Tragedy's End: Closure and Innovation in Euripidean Drama

Tragedy's End

This page intentionally left blank

Tragedy's En d Closure and Innovation in Euripidean Drama

FRANCIS M . DUN N

New York Oxford Oxford Universit y Press 1996

Oxford Universit y Pres s Oxford Ne w Yor k Athens Aucklan d Bangko k Bogal a Bomba y Buenos Aire s Calcutt a Cap e Tow n Da r c s Salaa m Delhi Florenc e Hon g Kon g Istanbu l Karach i Kuala Lumpu r Madra s Madri d Melbourn e Mexico Cit y Nairob i Pari s Singapor e Taipei Toky o Toront o and associate d companie s i n Berlin Ibada n

Copyright © 199 6 b y Franci s M . Dun n Published b y Oxfor d Universit y Press, Inc . 198 Madison Avenue , Ne w York , Ne w Yor k 1001 6 Oxford i s a registere d trademar k of Oxfor d Universit y Press Ail right s reserved. N o par t of thi s publication may b e reproduced , stored i n a retrieva l system , o r transmitted , in any for m o r b y an y means , electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording , o r otherwise , without th e prio r permission of Oxfor d Universit y Press. Library o f Congres s Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dunn, Franci s M . Tragedy's end : closure an d innovatio n in Euripidea n dram a / Francis M . Dunn. p. cm . Includes bibliographical references an d index . ISBN 0-19-508344-X 1. Euripides—Criticis m an d interpretation . 2 . Gree k dram a (Tragedy)-—History an d criticism . 3 . Originalit y (Aesthetics ) 4. Closur e (Rhetoric ) 5 . Rhetoric , Ancient. 1 . Title . PA3978.D86 199 6 882' .01 — dc20 95-1499 7

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 42 Printed i n the Unite d State s o f Americ a on acid-fre e paper

In memory of my mother Pamela and my brother Nicholas

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

In on e sense , this book mark s th e en d of a long roa d tha t began a t a performance of Hamlet; why , I had to ask myself, does the playwright end with a stage full of corpses? Is this an eas y an d economica l wa y t o close the performance o r i s there somethin g about Hamlet's internal and externa l conflicts tha t can onl y be resolved i n a parox ysm of blood? Suc h question s le d me to write a dissertation o n the deu s ex machina and othe r forma l closing device s i n Euripides, t o rea d an d thin k about problem s o f closure i n th e nove l an d i n literar y theory, to writ e article s o n plo t an d closur e i n various plays of Euripides, an d finally t o undertake the present study of closure and generic innovatio n in Euripidean drama. In another sense, thi s book stand s at a crossroads. Classica l scholars hav e long bee n perplexe d bot h b y Euripides ' fondnes s fo r the deus ex machina and by his increasing partiality for what can only be called non tragic plots . B y addressin g closur e no t just a s th e en d o f a performanc e bu t a s a n organization of the plot, we shall find tha t the issues of formal closure an d of generi c innovation are interrelate d in ways that will shed ligh t on both . An d a s the stud y of closure become s mor e importan t in classical studies , an d theoreticall y muc h mor e varied i n other literar y disciplines, I hope tha t my focu s i n thi s work upo n plo t an d generic expectation s wil l contribut e t o a n ongoin g dialogu e involvin g scholars i n classics, drama, and literary studies more generally. Finally, to some exten t this book marks a detou r an d a ne w beginning . I found mysel f intrigue d b y th e question s of time an d narrativ e raised i n chapter 5 , and I suspect tha t these reflections , lik e that performance of Hamlet man y years ago, ma y be the beginning of another interestin g road. My argumen t relie s upon frequen t citation from Euripide s an d other dramatists. In quoting from Euripides , Aeschylus, an d Sophocles, I include both th e Greek tex t and my own translation ; I hope that readers will find th e translation readable yet reasonably faithfu l t o the languag e of th e original. The Gree k tex t follows th e Oxfor d editions of Denys Page (Aeschylus), Hugh Lloyd-Jones and Nigel Wilson (Sophocles ) and James Diggl e (Euripides) , excep t a s indicated i n the notes . Every travele r incurs many debts of friendship and hospitality, and this journey has been no different. My greatest debt is to John Herington, who graciousl y an d patiently read drafts of the dissertation, articles, and chapters of the manuscript, saving me from many error s an d providin g unfailing support and encouragement . I am gratefu l t o the President's Fun d fo r the Humanitie s at Northwestern University, which allowe d m e the tim e t o ge t thi s project underway , and I am please d t o acknowledg e th e helpfu l comments of the two readers for Oxford University Press. Man y friends and colleague s

viii

Preface

kindly read earlier versions o f individual chapters, especially Deborah Roberts , Bridge t Murnaghan, Helene Foley , Davi d Konstan , and Michael Halleran . And abov e all, the generous suppor t o f my wife and children made ever y ste p worthwhile . Santa Barbara, California August 1995

F. M. D.

Contents

1 Introductio n 3

I

Closing Gestures

2 Curtain : The En d of Performanc e 1

3

3 Machine : Authorizing an End 2

6

4 Vestige : Trace s o f the Past 4

5

5 Postscript : Outsid e the Frame 6

4

II

The End Refigured

6 Repetition : Hippolytus 8

7

7 Reversal : Trojan Women 10

1

8 Erasure : Heracles 11

5

III

The Ends of Tragedy

9 Helen an d Romance 13 10

Orestes and Tragicomed y 15

11 Phoenician Women an d Narrativ e 18

3 8 0

Notes 20

3

Works Cited 23

3

Index of Euripldean Passages 24

5

General Index 24

9

This page intentionally left blank

Tragedy's End

This page intentionally left blank

1 Introduction All tragedie s ar e finishe d b y a death , All comedie s ar e ende d b y a marriage ; The futur e state s o f bot h ar e lef t t o faith . B Y R O N , Do n Juan

The Tragic End Near the beginning of his history of the Persian Wars , Herodotus tell s a parable abou t ends. Croesus , the kin g o f Lydia , was a t the heigh t o f hi s wealth an d power whe n Solon the wise Athenian visited his court. The rich oriental king entertained the simple Athenian i n lavish style , gave hi m a tour o f hi s treasuries , an d the n asked hi m wh o was th e happiest man on earth. Solon disappointed Croesu s b y naming an Athenian, Tellus, wh o wa s fortunat e enough t o hav e live d i n a prosperous cit y with fin e son s and health y grandchildren, an d who die d a brave deat h i n battle that was rewarde d with public burial on the battlefield. When Croesus in annoyance asked wh o came in second, Solon tol d the story of Cleobis and Biton, who performe d a remarkable feat of strength and piety and then died at the height of their glory. The king became angr y that th e wise Athenian was no t impresse d wit h hi s own goo d fortune , so Solon pa tiently explaine d the famous Gree k parado x tha t no man is happy before h e is dead: the wealt h o r happines s w e enjo y toda y ma y b e los t tomorrow , an d onl y th e ma n whose fortun e remains t o the end can trul y b e calle d happy . "On e mus t loo k a t the end of each thin g and see how it will turn out," Solo n concluded , "for go d often give s men a glimpse o f happiness and then destroys the m entirely." 1 To Croesus, this talk about ends was foolish and he sent Solon away , but events that followed proved Solo n correct: wit h a similar false confidenc e i n his ow n powe r an d i n the meanin g o f an oracle, Croesus attacke d Persia , onl y to lose his empire, hi s city, and apparently his life. Croesu s wa s taken prisoner and placed o n a pyre by Cyrus, king of the Persians , and there he remembered how Solon ha d said that no one could b e happy while still alive. Only in suffering his own disastrous reversal di d he recognize th e importanc e of waiting for the end . This i s on e o f Herodotus ' mos t memorabl e stories , an d on e tha t portray s with special clarit y the tragic end: only through suffering a terrible reversal doe s th e pro tagonist reac h understanding , and only a t the en d i s full o r complete understanding possible. T o hav e it s ful l effect , however , th e tragi c en d mus t transform : i t is no t 3

4

Introduction

enough fo r the foolish king t o realize hi s error; his end must bring enlightenment to those who witness it . So Herodotus goe s on to tell how Croesu s calle d ou t the name of Solon, how Cyrus asked th e meaning of these cries from the pyre, and how, as the flames were crackling aroun d him, Croesus explaine d t o the Persian kin g th e lesso n he ha d learne d fro m Solon . Cyru s wa s move d b y thi s drama : "considerin g tha t h e himself was mortal and was burnin g alive anothe r mortal who ha d been a s prosper ous a s himself, and als o fearing retributio n and realizin g that nothin g was stabl e in human affairs , h e changed hi s mind an d ordere d tha t th e flame s b e extinguishe d at once."2 Finally , in orde r t o impres s th e meanin g o f th e en d a s full y upo n hi s ow n audience a s Croesus did upo n Cyrus , Herodotu s conclude s with a miracle: th e fir e was burning too strongly t o be extinguished, but when Croesu s realized tha t Cyru s was so moved b y his story, he prayed t o Apollo, wh o sen t rai n from a clear sk y an d put ou t th e blaze. This tragi c en d t o th e caree r o f Croesu s give s a n effectiv e en d t o thi s sectio n o f the Histories, which ha s digressed i n the intervening fifty chapter s to report variou s episodes fro m Athenian, Spartan, and Scythian history. In providing narrativ e coherence, i t also provides a moral or didactic end, proving i n the destruction o f Croesus that Solo n wa s righ t an d tha t Athenian wisdom i s superior t o barbaria n wealth that eventually destroy s itself . The tragi c en d o f Croesu s thu s serves as a model fo r th e Histories a s a whole , whic h wil l sho w a t muc h greate r lengt h bot h th e contras t between Gree k wisdom an d Persia n self-indulgenc e and the proof o f this contrast in the victor y o f th e Greek s agains t th e overwhelmin g number s o f th e Persia n army . The en d of Croesus, whic h i s so clear an d so persuasive, anticipate s the similar end to a much longe r an d more ramblin g story. 3 Yet the end of Croesus, which is so important to the narrative of Herodotus , wa s shrewdly deconstructe d b y Aristotle : Must n o one a t all, then , b e calle d happy whil e h e lives ; must we, a s Solo n says, sec the end? Even if we ar e to lay down this doctrine, is it also the case tha t a man is happy when h e i s dead? Or i s not thi s quite absurd, especially for u s who sa y tha t happiness is an activity ? Bu t i f we d o no t cal l th e dea d man happy , an d i f Solon doe s no t mea n this, hu t tha t one ca n the n safel y call a man blessed , as being at las t beyon d evils and misfortunes, thi s als o afford s matte r fo r discussion ; . . . for thoug h a ma n ha s live d blessedly unti l ol d ag e an d ha s ha d a deat h worth y o f hi s life, man y reverse s may be fall hi s descendants ... i t would also be odd i f the fortunes of th e descendants did not for some tim e hav e some effect o n th e happines s of thei r ancestors. 4

How can dead men profit from having reached th e end? If we cannot be happy while alive, what sort o f happiness d o we attai n when dead? Herodotus finesses thi s prob lem wit h a clever sleigh t of hand . Only becaus e thi s is clearly th e en d fo r Croesu s does hi s own realizatio n have authority; only becaus e thi s is truly th e end d o Cyru s and th e audienc e share i n this fulle r understanding . At th e sam e time , this is not th e end. Th e dram a of Croesus i s over, bu t his life continues ; he is saved b y the rai n and later becomes a counselor to Cyrus and an advisor to Cambyses befor e silentl y slipping from the narrative; his death i s never reported. Only because thi s is not the end can Croesus liv e to learn from his mistakes, and only because h e lives to reach a new understanding can others shar e vicariously in the transforming power o f the (appar -

Introduction 5 ent) end. The tragic en d described b y Herodotus i s thus inherentl y paradoxical; ful l understanding comes onl y a t th e end , whil e a rea l o r absolut e en d doe s no t allo w room fo r understanding to take place . Solon's warning about the importance of the end is a favorite theme in Greek tragedy. Andromache, fo r example, proclaim s that "one mus t never call a mortal happy until he dies and you can see what his last day is like before he goes below" (xpf) § ' oimoi' eiTteiv o\)5ev ' oXpiov Ppotoxv , / Tipi v ct v Gavovto q / tfi v TeXemaia v 'i8r\c, I ontxic, Ttepdaac; r|u.epav r^ei KOTO) , Andromache 100-102 ) and th e sentimen t i s repeated i n eight othe r plays. 5 Gree k traged y also shares wit h Herodotu s a fondnes s for contriving ends that are not really ends, bringing a protagonist to the end at which a lif e ca n b e judged happ y o r unhappy , yet someho w leavin g ample roo m fo r th e protagonist and his peers an d his audience to work out the meaning(s) of that end. In Aeschylus' Persians the destruction o f Xerxes coul d no t be more complete : a mes senger report s hi s crushin g defea t i n th e Battl e o f Salamis , th e ghos t o f hi s fathe r describes thi s reversal as divine punishment for his crimes, an d the play end s with a lament a s th e kin g an d th e choru s ren d thei r clothes i n mourning . Ye t fo r al l th e funereal spectacle, Xerxe s survives , if only to appreciate the enormity and the meaning of hi s loss . I n Sophocles ' Oedipus th e King, Oedipus discover s hi s pas t crime s o f incest an d parricide and learn s that he is the cause o f the present plague, and by th e end o f the play he has los t hi s wife, his sight , an d hi s city—a n en d tha t the choru s considers wors e than death (1367-68). Yet only because h e lives ca n the blind man see what the proud kin g had been unabl e to see. Th e patter n seems quintessentiall y Sophoclean, repeate d inAntigone (in which Creon survives , crushed and chastened ) and varie d inAjax an d Oedipus at Colonus, in which the hero does reac h hi s mortal end i n death , and therefor e fail s t o reac h th e tragi c en d o f understanding , leaving peers an d audience to debate an d struggl e wit h the meanin g of his end. 6 Of specia l interest i s Women o f Trachis, i n which Deianeir a challenge s conventional wisdo m in th e ver y firs t line s of th e play : There i s an old sayin g current amon g men , that yo u canno t lear n i f a morta l lif e is good or bad fo r one , befor e a ma n dies ; but a s fo r me , I know before I di e that m y lif e i s a burden an d ful l o f misfortune . A6yo<; uev EOT ' ctpxaioq avOpamw v (jiave.ic ; obc; OIJ K a v airov ' EK)j,d6oi(; ppoxuJv , rcpi v a v Odvrj iiq, oik' ei xpT|cn:6< ; OUT' ei TO > KQKOC; eycb 5e xo v ejiov , Kc d Tipt v eli; "Ai8o u (ioA.eiv , e^ot8' e%OD0 a 5t>cm>xf i T e Ka t Papiiv . 1- 5

The ol d sayin g certainly comes tru e for he r husban d Heracles, wh o return s triumphant from hi s latest conquest onl y to be poisoned b y his jealous wife. I t is true also for Deianeira , despit e he r protest , sinc e he r pas t suffering s will no t compar e wit h mistakenly killing her husband and then taking her own lif e i n shame an d grief. Yet the tragic end, Heracles' gruesom e deat h in the poisoned robes , i s again a contrived end, since his slow agon y will not result in death until after th e play is finished. This

6

Introduction

ending involve s a doubl e contrivance . First , a s i n othe r examples , th e playwrigh t postpones th e hero's death, allowing Heracles to reflect upo n his own tragic end. But second, in doing so he removes fro m the play a very different end: according t o most versions o f the legend, Heracles wil l become a god, an d this reversal after deat h would completely alte r ou r assessmen t o f hi s life . Women of Trachis derive s it s tragi c effect i n large par t from Sophocles' careful contrivance o f an end, his invention of a crucial poin t that , like th e captur e o f Croesus , seems t o b e th e en d fro m whic h w e can properl y decid e whethe r a lif e ha s bee n happ y o r not . Ye t th e contrivanc e i s exposed b y th e poet' s gesture o f excludin g fro m th e dram a a miraculou s en d tha t will overturn the hero's apparent end upon the pyre, and will reverse th e way in which we appl y tha t old saying. 7 Greek traditio n ascribed t o Solon th e paradox tha t no one can be happy before h e dies, and i n Herodotus, i n Aeschylus, and especially i n Sophocles, this paradox de scribes the tragic end, in which th e final destructio n of the protagonist bring s t o him and to those who witness his drama a new and authoritative understanding. Yet however natura l this end seems, i t remains a fiction. Neither Herodotus i n his Histories nor Aeschylus i n Persians draw s attentio n to this contrivance, 8 bu t Sophocle s doe s so in various ways . \nAjax an d Oedipus at Colonus, the hero's death shifts th e burden and the problem o f reflection onto others; Women of Trachis begin s b y rejectin g the old saying an d ends by excluding from the action the untragic end of apotheosis ; and i n Oedipus the King th e choru s tell s Oedipu s tha t i t would hav e bee n bette r to die rather than live in blindness (1367-68) , eliciting a long speec h in which Oedipu s justifies hi s decisio n t o liv e an d rationalize s the choic e o f self-mutilatio n a s hi s appropriate en d (1369-1415). Euripides , however , wil l dramatiz e the artificia l na ture of the en d withou t relying upon th e paradigm o f th e tragi c end .

Gestures and Genres In Euripide s w e fin d relativel y little interes t in th e hero' s end . Th e protagonis t i s usually a ma n (Ion ) o r a woma n (Andromache ) o r a reunite d coupl e (Hele n an d Menelaus, Oreste s an d Iphigenia ) with a futur e ful l o f travel s an d adventures , and the en d of th e play, as we shal l see, tend s to be no t th e en d o f a single action , but a pause i n a continuous an d endless story. Only two extant plays, Hippolytus andSac chant Women, reac h thei r clima x a t o r soo n afte r th e deat h of th e protagonist , bu t neither Hippolytus nor Pentheus finds belated understanding in the manner of Croesus . Hippolytus doe s no t lear n fro m hi s ow n caree r an d unhapp y death, althoug h he i s instructed i n th e ways o f gods by Artemis , an d Pentheu s i s dismembered offstage , pleading tha t hi s mothe r no t kil l hi m fo r hi s mistakes , bu t leavin g Agave literally and metaphorically to put things together as she reassembles th e corpse of her son. If there are hints or ingredients of the tragic end, these ar e parceled ou t among various characters o r scenes. When th e actio n leave s a character crushed lik e Oedipus, i t is not a protagonist who i s destroyed bu t her opponent: in Medea Jaso n lose s his bride, his ne w city , an d hi s children , an d i n Hecuba Polymesto r mus t watc h hi s children being murdered before h e himself is blinded. When th e hero himself is crushed with a terribl e fit o f madnes s i n Heracles, we fin d tha t thi s i s no t a n en d a t all , but on e

Introduction

7

more episode in a long career that will continue in new and uncharted directions once the pla y i s over . To some extent the tragi c en d i s ignored, discarded a s irrelevant in a larger story that ha s n o end . An d t o som e exten t i t i s subverted , fragmente d amon g differen t characters an d thu s unable t o provid e a coherent patter n for the action . It s place i s taken b y somethin g very different . For the rhetorically and morally persuasive en d of a hero , Euripide s substitute s a flouris h o f formall y persuasive closin g gestures . Hippolytus end s no t with a trut h discovered b y th e her o bu t with a god o n th e ma chine explaining what has happened; the play reaches a convincing end not with the death of it s protagonist bu t with the intervention and command o f a deus; th e mean ing o f wha t ha s happene d i s no t gathere d fro m reflectio n upo n a hero' s successe s and failures , but i s recited i n a convenient moral b y the departing chorus. Wit h dis concerting clarit y or sapheneia, th e complex , subjectiv e process of closure i s analyzed int o a set o f discret e an d objectiv e devices , ye t a s we shal l see, thi s blaze o f clarity leave s th e process of closure al l the more uncertain. 9 These curiou s closin g gesture s rais e man y question s o f interpretation . How d o we "read" this new and more formal rhetoric of closure? How does this rhetoric shape our response t o individual plays? And what do we make of the fact tha t such a rhetoric i s preferred o r required ? I t is the end , afte r all , that defines the whol e bot h pro spectively an d retrospectively . Lookin g forwar d fro m th e beginnin g of a work, th e expectation o f a certain end o r a certain kind of en d give s th e reade r o r viewe r th e basic framework , th e map an d compass as it were, with which t o navigate the work , and lookin g backward , a recognitio n o f ho w thi s end ha s o r ha s no t bee n reache d makes clearer the nature of this particular journey. It is clearly untrue that every tragedy end s wit h a death, just a s i t is not th e case tha t ever y comed y end s wit h a marriage, bu t insofa r a s i t i s possible t o ma p th e terrai n and th e expectation s o f eithe r genre, the shape o f the drama canno t be divorced fro m it s end. Sophoclean tragedy , for example , create s fo r itsel f generi c boundarie s tha t ar e distinguishe d i n equa l measure by the "heroic temper" o f its protagonist an d by th e tragic end tha t he em braces. Th e comedie s o f Aristophane s likewis e mar k ou t fo r themselve s bot h th e "comic hero" and the riotous triumph he wins for himself. 10 And because ther e wa s no preceden t fo r hi s bran d o f historica l prose, Herodotu s ha d t o appropriate—and make i t clear tha t he was appropriating—th e tragi c end a s a defining feature of hi s drama on the war between East and West. It follows that the formal end of Euripidean drama, with its predictable deus ex machina, aetiology, and choral "tag," evades th e boundaries o f dramati c genre. I t create s a pattern of closur e tha t is as flexibl e an d consistent a s the Sophoclean her o and his tragic end, but because the pattern is strictly formal, i t avoids givin g shap e o r direction to the action itself. This absence of generic bearings is at the heart of the problem of reading Euripides. The lac k o f bearing s i s recognize d i n a negativ e manne r by An n Michelini , wh o describes Euripidea n dram a a s a n anti-genre , a dram a define d b y it s rejectio n o f Sophocles. An d i t i s recognize d i n a mor e positiv e manne r by th e eclecti c mi x o f categories ("mythologica l tragedy, " "tragedi e manquee, " "romantic tragedy," an d so on) into which D . J. Conacher divides th e plays." Bu t the former tie s Euripide s too closel y t o the rejectio n o f a single model , while th e latte r too easil y associate s him with categories tha t did not yet exist.12 Because Euripidea n drama avoids bein g

8

Introduction

marked or defined by the tragic end , i t is radically free to create it s own boundaries ; tragedy place d i n limbo, cu t fre e fro m it s familiar bearings, ma y choos e t o plo t a n entirely ne w course . My argument consists o f three separate movements . I n Part I, I examine the closing gestures develope d b y Euripides, an d explore th e gap these creat e betwee n for mal o r extra-dramati c signals o f th e en d o n the on e hand , an d th e absenc e o f com pleteness o r a convincing en d t o the dramati c action on th e other. I discuss familiar and controversial feature s of Euripidean technique, such as the deus ex machina, the aition or closing aetiology , an d the choral "tag " o r exit lines of the chorus, a s well a s less commonly noted features such a s the closing prophecy an d the speech o f acquiescence.13 Yet I regard these not as isolated problems, bu t as part of a larger rhetoric of closure tha t tends to allow an d encourag e a more open articulatio n of the plot. In Part II , I tur n t o th e use s o f thi s rhetoric, exploring large-scal e variation s in thes e gestures inHippolytus, Trojan Women, andHeracles, an d showing how these variations go beyond a formalization of closure t o subvert the very notion of an appropri ate end. The figure s or tropes o f repetition , reversal, and erasure directl y challenge familiar expectation s of dramati c coherence b y organizin g events i n ways tha t run, often wit h powerful effect , against the grai n of th e tragi c end. Finally , in Par t III , I argue that new tropes o f closure an d new ways of organizing the plot make possibl e new contours and new ends for Greek drama. Fuller readings of three late plays, Helen, Orestes, and Phoenician Women, sho w ho w the y introduc e int o traged y th e fortuitous logic o f romance, th e contradictor y impulse s o f tragicomedy, an d th e prosaic course of narrative; both the end and the logic of tragedy become irrelevan t as drama explores entirel y new forms .

Closure and Criticism Parts of my argumen t revisit familiar problems in Euripides: the role of the deu s ex machina, th e relevanc e an d authenticit y o f th e chora l exit , and th e functio n o f th e closing aetiologies. And parts of my argumen t revisit the interpretation of individual plays, whethe r familia r lik e Hippolytus, relativel y unfamiliar lik e Orestes an d Phoenician Women, o r acknowledge d "proble m plays " lik e Trojan Women an d Heracles. I hope tha t by returning to these feature s and these plays from a new per spective, w e ca n resolv e som e long-standin g questions in Euripidean drama, or (t o put it less positivistically) come to see that they are not the problems we thought they were. Th e deus and the choral "tag," for example, may be seen no t as discrete prob lems but a s related devices i n a formal rhetoric of closing gestures . An d th e unusually regular design ofHippolytus an d the notoriously episodic design of Trojan Women may be seen a s revising, in two different ways , the expectation of a formally satisfying end . I also hop e tha t i n tracin g th e connection s betwee n closin g gesture s an d dramatic innovation, and by devoting attentio n to the ways i n which dramati c plot s realize thei r ends, w e wil l bette r understan d the generi c licens e o r opennes s tha t informs som e o f Euripides' mos t origina l dramas. It will be evident, here and in what follows, that my discussion i s neither theoretical (by which I mean that it does not advance a new theor y about closure) nor theory

Introduction

9

driven (by which I mean that it does not apply a specific theor y about closure i n reading Euripides) , althoug h I gladly mak e us e o f mor e theoretica l studies , especial ly Pete r Brook s an d Mikhai l Bakhtin o n plo t an d narrative. 14 Bu t i t need s t o b e pointed out that the study of closure is , in an important way, atheoretical. The object s of thi s stud y are remarkabl y varied, fro m th e ending s o f certai n poem s (Barbar a Herrnstein Smith on sonnets) t o the rhetorical goal i n certain forms of fiction (David Richter on th e fable or apologue) t o the need fo r a quasi-religious transformation in the Western novel (Frank Kermode on the apocalyptic impulse).15 "Closure" has been understood i n equally varied way s a s the mor e o r less formal devices an d patterns that bring a work to an end (Smith on the sonnet, Marianna Torgovnick o n the novel), as the aesthetic coherence that a work strives for or rejects (Murray Krieger and Robert Adams, respectively) , o r a s som e totalizin g meanin g availabl e i n religiou s faith , imperial power , o r patriarcha l authority, to whic h a literar y work ma y o r ma y no t subscribe (see , fo r example, Kermode , Davi d Quint , and Rachel Blau DuPlessis). 16 Any surve y o f approaches t o closur e a t once become s a survey o f critical interest s and approaches. I s order somethin g within a work o r text and if so, is the task of the critic to describ e ho w suc h orde r i s realized (a s i n New Criticism ) or to sho w tha t such orde r i s impossible (a s i n deconstruction)? I s order somethin g outsid e a wor k or text and if so, is the task of the critic to show ho w the work obeys the hierarchies of powe r an d gender, o r to sho w ho w i t resists suc h hierarchies ? Th e stud y of clo sure, in other words, i s atheoretical in that the "closure" of a work, the way i n which it construct s o r reject s order , ma y b e define d an d interprete d fro m an y theoretica l perspective. 17 The chapters that follow are primarily concerned wit h the internal order of a work and with the relation between forma l closin g device s an d th e loosenin g o f generi c constraints. In thinking about question s of closure, I am most indebte d to the semi nal work s o f Smit h an d Kermode , an d i n tryin g to describ e ho w Euripidea n plot s play with desire fo r a n end and with a more ope n constructio n o f events, I am mos t indebted t o Brooks an d Bakhtin. Most o f these critics , an d most scholar s wh o hav e written o n closure , ar e concerne d wit h narrativ e closure an d wit h nineteenth - and twentieth-century fiction. This i s not just because th e novel has a privileged place in modern literature and criticism, but because this genre, in its programmatic allegiance to a continually unfolding story (whethe r we explai n thi s by invokin g the secula r time of Kermode or the unfinalizability o f Bakhtin), raises th e problem of closure in a particularly insistent manner. I suspect tha t the peculia r problem of closure i n th e novel will not have close parallel s elsewhere, an d that as scholars turn to other periods an d other genres, differen t an d mor e loca l issue s wil l come to the fore. 18 I n the present study however, we will find that the work of a playwright anticipates the novel both i n its insistent concern wit h th e problem o f closure, an d i n the particular form of narrative openness i t explores.19 The nature of this dramatic innovation is described in the chapters that follow, while the intellectual and cultural context of this innovation i s another story.

This page intentionally left blank

I Closing Gestures A goo d nove l depend s o n a "happ y ending, " o n a distribution at th e las t o f prizes, pensions, husbands , wives, babies, millions , appende d paragraphs, and cheerful remarks . HENRY JAME S

This page intentionally left blank

2 Curtain: The En d of Performanc e The en d ha s always begun . DBRRIDA

Perhaps because the y are so uncertain and so provisional, endings seem anxiousl y to demand validation ; they want gestures t o confirm tha t this is the proper place to end. There are, as we shall see, man y different ways of lending formal or cultural authority t o the ending , but the simplest an d most familia r is confirmation that the perfor mance i s over. As a movie comes to an end, the strings strike up their coda, the credits begin to roll, and finally th e house light s come up. The plot of a novel comes to an end as we turn the last few pages of the book an d finally reach a blank space inscribed "The End. " A manuscrip t wil l advertis e it s own conclusio n wit h th e flouris h o f a koronis ("hook " o r "crow' s beak" ) o r wit h a grande r declaratio n suc h a s teXoc ; ETjpiTtiSot) eKdpriq ("End o f Euripides' Hecuba") o r vergili maronis georgicon liber llll explicit ("Boo k Fou r o f Virgil' s Georgics i s ended"). And a modern pla y wil l confirm tha t the performance i s over whe n th e curtai n falls, the house light s com e up, and members o f the cast lin e up t o take their bows. Greek dram a was different. Th e outdoo r theater had no curtain and no lights, and so far as we know the actors did not come back onstage t o receive applause ; th e only confirmation tha t the show ha d ended was the exit of the actors an d the chorus. This emptying of the stage was a familiar signal that the play was over—a signa l that might be exploite d i n interesting ways, a s when actor s an d choru s exi t after les s than 40 0 lines i n Euripides' Helen, prematurely ending th e actio n an d preparing for th e sec ond, comic prologue i n which the gatekeeper drive s Menelau s from the palace. 1 Bu t whereas th e koronis an d th e curtai n are externa l markers, signal s fro m outsid e th e action that confirm the work ha s come to an end, the same is not true of the emptie d stage. Th e departur e of character s an d choru s require s plausible motivation within the plot, and the need for such motivation seems to impose o n Greek tragedy a stricter sense of closure . A t the en d o f Trojan Women, the stag e i s left empt y because no w the surviving women o f Troy mus t depar t with th e herald to a life o f slavery. At th e end o f Eumenides, the acting are a i s emptied a s the characters, th e chorus, a second chorus o f attendants , and perhap s th e audienc e a s well 2 marc h from th e theater in a grand civic procession. I n either case, the emptyin g o f th e stag e i s a natural part of the drama's end . 13

14 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

The sam e is not tru e o f the moder n stage . Light s an d curtai n ar e extra-dramatic devices that announc e tha t th e performance i s over b y intervenin g betwee n actio n and audience , reimposin g a visual an d physical boundary between them . This is not to say tha t the curtai n has a life of its own. I t presumably fall s onl y when th e actio n has reached a suitable o r appropriate conclusion . Ye t precisel y becaus e it offers external an d independen t confirmatio n o f th e end , i t ha s th e abilit y to signa l a n en d even whe n th e action is unfinished. The Bald Soprano, for example, end s by starting over again, with Mrs. Martin (or Mrs. Smith ) again recitin g the menu of her English supper; onl y the curtain or a fade-out allows th e play to end here , and saves us from watching a second enactmen t o f the plot. This the Greek stag e canno t do . By emptying the stage of actors an d chorus, th e playwright can produce a false an d premature ending, but he cannot lower th e curtain on an action tha t is still in progress, or signal an end wher e th e plot i s ready t o start again. Nevertheless, somethin g ver y lik e this was invente d b y Euripides , who created a "curtain" fo r the ancient theater, signals outsid e the action tha t confirmed the performance wa s over . Hi s clearest "curtain " is the choral exit .

Exeunt Omne s There ar e obviously many different way s of emptyin g the stage , an d Euripides' in novation consiste d i n findin g an d refinin g on e particula r method tha t share s th e effect o f a curtain or a koronis. Euripides gives the las t words no t t o an acto r but to the chorus, an d he sets these words no t in dialogue o r song but in marching rhythm. These closin g word s ar e general an d gnomic rathe r than directed to a specific situation, an d the y refe r implicitl y or explicitl y t o th e en d o f th e performance . Bot h i n developing thi s devic e an d i n repeatin g th e devic e fro m on e pla y t o th e next , th e playwright find s a gesture appropriat e to the provisional natur e of endings . Electro, for example , conclude s wit h a n interestin g exchang e betwee n th e gods on the machine, Castor an d Pollux , and the mortals below, Oreste s and Electra, but after Casto r hint s at events to come, i t is the chorus o f women tha t has the last word: Farewell; an d whichever mortal is able to fare well , an d i s trouble d b y n o calamity, leads a blessed life. Xaipeie' %aipei v 5 OCFTI ^ Siivatai Kai £,\)vTuxi. a uf | TIV I tcduvs i 6vr|Tcov eiiSaijiov a Ttpdaaei . 1357-5 9

The choru s and its members ofte n take part in events of the play, but nevertheless in Greek traged y generally, and i n Euripides in particular, it tends t o be somewhat de tached, mor e ofte n responding t o and commenting upon event s rathe r than actively participating in them. Because th e chorus stands partly outside the action, because it has an extra-dramatic perspective, i t can intervene to moralize upon mortal calamity and good fortune without threatening the dramatic illusion. Its role is therefore analo-

Curtain: The En d o f Performance 1

5

gous to that of Shakespeare's clow n Feste, who both participates in and reflects upon the action , an d who sing s th e closing line s of Twelfth Night: 3 A grea t while ago th e world begun, With hey, ho, th e wind an d the rain ; But that' s al l one, our play is done, And we'l l striv e to please yo u every day.

Euripides' practic e o f always giving the las t lines to the chorus 4 enhances what w e might cal l visual closure: afte r th e exi t of the three actors and an y extras , the spectacle of the departing chorus—with their numbers, elaborate costume, an d choreography—will give an appropriate climax to the emptying of the stage at the end of the drama. But it also gives thos e lines to a voice that is able to signal from without the end o f th e performance . This "curtain" i s made more effective by the choice of meter. Typically, the fina l scene i s spoken i n iambic trimeter, while th e closin g line s of th e chorus ar e deliv ered in anapestic dimeter . The Greek iambic line, like Shakespeare's pentameter , has a flexibl e cadence tha t is closest to tha t of everyday speech an d i s regularly used i n dialogue; a s Aristotle point s out, "we ofte n spea k iamb s i n conversation wit h one another" (Poetics 144 9 a.26-27). The anapesti c dimeter, however, ha s an insistent, marching rhythm best suited to emphatic entrances and exits (~——/- ) . Both lines admit a number of variations and substitutions , but a crucial difference is that variations in the trimeter shift th e cadence (e.g. , spondee for iamb) while variations in the dimeter strictly preserve its rhythm (eg., dactyl for anapest). The striking up of this chanted , marchin g meter , probabl y accompanie d b y th e flute , i s a cu e t o cas t and to spectators tha t the time has come to empty th e stage. 5 Of the surviving plays of Euripides, onl y tw o do not end wit h the chorus chantin g anapests. At th e en d of Ion, the rhythm changes t o trochaic tetrameter (a "recitative" meter, like the anapestic dimeter, that indicates a higher emotional register and that was accompanie d by th e flute), an d the last four line s are chanted in this meter by the departing chorus.6 Trojan Women, however , ends with a lyric exchange betwee n Hecub a and the chorus, a musical number sung in a highly resolved iambi c lyric meter; if the chorus member s do speak the last two lines of the play,7 they do so not by striking up marching anapests, but b y completin g the son g and repeatin g its rhythm from th e precedin g strophe . I shall return t o this unusual ending later. It is not the anapestic meter alone that allows the words of the chorus to signal the end of the performance, but the change from dialogue to anapests, as well as the brevity of these parting words. The rhyming couplet that often ends the Shakespearean speec h or scene create s a sense o f finalit y b y closin g of f the forward movemen t of th e preceding line s with a distinct and self-contained metrical unit: 8 Till then sit still, my soul : foul deed s wil l rise, Though al l the eart h o'erwhel m them, to men's eyes. Hamlet

l.i i

In the same way, a brief passage o f no more tha n fiv e anapesti c lines usually close s off th e iambi c dialogue a t th e en d o f Euripides ' play s and give s a self-contained

16 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

metrical shape t o the gesture of emptying the stage. One choral exit is slightly longer: in Iphigenia among the Taurians, th e choru s has a total of ten lines—seve n typical lines of conclusion followe d b y a three-line prayer for victory. And i n three plays— Medea, Orestes, and Bacchant Women—the actors have already shifted int o anapests when th e choru s conclude s wit h a brie f formulai c prayer o r moral . A n interesting departure fro m th e usua l patter n i s Electra. Here, afte r Casto r deliver s hi s speec h from th e machine, Orestes an d Electra engage the god in dialogue for sixty-five lines— all in anapests—before th e play end s an d the chorus depart s recitin g the three line s quoted previously. The effect is that of a colossal tease . The deus has given his speech , the anapests begin, an d we expect the stage to empty, but instead the action drags on, and the characters insis t upon asking the god impertinent questions. Ho w could i t be right to murder one's mother? How could Apollo comman d Oreste s to perform suc h a deed? Then, instea d of welcoming th e god's prophecies, they lament the future and their impending separation until the god cuts them off (1342), dismisses the charac ters, an d delivers his own concluding mora l (1354-56); only now , afte r the ending has signally failed , does the chorus giv e th e cue to depart. If th e metrica l shap e o f thes e closin g line s help s t o mar k a n en d t o th e perfor mance, so too does thei r content. In fact th e final anapest s usuall y include a generalizing mora l an d thu s indicat e no t onl y tha t the performanc e i s over , bu t tha t th e action i s complete: onl y fro m a n intelligible whole ca n on e abstrac t a point o r les son. Thi s lesson i s most clearl y tie d to the action when i t is most provisional , whe n it gives one character's personal or subjective response t o events. At the end of King Lear, for example, th e Duke o f Albany reflects on what has happened fro m hi s own perspective: The weigh t of thi s sad tim e we mus t obey ; Speak wha t we feel , not what we ough t to say. The oldes t hat h borne most : w e tha t ar e young, Shall neve r se e so much, nor liv e so long .

A more genera l o r universal reflection, however , respond s les s directly to the action and gives a n extra-dramatic cue that the play is finished. At the end of The Beggar's Opera, fo r example, the beggar's moral is not so much a hard-won lesson of the drama as it is a farewell to the audience: But thin k o f thi s Maxim, and pu t of f you r Sorrow, The Wretc h o f To-day, ma y be happ y To-morrow.'

Closing moral s in Euripides tend to universal and extra-dramatic reflection. There is nothing like the Duke of Albany's personal response t o events, whic h has its closest parallel no t i n Euripides bu t i n Sophocles, i n the fina l line s o f Oedipus the King:10 Dwellers i n your native Thebes, look upo n this Oedipu s who kne w th e famous riddle, a mighty man whose fortune s a citizen viewed without envy, to such a tide of dread calamit y he came.

Curtain: The d ooff Performance Curtain: The En End Performance 1

77

So being mortal , one shoul d loo k to that fina l day, considerin consideringg nno o one happ y befor e day, he passes life's limi t untroubled by grief .

OT|[}TI< ; EVOIKOI, XeiJooet', OiSlitow; 68e, cb rcdtpac ; ©T|[}TI< 65 tcx Ktelv' aiviyuat' riSei Kai Kpa-ciaToc ; fiv dvfip , ecu TIC ; ou ^riX.c p TioXiTcov Kc d T\>x alc, ETCEf&ETtEV , o"U|a.(j>opdc ; eXf)X\)9ev . el? oaov KXv)5(ov a Seivfic , o"U|a.(j>opO(c COOTE 9vT|To v OVT ' EKEIVTI V irfi v TEXEmata v eSEi riUEpav ErcioKOTcoxivT ErcioKOTcoxivTaa uTi5£v ' o^pi^Eiv, Ttpi v av tepua -uo itaGwv.. 1524—3 0 -uouu pio v Ttepdar i utiSe v ciXyEivo v itaGwv

Hippolytus, bu t even The closest Euripide s comes t o such particular reflection is in Hippolytus, here th e choru s describe s th e universa l suffering and tear s o f al l th e citizen s an d concludes with a gnomic proverb: To al l citizens in common thi thiss sufferin sufferingg came unexpectedly. Many tear s will fall lik e oars, for th e reputations reputations of of th e might y deservee lamentation. most deserv

nam no^itaic, KOIVOV To8' a%oq a%oq nam no^itaic, flXSEV tXE^rtTCOq . 7IOXX.OJV 8ctKp\>(Q V EOTCH 7IOXX.OJV 8ctKp\>(QV EOTCH.. TtVTU^OC; '

; TCOV ycitp ueydXw v d^iOTCEvGevi d^

<))f|)a.at na^X.o v KaTexo"uaiv . 1462-6 6

Euripides prefers morals so general that they they might might fit anywhere, as in the final lines of Ion of Ion ("For i n the end the good get what they deserve, / and the evil, born evil, would never prosper," eq TeXoc; yap oi (lev ea0X.oi Tuyxctvoucnv d^icov, / oi KOKO I 5', akrnep av), andd abov e al l i n the formulai c moral tha t con TtsiJnJKaa', OOJTIOT ' EI J rcpd^eiav av) , an an d Bacchant cludes fiv e differen t play s (Alcestis, (Alcestis, Medea, Medea, Andromache, Andromache, Helen, Helen, and Bacchant 11 Women):11 Women): Many ar e the shape shapess o f divinity, fulfil l man man y thing thingss surprisingly. and th e gods fulfil What wa wass expected ha hass not been accomplished accomplished , and for th e unexpected unexpected go godd foun d a way way.. That i s how thi s affair turne d out. jto^Xai u.opa u.opaii TCO V 8aiu,ovia)v , no\\a 8' 8' deA,7tTW 5 Kpaivoaxji 0eo r KCU T O 8oKT|9£vi: ' ow ETeXsaQri , TCOV 5 5'' dSoKr|Tcov jiopov rcupe 9EO<; . toiovS' dreepri ToS e Ttpayua .

o r the lesson of a The gnomic qualit y of such reflections does not offer u p the trut h or particular drama; instead it is a general o r generic cue tha t the play is over and that

18 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

the time has ha s come come tto o reflect upo n i t as we may . The cu e fro m choru s t o audience is spelled ou t i n the fina l lin e of this repeated passage : "That i s how thi s affair turne d out" (TOIOV§ ' duepri t65e 7tpayu,a). The othe r commo n them e o f the choral exi t is departure an d farewell. This closing motif, like sunset or sleep, ma y sugges t a natural conclusion t o the action, action , bu t it may als o serv e a s a curtain , emptying th e stag e whethe r o r no t th e actio n i s com com-plete. A t th e en d o f Julius Julius Caesar, Caesar, victory i n battl e coincides wit h departur e from the stage : So, cal l th e fiel d t o rest; rest ; and let' s away, To par t th e glories of this thi s happ y day. while, at the other extreme, the ineffectual decision t o leave underscores th e incom pleteness o f th e actio n at the en d of Waiting Waiting fo forr Godot: Godot: Vladimir: Well? Well ? Shall w e go? go ? Estragon: Yes, let's go. They do not not move. move.12 They do In Euripides, the theme of departure does indeed motivate the emptying of the stage , but ofte n a s a prelude to new event s that will follow. A t th e en d ooff Heracles, Heracles, the old townsmen return to their homes, while Heracles begins a new journey to Athens. When the wome n o f Tro y leav e behin d their burnin g city, the y als o tur n to a ne w lif e o f slavery i n Greece . Th e choru s i n Hecuba Hecuba depart s to th e hars h necessit y o f lif e a s a slave: Go t o the harbo r an d th e tents , friends friends , who mus tt endur endur e the hardshipss ooff th e hardship masters; fo r necessity stand s firm . ue npoc, npoc, A.IUEVCK ; aicnvcic; aicnvcic ; TE, <|>i.Xai, TOJV SeoTtocruvco v 7ieipaa6|ievai ateppaa ya p dvayKT) . 1293-9 5 uoxOwv atepp And whe n th e choru s o f Athenian s departs a t th e en d o f Children Children ooff Heracles, Heracles, it does s o accompanie d b y attendant s who wil l carr y ou t th e disturbin g execution of Eurystheus: I agree . Go , attendants ; to th e ruler s our affair s shal l b e pure pure . Taind SOKE I uoi . OTEixet ' O7ta5oi. O7ta5oi . id ya p e ^ TIU.W V Eatatt (JaaiXE'uaiv . 1053—5 5 KaSapfo^ Eata Departure, i n othe r words, function s in thes e play s no t a s a n en d bu t a s a paus pausee o r hiatus; i t emptie s th e stag e betwee n action s o r episode s jus t a s th e curtai n might

Curtain: The End of Performance 1

9

intervene between them . Like the generalizing moral, it suggests that the play is over without necessaril y confirmin g that it is complete, bu t wherea s th e mora l provide s an extra-dramati c cue fro m choru s t o audience, the words o f departure — oietxco|iev (let's go), ix e (go!), ^aipeiE (farewell) 13 —cloak this cue in theatrical metaphor, sug gesting als o the departure of actors from the stage. And when members o f the choru s together cal l out "Good-bye" (Electra 1357 , Ion ] 619, Iphigenia among the Taurians 1490), this metaphor is most transparent. 14 In Euripides' closin g lines , natural closing themes such a s reflection an d depar ture are pushed i n a new direction, becoming a s much a s possible external cues that the performanc e i s over. Th e othe r theme o f these passages needs n o such push . At the en d of Iphigenia among the Taurians, Phoenician Women, and Orestes we fin d an appeal to Nike or Victory that is unabashedly extra-dramatic, praying that the play will win firs t prize i n the dramatic contest : O mos t hol y Victory , embrace m y lif e and d o not cease crowning me . w p,eya oep.v n NIKTI , TO V euov ptotov KOTEXOIC ; Kal UT | Xf]yoi<; atecjjavowa .

The plaudits o r reques t fo r applaus e i s a familiar featur e o f comedy 15 i n which a n actor stand s aside from the performance an d asks the audience to show it s approval, as Volpone himsel f doe s at the end of Jonson's Volpone, or the Fox: The seasoning o f a play i s the applause . Now, thoug h th e fo x b e punishe d by th e laws , He yet doth hop e ther e is no suff ring du e For an y fact whic h h e hath done 'gains t you. If ther e be, censure him ; here he doubtfu l stands ; If not , fare jovially, and cla p you r hands. 16

The lines in Euripides are addressed t o a personified Victory rathe r than to the spectators or the ten judges, but otherwise they play exactly the same role . Of course, the invitation fo r applaus e o r victor y naturall y follows th e curtain , and i n tw o o f thes e three plays, the appea l t o Nike is preceded b y a form of the choral exit . In Iphigenia among the Taurians, the chorus recite s i n anapests it s farewell t o the othe r charac ters an d to the god o n th e machine before addressin g Nike: 17 Go with goo d fortune , blessed no w that your fate has been rescued . But hol y both amon g immortal s and mortals, Pallas Athena , I will do a s yo u command . For I have hear d repor t most pleasan t and unexpected . O mos t hol y Victory . . .

20 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

IT'ETETCC ' evm>%i.q IT evm>%.q tr\c, tr\c, aco^ojiEvrn;

Hoipa<; eiJSaijiove^ OVTE^ . uoipa<; EiJ5ai. aXK, ((aa ae^vf| Ttapct T ' aQavamic, aQavamic, aXK, iced Tiapc i Qvr\mic,, Qvr\mic,, YlakXac, YlakXac, A9dva , Spdaouev oikwc; (oc; cru KeXeveiq. Spdaouxv (idXa udXa yap T£p7tvf] v KavefouaTO v <))fi|j,Tiv ctKoaia i SeSeyiiai. to iieya ae(j.vf aeu.vf \i NIKT ) . . . 1490-9 7

Oedipu s describe describe s i n recitative tetrameters how hhee Likewise i n Phoenician Phoenician Women Women Oedipu beingg mortal one must endure has become a n exile and delivers a universal moral ("For bein the gods' necessity," q yap E K 9eco v dvdyKac; OVTITOV ovta 5ei (jJEpew, 1763 ) be necessity," id idq fore th e chorus appeal ss fo forr victory (1764-66). The en d o f Orestes Orestes i s an interesting exception. Th e fina l spectacula r scen scen e wit h Apoll Apollo Oreste s o n the o o n the machine, Oreste th e palace roof roof,, an d Menelaus attackin attacking thee doors (discusse g th (discussedd i n chapter 10 ) closes firs t with anapest s iinn which Apoll Apollo dismisse s th e others an andd return s to th e unrea o dismisse unreall world world 18 of gods an d o f Helen, an andd the n with the word wordss ooff the chorus chorus:: 18 APOI.LO: G

o no w o n you r journey, honoring Peace, th thee mos t beautifu beautifull god . I shall bring Hele n ttoo the palace ooff Zeu Zeuss reaching th thee pole ooff bright stars where sh shee will si sitt next to Hera an andd Hebe th thee wife ooff Heracles, Heracles, aa god herself always honored honored in in men's libations, thee Dioscuri and wit h th Dioscuri,, son sonss o f Zeus Zeus,, will rul e th e salt se seaa fo r sailors. CHORUS: O mos t hol Victory holyy Victor y. ..

A;:. IT

E vu v Ka8 ' 686v, tfi v KaMiaiTi v

OedJV TlfiWVTE^ '' 67( 5' Oewv ElpT|VT| EipT|vTiVv TIUXOVTEC; eyih0 5'

'EXevriv ZTJVOI ; ^eXaGpoic; jieAdaco, ueXaGpoic; jieAd Xa(j,7tpwv Xaujtpwv cxaTpw v 7i6A.o v e^avvaaq, e^avvaaq, evOa Ttap ' "Hp a ti\ ti\ 0' 'HpaK/Veoix ; 0eo< dvBpcojroic; "Hpri Jidpe5poc ; 0eo<; a/covSait ; evTiu.oi; evn^ioc, del, eaiai a;iov5aic; aw TuvSapiSan ; TOII; Aioq ijypdc ; vaijtaii; u.e5eoi)oa 6aA.daarn; . oe(ivr | NIKT | . . . 1682—9 1 Xo. t o neya oeu.vr

In Apollo's n to anapestss of the chorus, w wee Apollo's instructio instruction to depart (1682) and in the closing anapest have ingredient ingredient s of th e chora l exit , but ther e iiss n o "curtain. " Th Thee go d ascend s th e starry pol e t o rejoi n th e blissfu andd th e choru s stand stand s asid e t o as k fo r blissfull immortals immortals,, an favorable votes, bu butt for those left onstag onstage—th d Electra, e — thee mortal throng of Orestes Orestes an and Electra , Pylades an d Hermione , Menelau Menelau s an d hi s arm army—ther y — theree i s no mora l oorr farewell , no gesturee t o empty th thee stage o r mark an end to the performance performance . concluding gestur performance, since since thes thesee At this point I want to return to the conditions of dramatic performance, between Euripides'' raise question s about ou r analog y betwee n th e plaudite plaudite o f comed y an d Euripides

Curtain: The End of Performance 2

1

prayer for victory. I n the Greek theater, plays were produced o n a single occasio n i n competition fo r the prize awarded t o one of three playwrights; hence th e interest not in applaus e bu t i n victory, bot h i n Euripides an d i n Aristophanes, wh o appeal s fo r victory at the end oiAcharnians, Birds, Lysistrata, and Ecclesiazusae (see not e 15) . The crucia l differenc e betwee n Aristophane s an d Euripides, however , i s that com edies were produced a s individual plays, while the tragic playwrigh t competed wit h a set of three tragedies an d a satyr-play. Aristophanes will naturally place his victory cry xfiveXXa KoAAtvvicoc ; at the end oiAcharnians, but where will Euripides place w\ mevga semnh ; Nivkh" At th e en d o f the satyr-play ? After th e thir d tragedy? After the play that will make the deepest impression ? We do not know. The only surviving satyr-play, Cyclops, ha s no prayer for victory at the end, and no standard choral exit, while the "pro-satyric" Alcestis ends no t with a prayer to Nike but with the formula TtoAAcd u,op<|)c d tco v 8caux>vioov. 19 O f th e thre e plays that end wit h a prayer for vic tory, none can be placed within its tetralogy.20 And of the surviving third-place tragedies, Trojan Women conclude s abruptl y with responding lyric s i n the antistrophe , while Bacchant Women (produce d posthumousl y and perhaps withou t a satyr-play) ends with the TioXXai uop(|>a i exit lines . Less important than the proble m o f placin g this appeal fo r victory i s recognition tha t in the tragic contest th e boundaries of performance wer e fluid . Even i f the fou r plays were unrelate d in theme, th e end of on e marks no t a n en d bu t a pause , th e vibran t lull of a n intermissio n betwee n one-ac t plays that were someho w to be viewed an d judged a s a group.21 If the stage lacke d a physical curtain, it also lacked a conceptual one, since the performance wa s not really over unti l the end of the satyr-play. This makes the Euripidean "curtain" al l the more curious: Wh y devis e a gesture t o signa l the end o f the performanc e before th e end , when th e tetralogy i s suspended bu t not finished?

Innovation at the End I wan t t o come bac k t o thi s questio n b y askin g a different one : Ho w di d th e othe r tragedians empt y th e stage ? Ho w origina l was Euripides ? Judgin g fro m th e smal l number of surviving plays,22 Aeschylus ha d a very different technique . There ar e no repeated passage s in Aeschylus, an d no consistent for m or theme. The closing line s may b e spoken b y the chorus , b y a character, or by a special choru s o f attendants. 23 They are just as often sun g in lyric as chanted in anapests,24 an d they range greatly in length, from one lin e in Persians to fifty-nine line s in Suppliant Women. Only rarely do the closing line s summarize events, 25 and never do they abstract a moral; in four cases they allud e to departure, 26 but ther e is no farewell (xolpete), such a s we fin d in Euripides, and no prayer for victory. Instead, four plays end with songs o f lament or celebration , a natura l form o f closur e no t foun d i n Euripides. 27 I n fact, onl y th e ending of Libation Bearers bears comparison wit h the regular choral exit favored by Euripides: Good luck , then ; an d lookin g o n yo u kindly may go d guar d yo u wit h goo d fortune. This is now th e thir d stor m blowing agains t th e royal hous e

22 C CLOSIN LOSIN

G GESTURE S

which which ha ha s bee beenn fulfilled . First bega wretche d begann wretched childeating troubles troubles;; second th e roya s ooff a man royall suffering sufferings man:: the genera l o f the Greeks Greek s died die d slain i n hi s bath bath;; and no w a third third ha hass come, a savio saviorr from somewhere , o r shal shalll II call iitt death death?? Where will e wil will iitt be accomplished accomplished, ,wher where willl i t cease and slumbe slumber—th h ooff destruction? destruction ? r —thee strengt strength aXK e\m)xotr|c; Jip6(j>pa> v e\m)xotr|c;,, KO I a' enomeixav enomeixav Jip6{j>pa> 9eo<; ijjiAaaaoi Kaipioia i auu^opaic;. 66e xo i ueAdGpon ; TOII; pacnAeiou; tpiTot; ecu xetjiw v nvEvaac, yov'iaq eteXeaQT}. nvEvaac, yoviaq 7iaiSo[56poi uev Ttpciruov Ttpciruo v wifjpJ;a v u.6%6ot TaXavec; , 5evrcepov dv5po< ; |3aoiA.eia TidOri , XovcpoSaKTOi; 8' wA.ei' Axairo v wA.ei ' A ;roXeu.apxoc; dvrip, VTJV 6 ' ecu TpiToc ; f|A.9e 7to9e v awifip , f| uopov eiTtoo ; noi noi 8f\ia 8f\ia Kpavei , noi noi KaxaXfi^e i (leiaKoiuiaOev uevot uevot;; airi^; 1063-7 6

A relativel y short passag passagee iiss chanted bbyy the chorus i n anapests (excep (excep t th e first tw o beginning withh a farewell an andd summarizin summarizing events ooff the lines spoken spoken ii n trimeters), beginnin g wit g events two precedin g plays plays ; i t differs Euripidea n ending endingss onl y i n it s slightl slightly greaterr differs fro fro m Euripidea y greate length an d i n its closing thatt look forwar forward closing question questionss tha d t o the thir d play of the trilogy. The ending that has most i n common wit h those ooff Euripides, with many ooff the sam samee closing thee trilogy, and in fact suggest suggestss a high degree degree ooff closing gestures gestures,, doe ss no nott conclude th continuity wit h th e pla y t o follow . Wherea Wherea s man man y year s ggoo b y betwee n th e en d of Agamemnon Agamemnon and the beginning of of Libation Libation Rearers, Rearers, only a brief interval and a change of scene separate Libation Bearers Bearers from Eumenides. continuity separate Libation Eumenides. This continuit y is reinforced by Orestes' frenzy (1023-25) Orestes' incipien incipientt frenzy (1023-25) and by his vision of the Furies (1048-50), which together creat creat e a n almos t seamles seamles s flo w o f actio n fro m th e en d o f on e pla y ttoo th e beginning of the next. Although our sample is small, this continuity continuity between playss is between play without parallel. 28 As the action move s fro m Argo thee division betwee betweenn Argoss to Delphi, th plays iiss largely forma forma l o r artificial , a scene-change scene-change tha tha t involve involvess nnoo break o r interruption i n the actio n o f the trilogy. In producing thi thiss effect, Aeschylu Aeschyluss use d exactl exactlyy those device s tha t Euripide Euripidess late late r employe employed d t o creat e hi s independen t curtai curtain—o n — or (less anachronistically) anachronistically) Euripide Euripidess regularly gave hi s single tragedie tragediess a n ending tha t resembles resembles th thee formal brea breakk o r pause betwee between n part part s ooff the Oresteia. Oresteia. The en d of thi thiss performance i s almost aass arbitrar arbitraryy aass that of Th Thee Bald Bald Soprano. Soprano. The ending s iinn Sophocles adhere muc muchh mor moree closel closely y tha tha n those ooff Aeschylus t o a regular pattern. Among hi hiss surviving plays, the closing closing line liness are always, o r nearly always, spoke spoken n b y the chorus 29 and are relatively short, rangin ranging g from thre e to seve n

Curtain: Curtain: The The En End d ooff Performance Performance 2

3

lines i n length. 30 All are ar e in i n anapests wit h the exceptio n o f Oedipus Oedipus ththee King, King, which (like Ion) Ion) conclude s with chanted tetrameters, and all except Philoctetes Philoctetes include som e form o f summary or moral. 31 The chie f difference s ar e that in Sophocles the choral chora l exit rarely involves a change i n meter, rarely mentions departure, and never includes include s a prayer for victory. 32 His exit lines are therefore less abrup abruptt than than thos thosee o f Euripides , since preceding anapest s prepar e th e audience for the exit of the chorus, chorus, no norr do they draw attentio n to themselves a s theatrical gestures, sinc e the y avoi d expression s o f farewell o r appeal s fo r victory . Eve n theme s commo n t o th e tw o playwright s ar e employed differentl y b y Sophocles . Philoctetes, Philoctetes, for example , end s wit h word s o f departure: So le t us al l go together , once we hav e praye prayed d tt o the nymph nymphss ooff the sea to preserve our return . 5f]] TTidvTec ; doM.ei<;, XWpcJM-ev 5f Ni)u,(j)ai(; aAAaiav v er ercev^riiaevo i VOOTOVI acotfjpac ; iKeoSai . 1469-7 1

Greek s wil l eventuActors an d chorus al l depart for Troy, wher e th e designs o f the Greeks ally succeed. This succes s may carr y a price of sacrilege, a s Heracles warn s (1440en d o f the th e performance: "al l together " 41), bu t ther e is nothing uncertain about th e end Children ooff Heracles, Heracles, they leav e th e stage . Contras t thi s wit h th e ending s o f Children Hecuba, or or Trojan Women, where departure directly entails new troubles. The moral Hecuba, Trojan Women, in Sophocle s likewis e tend s t o b e mor e closel y dependen t o n th e action . Eve n th e Ajax, whic h come s closes t t o gnomi c universality , draws a lesso n fro m moral i n Ajax, the hero' hero'ss experience experience : There ar e many thing s mortal mortalss understan understandd butt befor beforee seein seein g nnoo one i s prophe prophett when the y se e them ; bu of what th e futur futuree wil willl bring . noKXa ppoTol q eativ iSovoi v T| noKXa yvwvar Ttpi v iSelv 5 ' oii oiiSeic; (idvtiq TWV ^eXXovTtQ v 6 T V Ttpd^Ei . 1418-2 0 The mentio n of sight refer s not onl onlyy to human knowledge in general, but also ttoo the madness of Ajax, in which he mistook animal s for generals an d failed t o see Athena plotting against him, and the uncertain future refer s both to the sudden onset ooff madness an d to the uncertain uncertain verdic verdictt o n honor honorss tha t will be accorde d him . Contrast this with th e universa l moral of of Io Ionn o r Helen. Helen. It would be easy to read th e differences among th thee playwrights as a familiar story of ris e an d decline : th e fertil e geniu s o f Aeschylu s multiplyin g mean s o f ending , Sophocles' sublime sense of form favoring the provisional closure o f choral anapests, and Euripides , the shallo w virtuoso, creatin g fro m thi s an empt emptyy and forma l "tag." But rather than adopt, or reverse, such a model, I want to emphasize instead the manner in whic h Euripide s divorces plo t fro m performance . I f Sophocles , i n signalin g th e end of the performance, reinforces the fact that the action is complete,33 for Euripide s

24 CLOSIN

G GESTURE S

the end of the performance i s an arbitrary pause, one that not only interrupts the stagin g of a tetralog y i n th e dramati c contest , bu t interrupt s th e enactmen t o f dramatize d events. Th e performanc e wil l continu e wit h a traged y o r satyr-pla y on a different subject, an d the characters o f the plot wil l continue with another phase o f their lives; the curtain only mark s a pause . This sens e tha t th e actio n continues , unbounde d an d unboundable , i s an impor tant feature of Euripidean dram a t o which I return in chapter 5 . But th e mor e clearl y an actio n i s continuous, th e mor e i t requires a purely formal gestur e o f closure, on e that concludes th e performance bu t nothing else. It follows tha t the choral exit s usu ally regarde d a s leas t authenti c and leas t interestin g ar e thos e tha t best exemplif y Euripides' approac h t o closure . A tota l of eigh t differen t plays en d wit h a "formu laic" exi t passag e repeate d elsewhere ; Alcestis, Medea, Andromache, Helen, and Bacchant Women al l en d wit h the genera l mora l "Man y ar e th e shape s of divinity . . ." (although th e first of the five lines is different inMedea), while Iphigenia among the Taurians, Phoenician Women an d Orestes all end with the prayer for victory, "O most hol y Victor y . . ." The forma l natur e of these endings , whic h i n a sense opens up their possibilities, ha s met resistance fro m many critics; onc e the lines are cloned , after all , wha t i s thei r relevanc e t o a give n play ? On e respons e i s to cu t the m out . J. A. Hartung argued tha t "a poet such a s Euripides woul d surel y have been capabl e of putting something specia l an d personal i n the mouth of the chorus" and suggeste d that the repeated exi t lines might be later interpolations.34 W. S. Barrett went further, arguing that if these eigh t are not genuine, "the tail-piece s o f the other nine must also come under suspicion,"35 and th e most recent editor o f Euripides follow s hi s lead. 36 However, th e case for the interpolation of these exi t passages has no textual foundation 37 an d rests upo n th e critic's judgment whethe r suc h repetitio n i s dramaticall y appropriate. A second response i s to deny significance to the repeated endings . Thu s Godfried Herman n wrot e o n th e ending of Bacchant Women:x Surely, a s happen s i n the theate r whe n th e actor s hav e finishe d thei r parts, ther e wa s such a nois e o f peopl e gettin g u p an d leavin g that they coul d scarcel y hea r wha t th e chorus woul d sa y a t the en d o f th e play . As a result, littl e attention was pai d t o those lines of th e chorus .

But wh y writ e line s designe d no t t o b e heard ? An d i f th e clatte r o f th e audienc e drowned ou t these lines , i t would als o drow n ou t line s certainl y meant t o be heard , such a s th e appea l fo r victor y i n th e dramati c contest . Th e logi c of Barrett' s argu ment requires that if we remov e th e repeated endings , w e must remove the m all; the logic o f Hermann' s argumen t requires that if repeated ending s ar e meaningless , al l of the m are. 39 Many defender s o f th e formulai c ending s star t fro m th e sam e premise , namel y that they must have a dramatic significance t o justify thei r presence. Johan n Mewaldt , for example , argue d tha t ever y pla y expressed Euripides ' constan t worldview, an d "every myt h he presente d wa s fo r hi m a ne w confirmatio n o f hi s genera l vie w o f God, world an d man"; Alcestis, Helen, andBacchant Women therefor e conclude with the sam e "signature " o f th e poet , th e sam e "persona l sea l o f authenticity." 40 B . R . Rees argues instea d for thematic relevance and tries to show tha t the TtoAAcd jiopcjia t

Curtain: The End of Performance 2

5

ending i s appropriat e t o eac h o f th e fiv e tragedie s i n it s referenc e t o "th e unpre dictability o f th e way s o f Go d wit h men, " an d i s especiall y appropriat e to Medea, where th e absenc e o f a divine epiphany is reflected i n a different firs t lin e (noKkwv taula^ Zeijq ev 'OX\>U7ttt> , "Zeus in Olympus dispenses man y things"). 41 And Fran z Mayerhoefer suggest s that the repeate d ending s dra w attentio n to th e poet' s origi nality, arguin g tha t cteAjtTco q refer s no t t o events tha t surprise th e characters , bu t t o innovations that surprise th e audience (a reading hard to extract frorriTioMai §' deAjraix; KpcdvouGi Geoi, "the god s accomplish man y things in a manner unforeseen"). 42 But rather than reject line s deficient in dramatic meaning, or rescue the m by trying to fin d meanin g i n them, we nee d t o revis e ou r premises . A s Debora h Robert s points out, the las t words nee d no t be charged wit h special meaning: 43 In a play b y Shaw , fo r example , th e fal l o f th e curtai n reveals tha t th e en d i s th e en d and th e las t word s ar e last ; i t thu s give s thes e las t words , b y it s apparen t arbitrari ness, th e weigh t w e associat e wit h a person's dyin g words, cu t of f by death . But i n a play b y Sophocles , it is the last words themselve s which revea l tha t the en d i s the end and tha t they ar e th e last words; the y thu s resemble the ritualize d words o f a priest at a death-bed .

The closin g anapest s shoul d be rea d les s fo r significan t conten t than as a gesture o r ritual o f closure . Bu t a s we hav e seen , th e thre e playwright s are different , an d th e formulaic line s in particular are only foun d in Euripides. For Sophocles, th e gestur e is significant, just as the words a priest recites endow th e moment of death with ritual completeness: th e departur e o f th e choru s i s a formality , but a formalit y that con firms th e outcom e o f th e plot. I n Alcestis or Helen, however , th e departur e of th e chorus i s self-consciously formal , a ritual that open s u p th e possibilit y that it lack s the prope r forc e o f ritual , a gesture tha t plays a t being empty. As w e shal l see, thi s emptied o r formalized "curtain" tha t ends the performance ha s analogues i n several other closing gesture s employe d b y Euripides .

3 Machine: Authorizing an End Help, neighbors ! Com e here , come here ! My maste r i s rising into the ai r like a horsema n o n a dung beetle ! ARISTOPHANES, Peace

The credit s begi n t o roll, the curtai n falls, or th e cur l of a koronis adorn s th e page , and we are reassured tha t the performance ha s ended or that the book i s finished. But is suc h a gesture necessary ? O r i s a mer e gestur e sufficient ? I f th e dram a i s com plete, the n surely th e gestur e i s a n empt y one : forma l bu t redundan t confirmation that the action has been wrappe d u p i n a satisfactory manner. However, i f the action remains open , the n the gesture i s ironic , lik e lonesco's curtain or Estragon' s deci sion t o go : no t a n agen t o f closur e bu t a n informe r tha t betrays the work's incom pleteness. I n either cas e we have , o r seem to have, a n opposition betwee n for m an d content, betwee n th e "internal " completenes s o r incompletenes s o f th e actio n an d the "external" flourishes that advance or subvert thi s closure. Thi s oppositio n shift s the questio n of closure fro m the outside to the inside, from th e empty gestures o f the stage to the "real" completeness o f the plot or action that these gestures ma y or may not endorse . Onc e w e tur n ou r attentio n from th e outsid e t o th e inside , an d tr y t o judge th e completenes s o f th e action , the questio n seem s t o hav e a simple answer : the dcu s ex machina, the god o n th e machine , enters at the end t o tie up loos e ends , resolve al l problems, an d guarantee tha t th e action i s complete. But i n so doing, the deus formalize s th e closur e o f th e plo t an d turn s this reassurin g endin g int o ye t another gesture . Th e oppositio n betwee n insid e an d outside , meanin g an d gesture , collapses an d renders closure deepl y problematic . The formalize d closur e provide d b y th e deus i s relatively violent and dangerous. Curtain, koronis, and "Finis" are innocuou s markers, simpl y confirming the end of the performance, but more drastic measures ar e required to wrap up the plot and bring it to a convincing end . At the end of Th e Beggar's Opera, for example, when it turns out that the entertaining musical will end with the hero being hanged, the author himself, the beggar wh o wrot e th e opera, step s i n to write a different an d mor e satisfactory ending: 26

Machine: Authorizing an End 2

7

PLAYER: Wh y then , Friend , thi s i s a down-righ t dee p Tragedy . Th e Catastroph e i s manifestly wrong , fo r a n Oper a mus t end happily. BEGGAR: You r Objection , Sir , is very just; and i s easil y remov'd . Fo r yo u mus t al low, tha t i n thi s kin d o f Drama , 'ti s no matte r ho w absurdl y thing s ar e brough t about.—So—you Rabble there—run and cry a Reprieve—let the Prisoner be brought back t o hi s Wives i n Triumph. PLAYER: Al l thi s we mus t do , t o comply wit h the Taste of th e Town. 1

Such interventio n in the content, in the events of the play, is much less common than the intervention of a curtain in its form or staging, and it suggests that things are more seriously amiss . I t is an index of crisis, a signal that the action i s somehow s o wrong that nothing else ca n correc t it . It is also a n apparent signal o f th e playwright's los s of control : i t seems tha t because h e ha s faile d t o kee p th e plo t i n chec k an d ha s allowed th e catastroph e t o g o wrong, h e o r a divine surrogate mus t ste p i n to produce a satisfactory end . According t o the comic poet Antiphanes, the deus ex machina covers up the incompetence of tragic poets:2 when the y don' t kno w wha t to say, and hav e completel y given u p on a play, just like a finger they lif t th e machine and th e spectator s ar e satisfied. There i s none o f this fo r us .. . <E7tei>9' OTCX V (ir|8ev 5i3veovi: ' eineiv en , KouaSfj 8 ' a7teipr|Ka>oiv e, v TOI< ; 8pdu.aoiv, a'ipo-uaiv wcne p SaKruXo v TTJ V u.Tixavf|v , KQI TOiq 6ea>uevoiaiv cmoxpravTax ; e/ei. f)uiv 5 e TOOT ' OTJ K eanv . . . fr . 189.13-17 PCG

Power an d authorit y are therefore crucial issues , bot h i n the author's failure t o kee p the plot unde r control, an d i n his belated attempt to correct it . Equally important, as we shall sec, is the issu e o f propriety, of willingness or ability to conform t o generi c or cultural norms, and to comply wit h the "taste o f the town." Bu t again this closin g gesture i s paradoxical. The particula r form of the deu s i n Euripides, and the almos t mechanical reproductio n o f thi s figur e fro m on e pla y t o th e next , contain s an d domesticates it . Rather than a violent intervention to address a dangerous crisis , th e deus ex machin a is often a reassuring and unthreatening figure, one whose comfort ing gestures leav e ope n a t the en d th e question of how traged y should end. Before turnin g to particular ways i n which the deus authorize s an end t o th e action, I must begi n wit h a definition. The ter m deus ex machina (i n Greek , 6eo< ; cmo u,T|%avf\i;), whether in scholarly or colloquial usage, has freely bee n used to describe everything fro m divin e interventio n to a surprisin g turn o f events. 3 I n Euripides, however, th e term can and should be used much more narrowly . "Deus ex machina" literally means "god from the machine," referring to his or her entrance through the air upo n som e for m o f crane . W e migh t reasonably limit use o f th e ter m t o divine entrances tha t make us e of this stage property, but for many plays the surviving text does no t indicat e whethe r or no t i t was used. 4 Thes e text s d o indicate , however, a remarkably consisten t pattern : nine play s by Euripide s en d wit h th e entranc e o f a

28 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

god who issues a command, explains what has happened o r resolves a n impasse, an d foretells th e future . I call this regular epilogue an d it s speaker a "deus" or "dcus ex machina" even if we cannot show tha t a crane or machine was used . On e borderline case 1 often include as a deus: th e surprising entrance on th e palace roo f b y Medea , a morta l with divin e prerogatives wh o depart s o n th e Su n god' s chario t wit h th e help o f a crane . I shal l mention for compariso n othe r epilogue s tha t shar e on e o r more feature s with the deus (e.g., 'demoni c epiphanies' i n Hecuba an d Children of Heracles)5 withou t describing these a s examples o f th e deus e x machina. So regu lar are the formal features of the deus tha t I shall deal with two o f these—a prophec y of event s ye t t o com e an d a n aetiologica l explanatio n of a nam e o r institution — separately i n following chapters. In thi s chapter, I shall look mor e closel y a t th e entranc e an d interventio n o f th e deus, asking in particular how the deus goes about concluding the action and in what sense this intervention is formalized. The exampl e of The Beggar's Opera show s tha t there are many different way s of stepping in to wrap up the ending. There the author, the beggar-poet, break s into the action an d rewrites it, substituting a reprieve fo r the hanging of MacHeath i n a light-hearted, almost capriciou s manner . In Euripides, as we shal l see, i t i s a god wh o bot h belong s an d doe s no t belon g t o th e actio n wh o intervenes, without an overt breach of dramatic illusion, and doing less to alter events than to interpret them to characters an d audience. In Shakespearean dram a we ofte n find a n epilogue speaker who neithe r alters nor interprets the action, but simply promotes it s reception b y the public. In As You Like It, th e acto r wh o playe d Rosalind steps ou t of the actio n to court the spectators : It i s not th e fashion t o sec th e lad y th e epilogue; but i t is no mor e unhandsom e than to see th e lor d th e prologue . I f i t be tru e tha t goo d win e need s n o bush , 'ti s tru e that a good pla y need s n o epilogue ; ye t t o goo d win e the y d o us e goo d bushes , an d goo d plays prove the belter by the help of good epilogues. Wha t a case a m I in then, that am neither a good epilogue , nor canno t insinuate with you i n th e behal f of a good play ! I am no t furnishe d like a beggar , therefor e t o be g wil l no t becom e me : m y wa y is , t o conjure you . . .. I f I were a woma n I woul d kis s a s man y o f yo u a s ha d beard s tha t pleased me , complexions tha t liked me, an d breaths that I defied not ; and, I am sure, as many a s hav e goo d beards , o r goo d faces , o r swee t breaths , will , fo r m y kin d offer , when I make curtsy , bid m e farewell.

The epilogue i s entirely irrelevant to the plot, and the gratuitous nature of this appeal is driven home by a double conceit: the epilogue speake r say s that a good pla y need s no epilogue , an d i n flirtin g wit h mal e spectators , h e remind s them tha t he i s only dressed a s a woman. Far from trying to alter or correct th e play, the epilogue speake r enters in order to solicit approval and applause , even as he exposes his meretricious designs. It i s worth notin g tha t i n Ga y an d i n Shakespear e th e pla y itsel f i s expose d o r unmasked; th e intervention at the end lay s bare th e rol e o f the autho r in writing the drama, or that of the actor in impersonating its characters. This is not true in Euripides, at least not true to the same extent . The god who enters , Athena or Apollo o r Thetis , is not a thespian bu t a familia r inhabitan t o f th e legendar y past , on e tha t literature regularly represente d a s interfering i n mortal affairs, ever since the Olympians took

Machine: Authorizing an End 2

9

opposing side s i n the Troja n War , an d Athena and Poseidon meddle d i n the home coming of Odysseus. O f course, th e distinction is not absolute. The deu s may in fac t be a surrogat e fo r th e poet , a convenien t divinit y smuggled in , a s Antiphane s implies, t o do his dirty work fo r him . Likewise i n The Beggar's Opera, i t is not reall y the author , John Gay , who step s i n to issue MacHeath' s reprieve, bu t his surrogate the beggar , a factitiou s author firs t introduce d i n th e prologue . Nevertheles s a n important difference remains: whereas the epilogue speaker i n Gay and Shakespear e explicitly break s the dramati c illusion by exposin g a n acto r o r author , the deu s i n Euripides i s a mor e conventiona l participant in th e action ; i f ther e i s a breach i n dramatic illusion, it is only implied . This difference has something to do with tragic decorum. The comic stage gener ally like s t o pla y wit h removin g masks , whethe r exposing th e mal e acto r playing a woma n i n Shakespeare , o r revealin g the autho r of th e pla y i n th e parabasi s o f Aristophanes. 6 Tragedy doe s no t allow suc h liberties, and i f Euripides goes furthe r in this direction tha n his predecessors, he is careful no t to go too far. 7 But aside fro m this negativ e constraint , th e deu s allow s Euripide s to pla y a doubl e game , intro ducing at the end a figure within the plot who enters from outside it , a god who sud denly an d unexpectedl y invade s the morta l realm. This doubl e gam e i s peculiarly Euripidean. It would b e impossible , fo r example , on the stag e o f Aeschylus, wher e gods an d mortals may rub shoulders wit h one another (as in Eumenides), an d where divinities may make up the chorus (e.g., Cabiri, Nereids, Prometheus Unbound) o r the entire cast (Prometheus, Psychosta.sia).s Euripides , however, strictly reserves the action of the play for mortals , allowing gods t o appear, if at all, in the prologue and epilogue tha t frame it. 9 No r would this game b e possibl e i f th e go d wh o enter s a s deus ha s alread y made a n appearanc e i n the prologue. Bu t i n Euripides' survivin g plays the prologue speake r is never the same as the epilogue speaker, 10 and the god's introduction at the end marks the first incursio n of this privileged figure—wh o might therefore betra y the rol e o f the autho r as a god i n Homer o r Aeschylu s woul d not . This rol e o f the deu s a s authoria l figur e is reinforced i n two ways . The go d within the action regularly delivers an extended prophecy, foretelling, for example, Electra' s marriage to Pylades, Orestes' exil e and tria l i n Athens, and th e arrival of Menelau s from Tro y (Electra 1249-87) ; so the deus in a sense writes or narrates a sequel to the plot. An d jus t a s regularl y the go d explain s names o r institution s familiar to th e audience, revealing , for example , tha t a city i n Arcadia wil l b e name d fo r Oreste s (Electra 1275) ; s o th e learne d deu s present s th e audienc e with a just-so stor y (o n prophecy an d aetiology, se e the following chapters) . To se e ho w thi s ambiguous figur e bring s the action t o an end , I turn to two set s of attributes. The first, gestures of authority, help to establish the privileged positio n of the deus, an d his or her power t o bring events to a close. Th e second , gestures of efficacy, registe r the god's effectiveness in concluding the action.

Gestures of Authority A mos t effective , an d mos t theatrical , way t o underscor e th e superio r powe r an d knowledge o f the epilogue speaker i s by use of the machine, or u.rrxavr|. We canno t

30 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

be sure exactly what thi s property looke d like , but we d o know tha t it allowed god s to mak e a n impressiv e entranc e o r exi t throug h th e air , sometime s depositin g a n entering actor on the roof of the skene-building and sometimes holdin g him suspende d in midair. (Whereas th e modern stag e uses a harness attache d to the actor, the machine seems to have been a platform fo r actors to stand on , raised an d lowere d b y a cran e behind th e skene-building.) 11 The effec t o f the idr^avfi ^r^avj] ii s registered i n the reaction s of th e choru s when Thetis appear s a t the en d ooff Andromache: Andromache: Ah, ah!

What i s happening? What godly presenc e is this? Women, look ! watch ! Some divinit y i s crossing th e pearly heavens an d landin g on th e horse-rich plains of Phthia Phthia!! iw ior TI KEKivT|Tai KEKivr|Tai , iivo<; aio0avo|iai 0eiox>; Koijpai , A.ev)oae-c Xeviaa e ' d9pf|aaie' 8at(i(ov 65 65ee Tit ; XEUKTI XewnvV aiSepa reopGueiiouevoi; TW V ImropoTto v tt>6ict(; 7re5icov ejupaivei . 1226-3 0

We canno t b e sur e tha t ever y deu s arrive d b y machine ; comment s suc h a s thes e indicate an aerial entrance or exit in several plays (Andromache, (Andromache, Electra, Electra, Ion, Orestes; Ion, Orestes; [2 compare Medea),[2 bu t in other cases it is possible tha t the god simply appeared stand compareMedea), ing o n th e roo f o f th e skene-building . Th e standin g epiphany woul d b e les s spec tacular, but it still creates a n effectiv e contrast betwee n mortal s a t ground leve l an d gods above. 13 In th e "double epiphany " a t the en d o f Orestes, Orestes, both th e palac e roo f and th e machin e ar e use d i n thi s way : Menelau s a t groun d leve l i s startle d b y th e triumphant entranc e of Orestes on th e roof , an d the n Oreste s i s surprised i n turn by Apollo's sudde n entrance on th e machine. 14 The spectacular effect of the god's entrance upon the machine15 is sometimes reinforced b y exclamations from th e chorus . W e hav e seen th e reaction of th e chorus a t the end ooff Andromache, Andromache, and ther e are similar expressions o f aw e an d amazemen t at the entranc e of Athen a i n Io Ionn (1549-52) , an d a t th e entranc e o f th e Dioscur i i n lh Klectra: Klectra:lh But her e abov abovee th e roof o f th e hous e we see som e divinitie s or heavenl y gods, fo r this is no morta l path! But wh y d o the y com e i n ful l sight t o mortals? aXK aXK o'(5 e So^to Sonto v i'me p aKpoidtto v 9cmvv (jiaivouai itvec ; Scduovec; f| f\ Gera TMV oijpavicov OT J ya p Ovnrw v y ' f|5e KcX.e\j0O5 . T I HOT not ' e< e<;; avepdv fj5e KcX.e\j0O5 oyiv paivoua i Ppoioiaiv ; 1233-3 7

Machine: Authorizing an End 3

1

Of course, when th e deus appears suddenly with no exclamation, i t does no t follo w that th e entranc e wa s les s impressiv e o r tha t th e machin e wa s no t used; 17 i t may be tha t surpris e i s o f th e essenc e (Medea), o r tha t the urgenc y o f th e situatio n requires that the go d shoul d have the first wor d (Suppliant Women, Iphigenia among the Taurians, Helen, Orestes). In Hippolytus, thi s verbal expression o f awe is post poned; th e clumsy Theseu s ha s no words of recognition fo r Artemis, who mus t wait for prope r acknowledgemen t unti l the dyin g Hippolytus i s brough t onstage: "Ah! Breath of divine fragrance! Even i n my misfortune I sense yo u an d my body i s lightened, for th e goddess Artemis i s here" (1391-93) . Entrance o n high and expressions o f awe reinforce th e god's stature and authority; s o to o doe s a proclamation o f identity . Artemis in Hippolytus ma y ente r unannounced, bu t this does not prevent her from commandin g attentio n and proclaiming to Theseus he r name and pedigree : You th e well-bor n so n of Aegeus, I comman d yo u t o listen . I Artemis , daughte r o f Lcto , speak to you. oe TO V ewaTpi.5T|v Aiyeox ; 7tai8' ETidKoiiaar AT]TO\)C; 5e KOpn . a' "ApTeuu ; ccuSox 1282-8 5

The deus regularl y begins with a self-introduction of this sort, establishing her or his divine authorit y from th e start. 18 In Helen (1643-45 ) and Orestes (1625-26) an urgent comman d precede s thi s formal introduction, while i n Andromache i t is mor e personal. Go d abov e an d mortal below ar e in this case woman an d husband as well, but sh e stil l proclaims her identit y an d divine lineage as daughter of Nereus: Peleus, rememberin g ou r marriage lon g ago, 1 Thetis a m here , leavin g th e hous e o f Nereus . And firs t o f al l i n these presen t evil s I advis e yo u no t t o hear thing s hard . tlnXei), x^piv ooi TCO V napoc, vuu(|>ei)u,cxTw v TiKto Qenc, X.i7tot)aa Nripeco q 860.01)1;. Kai nptin a ue v ooi 1015 Ttapeotcooiv KCIKOIC ; ur|8ev ti Xla v §x>0<j>opt"i v rtapriveoa . 1231—3 4

Finally, a god's own power and prestige ar e further reinforce d by the larger order he or sh e represents , th e authorit y o f Zeu s o r th e design s o f fat e that warrant or le gitimate thi s divine intervention. Thetis conclude s he r speec h t o Peleus b y saying, "You must endure what has been fated ; tha t is what Zeus wills" (T O yap Ttenpcouevov / 5ei a' eKKOul^ew, Zrivi yap SOKEI td5e, Andromache 1268-69). In Orestes, a command fro m Zeu s authorize d Apollo's rescue o f Helen (1633—34), and in Helen, the appeals to a larger authority become a refrain: "you rag e for a marriage that was never fated" (oi ) ydp TtETtpcofievoio w opyiCf l yau.ou ; 1646), "but we ar e weaker tha n both fate and the gods, to whom it seemed well this way" (akK TICTOOV ' fpev TO'UTteTtpcou.evo' u

32 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

6'cilia / iced i(ov9ecov, olq taw'e8o£,ev cb8'e/eiv 1660-61), "this is the will of Zeus" (Zex><; yap a>6 £ Po-u^eiai 1669) . This final gestur e o f authorit y is potentially mos t significant . Given th e jealou s and independen t nature of Euripides ' gods , a divine epiphan y does not guarantee a satisfactory ending : the god ma y hav e ful l authorit y to proclaim an end, but what if he o r sh e i s acting fro m partisa n o r selfis h motives ? Th e assuranc e tha t th e deu s i s acting i n accord wit h the larger purposes o f Zeus an d th e fates would seem t o mak e the resolutio n o f the actio n mor e intelligible . S o i t is worth notin g that these assur ances ar e largely formulaic. In the examples just given , "you must endur e what has been fated " or "this i s the will of Zeus" are conventional platitude s rather than signs of a grand design, whil e the command of Zeus invoked by Apollo (Zeu s authorized him t o save Helen's life ) has little to do with the characters onstage. An d i n Electra, as Oreste s and Electr a struggl e t o mak e sens e o f wha t ha s happened , Castor' s an swer ring s especially hollow : And Phoebus , Phoebus—bu t he' s my lord , s o I am silent ; althoug h wis e h e prophesied unwisel y t o you. One mus t approve what' s done , an d i n the futur e do what Fat e and Zeu s ordained fo r you. oifioc; 5e, Ooipoi;—dXV dvaE ; yap eat ' E^IOC,, aiyco' cro(|>6< ; 5 w v OTJ K E^pT]ae oo i aoa . aiveiv 5 ' dvdyicri TCCUTC T TdvieiJGe v 8e %pf i

Tipdaaeiv a Molp a Zevc, T' eKpave ooij Ttepi. 1245-4 8 Here i s an obvious hierarch y of power: mortal s appealin g to demigods (Casto r an d Pollux) who answer to an Olympian (Apollo) wh o i s subject in turn to Fate and Zeus . But if Castor cannot explain or condone what his own maste r Apollo has prophesied, there i s little reason t o take seriously hi s warnings tha t mortal s must obey Fat e an d Zeus. The go d ha s al l i t take s t o authoriz e a n end: name an d pedigree , imprimatu r of Zeus o r Fate, an d a privileged entrance on high . But ar e these sufficient, o r are they the empty trapping s o f authority ? Doe s divine authority reall y brin g an end ?

Gestures of Efficacy We might say that the answer, again, is easy: th e god's effectiveness in wrapping up the plo t i s clearly signaled i n three ways. Th e firs t an d mos t emphati c is the command with which the deus intervenes in the action. In her first words onstage , Artemis says t o Theseus , " I comman d yo u t o listen " (Hippolytus 1282-83) , an d ever y surviving deus likewis e begin s wit h a command t o mortals. 19 But what i s the effect of this command? Often th e entering god doe s nothin g more tha n cal l fo r attention : "I command yo u t o listen, " Artemi s say s t o Theseus; "Liste n t o thes e words, " say s Athena to Theseus (Suppliant Women 1183) ; "Hear me, child of Agamemnon," Castor proclaims t o Oreste s (Electra 1238) ; "Liste n t o m y words, " say s Athen a t o Thoas (Iphigenia among the Taurians 1436) . A similar appeal is couched i n negative terms

Machine: Authorizing an End 3

3

in/ow, "Do no t flee; I am no enemy" (1553), while Thetis mor e gentl y urges Peleu s to set asid e hi s grie f befor e sh e launche s into her speec h (Andromache 1233-34) . Only i n thre e plays does th e go d begi n wit h a command t o action . In Iphigenia among the Taurians, the command t o listen (1436 ) is followed a t once wit h a more direct injunction to Thoas (Ttcruoca SICOKCOV , "stop chasing" 1437) ; in Helen, the very first word s o f th e Dioscur i enjoi n Theoclymenu s fro m killin g his siste r (e7ua%ec ; opydq, "restrain your anger" 1642) ; and in Orestes, Apollo begin s by commandin g Menelaus no t to storm the palace (Meve>,ae , Ttccuaca, "stop, Menelaus" 1625) . But in th e firs t tw o cases , th e actio n i s alread y complete whe n th e deu s intervenes . I n Iphigenia among the Taurians, Iphigenia and Orestes hav e set sail on seas made calm by Poseidon whe n Athena enters, and the threats of Thoas wil l not alter the outcome, and in Helen, Menelaus and Helen have killed the Egyptians and made their escap e when the Dioscuri appea r before Theoclymenus. I n each case , the sideshow o f deus and barbaria n king ratifie s the conclusio n wit h a demonstration o f divine authorit y but withou t a meaningfu l intervention by th e god. Only i n Orestes doe s th e god's command alte r the course o f events. A s Oreste s prepare s t o kil l Hermion e an d fir e the palace , an d Menelau s prepare s t o attac k th e palac e an d kil l th e conspirators , Apollo command s the m both to sto p (1625-28) and resolv e thei r quarrel (veiKoix; TE 8iaA/uea0e 1679): Orestes must remove his knife from Hermione's neck and marry her, while Menelaus, instead of putting Orestes to death, must make him king of Argos. The divine command ha s a direct and tangible effect only when the result it produces is least plausible. Injunctions issue d late r by the god also tend to be empty gestures . The speec h o f the deus may be punctuated with a command to listen (Andromache 1238, Ion 1570), while the god's forecast of the future i s often cas t a s a command, as when Orestes i s told: "when you come to Athens, embrace the holy image of Athena" (Electra 1254 55).2() Les s rhetorica l bu t n o mor e tangibl e i n it s effec t i s th e partin g instruction intended t o ratif y event s onstage . Sinc e th e Athenians recovered th e bodie s o f th e Argive soldiers, Athena leaves instructions for an oath of friendship (Suppliant Women 1185-90); since Ion's mothe r has been found , Athena reminds her to name him heir at Athen s (Ion 1572—73) ; an d sinc e th e bod y o f Neoptolemu s ha s bee n brough t onstage, Theti s remind s his grandfather to give hi m buria l (Andromache 1240) . In each case , the command will be realized in the future, an d rather than intervening in the action, i t gives formal confirmation to what has happened. In Hippolytus, a similar command is realized onstage when Hippolytus forgives hi s father (1442). He does so not becaus e h e was ordere d to b y Artemi s (1435) , no t becaus e a god ha s intervened an d made him do it; as critics hav e noted, the point is that the young man displays a kindnes s or humanity that th e god cannot. 21 If the god's authority is squandered upon empty and ineffectua l commands , there are man y differen t way s this ca n happen ; the iron y o f a go d commandin g mortals to d o wha t sh e canno t an d wil l no t d o (Hippolytus) i s a n interestin g example. It might be instructiv e to explore suc h variation s in detail, but I simply note a genera l distinction. I n earlie r plays , th e god's command, howeve r empty , tends to sugges t completeness—reconciliation (Hippolytus), buria l (Andromache), an d treat y (Suppliant Women)—while i n late r play s it tends to hal t a n ongoin g actio n (b y Thoas , Theoclymenus, o r Orestes ) an d thu s remove a threa t to closure . Th e emphasis , in

34 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

other words , i s more negativ e an d it s effect i s mor e open-ended ; w e shal l fin d th e same i s true of other closin g gestures . The secon d sig n o f th e god's effectivenes s i s the explanatio n o f what ha s hap pened, b y which th e god's privileged knowledg e ca n resolve remainin g doubt s and render event s o f the play intelligible . The explanation , like the command , i s a sig n both o f th e god's authorit y and o f th e drama' s insufficiency : only a n actio n tha t is somehow unresolve d wil l require a god t o correct i t or t o explai n it . In som e cases this privilege d accoun t doe s no t go ver y far , as when Theti s reveal s tha t "all men must die" (Andromache 1271—72) , Artemis explain s t o Theseus tha t "god s punish evil men" (Hippolytus 1340—41) , Athena tells Creusa tha t "gods will have their way in the end" (Ion 1614-15) , and so on.22 Some explanation s ar e slightly more useful , explaining to a stupid o r stubborn character what the audience alread y knows. Thu s Athena mus t explai n t o the barbarian kin g Thoa s that Apollo sen t Oreste s to bring back hi s siste r (Iphigenia among th e Taurians 1437-41b); 23 th e Dioscur i mus t remind th e Egyptia n Theoclymenu s tha t Herme s brough t Hele n t o Egyp t fo r safe keeping (Helen 1646-55) , and Athena must persuade the stubborn an d skeptical Io n that h e is—a s th e priestess ha s alread y shown—th e so n o f Apollo (Ion 1559-62) . Other explanations are essentially irrelevant. \nOrestes (1639-42) andElectra (127883), th e deu s explain s tha t th e gods starte d the Trojan Wa r t o reduc e overpopula tion,24 and in Orestes, Apollo goes on to explain how Helen made her surprising escape earlier in the play: "I saved he r and snatched he r from your sword, thus commande d by fathe r Zeus " (eyo) viv e£,eacoci a XIJTI O (jxxaytivo u / TO- U aoij KeXeucOet q fjpTtao ' EK Aio q TtaTpoq , 1633-34) . I n Electra, Castor i s abou t t o provid e a mor e usefu l explanation of all that has happened by letting Orestes know wh y th e oracle tol d him to kill his mother—but at this crucial moment the god cuts himself off : "and Phoebus , Phoebus—but he's my lord, so I am silent; although wise he prophesied unwisel y t o you" (1245-46) . Only i n Hippolytus doe s th e god' s explanatio n o f pas t event s pla y a more substantial role in resolving th e action. Artemis explains to Theseus at considerable lengt h (1282-1341) Phaedra' s lov e fo r Hippolytus , th e rol e o f th e nurse , Phaedra' s fals e accusation, th e hasty curse of Theseus, an d the responsibility of Aphrodite. Afte r the entrance of Hippolytus, she repeats he r explanation of Aphrodite's rol e t o the dyin g boy (1400—6 ) befor e concludin g wit h a forecas t o f th e futur e (1416—39) . Som e explanation ma y b e neede d t o undeceiv e Theseu s an d t o allo w hi m t o forgiv e hi s son, bu t why a t such lengt h an d why a t the hands of a god? (Seneca and Racine , fo r example, allo w a repentant Phaedr a to revea l th e truth herself. ) The interventio n of the deus does double duty, summarizing what has happened fo r the benefit of Theseus, who wa s absen t fo r mos t o f the play, and als o revealin g t o Theseus and hi s son the hidden agend a of Aphrodite (announce d t o the audience bu t not to the characters b y Aphrodite i n the prologue). Thi s apparently exhaustive explanation goe s too far and not fa r enough . Artemi s i s so eage r t o assig n responsibilit y fo r wha t ha s happened that she leaves us with a surfeit of conflicting accounts. Sh e demonstrates th e justice of Hippolytu s (1298-99, 1307) , a s wel l a s th e nobilit y and innocenc e o f Phaedr a (1300-1, 1305) , th e guil t o f Theseus (1320) , an d th e responsibilit y o f Aphrodit e (1327). But i f Aphrodite i s to blame then Theseus may b e excuse d (5eiv ' £7tpaJ;ac;, aXX' ouroc ; / ex ' eon Ka i ooi -ccovS e aijyyvcoLLTic ; Tt>%ei v 1325-26 , 1334-37) , an d i f

Machine: Authorizing a n End 3

5

Hippolytus is innocent, then Phaedr a i s guilty of a terrible decei t (\j/e\)5ei<; ypa<j)dc ; eypaye Kai SicoXeoev / SoXoioi oov Ttca8' 1311-12). We might try to resolve thes e conflicting judgements, but the deus doe s not help us do so. Artemis has no stake in a fair assessmen t o f blame o r in truth for its own sake ; sh e has her own ax e to grind . Her long speech to Theseus is intended not to enlighten him but to make him squirm— to let the one who caused th e deat h o f Hippolytus suffer also : "Hear , Theseus, how your evils stand, and i f I gain n o advantage , at least I will hurt you" (1296—97; com pare 1313-14) . I n th e remainde r o f th e scen e th e deu s exonerate s Theseu s an d Phaedra, a s well a s Hippolytus, and instea d blames Aphrodit e (1327 , 1400 , 1406) . But rather than explaining the ways o f gods to men, this expose of Aphrodite serve s to rescu e hersel f fro m embarrassmen t (1331-34) , an d t o justify th e reveng e sh e i s plotting agains t her rival: Not eve n beneat h th e gloom of eart h shal l Aphrodite' s willfu l anger hurtle agains t yo u unavenged , thanks t o your goo d an d pious heart . With m y own han d an d thes e relentles s arrows I will b e avenge d o n on e o f hers, whatever morta l i s most dea r t o her. oi> ya p o\)5 e yr\c, TJTIO tjoijjo v 6ea<; dtiuoi KimpiSoc ; ex 7ipo8\>uiac , opyai KataaKf|V|/ou0i v eit ; TO oov Seaac; , ofiq e\>ae[}eia< ; Kdya8f|c; pev6i ; xoplv ' eyco yap airtfjc ; dXA.o v et, eu,fj<; xepoc ; 6<; av iidiUara <|>iA/taTO< ; K\>pf i Ppoim v T6£,oic; d(j>\>KTOic ; Toia8e Tiu.copf)oouai . 1416-2 2

In th e on e pla y of Euripide s i n which divin e explanation plays the greates t par t i n resolving th e action, th e god offer s no t a single authoritativ e account bu t a series of accounts vitiate d by contradictions and ulterio r motives. Betwee n huma n folly an d divine spit e w e fin d man y reasons bu t no reliable , privileged explanation. 25 A third sign o f the god's effectiveness i n concluding th e action is the acceptance or endorsement of the command an d explanation by the actors onstage . A t the end of Suppliant Women, fo r example, Athena delivers from the machine a series of instructions binding Argos to Athens, and Theseus respond s b y endorsing what she has said: My Lad y Athena , I will obey you r words, for yo u se t m e straigh t so I will no t err . 8ea7ioiv' 'A6dva, Tieiaouav Xoyoia i ooic; ' a\> yap u ' dTiopGolc ; okrte nr\ '^auapraveiv . 1227-2 8

Almost ever y deus i s greeted wit h a similar gesture o f acceptance, eve n i f the god's command i s largely rhetorical or the explanation i s conventional. "Queen Athena, " replies Thoa s i n Iphigenia among th e Taurians, "onl y a foo l woul d hea r thes e godly words and no t believe" (avaao' AQdva, tot,on. TCJV Gewv ?i6yoiq / OOTIC; K/lucov

36 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

dTtioTot;, mJ K opBroc ; <)>povei , 1475-76) ; afte r Apollo' s spectacula r interventio n a t the en d of Orestes, Orestes exclaim s "Prophe t Apollo , what oracles! You weren't a false prophet ; yo u spok e th e truth " (1666—67); an d eve n Peleu s answer s hi s wif e Thetis a t th e en d o f Andromache wit h forma l word s o f acquiescence : " I en d m y grief a s yo u command , goddess , an d I will go t o th e dale s o f Pelio n t o bur y hi m [Neoptolemus]" (1276-77). Here and elsewhere (Hippolytus 1442 - 43 , Ion 1606-7, Helen 1680-81 ) the gesture i s a signal that the god's intervention has served it s purpose. The gestur e i s somewha t differen t i n Bacchant Women, i n which Dionysu s concludes hi s fragmentary speech b y telling Cadmus tha t he must g o int o exile and will b e turne d into a snake . Cadmu s respond s no t wit h a speec h o f acceptanc e bu t with a n exchang e i n stichomythi a (1344-51), i n which h e admit s hi s guil t an d ac knowledges th e god's power t o punish mortals, but appeals in vain for more lenient treatment. The gesture plays a double role, confirming the authority of Dionysus and his right to demand worship, while questioning the manner in which h e has used this authority. Finally, in Electra, the speech o f the Dioscuri i s greeted no t with acceptanc e bu t with interrogatio n as Orestes an d Electra 26 question the conduct both of the Dioscur i and o f Apollo : Since you ar e bot h god s and brother s of thi s dead woman , ho w did yo u no t kee p this doom fro m th e house ? jrwg OVT E OE M Tf|o5e T ' d56Xc o TTJI; Karo))Biu.evTi 5 OI'J K ipKeacaov Kfipac; neXdGpou; ; 1298-130 0 What kin d o f Apollo, wha t sort s o f oracle s ordained tha t I be murderou s t o m y mother ? lie, 5' eu. ' 'AitoAAwv , jtoioi %pr|au,o i <(>oviav eSoaav (iriup i yeveaSai ; 1303—

4

The deus, however, simply responds with riddles and platitudes ("necessity le d where it must , and the unwis e cries o f Apollo's tongue" 1301-2; 27 "common deeds , com mon fates , and a singl e ancestra l rui n crushe d you both " 1305-7) , leavin g Oreste s and Electr a t o shar e thei r grief togethe r and mak e thei r sa d farewells . I n thi s cas e (and her e alone) th e gestur e tha t normall y deflect s the proble m o f th e god's intervention wit h a formal endorsemen t i s replaced b y question s tha t draw attentio n to the problem: How ca n i t be right to kill one's mother? What can any god do or say to make i t right? The exampl e o f Electra ca n an d shoul d remind us tha t th e gestures tha t accompany th e deus var y considerably from on e play to the next (interesting examples o f such variation will be explored i n part II). It is worth noting also that Euripides' later plays ten d t o diffe r fro m earlie r ones. I n general, when a god intervene s to resolv e the action, its purpose i s in some way to create or to restore order. In the earlier plays, this projec t i s positiv e i n emphasis : Artemi s reconciles Hippolytu s to hi s father Theseus, Theti s arrive s to commemorate Neoptolemu s an d t o console he r husband

Machine: Authorizing an End 3

7

Peleus, an d Athena establishes a lasting concord betwee n th e Argive suppliant s and the Athenians wh o cam e t o their aid. In the later plays, th e god's purpose i s essentially negative: rathe r than actively attemptin g t o dispose an d order the affairs o f the drama, the deus intervenes only to remove a threat or obstacle t o order. Thus mElectra and Ion th e go d seek s t o appeas e th e persisten t doubt s an d dissatisfaction s o f th e protagonist, whil e i n Iphigenia among the Taurians, Helen, an d Orestes th e goa l is to neutralize the opposition o f Thoas and Theoclymenus or to defuse the conflic t between Oreste s and Menelaus. Also, in later plays, th e intervention of the deus be comes more overtl y inadequate. InElectra, the god makes a loyal effort t o make sense of th e oracle an d matricide, but fails ; in Helen, the god i s superfluous as Helen an d Menelaus continu e o n thei r adventure s while th e deu s settle s a disput e betwee n Theoclymenus an d his sister; and in Orestes, the god imposes a n ending that is clearly implausible, turnin g a disastrous showdow n int o a double wedding. There ar e other variations as well, bu t for m y purpose s th e differences ar e less significant than th e similarities—the formal gestures, spectacula r entrance, rhetorical command, and trite explanation tha t betra y the god's inabilit y to interven e i n a mor e tha n forma l man ner. Thi s consistentl y formalize d deu s stand s i n clea r contras t t o wha t w e fin d i n Aeschylus, i n Sophocles, an d eve n i n some other plays of Euripides.

