Euripides (Ed Paley) - V1- Rhesus, Medea, Hippolytus, Alcestis, Heraclidae, Supplices, Troades

ClassicsFrom the Renaissance to the nineteenth century, Latin and Greek were compulsory subjects in almost all European universities, and most early modern scholars published their research and conducted international correspondence in Latin. Latin had continued in use in Western Europe long after the fall of the Roman empire as the lingua franca of the educated classes and of law, diplomacy, religion and university teaching. The flight of Greek scholars to the West after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 gave impetus to the study of ancient Greek literature and the Greek New Testament. Eventually, just as nineteenth-century reforms of university curricula were beginning to erode this ascendancy, developments in textual criticism and linguistic analysis, and new ways of studying ancient societies, especially archaeology, led to renewed enthusiasm for the Classics. This collection offers works of criticism, interpretation and synthesis by the outstanding scholars of the nineteenth century.

EuripidesFrederick Apthorp Paley (18151888) published Volume 1 of his English commentary on Euripides in 1857. It contains the Greek text of seven of Euripidess most popular plays: Rhesus, Medea, Hippolytus, Alcestis, Heraclidae, Supplices and Troades, each with an introductory essay. Paleys detailed commentary is given at the foot of each page of Greek text. It discusses Euripides language and style, explaining difficult grammatical structures, syntax and vocabulary; poetic form and Euripides innovative approach to composing tragedy; textual variation between manuscripts; the historical and literary context of each play; and their reception history. Paleys work greatly influenced Euripidean scholarship: for over a century it was a widely used teaching tool in schools and universities. An outstanding piece of classical scholarship and a key text in the history of Euripidean interpretation, it deserves continued consideration by future generations of scholars and students.

C a m b r i d g e L i b r a r y C o L L e C t i o nBooks of enduring scholarly value

Cambridge University Press has long been a pioneer in the reissuing of out-of-print titles from its own backlist, producing digital reprints of books that are still sought after by scholars and students but could not be reprinted economically using traditional technology. The Cambridge Library Collection extends this activity to a wider range of books which are still of importance to researchers and professionals, either for the source material they contain, or as landmarks in the history of their academic discipline.

Drawing from the world-renowned collections in the Cambridge University Library, and guided by the advice of experts in each subject area, Cambridge University Press is using state-of-the-art scanning machines in its own Printing House to capture the content of each book selected for inclusion. The files are processed to give a consistently clear, crisp image, and the books finished to the high quality standard for which the Press is recognised around the world. The latest print-on-demand technology ensures that the books will remain available indefinitely, and that orders for single or multiple copies can quickly be supplied.

The Cambridge Library Collection will bring back to life books of enduring scholarly value (including out-of-copyright works originally issued by other publishers) across a wide range of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences and in science and technology.

EuripidesWith an English Commentary

Volume 1

Edited by Frederick Apthorp Paley

CAmbRIDGE UNIVERsITy PREss

Cambridge, New york, melbourne, madrid, Cape Town, singapore, so Paolo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo

Published in the United states of America by Cambridge University Press, New york

www.cambridge.orgInformation on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108011167

in this compilation Cambridge University Press 2010

This edition first published 1857This digitally printed version 2010

IsbN 978-1-108-01116-7 Paperback

This book reproduces the text of the original edition. The content and language reflect the beliefs, practices and terminology of their time, and have not been updated.

Cambridge University Press wishes to make clear that the book, unless originally published by Cambridge, is not being republished by, in association or collaboration with, or with the endorsement or approval of, the original publisher or its successors in title.

BIBLIOTHECA CLASSICA.EDITED BY

GEORGE LONG, M.A.

FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,

AND THE

REV. A. J. MACLEANE, M.A.TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

EURIPIDES,

WITH AN ENGLISH COMMENTAEY,

BY

F. A. PALEY.

VOL. I.

LONDON:

"WHITTAKEE AND CO. AVE MAEIA LANE;

GEOEGE BELL, FLEET STEEET.

1857.

E U R I P I D E S .

WITH AN ENGLISH COMMENTARY

R A. PALEY,EDITOE OF AESCHYLUS, ETC.

IN THESE TOIitTMES.

VOL. I.

LONDON:

WHITTAKER AND CO. AVE MARIA LANE;

GEORGE BELL, FLEET STREET.

1857.

P R E F A C E .

Celebrity of Euripides.Reasons of it.His simplicity of style.Proofs of his popu-larity.His enemies.Unfairness of Aristophanes.Of Schlegel.The true provinceof Tragedy.Euripides charged with having lowered it.His familiar style.Hisobject in depicting woe.-Why unpleasing to Athenians.His common characters.His slaves.Political opinions.Dislike of tyrants.Praise of the agriculturists andthe middle classes.Whether attached to the war-party.Alcibiades.Passagesagainst the demagogues.Expedition to Sicily.His dislike of the Spartans.Hisreligious views.The soothsayers.His scepticism. Popular unbelief.Socrates.Euripides charged with atheism.His Pantheism, and ideas of a Supreme Being.Influence of Fortune in human affairs.Doctrine of Necessity.Not really anatheist.His disbelief in the old Polytheism.Alleged immoralities of the gods.Their existence sometimes acknowledged.His philosophical opinions.Astronomy.Pantheistic views of Ald^p.The rotation (5iV7j) of the earth.Doctrine ofMind, borrowed from Anaxagoras.Al6i]p identified with Zevs.His study ofphysics.The sun a red-hot mass.His frequent use of the word

vi CELEBRITY OF EURIPIDES.

rited the glorious title of The Poet; he was the divine Homer ',and from him the Tragic authors, not less than the rest of hismore direct imitators, derived the themes which their art hasinvested as it were with a second immortality2. Viewed in theaspect under which the Greeks themselves seem to have regardedhim, he is (to use a simile not strictly in accordance with theirphysical theories,) as the sun in the centre of the system, roundwhom the other poets, little and great, and at very unequal dis-tances, revolve, borrowing their own splendour from his unap-proachable rays, and diffasing a milder radiance from the light ofhis eternal wisdom. Although Aeschylus and Sophocles have everbeen the favourite study of the learned, and have been held bycompetent critics as second only to Homer, yet there are goodreasons for believing that Euripides was the more familiar andcherished companion of the many in the Republic of ancientLiterature, as he appears also to have been in the middle ages,wherever the Greek language was studied at all3. At the pre-sent day, though the taste of modern scholars has rather goneagainst him, not a few may be found, who, either because heappears to them more easily intelligible, or from the greatertenderness and pathos of his poetry, prefer him to either of hiscompetitors in the tragic art. When Aristophanes *, comparing

1 6 6e7os"0/j.ripos, Ar. Ran. 1034.2 The Epic Cyclus was a collection of poems by various authors and with several

distinctive titles, but forming in the whole a sequel or continuation, or ratherperhaps an expansion, of the Homeric poems. It was from the Cyclus, rather thandirectly from the Iliad or the Odyssee, that the subjects for tragedies were so fre-quently selected. Thus, the Orestea, of Aeschylus, the Philoctetes, Electra, and Ajaxof Sophocles, the Troades and Helena of our poet, with many more, were takenfrom the Cyclus. But the Tragic writers freely borrowed both words and sentiments,as well as imagery, from Homer himself, and they did so avowedly.

3 The Greek language, unlike the Latin, was little known in Europe from the sub-version of the Western Empire till the end of the fourteenth century, when it seems tohave been first introduced into Italy by a Byzantine, Emanuel Chrysoloras. It wasnot till after the Council of Florence (1439) and the capture of Constantinople bythe Turks (1453) that the study of Greek became at all common in the West. Ourpresent Greek MSS., with rare exceptions, were written either by Byzantine scholarsor in Greek monasteries in the East. See Hallam's Middle Ages, Vol. iii. chap ix'Part ii.

4 Ran. 1413.

SIMPLICITY OF STYLE. Vll

Aeschylus with. Euripides, makes Dionysus, as the judge, tosay

rbv fj.cv yap 7jyovf/.at (rofpbv, T $ 5* TJSO^CU,

he not only expresses the opinion of his contemporaries on theirrespective merits, but he supplies us with the precise grounds onwhich the reputation of Euripides rests. He is, to speak fami-liarly, " pleasant reading." There is less of mystic theology, ofobscure and involved diction, we might almost say, less of Mindin him, than in the other two Tragic authors. It is not meant bythis, that he was less thoughtful, or had less of inventive geniusthan they; but that his language is simpler, his doctrines lessrecondite, his ideas more tangible, more on a level with ordi-nary comprehension, his characters more like those of men ingeneral. At the same time, the student of Euripides must bewarned, that there is no greater delusion than to imagine thatthis author is, absolutely or even comparatively, very easy. Noreally good scholar, no careful critic or grammarian, has everfound bim so; and therefore, if any young persons should beinclined to congratulate themselves on the supposed facilitywith which they can construe and understand his plays, letthem learn to be very suspicious of their own powers, for thenthey will have a much better chance of really doing justice totheir author5. There is an epigram in the Anthology whereinhis style is aptly described as

Adri /iiv yap ISetp Kal eViVporos" el Se ris UUTVelrrfiaivot, xa^w0^ Tpj]xvTt

At first sight, his meaning often seems clearer than it willappear on a much more attentive and critical perusal; and thereason of this is, that he has a certain fluency or facility ofwords, which is deceptive, unless we deeply consider all thatthey are intended to convey. His dexterity of expression 6 is

5 Joshua Barnes, in his quaint way, says (Vit. Eurip. fol. xix), " Stylus Euripidisadeo facilis, pervius et apertus Iegentibus apparet, ut cuivis videatur nullo negotio inimitationera trahendus. Quod si ilium assequi putes, eodem tempore ventos pugnocomprimes, solem ferula e coelo tolles, Homero carmen eripies, clavam Herculi extor-quebis et fulmen Jovi."

6 KO/nifeupciriKoiis, Ar. Equit. 18.

PROOFS OF HIS POPULARITY.

apt to hurry us on faster than his train of thought. ThatEuripides has always been the most popular writer may be in-ferred, (apart from anecdotes and direct testimonies to thateffect,) not only from the much greater number of his tragediesand of the fragments that have been preserved to us, but fromthe more frequent mention of his name and reference to hiswritings and opinions which we meet with in Greek authors,especially the grammarians and the philosophical essayists of alater age 7. The Romans too were very partial to the yv&fiat, ofEuripides. The very nature of his plays, so full of feeling, sotouching to the heart, so deeply imbued with sympathy for thefailings and sufferings of humanity8, was such as to secure alarge share of admiration from all who themselves know what itis to feel.

