صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

tion14. The scholium alluded to runs as follows: Koμμatikos ekaσTOV κατ' ἰδίαν προενεκτέον· αἱ γὰρ διακοπαὶ πρόσφοροι τοῖς πάθεσιν—that is, "each part is to be delivered commatically by one Fury; for broken phrases are suitable to grief." Had the scholiast meant that each verse was to be sung by separate singers, he would have used the plural, not the singular, Kar' idíav; besides that it would be nonsense to say that interrupting another is characteristic of sorrow. But notwithstanding the abrupt form of expression which occurs in this first strophe, the unity of thought, which is wholly absorbed in contemplating the escape of the fugitive, is very striking. The same is the case with the second strophe, which is entirely devoted to expressing the pain occasioned by the apparition of Clytemnestra; whilst the metaphors by which the idea of it is conveyed-the goad of the charioteer and the whip of the executioner-are so similar, nay, almost identical, that it is difficult to believe the author assigned them to two persons, the latter of whom, according to Hermann's hypothesis, rushes in just in time to complete the strophe without having heard the words of her predecessor. That critic, indeed, is of opinion that the beginning of a new speech is indicated by the word náρeστ, which happens to be found both in the strophe and antistrophe 15. The cogency of this reasoning it is difficult to see. Hermann's doctrine on the pointing of a strophe and antistrophe is indeed very strict; though an examination of Eschylus's choral odes will shew that they are not invariably pointed alike. But even if it be allowed that a new sentence begins at Tápeσт, it does not follow that it is to be assigned to a second person. Müller's arguments however, to shew that it cannot begin a new sentence in the antistrophe 16 have not been satisfactorily answered by Hermann in his Review, (Opusc. Vol. vi. p. 38 seqq). Indeed his interpunction of the antistrophe he is obliged to support by an alteration of the text, reading after Wakefield, θρόμβον for θρόνον. A metrical reason is assigned for this; viz. that povoλißn Opóμßov answers better to the corresponding verse of the strophe, peσoλaßeî kévтp. But besides Müller's objection that such an accurate correspondence of syllables is not always observed in the thesis of Dochmiacs and Cretics, it may

14 Hoc interprete etsi non contemnendo, facile carebimus." Opusc. Vol. II. p. 135.

15 In dem zweyten Strophenpaare weiset das gleichmässig hervorgehobene

16

TápeσTI schon an sich selbst auf den Anfang einer neuen Rede hin." Opusc. Vol. VI. p. 38.

16 Vide Müller's Eumeniden, Anhang, p. 11 and 33.

The

be remarked that on this ground there would be more reason for altering the strophe than the antistrophe, inasmuch as povoλɩßñ θρόνον is a more perfect Dochmiac than φονολιβή θρόμβον. sense, however, of Opóμßov, which Müller repudiates with more truth than politeness, it would perhaps be difficult to discover even after Hermann's explanation of it, which is here set down for the benefit of ingenious readers who understand German, a translation seeming impossible." Solches vollbringen die jungen Götter, die sich gegen alles Recht der Blutspur an Fuss und Haupt bemächtigen." (Opusc. Vol. vi. p. 40.) As the explanation which Hermann, not without reason, subjoined to the foregoing is rather more intelligible, it is here set down in English-"That is, Who (i.e. the younger gods) arrogate to themselves the disposal of the murderer sprinkled from head to foot with blood." The light, however, thus thrown upon the version is gained by shuffling and changing the terms; and with every allowance for the boldness of schylus's metaphors, póußov does seem an odd designation of a murderer, and a θρόμβον φονολιβῇ περὶ πόδα περὶ κάρα, to say the least, a very harsh construction. It seems therefore better to retain the old reading Opóvov, and to interpret it of the Omphalos with which it is put in apposition; thus retaining with Müller a unity in the sense of the antistrophe. And if this be right, then Hermann's assumption, that the corresponding strophe was sung by two different voices, falls to the ground. It is needless to establish the unity of thought pervading the third strophe, as Hermann virtually admits it by assigning it to a single singer.

