Thoas at the end. They (and possibly others) also accompany him when he comes out of the temple in response to the messenger's cries (1307-8). 1209-12. ποίας τύχας; another line-filler, like 1215 and 1217. When used in the sense 'events', τύχαι usually refers to past events (cf., though, 475-76, An. 405, A. S. 332, S. Tr. 724). Thoas may imply the crime of the strangers and the portents (1165-67). In her reply Iphigeneia specifies the precautions that the citizens should take in order to avoid pollution, τύχας may cover both, στεΐχε καί σήμαινε σύ: addressed to one of his attendants; for their number in this episode see previous n. συναντώσιν: with the transmitted optative συναντώιεν Thoas would indicate Iphigeneia's intention in the past, when she uttered the instruction έν δόμοις μίμνειν απαντας. Such optatives are discussed in KG 11.382-83, but most of the examples collected indicate actions that took place in a more distant past than Iphigeneia's command here, and thus Elmsley's συναντώσιν may be preferable, μηδέν' εις δψιν πελάζειν: probably a confirmation, in the form of a prohibition, of the instruction at 1210. Iphigeneia has everything to gain and nothing to lose from hammering home her supposed devotion to her priestly duties, the city and the king. It is also plausible, although not

386

Commentary

stated or implied in the sentence, that the prohibition is meant for those who happen to be outside when the messenger makes the announcement: they should steer clear of the path of the polluted strangers. 1213-14. και φίλων γ' οΰς δει μάλιστα: the apparent compliment to the king provides the opportunity for the last reference to Iphigeneia's φίλοι in the play (cf. 1402) and for another double entendre, τοΰτ' ελεξας εις έμέ: Thoas' self-congratulatory interpretation of Iphigeneia's ambiguous statement contributes significantly to the irony of the exchange: the king is flattered that the dedicated, intelligent priestess considers him a friend worthy of special protection; cf. on 1178-87. (Iphigeneia of course had actually protected the king earlier; see on 1020-27.) The first part of 1214 certainly expresses agreement with Thoas' inference but no convincing supplement has been suggested, ώς εΐκότως σε πασα θαυμάζει πόλις: for emphatic introductory ώς see on 1076. Dindorf deleted 1214 and Markland transferred it after 1202 but the lack of connection between 1202 and 1214 makes this arrangement rather improbable. 1215-16. The king is given a task to keep him busy and especially to enhance the credibility of Iphigeneia's plan, προ ναών is surprising and Bruhn understandably declares that he does not understand it. Iphigeneia cannot imply that Thoas is not to enter the temple because its interior has to be purified. As soon as the procession files out, Thoas enters the temple to perform the purification since he is inside when the messenger arrives with the news of the Greeks' escape (1284-1310). If no corruption lurks in the line, the emphasis may be on μένων αΰτοΰ: Iphigeneia may instruct the king not to return to the palace and not to enter the temple now, before the strangers come out. The specification is provided with regard to Thoas' present location rather than to the following instruction. πυρσώι is Reiske's emendation of the transmitted χρυσώι. Parker (1983) 228 n. 18 objects to the emendation and cites epigraphical evidence for purification by gold, although he points out that "the exact mechanism...is nowhere specified (it was perhaps by sprinkling of water from a gold vessel)". It would be rash to dismiss this evidence altogether, especially since it involves a ritual about which very little is known. A fairly uncommon purification method would lend an exotic aura to the barbarian cult. On the other hand, no explanation is provided and so the method must have been readily recognizable to the audience. Purification by fire is more widely attested. Other agents such as sulfur and pitch were also used (see Parker 227-28) but there is no indication

Commentary

387

that sulfur will be used for the purification of the shrine, pace Cropp. Thoas will light torches to fumigate the building. Torches will also be taken along for the supposed purification of captives and statue (1224), probably to dip in the χέρνιβες before the sacrifice of the animals but fumigation would also perhaps contribute to the purification. 1217-18. Thoas is bombarded with instructions until the very end. Not only are the captives to come out with heads covered (1207) but he is also to cover his eyes when they do. This extra precaution seems to be on the excessive side, but Iphigeneia sees no harm in appearing overly cautious and protective of the king. The chorus are ignored in this context and not even the guards that will escort Iphigeneia and the captives to the shore are instructed to take special precautions against pollution. The covering of the captives' heads would presumably offer adequate protection from pollution, and details that contribute little to the play have been left out. μή ί π α λ α μ ν α ΐ ο ν λ ά β ω | is difficult. Clearly, Thoas refers to avoidance of pollution from visual contact with the killers but what or whom exactly he wishes "not to receive" is far from clear. Diggle (1981) 8889 is right that π α λ α μ ν α ΐ ο ν cannot be taken as neuter adj. with an implied τι, as Platnauer suggests. It can then only be masculine, and the only way the transmitted text can be defended is by assuming with Parker (1983) 108-9 that it refers to demons of pollution shooting out from the murderers; cf. Johnston (1999) 142-43. Nevertheless, although a whole group of words discussed by Johnston can denote both the killers and the polluting (and avenging) spirits of murder, the only evidence for such demons emanating from the killers is this very passage. Md. 1333 (τον σον δ' άλάστορ' εις εμ' εσκηψαν θεοί) does not necessarily refer to demons shooting out from a person. The easiest emendation is Bauer's παλαμναίους βλέπω. 1219-20. As a last but not least precaution, Iphigeneia indicates that the king should not become alarmed by the length of her absence (and, presumably, send out scouts for her before the company has time to hoist sail). She easily evades the hard question of the time limit which Thoas eagerly asks and then magnanimously drops, offering her unlimited leave of absence, θαυμάσηις μηδέν: the king will have occasion to "marvel" soon, not at the priestess' delay but at the revelations of the messenger (1318, 1321). έπί σχολής: Schaefer's emendation of L's σχολή is adopted by the majority of editors. It is preferable to either έπεί σχολή or έπί σχολήι. έπει σχολή would make almost nonsense of the text: the pious king would not say "perform the rites properly

388

Commentary

since there is time" because this might imply that, in the absence of leisure, Iphigeneia might be asked or expected to cut the rites short. In a pious and kingly manner, Thoas grants Iphigeneia leisure to perform the rites properly. This could be expressed with a dat. of attendant circumstances and thus επί σχοληι is possible, but Cropp notes that the phrase occurs only twice in Galen in extant Greek while έπι σχολής is very common. For modal έπί with gen. cf. HI. 310 with Kannicht's n. 1221. The joint prayer for a good outcome of the purification is an appropriate conclusion to a dialogue dominated by ritual concerns and characterized by complete agreement between the interlocutors. By joining Iphigeneia in her prayer, Thoas unwittingly helps in bringing about the outcome she desires, ει γαρ ώς θέλω καθαρμός δδε πέσοι: γάρ has an assentient or approving force (GP 92-93). Perhaps the conditional force of the wish, if still felt in Euripides' time, points to the difficulty of the enterprise. 1222-25. The episode ends with the appearance of one of the most colorful processions in extant Greek tragedy. Iphigeneia had only mentioned washing the statue and the captives with sea-water (1039-43, 1191-99), and this heightens the effect of the company's entrance. She explains to Thoas (and the audience) the composition of the tableau and indicates that it was she who gave the relevant orders, presumably when she retired into the temple after 1088. This is not a formal entry announcement, which would be made by the chorus in anapaestic dimeter, as is usual in entry announcements of solemn processions; see on 456-66. The captives enter shackled and with their heads covered (see 12057) and exit almost immediately without speaking. (Since two speaking characters are onstage, at least one of the captives is now an extra.) For such rare appearances of major characters see Taplin (1977) 284. For the entrance of Orestes and Pylades cf. Hourmouziades (1965) 137-45, esp. 144, and Halleran (1985) 17. The procession also includes at least three of Thoas' attendants (see on 1208) and possibly at least two temple servants (see below). There are also robes and/or adornments for the statue of the goddess, lit torches and various other unspecified items necessary for the purificatory sacrifice as well as two (?) sacrificial lambs (probably one for each killer). In extant tragedy animals appear onstage also in Electra (a lamb, 494-95), Helen (dogs, 1169) and per-

Commentary

389

haps in the prologue of Hippolytus (horses and dogs, 18, 52, 110-12).25 The parade has the aura of closure, vaguely reminiscent of the exit of Aeschylus' Eumenides. If the audience associated the two plays, they would surmise that the Greeks would manage to escape without problem. The purification rites will be very thorough, as befits the heinous nature of the crime and the priestess' devotion. The cleansing of bloodshed with blood is standard in Greek cult; see on 1039. The statue of the goddess will be stripped of its garments and adornments, washed, and then dressed and adorned anew in clean clothes and trappings; cf. on 1041. Temple servants probably carry the necessary implements and the animals (or lead these) because it is unlikely, although not impossible, that Thoas' men would have been assigned this potentially distracting responsibility (and they probably would not have been allowed to carry ritual objects anyway). Besides, the messenger later informs Thoas that Iphigeneia motioned the escorts away and proceeded to perform the purification without them (1329-34). It is impossible for a single person to carry the statue, hold the bonds of the captives, carry the vessels for the sacrifice, mind the lambs, even for a short distance, and eventually perform the sacrifice alone. The servants must have followed her. If so, it is unlikely that they would stand by watching the preparations for the escape with complacency and not try to alert the guards or help them in the fight, but the messenger says nothing to that effect; cf. on 1333-34a. If servants were present, they were clearly out of mind as soon as they were out of sight. Alternatively, it is possible that the escorts carried the sacrificial paraphernalia and then gave them to Iphigeneia. In such case the poet would show no concern for the feasibility of the action, and the audience would probably pay little attention to such non-essential details. 1222. τούσδ' αρ' έκβαίνοντας ήδη: άρα expresses lively interest; it is mainly found in epic and only occasionally in Attic (Xenophon is an exception). In tragedy it is found mostly in lyrics (see GP 33-35) and thus Badham's τούσδε δ' is plausible. For other instances of ήδη in entrance announcements see Diggle (1981) 27.

25 Horses or mules drawing chariots or carriages appear more often. See El. 966, 99899, Tr. 568-76, IA 598-623 (perhaps inauthentic), possibly Rhesus 380 (entrance of Rhesus), A. P. 607-9 (the queen says that her previous entrance was on chariot), perhaps Su. 234 (entrance of Pelasgus), Ag. 1039; for entrances on chariot see Taplin (1977) 74-78.

390

Commentary

1226-29. Temple functionaries, people about to be married, and women about to give birth are urged to avoid contact with the miasma of the strangers. With triple repetition of the injunction to flee and ending in ring-composition, this solemn and emphatic announcement is addressed to people particularly vulnerable to pollution because of their ritual or liminal status, not to those likely to approach the temple, as England and Platnauer suggest. In her capacity as priestess in charge of the purification Iphigeneia is the most appropriate person to make the announcement; for the importance of priests in purification and the existence of an "announcer" in this context see Parker (1983) 350. ναών πυλωρός may designate a priest (see on 1153), but it may be more inclusive, indicating (also) other temple officials. Iphigeneia does not imply that the hands of such people would become polluted through their coming in visual contact with the supposed matricides. The hands are probably singled out because the service to the gods is offered with them: the miasma would pollute the entire person, but the polluted hands would be particularly offensive because they handle sacred objects. μή τωι προσπέσηι μύσος τόδε: the verb (also in the form προσπίτνω) is common, but in tragedy it is mostly used in the sense 'fall to one's knees to supplicate'. Here it means 'appear suddenly to attack or take someone by surprise'. This sense is common in Thucydides; see also Md. 225, Hrcld. 338, Autol. fr. 282.11, S. Ph. 46, 156. The implication is that, if people do not take care to avoid the pollution, they will find themselves under the devastating attack of a powerful and swift enemy. The only remedy is to flee (φεύγετ') before the enemy has the chance to strike, to steer clear (έξίστασθε) of the advancing pollution. 1230-33. When all ritual preliminaries and requirements have been taken care of, an invocation to the goddess is in order. Iphigeneia already prayed for a successful purification at 1221, but the appearance of the statue and the captives prompts her to address the goddess more fully. There are no elements of formal prayer here except for the initial address. The invocation repeats the essence of Iphigeneia's prayer at 1082-88. On both occasions, the priestess mentions the same crucial issues, first openly and here allusively, the salvation of herself and the captives, the statue's relocation to Greece and the happiness the desired outcome entails for all parties involved. Thoas naturally thinks that the devout priestess refrains from giving details in order to protect the sacred rites about to begin from profane ears. Gods are believed to be able to understand the secret intentions of their worshippers, communicated ambiguously or silently; cf. El. 808-10, S. El. 657-58. τα πλεί-

Commentary

391

ov': virtually identical to πλείον'; for the idiomatic use of the article cf. Md. 609, Hi. 471, Ino fr. 417.4, Rh. 78, S. Ant. 313, Tr. 731, Ph. 576, OC 36, 796. σοί τε σημαίνω, θεά: the reading θεά (= θεοα P), also found at 1485, "to you as goddess", cannot stand. In both passages the speaker begins and ends by addressing the goddess. At the end of the invocation the procession leaves the stage in the direction of the shore. This is the last the audience see (though naturally not hear) of Iphigeneia, Orestes and Pylades. Thoas, who must have covered his head, uncovers it and retires into the temple with remaining attendants, if any (cf. on 1207-8), to perform the purification prescribed by Iphigeneia at 1215-16. 1234-83. The third stasimon. This is a dithyrambic stasimon, featuring narration of violent events with elaborate language and descriptions, short cola and piling style, with repetitions and imbalance between main and subordinate clauses. For this kind of song see Panagl (1971) and cf. Mastronarde on Ph. 638-89. A strophic pair without epode and shorter than the previous two, the third stasimon is a hymn to Apollo's divine power and oracular authority. The strophe first narrates the god's birth on Delos (1234-39) and then Leto's trip with the baby to Parnassus where the young god acquired the chthonic oracle at Delphi by killing its guardian dragon (1240-58). The antistrophe recounts how Apollo consolidated his power in the face of a serious challenge: Earth tried to retaliate for the expulsion of her daughter Themis from the oracle by generating prophetic dreams and thus undermining Apollo's oracular exclusivity (1259-69). The child-god successfully pleaded his case with his father Zeus who annulled the prophetic function of the chthonic dreams and restored to Apollo his lucrative Delphic cult. In previous treatments of the myth Apollo acquired the oracle either by violent means (Η. Horn. 3.300-74, P. fr. 55) or by inheriting it from his maternal grandmother, the Titanis Phoebe, who had peacefully succeeded her sister Themis (A. Eum. 1-19). For the different versions of the myth see Fontenrose (1959) 1-22 and C. Sourvinou-Inwood, "Reading" Greek Culture (Oxford 1991) 217-43. The song tackles from a new, hymnal angle two major themes in the play, divine morality and the guidance mortals seek from gods. It is in a way the most intriguing of the play's songs. Unlike the previous two and especially the first, the third has no direct thematic connection with the preceding, or any other, episode.26 The avoidance of direct refer26 S o m e older scholars castigated it as irrelevant: Bruhn, for instance, endorsed the characterization έ μ β ό λ ι μ ο ν . Markland suggested that "...si fas sit dicere, Herculis e n c o m i u m vix magis alienum a proposito visum fuisset", but he continued with an

392

Commentary

ence to the escape plot is a poetic choice that has nothing to do with secrecy concerns, as e.g. Wecklein implies. 27 In Greek tragedy knowledgeable choruses do not collaborate in deception plots by making or suppressing specific statements when interested parties are not onstage, and they never voice concern that characters offstage may overhear their songs; cf. He. 1023-34, El. 1147-64, Here. Ί^Α-Μ,ΗΙ. 1451-1511. This stasimon is no exception. It differs from the others not because the chorus suppress facts for the purposes of the escape plot but because they address and celebrate a god involved in the events of the play. Throughout the play so far the women have echoed Iphigeneia's concerns. Initially, they functioned as a foil to her predicament. Their nostalgia for their beautiful and civilized home-country has been a constant motif in their utterances, complementing but also mitigating their mistress' almost exclusive preoccupation with herself and her family. It is clear that the women are conscious of the fact that Iphigeneia's situation and prospects are better than their own; see on 576-77 and 10891152. The women are also very different from Iphigeneia (and Orestes) in that they fail to commit themselves to any position about divine behavior and morality. They have refrained from blaming Artemis or the gods in general, as Orestes accused Apollo (77-79, 711-15), or even from engaging in the sort of theodicy that ends Iphigeneia's speech before the first stasimon (385-91). They are undoubtedly unhappy with the human sacrifices and their own service at the temple, but this dissatisfaction remains mostly implicit. In fact, our understanding of their attitude toward Artemis depends more on their empathy with Iphigeneia than on any explicit statement. Similarly, and more generally, nowhere in the play so far have the chorus protested against the vagaries of fortune or reflected on divine agency, concerning e.g. their own or Iphigeneia's predicament or even the recognition and the imminent escape of the siblings. For this cautious attitude toward the divine cf. on 463-66, 987-88 and 1056-74.

open mind: "Sed alii forte aliter judicabunt: et liberum sit judicium πασι, και έν πασι, de quibus judicare fas est." 27 W.D. Furley, "Praise and Persuasion in Greek Hymns" JHS 115 (1995) 37-38, also thinks that the chorus contribute to Thoas' deception with the stasimon. Apart from the general implausibility of the thesis, the discussion is riddled with factual mistakes and inaccuracies. Furley claims that Iphigeneia as priestess of Artemis Tauropolos (a cult that has not been established yet) leads the procession from Thoas' palace to Artemis' sanctuary by the sea in order to sacrifice Orestes and Pylades. He thinks that Iphigeneia uses the sacrifice in order to escape to Greece and that the chorus sing a prosodion to accompany the movement of the procession from residential to sacred ground.

Commentary

393

This song marks a shift in the chorus' practice: the women not only glorify a god but do that to the exclusion of all other themes. There is no mention of the protagonists or the longing for Greece, the main theme of their previous utterances. The only discernible connection with the other songs is the women's failure to address Artemis or speculate on her position, which remains largely inscrutable throughout the play. Instead, the women turn to Apollo, the god responsible for Orestes' mission and, indirectly, for the recognition of the siblings. The choice to place a hymn to Apollo at this point, i.e. the choice to make the women celebrate benevolent divine involvement in human affairs to the exclusion of other concerns, underscores the impact of the recent developments. Only now, after several almost miraculous reversals, do the cautious chorus feel confident that Apollo cares about his worshippers and proceed to celebrate his oracular authority. The fact that the women reserve judgment about the gods for so long enhances the effect of the song: it is the utterance of a group of cautious Greek women who do not rush to judgment, either negative or positive, and who still apparently do not feel comfortable enough to speculate about Artemis. Furley and Cropp have suggested that, through the praise and glorification it offers, the hymn has the purpose of encouraging Apollo to assist the Greeks in the final crucial leg of the escape. Every hymn undoubtedly seeks to ensure divine benevolence and assistance to mortals, but the mood in this particular hymn seems to be almost exclusively celebratory. The chorus appear to entertain no doubts that the god will assist the escaping Greeks. This certainty is not even entirely new but carries over from the previous stasimon (1128-31). Now, in view of the brilliant success of the deception of Thoas, the chorus reflect on and celebrate the power and the attributes of Apollo, especially the veracity of his oracles. The song, though, also contains a playful or ironic undercurrent in the narration of the revised version of the god's exploits: the killing of the dragon is placed in Apollo's infancy, and the defeat of Earth is attributed to the child-god's appeal to his father Zeus for help. Panagl (1971) 119-39 reads the first revision as an ironic device, aimed at undercutting the tone of seriousness that befits the narration of the foundation of an august oracle, and the collaboration of Apollo and Zeus as a prime example of divine underhandedness and favoritism. There is much of value in this reading, although the emphasis on the god's tender age (cf. on 1250-52) may be more plausibly viewed as a means of glorifying the power of the god, invincible and infallible from his infancy on.

394

Commentary

In this song, as in much of Euripides' work, the gods are intent primarily on pursuing their own agenda and often their rivalries. Nevertheless, despite the fact that Apollo is a divine baby who seems to care primarily for his expensive toys rather than the well-being of his worshippers, he is a beloved son of Zeus, an august oracular divinity and, most important of all, a truthful one who never lies. He is a seer but he is not nearly as inscrutable as Orestes had thought (570-75), and he is certainly not devious or unreliable (711-15). Both he and his father Zeus are not above self-serving motives, and neither are other gods such as Themis and Earth. Their rivalries and behavior do not sharply differentiate them from humans, and the latter cannot take for granted that a major or consistent concern of the gods is to extend benevolent protection to them. Some characters in Euripidean plays, such as Heracles {Here. 1303-10; cf. on 344-91 above), and some readers of the plays, such as Panagl, suggest that the perceived moral flaws of the gods virtually annul their very divinity. But Euripides may very well have meant to stress the paradox in the nature of the divine without ever trying to reconcile its two aspects. It is true, as Panagl observes, that our impression of Apollo at the end of Ion, for instance, is not favorable. On the other hand, the gods never forget, lie, or come short, either. This certainty may be considered by some a small and by others a significant, but it is certainly the only, measure of comfort that humans may expect from gods amidst the uncertainty of human life. The sobriety of their conviction notwithstanding, the women do not enjoy special insights into the workings of the divine - i t should be remembered, for instance, that they accepted without any reservation Iphigeneia's interpretation of her dream (178ff.). They view the events they witness fairly consistently and often correctly, but the third stasimon does not indicate that they possess superior or prophetic abilities. This becomes apparent again from the fact that the chorus prove to be as unsuspecting as the protagonists concerning the final complications of the escape. The women will also soon despair of the siblings' chances of escape; see on 1420-21. The confidence expressed in the third stasimon will thus prove rather premature or even excessively optimistic, although by no means completely misguided. 28

28 Hartigan (1991) 103 claims that the chorus wrongly disparage dreams because, if interpreted correctly, they may provide information, as Iphigeneia's dream indicates; both dreams and oracles need interpretation and may help humans. In the song (and the play as a whole), however, A p o l l o ' s oracles are never said to need interpretation and dreams are not a reliably available resource. M o r e importantly, the chorus do not disparage dreams but simply ignore them - they deal only with a special kind of prophetic dreams that did not require interpretation and have ceased to

Commentary

395

1234-36a. In contrast to the first stanza of the previous song, which celebrated the locale of Leto's delivery of Apollo (1098-1105), the beginning of this song focuses exclusively on the divine baby. Leto, who has just been named by Iphigeneia in her invocation of Artemis (1230), is the only parent of Apollo mentioned in the strophe (and Zeus the only one mentioned in the antistrophe). εΰπαις...γόνος is pleonastic; cf. Here. 689 (τον Λατοΰς εΰπαιδα γόνον). Bond ad loc. notes that it indicates Leto's maternal pride and may have a liturgical ring about it. Both components of the compound adj. qualify the noun; cf. Al. 904-6 (κόρος.,.μονόπαις), Or. 964 (καλλίπαις θεά s.v.l.), Α. Ag. 762 (καλλίπαις πότμος) with Fraenkel's η. and see Schwyzer 1.429. The adj. is also used of the parents (He. 810, Su. 955, Ion 491, Hdt. 1.32). Δηλιάσιν (Burges) is the most plausible emendation of L's Δηλιάς έν. It restores the necessary local specification and frees Leto of the dubious epithet Δηλιάς. Δηλίας έν (Tr1) is an improvement but the name of the island is not attested in this form. For feminine adj. with masculine or neuter noun cf. HI. 1301, Ph. 1024, Or. 270, 837 and Schwyzer 1.507. καρποφόροις γυάλοις: the rocky and barren Delos is said to be fertile because gods are usually born in pleasant surroundings. The adj. may be an allusion to the sanctuary created by Zeus for the comfort of Leto in labor, which was situated by the circular lake and included a laurel, a palm-tree and, later, an olive-tree (see on 1096-1105). γύαλα = 'dells' is used almost exclusively in poetry. Its choice in connection with a garden is unusual but was perhaps inspired by the common use of the word in connection with Apollo's Delphic shrine (e.g. An. 1033, Ion 76, 220, 234, 245, Ph. 237, P. P. 8.63, S. fr. 460). : for the timeless imperfect see on 274. Another plausible supplement is Markland's τεκοΰσα; cf. on 1239b-41. The presumed damage to L's archetype has also affected 1239 and, at twenty-four line intervals, 1260 and 1263 (as well as 1380 and 1404). 1236b-39a. The basic attributes of the god are already present at birth, his golden locks, his lyre and his bow (the oracular power will be elaborated on later). The bow is mentioned last in the tricolon because it will be useful in the extermination of the dragon to be narrated soon. χρυσοκόμαν: Dunbar on Ar. Αν. 216 notes that all χρυσό- compounds (except for the late χρυσόστομος) describing personal attribexist. The only constantly available, infallible and trustworthy source of mantic help available to humans is Apollo's Delphic oracle. Only indirectly, if one takes into account Iphigeneia's dream, may the chorus be thought to denigrate dreams as open to misinterpretation. Cf. on 42-58.

396

Commentary

utes are reserved for divine beings. Since Greeks generally considered fair hair to be a sign of beauty, the characteristic could be attributed to any god but it is most often attributed to Apollo in poetry, the god who personified youthful beauty and radiance. Dionysus, Zephyrus, Eros and Hymenaeus are also called gold-haired in Hesiod (Th. 947), Alcaeus (fr. 327.3), Anacreon (fr. 358.2; cf. Eur. IA 548) and PA (16.177.3) respectively. All these gods are youthful and nimble; Zeus, Poseidon and Hades were imagined to have black hair (e.g. Η. II. 1.52830, 13.563, H. Hymn 2.347). δστ': in tragedy the epic relative pronoun is used mostly in lyrics; see Diggle (1994) 325. Artemis is not mentioned in this ode and L's reading α τ' probably reflects the expectations of some reader(s). 1239b-41. Despite his being born fully equipped for his divine career Apollo is still a baby who needs his mother in order to move around, φέρε : L's text of 1259 (έπι γας ιών) is problematic in sense and metre, έπεί has been suggested by Canter and Scaliger. Bruhn's Γα'ί'αν is good but Kvicala's Γαΐων is slightly more plausible in view of Χθων at 1262. If neither παΐδ' nor άπενάσσατο is emended, then Hermann's is the

402

Commentary

most plausible supplement for the lacuna. Nauck suggested παις άπένασσεν ό and Housman (apud Platnauer) άπένασσεν 'Απόλλων άποπρό ζαθέων. The latter is fairly far from the text, and there is no compelling reason to change παΐδ' or άπενάσσατο. The verb has connotations of abrupt, violent expulsion from a place, most often one's homeland (cf. 175). It usually occurs in the middle voice, but in Homer (II. 2.629, Od. 15.254) the middle is intransitive: the transitive middle is found only here, έτεκνώσατο: much more often said of the father than the mother but cf. Hy. fr. I iii.7 [752g.7] with Bond's n.; cf. also Lyr. Adesp. fr. 67b 11 PMG). Since no father exists, Earth assumes the role usually assigned to the male parent. The dreams generated by parthenogenesis, as is often the case with Earth's offspring, are probably only the prophetic ones: there is no indication that non-prophetic dreams did not exist before Earth's challenge and Zeus will banish only prophetic dreams (1276-79). For the parentage or origin of dreams cf. on 42-43. 1264-65. πόλεσιν μερόπων: L's reading πολέσιν μερόπων is kept by all older editors and by Kovacs among recent ones. The specification "to many mortals" seems to imply that the dreams were not universally available or effective. This is a rather implausible implication in the context of the song because it would compromise the challenge to Apollo. To make sense, the phrase would have to be interpreted as "to a great many mortals", presumably to "all those in need of prophetic dreams", but it is not certain that it can be interpreted thus. The alternative πόλεσιν μερόπων (Tr2), adopted also by Sansone and Cropp, is preferable, although the specification is strange: the phrase πόλεις μερόπων ανθρώπων occurs a couple of times in Homer (II. 18.342, 490; cf. 20.217, H. Hymn 3.42), always in connection with cities. There is no reason why cities or even communities (cf. on 595) would be singled out here since non-urban mortals could presumably have access to the prophetic dreams, and individuals rather than groups were their recipients. τά τε πρώτα/ τά τ' επειθ', δσ' εμελλε τυχεΐν: δσ' is Burges' emendation of L's unmetrical δσα τ'. The dreams provided information about future events, i.e. the sequence of events in the near and more distant future, as Strohm and Diggle suggest. Cropp thinks that τά τε πρώτα/ τά τ' επειθ', δσ' εμελλε τυχεΐν may indicate past and future events; cf. Kovacs' translation "both things that once were and things destined to later fulfilment." With this interpretation, the specification όσ' εμελλε τυχεΐν becomes rather redundant, and τά τε πρώτα/ τά τ' επειθ' seems to imply a close connection, probably within the same temporal level. Seers knew, and oracles could reveal, past, present and

Commentary

403

future events. The earliest relevant passage is Η. II. 1.70 where Calchas is said to have knowledge of present, future and past events (τά τ' έόντα τά τ' έσσόμενα πρό τ' έόντα); cf. Hes. Th. 38. A threefold temporal division, although not in connection with prophecy, appears also at IA 332 (τά μεν νυν, τά δέ πάλαι, τά δ' αύτίκα), Su. 551 (οι μεν τάχ', οϊ δ' έσαΰθις, οϊ δ' ήδη βροτών) and S. Ant. 611-12 (τό τ' 'έπειτα και τό μέλλον/ και τό πρίν). In the last two passages the future is divided into near and distant future (Collard on Su. 551 suggests that near future is equivalent to present). Prophecies are also said to reveal present and future at Ion 1 and HI. 13-14, 922-23. For the twofold division cf. S. El. 1498. Sansone and Cropp adopt Seidler's emendation ά τ' for δσα τ' and Cropp suggests a threefold division, into distant past, near past and future. But it seems unlikely that in a threefold division the past rather than the future would receive greater emphasis and that the present would be completely excluded. In any case, the middle term in the threefold divisions cited above refers to the future, not, as Cropp suggests, to the present (Η. II. 1.70) and to the near future (S. Ant. 611). 1266. ΰπνωι κατά δνοφεράς χαμεύ-/νας: L's υπνου κατά δνοφεράς γάς εύν-/άς is very difficult in sense, and γάς is probably unmetrical. χαμεύνη and perhaps χάμευνα (e.g. Sciron fr. 676, Rh. 9, 852, A. Ag. 1540) is a lowly or impromptu bed on the ground; see Fraenkel's n. on the last passage. Mortals apparently had to sleep on the ground in order to come into direct contact with the chthonic power whose aid they sought. England suggests that the adj. may indicate underground beds, presumably in an underground dream-oracle, but such an oracle did not exist; see on 1259-66 and next n. 1267-69. As virtually all divine and many heroic epic rivals do, Apollo and his competitors vie for status and its rewards; cf. below and next n. δέ: resumptive (see GP 182-83), although not in the same clause: Γαία picks up Χθών from 1263. τάν: see on 1243. For the emphatic article cf. on 12. μαντείων: L's μαντεΐον, an adj. with τιμάν (cf. e.g. Tr. 454, Ion 130, Or. 1666, Ar. Αν. 722), is possible but Seidler's μαντείων is metrically easier, τιμάν: cf. 1280; for the meaning of the word see on 748. φθόνοοι θυγατρός: φθόνος is usually construed with a dat. (or prepositional phrase) indicating the person or thing that inspires it and thus the phrase would normally mean "because of envy of her daughter". The meaning "because of envy on account of her daughter" is easily understandable in the context but the construction is unparalleled. Envy is the cause of Earth's wrath that will be mentioned immediately below (1272). Normally, gods (and heroes) do not begrudge or

404

Commentary

wish to appropriate one another's honors but are keen to safeguard their own (and take revenge for any affront to them). Cf. e.g. Aphrodite's statement that she does not begrudge the association of Hippolytus with Artemis because this is none of her business: what she wishes to safeguard is her own honor which Hippolytus neglects (Hi. 20-22; cf. 7-8, 1327-30, 1420-22). From the point of view of Earth, Apollo's appropriation of the Delphic oracle was an act of envy: to establish his own honors, he disenfranchised Themis. Earth now responds in kind. 1270-72. The swiftness and decisiveness of Apollo's response to the challenge as well as the title αναξ contrast with the "childish arm" (χέρα παιδνόν) that he extends to his father's throne. The theme of the god's youth had somewhat receded to the background but it now becomes prominent again. The god is not a babe in arms anymore, and he is a lord of an oracle, but he is still a very young child; cf. on 1253-56. His adversary is so potent that only with the intervention of his father Zeus (the usual, often biased, arbiter of difficult quarrels) is he able to have his honors restored. The removal of Earth's anger has been interpreted as the removal of the rival dream-oracle from Delphi but the prophetic dreams were not sent to mortals in the oracle; see on 1259-66. Apollo asks for the annihilation of the power that renders his oracles useless and steals away his worshipers from Delphi, leaving him without the honors he desires. χέρα παιδνόν ελιξεν έκ Διός θρόνων: a conflation of two ideas, "putting the arm around the throne" and "clinging to or hanging from the throne" in supplication. The child Apollo presumably found it more convenient to clasp his father's throne because he could not reach his beard (and perhaps even his knees), an idea later reworked by Callimachus at the beginning of his hymn to Artemis (Η. 3.26-28). ελιξεν takes the place of a verb of asking and hence the inf. άφελεΐν, an echo of 1268; cf. on 1279. δόμων: gen. of separation, μήνιν θεας: this transposition (Wilamowitz) of L's θεας μήνιν restores the final iambus produced by the emendations of Seidler and Page at 1249 (αμφεπέ χθόνιον ). μήνιν: in the epic the word is used in connection with divine and some heroic quarrels such as that of Achilles and Agamemnon in the Iliad, μήνις is motivated by injury to one's honor and generates a disturbance of the communal or cosmic order; see L. Muellner, The Anger of Achilles: Menis in Greek Epic (Ithaca 1996) and cf. N.J. Austin, "Anger and Disease in Homer's Iliad' in J.N. Kazazis and A. Rengakos (eds.), Euphrosyne: Studies in Ancient Epic and Its Legacy In Honor of Dimitrios N. Maronitis (Stuttgart 1999) 11-49. For the deleted end of the line νυχίους τ' ένοπάς see on 1276.

