MASTER 
 
 NEGA TIVE 
 
 NO. 93-81392 
 
MICROFILMED 1993 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 
 
 as part of the • r. • +» 
 
 "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project 
 
 T^nnrJpri \)W the 
 
 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 
 
 Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
 
 Columbia University Library 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United 
 States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or 
 other reproductions of copyrighted material. 
 
 Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and 
 archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other 
 reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the 
 photocopy or other reproduction is not to be "used for any 
 purpose other than private study, scholarship, or 
 research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a 
 photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair 
 use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. 
 
 This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a 
 copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
 would involve violation of the copyright law. 
 
AUTHOR: 
 
 LEES, JAMES THOMAS 
 
 TITLE: 
 
 DIAKONIKOS LOCHOS IN 
 
 EURYPIDES. 
 
 PL A CE: 
 
 NEBRASKA 
 
 DA TE : 
 
 1891 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARCFT 
 
 Master Negative # 
 
 Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 
 
 Restrictions on Use: 
 
 '&"5ED Lees, James XKomas., -._.- 
 
 ^ i AiKavLKos \o\iO'i nn EuYipides. 
 
 Lmcol^,NebTc^ska, 1S91. 0. 4Zp. 
 
 1 
 
 H 
 
 iDoc+ 
 
 octOTS Gisser 
 
 di 
 
 +a+i 
 
 ion 51 
 
 + Joh 
 
 ns 
 
 R 
 
 kiris un'i versi+u. 
 
 17 7^)!) (I 
 
 y 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 FILM SIZE: 2£.i^A^l^ REDUCTION RATIO: //aT 
 
 IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA OlA ylB IID ^~^^ 
 
 DATE FILMED:___^|^cfi::2 INITIALS. _J^fhF 
 
 HLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS. INC WOODBRIDGf7ct 
 
c 
 
 Association for information and image Management 
 
 1100 Wayne Avenue. Suite 1100 
 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
 
 301/587-8202 
 
 Centimeter 
 
 ill! 
 
 ill 
 
 lllllllllilllMllllillllllllllll 
 
 8 
 
 10 n 12 13 14 15 mm 
 
 liiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 
 
 iiii III 
 
 u 
 
 IliUllllllll 
 
 ' ' I 
 
 Inches 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 M T I 
 
 2 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 IIII 
 
 |4.5 
 
 2.8 
 
 2.5 
 
 ■^ .. 
 
 
 
 1^ III 
 
 3.2 
 
 2.2 
 
 1^ IIII 
 
 u IIII 
 
 3.6 
 
 1^ 1 
 
 4.0 
 
 2.0 
 
 UUb. 
 
 
 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.4 
 
 
 1.6 
 
 TTT 
 
 TTT 
 
 T 
 
 MflNUFfiCTURED TO HUM STRNDflRDS 
 BY APPLIED IMnCE, INC. 
 
GIVEN BY 
 
 Johns Hopkms Uni 
 
 V 
 
 I 
 
 88 ED 
 
 ^^ 
 
 <$ 
 
 # 
 
 ^^ 
 
 \^ 
 
 t>ttlL% 
 
 L5! 
 
 
 an- 
 
 ^*.— U>v 
 
 '<^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 
 ■^. 
 
 , I- -* 
 
 !\ 
 
 V. 
 
 \ 
 
 ^;^.^^^v>>' 
 
 V. 
 
 y^ 
 
 • /, 
 
 ^■^x 
 
 
 ^'^-rm> 
 
 3 
 
 <* 
 
 i1 
 
 111 
 
 i}^ 
 

 ' 
 
 

 ,*■■ 
 
 AIKANIKOi; AOTOX 
 
 ^;* 
 
 IN EURIPIDES. 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 '^ 
 
 !-■ 
 
 Pr(iscntcd to the Board of tJniversity Studies of the 
 
 Johns Hopkins University for the degree 
 
 of Doctor of Philosophy, 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES T. LEES. 
 
 LINCOLN, NEBRASKA. 
 1891. 
 
AIKANIKOS AOrOS 
 
 IN EURIPIDES. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 f 
 
 .-»> 
 
 V 
 
 
 CO 
 
 cili 
 
 The subject of this investigation was suggested by a 
 passage in Aristophanes, Eirene, 533, 534 : 
 
 ou yap TjheTai 
 avTt] TTOirjrfj prj/iarLcov 8tKavc/ccov. 
 
 The 7rot7]T)]<; referred to is Euripides.^ The attacks of the 
 conservative Aristophanes on the Hberal Euripides are too 
 well known to require comment. Every work on Greek 
 literature, and almost every edition of the plays of Euripides, 
 inform us of this fact. The charge made in the passage 
 quoted above doubtless contains much truth ; but whether 
 it is to be regarded as a grave fault of Euripides or as an 
 argument in his favor, since he tried to please his audience, 
 scholars are by no means agreed. After the severe onslaught 
 of Schlegel there was a united attack against Euripides, and 
 scholars vied with each other in trampling him down ; but 
 now we know that the harsh criticism of Schlegel was un- 
 reasonable, and the poet is in a fair way to receive justice. 
 
 In preparing this investigation, the long speeches in the 
 plays of Euripides have been carefully studied for the purpose 
 of selecting those which might be called forensic discussions, 
 either in the form of a trial, where the plaintiff, defendant, 
 and judge appear on the stage, or in a less formal court 
 scene, as well as the persuasive and epideictic speeches. 
 
 1 Cf. Arist., Batr., 771 fg. Also Quintilian, 10, i, 67 fg. 
 
 134629 
 
4 James T. Lecs^ 
 
 The subject thus inckules the 76^09 ScKavi/cou, ^ivo^ avf^/Sou- 
 XevTtKov, and yei'o<; eirihencTLKOv} 
 
 In hterature the speech is as old as Homer. From the 
 first speech in the IHad until the end of the classical period 
 the p'/crt? plays an important role in all the branches of Greek 
 literature, with the single exception of the Lyric. Public 
 speaking was indigenous ; the Greeks were born speakers. 
 The popular assembly and the eloquent orator were to them 
 what the quiet room and the newspaper of to-day are to us. 
 Theirs was a listening, ours is a reading public. It is but 
 natural, therefore, that the speech, which was so important a 
 factor in the life and development of the nation, should be of 
 frequent occurrence in the Epos and the Drama, as well as 
 in History and Philosophy. 
 
 In Aischylos the long p>]a€i<; are generally delivered by a 
 messenger who relates some action which has taken place at 
 a distance, or by a stranger who gives a description of a far- 
 off country and people. The tendency to argument is very 
 slight, and generally no sooner is a discussion begun than it 
 is ended. In the Hept. Theb., 1026 fg., after a p^jai^ of six- 
 teen lines by Antigone, the discussion is quickly brought to 
 a close by a short arixofivdia (1042 fg.). In the Eumenides, 
 443 fg., the trial of Orestes naturally leads to discussion ; but 
 the arguments are advanced by Orestes and by the chorus, 
 hence would not produce the same effect on the audience as 
 two long p/jaei^ delivered by individuals on the stage. The 
 parties argue in (TTixoj^v6ia, vv. 588-606, and only Apollo, 
 the advocate for Orestes, speaks at any length (Eum. 614- 
 621, 625-639). The poet, therefore, shows a strong tendency 
 to avoid long ptjaeL^ in such discussions. 
 
 But when we come to Sophokles we find the rhetorical 
 element in a more marked degree. This change is doubtless 
 due to the fact that rhetoric and discussion had begun to 
 occupy a more prominent place in Athenian life, and the 
 
 1 Quintilian (II, 21, 23. Ill, 4, i ; 7, i) informs us that Aristotle was the first 
 to make this triple division of rhetoric. See also Dion. Hal., De Lysia ludicium, 
 16. 
 
 D 
 
 1 
 
 » n 
 
 Ai/cavLKO(i A0709 VI Euripides. 5 
 
 advance in the economy of the drama by which Sophokles 
 introduced three actors belongs to the same line of develop- 
 ment. In at least four of the seven extant plays of Sophokles 
 the rhetorical element is clearly discernible. The best exam- 
 ple is in the Antigone, 639-680, 6^1-^21, where the character 
 of Haimon is manifestly that of an Athenian pleader. A dis- 
 cussion, which may be compared with many in the plays of 
 Euripides, is found in Soph., Elek., 516-551, 558-609. In 
 this passage the pi^ai^ of Klytaimnestra has a distinctly rhe- 
 torical structure, and contains a irpooiynov, 516-522, as well 
 as an eiriXoyo^y 549-551- The (j?}ai<; of Elektra in reply is 
 much longer, but the divisions are not so clearly defined. 
 We also see a strong tendency to argument and discussion 
 in Soph., Aiax, 1 226-1 263, 1266-13 15, Oid. Tyr., 380-403, 
 408-428. We may also add Philok., 1004- 1044, 1047- 1062. 
 
 Clearly discernible in Sophokles, the rhetorical element 
 becomes still more conspicuous in the dramas of Euripides. 
 Tragedy and oratory, each a form of public speaking, began 
 to be strongly attracted to each other. Oratory lent its 
 schemes to tragedy, and the drama in turn affected oratory, 
 as we see from many dramatic passages in the orators from 
 Lysias in the earlier time to Aischines in the later. And as 
 in Aischines we think that we can trace the effects of his 
 early training as an actor, so in Euripides we can trace the 
 fondness for argument and altercation to his early familiarity 
 with sophistic methods, — to the influence of such men as 
 Prodikos. At any rate, natural bent, sophistic training, ten- 
 dency of the times, singly or combined, will suffice to explain 
 the rhetorical speeches in nearly all the plays of Euripides. 
 This peculiar feature of the plays of Euripides is more widely 
 distributed than the ''Agon of the Old Comedy." 1 In the 
 comedies of Aristophanes there are three plays without an 
 Agon; 2 while in the dramas of Euripides there is but one 
 without a rhetorical scene.^ This is the Iph. Taur., and even 
 
 ^ See Zielinski, "Die Gliederung der Altattischen Komodie," Leipzig, 1885. 
 Also M. W. Humphreys, " The Agon of the Old Comedy," A.J. P. VIII, 179-206. 
 ^ Acharnes, Eireiie, Thesmophoriazousai. ^ The Rhesos is not included. 
 
 y 
 
5 James T. Lees, 
 
 in this drama, although it contains no long rhetorical p;;o-et9, 
 some of the short speeches approach very near to forensic 
 discussion. Cf. especially vv. 597-608, 67^-6^6, 687-71 5. ^ 
 
 In the treatment of the rhetorical speeches a brief synopsis 
 of the play has been given as far as the scene in which the 
 discussion occurs ; this scene is then treated more fully with 
 a synopsis of the speeches of the plaintiff and defendant. 
 The speeches have been divided, so far as it was found prac- 
 ticable, into the four divisions ir^ooiynov, TrpoSeai^, Triaren!, 
 iTrlXoyo^, which every complete rhetorical speech contains.^ 
 
 The discussion is often referred to by the word aycov,'^ just 
 as it is used to denote a trial or action at law in the orators. 
 
 In Herakl. 116, before the formal p/yVef? are delivered, the 
 word is used : 
 
 7r/309 TOVTOV dyoDV apa TOvBe rod Xoyov 
 fidXco-T av €17]. 
 In Orest. 491, it occurs in the first line of the first prjai^ : 
 
 7rpo9 TOvB' aycov av tl ao(j)ia^ etrj irepi ; 
 
 Also after ten lines of the first p?]aL<i have been delivered 
 
 in Andr. 328 : 
 
 BovXrj KareaTr)^ eh ayoiva. 
 
 In Her. Main. 131 1, it occurs in the Hues of the chorus after 
 the first prjaL^ : 
 
 ovK eartv aXXov BaifjLovcov dyojv o3e 
 rj Trj<; Aio<; Sd/jLapTO<i. 
 