The points, then, sought to be established by what has been said, are these: first, that each of the strophes of the first choral ode is sung by a single Fury; and second, that they are delivered inside the temple of Apollo, and consequently on the stage. What, then, shall we say of the antistrophes? This question must be answered by propounding a theory which seems to remove many of the difficulties connected both with the English and German notions respecting this chorus.

It must be owned that the German critics seem to have more reason on their side, in deciding that three choreute would be

17 The version given by Minckwitz, Hermann's fidus Achates, in his neat little edition of the Eumenides, seems hardly more satisfactory-"hoc perpe

trant Dii juniores qui contra omne jus potiuntur sanguineo grumo, pedem caputque polluente."

insufficient to form a tragic chorus. Reasoning from analogy and general practice, we should certainly be led to conclude that number insufficient. Moreover, we happen to possess the direct testimony of a scholiast with regard to this particular play, who, whatever might have been his critical acumen, probably had access to sources of information of which we are now deprived. On verse 585 (modλai μév éσpev λégoμev dè ovvтóμws) he remarks, τοῦτο οὐ πρὸς τὰς τρεῖς ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν χορόν—ιέ γὰρ ἦσαν. (This does not regard the three but the chorus; for they were fifteen.) Here we have, first, a distinction between three Furies and the remainder of the chorus; secondly, a positive assertion that the chorus consisted of fifteen.

As Hermann, however, interprets this scholium somewhat differently, it will be necessary to advert for a moment to his version of it. According to him, the meaning of the scholiast is, that the words of Æschylus above quoted are not to be taken in accordance with the ancient tradition which made the Furies three in number, but, as regarding the poet's practice in this play, where, in spite of that tradition, he had constituted them into a chorus of fifteen 18. But this is not the plain and obvious meaning of the words; and, moreover, it is hardly possible that the scholiast would have expressed himself so very laconically on so important an innovation-one which, according to Hermann, subjected the poet to a prosecution for impiety. But was the tradition itself so very clear and definite? Hermann's own arguments shew that it was not. In the preface to his two Dissertations (Opusc. Vol. 11. p. 126), he infers from the expressions πατρὸς and μητρὸς Ἐρίννες, made use of by Homer, Hesiod, and others, that their number was regarded as indefinite, and proceeds to confirm his opinion by the following passage from this very play :

ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν Νυκτός αἰανῆς τέκνα

Ἀραὶ δ ̓ ἐν οἴκοις γῆς ὑπαὶ κεκλήμεθα

on which he observes that the 'Apaí are in number infinite. the same purpose he also cites the testimony of Euripides :

ὅσαι μὲν οὖν ἔζοντο πεισθεῖσαι δίκῃ

ψῆφον παρ ̓ αὐτὴν ἱερὸν ὠρίσαντ ̓ ἔχειν·
ὅσαι δ' Ερινύων οὐκ ἐπείσθησαν νόμῳ

For

δρόμοις ἀνιδρύτοισιν ἠλάστρουν μ ̓ ἀεί-Iphig. Taur. 968.

18 Hoc autem ille significat quum Furiæ multas se esse dicant non respici traditionem veterum quâ tres esse perhi

bebantur sed chorum Furiarum qualem
poeta introduxerit e xv Furiis constan-
tem."
Opusc. Vol. II. p.
132.

It is rather puzzling, indeed, to reconcile this reasoning with his opinion that Eschylus was prosecuted for introducing more Furies than three. That, however, is entirely his own affair, and it will probably be thought that the above passage from Euripides is alone sufficient to prove that such could not have been the real cause of schylus' prosecution; since it is incredible that the son of the green-stall woman would have dared to assert in the face of assembled Athens, that there were more Furies than three, had Eschylus been previously tried and condemned for exceeding that number.