Commentary

405

1273-75. This and the last section of the song (1276-83) describe the typical, indulgent response of a proud and loving parent to the request of a precocious child. The first bemused reaction of the father is not mentioned only for the sake of creating a charming tableau through literary reminiscences (see below). Zeus laughs because Apollo is a wonder boy, very young and already very determined, but also because the honors the child asks to have restored to him include an extremely lucrative cult. The reason given for Zeus' laughter provides the angle from which the audience should view Apollo's request. The antistrophe has already cast a shadow on, or revealed for what it was, Apollo's exploit, which had been glorified in worshipful terms in the strophe. The killing of the dragon and the establishment of the Apolline oracle by the precocious baby god entailed the displacement and disenfranchisement of the previous legitimate owner of the oracle. Apollo appeared as an unprovoked aggressor, an enemy of Themis herself, the divine personification of lawful and righteous conduct. Now the component of greed is added to the mixture: not only is Apollo eager to enjoy honors (all Greek gods coveted and safeguarded their honors, and all Greek cults had a recognized and non-controversial material component) but these particular honors were also very rich in gold. Nevertheless, this version of the god's first exploit is not so much implicit expression of religious skepticism as a sober description of divine behavior; see on 1234-83. γέλασε: for Zeus' laughter on similar occasions cf. Η. II. 21.508, H. Hymn 4.389, Callim. H. 3.28. ίχφαρ: 'forthwith, immediately', an epic adverb found only here in Euripides. It confirms, through Zeus' reaction, 1270. πολύχρυσα: usually an attribute of eastern luxury, depending on context admiring, envying or scornful, but also of Zeus' house at Hi. 69. For the Delphic riches see e.g. An. 1093, Η. II. 9.404-5, P. P. 4.48, S. OT 152-53, Callim. H. 2.34-35. All things belonging to gods could be imagined to be of gold (cf. on 1236b), but here the adjective is not merely ornamental: the god originally secured the luxurious offerings by violent means and is zealously seeking to preserve them. Consultation of the Delphic oracle was quite expensive; see e.g. Parke & Wormell (1956) 32. λατρεύματα: usually translated "worship" or similar, but no word of the root λατρ- is used in classical Greek in any sense other than 'to serve' as a subordinate, attendant or slave. The choice of the quite rare form here is indicative of the young god's perspective: he wants to be served in an oracle full of gold. 1276-83. The end of the antistrophe echoes the end of the strophe with the reference to the restoration of Apollo's honors and especially the help mortals derive from the oracle; cf. especially 1254-55 and 1281-

406

Commentary

83. There are some telling differences: the strophe emphasized the hallowed location of the oracle, Apollo's acquisition of the sacred place and the establishment of his august oracle there. The end of the antistrophe does not mention Delphi at all but deals with the definitive repelling of the challenge and Apollo's emerging as the undisputed master of oracular prophecy, the only refuge of mortals against the vagaries of life. There is no mention of Earth or Themis. Zeus' assent to Apollo's request removes the goddesses from the picture and preempts any further resistance from them. 1276-77. The granting of Apollo's request is sealed with Zeus' traditional bowing of the head in approval; see Η. II. 1.524-30. έπι δ' εσεισεν κόμαν παΰσαι is Badham's emendation of the transmitted έπει δ' εσεισε.,.παΰσε. Sansone and Cropp adopt Musgrave's έπί δε σείσας κόμαν παΰσεν, which is also very close to L's reading, but, if παΰσε is a corruption of παΰσαι, as is probable, then Badham's emendation is preferable, έπί δ' εσεισεν: tmesis; Willink on Or. 255-56 notes that the metaphor comes from shaking the reins of a chariot-team. The verb is used in the Iliad (4.167) for Zeus' menacing brandishing of his aegis, which condemns Trojans to destruction. If there is a reminiscence of this passage here, it points to the complete vanquishing of Apollo's rival through Zeus' intervention, νυχίους ένοπάς: νυχίους τ' ένοπάς is also transmitted at the end of 1272 where it is redundant in sense and unacceptable in metre. It was likely a gloss on μήνιν θεάς and, when it was inserted into the text there, the end of 1276 was changed to (or perhaps independently replaced by the gloss) όνείρους. The latter cannot be correct because it disturbs the perfect responsion with 1253 and because Zeus did not abolish all dreams but only prophetic, non-symbolic ones, ένοπάς: an elevated word, with a range of meanings, from Bacchic and battle cries to oracular utterances. Denniston on El. 1302 notes that the word always denotes shrill cries or shouts. This indicates the clarity and truthfulness of the prophecies; cf. on 976. 1278-79. ύπό δ' άλαθοσύναν νυκτωπόν έξεΐλεν: the verb (double compound in tmesis υπό δ'...έξεΐλεν) has connotations of underhandedness and echoes 1268 and 1273, stressing the cunning nature of Zeus' action against Earth in this conspiracy of sorts between father and son. L's άπό δ'...έξεΐλεν is less suggestive. Platnauer also notes that almost all verbs compounded with ά π ε κ - are not classical, δ' άλαθοσύναν: the most plausible emendation (Nauck) of L's δε λαθοσύναν. άληθοσύνη is found only in Theognis (1226) but other emendations are

Commentary

407

palaeographically less plausible or based on the erroneous assumption that Earth's dreams caused confusion to mortals. For the ending of the hapax νυκτωπός cf. on 263. 1280-83. και τιμάς πάλιν θήκε...θάρση βροτοΐς θεσφάτων άοιδαΐς is not a reference to the restoration of the confidence of mortals in Apollo's oracles, as e.g. Platnauer and Morwood translate the sentence. This would imply that Earth's dreams made mortals consider Apollo's prophecies ineffectual, but what the dreams did was to render the prophecies, i.e. the visits to Delphi to consult the oracle and thus the payment of the oracle's fees, superfluous. After the cessation of prophetic dreams mortals were not left without oracular help but could turn to Apollo's oracles for guidance, πολυάνορί τ' έν ξενόεντι θρόνωι: cf. P. Ο. 1.93 (πολυξενωτάτωι παρά βωμώι). The god sits on his throne (as before) and dispenses his salutary oracles to the numerous mortals who approach the throne to receive them. The multitudes increase Apollo's honors, but the throne is also presented as hospitable: the god is a benevolent ruler who offers "hospitality" to all who visit him. ξενόεντι: cf. πιδακόεις {An. 116), ύδρόεις {HI. 349) and καλαμόεις {ΙΑ 1038). θεσφάτων: gen. of content. Like an epic singer, the prophetic, lyre-playing god delivers his oracles in dactylic hexameters. Maas suggested θάσσει...αοιδός, an emendation of L's θάρσει. This would echo the end of the strophe (1253-55), but it also entails a change of subject and eliminates the reference to the comfort imparted by the oracles. More plausible is Bergk's άοιδάς, which would be in apposition to θάρση. The concluding reference to the comfort mortals receive through Apollo's oracles applies to the situation of the siblings in the play. Orestes visited Delphi more than once and received oracles whose truthfulness should never have been doubted and which will soon lead to the salvation of the siblings. The song thus encourages audience expectations about the success of the escape which imminent developments will appear to belie; cf. on 1234-83. 1284-1499. Exodus. One of the Taurian escorts of the purification party enters shouting to temple attendants to call the king out of the temple (1284-87). The chorus intervene and learn that the messenger wants to inform Thoas that the Greek captives have escaped with the goddess' statue (1288-92). The women try in vain to delay the delivery of the news by claiming that the king has left the temple (1293-1306). In the messenger speech the escort relates to Thoas the unsuccessful attempt of his party to stop the Greeks and urges him to pursue the fugitives

408

Commentary

whose departure has been hindered by an adverse wind (1327-1419). The king issues a call to the citizens (1422-34), but the pursuit is thwarted by the appearance of Athena who delivers instructions to him and to the siblings from afar (1435-74). The play ends with Thoas piously obeying the divine commands (1475-85) and all Greeks, including the chorus, poised to sail to Greece (1486-99). Dramatically, the most striking element in this part is the unexpected twist of the adverse wind. After the recognition, which could be thought to have been arranged or at least favored by the gods (cf. 101216), everything in the play, including the celebratory third stasimon and the Greeks' success in boarding the ship under Taurian attack (137585), points to a successful escape under favorable weather (cf. e.g. HI. 1610-13). A major problem such as the wind and the divine displeasure it seems to signify could hardly have been anticipated. (Cropp [on 1234-83] suggests that the challenge of Earth to Apollo narrated in the third stasimon prefigures the adverse wind. It is more likely that, should they associate the myth with Orestes' troubles, the audience would think of his past struggles with the chthonic Erinyes or imagine that the demons would not desist from pursuing him, at least not before Zeus or Apollo intervened to rehabilitate him.) The suspense created by this development is enhanced because, unlike most messenger speeches, this one is delivered while the action it reports is still in progress, and there are virtually no clues as to its denouement; cf. next n. and on 1327-1419. The appearance of Athena brings matters to a propitious close, although her speech contains a number of surprises. The goddess offers no conclusive explanation of the cause of the wind (see on 1391bff.), announces that Iphigeneia must stay as priestess at Brauron in Attica (1462-67) and that the women of the chorus are to be set free and sent back to Greece (1467-69). For the chorus in the exodus cf. next n. Despite these surprises, the echoes of previous parts of the play far outweigh novel elements in the exodus. The messenger speech has pronounced similarities to the report of the cowherd (see on 1327-1419), and Athena's injunctions to Orestes are connected with Apollo's oracle and the Areopagus trial (see on 1449-52 and 1469-72). As far as mortals are concerned, their view of the divine remains virtually unchanged (see on 1397-1402 and 1414-19). With its reversals, unresolved ambiguities and a pervasive sense of urgency and amazement, the last part brings the play to an intriguing end. 1284-1326. The messenger speech (1327-1419) is delayed more than in other plays by the exchange between messenger and chorus (1288-

Commentary

409

1306) and between messenger and Thoas (1307-26). Essential information about the events on the shore is conveyed at two points before the speech (1289-92 and 1313-16), but not everything is given away. Suspense builds up because the audience can hardly imagine how Iphigeneia's plan was foiled. Even if they can be fairly sure that the play will end well for the protagonists, they cannot know whether the end of the play is approaching yet or whether the poet has more twists and turns in store. The suspense is enhanced by the exposure of the chorus to the wrath of the king through the messenger's denouncement of their complicity in the plot of their compatriots (1309-10). The chorus' apparently spontaneous attempt to mislead the messenger is quite unexpected, given their very limited involvement in the plot so far. Iphigeneia had asked them to help her by keeping the escape a secret but had not mentioned or implied that she expected them to participate actively in the deception of the Taurians; cf. 1063-64, 1076-77, and on 1156. The women's present initiative attests to their loyalty, already demonstrated beyond doubt, but also to their willingness to take serious risks in order to help their friend and her relatives. Their attempt to deceive the messenger, which does not even begin to compare with Iphigeneia's brilliant deception of Thoas (cf. on 1153-1233), enhances the audience's sympathy: despite their limitations, the women try their best, disregarding their own safety. The focus on the chorus in this section (and the provision for their emancipation at the end [1467-69]) makes the chorus' story an integral part of the play, although the women remain silent after the appearance of Thoas to the end of the play, except for a single couplet (1420-21). The messenger is much less restrained than the chorus in his conversation with the king. Cropp (on 1284-1434) detects substantial humor in the appearance of the messenger, his attempts to summon Thoas outside the temple, the king's irritation at his servant's shouts, the difficulty of the messenger to persuade the king to listen to the report, the length of the report despite the professed urgency of the situation and Thoas' statement that he has plenty of time to catch up with the escapees. It is possible that some of the items on this list were conceived as humorous by the poet himself or that some members of the audience found them amusing (or even inappropriately comic, as the case may be), but none is certainly and exclusively comic. See the discussion of Seidensticker (1982) 199-211 and for perceived comic elements in Euripides cf. Gregory in Cropp et al. (2000), who reviews the relevant literature and cautions against easy attribution of the labels 'comic', 'humorous' and similar. Knocking on a door and attempts to establish contact with those inside are common in comedy but, as it happens, their earliest

410

Commentary

surviving occurrence in drama is in Aeschylus' Choephori (653-56). 30 (In extant literature knocking on a door occurs first in the Iliad [9.58183].) There is no reason to assume that Aeschylus must have borrowed them from early comedy: the simplest hypothesis is that he added a real-life touch to his play and later dramatists, both tragedians and comedians, imitated him or, more plausibly, independently did something similar. Knocking or pounding on a door is not comic per se: it is used mainly in comedy because this is the genre that most often has occasion to represent mundane situations. Knocking, and especially persistent knocking, may add to the humor of a scene that is comic on other grounds. The present scene is not of this kind. Similarly, Thoas' irritation and his amazement at the messenger's incredible report are not particularly comic. The king had been assigned the task of purifying the temple by Iphigeneia before her departure for the shore (1215-16). Noisy interruption of the purification ritual and even pounding on the temple door was likely to be deemed inappropriate. The messenger nowhere insists that the fugitives must be immediately pursued, although it is clear that he reports an emergency (131216) and immediate action is implicitly required. On the contrary, the messenger urges the king to pay full attention to his report and assess the situation clearly so that he can devise an adequate plan for capturing the fugitives (1321-24). Thus the length of the report (approximately a hundred lines, the usual size of a messenger speech) does not clash with a stated need for immediate action and, even if it did, this would not be unique in extant tragedy. Cf. e.g. the report in Ion (1122-1228), delivered while Creusa is in immediate lethal danger, and not least Orestes' substantial account of his troubles in this play (939-86), despite the fact that his sacrifice is imminent and a plan for a very difficult escape has to be devised as soon as possible. Even the shortest reports delivered during dire emergencies in extant tragedy {Ph. 1217-63, S. Aj. 748-83)

30 Garvie on 653 considers this the only certain instance of knocking in tragedy, but it seems that IT 1304-6 is also fairly certain because Thoas refers explicitly to pounding on the door when he comes out of the temple (1308). Taplin (1977) 340 suggests that shaking the door rather than knocking on it is involved here. Pounding seems a more realistic description of the messenger's action. It is difficult to visualize literal shaking of a temple door, and it may not have been very safe to shake a stage door. Hy. fr. 752d,4 also probably refers to knocking on the palace door. Mastronarde on Ph. 1069-71 cites (apart from IT 1304-6) also HI. 435-36 and Ba. 17075 and, as a possibility, I A 801-5. In these passages knocking is not mentioned and cannot be taken for granted. On the other hand, given the absence of stage directions, it cannot be excluded that shouting to those indoors was always or often accompanied by knocking or pounding on the door, especially when the situation called for urgent communication (e.g. A. Ch. 875-82).

Commentary

411

extend to several lines, although their essence could certainly be communicated much more succinctly (cf. Ph. 1270-78, S. Aj. 795-802). For Thoas' last statement before the messenger speech see on 1325-26. 1284-87. The messenger arrives hurrying down the right parodos. He will later indicate that he is one of the king's men that escorted Iphigeneia and the captives to the shore, but the audience probably recognize him from his mask and costume upon his entrance (cf. on 1329-30). It has been suggested that he actually wears a different or slightly modified mask with some blood or bruises painted on it (from the punches received in the skirmish with Orestes and Pylades), but this is rather unlikely; see on 1366. Characters who enter announcing their wish to learn some news or to see someone who is offstage at the moment of their arrival often ask the chorus for information, especially when no other character is onstage; see 1153-55, Al. 477, Md. 1293-95, Hi. 79091, An. 1047-52, He. 658-60 (cf. 484-85), Ion 1106-7, S. Aj. 733-34, Ant. 384-85; cf. A. Ch. 847 and see on 1153-55 above. For the addressees of entering characters in tragedy see also Taplin (1977) 86-87 and Mastronarde (1979) 20-23. It is possible that, in his eagerness to deliver the news, the messenger does not notice the chorus until they speak to him (1288), but it is more likely that he does not inquire about Thoas' whereabouts because he is confident that the king is in the temple. The closest extant parallel is the entrance of the servant who announces the death of Aegisthus and seeks to warn Clytaemestra (A. Ch. 875-82). The chorus have just stepped aside to avoid being accused of complicity in the murder (872-74), and thus the entering servant may not notice them. It is much more likely, though, that he is sure that the queen is in the women's quarters and thus does not need to ask the chorus about her whereabouts. 1284. ώ ναοφύλακες βώμιοί τ' έπιστάται: the temple guardians and altar attendants the messenger calls on may belong to the same class of temple servants; cf. on 1025-27 (ίεροΰ φύλακες). Aristotle {Pol. 6.8, 1322b25) lists ναοφύλακες as a separate category of religious functionaries in large communities, which presumably had larger temples. The rich Taurian temple (see Introduction IV) could have the full range of religious functionaries, ναοφύλακες occurs also in S. fr. 143.1 but in a different sense, 'guardians of ships'. The έπιστάται are charged with supervising the slaughter of the sacrificial victims; cf. 726, An. 547, He. 223-24, HI. 1582-83; cf. also An. 1098 and 1313-15 below (ή νεανις ή 'νθάδε/ βωμοΐς παρίστατ', Ίφιγένει', εξω χθονός/ συν τοις ξένοισιν οιχεται). Iphigeneia has also been designated as the Taurian tem-

412

Commentary

pie's key-keeper (κληιδοΰχος 131; cf. 1463) and gate-minder (πυλωρός 1153). 1285-87. βεβώς = almost ών; cf. Su. 850, El. 452-3, 111 (with Denniston's n.), Or. 1044. που instead of the expected ποΐ (Elmsley; cf. 1295) with the verb of motion fits in with this meaning of the participle, but που is often used with verbs of motion; see KG 11.545. The question does not indicate real ignorance of the king's whereabouts, as is obvious from the next injunction (1286-87), but serves as an introduction to the injunction. The attributes of Thoas form a small ring. For κοίρανον χθονός see on 1080. εΰγόμφους: this rare adj., the last hint at the temple's opulence in the play, resurfaces only once in extant Greek (Opp. Hal. 1.194). 1288-92. For the chorus' intervention see next n. The messenger's answer conveys the first piece of information about the escape. It is designed to keep the audience on tenterhooks because the only thing they learn positively is that the men have sailed away with the statue of Artemis. They are apparently not out of harm's way yet (cf. on 1291), although the audience can hardly imagine how this is possible if the escapees have managed to hoist sail. The messenger names Iphigeneia as the mastermind of the escape plot but he provides no details and says nothing about her relationship to the men, leading the audience to assume that he is unaware of it. By far the most important missing piece of the puzzle is the fate of Iphigeneia herself: although it is probable that she has escaped with the men, the messenger does not say explicitly that she has. From a psychological point of view, the answer is invented with subtlety: the messenger reports first the things most important or troubling to him, the escape of the goddess' victims, the role of the priestess in it, and the snatching away of the holy statue in the holds of the Greek ship. The answer in a way "reverses" the cowherd's first announcement of the capture of the Greek men, which included a reference to their arrival (by ship), their imminent sacrifice to the goddess and the priestess' role in it. 1288. τί δ' εστίν, εϊ χρή μή κελευσθεΐσαν λέγειν; polite conversation in tragedy is governed by clear rules of decorum and female characters in particular often ask for permission or apologize when they take the initiative to speak. See Hrcld. 474-83, Su. 293-300, Su. 293300, Here. 534-35, HI. 1049; cf. IA 631-32, A. Ag. 1661, S. Tr. 61-63. The chorus have not been spoken to and have ample reason to be tactful: being women, Greek, slaves, and closely associated with the deceit-

Commentary

413

ful priestess, they are bound not to obtain information, at least not before the king comes out of the temple, if they alienate the messenger with their question. 1289-90. δίπτυχοι νεανίαι occurs first at 242 (cf. 474), the cowherd's announcement of the arrival and capture of the pair. Άγαμεμνονείας: for this kind of adj. see on 5. 1291-92. φεύγοντες...λαβόντες: the difference in tense indicates that the escape has not been completed yet but that the Greeks have managed to steal the statue and board the ship. Cf. below τά δρώμενα (1295), "what is happening, being attempted", i.e. the attempted escape (although the participle may not be present conative but imperfect, "what was happening just now") ~ των πεπραγμένων (1299), "what has happened", i.e. the conspiracy and deception, έν κόλποισιν suggests the concave shape of the interior of the ship, often mentioned in Greek poetry (e.g. Η. II. 1.26, 5.791, 13.107, Od. 1.211, 3.344, 4.732, Hes. Op. 689, P. 0. 6.10 ; cf. A.R. Arg. 1.1328, Theoc. Id. 13.28), but perhaps also the treachery involved in the theft; Bruhn notes that things that have to be hidden are carried υπό κόλπου. 'Ελλάδος νεώς: cf. 448, 1345 and 1386. 1293-94. The first announcement of the essence of a messenger's report is often followed by cries of lament or joy and invariably by requests for elaboration from his interlocutors (cf. on 252-53). In this case the chorus make the briefest possible comment on the messenger's announcement and immediately volunteer the false information that the king has left the temple. For the chorus' probably spontaneous attempt to mislead the messenger see on 1284-1326. απιστον εΐπας μΰθον: for parallels see FJW on A. Su. 277. The chorus indicate that the report surpasses belief but they do not state explicitly that they disbelieve it. συθείς: the participle is common and occurs almost exclusively in tragedy. The verb does not always imply particular haste, although it may here, as an indirect admonition to the messenger to make haste himself. 1295-97. ποΐ; the important question is asked immediately, with the rest of 1295 essentially a filler, τά δρώμενα: for the nuance conveyed by the choice of tense cf. on 1291-92. Cf. Ph. 1334 (a disputed line), Rh. 76, S. El. 40, 85, 1333, 7V. 588, OC 1644. The messenger provides a hint which will be taken up more explicitly at 1306. The chorus fail to provide a convincing answer to the question of the messenger, and their

414

Commentary

vagueness immediately dooms their attempt to deceive him; cf. on 1284-1326. 1298-99. όρατ': this and similar calls are not addressed to the speaker's interlocutors and certainly not to the audience, as is often the case in comedy, but to imagined witnesses who are asked to bear testimony to the truth of the speaker's statement. See Willink on Or. 128 and Mastronarde on Ph. 1676. The messenger turns the chorus' comment (απιστον εΐπας μΰθον [1293]) on its head: his story is not incredible, but the race (γένος) of women is untrustworthy (απιστον). Invectives against women, especially their untrustworthiness and ability to use cunning and deception, are quite common in Greek poetry (cf. Md. 4079, 569-75, Hi. 616-68, A. S. 188, 256 and cf. Md. 415-23, Ion 1090-98, Or. 1103, Danae fr. 321, Cress, fr. 463, H. Od. 11.427-34, 456, Hes. Th. 590-612, Op. 373-75, 698-705, Semon. fr. 7). For deception and cunning as characteristics of the female race cf. 1032 and see e.g. Stevens on An. 85, M. Heath, The Poetics of Greek Tragedy (London 1987) 160, F. Zeitlin, Playing the Other: Gender and Society in Classical Greek Literature (Chicago 1996) chs. 2 and 3, and Foley (2001) 114-15. It is noteworthy that, despite his being Taurian and bringing news of Greek treachery, the messenger does not disparage the duplicity of Greeks or at least Greek women but of women in general. This choice is inscribed in the tradition just mentioned but it also indicates that the messenger is not (particularly) anti-Greek. Cf. on 1205. μέτεστι.,.μέρος: μέρος is redundant (although not suspect because it is also found in Hdt. 6.107) and possibly meant to stress the alleged complicity of the chorus, των πεπραγμένων: see on 1291-92. 1300-1. The chorus try unsuccessfully to remedy their blunder by suggesting something more concrete, that the messenger go to the palace to see Thoas. μαίνηι- τί δ' ήμΐν των ξένων δρασμοΰ μέτα; μαίνηι is not necessarily "ein Ausdruck niederer Sphäre" (Strohm). Nevertheless, the very brief and dismissive answer as well as the following rhetorical question instead of a better justification are indeed reminiscent of comedy. The chorus feign indignation and attribute the messenger's accusation to mental derangement: only a madman would conclude that they were involved in the escape. For questions with δέ, often expressing surprise or indignation, see GP 173-75. των ξένων: the women refer only to the men in order to dissociate themselves from any involvement in the plot. Iphigeneia, of course, whom the messenger has already identified as the mastermind behind the plot (1290), is no stranger to the chorus, δρασμοΰ: see on 891. δσον τάχος: cf. 334.

Commentary

415

1302-3. έρμηνεύς: various suggestions have been made about the "interpreter" who is supposed to reveal the king's whereabouts. Murray in his apparatus suggests that the messenger refers to the trumpet that he is about to blow or to the door-knocker and emends τόδε to δδε; Wecklein thinks that a temple functionary is meant. Such speculation is unfounded. The messenger simply wishes to obtain reliable information about the king's whereabouts. The chorus have failed to provide such information, and so he seeks it from someone inside the temple. 1304-6. ώή: the exclamation, which appears in all three tragedians and denotes great urgency, is always addressed to people invisible to the speaker, usually to people behind closed doors. (A. Eum. 94 is the only possible exception because the speaker, the ghost of Clytaemestra, sees the addressees but they do not see her. There are, though, some doubts about the staging of the scene; cf. Sommerstein ad loc.) Seaford on Cy. 51 provides a list of Euripidean passages with the exclamation. He suggests that Ph. 269 is an exception to the use of the exclamation for attracting attention, presumably because Polyneices fears an ambush and would not want to betray his position to enemies in hiding. But what Polyneices fears most and seeks to avert is an unforeseen attack. He tries to flush his supposed enemies out of their hiding place so he can defend himself with his drawn sword. For the exclamation see also Kannicht on HI. 435, who notes that the address introduced by it is not rude but meant to attract the attention of people of low social rank such as janitors. Here the messenger and his addressees may be of the same social rank, but the temple functionaries addressed at 1284 were probably his social superiors, χαλατε κλήιθρα: cf. Hi. 808, HI. 1180 (cf. also Md. 1314, A. Ch. 878-79). For κλήιθρα see on 99. οΰνεκ': see on 783. καινών: see on 42 and 238-39. 1307-8. Thoas comes out of the temple to find out who is pounding on the door. Cf. Μ 317 (Agamemnon), A. Ch. 668-73, 885 (Clytaemestra), S. OT 634-38 (Jocasta). Even when not summoned out in person, kings and queens in tragedy did not apparently consider it beneath themselves to come to the door in person, especially in answer to shouts from outside; cf. Hrcld. 646-47. The king is probably accompanied by at least two and perhaps more attendants; cf. on 1207-8. His question indicates that he does not see his servant immediately because otherwise he would have inquired about the reason of the commotion and not the identity of the man. Alternatively, there is a possibility that the king asks the question, or starts speaking, before he opens the door.