 It occurs at the beginning of the second pPjai^ in Hiket. 427 : 
 
 eVel 8' ayoiva koX av rovS' yjycovLao) 
 UKOV • dixiWav yap av irpovOr^Ka^ \oywv. 
 
 1 The latter may perhaps be divided into Tpooifxiou 687, 688, TrtVreis 689-707, 
 
 iiriXoyos 708-715. 
 
 2 See Aristotle, Ars. Rhet. Ill, 13 fg-; ^'^on. Hal., Ars. Rhet. c. X fg. ; De 
 Lys. ludic. 17, 18, 19; Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Ronier, ch. 36; 
 Rossler, Rhetorum Antiquorum de Dispositione Doctrina, p. 30 fg. 
 
 3 This word is used in Aristophanes to refer to the formal contest in comedy. 
 See A. J. P. VIII, 183 (note). 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 AiKavcKo^ A070? in Euripides. 7 
 
 In Andr. 234, it is used even after both pr]aei%, in the 
 spirited debate which follows : 
 
 t/ aeybVopuvQel^ tceh dyoiv epyei \6y(DV. 
 
 The TTpooifMLov can be clearly discerned in nearly all the 
 longer rhetorical p/jaet^. Sometimes, however, it is hardly 
 worthy of the name when the first few lines of the leading 
 priai<^ are an answer to the previous words of the opponent. 
 In a few passages it is omitted altogether, as, for example, 
 Hek. 251, 1132 ; Her. Main. 170, 1313. The TrpooifiLov may 
 be general or particular. There is no regular form or phrase 
 used to introduce it, but in two p/jaec^ we find the word itself 
 used. Elek. 1060 : 
 
 XeyoijjL av ' dp^r] S* i^Be fjLoc TTpooLfJiiov} 
 
 Hekabe 1195 : 
 
 Kai fioL TO /JL6V aov whe (^poLjiiOL^ ^X^^' 
 
 The TTpoOeaif; is generally found in the first p^o-^? of a pair 
 or series of speeches, but is omitted in Hek. 251, Elek. 1017, 
 Ion 589, Orest. 495, Troad. 918. Sometimes it is scattered 
 through the iriarei's, as in Alkest. 633 fg., Andr. 154 fg. In 
 many py]a€i^ it is somewhat argumentative, and extends into 
 the TTiaTei^ even where the division has been made. In such 
 cases it is impossible to determine exactly the dividing line. 
 On the other hand, it is regularly omitted in the second 
 pr)aL<^, for either the first speaker has already stated the case, 
 or the audience is acquainted with the facts from the preced- 
 ing part of the drama. In this Euripides follows the custom 
 of the orators, for with them the second speech on the same 
 case has no irpudeai^;. 
 
 The 7rLaT€L<; form the most important part of the discussion, 
 and therefore regularly extend through the greater part of 
 the p7]ai<;. This part is omitted but once,^ Phoin. 493. 
 
 ^ Nauck brands the word irpooifxiov as " absurdum." 
 
 2 The speech in Hiket. 857-917 is a funeral oration, and hence contains no 
 
 y 
 
 y 
 
8 
 
 Ja)/ies T. LeeSf 
 
 The division between the irpoOeai'^ and iriaTeL^ is often 
 clearly defined by such words as (f>ep€, dye, etc. As, for 
 example, Andr. 333 : 
 
 Mez^eXae, (j)€p€ 8r] BLairepdvcofjLev \6yov<;. 
 
 Also Andr. 662 : 
 
 /calroi (l>ep\ dyjraaOai yap ov/c ala^pop \oyov, 
 
 Medeia 499 : 
 
 dy\ ft)? (j>l\a) yap ovtc aoi KOLvdxTOfxau 
 
 The iri(TTeL<; are sometimes introduced by irpodTov or irpMra. 
 
 Hipp. 991 : 
 
 Trpayra S' dp^ofiac Xeyetp, 
 
 Hiket. 517: 
 
 Kal TTpcora ^ev ae Trpo? Ta Trpcor ufMeiylrofiac. 
 
 Troad. 919 : 
 
 irpoiTOV fjL€V dp^d<; ereKev k,t.\. 
 
 Occasionally the clew to the division is given by some 
 other word, as in Iph. Aul. 381, etTre /jloc. Ion 589, uKovaov. 
 Or in a more general way, as in Hek. 1 196 : 
 
 TT/DO? TovBe 3' elfiL /cal \6yoi<i dfxeLyfrofjLai. 
 
 Sometimes the speaker balances the arguments of his 
 opponent with his own. Herak. 153 : 
 
 <^ep' dvTi6e<; yap. 
 
 Orest. 551 : 
 
 Svo yap dvTiOef; Xoyco. 
 
 Phoin. 559 : 
 
 dy\ r)V a epco^ai hvo \6yoi irpoOela dfia. 
 
 The end of the Tr/o-ret? can frequently be detected by some 
 phrase, as, for example, Bak. 309 : 
 
 dX)C ifJLOL . . . TTtOoV. 
 
 The same vvords occur in Kyklops 309, Herak. 174. 
 
 AiKaviKo^ A0709 /;/ Euripides. 9 
 
 The eTrlXoyo^ is rarely wanting.^ Sometimes it is a brief 
 statement that the speaker has said all that is of importance 
 in defence of his case. It may be a res7ime oi the arguments 
 or a statement of the speaker's position, as in Andr. 361 fg., 
 688 fg., Hipp. 971 fg., Iph. Aul. 400 fg., Troad. 961 fg. It 
 may be a supplication for mercy, as in Herak. 226 fg. ; or an 
 address to a god, as in Med. 516 fg. Again it is almost pro- 
 verbial, as Hek. 293 fg., Hiket. 506 fg. In Elek. 1049-50, 
 the first speaker bids her opponent answer the arguments, 
 and this is a conclusion to the prjai^. 
 
 The average length of the py^aet^ is a little less than , 
 fifty lines, but some of them exceed that number, as Andr. f 
 590-641, Hek. 1 132-1 182, 1 187-1237, Her. Main. 170-235, 
 Hiket. 195-249, Iph. Aul. 1 146-1208, Med. 465-519' 5^2- 
 575, Orest. 544-604, Troad. 914-965. 9^9-^032, Phoin. 
 528-585. In some discussions the two p/yVet? exactly balance 
 each other in the number of lines, as Hek. 1132-1182, 1187- 
 1237, Elek. 1011-1050, 1060-1099, Herak. 134-178, 181- 
 231,2 Med. 465-519, 522-575. In Phoin. 469-585. we find 
 the remarkable coincidence of twenty-seven lines by each of 
 the disputants and fifty-six by locaste in reply, being almost 
 exactly twice the number of each of the preceding pr]a6L<;. 
 This universal tendency to balance, which in Greek became 
 a law, must not, however, be pushed too far in these speeches, 
 much less be considered as ground for textual criticism. To 
 do so would be to reduce poetical genius to simply mathe- 
 matical ingenuity. It is much better to consider them as 
 does Johann Kvicala (Eur. Stud. II, 81), who says (in his 
 discussion of Hek. 1132-1182, 1 187-1237) : '' Eine Ueberein- 
 stimmunc: der Verszahl dieser beiden Reden konnte, wenn 
 die Ziffer 51 richtig ist, nicht fur beabsichtigt gelten." 
 
 The two ptjaec^ are generally separated from each other by ' 
 two verses of the chorus, but this rule is violated in a few 
 cases, as Andr. 641-645, Hek. 295-299, Hel. 943-9AL Troad. 
 965-969, where we have three verses. In Her. Main. 169, 
 
 1 See Andr. i8o, Hek. 331, Helen 943, 995. 
 
 2 Vv. 220-225 are doubtless interpolated. 
 
 i 
 
lO 
 
 Ja77ies T. LeeSf 
 
 the verses of the chorus do not occur. Two passages remain 
 where the rule is apparently violated, — Elek. 1050-1060, 
 which is discussed later, and Hek. 1182-1187.^ 
 
 In the translation of the p/o-e/9 the attempt has been made 
 to choose typical speeches to illustrate our author, and to 
 state briefly the leading lines of thought rather than to follow 
 the text verbatim. The text of Nauck, 3 ed., Leipzig, 1885- 
 1887, has been taken as the basis ; but other editions have been 
 freely consulted, and where other readings seemed preferable 
 they have been adopted. Constant use has been made of 
 Wilamowitz-Mocllendorff's *'Analecta Euripidea,"and Nauck's 
 *' Euripideische Studien." 
 
 I. — ^LKaviKol \6yoi. 
 
 A. — DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN TWO SPEAKERS IN THE 
 
 PRESENCE OF A JUDGE. 
 
 1. HeKABE, III4-I292. T^/0■6t9, II32-II82, II87-I237. 
 
 Disputants^ Polymestor and Hekabe. 
 Judge, Agamemnon. 
 
 2. Heraklkidai, 120-287. 'P^;o-ei9, 134-178, 181-23 1. 
 
 Disputants, Kopreus and lolaos. 
 Judge, Demophon. 
 
 3. Orestes, 470-716. 'P?/Vet9, 491-541, 544-604, 640- 
 
 679, {6%2-'j\6). 
 
 Disputants, Tyndareos and Orestes. 
 Judge, Menelaos. 
 
 4. Troades, 895-1059. 'P/;Ve^9, 914-965, 969-1032. 
 Disputants, Helen and Hekabe. 
 
 Judge, Menelaos. 
 
 1 Ilek. 1 185, 1 186, are rightly rejected by W. Dindorf. They are suspected by 
 Kvicala, Eur. Stud. II, p. %2^. 
 
 ALKaviKo<; A0709 in Euripides. II 
 
 analysis of HERAKLEIDAI 120-287, AND TROADES 895-1059. 
 
 Herakleidai, 120-287. T/;o-ef9, 134-17^? 181-231. 
 
 A sharp discussion occurs near the beginning of this play, 
 lolaos and the children of Herakles have been banished from 
 Argos, and Eurystheus has sent a herald forbidding any city 
 to receive them. The fugitives have just arrived at Marathon, 
 and are found clinging to the altar in front of the temple of 
 Zeus. At v. 55, Kopreus, the herald of Eurystheus, arrives, 
 and is about to drag the suppliants from the altar when he is 
 checked by the arrival of the chorus (v. 73). To the latter 
 lolaos tells his story and begs for protection (vv. 75-98). 
 After a few words between Kopreus and the chorus, the 
 latter bids him state the case to the king. Kopreus then 
 asks (v. 114) : 
 
 KO. t/9 I" i(TTl xwpa? TrjaBe koI TroXeo)? dva^ ; 
 XO. iaOXoO irarpo^ irah Avf^ocf^^v 6 ^r)aem, 
 
 Kopreus then declares the case shall be discussed before 
 Demophon (vv. 116, 117). The arrival of Demophon, who is 
 to be the judge, is immediately announced (v. 118 fg.), and 
 the king having learned the cause of the trouble, asks for an 
 explanation from Kopreus. This introduces the pr^aei^ of 
 the plaintiff and defendant. 
 
 Tfjo-ts OF Kopreus, 134-178. 
 
 1. Upool/JLtov, 134, 135 • 
 
 "Apyelo^; eifxt, tovto yap 6e\€L<; fiadetv 
 i(l> olac h' 7]/c(i) Kal Trap ov Xeyeiv deXco, 
 
 2. 11/30^60-/9, 136-I3S ' 
 
 TrefjLTreL Mvktjvmv Bevp6 fx EvpvaOev^; ava^ 
 ci^ovra rovahe ' iroWa 8' yXOov, w feVe, 
 BiKai' ofiapTj] hpav re kol Xeyeiv exo^v. 
 
 I 
 
12 
 
 James T. LecSy 
 
 AtKavLKo<i A0709 in Euripides. 
 
 13 
 
 3. n/cTTet?, 139-174: 
 
 a. 139-143. As a citizen of Argos I arrest Argive fugitives 
 condemned by law to die, and we have a right to pass judg- 
 ment upon our own subjects.^ 
 
 /5. 144-146. To many other altars have they gone, but we 
 have rested our case on these arguments, and no one has 
 ventured to encounter danger by opposing us. 
 
