EUR. HEC.

1035-38
The resemblance of Eur. Hec. 1035-38 to Aesch. Ag. 1343-46
has apparently not received comment. And yet it may seem
close enough to suggest indebtedness:
Aesch. Ag. 1343-46
xatitav 7Y]ircrv P'ow.
(ciotl, ie7mrDy,/atl
oaya * Trign.yrl)v dvrdE xalQtoCwo)irao^tvo;
(Dluot da' aviOtg,6evr4Qav rnenrl?yYLvog.
l laotso oilbyoalotv.
roVQyov elQydoOat 6oxe zpaaot

Ay.
Xo.
Ay.
Xo.

Eur. Hec. 1035-38

Mn.
Xo.
17A.
Xo.

/oit, Trvp)OViat cpyyo o6/aTdrwvrdAag.

jxo6oaar' dv6Qo; OQYxbOolUwcyjv, cpi)al;
(iuol id.' aviOtg,Trxva, 6vaTrvov aopayf;.
qoUat, zrJenaxrat xaiv' Eaoo66ticwv xaxd.

1. Victim:
Aesch.

&)/ot, :r&]A?y/uat...
wJtotl id' avOe; ...ot..

Eur.

tjLot, Tvcp2ovJat. .
d' avOi . . .
oa

2. Chorus: The first line of the choral utterance of both Aeschylus and Euripides is a question, the second a statement to the
effect that the deed has been done; the cry of the victim off-stage
is explicitly referred to:
Aesch.

Eur. dv6b6; Oorxo; oi/wyrTv

pa(tic)w; olcuy/uaalv

3. The similarity between the situations (victim mishandled

off-stage; chorus on-stage guessing victim's fate from his cries)
cannot be claimed to imply dependence as it is a result of one of
the basic conventions of the Greek theater (violent action takes
place off-stage) and may, under the circumstances of certain
plots, be the inevitable result of these circumstances. But, due
to the same convention, scenes depicting similar situations are
found also in other plays. The comparison of Hec. 1035ff. with
Med. 1272ff. and El. 1163ff. shows that Euripides had more than
one way to cope with such situations and adds to the significance of the resemblance of Hec. 1035-38 to Ag. 1343-46.
Moreover, the sequence, in this passage, of the actions making
up Hecuba's revenge on Polymestor is contrary to the descrip5

RAANANA MERIDOR

tion in 1160-72, where the children are killed before the eyes of
their father prior to his blinding (which is also the order of IV
Kings 25.7).
This reverse arrangement1 seems to be due to the impact of
the pattern ofAesch. Ag. 1343-46 and may point to an unusually
vivid impression made on Euripides by the Agamemnon of
Aeschylus. Such an impression may have been occasioned by a
recent production of the Agamemnon. Since the Hecuba seems
to have been produced in 424 or 4252 and Aeschylean tragedies
are attested to have been reproduced at the City Dionysia from
426 on,3 the Agamemnon may indeed have been reproduced at
the time Euripides was composing the Hecuba.
A reproduction of the Oresteia has been tentatively suggested
by H. J. Newiger4 on the basis of reminiscences from the trilogy
in Aristophanes' Clouds. If the above interpretation of Hec.
1035-38 is accepted, this would strengthen the case for reproduction.
RAANANAMERIDOR
THE HEBREW UNI\E:RSIIY

()F JERUSALEM

The reverse order of events in Hec. 1035-38 was brought to my attention by

Prof. S. G. Daitz.
2 See E. B.
Ceadel, "Resolved Feet in the Trimeters of Euripides and the
Chronology of his Plays,' CQ 30 (1941) 75.
3 Aristoph. Ach. 9, with scholia.
4
See H. J. Newiger, 'Elektra in Aristophanes' Wolken," Hermes 89(1961).