416

Commentary

δώμα θεας: for the synizesis after a short syllable see on 87. τόδ': Tournier's οδ' is attractive; cf. Su. 395. ΐστησιν βοήν: cf. e.g. Hrcld. 73-74, 656, IA 1039, A. CA. 885 and S. Ph. 1263; for further passages with ϊστημι (βοήν and similar) of raising a shout see Barrett on Hi. 903-4. For entrances motivated by cries or shouts cf. Taplin (1977) 218-20, who points out that βοή and similar terms are also used in contexts of supplication or other great need for assistance; cf. also Garvie on A. Ch. 885 and Wilkins on Hrcld. 69ff. άράξας: cf. 310. ψόφον: the word is used of any kind of loud, inarticulate sound but also of the sound of musical instruments (Cy. 443, Ba. 687). It also occasionally designates idle, ineffectual talk, i.e. talk that is a mere noise without meaning or effect (Here. 229 and S. Aj. 1116). It is unclear whether ψόφον refers to the sound of the messenger's pounding on the door, the cries accompanying the pounding or both. The last seems more plausible. ψόφος and ψοφώ "are the usual words to describe the creaking of the hinge or bolts of a door" (Bond on Here. 78), and thus ψόφος may have been used here by a somewhat loose association of the sound of a door pounded on. For the pounding cf. on 1284-1326 n. 1309-10. Perhaps the most original response of a messenger in tragedy. The text of 1309 is corrupt but there is no doubt about the meaning of the line. Ignoring Thoas' question (1307-8), the messenger reveals that the chorus tried to deceive him by claiming that the king had left the temple and implies that he correctly recognized the women's lies for what they were. Given the fact that, immediately below (1312), the messenger refuses to answer the king's question about the chorus' motives (1311), 1309-10 can only be construed as an outburst that contributes a touch to the portrayal of the messenger. Nevertheless, it is enough to alert Thoas who will, without further input, figure out the role of the women in the intrigue and threaten to punish them for it (1431-34). Several remedies have been proposed for the unmetrical 1309 f ψευδώς ελεγον αϊδε καί μ'+ άπήλαυνον δόμων. Although certainty is impossible, it is best to keep both ψευδώς and some form of λέγω as well as the demonstrative αϊδε, the verbal equivalent of finger-pointing. It is likely that the messenger denounces the women as liars as soon as the king appears. If so, the most attractive emendations are Markland's (ψευδώς ελεγον αιδε, αι μ' άπήλαυνον δόμων) and Pierson' s (ψευδώς λέγουσαί μ' αϊδ' άπήλαυνον δόμων). Emending ψευδώς to φευ - / ώς ελεγον αϊδε etc. (Kvicala) or φευ - / πώς ελεγον αϊδε etc. (Wilamowitz) is palaeographically plausible but reduces the forcefulness of the revelation. The exclamation φευ, often extra-metrical and

Commentary

417

sometimes redoubled, introduces questions, statements or lengthier speeches expressing admiration (e.g. El. 262, Or. 1155, IA 977) or regret, sometimes indignant, that things are the way they are (e.g. 472, 559, 576, 627, Al. 719, Md. 292, Hi. 925, 936, An. 184, Su. 363, El. 367, IA 666, S. OT 316). No such connotations can be detected in the messenger's statement, άπήλαυνον: see on 713. 1311. τί προσδοκώσαι κέρδος ή θηρώμεναι; the question contains no real repetition, θηρώμεναι implies that the subjects are purposefully seeking to reap an advantage or achieve their goal by all possible means, ethical or unethical (cf. Tr. 979, Hl. 1175, Ph. 699, Or. 568, Ba. 459 and S. Aj. 2). It is ironic that the king couches the chorus' complicity in terms of gain when the women engage in a completely selfless action and, far from gaining anything, they risked losing everything with their attempt to deceive the messenger, προσδοκώσαι is much more neutral: immediately after he uses it, the king realizes and indicates that the chorus must be not only expecting but (insidiously) seeking to gain something from misleading the messenger. 1312-16. This is the second summary version of the events on the shore. It differs from the first (1289-92) in that the messenger now focuses on Iphigeneia and the audience finally hear that she has left with the men and the statue of the goddess, using the purification as a pretext. The picture of the events thus becomes more complete, although the audience must suspect that the escapees are still in danger. The messenger's haste to inform the king about the escape and his reluctance to waste any time, even in order to explain the part of collaborators (1312), indicate that his mission is probably not just to report bad news, as e.g. his counterpart's in Helen (1512ff.). His announcement is couched so as to impress on the king the amazing nature of the news (see also below 1318). The messenger stresses the fact that the person responsible for the escape is the young woman (whom they all know so well and) who was serving at the altar of the goddess, indeed Iphigeneia. This version of the events contains no reference to the ship, but the same adjective, σεμνόν, is used of the statue as in the messenger's answer to the chorus (1291), indicating his devotion to the goddess and his indignation at the sacrilege committed by the conspirators. The choice of καθάρματα, a word often used in comedy and the orators in the metaphorical sense 'scoundrels', may be meant to suggest by association that the deceitful purification was performed by scoundrels, άκουσον: for the tense see on 1322.

418

Commentary

1317-18. Confident of Iphigeneia's loyalty and piety (1186, 1202, 1212, 1214) and fully deceived by her purification plot, Thoas does not even entertain the thought that she would be eager to escape to Greece with her compatriots. The Taurians believe that Iphigeneia hates or should hate all Greeks (cf. on 337-39, 1186, 1418-19), and their conviction proved useful to her in the deception of Thoas (1187). πώς φήις; for this and similar questions see on 808. πνεύμα συμφοράς is an unusual circumlocution which means little more than "circumstances, turn of events". The metaphor may have originated in the perception of fortune as a changing wind, but Bond on Here. 216 is right that the metaphor is barely perceptible here. It is more plausible that the metaphor comes from the area of inspiration or external/divine motivation for action: Iphigeneia is "inspired" by some turn of events that Thoas apparently imagines to be adverse -hence συμφοράς, which often implies misfortune (cf. on 317), instead of e.g. τύχης, κεκτημένη = έχουσα; cf. on 1171. σώιζουσ' Όρέστην- τούτο γάρ σύ θαυμάσηι: this answer is quite unexpected and calculated to enhance the audience's interest and to cause Thoas' amazement, as the messenger himself points out. σώιζουσ': conative pres. indicating the current stage of Iphigeneia's enterprise and its main or sole objective, according to the messenger's view of things, θαυμάσηι: for the sense of marvel caused by Orestes' appearance and the recognition of the siblings see on 900. 1319-20. The Taurians' knowledge of the existence and names of Iphigeneia's relatives (and of her family history in general) eliminates the need for a dramatically useless explanation. For Pylades see on 132728. τον ποιον; cf. Ph. 707, 1704 (with Mastronarde's n.), IA 517. (The colloquial use of ποίος in questions with repeated word of the previous speaker, or in self-correction, is wrongly cited by Cropp as a parallel; for such questions see on 544.) Τυνδαρις τίκτει κόρη: for the registering present see on 2 and for the patronymic adj. on 806. καθωσιώσατο probably refers to the consecration of the victim for complete destruction at the altar of the goddess; see Parker (1983) 328-29. The middle of the verb occurs only here and 1320 probably means "whom the goddess had just had consecrated (by her priestess) for a sacrifice at the altar here"; see Diggle (1981) 91. If Aldina's θεάι is adopted (cf. Hrcld. 601, A. Eum. 304), then Iphigeneia is the subject. Cf. next n. 1321. ώ θαύμα- πώς σε μείζον όνομάσας τύχω; for a detailed discussion of this (and the previous) line see Diggle (1981) 89-91. He suggests that 1321 refers to Iphigeneia. Thus either 1320 should be printed

Commentary

419

with the dat. θεόα (see previous n.) to supply the requisite reference to Iphigeneia in the immediate vicinity of Thoas' address, or σφε should be printed for σε, which would make the question refer to Iphigeneia but not be addressed to her. Diggle also defends Markland's suggestion μείον for μείζον and translates the line "O you marvel! How may I correctly call you by a lesser name?" or "O marvel! How may I correctly call her by a lesser name?" He thinks that a direct address can hardly be made to an exclamation such as ώ θαΰμα, and cites several passages (H. Od. 9.190, Bacch. 17.123, Eur. IA 202, Melanipp. PMG 762) where θαΰμα is used of persons. All these, though, (with the possible exception of the last, κλΰθί μοι ώ πάτερ, θαΰμα βροτών, which may be an invocation to a divinity) involve the marvelous or horrifying external appearance of the persons in question and the reaction of spectators to it; cf. H. Od. 11.287. Besides, the question would be addressed not to the exclamation just uttered but to the turn of events that occasioned it. The text certainly becomes smoother with σφε. Concerning μείζον, see Cropp (1997) 40-41 who follows Weil and interprets the question as the speaker's admission that no other, stronger appellation can be found. The speaker would apparently like to use such an appellation but the language constrains him. πώς...τύχω; for similar questions, often rhetorical, cf. e.g. Hi. 826-27 with Barrett's n. and Garvie on A. Ch. 14-15. 1322-24. Quite unexpectedly and despite his prediction that the king will marvel at his news (1318), when Thoas voices the predicted amazement, the messenger proceeds with his report only after admonishing the king to concentrate on the report so that he can devise an effective pursuit plan. Other messengers in tragedy are anxious not to anger their kings (e.g. Ba. 668-71, S. Ant. 223-40), but this one is relaxed around his master and feels free to volunteer suggestions (cf. Hi. 1249-54, 1263-64). άκουε: contrast the aor. imperative at 1313 and cf. on 239. Here the pres. may imply the fullness of the upcoming report and the sequence of events within it; at 1313 the speaker may be thought to refer to his summary announcement (1313-16) and present the news as a completed whole, άθρήσας και κλύων: a mild hysteron proteron; σαφώς qualifies both. The emphasis conferred by the use of two participles, the choice of άθρήσας ('examining closely') and the rare compound έκφρόντισον (cf. Thuc. 3.45.5.2, Ar. Ν. 695, 697) point to the importance of the report and to the need for special attention on the listener's part, διωγμόν: L's διωγμός is implausible with a transitive verb. The elaborate introduction to the speech, unique in extant drama, will prove to be mainly a rhetorical flourish: despite the unusual circumstances

420

Commentary

under which the Greeks escaped, and unlike Iphigeneia's escape plan, pursuing the escapees does not call for any special plan, although the messenger may not realize that. 1325-26. λέγ'· εΰ γαρ εΐπας· ού γαρ άγχίπλουν πόρον/ φεύγουσιν, ώστε διαφυγεΐν τοΰμόν δόρυ: Thoas first acknowledges the soundness of the messenger's advice (1322-24). The second γάρ provides another reason why the strangers will be caught or why the eventual pursuit plan cannot fail: the strangers' trip is long and they cannot escape a well-organized pursuit party. Thus εΰ γάρ εΐπας is the king's response to έκφρόντισον/ διωγμόν, and ού γάρ etc. his response to όστις τους ξένους θηράσεται. Weil and Strohm suggest that Thoas' statement provides an excuse for what would otherwise be an improbably long report under pressing circumstances because Euripides does not like improbable events. Such concern for verisimilitude would be unique because long reports during emergencies are not unparalleled and are never justified in extant tragedy; see on 1284-1326. Cropp (on 1284-1434) thinks that the statement of Thoas contributes to the humor of the scene but the trip to Greece is actually long and dangerous and the statement is made by a man named Swift (cf. on 31-33). άγχίπλουν πόρον: internal acc. For other such accusatives with φεύγω see Kannicht on HI. 21. φεύγουσιν, ώστε διαφυγεΐν: for this coupling of a conative pres. of the simple φεύγω and an aor. form of a compound cf. e.g. Ph. 1216, Ar. Ach. 177, Ν. 167, V. 579 and other examples cited by KG 11.99-100, Schwyzer 11.388. Most commentators agree that δόρυ probably means 'ship' or rather 'fleet' and not 'spear' or 'army'. The word may be intentionally ambiguous. O'Brien (1988) 108 n. 34 associates the use of the word here with λόγχην at 1484 and suggests that there might be an allusion to the brandishing spear of Oenomaus in his pursuit of Pelops and Hippodameia, the "models" of Orestes and Iphigeneia (cf. Introduction Ib[4]). Apart from the fact that δόρυ may be ambiguous here and, even if it means 'spear', it does not refer to the weapon of a single fighter, the only spear that receives some emphasis in this play is that of Pelops (822-26). The spear of Oenomaus is never mentioned and an allusion to it here would be far too oblique to be significant. 1327-1419. The messenger reports that Iphigeneia ordered the escorts to stay behind and proceeded alone with the captives in order to perform the secret purification (1327-38). Alarmed by the length of her absence and fearing for her safety, the escorts decided to go look for her despite the religious prohibition. They discovered the Greek ship on

Commentary

421

the point of hoisting sail and tried to hinder its departure (1339-65). They engaged in a fist-fight with Orestes and Pylades but the Greeks managed to board the ship and set sail (1366-93). A sudden adverse wind hindered the departure of the ship and pushed it back to the Taurian shore (1394-1410). The messenger urges the king to hurry to the shore and arrest the captives who are bound to perish if the wind does not change (1411-19). For the suspense created by this messenger speech cf. on 1284-1499. It has some similarities with reports in other intrigue plays but no exact parallel exists: the messenger speech in Helen (1526-1618) reports a very similar development but as a fait accompli. In Andromache (10851165) and Hecuba (where Polymestor narrates his own destruction, 1132-82) there are some loose ends but very little hangs in the balance after the speech. In Phoenissae (1217-63) and Sophocles' Ajax (74883) the messengers deliver their reports while Jocasta's sons and Ajax respectively are about to perish but the reports generate less suspense because myth and the plays up to this point leave little doubt as to the fate of the characters in question. The closest parallel is probably the report that the Delphians have condemned Creusa to death by stoning for her attempt to poison Ion and are looking for her in order to execute the sentence (Ion 1122-1228). The speech has similarities with the cowherd's report (260-339), especially in the description of the clash between the Greeks and the Taurians. (Smith & Kelly [2002] 427-28 also point out that the messenger scenes of IT as well as those of Ion and Phoenissae contain substantially more hapax legomena than the rest of the plays.) In both cases the Taurians, who ignore the identity of the strangers, approach the place where the Greeks (and their ship) are hidden, witness remarkable events and fight with Orestes and Pylades.31 The similarity extends to the fact that all or some of the Taurians first have to overcome religious scruples before the clash with the Greeks. The two speeches, especially their conclusions (336-39, 1414-19), are the main vehicles for the expression of the Taurian view of events in the play. In the second speech the Taurian viewpoint is not self-evidently as naive or misguided as the 31 C r o p p suggests that the second speech differs from the first in that the second messenger feels the need to thwart potential accusations of negligence against him and his fellow guards. But the men did their duty, and went even beyond the strict call of duty, risking sacrilege in order to check on the priestess and the strangers. They also fought as best they could without arms and under attack f r o m the archers on board Orestes' ship (1375-78). The messenger's only concern is to report the news and have the Greeks recaptured. Nowhere does he express or imply anxiety that he and his colleagues might be held responsible for the escape of the Greeks with the statue.

422

Commentary

cowherd's conviction that Iphigeneia hates all Greeks. In the first speech the narration of Orestes' fit of madness and the capture of the two friends by the Taurians could hardly fail to arouse the audience's sympathy for the protagonists. The travails of the Greeks narrated in the second speech are also likely to generate audience sympathy but now there is the real possibility that not only the Erinyes but other gods as well are hostile to the siblings and that the Pelopid family is about to experience another round of adversity. The audience's reasonable certainty that the escape will succeed is undermined by the wind, the seeming failure of Artemis to respond to Iphigeneia's prayer (13981406) and the messenger's certainty that his party is on the side of justice and the gods. The will of the gods turns out to be inscrutable yet again. Things are complicated by the difficulty of gauging the possible role of chance in the escape and the characters' readiness to attribute the latest problems of the Greeks to divine intervention, an approach that has repeatedly proven misconceived in the play (cf. on 1391bff.). The difficulty of assessing the latest events and especially the possibility that the Taurians may to an extent be on the right increases the suspense created by the unknown outcome of the escape. The style of the speech is elaborate, with interplay of quite long, complex periods and short interjections preceding reported statements. The longest periods are 1327-34, 1345-53 and 1379-85, all describing the treacherous actions of the conspiring Greeks. Nautical vocabulary is used extensively in the realistic descriptions of the Greeks' preparations for hoisting sail and the Taurians' efforts to thwart the escape. For possible echoes of the Homeric Odyssey (9. 48Iff.) and Aeschylus' Persae (388ff.) in the description of the Greeks' attempt to sail away see on 1379-80, 1385b-91a and 1395b-97a. 1327-28. έπει προς άκτάς ήλθομεν θαλασσίας: for similar introduction but with imperfect verb cf. 260-63. θαλασσίας should be kept, although Euripides used θαλασσίους to qualify άκτάς again at 236. oft ναΰς Όρέστου κρύφιος ήν ώρμισμένη: the messenger's newly acquired knowledge of the escape plot is brought to bear on the narration, but his specification is not exact: Iphigeneia naturally told the escorts to stop before the party reached the ship. 1329-30. ήμάς μέν, οΐ>ς σύ δεσμά συμπέμπεις ξένων/ έχοντας: the relative clause is probably meant to refresh the memory of any members of the audience that may not have recognized the messenger as one of Thoas' attendants (cf. on 1284-87) and perhaps to avert a possible mistaking of the plural ημάς as singular in force, συμπέμπεις echoes

Commentary

423

1208. Rijksbaron (1976) 302-4 points out that this speech is one of three Euripidean messenger speeches (cf. HI. 1526-1618, Hrcld. 784ff.) with an explicit indication that the messenger was present onstage when the main characters he reports about left and that he accompanied them to their destination. έξένευσ' άποστήναι πρόσω: έκνεύω occurs also at 1186 (see n.) and is probably intransitive here as well. Since it denotes primarily movement of the head, Iphigeneia may have nodded sideways to indicate to the escorts that they should stand away. But a hand movement may be meant because it is difficult to indicate a considerable distance, suggested by πρόσω, with a movement of the head. Alternatively, the messenger may use πρόσω because of his subsequent realization that Iphigeneia put considerable distance between herself and the Taurians. It is not known whether the person in charge of a purification was ritually prohibited from speaking to others, but Iphigeneia may have meant to suggest to the Taurians that the party's arrival at the shore necessitated the imposition of more stringent restrictions. Non-verbal communication would mystify the guards and preclude potential unwelcome and time-consuming questions from them -the messenger indicates at 1334 that the arrangement did seem suspicious to the escorts. 1331-32. ώς απόρρητον φλόγα/ θύουσα και καθαρμόν δν μετώιχετο: ώς...θύουσα has the same force as ώς.,.νίζουσα δή (1338). Reiske's θύσουσα is possible but not necessary, άπόρρητον φλόγα...και καθαρμόν is a hendiadys (with the adj. in common to both nouns). The purification was supposed to include several parts and not only the purificatory sacrifice; cf. next n. For the secret rites cf. on 1196-98. μετώιχετο: the verb occurs only here with non-personal object; Mastronarde on Ph. 441 lists several μετα- compound verbs which admit of personal and non-personal objects. 1333-34a. The complete purification (washing victims and statue, adorning the goddess anew, sacrificing the animals, lighting the fire etc.) could not possibly be performed by one unassisted person, and thus servants probably followed Iphigeneia; cf. on 1222-25. If so, they will not take part in the subsequent events, and the messenger will not mention any servants, δέσμ' έχουσα τοΐν ξένοιν: this echoes 1329; the messenger perhaps implies that Iphigeneia usurps the escorts' rightful place. 1334b-35. Badham emended μέν to μοι in order to eliminate the collocation μέν.,.μέντοι which is rare in verse (see GP 404). The transmitted

424

Commentary

text indicates that suspicion was universal, but the men failed to act on it. Theoclymenus' sailors are similarly uneasy about the boarding of Menelaus' companions, but the order of the king to obey the stranger prevents them from voicing their suspicion (HI. 1549-52). The Taurian escorts are apparently not allowed to talk to the priestess (cf. on 132930), but her authority, especially in the context of the purification, is such that they hardly entertain the idea of disobeying her yet (cf. 134244, 1354-55). 1336-38. Iphigeneia is careful to pursue her deception of the Taurians even when she is out of their immediate reach, χρόνωι: for this dat. see on 306. ϊν' ήμΐν δράν τι δή δοκοί πλέον: "in order to give the impression that she was effecting something." Strohm suggests "something useful", which is perhaps too specific but not entirely off the mark. For the use of δή in final clauses describing stratagems and often expressing indignation see GP 232; cf. 1338. άνωλόλυξε και κατήιδε βάρβαροι/ μέλη μαγεύουσ': μαγεύουσ' is Reiske's palmary emendation of the meaningless ματεύουσ', 'seeking'. After raising a ritual cry, Iphigeneia feigns to perform purificatory incantations, intoning barbarian chants (Herwerden's άνωλόλυζε matches the tense of κατήιδε but there is no need to emend). Secret rituals were not supposed to be witnessed by ritually unauthorized individuals (cf. 1198, 1217 and 1342). Hearing the incantations was apparently not believed to compromise the ritual secrecy of the proceedings (but cf. PI. Smp. 218b5-7), although the primary objective of Iphigeneia was to keep the Taurians away and the audience would not be overly concerned with actual ritual propriety, βάρβαρα μέλη, chants in the style of barbarians32 (cf. 180), qualifies κατήιδε and not μαγεύουσα but, since the magical incantations consisted in the chants, it is virtually 32 S o m e older scholars (Wecklein, England, Platnauer, Strohm) have interpreted βάρβ α ρ α as 'unintelligible'. Greek magical incantations did contain foreign or foreignsounding names and words; see e.g. Luc. Metiip. 9.20-21 and F. Graf, Magic in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass. 1997) 218-22. Nevertheless, in / T t h e opposition Greek-barbarian is prominent, and Thoas uses β ά ρ β α ρ ο ς of the Taurians (1174). It is thus unlikely that the messenger would use the word in a different sense here, and β ά ρ β α ρ ο ς = 'unintelligible' is not attested. Besides, there is no reason why Iphigeneia would sing unintelligible incantations to deceive the Taurians when intelligible varieties would probably have a better chance of bringing about the desired result. A similar interpretive confusion was prompted by the chorus' reference to β ά ρ β α ρ α σ α φ η ν ή in their appeal to the dead Darius (A. P. 635). See Broadhead ad loc. Even if magical or other incantations were unintelligible to Greeks, it is impossible that Darius would not understand the chorus or that they would appeal to their king in obscure formulas because the effect of the incantation depended on its being accessible to the recipient.

Commentary

425

in common to both. Camerbeek on S. OT 387 notes that μάγος, originally a Persian priest, was pejorative in tragedy; of. Willink on Or. 1497. The messenger may imply that Iphigeneia pretended to perform a purification in the style of a μάγος or he may use μαγεύουσα with hindsight to scornfully point out that Iphigeneia's chanting was no more effective than the hocus-pocus of a charlatan. The messenger would then ironically share an enlightened fifth-century view of μάγοι. ώς φόνον νίζουσα δή: for the separation of ώς and δή cf. Here. 998, HI. 1378, Ph. 1416. δή, repeated so soon after 1336, is ironic and stresses indignantly the idea of deceit on Iphigeneia's part; cf. 682 and GP 230. 1339. έπει δέ δαρόν ήμεν ήμενοι χρόνον: an actual purification with washing of statue and captives and offering of sacrifice could not be completed very quickly. Similarly, the preparations for sailing would also take some time (although Orestes' ship was almost ready for departure, cf. 1050) but presumably not much more than the supposed purification and probably less. In any case, the repeated reference to the length of waiting (1336, 1339) reflects psychological dilation of time on the part of the escorts and their discomfort with the situation rather than the actual time spent waiting, δαρόν...χρόνον: for a list of tragic passages with this phrase see FJW on A. Su. 516. For the adj., often used adverbially since Homer and appearing only with - a in tragedy, see Björck (1950) 126. ημεν ήμενοι: the fairly rare periphrastic pluperfect was perhaps chosen for the sake of the alliteration which may suggest the perceived length of the wait. Diggle (1994) 32 has a list of tragic examples with repetition of syllables. Such repetition may not have sounded particularly striking (or offensive) to Greek ears because the repeated syllables are almost always differently accented. 1340-41. έσήλθεν ήμας μή etc.: the verb (probably inceptive here) is used again in the sense 'conceived the fear', 'make the anxious thought' at Or. 1668-69 (καίτοι μ' έσήιει δεΐμα, μή τίνος κλύων/ άλαστόρων δόξαιμι σήν κλύειν δπα), a strangely neglected close parallel. δεΐμα or φόβος is implied here, too. For the use of the verb in connection with (incipient) thoughts cf. El. 619, Here. 302, Ion 1023, IA 57; cf. Hi. 510. The same and similar compound verbs are also used in connection with emotions; see e.g. Md. 931, Su. 288, IA 492, 1410. For the construction of these verbs with the dat. instead of the acc. see Stockert on IA 492. λυθέντες...κτάνοιεν...οίχοίατο: whether the Taurians fear that these events have already happened or are about to happen is not clear and cannot be determined by the tense of the opta-

426

Commentary

tives, pace Platnauer. For the second epic/Ionic optative οίχοίατο cf. on 326. 1342-44. φόβων δ' α μή χρήν είσοραν καθήμεθα/ σιγήι: for the plain inf. with the dat. of cause cf. An. 824, Or. 118 and KG II.7-8. The Taurians' concern for the safety of Iphigeneia and the guarding of the captives is not enough to make them disregard their religious scruples immediately. They are immobilized and silenced by the command to stay away from the purification site: the two datives framing the period and the enjambment of σιγήι graphically represent their situation, καθήμεθα σιγήι was also used, with reverse order of words, by the cowherd to describe the reaction of the Taurians to Orestes' fit of madness (296). Here σιγήι carries greater weight. Until the end of the period, the audience do not know whether the men discussed their suspicions or not, although one would plausibly imagine that they did since they were clearly not prohibited from talking to one another. The emphatically positioned last word of the period clarifies the situation and provides a glimpse of the group of men sitting uncomfortably and not yet daring to voice their growing suspicions because of the potential sacrilege involved in the inevitable decision to act on them. Finally, they all became sufficiently alarmed to agree unanimously that they should take action despite the prohibition, καίπερ ούκ έωμένοις: the participle is probably imperfect (cf. on 855), especially in view of χρήν and καθήμεθα at 1342. 1345-53. The Taurians intercept the Greeks when they are about to sail away. The messenger provides information concerning the stage of preparations for departure and conveys the amazement of his party at the sight of totally unexpected developments, piling up staccato clauses to describe the simultaneous actions and the urgency of the Greeks. The dense style of the exposition and the technical nature of the passage apparently contributed to its textual problems, especially at 1346 and 1353. Cf. also on 1349. 1345-46. κάνταΰθ': the introductory adverb, here as at 264 and 1453 of place rather than time, is often used in messenger speeches to mark temporal progression, especially to introduce important or portentous events; cf. e.g. Hrcld. 843, An. 1109, Here. 959, S. Tr. 936. "Ναρσόπ κατήρει πίτυλον έπτερωμένον|: the messenger describes the ship's state of readiness focusing on the oar-system. He calls it ταρσός 'array' and assimilates it to wings; for oars (and sails) as wings and vice versa see Kannicht on HI. 666-68 and cf. FJW on A. Su. 734. The phrase has

Commentary

427

several problems: the same information is conveyed in less elaborate language at 1347-48a, ταρσός κατήρης is suspect, πίτυλον is difficult to construe as a retained acc. and έπτερωμένον seems to indicate a ship on the move. Bothe's κατήρη is an improvement in view of 1050 (και μην νεώς γε πίτυλος εύήρης πάρα), but it makes ταρσώι quite superfluous; Markland's καχήρες is another option, but the asyndeton in the qualifications of the ship may be a problem. Besides, neither of these emendations eliminates the other problems of the line. Hermann's transposition of 1346 after 1394 is not plausible (see n.), although πίτυλον is more suitable there; for the word see on 1050. 1346 should perhaps be deleted, as Diggle suggests in the apparatus. 1347-49. πρύμνηθεν έστώτας νεώς: not only is the ship already waterborne with oars in place but the two prisoners are also free, standing either on the stern of the ship or astern of the ship, i.e. behind the stern on the shore, πρύμνηθεν indicates 'stern' but little else. Diggle (1981) 92-93 cites Morrison & Williams (1968) 201-2, who suggest that Orestes and Pylades are on board. It is true that πρύμνηθεν cannot easily be taken to mean 'astern of the ship' but it does not mean 'on the stern', either. Everywhere else πρύμνηθεν and πρυμνόθεν mean either 'from the stern' or 'from the direction of the stern'; see e.g. HI. 1603 (Helen encourages the Greek men from the stem), Arat. Phaen. 1.343, 348 (a ship is hauled to port from the stern), Tr. 20, Ion 928, A.R. Arg. 2.586, 4.911 (winds or waves push or toss a ship from the direction of the stern). The location of Orestes and Pylades can be decided only on grounds of plausibility. Dramatically, it makes little difference whether the men are on the stern or on the shore, although in a real-life situation the three fugitives, and especially Iphigeneia with the statue, would probably board immediately and not expose themselves to the danger of recapture. Orestes and Pylades could have boarded to supervise departure operations, as is suggested by Morrison & Williams, but their presence on board is by no means necessary since the ship had been moored for only a few hours. The few preparations necessary for its departure could easily be performed by the crew without direct supervision. It is equally, and probably more, likely that Orestes and Pylades stayed with Iphigeneia on the shore. It does not seem entirely plausible that Iphigeneia would have been left on the shore all alone. If the men were on board, they would have to disembark when the Taurians tried to capture Iphigeneia and to immobilize the ship (1355-57). The messenger says nothing about their disembarking, although this does not automatically rule out that they were on the stern when the Taurians arrived.