Other Interventions We tend to think of the deus ex machina as typically Euripidean, and with good rea son: neither Aeschylus nor Sophocles makes much use of the device. The closest thin g to a deus in the surviving plays of Aeschylus i s the entrance of Athena inEumenides: the goddes s enter s nea r th e en d o f th e trilog y t o decid e th e cas e o f Oreste s an d resolve th e conflict between Apollo and the Furies. 28 Because th e case is so difficul t to decide (I s the matricide of Orestes justifiable when undertaken at the command o f Apollo, an d to avenge th e murde r of hi s father the king?), the interventio n of a god is required, and in the process o f helping to resolve thi s dispute, Athena provides a n aetiology fo r the court of the Areopagus an d the shrine of the Eumenides. 29 Yet this is far from a deus ex machina as we fin d i t in Euripides. Athena is onstage fo r nearly two-thirds of the play (651 ou t of 1047 lines). It can hardly be called a divine epiphany when sh e enter s to mediat e a dispute amon g gods , an d he r rol e i n the resolutio n i s ambiguous. Doe s Athena herself resolv e th e conflic t by castin g th e decidin g vote ? Or is the actio n resolve d not by divine fiat bu t by the human, civil institution of trial by jury? The fina l pla y of th e trilogy involve s a search amon g variou s possible means o f resolution. At the end of Libation Bearers, Orestes, pursued by furies, left fo r Delphi to be purified b y Apollo. The expectation tha t Apollo's divine authority will resolv e the action is reinforced by the opening scene ofEumenides, i n which the Pythia traces the authorit y of Apollo's oracle back t o Themis an d to Earth her mother (1-8). This image o f a n eterna l orde r i s suddenly overturne d as th e priestes s crawl s ou t o f th e temple i n horro r a t th e monstrou s creature s inside . Apoll o ca n orde r th e Furie s t o leave hi s temple, but he cannot overrule them in the case of Orestes, an d he therefore defers t o Athena , sendin g Oreste s a s a supplian t t o Athens . Th e conflic t betwee n

38 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

Apollo and the Furies will be decided b y Athena not because her power o r authority transcends theirs , bu t becaus e sh e i s a n equa l whos e wisdo m the y trust . Ye t th e effectiveness o f her settlement i s qualified by her reliance upon threats (826-28) and bribes (804-7) , an d mos t significantl y by he r refusa l t o decid e th e issu e herself , entrusting the case instead to a jury of citizens. I n a sense we hav e come full circle , returning from th e divine to the human plane and leaving resolutio n o f the action to the civi c institution s of Athens ; a t th e sam e time , o f course , th e jurors ar e evenl y divided, an d Athena mus t cast th e deciding vote . There is thus in Eumenides no figure comparable t o a deus ex machina, although the whole pla y in a sense takes u s on a search fo r someone able to authorize an end. The en d result is somewhat uncertai n and ambiguous , forcin g u s t o wonde r ho w successfull y Athen a o r th e jur y ha s resolved events , bu t thi s i s entirel y different from th e forma l an d mannere d intervention of th e deus . The situatio n is quite different wit h Sophocles, who employ s a full-scale deus ex machina i n Philoctetes an d ma y hav e use d th e deu s i n other los t plays. 30 Sinc e th e only survivin g exampl e i s from th e end of Sophocles' career, i t is likely that his us e of th e deu s wa s influence d by poet s suc h a s Euripides. 31 I n Philoctetes, Heracle s intervenes at the last minute to rescue the scheme of Odysseus an d return the actio n to the familiar account o f legend: Philoctetes an d Neoptolemu s mus t return to Tro y with Heracles ' bow , wher e Philoctete s wil l be cure d o f hi s wound , an d th e tw o young heroes wil l bring about the sack o f Troy. A s i n Euripides, th e deus begin s by issuing a command (u.T)7tc o ye 1409 ; repeated in 1417 , cru 8' eu,rav |r60(ov ETtdKouoov), identifying himsel f (1411—12) , invokin g the authorit y of Zeu s (i d Aioc ; te <j)pdaco v po'uXe'uu.ciTa aoi 1415) , and announcin g his own divin e stature (dOdvcrcov dpetri v ea^ov, OK; TtdpeoO' opdv 1420), before launchin g into a prophecy o f events to come (1423-40). Ther e i s n o explanatio n o f pas t events ; thi s prophec y i s enoug h t o reinforce th e comman d an d t o secur e th e acceptance o f Philoctete s (1445-47 ) and Neoptolemus (1448) . This forceful interventio n has its closest parallel i n the Orestes of Euripides. I n each play , the action is about to make a surprising departur e from the familiar legend , when a god intervene s to return events to their traditional course. I n each case , the intervention is abrupt and troubling and seems to negate or overturn a prior ending that had already been reached: the departure for Greece of Neoptolemus and Philoctete s i n Sophocles, and the triumphant entry of Oreste s in Euripides. 32 In other words , no t only i s this Sophoclean deu s similar to those o f Euripides, wit h all the forma l gesture s o f command , divin e authority , and morta l acceptance , bu t i t resembles th e most extrem e intervention in Euripides, in which the god reverse s th e situation onstage . However, th e epiphan y o f Heracle s i n Philoctetes differ s i n severa l way s fro m the Euripidean deus ex machina, suggesting a different intent in Sophocles. First, for all th e divin e authority of Heracles , hi s interventio n does not juxtapose th e mortal and divin e realms . Heracle s ha s no w joine d th e gods , bu t i t was a s a morta l tha t Philoctetes befriende d hi m an d a s a morta l tha t h e gav e th e bo w t o Philoctete s in gratitude. This act of mutual friendship i s a premise o f the entire plot and i s visually represented onstag e b y the bow and the struggle t o possess it. When Heracle s enter s to resolve th e impasse, hi s authority stems fro m th e fac t tha t the bow i s his and that he (a s a mortal) gave i t to Philoctetes; this authority i s further reinforce d by the fact

Machine: Authorizing an End 3

9

that he , lik e Philoctetes, has endured great trouble s and hardship s (1418-19). The effect a t the en d i s of an off-stage character finally makin g hi s belated entrance; his presence ha s constantly been fel t throug h allusion, through the presence of the bow, and through analogies betwee n th e stories of Philoctetes an d Heracles, 33 but only at the en d ca n th e her o be seen and hear d directly (((Kxcncetv 5' aij8frv tfy v 'HpaicA^oix ; / ctKofi I E K^iJei v A,£i)oaeiv t' oxj/tv 1411-12) . This i s not s o much the incursio n of a god int o mortal affair s a s the entranc e of a mortal agent, the owne r o f the bow an d the frien d o f Philoctetes , now decke d ou t i n the trapping s of a deus. If Sophocles ' deu s doe s not arriv e fro m outsid e th e action , th e rol e h e play s is also less extraneous. As we have seen, th e deus i n Euripides usuall y intervenes in a formal manner , commanding silence o r halting the empty fulminations of a Thoas or Theoclymenus. Th e exceptio n i s Orestes, in which th e god resolve s a real impass e but does so in an implausible manner, replacing both the triumphant escape o f Orestes and his death at the hands of Menelaus and the Argives with a third ending altogether, the traditiona l exile of Orestes, an d the marriages of Electra t o Pylades and Oreste s to Hermione. Heracles i n Philoctetes also resolves a real impasse i n a manner that is not entirely plausible, but he does so within the premises o f the plot. The entire drama has revolved aroun d whethe r or not Philoctete s will g o t o Troy. I n this regard, th e play i s exceedingl y simple : either he wil l or h e won't , an d th e pla y i s a serie s of attempts to persuade him, by deception, force , friendship, and finally by divine command. There i s something artificial about bringing in the god where all else has failed, but at least the god simply tips the balance: Philoctetes wavere d before ("What shall I do ? Ho w ca n I reject hi s advic e when h e treats me lik e a friend?" 1350-51), and now a deus decides th e issue. InOrestes, however, Apollo negate s the action onstage, sweeping awa y both dramatic alternatives, Orestes' victory and escape, or his death at the hands of the Argives. Interpretatio n of Philoctetes has rightl y drawn attention to th e "Euripidean " natur e of it s ending; 34 bu t w e shoul d als o b e awar e tha t th e intervention of Heracles is less formal o r gratuitous than th e usua l deus. I n fact, we might emphasize not the debt of Sophocles' deu s t o Euripides but the way i n which Sophocles ha s revised o r corrected his younger rival. If the deus has a place onstage , Sophocles seem s to say, it is not to scatter gesture s of closure an d give th e actio n a specious sens e o f completeness ; le t th e deu s reall y resolv e a crucial issue. Divine intervention then leaves us with a problem, but a different one . Sophocle s leave s u s wondering why onl y Heracle s ca n persuad e Philoctetes; Euripide s leaves u s wondering what purpose i s served b y hi s flourish fro m th e machine. Our scant y remain s of Greek tragedy make generalization risky, but i t is reasonably clear that neither Aeschylus nor Sophocles use d the deus ex machina as a regular closing device, and it is likely that Aeschylus never used the device at all, although the searc h fo r a n agen t able to unti e th e kno t of th e Oresteia ma y wel l have influ enced later authors. The single extant example in Philoctetes suggests tha t Sophocle s experimented wit h the deu s late i n his career , bu t als o tha t h e use d i t in a differen t way, no t to advance a largely formal resolution , but to focus upon a real and precarious one. If Euripide s has a model, i t i s to be foun d no t i n drama bu t i n epic, i n Athena's intervention to end the battle between Odysseus an d the suitors' relative s in the last book of the Odyssey. No w that the story is over, now that Odysseus has returned and

40 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

the suitors have been punished , a new conflict i s introduced, as in Helen, promptin g the entrance of a god t o resolve th e impasse . Athena , lik e a Euripidean deus , inter venes wit h a command, inspire s awe i n those wh o se e her, an d ratifie s with a truce the warrin g parties' acceptanc e o f he r dispensations . Th e similaritie s ar e obvious , but so too are the differences: Athen a doe s not enter from outsid e the narrative, but has lon g inhabite d it bot h a s a go d an d a s Odysseus ' fello w conspirator , an d th e divine intervention , her e aide d b y Zeus ' thunderbolt , i s not a n inde x o f crisis but a recurring motif seen earlie r when Zeus sends Hermes to Calypso, when Hermes bring s moly to Odysseus, and when Poseidon turns the ship of the Phaeacians to stone. Th e battle with th e suitors ' relatives , provoke d b y th e angr y Eupeithes , i s nevertheles s somewhat gratuitous , and its resolution b y Athena seems contrived, thu s pointing to the problem o f narrative closure: th e apparen t end o f the plot wit h the death s o f the suitors cannot really b e the end, since th e newly returne d king mus t somehow negotiate his place amon g th e other people o f Ithaca. This problem o f closure i n the public and political spher e ha s a counterpart i n the persona l sphere : Odysseus ' reunion with hi s wif e an d famil y canno t reall y b e th e en d fo r th e wanderin g hero , bu t a s Teiresias tol d Odysseus (an d as he tells Penelope), h e will go on further travel s until he reaches peopl e wit h no knowledge o f the sea. Onl y then, in some remote plac e a t some remot e time, will he finally alla y the anger o f Poseidon an d clear the way fo r a peaceful death . Just a s th e entranc e o f Athen a anticipate s the Euripidea n deus , th e prophecy o f Teiresias anticipates th e Euripidean prophecy o f event s t o follow, an d although Teiresias stand s at the center, no t the end, of the epic, his forecast likewis e reminds the audience that the end of this poem wil l not really be the end of the story. There i s a curious contrast betwee n th e novelty of the deus that Euripides bring s onstage an d the venerable prototype s tha t we fin d i n the Odyssey. I f Euripides bor rowed fro m Homer, h e also created fo r the Athenian stage a striking innovation with no precedent i n Aeschylus o r in Sophocles. Hi s debt therefore consists in turning to a poe m o f remarkabl e narrativ e sophistication, 35 adaptin g device s tha t convey th e provisional natur e of narrative closure an d creating a figure whose spectacular , an d spectacularly formalized , entranc e throw s open th e problem o f concluding th e plot. It is worth noting , to conclude thi s section, tha t despite Euripides ' relativel y con sistent approach i n his use of the deus ex machina, a few plays stand somewhat apart . In nin e of hi s extan t plays, Euripide s use s a deus ex machina , while i n three early plays he concludes with a related device that I call the "demonic epiphany. " InMedea, Children of Heracles, andHecuba, the epilogue i s marked by a new presence, a human character who assumes unusua l power and authority; in each cas e this figure, who i s somehow mor e tha n human, destabilizes th e ending by portraying a passion tha t the drama canno t contain . Mede a come s closes t t o playin g the par t o f a go d o n th e machine. A t th e en d o f th e play , a s Jason besiege s the palac e door s determined t o rescue hi s children , Mede a suddenl y appear s o n th e roo f above , command s hi m to stop , explain s that sh e wil l bur y the m i n Corinth , an d finall y depart s upo n th e machine, carried of f i n the chariot o f her divin e grandfather, the sun . Medea , lik e a deus, foretells the future (th e death of Jason, 1386-88 ) and offers a n aetiology (rite s for th e children, 1382-83) , and like a god, sh e inflicts ferociou s an d uncompromis ing revenge.36 Medea's consuming passion—whic h destroys he r friends and family, alienates the sympathetic chorus, and eventually renounces he r own human nature—

Machine: Authorizing an End 4

1

makes a spectacl e o f transgressin g al l bounds : sh e does violence t o th e norm s o f human conduc t an d violates th e norm s o f drama. 37 The demoni c epiphan y literall y embodies Medea' s inhuma n fury, whic h canno t b e containe d o n th e huma n stage . In th e othe r tw o plays , th e excessiv e passio n o f th e protagonis t elicit s fro m the antagonis t a n expressio n o f superhuma n authority . I n Children of Heracles, Alcmene finall y prevail s ove r Eurystheu s he r persecutor , wh o i s defeate d i n battle and captured by the Athenians. But rather than showing Athenian moderation , Alcmene i s driven b y he r suffering s t o demand the unjus t murde r of Eurystheu s i n revenge. Yet Alcmene's violent transgression is suddenly and unexpectedly answere d by Eurystheus , wh o acquiesce s i n hi s deat h an d foretell s tha t hi s plac e o f burial will protect Athen s fro m descendant s o f the childre n o f Heracles . I n foretelling th e future, offerin g a n aetiology , an d usin g hi s specia l authorit y to effec t a resolution , Eurystheus approache s th e statur e o f a deus. Bu t h e doe s no t interven e fro m out side th e action ; rather , Alcmene's excessiv e passio n elicit s a spectacula r conver sion o f he r antagonist , turning the hate d king into an almost supernatura l savior. I n Hecuba, the queen's uncontainabl e suffering, drive n beyond al l bounds b y the murders o f Polydorus an d Polyxena, similarly spills over int o a terrible revenge agains t Polymestor. Hecuba' s brutalit y i n blinding Polymestor an d killing his children like wise transform s th e shameles s tyran t int o a prophe t o f destruction . Wit h super human authority worthy of a deus, he foretells the deaths of Hecuba an d Agamemnon , offers a n aetiology for a promontory near Troy, and corrects th e vengeful triumph of Hecuba. Violen t passion alters and transforms, and excessive, uncontainable passio n can transform human subjects into voices o f divine authority. InMedea, th e woman's passion transform s her int o something lik e a deus, whil e i n the other tw o play s th e epiphany i s displaced: a s too much sufferin g turns Alcmene o r Hecuba fro m victi m into avenger , i t is the ne w victi m an d pas t oppresso r wh o find s a privileged voice . In these plays , passion tha t cannot be contained transform s a mortal vessel into a figure of divine authority; the "demonic epiphany" i s a signal tha t the human actio n onstage ca n no longer contain it s own terrifyin g energies . Ye t as the playwright be comes less interested i n these play s of passion, h e stages a different proble m an d a different kin d o f epiphany . The proble m wil l n o longe r b e passio n tha t cannot b e contained, bu t a plot that cannot be closed or contained by the bounds o f the drama. The epiphany that signals and confirms this crisis will not arise from character s within the action, bu t will intrude from a privileged sphere outsid e it.

Bending the Rules By contras t wit h th e serie s o f divin e and huma n authorities in Eumenides an d wit h the human credentials of Sophocles' Heracle s an d of Euripides' demoni c epiphanies , the Euripidea n deu s e x machin a i s clearl y define d a s a figur e outsid e th e action , belonging to a different realm , and intervening in a formal manner. The formal qualities of th e deu s hav e trouble d scholar s eve r sinc e A . W . Verrall , who dre w attentio n to the singula r stiffness , formality , frigidity, an d general artlessnes s which ofte n appea r in [Euripides' ] openin g an d conclusion . The fina l scene s i n particular, th e coups de

42 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

theatre with which th e action i s wound u p or cut short , have almos t alway s a conventionality o f manner, a perfunctory style . . . [that contrasts] wit h th e originality, terseness, energy, an d passio n displaye d in other parts o f the work. 38

But for Verrall, and for the critics who took up his challenge, th e problem o f the deus was on e o f reaso n versu s piety , and th e perfunctory intervention of th e deu s wa s a signal, variousl y understood , o f th e gul f betwee n me n an d gods . Those wh o giv e greater precedenc e t o th e secula r actio n of the pla y (e.g. , Verrall , Nicola Terzaghi , Kurt vo n Fritz ) wil l se e th e forma l interventio n of th e deu s a s a direc t o r indirec t critique of the gods and of myth. 39 Those who giv e precedenc e to the divine frame , however (e.g. , Andrea s Spira , Ann e Burnett , David Kovacs) , wil l rea d th e sam e intervention a s a repriman d designed t o chasten erring mortals. 40 A third , more in teresting, approac h i s tha t o f Wielan d Schmidt , wh o regard s th e conflic t betwee n divine and huma n actio n a s aporetic, challengin g viewer s t o mak e sens e of a prob lem tha t canno t b e resolved. 41 Ther e i s muc h t o b e sai d fo r Schmidt' s argument , especially i n Ion o r Electra, where divin e authority is a locu s o f debate throughou t the play . Bu t th e sam e forma l o r mannere d deu s i s foun d i n man y othe r plays — in plays such asHippolytus and Bacchant Women i n which the god's authority is never in doubt, in a play such as Suppliant Women wit h its strong political interest, as well as in many plays now lost (e.g., Hermes mAntiope, Dionysus inHypsipyle, and Athena inErechtheus).42 So whatever the playwright's views on traditional religion, w e need to take a new approach , examinin g the deus a s one amon g severa l closin g gesture s in Euripide s and payin g attention t o what we migh t call th e rhetori c of closure. 43 The chora l exit an d the deus ex machina both formaliz e closure , introducin g external signals tha t the performance i s finished or the action i s complete. As such, both are disruptive: lowering th e curtai n to end the pla y or landin g onstage t o ti e up the plot. And bot h disruption s betray apparent problems i n the play : an unfinishe d performance an d a n incomplet e plot . W e migh t conclud e tha t th e gesture s serv e t o disguise o r concea l thes e problems , creatin g th e illusio n of a n ordere d whole . A s H. D. F. Kitt o observes: The rea l end of th e story . . . neither makes a satisfactory dramatic close nor complete s the poet's idea . . . . Therefore, i n the absenc e o f a logical climax , ther e must be mor e or les s o f deliberat e contrivance in th e ending ; a feeling o f finalit y ha s t o be created . To mee t this difficulty wa s th e functio n o f the Deus ex machina."44

I suggest instea d that th e disruptive deus serve s t o expose thi s incompleteness, an d as I shall argue in the final chapters , this disruption goes deeper, challenging not just the aestheti c unit y of th e play , but th e privilege d role o f traged y a s a literar y and cultural model. The go d on the machine is the most spectacula r agen t of this subver sion, an d I conclude by notin g that thi s Euripidean invention may hav e performe d its job to o well: in the Western dramatic tradition, the deus i s rarely found, and then not i n tragedy but i n comedy, wher e i t again perform s a subversiv e role . These descendants of the deus are few and far between, but they share a n impor tant featur e with one anothe r and wit h Euripides: they mark no t just a lack o f com pleteness i n the plot itself , but a loss of bearings i n the drama as a whole tha t threat-

Machine: Authorizing an End 4

3

ens t o violate literar y and cultural norms. Th e earlies t survivin g comic deus i s the final entrance of Jupiter in Plautus' Amphitryo, the only extant Roman comedy base d on a plot from tragedy , and the only one tha t dares t o portray the adulter y of a married woman.45 If the mythical and tragic plot gives the playwright this unprecedented license t o challenge Roman tabu, it also rescues hi m at the last minute from thi s dangerous game . At the end of the play, after Amphitryo n discovers h e has been cuck olded an d righteousl y threaten s to kill everyone i n the house , i t is the mythica l god Jupiter who restore s th e happ y endin g require d b y comedy , commandin g Amphi tryon to love his wife as before and promising him eternal fame through his stepson's deeds (1135-43) . Only the deu s can hol d in check thi s dangerous an d unusual play with adultery. Perhaps th e most famou s an d most controversia l "deus " in comedy i s the office r of the king who rescue s Orgo n a t the end of Tartuffe. I n this remarkable play, Moliere turns his comic demon insid e out. Whereas the obsessions of a Harpagon or an Alcest e destroy th e characte r fro m within , rendering hi m bot h ridiculou s an d essentiall y harmless, Tartuffe' s obsessio n with status and power spin s out of control, threaten ing to overturn the entire social an d political order. Comedy i s thus upstaged by satire, which becomes most dangerous and unsettling when Tartuffe deal s his final blo w by arrestin g Orgon. I n this extreme situation, the tables ar e suddenly and unexpectedly turned when the king's officer arrests Tartuffe instead. 46 Only this double agent of kin g and autho r can restor e orde r t o the realm an d propriet y to the drama . The Beggar's Opera mor e boldly confuses th e boundaries amon g comedy, satire , and burlesque, a s this "pastoral among the whores an d thieves" lampoons high soci ety and its pretensions, while also mocking the current vogue of Italian opera. 47 This witty travest y o f th e contemporar y scen e become s mos t subversiv e jus t a s i t approaches a moral conclusion , fo r i f MacHeath must pa y fo r his crimes, countles s members o f the upper classes should han g as well: Since Laws were made for ev'ry Degree , To cur b Vic e in others, a s well a s me, I wonde r w e han' t bette r Company , Upon Tyburn Tree! 48

At thi s point, as MacHeat h i s carried of f t o execution, th e soberin g final e carrie s a very rea l threat for "better" criminals—until th e beggar-poe t resolve s th e crisi s by rescuing bot h th e protagonist an d the comedy : Your Objection , Sir , i s very just; an d i s easily remov'd . Fo r yo u mus t allow , tha t in this kin d of Drama , 'ti s n o matte r how absurdl y things ar e brough t about.—So—yo u Rabble there—ru n an d cry a Reprieve—let the Prisoner b e brough t back t o his Wives in Triumph .

More recen t version s of the deus e x machina include adaptations of Plautus and Gay i n Brecht's Threepenny Opera an d Giraudoux's Amphitryon 38. Both reinforc e the artificia l an d theatrical quality o f the deus , Brech t b y insistin g that th e reprieve be announced by an actor on horseback,49 and Giraudoux by casting Jupiter as a stage manager callin g th e cues for actors, lights , curtain, and audience:

44 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

And we must al l disappear, god s to our zeniths, extra s to your cellars. And you , audi ence, mus t fil e ou t withou t a word, wit h a n affectatio n o f tota l indifference . Now le t Alcmena an d he r husban d appea r on e las t time , alon e i n a circl e o f light , wher e m y arm wil l b e see n n o more sav e as a pointer i n the direction o f happiness; an d now , o n this coupl e whic h n o adulter y ha s touche d no r eve r will , which wil l neve r kno w th e taste o f sinfu l kisses , now , t o enclos e thi s glad e o f fidelit y i n a wal l o f velvet , now , curtains of th e night , who fo r nearl y a n hou r hav e hel d back—no w fall. 5 "

In Euripides , th e deus i s equally theatrical , making it s spectacular landin g upon th e palace roof , an d it is equally dangerous, drawing attention not just to a local proble m of closure (How ca n this plot reac h a n end?) but to a broader problem of genre (Ho w has the drama embraced issue s or questions tha t it is not equipped t o resolve?). Seen in this light, Euripides' regula r us e of the deus ex machina is remarkable. Where late r playwrights use the deus only rarel y t o tes t an d expose the limits of thei r work, fo r Euripides this is not the exception bu t the rule. If the tragedian, as Antiphanes claims , can use the deus a s a convenient gestur e t o keep the audience happy an d safely reaf firm th e tast e o f th e town , thi s i s only becaus e h e als o insist s o n challengin g an d subverting it s beliefs an d assumptions .

4 Vestige: Traces of the Pas t Over Gree k locale s an d th e body o f thei r ancien t legends , Euripide s swims and sail s like a bead upo n a sea o f quicksilver . GOETHE

The most obviou s closin g gesture s i n Euripidean dram a ar e the chora l exi t an d th e deus e x machina . The y ar e also the mos t controversial : chora l exit s are frequently considered spurious , whil e th e spectacular deu s invite s sharply conflicting interpre tations. Thes e visibl e an d problemati c gestures , a s I hav e argued , ar e specificall y formal answer s t o th e basic questions o f dramatic closure : ho w t o en d th e perfor mance an d ho w t o conclud e th e action . I turn now, i n this chapter an d th e next , t o further closin g gesture s tha t are less visible but every bit as important: the aition and the concludin g prophec y regularl y spoke n b y th e deu s e x machin a (or b y anothe r figure playing a similar role). I n so doing, we not only get a closer an d more detailed look a t Euripidea n endings , bu t approac h th e proble m o f closur e fro m a differen t angle. Chora l exi t an d deu s e x machina , after all , addres s wha t w e migh t cal l th e minimum formal requirement s of closure: i n one way o r another, the stage must b e emptied an d the action mus t end . Aetiology an d prophecy, however , explor e conti nuities tha t migh t resis t suc h closure : th e historica l an d th e narrativ e continuum enacted b y the drama. It would perhaps be convenient to bring in again th e contras t between for m an d content , arguin g tha t thes e continuous threads are the content o r matter that dramatic form attempt s t o shape or confine. This neo-Aristotelian model certainly has its uses (as we shall see in the following chapter). But its emphasis upon the continuum a s stuf f t o be shape d o r moulde d doe s no t give sufficien t weigh t t o the nature or logic o f this continuum. Unlike modern drama , Gree k traged y was essentiall y historical: it reenacted epi sodes fro m th e past . Fo r us , the pas t o f myt h and legen d i s radically different fro m the "factual, " recorde d pas t o f history , an d bot h ar e entirel y differen t fro m th e invented, factitious events portrayed in drama. Greeks in the fift h century , however , did no t shar e ou r clea r distinctio n betwee n "myth " an d "history. " Th e Battl e of Marathon and the Trojan Wa r differed les s in kind than in distance; both were "real" or historical event s i n th e recen t o r not-so-recent past . And i n describin g thi s past , tragedy was less an exercise of the imagination than a reenactment of a shared, pub lic history. 1 Henc e th e striking differences i n staging. Moder n dram a is understood to be a fiction , requirin g the spectators—eve n i n ostensibl y "historical" plays—t o 45

46 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

accept a s "real" situations they know are factitious, and in the modern theater, a private, dark interior and illumined stag e invite the individual t o a personal exercise of the imagination. Greek tragedy, however, requires the audience to accept the present staging a s a reenactment o f the past; and i n the ancien t theater, a performance out doors, o n a state holiday and before all the people of the city, invites the spectators t o witness a replaying of thei r common past. 2 In wha t ways doe s th e drama define o r mark ou t th e distanc e betwee n pas t an d present? There ar e many possibilities, bu t Euripides regularly ended his plays with a clear and explicit marker. The aition, or closing aetiology , spells out the connection between past and present by showing tha t events of the play survive in some specifi c way int o th e presen t worl d o f th e audience . Medea, fo r example , announce s from the palace roo f tha t the murder of he r children will be commemorated i n the futur e by rite s performed i n Corinth: in th e lan d o f Sisyphu s I shal l establish fo r th e futur e a hol y festival an d rite s for this impious murder. •yfj 5 e TTJS e Zi0v>oi > aeuvf]v eopTf] v Ka i TeA,r | 7ipoad\|/O|aev TO A.OITTO V ctvd ToCS e 8-uaaefioiJc ; 4>6voi) . Medea

1381-8 3

Inlphigenia among the Taurians, Athena explains to Orestes tha t a statue of Artemis at Halae will be named for his adventures among th e Taurians : [when yo u come to Halae] build a shrin e ther e an d se t up th e statue, named fo r th e Tauria n lan d an d fo r th e trouble s you suffere d wanderin g aroun d Greec e goaded by Furies; mortals in future wil l sin g of thi s as th e goddess Artemis Tauropolos. evTccuOa TETJ^OI ; vaov i5pi>aa i ppetai; , ETCCOVDUOV yfjc ; Torupucii ^ Ttovwv T C awv , ovc, e^eu,6%9en; jiepuioXrov Ka6 ' 'EAXctS a oiotpoic; 'Epivuwv. "Apteui v 8e viv ppoto i TO XoiTto v iju,vr|croi)a i TcmpOTioXo v 9edv . 1453-5 7

Only because traged y is "historical" i n the sense I have described, can the aition play a meaningful role at the end, connecting th e enacte d past to the spectators' present . Yet nothin g demands th e presence o f a n aition; there are man y ways i n which thi s connection may be articulated, and other gestures tha t may (or may not) be deployed. If the aition is Euripides' individua l approach t o a peculiar feature of Greek tragedy, i t is not unique. In Western drama , the late medieval mystery play i s also "his torical" insofa r as i t reenacts the "factual" past o f the Bible, an d i t also offers interesting parallels to Euripidea n aetiologies. I n the Chester cycle, fo r example, Noyes Fludd end s with God's promise t o Noah :

Vestige: Traces of the Past 4

7

My bow e betwen e yo u an d mee in the fyrmamente shalbe, by verey tokeninge tha t you ma y se e that such vengeanc e shal l cease. The man ne woman shal l neve r more be wasted b y water as hath before . . . Where clowdes in the welkyn bynne, that ylke bowe shalb e scene , in tokeninge that my wrat h and teen e shall neve r thus wroken bee. 3

The rainbo w show n t o Noa h i s th e origi n o f th e rainbow s w e se e today , and thi s aetiology connect s th e dramatic action with the world o f the audience, invitin g the spectator to share the lesson delivered to Noah. In this case, the connection betwee n past an d present i s not made explicit , an d the difference between the m is less pro nounced. Becaus e God's covenant implicitl y embrace s not only the dramatic Noah but also the extra-dramatic spectator, th e play's closure becomes all-embracing an d metaphorical: actor s an d audienc e ar e likewis e redeeme d b y th e transformin g authority of God's word. At the end of the Chester Nativity, however , the exposito r explicitly connects past and present in a closing reference to the contemporary church of St. Mary, or Ara Caeli , at Rome: Lordings, that this is verey by vere y synge knowe yee maye; for i n Rome i n good faye , thereas this thinge was scene , was buyl d a church i n noble araye— in worship of Marye , tha t sweete maye— that yett lastes untyll thi s daye, as men know e tha t there have binne. . . . the church is called S t Marye. The surname is Ara Caeli , that men know e now e well therb y that this was fully c trewe. 4

In this version of the nativity, when Christ is born in Bethlehem, the emperor Octavian at Rom e sees a vision of the newbor n bab y an d his virgin mother ; inspired by thi s vision, th e empero r order s hi s subject s t o worshi p th e child , thu s foundin g th e Roman Catholic Church. The s'tory of Octavian's vision and the evidence o f the Ara Caeli are essential links between the biblical account of the nativity and the familiar institution o f th e church . The explici t connectio n betwee n pas t an d presen t (an d between Eas t and West) joins a contemporary institution to the biblical authority of Christ's birth, even as it acknowledges their distance and their difference: Saint Mary's church is merely a vestige of biblical truth, a part that attempts to indicate the whole. These tw o example s from th e Cheste r cycl e connec t pas t t o present in differen t ways, and the Greek tragedians likewise found differen t way s of representing such a link. One possible approac h is to ignore the issue, avoiding comment on the relation

48 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

between pas t an d presen t an d treatin g the dramatic action a s self-containe d o r self sufficient. Thi s i s th e usua l procedur e o f Sophocles, whos e play s see m bot h mor e "organic" and more fictiona l because the y do not overtly link the viewers' present to the enacted past. Both Aeschylus an d Euripides, however, draw attention to this historical continuum, although they do so in different ways . Aeschylus, a s we shal l see , uses aetiologie s a t various point s i n his plays to include th e present within the reenacted past , whil e Euripide s use s explici t closin g aetiologie s t o mar k th e distanc e between the m an d t o se t asid e th e presen t a s a vestig e o f th e past . Th e aitio n in Euripides, in other words, i s interesting for the way i n which it divides, as well as the way i n which i t joins. In lookin g more closel y a t this ambivalent gesture, I shall define aition (for m y purposes5) a s an aetiolog y occurrin g a t the en d o f a play an d explicitl y connectin g the plo t wit h th e worl d o f th e audience . Suc h aitia ar e foun d i n ever y complet e Euripidean ending with the exception s o f Alcestis, Trojan Women, an d Phoenician Women6 (ther e is a lacuna in Bacchant Women, and the ending oflphigenia atAulis is not genuine7) and are always spoken b y a deus ex machina or a similar figure. Each of these features, as we shall see, helps to define the distance between pas t and present. One shoul d note tha t although mos t aiti a are explanations o f name s o r institutions, the converse i s not true. When Xuthu s calls th e young man Ion because h e saw him coming ou t (e^iovxv, Ion 661-62), this is not an aition since the etymology involve s no connection betwee n enacte d event s an d the contemporary world. 8

Joining and Dividing Euripidean aetiologie s almos t alway s occu r a t the en d of a play, and i n this position, they can most clearl y articulate the distance between pas t and present. Fro m thi s vantage, for example, we can look back to the dramatic problem of Ion and his lineage and forward t o th e Athenian Empir e tha t claim s hi m a s it s founder; w e loo k bac k t o the human protagonis t and forward to the name that is all that survives o f him: And th e children born in tur n fro m [Ion' s children) a t the fate d tim e will coloniz e th e islan d states o f th e Cyclade s and th e mainlan d coasts, giving strength to m y land ; on eithe r side o f th e strai t they wil l inhabit the tw o continents , Asia and Europe ; and the y will b e famous , calle d lonians thanks to thi s man's name . oi TcovS e 8' cm 7icd5e<; Yevouevoi a w xpov w Tteicpcouevc p K\)KXd8at; eiroiKf|aoi>ai vriaaiat ; noXeic, Xepaouc; Te TiapdXoix;, 6 aQevoc, rnufl X0° vl 5i5cooiv dviiTiopGu a 5 ' fr/teipotv 5uov v jtp.Sia KaTOiKfioouaiv , 'Aoid6o< ; ie yf\c, Ei)pamia<; wr toi38i : S' ovouatoc; xaplv "Icoveq ovonaaOcviec ; e^ouaiv K^eoc, . Ion 1581-8 8

Vestige: Traces o f th e Past 4

9

The aitio n that closes th e play is a bridge of sorts that carries us over from the past of Athenian legen d t o th e presen t exten t o f th e city' s power . An d i n s o doing , i t no t only marks out the thread that connects them , but signals the gap to be crossed fro m the youn g ma n o f the play t o present-day lonians. No t ever y closin g aetiolog y ha s this effect ; God' s promise t o Noa h doe s not divid e pas t fro m present , bu t implie s that ther e i s no differenc e between Noah' s rainbo w an d thos e see n b y th e specta tors—nor betwee n hi s contrac t wit h Noah an d hi s contrac t wit h member s o f th e audience. I n Euripides, however, the closing aetiology suggest s a difference of kind: a youn g boy searchin g for identit y (Ion) versu s a collective nam e for Greek s allie d to Athens (lonians), or a young man trapped in a cycle of revenge (Orestes ) versu s a small tow n i n the Peloponnese: 9 As fo r you , Orestes, yo u must excee d thi s country's bounds and liv e a round yea r o n Parrhasia n soil. There, name d fo r your exile, Azanian s and Arcadian s wil l call i t Oresteion .

ae 5 ' ec u xpewv , 'Opeota, yaiac; TtiaS' TJiteppa/VovO ' 6pou< ; Oappdoiov OIKEI V ScmeSo v eviatrtot) KIIK^O V KeKXriaeTai 8e afjc ; (t>uyn< ; ETCWVUHO V 'Ai^aciv ApKctai v t' 'Opecrceiov xaXeiv . Orestes

1643-4 7

It i s therefore unusual, and worth noting, that two aetiologie s i n Euripides occur before th e en d o f the play. In one, Aphrodite explains how a temple i n Athens wa s named for Hippolytu s (Hippolytus 29-33); l() as I argue i n a later chapter, this aition in th e prologu e contribute s to a more genera l sense of prematur e closure, markin g off pas t fro m presen t before the play has even begun. The secon d exceptio n i s doubly interesting : in the middle oflphigenia among the Taurians (951-60), Orestes, a mortal, explains how his reception in Athens will give rise to the festival of the Chocs; I suggest belo w that this out-of-place aition serves to confuse the distinction between the world o f th e plot an d tha t of the audience. To mar k th e connection between pas t and present require s a figure whose privileged knowledg e extend s beyond the bounds of the drama. This ma y be a god, a s in Noyes Fludd, o r a narrator, as i n the Nativity, an d i n Euripide s i s usuall y a deus ex machina. When a narrator deliver s the aition , h e stands outsid e the dramati c action and addresse s the spectators directly, collaborating with them i n imagining or constructing a link between past and present. Such a figure, standing in the world of the viewer an d commentin g upon th e performance, establishe s a clear divid e between them. A god, however, may tak e part in the action, a s he does in Noyes Fludd, an d speak wit h th e same authorit y to actors an d audience. If his words hav e the same or similar meaning for Noah and spectator, the divide disappears and one realm is merely an extension of the other. The deus stands somewhere in between. The go d is a character withi n the play who maintain s the dramatic illusion, but by appearin g only at the end upo n th e roof o r the machine, he or she stands partl y outsid e the action an d speaks mor e directly to the viewer. As a result, the deus who delivers the aition speaks

50 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

with tw o voices , foretellin g for th e her o event s h e doe s no t understand , while ex plaining a name o r institutio n already familia r to the audience. If the deus is a figure within the drama who stand s partly outside it, like the Cheste r cycle's expositor, th e same i s true of plays that conclude wit h a demonic epiphany . In Children o f Heracles, Eurystheu s mention s th e oracl e foretellin g tha t hi s tom b will protec t Athen s fro m invader s (1028-36) , an d i n Hecuba, Polymesto r repeat s Dionysus' prophec y o f her transformation into a dog an d he r death at a place calle d Kynossema, or Dog's Tomb (1265-73) . This ability to connect th e action to event s known onl y t o th e audienc e reinforce s th e privilege d statur e o f th e condemne d Eurystheus and the blinded Polymestor a s somehow divine or authorial figures. Medea takes on a similar role with greater violence . Afte r killin g her own childre n in orde r to make he r husband suffer , sh e usurp s fro m Jaso n th e right and duty of burying the children, an d sh e usurp s divine prerogative b y establishin g rite s in their honor: No! I shal l bur y the m wit h thi s hand , taking them t o Hera Akraia' s shrin e lest on e o f thei r enemies dishonor them , tearing u p thei r tombs ; an d i n the lan d o f Sisyphu s I shal l establis h fo r th e futur e a hol y festival an d rite s fo r thi s impious murder . o\> Sfji , eTte i a<j>a< ; 1138 ' eyw 9dv|/t o xepi, (]>epoua' e< ; "Hpa< ; tenevoc; 'AKpatac; Geoij , (ix; (if| tii; amoxx; jto>teuicov KaGiipptari ruupoxx; dvaoTcwv yf j 8 e tfjSe Ziat>oi ) aeuvfiv eopifi v Ka i xeXr i Tipoadxj/one v TO ^.OITIO V dvT i ToiJS e §t>aaepot>5 <j>6vou. Medea

1378-8 3

Something ver y lik e a n aitio n i s spoken b y anothe r mortal , Theseus, wh o enter s a t the end of Heracles to persuade Heracle s no t to commit suicide , promising that afte r he dies , shrine s an d festival s in Athens wil l honor hi m (1331-33). As we shal l see (chapter 8), Theseus plays an ambiguous role , and the aition i s part the assurance o f a deus , par t the promis e o f a friend . An intriguin g exceptio n i s th e passag e i n th e middl e o f Iphigenia among th e Taurians, i n which Orestes report s tha t his receptio n a t Athens will give ris e t o the festival o f th e Choe s (951-60) . Thi s aitio n clearl y an d explicitl y connect s event s involving the dramatic character with rites familiar to members of the audience. Yet unlike the demonic figures mentioned abov e (o r even Theseus th e savior), th e mortal Orestes ha s nothing that would give him knowledge o f rites outside the drama, or allow hi m to connect one world to the other. Some critic s respond to this anomaly by simply deletin g the lines." There ma y b e less drastic remedies. A t thi s point i n the play, the reunion between Oreste s an d Iphigenia brings together two stories, th e fantastic account of Iphigenia's rescue from Aulis, spirited off among the exotic Taurians, and th e story of Orestes' exile and trial immortalized by Aeschylus. A s these storie s come togethe r to for m a new plot , Oreste s rewrite s hi s own past , tellin g us tha t th e end o f Aeschylus' trilog y wa s no t th e en d afte r all : afte r hi s tria l an d acquitta l in Athens, th e Furies wer e stil l not satisfied, bu t hounde d him agai n unti l Apollo tol d

Vestige: Traces of the Past 5

1

him to bring back the statue of Artemis fro m the Taurians (968-78). This rewritin g of Aeschylus and of the aition that concluded Eumenides is accompanied wit h a new and perhap s origina l aitio n fo r th e festiva l o f th e Choes. 12 The resul t i s a peculia r form of distancing: between Euripides' Ore&te s and the familiar version of Aeschylu s is a gap o r divide as clearly marke d a s the divide between spectato r an d Orestes . A similar techniqu e i s the us e o f a n aitio n i n the prologu e o f Hippolytus t o mar k th e distance betwee n th e first and secon d version s o f the play (se e chapte r 6) . Perhaps th e mos t characteristi c featur e o f th e Euripidea n aitio n i s th e explici t connection betwee n th e mythical plot and the world of the audience. The narrator in the Chester Nativity make s suc h a link by addressing th e spectators ("Lordings , that this is verey . . .") and overtly connecting events of the play to the contemporary setting ("tha t yet t laste s untyl l thi s daye , / a s men know e tha t ther e hav e binne") . In Euripides, the aition is spoken b y a deus who does no t address th e audience directly, but nevertheless clearl y refers to the world outsid e the drama. At the end of Orestes, for example, Apoll o speaks to a character within the drama (ae 8' oru /pecov, / 'Opeata, "as for you, Orestes " 1643-44) even as he explains a commemorative nam e tha t will be spoke n i n the futur e (A^otoi v Apicda w t' 'Opeateiov KaA,eiv , "Azanian s and Arcadians will call it Oresteion" 1647) and that belongs t o the world of the audience rather than th e drama . Polymesto r i s engaged i n a heate d an d rapi d exchange wit h Hecuba whe n h e connects he r transformation an d death to a landmark that has meaning only for the spectators: 13 POLYMESTOR: You'l l become a dog wit h fier y eye s . . . HHCUBA: Wil l I en d m y lif e there, or wil l I live? POLYMESTOR: Yo u wil l die, an d you r tomb will b e named — HECUBA: D o yo u mea n som e charm for m y form ? POLYMESTOR: A wretche d Dog' s Tomb, landmar k for sailors . Ho. Ki>co v yevncrr i Tiiipa ' eypvaa Sepyuai a . . . EK. BavoxJa a 8 ' f\ £GOCT ' ev9d8' EK7tA,T|aa > piov ; Flo. Savoiioct ' rup,p( o 5' ovojia a w KeK/Vfiaetai — EK. uop^fjt ; encoSo v UT | 11 tfjq eufic ; epelq;

Flo. Kvvot ; TcAaivnq afpa, vaimA,oi q lEKuap. Hecuba 1265 , 1270-73 This explicit connection with the world of the audience distinguishes the aition from other forms of allusion. Occasionally a n aetiological allusio n looks beyond the world of the dram a withou t connecting i t to th e world o f th e audience . In the prologu e of Trojan Women, Poseidon mention s the future fame of the Trojan horse (Ttpoq dvSpmv "uatepcov KeKA.r|ceTm / Soxjpeioi; 'innoc,, "it shall be called b y late r men th e Woode n Horse," 13-14), but the Trojan Hors e wa s alread y famous whe n Odysseu s reache d Scheria (Odyssey 8.492-515) , so we ar e not dealing with a lin k t o th e world of the spectator. 14 Likewis e i n Alcestis, the choru s look s forwar d t o song s i n memor y of Alcestis (445-54 ) without situating these song s in the contemporary world. 15 The connection betwee n past and present is usually accompanied b y phrases (such as TO A.OUIOV, "in th e future" ; KeKA.fiaeT.ai, "shall b e named" ; an d e7to>vuu.o<; , "named for") tha t clearly poin t t o th e worl d o f th e viewers , eve n a s the y acknowledge it s

52 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

distance fro m event s of the play. In fact, such phrases ar e a regular, formal index of separation foun d with almost ever y aition. 16 There i s an interesting case where thi s formulaic connectio n betwee n pas t an d presen t i s no t spelle d out . A t th e en d o f Andromache, Thetis explain s th e origin of the well-known tom b o f Neoptolemus at Delphi: The dea d so n o f Achilles here , yo u must take t o the Pythia n hearth and bury, a disgrac e fo r Delphi , so his tom b ma y announce the violent murde r of Orestes ' hand . tov uev OavovT a TovS ' A%iA,A,ea> 5 yovov 6d\|/ov Ttopewat; n\)6iKf)v repot; eoxdpav, Aerate; 6 veiSoc;, w< ; dnayyeXAji TOIJJOC ; <|>6vov ptaio v tfn; 'OpeaTEicn ; xepot;' 1239^ 2

Why doe s Thetis no t state explicitl y that the tomb will b e known "t o mortal s in the future" a s a memorial t o Orestes ' violence ? Fo r goo d reason : Euripides ' audienc e knew th e tom b a s a testament t o th e hybri s of Neoptolemu s (wh o cam e t o Delph i demanding that Apollo aton e for the death of his father, Achilles17); Euripides is free to alter its meaning in this play, but he cannot claim that his new version i s common knowledge (o n novel aetiologies , se e discussion late r i n this chapter). Placed a t the en d o f the play, spoken b y a deus o r simila r figure , an d makin g an explicit connectio n betwee n th e pas t enacte d i n th e dram a an d th e presen t o f th e spectators, th e aitio n draw s attentio n to the gap o r divid e that it attempts to bridge . Does this mean tha t the gesture i s futile? Ho w doe s Euripide s represen t o r reinterpret the connection betwee n cultura l past and present? At least i n the surviving plays, there are two distinct patterns: present ritual may commemorate thos e who have died, or figures fro m th e past ma y liv e on through their names. Ye t both patterns tend to attenuate the connection they establish and in some case s to suggest tha t the connec tion i s a factitious one .

A Slender Thread The aitio n often commemorate s th e deat h o f a characte r i n th e play , pointing to a tomb or rite s of mourning tha t serve a s a memorial in the contemporar y world , and which afford consolation o r atonement for the character's death . Thus Medea' s chil dren hav e bee n cruell y murdered, but the y are remembere d foreve r i n th e rite s a t Corinth, an d Hippolytus , despit e hi s tragic death , will always receiv e tribut e from the youn g women o f Trozen. I n this form, the aitio n is a very effectiv e closin g de vice. Th e plo t reache s a natura l conclusion wit h the character' s death , th e signifi cance o f this death is suggested by its commemoration, and the connection betwee n past death and present rites includes the audience in remembering and reflecting upon this end. A n interestin g paralle l is the pair of commemorativ e statue s a t the en d of Romeo and Juliet:

Vestige: Traces of the Past 5

3

MONTAGUE: Fo r I will rais e her statu e i n pure gold; That whil e Verona b y tha t nam e i s known, There shall n o figur e a t such rat e i s known, As tha t o f tru e an d faithfu l Juliet . CAPULET: A s ric h shal l Romeo' s by hi s lady's lie, Poor sacrifice s o f our enmity ! The tragic action reaches its conclusion wit h the deaths of the two lovers and is reified in twi n statue s a t the end : th e tragi c beaut y of th e dram a an d th e lesso n i t convey s have a tangible counterpart in the golden statue s that will likewise move an d inspir e their viewers. Th e suggestion tha t the action, like a well-wrought sculpture, i s com plete an d self-sufficien t i s possible onl y because Shakespeare' s memorial s ar e fic tional and entirely contained within the drama. In Euripides, however, reference t o a contemporary memoria l familiar to the audience places the objective token of com pleteness outside the drama, sundering the end in death from its completion i n ritual. A goo d illustratio n is the death o f Hippolytus. As th e youn g ma n lie s dyin g onstage , Artemi s foretell s th e Trozenian rite s that will honor th e hero afte r hi s death: 19 You who hav e suffered s o much , I will give yo u for you r suffering s grea t hono r i n the cit y of Trozen: unmarried girl s before the y we d will cu t thei r hai r for you, harvesting throughout lon g time a great sorro w o f tears. You will alway s be musicall y remembere d by virgins , and Phaedra' s love fo r you will neve r fal l silen t or nameless. ooi 5' , ( 6 Ta^aiTtcop', dvui T(5v6 e tco v KOKW V TIU.CK; ueyiaiat; ev TtoTiE i Tpoijivia Scoaay Kopa i yap a^uyet; yauxov rcdpoi; Kouaq KEpowiai aov, 81' alcbvo<; (j.aKpo\ J TtevGri (leyioTa 8aKpx>co v Kap;toDu.evai . del Se (loixKmoioc; EC, oe TtapGevoov EOTOI u.epifiva , KOTJ K dvcovuuxx ; Tteocov epax; 6 ai5pac; EC, ae aiyr]6ric7eTai. 1423-3 0 At the end of the play Hippolytus dies, Aphrodite's pla n of revenge is complete, an d the hero' s suffering s will b e remembere d i n the bridal customs o f Trozen . Thi s ef fective closur e i s reinforced b y th e aition , which offers in ritua l a tangible counterpart to the content of the drama. As we shall see, thi s effective aetiology is unusual: only i n Hippolytus doe s the aitio n commemorate th e death of the protagonist i n th e course o f the drama—thus resuming o r reenacting the tragic action. Yet thi s is only a promise made to console th e dying Hippolytus, a promise that from the characters ' perspective mus t remai n unfulfilled. Fro m th e viewer' s perspective , however , th e shrine of Hippolytus at Trozen an d the rites performed there are objective facts , an d the gestur e o f the deu s succeeds i n joining dissimilar things : the god's consolatio n

54 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

of a favorite and current practice i n another city. The tribut e offered b y Montague is a parallel to, or a metaphor for, the respectful response of the audience, while Artemis challenges th e viewer t o make the connection betwee n par t and whole, betwee n th e hero's sufferin g an d th e vestig e preserve d i n ritual . As w e shal l se e i n chapte r 6 , the ga p betwee n dramati c consolatio n an d ritua l vestige i s furthe r signale d b y th e absence of the thread connecting them : there is no mention of Hippolytus' death, no preparations are made o r mentioned fo r his funeral, and eve n th e rite s promised b y Artemis mak e n o mentio n of burial. Yet Hippolytus i s an exception; usuall y the connectio n betwee n plo t an d com memoration i s eve n les s straightforward . When th e aitio n promise s ritua l hono r for on e wh o ha s died , this is frequently fo r a mino r characte r rathe r than the pro tagonist: th e unname d childre n o f Medea , th e secondar y figur e Neoptolemu s i n Andromache, or th e Seve n wh o die d befor e th e pla y begin s i n Suppliant Women. If no t displace d o n lesse r figures, it i s postponed t o the future . Al l othe r aiti a that honor th e dea d commemorat e a character who i s stil l aliv e at the en d o f th e play: the condemne d Eurystheu s who foretell s hi s ow n deat h i n Children of Heracles, the death of Hecuba foretol d by the blinded Polymestor, and the death of Iphigeni a at Brauro n foretold b y Athen a i n Iphigenia among the Taurians.20 Thes e gestures of commemoration ma y be marginalized further. \nHecuba, the name Kynossem a does double duty, remembering Hecuba's transformatio n into a dog, a s well a s her future death ; i n Suppliant Women, th e aitio n i s mor e concerne d wit h th e treat y between Athenians and Argives tha n with the seven pyres ; and in Iphigenia, Athen a dwells a t length o n th e exil e of Oreste s befor e alluding , as a n afterthought , to hi s sister's death . The potentia l role of th e aitio n in bodyin g forth th e tragi c actio n i s thus undermined by the gap between dramatic death and ritual vestige, and i n most cases i s furthe r compromised b y referenc e t o a futur e deat h o r t o th e deat h o f a secondary figure . The aitio n ma y als o commemorat e a livin g character wh o wil l giv e a place o r a people it s name; this figure will thus outlive the action of the play, surviving, in name, to the present day. Orestes i n his future exil e will give hi s name to a town in Arcadia, and Io n an d Creus a throug h thei r childre n will giv e name s t o th e tribe s o f Athen s and th e races o f Greece. There i s a fundamental differenc e between the two types of aetiology. 21 Wherea s rite s for th e dea d see k t o reassur e u s tha t th e en d i n deat h i s complete an d appropriate , names of th e livin g reassur e u s tha t th e her o live s on fa r beyond th e en d o f th e drama. One suggest s completenes s whil e the othe r suggest s continuity. They also establish different sort s of connection between past and present. As Romeo and Juliet an d Hippolytus suggest , ther e i s o r ma y b e a n equivalenc e between actio n an d vestige, between a hero's tragi c death and the present memoria l that bear s witnes s t o it . The name , however , doe s no t preten d t o equivalence . I n certain contexts , a name carries with i t power ove r th e person named ; Polyphemus, for example , ca n onl y curse Odysseu s whe n h e know s hi s name. Bu t eve n so , i t is the sig n an d no t th e thing , an d thi s lac k o f equivalenc e i s stresse d i n Euripidean aetiologies. A small town, Oresteion, preserves a trace of Orestes' name ; an epithet of Artemis , Tauropolos, i s a reli c o f Iphigenia' s journey amon g th e Taurians . Th e aition mark s the distance and th e difference between th e contemporary world an d a mythical past tha t survive s only i n fossilized traces .

Vestige: Traces o f th e Past 5

5

This slender thread between past and present is often spu n out further b y placin g the lin k betwee n the m outsid e th e drama , i n a sequel . Th e tow n Oresteion , fo r example, preserve s Orestes ' nam e not because o f anything he does i n the play, but because in the wanderings tha t will follow onc e the play i s over, Oreste s wil l spend time in Arcadia as an exile (Orestes) o r a settler (Electro). In Ion, thi s further remov e is also one o f lineage : the fou r tribes will be name d no t for Io n but fo r son s h e will father i n th e future , whil e Dorian s an d Achaeans wil l be name d for futur e children of Creusa . I n Helen, th e threa d i s spu n ou t i n a differen t direction . Th e Dioscur i explain t o Hele n tha t an island will be named for her: And wher e Maia' s so n first anchore d you when h e carrie d you of f fro m Spart a throug h heaven and stol e you r body s o Paris could no t marr y you — I mea n th e stretc h of islan d guarding Acte— mortals i n futur e wil l cal l thi s Helene since he too k yo u stolen from th e house . oil § ' copuioe v ce Ttpdrca Mcad5o< ; TOKOI; SrcdptT)? cnrapa<; TOV teat ' oi>pav6v Spouov , KXe\|/aq Seuac ; oov uf ) ndpic ; yrjueie ae , <j)poupov Ttap ' 'Aictr\ v t£Tauevn.v vfjao v Xeyw , 'EXevn. to A.out6 v ev [}potoi< ; KeicA.f|aetat, ETtel KXoTtaia v a' K K 56u« v eSe^Mto . 1670-7 5

Here th e deu s refers no t to future wandering s but t o the past, an d i n particular to an episode seventee n years before th e beginning of the play, when Pari s first abducte d Helen (o r rather her phantom) and Hermes carrie d the real Hele n t o Egypt; Herme s apparently mad e a rest stop o n the way t o Egypt, and a minor island therefore bears the name Helene. Both classe s o f aetiologies, thos e that commemorate th e dead an d those tha t preserve th e name s o f th e living , tend to attenuat e the connectio n betwee n pas t an d present. Bu t ther e i s als o a difference between th e tw o classes , on e tha t coincide s to a large degree wit h differences between earlie r and late r plays. There ar e several changes i n Euripides ' styl e commonl y place d a t o r soo n afte r 42 0 B.c.E., 22 which thus distinguis h a n earlie r group o f play s (Alcestis, Medea, Children o f Heracles, Hippolytus, Andromache, Hecuba, and Suppliant Women) fro m a later group (Electra, Heracles, Trojan Women, Iphigenia among the Taurians, Ion, Helen, Phoenician Women, Orestes, Bacchant Women, an d Iphigenia atAulis). A s we have seen, plays in the earlier group tend to commemorate a character's deat h with a tomb or funera l rites, while thos e i n the late r group ten d to preserve th e nam e o f a livin g character and mor e ofte n involv e a sequel t o th e plot . Late r plays also ma y includ e multiple aetiologies, eithe r because mor e than one character is to be remembered (Orestes and Iphigenia i n Iphigenia among the Taurians, Io n and hi s various descendants in Ion) or because a single character is to be remembered in several ways (Orestes a t Athens and i n Arcadi a i n Electra). O f course , th e divisio n i s no t a stric t o r absolut e one . Among play s o f th e forme r group, Kynossem a i n Hecuba i s bot h a memoria l fo r Hecuba's deat h an d a name recording her transformation into a dog, an d Suppliant

56 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

Women devote s muc h mor e space to th e aition commemorating th e treat y with th e Argives tha n i t doe s t o memorial s fo r th e falle n Seven . Amon g th e latte r group , Theseus allude s at th e en d o f Heracles bot h t o shrine s named fo r Heracle s whil e he i s alive an d rite s i n hi s hono r afte r he dies , an d Iphigenla among the Taurians includes bot h a shrin e name d fo r Iphigenia' s travel s an d a rit e rememberin g he r future death . We might add a different combinatio n mElectra, where aiti a that close the play by recalling the resolution o f Eumenides (1265-69) are supplemented b y a new aition that looks forwar d t o a town named fo r Orestes (1273-75) . The aitio n in early plays tends to commemorate th e deat h of a character, but thi s gesture o f com pleteness, alread y displaced ont o minor characters or postponed t o the future, i s combined in a transitional period with others that more openly advertise continuity, while in late plays, the aition simply preserve s a name into the future. This i s to generaliz e from a small sample, making no attempt to reconstruct an aition in Bacchant Women,23 but ther e is nevertheless a marked shif t o f emphasis towar d continuit y and towar d a nominal connection between pas t an d present . Finally, th e thread between pas t an d presen t may appea r mor e slende r i f we ar e made awar e o f it s factitious nature. Aetiology i n general i s often par t fac t an d part fiction. W e know why th e camel ha s a hump, but we enjoy the just-so stor y becaus e it creates an engaging, if fictional, explanation. Or we may have no idea why the camel has a hump, but we enjoy the explanation and need not take too seriously our narrator's claim tha t th e evidenc e o f th e hum p prove s th e stor y true . The Cheste r Nativity offers a nove l accoun t o f ho w th e Roma n Catholi c Churc h bega n wit h Octavian' s dream an d produce s a s evidenc e th e Ar a Cael i i n Rome . Apparently , th e Oresteia does likewise, givin g a new accoun t o f the origin of Athenian judicial process in the trial of Orestes an d offering as evidence th e court of the Areopagus. 24 In each case , the explanatio n works no t because i t is known to be true, but because i t ought to be true, becaus e i t i s religiously or politicall y appropriate. Euripides goes further. Instead of finding a new explanation for a known institution, he sometimes invent s the institution itself . Children of Heracles, for example, end s with Eurystheus foretelling his place o f burial "beside divin e Athena Pallenis " (just outside Athens ) wher e his tomb will help protect th e city from invader s (1030-36). Tradition ofte n place d Eurystheus' tom b near Sciron's Rock s i n Megara , an d les s ofte n a t Thebes, while Athenian writer s favored a version i n which hi s hea d wa s burie d i n Maratho n an d his body at Gargettus. 25 Euripides' accoun t i s unique and apparently his own inven tion; its factitious nature seems t o be signale d b y the implausible gesture o f having the kin g capture d a t Sciron's Rock s an d the n brough t to Marathon , thu s cooptin g these familia r buria l sites, and i s reinforced whe n Eurystheus prohibits libations or sacrifices a t hi s tom b (1040-41) , acknowledging tha t thi s buria l site i s unknown. Suppliant Women i s more complex, endin g with Athena's forecasts that a buried knife will enforc e th e treat y between Athen s an d Argos (1205-9) an d tha t a shrin e wil l honor th e fallen Seve n (1210-12) . Both aetiologie s ar e fictional. As fa r a s we ca n tell, th e burie d knif e wa s invente d b y Euripides , a s was th e anachronisti c treat y it seals, while the shrine for the Seven i s a curious innovation. Tradition generally placed the burial of the Seven a t Thebes, although Athenian authors pointed to their tomb s at Eleusis a s proof o f Athenian help in recovering th e dead. Ye t Euripides makes n o mention of the Seven Mound s and says instead that after cremation the remains were

Vestige: Traces of the Past 57 returned to Argos; the sanctuary at Eleusis (teuevri 1211 ) is therefore a cenotaph. 26 These inventions play a complex politica l game, firs t insertin g into the familiar, patriotic story of Athens an d th e Seven th e concrete ye t fictitious detail of a treaty between Athens an d Argos; then undermining the ideological importanc e o f this myth by denying that the Seven wer e burie d at Eleusis. Ther e ar e similar, if less striking, innovations in Medea an d Iphigenia among the Taurians,21 and one could argue that the factitious nature of earlier aitia anticipates the overt contrivance o f place-names that predominates i n later plays .

Culture an d Text I began b y emphasizin g th e specia l statu s of tragedy as the publi c reenactment o f a shared past an d of the aitio n as an overt marker of the link between tha t past and the world of the audience. Yet inSuppliant Women, whic h reenacts a past unusually close to the present (situated in nearby Eleusis, with the Athenian hero Theseus i n the leading role , i n a stor y tha t serve d t o demonstrat e Athenian virtue) , the aitio n draw s attention to ways i n which the link between past and present i s or may be fabricated. The paradox i s not unique to this play. In general the aition, rather than simply situating the play in the same continuum as contemporary culture, draws attention to the ways i n which bot h ar e reinvented . These observation s ma y b e place d i n clearer relief b y comparing Euripidea n practice with tha t o f Aeschylus an d Sophocles , an d by reviewin g some interpretations of the aition. In Aeschylus, w e find severa l recognizabl e aitia, but these ar e neither as common nor as consistent i n form as those of Euripides. In the latter part ot'Prometheus, 28 the Titan's lengthy speech t o lo includes two aetiological explanations , the first fo r the name Bosporus, o r "Cow-crossing," and the second fo r the Ionia n Sea : At th e narro w gates o f the lake , yo u will reach the Cimmeria n isthmus , which yo u mus t leave stoutheartedly an d cros s the Maioti c channel . Mortals shall tell foreve r the grea t stor y of you r crossing, an d i t will b e name d fo r thi s the Bosporos . io6u6v 5' en' await ; aievoTcopoic; Xiu.vr|q jivXaic; KinnepiKov T^EK;, 6v 0pao\)O7tXdyxvw<; oe XP" H ^.uto'uaav ai>X,(ov ' eicnepav Maiamicov. eatai 8e Svirtolc ; elaaei Xoyoc ; neya<; Trie; OT\C, 7iopeia<;, Bocmopoc ; 8' era»vuu.o<; KEK>.f|aeTai. 729-3 4 Goaded fro m ther e along th e seasid e road, yo u fle w t o th e grea t gul f o f Rhc a and were storme d bac k i n reverse course . In tim e t o come, the inle t of the se a will b e called Ionian , yo u ma y be sure , a memoria l o f you r crossing for al l mortals .

58 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

CVTE-MEV oioTpfioaoa tr\v reapaKtia v KeA.eu6ov fi^a q npoc, UEyav KO^TIO V 'Peat; , d(j)' o\ ) TiaXiiiTiXdyKToiai xeiud^ri Spouoic; ' Xpovov S E TO V ufiAAovTa JIOVTIO< ; ui>%6<; , 0a<j>(Bc; ETtioTaa', 'loviot ; KEK^fiaeiat , TfJ5 aii^ 7topeia<; uvf|ua TOII ; rcdaiv ppoTolc; . 836—4 1

In each case , th e legendar y world is explicitly connected wit h place-names familia r to the audience, using formulaic language very similar to that of Euripide s (9vr|Toti; elaaei . . . ETtcovuno q / KEKfaioeia i 732-34 , an d %povo v 8 e TO V ueXXovTa . . . KEK^f|oeiai . . . ppoToic , 839-41). These aetiologie s ar e delivere d b y Prometheus , who ha s a privileged knowledg e o f the future , bu t they are base d upo n th e past an d future wandering s o f lo , rathe r tha n upo n th e actio n o f th e drama , an d the y occu r neither a t the en d o f a play no r i n the fina l pla y of a trilogy. It seems to me tha t th e result is to draw the viewers into the dramatic conflict: i f Prometheus ca n accurately describe to lo the contemporary worl d outsid e the drama, then he can also challeng e the superio r powe r an d knowledge o f Zeus himself. In th e Oresteia, however, two aetiologies play an important role in the ending. In the cours e o f Orestes ' trial , Athen a explain s th e origin s bot h o f th e cour t o f th e Areopagus an d o f th e worship o f the Eumenides near the Acropolis : Hear m y decree , people o f Athens , as yo u decid e th e firs t tria l for bloodshed . In futur e fo r th e hos t o f Aegeu s this will alway s b e a court of judges . KA/uoit' dv fj8r i 9ea(iov , 'AruiKot ; Xeak;, itpoyuac; 8iKa<; Kpivovieq a'iumoi; yviov. EOTQI 8e Ka i T O XOITIOV Atyeax; aTporuco aiel SIKCXOTIB V Toirc o Pou/lemfipiov . Eumenides

681-84

Advancing tim e shal l wi n mor e hono r for thes e citizens , an d yo u shal l hav e an honore d plac e by th e house o f Erechthcus , and fro m procession s of me n an d wome n shal l hav e more tha n yo u coul d fro m al l mankind. ouTuppewv ydp tiuiorcepo^ ^povot; EoTm TtoXtTaic ; Toia8t ?., Ka i ot > iiuiav e8pav e/onaa Ttpo ^ 86um<; 'Epe^Sew^ TEIJ^TI Trap ' dvSprov Ka i yDvaiKeico v cruoXto v 6a' uv Ttap ' dA.A.co v OVTIOT ' dv axeOoi q ppotwv . 853-5 7

The first is a clearly stated aition with formulaic language (T O A,oi7tov 683, aiei 684) that connects th e trial in progress wit h the recently reformed court of the Areopagus . The secon d i s less clearly drawn , offerin g a shrin e i n Athens a s a n inducemen t to appease th e Furies. Bu t both ar e spoken b y a god who preside s over th e conclusio n like a deus ex machina, and both play a role in closure. The reference t o contempo rary institution s leads the spectator out of the mythic world a t the end of the trilogy,

Vestige: Traces o f th e Past 5

9

while establishing a new significance an d authority for the Areopagus an d the shrine of the Furies. The contrast between past and present worlds, however, i s not as clearly drawn a s i n Euripides. Ther e th e deu s o r equivalen t figure deliver s th e aitio n afte r the actio n i s complete ; th e resul t i s a shar p contras t betwee n th e precedin g enact ment and the contemporary perspectiv e introduce d by the aition. InEumenides, however, the "deus" is onstage for more than half the play, and the finale tends t o mingle the worlds o f drama and audience rathe r than juxtapose them. The firs t aition is followed b y the casting o f ballots, which fulfills th e aition by inauguratin g the judicial functions o f th e Areopagus . Th e secon d aitio n is a promise, o r bribe , whic h i s ac cepted i n the following scene, where the Furies bless Athens and Athena grants them power (916-55) . The impressio n tha t the stage actio n blend s int o the present worl d of contemporary Athen s (rathe r than simply anticipating it) is reinforced a s Athena and the chorus sin g th e city's praises, an d as the procession o f escorts calls upon the audience t o join them : "Sho w honor , al l yo u people ! . . . Cr y ou t no w i n song! " e\)au,eiTe 8e TtavSajiei. . . . oA.oA.u^a'ce vuv em uoXnai q (1039, 1043). 29 Despite som e importan t similarities, the closing aiti a in the Oresteia ar e used t o very different effect tha n in Euripides. Unfortunately , we cannot know how, i f at all, Aeschylus use d aetiologie s to conclud e othe r trilogies . Th e onl y othe r extan t pla y that conclude s it s trilogy , th e Seven against Thebes, ha s n o aition , an d recon structions tha t hav e bee n offere d fo r los t trilogie s ar e purel y speculative. 30 Fro m Prometheus andEumenides, i t seems saf e to say that the Euripidean aition has a precedent i n Aeschylus, bu t tha t the earlie r playwrigh t probably use d th e devic e les s frequently an d (s o fa r a s we ca n tell ) used i t to incorporat e th e worl d o f th e viewe r into the trilogy , rather than to mark a difference or distance betwee n them. 31 In Sophocles, there are no surviving aitia at all. Two passages allude to the world outside th e drama . I n Ajax, th e choru s advise s Teuce r t o bur y hi s fathe r quickly , "where he shall have a spacious tomb , eve r remembered b y men, " ev9a Ppo-uotc ; TOV 6:eiu.vricn:ov / taov e\)pcoevxa KaOe^ei (1166—67). The spectato r ma y b e reminded of the surviving tomb o f Ajax, 32 but th e advice t o build a lasting memorial contain s only an allusion rather than an explicit connection t o the world of the audience. Like wise i n Women ofTrachis, Licha s tells Deianeir a that Heracles i s alive i n Euboea , "where he marks out altars and fruitful rite s for Kenaian Zeus," ev0' opi^eTca / PCQUOIX ; TeXt) T' eyKapTta Krivcdco Au (237-38). This may allude to a known temple in Euboea33 without makin g a specific referenc e t o the contemporary world . The closes t thin g t o a n aitio n i n Sophocle s come s nea r th e en d o f Oedipus a t Colonus, as Oedipus describe s t o Theseus th e place wher e h e will die: Untouched b y a guide, I myself shal l sho w at onc e the plac e where I mus t die . Tell thi s never t o an y man , neithe r where i t is hidde n no r i n what area . . . . Thus yo u wil l inhabi t thi s cit y withou t fea r for Theba n men . Xropov |aev CCUTOI ; comic' e^T)yf)aou,ai , aOiKtot; fyyTyrfipoc;, oi j u. e XP n Oavelv . ToiJTOv 5e
60 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

ur|8' oi) KeKEiiO e |J.T|T ' ev 015 iceiTai toiton;' . . . Xoiruw!; ctSfiov tfivS ' evoiicr|aei< ; 7i6X,iv OTiapTrov COT ' dv5p(3v . 1520-23 , 1533-3 4

The implicatio n is that the tomb o f Oedipu s will survive into the worl d o f the audience and will (like the tomb of Eurystheus in Children o f Heracles or the buried knife in Suppliant Women) protec t Athen s fro m invadin g enemies. Bu t a connection wit h the contemporar y worl d i s never spelle d out . There i s no referenc e t o the futur e (TO ta>i7t6v, aiei , etc.) that migh t establis h suc h a link , an d rathe r than appealin g t o a familiar nam e o r place i n the manner of an aition, Sophocles makes i t clear tha t th e site of Oedipus' deat h i s unknown.34 The private and mystical atmosphere i s entirely different fro m an appeal t o public knowledge of civic institutions, and the secret tomb could b e considered a variation upon, or reversal of, the Euripidean aition, since the mantic hero announce s tha t his impending death and burial will remain unknown to future generations . Sophocle s does not offe r a precedent fo r th e Euripidea n aition , since Oedipus a t Colonus was produce d afte r Euripides ' death . Thi s on e exampl e that comes closes t to an aition has a very differen t effect , emphasizing th e intensely personal meaning o f the ending , rathe r than connecting i t to the large r world o f th e audience. Euripidean aitia seem t o have a precedent no t in Sophocles but in Aeschylus, an d especially i n Eumenides. Euripides, however , use d aiti a much mor e commonly an d consistently, 35 an d wit h a differen t emphasis . Rathe r tha n drawing th e viewe r int o the world o f th e trilogy , Euripide s marks out th e distanc e between tex t an d culture and between the past reenacted onstage and the traces of that past in the present world. The aition, in other words, lie s somewher e i n between th e two pole s o f rhetoric an d ritual that critics have assigned it . These critical poles can help to situate the aition in general an d t o fram e discussio n o f th e comple x aetiolog y a t th e en d o f Iphigenia among the Taurians. Interpretation o f th e aitio n a s ritua l begin s wit h th e obviou s fac t tha t a go d (or mortal ) may ordai n th e establishmen t o f a religiou s cul t o r rite . At th e en d o f Hippolytus, Artemi s announces the ritual lament for Hippolytus that will be performed by wome n i n Trozen, an d a t th e en d o f Iphigenia among th e Taurians, Athen a in structs Orestes t o establish the shrine to Artemis Tauropolos a t Halae; in Medea, th e mortal Medea likewis e promises tha t rites will be established in Corinth to honor the murdered children . If we ad d tomb s tha t hav e som e religiou s association (thos e o f Neoptolemus a t Delph i i n Andromache an d o f th e Seve n a t Eleusi s i n Suppliant Women) an d similar examples that may be fictional or allusive (the tomb of Eurystheus at Pallene in Children o f Heracles and festival s honoring Heracles i n Heracles), w e can begin to argue tha t the aitio n has a special connection with ritual. I n the historical model o f ritualist s such a s Albrecht Dieterich , tragedy evolved fro m ritual , an d the aitio n i s a vestig e tha t betrays thos e beginnings; 36 member s o f th e Cambridg e school wen t further , arguin g with Gilber t Murray that tragedy preserve s an d reen acts it s original religious function: For the play is, with th e rarest and mos t doubtfu l exceptions , essentially the enactmen t of a ritual , or rathe r of what th e Greeks called a n ailion—that is , a supposed historica l

Vestige: Traces of the Past 6

1

event which i s the origin o r "cause" of th e ritual . Thus th e death of Hippolytu s is the aition o f th e lamentation-rite performed at the grav e o f Hippolytus . . . . The tragedy , as ritual, enacts it s own legendar y origin. 37

Yet man y aetiologie s hav e nothin g to d o wit h ritual . Several ar e clearly invented, and mos t appea r only in Euripides , th e playwright furthest removed from th e "ori gins" of tragedy. Recent criticis m ha s revived th e anthropological approach , emphasizin g no t the evolution o f traged y fro m ritual , but thei r homology a s social an d civi c structures : tragedy, like ritual, helps to define the individual's place in the social order . The closing aetiolog y make s thi s homolog y explicit , drawin g attention , as Helen e Fole y argues, to the similarity between drama and rite: "The conclusion s o f Euripides' plays in particular insistently link myth and actual cult practice, ofte n stressing the origins of cul t i n sacrificia l death s an d demandin g tha t th e audienc e mak e connection s between tragi c violenc e an d daily experiences o f sacrifice." 38 Fole y show s that the plots of Bacchant Women an d Iphigenia at Aulis in many ways reenact ritua l sacrifice, while Pietr o Pucc i argue s tha t Medea's murder of her children draws upon th e complex an d ambivalen t plac e o f violenc e i n Athenia n ritual. 39 Ye t thes e mor e sophisticated studies , i n lookin g no t fo r evolutionar y vestiges but fo r a commo n discourse o f drama and culture, are less interested i n the aition and it s uses . The othe r general approach is to look a t the aition's rhetorical uses, and in particular at how i t secures the approval of the spectators. As Andreas Spira argues, it serve s to make the drama more rea l and believable: "Perhaps on e should view aetiology and prophecy instea d as a kind of TuOavov. They connec t th e dramatic action with shrines, cult practices o r mythical memories whic h ar e the living and concrete presen t day for the spectator, an d thus make it believable."40 This implie s that the aition is superficial, a closing attempt to win approval that (like the prayer for victory) is not essential to the drama. Critics suc h as Albin Lesky and Max Pohlenz see it as programmatic, a "purely superficial" vestige tha t allows the artistic and humanistic playwright to show tha t the "gods had become irrelevant to the inner structure of his tragedy."41 ForH. D. F. Kitto, however, aetiologie s ar e simply marks of closure: "whateve r ma y be the psychologi cal explanation, it is clear that when an aition turns up the play is over. It reinforces our feeling of finality, and is used when a play does not reach an Aristotelian end but merely stops."42 As we have seen, there is some truth to this; closing markers in Euripides often betray a lac k of completeness. Bu t plays mos t ofte n credite d wit h Aristotelian com pleteness (Medea o r Hippolytus) als o hav e emphatic aitia, while those that most arguably do not end but merely stop (Trojan Women and Phoenician Women) hav e none at all. In fact, the shif t towar d more open-ended aiti a (from earlier aitia that commemo rate a character's deat h and buria l t o late r ones tha t promis e tha t a character's nam e will live on) follows a similar change from plots that are relatively complete (the death of Hippolytus or the recovery and cremation of the Seven) to those which remain somehow open-ended (Ion , Xuthus, and Creusa mus t liv e together i n Athens, and Orestes , Hermione, an d Menelaus must patch u p their differences). This shif t i n emphasis brings us back t o the contras t betwee n ritua l an d rhetoric. If earlier plays tend to conclude with rituals and tombs tha t suggest cultura l continuity from past to present, later plays close instead with words that offer a nominal link

62 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

between tex t and audience . Ye t th e ritual vestige i s also rhetorical , just a s the nam e preserves a cultura l thread . Th e manne r i n whic h ritua l an d rhetori c usur p on e another is played ou t mos t full y a t the en d of Iphigenia among th e Taurians. Here , Athena's lengthy speech incorporates several aetiologies . Sh e begins b y telling kin g Thoas to call of f hi s pursui t o f Orestes and Iphigeni a sinc e Apollo sent Oreste s on this mission, and since they have already escaped th e king's soldier s (1435-45). Then Athena turns to Orestes (who remains offstage) and tells him to take the Taurian statue of Artemis t o Halae i n Attica (1446-52) and build a shrine for i t there : Build a shrine ther e an d se t u p th e statue, named fo r th e Taurian lan d an d fo r th e trouble s you suffere d wanderin g aroun d Greec e goaded b y Furies ; mortal s in futur e wil l sin g of thi s a s the goddess Artemis Tauropolos [TaurianWandering] . evTccuSa Tet)^a< ; vaov 'iSpuaai ppeia<; , £7cc6vup.ov yf|c; TaDpucfjc; Ttovco v IE ocov , otic; e^eiioxOei^ TieptTtoXcov Ka6 - 'EAAd8 a oI0Tpoi<; 'Epivucov. "ApTejj.iv 5 e viv ppotoi TO XoiTto v "uuvfiaou m TatiponoXo v Gedv . 1453-5 7 In Halae , Oreste s must als o institut e a ritual t o commemorate th e huma n sacrifice s that th e Taurians performed fo r Artemis: And establis h thi s custom: when people feast , for you r slaughte r le t someone hol d th e blade at a man's neck, an d le t hi m dra w blood in ritua l s o the goddess may b e honored . vojiov T E GEC; TOvS'' ota v eopTd^r j A,ecoc; , Tfj<; afjc ; ac()ayf|( ; djioiv' ETUOJCETO ) £i<|>o< ; 8£pr| Ttpoc; dvSpoc; aifid T ' E^avietco, oaiac; EKCCU 0e d 0 ' omoc, iiuac; e%r|. 1458-6

1

But Iphigenia must continue on to Brauron, where she will serve Artemi s and will be honored wit h offering s afte r he r death: 43 But you , Iphigenia, mus t serv e th e goddess at th e hol y step s of Brauron ; ther e yo u will di e an d b e buried , an d the y wil l brin g you offerings o f fine-wove n robe s tha t wome n leave i n the hous e whe n thei r lives are crushed in childbirth . OE 8 ' dui))i oEuvdc; , 'I^iyEVEia . KXi|.ia>cac ; Bpccupwviac; SE V Tf|S E KXrjSoDxei v 6ec r 01') Ka i T£6dv|/r | KaxGavoijaa , Ka i TtEjrXw v aycAud ao i Gfioouai v EiJTirivoui ; xxjicti; , aq av ywaiicec; EV TOKOK ; yvypppayeic, A.in:wo' e v OIKOII; . 1462-6 7

Vestige: Traces of the Past 6

3

Finally, in an allusio n to th e en d o f Eumenides, Athena remind s Orestes that sinc e she cast the deciding vote i n his favor, defendants will by custom alway s be acquitted whe n th e votes ar e even (1469-72) . The firs t aetiolog y connect s th e wanderings of Orestes enacted i n the drama to an epithet under which Athenians worshipped Artemi s at Halae. The link between dram a and cul t is purely verbal and i s in some sense factitious . Leaving asid e the proble m of etymology (th e epithet was usuall y derived from Taupoq , "bull" 44), Brauron and Sparta bot h lai d clai m t o th e woode n statu e brough t t o Greec e b y Iphigenia, 45 s o viewers would at least be aware that this third claim need not be true. Since the statue at Brauron ha d been carrie d off to Susa b y the Persians, 46 Euripides (or someone h e follows) ma y have soothed Athenian pride by claiming that the real statue was not in Brauron bu t nearb y at Hala e an d ha d bee n stole n fro m barbarians . The nex t aitio n explains not a name bu t a rite: the shedding o f huma n blood a t a feast for Artemis . Yet there is no evidence that such a rite was ever performed. 47 The drama constantly plays with the fiction of human sacrifice, first claimin g that the sacrifice a t Aulis did not tak e place ; the n presentin g a n Iphigeni a wh o take s reveng e fo r thi s near sacrifice by performing human sacrifice herself—yet makin g it clear that barbarians, not she, perform th e act, and finally stagin g anothe r non-sacrifice i n which Oreste s is nearl y killed. This fictio n i n ritua l for m i s answere d b y a n apparentl y fictitious ritual, and a legendary past tha t avoide d sacrific e live s on , we ar e told, in the actual spilling o f blood. Th e thir d aitio n comes close r t o Athenia n practice. Ther e i s n o indication tha t robes of women wh o die d i n childbirth were offere d t o Iphigeni a at Brauron, but wool an d clothing were among the items dedicated to Artemis Brauronia on the Acropolis and also, perhaps, to Artemis at Brauron.48 There i s no evidence for offerings t o Iphigenia , no evidenc e tha t offering s wer e associate d wit h childbirth, and no reason to suppose tha t the offerings were posthumous. We thus have two fault y connections: on e betwee n Euripides ' aitio n and wha t littl e w e kno w o f contempo rary practice, 49 and the other between Euripides ' aitio n and event s o f the play. The offering o f robes, afte r all , commemorates no t what happene d amon g th e Taurians, but wha t w e ar e tol d will happen muc h late r at Brauron , an d i t does s o inappropriately, rememberin g not th e sacrifice s Iphigeni a (nearly ) suffered an d inflicted , bu t the danger s o f childbirth she neve r knew . Finally, the aitio n for acquitta l with even votes take s u s back t o th e very different versio n enacte d b y Aeschylus , and t o this play's repeate d reminder s that th e end o f the stor y i n Eumenides was no t reall y th e end: the tria l at Athens did not appease the Furies, Orestes had to go back to Apollo, and the god prescribed another trial of atonement (77-92,285-94, 940-78). Euripides overtly revises Aeschylus with a sequel that is largely invented50 and is certainly less relevant (Ho w doe s bringin g a statu e of Artemi s t o Athen s cleans e th e Argiv e o f matricide?) and that draws attention to this revision with an afterthough t o n the trial at the Areopagus . At the end of the performance, as the audience takes leave of the enacted past, the aition offers th e promise of a stable, objective, an d familia r en d in the contemporary world. Ye t i t fails to deliver such a n end, not just by markin g the gap betwee n past and present, but by confusin g them . If rhetoric becomes ritua l an d culture becomes text, as the y do in Iphigenia, the n neither is a stable ground tha t wil l serv e t o secur e the other .

5 Postscript: Outside the Fram e "An epilogue, " Gar p wrote , "i s mor e tha n a body count . An epilogue , i n the disguise o f wrappin g u p th e past , i s reall y a wa y o f warnin g u s abou t th e future." JOHN IRVING , Th e World According t o Garp

Greek tragedy, unlike many other forms o f drama, presumes a historical and cultural continuum that embraces bot h the events enacted onstage and the viewers themselves , and the Euripidean aitio n overtly complicate s thi s thread. Yet the drama implie s (or seems to imply) another more essential continuum : the thread of events tha t consti tute the plot. And insofa r a s the drama raise s question s about the end of this thread, it brings u s back t o the issues of for m versu s conten t an d of artistic invention. Any narrativ e genre mus t grapple (i t would seem ) wit h th e problem o f choosing an end. How does the author decide wher e t o begin an d end the story? How does she or he choose, from th e countless events o f history o r the infinit e possibilitie s o f fic tion, what t o enac t o r tell ? And ho w d o reader s o r spectator s kno w tha t this is th e end? Do they recognize tha t lives an d event s continue and that no retelling will em brace the m all? The proble m (a s stated ) assume s a contrast between for m an d con tent, betwee n th e infinit e continuu m an d th e finit e stor y tha t trie s t o contai n it , o r between th e rea l world o f human experience an d th e contrivance o f narration. This problem an d thi s implie d contras t ar e m y poin t o f departur e in discussin g closin g prophecies i n Euripides. It does not follow tha t my reading requires or depends upo n the validit y of this (Aristotelian) contrast; as I hope t o show, th e problem i s one that some text s pose with greate r o r lesser insistence, an d i n various ways . Aristotle say s tha t th e action shoul d b e a whole, with a beginning, a middle, and an en d tha t i s "followed b y nothin g else." 1 Althoug h h e doe s not sa y a s much , h e implies tha t the author will choose to dramatize an action that he find s to be already whole o r complete, rathe r than take a given actio n an d char m o r wrestle i t int o the shape o f a whole . Quit e differen t i s Henr y James' s neo-Aristotelia n clai m tha t although endings do not exist, the artist must try to convince us that they do: "Really , universally, relation s sto p nowhere , an d th e exquisit e problem o f th e artis t i s eter nally bu t to draw, by a geometry o f his own, th e circle withi n which the y shall happily appear t o d o so." 2 Bu t Aristotl e an d Jame s d o agre e o n this : th e spectato r o r reader shoul d b e convince d tha t th e en d i s the en d an d shoul d no t expec t mor e t o follow. Thi s process of selection or sleight o f hand is by no means the rule. Moder n 64

Postscript: Outside the Frame 6

5

drama, fo r example, may openly frustrat e th e viewer's expectation tha t the end will be followed b y nothing else. I n his epilogue to The Good Woman ofSetzuan, Bertol t Brecht goe s out o f his way t o remind the viewer tha t this is not the end: It i s fo r yo u t o fin d a way, m y friends , To hel p goo d me n arriv e at happy ends . You write th e happy ending t o the play ! There must, there must , there's go t to be a way!3

A les s alienatin g approach i s simply t o suggest tha t the actio n continues . Thi s i s a favorite devic e i n nineteenth-centur y fiction, i n whic h th e autho r add s a post script sketchin g th e futur e career s o f th e protagonists . Georg e Eliot' s epilogu e t o Middlemarch begin s b y explainin g why w e ar e no t satisfie d t o sto p a t th e end : "Every limi t i s a beginnin g a s wel l a s a n ending . Wh o ca n qui t youn g live s afte r being lon g in company wit h them, and not desire t o know wha t befell them in their afteryears? Fo r th e fragment of a life, howeve r typical , i s not the sample o f an even web."4 Wherea s Elio t offer s a n apologi a fo r th e conventiona l epilogue , Charle s Dickens lament s tha t h e i s "require d t o furnis h a n account " o f th e aftermat h and offers a n epilogu e t o the Pickwick Papers onl y unde r protest: "I n complianc e wit h this custom—unquestionabl y a bad one—w e subjoi n a few biographica l words , i n relation to the party at Mr. Pickwick's assembled." 5 Euripides, lik e Eliot or Dickens, canno t leave behind the continuing stories o f his protagonists. A t the end of Andromache, for example, th e goddess Thetis announce s to Peleu s tha t Andromache wil l go t o Molossi a an d wil l marr y Helenus, he r son' s descendants wil l succeed on e another as kings of Molossia, an d Peleus will becom e immortal an d will join Thetis i n the house of Nereus (1243-62). But unlike Eliot or Dickens, Euripide s is breaking with convention when he offers such a sequel. Ther e are n o parallel s i n Greek traged y fo r hi s us e o f th e dramati c epilogu e an d n o mor e than partial parallels—to my knowledge—in the Western dramati c tradition. In comedy, th e epilogu e speake r addresse s th e audienc e wit h a n apolog y o r reques t for applause rathe r than the announcement of a sequel, an d hint s of the futur e a t the end of Shakespeare's historie s tend simply to connect on e play to another (e.g., part 1 of Henry VI to part 2, or Henry Vt o the trilogy on Henry VI). The closes t Shakespear e comes to suc h a technique i s i n Richard II i n which th e king' s remors e include s a brief anticipatio n of the Crusades ("I'l l make a voyage t o the Holy Land , / To was h this blood of f fro m m y guilt y hand" ) an d Henry VIII i n which Cranmer' s eulogy of the kin g includes a prophetic paea n t o Elizabeth and James: 6 Wherever th e brigh t sun o f heave n shal l shine, His honou r an d th e greatness o f hi s name Shall be , an d mak e ne w nations . He shal l flourish , And, lik e a mountain cedar, reac h hi s branche s To al l th e plains about him ; our children's children Shall se e this , and bless heaven.

Modern dram a occasionall y end s wit h a mor e straightforwar d announcemen t o f a sequel, but a s a rule such epilogue s stan d outside th e drama. Pygmalion i s followed

66 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

by a n essay i n which Sha w argue s tha t Eliza will marry Fredd y rathe r than Higgins and goes on to criticize the conventions o f romance; th e essay describes the couple's future lif e in some detail, but it is not a part of the dramatic performance. Arthu r Miller adds a much shorte r postscript t o The Crucible, sketching fo r the reader, bu t not for the theater audience, th e aftermath of the trial in Salem. There are closer parallels to Euripidean epilogue s i n film, in which a narrator's voic e o r a scrolling tex t reveal s the later careers o f the protagonists. A s in Euripides and the novel, suc h a n epilogu e stands a t leas t partl y outside th e actio n an d possesse s a specia l authority—no t th e divine stature of a deus o r the reflective distanc e o f a novel's author , but the objec tivity o f a chronicle. I n each case , the epilogu e doe s not simpl y continu e the actio n but allow s i t to resurfac e i n a differen t an d "truer " genre, whethe r legend , history , biography, o r documentary. The parting of the ways redefine s the action. I f charac ters and events have a life of their own no longer containe d by the plot, we must now view them not as parts of an artistic whole but as constituents of a more formless an d realistic continuum. The sequel therefore has an alienating role, transplanting events from th e familiar confines o f artistic reenactmcnt t o a more uncertai n realm o f unshaped experience . In moder n genre s suc h a s the novel o r film, this estrangement i s heightened b y ou r ignorance o f what th e future ma y hol d for these fictional characters, eve n a s the epi logue i s typically banal, comforting, an d predictable . In Euripides, however , th e future cours e o f th e legen d i s generally familiar to th e audience , whil e th e end o f th e play render s problematic th e means b y which a character wil l reach o r navigate that future. 7

Tying and Untying The Euripidea n epilogue i s a prophecy a t the en d o f th e pla y usuall y delivere d b y a deus e x machin a tha t describe s event s subsequen t t o th e action . A forecas t o f thi s kind occur s i n ever y extan t Euripidea n ending, excep t thos e o f Alcestis, Trojan Women, an d Phoenician Women, an d help s t o creat e o r reinforc e a distinction between the end of the dramatic performance and the continuity of events portrayed. The narration of events to follow distinguishes the concluding prophecy bot h from the closing aetiology an d from other uses of prophecy. Aitio n and concluding proph ecy bot h allud e t o a futur e beyon d th e drama , bu t th e aitio n i s mor e explicitl y extra-dramatic. The aitio n connects tw o distinct worlds, pas t an d present, insid e and outside the drama, drawing attention to the gap between them . The concluding prophecy, however, simpl y extend s the course o f events. I n Orestes, for example, Apoll o explains tha t Oreste s wil l no w g o int o exile fo r a yea r i n Arcadi a befor e standin g trial for matricide at the Areopagus i n Athens, marrying Hermione, and ruling as king at Argos . Ye t becaus e th e prophecy extend s th e stor y an d becaus e th e reenactmen t cannot contain the continually unfoldin g legend, we ar e made awar e of the dramatic illusion an d it s limitations . Th e narratio n o f a seque l t o th e plo t als o distinguishes the concludin g prophecy fro m othe r uses o f prophecy . Whethe r delivere d by a god in th e prologu e (e.g. , Aphrodit e i n Hippolytus) o r b y a prophe t withi n th e actio n (Teiresias i n Phoenician Women), th e prophec y anticipate s ho w th e plo t wil l pro -

Postscript: Outside the Frame

67

ceed, arousin g interes t in whether, and how, thes e goals wil l be realized. 8 The con cluding prophecy , o n th e othe r hand , describe s event s tha t lie entirel y outsid e th e play; rathe r tha n arousing suspense withi n the drama , it removes uncertaint y from the sequel. The concluding prophecy, like the aition, requires a speaker with privileged knowledge of events outside the play. This will usually be a deus ex machina, but may als o be a huma n wit h specia l acces s t o th e futur e (Medea , Theseus , Eurystheus , and Polymestor). The limina l status of this figure corresponds t o the liminal status of the sequel itself. Just as the sequel is both a necessary par t of the story and an appendag e added t o it , the divin e or human speaker i s both a character within th e actio n and a voice fro m outsid e it. In the novel, the epilogue speaker is liminal in a different way : the autho r continues to narrate events, but doe s s o no w i n hi s o r he r ow n voice . I n each case, th e deus figure o r the author of the novel renegotiates the work's authority. By displaying her persona a s narrator, George Elio t reminds us that the work i s a fiction, but by describing the sequel in her own voice, she bears witness to the credibility of this narrative. An epiphany of Apollo or Athena compromises the independence and completeness o f the human action, even a s the god's announcement of a sequel places i t within a more authoritative frame; th e actio n escapes th e bounds of reenactment, even a s an authorial figure intervene s to asser t control. Only a t a play' s en d doe s a prophecy hav e this effect . Prophecie s earlie r in th e play arous e suspense , anticipatin g events within the actio n rathe r than lookin g to a sequel beyond the end. The single exception i s very striking. Trojan Women begin s with a prologue scen e i n which Athen a and Poseido n foretel l the destructio n of th e Greek fleet on it s return from Troy, an d i n the firs t episode , Cassandr a foretell s th e murder o f Agamemno n an d th e suffering s o f Odysseus . Thes e prophecie s ar e unusual in two respects: they describe—at the opening of the play—events that take place a t some time after it s close, and they describe no t the future o f the play's protagonists but the futures o f Greek me n wh o neve r appear onstage. 9 Looking beyond the en d o f th e pla y reinforce s the sens e tha t the actio n i s alread y finished: Tro y i s fallen, th e war i s over, and a deus enters to comment upo n th e sequel. And describ ing the future o f Greek men such as Agamemnon and Odysseus excludes the women of Troy fro m th e large r story tha t began befor e th e war an d wil l continu e after th e city falls. 10

Happy Ends What kind s of sequel doe s Euripide s provide? How doe s th e prophecy of events t o come complete , o r continue , or commen t upon , th e precedin g action ? The mos t familiar us e o f th e seque l i s to ti e up loos e ends , allayin g our curiosit y about what will happe n next; hence the conventional assurances o f marriag e for the youn g and happy retirement for the old. Such sequels ten d to be straightforward, predictable— and contradictory in their effects. On th e on e hand , they suggest tha t human events have a life o f thei r own, continuing beyond the end o f the performanc e and stil l en gaging our interest and curiosity. On the other hand, they show tha t the future offer s simply mor e o f th e same , promisin g n o ne w departur e from th e patter n of earlier events." I n a sense, th e author has his cake an d eats it too: he acknowledges tha t the

68 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

action continue s beyon d th e end, whil e makin g i t clear tha t nothing very ne w wil l follow. It's not really the end, but it might as well be. At the end of Helen, after Helen and Menelau s finall y enginee r thei r escap e fro m Egyp t an d se t sai l fo r home , th e Dioscuri offe r th e following prophecy: 12 Sail wit h you r husband, wit h a favoring wind ; and we , you r twi n savior brother s galloping acros s the sea, will send yo u home . And whe n yo u tur n and en d you r lif e you wil l be calle d a god, and with th e Dioscur i will shar e libation s an d hav e offering s with us fro m men . Thi s i s the wish o f Zeus. . . . As fo r th e wanderin g Menelaus , i t is ordained by th e gods that h e dwell i n the Blessed Isle . jiXel J^u v Jioaei oar Tive'Ou a 8 E^EI' oupio v aamjpe 5 ' fjueii; a m Kaaiyvr]T W 8i7tA,( 5 TTOVTOV TtapiraiewvTe 7teuv|/o|i£v Jtdtpav. oiav Se Kauv|/r|c ; Km iE\E.VTf\<jr\q piov , QEOC, KEK>tf|or j KQ' I Aioaicopco v U.ETC < aKovSwv u.e8eE,ei< ; !;evia T ' dvOpraraov Ttrip a E^EIC, u.e9 ' r|utov ZEVC, yap (o8 e poijXeTat . . . . KOI T W n\avr\Tr\ MeveXe w Oeco v jrdpa laaKapcov KccuoiKei v vicero y ecm u.6poru.ov . 1663-69 , 1676-7 7

The happy outcome o f the plot is confirmed and reinforced by a happy sequel. Noth ing new i s added; we are simply reassure d tha t th e couple's succes s is secure, guar anteed i n thi s worl d b y a promis e o f saf e conduct , an d i n th e nex t b y divinely ordained honors . I f the pla y ha s alread y reached it s happy end, however , an d i f the sequel reinforce s it , perhaps James' s formulatio n should b e reversed : rathe r than making continuou s event s see m circumscribed , th e autho r make s a complete d action see m par t o f a larger continuum . The point , o f course , i s that the seque l negotiate s i n various way s betwee n plo t and continuum, and between th e gestures o f tying up and teasing out the action. The epilogue i n Helen i s unusua l in remindin g the viewe r tha t unalloye d bliss shal l b e bestowed withou t an intervenin g struggle, withou t means tha t wil l justify th e end. More commonly , th e epilogue suggest s a continuity between hardshi p and reward , trial an d happ y ending . Orestes, we ar e told, must spend a year i n exile i n the wilds of Arcadia, and then stand trial for his life i n Athens on the charge o f matricide, before eventually bein g acquitte d an d returnin g to rul e i n Argos wit h hi s wif e Hermione . Unlike Helen, Orestes suggests that th e difficultie s o f lif e continu e beyond th e end of the play , even i f new complication s ar e resolve d i n a predictable pattern of mar riage an d rightful rule . Complications beyon d th e end of the play are indicated more subtly i n Ion. In he r closin g speech , Athen a announce s th e happ y retur n o f Io n t o Athens, wher e h e wil l ascen d th e thron e an d becom e famou s throughou t Greec e (1571-75), and his good fortune will be multiplied when all Ionia is named fo r him. But th e seque l i s no t s o simple . Athen a conclude s b y advisin g Creus a t o kee p th e truth fro m Xuthus :

Postscript: Outside the Frame 69 But now keep silen t that h e was bor n you r son , so appearance ma y pleasantl y hol d Xuthus and al l g o well fo r yo u an d yours , m y woman . Farewell. Afte r this respite fro m troubles I foretell for yo u a blessed fate . viJv OTJ V oicoTt a Ttaiq 65' cb q TtecjiDK e croc; , iv' T I 56icncn.c ; EouBov f|8e«x; E^TI O"u t' a\) TC I oamf|<; 07016' exoi)o' 'ir\c,, yijvai. Kai xatpei'' E K ya p ti^cS ' dva\\iv/j\c, TIOVCO V eij8aiu,ov' ijul v Ttotno v eE,ayyeM,onca. 1601- 5

The blesse d fat e o f Io n an d Creus a i s contingen t upo n th e successfu l deceptio n o f Xuthus, and if the course o f this play has shown anything, it is that plots of deceptio n will not necessarily succeed . In this case, the sequel repeat s no t the hardship s of lif e but its complications and duplicities, even as it promises a simple and happy outcome.

