Chapter 7 of 10 · 16655 words · ~83 min read

CHAPTER VI

METRE AND RHYTHM IN GREEK TRAGEDY

§ I. INTRODUCTION

Poetry is illuminating utterance consisting of words the successive sounds of which are arranged according to a recurrent pattern. The soul of poetry is this illumination, its body this recurrent pattern of sounds; and it is with the body that we are now to deal. At the outset we must distinguish carefully between rhythm and metre. Rhythm is the recurrence just mentioned—the structure; metre is the gathering together of sounds into masses upon which rhythm shall do its work. Metre, so to put it, makes the bricks, while rhythm makes the arch.

Greek metre is based, not upon stress-accent,[858] but upon quantity—the length of time needed for the pronunciation of a syllable. In English the line

My bosom’s lord sits lightly in his throne

is “scanned” (that is to say, marked off into “feet”—the metrical units) as a series of five iambi; the iambus being a foot which consists of an unaccented, followed by an accented, syllable. The word “bosoms” can stand where it does because the stress of the voice naturally falls upon the first syllable of “bosom”; to begin a line with “my seréne bosom” would clearly be wrong. The _length_ of the syllables has no effect on the scansion. That “sits” needs as long a time for its utterance as the first syllable of “lightly” does not alter the fact that “sits light-” is an accentual iambus.

Greek words, on the other hand, as metrical material, are considered only from the quantitative point of view, not the accentual. The voice-stress in the word λόγους rests upon the first syllable, but the word is an iambus, a “short” followed by a “long” (marked respectively thus ⏑–). Whereas an English blank verse consists of five accentual iambi, _e.g._

To ént|ertaín | divíne | Zenócr|até,

the corresponding verse of all the Greek dramatists is composed of six feet each of which is theoretically a quantitative iambus, and most of which actually are such. Thus _Andromache_, v. 241 is to be scanned

When is a syllable long and when short? A few rules will settle all but a minority. _All_ syllables are long—

(i) Which contain a necessarily long vowel (η or ω), _e.g._ μη̄ν, τω̄ν.

(ii) Which contain a diphthong or _iota_ subscript, _e.g._ ο̅ι̅νος, α̅ι̅νο̅υ̅μεν, ρᾳ̅διως; save that the first syllable of ποιῶ and τοιοῦτος (and their parts) is often short.

(iii) Which end with a double consonant (ζ, ξ, ψ), _e.g._ ο̄ζος, ε̄ξω, ε̄ψαυσα.

(iv) Which have the circumflex accent, _e.g._ υμῖ̅ν, μῦ̅ς.

_Most_ syllables are long the vowel of which is followed by two consonants. But there is some difficulty about this very frequent case. It can arise in three ways:—

(_a_) Both consonants may be in the same word as the vowel. Then the syllable is long, save when the consonants are (i) a voiced stop (β, γ, δ) followed by ρ; or (ii) a voiceless stop or spirant (κ, π, τ; θ, φ, χ) followed by a liquid or nasal (λ, ρ, μ, ν)—in both of which cases the syllable can be counted long or short at pleasure. Thus ε̄σμεν, μο̄ρφη, ᾱνδρος; but the first syllables of ιδρις, τεκνον, ποτμος are “doubtful”—they can be either long or short as suits the poet.

(_b_) One of the consonants may end its word and the other begin the next. Such syllables are _all_ long. Thus, τηκτο̄ς μολυβδος, ανδρε̄ς σοφοι, although both these long syllables are “short by nature” (see below).

(_c_) Both consonants may occur at the beginning of the second word. If the vowel is naturally short, the syllable is almost always short, though such scansions as σε̄ κτενω are occasionally found. But if the second word begins with a double consonant or σ followed by another consonant, the syllable is always long. Thus ο̄ ξενος, τῑ ζητεις, ταυτᾱ σκοπουμεν.

A vowel, naturally short, when thus lengthened is said to be “lengthened by position.”

The following types of syllable are _always_ short:—

(i) Those containing a naturally short vowel (ε or ο) not lengthened by position, _e.g._ ε̆κων, ο̆λος.

(ii) Final α of the third declension neuter singular (σωμᾰ), third declension accusative singular (ελπιδᾰ, δρασαντᾰ), and all neuters plural (τᾰ, σωματᾰ, τοιαυτᾰ).

(iii) Final ι (_e.g._ εστῐ, τῐ), save, of course, when it is part of a diphthong.

(iv) The accusative -ας of the third declension (ανδρᾰς, πονουντᾰς). But μουσᾱς (first declension). The quantity in both cases is that of the corresponding nominative.

Hiatus is practically unknown. That is, a word ending in a vowel is not to be followed by a word beginning with a vowel, unless one vowel or the other disappears. Almost always it is the first vowel which is thus cut off, the process being called “elision.” In verse one would not write πάντα εἶπε, but πάντ’ εἶπε; not ἔτι εἶναι, but ἔτ’ εἶναι. When the first vowel is long and the second short, the latter is cut off by “prodelision,” a much rarer occurrence. Thus τούτῳ ἀνεῖπε would become τούτῳ ’νεῖπε. Two long vowels, as in καλὴ ἡμέρα, are not used together at all. But the rule as to hiatus does not normally apply at the end of a verse; usually one can end a verse with an unelided vowel and begin the next with a vowel. If in any metrical scheme this liberty is not allowed, it is said that “synapheia[859] prevails.”

We are now in a position to discuss the various metres to be found in Greek Tragedy.

§ II. THE IAMBIC METRE

Practically all the dialogue and speeches are written in this metre. The student would do well to grow thoroughly accustomed to reading these aloud with correct quantities before he attempts the others.

The iambic line consists of six feet, any one of which may be an iambus. But a “pure” iambic line, one in which every foot is an iambus, as in _Andromache_, v. 241 (see above), is very rare. A speech written solely in such feet would be highly monotonous and far too rapid. Other feet are therefore allowed, under restrictions, to take the place of the iambus.

By far the commonest of these is the spondee, which consists of two long syllables (λο̄γχη̄, πᾱντω̄ν). This can occur in the first, third, or fifth places—one, two, or all three. Thus:—

Next, the lightness and variety is often greatly increased by the use of “resolved”[860] (or broken-up) feet. Each long syllable being regarded as equal to two “shorts,” it follows that the iambus can be “resolved” into ⏑⏑⏑, the spondee into –⏑⏑, ⏑⏑– (and ⏑⏑⏑⏑, but this last is not employed in iambics).

Of these three the tribrach (⏑⏑⏑) is much the most frequent. As it corresponds to the iambus, it can occur in any place, save the sixth; it is exceedingly rare in the fifth place:—

The dactyl (–⏑⏑) is allowed in those places to which the spondee is admitted, save the fifth (just as the tribrach is excluded from the sixth). Thus:—

It is rare in the first foot.

Least common of all is the anapæst (⏑⏑–), which appears only in the first foot, unless it is contained entirely in a proper name, when it can occur in any place save the sixth. This license is due to necessity: such a name as Ἀντῐγόνη could not otherwise be introduced into iambics at all. Examples:—

Occasionally a line is to be found with two or even three resolved feet:—

Two licenses should be noted. The last syllable of the line may be short; no doubt the pause[861] at the end was felt to help it out. Lines of this kind are innumerable, _e.g._:—

⏑⏑ Κρατος Βια τε σφῳν μεν εντολη | Διος (_Prom. Vinctus_, 12)

(which is followed by a vowel—ἔχει). It matters little whether such syllables are marked as short, as long, or with the sign of doubtful quantity ( ᷋). Next, synizesis (συνίζησις, “collapse”) occurs now and then—two syllables coalesce and are scanned as one, _e.g._ μ̅η̅ ̅ο̅υ̅, πολε̅ω̅ς:—

(Synizesis is specially common in the various cases of θεός and θεά.)

Finally, two important rules of rhythm remain to be stated.

First, there must be a “cæsura”[862] in either the third or the fourth foot. A cæsura is a gap between words in the middle of a foot. Either the third foot, then, or the fourth must consist partly of one word, partly of another. It is indicated in scansion by the sign ‖. Many verses have this necessary cæsura in the third foot only, _e.g._:—

Many show it in the fourth only:—

A still larger number have cæsura in both places:—

This usage is essential to rhythm. It is of course possible for every foot in the line to exhibit a cæsura, but one in the midst is necessary to prevent the line from falling into pieces. That coextension of word and foot which is naturally frequent must at one point be emphatically excluded, so that the whole line may be felt as a single rhythmical whole. Such “lines” as

– – ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – – – ⏑ ⏑ ταυτην αναξ λεγει καλην ειναι πολιν,

⏑ – ⏑– – – ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ Οδυσσεως δουλοι μαχουμενοι ταχα,

are utterly impossible.[863] The first falls into six scraps, and the second into two mere lumps, of equal length. If a breach of the rule ever occurs, it is for a special reason. When Sophocles (_Œd. Tyr._, 738) writes

ὦ Ζεῦ, τί μου δρᾶσαι βεβούλευσαι πέρι;

the dragging rhythm well represents the dawning dread of Œdipus. But the main cæsura may be dispensed with if the third foot ends with an elision, apparently because, if the word could be written in full, the fourth foot would be divided between two words. Thus:—

χαῖρ’· οὐ γὰρ ἐχθαίρω σ’· ἀπώλεσας δ’ ἐμέ (_Alcestis_, 179).

ζητοῦσι τὸν τεκόντ’· ἐγὼ δὲ διαφέρω (_Heracles_, 76).

The other rule is that generally called “the rule of the Final Cretic”.[864] It is most simply stated thus: if there is a cæsura in the fifth foot, that foot must be an iambus, _e.g._:—

⏑ – ⏑ – μη με̄ στυγησῃς· ουχ εκων | γαρ ‖ αγγ|ελω (_Troades_, 710).

⏑ – ⏑ – τον τουδε νεκρον ουκ αθαπτ|ον ‖ αν | λιποις (_Ibid._, 738).

This rule does not exclude from the first half of the foot long _monosyllables_ which are in meaning and syntax closely connected with the “cretic” word or words. Thus τῶν σωμάτων is a quite correct ending, but not τούτων σωμάτων.

Subjoined is a scheme of the iambic verse as written by the tragedians. The writers of comedy allowed themselves licenses with which we are not here concerned. Euripides is much fonder of resolved feet than Æschylus or Sophocles.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ⏑– ⏑– ⏑‖– ⏑‖– ⏑– ⏑– ⏑⏑⏑ ⏑⏑⏑ ⏑‖⏑⏑ ⏑‖⏑⏑ ⏑⏑⏑ ⏑⏑ – – [⏑⏑–] –‖– [⏑⏑–] – – –⏑⏑ –‖⏑⏑ [⏑⏑–] ⏑⏑– [⏑⏑–]

§ III. THE TROCHAIC TETRAMETER

Under this head we shall deal only with trochees as used in dialogue. Originally all dialogue was written in this metre,[865] and they sometimes appear in extant plays when the situation is too hurried or excited for iambics though not agitated enough for lyrical dialogue. These passages are not usually long, and it is interesting to note that the longest are found in the two most melodramatic plays, _Orestes_ and _Iphigenia at Aulis_.[866] The metre is always the trochaic tetrameter catalectic[867] (sometimes called the trochaic octonarius), that is, a line consisting of eight feet, mostly trochees, with “catalexis”. Catalexis occurs when the last foot of a line has not its full number of syllables, the remainder being filled by a pause in delivery.

Pure trochaic verses are occasionally to be found:—

The mark ꞈ means that there is a pause equivalent in length to a short syllable. It is often found in the scansion of lyrics, and there one also at times uses -̭ ⏗̭ ⏘̭, which mean pauses equivalent to two, three, and four short syllables respectively. As in iambics, the last syllable may be short by nature:—

This metre is plainly analogous to Tennyson’s

Dreary gleams about the moorland flying over Locksley Hall.

But such purely trochaic lines are rare. Other feet are usually admitted, especially the spondee:—

Spondees may occur only in the second, fourth, or sixth foot.

The tribrach also is often employed by Euripides:—

The fifth foot is the favourite place for the tribrach, and next to that the first:—

Euripides, late in his career, introduced a good deal of license, here as elsewhere. Firstly, tribrachs become far more frequent and occur in unusual places:—

To place a resolved foot practically at the end of the line is bold—the metre is shaken almost to pieces. Here, as in other respects, Euripides points forward to the conversational manner of the New Comedy. But he goes further, and allows feet hitherto not found in trochaics: the anapæst and the dactyl. The latter, however, is extremely rare[868] and employed only with proper names:—

The anapæst is commoner (there is a proper-name instance in the line just quoted):—

There is no rule as to cæsura. The end of the fourth foot regularly coincides with the end of a word; such an arrangement is named diæresis.[869] In all extant tragedy only one certain exception to this rule is found:—

Since diæresis is practically always found in so many hundreds of lines, being preserved even in the loosest writing of Euripides, why should we regard the recognized trochaic verse as an unity? Why not write, _e.g._:—

οὐ γὰρ ἂν ξυμβαῖμεν ἄλλως ἢ ’πὶ τοῖς εἰρημένοις, ὥστ’ ἐμὲ σκήπτρων κρατοῦντα τῆσδ’ ἄνακτ’ εἶναι χθονός (_Phœnissæ_, 590 _sq._).