428

Commentary

The dramatically important information is that the ship is about to sail away: only Iphigeneia and probably Orestes and Pylades need to board. There is no reason to postulate a lacuna after 1349 as Bruhn suggests. 1350-53. This passage provides information about the equipment of classical ships; see Morrison & Williams (1968) 200-2. From 1347-48 the audience may have reached the conclusion that all fifty sailors had assumed or were about to assume their rowing positions. Now the messenger specifies that several sailors were engaged in other preparations for departure: some were steadying the prow with poles, others were securing the anchor to the catheads and others were carrying ladders and lowering them in the water for Iphigeneia. The messenger designates Iphigeneia as "the foreign woman", τήι ξένηι (see also 1355 and 1364, 1380 with Kirchoff's supplement τήι ξένηι), apparently because her trickery has proven that her loyalties lie with the Greeks. For a similar shift, in address formulas, cf. on 597. The messenger will again switch to more neutral designations below (1380 [with Badham's παρθένων], 1383, 1398, 1403, 1418). οί δ' έπωτίδων/ αγκυραν έξανήπτον: οί μέν is suppressed in the previous sentence (κοντοΐς δέ πρώιραν εΐχον); cf. 1427 and for other examples see GP 166. For έπωτίδες, 'outrigger cheeks', which served as catheads for the anchor, see Morrison & Williams (1968) 198 and Casson (1971) 85-86. αγκυραν: classical ships carried more than one anchor (see Diggle on Pha. 124-26 [fr. 774.4-6]), but the transmitted άγκυρας is unmetrical. κλίμακας: Kirchhoff's κλίμακα is plausible, especially in view of 1382. πρύμνης τ' απο: L's πρυμνήσια makes nonsense of the sentence and την ξένην at 1353 is obviously corrupt, τοΐν ξένοιν (Seidler) is no improvement because the dual excludes Iphigeneia; see Diggle (1981) 92-93 who also discusses the other emendations he adopts. 1354-57. The Taurians try to prevent the boarding of Iphigeneia and the departure of the ship. Following Weil, all commentators suggest that άφειδήσαντες does not mean "without sparing ourselves, energetically" but takes its meaning from the context and should be interpreted in view of the following sentence: the Taurians lost all respect for the treacherous foreigner as a priestess and no longer spared her. The object of είχόμεσθα, however, is not only της ξένης but also πρυμνησίων. Even if Weil and the rest are right and άφειδήσαντες is colored by είχόμεσθα τής ξένης, with πρυμνησίων τε added as an after-

Commentary

429

thought, the participle certainly conveys also the idea of urgency on the Taurians' part. έσείδομεν: cf. 1342, perhaps a deliberate echo: the escorts believed that they should not witness secret rites but now they witness a treacherous enterprise, είχόμεσθα is interpreted as plain imperfect here and at 1364 while έξηιροΰμεν and διεβιαζόμεσθα at 1365 are taken as conative. This is not an implausible distinction but all verbs are likely to be conative: if Orestes and Pylades were on the shore or disembarked immediately when the Taurians appeared (cf. on 1347-49), they would hardly allow the Taurians to get a hold of Iphigeneia. πρυμνησίων: the stern-hawsers had apparently been detached from their moorings but not yet hauled in. δι' εύθυντηρίας: the meaning of εύθυντηρία is unclear. It is usually translated "socket" or "stern-hole" (through which the steering oars passed) but Morrison & Williams (1968) 217 point out that there are no such holes in ship representations and suggest διευθυντηρίους, which would qualify οΐακας. For ancient steering oars cf. FJW on A. 5«. 717 and Casson (1971) 224-26. 1358-65. The Taurians accuse the Greeks of stealing and smuggling people and property out of their country. The suspicion that sea-faring strangers are pirates is already voiced in the epic (H. Od. 3.71-74 = 9.252-55 = Η. Hymn 3.452-55); cf. Cy. 223. Here of course there is no implication that Iphigeneia is abducted. Nevertheless, despite their presumed acquaintance with her and their understanding of her role in the plot, the escorts neither accuse nor address her. The presence of the ship was enough to make the Taurians focus their inquiries on the men. The escorts' first priority and only stated objective is to prevent Iphigeneia and the statue from leaving Tauris. Their efforts indicate that they have a realistic grasp of the situation. Human sacrifices were of paramount importance to the Taurian community, and Thoas dispatched his men in order to guard the captives, but, given that there is a Greek ship at the ready, it would be unrealistic for a few unarmed Taurians (136768) to presume to stop the Greek men from sailing away. The Taurians would not consider the men's departure a crime and they had already suspected that the captives would try to escape (1340-41). What the Taurians cannot accept is the carrying away of priestess and statue, and they demand that Iphigeneia be returned to Thoas who is presumably considered her rightful legal guardian (κύριος). Similarly, in Apollonius' Argonautica the pursuing Colchians can lay a legal claim to Medea but not to the golden fleece: the latter had been won by Jason according to Aeetes' promise (4.341-44) but the former was considered a captive (4.398-400; cf. 345-49, 1100, 1104-9). Orestes asserts his ju-

430

Commentary

risdiction over his sister and the Taurians will recognize that he is not a mere thief but will still refuse to accept his claim as sufficiently valid (see on 1364-65). 1358-59. λόγοι δ' έχώρουν: the metaphor conveys the rapidity with which the accusations were hurled at the Greeks. The words are probably visualized as missiles (cf. An. 1132-34, Melan. fr. 495.12 and 27), which ultimately harks back to the Homeric επεα πτερόεντα, a metaphor from archery and not the flight of birds; see West on Od. 1.122. λόγων: cf. 998. ξόανα και θυηπόλους: with both πορθμεύετε and κλέπτοντες. L's ξόανον is unmetrical, and θυηπόλον would be strange coupled with ξόανα. Plurals for singulars usually convey contempt (see Fraenkel on A. Ag. 1439), here for the perpetrators of the crime and not for the statue or even Iphigeneia. The question is virtually rhetorical because the Taurians would hardly think that the Greeks could give a plausible account of their acts. 1360. The Taurians switch from the plural of their first question, presumably addressed to Orestes and Pylades and by extension to the entire Greek crew, to a singular addressed to Orestes, as appears from the answer. It must have become obvious to the Taurians that the two young men were the leaders but hardly that Orestes alone was in charge, unless the question implies that Orestes somehow undertakes more decisive action than Pylades in the defense of Iphigeneia. The question serves mainly to elicit the dramatically significant answer from Orestes and does not include the statue because an inquiry about it would necessitate a long answer which would be dramatically unacceptable at this point. From the Taurians' point of view, a satisfactory answer about the priestess would have to include an account about the statue anyway (cf. 1358-59). τίνος τίς ών: cf. S. Tr. 242. For the standard questions to or about strangers see on 472-75a above, άπεμπολαις = 'sell or dispose off inappropriately', usually illicitly, in secret and devious transactions. It is also sometimes used metaphorically of betrayal. Here it means 'smuggle out in order to sell (as a slave)'; cf. Tr. 973, Ion 1371, Ph. 1228, Ar. Ach. 374. At Cy. 257 Odysseus may on purpose use a derogatory term to explain Silenus' part in the transaction: Odysseus and his companions are not thieves but bartered in good faith; it was Silenus who sold off Polyphemus' property over which he had no jurisdiction. 1361-63. Greeks commonly identified themselves and others by name, father's or both parents' name and often city or region of origin; see

Commentary

431

Here. 1-3, Ion 260-61, HI. 16-22, Ph. 10-12, 288-90, H. Od. 1.180-81, 9.19-21, A. Su. 250-51, S. El. 693-95, Ph. 239-41, Ar. Ν. 134. Orestes identifies himself by name but his all-important relationship to his sister takes precedence over the identification of his father; cf. Ar. Lys. 85152 (Kinesias identifies himself first as the husband of Myrrhine) and on 472-75a above. The Taurians are familiar with the members of the priestess' family (see on 1319-20). ώς μάθηις: ινα/ώς αν μάθηις is more formal and ϊνα/ώς ötv είδήις more common; cf. Mastronarde on Ph. 1656 and Willink on Or. 534. Here the formula does not merely stress the information provided, as is often the case. Orestes' tone is quite defiant but argumentative rather than threatening. Without this parenthesis, Orestes would neutrally supply the requested information; with it, he matches the indignant tone of the questions by claiming the moral high ground for himself: far from being a thief and a smuggler, Orestes reclaims the lost "property" of his house, his own sister. Cf. A. Su. 918. 1364-65. The Taurians realize ("but no less...") that Orestes' actions are more adequately justified than they had originally imagined, but they are naturally still loath to allow Iphigeneia to escape. Orestes' claim is not entirely valid in their eyes, probably because Artemis transported Iphigeneia to Tauris, in a way entrusting her to Thoas' stewardship, and because Iphigeneia would escape with the goddess' statue, although the statue is not mentioned for reasons of dramatic economy; cf. on 1360. For the tense of the verbs see on 1355. διεβιαζόμεσθα: the polysyllabic rare verb suggests the intensity of the Taurians' efforts but also and primarily the resistance they encountered: the verb appears again only in fourth-century scientific prose for the passage of substances through narrow or dense media (see e.g. PI. 77. 84d6, Thphr. CP 2.17.7, Ign. fr. 23.7 Coutant). 1366-68a. δθεν: for introductory δθεν 'as a consequence', 'for which reason' see on 35. τά δεινά πλήγματ': most commentators suggest that bloody bruises were visible on the actor's face, i.e. mask, presumably to the audience, too, and not only to the chorus and Thoas. The bruises were not mentioned by the messenger when he arrived and drew no comment from the chorus and especially from the king when he first saw his servant (1307ff.). The audience thus have to wait for several dozen lines to hear a mention of the injury and its cause (although they may have made the correct guess). The most serious objection is that the suggestion is based on the use of the definite article, which does not necessarily imply visible bruises. The article may indicate the messen-

432

Commentary

ger's vivid recollection of the grievous blows he received a short while ago. Cf. the use of the article at 320, 924, 940, 1202: the speakers refer to something important or momentous. The referent may or may not have been described before, but its effects are still very keenly felt by the speakers (and others), as if it were still in front of the speakers' eyes and the words pronounced were still ringing in their ears. See Jebb on S. Tr. 476 (Appendix), who discusses the use of the article with δεινός and other adjectives in drama; cf. Bond on Here. 152-53. For the use of the article in deictic or emphatic contexts see also on 12 above. It cannot be ruled out that bruises were visible, but it cannot be taken for granted because of the article, either. Visible bruises would make the scene a little more sensational but would diminish the realism of the initial exchange between Thoas and the messenger, κείνοι τε...οΰκ εΐχον...ήμεΐς τε: rare construction (cf. 1477-78); see GP 509 n. 1. England notes that the absence of the second verb brings the two subjects closer together. 1368b-70. πυγμαι δ' ήσαν έγκροτούμεναι: L's τ' is probably a mistake due to the presence of τε in the previous two sentences. For the periphrasis ήσαν έγκροτούμεναι cf. 721-22 with n. In addition to delivering blows to the head and face of their adversaries Orestes and Pylades kick their softest and most vulnerable parts, the flanks (cf. on 298) and abdomen in the area of the liver. The description of the blows is lively and graphic. Note the very rare έγκροτούμεναι (the verb resurfaces in Theoc. Id. 18.7 in the sense 'to dance to a tune'; for the simple verb in dance contexts see e.g. P. fr. 52f. 18, A.R. Arg. 4.1195) and the metaphorical ήκοντίζετο. The metaphor from javelin-throwing (cf. 362, Here. 1149) would more readily suggest hands than feet but the messenger reverses the metaphors to indicate the relentless, coordinated movements of the Greeks: their fists "performed a dance" on the Taurians' heads and faces and their feet "darted" at the Taurians' flanks, προς ήπαρ: a standard idiom (cf. Bond on Here. 979); a strike with a weapon (literal or metaphorical) at this area was considered particularly grievous or lethal: see e.g. Hi. 1070, Here. 979, 1149, fr. 979, A. Ag. 432. As aristocratic young men, Orestes and Pylades may be assumed to have had training in combat sports such as boxing and pancration, and this training gave them an advantage over the presumably non-athletic Taurians, but the Greeks' main assets seem to have been their youthful fitness (cf. 304-5) and determination. The young men did not use their fists and feet because they had athletic training but because they had no other means of fighting the Taurians (they naturally used their swords

Commentary

433

in the confrontation with the cowherds [322-24]). They did not use kicks because they were acceptable in the pancration, as Bruhn suggests, but because they were effective. 1371. ώστε ξυναλγεΐν: for Euripides' use of ωστε with consecutive inf. see on 300. L's ξυνάπτειν is meaningless, ξυναλγεΐν probably suggests that, under the relentless assault, the Taurians felt pain all over their bodies, not only in the parts directly hit by the Greeks, and became entirely exhausted (συναποκαμεΐν); for ξυναλγεΐν in the literal sense cf. S.Aj. 255. PI. R. 462dl. 1372-74. δεινοΐς δε σημάντροισιν έσφραγισμένοι: δεινός punctuates this part of the report (also at 1366, in a kind of ring composition with this passage, 1379, and 1394 on which see n.; cf. 287 and 320). The striking metaphor is virtually unparalleled and conveys the shock of the Taurians at the volley of blows they received; cf. Ar. Αν. 1213, Lyc. Alex. 780, Verg. Georg. 4.15. Both σήμαντρον and κάθαιμος are particularly rare (the latter occurs also at Here. 384; cf. Or. 1358; for head wounds cf. also An. 588, Here. 234, 256, HI. 1599). έν δμμασιν: it is possible that the punches gave some Taurians a black eye but the messenger probably means 'face' and not 'eyes' here; cf. on 68 and Mastronarde on Ph. 364. Despite the bleeding mentioned, it is unlikely that any of the Taurians suffered major injuries since they are all in a position both to continue harassing the Greeks and especially to try to capture the ship when the adverse wind drives her back to the shore (140710). 1375-76. δχθοις δ' έπισταθέντες: the Taurians took a stand on a place that gave them an advantage; cf. e.g. 1377-78, Hi. 575 and El. 706. εΰλαβεστέρως: for this form of comparative adverb cf. e.g. Hrcld. 543, IA 379, S. fr. 589, Isoc. 4.43.6, Arist. Cat. 7al6 and see KB 1.577. The particular adverb occurs only once again in extant literature (J. AJ 5.64.4). ευλάβεια may be the mark of a prudent and cautious person, especially a competent leader, but it may also be a sign of cowardice: see Bond on Here. 166 and cf. C. Willink, "The Goddess ΕΥΛΑΒΕΙΑ and Pseudo-Euripides in Euripides' Phoenissae" PCPS 216 (1990) 18485. The ambiguous word provides an ironic hint at the Taurians' disadvantage. έμαρνάμεσθα: conative imperfect (as is also έβάλλομεν): it will become clear from 1377-78 that the Taurians did not achieve their goal because archers onboard the ship forced them to retreat. The choice of the epic verb, used in lyric and only by Euripides among the tragedians, hardly suits the context and is probably meant to create

434

Commentary

irony, και πέτροις έβάλλομεν specifies what the Taurians' more cautious way of fighting involved; for this use of καί cf. on 1057-59. For the dat. see on 318. 1377-78. τοξόται: Greek warships had a number of archers onboard; see Morrison & Williams (1968) 253-66 and cf. Casson (1971) 305. άναστεΐλαι, 'drive back', only here in this sense in tragedy, is also used twice by Thucydides for retreat under attack (3.98.1.3, 6.70.3.4); cf. X. An. 5.4.23.2. It does not merely mean "kept us at a distance" (Morwood, Cropp). The Taurians retreated to the cliffs in order exactly to put some distance between themselves and the Greeks and did not obviously intend to approach again, at least not before their stones found the target. They must have initially retreated to a place where the Greeks were within range of their missiles. The messenger indicates that the slight advantage the Taurians gained was offset by the archers who forced them to retreat further or to a place where they were out of the range of the arrows. This of course also put the Greeks out of the range of the Taurians' stones. 1379-85a. Iphigeneia and Orestes are still ashore when the adverse wind starts. The turbulence of the water frightens Iphigeneia and makes her reluctant to step in it. Orestes swiftly carries both his sister and the statue to the ship. The siblings would probably have time to board the ship when the Taurians retreated to the cliffs but such considerations would not exercise poet or audience. On the other hand, the time lag is not particularly great. The cliffs were probably quite near the shore, since otherwise it would be pointless for the Taurians to try to pelt the Greeks with stones, and it cannot have taken the Taurians very long to reach the cliffs. Besides, the ship was initially at some distance from the shore and imminent boarding was impossible, especially in view of the fact that Iphigeneia would presumably be slower than Orestes and Pylades and her freedom of movement would be impaired by the statue. 1379-80. κάν τώιδε: usually translated "meanwhile" but "at this point" would be more accurate. In temporal sense έν with the dat. often indicates that the action takes place at the end of the designated period of time; see Kannicht on HI. 629 and cf. Mastronarde on Ph. 166. The indication is less clear-cut than έπεί (1327 and 1339) or χρόναπ (1336) and τέλος (1343), but the thwarting of the Taurians is now complete (and unlikely to be reversed). δεινός...κλύδων: cf. Here. 1091-92 and Sthen. fr. 669.3; for κλύδων see on 756. φόβος δ' ήν: cf. Md. 1202, Hi. 1204, Here. 950. Cf. also A. P. 391 (φόβος δέ πασι βαρβάροις πα-

Commentary

435

ρην). : the apparent damage in L's archetype (see on 1236a) took out the required dative. (P also has a blank space here. Triclinius inserted ώστε μή in the gap and ρ ναυάταις [= ναυβάταις]. The first is grammatically dubious, as Platnauer points out, and the second can only stand if τέγξαι πόδα indicates shipwreck, as Markland and Kvicala suggest, which is unparalleled.) Both Badham's παρθένων and Kirchoff's τήι ξένηι are likely supplements: the latter would be another example of the messenger's use of ξένη to designate the conspiring Iphigeneia (see on 1353); cf., though, 1313, 1403. παρθένωι may be preferable because it implies the vulnerability and timidity of the young woman. 1381-82. ώμον εις άριστερόν: a realistic touch; Orestes is apparently imagined to be right-handed because right-handers who lift and carry fairly heavy objects normally hoist them on their left shoulder, κλίμακος: Wecklein's κλίμακας is plausible, especially in view of 1351; the gen. is also attested at Rh. 72, 100. 1383-85a. εύσέλμου: since "fair-decked" is a common epithet of ships since Homer, this reading (apogr. Par. 2817 man. sec.), also suggested by Pierson, is probably preferable but there is something to be said for L's εύσήμου in the sense 'fair-ensigned' (Platnauer); cf. IA 254-55 (πεντήκοντα νήας είδόμαν/ σημείοισιν έστολισμένας). In Α. Su. 714 εΰσημον means 'conspicuous' but the choice may have been influenced by the ensigns of the Egyptian ship, which were clearly visible from a distance. On the other hand, εύσέλμου may be have been chosen in order to imply that Orestes places Iphigeneia and the statue on the poop, as Cropp notes. For the σέλματα of classical ships see Morrison & Williams (1968) 151, 196-97. The reference to the statue, to which Iphigeneia presumably held on throughout, is longer than the reference to Iphigeneia, indicating the speaker's distress at the theft of the revered object (cf. on 1288-92, 1312-16). τό τ' ούρανοΰ πέσημα: τ' is the reading of apogr. Par. 2887 man. sec. (which also has δ' after ναός at 1385b; the same suggestions have also been made by Markland). With L's text of 1384-85 (τό δ' ούρανοΰ πέσημα, της Διός κόρης/ άγαλμα, ναός έκ μέσης έφθέγξατο) the statue is the subject of έφθέγξατο. This is implausible for the reasons discussed in the next n. Also, no account of the shipment of the statue is provided and, most importantly, βοή τις at 1386 is left without construction. (The Aldina tried to eliminate the last problem by reading βοήν τιν', but this produces improbable language.)

436

Commentary

ούρανοΰ πέσημα: ούρανοΰ is ablatival gen.; cf. Here. 1148, Tr. 1121. For πέσημα see on 315. 1385b-91a. Finally everybody is onboard and the ship attempts to leave harbor. The crucial attempt is preceded by a solemn exhortation (138689): an unidentified voice coming from amidships urges the sailors to row vigorously. Most scholars cite An. 1147-49, Ba. 1078-79 (cf. 1088) and S. OC 1623-28 as parallels and suggest or imply that the voice is divine (with L's text of 1384-85 the statue of Artemis is the subject of έφθέγξατο; see previous n.). Cf. also Hdt. 8.37-38. In Bacchae and OC the voice heard is attributed to Dionysus and an unidentified god respectively. In Andromache no god is named: the voice comes from the Delphic adyton, as the conspiracy of Apollo and Orestes against Neoptolemus unfolds, and the pronouncement is called δεινόν τι και φρικώδες (1148). These indications leave little doubt that the speaker is Apollo himself. (Norwood, however, suggests that a mortal conspirator shouts to encourage his comrades; see Stevens ad loc.). In Herodotus' account of the Persian attack on Delphi βοή τε και αλαλαγμός come from the shrine of Athena Pronaea: this and several other god-sent signs and apparitions terrify the attackers on whom human and divine adversaries inflict heavy losses. Cropp thinks that "the ignorant Messenger" does not recognize the identity of the god who must obviously be Apollo. It is highly improbable that Apollo or Artemis (cf. previous n.) would speak as a fellow traveler of the crew that undertook the voyage in order to steal the statue. The lack of direct involvement of the two gods in the events of the play (cf. Introduction Ic[ 1 ]) also speaks against the view that one of them encourages the sailors. Besides, it would hardly suit the dignity of a god or goddess to intervene and exhort the sailors now, presenting himself or herself as one of their number, only for the crew to fail repeatedly to sail off. In the passages cited above the intervention of the divinity brings the desired result virtually without any delay or complication. The only god that intervenes directly, appears, and speaks in this play is Athena at the very end (1435ff.). The person most likely to have urged the sailors on is naturally Orestes or perhaps the boatswain but the failure to identify him lends solemnity to the exhortation; cf. Stevens (cited above) and next n. (Kvicala excises 1386 and makes Orestes the subject of έφθέγξατο but it is unlikely that no address to the crew would precede the exhortation.) For similar exhortations, uttered by mortals in crucial circumstances and including galvanizing references

Commentary

437

to Greece, cf. He. 929-32 and A. P. 402-5. The latter may be the model of the exhortations in both Hecuba and IT. 1385b-86a. ναός is Monk's emendation of L's νηός. L has νηός also at Cy. 239. The two forms of the gen. singular are variants at Md. 523, He. 1263, Tr. 691. The Doric form is not particularly common in trimeter but is attested in all tragedians; see 742, Cy. 85, Tr. 686, HI. 422, 1214, 1414, 1609, A. P. 313, S. 62, Ag. 897, S. Ant. 715 and cf. Björck (1950) 242, 248. In Homer βοή is often 'battle-cry'; see Broadhead on A. P. 402-5 and cf. on 1092 and 1307 above. In the escape of the Greeks from Egypt Menelaus shouts to rally his men (άνεβόησε συμμάχους, Hl. 1592), and the Egyptian boatswain responds in kind (βοόα κελευστής τήν έναντίαν δπα, Hl. 1596); cf. He. 928. 1386b-87. ^Ω γης 'Ελλάδος ναύτης λεώς: emendation of L's text ΓΩ γης Ελλάδος ναΰται νεώς) is necessary because ναΰται νεώς is odd; cf. Diggle (1994) 219. Schmidt's suggestion is the best available, despite the fact that "sailors of the Greek land" could easily be taken as an address to all Greek sailors rather than the crew of one ship. Elsewhere, ναύτης or ναυβάτης λεώς and similar phrases designate the crews of several ships (e.g. He. 921, IA 266-67, A. P. 383, S. Aj. 565). Markland's suggestion (^Ω τήσδ' 'Ελλάδος ναΰται νεώς) improves on L's text but eliminates the rhetorical advantage of the reference to the land of Greece; cf. on 1385b-91a. ρόθια: see on 407. έκλευκαίνετε: έκ may be simply intensive, as Platnauer suggests, but it may also be meant to suggest more clearly than the simple λευκαίνετε (cf. Cy. 1617, H. Od. 12.172) the emergence of white out of the gray of the seasurface. 1388-89. ώνπερ: the plural is non-committal as to the number of objectives involved, but the voice probably speaks from the point of view of developments in Tauris. The trip was initially undertaken for the sake of stealing the statue, but now Iphigeneia is also being carried away, αξενον πόρον/ Συμπληγάδων εσωθεν εΐσεπλεύσαμεν: for άξενον (Markland; εΰξεινον L) here and elsewhere in the play cf. on 123-125. This is the last time the Symplegades and the Black Sea are mentioned in the play: the speaker assumes that this is the end of the adventure but he will soon prove mistaken. 1390-91a. The reaction of the sailors is unanimous and eager, στεναγμών ήδύν is an oxymoron because, normally, groans are not motivated by pleasant feelings or emitted on pleasant occasions. Weil and Week-

438

Commentary

lein think that the men groaned as they began the physically demanding task of rowing; Bruhn and Strohm suggest that the groan was the sailors' response to the call of the boatswain, which became joyous because of the circumstances. But England is correct that an exhalation can hardly be called "joyous". Euripides possibly meant to echo Aeschylus' Persae (ευθύς δέ κώπης ροθιάδος ξυνεμβοληι/ ε π α ι σ α ν αλμην βρύχιον έκ κελεύματος, 396-97). If so, he may have implied that the men responded to the boatswain's call. Why he chose to call the response "a groan" is not clear. A person listening to a group of men roaring may momentarily misinterpret their mood: perhaps the oxymoron represents the aural impression of the Taurians who may momentarily have mistaken the cheer for a groan and then almost immediately realized its joyful character. But it is unlikely that the audience would perceive such a subtlety. 1391bff. The sudden adverse wind is a precursor of a common motif in modern adventure stories and films: when the heroes have overcome many vicissitudes and managed to elude their pursuers, they (and the audience) imagine that they are finally safe. This optimism turns out to be premature because the heroes unexpectedly have to overcome one last, often the most difficult, hurdle before they reach safety. Here the wind does not allow the ship to leave harbor and threatens to eventually smash it on the rocks. The parallels with the situation of the Greek fleet at Aulis are quite obvious: the calm prohibited the departure of the fleet and the adverse wind prohibits the return of the ship to Greece. Artemis was angry then and propitiated with the sacrifice of Iphigeneia. The erstwhile victim herself will now try to propitiate the same goddess with a prayer (1397-1402). The main difference is that the cause of the wind is not specified and the statements of the mortal characters about it bring to the fore for the last time in the play the problem of communication between humans and gods. These characters interpret the event according to their own wishes and fears, assuming without exception that the wind is sent by a god for a very specific purpose. Iphigeneia and, presumably, the rest of the Greeks fear that Artemis objects to their undertaking and tries to prevent their return to Greece. The messenger thinks that Poseidon sent the wind in order to avenge the capture of Troy and to punish Iphigeneia for her ingratitude to Artemis (1414-19). Thoas does not comment on Poseidon's role but he indicates that Artemis is on the side of the Taurians (1425-26). Even the pious chorus, who in the third stasimon declared their trust in Apollo's oracles, fail to retain their confident outlook (1420-21). The mortal characters again fail to withhold judgment

Commentary

439

in the face of an event that might involve the gods but whose precise cause is unclear; cf. Introduction Ic(2) and 111(1 )c. The only character in a position to shed light on this cause, the goddess Athena, fails to do so. Since she states that Poseidon "is already calming the waters as a favor to me" (1444-45), the Greeks may be assumed to have managed to exit the harbor and to have escaped the immediate danger of capture. She does not specify whether Poseidon sent the wind and, if so, whether he did it for the sake of Artemis, in order to avenge the fall of Troy, or for another reason unrelated to the escape of the Greeks. Athena will associate destiny and Apollo's oracle that ordered Orestes to bring Artemis' statue and Iphigeneia to Greece (143841b). Thus the wind was apparently not part of the plan of fate, i.e. a link in a chain of causally interconnected events meant to bring about a specific end, but a chance occurrence. Alternatively, if gods are responsible for all natural phenomena in tragedy and chance is only the blanket explanation that mortals invoke when they cannot identify a divine cause (cf. e.g. 475-78 and Introduction Ic[3]), then the god that sent the wind did not necessarily wish, and was not able, to thwart the fulfillment of Apollo's oracle but acted independently. Artemis may hardly be thought to object to Orestes' mission and certainly could not expect to upset it. The same holds for Poseidon, especially in his supposed capacity as Artemis' agent. His alleged wish to punish the Pelopids by destroying the children of Agamemnon in order to avenge the fall of Troy is quite improbable per se and it is mentioned only by the Taurian messenger who can scarcely be thought to enjoy better insights into divine motivation than the protagonists do. Besides, if Poseidon had sent the wind in order to avenge the fall of Troy, there is no reason why Athena would not have revealed his motive. Be that as it may, Athena easily bypasses the obstacle to the fulfillment of the oracle, but the unexpected complication provides an intriguing foil to the entire play. If the occurrence of natural phenomena is causally opaque and especially if gods cannot ensure that nothing will interfere with the execution of their plans, then the uncertainty inherent in all things human seems to increase considerably. For the relationship of gods and chance see on 89 and 475b-78; for the wind and the role of chance in the play cf. Introduction Ic(3). 1392. λιμένος, έχώρει στόμια, διαπερώσα δέ: there is no compelling reason to punctuate έχώρει, στόμια διαπερώσα δέ, as older editors suggest. With the altered punctuation, Murray's emendation διαπερώσα δέ στόμα is the best available, especially since στόμια is hardly used elsewhere instead of στόμα in the sense 'mouth of a harbor'.