Partial Ends As we shall see, th e epilogue i n later plays tends to recapitulate the plot a s a whole , with al l it s complication s an d difficulties . In earlie r plays, the epilogu e tend s t o answer only t o part of the action . A t th e end o f Andromache, we ma y wonde r what will happe n t o Andromache, t o he r infan t son , an d t o he r husban d Peleus; o n thi s score, at least, Thetis i s reassuring, foretellin g Andromache's marriag e to Helenus, the line of kings that will come from he r son, and the deification of Peleus (1243-56). For those who live, all loose end s are happily tied, but the play ends with the body of Neoptolemus displayed onstage an d with instructions for his burial and memorial at Delphi. In a sense, the actio n ha s tw o endings. The deat h of Neoptolemus is an en d that i s commemorated wit h the aition for his tomb, while the stories of Andromach e and he r famil y continu e on int o the future . Suppliant Women als o end s bot h wit h commemoration o f the Seven whos e bodie s have been recovere d an d with Athena's prophecy o f th e sequel i n which th e Epigoni will complete th e expedition that thei r fathers lef t unfinished . Th e concludin g prophecy agai n negotiates between plo t and continuum, but doe s s o b y mean s o f a much more literal antithesis. The plo t i s finished, an d the very completenes s o f the central action contrasts with th e continuit y of secondar y stories; th e kno t i s a foil t o the remaining loose threads .

Loose Ends An unusua l variation is the seque l i n Electro. Rather than a contrast between aitio n for the dead an d happy sequel fo r the living, we have a lengthy prophecy that tries to tie up loose ends and conspicuously fail s to do so. After tryin g to justify th e murders of Aegisthus an d Clytemnestra, Casto r firs t announce s th e marriage of Pylade s and the exile of Orestes (1247-51) , but the god proceeds t o foretell Orestes' pursui t by the Furie s and hi s trial i n Athens a t such lengt h that instead of tying up loos e ends , he embarks on a whole new stor y (1250-75). Castor the n tries to dispose o f the tw o dead bodies , bu t cannot d o s o without beginning another story:

70 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

So muc h fo r you . A s fo r thi s corpse o f Aegisthus , the citizen s of Argos will cover i t with a tomb . And you r mother : Menelaus , arrivin g just no w at Nauplion , afte r h e seized th e lan d o f Troy— he an d Helen wil l bur y her . For Hele n ha s arrive d from th e hous e of Proteus , fro m Egypt : sh e neve r wen t to Troy, bu t Zeus sent Helen' s imag e to Ilio n to bring about th e strif e an d slaughte r o f mankind . ooi u_e v Tfi5 ' elTiov . TovS e 5 ' AiyiaGou VEKD V "Apyotx; Jto^itai yfj ? KaA/uyoixn v Ta<j>a> . u.r|Tepa 5 e TT) V af|v apt i NcnmAia v jtapoo v MeveXao^, e.£, ov TpcoiKf| v ei/V e %Q6va, 'EA.evT| TE Bayer npuytecoc ; yap E K SOU.CQ V f|Kei liTtoija ' AiyujiTo v oiiS ' f|X6ev Opiiyai; ' Zeix; 8', (oc, epic; yevoiTO Ka i <)>6voc ; Ppotrov, Et8coA,ov 'EXEvr|< ; ^Ene\i\\i' e<;"IXiov . 1276-8 3

Mention o f Menelau s introduce s a tantalizin g hin t of anothe r tal e t o b e tol d abou t Helen in Egypt, a hint that some scholar s hav e taken as a promotion o f the playwright' s forthcoming Helen. n Bu t ther e ar e sequel s i n ever y direction . Th e las t concern s Pylades an d the farmer, who mus t bot h star t new lives : Let Pylades take th e young woman a s his wif e and trave l hom e t o th e lan d o f Achaia , and le t him settl e you r so-calle d brother-in-la w in Phocia n lan d an d loa d hi m dow n wit h wealth . n\)^d;5rn; U.E V oi> v Kopri v T E Kai 8du.apT ' e^wv AxaiiSot; yr\c, oiKaS' eaJTOpeueTCo , KOI TO V Xoyc p aov 7iEv9fip6 v Kou.t^eT( o 4>coKe(ov e^ aiav Ka i SOTC O TI^OIWU pd6o<; . f 284—87

The god's prophecy continue s the action int o the future, but instead of tying up loose ends an d confirmin g th e outcom e o f th e plot , i t reveal s instea d a series o f sequel s that promise ne w directions for the plot. The failed epilogue i s thus an effective coun terpart t o the faile d explanation . Just a s Castor' s attemp t t o explai n th e wisdo m o f Apollo's oracl e collapse s in contradictions (1244-46), 14 the attempt to tie up loos e ends scatter s into a variety of ne w beginnings .

Different Angles The concluding prophec y tend s t o expose the continuity of events, revealin g tha t the plot, o r a par t o f it , continue s beyon d th e performanc e t o a happ y end , o r t o ne w beginnings. The speaker o f the epilogue ma y also foretell a sequel tha t functions mor e as a foil to the preceding actio n tha n as a continuation of it. At the end ofHippolytus, for example , afte r a length y explanatio n o f Phaedra' s duplicit y and he r stepson' s innocence, Artemi s announce s a whole ne w plot :

Postscript: Outside th e Frame 7

1

Enough. No t eve n beneat h the gloo m of eart h shal l Aphrodite' s willfu l ange r hurtle agains t yo u unavenged, thanks t o your good an d pious heart. With m y ow n han d and these relentles s arrows I will be avenge d on on e o f hers , whatever morta l is most dea r to her. ectoov oi ) yap o\)5 e yf\c, wt o ^6o v 6ea<; cmum KvmpiSoi ; EK TtpoSuuiai ; opycd KaTaaKf|\|/ov>ai v EC, TO aov 8eu.a<; , ofjt; eiioepeiac ; Kaya9f|c; (|>pEv6c; x«piv' eycb yap avTf\q ciXXo v eE , euiic; xepo? 6<; av (idXioTa fyCkiamc , Ki>pf j ppoiw v talent; d^xiKTOic; ToiaSe TincopTJoojiai . 1416-2 2

The actio n o f th e pla y i s finished: Hippolytus i s dead , Phaedr a ha s bee n exposed , and Theseus is both chastened an d enlightened. No w tha t this human drama is over, the seque l shift s attentio n to the divin e plot tha t frames it , the rivalr y o f Aphrodit e and Artemi s an d their spiteful acts of revenge agains t on e another . This type of sequel i s both mor e ope n an d mor e close d tha n the other s w e hav e looke d at . On th e one hand , th e happy end and its variants close the stor y b y removing question s and revealing a predictable sequel , whil e the prophecy i n Hippolytus begin s a new stor y and raises new questions (Whom wil l Artemis choose—Adonis perhaps?15 How will this nex t phas e proceed?) . O n th e othe r hand , th e happ y en d make s i t clea r tha t human event s ar e continuous and do not end with th e end o f the play, while the sequel i n Hippolytus circumscribe s th e actio n a s a finit e episod e withi n th e large r divine frame. Th e effect , in this play a t least, i s unsettling. The privilege d perspec tive of Artemis no t only render s event s intelligibl e a s a self-contained episode , but seems to rob them of meaning: the tortuous plot with all its misdirections an d confusions becomes a simple act of spite, soon t o be repeated. Ye t Artemis' appropriatio n of the plot does not entirely succeed; afte r the goddess withdraws, the play continues with a minisequel onstage, i n which father an d son tr y on their own term s to grapple with wha t ha s happened. There i s a different shif t o f perspective a t the en d o f Children o f Heracles. This patriotic supplian t dram a i s apparentl y complete wit h th e defea t an d captur e o f Eurystheus—when Alcmen e call s fo r th e prisoner' s executio n an d Eurystheu s accedes to this lawless act: Kill me . I won't plea d with you. But sinc e this city release d m e an d was ashame d t o kil l me , I offe r i t the gif t o f Apollo' s ancien t oracl e which i n time will b e mor e usefu l tha n it seems . For it' s fated tha t when I die you'l l bury me next t o th e hol y maiden of Pallenc , and I shal l always li e below foreig n ground, friendly t o you, a savior to the city , and

72 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

to these children's children th e greatest enemy— when the y com e her e wit h man y arms , betraying thi s kindness. KTEIV', oi i Tiapaito-uum ce' Tt|v5 e Se TCTO^IV , ETtei u. ' df|K e Ka i KccrnSeaSr i Kiavevv , Xpr|a|aa) TKxXca w Ao^iot ) Sa)pf|oouca , be, ti)i|>eXf|0ei uei^ov ' f\ 5oKe i xpovto . Oavovia yap |j.e 8dx|/eO ' OT J T O |i6pai|j.ov , 8iai; TtdpoiSe 7tap6evo\ ) Fla^nviSoi;' icai aoi jie v eiivo-u q Kal Ttote v acotripio g He.ToiKO5 aiei icei.aou,a i Kcti a xBovoi; , tott; tcov8e 8' EKyovoiai 7toXe[iia«:aTO<; , oiav noXtoai SeiJp o ai> v TioXXf j xep i Xapiv 7ipo86vTe ^ tr|v8e. 1026-3 6

Eurystheus foretell s a seque l tha t alter s thing s entirely : sons of th e suppliant s wil l march agains t the cit y which ha s protected them , and the villain who attacke d Ath ens to capture the suppliants will instead protec t th e city from thei r children. Rather than a larger divine perspective, we have a longer historica l perspective tha t compli cates th e moral lesson o f th e drama . The seque l offer s comfortin g proo f tha t Athe nian virtue shall be rewarded , bu t only by reversing the expected mean s t o this end: the friends of Athens wil l become enemies an d her enemies wil l become friends. I n this historica l and politica l frame , th e actio n i s bot h mor e intelligibl e and mor e uncertain. The preceding sampl e o f techniques in the concluding prophecy begin s wit h the familiar an d conventional descriptio n o f a happy end tha t follow s th e plot, an d then adds example s i n whic h th e relatio n betwee n plo t an d seque l seem s progressivel y more complex . I n th e development o f Euripidea n drama, however, w e fin d th e op posite: from prophecie s tha t offer variou s foil s to the close of the plot, Euripides cam e to favor sequels tha t emphasize th e continuit y of the plot a s a whole. Th e detail s of this development ar e worth describin g i n some detail.

Promises and Warnings In Euripides ' late r plays , th e concludin g prophecies , lik e th e aetiologies , ten d t o become longe r and more complex. InHippolytus, Artemi s briefly announce s her plan of reveng e (quote d previously) , an d th e departin g Mede a taunt s Jason wit h a n in complete description of his death: "struck on the head by a piece of the Argo" (Medea 1387). Th e prophecie s i n Suppliant Women an d Children o f Heracles ar e slightly longer, describing future expeditions against Thebes an d Athens, and rnAndrornache, the prophec y foretell s Andromache's exil e an d marriage, a s well a s th e deificatio n of Peleus. But prophecies i n the later plays are especially long and complex. I n Electro, as we have seen, the Dioscuri foretel l a lengthy series of sequels relatin g to the exile and tria l of Orestes, th e burials of Agamemnon an d Clytemnestra, and the marriage s of Hermion e an d Electra . And i n Orestes, Apollo provide s detaile d forecasts con-

Postscript: Outside the Frame 7

3

cerning not just Orestes, Electra, and Pylades but Menelaus and Neoptolemus a s well (1643-60). This general tren d towar d greate r lengt h an d complexit y i s closely re lated t o a change i n the plots themselves . Earlie r play s more ofte n en d with a death or deaths , thu s providin g limite d scop e fo r a prophecy. A t th e en d o f Hippolytus, both Phaedra and Hippolytus are dead, and when a sequel continues with the reveng e of Artemis , i t will involv e a new cas t o f characters . I n late r plays, the protagonist s survive, provoking greater interes t in what will happen to Helen or Orestes and their companions i n the future . We also find a change in emphasis from negative to positive forecasts. Onl y among the earlier plays are the sequels a s negative as the death of Jason i n Medea, th e vengeance upo n Aphrodite's favorit e in Hippolytus, an d the catalogue of atrocities fore told by Polymesto r in Hecuba: Hecuba will first be turned into a dog, the n fall fro m the ship's mast an d drown, while her daughter Cassandra an d Agamemnon himsel f will bot h b e murdere d b y Clytemnestr a on thei r return to Argos. Amon g th e late r plays a negative forecast ma y lea d to a happy outcome, a s when Oreste s mus t suffer exile befor e bein g acquitted , and Cadmu s mus t endur e metamorphosis an d exil e before reachin g th e Lan d o f the Blessed . O r the happy seque l ma y b e largel y undiluted: Ion will rule in Athens and will become th e eponymous founde r of the Ionian race, an d not only will Helen an d Menelaus return safely to Sparta, but one will become a god an d the othe r wil l reac h th e Blessed Isle . Thi s change i n emphasis re flects Euripides' genera l shif t fro m more "tragic" to more "melodramatic" plays , and from ending s involving death and burial to those involving return and reintegration. A more specifi c an d perhaps more revealing change involve s the relation amon g the ending's variou s forecast s of the future, i n both aitia and concluding prophecies . Medea, fo r example , give s a short , ten-lin e speech whic h announce s tha t sh e wil l bury the children, says that she will establish rites in their honor, reveals tha t she will join Aegeus in Athens, an d foretells the death of Jason (1378-88). The aitio n look s back, memorializing the children and their death and promising that this terrible end will someho w b e redeeme d b y th e rite s i n Corinth . The prophec y give s a forwar d glimpse at the future careers of Medea and Jason, confirming Jason's misfortune and his helplessness befor e Medea. Together, these forecasts provide contrasting perspectives on th e action : th e children' s murde r will hav e it s recompense, bu t Jaso n wil l continue to suffer; the positive close contrasts with a negative sequel . The seque l i s essential to the lack of equilibrium in the ending. The horrifyin g ac t of infanticid e i s domesticated b y th e gestur e o f buria l and ritual , even a s th e prophec y magnifie s Medea's awfu l unaccountability. In other early endings, there is a similar contrast among allusions to the future. In Hippolytus, th e rites in Trozen offe r a positive recompense for the death of Hippolytus, while the vengeance of Artemis promises a negative sequel to be visited upon a nameless mortal. As i n Medea, th e aitio n almost succeed s i n converting the violenc e o f the plot into the safer and more manageable crises of marriage ritual, but as in Medea, violence wil l return in the futur e t o be visited upon others. I n Children of Heracles, the antithesi s is more complex . Eurystheu s acquiesces in his death and reveal s that according t o a n oracle hi s bod y burie d near Athens wil l on e da y sav e th e city ; hi s death and burial restore t o the actio n a positive outcom e afte r Alcmene's surprising demand for revenge. But the future holds yet another reversal in the sequel of a Dorian

74 CLOSIN

G GESTURE S

attack upo n Athens— a reversa l tha t wil l someho w b e neutralize d b y th e tom b o f Eurystheus. The concluding prophec y anticipate s a new story that will repeat the threat against th e cit y an d th e containmen t o f thi s threat, postponing closur e int o th e in definite future . In other earl y plays, th e prophecy contribute s to an antithetical close by contrast ing th e en d o f th e mai n plo t wit h th e continuatio n of subplots . I n Andromache, a s we hav e seen , ther e i s a shar p antithesi s betwee n th e deat h an d commemoratio n of Neoptolemu s o n th e on e han d an d th e happ y sequel s involvin g Peleu s an d Andromache o n th e other . I n a mor e negativ e vein , Hecuba conclude s firs t wit h Polymestor's announcemen t o f th e transformatio n and deat h tha t will be a n appro priate end to Hecuba's suffering , an d then with his prophecy o f new trouble s awaiting Agamemnon and Cassandra o n their return to Argos. Athena' s closin g prophec y in Suppliant Women i s part o f a more comple x doubl e ending . Followin g recover y of th e bodie s o f th e Seve n agains t Thebes , th e goddes s ordain s elaborat e oath s between Athens and Argos to secure an d commemorate th e conclusion t o the action . Athena then describes a sequel involvin g the sons of the Seven, who ar e now children: When yo u are me n you'l l sac k th e city o f Ismenus , avenging th e murde r o f you r dea d fathers . . . . No soone r shal l th e shadow touc h you r chin s than yo u mus t launc h a bronze-clad arm y o f Danaan s against th e seven-mouthe d citade l o f Thebes. Bitter fo r them shal l b e you r coming , cub s raised fro m lions , sacker s of cities . 7iop6r)ae9' fipfiaaviei; 'Ia(ir)vot i re6A.i v rcoTepcov 9avovTw v EKSiKa^ovtet ; ()>6vov. . . . aXK oi ) (|>9dveiv xpr i cruaKid^ovTac ; yevuv Kai %aA,KO7iA.r|9f j Aava'iSco v 6p|iav OTpaio v e7rraaTou.ov mjpycona Ka5u.eico v em . TtiKpoi yap CCUTOIC ; TI^ET.' EKTe9pa|j,p.evoi 0KTj|avoi XeovTcov , TtoXeoc ; eK7iop9iiTopec;. 1214-15 , 1219-2 3

Although the plot is complete, th e sequel locate s i t within the larger cycl e involving Argos an d Thebes: i t was th e firs t expeditio n tha t le d t o th e presen t impass e concerning the bodies o f the Seven, an d the second expeditio n will avenge bot h the earlier defeat and the present maltreatment of the dead. Aition an d prophecy offe r con trasting reflections upo n th e plot an d its completion. Th e entir e play ma y i n fact b e viewed as a meditation on the process of completion and closure: no w tha t the Seve n are dead, how should they be treated and remembered? Ho w ca n social an d political institutions organize what has happened into a coherent and exemplary whole?16 The recovery o f the heroes' bodies, the affirmation of panhellenic values in the treatment of the dead, and the closing lamentation s all serve t o make complet e live s tha t wer e otherwise simpl y finished. But th e aition qualifie s this sense of completeness wit h a dash of realpolitik: the solidarity between Argives an d Athenians cannot last , and an oath inscribe d on th e Delphic tripo d can only postpone a betrayal of their alliance. 17

Postscript: Outside the, Frame 7

5

The prophec y qualifie s the end by offering a longer view: th e story of the Seven wil l be complet e onl y when thei r sons return and finally tak e Thebes . In Euripides' late r plays, the concluding allusion s to the future ten d to be sequen tial rather than antithetical: Orestes wil l spen d a year in Arcadia before hi s tria l an d acquittal in Athens, an d Cadmus mus t endure a bitter exile befor e h e may reac h th e Land o f th e Blessed. Instea d of the contras t betwee n an aition that looks bac k an d a sequel tha t looks forward , w e fin d th e subordinatio n o f on e futur e t o another , a s hardship continues befor e th e protagonist finall y win s success . Th e patter n is clea r not onl y in Orestes and Bacchant Women, bu t also i n Electro and Iphigenia among the Taurians. I n Electra, we ar e told that Orestes will be hounde d and drive n ma d by th e Furie s (1252-53) an d wil l b e save d fro m deat h b y a n eve n vot e (1265-66 ) before h e returns to Argos and marries Hermione . I n Iphigenia, Athen a announce s that Orestes an d his sister must return to Greece, travel to Athens, Halae and Brauron, and make their dedications to Artemis before finding deliverance in this life and ritual commemoration afte r death. The sam e patter n is sketched mor e briefly i n Heracles, in which Theseus offer s the hero refuge in Athens. Although Theseus does not dwell upon th e hardships of exile, h e reminds us that Heracles, lik e Orestes, is guilty of a murder tha t require s hi s banishmen t an d wil l remai n a n outcas t unti l purifie d in a foreign cit y (1322). In Ion, Athen a varies thi s pattern : she announce s tha t Io n will rule in Athens and will be famous fo r his descendants, wit h no mention of preceding hardships. But this promise of easy success is contingent upon the plot to keep Xuthus in the dark (1601-5), ignoring complication s that will surely follo w when Creusa' s son is named heir to the throne. The Dioscuri i n Helen will admit no such ambiguity, promising a n unqualifie d happy endin g tha t reflects , a s w e shal l see , th e unusual melodramatic movement o f the plot. As I have alread y noted, the fragmentary end o f Bacchant Women als o promise s that future hardship s will be followed b y a happy end. After a substantial lacuna, the god Dionysu s concludes hi s speech b y telling Cadmus an d Harmonia that they will be turned into snakes, will lead barbarians, sack many cities, plunder Apollo's oracles, and finally reac h the Land of the Blessed (1330-39). But this is the bleakest of happy endings. Pentheu s is dead. Agave discover s sh e has murdered her son. And as far as we ca n tell , the Thebans will be expelle d from thei r city, and Agave an d her sister s must go into exile.18 If Cadmus alone has a happy future, h e does no t sec it that way, concluding to Agave : I shal l hav e n o en d of wretche d evil ; no t eve n whe n I sail acros s deep-falling Achero n shal l I have peace . o\)8e Trcruoopa i KCtKfflV 6 T/\,flH(B V OliS e TOV KaTaipOTnV

A%epovTd jt^eiiaai; fjauxoi; •yevfiaofj.ca . 1360-6 2 The sequentia l ordering of allusions to the future ha s an effect very different fro m that of the antithetica l relatio n in earlier plays. In general, the prophecy extend s th e temporal dimensio n of the drama, playing out another action an d postponing a sens e

76 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

of completeness . I n earlie r plays , th e antithetica l forecasts o f prophec y an d aitio n qualify o r complicate the conclusion o f the action. In later plays, the sequential forecasts instea d play out the action an d repea t th e plot o n a smaller scale, revisitin g all its ups and downs, it s complications an d reversals .

Time and Continuum An importan t effect o f th e concludin g prophec y i s therefore to plac e th e actio n o f the dram a withi n a larger continuum . In Hippolytus, th e seque l i s enacted o n a different plane , in a world peopled an d directe d by gods; more ofte n the actio n an d it s sequel are parts of the same world, involvin g the same protagonists, but simply separated in time. Medea offer s only a glimpse o f this larger continuum, briefly suggest ing what th e futur e hold s fo r Jason an d Medea , whil e the epilogue t o Orestes sug gests that the events that follow ar e every bit as complex a s the plot itself : Menelau s will remarry, Orestes will spend a year in exile in Arcadia an d will then be tried and acquitted i n Athens, Hermion e an d Oreste s wil l marry while Neoptolemus wil l di e at Delphi, Electra wil l marry Pylades, Oreste s wil l rule in Argos, and Menelaus will rule in Sparta (1635-1661). Euripidean prologues likewis e place the action within a continuum tha t stretches back int o the past. Just as events do not end with the end of the play, so they do not begin a t its beginning, and a god or mortal usually describes the plot's antecedent s i n some detail. 19 What brought Mede a t o Corinth, and why i s she in such a rage? Ho w does Ion happen to be in Delphi, and what are the circum stances o f hi s birth ? The poin t i s no t simpl y t o facilitat e our understandin g of th e plot, but to portray its dependence upo n earlie r events . Th e nurs e in Medea goe s all the way back to the Argo, and back eve n furthe r t o the pine tree on Pelion i n order t o explain th e situation in Corinth: If onl y th e shi p Arg o ha d neve r flown to the land of Colchis throug h the blue Symplegades ; and th e cut pine tre e had neve r falle n in th e glades o f Pelion , nor give n oar s t o th e hands of valiant men wh o fo r Pelias pursued the Golden Fleece . Then m y lad y Mede a would no t hav e sailed for th e tower s o f lolcus , struck i n her heart with love fo r Jason ; nor would sh e have persuaded th e daughters of Pelia s to kill thei r father , an d no w b e livin g here in Corint h wit h her husband an d childre n . . . ei0' cmjieA. ' Apyoix ; fif] 5icm:Tda6a i aKa^oi ; K6X%rov ec, aiav icuaveac ; ZuuTtVnydSac;, u,r|5' ev vaTtaioi rir|Xioi > Tteaetv note T(rn9t!aa ne.vKr\, |ir|S' epexjiwaai xepat ; dvSprav dpicnewv o i T O Ttdyjcpwo v §epo< ; ReAla \ieif\X,Qov. oi ) yap d v SEOJIOIV ' cur) MrjSeia Ttiipyovi ; yfjc; e7iA.eiia ' 'IwXKiac ; epam 0i)u6 v eKTi^ayF.io ' 'Idaovot;'

Postscript: Outside th e Frame 7

7

o\)5' civ KTdvelv netoaoa rieXidSai; Kopac; TiaTEpa KdTWKe i tf|v8 e yf|v KopivBia v ^w dvSp i Ka i TEKVOIO W . . . 1-1 1

The actio n o f the play may see m t o be a single, self-contained crisis, but i t is not. It is so dependent upo n the past that if the tree had not fallen, if the ship had not flown, all now would be different. In this case, the necessity tha t apparently connects event s within the play also connects them to events in the past and future outside the drama. Electro i s situate d within a mor e detaile d continuum . The Dioscur i a t the en d de scribe a t length the futur e exil e and hardships of Orestes, an d the farmer in the pro logue describes th e first mustering of ships before the Trojan War, the Greek victory at Troy, Agamemnon's return , and his murder by Clytemnestra and Aegisthus (1-10 ) before reaching the present situation . This detailed continuum, however, i s not gov erned by a similar necessity. At various points, the farmer tells us, the course o f events might hav e been different : As for th e boy Oreste s and th e female chil d Electra , their father' s ol d nurs e carrie d th e forme r of f when h e was abou t t o di e at Aegisthus' han d and gav e hi m t o Strophiu s to raise i n Phocis. But Electr a remaine d i n her father's hous e . . . and whe n i t happened tha t Aegisthus , afraid that sh e would secretl y hea r some noblema n a son, decided t o kil l her , then savag e thoug h sh e is her mother saved he r from Aegisthus ' hand . cipaevd -c ' 'OpeaTnv &f\k<j T ' 'HA.eKTpa<; SdXot;, TOV U.E V Tiatpot; yepaioi; EKicA,e7iTe v ipo$e.i)c, ueXXov-c' 'OpeoTnv x eP°<; vri AiyiaSox ) 6aveiv £Tpo<j>t(p T ' e5coKe u>K£(o v EC ; yr\v tpeei v f| 5' ev 86|ioi(; euetvev 'HXeKTp a Ttatpo ^ .. . ETtEt S E Ka i TOUT ' f|v <j)6po u itoXKov TtXEWv , fif| T W XaGpalax ; TEKVO yevvaicp TEKOI, KTQVEIV o<j> £ (Jou^EijaavToc ; co|a.6<j>pa> v ojiwc ; UTiTTip vi v E^EOtoaE V AiyiaGo u X eP°<;- 15-19 , 25-2 8

The action of the play will render less certain the inevitable murder of Aegisthus and Clytemnestra: Ca n thi s reluctant hero an d his self-pitying siste r fin d th e resolv e t o do what legend says they will do? And the prologue places the action within an equally uncertain continuu m i n whic h Oreste s an d Electr a migh t hav e bee n kille d lon g before reachin g thi s point where reveng e is possible. Together, prologu e an d epilogu e describ e a continuum , however certai n o r un certain, withi n which th e actio n take s place . Thi s continuu m as i t extends int o the future i s typically described by a god, while the continuum extending into the past is more commonl y describe d b y a human character.20 It is interesting that i n a digres sion o n th e en d o f Medea, Aristotl e allow s for th e narratio n of event s outsid e th e drama, before an d after, and makes special provisio n for a god t o do so, since mor tals canno t kno w th e pas t o r future. 21 Suc h narration , however, b y connectin g th e

78 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

plot t o event s tha t precede an d follow , prevent s th e actio n fro m bein g complet e or whole in the manner Aristotle prescribes. 22 Whatever we make of this contradic tion, Aristotle's notio n o f a single and self-sufficien t actio n runs directly counter to Euripides' interes t i n necessar y connection s between th e plo t an d earlie r an d later events. His impulse i s the opposite o f Henry James's. Wherea s th e novelist trie s to shape the continuity of things int o the semblance o f a single action , Euripide s tries to let a single enactment indicate the infinite continuity of experience. Prologues and epilogues are both index and instrument of a realistic, antiorganic interest in the flow of events and th e web o f relation s in which we fin d ourselves . As such , Euripides ' nove l us e o f narrativ e prologues an d epilogue s i s par t of a new conceptio n o f narrativ e time. Traditionally, the Greek s conceive d o f tim e a s a circle—the cycle o f the seasons, the rotatio n of heavenly bodies, an d a regular pattern i n events that distinguishe s the orde r o f th e cosmos from th e haphazar d events of everyday life.23 Philosopher s suc h a s Pythagoras took for granted the cyclical na ture of time and sought to rationalize it as a "surrounding sphere"—an endeavor parodied b y the comic poet Hermippus: 24 [Time], yo u wretch , is round i n appearance, it travel s in a circle wit h everything inside it, and beget s u s runnin g around the whole world. It's called th e year, and sinc e i t turns, ha s n o end and n o beginning, and wil l neve r stop running, spinning it s body da y i n an d da y out.

Poets and dramatists likewise tended to view events not as part of a linear continuum unforeseeable i n th e futur e an d unrecoverabl e i n th e past , but a s instance s o f pat terns and paradigms that regularly recur. In Agamemnon, the end of the Trojan Wa r is not so much an event tha t necessaril y precede s th e general's victoriou s return as an archetypa l transgression o f th e bound s betwee n divinel y sanctione d retribution (for th e crime o f Paris ) an d th e crim e o f excessive reveng e (th e sacking o f temples punished b y th e destruction of th e returnin g fleet). I t thus serves as a model fo r th e issue o f jus t an d unjus t vengeanc e tha t recurs throughou t the trilogy . In Euripides' Andromache, however, pas t and futur e ar e important not a s recurring models o f the present situation , but becaus e of thei r absolute separation in time from th e present. Andromache begins her prologue speech b y recalling her splendid marriage to Hec tor, onl y t o lamen t that subsequen t event s betraye d the promis e o f tha t beginning . The past is gone. Thetis in the epilogue consoles Peleus with the promise of immortality fo r himsel f an d a happy future fo r Andromache and thei r descendants; if time can make void the promises o f the past, the futur e ma y redee m th e sufferings of the present. Bu t th e futur e i s no t yet . Time doe s no t brin g bac k a recurren t pattern or order, but marks an unreversible advance from better to worse, or worse to better. In short, Euripides ' us e o f prologue s an d epilogue s wa s no t s o muc h a rejectio n of Aristotelian unity avant la lettre as part of a radical new interest in the temporal succession o f events . The playwrigh t (like some o f his contemporaries), i n a period o f radical change and upheaval , presented a novel portrait of human dependence upo n

Postscript: Outside the Frame

79

time, upo n a linea r continuum in whic h th e fal l o f a pin e tre e o r th e contritio n o f Clytemnestra may unexpectedl y alte r all that will follow.

The Shape of the Future The other surviving tragedians do not seem to have shared Euripides ' interes t in the temporal continuum . For Aeschylus an d Sophocles the actio n o f the drama i s rela tively self-contained, and there is nothing comparable t o Euripides' narrative of subsequent events . The earlie r playwrights do, however , glanc e beyon d the en d of the play i n way s tha t partially anticipate the concludin g prophecy . Th e Oresteia, for example, ends with Athena's prophecy o f future happines s for the people of Athens: From thes e fearsome face s I se e grea t profi t for th e people ; for i f these kindly women yo u alway s kindl y hold i n great honor , yo u wil l always exce l in th e just governmen t of you r land an d you r city. EK twv i|>opep(3 v Twv5 e Tipooamcov |ieya Kep8oc ; opro ToloSe TioXitait;' Ta05e yap eij(|)pova< ; eii^povei; del jieya TIUCOVTE ^ KO I yrj v Ka t TIO^I V 6p9o8i.Kaiov 7ipex|/8Te TtdvTcoi ; SidyovTEc;. Eumenides 990-9 5

It is unusual that Athena's protagonis t i s a city rather than a n individual , but instead of narratin g the futur e growt h an d developmen t o f Athens , it s empire an d it s lega l institutions, sh e offer s vagu e promise s o f peac e an d prosperit y (903-12). No r ar e these promise s designe d t o explai n what will follo w onc e th e pla y i s over. I n he r negotiations with the Furies , Athena offers a deal: if the Furie s give up their anger, the Athenians will honor them with a shrine and cult, and i f the Athenians honor the Furies, they in tur n wil l mak e the cit y prosper. Thi s deal i s worked ou t i n the fina l scene o f th e play , is summarized in Athena's line s (990-95), an d i s ratified b y th e answer o f the chorus: "farewell, ami d the wealth yo u deserve , / farewell , people o f the cit y . . . Under Athena's wings / the father reveres you " (^cdpei: ' ev cdoiulaiav TcXomou, / xaipet', doiiKoc; Xeak;. .. naA.A,a5o<; 8' into Tttepoic; / ovtag SKETCH Turnip 996-1002). Just as the aetiology of the Areopagus i s realized within the play by the trial an d acquitta l o f Orestes , s o Athena' s promis e o f happines s fo r th e cit y i s fulfilled before the close by the benediction of the Furies. The process of closure is clearly a centra l proble m fo r Aeschylu s i n Eumenides, bu t thi s is s o becaus e h e want s to bring within the action o f the trilog y any possibl e loos e ends. Euripides , however, will draw attention to such loose ends lying outside the scope of the drama. A mor e specific sequel is described in Aeschylus' Persians, in which Darius foretells Xerxes' second defea t at Plataea. This ghost appears, however, not at the end but in the middle

80 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

of the play and mentions the second battl e only to reinforce his moral judgment against his son ("sand dune s of corpses will bear silent witness . . . that mortal thoughts must not ai m to o high," 818-20); hi s forecast o f the futur e give s adde d authorit y to th e condemnation o f Xerxes . The fulles t an d mos t extende d prophec y o f a seque l t o th e plo t occur s i n Prometheus—again i n th e middl e of th e play , and apparentl y in th e firs t pla y o f a connected trilogy. 25 I n respons e t o th e entreatie s of lo , Prometheu s describe s in detail her future trial s (701-35, 788-815) and those o f her descendants th e Danaids (844-69), concluding wit h a brief allusio n to his own eventual rescue by a more distant descendant, Heracles (870-74). This prophecy doe s at least two things: it establishes th e privilege d knowledg e o f Prometheu s befor e h e confront s Herme s wit h knowledge dangerou s t o Zeus, 26 an d i t anticipates his releas e b y Heracle s a t some point in the following pla y of the trilogy. But it does not provide a sequel to the plot since lo has no real par t in the action; he r sufferings offer a n important foil t o those of Prometheus, bu t afte r we lear n of them, she leaves an d plays no further par t in the play o r the trilogy . There wa s apparentl y a similar prophetic forecas t i n the middl e of Prometheus Unbound, i n which Prometheus described a t length Heracles ' futur e travels an d labor s (frs . 195-9 6 and 198-9 9 TrGF). Th e tw o prophecie s ma y hav e been complementary . Withi n each play , the sufferings and civilizing exploits of the immobile Prometheu s hav e a thematic parallel in the travels of lo and of Heracles. 27 And outsid e eac h play , the prophecie s fil l ou t th e expans e o f tim e fro m beginnin g to en d o f th e trilogy . Man y generation s passe d betwee n th e wandering s o f l o in Prometheus Bound an d th e arriva l of Heracles i n Prometheus Unbound, an d many generations more may well hav e passed betwee n th e time of this play and that of the trilogy's conclusion. 28 We mus t assume tha t th e trilogy di d no t literall y reenac t the thirty thousan d years o f Prometheus ' punishmen t (fr. 208a TrGF), bu t i t certainly embraced a remarkable stretch of time, and the prophecies concernin g lo and Heracle s allow th e brie f stag e actio n t o sugges t somethin g o f th e vas t swee p o f tim e fro m the chaining of the Titan t o the present day . These prophetic narratives are therefore the closes t thin g t o a concludin g prophec y i n Aeschylus . Ye t the y remin d u s no t that th e actio n will continu e beyond the en d of the drama , bu t tha t whol e cycle s o f events tak e place betwee n th e episode s w e se e onstage. An d the y illustrat e not the continual successio n o f events, bu t th e recurrenc e o f th e drama' s centra l theme s in other figures suc h a s lo and Heracles . Unfortunately , few play s and onl y one com plete trilogy survive from Aeschylus' productio n of ninety plays or more. Bu t i f our remains are any indication , Aeschylus ha d n o need fo r concludin g prophecie s such as those in Euripides, since the connected trilog y allows him to embrace great stretches of time within the actio n itself. 29 Sophocles, however , tend s t o portray a single, self-sufficien t action rather than the sweep o f time suggested b y an Aeschylean trilogy—a crisis that somehow stand s outside th e cours e o f time . Sophocles thus has n o mor e interes t tha n Aeschylus in describing a sequel, bu t for different reasons . T o Aeschylus ther e is no sequel sinc e the movement of time is contained within the action. To Sophocle s th e sequel exists but i s irrelevant to the crisis an d it s resolution, and i s acknowledged, i f at all, by th e subtlest of hints. As th e body of Ajax i s carried off, for example, ther e is no indication of anything to follow, unless perhaps we remembe r the musings o f Teucer fou r

Postscript: Outside the Frame 8

1

hundred lines earlier when h e first found his brother's body: What will his father say when he learns the news? Will the peevish man blame Teucer fo r his brother's death, and perhaps even banish him from Salamis (Ajax 10 1 7-20)? This earlier hint at events to follow, Telamon's unfair accusation agains t his son, reconciles th e action of this play with the sequel that may hav e been dramatized in Sophocles' Teucer;30 but there is no suggestion tha t the close of the play with burial honors for Ajax is not really the end o f th e story . Th e repor t o f th e hero' s deat h a t th e en d o f Oedipus at Colonus likewise offers no suggestion o f a sequel to follow. In Oedipus' earlie r exchange with Polyneices, ther e ar e allusion s t o late r event s a t Thebes familia r from Sophocles ' Antigone, but thes e tak e th e for m o f the ol d man' s curs e agains t hi s son s ("Neve r will you seize tha t city; sooner you will fall stained with blood, and your brother also," OTJ yap ea9' onatc, 716X1 v / Keivpv epei\|/eic;, dXXot TipooGev atficm / Treat] u.iav9eic; %co l;ijvainoc; e^ 'toou, 1372-74) and a brother's las t farewell to his sisters : If father' s curse s ar e fulfilled , and i f you mak e you r way bac k home , then b y the gods do no t dishono r m e but giv e m e a tomb an d rite s of burial. UT) To t (ie 7tpo<; 0ec5v a4>u > y', edv ai To\>5 ' aped naipbc, TeXwvTai tea t tit; •uu.iv eq 56u,o\)< ; vootoi; yevr|tai, u,f | u, ' axiudcrnTe ye , aXV ev -cd^oioi 6ea8e KQ V KTepiau,aaiv . 1407-1 0

This earlier gesture towar d th e plot of Antigone, however, docs nothin g to alter our impression tha t the en d o f thi s play i s really the end. In these plays and others, ther e are hints of the later legendary cycle,31 but only in Philoctetes d o we fin d a concluding prophec y o f events tha t follo w th e end. 32 Th e play closes with the entrance of Heracles e x machina, commanding Philoctetes and Neoptolemus to return to Troy, and revealing that Philoctetes will be cured, will kill Paris, and together with Neoptolemus will sack Troy (1423-40). Heracles thu s makes it clea r tha t the goa l o f Odysseus , an d th e en d anticipate d b y th e audience , will finally b e realized . The deu s als o allude s to a seque l o f Gree k impiet y and divin e retribution: For the city mus t be sacke d a second time with m y bow. Bu t remember, when yo u destroy th e land, to honor wha t is the gods' since Fathe r Zeus consider s everythin g else secondary. TO 5emepo v yap TOI< ; e(ioi<; aiiifiv xpew v toi;oi.c; dXaivai. towo 8' evvoeiO', otav TtopGfcce yaiav, eiiffefietv ia itpoq Oeoix;' obi; TaXXa Jtavia 8ewep' fiyeixai rtcrrn p Zevc,. 1439-4 3

Heracles look s beyon d Odysseus ' immediat e goal o f sackin g Tro y t o subsequen t events such as the rape of Cassandra b y th e lesser Ajax and the murder of Priam by

82 C L O S I N

G GESTURE S

Neoptolemus, a s well as the divine punishment that will follow these deeds: the Greek fleet wil l be destroye d o n it s return and Neoptolemu s wil l be murdere d a t Delphi. Sophocles thus borrows fro m Euripides a closing gesture tha t acknowledges th e plot is part of a larger continuum , yet he does so i n a way tha t draws the sequel int o the plot. In Euripides, the prophecy inaugurates a new plot or plots: now that Hippolytus is dead, Artemis will find a way to take revenge; no w that Orestes and Iphigenia have escaped fro m Thoas, they must find thei r way bac k t o Greece, b e purifie d of matricide, an d establis h shrine s i n Attica. I n Philoctetes, the seque l complete s th e plot: the actio n has had a single goal, bringin g Philoctetes and his bo w to Troy, an d thus ensuring tha t the cit y wil l be taken ; Heracles' announcemen t of th e futur e simpl y confirms that—with some delay—this end will be reached. And the allusion to impiety a t Troy onl y hints at other stories tha t migh t be told (perhaps i n Sophocles' ow n Aias Lokros), just as Ajax an d Oedipus at Colonus hint at other stories.33 Neither Aeschylus no r Sophocle s offer s a clea r preceden t fo r Euripides ' us e o f the prophetic sequel. The closest paralle l in Aeschylus would see m t o be the prophecies of Prometheus that fill out the time between plays of the trilogy, while Sophocles, even i n Philoctetes, treats the action a s essentially complete, offerin g only a hint of what may follow. A more distan t precedent, note d i n chapter 3, is Teiresias' proph ecy o f th e futur e wandering s o f Odysseus . I conclud e wit h a samplin g o f critica l models that may hel p to describe Euripides ' peculia r postscripts. The concluding prophecy create s problems fo r any interpretation that assumes the action i s or should be complete. Those who regar d th e action of the drama as essentially complet e ten d to se e th e prophecy a s a n interestin g but unnecessar y append age, one that gratifies the poet's own interes t in the future, a s A. S. Owen suggests, 34 or gratifie s a comparabl e interes t among th e spectators . A s Pau l Decharme put s it, Euripides seek s "t o satisf y hi s spectators' curiosit y a s fully an d completel y a s pos sible b y lettin g them follo w th e fortune s of th e character s i n whom the y had bee n interested beyond th e limits of the dram a and int o the most distant future."35 A t th e price o f minimizing the importanc e of th e prophecy , thi s approach account s fo r it s distribution amon g th e survivin g plays : Euripide s wa s ofte n bu t no t alway s interested i n giving suc h tweak s of pleasure to his viewers, and he catered t o them mor e fully i n his late r plays. More commo n i s the opposite vie w tha t th e actio n a s it stands is incomplete an d that the epilogue reintegrate s drama and myth , endowing the play with a fullness of meaning that i t otherwise lacks . G . M. A. Grub e argue s that the epilogue "seems to raise th e dram a beyon d th e individua l circumstances . . . i t becomes a par t o f th e universal experience of mankind,"36 while H. D. F. Kitto takes a more aesthetic tack, finding a belate d unity in the tyin g up o f loos e ends : "Whe n th e future s o f Peleus , Andromache an d Molossus ar e arranged for , when i n fact the victims of this human accident ar c mad e comfortable , the n the pla y ca n end." 37 Bot h attac h a less trivia l meaning to the concludin g prophecy, bu t d o s o b y implyin g that incompleteness i n the drama must be corrected b y invoking the mythic sequel. Wielan d Schmidt offer s a more sophisticated model in which the poet exploit s and exposes the discrepancie s between dramati c action an d legendar y background : i t is because Euripides ' play s are complete—o n thei r ow n human e an d realisti c terms—tha t the y ar e n o longe r comfortable within a traditional legendary framework, and th e epilogue "i s a direct

Postscript: Outside the Frame 8

3

result of the tension betwee n dramati c and mythical reality, between th e factual dictates of legend and his own free artistic arrangement."38 The postscript, in other words, is a castoff, a shell of traditio n tha t no longe r fit s ou r romanticall y original poet . But a s we have seen, the sequel is often i coda, repeating the dramatic action on a smalle r scale; the point i s not (it would seem ) that events to follow ar e less real or authentic, but simply tha t some ar e dramatized an d others ar e not. If the poet draw s attention t o the contras t betwee n insid e and out , th e effec t ha s les s t o d o wit h th e validity of myth than it does with drama's ability, or inability, to draw Henry James's circle i n which relation s appear t o stop. Lif e i s essentially continuous , an d i f in our hopes and in our fictions, we provide it with consoling or reassuring ends, we never theless kno w that these ar e not really th e end . As Gerhar t Hauptman n observes: True dram a is by it s nature endless. I t i s a continuous, internal struggle with no reso lution, and the moment thi s struggle lapses, the drama ceases. But since we are force d to give every play a resolution, every drama performed ha s something fundamentall y pedantic an d conventiona l about i t that lif e doe s not . Life knows only the continuous struggle—or i t stops being lif e a t all. 39

We migh t conclude, i n other words, that the Euripidean epilogue i s anti-Aristotelian, showing that there is no ending followed by nothing else, showing that the infinite con tinuum of temporal experience cannot be contained in a single dramatic action. But this brings us back to another false contrast between th e unordered or unshapeable events of "real" life and the apparent coherence imposed upon them by art. As Hauptmann reminds us, the sequel lef t ove r a t the end is pedantic and conventional; this is not the raw stuf f of real life, but a predictable story narrated by the author or the deus. One result may be to confuse th e inside and the outside, implicating the viewer more deeply in the prison house of drama. But another is to multiply the drama's authoritative guises. At the end, the pla y i s equally a public reenactrnent of legend, a n original dramati c staging, an d a privileged narratio n of the sequel. I n juxtaposing these various forms of authority, and in questioning ho w and where the drama ends, Euripides invites us to reconsider both the natur e of tragic performance and the authorit y veste d i n it.

This page intentionally left blank

II The End Refigured System an d finalit y ar e prett y much one an d th e same . KIERKEGAARD

This page intentionally left blank

6 Repetition: Hippolytus Alcmaeon declare s tha t me n peris h becaus e the y canno t lin k togethe r th e beginning t o th e end. ARISTOTLE

If Henr y Jame s suggest s tha t ever y nove l shoul d tr y to fashion a finit e whol e fro m the seamless we b o f human relations, Gerhart Hauptmann argue s instea d that every performance, despit e it s finite scope, should try to repeat the endless struggl e o f life . Because this is impossible, because drama's subjec t knows no beginning or end, every play has something conventiona l or pedantic about it s conclusion. Obviously , thi s is not quit e true . First , no t ever y endin g i s conventiona l o r pedantic , an d certai n authors, genres, an d period s ar e more fon d tha n others of such endings , an d i n particular o f a n overt displa y o f conventionality. It i s this that distinguishe s Euripides from Aeschylu s an d Sophocles, an d to a lesser exten t the later from th e earlier plays of Euripides. An d second , thes e pedantic gestures nee d not reflect onl y a striving for realism tha t is doomed b y the limitations of dramatic art. I n Euripides , at least, suc h gestures betra y a broade r an d mor e comple x interes t i n problems o f performance , authority, historical truth, and temporal succession. T o pursue thes e problems mor e fully wil l take us from ways in which tragedy ends t o the reinvention of drama—and the en d o f tragedy . I begin b y turning from closin g gesture s t o structural tropes, fro m wha t we might call th e vocabular y o f Euripidea n endings t o revision s o f the endin g itself. I n three different plays , th e familia r marker s of th e en d hav e bee n radicall y altered or displaced b y repetition, reversal , or erasure. The result is not just to deploy closing gestures i n strikin g and unusua l ways, bu t t o reexamin e th e natur e of dramati c coherence. I f th e endin g i s not a t the end—i f someho w w e en d wher e w e began , o r w e begin a t the end, or the end fails to materialize—then i n some fundamenta l wa y we must reconside r ho w th e play works an d must entertai n new notion s o f what drama is and ho w i t does (or does not ) organize experience .

Beginning at the End I begi n wit h a pla y tha t would no t see m t o belon g i n thi s company . Hippolytus i s generally considered unusuall y well-constructed, leading to a very effective and tragic 87

88 TH

E EN D R E F I G U R E D

conclusion. Th e hypothesis , fo r example , tell s u s tha t thi s pla y i s on e o f th e bes t (TO §e 5pau,a TCO V Ttparaflv); G. M. A. Grub e says that its structure "is quit e unusually excellent; ever y par t o f it , prologos, chora l ode s an d exodos , blen d int o an almos t perfect unity"; 1 an d An n Michelin i describe s th e pla y a s a n aberratio n i n whic h Euripides adopt s th e Sophoclea n nor m tha t h e elsewher e strive s t o subvert. 2 Th e formal perfectio n ofHippolytus seem s to be confirmed, i f not guaranteed, by its sym metry. Prologu e an d epilogue balanc e on e another, framin g the action betwee n tw o epiphanies, betwee n th e yi n o f Aphrodit e an d th e yan g o f th e virgi n Artemis . A s Bernard Kno x point s out , if these tw o goddesse s are temperamental opposites, th e language they use is similar and their effects upon human affairs ar e "exactly alike." 3 Margarete Biebe r eve n suggest s that the staging wa s balance d an d symmetrical . In her reconstruction, there was a projection, orparaskenion , at either end of the skenebuilding, one on the left representin g a shrine of Artemis an d one on the right repre senting a shrine of Aphrodite , thu s allowin g th e pla y t o begin an d en d wit h mirro r epiphanies i n which the goddesses descend fro m the machine onto identical facades.4 The resulting impression o f organic unit y and tragic closure i s reinforced, a s we hav e seen, b y the particular form of the play's closing gestures : thi s is the only survivin g play tha t end s with th e death o f it s protagonist, 5 it is the only on e tha t end s wit h a n extended explanatio n of what ha s happened, an d we migh t add that it ends wit h th e clearest aetiologica l connectio n betwee n th e outcome o f th e plot an d it s later com memoration. But i f we loo k mor e closely , w e shal l fin d tha t this impression i s mis leading. This play is not more complete than others; it is overly complet e an d doubly finished. Hippolytus begin s a t the end. As th e play gets under way, it seems that the actio n is already finished , an d th e her o o f th e dram a i s a s goo d a s dead . I n he r prologu e speech, Aphrodit e begin s b y remindin g u s that gods require mortals t o honor the m and by vowing tha t she will make an example o f Hippolytus' arrogan t neglect o f her (1-20). She goes on to say that on this very day she will punish him for his crimes ( a 5' eiq eu.' r)u.dpTr|K:e iiu,copfiao|iai / 'iTtno^mov ev Tf|8' fpepa, 21-22) and proclaim s that her vengeanc e i s almost complet e (OT J Ttovov 7toM.o\) (ie 5ei, 23). Sh e foretell s the manner of his death, struck down b y his father's curse s (43-46), and as she leaves the stage , sh e announces , wit h her ver y las t words , tha t Hippolytu s "doesn't kno w that th e gate s o f Hades ar e open , an d tha t thi s i s the las t ligh t he will sec" (oi ) yap ol§' ave , tyaoq 5e Amoihov p^eTico v xoSe, 56-57). As th e play begins , h e i s abou t to pa y th e penalty , poised o n th e threshol d o f death—an d this is exactly where w e find hi m at the end. The messenger wh o enters near the close of the play declares, "Hippolytus i s no more, o r virtually so ; hanging in the balanc e he see s the light " (\nnok\iioc, OTJKET' eotiv, coc ; eiTrelv Evtoq V 5e5opice jievioi (j>co< ; ETii oniKpdq pOTtfjq , 1162-63) . And shortl y before hi s death, the hero gives satisfac tion to Aphrodite and proclaims, " 1 am finished, and now I see the gates of the dead" (oXcoXcc Kc d 5f| vepiepcQv opro mikac,, 1447). This doubling, or repetition of the end, is reinforced by striking verbal echoes (cjidoc; 8e A,oia8iov P^ETUD V and SeSopic e . . . (jxat; eni auiicpdc; pOTtfjc;; dv£(pYM- eva<5 jruXac; "Ai8oy an d vepiepco v 6po > nvXac,) an d b y a doublin g o f th e gesture s o f closure . Hippolytus, alon e among al l the surviving plays of Euripides, begin s and end s wit h an aetiology. In the prologue, Aphrodit e leads up to the present situation—the patho-

Repetition: Hippolytu s 8

9

logical lov e o f Phaedr a fo r he r stepson—b y tellin g how Phaedr a fel l i n lov e wit h Hippolytus when he came to Athens to celebrate th e mysteries (24-28) and how she commemorated her lov e fo r hi m by establishin g a shrine to Aphrodite: 6 Before comin g here to the lan d o f Trozen, beside the rock of Pallas, this land's lookout, she se t up a shrine of Aphrodite in he r foreign passion ; and sh e name d th e goddess as established hereafte r i n hono r of Hippolytus . Kdt Ttpi v ^ev eX6ei v Tf]v5e yfj v Tpo^r|vtav , TteTpav Ttap ' crutfiv naAAd8o<; , KOTOVI/IO V yfj<; Tf|o5e , vaov KwipiSoc ; eyKaOeiaaTo, epwa' eproi' eKSriuov, 'iTcTcoXwc p 8' ET U TO XOITIO V covojia^e v iSpx>a6 m Seciv . 29—3 3 The presence o f an aetiology in the prologue i s so anomalous that some editor s have suspected interpolation. 7 But th e anomal y i s compounded. No t onl y d o w e hav e a closing devic e i n the prologue, bu t we hav e one tha t promises future commemora tion o f the protagonist's death . On th e Athenian acropolis, a s at Trozen, a shrine of Aphrodite an d a tomb , o r heroon, of Hippolytu s were closel y associate d wit h on e another, an d the epithet that Phaedra uses to recor d he r love (InnoXviKt 5 ' era, "in honor of Hippolytus" 32 ) allude s to the Athenian shrine of 'A<j>po6uT | e§' 'InnoKviu) established "in honor of [the deceased] Hippolytus."8 The play begins no t only with a her o o n th e threshol d of death , but wit h a shrin e where i n futur e age s Athenians will hono r and remembe r this death. This prematur e ending i s administere d by th e prematur e entrance o f a deu s e x machina. Th e prologu e i s generall y delivere d b y a huma n character wh o enter s t o describe the situation, review the past, and generate interest in the action that follows. 9 There are , of course, severa l gods and supernatural figures who deliver the prologue, but i n tw o cases , a pai r of god s engag e i n dialogue (Apoll o an d Deat h i n Alcestis, Poseidon an d Athena in Trojan Women); i n two cases, a single god enters in the guise of a servant (Hermes as Xcccpic; in Ion) o r a mortal (Dionysus as Stranger in Bacchant Women); an d i n one case, the prologu e i s spoken by a ghost (Polydoru s i n Hecuba). In Hippolytus, b y contrast, Aphrodite enters as a deus, proclaiming at once he r identity an d divin e authority (1-2) , assertin g her prerogative to reward and punish mortals (5—6) , reminding the viewe r o f her activ e intervention in human affairs (21 , 28 , 42, 48), and delivering both a n aetiology (29-33 ) and a detailed prophecy o f events to come. 10 We have already note d that the prologue aetiology is unique, and so too is this prologue prophecy. Typically, the prologue i s spoken b y a human character, whose fear s or forebodings arouse suspense: wha t terrible vengeance wil l Medea take ? the nurse ask s herself (Medea 36-45) , an d ho w ca n Heracle s possibl y retur n t o rescu e hi s family ? Megara ask s Amphitryo n (Heracles 73-81). n A go d i n the prologue ca n teas e th e viewer wit h partia l hints of wha t i s to come : Dionysu s say s h e wil l mak e himself known at Thebes, but does not explain how (Bacchant Women 39—42), 12 Hermes say s (correctly) tha t Ion will be presented a s Xuthus' son, and (falsely) that Apollo's rape

90 TH

E EN D R E F I G U R E D

will remain hidden (Ion 69-73) , and Apollo warn s that Heracles wil l save Alcestis , while Death contradict s him (Alcestis 64-76). 13 Trojan Women, as we shal l see, is unusual in that Athena and Poseidon arrang e the destruction o f the Greek flee t sometime after th e conclusion o f the drama (78-91). But nowhere else in Euripides' surviving plays does th e prologue giv e a detailed forecast o f events to come: Aphrodite reports tha t Hippolytu s an d Phaedr a wil l bot h die , Phaedra i n a relativel y nobl e manner (e\')KX,er|( ; 47 ) an d Hippolytu s kille d b y th e curs e o f hi s fathe r Theseu s (Hippolytus 43-48) . This openin g prophecy, like the opening aition, helps to mark the differenc e betwee n thi s play an d Euripides ' firs t Hippolytus. 1'' Bu t i t als o re minds u s tha t w e ar e beginnin g a t th e end: Aphrodit e ha s intervene d and al l tha t follows wil l simply play out the sequel sh e has foretold. Finally , where th e deus i s usually greete d wit h a gesture o f acknowledgement an d acceptance , th e speech o f Aphrodite i s answere d instea d b y th e entranc e o f Hippolytus , singin g th e praise s of Artemis (58-60) , ye t the scene ends with a belated speec h o f acknowledgemen t from th e servant, whose protes t against excessive punishmen t ("pretend no t to hear him: gods should be wiser tha n men," u,f ) SOKE I TOUTO U KA/ueiv / CTO^coiepoxx; yap Xpt) ppoica v eivc u OEOTJC ; 119-20) seem s directe d t o a deus whose interventio n is already complete . I n Ion, one intermediar y of Apollo (Hermes) is replaced a t the end b y anothe r (Athena), an d i n Bacchant Women, th e god's entrance i n disguis e is answere d a t the en d by hi s terrifyin g epiphany . But whe n Aphrodit e leave s th e stage a t the beginning of Hippolytus, sh e i s making her fina l exit , having finished everything she cam e t o do. 15 This impressio n tha t th e pla y begin s a t an en d i s reinforce d b y a series o f clos e correspondences betwee n prologu e an d epilogue. A s we hav e seen , the play begin s and end s with the death of Hippolytus, and with verbal echoes reinforcing thi s similarity. It also begin s and ends with the gestures o f deus e x machina, aition, and concluding prophecy, an d eac h o f these involve s furthe r similarities . We hav e already noted tha t bot h aetiologie s refe r t o a tom b an d her o shrin e of Hippolytus , bu t th e parallels involve Aphrodite as well. In the prologue, Phaedra' s lov e fo r Hippolytu s is commemorated wit h a shrine of Aphrodite tha t look s towar d Troze n (" a lookou t of thi s land," KaToyio v / jf\c, Tfja5e , 30—31) , while the epilogu e allude s to a shrine of Aphrodite the Spy (KmaoKOTuac;) where the love-smitte n Phaedr a use d t o watch Hippolytus at his exercises. 16 In her opening prophecy, Aphrodit e promise s t o punish Artemis ' favorit e Hippolytus ( a 8 ' eig eu, ' -rpdpTriKe Tiu.copf|(jou.ai , 21 ) just a s Artemis i n the epilogue promises to punish the favorite of Aphrodite (TO^OIC ; afyvKioic, TOiaSe Ti(icopf|oou.ai , 1422) , repeatin g th e vow o f vengeanc e i n the sam e line-en d position. Th e god' s presence i n th e prologu e i s ignore d b y Hippolytu s an d i s only acknowledged belatedl y by the servant (114-20), just as Artemis' entrance at the end is no t formall y acknowledge d unti l th e dyin g Hippolytu s is brough t onstag e mor e than a hundre d lines late r (EOT / C D Beio v oaufj q 7weiju,< r Kc d ya p e v KQKOIC ; / co v r)o66u,r|v 0011 KdveKOD<j>ia9r|v 8eu,a<;. / EOT' ev TOTUHO U toiaiS' "Apieuai; Bed, 139193). An d just as Aphrodite in the prologue withdraws at the approach o f Hippolytus, who i s about t o die (56—57) , an d leave s event s t o pla y themselve s out , Artemi s i n the ending makes an identical gesture, withdrawing from the scene a s the hero is about to die (1437-39), and allowin g Hippolytu s an d Theseu s t o play ou t thei r grie f an d sympathy. This early departure of the deus is unique in Greek tragedy and reinforce s

Repetition: Hippolytu s 9

1

the man y similaritie s between prologu e an d epilogue, whic h creat e th e disconcert ing impression tha t the play begins a t the end. This premature sense of finality i s heightened throughou t the first hal f of the play. Aphrodite concludes her opening speech with the cold pronouncement that Hippolytus stands a t the gate s o f deat h (56-57), an d th e servan t end s th e scene wit h an ironic comment upo n the finality o f her decision , askin g th e goddess to show forgivenes s since gods should be wiser than mortals (117-20). In the next episode, the nurse finally discovers the cause o f Phaedra's distres s an d concludes, "Cypri s is no god afte r all, but som e creatur e greater tha n a god, who ha s destroye d Phaedra , an d me , an d th e whole house, " Kvnpic, OTJ K dp ' fjv 6eoq , / ctM. ' ei T I uei^ov aXXo yiyvetav 8eo\), / f| Tf)v5e Ka|i e ice d 56uou< ; dmco^eaev (359-61). Th e servan t ironically , and the nurs e directly, both acknowledge tha t Aphrodite's destructiv e scheme i s already complete . The nex t tw o episode s likewis e end , firs t wit h a n od e o n th e destructiv e powe r o f Aphrodite an d Eros, "wh o destroys mortal s an d hurl s them throug h al l misfortune when h e comes, " TtepGovta KO I 610 1 Tcdoaq ievta auuxjiopd q / 0vato\) q otav eXGr i (542-44), an d the n wit h Phaedra' s recognitio n tha t th e goddes s ha s ha d he r way : "departing lif e today, I shall give pleasure to Cypris who destroys me," eyco 5e Kimpiv, r|7iep e£,6Mo)ai |ie, / yuxfiq cmaAAaxOEiaa tfi8' ev Tiuepq / Tep\|/co (725-27). As the action o f th e dram a get s underway , we ar e constantl y reminde d tha t i t i s already finished.

Ending at a Beginning The forma l symmetr y of Hippolytus work s bot h ways . I f the prologu e take s on th e qualities of an ending, th e epilogu e i s in some ways a beginning. This i s clearest i n the prematur e departure of the goddess. A s previousl y noted, Aphrodit e depart s at the approac h o f th e dyin g Hippolytus, leaving events sh e has se t i n motion t o play themselves ou t i n the course o f the play. And i n the epilogue , Artemi s avoid s asso ciation with death by leaving before the young man dies . Thi s prematur e exit of the deus is unparalleled in Greek tragedy, handing over the stage to Theseus, Hippolytus , and the chorus for a brief closing scen e (1440-66) of purely human pathos and human forgiveness. A s Hippolytus remarks, it is easy for the goddess to leave behind a long friendship (uaicpd v 8e Xei.7tei<; paSiax; ouiAtav, 1441), but as the chorus says, mortals mus t struggl e on , someho w findin g th e courag e t o forgiv e an d th e strengt h t o endure their sufferings (jto^rav 5aKpi)co v eaten TUTuAxx;, 1464). With his last word s Theseus remember s Aphrodite, th e speaker o f the prologue (ox ; noKKd, Kimpi , awv KQKWV ueuvr|CTO|aai, 1461), an d now, as then, the goddess's departure from the scen e marks a new beginning to the action. This shif t o f focus t o the morta l sequel i s accompanied b y a certain ambivalence in th e play' s closin g gestures . I n Hippolytus, thes e gesture s ar e mor e emphatically closed than in any other Euripidean drama—yet succeed in somehow remainin g open. If every traged y ends with a death, then Hippolytus is surely Euripides' mos t tragi c play since i t is the only one tha t ends wit h the death of its protagonist. Medea' s children are dead at the end, but Medea herself is most emphaticall y alive. Neoptolemus ' body i s brought onstage, bu t Andromache i s alive and will take her son to Molossia .

92 TH

E EN D REFIGURE U

And Hecub a wil l die, but i n a future foretol d b y Polymestor, while mos t othe r protagonists loo k forward t o future adventures. 17 The onl y paralle l is Pentheus in Bacchant Women, who dies at least 400 lines before th e end of the play, ceding th e stage to Cadmu s an d Agave . Th e actio n o f Hippolytus, i n othe r words , focuse s i n a n exceptional wa y upon the hero's tragic end. But here there is a more perplexing parallel between prologu e an d epilogue. When Aphrodite withdrew, she announced that Hippolytus wa s virtuall y dead, standin g befor e th e gate s o f Hade s an d lookin g his las t upo n th e ligh t (56-57). Whe n Artemi s departs , th e situatio n i s th e same : Hippolytus i s almost dea d an d sees the gate s o f deat h befor e hi m (1447) . S o whe n does h e die ? Wher e i s th e climacti c stroke tha t will distinguis h the en d fro m th e beginning, tha t wil l mak e it clea r tha t th e her o doe s no t linge r on int o yet another story o r another drama? Strangely enough, th e en d i s not marked. Hippolytus i s about t o die when Artemis leave s i n order t o avoid bein g polluted by hi s death : "Goodbye. I t i s not righ t for m e t o se e o r defil e my eye s wit h mortal death; I can see you ar e near this evil" (1437-39). Hippolytus bids her farewell and asks hi s fathe r to la y out hi s corpse fo r buria l (^apoi ) Ttdiep u,o u Ka i Kai6p6coao v 8euac;, 1445), and then Hippolytus announces tha t he is finished and can see death' s door (1447) . After several line s of dialogue , h e agai n bid s farewel l to hi s fathe r (C D %aipe Kai cru, xaipenoXXd |j.oi, Ttdtep, 1453), and afte r anothe r brief exchange , re peats tha t he i s finished an d ask s Theseu s t o cove r hi s bod y (oXroX a yap, Tidiep. / Kpx)V|/ov 5e u,o\ ) Kpooamov 00 5 id^oc; jieTtXou;, 1457—58) . Theseus then exclaims " O famous bound s o f Athens an d Pallas , wha t a ma n yo u wil l hav e lost! " (1459-60), and th e chorus departs , remarkin g that thi s pain i s shared b y al l the citizens (146263) an d lookin g forwar d to a sea o f tear s (jioXXcb v 5aKp\)to v ecnai TUTU^OC; , 1464) . There is no mention o f Hippolytus' death . We ma y assum e tha t his body i s carrie d out a t the end, but w e ar e neve r tol d this . An d ther e i s no mentio n o f an y prepara tions for the burial or funeral o f the hero. Of course, i n staging ther e must have bee n a significant silence an d a significant gesture: betwee n line s 145 8 and 1459 (we can infer) th e las t word s o f Hippolytu s are followe d by silence , an d slowly , withou t a word, Theseu s cover s th e dead man' s face . Ye t all the more surprisin g that neither he no r th e chorus acknowledg e hi s death. Instead, Theseus speak s o f a futur e loss : "what a man yo u wil l hav e lost" (o'io\) O"Tepf)oeo6 ' dvSpoc; , 1460) , an d th e choru s speaks o f futur e grief : "many tear s wil l fal l lik e oars" (noXA-co v 8aKpxtco v ecrra i TtiTuXot;, 1464); the chorus places i n the past not the prince's deat h but an undefined suffering: "fo r al l the citizens in common thi s suffering came unexpectedly " (KOWOV i6S' ay_oc ; Ttdai TioXitaic ; / fi^Bev deXKiax; , 1462-63). The proble m o f locating Hippolytus ' deat h is not just a verbal quibble, nor a tendentious illustratio n o f th e slipperiness of language. In his tou r of th e famous sanc tuary o f Hippolytu s in Trozen, Pausania s mentions a statue of th e hero , a priest o f Hippolytus, various sacrifices, an d continues: "they [th e Trozenians] won' t hav e him dragged t o deat h b y hi s horse s an d the y do no t sho w hi s grave , eve n thoug h they know it . Instead they believe tha t wha t i s called th e Chariotee r i n th e sk y i s i n fact Hippolytus, who receive s thi s honor from th e gods" (2.32.1). Pausanias i s skeptical of thi s catasterism, bu t i t had lon g bee n tol d tha t Hippolytu s did no t die—o r rather that he was brought back to life by Asclepius.18 And when Pausanias stubbornly identifies the site of Hippolytus' burial, he also notes the (apparent) presence o f Asclepius :

Repetition: Hippolytu s 9

3

"[near the shrin e of Aphrodite th e Spy an d th e myrtle tree] is the grave o f Phaedra , not fa r from th e tomb o f Hippolytus , and this [the tomb o f Hippolytus] i s a mound near the myrtle. The statue of Asclepius wa s made by Timotheus, bu t the Trozenian s say i t is not Asclepius bu t a n image o f Hippolytus" (2.32.4) . Did Hippolytu s die or not? Perhaps he died and was restored b y Asclepius. I f so, did death claim hi m again at a later date? Or did he never die, as the locals in Pausanias believe, made immortal as a constellation by the gods? S o in one respect the uncertainty surrounding the hero's death i s negative : the absenc e o f a definitive end leave s hi m lingering—jus t a s h e did i n th e prologue—o n th e threshol d of death . Ye t i n anothe r respect thi s uncer tainty i s mor e constructive : i t leaves roo m fo r th e possibilit y that Hippolytus doe s not die, that he is in fact ready to make a new beginning as a mortal saved from death, or a s a constellation, or as a god, or even wit h a new identit y as Virbius. 19 This elisio n o f th e hero' s deat h i s assiste d b y th e honor s recentl y promise d b y Artemis; sh e make s n o mentio n o f deat h o r buria l an d make s n o allusio n t o th e famous tom b in Trozen: 20 You wh o hav e suffere d s o much , I will giv e yo u for you r sufferings great honor i n th e cit y of Trozen: unmarrie d girls before the y we d will cu t thei r hair for you , harvesting throughout lon g time a great sorro w o f tears . You wil l alway s be musicall y remembere d by virgins , and Phaedra' s lov e fo r yo u will neve r fal l silen t or nameless . aoi 8', ( b TalaiTtcop', dvti wovS e TCO V KOKW V ti^ac; u.eyiaTa<; ev rtoXei Tpo^T| v'-(? 5waar Kopca , yap a^-uyet ; yducov Ttapot; Kou,a<; KepowTcd aoi, 81' aiwvoc; uaKpou Jtev6ri (leyiata SdKpxico v Kap;w6u.evar del 5e u,oi)ao7toi6< ; e? ere 7iap9evwv EOTOI u,epi|iva , KOIJ K dvcovuuoc ; neaoov epcoi; 6 <E>at8pac ; ec, ae. aiyr|9f|CTeTca. 1423-3 0

Artemis promise s th e livin g and sufferin g her o tha t hi s suffering s will no t b e forgotten, bu t neithe r her e no r i n th e actio n tha t follow s i s th e hero' s deat h clearl y acknowledged. This bring s us t o anothe r ambivalent gesture. I n many respects, this aitio n is an exceptionally effective closing device : th e hero dies at the end of the play, and a god proclaims tha t his tragic death will be commemorated i n rituals performed at Trozen . We have already seen tha t only in Hippolytus doe s the protagonist di e in the cours e of the play; and only here does the contemporary vestige directly commemorate th e action. Late r aiti a tend t o offe r onl y a verbal relic: Oreste s survive s i n the nam e of the town Oresteion, Helen i n the name of the island Helene, adventures in the Crime a survive in the epithet Tauropolos, and so on. Many aitia, as we have noted, remem ber a n event no t i n the action itself , but i n its sequel: the exile of Orestes, th e transformation o f Hecuba , o r the treat y between Argive s an d Athenians . And man y are factitious t o a greate r o r lesse r degree : a ne w plac e o f buria l for Eurystheus , an

94 TH

E EN D R E H C U R E U

unusual cenotaph fo r the Seven agains t Thebes, o r an amalga m o f fact, fantasy, and literary revisio n a t Halae and Brauron. Only m Hippolytus doe s the aition describe a familiar contemporar y institutio n that directl y honors th e event s of the play. Lest i t seem tha t 1 exaggerate the exceptional natur e of the aitio n in Hippolytus, I offer a brief digression o n Medea, whic h als o conclude s wit h a promise o f rite s i n honor o f th e dead, in this case the murdered children. The childre n are not protago nists, bu t a t least ther e i s a direct connectio n betwee n a climactic even t o f the pla y and rite s performe d i n Corinth. When Jaso n plead s wit h Medea t o le t him bur y the children, sh e answers : No! 1 shall bury the m wit h this hand, taking them t o Her a Akraia's shrin e lest on e o f thei r enemies dishono r them, tearing u p thei r tombs; an d i n th e lan d of Sisyphu s I shall establish fo r th e futur e a holy festival an d rite s for thi s impious murder. oi) 8f|T' , enei a§a$ TfjS ' eyc o Gdyc o xepi, ^epow' ec, "Hpac; xeuevoc; 'AKpaiat; Geou, coi; nt] 115 CCUTOTJC ; jtoXeniwv Ka6uppior |

ruu.p'o'Ui; ctvaaTtwv yf i &e TTJS E Staxxjio v

aeuvfiv eopiri v KO I xeXr i Tcpoaayouev TO XOVTTO V dvT i ToijS e Suaaepoik ; 06vo\). 1378-8 3

The murde r of th e childre n i n the course o f the pla y wil l b e commemorate d i n tw o ways: by their burial at the shrine of Hera Akraia and by rites performed in their honor in Corinth, the land of Sisyphus. Can we assum e tha t this tomb and these rite s were familiar t o the audience, a s the tomb and rite s of Hippolytus at Trozen surel y were? Yes an d no . Although th e close proximity of Trozen t o Athens, an d th e clos e con nection o f Hippolytu s with Athenia n legend, would mak e th e hero' s commemora tion mor e familiar , some accoun t o f th e buria l and honor s fo r Medea' s children in Corinth wa s wel l established . The proble m i s that ther e i s no evidenc e fo r these a s described b y Euripides. Our source s fo r the story of the children's death are mostl y late and often contradictory, 21 but the most prevalen t account, an d the one that most resembles Euripides ' version , differ s fro m hi m i n importan t details. Accordin g t o Parmeniscus, Creophylus , an d othe r sources , Medea' s childre n were kille d no t by their mothe r bu t b y th e peopl e o f Corinth , who wante d t o hur t o r punis h Medea. 22 The childre n had sought refuge at the temple of Hera Akraia (in Perachora) and were murdered in her sanctuary. To atone for this sacrilege, Apollo ordered the Corinthians to establish rites in their honor. We cannot prove tha t Euripides knew thi s fuller an d more widesprea d account, bu t his own aetiolog y suggests tha t h e did. When Mede a tells Jaso n sh e wil l bur y the childre n herself , she give s a s he r reason , "les t on e o f their enemies dishono r them, " w q U.T I TIC ; OCUTOIJC ; TtoXeuicov KaSupptar j (1380) ; this remark makes no sense i n this play, in which their only enemy is Medea, but it makes complete sens e i n the stor y o f thei r murde r by th e Corinthians . Again, Mede a say s she wil l establis h rite s "fo r thi s impiou s murder," dv d TOt>8 e Suaoepoix ; <j)6vot > (1383)—a motiv e tha t doe s not rin g true for Euripides ' unrepentan t Medea, bu t i s

Repetition: Hippolytu s 9

5

entirely appropriat e t o Corinthian s chastised an d punishe d b y th e oracle . Thes e inconsistencies coul d easily have been avoided, but they were not. Instead, the Medea who dramatically murdered her children promises t o protect the m from thei r enemies at the temple, an d the Medea wh o performed the hideous ac t of matricide prescribe s atonement for their impious murder. The inconsistencies dra w attention to Euripides' rewriting of Corinthia n practice i n particular, and o f Medea's story i n general. Th e death o f secondar y character s i s honored i n a way tha t seems to clash wit h viewers ' knowledge o f contemporary institutions, thus underscoring th e poet's innovations.23 Hippolytus i s different : th e epilogu e refer s t o rite s establishe d i n hono r o f th e play's centra l figure , an d i t does s o without contradictin g commo n knowledg e o f those rites . Ye t give n th e exceptiona l natur e of thi s aition, i t remains t o acknowl edge it s failings. 24 Afte r all , if the aitio n commemorates th e hero' s death , i t does so only b y implication . As we noted , the play itself makes n o direct mentio n of the death of Hippolytus. The aetiology likewise makes n o mention of the hero's tomb in Trozen, nor doe s it refer to his death or burial. Instead i t describes a custom associ ated wit h wedding ritual ; as Pausanias reports, "eac h virgin cut s of f a lock fo r him [Hippolytus] befor e marriage and after cutting , takes i t to the temple a s an offering " (2.32.1). Th e ritua l connection s betwee n marriag e an d deat h ar e widespread an d important, 25 both markin g an importan t point o f transitio n and usin g simila r ritua l gestures t o confirm a successful passag e fro m on e stag e t o th e next . But a t least a s Artemis describe s it , the ritua l o f th e virgin s i s a s incomplet e a s th e deat h i t commemorates. Th e youn g women o f Trozen ar e frozen i n lamentation, harvesting tears "throughout lon g time, " preservin g forever a musical memory o f Hippolytus in their capacity a s parthenoi (de l 8 e u-ouconoioc ; E Q o e TiapGevco v / eaTc a u.epiu.va , Hippolytus 1428-29)—tha t is , as women wh o hav e not mad e th e transition to married status . Th e her o who seem s t o linger forever on th e threshol d o f deat h is commemorated b y a n endless succession o f lamenting women, lingerin g forever on the threshold o f marriage. Perhaps thi s absenc e o f ritua l closur e woul d b e les s troublin g if we kne w what they were singing, i f we coul d hea r their "muse-making concern " (uo"uao7toi6c; . . . u.£piu.va). Are they singing about Hippolytus' suffering an d death in what some hav e taken a s a n aetiolog y fo r Euripides ' play? 26 Apparently not. What th e virgins kee p alive i s not memory of the hero's death , but the passion o f Phaedra: "and Phaedra's love fo r yo u wil l neve r fal l silen t or nameless, " (KOTJ K dvc6w)u.o q TIEOCQ V / epco q 6 cd§pa(; EC ; oe <3iyr\Qr\a£ia\., 1429-30) . Th e aitio n that ostensibly commemorate s the death o f th e protagonis t is not concerned wit h hi m afte r all . Wha t live s on fro m the drama , wha t survives an d i s given a name (KOTJ K dvcovuu.ot; , in a variation of th e familiar formula ) is th e stor y o f hi s antagonist . The substitutio n of Phaedra' s lov e for Hippolytus ' deat h prevent s the honor s i n Troze n fro m pointin g to th e play' s ostensible end . But i t also suggest s mor e activel y the ope n o r unresolve d natur e of the dram a an d th e issue s i t raises . First, i n the plot of Hippolytus, Phaedra' s love is not an end but the means to an end. Her passion i s the instrument Aphrodite will use to punish Hippolytus, and her death is less importan t than th e goddess's demand for reveng e an d satisfactio n (47-50). I t is Phaedra's traged y that however nobl y she deal s with her afflictio n (e\>icX£f|< ; U.E V dXA ! OU.OK;, 47), she mus t di e t o furthe r Aphrodite' s goals. Ye t th e aitio n undermine s this

96 TH

E EN D R E F I G U R E D

logic. What survives from the action, what lives on into the present day, is not the goa l announced in the prologue an d apparently fulfilled i n the epilogue, bu t a prior mean s to that end. Incompleteness i s immortalized; th e in-between last s forever . Second, i n the symboli c structur e of Hippolytus, Phaedra' s lov e bears th e seeds of its own destruction. It is a curious reversal , as Froma Zeitlin reminds us, that punishes the abstinent Hippolytus by inspiring passion not in him but in someone else.27 But the reversal has its own logic, a symmetrical logi c i n which th e excessive desire of the temperate Phaedra and the excessive restraint of the hybristic Hippolytus feed on on e anothe r an d destro y on e another . Fro m thi s point o f view , th e passio n an d death o f Phaedr a ar e necessar y no t i n causa l term s a s mean s t o th e punishmen t of Hippolytus, but in symbolic term s as a counterpart to , and reflection of, her stepson's death. Ye t afte r bot h mortal s ar e dead , Phaedra' s passio n i s neithe r spen t no r de stroyed. He r lov e fo r Hippolytu s wil l retur n foreve r i n th e longin g o f Trozenia n women, an d a passion once hidden by her modesty and guarded by silence will finall y have bot h a nam e an d a voice: "Phaedra' s lov e fo r yo u wil l no t fal l nameles s an d will not b e silenced, " KOIJ K CIVCQVDU,OC ; neacbv / epcot; 6 <J>ai5pat; ec; oe <5iyr\Qr\<5emi (1423-30). Th e proble m o f desire return s to its beginning.28 A fina l exampl e o f th e play' s ambivalen t closing gesture s i s Artemis' explana tion o f events . W e note d abov e tha t a ful l an d coheren t accoun t o f wha t ha s happened ca n allo w th e deu s t o close th e actio n i n a very effectiv e manner ; i n th e extant plays , however, suc h explanation s ten d t o be universa l ("all men mus t die," Andromache 1271-72) , largel y forma l (th e gullible Theoclymenus receive s a n ex planation only after Hele n an d Menelaus have escaped), or irrelevant (Zeus' plan to reduce overpopulation , Electro 1278-83) . Only i n Hippolytus doe s the explanation of a deus ex machina play a major role i n resolving the action : Artemis explain s to Theseus (a t considerabl e length , 1282-1341 ) Phaedra' s lov e fo r Hippolytus , th e role o f the nurse, Phaedra's fals e accusation, th e hasty curse o f Theseus, and the responsibility o f Aphrodite , an d afte r Hippolytu s enters sh e repeat s he r accoun t o f Aphrodite's rol e (1400-6). Yet as we saw in chapter 3, this exceptional explanatio n is too much : Artemi s leave s u s with s o man y conflictin g justifications and contra dictory motive s tha t i n the end we hav e no satisfactor y accoun t o f events a t all. The formal similarities between prologu e an d epilogue , th e premature departure of th e deu s from th e stage , an d th e ambivalenc e o f th e otherwis e emphati c closing gestures, al l cast the play's conclusion a s a new beginning. And for Artemis, at least, the en d i s literall y a beginning , as sh e announce s her inten t to aveng e th e deat h o f Hippolytus. A whole ne w dram a i s about t o begin : Enough. No t eve n beneat h the gloo m of eart h shall Aphrodite' s willfu l ange r hurtle agains t you unavenged , thanks to your good an d piou s heart. With m y ow n han d and thes e relentless arrows I will be avenge d o n on e o f hers , whatever morta l i s most dea r t o her. 1416—2 2

How wil l this next stor y proceed ? Th e deat h o f Hippolytu s ma y offe r a model, bu t we ar e lef t uncertai n who th e protagonis t o f thi s new plo t wil l b e an d ho w h e will meet hi s death. 29

Repetition: Hippolytu s 9

7

Yet i n a sens e i t has alread y begun. Th e deu s make s he r prematur e exit, an d a s Theseus and Hippolytus share their grief, Artemis i s presumably settin g her reveng e in motion. Whe n Aphrodit e in the prologue announce d her plan to punish Hippolytus, the youn g ma n was alread y as good a s dead , an d a s Artemi s make s a simila r pronouncement i n th e epilogue , w e ca n b e sur e tha t th e nex t dram a o f reveng e i s already unde r way. The goddess has given u s a preview o f this revenge i n her treatment o f Theseus. When sh e has finished with him, Artemi s promises , h e will wis h he were dead, his body buried beneath the ground (1290-91). She insists that Theseus suffer b y hearin g the ghastl y truth ("Hear , Theseus , ho w you r evils stand , an d i f I gain no advantage , at least I will hurt you," QKODE, ©rioeij, awv KOKCCI V KdtdaTaaiv. / KCUTOI jtpoic6v|/
Repetition and Repression At the beginning o f the play, Hippolytus concludes hi s prayer to Artemis by sayin g "May I run th e cours e o f lif e t o th e en d just a s I began" (TE^OC; SE KduA|/cuu. ' okmEp fip£,dur)v plot) , 87). He wants his end to be just lik e his beginning, and because i t is, because h e cannot or does not change, h e is destroyed. The play imitates Hippolytus' life, achieving a n unlikely an d impossible perfectio n by endin g just as it began. On e result of thi s mimicry is to produce a plot that i s equally doomed. I f the end repeat s the beginning and the beginning anticipates the end, nothin g can happen: there is no room fo r change, no space fo r progress o r discovery. With horror and fascination we watch the hero being destroyed, just as Aphrodite promised he would. This is a rather perverse pleasure , on e tha t doe s no t carr y u s forwar d t o a ne w understandin g or a heightened awarenes s a s does the destructio n o f Oedipus , bu t simpl y plays ou t it s sordid an d violen t spectacle—an d a t the end promise s mor e o f the same. This repetition inhibits or paralyzes th e action b y obliterating opposites, turning beginnings int o endings an d endings int o beginnings, makin g Artemis int o anothe r Aphrodite, an d vic e versa . I want to loo k mor e closel y a t this dysfunctional repeti-

98 TH

E EN D R E F I G U R E D

tion. After all , repetition ca n be flui d an d therapeutic: Pete r Brook s has show n tha t Freud's discussion o f the instinctual process of repetition can serve as a useful model for th e wa y i n whic h narrativ e repeats it s subjec t matter. 30 Narrativ e i s alway s a retelling, an d Freud' s "masterplot " describes o n a psychologica l leve l ho w repeti tion serves to bind the flood o f threatening stimuli. The ultimat e goal o f repetition is sameness an d death . Bu t repetitio n wit h a difference , repetitio n throug h displace ment o r transference , postpone s tha t en d an d allow s memor y t o revisi t experienc e and to rework wha t is past o r repressed. Devian t or discursive repetitio n thu s gener ates th e interes t an d livelines s o f a narrativ e middle . In Hippolytus, however , thi s process is cut short b y the substitution of opposites. Artemis an d Aphrodite becom e interchangeable: the second goddes s replicates th e first without introducing challeng ing differences; sh e simply takes u s back to the initial situation without forcing u s to work throug h th e differenc e between beginnin g an d en d an d revisi t on e i n ligh t of the other. Aphrodite's plo t of revenge make s a similar exchange. Whe n th e goddess decides t o punis h Hippolytus , sh e doe s s o throug h hi s opposite , substitutin g the unbridled desir e o f Phaedra , daughte r of the monstrou s Pasiphae , fo r th e unnatural virginity of Hippolytus, son of the Amazon. I n a sense, the punishment of Hippolytus is displaced ont o another , but th e resul t is not a pregnant shif t o r transferenc e fro m Hippolytus ont o another , bu t just a doubling : th e exces s o f Aphrodite' s reveng e will destro y bot h th e her o and hi s opposite . I n th e sam e way , Theseu s i n th e epi logue doe s not become a meaningful scapegoat , a surrogate wh o take s th e place of Artemis' intende d victim an d thus makes it possible t o work throug h guilt or desire ; his punishmen t simpl y repeat s an d multiplie s th e sufferin g o f he r victims . Th e pattern o f repetitio n throughout th e pla y signal s a miscarriag e i n th e proces s o f transference, a deadly breakdown tha t has reache d it s en d befor e i t begins. Or , i f metaphor i s the abilit y o f languag e t o repea t wit h a difference , t o transfer o r shif t meaning i n a way tha t detain s an d delay s us , Hippolytus stage s th e deat h o f lan guage, it s inabilit y t o signif y th e other . (Or , shiftin g models again , w e migh t say that the equivalence of opposites short-circuit s the process of mimetic desire, which begins by collapsing the distinctions between opposites. B y erasing th e distinctions with which a community defines itself yet failing to reassert them , Hippolytus stage s the en d o f culture.) 31 Yet th e mos t intriguin g repetition is not in the pla y but o/th e play. Th e stor y o f Phaedra and Hippolytus had already been told by Euripides, and the second Hippolytus that survives today seems t o enact repetition with a difference. The story of Phaedra, her incestuou s desir e fo r Hippolytus , his angr y rejection , and he r fals e accusatio n leading to hi s death , were tol d agai n i n the second version , wit h th e scen e perhap s displaced fro m Athens to Trozen an d with a crucial change in the character of Phaedra. All tha t was unseeml y an d reprehensibl e in the firs t Phaedra (t o yap cmpejtec ; KQ I KarriYOpicic; di;vov, Hypothesis ) was apparentl y corrected b y substitutin g her opposite.32 Instea d of the shameless woma n wh o acknowledge d he r desire, wh o person ally propositione d he r stepso n an d the n accuse d hi m t o Theseus, w e hav e a para digm o f restrain t who denie s an d represse s he r desire , wh o make s n o advance s t o Hippolytus, who conceal s he r accusation i n the form of a letter, and who trie s to hide and extinguis h her passion b y committin g suicide. All tha t was shamefu l in the firs t enactment an d wa s denounce d by th e critic s i s represse d i n the second . Ye t fo r al l

Repetition: Hippolytu s 9

9

the poet's attempt to contain this desire b y displacing it onto Phaedra's chast e oppo site, th e resul t i s the same. Th e sam e illici t desire destroy s th e same huma n victims in a similar way. 33 We might conclud e tha t this restaging gives Euripides the last laugh. He can have his cak e an d ea t i t too, yieldin g to th e critic s an d repressin g hi s licentiou s drama , while using the new, chastened version to repeat the first. This reenactment will have a lesso n o r moral: just a s (within the action ) desir e canno t be repressed—o r rather, when repressed, i t simply finds new and more destructive channels—in the same way , what th e poe t ha s t o sa y (withi n th e theater ) abou t passio n an d denia l canno t b e repressed, an d publi c censur e o f a pla y tha t "make s a whor e ou t o f Phaedra " (Aristophanes, Frogs 1043 ) wil l onl y resul t i n a ne w an d mor e effectiv e staging . Unfortunately, sinc e th e earlier play does no t survive, we canno t measure with any confidence th e difference s betwee n th e tw o versions . Ye t ther e i s good reaso n t o believe tha t the forma l repetition 1 have described , an d th e immobilit y that result s from it , ar e peculia r t o th e secon d Hippolytus. A s From a Zeitli n reminds us, 34 th e prologue speec h o f Aphrodit e woul d hav e n o plac e i n th e earlie r play , i n whic h Phaedra's illici t passion set s the dram a i n motion, bu t i s required by th e second , in which a chast e an d unwillin g Phaedra become s a vehicle i n the goddess' s punishment o f Hippolytus . And withou t a divine plan announce d i n the prologue , ther e is no plac e o r nee d fo r a similar plan in the epilogue . I f a deus appeared a t the en d o f the first Hippolytus, h e or she may have explained more or less of the preceding actio n (less if, as is likely, Phaedra's false accusation ha d already been exposed) , bu t ther e would be no question of the deus announcing reciprocal revenge in particular, or future schemes in general. 35 In th e earlie r play, the passion o f Phaedr a propelle d th e plot towar d it s destruc tive end, but the later play, in repressing this desire, i n substituting a chaste Phaedr a and a more seeml y drama , blocks thi s movement an d reduce s th e plo t t o a lifeles s repetition. Yet in so doing it infects with shame an d disgrace a n even large r body of victims. The firs t Phaedr a welcomes Desir e as a teacher of daring and brazen cour age, a god who makes the course eas y fo r those who lac k means or contrivance (e^oo §e TOA,U,T|<; KCii Opdooui; SiSdcica^ov / eu iolq d|irvxdvoicnv ewcopokatov, / "Eparra, Ttdvtcov SDoun/ttxtaTOv 9eov, fr. 430 Nauck). 36 The second Phaedra , however, trapped and silence d b y he r desire , want s a contrivance that will turn shameful things into good (E K TW V ya p aiaxpro v eaOX d UT|xava)|ie9a , 331) . Bu t th e attemp t t o repres s this sham e an d hinde r it s course wil l only sprea d i t more widely . Theseus , i n hi s attempt t o contai n an d punis h th e licentiou s behavio r o f Hippolytus , becomes a n accomplice i n his son's destruction, an d i n his sham e h e will wan t t o di e (HKX ; oii^ \mo yf^TapTapa Kpi)Trtei(;/5eu.ac;aiox'uv6ei<; ; 1290—91). For her complicity i n what has happened, Artemis is likewise tainted with disgrace : This i s the custom o f the gods : no one wants to oppose th e zeal o f another's will , but we alway s stand aside. Believe me , but fo r the fear of Zeu s never woul d 1 have suffere d th e sham e of allowin g the mortal most dea r t o m e to die.

100 TH

E EN D R E F 1 G U R E D

9eoi0i §' m5' EXE I v6|io<; ' oijSeii; anavmv pouXeta t TtpoGvijii a TTJ Toi J BeAovtoc; , dX V dc|>i ' io9i, Zf|va nf ) (j>ofk>"U|ievn . OTJK d' v TCOT ' f]X6ov e< ; To5' aiaxuvrn; eyci) WOT' dv5pa Tidvito v c|)iXTaT(B v Ppoiai v e|aoi Gaveiv eaaai. 1328-3 4

And i t may b e that the spectator , in viewing this corrected (§icop9coia i according t o the Hypothesis ) an d immobilize d plot , i s als o i n som e sens e a n accomplice . I n rejecting the unseemly Phaedra and in endorsing a new, chastened, and formally perfect drama , the spectator play s an important part in the death of the plot. The lifeles s and repetitiv e actio n replicate s sufferin g withou t transformin g it, enacting pathos without mathos. An d i f Phaedr a hersel f i s n o longe r disgraced , thos e wh o pas s judgment upo n th e action—Theseu s wh o demand s deat h fo r he r death , Artemi s who demand s retributio n for retribution , an d th e spectato r wh o require s a barre n perfection—all ar e disgraced i n her stead .

7 Reversal: Trojan Women The mos t beautifu l order i s a hea p o f rando m sweepings . HKRACI.ITUS

In Hippofytus, th e unusual symmetry of closing gesture s i n prologue an d epilogue i s more tha n a curiou s detail . The repetitio n tha t seems t o enhance th e play' s forma l perfection succeed s instead i n paralyzing th e plot; a n exceptional pla y tha t is often judged Euripides ' bes t makes drama impossible. S o it is with a certain sense of critical symmetr y tha t I turn to a pla y tha t has ofte n bee n considere d Euripides ' wors t and tha t deploy s it s closing gesture s i n a decidedl y unbalance d an d asymmetrica l manner. "The Troades, produced i n 415, i s perhaps the least interesting of the extant tragedies. Th e plot consist s merel y of unconnecte d scenes , depictin g the miserabl e fate o f the Trojan captives ; an d th e executio n i s not in the best styl e of Euripides." 1 A. E. Haigh's condemnation is not entirely typical. More recent scholars, rathe r than dismiss the pla y ou t o f hand , try t o defen d o r justify it s disconnected an d episodi c plot. Gilbert Murray, for example, argues tha t emotional intensity upstages dramatic coherence: thi s is "a stud y of sorrow, a study too intens e to admit the distractio n of plot interest." 2 G. M. A. Grube insist s that pathos rather than plot or characterization gives th e pla y "its beaut y an d appeal." " Gennar o Perrott a suggests tha t if we loo k not t o Aristotelian notion s o f plo t bu t t o th e "invisible " real m of feelin g and emo tion, w e wil l fin d tha t "the unit y o f Trojan Women i s perfect an d absolute. " An d Shirley Barlo w argues that the play's unity consists i n a network of recurring themes and i n th e centra l rol e o f Hecuba / Thi s ambivalenc e i s summe d u p i n Richmond Lattimore's conclusion that "in candor, one can hardly call The Trojan Women a good piece o f work , bu t i t seems nevertheles s to be a great tragedy."' Rathe r than plead for th e play' s redeemin g virtue s (which certainl y exist), I wan t t o begi n wit h it s defects, whic h are acknowledged b y the scruples o f its defenders no less than by the criticisms o f Haigh: the plot is not a single action but a sequence of episodes, it contains no major reversal of fortunes, and it lacks movement or direction. Troy ha s fallen , the war i s over, th e city ha s bee n sacke d an d the women take n into slavery; patho s may remain , bu t n o events wort h telling . Whatever thi s play's virtues , they are not those of Hippofytus. The us e o f closing gesture s i s also irregula r and disruptive. Trojan Women end s more abruptly than any other survivin g play of Euripides, with none o f the familia r closing gestures , whil e it begins with a double deus e x machina that displaces thos e 101

102 TH

E EN D R E F I G U R E D

gestures t o th e prologue. I n Hippolytus, beginnin g an d endin g mirro r on e another , but Trojan Women begin s a t the end an d remain s stuck there . This inversio n o f th e plot an d thi s absence o f directio n give th e pla y it s remarkable emotiona l intensity; they als o leav e th e drama itself violently dismembered .

An Unmarked End The arsena l of closing gestures i n Euripides (among othe r things) gives a clear sig nal tha t the performance i s over. And despit e man y individual variations in the form of these gestures, the y mark the end of almost ever y play . As we shal l see in the following chapter , ther e ar e tw o play s (Alcestis an d Heracles) i n whic h th e closin g gestures ar e less pronounced, bu t only in Phoenician Women an d Trojan Women ar e they absen t altogether. 7 Yet even here ther e is a difference. As we shal l see in more detail later , the epilogu e o f Phoenician Women i s packed wit h allusion s t o th e fu ture, and in particular to the various ways in which th e sequel could be, and had been, dramatized, and it ends with at least one (but perhaps two ) versions o f the choral exit that empties the stage and ends the performance. Trojan Women, however, end s with no such allusions to the future and breaks off suddenly at the close of a lyric exchange . In ever y othe r extan t pla y o f Euripides , the choru s speak s th e closin g line s in a recitative meter (marching anapest s i n most cases , an d trochai c tetrameters in Ion), clearly signalin g the "curtain" tha t will empty the stage. Trojan Women i s unique: it is the only play of Euripides that ends in a lyric meter.8 The fina l scen e is a lamentation sun g b y Hecub a an d th e chorus , whic h apparentl y break s of f afte r th e firs t antistrophe, 9 and in which the last few lines are sung perhap s b y Talthybius, perhaps by Hecub a an d th e chorus: 10 On t o th e da y that spell s a life of slavery. The cit y suffers ; bu t al l the sam e step onwar d t o th e ships o f th e Greeks . IT' eni Soii^eiov d|iepav (3tot> . ico toAaiva noXiy ojiffit ; 8e Jip6ep e icooa ao v em n'X.aia^ 'A^aitov . 1329-3 2

There is nothing like this in Sophocles, wh o always ends with anapests or tetrameters, and i n Aeschylus th e only comparable endin g i s that of Persians (whic h Euripide s seems to echo i n Trojan Women). 11 The forma l abruptnes s of these closin g lyric s is reinforced b y th e absenc e o f th e usua l closin g themes . Her e ther e i s no moral , n o generalizing reflection , an d no summar y o f th e action . Th e fina l line s neither draw attention t o the end o f the performance no r pray fo r victory i n the dramati c contest ; they mov e th e actors offstage an d nothing more . There i s nothing to signal a n end to the performance, an d no figure of authority to bring th e action t o an end. As we have seen, nine of Euripides ' play s end with a di-

Reversal: Troja n Wome n 10

3

vine epiphany, three more end with a demonic epiphany (Medea inMedea, Eurystheus in Children of Heracles, and Polymesto r i n Hecuba), an d tw o mor e conclude with the entrance of a human savior (Heracles i n Alcestis and Theseus mlieracles). Only two surviving tragedies, Phoenician Women an d Trojan Women, lac k a special fig ure in the epilogue who can help to conclude the plot. In a sense, Phoenician Women needs no such figur e becaus e th e actio n doe s no t end : the suffering s of the house of Cadmus wil l continu e wit h th e exil e o f Oedipu s an d th e buria l o f Polyneice s b y Antigone. And i n a sense, it already has such a figure: if the lines in Phoenician Women are genuine , Oedipus ' allusio n t o hi s plac e o f buria l establishe s hi s ow n specia l authority: 12 OEDIPUS: Now , daughter, Apollo's oracle i s fulfille d . . . ANTIGONF: Wha t i s it? Will yo u tel l o f evi l adde d t o evil ? OEDIPUS: Tha t I will di e a n exil e i n Athens. ANTIGONE: Where ? What rampar t i n Attica will welcome you? OEDIPUS: Sacre d Colonus , home of th e horsema n god. Ov. vu v xpTiauoc; , & TtaT, Ao^io u TiepolveTca. Av. 6 Ttoioc;; a\K f\ npoc, K(XKO!< ; epelc; Kara; Oi. e v Talc; 'AOfivaic; KaxOavei v u ' dAoJuevov. Av. 7toi> ; tic; oe Trupyoc ; 'AtGiSoc; Epo05ec;eTai; Oi. iep6( ; KoAxovoc;, 5couaO' Irndoi) Seou 1703- 7 In Trojan Women, however, the absence of such a figure is strongly felt. Hecuba means to call upon the gods for help, hoping perhaps for a god t o appear upon the machine, but sh e knows thi s will be futile : [Troy,] the y ar e burning yo u an d carryin g u s awa y to slavery . O h Gods ! Bu t why d o I call o n th e gods ? They neve r listene d whe n I called o n the m before . Tttujcpdoi a' , iiu.dc; 8' ei;dyox>a' f|8r| %6ov6c; 5oiJA.ac;. ic o 6eor Ka i x i toiic; 6eoi>c; KaXco; KOI npiv yap O\> K rjKO-uca v dvaKaA.oiiu.evoi . 1279-8

1

And when she calls on Zeus, the "Phrygian Lord" and father of Dardanus who should be a savior for the Trojans, asking if he sees their sufferings (1287-90),13 the chorus answers, "He sees . But the great city is city no more. Troy i s destroyed and ceases to exist" (5e8opK.ev d 8e U-eyaXoTto/Uc; / cbioXic; oXcoXev o\)5' ET' ecru Tpoia, 1291-92). This pointe d absenc e o f hel p fro m th e machin e i s drive n hom e b y th e chorus' s exclamation:

Ah! Who i s this I see o n th e crest o f Troy ? What hand s are shaking flamin g torches? Some new disaste r is about t o strik e Troy.