If the line falls into two clearly marked halves, why not show this to the eye? There is no unanswerable objection to doing so—the passage above corresponds exactly in rhythmical form to much English verse, _e.g._:—

Art is long, and Time is fleeting, And our hearts, though stout and brave, Still, like muffled drums, are beating Funeral marches to the grave.

The practice in English is to break up the long trochaic “line” into two when the words at the diæresis rhyme (as in the above passage from Longfellow), but not to do so when the only rhymes occur at the catalectic foot. We print the opening of another poem by Longfellow thus:—

In the market-place of Bruges stands the belfry old and brown; Thrice consumed and thrice rebuilded, still it watches o’er the town.

In Greek there is, of course, no rhyme-scheme to settle this, but the regular catalexis is felt to mark off separate units. The entire question depends upon personal fancy,[870] though the instance from the _Philoctetes_ shows that Sophocles at any rate regarded the whole octonarius as the unit.

Subjoined is the scheme:—

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 –⏑ –⏑ –⏑ –⏑ –⏑ –⏑ –⏑ –ꞈ ⏑⏑⏑ – – ⏑⏑⏑ – – ⏑⏑⏑ – – ⏑⏑⏑ ⏑⏑⏑ [–⏑⏑] ⏑⏑⏑ ⏑⏑⏑ ⏑⏑– ⏑⏑– ⏑⏑– [–⏑⏑]

§ IV. THE ANAPÆSTIC METRE

Whereas iambics and trochaics were declaimed by the actors, anapæsts were used mostly by the chorus, and were chanted in recitative. They are found when the chorus move into the orchestra, or salute the entrance of a new character. Most tragedies end with a brief anapæstic system, executed by the singers as they depart.

The most usual line is a tetrapody—that is, a verse of four feet:—

⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – τι συ προς | μελαθροις | τι συ τῃδ|ε πολεις; (_Alcestis_, 29).

But lines consisting of anapæsts alone are very uncommon. The spondee is often found:—

– – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – – ουκ ηρκ|εσε σοι | μορον Αδμ|ητου (_Alcestis_, 32).

Dactyls also are frequent:—

– – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – – σφηλαντ|ι τεχνῃ | νυν δ επι | τῃδ αυ (_Ibid._, 34).

No other foot is admitted, but each of these three may occur at any place in the line.

Besides the tetrapody, we find now and then a dipody, or verse of two feet.

Anapæstic systems are invariably closed by a catalectic verse:—

– – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑– – αυτη | προθανειν | Πελιου | παιςꞈ̄ (_Ibid._, 37).

In systems of considerable length such lines occur at intervals. They are called “parœmiacs”.[871]

§ V. LYRICS

The metres of Greek songs form a difficult and complicated study. So long as we do not know the music composed for them, the scansion of lyrics must remain a more difficult and doubtful question than that of the iambics, episodic trochaics, and anapæsts.

The best preparation for their study is the habit of reading iambics and trochaics with correct quantities and natural emphasis. Let us, so prepared, address ourselves to the following passage[872] from the _Agamemnon_ (975 _sqq._):—

Τίπτε μοι τόδ’ ἔμπεδον δεῖμα προστατήριον καρδίας τερασκόπου ποτᾶται; μαντιπολεῖ δ’ ἀκέλευστος ἄμισθος ἀοιδά, οὐδ’ ἀποπτύσαι δίκαν δυσκρίτων ὀνειράτων θάρσος εὐπειθὲς ἵζει φρενὸς φίλον θρόνον; χρόνος δέ τοι πρυμνησίων ξυνεμβολαῖς ψαμμίας ἐξ ἀκτᾶς βέβηκεν, εὖθ’ ὑπ’ Ἴλιον ὦρτο ναυβάτας στρατός.

It soon becomes plain that the passage is, at any rate in the main, trochaic. The first two lines scan easily, ending with a catalectic foot. We note that the third seems to drag at the end:—

– ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – – καρδι|ας τερ|ασκοπ|ου ποτ|αται,

for we remember that in the trochaic octonarius the last complete foot is never a spondee. But in the fourth line we are quite baffled:—

– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – μαντιπ|ολει δ | ακελευστ|ος...?

Anapæsts are very rare in trochaics, iambi unknown. That the iambus should never replace the trochee is quite natural. It would be hideous rhythm, in the first line of _Locksley Hall_, instead of “Cómrades, leave me here a little ...,” to write “Dragoóns, leave me ...”. The foot ο̆λεῑ cannot be right. The line seems hopeless; or rather, if we have any knowledge of Homeric and Virgilian metre, we recognize something like the dactylic hexameter:—

– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – μαντιπολ|ει δ ακελ|ευστος αμ|ισθος α|οιδα.

But is such a passage possible in a trochaic passage written for Greek music? It is known that in Greek music the notes corresponded closely to the syllables; music composed for trochees will certainly be in three-eighths time, for dactyls in four-eighths time. All these feet should have three beats, not four.

The next two lines are plainly similar to the first and second. In the seventh line we first wonder why, though we are in the midst of a grammatical sentence, the words should begin farther to the right than is usual, as if for a new paragraph. When we try to scan, we find once more the iambus-difficulty:—

– ⏑ – – ⏑ – θαρσος | ευπειθ|ες ιζ....

If we work backwards from the end, -ος φιλον θρονον gives the familiar trochaic-octonarius ending, –⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ. But the middle of the line has fallen to pieces, and for the present we leave it.

The eighth line seems at first more familiar. Is it not the ordinary iambic senarius of § II? But where is the cæsura? And can we suddenly insert an iambic line into a trochaic system? Is it then possible after all to scan it as some kind of trochaics? Begin at the end. ... ε̅μ̅βο̆λα̅ι̅ςꞈ suits excellently; and if we work backwards we soon find that the whole would fall readily into trochaics if only we could ignore the first syllable:—

But why should we ignore it? And why does the line begin farther to the left?

The ninth line again offers perplexity in the first half, clearness in the second:—

– ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ ᷋ ηκεν | ευθ υπ | Ιλι|ονꞈ.

Grown by this time bolder, we attack the first half in detail, working backwards. ᾱς βε̆ is easy. Then ἐξ ακτ ... may be either –⏑ or – –, both of which are admissible. We are left with ψ̅α̅μμῐᾱς. Reading the whole line over slowly, marking the trochees carefully, we find ourselves somehow dwelling on the last syllable of ψαμμίας. Why should we? If that syllable were only –⏑, all would be well; but it is not. Finally, the tenth and last line is quite easy:—

– ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑– ωρτο | ναυβατ|ας στρατ|οςꞈ.

The whole passage then is trochaic; but we have met four difficulties: (i) the necessity to dwell upon certain syllables, (ii) the irrational presence of dactyls, (iii) the temptation to ignore the first syllable of χρόνος, (iv) the insetting of θάρσος. Understanding of these four facts will carry us a long way. We take them in order.

Our first point indicates that we must revise that division of all syllables into “longs” of equal value and “shorts” of equal value (each “long” being exactly equivalent to two “shorts”) which obtains in iambics. The lyric metres recognize syllables of greater length than ⏑⏑. Most frequent is the length ⏗, equal to ⏑⏑⏑. A syllable of this length is therefore admitted in lyric trochaic systems as a whole foot, and investigations, such as we have practised above, will generally show where such a foot is to be postulated. We can now scan certain portions which we found troublesome:—

– ⏑ ⏗ – ⏑ ⏗ θαρσος | ευπ | ειθες | ιζ | ...

– ⏑ ⏗ – ⏑ – ψαμμι|ας | εξ ακτ | ας....

Moreover, as we were suspicious of the final spondee (replacing the expected trochee) in the third line, we obtain at any rate a quasi-trochee by scanning thus:—

This prolongation of a syllable is called τονή (“stretching”). Such a syllable may fill a foot, as in trochaics, and this rhythm is said to be syncopated.[873]

Next comes the dactylic fourth line, which introduces another vital rule. Trochaic systems admit, not genuine dactyls, but “cyclic” dactyls. To the “long” of each foot and to the first “short” is given less than their usual length: the rhythm is accelerated, so that –⏑ is equivalent to –, and the whole cyclic dactyl, marked ᷋⏑, is equivalent to a trochee.[874] Whenever we see a number of apparent dactyls, we must examine the whole passage to find whether it is trochaic or not. Trochaic systems which contain cyclic dactyls are called “logaoedic”.[875] The present line, then, being trochaic, we feel the same doubt of the final spondee (which would equal ⏑⏑⏑⏑, not ⏑⏑⏑, as it should) which we felt in the third line, and scan the whole:—

Our third question touched the first syllable of χρόνος in the sixth line. It is, as a fact, to be regarded as standing outside the metrical line—a kind of prelude, called “anacrusis”.[876] It is plain that neglect of anacrusis will often throw our scansion out completely. A useful rule can be given: in almost[877] any line, whatever comes before the first long syllable forms an anacrusis. The reason is that the first syllable of a foot must have an “ictus” (see below) or stress-accent, and the foot-ictus normally falls on long syllables. It becomes natural then to pronounce the first short or shorts (if any) quickly, and to give the first long the ictus; in this way the short is felt as a mere preliminary to the line. The anacrusis, however, can be of three forms, ⏑, ⏑⏑, –. Its length must be that of the second part of the characteristic foot, ⏑ for trochees, – or ⏑⏑ for dactyls, and so forth. It is marked off from the first foot by the sign ⁝.

The fourth point was the insetting of θάρσος. It happens in the middle of a grammatical sentence, so that there can be no question of an ordinary paragraph. But if it does not point to a break in sense, its only reference can be rhythmical. The whole passage must fall into two distinct rhythmical paragraphs. Let us scan them separately and endeavour to find a reason for this break. Take the first, scanning, marking, and numbering the feet:—

– ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – τιπτε | μοι τοδ | εμπεδ|ονꞈ‖ 1 2 3 4

– ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – δειμα | προστατ|ηρι|ονꞈ‖ 1 2 3 4

– ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – ουδ απ|οπτυσ|αι δικ|ανꞈ‖ 1 2 3 4

– ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – δυσκριτ|ων ον|ειρατ|ωνꞈ‖ 1 2 3 4

If we examine this to find structural unity, it soon appears. The first pair of lines answers to the last, and line three to line four, in the number of their feet 4 + 4, 6, 6, 4 + 4. The correspondence is indicated thus:—

⎰ 4 ⎛ ⎱ 4 ⎜ ⎛ 6 ⎜ ⎝ 6 ⎝ ⎰ 4 ⎱ 4

Each of these masses, it will be noticed, is marked off by the sign ‖. Such a mass is named a “sentence” or “colon” (κῶλον, “limb”), and such a balanced structure of cola is named a “period” (περίοδος, “circuit”). It happens that in the passage just examined the “sentence” division always occurs at the end of a word, but this is not invariably so. We proceed now with the second paragraph[878]—the second period as we shall now call it.

– ⏑ ⏗ – ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – ψαμμι|ας | εξ ακτ|ας βεβ‖ηκεν | ευθ υπ | Ιλι|ονꞈ‖ 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

– ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – ωρτο | ναυβατ|ας στρατ|οςꞈ‖ 1 2 3 4

That is: 4 + 4, 6, 4 + 4, 4. This would be an obviously well-balanced structure but for the last colon, to which nothing corresponds. Such an extra sentence is called a “postlude” (ἐπῳδικόν). Non-corresponding sentences like this are far from rare.[879] They may occur at the beginning of the period (“prelude,” προῳδικόν), in the middle (“mesode,” μεσωδικόν), or at the end. This very period supplies an example of a mesode as well as of a postlude. The scheme is:—

⎰ 4 ⎛ ⎱ 4 ⎜ 6—mesode. ⎝ ⎰ 4 ⎱ 4 4—postlude.

The whole passage, then, consists of two periods connected by meaning and grammar, but—for us—by no more intimate musical bond than the common use of trochees. But the dance and music which accompanied the whole would clearly demonstrate its unity. The end of a period is indicated by ‖.

It is necessary now to consider briefly the passage which immediately follows (vv. 988 _sqq._):—

Πεύθομαι δ’ ἀπ’ ὀμμάτων νόστον, αὐτόμαρτυς ὤν· τὸν δ’ ἄνευ λύρας ὅμως ὑμνῳδεῖ θρῆνον Ἐρινύος αὐτοδίδακτος ἔσωθεν θυμός, οὐ τὸ πᾶν ἔχων ἐλπίδος φίλον θράσος. σπλάγχνα δ’ οὔτοι ματάζει πρὸς ἐνδίκοις φρεσίν τελεσφόροις δίναις κυκλούμενον κέαρ. εὔχομαι δ’ ἐξ ἐμᾶς τοι[880] ἐλπίδος ψύθη πεσεῖν ἐς τὸ μὴ τελεσφόρον.