440

Commentary

1393-95a. λάβρωι κλύδωνι συμπεσοΰσ' ήπείγετο: λάβρος quite often qualifies sea waves, winds, fire and other natural elements; see Bond on Here. 253. It is also used metaphorically of other formidable things such as wine and love, κλύδωνι: see on 756. For possible Homeric precedents see next n. ώθεΐ: L's ώθει (epicising unaugmented imperfect) is not impossible, especially in a messenger speech and in a passage with several verbs in the imperfect, but Kirchhoff's historic present is more vivid. For the omission of syllabic augment in tragedy see KB 11.18-19 and Dodds on Ba. 767. παλίμπρυμν' ίστί' is Mekler's emendation of L's meaningless πάλιν πρυμνήσι'. The emendation eliminates the reference to stern-hawsers but poses a problem of its own. Sails are out of the question because ships do not leave harbor under sail and because the adverse wind would make the use of sails dangerous anyway; cf. Morrison & Williams (1968) 202. The only possibility is to take ίστία as a synecdoche for the ship but this would be an absolutely unique case of synecdoche and the genitive νεώς at 1394 seems to rule it out. Hermann suggested παλιμπρυμνηδόν 'back sternfirst', a word found in Hesychius, but this necessitates the emendation of νεώς to σκάφος in 1394 (Paley) or the transposition of 1346 after it (Hermann), which produces baroque language that would be out of place here. Either πρυμνήσια is used in a different sense here (Morrison & Williams, for instance, suggest that it means 'stern-ornament') or, more likely, the corruption is deeper than previously suspected. 1395b-97a. προς κΰμα λακτίζοντες: the striking metaphor is an adaptation of the proverb προς κέντρα λακτίζειν, used of futile struggle against a superior force that injures; see Dodds on Ba. 795. Since rowers are often said to strike the sea with their oars (1391; cf. A. P. 397 and the Homeric formula πολιήν αλα τύπτον έρετμοις, Od. 4.580 etc.), a crew's ineffectual rowing against a great wave would readily suggest stubborn and futile kicking against a hard or sharp object. ές δέ γήν πάλιν/ κλύδων παλίρρους ήγε ναΰν: the first extant description of a great wave pushing a ship back to a hostile shore is found in Homer {Od. 9.484-86). Cf. 23.233-35, the description in a simile of the wreckage of a ship in high seas. Cf. also the simile in II. 15.624-28 (a ship in rough weather and sailors in mortal danger), which highlights the danger faced by the Greeks and their imminent retreat in the face of Hector's attack before he reaches their ships. There are similarities between the Euripidean and the Homeric passages, both linguistic (την δ' άψ ήπειρόνδε παλιρρόθιον φέρε κΰμα, Od. 9.485, the use of λάβρος at II. 15.625 and επείγομαι at Od. 23.235 ~ 1393) and situational (mortal danger), but they are rather slight and Euripides does not seem to

Commentary

441

have sought direct allusion to Homer. Still, if the audience recalled the epic passages, as is possible, they could be fairly confident that the Greeks would eventually escape. 1397b-1402. Since, despite the consistent efforts of the crew, human endeavors do not produce the desired result, a prayer is in order. Iphigeneia is the most natural person to say it because the men are occupied and, most importantly, she is closer to Artemis, the goddess assumed to hinder the departure of the ship. For this assumption cf. on 1391bff. and Introduction 111(1 )c. The prayer is brief and dignified, despite the gravity of the situation, and recalls the one at the end of the third episode (1082-88; cf. also her prayer before the departure for the shore [123033]). It focuses almost exclusively on emotions and personal relationships, the bond between a goddess and her priestess and the affection between siblings. It contains no reference to the personal benefit the goddess would reap from the transfer of her statue to Greece (contrast 1086-88, 1231) and does not mention Aulis (contrast 1082-84). The last omission is fairly surprising, given the predicament of the Greeks and the fact that Greek prayers often include reminders of previous help offered to the mortal by the god invoked (cf. on 1082-88). Iphigeneia, who imagines that the goddess is angry because her own priestess stole her statue, focuses on her priestly office and omits references to events that preceded her appointment as priestess. She also, for obvious reasons, avoids mentioning the human sacrifices at which she officiated as a priestess. She asks for safe passage from the barbarian land to Greece and for forgiveness on the grounds that she loves her kin as the goddess loves her brother. Iphigeneia had indicated in her first prayer to Artemis that the credibility of Apollo would suffer if the goddess failed to assist the conspirators (1084-85). This threat to Apollo's credibility may ultimately be the rationale of the reference to Apollo here, too, but it is important that Iphigeneia mentions explicitly only the affection of Artemis for Apollo, which was implicit in her first appeal. Iphigeneia asks for forgiveness because she stole the statue in order to help her beloved brother: she implies that the goddess would act similarly in a similar situation because she, too, loves her brother. She thus appeals to something she believes the goddess cannot repudiate. If the goddess sent the wind, she must have rejected Iphigeneia's previous prayers. Iphigeneia now tries a different approach with a more emotional appeal. This is Iphigeneia's last reported utterance in the play, not accidentally a prayer to Artemis in which she declares her love for her kin.

442

Commentary

1398-1400. Λητούς κόρη: Διός κόρη would also fit the metre and thus the choice of Leto may not be accidental: the reference to the mother may have been thought more appropriate in an emotional context, ίερέαν: for the form cf. on 34. καί...σύγγνωθ': safe passage to Greece is contingent upon the goddess' pardon; for this use of καί see on 105759. 1401. φιλεΐς δέ etc. provides a reason why the goddess should grant the request. By choosing δέ the speaker avoids stressing the logical connection between the two statements (cf. GP 169). The sentence with δέ expresses one, often the most important, reason why the previous statement holds but not the only reason. Iphigeneia had listed other reasons why Artemis should help the Greeks in her earlier prayers (see on 1397b-1402) and she has just implied that the goddess should save her because she is her priestess. Now she implies that Artemis' love for Apollo would lead the goddess to extreme acts just as Iphigeneia's love for Orestes did. The particle is used in a similar manner at 723. Orestes urges Pylades to say no more: Phoebus' oracles cannot help him (σίγα- τά Φοίβου δ' ουδέν ωφελεί μ' επη) because the priestess is coming out of the temple (γυνή γαρ ήδε δωμάτων εξω περαι, 724). The primary reason why Orestes does not believe that his fortune may change for the better, as Pylades suggested (721-22), is that Apollo's oracles have proven worthless, but the use of the particle leaves open the possibility that this is not the only reason. On the contrary, Iphigeneia's entrance is presented as the definitive proof of the worthlessness of the oracles and is introduced with γάρ. See also 1442-45 (δν δ' άποκτενεΐν/ δοκεΐς Όρέστην etc.): at 1438-39 Athena urges Thoas not to pursue Orestes because it was destined that Orestes would come to Tauris obeying Apollo's oracle (πεπρωμένον γάρ θεσφάτοισι Λοξίου/ δεΰρ' ήλθ' 'Ορέστης). She then provides another reason why Thoas' plan should be aborted: Poseidon has calmed the waters and so the ship will not be wrecked (1444-45). 1403-4a. επευφήμησαν εΰχαΐσιν κόρης/ παιανα: cf. Α. P. 619-20. In extant Greek the verb occurs first in a non-religious context (Η. II. 1.22, 376) but in the fifth century it is used exclusively in connection with religious invocations, εύχαΐσιν: Euripides rarely places the last syllable of the lengthened dat. forms (-αισιν and -οισιν) in a long element but, when he does, he always places it in the tenth element, as here; see Diggle (1994) 474. παιάν, or παιών in Attic (for the form see Fraenkel on A. Ag. 1248), is a song intoned on joyful or hopeful occasions, e.g.

Commentary

443

after a victory or a banquet and before risky enterprises such as military engagements; see Käppel (1992) 45-49, 300-310 and I. Rutherford, "Apollo in Ivy: The Tragic Paean" Arion n.s. 3 (1995) 121-24. It is often addressed to Apollo in his capacity as healer, protector from evil (cf. on 1174) and bestower of blessings (in A. fr. 350 the god sings a paean himself) but to other gods as well (e.g. to Artemis, IA 1467-68). The crew respond to Iphigeneia's prayer with a song of good omen, addressed probably to Apollo or Artemis or both. 1404b-6. Urged on by the boatswain, the crew try again with renewed vigor to leave harbor. Despite the prayers and efforts, they cannot row their way out of the harbor and the ship is pushed ever closer to the shore, γυμνάς έκ έπωμίδας: for the lacuna see on 1236. Markland's πέπλων is the likeliest supplement (cf. Ion 1208). Kovacs prints Härtung's γυμνάς έπωμνδος. This is less plausible not only because έπωμίς usually denotes the sleeve of a woman's garment but especially because the crew have already applied their arms to the oars. With Härtung's suggestion the sailors bare their arms but the original text is likely to have described the culmination of the crew's efforts: the men bare their arms and row so energetically that they draw the oars up to their shoulders. κελεύσματος: for the boatswain's call to the rowers see on 112531. The older form of the noun is κέλευμα (which appears here in apogr. Par. 2887), but the later sigmatized form is not uncommon in Euripidean MSS; cf. 320 and see Bond on Hy. fr. I iii.ll (752g.l2) and Wilkins on Hrcld. 838-40. μάλλον δέ μάλλον προς πέτρας ήιει σκάφος: a short epigrammatic sentence for the failure of the crew's strenuous efforts. The apparent rejection of Iphigeneia's prayer and the men's paean seems to spell the doom of the ship. The duplication of the adverb for emphasis is colloquial; see Stevens (1976) 17. 1407-10. Emboldened by the seemingly god-sent difficulties of the ship, the Taurians in their turn renew their efforts to capture the fugitives. In view of their performance in the skirmish with Orestes and Pylades (1366-74), their limited number and the presence of archers on the ship (1377-78), it is unlikely that the escorts would be capable of capturing the entire crew without help. They sensibly send one of their number to alert the king and ask for reinforcements but the fact that they even attempt to capture the ship despite their previous retreat and before the reinforcements arrive (contrast 303-6) indicates increasing confidence in their imminent success (cf. 1416-19).

444

Commentary

The report of the events on the shore ends here as the messenger does not know the outcome of the struggle; for suspense in this messenger speech see on 1327-1419. 1407-8. χώ μέν τις: for this idiomatic 'one (of us)' cf. 301 and see Kannicht on HI. 98. The speaker does not care to specify (or cannot remember) which member of the company undertook the specific actions but is more interested in listing the actions, άλλος δέ: ό δέ (τις) is more common; e.g. Md. 1141, Ar. Αν. 1445, PI. 1179-81, Thuc. 8.94.3. ποσίν: this detail is not absolutely necessary but it underscores the rashness of the action (cf. on 296b) and points to the absence of a boat that would presumably serve the Taurians' purpose better. Thoas will soon order the citizens to launch vessels (1427) as well as bridle horses and ride to the shore (1422-26) in order to pursue the Greeks as efficiently as possible (1428-30). πλεκτάς έξανήπτεν άγκύλας: it is unlikely that the Taurians had any ropes with them or that they improvised some while the Greeks tried to sail away but the detail enhances the danger of imminent capture facing the Greeks, έξανήπτεν is the last conative imperfect in the report (cf. 1355, 1357, 1364, 1365, 1376). The Taurians probably attached one end of the ropes to trees or rocks on the shore and tried to lasso the ship, άγκύλας also occurs in the context of the fight at Or. 1476 but it probably means 'bows' there; see Willink ad loc. 1409-10. προς σέ: cf. Hrcld. 147, He. 993. τάς έκεΐθεν = τάς εκεί; see on 1182. σημανών...τύχας: cf. 1209. The messenger reports three actions (cf. 1355-57), but that does not imply that only three escorts were dispatched by Thoas; cf. on 1207-8. Similarly, in Md. 1141-43 and Or. 1475-77 three actions are mentioned, but there is no implication that only three servants are involved: on the contrary, the narratives in both plays presuppose a greater number. 1411-12. βρόχος, used often in hunting contexts, takes up the hunting imagery of 1324; cf. 1426. νήνεμον would normally suggest that the wind would stop altogether, which would inhibit sailing. It may refer here to a change from adverse winds to favorable breezes (see Kannicht on HI. 1455-56 but cf. Diggle [1994] 430-32). More likely, the messenger has in mind the ceasing of the adverse wind which would allow the ship to leave harbor and is not concerned with the continuation of the voyage -if the Greeks managed to exit the harbor, they would presumably continue under oar as fast as they could and thus put a poten-

Commentary

445

tially salutary distance between themselves and the pursuing Taurians; cf. 1325-26. 1414-19. Euripides often ends speeches with sententious statements that have been suspected by editors; see e.g. Hi. 664-68, An. 1283-84, El. 396-400 and 1097-99, Ion 1227-28, HI. 892-93 and 991-95. Here the only objections to the coda of the messenger speech are textual and hardly serious enough to warrant the deletion suggested by England (cf. Page [1934] 78); cf. the next three nn. It is true that the speech could very well have ended at 1411 or 1413 but it is equally true that the coda is not inert stuffing, and Athena possibly echoes it in her reference to Poseidon (1444-45). This messenger has already given advice to his king (1322-24), and the first messenger speech also ended with the cowherd's attempt to place the capture and imminent sacrifice of the strangers in a wider moral-religious framework, Iphigeneia's devotion to the goddess and her supposed wish to punish all Greeks for her sacrifice at Aulis (336-39). 1414-15. It will appear later (1444-45) that Poseidon will play a role in the departure of the Greeks, but his role in sending the wind remains unclear in the play (see on 1391bff.). πόντου δ' άνάκτωρ "Ιλιόν τ' επισκοπεί/ σεμνός Ποσειδών, Πελοπίδαις έναντίος: L's reading is Πελοπίδαις δ'. The irregular τε.,.δέ is attested (see GP 513-14) but δέ cannot be justified on the basis of a contrast between "Ιλιόν τ' έπισκοπεΐ and Πελοπίδαις έναντίος or an anacoluthon due to the great interval separating the two particles. If δ' is kept, καί at 1416 has to be interpreted as 'even' (cf. GP 319), which does not suit the context. Thus Bothe's deletion of δ' is preferable. The qualifications of the god underscore his majesty and imply the impossibility of escaping his wrath; for archaizing -τωρ and -τηρ noun-suffixes in tragedy see the literature cited by Garvie on A. Ch. 160-63. Poseidon had an affection for Troy whose walls he built, alone (Η. II. 21.446-47) or with Apollo (Η. II. 7.452-53, Eur. An. 1009-13, Tr. 4-8). The Trojan war, an important if somewhat distant backdrop in this play, is mentioned here for the last time after the prologue (6-14) and Iphigeneia's interrogation of Orestes (517ff.). This is also the last mention of Pelopids in the play, not accidentally in the context of the latest adversity threatening to destroy the last male survivor of the line and his long-suffering sister; for the importance of Pelops in IT see on 82226.

446

Commentary

1416-17. παρέξει: the fact that the verb may be impersonal and thus not require a subject does not prove that 1414-15 are interpolated because it can also be personal; cf. Hi. 1111-12, Ion 644, HI. 812, IA 93637, Ar. Ν. 440-41. ώς έοικεν indicates the cautiousness, even if only of a relaxed kind, with which pious people refer to their gods. The messenger is confident that the strangers' capture is imminent and divinely guaranteed. Nevertheless, he adds "as it appears" in order to avert the danger of asserting something that involves Poseidon but might ultimately not come to pass because it might not be agreeable to the god after all. 1418-19. ή φόνου του ν Αΰλίδι/ άμνημόνευτος θεάν προδοΰσ' άλίσκεται: this sentence, transmitted as φόνον τον Αΰλίδι/ άμνημόνευτον θεάι προδοΰσ' άλίσκεται, has been restored by Badham and Markland. Iphigeneia, who claimed that the memory of Aulis was alive in her (361), is accused of sacrilegious ingratitude. According to the messenger, Poseidon will allow Thoas to catch Iphigeneia (έν χεροΐν/ λαβείν, 1417-18) because she is being caught in the act of betraying Artemis (θεάν προδοΰσ' άλίσκεται). 1420-21. The last utterance of the chorus in the play before the parting anapaests fails to display the certainty about Iphigeneia's escape registered in the second stasimon (1123-37) or the trust in Apollo celebrated in the third (1234-83). The amount of information that can be accommodated in a single couplet, which occupies a conventional position after a messenger speech, is necessarily limited. Nevertheless, the failure of the chorus to mention any god in connection with the escape indicates that the women revert to the cautious attitude toward the divine that they displayed before the third stasimon and especially before the devising of the escape plot; see on 1234-83. The chorus' pronouncement here goes well beyond a mere expression of sympathy. By declaring their concern for their friend (it is the only time that they call her by her personal name in the play) the women demonstrate once again their loyalty. Since their comment exposes them to Thoas' vengeance, it also reveals their selflessness and courage. It is not an explicit admission of knowledge of the plot and outright complicity in it, but, after their botched attempt to deceive the messenger (1293ff.) and his promise to tell the king about their role (1312), the women can hardly hope for absolution or clemency. The danger they have been facing since 1312 increases the effect of their comment: despite the certainty of their imminent punishment, the women neither attempt to mollify the king nor express concern about

Commentary

447

their own lot but lament for the imminent demise of Iphigeneia and her brother. μολουσα is probably conditional; the women are certain that Iphigeneia and her brother will die if they fall into the king's hands but they cannot know for certain whether the siblings will be caught, δεσποτών χέρας: for the bare acc. cf. Hrcld. 931. Bers (1984) 77 notes that the acc. is an example of the terminal acc. construction with a person as the goal of the motion. Here a body part stands in for the person viewed from a particular perspective. This is not the perspective of power, as he suggests, but that of jurisdiction and especially the liberty to use violence. The genitive is ambiguous, "our master(s)" or "your master(s)": Thoas will certainly treat the captured Iphigeneia as a runaway slave and punish her severely for her attempt to escape; cf. next n. The chorus may imply that she has always been a virtual slave. 1422-30. Thoas immediately delivers instructions to the citizens for the recapture of the Greeks; for the addressees cf. next n. The messenger suggested that the Greek ship would be smashed on the rocks and the strangers captured if the wind did not change (1411-19) but Thoas does not leave anything to chance and orders the Taurians to also launch ships for a potential naval pursuit (1427). The first possibility, by far likelier than the second, naturally receives more attention (1423-26). The speech indicates urgency but this is not a characteristic of barbarians only, as Strohm seems to suggest, because there are examples of similar orders issued by Greek kings in other plays; see An. 1066-69, Or. 1621-22 (quite similar to the present passage), S. OT 142-46, Ant. 1108-14. On the other hand, the two ways of dispatching the recaptured Greeks that Thoas mentions, hurling the prisoners down a cliff or impaling them (1429-30), are probably meant to sound cruel and barbaric. Nevertheless, the former, κατακρημνισμος, was not unknown to the Greeks (see e.g. X. Hel. 2.1.31-32). Impalement was indeed looked down upon as barbaric (see A. Eum. 189-90 and Hdt. 9.79.1) and thus not practiced, although it was apparently not inconceivable: both Euripides (El. 897-99) and Plato (Grg. 473c, Rep. 362a) mention it as a possible form of punishment. It was apparently considered humiliating and suitable for slaves. This is implied by the fact that Plato mentions it as a punishment tyrants inflict on rebellious subjects and Euripides as a punishment suitable for Aegisthus, Electra's former master, who has in death become her slave. Cf. D.S. 18.16.3. The punishments envisaged by Thoas are also suitable for sacrilegious temple robbers. Rhesus, another barbarian, threatens to punish the temple robber Odysseus with impalement and exposure of the body to the vultures (Rh. 513-17); cf.

448

Commentary

Κ. Latte, RE s.v. Todesstrafe. Thus the forms of punishment mentioned by Thoas, especially impalement, are particularly cruel because they combine a painful, humiliating death and exposure of the body, a fate abhorrent to Greeks. Cropp suggests that Thoas' threats echo the account of Taurian practices by Herodotus (4.103). If so, the echo is faint because the Taurians did not execute captives by throwing them off cliffs or impaling them: they dispatched their victims by hitting them on the head with a club; the head was then severed and impaled (see on 74-75). Impalement as a method of execution was mainly a Persian practice; see Sommerstein on A. Eum. 189-90. Euripides may have modeled Thoas' threats on Persian customs, especially since after the Persian wars the Persians were viewed by the Greeks as the barbarian enemies par excellence the messenger report included some reminiscences of Aeschylus' Persae\ see on 1379-80, 1385b-91a and 1395b-97a. Thoas does not envisage sacrificing the Greeks to the goddess probably because their sacrilegious theft of the statue would make them unclean and unwelcome to her. Besides, Thoas is eager to punish the Greeks and, in the Taurians' view, sacrifice is not a punishment. 1422. No group of citizens is present to hear Thoas' commands but the king does not appear to address his attendants only (cf. on 1307-8). It is generally assumed that citizens appear when an appeal to the city is made (see e.g. Barrett on Hi. 884, Willink on Or. 1621-24 and 166465), but, in the absence of evidence, this cannot be taken for granted. Even if Taurians did not appear, the audience would not be overly concerned with the possibility that Thoas' orders would not be promptly conveyed to his subjects, ώ πάντες άστοί: cf. S. Ant. 1183, Ar. Lys. 638, Eccl. 834. βαρβάρου: for the use of the word by non-Greek characters in tragedy cf. on 1169-70. 1423-26. ουκ εΐα with fut. indicative direct question in a command is found only in Euripides (cf. Or. 1622, HI. 1561, 1597) and indicates urgency; cf. Kannicht on HI. 1560-64. έκβολάς νεώς: "wreckage of the ship", including the shipwrecked crew, not "(human) jetsam from the ship" (Griffith on S. Ant. 250) or an allusion to the prospect of plunder (England); cf. on 1042. σύν...τήι θεώι: the usual translation "with the help of the goddess" is probably over-specific. Pious formulas of the kind exemplified here occur in a wide range of contexts (see Barrett on Hi. 168-69). συν τήι θεώι qualifies, primarily at least, the participle σπεύδοντες, not the verb θηράσετε, but people do not usually need divine help to hurry,

Commentary

449

except perhaps to their own destruction (cf. A. P. 742 and on 909-11 above). Thus "with the favor of the goddess" is a preferable interpretation. Naturally, the favor of the goddess will translate into help if need be. England suggests that the king urges his subjects to assist the goddess (who is apparently intent on destroying the Greeks): συν δέ τήι θεώι/ σπεύδοντες would then mean "hurrying along with the goddess." This is rather unlikely because the goddess needs no assistance and she can hardly be imagined to hurry. For cooperation of gods and mortals cf. on 909-11. δυσσεβεις: cf. on 694. 1427-30. oi δ': for the omission of οί μεν in the previous sentence see on 1350. ώκυπόμπους: for the adjective see on 1137. έκ θαλάσσης...ίππεύμς έξεμόχθεις περιπόλων καθ' 'Ελλάδα/ οϊστροις Έρινύων: for γης see previous n. έπώνυμος appears often in Euripidean aetiologies, usually in connection with personal names of heroes. Here the appellation is extraordinary, not only because it is not connected with Orestes' name but especially because it is a paretymological combination of two words, 'Taurian' and 'roaming' (περιπολώ), from which the poet derives the name of the local Athenian cult of Artemis Tauropolos. According to the false etymology, Artemis' ritual title, which actually means 'bullherd', would recall Orestes' wanderings in Greece and Tauris. For the true etymology of the name see Ister FGrHist 334 F18, Apollod. FGrHist 244 F i l l , sch. S. Aj. 172. Graf (1979) 41 and Lloyd-Jones (1983) 97 connect the appellation with the maturation of young men classified as 'bulls' for whom Orestes' wanderings were a model, but this association is unlikely: there is no mention of initiation rites at Halae in the play, and Orestes' wanderings and trip to Tauris cannot count as his initiatory exploit. See Introduction 11(5), and for the festival of the Tauropolia see next n. For the worship of Artemis Tauropolos see

Commentary

457

Farnell (1899-1909) 2.569-70, Hollinshead (1985) 428 n. 42 and Dunn (2000) 20-21. έξεμόχθεις: "struggled through"; see Bond on Here. 309. οϊστροις Έρινύων: the gen. is subjective. For οίστρος = 'frenzy' see Renehan (1985) 169. ύμνήσουσι: "will celebrate in song, repeat ritually"; cf. the upcoming reference to the festival, which must have included hymns. 1458-61. The Athenian festival that will be instituted will feature a regularly performed retributive sacrifice to replace the irregularly performed human sacrifices of the Taurians. No human victim will be executed, but blood will be drawn from a man's neck "for the sake of holiness and so that the goddess may have her honors" (1461). A Tauropolia festival took place at Halae and a Brauronia one at Brauron (see next n.), associated apparently, or mainly, with prepubescent or pubescent boys and girls respectively. The Tauropolia apparently also included nocturnal celebrations of girls, as Menander's Epitrepontes attests (445520, 863, 1118-20); see Brelich (1969) 245-46, Graf (1979), LloydJones (1983) 98-101, Dunn (2000) 20 and Dillon (2002) 127-28. No rites of this sort are mentioned or implied in Athena's speech. Both references to the participants in the festival, "people" and "a man" for the surrogate victim, are non-committal and by no means point to adolescents or to puberty rites of passage. Although the rite prescribed for the festival at Halae has been considered genuine by several scholars, there is no other evidence for such a symbolic sacrifice at Halae or elsewhere in the Greek world; cf. Dunn (2000) 21. There can be little doubt that the surrogate sacrifice at Halae and the cult of Iphigeneia at Brauron were Euripides' inventions; cf. next n. νόμον: cf. 277, 465, 586, 959, 1189. της σης σφαγής αποιν': for the apposition cf. on 1441b. άποινα designates retaliatory punishment for hubristic behavior. Dale on Al. 7, however, suggests that by the fifth century the word with dependent genitive had almost become a preposition. The fact that Artemis should receive recompense for the cessation of the Taurian sacrifices may imply that she condoned them but Athena says nothing to that effect. Cf. on 1435-74. The subject of έπισχέτω and έξανιέτω (Heath's emendation of L's meaningless and unmetrical έξανυέτω) may be λεώς or, more likely, the implied officiant at the symbolic sacrifice through whom the people would perform the ritual, θεά θ': for the synizesis after a short syllable see on 87. L's θεάς cannot stand: όσιας can hardly qualify it as an adj. here (cf. on 130-31) and, if όσία is a noun, as is probable, the phrase όσίας θεας is unparalleled and the purpose clause would be awkward.

458

Commentary

1462-67a. Athena explains to Iphigeneia that she will become the priestess of Artemis Brauronia at Brauron and will receive heroic honors after her death: the garments of women who die in childbirth will be dedicated to her. Such a tomb or cult of Iphigeneia at Brauron is not attested elsewhere and the archaeological record has failed to substantiate Euripides' report.33 A festival of Brauronia in honor of Artemis Brauronia and the ritual of arkteia were celebrated every four or five years at the Brauron sanctuary. A similar ritual also took place at the sanctuary of Artemis at Mounichia in the Piraeus area, perhaps more often; for the ritual at the two sanctuaries see Brelich (1969) 245-56, Sale (1975), Aretz (1999) 44-45 and Ekroth (2003) 65-67. The ritual involved young, perhaps aristocratic, girls between five or seven and ten years of age, who became "bears" (arktoi), wearing saffron robes and participating in the sacrifice of a goat, in order to placate the goddess for the killing of one of her bears. According to the Brauron myth, the brother(s) of a girl blinded by the sacred bear of the goddess killed the animal. The angry goddess sent a famine or a plague to punish the people and only stopped it when they agreed to institute the ritual of the arkteia for their young girls to perform before marriage. See sch. on Ar. Lys. 645 and Suda s.v. "Αρκτος ή Βραυρωνίοις. The myth for the ritual at Mounichia is similar. The people killed the bear and had to sacrifice a girl to stop the famine and atone for its death. Baros or Embaros, wishing to acquire the priesthood for himself and his family for life, promised to sacrifice his daughter. He then adorned the girl for the sacrifice and hid her in the temple but sacrificed a goat dressed as the girl and became proverbial for his resourcefulness. See Suda s.v. Έμβαρός είμι, Eustath, on Η. II. 2.732. See further Brule (1987) 182-86, Dowden (1989) 20-23 and Kearns (1989) 29-32. The arkteia has been interpreted as a maturation ritual: the girls spent some time at the temple and were in a way dedicated to the goddess, apparently as her "animals", to ensure her protection and goodwill in (admittedly, often quite early) preparation for puberty and marriage. For the ritual and the festival, which quite likely formed the culmination of the arkteia ritual, see Dillon (2002) 220-21 with previous bibliography in n. 75 (p. 354) and Ekroth (2003) 62-63, 90-93; cf. Johnston (1999) 238 n. 112. However, in his contribution to a volume that ques33 Euphorion (fr. 91 CA = 95 van Groningen) mentions a cenotaph of Iphigeneia at Brauron (cf. Nonn. D. 13.186) but this may be a reworking of Euripides or a lost post-Euripidean source. The fragment may refer to the sacrifice of Iphigeneia (the fragment of Euphorion is found in the Leiden MS sch. on Ar. Lys. 645 [a-b Hangard] which mentions alternative sites for the sacrifice), a cenotaph is not the same as a tomb and there is no word about the dedications. Cf. next n.

Commentary

459

tions the existence of rites of passage in ancient Greece and their usefulness as models for the interpretation of Greek texts, Faraone (2003), esp. 56-61, has argued that Athenian girls in saffron robes performed rites for Artemis both collectively and individually. The purpose of these rites was not to effect the sexual maturation or initiatory transition of the participants into marriageable womanhood but to protect the community and the participants from the wrath of the goddess. In any case, there is no mention of, or hint at, the ritual or the festival in Athena's speech. The evidence based on which scholars tried to connect Iphigeneia with the arkteia is scant and late and thus possibly echoing Euripides or post-Euripidean sources. See e.g. the sch. on Ar. Lys. 645 and the report by the Athenian historian Phanodemus (FGrHist 325 F14) that a bear instead of a deer was substituted for Iphigeneia. Much of the evidence is also a matter of scholarly debate, e.g. the function of, and the nature of the scenes depicted on, several black- and some red-figure krateriskoi found in several sanctuaries, including Halae, Brauron and Mounichia. These depict mainly girls, sometimes naked, holding wreaths or branches and running towards or away from an altar. The vases are probably connected with the arkteia but do not prove that there was a cult of Iphigeneia at Brauron associated with the arkteia ritual. For discussion of the evidence see Ekroth (2003) 63-67 and Faraone (2003), esp. 44-46 and 51-58. Moreover, Athena does not mention construction of a temple or the foundation of a cult before Iphigeneia's death. Sourvinou-Inwood (1997) 174-75 suggests that Athena orders Iphigeneia to found the cult of Artemis at Brauron and Cropp that she became the first priestess of Artemis there, but Iphigeneia is to serve as priestess in an existing temple and will die and be honored there. As in the case of the symbolic sacrifice at Halae, the very special nature of the offerings to the future heroine seems likely to point to actual cult but the excavations at the sanctuary so far have not revealed any relevant building, votive offerings, inscriptions, or other indication that Iphigeneia actually received cult and offerings at Brauron. See Ekroth (2003), esp. 69-94 and 102-18, for a thorough reexamination and alternative interpretation of the archaeological material that earlier scholars had associated with the tomb and cult of Iphigeneia. 34 For the clothes 34 Iphigeneia has been thought to receive chthonian worship at Brauron as a heroine, which would distinguish her from the Olympian Artemis (see e.g. Kahil [1990] 716 and Cropp 51). Apart from the lack of evidence for any cult of Iphigeneia, the distinction between Olympian and chthonian, and even between heroes and gods, especially as far as the sacrifices offered to them are concerned, has been questioned; see Ekroth (2003) 69 n. 47 and 79 n. 96.

