Audience Address in Greek Tragedy

Author(s): David Bain

Source: The Classical Quarterly , May, 1975, Vol. 25, No. 1 (May, 1975), pp. 13-25
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/638240

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Classical Association and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Quarterly

This content downloaded from

132.174.249.46 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 16:42:30 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AUDIENCE ADDRESS IN GREEK TRAGEDY

ALL drama is meant to be heard by an audience, so th

which any utterance in a play may be called audience
however, to draw a distinction between on the one hand
which the presence of an audience is acknowledged
explicitly by direct address or reference to the audience,
ence to the theatrical nature of the action the actors are
combination of some or all of these elements-and on the other hand the kind of
drama in which such a presence is not acknowledged, where the actors main-
tain the pretence that they are enacting a real as distinct from a theatrical
event. In practice the first type of drama is described as 'illusion'-breaking and
the second as 'illusion'-preserving. Although the term 'illusion' is not an
entirely satisfactory one and of late has come in for criticism when applied to
ancient drama, I shall continue to use it from time to time in what follows.'
All that I mean when I say that an actor preserves the illusion is that he pre-
tends to be a character other than himself and that his pretence is accepted by
the audience. Once the actor abandons this pretence and admits or implies
that he is an actor playing before an audience, the man playing Trygaeus
rather than Trygaeus himself, he is breaking the illusion.
With regard to Greek drama, it is common to draw the kind of distinction
mentioned above. Tragedy is supposed consistently to maintain the illusion,
Comedy frequently to break it. Although such a view is often to be met in
standard works on Greek drama (an exception as regards Tragedy sometimes
being made for Euripidean prologues and end-pieces),2 there are occasions
when scholars have thought fit to question the strictness of its application and
to assert of particular passages in Tragedy that they are addressed directly to the
audience. It is proposed here to collect such evidence as is available on the
topic and to re-examine the proposition that Tragedy consistently preserves
the illusion. As it happens the examination will be a selective one. I propose
only to deal with those passages of Tragedy (and, in an epimetrum, of Satyr-
drama) which seem to afford evidence of direct address of, or reference to, an
audience. Other aspects of the question, those concerning the less explicit ways
of breaking the illusion, such as the use of anachronisms,3 the possible employ-
ment of theatrical terms,4 and the oblique references to the work of rival
x G. M. Sifakis (Parabasis and Animal 2 See, for example, W. Schmid, Geschichte
Choruses, ch. I) thinks the term completely der griechische Literatur, i. 4- 43 and M.
inappropriate for Greek drama. I believe Pohlenz, Die griechische Trag6die2, 432. On
that he is fudging a distinction that is still Euripidean prologues and curtain lines see
valid and confusing 'realism' with 'illusion- below, p. 22.
ism' (cf. K. J. Dover, Aristophanic Comedy, 56). 3 See Gudeman on Aristotle Poet. I46oa
What is unsatisfactory about the term applied and the literature cited there.
to any form of drama is the suggestion it 4 e.g. Spapa A. Ag. 533, 7TLC K 'vovc : YdovC
carries that an audience may be in some Soph. Ai. 579, rrlcoo80c Soph. O.C. 730,
way deceived so as to confuse stage fiction Karacrpo~'7 Soph. O.C. 103. In none of these
with reality (compare the characteristically cases can it be convincingly shown that the
robust judgements of Dr. Johnson on this poet is consciously employing theatrical ter-
subject in his i765 Preface to Shakespeare minology meant to be understood as such by
[pp. 70-I of Dr. Johnson on Shakespeare, ed. the audience.
W. K. Wimsatt]).

This content downloaded from

132.174.249.46 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 16:42:30 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 14 DAVID BAIN

tragedians,' which are all alleg

occasion. I do not in fact belie
that should cause us to revise

Before examining those passages of extant Greek Tragedy which have been
alleged to contain audience address, we must take account of some ancient
testimony for the belief that such an effect was possible.

Aelius Aristides in his oration 7rEpt oio r7apaOyOyplaroc defends himself against
the charge of inappropriately introducing a personal allusion into his enco-
mium of Athena.2 After dilating upon countless personal references to be found
in literature from Hesiod and Homer onwards, he turns to speak of dramatic
poetry (Dindorf ii. 523 = Keil 28. 95-7). He makes this transition by pointing
out how Isocrates (an allusion to the Panegyricus, Isocr. 4. 13 ff.) begins 'like
a comic poet, promising to speak in a manner worthy of the matter on hand and
of the time he had spent in preparing the speech and ends by challenging all
to compete with him'. 'If this excess is allowed him', continues Aristides, 'why

should I be prevented pCr8' cov A'yov 'ow 7rapaOeye',acOaL? Indeed, one might
see the people who preside over dramatic contests and the spectators thereof
allowing comedians and tragedians and such indispensable competitors as
these to come forward and speak a little about themselves and often they remove
their masks during the play and deliver pretentious speeches.'3
This implies that there was in Tragedy something similar to the parabasis
(N.B. 7rapaflfvaL) of Comedy, a place where the poet spoke directly to the
audience outside the drama through the medium of his chorus. Confirmation
appears to be provided by a curious passage in Pollux (4. II I). 'Among the
detclaora of Comedy', he says, 'is the parabasis where the chorus comes forward
and communicates the poet's viewpoint to the audience. Though it is quite
reasonable for comic poets to do this, it is not appropriate to Tragedy. Even so,,
Euripides did so in several of his plays, among them the Danae where the poet
made the chorus who were portraying females sing something in addition on
his behalf. . . . Sophocles did the same sort of thing, but only rarely and then
out of rivalry with Euripides, as in his Hipponous.'4