104 TH

E EN D R E F I G U R E D

ea ecr Tivai; 'IXidaiv ToiiaS' ev Kopt><j>ai< ; ^.eixrao) 0Xoyea<; 5a\oiat x^P a ? StepeaaovTag u.eXXe i Tpota Koavov T I KOKO V jtpoaeoEoGai . 1256-5 9

InHippolytus (ec r /co 9eiov OCTUTJC;rcve'uu.a. . . 1391) and/o« (ecr TIC; . . . Tipoaomov eKijxxivet 6ecov ; 1549-50 ) the same exclamation announce s th e epiphan y of a deu s ex machina , as i t herald s also th e entranc e o f a go d i n Heracles (815 ) and Rhesus (885). Here, however, the chorus looks up to see, not a divine intervention, not a god as savior on the palace roo f o r on the crane, but faceless soldier s among the parapets , lighting the ilames that will destroy the city. 14 The closing aetiolog y is also conspicuous i n its absence. As we hav e seen, nearly every surviving play concludes with an explicit link between th e past enacted onstag e and th e presen t worl d o f the audience ; i n connecting stag e actio n t o contemporar y institutions, th e aition contribute s t o a sense of closure by marking th e distance between them. This extra-dramatic reference is marginally present in Heracles (Theseus alludes t o th e Heraclei a o f Attica , 1326-33 ) an d ma y o r ma y no t b e presen t i n Phoenician Women (th e oracle reporte d by Oedipus, 1703-7, quoted previously). In Trojan Women, however , an d her e alone, 15 i t is certainly absent, an d it s absenc e i s brought to our attention. From th e apocalypse tha t destroys the city of Troy, will any vestige remain? Immediately before the lines in which Hecuba conclude s that no god will help her (1279-81), she likewise concludes that the city's nam e will not live on: "O Troy, tha t once stoo d tal l among foreig n peoples, no w you will lose your famou s name," c o jiEjdXa 8f | TIOT ' dfiTweo-uo ' e v papfidpoic ; / Tpoia , T O K^etvov ovou / dijxnpfiorj id^ a (1277-78)."> And howeve r we assign th e lines, the same poin t is repeated wit h greate r emphasis i n the closin g antistrophe: 17 Oh temple s o f the gods and beloved city — Ah! A h I—you tak e murderous flame an d blad e of th e spear . Now yo u wil l fal l nameles s to th e dea r earth . . . . The nam e of th e land will vanish; each thing is gone i n it s own way , an d sufferin g Tro y no longe r exists. ito Oew v neXaOp a Ka i Tio/Uc ; (|>iXa, E e, tdv (j)6vio v e%F,T e (jAoy a Sopoi ; T E Xoyxav . tax £ 5 (|>iA.av yav TteoBiaG ' dvcovDjaoi . . . . 6vo|ia 8e yac; aQave^ eiaiv dAA a 8 ' aAAo QpoiiSov , o\)8 ' eY ermv a idXaiv a Tpoia . 1317—2 4

Finally, the epilogue fails to distinguish enacted events from thos e that follow. In most plays , as we hav e seen, a concluding prophecy describe s a sequel t o events of the play, drawing attention to the ending as a somewhat arbitrary but necessary bound ary. Eve n thos e withou t a n explici t prophecy conclud e b y alludin g i n on e wa y o r

Reversal: Troja n Wome n 10

5

another to the future: Heracle s say s h e will go to Diomedes t o perform his next labor (Alcestis 1149-50) , Theseus foretells th e honors tha t Heracles wil l receive in Attica (Heracles 1331-33) , and Oedipus speak s of his exile in Attica and death at Colonu s (Phoenician Women 1705-9) . Trojan Women, however, ends with no such referenc e or allusion to what follows; th e women lamen t together in song, an d with their closing words th e stage i s emptied. Ther e are, of course, event s t o come: fo r the Trojan women, deat h o r further sufferin g as slaves , an d fo r th e Gree k men , destructio n o f the ship s an d the hardship s of return . But th e sequel , i f it is told a t all, is told a t th e beginning of Trojan Women. The fina l scen e does not look forward. On the contrary, it reminds u s that ther e is nothing to look forwar d to : the city is destroyed, it s name is gone, and as Hecuba remind s us , there is nothing more to say: Oh, m y suffering ! Thi s is truly th e end, all tha t i s left o f al l 1 have suffered ; I shal l leav e m y country , an d th e cit y burns . o'i 'y w tdXcavcr toiJi o 5f i T O XotcGvov Kod xepia a TUJLVTW V twv ejato v fi5r i KOKCO V e^ei|-ii TiaipiSot;, 716X11 ; vtyaKiemi Trupl . 1272-7 4

A Premature Curtai n The gesture s o f closur e tha t regularly signal th e en d o f th e pla y ar e conspicuousl y absent from the ending of Trojan Women; th e chorus departs in lamentation, and th e city wil l remai n nameless. Ye t thos e device s which ar e missing fro m th e epilogu e are just a s conspicuously presen t i n the prologue . The entranc e o f a go d i s a commonplac e i n Euripidea n endings, bu t a divin e epiphany i s les s commo n i n th e prologu e an d i s answere d almos t alway s b y a n epiphany i n the epilogue. Hippolytus i s framed by th e epiphanie s of Aphrodite an d Artemis, an d Io n i s likewis e frame d b y th e entrance s o f Herme s an d Athena . I n a similar vein, Bacchant Women begins with the god in disguise and ends with Dionysus ex machina , while Hecuba begin s wit h th e ghos t o f Polydoru s an d end s wit h the prophetic Polymestor . A mino r exceptio n i s the prosatyri c Alcestis, which begin s with the double epiphany of Apollo an d Death and ends with the triumphant entrance of Heracles, who has defeated Death and brings Alcestis bac k to her husband. A major exception i s Trojan Women, which begin s wit h a double epiphan y of Poseido n an d Athena, yet has nothing t o balance thi s in the ending. 18 The resul t is entirely differ ent. Rather than framing the actio n with interventions from a divine or superhuman sphere, the opening scen e combines prologu e speec h wit h deus ex machina, exhausting th e device s o f beginnin g an d en d befor e th e pla y ha s begun . Whe n th e god s depart, their departure is final: they have made their plans an d foretold the outcome , and hav e nothin g left t o do . This transpositio n of the deu s e x machina to th e beginnin g of th e play 1 9 i s reinforced b y a similar displacement o f the gesture s tha t accompany th e deus . Th e pla y begins, fo r example, with a prophecy tha t belongs i n the epilogue. I n the prologue , the prophecies o f a god or the forebodings of a mortal always anticipate events within

106 TH

E EN D R E F I G U R E D

the action : Herme s announce s tha t Apollo wil l reunit e Io n wit h Creusa , an d th e nurse fears tha t Medea wil l harm her children. As critics hav e noted , because thes e anticipations ar e not entirely complete or correct, the opening prophec y generate s interest i n how the plot will reach it s goal.20 A prophecy i n the epilogue, however , announces event s later than th e actio n (th e deat h o f Jason , fo r example , o r th e descendants o f Ion ) an d help s t o brin g th e plo t t o a n en d b y containin g all tha t is left over , divertin g int o an authoria l postscript whateve r th e plo t di d no t include . The on e exceptio n i s Trojan Women, which lack s a prophec y i n the epilogu e bu t begins wit h Athena and Poseidon foretellin g ho w th e Greek flee t wil l be destroyed after th e pla y i s finished: A T I I H N A : [The y wil l suffer] when the y set sai l fo r hom e fro m Troy . Zeus wil l send a storm an d unspeakabl e hail an d dar k blasts o f heaven , and say s he will give m e th e fir e o f lightnin g to blast th e Greek ship s an d bur n the m i n fire . . . . POSEIDON: S o b e it . M y favo r doe s no t nee d lon g words: I will shak e the waters o f th e Aegean Sea , and th e cliffs o f Mykono s an d reef s o f Delo s and Skyro s and Lemno s and th e cliffs o f Kaphareu s will b e fille d wit h th e bodies o f man y dea d corpses . A6. OTO V Tipoc ; OIKOU; vawcoXwa' arc 'IXiou . Kai ZETJI ; |iev 6|ifipo v Ka i ya\aLp.v UOTIETO V 7teuA|/ei Svo<|>c65r | t' aiSepo^ 4>UOT||aaTa ' euoi S e SGXJEI V <j>T|a i Tfu p xepccuviov , paXXeiv 'A^moix ; vavq T E TttjiTcpdva i Trupi . . . . 77-8 fTo. ecrca i ta5'' f ] %dpi ^ yap o\ > u.aKpa> v Xoyco v SeiTar TapdE,c o 7teA.ayo< ; Aiyaiac; a'koc,. QKiai 5 e MUKOVO D Ar)A,ioi TE x olPaSe<; ZKi)p6<; TE Af|uvoc ; 9' ai Ka^ripeio t T ' aKpai jtoXXwv 6avovT&) v acojiaG ' e^onoiv veKpwv . 87—9 1

1

Before th e actio n reall y begins , a n extra-dramati c prophec y turn s our attentio n to events outside th e drama; rather than generating interest in what i s to come, it turns away from th e plot to its sequel. This effect is heightened by the content of the prophecy, whic h concern s no t the Trojan wome n bu t th e Gree k soldiers . These me n will prove t o b e literall y extra-dramatic: they never appea r onstage , neve r pla y a direct role i n the action, and make themselves felt onl y through an intermediary, the herald Talthybius. 21 Thi s tur n awa y fro m th e actio n i s repeate d o n a smalle r scal e i n th e first episode , i n whic h Cassandr a foretell s th e wandering s o f Odysseu s an d th e murder of Agamemnon (431-50)—sequel s involving th e absent villain s rather than the wome n wh o occup y th e stage . S o th e plo t begins , no t b y generatin g interes t in what i s to come , but with a closing gestur e tha t marks of f th e actio n fro m a sequel outside it . This reversal of beginning and en d i s reinforced b y th e presence i n the prologu e of other features that typically accompany th e deus. The firs t i s an etymological deri -

.Reversal: Trojan Wome n 10

7

vation resemblin g a n aition , i n which Poseido n explain s the nam e o f th e Woode n Horse:22 The Parnassian , Epeius of Phocis , by th e schemes of Athen a fashioned a horse teemin g wit h weapon s and sen t the destructive carg o insid e th e ramparts ; hence late r men will call i t the Wooden Horse , since i t held hidde n spear s of wood. 6 yap llapvaaioc ; <J>a>K£\>c; 'Eneioc; unxavaim naXA,d5o ^ eyKV)(iov' iTtrco v te^xewv o~uvap(j,6oc« ; TTUpycov £7C£u.\|/£ v EVTO<; , 6Xe9pio v pdpo<; ' 66ev jipo< ; dvSpwv iioTepcov KEKXriaeta i Ao\)p£io<; "Imroi;, Kpwruo v dujttaxw v 56p u 9-1

4

The explanation is not strictly an aition, since th e "later men" who will call this contrivance a Wooden Hors e ar e not clearly distinguished fro m men o f the play: a contemporary viewer would use the term, but s o too would character s in the action, a s does Odysseu s amon g th e Phaeacian s (8oi)pdieo( ; Innoc,, Odyssey 8.492-9 3 an d 8.512). Nevertheless , Poseidon' s word s d o refe r t o a time outsid e th e drama ; they use a n expression , KEK^ficjeTav , tha t i s ver y commo n i n aitia; 23 an d i t i s possibl e that the y allude more specificall y to a statue o f th e hors e recentl y dedicated on th e Acropolis.24 Excepting the equally unusual references i n the prologue ofHippolytus and a t th e midpoin t of Iphigenia among th e Taurians, thi s i s the onl y aetiological explanation i n Euripides that occurs outsid e an epilogue. Thu s the play begins with an etymological derivatio n that disturbs the dramatic illusion in a manner generally reserved fo r th e conclusion o f the drama. Poseidon conclude s hi s prologue speec h wit h anothe r closing gesture , his word s of farewell to the city of Troy : So I bid yo u farewell , onc e fortunat e city and polishe d ramparts . I f Athena, daughte r o f Zeus, had no t destroye d you , you' d res t o n you r foundations still. c JtoXi q ^eoiov T E TfupYCOu.' - £ i oe M ^ 5ico\eoE V riaAAdi; Aioc; Kale,, f\aQ' a v ev pdSpoic ; e-u. 45-4 7

As John Wilson has shown, 25 the audience has every reason t o expect tha t Poseidon will no w leav e the stage, abandonin g the walls he loves . Hi s exit, postponed b y the entrance o f Athena, anticipates the endin g o f th e pla y by establishin g the recurrent theme o f imminen t departure from Troy . An d i t doe s s o i n a wa y tha t separate s divine fro m huma n concerns. Poseido n ha s no t arrived , lik e Hermes i n Ion, to ge t the plot rolling and help it toward its goal; he has come only to pay his last respects , and now tha t Hera an d Athena hav e destroyed hi s beloved cit y (23-24) , h e cannot remain:

108 TH

E EN D R E F I G U R E D

I leave famou s Tro y an d m y altars ; for whe n evi l desolatio n take s a city , religion grow s sick an d gods do no t wan t honors . XetTtco T O K>.eiv6v "Riov PCOUOIX ; T' EJIOIK; ' eprifiia ya p n6A.i v otav Xdpr i KQKTI , voaei m TW V 6ew v oiJS e Ti(a,aa8ai 0eX.e,i . 25-2 7

Just a s Artemis leave s th e stag e an d th e morta l real m les t deat h defil e he r eye s (Hippolytus 1437-38) , Poseidon prepare s t o quit the stage an d the scene of human suffering les t his prerogatives should sicken. InHippolytus, th e god's departure shifts attention t o th e fathe r and dyin g son fo r th e fina l twenty-si x lines, while i n Trojan Women i t shifts attention t o huma n suffering for th e entir e play. Poseidon's departur e i s interrupte d b y th e entranc e of Athena , th e agen t o f th e city's destruction , wh o ha s unexpectedl y shifted he r loyalties . She no w enlist s the help of Poseido n i n a plot to destroy the Gree k ship s a s the y retur n fro m Troy , an d the scen e concludes wit h the exit of both gods , Athen a to Olympus and th e arsenal of thunderbolts (92-93), while Poseidon complete s his interrupted departure. Like a deus departing at the end of the play or the chorus filing ou t at the end o f the perfor mance, Poseido n conclude s by deliverin g a moral: Foolish i s the morta l wh o sack s cities , shrines and tombs , hol y place s of th e dead ; he makes [them ] desolate an d then i s destroyed himself . lifflpoc; 8 e GvTyuw v 601:15 eKJtop9ei 7t6A.evc ; vaoix; te ruupoix; 6', iepc t TM V KeKjinKOTco v epr|uia Soiic ; OIJTOC ; roXeG' ij0Tepov. 95—9 7

The exac t construction of this moral, both in syntax and in meaning, continues to be debated,26 but the important point for our purposes i s the presence o f a summarizing gesture. A concluding moral is usually spoken in the epilogue by the deus ex machina or th e exitin g chorus , althoug h such reflectio n upo n th e actio n may als o follo w major development s in the plot. 27 In this case, however , befor e the drama has eve n begun, Poseido n draw s a lesso n fro m i t an d the n departs. We begi n a t the en d no t only with a deus ex machina and with a prophecy an d aetiology that look outsid e the action, bu t wit h a moralizin g conclusion tha t reflect s u p o n event s o f th e drama. 28 The epilogu e o f Trojan Women i s uniqu e in tha t i t specificall y lack s thos e fea tures tha t usuall y mark th e conclusio n o f th e action , and th e prologu e i s uniqu e in that i t includes these sam e features to suggest a n ending before th e play begins .

Reversal an d Catastrophe Trojan Women, lik e Hippolytus, begin s a t the end, but does so in an entirely different manner. InHippolytus th e end is described i n the prologue, played out in the action, and will be repeated upon a favorite of Aphrodite; as we have seen, thi s repetition of beginning and end contributes to the formal symmetry and perfection of the play. In

Reversal: Troja n Wome n 10

9

Trojan Women, however , the end promises nothin g more. The action is already complete at the beginning of the play, and the ending is unmarked because nothin g more has happened; there is no change or progress o r repetition to record. This reversal of beginning an d en d contribute s i n severa l way s t o th e play' s apparentl y defective asymmetry.2'' It does so, first, b y contributing to the disconnectedness o f the action. The open ing scene between Poseidon an d Athena is largely independent of the play: the prophecy concerning the Greek flee t refer s to times, people, an d places fa r removed fro m the wome n o f Troy ; th e exchang e betwee n Poseido n an d Athen a (rathe r than th e appearance o f a single Ttpooomo v TipOTrmtcov) makes th e openin g scene mor e dramatically self-contained , and after th e gods make thei r exit, the actio n shift s t o the mortal sphere with the lament of Hecuba. Furthermore, the closing scene, because it lacks th e usua l feature s of th e epilogue , canno t giv e meanin g or coherenc e t o th e preceding episodes; n o summary or moral tie s the action together , an d no concluding prophecy show s wher e it will lead. This reversa l als o disfigure s the pla y b y heightenin g its relentles s pathos. Th e prologue, whic h suggests tha t the plot is finished rather than about to begin, leave s us with a tableau of human suffering tha t cannot an d will not change . An d th e lac k of finalit y i n th e epilogu e rob s thi s pathos o f meaning : the sufferin g of th e Troja n women i s relieved by n o divin e intervention or redeemin g prophecy; i t is not eve n rationalized by aetiolog y o r moral. 30 Finally, the reversal o f prologue an d epilogu e produces a pervasive yet barren irony. From th e moment Poseidon an d Athena leave the stage , spectators ar e aware tha t th e Greek s wh o no w inflic t sufferin g upo n th e Trojan women will suffer themselves in the course o f their return; the women onstage , however, hav e no ide a that the men, in time, will suffer also . I n Oedipus the King, such iron y gives directio n an d coherenc e t o th e play , a s th e blindnes s of Oedipu s and the insigh t of the audience slowly but relentlessly converge. I n Trojan Women, however, there is no convergence: th e suffering wome n remai n blind, and the spectators' knowledge fails to redeem their plight. We might conclude tha t the inversion of beginning and ending in Trojan Women serves a larger purpose: it is a further means of producin g th e disconnectednes s o f plo t an d emotiona l intensit y tha t (for whatever reason) ar e the hallmarks of this peculiar play. But i t is more useful t o see dis jointedness an d pathos and barren irony a s part o f a larger strateg y of reversa l and disfigurement. The inversion of beginning and ending accompanies a more general inversion in the actio n of the play. Rather than a sequence of events leading to some conclusion, Trojan Women portray s a situatio n i n whic h movemen t i s impossible : th e pla y begins and ends with the destruction of Troy an d the departure of all survivors. Rather than generating interest as to where individual desires will propel th e action, it portrays characters whose desire s achiev e nothing, who suffe r mightil y but can never act. This inversio n of the action allows Euripides to dramatize the hopeless situation of the women of Troy. As D. J. Conacher observes, the only movement in the play is a rhyth m of hope and despair: "Again an d again , this hope i s stamped out and gives way t o desolation, only to flicker forth i n some new place unti l its final quenching at the en d o f the play." 31 Ca n th e clairvoyant Cassandra se e an y futur e fo r Troy? Th e city's glory has already been decided by the way i n which its soldiers me t their death

110 TH

E EN D R E F I G U R E U

(386-90). Is Polyxcna still alive? Andromache report s that she has already been killed on the grave o f Achilles (622-23). Will Astyanax survive t o avenge the death of his father and the destruction of Troy? The Greeks hav e decide d t o throw the young boy to hi s deat h fro m th e wall s o f th e cit y (713-25). Ca n Hecub a tak e comfor t i n th e condemnation o f Helen ? Menelau s doe s not kil l her , bu t promise s ineffectuall y t o punish he r when h e return s to Spart a (1053-59) . And wha t o f Hecuba' s argumen t that life, unlike death, still carries hope (oi) TCCUTOV , < a nai, T(p pXerceiv TO KaiSaveiv / TO (lev yap o\)8ev, TK > §' EVEIOI V £A,7tt8eq , 632-33) ? The bes t thing , she decide s i n the end, is to thro w hersel f int o the blaze an d di e with the cit y (1282-83)—but th e Greeks wil l not allow thi s and keep her alive as a prize fo r Odysseus . Al l hopes and expectations lead nowhere . The play begins wit h the end: th e end of Troy an d of all that the women love . And there is no movement of the plot. The end, the destruction, simply become s mor e complete. 32 The reversal, in other words, dramatizes a situation that is profoundly undramatic. The catastrophe that destroyed the Trojans and annihilated their city has also destroyed the possibility of drama. Elsewhere, th e prologue o f the pla y sets the plot i n motion by hintin g at wher e i t will lead , an d arousin g interest i n ho w i t will reach it s goal . The prologu e o f Trojan Women, however, doe s not begi n th e story, bu t finishe s it: the city , Poseido n tell s us, i s now burning , sacked an d destroye d (8-9) , Priam and his childre n ar e gon e (<j)pofjSo q 5 e Flpiauxx; Kai TEKV' , 41), an d th e captiv e wome n have been take n as slave s (28—31) . The fe w women no t yet allotte d will soon lear n who thei r masters wil l b e (240-77) , an d al l tha t remain s t o b e told , all tha t give s suspense t o th e drama , i s how th e women wil l reac t t o thei r hopeless situation . In negative terms , th e play lack s th e excitement, th e movement , th e interest , and sus pense o f drama . But thi s reversal doe s no t only tak e away . I n "positive" term s this non-drama confronts us with a pageant of misery, a catalogue of suffering tha t serve s no purpose. Th e play , disfigured by a premature end, present s a n ugl y spectacle of pain without meaning, and in so doing, it casts th e viewer i n an ugly and unpleasant situation. Ho w ca n w e watc h th e sufferin g of others , ho w ca n w e profi t from wit nessing their pain, if it has no meaning and serves no end? 33 Normally, of course, w e learn fro m other s by watchin g and listening , even i f we canno t shar e thei r experi ence directly ; this is certainly the case with Hecuba, wh o i s spectator t o sailors an d understands the meaning and purpose o f thei r actions: I hav e neve r steppe d i n th e hul l o f a ship myself , but I know b y hearin g an d b y seein g pictures . When sailor s fin d th e wind moderat e an d bearable , they ar c eage r t o keep out o f trouble' s way , one mannin g th e rudder , on e th e sails, one keepin g water fro m th e hold . QUIT] UK V oiJTic o vaoq eioefir|v aicdiJKx; , Ypaf| 8 ' iSowa KO I K>a»oi>cr ' E7tioTa|j.ai. vamaic, yap iiv U.E V nexpioi; f| xeiMW v fipF-iv , 7ipo9t>uiav eyovai aw8f|va i Jtovcav , 6 ue v reap ' o'iax', o 5' ET U Xai<|>eoi v pefkoi; , 6 5 ' dvtXov eipyeo v vaoi;' 686-9 1

Reversal: Troja n Wome n 11

1

But when the situation is hopeless, whe n those we are watching suffer t o no purpose, then drama is destroyed an d languag e is useless: But i f the sea i s stirred up , great an d overwhelming , the y yiel d t o chanc e and surrende r themselve s t o the runnin g waves. So I too, i n al l m y sufferings , am speechles s and hol d m y tongue . This wave of misery fro m th e gods conquers me . f|v 5 ' \rnep [MX-fl jioHx; rapaxSeic ; TTOVTOC; , evSovTEc ; ni^ti Ttapeiaav amovq K\)U.a.Ttt> v Spauriuaaiv . oihco 5e Kayci ) TtoX V exouaa nfiua m d(j>9oyY6c, ei(ii Ka i jrapela ' E%K> otoiia' viKa ya p oi) K 9ew v u e SIJOTTIVOI ; KH)6a>v . 691-9 6

The Bod y Disfigure d Do we want to watch and listen to this unpleasant spectacle? I n his prologue speech, Poseidon describe s a t length offstage events—the end o f Troy, the desolatio n o f its shrines, an d th e deat h o f Priam—befor e turnin g to th e onl y huma n figure we ca n see, th e sufferin g Hecuba : And thi s wretche d woma n here , i f anyone want s t o look, this i s Hecuba lyin g b y th e doorwa y shedding man y tear s fo r man y reason s . . . tf]v 5 ' dBXiav rnvS ' ei tu; eiaopav 9eA.ei , Tcdpecmv 'Eicdpr i Keiuevri rct)A,(ov rtdpoc;, Sdicpua xeouaa TtoWa i Ka i rtoXXco v imep . . . 36-3 8

If we want to listen, Poseidon will list the reasons for her tears (38-44): the slaughter of Polyxen a (which Hecuba doe s no t ye t kno w of) , th e death s of he r husban d and her sons, and the sacrilegious abduction of Cassandra (which she also does not know of). Th e scholias t is right: this is a cold invitation to the audienc e indeed (\(nj%pci)c; TC O GeaTpcp), as the god make s i t clear sh e ha s more suffering s yet to come. I f we want to watch, we will see the queen rolling in the dir t an d defilin g he r body: I a m i n misery , m y limb s reclinin g ill-fated, lyin g lik e thi s with m y back stretche d o n a hard bed . Oh m y head , o h m y temple s and m y ribs , ho w 1 long t o rol l and mov e aroun d m y bac k an d spin e to eithe r sid e of m y bod y with continuou s tearfu l lament .

112 TH

E EN D R E H G U R E D

8-ucrrrivoc; eyw TTJI ; fiap-uSciiuovoc ; apSpcov KXiaeax;, coi ; SiaKeiuai, vein' iiv aieppoic ; A.EKTPOIOI TaSeio'. Ol|IOl KE§aXf\q, OlflO l KpOT(i())Q) V

jiA,eup(5v 8', «<; ^01 noQoq eiH^ai Kai SiaSoiJva i vdko v (XKavGd v t' eiq dmjxnepouc ; TOIXOIK ; jieAetov, ercioxia' aiei Satcpijo w eA,eyot)t; . 112-1

9

And i f w e watc h Hecub a throug h al l he r sufferings , we wil l fin d he r i n th e sam e position a t the en d o f th e play , "castin g m y age d limb s on th e ground , and beating the earth with both my hands" (yepcad y' e<; rce8ov tiGelaa ueXe' <eud> / Ka i %epai yaiav KTimoiJo a Svaoaic; , 1305-6) . Th e disfiguremen t of dram a i s represente d through th e disfigurement of a woman's body , the assortmen t of limbs, head , ribs , and spin e that desires t o grovel (roc ; urn 7t69o<; ) on the ground before us . In a similar way, the chastened plot of the second Hippofytus wa s represented through the newly chaste body of Phaedra. And i f in the earlie r play the viewer is somehow complici t in thi s seemly repressio n o f Phaedra' s desire , i n th e late r pla y w e ar e guilt y of answering Poseidon's summon s (ei TIC ; eiaopdv 6e>.£i), of wanting to look upon the ugly spectacle o f gratuitous suffering. We cannot finish discussin g th e end o f Trojan Women withou t taking account of the en d o f it s trilogy . Th e pla y wa s apparentl y produced afte r Alexander an d Palamedes, and before the satyr-play Sisyphus, an d it is hard to believe that the tragedies, at least, were no t in some way connected . Ye t how could a connected trilogy possibly end in this way, with a non-drama that renders action impossible? I think it is not too fanciful t o speculate briefl y o n the radical reversals attempte d by the pro duction a s a whole. The "Troja n trilogy " i s remarkable in two ways. As fa r as we ca n tell , this is the only Euripidea n production in which three tragedies dramatize successive portion s of the same legend. 34 And th e legen d chose n fo r this special treatmen t i s the privileged stor y of the Troja n War . I n Greek poetr y and drama , the authorit y o f Home r was s o great tha t th e Iliad's narrativ e of th e wa r wa s no t repeated : th e cycli c and tragic poets filled out a vast arra y of episodes tha t took place before, during, and afte r the war, but none covered th e same groun d as Homer. 35 This fact i s usually taken to illustrate th e derivativ e nature and inferio r talen t o f th e cycli c epics , bu t i t should better be seen a s evidence of a struggle against the authorit y o f Homer waged bot h by th e epic poet s an d b y th e tragedians , who foun d man y ways t o correct o r com plete the story of the Iliad.3'' Th e Oresteia, for example, which takes place betwee n the Iliad an d the Odyssey, struggle s agains t both, tarnishing Agamemnon's victory at Troy, and complicating the story of Orestes' reveng e told to Telemachus. The Trojan trilogy, however, instead of usin g a longer or shorter episode o f th e cycle t o revis e Homer, engage s th e legen d i n a n epi c an d comprehensiv e manne r tha t goe s fa r beyond anything Homer attempted . Thclliadgave u s only a short period i n the tenth year of the war, but Euripides gives us the origins of the war i n Alexander, the Greek camp besieging Troy i n Palamedes, and th e end o f the war wit h the sack o f Troy i n

Reversal: Troja n Wome n 11

3

Trojan Women. Here, and only here, does one telling of the story take us from beginning t o middle t o end. Euripides challenge s th e authorit y o f Home r an d th e meanin g o f th e wa r i n a n unprecedented manner . Let us start at the beginning, with the origins of the war and Euripides' Alexander. I n Homer, th e war begin s wit h th e abductio n o f Helen fro m Sparta, whic h lead s t o th e gatherin g o f th e Gree k expedition ; th e beginnin g give s meaning t o the war, throug h which Zeus will punish the Trojans an d Menelaus will recover his wife . This coheren t causalit y is challenged b y th e Cypria, whic h give s two earlie r beginning s t o th e war. First, th e abductio n o f Hele n i s th e resul t o f a n earlier story , th e judgment of Paris; the Trojan War, i n other words, i s not a story of Greeks punishing a Trojan crime , bu t o f Greeks an d Trojan s swep t int o war b y th e strife an d jealousy o f Athena, Hera , and Aphrodite. 37 And second , th e judgment results fro m a n earlie r cause , Zeus ' pla n t o reduc e overpopulatio n by startin g wars against Thebe s and Troy ; th e Trojan War , i n other words , i s a side-effect o f divine housecleaning. 38 Both revisionist beginnings were take n over by Euripides in other plays (e.g. , Electro 1278-8 3 an d Orestes 1639-42), 39 but her e h e takes a differen t tack. In Alexander, Euripide s makes Paris once more th e beginning of the story, but begins wit h hi s birth and with Cassandra's prophec y tha t h e will cause th e destruction o f Troy. The for m of this prophecy, a vision of a firebrand, ties this beginning very closely to the en d of the city described i n Trojan Women.40 Bu t th e res t o f this play, with it s story of intrigue, mistaken identity, and belated recognitio n of Paris by his mother and brothers, takes us in the wrong direction. Instead of moving from this ominous beginning to fulfillment o f the young man's catastrophi c fate, the play leads to the fals e an d premature happy en d of family reunion. The secon d play takes us to the Trojan War, to the Greek camp outsid e Troy, and to thre e Gree k leader s instrumenta l in th e ten-yea r siege o f th e city . Agamemnon , who will judge th e dispute between th e other two leaders, le d the expedition to Troy. Odysseus, wh o charge s Palamede s wit h treachery, will devise th e ruse that eventually takes the city. And Palamedes apparently allowed the Greeks to survive the siege by discoverin g mean s of finding food , inventin g dice t o pass the time, and devisin g more effectiv e battl e formations.41 Here , then , we com e t o the real "middle " of the war, not th e anger of Achilles in the tenth year, but th e resourcefulness tha t kept the siege i n place for so long. But the plot that unfolds is a perverted middle; the schem e of Odysseus agains t Palamedes i s not a means to the end of the war, but the jealousy of a fellow Gree k tha t leads t o a n innocen t man's death . Instead of a virtuous cunning and deceit that allows the Greeks to win the war, we have a gratuitous and treacherous cunnin g that serves no large r purpose . The third play takes us to the very end of the war, to the momen t at which the city is put t o th e torch . This moment of triumph and revenge , although not describe d in the Iliad, i s the end tha t completes th e whole, the goal tha t justifies th e expedition, fulfills th e prophecy of Cassandra, an d makes the long siege worthwhile. Yet Trojan Women doe s not really show u s that end. In the prologue w e glimpse a part of it, the Greek sacrileg e i n sackin g th e cit y tha t doe s no t en d th e story , bu t wil l lea d t o destruction of the returning ships. And i n the course of the play, we see an extinction of hope amon g th e women wh o remain , an annihilation of th e future tha t is at best a

114 TH

E EN D R E F I G U R E D

perversion o f th e end. The ambitiou s scop e of th e trilog y follow s th e cours e o f th e war fro m beginnin g t o middle t o en d i n a manner tha t epic ha d no t attempted . Yet each o f these crucia l moments that should give coherence t o the war conspicuousl y fails t o do so , and th e trilogy dissolves into a set of three unrelate d plays.42 Euripides' epi c project i s a deliberate disaster . It s ostentatious lac k of unity i s evi dent also in the fact that it skirts the war itself, nowhere enacting an episode of the conflict and leaving instead, in Ruth Scodel's words, "th e empty space the poet has placed with such emphasis i n the center of his work."43 As a result, it is also emptied of ideologica l importance. The Trojan War became throug h Homer an d others the central moment in Greek cultur e because th e conflict between unite d Greeks an d Trojan allie s helped t o define Gree k values . Yet Euripides manages t o construct a Trojan trilog y in which the two sides never meet. In the first play, Trojans conspir e against one another in a comedy of errors. I n the second play, Greeks conspire agains t one anothe r in a travesty of justice. And i n the third play, after the war i s over, the only commerce betwee n offstag e Greeks an d onstage Trojan s i s through the herald Talthybius. The Greeks wil l pay for their sacrilege, an d the Trojan women wil l suffer because the y have no choice, bu t the mighty conflict betwee n the m ha s disappeared . Finally, th e symbo l o f thi s war , an d th e symbo l o f th e Gree k cause , i s Helen' s body. Because she was take n from Menelaus , the Greeks have justice o n their side, and unti l her bod y i s returned, the war wil l no t b e finished. I do not nee d t o rehears e the connections betwee n th e female body an d the ideology o f war and conquest. Ye t it i s worth notin g that a few year s late r in Helen, Euripides woul d portra y her bod y as a phantom tha t men fough t ove r an d die d fo r t o n o purpose . I n Trojan Women, however, he r body i s very rea l an d is the objec t o f a bitter debate involvin g Hecub a and Menelaus . No w tha t the war i s over an d th e cit y ha s bee n sacked , he r bod y i s returned t o Menelaus an d justic e will be realized . Ye t here w e hav e a final, surpris ing twist. Justice will consist no t in punishing the Trojans i n order to repossess Helen, but i n punishing Helen. And th e conflict i s not between tw o mal e faction s disputing ownership o f th e woman, bu t betwee n Hele n an d a female antagonist . Finally , the outcome of the conflict is ambiguous: Menelau s says he will kill Helen, bu t only when he gets back t o Sparta, and the audience knows h e will never do this. Just as the shape and coherenc e o f play an d trilogy hav e bee n disfigured , th e figur e that should giv e meaning to the episodes does not do so. Beautiful Helen i s irrelevant. Her transcendent form , an d th e transcenden t justification sh e offere d fo r year s o f sufferin g an d destruction o n bot h sides, hav e n o plac e i n this play . A s sh e leaves , Menelau s say s that he pays n o attentio n to her (xf|a8 e 5 ' OTJ K ep6vi:ioa , 1046) , he jokes abou t he r weight (1050), and concludes wit h a blatant falsehood: he r death will teach all wome n to be chaste (1055-57) . And a s she leaves, w e realiz e sh e is not worth our attention either. It is not the empty promise o f the beautiful Hele n bu t th e brutal reality of th e suffering an d disfigure d Hecuba tha t claim s ou r reluctan t an d offende d attention.

8 Erasure: Heracles Man, life , destiny , hav e a beginnin g an d a n end , a birth an d a death; bu t not consciousness , whic h i s infinit e b y it s very nature . BAKHTIN

My thir d trope—an d th e phenomeno n i t intend s t o describe—i s mor e subtle . I n Hippolytus, th e gestures o f closure ar e doubled , repeate d bot h a t the beginning and at the end o f the work; i n Trojan Women, they are moved, displace d fro m th e end of the wor k t o its beginning; and in Heracles thes e gesture s ar e uncertain, seeming t o appear—and seeming no t to appear—where we expect them . The trope, like erasur e itself, i s a complex one : not a simple absence, but a presence tha t is somehow denie d or effaced o r rendered uncertain. At th e en d o f Trojan Women, the lyri c antistrophe precludes the use of Euripides' closing gestures. The end of Heracles, however, bot h gives an d takes away; the familiar closin g gesture s see m t o be present until we loo k more closel y an d find that they have been emptie d o f force. Yet as we shall see, thes e partial or incomplet e gestures ar e multiplied , thus "erasing" the end i n a more radi cal manner.

An Ending Effaced Heracles ends, as a tragedy well might , with burials, farewells, and departure. After agreeing t o g o wit h Theseu s t o Athens , Heracle s say s goodby e t o hi s fathe r Amphitryon (1418) . H e bids his father bury the bodies of his children and promise s to bury Amphitryo n in turn (1419-22). An d the n Heracle s leave s th e stage . Thes e familiar closin g themes , however , ar e i n various ways robbe d o f their proper force . After Heracles i n half a line reminds his fathe r to bury the children (Bo«j>9' cixmep eiTtov •ratScu; 1419) , Amphitryo n change s th e subjec t t o as k wh o wil l bury hi m (EU. E 5 e lie,, TEKVOV; 1419) . Heracle s answers tha t he will, and when his father asks how (sinc e Amphitryon will presumably stay in Thebes to bury the children while Heracles goe s to Athens with Theseus), Heracles say s h e will have him brought to Athens after th e children ar e buried (1420-21). The focu s ha s shifte d fro m a n imminen t burial that will close the action of the play to a more distan t and problematic event : does Heracles mean that after hi s father dies in Thebes, he will have the body brought to Athens for burial? Since traditio n placed Amphitryon' s grav e i n Thebes, does he mean instea d 115

116 TH

E EN D REFK;URE D

that Amphitryon, whil e living, will join Heracle s i n Athens, an d that after hi s death, Heracles wil l bury him in Thebes? Or are the place and circumstances o f Amphitryon's death and burial deliberatel y left a s vague a s those of Heracles? The problem canno t easily b e resolve d b y emendatio n o r b y deletin g on e o r mor e lines, 1 an d perhap s i t should stand , sinc e th e them e o f departur e i s equally problematic. Afte r fathe r an d son say goodbye to one another (1418), Amphitryon will presumably remain in Thebes and Heracles wil l go to Athens (although this is never explicitl y stated) . Yet Heracle s earlier implie d tha t he would b e present a t the children's funera l a t Thebes ("O land of Cadmu s an d al l th e Theba n people , cu t you r hair , join i n lament , com e t o th e children's tomb , and all with on e voice lament the corpses and myself" 1389-92). 2 And a few line s earlier, Heracle s ask s Theseus to hel p hi m tak e Cerberu s t o Argos (1386-88). So when th e hero depart s a t the end of the play, hi s ultimate destination will be Athens , bu t somehow h e will firs t tak e Cerberu s t o Argos (presumably pre senting the dog to Eurysthcus and concluding hi s period o f servitude), an d either will be presen t o r imagine s tha t h e wil l b e presen t a t th e children' s funera l i n Thebes. The closing theme of burial for the children is complicated b y questions about the burial o f Amphitryon , and th e them e o f farewel l i s complicated b y question s abou t the hero's destination. In a similar way, the gestures o f closure ar e unusually unsettled. As Heracle s leave s th e stage, hi s final word s reflec t upo n hi s present situation: I've destroye d m y hous e wit h shamefu l deed s and utterl y ruined , I'll follow Theseu s lik e a dinghy . No on e i n his righ t mind woul d rathe r hav e wealth o r strengt h than good friends . finelt; 6 ' dvaXoksavTei ; aiaxwait; 86uov Qr|aei TiavwXeic ; ey6u,ea9' eoA.Ki5ei; . ocmc; 8e nXomov f\ aOevo ^ jidAAov <j>iA,co v dyaGcov TreTtdaSa i fSoVAeic u icaKwt ; <|)povei. 1423-2 6 And a s the hero departs for exile, the chorus of old Thebans concludes the play with two more lines : Sadly w e g o wit h man y tears , having los t th e greates t o f friends. oreixouev oiKTpo i K m TtoXuKXamoi , Ttx (.leyiaT a ((uXco v oXt'oaviec; . 1427-2 8

Taken together , the two closing passage s do all we might expect to end the play, they briefly summariz e th e disasters to Heracles an d his house (1423—24) , draw a general moral fro m thi s outcom e (1425—26) , an d empt y th e stag e wit h anapest s tha t dra w attention t o the chorus's withdrawa l (1427-28). Yet thi s is, in every way , a minimal choral exit . Formally , i t is the shortest possible , wit h a single anapestic dimeter followed b y the closing paroemiac ; n o other choral exit is pared s o short. Thematically, it says no more tha n is necessary, announcin g departure and alludin g to the theme of friendship withou t developing either the extra-dramati c implications o f th e on e o r the moralizin g potential of the other. And i n its closing rol e i t is emptied of force b y

Erasure: Heracles 11

7

the line s o f Heracles , whos e (brief ) summar y an d mora l upstag e th e few word s lef t to the chorus. Th e gesture, i n other words, is unambiguously present eve n a s its force is largely effaced . The same is true in a more pronounce d manner of the other closing gestures . Ear lier i n thi s scene , Theseu s (a n uncertai n deus , a s w e shal l see ) trie d t o persuad e Heracles t o come with hi m t o Athens , an d sweetene d hi s argumen t with ver y tan gible inducements : There I will purif y you r hand s of thei r crime and give you a house an d a part of m y wealth. The gift s I received fro m th e people when I saved fourteen youth s by killin g the Cretan bull — these I shall give you. EKE! jcepat; aa<; cryvtcac; uiaauaxoc; 56u.o\x; TE S(oac o xpriuatcov T ' EU.M V ^epo<;. a 8 ' EK noXn
118 TH

E EN D REFIGURE D

The fina l line s of thi s passage (1321-33 ) loo k furthe r into the futur e t o promis e honors tha t will b e made afte r Heracles ' death . The allusio n t o festivals an d monuments seem s to make the aetiology mor e concrete, establishin g a specific correspon dence betwee n th e action of the play and the world o f the audience. But what in particular will th e cit y o f th e Athenians honor ? Surel y no t th e event s o f thi s play, the hero's murder of his wife an d children. And surel y not his earlier career, the famous exploits o f the Dorian hero whose importanc e i s overturned by Heracles' own word s (xcupovicov Ttovoi, "To hell with my labors" 575) and by his madness. Will they honor some futur e deed s performe d b y Heracle s durin g hi s exil e i n Athens , just a s th e future travels of Orestes wil l be commemorated wit h the name of the town Oresteion ? If so, the seque l so honored i s a puzzling cipher: we ar e told i n detail of the wanderings of Orestes tha t form the basis o f that aetiology (Electra 1250-75 , Orestes 164352), bu t th e story of Heracles i n Athens i s not mentione d her e an d i s not atteste d in any othe r source . (I n fact , th e onl y stor y connectin g Heracle s wit h Attic a wa s th e account o f his initiation at Eleusis before journeyin g to the underworld, 5 but there is nothing to sugges t tha t Euripide s has th e mysterie s i n mind here. ) Th e even t to b e honored i s so elusive tha t i t might be bette r to rea d thi s passage, a s ancient reader s seem t o have done , no t a s an aetiology bu t a s a furthe r promis e an d inducemen t by Theseus: i f Heracles wil l come t o Athens, Theseus will give hi m gifts and land, and will se e tha t hi s frien d i s als o honore d b y th e cit y a s a whole. 6 And ho w wil l this elusive seque l be honored ? No t with a name or institutio n familiar to the audience, but wit h sacrifice s an d monument s tha t cannot b e place d securely . Th e mentio n of sacrifices coul d hav e bee n use d t o allud e t o particula r rites performed i n Attica in Euripides' day , bu t th e vagu e plura l fails t o d o s o (Gnaiaiai) , an d th e mentio n o f monuments coul d hav e been use d t o bring t o mind particula r Athenian shrines, but the word s o f Theseu s specif y nothin g mor e tha n heap s o f ston e (Xa'ivoio t T ' e^OYKCojaaoiv). Upon close r inspection , the gesture towar d the world of the audience evaporates an d ma y i n fac t b e entirel y illusory: these honor s wil l b e offere d whe n Heracles i s dead (Savovia 5') or, lest we miss the point, when he goes to Hades (em' av eiq 'Ai8oD uoA,r]c;)—in other words, a s an audience raised o n stories o f Heracles ' apotheosis wil l realize , at a time tha t does not reall y exist. 7 This effacemen t o f closing gestures i s evident also i n the entrance of Theseus. I n the fina l scen e of the play, after murderin g his wife and childre n in a fi t of madness , Heracles prepare s t o d o th e onl y honorabl e thing , to tak e hi s ow n life . A t thi s climactic moment , Theseus suddenl y enters, persuades Heracle s not to commit suicide, and promise s hi m gift s an d honor s i n Athens. Theseu s plays the par t of a surrogat e deus ex machina: he appears fo r the first time in the final scene, h e intervenes to resolve an impasse , h e deliver s a command, a s wel l a s som e for m o f aetiolog y and proph ecy, an d hi s dispensation s are accepte d b y th e character s onstage . Bu t i n a manner unique t o thi s play, th e surrogat e deu s i s emptie d o f force . Theseus , afte r all , is a mortal, no t a god, nor i s he a mortal somehow endowe d wit h special power s (a s i n the "demonic epiphanies " o f Medea, Eurystheus , and Polymestor) but a mortal who lacks eve n th e powe r an d authorit y of th e person h e ha s come t o save: w e ar e constantly reminded in the latter part of the play that Heracles ha d earlier rescued Theseu s from Hade s (619, 1222 , 1235,1336,1415) . This surrogate deus likewise has no divine power t o rescue Heracle s fro m death, and must rel y upon argumen t and persuasion.

Erasure: Heracles 119 In thi s exchange th e would-be savio r i s again show n u p b y th e ma n h e would help : Theseus begins hi s speech by invoking the example of gods who manage to live with their crimes an d failing s (1314-19), and Heracle s counter s wit h a withering rejec tion o f th e "wretche d stories " o f crimina l god s (1341-46). 8 An d Theseu s a s deu s has little to offer: h e cannot brin g or promise divin e salvation, only a place of refug e for the outcast exile . Like a deus, h e issues a command ("So leave Thebes, as the law requires, and follo w wit h me t o Athens," 1322-23) , but this , in context, i s no mor e than th e attemp t of one frien d to persuade another . Even hi s entrance i s emptied o f all authority . Th e surrogat e deu s i s greeted no t wit h th e exclamatio n o f surpris e o r awe that attends the entrance o f Thetis, Artemis , Athena , o r the Dioscuri, 9 but with annoyance an d frustration : "Bu t now t o foi l m y deadl y plans , her e come s Theseu s . . ." (akK' eu-TioSw v jio i 6avaai|ico v (k>i)Xe /uu,aTCOv / 8rioei>c ; 68' epne v . . . 1153 54). An d instea d of choosing th e right moment t o arrive , he seems t o have com e at the worst possibl e time : Theseus explains tha t he was o n hi s way t o save Heracles' family fro m Lycu s (1163-68) , bu t a s th e pil e of corpse s make s clear , h e i s far to o late for that . If the powers of Theseus are dubious, s o too i s the respect the y earn . Usually, the authority of a deus ex machina is explicitly confirmed b y the human characters, wh o promise to do as the god commands. Whe n Athena orders a treaty an d ritual dedications at the end of Suppliant Women, for example, the kin g ratifies thi s arrangement by announcing : "My Lad y Athena , I will obey you r words; yo u se t m e straigh t so 1 will not err" (1227—28). As we have seen, the gesture is a regular one, even i f in some cases (e.g., the endorsement o f Apollo's surprising settlement \nOrestes) i t seems to involve a certain degree o f irony. 10 But when Heracles finall y decide s to live, he make s a point o f castin g thi s decision no t a s an acceptance o f Theseus' advic e bu t a s a rebuttal, dismissing Theseus ' argument s as irrelevant (Tidpepyot xd8~ eat' euoav KQKCOV, 1340) . Eac h tim e Theseus offer s help , Heracles i s reluctant: "Stand up . N o more tears."—"1 cannot, my limbs are frozen" (1394-95); "Enough. Giv e your hand to a friend."—"I won' t wip e blood o n your clothes" (1398-99) . At last Heracles tacitly acknowledge s hi s dependenc e o n th e kin g ("Put you r hand round my nec k an d I'll lea d you."—" A friendly pairing , with one i n misfortune" 1402—3) , but he imme diately renege s an d turn s back t o embrac e hi s fathe r and th e bodie s o f hi s children (1406, 1408) . And whe n Theseu s trie s to shame hi m int o submission ("No one wh o sees yo u playin g the woma n wil l approve " 1412) , Heracle s turn s the table s o n hi s benefactor b y askin g wh o save d Theseus from Hades : "A m I so lowl y [tcmeivoc;]? I don't thin k I was bac k then " (1413) . B y th e tim e the y leav e th e stag e a fe w line s later, Theseus' magnanimous gesture ha s been emptie d oi al l authority an d reduce d to the verbal sparring of friends .

Horror Vacui What d o we mak e of this dubious ending , one tha t inscribes all the familia r signal s of closure, onl y to erase the m in the same stroke? Why would the poet en d with these empty gestures? Thi s question and the problem i t addresses are closely relate d to the more familia r problem o f the play's unity. The pla y begins with a slow an d ineffec -

120 TH

E EN D R E F I G U R E D

tual debat e between Megar a an d Amphitryon on whether Heracles i s likely ever t o return from the underworld (where h e has gone to bring back Cerberu s as the last of his labor s fo r Eurystheus) , and i t builds with increasing spee d an d excitemen t t o a remarkable climax . Firs t Lycus , wh o ha s seize d powe r i n Heracles ' absence , tell s the suppliants that the y all must die. As the y prepare for death, all dressed i n black, Heracles suddenl y returns from the underworld and plots revenge against the tyrant. Then i n one o f the shortes t episode s i n Greek traged y (701-33) , Lycus i s lured in side the palace an d kille d by Heracles, bu t before the hero can celebrate hi s victory and the liberation of his family, Iris and Lyssa arrive , sent by Hera t o drive Heracle s mad an d mak e hi m kil l th e wife an d childre n he has just rescue d fro m death . Thi s stunning and catastrophic end, engineere d wit h the help o f the machine, apparently leaves roo m fo r littl e mor e tha n a brief cod a i n which the her o (lik e Agave i n Bacchant Women) wake s u p to realize what he has done and (like Sophocles' Ajax) de cides t o dea l with the horror of hi s crim e b y takin g his ow n life . Bu t someho w th e action stubbornl y continues. Heracles' decisio n to commit suicide is interrupted by the entrance of Theseus ("foilin g m y deadl y plans" 1153) , who promises asylu m to the infanticide, and eventually convinces Heracles to return with him to Athens. Wh y does the drama continue? What connects thi s lengthy epilogue to the climactic events that precede ? If w e rea d Heracles ' catastrophi c madnes s a s th e en d o f th e story , the n th e las t part of the play—the final scen e with its empty closing gestures—is irrelevant. For a long time , critic s argue d i n thi s vein tha t th e pla y reache s a prematur e en d an d i s therefore defective. Algernon Swinburne called Heracles "a grotesque abortion, " and Gilbert Murray said that it was "broken backed " an d not a great work of art. l ' Critic s today rall y t o the play's defense , an d they do so by investing greater meaning i n the final scene. Instea d of viewing the epilogue a s an awkward appendage, the y discove r in i t a meaning that responds to , an d balances , th e entir e first par t of th e play . Th e most eloquen t statement o f thi s view i s William Arrowsmith's introductio n t o hi s translation. The firs t half , he says, portray s a Heracles wh o "i s recognizabl y th e fa miliar culture-hero of Dorian and Boeotian tradition : strong, courageous, noble , selfsufficient, carryin g on his back al l the aristocratic arete of the moralized traditio n of Pindar." Th e secon d half , however , show s hi m "reduce d t o tears, helpless , depen dent, an d i n love , strippe d o f tha t outwar d strength which until now ha d exempte d him fro m norma l huma n necessity, an d discoverin g bot h hi s common groun d with men an d a new internalize d moral courage. " Th e meanin g of the play, according t o Arrowsmith, someho w consist s i n the "conversion" or "dramatic mutation " of on e figure into the other.12 Most contemporary readings argue in various ways for a similar change o r conversion . Arrowsmith' s schem e i s no t unlik e that o f H . H . O . Chalk , who argue s tha t th e en d o f th e pla y replace s ol d heroi c value s with a revise d an d more humanisti c notion of arete. According t o Justina Gregory, th e heroic Heracles , son of Zeus, is replaced at the end by a humble and mortal hero, the son of Amphitryon. Harvey Yunis argues that traditional relations between mortal s and gods are replace d with a ne w humanisti c creed. An d accordin g t o Helen e Foley , archai c value s cen tered in the individual are replaced a t the end of Heracles with newer values defined by the polls.13 There is much of value in these readings, but they try to read too much into an inconclusive ending, attempting to construct a satisfying symmetry i n which a ne w an d coheren t worl d is born fro m th e ashes o f the old .

Erasure: Heracle s 12

1

The discussion tha t follows ask s instead why the play ends with an ending erased , with a n epilogu e tha t lack s th e compellin g gesture s an d redeemin g transformation that may giv e meaning an d coherence to the whole. Bu t thi s effacement o f the ending does not simply leave an empty space. The trope of erasure include s both writing and un-writing , suggestio n an d denial . An d th e fina l scen e o f Heracles include s multiple gesture s bot h presen t an d absent , competin g wit h on e anothe r an d failin g fully t o assert themselves ; a s a result, the epilogue i s overfull with conflicting trace s of a n end, yet lacks a sense of finality. T o look more closel y a t this pregnant empti ness, I turn again t o Theseus, and the n t o Heracles' weapons.' 4

An Ending Multiplied In on e respect , Theseus , a s w e hav e seen , i s a deu s manque , a figur e wit h man y attributes o f th e go d o n th e machin e but with th e non e o f th e god's power an d au thority. Yet Theseus plays another completely differen t role, an d again fail s to do so convincingly. Whe n h e arrives with an army (1165), when he shows concern for the polluted an d exile d Heracles , whe n h e offers hi m a place o f refuge an d promise s t o settle hi m o n Athenian soil, Theseus plays a familiar role as the statesman wh o em bodies Athenian values by protecting suppliants. For example, whe n th e children i n Children of Heracles wan t t o escap e unlawfu l persecutio n b y Eurystheu s an d th e Argives, th e son s of Theseus offe r the m protectio n i n Athens. Whe n th e suppliant s in Suppliant Women want to guard th e bodies o f the Seven from Theban sacrilege, i t is Theseus in Athens who offer s the m protection an d support. An d when Oedipu s a t Colonus is threatened with violence b y Creo n an d the Thebans, i t is Theseus agai n who offers him refuge and military protection. Eve n Medea , contemplatin g exile from Corinth, turns to Aegeus, the father of Theseus, for a place of refuge in Athens. Mede a looks forwar d t o a reception tha t stand s outside th e actio n (an d tha t sh e will betray by plotting against Theseus), but i n the other plays, th e act of receiving an d defend ing suppliants is successfully performe d onstag e i n an Athenian setting at Marathon, Eleusis, o r Colonus. An d the generous actions o f Theseus and his sons, an d the civi c righteousness the y represent, are commemorated i n the resulting burials of Eurystheus, the Seven against Thebes, and Oedipus i n Athenian soil. 15 When Theseus offer s hel p to the outcast Heracles, h e looks forward t o a similar happy end of protection i n Athens and commemoratio n afte r deat h (1331—33) . Yet i f Theseus' rol e a s deus i s ambiguous, s o too is his rol e as civic ambassador . Most telling is the fact that Theseus ha s no official, political authority. In other plays , he and his sons are invested with the authority of general o r king, 16 an authority that derives fro m th e sovereig n power s o f th e city. 17 I n thi s play , h e comes to Heracle s not as ambassador o f the city, but simply as a kinsman and a friend (Oriaeio q 65' epTiei cruYYevfn; iAo< ; T' euoq 1154) . I n othe r plays , Theseus o r Demopho n offer s refug e because both divine law and the reputation of the city require it (Children of Heracles 236-46, Suppliant Women 301-31 ; compare Oedipus at Colonus 913-14, 921-23) , and in Suppliant Women, this gesture i s explicitly approved b y the demos (355, 394) and defende d i n debate b y invokin g Athenian democratic value s (399-455). I n this play, when Theseus helps Heracles h e is acting as a private citizen , an d returning the private favo r tha t Heracle s performe d b y rescuin g hi m fro m Hades . Eve n th e con-

1 2 2 TH

E EN D R E F I G U R E D

crete offer s he makes t o Heracles ar e private rather than public ones: houses, money , and gifts that Theseus will give to his friend (1325-28 , quoted previously). I n other plays, the Athenian setting i s decisive. The suppliant s arrive at Marathon, Eleusis or Colonus, wher e the y ar e protecte d b y th e mora l authorit y and th e weapon s o f th e Athenians, and where burial in Attic soil will bear witness to the city's virtuous deeds . In Heracles, however, Athen s i s an eventual destination—not a setting in which th e crisis i s resolved, but th e venu e fo r a n unknow n future. No r i s it a privileged sit e of burial; after death, the hero will be honored i n Athens (1331—33) , but there is no suggestion tha t h e will b e burie d there. 18 Theseus a s ambassado r o f th e cit y i s no more effective tha n Theseus a s deus e x machina. H e ha s al l the forma l trapping s of thi s familia r dramati c figure, but lack s the requisite civic power an d authority. Rather than a mortal magnified, he i s doubly deficient. O f course , thi s deficienc y has it s rewards . I n th e absenc e o r erasur e o f Theseus' roles as deus and king, his role as friend becomes more evident : in the fina l scene, it is the iA,i a or friendship between Theseus an d Heracle s tha t convinces th e hero not to commit suicide.19 Yet the "friend" i s not a role tha t will compete with the deus or the king; he has no power o r authority and i s not defined b y any formal trappings o r attributes. All tha t defines thetyCkoc, is a single action , an offer t o repa y th e help Theseus receive d fro m Heracle s i n Hades. Becaus e h e lacks more forma l roles , Theseus can mak e his gesture o f reciprocity, but i t does no t follow tha t he becomes the ambassado r o f a new se t of values . If Theseus i s doubly deficient, then so too i s the play: it lacks the presence o f a deus ex machina who can resolve the action onstag e before ou r eyes , an d i t lacks the presence o f a civic ambassado r wh o ca n guarante e a belated ending once th e hero reaches Athens. The actua l end and the promised en d are bot h effaced , an d al l tha t remain s i s a modest an d reciproca l exchang e betwee n friends. Where doe s thi s leav e Heracles ? I s ther e somethin g i n th e hero , a presenc e o r greatness, tha t fill s thi s void an d compensates fo r the deficient Theseus? Th e actio n of th e pla y woul d argu e not : the grea t her o ha s bee n humbled , h e renounce s hi s labors (575) and hi s titl e a s victor (KctMiviKoc ; 582), he lose s hi s wif e an d family, and i n his madness an d murde r he become s no t a n exemplar y figur e but a n outcas t and a n exile . Havin g los t everythin g that onc e distinguishe d him, h e i s Theseus' perfect partner , the hero erased. Thi s i s dramatized in an interesting way i n Heracles' final decision . His decision to accept th e offer of asylum in Athens (1351-52) is never fully articulated , following rather abruptly upon hi s criticism of the wretched storie s of poets. 20 But afte r lamentin g the death s of his wife an d children and givin g them a last embrace, Heracles pauses t o make a more theatrica l and symbolic decision , considering whether or not h e should tak e hi s bow an d arrow s wit h him: How sa d th e pleasure of kisses , an d sa d th e compan y of thes e weapons . I'm a t a loss whether to kee p o r give the m u p since the y wil l fal l agains t my sid e an d say: "With u s yo u kille d you r children and you r wife; w e ar e your child-killer s you ar e carrying. " S o shal l I take them i n my hands ? Saying what ? Bu t strippe d o f th e

Erasure: Heracles 12

3

weapons wit h which I did th e greates t deeds i n Greece , shall I die i n shame a t the merc y o f my enemies ? They canno t be left , bu t mus t be kept i n misery.

co /U)ypcd 4>tATi|ioVtco v

Tepv|/ei(;, Xvypc d 5e Tcov5' OTttao v tcoivcovlai . aurixavtt> Y^P itotep' exco td8' r\ ueGcb , a TtXeup d id|id itpaTutvovt ' epei T(x8e 'Huvv TEKV ' eiAe^ KC U 8duap6' ' f|ua. 5 e^ei^ TtcaSoKTovoiK; oovc,. EII' £ju> idS ' aiXevan; o'iaro; ii <j>daKwv ; dAA d 7-u(a,vw0eii ; OTtXwv L,vv oit; TO KaXXiat' e^eTipa^' ev 'EAA,d5 i exOpolt; EUCCUTOV wiopaXro v cdo%pw< ; Gdvco; OTJ A.ei7T;T£o v id5' , dGXtax ; 6e acocroov. 1376-8 5

These are the weapons wit h which he performed the greatest exploit s i n Greece, s o how can he leave them behind? But they are also th e weapons wit h which he killed his wife and children, so how can he possibly take them with him? Clearly, the weapons define the man, and the decision Heracle s make s will help to define what sort of person h e now is; as H. H. O. Chalk put it , "Herakles' decision her e is crucial to the tragedy." 21 But what sort of weapons does he put on? And what will he use them for? "Stripped of my weapons," Heracles asks rhetorically, "shal l I die shamefully a t the mercy o f my enemies? These [weapons] canno t be left, but must be kept in misery. " He keeps them for a purely negative purpose, for self-defense. As we shal l see, thi s does little to define a hero an d doe s no t define in a positive o r constructive manner either old-fashioned, heroic virtue s or new, humanisti c ones. In ar t and on stage , Heracle s wa s identifie d with three props, thre e tokens of his heroic stature : th e club , th e lion-skin , and th e bow. I n this play, however, onl y th e bow an d arrows ar e important; they become a visual emblem o f the hero , a s well as a toke n o f the labors h e performed wit h their help. As th e great od e tha t celebrate s the Twelv e Labor s make s clear , i t was wit h the bo w an d arro w tha t Heracle s wa s able t o defea t th e Centaur s ("Th e mountain-dwellin g rac e o f savag e Centaur s he scattered wit h deadly arrows, destroyin g them with his winged weapons " 364-67) , kill Kyknos ("And Kykno s who slaughtered strangers by Cape Male a and the springs of Anauros he killed with his bow" 389-93) and kill Geryon ("after dipping his arrows [in the blood of the hydra], with them he killed the triple-bodied cowherd o f Erytheia" 422-24). If the weapons defin e the hero, then in this play i t is the bow i n particular that represent s th e heroi c exploits o f Heracles . But this symbol is not a simple one. Earl y i n the play, as Amphitryon waits for his son to return from th e underworld, and as Lycus the tyrant prepares t o put Heracles ' family t o death, they hav e a debate o n the virtues of the hero's weapons . Heracles , according to Lycus: is especially cowardly because h e neve r wore a shield o n hi s lef t ar m or came nea r a spear, bu t holdin g his bow (that worthles s weapon ) stoo d read y to flee . A bow i s no test of a man's courage !

124 TH

E EN D R E F I G U R E D

. . . TaXXa 5 ' o-oSev afoauoc; , 65 oikot' dcTtiS' ea%e repot; Xaia %ep t oiJ8' f)X6e A.6YX"n c eyyui; dAAd TO^ ' e^mv, KOKIOTOV OrtXoV , TT J (jm/T J TtpOXBlpOC ; T|V .

dvSpoc; 5' eXeyxoi; oii^i TO£,' Ei>\|ruxia<; 158-6 2

In his reply, Heracles' father, instead of defending the honor of his son, simply praises the bow's expedience : standing far off, h e wound s hi s enemie s with how-sho t weapon s the y canno t se e and neve r show s them hi s body. Thi s i s true wisdo m i n battl e . . . eKdq 8 ' d(|>E0TCOc ; TtoXeuioiK; du/uvEiai TUA.oi5 opcovTcic ; owdaac; To£,ei>uaaiv TO awu.d T ' oi> 8iSa>ai Toit; evavTioic;, ev eixjciAcxKTc p 8 ' eott. TOIJT O 8 ' ev \ia%r\ ao<|>6v iidXtai a . . . 198-20 2

This rhetorica l exchang e earl y i n the pla y rehearse s a widespread distrus t of thos e who rely on bow and arrows. In Homer, for example, Odysseus with his bow i s a foil to Achilles with hi s spear—Odysseus the antihcro who practice d the art of cunning survival versu s Achille s th e archetyp e of heroi c courag e i n battle . Th e infamous Paris also carried a bow—the effeminate Paris who seduce d Hele n from Sparta, and whom Diomede s denounce s i n the Iliad: "Archer , scoundre l gloryin g in your bow, philanderer, if you an d your weapons wer e pu t to the test that bow woul d do you n o good, no r a hos t o f arrows " ( 1 1.385-87).22 An d i n fifth-centur y Athen s th e bo w conventionally distinguished cowardly Persians from Gree k soldiers with their spears (e.g., Aeschylus , Persians 146-49 ) an d Scythia n slave s fro m Athenia n citizen s (e.g., Aristophanes , Acharnians 707). Herodotu s embellishe d this view b y tellin g how th e barbaric Scythians made quiver s for their arrow s from huma n skin: Whoever has the mos t scalp s is judged th e greatest ma n amon g thes e people . Many o f them als o mak e cloak s t o wear fro m o f th e scalps , stitchin g them togethe r lik e peasants' coats . An d man y also stri p off th e skin, nails and all, from the right hand and ar m of thei r dea d enemies , an d us e thes e t o cover thei r quivers . (4.64 )

The archer, in other words, i s an outsider, a devious and suspect figure who doe s no t subscribe t o the heroi c value s of th e Homeri c warrior , or t o the civilize d values of the fifth-centur y Greek. 23 So whe n Heracle s a t the en d o f the play , having lost an d renounced his claim to greatness, nevertheless decides to put on the bow and arrows , how does he define himself? Can we agree with George Walsh , who says, "By choosing to live and to retain his weapons, Heracle s accepts hi s public role as a hero"?24 If the bow and arrows represent his public and heroic exploits against the Centaurs and three-bodied Geryon, they also cast him in the role of coward an d outsider. Heracles lives on, but the weapons h e carries cannot tell u s what this new her o will be.

Erasure: Heracle s 12

5

The bo w i s also significan t in another way. I n the course of the play, the weapo n that performed th e celebrated labor s also performs a less glorious task. When Heracles , driven ma d b y Lyssa, murders his wife and children, he uses his bow t o perform the hideous deed . A messenge r describe s wha t happene d i n grisly detail . First, h e tells us, Heracle s calle d ou t "Brin g m e m y bow! " (942) . Then , afte r ragin g agains t a n imaginary Eurystheus , "he readie d hi s quiver and bow agains t hi s own sons , think ing he was slaughterin g Eurystheus' children " (969-70) . The childre n ran away i n terror bu t coul d no t escap e him . He took ai m at the firs t so n an d hit him b y the liver (977-79). The secon d so n was s o clos e h e coul d no t dra w th e bow , s o h e crushe d him wit h hi s clu b (991-94) . Hi s wif e picke d u p th e thir d chil d an d ra n insid e th e house, bu t Heracle s tor e dow n th e doo r an d kille d so n an d mothe r wit h a singl e arrow (999-1000) . This hideous an d pathetic scene is recalled a t the end of the play when Heracle s tries to decide i f he should tak e the child-killing weapons wit h him. Because i t recall s thei r murder , th e gestur e o f puttin g o n thes e wretche d weapon s seems to cast Heracle s as a tragic hero: if tragic knowledge, knowledg e throug h suffering, mean s tha t through his experience th e hero ha s come to understand a horrendous or excessive suffering, the n when Heracles puts on the murderous weapons, he seems prepared t o show i n this theatrical gesture that he understands the meaning of what h e has done . But nowher e doe s Heracle s fin d suc h understanding . In the epilogu e a s a whol e there i s nothing t o sugges t tha t his experience ha s brough t ne w insight ; he endure s the gratuitous punishmen t o f Hera bu t does not an d canno t fin d a redeeming lesso n in it . And th e weapons i n particular will be constan t reminder s no t o f a tragic trut h but o f sham e an d disgrace: since the y wil l fal l agains t m y side and say: "With u s yo u kille d you r childre n an d your wife; w e ar e your child-killer s yo u are carrying." 1379-8 1 Instead o f symbolizing tragic insight , they replay with every step hi s children's pathetic gestures, "fallin g agains t thei r father's knee " for attentio n (wq Tipo q Ttaxpraov 7cpoojteoo\)(a.Evoi yovu 79) and for mercy (b iXfuicov yovaai TtpooTteacov jtatpoq. . . 986); whereve r h e goes, he will hear thei r incessant, chatterin g complaint. 25 At th e en d of the play, Heracles ha s lost hi s famil y an d has been crushe d b y the revenge o f Hera ; wit h the bloo d o f hi s wife an d childre n on hi s hands , ther e i s no way h e ca n recove r hi s forme r glory , o r onc e agai n embod y th e ideal s of arete. When Heracle s struggle s t o define himself anew , an d finall y decide s t o put on the bow an d arrows , h e put s o n a symbol bot h o f heroi c achievemen t an d o f the cow ardly outsider , a symbo l bot h o f tragi c sufferin g an d o f unendin g disgrace. Th e sign o f th e her o fail s t o define him i n a meaningful way. Yet , a t the sam e time , the sign is packed wit h multiple, contradictory meanings; i t is overloaded with the many different role s th e her o migh t wan t t o adopt . S o Heracle s remain s poised a t a remarkable moment : arme d wit h a sign tha t might mea n her o o r coward , tragi c les son o r constan t shame , ther e i s n o wa y t o kno w wha t o r wh o h e is. 26 There i s n o license here for trying to construct a story o f new values born from th e ashes o f the

126 TH

E EN D R E F I G U R E D

old; onl y th e unreadable future knows what o r who ou r hero wil l be. Paradoxically , because h e i s destroye d s o completely , Heracle s a t th e en d o f th e pla y enjoy s a moment o f unprecedente d freedom : a t the very lowes t poin t i n his life , h e i s completely fre e t o fin d a ne w identity.

Freedom and Narrative What doe s thi s freedom mean ? Theseus , we found , wa s deu s an d not deus , states man an d les s than statesman. Heracles is likewise her o an d antihero , a tragic figur e who transcend s hi s suffering s an d a patheti c figur e wh o canno t escap e hi s shame . Because th e story o f Heracles i n Athens had never bee n told , he is free to play whatever par t he wants: th e possibilities seem endless . Bu t for the very sam e reason , be cause th e stor y ha d no t bee n told , the possibilitie s ar e als o limited : whatever ma y happen i n Athens wil l not be amon g th e hero's famous exploits . Th e play ends with a collapse o f distinction s and a multiplication of possibilitie s i n which almos t anything—but nothing very remarkable—can happen. At this point, the relation of friendship becomes important. When Theseu s enters, he is welcomed b y Heracles as a kinsman an d frien d (1154) . W e ar e constantl y reminde d o f Heracles ' earlie r favo r t o Theseus i n rescuing him from Hades, and the play ends by replacing Heracles' bond s to his children (d^r a XapoW ye tomS' eoA,Ki8a<; 631) with bonds o f friendship that now ti e him t o Theseus: I've destroye d m y hous e wit h shamefu l deed s and utterl y ruined, I'll follow Theseu s lik e a dinghy [Qr|aet TiavtoXei g ey6|jea6' ec|>oA.Ki8ec;]. No on e i n hi s righ t mind woul d rathe r have wealth o r strengt h tha n goo d friends . 1423-2 6

This new, or newl y important , relatio n binds individual s to on e anothe r in mutual obligations, yet i t does not i n any evident way characteriz e eithe r figure. We d o no t really kno w wh o the y are, excep t i n the very ordinar y an d unremarkabl e sense tha t they ar e philoi. To som e extent , th e emptines s an d fullnes s o f Heracles ' situatio n extends an d elaborates th e unusua l qualitie s of thi s mythica l figure. Geoffre y Kir k ha s pointe d out tha t the legendary Heracles embodie s "t o a n unusual degree" the contradictions of th e hero : human e an d bestial , serious an d burlesque , sane an d mad , savior an d destroyer, free an d slave, huma n and divine. 27 Among this bundle of contradictions, Michael Sil k ha s argue d tha t one i s especiall y pronounced : "Heracle s i s uniqu e in his combination of human and divin e properties," equall y a god an d a man, with his mortal father Amphitryon an d hi s divine fathe r Zeus , an d worshippe d bot h a s a god and as a mortal hero.28 Nicole Loraux add s to this list Heracles' contradictory attributes of virilit y an d femininity , arguin g that the hero's ambivalenc e allowe d th e popula r imagination t o explore th e nature of this opposition.29 The her o who embodie s contradictions to an exceptional degre e is full o f possibility, available for ever new constructions an d reinventions , an d h e i s also empty , neve r a coherent o r identifiabl e

Erasure: Heracles 12

7

individual or character, but a constellation of images. 30 The ambivalen t and liminal Heracles i s therefor e alway s in-between , standin g outsid e familia r categorie s o r devouring the m all with hi s insatiable appetite . And a s Silk reminds us , the figur e who remain s in-betwee n i s dangerous becaus e h e destroys th e categories an d dis tinctions tha t establis h identity , confer status , an d conve y meaning . M y concern , however, i s not with the representations of Heracles i n myth, but with the portrayal of the hero a t the end o f this play. In Euripides, hi s dangerous ambivalenc e threat ens to destroy th e very logi c of drama. We hav e alread y seen tha t th e structur e of the play reduce s th e plot t o a "grotesque abortion " o r a "dramatic mutation. " Bu t the final scene, in which Heracle s prepares t o face a n unknown future , i s destruc tive i n a differen t way . I want to return to the freedo m o f Heracles, an d in particular his freedom t o fashion a new futur e an d a new identity. In one respect, suc h freedom an d indeterminacy seems antithetical to the design s o f art. The poin t o f writing a narrative is, after all , somehow t o represent event s a s ordered an d coherent—to suggest in Aristotle's for mulation tha t events follow i n a necessary o r probable manne r from on e another , or to draw with Henry James a circle within which they appear to do so.31 A moment i n which a character i s undefined and anything can happen i s a moment a t which there is no longer any story to tell. Yet in another respect, freedo m an d indeterminacy may be an artist's goal. In "Epic and Novel," Mikhai l Bakhtin distinguishes two different impulses i n narrative. 32 Those forms o f narrative in which th e en d i s known an d i n which event s ar e organized s o as to lead t o that end, he calls "epic." In the Aeneid, for example, everythin g Aeneas doe s i s directed toward the foundation of Rome an d the establishment of th e Roma n Empire . Those forms o f narrative in which th e end is not known, in which characters hav e (or cunningly appear t o have) the freedom to act in various ways, to drop in or out of the story, to follow tangents—these he call s "novel." The partitio n of literatur e into two type s i s rather sweeping an d simplis tic, bu t i t ha s th e virtu e of focusin g attentio n upon a particula r impulse, a literary interest in reproducing or figuring the indeterminate nature of events as we live them. As we experienc e events , a t the presen t moment , anythin g is possible. 33 Each mo ment of each day is pregnant with possibility: the chance encounter , the brilliant idea, the luck y Lott o ticket tha t ha s the powe r t o transfor m everything that follows . O n any particula r day, however , nothin g momentou s i s likel y t o happe n an d tha t mo ment of possibility will blend, i n hindsight, into the featureless rhyth m of everyday routine—unless, of course, that day turns out to be an especially luck y or significant or unfortunate one. I n either case, a book o f memoirs, orderin g events i n hindsight, will reduc e th e pla y o f possibilit y i n th e presen t moment , either by reducin g i t to a predictable routine or by drawing attention to its decisive importance . A memoir tha t succeeds i n preserving th e rea l potential i n every momen t o f a lif e would b e form less, plotless , an d unbearably long (just as a truly accurate map would b e impossibl y big, "on th e scale o f a mile to the mile\" i n Lewis Carroll's words). 34 What Bakhtin describes i s the attemp t of novels , no t t o reproduc e thi s play o f possibilities , bu t t o represent o r imitat e it. Both Tolsto y an d Dickens, fo r example, use d seria l publica tion t o give th e impression o f a continually unfolding story and t o give thei r work a journalistic realism by seeming t o report events as they unfolded from week t o week, rather tha n presenting the reade r with a story complete fro m beginnin g t o end. 35

128 TH

E EN D REFIGURE D

Greek traged y generall y ha s a n opposit e impulse , imitatin g a single , complet e action, reshapin g alread y familia r legends , an d regularl y foreshadowing th e end. Oedipus the King, fo r example , begin s wit h a n argumen t betwee n Oedipu s an d Teiresias in which th e seer hints darkly at the eventual blinding of Oedipus (412-19 , 454-56). Medea begin s with a speech i n which the Nurse frets at Medea's ange r and fears tha t she will hurt her children (36-39). And Helen begins, as we shall see, with the protagonis t clingin g i n he r misfortun e t o Hermes ' promis e tha t sh e wil l return safely t o Spart a (56-59). Euripides ' Heracles i s unusual in several ways . I t begins not b y anticipatin g the end , bu t b y entertainin g different scenario s fo r th e presen t situation a s Amphitryo n and Megar a debat e th e likelihoo d that Heracle s wil l eve r return to Thebes. The y ar e trapped in the uncertainties of the present moment , and in Megara's words , the y are being eate n away by the time in-between (6 5' ev n.Eaco ye Xtmpoc; co v SctKve i %povo q 94) . The plo t i s no t a singl e an d coheren t action , bu t a sequence o f episode s leadin g t o a serie s o f aborte d ends : firs t deat h for th e hero' s wife an d children a t the hands of the upstart Lycus, the n deliverance when Heracle s suddenly return s from Hade s t o save hi s famil y an d rescu e th e tyrant, then crushing reversal when Heracles i n god-sent madnes s murders his wife and children, and finall y the uncertain future tha t awaits the hero in Athens. The fina l scene of the play describes a situatio n whos e outcom e i s unknown , and a protagonis t whos e identit y remains undefined. Heracle s i s a perfect Bakhtinian hero. Al l know n ends hav e been strippe d away an d hi s fina l decisio n no t t o commi t suicide , instea d of determinin g what will follow, leave s bot h hi s future an d hi s identit y profoundly unclear because i t commits him t o th e tota l uncertaint y an d tota l freedo m o f livin g in th e present . Ye t Heracles does no t hav e a Bakhtinia n plot. Fo r Bakhtin , the nove l i s characterized b y wha t w e might cal l systematic openness (o r "aperture, " t o us e Sau l Morson' s term): 36 a t any moment in the narrative, characters are fre e t o make choices an d decision s just as w e do i n everyday life. Th e actio n of Heracles i s largely the opposite . A t eac h moment , the end is clear and decisive: from the inflexible resolve of Lycus to kill Heracles' family , to the triumphant retur n o f Heracle s fro m Hades , t o th e tota l catastrophe inflicte d b y Hera, th e plo t navigate s a serie s o f apparen t endings. 37 Onl y a t a singl e point i n th e action, only at the momen t th e pla y ends, do we hav e a sense o f apertur e as the her o lingers on th e threshold between a catastrophic past an d a n unknow n future . Yet thi s single momen t o f narrativ e freedom i s enough t o und o the drama . An n Michelini an d other s hav e drawn attention to Heracles' apparen t repudiation of th e dramatic fiction. 38 Theseu s ha s tol d Heracle s t o abando n th e gran d gestur e o f suicide and lear n t o live with his crimes; afte r all , even th e gods have committed adultery an d harmed their parents (1313—19). Heracles answers b y rejectin g such storie s and demandin g higher standards of th e gods: 39 Ah! Thi s ha s nothin g t o do wit h m y troubles ; I don' t believ e th e gods love forbidde n beds and faste n chain s to thei r hands ; I neve r di d an d neve r wil l suppos e that on e go d i s another's master. God, i f he i s trul y god , needs nothing; these ar e poets' worthless stories.

Erasure: Heracles 12

9

oi(ior napEpya id8' EOT' EU.GO V KQKW V eyco 6e TO\X ; Qe.oi>q oike XeKtp ' a |if i Sejiv ^ otEpyeiv vont^r o 6eo|id T ' e^dnteiv %epoiv out' Ti^tcoaa TKOJCOT ' oiiie 7ieioo(iai oiJ8' dXXo v d^Xo\ ) SEOTIOTTI V ree(()UKevai. 5eiiai yap 6 9e6<; , eiTie p EOT ' opBwc; Geoq, o\)8evoq' dovSaJ v o'ifi e Si)atrivo i Xoyoi . 1340-4 6 Heracles reject s th e stories of divine infidelity a s wretched lies , ye t he is the produc t of Zeus ' adulterou s affai r wit h Alcmene , a n affai r repeatedl y brough t t o min d b y mention o f Heracles' tw o fathers, Zeus an d Amphitryon (e.g., 1263—65). Therefore , with thes e words , Heracle s erase s o r crosses out the legendary premis e upo n which the drama rests. With even greater effect , however, the episodic plo t and the indeterminate fina l scen e eras e th e familia r gesture s o f closur e an d reac h a t th e en d a remarkable momen t o f narrativ e uncertainty. If th e shap e o f thi s play i s strang e o r unusual, this is not leas t becaus e i t finally embodie s a radical opennes s tha t is antithetical t o the end s o f tragedy.

This page intentionally left blank

Ill The Ends of Tragedy What were yo u thinking of, overweening Euripides , when you hoped t o press myth, the n i n it s las t agony , int o you r service ? I t die d unde r you r violen t hands; bu t yo u coul d easil y pu t i n it s place a n imitatio n that , lik e Heracles ' monkey, woul d tric k itself ou t i n th e master' s robes . NIETZSCHH, Birth of Tragedy

This page intentionally left blank

9 Helen an d Romance The res t o f th e stor y nee d no t b e shew n i n action , an d indeed , woul d hardly need tellin g i f our imagination s were no t s o enfeeble d b y thei r laz y depen dence o n th e ready-made s an d reach-me-down s o f th e ragsho p i n whic h Romance keep s it s stock o f "happ y endings " to misfi t al l stories . SHAW, Pygmalion

In the epigraph to this chapter, Shaw registers annoyance at those who assum e Eliza will marry Higgins for two reasons. The first is the ending itself: if we consider Eliza's self-interest an d he r instinct s (Shaw assure s us) , an d i f we as k wha t she migh t do when face d wit h the choice betwee n a lifetime of fetchin g Higgins's slipper s and a lifetime of Freddy fetching hers, "there ca n be n o doubt about the answer." Given a woman lik e Eliza who know s what she wants, the sequel i s clear and to remove any possible doubts , Sha w spend s fourtee n page s describin g Eliza' s choices , he r marriage, he r late r contacts wit h Higgins, and the flower stan d she eventuall y opens in Covent Garden . But there is more at stake than simply correcting the record. Shaw' s second reaso n ha s to do with what the ending implies: a hand-me-down ending can only come from th e ragshop of romance. Pygmalion advertise s itself as "A Romance in Fiv e Acts, " accordin g t o th e subtitle , but doe s s o wit h typicall y Shavia n irony. The mythica l conceit o f the title and the dramatic conceit of a play about phonetics make it clear that this is no ordinary romance, and Shaw drives the point home in his epilogue, contrastin g th e expectation s o f feebl e imagination s with th e calculu s of benefits i n real life . "Complication s ensued; but the y were economic, no t romantic. . . . But whe n i t comes t o business, t o th e lif e tha t sh e reall y lead s as distinguishe d from th e lif e o f dreams an d fancies , she like s Freddy and sh e like s the Colonel; and she doe s no t lik e Higgins an d M r Doolittle." 1 Th e stake s ar e hig h indeed . If Shaw cannot convinc e u s of hi s realistic sequel, he canno t convince us tha t hi s play, like all great art (and unlike ordinary romance ) is "intensely and deliberately didactic." 2 The proo f o f th e pla y is in th e ending. At firs t glance , th e happ y ending seem s n o mor e tha n a n obviou s target : Shaw rails agains t th e formulai c ending s of romanc e just a s critic s toda y deride the predictable ending s o f Hollywood movies . Bu t there is more t o the question than this. The endin g fulfill s certai n expectations, an d th e kind s of expectation s raised i n the course of a work, and the ways in which those expectations are (or are not) fulfilled , tell us what sor t of work it is. Works tha t generate familiar an d predictable expecta133

134 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

tions (boy meet s girl ) an d fulfill thos e expectation s in familiar and predictable way s belong t o the reassuring genr e o f romance tha t Sha w object s to. Those that generat e different sort s o f expectation s (phoneti c versu s amator y conquest) tha t ar e realized in less familia r ways (th e female object take s on a life of her own) attemp t to subvert the reassuring genre an d construct somethin g ne w i n its place. S o in our readin g of a play, attentio n t o th e en d tha t is realize d an d th e wa y i n which tha t end i s reache d will hav e muc h t o tel l u s abou t th e generi c intention s of th e wor k a s a whole . W e have see n i n par t I tha t th e closin g gesture s invente d by Euripide s dra w attention to th e proces s an d th e problem s o f closure , supplyin g a forma l en d tha t preempt s expectations that th e actio n will b e complete. W e als o notice d a significant shif t i n the course o f his career from play s that conclude wit h death an d commemoration t o those in which protagonist s an d their names liv e on, thus moving awa y from the catastrophic en d familia r in tragedy. And w e hav e see n i n part I I that distinctiv e variations in the use of these closing gestures ar e closely relate d t o the anomalou s shape s of individual plays; a plot tha t is especially shapel y o r dismembered o r broken will lead t o a n equally unusual end. I n par t III , I will look mor e closel y a t plots an d th e expectations the y generate . I n thre e o f Euripides ' late r plays, Helen, Orestes, and Phoenician Women, the unusual movement o f the plot and the unusual end to which it leads mark a more radica l attempt to reconstruct traged y as what we, today, might call romance, tragicomedy, o r narrative, respectively. My argument will not be serve d by startin g from a definitio n of eac h genr e an d showin g t o wha t exten t a pla y o f Euripides approximates thi s model. I would lik e to show, throug h a careful readin g of individua l plays, tha t the y generat e expectation s an d organiz e th e plo t i n nove l ways, wit h th e resul t tha t traged y anticipate s ne w an d differen t generic patterns . Discussion o f th e endin g itsel f wil l therefor e lead , b y mean s o f a fulle r readin g o f each play , t o consideratio n o f way s i n which th e tragi c en d i s replace d b y a ne w conception o f the en d an d goa l o f drama . The romanti c qualities of Helen ar e unmistakeable. A ma n an d a woman, separate d by war , disaste r an d misunderstandings , ar e finall y reunited , and afte r overcomin g many mor e obstacle s together , the y a t las t reac h hom e an d liv e happil y eve r after . The perils of Helen include an evil king who threatens the woman's lif e and her honor, and a n escape from thi s king that exploits hi s stupidity. They includ e unheroic pro tagonists: th e otherwis e cowardl y an d ineffectua l Menelaus , an d th e proverbiall y fickle an d adulterous Helen. An d th e play ends wit h the happiest of happy endings : not onl y does the coupl e escap e fro m th e king an d defea t hi s minions , bu t the y ar e wafted hom e by the Dioscuri to Sparta, where Menelau s can look forward t o an afterlife i n Elysium, and Hele n t o life amon g th e immortals. Euripides did no t inven t the devices o f romance; the y are alread y evident i n the Odyssey, an d the y begin t o play a greater part in plays suc h a s Sophocles' lost Tyro an d Euripides' Ion an d Iphigenia among the Taurians, but Helen present s them i n their fulles t an d mos t exaggerate d form. 3 There i s a curious and telling irony in the fact that whereas Shaw's didactic dram a prides itself on avoiding the predictable ending , Euripidea n drama is original because , among othe r things, i t creates formulaic closin g gestures; Shaw rail s against stageworn formulas , while Euripide s invent s a bran d ne w wardrob e o f hand-me-dow n

Helen and Romance 13

5

endings. Th e natur e o f thi s strang e inventio n ha s bee n explore d a t some lengt h i n part 1 . Now, i n turnin g from gesture s i n genera l t o particula r plots, 1 begin wit h a play tha t brings u s back t o this paradox. Th e endin g o f Helen i s distinctive not fo r any trope of reversal or repetition, but because i t is so entirely conventional. It stretches the formulai c gesture s t o thei r limit, and i n thi s experimenta l conformit y provide s the appropriat e en d t o a n equall y experimenta l an d puzzlin g plot , a "ne w Helen" 4 both disconcertin g an d melodramatic. Thi s chapter will examine these achievements in detail, first explorin g the unusually artificial o r ready-made qualit y of the ending, and the n followin g th e plo t i n it s gratuitous an d unexpecte d movemen t towar d it s goal. As we shall see, th e radical conventionality of Euripides' Helen directl y challenges the possibilit y o f findin g order an d meaning i n experience an d i n drama.