 7. 147-152. They have come here because they see some 
 weakness of heart in you, or else because this is their last 
 hope. 
 
 ^- 153-174- Come, weigh the arguments. ^ If you allow 
 us to take them back, you can ally the great power of Argos 
 to this city ; but if you are weakened by their arguments,^ 
 and admit them into your city, then the case is to be set- 
 tled by the sword, and you have no good reason for making 
 war. 
 
 4. 'Ett 1X0709, 174-178 : 
 
 But yield to my arguments,* and, without cost — simply 
 allowing me to take what belongs to me — gain Mykenai. 
 Do not choose the worse when you can have the better 
 friends. 
 
 
 At the close of Kopreus's speech, the chorus, reflectin 
 the sentiment of an Athenian audience, asks (vv. 179, 180) : 
 
 Tt? av ^LKrjv Kplveiev ?; '^/volrj \6yov, 
 
 Trplp av Trap' aficj^olv jxvOov tK/xdOp aa(po)<; ; 
 
 The words of the chorus are the signal for the defence. 
 
 ^ V. 143. Nauck reads acrTol nar aarCbv for avrol Kad' avrdv, hut the change 
 is not necessary. 
 
 " V. 153. fp4p avTiSes yap. Cf. Orest. 551, 8vo yap dvrides \6yu}. 
 
 ^ V. 158. Xauck follows F. G. Schmidt in reading 7601;? for Xoyov^ of the 
 MSS. Retain Xoyovs. 
 
 * V. 174. d\X' e/xot TTLdov. Cf. Bak. 309 ; Kyklops 309. 
 
 } 
 
 'Pfjo-iS OF lOLAOS, 181 -23 1. 
 
 1. UpooifJLLoVj 18 1- 1 83 : 
 
 dva^y vTrdpx^c f^ev roB' iv rfj afj x^^^'' 
 elirelv ctKOvaal r iv fJLepec Trapean pLoi, 
 KovSeif; fi aTTcoaei irpoaOev coairep dWoOev. 
 
 2. Ilp66eaL<; omitted. 
 
 3. Uiarec^, 184-2 19 : 
 
 a. 184-189 (iafiev). We have nothing in common with 
 this man, for he is Argive, but we are not, since we have 
 been banished. 
 
 /3. 189-196. Does banishment from Argos mean from all 
 Greece.^ Not from Athens, at any rate. The Athenians 
 will not drive away the children of Herakles through fear of 
 the Argives. 
 
 7. 197-204. If your arguments succeed, I declare that 
 Athens is no longer free. But I know their nature, — they 
 would rather die ; for honor with the brave is considered of 
 greater importance than life.^ 
 
 5. 205-213. You ought to save these children because 
 your father and theirs were born of first cousins,'^ hence you 
 
 are related. 
 
 6. 214-219. Besides relationship they have another claim 
 upon you. Their father once rescued your father from the 
 murky depths of Hades, as all Greece can testify. 
 
 1 Cf. riato, Krito 49 C, D ; Apol. 28 B-D. 
 
 2 V. 211. Nauck reads i^apexpiw for MSS. avTaperpiio. The correction of Reisig 
 avTave\plo3v (= e$ avTave^iuu) is much better. 
 
 The relation of Demophon to the children of Herakles is as follows: 
 
 PeLOPS ^HlPPODAMIA 
 
 Pittheus 
 
 I 
 Aithra 
 
 I 
 Theseus 
 
 I 
 Demophon 
 
 Lysidike 
 
 I 
 
 Alkmena 
 
 I 
 Herakles 
 
 1 
 Herakleidai 
 
H 
 
 James T. LecSy 
 
 4. 'E7rt\o709, 226-231.1 
 
 I h^o- of you do not refuse to receive the children of 
 Herakles under your protection. Be to them a friend, father, 
 brother, even master ; for anything is better than to fall into 
 the power of the Argives. 
 
 niO-T€lS OF KOPREUS. IIio-TClS OF lOLAOS. 
 
 a. 139-143 answered a. 184-189. 
 ^. 144-146 " /3. 189-196. 
 
 3. 153-174 " 7- 197-^04- 
 
 7. 147-152 is too weak an argument to require an answer. 
 
 8. 205-213, 6. 214-219, are independent arguments of 
 lolaos, which prove to be the strongest. 
 
 The decision of the judge is given in a few words (vv. 236, 
 
 237) : 
 
 Tpiaaai fju civayKci^ovcrL aufKpopdi; oBoij 
 
 'IdXae, Tov^ aov<; /jl7] TrapcoaaaOac f eVoL'? * ^ 
 
 Demophon decides in favor of the suppliants for three 
 
 reasons : 
 
 1. Vv. 238, 239. On the ground of religious obligation. 
 
 2. Vv. 240, 241. On the ground of relationship and grati- 
 tude. 
 
 3. Vv. 242-246. The honor of Athens demands it. 
 
 At V. 250, he turns to Kopreus and bids him return and 
 tell Eurystheus the courts are open for him to settle his 
 claims by law, but he cannot use force. Then follows a rapid 
 cut and thrust between Demophon and Kopreus in a o-nxo- 
 fivOla of twenty verses (252-272). This form of dialogue 
 generally closes such long discussions. At the close of the 
 artxofJLvOia the two disputants come so near to blows that 
 the chorus interferes and bids Kopreus depart (v. 273 fg.). 
 
 1 Vv. 220-225 are doubtless spurious. Vv. 221, 222 have evidently been taken 
 from vv. 97, 98 of this play. Dindorf suspected vv. 223-225, and remarked that 
 the words (iX^xj/op wpbs avrovs ^Xi-^ov (225) are taken from Alkest. 390. 
 
 2 V. 237. Nauck, 3d ed., reads Xoyovs for ^evovs. 
 
 ^LKavLKo<i A0709 in Euripides. 
 
 IS 
 
 The herald declares that Argos will make war on Athens 
 (vv. 275-283), and Demophon angrily replies (vv. 284-287) : 
 
 (jiOeipov • TO (Tov 'yap "Apyo<; ov SeBotK iyco. 
 evOevhe K ovk e/xeX\e<? alax^^ci^ €fji^ 
 d^etv ^la TovcrB^ ' ov yap ^Apyeiwv iroXu 
 virrjKoov Trjvh^ cOOC iXevOepav e%w. 
 
 This is one of the best court scenes in Euripides. The 
 pPfo-L^ of Kopreus contains the four principal divisions of an 
 oration. The irpooifjuov is very closely connected with the 
 following division. The irpoOeai^;, although short, is dis- 
 tinctly marked. Demophon has just arrived on the scene, 
 and this gives the orator an excellent opportunity for making 
 a statement of the case. The Tr/o-ret? consist of four divisions, 
 and the poet, as a trained rhetorician would have done, puts 
 the weakest argument in the middle (vv. 147-152). This 
 argument proves to be of so little weight that the defendant 
 treats it with silent contempt. The plaintiff reserves his 
 strongest argument for the last, and dwells upon it to a con- 
 siderable length (vv. 153-174), recounting all the disadvan- 
 tages which will follow if the judge decides the case against 
 him. The 6771X0709 is of average length, and, as is frequently 
 the case, concludes with a piece of wholesome advice. 
 
 In the prjo-if; of the defendant the irpoolfiLov is an eulogy 
 on Athens and her law courts, therefore an excellent intro- 
 duction to his defence. The irpoOeai^^y as usual in the pijai^ 
 of the defendant, is omitted, because the judge is already 
 acquainted with the circumstances of the case from the prjaL^ 
 of the plaintiff. In the Triarec^ he answers the arguments of 
 his opponent in the same order in which they were advanced, 
 with the exception of 7. 147-152. After answering the argu- 
 ments of the plaintiff, he wins his case by a skilful introduc- 
 tion of new arguments that could not be answered (vv. 205- 
 219). The eiTiXoyo^ ends the /Sr;cr/9 with an appeal to the 
 judge for mercy and protection. It is somewhat longer than 
 usual, but is not out of balance with the whole speech. 
 
^ James T. Lees, 
 
 The clear and distinct manner in which the judge sums up 
 the arguments and renders his decision should be esi^cally 
 notiSd His first reason for deciding in favor o the defend- 
 L; •; one which was barely touched upon by obos v. , . 
 but is the strongest argument tn h>s own mnul vv. 338, -39)- 
 The two arguments advanced separately by lolaos (vv. 205 
 ;,3 ,4-2.;) are combined by the judge and considered as 
 ^ie' The 'hird reason for deciding as he does .s a very 
 • common one, and is given in many similar situations both m 
 actual trials and in other plays of the poet. 
 
 TRO..DES, 895-1059. 'P'i<^^'^- 9'4-965- 969-'C^-- 
 
 Trov has fallen, and the Trojan women have been assigned 
 to the various leaders of the Greeks. Menelaos ;^PPears (v^ 
 860) for the purpose of taking Helen to Greece, where she is 
 to be put to death on account of the evils she has caused 
 (vv. 876-879). At V. 895 Helen appears, and when mformed 
 she must die (vv. 901, 902), asks : 
 
 e^eariv oiv -rrpk ravr afiei^aTeai \6y(p, 
 (09 oil BiKaiax;, »> 0dvai, davovfieda ; 
 
 To this Menelaos replies : 
 
 ovK ek X070W eX);Xv6>', dWd rre KTevmv. 
 
 But it is unjust for a person to be executed without a trial ; 
 and since Hekabe (who happens to be present) believes she 
 can persuade Menelaos that Helen ought to die, she asks 
 that the defendant be granted a hearing, after which she 
 herself will make the pwc, of the prosecution, and Menelaos 
 can then sum up the arguments and render his decision (vv 
 Q06-910). We have then a criminal case involving capital 
 punishment. Helen, as defendant, pleads her own case ; 
 
 Hekabe answers her arguments ; and Menelaos, as judge, 
 
 renders his decision. 
 
 ^LKaviKOf; Aoyo? m Eiiripides. 
 
 17 
 
 'Pfjo-is OF Helen, 914-965. 
 
 1. Tlpooi/JLLov, 914-918 : 
 
 Since you consider me an enemy, perhaps you will not 
 answer my arguments. But I will answer the charges which 
 I think you will bring against me.^ 
 
 2. Tlp69€(n<; omitted. 
 
 3. Ui(TT€i^, 919-960 : 
 
 a. 919-922. In the first place, this woman was the direct 
 cause of the evils because she gave birth to Paris, and Priam 
 destroyed Troy because he did not kill his son. 
 
 0- -3-931 (fcdXXei). Paris was the judge of the three 
 goddesses. Pallas promised him Hellas ; Hera promised him 
 Asia and the confines of Europe ;2 Kypris, admiring my 
 form, promised me to him if she won the prize for beauty. 
 (Hence she is implicated.) 
 
 7- 931-937- Kypris won the prize, and thus my marriage 
 saved Hellas, since you are not subject to the barbarians. 
 Hellas has been fortunate, but I (the cause of this) am con- 
 demned. 
 
 S. 938-950. You will say that I do not touch upon the 
 real question, viz., that I left your palace by stealth. I reply, 
 that the evil genius of this woman, call him Alexander or 
 Paris,3 came with a powerful goddess as his ally. Charge the 
 crime to her. P>en Zeus is her slave. 
 
 e. gi,i-g6o. You may maintain that after the death of 
 Alexander I ought to have returned to the Greeks. This I 
 tried to do, as the guards can bear witness, but I was forcibly 
 detained by Deiphobos as his wife. 
 
 1 Vv. 916 fg. A case of TrpoKaTdX-qxpLS. Cf. 951 fg. 
 
 2 V. 928. Nauck rejects this verse, and says (Eur. Stud. II, p. 150) : " Der 
 eingeklammerte Vers gehort zu den absurdesten Fabricaten, mit denen jemals 
 irgend ein Dichter besudelt worden ist." 
 