x See Dio Chrys. 59- 3, Soph. O.C. I 116 ~
Eur. El. 907, Eur. Phoen. 751 ~ A. Sept. 375-
652, Eur. Hel. Io56 ~ (?) Soph. El. On this
topic see E. Stemplinger, Das Plagiat in der
griechischen Literatur, 196 f., 208, 266-7.
2 Dindorfii. 12 (37 Keil). The passage in
question has not been transmitted and per-
haps the offence it caused was a fiction.
3 Kal KIJ/L0JLSOC LEV Kal 7paywt0oLCC Kal -orLC
avayKaloLC TOVTOLC dyCVtLCTaLC L 3OL TLC av Katl
"ro7c dyovoOE'rac Kal Trobc OEar7d-c E'7LXwpovvrac
tLLKPOv rtL 7rEpt aur--v 7rapap7vaL aKaL rToAAaKLc
fEAdOV-IvE C "r r7TpocwctELov tlLraev -77c /Lodcr7c
7v V VTOKplvov7TaL rl5rlqyopovcL cE1vCJc. It is
difficult to be certain of the meaning of Kal
70roS' advayKatoc 70o70LC ~c ywvLc'aLc, but I
cannot see much point in the translation
offered by Sifakis (op. cit. 64), 'the perfor-
mers necessary to them'. Aristides is surely
being sarcastic as befits a holder of the Iso-
cratean belief that all other literature must
take second place to epideictic oratory (and
also of the view shared by Plato and Isocra-
tes that Comedy is OPTLKO'V: see speech
40 Dindorf rTEpl 70i-0 q~ E KWILWIJELSdv).
Keil is more apposite when he comments
'dvayKatoLc qui non boni sunt sed Aristidis
aequalium inscitiae et insulsitati necessarii'.
I take it from this that he takes rovroLC as
'these, the ones you know about' rather than
'to them'. (Jebb translates 'atque illis
necessariis athletis'.) Compare Hermogenes,
de id. 2. 226 (p. 249. I Rabe) -o70c T-OeV'AOLC
TOVTOLCL (-'rof'oLc VcAc) cootcraic.
4rv Se XOPLKWV aLC /La7-v 7WV KW/LLKWV
:V TL KaL 7l 7rTap afacLc, 7rav 7OL? rorrTq7C 7TPpdOc
OE'arpov flovAraTA AEyv d Xopc 7rapEAOcIv
AeYEL. 7TLELKWC S aYTO% 7OLOVCLV KCIMWOLSO-

This content downloaded from

132.174.249.46 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 16:42:30 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AUDIENCE ADDRESS IN GREEK TRAGEDY 15

Caution is required when facing the testimony of these autho

remembered that Aristides is not a historian of the theatre but a rhetorician
trying to argue a case, and that it is in the interests of the pseudo-argument he is
attempting to develop that he should cite parallels from as many literary
genres as possible. Having mentioned Comedy it is only natural that he should
think of Tragedy too.
Nevertheless the Pollux passage shows that there is something behind what
Aristides says, that it is not simply his own invention, and Pollux might be
thought to have better credentials in a case like this. He does at least appear to
provide hard evidence by mentioning two plays by name. Unfortunately we
have no control over his statements with regard to Euripides' Danae and Sopho-
cles' Hipponous and what he says about the confusion of gender in the former
defies explanation.' When we bring evidence from other sources to bear on the
passage, it is possible to cast doubt on Pollux's credibility.
The view expressed in Pollux (and perhaps implicit in Aristides, who does
not mention any tragedian by name) that Euripides indulges in extra-dramatic
digressions and disrupts the illusion is a commonplace of ancient criticism,
frequently to be found in the Euripides and Sophocles scholia.2 Plutarch
echoes it when after quoting Eur. fr. 978N. he comments: OoprtKwrL67'7q
KEXP7TqacL t EyaavXlaL cvyKaTr,7TAEKwV TOFS3 7paycWLtOVlEVOLC I7TCECL Kal 1TrpcyjLacL
/Lqm8v 7TPOCI7KOV7a -rV WITEpt aTro v AOyov (Plut. Mor. 539 c). Whether we should
accept this critical orthodoxy without considerable qualification is question-
able. Where we have any control over them, as in the Plutarch passage, the
statements of ancient writers about Euripides' vainglory can be seen to be
dependent on nothing more than speculative and arbitrary interpretation of
Euripides' text.
It is well known that ancient scholars were anxious to acquire as much bio-
graphical detail as possible about important literary figures and that much of
the detail to be found in ancient flot derives ultimately from the authors' own
works and in some cases from what was said about the authors in Comedy.3
Much of the biographical detail accumulated about Euripides comes from just
these sources, the utterances of characters in his own plays and of characters in
the plays of the comic dramatists who satirized him.4 It can be seen that his
reputation as a free-thinker and misogynist depends upon a process that was
already under way in his own lifetime, the isolation from their dramatic context
of remarks made by his characters and the assumption that such remarks
represented the poet's own viewpoint.5s When we bear in mind that ancient
scholars approached dramatic literature in this pernicious manner and we set

Reste und Spiiren antiker Kritik gegen Euripides

7oq77ra, 7rpaytKOV O o'-K ECTV'" ,'AA' E'paTrlaS r
a17o 7rE7TOL7olKEV v rroAAoc IpiLactv. iv pEv 7 y
Aavarle 'r6v Xop'v rac yvvaKac vva "aC rp ad7roV T
vrooLcac rapda~tvL EKAaO OEVOc cc dCv pac AEELV
ETrolo7CE
KaL TWL
CO OKAC CcXpatL
8 av 7)C71p0C
7 EK 77^C AEeEWC -r yvvaLKac.
EKELVOV -
Aqc rOLELd c7ravdLKLC, CIC7TEp EV I7"I7rdyvL.
I See Barrett on Eur. Hipp. I102-50.
2 See the index analyticus to Schwartz's
edition of the Euripides scholia s.v. pvOo-
rotLa, A. Trendelenburg, Grammaticorum
Graecorum de arte tragica iudiciorum reliquiae
(Diss. Bonn, 1867), 56 ff., and W. Elsperger,
(Philologus Supplementband, xi [1907-Io]),
passim.
3 See Wilamowitz, Antigonos von Karystos,
150; Ed. Schwartz, Fiinf Vortrdge fiber den
griechischen Roman, I 13 ; F. Leo, Griechische-
rdmische Biographie, Io05f. and Plautinische
Forschungen2, 71; and A. Momigliano, The
Development of Ancient Biography, 70.
4 See M. Delcourt, Ant. Class. ii (i933),
279 f. and P. T. Stevens, J.H.S. lxxvi (1956),
89.
s See Stevens, op. cit. 89 and n. i1.