" Mollissima cordaHumano generi dare se Natura fatetur,Quae lacrimas dedit."

Yet, with such undoubted claims upon our esteem, it is never-theless true, that while neither Aeschylus nor Sophocles hasever had any serious detractors, it has been the fate of Euri-pides, if he has had many warm friends, also to have met withsome bitter enemies. Now much of this odium is unquestion-ably due, not to any real faults of his own, but to the irre-sistible wit and raillery of Aristophanes, who, whether he hadany personal quarrel with Euripides, or simply disliked hisinnovations in the old tragedy, has so severely and unceasinglysatirized him, that the very name of Euripides almost uncon-sciously connects itself with the idea of a butt set up for the

1 Miiller remarks (Literature of Ancient Greece, p. 361) that " it is just because itis so easy to extract sententious passages from his plays, and to collect them in antho-logies, that the later writers of antiquity, who were better able to appreciate the partthan the whole,the pretty and clever passages than the general plan of the work,have so greatly liked and admired this poet."

8 This alone is sufficient to raise Euripides above the standard both of his con-temporaries and of his predecessors. Generally speaking, Grecian and Roman litera-ture is alike devoid of that spirit of true humanity which perhaps can only proceed,as a principle of action, from the Christian doctrine of the duty of love to our enemies.The Greeks were sentimental, but not therefore humane. A reflecting mind is con-stantly struck with the near approach which Euripides makes to many truths whichwe hold sacred. It is a fine verse which says (Suppl. 768), ri 5' aXaxpiiv avBpibirmairaW^Kwy Kami

UNFAIRNESS OF ARISTOPHANES. IX

arrows of ridicule. Unfortunately, most persons (at all eventsyoung persons) are more partial to what is merely amusing thanto either deep thought or the exercise of independent judgment,and we are all naturally more disposed to join others inblaming, than to stand forward in defence of disputed merit.It is to be feared that many, even up to the present day, havelaid far too much stress on the flippant jokes of Aristophanes.Some, like A. W. Yon Schlegel, the German critic, have adopted themost disparaging tone and language in speaking of Euripides, andhave closely followed the great master of Comedy9 in his specificattacks upon the Tragic poet. Without calling in question thegenius of Aristophanes, nor his competence to judge of Tragicart, (of which indeed he has given convincing proofs in hisamazing versatility of composition,) we must remember that thecleverest men are not always the most exempt from prejudice.What we doubt is simply his fairness. He probably foresawthat Euripides was becoming a favourite with the people 10, and(from what motive is uncertain, though many motives may beplausibly suggested) was determined at all hazards to laugh himdown. And certainly it was not in human nature,at least,not in Athenian nature,to withstand the ludicrous figurewhich the poor poet is made to assume in the Acharnians,where, seated between heaps of tragic tatters, he exclaims,

9 " In him (Euripides) he has exposed with infinite cleverness and good sense thequibbling sophistry, the rhetorical display, and philosophical cant; the immoralityand debauching softness, the excitement of mere animal emotion," &c. &c. (Schlegel,Fifth Lecture, in Thealre of the Greeks, p. 232.) Against such language as this, andgenerally against the flippant and sarcastic tone which this critic adopts in his ana-lysis of the plots of Euripides' dramas, and in comparing him with the other tragicwriters, the present editor ventures to protest. This Greek Theatre wants athorough sweeping out; much that is behind the critical knowledge of the day(e. g. " Canones Dawesiani") might be cut out; but at all events, let not youngstudents be set against the study of Euripides by such preposterous mis-statements asSchlegel's.

10 It is clear, from the whole tenour of that amusing passage in the Clouds, v. 1364,&c, that Euripides was the fashionable poet of the day. Strepsiades there complainsthat his son, such are his new-fangled notions, when challenged to sing an ode of oldSimonides or at least to recite a passage from Aeschylus, churlishly refused to com-ply ; and being then bidden a\ka -voirav \e |ai TI TUV vewTepwv, O.TT' CVT! TO aofya.TaCTB, he forthwith delivers a firjais from Euripides, which the virtuous and modestAristophanes, as a matter of course, represents as monstrously immoral.

VOL. I. a

X CHARGE OF LOWERING TRAGEDY.

as he parts with fragment after fragment to the importunate

Dicaeopolis',&v6pam', a.4)(rei. /te T V Tpayytiiav.

Nor can we withhold a smile at the frequent and wittytravesties of his verses, nor at the dissection of his prologuesin The Frogs, nor at the part which he takes in dressing up hisrelative Mnesilochus as a woman, to speak in his defence beforethe assembled females at the Thesmophoria. Still we must bejust, and dismiss from our minds all such slanderous buffoonery2,if we wish to form a right estimate of one who was the intimatefriend of Socrates, and whom the great Aristotle has not hesi-tated to call " the most tragic of all the poets."

Now if it be admitted (as most critics seem to maintain,though the proposition may surely be questioned) that the trueprovince of Tragedy is to treat of Gods and Heroes, rather thanof men, or at least to elevate men above the standard of reality,for the sake of representing an ideal virtue3if it be incumbent

1 Ach. v. 464. The point of this passage is to ridicule the 7rsi0i or persuasivepower often spoken of by Euripides.

2 We say slanderous, for there is every reason to believe that Aristophanes carednothing about truth in attacking Euripides and his friend Socrates. For instance, itis nearly certain that Euripides was not the son of a green-groceress (Aa%aW7ra)-Xi)Tpias) as we are so often led to believe. We suspect that some nick-name inallusion to his art furnished the hint for attacking him on the score of his birth. Seebelow, p. xi, note 7-

3 Aristotle says in his Treatise on Poetry, that " the aim of Comedy is to exhibit menworse than they are, that of Tragedy, better than they are." But this applies perhapsto what is rather than to what ought to be. To define the respective departments orproper provinces of each in this way, is to deprive the drama of its original mimeticfeature, reality. At the conclusion of the same Treatise he observes that Tragedyis for the people, and being the most vulgar kind of imitation, is inferior to epicpoetry. He seems, in saying this, to quote an objection in which he does not himselfshare. Perhaps however it is a sound criticism for all that. The ideal nature ofGreek Tragedy is mainly due to the accident of its connexion with religion ; it is notessential to it, considered in its largest sense. Such however is by our modernscholars considered the orthodox doctrine. Thus Miiller says (Hist. Lit. p. 29(>), that" ancient tragedy departs entirely from ordinary life ; its character is in the highestdegree ideal." Schlegel, in his Third Lecture, also maintains that " the aim of Tragicpoetry was altogether to separate her ideals of humanity from the soil of Nature, towhich the real human being is fettered as a vassal of the glebe " (Theatre of theGreeks, p. 178).

That Euripides did not take these extravagantly high views of tragedy is certain ;whether he was wrong in his notions of it, is not quite so easily proved.

CHARGE OF LOWERING TRAGEDY. XI

on a tragic poet to maintain a grand and sonorous and loftystyle of diction adapted to such a subject4if the Doctrines ofFate, and Necessity, and Divine Retribution, be essential in-gredients in a true tragic plot; in a word, if mysticism be anecessary part of religion ;then, and then only, must Euripidesbe accused of having lowered tragedy, by bringing it to a levelbetter suited to the feelings of the populace than were thesublimer aspirations of his predecessors. Casting off much ofthe old epic guise, and discarding for the most part quaint andobsolete words, he preferred to use a well-selected vocabularyfrom the polite Attic dialect of the day5. Colloquial, to acertain extent, his style undoubtedly is, and was so of necessityfrom the familiar and easy manner in which his charactersargue and conversec. In this sense he certainly did lowerTragedy. He took it down from its stilts, and made it walk,we might almost say, even without the high-soled Cothurnus.Such is the boast put into his own mouth by Aristophanes7,

iltTxvava M^ irpctiTLcrrov a\n)]v KOX rb fldpos a

xii OBJECT IN DEPICTING WOE.

took his themes from every-day life8, but he delighted to repre-sent the great fallen from grandeur to poverty, and even tobeggary. To bring a king or an unsuccessful general beforethe eyes of the people, clad in squalid garments, or prostrate inthe dust bewailing his unhappy lot, or with muffled face shed-ding tears of anguish and remorse9,such were his favouritedevices for exciting compassion. Now all this, especiallywhen carried somewhat to excess, may have been offensive tothose who, already inspired with the lightsome gaieties of asemi-religious festival, frequented the theatre for the grati-fication of eyes and ears, rather than to be reminded of thecommon lot of humanity,care, suffering, and death 10. Theydid not like to see those famous heroes of old, with whosenames they were accustomed to associate all that was brave andchivalrous and resolute, giving way to effeminate lamentations '.But it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that Euripides didthis from design rather from a mere morbid sentimentality, ashis detractors have generally assumed. Men, and especiallyAthenian men, had to be taught a great moral truth, whichAthenian pride was always slow to learn, and which it requirednot only many bitter experiences, but the united efforts of aSocrates and a Plato even partially to inculcate. That truthwas, that man is not born for unmixed happiness and uninter-rupted success. It was a salutary, if an unwelcome lesson tothe proudest nation of Hellas to learn, that reverses were pos-sible ; and if the same idea appears somewhat too constantlyinsisted on and too querulously repeated, this may have beendone from the difficulty of impressing such a light-heartedaudience with a just view of the instability of Fortune.

8 R a n . 9 5 9 , o l i c u a w p d - y / j u x T e l a a y a v , o h x p , t /' Adrastus in the Suppliant Women, Menelaus in the Helena, Hecuba in the play

of that name, and in the Trojan Captives.10 On this consideration we can more fully and correctly understand the resentment

of the Athenians against Phrynichus for his tragedy called The Capture of Miletus.See Herod, vi. 21.

1 Sophocles even makes Hercules apologize for his tears, Trach. 1071. His how.ever, like those of Philoctetes, were extorted by bodily pain; which is altogetherdifferent from the grief of disappointment or humbled pride.

SLAVES. X1U

But it is not only through the mouths of heroes and heroines,nor even of the chorus, whose proper department it was, thatEuripides conveys his moral instructions. For this end hemakes use of slaves, servants, nurses, messengers, and at-tendants.

c\eyev fj yvvi) re /xoi x Sov\os oi/Shr \rrov,Xa> SecnrdTTjj x% Tap8*>">s XT) ypavs &i> 2.

