^{page 13 note 1} G. M. Sifakis (Parabasis and Animal Choruses, ch. I) thinks the term completely inappropriate for Greek drama. I believe that he is fudging a distinction that is still valid and confusing ’realism’ with ’illusionism’ (cf. K. J. Dover, Aristophanic Comedy, 56). What is unsatisfactory about the term applied to any form of drama is the suggestion it carries that an audience may be in some way deceived so as to confuse stage fiction with reality (compare the characteristically robust judgements of Johnson, Dr. on this subject in his 1765 Preface to Shakespeare [ pp. 70–1 of Dr. Johnson on Shakespeare, ed. W. K. Wimsatt]).Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 2} See, for example, Schmid, W., Geschichte der griechische Literatur, i 4. 43 and M. Pohlenz, Die griechische Tragödie², 432. On Euripidean prologues and curtain lines see below, p. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 3} See Gudeman on Aristotle Poet. 1460^a and the literature cited there.

^{page 13 note 4} e.g. A. Ag. 533, Soph. Ai. 579, Soph. O.C. 730, Soph. O.C. 103. In none of these cases can it be convincingly shown that the poet is consciously employing theatrical terminology meant to be understood as such by the audience.

^{page 14 note 1} See Dio Chrys. 59. 3, Soph. O.C. 1116 , Eur. El. 907, Eur. Phoen. 751 A. Sept. 375–652, Eur. Het. 1056 (?) Soph. El. On this topic see Stemplinger, E., Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur, 596 f., 208, 266–7.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 2} Dindorf ii. 12 (37 Keil). The passage in question has not been transmitted and perhaps the offence it caused was a fiction.

^{page 14 note 3} . It is difficult to be certain of the meaning of but I cannot see much point in the translation offered by Sifakis (op. cit. 64), ’the performers necessary to them’. Aristides is surely being sarcastic as befits a holder of the Isocratean belief that all other literature must take second place to epideictic oratory (and also of the view shared by Plato and Isocrates that Comedy is see speech 40 Dindorf Keil is more apposite when he comments qui non boni sunt sed Aristidis aequalium inscitiae et insulsitati necessarii’. I take it from this that he takes as ’these, the ones you know about’ rather than ’to them’. (Jebb translates ’atque ills necessariis athlefis’.) Compare Hermogenes, de id. 2. 226 (p. 249.5 Rabe) VcAc)

^{page 14 note 4}

^{page 15 note 1} See Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 1102–50.

^{page 15 note 2} See the index analyticus to Schwartz's edition of the Euripides scholia s.v. A. Trendelenburg, Grammaticorum Graecorum de arte tragica iudicioturn reliquiae (Dim. Bonn, 1867), 56 ff., and Elsperger, W., Reste and Spüren antiker Kritik gegen Euripides (Philologus Supplementband, xi [1907-1910]), passim.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 3} See Wilamowitz, , Antigonos von Karystos, 150Google Scholar; Ed. Schwartz, , Fünf Vorträge ūber den griechischen Roman, 113Google Scholar; Leo, F., Griechischeriimische Biographic, 105 f. and Plautinische Forschungen2, 71; and Momigliano, A., The Development of Ancient Biography, 70.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 4} See Delcourt, M., Ant. Class. ii (1933), 279Google Scholar f. and Stevens, P. T., lxxvi (1956), 89.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 5} See Stevens, op. cit. 89 and n. II

^{page 16 note 1} In Tragedy compare Aesch. Ag. 472, Eur. Andr. 465,766, Eur. Held. 926, Ion 485, El. 737, Hel. 1048, Bac.ch. 430,1005, Erectheus fr. 60 Austin. (N.B. what Satyrus [Fr. 39 col. xvii. 20 ff.] makes of Euripides fr. 911.)