This content downloaded from

132.174.249.46 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 16:42:30 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 16 DAVID BAIN

beside this approach two o

characters) in Euripides e
character sentiments, and s
choral lyric poetry for a c
likes using the first person
assertions about a tragic
scholion on the famous ode
relevant in this connection
SeLt c &cov per E'CXE 7ITC
is using the chorus as a ve
own behalf, doing exactly
the content of this ode that leads him to this view: the form in which the
opening assertion is couched suggests a personal utterance by the poet. Few
modern scholars would accept without question that dyco in a case like this is to
be interpreted as 'I, the poet' rather than 'I, the chorus-member'.2 If this is all
that lies behind the tradition of a tragic parabasis-and I suggest that it is-
the statements of Pollux and Aristides deserve little respect and are not really
relevant to our inquiry.
Using what we know of the practice of ancient biography and criticism of
the tragedians, we may also explain away Pollux's statement that Sophocles
too wrote tragic parabases.3 Presumably the Hipponous contained an ode which
because of its form and content lent itself to the kind of interpretation outlined

I In Tragedy compare Aesch. Ag. 472, heroic age and place us firmly in the world of
Eur. Andr. 465, 766, Eur. Hcld. 926, Ion 485, Athenian dramatic competitions, at'l a' Ev
El. 737, Hel. 1048, Bacch. 430, oo05, Erectheus crTEdfVOLCLV ELt)V Eur. H.F. 677 f., at p'
fr. 6o Austin. (N.B. what Satyrus [Fr. 39 col. XodpEvcav ibid. 686, and 71 SEL pE XOPEVELV
xvii. 20 ff.] makes of Euripides fr. 911.) Soph. O. T. 896, are not on closer inspection
2 The much-debated question of how far out of place in their dramatic context.
one is justified in identifying the views of theGarlands are after all the appurtenance to
poet with those expressed by his chorus is too any kind of celebration in the ancient world
large a topic to discuss properly here. It is and so is dancing, and the H.F. chorus has
worth observing, however, that scholars arereason to celebrate. It may strike people as
often misled by the formal characteristics absurd that a group of old men should
of Greek choral lyric when they regard describe themselves as dancing or contem-
particular passages as expressing the poet's plate that activity, but it happens quite
views and feelings (admiration for the pas-often in Tragedy where there is no question
sage often contributes to this view). This is of the poet using the chorus as a vehicle, e.g.
particularly the case with Eur. H.F. 673-86 Soph. Ant. 152-3, Eur. Held. 892 (for a
and the second stasimon of Sophocles' O. T. collection of passages where choruses refer to
In the case of the former, Wilamowitz themselves as dancing see M. Kaimio, The
assures us that we are being 'vouchsafed aChorus of Greek Drama within the light of the
glimpse into the poet's heart' (cf. Pohlenz, Person and Number Used [Commentationes
op. cit., 304) and Dodds commenting on Humanarum Litterarum, 46], I 19. On the H.F.
Soph. O. T. 896 r7 teL (E XopEELV asserts 'inode see the excellent article by H. Parry,
speaking of themselves as a chorus they step A.J.Ph. lxxxvi [1965], 363-74).
out of the play into the contemporary world' 3 That is surely all that should be inferred
(G. & R. xiii [1966], 46 = The Ancient
from Kat COOKA7c S' a6o' . .. c7raVLaKLC (N.B.
Concept of Progress, 75) and goes on to argue
Ezoptrr&q8c a37d-rrrolT KE ~ Co-Cox0KAc S' a'i-
from this that the real speaker is here the . . . -roLet). We are no more justified in
poet. But in neither case is it necessary to believing that in Hipponous there was a
believe that the sentiments expressed are passage in which Sophocles sought to re-
inappropriate for a collection of Theban old fute some statement made in a Euripidean
men and peculiarly appropriate to an chorus than in believing, as was once believed,
Athenian poet. The aspects of the odes that Sophocles like Euripides became con-
which seem to remove us from the imagined fused about the sex of his chorus. Welcker

This content downloaded from

132.174.249.46 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 16:42:30 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AUDIENCE ADDRESS IN GREEK TRAGEDY 17

above. Since such odes were regarded as characteristic of Euri

commentators would draw the conclusion that Sophocles' m
such an ode must have been the desire to emulate his rival. R
criticism between poets working in the same genre is an extr
theme of ancient biography and literary criticism.' In this pa
also have evidence of an ancient tradition that seeks to contr
not only Euripides' views (that is to say the view expressed b
and choruses) on religion and morality, but also his styl
technique with those of Sophocles.2 We read for instance
Soph. O.T. 264: at' ToLaLVa L EvvoLcas oUK EXovT7L t V T70 CEJ
ECLT o70 OECdrpov aK 7TAL aEOvtClo E E'ptTrl~' c. d 8E CobOK ACC
acrcov arTTETaL Tpoc TO KLtVqca ' OT Ca7pov. Note that her
passage, Euripides is blamed for the excessive use of an ef
appropriate to Tragedy: his sup"rior rival can be defended
restraint in such matters and when he indulges in such lapses
but rarely.
II

We may leave aside 'the tragic parabasis'4 and turn to a group of passag
which from time to time have been adduced as providing evidence for audien