460

Commentary

cf. on 1464-67a. Scullion (2000) 217-33 (cf. [2002] 134) has argued that Euripides invents the aetiologies and even the cults in this play as well as in several others. See also Dunn (1996) 62-63 and (2000). This thesis accords best with the available evidence and entails a new, or at least seriously modified, view of the liberties Euripides, and other poets, took with cult, as well as the reasons for doing so. See Introduction II(4)-(5). The end of the play hardly leaves much room for skepticism about Iphigeneia's future as outlined in Athena's speech. Nevertheless, it is difficult to disregard the fact that Iphigeneia is the only person who does not go home (for the chorus see on 1467b-69a) and has no prospects of spending the rest of her life with her loved ones. She remains dedicated to the goddess to whom she was consecrated unwittingly by her father even before her birth (20-24). In contrast to Orestes, Iphigeneia has been too closely associated with Artemis to be able to return to a life of pre-sacrificial normalcy. This does not necessarily indicate that Euripides wished to imply that Iphigeneia's restitution would be defective, but, if he invented Iphigeneia's posthumous cult at Brauron, his choice may be interpreted only in the light of the play. Since Iphigeneia has demonstrated great emotional attachment to her family and her reaction to Athena's speech is not recorded in the play, the audience may legitimately wonder about her reception of the news and about the rationale of the divine mandate that sends her to Brauron and not to Argos. This mandate, which guarantees Iphigeneia's salvation but does not allow her to resume her former life, is the last "reflection" of Aulis, the last unexpected reversal of expectations and the last in a series of open questions about divine behavior in the play. Throughout it, most characters have had their certainties reversed and thus come face to face with the fact that certainty is elusive for mortals. Iphigeneia and the chorus believed that Orestes had died, Orestes thought that Apollo had tricked him to his destruction, and the Taurians were convinced that Iphigeneia hated the Greeks and Poseidon would destroy the siblings. At the end of the play, the audience are made to partake of this universal uncertainty because any view of Iphigeneia's future that they may adopt cannot be corroborated or corrected. 1462-63. σε δ' άμφί σεμνάς, 'Ιφιγένεια, λείμακας/ Βραυρωνίας δει τήιδε κληιδουχεΐν θεαι: for the location and history of the sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia at Brauron and the excavations and findings, whose publication has not been completed yet, see Ekroth (2003) 5960, 102-18. For άμφί. with acc. see on 6. λείμακας is Pierson's emendation of L's κλίμακας, which means 'slopes'. The transmitted reading

Commentary

461

cannot be defended; see Diggle (1981) 79 who points out that ει and ι are often confused. The choice of σεμνάς probably indicates that Brauron is already sacred to Artemis; cf. on 1452 (Ιερός), τήιδε.,.θεάι is Markland's emendation of L's difficult τήσδε.,.θεάς. κληιδουχώ appears only once again at Here. 1288. Sansone prints the transmitted reading and cites in the apparatus [Charond.] apud Stob. 4.2.24 (p. 152.4 Hense) (άρχοντες γαρ έστιουχοΰσι πόλεως και πολιτών σωτηρίας). This is late and έστιουχώ is not attested elsewhere. For Iphigeneia as holder of the temple's keys cf. on 131. 1464-67a. For burials of priests in sanctuaries see L.R. Farnell, Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality (Oxford 1921) 53-70. The clothes dedicated to the future heroine will be both an honor and a great source of joy to her, αγαλμα, a predicate to πέπλων/...εύπήνους ύφάς. For the phrase εύπήνους ύφάς see on 312. Dedications of clothing of living women to Artemis are known from the Brauronion on the acropolis,35 Brauron and elsewhere; see Dillon (2002) 19-23 and Ekroth (2003) 71 n. 58. For the kourotrophic aspect of the cult of Artemis at Brauron, which is nowhere associated with Iphigeneia, see also Ekroth (2003) 73 n. 72 and 99 n. 200, and T. Hadzisteliou Price, Kourotrophos (Leiden 1978) 121-22, 205-6. Besides, there is no evidence for the dedication of the clothes of women who died in childbirth to any divinity anywhere in the Greek world; see Ekroth (2003) 96-97. 1467b-69a. Athena provides no information about the women's exact destination or their future once they return to Greece. Cf. on 1482-83. Härtung and more recently Cropp (p. 60) suggest that they may follow Iphigeneia to Brauron. Cropp points out that it would be impossible for them to return home because their city was destroyed in war and their families dispersed. But the women have expressed a wish to return home (447-55, 1138-52; cf. 576-77, 1070) with no indication that they wished for something that could not, in theory at least, happen. Even if 35 Johnston (1999) 238-41 has argued that dedications of unfinished garments, mentioned in temple inventories from this sanctuary, which are copies of those found at Brauron, may be explained as handiwork left unfinished by w o m e n w h o s e death in childbed interrupted their work. These unfinished pieces were dedicated to Iphigeneia by the families of the women for the sake of ensuring her goodwill for the husband and any future children he might have. Linders (1972) 17-19 suggests that the unfinished pieces, often dedicated together with woof and wool, were symbolic offerings to Artemis in her capacity as protectress of female handicraft. Cf. Kondis (1967) 189. B e that as it may, there is no mention of Iphigeneia in the dedications and Euripides' reference to the clothes ( π έ π λ ω ν / . . . ε ϋ π ή ν ο υ ς ύ φ ά ς , 1464-65; cf. 312) does not seem to imply unfinished pieces.

462

Commentary

that were the case, the discrepancy would not necessarily worry Euripides or his first audience. If L's reading έκσώσασα at 1469 is kept, then a lacuna has to be postulated either after έξεφίεμαι (Brodaeus) or after οΰνεκ' (Reiske). If not, the brevity of the instructions alone does not justify postulation of a lacuna; see next n. It is unclear to whom Athena appoints the task of transporting the women to Greece. As the text stands, and if no lacuna is postulated, the lines about the chorus seem to be addressed to Iphigeneia. Thoas would be a more natural choice for Athena's addressee since he has jurisdiction over the women, but Athena seems to turn her attention to the king again only at the very end of her speech (1474). Orestes, the addressee of the next lines and the person in charge of transporting Iphigeneia and the statue to Greece, may have been enjoined to undertake the task. If so, it is likely that the chorus would leave immediately on his ship, as D. Kovacs, "One Ship or Two: The End of the "Iphigeneia in Tauris"" EMC n.s. 18.1 (1999) 19-23, argues. A problem with this view is that the ship may have already sailed away. None of the references to the departing Greeks in the speech of Athena (1444-45, 1446-48, 1473-74) and the response of Thoas (148083) indicates unambiguously that the ship has already left the Taurian harbor. 1490-91, however, if spoken by the chorus, point clearly in that direction. Even if spoken by Athena, they do not imply that the chorus are included in the addressees, and 1487-89 may also indicate that the Greeks are already on their way. If no lacuna is postulated and the Greek ship has already sailed away, then Athena may address her instructions to no one in particular, but Thoas is the only one in a position to send the women back to Greece. έκπέμπειν, which means either 'send out' or 'bring out', 'escort out', was probably chosen on purpose, έξεφίεμαι: the very emphatic verb occurs again only in the report of Teucer's most urgent command not to allow Ajax to leave his hut on the fateful day (S. Aj. 795). Willink on Or. 191 notes Euripides' fondness for έ κ - compounds with intensive force; cf. Bond on Here. 18. If no lacuna intervenes, there are three more (έκπέμπειν, έξέσωσα, έκκομίζου) in seven lines (146773), although έκπέμπειν is not merely intensifying. 1469b-72. έξέσωσα: this is the reading of some MSS of the sch. on Ar. R. 685 while others read έκσώσασα, as does L. With έξέσωσα no lacuna needs to be postulated. Athena's failure to specify the chorus' destination and to explain why the recalcitrant Furies will stop pursuing Orestes does not point to a lacuna because the speech glosses over several issues that a modern audience at least would like to learn more

Commentary

463

about; cf. on 1435-74. Besides, the reference to the Furies would be more likely to follow than to precede the mention of the Areopagus trial and the institutionalization of the tie vote as legal ground for the defendant's acquittal. The establishment of the temple of the Furies who accepted the verdict of the Areopagus trial was mentioned at 968-69, and thus the audience could easily assume that the rest of the Furies would join their sisters there, either of their own accord or persuaded by Athena, as in Aeschylus' Eumenides. The mention of the chorus' righteous attitude brings to the speaker's mind Orestes' similar disposition (cf. 560) and her reward of it in the Areopagus trial and at present. ψήφους ϊσας/ κρίνασ': it is umlikely that Athena simply counted the votes; Orestes could only be saved if a majority of jurors cast acquitting votes or if a tie vote led to his acquittal. In her capacity as presiding magistrate, Athena decided, before or after the counting but certainly, according to unanimous ancient testimony, in connection with this trial for the first time, that the tie vote would acquit the defendant. For Athena's role in the trial see on 964-66. She did not follow existing legal practice because, if she did, the aition would be pointless. She set a new legal precedent and here she institutionalizes it. This institutionalization harks back to Aeschylus (Eum. 741) who apparently invented it; cf. Sommerstein (1989) 5-6. νόμισμ': see on 970. εσται τόδε: the last of Markland's universally accepted and ingenious emendations in this play (cf. on 1487-88). Dupuy had already suggested εσται or έστω for L's impossible είς ταυτό γε. ΐσήρεις: the adj. occurs only here and resurfaces in Nicander (Ther. 643, 788) -ήρης has become a mere suffix; cf. Fraenkel on A. Ag. 1442-43 (p. 682). 1473-74. The speech ends in ring-composition: Athena addresses and admonishes again the two adversaries in the thwarted confrontation, Orestes and Thoas. έκκομίζου: for the verb cf. 774, 1362. The emphasis on Iphigeneia to the exclusion of the statue points for the last time in the play to the affection between the siblings. 1475-85. Thoas' response echoes closely Athena's speech. The king begins and ends with an address to the goddess, just as she started and ended with an address to him (1435-36, 1474). He agrees to obey her and promises to do everything she asks him to, roughly in reverse order. After the introductory gnome (1475-76), he responds to Athena's last admonition not to be angry (1477-78 ~ 1474) and concludes by explicitly complying with her first order to stop the operation against Orestes (1484-85 ~ 1437). He echoes Athena's own words throughout,

464

Commentary

especially her verbs (1478 ~ 1474, 1481 ~ 1453, 1482 and 1483 ~ 1467-68, 1484 ~ 1437). For his reply see also on 1477-79. The piety of the king, and by implication his people, is unquestionable and, unlike the relationship of the protagonists to the gods, uncomplicated by previous negative experiences. Despite the Taurians' reverence of the statue and their attachment to the cult of Artemis, Thoas expresses no regret for the removal of the sacred image and does not mention the human sacrifices. Athena's failure to censure the Taurians and their cult in her speech as well as the easy understanding between the goddess and Thoas may be viewed as an indication that the human sacrifices were most probably agreeable to, if not demanded by, Artemis herself. For the human sacrifices cf. Introduction Ic(l) and on 1435-74. 1475-76. The gnome encapsulates the manifesto of the pious worshipper, expressed, as often, in terms of mental sanity, α ν α σ σ ' Ά θ ά ν α : for the address at the beginning of the line cf. Tr. 52 and A. Eum. 235, 443 and 892. For άπιστος = 'disobedient' cf. A. S. 842, 846, 875 and 1030. Köchly and Wecklein also cite Η. II. 1.216-18, Achilles' pious reply to Athena's admonition to refrain from killing Agamemnon, as a model for the present gnome and Thoas' attitude. But Achilles points out that he will obey the goddess despite his great anger. Thoas will state immediately below that the siblings' departure with the statue does not upset him (1477-78); cf. next n. 1477-79. 1479 is problematic and has been excised by Diggle. Its content is implied by the question (if such it is) τί γάρ (Reiske) at the end of 1478 but this alone is no reason to excise the line. It is more important that in 1477-78 Thoas states that he is not angry with the siblings. It is unlikely that he would then justify his equanimity by pointing out that there is no benefit in struggling against the powerful gods. Dei ex machina ask mortals to do or not to do very specific things. At the end of their speeches they sometimes acknowledge the emotions of their addressees, as Athena does in this play (1474) and indirectly at the end of Ion (1614-15); cf. the end of Andromache (1270-72), which echoes in ring-composition Thetis' first admonition to Peleus (1233-34). The mortals are asked to carry out divine orders but they are not obliged to change their emotional response, although the gods urge them to. A mortal does not disobey the gods by continuing being sad or angry. At the end of Electra, for instance, Orestes and Electra obey the Dioscuri but remain devastated by their crime and imminent separation.

Commentary

465

Thoas here speaks as a pious worshipper and not a reluctant weaker party. He first states that he is willing to obey Athena because all mortals in their right mind obey the gods (1475-76). Before he states his agreement with Athena's orders, namely to allow the chorus to return to Greece and to stop pursuing the fugitives (1482-85), he points out that he obeys without anger (1477-78), just as the goddess urged him to do (1474). The reason is that Athena revealed to him the role of fate (1438-41b) and thus eliminated the cause of his fury. Thoas ordered the pursuit of the Greeks because he thought that they had offended Artemis (1425-26; cf. 1414-18). After Athena's revelations he, as a sane and pious man, no longer has any quarrel with the Greeks. This rationale would be disturbed by a reference to his yielding to force. Athena's reference to the universal sway of the destined order of things (τό χρεών) in her praise of his compliance at 1486 also implies that he defers to destiny, βέβηκ' may indicate that Orestes has already sailed away or simply that he has escaped (cf. 1289); cf. next n. τί γάρ; for the elliptical question see GP 85-86. 1480. ιτωσαν: this form of the third pers. plural imp. becomes commoner much later, in the third century BC. The only other extant example in verse is Ion 1131 (εστωσαν). 1482-83. εύδαίμονα: cf. on 1088. Thoas' promise to comply with Athena's order and send the women of the chorus back to Greece does not contain anything not present in 1467-68. The promise is not a proof that the order was addressed to Thoas or that there is no lacuna after 1468, which obliterated Athena's specifications about the chorus' exact destination or their fate in Greece (cf. on 1467b-69a). Nevertheless, Thoas' reference to Greece as the women's destination is likely to echo Athena's instructions (cf. on 1475-85), i.e. to indicate that the goddess did not specify Athens (or another city) as the women's destination and thus that there was no lacuna. 1484-85. The end of the speech states explicitly what has been implied all along, that Thoas will not pursue the fugitives, λόγχην: cf. on 1326 (δόρυ), θεά: for L's reading θεά (= θεάι) see on 1233. 1486. αινώ: for praise of the previous speaker's words see Here. 275, Peliad. fr. 603.1, Rh. 191; cf. Al. 1093 and 1095, Md. 908, Tr. 53, Ion 1614, Or. 786. See also Introduction 111(4). τό γάρ χρεών σου τε και θεών κρατεί: the coupling of Thoas with the gods implies no special relationship of the king to them but it is clearly meant to reinforce, sue-

466

Commentary

cinctly and strikingly, his laudable behavior. In most of the passages just cited the praise is backed up by a gnome. For monosyllabic χρεών, also found at Temenid. fr. 733.3, see Diggle (1981) 93. τό χρεών, 'what must be', the appointed order of things, is an impersonal power that dominates all beings; cf. Hi. 1256, El. 1301, Here. 21, HI. 1636. It is more akin to fate or destiny, which was mentioned at 1438, than to brute necessity. Fate is the highest, universal form of necessity but its universality and its detachment from any particular circumstances makes it easier for mortals to accept. The relationship of gods, especially Zeus, and various abstractions or divinities such as Fate, Necessity and Chance has been fluid and shifting from Homer onwards; see on 89 and cf. Bond on Here. 828. Athena's praise harks back to 143741b and may imply the rationale of Thoas' compliance with her orders; see on 1477-79. 1487-89. L surprisingly attributes the lines to Apollo (and lists him also in the dramatis personae after Athena). Aldina restored the lines to Athena. References to good sailing weather and/or divine escorts are naturally quite common in voyage contexts; cf. 1123-37 and HI. 14511511 with Kannicht's n.; cf. also Ion 1616-17, HI. 1663-65, S. Ph. 1464-71. ϊτ', ώ πνοαί: for other invocations to the breezes see Diggle on Pha. 82 (fr. 773.38). ναυσθλοΰτε: the verb is rare and much better attested in the active than the middle, in which it is transmitted here, τον 'Αγαμέμνονος/ π α ΐ δ ' : Markland plausibly suggested the dual τώ γαμέμνονος/ π α ΐ δ ' (= τάγαμέμνονος [cf. 769] παΐδε) because both children of Agamemnon are bound for Athens. Athena, however, may plausibly mention only Orestes because he is in charge of the trip and of Iphigeneia's transport to Athens (cf. 1473), as the goddess herself is in charge of the safe passage of the statue of her sister to Athens (1488-89). Athena's promise to protect Artemis' holy image by escorting it to Athens is the last occurrence of the motif of sibling affection in the play. Following so soon after the latest problem with the wind, the promise may also be the last implicit indication in the play that chance is likely to strike again unpredictably and that Athena's intervention will be necessary. (For the role of chance in the storm see on 1391bff.) If such implication is present, shortly before the end of the siblings' troubles, i.e. the final execution of the plan of fate, then the uncertainty in human and divine affairs continues to make itself felt, however slightly, and to extend beyond the limits of the play. If Athena arrived on the crane, she is swung away at this point but the appeal to the breezes does not necessarily imply that she has to

Commentary

467

leave airborne, especially since the use of the crane would compromise the suddenness of her appearance; see on 1435-74. 1490-91. These anapaestic lines are attributed to Athena in L but assigned to the chorus by Seidler. An address to the departing Greeks which includes the same verb as the address to the breezes at 1487 would form a strange coda to Athena's words. If the lines are spoken by the chorus, then the women will not leave on Orestes' ship; for the chorus' departure see on 1467b-69a. ιτ' έπ' εύτυχίαι της σωιζομένης/ μοίρας εΰδαίμονες οντες: Barrett on Hi. 1462-66 has rejected both 1490-91 and 1492-96 as alternative, clumsy tailpieces before the certainly spurious 1497-99 (see n.). He considers 1490-91 barely intelligible. To extract some sense out of the lines ("go in your good fortune, happy to be counted among the number of the saved" [Morwood]), έπ' εύτυχίαι should not be construed with της σωιζομένης μοίρας and οντες should be construed with both της σωιζομένης μοίρας and εΰδαίμονες (Aldina's correction of L's εύδαίμονος; δντες Tr1 οντος L). L's reading cannot stand because "go in the good fortune of the happy lot of the saved" is gibberish and της σωιζομένης μοίρας εύδαίμονος οντες is no improvement. της σωιζομένης μοίρας may echo σώιζουσ' in the previous line but the only parallel for the phrase is Aristid. 33.31 Keil (II p. 582 Dindorf); cf. P. P. 3.60 and Plu. Num. 2. Barrett is right that the chorus could leave the stage in silence but in this play the women are the only Greek characters onstage to respond to Athena's speech and they have every reason to be happy and vocal. If these lines and 1492-96 are inauthentic, then they must have replaced genuine ones and not be a mere addition. 1492-96. For Barrett's objections to these lines see previous n. 1494 may be thought to imply that the chorus have heard some instructions from Athena, which they now promise to follow. This would reinforce the argument for a lacuna after 1468 but it is certainly not enough to support it by itself. Besides, it is unlikely that Athena addressed the women or ordered them to do anything, so their consent is otiose, τερπνήν κάνέλπιστον is a very plausible, and thus genuine-sounding, description of Athena's announcement of the chorus' return to Greece but φήμην is suspect. L's τερπνόν, emended by L. Dindorf, is a mistake probably due to άνέλπιστον. [1497-99]. This formulaic prayer to Victory, which stands completely outside the play, is also found at the end of Phoenissae, Orestes and in

468

Commentary

some manuscripts of Hippolytus (also cited without author's name in Luc. Pise. 39). It is spurious because, unlike comedies, tragedies do not end with prayers of this sort (see Mastronarde on Ph. 1764-66). Another formulaic ending (πολλαί μορφαί των δαιμονίων,/ πολλά δ' άέλπτως κραίνουσι θεοί·/ και τά δοκηθέντ' ούκ έτελέσθη,/ των δ' αδόκητων πόρον ηΰρε θεός./ τοιόνδ' άπέβη τόδε πράγμα) that does not stand outside the plays is found in five Euripidean tragedies (Alcestis, Medea with different first line, Andromache, Helena, Bacchae). Barrett on Hi. 1462-66 argues that all formulaic endings, and some of the others, are inauthentic and probably later additions of actors. For objections to Barrett's view see Willink on Or. 1691-93. Others suggest that the endings formally mark closure; see D. Roberts, "Parting Words. Final Lines in Sophocles and Euripides" CQ 37 (1987) 51-64 and Dunn (1996) 14-25. Since there is nothing that distinguishes the plays with formulaic endings from the rest, it is unclear why, and thus rather unlikely that, Euripides would decide to mark closure in this way only in some plays, μέγα σεμνή Νίκη: for other instances of the juncture μέγα σεμνή see FJW on A. 5M. 141 ~ 151 who also cite other examples of the use of μέγα as an adverb with adj. L has Νίκα and some MSS of Lucian σεμνά Νίκα but the switch to Doric is unjustified. Thoas, the messenger and all extras exit by the right parodos that leads to the city, the palace and the shore. If the chorus are to leave on Orestes' ship (see on 1476b-69a), they also exit by the same parodos. If not, they may exit by the left parodos that leads to their living quarters but it is also possible that they follow Thoas in order to be sent to Greece by him immediately.

Metrical analysis of lyric parts

Ρ arodos, amoibaion

123-235

Lyric anapaests throughout, with no strophic responsion. Only 126-27 are dragged dochmii ( ); see Dale (1968 2 ) 59-60 and cf. West (1982) 121. As is common in lyric anapaestic systems (sometimes called threnodic), long syllables and acatalectic dimeters ( - ) predominate, but catalectic dimeters ( LJU UU WU UU UU u u - ) are frequent too, especially at period ends (131, 136, 147, 152, 156, 166, 169, 178, 207, 235). Period ends without catalexis are found at 125, 137, 138, 161, 174, 217, 221, 228, 231. There are also a few monometers (123, 143, 151, 153, 157, 185, 188, 2 0 2 and perhaps 190). Absence of word division between metra is common (125, 140, 148, 152, 158, 160, 161, 162, 165, 181, 186, 199, 201, 205, 227, 228, 230, 234). 197, 213, 220 and 232 consist of, or include, a series of shorts. The first two are corrupt and thus metrically uncertain. West (1982) 123-24 takes 2 1 3 ( u u u u u u ) and 220 (u u u u u u υ u u u u u) as anapaestic (with tribrachic anapaests in place of regular ones) and 232 (uu u u uu u u uu u u) as a proceleumatic tripody. Diggle (1981) 96 (cf. [1994] 315-16) more plausibly takes 220 and 2 3 2 as resolved iambic dimeters.

First stasimon 392-455 The first pair is more varied than the second, possibly as befits its more varied content (mythological introduction, speculations about the current situation and gnomic reflection). It may be labeled iambic, aeolochoriambic or dactylo-epitrite, the characterization favored by Dale (1971) 86-87. Itsumi (1991-93) suggests that it contains several enoplians. The second pair, which focuses almost exclusively on real or imagined trips, is aeolo-choriambic, with several choriambic dimeters (or wilamowitzians), both acatalectic and catalectic. For this metre see Itsumi (1982). Both pairs end with the common pherecratean clausula. There seem to be four periods in the first pair, although there may be an additional one at 394 ~ 409, and five in the second - in the second strophe the rhetorical pauses are quite weak.

Metrical analysis of lyric parts

472

a. strophe 392-406 = 407-421 antistrophe - u u - | - u u - | u u - u u - u f u u 395

v v I - u

-f

—

cho cho Acho ba1

I

2

- u u | u - u | u u u - u | 11

ia ia b a

u u - υ u - u I | u u

—

reiz pher3

II

u - 1 u u u u I CJÜ U ü ü I u u u u 400

u - u I —

1

ia ia i a ia s p hag5

u u I— u — 1 |

u - u Iu - u u - u | - u | - u

405

4

—

I —

—

I —1 u u —u —

I

—

I- u u —

—

I

e r a s m ith6 sp sp

III

gl pher

b. strophe 422-438 = 439-455 antistrophe -I —

u u - u - |

— - u u -1 u -

1 2 3

4 5

6 7

8

gl7 tel8

For Acho ba cf. S. Ant. 609. Itsumi (1991-93) 255 takes 393 - 408 as hemiepes and bacchius (among iambics). Iambus and dochmius? Since no dochmii appear in this song, syncopated iambi would be more plausible. For an emendation that scans as an iambic trimeter see n. Itsumi (1991-93) 245 and 260 divides 396 - 411 differently ( Ά σ ι ή τ ι δ α γ α ί α ν Εύρώ-| π α ς δ ι α μ ε ί ψ α ς ~ φ ι λ ό π λ ο υ τ ο ν α μ ι λ λ α ν αΰξον-Ι τ ε ς μ ε λ ά θ ρ ο ι σ ι ν ) obtaining an enoplian dicolon, u u - u u - u — (diomedean) and - u u — (identical to adonean). H e points out (255 n. 39) that this and the third stasimon are among the few examples of odes that combine glyconic and kindred cola with enoplians. Reading A l d i n a ' s φ ί λ α γ α ρ έ λ π ί ς έ γ έ ν ε τ ' έ π ί π ή μ α σ ι β ρ ο τ ώ ν at 414. For other emendations that produce three iambi see n. Itsumi (1991-93) 246 and 260 divides 400 - 415 differently ( λ ι π ό ν τ ε ς Εύ-| ρ ώ τ α ν ή ρ ε ύ μ α τ α σ ε μ ν ά Δ ί ρ κ α ς ~ ά π λ η σ τ ο ς άν-| θ ρ ώ π ο ι ς δ λ β ο υ β ά ρ ο ς ο'ί φ έ ρ ο ν τ α ι ) obtaining an iambic prefix ( u - u - ) , an erasmonidean with contracted first double short ( u u - u ) and a spondaic suffix. The enoplian interpretation is supported by the next colon and hagesichorean may be considered another basic form of enoplian, very similar to erasmonidean but with a single short instead of the second double short. For other instances of this dicolon see Itsumi (1991-93) 245. 439 (εϊθ' ε ύ χ α ΐ σ ι ν δ ε σ π ο σ ΰ ν ο ι ς ) is a choriambic dimeter ( - | u u - | ) ; cf. 1092 - 1109, 1096 - 1113, 1097 - 1114 and for other examples see Diggle (1994) 195. For the text of 4 2 3 see n.

Metrical analysis of lyric parts -1 — 425

u u -

dodr

- u u u u - υ u u u |- υ -

cho cho cr 9

- | u u - u —1|

ar

u —

chodim

ü - u u - l 1 Iu -

Achodim

— u - u u -11 430

Achodim

— u - u u - l

Achodim

u u — I

paroem

1 - u u -11

Achodim

1 u u -1

dodr

— u - u u -11 435

473

Achodim cho cho 10

—Iu u — u u - Ι ΰ - l ü - u u -

chodim

—u —I — u u -

chodim

I u u — III

pher

Kommos 643-656 Dochmiac, except for two spoken trimeters by Orestes and Pylades (646 and 650); probably without responsion between the parts addressed by the chorus to the two men. For this kind of system cf. on 827-99 below. u u u - u - |u — u - | 645

u u u u u u u

647

u u u - u u u — u -1

651

- u u

u u u - u - u u u

9

1

do do

1| " 12

cr cr cr II

do d o do

This could also be choriamb and telesillean, but that would produce divided resolution at 442, which is hardly paralleled. See Diggle (1994) 122 n. 94. 10 For the two choriambs cf. Or. 839. 11 The text and metre are uncertain. Without emendation, the line can be understood as a fully resolved iambus and a syncopated or catalectic dochmius; for such dochmii see West (1982) 111. Alternatively, the line may be emended to produce two dochmii; cf. n. 12 For other examples of series of cretics staying within the boundaries of the metron (also IT 832) see Diggle (1994) 393.

Metrical analysis of lyric parts

474

do

u u u - u -1 t U UU U 655

lit

u u u - u u u u u u u u u u u u - u - u

—

do do

-

do do

u — 111

Amoibaion 827-899 As in the kommos, Orestes speaks in iambic trimeters (831, 841, 85051, 855, 862, 866). Iphigeneia starts with an iambic trimeter but then sings mainly in dochmiacs, with some admixture of iambic, cretic, trochaic and dactylic elements. Astrophic lyrics in duets and alternation of one voice speaking (in iambics) and one singing are common in Euripides. See Dale (1968 2 ) 208 and Mastronarde on Ph. 88-201 Metre. —

u - u - u - u - u - |

iaiaia

f u - u - u - u u - u u u u u u - f

1 3

830

- u u - u -11

do

832

u u u u u I u u u u u I u u u -1

er er cr 1

u - u

ia ia ia

—

u u u

u -11

cr 1 5

t UU U | t u u | 835

u u u I - u - u

u u -

u -1

do do

u uuI - u-11

do'6

—

ia ia ia

—

u - | u - u - u - u - | u -1 - u -1

840

u —

842

u u u - u - 1 u u u - u -11

u - 1 u - u u u -11

ia cr do do do do

13 With Diggle's emendation έχω σ', Ό ρ έ σ τ α , τηλΰγετον σύμενον/ χθονός άποπρό πατρίδος, the lines produce iambelegus ( u - u - u | - u u - l u u - | ) and fully resolved dochmius ( u u | u υ υ I u u u I). Sansone does not emend and scans as ennneasyllable and dochmius, but he suggests that emendation which produces iambelegus is possibly necessary. Jackson (1955) 35 points out that the iambelegus forms a natural transition from the initial iambi to the following dochmii. 14 Cf. on 647 above. With Bothe's emendation δάκρυα the line may be scanned as two dochmii or even as syncopated iambi; see Diggle (1981) 20, (1994) 393 n. 99. 15 For cretics prefixed to dochmiacs at the beginning of a period see Diggle (1994) 373-74. With his emendation ov ετι βρέφος , the line produces a resolved dochmius. 16 The repetition of νεαρόν does not fall into the usual patterns of word-repetition in dochmiac; see Diggle (1994) 378.