 3 V. 942. For Kal lldpiv Xauck woukl read etV d\d<xropa. See his exhaustive 
 comment on this verse in Eur. Stud. II, pp. 150-159. 
 
i8 
 
 James T. LceSy 
 
 4. 'E7rt\o709, 961-965 : 
 
 7rw9 ovv eV av Ovy^aKOLfx av ivhiKOD^, iroai, 
 Trpo^i aov htKaico^, r/v 6 /jLev jSla yafu.el, 
 ra 8' oiKoOev Kelv* avrl VLKrfrrjplwv 
 TTiKprn iSovXeva^ ; el Be tcov Oecov fcparetv 
 ^ovXety TO ')(^pfj^eiv ajxaOe^ iarl croL Tohe, 
 
 'PtjariS OF HeKABE, 969-IO32. 
 
 1. npoo//xfoz^, 969, 970 : 
 
 rat? Oealai^ irpMra Gvpipiayo'^ ^evrjaofiai 
 Kal r/jvBe Bei^co /xP; \eyovaav evhiKa. 
 
 2. UpoOeai^ omitted. 
 
 3. YliaTei^, 971-1028 : 
 
 a. 971-982. I do not believe that Hera and Pallas are so 
 foolish as to subject Argos and Athens to Phrygia. Their 
 rivalry in regard to beauty was mere sport, and you cannot 
 make that an argument in your defence. 
 
 ^. 983-997. You maintain that Kypris assisted my son, 
 but it was your own passion. All folly is attributed to 
 *A(f)poSLT7] by mortals, and rightly does the name of the god- 
 dess begin the word d<j)poavvi]!^ Barbarian gold and splendor 
 led you astray. 
 
 ry. 998-1009. Again you say my son took you by force. 
 Who heard your cries as you were carried away "i When 
 you came to Troy your affections changed as the fortunes 
 of battle wavered between the two armies. 
 
 8. 10 10- 1 028. You declare that you tried to escape from 
 Troy, but could not. On the contrary, I often urged you to 
 leave the city, but this did not please you, for you preferred 
 to be worshiped by barbarians.'^ 
 
 ^ V. 969. rats deaiat MSS. Nauck, 3d ed., reads rots deoiffi. See Aristotle, 
 Rhet. Ill, 17, 15. 
 
 2 V. 990. "'Eo-ri 5' dWos . . . tottos . . . rCiv deiKriKuv iK rdbv ivavrliav . . . 
 ttTTO ToO ovoixaros . . . cJs i) Evpnridov 'E/cd/Sr? ei's ttjv ' A(f>podiT7)v — Kal tovvojx 
 opdCos d(pooavi'7}s dpx^'- ^fas. Aristot. Rhet. II, 23, 29. 
 
 2 " V'v. 1020-1022 gtaviter laborant." Nauck. In Eur. Stud. II, p. 160, he 
 suggests an improvement as follows : 
 
 ^tf{avih'o<; A 0709 /// Euripides. 
 
 19 
 
 # 
 
 1^ 
 
 <^ 
 
 t 
 
 (( 
 
 <t 
 
 <( 
 
 a. 971-982. 
 7. 998-1009. 
 h. 1010-1028. 
 
 4. 'E7ri'Xo709, 1 029- 1 03 2 : 
 
 Mez^eXa', Xv elSrj^ ol reXevTijaa) \6yoVy 
 aT€(f)dvo)(TOV 'EXXa8' aff'ft)^ ri'/vSe Kravcov 
 aauTov, vojxov he Tovhe ral^ aWaiat Oe^; 
 yvvai^i, OvijdKeiv i]ti^ dv irpohw ttogiv. 
 
 ntVrets OF Helen. Ilto-rets of Hekabe. 
 
 /?. 923-931 answered /8. 983-997. 
 
 7- 931-937 
 h. 938-950 
 e. 951-960 
 
 Menclaos did not enter the court-room as an impartial 
 judge, for his decision had been already made (v. 905). He 
 did not hear the arguments for the purpose of giving Helen 
 an opportunity of escaping sentence of death, but simply 
 because he had leisure to hear both sides of the case (v. 91 1). 
 This is, then, a court scene, with arguments advanced and 
 answered as in a regular trial, but is really no trial at all. 
 In other words, Euripides saw a fine opportunity for pleasing 
 his audience with a mere farce of a trial, and so made the 
 speakers present the arguments. The verdict of the judge 
 after the pi]aeL^ of the defendant and plaintiff is but a repe- 
 tition of his former determination. He agrees with Hekabe 
 in thinking that Helen left Sparta of her own accord, that her 
 argument in regard to Kypris is but ko^ltvov x^P^^ (^'- ^038), 
 and therefore she shall die (vv. 1036-1041). Helen makes a 
 last appeal for mercy, but it is of no avail (vv. 1042, 1043). 
 He orders the servants to conduct her to the ship, and after 
 a few words with Hekabe the scene closes. 
 
 The pPjat^ of Helen contains three of the four usual divis- 
 ions, the 7rp60€(Ti<; being omitted. In the irpooi'p^tov she fears 
 that her opponent may not answer her arguments, but de- 
 clares she will make her defence whether she is answered or 
 not. The Triareis, as we should expect in a case where the 
 
 ip Tois 'AXe^dvdpov yap v^pi^eiv dofxois 
 Kal TTpoaKweiadai (iapl^dpcov VTr-qpirais 
 ix^y dyaObv rjv aoi (or -qyov). 
 
20 
 
 James T. Lccs, 
 
 defendant's life is at stake, extend through nearly the whole 
 of the /3r;o-t9. First, Helen endeavors to shift the responsi- 
 bility for the evils consequent upon her marriage to Paris 
 back to the parents of her Trojan husband. Then she main- 
 tains that Kypris is responsible for her actions, and intro- 
 duces a sophistic argument in her defence. By her elopement 
 with Paris she maintains that Greece was rescued from fall- 
 ing into the hands of the barbarians. In the last division of 
 the TciGTei^ she introduces and answers a plausible argument 
 which may be advanced by her opponent. Her p^ai^ pre- 
 sents several distinct cases of TrpoKardXjjyjn^. In the tirlXoyoj; 
 she turns directly to Menelaos, whom she addresses as hus- 
 band, and makes an appeal for justice. 
 
 The p)](7i<; of Hekabe in reply is in harmony with the pas- 
 sionate nature of the aged ex-queen of Troy. She plunges 
 at once 'Mn medias res." Passing over the first argument 
 of Helen, which is in fact so ridiculous as to be no argument 
 at all, she first answers the weakest argument, which her 
 opponent had shrewdly placed in the middle of her prjai^. 
 Of this reply Aristotle (Rhet. Ill, 17, 15) says, yjyjraro irpM- 
 Tov Tov evrjOearciTov. She then takes up and answers each 
 of Helen's arguments, and in the i7ri\oyo<; addressing Mene- 
 laos, as Helen had done, urges him to act in a manner worthy 
 of himself. 
 
 By comparing the arguments of Helen with Gorgias' Enco- 
 mion, we find some very interesting coincidences. In v. 
 924 fg. Helen says : 
 
 eKpLve Tpiaaop ^evyo^ oBe rpiwv OeoiV . 
 Koi ITaXXa^o? jxev rjv WXe^dpSpM S6ai<i 
 <I>pffi (TTpaT7]yovv6' 'FjWdS' e^avtcrrdvaLf 
 ''Upa 0' viTeG-)(^eT ^Aaidh^ ILvpcoTrrji; 0' 6pov<; 
 [rvpavvlB^ e^eiv, el a^e Kpiveiev Ilapf?]. 
 Ki^Trpt? he Tovfiov eKo? iiciTayXovpievrj 
 Scoaetv v7r€cr)(^eT\ el 6ed^ vTrepSpd/jLoi 
 KaWet. TOV ivOevh^ 0)9 e'^^et aK6'\^ai \6yov . 
 Vifca Ivvirpi^ 6ed. 
 
 AcKavtKo<^ A 0709 /;/ Euripides. 
 
 21 
 
 ii 
 
 And in v. 940 : 
 
 y\6' ov')(l fJLLKpdv Oeov ex^^ avTOv fiera 
 6 T?}crS' dXdarcop. 
 
 Also in v. 948 fg. : 
 
 Tf)V Oeov /coXa^e koi Ai6<^ Kpeiaawv yevov, 
 09 TOiv fJLev dWcov SaifjLovcov t^^t Kpdro^^ 
 Keivqi; he Sov\6<i eo-rc. avyyvoj/jLy 8' ifjuol. 
 
 Finally, in vv. 964, 965 : 
 
 el Ce Tcov Oeoiv Kparelv 
 jSovXet, TO ^p/j^eiv u/iaOe^ eaTC ctol ToBe. 
 
 This argument of Helen is quite summarily disposed of by 
 Hekabe in v. 988 fg., but Gorgias with his sophistry defends 
 Helen on the same grounds, and tries to prove that she is 
 entirely free from guilt. For, says he (Gorg., Encom. Hel. 6) : 
 
 'TI yap Tu^V^ /3ov\)'i/jLaaL fcal OeoiV ffovXev/naai fcal dvdyKT}^ 
 -yjrrjclyiafjiaaiv eirpa^ev a eirpa^ev, i) jSla dpiracrdelaa, i) \6yoL<; 
 TreLaOelcra, i] epcoTC dXovaa. Et jJbev ovv Bid to TrpMTOV, d^io<; 
 acTidaOai alTLWfievo^. Oeov yap TrpodvfjLtav uvOpwirivr] irpo- 
 firjOeia dSvvaTov KcoX-ueiv. 7re(f)UK€ yap ov to Kpelacrov vtto tov 
 rjaaovof; KCoXveaOai, dXXd to rjcraov vtto tov Kpelaaovo^ ^PX^' 
 (rOac Kai dyeaOaL, Kal to /xev Kpelaaov 7)yela6aL, to Be rjaaov 
 eireaOaL. Oeo<=; B^ dvOpd)7rov Kpelaaov Kal ^ia Kal ao(j>La Kal 
 TOL<^ dXXoi(;, el ovv ttj tvxd f<^cil tco 6e(p tijv aWlav dvaSeTeov, 
 T}]v KXevr]v t/}9 BvcrKXeia'^ diroXvTeov. 
 
 Also in sec. 15 : 
 
 el yap ep(o<; yv 6 TavTa irdvTa TT/oafa?, ov ^aXeTTw? Bia(j)ev- 
 ^eTac Ti]V Tr}<^ Xeyo/xeV/;? yeyovevai dfxapTia^ aiTiav. d yap 
 opMfJLev, hxei ^vaiv ovx yv rj/jbelf; OeXofiev aXX' tjv eKaaTov 
 €TVX€ ' Bid Be T/}9 dylre(i)<; rj ylrvxv xdv Tol<^ Tp6iT0i<; tvitovtui. 
 
 In sec. 19 he finishes his arguments thus : 
 
 €i ovv T(i) TOV AXe^avBpov awjxaTi to t?}? EXez^?;? ofi/ia i)a6lv 
 TrpoOv/jLiav Kal dfiiXXav epcoTOf; tj) "^vxV TrapeBwKe^ tL Oavfjua- 
 (TTov ; 09 el fjiev Oeo^ {mv 6^^/) OeMV Oeiav BvvajJLiv^ ttw? dv 6 
 
 I 
 
22 
 
 Javics T. LccSy 
 
 i]aacov €17] TOVTOV dTTooaaadat kuI afxyvaaOai BvvaTu<; ; el B' 
 iarlv avOpujiTivov voarnxa kuI -^vxn": aji^otjfia, ovx w? afidp- 
 TTjfia ixe^irreov aXV w? drvxVf^^ vof^iareov ' })XOe yap oU v^Oe 
 TvxV^ dypevpLaaiv, ou yvcofir]^; jBovXevfxaai, koI epcoro^ dvdyKat^, 
 ov T€YV7]<i irapaaKeval'^' 
 
 Compare the argument of Helen before Thconoe in Eur. 
 Hel. 929 ig. : 
 
 rjv h' 'E\\a8' e\6co KdmlBo) lirdpTi]^ iror^, 
 k\vovt€<; €L(7iSuvTei; ax; Te;^i^ais^ Oecop 
 m\ovt\ ejo) Be irpoSori^ ovk ijfnjv cj^iXcov. 
 