This is an exact counterpart in syllables, feet, cola, and periods, of the first passage. The first is called the “strophe” (στροφή, “turn”), the second the “antistrophe” (ἀντιστροφή, “counter-turn”). The chorus, while singing the one, performed various evolutions about the orchestra, and these were repeated exactly, but in reversed order, while they sang the antistrophe. All these lyrics are so constructed; the normal tragic “chorus” consists of one or more such pairs, though occasionally the antistrophe is followed by a passage called an “epode”.[881] The epodes correspond to each other, not to the strophes. This equivalence of strophe and antistrophe is often of value in determining the quantities or the text in one of them.

We have now gained some insight into the nature of a Greek choric song. But before proceeding further it will be well to deepen our impression by taking from the _Agamemnon_ (vv. 160 _sqq._) another, and a simpler, pair of strophes:—

Ζεύς, ὅστις ποτ’ ἐστίν, εἰ τόδ’ αὐτῷ φίλον κεκλημένῳ, τοῦτό νιν προσεννέπω. οὐχ ἔχω προσεικάσαι, πάντ’ ἐπισταθμώμενος, πλὴν Διός, εἰ τὸ μάταν ἀπὸ φροντίδος ἄχθος χρὴ βαλεῖν ἐτητύμως.

οὐδ’ ὅστις πάροιθεν ἦν μέγας, παμμάχῳ θράσει βρύων, οὐδὲ λέξεται πρὶν ὤν· ὃς δ’ ἔπειτ’ ἔφυ τριακτῆρος οἴχεται τυχών. Ζῆνα δέ τις προφρόνως ἐπινίκια κλάζων τεύξεται φρενῶν τὸ πᾶν.

⏗|⏗|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|⏗‖–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖ –⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖ –⏑|–⏑|–⏑|⏗‖–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖ –⏑⏑|–⏑⏑|–⏑⏑|–⏑⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖ –⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖

⎰ 6 ⎛ ⎱ 4 ⎜ ⎛ 4 ⎜ ⎜ 4—mesode. ⎜ ⎝ 4 ⎝ ⎰ 6 ⎱ 4

The chief interest of this subject is the art wherewith the Greek masters accompanied variations of emotion and the like with variations of rhythm. This passage affords a simple and stately example. The heavy opening (⏗⏗) is followed by the more confident trochees till, at the last line but one, religious rapture (in the strophe) and the ardour of triumph (in the antistrophe) burst forth with the leaping cyclic dactyls.

We have now become acquainted with three rhythmical masses: the colon, the period, the strophe. Are there others? What is a “verse” in lyrics? There is no such thing.[882] One must, of course, distinguish between a “line” and a “verse”. Lines there must be—that is an affair of the scribe and the printer; verses are rhythmical units, and there is no rhythmical mass in Greek lyrics between the colon and the period. How then are we to arrange our periods, there being no verse-division? The most obvious way is to write each colon as a separate line. The difficulty is that we shall often be compelled to break words:—

θάρσος εὐπειθὲς ἵζ- ει φρενὸς φίλον θρόνον ... ψαμμίας ἐξ ἀκτᾶς βέβ- ηκεν....

Another method is to let each line run on until we reach a colon-ending which coincides with a word-ending. Here is no new rhythmical rule: it is purely a question of convenience for the eye. Next, shall we ever write lines of (say) two cola the first of which does close with a word-ending? It is natural so to do when to the two cola in question there correspond (whether periodically or strophically) two cola which _must_ on this system fill one line only. For instance, in Æsch., _Supplices_, 656, we shall write—

– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏗ –⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏗ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑– και γαρ υποσκιων ‖ νυν στοματων ποτασθ‖ω φιλοτιμος ευχα ‖,

though the first colon ends at the end of ὑποσκίων, because the corresponding passage of the antistrophe runs—

– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏗ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏗ –⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – ᷋ και γεραροι δε πρεσβ‖υτοδοκοι γεμοντ‖ων θυμελαι φλεγοντων ‖,

where the first colon ends inside a word. It is purely a matter of taste whether we give a line to each colon, in which case the drawback is the breaking of words, or continue our line till breaking of words is excluded, the trouble about which method is the reader’s difficulty in seeing where some of the cola begin.

We must now consider the most vital and difficult portion of our subject. How are we to determine the cola? The colon is the very soul of the rhythm. The period is generally too long for the ear to receive it as one artistic impression. The foot is too short; moreover, the mere foot too often tends to play one false: irrational syllables and τονή are against us. But the colon is neither too long nor too short. The colon-division serves the same purpose as non-commissioned officers in a regiment, or the determination of watersheds in geography—it gives a sense both of grouping and of control.

What precisely _is_ a colon? It is as much of a strophe as can be uttered without making a new start. It is the embodiment of rhythm, as the foot is the embodiment of metre. In other words, it is a series of feet bound into a rhythmical unity by the presence of one main ictus. Three questions, then, arise. (i) What is an ictus? (ii) Which is the main ictus of a series? (iii) Can we with certainty determine the beginning and end of a colon when we have identified the main ictus?

(i) Ictus is stress-accent. The ictus of any single word is usually obvious. In the word “maritime” it falls upon the first syllable, in “dragoon” upon the second, in “cultivation” upon the third. In πάντων, λυσαμένοις, and κατάπαστος, it falls upon the first, second, and third respectively. Greek metre is based upon quantity, but Greek rhythm (like all other rhythm) is based upon ictus. A strophe can, and must, be scanned foot by foot on quantity alone; but when we go beyond the foot-division to exhibit the structure of the whole, we must refer to ictus and nothing but ictus—for structure is an affair of cola, and the colon is created by the main ictus.

(ii) Among the many word-ictuses of a considerable passage, a few will be found which are heavier than the rest. These are simply the ictuses of the most important words. Each of these prominent ictuses gathers the neighbouring minor ictuses into a group round itself. We should begin then by fixing some obvious example, one (that is) where the main ictus is unmistakable, and on this basis attempt, by the help of the correspondences which we expect, to determine other main ictuses. The strophe will thus gradually fall into cola. This leads us at once to our third question.

(iii) Can we with certainty determine the extent of each colon? Unfortunately no simple invariable rule can be given for the settlement of this vital point. But certain useful principles may be mentioned.

(_a_) A well-trained ear is the chief guide. Intelligent and careful reading aloud of an English prose-passage will show this. Take first (the best-known version of) a famous sentence of John Bright:—

The Angel of Death is abroad in the land: you may almost hear the beating of his wings.

It is plain that this falls into two rhythmical parts, though we shall not expect them to correspond, since this is prose, not verse. If we set a dash for each syllable and mark the ictuses by one or more dots according to their strength, we find this scheme:—

⁚ ⁝ ⁚ · - - - - - - - - - - - ‖ · ⁚ ⁝ ⁚ - - - - - - - - - - - ‖

(It will be noticed that in this superb passage the two periods do, as it happens, correspond in length.)

Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? (_Isaiah_ liii. 1).

· ⁚ ⁝ · ⁚ ⁝ ⁚ - - - - - - - ‖ - - - - - - - - - - - ‖

So with longer passages, where, however, we shall find at times that our voice quite naturally makes a colon-ending in the midst of a grammatical sentence.

Therefore let us also, ‖ seeing we are compassed about ‖ with so great a cloud of witnesses, ‖ lay aside every weight, ‖ and the sin which doth so easily beset us, ‖ and let us run with patience ‖ the race that is set before us ‖ (_Hebrews_ xii. 1, R.V.).

· ⁚ · - - - - - - · ⁚ · - - - - - - - - · ⁚ ⁝ - - - - - - - - - · ⁚ ⁝ - - - - - - - ⁚ ⁝ ⁚ - - - - - - - - - - - - · ⁚ ⁝ - - - - - - - ⁝ ⁚ · - - - - - - - -

(Observe how, in the last two cola, first the mounting and then the declining emphasis provide a splendid close.)

Let us now attempt so to catch the rhythm of a passage from Sophocles (_Antigone_, 582 _sqq._) if set out as prose.

εὐδαίμονες οἷσι κακῶν ἄγευστος αἰών. οἷς γὰρ ἂν σεισθῇ θεόθεν δόμος, ἄτας οὐδὲν ἐλλείπει, γενεᾶς ἐπὶ πλῆθος ἕρπον· ὅμοιον ὥστε ποντίαις οἶδμα δυσπνόοις ὅταν θρῄσσαισιν ἔρεβος ὕφαλον ἐπιδράμῃ πνοαῖς, κυλίνδει βυσσόθεν κελαινὰν θῖνα, καὶ δυσάνεμοι στόνῳ βρέμουσιν ἀντιπλῆγες ἀκταί. ἀρχαῖα τὰ Λαβδακιδᾶν οἴκων ὁρῶμαι πήματα φθιτῶν ἐπὶ πήμασι πίπτοντ’, οὐδ’ ἀπαλλάσσει γενεὰν γένος, ἀλλ’ ἐρείπει θεῶν τις, οὐδ’ ἔχει λύσιν. νῦν γὰρ ἐσχάτας ὑπὲρ ῥίζας ὃ τέτατο φάος ἐν Οἰδίπου δόμοις, κατ’ αὖ νιν φοινία θεῶν τῶν νερτέρων ἀμᾷ κονίς, λόγου τ’ ἄνοια καὶ φρενῶν Ἐρινύς.

If we first mark the quantities (ignoring, as we must at first, the possibility of ⏗ and ⏘) and go over the whole carefully, we soon find that it falls into two corresponding portions: εὐδαίμονες ... ἀκταί is the strophe, ἀρχαῖα ... Ἐρινύς the antistrophe. Next we look for rhythmical units. On the one hand, there is the great difficulty that, since we must have both periodic and strophic equivalence, certain cola may take in words not belonging to the same sense-groups or grammatical clauses. On the other hand, the fact that we have two great masses which correspond exactly will help us. First, then, we note that εὐδαίμονες ... αἰών looks promising, and observing that this points to ἀρχαῖα ... ὁρῶμαι as a colon also, and that this is in itself likely, we mark off both these groups. Conversely, at the end of the antistrophe, λόγου ... Ἐρινύς attracts us, and this is supported by the naturalness of στόνῳ ... ἀκταί at the end of the strophe. Working backwards, and seeing a pause in the punctuation at precisely the same place in both halves, namely, after πνοαῖς and δόμοις, we assume that κυλίνδει ... δυσάνεμοι and κατ’ αὖ ... κονίς are correspondent masses. But each is too long—sixteen syllables—to be pronounced as a unit. We soon perceive that κυλίνδει ... κελαινάν, θῖνα ... δυσάνεμοι, κατ’ αὖ ... τῶν, νερτέρων ... κονίς, are all separate cola. Going backwards again, we find that ἐπιδράμῃ[883] πνοαῖς and Οἰδίπου δόμοις, ὕφαλον ... πνοαῖς and φάος ... δόμοις, Θρῄσσαισιν ... πνοαῖς and ῥίζας ... δόμοις, and indeed longer masses still, all give a metrical correspondence. Which pair are we to select? οἶδμα ... πνοαῖς (= νῦν ... δόμοις) is too long; ἐπιδράμῃ πνοαῖς (= Οἰδίπου δόμοις) is too short. For we seek the longest unit which is convenient. We therefore mark off οἶδμα ... ὅταν, νῦν ... ὑπέρ, Θρῄσσαισιν ... πνοαῖς, ῥίζας ... δόμοις as cola. The same method will give us ὅμοιον ... ποντίαις and θεῶν ... λύσιν. Then we find ourselves left with οἷς γάρ ... ἕρπον and πήματα ... ἐρείπει, which we divide after ἄτας and πίπτοντ’.

At last we can set out the passage according to its structure. The strophe runs thus:—

˃ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ ⏗ – ευ⁝δαιμονες | οισι κακ|ων α|γευστος | αι|ωνꞈ‖

⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – ο⁝μοιον | ωστε | ποντι|αιςꞈ‖

– ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – οιδμα | δυσπνο|οις οτ|ανꞈ‖

⏑ – ˃ – ⏑ – ⏑ – ˃ κυ⁝λινδει | βυσσο|θεν κελ|αιναν ‖

– ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – θινα | και δυσ|ανεμ|οιꞈ‖

There are two periods:—

I II ⎛ 6 ⎛ 6 ⎝ 6 ⎜ ⎰ 4 ⎜ ⎛ ⎱ 4 ⎜ ⎜ 6—mesode. ⎜ ⎜ ⎰ 4 ⎜ ⎝ ⎱ 4 ⎝ 6

To this the antistrophe of course corresponds, though here and there an irrational long corresponds to a short (e.g. -εῑπε͐ι to ε̄ρπο̆ν); the last syllable of πήματα is lengthened by the following φθ.

It should be noted that this scheme differs somewhat from that given in Jebb’s edition of the _Antigone_ (pp. lxi. _sq._). One reader’s ear differs from that of another: hence the frequent divergencies to be observed between editors in the arrangement of many lyrics.