(Griechische Tragddie, 429) rightly rejectedathe

pity we do not know more about Douris'
latter view, but he propounded the first and
rrEpt EpLrrtov Ka'L CooKAE'ovc F.Gr.H. 76,
was followed by Pearson in his edition offr.
the29 [see Leo, Griechische-rimische Biographie,
Sophocles fragments. So5] and Heraclides Ponticus' rTEpt rT^v iTap'
For an example concerning Sophocles
Ez~prlr qt Kal CoOOKAEL fr. 18o Wehrli. Even
and Euripides see 2Eur. Phoen. I. Compare
if they were not cvyKptcEc, the form of their
the allusions to Bacchylides and Simonides
titles does suggest that there was at least an
alleged to occur in Pindar (EP. 01. 2. 88
element of comparison contained in them).
[p. 99 Drachmann], ENem. 4. 37 [p.It 75
is interesting to note that the motif com-
Drachmann]) and the dispute between
mon to Pollux 4. 111 and ESoph. O.T. 264
Philemon and Menander (Athenaeus, 13. (see above) is found also in the Plutarchean
Comparatio Menandri et Aristophanis (Plut.
594 = C.A.F. 2. 534 = Men. fr. 945 Koerte-
Thierfelder). Literary rivals of any eraMor.
are 853. I)-3 8~ c Ka iAAodKlc. No cVy7cpLCLC
is traceable back beyond the fourth century
liable to be disputatious, but there is some-
thing excessively schematic about the wayB.C. (see F. Focke, Hermes lviii [1923], 341 f.,
the poets of antiquity quarrelled. from whose examples one must exclude the
Gorgianic work invented by Pohlenz), but
2 e.g. ZSoph. Ai. 520, Io37, ZSoph. Ant.
there can hardly be any doubt that the
155, ZSoph. O.C. 220. Much of this may
derive from, or rather have been collected
germs of the cvyKprccc as a literary form
already existed in the sophistic era (see
by, Didymus who was particularly interested
in the piety of classical authors (see M.M.L. West, C.Q. N.s. xvii [1967], 44 ) even
Schmidt, Didymi Chalcenteri Fragmenta, 93though
ff., Pohlenz (N.G.G. 1920, 142-78 =
A. R6mer, A.B.A.W. xix [1892], 641, Kleine Schriften, ii. 436 ff.) went too far in
Trendelenburg, op. cit. 56ff.). On the positing a Cdy7KpLCLc Alcxv'Aov Kal Etpvnr3sov
tendency to praise Sophocles at the expenseas a source for the contest in Aristophanes'
of Euripides see A. R6mer, Philol. lxv (I 906), Frogs (see R. Pfeiffer, A History of Classical
50 ff., a section entitled 'Die Euripides-Scholarship, 47).
Kritiker und die Sophokles-Schwairmer'. 3 For the phenomenon in question (double
Stevens (op. cit. 89) notes in Satyros' life the meanings) and its deprecation in ancient
tendency for Euripides and Sophocles to be commentaries see L. Trautner, Die Amphi-
regarded as polar opposites, and it is tempt-bolien bei den griechischen Tragikern und ihre
ing to see such a biographical tradition Beurteilung durch die antike Asthetik (Diss.
influencing the kind of comments we find in Erlangen, 1907).
the dramatic scholia. Perhaps there lies 4 When Kranz (Stasimon, 172) called
behind this polarizing of the two poets a Aesch. Eum. 517-65 a tragic parabasis, I am
cyKptacL E' p0r%8ov i Ka CofoKXAEovc. (It is sure he was speaking metaphorically.
C

This content downloaded from

132.174.249.46 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 16:42:30 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 18 DAVID BAIN

address in Tragedy. W
have been chosen eithe
because they illustrate t
adduced them and as s
applied to the interpret
i. Aesch. Ag. 36-9:
I S' aAAo cLy" oc '
PflE/q7KEV- OLKOC S3
caEc-i-a--' av AE'~ELEV W

iLaOoQvcLV avS8w KOV iLaOoV-C A10oi(aLL.

These are the exit lines of the watchman, alone on stage when he speaks them.

His darkly expressed LaOoicw ai3d8 KoI3 laOoica A8OolLat has often been taken
as a reference to the audience. It is not necessary, however, to believe that the
lines have so specific a reference: this is just an enigmatic way of saying that the
house has a secret which the watchman is reluctant to divulge. The mere
admission by a speaker alone on stage that he is speaking does not seem to me
sufficient to indicate that the speaker takes for granted the presence of a
theatre audience; it is simply a stage convention.2 Leo (Der Monolog im Drama,
8 n. I), who is followed by Fraenkel in his Agamemnon commentary ad loc.,
described the words of the watchman as being addressed to an imaginary
listener. As long as one is not seduced by this terminology into speculation
about the nature of speech (as I think Fraenkel is inclined to be), it will serve
to describe the phenomenon in question. If by convention a speaker on stage
alone admits that he is speaking, by convention he may be allowed to imagine
that his speech is liable to be overheard.
A passage such as this cannot of itself prove that tragic actors addressed the
audience directly, but if firm evidence were to be adduced from elsewhere to
show that such a thing was possible in Tragedy, then our view of what occurs in
Aesch. Ag. 39 and passages like it (and also of passages in which speakers who
are alone on stage made use of deictic pronouns)3 would have to be revised.

2. Soph. Ajax Io28:4

C-c'OacCe, vrpoc OEW-V, '7jV TXq V X VLV tv . . .

Teucer who has up to now been addressing the corpse of Ajax turns to address
a plurality of people, asking them to reflect on the respective fates of Hector and
I Wilamowitz's suggestion (Menanders to the aither); Phoen. 43; Or. 14-15, 26-8;
Schiedsgericht, 97) that Soph. Aiax Io83 oi)K Telephus fr. Io2, 8 Austin, Melanippe Sophe
p. 26 von Arnim, 11-12, Phrixus fr. 819N.
-v 7o7', Iv3pEc, dv3pa Oavpxdcac' er' might
be ad spectatores is unfortunate. Teucer is (cf. also Aesch, Sept. 658, where Eteocles is
surely addressing the chorus after turning soliloquizing).
angrily away from his interlocutor. Soph. 3 Common in all the dramatists, it can be
O.C. 1348 is exactly parallel. traced back to the prologue of Phrynichus'
2I do not agree with Kannicht (see also Phoenissae (fr. 8N.).
W. Nestle, Die Struktur des Eingangs, 5) when 4 The arguments adduced by Morstadt
he argues that AE'yotz' av in Eur. Hel. 22-3 and Nauck for the deletion of Soph. Aiax
indicates that the speech is adspectatores. For IO28-39 (see Nauck in Schneidewin-Nauck)
characters alone on stage admitting that have never received a proper refutation.
they are speaking, cf. Aesch. Eum. 43 ff.; Whether or not Sophocles wrote the lines
Soph. Tr. 21 ff.; Eur. Hipp. 9; L T. 37, 43 does not affect the point at issue.
(where the character claims to be speaking

This content downloaded from

132.174.249.46 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 16:42:30 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AUDIENCE ADDRESS IN GREEK TRAGEDY 19

Ajax, the men who exchanged gifts after that famous duel. Th
been taken by some' to be the audience despite the presence of
people, the chorus and Tecmessa, on stage at the time. One
Teucer's appeal is meant for a wider group than those on stage
Fraenkel (Mus. Helv. xxiv [1967], 192) points out argues f
Theseus' appeal CKE'acC 8 ' c rdv8' .. . (Eur. Hipp. 943) is m
meant for the world in general than for the chorus. That is n
saying that Teucer's speech is ad spectatores.
3. Eur. Tro. 36-8:3

a-rqv S' cWAt'av r7vS EL -LC ELCOpEW "OE'AE,

7TapECtv CEKC471 KEqLEVJ7 lT vWV7raw poc,
8&aKpva XEU'ovca rroA Kal roAAv vrcp.
Poseidon the prologue-speaker is alone on stage except for the semiconscious
Hecuba to whom he draws attention here. As often elsewhere4 we find in the
scholia the view that the audience is being addressed directly and as often
happens Euripides is roundly censured: 'He ought to have brought Hecuba on
stage lamenting her present troubles-that is the way to create pathos-as
/vXppoc rc7 OEdrpap 7Tpoc5tAE'yEraEL.' This assumption has been shared by many
modern scholars.s Schadewaldt for example argues that the unprejudiced
listener could not but feel himself addressed when hearing the word rtc. I am
not sure that this is the case. One can as easily mentally supply /por6v as lC5Fyv.