And it is not to be denied, that he sometimes makes suchpersons utter reflections which are too deep, too full ofsophistry, perhaps even, of virtue, for their natural character.But in this also there is reason to believe the poet had a specialobject in view. His ideas of humanity were large; he saw andfelt that the poor slave was a fellow man, and he could not bearto see him trampled on, despised, and as it were thrust withoutthe social pale. He ever reminds us that a slave is still aman,it may be, a good one,and with the feelings, theattachments, the capabilities of a man. He delights to recordtheir fidelity to their masters, their sympathy in the trialsof life;

XpTJffTOlGl So6\otS ^VfltpOpa. Tfl SefTTrOTWI/KaKus irlrvovra, teal (ppevaiv avddirrerai5,

their gratitude for kindness and considerate treatment,Kai ix ecpepfie v erby vovv Se,

is the aspiration of a faithful servant of the Atridae in theHelena5. So in the Ion6,

%v ydp TI TOIS SovXoiaTotlvofia- T& $' &\Xa irdi/Ta -rav i\ev$pavotiSels Kiudwv $ov\os, 'dans effd\bs $.

In the Alcestis7 he makes especial mention of the slaves

2 Ran. 949. 3 Med. 54. 4 Orest. 869. 5 v. 728. 8 v. 854.7 V. 193. Yet some rather severe remarks on slaves may be found in Frag. 49,

50, 53, 59, 84. Of course, many of them were bad and despicable characters.

XIV SLAVES.

when the whole household is taking a sorrowful leave of theirmistress. She shook hands with each of them, and not one ofthem was too despicable (MZKO?) to receive a kind word and toreturn it. " A good slave," he said in the Melanippe8, " is nonethe worse for the name of slave."

SovXov yap iaQXbv TovvofjC ov StacpBepe?,iroWo) 5' a/j-tlvovs eteri TOIV \evdpay.

Similarly in the JPhrixus9,

He allows them to reason, to advise, to suggest; and he evenmakes them philosophize on the follies and the indiscretions oftheir superiors'.

In thus making use of the character even of slaves, he hascertainly shown much boldness in departing from the stiffproprieties of the ancient drama. It was a courageous step, forit was one that was certain to lead him into obloquy. Let ushowever try to dismiss from our minds the notion, inculcatedfrom our earliest school-life, that this was so much derogationfrom the dignity of tragedy. Humanity itself is a dignifiedsubject; its very frailties may be made so in the hands of agreat artist; and that Euripides has done this, let us thinkit not unreasonable to believe.

As might be expected in a man of his genius, and in onewho was conscious of exercising great influence as a teacherof the people2, his philosophical, religious, and politicalopinions are clearly defined and plainly and fearlessly expressed.In regard to the last, he was a partisan of the moderate andconstitutional party, equally opposed to the tyranny of absoluterulers, and the still worse tyranny of overbearing demagogues.His inclinations would seem to have been rather against theside of the aristocracy; for he frequently speaks of the worth-lessness of mere wealth or birth (evyeveia) without sense andwisdom.

8 Frag. 506. 9 F r a g . 8 2 31 E. g. in Hippol. 88 seqq. 2 s e e Ra n. j 4 2 0

POLITICAL OPINIONS. XV

KfXKUS ftXotVTO irdvTGS, O"t TvpaVfiSlXaipovdiv, bxiyri T ' ev Tr6\ti fiTovKfiBepov yhp &vojm vavrhs

The life of a Tvpavvos he considered by no means enviable ;

Cv^ av Dehoifii fiaWov $i Tvpavvos &v, Toiis TTOVTipoiis TjSovi)

XVI DISLIKE OF WAR.

o'l TOI yeapyol ToSpyov e|e'AKOu

DISLIKE OF WAR. XV11

that it sets many cities to fighting, leading their passions intoexcesses. For when war is brought before the votes of the city,no one any longer reckons on his own death, but turns this dis-aster aside upon some other ; whereas, if Death were in men'seyes at the time of voting, Hellas would never go on ruiningitself with this mad love of the spear. Now we all of us knowwhich is the better of two propositions, the good and the bad;and how much better peace is than war for mankind; peace,which in the first place is most friendly to the Muses, andhostile to lamentations ; which rejoices in a numerous offspring,and delights in wealth. All these blessings, wicked that we are,we throw to the winds, and take up war by choice; and so manenslaves his fellow man if weaker than himself, and city en-slaves city."

Again he says in the same play',A.ets T1 %xov(Tal 8*& \6yov Kdfj.^/al Kaxa,vy Ka6aipz7

XV1U DISLIKE OF WAR.

aspirant to office, the man of lost credit and broken fortunes,who wished for its continuance,

6 fx\v oirws (TTpo.T7i\aTrj,6 8' as vf3pir) Svfafuv tis X(Vas A

EXPEDITION TO SICILY. x

recollection of the success of a similar expedition, undertaken inthe mythical ages." But, on carefully perusing the ode, wedoubt not the reader will come to the conclusion, that such aninference is only the vaguest surmise. However, in that play *there is a clear allusion to Sicily. Is it then of such a dispa-raging nature as to encourage the Athenians to suppose theisland could easily be reduced ? It is exactly the reverse. " Ihear," he says, " that the land of Hephaestus opposite to Car-thage is celebrated for its prizes of valour." Truly an originalMay of inducing his countrymen to invade it.

But there is another passage which seems more strongly thanany other to prove that the poet had no share whatever in pro-moting the expedition against Sicily. The Helena was broughtout in 01. xci. 4, or B.C. 413, in the Archonship of Cleocrituss.Now in the autumn of the very same year (Thucyd. viii. 1, fin.)the terrible defeat of that expedition occurred. If the Helenawas acted in the spring of that year, (at the Great Dionysia,) ofcourse the poet could not have written in direct reference to thedisaster. But some place the Helena as late as n.c. 412 ', inwhich case he must have shared in the general consternation.ISfow, if Euripides had really advocated this war, and had notyet heard of its failure, was he likely to write of it in the fol-lowing strain2 ?

&

XX DISLIKE OF THE SPARTANS.

That he disliked the Spartans, both for their national cha-racter and national customs3, is evident; but that does notprove that he wished to prosecute the war against them. Atthe present day there are many who persuade themselves thatthey dislike the illustrious French Nation, but who at the sametime would be extremely sorry to measure swords with them.The passage in the Andromachei is well known,

ivoucoi, H6\ia jiovKivr^pia,ipevS&v avatcrts, firjxavoppdtyot KaKtcv,sAiKTCt KOvSev iiyiis, a\\a irav irepi8la

RELIGIOUS VIEWS. SOOTHSAYERS. XXI

the language of prejudice. " We may distinguish in him," hesays, " a twofold personage : the poet, whose works were dedi-cated to a religious solemnity, who stood under the patronage ofreligion, and therefore was bound in his turn to honour it; andthe would-be-philosopher sophist, who studied to overlay thosefabulous marvels of religion from which he derived the subjectsof his plays, with his own sceptical and liberalizing opinions."" He could not," says K. 0. Miiller6, " bring his philosophicalconvictions with regard to the nature of God and his relation tomankind, into harmony with the contents of the old legends,nor could he pass over in silence their incongruities. Hence itis that he is driven to the strange necessity of carrying on a sortof polemical discussion with the very materials and subjects ofwhich he had to treat." Well, let us grant all this, and more.Euripides may in his heart have had a profound contempt forthe popular religion. Still, it is preposterous to convert thisinto an accusation against him. It would be more fair to say,that he must have been a very great man indeed to have seenso much more of truth than other great men of his age. Of thesoothsayers in particular Euripides often speaks with surprisingboldness and severity ; whereas Sophocles invariably treats theirpredictions with respect, and even with awe. But Euripidesregards them as powerless to declare the inscrutable ways ofProvidence, and says it is silly (evades) to suppose birds canbenefit men 7, and that no man ever grew rich through theirpredictions, while he continued in idleness. He defines the fidv-TI? to be one

and tells men that they should pray to the gods and leave theart of divination alone.

robs virep Kapa

G Literature of Ancient Greece, p. 358.7 Hel. 747- Electr. 400, fipoTU>v Se fxavriK^u xa'PtI/ 8 Iph. A. 957. 9 Hippol. 1058.

XX11 HIS SCEPTICISM.

He affirms that it is a science of mere guess-work, and thereforeonly empiricism at best.

7ecu/) 5' ap/arij /j.dvTis '/) r' ev0ov\ia l .

/idvTis B' &pitrros SOTIS eiVctff i Kakas 2.

He treats the vulgar notions about Zeus, Apollo, and the rest,with contempt, almost with ridicule. He wonders that men canput their trust in beings to whom every crime is attributed bythe very mythology whereby their existence is declared. Sobold and even obtrusive is his scepticism, that it seems as if hewished to add all the weight of his influence on the side of hismaster Anaxagoras,a great man, and for his age a greatnatural philosopher, the friend of Pericles and the founder of anew school of natural religion,who had been fined and banishedfrom Athens for his free-thinking, it is said3 through the influ-ence of Cleon. It is remarkable that neither Aeschylus norSophocles supply a single hint of their distrust in the Homericgods. Probably they dared not, perhaps they did not wish, ordid not think it expedient to do so. But even in the time ofSophocles and Euripides the old polytheism was well-nigh wornthreadbare'. The court of Areopagus no longer took cogni-zance of every trifling offence against religion, and the publicmind, trained by the Sophists, was ready to embrace morereasonable views on the nature of the Supreme Being. Diagorasof Melos had paved the broad road of unbelief, and manyAthenians had already trod thereon5. Socrates himself, withthat consummate wisdom which he always shows in his dispu-tations, did not openly assail the popular belief in the gods.That he was nevertheless condemned on the charge of teachingnew doctrines, is not of itself any proof that the Athenians ingeneral were sincerely attached to the old. The most immoral

1 Hel. 757- 2 Frag. 944.3 Laertius, Vit. Anaxag. ii. 14. Plut. Vit. Pericl. c. 32.4 Aristophanes makes Strepsiades say (Clovds, v. 821) that to believe in Zeus ia

4>pw6?x &pXaiKtL. Nor does the evident irony of the expression affect the testimony.Compare Equit. 32.

5 In the Clouds (v. 830) the sarcastic expression ZuKpdrris 6 M- Aios proves whatsort of tendency was attributed to the philosopher's teaching.