^{page 16 note 2} The much-debated question of how far one is justified in identifying the views of the poet with those expressed by his chorus is too large a topic to discuss properly here. It is worth observing, however, that scholars are often misled by the formal characteristics of Greek choral lyric when they regard particular passages as expressing the poet's views and feelings (admiration for the passage often contributes to this view). This is particularly the case with Eur. H.F. 673–86 and the second stasimon of Sophocles' O.T. In the case of the former, Wilamowitz assures us that we are being ‘vouchsafed a glimpse into the poet's heart’ (cf. Pohlenz, op. cit., 304) and Dodds commenting on Soph. O.T. 896 asserts ‘in speaking of themselves as a chorus they step out of the play into the contemporary world’ (G. R. xiii [1966], 46 = The Ancient Concept of Progress, 75) and goes on to argue from this that the real speaker is here the poet. But in neither case is it necessary to believe that the sentiments expressed are inappropriate for a collection of Theban old men and peculiarly appropriate to an Athenian poet. The aspects of the odes which seem to remove us from the imagined heroic age and place us firmly in the world of Athenian dramatic competitions, Eur H.F. 677 f., ibid. 686, and Soph. O. T. 896, are not on closer inspection out of place in their dramatic context. Garlands are after all the appurtenance to any kind of celebration in the ancient world and so is dancing, and the H.F. chorus has reason to celebrate. It may strike people as absurd that a group of old men should describe themselves as dancing or contemplate that activity, but it happens quite often in Tragedy where there is no question of the poet using the chorus as a vehicle, e.g. Soph. Ant. 152–3, Eur. Hcld. 892 (for a collection of passages where choruses refer to themselves as dancing see M. Kaimio, The Chorus of Greek Drama within the light of the Person and Number Used [Commentationes Humanarum Litteranan, 46],119. On the H.F. ode see the excellent article by Parry, H., lxxxvi [1965]363–74)Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 3} That is surely all that should be inferred from Kai. (N.B. We are no more justified in believing that in Hipponous there was a passage in which Sophocles sought to refute some statement made in a Euripidean chorus than in believing, as was once believed, that Sophocles like Euripides became confused about the sex of his chorus. Welcker (Griechische Tragödie, 429) rightly rejected the latter view, but he propounded the first and was followed by Pearson in his edition of the Sophocles fragments.

^{page 17 note 1} For an example concerning Sophocles and Euripides see ΣEur. Phoen. I. Compare the allusions to Bacchylides and Simonide: alleged to occur in Pindar (ΣP Ol. 2. 88 [p. 99 Drachmann], ΣNern. 4. 37 [p. 75 Drachmann]) and the dispute between Philemon and Menander (Athenaeus, 13. 594 = C.A.F. 2.534 =Men. fr. 945 KoerteThierfelder). Literary rivals of any era are liable to be disputatious, but there is something excessively schematic about the way the poets of antiquity quarrelled.

^{page 17 note 2} e.g. ΣSoph. Ai. 520, 1037, ΣSoph. Ant, 155, ΣSoph. O.C. 220. Much of this may derive from, or rather have been collected by, Didymus who was particularly interested in the piety of classical authors (see Schmidt, M., Didymi Chalcenteri Fragmenta, 93Google Scholar ff., Römer, A., A.B.A.W. xix [1892], 641Google Scholar, Trendelenburg, op. cit. 56 ff.). On the tendency to praise Sophocles at the expense of Euripides see A. Römer, Philol. lxv (1906),Google Scholar 50 ff., a section entitled ‘Die EuripidesKritiker and die Sophokles-Schwärmer’. Stevens (op. cit. 89) notes in Satyros' life the tendency for Euripides and Sophocles to be regarded as polar opposites, and it is tempting to see such a biographical tradition influencing the kind of comments we find in the dramatic scholia. Perhaps there lies behind this polarizing of the two poets a (It is a pity we do not know more about Douris' F.Gr.H. 76, fr. 29 [see Leo, Grtechische-römische Biographie, 105] and Heraclides Ponticus' fr. 180 Wehrli. Even if they were not the form of their titles does suggest that there was at least an element of comparison contained in them). It is interesting to note that the motif common to Pollux 4. III and ΣSoph. O.T. 264 (see above) is found also in the Plutarchean Comparatio Menandri et Aristophanis (Plut. Mor. 853. 1) No is traceable back beyond the fourth century B.C. (see Focke, F., Hermes lviii [1923], 341Google Scholar f., from whose examples one must exclude the Gorgianic work invented by Pohlenz), but there can hardly be any doubt that the germs of the as a literary form already existed in the sophistic era (see West, M. L., C.Q. N.S. xvii [1967Google Scholar[ 441) even though Pohlenz 1920, 142–78 = Kleine Schrtfien, 436 ff.) went too far in positing a as a source for the contest in Aristophanes' Frogs (see Pfeiffer, R., A History of Classical Scholarship, 47).Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 3} For the phenomenon in question (double meanings) and its deprecation in ancient commentaries see Trautner, L., Die Amphibolien bei den griechischen Tragikern and ihre Beurteilung durch die antike Ästhetik (Diss. Erlangen, 1907).Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 4} When Kranz, (Stasimon, 172) called Aesch. Eum. 517–65 a tragic parabasis, I am sure he was speaking metaphorically.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 1} Wilamowitz's suggestion (Menanders Schiedsgericht, 97) that Soph. Aiax , might be ad spectatores is unfortunate. Teucer is surely addressing the chorus after turning angrily away from his interlocutor. Soph. O.C. 1348 is exactly parallel.

