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...

Author: Francis M. Dunn

167 downloads 1036 Views 12MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

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


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


Tragedy's End


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 rêi 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 KQKOC; eycb 5e xo v ejiov , Kc d Tipt v eli; "Ai8o u (ioA.eiv , eôt8' 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.


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


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^piÊiv, 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 noîtaic, KOIVOV To8' a%oq a%oq nam noîtaic, flXSEV tXE^rtTCOq . 7IOXX.OJV 8ctKp\>(Q V EOTCH 7IOXX.OJV 8ctKp\>(QV EOTCH.. TtVTUÔC; '

; TCOV ycitp ueydXw v dîOTCEvGevi d^

pa> 9eo9' 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 idrâvfi ^râvj] 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; 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< e6 £ Po-uêiai 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 ' EÎOC,, 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


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 ya p o\)5 e yr\c, TJTIO tjoijjo v 6eauiac , 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\>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\ 'âuapraveiv . 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


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 eaôv, 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


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 'HpaicAôix ; / ctKofi I E KîJei 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—


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-


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 TETJÔI ; vaov i5pi>aa i ppetai; , ETCCOVDUOV yfjc ; Torupucii ^ Ttovwv T C awv , ovc, eêu,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 (eîovxv, 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 7icd5eai 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 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


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 (Aôtoi 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 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:


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 TaâiTtcop', dvui T(5v6 e tco v KOKW V TIU.CK; ueyiaiat; ev TtoTiE i Tpoijivia Scoaay Kopa i yap aûyet; yauxov rcdpoi; Kouaq KEpowiai aov, 81' alcbvoco 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)? cnrapaeXf|0ei ueiôv ' 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 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 EKSiKaôvtet ; ()>6vov. . . . aXK oi ) (|>9dveiv xpr i cruaKidôvTac ; yevuv Kai %aA,KO7iA.r|9f j Aava'iSco v 6p|iav OTpaio v e7rraaTou.ov mjpycona Ka5u.eico v em . TtiKpoi yap CCUTOIC ; TIÊT.' 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 jtêiiaai; 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 aKaôi ; 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 eKTiâyF.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 £ (JouÊijaavToc ; co|a.6<j>pa> v ojiwc ; UTiTTip vi v EÊOtoaE V AiyiaGo u X eP°5 ' aped naipbc, TeXwvTai tea t tit; •uu.iv eq 56u,o\)< ; vootoi; yevr|tai, u,f | u, ' axiudcrnTe ye , aXV ev -cdôioi 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 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 êv eX6ei v Tf]v5e yfj v Tpo^r|vtav , TteTpav Ttap ' crutfiv naAAd8o8 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 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 ; 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


ea ecr Tivai; 'IXidaiv ToiiaS' ev Kopt><j>ai< ; ^.eixrao) 0Xoyea 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 Xaieoi v pefkoi; , 6 5 ' dvtXov eipyeo v vaoi;' 686-9 1


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', « / 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.£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


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


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 ; 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


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


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 eêi^ TtcaSoKTovoiK; oovc,. EII' £ju> idS ' aiXevan; o'iaro; ii <j>daKwv ; dAA d 7-u(a,vw0eii ; OTtXwv L,vv oit; TO KaXXiat' eêTipa^' 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


. . . 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; oiiî TO£,' Ei>\|ruxia 8iSa>ai Toit; evavTioic;, ev eixjciAcxKTc p 8 ' eott. TOIJT O 8 ' ev \ia%r\ ao6v 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


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 , "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 eSeâxo . 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 eêtv , "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 ' eêt' ovpiov awrfipe 8 ' Tiuei 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< ; êvid \dvOptorcco v Ttdpa eêvi; 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 KaôiJuev , ovc, Af|5a Ttoi e eiiKTev 'EXevn v 6' , f ) TceêDy 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 ) êtiyET', Ion 1553 , u.t|8ev n Alav Suaôpeiv 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


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 eêoMaa|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 eSoê 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 . eif] v oiiKet ' ci v Ktdvoiu' euiiv.

142 TH


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 yuvaiîv 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 .


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. ' eêiv, 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


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 KÊIVO V e-u i KaioiKriaei v TteSov EraipTTiq 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|ieDTOv (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 ev6d8 ' ovta 8i.oA.eoe o e'i/t' ai) u.e.9' "Hpa/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


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


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


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 -


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 ' sêic;, 'Opecta, ^dayavov Seprj , / Yûm 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


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 icAîvoc; , '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 : eSoê 5' "Apyei Tw8 e ±ir\Q' rîac, 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


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


5

their unmentionable name (37-38 and 408-10; contrast 8evvd 5' 68c<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


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 eâu.apTti) v aiJtoi; 6.XK du.apTi.a v Tf|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 ? . . .


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


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


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)5e naQoq ox)8e Luj)opd 6ef|XaTOi; , / fiq OTJ K dv dpaix' d/9oc; dv6pa>7iK £ xpwri/ xXaviStco v 6' eato Kpw|>9ei.o< ; e.K Qavatov Tteêvya 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 îcjioq ; 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; Opuî 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 Opuîv fj v a«ei:' ' OiSinotx ; 68e , 65 TC X Kêiv ' atviyuax' eyvwv Kd i fieyioToc ; f] v dvf|p , 6avoTJaa . 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, Aoîo 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 e Odyw , Ka v dreevveKT i rc6A.i^ . Kp. accuifi v dp ' eyyxx; T(p8e aw0d\|/ei!;o|iai.. Kp. OIJ K EC, yduouc; aovc, ai)|ii)>opdv KTTICJT I yooic; . Av. T I ydp yau,o\)jia v iôja a TtaiS t ac p TIOTE ; Kp. 7toM.f | a' dvdyKT y noi ya p EKê-uEr j Xexot; ; Av. vu ^ dp' EKeivri Aavcd'Sw v u, ' eêi (liav. Kp. ei8ei ; TO ionium' oiov eJ;covetSiaev ; Av. IOTC O ai5T|po 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


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 (TOÔIC ; 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 emwôiev 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 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>aaev\>\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,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|6evTejr]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.


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) TTJÔK; ; 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 'Eêvtjv , 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|/aeXa 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 .


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 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|

Tragedy's End: Closure and Innovation in Euripidean Drama

Tragedy's End: Closure and Innovation in Euripidean Drama

Primary Angle-Closure and Angle-Closure Glaucoma

Primary Angle-Closure and Angle-Closure Glaucoma

Integral Closure

Tonality as Drama: Closure and Interruption in Four Twentieth-Century American Operas

Base Realignment and Closure

Heracles and Euripidean Tragedy (Cambridge Classical Studies)

The Arts in the 1970s: Cultural Closure?

Drama in drie bedrijven

Drama Queen in Training

Ein Drama in Livland

Drama in drie bedrijven

Closure: The Definitive Guide

Drama In Drie Bedrijven

Innovation and Growth in Tourism

Drama In Drie Bedrijven

Drama In Drie Bedrijven

Drama in drie bedrijven

Ein Drama in Livland

Ein Drama in Livland

Integral closure of ideals, rings, and modules

Mine Closure Handbook

Wound Closure Manual

Wound Closure Manual

Closure The Definitive Guide

Gender and Medieval Drama

Cherokee dance and drama

Greek Drama and Dramatists

Poetry And Drama

Drama Stage and Audience

Tragedy's End: Closure and Innovation in Euripidean Drama