CHARGE OF ATHEISM.

and careless are often those who show the greatest zeal in puttingdown all who differ from them. Aristophanes, of course, classesthe poet and the philosopher as fellow infidels, though with sin-gular inconsistency he every where ridicules the gods with a bold-ness and a flippancy immeasurably worse than their scepticism.

iroiovs Otovs OjUe? Tais 6eo?s.ETP. Ai(?7/p, ifiby j9(J(Ttt7?jua, KOX y\d)TTf)s GTp6t

XXIV HIS IDEAS OF GOD.

and as one not to be inclosed within temples built by mortalhands',

nolos 5' av OIKOS TKT6VWV irXaffdels VTTO

Bejxas rb Qtiov irzpifldAoi roix>v Trrvxats ;

or as the Great Unknown2,

Zeiis, Saris 6 Zefis, oil yap otSa irXty \6yos

In common with most unbelievers, and indeed, with manybelievers, he found a difficulty3 in the worldly success of thebad, and the misfortunes of the good.

ot juei> yap eu Trptiffcovcri, TOLS 8e ffv {AZTafSaXovija fivpiovs ^5rj fiporwyKal Suarrvxyo'ai KavOis av Trpa^at /caAws

In other passages' it is Fate or Necessity that exercises supremepower over all human affairs.

\6yos yap ecr-ru/ oiiic efibs,

EUltlPIDES NOT AN ATHEIST. XXV

too wise and too intellectual to put any faith in those fabless

which he considered it degrading to man's nature to accept.He was a Sophist, and so far a sceptic, that he did not feelbound to follow any other guide than his reason. He tookdelight in showing what a miserable set of deities men hadformed for themselves out of their own imagination. They hadinvested them not only with a human form, but with humanattributes, weaknesses, and caprices. He knew that the godsought to be superior to such infirmities, and to set an example ofvirtue.

aAA', eVel Kpartis, aptrcis Si'ai/te,

Ion finely says of Apollo \ The Bacchae is an instance of a playwhich, although rationalistic in its tendency, is yet curiouslyinterspersed with passages in praise of the old traditional belief.The moral indeed of this play, like that of the Hippolytus, is sofar from being atheistic, that the point of both is to show thedreadful punishments which overtake those who refuse to ac-knowledge certain prescribed forms of worship. In the sameway the Alccstis illustrates the temporal rewards which attendupon piety to the gods. He must therefore have had somefeeling for religion, even in the debased and unspiritual form inwhich he found it. Doubtless there are some passages in hiswritings which at first sight appear to deny the very existenceof a God. Thus he says ',

d yap 6t6s irais, et Bz6v a"

XXV'i DISBELIEF OF POLYTHEISxM.

does not mean that there is no such a Being as God ; only thatthe old-fashioned accounts, 6 7ra\ato? X070?, i. e. the Homericand Hesiodic polytheism, are absurd and incredible. On thissubject there is an interesting passage in the Mad Hercules ,

iyii tie Tobs Oeobs ovre KeKTp' & fi)] Be/its

OMT' 7]l(o(ra TTtjoTroT* ouTe irti(ro/j.ai,

de7rai yap 6 dtbs, efrrep ecrr1 oVTtas Behs,ouv6s' aotdiai' o'tSs SVCTTJPOI Aoyot.

The immorality attributed to Beings professedly divine evidentlyshocked him. "If," he writes5, "Apollo and Poseidon andZeus were to pay the penalties of their illicit loves to man, theywould exhaust their own temples of the treasures they contain."Even their accumulated wealth would be insufficient to atonefor accumulated wickedness. Such allusions are numerous, andit would be easy to multiply examples6. But on the other handthere are passages of a somewhat different tendency7,

iyd) jtiep, UT* &// TOUS tcafcobs opw fipoTuv

And again8,

In the Bacchae \

ale

In one of the lost plays ',

dpaff, oaoi SoKelre OVK (1. ,cj5') elvai 8e6v.ttTTiv yap, ttniv.

TToprrca yap of.iwsal9fpa vaiovTss opwtriv ra fipoj&v OvpavlSai.

HIS PHILOSOPHY. XXvii

earth and air, the Sivt) or pv/u.j3oi]Tut>.

In the Danae5,OVTOS (sc. alOiip)

flaAAeic re Kal fi.^, 0jv re Kal Bivttv iroieT.Again7,

Tcua ixsyi&Tq Kai Aibs aldjjp,6 jUep avdpunrav Kal 6zwv yeveTtap, KTA.

And in another unnamed play",

6'8' aldfyp eVSiSous dvqTO?s TTPOas.

That the soul was an emanation from Ether, and returned toit on the dissolution of the body, is taught in the following9

verses:idtraT* tffiti yy KaXvtpBrivat veKpovs'o9ev 5' e/cacrroy fls rb

XXviii PANTHEISTIC VIEW OF AlOijp.

Equally interesting is the passage in the Helena \

d vous

T&V KaTSavAvTuv Q /xev ov, yvibpi\v 8' %x'aSavaTOV, eh ad&varov alBip' ifxirtffdiv.

When in the Alcestis he says3,

"AA ic6pa,

& Zeus, hs avdpttmoMTiv wvofia^TO.

But in this Aeschylus had preceded him8,

Zeus eGTiv aid^ip, Zeus 8e 777, Zei/s 8' ovpav6s,Zefa Tot Ta irdi/Ta %djTi TWVS' imeprepov.

In another place9 the Ether is called the abode of Zeus,

uixvvjii 5' Iphv alBep',

STUDY OF PHYSICS.

a fine expression, unjustly ridiculed by Aristophanes ',

atdtpa Aibs ScotLaTiov $j xp^vov irSda.

This fondness for the study of physics is probably the key tothat rather obscure joke in the Ackaruiaiis2,

avrbs 8' ivZov aeaj8aS?jj/ TTOIC?rpaytpSiav.

In the Orestes there seems an allusion to the Anaxa"goreandoctrine that the sun was a fivSpos or incandescent mass3,

[io\oifxi TCLV ohpavov

alwp-h/j.aaevvy r/XlovTrepuTTTvx>h which so curiously coincides with the views ofmodern astronomers, that the sun is a dense nucleus surroundedby a vast ocean of intense electric light.

Either from Anaxagoras or from his other masters, Prodicusand Protagoras, Euripides derived such a passion for ia,that his use of the word crocpbs is almost wearisome. He appliesit indiscriminately to such worldly wisdom as lies in cunningand craft, as well as to the true wisdom of virtue and philo-sophy 5. Not only his slaves, his heralds, and his messengers,but his kings and his heroes philosophise . The son will reada lecture to a father7, a king to a suppliant8, a captive hand-maid to her royal mistress9. He is extremely fond of sen-tentious saws, with which he intersperses his speeches regardless

1 Ran. 100.2 V. 400. It was for the same purpose that Socrates appeared in his aerial crib

(Kptfidepa), Nub. 218, 225.3 V. 982. 4 Ion 1516.5 Schol. on Med. 665 , eveiri

XXX RHETORICAL AND LEGAL QUIBBLES.

of time and place. From the Sophists too he derived a fond-ness for the art of persuasion or eloquence', and also forargumentation, altercation, and quibbling2, both in his dia-logues and in his longer speeches, in many of which the accusa-tion and the defence are conducted with all the formality andprecision of the pleaders in the law-courts3. In some measureperhaps this was adopted in compliance with that love of theAthenians for litigation which is satirized in the "Wasps"of Aristophanes. Too frequently, it must be confessed, hesacrifices tragic propriety to rhetorical displays (eVtSe/fet?).The popularity which the science of dialectics was then begin-ning to enjoy at Athens, probably accounts for the paradoxesand equivocations 4 in which he seems to delight. If, as thereis some reason to believe, Euripides is meant to be ridiculednot less than Socrates in the " Clouds," we have amusing speci-mens of this hair-splitting in the lecture on genders of nouns 5,&c. It is to such passagesc as

Hal a>(Tai/ GITTUV KOI Oavovcrav ecrrt

ETYMOLOGIES. XXXI

Helena',Tedi/atri HOV Teflvacn* Suo 51 ztnov K6yw,

or the well-known lines ",

Tis m'Ser, e: rb ^I/ p.4v iffTl KaT6aye7i>,TJ> KarOaviLV Se ffiv Karat vo^iferat,

which he again 3 expressed in nearly the same words,

r(s 51 oTSep, et T}V TOV&" t K4n\r}Tai 0avc'ti'trb riv di BviitTKtiv (rrif

it is to this last sentiment more particularly (in itself aremarkable one) that Aristophanes alludes4,

ov irpoayaiyovs KareBei^1 O'JTOS,Kal tyauKoiHras ov ^ t 1 rb r,v, KTX.,

and again,Tis oLSev ei rb QrjV pel' itrrt KardaveTv,rb -nvtiv 5e 5ei7rfe?f, rb de KcLOeudetp KvSior;

Doubtless also in the Acharnians 5,

OVK ivSov, ivb*ov sffr\v, ei yv^iy]v %xilsi

and in the reply of Euripides in the Frogs 6,

orav rd. vvv ainara Trlcrr' rjy(j)^6a.,T 5' OVTO. iriffr' ciirKTra.

To all which must be added, an affectation of etymologies,which amount to little more than mere puns on names, asAoKaiv from Boko? (Ilhes. 158), 'Arpev

XXXii HIS PATHOSMELANCHOLY TEMPER.

pedantry. His strength as a poet lies in his power of depictinghuman passions, especially in their evil consequences. Heknew human nature well, and he knew also how to describeand pourtray its most secret impulses and its most stormyemotions. Does he touch on the subject of Love, or marriedlife, or the loss of children dearer than life, the lot of the slave,the captive, and the orphan, the unhappiness of violatedmarriage vows? On all these tender topics he carries thewhole soul of the reader along with him. " In all his piecesthere is the sweet human voice, the fluttering human heart7."In this respect he surpassed both Aeschylus and Sophocles,that he was pre-eminently a poet of the feelings. It is probablethat we, with our somewhat cold and practical habit of mind,do not enter so deeply into merely narrated, still less intomerely imaginary, woes. We are not much impressed by thedescription of grief, unless the circumstances are very romantic,or the expectation is very highly excited. The Athenians werecertainly in this respect much more susceptible; and it is wellto bear this in mind in our study of the ancient tragedies.Where Aeschylus tried to scare, to strike, to impress theimagination, Euripides strove to melt, to humanize, to enlistthe affections. He was, like his master Anaxagoras, by natureof a melancholy temperament. Sentimental, tender, and full ofsympathy for woe, he loved to contemplate rather the darkthan the bright side of human existence As our poet Mooresaid,

" Go, let me weep ! There's bliss in tears/'

so Euripides proves his softness of heart by the very constantuse of the words Bdicpv, OIKTOb

8tyr}To7s o8vp/xol Sa/cpuwz' r ' eVippoat.

a\yi]S6vas 5e ravra KOv(pieL ipptvwv,KaX KapZias eAutre Tobs &yav TT6VOUS.

7 Digby.8 Frag. 578. In reference to this temper of the poet four verses have been inter-

polated in v. 180 of the Suppliees.