(_b_) The ancient writer Aristoxenus gives certain rules as to the maximum length of cola. They may be stated as follows:—

(i) There are three types of colon, the equal, the unequal, and the quinquepartite. The equal cola are the dipody of 1 + 1 feet, the tetrapody of 2 + 2; the unequal are the tripody of 2 + 1, and the hexapody of 4 + 2; the quinquepartite is the pentapody of 3 + 2.

(ii) Equal cola must not be of greater length than sixteen “shorts”. Therefore we may have a dipody of any foot, and a tetrapody of any save those of more than four shorts in value; that is (_e.g._) a dipody of cretics (–⏑–) is allowed, but not a tetrapody of that foot, which would give 5 × 4 = 20 “shorts”.

(iii) Unequal cola may have the length of eighteen “shorts”. A tripody, therefore, of any foot is allowed, but a hexapody of trochees only: a hexapody of spondees would give 4 × 6 = 24 “shorts”.

(iv) Quinquepartite cola may extend to the value of twenty-five “shorts”. Pentapodies are therefore possible of trochees, dactyls, spondees and five-time feet.

(_c_) Certain detailed hints may be added:—

(i) The tetrapody is the most frequent length, the pentapody the rarest.

(ii) The end of a colon is often indicated in dactyls by a spondee, in trochees by a single long syllable (whether ⏗ or –ꞈ).

(iii) In any one period there is a tendency to conformity in length. If 6 + 5 + 4 and 6 + 6 + 4 are _prima facie_ equally possible, the latter is as a rule to be preferred. In spite of the difference in sum-total (6 + 6 + 4 = 16; 6 + 5 + 4 = 15), this question often arises, because of the possibility of τονή. It has to be decided[884] whether (_e.g._) παντός at the close of a colon is to be scanned as two feet or one:

⏗ – παντ|οςꞈ‖

– ⏑ | παντος ‖.

* * * * *

It is now time to offer an account of the various feet used in lyrics.

(_a_) _Trochees._—With these we are now familiar. This foot is often called a choree, chorees with anacrusis being iambi,[885] without anacrusis trochees. The trochee is the most frequent foot in lyrics. Such systems express ordinary strong interest. Whenever more definite emotion is to be conveyed, either cyclic dactyls are introduced, or a change is made to some other metre:—

Κολχίδος τε γᾶς ἔνοικοι παρθένοι, μάχας ἄτρεστοι (_Prom. Vinctus_, 415).

–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑‖ –⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑‖.

So in English:—

Then, upon one knee uprising, Hiawatha aimed an arrow.—(Longfellow.)

Resolution into tribrachs is frequent:—

⏑ ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ – ⏑ Αραβι|ας τ αρ|ειον | ανθος ‖ (_Prom. Vinctus_, 420).

Anacrusis is common.

(_b_) _Dactyls._—These are found pure, or mingled with spondees or quasi-trochees (⏗⏑). They are often employed to express excitement and awe:—

ὦ Διὸς ἁδυεπὲς φάτι, τίς ποτε τᾶς πολυχρύσου[886] Πυθῶνος ἀγλάας ἔβας; (_Œd. Tyr._, 151).

–⏑⏑|–⏑⏑|–⏑⏑‖–⏑⏑|–⏑⏑|– –‖ –⁝⏗⏑|⏗⏑|⏗⏑|–ꞈ̄‖

Anacrusis is found, as in the second line above and in _Medea_, 635:—

The tetrapody without spondees or catalexis gives an exquisite heaving effect in Soph. _Electra_, 147-9:—

ἀλλ’ ἐμέ γ’ ἁ στονόεσσ’ ἄραρεν φρένας, ἃ Ἴτυν αἰὲν Ἴτυν ὀλοφύρεται, ὄρνις ἀτυζομένα, Διὸς ἄγγελος.

Ariel’s lines in _The Tempest_ (V. i.):—

Merrily, merrily, shall I live now, Under the blossom that hangs on the bough,

are dactylic tetrapodies with catalexis.

(_c_) _Spondees._—It is not certain that these are used as a base, though as a variant in anapæstic and dactylic metre they are common. _Iph. Taur._, 123-5, may be taken as spondees:—

εὐφαμεῖτ’ ὦ πόντου δισσὰς συγχωρούσας πέτρας Ἀξείνου ναίοντες.

– –|– –| – –|– –|– –|– –| – –|– –|– –|– –|

But they may be quasi-anapæsts, the whole passage which they introduce being an anapæstic entrance-march, though heavily spondaic. _Ion_, 125-7:

ὦ Παιάν, ὦ Παιάν, εὐαίων, εὐαίων εἴης, ὦ Λατοῦς παῖ,

is scanned by Dr. J. H. H. Schmidt as molossi, a molossus being – – –.

Spondaic systems are scarcely to be found in English.[887]

(_d_) _Cretics._—This foot (–⏑–) is rare; it generally expresses piteous agitation:—

φρόντισον, καὶ γενοῦ πανδίκως εὐσεβὴς πρόξενος· τὰν φυγάδα μὴ προδῷς, τὰν ἕκαθεν ἐκβολαῖς δυσθέοις ὀρμέναν (Æsch., _Supplices_, 418 _sqq._).

–⏑–|–⏑–|–⏑–‖ –⏑–|–⏑–‖ –⏑⏑⏑|–⏑–‖ –⏑⏑⏑|–⏑–‖ –⏑–|–⏑–‖

Few cretics are found in English, though Tennyson’s brief poem _The Oak_ is written entirely in this metre, _e.g._:—

All his leaves Fall’n at length, Look, he stands, Trunk and bough, Naked strength.

Most English verse of cretic appearance is shown by the context to be trochaic with alternate τονή. So in _A Midsummer Nights Dream_, II. i.:—

Over hill, over dale, Thorough bush, thorough brier, Over park, over pale, Thorough flood, thorough fire,

which is followed by

We are forbidden to view the Greek cretics given above in the same way, by the resolved feet. If we scan φρόντισον καὶ γενοῦ πανδίκως as –⏑|⏗|–⏑|⏗|–⏑|–ꞈ‖, this method will give us in the fourth line –⏑|⏑⏑|–⏑|–‖, where the second foot is impossible. ⏑⏑ can take the place of –, but never of ⏗.

(_e_) _Bacchiacs._—This curious foot consists of – –⏑, the system being invariably introduced by anacrusis. Bacchiacs are regularly associated with dochmiacs (see below). They express strong emotion, generally mingled with perplexity or vacillation; resolved feet are therefore often found:—

τίς ἀχώ, τίς ὀδμά προσέπτα μ’ ἀφεγγής; (_Prom. Vinctus_, 115).

⏑⁝– –⏑|– –ꞈ‖ ⏑⁝– –⏑|– –ꞈ‖.

στενάζω; τί ῥέξω; γελῶμαι πολίταις. ἔπαθον ὦ δύσοιστα (_Eumenides_, 788 _sq._).

⏑⁝– –⏑|– –⏑‖– –⏑|– –ꞈ‖ ⏑⁝⏑⏑–⏑|– –ꞈ‖.

Ye storm-winds of Autumn! Who rush by, who shake The window, and ruffle The gleam-lighted lake.—(M. Arnold.)

⏑⁝– –⏑|– –ꞈ‖ ⏑⁝– –⏑|–⏗̭‖ ⏑⁝– –⏑|– –ꞈ‖ ⏑⁝– –⏑|–⏗̭‖.

But it should be noted that, though bacchiac scansion seems soundest for the above—“storm-winds” for instance has two ictuses—the poet probably meant the lines for dactylic dipodies with anacrusis: “storm-winds of” thus would be an accentual dactyl. But that would slur “winds” unduly.

(_f_) _Ionics._—These are formed by – –⏑⏑. When anacrusis is found—the usual form—the foot is often called _Ionicus a minore_ (_i.e._ ⏑⏑– –); otherwise it is called _Ionicus a maiore_:—

κυανοῦν δ’ ὄμμασι λεύσσων φονίου δέργμα δράκοντος πολύχειρ καὶ πολυναύτας Σύριόν θ’ ἅρμα διώκων (_Persæ_, 81 _sq._).

⏑⏑⁝– –⏑⏑|– –⏑⏑‖– –⏑⏑|– –ꞈ̄‖.

A strange variant is ⏑–⏑–; the variation is called “anaclasis” (“breaking-up”). Thus the above passage proceeds—

ἐπάγει δουρικλύτοις ἀνδράσι τοξόδαμνον Ἄρη.

⏑⏑⁝– –⏑⏑|– –⏑⏑‖–⏑–⏑|–ꞈ̄‖.

Ionics are employed to express strong excitement governed by confident courage. The first lyric of the _Persæ_ begins with a splendid example. It is sung by the Persian counsellors in expectation of Xerxes’ triumph, and makes a strong contrast with the piteous rhythms of the close. This poem should be studied carefully in comparison with another in the same metre—the opening of the first chorus in the _Bacchæ_ (vv. 64 _sqq._):—

Ἀσίας ἀπὸ γαίας ἱερὸν Τμῶλον ἀμείψασα θοάζω Βρομίῳ πόνον ἡδύν κάματόν τ’ εὐκάματον, Βάκχιον εὐαζομένα. τίς ὁδῷ; τίς ὁδῷ; τίς μελάθροις; ἔκτοπος ἔστω, στόμα τ’ εὔφημον ἅπας ἐξοσιούσθω· τὰ νομισθέντα γὰρ ἀεὶ Διόνυσον ὑμνήσω.

⏑⏑⁝⏘⏑⏑|– –ꞈ̄‖ ⏑⏑⁝– –⏑⏑|– –⏑⏑|– –ꞈ̄‖ ⏑⏑⁝⏘⏑⏑|– –ꞈ̄〛 ⏑⏑⁝– –⏑⏑|– –⏑⏑|– –⏑⏑|⏘ꞈ̄〛 ⏑⏑⁝⏘⏑⏑|– –⏑⏑|– –⏑⏑|– –ꞈ̄‖ ⏑⏑⁝– –⏑⏑|– –⏑⏑|– –ꞈ̄‖ ⏑⏑⁝– –⏑⏑|– –⏑⏑|–⏑–˃|⏘ꞈ̄〛

⎛ 2 ⎜ 3—mesode. ⎝ 2

⎛ 2 ⎝ 2

III

⎰ 2 ⎛ ⎱ 2 ⎜ 3—mesode ⎝ ⎰ 2 ⎱ 2

This song of the Bacchantes, like that of the Persians, expresses both excitement and confidence; both are magnificent, and the _metre_ is the same. But the difference is unmistakable; it lies in the _rhythm_. In Æschylus the practically unvaried rhythm and the gorgeous language give to such a passage as πολύχειρ καὶ πολυναύτας Σύριόν θ’ ἅρμα διώκων an almost intolerable weight and austere pomp. Euripides, by use of the doubly-lengthened syllable, by varying the extent of his cola, and by the irrationality of the penultimate foot, has, within the limits of the same metre, produced a sense of exotic beauty and urgency, a thrill of wildness as well as of awe.

(_g_) _Choriambics._—These consist of –⏑⏑–. Anacrusis is not found:—

δεινὰ μὲν οὖν, δεινὰ ταράσσει σοφὸς οἰωνοθέτας οὔτε δοκοῦντ’ οὔτ’ ἀποφάσκονθ’· ὅτι λέξω δ’ ἀπορῶ (_Œd. Tyr._, 483 _sq._).

–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖ –⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖

This measure expresses great agitation and perplexity. In the passage just cited they pass into ionics, which indicate a gradual comparative calming of mind. For example, the antistrophe reads:—

ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν οὖν Ζεὺς ὅ τ’ Ἀπόλλων συνετοὶ καὶ τὰ βροτῶν εἰδότες· ἀνδρῶν δ’ ὅτι μάντις πλέον ἢ ’γω φέρεται κρίσις οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής· σοφίᾳ δ’ ἂν σοφίαν παραμείψειεν ἀνήρ.

–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖ –⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖ ⏑⏑⁝– –⏑⏑|– –⏑⏑‖– –⏑⏑|⏘ꞈ̄‖ ⏑⏑⁝– –⏑⏑|⏘ꞈ̄‖.

The late Rupert Brooke left some exquisite _Experiments_ in this metre, _e.g._:—

Ah! Not now, when desire burns, and the wind calls, and the suns of spring Light-foot dance in the woods, whisper of life, woo me to wayfaring.

That is—

⏗⏗|–⏑⏑–|–⏑⏑–‖–⏑⏑–|⏗⏗‖

(_h_) _Dochmiacs._—It is convenient to discuss these here, though the dochmius is not a foot, but a colon. The rule both of metre and music is that all feet or bars should have the same time-value; a trochaic colon may contain ⏗ or ᷋⏑ as well as –⏑, but not –⏑⏑. Dochmiacs are generally regarded as an exception to this rule. The dochmius is a colon of which the simplest form[888] is ⏑– –⏑–, to be divided ⏑⁝– –⏑|–ꞈ||, _e.g._ κακορρημόνων. The dochmius is always catalectic, but the anacrusis of one serves to complete the trochee of the preceding colon:—

φανήτω μόρων ὁ κάλλιστ’ ἐμῶν ἐμοὶ τερμίαν ἄγων ἁμέραν (_Antigone_, 1329 _sq._).