 Also the remarkable statement made by the '' deus ex 
 machina" in Elek. 1282 fg. : 
 
 Zevi; B\ d)^ epi^ yevoiro kui ^uvo^ /SpuTMV, 
 elhcoXov 'EXeV?;? eftVe/xi/r' e? ^'Wiov. 
 
 Such arguments as the above were common enough among 
 the sophists at Athens in Euripides' time, and no doubt the 
 poet drew from them in this pP]ai^ of Helen as well as in 
 other speeches, especially the pt'^ai^ of Kassandra in Troad. 
 353-405, where the sophistic element is at its highest in 
 Euripides. 
 
 B. — DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN TWO OR MORE SPEAKERS. 
 
 1. AlkESTIS, 614-738. 'P7ycr€t9, 629-672, 675-705. 
 Disputants, Admetos and Pheres. 
 
 2. Andromache, 147-746. 'P?/cr6/9, 147-180, 183-231, 
 3i9-363> (384-420), 590-^41. 645-690, (693-726). 
 
 Disputants, Hermione and Andromache ; Andromache and 
 Menelaos ; Menelaos and Peleus. 
 
 3. Bakchai, 210-369. 'P/yo-6t9, 266-327, 330-342. 
 Disputants, Teiresias, Kadmos, and Pentheus. 
 
 4. Kyklops, 203-355. 'P>yo-e/9, 285-312, 316-347. 
 Disputants, Odysseus and Kyklops. 
 
 ^iKaviKo^ A 0709 i7i Euripides. 
 
 23 
 
 , 
 
 5. Elektra, 998-1140. T/yVet?, 1011-1050, 1060-1096. 
 Disputants y Klytaimnestra and Elektra. 
 
 6. Herakles Maixomexos, 140-251 ; 1 229-1 357. T^^Ve^?, 
 140-169, 170-235; 1255-1310, 1313-1339- 
 
 Disputants, Lykos and Amphitryon ; Herakles and Theseus. 
 
 7. HiPPOLYTOS, 902-riiOi. 'Vi]<jei<^, 936-980, 983-1033. 
 Disputants, Theseus and Hippolytos. 
 
 8. Iphigeneia en Aulidi, 317-414. Tr^o-e^?, 334-375> 
 378-401. 
 
 Disputa7USy Menelaos and Agamemnon. 
 
 9. Medeia, 446-626. 'P?7o-et9, 465-519, 522-575. 
 Disputants, Medeia and Jason. 
 
 10. Ion, 517-675. T^(ji9, 585-647. 
 Disputant, Ion. 
 
 ANALYSIS OF ELEKTRA, 99S-1140 ; HIPPOLYTOS, 902-1101; AND 
 
 MEDEIA, 446-626. 
 
 Elektra, 998-1140. 'Vr](Tei%, 1011-1050, 1060-1096. 
 
 After the murder of Agamemnon by Klytaimnestra, the 
 latter gave her daughter in marriage to a poor farmer, and 
 closed the doors of her palace to Elektra and Orestes. Kly- 
 taimnestra is afterwards summoned to the country, the mes- 
 senger alleging that Elektra has just been delivered of her 
 first-born. At v. 998 the queen arrives in grand style with 
 her attendants before the humble cottage of Elektra. She 
 here meets the daughter, who immediately accuses her 
 mother of banishing Orestes and herself from the palace of 
 their murdered father. This causes Klytaimnestra to enter 
 into a long argument in defence of herself, to which Elektra 
 replies. 
 
 
24 James T. Lees, 
 
 'Pfio-is OF Klytaimnestra, 1011-1050. 
 
 (Vv. loii, 1012 are an answer to the preceding words of 
 
 Elektra.) 
 
 1. Tlpooifiiov, IOI3-IOI7: 
 
 Xe^co Se * KULTOC Sof ' orav \d/3rj KUKrf 
 yvvacKa^ jXcoaarj TriKporij^; evearl tl<; • 
 ft)? /JL€V irap' y/jLLV, ov koXm^ ' to irpdy^a Se 
 fiaOovra^^ rjv fiev a^ico^ fxtaelv ^xi), 
 arvyelv BiKaiov • el Be firj^ rl Bel arvyelv ; 
 
 2. UpoOecTLf; included in the iriaTeL^. 
 
 3. Uiarei^, 1018-1048 : 
 
 a. 10 1 8-1023. Tyndareos gave me in marriage to your 
 father, but not that my husband might kill my children, 
 which he did ; for he allured my daughter from home to 
 Aulis by a promise of marriage to Achilles, and there put 
 her to death. 
 
 ^. 1 024- 1 029. If he had killed her to prevent the capture 
 of a city, or to save the rest of his children, it would have 
 been pardonable, but he did it on account of the wantonness 
 of Helen and the laches of her husband. 
 
 7. 1 030- 1 034. Although I felt deeply injured by that act, 
 I would not have killed my husband, had he not returned 
 with a raving, god-possessed young dame to share his bed. 
 
 B. 1035-1040. Women are foolish, I grant ; but when a 
 husband neglects his home-duties, it is natural for the wife 
 to imitate him and secure another lover. She then has all 
 the blame. 
 
 e. 1041-1048. If Menelaos had been secretly carried away 
 from home, ought I to have sacrificed Orestes in order to 
 save my sister's husband ? ^ How would your father have 
 regarded that ? Ought he not to die, since he killed my 
 
 daughter ? 
 
 1 Example of -rrapadeiy/jLa. Cf. Crest. 507 fg. 
 
 Alkuvlkcx; A0709 m Euripides. 
 
 25 
 
 > 
 
 
 4. 'Ett/Xoyo?, 1049, 1050 : 
 
 XeV el TL '^pf/^et<; KavriOe^ TrappTjala 
 OTTQx; TedrjKe ao^ Trarrjp ovk evBiKCO^;. 
 
 After a few words have passed between Elektra and Kly- 
 taimnestra (vv. 105 5-1059), the former delivers a prjaL<; in 
 reply to the above arguments. 
 
 'Pfjo-is OF Elektra, 1060- 1096. 
 
 1. TIpooi/jLiov^ 1060, 1061 : 
 
 XeyoLfi av • ap)(ri 8' )]Be fioi Trpooip^iov.^ 
 eW^ el'^e<;, m reKovaa, /SeXrlov; (ppeva^. 
 
 2. IT/oo^ecTi? included in the first part of the irlareK;, 
 
 3. n/crret*?, 1062-1093 (I^Maav) : 
 
 a. 1 062- 1 068. Helen and yourself are worthy of praise in 
 regard to beauty, but you are both sinful and unworthy of 
 Kastor, for she left her husband ^ willingly,^ and you have 
 killed the noblest man of Greece under the pretext of aveng- 
 ing your daughter's death. 
 
 yS. 1069-1075. Before your daughter's death, as soon as 
 your husband had departed from home, you began to arrange 
 your auburn locks in front of the mirror. The wife who 
 takes pains with her toilet when her husband is away from 
 home has some wickedness in view. 
 
 7. 1076-1085. You alone of all the Grecian dames were 
 filled with joy when the Trojans were successful, but when 
 they were defeated you were downcast because you did not 
 wish Agamemnon's return from Troy.'* 
 
 3. 1086- 1093 (^Mo-av). What wrong have I and my brother 
 done to you ? After killing your husband, why did you not 
 share our father's home with us rather than marry again ? 
 
 1 V. 1060. " TTpooifxiov absurdum." Nauck. J. Kvicala (Eur. Stud. I, p. 73) 
 suggests irpoolixiov. 
 
 - V. 1065. d7r(f5xero for dTrdbXeTo of the MSS. is Pierson's conjecture, now 
 generally accepted. 
 
 8 Cf. this statement with Tread. 373, 998. 
 
 * Retain v. 1079. 
 
 ! 
 
26 
 
 James T. LccSy 
 
 Your present husband is not banished to avenge your son, 
 nor is he killed to avenge me, although I suffer a living 
 death at his hands. 
 
 4. 'E7n'Xo709, 1093 {el h')-\o<^6 : 
 
 el 6' djJi€Lyjr€Tac 
 (j)6pov Slku^cov (f)6vo<;, cnroKrevM a iyo) 
 teal iral's 'Opeari]^ irarpl rificopov/jLevoc • 
 el yap hiKat eKelva, koX tciS' evhiKa} 
 
 After a short conversation between Klytaimnestra and 
 Elektra, in the course of which the usual crrixofivOLa is used 
 rather sparingly (1116-1123, 1128-1131), the scene closes 
 with the departure of Klytaimnestra to offer sacrifice. 
 
 The pP]ai(; of Klytaimnestra contains three distinct and 
 separate divisions, the 7rp66eart^ being included in the first 
 part of the 7ri(TT€L<;. The irpooifiiov is general except v. 1015 
 — OCX; fiep Trap' ij/mlv — by which the general statement is 
 applied to herself. In the irlareL^ we find four arguments 
 advanced in defence of her crime. The last of these is a 
 remarkable hypothetical case which corresponds in every par- 
 ticular to the real one, and to this hypothesis it is implied 
 there can be but one answer. The eTr/Xoyo? is short, and 
 simply an invitation to the opponent to answer the argu- 
 ments advanced. 
 
 In the prjai^ of Elektra the TrpooijXLov is very short and to 
 the point. In the first verse the word Trpooi/xioi' occurs, which 
 is found in but one other passage in the rhetorical pi]aeL^ of 
 Euripides. In Hek. 1195 it occurs at the end of the irpooi- 
 /jliov. In the irlaTeL^ Elektra has not followed the order of 
 the arguments of her mother. In fact it cannot be said that 
 she has answered any one of the arguments clearly and dis- 
 tinctly. She barely touches upon an answer to /3. 1024- 
 1029 in the words aKP]ylnv irporeivova, at.t.X. (1067 fg.), but 
 
 ^ Kirchhoff and Nauck rightly bracket vv. 1097-1101. The prjcris ends far 
 better with v. 1096 than with v. 1099. Cf. rdd' evdiKa (1096) with ovk evStKCJS 
 (1050). 
 
 ^iKavtKo^ A0709 171 Euripides. 
 
 27 
 
 t 
 
 says not a word in direct reply to 7. 1030-1034 and e. 1041- 
 1048. However, it must be said that the p)](ji^ as a whole is 
 an answer to that of Klytaimnestra, because other arguments 
 are advanced to account* for the crime committed by the 
 defendant. So indirectly Elektra answers 7. 1030-1034 and 
 I. 1035-1040 by stating {1069 fg.) that her mother was false 
 to Agamemnon long before he brought Kassandra to his 
 palace. The kiriXoyo^ is a peculiar one. It is the decision 
 of a judge rather than the conclusion of a p7)(ji^. Elektra 
 has tried her mother, as it were, and found her guilty of 
 murder. She therefore renders judgment against her and 
 
 sentence of death. 
 
 Vv. 1051-1056, generally given to Elektra, have caused 
 the commentators much trouble. Nauck's change — 8fV7;i/ 
 'eXz^a^' ai) Sifaj for SUai' eXe^a^, y ^^^V (1051)— helps us 
 but little, and we had better retain the reading of the MSS. 
 Wilamowitz, Anal. Eur. p. ;i, after quoting these verses, 
 says : 
 
 "Ab Electra iusta protulisse Clytaemnestram dici non 
 posse intellexerunt, correxerunt igitur, varium et inproba- 
 bilem in modum. 1054 ct 55 cohaerere non docuerunt. 
 ' Ces vers ont ete mal divises, puis mal corriges ' dicit Wei- 
 lius inprobabilia molitus, vere, at alio quam voluit sensu. 
 105 1- 1 05 4, cJiori sunt. 1035, 1056, Elect me.'' 
 