HIS MELANCHOLY TEMPER. XXXlii

And in the Hercules \

irais Uv o)S ov66irrepos/j.4\io~(ra rb /Mzv ST) TravTaxov dpvXovfxtvovKpa.Ti.aTov (foal

MISPLACED PATHOSCOMIC TONE.

and he is so fond of exciting sympathy that it is sometimesmisplaced; as when Hecuba complains" of mere personal dis-comforts,

ofytot K. TrraxoTvoibs Kal j>aKiocrvppaTrTdSris Ran. 8-12. Cf. 1003.9 Hec. 65. Acharn. 448. ' See the note on Heracl. 630.2 Schlegel, Fifth Lecture. The chief passages of a somewhat farcical tone are,

Alcest. 747- Bacch. 82G. Ion 740. Heracl. 726. Hel. 386 to 620, and the latterpart of the Orestes. Of course, great allowance is to be made for pro-satyric plays.

FALSEHOOD AND REVENGE. XXXV

in depicting old men either making youthful eiForts entirelyunsuited to their strength, or in dressing them out in some cos-tume which must of necessity have elicited a smile from the spec-tators. On the whole, we are inclined to the opinion that thiswas one of the innovations in the art introduced by Euripides,and expressly intended as a relief or pause to the oppressivegravity of the action.

It may perhaps be fairly also objected, that Euripides showstoo much forbearance for the arts of falsehood and deceit, inwhich some of his characters3 rather discreditably excel. Thishowever was a weak point in the Greek code of morality ; andthe same must be said of the oft-inculcated doctrine of the abso-lute duty of revenge and retaliation. Both, in fact, are naturalimpulses.

x@pbv KaKois Spay aySpbs riyovf/.cu jx^pos,

he said in one of the unnamed playsi; and in the Ion5,KaSapbs Hiras roi iro\fj.iovs ts av KT&vri.

In the Mad Hercules6,[ yap 7}dovas 9pfi

XXXVI HIS MISOGYNISM.

on the other, with a clear comprehension of the circumstanceswhich seem to have given that peculiar bias to the poet's mind.Whether his dislike of the sex in general resulted from anhonest detestation of female profligacy, or was simply the idio-syncrasy of a mind which had been embittered by domesticdisappointments, is a question not easily determined; but wethink the former had at least as much to do with it as thelatter. The ill-feeling towards women is so strongly and sorepeatedly manifested, that it seems incorrect to say that " thereis no foundation for the charge V It was well known to hiscontemporaries; for Aristophanes frequently alludes to it, andexpressly refers it9 to the poet's unfortunate experience ofmarried life;

& yap ts ras aWorpias eVoieiS, avrbs roinoiffiv eir\-fjy7js.

Not to mention, that the plot of the Thesmqphoriazusae turnsentirely on this point, we find it held up to ridicule in theLysistrata',

rairas Be TOSS EvpnrlSri Oetns re itaaiv exSpccs,

and again2,OUK etrr' av^p EvpnriSov axpwrepos TTOLIJT-^S,ovSev yap aiSl dpifi/j.' avaiSes ianv us yvvoAKts.

It was even admitted by himself, as we may infer from a passagein which he appears to speak in his own person of a chargebrought against him3,

luauv OSWOT' i/j.Tr\riiTdriiroij.aiyvv

DISTINCTION OF GOOD AND BAD WOMEN. XXXvU

S(TTis 5e irdtras avv-riOth tyiyyvvaixas ejrjs, cramis iffrt KOV cro6s,

and that the odium which attaches to the one extends unfairlyto the other6;

eV Ta?s KaKcufftv ayadal fifityf^4faifJ.KFOVfJ.ed\

That this is his real opinion he proves by the beautiful picturehe has drawn of a devoted wife in the character of Alcestis, andof a devoted sister in those of Iphigenia, Electra, and Antigone.Yet many of his disparaging expressions are extremely strong.

IlA.T)*' T7JS TKOV(TT]S 07)Au TYCtV fltffW y4vOS,

he said in the Melanippe7. And elsewhere8,

oi/Sev oilrw deivbv as yvt>}] Katc6v.ovd' hv y4voLTo ypd^fia TOIOVT' 4V ypacpfj,ovS1 &v \6yos 5|iej'' et 8e rov QzatvrdS* icrrl TrkdV

laTw Kol fipoTolai 8y(7^tey^s.

Again in the Hecuba",

e Tts yvpcuKas TUV wplv^ vvv Aeywv ris iffTiv, % fieWet \4yeiv,a/jvavra Ta^ui (Tvurefxiiu ey^j *ppd

XXXV111 FONDNESS FOR CHILDREN.

on their winning ways, the hold they have on the heart, thegreatness of their loss. Thus in the Danae 3,

T({%* hv irphs aynaXaun KOX

MOTIVES FOR MISOGYNISM. XXXIX

dren'; yet he sometimes suffered his feelings to get the betterof his convictions, if such they were, as when he says'

TOI/ &7ra(5a 8J anoaruyu)fiiov, & T6 doted, \p4ycc.

At other times he professes to feel perplexity as to which isthe better lot; since men seem discontented without children,while, if they have them, they must endure either the distressof having bad sons, or the anxiety of losing good ones 2.

Now let us endeavour to view this much-discussed matterof the misogynism in a fair and reasonable light. Let us admitthat we do not find in Aristophanes by any means a favourableaccount of the virtue of Athenian women. If Euripides thenwas keenly sensible of the profligacy that existed, and had theboldness to raise his voice in loud and frequent protestationsagainst the faithlessness of the sex, was that a fault, or wasit rather the part of one who used his best efforts to improvethe public morals3 ? Granted, that this view is opposed tothat which we have been taught to entertain; granted, fora moment, that Euripides' plays, his Phaedras and his Sthene-boeas, as Aristophanes says4, were calculated to inculcatevicious principles; in other words, that he took pleasure inmaligning their character; with what grace can such a writeras Aristophanes throw the first stone P But what if Aristophaneshimself turns evidence against himself, and admits that thewomen could no longer act as before in consequence ofEuripides' plays 5 ? The whole passage here referred to, if the

9 See Med. 1090. Alcest. 237, 882, &c. ' Ion 488.2 Frag. Oenom. 573. Cf. Frag, incert. 963.3 Hence the avrovpybs, one of a class whom the poet had just called the sole

saviours of the state, votes for not only acquitting but even rewarding Orestes, forslaying a profligate mother, (Orest. 924,) and he adds this verse (930),

leal TOIS ye xp^o"ToTs u \4yeiy 4(pa.{vtTO.4 Ran. 1049.5 Thesmoph. 398. On which Barnes remarks (Vit. Eur. fol. iv), " Dum Euripi-

dem a mulieribus condemnatum fingit, quod de iis male esset in Tragoediis suislocutus, multo plura istius sexus flagitia in unica ilia comoedia profert, quam inomnibus suis Tragoediis Euripides unquam memoraverit; atque ita Euripidemaccusando absolvit, mulieres vero laudando excusandoque maxime denigrat."

x l INFLUENCE IN IMPROVING WOMEN.

irony of it be rightly understood, becomes a curious and im-portant testimony to the good influence which Euripidesexerted in reclaiming the Athenian housewives from manyof their scandalous practices.

"We must not forget, in forming our estimate of Athenianwomen, that Hesiod, Simonides, Archilochus, and evenSophocles6, used language condemnatory of the sex quite asstrong and decided as any of the invectives of Euripides.Aristotle too, in his Treatise on Poetry ( 15), observes, " Themanners of a woman or of a slave may be good ; though ingeneral ivomen are, perhaps, rather bad than good." There is anextant passage attributed to Susarion, which says,a

OVK etTTif olneiv olniav 6,vtv KaKOv.

It is very difficult to place ourselves in the position of the oldpoets, because in our times and in our country fashion, and onemay hope principle, produces a very different character in thegenerality of women. We think only of a Euripides un-gallantly saying unjust things of those whom we know to bevirtuous: but we have not that forced seclusion7 of wives andmaidens which the Athenians supposed to be the sole safe-guard of virtue, nor the habit of treating them, both sociallyand intellectually, as inferiors, nor are the same motives fordeceit and intrigue presented to their minds. Above all,reputation with us is an influence of which there was com-paratively little regard in those who scarcely enjoyed anysocial position.

0 Frag. 195,tcdKlOV &AA.' OVK e(TTlV 0u5' ZGTai TTOTe

yvvcuicbsr e? r t ir^ua yi-yv^rai fiporois,7 How greatly this mistaken system of secluding married women promotes

immorality, may be judged by a letter of the Lady Mary Wortley Montague,dated from Adrianople, Ap. 1, 1717- (Vol. ii. p. 45, ed. 1771.) In fact, any systemwhich is founded on secresy and concealment, will of necessity encourage all the artsof deception. There are never wanting agents in carrying out nefarious designsHippol. 649,

vvv 8' ai fitv ivSov Spuaiv at /canal /ca/caiaT*, ^w 5* 4K(j>4pov(Ti Trp6

CHARGES OF IMMORALITY. x l i

Making allowance for the above-mentioned faults (and weneed not stay to discuss others which have been frequentlyobjected, as the character of his prologues, the want of per-tinency in the choral odes, and the too frequent interventionof deities8 at the close of his plays) it seems to us impossible tostudy this great poet with fairness and apart from preconceivedopinions, without the conviction that the beauties of his styleand the general soundness of his views amply compensate for,if they do not greatly outweigh, his defects. Different esti-mates of his real merits will of course be formed, and there aresome who have no great taste for his compositions as comparedwith those of Aeschylus and Sophocles. With such the mostardent admirers of Euripides have no right to quarrel. Letthem " agree to differ," and perhaps a more intimate study ofthe poet will do more than arguments in converting the formerto the opinion of the latter. But when we are toldD, thatEuripides was " a bad citizen, an unprincipled man, and alsoa very second-rate poet," that "his moral character was theworst possible," &c, we are justified in inquiring into thesegrave allegations, especially as Schlegel also saysl that " thescope of his works and the impression they produce on thewhole, is sometimes very immoral."

In the first place then, many of his sentiments which may besaid to wear an equivocal complexion, as the famous one2,97

xlii OBJECTED DOCTRINES.

oiiK alffxpbv ouSev rav avaynaiav f&poTois,

and again',T( 8' alaxp'bv, tl" P-h TO'1"1 XP"J/i>'0's ^0KV!

he merely means that the standard of TO alaypov and TO KOKOVis often arbitrary, and that the moral sense of man sufficientlydiscriminates the good from the bad ; thereby hinting, that theover-refinements of prudery are not always the truest virtue.To custom, in fact, he attributes more weight than to convictionfounded on principle; and the remark5 is a profound one.

v6p.