Compare Eur. H.F. 16 rc 7"v ALcC cvAAEKTrpov oK o~ Ev ApOT v; The same holds
good for Eur. El. 50 (cf. Aesch. Suppl. 56).
4. Eur. Or. 128 f.:
Ei'tE7E rrtap' lKpac wc dTEOpLCEV rplXac
cctdovca KaAAoc; E"CL 0 7)Sqa, r'a t yvv7.

These lines are spoken by Electra immediately after an altercation with Helen
who has just left the stage. Orestes is on stage but asleep and the chorus has yet
to enter (it does so at i4o). To whom then is ElSerE addressed? The ancient
commentators offer three alternative explanations.
i. 7r 'ELrE7E- -r 70Lv rOt OL 7Sc dv, CeO 7 r CaL7 KE KXKOTOV KCal ElV/ O"K 61V p lOV7a
L8OLc. This is obviously way off the mark, a desperate ad3ocXElacqLa by which
the ancient commentator tries to explain something he does not understand
by assimilating it to something with which he is relatively familiar.7 The
scholia on Tragedy often note the use of the second person singular as an in-
definite, and the two Homeric passages here cited (II. 3. 220 and 4. 223) are
the Musterbeispiele they use to illustrate the idiom.8 The inept adduction of
a Homeric passage is not uncommon in the scholia on Euripides' Orestes.9
I e.g. Welcker (Kleine Schriften, ii. 327--he Selbstgesprdch, Io and most recently J. R.
thinks that Teucer is holding up Ajax's Wilson, G.R.B.S. viii (1967), 214-
sword for the audience's inspection), 6 Actually this line too is taken as ad
Radermacher, and Kamerbeek. spectatores by W. Kraus (W. St. lii [1934], 67).
2 Cf. Plaut. Stich. 410o: 'videte, quaeso, 7 See A. R6mer, A.B.A.W. xix (1892),
quid potest pecunia.' 650.
3 The choice of variants in 37-8 does not 8 This may be added to the testimonia
affect the argument. Erbse prints below ZHom. Il. 3. 220 (Scholia
4 Cf. ZEur. Andr. 622 8taAE'yETaL 3 irpoc 7dGraeca in Homeri Iliadem, i. 400).
OGEapov and see Elsperger, op. cit., 153 ff. 9 See A. R6mer, Philologus lxv (1906), 79.
s e.g. W. Schadewaldt, Monolog und

This content downloaded from

132.174.249.46 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 16:42:30 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 20 DAVID BAIN

ii. 8voL 3' ac r-arc 3t~wcd

Tragedy the movements
out speaking roles are no
of the major characters
271, it is not until 335 th
But that is quite differen
would be the only indicat
stage and there is no par
is to hear two lines of in
presence of extras by hav
on an errand or, as in th

iii. OL S rrpOc 7T OBIarpov, 0 Ka' atlaELVOV. E'/KVUC7tKC yap ECC7LV d yci t1AAov 7rci
earCTv d rr7OrI7rjc, o0 CfpOovlw T-oWV CKPLOAyVOy'Vro70V. At first sight this ex-
planation is attractive. It is at least the obvious one and not surprisingly has
found many adherents in modern times,2 becoming as it were the prop on
which the case for audience address in Tragedy rests.3 Leo, however, (Der
Monolog im Drama, 31) denied this explanation and applied to ESE7 .E
Kadhoc the kind of terminology he used in discussing Aesch. Ag. 36-9: 'she
addresses imagined listeners, in Comedy it would be the audience.' Fraenkel in
a series of notes took up Leo's interpretation and provided illustrative parallels.4
While I accept the Leo-Fraenkel explanation, I do not find that Fraenkel's
parallels are uniformly apposite. Schadewaldt (Monolog und Selbstgesprdch, Io
n. 2) was surely corrects to distinguish the Orestes passage from harangues
introduced by second person plurals like Eur. Andr. 950 ff.: rpoc rdS' Ei
5vAdccErE / KKALOpOLCL Ka' FpLOXAoLL 38woJrwv rrvAac. The recipients of such tirades
are of course 'imagined' in the sense that they are not physically present on
stage, but in many cases they comprise a particular class of person,6 in this case
husbands (and possibly fathers). In some passages the section of humanity being
addressed is clearly specified: in Eur. Andr. 622 kv-qcr1-pEc, in Eur. Suppl. 744 f.
the politically ambitious, in Eur. Suppl. 949 W3 raTalrTWpoL /3poir-v (here of
course genus equals species) and in Eur. El. 383-5 people who judge only by
appearances. This form of utterance, which is very much a Euripidean manner-
ism and no doubt contributed to the reputation that Euripides acquired for
indulging in extra-dramatic audience address and being cdEAKVUCLK 5 7r-v
OEarc-v,7 is different from another more relevant phenomenon noted by
1 Compare also Soph. El. 516 ff., where 179-80.
there is no indication when Clytaemnestra s But he is wide of the mark (io n. i) in
enters that she is not alone. Only at 634 adducing Alexis fr. Io8 and Men. Per. 7
when she turns away from Electra do we (127 Sandbach). The tone in which actors
learn that she has been accompanied by a deliver expository prologue speeches in New
serving girl. See J. Andrieu, Le Dialogue Comedy is quite different from what we have
antique, 201-4. here.
2 Of recent commentators, Biehl accepts 6 Perhaps the famous Melanippe-fragment
that Euripides is here deploying a motif of which begins SOKEFTE v7r;8v rdStKrfLa ara (fr.
Comedy: di Benedetto, however, follows 56oN.) was prefaced by something like 'O
Fraenkel. foolish men!'
3 See W. Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen7 N.B. ZEur. Andr. 622. Presumably we
Literatur, i. 3. 786 n. i, W. M. Calder III,would have more such comments if the
Phoenix xiii (1959), 126 and H. F. Johansen,
alphabetic plays were equipped with scholia.
Lustrum vii (1962), 235. For an imitation of the mannerism in
4 See S.B.A.W. 1963 Heft 2, 111 f., Mus.Comedy compare Apollodorus (of Carystus)
Helv. xxiv (1967), 190-3 and xxv (1968),
fr. 5 Kock: c Wiva-ZEC JJvpwrIOL T rd, r3T v