⏑⁝– –⏑|–⏑‖– –⏑|–ꞈ‖.

But this simplest form is not the most frequent, and a considerable sequence is rare. Resolution of one or more long syllables is very common. The favourite form is ⏑⁝⏑⏑–⏑|–ꞈ‖:—

περίβαλον γάρ οἱ πτεροφόρον δέμας (_Agamemnon_, 1147).

⏑⁝⏑⏑–⏑|–⏑‖⏑⏑–⏑|–ꞈ‖

This metre is frequent in passages of lamentation, and as these are extremely numerous the dochmiac measure is one of the most important. It is also perhaps the most difficult, because of the many varieties admitted. In all, twenty-two[889] forms are said to be found, though several of these are rare; this great number is due to resolution and irrational long syllables. Thus—

ἰὼ σκότου νέφος ἐμὸν ἀπότροπον, ἐπιπλόμενον ἄφατον ἀδάματόν τε καὶ δυσούριστον ὄν (_Œd. Tyr._, 1313).

⏑⁝⏘⏑|–ꞈ‖ ⏑⁝⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑|⏑⏑⏑‖⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑|⏑⏑ꞈ‖ ⏑⁝⏑⏑–⏑|–⏑‖– –⏑|–ꞈ‖.

The second line of course would by itself have no rhythm at all, being so completely broken to pieces, in order to express the extreme limit of agitation possible in articulate speech. But it gains rhythm from the clearer lines of the context. The antistrophe shows a further variety—an irrational syllable in the last line:—

ἰὼ φίλος, σὺ μὲν ἐμὸς ἐπίπολος ἔτι μόνιμος· ἔτι γάρ ὑπομένεις με τὸν τυφλὸν κηδεύων.

(κηδευ͐ων). Evidently it is important to accustom one’s ear thoroughly to the basic form ⏑– –⏑– and to ⏑⏑⏑–⏑–. Another instance may be of use:—

ἆρα πύλαι κλῄθροις χαλκόδετ’ ἔμβολά τε λαϊνέοισιν Ἀμφίονος ὀργάνοις τείχεος ἥρμοσται; (_Phœnissæ_, 114 _sqq._).

˃⁝⏑⏑–˃|–˃‖⏑⏑–⏑|⏑⏑ꞈ‖ ⏑⁝⏑⏑–⏑|–˃‖⏑⏑–⏑|–ꞈ‖ ˅⁝⏑⏑–˃|–ꞈ‖.

The last division of our subject is the different types of period, the various ways in which cola are combined and correspond. It should be noted that a colon with anacrusis can correspond to one without; so of catalexis and τονή.

(i) The simplest form is the _stichic_ (στίχος “a row”), in which the cola are of the same length. The scheme

⎧ _a_ ⎧ 2 ⎧ 4 ⎧ 6 ⎧ _a_ is ⎨ —that is ⎨ or ⎨ or ⎨ , etc.—or ⎨ _a_ and so forth: ⎩ _a_ ⎩ 2 ⎩ 4 ⎩ 6 ⎩ _a_

πᾶς γὰρ ἱππηλάτας καὶ πεδοστιβὴς λεώς (_Persæ_, 126 _sq._).

–⏑|⏗|–⏑|–ꞈ‖ –⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ〛.

Where correspondence is indicated by

⎛ 4 ⎝ 4.

It makes no difference that ⏗ is answered by –⏑ in the second foot.

(ii) To the stichic corresponds the _palinodic_ period (παλινῳδία, “repetition”), in which not a single colon but a group of cola is repeated so far as length is concerned:—

μείξουσιν ἢ πρὸς Πυθίαις ἢ λαμπάσιν ἀκταῖς, οὗ πότνιαι σεμνὰ τιθηνοῦνται τέλη (_Œd. Col._, 1047 _sq._).

–⁝⏗⏑|– –|⏗⏑|– –‖–⏑⏑|– –‖ –⁝⏗⏑|⏘|–⏑⏑|– –‖⏗⏑|–ꞈ̄‖

⎰ 4 ⎞ ⎛ ⎱ 2 ⎟ ⎞ ⎝ ⎰ 4 ⎠ ⎟ ⎱ 2 ⎠

This type of period is frequent in English poetry, where the use of rhyme and the absence of τονή make the cola perfectly plain, _e.g._:—

Love still has something of the sea From whence his Mother rose; No time his slaves from care sets free, Or gives their hearts repose.—(Sedley.)

⎰ 4 ⎞ ⎛ ⎱ 3 ⎟ ⎞ ⎝ ⎰ 4 ⎠ ⎟ ⎱ 3 ⎠

(iii) _Antithetic_ periods are formed by the inverted repetition whether of different cola or of different groups of cola.

(_a_) The simplest type is that in which a series of ungrouped cola is repeated in inverse order:—

διανταίαν λέγεις δόμοισι καί σώμασιν πεπλαγμέναν ἀναυδάτῳ μένει ἀραίῳ τ’ ἐκ πατρὸς διχόφρονι πότμῳ (_Septem_, 895 _sqq._).

⏑⁝⏗|⏗|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖ –⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖ ⏑⁝⏗|⏗|–⏑|–ꞈ‖ ⏑⁝⏗|⏗|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑⏑|–˃〛.

6 ⎞ 4 ⎞ ⎟ 4 ⎠ ⎟ 6 ⎠

(_b_) In a similar manner groups may be repeated antithetically. Each group retains its internal order; hence such periods are called “palinodic-antithetic”:—

δι’ αἰῶνος μακροῦ πάνολβον· ἔνθεν πᾶσα βοᾷ χθών, “φυσιζόου γένος τόδε Ζηνός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς· τίς γὰρ ἂν κατέπαυσεν Ἥρας νόσους ἐπιβούλους;” Διὸς τόδ’ ἔργον καὶ τόδ’ ἂν γένος λέγων ἐξ Ἐπάφου κυρήσαις (Æsch., _Supplices_, 582 _sqq._).

⏑⁝⏗|⏗|–⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖ –˃|–⏑⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖ ⏑⁝–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|⏗‖–⏑|–⏑⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖ –⏑|–⏑⏑|–⏑|⏗‖–⏑|–⏑⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖ ⏑⁝–⏑|–˃|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖ –⏑⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ〛.

⎰ 6 ⎞ ⎛ ⎱ 4 ⎟ ⎞ ⎜ ⎰ 4 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎛ ⎱ 4 ⎟ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎝ ⎰ 4 ⎠ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎱ 4 ⎠ ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎰ 6 ⎠ ⎟ ⎱ 4 ⎠

(iv) Any of the three periods just described, the stichic, the palinodic, the antithetic (whether simple or palinodic-antithetic) may be “mesodic,” that is, it may be grouped round a central colon (the mesode), to which no colon corresponds, save of course the mesode of the other _strophe_. The schemes, then, are:—

(_a_) Stichic-mesodic.

_a_ ⎞ _x_ ⎟ _a_ ⎠

(_b_) Palinodic-mesodic.

⎰ _a_ ⎞ ⎛ ⎱ _b_ ⎟ ⎞ ⎜ _x_ ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎰ _a_ ⎠ ⎟ ⎱ _b_ ⎠

(_c_) Antithetic-mesodic.

_a_ ⎞ _b_ ⎞ ⎟ _x_ ⎟ ⎟ _b_ ⎠ ⎟ _a_ ⎠

(_d_) Palinodic-antithetic-mesodic.

⎰ _a_ ⎞ ⎛ ⎱ _b_ ⎟ ⎞ ⎜ ⎰ _c_ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎛ ⎱ _d_ ⎟ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ _x_ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎝ ⎰ _c_ ⎠ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎱ _d_ ⎠ ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎰ _a_ ⎠ ⎟ ⎱ _b_ ⎠

(_a_) The stichic-mesodic:—

ἀμηχανῶ φροντίδος στερηθείς εὐπάλαμον μέριμναν ὅπα τράπωμαι, πίτνοντος οἴκου (_Agamemnon_, 1530 _sqq._).

⏑⁝–⏑|⏗|–⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖ –⏑⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖ ⏑⁝–⏑|⏗|–⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖.

6 ⎞ 4 ⎟ 6 ⎠

(_b_) The palinodic-mesodic:—

ἐμοὶ χρῆν συμφοράν, ἐμοὶ χρῆν πημονὰν γενέσθαι, Ἰδαίαν ὅτε πρῶτον ὕλαν Ἀλέξανδρος εἰλατίναν ἐτάμεθ’, ἅλιον ἐπ’ οἶδμα ναυστολήσων (_Hecuba_, 629 _sqq._).

⏑⁝⏗|⏗|–⏑|–ꞈ‖ ⏑⁝⏗|⏗|–⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖ –˃|–⏑⏑|–⏑|–˃‖ ⏑⁝⏗|–⏑|–⏑⏑|–ꞈ‖ ⏑⁝⏑⏑⏑|⏑⏑⏑|–⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖.

⎰ 4 ⎞ ⎛ ⎱ 6 ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ 4 ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎰ 4 ⎟ ⎠ ⎱ 6 ⎠

(_c_) The antithetic-mesodic:—

σύ τοι σύ τοι κατηξίωσας, ὦ βαρύποτμε, κοὐκ ἄλλοθεν ἔχει τύχᾳ τᾶδ’ ἀπὸ μείζονος· εὖτέ γε παρὸν φρονῆσαι ... (_Philoctetes_, 1095 _sqq._).

⏑⁝–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑‖ –⏑|⏑⏑⏑|–ꞈ‖ ˃⁝⏑⏑⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖ –⏑⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖ ˃⁝⏑⏑⏑|–⏑|⏗|–ꞈ‖.

4 ⎞ 3 ⎞ ⎟ 3 ⎟ ⎟ 3 ⎠ ⎟ 4 ⎠

(_d_) The palinodic-antithetic-mesodic:—

μή μοι μὴ προδίδου· μόνος μόνῳ κόμιζε πορθμίδος σκάφος. χαιρέτω μὲν αὖλις ἥδε, χαιρέτω δὲ θυμάτων ἀποβώμιος[890] ἃν ἔχει θυσίαν Κύκλωψ Αἰτναῖος ξενικῶν κρέων κεχαρμένος βορᾷ. νηλής, ὦ τλᾶμον ὅστις δωμάτων ἐφεστίους ... (_Cyclops_, 351 _sqq._).[891]

–˃|–⏑⏑|–ꞈ‖ ⏑⁝–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖ –⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑‖–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖ ω⁝–⏑⏑|–⏑|–⏑⏑|–ꞈ‖ –˃|–˃|–⏑⏑|–⏑‖–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ‖ –˃|–˃|–ꞈ‖ ⏗|⏗|–⏑|–⏑|–⏑|–ꞈ〛.

⎰ 3 ⎞ ⎛ ⎱ 6 ⎟ ⎞ ⎜ ⎛ ⎰ 4 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ ⎱ 4 ⎟ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ 4 ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ ⎰ 4 ⎠ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎝ ⎱ 4 ⎠ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎰ 3 ⎠ ⎟ ⎝ ⎱ 6 ⎠

Most of the periodic structures which have been described are by no means obvious to the ear. A trained sense of rhythm, attention to quantity, and careful practice, will reduce the difficulties. But in any case Greek periods are far less easy to grasp than English. Their variety and length, the frequent occurrence of prolongation, resolution, and irrational syllables, the possibility of preludes or postludes—all these are formidable to modern students, who lack the help of the music. We may perhaps work out the period with ease on paper, but our ear often cannot appreciate the balance and contour of the whole as it can in English lyrics, where we have the immense assistance of a rhyme-scheme. But it is no sound deduction that the study of Greek lyric metre and rhythm is therefore useless. We cannot always hear the period—that is a question of music; but we can always hear the colon—that is a question of language. To utter the cola correctly is easy after a little practice; and it is these “sentences” which, by their own internal rhythmical nature and by the identities or contrasts existing between them, reinforce and more pungently articulate the sense of the words wherefrom they are moulded.

FOOTNOTES

[1] See Haigh, _The Tragic Drama of the Greeks_, pp. 19 _sq._

[2] It arose in a similar fashion to tragedy, from the phallic songs to Dionysus at his winter festival.

[3] τί ταῦτα πρὸς τὸν Διόνυσον; (Plutarch, _Symposiaca_, 615 A).

[4] Pp. 39-41.