^{page 18 note 2} I do not agree with Kannicht (see also W. Nestle, Die Struktur des Eingangs, 5) when he argues that in Eur. Hel. 22–3 indicates that the speech is ad spectatores. For characters alone on stage admitting that they are speaking, cf. Aesch. Earn. 43 ff.; Soph. Tr. 21 ff.; Eur. Hipp. 9; I.T. 37, 43 (where the character claims to be speaking to the aither); Phoen. 43; Or. 14–15, 26–8; Telephus fr. 102, 8 Austin, Melanippe Sophe p. 26 von Arnim, 11–12, Phrixus fr. 819N. (cf. also Aesch, Sept. 658, where Eteocles is soliloquizing).

^{page 18 note 3} Common in all the dramatists, it can be traced back to the prologue of Phrynichus' Phoenissae (fr. 8N.).

^{page 18 note 4} The arguments adduced by Morstadt and Nauck for the deletion of Soph. Aiax 1028–39 (see Nauck in Schneidewin-Nauck) have never received a proper refutation. Whether or not Sophocles wrote the lines does not affect the point at issue.

^{page 19 note 1} e.g. Welcker, (Kleine Schriften, ii 327—he thinks that Teucer is holding up Ajax's sword for the audience's inspection), Radermacher, and Kamerbeek.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 2} Cf. Plant. Stith. 410: ‘videte, quaeso, quid potest pecunia.’

^{page 19 note 3} The choice of variants in 37–8 does not affect the argument.

^{page 19 note 4} Cf. ΣEur. Andr. 622 and see Elsperger, op. cit., 153 ff

^{page 19 note 5} e.g. Schadewaldt, W., Monolog and Selbstgesprach, to and most recently J. R. Wilson, G.R.B.S. viii (1967), 214.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 6} Actually this line too is taken as ad spectatores by Kraus, W. (W. St. lii [1934], 67).Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 7} See Romer, A., A.B.A.W. xix (1892), 650.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 8} This may be added to the testimonia Erbse prints below ΣHom. II. 3. 220 (Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem, i. 400).

^{page 19 note 9} See Romer, A., Philologus lxv (1906), 79.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 1} Compare also Soph. El. 516 ff., where there is no indication when Clytaemnestra enters that she is not alone. Only at 634 when she turns away from Electra do we learn that she has been accompanied by a serving girl. See Andrieu, J., Le Dialogue antique, 201–4.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 2} Of recent commentators, Biehl accepts that Euripides is here deploying a motif of Comedy: di Benedetto, however, follows Fraenkel.

^{page 20 note 3} See Schmid, W., Gesehichte der griechischen Literatur, i. 3. 786Google Scholar n. I, Calder, W. M. III, Phoenix xiii (1959), 126Google Scholar and Johansen, H. F., Lustrum vii (1962), 235.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 4} See S.B.A.W. 1963 Heft 2, III f., Mus. Hely. xxiv (1967), 190–3 and xxv (1968), 179–80.

^{page 20 note 5} But he is wide of the mark (10 n. I) in adducing Alexis fr., 108 and Men. Per. 7 (127 Sandbach). The tone in which actors deliver expository prologue speeches in New Comedy is quite different from what we have here.

^{page 20 note 6} Perhaps the famous Melanippe-fragment which begins (fr. 560N.) was prefaced by something like ‘O foolish men!’

^{page 20 note 7} N.B. ΣEur. Andr. 622. Presumably we would have more such comments if the alphabetic plays were equipped with scholia. For an imitation of the mannerism in Comedy compare Apollodorus (of Carystus) fr. 5 Kock: I am incline to see the same practice in Men. Dysc. 746 Sandbach ad loc. takes it as audience address.

^{page 21 note 1} On used by Dicaeopoli when presumably addressing the audience a Ar. Ach. 12 see Dover, K. J., Q.U.C.C. ix (1970), 15.Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 2} Note e.g. Dem. 4. (cf. also Plat. Prot. 311 d, Plat. Euthyd. 283 b 4 and Ar. Ach. 328—Kühner-Gerth i. 84).