 This is a satisfactory explanation of a very troublesome 
 passage. Besides the objection given by Wilamowitz, it can- 
 not be explained why the poet should make the second 
 speaker give her opinion of the arguments of her opponent 
 at the very beginning, then check herself after four verses, 
 and remind her mother of the last ^^^ords of the previous 
 p{]aL^. There is not a parallel to this in all the rhetorical 
 pi]c7ei<soi Euripides. There is no doubt that vv. 1051-1054 
 are far better adapted to the chorus, as reflecting the opinion 
 of the audience, than they are to Elektra, and it is the gen- 
 eral rule for the chorus to have two or more verses between 
 such pijaei^. 
 
 \ 
 
28 
 
 Jmncs T. Lces^ 
 
 HippOLYTOs, 902-1 loi. T?/Ve(9, 936-980, 983-1033. 
 
 This play contains two long forensic pi'jaei^ by Theseus 
 and Hippolytos, with an introduction in the form of a dia- 
 logue between father and son (vv. 903-935). After the argu- 
 ments have been presented by plaintiff and defendant, the 
 discussion closes with a series of distichs, vv. 1064- 1089. 
 
 Phaidra, the second wife of Theseus, has fallen in love wdth 
 Hippolytos, the son of Theseus by his first wife. After learn- 
 ing that her love has been disclosed by an old nurse and 
 spurned by Hippolytos, she writes a letter, incriminating the 
 young man, and then commits suicide. Theseus soon arrives, 
 and after reading the letter is very angry. At v. 902 Hip- 
 polytos appears, and innocently asks what is the cause of the 
 disturbance. The reply of Theseus (v. 916 fg.) is couched in 
 general terms, and takes the form of an invective against 
 men who seem to be friends but are really foes (vv. 925-931). 
 These general statements convey to Hippolytos sufficient 
 meaning to arouse his suspicion, and he asks (v. 932 fg.) : 
 
 (f>L\cov, poaov/jL6v S' ovBev ovre^; ahioL ; 
 
 Theseus now speaks out clearly, and makes the definite 
 charge against his son. 
 
 Tfjo-is OF Theseus, 936-980. 
 
 ff 
 
 1. Upooi/jLiov, 936-942 : 
 
 If man's audacity continues to increase, the gods must add 
 another earth to the present one, in order to have a place for 
 the impious and base. 
 
 2. lIp666aL<;, 943-945 : 
 
 TTpo? 7^9 Oavovarj^ e/ui(f)avcos: Kcihciaro^ cov, 
 
 3. n/cTTef?, 946-970 : 
 
 a. 946-957. Look in your father's face. Do 3'ou boast of 
 
 ! 
 
 4, 
 
 
 i 
 
 AiKavLKo^ A0709 in Em'ipides. 
 
 29 
 
 association with gods and of chastity } I have no faith in 
 your boasts and Orphic rites. ^ 
 
 /3. 958-965. She is dead. Do you think this will save 
 you } It is the most convincing proof of all. This is stronger 
 evidence than all opKot and Xoyoc. 
 
 7. 966-970. Do you say that folly is in woman's nature 
 but not in man's ? Young men are no stronger against 
 temptation than women are when Kypris distracts their 
 mind. 
 
 4. 'Ett/Xoyo?, 971-980: 
 
 vvv olv TL ravTa aol<; a/JLtWco/jiaL Xoyoi^; 
 veKpov 7rap6vTO<^ pdpTvpo<; aa^earaTOV ; 
 
 Begone, and leave my realms ! If I allow myself to be 
 defeated by you, my reputation will be lost. 
 
 'Pfjo-is OF Hippolytos, 983-1033. 
 
 1. Upooifiiov, 983-991 {d(j)6lvai) : 
 
 The case (of my opponent) has fair arguments until one 
 examines it closely. I am no orator to harangue the people,^ 
 but nevertheless I must speak out in my own defence. 
 
 2. UpodeaK; omitted. 
 
 3. n/(jT6/s% 991 (7rpMTa)-l024: 
 
 a. 991-1006. I will begin by answ^ering your first charge. 
 I revere the gods, and treat my friends the same at all times. 
 I am wholly innocent of the charge, and have never touched 
 woman. 
 
 /3. 1 007- 1 020. If you do not believe I am innocent, you 
 should prove me guilty. Did I wish to usurp your throne ? 
 I should be foolish to do so. But (you say) '*it is sweet to 
 
 1 Vv. 952, 953. Nauck (Eur. Stud. II, p. 38) recommends the following 
 
 reading: 
 
 ffiTois vvv avx^L Kal di d\pvxov ^opd^ 
 iojv KairrfKev, 'Opcp^a t dvaKT ex^^- 
 
 2 Vv. 988, 989. Arist. Rhet. II. 22, 3: (paalv ol iroL-rjTal tovs dvaLdevTovs Trap 
 6x^V fJLovaLKUTepus X^yetv. Cf. also Plut., de Educ. Lib. 9, 6 B. 
 
30 
 
 James T, Lccs, 
 
 rule." Not so. I prefer to be first in the Hellenic contests 
 and second in the state. ^ 
 
 7. 1021-1024. One argument yet remains. If I had a 
 witness such as myself, and if she were alive, you would see 
 by the facts of the case who is the guilty one. 
 
 4. 'Ett/Xoyo?, 1 02 5- 1 033: 
 
 I swear by Zeus and Earth that I am innocent of the 
 charge. But why she took her life I do not know.- 
 
 ntcrrets OF Theseus. Ilarrets OF Iln'roLVTOs. 
 a. 946-957 answered a. 991-1006. 
 
 /5. 958-965 " 7. 1021-1024. 
 
 7. 966-9/0 " fi. 1 007- 1 020. 
 
 In the preceding discussion the p^ai^ of Theseus is com- 
 plete as an oration, and contains the four divisions distinctly 
 defined. The irpooiyaov is a general statement, but he in- 
 tends it to be applied to his son. Theseus is plaintiff in the 
 case, and, since he has the opening speech, states the charge 
 (943-945). The Tr/cTTfc/s^ of each priais contain three divis- 
 ions, and are about the same length. EZach of the main 
 arguments of Theseus is answered by Hippolytos, but the 
 order is changed somewhat. The principal divisions of the 
 pt]cr6L<^ are in some cases distinctly marked, as the following 
 verses show : 
 
 vvv ovv Ti ravra croli; a /ntWco/jLaL X070/9, 
 TTpoira K ap^ofiai Xeyeiv, 
 
 06 ev jx virPjXOe^ ivpCorov k.t.X. 
 
 ev ou XeXeKTUL tmv efiMV, ra S' aXX' t'^e^?. 
 
 Each i7riXoyo<; begins with 'pvp' (vv. 971, 1025). 
 
 Medeia, 446-626. T;;cref?, 465-5 19, 522-575. 
 
 Jason, leader of the Argonautic expedition, married Medeia, 
 who had assisted him in obtaining the golden fleece. He 
 
 1 V. 1016 fg. Cf. Ion 625 fg. 
 
 - Vv. 1034, 1035. " Halte ich es fiir wahrscheinlicli dass die beiden Verse 
 uberhaupt dem Euripides fremd sind. Ihr Wegfall ist kein Verlust, sondern ein 
 Gewinn." Nauck. See his discussion of these verses in Eur. Stud. II, 39-41. 
 
 V. 971. 
 
 991, 992. 
 
 I02I 
 
 J 
 
 i'Jf* 
 
 AiKavLKo^ A 0709 /// Euripides. 
 
 J 
 
 afterwards became enamored of Glauke, the daughter of 
 Kreon, and Medeia was ordered by the king to depart from 
 Korinth with her two children. After Medeia has been sen- 
 tenced by the king to banishment, Jason appears, accuses 
 her of having unduly abused the royal family, and declares 
 that for this reason she has been banished. He comes, how- 
 ever, wdth the offer of pecuniary aid for their children (vv. 
 448-458). Medeia charges him w^ith injustice and incon- 
 stancy, and delivers a bitter invective against him. He replies 
 in a py)(n<^ of about the same length. 
 
 'P-ncris OF Medeia, 465-519. 
 
 1. n/ooo///-ioi^, 465-474 : 
 
 You utter wn"etch, you have come, have you } ^ This is not 
 courage or boldness, to look in the face of friends you have 
 injured, but the greatest evil among men, — insolence. 
 
 ev B^ i'7T0ii](ja<=; pioXciov, 
 eyo) re yap Xe^aaa Kov(^iadi]ao[Jbai 
 '^vyyjv KaKM<=; ere kuI av XuTr/jaet kXvcov. 
 
 2. Up66€ai<i, 475-498 : 
 
 eK TMV Be TTpMTcov TTpMTov ap^ofxai Xeyeiv. 
 
 I saved your life when you w^ere sent to overcome the fire- 
 breathing bulls, and I slew^ the dragon that guarded the 
 golden fleece. I deserted home and kindred to come with 
 you to lolchos. After receiving such favors, you have deserted 
 me and taken another wife. You have broken the oaths you 
 made before the gods, and I am ruined. 
 
 3. Uiarei^, 499-515* 
 
 a. 499-508. Come, I will converse with you as a friend, 
 — although expecting no advantage, — because wdien ques- 
 tioned you will appear the greater villain. Where now^ shall 
 I turn ? To the home I abandoned ? To the sad daughters 
 of Pelias ? A fine reception they w^ould give me after killing 
 their father. I have made enemies of my friends to help you. 
 
 1 V. 468 is probably interpolated from v. 1324. Klotz, however, defends it. 
 
32 
 
 James T. Lees^ 
 
 ^LKavLKo^; A6yo<; in Euripides. 
 
 33 
 
 ^' 509-515- For this you have made me a happy wife 
 indeed, and a wonderful husband I have in you if, as an 
 exile, I am driven away to wander with my children. 
 
 4. 'E7r/Xo709, 5 16-5 19 : 
 
 reKjJLy'jpL dvOpcoiroiaLV wiraaa^; aa(f>Pj^ 
 avSpMP 8' oTcp 'xptj TOP KaKov 8i€t8euai, 
 
 'Pii<ris OF Jason, 522-575. 
 
 1. UpooifjLtov, 532-525 : 
 
 I must not be slow to answer, but as a skilful pilot with 
 close-reefed sail,^ I must escape from the violent storm of 
 your words. 
 
 2. TIpodeaL^ omitted. 
 
 3. rito-Tei?, 526-567 : 
 
 a- 526-533. I consider that Kypris was the person who 
 saved me.^ Subtle and shrewd are your arguments, but it 
 was Eros that forced you to assist me. This point, however, 
 I will not press too closely. 
 
 0. 534-544. You have received more than you gave, as I 
 will prove. You live in Greece instead of among barbarians. 
 You enjoy the advantage of justice and law, and are not sub- 
 ject to mere force.^ You have gained a reputation among 
 the Greeks which otherwise you would not have. 
 
 Vv. 545, 546: 
 
 t *» 
 
 Toaavra fiev aot rcov e/jicov irovwv irept 
 eXe^ ' aficWav yap av 'iTpov6rjKa<^ Xoycov.^ 
 
 7- 547-5^7 (ovPjaai). You blame me because I married 
 into the royal family. In answer I will say that I was (i) 
 
 1 See the scholiast and Elmsley for a different interpretation of this passaj:^e. 
 
 2 Vv. 526-528. Nauck reads e-rrel arjv for eVeiS?; ; also <TU}T7]pias vavKXrjpov 
 for vavKXrjpias cribreLpav. See Nauck, Eur. Stud. I, p. 120. 
 