[5] These first paragraphs give a summary of the view almost universally held as to the origin of Greek tragedy. Of late, however, Professor Sir William Ridgeway (_The Origin of Tragedy, with Special Reference to the Greek Tragedians_, Cambridge, 1910) has combated current beliefs with great vigour. His belief is (p. 186) “that Tragedy arose in the worship of the dead, and that the only Dionysiac element in the Drama was the satyric play”. Aristotle’s evidence (see p. 4) he dismisses as mistaken, because “Aristotle was only interested in Tragedy as a fully developed art, and paid little heed to its early history” (p. 57). The present writer is bound to confess that, after following and estimating to the best of his ability the numerous and heterogeneous statements put forward in evidence, he cannot regard Professor Ridgeway’s contention as proved. It is undoubtedly true that many extant tragedies centre more or less vitally upon a tomb, but many do not. The mimetic ritual in honour of the slain Scephrus (p. 37) is real evidence, so far as it goes; but the utmost it proves is that Greek tragedy _could_ have arisen from such funeral performances—it does not show that it did. The most remarkable point in the book is the discussion of the well-known passage in Herodotus (V, 67): τά τε δὴ ἄλλα οἱ Σικυώνιοι ἐτίμων τὸν Ἄδρηστον καὶ δὴ πρὸς τὰ πάθεα αὐτοῦ τραγικοῖσι χοροῖσι ἐγέραιρον, τὸν μὴν Διόνυσον οὐ τιμέωντες, τὸν δὲ Ἄδρηστον. Κλεισθένης δὲ χοροὺς μὲν τῷ Διονύσῳ ἀπέδωκε, τὴν δὲ ἄλλην θυσίην Μελανίππῳ (see Ridgeway, p. 28): “The men of Sicyon paid honours to Adrastus, and in particular they revered him with tragic choruses because of his sufferings, herein honouring not Dionysus, but Adrastus. Cleisthenes gave the choruses to Dionysus, and the rest of the offering to Melanippus.” It may well be that Professor Ridgeway is right in asserting that ἀπέδωκε means not “restored” but “gave”—that is, these tragic choruses were originally of the funereal kind which he suggests for all primitive Greek tragedy. This is excellent evidence for his contention, so far as it goes, but it only proves one example. Herodotus’ words, on the other hand, imply that he believed tragedy to be normally Dionysiac. To sum up, we cannot regard Professor Ridgeway as having succeeded in damaging the traditional view.

[6] Aristotle, _Poetic_, 1448_a_: διὸ καὶ ἀντιποιοῦνται τῆς τε τραγῳδίας καὶ τῆς κωμῳδίας οἱ Δωριεῖς.

[7] _Ol._, XIII, 18 _sq._: ταὶ Διωνύσου πόθεν ἐξέφανεν σὺν βοηλάτᾳ χάριτες διθυράμβῳ; _i.e._ as the context shows, the dithyramb appeared first at Corinth.

[8] α for η, and sometimes -ᾶν as the inflexion of the feminine genitive plural.

[9] _Poetic_, 1449_a_: γενομένη δ’ οὖν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτοσχεδιαστική ... ἀπὸ τῶν ἐξαρχόντων τὸν διθύραμβον ... κατὰ μικρὸν ηὐξήθη προαγόντων ὅσον ἐγίγνετο φανερὸν αὐτῆς, καὶ πολλὰς μεταβολὰς μεταβαλοῦσα ἡ τραγῳδία ἐπαύσατο, ἐπεὶ ἔσχε τὴν αὐτῆς φύσιν. καὶ τό τε τῶν ὑποκριτῶν πλῆθος ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς δύο πρῶτος Αἰσχύλος ἤγαγε καὶ τὰ τοῦ χοροῦ ἠλάττωσε καὶ τὸν λόγον πρωταγωνιστὴν παρεσκεύασεν, τρεῖς δὲ καὶ σκηνογραφίαν Σοφοκλῆς. ἔτι δὲ τὰ μέγεθος ἐκ μικρῶν μύθων καὶ λέξεως γελοίας διὰ τὸ ἐκ σατυρικοῦ μεταβαλεῖν ὀψὲ ἀπεσεμνύνθη. τό τε μέτρον ἐκ τετραμέτρου ἰαμβεῖον ἐγένετο· τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον τετραμέτρῳ ἐχρῶντο διὰ τὸ σατυρικὴν καὶ ὀρχηστικωτέραν εἶναι τὴν ποίησιν ... ἔτι δὲ ἐπεισοδίων πλήθη. καὶ τὰ ἄλλ’ ὡς ἕκαστα κοσμηθῆναι λέγεται.... Here and elsewhere, in quoting from the _Poetic_, I borrow Butcher’s admirable translation.

[10] These narratives and conversations were naturally regarded as interruptions in the main business, and this feeling is marked by the name always given to the “acts” of a play, ἐπεισόδια (“episodia”), _i.e._ “interventions” or “interruptions”.

[11] The text of the treatise is, however, incomplete. The author of the pseudo-Platonic _Minos_ (321 A) speaks of the current belief that Thespis was the originator of tragedy.

[12] This is a mere name for a really anonymous collection of information on philosophical and other history.

[13] _Ars Poetica_, 275-7.

[14] _Poetic_, 1449_a_.

[15] βασιλεὺς ἦν Χοίριλος ἐν σατύροις (Plotius, _De Metris_, p. 2633, quoted by Haigh, _Tragic Drama_, p. 40).

[16] _Frogs_, 689: εἴ τις ἥμαρτε σφαλείς τι Φρυνίχου παλαίσμασιν. The allusion in the first instance points undoubtedly to the famous _general_ Phrynichus; but his political machinations are jokingly referred to as a “wrestling-bout” because of the celebrated description in his namesake the playwright.

[17] Herod. VI, 21.

[18] _Wasps_, 220 (μέλη ἀρχαιομελισιδωνοφρυνιχήρατα).

[19] _Birds_, 748-51, reading ὥσπερ ἡ μέλιττα.

[20] λάμπει δ’ ἐπὶ πορφυρέαις παρῇσι φῶς ἔρωτος. Notice the exquisite alliteration. Sophocles no doubt had this line in mind when he wrote _Antigone_ 782.

[21] The writer of the Argument to the _Persæ_ says: Γλαῦκος ἐν τοῖς περὶ Αἰσχύλου μύθων ἐκ τῶν Φοινίσσων Φρυνίχου φησὶ τοὺς Πέρσας παραπεποιῆσθαι. The late Dr. Verrall (_The Bacchantes of Euripides and Other Essays_, pp. 283-308) believed that not only is the _Persæ_ modelled on the _Phœnissæ_ but _Æschylus_ incorporated a large portion of Phrynichus’ play with little change (_Persæ_ vv. 480-514 especially).

[22] By M. Croiset, _Hist. de la Litt. grecque_, III, p. 49.

[23] This is asserted by his epitaph:—

Αἴσχυλον Εὐφορίωνος Ἀθηναῖον τόδε κεύθει μνῆμα καταφθίμενον πυροφόροιο Γέλας, ἀλκὴν δ’ εὐδόκιμον Μαραθώνιον ἄλσος ἂν εἴποι καὶ βαθυχαιτήεις Μῆδος ἐπιστάμενος.

These verses are said to come from the pen of Æschylus himself. For once such tradition appears to be true. No forger would have had the audacity to omit all reference to the plays.

[24] This, however, is certainly stated by Aristotle (_Nic. Ethics_, 1111_a_). On the other hand, Æschylus says in the _Frogs_ (886); Δήμητερ, ἡ θρέψασα τὴν ἐμὴν φρένα, εἶναί με τῶν σῶν ἄξιον μυστηρίων.

[25] Aristotle, Poetic, 1449_a_.

[26] The following plays were performed with two actors only: of Æschylus, _Supplices_, _Prometheus_, _Persæ_, _Seven against Thebes_; of Euripides, _Medea_, and perhaps _Alcestis_.

[27] By Plutarch, _Life of Cimon_, VIII. Haigh (_The Tragic Drama of the Greeks_, p. 128²) gives good reasons for rejecting the story.

[28] One of these occasions was that on which he presented the _Œdipus Tyrannus_.

[29] A fragment of Ion’s Ἐπιδημίαι remarks: τὰ μέντοι πολιτικὰ οὔτε σοφὸς οὔτε ῥεκτήριος ἦν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἄν τις εἷς τῶν χρηστῶν Ἀθηναίων.

[30] Aristophanes, too, in the _Frogs_ (v. 82), bears witness to his charm: ὁ δ’ εὔκολος μὲν ἐνθάδ’, εὔκολος δ’ ἐκεῖ· “Sophocles, on the other hand, is gentle here (_i.e._ in Hades) as he was in life.”

[31] _Œd. Col_. 1225-8.

[32] _Poetic_, 1460_b_: Σοφοκλῆς ἔφη αὐτὸς μὲν οἵους δεῖ ποιεῖν, Εὐριπίδην δὲ οἷοι εἰσίν.

[33] Plutarch, _De Profectu in Virtute_, 79 B: ὁ Σοφοκλῆς ἔλεγε, τὸν Αἰσχύλου διαπεπαιχὼς ὄγκον, εἶτα τὸ πικρὸν καὶ κατάτεχνον τῆς αὐτοῦ κατασκευῆς, τρίτον ἤδη τὸ τῆς λέξεως μεταβάλλειν εἶδος ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἠθικώτατον καὶ βέλτιστον.

[34] See Haigh, _Tragic Drama_, p. 162.

[35] Aristotle, _Poetic_, 1449_a_.

[36] Suidas (_s.v._ Σοφοκλῆς): καὶ αὐτὸς ἦρξε τοῦ δρᾶμα πρὸς δρᾶμα ἀγωνίζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ μὴ τετραλογίαν.

[37] In the Anonymous _Life_.

[38] See Haigh, _Attic Tragedy_, pp. 139 _sq._, where this excellent point is made.

[39] The most celebrated is the description of the sun as a “clod” (_Orestes_, 983). _Alcestis_, 904 _sqq._, may very possibly refer to the death of Anaxagoras’ son.

[40] XV, 20.

[41] A passage in his _Life_ suggests that he was indifferent to the strictly “theatrical” side of his profession: οὐδεμίαν φιλοτιμίαν περὶ τὰ θέατρα ποιούμενος· διὸ τοσοῦτον αὐτὸν ἔβλαπτε τοῦτο ὅσον ὠφέλει τὸν Σοφοκλέα.

[42] _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, Vol. IX, pp. 124-82.

[43] Pp. 29 _sq._

[44] ἀκριβῶς ὅλως περιείληφεν τὸν Ἀναξαγόρειον διάκοσμον ἐν τρισὶν περιόδοις.

[45] Aristotle, _Poetic_, 1452_b_.

[46] Not all. The elegance of his iambic style excited Aristophanes’ admiration: indeed he confessed to imitating it, and the great Cratinus invented a significant compound verb εὐριπιδαριστοφανίζειν. See Meineke, _Frag. Comicorum Græcorum_, II, 1142.

[47] _Frogs_, v. 1122: ἀσαφὴς γὰρ ἦν ἐν τῇ φράσει τῶν πραγμάτων.

[48] vv. 846-54.

[49] vv. 518-44.

[50] _Frogs_, 939 _sqq._

[51] _Ibid._ 948 _sqq._

[52] _Ibid._ 959: σύνεσμεν may recall Grant Allen’s famous sentence about taking Hedda Gabler down to dinner.

[53] Of these three points the first two come from Suidas (under the article Νεόφρων), the third from the argument to the extant _Medea_: τὸ δρᾶμα δοκεῖ ὑποβαλέσθαι τὰ Νεόφρονος διασκευάσας, ὡς Δικαίαρχός τε περὶ τοῦ Ἑλλάδος βίου καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν ὑπομνήμασι.

[54] vv. 1211-6.

[55] There is good reason to suppose that what we possess is a second version. The scholiast on Aristophanes mentions passages as parodies of lines in the _Medea_ which we no longer read there.

[56] In his ὑπομνήματα, quoted by the Argument to the _Medea_.

[57] πρῶτος εἰς τὸ νῦν μῆκος τὰ δράματα κατέστησεν.

[58] Unless we except the _Rhesus_ (996 lines).

[59] The original form of it seems to have been:—

ὥστ’ οὐχ ὑπάρχων ἀλλὰ τιμωρούμενος ἀγωνιοῦμαι.

[60] The name is not certain. The book is variously called ὑπομνήματα (“notes”), ἐπιδημίαι (“visits”), and συνεκδημητικός. The first is not a “name”—it merely describes the book. The second was explained by Bentley to mean “accounts of the visits to our island of Chios by distinguished strangers”. The third could mean something like “traveller’s companion”.

[61] Plutarch (_De Profectu in Virtute_, 79 E), no doubt quoting from Ion, tells us that at a critical moment in a boxing match Æschylus nudged Ion and said: “You see what a difference training makes? The man who has received the blow is silent, while the spectators cry aloud.”

[62] Plutarch, _Pericles_, Chap. V.

[63] v. 835. To the scholium on this line we owe much of our information about Ion.

[64] One of them bears the curious title “Great Play” (μέγα δρᾶμα), but nothing is known of it.

[65] _Frogs_, 1425.

[66] XXXIII, 5 (Prof. Rhys Roberts’ translation).

[67] Diog. Laert. II, 133.