An Artificia l Endin g Preceding chapter s hav e show n tha t forma l variation s in Euripidea n ending s ar e common and significant: in Electra, for example, th e explanation of the deus is ineffective, an d the characters procee d t o question rather than accept wha t the gods have to say, while Thetis enters in double guise as god and as wife at the end of Andromache. The endin g o f Helen i s als o a varian t by virtu e o f it s conventionality , an unusual distinction reflecte d i n every detai l o f th e epilogue . Helen end s with the most conventiona l of choral exits , th e anapestic line s found at the end of five different tragedies (Alceslis, Medea, Andromache, Helen, andBacchant Women): 5 Many ar e the shape s of divinity , and th e gods fulfil l man y thing s surprisingly. What wa s expected ha s not been accomplished , and fo r th e unexpecte d go d foun d a way . That i s ho w thi s affai r turne d out. TioXXcd uopij>a i i&v 8ai|iovia>v , jtoAAd 8 ' deA.7tTax ; Kpaivown 6e,o r Kai T a SoKTiSevt ' OTJ K eTeA,ea6r| , TOW 8' dSoKtiTwv rcopo v r|\)p £ 6eoc; . ioiov8' cmepri xoS e Ttpayiia. 1688-9 2

The repetitio n of these line s in several othe r endings, an d th e gnomic qualit y o f the moral the y contain, allo w th e parting words o f the chorus t o reflect upo n th e actio n only i n a most genera l manner . In fact, o f the five play s i n which these ready-mad e lines ar e found , the y hav e leas t relevanc e i n Andromache an d Helen. I n Bacchant Women, fo r example , th e mora l — however vaguel y phrase d — has a ver y pointe d relevance, sinc e Dionysu s change s hi s shap e fro m go d t o man an d apparentl y t o a bull (henc e the man y shapes o f divinity) , and since the go d i n disguise clearl y ma nipulates th e outcome (thu s findin g a way o r Ttopoc; for th e unexpected). The mora l has a similar relevanc e \nAlcestis, the earliest extant play i n which i t occurs: since a mortal i s rescued fro m deat h just a s Apollo promised , i t is almost literall y true that

136 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

the god accomplishes things beyond hope. I n Medea, the choral exit has been adapted to it s contex t with a differen t first lin e (noAAdi v TCtuiai; Zet><; ev 'OA.i)u.7iK> , "Zeus in Olympus dispenses man y things") that emphasizes th e transgressive natur e of Medea' s epiphany: sh e ha s usurpe d th e rol e o f stewar d o r dispense r o f goo d an d evi l fro m Olympian Zeus. 6 In Helen an d Andromache, the exit lines have no such relevance to the precedin g action ; i n neither play can th e surprisin g turn s of th e plot b e directly attributed t o a god , an d th e closin g mora l i s n o mor e tha n a vagu e an d universal observation tha t god move s i n mysterious ways. Thi s irrelevanc e i s emphasized b y the abrup t chang e i n meter . I n Medea an d i n Bacchant Women, th e chora l exi t i s preceded b y a longer passage also i n anapests (twenty-si x an d twent y lines, respectively), while in Helen, Alcestis, and Andromache th e preceding line s ar e trimeters. As a result, th e latter plays end suddenly with formulaic lines that ar e not precede d by a metrical signal tha t th e end i s at hand. Thus no t onl y doe s Helen en d wit h this formulaic choral exit, but the lines come even more abruptl y than in Alcestis, Medea, and Bacchant Women. The sam e diminishe d relevance i s found i n the closin g aetiology, 7 i n which th e Dioscuri announc e tha t Hele n wil l give he r nam e t o Helene, a n islan d lying off the coast o f Attica near Sounion : Where Maia' s so n firs t anchore d yo u when h e carrie d yo u of f fro m Spart a throug h heave n and stol e you r body s o Pari s coul d no t marr y you — I mea n th e stretc h o f islan d guarding Acte— mortals i n futur e wil l cal l thi s Helen e since h e too k yo u stole n fro m th e house . oii 5 ' wpuiaev er e jtpdha McaaSo ^ TOKO< ; EjiapT/nc; anapac, TO V KQT ' oiipavov Spouov , xXeyac, Seuai ; aov \ii\ fldpit ; yni-iete OK, (t)poi)pov Trap ' 'AKTT) V teiauevnv vfjcro v Xeyco , T-;Xevr| TO /VoiTtov e v Ppotoli ; KEKX.f|aeTai, eicei KXcmaia v a' E K Souto v eSe^axo . 1670-75

As a rule, the aition establishes a connection between the legendary plot and the world of th e audience , but i n thi s case th e trac e tha t remain s i s a mino r curiosit y whos e relevance to the plot is altogether doubtful. The aitio n itsel f lacks th e immediate relevance of the rite s in Medea an d Hippolytus tha t will commemorate th e dead man o r children displaye d onstage, an d i t lack s th e popula r appeal o f Ion's celebratio n of the greatnes s o f Ion' s descendants ; thi s is on e o f th e fe w aiti a that simpl y explain odd o r curiou s place-names (the others bein g Kynossem a i n Hecuba an d Oresteion in Orestes).* Mor e important , this is the only aition in Euripides that commemorate s neither the dramatic action nor its sequel, but an irrelevant episode i n the distant past. The alleged layove r near Athens, as Hermes carrie d Helen from Sparta to Hgypt, took place seventee n years before the action begin s and i s mentioned nowhere else in the play. 9 This passag e i s clearly a n aition, explicitly connecting the legendary plot to a place familia r t o th e fifth-centur y audienc e an d employin g th e formulai c terms T O A,oi7iovand KeicA,r|CJETai . Yet it is irrelevant as it stands, and i s made even more irrel -

Helen an d Romance 13

7

evant b y th e fina l line , which derive s th e island' s nam e fro m th e ver b e^etv , "t o seize"—and no t from Helen's nam e after all! 10 If th e chora l exi t i s literally ready-made , and the closin g aetiolog y i s irrelevant, the concluding prophecy describes a distant sequel to the plot. As Helen and Menelaus, offstage, se t sail for Sparta , the Dioscuri foretel l their happy future: 11 Sail wit h you r husband, with a favoring wind; and we , you r twin savior brothers galloping acros s the sea, will sen d yo u home. And whe n yo u tur n an d en d you r lif e you wil l be calle d a god, and with th e Dioscuri will shar e libation s and hav e offerings with us from men . This i s the wish o f Zeus. . . . As fo r th e wandering Menelaus, it is ordained by th e god s that he dwell in the Blessed Isle . TiXel ^TJ V TTOoe i cor nveiJu a 5 ' e^et' ovpiov awrfipe 8 ' Tiuei<; aco Kaoiyvntco 8i7tXa > TCOVTOV jiapiTtTteiJovT e 7teu,\|/ou.ev Ttdipav. OTCXV 5 e KduA|n K Kai TeXevTriarji ; [3iov , 8e6i; KeK/Vrior j Ka i AioaKopw v u.eta O7tov5fflv u,e9eJ;ei< ; ^evid \dvOptorcco v Ttdpa e^evi; ue9' fiuaiv Zevc, yap (55 e po\)/\.eTai . . . . Kai TO O 7tXavf|Tr| MeveXec o Oecov Ttdp a uaKapwv KatoiKei v vf|a6v ecm uopaiuov . 1663-69 , 1676-7 7

This is no prosaic seque l o f Eliza and Freddy struggling to make ends meet i n their little flower shop. The will of Zeus an d the escort of the Dioscuri will guarantee not only a saf e an d swif t voyag e home , bu t immortalit y for Hele n an d retiremen t to Elysium for Menelaus. This i s the happiest of Euripides' happ y endings and also the most gratuitous . Th e her o usuall y has t o earn hi s reward . Oreste s must wande r in exile, driven mad b y th e Furies, and must stand trial for his lif e i n Athens befor e he is eventually acquitted and allowed t o rul e in Argos (Orestes 1643-52 ) o r retir e to Arcadia (Electra 1250-75) ; Orestes, with Iphigenia, must go back agai n t o Athens and in Halae build a shrine and establish rites for Artemis before his troubles are over (Iphigenia among th e Taurians 1446—61) ; Cadmus will be turne d into a snake an d must lea d barbarian s in war an d sacrileg e befor e h e eve r reache s th e Lan d o f th e Blessed (Bacchant Women 1330-39) ; and Heracles must undergo exile and purification of his hideous murder s before receivin g honors i n Athens (Heracles 1322-33) . The happy end in which Ion discovers both his mother and his royal birthright is contingent onl y upon a scheme t o deceive Xuthu s (1601-2), but th e failings of a n earlier, almost identical scheme (69-73) does not suggest tha t the way will be smooth.12 Only in Helen is the happy future s o happy and so effortless, so devoid o f deservin g struggle. I n fact, this easy an d implausible gratification of desires i s a common fea ture of the plot. The deus ex machina is also artificial, abruptly intervening at the climax of a spectacular scene . A messenge r ha s just announce d that Helen an d Menelau s hav e es caped, th e furiou s kin g is about t o rus h insid e and kil l Theonoe fo r he r par t in th e

138 TH

E END S O F T R A G E D Y

plot, a n honorabl e servan t block s th e doo r int o th e palace, 13 an d Theoclymenu s i s about to murder both the servant and his sister, when suddenly two gods appear abov e the palace , commandin g hi m to stop : Restrain th e ange r tha t wrongly sweep s you away , Theoclymenus, lor d of thi s land. We th e tw o Dioscuri cal l upo n you, w e who m Led a onc e bore — and Helen , wh o ha s escaped fro m you r house . ema/ec; opyai; aiciv OTJ K opBccx ; <|>epr|, QeoKA.-uu.eve, yaiac; Tfja5' dvaE, ' 5ioco i 6 e ae AtooKopoi Ka^oiJuev , ovc, Af|5a Ttoi e eiiKTev 'EXevn v 6' , f ) Tce^eDy e aoijc ; 56u.ot>c; . 1642—4 5

This i s an unusuall y abrupt and forcefu l entrance . A s th e kin g and servan t argu e in tetrameters a t a frantic pace, the Dioscuri ente r unannounced and immediatel y call a halt. As we have seen , the god's command i s usually no mor e tha n a call fo r attention (Hippolytus 1283-84 , Suppliant Women 1183 , Electro 1238 , Iphigenia among the Taurians 1436 ) or a gesture o f reassurance (JOT ) ^etiyET', Ion 1553 , u.t|8ev n Alav Sua^opeiv 7tapi]veoa, Andromache 1234) . The god rarely intervenes directl y in the action, and even the n may firs t as k a question (Iphigenia among the Taurians 1437) or address th e antagonist (Mevelae, Ttcruaat AJJU, ' e^cov xeOr|yp.evov, Orestes 1625); only i n Helen doe s the deus intervene with th e very firs t word. 14 Of the gods who do intervene in the drama (Dioscuri in Helen, Athena in Iphigenia among the Taurians, an d Apoll o i n Orestes), onl y Apoll o substantiall y affects th e outcome b y arriving i n time to prevent Orestes from murderin g Hermione and burning th e palace , an d Menelau s fro m stormin g th e palac e an d killin g hi s niec e an d nephew. I n the other two plays, th e action is already complete whe n th e god arrives : Helen ha s escape d wit h he r husban d an d th e coupl e i s setting sai l fo r Greece , an d Iphigenia and Oreste s are likewise sailing home on seas made cal m b y Poseidon . I n each case , the call to arms by Thoas o r the threats of Theoclymenus agains t his sister cannot affect the happy outcome o f the play, and therefore seems a contrived pretex t for bringing on a deus ex machina. 15 The intervention is especially artificia l in Helen. In Iphigenia, th e messenge r ha s reporte d tha t the getawa y shi p i s foundering, an d Thoas has ever y reaso n t o believe tha t h e can stil l captur e th e protagonists . A s th e barbarian kin g call s al l hi s peopl e t o th e attack , th e audienc e fear s th e wors t unti l Athena arrives , announcin g that Iphigeni a an d Oreste s hav e alread y escaped. Th e suspense i n Helen i s every bi t as great and is much mor e theatrica l as we witness the angry Theoclymenus abou t to kill the servant. But there is never any doubt that Helen will escape ; the happ y endin g has already been reporte d b y th e messenger , an d the Dioscuri interven e t o resolv e a conflic t tha t ha s nothin g t o d o wit h Hele n an d Menelaus. I n preventing the Egyptian king from killing his servant and his sister, the deus i s sudden, effective , an d entirel y irrelevant. 16 The irrelevanc e of the gods is reinforced b y their uncertain status. The rol e of the deus require s a clear distinction between th e human realm an d that of the gods. This distinction i s varie d bu t no t weakene d i n th e demoni c epiphanie s o f Medea , Burystheus, an d Polymestor , whos e privilege d powe r o r knowledg e give s eac h o f

Helen an d Romance 13

9

them the stature of a deus ex machina. The distinctio n is weakened, however , whe n the deu s i s a go d whos e authorit y i s no t clearl y superior t o tha t of th e characters . Andromache, for example, ends indecisively : Andromache an d her so n are safe bu t Neoptolemus ha s bee n foull y murdered , an d the nobl e Peleu s ha s prevailed bu t s o too hav e Menelau s an d Orestes . The epiphan y of Thetis, a humbl e sea divinity , is equally indecisive . Sh e reassure s Peleu s an d foretell s a comfortin g futur e fo r Andromache an d he r child , bu t make s n o mentio n o f Hcrmione , Menelaus , an d Orestes. Sh e has kind words for her mortal husband and relatives, but does not have the divine authority to arrange their affairs o r proclaim punishment for their enemies. The Dioscuri, lik e Thetis, occup y a n ambiguous statio n between gods and men, but unlike Thetis, the y try to play the role of Olympian deus—and fail. I n Electra, their failure i s bald and disconcerting ; the y try to explain why th e matricid e was neces sary bu t simpl y cannot , provokin g no t understandin g and acceptanc e bu t th e awk ward questions o f Electra an d Orestes. This failure is reinforced by Castor's waver ing status: the demigod i s a deus explaining the ways of gods to men, but also a brother moved b y the death of his sister (1242-43) and a reluctant servant on an errand for Apollo (1245-46). InHelen, the Dioscuri fail because they are out of place: they make the grand entrance of a deus where the story does not require them. And rathe r than trying on too many roles, they never find a clear role at all. They announce their identity clearly enough, proclaiming at the outset both their mortal origins as sons of Leda (1644-45) an d brother s o f Hele n (1645 , 1658 ) and thei r present immorta l stature (1659). Yet their role remains uncertain. It is literally unclear, since th e two Dioscuri remain anonymous , never identifie d b y nam e as the y ar e i n Electra (" I Casto r an d my brothe r Polydeuce s here, " Kctoxro p KaatyvTiTOc ; xe FIoXuSeiiKTit ; 6Se, Electra 1240). And their purpose or mission is also unclear. Why did they arrive on the scen e at this particular moment? We woul d hav e saved ou r sister lon g ag o since Zeu s has mad e us gods; but w e ar e weaker tha n bot h fat e and gods, t o whom i t seemed wel l thi s way . n6.Xu\. 8' ci8eX(|>T| v Kct v Tipi v e^eoMaa|iev, eTteiTiep i]\iac, Zeijt; E7ioiri0ev GEOVK; ' dXA.' iiooov' r\i±ev tot) Jieitptou.evo'u 6 ' ciji a KQI TW V 9ecov , 01 5 tarn eSo^e v a>S ' e%eiv . 1658-6 1

The answe r i s entirel y negative . They migh t hav e com e t o hel p thei r siste r a t an y time, but fo r a reason tha t i s not explained they did not . Their forceful intervention does no t affec t th e cours e o f the plot , and does no t advance an obvious purpose . After makin g thei r sudden entranc e an d announcin g themselves, the Dioscur i explain t o Theoclymenus why Theonoe was righ t to help Helen escape. The divine explanation, a s w e hav e seen , tend s to pla y a largel y formal role , with notable exceptions i n Hippolytus an d Electra. In Hippolytus, a lengthy explanation is needed to reveal Phaedra's deception t o Theseus an d to reveal the role ol Aphrodit e to both father an d son . I n Electra, the aborte d attemp t to explai n Apollo's purpose underlines the pointles s nature of the matricide. Elsewher e the explanatio n has a real but

140 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

largely forma l effect: Athena confirms that Ion i s the son of Creusa an d Apollo (Ion 1560-62), Apollo explains the disappearance of Helen (Orestes 1629-34) , and Athena tells Thoas of Orestes' mission t o bring back the statue of Artemis (Iphigenia among the Taurians 1438-41). InHelen, however, the explanation is purely formal: no new knowledge i s conveyed when the Dioscuri explai n to Theoclymenus wh y Helen must be allowed t o leave: 17 Always unti l th e presen t day it wa s righ t for he r t o dwell i n you r house, but sinc e Troy' s foundation s are overturned and offe r it s name t o th e gods—not an y more : she shoul d be joined i n the same marriage, go t o he r home , an d liv e with her husband. So take th e black swor d awa y from you r sister and conside r tha t what sh e di d was proper . ei<; P.EV yap cde i TOV Ttapovta vu v ^povov Keivr|v KCCKHKEI V aoiaiv ev 86|aoi<; E%pf\v enei 5 e Tpotac; e^ave0Ta8r| [3a6pa Kat toiq Oeotc ; Tiapeaxe toiivon', oweur EV Toia i 5 ' aiJTOic ; 8ei vi v E^EiixGai yauou; eXOeiv T ' e<; OIKOW; iced awoiK-qoai Ttoaei. dAA' ioxe JIE V ar\c, ovyyovoi) UEXa v £i(|>o<; , v6|ii^e 5'
Theoclymenus kne w fro m th e ver y star t tha t Hele n ha d bee n lef t i n Proteus ' car e until th e war wa s over , an d h e knew tha t hi s pursuit of Hele n directl y contradicted his father' s wishes; s o th e divin e explanatio n is a n entirel y formal gesture , telling the king what he already knows . If this account o f past event s i s redundant, is the deu s more effectiv e i n explaining divin e affairs—tha t real m o f actio n invisibl e t o th e morta l characters ? I n Hippolytus, fo r example , Artemi s explains not onl y th e pas t deed s of Phaedr a tha t Theseus does not know, but also the schemes o f Aphrodite that he cannot know, and in other plays, the deus does the same more briefly.18 In Helen, the Dioscuri likewis e explain Theonoe's action s by appealin g to the realm o f fate an d th e gods: You rag e a t a marriage that was neve r fated , and you r sister Theonoe, daughter of a divine Nereid, di d yo u n o wron g hu t honore d the gods and he r father's just commands. or; yap TCE7:pa>|j.£voi(ji v opyi^r i yanoit;, oi)5' r| Qeac, NripfjSoc; GKyovoc ; Kopr| dSiKEi o' a5£X<j>r ] Oeovor] , T O TW V BEOJ V Tijicoaa natpoc, i' EV§IKOIJC ; eTcioTOXcxc;. 1646-4 9

This vague assessment reveal s no plan of Zeus, no divine purpose that belatedly makes sense o f all that has happened. 19 If Theonoe ha s honored ict irav 9ed)v, the affair s o f

Helen and Romance 14

1

the gods, the vagueness of this phrase suggests simpl y that she has conducted hersel f in a just an d righteou s manner . Wherea s elsewher e th e explanatio n tends t o be come formalized , i n Helen i t i s entirel y redundant , reminding Theoclymenus—as he all too well knows—tha t Hele n i s not rightfull y hi s an d tha t Theonoe ha s acte d properly. Perhaps eve n mor e irrelevan t i s th e mora l wit h which th e twin s conclud e thei r speech: For gods do no t hat e th e wellborn, and trouble fall s instea d upon th e many. tovc, eiiyeveic; yctp o\ ) oTuyo'Ooi Saiuovei;, TCOV 5' dvapiSuriTCov uxxAAo v eioav ol TIOVOI . 1678-7 9

It i s n o doub t tru e that the wellbor n liv e happier live s tha n th e many , an d i t turns out tha t our protagonists , on e originall y in rag s an d th e othe r a helples s suppliant , are bot h Sparta n aristocrat s (Hele n share s th e nobl e bloo d o f th e Dioscuri , a s Theoclymenus note s i n his reply, 1684—85). But we ar e very hard pressed t o find i n this moral th e lesso n o f th e play , an d editor s ofte n prefe r t o remov e it. 20 A carefu l reading of the epilogue suggest s instead that the closing mora l is an essential part of the irrelevan t an d ready-made ending. The epiphan y concludes wit h a gesture of acceptance b y which th e human char acters acknowledg e th e authorit y an d testif y t o th e effectivenes s o f th e deu s e x machina. This naturally involve s an admission o f error: Theseus no w wishes he had never cursed hi s son (Hippolytus 1412) , and Cadmus confesses hi s guilt to Dionysu s (Aiovuos, /Uoa6u.ec9d a', f)8iKf]Kau,ev, Bacchant Women 1344 ; compare Suppliant Women 1228 , Ion 160 8 and 1609) , while Oreste s an d Menelau s announce that they stand correcte d b y th e god' s command s (Orestes 1670-72 , 1679-81 ; compar e Iphigenia among the Taurians 147.5—76 , 1484—85) . Since Theti s comes t o comfor t Peleus, no t to rebuke him, there is no admission o f erro r i n Andromache, while the pattern i s inverte d in Electro a s mortal s questio n th e conduc t o f th e Dioscur i an d Apollo (1298-1300 , 1303^4) . I n Helen, however, Theoclymenu s manages t o pro claim tha t h e will spar e Theonoe an d le t Helen g o without admitting that he stand s corrected b y th e deu s ex machina , without betraying a trace of humility: 21 Sons o f Zeu s an d Leda , I renounce my earlie r quarrel concerning Helen , and n o longe r would I kil l m y sister . Let Hele n g o hom e i f the gods wish, and kno w tha t yo u wer e bor n fro m the sam e bloo d a s the bes t an d mos t temperate sister. Rejoice i n Helen's mos t noble mind—somethin g rar e i n women . co TcaiSe Ar)Sa< ; icai Aioq , td u,e v judpoi ; veiKri u,e6f|aa > otjx& v Kaavyvr|Trjc ; Ttepr eycb 5' d5eX(|>f] v oiiKet ' ci v Ktdvoiu' euiiv.

142 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

iceivri § ' '(tea Ttpot ; oiKov, ei Oeoit ; SOKEI. ictov 8' dptoTTn ; affxjjpoveaTdrrit; 6 ' a\ia yeyrot:' tiSeA,<|>fj(; ouoyevoiji; a§' a'iuatoc; . Kai /aipeG ' 'Elevn.^ oiiveK' e"i)j£V£afcm}(, yvw|iTiq, 6 TroXXaii; ev yuvai^iv OTJ K evi . 1680-8 7

Rather tha n admittin g hi s ow n erro r o r acknowledgin g th e authorit y of th e gods , Theoclymenus congratulate s th e Dioscur i o n th e virtue s of thei r sister , instructin g them to respect th e noble qualities of the woman h e has treated so barbarously; where Thoas concludes b y saying he will do as Athena wishes (Iphigenia among the Taurians 1484-85), Theoclymenu s conclude s b y remarkin g tha t noble wome n ar e few. Th e king's repl y doe s confir m tha t th e divin e interventio n wil l hav e it s desired effect , but hi s conversion i s gratuitous, wit h no explanatio n for his chang e o f heart. 22 If th e variou s element s o f th e endin g see m someho w irrelevan t or superficia l t o the action , eac h o f thes e element s i s clearl y articulate d in form , fro m th e TioAAc d (lopifiai chora l exi t to the emphatic interventio n by the Dioscuri . Th e sam e is true of the epilogu e a s a whole, whic h ha s a very clea r an d simpl e structure : (1) speec h o f the deus ex machina, (2 ) short speech of acquiescence, an d (3) anapestic chora l exit . Most ending s involve some variation or complication o f this simple pattern , except ing only Andromache, Suppliant Women, and Helen;23 thi s clear articulation of for m reinforces th e artificialit y o f th e endin g i n Helen. The entir e closing scen e i n all it s details , fro m th e misplace d deu s t o th e ready made exi t o f th e chorus , seem s t o heighte n o r exaggerat e th e forma l gesture s o f Euripidean endings. Yet what is most striking about this final scen e o f the play is not the conventional and ready-made details , but the overall effect of what might best b e called avant-gard e conventionality. This hand-me-dow n happ y endin g i s the resul t not o f a lazy autho r appeasin g hi s audienc e wit h hackneye d devices , bu t o f a play wright inventin g new an d unprecedente d variation s upon th e usua l form o f the end ing. In this play, he is not satisfied with th e familiar gestures tha t neatly tie things up. Instead he uses these gesture s t o surprise u s with an irrelevant epiphany, an illogical moral, an d i n general a gratuitous manner of reachin g th e happ y end . What does this tell us about the play as a whole? I t turns out that the movement o f the plo t i s equally striking , proceeding b y surprisin g twist s an d illogica l leaps t o its gratuitous outcome. 24 Helen, i n othe r words , i s itsel f an experimen t in avant-garde conventionality, pushin g the limit s of Gree k traged y i n ways tha t we no w associat e with th e predictabl e plot s o f romanc e an d melodrama . I n orde r t o describ e thi s experiment mor e fully , I tur n no w t o th e way s i n whic h th e plo t move s towar d it s ending—the predictable, surprising, or gratuitou s ways i n which i t realizes ou r ex pectations. I n Greek tragedy , the course o f events acquires direction or coherence i n three ways. First , o n the divine level, there i s the will of Zeus , th e oracle o f Apollo , or some divin e plan that often seems to direct the action. Second, o n the mortal level, there is the logic of human motivations and interactions that makes the course o f event s believable. And third , on a literary level, there is the traditional legend and it s framework o f familiar character s an d events withi n which the playwright places his story . We fin d tha t on eac h o f thes e levels , th e plo t o f Helen realize s ou r expectation s i n novel an d gratuitou s ways .

Helen an d Romance 14

3

Accidental God s The Olympia n gods pla y a n importan t but ambiguou s rol e i n th e actio n o f Helen, setting the plo t i n motion but havin g little t o d o with it s direction o r outcome . Th e play begins wit h a prologue speec h i n which Hele n describe s th e scene in Egypt an d repeats the story of the judgment o f Paris, which Aphrodite wo n by promising Hele n to Paris (1-30). But how did this bring Helen t o Egypt? Euripide s introduce s a new twist t o the quarrel 25 at the point when Pari s came to Spart a to claim hi s prize : Hera, annoye d that she di d no t defea t the others, turned int o wind m y marriag e with Alexander and gav e to Kin g Priam' s son no t me , but a breathing image sh e too k fro m heave n and mad e lik e me; i n empty seeming , h e seem s to hav e me , bu t does not. Hpct 8 e jj-EH<j)9ei a oiiveic ' o\) VIK Q 6eai; e^Tivejiajae TCXU ' AXeqdvSp w \e%r\, SiSooai 5' OTJ K en ' dXA, ' oprnwaac' ejioi e'iSwXov F,|i7tvo\) v oupavov E,-uv9;yicy ' (m o ripici|ioti Tupavvoij TtaiSr ra t 8oice i u. ' e^eiv, Kevfiv SoKnaiv , ot) K BXWV . 31-3 6

Originally, Helen was Aphrodite's bribe to Paris (27-28), now her image sent to Troy is Hera's plo y fo r gaining revenge, and later we shall find that the real Helen's return to Spart a i s a furthe r schem e t o discredi t Aphrodit e (880-83) . The play' s unusua l plot, s o i t seems , i s the figmen t o f a jealous spat , whil e Helen , he r double , an d al l those involve d in the Trojan Wa r ar e merely pawns i n this divine quarrel. Helen re minds u s o f thi s backgroun d i n th e parodo s (238-49 ) an d i n he r explanatio n t o Menelaus (585-86; 669-83)—but doe s thi s petty squabbl e serve a larger purpose ? Zeus has his own project to relieve overpopulation and advertise Achilles by starting a war (38-41), and the schem e o f Her a convenientl y coincides wit h his own (i d 8 ' ax) Aioc; / pouA^-uuat ' aA.Xa ToloSe ouu,patve v KaKoic ; 36-37), but ther e is no evi dence o f a large r pla n or mora l purpose. 26 The onl y suggestio n tha t Zeus take s a n interest in Helen or Menelaus comes from Helen herself: after Hera sen t the e'iScoXov to Troy, Herme s cam e an d too k Hele n to Egypt "fo r Zeu s did no t overlook me, " oi > yap Tiu.eXn.ae U.O D / Ze\>c, (45-46). Is Zeus taking care of a detail the quarrelin g goddesses forgot ? I s he simply lookin g afte r hi s daughter, or doe s h e have some larger purpose? W e are not told, and this vague hint is not repeated or explained. The Olympian gods are thus directly responsible fo r the action, but each seems t o act from selfis h motives withou t any coherent goa l o r purpose. 27 This i s not typical . In Euripides, the prologue , i f it describes th e rol e o f th e gods at all, usually presents som e sort o f plan: Artemis proclaims he r intention to punish Hippolytus, Apollo announces that he will try to save Alcestis fro m death , and Herme s will help Apollo reunit e Ion and Creusa . I f a god doe s no t appear i n person, w e ma y learn indirectly , throug h dream s an d oracles , o f Apollo' s purpos e i n Electro o r Iphigenia among th e Taurians. I n th e prologu e o f Helen, however, n o suc h pla n is

144 TH

E END S O F T R A G E D Y

revealed, although we ar e teased by a single passin g comment . After reciting all she has endured , Helen say s tha t sh e has been comforte d b y the word o f Hermes : So wh y d o 1 still live ? This wor d I heard fro m th e go d Hermes: tha t 1 would retur n t o the famous plain of Spart a wit h my husban d . . . ti oi'i v ET I CM ; Qeo\> 168' eio"n.Koi>a' ejtoc ; 'Epiioii, 1 6 K^EIVO V e-u i KaioiKriaei v TteSov EraipTTiq
It i s tempting to reconstruct a divine purpose, announce d by the messenger go d in the prologue an d fulfille d b y the deus a t the end. 28 Yet Herme s make s n o mention of a divin e plan. Ther e i s n o relatio n betwee n th e promis e her e an d th e quarrel between Her a an d Aphrodit e tha t i s so prominen t elsewhere , an d th e Dioscur i i n the epilogu e mak e n o allusio n t o Hermes ' promise . Th e promis e i s dramatically significant because it serves a s a foil t o Helen's prematur e despair in the following scene wit h Teucer; mor e important , it reinforces ou r expectatio n o f a happ y out come, but i t does so gratuitousl y without revealing how o r why w e ca n expec t t o reach thi s end. It may be that a divine plan is revealed onl y in the course o f the play, just as halfway through Heracles we suddenly learn of the brutal designs of Hera. But later events in Helen only confirm the irrelevance of the gods. In a central and climactic episode, Helen an d Menelaus realize that their lives are in the hands of Theonoe, th e sister of Theoclymcnus. Wit h her prophetic powers sh e will know tha t Menelaus is in Egypt, and i f she tells this to her brother, he will surely kil l Menelaus and prevent Helen' s escape. A t thi s point , Theonoe suddenl y enters, identifie s Menelaus, an d explain s that hi s fate is in the hand s of the gods: Today ther e will be a council of the gods, and befor e Zeu s they will argu e you r case . Hera, who wa s you r enemy before , is now your frien d and want s t o get yo u safel y hom e with Helen, so Greec e ma y lear n that th e wedding of Paris, the gif t o f Aphrodite , was a phony marriage. But Aphrodit e wants to destro y your homecoming, so i t will neve r be expose d tha t sh e bought her name for beauty with Helen's empt y marriage. £p l S yap e v Geolc ; cruXXoyoQ te oo\> Ttepi eoTai rtdpeSpoc; Zt|vi Tc5S ' ev fj|j.fm . "Hpa |iev, ij ooi 5w|ievf]c; irdpovGev fjv , vuv eo"ui v eiivovK ; KC« ; TtaTpav awaai GeXe i £w tfj5' , 'iv ' 'EXXdt; IQVC, AA.e!;dv8poi ) yduouc; 8copr|na K\)7tpi8oi ; xj/ei>Sovu|i<)>eDTOv (id9rj ' Kwtpi? 8e VOOTO V aov Stact>9eipa i SeXei , a>c, U.T ) '£,eXeYx9i 3 M^Se npia\ie.vr\ (fiavf i TO KaW.o< ; 'EXevr|< ; oiiveic' dvovritoic ; Yap.oi<;. 878-8 6

Helen an d Romance 14

5

No sooner ha s Theonoe described thi s strife, reminding us that mortal lives han g on the squabble s o f immortals , tha n sh e announce s tha t th e outcom e o f th e conflic t between Her a an d Aphrodite lie s with herself: 29 The outcome rest s with me , whether a s Aphrodite wishes I will destroy yo u by tellin g my brothe r you ar c here , or standin g instead with Her a I will save your life , deceiving my brother who instructe d m e to tell him when yo u happe n t o reac h thi s land. T.eA.o<; 8' e<(> ' fi|iiv e't0' , a (3oi3A.eTa i Kimpic; , Xe^an' aSeA.r o ev6d8 ' ovta 8i.oA.eoe o e'i/t' ai) u.e.9' "Hpa<; aidaa aov acoac o |3tov, Kpwj/aa' 6jj.atu.ov' , o q u. e jipocrtdaaei TaSe eiTieiv, cnav ~ff\v tf|vS e voai^aac, TO^TI^- 887—91 Theonoe, with he r privileged knowledge of the Olympia n gods , describes the conflict betwee n Her a an d Aphrodite onl y to ignore it : she will decide the issue hersel f and fo r he r ow n reasons . Rathe r tha n weighing th e claim s o f Her a an d Aphrodite , she bases her decision upo n he r own idea s abou t justice an d the mind: There is a great temple of justice in my nature , which 1 received fro m Nereu s and whic h I shall tr y to preserve, Menelaus. eveoti 8' iepov -cfji ; SIKTU ; euoi utVy a ev tfi <|njae r Kc d TOTJTO Nripeax; ndpa exouaa aw^eiv , MeveXeax; , Tteipdaoaav. 1002- 4 This innat e sense o f justice i s reinforced, a s she tells us, by he r belief tha t the mind somehow survive s deat h an d therefor e ma y stil l suffe r punishmen t (1013-16) . Theonoe's philosophy is no doubt humane and enlightened, but it is also unconventional an d subjective , dependin g upo n a n abstrac t notio n o f retributio n and a personal notio n o f justice.30 Wherea s Her a an d Aphrodit e ac t fro m persona l motives , with no larger plan in mind and with no thought for the human consequences, Theono e disregards th e gods and act s upo n loft y motive s tha t ar e entirely idiosyncratic. 31 Finally, i f there i s a divine plan, perhaps i t is no t reveale d unti l th e end , whe n a god o n th e machin e ca n explai n what ha s happened . Bu t whe n th e Dioscur i mak e their appearance , a s we hav e seen , the y invok e fate , Zeus, an d th e wil l o f th e gods only t o explai n why the y are too lat e to help Helen escape : We would hav e save d ou r sister lon g ag o since Zeu s has made us gods; but w e ar e weaker than bot h fat e and gods, to whom i t seemed wel l thi s way. 1658-6 1 It has often been observed tha t Euripides tends to present events as driven by human rather than divine motives, eve n a s the plot retains a formal connectio n t o the myths

146 TH

E END S O F T R A G E D Y

and th e gods. 32 In Helen, thi s proces s i s carried t o a n extrem e an d i s perhap s bes t represented b y Theonoe' s trust in her ow n persona l belief s rathe r than in the argu ments o f Hera o r Aphrodite. T o sec how far Euripides carrie s this process in Helen, it i s useful t o compare Iphigenia among the Taurians—a pla y ver y similar to Helen in theme an d plo t structure . Both play s begin with a n unexpecte d reunion , continue with a scheme t o escape from a foreign king , and end with a somewhat artificia l deu s ex machina; the action o f both plays is propelled b y chance an d by human resource fulness. Bu t i n Iphigenia among th e Taurians th e divin e schem e i s crucia l t o th e outcome. Iphigenia begin s with tw o signs fro m th e gods: first Iphigeni a tells of he r drea m in which she touches Oreste s wit h the sacrificial water (42-58), and then Orestes tells of Apollo' s oracle tha t h e must brin g back th e statue o f Artemi s (77-94) . The tw o signs revea l a plan for th e protagonists tha t is eventually fulfilled o n both th e divine and th e huma n level: the holy statu e is returned to Attica, an d brothe r and siste r es cape together. 33 Althoug h huma n misadventure s constantly threate n fulfillmen t o f the plan, Apollo's will provides a clear goa l for the action. Th e contras t wit h Helen is clear: ther e th e quarre l between Her a an d Aphrodite an d th e promise o f Herme s are not part of a coherent pla n and involve the protagonists only accidentally. In Helen, the dramatic action i s uncertain because th e divine framework lack s a goal, whereas in Iphigenia th e action is uncertain because the divine goal i s misunderstood: Iphigenia misinterprets the dream to mean that her brother is already dead, whil e Orestes i s not sure i f the oracl e i s reliable . Th e melodramati c plo t receive s it s impetu s fro m th e heightening of this misunderstanding: Iphigenia cannot believe Artemi s would want her t o administe r suc h crue l rite s (386-91), an d Oreste s doubt s th e validit y of all oracles (570-75), especially Apollo's (711-15). The ups and downs o f the plot, and the mistaken identities , lead Iphigenia to wonder i f god or fate controls event s (89597; compare Helen 1137-43 , quote d i n the nex t sectio n o f thi s chapter), bu t thes e doubts are never a s profound a s in Helen, and Orestes can reassure Pylades tha t god will help those wh o hel p themselves : Well said ; I think we shar e thi s task with Chance , an d whoeve r exert s himself will likel y find divinit y mor e potent . Ka^wq eXe^a^' tf j myr\ 5 ' oinat jieXe w TOTjSt: E,ii v -quiv f| v S e TIC ; TtpoOnuoc; r\, aGeveiv T O 8eio v udAAo v EIKOTCOC ; exei. 909-1 1

Iphigenia i s no morality play. The ton e is too light and fulfillmen t o f the oracles to o circuitous t o regar d th e dram a a s a demonstration o f divin e power, 34 but th e divine frame doe s establis h a goa l an d directio n fo r th e huma n action . This goa l an d thi s direction ar e a t times foil s t o the confused an d undirecte d human action, but b y th e end o f the tragedy th e human actio n ha s reache d th e goal anticipate d by the god. I n Helen, the huma n actio n i s equally confuse d an d undirected , bu t th e divin e fram e fails t o provide a foil: th e quarre l between Her a an d Aphrodit e i s indifferent t o the situation of Helen an d Menelaus and irrelevant to the decision o f Theonoe, while no

Helen and Romance 14

7

larger plan i s apparent. Th e resul t i s a drama tha t fully explore s th e confusion s an d delights o f undirecte d huma n action. Nevertheless, th e outcom e o f Helen doe s no t contradic t th e wil l o f th e gods ; it coincides wit h th e jealous scheme s o f Hera , wit h the cynica l project o f Zeus , an d with th e loyaltie s of Helen' s brothers. Bu t for al l we know , i t is only acciden t tha t things turne d ou t thi s way. I f ther e i s a divin e purpose , i t has bee n realized—bu t realized i n a novel an d surprisin g way.

Comic Chance The rol e of the gods in Helen i s clearly articulated, with motivations announced i n the prologue, a council o f the gods in the central scene, and a deus ex machina in the finale, ye t this divine frame i s largely irrelevant to the human events an d gives only the appearanc e o f orde r o r desig n t o th e action . O n a huma n level , the actio n pro ceeds i n a similar manner: the protagonists' desir e for, and expectation of , the happy outcome o f reunion, escape, and return home is eventually realized, but the outcome is largely fortuitous and accidentall y related t o their attempts to realize these goals . We know fro m the start that Helen's goa l i s to escape from Egyp t an d to find he r long-lost husband . But apart from th e spectacular hoodwinkin g of Theoclymenus i n the final scenes, nearly every mean s t o this end relies upo n chance, or iv>yj\. I n f act > the entire play has an unlikely coincidence a s its premise: afte r wandering for seve n years, Menelaus is shipwrecked at the very place where Helen has been held in Egypt. He lands there just when the king' s advance s hav e driven he r to see k protectio n a t the tom b o f Proteus, an d h e arrive s just when Theoclymenu s ha s gone off hunting. In addition , whole scene s ar e buil t upo n simila r coincidences : Menelau s arrive s onstage a t the precis e momen t whe n Hele n exit s to as k Theonoe i f he r husban d i s alive (386). Later, just when Hele n ha s given u p trying to convince he r slow-witted husband tha t she i s hi s wife , a servan t interrupt s to announc e that th e phanto m o f Helen has flown off into the sky, proving Helen' s identit y beyond an y doub t (597). And n o soone r hav e Hele n an d Menelau s complete d thei r suicid e pac t i n fea r o f Theonoe, tha n the see r enter s (865). 35 I t happens tha t i n several o f Euripides ' late r plays chance play s an important role. In Heracles, for example, the hero arrives just in time to save his wife and children from being killed by Lycus; i n Orestes, Pylades enters just when the other characters have given u p all hope; an d in Ion, it is not until Ion is about to drag his mother from the altar and murder her that the priestess enter s with th e cradl e tha t proves the y ar e mothe r an d son . Bu t TU^T I i s mentione d mor e often i n Helen tha n in any othe r play , and her e i t plays its fullest role. 36 For Helen, the firs t twis t of chance i s the arriva l o f Teucer, who lead s he r t o believe tha t he r mother , brothers, and husban d have all died. Hele n bewail s thi s evil TU%n (264,267, 277, 293 , 345) , although the chorus advises her to find th e truth from Theonoe, sinc e chanc e ca n brin g bot h jo y an d grie f (eK|ia6o"uoa 8 ' EI J / npoq me, ruxaqio %dpua TOTj q yootiq t'e^e 320-21). Further twists accompany th e arrival of Menelaus, who survive s the shipwreck by unexpecte d good fortune (tiveAJUcrap TU%TI 412), bu t find s TU/T I les s charitabl e upon landin g and approachin g the palac e (417 ,

148 TH

E END S O F T R A G E D Y

463, 478) . Th e reunion of Helen and Menelaus is good luck (645, 698,738) , although it prompts the messenger t o reflect upon the fickleness of fortune (715) and Menelaus to hope fo r similar luck i n escaping fro m Egyp t (742). After the unfortunate coinci dence of Theonoe's entrance (857) an d the appeal to Theonoe to mitigate their misfortune (925), the chorus reflects upon the inscrutable gods and contradictory, unexpected fortune (dviiAoyotc;. . . dveA,7tiaTOt<;Tu%ai<; 1142-43; compare 412) . Finally, good luc k hastens the escape of the couple (1374) , although the issue of luck is now subjective an d ironic, sinc e Helen' s an d Menelaus' goo d fortun e i s Theoclymenus ' misfortune (1409,1424, 1445 ; compar e 1195) , and what chance gave, necessit y can take awa y (1636) . Chance govern s the languag e an d th e actio n o f Helen t o a n exceptional degree , making progress toward th e happ y en d uncommonly difficult, an d leavin g the play vulnerable to sudden an d unexpected change . The absenc e o f a divine plan an d th e pervasive rol e o f chanc e togethe r produc e a radical uncertainty about th e natur e of human action . As a servant observes t o Helen, god becomes invisible , and life loses all stability: 37 My daughter , ho w variabl e go d is , an d ho w hard t o make out ! Wit h a curious skill, h e move s everything here , there , upsid e down : one ma n suffers , and anothe r wh o doesn' t i s cruelly destroyed , finding nothin g secur e i n continuou s chance. (it Ouyatep , 6 Oeoc, ax; £.§v T I TtonciAo v tccd StKTtEKuapTov , e\ > 8 e mac, Ttdvia (rcpee i eiceicjE KCtKeta ' avaepa> v 6 ^ev novel, 6 5 ' oij Tiovfiaat ; cruGu ; 6A,Xi>Tai KcxKwg , fSefiaiov oiiSe v tfji ; de l nitric; EXCOV . 711-1 5

The choru s goes further , suggestin g tha t go d i s n o mor e tha n ou r nam e fo r unpredictable chance: 38 What morta l claim s h e has discovere d what go d is , or no t god , o r i n between ? He ha s reache d th e furthes t limi t when h e sees divinit y skipping thi s wa y an d tha t wa y agai n b y contradictory , unexpected turn s of chance . 6 T I 9eo< ; f\ uf | Qeoc, f\ T O ueoov TIC; (j)T|cj ' epewdooci; PpOTtov ;

[laKpoTCcrov 7iepa< ; riiipev oc, id 9ed> v eaopa Seijpo Ka i ca>9i< ; EKEICE KO I jtd/U v avTiAoyoii ; TiriSwvt' (iveXitiaroi^ TTJ^QK; . 1137—4 3

Euripides portrays human action as devoid of absolute knowledge or a recognizabl e divine purpose , subject t o chance i n a profoundly disconcertin g way. 39 But chanc e can give as well as take away, and i f TU%T ) becomes pervasiv e in Helen, there is more opportunity fo r fortuitou s success as well as for failure . I n fact, th e happ y outcom e of th e plot reflect s a T\>;XT | that can bes t b e describe d a s comic an d romantic.

Helen and Romance 14

9

We migh t sa y that in general terms the plo t of Helen i s governed b y comic TU/T) because the result is a happy one, just a s we migh t say that a play with a happy ending is a comedy. But 1 am interested more specificall y in the melodramatic quality of chance i n Helen, a quality that depends upo n th e share d expectation s o f character s and audience . Euripide s ma y o r ma y no t begi n a pla y with a forecas t o f event s t o come, an d when he does not, there is a latent or implied contrast between th e characters' ignoranc e o f the future an d the audience's privilege d knowledg e of the legen d being enacted. The playwright may heighte n this contrast with an explicit statement of futur e events , delivere d t o the audienc e i n the prologue. Suc h a prophecy i s usually spoke n b y a god (Apollo inAlcestis, Aphrodite i n Hippolytus, Poseido n i n Trojan Women, Hermes in Ion, and the disguised Dionysu s in Bacchant Women) o r spirit (ghost o f Polydorus in Hecuba), wh o thu s shares privilege d divine knowledge wit h the spectators . Ther e are two exceptions, Iphigenia among the Taurians an d Helen, in which suc h a prophecy i s reported no t directly by a god but b y one of the charac ters.40 The resul t in Iphigenia i s again a contrast betwee n character s an d audience , but one that depends more o n human folly than on mortal limitations. We begin wit h two divine forecasts, th e oracle reported b y Orestes and the dream of Iphigenia, which are both misunderstood ; the result is a contrast betwee n th e correct understandin g of the omens by the audience and the false conclusions draw n by Orestes an d Iphigenia— a contras t no t full y resolve d unti l the epiphan y of Athena . Helen, however, begin s with a single forecast: the laconic promise of Hermes tha t Helen will return to Sparta with he r husban d (56-58). Although i t is unclear on what authorit y Herme s make s this promise, characte r an d audienc e ar e place d o n th e sam e footin g i n wha t they know o r may suspec t abou t the future . Th e simila r expectations o f protagonist an d audience give Helen it s distinctly suspenseful an d melodramatic tone . If the spectators lac k a privilege d knowledg e o f th e end , they to o wil l be tor n by th e twist s o f TU%T|, sharing th e consternation and relie f o f the character s a s events take fortuitous turns for better or worse. Bu t this identification with the characters' immediat e perils precludes a deeper, tragi c sympathy . For example, whe n chanc e finall y reunite s Electra an d Orestes, Electra' s failur e t o recognize he r brother i s moving because o f the contras t between characte r an d audience : we ca n inves t th e scen e wit h patho s because w e know it is actually Orestes she is talking to. Yet a similar scene, in which Helen fails to recognize the long-lost Menelaus, is high comedy sinc e there is no such contrast betwee n characte r an d audience. Theonoe has just tol d Helen tha t her husband i s aliv e an d ha s bee n shipwrecke d nearb y (538-39), an d Hele n nevertheles s runs from hi m in horror (540-45). Because Hele n know s everythin g that we do , we are read y and able to laug h at her mistakes. 41 A secon d importan t feature of this comic ru^r) is the romantic, almost fantastic , realization o f desires. O f course, th e entire plot is an exercise i n wish fulfillment , a s Helen's longing s t o find Menelau s and retur n home ar e unexpectedly realized. But more specifically , individual situations are transformed and obstacles ar e overcom e in unlikely obedience t o the characters' desires . Th e clearest example of such transformation i s the change i n Theoclymenus. The entir e plot, from Helen' s positio n a s suppliant to the problem o f escape from Egypt, is based upo n the violent and barbarous natur e of the king. Both Teuce r (155 ) and Menelaus (439-40, 468) are warned that h e will kill al l Greeks, a violation of hospitalit y that recalls Polyphemu s i n the

150 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

Odyssey ("deat h wil l b e you r guest-gift," Odvcccoc ; Jjevvd CTOI yevrjaeTai 480 ; com pare Odyssey 9.370) . Theoclymenus i s perceived a s savage and barbari c i n mind, as hybristic and tyrannica l (pdpftapoc ; ((jpeva q 501 , a)uo<}>pco v 506, rupavvot ; 809, 817 , iippiv y' -uppiCcov 785), an d both Helen (902 , 921 ) and Theonoe (1021) take his wickedness fo r granted. This reported ogr e is the chief obstacl e t o the happy outcom e of the action. Ye t when h e appears, h e piously addresse s hi s father's tom b (1165-68) . When h e finds a Greek present, h e rebukes himself, not others (1171), and hi s haste to catch Hele n is quickly transformed int o sympathy and concern for her (1186-92). In the two bamboozling scene s that follow, Theoclymenus i s a naive an d love-struc k young man rathe r than a violent despot; h e expresses concern fo r Menelaus (1197), Priam (1220), and Helen (1392—98 ) and is swept awa y by a lover's generosity (1254 , 1256, 1264 , 1280,1436-40) . It is beside th e point to try to reconcile thes e tw o por traits of Theoclymenus; 42 the luck y transformation of the ogre int o a gullible stooge is fantastic, illogical, an d pur e romance . There i s a similar bu t more subtle transformation in Theonoe. Her entranc e i s the work of TX)%r) (857), another remarkable coincidence: Helen an d Menelaus hav e given up al l hop e o f escap e an d hav e seale d thei r despair wit h a dramati c suicid e pac t (835-54), whe n suddenl y Theono e enter s withou t warning an d fo r n o intelligible reason (th e only reason give n i s so that her attendants may render th e gods some unspecified custo m o r v6|io<; , 871 ).43 Yet th e seer who migh t have bee n thei r destruction become s b y the en d o f the scen e the savior o f Helen an d Menelaus . Befor e he r entrance she is faceless, a n oracle to judge fro m he r name (822) , and although Hele n considers askin g for her help (825), this is too dangerous sinc e if she alerts her brother, all wil l be lost (833). Once onstage, Theono e remain s inscrutable . Sh e enter s i n the manner o f a deu s e x machina—a n imposin g figur e with divine knowledge (13—14 , 878-86) and a divine name, who make s he r way throug h the purified air (865-70)44 and whose startling entrance i s greeted wit h the panic (857-62, <j>et>Y' 860) tha t often attends a divine epiphany (Andromache 1 226-30,Electra 1233-37, Ion 1549-52) — yet w e d o no t kno w whethe r th e dramati c entrance i s for bette r o r worse, whethe r this divin e being come s t o destro y o r t o save . Th e enigmati c Theono e baffle s ou r expectations; he r sympath y borders o n a cruel teas e ("poo r [Menelaus] , yo u com e here escaping suc h troubles, and now do not know if you'll return home or stay here," 876-77). Sh e describes th e counci l o f the gods (878-86) only t o announce that th e decision i s hers (887), and then abruptly orders that her brother be told of Menelaus ' presence (892-93). 45 This dreaded outcome is postponed a s Helen and Menelaus make lengthy plea s that she reconside r (894-943, 947-95), and what follows i s a startling change. Sh e is no longe r enigmatic , but direct and unambiguou s in her moral judgements (e\')OE[3eiv 998 , uidvaiu. ' 1000 , SuoKXeri q 1001 , 8i.KT|< ; 1002 , etc.) , announc ing a t once tha t sh e wil l kee p th e trut h fro m he r brothe r (999-1001, 1017-19) . He r change o f heart is all th e mor e surprisin g because i t follows not fro m th e argument s of the suppliants, but fro m he r own nove l and idiosyncratic notions (1002-4, 101316). Just a s th e barbaria n kin g became a gullibl e lover , th e unpredictabl e and dan gerous see r has fortuitously become a pious daughter and a noble friend—to suc h a n extent tha t sh e will deceive Theoclymenus i n order t o do hi m good (1020-21). The fantasti c transformatio n of character is most closel y tie d to the movemen t o f the plo t whe n i t involves blockin g character s suc h a s Theonoe an d Theoclymenus .

Helen, and Romance 15

1

But ther e are also strikin g changes i n the protagonists . I n the earl y part of th e pla y and i n the comic recognition scene , Menelau s seems pompous an d simple-minded , while his wife is absorbed i n vain self-pity. As the intrigue proceeds, Menelau s seems to regain som e o f his dignity, and Hele n take s th e lea d i n the cleve r an d audaciou s bamboozling o f the Egyptian king. 46 A furthe r chang e i s reported by the messenger, who describe s a t epic lengt h (1526-1618 ) th e heroi c exploit s o f th e couple . Th e ragged Menelau s ha s earlier bee n washe d an d dresse d a s a warrior (1375-84); th e humbled king who lamented the loss of his army (453) now rallies his men in heroi c fashion (AipEttx ;
The Novel Legend The juxtaposition of happy end with uncertai n mean s is perhaps clearest in Euripides' handling of th e legend. The audienc e has n o doub t tha t I lelen an d Menelau s will return safel y t o Sparta. Fro m ora l tradition , from variou s poems i n the epi c cycle , an d especially from the fourth boo k o f the Odyssey, the y kno w that the couple will return home and will spend many years of uneventful middl e age in the palace at Sparta. Yet even though the outcome i s beyond any doubt, Euripides' version of the legend leaves us uncertai n how i t will be reached . Th e usua l stor y wa s tha t afte r th e fal l o f Tro y Menelaus carried Helen off, and although his ships were blow n of f course, he eventually returne d with he r t o Sparta . Bu t Euripide s tells us tha t onl y a phanto m went t o Troy and that Helen spent seventeen year s in Egypt, first protected by Proteus and then pursued b y hi s barbari c son. Although Stesichoru s als o describe s a phantom , and Herodotus also mention s an episod e i n Egypt, the plot of Helen wa s entirel y invente d by Euripides , a s were tw o o f it s leadin g characters , Theono e an d Theoclymenus. 48

152 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

It follow s tha t we hav e n o ide a how th e plot wil l reac h it s happy end. T o som e extent thi s is tru e of an y story , for th e pleasur e w e tak e i n narrative depends upon reliving th e uncertaintie s of the plot; knowledge o f the en d i n no way detract s fro m our desire t o repea t the confusions of the middle, just a s children enjoy hearin g the same stor y ove r an d over. 49 This is especially true of Greek tragedy , which as a rule reenacts an episode fro m traditional legend. The outlin e of the plot, and in particular its general outcome, i s familiar to the audience, although the pleasure of the performance lie s in living or experiencing the means to this end—a pleasure enhance d by the immediac y o f th e dramati c for m an d sharpene d b y unfamilia r detail s or nove l obstacles. Wha t makes Helen unusual is the degree t o which th e certainty of the end and th e uncertaint y of th e means ar e heightene d or exaggerated . Le t u s begi n with the ending. I n certain plays, the outcome i s relatively unfamiliar simply because th e legend presente d wa s less wel l known ; the stories o f Alcestis an d Ion, for example , were relativel y obscure befor e Euripide s brought them to the stage. Sometime s the playwright will continue on to a less familiar end. The recover y o f the Argive dead , the madness o f Heracles, an d the death of Pentheus were all famous episodes i n their respective stories , bu t Suppliant Women, Heracles, and Bacchant Women eac h con cludes with a subsequent scene: the suicide of Evadne and lamentation for the Seven , Heracles' journe y to Athens with Theseus, an d Agave's slo w retur n to her senses. Elsewhere, th e autho r provides a less certain en d b y employin g a nove l o r uncon ventional version o f the legend. We thus find tha t Medea's children are killed not by the Corinthian s but b y Medea herself , th e exile of Orestes takes him o n apocrypha l travels from Athens t o the Crimea an d back agai n t o Attica, an d the aftermath of the matricide leads in Orestes not immediately to exile but to a novel and startling showdown on the palace roof. 50 OnlyElectra ha s an outcome a s familiar as that of Helen, namely th e famou s murders of Aegisthus an d Clytemnestra. 51 Ye t th e familia r en d of Electra concludes a n equally familia r action: th e entire plot and man y of its individual episode s wer e wel l know n t o th e audience , an d ha d bee n give n a canonical form onstag e b y Aeschylus' Oresteia.52 In Helen, however, th e end is familiar while the actio n i s not. In th e plo t o f Helen, th e mean s t o th e en d ar e a s unfamilia r a s the en d itsel f i s familiar. I n any drama, the excitement of the action and th e involvement of the audience rel y upo n a necessar y sens e o f uncertainty , and i n Gree k tragedy , where th e legendary backgroun d i s commo n knowledge , th e outcom e wil l ofte n b e o f les s interest tha n the manne r in which i t is reached. W e hav e alread y noted som e o f the devices Euripide s use d t o mak e hi s traditiona l subject matte r fres h an d engaging : leading to a climax late r than the usual end of the story, addin g novel detail s or epi sodes, an d emphasizin g apocrypha l o r less familiar aspects of the legend. Remark ably uncommo n b y moder n standards , however, i s th e fre e inventio n tha t w e tak e for granted in prose and dramatic fiction. Without going as far as Agathon's singular experiment inAntheus,53 Euripides nevertheless introduced an unprecedented amount of fre e inventio n i n severa l play s o f thi s period , especiall y i n Helen. I n Jon, fo r example, th e shadow y eponymou s her o i s brought to lif e b y th e inventio n of an orphaned childhoo d a t Delphi an d a circuitous reunio n with hi s mother . In Iphigenia among the Taurians, th e playwright connects th e canonica l stor y o f Orestes ' exil e with a variant version of Iphigenia's sacrifice by spinning a fantastic tale of peril and

Helen an d Romance 15

3

reunion amon g th e distant Taurians.54 And i n Helen, he combines th e age-ol d stor y of the returns from Troy wit h the competing an d apocryphal version s of Stesichoru s and Herodotu s b y inventin g th e melodramati c sequenc e o f refuge , reunion , and escape i n exotic Egypt . I f any play goes furthest in renderin g the actio n unfamiliar, it i s Helen. The novelt y o f th e settin g has a parallel onl y i n Iphigenia, an d th e fictional character s hav e n o equivalent. Ion, Creusa, an d Xuthu s ma y hav e been littl e more than name s befor e Ion, but they were historica l figure s nevertheless. 55 Thoas may b e a n invente d character , bu t hi s rol e i s smal l compare d t o thos e o f Orestes , Pylades, an d Iphigenia . Theonoe and Theoclymenus, however , dominat e th e entire second hal f o f Helen, an d thei r fictional statu s i s mad e clea r fro m th e star t b y th e contrived natur e of their names (9-10,13-14). 56 The characters o f the play are also made unfamilia r by confusing them with figure s who shoul d be their opposites. Th e story o f an evil Egyptian king who kill s all Greeks who lan d on hi s shores i s a commonplace i n satyr-plays such a s Euripides' Basins, 51 but i s out o f place i n tragedy, so what d o we mak e o f the apparently satyri c Theoclymenus? Th e stor y o f a chast e and virtuous wife waiting many years for her husband to return from th e Trojan War , and endurin g arrogan t advance s i n hi s absence , i s familia r fro m th e Odyssey. Bu t what do we make of Menelaus, the well-known weak an d self-centered cuckold , no w redrawn a s Homer's noble and long-suffering hero? An d what do we make of Helen, the notoriously fickl e and indifferen t adulteress , no w recas t as a chaste an d virtuous Penelope?58 Th e plo t o f Helen i s unpredictabl e bot h becaus e th e fictiona l subjec t matter i s unfamilia r t o th e spectator s an d because it s characters d o no t confor m t o their expectations . This contras t betwee n certai n end and uncertain means i s the source o f the play' s unprecedented suspense : althoug h we kno w tha t th e couple wil l eventuall y escape together, w e ar e baffle d a s to ho w the y can possibl y reac h thi s goal. Insofa r as th e novel treatmen t o f th e legen d heighten s thi s contrast, Helen migh t fairl y b e called our firs t suspens e o r adventure drama. The interes t o f the play center s no t upon th e knowledge o r blindness of an Oedipus, nor upon the transforming passion o f a Medea, but simply upon the turn of events from on e moment t o the next. This unheroic concern wit h surviving the buffets of chance, an d contriving a means to the desired end, is established a t the very beginnin g o f th e play . In he r prologu e speech , Hele n de scribes her situation, bewails her sufferings, and concludes wit h a moment of crisis : For a s lon g a s Proteu s sa w th e ligh t of day, I wa s saf e fro m marriage ; bu t no w tha t he's buried i n the shad y earth , th e dead man' s so n is hunting to marr y me . Honorin g m y pas t husband I fal l befor e thi s tomb of Proteu s a s a suppliant , hopin g h e will preserve my marriage ; if m y nam e i s infamou s throughout Greece, let no t m y bod y b e dishonore d also . effx; [le v oiiv fytoc, fiXiot) 168 ' eptotev npaneiit;, dat>/U>c ; fi yauco v eree i 5e yf\c, OKOIW KEKpWtTCll , Tldic ; 6 1OV > teOvTIKOTOC ;

Oripa yau.eiv u,e . TO V TtdXa i 5' eya > noaiv

154 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

Tiuroaa npanecx; j^vfma 7tpoa;ui;vc o t65e iKenc,, 'iv' dvSpi Tajic i Siaocoar i Xe%T] , we;, e i Ka8 ' 'E^.Xd5' 6vo(j.a 5i>(7KXee< ; 4>epco , |j.r| fioi T O acoj-id y ' ev9dS cdaxuvT| v 6<j>A,r| . 60—6

7

This i s only the first of many crises in this play; they multiply throughout the drama , reaching an almost ludicrous clima x in the refusal of the sacrificial bull to go on board (1554-68). As the first of countless peril s facing our protagonists, the suppliant scen e at the beginning o f the play sets the mood and the pattern for the suspenseful plo t t o follow. An d i n doing so , i t introduce s ye t anothe r innovation. When a pla y begin s with a suppliant scene, it usually does so in order to present a moral or political crisis in clear, unambiguou s terms: Wha t are our obligations to oppressed refugee s (Children of Heracles)? Wha t length s must we go in defending inalienable rights (Suppliant Women)? I n each case , the remainde r o f the pla y meditates upon thi s crisis and tries t o resolv e it . I n Heracles, the devic e become s more formal ; i t establishe s th e moral high ground of the hero's family in fleeing th e tyrant, and o f Heracles in killing him , bu t i t serves abov e al l a s a theatrica l red herring—leadin g t o a shockin g outcome i n which th e suppliants accept thei r death, in order t o heighten the surpris e of Heracles' sudde n return . In Helen, the suppliant scene loses its moral forc e alto gether. The ethica l crisi s posed b y th e suppliant opening, on e that pits piou s Gree k woman against hybristic, barbaric man, is never decided because i t quickly dissolve s into an amoral struggle to escape, pitting native guile against foreign stupidity. 59 The suppliant actio n provokes no t a crisi s o f principle s but a crisi s o f action : Ho w ca n the couple escape ? Wha t must they do to avoid the clutches of the king? In this sense, the suppliant scene becomes a formal gesture no t unlike the deus ex machina. 60 The moral force of supplication befor e th e tomb o f Proteus i s secondary t o the gesture of beginning—a gestur e tha t serves to set the suspenseful plo t i n motion . The beginning thus brings us back t o the end, and back t o the formal gestures that are s o pronounce d i n the endin g o f Helen. Bu t th e conventionality of th e ending — the exaggerated misfi t between actio n an d outcome—also describes th e movemen t of the play as a whole. Th e rol e o f the gods, th e intervention s of TU%T| , and th e novel version o f the legend, al l heighten the mismatch between uncertai n events an d their curiously predictabl e outcome .

The New Hele n If w e requir e our tragedie s t o b e seriou s an d profound, as critic s ofte n do , ther e i s more than enough to satisfy us in Helen.61 This seriousness doe s not lie in the gratuitous an d ready-mad e ending, however, but i n the disconcerting mean s t o thi s end: there is no apparent plan or purpose i n the actions of the gods, human fortunes chang e from on e momen t t o th e nex t according t o unpredictable Tt)%r|, an d unexpecte d ob stacles interfer e with the familiar happy endin g of legend. The orde r tha t character s and audienc e expect t o find i n the action i s exposed a s illusory, and an y congruenc e between expectatio n an d experienc e turn s out t o be accidental . Th e radica l skepti cism o f Helen i s objectiv e i n th e sens e tha t the working s o f TU%r | demonstrat e th e

Helen and Romance 15

5

absence o f an order or logic i n this chaotic world, and this skepticism is also subjec tive in that the drama focuses upon the frustrated desire s of characters and audience to find an order in experience. In this respect,Helen goes further tha n other Euripidean plays. Hippolytus and Bacchant Women, for example, offer variations upon the tragic raxOei i_id0O(;: they presume a larger, divin e order that i s accessible t o the audienc e but no t t o th e protagonist , an d when Hippolytu s o r Pentheu s belatedly recognizes this order, we may question its justice, but no t its existence. I n the "intrigue" plays, the emphasi s i s less upon ignoranc e o f a n (objective ) orde r than upon the (subjec tive) difficulty o f finding such order. 62 In Ion, for example, the burden of the dram a falls no t upo n th e fac t o f divin e parentage (belatedl y recognized b y Ion) , bu t upo n the confusion tha t attend s the attemp t to sor t out this parentage. Thi s mor e subjec tive and more skeptica l approach i s taken furthest i n Helen. Here there is no large r plan a t all , and althoug h audience an d character s persis t i n thei r desir e fo r an d expectation o f order, the reversals of TU%T ) and th e gratuitous nature of the outcom e show tha t these desires are realized—if a t all—only by coincidence . This play has ofte n bee n describe d a s philosophical i n content, mos t often, perhaps, because of the way i n which it plays with the distinction between appearanc e and reality ; if we canno t distinguis h between Hele n an d he r image , or between th e chaste an d the adulterous Helen, then our capacity for apprehension and knowledge is severel y limited. 63 Another philosophical argumen t ha s bee n extrapolate d from the role of Theonoe: i f she acts correctly by ignoring the squabbles of Olympian gods, then perhaps we need new concepts o f justice and divinity. 64 These are certainly important themes , bu t th e play' s philosophica l conten t i s a broader concern wit h the lack of order—-or rather the accidental order—in huma n affairs. Accustome d a s w e are to cliches abou t fickle fate an d to the simplistic us e of coincidence in later comedy an d romance , i t is hard to appreciat e Euripides' originalit y and seriousnes s i n presenting this issue s o directly. The incomprehensibilit y of the phenomenal world and the limits of human understanding are fundamental question s that exercised th e sophists throughout this period, and which were presented most forcefully by Gorgia s in hi s los t work On Not Being, or On Nature. Her e he asserted , "firs t tha t nothing exists, secon d tha t i f i t exists, ma n canno t apprehen d it, an d thir d tha t i f i t ca n b e apprehended, i t cannot be expresse d o r interprete d to another, " jtpcoto v c m o\)8e v EOTIV, devxEpo v o n e i K m eoiiv , dKaidXrinto v dvGpKmcp , ipiio v OT I e i Ko d KaxaXriTtTOv, dUd toi y e dve£,oioTov KO V dvepirrjveutov T< 5 jieXaq.65 Helen dramatizes a simila r profound skepticism, suggestin g tha t th e orde r w e tak e for granted may not exist, that if there is an order in the world we canno t apprehend it—and tha t even i f i t can b e apprehended , drama is somehow unabl e to express it. Before elaborating upon this final literar y concern, i t is important to note that the play's interes t in unpredictabl e change reflect s majo r event s o f thi s period . A s Thucydides makes clear, the prolonged Peloponnesian War with Sparta, the dislocation o f th e Athenia n population, the plagues , an d socia l unres t all contributed to a pervasive sens e o f doubt , uncertainty, and rootlessnes s tha t increased a s th e wa r continued. 66 The catastrophic and unexpected destruction of the huge Athenian force in Sicily brought home to the Athenians the profound unpredictabilit y of experience , showing that even the surest hopes and most confident expectations could suddenly and inexplicabl y be reversed. Thucydides describes th e situation i n 413:

156 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

When th e news reache d Athens , fo r a long tim e peopl e woul d no t believe i t ... An d when the y di d recogniz e th e facts , the y turne d against th e publi c speaker s wh o ha d been i n favou r o f th e expedition , a s thoug h they themselve s ha d no t vote d fo r it , and also became angr y wit h the prophet s an d soothsayer s an d al l who a t the tim e had, b y various method s o f divination , encouraged the m t o believ e tha t they woul d conque r Sicily. 67

The firs t an d mos t importan t reaction o f the Athenians was ange r a t th e betraya l of their expectations . I n th e followin g year, Euripides ' Helen suggest s tha t th e rever sals of fortune may just a s inexplicabl y fulfil l ou r hope s an d expectations , bringin g the fortuitous happ y en d o f reunion and deliverance. If the pla y i s an antidote to the calamity o f th e yea r before , i t is not a n escapis t fantas y or a sugary diversio n fro m the recen t disaster. 68 Th e actio n o f Helen i s firml y roote d i n th e Athenians ' ne w experience of profound uncertainty. What escape or fantasy there is mHelen depend s entirely upo n th e chance , o r TU^TI , tha t i s otherwis e s o disconcerting . B y closel y observing hi s chaoti c world , b y honestl y reportin g ho w i t resist s th e searc h fo r order, Euripide s shows that chanc e ca n lea d to success, as well as to failure, tha t an uncertain worl d ca n b e bot h excitin g an d terrifying , an d tha t th e desir e fo r happ y endings ma y b e entirely irrelevan t even a s it is realized. These serious philosophical an d civic concerns, however , are only part of the story. Helen i s also undeniabl y comic an d romantic , melodramati c an d suspenseful . I f we are reluctan t to rea d th e pla y a s seriou s tragedy , a s man y critic s are , w e ca n dra w attention t o any one o f these qualities. 69 There is high comedy i n several scenes: the farcical dressin g dow n o f the bedraggled Menelau s b y a n old gatekeeper, th e ironic humor of his failed recognition scen e wit h Helen, and Helen's comi c succes s in bamboozling Theoclymenus . I n the secon d hal f of the play, as we hav e seen , fortuitous wish fulfillmen t an d th e happ y conversio n o f blockin g character s mak e th e drama romantic, almost fantastic , in it s outcome. An d throughou t the pla y th e capriciou s role of Ti)%r| and the surprising novelty of the plot fil l th e action with melodrama and suspense. Wha t d o we decide ? I s the play seriou s an d philosophical , o r comi c and entertaining? We migh t search fo r a middle ground an d decid e that Helen i s neither philosophy nor comedy, bu t some sort of combination—a comedy o f ideas or a philosophical romance. 70 I t seems to me, however , tha t th e novelt y of Helen lie s no t i n a blending o f differen t genres , bu t i n th e play' s independenc e fro m familia r generi c categories.71 Insofar a s Helen does fall int o an existing category, i t belongs t o the new class of melodramas tha t als o include s Ion, Iphigenia among the Taurians, an d Sophocles ' lost Tyro. I n play s suc h a s these , th e multiplicatio n of inciden t and th e sentimental theme o f reunio n with a long-los t chil d o r siblin g anticipate the formulai c plots of New Comedy. 72 As a member of this group, Helen test s the limits of its genre, mak ing the twist s an d reversal s o f the plo t eve n mor e fortuitous , and th e happ y ending especially formulaic. We might therefore conclude tha t the worn-out conventions of the British stage, th e rags of romance tha t for Shaw wer e symptom s o f laz y writing for a laz y audience , were fo r Euripide s th e stuf f o f a n excitin g ne w genre , a genr e that he explored i n other plays before makin g his most radica l experiment with this conventional for m i n Helen.13 Ye t i n testin g the limit s of thi s genre, Euripide s also

Helen and Romance 15

7

moves beyond it . I n othe r plays of thi s group, th e playwrigh t searches fo r suitable material for his melodramas, digging up minor legends an d apocryphal episodes tha t he can develop int o romantic and suspenseful plots. I n Helen, however, h e does th e opposite, beginnin g with the most famou s and leas t suitable of legends an d making it into a melodrama only b y turning it inside out: the crime of Paris did not lead with divine sanctio n t o th e sac k o f Tro y an d recover y o f th e guilt y Helen, bu t a divine quarrel led fortuitously to a happy reunion of Helen an d Menelaus in Egypt. The poet likewise create s hi s romantic leads only by turnin g the cowardly Menelau s an d the adulterous Hele n int o their opposites. Romanc e i s purchased onl y b y confoundin g epic, replacing the Iliad's Hele n with a phantom and casting Hele n an d Menelaus as Penelope an d Odysseus . An d suspens e i s purchased onl y b y contradictin g known events an d removin g the familia r logi c o f divine and huma n action . Helen i s less a n example of a new genr e tha n a subversion of old ones. Thi s nov elty ma y b e du e simpl y t o th e poet' s ow n exuberance , bu t I suspec t tha t i t als o reflects doub t abou t th e viability of hi s medium . Euripide s migh t no t hav e agree d with Gorgia s tha t what we apprehen d canno t b e expressed , bu t h e probabl y would have agreed tha t what he saw and understood in the later years of his career coul d n o longer b e expresse d b y means of tragedy. 74

10 Orestes an d Tragicomed y It al l come s t o th e sam e thin g anyway ; comic an d tragi c are merel y tw o aspects o f th e sam e situation , an d I have now reache d the stag e where I fin d it har d t o distinguis h on e fro m th e other. EUGENE IONESC O

The bafflin g Helen generates confusion s abou t the nature of the drama just as it generates confusio n abou t the identity of Helen; the radically uncertain course o f event s threatens t o reduc e th e actio n t o a n unintelligibl e chaos, whil e th e happ y en d pro vides the reassuring frame of romance. I n the predictable plots that Shaw reviles , th e two impulses reinforce one another: the damsel mus t first be threatened with demons and danger s i n order t o justify th e happy end . But in Helen, as we have seen, the two impulses are severed: profoun d uncertainty and comforting conclusion ar e connected in a purel y artificial manner; th e en d doe s no t see m t o warran t th e means , an d th e viewer i s unable to make sense o f the whole. I f the play, in the end, is neither a handme-down fro m th e ragsho p o f romanc e no r a n illustratio n of th e unintelligibilit y of life, w e ar e lef t wonderin g wha t sort o f pla y it is . Four years later, in Orestes, Euripides posed simila r problems i n a more spectacular way. Rathe r than sever mean s from ends , h e constructed a n actio n tha t lead s relentlessly toward s tw o contradictor y endings, towar d a comi c an d a tragi c resolution , lonesco discovered tha t tragedy and comedy ar e really the same thing , two differen t aspects of the same situation: domestic lif e i n The Bald Soprano, for example , i s so utterly bana l tha t we can' t decid e whethe r t o laug h o r cry . Orestes, however, i s at each momen t both tragedy and comedy; i t is not one situation with two different faces , but tw o competin g action s i n one . Thi s violen t contradiction, an d th e contrastin g expectations i t generates, leave s traged y unabl e to give coheren t shap e t o events— not becaus e thes e event s lea d t o end s tha t are gratuitous , bu t becaus e the y lea d t o ends tha t ar e completel y a t varianc e wit h on e another . Wherea s Helen realize s expectations i n a n artificia l manner , Orestes generate s an d realize s contradictor y expectations. A detaile d readin g bot h o f th e endin g an d o f th e end s tha t th e plo t anticipates will show that Orestes advertises the end of tragedy—and heralds something entirely new. 158

Orestes and Tragicomedy 15

9

A Doubled Ending If on e featur e distinguishes th e endin g of Helen, it is an exaggeration o f th e formal quality o f th e closing gestures ; a familiar stylizatio n i s carried t o a n extreme . Th e opposite i s true o f Orestes. As w e hav e seen , th e deu s o f thi s pla y i s exceptiona l insofar as he intervenes directly and effectively i n the stage action : unlike other gods who intervene in a largely formal manner, Apollo arrive s to prevent the real and very dangerous showdow n betwee n Oreste s an d Menelaus , an d he succeed s in reconcil ing the antagonists an d averting the crisis. But this ending is doubly exceptional. Th e effective interventio n of Apollo is required only because a prior epiphany, by Orestes , has already proven successful ; on e unusuall y effective deu s i s cancelled ou t by th e other. The epilogue begin s by replaying the spectacular an d controversial ending of one of Euripides ' earlie r plays. A Phrygia n slave ha s describe d a t lengt h (1369-1502 ) the commotion insid e the palace, wher e Oreste s an d his accomplices have been put ting into action their scheme fo r revenge an d escape. Betrayed by the pusillanimous Menelaus, the y will punis h hi m b y killin g his wife an d wil l the n us e hi s daughte r Hermione eithe r to secure escape from Argo s (wher e Oreste s has been sentence d t o death), o r a t leas t t o inflic t mor e sufferin g on Menelaus . Th e situatio n replay s th e end of Medea, i n which Medea, betraye d by Jason an d banished from Corinth , plots to take revenge agains t hi m b y killin g his bride and murdering his children. After a messenger report s th e ghastly deat h of Jason's bride when sh e put o n th e poisone d robe, Mede a goe s inside the palace t o complete he r revenge b y killin g the children and to plan some means of escape. InOrestes, the Phrygian reports that the plot against Helen di d no t proceed s o smoothly : at the moment o f death, she vanished fro m th e palace "b y drug s o r wizardr y o r stole n b y th e gods" (1495-98). Oreste s haul s th e slave bac k insid e the palace, promisin g tha t i f Menelaus doe s no t hel p hi m escape , he wil l fin d hi s daughte r dead , a s wel l a s hi s wif e (1533-36). Th e choru s sing s a brief interlude, in which their fears are confirmed by the sight of smoke arisin g from the palace (1541-45) , and then Menelaus arrives. He stands before th e palace, call ing upon servants to open th e doors an d vows he will rescue hi s daughter and kill in revenge thos e who murdere d his wife (1561-66)—when suddenl y Oreste s appear s on the palace roof , taunting Menelaus, boasting tha t he will kill his child, and prom ising tha t h e wil l rul e i n Argos . Th e echoe s o f Medea ar e pervasive . Afte r a brief choral interlude , in which the cries o f children confirm the chorus's fears , Jason ar rives an d standing before th e palace call s upon servant s to open the doors so he can see the dea d childre n and tak e reveng e upo n Medea—whe n Mede a appear s o n th e palace roof , tauntin g Jason, boastin g tha t sh e kille d th e childre n and promisin g t o make he r escap e t o Athens. There ar e further similaritie s in detail between th e tw o scenes,1 a s well a s important differences: Medea ca n foretell th e manne r of Jason's death while Oreste s ca n onl y offe r threats , and Medea' s unusua l powers are visibly evident in her divine chariot while Orestes attempt s t o seize powe r wit h the threat of force agains t Menelau s (1569) an d Hermion e (1578) . Bu t th e systemati c parallel s clearly portray the entrance of Orestes as a version o f the demonic deus e x machina. The epiphany of Orestes is underscored b y several forma l details. The firs t word s of Orestes take the form o f a command, a negative injunctio n addressed b y nam e to

160 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

the morta l below : "Yo u there , d o no t touc h th e bolt s wit h you r hand—ye s you , Menelaus, towering bold" (omoc; cru, K^fjGpcov trovS e UT I \\ia\xyr\q %epl' / MeveA,aov EITIOV, ot^TreTfupycooai 6paa£i , 1567-68) . This surprisin g entrance above i s greete d with th e cr y o f amazemen t tha t ofte n herald s th e entranc e of a god: ea , T I %pfpa ; (1573; compare Hippolytus 1391 , Ion 1549 , Heracles 815 , Rhesus 885). An d some details of the scene are rendered in burlesque form: instead of a deus who assert s his own divin e power an d invokes th e highe r authority of Zeus, Oreste s o n the roofto p promises t o enforce hi s command wit h block s of masonr y (1569—70) . And instea d of a speec h fro m th e machin e followe d b y th e mortal' s explici t acceptance o f th e god's dispensations, we have a lengthy sequence o f stichomythia and antilabe, alternating line s an d the n half-lines , which conclude s wit h two word s fro m Menelaus : £ie\,c, ue, "Yo u hav e me " (1617) . Ye t i f Oreste s i s a ne w an d somewha t farcica l Medea, he also improves upon his model. Medea, for all her demonic power and divine stature, 2 exercise s n o contro l ove r th e stag e below ; sh e ca n taun t Jason a s Orestes taunts Menelaus, but the mark of her privileged stature is entirely negative : with the chariot of the Sun, she is able to escape from Corinth and flee from the consequence s of her actions. Orestes, however, has immediate control over Menelaus: with his knife at Hcrmione' s nec k an d torche s read y t o bur n th e palace , h e order s Menelau s no t only t o capitulate , but als o t o hel p instal l Oreste s a s rule r of Argos (1600-1). This power, in fact, is his own undoing. After Menelaus capitulates (1617), Orestes never theless orders the palace be torched, provoking Menelaus to order an assault and triggering th e entrance of Apollo . At th e very momen t a t which Orestes , playin g deus, wield s his power s o effec tively an d recklessly , h e i s interrupted by Apollo's entranc e upon th e machine. In a theatrical tou r de force , Menelau s an d hi s soldier s a t ground leve l ar c upstage d b y Orestes, Electra , and Pylades brandishing torches on the palace roof, and they in turn are upstaged by a god suspended i n heaven and accompanied b y the soon-to-be dei fied Helen. 3 The god overturns Orestes' triumph, forbidding the murder of Hermione or the burning of the palace, explainin g that th e attempt to murder Helen had faile d and commandin g the bitter enemies t o be friends . Orestes playin g deus i s upstaged by a rea l god , wh o firs t deliver s a n amende d injunctio n t o Menelau s ("Menelaus , end your sharpened temper; it is I, Phoebus son of Leto, who cal l upon you," Meve^cce, Ticojcca A,f|u. ' ej(cov TeSnyuevovVoip6c; a' 6 ATITOW; Tiaiq 58' eyyuq cbv Ka?u», 1625-26), before deliverin g a similar command t o Orestes a s well ("And you , Orestes, guard ing the girl with sword i n hand, learn what I have come t o tel l you " 1627-28) . Th e real deus was sen t by Zeus (1634). H e i s able to explain the past and foretell the fu ture, and h e intervene s directly i n the action , forestallin g a bloody an d catastrophi c showdown. Apollo' s rol e i s exceptional . A s a rule , the god's comman d an d intervention ar e largely formal, and even i n Helen an d fphigenia among the Taurians, in which the deus does affec t events onstage, thes e events are a sideshow: th e protago nists hav e alread y escaped an d th e go d step s i n t o en d th e futil e ange r o f a dupe d barbarian king . The stagin g reinforces th e point: the protagonists in those plays ar e offstage an d alread y far from land , while onstage th e deu s an d the king are lef t be hind. In Orestes, however, the play's central crisis—whether Orestes shoul d pay the penalty i n Argos fo r hi s ac t o f matricide—reache s a n impass e wit h the showdow n between Oreste s an d Menelaus ; the go d step s i n to resolve thi s crisis an d t o recon -

Orestes and Tragicomedy 16

1

cilc th e protagonis t wit h hi s chie f opponent . Th e stagin g reinforce s thi s dramati c intervention, wit h Oreste s holdin g a swor d t o Hermione' s nec k an d hi s attendants wielding torche s read y t o bur n dow n th e palace , whil e Menelaus an d hi s soldier s prepare t o stor m th e building . Apollo no t onl y make s a n effectiv e an d spectacula r intervention, bu t lik e Oreste s seem s t o reve l i n his power . li e tell s th e mos t bitte r enemies t o end their quarrel, adding that Orestes mus t marry the woman h e is about to murder ("And th e woman a t whose throa t you hold your sword, Orestes, it is fated that yo u marr y her—Hermione,"e<)>' fj q 5 ' s^eic;, 'Opecta, ^dayavov Seprj , / Y^um rcETipayrai a' 'Epuiovr|v 1653-54) and that Menelaus must let Orestes rule as king in the palace he has been tryin g to destroy (1660-61). The mortal Orestes, wh o outdoe s Medea i n his exercise o f demoni c power, i s answered b y Apollo, who surpasse s al l other gods in his demonstratio n of power fro m th e machine. As we shal l see, thi s doubl e epiphany , first o n th e palace roo f an d the n from th e machine, provide s th e plo t wit h tw o differen t an d contradictor y conclusions. An d because th e play ends with this spectacular contradiction, the epiphany is doubled in another way: Apollo perform s his role as deus ex machina twice. First, Apollo deliv ers a speech commanding Orestes an d Menelaus to end their quarrel (1625-28), providing a series of explanations of the past and prophecies of the future, an d concluding wit h a reminde r of Apollo' s responsibilit y (1664-65) , t o whic h Oreste s an d Menelaus respond b y graciously acceptin g hi s dispensations (1666—1677). But this is not the end. Apollo again commands them to depart and resolve their quarrel (167879), Oreste s an d Menelau s agai n announc e tha t they will obey (1679-81) , an d th e god repeat s his command an d gives a fuller prophec y concernin g the deifie d Helen (1682-90). The only other two-part epiphanies in Euripides are interrupted either by an entrance (Hippolytus inllippolytus) o r by challenges to the "deus" (from Jason in Medea, an d fro m Electr a and Oreste s i n Electro). I n Orestes, ther e is no suc h interruption, an d thi s doubling seems required instead by th e impass e a t th e en d o f th e play: after two contradictory epiphanies, the action remains unresolved, and Apollo' s second interventio n is needed i f only to dismiss the characters an d empt y th e stage ("each of you depart as I command," ^copeue vuv EKaoiot; oi Ttpooid0oou,ev, 1678; "now g o on your way," li e vuv Ka9' 656v 1682) . As if to reinforce this abrupt and unsatisfying conclusion , the actors ar e escorted offstag e not with moralizin g reflections fro m th e chorus , bu t wit h Apollo' s ow n anapest s o n th e deifie d Hele n (1682-90).''

Speech and Silence Euripides' Orestes i s well known , if not notorious , for it s disconcertin g variations and contradictions. William Arrowsmith mad e the point well, describing Orestes as "tragic i n tone, melodramatic in incident and technique, by sudde n wrenching turns savage, tender, grotesque, an d even comic." 5 We need only think of Orestes' sudde n alternations between slee p an d ma d outburst s early i n the play , or th e sudde n shif t later from a heroic vow t o commit suicide together to an outrageous scheme t o murder Helen and hold Hermione hostage. What is the reason for these bewildering shifts? What, if any, is the metho d to this madness? I t is true enough that variety makes for

162 TH

E E N D S O F T R A G E DY

an excitin g spectacle , an d i t i s tru e a s wel l tha t th e play' s confusion s reflec t th e upheavals in Athens around 408 B.c.E. 6 But there is also a fundamental contradiction in the plot of Orestes, a contradiction bor n in the tension between silenc e an d speech, and elaborate d i n a radical confusio n o f the tragic wit h the comic. As event s o f th e play follo w a course o f increasin g license , fro m silenc e t o unbridled speech an d t o the brink of criminal action, thi s escalatin g licens e move s relentlessl y i n incompat ible directions, toward extrem e vision s o f the comic and the tragic end. Becaus e th e play betwee n speec h an d silenc e i s so pervasiv e i n Orestes, and becaus e i t articulates the conflict between comi c an d tragic outcomes, I shall trace th e increasin g li cense o f speech i n some detail. 7 Central t o the plo t o f Orestes is a tension between silenc e an d speec h tha t is figured or represented almos t entirel y by two extremes: on the one hand, an inability to speak tha t indicates helplessnes s an d inhibition and, on the other hand, an unbridled or reckless speec h tha t is the mark of power and freedom from inhibition . As Oreste s and Electra move from one extreme to the other, from total silence to unbridled speech, they not only acquire power bu t also overcome inhibition s and violate tabu . As they do so , thei r words an d action s wil l see m tragi c o r comi c dependin g upo n th e out come: licens e checke d o r punished represent s th e hybri s leadin g t o catastroph e s o common i n tragedy, while licens e unchecke d an d unpunished represents th e audacity an d the immunity from consequences typica l of comedy. Th e actio n of Orestes is fairly simple : from silenc e an d helplessness t o unbridled speech an d (almost) to reckless deeds, th e three companions follow a course o f ever-increasing license ; the two extremes are the silence of Orestes fo r the first 210 lines of the play, and his arrogant threats t o Menelau s i n th e finale . Th e consequence s o f thi s action , however , ar e ambiguous. In the firs t hal f of the play, Orestes speak s ou t with impunity but always in fear of th e outcome, creatin g an uneas y mixture of comic and tragi c tone . I n the second half , the consequences ar e uncertain, as the license becomes so great that the audience is unable to foresee eithe r success or failure for the conspirators an d unable to separate the comic from th e tragic. 8 Before we follow th e double course o f this plot, it should be note d tha t the oppo sition between speec h an d silenc e ha s important implications. The firs t i s dramatic: speech ma y take the place of actions that are tabu upon the stage. I n portraying blasphemy, for example, the tragedia n cannot depict violenc e to an alta r or a priest, but he can show Oedipu s verbally threatening and insulting Teiresias. Orestes, however, threatens to overstep thes e bounds. The plot t o cut Hermione's neck an d burn down the palac e i s almos t enacte d befor e ou r eyes ; b y portrayin g unbridled speec h tha t almost overturn s th e prohibition s of th e theater , Euripides suggest s a degre e o f license tha t threaten s t o overtur n th e prohibition s of society . Othe r implications reflect th e significance of speech i n Athenian society. Religious ritual frequently enjoined hol y silence with a command, eiJ^rpelTE, tha t forebade tabu or inauspicious speech; unbridle d speech ma y therefor e be not only rude but blasphemous (as in the case of Tantalus). The new field of rhetoric also drew attention to the persuasive powe r of speec h an d t o th e mora l relativis m of words. Logica l an d persuasiv e arguments could b e use d t o suppor t a reprehensibl e position , employin g speech i n a sociall y unacceptable manne r (as Oreste s does) . Finally , freedom o f speech , o r 7iappr|ava , was a prerogative o f the democratic assembly i n which Athenians took grea t pride, 9

Orestes and Tragicomedy 16

3

but i t als o gav e fre e rei n to th e violen t upheava l of thi s period . Orestes i s the firs t work t o portray this freedom of speech a s a negative an d dangerous licens e (a s in the duaGfic; 7tappr|aia o f th e demagogue , 90S). 10 Silenc e i s mentione d mor e ofte n i n Orestes than in any other survivin g play of Euripides, 11 while uninhibited speech is a centra l theme . Th e movemen t fro m silenc e t o unbridle d speec h represent s ever increasing license , wit h connotation s o f blasphemy , mora l duplicity , and politica l turmoil. But such license als o suggests the comic hero, whose verba l license include s both indecent languag e and ridicule of political figures and religious institutions , and whose licens e i n action i s exemplified b y th e outrageou s schem e i n Aristophanes ' Birds, in which Peisetairos an d the birds succeed i n overthrowing the gods and usurping the plac e o f Zeus. 12 The pla y begins wit h a speech by Electra, recountin g the past misfortune s of her family an d describing the present situation. She begins with great uncertainty: "There is nothing terrible—s o to speak . . ." (OiJK ecm v ox>8e v 5eivov o>5 ' einelv enoc, 1); "For Tantalus , son—so they say—of Zeus ..." (Aide; TtectyuKCoq, cbq Xeyouai, Tdvicxloq 5); "And this is the penalt y he pays—so they say . . ." (KO! Tivei TCCUTT| V 5iicr|v, / me, u£v Aiyouoiv 7-8); "Famous Agamemnon—if he was really famous—was born . . ." (6 KXevvog , ei 8f i icA^ivoc; , 'AYau.EU.vco v efj m 17) . As Electr a proceed s t o fil l i n th e unpleasant details , sh e repeatedl y hesitate s between speec h an d silence . Sh e i s reluctant t o spea k o f Atreus' rivalr y wit h Thyestes ("Why shoul d I measur e ou t un speakable deeds? " 14) , yet briefly mention s the unspeakable act ("Atreus feaste d hi m on the children he had killed," 15) , while passing ove r othe r details: "And Atreus — but I keep silence abou t events in between" (16). She likewise alludes to her mother' s adultery withou t actuall y mentionin g i t (a s fo r th e reaso n Clytemnestr a kille d Agamemnon, " a maiden cannot properly spea k o f it," ob v 5' EKOTI, napSevco X£yeiv / oi'j KaA,6v 26-27), and she hesitates before criticizin g Apollo: "An d wha t is the point in charging Phoebus with injustice? But he persuaded Oreste s to kill the mother who gave hi m birth" (28-30). Finally, her fear of naming her brother's tormentors is not enough t o prevent her from doin g so: "his mother's bloo d drive s him on with bout s of madness—for I am afrai d t o name the goddesses, Eumenides, who driv e him wild with fear" (37-38). The first hal f of Electra's prologu e speech , i n which she describe s her family histor y (1-38), is thus marked by her uncertain reluctance to speak o f this past. 13 The secon d hal f o f he r speech (39-70 ) describe s th e situatio n at the begin ning of the play, in which the characters ar e trapped i n silence. Brother and sister are barred fro m speakin g t o anyone in Argos : Argos here decide d tha t we are welcome neither i n homes nor a t hearth , an d bein g matricide s may tal k t o no one : eSo^e 5' "Apyei Tw8 e ±ir\Q' r^iac, me.ja.ic,, |ifi Ttxip i 6exeo8ai, ufite jipoo<j>o)vei v tiva (iTiTpoKTOvouvca^' 46-4 8 (compar e 428, 430)

This legal restrain t has a counterpart in the silence that madness imposes upo n Orestes : for six days now, he has neither eaten nor washed, bu t sleeps wrapped i n a cloak and wakes only t o run or weep (42-45).

164 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

The verbal impasse that Electra describes i s dramatized by the opening scene a s a whole. The hero lies i n a prominent position onstage and remains there in silence fo r 210 lines : the prologue speake r wa s reluctan t to speak , an d th e protagonis t canno t speak at all.14 After an intervening scene wit h Helen, what follows is even more surprising. The chorus enters and prepares to sing its parados or entrance song, but before its members can utter a word, they are silenced b y Electra: "Dear women, wal k gently, hush , let ther e be n o noise " (c o (juXTcrax i ywcdKec, , f|cnj)(c p TtoS i / ^copeite , UT I \t/o<j>eiie, ur|5' EOTCD KTUJICX; 1.36-37). 1S What follows instead is a lyric exchange conducted partly in stage whisper s a s the chorus members try to comply wit h Electra' s request ("Silence, silence , walk onstage gently, make no noise" 140-41), while Electra tries t o silenc e no t onl y thei r voice s bu t als o th e musi c an d dancin g tha t usually accompany their entrance: "Ah! Ah! Sound only the breath of a gentle reed pipe, my friend" (145-46), "Down, down, approach withou t shaking, without shaking" (149). The verba l impass e wit h which th e pla y begin s i s almost mad e complet e wit h th e silencing of the chorus, but now Oreste s awake s (211) and a new stage o f the drama begins. At first i t is only noise: mad speech tha t reflects Orestes' lac k of control over himself and his situation, but late r he will begin t o speak an d to act more effectively . Thus far, silence represent s the political powerlessness o f the tw o matricides , as well as the emotional weakness o f Electra an d the physical weakness of her brother, and their situation i s dramatized by th e verbal impasse tha t almost brings the drama to a halt . In th e middl e of thi s scene , th e outrageousl y tactles s Hele n provide s a n amusing foi l t o the silenc e o f Electr a and Orestes . Sh e cheerfull y asks ho w th e old maid and the murderer are doing ("Child of Clytemnestra and Agamemnon, and virgin fo r a ver y lon g spa n o f time—Electra , ho w ar e you, poor woman , an d ho w i s your poor brother, Orestes here, his mother's murderer?" 71-74), and then asks Electra to make offering s to Clytemnestr a i n her place (94-96). Fo r now , Electr a suggest s that Helen send Hcrmione instead and only vents her anger once Helen has gone (126131).16Helen has no reservations about speaking, and her freedom of speech i s amusing because she gets away with it: she remains blissfully an d selfishly obliviou s while Electra seethes i n silence . The darker side of free speec h i s suggested b y the story of Tantalus. At the beginning o f th e play, Electr a lament s human sufferin g (1-3 ) an d give s th e exampl e of her ancestor Tantalus, wh o wa s punishe d because, whe n h e was give n th e honor of dining in the company of the gods, "he kept an unbridled tongue, that most shameful affliction" (10) . This exampl e should be a warning to Electra an d Orestes , wh o ar e trapped in silence an d will soon attemp t to speak out. The warning is especially relevant because th e crime of unbridled speech i s placed a t the beginning of the sequence of crimes that destroyed th e house o f Atreus. Electr a and Oreste s ar e therefore at an impasse: trapped in silence, the y face almost certain death, yet if they speak out they risk repeatin g the ancestral crim e tha t has destroyed thei r family . Euripides modifies th e legendar y material in two ways , both of which introduce the them e of fre e speech . H e i s the firs t autho r to describ e Tantalus ' crim e a s fre e speaking (7-10),17 and twice state s that Tantalus (rather than Pelops ) i s the source of the famil y curs e (7-10 , 984-987) ; h e reinforce s thi s new versio n o f th e myt h by naming Tantalus more ofte n i n Orestes than i n any other play.18 His second innova tion i s to associate fea r o f the Eumenides not with their hideous appearance bu t with

Orestes and Tragicomedy 16

5

their unmentionable name (37-38 and 408-10; contrast 8evvd 5' 6<)>8c<X|ioiq SpaKevv, "terrible t o behold with the eyes," Aeschylus,Eumenides 34). Paradoxically, Orestes introduces thi s tabu only to break i t repeatedly (38, 321, 836, 1650)—a license especially strikin g sinc e th e nam e otherwis e appear s onl y twic e i n Gree k tragedy. 19 Euripides' introductio n of criminal and tab u speech int o the legend o f Orestes is reinforced b y mentio n o f Tantalus an d th e Eumenide s throughou t th e pla y (a s i n th e ode tha t follows thi s scene , whic h begin s wit h a lon g descriptio n o f th e running , winged, black-robed Eumenide s wh o driv e Orestes mad an d end s wit h a reflectio n on the past glorie s o f the hous e o f Tantalus) . The prologue portray s the helplessness and speechlessness of Orestes an d Electra, and introduce s th e them e o f crimina l free speech ; th e followin g episod e portray s Orestes' attempt to escape from this situation. To do so, he must enlist the support of Menelaus an d counte r th e oppositio n o f Tyndareus , th e angr y an d unsympatheti c father of Clytemnestra. Although frustrated by the ambivalent Menelaus and reduce d to silence b y the authority of Tyndareus, he eventually succeeds in speaking freely — perhaps to o freely . Menelaus enters first, and althoug h Electra an d Oreste s hav e placed thei r hope s in hi m (241-46, 382-84), h e show s littl e interes t in their case; when Oreste s persists, h e puts him off with an endless serie s o f question s (419-45 ) unti l rescue d b y the arriva l of Tyndareus . Clytemnestra' s fathe r almos t reduce s Oreste s t o silence . The youn g man explain s that he i s ashamed t o be seen b y Tyndareus (459-61), and after hi s grandfather's lon g an d bitte r speech (491-541) , Orestes wrestle s wit h hi s inability t o speak : "Ol d man, I am afrai d t o spea k t o you" (544). " I wan t you r old age to keep fa r from th e discussion, sinc e it scares th e words ou t of me" (cmeA,6eT( o §fi TOI< ; XOYOIOIV eK7to8(ov / TO YTTPai; %uv TO oov, 6 |T eK7tXr)CKTEi, Xoyou 548-49) , "and i f 1 speak badl y of [Clytemnestra] , I will b e speakin g o f mysel f a s well ; bu t speak I must" (559-60). When Oreste s finally find s the courage t o speak, h e seems to lose al l shame. H e begin s wit h parod y o f Aeschylus , mimickin g Apollo's argu ment that only the father is a true parent, since h e provides the seed whil e th e mother offers onl y nourishment (551-56), and lampooning the scene i n which Clytemnestra appeals fo r pit y by barin g he r breas t t o Oreste s (566-70). 20 H e the n turn s against Tyndareus, blaming his grandfather for the deaths of Agamemnon an d Clytemnestra and for his own misfortune (585-87). Finally, he attacks Apollo, reminding Tyndareus that h e obeye d th e go d i n everythin g he did : "1 killed m y mothe r trustin g i n him . Hold him unholy and kill him. He sinned, 1 did not" (594-96). Orestes know s n o half measures; a t onc e h e goes fro m helples s silenc e t o completel y unbridle d speech . Tyndareus respond s b y trying to reimpose silence ; h e rebukes Orestes fo r his bold ness of speech (607 ) and blames Electra for being an accomplice wit h her words (616 — 18). With remarkabl e prescience th e ol d ma n associate s the fre e speec h o f Electr a with th e unbridled actions that will follow: she filled he r brother's ears wit h hostile rumors, dreams, and stories o f adultery , "until she se t the house ablaz e with flame s not o f fire, " EOK ; \)<|>fiv|/e Scoj T dvr|aicn;( p Ttupt (621) . Tyndareus the n exits abruptly without allowin g Orestes t o speak i n response . If Tyndareu s trie s t o silenc e Orestes , Menelau s i s mor e ambivalent. 21 Wit h Tyndareus gone, Oreste s turn s to his uncle instead, but Menelaus dodges with a rhetorical commen t o n speec h an d silence : "Sometime s silenc e i s better tha n speech ,

166 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

and sometimes speec h is better" (eo n 8 ' OTJ avyf] Xoyou / Kpeioacov yevoit' av, ecm 5' oij myfte Xoyoc; 638-39). Orestes takes this as license to speak a t length, id jiaicpd (640-79), but his license consist s even mor e i n the liberties he takes wit h th e con ventions o f friendship. Rather than an exchange o f favors, h e demands a n exchang e of crimes: 22 I hav e don e wrong, an d i n exchang e fo r tha t wron g I deserv e some evi l deed fro m you . Agamemno n my fathe r wrongl y gathere d Greec e a t Troy , doing n o wrong himself , but correctin g the crime an d injustic e of you r wife. So yo u mus t repay me crime for crime . fx5iK(3' A-rxfiei v %pr | u. ' dvci T.oi3§ e io\> KOIKOI J dSiKov T I Ttap d ooir Km. jap Ayaueuvro v Ttcmp (x8i.Kcoi; dGpoiaac; 'EXXdS' i\XQ' \m IKiov, OVK e^au.apTti) v aiJtoi; 6.XK du.apTi.a v Tf|<; afjc ; yuvaiKoi ; dSiKiav t' i,u>u.evoc; ev )ie v x68 ' riu.iv dv8' evot; 8o-Qvai oe xpr|- 646-5 1

He sweetens th e deal b y offering te n year s of Agamemnon's crime s a t Troy fo r on e day of Menelaus helping Orestes escap e (655—57), and then throws i n a final incen tive: Menelau s can hav e Iphigenia fo r free. Agamemno n sacrifice d hi s own daugh ter in Menelaus' cause , bu t Oreste s wil l not require Menelaus to return the favor by killing Hermione (658-59). Menelaus seem s obliviou s to the insults; he responds b y pleading powerlessness (688-90) and by delivering platitudes comparing th e people's anger t o a fir e o r stor m tha t mus t ru n it s course (696-703 , 706-9). The newfoun d license of Orestes ha s both comic and tragic overtones. Hi s attack against Tyndareus has a bitter humor, but his grandfather's stern response forebode s tragic consequences . His speech t o Menelaus, however , is comic because i t seems he can insult his spine less uncl e with impunity . Yet comi c licens e wil l no t sav e Orestes ' lif e o r improv e his situation in Argos, and he therefore still has reason to fear a tragic outcome: "Ah , I have been betrayed , and ther e are no more hope s I can tur n to , to avoid deat h from the Argives " (722-23). At thi s ver y moment , Pylade s enter s an d learn s of th e desperat e situation . His entrance is startling; he arrives on the ru n (726) an d immediately escalates th e pac e of th e dialogu e t o franti c tetrameter s ("What' s up ? Ho w ar e you ? Wha t ar e yo u doing, deares t friends? " it xdSe ; n&ic, exeiq; ti npdaaeic,, 4>tA/ua9 ' fiXitccov EU.OI ; . . . 732).23 This reversal o f the traditionally silent role of Pylades accompanie s Orestes ' own chang e fro m silenc e t o speech . Afte r describin g hi s "betrayal " b y Menelaus , Orestes tell s Pylades tha t h e face s almos t certai n deat h a t th e hand s o f th e Argiv e people, and learns that his friend i s also in trouble, banished by his father from Phocis . The situatio n seem s hopeless , unti l Oreste s suddenly finds new hope : ORESTKS: Th e mo b i s terrible when i t has scoundrel s as leaders . PYLADKS: Bu t whe n they hav e good ones , the y alway s decide well . ORESTES: That' s it ! It's tim e to spea k openly . PYLADES : O n wha t issue ? ORESTES: Wha t i f 1 go an d spea k befor e th e people ? . . .

Orestes and Tragicomedy 16

7

Op. 8eivo v oi jioXXoi , KOKovpyoD^ oictv e%axn Tipocranat;. Hi). aXX ota v XPTIOTOIJC ; A,d(3wtn , xptiaid pouXeuoua ' del. Op. ete v e< ; KOIVO V Xeyei v xpf) . Fl u TIVOI ; dvcr/Kaioi) Ttepi; Op. e i Xeyoiu ' doToiotv eXGcov ; . . . 772-7 5 The seemingl y irrelevan t arguments agains t an d fo r democrac y promp t Oreste s t o consider th e persuasive power o f speech i n the democratic assembly . Hi s new hop e accelerates th e dialogue from single t o half lines, th e friends agree t o choose speec h rather than silence (111), an d the y leave fo r th e assembl y extollin g friendship. The two halve s o f thi s episod e ar e parallel, i n tha t Oreste s twic e decide s tha t the only escape fro m hi s helples s situatio n i s t o spea k out ; the scen e wit h Tyndareus an d Menclaus has a less than favorable outcome, an d the plan t o address the assembly is no more promising. The chief difference i s that Orestes no w ha s an ally and will feel confident enoug h t o speak eve n mor e freel y tha n before . Following a second stasimo n on the calamities of the royal house—beginning with the stain upo n Tantalus' descendants (813) and ending with the punishment exacted by th e Eumenide s (836)— a messenge r report s o n thos e wh o spok e befor e th e assembly: the two-faced Talthybius followed by the moderate Diomedes, an d the violent demagogue followe d by the honest farmer. The symmetry is calculated: the violent bluste r of the demagogue (" a man with reckless tongu e .. . relying on the mob and hi s ignoran t outspokenness , avr| p tic , aODpoyJiooaooc; . . . 6op"6pq) T E Tuouvog Kau.a6ei Ttapprial a 903-5) i s answered b y th e generosit y o f th e farmer; unbridled speech i s answered by words o f praise, and the fat e of Orestes hangs in the balance. A weight y silenc e follows i n anticipation of th e vot e (931) , bu t Oreste s unexpect edly breaks this silence to speak i n his own defense. 24 To the people of Argos, Oreste s speaks eve n mor e recklessl y tha n he di d t o hi s uncl e an d hi s grandfather ; he say s that he killed his mother a s much for the Argives' sak e as for his father's (934—35) , and h e tell s his audienc e that i f they are goin g t o le t a woman murde r her husband with impunity , they migh t as well dro p dea d themselves—o r becom e thei r wives' slaves (935-37) . Th e farmer' s prais e i s no w undone , and th e reckles s speec h o f Orestes, a s before , fail s t o delive r him fro m hi s helples s situatio n and threaten s to make i t worse.25 This time there is no humo r i n Orestes' license , at most a n uneasy amusement at his audacity that soon give s wa y t o Electra's sa d lament (960-1011). Following his unbridled speech, Orestes is on the verg e o f deat h (1018-21), and at this low point, the lifeless appearance of Orestes recall s the prologue and the fear of the choru s that h e was dead (208-10) . In the next scene th e situation is reversed. Oreste s is resolved t o take his life , bu t his despair has a comic outcome. His lugubrious determination ("This is our appointed day. W e mus t eithe r ti c a hangin g noose o r sharpe n th e sword " 1035—36 ) i s firs t interrupted by Electra, who insist s on dying with him (1037-55). Now accompanie d by his sister, he again bids farewell t o life ("Come let us die nobly, in a manner worthy of Agamemnon; I shall show th e city my goo d breeding b y striking to the liver with my sword , an d yo u mus t follo w th e exampl e o f m y daring " 1060-64) , onl y t o b e interrupted by Pylades, who also demands t o die with Orestes and makes a resounding ple a fo r a tripl e suicid e (1086-91). Finally , thi s ne w resolv e i s interrupte d by Pylades: "bu t since w e shal l die, let's conside r togethe r ho w Menelau s ca n suffe r

168 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

also" (1098-99). The conspiracy to die is an amusing failure and is at once replace d by a grand comic scheme: Pylades imagine s th e trio bamboozling Hele n wit h "an inward smile" (1121-22) and being made national heroes for the murder of a woman (1132-52), whil e Oreste s goe s further, wishing they migh t no t onl y punis h their enemies bu t also liv e themselves (1173-74). When Oreste s check s hi s idle word s that "delight th e mind a t little cost, wit h words flitting from the mouth" (1175-76), Electra burst s i n wit h he r pla n t o hol d Hermion e hostage , i f nee d b e cuttin g he r throat, and words ar e idle no more ("the speech ha s been spoken, " eiprirai A,6yo q 1203). Extravagan t prais e i s lavished o n Electra, an d he r bol d word s prepar e th e way fo r actio n i n a conspiratoria l scen e whic h culminate s with a n invocatio n of Agamemnon. 26 Fro m th e dar k despai r followin g th e assembl y i s bor n a fantastic scheme that , if carried out , wil l be a s reckles s i n actio n a s Oreste s wa s earlie r in speech. In the final episod e of the play, speech an d action lose al l inhibition, and the stag e is overwhelmed b y a degree o f noise an d commotion tha t borders o n the farcical. In the first half of the play, the license of Orestes veers between comic success and tragic failure, now promising a bold and outrageous escape fro m a hopeless situation, now threatening to hasten the hero's destruction. In the second half , th e actio n become s so uninhibited that distinctions between comic an d tragic are no longer meaningful . The hybri s of th e character s produce s neithe r laughter nor tear s bu t simpl y shock , and the plot seems to violate th e traditiona l legend , whic h provide s preceden t neither for a comic victory (the triumph of Orestes over Menelaus, and his rule in Argos) nor for a tragic defeat (th e death of the conspirators an d burning of the palace). Th e tone i s often comic, bu t th e overall effect i s neither comic no r tragi c a s we wonder where this license wil l lead . The commotio n begin s a t onc e a s Oreste s an d Pylade s g o insid e th e palac e t o murder Helen , while Electr a an d th e two half-choruse s statio n themselves outside, alternately crying out (1271, 1281-84) and urging calm (1273, 1291-92), fearing in their excited state that all is lost. Then the long-awaited screams of Helen (1296,1301) are magnified by th e bloodthirst y cries o f Electra ("Murder , kill , destroy, hurl fro m your hand s twofold, double-edge d sword s a t the woma n wh o lef t he r father , aban doned her marriage . . ." 1302—5), only to be silenced by th e approac h of Hermione. The young girl, of course, i s walking straight into a trap; Electra tells Hermione that she and Orestes ar e sentenced to death, and asks her cousin to help them by enlisting the aid of her mother Helen. When sh e agrees an d enters the house, th e noise builds to a crescendo a s Electra shouts to those inside ("Friends in the house, take your swords and seiz e you r prey! " 1345-46) , Hermione screams i n fea r (1347) , an d bot h ar e drowned ou t by th e chorus: 27 Oh! Oh !