This content downloaded from

132.174.249.46 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 16:42:30 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AUDIENCE ADDRESS IN GREEK TRAGEDY 21

Fraenkel. This is the angry or incredulous questio

hear that?'. The form is that of a question: the
alternative to 'look at/listen to that!'. In the case o
derives from the spoken language, one is not
deeply on the identity or existence of an addr
a phrase became fossilized like for instance 7rJc 8
which may be used when a plurality is being addr

There we might leave the question, accepting wi

preters of Or. 128 have failed to recognize an idiom
as evidence for or against the possibility of audie
that, failing any other convincing evidence, it is
istic of Comedy into an explanation of a phrase in

Had Electra begun by saying E'Ec no one would

bility of audience address here. She begins, howev
certing that in all Fraenkel's examples of the idiom
the verb is singular :

Eur. Ph. 1676: dSEc To rd1ALfAki' otov EWvaEdcEv

Ar. Eq. 269: (Oc 8' c Acoav, cbc 8~ ~pc0AXbc. dETc
Ar. Av. 1211 : 7'Kovcac vtn7C otov EtpWVEv-ETaL;
Ar. Lys. 379 9Kovcac a i-c 7 c To pdcovc;
One might have thought that it was precisely the
made such a phrase idiomatic. The plural in our p
I offer tentatively the suggestion that this may be
slightly altering an idiomatic phrase raises the
further from the level of ordinary speech and
dialogue.s
III

It should be clear by now that I do not believe that there is any

compels us to reject the traditional view of audience address in
believe that there existed in Tragedy anything resembling the
appeal to the audience found so frequently in Old Comedy and
we have more of Menander we can see was also a prominent

be a parallel. Plaut. Stich. 4IO is different

gSEWc / 7rapE'vTC E o7TLm ElECE rOV KaKWC
rTOEV I 'JoTAEoilvvr4c aA5Aotc; I (see
amabove, p. 19).
inclined
4 One might
to see the same practice in Men. Dysc. 746.add to Fraenkel's examples
Sandbach ad loc. takes it as audience
Cratinus fr. 6: E'8tEc r'v eactav 'Atrqv or'
address. ar-ra PLav'Ee.
s There are parallels in Sophocles and
I On r^c . . 80KEoC used by Dicaeopolis
when presumably addressing the audience at Euripides for phrases attested in the dialogue
Ar. Ach. 12 see K. J. Dover, Q.U.C.C. ix of Comedy or Plato appearing in a slightly
different, and one is tempted to think, more
(1970), 15-
2 Note e.g. Dem. 4. 1o fo0?AcO' E7rE) O elevated form. For example Soph. Phil. ~26o
(cf. also Plat. Prot. 311 d, Plat. Euthyd. 283 b 4, seems to allude to the more colloquial
and Ar. Ach. 328-Kiihner-Gerth i. 84). expression KAalwv (you will do this) and Eur.
3 In the analogous imperatival exclama- Med. 472 to echo but not reproduce the
tion 'look at/listen to that!' there are plural phrase Ev) yE rrow6)v. See P. T. Stevens, C.Q.
instances, but it is difficult to be sure in a xxxi (1937), 188 and C.Q. xxxix (1945), 1oo
(for a similar sort of effect as regards pro-
case like Ar. Ach. 770 0Lic0E ,-r8 ralc &r-
cirlac that the speaker is not addressing the nunciation, see A. Platt, C.Q. iv [191o], 158
audience. 'Spectate' in Ter. Andr. 231 might on Soph. O.T. 430).

This content downloaded from

132.174.249.46 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 16:42:30 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 22 DAVID BAIN

Comedy.' The two parts

dramatic illusion are the t
not say this of the prologu
piece beginning Z pdya CE
pidean plays.3 One has on
Comedy equivalents to see
regard to the illusion. The E
may say disrupts the illusi
ended with the expression
they also added direct appe
victory.4 The Euripidean p
the audience in a dry and
that they are often regard
logue, however, never adm
or appeal to it in the cou
Hermes at the beginning o
Dyscolus. After introducin
land of Delphi.' Pan begin
represents Phyle in Attica: 7
end of his speech Hermes
At the end of the Dyscolus

I mention here a curious notion enter- Dichter unmittelbar an die Zuschauer.'

tained by H. J. Rose and W. M. Calder
(SeeIIIalso W. Nestle, op. cit. 4-5.)
that tragic actors occasionally addressed 3the
I.T., Phoen., and Or. (N.B. EEur. Or.
audience in lieu of a stage crowd (Rose on
I69g1 70TO rrapa T70 Xopoo ECT Ay7d~LEvov 0 ?c
Aesch. Sept. I, and Calder with reference to
EK 7rpocoW7rov 7TO roLqTrov). This ending is
sometimes appended to other plays, and
Soph. O. T. I ff. in the article cited above).
Such an idea cannot be accepted (it Barrett
does on Eur. Hipp. 1462-6 doubts its
seem to have parallels in other forms of
authenticity.
drama-see Ann Righter, Shakespeare and4 the Men. Dysc. 966-9, Men. Mis. 464-5,
Men. Sam. 733 f., Men. Sic. 420-2, Men. fr.
Idea of the Play, ch. I) without firm evidence
that audience address was a possibility 771, in
Posidippus, P. Heidel. 183, 6-7 (= Comi-
Tragedy, but in any case the difficulties
corumof
Graecorum fragmenta in papyris reperta,
production which force Rose and Calder to
ed. Austin, 218, 12-13), Antiphanes, P. Oxy.
their suggestion seem to me illusory 427and
(= Austin fr. 3), Anon. P. Oxy. 1239
trivial when set beside the incongruities (= Austin 249, I7 ff.). Apparently Roman
entailed by its acceptance. It would Tragedy be a followed Comedy in ending with a
very odd kind of convention which demanded direct appeal to the audience (Quint. 6. I.
that an Athenian audience was to feel itself 52). This divergence from the norms of
involved in the action of plays that began Greek theatrical convention is paralleled for
thewS
Kcd8lov roAFrat, Xp' A'ELV Ta7 KaLpta or prologue of Roman Tragedy by what is
rEKva KdSpovu Troi rAa v4'a rpo6j implied
(one by Plaut. Amph. 41 ff. (on this see
would be more sympathetic towards grant-
H. D. Jocelyn, Antichthon, i [1967], 67).
ing such an effect for a line like Eur. s Criticism of Euripides' prologues and
Erectheus fr. 65. 78 Austin). In O. T. the trans- especially of the genealogies some of them
formation the audience is supposed to make contain is commonplace in antiquity: see
is particularly remarkable. They must e.g. ZAr. Ach. 47 and the Towneley scholion
become not merely the citizen body of on Hom. II. 15. 64 (it was not just in pro-
Thebes, but an unrepresentative collectionlogues that genealogies were to be found and
out of that citizen body (17 ff.). The effect criticized: see ZSoph. O.C. 220).
produced by 78 ff. and 91 ff. would also be 6 Closely parallel to the Dysc. passage is
very strange if we had to take o'E andHeniochus fr. 5. 7-8. One shudders to think
-rcuvE as references to the audience. of the confusion that might have arisen if all
2 Compare Pohlenz (Die griechische Trag&- we had of the prologue of Sophocles' Electra
die2, 436): 'Im Prolog wendet sich der was 9-Io.