[68] Croiset III, p. 400 (n.), thus explains the strange words of Suidas, ἐπεδείκνυτο δὲ κοινῇ σὺν καὶ Εὐριπίδῃ.

[69] Haigh, _Tragic Drama of the Greeks_, p. 409.

[70] Ath. X, 451 C.

[71] Aristotle, _Poetic_, 1451_b_.

[72] _Ibid._ 1456_a_ (Butcher’s translation).

[73] Plutarch, _Symposiaca_, 645 E.

[74] _Thesm._ 100: μύρμηκος ἀτραπούς.

[75] Aristotle, _Poetic_, 1456_a_.

[76] _Ibid._

[77] _Ibid._

[78] Such a sentence as that of M. Orgon in _Le jeu de l’amour et du hasard_ (I, ii.): “Va, dans ce monde, il faut être un peu trop bon pour l’être assez,” strikes one as thoroughly Agathonesque.

[79] _Protagoras_, 315 E.

[80] _Symposium_, 198 C. Socrates says of Agathon’s panegyric upon Eros: καὶ γάρ με Γοργίου ὁ λόγος ἀνεμίμνησκεν. The whole speech of Agathon is intended to show these characteristics. Cp., for example, 197 D: πρᾳότητα μὲν πορίζων, ἀγριότητα δ’ ἐξορίζων· φιλόδωρος εὐμενείας, ἄδωρος δυσμενείας κτἑ.

[81] _Thesm._ 130 _sqq._

[82] _Ibid._ 54 _sqq._

[83] It is noteworthy that Socrates’ famous “prophecy of Shakespeare” (_Symposium_, 223 D), “one who can write comedy can write tragedy and _vice versa_,” is addressed to Agathon and Aristophanes jointly.

[84] The attribution of this play to Critias is not certain, but probable; it is accepted by Wilamowitz. The new life of Euripides by Satyrus (see above, p. 18) attributes it to that poet.

[85] _Eratosthenes_, II.

[86] _Poetic_, 1453_b_.

[87] _De Gloria Atheniensium_, 349 E.

[88] _Poetic_, 1455_a_, _b_.

[89] Aristotle, _Rhetoric_, III, 12, 2: βαστάζονται δὲ οἱ ἀναγνωστικοί, οἷον Χαιρήμων· ἀκριβὴς γὰρ ὥσπερ λογογράφος.

[90] “You know how to feel contempt before you have learnt wisdom,” or, to reproduce (however badly) the play upon words, “You practise contempt before using contemplation”.

[91] Athenæus, fr. 10: δρᾶμα πολύμετρον.

[92] _Poetic_, 1447_b_.

[93] vv. 677-774.

[94] Symonds, _Studies in the Greek Poets_, II, p. 26.

[95] _Adversus Indoctos_, 15.

[96] Athenæus III, 98 D, reports, for example, that he called a javelin βαλλάντιον (properly “purse”), because “it is thrown in the face of the foe” (ἐναντίον βάλλεται).

[97] _Poetic_, 1454_b_.

[98] 1455_a_.

[99] _Rhetoric_, II, 1400_b_.

[100] _Ibid._ 1417_b_, but the passage is obscure.

[101] _Eth. Nic._ 1150_b_, 10.

[102] Ælian, V.H. XIV, 40.

[103] _Orator_, 51.

[104] _Poetic_, 1452_a_.

[105] _Ibid._ 1455_b_.

[106] “First there came a circle with a dot in the middle,” etc.

[107] θέλω τύχης σταλαγμὸν ἢ φρενῶν πίθον.

[108] That he belongs to the fourth century is not certain, though extremely probable.

[109] We have only one title (_Telephus_) which implies a legendary theme.

[110] Meineke suggests that the subject is an incident related by Xenophon, _Hellenica_, VI, iv. 33, 34.

[111] He might at least have written τοῖς ἀμείνοσιν.

[112] The meaning of this name is unknown.

[113] Athenæus XIII, 595 F.

[114] He uses the diminutive δραμάτιον.

[115] κατὰ ἰατρῶν (Stobæus, 102, 3). He was thus a precursor of Molière and Mr. Bernard Shaw.

[116] Diogenes Laertius, VII, 173.

[117] This point is made by Bernhardy, _Grundriss der Gr. Litteratur_ II, ii. p. 72.

[118] His date is not, however, certain, and there is some reason to assign his _floruit_ to the time of Alexander the Great.

[119] The most amazing example is that of the “Three Unities”—those of

## Action, Time, and Place—of which such a vast amount has been heard and

which ruled tyrannically over French “classical” tragedy. It is difficult to believe that Aristotle never mentions the “Three Unities”. On the Unity of Action he has, of course, much to say; the Unity of Time is dismissed in one casual sentence. As to the Unity of Place there is not a word. (It is signally violated in the _Eumenides_ and the _Ajax_.)

[120] _Poetic_, 1454_a_.

[121] _Ibid._

[122] See Wilamowitz-Moellendorff’s magnificent _Einleitung in die griechische Tragödie_, pp. 48-51 (_e.g._ “nicht mehr Aristoteles der aesthetiker sondern Aristoteles der historiker ist der ausgangspunkt unserer betrachtung” and “unser fundament ist und bleibt was in der poetik steht”).

[123] _Poetic_, 1449_b_: ἔστιν οὖν τραγῳδία μίμησις πράξεως σπουδαίας καὶ τελείας μέγεθος ἐχούσης, ἡδυσμένῳ λόγῳ χωρὶς ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰδῶν ἐν τοῖς μορίοις, δρώντων καὶ οὐ δι’ ἀπαγγελίας, δι’ ἐλέου καὶ φόβου περαίνουσα τὴν τῶν τοιούτων παθημάτων κάθαρσιν.

[124] 1448_a_.

[125] 1451_a_, _b_.

[126] 1462_a_.

[127] 1462_a_, _b_. (The phrasing in the summary above is borrowed from Butcher.) See further 1449_b_.

[128] 1450_b_.

[129] 1450_a_.

[130] 1451_a_.

[131] 1451_a_.

[132] 1451_b_.

[133] 1452_a_.

[134] 1452_a_.

[135] 1452_b_.

[136] οἱ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ θάνατοι.

[137] 1453_a_.

[138] 1453_b_.

[139] 1454_a_, _b_.

[140] pp. 163-5.

[141] pp. 313-5.

[142] 1454_b_, 1460_a_.

[143] 1452_b_: ἔστιν δὲ πρόλογος μὲν μέρος ὅλον τραγῳδίας τὸ πρὸ χοροῦ παρόδου, ἐπεισόδιον δὲ μέρος ὅλον τραγῳδίας τὸ μεταξὺ ὅλων χορικῶν μελῶν, ἔξοδος δὲ μέρος ὅλον τραγῳδίας μεθ’ ὃ οὐκ ἔστι χοροῦ μέλος, χορικοῦ δὲ πάροδος μὲν ἡ πρώτη λέξις ὅλη χοροῦ, στάσιμον δὲ μέλος χοροῦ τὸ ἄνευ ἀναπαίστου καὶ τροχαίου, κόμμος δὲ θρῆνος κοινὸς χοροῦ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ σκηνῆς.

[144] p. 4.

[145] Chap. VI.

[146] 1455_b_.

[147] 1452_a_.

[148] 1450_b_.

[149] Plato (_Symposium_, 175 E) makes Socrates congratulate Agathon on his success in the presence of “more than 30,000 Greeks”. Modern archæologists, by statistics based on the seating-accommodation, would reduce this figure to 17,000.

[150] There are fourteen of these at Athens.

[151] This account is based on Dörpfeld (_Das griechische Theater_, Abschnitt VII) who believes there was no stage, and on Haigh (_Attic Theatre_³, edited by Mr. Pickard-Cambridge, Chap. III) who believes there was a stage.

[152] That is, shorter, viewed from left to right by the spectators. The depth of the Vitruvian stage was 10 feet.

[153] Vitruvius V, vii, 3-4.

[154] By Wieseler and others.

[155] Haigh³, pp. 165-74.

[156] ἀναβαίνω: _Knights_, 148; _Acharnians_, 732; _Wasps_, 1342.

[157] καταβαίνω: _Eccles._ 1151; _Wasps_, 1514.

[158] Euripides, _Ion_, 727, _Electra_, 4 _sq._, _Herc. Fur._ 119. As Haigh (3rd ed., p. 167) points out, “in the last passage it is the chorus which makes the complaint; so that in this case, if there was any visible ascent, it cannot have been the ascent to the stage”.

[159] This is a strong and favourite argument for the stage; when Haigh (3rd ed., p. 168) denies this because “a sufficient reason is ... the fact that, if they had gone into the palace, the scene of action would have been left empty for the time being,” he forgets that such a departure of the chorus is quite possible. It occurs in _Eumenides_, _Ajax_, _Alcestis_, and _Helena_, not to mention Comedy.

[160] Haigh³, p. 170 _sq._

[161] _Symposium_, 194 B.

[162] _Ars Poetica_, 278: Æschylus et modicis instravit pulpita tignis.

[163] _Das Gr. Theater_, p. 350.

[164] He wrote a lexicon to Plato in the third century after Christ.

[165] Dörpfeld gives various optical diagrams to exhibit the effects.

[166] We incessantly see this effect in modern theatres. But in Greece the presence of the chorus performing below would force spectators to regard the building as suspended.

[167] Save, of course, those on the new lowest seats, which went down to the new level of the excavated half. Dörpfeld has discovered evidence that the present lowest seats at Athens were added after the rest.

[168] _Das griechische Theater_, p. 364. After the publication of this view Dörpfeld altered his opinion, and suggested (_Bull. Corr. Hell._ 1896, p. 577 _sqq._) that V. means not the ordinary Greek Theatre, but the Græco-Roman type found in Asia Minor. But this seems worse than his first thought. See Haigh³, pp. 147 _sq._

[169] _Ibid._ pp. 146 _sq._

[170] In Plato’s time this was notably so (_Laws_, 659 A-C, 700 C, 701 A).

[171] Plutarch, _Nicias_, 524 D.

[172] Aristotle, _Rhetoric_, III, i.

[173] This is the usual term employed. See, however, Haigh³, p. 13, note 3: “the word τετραλογία was applied only to a group of four plays connected in subject,” etc.

[174] This was certainly the number for comedy; it is assumed for tragedy.

[175] τράγος. This was supposed to be the origin of the word “tragedy” (τραγῳδία “goat-song”).

[176] Vitruvius, V, vi., and Pollux, iv., 126.

[177] Professor Ridgeway makes much use of this custom in his theory that Greek drama originated in celebrations at the tombs of great persons. See his _Origin of Tragedy_, and pp. 2 _sq._ above.

[178] Haigh³, p. 187.

[179] _Clouds_, 225.

[180] Pollux (iv. 128), who gives the most definite description, adds: “one must understand it at each door, as it were in each house,” but his unsupported testimony on any subject is not trustworthy.

[181] In fact Pollux, who is fond of making a particular case into a general rule, may have had this instance in his head. He writes (iv. 128): “the eccyclema is a lofty stand raised upon timbers and carrying a chair” (ἐπὶ ξύλων ὑψηλὸν βάθρον ᾧ ἐπίκειται θρόνος).

[182] Ar. _Knights_, 1249.

[183] This story occurs in the anonymous _Life_ of Æschines.

[184] They are mutes, for the lines supposed to be uttered by one or both behind the scenes were probably delivered by one of the actors not needed “in front”.

[185] The _Œdipus Coloneus_ is an exception. See Jebb’s _Introduction_, 3rd ed., pp. 7, 8.

[186] Cp. the vigorous protest of Pratinas (p. 6).

[187] Pherecrates, _Cheiron_, frag. 1, cp. Arist. _Thesmoph._ 100.

[188] Ar. _Frogs_, 1314.

[189] We hear from the scholiast on _Choephorœ_, 900, that the same actor took the part of Pylades and of the servant who gives the alarm. The latter after arousing Clytæmnestra rushes within, and when the Queen has uttered five lines Pylades appears accompanying Orestes. This example is given by Haigh³, p. 232.

[190] Told by the scholiast on Aristophanes, _Frogs_, 303.

[191] The slovenliness in this regard of many modern actors is mostly due to “long runs”. After saying the same thing hundreds of times, an actor naturally tends to mechanical diction. The writer has heard a performer in an emotional crisis suddenly (as it appeared) call for champagne. Feeling sure that “Pommery” could not be right, he reflected, and discovered that the mysterious syllables meant “Poor Mary!” Even actors at the head of the profession are guilty of such things as “the lor of Venice”.

[192] See Haigh³, p. 279 _sq._, for some highly interesting extracts.

[193] _Poetic_ 1456_a_ (tr. Butcher).

[194] _Ibid._

[195] This was the normal mode of entry, but the plot sometimes demanded others. In the _Eumenides_ the Chorus rush in pell-mell; so probably in the _Bacchæ_; in the Euripidean _Supplices_ they are discovered grouped around the Queen.