Raise a noise, friends , rais e a noise an d shou t before th e palace, s o the murde r performe d will no t cas t fea r upo n th e Argive s . . . ico iro iAai , KT\')7iov EyE.ipETE , KTTJTIO V Ka i pod v

Orestes and Tragicomedy 16

9

rtpo ueXdOpfflv , ortfoq o TipaxScii; (fovoc ; u,f| 5eivo v 'Apyeiotai v eupdA.r | <|>6[k> v . . . 1353-5 5

A welcom e cal m a t th e entranc e o f a messenge r ("Silence ! A Phrygia n i s comin g out, who will tell us how things are in the house" 1367-68 ) is followed not by a speech explaining wha t ha s happene d inside , bu t b y a n agitated , high-pitched , an d partly incoherent ari a tha t onl y heighten s the confusio n (1369-1502). 28 N o soone r doe s the Phrygian describe th e chaos within the palace tha n the commotion spill s onto the stage, a s Oreste s charge s ou t i n tetrameter s to silenc e th e servan t (1510 ) an d sen d him bac k inside , and th e agitated chorus debate s whethe r to raise th e alar m or kee p silent (1539-40). At thi s point, th e action take s anothe r importan t step. Fro m silenc e t o unbridled speech, t o unbridled actio n firs t plotte d the n reported, w e com e no w (i t appears) to unbridled actio n upo n th e stage: Look, i n fron t o f th e house ! Look , tha t smok e rushing skyward i s bringing news! They ar e lighting torches, to bur n dow n th e hous e of Tantalus, an d the y won't shrin k from murder . A go d hold s th e en d fo r mortals , whatever end s h e wants . I5e Ttp o Scojidiai v '(8e TiponrripTjcae i Ood^tov 68' cdSepoc; avco KCOIVOI; . d;m)i)ai Tteiiicac ; ax; Trupwoovxec; 56u.oi)<; TOIX; TavtaXetou^ oiiS' d^iotavrai <|>6vo\) . te/Voc; ejcel Saluto v Ppotoic; , TEA.OC; OTt a 9eXri . 1541-4 6

This will be no ordinary end, if the violence break s the bounds of the drama to destroy the skene-building , a s i t seems i t will. Suddenly Menelaus appear s onstage , an d th e apocalypse i s postponed b y th e ensuin g battle of words betwee n Oreste s on th e roo f and Menelaus below. Threat s and insults fly back and forth i n rapid stichomythia, until Orestes call s Menelaus' bluf f (MHNELAUS : "G o ahea d and kil l her [Hcrmione] ; if you do, you'll pay for it." ORESTES: "Here goes." MENELAUS: "Ah, ah , don't do it!" 1597-98) and demands h e yield in silence (1599). But Menelaus will not be silent, and the verbal abuse escalate s t o faster half-lines an d finall y t o violent action, as Orestes shout s fo r fire to destroy the palace (1618) and Menelaus calls upon the Argive army to begin th e assault (1621-22). The violent showdown i s unavoidable because al l other options have disappeared. The conflict betwee n Orestes an d Menelaus seems t o issue in success as Menelaus capitulate s ("Ah, ah , don't do it!" 1598) an d Orestes claim s the victory ("Be silent, and accep t you r just misfortune!" 1599). Yet they immediately resume bicker ing for another seventeen lines until Menelaus again capitulates ("You have me!" 1617) and Oreste s agai n exults ("You trappe d yourself with your own evil " 1617)—onl y to call o n Electra an d Pylade s t o torc h th e palac e (1618-20) and provok e Menelau s to bring on hi s soldier s (1621-24) , leadin g to anothe r and mor e violen t confrontation. Only now tha t the apocalypse i s complete doe s Apollo arriv e to resolve th e impasse .

170 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

No Way Out Apollo has no easy task ; as the showdown a t the end makes clear, the play has reached an impasse from which i t can find n o way out. And this blockage, thi s dramatic aporia, has severa l aspects . Th e firs t an d mos t importan t involves th e plo t itself . A s th e action veers betwee n hop e an d despair, i t veers betwee n tw o increasingly polarized possibilities. I f Oreste s succeeds , h e wil l no t jus t achiev e th e negativ e resul t of escaping th e sentence o f death, but expects t o achieve remarkable positive achieve ments. Orestes ha s already , he tells Tyndareus, put an end to the custom o r practice (vouot;) of wives killin g their husbands (570-71), and for this reason, th e farmer at the assembly say s tha t Orestes shoul d b e awarded a crown i n recognition o f his service to the city (923-25). When th e plot for escape turn s from words befor e th e assembly t o deeds within th e palace, Orestes ' success will mean not only the death of Helen, Pylade s assure s us , but publi c celebration s i n his hono r (1137-39), an d in stead of being called "matricide, " h e will be called "killer of Helen who kille d many men" (1140-42). Electr a improve s th e plan by suggesting the y take Hermione hostage, and when the plan is set into action, Orestes will not only murder the evil Helen but us e his hostage t o make himsel f kin g of Pelasgian Argo s (1600-1). Yet just as the implication s of succes s are progressively magnified , so too ar e those o f failure . Orestes an d Electra , w e lear n a t the outset , hav e been condemne d b y th e Argives , but the decision betwee n a sentence of life (i.e., exile) or death has not yet been vote d (46-51). The outcom e o f th e assembl y i s a vot e tha t bot h mus t die , and th e goo d friend Pylade s nobly announce s tha t he will die with them (1069-74). Not only will all three protagonists die, but as Orestes argues , respect fo r husbands will vanish and the me n of Argos are as good a s dead (935-42), and as Pylades point s out, th e man who regained his bride with the help of Agamemnon will take possession of the palace belonging to Agamemnon an d Orestes (1146-47). Where earlier Menelaus at least professed sympath y fo r hi s nephew , a t th e en d h e i s determine d t o kil l those wh o murdered his wife (1565-66), and even while his daughter is held hostage, h e promises tha t Pylades (1593 ) an d Oreste s (1597 ) wil l die . No middl e ground remain s between th e tw o extrem e scenario s o f success and defeat; it will be tota l victory o r total disaster. Yet neithe r is possible. Both scenario s contradic t the established legend i n which Oreste s wil l suffe r fo r hi s deed , pursue d an d harasse d b y th e Furies , but will eventually be acquitted in Athens. It is impossible that Orestes, Electra , and Pylades shoul d die immediatel y after killin g Clytemnestra, and i t is equally impossible that they should kill Helen and Hermione, and that Orestes shoul d rule in Argos without bein g driven int o exile by th e Furies . The playwrigh t could alte r any number of details, but as we have seen i n the endings of Euripides' Electra andlphigenia among the Taurians, he could no t alter the canonical sequel described i n Aeschylus ' Eumenides any more than he could afte r th e happy sequel to Ihclliad i n which Helen and Menelau s liv e to a ripe old ag e in Sparta. Apollo doe s no t an d canno t mediat e thi s impasse; instea d h e impose s th e traditional outcom e tha t the pla y will no longe r tolerate. Helen was no t murdered i n the palace, bu t wa s snatche d awa y b y Apollo , an d h e display s he r besid e hi m o n th e machine (1631-32, 1683-90) , as aloof fro m morta l troubles (whethe r at Troy o r in Argos) i n her lonely beauty as Apollo i s in his divine power. Orestes wil l not murder

Orestes and Tragicomedy 17

1

Herrnione, he tells us, but will marry her. Menelau s will not storm th e palace t o kill Orestes, bu t will le t Orestes rul e there. Orestes wil l no t bur n dow n th e palace , bu t will eventuall y rule there . Pylade s an d Electr a wil l no t di e i n th e inferno , but wil l marry on e anothe r and liv e happily ever afte r (1658-59) . Thi s ma y b e th e prope r and familia r outcome, bu t i t has nothin g to d o wit h th e pla y tha t has just bee n en acted. Only a god ha s the power an d authority to impose a "resolution" tha t resolve s nothing, to prescribe a conclusion that is totally oblivious of all that has gone before . The impass e i n the plot remains unresolved, and so too does th e conflict between tragic and comic outcome. The increasingly licentious and outrageous Orestes, veering with eac h twis t o f th e actio n betwee n comi c triumph and tragi c defeat , finall y ac complishes both—o r neither . When h e appear s o n th e palace roof , wieldin g power and commanding silence lik e a god, he plays the par t o f a triumphant comi c hero : a Dikaiopolis o r Peisetairos who has somehow succeede d i n overcoming al l odds and turning the tables o n his enemies, and a Strepsiades fre e to vent his anger by burning down Socrates ' Thinkery . This triumph , however, i s suddenly overturned by a second epiphany , as Orestes o n the roof i s upstaged b y Apollo o n the machine. The god checks th e demonic Orestes, preventing him from killin g Hermione, preventing the conspirators fro m destroying the palace, and apparently replacing comic triumph with tragic defeat . I f before w e wer e uncertai n how th e actio n would end, no w w e hav e two endings and a deeper uncertainty: Is the final outcom e success or failure? O n the one hand , th e schem e o f Orestes i s halted in it s tracks: the god abort s hi s desperate plot t o take reveng e upo n Menelau s and show s tha t the attempted murder of Hele n was als o a failure . Hi s comman d an d explanatio n restore th e plo t t o it s traditional course an d impos e upo n the human agents a larger, divine order. O n the other hand, the scheme o f Orestes ha s succeeded: h e will not be executed by the Argives, h e will be purified of his crimes, and will eventually be allowed t o rule in Argos. Hi s licentious speech and action achieve their desired resul t through the intervention of a god who comes to restrain him. The two tendencies of the action—toward comic succes s and tragi c failure—are bot h realized in the double epiphany, and th e appearanc e of the deu s does not resolve, bu t confirms, this impasse. 29 And the impasse remain s unresolvable because th e play has embarked on a course of unprecedented license. As Orestes has moved fro m silence to unbridled speech t o the brin k o f unbridle d action, h e ha s displaye d qualitie s of bot h th e tragi c an d th e comic hero , bu t the monstrous figure o n th e palace roo f a t the end, poised betwee n total succes s and total disaster, no longer fit s eithe r category. Th e Oreste s wh o la y silent for 210 lines now gives his name to Parrhasion, the Land of Free Speech (164347),30 but what name ca n we give t o the hero himself ? If Orestes maintains, in the end, th e competin g demand s of succes s an d failure , and o f comedy an d tragedy , we migh t ask ho w i t bears th e strain. In some sens e th e answer i s that it cannot. Paradoxically, the plot that hurtles so impulsively in contradictory direction s remains a t a n impasse , wit h nowher e t o go . An d th e dram a that embodies with such brio the opposing expectation s of comedy an d tragedy in a sense breaks down, unable to function a s drama at all. This is true, as we hav e seen, at the beginning. The prologue speaker is hesitant and reluctant to speak; where we expec t her to describe th e past and the antecedents to the action, she cannot bring herself to mention them . The protagonis t i s unable to pla y hi s part ; where w e expec t hi m t o

172 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

respond t o th e crisi s confrontin g him , h e lie s o n th e groun d sleepin g i n a hea p o f dirty clothes , whil e Hlectr a deliver s her haltin g prologue, whil e Hele n breeze s in , arranges offering s fo r Clytemnestra' s tom b an d breeze s ou t again , an d whil e th e chorus make s it s labored entrance . The chorus i s virtually unable to enter; where we expect member s of the chorus t o sing an d dance thei r entrance song , Electra insist s that they march i n quietly without stamping thei r boots (136-37), without the musi c of the flute to accompany the m (145-46), and without expressive movements (149) . The paralyzed drama is unable to begin. Bu t the play, like its protagonists, gradually loses inhibitions . When th e ma d an d squali d Oreste s finall y awake s an d belatedly responds t o hi s dangerou s situation , nothing ca n restrai n hi s impetuou s an d self destructive course of action, and when the drama eventually grinds into action, nothing will be able to stop it from careening out of control. The story that the actor Hegelochus brought down the house by mispronouncing the line EK Kuumoov yap auOiq a\) yaW)v' opra, "from th e waves I once agai n see calm" (279), as aii6i<; cm yocXfjv opca , "I onc e again se e a weasel," indicates, perhaps , tha t the audienc e realize d ho w closel y th e play wa s skirtin g the verge o f nonsense. 31 Lat e i n th e play , Euripide s treat s us t o a bizarre and unparallele d messenger speec h tha t reports event s offstag e no t i n a spo ken expositio n bu t i n a high-pitched aria , one tha t employs fo r thi s purpose no t th e relatively featureless messenge r o r servant but a terrified, babbling Phrygian eunuch, and that instead of explaining what has happened, leave s u s uncertain whether Helen has actuall y been kille d or ha s somehow, miraculousl y bee n rescued . Shortl y afte r this spectacular, farcica l tou r de force, Menelau s comes onstage t o avenge th e murder o f Hele n an d remark s i n an asid e tha t the notio n tha t sh e di d no t di e bu t disap peared "i s a n elaborat e contrivanc e b y th e matricide , it' s al l a big joke" (a.'X.'ka TOT J uriTpoKTOvoi) / Te/vdoum' eoti tcrnta Kc d TTO/VIK ; yeAax; 1559-60). 32 He might as well b e commenting on the play itself , which proceed s t o unravel at the seams. A s smoke rise s ominously from the skene-building, the antagonists begin to dismantle it: Menelaus below send s soldier s to break dow n th e doors, and they are presumably batterin g away whe n Oreste s warn s tha t th e door s ar e securel y bolte d (1571-72); meanwhile Oreste s abov e threaten s Menelau s wit h a piece o f masonr y that h e obtaine d b y breakin g apar t the ancien t cornice (1570) . After thei r long an d futile exchange , the y redoubl e thei r destructiv e efforts, a s Electr a an d Pylade s se t fire t o the building and Menelaus sends i n his storm trooper s (1618-22) . The litera l dismemberment o f th e stag e buildin g is accompanied b y a dismembermen t of leg end, as Hermione or Orestes or both will die. And when Apollo enters to restore order, to make Orestes an d Menelau s friends , to marry Ilermione to Orestes, an d to mak e Helen a goddess, he confirms that the plot tha t careened ou t of control wa s indee d a joke an d a contrivance. After this apotheosis of madness, wha t lesson could th e cho rus possibly dra w fro m al l that has happened? Telling th e characters on e mor e tim e to depart (1682), Apollo strike s up the anapests. Character s and chorus leav e the stage not singin g an d marching their recessional, but walkin g i n silence a s the god chant s an irrelevan t exit son g fro m space : Go no w o n you r journey , honorin g Peace, th e mos t beautifu l god. I shall bring Hele n t o th e palac e o f Zeu s

Orestes and Tragicomedy 17

3

reaching the pole of bright stars where sh e wil l si t next to Her a and Hebe th e wife o f Heracles, a god hersel f always honored in men's libations , and wit h the Dioscuri , sons of Zeus, will rul e th e sal t se a for sailors. lie vw Ko6 ' 656v, rnv KaXXtoiri v Gecov EipT]vr| v TiutovTec; ' eyr a 8' 'EXevi]v Znvoc ; ueA,d6poi<; jteXdau, A.au,7ipd>v acrtpw v TioXo v eE,avuaac; , evGa Ttap ' "Hpa tf| 0' 'HpaK^eouc , "Hpr) TidpeSpoc; 6eo<; dvOpoJTtoit; ecnm cnrov5ai< ; evTiuxx; dei, aw Tuv8api,5ai< ; TOIC ; Ato<; viypac, VOCUTCIK; ueSeoua a OaXdoaric; . 1682-9 0

All tha t remain s for th e chorus i s a three-line prayer to Victory.

A Carniva l o f Forms Yet th e play' s contradiction s ar e mor e comple x tha n this. Th e licentiousnes s tha t enacts a n extravagan t comedy an d a n extravagant tragedy a t one an d th e same tim e is bot h a n aborte d dram a an d somethin g muc h mor e tha n th e ordinar y drama; its competing impulses cannot break out of the impasse, yet together they suggest a chaos teeming with potential. I want t o begi n by usin g the doubl e natur e of Orestes —its conflicting embodiment of tragic failure and comic success—to revise familiar readings of th e play as negative and pessimistic. And fro m a better understanding of the comic and tragi c Orestes, I shall show ho w thi s ambivalent doubling make s roo m for ne w an d unexpecte d forms . Orestes is usually viewed as a "tragic" and pessimistic reflection of moral depravity in man and society. According to Hugh Parry, Orestes is "the dar k night of the Greek soul,"33 and according t o Seth Schein , it is "the mos t negative , the most pessimistic , the most nihilisti c of Euripides' extan t plays."34 Some critics emphasize th e demoralization, eve n dehumanization , tha t take s place withi n th e conspirator s i n general and withi n Oreste s i n particular; others emphasize the mora l vacuum that pervade s the play's characters and institutions as a whole.35 This consensus, insofa r as it draws attention t o the play's repeated an d outrageous failures , i s certainly correct. Bu t the play's outrageou s failure s are als o outrageou s successes , an d th e depravit y of it s characters has a comic sid e in their exuberant lack of scruples. Accordin g t o Ludwig Jekels, "th e feelin g of guilt which, in tragedy, rests upo n the son, appears i n comedy displaced on the father"; in the latter "we fin d th e ego, whic h has liberated itself from the tyrant, uninhibitedly venting its humour, wit, and every sort o f comic manifesta tion i n a ver y ecstas y o f freedom." 36 I n Orestes, this freedo m fro m inhibition , th e most extreme form of license, is reflected not only in Orestes' complete lack of shame, but als o i n his youthfu l rebellio n agains t the authorit y of Menelau s and Tyndareus, and even i n the licentious parody of Aeschylus in which the action is cast. I n the end,

174 TH

E END S O F T R A G E D Y

Orestes remain s caugh t betwee n traged y and comed y b y th e doubl e epiphany : h e triumphs over th e ineffectua l father figure Menelaus, bu t is compelled t o acknowl edge the authority of Apollo. Ye t h e also transcend s the impasse, displayin g an outrageous licens e withou t suffering harmful consequences . If th e licentiou s mora l depravit y of Oreste s ha s it s comic side , ca n th e sam e b e said of social decay? I t has often been note d that the drama's moral vacuum and lawless atmospher e reflect the upheaval s that in 408 B.C.E . threatened to destro y Athe nian society, upheavals such a s a questioning of values, conflict between th e generations, an d lawless violenc e an d assassinations. 37 Critics often compare Thucydides ' description o f civi c upheava l i n th e lat e fift h century , a description occasione d b y the narrative of events i n Corcyra i n 427, bu t which clearly reflects simila r upheavals in Athens i n 411 an d 410 : So revolutions brok e out i n city after city , and in places where the revolutions occurred late th e knowledg e of wha t ha d happene d previousl y i n other places caused stil l ne w extravagances of revolutionary zeal , expressed by an elaboration i n the methods of seizing power and by unheard-o f atrocitie s in revenge. To fi t in with th e change of events, words, too, ha d to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was no w regarde d a s the courag e one woul d expec t t o fin d i n a party member . . . . Fanatical enthusias m wa s the mark of a real man , an d to plot against an enem y behin d hi s back wa s perfectl y legitimat e self-defense. 38

The outrageou s violenc e o f Orestes surel y reflect s i n som e wa y th e violenc e an d upheaval i n Athenian society , bu t doe s i t follo w tha t Euripide s view s thes e i n a n entirely negativ e o r pessimisti c light ? Licens e an d insubordinatio n may hav e thei r positive or creative side . Ja n Kot t compare s th e license o f tragicomedy to Carnival in Rome, where social upheaval and violence were given free rein.39 Here the peopl e carried candle s an d shouted , "Si a ammazzat o chi no n port a moccolo " ("Deat h t o anyone who is not carrying a candle"); Goethe describes th e license of the scene: " A boy blow s ou t hi s father' s candle , shouting : 'Sia ammazzat o i l Signor e Padre! ' I n vain th e ol d man scold s hi m fo r thi s outrageous behavior ; the bo y claim s th e free dom o f th e evenin g an d curse s hi s fathe r al l th e mor e vehemently." 40 Th e ritua l license of Carnival reenacts th e lawlessnes s of eighteenth-century Rom e without its deadly consequences; similarl y the license of Orestes, performed at the City Dionysia in 408, reenact s the upheava l in Athenian society an d the violence o f the oligarchic clubs withou t their dir e an d familia r consequences . I n Euripides ' tragicomedy, a gradual crescend o o f noise , spectacle , an d actio n propels u s towar d a denouement that i s finally neithe r tragic nor comic , whil e the franti c pac e an d uncertai n goal o f the fina l scene s reenac t th e terrifyin g an d exhilaratin g experienc e of thos e chaotic times. Dram a was alway s a public concern i n ancient Athens, an d Orestes, a spec tacular play produced i n one o f Athens' mos t difficul t years , stages Athenia n anxieties with extravagant license an d a n exuberant sense o f humor. The fac t tha t Orestes i s organize d aroun d contradictor y an d unreconcilable impulses, an d progressivel y heighten s th e conflic t betwee n them , produce s a n impasse, a sense o f blockage o r futility, tha t contributes to the play's distinctive pessimistic tone. Yet in doing so, it also unleashes a riotous excess and exuberance. Thi s

Orestes and Tragicomedy 17

5

is evident no t onl y i n th e comi c licens e tha t at ever y tur n accompanie s the play' s depravity, but also i n the form o f the drama, which simultaneously breaks dow n an d embraces a multitude of new forms. I f the play does not succeed as tragedy, it nevertheless manage s t o impersonat e tragedy , comedy , parody , an d othe r non-tragi c genres. The drama begin s b y adopting tw o different guises. Th e first situates this tragedy very specifically and self-consciously. Th e action begins, Electra tell s us, shortly after Orestes kille d his mothe r i n obedience t o Apollo: 41 Since then he wastes away wit h savag e sickness, Orestes here , lyin g collapsed i n his bed, whil e hi s mother's bloo d drive s hi m on with madness— I a m afrai d t o name th e goddesses, Eumenides, wh o wrestl e hi m dow n wit h fear . evTeijGev dypi a oDviaKei,! ; voow vooei T,Aj|u,a>v 'Opeaint; 65e Tteaw v ev Seuvioii; KeiTai, T O ur|Tpo< ; 5' aiud vi v TpoxriXaiei Haviaioiv ovoud^ei v yap ai8o'U|ia i QEO.C, Eii|j.evi5a<;, a'i TOV§ ' e^auiXXrovtai 6pq> . 34-3 8

The play begins, i n other words, a t the very poin t where Aeschylus' Libation Bearers left off . That pla y ended a s Orestes' min d began t o wander (1021-25), seeing a ghastly vision of Furies invisible to others (1058,1061), and driven prematurely from the stage (1062). Whereas Aeschylus bega n th e third play of the trilogy in a differen t place (Delphi , not Argos), at a different tim e (days i f not weeks later), and in differ ent circumstances (Oreste s i s entirely sane, while the Furies ar e present and visible to all), Euripides return s to the earlier situation and prepares t o write the immediate sequel tha t Aeschylu s di d not . Ever y traged y i n one wa y o r anothe r revises o r cor rects earlie r version s o f a myth ; th e stor y o f Agamemno n an d Oreste s tol d i n th e Odyssey, fo r example, was retol d i n the Nostoi an d i n Stesichorus' Oresteia befor e being revise d agai n b y Aeschylus , Sophocles , an d Euripides . Orestes i s unusual, however, i n adopting the gesture of completion ("tessera" in Harold Bloom's terms, 42 filling ou t o r completin g a prio r version ) b y literall y pickin g up th e stor y wher e a dramatic precursor lef t off . The gestur e i s both complementar y and complimentary . The poem s o f th e epi c cycle , fo r example , complet e th e storie s lef t unfinishe d b y Homer, an d although they may revise the Homeric accoun t (as the Cypria does , presenting Zeus ' pla n a t Tro y no t a s punishmen t of Paris , bu t a s a schem e t o reduc e overpopulation), the y do s o b y steppin g int o th e epi c poet' s shoes. I n venturing to finish ou t th e stor y a t Argos, Euripide s pays homag e t o th e monumenta l Oresteia just a s the cyclic poet s paid homage t o Homer. 43 Yet he also adopts a very differen t gesture of infiltration an d competition. Rather than adding a postscript to the authoritative trilogy, telling , for example, wha t happened t o Orestes after the end of Eumenides, he promises instead t o fill i n the gap between the second an d thir d plays; elaborating what th e maste r lef t ou t i s less deferential than picking u p th e stor y agai n when th e master ha s ha d hi s say . Bu t there i s more: a s the plo t o f Orestes progresses , i t presents a radical alternative to Eumenides, an entirely different wa y o f playing out th e

176 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

issue o f Orestes' crim e tha t competes wit h Aeschylus b y assignin g jurisdiction not to Apollo an d Athens bu t to the people o f Argos; if we accep t on e version, we cannot (without Apollo's help) accep t th e other. These opposin g gestures, which cast Orestes (programmatically) both as follower and as rival, are more fully elaborate d in what follows. Electra's openin g words prom ise to fill ou t the story with an emphasis on human suffering and endurance: "There is nothing terrible to speak of , no suffering, n o heaven-sent disaster, that human nature cannot bear its weight" (Ouic eaiiv oijSev 5eivov co8' EITCEIV EKOC, / o\>5e naQoq ox)8e <;t>Luj)opd 6ef|XaTOi; , / fiq OTJ K dv dpaix' d/9oc; dv6pa>7iK £ xpwri/ xXaviStco v 6' eato Kpw|>9ei.<;, oiav U.E V orou a KoixjuaQf j vooo u ep,(fPwv ScncpiJEi , TOTE SE 5eu.vi
But the project o f deepening the story's humanit y an d tragic pathos i s followed by a very different one . As Electra hopes fo r some way out of her desperate situation , Helen enters, bringing libations and a n offering of hair . The absen t villai n of Agamemnon ("destroyer o f ships, destroyer of man, destroyer of cities" 689-90) becomes a vain and selfish beauty who parodies Electr a t o her face, bringing to her sister's tomb the very sam e offering s Electr a brough t t o he r father' s tom b i n Libation Bearers, and likewise reluctant to perform th e duty herself. When Hele n add s insul t t o injur y b y asking Electr a t o mak e th e offerin g for he r (no w playin g Clytemnestra t o th e rea l Electra), he r niece return s the insul t by tellin g her to as k Hermion e (an d thu s play Clytemnestra to her own daughter's Electra); Helen does so at once, an d Electra must watch as a mute and more docil e versio n of herself i s sent offstage to make the offerings at Clytemnestra's tomb. The sustained parody, here as throughout the play, rejects the mode l o f Aeschylus, defacin g rathe r than deepening th e tragic predecessor . By embracing tw o conflicting strategies from the very beginning, Orestes resists definition, an d in the space created betwee n thes e opposing guise s o f humane (neoAeschylean) tragedy an d critical (anti-Aeschylean) parody , further possibilitie s pro liferate. One of the most interestin g invokes another predecessor. Soon afte r Oreste s awakes, h e is struck wit h a fit of madness, imagines he sees the Furies pursuing him (255-61), and calls for a bow, "the gift of Loxias, with which Apollo tol d me to ward

Orestes an d Tragicomedy 17

7

off th e goddesse s i f the y shoul d pani c m e wit h frenzie d madness " (86c ; TO^ Q uo t KepouXicd, Scopa Ao^iou, / oic, u' Eire' AnoXXcuv eE,auwao6ai Qeaq, / e'{ u.' eK(j)opoiev uavmcvv A/uocrrpacn v 268-70). H e then tries to shoo away the Furies until he collapses an d come s t o hi s senses wit h the notoriou s lin e of Hegelochu s (mentione d previously). A s th e scholias t observes , Euripide s i s followin g th e versio n o f Stesichorus, in which Apollo promise d Oreste s a bow to defend himself.44 1 suspec t that the scene wa s intended , at least i n part, as a parody o f Stesichorus, bu t since w e have only a few words of his early, lyric Oresteia, it is dangerous to speculate abou t Euripides' relatio n to this predecessor. I t is worth noting , however , anothe r doubl e program i n thi s scene . Euripides ' Orestes , i n hi s (literal ) madness, seek s relie f b y pitting Stesichoru s agains t Aeschylus, pittin g the bo w o f the lyri c poet agains t th e Furies of the tragedian. It was Stesichoru s who invente d the bow as a physical token of Apollo's support for Orestes, and Aeschylus wh o firs t brough t onstage th e Furie s as physica l token s o f hi s terribl e crime. Thes e tw o author s hav e create d Orestes ' unbearable situation, and the hero would let their symbolic instantiations of divinely sent suffering and divine release fro m suffering vie with one another. He does so by revising bot h author s an d bot h symbols , recastin g th e tangibl e embodiment s o f Revenge an d Absolutio n a s imaginar y equivalents of fly an d fl y swatter: Can't yo u hear me ? Don' t yo u se c winge d notches rushin g from th e far-striking bow? Ah, ah ! What ar e yo u waiting for ? Ski m ove r th e air with you r wings, an d hlame Apollo's oracles . otiK eiocxKOiieT.' ; oi> x 6pd6' eicr|p6Xa)v toJjwv Trcepwtd ^ -fhvfyi&ac, e!;opna)|ievac; ; a a.' TI 5f|T a ia.eA.Xei:' ; e^aKpi^ei' aiOepa Ttiepoic;, id Ooipoi ) 5' aiiidaSe Oeaijxrra . 273-7 6

As invisible creatures buzz around his head, Orestes trie s to shoo the m away with an invisible bow i n what must hav e been a very striking mime. 45 Programmatically, the double invocatio n of Aeschylus and Stesichorus, th e great lyric poet an d th e great tragedian , instead of helping to defin e thi s play, again succeeds i n clearing space: those familiar versions ar e pitted against one another, while this one remain s undefined. Theatrically, the double allusion does more , upstagin g the lyri c poe t an d th e dramatis t wit h mime— a techniqu e more a t hom e i n th e subliterary charade s late r adapte d int o literar y mime , an d i n th e contemporar y dithyramb. 46 Early i n the action , programmatic ambivalenc e (humane tragedy versus parody , lyric versu s drama ) allow s th e pla y t o adop t a numbe r o f differen t guises . Thi s generic licens e i s more full y exploite d late r i n th e action , when th e Phrygia n performs a remarkable mimetic dithyramb. Helen's oriental slave enters on the run, apparently mimin g for the audience th e acrobatic manne r of hi s escape from th e dangers inside the palace:

178 TH

E END S O F T R A G E D Y

The Argiv e sword 1 escape d from deat h i n foreign slip pers, over th e cedared private chambers and Dori c entablature, gone, gone, oh Earth ! Earth ! with foreig n scampering . 'Apyeiov !;i<j>o< ; e.K Qavatov Tte^evya pappdpoic ; ev e"u ~ (idpioiv KeSpcoi d Tia aidSwv iiTce p Tepauv a AcopiKat; ie TpryXixjw'iK; , (|>poi)8a <|>po\>8a , F d Fa , Pappdpoicn Spaauoit; . 1369-7 4 The colorfu l an d expressive ari a that follow s i s full o f cues for miming: the entranc e of Oreste s an d Pylades , swaggerin g lik e lion s o r lik e Agamemno n an d Odysseu s (1400-1406), their melodramatic gesture, weepin g an d sitting on this side o f Helen and on that (1408-15), the terrified reactio n of the Phrygian servants, running in every direction (1416-20) , whil e th e speake r continue s "fanning , fanning , i n Phrygia n manner, manner " (1426—27) , th e sudde n attac k of th e Greek s lik e mountain boar s (1460), Helen screamin g an d beatin g he r breast (1465—67) , Orestes holdin g he r by the hai r and forcing her head back t o cu t her neck (1469—72) , and the fina l commo tion that includes the entrance of Pylades, the seizure o f Hermione, and the apparent disappearance o f Helen . Thi s physical impersonatio n is accompanied b y voca l im personations o f Orestes an d Pylades (1438-43, 1447 , 1461-64) , Helen (1465) , and the lamenting Phrygians (1395-99). It is delivered i n a high-pitched Phrygian mode (compare 138 4 wit h scholiast) , an d i t display s bot h poeti c an d metrica l virtuosity (using iambo-trochai c an d enoplia n dochmiacs) . Al l thes e ar e feature s o f th e ne w and controversia l dithyramb s of Timotheus, 47 an d shortl y before th e productio n o f Orestes, Timotheus acte d his Persians with a similar exotic and extravagant imper sonation o f Phrygian speech, music , and action , a s the Persian s defeated a t Salamis shriek, drown, and babble on the verge o f death. 48 For more tha n a hundred an d thirty lines, with no one onstage bu t the Phrygian and the chorus, th e Theater o f Dionysu s becomes th e Odeion an d the drama turn s into a dithyramb. If there is any truth to the anecdote that Euripides helped Timotheus compose his Persians, the audience woul d have witnessed a remarkable blurring of generic boundaries : the tragedy transform s itself int o a versio n o f th e lyri c genre whic h ha d recentl y foun d greate r favo r with the hel p of th e tragedian. 49 The ari a ends with an ironic twist as the slave, whos e countryme n fought s o lon g to keep Hele n a t Troy, sing s of Menelaus ' tragi c loss , who fough t so long t o recap ture Helen , onl y t o los e he r i n th e mele e insid e th e palac e (1500-1502) . Anothe r twist follow s immediately , as Orestes emerges runnin g from th e palace (1505 ) and looking for the Phrygian slave. A t once we shift fro m dithyram b to comedy or farce . Orestes is audibly huffing an d puffin g hi s firs t lin e (nov> 'crew OTJTO Q oc, netyevyev et c Soucov TOi)u6 v ^icjioq ; 1506) , a s h e change s mete r int o th e fast-pace d trochai c tetrameters of comedy an d upstages th e exotic aria with low slapstick. The slav e begs

Orestes and Tragicomedy

179

for hi s life, kissing th e ground i n oriental manner (1507), and afte r h e justifies this groveling b y claimin g tha t all wise me n woul d rathe r live tha n die (1508), Orestes begins a n outrageous game : ORESTES: S o was i t righ t fo r Helen t o be destroyed ? PHRYGIAN: Ver y right , eve n i f she ha d thre e throat s t o cut . ORESTES: Th e words of a slave, but that' s no t ho w yo u think . PHRYGIAN: I t is, since she ruine d Greece an d Phrygian s alike . ORESTES: Swea r you mea n tha t or I'l l kil l you . PHRYGIAN: I swear by m y life , whic h mean s everythin g t o me . ORESTES: Di d iro n caus e such pani c i n Troy a s well? PHRYGIAN: Tak e the swor d away ; i t mirrors ghastl y murder . ORESTES: Ar e yo u afrai d o f turnin g to stone, as i f you sa w a Gorgon? PHRYGIAN: Turnin g int o a corpse; the Gorgon' s head i s something else . Op. evSiKox ; r\ TuvSdpeioc; apex Tiali; 5i(o/U.i)To; Op. evStKcoTon;' , e'i ye Xaijioiji ; eixe Tpi7tT6x olJ? Geveiv. Op. Seili a yA.(6aor| /apt^n.. tav8ov ox> % oikco cjjpovrov . Op. ox ) yap, TITIC ; 'EXXdS' avVtoit; Opu^i 5ieX\)p.T|vaio ; Op. 6|iooo v (e i 8 e JJ.T) , KTEVC O ae) (if) A.eyei v e(j.f] v /dpw . Op. TT| V eu,f|v \fx)xn. v Kcmouoa' , f|v av ewpKoiu.' eyw. Op. co5 e Kci v Tpoia oi5r|po< ; Ttctai Opu^iv fj v <|)6po<; ; Op. ctTcex e ((idayavov TieA-a ^ yap 8eivov ctviavyei <J)6vov . Op. (AT I TiETpoi ; yevrj SeSoiKai ; WOTE Fopyov' eiai5cov; Op. (if i (le v o\ T)v veKpot;'T O FopyoiJi ; 5'oi) KatoiS'eyw Kdpa. 1512-2 1

The scholiast remarke d that the scene i s "comic," "prosaic," and "unworthy of tragedy," and some modern critics have registered their agreement b y excising the lines.50 But th e scen e i s effective precisel y becaus e i t i s unseemly. Th e lon g dithyrambic flourish i s followe d no t b y a reassertio n o f tragi c decorum , bu t b y a scene o f lo w humor that alters the tone completely while remaining just as far removed from tragedy. Bernd Seidensticker, in searching both passages for traces of comedy i n Orestes, concludes tha t there is dark an d bitter humor here , bu t nothin g comic.51 Th e poin t should rathe r be tha t both passages are un-tragic in distinctly different ways. Afte r deliberately losin g it s bearing s i n the earl y scenes, the pla y no w alternate s wildly between dithyramb and farce, preparing for the wild contradictions of the final epiphanies, while displaying all that drama is capable of. The end of tragedy, in this case, is less a destruction or negation of the traditional genre than an extravagant medley or satura o f ne w ones , a n exuberan t and fertil e chao s tha t stage s a mad expansio n o f dramatic horizons. 52

11 Phoenician Women an d Narrative In th e case of these knots then , and o f the several obstructions , which, may it please you r reverences, suc h knots cas t i n ou r wa y i n getting through life — every hast y ma n ca n whi p ou t hi s penknif e an d cu t throug h them.—"I'i s wrong. Believ e me , Sirs, th e most virtuou s way, an d which both reaso n an d conscience dictate—i s t o tak e ou r teet h o r ou r finger s t o them . STERNE, Tristram Shandy

Around the time of the production of Orestes,1 Euripides produced anothe r play that was just as experimental and would become just as popular: Phoenician Women an d Orestes were th e most commonl y rea d and quoted classical works apar t from Homer throughout antiquity, and together with Hecuba cam e t o form th e "Byzantine triad " of select plays. 2 It is an interesting item in the history of reception that ancient audiences an d reader s showe d muc h greate r interes t i n these innovativ e plays tha n d o their modern counterparts , althoug h there are signs that this is beginning to change . But my interest here i s not in the play's reception, but in its highly original narrativ e structure. Phoenician Women i s a remarkable pastiche o f legends about Oedipus an d his family ; the cas t list , as Elizabet h Crai k observes , "read s lik e a gues t lis t fo r a macabre hous e party of the Theban royal family," 3 and these legends and character s are woven together i n a way that explores the possibilities, uncertainties , and prosai c pleasures o f a narrative text. Where Helen offer s a happily fortuitous and romantic end, an d Orestes i s tor n betwee n th e opposin g end s o f traged y an d comedy , Phoenician Women become s immerse d i n th e difficultie s of seein g o r choosin g a n end, in the mundane pleasures and problems o f grappling with knots. I will therefore let this play with its unprecedented narrative impulse serve as a final exampl e of the ways i n which Euripides ' experimentatio n wit h closin g gesture s an d closura l pat terns transformed traged y into something entirel y different. I a m awar e tha t i n closing wit h a readin g o f Phoenician Women, I a m cheatin g my ow n reader s o f a certain sense o f closure . Rathe r than develop a narrativ e or a drama of the last days of tragedy, showing how th e genre gradually exhausted itself, and rather than arguing with Nietzsche that Euripides progressively squeezed th e lif e from it , I choose t o give a different accoun t o f the end of tragedy. The en d of tragedy is no t a coheren t action , an d i t has n o recognizabl e sign s o f closure . I t is , i n larg e measure, a coincidence: o n th e on e hand , as I try t o show , Euripide s i n successiv e plays redefines what tragedy is and i s capable of , an d on th e other hand, tragedy in 180

Phoenician Women and Narrative 18

1

succeeding generation s i s gradually upstaged by other literary genres. Traged y con tinues t o flouris h throug h muc h o f th e followin g century, 4 althoug h it s eventual decline i n prominence ma y hav e been abetted by Euripides' experiment s redefining the scope and the nature of drama. The ne w end s an d new expectation s explore d i n Helen, Orestes, and Phoenician Women ope n up imaginative horizons that will eventually b e occupie d b y Ne w Comed y an d the novel . I t is therefore not essentia l that my argumen t consider th e last two survivin g plays of Euripides, Iphigenia at Aulis andBacchant Women, since I am interested not in constructing a drama of the poet's death an d th e death of tragedy, but i n showing how th e end an d th e expectation s o f various lat e plays explore an d create ne w possibilities. Furthermore, since th e ending o f Iphigenia i s spurious, 5 and sinc e much of th e endin g of Bacchant Women i s missing, I would no t b e abl e t o discus s closin g gesture s an d closura l strategie s i n these play s a s I hav e i n others . Ye t brie f remark s o n thes e posthumou s plays wil l further illustrat e the rang e o f Euripidean innovation. Iphigenia at Aulis in a sense unravels the tragic plot by demystifying the tragi c end. As I observed i n chapter 1 , a human life can properl y be evaluate d only onc e it has reache d it s end, whil e a protagonist can mak e such a n evaluation onl y i f he somehow survive s th e end . Typically, this reflection focuse s upo n wha t has bee n called "tragi c error"—namely th e recognition, in hindsight, of excessive or inappropriate actions : Xerxe s i n Persians can acknowledg e i n hindsight that invading Greece wa s a deed o f hybris, and Creon in Antigone can see , i n looking back, that his edic t agains t Polyneice s wa s wrong . Herodotu s i n hi s stor y o f Croesu s ha s a double strategy. The mora l tale of the foreign kin g an d his infatuation wit h wealth has a didactic (an d non-tragic) purpose i n contrasting Greek with barbarian values; we do not expect tha t the Lydian king will come to recognize that Greek simplicity is better tha n barbarian ostentation. But th e stor y o f the ambiguou s oracl e an d of Croesus' mistake n belie f tha t he would destro y hi s enemy' s empir e b y attackin g Cyrus is a tragic plot i n which hindsigh t makes Croesus acutel y aware of his error; no soone r i s he saved fro m the pyre than h e interrogates the oracle an d learn s that his own presumption led to his downfall. I dwell on this point because th e sacrific e of Iphigeni a a t Auli s i s a decisiv e momen t i n Agamemnon's career , on e tha t the fearful choru s i n Aeschylus' Agamemnon look s bac k upon a s a possible occasio n of tragic error. It is in hindsight that this action, like the crossing of the Hellespon t or th e treatmen t o f Polyneices ' corpse , acquire s it s full significance. 6 Euripides ' Iphigenia at Aulis, however, turn s this process o n it s head . Instea d o f comin g t o see (b y lookin g bac k upo n th e past) ho w importan t and decisiv e tha t even t trul y was, this play shows (by enacting the event in the present) that Agamemnon's dee d was i n many ways quit e ordinary and accidental . Instead o f coming to appreciat e the king' s error , w e ar e require d to acknowledg e hi s goo d intention s an d hi s humanity. 7 Henc e th e strang e an d controversia l prologue tha t opens th e pla y not with a narrative situating the actio n withi n a larger continuum and describin g th e present crisi s a s a consequenc e o f prio r events , but wit h a n anxiou s exchang e i n broken anapest s tha t dramatize s the king's abjec t uncertainty. 8 Hence Iphigenia' s notorious chang e o f hear t tha t implicitl y acknowledges he r father' s helplessnes s and exonerates him of guilt for the deed. 9 And hence , we might speculate, the state of th e ending , adde d o r altere d a t a late r date , whic h Euripide s ma y hav e lef t

182 TH

E END S O F T R A G E D Y

incomplete, stil l strugglin g t o fin d a n en d tha t would rea d neithe r tragedy no r triumph int o the king's vacillations . The cas e of Bacchant Women i s very different . Archai c feature s o f it s form an d diction,10 togethe r wit h th e tau t logic of it s plot, migh t sugges t tha t th e autho r ha s reverted t o a more traditiona l conception o f tragedy . T o som e extent , thi s i s born e out by the end of Pentheus: i n this play, as seldom i n Euripides, the protagonist die s in the course of th e actio n an d event s tha t follow involv e an attemp t to understand what has happened. Ye t the tragedy of Pentheus is upstaged, i n the end , by the mystery o f Dionysus . Pentheus , afte r all , i s torn apar t offstag e an d unlik e Hippolytus, who is then brought onstage t o be enlightened by Artemis and reconciled wit h Theseu s before h e belatedl y expires , Pentheu s die s fa r awa y o n Moun t Cithaeron , with n o wisdom bor n fro m hi s suffering apart from th e brief and futil e ple a reporte d b y th e messenger: " I a m yours , mother, you r son Pentheus who m yo u bor e i n the hous e of Echion. Pity me, mother, an d do not kill your son for my mistakes" (111 8-21). When the body of Pentheus i s brought onstage i t is not so that he or others can make sens e of his death , but t o heighte n th e contras t betwee n huma n suffering and divin e jealousy. Befor e th e youn g man' s deat h migh t become , i n hindsight , a tragi c end , i t is upstaged b y th e epiphan y o f Dionysu s tha t is the rea l subjec t an d th e tru e end of this play. From th e prologu e i n which the human "stranger" reveals t o the audience his divine identity, to the ironic exchange i n which the stranger mocks Pentheus ' ignorance of the god behind the curls of his mask (451-518), to the shocking epiphany in which Dionysus reveal s th e full exten t of his power an d vindictiveness, the drama plays less with blindness and insight in human nature than with disguise an d revela tion i n the theate r and i n worship." Th e layer s of disguis e an d impersonatio n tha t constitute the dramatic performance ar e progressively strippe d awa y t o provide immediate an d unbearabl e acces s t o th e go d o f th e theater . I n th e process , theatrica l performance i s dismembered a s violently as Pentheus. Dram a exists onl y insofa r as it represent s throug h impersonation , ye t Bacchant Women undoe s thi s theatrical metaphor to lay bare a single inexplicable meaning behind it. Whereas othe r late plays create ne w possibilitie s fo r tragic drama , Bacchant Women return s to a more traditional for m onl y t o destro y it ; i f the grovelin g Hecub a embodie s onstag e th e gro tesque poetics of Trojan Women, the annihilatio n of drama i s embodied onstag e b y the severe d hea d an d limb s of Pentheus. 12 Bacchant Women i s a remarkably powerful an d effective play . Bu t this stripping away o f theatrica l metaphor canno t b e repeated , an d i n term s o f dramati c innovation, i t lead s t o a dea d end. 13 I t i s i n other lat e plays tha t Euripide s open s u p ne w possibilities fo r drama, and I therefore conclude with a reading of Phoenician Women and th e pleasures o f narrative.

The Ending and the Text We shal l begin, onc e again , with the ending . Bu t this is not a n easy plac e t o begin . Among modern scholars it has commonly been agreed that the epilogue of Phoenician Women i s riddled with later interpolations, some based upon other plays on the Theban cycle, tha t are inconsistent with one another and with other parts of the play. Yet the

Phoenician Women and Narrative 18

3

play as a whole i s a dense pastiche of Theban legend , and the process of discoverin g interpolations can b e quit e subjective: Eduar d Fraenke l ma y b e correc t i n identify ing inconsistencies, fo r example, but incorrec t i n assuming that the text is therefore deficient. 14 Elizabet h Crai k ha s recentl y argue d fo r th e "fundamenta l integrity" of the text o f the play, marking as spurious onl y two line s i n the entire final scen e an d noting that in general "subjective considerations o f literary taste are inconclusive."15 I shall argu e mor e specificall y tha t incorporation of man y different an d conflictin g details of the Theban cycl e i s part of a larger narrative strategy tha t gathers togethe r many available stories while refusing to reduce the m to a single plot or action. In the textual an d intertextua l incoherence o f th e ending, an d i n the narrative incoherenc e of th e pla y a s a whole, I believe w e shal l fin d on e o f Euripides ' mos t remarkabl e achievements. Phoenician Women i s unique (among th e complete an d extant plays of Euripides) in lackin g almos t entirel y the familia r gestures o f closure . Wher e deus , prophecy , and s o on ar e lacking , we ma y fin d instea d a mortal savio r (Alcestis) o r a demoni c epiphany (Medea, Children of Heracles, Hecuba), o r w e ma y fin d thes e gesture s displaced to the prologue (Trojan Women) o r present yet erased a t the end (Heracles). In Phoenician Women, however, ther e is no deu s an d n o comparable figur e to take its place; th e play (as we have it) ends entirely absorbed i n the human relations amon g Creon, Antigone , an d Oedipus , an d fleetin g allusions t o familia r closin g device s serve onl y t o underscore th e open an d inconclusive natur e of the epilogue. Th e fina l scene, which bega n wit h th e entrance of Oedipu s (1539), concludes wit h a lengthy stichomythia betwee n Creo n an d Antigon e an d betwee n Antigon e an d Oedipu s (1646-1707), and is followed b y a lyric exchange i n which Oedipu s an d Antigon e say goodbye t o one another (1710-57). Yet the astrophic son g o f father an d daughter, which lacks any form of metrical closure,17 apparently ends with a question ("D o you mean I should dance to Dionysus?" Antigone asks, 1754—57 ) and is followed at last b y two differen t exi t passages . The first passage i s chanted in tetrameters by Oedipus, who apparently quotes the exit line s o f the choru s i n Oedipus the King:1* Citizens o f thi s famou s land , look: thi s is Oedipu s who kne w th e famou s riddle , a great ma n wh o alone checke d th e power o f the murderou s Sphin x — now dishonore d an d pitie d I a m drive n from th e land . But wh y d o I sing thes e sorrows and lamen t i n vain? One who i s mortal mus t endur e th e gods' necessity . co naipac, Kleivf|c; Tto^itai, A.ev>a«ei:' ' OiSinotx ; 68e , 65 TC X K^eiv ' atviyuax' eyvwv Kd i fieyioToc ; f] v dvf|p , 6<; u.6vo<; Tfyiyfoc, KCXTEOXO V TT\C, uiai<j>6vo u Kpdrn , viiv cmuoc ; CCUTOC ; oiKTpoi; e£eA,ccuvou,ai X^ovoc; . dAAa ya p ti TCCUTC X 6pt|v( o tcai udtr| v ofiijpouai ; me, yap E K Beco v dvdyicai ; 6vr|TOv OVTO : 5el (fiepeiv . 1758-6

3

The las t three lines are chanted in anapests by the chorus, a s they quote from previous play s in appealing for victory i n the dramati c contest:19

184 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

O mos t hol y Victory, embrace m y lif e and d o no t cease crowning me . « jieya or.u,vf ] NIKTI , TO Y euo v PIOTOV Kaiexou ; Kai uf ] Xfryoit ; 0Te(j>avoTJaa . 1764—6 6

A scen e notabl y lacking any trac e of a deus end s with tw o curiou s version s of th e choral exit. The firs t ha s the recitative meter and the moralizing content that usually signal the emptying of the stage, but is spoken by Oedipus i n what can only be a selfconscious quotatio n of th e endin g o f Sophocles ' play . The secon d i s i n th e mor e common anapests and is spoken by the chorus, but consists of the formulaic and extradramatic gesture alone . Inlphigenia among the Taurians, the prayer for victory follows a seven-line anapesti c choral exit in which the choru s say s goodby e an d proclaims it s acceptance o f Athena's dispensation s (1490-96). I n Orestes, the prayer for victor y follow s mor e abruptl y upon Apollo' s comman d t o depar t an d th e nin e lines of anapests wit h which Apollo depart s upon th e machine (1682-90) . I n either case, th e praye r comes on th e heel s o f a sequence o f anapest s tha t accompany th e departure o f th e deu s e x machina . I n Phoenician Women, however , th e extra dramatic appea l t o Nik e comes o n th e heel s of a n extra-dramati c quotation, which follows a n inconclusiv e musical exchange. There i s anothe r hin t o f familia r closin g signal s i n th e fina l line s o f dialogu e between Oedipu s an d Antigone, just before they begin t o sing thei r lyri c duet: 20 OEDIPUS: Now , daughter , Apollo's oracle i s fulfilled . A N T I G O N E : Wha t i s it? Wil l yo u tel l o f evi l o n to p o f evil ? OEDIPUS: Tha t I will di e a n exil e i n Athens . ANTIGONF: Where ? Wha t Athenia n bastion wil l receiv e you ? O K D I P U S : Sacre d Colonus , hom e o f th e horseman god . Oi. vfj v xpna|j6c; , t o Tiai, Ao^io u TtepaiveTai. Av. 6 TIOIOC; ; dX V f| repot; Kaicoic; epeig KOKO ; Oi. e v Teat ; 'A9f|van; KaiSavelv u ' dXoiuevov. Av. jcoiJ ; "tit ; oe jnjpyot ; At9i8o Q 7tpoo5e£,eiai; Oi. iepot ; KoXwvoi;, ScouoG ' iratioi) 6eo\J. 1703- 7

Oedipus, a s h e prepare s t o leav e Thebes, remember s a n oracl e tha t h e wil l di e a n exile in Athens, and in recalling this oracle, he alludes to what later sources describ e as a hero cult near Athens.21 In the timely recollection o f an oracle, ther e is a hint of the mantic power o f Polydorus in Hecuba ("Yo u wil l become a dog with fiery eye s . . . Prophetic Dionysu s told th e Thracian s this" 1265-67) , an d i n th e mentio n of Colonus, ther e i s a hin t o f th e elaborat e yet evasiv e aetiolog y fo r Oedipus ' buria l place that will be staged in Sophocles' Oedipus at Colonus. Yet in Phoenician Women, these are no more tha n hints. They d o not look beyond the play, and they do not signal an end t o the action . They leav e us with hints of the futur e tha t conflict with on e another (th e evi l o f dyin g in exil e versu s receptio n i n sacre d Colonus ) and , a s w e shall see , wit h other hints of othe r futures .

Phoenician Women and Narrative. 18

5

The dram a conclude s withou t a privilege d voic e tha t wil l len d authorit y to th e end, nor does it play with the presence o f such a voice as Trojan Women an d Heracles do. Instea d w e hav e fleetin g and contradictor y hint s towar d th e futur e an d outsid e the text . Thes e hints , however , ar e par t o f a large r serie s o f brie f an d conflictin g allusions both t o the futur e an d t o other text s throughout the fina l scene . The scen e begins, after Oedipu s an d Antigone welcome on e another in song, with Creon claimin g a ver y morta l authorit y an d usin g thi s t o arrang e th e morta l end s o f buria l an d marriage: 22 Stop weeping; i t is time t o make th e grave's memorial. And hea r what I have t o say, Oedipus: you r so n Eteocle s gave m e command o f thi s land, and gav e a dowry t o Haemon an d marriag e t o your daughte r Antigone. oiKicov UE V fi8r| XfiyeO' , ci)< ; copa lafyov uvf||ir|v ttOecGar ttbvS e 8', OiSircoD , A.6yw v aKouaov apxac ; Tf|a8e yfjt ; eSwK E uo i 'ETEOKA.ETII; 71015 °°?> yduwv <|>epvc« ; SiSoiji; ATuovi Kopri ^ TE >.eKTpov AvTiyovTi g oe6ev. 1584-8 8 The new rule r at once begins b y banishing Oedipus, openin g u p a n uncertain future : I allo w yo u t o liv e i n thi s land n o longer ; Teircsias said clearl y tha t whil e you liv e in this land th e cit y wil l neve r prosper. So leave. O"UKOW a' edoco TT|v8e yf\v OIKEI V ETf aai|>co<; yap EVTC E TEipEoiai; oii uf ) TCOT E ooij Tf|vSe yf| v oiKowtoi ; ETJ 7tpdJ;eiv it6X.iv . dU' £KKOuii;o u 1589-9 2 The literar y tradition offers a t leas t tw o ver y differen t version s o f Oedipus ' future . Homer an d Hesio d impl y that he remaine d kin g i n Thebes an d receive d a n honor able burial there, while at least by th e fifth centur y it was tol d tha t he went into exile instead. 23 This play , i n which Creo n order s Oedipu s int o exile and Oedipu s protest s (1620-21), reverse s Sophocles ' versio n o f th e scene , i n whic h Creo n order s tha t Oedipus be taken insid e while th e old man plead s t o be sent int o exile (Oedipus th e King 1430 , 1436).24 I n th e exchang e tha t follows , Creo n prevails , onl y t o ad d an other command tha t plunges u s into the world o f a different play : he announces tha t Polyneices' corps e must li e unburied outside th e city an d tha t any attemp t a t burial will be punished with death (1629-36). Rather than an uncertain future an d a reversal o f Oedipus, w e no w fin d a star k conflic t tha t promise s t o repea t th e actio n o f Antigone:2^ CREON: I tel l you , this ma n wil l b e unburied . ANTIOONH: I will bur y hi m eve n i f th e cit y forbid s it .

186 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

CREON: The n you'l l bur y yoursel f nex t t o the corpse . ANTIOONH: An d a fin e thin g tha t tw o ki n shoul d li e together . Kp. OTCKJKX ; 66' dvf|p, cix ; jidGrjc;, yevriaetai. Av. eyc o aij> e Odyw , Ka v dreevveKT i rc6A.i^ . Kp. accuifi v dp ' eyyxx; T(p8e aw0d\|/ei<; veKpco. Av. dAA ' e\)K^Ee<; tot 8v> o <|>iA( o KeiaOoa ;te^a<; . 1656-5 9

Uncertain exile , or crisi s an d confrontation ; the undoing of one performance o r the repetition o f anothe r —in whic h directio n will th e endin g tak e us ? Th e conflic t re mains a t a n impasse , wit h Creo n vainl y vowin g t o seiz e Antigon e (1660) , an d Antigone vainl y vowing t o bur y hi m (1657, 1661) , and then with Antigon e askin g leave to wash the body or bind its wounds, while Creon agai n refuses. When Antigon e leans ove r t o kiss her brother, Creo n suddenl y launches u s on yet another course: 26 ANTIGONE: M y love , a t leas t I shall clin g t o you r lips . CREON: I won't le t you rui n your marriag e wit h thes e sobs. ANTIGONE: D o yo u thin k I'l l marr y you r son a s lon g a s I live? CRI-ON: Yo u must . Where can yo u escap e thi s union ? ANTIGONE: Tha t nigh t wil l mak e m e on e o f th e Danaids . CREON: D o yo u se e he r braze n taunts ? ANTIGONE: Th e stee l swor d bears witness t o m y oath . Av. < o (JH/Uccc' , dXX d crc6|i a ye oov itpo07m>!;o|iai.. Kp. OIJ K EC, yduouc; aovc, ai)|ii)>opdv KTTICJT I yooic; . Av. T I ydp yau,o\)jia v i^oja a TtaiS t ac p TIOTE ; Kp. 7toM.f | a' dvdyKT y noi ya p EK^e-uEr j Xexot; ; Av. vu ^ dp' EKeivri Aavcd'Sw v u, ' e^ei (liav. Kp. ei8ei ; TO ionium' oiov eJ;covetSiaev ; Av. IOTC O ai5T|po<; opKiov T E (io i £,i())O(; . 1671-7 7

Antigone's threa t that, like a daughte r of Danaus , sh e will murde r her husban d o n their weddin g nigh t introduce s a ne w confrontation , a ne w crisi s tha t instea d o f replaying Sophocles' Antigone wil l und o the Antigone o f Euripides . I n Euripides ' version, no w lost , Antigon e an d Haemon plotted togethe r t o bury Polyneices , risk ing discovery an d death because o f their mutual love.27 Euripides' earlie r Antigone, driven to bury her brother by the strength of her love for Haemon, is totally reversed in Phoenician Women, i n which th e strengt h o f he r lov e fo r Polyneice s wil l drive Antigone t o murde r Haemon . An d Antigon e figure s thi s reversa l b y promisin g t o play the part of a character fro m Aeschylus ' Danaids. The showdow n i s agai n deflecte d i n anothe r directio n a s Antigon e promise s t o avoid marriage to Haemon b y going int o exile with her father (1679), painting a picture of the loyal and sufferin g daughter (1686, 1690-92) that reflect s a n account of Oedipus' exil e that is presupposed i n Sophocles' Oedipus the. King, and that survive s most memorably for us in Oedipus at Colonus.28 Creon make s his exit and the ensuing dialogue between fathe r and daughter concludes as Oedipus accepts her decision to share hi s uncertain future :

Phoenician Women an d Narrative 18

7

ANTIGONE: Where ? Wha t Athenia n bastio n wil l receiv e you ? OEDIPUS: Sacre d Colonus , hom e of th e horseman god. But come , atten d t o you r blin d fathe r here , since you desire to shar e thi s exile . Av. Ttoij ; ti g oe rrupyoc; 'AiQiSoc, 7ipoa5e^etai; Oi. iepoc ; KoX,cov6<; , 8c6ua9 ' ITUUO D Qeov. a'kK el a TU())X( B T(55' wrnpeiei TtaTpi, ejtei jcpo8u|j,T i if|o5e Koivovoea i (jwyfjt; . 1706-

9

Clearly, there is no single , correc t end . Antigone cannot die attempting to bury her brother at Thebes (1659 ) and also di e accompanying her father i n exile (1681). The final scene surveys the different possible sequels, sample s the different way s in which the end might be written and ha s been written, and leaves us with no way o f choosing among them—lik e a blind exile confrontin g the uncharted void. The lyric s that follow offe r a repris e o f thes e an d othe r endings : Antigon e wil l accompan y he r father int o exile, taking his han d and guiding him "like th e wind that guides a ship " (1710-12), Antigone laments the outrage against her brother and says she "will bury the unburie d corpse i n shadow y earth " eve n i f sh e mus t di e (1741-46) , and/o r Antigone will join women fro m Thebes and become a maenad dancing on the mountains an d worshipping Dionysu s (1747-57). 29 Antigone say s he r resourcefu l min d will make her famous (1741-42), but famous for what? And what of Oedipus? Whe n Antigone ask s "An d wher e i s Oedipus an d his famous riddle?" (1688), h e answer s "Destroyed; on e day made m e happ y and one day destroyed me " (1689). Will he be received at Colonus or will he die "just anywhere " (1736)? Will he wander into exile "with the strength of a dream" (coat' oveipov iaxw 1722) or will he leave us at least with a n impressiv e ech o o f Oedipus th e King (1758-63) ? Th e epilogu e tha t lack s an authoritativ e voice an d presenc e i s fille d instea d wit h competin g voice s an d impersonations. We might look at the ending of Phoenician Women i n a different way . It might be that the action reaches suc h a resounding and tragic conclusion that gestures o f clo sure are unnecessary, and th e uncertai n future i s of little moment. The scholiast , for example, comments on the catastrophic outcome of the plot: "Phoenician Women i s very calamitous ; Creon's son die d fo r hi s country by falling from th e wall, the tw o brothers died at each others' hands , their mother Jocasta killed herself upon her children, th e Argive s wh o marche d agains t Thebe s wer e destroyed , Polyneice s lie s unburied, Oedipus is thrown out of his native land, and so too is his daughter Antigone with him." 30 But a stage ful l o f dead bodies does no t necessarily guarantee an effective end . I t is worth lookin g back t o see ho w th e variou s deaths in the latte r par t of the pla y are portrayed and t o see i f individua l calamitie s somehow buil d towar d an effective an d tragic conclusion . The firs t o f thes e i s strikin g an d notorious : the self-immolatio n of Menoeceus , who took his own life to put an end to the dragon's curs e and thus save Thebes. The exodos prope r (1307-1766 ) begin s wit h th e entranc e of Creon , wh o report s an d laments the death of hi s so n (1310-21). It is three hundre d line s since Menoeceu s left th e stag e (1018 ) i n orde r t o kil l himsel f an d sav e th e cit y i n accordanc e wit h

188 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

Teiresias' prophecies. As we return to this subplot, we expect to dwell upon the double aftermath: a father's grief a t the loss of this young an d nobl e son , an d the city's deliverance fro m the curse o f the dragon. Instead, a messenger enter s to report at great length (1356-1479 ) th e due l betwee n Polyneice s an d Eteocles , th e death s o f bot h brothers, an d the suicid e o f Jocasta. Th e subplo t o f Menoeceu s i s discarded an d its double aftermat h i s neve r picke d u p again . Critic s hav e lon g remarke d upo n th e puzzling way in which th e promise that the city will be delivered from it s curse drop s out of the play, and they ask, for example, i f we ar e meant to doubt the effectivenes s of Menoeceus' sacrifice : ther e is no sign tha t Thebes has been saved , an d the city' s troubles see m t o continue. 31 Jus t a s puzzling i s the manne r i n which Creon' s grie f and the burial of his son are abruptly forgotten. It will not do to imagine a dumb play of silent tribute to the young man's corpse; 32 the duties of burial no less than the city's safety ar e abruptly upstaged by the messenger. B y this device, th e playwright chooses not to gather threads together an d combine th e deaths of Menoeceus an d Jocasta int o a tragic crescendo; instead on e thread and its doubly climacti c potential (as personal loss and a s civic redemption ) ar e simply dropped , an d anothe r threa d i s picked up . The messenger speech return s us to the main thread of the story, and with the report of Jocasta's death adde d t o those o f Polyneices an d Eteocles, we reac h a climax in the fortune s o f th e roya l hous e tha t migh t see m t o excus e neglectin g th e deat h o f Menoeceus: th e death of both captain s puts an end to the war, an d Jocasta's suicid e crowns th e family's loss. But a s the messenger reports , thi s is not the end: . . . and sh e la y dead , holdin g both in her arms . At once th e people ros e i n fighting words, a s w e claimed tha t our chie f won , an d the y claime d tha t theirs did. Then ther e was fightin g amon g th e soldier s . . . . . . Oavoiiaa Keita i TiepipaA.o'ua' an<|>oi v %£puc,. dvf|£,e 5' 6p66<; Xaot; eic, epiv /Voywv , T|u.eiq nev w q viKcovta &eanoir\v ejiov , oi 8 ' ax; eKelvov r\v 5' epic; atpmT}\cmn<;. . . 1459-6 2

The battle now begins al l over again, the soldiers rus h again to arms, and blood flow s from countles s corpse s (1471 ) unti l th e Theban s scor e a decisiv e victor y ove r th e Argives tha t they commemorate wit h a trophy to Zeus (1473). This end, like that of Menoeceus, i s double-edged: th e city triumphs, while Antigone and others bring back the dea d t o be mourne d (1476—77) . Reflectin g upo n thi s latest end , th e messenge r concludes: Some struggles turne d out mos t fortunat e fo r the cit y today, an d other s mos t unfortunate . 7t6A.ei 8' dywvet ; oi ue v evnvxecrraTOi TTJ5" e^eprioav, oi S e 5\)cm)xeoTaToi . 1478-7 9

How do we respon d t o this double outcome ? A t thi s point Antigon e enters, accom panied b y th e bodie s o f th e dead , an d i n her lament , like Creon befor e her , she ac knowledges onl y los s an d grief. Also lik e Creon, th e grieving Antigone is suddenly

Phoenician Women an d Narrative 18

9

upstaged a s a new thread in the story demands our attention. In a fine aria grieving a t "the twi n breasts o f my mother" an d "the outrag e o f brothers' bodies " (1526-29),33 Antigone suddenl y calls upo n he r fathe r Oedipu s and , in one o f th e mor e startlin g scenes i n Greek tragedy , the blin d shade o f a ma n just a s suddenl y enters. Briefly , Antigone report s tha t his wife an d sons are dead, but the entrance of Oedipus serve s not t o ti e togethe r the thread s o f famil y misfortune , but t o introduc e new strands . Antigone lament s a tragic end fo r th e house , bu t th e choru s look s t o the future , an d Creon set s a new plo t i n motion: 34 ANTIGONE: Al l thes e sorrows i n one day , father, were brought togethe r fo r ou r hous e by the god wh o accomplishe s this . CHORUS: Thi s da y bega n man y trouble s for the hous e of Oedipus; ma y lif e b e mor e fortunate . CREON: Sto p weeping ; i t i s time t o make th e grave's memorial. And hea r what I have t o say, Oedipus. . . Av. ndvt a 5 ' ev duc m i;w8 e crovdyayev , ro Tidiep , dueiepoiaiv d^r] p.eXd6poic; 6eoi; 6<; td5' eKTeX-euxa. Xo. 7toM.co v KCXKCO V Kc«fjpJ;e v Oi8i;w u SouxHc ; To8' f}uap' eiT ) 5' ei'mj^eaxepot; pio<; . Kp. oiKTto v ue v T]8T i XTvye9' , coc ; copa tafyov u.vf)UT|v tiGeoGa r trovS e 5' , OtSijiou, Xoyto v aKowov . . . 1579-8 6

The city's success an d the family's grief are now upstaged b y Creon's edict s banishing Oedipu s an d forbiddin g burial of Polyneices . Wherea s earlie r th e messenger' s entrance preempte d Creo n b y returnin g to th e conflic t betwee n th e riva l brothers , here the entrance of Oedipus preempts Antigone's lamen t with a new beginning and with wha t could easil y be mistake n for a prologue speech: 35 Fate, fro m th e beginning you conceive d me — of al l me n born—fo r sufferin g and misery, and even befor e m y mothe r bor e m e t o th e light Apollo gave a n oracl e t o Laiu s tha t I , unborn, would b e my father' s murderer—wretched me ! (!) jioip', cm ' dp%fJ 5 die ; u. ' e<j>uaa< ; aGXio v KCU t/Vf|uov' , ei nq aAAo q dvGpconto v ecfnj '

6v Kct i Tipi v EC, (jxoq |ir|Tp6c ; EK yovfji ; poXei v

d'yovov ArcoAAco v Aaiw |a' eGeomaev i|)ovea yeveaGai naipot;' d > tdXai; eyto. 1595-9 9

Like an y prologue speaker , Oedipu s offer s a narrative summary of the past (15971614) befor e turnin g to describ e th e presen t crisis , Creon' s orde r o f exil e (1616 — 24). Ye t th e presen t situatio n turn s ou t t o contai n severa l differen t crises : th e proclamation o f exile that Oedipus protests , th e ban agains t burying Polyneices that

190 TH

E END S O F T R A G E D Y

Antigone vows to defy, and the betrothal to Haemon tha t Antigone threaten s to con summate wit h murder . A s note d above , thi s new beginnin g i s poised t o tak e u s in several different , an d contradictory , directions . The exodos of Phoenician Women thu s marks a radical departure from Euripides ' usual technique. In most o f his plays, the gestures o f closure cate r t o the expectatio n of a clear an d emphatic ending , and Euripidean novelty consists in the various way s in which he complicates or frustrates this expectation. Phoenician Women, however, marks an entirely ne w departur e by offerin g a confusion of endings an d beginnings . Rather tha n (negatively o r critically ) playin g against th e manne r i n which traged y resolves an d unravels th e end , thi s play offer s a (positive an d therefor e les s coher ent) model of tangled thread s and contradictory possibilities tha t remain unresolved .

Narrative Multiplied These multipl e possibilities ar e explore d no t onl y a t th e en d bu t throughou t the action o f the play—or rather , throughout the many narrative threads i t generates. A n ancient preface remarks that Phoenician Women is "stuffed full" (TtapaTiAjipcojiatiKov), and thi s is true both o f its large an d unwield y cast an d o f the historica l sweep o f episodes enacted, reported, and remembered. This narrative plenitude might be organized in an y number of ways , an d I shall argu e her e that Euripides deliberately stuffe d th e play ful l o f discrete and independen t plots. Rathe r than weaving thes e togethe r into a single narrative thread, h e lavishly adds the m one upon one another. 36 We might distinguish, first , a multitude of plots, a proliferation of characters an d their stories . Wherea s th e cas t o f Aeschylus ' Seven against Thebes include s thre e named role s (Eteocles , Ismene , an d Antigone) plu s two extra speakin g part s (Mes senger an d Herald), Phoenician Women no t onl y include s Eteocles, Antigone , and two messengers , bu t add s t o these Jocasta , Oedipus , Creon , Polyneices , Teiresias , Menoeceus, an d th e tutor . And wher e th e plot i n Aeschylus focuse s almos t exclu sively upo n Eteocles , Euripide s divide s hi s attention much mor e evenl y among th e various characters , givin g equa l prominenc e t o th e tw o sibling s Eteocle s an d Polyneices wh o ar e vying to rule Thebes and to the two sibling s Jocasta an d Creo n who ar e tryin g to us e thei r authority as regent o r parent to maintain order. H e eve n gives equa l prominence t o th e youthfu l figure s Antigone an d Menoeceu s wh o tr y selflessly t o help save the family an d the city. Yet the focus of the plot is not so much divided a s multiplied; each o f thes e character s seem s t o pursu e goal s and interests that are of little concern t o the others. Eteocles lust s for power, Polyneice s nurse s an exile's resentment, Jocasta want s only to see her sons alive , Creon's ends ar e purely pragmatic and his son's are purely idealistic , Oedipus lingers on long afte r his story is finished , Antigon e is poised a s he r stor y i s about t o begin, an d th e choru s wait s until its own story , interrupted by the war, can begin again . There is , in other words , a certain solipsism i n these characters, who pursue their own ends while claiming to speak fo r others. "There is no escaping it : all men love their country," (358—59) says Polyneices a s he prepare s t o attac k Thebes . "N o ma n ca n liv e without lovin g chil dren," (965 ) say s Creon , ignorin g the welfare of th e city and the wishe s o f his son . Yet i f each characte r i s absorbe d i n hi s o r he r ow n littl e plot , most ar e als o ou t of

Phoenician Women and Narrative 19

1

place i n the larger story ; in some sens e they do not belong. Th e women o f the chorus are literall y ou t o f place , journeyin g fro m Phoenici a t o Apollo's templ e a t Delph i and accidentally trapped at Thebes by the state of war. Oedipus waste s awa y in limbo shuttered within the house an d enters th e stag e a t the en d only t o be sen t int o exile. Antigone i s cloistered i n the women's quarter s (193-95) an d reemerges onl y to join her father in exile. Teiresias is simply passing fro m one city at war to another (852 55). Polyneice s i s describe d wit h grea t sympath y a s a n exil e (387—407) , an d h e enters the city as a fearful strange r (269-71), no less out of place than the Phoenician women (278-79,286-87). The chorus repeatedly invokes , as ancestor of the Thebans, lo the proverbia l exil e who wandere d th e lengt h o f th e world i n the for m o f a co w (248, 677 , 828). Despite thei r many invocations of Earth and fatherland (e.g. , 5,51, 73-76, 154, 280, 359, 388, 406),37 these character s ar e homeless an d transient, pursuing thei r own end s bu t lackin g th e comfor t o f a large r stor y t o whic h the y truly belong. The y mus t shar e the sam e stage , of course, an d they are brought within the same cit y walls by the press of war, but without the god of war, their separate stories would hav e littl e in common : But no w Arc s has com e rushing before th e walls inflaming hostil e blood fo r this city (ma y i t not happen!) . The sufferin g of friend s is share d and i f this seven-towered lan d suffers, i t will be shared with Phoenicia . Ah ah ! Common blood , commo n childre n born o f horne d lo ; 1 share these troubles . vuv §£ jioi Tip o TEixEffl v GoVjpioc; |iotaov Apn< ; ai|ia Sdiov A.eye i ia5', o )if| TiJxoi . 7t6A.er Koivd ya p ijjiXw v a%T\, Koivd 5' , ei T I Tteiaeica ETttdTfupyoc; a5 e yd , <J>oiviaaa %<(>pa. §a\) §ev. KOIVOV aijia , Koiv d TEKEQ Tat; KBpaa<j)6poi> 7iE(j>UKe v 'loti? ' wv (lETEc m no i TTOVWV . 239-4 9

To this intersection of multiple plots we should add the intersection of texts. Suzann e Sai'd ha s well describe d th e antagonisti c relatio n betwee n Phoenician Women an d Seven against Thebes, showing ho w Euripides ' variou s doublings, confusions , and delays undermin e his Aeschylean model; 38 one o f the clearest mark s of this agonistic relation is the brusque manner in which Eteocle s dispense s with a roll call of Theban heroes i n the manner of Aeschylus: "T o tel l each man' s name is a waste of time, with the enem y statione d at the ver y walls " (751—52). 39 But a t leas t as importan t as this

19902TTHH

E E ENEDNSDORFE FTIRGAUGREEDDY

will remain hidden 69-73)y, oand Apolloagainst warn s Thebes that Heracles wil l save Alcestis , direct challeng e t o th(Ion e authorit f Seven i s th e indirec t challenge while Death contradict him (Alcestis 64-76). Trojan Women, we shal l see, staged b y appending so smany other stories to it.13The central plot isasexactly the sameis as i n Aeschylus, an d i t and is a Poseidon simple one: the ecitthe y prepares fo roth e fina l assaul th e unusual in that Athena arrang destruction f the Greek flee t of someSeven, battle joined, th oe finvaders ar e(78-91). defeatedBut , annowhere d Eteocleelse s an in d Polyneice time after th eisconclusion the drama Euripides's kil sur-l one another. plot weaves a multitude from the viving plays Into doesthis th e simple prologue givEuripides e a detailed forecast o f eventsoftoepisodes come: Aphrodite rich an dtha varied literar y saccount s of Theban legend . Jocast a i n iher e speec reports t Hippolytu an d Phaedr a wil l bot h die , Phaedra n a prologu relativel y noblhe weaves r the plot ther Theseu curse ofs mannertogethe (e\')KX,er|( ; 47 ) anofd Sophocles' Hippolytu sOedipus kille d b the y thKing e curs(13-62) e o f hi with s fathe Oedipus against his sons governs the action against Thebes (Hippolytus 43-48) . Thiswhich openin g prophecy, like of theSeven opening aition, helps(63-80) to mark. As e choru setake s th ne stage i t imitates the entranc th e choru1''s iBu n Phrynichus' thethdifferenc betwee thi s ,play an d Euripides ' firset of Hippolytus. t i t als o re 40 Phoenician e it s gfirs repeat s the ehastor y o f th e foundin of t minds u s thaWomen, t w e ar e whil beginnin a t tthstasimo e end:nAphrodit s intervene d and al gl tha Thebes Sownplay Menout which earlier beenforetold. tol d in Stesichorus' Europa.^ Th ies followsand wil the l simply the had sequel sh e has Finally , where th e deus 42 issue o f greete buria dl fo r Polyneices l or absen tan i nd Aeschylus, usually wit h a gesture ,otangentia f acknowledgement acceptance , thi se carefull speech oyf woven int o ithe actio n da sinstea if to prepare r Sophocles' Antigone ,(774-78, Aphrodite s answere d b y th efoentranc e o f Hippolytus singin g th1447-50, e praise s 1627-73). to mediate e dispute between brings into thet of ArtemisJocasta's (58-60) , attempt ye t the scene ends th with a belated speeche h or fsons acknowledgemen 43 play version o f the story earlierexcessive told by Stesichorus. the many details fromathbelated e servant, whose protes t against punishmen tAnd ("pretend no t to hear that ech o Aeschylus (dispositio f th eI seve n leader s a t /eac h o f th e seve him:clearl godsyshould be wiser tha n men," u,fn )oSOKE TOUTO U KA/ueiv CTO^coiepoxx ; yanp gates, description the shields of theseem Argive chiefs), many others Xpt) ppoica v eivcof u OEOTJC ; 119-20) s directe d tarc o aaccompanied deus whose by interventio n is (on the monstrous on the wedding of Harmonia and so already complete . Sphinx I n Ion,806-11, one intermediar y of Apollo (Hermes)822-29, is replaced a t on) the that ech o detail s fro man othe s oWomen, f Theba nthlegen d noentrance w lost , suc h a s th ee end ma b y yanothe r (Athena), d i nr account Bacchant e god's i n disguis epic cycl e comprisin Oedipodeia, Thebaid, an d . Epigoni.™ s wel l ae sleave weaving is answere d a t the engd by hi s terrifyin g epiphany But whe n A Aphrodit s th e together various sources, Euripides to insert twol scenes from the Iliad. stage a t these the beginning of Hippolytus, sh manages e i s making her fina exit , having finished The play begins withe at oscene everything she cam do. 15i n which Antigone an d a n old servant survey the war riorsThis gathered below, giving lyric version teichoskopia which impressio n tha t th eapla y begin s a of t antheenfamous d i s reinforce d b y a in series o fHelen clos e and Priam survey the Greek captains. And th e play ends with the bloody and correspondences betwee n prologu e an d epilogue. A s we hav e seen , the play evenly begin s matched and Polyneices, an d bringing to completion and end sduel withbetween the deathEteocles of Hippolytus, and withechoin verbalgechoes reinforcing thi s simithe evenl y matched due l between Hecto r an d Ajax that was mor e fortunatel y interlarity. It also begin s and ends with the gestures o f deus e x machina, aition, and con45 rupted b y nightfall (Iliad 1. 219-82). Furthermore, at the cente r of th e play is the cluding prophecy, an d eac h o f these involve s furthe r similarities . We hav e already invented Menoeceus an dr his noted thastory t bot hofaetiologie s refe t o anoble tom bbut an apparently d her o shrininconsequential e of Hippolytussacrifice. , bu t th e Just as this novel episode is not fully integrate d into the eclectic thes parallels involve Aphrodite as well. In the prologue, Phaedra' s Theban lov e fo rtapestry, Hippolytu 46 young man appeal s i n vain for a shared visio n of the city' s good: is commemorated wit h a shrine of Aphrodite tha t look s towar d Troze n (" a lookou t of thi s land," KaToyio v / jf\c, Tfja5e , 30—31) , while the epilogu e allude s to a shrine eac h person k an d pursued what goo d the love-smitte n Phaedr a use d t o watch of If Aphrodite thetoo Spy (KmaoKOTuac;) where 16 common us e he can, and offere d thi s for the Hippolytus at his exercises. In her opening prophecy, Aphrodit e promise s t o punhi s country, citiese would experienc ishofArtemis ' favorit Hippolytus ( a 8e 'fewer eig eu, ' -rpdpTriKe Tiu.copf|(jou.ai , 21 ) just a s troubles, an d i n futur e woul d prosper . Artemis i n the epilogue promises to punish the favorite of Aphrodite (TO^OIC ; afyvKioic, TOiaSe , 1422) , repeatin ei ya pTi(icopf|oou.ai Xapw v EKOOTOI ; on SWOIT O TIC g; th e vow o f vengeanc e i n the sam e line-en d position. e god' TOTJT s presence i n th eV ijiepo prologu XpnoTOvTh 8ieX6oi O Kelt ; KOVVO i e i s ignore d b y Hippolytu s an d i s only TtaTptSi, KOKWbelatedl V a v c d 7i6^,en ; eXaaoovcav acknowledged y by the servant (114-20), just as Artemis' entrance at the end Tieipwuevoi Xomo v emw^oiev 8 is no t formall yT O acknowledge d unti av. l th1015-1 e dyin g Hippolytu s is brough t onstag e mor e than a hundre d lines late r (EOT / C D Beio v oaufj q 7weiju,< r Kc d ya p e v KQKOIC ; / co v The ending, as KdveKOD<j>ia9r|v we hav e seen, makes no/ attempt to unravel these"Apieuai; various strands, but r)o66u,r|v 0011 8eu,a<;. EOT' ev TOTUHO U toiaiS' Bed, 1391allows th e in complex an d contradictor tha t events may fol93). Anthem d justtoassuggest Aphrodite the prologue withdraws yatcourses the approach o f Hippolytus, low future whoi in sthe about t o .die (56—57) , an d leave s event s t o pla y themselve s out , Artemi s i n the playwithdrawing are piled one upon other, as are varitheBriefly endingstated makes, characters an identicalingesture, from thethe scene a s the herothe is about ous texts that reportand their stories. I n a similar the larger forces t might to die (1437-39), allowin g Hippolytu s anway, d Theseu s t o play outha t thei r grie fhave an d given coherence t o thedeparture action areofmultiplied a bewildering pre-s sympathy. This early the deus isinunique in Greekfashion. tragedy We andnoted reinforce

Phoenician Women and Narrative 193 viously tha t in Helen th e designs o f Zeus an d Hera ar e realized, but i n an accidental or fortuitous manner. Phoenician Women, however , presents the radical spectacle o f a world in which the divine order plays no part; if not absent entirely, it is fragmented beyond recognition . Onstage , th e cas t o f this play is unique, with n o god speakin g the prologue o r epilogue (a s we fin d i n eleven o f Euripides' plays) , n o intervention of Iri s and Lyssa , an d n o demoni c epiphan y at the end—onl y Teiresia s th e oracle monger who speaks o n his own behalf, wearing a crown that he won on his own (856— 57), an d contrastin g his privat e oracle s wit h thos e o f Apoll o a t Delph i (Ootpo v ctvGpcoTtoi^ |u,6vov / %pf|v 9EO7ucp8eiv 65 5e5oiKev o\>8eva 958-59). Nor i s there any divine plan or will of the gods that affects the course o f events from offstage. This is not to say there are no divine agents lurkin g in the wings, bu t in Phoenician Women, these ar e not Zeus or Apollo o r Hera with their conspicuous i f conflicting purposes ; the divin e agent s her e ar e Earth , War , Furies , curses , an d othe r nameless daimon s who inhabi t the play an d it s background i n an unparalleled manner.47 The actor s i n this drama feel the supernatural world pressing aroun d them: they feel the vitality of Earth tha t support s the m an d th e man y dark forces tha t arc working thei r ruin, bu t never do they glimpse a n Olympian han d or purpose i n what they endure . If Zeus i s invoked, it is only as a being that , like Helios or the Sun (1-3), dwells in the gleam ing folds of ether (o > (jjaevvdt; oijpavoij vaiw v Trruxaq/Zei) 84-85) and a s one wh o fails t o apportio n unhappiness wisely (86—87) . Apollo delivere d an oracl e warnin g Laius not to have children lest his son kill him (17-20,1598-99), but the god has no evident plan or purpose i n doing this , and is chiefly a figure for the beauty of Delphi (205-38) where the chorus might have performed their timeless duties instead of being trapped i n a city at war. If any force directs the action, it is the curse of Oedipus against his sons, but whereas the curse i n Aeschylus i s part of an overriding divine scheme, i n Euripides it is simply one of several supernatural forces. I n Aeschylus' Seven against Thebes, Eteocle s responds t o the messenger's report o f impendin g war by praying: Zeus an d Eart h an d gods tha t guar d th e city , and Curs e an d might y Fur y o f m y father , do no t roo t ou t m y cit y fro m Greece , destroye d entirely, captured b y it s enemies. w Ze- u T e Kd i Ff | Kof i TcoXiooofixo i Oeoi , 'Apex T ' 'Epivix; ;iaTp6<; i] neyaa6evf]c; , uf| u.o i TtoXi v ye rcpuuvoGe v 7tavc6A,e6po v EKOauvtariTe SriaXwco v 'EAAdSoc; . 69-7 2

The implicatio n that al l these god s belong t o a single, coheren t real m i s reinforced by th e parodos tha t follows, i n which th e chorus pray s t o Ares , t o th e city' s gods, and to other Olympians in turn, including Zeus an d Apollo (104-80). And th e curse of Oedipus , whic h become s so prominen t in the secon d hal f o f th e pla y (655, 695, 709, 723 , 833, 885—86), i s associate d i n particular with th e wil l of a nameles s go d (689), wit h Apollo' s hatre d fo r th e rac e o f Laiu s (691 , compar e 801-2) , an d with Fate (975). In Euripides, the curse o f Oedipus is just as prominent (66-74, 334, 47475, 874-77, 1051-54, 1354-55 , 1426 , 1556-58), but it remains independent from,

194 T H

E END S O F TRAGED Y

and is sometimes oppose d to , other divine agents. The fates of the city and of the two brothers, for example, depen d upo n tw o entirel y differen t curses : th e brothers have been curse d b y thei r father fo r lockin g hi m u p within th e hous e (63-68 , 874-77), while the city as a whole ha s been curse d b y Ares because Cadmus , whe n founding Thebes, killed the god's dragon (931-36; compare 657-75). Apollo's oracle to Laius is linked or associated wit h neithe r of these curses. The Furie s ar e likewise associ ated wit h tw o entirel y independent motives , th e curs e o f Oedipu s agains t hi s sons (255, 624 , 1306) and th e ange r o f th e Sphin x agains t Oedipu s an d Thebe s (1029 , 1503). And Ares, whose rol e is so pervasive (134, 240, 253, 658, 784, 934, 936,1006, 1081,1124, 1128,1402 , 1576), is little more than a personification of war—a figure who embodies the fearful spectr e of war without explaining its cause or purpose. More tangible than the presence o f Olympians ar e gods such a s Ambition (532) , Precaution (782) , Strif e (798), an d Tyranny (506) . Whe n Jocast a trie s t o aver t th e inevitable conflict, sh e does so by asking Eteocles t o stop following Ambition, "the worst of gods" (531), and hono r anothe r god i n her place : This i s better, m y child: to honor Equity , who alway s binds together friends wit h friends, citie s wit h cities, allie s with allies ; for equality gives men justice, while th e lesser i s always a t war with the greater and begin s th e da y o f hatred. Among mankin d Equity established measure s and unit s of weight, an d sh e define d numbers. Keivo KtxXXiov , TEKVOV , 'IcrotriTa Ti|iav, r\ tyiXovc, dei <])iXoi 5 TioXeit; TE TtoXea i o"uu.nd%o-u< ; T E ODu,(id%oii ;
A multitud e o f superhuma n agents ar e wove n int o thi s tapestry, but the y nowher e comprise a common thread . We might add the multiplication of episodes, which th e hypothesis complains have been loosel y stitched together: "The play is excellent in its theatrical effects, but it is stuffed full : Antigon e lookin g from the walls i s not a part of the action , Polyneice s arrives unde r truce t o n o avail , an d Oedipu s goin g int o exil e wit h a chatt y aria i s stitched on in vain."48 Why make elaborate arrangements to bring Polyneices onstage , when Jocasta's attempt at mediation is an immediate and complete failure ? Why hav e Antigone an d the tutor survey the enemy force s when th e messenger wil l soon giv e a fuller an d clearer account ? Wh y hav e the messenger lavis h such car e on his narrative of the battle (1090-1199) when this will be upstaged b y the duel and a secon d battle t o follow ? An d wh y brin g the senil e Oedipus ou t o f th e palace onl y to sen d him of f into exile? The actio n i s filled wit h episodes that ar e as apparently inconse quential as the suicide o f Menoeceus; the y belong togethe r not because on e leads to

Phoenician Wome n and Narrative 195 the othe r i n a logical o r necessar y sequence , bu t simpl y becaus e al l occur here , a t Thebes, an d now, as the Argives attac k the city. I would like to tease out the method in this madness, i n this careful an d deliberate confusion, by looking more closel y a t some connection s amon g three unrelated scenes a t the beginning, middle, and en d of the play. Jocasta's prologu e speec h i s followed b y the singin g entranc e not o f the choru s but o f the tutor and Antigone, who emerg e o n the palace roo f t o look a t the Argiv e army. The old man will search out the path for her (enia^eq, (bq av Ttpot^epeuvficK O attpov 92 ) and because h e knows everything , will make i t known t o her (ndvia 5 ' e£,ei8c6i; pdcr< B 95). Slowl y and laboriously , they step u p t o the roo f together: 49 ANTIGONE: No w reach , reac h fro m th e ladde r old han d t o youn g raising th e trea d o f rn y foot . TUTOR: Tak e my hand , maide n . . . Av. opey e VD V opey e yepaidv vea Xetp' anb KXiuaKtQ v 710861; ixvoq e7iavTe>,Xaiv . Ha. i5oi j !;v>va\|/ov , TcapOev ' . . . 103-

6

Our narrativ e begins i n a halting manner, step b y uncertai n step, althoug h the ol d man promise s t o read th e way. We hav e a similar scene i n th e middl e o f th e play, where Teiresias tell s all he knows t o Creon (866-67, 911) and explains the path of his oracle s (CXKOU E 5fi VD V Geo^dtcov EU.CO V 656v 911) . Agai n th e ol d ma n i s accom panied by a young maiden (106, 838) , thi s time his daughter, and again th e two o f them walk slowly, step by step : Lead o n daughter , sinc e you ar e the ey e for m y blin d foot , lik e a star fo r sailors ; set my trea d o n leve l groun d an d lea d th e way s o I won't stumble ; you r father is weak. fryot> rctipoiSe , OuyaTep ' eoc ; ti)(j>M > TtoS t 6((>6oA|i6<; el cru , vaupdiaiaiv dotpov mq. SexJp' EC, TO leiipov neSov l%voc, tiGela' E|i6v jipojkuve, U.T I 0(|>aA.(3ue v da8evf). ; 7ta-cf|p ' 834-3 7

The path is not easy, and needs the knowledg e of someone wh o ca n rea d the stars. The play ends with the aged Oedipus and his daughter Antigone, who will guide his steps no w tha t hi s wife can n o longe r attend his blin d foo t (a 7i65 a aov Ti)A.67ioi> v 8epa7t£Tj|a.aaiv aie v eux)x9e i 1549) . Slowl y hi s unseein g foot reache s th e ligh t (paKtpe\')u.aai TO^^OU /TtoSoq E^dryayet; ec, (jxflq 1539-40) , slowly the blin d man i s able to understand and explain the oracl e about hi s death (1703-7), and slowly the two of them measure out together the steps o f their journey: ANTIGONE: G o t o sa d exile ; reac h you r dea r han d old father , and tak e m e a s you r escort, lik e th e win d tha t guides ships . . . .