^{page 21 note 3} In the analogous imperatival exclama tion ‘look at/listen to that!’ there are plura instances, but it is difficult to be sure in I case like Ar. Ach. 770 that the speaker is not addressing the audience. ‘Spectate’ in Ter. Ands. 231 might be a parallel. Plaut. Stith. 410 is different (see above, p. 19).

^{page 21 note 4} One might add to Fraenkel's examples Cratinus fr. 6: 5 There are parallels in Sophocles and Euripides for phrases attested in the dialogue of Comedy or Plato appearing in a slightly different, and one is tempted to think, more elevated form. For example Soph. Phil. 1260 seems to allude to the more colloquial expression (you will do this) and Eur. Med. 472 to echo but not reproduce the phrase See Stevens, P. T., C.Q. xxxi (1937), 188Google Scholar and C.Q. xxxix (1945), 100 (for a similar sort of effect as regards pronunciation, see Platt, A., C.Q. iv [1950], 158 on Soph. O.T. 430).Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 1} I mention here a curious notion enter tained by H. J. Rose and W. M. Calder II that tragic actors occasionally addressed th, audience in lieu of a stage crowd (Rose os Aesch. Sept., and Calder with reference ti Soph. O.T. I ff. in the article cited above) Such an idea cannot be accepted (it doe seem to have parallels in other forms of drama—see Ann Righter, Shakespeare and th Idea of the Play, ch. I) without firm evidence that audience address was a possibility in Tragedy, but in any case the difficulties of production which force Rose and Calder to their suggestion seem to me illusory and trivial when set beside the incongruitie entailed by its acceptance. It would be very odd kind of convention which demander that an Athenian audience was to feel itsel involved in the action of plays that begat (ons would be more sympathetic towards grant ing such an effect for a line like Eur Erectheus fr. 65. 78 Austin). In O.T. the trans formation the audience is supposed to make is particularly remarkable. They must become not merely the citizen body of Thebes, but an unrepresentative collectios out of that citizen body (17 ff.). The effec produced by 78 and 91 would also be very strange if we had to take ana as references to the audience.

^{page 22 note 2} Compare Pohlenz (Die griechische Tragödie², 436): ‘Im Prolog wendet proloh wendet sich der Dichter unmittelbar an die Zuschauer.’ (See also Nestle, W., op. cit. 4–5.)Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 3} I. T., Phoen., and Or. (N.B. ΣEur. Or. 1691 This ending is sometimes appended to other plays, and Barrett on Eur. Hipp. 1462–6 doubts its authenticity.

^{page 22 note 4} Men. Dysc. 966–9, Men. Mis. 464–5, Men. Sam. 733 f., Men. Sic. 420–2, Men. fr. 771, Posidippus, Heidel, P.. 183Google Scholar, 6–7 (= Comicorum Graecorum fragmenta in papyris reperta, ed. Austin, 218, 12–13), Antiphanes, P. Oxy. 427 (= Austin fr. 3), Anon. P. Oxy. 1239 (= Austin 249, 17 ff.). Apparently Roman Tragedy followed Comedy in ending with a direct appeal to the audience (Quint. 6. I. 52). This divergence from the norms of Greek theatrical convention is paralleled for the prologue of Roman Tragedy by what is implied by Plaut. Amph. 41 ff. (on this see Jocelyn, H. D., Antichthon, i [1967], 67).Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 5} Criticism of Euripides' prologues and especially of the genealogies some of them contain is commonplace in antiquity: see e.g. ΣAr. Ach. 47 and the Towneley scholion on Hom. II 15. 64 (it was not just in prologues that genealogies were to be found and criticized: see ΣSoph. O.C. 220).

^{page 22 note 6} Closely parallel to the Dysc. passage is Heniochus fr. 5. 7–8. One shudders to think of the confusion that might have arisen if all we had of the prologue of Sophocles' Electra was 9–10.