475

Metrical analysis of lyric parts

845

u - u - | u - u - | u - u - |

iaiaia

- u u - u -11

do

u - u - u - u - | u - u - |

iaiaia

u —

do

u -1

υ u u - u -1 u u u - u -1

do do

u u - u u - u u - u u - |

an an

849

- u —

er cr

852

u —

u u u I - u u - u -1

u —

u - 1 u u u - u -11

do do

u u u - u -1 - u u - u -1

do do

856

- uu

u -11

1 u u u - u -1

860

u u u - u - 1 u u u - u -11

863

u uu u uu u uu u uu I

u -1 u — 865

- u

867

- u - u - u -11 - uu

870

u

do do do do

||

do do ia ia

u —I 1

lec lec u-|

do do dodo 17

l-uuuuuuul

u u u u u u u u u u u - u -1

dodo 18

u —

do

u -11

-ut--ut-u--|| 875

do do

-

u

1 9

u - -11

tr tr

an an20

u u —u u — I u u —u u — I u u u u u u - | u u u u u u 880

1

1

do

u u - u u - u u - u u - l l uu u uu I - uu

1 u uu

do do an an cr 2 1

1|

do do

17 For this unusual type of dochmius see Diggle (1994) 185. 18 For other examples of divided resolution in the final element of a dochmius see Diggle (1994) 378 n. 53. 19 Probably a trochaic dimeter (with Bothe's α ύ τ ο ΐ ς for α ύ τ ο ΐ σ ι ) , like 875; see Diggle (1994) 150. For other emendations that produce this metre see n. 20 The dimeter is produced with repetition of τ ί ν α σ ο ι (Diggle); other emendations (see Platnauer's n.) are more invasive. Without intervention, the line scans as anapaestic tripody; Sansone calls it prosodiac. 21 Another example of cretic prefixed to dochmiacs at the beginning of a metrical period; see on 834.

Metrical analysis o f lyric parts

476

u u - u u - u - u 885

890

- u u

I

II

enopl22 do

u u - u u - l u u - u u - u l

an an u 2 3

- u u - u u

6 da

u u - u u — I

υ u u - u -1 u u u - u -

do do

u

do

II

u - u u — 895

—

II

do ( = reiz)24

f u u - u u - | u u - u u - | u - u u —

an an

I

u u u u u - u u u l t u —

u - | u —

u —

u -111

2 5

u - |

do do do

Second stasimon 1089-1152 Aeolic throughout, mainly glyconics, pherecrateans and choriambic dimeters. (The latter also featured prominently in the second pair of the first stasimon; see n.) This metrical choice is common in late Euripides; see West (1982) 115-16 and Mastronarde on Ph. 202-60 Metre. The last period of the second pair passes into dactyls with ithyphallic clausula. There are probably three periods, corresponding to rhetorical pauses in the first pair, the first of medium length, the second very short and the third quite long, although there is also a pause at 1102 ~ 1119. The second pair has probably four periods, also matched by sense pauses, but their length increases very regularly (2, 3, 4, 5 lines), unless one postulates a pause also at 1133 ~ 1149. With the partial exception of the second strophe, the longest periods, perhaps reflecting the rise in emotion, 2 2 Also 1251 ~ 1275. For other examples o f this combination (diomedean + spondee) see Dale ( 1 9 6 8 2 ) 171 and Itsumi ( 1 9 9 1 - 9 3 ) 2 4 6 . Sansone scans 8 8 4 as anapaest and pendant iambus, 1250 [ 1 2 5 1 ] as acephalous glyconic (telesillean) and bacchius. 2 3 Instead o f hypercatalectic anapaestic dimeter Platnauer scans as single anapaest and paroemiac, pointing out that the single anapaest is strange. 2 4 Cf. 8 9 6 ; for aeolic cola in dochmiac sequences see West ( 1 9 8 2 ) 113. D i g g l e ' s τ ά λ α ι ν ' < έ γ ώ > τ ά λ α ι ν α gives iambus and bacchius. 2 5 With the emendations o f Bruhn and Hermann respectively, 8 9 6 (τί < μ έ σ ο ν τ ώ ν δ ' öv> των α δ ό κ η τ ω ν ) scans as anapaestic dimeter and 8 9 7 (άπορων πόρον or πόρον εΰπορον έ ξ α ν ύ σ α ς ) as prosodiac; cf. on 8 7 6 above. With D i g g l e ' s έ ξ α ν ΰ < σ > σ α ς , 897 produces enoplian.

Metrical analysis of lyric parts

All

are dedicated to the chorus' reminiscences of their life in Greece and its sad reversal in Tauris. In the last stanza the absence of rhetorical pause between third and fourth period accentuates the effect.

a. strophe 1089-1105 = 1106-1122 antistrophe

1090

1095

1100

1105

luu-ujwl - ü - u u | - u - | υ υ υ ! - υ υ — I - υ υ - | υ υ - | υ - | υ υ υ - | υ υ - υ - | — II υ — |uu-u-| --|-uu|--|| υ -1 uu-l u - l - u - u u - l - l u u - u u - l u υ I - υ u -1 — ü - u u | u I u u u I u -29 uu-l Uü uu-l u u u | - u u - | u - I — u u — III

gl gl pher gl26 glsp gl pher chodim27 chodim28 gl chodim Achodim chodim chodim chodim gl pher

26 - υ u is an uncommon form of base resolution in aeolic cola. For glyconics with this resolution, identical with the ibycean, cf. 1098 - 1115,1144, Ph. 208, IA 169 ~ 190, 759 ~ 770 and see West (1982) 116 n. 100 and Itsumi (1984) 71-72. 1109 (όλομένων έν ν α υ σ ι ν εβαν) is a choriambic dimeter ( u u u - | u I u - I); cf. on 422 ~ 439. There is no reason to emend in order to achieve more precise responsion between 1092 and 1109. 27 1113 is a glyconic ( - u I - u υ - u - I); cf. 422 ~ 439 and 1092 - 1109. Itsumi (1982) 68 n. 28 points out that in choriambic dimeter (wilamowitzian) contexts the value of aeolic base is the same in strophe and antistrophe; u - corresponds to - u only in 1096 and 1113. 28 1114 is a glyconic ( u - 1 - u u - u - 1 ) ; cf. the previous two nn. 29 Perhaps ιερόν should be scanned as ίρόν, which would give unresolved long in the choriamb. There is no certain instance of resolution in the first element of Euripidean aeolo-choriambics; see Diggle (1994) 470-71.

Metrical analysis of lyric parts

478

b. strophe 1123-1137 = 1138-1152 antistrophe - u l - u u

1

u u l - u

- u —

u u

chodim

- u u - | u -

u ZZi

u u

- U - Ü t u u

tel

II u - u u -

y u u

—

chodim30

l u u - l

u —

1135

chodim

u - u u -

1125

1130

gl hipp

— II

—

gi 3 1 chodim

-

chodim32 ?33

- l u u - l l | u - u

u u -1 u

?34

-

- u u - u u u u - u u - u u - u u - u u - ü

u y

t

735

4 daA 3 6 ith

UZj U - U - - I I I

Third Stasimon The most varied song, in free dactylo-epitrites, which suit the lyric narrative, with some iambi, choriambic dimeters (wilamowitzians) and enoplians. Anapaestic end with ithyphallic clausula, similar to the previous stasimon. The textual problems of the strophe exacerbate the difficulties presented by the metrical variety. After the first, two longer 30 L's κ ά λ α μ ο ς ούρείου Πανός produces u u u l I | ( ~ 1141 πτέρυγας έν νώτοις άμοΐς), which is difficult to categorize. It may be a contracted glyconic. Lachmann emended 1141 to έν νώτοις άμοΐς πτέρυγας. 31 Markland suggested έπτατόνου κέλαδον in order to produce exact responsion with 1144 but this is not necessary, especially since the text of the antistrophe is likely corrupt. For the resolution - u u c f . on 1092. 32 The simplest emendation of 1146 that produces responsion with 1131 is ματρός. 33 ές ά μ ι λ λ α ς χαρίτων at 1147 is an acephalous choriambic dimeter. Cropp scans 1132-33 too as acephalous choriambic dimeters ( u u I u u - I) by printing Dale's έμέ δ' αΰτοΰ ροθίοις/ βήσηι λ ι π ο ΰ σ α π λ ά τ α ι ς ; cf. next n. 34 Murray scanned as choriambic dimeter (with ροθίοισι) and printed χ α ί τ α ς άβρόπλουτον εριν at 1148. Other emendations make 1148 a telesillean ( χ α ί τ α ς άβροπλούτοιο Tr 2 ) or an acephalous choriambic dimeter (άβροπλούτοιο χ λ ι δ α ς Markland). (Cropp prints England's άβροπλοΰτου τε χλιδας). 35 1149-50 (εις εριν/ όρνυμένα πολυποίκιλα φάρεα) is five dactyls. 36 For other examples of catalectic dactylic tetrameter see Diggle (1994) 386.

Metrical analysis of lyric parts

479

periods flank a substantially shorter one, with matching rhetorical pauses marking important developments in the story of Apollo's acquisition of the oracle and establishment of his oracular exclusivity. The last period may be broken down in two (at 1251 ~ 1275) or more periods, especially since there is some rhetorical pause at the end of virtually every line to the end of the stanzas. strophe 1234-58 = 1259-1283 antistrophe Ü -1 u - - | 1235

-

u-ll

u u - u u

—

ia c r u u -

u u - |

hem hem

U - U - U U -

Achodim

- | u u - u u | - u u - u u 1240

u u -

U U — u u

—

4 da

u u

—u u

4 da

—j

prosod

u - u - u u - u -

enneas

-1 ϋ

chodim

U U —j ϋ - υ υ -

chodim

- - u u - | u u - | | 1245

u u - u u - u - u - u 1250

Iυ - I

tel ia 3 7

u -

tel ia 3 8

- Ü -

u u - u u -

y u u

υ u u |υ υ |υ υ I u u I υ u u - u u - u - u u u υ —

υ

υ u u - u u 1255

chodim

u u - u u - u |

-1

u|

h y p o d an ia39 ia ia enopl40

— I 1 υ υ -1 υ υ

—

υ-11

-1

| u - |

[υ —I—υ —υ —I u u - u u - u u - u u - — |u-| - υ - υ — III

cr cr p r o s o d d o d r ia ia do hypod a n a n ia ith

37 Itsumi (1991-93) 246 considers both this line and the next as enoplians (diomedean + cretic). 38 See previous n. 39 For the text of 1249 s e e n . 40 For this combination (diomedean + spondee) cf. on 884 above.

Bibliography

Greek authors and texts are abbreviated mostly as in LS J9 and journals as in L'Annee Philologique. The text of Euripides is cited from the edition of J. Diggle, Euripides Fabulae I-III (Oxford 1981-94), of Aeschylus from the edition of M.L. West, Aeschylus Tragoediae (Stuttgart 1990) and of Sophocles from the edition of H. Lloyd-Jones & N.G. Wilson, Sophoclis Fabulae (Oxford 1990). Fragments of Aeschylus and Sophocles are cited from the edition of S. Radt, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta 3 and 4 (Göttingen 1985, 1999 2 ) and of Euripides from that of R. Kannicht, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta 5 (Göttingen 2004). When the commentaries of Bond on Hypsipyle, Kambitsis on Antiope and Diggle on Phaethon are cited, their numbering is given first and that of TrGF follows in parenthesis. Fragments of other tragic poets are cited f r o m the edition of B. Snell, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta 1 (Göttingen 1971). The numbering of comic fragments follows the edition of R. Kassel & C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin/New York 1983-) unless otherwise indicated. Fragments of cyclic epic poets are referred to from A. Bernabe, Poetae Epici Graeci (Leipzig 1987); of S a p p h o and Alcaeus from E.-M. Voigt, Sappho et Alcaeus (Amsterdam 1971); of Alcman, Stesichorus and Ibycus from M. Davies, Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta I (Oxford 1991); of other lyric poets f r o m PMG and SLG\ of elegiac and iambic poets f r o m M.L. West, Iambi et Elegi Graeci I II (Oxford 1989-92 2 ); of Pindar f r o m B. Snell-H. Maehler, Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis II (Leipzig 1989 5 ) and of Bacchylides f r o m B. Snell-H. Maehler, Bacchylidis Carmina cum Fragmentis II (Leipzig 1970 10 ).

Editions of Euripides' IT and commentaries on the play The following list contains only fairly recent works consulted for the introduction and commentary and cited in them by author's name only. For a comprehensive list of editions of IT see the introduction to Sansone's edition, which also contains full bibliographical references to works of textual criticism cited in the commentary by author's name only. See also Diggle (1994) 518 n. 21, 521-22. Bruhn, Ε. 1894 4 . Iphigenie auf Tauris (Berlin). Cropp, M.J. 2000. Euripides: Iphigenia in Tauris (Warminster). Diggle, J. 1981. Euripidis Fabulae II (Oxford). England, E.B. 1886. The lphigeneia Among the Tauri of Euripides (London). Gregoire, H. 1925, rpr. 1968. Euripide: Les Troyennes, Iphigenie en Tauride, Electre (Paris). Kovacs, D. 1999. Euripides: Trojan Women, Iphigenia Among the Taurians, Ion (Cambridge, Mass.). Platnauer, M . 1938. Euripides: Iphigenia in Tauris (Oxford). Sansone, D. 1981. Euripides: Iphigenia in Tauris (Leipzig). Strohm, H. 1949. Euripides: Iphigenie im Taurerlande (Munich, rpr. Darmstadt 1968). Wecklein, Ν. 1904 3 . Euripides: Iphigenie im Taurierlande (Munich). Weil, Η. 1905 3 . Sept tragedies d'Euripide (Paris).

484

Bibliography

Commentaries on Euripides' other plays Barrett, W.S. 1964. Euripides: Hippolytos (Oxford). Bond, G.W. 1963. Euripides: Hypsipyle (Oxford). Bond, G.W. 1981 .Euripides: Heracles (Oxford). Bubel, F. 1991. Euripides, Andromeda (Frankfurt). Collard, C. 1975. Euripides: Supplices (Groningen). Collard, C., M.J. Cropp & K.H. Lee. 1995. Euripides: Selected Fragmentary (Warminster). Dale, A.M. 1954. Euripides: Alcestis (Oxford). Denniston, J.D. 1939. Euripides: Electra (Oxford). Diggle, J. 1970. Euripides: Phaethon (Cambridge). Dodds, E.R. I960 2 . Euripides: Bacchae (Oxford). Gregory, J. 1999. Euripides: Hecuba (Atlanta). Kambitsis, J. 1972. L Antiope d'Euripide (Athens). Kannicht, R. 1969. Euripides: Helena (Heidelberg). Lee, K.H. 1976. Euripides: Troades (London). Lee, K.H. 1997. Euripides: Ion (Warminster). Mastronarde, D.J. 1994. Euripides: Phoenissae (Cambridge). Mastronarde, D.J. 2002. Euripides: Medea (Cambridge). Page, D.L. 1938. Euripides: Medea (Oxford). Seaford, R. 1988. Euripides: Cyclops (Oxford). Stevens, P.T. 1971. Euripides: Andromache (Oxford). Stockert, W. 1992. Euripides: Iphigenie in Aulis (Vienna). West, M.L. 1987. Euripides: Orestes (Warminster). Wilkins, J. 1995. Euripides: Heraclidae (Oxford). Willink, C.W. 1986. Euripides: Orestes (Oxford).

Plays I

Other commonly cited and reference works Allen-Italie = J.T. Allen & G. Italie, A Concordance to Euripides (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1954). Broadhead, H. D. 1960. The Persae of Aeschylus (Cambridge). Dover, K.J. 1993. Aristophanes: Frogs (Oxford). Dunbar, N. 1995. Aristophanes: Birds (Oxford). FGrHist = F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Leiden 1903-58). FJW = H. Friis Johansen & E.W. Whittle, Aeschylus: The Suppliants (Copenhagen 1980). Fraenkel, E. 1950. Aeschylus: Agamemnon (Oxford). Fräser, J.G. 1921. Apollodorus: The Library (Cambridge, Mass.). Garvie, A.F. 1988.Aeschylus: Choephori (Oxford). Goodwin MT = W.W. Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (Boston 1890). Gow, A.S.F. 1952 2 . Theocritus (Cambridge). GP = J.D. Denniston, The Greek Particles (Oxford 1954 2 ). Griffith, M. 1999, rpr. 2000. Sophocles: Antigone (Cambridge). Hutchinson, G.O. 1985, rpr. 1999. Aeschylus: Seven Against Thebes (Oxford). Jebb, R.C. 1883-1896. Sophocles. 7 vols. (Cambridge). KB = R. Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, part I, 3 rd ed., rev. by F. Blass (Hanover 1890-92).

Bibliography

485

KG = R. Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, part II, 3 rd ed., rev. by Β. Gerth (Hanover and Leipzig 1898-1904). LIMC = Lexicon lconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (Zurich and Munich 19811999). MacDowell, D.M. 1971. Aristophanes: Wasps (Oxford). Maehler, H. 1982. Die Lieder des Bakchylides I. Die Siegeslieder (Leiden). Maehler, H. 1997. Die Lieder des Bakchylides II. Die Dithyramben und Fragmente (Leiden). Olson, S.D. 2002. Aristophanes: Acharnians (Oxford). PMG = D.L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford 1962). Schwyzer = E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik (Munich 1939-53). Smyth = H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. by G. Messing (Harvard 1956). Sommerstein, A.H. 1989. Aeschylus: Eumenides (Cambridge). Sommerstein, A.H. 1996. Aristophanes: Frogs (Warminster). SLG = D.L. Page, Supplementum Lyricis Graecis (Oxford 1974). SVF = H. von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta (Leipzig, 1903-5). Wackernagel = J. Wackernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax. 2 vols. (Basel 1926-28 2 ).

Other works Aretz, S. 1999. Die Opferung der Iphigeneia in Aulis. Die Rezeption des Mythos in antiken und modernen Dramen (Stuttgart and Leipzig). Arnott, P.D. 1962. Greek Scenic Conventions in the Fifth Century BC (Oxford). Bagordo, A. 2003. Reminiszenzen früher Lyrik bei den attischen Tragikern (Munich). Bain, D. 1981. Masters, Servants and Orders in Greek Tragedy (Manchester). Belfiore, E. 2000. Murder Among Friends (Oxford). Bers, V. 1984. Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age (New Haven and London). Björck, G. 1950. Das Alpha impurum und die tragische Kunstsprache (Uppsala). Blundell, M.W. 1989. Helping Friends and Harming Enemies (Cambridge). Bobrick, E. 1991. "Iphigenia Revisited: Thesmophoriazusae 1160-1225", Arethusa 24: 67-76. Breitenbach, W. 1934. Untersuchungen zur Sprache der euripideischen Lyrik (Stuttgart, rpr. Hildesheim 1967). Breiich, A. 1969. Paides e parthenoi (Rome). Brule, P. 1987. Lafille d'Athenes (Paris). Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Tr. J. Raffan (Oxford). Burnett, A.P. 1971. Catastrophe Survived (Oxford). Burnett, A.P. 1991. "Signals from the Unconscious in Early Greek Poetry", CP 86: 275-300. Busch, G. 1937. Untersuchungen zum Wesen der τύχη in den Tragödien des Euripides (Diss. Heidelberg). Buxton, R. 1992. "Iphigenie au bord de la mer", Pallas 38: 209-15. Cairns, D. 1993. Aidos (Oxford). Casabona, J. 1966. Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en grec (Aix-enProvence). Casson, L. 1971. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (Princeton). Cole, S.G. 2000. "Landscapes of Artemis", CW 93: 471-81. Cropp, M.J. 1997. "Notes on Euripides, Iphigeneia in Tauris", ICS 22: 25-41. Cropp, M.J. et al. (eds.). 2000. Euripides and Tragic Theatre in the Late Fifth Century (Champaign, II). Csapo, E. 2000. "Later Euripidean Music", in Cropp et al.: 399-426.

486

Bibliography

Dale, A.M. 1968 2 . The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama (Cambridge). Dale, A.M. 1971. Metrical Analyses of Tragic Choruses. BICS Suppl. 21.1, fasc. 1 (London). de Jong, I.J.F. 1991. Narrative in Drama (Leiden). Deubner, L. 1932. Attische Feste (Berlin, rpr. Darmstadt 1959). Diggle, J. 1981. Studies on the Text of Euripides (Oxford). Diggle, J. 1994. Euripidea (Oxford). Diggle, J. 1998. "Euripides, Bacchae 1063-1069", Eikasmos 9: 41-52. Dillon, M. 2002. Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion (London). Dodd, D.B. & C.A. Faraone (eds.). 2003. Initiation in Ancient Greek Rituals and Narratives (London and New York). Dowden, K. 1989. Death and the Maiden (London). Dunn, F.M. 1996. Tragedy's End (Oxford and New York). Dunn, F.M. 2000. "Euripidean Aetiologies", CB 76: 3-27. Easterling, P.E. 1990. "Constructing Character in Greek Tragedy", in Pelling: 83-99. Ekroth, G. 2003. "Inventing Iphigeneia? On Euripides and the Cultic Construction of Brauron", Kernos 16: 59-118. Faraone, C.A. 2003. "Playing the Bear and the Fawn for Artemis: Female Initiation of Substitute Sacrifice?", in Dodd & Faraone: 43-68. Farneil, L.R. 1896-1909.The Cults of the Greek States. 5 vols. (Oxford). Fehling, D. 1969. Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias (Berlin). Foley, Η.P. 2001. Female Acts in Greek Tragedy (Princeton). Fontenrose, J. 1959. Python (Berkeley), von Fritz, K. 1962. Antike und moderne Tragödie (Berlin). Garland, R. 1985. The Greek Way of Death (London). van Gennep, A. 1960. The Rites of Passage. Tr. M.B. Vizedom, L. C a f f e e (Chicago). Gerber, D.E. 1982. Pindar's Olympian One: A Commentary (Toronto). Gerber, D.E. 2002. A Commentary on Pindar Olympian Nine (Stuttgart). Giannopoulou, V. 2000. "Divine Agency and Tyche in Euripides' Ion: Ambiguity and Shifting Perspectives", in Cropp et al. \ 257-71. Gill, C. 1990. "The Character-Personality Distinction", in Pelling: 1-31. Goff, B. 1999. "The Violence of Community: Ritual in the Iphigeneia in Tauris", Bucknell Review 43: 109-28. Goldhill, S. 1990 "Character and Action, Representation and Reading: Greek Tragedy and its Critics", in Pelling: 100-27. Gould, J. 1978. "Dramatic Character and "Human Intelligibility" in Greek Tragedy", PCPS 24: 43-67. Graf, F. 1979. "Das Götterbild aus Taurerland", AW 10: 33-41. Gregory, J. 2000. "Comic Elements in Euripides", in Cropp et al:. 59-74. Griffin, J. 1990 "Characterization in Euripides: Hippolytus and Iphigeneia in Aulis", in Pelling: 128-49. Gygli-Wyss, B. 1966. Das nominale Polyptoton im älteren Griechisch (Göttingen). Hall, Ε. 1989. Inventing the Barbarian (Oxford). Halleran, M.R. 1985. Stagecraft in Euripides (London). Hanson, V. (ed.) 1991. Hoplites (London). Hartigan, K. 1991. Ambiguity and Self-Deception (Frankfurt). Hollinshead, M. 1985 "Against Iphigeneia's Adyton in Three Mainland Temples", AJA 89:419-40. Hose, M . 1990-91. Studien zum Chor bei Euripides. 2 vols. (Stuttgart). Hourmouziades, N.C. 1965. Production and Imagination in Euripides (Athens).

Bibliography

487

Humphreys, S.C. 1983. The Family, Women and Death (London). Itsumi, K. 1982. "The 'Choriambic Dimeter' of Euripides", CQ 32: 59-74. Itsumi, K. 1984. "The Glyconic in Tragdy", CQ 34: 66-82. Itsumi, K. 1991-93. "Enoplian in Tragedy", BICS 38: 242-61. Jackson, J. 1955. Marginalia Scaenica (Oxford). Jens, W. (ed.) 1971. Die Bauformen der griechischen Tragödie (Munich). Johnston, S.I. 1999. Restless Dead (Berkeley). Johnstone, H.W. 1980. "Pankoinon as a Rhetorical Figure in Greek Tragedy", Glotta 58: 49-62. Just, R. 1989. Women in Athenian Life and Law (New York). Kappel, L. 1992. Paian (Berlin). Kahil, L. 1990. "Iphigeneia", i n L I M C V . 1: 706-19. Kaimio, M. 1970. The Chorus of Greek Drama Within the Light of the Person and Number Used (Helsinki). Kearns, E. 1989. The Heroes of Attica (London). Kerkhecker, A. 1999. Callimachus' Book of Iambi (Oxford). Knox, B.M.W. 1979. Word and Action (Baltimore). Kondis, J.D. 1967. ""Αρτεμις Βραυρωνία", AD 22: 156-206. Kranz, W. 1933. Stasimon (Berlin). Kraus, C. S. 1998. "Dangerous Supplements: Etymology and Genealogy in Euripides' Heracles", PCPS 44: 137-56. Kurtz , D.C. & J. Boardman. 1971. Greek Burial Customs (London). Kyriakou, P. 1999. "The Chorus in the Heracles and the Iphigeneia in Tauris of Euripides", Hellenika 49: 7-27. Larson, J. 1995. Greek Heroine Cults (Madison). Lendle, O. 1995. "Überlegungen zum Bühnenkran", in Pöhlmann et al.: 165-72. Linant de Bellefonds, P. 1990. "Iphigeneia", in LIMC V.l: 719-29 . Linders, T. 1972. Studies in the Treasure Records of Artemis Brauronia Found in Athens (Stockholm). Lloyd, M. 1999. "The Tragic Aorist", CQ 49: 24-45. Lloyd, M. 2002. Review of Cropp (2000), CR 52: 151-52. Lloyd-Jones, H. 1983. "Artemis and Iphigeneia", JHS 103: 87-102 = Academic Papers II (Oxford 1990) 306-30. Ludwig, W. 1954. Sapheneia. Ein Beitrag zur Formkunst im Spätwerk des Euripides (Diss. Tübingen). Luppe, W. 1991. "Literarische Texte: Drama", APF 37: 79. Lyons, D. 1997. Gender and Immortality: Heroines in Ancient Greek Myth and Cult (Princeton). MacDowell, D.M. 1963. Athenian Homicide Law in the Age of Orators (Manchester). MacDowell, D.M. 1978. The Law in Classical Athens (London). Mastronarde, D.J. 1979. Contact and Discontinuity (Berkeley). Mastronarde, D.J. 1990. "Actors on High: the Skene Roof, the Crane, and the Gods in Attic Drama", CA 9: 247-94. Matthiessen, K. 1964. Elektro, Taurische Iphigenie und Helena. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und zur dramatischen Form im Spätwerk des Euripides (Göttingen). Mikalson, J.D. 1983. Athenian Popular Religion (Chapel Hill and London). Mikalson, J.D. 1991. Honor Thy Gods. Popular Religion in Greek Tragedy (Chapel Hill and London). Mirto, M.S. 1994. "Salvare il γένος e riformare il culto. Divinazione e rationalitä neW'Ifigenia Taurica", MD 32: 55-98

488

Bibliography

Moretti, J.-C. 2000. "The Theater of Dionysus Eleuthereus in Late Fifth-Century Athens", in Cropp et αι.: 377-98 Morrison, J.S. & R.T. Williams. 1968. Greek Oared Ships, 900-322 BC (Cambridge). Mossman, J. 1995. Wild Justice (Oxford). Murray, G. 1913. Euripides and His Age (London). Newiger, H.-J. 1990 "Ekkyklema und Mechane in der Inszenierung des griechischen Dramas", WJA 16: 33-42. Oakley, J.H. & R.H. Sinos. 1993.The Wedding in Ancient Athens (Madison). O'Brien, M.J. 1988. "Pelopid History and the Plot of Iphigenia in Tauris", CQ 38: 98115. Page, D.L. 1934. Actors' Interpolations in Greek Tragedy (Oxford). Panagl, O. 1971. Die 'dithyrambischen Stasima' des Euripides (Vienna). Parke, H.W. & D.E.W. Wormell. 1956. The Delphic Oracle (Oxford). Parker, R. 1983. Miasma (Oxford). Pelling, C. (ed.) 1990. Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature (Oxford). Pöhlmann, E. et al. (eds.) 1995. Studien zur Bühnendichtung und zum Theaterbau der Antike (Frankfurt). Poliakoff, M. 1982. Studies in the Terminology of Greek Combat Sports (Königstein/Ts.). Pritchett, W.K. 1971-85. The Greek State at War. Vols, i-iv (Berkeley & Los Angeles) Pulleyn, S. 2000. Homer: Iliad Book 1 (Oxford). Rehm, R. 1995. Marriage to Death (Princeton). Renehan, R. 1976. Studies in Greek Texts (Göttingen). Renehan, R. 1985. Review of Bond Heracles, CP 80: 143-75. Rijksbaron, A. 1976. "How Does A Messenger Begin His Speech?" in J.M. Bremer, S.L. Radt, C.J. Ruijgh (eds.), Miscellanea Tragica in Honorem J.C. Kamerbeek (Amsterdam), 293-308. van Rossum-Steenbeek, M. 1998. Greek Readers' Digest? Studies On A Selection of Subliterary Papyri (Leiden). Rüsten, J. 1982. "Dicaearchus and the Tales from Euripides", GRBS 23: 357-67. Sale, W. 1975. "The Temple-Legends of the Arkteia", RhM 118: 265-84. Sansone, D. 1975. "The Sacrifice-Motif in Euripides' IT', ΤΑΡΑ 105: 283-95. Sansone, D. 1978. "A Problem in Euripides' Iphigenia in Tauris", RhM 121: 35-47. Sansone, D. 1979. "Notes on the Iphigenia in Tauris of Euripides", Maia 31: 237-44. Sansone, D. 1982. Review of Diggle Studies, GGA 234: 31-41. Sansone, D. 2000. "Iphigenia in Colchis", in M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, G.C. Walker (eds.), Apollonius Rhodius (Leuven), 155-72. Schaps, D.M. 1979. The Economic Rights of Women in Ancient Greece (Edinburgh). Schwinge, E.R. 1968. Die Verwendung der Stichomythie in den Dramen des Euripides (Heidelberg). Scullion, S. 2000. "Tradition and Invention in Euripidean Aitiology", in Cropp et al.: 217-33. Scullion, S. 2002. " 'Nothing to Do With Dionysus': Tragedy Misconceived as Ritual", CQ 52: 102-37. Sechan, L. 1926. Etudes sur la tragedie grecque dans ses rapports avec la ceramique (Paris). Seeck, G.A. 1985. Unaristotelische Untersuchungen zu Euripides. Ein motivanalytischer Kommentar zur 'Alkestis' (Heidelberg). Seidensticker, B. 1971 "Die Stichomythie", in Jens: 183-220. Seidensticker, B. 1982. Palintonos Hearmonia. Studien zu komischen Elementen in der griechischen Tragödie (Göttingen).