196 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

OKDIPUS: Wher e do I place my agin g step? Where shall I bring my staff , child ? ANTIGONE: Here , here, come with me , here, here, se t your foot , with th e strengt h o f a dream. Av. '{9 ' EC, (jmyav idXaiva v opey e xepa <\>ihav, jtdtep yepaie, non.Tcip.a v EX.WV EH ' COOT E vccuatjio|i7ro v crupav . . . . Oi. 7166 1 yepaiov 'i^voi; TiGnjii,; pdKTpa Tc69 i (jjEpw , TEKVOV ; Av. TaS e ta§e (3a9 i jioi , TaSe T0t8 e TtoSa ti9ei, (Dot' oveipov ioxuv . 1710-12 , 1718-2 2 The parallel s amon g th e thre e scene s ar e striking , an d hel p t o kni t togethe r th e beginning, middl e an d en d o f th e play . Yet th e similaritie s ar e strikin g precisel y because the y are so extraneous: there is no logical connectio n amon g th e young girl gazing a t the mighty warriors, the seer presenting the king with an impossible choic e between child and city, and the exile of Oedipus. Just as the accident o f war has caused Phoenician wome n t o shar e th e suffering s o f Thebes , accidenta l similaritie s unite independent scenes i n the overful l drama . There i s of course a common them e of ineffectual knowledge. Th e tuto r in pass ing back an d forth, conveying terms of the truce to Polyneices, ha s learned about the Argives and the signs on their shields (95-98,142—44), but his description leave s an unclear impressio n (6po > 8fjt ' o\ > aacjxac; , opc o 8 e Trco q / |iop(|)fi 5 iimcou a otepv a t' e£,etKao|j,eva 161-62) , an d i t will be lef t t o the messenger , wh o als o carrie s a sig n or agreemen t back an d fort h (E,\)v6r|u. a TtapcKjiepov a notu.eai v A.6%ff> v 1140 ) t o de scribe th e shield s an d th e battl e more clearly . Teiresia s see s clearl y what mus t be done to save the city, but his advice fails to prevent the deaths of Eteocles, Polyneices , and Jocasta , th e death s o f countles s soldiers (1471) , th e unhapp y exil e o f Oedipu s and Antigone, an d (in the future) the eventual sack of Thebes by the sons of the Seven. Oedipus knows the place he will die, but in solving one more riddl e docs not seem t o gain i n wisdo m o r understanding ; he doe s no t se e a t th e en d ho w hi s stor y fit s together. Th e powerfu l iron y tha t connect s th e blin d Teiresias a t th e beginnin g of Oedipus the King wit h the blind, yet "seeing," Oedipus a t the en d i s here dissolved into separat e scenes , eac h wit h it s separate characters , an d eac h wit h it s own for m of blindness . As the y mirro r one anothe r an d provid e a n ostensibl e fram e fo r th e play, thes e scene s als o thematiz e uncertaint y and inconsequentially. 50 Yet ther e is another thread that connects the m and provides what we migh t call a programmatic statement. Jocasta begin s th e pla y an d begin s he r stor y o f Thcba n sufferin g b y describin g how Laius, after begetting a son, pierced the infant's ankles, from which Greece call s him Oedipu s or "swollenfoot" (25-27). The etymology i n Sophocles is a potent sig n and a final confirmation of Oedipus' tru e and unspeakable identity (Oedipus the King 1034-36). I n Phoenician Women, i t introduce s instead th e them e o f difficul t an d painful travel , which is soon picke d u p again in Jocasta's narrative : Laius an d Oedi pus wer e bot h journeying to Phoci s when "the y joine d foo t a t the sam e par t of the

Phoenician Women and Narrative 19

7

road" (37-38); when Oedipu s woul d no t make wa y fo r Laius an d his carriage, the king's horse s "bloodie d th e tendons of hi s feet " (42) . Th e riddl e of the Sphin x becomes a litera l and repetitiv e enactment of th e painfu l journe y through life , a s th e feet onc e skewered i n childhood are bloodie d agai n b y hoove s i n manhood an d a t the en d o f th e play , i n ol d age , will slowl y totte r int o exile. Th e hobble d fee t o f Oedipus ar e not a badge o f the hero's strange an d enormou s crime s but a symptom of the difficult road s that all people must travel: Antigone an d the tutor making their slow an d laboriou s entrance , Teiresias feebl y tryin g not t o stumble , Oedipu s an d Antigone takin g haltin g steps int o exile. Eve n Jocasta , whe n th e chorus summon s her fro m th e palace, ca n onl y step forward with great difficulty : "Youn g women , I hear you r Phoenicia n cr y an d drag my tremblin g step wit h aged foot " (oiviaoa v (3odv K?a)oi)a a / c o vedvi8e<; yrpoacp noSi xpofiepd v / eAKo a no56c; pdaiv 301-3). And th e brother s who provoke d th e war eventuall y stumble i n combat. Eteocle s is the firs t t o receiv e a wound when "brushing awa y wit h hi s foot a roc k obstructin g his tread , h e place d hi s le g outsid e th e shield " ('EieoKA-ern ; 5e 7108 1 (ieTct\|/aipcov rteipov / i%voix ; wt68pouov , KcoXo v EKTO Q dorciSoi ; / TiGnc n 1390-92) , whil e Polyneices i s fatally wounde d when his brother's footwork catches hi m off balance (1407-13). The recurren t motif of searching ou t a path fo r th e foot' s difficul t an d dangerous advanc e describes a process that is continuous and never ending, one that will measure ou t haltin g steps int o years of exile fo r Oedipus an d Antigone . In Gree k rce^fj , "b y foot, " als o mean s "i n prose. " The difficul t journey s o f th e characters in Phoenician Women ar e themselves a part of the difficult an d uncertain course o f the narrative. Like Antigone or Oedipus, th e plot must follow a path that has no recognizable measure, no comforting shape an d structure, and no evident end; the plo t dare s to se t out with blind foot upo n a truly prosai c course. 51

Prosaic Pleasures This journey into uncertainty is a laborious one and would seem t o have few charms. A narrative , after all , is directed to an end, and the pleasure o f narrative consists, as we hav e seen , i n the delays and detour s that postpon e th e desired end. O n th e lon g path toward home , th e wanderings of Odysseus an d th e wanderings of the narrative of th e Odyssey giv e th e epi c it s distinctly narrative charm. In Phoenician Women, however, instea d o f a singl e meanderin g journey,52 w e hav e a multitud e of path s leading i n different directions . Som e lea d t o dramati c ends in death, whether noble (Menoeceus) o r otherwis e (Eteocle s an d Polyneices) ; som e leav e a character stil l trying t o choos e among variou s courses (Oedipu s an d Antigone); an d som e lea d a character right out of this story (Teiresias an d the Phoenician women). Jocasta's cours e is doubly surprising, first unexpectedl y surviving the discover y o f inces t (which in Sophocles leads at once to her suicide), and then just as unexpectedly killing herself on th e battlefiel d over th e bodie s o f he r sons . Ther e i s n o questio n her e o f th e absence of an end—no ironic or negative subversion o f an expected end , n o concei t of anticlosur e that robs th e work of completeness an d unsettle s the reader. But just as clearly there is no end—no outcome, however labored, however qualified—to the course o f th e narrative . This pla y offers somethin g altogether different : neithe r an

198 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

end no r the absence of an end, neithe r closure nor anticlosure, but a proliferation o f paths an d possibilities . Without the pleasure of progress toward an end and without the more siniste r joys of denying such pleasure, wha t do we gain fro m th e play? Prevailing interpretation s are negativ e an d pessimistic , emphasizin g th e horror s o f th e war , th e solipsis m o f the characters , an d th e inconsequenc e o f th e episodes, whil e placin g differen t con structions upon them . Fo r Jacqueline de Romilly, the incoheren t drama reflect s and criticizes th e political situation in Athens, offering the playwright's "horrified clairvoyant reactio n befor e th e ravage s cause d b y philotimia" an d self-interest. 53 Fo r Marylin Arthur , th e play' s descen t int o chao s reflect s th e violenc e inheren t i n human culture and offer s " a highly pessimistic evaluatio n of the conditions fo r civi lized life." 54 Fo r Suzanne Sai d and Barbara Goff, the play's incoherenc e reflect s th e deliberate subversio n o f a n Aeschylea n model , o r th e unreadabilit y o f languag e i n general.55 These are four excellent readings of the play, but it is time to reassess their view o f the play as an essentially negativ e project; bot h i n the action a s a whole and in it s unusual narrativ e design , confusio n breed s bot h uncertaint y and possibility. 56 It i s wort h remembering , fo r example , tha t th e actio n itsel f i s no t a n unqualified disaster. O f th e man y death s th e scholias t remarke d upon , thos e o f Eteocle s an d Polyneices ar e wel l deserved . Howeve r hideou s the spectacl e o f brothe r killin g brother, i t is no mor e hideou s tha n the shameles s ambitio n and stubbor n prid e the y display in their argument befor e Jocasta ; ther e is a cynical realism i n the portraits of the brothers , bu t n o blea k suggestio n o f senseles s los s i n thei r deaths . Th e due l i s framed b y the suicides of Menoeceus an d Jocasta. Jocasta' s suicide i s familiar from Oedipus the King and is surprising chiefly because i t is delayed so long. But her death invests her i n this play with greater realism. Instead of immediately hanging hersel f in horror at the act o f incest sh e has committed, th e mother i n Euripides devotes he r considerable energy to saving her sons fro m themselves , an d dies nobly by the swor d when her efforts fail. 57 The death of Menoeceus i s undeserved, briefly acknowledged , and no t entirel y effective. Ye t i t someho w succeed s i n securin g a Theba n victor y over the Argives, and the young man turns the occasion t o his advantage with a grand display o f self-sacrifice . Oedipus an d Antigon e apparentl y set ou t upo n a lon g an d difficult exile , bu t Oedipu s ca n a t least loo k forwar d t o a welcome i n Colonus , an d Antigone is confident that her noble service t o her father will make her famous (1692, 1741-42). And wha t of the chorus ? I n this play, they do no t sin g on e o f Euripides ' "escape odes, " longin g t o fle e fro m th e horror s o f event s onstage. 58 Instead , eve n though they do not belong her e and are only distantly related to the people o f Thebes, they share al l the city's troubles (243), they sing of its past an d present misfortunes, as well a s its past glorie s (the beautiful an d fertil e spo t chose n b y Cadmu s 638-56 , the weddin g o f Harmonia , an d th e wall s buil t b y Amphio n 822-25 ) an d presen t deliverance (1054-59) . I n th e sympathie s they express an d i n the storie s the y tell, they weave themselve s int o the Theban narrative—an d do this so effectively that by the en d o f the pla y thei r role as outsiders has bee n eclipsed , an d n o hin t remain s of their journey to Delphi . The journey t o Delph i wa s lyrica l rathe r than prosaic . Th e wome n ar e offerings to Apollo , firstfruit s (oKpoGivi a 203 ) an d thing s of beaut y (KaA.A.voTe'oiirjrr a 215 ) whose servic e t o th e go d free s the m from time:

Phoenician Women an d Narrative 19

9

Like a statue crafted fro m gold , I a m servan t t o Apollo , and the water o f Castali a waits t o moisten th e virgin charm o f my hair in servic e t o Apollo . 'iaa 5 ' dyd^naoi xpiKJOTeii KTOIC, oipffl XaTpt< ; eyev6u.av en S e KomaA.tac ; i)5wp Tteptuevei |ae Kojiac ; e|.idc; SeTJoai TtapGeviov x^-iSd v Ooipeiaiai Xatpeian; . 220-2 5

In service to the immortal god, they shall become themselves unaging memorials of transcendent beauty. At Delphi, at the center of the world, time stops; ther e they will find n o relentless press of troubles, no uncertain path leading onwards through crisis and hope and uncertainty but a "circling dance free from fear" (ei- / Xiacicov dOavctiac; QEO\> I %opo< ; yevoinav dcjKip'o q 234-36), an d i n plac e o f th e fear s an d delight s o f growing int o womanhood , th e clea r water of Castali a awaits their "virgi n charm. " This timeles s rol e a s thing s o f beaut y i s forgotte n entirel y a s th e wome n fro m Phoenicia share the troubles of Thebes, sharin g the anxiety and sorrow as well as the courage an d determinatio n with which the peopl e o f Thebes follow thei r slo w an d uncertain path. And when Menoeceus announces his sacrifice to deliver Thebes from the dragon' s curse, the y want to be mother s an d bea r fin e children (yevoiueG ' o>8e natepec; / yevoiu.86' E-UTEKVOI 1060-1). At the end of the play, Antigone faces a similar choice between a temporal and pedestrian course an d a timeless, lyrical one. As she prepares t o leave the stage, her father seems to make one more effort t o dissuade her from sharing his exile (compar e 1685 , 1691) by telling her to join Dionysus and the maenads in the mountains (1749-52). It was in dancing to Dionysus on the mountain nea r Delph i tha t th e choru s migh t fre e themselve s fro m fea r (226-36) , an d Antigone contemplate s th e sam e mystic , atemporal escape . A s w e hav e seen, sh e leaves us with a question, not an answer ("Do you mean I should dance to Dionysus?" 1754-57), but Antigone i s most likely , we suspect , t o choose instea d the slow an d pedestrian path with he r father. This path has the real but modest pleasure of remaining faithful t o the process o f life, sharin g at ever y momen t th e radica l uncertaint y and liberatin g freedo m tha t Heracles discover s only for a n instan t a t the en d o f his play. Phoenician Women, in other words, has a novel's openness o r "aperture," alive at every moment to the many different course s th e plot may follow. 39 The pleasure of this openness consist s not in deferring a n en d bu t i n feelin g th e puls e o f th e present , feeling wha t Bakhtin call s the mos t importan t feature o f th e novel : " a livin g contac t wit h unfinished , stillevolving contemporary reality (the openended present)."60 Whereas a narrator tends to foreclose possibilitie s b y suggesting—withi n th e logi c o f narrative—tha t event s had t o tur n ou t i n a certai n way , this contact wit h a n inconclusiv e "world-in-themaking" tries to recover bot h the uncertain course of events and the ethical respon sibility of human agents; the novel imitates a moment before hindsight has intervened

200 TH

E END S O E TRAGED Y

to convince us that a certain course of events is necessary o r probable, and in so doing it emphasizes th e individual's ability and freedom t o choose among variou s alternatives.61 Bui Phoenician Women give s u s something differen t an d perhaps mor e prosaic. Rathe r tha n blessing a protagonist wit h the freedo m an d th e power t o choose one path among many , and thus to shape o r create the future , Euripide s forces a constellation of protagonists to share the stage and the narrative together. Some readers have concluded that the result is the opposite of aperture: the grand narrative of Theban history write s the stor y of the individual s who ar e swept u p in its flow, denie d thei r freedom b y the destructive and unstoppable march of events. 62 But a s I have shown , the actor s i n this story walk with a foot tha t i s blind within a tapestry that is equally ignorant o f it s goal. The cours e o f event s doe s no t depriv e the actor s o f thei r freedom b y imposin g a n en d o r a goal upo n them; it simply makes clea r tha t their pro saic journeys are interwoven and interconnected. Menoeceus and Antigone are equally free to choose their own ends, but they do so in a world where no one is independent, where persona l ties, supernatura l forces an d invadin g armies construc t a bewildering web withi n which the y must try to find a path. In awareness o f their place within this web , Menoeceus choose s a solitar y suicide o n behal f o f th e commo n good , Polyneices an d Eteocle s choos e a due l that wil l fulfil l th e curs e an d wil l gratif y a shared desir e (epcoc ; 622) to kil l one another , while Antigone choose s (or seem s t o choose) to share the blind path of her father . If the narrativ e pleasure o f th e Odyssey lie s both i n th e wandering s o f Odysseu s and i n those o f the narrative , the prosaic pleasur e of Phoenician Women lie s both in the tapestry of lives and i n the tapestry of their telling. Just as characters drop i n and out o f th e action , o r linge r on whe n the y are n o longe r effective , or intersec t i n inconsequential ways, the drama is full o f extended descriptions tha t break off, digress, linger, an d retur n i n a manner that plays with the pleasures of narrative texture. The play i s packed ful l o f narrative . It begins wit h Jocasta's detailed surve y o f Theba n legend i n the longest prologue speec h i n Greek tragedy, 63 and i t ends with two messengers, eac h o f who m require s two speeche s t o narrate development s outsid e th e city wall s (1090-119 9 an d 1217-63 ; 1356-142 4 and 1427-79) . Jocasta no t only spins out her story at unusual length, but plays with the differen t direction s in which it ma y lead . In telling of Laius' murde r by Oedipus , for example , sh e make s a rhetorical point of omitting all extraneous details from he r narrative , only to introduce an entirely new thread: "The horses bloodied the tendons of [Oedipus'] fee t with their hooves, an d then—wh y shoul d I tell of thing s outsid e th e disaster?—h e kille d hi s father and taking the carriage gave it to his foster father Polybus" (41-45). Sophocles brought Oedipu s directl y from th e murde r scen e t o Thebes, bu t i n Euripides a n inconsequential detail (What happened to Laius' horses and carriage afterwards?) opens up an entirely new chapter, returning Oedipus to Corinth, introducing a gift to Polybus, entertaining new questions (Would Polybu s not ask how h e came by the carriage?), and weaving the foster fathe r bac k int o the story o f Oedipus. 64 The tw o messenger s play with narrative in different ways. The firs t begins with a description of the shields of th e seve n Argiv e leader s (a t las t supplying the descriptio n tha t th e tuto r had lef t out, 142-44) that is part of an extravagant report o n the successfu l resistanc e of the Thcbans and the rout of the Argives (1090-1199) , but thi s speech, with al l its epic pretensions (e.g., 1161-62) , is cancelled ou t by the questions of Jocasta. Whe n she

Phoenician Women and Narrative 20

1

insists on hearing more, th e messenger mus t play a new role as bearer of sad tidings (1217-18) and delive r a second speec h o n the brothers ' decisio n t o mee t i n singl e combat (1217-63) , whic h make s bot h th e earlie r battl e an d th e narrativ e about it irrelevant. The second messenger play s a different game , narrating in the duel a grisly end to the confrontation that was earlier staged as a rhetorical debate (357-637), but when th e choru s trie s t o wrap thing s up ("Oedipus , ho w I grieve a t your troubles. Some go d seem s t o hav e fulfille d you r curse" 1425-26), the messenge r insist s on telling more: th e last gasp s an d final words o f the two brothers, Jocasta's suicide in the embrace o f her dead sons—an d then a new battle between Theban s an d Argive s that plays out the conflict one more time (1466-72). The drama plays with narrative in other ways, turning epic narration into lyric and vice versa. The exchange betwee n Antigone an d the tutor turns the narrative of Homer's teichoskopi a into amoibaion, alternating snatches of dialogue fro m th e old servant with emotional reactions sung by the girl, and offering both factual discrimination ("The Argiv e army is on the move, and they are separating divisions from one another" 107-8) and vague impression s ("I don't see clearly, but see something like an impression o f shape and a semblanc e of torso " 161-62). 65 The chora l odes , a s Maryli n Arthur has noted , ar e unusually narrative in content, complementing Jocasta's prologue b y singin g o f the founding of Thebes, th e curse of Ares' dragon, and the horrors of the Sphinx.66 And the speech of th e firs t messenger , givin g hi s intriguin g but unnecessar y descriptio n o f th e shields of the Argive captains , suggest s that the craft of the narrator, like that of the metalworker, has its own ingenious delights: "as a device upon [Polyneices'] shiel d were Potnia n horse s runnin g ari d leapin g i n panic , circlin g someho w o n pivot s inside below th e handle, so they seemed t o go wild" (1124—27). 6V Such delight s are hard to resist. Whe n the first messenge r report s that the city is safe, Jocasta still needs to know more, and not even the safety of her children is more important than the desire t o hear what happens next: JOCASTA: Bu t recit e for m e what m y tw o son s did afte r that . MESSENGER: Th e res t docs not matter ; no w the y ar e safe . JOCASTA: Yo u arous e suspicion. It does matter. MESSENGER: D o yo u wan t anythin g mor e tha n you r sons ' safety ? JOCASTA: Yes , t o hea r i f m y goo d fortun e wil l continue . lo.

aKK' ctveA.9 e (jm 7tdA.iv , it Tcm i Toircoic ; TtaiS' ejico Spaaetetov . Ay. e a TC I dourer 8eiip ' del yap e\rruxei<; . lo. torn' ei< ; -UTCOTTTO V euiat;' OI> K eaieov . Ay. nei^o v ti /pfi^eic; TtaiSac; f\ OEaffljievovn; ; lo. Ka i Td7uA.oiTt d y ' ei KaXcot ; rcpdaoa) KXiiew. 1207-1 2

The followin g narrativ e (1217-63), which satisfie s her desir e to hear, report s tha t her son s ar e preparing for a duel to the death. When Creo n presse s Teiresia s t o tell him how the city might be saved, the seer asks, "Do yo u wish to hear, then? Are you eager?" and the king replies, "I could desire nothing more" (901-2). When Teiresia s suggests that he send Menoeceu s away, Creo n adds that his son "would fin d plea-

202 TH

E END S O F TRAGED Y

sure in hearing of the [city's] salvation" (910). In the dialogue and narrative that follow (911-59), Teircsias tells him that he must sacrifice hi s son for the city. These are not the pleasures of poetry and song, which th e chorus remin d us no longer hav e a plac e in war-tor n Thebes: "Yo u d o no t sin g th e Mus e blowin g upo n th e flute , spreading your hai r at the beautifu l dance s o f garlande d girls as the grace s set th e dance, bu t with armed men, in blood, you [AresJ breathe the Argive army against Thebes, dancing a revel entirely without flutes" (786 -91 ).68 Jocasta an d Creon have more prosai c pleasures, the need t o know and the desire t o hear as much o f the story a s possible , as fully a s possible, howeve r inconsequentia l an d howeve r difficult . After Antigon e react s with horror at th e spectacl e o f Capaneu s an d hi s impiou s threats against Thebes, th e tuto r say s tha t she ha s indulge d herself enoug h i n suc h pleasures: Child, g o i n the hous e an d sta y insid e in you r maidens' quarters , since yo u hav e reached th e pleasure o f what yo u longe d t o sec.
But he is wrong. Antigone, lik e her father, will emerge agai n from th e palace to fol low th e uncertai n path of exile . It i s a path without end, an d a longin g t o se e mor e that can never truly "reach it s pleasure." Bu t onc e launche d on this path there is no going back . Antigon e i s glad t o embrac e th e endles s uncertaint y of he r own situa tion. And generations of spectators, i n a world increasingly dominated by prose dis course, woul d embrac e no t th e intriguin g paradox o f th e tragi c en d bu t th e mor e prosaic pleasures that Euripides ravele d an d unraveled in Phoenician Women.

Notes

References i n the notes emplo y th e following standar d abbreviations: DK H FGrH 1C LfMC Nauck A PCG PMGF POxy RE SEG TrGF

. Diels an d W . Kranz , ed., Fragmente der Vorsokratiker,6lh cd . (1954) . Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby (1923-1958) . Inscriptions Graecae, ed. A. Kirchhof f et al. (1873- ). Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (1981- ). . Nauck, cd. , Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 2nd ed . (1964). Poetae Comici Graeci, ed. R. Kassel an d C. Austin (1983-91) . Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed . M. Davies (1991) . Oxyrhyncus Papyri, ed . B. P. Grenfell, A. S . Hunt et al. (1898- ). Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der classischenAltertumswissenschaft, ed . G. Wissow a et al . (1894-1959). Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, ed. P . Rousse l e t al. (1923 — ). Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. B . Snell e t al. (1977- ).

Scholia t o Euripides ar e cited fro m E . Schwartz, ed. , Scholia in Euripidem, 2 vols. (Berlin , 1887).

Chapter 1 1 10

1. OKOTieei v 8 e xpf | JIQVTOC ; ^P !! ™? "ril v TeXewn v KT J ajTOpViaeTa r TioAAoTa i ya p 5f i iJ;ioSef;cK; oXpov 6 Seoc; npoppt^ont; dveipeye, Herodotus 1.32.9 . 2. Herodotu s 1.86.6 . 3. Fo r anothe r unifyin g pattern , the repetitio n a t th e en d o f theme s fro m th e beginning , see Herington, "Closure" ; on closur e i n the Histories, se e als o Dewald , "Wanto n Kings. " 4. Aristotle, NicomacheanEthic.fi 1.10 . 5. Aeschylus, Agamemnon 928-29 ; Sophocles , Women of Trachis 1- 5 (quote d later) , Oedipus the King 1528-30 , Tyndareus ( F 64 6 TrGF), an d Tyro ( F 66 2 TrGF); Euripides , Children of Heracles 865-66, Electro 954-56, and Trojan Women 509-10 . 6. On th e suicid e o f Ajax an d th e debat e thi s provokes amon g Teucer , Agamemnon, an d Odysseus, sec , fo r example , Murnaghan , "Trial s o f th e Hero. " I n som e sense , Oedipu s ha s already reache d a final understandin g that remains hidden from peer s an d audienc e by veil s of mystery ; see, fo r example , Dunn , "Beginning at Colonus." 7. On the legend o f Heracles' apotheosis , see chapter 8 , note 7 . On the emphatically mortal en d o f Heracles i n Trachinian Women, compare Stinton , "Scope an d Limits " 84-91. 8. But th e contrivanc e i s still ther e and i s worth bearing i n min d whe n considerin g pos sible ironie s in the endin g o f th e history as a whole. Se e Dewald , "Wanto n Kings. " 9. I borrow th e ter m sapheneia fro m Ludwig , "Sapheneia, " who use d i t t o describ e th e "canonization" o f formal features elsewhere i n the plays; yet those feature s he discusses wer e standard components o f tragic structur e furthe r formalize d in Euripides, while these closin g gestures wer e substantially new inventions , as we shal l see . 203

204

Notes to pages 7-19

10. I refer here to th e portraits of the Sophoclea n her o i n Knox, Heroic Temper an d o f th e Aristophanic hero i n Whitman, Aristophanes. \ 1. Michelini , Euripides, an d Conacher, Euripidean Drama. 12. There ar e a number of "intrigue plays" o r "Tychc-dramas" that seem to form a class of their own , bu t thi s i s a smal l an d unusua l subgroup withi n th e corpu s o f Euripide s an d Sophocles. Fo r discussion, se e chapte r 9 , on Helen, and note s 3 6 an d 62. 13. Th e deu s i s studie d a t length , fro m radicall y differen t point s o f view , b y Spira , Untersuchungen an d W . Schmidt , "Deu s ex Machina" ; Schmid t include s a usefu l surve y of earlier studies. The aitio n has not been studie d a t length, but i s read in very different way s by Murray, Euripides and his Age 4 1 an d Kitto , Greek Tragedy 286-87 . The exi t line s of th e chorus are considered mostl y spurious by Barrett, Hippolytos 417-18 , but have recently been defended b y Roberts , "Partin g Words. " See th e ful l discussio n i n following chapters . 14. Brooks, Reading for the Plot an d Bakhtin , Dialogic Imagination. 15. Barbara H. Smith, Poetic Closure; Richter, Fable's End; Kermode , Sense of an Ending. 16. Torgovnick, Closure in the Novel; Krieger , Reopening of Closure; Adams, Strains of Discord; Quint , Epic and Empire; DuPlessis , Writing beyond the Ending. 17. Compare Fowler, "Secon d Thoughts. " 18. For a survey of questions associated wit h closure an d of previous work on closur e i n classical literature , sec Fowler , "Firs t Thoughts." Recen t wor k o n closure i n drama include s Willson, Shakespeare's Reflexive Endings; Hodgdon , The End Crowns All; an d Henr y J . Schmidt, How Dramas End. O n closur e i n classica l literature , se c Heath , Unity in Greek Poetics, and Roberts, Dunn , and Fowler , Classical Closure. 19. On Euripides ' anticipatio n of the novel, se e als o Dunn , "Euripidean Endings, " chap ter 6 ; o n variou s feature s tha t alig n Euripidea n drama wit h romance , se e Fusillo , "Wa s is t eine romanhafte Tragodie?

Chapter 2 1. Compar e Aeschylus , Eumenides 231 ; Sophocles , Ajax 814 ; Euripides , Alccstis 746 . 2. Se e Herington , "Ol d Comedy " 119-20. 3. Al l quotation s from Shakespear e follo w th e editio n of W. J. Craig . 4. Trojan Women ma y b e a n exception; se e note 7 of thi s chapter. 5. O n the anapest an d it s use i n drawing attention to staging, se e S . G. Brown , "Contex tual Analysis. " O n th e possibl e accompanimen t o f anapests , se e Pickard-Cambridge , Dramatic Festivals 160-62 . 6. Drew-Bear , "Trochai c Tetrameter " note s th e presenc e o f trochee s a t th e end s o f Agamemnon and Oedipus the King an d nea r the end of Philoctetes. 7. Th e manuscripts attribute the last three and a half lines to the herald (Hecuba 1325-29 , Talthybius 1329-32) . Seidler' s attribution s (Hecuba 1327-30 , choru s 1331-32 ) hav e bee n accepted b y al l modern editors . 8. Compar e th e discussio n o f th e fina l couple t i n Shakespeare' s sonnet s i n Barbar a H . Smith, Poetic Closure 50-54. Davi d Sanson e reminde d m e that Euripides occasionally con cludes a scene with a rhyming couplet (Medea 408-9 , Phoenician Women 1478-79) . 9. Gay, Beggar's Opera 112 . 10. O n th e authenticit y o f thes e lines , se e note 2 9 o f thi s chapter. 11. Th e authenticity of thes e line s i s discussed late r in this chapter; see notes 35 an d 36 . In Medea, th e firs t lin e i s different : TioXXwv ia\iiac, XEIJI; ev 'OVuu.7up , "Zeu s i n Olympu s dispenses many things. " 12. Beckett , Waiting for Godot 61 . 13. cn:eixtou.e v Suppliant Women 1232 , OTei.xou.e v Heracles 1427 , OTeixei' Children of

Notes to pages 19-21 20

5

Heracles 1053 ; it e Hecuba 1293 , 'it' Iphigenia among the Taurians 1490 ; compar e npofyepe Ji65a oo v Trojan Women 1332 ; jcaipet e Electro 1357 , /alp ' /o« 1619 , IT ' en e\)TO%i. a Iphigenia among the Taurians 1490 . 14. Contras t th e spuriou s ending s o f Iphigenia at Aulis an d Rhesus, in which word s o f departure (%cdpff> v . . . xaipwv Iphigenia at Aulis 1627-2 8 and (yuetxa>u,e v Rhesus 993 ) ar e incorporated into explicitly metaphorical appeals for victory (KaXXtoid not aicCX' cmo Tpoiat; eXwv Iphigenia at Aulis 162 9 an d Tti/a 5 ' civ VIKT|V / 8oir| §ai(iwv 6 u.e6' f|(i(ov Rhesus 995 96). 15. Aristophanes, Acharnians 123 3 TrvveXXa KaWaviKoq, Birds \lM~ri\\eXka.Kak\\\iKQC,, Lysistrata 129 3 cix ; E7ii viicr| , Ecclesiazusae 118 2 ax ; eni viKrj , an d ever y survivin g ending i n Menander, Plautus, and Terence. Compar e Katsouris , "Formulaic End. " 16. Jonson , Volpone 304 . 17. Diggl e delete s th e praye r t o Victory , line s 1497-99 , bu t se e discussio n wit h note s 35-37 of thi s chapter. 18. Diggl e delete s th e praye r t o Victory , line s 1691-93 , bu t se e discussio n wit h note s 35-37 of this chapter . 19. Th e Cyclops goes into his cave, and the chorus concludes with tw o trimeters: "An d we, Odysseus ' sailo r companions , wil l serve Bacchu s i n the future," Tiiielt; Se ouvvatnat y e ToiiS' 'O5v>aae<»< ; / oviei; TO Xouiov BctK%i w Soi)Xe"uaou.ev . 20. Th e incomplet e prefac e t o Phoenician Women seem s t o recor d th e firs t an d secon d tragedies i n the production : Ka i yap xaw a 6 Oivouaot ; Kai Xpijaunto< ; Ka i < . . .> aco^eTai. But th e tex t is too problemati c to rel y upon . I am no t persuade d b y argument s that Antiope, Hypsipyle, an d Phoenician Women wer e produce d together , followe d b y a "pro-satyric " Orestes; see chapter 11 , not e 1 . For Iphigenia among the Taurians, we hav e n o evidence a t all. 21. Webste r argues , however , tha t i n some period s on e poet' s tragedie s ma y hav e bee n produced o n differen t days ; se e Webster , "Orde r o f Tragedies. " Hi s argumen t takes n o ac count o f satyr-plays. 22. I t shoul d b e remembere d tha t w e hav e a muc h smalle r sampl e o f Aeschylus ' an d Sophocles' outpu t than w e d o o f Euripides ' an d tha t the surviving plays of Euripide s repre sent les s tha n a fift h o f hi s tota l production . For th e sak e o f comparison , I shal l includ e Prometheus Bound amon g th e plays of Aeschylus, bu t se e chapte r 4 , note 28. 23. InAgamemnon, the final words ar e those o f Clytemnestra, and in Prometheus Bound, they arc spoken b y Prometheus. Although the manuscripts assign th e final line s of Eumenides (1033-47) to the chorus, scholar s generall y follo w the scholiast i n assigning the m to a sec ond choru s o f attendants. In Suppliant Women, th e fina l chora l od e i s assigned t o the choru s by the manuscripts, but to the chorus alternating with a second choru s of servants by Kirchhoff and others . 24. Th e finales of Seven against Thebes, Libation Bearers, and Prometheus Bound ar e in anapests; Agamemnon ends in tetrameters; the other three end i n lyric meters. The authenticity o f the ending of Seven against Thebes ha s been challenged; for arguments for and against, sec Mellon, "Ending o f Aeschylus' Seven " and Thalmann, Dramatic Art 137-41 , respectively. 25. Th e lon g final e o f Seven against Thebes conclude s with a brief summar y of the outcome (1074-78) , whil e th e shorte r final e o f Libation Bearers i s devote d primaril y to sum mary (1065-73) . 26. Persians (1077) , Seven against Thebes (1068-69) , Suppliant Women (1018) , and Eumenides (1032) . 27. Ther e ar e length y songs o f celebratio n an d invocatio n i n Suppliant Women (1018 72) an d Eumenides (1032—47) , an d shorte r song s o f lamen t in Persians (1077 ) an d Seven against Thebes (1054-65) .

206 Note

s to pages 22-24

28. Seven comes last i n its trilogy, and Persians is not related to the other plays produce d with i t (Phineus an d Glaukos). Thi s leave s Suppliant Women an d Prometheus Bound. I n th e former, th e fear s o f th e choru s (1031-33 , 1043-46 , 1052-53 ) anticipate thei r abductio n i n the followin g play , bu t th e situatio n itsel f i s closed, as the wome n withdra w i n safety t o th e city. Prometheus, however , end s wit h th e protagonis t describin g th e imminen t cataclys m (1080-93), just a s Oreste s describe s th e approachin g Furies . Bu t althoug h thi s conclusio n looks forward, ther e i s no continuity such a s that between Libation Bearers an d Eumenides, for Prometheus Unbound coul d no t open wit h the start of a cataclysm; the prolonged punishment o f Prometheu s (u.aKpo v 5 e UT|KO< ; eKTeXetrcriacK ; xpovou 1020 ) mark s a clea r divid e between th e plays . 29. Th e possibl e exception s ar e Oedipus the King, where th e scholias t assign s th e fina l lines to Oedipus, an d Women ofTrachis, wher e some manuscripts give the last lines to Hyllus. Some scholars delet e th e fina l line s of Oedipus the King altogether ; see Dawe , Studies, vol. 1, 266-73. For a defense of their authenticity, see Arkins, "Final Lines " and Lloyd-Jones and Wilson, Sophoclea 113-14 . 30. A possible exception i s Women ofTrachis, wher e som e manuscript s give the last fifteen line s to Hyllus; thu s Davies, Trachiniae whil e Easterling, Trachiniae give s the m t o the chorus. 31. Ajax conclude s wit h a simpl e moral ; Oedipus the King, Antigone, and Women of Trachis include bot h summary and moral; Electra combines congratulations with a summary; and Oedipus at Colonus ends wit h a command t o cease lamentin g and a brief moral . 32. Onl y tw o plays , Electra an d Antigone, end wit h a metricall y distinct choral exit ; in the othe r plays , th e line s o f th e choru s ar e precede d b y u p t o twenty-si x line s (Oedipus at Colonus) i n th e sam e meter . Philoctetes alon e conclude s wit h simpl e word s o f departur e (quoted later) , an d ther e is no farewel l suc h a s we fin d i n Euripides. 33. I f Sophocles gives hints of other stories t o follow, this is quite different fro m Euripides ' suggestion tha t th e stor y has no t ye t ended ; se e Roberts , "Sophoclea n Endings. " 34. "Ei n Dichter wi c Euripides wiirde doch wohl etwas Besonderes un d Eigenthumliches dem Cho r i n den Mun d z u legc n gewuss t haben, " Hartung, Alcestis 189 . 35. Ranctt,Hippolytos 417—18 . Barrett is answered i n full b y Katsouris, "Formulaic End " 253-54; see also Kannicht, Helena, vol. 2, 438^40, and Kovacs, "Treadin g the Circle" 268 70. 36. Diggl e print s th e fina l line s of Alcestis (atteste d i n papyrus) an d Andromache, bu t deletes thos e of Medea, Iphigenia among the Taurians, Helen, Phoenician Women, Orestes, and Bacchant Women, an d report s doubt s abou t those o f Children of Heracles, Hippolytus, and Electra. 37. Th e onl y textua l uncertaint y i s at the en d of Hippolytus, wher e th e scholias t report s that sometimes th e prayer to Nike i s added, an d where Barret t reports tha t in one manuscript the prayer to Nike was adde d an d erased. I f this shows tha t such a n erro r could occur, i t als o shows i t did not . 38. "Scilicet , u t fi t i n theatris , ubi actoru m partes a d fine m deducta e essent , tantu s erat surgentium atqu e abeuntiu m strepitus , ut qua e choru s i n exit u fabula e recitar c solebat, vi x audire posscnt . E o factum , u t illi s chor i versibu s paru m cura e impenderetur, " Hermann , Bacchae 163 , followe d b y Dodds , Bacchae 242 . 39. Compar e th e discussio n i n Rees, "Euripides , Medea" 177-78 . 40. "De r Dichte r setz t mi l dicse n Worte n seine s Chore s ei n personliches , urkundliches Siegel unter sein Werk. Sei n Bekenntni s hat sich in den letzten drei Jahrzehnten seines Leben s nicht geiindert , ha t als o imme r gegolten . Jede r Mythos , de n e r gcstaltetc , wa r f'ii r ih n ein c neue Bestatigung seiner Gesamtansich t iiber Gott, Welt und Menschen," Mewaldt, "Heroischc Weltanschauung" 13 .

Notes t o pages 25-30 20

7

41. Rees , "Euripides , Medea" 178-81 . 42. Mayerhoefer , "Uber die Schliisse " 38. 43. Roberts , "Partin g Words " 56.

Chapter 3 1. Gay , Beggar's Opera 111 . 2 . Compar e Samue l Johnson's criticis m of Shakespeare's endings: "When h e found himself nea r the end of his work, and, in view of his reward, he shortened th e labour t o snatch the profit. H e therefor e remits hi s effort s wher e h e should mos t vigorousl y exer t them , an d hi s catastrophe i s improbabl y produce d o r imperfectl y represented " (Johnson on Shakespeare 21). 3. Th e phras e i s applie d t o mortal s as wel l a s gods (Aristotle , Poetics 145 4 a.37-b.2 ; scholiast on Luc\an,Philopseudes 29) , i s used mor e loosely t o mean savior (scholiast on Plato, Clitophon 407A) , an d i s use d figurativel y to mean "unexpectedly " o r "irrationally " (Sud a s.v. eur o urixavijc;) . Duncan' s broa d us e o f th e ter m include s the drinkin g of poisone d win e by a dove i n Euripides' Ion; Duncan , "Deus ex Machina" 127-28. 4. I t is often assumed tha t use o f the urrxavr i is a Euripidean innovation , but i t was prob ably use d fo r the entrance of Okeanos i n Prometheus and may hav e been used i n Aeschylus ' lost Psychoslasia; se e Dunn , "Euripidea n Endings " 132-39 . Us e o f th e cran e fo r Athena' s entrance in Eumenides canno t be excluded . 5. W e might also compar e th e "savior figures" a t the end of Alcestis and Heracles. Th e latter (Theseus ' arriva l to help Heracles ) i s discussed i n chapter 8. 6. Fo r a recent discussio n o f th e latter , see Hubbard , Mask of Comedy. I. Bain , Actors and Audience i s looking onl y for unambiguous breaks i n dramatic illusion; he is therefore uninterested in Euripides' ver y fruitful techniqu e of testin g this illusion without breakin g it. 8. Compar e Roscnmeycr , Art of Aeschylus 348 , wh o observe s tha t "w e canno t afte r all think of Athena [i n Eumenides} a s a deus e x machina , for the good reaso n tha t the principal agents o f Eumenides ar e themselve s gods . Fo r a machine god t o be effective , h e ha s t o b e shown breaking in upon a snarl of human confusion." OnPsychostasia, see Plutarch, Moralia 16f de audiendis poetis = p. 37 5 TrGF. 9. Th e exception tha t proves the rule is.Heracles, in which Iris and Lyssa appear ex machina in the middle of the play, producing a decisive brea k in the action; see discussion i n chapter 8. 10. Thi s is true even in Bacchant Women, which begins with Dionysus i n his mortal guise as the "Stranger" an d end s wit h his entrance a s a god . I 1 . Fo r a n excellent discussion, se e Mastronarde , "Actors o n High. " For a good revie w of earlie r scholarship, see W. Schmidt , "Deu s ex machina" 36-64. 12. Electro 1233-37 , Ion 1570 , Orestes 1682-85 , Medea 1321-22 . 13. "Th e god s appearin g in divin e epilogues, by almost universal agreement, distinguish themselves fro m th e mortal s they confron t by standin g on a differen t level, " Mastronarde, "Actors on High" 278 . Pollu x also mentions a Siateyta (4.129) and GeoXoyelov (4.130), and this has been take n as evidence fo r a structure or platform above th e palace roo f b y PickardCambridge, Theatre of Dionysus 54-55, an d Hourmouziades , Production and Imagination 33-34. In the fifth century , however, the skene roof was probably flat; see Mastronarde, "Actor s on High " 254-58. 14. Se e chapte r 1 0 for ful l discussion . 15. O n the problematic nature of the epiphany as the visible stagin g of a n invisibl e god, see Pucci , "Gods' Intervention " 22. 16. I n lines 1233-34, I give Diggle' s punctuation , retaining th e manuscripts ' (|)aivo'u0i .

208 Note

s t o pages 31-38

Diggle emend s t o Paivotio i (followin g Hartung) , whil e Murra y break s int o a question : ^aivouai Tive,^-5atuove<; i\ Geco v / TM V oupavtcov ; 17. Th e argumen t o f P. Arnott, Greek Scenic Conventions 74-76, tha t th e machine wa s only use d whe n a n exclamatio n coul d "cover " it s deployment ha s no t foun d favor ; se e fo r example Hourmouziadcs , Production and Imagination 166—68 . 18. Compar e Andromache 1231-32 , Suppliant Women 1183-84 , Electro 1238-40 , Iphigenia among the Taurians 1435-37 . 19. Andromache 1234 , Suppliant Women 1183 , Eleclra 1238 , Iphigenia among the Taurians 1436 , Ion 1553 , Helen 1642 , Orestes 1625 ; compar e Medea 1319 . 20. Compare Andromache 1266-67 , Iphigenia among the Taurians 1446 , Helen 1662 63, Orestes 1638 . 21. Knox , "Ilippolytus o f Euripides," 228 . 22. Thu s als o Electro 1354-56 , Helen 1678-79 ; compare Heracles 1425-26 . Of course , morals an d sententiae ar e a commo n featur e of tragedy , frequentl y occurring i n messenge r speeches and choral odes, as well a s in the speech o f the deus an d the exit lines of the chorus ; see C. W. Friedrich, Dramatische Funktion. 23. Athen a also reports on concurrent events offstage (1442-45) , but although this information i s helpfu l t o th e audience , i t does no t explain anythin g that has happene d onstage . 24. On e might compare th e irrelevant aition in Iphigenia among the Taurians (1469-72 on the Areopagus) an d the irrelevant prophecy i n Orestes (1654-57 on the death of Neoplolemus). 25. "Th e authoritativ e voice appear s afte r al l t o be onl y provisional , unabl e to pas s the judgement that will make sense ou t of the story and thereby complete it, " Goff, Noose of Words 108. 26. Accordin g t o the manuscripts, Electra an d Oreste s bot h questio n the Dioscur i i n the course o f thi s exchange (1292-1307) ; Murra y and Diggl e assig n thei r questions t o the cho rus and Electr a instead , leaving Orestes silent . 27. Thi s is the general meaning of the lines, although editors cannot agree on how to emend the tex t o f lin e 130 1 (uoipac ; dvayKrn; tiyeT-to xpewv). 28. Th e onl y othe r figur e i n Aeschylu s wh o resemble s a deu s i s th e ghos t o f Dariu s in Persians. This i s a supernatura l figure wit h knowledg e o f th e futur e (foretellin g defea t a t Plataea, 816—17 ) wh o unlik e Athena make s hi s epiphany amon g purel y human characters . Yet h e appears onl y in the middle of th e play; he does not interven e but i s summoned s o th e chorus ma y tel l hi m o f Xerxes ' defeat , an d rathe r tha n resolvin g th e action , th e ol d man' s shade offers moral reflections on the hybris of Xerxes (805-12, 818-22, 827-31). As for other plays o f Aeschylus , i t i s alway s possibl e tha t he use d th e deu s i n a wor k no w lost , bu t th e fragments offe r n o convincin g examples , an d Aeschylus ' readines s t o involv e god s i n th e drama greatly limits the space available for an effective deus e x machina. Athenaeus report s that Aphrodit e appeare d onstage i n Danaids (13.600 b = F 44 TrGF), bu t i t does no t follo w that sh e played the rol e o f dca ex machina , as claimed, fo r example, b y Murray , "Excursus " 347. Compar e discussio n wit h not e 8 of thi s chapter . 29. Fo r discussion , se e chapte r 4 . 30. N o deu s ca n b e reconstructe d with certainty , but th e mos t likel y candidates ar e th e entrance o f Thetis i n Syndeipnoi ( F 562 TrGF) an d th e prophec y of Demcte r i n Triptolemos (F 598 TrGF). Th e interventio n o f Thetis reporte d b y Dicty s (Cret. 6.9 ) ma y deriv e fro m a Peleus by Sophocles (p. 391 TrGF), bu t the prominence of Acastus suggest s Euripides' version (scholias t on Trojan Women 1128 ; p . 390 TrGF). Th e departur e of Oedipus a t the end of Oedipus at Colonus has some interestin g similaritie s to the "demonic epiphanies " discusse d later. 31. Euripides ' contemporary Xenocles "Sw8eKrxu.fiX avO(5" ("equipped wit h twelve cranes,"

Notes to pages 38-43 20

9

Suda s.v . KapKivoc;) was notoriou s fo r his us e of the machine ; it is pointless to speculate o n Xenocles' deb t t o Euripides. 32. O n th e aborte d endin g o f Philoctctcs, and the cues, metrical and otherwise , tha t signal thi s ending , se e Hoppin , "Metrica l Effects. " O n th e overturne d endin g o f Orestes, see Dunn, "Comic and Tragic License" and chapte r 10 . 33. O n th e stor y o f Heracle s as a mode l fo r Philoctetes, se e Hamilton , "Ncoptolemos ' Story." O n th e play's stories mor e generally , see Roberts, "Differen t Stories." 34. See , e.g., Hoppin, "Metrica l Effects " 142 , 151, 160. 35. O n the narrative sophistication of the Odyssey, se c esp. Pcradotto, Man in the Middle Voice. 36. Se e Cunningham , "Medea" 158-6 0 and Knox, "Medea o f Euripides " 304-5. 37. Th e locus classicus i s Aristotle : "I t i s obvious tha t th e resolutio n o f a stor y shoul d arise fro m the plot itsel f an d not, a s in Medea, fro m th e machine," Poetics 1454 a.37-b.2. 38. Verrall , Euripides the Rationalist 166 . 39. Verrall , Euripides the Rationalist sees the deus a s a direct, rationalistic challenge to the traditional , anthropomorphi c gods; Tcrzaghi, "Final ! e prologhi" 309 sees the mannered intervention a s an eas y an d convenient way t o avoid spellin g out th e contradictions between his plot and the fragile religious edifice in which myth resides (compare Pohlcnz , Griechische Tragodie vol . 1, 436); and vo n Fritz , Antike und moderne 31 6 an d 31 2 find s in Euripidean realism a direct challenge not t o religious belie f but t o the optimisti c and romanti c assump tions of myth. 40. Spira , Untersuchungen zum Deus 76: "Die Erschcinung Athenes of'fnet Io n und Kreusa unmittelbar di e Augen fu r die Hintergriind e ihres Schicksals, zeig t ihnen , daB, was ihne n als Leid, Unrech t un d Verwirrun g erschienc n war , i n Wirklichkci t sorgender Pla n vo n Apoll o gewesen ist . Es ging un s dahcr darurn , zu zeigen, da B der Dichter diesen Schlu B des Drama s wortwortlich verstandc n wisse n will , ohn e Nebensin n un d Ironie. " Burnett , Catastrophe Survived 128-29 ; Kovacs , Heroic Muse 71-77 . 41. W . Schmidt, "Deu s ex machina" 217: "Die Verhinderung de r Katastrophc durch den Machinengott sowi e di e Aufhebun g dcs Patho s un d de r Schul d durc h de n Epilo g sin d gleichermaGen au s de r Absich t de s Dichter s z u erklaren , di e cmotioncll e Katharsis bei m Zuschauer z u vermcide n un d ih n stat t dcsse n zu r Reflexio n iibe r di e ungelost e inner c Problematik z u veranlassen." 42. Antiope i n Page, Greek Literary Papyri (pp . 68-70, fr. 10.64-97), Hypsipyle i n Bon d (p. 48, fr. 64.152), and Erechtheus in Austin (pp . 33-41, lines 55-1 17). I f the hypothesi s to Phaethon ha s correctl y bee n restore d (e6]eo~7ua[e v 16) , this pla y apparentl y ende d wit h a prophecy delivere d b y a deus. Countles s othe r examples ar e proposed, o n slende r grounds , by Webster , Tragedies of Euripides. 43. Fo r a survey of criticism on the deus ex machina, see W. Schmidt, "Deus e x Machina " 23-28, an d Dunn, Euripidean Endings 162-67 . 44. Kitto , Greek Tragedy 285 . 45. Amphitryo apparentl y parodies a tragedy produced th e previous year ("etiam, histriones anno quo m i n proscaenio hi e / love m invocarunt , vcnit , auxilio is fuit," 91-92) , perhaps a n Alcmene by Enniu s or Pacuvius . O n th e darin g treatment of adultery , see E . Segal , Roman Laughter 171-91 . 46. Se e Jagendorf, Happy End 93—100 , who conclude s tha t "because of its specific pub lic theme , Tartuffe i s ultimatel y no t a n independen t structur e as a comedy" (100). 47. O n politica l satir e and musica l burlesque, see, for example, Lewi s i n Gay, Beggar's Comedy 1-23 ; Swift' s lette r to Pope , proposin g tha t Ga y write "a Newgat e pastoral , amon g the whores an d thieve s there," i s cited o n pag e 1 .

210

Notes to pages 43-54

48. Gay , Beggar's Opera 109 . 49. Brecht , Threepenny Opera 225 an d 331. 50. Giraudoux , Plays 91 .

Chapter 4 1. Aristotl e mention s Agathon' s fictiona l Antheus a s a n exceptio n that prove s th e rule, Poetics 145 1 b.21. Compar e Vernant , "Historical Moment. " 2. O n tension between th e private and public spheres in Greek tragedy, compare C . Segal, "Theatre, Ritual. " 3. Chester Mystery Cycle, vol . 1, 55-56. 4. Chester Mystery Cycle, vol. 1, 123-24. 5. Th e term aition (or ccmov) may be used more generally to denote any aetiological ex planation; I adopt a restricte d usag e a s I did with the term deus ex machina. 6. A t Phoenician Women 1703 , 1705, and 1707, th e departing Oedipus announce s that the oracle i s fulfilled tha t said he would die at Colonus near Athens. There ma y b e an allusion to a tomb o f Oedipus, bu t give n it s mysterious location in Oedipus at Colonus, we canno t regar d this as a reference to the contemporary world; compare discussion with note 34 of this chapter. The authenticit y of Phoenician Women 1703- 7 ha s bee n contested ; se e chapte r 11 , not e 20 . 7. O n Iphigenia atAulis, see West, "Tragic a V" 73-76. 8. Suc h punning derivations, or efuu,a, ar e quite common i n the tragedians, especially in Aeschylus an d Euripides; se e Fuochi, "Etimologie, " Looy, "nape/ruu-oXoye i 6 E\>piJti5r|c;, " and a briefer survey i n Kannicht,//efena, vol. 1,13-15. For a broader discussion of aetiological tendencies in Greek literature , see Codrignani , "L'aition." 9. Diggl e follow s Pale y i n deleting line 1647. 10. O n the authenticit y of thes e lines , se e chapter 6, note 7. 11. Tournic r and other s hav e deleted 958-60. 12. Se c Hamilton, Choes and Anthesteria 24-25 and 118-19. 13. O n th e detail s o f thi s connection betwee n Hecub a an d a ligh t tower a t Kynossema , see Burnett, "Hekabe." 14. Parmentie r suggests that there may b e a more topica l allusion to a recently dedicated statue of the horse: Parmentier , "Notes su r Troyennes" 46-49 . 15. Sh e may be celebrate d "i n Sparta , whe n the Carneia n month comes around, " or "in shining, wealthy Athens," an d since we kno w o f no specific commemoratio n for Alccstis i n either city, this seems to be a polar expression (i n Sparta and in Athens) indicatin g the extent of he r fame. On textua l problems , se e Dale on Alccstis 448-51. 16. T O XOITTOV,Medea 1383 ; Si'airovo^u.aKpo'O. . . KOTJK av(i>v\>\ioc,, Hippolytus 1426-29 ; 6vou,a . . . KEKA/naeTai , Hecuba 1271 ; TOIC H XOITTOIC ; . . . Te8f|aeTai , eraBvuu,oc ; . . . KeKA,T|oeiai, Electra 1268 , 1275; ejt(ovo(j.ao|ieva . . . T O XOIHOV E K ppoTw v KeKXtiaeiai , Heracles 1329—30 ; 6vou,d£ei, e;i(ov\)uov, TO \oi7tov "uu.vf|ao\>0i, Iphigenia among the Taurians 1452, 1454,1457 . Compare/orc 1577, 1587-88,1590,1594;Helen 1667 , \674;Orestes 164647; Erechtheus fr. 65 , lines 92-93 (Austin) . 17. Th e traditional version i s given by Pindar, Paean 6.109-20 , Pausanias 1.4.4 and 4.17.4, Strabo 9.3.9, and others, and is alluded to earlier in the play at Andromache 50-55 . The rehabilitation of Neoptolemus begins with Pindar, Nemean 7.42-48, although Euripides goes much further. 18. Crai g print s the variant "As ric h shal l Rome o by hi s lady lie." 19. I n 1427 , Diggle follow s Valckenae r i n emending to KapTwunevco. 20. O n th e honor s promised t o Heracles afte r hi s death , see discussio n in chapter 8. 21. Thes e tw o mos t commo n type s do no t exhaus t al l examples. See late r on Suppliant Women, i n which (apparentl y fictional ) relic s commemorate th e impendin g treaty betwee n

Notes to pages 55-60 21

1

Argives an d Athenians, andlphigenia among the Taurians, in which a ritual at Halae (we arc told) commemorates th e sacrifice o f Orestes tha t did not tak e place . 22. Se e Schmid, Klassische Periode, vol. 3, 336-37, who cites man y metrical and stylistic studies. 23. Dodds , Bacchae 235, claim s that "the ox-wago n o f 133 3 mus t have been brought into the story to account for the name of the town Boi)6oT|, mod. Budua, on the coast of Montenegro, which Cadmu s wa s said to have founded," but there is no aition in the portion o f the epilogue that survives . 24. Th e exten t of Aeschylus' innovatio n is contested. H e certainl y departed fro m tradi tion b y placin g th e origi n o f th e Areopagu s i n th e tria l o f Oreste s fo r th e murde r o f Clytemnestra, rathe r than in the trial of Ares for the murder of Halirrothius (Euripides, Electro 1258-63, scholias t o n Euripides, Orestes 164 8 [ = Hellanicus FGrH 4 F169] , Demosthene s 23.66). He may have invented Orestes' trial on the Areopagus altogethe r (thus Jacoby, FGrH 323a Fl an d F22) , o r h e may hav e altere d a story of hi s tria l by twelv e gods (Demosthene s 23.66, scholias t o n Aristidc s 108. 7 [p . 67 Dindorf] , Euripides , Orestes 1650-52 ) t o a jury trial b y Athenia n citizens ; thus Lesky, RE s.v . Orestes , an d Stcphanopoulos , Umgestaltung des Mythos 148-52 ; compare Radcrmacher , DasJenseits 133-40 . 25. Fo r burial by Sciron's Rocks, se e Pausania s 1.44. 6 and 10 , and Apollodorus 2.8.1, a version allude d t o earlie r i n th e pla y at Children of Heracles 849-53; fo r burial a t Thebes , see Pindar, Pythian 9.81-83 with scholiast; and for burial of Eurystheus' head at Tricorynthus in Maratho n an d hi s bod y a t Gargettus , se e Strab o 8.6.1 9 an d Stephanu s s.v . FapynTTOi; . Gargettus an d Pallen c bot h li e o n th e roa d fro m Athen s t o Marathon , but the y are no t th e same, an d no other source mention s Pallene or Athena Pallcnis in connection with Eurystheus. 26. O n possibl e allusio n t o th e treat y with Argos signe d i n 42 0 o r t o th e negotiation s tha t preceded it, sccCon i Krivaio u Aioc; / aKtriv, KQT' OIJTO V TUU.PO V a6/Uo\ ) Ai^a. 34. W e hav e n o sur e evidenc e fo r a survivin g tomb o f Oedipu s a t Colonus . Euripide s mentions an oracle that Oedipus would die at Colonus (Phoenician Women 1705-7) , Androtion is reported t o hav e said (scholias t t o Odyssey 11.27 1 = FGrH 32 4 F62 ) tha t Oedipu s died at Colonus and tha t his tomb remained a secret, and Pausanias mentions a shrine for four heroe s including Oedipus (1.30.4). The traditional account was that Oedipus was buried at Thebes (Iliad

212 Note

s to pages 60-64

23.679-80 with scholiast, Odyssey J1.27 5 with scholiast, Hcsiod frr. 192-93 [M-W], Aeschylus Seven against Thebes 91 4 and 1004 , Sophocles Antigone 899-902) or at Eteonos nea r Thebes (scholiast t o Oedipus at Colonus 9 1 = Lysimachus FGrH 38 2 F2 ; compar e allusion s to thi s version at Oedipus at Colonus 399—400, 404—6, 784—86). The onl y other alleged tomb site was by th e Athenian acropolis (Pausania s 1.28.7 , Valerius Maximu s 5.3.3). See Edmunds , "Cults and Legend " and the cautiou s conclusions o f Kearns, Heroes of Attica 50-52 and 208-9. 35. Ther e i s evidence fo r a number of aiti a among th e fragmentar y plays. A t th e en d o f Erechtheus, Athena describe s a t lengt h th e establishmen t o f th e Hyacinthi a in hono r o f Erechtheus' childre n (65.75-89 Austin), as well as a temple to commemorate Erechtheus (90 — 94) an d a priestship to honor his wife Praxithea (95-97). At the en d o f Antiope, Herme s an nounces tha t th e rive r o f Thebe s wil l b e name d fo r Dirc e (74-7 9 Page , Greek Literary Papyri), an d the hypothesis loRhadamanthys report s that Artemis ex machina instructed Helen to institute rites for th e Dioscuri (hyp . 14.4-7 C. Austin, Nova Fragmenta). Th e summar y in Apollodorus suggests IhalAlkmaion in Corinth ended with an aition for Amphilochian Argos delivered b y Apoll o (3.7. 7 = Nauc k p . 380) , bu t th e aetiolog y fo r th e Nemea n Game s i n Hypsipyle wa s spoke n b y Amphiarau s a t some point befor e th e exodo s (60.98-10 8 Bond = 274-85 Page , Greek Literary Papyri). Man y othe r propose d aiti a are littl e mor e tha n plausible conjectures ; se e Schmid , Klassische Periode, vol. 3 , 705, not e 7 ; Schlcsinger, Gods in Greek Tragedy 28—29 ; and Webster , Tragedies of Euripides 100 . 36. Dieterich , "Entstehung de r Tragodic" 190 . Burkcr t likewis e argue s tha t th e aitio n in Medea confirm s the origin of tragedy as sacrificial ritual: Burkert, "Greek Tragedy " 118-19 . 37. Murray , Euripides and His Age 41 . 38. Foley , Ritual Irony 59 ; see als o 21 . 39. Pucci , Violence of Pity 133-34 ; compare Goff , Noose of Words 122-2 9 on the aition in Hippolytus. 40. Spira , Untersuchungen zum Deus 161 , m y translation . Compare Grube , Drama of Euripides 79 , an d Barrett , Hippolytos 412 . 41. Lesky , Greek Tragedy 178 . Compar e Pohlenz , Griechische Tragddie, vol . 1 , 436 . 42. Kitto , Greek Tragedy 286 . 43. I n 1462 , Diggl e follow s Pierso n i n emending t o ^EIUXIKCK; . 44. Phanodemu s FGrH 32 5 F14, Istro s FGrH 33 4 F18 , Apollodorus FGrH 24 4 F l 11 . 45. Pausania s 1.23.7 , 1.33.1 , an d 3.16.7. 46. Pausania s 3.16.8 . 47. Burker t claims tha t human blood wa s spil t a t Ilala e with n o mor e evidenc e tha n the text o f Euripides: Burkert, Greek Religion 5 9 and 152 . 48. Acropolis : IG ii 2 1514—31 , with discussio n i n Linders , Studies, who speculate s (70 73) that these inscriptions may actuall y refer to dedications i n Brauron. Brauron: still unpublished, bu t Amandry , "Chronique " 52 7 report s dedication s o f gold , silver , an d clothin g t o Artemis; for a survey of recen t scholarship, se e Brule, "Retour a Brauron. " 49. Fo r reconstructions of ritual associated wit h Iphigenia, see for example Lloyd-Jones , "Artemis an d Iphigenia" and Kearns, Heroes of Attica 27-35. For an attempt to close th e gap between dram a and ritual , se e Wolff, "Euripides' Iphigenia." 50. Euripide s is our first sourc e for Thoas, and for Orestes an d Pylades escortin g Iphigenia back t o Greece. I t is possible tha t Euripides was anticipate d by Sophocles ' Chryses, bu t th e contents o f that play ar e uncertain ; see Platnauer , Iphigenia xii-xiii .

Chapter 5 1. Aristotle , Poetics 145 0 b.22-34 . 2. James , "Preface " 5.

Notes to pages 65-80 21

3

3. Brecht , Good Woman ofSetzuan 141 . O n the later addition of the epilogue, see Bentley 's note on the sam e page . 4. Eliot , Middlemarch 8\8. 5. Dickens , Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club 875 . 6. Bu t not e that Hamlet's shrew d guess at the end i s cast a s a prophecy: "I die, Horatio; / The poten t poison quit e o'ercrows m y spirit: / 1 cannot liv e t o hear the news fro m England , / But I do prophes y th e electio n light s / On Fortinbras. " 7. Th e particula r connection o f th e en d o f th e pla y t o it s seque l shoul d thu s be distin guished fro m mor e genera l connection s betwee n th e plo t a s a whole an d th e large r mythic cycle; o n th e latter, compare Lanza , "Redondances " 142-43. 8. Se e discussion i n Stuart, "Foreshadowing," Kamerbeek , "Prophecy an d Tragedy," an d Hamilton, "Prologue Prophecy, " an d compare not e 1 9 of thi s chapter. 9. Fo r discussion, see O'Neill, "Prologu e ofTroades." Wilson , "Interpolation" argues that the unusua l qualities of the prologue prophec y suppor t it s excision . 10. Se e discussio n i n chapter 7. 11. Compar e Torgovnick' s discussio n o f th e epilogu e t o Middlemarch, i n Torgovnick , Closure in the Novel 21 . 12. Diggl e follow s F. W. Schmid t i n deleting part of line s 1667-68. 13. Thi s theory has falle n out o f favor sinc e th e criticism s o f Zuntz , Political Plays 64— 65, who showe d tha t Electra was mor e than a decade earlie r than Helen. 14. Se e discussio n i n chapter 3. 15. O n th e identit y of Aphrodite's favorite , see Barrett , Hippolytos 412 . 16. Compar e Murnaghan' s comment s o n th e closin g scene s o f Ajax i n Murnaghan, "Trials o f th e Hero." 17. I t i s therefore likely tha t th e exodo s allude s t o a n actua l or contemplate d treat y between Athen s an d Argos, perhaps t o the negotiations preceding th e Peac e o f Nicia s in 421 ; for a discussion o f the contemporary situation, see Zuntz , Political Plays 91-92 . 18. Hypothesi s 1 , Christus Patiens 1668-69 , 1674-7 7 wit h discussio n i n Dodd s o n Bacchae 1329 . 19. Fo r recen t discussions o f Euripidea n prologues, se e Erbse , Studien zum Prolog and C. Segal, "Tragi c Beginnings. " 20. Thus , th e nurse inMedea, lolaus in Children of Heracles, Andromache in Andromache, Aethra i n Suppliant Women, th e farme r i n Electra, Amphitryon in Heracles, Iphigeni a i n Iphigenia among the Taurians, Hele n i n Helen, Jocast a i n Phoenician Women, Electr a i n Orestes an d (apparentl y after a n opening dialogue ) Agamemno n i n Iphigenia at Aulis. The past i s narrated by a god i n Alcestis, Hippolytus, an d Ion an d by a ghost i n Hecuba. An interesting exception i s Trojan Women, i n which the divine prologue speaker (Poseidon) describe s not th e pas t but th e present and th e future . 21. Poetics 145 4 b.2-6 . Compar e Roberts , "Outside th e Drama. " 22. Poetics 145 0 b.26-30 . 23. Compar e th e importan t distinctio n between sacre d an d profan e tim e in Eliade, Myth of Eternal Return. 24. Pythagora s i n Aetius 1.21. 1 (=Pythagorean school D K 58B33) , Hermippu s in fr. 7 3 PCG. 25. I t i s virtually certai n tha t Prometheus Bound wa s followe d by Prometheus Unbound in a connected trilog y (scholias t t o Prometheus 513), and ver y likel y that th e thir d an d fina l play o f the trilog y was Prometheus Fire-Carrier (p . 329 an d F 208a TrGF). Fo r discussion, sec Herington, "Study mPromethia" 182-83 ; for dissenting views, see Griffith, Prometheus Bound 281-8 3 and A. L . Brown, "Prometheus. " 26. Jus t as Prometheus adduces his privileged knowledge of lo's past sufferings (823-^13)

214 Note

s to pages 80-89

to confir m hi s knowledg e o f he r future , s o thi s privilege d knowledg e imparte d by Themi s (873-74) gives authorit y to his following claim t o know o f a marriage that will destroy Zeus (907-14). 27. Compar e Conacher , Aeschylus' Prometheus 61, and Griffith, Prometheus Bound 190. 28. I t i s ofte n argue d tha t th e trilog y end s wit h th e institutio n o f th e torch-rac e a t th e Promethia; see Thomson, Prometheus 32-38, an d Herington , "Study in Promethia." 29. Schlesinger , Gods in Greek Tragedy 33-3 4 mention s possible prophecie s in the frag mentary plays, but many are simply etymologies or vague allusions to the future, an d no prophecy ca n securely be place d a t the end of a play or trilogy. The mos t interestin g is a fragment from Psychagogoi ( F 27 5 TrGF), i n whic h Teiresia s apparentl y foretell s th e manne r o f Odysseus' death ; unfortunately, w e kno w littl e about this play (probably first i n its trilogy), and nothin g about the contex t of this prophecy. 30. Thu s Pearson, Fragments, vol . 2, 214 suggests tha t the allusion may date Teucer before Ajax, a suggestion described as "interesting but scarcely conclusive " by Sutton, Lost Sophocles 139. 31. O n subtler hints in other plays, sec Roberts, "Sophoclean Endings. " 32. A search for concludin g prophecie s among the fragment s o f Sophocles yields little . There i s n o evidence , fo r example , that Polyxena ende d wit h a prophec y b y th e ghos t o f Achilles (compare Pearson , Fragments, vol. 2 , 162) , an d while Syndelpnoi ma y hav e ended with Thetis e x machina (F 562 TrGF), w e do not know whether or not she delivered a prophecy. O n the different sequel s in Philoctetes, see Roberts , "Different Stories. " 33. Compar e Roberts, "Sophoclean Endings " 19 2 who concludes that for Sophocles "ther e are natura l endings t o tragic actions and to tragedies " wherea s "Euripides (especiall y i n hi s later plays) suggests th e arbitrarines s o r artificiality " o f th e end . 34. "Th e goddess appear s no t so much t o extricate the tangles of the plot . . . as to giv e occasion fo r a prophecy abou t the future, " Owe n o n Ion 1549. 35. Decharme , Euripides 272 . 36. Grube , Drama of Euripides 11. 37. Kitto , Greek Tragedy 285 . 38. W . Schmidt, "Deus e x Machina" 202, my translation. 39. Translate d fro m Chapiro , Gesprdche 162.

Chapter 6 1. Grubc , Drama of Euripides 177 . 2. Michelini , Euripides and Tragic Tradition, chapte r 9. 3. Knox , "Hippolytus o f Euripides " 227. 4. Bieber , "Entrances and Exits" 280. 5. Bacchant Women ha s a dramatic climax in the death of Pentheus , but th e first repor t of his death (1028 or 1030 ) i s followed b y mor e tha n 36 0 line s of text , plus a lacuna of a t least fifty lines . 6. I n lin e 33, Diggl c emend s to ovoudoouoiv , followin g Jortin. O n th e infinitiv e wit h rovoua^ev, se e Barrett , Hippolytos 161 . O n textua l questions, see als o th e followin g note. 7. Th e lines have been suspecte d by Jahn (del. 29-33), Blomfield (del . 32-22), and others, an d mor e recentl y by Wilson , "Etymology i n Troades" 6 9 not e 7; b y Lewin , Study of Prologoi 87-90; and by Looy, "Observations sur VHippolyte." The y are defended by Barrett, Hippolytos 161-6 2 and Erbse, Studien zum Prolog 36-37; se c als o Dunn, "Fearful Symme try" 110-11 . 8. O n the shrine of Aphrodite, sccIG i 3 369.66 =SEG x 227.66 (aijjpoSiTEc evhuuioVui) and/G i 3 383.233-34; compare5£G x 225 (Apo8]iTe c ellrei ln\no'X.\no). O n the Hippolyteion,

Notes to pages 89-95 21

5

see scholias t t o Hippolytus 3 0 an d Pausania s 1.22.1 . Fo r identificatio n of thei r remains o n the slop e o f the Acropolis, se e Beschi, "Contributi" 514-15, and Walker, "Sanctuary o f Isis" 248. Fo r ETt i with a proper name in the dative meaning "in hono r of [the deceased]," compare Iliad 23.776 , Odyssey 24.91 , Lysia s 2.80, Bio n 1.81 , IG vi i 1880 , an d man y example s i n Schwyzer,Dialectorum graecarum §§ 348, 452.1-11 , 456.99-100. On parallels between th e opening and closing aetiologies, see Dunn, "Fearfu l Symmetry. " 9. Thu s the nurse in Medea, lolau s in Children of Heracles, Andromache in Andromache, Polydorus (or rather, his shade) inHecuba, Aethra inSuppliant Women, the farmer mElectra, Amphitryon in Heracles, Iphigenia inlphigenia among the Taurians, Helen in Helen, Jocasta in Phoenician Women, and Electra i n Orestes. The openin g dialogue of Iphigenia atAulis i s often emende d to give a prologue speec h t o Agamemnon. For recent discussions , se e Erbsc , Studien zum Prolog an d C. Segal, "Tragic Beginnings." 10. In Bacchant Women, Dionysus as Stranger plays a similar role, although his attributes as deus are les s pronounced, thus affording a clear contrast between th e disguised epiphany of the prologu e an d the ful l epiphan y t o be stage d a t the end . 11. Se e Stuart, "Foreshadowing" an d Hamilton, "Prologue Prophecy. " Som e of the nurse' s lines i n Medea probabl y hav e bee n interpolate d (se e Pag e o n 37—44) , bu t eve n i f genuine , they constitute false foreshadowing, since Mede a wil l not enter the palace and stab Jason with a swor d (Medea 40-41) . 12. Th e mentio n of armies coming togethe r in battle (Bacchant Women 51-52 ) is thus a false lead . 13. O n Ion andAlcestis, sec especially Hamilton , "Prologue Prophecy " 279-83 and 293 301. 14. I t is generally assumed tha t Euripides' firs t Hippolytus wa s se t in Athens, and i f so, it is quite possible that it ended with anamov for the hero's tom b by the Acropolis (see Barrett , Hippolytos 32-34) . Whe n h e cam e t o writ e th e secon d Hippolytus, whic h h e woul d se t i n Trozen an d which he would end with an QITIOV for the famous sanctuary there, the playwright needed someho w t o set aside memories of the earlier version . B y alludin g in the prologue t o the firs t aetiolog y and by consigning i t to a minor episode in the past (when Hippolytu s went to Athens t o celebrate the mysteries), Euripides closes off his earlier treatment of the legen d and allows a new plot to begin. A forecast referring to the nobl e Phaedr a (47) just as clearly distances the secon d versio n fro m th e shameles s deeds o f the first . 15. I n Trojan Women, Athen a an d Poseido n als o qui t th e stag e foreve r a t th e en d o f th e prologue scene; the difference is that they have not intervened in events onstage. See chapter 7. 16. Pausania s 2.32.3-4. Both sites also have some associatio n wit h Asclcpius (Pausanias 1.22.1 an d 2.32.4) . 17. Suppliant Women i s an interesting case. Deat h and commemoration arc central to the plot, and one could argue that the Seven ar e the play's main character, yet the Seven ar e dead before th e drama even begins . 18. Philodemu s Ttepl eiioefietac; 52 and Apollodoru s 3.10.3 both cite an epic Naupactia; compare scholias t to Pindar Pythian 3.96 , an d scholias t to Euripides Alcestis 1 . 19. Se e Callimachu s fr. 19 0 Pfeiffer; Virgi l Aeneid 7.761-82 , and Serviu s ad loc.; com pare Pausania s 2.27.4. 20. I n 1427 , Diggl e emends to KapTio'uu.evo), following Valckenaer, but i t is just as plausible tha t future wome n wil l harvest these tear s as that the dead Hippolytu s will d o so . 21. Source s ar e listed in the following note. See also Eumelus in Pausanias 2.3.11, scholiast to Pinda r Olympian 13.74g , Eusebius Contra Marc. 3.1 . 22. Se e Parmeniscus in scholiast t o Medea 264 , Pausania s 2.3.6-7; compare Creophylus in scholiast to Medea 264 , Apollodorus 1.9.28, Diodorus 4.54-55, Philostratus//ero/c«.s 53.4 . 23. Fo r a fuller discussion , se e Dunn, "Euripides an d Rites."

216

Notes to pages 95-102

24. "Indee d th e connection between the future rite and the present stage action is obscure," Craik, "Euripides ' Firs t Hippolytos" 139 . For discussio n o f th e ambiguit y o f th e closin g aetiology, see Goff , Noose of Words 113-29 , and Pucci , "Euripides : Monument " 184-86 . 25. Compar e Brelich , Paides e Parthenoi 3 3 and not e 7 9 to tha t page , an d Rehm , Marriage 11-29 . 26. Thu s Pucci , "Euripides : Monument " 185 , and Goff , Noose of Words 111 . 27. Zeitlin , "Power o f Aphrodite" 107 . 28. C . Segal, Euripides and Poetics 120-26 refers to the ambivalence of this aition in an interesting discussio n o f gende r an d spac e i n Hippolytus. Rabinowitz , Anxiety Veiled 18 7 implies tha t th e out-of-plac e aitio n underlines th e irrelevanc e o f wome n an d marriag e i n a men's worl d represente d b y Theseus and Hippolytus. 29. I f Aphrodite's favorit e is Adonis, Euripide s ha s promised a novel plot i n which he is killed by Artemis' arrows ; if we take these arrow s literally , we mus t wonder i f some favorite less well know n wil l b e Artemis' victim . Compar e Barrett , Hippolytos 412 . 30. Brooks , Reading for Plot, chapter 4. 31. I n Girardian terms, Hippolytus enact s a mimeti c crisis without enabling a rebirt h of order. Mitchell, however, insist s on finding a scapegoat that will rescu e the play fo r Girard . The notio n that Hippolytus is a scapegoa t wh o displace s huma n violenc e an d guil t ont o th e gods cannot be supported: Hippolytus , Phaedra, Theseus, "Adonis, " and even Artemis (133839) ar e all victims, an d a s Artemis remind s us , Theseus, Aphrodite, th e nurse , an d Phaedr a are al l to blame. Se e Girard , Violence and the Sacred an d Mitchell , "Miasma, Mimesis. " 32. O n the new Phaedra, see Zeitlin, "Power of Aphrodite" 52-54 and Reckford, "Phaedr a and Pasiphae. " 33. O n shame as a thematic concern of the play, see C . Segal, "Sham e an d Purity." For a good discussio n o f th e secon d Phaedr a a s a failed attemp t to recnact the first , se e Reckford , "Phaedra an d Pasiphae. " 34. Zeitlin , "Power o f Aphrodite" 107-8 . 35. O n th e firs t Hippolytus, se e Barrett , Hippolytos especiall y 34—35 (o n th e prologue ) and 44-45 (on the las t scene) . 36. Ou r source fo r these lines (Stobaeus 4.20.25 ) does not identify th e speaker, but Phaedra is the only plausibl e one .

Chapter 7 1. Haigh , Tragic Drama 300. 2. Murray , "Trojan Women" 38 . 3. Grubc , Drama of Euripides 282. 4. "Intes a i n quest o senso , 1'unit a dell e Troiane e assolut a c perfctta, " Perrotta , "Le Troiane" 237. 5. Barlow , Trojan Women 32 . 6. Lattimore , Introductio n 124. 7. Se e the discussion of Trojan Women 1256-59 , with note 1 4 of this chapter, on the verbal, and perhap s theatrical , gesture tha t fails to herald th e entranc e of a deus. 8. Th e satyr-pla y Cyclops end s in trimeters, with the last two parting lines spoken b y the chorus. 9. Th e opening exchang e (1287-1301) is followed by strophe (1302-16) and antistrophe (1317-32). As Lee, Troades 211 notes, "there i s no justification fo r B[ichlJ's attempt to make 1287-1301 strophi c b y a process of wholesale rewriting. " 10. Th e manuscripts assign 1325-2 9 to Hecub a an d 1329-3 2 to Talthybius. All modern editors follo w Seidle r i n givin g th e las t tw o line s t o th e chorus , bu t hi s change s res t upo n

Notes to pages 102-107 21

7

assumptions tha t need t o h e rcexamined , namel y that ther e should b e exac t responsio n i n change o f speaker s an d tha t th e closin g line s shoul d b e spoke n b y th e chorus . (Scidle r as signs 1315-1 6 a t the end of the strophe t o the chorus, althoug h the manuscripts assign the m to Hecuba, an d the n assigns 1331-3 2 at the end of th e antistroph e t o the chorus, t o produc e responsion.) 11. Tw o othe r plays o f Aeschylu s en d wit h lyrics , bu t Suppliant Women close s wit h a brief, gnomi c antistroph e (1068-72) i n which th e choru s reflect s upo n th e justice o f Zeus , and Eumenides end s wit h a brief antistroph e (1044-^47) i n whic h th e secondar y choru s re flects o n th e powe r o f Zeu s an d appeal s t o th e audience . Give n th e simila r content o f Persians and Trojan Women, Euripides ' final e seem s designe d t o recall that o f Aeschylus: an other kommos between chorus an d shattered protagonist, the same crie s of woe (OTOTOTOTOI , Persians 1043, 1051, Trojan Women 1287 , 1293), concluding with a similar brief escort off stage (7teux|;co toi or. 5\)a0p6on; 76015, Persians 1077,6u.ax ; / 8e 7ip6()>Epe 7t65a oov oil TiXaTac, A^aicov, Trojan Women 1331—32) . 12. O n the authenticity of these lines (marked spurious by Diggle), see chapter 11, not e 20. 13. Th e tex t is corrupt; hence m y paraphrase . 14. Wha t th e chorus see s is not necessarily staged. The origina l productio n migh t hav e employed extra s o n th e palace roo f an d migh t hav e lef t everythin g to the imagination . But the exclamatio n o f th e choru s suggest s tha t something a t leas t wa s visibl e to th e audience . Wisps o f smoke? A flaming torch ? 15. Unfortunately , th e mutilate d epilogu e of Bacchant Women an d th e spuriou s ending o f Iphigenia at Aulis mus t b e lef t ou t o f account . Alcestis als o conclude s wit h n o aition, Admctu s command s tha t sacrifice s an d chora l celebration s be establishe d (1154 56). 16. Surviva l o f th e ovoji a i s centra l to th e aition : ETtwvuuoc ; 5e oo- u jtoXi q KEK^fioetc a Electro 1275 ; ix>u,pa> 5 ' ovoji a 0( 5 K£K>,f|aeim Hecuba 1271 ; Hippolytus 1429 ; Iphigenia among the Taurians 1452 , 1454; Heracles 1329-30; Ion 1577 , 1587-88,1594; Orestes 1646; and compar e Erechtheus fr. 65 , line 93 (Austin) . 17. Diggl e follow s Seidler in assigning alternatin g lines to Hecuba an d t o the chorus . 18. Sartre' s adaptatio n Les Troycnnes restore s thi s typ e of balance d frame b y addin g a final epiphan y of Poseidon; the film versio n of Cacoyannis, Trojan Women add s a more subtle frame b y repeatin g th e opening word s of Hecuba' s monod y i n her partin g lines. 19. Compar e Pohlenz , Griechische Tragodie, vol. 1, 435.1 do not agree that the transpo sition is a make-shift expedient: "Das gewaltige Finale, das Bild dcs brennenden Troia, vertrug am Schlu B keinen Deu s ex machina." 20. See , for example , Stuart , "Foreshadowing"; Gollwitzer , Prolog- and Expositionstechnik, esp. 82-91; and Hamilton, "Prologue Prophecy" . Wilso n regard s this unique prophecy a s further evidenc e of interpolation (Wilson, "Interpolation" 205). O'Neill, "Prologue o f Troades" 28 9 observes tha t "S o wid e a departure from hi s usual practice is significant," bu t nevertheless maintain s that the prophecy i n Trojan Women establishe s a "Known End " t o the action i n the same manne r as Aphrodite' s prophecy i n Hippolytus (293) . 21. Hele n an d Menelaus, of course, belong neithe r among th e Trojan women no r amon g the victorious Greek s an d ar e immun e to th e sufferin g o f th e forme r and th e punishmen t of the latter . 22. Line s 13-1 4 ar e deleted by Diggle , following Burges, bu t as Wilson point s out, their "awkwardness" o r "frigidity " does no t warran t excision (Wilson , "Etymolog y i n Troades" 67). Wilso n gives ver y different ground s for suspecting interpolation : i n its reference "to th e future beyon d the limits of the play" and its "almost formulai c use of KeicXfiaeTai" (71) , th e etymology resembles thos e usually found in the epilogue. Yet this finding suggests no t interpolation bu t inversio n of beginnin g an d ending , and th e only remaining anomaly, "the fact

218 Note

s to pages 107-113

that i t does no t refe r t o a character i n the play " (71) , is a n exac t paralle l to th e prophec y o f Poseidon, whic h concern s th e Greeks rathe r than the Trojans . 23. Hecuba 127 i, Electro 1275, Heracles 1330 , Ion 159 4 (KEK\r\aQai),Helen 1674 , an d Orestes 1646 . Compare Erechtheus frag . 65 , lin e 92 (Austin) , an d Suppliant Women 1225 (KXr|6evTe<;). A t Trojan Women 13 , th e manuscript s var y betwee n KeicXiioeTa i (V ) an d K>jr]6f|aetai (PQ). Fo r a discussion of Euripides' use of the word, see pages 383-94 in Ruijgh, "Observations su r KeicXfjaOav. " 24. O n the statue created by Strongylion and dedicated b y Chacredemus, sec Parmenticr, "Notes su r les Troyennes" 46-49 . 25. Wilson , "Interpolation " 205-12 . It does no t follow, however , tha t Athena's entranc e has been interpolated. 26. Se e Kovacs , "Euripides , Troades 95-97 " an d mor e recentl y Manuwald , "u,wpo< ; 5e 27. Especiall y i n th e prologu e an d i n messenger speeches , but als o i n other parts of th e play; see C . Friedrich, "Dramatisch e Funktion." 28. Mason , "Kassandra" 88, proposes correctin g thi s reversal by transposing the effect o f the moral to the end of the play: "the lesson of [lines 95-97] remains in our ears until the end of th e play , so that no deus ex. machina i s required to establis h justice or impos e peace. " 29. Wilson , "Etymolog y i n Troades" recommend s cosmeti c surger y t o eliminat e this defect; se e not e 22 o f this chapter. 30. A s Poole, "Total disaster" 259 concludes, "neve r doe s a Chorus leave an emptier space at the end. " 31. Conacher , Euripidean Drama 139. 32. Compar e Poole , "Tota l Disaster " 259 : "The play i s concerned wit h analyzing , more coldly an d clinically than most reader s seem prepare d t o admit, the way i n which people ac tually behave , value s behave, words behave , i n such a frontie r situation. " 33. I t is now hard to maintain, as Delebecque (Euripide et la guerre 245^6) and Goossen s (Euripide et Athenes 520-27) once did , that Trojan Women ha s the end or goal o f attacking war i n general and th e Athenian expedition agains t Mclo s in particular. There i s a great difference betwee n a wor k depictin g "th e cultural and ideologica l crisi s brough t o n b y war " (Croally, Euripidean Polemic 231) and one designe d t o conve y a particular lesson o r mes sage. As Er p Taalman Ki p points out ("Euripides an d Melos"), there was probabl y not time to compose an d submi t a play i n response t o the destructio n of Melos , an d th e bleakness o f Euripides' pla y consists i n part in the absenc e o f suc h a message. Contras t th e reassuringly clear conclusion Sartre adds to his version, bringing in Poseidon t o announce, "Faites la guerre, mortcls imbeciles, ravagez le s champs et les villes, violez les temples, les tombes, e t torturez les vaincus. Vous e n crevcrcz. Tous" (Les Troyennes 130) . 34. Se e th e excellent discussio n i n Scodel, Trojan Trilogy. 35. Rhesus is a special problem; it covers events described i n book 1 0 of IheHiad, bu t its date an d authorshi p are uncertain. 36. O n th e struggl e agains t th e poeti c fathe r o r precursor , se e Bloom , Anxiety of Influence. 37. Summar y in Proclus (Allen 102-105) . Homer nowher e refer s directl y to the story of the judgment, bu t a passin g allusio n (Iliad 24.28-30 ) may indicat e that h e kne w th e story: thus Reinhardt, "Parisurteil" and Stinton , Euripides and Judgement 1—4 . The Cypria's revi sion woul d the n consist i n describing at length what Home r preferre d t o pass over. 38. Cypria I (Allen 117-18 ) = scholiast t o Iliad 1.5. 39. Se e Stinton , Euripides and Judgement. 40. Fo r a reconstruction o f Alexander, see Scodel , Trojan Trilogy.

Notes to pages 113-121 21

9

41. Se e Sutton , Two Lost Plays 117-121 . W e canno t b e sur e exactl y which invention s other tha n writing (fr. 578 Nauck ) figure d in Euripides' versio n o f th e legend . 42. Fo r a muc h simple r vie w o f thei r disconnectedness , se e Koniaris , "Alexander, Palamedes." 43. Scodel , Trojan Trilogy 72 . Compare th e remarks of Croally, Euripidean Polemic 204 on th e unmarke d and temporary spac e the actio n inhabits .

Chapter 8 1. Diggl e obelize s th e end o f 142 0 an d delete s 1421 , while Conrad t wen t further , delet ing 1419-21. For other proposed emendations , with discussion, se e Bond, Heracles 414-15. 2. Thi s implicatio n is sometimes softene d b y emendin g th e tex t o f 1391 ; for th e manuscript readin g TtcdSoov, aroxvTet; 5' evi Xoyc p jievOriacrce, Diggle, fo r example , prints 7iat8cov. ajiavTac; 8 ' evi Xoy w TievOriaeTe. 3. O n altar s and sanctuarie s t o Heracle s i n Attica , se e Woodford , "Cult s o f Heracles. " Herodotus (6.108 and 116 ) refers to a shrine of the god Heracle s tha t existed a t Maratho n in the year 490 . 4. Se e chapter 4. 5. Earlie r i n thi s play, Heracles allude s t o an initiation : "I wa s luck y enoug h t o se e th e rites of th e mystai" (TC I uvaico v 5 ' opyi £\nvyr\a' ISro v 613) , an d a stor y o f hi s initiatio n at Eleusis before descendin g t o th e underworld seems t o lie behind Aristophanes ' Frogs; pos sible earlie r source s i n poetr y an d ar t ar e discusse d b y Lloyd-Jones , "Heracle s a t Eleusis " and Boardman, "Herakles, Peisistratos." Isolated reports tha t Heracles wa s initiated at the instigation o f Theseus (Plutarch , Theseus 30 ) or that the Lesse r Mysterie s in Athens wer e es tablished i n his honor (Diodorus 4.14.3 ) seem to be lat e attempts to improve upon thi s tradition by forging the close connection betwee n Heracle s an d Athens that is lacking in Euripides. 6. Late r traditio n regards bot h Teu.evr | (Philochoru s 32 8 F18. 3 = Plutarc h Theseus 35 ) and a puuoc ; (Aelian VH 4.5 ) a s gifts fro m Theseu s himsel f t o Heracles . A s Jacob y point s out, Philochoru s seem s t o follow an d correc t th e accoun t o f Euripide s (FGrH IIIB , supp. I, 307-8). 7. O n the prevalence of stories of Heracles' apotheosis , se e March, Creative Poet 72-75 and Holt , "End o f Trachiniai" 70-74 . If the words o f Theseus ar e ironic (he does not know , as the audience does , what the future holds ) and partially true (Heracles will be honored afte r his "death " eve n i f he does not reall y die), the y stil l betray th e ignoranc e of a speake r wh o otherwise seeme d t o have privileged knowledge . 8. O n this notorious exchange, see Halleran, "Rhetoric, Irony" ; Heracles ' repl y is quoted at th e end o f thi s chapter. 9. Andromache 1226-30 , Hippolytus 1391-93 , Ion 1549-52 , Electro 1233-37 ; compar e discussion i n chapter 3 . 10. Orestes 1678-81 ; compar e Hippolytus 1442—43 , Andromache 1276-77 , Iphigenia among the Taurians 1475-76 , Ion 1606-7 , Helen 1680-81 . 11. Swinburn e quoted b y Verrall , Essays 136 ; Murray , "Heracles" 112 , endorse d b y Norwood, Essays 47 . 12. Arrowsmith , Introductio n to Heracles 49-50. 13. Chalk , "dpetfi an d pta"; Gregory, "Euripides' Heracles"; Yunis , New Creed; Foley , Ritual Irony. 14. Se e furthe r Dunn , "Ends and Means. " The trop e of erasure is used i n a different wa y at th e en d o f Michelini' s usefu l chapte r on Heracles. 15. O n problem s wit h these apparen t burials, sec discussio n i n chapter 4.

220 Note

s to pages 121-127

16. avaJ ; Children of Heracles 114 ; Suppliant Women 113 , 164 , 367 ; npoaiatT]q Children of Heracles 206; aXKiiicmmo v Kapa Suppliant Women 163 ; compare Oedipus at Colonus 61, 549. 17. eXe.vQepa Children of Heracles 62, 113 , 198 , Suppliant Women 405 , 477 ; self government Children of Heracles 423-24 , Suppliant Women 403-8 ; compar e Oedipus at Colonus 557-58. On the contrast between Heracles an d Oedipus at Colonus, and Euripides' emphasis upo n friendship , compare Kroeker , Herakles 99 . 18. Compar e Medea, i n which Aegeu s enter s no t a s a kin g bu t a s a friend , and Athen s remains a futur e destination . An importan t difference i s tha t th e stor y o f Medea' s exil e i n Athens, unlike that of Heracles, wa s apparently known t o the audience; see for example Oantz, Early Greek Myth 255-56 . 19. O n (jiiXi a i n Heracles, see Conacher , Euripidean Drama 83-88 . 20. Th e digressio n o n th e gods (1340—46) is followed wit h mentio n of hi s fear o f seem ing a coward (1347—48 ) and with a proverb o n endurance (1349-50 ) that introduc e his deci sion t o g o t o Athens. Compar e Bond , Heracles 401 : "Heracles ' chang e o f min d i s rapidl y indicated an d give n on e singl e motivation , fear o f th e charg e o f cowardice. " 21. Chalk , "dpexf i an d pia " 14. 22. Aenea s likewis e taunt s Pandarus th e bowman, wh o curse s hi s bow, Iliad 5.171-78 , 204—16; compare Her a tauntin g Artemis the archer, Iliad 21.483 , 491 . 23. O n th e portraya l of archer s a s barbarian s in Atti c vase-painting , se e Vos , Scythian Archers. I f Lycu s endorse s th e civi c solidarit y of hoplites , i t does no t follo w tha t Heracle s endorses a n opposing se t of values. Foley, for example, want s Heracles ' bo w t o represent an older, individualisti c heroism, while Michelini wants i t to represent a newer, sophisti c hero ism: Foley, Ritual Irony 167—75 ; Michelini, Euripides and Tragic Tradition 242—46 . Neither is correct. Odysseus ' persona l an d domesti c vendetta agains t th e suitor s i s hardl y a n arche type of heroic warfare, while the sophistic tone of Amphitryon's debat e wit h Lycus does no t necessarily characteriz e Heracles . Otherwise , bot h hav e goo d observation s o n th e bo w and its connotations, a s does Hamilton , "Slings an d Arrows." 24. Walsh , "Publi c an d Private " 308. George , "Euripides ' Heracles" likewis e see s th e bow a s endorsing civic values. 25. I t i s possible tha t th e strang e concei t o f talkin g weapons allude s t o th e chatterin g Kerkopes who stol e Heracles' weapon s and , as he carried the m off , remarked upon his hairy backside; for their story, see Nonnus in Westermann, Mvdoypdfyoi 315;Suda s.v . KepKomei; and s.v . MeXaujnjyoi) TTJ^OK; ; Brommer,Herakles II28-32; LIMC s.v . Kerkopes ; an d Gantz, Early Greek Myth 441-42 . 26. Michelini , Euripides and Tragic Tradition 27 2 draws attention in a more general way to "the kaleidoscopi c fragmentatio n of Herakles' image , as we are continually presented with different an d contradictor y versions of th e hero. " 27. Kirk , "Methodologica l Reflections " 286 . 28. Silk , "Heracles and Tragedy" 120 . 29. Loraux , "Herakles. " 30. I t i s worth noting that Prodicus elaborated a moral conflict between virtue and vice in the figur e o f Heracles ; see, e.g. , Kuntz , "Prodikean Choice." I would suggest tha t the failur e of thi s story (as reporte d by Xenophon ) to tel l which choic e Heracle s mad e i s more significant tha n Kuntz allows, an d althoug h Arete has th e las t word, Heracles ' caree r wa s equally renowned fo r noble an d fo r self-indulgen t deeds. 31. Chapte r 5, note s 1 and 2 . 32. Bakhtin , Dialogic Imagination 3-40 . 33. Compar e th e discussion o f Morson, "Fo r th e Time Being. " 34. Carroll , Sylvie and Bruno 169 .

Notes to pages 127-138 221 35. Compar e Davis , "Social History. " 36. O n "aperture" se e Morson, "Fo r th e Time Being" ; o n ethical freedom, compare Rubino , "Opening up the Classical Past. " 37. Se e Dunn, "Ends and Means." 38. Michelini , Euripides and Tragic Tradition 275 ; Lesky , Greek Tragic Poetry 281 ; Conacher, Euripidean Drama 89-90; see also Halleran , "Rhetoric, Irony. " 39. I n lin e 1340 , I give Barnes ' supplement ; fo r a brief discussion , se e Bond , Heracles 398.

Chapter 9 1. Shaw , Pygmalion 11 5 and 124 . 2. Shaw , Pygmalion 9 , from hi s preface . 3. Th e genre ha s been dubbed "tragi-comedy " by Kitto, Greek Tragedy 311-29 , and "ro mantic tragedy" by Conacher,Euripidean Drama 265, whil e its affinities with the novel have been pointe d ou t by Winkler , "Aristotle' s Theory. " O n th e large r clas s o f "intrigu e plays, " see not e 6 2 of this chapter. 4. TH V Kaivr| v 'E^evtjv , a s Aristophane s describe s Euripides ' protagonist , Thesmophoriazusae 850 . 5. Wit h a variatio n in th e firs t lin e i n Medea; o n thes e line s an d thei r authenticity , see chapter 2 . 6. Compar e Rees , "Euripides , Medea" 180-81 . 7. I n the preceding line s (1666—69, quoted later in this chapter), the Dioscuri prophesiz e that Hele n wil l be called a god an d will share th e worship o f her brothers. The passin g allu sion t o offerings mad e to the Dioscuri (1668 ) is too vague to class as an aition, but a s Foley, "Anodos Dramas " 145—4 8 point s out , ther e ar e hint s of Sparta n cul t elsewher e i n th e play , while a t Therapn e ther e wa s a cul t o f Hele n tha t migh t hav e bee n introduce d a s a closin g aetiology—but wa s not . 8. Ther e i s a n allusion t o th e aetiolog y o f Oresteio n a t Electro 1273-75 , followin g the more explici t judicial aetiology i n 1265-69 . 9. Euripide s apparently conflates hi s novel account of the phantom with prior attempts to place thi s island on Helen's route to (Homer,Iliad 3.443-46 with Strabo 9.1.22 ) or from Troy (Hecataeus FGrH 1 F128); compare Kannich t on 1670-75 . 10. Compar e Dale , Helen on 1673 : th e cult aetiology "ha s shrun k here to a mere perfunctory insertion , and th e philology, if indeed eX- is to be connected wit h KXev|/a<;, KXoTcd^ , 'tak ing' by stealth, is more than usually far-fetched." Austin, Helen of Troy 18 6 is a bit far-fetche d in statin g that Helena means "Th e Stolen. " 11. Diggl e follow s F . W. Schmid t i n deleting parts o f line s 1667-68. 12. Ring-compositio n emphasizes th e difficulties: th e play begins with Hermes' announce ment o f Apollo's schem e t o restore Io n i n Athens by deceivin g Xuthus (69-73), and i t ends with Athena' s announcemen t of a n almost identica l scheme (1601-2) . 13. Fo r m y purposes, th e identit y of the servant is not important. The manuscript s assign this part to the (female) chorus leader , while Clark attributed them to a male servant (SouXoc; (!Jv 1630). Clark's attributio n is followed by Stanley-Porter, "Who oppose s Theoclymcnus?" and b y Diggle ; fo r a defens e o f th e manuscripts , se e Dale , Helen 165-6 6 an d Kannicht , Helena, vol . I , 422-24. 14. I n Antiope, Pag e restore s a similarl y abrupt interventio n and comman d o f Hermes , who enter s t o prevent Amphion fro m killing Lycus in revenge: Page , Greek Literary Papyri 68. 15. Thus , Way , Tragedies of Euripides, vol 3, xxi and Grube, Drama of Euripides 75-76 .

222 Note

s to pages 138-145

16. Thei r entrance i s all the mor e surprisin g becaus e Teuce r ha s suggested the y ma y b e dead (142) . 17. Diggl e follow s Willin k i n deleting line s 1650-55 . 18. I n Ion, Athen a explain s bot h th e parentag e o f Io n (1560-62) and th e divin e pla n of Apollo (1566-68 , 1595-1600) ; Apollo i n Orestes explains both th e disappearance o f Hele n (1629-34) and the designs of Zeus (1634,1639—42); Athena mlphigenia among the Taurians explains Orestes ' missio n t o recover th e statu e (1440—41 b) an d Apollo's agenc y i n sending him (1438-39) ; an d th e Dioscur i i n Electro fai l t o explai n cithe r th e matricid e itsel f o r th e divine plan behind i t (1244^8, 1301-2). InAndromache and Suppliant Women, no explanation i s necessary an d non e i s given . 19. Ther e i s nothing t o support Spira' s referenc e to "der groBen Riickshau, die das ganz c Geschehen al s gottlichen Pla n aufzeig t (1650ff.)" : Spira , Untersuchungen zum Deus 122 . 20. Th e unnecessary sufferin g of the many soldier s a t Troy i s a real but mino r theme, and Papi goe s too fa r in namin g thi s the centra l message o f th e play : Papi, "Victor s an d Suffer ers" 39 , followed by Nicolai , Euripides' Dramen 29—30 . However, i t is not necessary t o con clude tha t on e o r both line s ar e interpolate d (Hartung , Kannicht ) or corrup t (Dale , Diggle) . Romilly interpret s th e inappropriate moral as implied mockery: "La justice divine n'est plus" ("La bell e Helenc " 143 , not e 22) . 21. Diggl e reverses the order of lines 1682-8 3 (following A. Y. Campbell) an d obelize s line 1685 . 22. O n Thcoclymenus ' sudde n chang e o f heart , compar e Seidensticker , Palintonos Harmonia 196 : "Der Genasfuhrt e schlieB l das Stuck mi l einem cnthusiastischen Preis der Frau, die ihn genasfiihrt hat, " and Kannicht on 1642-87. Spira, however , claims that Thcoclymenu s has been converte d b y the gods, Untersuchungen zum Deus 122-23 . 23. Th e simpl e epilogue s ar e Andromache (1231-72 , 1273-83 , 1284-88) , Suppliant Women (1183-1226 , 1227-31 , 1232-34) , and Helen (1642-79 , 1680-87 , 1688-92) . 24. Compar e Kitto , Greek Tragedy 32 2 on Helen: "Th e entirel y artificia l Deus is a happy way of bringing to a close plots which were artificial, too, i n their inception." Yet Kitto view s such ending s a s empty an d superficia l (compar e hi s p. 314) . 25. A s Stinton, Euripides and Judgement observes , th e judgment of Pari s was a favorite theme of Euripides, whose model s for the e'C5o)Xo v of Helen (Stesichorus, Herodotus ) appar ently mak e n o mentio n o f th e judgment. 26. I n Euripides , Her a i s th e agen t wh o set s event s i n motion, while Zeus' inclinations coincide wit h her actions. I n the Cypria (fr . 1), however, Zeu s has a moral purpose i n punishing mortals, and h e i s the agen t o f th e war . 27. Compar e Matthicssen , Elektra, Taurische Iphigenie 182 : "De r Dichte r unternimm t nicht einmal den Versuch, dies e Griind e gegeneinander abzuwiigen. " 28. Hamilto n nevertheles s claim s tha t th e outcom e o f Helen show s "tha t Zeus' s pla n really was carried out," Hamilton , "Prologue Prophecy" 292; compar e Burnett , Catastrophe Survived 99 , and Erbse, Studien zum Prolog 213—15 . 29. Theono e i s no t claimin g to be th e arbite r between Her a an d Aphrodite , pace Kitto, Greek Tragedy 324 , no r is she simply making a personal choice,pace Zuntz , "On Euripides ' Helena" 205-6, and Matthiessen, "ZurTheonoes/cne " 689. She is deciding an issue disputed by the gods, a s noted by Pohlenz, Griechische Tragodie, vol. 1,388, and Conacher, Euripidean Drama 294-9 5 with not e 10 . 30. Theonoc' s words, lik e those of most seers, are quite enigmatic. The many attempts to reconstruct Thconoe' s philosophy ar e therefor e misguided. Pippin, for example , recovers a Platonic theology : "th e quarrelin g gods of mytholog y are spli t awa y fro m th e tru e principle of divinity " ("Euripides' Helen" 162) , whil e Dimock find s a moral imperative: "[Euripides ] has attempted a demonstration that doing righ t i s infallibl y an d totall y rewarde d wit h eternal

Notes to pages 145-150 22

3

recognition in the light of truth" (God, or Not God 17) . Theonoe, however, simpl y states certain personal belief s without attempting to explain or justify them ; the fact that she acts more justly than her brother doe s not make he r knowledge les s subjective. 31. Papi , "Victor s and Sufferers " 3 2 observes tha t "Theonoe i s completely independen t of the Olympian gods since he r choice to help Helen an d Menelau s is the result of a persona l decision (887 ) inspired by a higher code o f justice that is not only different bu t even i n oppo sition t o tha t o f Zeus. " Fo r th e suggestio n tha t Theonoe' s views ar e traditiona l rathe r than enlightened, se e Sansone, "Theonoe." 32. Fo r example, Pohlenz , Griechische Tragodie, vol. 1 , 436; Terzaghi, "Final i e prologhi" 309; Fritz , Antike und moderne 312. Compare discussio n a t the end o f chapter 3 . 33. Hamilton , "Prologue Prophecy " 283 , however, regards th e two "prophecies" as con tradictory, since th e drea m i s misinterpreted b y Iphigenia. 34. O n delayed fulfillmen t o f the oracles, see Roberts, Apollo and his oracle 102-8. O n the drama a s a morality play, see Burnett, Catastrophe survived 47-72. 35. Likewise , th e manner in which Theoclymenus fall s for every detail of Helen's schem e is, or seems , fortuitous, and Theonoe's announcemen t of suppor t i s a happ y surprise. 36. Th e special role of TU%T| in Helen has not adequately bee n discussed. It has long been recognized tha t TO^TI plays a greate r rol e i n th e late r play s o f Euripides , fo r exampl e i n Schadewaldt, Monolog 256-57 ; Solmsen , "Euripides ' Ion" 39 3 an d 400 ; and Ziircher , Darstellung des Menschen 149-63 ; compare Meuss , "Tyche " 13-17. This rol e is denied by Busch, Untersuchungen 44-4 5 an d b y Spira , Untersuchungen zum Deus 132-38 . Onl y Matthiessen,/;7e/:;ra, Taurische Iphigenie 182,18 4 draws attention to the special rol e of TU^TI in Helen, although he prefers to call it "ernstes Lustspiel" rather than "Tupi-Drama." Occur rences of th e word TI>XT| : twenty-four times in Helen, eighteen i n Ion, sixteen in Hippolytus, fifteen time s eac h i n Heracles an d Iphigenia among the Taurians. 37. Diggl e delete s line s 713-19 . 38. Diggl e print s on i n line 1137, and in 1142 emends t o dji^iXoyon;, followin g Dobree . 39. Thes e two passages contain striking echoes of Sophistic thought , in particular skepticism concerning knowledg e (compar e Gorgia s D K 82B3, quoted later); the assertion tha t men cannot apprehend the gods (compare Protagora s DK 80B4, where dSriXorric; may be echoed b y TioiKiXov Ka i 8\)aT.eKu.apto v i n Helen 711-12) ; and th e term avTiAoyon ; (sec Protagoras D K 80A1 an d B5 on his two books of dviiAoyica; this is the only example of this word o r any of its cognates i n Greek tragedy—Sophocle s Antigone 377 dv-uiXoyet o = dvnAeyro is not an excep tion). O n th e significanc e o f thes e lines , compare Matthiessen , Elektra, Taurische Iphigenie 182. 40. Compar e Hamilton , "Prologue Prophecy " 288 : "Hermes' prophecy , lik e Apollo's oracle in the Iphigenia, i s not set outside the action but is revealed to the audience by an actor fully consciou s o f it s implications." Se e als o Stuart , "Foreshadowin g an d Suspense. " 41. Compar e Seidensticker , Palintonos Harmonia 179-80 , on the otherwise superfluous repetition o f Theonoe's revelation. The comi c effec t o f th e recognitio n scene doc s not support a sustained parody , as argued b y Steiger , "Wi e entstand Helena!" o r a critiqu e o f my thology, as argued b y Schmiel, "Recognitio n Duo. " However , the psychological seriousness of th e scen e i s exaggerated b y Alt, "Zur Anagnorisis. " 42. To o often , Theoclymenu s i s regarded a s one or th e other: eithe r "a piou s and kindl y man," Grube, Drama of Euripides 348 , or an "impious" an d "cruel despot," Pippin , "Euripides' Helen" 157. 43. I f she has any reason of her own, she does not reveal it to the audience and apparently forgets it, since she exits at the end of the scene as abruptly as she entered (1029). If vojiov Se TOV E|ao v Oeoioiv dno8o"uoa i refer s t o purificatio n of th e air , w e ar e no t tol d what purpos e the purification and processio n serve .