 3 V. 538. Kpdros, Nauck. Retain xapt" of the MSS. and cf. Soph. Antig. 30. 
 * V. 546. Cf. Suppl. 428. 
 
 i 
 
 
 wise, because I could not have gained a greater advantage 
 (vv. 551-554) ; (2) prudent, in that I was not influenced sim- 
 ply by a desire for a new wife (vv. 555-558) ; (3) a friend to 
 you and my children, because we could rise from poverty to 
 w^ealth (vv. 559-567). 
 
 4. 'Ett/Xoyo?, 567-575. It is the thought of your bed that 
 grates upon your feelings. 
 
 XPV^ ^P^ aWoOev TToOev fipoTOv^ 
 TralBa^ reKVovaOai, 6rj\v K ovfc elvai yevo^ • . 
 ^oi/TO)? av ovK rjv ovBev avOpcoiroi^ kukov. 
 
 Tijo-ts OF iMedeia. 
 
 TT 'z3 ( 475-487 answered 
 
 ^ ( 488-498 
 
 n/o-re^? /3. 509-515 " 
 
 riiVrets OF Jason. 
 
 «• 526-533. 
 /3. 534-544. 
 7. 547-567- 
 
 The Trpooifiiov in the pijai^ of Medeia is an answer to the 
 insulting language of Jason immediately preceding, and at 
 the same time an introduction to the 7rp6d€aL<;. In this prjcn^^t 
 as in that of Menelaos in Iph. en Aul. 337 fg., we find an 
 elaborate irpoOeaL^y in which Medeia relates the past actions 
 of Jason and her assistance to him. The TTiarei^ contain 
 little that can be called argumentative. It is not her purpose 
 to persuade him to relent, but rather to prove him to be the 
 utter wretch that he is. We should notice particularly vv. 
 475, 545, 546, as distinctly marking the dividing lines of the 
 parts of the pi'^aei^. The iiriXoyo^ of Medeia is excellent, 
 and may be compared with the best in any of the speeches. 
 
 Jason's speech is rather an dhiKo^ X6yo<;, but Euripidean 
 sophistry gives him a fairly good argument. Almost the 
 whole prjcri<i is occupied with answering the numerous charges 
 of Medeia, and in endeavoring to prove that his conduct is 
 justifiable. His arguments in vv. 551-567, where he tries to 
 prove that he has shown aocj^lap, aa>cf>pocTvvr)p, and ^iXlav in 
 his course of action, w^ould be almost amusing did they not 
 pertain to such a serious question and involve still more seri- 
 ous consequences. The irpooifiiov and eV/Xoyo?, as well as 
 
34 
 
 James T. LceSy 
 
 the several parts of the irlaTei^y are clearly defined and set 
 forth with the skill of a practised lawyer. 
 
 II. — AiKai^LKol Koi SvfJi/SovXeVTLKOL, 
 PARTLY DISCUSSION AND PARTLY PERSUASION. 
 I. HeKABE, 218-437. 'P/i(7€L^, 251-295, 299-331, 342-378. 
 
 Disputants, Hekabe and Odysseus. 
 Pleader^ Pol3'xena. 
 
 2. HiKETIDES, 87-584. 'P^;(T6f9, 163-I92, (195-249), 297- 
 331. 334-364, (409-425), 426-462, 465-510, 513-563- 
 
 Pleaders, Adrastos and Aithra. 
 
 Judge, Theseus. 
 
 Disputants, Herald and Theseus. 
 
 3. JPHrGENEIA EX AuLlDI, IIO6-I275. 'V))(Tei^, II46-I208, 
 
 I2II-I252. 
 Disputant, Klytaimnestra. 
 Pleader, Iphigeneia. 
 Judge, Agamemnon. 
 
 4. PhOINISSAI, 446-637. 'P;;(7e^9, 469-496, 499-525, 528- 
 
 585. 
 Disputants, Polyneikes and Eteokles. 
 Mediator, lokaste. 
 
 ANALYSIS OF PHOINISSAI, 446-637 
 
 The two sons of Oidipous, Kteokles and Polyneikes, having 
 agreed to rule Thebes year by year alternately, the younger 
 withdrew for a year. But at the end of the first year Eteo- 
 kles proved false to his promise, and would not relinquish the 
 rule. Polyneikes thereupon formed an alliance with Adras- 
 tos, king of Argos, and after collecting an army marched 
 against Thebes. When the invading army appeared before 
 the walls of the city, lokaste, the mother of the rival claim- 
 
 AcKavLKo^ A0709 /;/ Euripides. 
 
 35 
 
 t 
 
 ^. 
 
 4 
 
 ants, persuaded them to meet and try to settle their dispute. 
 Polyneikes then enters the city, and the brothers state their 
 case in the presence of lokaste. 
 
 'Pfjo-is OF Polyneikes, 469-496. 
 
 1. ITpoo/yLttor, 469-472 : 
 
 Truth is simple, and justice needs no cunning language, but 
 a false argument requires sophistic expedients.^ 
 
 2. YipoOeGi^, 473-493 ' 
 
 a. 473-483. To avoid the curse of Oidipous I voluntarily 
 left this land, after agreeing with Eteokles that we should 
 each rule a year in turn, and thus avoid enmity and blood- 
 shed.2 He has not kept his oath, but holds the sovereignty 
 and my share of the ruling power. 
 
 /3. 484-493. Even now I am willing to dismiss the army 
 if I am granted my rights, and after ruling my allotted time 
 I will resign. If this be not granted, I shall try to gain it by 
 force of arms, and I call the gods to witness the justice of 
 my cause. 
 
 3. n/o-Tet9 omitted. 
 
 4. 'E7r/Xo709, 494-496 : 
 
 ravT av6' eKaara, firJTep, ov^l 7r6pL7r\ofca<; 
 Xoycov a6polaa<^ elirov, aWa Kal cro</)ot9 
 Kal Tolai ^avXoLf; eVSt^', o)? efiol Bok€1. 
 
 'Pfi<rts OF Eteokles, 499-525. 
 
 1. Ylpooifxiov, 499-502: 
 
 el iraai ravro koXov €(f)u (T0(f}6v & afxa, 
 OVK TjV aV dfJL(j)L\€KTO<; dvOpMTTOt^; e/)i9 • 
 vvv o ovu ofioiov ovoev ovr lctov ppoTOt<;, 
 TrXrjv ovofiaaiv, to 8' epyov ovk ecTTiv roSe. 
 
 2. UpoOeat^ omitted. 
 
 1 This irpoolixLov is quoted by Stobaeus, Flor. XI, 12. Compare the thought 
 with Hek. 11 87-1 194. 
 
 2 Nauck rightly suspects v. 480. See Eur. Stud. I, p. 76. 
 
 ^ 
 
36 
 
 James T. LccSy 
 
 3. 11/(7X6^9, 503-520: 
 
 a. 503-508. I would do all in my power to gain the great- 
 est gift of the gods, — sovereignty, — and I am unwilling to 
 resisrn it to another. 
 
 y8. 509-514. It is cowardly to lose the greater and accept 
 the less. I should feel ashamed, and the citizens of Thebes 
 would reproach me, if I should yield to my brother when he 
 has come in arms. 
 
 7. 515-520. He ought to have offered to settle the ques- 
 tion by arbitration rather than enforce his claims by arms. 
 If he wishes to live here as a citizen he may do so, but I will 
 never consent ^ to become his subject. 
 
 4. 'Ett/Xoyo?, 521-525 : 
 
 Therefore come fire, sword, and chariot, for I will not give 
 up my sovereignty. 
 
 el'irep yap dSifcetv XP^'h TvpavviSo^ irepi 
 koWlo-tov aSi/celv, rciWa S' evo-ejSelv ^pecoi^. 
 
 'PfjoriS OF lOKASTE, 528-585. 
 I. UpOOl/JLLOV, 528-530:^ 
 
 ft) TeKVov, ov^ ciTravra tm yfjpa fcaKCi, 
 'Ereo/cXees", irpoaeariv • aXX' ij/JLTreipia 
 €)(€i TL Xe^at Tcov vecov croclxoTepop. 
 
 2. UpoOeaL'i omitted. 
 
 3. n/o-Tff?, 53i-5^'^3: 
 
 a. 531-548.-'^ (Addressed to Eteokles.) Why do you court 
 distinction, the greatest evil of the gods, which has destroyed 
 many homes and cities ? It is far better to respect the law 
 of equality, which binds friends to friends, cities to cities, and 
 has established fair dealing among men. Even night and 
 day proceed in equal rounds, and neither one is envious of 
 the other. 
 
 ^ V. 519. Retain fxedriffOfiaL of the MSS. 
 
 ■^ This TTpooi/jiLov is also quoted by Stobacus, Flor. XV, I. 
 3 Cf. Dio Chrysost. XVII, p. 2S7. 
 
 LiKavLKo^ \6yo^ in Euripides. 
 
 37 
 
 4 
 
 i 
 
 h 
 
 ^' 549-557- ^Vhy do you prize sovereignty so highly } It 
 is but prosperity with injustice, — an empty honor. Why toil 
 laboriously when you have much at home 1^ Wealth is but a 
 name, and riches belong not to men, but to the gods. 
 
 7- 558-565. I propose to you two alternatives. Do you 
 prefer to rule or to save the city } Do you say you prefer to 
 hold the throne.? Then, if he is victorious, you will see 
 Thebes conquered and many captive maidens ruined by your 
 enemies. 
 
 3. 568-583:2 
 
 (Tol /Jiev TdS* avScb, aol Be UoXvvet/ce^; \eyco. 
 (Addressed to Polyneikes.) Adrastos has not wisely con- 
 ferred his favors, and you are foolish for coming to destroy 
 the city. Suppose you take the city — Heaven forbid ! — 
 how can you inscribe upon the spoils : 
 
 "0?;y8a9 iTvpMaa^ rdaSe IIoXvv€lk7](; 6eol<; 
 
 On the other hand, if you are defeated, how can you return 
 to Argos after leaving the dead ? Many will say : 
 
 " M fcaKci fjLvrjarevfjiaTa 
 "ASpaare irpoaOel^, Sid fjnd^; vv^(^7]^ ydfLov 
 aTTCoXo/jieaOa. 
 
 4. 'EirlXoyo^, 584, 585 : 
 
 /jbiderov to Xlav, fxederov • dfiaOiai Svolv, 
 eh ravO* orav ploXt^tov, ex^carov KaKov, 
 The arguments of lokaste, powerful as they are, have no 
 effect on Eteokles. He declares that words can accomplish 
 nothing in the present contest (588, 589), and orders his 
 brother to leave the city (593). This causes a very passion- 
 ate debate to take place between the brothers in a series of 
 trochaic verses (594-624). At first the debate is conducted 
 in o-nxop'vOLa (596-602), but as their anger increases they 
 change to ij/jLiarixtay and thus continue to the end (603-624). 
 
 1 v. 552. Retain iv dii/j-aac of the MSS. On evdaifiova (the reading of 
 Nauck) see Eur. Stud. I, 78. 
 
 2 Dindorf rightly condemns vv. 566, 567. Nauck puts v. 567 in brackets. 
 
 « 
 
38 
 
 Ja772cs T. LeeSy 
 
 ^iKaviKo^ A0709 /;/ Euripides. 
 