OBJECTED DOCTRINES. xliH

Again,dp' olfffl1 68ouyex ol fiev tvyeve'ts fipoT&

oi 5' oiSfr ?iuav TrpiaOev, oK$Lm 8e vvv,

Or when he affirms9 that a rich man ought to have many wives,it is not to commend polygamy, for he goes on to say, that hethen might make a choice by trial of the best woman, and ejectthe bad. Schlegel talks of " the wild passion of a Medea, theunnatural lust of a Phaedra." Medea's " wild passion" issimply the lawful attachment of a wife to a husband, too deep tobe surrendered without profound indignation against a perjuredbigamist. And it has been shown ' that Phaedra is by no meansan abandoned character. It is surprising that the HippoJijtus,one of the finest tragedies in existence, should have excitedthe odium it appears to have done ; but still more surprisingthat Phaedra's aberrations {unnatural they were not) should betaken as a type of the poet's own moral character! The nurse,it is true, in that play is an unprincipled person enough; butPhaedra rejects with virtuous scorn her advice and proposals, asaia^iaroi \6yoi,2. So exalted is the poet's opinion of real con-jugal affection that he will not allow that a woman can reallylove a second husband3;

a-irt-KTva' aiiT^v, r)Tis 8.v$pa -rhv lrcipos

We look in vain for any substantial proofs that Euripides was asensual poet. All that his enemies have conjured up againsthim are mere shadows. No writer, whose theme is humannature, can avoid occasional allusions to those passions whichare the chief incentives to crime and consequent misery. Noris it any evidence of a sensual mind that he sometimes speaks *of the endearments of married life as a fytkTpov fieyiaTov. Suchallusions (by no means either frequent or indelicately made) aresimply necessary to his purpose. In many passages he declares

s Frag. 417. ' See the introductory note to the Hippolytus.

2 V. 499. 3 Troad. 662. Cf. Hel. 1400.4 See Frag. 325. Troad. G60. Hec. 829.

e 2

NOT A SENSUAL POET.

the danger of too strong attachments, and says that the goddessof love is not to be borne (ov fyop'tjTos), if she visits us toofreely5. In fact, it would be easy to show, by a hundred quota-tions, that he invariably speaks on this subject with remarkablegood sense.

tit] tie noi /ierpia /xev%&pis, TT68OI ti' ttffioi,Kai fieTexoi/J-l TSS 'AtppoSi-ras, TroWav S' aTrodti/iav 6.

And why should we expect him to be absolutely silent on such atopic? What modern book treating of casuistry or cases ofconscience,nay, what modern novel, is entirely exempt fromthe subject of Love ? We might probably say with truth, thatfew of our own English poets are as innocent in this respect asthe much-abused Euripides.

The weak attempt of Aristophanes7 to bring the charge of animmcral tendency against his plays is hardly worthy of notice.

hiroKpvimiv xp~h T^ TroVT]pov T6V ye iroirjTfyy,Ka\ fj.}] irapaytiv /i?)5e StSaVKzw rots fjihf yap iraitiaploio~iv%GTI Sitido'icaAos OO'TIS (ppdei, ro7s rjflhxjiv 5e wonjTal.

As if forsooth the innocent young men of Athens had no oppor-tunities of learning vice but from the stage! And that Ari-stophanes of all men in the world should say this, is trulymonstrous. That Euripides could appreciate purity and inno-cence in youth is shown not only in his Hippolytus, and in thechaste Parthenopaeus (Suppl. 900), but also by the remarkablybeautiful character he has sketched of the boy Ion. Consecratedto Apollo, and devoting himself wholly to the service of hisaltar,even regarding the menial offices of a door-keeper witha tranquil and pious delight, he speaks of his patron god in lan-guage that would not dishonour a better cause. One cannothelp feeling, that the poet must have been at heart a good man,who could make a virtuous asceticism appear in so amiable aa light.

'> Hippol. 443. Cf. Med. 627. 6 Iph. Aul. 555.' Ran. 1053,

GENERAL TENDENCY OF HIS WORKS.

"Without discussing the gossip of later writers about Euri-pides, because very little reliance can be placed upon it, we maywell be content with the appeal to his extant works, which aresufficiently numerous to show his mind, his principles, and hischaracter. We contend, that a review of these writings is onthe whole greatly in his favour. If we have already examinedthem somewhat at length, it is from an earnest wish to vindicateone of the most delightful of the classic poets from unmeritedobloquy.

It yet however remains to be shown, that his precepts ofvirtue and wisdom are such as no immoral man would be likelyto inculcate. To do this fully would be to transcribe a largeportion of his plays and of the fragments. A few examplesmust therefore suffice.

In the first place, he makes virtue the best and most valuableof all possessions ;-

OVK

PRECEPTS OF VIRTUE.

those who are puffed up, oyKovfievoi,, with a mere B6a, or notionthat they are great because they are rich or can point to suc-cessful enterprises or illustrious ancestors. Such common-placebut inestimable virtues as honour, sobriety, moderation, respectfor oaths (evaefteia), justice, contempt of riches, mercy (at'&us),fortitude under affliction, humility, equanimity in prosperityand adversity, contentment, duty to parents 3, obedience to lawsboth human and divine,all these and many more are per-petually inculcated. Are these the doctrines of an immoralman and a bad citizen ? It may be replied, that it is very easyto preach virtue without practising it. But why should this beurged against Euripides ? Where are the proofs of his insin-cerity, or where the vicious principles incompatible with theabove ? How fine is the advice supposed to be addressed by afather to his young son';" To be gentle, not to fawn uponthe rich, not to be neutral where there are opposite views (andconsequently, a right and a wrong), not to acquire wealth byinjustice, not to squander it when fairly got, to avoid the badwho try to please merely for their own interest; to associatemuch with the elder, to shun the froward, who only afford atransient and a trivial pleasure by their jokes; not to be enticedinto intrigues with women, which may lead to disgrace andsuicide; not to aid the cause of the bad in the state, becausethey are sure to misbehave themselves when they come to powerand affluence." In many places he warns the youth againstthe allurements of Love, and no where more finely than in thefollowing passage5:

Kai p' epus e'A.01 woreOVK es rb jxZpoi/ ovSi ft.' eis Kiiirpij/ rpeTrui',aX\' S,tyvxrjs Sucaias (rdxppovds TE Ka.-ya.dijs.

To which there is a parallel in another place6,

3 Frag. 108,

irarpl TrtlOeadat xpecup

7raT5ay, vofii^Li/ T' avrb rovr' elvai $'iK7]v.

Compare Frag. 221.

' Frag. Erechth. 372. Frag. 338. F r a g . 550.

HIS OBJECT TO TEACH VIRTUE. xlvi i

6 5' els rb aw(ppov eV apir-i]v r' ayav eptusQriXwrbs hvOpdmoiaiv &v ttijt/ iytij.

He was also anxious to divert them from bad company, whichhe well knew was truly the source of all evil7;

OCTT1S 8 ' O^tXaV 1JS6TOU KO.K01S

ovivdwoT1 7ip(*>TTi

xlviii HIS CITIZENSHIP.

S^/xtp Se fi-fjTe iruv avapTfaris upaTOS,

JU^T1 av KaKiixrrjs,

was his maxim \ But Euripides has given abundant proofs ofhis sound political views. His patriotism was even enthusiastic.How fine is his elaborate eulogy of the Athenian constitution inthe Suppliant Women; how highly poetical his famous ode inthe Medea \

'Epx8ddai TO iraAaibv oA/8 irarplSf effle irdyres o$ vaiov&i ceovrte (plXotev ws *yoi>3

who can doubt that the poet is speaking in his own person ?And he shows himself to be a true patriot by boldly exposingsome of the social and political abuses of the day. He con-demns the maintenance of asylums6, and says the wicked shouldbe dragged to punishment from the very altar without fear ofthe gods (the 6eol l/ceauu). He deprecates suicide, (which itwas the fashion to consider as a noble and spirited act,) on theground that trials and earthly sufferings are no real evil toman7. He evinces a great dislike of heralds, as the conceited

1 Frag. 620. 2 V. 824 seqq. 3 Frag. 368.1 Frag. 875. Cf. Suppl. 324,

at 5' Viffuxoi (TKOTtiva jrpatro'ovo'at n6\tts

tyttoTitva Kal fiAiirovoii/ tuhafiovntvai.5 Frag. 353, v. 53 .0 Frag. 871. Heracl. 259, 5eDp', cos eoi/tf, TOTS KUKCUO-I (pevKTeov. Cf. Ion 1315.7 Frag. 895. Compare Orest. 415.

HERALDS, ATHLETES, &C.

and overbearing ministers of tyrants. It is probable that heregarded their arrogance and self-interest as one of the causesof foolish wars. Everywhere he represents them in an odiouslight, and especially he ridicules their loquacity and presump-tion in arguing with their superiors.

asl TTOT* etrri (Xiripfxa KT}p{iKwv \d\ovt

he said in one of the lost plays8. He satirizes9 the foolishpropensity to imitate foreign manners and habits;

&s ev 7* efjiol KplvoiT* ttv ov KaXccs tppovtiv,'6(XTts Trarpipas yrjs WTt^id^wv '6povs

iraive? teal Tp6irounv SJBeTai.

He inculcates obedience to the laws as the great safeguard of astate',

TJ> yap rot cvvi-)(pv avOpditroiv ir6\etsTOUT1 e(T$\ '6rav TIS TOVS V6[/.OVS cw^y tca\>s.

And he thinks it a great abuse that the general should get allthe credit of a victory won by the prowess of the commonsoldier 2. He exhorts the youth not to spend their time in thefrivolities of fine dress, nor even in the training-schools ofathletes3, but to apply themselves to the practice of arms. Hecalls those who care more for their bodies than their minds(crap/ce? ai Keval (ppevwv) mere w^aXyuwra aiyopas, and KO/JLTJ JXOVOV

/cal

1 FRIENDSHIP OF SOCRATES.

Lastly, the splendid prjais quoted by the orator Lycurgusfrom the Erechtheus\ is Ml of the most magnanimous andpatriotic sentiments. No bad citizen could have written it.

It is a significant fact, that Socrates, the friend and admirerof Euripides, was equally made the object of scurrilous attackby Aristophanes. Aelian expressly says 8 that the philosopherused to frequent the theatre when Euripides exhibited, e%atpeyap Tw avSpl, SrjXovori, Bui re TTJV ao^lav avrov ical TTJV Iv rot?

fierpoi'; aperrjv. If then Euripides was an immoral man and abad citizen, so also was Socrates9. We cannot, at this remoteperiod, pretend to divine all the secret influences that producedthe results which Greek history records. "We know howeverthat Aristophanes was particularly sore about the failure of hisfirst edition of the Clouds'; which he himself regarded asaoTa.T7]v TWV Kco/^cpSiuv. Now, if this failure was in any

degree due to the influence of Socrates 2 and Euripides, and thestate party (the middle classes) which they represented, wehave a key at once to the bitterness of the satire on Socrates inthe second edition, and to the unremitting enmity, shown innearly all the subsequent comedies, against Euripides. Dis-liking both even before this, he would lash them with redoubledfury as the authors of his disappointment.

It may perhaps seem strange that Euripides on his part madeneither reply nor allusion to his persevering enemy. Possiblywe shall be justified in referring the following verses 3 to theattack on himself and Socrates ;

aySpcHv Se iroWol rov ytKwTos ovvtuaa

ALLUSIONS TO ARISTOPHANES AND AESCHYLUS. li

Also those in the Erechtheus 4,

/alffer Ppaxt'ta repots 7)$ovrjs Katcris.

To Aeschylus however, who was in every respect the represen-tative of the opposite school, Euripides has several disparagingreferences. In the Phoenissae and the Supplices he pointedlyalludes to the Seven against Thebes; in several passages of theTroades to the Agamemnon; and also in the Electra to theavayvclipicris in the Choephori. Even in the Frogs, it is Euri-pides and Aeschylus who are pitted against each other, whileSophocles maintains a dignified neutrality. Aeschylus was anultra-aristocrat, an ultra-polytheist, a man of the old generation,almost an epic poet under the guise of a tragic composer. ButEuripides was a free-thinker, an enlightened philosopher, asympathiser with humanity as a fact, but a despiser of poly-theism as an invention.

Of the relative merits of Euripides, considered as a tragicartist, it is very difficult at the present day to form a correctjudgment. Circumstances, feelings, principles of morality, areall essentially different now, and yet it is by these alone thatwe too often test the writings of the ancients. The opinion ofthe Greeks themselves, which is surely entitled to every respect,was, we think, on the whole, in favour of Euripides. But ourmodern critics begin by assuming that Aeschylus and Sophocleshad attained the height of the art, and then because Euripidesdiffered materially from them in style, and sentiments, and con-struction of his plots, they conclude that these are so manyproofs of the decadence of tragedy under his hands. Theyfreely tell us that Euripides is faulty in this, or that he mighthave done better in that; but it never occurs to them to think,that Euripides was possibly the best judge of the matter. Wecannot tell, as he could, what best suited the taste of his audi-ence ; indeed, we are apt altogether to lose sight of this, thefirst object in a tragic writer's view, the audience, and to consider

1 Frag. 372. v. 22.

f 2

lii EDITOR'S DESIGN.

an ancient drama merely as a written work5. Euripides may,no doubt, have been really wrong in his notions of tragedy;only, against this chance we must weigh the still greaterchance, that our modern judgments both of it and of him are insome way mistaken.

But few words remain to be added on the design of the pre-sent edition. It is now a general, and we think a wise opinion,that simple explanatory notes,explanatory, that is, not of thewords only, or the syntax, but of the connected sense and driftof entire odes and speeches, and disencumbered, as far as pos-sible, of the wearisome load of various readings",are the mostserviceable to young scholars, as being the readiest aids towardsunderstanding the mind and views of an author. It is oftensaid, that there is no royal road to learning; and this is in agreat measure true; but it seems advisable, if classical literatureis to keep its place along with the more extended requirementsof modern education, to adopt the shortest methods of learning itwhich are compatible with accuracy. Probably it will not bewithout a severe struggle with the antagonistic influences of theday, that the pre-eminent claims of the Greek and Latin lan-guages, as the best modes of cultivating at once the taste, thejudgment, and the intellect, will be maintained. If the causeprove ultimately successful, it will be by popularizing the studyas far as that can safely be effected. And it can only beeffected by rendering it more interesting, as well as morepractically and generally useful. It will hardly be denied,that the Porsonian school of critics, much and justly as weadmire their varied learning and ingenuity, have been the

5 It may be worth while to remind the reader, that though the Greek dramas wereprimarily meant to be acted, they were also written and published, even in the life-time of the authors, to be read. This js quite clear from Ran. 52, where Dionysussays,

KoX 5^T* ir\ rr/s yews avayiyvclxTKovri fj.01T V 'AvSponeSav irphs i/iavrbv, KTA.

This part especially some may think could altogether be dispensed with inschool editions of those authors whose text has now been pretty well settled by suc-cessive and careful critical revisions. However in an author like Euripides there ismuch that has to be said on the history of the text.

PORSONIAN CRITICS. 1 ill

means of introducing into our schools a somewhat dull and drykind of annotation, useless to the mere beginner, often tire-some even to the advanced student, and fitted only for pro-fessed critics7. But, while the critics are the few, we mustremember that ordinary readers are the many. There is astrong tendency, in the reading of Greek more especially, to beso struck with the beauty of the diction and the peculiarities ofthe construction, that the sense is regarded as almost a secondarymatter, and accordingly is very carelessly dealt with. This schoolof editors despised or disregarded explanation, properly so called.Illustration by a host of parallel passages, from the widestrange of classical authors, was their principal object; but this,though useful in its way, is easily carried too far. Othersbusied themselves with readings, emendations, and triflingmatters of orthography ; but these too left the author's mean-ing to be made out as it best might be. It is well known thatPorson scarcely condescended to explain a single passage in thewhole of his lengthy notes to the four plays. Elmsley doessometimes explain, though he is not particularly trustworthy asan interpreter. His strength lay in illustration. While weadmire the natural shrewdness, accurate judgment, and greatextent of reading which Porson shows, we are impressed withthe extraordinary diligence of Elmsley in bringing up a whole

7 In many respects it is unfortunate that Porson should have taken for publicationthe four plays which stand first in the folio edition of Barnes (Camb. 1694), theHecuba, the Orestes, the Phoenissae, and the Medea. From the great repute of hisedition, quite unsuited as it is to young students, these plays are more read in theschools than any others, while many of very superior excellence are almost whollyneglected. The Medea is one of the earliest, and also one of the most difficult, of theextant plays; while the other three are among the latest, and certainly not the mostinteresting. Bishop Monk's two plays, (also the next in Barnes' edition, and perhapsrather accidentally taken than selected as better suited for school reading,) theAlcestis and the Hippolytus, are about the best; his notes however are too muchafter the Porsonian model to be advantageously placed in the hands of the young.The plays best suited for school reading are perhaps, next after the two last named,the Bacchae, the two Iphigenias, the Ion, and the Suppliants. The Hecuba and theMedea, if suitably edited, need not be excluded from the list; and for the MedeaElmsley has done so much that it is at least convenient as a subject for lectures. Itis, beyond question, one of the finest of the plays; but then it requires some mindand much study rightly to appreciate it.

liv GREEK SCHOLIASTS.

array of authorities even on points of almost trifling minute-ness. His notes are, in consequence, valuable rather as a reper-tory of carefully determined Attic diction than as a commen-tary on particular Greek plays. He also set a good example inadhering chiefly to the plan of illustrating an author from him-self. Excellent and safe as this method is, it is perhaps toounambitious to be generally attractive to editors, whose naturaland pardonable desire to display iroKv^adia or extensive readingsometimes leads them rather far astray.

But no critic can be compared with Hermann, whether weview him as a successful emendator of the text or as an inter-preter of really difficult passages. He has done for Euripidesmore than all the other editors put together; and thoughhis more recently edited plays sometimes show considerabletemerity, his admirable judgment and correct taste are so con-spicuous, that his opinions are always deserving of deferentialconsideration.

Now, as all sublunary things seem to go by the law of cycles,and as many fashions which have been exploded again enjoytheir term of popularity, so we shall not be at all surprisedif future editors take. a lesson from the old Greek Scholiasts8,

8 As young students sometimes ask who were the scholiasts, it may be well tostate that they were learned grammarians who wrote comments (vTvo/j.yfi/j.aTa) on theancient Greek authors, but chiefly the poets. The principal writers of these com-ments belonged to the school of Alexandria, which seems to have flourished till thedestruction of the library A.D. 651, and of which Aristophanes of Byzantium andAristarchus were the earliest as well as the most celebrated critics (B.C. 260 and 160).There was also a school at Pergamum in Asia Minor, of which Crates of Mallus wasthe most famous representative, and a third at Byzantium, both later in date andinferior in learning, to which Tzetzes, Eustathius, Stephanus the geographer, andPhotius belonged. The existence of vast libraries at Pergamum and Alexandria,containing numbers of the most valuable Greek writings which have since perished,added to the great industry and learning of these grammarians, has rendered theirlabours of essential service to modern scholars. Many of their commentaries are ofthe highest value, as those on Pindar, Apollonius Rhodius, Aristophanes, Homer,&c. The scholia to only a few of the plays of Euripides have come down to us.They are of various merit, some being very poor, others, as on the Medea and theHippolytus, being excellent. Generally, the plays which were most read in theschools are most copiously commented on. The scholia as we now have them arevery often compilations from various grammarians. Their comments were frequentlyborrowed by the lexicographers.

MODERN EDITIONS. lv

,the plan and object of whose comments, if not always thematter, were very judicious. They confined themselves prettynearly to paraphrasing the meaning, elucidating the mythology,and giving simpler synonyms for the more obscure or un-common Avords, i. e. converting the phraseology of poetry intothe familiar medium of common prose. In modern notes wenot only meet with too much that is wholly useless to youngstudents, who have seldom either the time to verify numerousreferences or the books necessary for the purpose, but we findmany real difficulties passed over without a word of comment.Take an example from Alcest. v. 197,

Kipvyiiv b" e%eiTOGOVTOV &\yos oil WOT' OV AeA^treTaf.

These two lines are difficult in more respects than one. Onconsulting the old Scholiast we find this explanatory note onthe first clause ;" If it had happened that he had died, therewould have been but one grief, namely his death; but now thathe has escaped, his misfortunes are not to be forgotten"{dveTrCKrjcna, vulg. dveTTiXTjiTTa). If now we turn to the editionof Pflugk (1834), what information do we obtain ?

" Eespondent sibi re et he, ut Suppl. 95. Iph. T. 994. Soph.El. 1087- Herm. Trach. 285. 333. Plat, de Rep. ii. p. 367,C. iii. p. 388, E. vi. p. 495, C. Legg. i. p. 628, A. 641, C.Thucyd. vi. 83. Vide Stallb. ad Plat. Phileb. p. 36. Heind. adCratyl. p. 406, C. Engelhardt. ad Lach. p. 18. Cfr. Hartung.de partic. Gr. Vol. i. p. 92 sqq."

Or again, from Hippol. 747,

aefjivbv repp.ova Kvpwvovpavodf TOV * AT Aas e%et,

where the Scholiast comments as follows;" By the end of heaven he means the Ocean, by which the sky

seems to human sight to be limited, and to fall down.Atlassome consider to have been a mountain, fabling that it bears thesky because it is very high, and the heaven seems to rest on it;whence it is called "ArKa

lvi MODERN EDITIONS.

cannot be mar>e," &c. Now such a note, if not particularlyvaluable in itself, implies a clearer perception of the aid whichlearners require, than the barren list of references supplied inBp. Monk's edition:

"De articulo praepositivo vice postpositivi adhibito videquae diximus supra ad v. 527. et vid. infra v. 1274. Atlantisfabulae meminerunt Homerus Odyss. A. 51. Hesiod. Theog.516. Pindar. Pyth. iv. 515. Aeschyl. Prom. 355. 433. Eurip.Ion. 1. Here. F. 402. Virgil. Aen. iv. 246. 480. vi. 796. etalii Poetae."

But it would be invidious as well as needless to pursue thecomparison further. All honour is due to those who have gonethrough the laborious and difficult task of comparing MSS.,removed blunders and solecisms, arranged the choral metres,and so acted as pioneers to those who were to come after them,and to whom they bequeathed a comparatively easy task.The notes to the present edition have been composed with thehope of inducing students to pay not less attention to the mindand feelings than to the language and idioms of their author.To some, without doubt, they will appear fuller in explanationthan is at all necessary, and in the same degree perhaps deficientin grammatical illustration and the discussion of critical points.To suit the requirements of all alike is obviously a hopelessattempt. At all events, not a single difficulty has knowinglybeen passed over without a remark. The remaining twovolumes will be published with as little delay as is consistentwith care and accuracy. In the next some account of the MSS.of Euripides will be given, illustrated by facsimiles. Atpresent, this subject would lead us far beyond the boundswhich it is advisable to observe.

Peterborough, June, 1857.

LIFE OF EURIPIDES.

(From a MS. in the Ambrosian Library at Milan ; first published by Elmsley in hisedition of the Bacchae, Oxford, 1821.)

EURIPIDES the poet was the son of Mnesarchus a tradesman andClito a herb-seller. He was an Athenian (by family) ', but wasborn at Salamis, in the Archonship of Callias, in the seventy-fifth Olympiad, when the- Greeks fought at sea with the Per-sians 2. He practised at first wrestling or pugilism, his fatherhaving received an oracle that he was destined to conquer inthe public prize-games; and it is said that he was victoriousat Athens. However, having subsequently changed his views3,he betook himself to tragedy: and here he introduced severalnovelties, in natural philosophy, rhetoric, and the developmentof his plots, as having been a disciple of Anaxagoras, Prodicus,and Protagoras, and a companion of Socrates. It is thought toothat Socrates the philosopher (and Mnesilochus4) helped him in

1 " He belonged properly to the deme Phlyae of the Cecropid tribe, but he perhapshad some land in Salamis, and sometimes resided there." {Theatre of the Greeks,p. [92.)

2 01. 75. 1. B.C. 480. (Miiller, Hist. Lit. p. 358, places it B.C. 4821.) Thename Euripides is supposed to be formed like a patronymic from the Euripus, wherethe first successful resistance was offered to the Persian navy. (Ibid, p. [93.)Aeschylus is from a diminutive of alaxpbs, lurpiculus. Compare IUKKVAOS fromIJLlKp6s.

3 avayvovs. Or ' having studied for it.'4 This name, Elmsley remarks, has apparently crept in from the following sentence,

where however it seems to have been wrongly borrowed from Laertius, ii. 18, whogives the anecdote in words which enable us to restore the corrupt text of this MS.as follows : jxiiivi)tai. Se e/ceiras (i. e. Teleclides, a writer of the Old Comedy) [ws]fypvyucdv TI 8pa/j.a Kawbv \irovi)aavri, i i eppiyava] Eupi7ri8Tj ^aiKpaTT)! iiroTiBriaiv.Mnesilochus is only known from the Thesmophoriazusae as the father-in-law ofEuripides.

VOL. I. g

lviii LIFE OF EURIPIDES.

some of his compositions, as Teleclides expressly affirms. Mnesi-lochus says that Euripides had written a new play called ThePhrygians, and that Socrates contributed the fagots to it5. Thereare some who assert that Iophon or Timocrates of Argos com-posed for him the lyric measures. They say likewise that hehad been a painter, and that pictures of his were exhibited atMegara; also that he was a torch-bearer of Apollo of Zoster6.It is stated that he was born on the same day as Hellanicus7,when the Greeks gained the victory in the sea-fight at Salamis.He first engaged in the tragic contests at the age of twenty-six8. He afterwards retired to Magnesia9, and was honouredwith public hospitality and immunity from taxes. From thencehe went to Macedonia, and lived for some time at the court ofArchelaus, where he found much favour 10, and composed a playof the same name. His influence with that sovereign was suchthat he was employed in the administration '. He is said to haveworn a thick beard, and to have had freckles 2 on his face. Hisfirst wife was Melito, his second Choerila. He left three sons,Mnesarchides the eldest, a merchant; Mnesilochus his second,an actor; and Euripides the youngest, who brought out someof his father's plays3. He began to exhibit in the archonshipof Callias, in the first year of the eighty-first Olympiad4. His

5 Properly, ' suggested the subject-matter.' The word, of course, is a pun on thetitle of the play $pvyes. The distich, as given by Laertius, is as follows;

$puyts fffri Kaivbv Spafta TOUT* EvptiriSov,

KtxX T&. (ppvyav3 VTroridrj

LIFE OF EURIPIDES. lix

first tragedy was The Daughters of Pelias, when he was third.The whole number of his plays was ninety-two, of whichseventy-eight are preserved5. Three of these are considerednot genuine, the Tomes, the Rliadamcmtlujs, and the Peirithoits.He died6, as Philochorus says, above seventy years old; asEratosthenes affirms, seventy-five. Ho was buried in Macedonia,but a cenotaph was erected to him in Athens7, and an epigramwas inscribed upon it, composed by Thucydides the historian orTimotheus the musician:

To Hellas' Bard all Hellas gives a tomb ;On Macedon's far shores his relics sleep :

Athens, the pride of Greece, was erst his home,Whom now all praise, and all in common weep."

5 That is, the names or titles of them.0 B.C. 406, aged seventy-five.7 On the road'from the Peiraeus to the city. Pausan. Attic, ii. 2, eicr! Se Ta

CONTENTS OF VOL. I.

PAGE

PREFACE V

LIFE OF EURIPIDES . . . . . . .

RHESUS . . . . . . . . . 1

MEDEA . . . . . . . . . 65

HIPFOLYTUS . . . . . . . . . 153

ALCESTIS . . . . . . . . . 2 3 5

HERACLIDAE 303

SUPPLICES 367

TROADES 443

INDEX I. OF WORDS AND PROPER NAMES . . . 5 2 1

INDEX II. GRAMMATICAL, PHILOLOGICAL, &C. . . . 5 3 2

VOL. I .

P^o-os mils fi.ev T\V %Tpvfi.6vo% TOV iroTa/xov Kal Tepifn^oprj^, Movow

5 pa/uv oe rjyovfi.evos el's "IXiov irapayLyverat VVKTOS, orpaTcvo/Afvcov

Tpwcov irapa Tais i/avo~i TU>V 'EXXJ^VOJV. TOVTOV 'O8VO"O"VS Kal Ato/myS^s

KaTao-Koiroi OVTS avaipovcriv, 'A6r]vaTot's EXX^crt Kii/ovyoi/ /c TOVTOV. Tepipiyoprj 8e eTritfaaveio'a TO TOV 7ratSos

dvciXeTo. vXa.K

AAAD.X.

EKTU>P rots "EAAijo"ti/ TTIKOVTUIV d/

RHESUS.

THE Rhesus is remarkable as being the only extant Greek drama, theplot of which is taken from the direct action of the Iliad. Numerousas are the plays (nearly half of those which have come down to us)relating to the capture of Troy and the events subsequent to it, fjTpioLKrj Trpayft.are.ia, the Tragic writers seem to have avoided theground hallowed by the immortal poet,the lepbs XU/JLWV,and tohave preferred borrowing their themes from the Cyclic poems whichformed as it were the sequel to his great work.

In this instance however the poet haa adapted the narrative of theAoXoveia, or tenth book of the Iliad, and the outline of the play isas follows:Hector is aroused in the night by his sentinels, whohave observed an unusual commotion in the Argive camp; and heprepares for an immediate night attack, full of confidence that theGreeks, finding their post no longer tenable in the Troad, are aboutto attempt a secret escape. Aeneas however, suspecting treachery,checks his ardour by representing the uncertainty of the movementand the great danger of a sudden assault, and advises that a spyshould be sent into the Grecian camp to ascertain the meaning ofthe bale-fires which have been seen there during the whole night.Dolon, a soldier in Hector's company, volunteers to undertake thisoffice on the promise of being rewarded with the horses of Achilles.He returns to his house for a proper outfit, the skin of a wolf, withwhich he proposes to cover his whole body, and so disguised to walkon hands and knees close up to the camp. While he is absent, newsis brought to Hector, by a shepherd of the royal flocks, of the arrivalof Rhesus, King of Thrace, in a splendid chariot drawn by snow-white steeds, and attended by a countless host (v. 310). Hector, onthe first interview, testily rejects his services, as having arrived toolate; and Rhesus defends himself on the plea of having been detainedby an irruption of the Scythians which he had to quell while on hismarch to Troy. At length, after loudly boasting of the services hewill speedily perform against the Greeks, he is admitted by Hector,though rather as a guest than an ally. Meanwhile, Ulysses and

6 RHESUS.

Diomed had captured Dolon, and having ascertained from him thewatchword and the exact position of Hector's tent, they stealthilyenter the Trojan lines, with the intention of slaying him. Findinghowever that he is absent, they are preparing to attack some otherof the Trojan chiefs, when Pallas appears, and points out to themthat the white steeds of Rhesus will be a more magnificent prize.Their design is nearly frustrated by the approach of Paris to warnHector that Greek spies are among them ; but Pallas, under theguise of the friendly Cypris, succeeds in persuading him that hisinformation is unworthy of credit. Rhesus is then slain and thehorses are captured; but the Trojans are now roused, and Ulysses isseized. With his usual craft and self-possession he pretends to be afriend, gives the right watchword and is allowed to depart. T