224 Note

s to pages 150-155

44. I f cdGepcx; (ruxoix; (Wecklein, followed by Dale, Kannicht, Diggle) or |ru%6v (Pfluck , followed b y Gregoire) in 866 is correct, the only parallel is cd6epo<; Tmi/ai, which accompa nies a deus e x machin a (Orestes 1631[? ] an d 1636) , a divin e chariot (Phaethon fr . 779. 7 Nauck), a spiriting-away by the gods (Helen 4 4 and 605) or the abode of the gods (Ion 1445) . Yet Thconoe i s hardly a conventional god; with her head in the clouds (cbi ; ;tve\)|j,a Ka9apov oijpavo'u 8e^co)a,e9 a 867 ) and he r tal k o f SIKT J an d yvcour ] (1002-4, 1013-6) , she coul d al most b e a parod y of Socrates ; compar e Aristophanes , Clouds 316-1 7 (oijpdviai , Ne<j>eXa i . . . / a'ijtep yvcouri v Ka i 8ialeJ;iv KO I vo\J v fijuv rcapexo-uaiv) , an d Sansone , "Theonoe " 27 on "the eschatologica l mumbo jumbo of 1013-1016." The resemblanc e to Socrates i s taken more seriousl y by Pohlenz, Griechische Tragodie, vol . 1, 387 and 430, an d Ronnet, "Cas de conscience" 258-59 . 45. Thi s abruptness has caused scholars to assume corruption (Kannicht), a lacuna (Zuntz) or interpolatio n (Hartung, Wilamowitz, Diggle) . 46. O n ways i n which Helen's effective role comments upon Athenian social values , see Foley, "Anodos Dramas " 148-51 . On Helen' s contro l of , o r authorit y within , the narrative, see Holmberg, "Euripides Helen." 47. A s with Theoclymenus, scholar s ten d to insist upon a single vie w of Menelaus, either a miles gloriosus: Kuipcr, "DeHelena" 184 , and Grube, Drama of Euripides 339 ; or a Homeric hero: Dirat , "Personnage de Menelas" and Podlecki, "Basi c Seriousness" 402-5 . 48. Se e Stcsichorus 192 , 193 PMGF an d Herodotus 2.112-120. For a discussion o f antecedents, se e Conacher, Euripidean Drama 286-89 and Kannicht, Helena, vol. 1 , 26-48. For an entertaining reading of different literar y versions of the enigmatic Helen, see Austin, Helen of Troy. 49. Compar e Brooks , Reading for the Plot 97-101. 50. Compar e Page , Medea xxi—xxv ; Bond, Heracles xxvi—xxx ; Platnauer, Iphigenia xi — xii. Likewis e th e executio n o f Eurystheu s i n Children of Heracles, th e reconciliatio n of Hippolytus and Theseus inHippolytus, th e murder by Orestes of Neoptolemus in Andromache, and Hecuba' s reveng e upo n Polymestor in Hecuba al l seem t o be innovation s by Euripides. 51. I n Trojan Women, th e fall of Troy i s not the outcome of the action, but the background to the entire play, and Phoenician Women end s with at least two possible outcomes, th e exile of Oedipu s and the conflic t ove r Polyneices' corpse . 52. O n th e likelihoo d of a revival of th e Oresteia i n th e 420s , se e Newiger , "Elektr a i n Wolken." 53. Se e Aristotle, Poetics 1451 b.21. 54. O n fre e inventio n i n Ion an d Iphigenia among the Taurians, compar e Howald , Untersuchungen zur Technik 57 , pace Sansone, "Theono e an d Theoclymenus" 18 . 55. I t is possible tha t Creusa in Ion i s largely an original creation; see Owen,/on xii-xiii. 56. Dale , Kannicht, and Diggle follow Nauck in deleting parts of lines 9-10; Erbsc,Studien zum Prolog 211 retain s them, accepting Heel' s emendatio n of OT I t o oim i n line 9. 57. Se e RE s.v . Busiris, and compare Radermacher , "Ueber eine Scene" 281-82. 58. Fo r echoes o f the Odyssey i n Helen, see Eisner, "Echoes of the Odyssey" an d for the play a s a parody o f the Odyssey, se e Steiger, "Wie entstand Helena." 59. O n such portrayals of foreigners in Greek tragedy, see Hall, Inventing the Barbarian. 60. O n formal handling of the suppliant scene in Helen, compare Strohm , Euripides 29 30. 61. Fo r readings that emphasize the "tragic" seriousnes s of the play, see Podlecki, "Basic Seriousness" an d Masaracchia, "Interpretazioni euripidee." 62. Se e especiall y Solmsen , "Zu r Gestaltung." For othe r discussion s o f intrigu e plays , see Radermacher , "Intrigenbildung" ; Strohm , Euripides 64-92 ; an d Diller , "Erwartung, Enttaiischung." Compare als o Matthiessen , Elektra, Taurische Iphigenie 93-143 .

Notes to pages 155-160 22

5

63. O n appearance an d realit y i n Helen, sec especiall y Solmsen , ""Ovoji a an d rcpayjia " and C. Segal, "Two Worlds." O n the play's philosophical content, see also J. Griffith, "Som e Thoughts" an d Ronnet, "Cas de conscience." 64. O n ne w concept s o f divinit y an d justice , se e especiall y Pippin , "Euripides' Helen" and Dimock , God or Not (rod an d compar e Zuntz , "On Euripides ' Helena." 65. Sextu s Empiricu s ad. math. 7.65 = Gorgias D K 82B3. 66. Fo r example, Thucydides 2.51-53 and 3.82-84. For an extreme statement of the play's reflection of contemporary events, se c Gregoire, pages 11-24 in Gregoire an d Meridier,//e/e«, and Drew , "Politica l Purpose. " 67. Thucydides , History 8.1 . 68. "Th e play' s reason for existing [was] to be a diversion to make the Athenians smile in the mids t of suffering," Pippin, "Euripides' Helen" 15 5 or "an escap e fro m th e affliction s o f the time, " Lesky, Greek Tragic Poetry 315 ; compare Austin , Helen of Troy 139. 69. Th e play' s comi c qualitie s are emphasize d b y Grube , Drama of Euripides 332-5 2 and Maniet , "Helene comedie, " and its tragicomic qualities by Kitto , Greek Tragedy 311-2 9 and Seidenstickcr,PalintonosHarmonia 153-99 . It has also been labelle d parody by Stciger , "Wie entstand Helena" an d satyric by Sutton, "Satyric Qualities." On the comic qualities o f individual scenes , see especially Seidensticker . 70. Fo r Helen a s a comedy o f ideas , se e Pippin , "Euripides ' Helen"; fo r th e pla y a s a philosophical romance , se e Segal, "Tw o Worlds" 556. 71. Whitman , Euripides 3 5 despair s o f definin g the play' s genre , whil e Wolff , "O n Euripides' Helen" 6 1 describes i t as "chameleon-like." Austin , Helen of Troy seem s to imply that th e play' s ambiguou s qualitie s al l deriv e fro m th e enigmati c character o f th e mythical Helen. 72. Compar e not e 6 2 o f thi s chapter . O n anticipation s o f Ne w Comedy , se e Post , "Menander an d Helen" an d compare Knox , "Euripidean Comedy. " 73. Th e survivin g plays of thi s type are usually placed shortl y before Helen (412) , Ion in 417 o r 41 8 (Dale ) o r aroun d 41 3 (Diggle) , an d Iphigenia among the Taurians aroun d 41 3 (Platnauer) o r 41 4 (Diggle) ; Sophocles ' los t Tyro wa s produce d befor e 41 4 (scholias t t o Aristophanes, Birds 275) . Euripides' los t Antiope an d Hypsipyle wer e reportedl y produce d between 412 and 405 (scholiast t o Aristophanes, Frogs 53) and share features with these plays (but se e Cropp and Pick, Resolutions 74—76 for arguments suggesting a much earlier date for Antiope). 74. Bacchant Women migh t b e considered a n exception i n which Euripides belatedly rediscovered hi s medium; for a brief discussion of the play, tending in a different direction , se c the beginnin g of chapte r 11 .

Chapter 10 1. lus t as Jason calls the savage Mede a a lion, not a woman (Xeawav, oii yuvaiKa 1342), Menelaus calls Oreste s an d Pylade s lions, no t me n (81000 1 v XEOVTOI V OT J yap dv8p ' amro KaXffl 1555) . And just as Jason demand s the bodies o f his children for burial (9d\|/ai veKpoiiq Hoi TOijaSe Kai KXccuaai . TOpei; 1377), Menelaus demands to bury the body of Helen (ano&oc, Sduaptoc; veicw, (max; XOXKQ tdujx p 1585) . O n similaritie s with Medea, compar e G . Arnott , "Euripides an d the Unexpected" 59-6 0 an d Zeitlin, "Closet o f Masks " 62 . 2. O n Mede a a s BF.OC; , se e Knox , "Medea o f Euripides " 303-6 , followin g Cunningham, "Medea." 3. Page' s suggestio n (Actors' Interpolations 41—42 ) tha t Hele n di d no t appea r onstag e was promptl y answered b y Lcsk y ("Zu m Orestes" 46 ) wh o pointe d ou t tha t Menelau s ad -

226 Note

s to pages 161-164

dresses he r at 1673-74 (compare Tn,a5 e 1639 , and 1683-85). Lesky, followin g Bull e and followed by Willink, wants Apollo an d Helen to appear on a SeoXoyelov rather than the urjxavri, but a s Mastronarde , "Actors o n High " 262-64 argues , us e o f th e cran e fo r Apollo an d (the mute) Helen i s more likely. 4. Al l tha t follow s i s th e chorus ' formulai c praye r fo r victor y (1691-93) . Thi s extra dramatic gesture stands outside the play and is elsewhere precede d b y other recessional line s from th e chorus : i n Iphigenia among the Taurians, i t i s preceded b y a farewel l i n anapest s (1490-96), and i n Phoenician Women, i t is preceded b y a n echo o f Oedipus ' closin g mora l from Oedipus the King (1758-63). In Orestes, however, we pass at once from deus ex machina to praye r for victory with n o commen t upo n the completion of th e action . 5. Arrowsmith , Introduction to Orestes 106; compare Willink , Orestes xxii. For a partial list o f scholarship o n Orestes, see Willink, Orestes xi-xviii. 6. O n spectacula r effect s i n Orestes, see especiall y Arnott , "Tension, Frustration. " O n reflection o f events in Athens, se e Burkert, "Absurditat der Gewalt" and Longo, "Propost e di lettura." Less convincin g i s th e thesi s i n Eucken, "Rechtsproblem " that the confusio n conceals a dialectical argument abou t justice. 7. Muc h of the argument o f this section was earlier presented in Dunn, "Comic and Tragic." I a m gratefu l t o the Regents of th e University of California for permission to adapt this copyrighted material. 8. I t i s this combination o f opposing impulse s tha t defines for m e th e "tragicomic" qual ity o f th e play . Contrast Barnes ' definitio n of Orestes as "tragicomedy " becaus e i t contains one or more of three specific elements : Barnes, "Gree k Tragicomedy " 130 . Compare Hall' s passing remar k that "The tex t itsel f seems to be locked i n a battle between traged y and com edy" i n Hall, "Political an d Cosmi c Turbulence " 277. 9. Compar e Hippolytus 421—23 , Ion 672 , 675, Phoenician Women 391 ; discussion i n Bonncr, Aspects 67-8 5 an d Jones, Athenian Democracy 44 . An earlier reference ha s passe d unnoticed: Aeschylus, Persians 591—94 . 10. Plato , Isocrates , an d other fourth-century critics of democracy regarde d Ttappriaia as a liability; see Bonncr,Aspects 67—85 . In an earlier age, free speec h wa s no t called reappr|ata , and wa s no t approved (e.g. , Thersite s i n the Iliad). \ 1. Ther e are nineteen occurrences of oryri, aiydra, and oiya (to those given in Allen and Italie, Concordance add oiya 182) , and twenty-two including oicoTrr) and ouimdw. Words for noise als o occu r wit h unusua l frequency i n Orestes (e.g. , nin e occurrences o f KTUTIOC ; an d KTUTtew).

12. Compar e Whitman , Aristophanes and the Comic Hero, especially 21-26 . 13. Som e editor s fin d he r hesitation s too illogical . Thus Klinkenber g delete s 12-1 5 and Nauck delete s 38, followed b y d i Benedetto (del . 1 5 and 38), Willink (del. 15 and obol . 38), and Diggl e (del. 15). 14. Compar e Grube, Drama of Euripides 37 5 on the visual impasse: "[Orestes] as it were, both i s and ye t i s not befor e us ; al l we se e i s a shapeless hea p of blankets. " 15. O n th e amusin g innovatio n compare Kitto , Greek Tragedy 348 , and Winnington Ingram, "Euripides " 131 . Murray an d d i Benedett o delet e 136—39 , followin g WilamowitzMoellendorff. 16. Th e scen e i s also a n amusin g parody of Aeschylus ' Libation Bearers an d Sophocles ' Electra, in which Clytemnestra sends Electra to make offerings to Agamemnon's tomb ; here 1 ielen would hav e Electra repea t th e par t at he r mother' s tomb , whil e Electr a invite s Helen t o play Clytemnestra to her own daughter Hermione. In Helen's greeting, Diggle deletes lines 71 and 74. 17. O n Euripides' original version, see/?£ s.v. Tantalos; on possible allusion s to the teachings o f Anaxagora s an d Prodicus , se e Scodel , "Tantalu s an d Anaxagoras " an d Willink , "Prodikos."

Notes to pages 164-17 4 22

7

18. A t line s 5 , 347, 350, 813, 986, and 1544 . O'Brien, "Tantalus " connect s mentio n of Tantalus instea d wit h th e threa t of stonin g i n Argos an d wit h Orestes ' threa t t o thro w ma sonry upo n Menelaus . 19. A t Sophocles , Oedipus at Colonus 4 2 an d 486. The hypothesi s t o Eumenides ma y imply it s mention in that play, but see A. Brown, "Eumenides " 267-76. Mention of Tantalus and the Eumenides recurs primarily in the lyric passages; on myth in the odes, compare Fuqua , "World o f Myth. " 20. Wit h 551-56, compar e Eumenides 657-6 1 an d th e outburs t of a spectato r reporte d by th e scholiast o n Orestes 554 ("and without a mother, yo u fou l Euripides") ; with 566-70, compare Libation Bearers 896-98. Fo r a fuller discussio n o f parody in Orestes, see Olivieri, "DclVOreste." 21. O n th e characterization of Menelaus , se e Grecnberg , "Euripides ' Orestes" 168 , and Benedetto on Orestes 638-89 . 22. Diggl e place s lin e 651 afte r 657 , following Paley . 23. O n "the frequent reference s t o running, leaping an d rushing," see Rawson, "Aspect s of Orestes" 156. On reversal of Pylades' silen t role, compare Nisetich , "Silencing o f Pylades." 24. Compar e Greenberg, "Euripides ' Orestes" 180-81 . Wecklein, followe d b y Diggle, deletes par t of the following speec h (938-42), and Willin k deletes i t all (932-42). 25. Th e same argumen t tha t failed to convince Tyndareus (564-71) is no more effectiv e before th e Assembly (931-37) , a s noted b y Eucken, "Rechtsproblem " 163. 26. Three-wa y dialogue i s used ver y effectively, buildin g gradually (Orestes an d Electr a 1018-64; Orestes and Pylades 1065-1176; Orestes and Electra 1177-1206 ; Orestes, Pylades , and Electra 1207-45) and making repeated mention of the threesome (1178, 1190,1243,1244) . 27. A surprisin g reversal ; usuall y the choru s ask s fo r silenc e (Aeschylus , Agamemnon 1344) or another asks th e chorus for silence (Sophocles, Electra 1399 ; Euripides, Hippolytus 565—68) t o hea r what i s happenin g inside . Wit h KTTJTIO V eyeipeT e here , contras t UT)5 ' eaico KTUTtO^ 137 .

28. O n the shrill delivery of the Phrygian' s apu,dTevov ueXo<; , see scholiast t o line 1384. 29. Compar e Hall , "Political an d Cosmi c Turbulence" 269-7 7 o n th e impass e betwee n philia an d eris. 30. Electra 1273-7 5 als o allude s t o thi s aition , withou t mentionin g flappdoio v o r 'OpeaTeiov by name . 31. Scholias t to line 279, who add s tha t the gaffe was parodie d by Aristophanes, Strattis, and Sannurion . Compare th e outburs t a t line 55 4 (not e 2 0 i n this chapter) . 32. Diggl e delete s thes e an d th e precedin g line s (1556-60), following Oeri. 33. Parry , "Euripides' Orestes" 352. 34. Schein , "Mythica l Illusion " 53. 35. O n th e mora l depravit y of Oreste s an d hi s companions , se e Mullens , "Meaning o f Orestes" followe d b y Boulter , "Them e o f dypta " and Smith , "Diseas e i n Orestes." I n de fense o f thei r character , se e Krieg , De Euripidis Oreste 13-17 , Erbse , "Zu m Orestes," an d (on Oreste s i n particular) Porter, Studies, especiall y 45—5 4 an d 68—89 . O n th e play' s mora l vacuum, see Burkert, "Absurditiit der Gewalt," Wolff, "Orestes" 134 ; and Schein, "Mythical Illusion" 66. 36. Jekels , "On Psycholog y o f Comedy " 17 4 and 179. 37. O n questionin g of values , se e Reinhardt , "Sinneskris e be i Euripides, " and Lanza , "Unita e significato " 71 . O n generationa l conflict , se e Falkner , "Comin g o f Age." On violence sec Burkert, "Absurditiit der Gewalt" 106-8 , an d Longo, "Proposte di lettura" 282-86. 38. Thucydides , History 3.82 . 39. Kott , "loncsco" 100. 40. Goethe , Italian Journey 467-68 .

228 Note

s t o pages 1 75-181

41. Diggl e obelize s lines 34-35, an d i n lin e 38 emend s t o <|>6fk>v . 42. Bloom , Anxiety of Influence 14 , 49-73. 43. I t likewise fill s in gaps i n the famil y past , lookin g back no t to the crime s o f Pelops , Atrcus, an d Thyestes, but t o the earlie r crime o f Tantalus. 44. Scholias t t o line 268; compar e Stesichoru s fr. 217 PMGF an d discussion i n Willink, Orestes, on 268-74. 45. A s Willink, Orestes argue s (o n 268-74 , 268 , an d 286-87), i t is very unlikel y that a real bow was used in staging the scene; the scholiast does not approve the practice of miming the scene , bu t nowher e implie s that th e practic e i s not Euripidean. 46. O n mime i n general, se c Reich , DerMimus. 47. O n the similarities between Euripide s an d Timotheus, see Bassett, "Place an d Date " 160—61 an d Webster , Tragedies of Euripides 17—19 . 48. Fo r a n excellent reconstructio n of Timotheus' Persians, see Herington , Poetry into Drama 151-60 . 49. Satyru s in his Life o f Euripides reports that Euripides encouraged Timotheus and wrote the proe m o f Persians, and a s a resul t Timotheu s was victorious : POxy i x 1176 , fr . 39, col . xxii. Porter, Studies 199-207 reminds us that the Phrygian's lyric narrative is more controlled in form an d mete r tha n the dithyramb of Timotheus. 50. avafya Ka i TpaywStac ; iced Tfj q 'OpeoTo u cruu,<|>opa<; id Xeyouev a (scholiast to 1512) , iawa KcauaKwiepa eon Kai Tie^a (scholiast t o line 1521); for proposed deletion , sec Gredley, "Is Orestes" an d Reeve, "Interpolatio n I" 263-64. 51. Seidensticker , Palintonos Harmonia 10 2 and 109 . 52. Thi s expansion of horizons may also embrace satyr-drama. As Radcrmachcr observed ("Ueber eine Scene"), the comic scen e of a Greek her o runnin g amo k among cowardl y barbarians was familia r i n th e legen d o f Heracle s and Busiri s in Egypt, and wa s dramatize d in satyr-plays o f Phrynichu s and Euripides , a s wel l as i n comedy . Severa l critic s g o further , suggesting wit h Hartun g tha t Orestes wa s originall y staged i n plac e o f th e satyr-play ; this view i s argued , e.g. , b y Luppe , "Zu r Datierung " an d i s challenged b y Sutton , "Suppose d Evidence" an d Porter, Studies 291-97.

Chapter 11 1. Th e play is securely dated to the period 411—407 by the scholiast to Aristophanes, Frogs 53, who dies Phoenician Women a s one of several Euripidean tragedies closer i n time inFrogs (405) tha n was his Andromeda (412) . The expression "shortl y before," Ttp o oXiyo u narrow s the mos t likel y perio d t o 409—407. I n frequency of trimete r resolutions, Phoenician Women is close r t o Helen (412 ) tha n to Orestes (408) ; se e Crop p an d Frick , Resolutions 2 3 an d Mastronarde, Phoenissae 1 1 with note 1 . A production in 407 shoul d not be rule d out, sinc e Euripides may have moved to Macedon late r that year; sec Bond,Hypsipyle 144 . The conjectur e that a tetralog y of Antiope, Hypsipyle, an d Phoenician Women wa s produce d wit h a "pro satyric" Orestes i n 408 , recentl y revive d b y Miiller , "Zu r Datierung " 66-69, Mucller Goldingen, Untersuchungen 6-11, and Luppe, "Zur Datierung" is rightly rejected by Mastronarde, Phoenissae 11-12 . 2. O n th e histor y of th e text , see Mastronard e and Brerner , Textual Tradition. 3. Craik , Phoenician Women 39 . 4. See , e.g. , Xanthakis-Karamanos , Studies an d Easterling , "End o f an Era? " 5. Se e the discussion o f West , "Tragica V. " 6. Oedipus the King goe s furthes t i n suggestin g tha t th e protagonis t ha d (virtually ) no choice i n th e past action s o f murde r and marriage.

Notes to pages 181-185 22

9

7. Compar e th e discussion i n Jones, Aristotle and Tragedy 247-52 . 8. A majorit y of editor s d o no t conside r th e prologu e authentic , at leas t i n it s receive d form; Diggle woul d delete the entire prologue (1-162), a s well as large portions from the rest of the play. For a defense of the prologue, se e Knox, "Euripides ' Iphigenia," wh o note s tha t in som e ways th e prologu e o f th e los t Andromeda wa s " a muc h bolde r experiment " (277) . 9. He r change o f heart ha s been criticized sinc e Aristotle , Poetics 1454 a.31—33. 10. Se e Dodds, Racchae xxxvi-viii . 11. Se e Segal, Dionysiac Poetics 215-71 o n metatheater and Folcy, Ritual Irony 205-5 8 on ritua l motifs. 12. Apsine s (Diggle p . 352) reports that Agave hel d an d lamented his limbs one by one. 13. Hence , perhaps , the great popularity of Orestes and Phoenician Women i n antiquity, and th e relativ e neglect of Bacchant Women. 14. Ther e i s a vast literature on textual problems in the exodos. Those who argu e for largescale interpolatio n include Page , Actors' Interpolations 20-29 ; Friedrich , "Prolegomena" ; Fraenkel, "Zu den Phoenissen"; Reeve, "Interpolatio n II"; an d Dihle, "Prolog de r Bacchen." Those wh o argu e fo r it s overall integrit y includ e Valgiglio , L'esodo dalle Fenicie; Diller , Review o f Fraenkel ; Erbse , "Bcitrage" ; Valk , Studies in Euripides; an d Craik , Phoenician Women. Th e fina l scen e as a whole, fro m 158 1 on, ha s been rejecte d b y Page , Actors' Interpolations 22, Willink, "Goddess eiiXcxpeia," and Diggle. The closing sectio n 1736-7 7 is frequently rejected, as, for example, by Mastronarde, P/zoewmae 635-37 and Mucller-Goldingen Untersuchungen 258-62 . 15. Craik , Phoenician Women 50 . Sh e mark s a s spuriou s 161 3 and 1634 , and note s a s suspect 1604-7 , 1744-46 , an d 1758-63 . Compar e th e simila r reservation s voice d b y Mastronarde, Phoenissae 43—4 8 on argument s often use d i n detecting interpolations. 16. I shal l therefor e let th e reade r know, i n the notes , whe n passage s I quote hav e been judged spurious , althoug h I cannot address her e individua l arguments for an d against . 17. Lyric s mor e ofte n hav e a metrica l structur e of stroph e an d antistroph e that repeat s meter (an d presumabl y musi c an d choreography ) exactly , s o tha t responsio n provide s a n unambiguous point of completion . 18. Compar e Oedipus the King 1524-25: w natpac, 0T|PT\5 EVOIKOI, Xe.iroaei:', Oi8i.7io"u<; 65e, / oc, m KXeiv ' aivi.yu.aT' riSei Kai Kpcmotoc; frv dvfjp . Bot h passages have been judged spurious, i n par t because o f thi s quotation. For deletio n o f Oedipus the King 1524-30 , se e Dawc, Studies, vol. 1, 266-73; for retention of the lines, see Arkins, "Fina l Lines" and LloydJones an d Wilson , Sophoclea 113-14 . Phoenician Women 1758-6 3 are rejecte d b y many editors, including Mucller-Goldingen, Untersuchungen 262—6 6 and Mastronarde, Phoenissae 642-43; recent defenders of the lines include Erbse, Studien 245 and Valk, Studies in Euripides 51-56. 19. Man y critics , includin g Mastronarde , Phoenissae 64 5 an d Mueller-Goldingen , Untersuchungen 26 6 suspect thes e lines ; see discussio n i n chapter 2. 20. Fraenkel , "Zu den Phoenissen" 98-10 0 and Kitto, "Final Scenes " 108-9 delete these lines; th e passage i s defended mos t recentl y by Mastronarde , Phoenissae 62 6 an d MuellerGoldingen, Untersuchungen 255—5 6 wit h his not e 67 . 21. Pausania s (1.30.4) mentions a heroon o f Oedipus an d Adrastus at Colonus, although elsewhere (1.28.7) he reject s th e view tha t Oedipus wa s burie d there. Androtion, so we ar e told (scholiast to Odyssey 11.27 1 =FGrH 32 4 F 62), said that Oedipus "dwelled" i n Colonus, perhaps thus alluding to a hero cult. For discussion, see Kearns,//eroe.s of Attica 50-52,208-9, and compar e chapte r 4, note 34 of thi s book. 22. Fraenkel , "Zu den Phoenissen" 86-8 8 deletes 1586b-90a (apy_ac,. . . oowjxix; yap); they are defended , o n differen t grounds , b y Mastronarde , Phoenissae 595-9 6 an d Mueller Goldingen, Untersuchungen 229.

230

Notes to pages 185-191

23. Home r reports separately tha t Oedipus remained in Thebes when Jocast a died (Odyssey 11.271-80 ) and tha t he was burie d at Thebes (Iliad 23.679-80) ; a scholiast o n th e latte r passage report s that , accordin g t o Hesiod , Oedipu s die d a t Thebes. The exil e o f Oedipu s i s not clearly described befor e Phoenician Women an d Sophocles' Oedipus at Colonus, but the action of Oedipus the King presupposes th e possibility of exile, and Pinda r seems to allude to the exile of Oedipus (Pythian 4.263-69) . March, Creative Poet 145-47 argues that the story of exile began wit h Aeschylus' Oedipus, but there are too many lost versions of th e legend to hazard suc h speculation . 24. Compar e Said, "Euripide " 522-23. 25. Fraenkel , "Zu de n Phoenissen" 108- 9 an d Hose, "Uberlegungen " 68-69 delete men tion o f Polyneices ' burial ; but see Mastronarde , Phoenissae 592-94 and 611-12. 26. Kitto , "Final Scenes " 108 wants to remove mention of Antigone's marriag e by deleting 1664-82 . 27. Scholias t t o Sophocles,Antigone 1351 : on 5ia<j>epe i if\q EuputtSov ) AvTiyovrjcj CCUTT I OTI (JKopaOeiaa eKeivri 5id TO V Aiuovot; eparea eE,e566r| jtpoi; yduov, evia-uSa Se To-uvavtiov; compare hypothesis I to Sophocles, Antigone, and Euripides, Antiope fr . 16 4 Nauck: dpicrcov dvSpi KTf|u. a cruu,7ia6f)< ; ywf] . 28. Se e not e 2 3 o f thi s chapter. 29. T o avoid such confusion , many editors delete lines 1737-57; see note 14 of this chapter. 30. Arg . 2: TteputaOeic; dyav ai Ooiviaaa i TT J ipaycpSicr dutcoXe-c o yap 6 Kpeovuocj vioq OTTO TO V iei%ovc, TJTtep ff\q TtoiVerac ; ctTtoGavrov, dmeOavov 5e Kai o i 811 0 d5e>ii))oi we' aXXfi^cav, KQI 'loKaaTT i r\ ur|TTi p dvei>.e v eamf]v ET U TOIC; Jiaiat, Kai o i en i 0T][3a< ; oTpateuoduevoi Apyeioi OTtroXovTO , Ka i dta<|)o< ; HoA,i)veiKTn ; TtpoKsitai, Ka i 6 OiSinou ^ Tf|t ; TiatpiSoc ; EKpaHetat Ka i cru v amu> i\ GuydiTi p Aviiyovri . 31. See , fo r example , Conacher , Euripidean Drama 241-42 . Foley , Ritual Irony 106 46, however, find s redemptive ritua l powe r i n Mcnoeceus' sacrifice . 32. Thu s mos t recentl y Craik , Phoenician Women 24 4 and 249, wh o suggests that Creon's entrance wit h th e body of his son provides "a tangible display of the traged y o f his branch of the family," but see Mastronarde, Phoenissae 514—15 and Mueller-Goldingcn, Untcrsuchungen 208-9. 33. umpoc ; eu.dc; f j 8iSiJu.oic j / ycdaKTOc ; Ttapd uaa-coic ; / r\ npoc, d8eX(()W v / oiJXouev ' aiKtouaia veKprov; with an effective reversal of the expected pairing: twin bodies of her brothers, an d outrage d breast o f he r mother. Diggle emend s t o dya^dKioii;, following Headlam. 34. Diggl e delete s th e exodo s fro m 158 2 t o th e en d o f the play ; compar e not e 1 4 of this chapter. 35. Aristophane s i n Frogs juxtaposes a quotatio n b y "Euripides " o f th e openin g lin e of his lost Antigone (1182) with a reply by "Aeschylus" tha t echoes details of this passage (1183 86); i t is tempting to speculate tha t Oedipus' "prologue" her e rewrites the earlier prologue of Antigone and that "Aeschylus" inFrogs cleverly uses Euripides' ow n words from Phoenician Women t o attack the line his rival quotes fro m Antigone. On echoes of Phoenician Women i n Frogs, compare Mastronarde, Phoenissae 599-600. The speech of Oedipus, a t least as far as 1614, was rejected as spurious by Kitto, "Final Scenes" 110 and Fraenkel, "Zu den Phoenissen" 89-95. 36. Mastronarde , Phoenissae 3-4 has pertinen t observations o n th e differenc e between "open" and "closed" form i n drama, citing Pfistcr , Theory and Analysis 239-45 . But Pfister, following Klotz , Geschlossene und Offene i s chiefl y intereste d i n a genera l typolog y fo r a broad class o f plays. I t seems to me, however, tha t Phoenician Women doe s not belon g t o a more "open" class o f Gree k tragedies , bu t i s in many ways entirel y anomalous. I n what follows, I attempt to describ e thi s exceptional qualit y mor e fully . 37. Fo r a complete lis t o f reference s an d discussion, se e Rawson , "Famil y an d Father land" 112-11 3 with note 11 .

Notes to pages 191-198 23

1

38. Said , "Euripide. " 39. Contras t th e elaborate an d lengthy process of naming a Theban to stand agains t eac h Argive i n Aeschylus, Seven against Thebes 407 , 448, 474, 504, 555, 620, and 675. See also Mastronarde, Phoenissae 360-61. 40. Phrynichu s TrGF I , 3 F 9 = scholiast t o Aristophane s Wasps 220 ; compare Kranz , Stasimon 111 . 41. Stesichoru s fr. 195 PMGF = scholiast to Phoenician Women 670. 42. Tangentiall y introduce d just at the end, i f the end of the play is genuine, but the fina l scene has long been suspec t an d the issue of burial may not belong. Se e discussion i n Mellon, Ending of Aeschylus; Thalmann, Dramatic Art 137—41 ; and Hutchinson , Septem 209-11 . 43. Th e "Lill e Thebaid" ascribe d t o Stesichoru s (fr . 222 b PMGF), i n which th e boys ' mother tries to resolve the quarrel before Polyneice s leave s Thebes and raises the expedition . The mothe r ha s generally been identifie d as Jocasta, but March , Creative Poet 127-2 8 argues that she is Oedipus' second , nonincestuous wife. Mueller-Goldingen , Untersuchungen 34-35 argues that she is Jocasta an d that Euripides echoes particular details from Stesichorus ; see also Stephanopoulos, Umgestaltung 109. 44. B y including Adrastus an d not Eteocles among th e Seven , Euripide s seem s t o reject Aeschylus i n favor of th e Thebaid; compar e Stephanopoulos , Umgestaltung 124 . 45. Compar e Said , "Euripide" 517 . 46. Th e story is clearly cast as parallel to that of Erechtheus and his daughter, to which Teiresias alludes i n 854—55 , so Euripides ' Erechtheus may als o be a part of thi s intertextual web. O n Euripides' inventio n o f Menoeceus , se e Mastronarde , Phoenissae 28-29 ; Stephanopoulos , Umgestaltung 116-2 2 argues that even if Menoeceus i s to be equated with Megareus (Sophocles, Antigone 1303), the manner of his death is original with Euripides. Lines 1015-18 are deleted as superfluous b y man y scholars , Mastronard e an d Diggle included , althoug h retained by Craik , Phoenician Women an d defended b y Romilly, "Phoenician Women o f Euripides" 128-30. 47. Earth , War, Furies, and curses are each discussed below ; whe n a divine role is sough t or conjectured, i t is typically that of an unnamed 0eo< ; or 0eoi (70, 155, 379, 382, 468, 586, 871, 873,1031 , 1198, 1200, 1202,1426, 1614, 1763; compare 258 , 637) or unnamed Saijiwv or 5aiaove<; (18, 491, 1000, 1066, 1199, 1266,1653, 1662; compare 352, 888). For a differ ent vie w o f the divine realm in thi s play, se e Treves, "L e Fenicie" 194 . 48. Arg . 3: To 8pdua EOTI Se Taiq orenviKofK;6\|»eai Kakov,tercel t KCCI7capa7ifcnpcDnora.ic6 v rj TE drc o TW V teixew v 'AvTvyovr i Oecopotio a nepo q OIJ K ec m 8pd|j.aTOi; , Kc d wtoo7tov8o< ; LloXweiKTu; o\>Sevo<; EVEKO rcapayivetai, 6 te erd ream ue-r.' (p8f|<; dSoXeoxou (JnryaSe-uouevo^ OiSuiotx; rcpoaepparcTai 8id Kevfjc; . 49. Th e authenticity of the whole "teichoskopia" has occasionally bee n challenged, mos t recently b y Dihle , "Prolo g de r Bacchen" 60-71 ; fo r counte r arguments , se e Mastronarde , Phoenissae 168-73 . 50. Foley , Ritual Irony 143 , however, suggests that the repetition "may hin t at the appropriate reorderin g of th e disordered generation s of th e hous e o f Laius. " 51. Foley , Ritual Irony 12 6 has goo d observation s o n th e "antimythical " natur e of thi s play, i n which "Euripides' tragi c poetr y threaten s to descend fro m th e real m of philosophy, where necessar y an d probable event s coher e i n a well-ordered praxis, to the randomness of history." Sh e concludes , however , tha t the pla y is rescue d fro m thi s "disaster" by th e self sacrifice o f Menoeceu s an d by th e devotion of Antigone . 52. Th e Telemachy , o r travel s of Telemachus i n book s 1— 4 o f th e Odyssey, ar e clearly subordinated t o the main narrative thread. On meander s and labyrinth s as figures for the delays of the plot, se e Barchiesi, "Endgames" and Miller , Ariadne's Thread. 53. Romilly , "Phoenician Women of Euripides" 122 . For arguments connecting Polyneices more specificall y t o Alcibiades o r to the democratic party, see Delebecque, Euripide 352-6 4 and Goosens , Euripide et Athenes 600-9.

232 Note

s to pages 198-202

54. Arthur , "Curse o f Civilization" 184. 55. Said, "Euripide" ; Goff , "Shield s of Phoenissae." 56. Foley , Ritual Irony 106-4 6 is thus especially useful in stressing various positive themes and developments; I cannot agree , however , tha t the action a s a whole follow s a positive and redemptive course . 57. O n the nobler and more viril e associations o f death by th e sword, se e Loraux , Tragic Ways 12 . 58. " Escape odes " includ e Hippolytus 732-775 , Iphlgenia among the Taurians 1089 1152, and Helen 1451-1511 . The ode s in Hippolytus and Helen are discussed b y Padel , "Imagery o f the Elsewhere. " 59. Se e Morson, "Fo r the Time Being " and the discussion of Heracles in chapter 8 of this book. 60. Bakhtin , Dialogic Imagination 7 . 61. Compar e Bakhtin, Dialogic Imagination 30. On ethical freedom in the narrative theory or "prosaics" of Bakhtin, se e Morson , "For the Time Being" and Rubino , "Openin g up." 62. "Th e last lin k i n a lon g chai n o f Thcba n misfortunes, " Grube , Drama of Euripides 371; compar e Pohlcnz, Griechische Tragodic, vol. 1 , 380-81 and Podlecki, "Som e Themes " 372—73 and , in a differen t vein , Arthur, "Curse o f Civilization " on th e inevitabl e violenc e inherent i n huma n culture. 63. Wit h eighty-seven (o r eighty-five) lines, the only extant prologue speec h tha t comes close is tha t of th e ramblin g Hermes i n Ion (eighty-on e lines). The firs t tw o line s of th e prologue may be later additions; see Haslam, "Authenticity" and Mastronarde, Phoenissae 139 41. 64. W e might contrast with the charms of this wandering narrative the dangers o f a linear path. I n th e openin g line s (o f suspec t authenticity ; see previou s note) , Jocast a invoke s th e sun, which cuts a path through the star s in heaven (~Q. Tr\v e v doTpoi(; oiipavoij TEU.VCO V 656 v 1) as the author of misfortunes for Thebes; the oracle a t Delphi echoe s this invocation (com pare ~£l. . . "HXie, Goaic ; ITOTOIOI V 1- 3 wit h Tfi 0r|(5aiai v emitnoiq ('ivaj; 17 ) when i t warns Oedipus no t t o sow th e furro w o f children (uf| cmeipe TEKVGJ V ciA.OK a Scau.6va> v pla J 8). Th e attempts to cut a straight path prove disastrous for the city and th e family, an d give way t o the uncertain possibilitie s of blind wandering. 65. Thes e line s point t o the contras t between Hele n wh o canno t se c he r brother s (lying dead i n Sparta ) an d Antigon e wh o canno t mak e ou t th e shap e o f he r brothe r (now distant, soon t o die), a s noted b y Mastronarde , Phoenissae 168 . 66. Se e Arthur , "Curs e o f Civilization." 67. Th e entir e shield scene, 1104—40 , has been considered an interpolation, most recently by Dihlc , "Prolo g de r Bacchen" 73-84 ; Mueller-Goldingen , Untersuchungen 176-78 ; and Diggle. Fo r a defens e o f th e passage , se c Mastronarde , "Phoinissai 1104-40" ; fo r a goo d reading o f th e scene , se e Goff , "Shields of Phoenissae." 68. Althoug h Arthur's article is excellent in many respects, I cannot agre e that the imag e of Dionysu s i s a purel y positiv e one, her e corrupte d an d perverte d b y th e unmusica l Ares : Arthur, "Curse of Civilization " 176 .

Works Cite d

Journal citation s employ th e following standar d abbreviations : AJP BICS CA CJ CP CQ CR G&R GRBS HSCP JHS MD RhM TAP A WS YCS

American Journal of Philology Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Classical Antiquity Classical J ournal Classical Philology Classical Quarterly Classical Review Greece and Rome Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Journal of Hellenic Studies Materiali e Discussioniper I'analisi del testi classici Rheinsiches Museum Transactions of the American Philological Association Wiener Studien Yale Classical Studies

Adams, Rober t M . Strains of Discord: Studies in Literary Openness (Ithaca , 1958) . Aeschylus. Septem quae supersunt tragoediae, ed . D. Page (Oxford, 1972) . Allen, James T., an d Gabriel Italic . A Concordance to Euripides (Berkeley , 1954) . Alt, Karin . "Zur Anagnorisis in der Helena." Hermes 9 0 (1962) 6-24 . Amandry, Pierre . "Chroniqu e de s fouille s e t decouverte s archeologique s e n grece e n 1948 , I." Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 7 3 (1949) 516-36. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, tr. D. Ross, rev. J. L. Ackrill and J. O. Urmson (Oxford, 1980) . Arkins, Brian . "Th e Fina l Line s of Sophocles , King Oedipus (1524-30). " CQ 3 8 (1988 ) 555-58. Arnott, Peter. Greek Scenic Conventions (Oxford , 1962) . Arnott, W. Geoffrey. "Euripide s and th e Unexpected." G&R 20 (1973) 49-64. . "Tension, Frustration and Surprise: A Study of Theatrical Techniques in Some Scenes of Euripides ' Orestes." Antichthon 1 7 (1983) 13-28 . Arrowsmith, William. Introduction loHeracles. Pages 44-59 inEuripides, vol. 2, ed. D. Grenc and R . Lattimor e (Chicago, 1956). . Introductio n t o Orestes. Page s 106-1 1 i n Euripides, vol . 4, ed . I) . Gren e an d R. Lattimor e (Chicago, 1958). Arthur, Maryli n B . "The Curs e of Civilization: The Chora l Ode s of the Phoenlssae." HSCP 81 (1977) 163-85 . Austin, Colin . "De nouveau x fragment s d e I'Erechthee d'Euripide. " Recherches de Papyrologie 4 (1967) 11-67 . . Nova Fragmenta Euripidea in Papyris Reperta (Berlin , 1968) . 233

234

Works Cited

Austin, Norman. Helen of Troy and Her Shameless Phantom (Ithaca, 1994) . Bain, David . Actors and Audience (Oxford, 1977) . Bakhtin, Mikhai l M . The Dialogic Imagination, ed . M . Holquist , tr . C . Emerso n an d M. Holquis t (Austin , 1981) . Barchiesi, Alessandro. "Endgames : Ovid's Metamorphoses 1 5 and Fasti 6." Forthcomin g in Roberts, Dunn , an d Fowler, Classical Closure. Barlow, Shirley A., ed. Euripides, Trojan Women (Warminster , 1986) . Barnes, Hazel E . "Greek Tragicomedy." CJ 6 0 (1964) 125-31. Barrett, W . S., ed. Euripides , Hippolytos (Oxford , 1964) . Bassctt, S . E. "The Plac e an d Dat e of the Firs t Performance o f th e Persians o f Timotheus. " CP 2 6 (1931) 153-65 . Beckett, Samuel . Waiting for Godot (Ne w York , 1954) . Benedetto, Vincenz o di , ed. Euripides, Orestes (Florence , 1965) . Beschi, Luigi . "Contribut i d i topograi'ia ateniese. " Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene n.s. 29-30 (1967-68) 511-36. Bieber, Margaretc. "Th e Entrance s and Exits of Actors an d Chorus in Greek Plays . "American Journal of Archaeology 5 8 (1954) 277-84. Bloom, Harold . The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (Oxford , 1973) . Boardman, John. "Herakles, Peisistrato s and Eleusis." JUS 9 5 (1975) 1-12 . Bond, Godfrey W. , ed . Euripides, Heracles (Oxford , 1981). , ed. Euripides , Hypsipyle (Oxford , 1963). Bonner, Rober t J. Aspects of Athenian Democracy (Berkeley , 1933) . Boulter, Patricia N. "The Them e of ctypta in Euripides' Orestes." Phoenix 1 6 (1962) 102-6. Brecht, Bertolt. The Good Woman of Setzuan, tr. E. Bentley (New York , 1965) . . The Threepenny Opera. Page s 145-226 in Collected Plays, vol. 2, tr. R. Mannheim and J . Willet t (New York , 1977) . Brelich, Angelo. Paides e Parthenoi, vol. 1 (Rome, 1969) . Brommer, Frank . Herakles II: die unkanonischen Taten des Helden (Darmstadt , 1984). Brooks, Peter . Reading for the Plot (New York , 1984) . Brown, A. L . "Eumenides in Greek Tragedy." CQ 3 4 (1984) 260-81. . "Prometheus Pyrphoros. " BICS 3 7 (1990) 50-56. Brown, S . G . " A Contextua l Analysis o f Tragi c Meter : Th e Anapest. " Page s 45-7 7 i n Ancient and Modern: Essays in Honor of G. F. Else, ed. by J. H. D'Arms and J. W. Eadie (Ann Arbor , 1977) . Brule, Pierre. "Rctour a Brauron: Repentirs, avancees, mises au point."Dialogues d'Histoire Ancienne 1 6 (1990) 61-90 . Burkert, Walter. "Die Absurdita t der Gewalt und das Endc der Tragodie: Euripides' Orestes." Antike und Abendland 2 0 (1974) 97-109. . Greek Religion, tr. J. Raffa n (Cambridge , 1985) . . "Gree k Tragedy an d Sacrificial Ritual." GRBS 1 (1966) 87-121. Burnett, Anne P . Catastrophe Survived (Oxford, 1971) . . "Hckab c th e Dog. " Arethusa 2 7 (1994) 151-64 . Busch, Gerda. Untersuchungen zum Wesen der TV%TI in den Tragodien des Euripides (Heidelberg, 1937) . Cacoyannis, Michael . The Trojan Women (fil m version , 1971) . Carroll, Lewis . Sylvie and Bruno Concluded (London , 1893) . Chalk, H. H. O. "dpeni an d pta i n Euripides' Herakles." JHS 8 2 (1962) 7-18 . Chapiro, Jose, ed . Gesprache mil G. Hauptmann (Berlin , 1932). The Chester Mystery Cycle, 2 vols., ed . R . M . Lumiansky and D . Mill s (Oxford , 1974-86).

Works Cited 23

5

Codrignani, Giancarla . "L ' 'aition ' tiell a poesi a grec a prim a d i Callimaco. " Convivium 2 6 (1958) 527-45. Collard, Christopher , ed . Euripides, Supplices, 2 vols (Groningen , 1975) . Conacher, D. J. Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound (Toronto , 1980) . . Euripidean Drama: Myth, Theme and Structure (Toronto , 1967) . Craik, Elizabeth M . "Euripides' Firs t Hippolytos." Mnemosyne 4 0 (1987) 137-39. , ed . Euripides, Phoenician Women (Warminster , 1988) . Croally, N. T. Euripidean Polemic: The Trojan Women and the Function of Tragedy (Cam bridge, 1994) . Cropp, Martin , and Gordo n Pick. Resolutions and Chronology in Euripides (London , 1985) . Cunningham, Mauric e P. "Mede a cm o urixavfjc;. " CP 49 (1954 ) 151-60. Dale, A. M., ed. Euripides, Alcestis (Oxford, 1961) . , ed. Euripides, Helen (Oxford , 1967) . Davies, Malcolm , ed . Sophocles, Trachiniae (Oxford , 1991) . Davis, Lennard J . " A Socia l Histor y of Fac t an d Fiction : Authorial Disavowal i n th e Early English Novel. " Page s 120-4 8 i n Literature and Society, ed . E . W . Sai d (Baltimore , 1980). Dawe, R . D. Studies in the Text of Sophocles, 3 vols (Leiden , 1974-78) . Decharme, Paul . Euripides and the Spirit of his Dramas, tr. J. Loeb (Ne w York , 1906) . Delebecque, Edouard . Euripide et la guerre du Peloponnese (Paris , 1951) . Dcwald, Carolyn . "Wanton Kings , Pickle d Heroes , an d Gnomi c Foundin g Fathers : Strate gies o f Meanin g a t th e En d o f Herodotus ' Histories." Forthcomin g i n Roberts , Dunn , and Fowler , Classical Closure. Dickens, Charles . Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club, ed. J. Kinsle y (Oxford, 1986) . Dieterich, Albrecht . "Di e Entstehung de r Tragodie. " Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft 1 1 (1908) 163-96 . Dihlc, Albrecht. "Der Prolo g derBacchen und die antike Uberlieferungsphase des EuripidesTextes." Sitzungsberichtc der Heidelberger Akadcmie der Wissenschaften 1981:2 . Diller, Hans. "Erwartung, Enttaiischung und Erfiillung i n der griechischen Tragodie." Page s 93-115 i n Serta Philologica Aenipontana, ed . R. Muth (Innsbruck, 1962) . . Review o f Fraenkel, "Z u den Phoenissen." Gnomon 3 6 (1964) 641-50 . Dimock, George E . "God, or Not God, or between the Two ? "—Euripides' Helen (Northampton, 1977) . Dirat, Maurice. "Le personnage d e Menela s dans Helene." Pallas 23 (1976) 3-17. Dodds, E . R. , ed . Euripides , Bacchae, 2nd ed . (Oxford, 1960) . Drew, D . L. "The Political Purpose i n Euripides' Helena." CP 25 (1930 ) 187-89 . Drew-Bear, T. "The Trochaic Tetramete r i n Greek Tragedy." A.IP 8 9 (1968) 385-405. Duncan, Thoma s S . "The Deus e x Machin a in Greek Tragedy. " Philological Quarterly 1 4 (1935) 126-41 . Dunn, Francis M . "The Battle o f the Sexes i n Euripides' Ion" Ramus 1 9 (1990) 130-42. . "Beginning a t Colonus." YCS 29 (1992) 1-12. . "Comic and Tragic Licens e in Euripides' Orestes." CA 8 (1989) 238-51. . "Ends and Means in Euripides' Heracles." Forthcomin g in Roberts, Dunn, and Fowler, Classical Closure. . "Euripidean Endings " (Ph.D . diss. , Yale University, 1985) . . "Euripides and th e Rites o f Her a Akraia." GRBS 3 5 (1994 ) 103-115 . . "Fearful Symmetry : The Two Tombs of Hippolytus." MD 2 8 (1992) 103-11 . DuPlessis, Rache l Blau . Writing beyond the Ending: Narrative Strategies in TwentiethCentury Women Writers (Bloomington , 1985) .

236

Works Cited

Easterling, Patrici a E . "Th e En d o f a n Era ? Traged y i n th e Earl y Fourt h Century. " Page s 559-69 in Tragedy, Comedy and the Palis, ed. A. H . Sommerstci n e t al . (Bari , 1993) . . cd . Sophocles , Trachiniae (Cambridge , 1982) . Edmunds, Lowell . "Th e Cult s and th e Legend o f Oedipus." HSCP 8 5 (1981) 221-38. Eisner, Robert. "Echoes of the Odyssey i n Euripides' Helen." Maia 3 2 (1980) 31-37. Eliade, Mircca . The Myth of the Eternal Return, tr. W. R . Trask (Princeton , 1954) . Eliot, George . Middlemarch, ed . D. Carroll (Oxford , 1986) . Erbsc, Hartmut . "Beitrage zum Verstandni s der euripideischen Phoinissen." Philologus 110 (1966) 1-34 . . Studien zum Prolog der euripideischen Tragodie (Berlin , 1984) . . "Zu m Orestes des Euripides." Hermes 10 3 (1975) 434-59. Erp Taalman Kip , A . Mari a van . "Euripides an d Melos." Mnemosyne 4 0 (1987) 414-19. Eucken, Christoph . "Da s Rechtsproble m i m euripideische n Orest." Museum Helveticum 4 3 (1986) 155-68 . Euripides. Fabulae, 3 vols., cd. J. Diggl c (Oxford , 1981-94) . Falkner, Thoma s M . "Comin g of Age i n Argos: Physi s and Paidei a i n Euripides' Orestes." C./78 (1983) 289-300 . Foley, Helenc P. "Anodos Dramas : Euripides ' Alcestis and Helen." Page s 133-60 in Innovations of Antiquity, ed . R . Hexter an d D . Selden (Ne w York , 1992) . . Ritual Irony: Poetry and Sacrifice in Euripides (Ithaca , 1985) . Fowler, Do n P . "Firs t Thought s o n Closure : Problem s an d Prospects. " MD 2 2 (1989) 75 122. . "Second Thoughts o n Closure." Forthcomin g i n Roberts, Dunn , and Fowler, Classical Closure. Fraenkel, Eduard . "Z u de n Phoenissen de s Euripides. " Sitzungsberichtc der Hayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1963:1 . Friedrich, Claus . "Di e dramatisch e Funktio n de r euripidischen Gnomen" (Ph.D. diss. , Uni versity o f Freiburg , 1955) . Friedrich, Wolf-H . "Prolegomen a z u den Phonissen." Hermes 7 4 (1939) 265-300. Fritz, Kur t von . Antike und moderne Tragodie (Berlin , 1962) . Fuochi, Mario . "Le etimologie de i nomi propri ne i tragic! greci." Studi Italiani di Vilologia Classica 6 (1898) 273-318. Fuqua, Charles . "Th e Worl d o f Myt h i n Euripides' Orestes." Traditio 3 4 (1978) 1-28 . Fusillo, Massimo . "Wa s is t ein c romanhaft e Tragodie ? Ubcrlegungc n z u Euripides ' Expcrimentalismus." Poetica 2 4 (1992) 270-99. Gantz, Timothy. Early Greek Myth (Baltimore , 1993) . Gay, John. The Beggar's Opera, ed . P. E . Lewis (Edinburgh , 1973). George, Davi d B . "Euripides ' Heracles 140-235 : Stagin g an d th e Stag e Iconograph y o f Heracles' Bow. " GRBS 3 5 (1994) 145-57 . Girard, Rene . Violence and the Sacred, tr . P. Gregory (Baltimore , 1977) . Giraudoux, Jean. Plays, tr . R. Geller t (Ne w York , 1967) . Goethe, Johan n W . Italian.Iourney, tr . W. H . Auden an d E . Maye r (Ne w York , 1968) . Goff, Barbar a E . The Noose of Words: Readings of Desire, Violence and Language in Euripides' Hippolytos (Cambridge , 1990) . . "The Shield s of Phoenissae." GRBS 2 9 (1988) 135-52. Gollwitzer, Ingeborg . Die Prolog- und Expositionstechnik der griechischen Tragodie (Gunzen hausen, 1937) . Goosscns, Roger . Euripide et Athenes (Brussels, 1962) . Gredley, B . "Is Orestes 1503-3 6 an Interpolation?" GRBS 9 (1968) 409-19. Greenberg, Natha n A. "Euripides' Orestes: An Interpretation. " HSCP 6 6 (1962) 157-92 .

Works Cited 23

7

Gregoire, Henri, an d L. Meridier, ed. Euripides, Helen (Paris , 1961) . Gregory, Justina. "Euripides' Heracles" YCS 25 (1977) 259-75 . Griffith, Joh n G. "Some Thought s on the Helena o f Euripides." JHS 7 3 (1953 ) 36-41. Griffith, Mark . The Authenticity of Prometheus Bound (Cambridge , 1977). , ed. Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound (Cambridge , 1983). Grube, G. M . A . The Drama of Euripides (Ne w York, 1961) . Haigh, A. E . The Tragic Drama of the Greeks (Oxford , 1896) . Hall, Edith . Inventing the Barbarian (Oxford , 1989) . . "Political and Cosmic Turbulence in Euripides' Orestes." Page s 263-85 in Tragedy, Comedy and the Palis, ed. A. H . Sommcrstein et al. (Bari, 1993) . Hallcran, Michae l R . "Rhetoric, Irony an d th e Ending of Euripides' Herakles." CA 5 (1986 ) 171-81. Hamilton, Richard . Choes and Anthesteria (An n Arbor, 1992) . . "Neoptolemos' Stor y in the Philoctetes." AJP 9 6 (1975) 131-37 . . "Prologue Prophecy an d Plo t i n Four Play s of Euripides." A.IP 9 9 (1978) 277-302. . "Slings an d Arrows: The Debate with Lycus in the Heracles." TAPA 11 5 (1985) 19 25. Hammond, N. G . L. "More on Condition s of Production t o the Deat h o f Aeschylus," GRBS 29 (1988) 5-33 . Hartung, J. A., ed. and tr. Euripides, Alcestis (Leipzig , 1850) . Haslam, Michael W. "The Authenticity of Euripides, Phoenissae 1-2 an d Sophocles, Electro 1." GRBS 1 6 (1975) 149-74 . Heath, Malcolm . Unity in Greek Poetics (Oxford , 1989) . Herington, C. John. The Author of the Prometheus Bound (Austin , 1970) . . "The Closur e of Herodotus' Histories." Illinois Classical Studies 1 6 (1991) 149-60 . . "Ol d Comed y an d Aeschylus. " TAPA 9 4 (1963) 113-125 . . Poetry into Drama (Berkeley , 1985). . "A Stud y i n the Prometheia." Part s I and II , Phoenix 1 7 (1963) 180-97 , 236-43. Hermann, Godfried , ed . Euripides, Bacchae (Leipzig, 1823) . Hodgdon, Barbara . The End Crowns All: Closure and Contradiction in Shakespeare's History (Princeton , 1991). Holmberg, Ingrid E . "Euripides' Helen: Mos t Noble and Most Chaste." AJP 11 6 (1995) 19 42. Holt, Philip . "The En d of th e Trachiniai an d th e Fate of Herakles. " JHS 10 9 (1989) 69-80. Hoppin, Meredith C. "Metrical Effects, Dramati c Illusion and the Two Endings of Sophocles' Philoctetes." Arethusa 2 3 (1990) 141-82 . Hose, Martin . "Oberlegungc n zu r Exodo s de r Phoinissai de s Euripides. " Wiirzburger Jahrbiicher fur die Altertumswissenschaft 1 6 (1990) 63-74. Hourmouziades, Nicolaos C. Production and Imagination in Euripides (Athens , 1965). Howald, Ernst. Untersuchungen zur Technik der euripidcischen Tragodien (Leipzig , 1914). Hubbard, Thoma s K . The Mask of Comedy: Aristophanes and the Intertextual Parabasis (Ithaca, 1991) . Hutchinson, G . O. , ed. Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas (Oxford , 1987) . Jagendorf, Zvi . The Happy End of Comedy (Newark , 1984). James, Henry . "Preface to Roderick Hudson." Page s 3-19 i n The Art of the Novel, ed . R . P. Blackmur (Ne w York , 1934) . Jekcls, Ludwig . "On th e Psycholog y of Comedy." Pages 174-7 9 i n Comedy: Meaning and Form, 2nd ed. , ed. R. W. Corriga n (Ne w York, 1981). Johnson, Samuel. .Johnson on Shakespeare, ed . W. Raleig h (Oxford , 1925) . Jones, A. H . M. Athenian Democracy (Oxford , 1957) .

238 Worlc

s Cited

Jones, John . On Aristotle and Greek Tragedy (London , 1962) . Jonson, Ben. Volpone, or, The Fox, ed . R. B. Parke r (Manchester , 1983) . Kamerbeek, J . C. "Prophecy an d Tragedy." Mnemosyne 1 8 (1965) 29^0. Kannicht, Richard , ed . Euripides, Helena, 2 vols (Heidelberg, 1969) . Katsouris, Andreas G . "The Formulai c End of the Menandrean Plays." Dodone 5 (1976) 243 56. Kearns, Emily . The Heroes of Attica, BICS Supp . 5 7 (London , 1989) . Kermodc, Frank . The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction (New York, 1967) . Kirk, Geoffre y S . "Methodological Reflection s on the Myth s of Heracles." Pages 285-97 in IlMito Greco, ed. B. Gentili and G. Paione (Rome , 1977) . Kitto, H . D. F. "The Fina l Scene s of the Phoenissae." CR 53 (1939 ) 104-11 . . Greek Tragedy: A Literary Study, 3r d ed . (London , 1961) . Klotz, Volker . Geschlossene und offene Form im Drama, 4th ed . (Munich , 1969) . Knox, Bernar d M . W. "Euripidean Comedy." Pages 250-7 4 in Word and Action (Baltimore, 1979). . "Euripides ' Iphigcnia inAulide 1-16 3 (i n that Order). " Pages 275-94 in Word and Action (Baltimore, 1979) . -. The Heroic Temper: Studies in Sophoclean Tragedy (Berkeley , 1964) . . "The Hippoly tus of Euripides." Page s 205-30 in Word and Action (Baltimore, 1979) . . "The Medea o f Euripides." Page s 295-322 in Word and Action (Baltimore , 1979) . Koniaris, Georg e L . "Alexander, Palamedes, Troades, Sisyphus—A Connecte d Tetralogy ? A Connecte d Trilogy? " HSCP 7 7 (1973) 85-124. Kott, Jan. "lonesco, or a Pregnant Death." Pages 97-108 in The Theater of Essence (Evanston, 1984). Kovacs, David . "Euripides, Troades 95-7 : I s Sacking Citie s Reall y Foolish?" CQ 33 (1983) 334-38. . The Heroic Muse (Baltimore , 1987) . . "Treading th e Circle Warily." TAPA 11 7 (1987) 257-70. Kranz, Walther. Stasimon: Untersuchungen zu Form und Gehalt der griechischen Tragodie (Berlin, 1933) . Kricg, W . De Euripidis Oreste (Halle , 1934). Krieger, Murray . A Reopening of Closure: Organicism against Itself (New York , 1989) . Kroekcr, E. Der Herakles des Euripides: Analyse dcs Dramas (Giessen, 1938) . Kuiper, W. E. J. "De Euripidi s Helena." Mnemosyne 5 4 (1926) 175-88 . Kuntz, Mary . "Th e Prodikea n 'Choic e o f Herakles' : A Reshapin g o f Myth. " CJ 8 9 (1994 ) 163-81. Lanza, Diego . "Redondances de mythcs dans l a tragedie." Pages 141-4 9 in Metamorphoses du mythe en grece antique, ed. C. Calam e (Geneva , 1988) . . "Unit a e significato AcVCOreste euripideo. " Dioniso 35.1 (1961 ) 58-72. Lattimore, Richard . Introductio n t o The Trojan Women. Page s 122-2 4 i n Euripides, vol . 3 , ed. D . Grene an d R . Lattimore (Chicago , 1958) . Lee, Kevi n II. , ed . Euripides , Troades (London , 1976) . Lesky, Albin. Greek Tragedy, 2nd . ed., tr . H. A. Frankfor t (London , 1967) . . Greek Tragic Poetry, tr . M. Dillon (New Haven , 1983) . . "Zum Orestes des Euripides." WS 53 (1935) 37-47. Lcwin, Arnold H. "A Stud y of the Prologo i o f Four Play s of Euripides" (Ph.D. diss. , Cornel l University, 1971) . Linders, Tullia . Studies in the Treasure Records of Artemis Brauronia Found in Athens (Stockholm, 1972) . Lloyd-Jones, Hugh . "Artemis and Iphigenia. " JHS 10 3 (1983) 87-102.

Works Cited 23

9

. "Heracles at Eleusis: P.Oxy . 2622 an d P.S.I. 1391. " Maia 1 9 (1967) 206-29 . Lloyd-Jones, Hugh , and Nigel Wilson. Sophoclea (Oxford , 1990) . Longo, Oddone . "Propost e di lettur a pe r VOreste d i Euripide." Maia 21 (1975) 265-87 . Looy, Herma n van. "Observations su r u n passag e d e I'Hippolytc d'Euripid e (vv. 29-33)." Pages 135—4 0 inStudifilologiciestorici inonorc de Vittorio de Falco, ed. F. Cupaiuolo et al. (Naples, 1971) . . "napeTuu.oA.oye l 6 E\>pi7ti8r|<;. " Page s 345-6 6 i n Zetesis: Album amicorum door vrienden en collega's aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. E. de Strycker, ed . E . Dhani s et al . (Antwerp, 1973) . Loraux, Nicole. "Heraklcs: The Super-Mal e and the Feminine." Pages 21-52 in Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World, ed . D . M . Halperin e t al . (Princeton, 1990). . Tragic Ways of Killing a Woman, tr . A. Forste r (Cambridge 1987). Ludwig, Walther. "Sapheneia: Bin Beitrag zur Formkunst im Spa twerk des Euripides" (Ph.D. diss., Universit y of Tubingen, 1954) . Luppe, Wolfgang. "Zur Daticrun g der Phoinissai des Euripides." RhM 13 0 (1987) 29-34 . Maniet, A. "Helene, 'comcdie ' d'Euripide. " Les Etudes Classiques 1 5 (1947) 305-22 . Manuwald, Bernd. "u.copo<; Se SVTITCO V OOTIC ; EKTtopOei rcoXeit;: Zu Euripides , Troerinnen 95 97." RhM 13 2 (1989) 236^7. March, Jennifer. The Creative Poet: Studies on the Treatment of Myth in Greek Poetry, BICS Supp. 49 (London , 1987). Masaracchia, Emanuela . "Interpretazioni euripide e II: Pe r 1'interpretazion e de\V Elena." Helikon 17(1977 ) 162-77 . Mason, P . G. "Kassandra." JHS 7 9 (1959) 80-93 . Mastronarde, Donal d J. "Actors o n High : The Sken e Roof , the Crane, and the Gods i n Attic Drama." CA 9 (1990) 247-94. . "Are Euripide s Phoinissai 1104-40 Interpolated? " Phoenix 32 (1978) 105-28 . , ed. Euripides, Phoenissae (Cambridge, 1994) . Mastronarde, Donal d J., and Jan M . Bremer. The Textual Tradition of Euripides' Phoinissai (Berkeley, 1982) . Matthicssen, Kjeld . Elektra, Taurische Iphigenie und Helena. Hypomnemat a 4 (Gottingen, 1964). . "Zur Theonoeszene de r euripideische n Helena." Hermes 9 6 (1968) 685-704 . Mayerhoefer, Franz. "Ueber die Schliisse der erhaltenen griechischen Tragodien" (Ph.D. diss., University o f Erlangen , 1908) . Mellon, Pete r S . "Th e Endin g o f Aeschylus ' Seven Against Thebes an d It s Relatio n t o Sophocles'/lnfr'gwie and Euripides' Phoenissae" (Ph.D . diss., Stanford University , 1974) . Meuss, Heinrich . "Tyche bei den attischen Tragikern." Programm, Konigliches Gymnasium zu Hirschberg (1899 ) 3-17 . Mewaldt, Johann. "Heroische Weltanschauun g der Hellenen. " WS 5 4 (1936) 1-15 . Michelini, Ann N . Euripides and the Tragic Tradition (Madison , 1987) . Miller, J. Hillis . Ariadne's Thread (Ne w Haven , 1992) . Mitchell, Robi n N. "Miasma , Mimesis, and Scapegoating i n Euripides ' Hippolytus." CA 1 0 (1991) 97-122 . Morson, Gary Saul. "For th e Time Being: Sideshadowing, Criticism, and the Russian CounterTradition." Page s 203-3 1 i n After Poststructuralism: Interdisciplinarity and Literary Theory, ed . N . Eastcrli n an d B . Rieblin g (Evanston, 1993). Muller, Carl W. "Zur Daticrung des sophokleischen Odipus." Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaflichen Klasse 1984: 5 .

240

Works Cited

Mueller-Goldingen, Christian . Untersuchungen zu den Phonissen des Euripides (Stuttgart , 1985). Mullens, H. G. "The Meanin g of Euripides' Orestes." CQ 3 4 (1940) 153-58 . Murnaghan, Sheila . "Trial s o f th e Her o i n Sophocles ' Ajax." Page s 171-9 3 i n Images of Authority, ed . M . M. MacKenzic and C . Rouechc (Cambridge, 1989). Murray, Gilbert . Euripides and His Age, 2n d ed. (London, 1946) . . "Excursus on the Ritual Forms Presented in Greek Tragedy." Pages 341-63 in J. E. Harrison, Themis: A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion (Cambridge , 1912) . . "Heracles, 'The Bes t of Men.'" Pages 106-26 in Greek Studies (Oxford , 1946) . . "The Trojan Women of Euripides." Living Age 24 5 (1905) 37-52. Newiger, H.-J . "Elektra i n Aristophanes' Wolken" Hermes 8 9 (1961) 422-30. Nicolai, Walter . Euripides' Dramen mil rettendem Deus ex machina (Heidelberg , 1990). Nisetich, Frank J. "The Silencin g of Pylade s (Orestes 1591-92). " AJP 10 7 (1986) 46-54. Norwood, Gilbert . Essays on Euripidean Drama (Berkeley , 1954) . O'Brien, M . J. "Tantalus in Euripides' Orestes." RhM 13 1 (1988) 30-45 . Olivieri, Alessandro. "Dett'Oreste d i Euripide." Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 28 (1900) 228-38. O'Neill, Eugen e G . Jr. "Th e Prologu e o f th e Troades o f Euripides. " TAPA 7 2 (1941 ) 288 320.

Owen, A. S. , ed. Euripides, Ion (Oxford , 1939) . Padcl, Ruth . '"Imager y o f th e Elsewhere' : Tw o Chora l Ode s of Euripides. " CQ 2 4 (1974 ) 227-41. Page, Denys L. Actors' Interpolations in Greek Tragedy (Oxford , 1934) . , ed. Euripides, Medea (Oxford , 1952) . , ed. Greek Literary Papyri (Cambridge , 1942). Papi, Donatell a G . "Victors and Sufferer s i n Euripides' Helen." AJP 10 8 (1987) 27-40. Parmentier, Leon. "Notes sur ies 7Voye««e.s d'Euripide."Revue des Etudes Grecques 36 (1923) 46-61.

Parry, Hugh . "Euripides' Orestes: The Ques t for Salvation. " TAPA 10 0 (1969) 337-53. Pearson, A. C. , ed. Fragments of Sophocles, 3 vols (Cambridge, 1917). Peradotto, John J. Man in the Middle Voice: Name and Narration in the Odyssey (Princeton , 1990). Perrotta, Gennaro. "L c Troiane d i Euripide. " Dioniso 1 5 (1952) 237-50 . Pfister, Max . The Theory and Analysis of Drama, tr . J. Hallida y (Cambridge , 1988) . Pickard-Cambridge, A. W. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, 2nd ed. , rev. by J. Goul d an d D. M . Lewis (Oxford, 1968) . . The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens (Oxford , 1946) . Pippin, Anne N . "Euripides' Helen: A Comed y of Ideas." CP 55 (1960) 151-63 . Platnauer, M. , ed. Euripides , Iphigenia in Tauris (Oxford, 1938) . Podlecki, Anthon y J . "The Basi c Seriousness of Euripides' Helen" TAPA 10 1 (1970) 401 18. . "Some Themes in Euripides' Phoenissae." TAPA 9 3 (1962) 355-73. Pohlenz, Max . Die griechische Tragodie, 2n d ed., 2 vols. (Gottingen, 1954) . Poole, Adrian. "Total Disaster: Euripides' The Trojan Women." Arion n.s . 3 (1976) 257-87. Porter, John R . Studies in Euripides' Orestes (Leiden , 1994) . Post, L . A. "Menande r and th e Helen o f Euripides." HSCP 6 8 (1964) 99-118. Pucci, Pictro . "Euripides: The Monumen t an d the Sacrifice." Arethusa 1 0 (1977) 165-95 . . "Gods' Interventio n an d Epiphan y i n Sophocles." AJP 11 5 (1994) 15-46 . . The Violence of Pity in Euripides' Medea (Ithaca , 1980) . Quint, David. Epic and Empire (Princeton , 1993) .

Woiks Cited 24

1

Rabinowitz, Nanc y S. Anxiety Veiled: Euripides and the Traffic in Women (Ithaca , 1993) . Radermacher, Ludwig . "Intrigcnbildun g in dcr attische n Tragodie." Anzeiger der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historisch e Klasse 6 9 (1932) 20-25. . Das.Ienseits im Mythos der Hellenen (Bonn , 1903) . . "Ueber eine Scen e des curipideischen Orestes" RhM 5 7 (1902) 278-84. Rawson, Elizabeth . "Aspects of Euripides' Orestes." Arethusa 5 (1972) 155-67. . "Family an d Fatherland i n Euripides ' Phoenissae." ORBS 1 1 (1970) 109-127 . Rcckford, Kennet h J. "Phaedra an d Pasiphae: Th e Pul l Backward." TAPA 10 4 (1974) 307 28. Rees, B. R. "Euripides, Medea 1415-9. " A.1P 82 (1961) 176-81 . Reeve, Michae l D . "Interpolation in Greek Tragedy , I. " GRBS 1 3 (1972) 247-65. . "Interpolation in Greek Tragedy , II. " GRBS 1 3 (1972) 45 1-74 . Rehm, Rush . Marriage to Death: The Conflation of Wedding and Funeral Rituals in Greek Tragedy (Princeton , 1994). Reich, Hermann . Dcr Mimus (Berlin , 1903). Reinhardt, Karl. "Das Parisurteil. " Pages 16—3 6 in Tradition und Geist: Gesammelte Essays zur Dichtung, ed. C. Becker (Gottingen , 1960) . . "Di e Sinneskris e be i Euripides. " Page s 227—5 6 i n Tradition und Geist (Gottingen , 1960). Richter, David. Eable's End: Completeness and Closure in Rhetorical Fiction (Chicago, 1974) . Roberts, Debora h H . Apollo and His Oracle in the Oresteia. Hypomnemata 78 (Gottingen , 1984). . "Differen t Stories : Sophoclea n Narrative(s ) i n th e Philoctetes" TAPA 11 9 (1989 ) 161-76. . "Outside the Drama: The Limit s o f Tragedy i n Aristotle's Poetics." Page s 133-5 3 in Essays in Aristotle's Poetics, ed. A. O . Rorty (Princeton , 1992) . . "Parting Words: Fina l Line s in Sophocles and Euripides. " CQ 3 7 (1987) 51-64. . "Sophoclea n Endings : Anothe r Story. " Arethusa 2 1 (1988) 177-96 . Roberts, Debora h H., Francis M . Dunn, and Don P. Fowler, eds . Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature (Princeton , forthcoming) . Robertson, D . S. "The En d of th e Supplices Trilogy o f Aeschylus." CR 38 (1924) 51-53. Romilly, Jacqueline de. "La bell e Helen e et 1'evolutio n d e l a tragedie grecque." Les Etudes Classiques 56 (1988) 129^43 . . "Phoenician Women o f Euripides: Topicality i n Greek Tragedy. " Bucknell Review 15.3(1967) 108-32 . Ronnet, Gilberte. "Le cas de conscience d e Theonoc, ou Euripidc ct la sophistique face a 1'idee de justice." Revue de Philologie 53 (1979) 251-59. Rosenmeyer, Thoma s G . The Art of Aeschylus (Berkeley , 1982) . Rubino, Carl A. "Opening u p the Classical Past : Bakhtin, Aristotle, Literature, Life." Arethusa 26 (1993) 141-57 . Ruijgh, C . J . "Observation s su r 1'emplo i onomastiqu e d e KeK?if|06a i vis-a-vi s cclu i d e KaXeioSai, notamment dans l a tragedie attique." Pages 333-35 in Miscellanea Tragica in HonoremJ. C. Kamerbeek, ed . J. M . Bremer e t al. (Amsterdam , 1976) . Said, Suzanne . "Euripideou 1'attente dcgue: \'exemp\ede.sPheniciennes."Annalidelta Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 1 5 (1985) 501-27. Sansone, David. "Theonoe an d Theoclymenus." Symbolae Osloenses 60 (1985) 17-36 . Sartre, Jean-Paul. Les Troyennes (Paris , 1966) . Schadewaldt, Wolfgang . Monolog und Selbstgesprdch (Berlin , 1926) . Schein, Set h L . "Mythical Illusio n an d Historica l Realit y i n Euripides ' Orestes." WS n.s . 9 (1975)49-66.

242

Works Cited

Schlesinger, Alfre d C . The Gods in Greek Tragedy: A Study of Ritual Survivals in FifthCentury Drama (Athens , 1927) . Schmid, Wilhelm . Die klassische Periods dcr griechischen Literatur. 5 vols in Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, ed . W. Otto (Munich, 1929-48). Schmidt, Henr y J. How Dramas End: Essays on the German Sturm und Drang (An n Arbor , 1992). Schmidt, Wieland. "Der Deu s ex Machina bei Euripides" (Ph.D. diss.University of Tubingen, 1964). Schmiel, Robert . "The Recognitio n Duo in Euripides' Helen." Hermes 10 0 (1972) 274-94. Schwyzer, E . Dialectorum graecarum exempla epigraphica potiora (Leipzig , 1923) . Scodel, Ruth . "Tantalu s an d Anaxagoras." HSCP 8 8 (1984) 13-24 . . The Trojan Trilogy of Euripides, Hypomnemat a 60 (Gottingen , 1980) . Segal, Charle s P. Dionysiac Poetics and Euripides' Bacchae (Princeton, 1982). . Euripides and the Poetics of Sorrow (Durham , 1993). . "Sham e an d Purit y i n Euripides' Hippolytus." Hermes 9 8 (1970) 278-99. . "Theatre, Ritua l an d Commemoration in Euripides' Hippolytus." Ramus 1 7 (1988) 52-74. . "Tragi c Beginnings : Narration , Voice an d Authorit y i n th e Prologue s o f Gree k Drama." YCS 29 (1992) 85-112. . "The Tw o World s o f Euripides' Helen." TAPA 10 2 (1971) 553-614. Segal, Erich . Roman Laughter, 2nd ed. (Oxford , 1987) . Seidensticker, Bernd . Palintonos Harmonia (Gottingen , 1982) . Shakespeare, William . Complete Works, ed . W. J. Crai g (Oxford , 1930) . Shaw, G . Bernard. Pygmalion: A Romance in Five Acts (Ne w York , 1951) . Silk, M. S. "Heracles an d Greek Tragedy." Pages 116-3 7 in Greek Tragedy, ed , I. McAuslan and P . Walcot (Oxford , 1993) . Smith, Barbara H . Poetic Closure: A Study of How Poems End (Chicago , 1968) . Smith, Wesley D. "Disease in Euripides' Orestes" Hermes 9 5 (1967) 291-307. Solmsen, Fricdrich. "Euripides' Ion im Vergleichmit anderenTragodien."//erme.s69 (1934) 390-419. . ""Ovou,a an d 7tpdy|ia i n Euripides' Helen." CR 48 (1934) 119-21 . . "Zur Gestaltung des Intriguenmotivs in den Tragodien des Sophokles un d Euripides." Philologus 87 (1932) 1-17 . Sophocles. Fabulae, ed. H . Lloyd-Jone s and N. G . Wilso n (Oxford , 1990) . Spira, Andreas . Untersuchungen zum Deus ex Machina bei Sophokles und Euripides (Kallmunz, 1960) . Stanley-Porter, D. P . "Who Oppose s Theoclymenus?" CP 72 (1977) 45-48. Stciger, Hugo . "Wic entstan d die Helena de s Euripides?" Philologus 6 7 (1908) 202-37. Stephanopoulos, Theodores K. Umgestaltung des Mythos durch Euripides (Athens , 1980) . Stinton, T. C . W. Euripides and the Judgement of Paris (London, 1965) . . "The Scop e and Limits of Allusion in Greek Tragedy." Pages 67-102 in Greek Tragedy and its Legacy, ed. M . Cropp, E . Fantham, an d S . E. Scull y (Calgary, 1986). Strohm, Hans . Euripides: Interpretationen zur dramatischen Form. Zetemat a 1 5 (Munich, 1957). Stuart, Donal d C . "Foreshadowing an d Suspens e i n th e Euripidea n Prolog." Studies in Philology 15(1918)295-306 . Sutton, Dana F. The Lost Sophocles (Lanham , 1984) . . "Satyri c Qualitie s i n Euripides ' Iphigeneia at Tauris an d Helen." Rivista di Studi Classici 20 (1972) 321-30.

Works Cited 24

3

. "Supposed Evidence that Euripides' Orestes an d Sophocles' Electra were Prosatyric." Rivista di Studi Classici 21 (1973) 117-21. Two Lost Plays of Euripides (Ne w York , 1987) . Tcrzaghi, Nicola . "Finali e prologhi Euripidei. " Dioniso 6 (1937) 304-13. Thalmann, William G. Dramatic Art in Aeschylus's Seven Against Thebes (Ne w Haven, 1978). Thomson, George , ed . Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound (Cambridge , 1932) . Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War, tr . R . Warner (Harmondsworth , 1972). Torgovnick, Marianna . Closure in the Novel (Princeton , 1981) . Treves, P . "Le Fenicie di Euripide." Atene e Roma 1 1 (1930) 171-195. Valgiglio, Ernesto . L 'esodo delle Fenicie di Euripide (Turin , 1961) . Valk, M . van der. Studies in Euripides: Phoenissae and Andromache (Amsterdam , 1985) . Vernant, Jean-Pierre. "The Historical Moment of Tragedy in Greece." Page s 1- 5 in J. P. Vernant and P . Vidal-Naquet, Tragedy and Myth in Ancient Greece, tr. J. Lloy d (Sussex, 1981) . Verrall, A. W . Essays on Four Plays of Euripides (Cambridge , 1905) . . Euripides the Rationalist (Cambridge , 1895) . Vos, Mari a F. Scythian Archers in Archaic Attic Vase-painting (Groningen , 1963) . Walker, S. "A Sanctuary of Isis on the South Slope of the Athenian Acropolis . "Annual of the British School at Athens 74 (1979) 243-57. Walsh, Georg e B . "Public an d Private in Three Play s of Euripides." CP 74 (1979) 294-309. Way, A. S . The Tragedies of Euripides in English Verse, 3 vols. (London , 1898) . Webster, T . B . L. "The Orde r o f Tragedies a t the Great Dionysia." Hermathena 10 0 (1965) 21-28. . The Tragedies of Euripides (London , 1967) . West, M . L. "Tragica V." BICS 2 8 (1981) 61-78. Westermann, Antonius . MvOoypdQoi: Scriptores Poeticae Historicae Graeci (Brunswick , 1843). Whitman, Cedric H . Aristophanes and the Comic Hero (Cambridge , 1964) . . Euripides and the Full Circle of Myth (Cambridge , 1974) . Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U . \on.AischylosInterpretationen (Berlin , 1914) . , ed. Euripides, Herakles, 3 vols (Berlin, 1895). Willink, C . W., ed. Euripides, Orestes (Oxford, 1986). . "The Goddes s eij^tipeia an d Pseudo-Euripides in Euripides' Phoenissae."Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 3 6 (1990) 182-201. -. "Prodikos, 'Metcorosophists ' an d the 'Tantalos' Paradigm. " CQ 3 3 (1983) 25-33. Willson, John R . "The Etymolog y in Euripides, Troades 13-14. " A.JP 8 9 (1968) 66-71. . "An Interpolatio n in the Prologue o f Euripides' Troades" ORBS 8 (1967) 205-23. Willson, Rober t E. Shakespeare's Reflexive Endings (Lcwiston , 1990) . Winkler, John J. "Aristotle's Theory of the Novel and the Best Tragedy." Unpublishe d manuscript. Winnington-lngram, R . P. "Euripides: Poietes Sophos." Arethusa 2 (1969) 127-42 . Wolff, Christian . "Euripides' Iphigenia among the Taurians: Aetiology , Ritual, and Myth. " CA 1 1 (1992)308-34. . "On Euripides ' Helen." HSCP 7 7 (1973) 61-84. . "Orestes." Page s 132-4 9 in Euripides: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. E. Segal (Englewood Cliffs , 1968) . Woodford, Susan . "Cult s o f Heracle s i n Attica. " Page s 211-1 5 i n Studies Presented to G. M. A. Hanfmann, ed . D . G. Mitten et al. (Mainz, 1971) . Yunis, Harvey . A New Creed: Fundamental Religious Beliefs in the Athenian Polls and Euripidean Drama. Hypomnemata 9 1 (Gottingen, 1988) .

244

Works Cited

Xanthakis-Karamanos, G. Studies in Fourth-Century Tragedy (Athens , 1980) . Zeichncr, Fricdrich . "De de o ex machina Euripideo " (Diss., University o f Gottingcn 1924) . Zeitlin, From a I . "The Closet o f Masks : Role-Playin g an d Myth-Makin g i n th e Orestes o f Euripides." Ramus 9 (1980) 51-77. . "The Power o f Aphrodite : Ero s and th e Boundarie s of th e Sel f i n th e Hippolytus." Pages 52-111 in Directions in Euripidean Criticism, cd. P. Burian (Durham, 1985). Zuntz, Gunther . "O n Euripides ' Helena: Theolog y and Irony. " Pages 201-27 i n Euripide; sept exposes et discussions. Entretien s sur 1'Antiquit e classiqu c 6 (Geneva, 1960) . . The Political Plays of Euripides (Manchester , 1955) . Ziircher, Walter . Die Darstellung des Menschen im Drama des Euripides (Basel , 1947) .

Index of Euripidean Passage s Important citations ar e i n bold. A Ices tis 1159-63 17 , 24, 13 5 Andromache 100-102 5 1226-30 3 0 1231-34 3 1 1239-42 5 2 1268-69 3 1 1276-77 3 6 1284-88 17 , 24, 135 Bacchant Women 1118-21 18 2 1344 14 1 1360-62 7 5 1388-92 17 , 24, 13 5 Children of Heracles 1026-36 71-7 2 1053-55 1 8 Electro 15-19 7 7 25-28 7 7 1233-37 3 0 1240 13 9 1245-46 3 4 1245-48 3 2 1276-83 7 0 1284-87 7 0 1298-1300 3 6 1301-2 3 6 1303-4 3 6 1305-7 3 6 Hecuba 1265 5 1 1265-67 18 4 1270-73 5 1 1293-95 1 8

Helen 31-36 36-37

143 143 45^6 143 56-58 144 60-67 153-54 320-21 147 711-15 148 876-77

150

878-86 144 887-91 145 1002-4 145 1137-43 148 1592-93 15 1 1603-4 15 1 1642 3 3 1642-45 138 1646 3 1 1646-49 140 1650-57 140 1658-61 139, 14 5 1660-61 31-32 1663-69 68, 13 7 1669 3 2 1670-75 55, 13 6 1676-77 68, 13 7 1678-79 141 1680-87 141-42 1688-92 17, 24, 13 5 Heracles 79 12 5 94 12 8 158-62 123-24 198-202 124 364-67 123 389-93 123 422-24 123 969-70 125 986 12 5 1153-54 11 9 245

246 Heracles (continued) 1154 12 1 1324-28 117 1328-33 11 7 1340 11 9 1340-46 128-2 9 1376-85 122-2 3 1379-81 12 5 1394-1403 11 9 1412-13 11 9 1418-22 11 5 1423-26 116 , 12 6 1427-28 11 6 Hippolytus 21-22 8 8 29-33 8 9 56-57 8 8 87 9 7 119-20 9 0 359-61 9 1 542-44 9 1 725-27 9 1 1162-63 8 8 1282-85 3 1 1290-91 9 9 1296-97 35 , 97 1311-12 3 5 1313-14 9 7 1325-26 3 4 1328-34 99-10 0 1340-41 9 7 1391 10 4 1391-93 31 , 90 1416-22 35,71,9 6 1423-30 53 , 93, 96 1428-29 9 5 1429-30 9 5 1437-39 9 2 1445 9 2 1447 8 8 1457-58 9 2 1460-64 9 2 1462-66 1 7 Ion 1549-50 104 1581-88 48 1601-5 69

1621-22 1 7

Index of Euripidean Passages Iphigenia among the Taurians 909-11 14 6 1437 3 3 1453-57 46 , 62 1458-61 6 2 1462-67 6 2 1475-76 35-3 6 1490-97 19-2 0 1497-99 19 , 24 Medea 1-11 76-7 7 1378-83 50 , 94 1380 9 4 1381-83 4 6 1383 9 4 1415-19 17 , 24, 13 5 Orestes 1-3 17 6 1-8 16 3 10 16 4 14-16 16 3 17 16 3 26-27 16 3 28-30 16 3 34-38 17 5 37-38 16 3 39-45 17 6 46-48 16 3 71-74 16 4 136-37 16 4 140-41 16 4 145-46 16 4 149 16 4 268-70 17 7 273-76 17 7 279 17 2 548-49 16 5 559-60 16 5 594-96 16 5 621 16 5 638-39 16 6 646-51 16 6 722-23 16 6 732 16 6 772-75 166-6 7 903-5 16 7 1035-36 16 7 1060-64 16 7

Index of Euripidean Passages 1098-99 167-68 1302-5 168 1345-46 168 1353-55 168-69 1369-74 178 1426-27 178 1506 178 1512-21 179 1541-46 169 1559-60 172 1567-68 160 1597-98 169 1625 33 1625-28 160 1633-34 34 1643-47 49 1653-54 161 1666-67 36 1678 16 1 1679 3 3 1682 16 1 1682-90 172-7 3 1682-91 2 0 1691-93 19 , 24 Phoenician Women 41-45 20 0 84-85 19 3 92 19 5 103-6 19 5 107-8 20 1 161-62 196 , 201 193-95 20 2 220-25 19 9 234-36 19 9 239-49 19 1 301-3 19 7 358-59 19 0 535-42 19 4 751-52 19 1 786-91 20 2 834-37 19 5 901-2 20 1 910 201- 2 911 19 5 958-59 19 3 965 19 0 1015-18 19 2 1060-61 19 9 1124-27 20 1

1207-12 20 1 1390-92 19 7 1425-26 20 1 1459-62 18 8 1478-79 18 8 1539-40 19 5 1549 19 5 1579-86 18 9 1584-88 18 5 1589-92 18 5 1595-99 18 9 1656-59 185-86 1671-77 18 6 1688-89 18 7 1703-7 103, 184 1706-9 18 7 1710-12 19 6 1718-22 19 6 1754-57 183 , 199 1758-63 18 3 1763 2 0 1764-66 19 , 24, 18 4 Suppliant Women 1214-15 7 4 1219-23 7 4 1227-28 35 , 11 9 Trojan Women 9-14 10 7 13-14 51 25-27 108 36-38 111

45-47 107 77-81 106 87-91 106 95-97 108 112-19 111-12 632-33 110 686-91 110 691-96 111 1256-59 103-4 1272-74 105 1277-78 104 1279-81 103 1291-92 103 1305-6 112 1317-24 104 1329-32 102

247

This page intentionally left blank

General Inde x

Adams, Robert , 9 Aeschylus, 29, 48, 112 , 15 2 closing line s in , 21-22 parodied o r subverted, 165 , 173, 176-77, 198 Agamemnon, 78, 176 , 181 Danaids, 186 , 208n28 Eumenides, 13 , 79 aetiology in , 58-59 authority figur e in, 37-38 revised by Euripides, 51,56,63,165,175 Libation Bearers, 175 , 17 6 exit line s in, 21-22 Persians, 5, 79-80, 102 , 124, 181 , 208n28 Prometheus Bound aetiology in , 57-58 prophecy in , 8 0 Prometheus Unbound, 8 0 Psychagogoi, 214n2 9 Seven against Thebes, 59, 19 0 revised i n Phoenician Women, 191 — 92, 19 3 aetiology. See aition Agathon, 15 2 aition, 46-63, 88-89, 104 , 107 ambivalent, 93-96, 117-1 8 definition of , 4 8 invented, 56-57, 63 , 94-5 irrelevant, 136-3 7 and prophecy , 66 , 73-76 See also commemoratio n Antiphanes, 27 , 2 9 aperture, 128 , 199-200 Aristophanes 29, 99 , 12 4 closing lines in, 21 and comi c hero, 7, 163 , 171 Aristotle, 4 , 15 , 77 on tragic unity , 64, 12 7 Arrowsmith, William, 120 , 161 Arthur, Marylin , 198 , 201

Bakhtin, Mikhail , 9, 127-28 , 199 Barlow, Shirley , 10 1 Barrett, W. S., 24 Beckett, Samuel , 1 8 Bieber, Margarete , 8 8 Bloom, Harold , 17 5 Brecht, Bertolt , 43, 6 5 Brooks, Peter , 9 , 9 8 burial, 55, 56-57, 60, 115-16 Burnett, Anne, 4 2 carnival, 17 4 Carroll, Lewis , 12 7 Chalk, H . H . O., 120 , 12 3 chance, 147-51 , 154 , 156 choral exit , 14-25 , 116 , 183-84 definition of , 1 4 repeated, 17 , 19, 24-25, 135-3 6 chorus, rol e of , 14-15 civic values, 121-22 , 12 4 closure, approache s to , 8- 9 comedy, 7, 156 , 178-79 and chance , 14 9 and deu s e x machina , 42—43 and dramati c illusion, 19, 29, 6 5 and license , 163 , 168, 171, 17 3 commemoration, 73 , 92—9 5 of dea d character , 52-54, 55-56 of livin g character, 54 , 55-56 Conacher, D . J., 7 , 10 9 concluding prophecy , 29 , 64-83, 104-5 , 137 definition of , 6 6 See also epilogu e continuous action , 6, 24, 40, 67-68, 71 and chora l exit , 22 not containe d by drama, 45, 64, 76-78, 83 Craik, Elizabeth , 180, 183 Creophylus, 9 4 curtain, 13-14 , 18-19 , 21, 26 Cypria, 113 , 17 5

249

250

General Index

death o f protagonis t elided, 91-9 3 and tragi c end , 4-7 , 18 2 See also commemoratio n Decharme, Paul , 8 2 demonic epiphany , 28 , 40—41 , 5 0 departure of characters , 11 6 of chorus , 18-19 , 23 ofdeus, 90 , 91, 107- 8 de Romilly, Jacqueline, 19 8 deus e x machina, 27-44, 102-4 , 150 acknowledgment of , 35-36, 119 , 141 42 authority of , 29-36, 119 , 13 9 command by , 32-34, 119 , 138 , 15960 definition of , 27-2 8 doubled, 159-6 1 explanation by , 34-35, 96 , 139-41 extra-dramatic role of , 28-29, 49-50, 67 in prologue , 89-91 , 10 5 surrogate, 118-1 9 See also intervention ; machine Dickens, Charles , 65 , 12 7 Dietcrich, Albrecht , 6 0 Diggle, James, 2 4 dithyramb, 177-7 8 divine plan, 142-47 , 192-9 4 Du Plessis , Rache l Blau , 9 Eliot, George , 65 , 6 7 epilogue, 55 , 102-5 , 120-21 antithetical, 73-7 5 as a beginning, 91-9 7 events describe d in , 68, 76 , 7 7 extra-dramatic, 65-66, 133 sequential, 75—7 6 speaker of , 28-29, 67 See also continuou s action etymology, 63 , 107 , 137, 196 vs. aition , 48 Furipidcs earlier an d later plays , 33-34 , 36-37 , 55-56, 61 , 72-76 Alcestis, 21, 51, 135-36 Alexander, 11 3 Alkmaion in Corinth, 212n35 Andromache, 65, 69 , 78 , 136 , 139 Antigone, 18 6

Antiope, 42, 212n35 Bacchant Women, 6 , 36, 135-36 , 13 7 and annihilatio n of drama , 18 2 Busiris, 153 Children of Heracles, 41, 56, 73 , 121-2 2 Cyclops, 2 1 Electro, 16 , 75, 137 , 152 failed epilogu e in , 69-70 failed explanatio n in , 13 9 Erechtheus, 42, 212n35 , 23 1 n46 Hecuba, 41,73, 180 Helen, 134-5 7 Heracles, 50, 75, 115-29, 137 , 154 Hippolytus, 6 , 7, 33, 49 , 73 , 87-10 0 first, 90 , 98-100 overdetermined explanatio n in , 34-35, 140 overdetermined seque l in , 70-7 1 Hypsipyle, 42 , 212n3 5 Ion, 15 , 75, 137 , 155 invention in , 152—5 3 Iphigenia among the Taurians, 75, 137, 138, 149 , 184 aetiology a t middle of, 49, 50-51 divine pla n in , 14 6 fictional aitio n in , 62-63 invention in , 152—5 3 Iphigenia at Aulis, 48, 181-82, 205nl4 Medea, 25 , 73 , 121 , 128 , 136 demonic epiphan y in , 40-41 echoed i n Orestes, 159-60 ritual revise d in , 94—9 5 Orestes, 30, 51, 76, 137 , 158-79, 180, 184 divine interventio n in, 33, 38 , 39 , 138 Palamedes, 112-13 Phaethon, 209n42 Phoenician Women, 180-202 , 210n6 Rhadamanthys, 212n3 5 Rhesus, 205nl4 Sisyphus, 11 2 Suppliant Women, 69 , 74-75, 121-2 2 fictional aitio n in, 56—5 7 Trojan Women, 15 , 67, 101-14 , 182 See. also Index of Euripidean Passages extra-dramatic feature s of aition , 47, 51-52 of chora l exit , 16 , 1 9 of concludin g prophecy, 6 6 of deu s e x machina, 28-29

General Index fate, 31-3 2 Folcy, Helene, 61, 12 0 foreshadowing, 12 8 formalization, 7 in chora l exit , 24-25, 26 in deu s ex machina , 32, 33 , 3 7 in Helen, 135-42 , 15 4 Fraenkel, Eduard, 18 3 freedom, 126-2 8 free speech , 162-65 , 171 Freud, Sigmund , 9 8 Gay, John, 16 , 26-27, 28, 29, 43 genre, 7-8, 134 , 175 challenged b y deu s e x machina , 4 3 challenged b y romance, 156-5 7 multiplied, 17 9 See also comedy; narrative ; romance; tragedy; tragicomedy Giraudoux, Jean, 43-44 Goethe, 17 4 Goff, Barbara , 19 8 Gorgias, 155 , 157 Gregory, Justina , 12 0 Grube, G . M. A., 82 , 88 , 10 1 Haigh, A. E., 10 1 Hartung, J. A., 2 4 Hauptmann, Gerhart, 83, 87 Hermann, Godfried, 2 4 Hermippus, 7 8 Herodotus, 124 , 151, 15 2 on the tragic end , 3-5, 7 , 181 Hesiod, 18 5 Homer, 28-29 , 157 , 175, 185 Iliad, 124 , 192 revised i n Trojan Women, 112-1 4 Odyssey, 124 , 134, 149-50, 151 , 197 divine interventio n in, 39-40 revised i n Helen, 15 3 intervention by author , 27, 28-2 9 by deu s e x machina , 29-31, 37 , 137-38 , 160-61 intrigue plays , 134 , 156 lonesco, Eugene , 14 , 22, 15 8 James, Henry, 64, 78, 87 , 12 7 Jekels, Ludwig , 17 3 Jonson, Ben, 19

251

Kermode, Frank, 9 Kirk, Geoffrey, 12 6 Kitto, H. D. F., 42, 61,82 Knox, Bernard, 88 koronis, 13 , 26 Kott, Jan, 17 4 Kovacs, David, 4 2 Krieger, Murray , 9 lament, 21 Lattimore, Richmond , 10 1 Lesky, Albin , 6 1 Loraux, Nicole, 12 6 machine, 27 , 29-31, 160 Mayerhoefer, Franz , 2 5 meter o f exit lines, 15-16 , 22-23 , 102 , 136, 183-84 Mewaldt, Johann, 24 Michelini, Ann, 7, 88, 12 8 Miller, Arthur, 66 mime, 177-7 8 Moliere, 43 moral, 4, 108 , 141 in chora l exit, 16-18 , 23 , 116 , 135-36 Morson, Saul , 12 8 multiplication of allusions , 185-87 , 191-9 2 of divin e agents, 193-9 4 of episodes , 194-9 5 of explanations , 34—35 of genres , 17 9 of meanings , 125-2 6 of plot , 188-95 , 19 8 of sequels , 69-70 Murray, Gilbert , 60-61, 101, 120 mystery plays , medieval , 46-47, 51, 56 name, surviva l of, 54-56 narrative, 180 , 190 and freedom , 127-29 and mundan e possibility, 197-20 2 and repetition , 97-98 New Comedy , 156 , 18 1 Nietzsche, Friedrich , 180 Nostoi, 175 Owen, A . S., 82 Parmeniscus, 9 4 parody, 151 , 165, 173, 176-77

252

General Index

Parry, Hugh , 17 3 Pausanias, 92-93, 95 Perrotta, Gennaro , 10 1 Phrynichus, 19 2 Plautus, 4 3 plot completeness of, 26 , 54 disfigured, 109-1 1 immobilized, 97-98, 100 invented, 151-5 3 See also continuou s action ; multiplication Pohlenz, Max , 6 1 prologue, 29 , 76-77, 110 , 143 as ending, 88-91, 105- 8 prophecy, 29 , 40, 66-67, 79-80 of event s outside play, 105- 6 of event s within play, 89-90 See also concludin g prophec y Pucci, Pictro , 6 1 Pythagoras, 7 8

Oedipus at Colonus, 81, 121-22 , 184, 186 aetiology in , 59-60 Oedipus the King, 109, 128, 186, 196, 198 closing line s in, 1 6 revised i n Phoenician Women, 183, 185, 187 , 192 and tragi c end, 5, 6 Philoctetes closing line s in , 23 deus ex machina in, 38-39 sequel in , 81-82 Syndeipnoi, 214n3 2 Tyro, 134 , 15 6 Women ofTrachis, 59 tragic end in, 5- 6 Spira, Andrea , 42 , 61 Stcsichorus, 151 , 153, 175, 177, 192 suppliant scene , 15 4 Swinburne, Algernon , 12 0

Quint, David , 9

tabu, 43, 162 , 165 Terzaghi, Nicola , 4 2 Thucydides, 155-56 , 174 time, 77-79, 198-99 Timotheus, 17 8 Tolstoy, Leo , 127 Torgovnick, Marianna , 9 tragedy, 7 , 42, 181-82 tragic end, 3-7 , 18 2 tragic error, 18 1 tragic knowledge , 125 , 155, 181 tragicomedy, 158 , 162, 168, 171-75 trilogy composition , 21 , 80 , 112-14 , 228nl

Rees, B . R., 24-25 Richter, David , 9 ritual, 53, 60-63, 93-95 Roberts, Deborah , 2 5 romance, 133-34 , 156-57 , 158 gratuitous outcom e in , 142, 149-51 Said, Suzanne , 191 , 19 8 Schein, Seth , 17 3 Schmidt, Wieland , 42 , 8 2 Scodel, Ruth , 11 4 Seidensticker, Bernd , 17 9 sequel. Sec epilogu e Shakespeare, William , 15, 16, 18 , 28, 52 53, 6 5 Shaw, George Bernard , 65-66, 133-34 , 156, 15 8 Silk, Michael , 126 Smith, Barbar a Herrnstein , 9 Sophocles, 7 , 25, 4 8 closing line s in, 22—2 3 Ajax, 59 , 80-81 exit line s in , 2 3 Antigone, 181 , 19 2 replayed in Phoenician Women, 185-8 6

Vergil, 12 7 Verrall, A. W., 41-42 von Fritz , Kurt , 4 2 Walsh, George , 12 4 Wilson, John, 10 7 Xenocles, 208n3 1 Yunis, Harvey , 12 0 Zeitlin, Froma , 96, 9 9