^{page 23 note 1} Odysseus' comment (Eur. Cyd. 642) might be taken as an aside and as such addressed to the audience (although this does not necessarily follow). I think it misleading, however, to describe such exasperated comments about an interlocutor delivered in the third person (cf. Soph. Ant. 740, Eur. Hipp. 1038) as asides. Only in cases where the speaker is trying to conceal his reaction is the term appropriate. Clearly this is not the case here and in any case it is clear from what follows that the satyrs hear the remark (Kaibel, , Hermes xxx [1895], 74Google Scholar took Eur. CycL 480–2 as an aside. The lines in question are clearly an interpolation: see Zwierlein, O., Gnom. xxxix [1967Ð 451).Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 2} Guggisberg, P., Das Satyrspiel (Zürich, 1947), 41. Steffen in his edition of the fragments of Satyr-drama accepted that the illusion could be breached (p. xxvii). He apparently changed his mind when he produced his separate edition of Sophocles' Ichneutae (p. 69).Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 3} Satyrs on a visit seems to have been a feature of Satyr-drama. Compare Greek Literary Papyri, 31. 14 where the chorus of satyrs asks ; (in this case the visit is to a king's court to seek his daughter's hand).

^{page 24 note 1} Soph. Ichn. 77 ff. (Greek Literary Papyri, 7 74 ff.). The exact wording cannot certain') be restored. See Siegmann, E., Untersuchunger zu Sophokks' Ichneutai, 40 f.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 2} Most notably Robert, C., Hermes xlvi (1912), 541. Hunt in the editio princek thought that only 85 f. was addressed to the audience. A similar appeal to the audience has been seen in Aesch. Dictyulci 766 by M Werre-de Haas (Pap. Lugd.-Bat. x [1961], 36 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 3} Perhaps Men. Epitr. 265b–266a (Sand. bach 441–2) is another example.

^{page 24 note 4} Wilamowitz (Kleine Schriften i. 354 n. 3) seems to me to be quibbling when he argues against the use of this passage as parallel.

^{page 24 note 5} Metagenes fr. 14 is a very close paralle for the thought.

^{page 24 note 6} The metre is Eupolidean, the metre it which the first section of the parabasis Aristophanes' Clouds is written (see Dover's edition, p. 164 and Maas, P., Greek Metre 33. 4). For the resolution at the beginning of the third line compare Ar. Nub. 539.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 7} A reference back to the previous book: .

^{page 24 note 8} On the various Astydamantes and the problem of dating them see B. Snell, Nach. Akad. d. Wks. in Gött. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1966 nr. 2, 33 ff. and T.G.F. i, p. 88. The four lines quoted are printed in the latter work as Astydamas II fr. 4.

^{page 24 note 9} As well as the mention of in what is obviously a dramatic context, the word is disruptive of the illusion. The tragic poets when they wanted to refer to poetry described it as song. The word occurs only once in Tragedy (the second reference in Allen-Italie should be deleted:it depends on a misunderstanding of an entry in the Berlin Photius [Phot. Berolin. 139.14 = Eur. fr. 955g Snell]. The right word is in Collard's supplement to Allen-Italie). This is in the famous and often quoted Stheneboia fragment (Eur. fr. 663N.) / . I suspect that Plutarch's quotation Plut. Amat. 762 b may not faithfully reproduce what Euripides wrote (I do not think that in Plut. Symp. 622 c is what he wrote either—this is not really a variant, rather a deliberate alteration of the quotation) and that is due to the paraphrase of the line found in Plato Symp. 196 e (on the various allusions to the lines in antiquity see E. Stemplinger, op. cit., 249).

^{page 25 note 1} In Ind. Schol. Hib. Gott. 1889, 24 (= Kleine Schriflen iv. 690). See also Griechische Verskunst, 379 n. 2. His argument is that because the (rare) priapeum was called by some the satyricum and because Old Comedy employed in addition to priapea related tetrameter lines of which the eupolidean was one, it is reasonable to suppose that Satyr-drama would have used the eupolidean. This is mere speculation but it would be arbitrary when we have so little of Satyr-drama to exclude any particular type of line or metrical pattern.

^{page 25 note 2} Casaubon moved … so that it stood after and governed . In that case Astydamas' Heracles Satyricus would be adduced as evidence for Heracles' , and we would be free to guess about the attribution of the decorative quotation that begins the book. The transposition certainly gives a clearer sequence of thought and stylistically smoother opening to the book. (Casaubon also integrated the opening quotation more closely into the next by inserting between and and taking … closely in conjunction with . One might note, however, that the opening of book II is a parallel for the way book 10 opens and might be thought to defend it against emendation.)

^{page 25 note 3} See Guggisberg, op. cit. 41, Schmid, , Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, i. 1. 82,Google Scholar Steffen, op. cit. xxiii, Ziegler, K., R.E. zweite Reihe via 2, 1977–1978.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 4} T.G.F. i. 259—it contains reference by name to Harpalus an