[196] See pp. 344 _sq._

[197]

ὥστ’ εἴ τις ὀρχοῖτ’ εὖ, θέαμ’ ἦν· νῦν δὲ δρῶσιν οὐδέν, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἀπόπληκτοι βάδην ἑστῶτες ὠρύονται.

[198] Haigh³, p. 318. Both the gestures described sound like a curious anticipation of the gestures favoured by the performers of “coon-songs”.

[199] This was not always an advantage when comedy held the scene. There is a delightfully impudent passage in the _Frogs_ (v. 297) where Dionysus to escape a hobgoblin appeals to his own priest for protection.

[200] For a detailed description of the seating see Haigh³, pp. 94-101.

[201] It is a fact familiar to students of comparative religion that obscenity is often a part of ritual. This is true of several Greek worships, including that of Dionysus. Hence even tragedy retained its satyric complement, though satyric drama regularly showed obscene features.

[202] Puchstein would date it earlier (end of the fifth century).

[203] Plutarch, _Liber Amatorius_, 756 B, C.

[204] ἐκσυρίττειν (“to hiss off”).

[205] Demosthenes, _De Falsa Legatione_, § 337.

[206] _Ethics_, X, 1175 B.

[207] _Date_: uncertain. Professor Tucker thinks the year 492-1 probable; Æschylus was then thirty-three years old. Historical considerations are here of doubtful value, but the technique of the play seems to prove beyond question that it is an early work.

_Arrangement_: protagonist, Danaus, Egyptian herald; deuteragonist, King of Argos.

[208] In the centre of the orchestra, as always.

[209] Danaus is necessarily dismissed so that the actor who impersonates him may appear as the Egyptian herald.

[210] vv. 991-2.

[211] vv. 994-1013.

[212] Ζεύς (or words derived therefrom) occurs about sixty times.

[213] vv. 91-5 (Professor Tucker’s translation).

[214] vv. 230-1.

[215] _Date_: 472 B.C. _Arrangement_: protagonist, Atossa and Xerxes; deuteragonist, Messenger and Darius.

[216] The actor who presents the queen has now to present the king.

[217] This was a satyric play, and must not be confused with the extant _Prometheus_.

[218] See Patin, _Eschyle_, p. 211.

[219] _Henry V_, IV, viii.

[220] vv. 361-2.

[221] _Arrangement_: protagonist: Eteocles and Antigone; deuteragonist, messenger, and herald. The part of Ismene was taken by a member of the chorus.

[222] _Frogs_, 1021.

[223] vv. 591-4.

[224] _Life of Aristides_, III.

[225] Dr. Verrall, however, in his Introduction (pp. xiv, xv) sees technical drama of the highest kind in the choosing of the champions. As the Theban warriors are told off one by one, the chorus (and audience) see with ever-increasing horror that Eteocles must be left as the opponent of Polynices.

[226] Müller-Heitz (_Griechische Litteraturgeschichte_, ii. p. 88) point out, also, that this play needs more elaborate machinery than any other extant drama. But it may well be doubted whether all the effects mentioned by the poet are realized.

[227] Bia (“Violence”), also present, is a mute.

[228] See H. Weil’s masterly _Note sur le Prométhée d’Eschyle_ (_Le drame antique_, pp. 86-92).

[229] Zeus had intended to wed Thetis. On hearing the secret, he married her to Peleus, who became the father of Achilles.

[230] It is fairly certain that it dealt with Menelaus’ visit to Egypt on his way back from Troy. He was shipwrecked on an island and the prophetic Proteus gave him advice, sending him first to Egypt. See _Odyssey_, IV, 351-586.

[231] _Arrangement_: protagonist, Clytæmnestra; deuteragonist, Herald, Cassandra; tritagonist, Sentinel, Agamemnon, Ægisthus.

[232] See especially his _Introduction_ (pp. xiii-xlvii of the 2nd edition).

[233] This is noted by an admirable touch. Almost always a tragedy ends with words of the chorus as the least impassioned parties. In the _Agamemnon_ the closing words are uttered by Clytæmnestra.

[234] _Choephorœ_, 889.

[235] _The Relapse_, V, iv. 135.

[236] _Arrangement_: protagonist, Orestes; deuteragonist, Electra, Clytæmnestra; tritagonist, Pylades, nurse, attendant, Ægisthus.

[237] This is of course a conventional _mise-en-scène_; we are to imagine the tomb as distant from the palace.

[238] On this and the other “tokens” see below, p. 258.

[239] The dead man is undoubtedly supposed to send aid in a mysterious way, but no ghost appears, as in the _Persæ_. This discrepancy points to a change in religious feeling. Clytæmnestra’s shade “appears” in the _Eumenides_, but as a dream (see v. 116).

[240] vv. 870-4. It seems most natural to suppose that they altogether quit the orchestra, returning before v. 930.

[241] Not quite, however. The poet is to depict a man, with whom we are to sympathize, almost in the act of slaying his mother. Not only Orestes, but the spectator also, needs as much spiritual fortification as can be provided.

[242] vv. 313: δράσαντι παθεῖν.

[243] _Arrangement._—Croiset gives: protagonist, Orestes; deuteragonist, Apollo; tritagonist, Athena, priestess, ghost of Clytæmnestra. This _grouping_ is certainly right, but it is not easy to suppose that the part of Athena was given to the tritagonist. It seems better to give Athena, etc., to the protagonist, Apollo to the second, and Orestes to the third actor.

[244] Probably the _eccyclema_ was used. See pp. 66-8.

[245] vv. 517-9:—

ἔσθ’ ὅπου τὸ δεινὸν εὖ καὶ φρενῶν ἐπίσκοπον δεῖ μένειν καθήμενον.

[246] The actual rule of the Areopagite Court was that if the votes were even the defendant was acquitted. This rule was explained as derived from the “Vote of Athena” in the trial of Orestes. It seems then that Athena’s vote here makes inequality, not equality. Therefore her pebble is not put into either urn, but laid between them.

[247] It is implied by the title of the drama that they assume the title Eumenides or “Gracious Ones,” but this title is not used in the play itself. Their most usual name was Σεμναί, “Awful Ones”.

[248] v. 644.

[249] In her great speech to the court she plainly adopts the language of the Furies. See below.

[250] v. 747: ἡμῖν γὰρ ἔρρειν, ἢ πρόσω τιμὰς νέμειν.

[251] Dr. Verrall (_Introduction_ to his edition, pp. xxxii, xxxiii) explains the reconciliation of the Furies as the result of a mystic revelation conveyed not in words but through a kind of spiritual magnetism exercised by Athena when she draws near to them at v. 886 (he notes the break in syntax at this point); such an influence could not be shown forth in words—it is too sacred and mysterious. But if a poet does undertake to dramatize the truths of religion, he must do so in dramatic form; he ought not suddenly to throw up his task. Several places in Æschylus can be found where he does put such ideas into words.

[252] This appears to me certain from Athena’s language to the court, but the reader should not suppose that the Furies say so definitely; they acquiesce.

[253] vv. 696-8.

[254] This vital point is admirably demonstrated by Dr. Verrall on v. 1046.

[255] This number is not certain. It is probably an under-statement.

[256] ποδαπὸς ὁ γύννις;

[257] ἐνθουσιᾷ δὴ δῶμα, βακχεύει στέγη.

[258] βρῦτον.

[259] _On the death of Kirk-White_: “’Twas thine own genius gave the fatal blow,” etc. The fiery verse, ὅπλων ὅπλων δεῖ· μὴ πύθῃ τὸ δεύτερον, recalls the famous line: “A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!”

[260] _Frogs_, 911-3.

[261] Meineke, II, p. 1177.

[262]

οἱ θεῶν ἀγχίσποροι οἱ Ζηνὸς ἐγγύς ὧν κατ’ Ἰδαῖον πάγον Διὸς πατρῴου βωμός ἐστ’ ἐν αἰθέρι, κοὔπω σφιν ἐξίτηλον αἷμα δαιμόνων.

Cp. Plato, _Republic_, 391 E.

[263] _Oration_ 52.

[264] Only one has survived, that of Sophocles.

[265] _Titus Andronicus_, II, i. 5-7.

[266] _Frogs_, 924-5.

[267] _Ag._ 494-5. In spite of Dr. Verrall’s ingenious remarks, it seems best to take this phrase in the traditional way, as a mere extravagance.

[268] _P.V._ 170.

[269] _Septem_, 493-4.

[270] _Choeph._ 451-2.

[271] _Eum._ 137-8.

[272] _Frogs_, 1261-95.

[273] _Suppl._ 836-7. I see no reason for supposing that the Greek is defective.

[274] _Ibid._ 12.

[275] _Ibid._ 608.

[276] _Persæ_, 115.

[277] _Ibid._ 346.

[278] _Persæ_ 395.

[279] _Ibid._ 815.

[280] _Septem_, 593.

[281] _P.V._ 89-90.

[282] _Ibid._ 993.

[283] _Ag._ 1434.

[284] _Choeph._ 647.

[285] _Eum._ 694.

[286] Haigh, _Tragic Drama_, pp. 82 _sq._

[287] _Frogs_, 932.

[288] Professor Gilbert Murray, _Literature of Ancient Greece_, p. 217.

[289] vv. 908 _sqq._

[290] Frogs, 1119 _sqq._

[291] Dr. Verrall’s theory is still, I believe, accepted only by a minority.

[292] _P.V._ vv. 350-2.

[293] _Danaides._

[294] Cp. _Septem_, 592-4 (Aristides), _P.V._ 1068 (Themistocles), and the references to the Areopagus (vv. 681-710) and to the Athenian Empire (vv. 398-401) in the _Eumenides_.

[295] _Choeph._ 313 _sq._: δράσαντι παθεῖν, τριγέρων μῦθος τάδε φωνεῖ.

[296] _Ag._ 750-7.

[297] _Septem_, 689-91.

[298] _Choeph._ 1076.

[299] Æschylus never worked himself entirely free from this savage conception of sin as a material defilement. Orestes, among the proofs that he has expiated his offence, mentions the use of swine’s blood as a cleansing power (_Eum._ v. 283).

[300] See Dr. Verrall’s discussion of the prologue to the _Eumenides_, _Euripides the Rationalist_, pp. 220-4.

[301] _Eum._ vv. 640-51.

[302] _Arrangement_: protagonist, Ajax, Teucer (Ajax, when dead, is represented by a lay figure); deuteragonist, Odysseus, Tecmessa; tritagonist, Athena, messenger, Menelaus, Agamemnon.

[303] For the arguments see Jebb’s _Introduction_ (pp. li-liv) to the _Ajax_. He thinks _Antigone_ the earlier.

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

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

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

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

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

[309] vv. 450-70.

[310] _Rhetoric_, III, xvi. 9.

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

[312] See pp. 8, 15.

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

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

[315] vv. 1424-5.

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

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

[318] vv. 616-21.

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

[320] vv. 1331-3.

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

[322] vv. 774 _sqq._

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

[324] See Aristotle, _Poetic_, 1454_b_.

[325] vv. 130-1.

[326] See pp. 127-8.

[327] vv. 124-5.

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

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

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

[331] vv. 758-64.

[332] vv. 1117-8.

[333] v. 1141.

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

[335] See Jebb’s _Introduction_, pp. xxxviii _sq._

[336] vv. 575-7 (Jebb’s translation).

[337] vv. 547-9.

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

[339] vv. 719 _sq._

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

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

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

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

[344] Jebb points out that _Trach._ 416 and _Supplices_ 567 are practically identical.

[345] v. 1140.

[346] 268.

[347] vv. 9-14.

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

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

[350] vv. 1007-15.

[351] _E.g._ Mahaffy (_History of Gk. Lit., Poets_, pp. 309-12).

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

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

[354] vv. 1404 _sqq._

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

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

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

[358] _Or._ 52.

[359] vv. 936 _sqq._, 987 _sq._, etc.

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

[361] v. 1455.

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

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

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

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

[366] v. 106.

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

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

[369] vv. 670-80 (Jebb’s version).

[370] See below, p. 185.

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

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

[373] vv. 1503 _sq._

[374] _King Lear_, III, iv.

[375] vv. 1627 _sq._ Cp. 1 Sam. iii. 10.

[376] Deut. xxxiv. 6.

[377] Heb. xi. 22.

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

[379] v. 472.

[380] v. 506.

[381] vv. 964 _sq._

[382] vv. 1422-5.

[383] See Jebb, _Introduction_, pp. xxi _sq._

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

[385] See pp. 10, 12 _sq._

[386] _Ad Quintum Fratrem_, II, xv. 3.

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

[388] _De Subl._ XV, 7: ἄκρως πεφάντασται.

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

[390] _Birds_, vv. 100 _sqq._

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

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

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

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

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

[396] See pp. 15-17.

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

[398] _O.T._ 587-8:

ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν οὔτ’ αὐτὸς ἱμείρων ἔφυν τύραννος εἶναι μᾶλλον ἢ τύραννα δρᾶν.

[399] _Electra_, vv. 328 _sqq._

[400] See p. 16.

[401] _Electra_, 303-16.

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