Bibliography

489

Seidensticker, Β. 1994. "Beobachtungen zur Sophokleischen Kunst der Charakterzeichnung", in Orchestra. Festschrift für Helmut Flashar (Stuttgart and Leipzig), 276-88. Silk, M.S. 1974. Interaction in Poetic Imagery (Cambridge). Silk, M.S. 1990. "The People of Aristophanes", in Pelling: 150-73. Smith, J.A. & C. Kelly. 2002. "Stylistic Constancy and Change Across Literary Corpora: Using Measures of Lexical Richness to Date Works", CHum 36: 411-30. Solmsen, F. 1934. "Euripides' Ion im Vergleich mit anderen Tragödien", Hermes 69: 390-419. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1995. "Reading" Greek Death (Oxford). Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1997. "Tragedy and Religion: Constructs and Readings", in C. Pelling (ed.), Greek Tragedy and the Historian (Oxford), 161-86. Stengel, P. 1910. Opferbräuche der Griechen (Munich). Stephanopoulos, T.K. 1980. Umgestaltung des Mythos durch Euripides (Athens). Stevens, P.T. 1976. Colloquial Expressions in Euripides (Wiesbaden). Stinton, T.W.C. 1990. Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy (Oxford). van Straten, F.T. 1995. Hiera kala: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (Leiden). Strohm, H. 1957. Euripides. Interpretationen zur dramatischen Form (Munich). Taplin, O. 1977. The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford). Taplin, O. 1993. Comic Angels and Other Approaches to Greek Drama Through VasePaintings (Oxford). Travlos, J. 1988. Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Attika (Tübingen). Trendall, A.D. & T.B.L. Webster. 1971. Ilustrations of Greek Drama (London). Tuilier, A. 1968. Recherches critiques sur la traditon du texte d' Euripide (Paris). Turyn, A. 1957. The Byzantine Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Euripides (Urbana). Tzanetou, A. 2000. "Almost Dying, Dying Twice: Ritual and Audience in Euripides' Iphigenia in Tauris", in Cropp et air. 199-216. Vellacott, P. 1984. The Logic of Tragedy (Durham). Walde, C. 2001. Die Traumdarstellungen in der griechisch-römischen Dichtung (Munich and Leipzig). West, M.L. 1982. Greek Metre (Oxford). West, M.L. 1984. "Tragica VII", B1CS 31: 171-92. West, M.L. 1992. Ancient Greek Music (Oxford). West, M.L. 1997. The East Face of Helicon (Oxford). von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. 1875. Analecta Euripidea (Berlin). Wolff, C. 1992. "Euripides' Iphigeneia among the Taurians: Aetiology, Ritual, and Myth", CA 11: 308-34. Yunis, H. 1987. A New Creed: Fundamental Religious Beliefs in the Athenian Polis and Euripidean Drama (Göttingen). Zuntz, G. 1963 2 . The Political Plays of Euripides (Manchester). Zuntz, G. 1965. An Inquiry Into the Transmission of the Plays of Euripides (Cambridge).

Indexes

References in R o m a n numerals are to sections of the Introduction, all others to lines as indicated in the commentary. T h e names Iphigeneia, Orestes, Pylades and Thoas are not indexed.

i. Passages Aelian NA 6.57.9-10

685-90 1032ff.

945-46 123-25

97-99 181-99 396-97

77-79a 42-58 1390-9 l a , 1395b-97a 1385b-91a 1437-39

310b-14 P.

Aeschylus Ag. 121 221-25 228-47 1116

1279-89 1375 1382 1415-18 Ch. 32-4642-58 231-32 244-63 492 559 653-56 712-15 875-82 1000 Eum. 1-19 94 112, 147 189-90 205 237-40 280-87 445-52 482-89 615

578-81 862-64 361-64a 77-79a 691b-94 77-79a 96b-100a 209-13

811-26 827-99 96b-100a 711-13 1284-1326 468b-71 1284-1326 n. 1284-87 77-79a 1234-83 1304-6 77-79a 1422-30 947-48 947-48 947-48 947-48 945-46 711-13

402-5 412 S. 49-50 334 597-98 605-6 Su. 347 478-79 540-46 714

820-21 392-97 1199-1202 1199-1202 361-64a 361-64a 392-97 1383-85a

Apollonius Rhodius Arg. 4.341-44 1358-65 4.398-400 1358-65 η. Aristophanes Ach. 321 Αν. 1240 R. 1232-33 Th. 1160-1225

987-88 11(1) 1-5 VI(1)

Indexes

494 Aristotle Rhet. 1407b32-35 Pol. 1322b25 Poet. 1452a32-33 1454a4-7 1454b30-36 1455a4-8 1455al6-20 1455bl0-l 1

727-30

1284 788-92 467-642 811-26 VI (1) n. 42 467-642, 727-36 VI (1) n. 42

Bacchylides 1.147-58 D. 17

1120 1137

Callimachus H. 3.26-28 3.173-74 4.209-11

1270-72 1453 1099-1102

Chrysippus SVF 2.54

281-308

Eratosthenes fr. 35 CA

422-24

Euripides Al. 253 488 1093 An. 111-16 404-10 913 1085-1165 1147-49 1154 Ba. 64ff. 170-75 618-21 995-96 1078-79 1140ff. Cy. 223

369-71 1010-11 487b-89a 1106-10 691b-94 818-19 1327-1419 1385b-91a 307-10a, 336-39 123-25 1284-1326 n. 281-308 275-78 1385b-91a 281-308 1358-65

392 El. 15-16 85 167-74 578-84 694-95 897-99 965 1020-29 1141 1169 1258-63 He. 68-89 328-31 342-45 444-83 458-62 460-61 472 479-83 583-84 702-8 929-32 1132-82 Hl. 9-15 16-29 392 435-36 625-97 877 1051 1478-86 1526-1618 Hrcld. 500-34 784ff. 901-3 Here. 476-84 729 967-1001 1232 1234 Hi. 20-22 506 612 638-44

987-88 1-5, 170-74 691b-94 221-24 827-99 638 1422-30 77-79a 209-13 691b-94 719-22 n. 945-46 42-58 1173-75 361-64a 1089-1152 1099-1102 1099-1102 221-24 133-36 987-88 42-58 1385b-91a 1327-1419 1-5 1-5 1-5 1284-1326 n. 827-99 1010-11 1032-34 1138-52 1327-1419, 1329 691b-94 1329-30 1199-1202 818-21 77-79a 281-308 1207-8 947-48 1267-69 336-39 744-46 487b-91a

i. Passages 713-14 1327-30 1420-22 Ion 67-73 339 577 919-22 1038 1122-1228 1413-25 1437-1517 1553-68 1557-58 IA 49-51 332 609-10 727-41 801-5 Md. 267-68 364-409 557 765-89 1024-27 1141-43 1278 1329-45 Or. 1-27 140-41 264-65 793-95 1039 1040 1167-71 1246ff. 1402 1422 1475-77 1648-52 1668-69 Ph. 234-36 269 344-49 1217-63 1270-78

638 n. 1267-69 1267-69 55b-58 597-99 n. 1007-9 1099-1102 1010-11 1284-1326, 13271419 811-26 827-99 55b-58 1435-74 1-5 1264-65 818-21 818-21 1284-1326 n. 638 n. 638 n. 411-12 638 n. 818-21 1409-10 77-79a 1173-75 1-5 264-66 281-308 947-48 1007-9 1007-9 917-19 638 917-19 77-79a 1409-10 945-46 1340-41 1145-46 1304-6 818-21 1284-1326, 13271419 1284-1326

1755-56 Su. 551 972-73 Tr. 292-93 353-64 444-61 638-40 764-65 Fragments 752d.4 759a 974

495 1145-46 1264-65 820-21 576-77 691b-94 691b-94 1117-22 n. 1173-75 1284-1326 n. 827-99 89

Herodotus I.30-32 2.119 4.103 9.79

1120 15-16 11(1) n. 14, 1422-30 1422-30

Hesiod Th. 38 fr. 23a

1264-65 11(1)

Homer II. 1.70 1.71-72 1.216-18 1.526-27 2.299-332 3.125-28 4.167 5.136-42 6.356-58 15.624-28 15.630-36 16.352-55 21.99-113 23.170-71 Od. 3.71-74 6.162-67 9.19-20 9.252-55 9.484-86 19.225-35 19.535-69 22.411-13

1264-65 1128 1475-76 1276-77 1128 811-26 n. 1276-77 296b-99 517-18 1395b-97a 296b-99 296b-99 344-50 632-35 1358-65 1099-1102 517-18 1358-65 1395b-97a 811-26 42-58 533-36

Indexes

496 23.233-35 24.67-68

1395b-97a 632-35

[Homer] Η. Hymn 3. 117 300-74 452-55

1099-1102 1234-83 1358-65

[Longinus] 15 Lucian Am. 47 Tox. 1-7 Menander Epit.

281-308

VI(1) n. 47 31 Ob-14

VI(1) n. 47

1458-61

Ovid Ep. 3.2.39-96

VI(1)

Tr. 4.4.63-88

VI(1)

Pindar O. I.35ff. P. 4.208 10.12-29 II.22-23 N. 7.55-60 Fr. 55 Plato Grg. 473c R. 362a

385-91 422-24 1120 209-13 1120 1234-83

Sextus Empiricus M. 7.170 7.244 7.249 8.63 8.67

281-308 281-308 281-308 281-308 281-308

Solon 13

416-19

Sophocles Aj. 55ff. 748-83 795-802 Ant. 611-12 941 1043-44 Chryses fr. 726-30 El. 59-66 404-27 530-48 673-763 871-919 932-33 1224-87 OC 84-110 1623-28 OT 433,436 Ph. 730-826 923 1075-80

281-308 1284-1326 1327-1419 1284-1326 1264-65 895-99 1207-8 11(1) 1032-34 42-58 209-13 42-58 42-58 820-21 827-99 77-103 1385b-91a 487b-89a 281-308 597-99 n. 638

Stesichorus Oresteia fr. 215

11(1)

Theognis 5-7

1099-1102

1422-30 1422-30

Subjects

497

ii. Subjects accusative terminal 24b-27, 1420-21 Achilles posthumous fate of 435-38 address pendant 157-59a to an entering character 1157-62 to gods in drama 77-79a to imagined witnesses 1298-99 to one's own heart etc. 344-50 to the chorus 1153-55, 1284-87 adjectives accumulation of ά - privative 220 adverbial use of fem. 627-29 anadiplosis 862-64 compound 144-47, 798-99 compound in - τ ο ς 951-52, -φρων 1007-9, - ω π ό ς 260-63 compound with χ ρ υ σ ό - 1236b-39a feminine with masc. or neut. noun 1234-36a patronymic 1-5 with two or three terminations 23637 adverbs used instead of adjective 354-58 Aeschylus Oresteia and IT 11(3) aetiology in tragedy as means of exploring Athenian religion or fostering Athenian civic cohesion 11(5) see also Euripides Agamemnon glory 543-44 motives for sacrificing Iphigeneia at Aulis 10-14 vow to Artemis 20b-24a Alcyon 1089-90, 1092-93 alcyon/halcyon 1089-90 alliteration of π and π α - 822-26 Amphitrite 425-26 anadiplosis 137-38 see also adjectives anapaests in entry announcements 456-66 split first-foot 333b-35

animals onstage 1222-25 see also sacrifice Anthesteria 958-60 aorist coincident use of participle 593b imperative 238-39 performative tragic 1161 Apollo Ic, 711-15, 939-86, 1125-31, 1250-58 averter of evil 1173-75 does not appear at the end 1435-74 oracles to Orestes 85-94a, 711-13, 1435-74, 1449-61 youthful beauty 1236b-39a Areopagus 945-46 Orestes' trial 939-86, 947-48 Argos 509-10, 1440-41 arkteia 1462-67a; cf. 11(5) Artemis Ic, 11(4) n. 20, 15-16, 17-34, 20b-24a, 344-91, 380-91, 143574, 1449-52 as Diktynna 126-29 as huntress and goddess of the wild 126-29, 1113-14 Brauronia 1462-67a, 1462-63 Lochia 1096-1105, 1098; cf. 205b7 Tauropolos 11(5), 1449-61, 1454-57 article definite, deictic or emphatic 10-14, 711-13 (indignant) with δεινός 1366-67a asyndeton 307-10a Athena role at Oreste's trial 939-86, 964-66 not explaining the wind 139 lbff. appearance at the end 1435-74 as divine escort 1487-89 Athens prominence in IT 11(4) Atreus 191-94, 195-97 attendants addressed by Iphigeneia 468b-71, 638, 725-26 not accompanying Iphigeneia 115762 not accompanying Orestes-Pylades 67-122

498

Indexes

sex 468b-71 with Iphigeneia 1-66, 123-25, 72526 with main characters 1-66 with purification party 1222-25 withThoas 1207-8 augment 149-52, 153-56, 328-29, 525-26, 1393-95a aulos 144-47 aulos-player in ships (αυλητής or τριηραύλης) 1125-31 barbarians 1169-70, 1 173-75 see also Taurians bath, prenuptial; see wedding boatswain (κελευστής) 1125-31 Brauron 1453, 1462-67a Brauronia festival 1462-67a burial concern for 625-26, 630-31, 820-21 Greek ceremony 630-31, 632-35 Calchas 11(1), 17-34, 20b-24a, 53132 care of the dead; see burial Ceyx 1089-90, 1092-93 chance (τύχη) Ic(3), 89, 475b-78, 139 lbff. characterization in / Γ 111(1 )-(5) in tragedy III Choes aition in IT and Athenian festival of 958-60 chorus 111(5), 123-35, 392-455, 57677, 578-81, 638, 714-15, 900-1, 987-88, 1052-54, 1075-77, 10891152, 1096-1105, 1156, 1234-83, 1284-1326, 1420-21, 1467b-69a threats of violence against 1431-34, 1482-83 Clashing Rocks 123-25 see also Symplegades Clytaemestra Ib(3), 11(3), 811-26, form and etymology of name 208 comic elements in Euripidean plays see also Euripides couplets in requests for reports 252-53 in stichomythia 69-71

curses 778-81 dance royal women as leaders in tragedy 1143-44 death self-sacrifice or acceptance 646, 674-86, 691b-94 dei ex machina; see gods Delos birthplace of Apollo and standard literary descriptions 1096-1105, 1234-36a Delphi 1257-58 destiny 1437-38, 1486 Diktynna; see Artemis Dionysus 1242-44 dithyrambic stasima 1234-83 doors and gates knocking or pounding 1284-1326 securing 96b-100a double short used to accommodate proper names 1-5 dream-oracles 1259-66 dreams 42-58, 42-43 prophetic generated by Earth 125966, 1259-63 Earth 1259-66, 1259-63, 1264-65, 1267-69 Eileithyia 205b-7 Electra 561-62, 658-724, 680-82, 706-7, 811-26, 912-14 elision, of - a t 678-79 enjambment 582-87 entrance of actor to deliver prologue 1 -66 of captives 1222-25 of chorus 123-235 of cowherd 236-37 see also address, attendants epilepsy 281-308,281-82 Erinyes 11(2), 934-35, 968-69 and curses 778-81 appearance of 940-42a attack on Orestes 281-308, 284b91a number 284b-91a, 970-71 escape wish or fantasy 1138-42 escorts, Taurian

ii. Subjects of captives 468b-71 of purification party 1203-21 euphemism, 203-5a, 1002-3 εϋξεινος 123-25 δλωλεν ώς ολωλε, πράσσονθ' α πράσσω etc. (pankoinon) 691b94 τι 755-58 Euripides Aeschylus' Eumenides as model for /7ΊΙ(3) aetiology in 958-60, 1462-67a choruses in Atreid plays 123-235 humor in plays perceived as nontragic Ia(2), 1284-1326 invented cults and rituals in 11(4)(5) plays perceived as non-tragic Ia(2) IT prologue 1-66 myth o f / 7 I I ( l ) - ( 3 ) prologues 1-122 skepticism about gods and religion or atheism Ic(l) n. 10 Helen and lTlb{\), V extras; see attendants fame of epic sagas and heroes in tragedy 517-18 farewell speeches before death 687715 fate; see destiny Fates, of birth 203-5a, 205b-7 forestays (πρότονοι) 1134-36 forgetting the dead 716-18 fortunes, human motif of mutability 719-22 funeral; see burial Gigantomachy 221-24 girdle loosing of woman's on weddingnight and before childbirth 203-5a gods and daimones 987-88 and mortals Ic άπό μ η χ α ν ή ς {ex machina) 143574, 1477-79 their voice audible to mortals from afar, and vice versa 1446-48

499

identification by characters and audience 1435 morality 380-91, 1234-83 perception of secret intentions of mortals 1230-33 see also Apollo, Artemis, Athena, gold, religion gold associated with gods 1236b-39a guards; see escorts guest-friendship 505-8, 949-54 Halae 1449-61 halcyon; see alcyon hearsay 87,900-1 Helen, 8-9, 521-24, 525-26 hiatus 131 Hippodameia Ib(4), 822-26 humor; see Euripides impalement as barbaric punishment 1422-30 imperfect idiomatic with αρα 369-71 timeless 270-74 with introductory έπεί 260-63 initiation or maturation rites in IT and tragedy 11(5), 1462-67a Io 392-97 knocking; see doors lake circular on Delos 1103-5 lament 144-47, 178-85, 203-35, 22528 Leto 1234-36a, 1242-44 letter of Iphigeneia to Orestes 578-642, opening formula 769-71 Leuce 435-38 libations funeral 159b-66 literacy of women in heroic and classical era 582-87 lyre 144-47, 1129 madness as cause of internecine murders in Greek myth 557-58

500

Indexes

Orestes' and accounts of symptoms in other tragedies 281-308 mementos 702-5, 820-21 Menelaus, 10-14, 928-31, 928-29 messenger speeches in IT 260-339, 1327-1419 in emergencies 1284-1326, 1325-26 transitions in 264-66, 1345-46 misfortune 1117-22, 1120 mount Cynthus 1096-1105 mute characters; see attendants Mycenae 509-10, 845-49 Myrtilus story of suppressed in IT Ib(4), 191-94 naming of child or invention 499-500 significant 31-33 navel (ομφαλός) sacred stone in Delphic adyton 1257-58 Nereids 427-29 Nereus 270-74 nominativus pendens 695-97a nouns in - μ α 315-17 i n - σ ι ς 1017-19 oars steering 430-32, 1354-57 as wings and vice versa 1345-46 oaths 744-46, 747-52, 755-58 Odysseus, 17-34, 24b-27, 533-34 Oenomaus Ib(4), 1-5, 822-26, 132526 offerings, funeral hair and tears 170-74, 702-5 see also burial, libations olive-tree, on Delos 1099-1102 oxymoron 144-47, 511-12 Palaemon 270-74 palm-tree on Delos 1099-1102 Pan 1125-31 syrinx 1125-27 Panathenaia 221-24 pankoinon; see euphemism parenthesis (δια μέσου construction) 1075-77, 1078

Parnassus 1242-44, 1245-49 Pelops Ib(4), 385-91, 822-26 penteconter 1124 perfect, gnomic 603-7 periphrasis 283-84a, 519-20, 66265a, 683-86, 719-22, 735-36, 83738,951-52, 973-74, 1091, 1427-30 Phineus 422-24 plotting in Euripides 1020-27, 1044-45 plural for singular 1358-59 generalizing masc. 539 pollution from contact with murderers 94748,951-52 of temple 972-75 of elements by murderers 1207-8 on the murderer's hands 940-42a, Orestes' 940-42a, 947-48, 951-52, 1207-8 sources 380-84 see also purification portents involving statues 1165 Poseidon 139 lbff., 1414-15 prayer of Iphigeneia to Artemis 1082-86, 1230-33, 1397b-1402 to victory at end of plays 1497-99 standard elements in Greek prayer 267-69, 270-74, 1082-88 present imperative 238-39 registering to denote kinship 1-5 prefix omitted 683-86 prepositional lengthened before mute and liquid 50-55a pronoun indef. with personal name 531-32 prophecy predicting past, present and future 1264-65 purification by gold or by fire 1215-16 of murderers 1039 of statues 1041, 1196-98 with sea-water 1191-93 purple-fishers 254-55, 260-63

ii. Subjects

recognition 467-642, 578-642, 72736, 811-26, 827-99, 839-41 religion in IT Ic(l) rituals-cults invented by Euripides II(4)-(5) repetition of syllables 1339 resolutions 1-5, 525-26 resurrection in Greek myth 769-87 sacrifice animals chosen as victims 359-60, 468b-71, 1115-16 burnt 15-16 Greek ritual of 244b-45 of Greek victims before the arrival of Orestes and Pylades in 77258-59 of Iphigeneia at Aulis Ic(l), 15-16, 17-34 overseers of 1284 self-sacrifice; see death salt as purifying agent 1191-93 sea and purification 1191-93 as motif in IT Ib(l) seers, 20b-24a, 570-75, 1264-65 Semnai Theai 11(4), 968-69 sheet of a ship (πούς) 1134-36 sigmatism 678-79, 1067-68a significant names 31-33 silence, ritual 123-25 stage of classical theatre 1068b-74 stichomythia 494-569 Strophius Ib(3) n. 7, 917-19 supplication 361-64a, 617-18, 94954, 1068b-74 suspense 42-58, 85-94a, 238-391, 467-642, 472-75, 1284-1499, 12841326, 1327-1419 swans singer on Delos 1103-5

501

Symplegades 241-44a, 422-24 synizesis of θεός/θεά 85-88, 985-86 Tantalus 385-91 Taurians 111(4), 260-339, 380-91, 1153-1233, 1188-90, 1205-6, 129899, 1358-65, 1435-74, 1475-85, city of 595-96 Tauropolia 1458-61 Themis 1234-83, 1259-66, 1259-63 Thyestes 191-94, 195-97 tie vote 964-66 Titanomachy 221-24 tomb visits and offerings 695-97a tripod golden Delphic 1253-56 trochaic tetrameter 1203-21 Trojan war fame 517-69, 517-18 verbs compound beginning with ε υ - 32022 coupling of φεύγω and compound 1325-26 έ κ - c o m p o u n d 1467b-69a of caution and fearing 67-68 weavings 811-26 wedding role of mothers 818-21 bath of couple before 818-19 women initiative to speak in tragedy 1288 cunning of, and invectives against, women in poetry 1298-99 word and deed polarity 503-4 words as missiles 1358-59 writing as silent voice 762-65 writing tablets 588-90, 727-30

Indexes

502

iii. Greek words άγκυρα 1350-53 άγνίζω 702-5 άδυτο ν 973-74 άθικτος 798-99 αιδώς 711-13, 949-54 αιτία 926-27, 1036-37 αιών 1121-22 άκραντος 519-20 άκροθίνια 72-75 άλαίνω 283-84a αλλ' εΐμι 636-37 άλλάσσομαι 291b-94 άμαθία 385-91 άμνηστέω 208 άμφί 6-7, 702-5 άμφίβληστρον 96b-100a άναλίσκω 336-39 άναστέλλω 1377-78 άνομία 275-78 άνόσιος 130-31 άντιάζω 1052-54 άντιδίδωμι 28-30 άξε(ι)νος 123-25 άπαλλάσσω 44-46 άπανταχου 517-18 άπελαύνω 711-13 άπεμπολάω 1360 άπέπτυσα etc. 1161 αποινα 1458-61 άρκυς Ί1-Ί9& άσεβής 130-31 άτη 148 άτοπος 842-44 αυλητής 1125-31 άφίημι 737-40 βάρβαρος 1169-70 βάρος 416-19 βλέπω 716-18 βοή 1092-93, 1307-8, 1385b-86a βορά 973-74 γάνος 632-35 δαίμων 157-59a, 198-202,987-88 δαίς 951-52, 973-74 δέ (for γάρ) 1401

δεί 683-86 δειράς 1089-90 δέλτος 727-30 δέμας 106-9, 1427-30 δέχομαι 793-97 δή 1336-38 δή τις 525-26 διαβιάζομαι 1364-65 διαριθμέω 964-66 δόρυ 1325-26 δρόσος 254-55 δυσπραξία 513-14 δυσσεβής 130-31 εα 1157-58 έάω 489b-91 εγκειμαι 144-47 εγκληρος 680-82 εϊ γάρ 1221 εΐα 1423-26 εΐέν 342-43 εισέρχομαι 1340-41 έκνεύω 1186-87, 1329-30 έκνέω 1186-87 έκπράσσω 559-60 ελεγος 144-47 εμπυρα 15-16 έν τώιδε 1379-80 έν χρόνωι 306 ένοπή 1276-77 ένταΰθα 1345-46 εξαίρετος 755-58 έξανθέω 301-3 έπεί 260-63 έπεύχομαι 505-8 έπί 392-97, 1219-20 έπιζέω 987-88 έπίκληρος 680-82, 695-97a έπιστάτης 1284 έπιστολή 588-90 έπωμίς 1404b-6 έπώνυμος 1454-57 ές μέσον 420-21 εΰ/καλώς τίθημι/τίθεμαι 1002-3 εϋθυντηρία 1354-57 ευλάβεια 1375-76 εϋναΐος/εύνή 430-32

iii. Greek words

ευσεβής 130-31 εϋτρεπίζω/εύτρεπής 468b-71

μοχλός 96b-100a μών 549-51 μωρία/μώρος 487b-89a

ζώνη 203-5a ήδομοα 380-84

ναοφΰλακες 1284 νέος 236-37 νόμος 275-78

θάλος 170-74 θαΰμα 1321 θίασος 1145-46 θυτήριον 241-44a

ξένος (in addresses) 597-99 ξουθός 632-35

ϊστημι βοήν 1307-8 ϊχνος 264-66 και (explanatory) 1057-59 και μήν 1180-81 καινός 42, 238-39 καιρός 420-21 κάκη 676-82, 676-77 καλώς ελεξας 597-99 καραδοκέω 310b-14 καταβάλλω 603-7 κατάργματα 244b-45 κατάρχομαι 35-[41], 244b-45 κατάχαλκος 1246-49 κατεργάζομαι 1079-81 κέλευ(σ)μα 1125-31, 1404b-6 κελευστής 1125-31 κληιδοΰχος 130-31 κλήιζομαι 917-19 κλήιθρον 96b-100a κλΰδων 315-17, 755-58 κλΰω 766-68 κτάομαι (κάκην etc.) 676-77 λάσκω 459-62 λάτρευμα 1273-75 λιβάς 1106-10 λιπαρός 1130-31 λόγ ϋ ς 517-18, 563-66 μάκαρ 647-49 μάταιος 275-78 μεθίστημι 773-76 μέλπω/μολπή 221-24 μέλω 643-45 μηνις 1270-72 μίσος 525-26 μνημεία 702-5, 820-21 μόσχος 159b-66, 359-60

ό μέν τις, ό δέ (τις) 1407-8 δδε 557-58 δθεν 35-[41] οϊ νωπός 1245 οΐσθ' δ δρασον 759-61 οίστρος 392-97 δλβος 416-19 δμμα 67-68, 904-6 όνομα 503-4, 662-65a, 904-6 όνομα τίθεμαι 499-500 δρκος 747-52 δρκον δίδωμι 735-36 δσιος 130-31 δστις = ε'ί τις 603-7 δταν τύχηι 719-22 οϋ μή 17-20a ούδαμοΰ 114b-15 οϋνεκα 8-9, 783-86a παιάν 1403-4a παλαμναΐος 1217-18 πας τις 301-3 πατροκτόνος 1083 πεντηκόντερος 1124 περιβάλλω 793-97 πέσημα 315-17 πίτυλος 1050 πνεύμα 1317-18 ποθείνός 515-16 ποΐ 77-79a, 1285-87 ποικιλόνωτος 1245 ποικίλος 1245 ποινή 198-202 ποίος 1319-20 πόλις 595-96 πολύχρυσος 1273-75 πορθμεύω 264-66 πότνια 463-66, 1123 ποΰ 777, 1285-87 πους (of a ship) 1134-36

503

504 προς θεών 509-10 προς κέντρα λακτίζειν 1395b97a προστρόπαιος/προστροπή 617-18 πρόσφαγμα 241-44a πρότονοι 1134-36 πρύμνηθεν/πρυμνόθεν 1347-49 πτυχή/πτύξ 8-9 πυλωρός 1153-55, 1226-29 ρόθιον 399-406 σέβω 647-49, 1188-90 σεύω 1293-94 σιγάω 723-24 σιωπάω 723-24 σκύλα 72-75 στέγη 260-63 στερρός 209-13 συλάω 157-59a συμπλέω 600-2 Συμπληγάδες 241-44a συμφορά 315-17 συνδρομάς 422-24 συνοικέω 521-24 σύντροφος 1119 σωτήρ 920-23 ταλαίπωρος 479-81 τάλας 24b-27 τάφος 625-26 τηλύγετος 827-30 τιμή 748

Indexes

τί φήις; 808-10 τριηραύλης 1125-31 τό έμόν, τά έμά etc. 766-68 τό εΰ 578-81 τύχη 89, 475b-78, 1209-12 υγραίνω 159b-66 ύδραίνω 159b-66 φευ 1309-10 φθόνος 1267-69 φίλτατος 814-17 χαίρω 380-84 χαίρε/χαίρετε 646, 708-10 χάρις 563-66 χάριν δίδωμι 505-8 χάριν τίθεμαι 505-8, 660-2 χειρόομαι 330-33a χέρνιψ 244b-45 χρεών 1486 χρή 683-86 χρυσό-compounds 1236b-39a ψόφος 1307-8 ώή 1304-6 ώκύπομπος 1137 ώλένη 283-84a, 964-66 ώς exclamatory/causal 533-36 emphatic introductory 1075-77 ώς δή 1336-38