This content downloaded from

132.174.249.46 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 16:42:30 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AUDIENCE ADDRESS IN GREEK TRAGEDY 23

45-6 r Men. Sik. 24-5): rear' icTr ra KE?qAaLaT 7A KaO' Kac

fovAc6E- flovA7jrlE 8. . . ., a direct appeal to the audience
a fair hearing. There is nothing like this in Tragedy.

EPIMETRUM: AUDIENCE ADDRESS IN SATYR-DRAMA

Any assertion about this genre is almost bound to be hazardous in view of the
fragmentary nature of the evidence. One is bound to speculate, however,
whether Satyr-drama kept company with Tragedy as regards audience address
and rupture of the dramatic illusion. Although it might be natural to assume
that this form of drama, being related to Tragedy and performed at dramatic
festivals as an adjunct to it, would share the conventions and constraints of its
kindred form, there exist in Satyr-drama certain features which would be ad-
missible in Comedy, but unthinkable in Tragedy: the acceptance of 'anapaestic
feet' within the iambic trimeter, the occasional failure to observe Porson's law,
some comic vocabulary, and the use of the strengthened form of deictic pro-
nouns. If the metre and vocabulary of Satyr-drama tended on occasions
towards Comedy, might not the relationship between actors and audience have
shared the same tendency ?
Our one complete satyr play suggests a negative answer. The relationship
between actor and audience in Euripides' Cyclops is in no way different from
the relationship we found to exist in Euripidean tragedies. Silenus no more
admits that there is an audience present during his prologue speech than does
the nurse in hers in Medea.'
There are some passages elsewhere, however, which have been taken to show
that Satyr-drama admitted audience address.
i. Achaeus fr. 3 Nauck-Snell:
rrdrEpa OEwopoLC dr' ldywovtcratc AE'rLc;
d'AA' r cCo0vcLv, c racKOvVTwv 7TpOd'OC.
IoTaOot' yap ElCLv Ot" 6EvoL; Bouir-tot

Guggisberg in his useful dissertation on Satyr-drama2 finds in OEwpoec (actually

by a Freudian slip the word he prints is OEa-atic, itself a good tragic word)
a reference to the audience. Given the subject-matter implied by the title of the
play from which this fragment comes, 'A0Aa, and given that there is a satyr play
by Aeschylus of which we possess considerable fragments which bears the
alternative titles OEwpo~' 'IcOluacrat, this is an improbable assumption.
OEwporc obviously refers to a delegation attending some kind of games, possibly
a group of satyrs.3
I Odysseus' comment (Eur. Cycl. 642) as an aside. The lines in question are clearly
an interpolation: see 0. Zwierlein, Gnom.
av8pEc 7Trov7pof' KOvEV oQ(3E cVp. ollaxot might be
taken as an aside and as such addressed to xxxix [1967], 451).
the audience (although this does not neces- 2 P. Guggisberg, Das Satyrspiel (Ziirich,
sarily follow). I think it misleading, 1947), how- 41. Steffen in his edition of the fragments
ever, to describe such exasperated comments of Satyr-drama accepted that the illusion
about an interlocutor delivered in the third could be breached (p. xxvii). He apparently
person (cf. Soph. Ant. 740, Eur. Hipp. 1038) changed his mind when he produced his
as asides. Only in cases where the speaker is
separate edition of Sophocles' Ichneutae (p. 69).
trying to conceal his reaction is the term 3 Satyrs on a visit seems to have been a
appropriate. Clearly this is not the case here
feature of Satyr-drama. Compare Greek Literary
and in any case it is clear from what follows
Papyri, 31. 14 where the chorus of satyrs asks
that the satyrs hear the remark (Kaibel, Ip' ~Kaprroc e4 OBewpla; (in this case the visit is
Hermes xxx [18951, 74 took Eur. Cycl. 480-2to a king's court to seek his daughter's hand).

This content downloaded from

132.174.249.46 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 16:42:30 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 24 DAVID BAIN

ii. There is a passage in the p

its first publication has been i
Silenus, promised a reward
clearly' asking if anyone has
generally agreed that he is
already aware of Apollo's p
Silenus is asking the audience
Comedy (Ar. Ach. 206 ff., Pla
original], and Cist. 678 [almos
ever, that there is any indi
between Soph. Ichn. 77 f. and
where the chorus asks: rc 3v Sjj
a'ypac / ... d~rnot; Silenus ma
and anyone else who might b
iii. The tenth book of Athen

dAA' &cInTEp SelrTvov yhaup

-rTOP 7rot7)v SE 1T 7apE'xEtv
LV aCLtL)L 'tLC rov'T roCL/W
XaLPEL <TLCC> Kal CKEVcCla lm

On reading these lines with

observer would conclude that
The contents and metre6 co
parabasis. What follows come
ccVPWCK, ET'LapE, 0q'c4 TqiCIcpc
dK'AovOa7 05T v' Ka "' "HpaKA-qc
rrotLyrat Kac cvyypacEFc. Ac
from a fourth-century satyr
evidence to show that by the
play was prepared to break th

I Soph. Ichn. 77 33-ff.

