Antistrophe

Abstract: THIS parable' of the lion in the house, in the third stasimon of the Agarnremnon, comes unannounced from the mouth of the chorus with all the abruptness and dark ambiguity of an oracular response. The opening phrase abandons the theme of the preceding lines, Helen and Troy (the connecting word oi`-7wq comes seventh in the sentence); the closing words provide no verbal link2 with the following strophe, which resumes the abandoned theme. The parable's apparent thematic independence of its context is emphasized by a formal device, the reappearance in its end of its opening words, Z`peiev... a6loto, ao,6o4 7rpocOp6cp0jn; this is a wellknown technique for marking off a selfcontained digression, which is already fully developed in Homer it appears, for instance, in the long digression which explains the origin of Odysseus' scar in Odyssey 19.3 The lioncub parable is a separate unity formally marked off from its context, and this, together with its emphatic position, central in the central stasimon of the tragedy, suggests that its meaning is of more than local importance. It has, of course, its local application. The context suggests that the lioncub is Helen, and the man who takes it into his house Paris,4 or more generally, Troy. This interpretation, demanded by the context in which the parable appears, is discussed and developed at length by the modern critics.5 The parallel is exact and significant. Troy adopts and maintains, S`Ope?v, Helen, and at the outset of her life at Troy, 'v P toTOu CpO-eXaLot, she is gentle, x6 this is a sarcastic reflection on the yoCtog, the "marriage" of Helen and Paris. The connotations of the word po-ZXcoc also suggest the incongruous idea of virginity, an ironical reference to the promiscuity of Helen, which the chorus has already referred to specifically earlier in the play; 7roXuvCVopo4... .UVOCLXO4 they call her in the parodos (62).7 She was delightful to those who are held in honor, to the elders (each of the disputed readings yepocpoZg and yepoctoCq suggests the other); the phrase refers, as Headlam points out,8 to the famous passage in Iliad 6, where even the old men of Troy are for a moment swayed by Helen's beauty. The epic forms and usages found in these lines, the locative 8 6oLo, the forms 7Zo?LCx, 7ZoT, and (adopting Casaubon's reading) ?Cax' emphasize the reference to the Homeric scene. The antistrophe describes the destruction brought to Troy by Helen, the lioncub. When the time came, XpovtaOC4, she repaid those who had sheltered her, X&cPLV... 7poyem,v a4tp?Cv, with blood, ocv 8' obcxo4 scp67pO. She was ieyoc acLvo4 7oXi[x-rOvov for the Tro-

Abstract: Among the lyrics of extant Greek tragedy several passages of Euripides are remarkable for the effects of pathos achieved by introducing children. In Alcestis the children of the protagonists appear unexpectedly on the stage and sing a strophic lament over their dead mother, punctuated by two trimeters of Admetus sharing their grief (392-415). Suppliants presents an even longer and more complex choral lament as Euadne's now orphaned children join with the chorus in a commatic, antiphonal threnos for their mother (1123-64).1 Their appearance not only adds to the sudden flurry of new characters when the play is already nearing its end (Euadne enters at 990 and her father Iphis at 1034) but also fills out the panorama of lament at the end of the play: children and a father lament over a mother and a daughter who chose a heroic death, and the Argive children, thanks to Theseus, can lament over the bodies of their slain warrior fathers (Supp. 1114-75). The parallelism helps emphasize the heroism of Euadne, one of several self-sacrificing women in these so-called political plays. Euripides obtains another kind of pathos by the offstage cries of Medea's children at the moment of their murder. In an initial strophe and antistrophe the chorus of Corinthian women expresses its horror at the imminent slaughter and speculates on its supernatural causes (an Erinys in the house, 1258-60) and also on its human motivations (Me-

Abstract: This thesis is in two parts. The introduction begins with an examination of the myths of Rhesus and Dolon which are independent of Iliad 10. It concludes that the author knew of these and adapted parts of them. The section on authenticity summarises those features of Rh . which have been regarded by scholars as incompatible with Euripidean authorship, as well as some evidence which has previously been ignored. It concludes that a combination of unusual features in Rh . point away from the play being an early work of E. In particular, these are: a limited use of colloquialism; the absence of πeρί and the scarcity of άπό; the lameness of many of the repetitions; intertextual allusions to other tragic texts; enjambement between strophe and antistrophe at 350-351; the presence of two sets of separated strophes and antistrophes; the delivery of a lyric monody by the deus ex machina ; a preference for shorter periods in anapaests than E.; the absence of a dramatic exposition; the unannounced symmetrical entries at 264; physical contact between actor and chorus at 681; the appearance of two dei ex machina ; the realistic role of the chorus and the absence of any intellectual or emotional dimension. I believe that Rh . was written after the death of E. , but have found no evidence to suggest who wrote it. The introduction concludes with a brief survey of the textual sources. The commentary is based on J. Diggle's text (1994), although some other readings or conjectures have been preferred. New conjectures have been introduced at 4-5 and 247. It is the first commentary written on lines 1-526 since that of W.H. Porter (1929 2 ) and follows the standard format except that the lyric schemata are examined in the introduction. The anapaestic opening is defended and a άπ. λeγ. is reported for the first time at 353 (ύδρeιδης).

Abstract: T HE THIRD CHORAL ODE of the Medea (824-65), with its lavish encomium of Athens' cultural accomplishments and natural beauty, is one of the most celebrated passages in all of Euripides' poetry. The stasimon's general structure is simple and clear: the first pair of strophes praises the city, beginning in the first strophe in general terms with its divine protection (824-26) before moving on to specify in particular its wisdom and culture (Harmonia and the Muses, 829-341), and then, in the first antistrophe, continuing with a further particular aspect, this time Aphrodite (835-40), to conclude by climactically combining both themes in the correlation of Sophia and the Erotes (840-45); the second strophic pair draws the consequences from this general characterization of Athens (ouv 846) and applies them to the specific dramatic situation, turning to address Medea directly, asking her how so holy a city could possibly accept her if she kills her children (846-50), begging her to desist from her horrendous plan (851-55), wondering how she could possibly have the reckless audacity to carry it out (856-62), and finally suggesting that in the end she will prove unable to do so (863-65). Nor does the ode's specific relevance to the immediate dramatic situation present any difficulties: in the preceding scene with Aegeus, Medea has finally secured the place of refuge whose necessity she had recognized when considering her various options for vengeance (cf. 386-88), so that now she can go ahead with the plan she had preferred; when she tells the chorus that she has decided to kill the children so as to punish Jason (790-810), the Corinthian women react with courteously formulated horror (811-13), asking her some of the very same questions they will then go on to repeat in this ode (compare especially TOknIcYit 816 and To'ktav 859) and expressing for the first time an emotional distance from her which will increase throughout the rest of the play.