If, then, the tradition respecting the Furies-not, be it observed, the three Eumenides established at Athens, for at the passage to which the scholiast alludes that event had not yet taken placewas so uncertain, it seems highly improbable that he refers to it in the sense Hermann supposes. By the ràs Tpeîs he appears to mean, three of the chorus distinguished from the rest by taking a more prominent part in the action; those, in short, who sing the three strophes of the first ode, and who, at the end of the play, are escorted to their subterraneous temple. It will, probably, be admitted that no violence is done to the scholiast's words by such an interpretation, and that there is nothing improbable in it is allowed by Hermann himself, who in his Dissertation says, "Quare Eschylum credibile est quum Furias introduceret, tribus quæ proprie Furiæ habebantur, comitatum adjunxisse aliarum, quæ, varia illarum munera obeuntes, sociæ illis et ministræ essent." (Opusc. Vol. 11. p. 126.) Indeed the part they sustain in the play is very different from that of the ordinary chorus. They are not merely sympathizing spectators, but are very materially implicated in the plot. Even if we regard the catastrophe as completed by the acquittal of Orestes, still they have been very instrumental in bringing it about. But much remains to be done after that event, which almost sinks into insignificance when compared with what follows. Indeed the final appeasement and domiciling of the Furies at Athens, with which the play ends, seems to be the true catastrophe, and the story of Orestes adapted only for the sake of introducing it. There is no other play extant, in which any of the chorus take so important a part and belong so much to the dramatis persona, unless it be the Supplices. But that was one of the earlier plays, whatever Boeckh may dream to the contrary; and the chorus had not yet lost its original importance. And even in that play the chorus does not once make its appearance on the

stage; which even Hermann allows to have been the case in the opening scene of the Eumenides.

There is much truth, however, in Hermann's observation, that the stage would not have been large enough for the dances and evolutions of fifteen choreutæ. Neither is there any occasion to assume that they were all assembled there. On the contrary, it is more probable to suppose that the three strophes of the first ode were sung by the three principal Furies on the stage, and responded to by the twelve in the orchestra. And such an arrangement seems to be sanctioned by the scholiast cited above, who tells us that the ode was delivered κομματικώς ; a κόμμος being an alternate lamentation between the persons on the stage and in the orchestra. That such κóμμo were antistrophic is shewn by Hermann himself (Poet. 12. 9, p. 143, and de Metris); and we have an example of one in the preceding play of the Choephora. But had the Furies entered σopádny, singly, and in a wild, disordered manner, it is difficult to conceive how the ode could have taken the antistrophic form it has. Hermann urges this very objection against Müller's division of the second ode into strophes and antistrophes 19, forgetting, apparently, how fatal it must prove to his own hypothesis respecting the first.

It will perhaps, then, be allowed that the above arrangement is not altogether fanciful and unfounded; and a further confirmation of it may be derived by examining the tenor and purport of the strophes and antistrophes. The former consist almost entirely of personal complaints, addressed as to sympathizing friends. Thus their language is generally couched in the first person-ἐπάθομεν—παθοῦσα καὶ ἐγώ—ἄγραν ὤλεσα; or in a personal pronoun-époì & öveidos. With the antistrophes the case is different. The first two are composed of merely general accusations against Apollo, expressed, indeed, in a way that manifests great sympathy, yet still not betraying any personal injury. There is a little. difference in the third. We there find, indeed, a personal pronoun, but coupled with the conjunction και—καμοί τε λυπρός "this Apollo is hateful to me also "-implying, that is, as well as to yourself who have just suffered from his misconduct. The whole tenor of that antistrophe, too, seems to convey a pledge

19 "Nicht überall sind Antistrophen am rechten Orte. In einem Gesange wie dieser, mit dem die Furien einzeln, σπорádnu, ohne geregelte Ordnung hereinkom

men, würden Antistrophen der Sache ganz entgegen seyn. Darum ist hier nicht daran zu denken." Opusc. Vol. VI. P.

49.

« السابقةمتابعة »