 39 
 
 In vv. 625-635 Polyneikes calls upon the gods to witness the 
 injustice he receives, and as he departs Eteokles exclaims : 
 
 e^iO €K ^copa^ ' d\r}6a)<s 3' ovofxa I1o\vv6lk7]v irarrjp 
 eOero aou Oela irpovoia V6iKeo)V tTroovvjJLOV, 
 
 There are several points in the above pr]aei<; that are worthy 
 of special attention. The most striking peculiarity is the 
 length and arrangement of the three speeches. The py)(TL<^ 
 of Polyneikes is exactly the same length as that of his brother. 
 The two p7J<7€i(; taken together contain about the same num- 
 ber of verses as one prjo-L^ in other discussions. In the p}]aL<; 
 of Polyneikes also the 7riaT6i<; are wanting. The irpoOeaL^ is 
 the part that is generally omitted, but here we find the whole 
 prjaL<^ is practically limited to the irpoOeaL^ or huj^rjai^. The 
 pr)ai^ of Eteokles, on the other hand, is nearly all occupied 
 with the iriareL^. The poet has skilfully placed the best 
 arguments last, in order to leave as good an impression as 
 possible of this unjust side of the case. The irpoolpLLov and 
 €7rl\oyo(; are clearly defined in each pPjaL<;. Another peculiar 
 feature is that lokaste is not a judge to decide the contest, 
 but acts as mediator, and the prfai^ which she delivers is 
 almost exactly the length of both the preceding combined. 
 She addresses the last speaker first, refutes every argument 
 he has advanced, then turns to the first speaker and urges 
 him not to make war on his own city. Her arguments, how- 
 ever, are of no avail. 
 
 The scholiast has the following interesting observation on 
 the pTjaLii of lokaste : 
 
 eV TOVTOt<i ovSev ^loKdarr) avfi/Se/SovXevKe tol'^ TraLol koivco- 
 </)6Xe9. ciWd T(p jbtev \eyei, et? tl (j)t\oTi/jLfj rvpavvelv ; tw Be, 
 eh TL TToXe/Ltet? t)]p TrarpiSa ; ixP^^ Be tovtol^ av/jL^ovXevaai, 
 Bce\ofjiivov(; ret Trarpcna, Kai ti]v IBaaiXelav iravaaaOaL ttj^ 
 BLXOo-Taaia<;y ottw? VTrearrjaav ef cipX^)^ "^<^ iiepo<^ dp^^iv. 
 KUL yap eVl rco Troirjrj} rjv TrotfjcraL avroi^ jmy ireiOo^evov^, 
 OTTO)? Ta T/}<? laropiaf; ixivrj ^e^aia. e'/fiapro yap avTov<; dWr]- 
 XoKrovov<; yevofievovi;, Kara rd^ dpd<; rod irarpo^i diroOavelv. 
 
 VVV 06 OuSeV TOVTCOP 7T67rOi7]K6V. 
 
 n 
 
 III. — Svii/3ov\€vtlk6<;. 
 PERSUASION WHOLLY. 
 
 I. Helen, 865-1029. 'F/jaec^;, 894-943, 947-995^ 998- 
 1029. 
 Pleaders, Helen and Menelaos. 
 Judge, Theonoe. 
 
 IV. — 'ETTlSet/CTlK-d?. 
 
 I. Troades, 353-405- 
 Speaker, Kassandra. 
 
 
 
 V. 
 
 'ETTtrac^tot. 
 
 
 L HiKETIDES 
 
 5, 857-917. 
 
 
 
 Speaker, 
 
 Adrastos. 
 
 
 
 2. Troades, 
 
 I 156-1206. 
 
 
 
 SpeakeVy 
 
 Hek 
 
 sioxs 
 
 abe. 
 
 
 
 Divi 
 
 OF THE Principal Speeches in 
 
 Euripides. 
 
 Alkestis. 
 
 
 
 
 
 irpoo(|xiov 
 
 629-633 
 675-680 
 
 
 •irp60€(rts 
 
 irio-TCis 
 633-668 
 681-702 
 
 tiriXo-yos 
 
 669-672 
 703-705 
 
 Andromache. 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 147-154 
 183-191 
 
 319-323 
 645-654 
 
 
 324-329 
 657-661 
 
 155-180 
 192-228 
 333-360 
 662-687 
 
 229-231 
 
 361-363 
 688-690 
 
 Bakchai. 
 
 
 
 
 
 266-271 
 
 
 272-287 
 
 288-321 
 
 322-327 
 
 330-332 
 
 
 
 333-340 
 
 341-342 
 
 Hekabe. 
 
 
 
 251-285 
 
 286-295 
 
 299-300 
 
 
 342-348 
 II32-II36 
 
 301-331 
 
 349-368 
 
 II36-II74 
 
 369-378 
 II75-I182 
 
 1 1 87 -1 194 
 
 
 
 II95-1232 
 
 1232-I237 
 
 I 
 
40 
 
 James T. Lees, 
 
 AtKavLKo<i A0709 tn Euripides. 
 
 41 
 
 Helen. 
 
 
 
 
 trpooifiiov 
 
 irpoBco-is 
 
 894-943 
 
 947-995 
 
 e-TrCXo-yos 
 
 Elektra. 
 
 
 
 
 1011-1017 
 
 
 101S-1048 
 
 I 049- I 050 
 
 I 060- I 06 I 
 
 
 I 062- I 093 
 
 I 093- I 096 
 
 Herakleidai. 
 
 
 
 
 134-135 
 
 136-138 
 
 139-174 
 
 174-178 
 
 181-183 
 
 
 184-219 
 
 226-231 
 
 Herakles Mainomenos. 
 
 
 
 140-143 
 
 
 144-164 
 
 165-169 
 
 
 170-173 
 
 174-226 
 
 227-235 
 
 I255-I257 
 
 
 1258-1298 
 
 1299-1310 
 
 
 
 ^I'^-h-'^iyj 
 
 1338-1339 
 
 Hiketides. 
 
 
 
 
 163-167 
 
 168-183 
 
 184-189 
 
 190-192 
 
 297-300 
 
 
 301-325 
 
 326-331 
 
 
 
 409-422 
 
 423-425 
 
 426-428 
 
 
 429-455 
 
 456-462 
 
 465-466 
 
 467-475 
 
 476-505 
 
 506-510 
 
 513-516 
 
 
 517-557 
 
 558-563 
 
 '^-:>1-^S^ 
 
 860-908 
 
 
 909-917 
 
 I 080- I 086 
 
 
 1 087- 1 107 
 
 II08-1113 
 
 HiPPOLYTOS. 
 
 
 
 
 936-942 
 
 943-945 
 
 946-970 
 
 971-980 
 
 983-991 
 
 
 991-1024 
 
 1025-1033 
 
 Iphigeneia en 
 
 AULIDI. 
 
 
 
 334-336 
 
 337-365 
 
 366-372 
 
 yii-yis 
 
 378-380 
 
 
 381-399 
 
 400-40 I 
 
 II46-II47 
 
 II48-I165 
 
 1 166-1205 
 
 1 206-1 208 
 
 I2II-I2I5 
 
 
 1216-1248 
 
 I 249-1 252 
 
 Ion. 
 
 
 
 
 585-589 
 
 
 589-644 
 
 644-647 
 
 KVKLOPS. 
 
 
 
 
 285-289 
 
 
 290-309 
 
 309-312 
 
 316-317 
 
 
 ^iS-^-ia 
 
 \A.^-XAf> 
 
 4 
 
 ^ 
 
 irpooi^jLiov 
 
 465-474 
 522-525 
 
 Orestes. 
 491-495 
 
 544-548 
 640-641 
 
 Troades. 
 
 353-364 
 914-918 
 
 969-970 
 1156-1157 
 
 Phoinissai. 
 
 469-472 
 499-502 
 
 528-530 
 
 "TrpoOco-ts 
 
 475-498 
 
 irio-TCts 
 
 499-515 
 
 526-567 
 
 496-533 
 
 549-599 
 642-677 
 
 370-402 
 
 919-960 
 
 971-1028 
 
 1 1 58-1 199 
 
 503-520 
 531-583 
 
 CTTlXoYOS 
 
 516-519 
 
 567-575 
 
 
 
 534-541 
 
 
 
 600-604 
 
 
 
 678-679 
 
 365- 
 
 -369 
 
 403-405 
 
 q6i-q6; 
 
 
 
 1020-1032 
 
 
 
 I 200- I 206 
 
 473-493 
 
 494-496 
 521-525 
 
 
 
 584-585 
 
 
 
 
 Rhetorical Index to the Speeches of Euripides. 
 
 'AvaSCirXwo-is; Alk. 677, Andr. 319, 650, 651, (656), 678, Hek. 328, Hel. ^ 
 
 952, Herak. (225), 229, Hiket. 857, 1108, 1109, Iph. Aul. 11 74, ii75' 1252, 
 
 Kvkl. 322, rhoin. 536, 537, 552. 
 •Ava4>opa; Her. Main. 143, 144, 148-150. 170, 17I' 1301, 1316, 1317. ^led. 467, 
 
 Phoin. 521, 585. 
 'AvTiGeo-is; Alk. 685, 692, Hiket. 902, 908, Med. 469-472 {et passim). 
 ElKoVa; Bak. 288 fg., Elek. 947, 1036, Hek. 271 fg., 282, 1207, Her. Main. 
 
 1314 fg., Ion 594-611, Hipp. 1008, Crest. 532. 
 ELpcov€£a; Alk. 699 fg., Med. 472, 504, 51O' Troad. 353 fg., 365 %•> 386 fg. 
 » 'EXaxTcoo-is; Andr. 186, Hek. 1237, Med. 532, Crest. 544, Troad. 384. 
 » "EXc^Xos; Alk. 640, 679 fg., 696, Elek. 1069 fg., Hek. 1199 fg., Herak. 184 fg., 
 
 Her. Main. 162, 190 ig., Hipp. 944, Iph. Aul. 335, Med. 566. 
 •EpuixTio-is; Alk. 689, 691, 698, 702, Andr. 193, I95» 198, 200, 202 {et passim). 
 Maprvpia; Herak. 219, Her. Main. 176, Hipp. 944, 960, 972, 977> 1022, Iph. 
 
 Aul. 11^8, Med. 517, 532, Phoin. 491, Troad. 955. 
 napa8€i^H.aTa; Andr. 215 fg., 333 k; 645 %•» 663 fg., 668 fg., Elek. 1041 fg., 
 
 Herak. 144 fg., 207 fg.. Her. Main. 1316, Med. 508, Crest. 507 fg. 
 o Hio-Two-is; Hek. 299, Hiket. 476, Hipp. 1025 fg., Troad. 916 fg. 
 , npoKaTdXTix|/is; Hiket. 184 ig., 314 fg-, Ion 629, Troad. 916 fg., 938 fg., 951 fg. 
 TcKHLTipia; Alk. 634, 653 fg., Andr. 677, Elek. 1041, 1086, Hek. 1206, Hel. 920^., 
 
 Herakl. 142, Iph. Aul. 1185 ig., Troad. 961, 962, 970. 
 
42 
 
 James T. Lees. 
 
 Literature. 
 
 1. Aristotle. Ars Rhetorica, Liber IIL 
 
 2. Biass. Die Attische Beredsamkeit. Leipzig, 1868. 
 
 3. Cyranka. De Orationum Thucy. Elocutione cum Trag. Comparata. Breslau 
 
 1875. 
 
 4. Dio Chrys )stomus. Oratio 52. 
 
 5. Dionysius Halicarnassensis. Ars Rhetorica, c. X. 
 
 6. Jebb. Attic Orators, VoL I. 
 
 7. Jebb. The Speeches of Thucydides. Oxford, 1880. 
 
 8. Moulton. The Ancient Classical Drama. Macmillan & Co., 1890. 
 
 9. Miiller. Dispositionen zu den Reden bei Thucydides. Paderborn und 
 
 MUnster, 18S7. 
 10. Volkmann. Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Romer. Leipzig, 1868. 
 
 i 
 
 For Textual Criticism. 
 
 1. Cobet. Variae Lectiones. Ed. II. Lugduni-Batavorum, 1873. 
 
 2. Kvicala. Studien zu Euripides. Wien, 1879. 
 
 3. Xauck. Euripideische Studien. St. Petersburg, 1S59-1862. 
 
 4. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. Analecta Euripidea. Berlin, 1875. 
 
 1 
 
 * 
 
i 
 
 # 
 
■■1 ■', 
 
 » I 
 
 d 
 
 
 \ 
 
 fC 
 
 COLUMB 
 
 A UNIVERSITY 
 
 0026061031 
 
 ti