4). For the(Greek
resolution at the beginning of
Literary P
74 ff.). The exact
the third linewording
compare Ar. Nub. 539. cannot
be restored. See 7 E.
A reference back to the previous book:
Siegmann, Unter
zu Sophokles' Ichneutai, 40 f.
E/c LELC ' EVrav-Oa Kaaaravcav~TEC Tv dyov
2 Most notably C. Robert,
aPX71v 7TOLqcdoLETa T i;V 1c &76 c 70IC o3 Herm
(1912), 541. Hunt in the editio p
'HpaKAEovc aL77q-ayac.
thought that only8 On the various
85Astydamantes
f. was and the addre
audience. A similar
problem of dating themappeal
see B. Snell, Nach. to the
has been seen in Aesch.
Akad. d. Wiss. Dictyulci
in Gdtt. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1966
Werre-de Haas nr. 2, 33(Pap.
ff. and T.G.F. i, p.Lugd.-Bat
88. The four
36 f.). lines quoted are printed in the latter work as
3 Perhaps Men. Epitr. 265b-266a (Sand- Astydamas II fr. 4.
bach 441-2) is another example. 9 As well as the mention of 8eaaal in what
4 Wilamowitz (Kleine Schriften i. 354 n. 3) is obviously a dramatic context, the word
seems to me to be quibbling when he 7TroL'Ip'c is disruptive of the illusion. The
argues against the use of this passage as a tragic poets when they wanted to refer to
parallel. poetry described it as song. The word occurs
5 Metagenes fr. 14 is a very close parallel only once in Tragedy (the second reference
for the thought. in Allen-Italie should be deleted: it depends
6 The metre is Eupolidean, the metre in on a misunderstanding of an entry in the
which the first section of the parabasis of Berlin Photius [Phot. Berolin. 139- 14 = Eur.
Aristophanes' Clouds is written (see Dover's fr. 955g Snell]. The right word c~L8dc is in
edition, p. 164 and P. Maas, Greek Metre, Collard's supplement to Allen-Italie). This

This content downloaded from

132.174.249.46 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 16:42:30 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AUDIENCE ADDRESS IN GREEK TRAGEDY 25

Nauck initially rejected the ascription to Astydamas and assu

fragment was from an old comedy. He retracted this view
Tragicae, xxvi) under the influence of Wilamowitz who argued t
was no bar to ascription to afourth-century satyr play and add
seeking to prove that the metre was possible in a satyr play.I
be right, although I incline to the view that the text of the ope
of Athenaeus is unsound2 (it seems rather too much of a coinc
lines cited by Athenaeus to form an introduction to the bo
from a play about Heracles, the subject of the ensuing discussi
ascription is correct I doubt whether we learn much about
a whole from this evidence. It was stated at the outset that there were several
elements common to Satyr-drama and Old Comedy. Even from the exiguous
evidence we possess for the development of Satyr-drama through the fourth
century and thereafter, it is clear that Satyr-drama continued and stepped up its
borrowing from Comedy.3 In particular the later Satyr-drama included such
comic elements as topical allusion and personal satire. We have the evidence of
the fragments of Lycophron's Menedemus and more strikingly of the remarkable
Agen of Python.4 It seems possible that another of Comedy's most character-
istic ingredients, the parabasis, was borrowed in like fashion. Such a contami-
nation of elements from different genres as a satyr play containing a parabasis or
something resembling a parabasis would only be a late growth. One is not
entitled to argue from Astydamas' Heracles Satyricus that audience address was
a native constituent of Satyr-drama. That is a question that must remain
open.

University of Manchester DAVID BAIN

2 Casaubon
is in the famous and often quoted moved 6 'paytK .
Stheneboia

fragment (Eur. fr. 663N.) TqLzdKpaTEC

woq'/iv So S'
that&pa
it stood/after 7'oCc rpoELpq-
L vOLC
"Epwc & &LCKEL KatV CLOVCOC o7L7a 7
aKdAovOa and governed
O 7TplV. I &t L "V Ka'l
suspect that Plutarch's quotation Plut.
'HpaKA?Tc d &77dyoc. In that case Astydamas'
Heracles Satyricus
Amat. 762 b may not faithfully reproduce would be adduced as
what Euripides wrote (I do not for
evidence think that
Heracles' diqjrbayla, and we
/ovCLK7'v in Plut. Symp. would
622 becfree
is to guess about
what he the attribution
wrote either-this is not really a variant,
of the decorative quotation that begins the
rather a deliberate alteration oftransposition
book. The the quo- certainly gives a
tation) and that wot'qr4v isclearer
due sequence
to the of thought
para-and stylistically
smoother
phrase of the line found in Plato opening 196
Symp. to theebook. (Casaubon
(on the various allusionsalso
to the lines
integrated in quotation more
the opening
antiquity see E. Stemplinger,
closelyop. cit.,
into the next 249).
by inserting EwEL between
1 In Ind. Schol. Hib. Gott. 1889, 24 (=
AAd and c7Trep and taking tAA'd... .LovCtK77C
Kleine Schriften iv. 690). Seeclosely
alsoinGriechische
conjunction with dpE' EL7TW/LEv.
Verskunst, 379 n. 2. His argument
One might note, is that
however, that the opening
because the (rare) priapeum - - - of book II is a parallel for the way book Io
.- - - -) - - was called by some the satyricum
opens and might be thought to defend it
and because Old Comedy employed in against emendation.)
addition to priapea related tetrameter lines 3 See Guggisberg, op. cit. 41, Schmid,
of which the eupolidean was one, it is reason-Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, i. I. 82,
able to suppose that Satyr-drama would haveSteffen, op. cit. xxiii, K. Ziegler, R.E.
used the eupolidean. This is mere specu- zweite Reihe via 2, 1977-8.
lation but it would be arbitrary when we 4 T.G.F. i. 259-it contains reference by
have so little of Satyr-drama to exclude anyname to Harpalus and his mistress Pythio-
particular type of line or metrical pattern. nike. Compare too Sositheus fr. 4. Snell.

This content downloaded from

132.174.249.46 on Sun, 30 Jul 2023 16:42:30 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms