of circumstances all tending to establish the same result. As an isolated proof it may be refused; and this Hermann has done in his Dissertation on this chorus, (Opusc. Vol. II. p. 126); and it must be admitted to be just possible that the Pythoness was alluding only to some resemblance in the external appearance of those dreadful beings, without any reference to their triad. Yet Hermann himself seems to have used this very argument on another occasion in order to arrive at their number. In the Dissertation just alluded to (p. 127), he cites the following line of the Choephora,

ἄναξ "Απολλον αἴδε πληθύουσι δέ—(ν. 1055.)

to shew that Orestes imagines he sees more than three Furies on that occasion7. Now from what circumstance is such a conclusion deduced? From the word λnovovoi? But the Greeks counted one, two, and many; and πλŋovew may as certainly be used of three as of any greater number. And that this could not have been his argument, may be gathered from a passage in his review of Müller's Eumenides; where, with his usual versatility, forgetting or throwing overboard what he had said in his Dissertation, he asserts, (for the purpose of confuting Müller's theory, that a chorus of fifty was portioned out to the different plays of a tetralogy, and that those not actually engaged as chorus in the play that was performing, sometimes appeared in it as servants, escorts, &c.) that even if these supernumeraries did actually shew themselves as the Furies in the Choephora-still they would not have constituted a chorus, as three or four would have answered the purpose. The argument, then, in the passage of the Dissertation, cannot have been drawn from the meaning of new. The only other discoverable circumstance on which it could have been founded, is, that nine lines before the one above cited from the Choephora, Orestes had made the very same comparison of the Furies with the Gorgons, as the Pythoness; (aïde Fopyóvwv díkny, v. 1046), and consequently, if they appeared equal in number to the Gorgons when he first beheld them, there must have been more than three when he applies the term ŋovσ to them. This reasoning would

7 “Quæ verba quum apertum sit de pluribus quam de tribus dici.”

8 "Betrachtet man nun den ganzen von Herrn Müller geführten Beweis für das wirkliche Erscheinen der Furienein Chor würde das immer noch nicht

seyn da auch Drey oder Vier genug gewesen wären-in den Choephoren, so besteht er in einem durch misgedeutete Stellen erfolglos unterstützten Machtspruche." Opusc. Vol. vi. part 2. p.

134.

be sufficiently satisfactory; but if it be applicable in the Choephora, why not also in the Eumenides? It may be further observed, that this passage in the "Review" completely contradicts the argument founded on the above line of the Choephora which Hermann had advanced in the "Dissertation," in support of a larger chorus than three in the Eumenides. Not to urge, that as he held the Furies seen by Orestes in the former play to have been nothing but the phantoms of his disordered brain, invisible to the chorus and audience, he was not entitled to draw any inference thence as to the number which actually and bodily appeared in the Eumenides.

The next passage that affords any evidence on the subject is that where the Furies are awakened by Clytemnæstra's ghost. The very first intelligible words which they utter bear very strong testimony to their number being three-“ Arouse our sister there, as I awaken thee” (ἔγειρ ̓ ἔγειρε καὶ σὺ τήνδ ̓ ἐγὼ δὲ σέ, ν. 140). Οι this Hermann remarks (p.126), "concedam etiam de tribus accipi posse"-a concession scarcely necessary; and it would have been more to the purpose to have shewn how the words could possibly have been applied to more than three. Another passage further on (v. 255), where the dual λeúσσetov occurs, addressed by one of the Furies to her sisters, need not be insisted on; since it is not only capable of Wellauer's interpretation, that it might have been addressed by the Fury who entered third, to the two who had preceded her, although she herself was followed by others, but has likewise been very probably emended by Hermann, after Wakefield, into devσơé тe пávтa (Opusc. Vol. vi. p. 48)—a great improvement on his former barbarous reading of λεῦσσε τὸν πάντα.

The main battle-field, however, on which the question must be decided, is the first choral ode. This is usually divided into three strophes and antistrophes, as in Wellauer's edition. Yet both Hermann and Müller agree in distributing it amongst fifteen choreutæ; though, characteristically enough, they differ very widely and very warmly as to the manner of the distribution. Hermann employs eight of the fourteen choreutæ (remaining after the Coryphæus has delivered the three opening trimeters) in the first strophe and antistrophe, whilst Müller assigns the same verses to six. The middle strophes, according to Hermann's arrangement, are sung by four, and the concluding ones by two choreutæ; thus forming a descending series in what is called geometrical proportion-8, 4, 2. Müller, who has got eight

singers still to provide for, and who is justly of opinion that the sense will not admit of a division in the second antistrophe, is compelled to assume that each of the four remaining strophes and antistrophes is sung by two Furies in unison, and thus succeeds in making up his number!-It is obvious that by such a method -which instead of proving the theory by the text, tortures the text into conformity with the theory-the ode might be divided amongst any imaginable number of voices.

It will be unnecessary to point out, what must have already struck every reader at all conversant with theatrical effect, how weak and tame would have been the impression produced by the Furies entering, after the first burst, at longer intervals, and in continually decreasing numbers. A process the very reverse of this would, one would imagine, have been better calculated to inspire the panic terror which has been so frequently ascribed to this most tragic chorus. But other and still more absurd results may be deduced from a general view of the economy of the scene according to Hermann's arrangement of it, which is still, in some respects, more probable than Müller's.

The origin of these absurdities may be traced to his departure from the authority of the scholiast, who tells us that the scene is changed at v. 64, from the exterior to the interior of Apollo's temple. Scholiasts, indeed, are a class of persons whom Hermann is commonly disposed to treat with sufficient contempt, except their testimony happen to confirm his own arguments. But, though an implicit deference is not always to be accorded to them, the following considerations may, perhaps, induce readers to think that he would have acted more judiciously in the present instance, had he adopted the views of the one just alluded to.

First, then, in conformity with his notion that the temple remains closed, he is forced to assume that Apollo is polite and condescending enough to leave his shrine, and, escorting Orestes over the threshold, to hand him over to the care of Hermes, who is supposed to be waiting outside the door, after the fashion of a laquais-de-place.10 Surely such a method of proceeding

* Καὶ δευτέρα δὲ γίγνεται φαντασία. Στραφέντα γὰρ μηχανήματα ἔνδηλα ποῖει τὰ κατὰ τὸ μαντεῖον ὡς ἔχει.

10 "Vielmehr kömmt Orestes im Begriff seine Wanderung anzutreten aus

dem Tempel, geleitet von Apollo, der ihn belehrt was er zu thun habe, und dann dem Hermes übergiebt." Opusc. Vol. VI. part 2, p. 163.

would be hardly consistent with the dignity of either deity; nor is it strictly reconcileable with a passage in Hermann's Dissertation "de Compositione Tetralogiarum" (Opusc. Vol. 1. p. 311) where, speaking of the Eumenides, he says, "agitur res in templis Deorum"-the only other temple in the play being that of Minerva at Athens. But it suited the object of that Dissertation to make the Eumenides appear as splendid as possible. So, too, according to this theory, Clytemnæstra's ghost must have peeped in at the door and addressed the Furies from the outside-to say the least of it, an awkward way of proceeding, if not absolutely ludicrous. These points, however, are merely matters of taste. In certain passages of the text we find something more tough and stubborn. How, for instance, notwithstanding Hermann's broad assertion, shall we reconcile his view of the economy of the scene with v. 67, where Apollo points to the Furies, deɩktikos, as visibly present—τάσδε τὰς μάργους ὁρᾷς—? Or with the allusion of the Furies to the Omphalos at v. 166?-Or, finally, with v. 169ἔξω κελεύω τῶνδε δωμάτων τάχος? where Hermann thinks there is nothing extraordinary in Apollo's standing at the door of his temple, and commanding the Furies to leave it, when, according to his arrangement, they had already quitted it, and had a long dance outside! To be sure, he has an alternative for tender stomachs which cannot digest this. One or two of the Furies, not engaged in singing, might have returned into the temple in search of Orestes, and these Apollo might have addressed". Unfortunately however for this hypothesis, not only has Orestes left it long before, but the pursuing goddesses are so painfully aware of this fact, that the lamenting of it forms the chief burden of their song. Not to mention that this command of Apollo is not uttered till their ode is concluded.

But the manner in which he distributes this first ode amongst the choreutæ presents us with absurdities no less formidable. On the vanishing of Clytemnestra's ghost, it is supposed that the Coryphæus rushes unaccompanied from the temple to the orchestra, where, addressing the surrounding vacuity, or at best the audience, - for her sisters are still asleep in the interior-she exclaims,

11 Ja wer es denn so unmöglich fände, dass jemand zu denen, die noch vor dem Hause stehen, in Zorne sagte: geht aus meinem Hause und macht dass ihr fort kommt der könnte ja, da nicht alle

Furien zugleich singen, eine oder die andere wieder in den Tempel hineingehen und den Orestes dort suchen lassen." Opusc. Vol. VI. p. 164.

her

Awake this sister of ours, as I awaken thee-Dost thou sleep? &c."-Matters are not mended by the appearance of the second Fury, who might be supposed to emerge from one of those Bacchic temples, erected of late years in the streets of our metropolis, rather than from the sanctuary of Apollo; as from her addressing precursor in the plural number she must evidently see double (ἰοὺ ἰοὺ πόπαξ, ἐπάθομεν, φίλαι). Such a unity too and connexion of ideas pervade every strophe as render it very difficult to believe that they were portioned out amongst various singers. Hermann himself seems to have been struck by this, and is evidently staggered by the oddness of the fact, that each succeeding Fury should speak so much in the strain of her predecessor: but whilst he admits the coherence of the sentiments he denies the connexion of the words 13. It must be admitted, indeed, that the first strophe consists of abrupt and parenthetical reflexions. Such, especially, is that of the second line-ἦ πολλὰ δὴ παθοῦσα καὶ μάτην ἐγώ. But must this have been therefore necessarily delivered by a second speaker? On the contrary the word oλλá referring to a long train of sorrows previously undergone, is natural enough in the mouth of one who reverts to them from the excitement of a fresh infliction, but would be wholly misplaced if uttered by one who had not previously adverted to the occasion which draws it forth. For the previous line had already included the entire sisterhood in the new misfortune. Such broken, interrupted expressions are highly characteristic of grief, and so the scholiast tells us; whose words, had they been rightly interpreted by Müller (Eumeniden, p. 84), would have led him to a directly opposite conclusion to that he has deduced from them; viz. that the strophe is to be divided amongst different singers; and Hermann so clearly saw this to be the case, that he dismisses the old commentator sans façon, as his manner is towards scholiasts whose testimony is inconvenient, though not without a passing word of commenda

12 Jacebant sopitæ in interiore templi parte Furiæ; audiuntur primo voces somniantium; inde una excitata lente progreditur ita loquens; ἔγειρ ̓, ἔγειρε, &c. Prodit jam secunda concitatior, &c. Eodemque modo deinceps prorumpunt omnes, singulæ aliquid dicentes : quindecim enim commata sunt." Opusc. v. P. 136.

13 "Has enim deinceps accedentes neque mirum est in pari indignatione omnes in eandem sententiam loqui et necessarium nexu talem orationem carere.' Opusc. Vol. 11. p. 135-6. Had there been nothing surprising in the circumstance it would not have occurred to Hermann to deny it.