Euripides Bacchae [2 ed.] 9780198721253

Citation preview

EURIPIDES BACCHAE E D IT E D W IT H INTRO DUC TIO N AN D COMMENTARY BY

E. R. D O D D S R E G IU S PROFESSOR OF G R E E K IN T H E U N IV E R S IT Y OF O X F O R D

SEC O N D E D IT IO N

O XFO RD A T T H E C L A R E N D O N PR E S S

,

,

O x fo rd U n iv e rs ity Press Amen House London E .C .4 GLASG OW BOMBAY

NEW YO RK C ALCUTTA

CAPE TOW N

TORONTO M ADRAS

S A L IS B U R Y

M ELB O U R NE KARACHI

N A IR O B I

K U A L A LU M P U R

W E L L IN G T O N

LAHO RE

IB A D A N

DACCA

ACCRA

HON G KONG

© O xford U n ive rsity Press i9 6 0

F IR S T E D IT IO N I 9 4 4 R E P R IN T E D 1 9 5 3 SEC O N D E D IT IO N i 9 6 0 R E P R IN T E D L IT H O G R A P H IC A L L Y IN G R E A T B R IT A IN A T T H E U N IV E R S IT Y PRESS, O X F O R D FR O M S H E E TS O F T H E S E C O N D E D IT IO N 1963

P R E F A C E TO T H E S EC O N D E D IT IO N I am grateful to the Delegates of the Press for giving me the opportunity to revise this book in the lig h t of work which has appeared since 1943. The intervening years have brought varied contributions. The two papyri cited in the firs t edition have been published, and a th ird , as yet unpublished, has been made available to me by the kindness of M r. J. W. B. Barns and the Delegates (see Introduction, p. lix ). The medieval manuscripts have been m inutely studied by Pro­ fessor Turyn (The Byzantine M anuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Euripides, 1957). Professor W innington-Ingram 's admirable essay has appeared under the title Euripides and Dionysus (1948) ; the late Professor Norwood has presented his 8evT€paL ppovriScs on the Bacchae in Essays on Euripidean Drama (1954) ; and we have had interesting studies of the play from André R ivier (Essai sur le tragique d'E uripide, 1944, chap, v) ; F. M artinazzoli (Euripide, 1946, 387 ff.) ; J. Labarbe (Miscellanea J . Gessler, 1948, ii. 686 ff.) ; E. M. B laiklock (The Male Characters of Euripides, 1952, chap, xi) ; F. M. Wassermann (Studies presented to D . M . Robinson, 1953. 559 ft) ; H . D ille r (Abh. M ainz, 1955, Nr. 5) ; and A.-J. Festugière (Eranos, lv , 1957, 127 ff.). There has been an edition w ith Ita lia n commentary by P. Scazzoso (1957), and individual passages have been discussed by A. Y. Campbell, D. S. Colman, A.-J. Festugière, M. Gigante, J. C. Kamerbeek, R. Merkelbach, E. L. B. Meurig-Davies, K. O'Nolan, L. R. Palmer, D. S. Robertson, and others; especially valuable are the conjectures of the late John Jackson in his M arginalia Scaenica (1955). In addition, I must thank those scholars who have been good enough to send me unpublished criticism s and suggestions ; they include Father Festugière, Professors Broadhead, Dover, Merkelbach, and W. R. Smyth, Mr. W . S. B arrett, Mr. Alan Ker, and Mr. W. B. Sedgwick. I should probably have made fulle r use of all this m aterial

iv

PREFACE

TO

THE

SECOND

E D IT IO N

had I been able to approach it w ith a fresh mind. B ut it has at least enabled me to recognize, if not always to remedy, various weaknesses in my own treatm ent of the play. Users of the first edition w ill find here, besides the new papyrus evidence on lines 1154-9 and 1183-6, substantially modified views on lines 21-22, 135, 209, 506, 902-11, and 1220, fu lle r consideration of the problems presented by lines 406-8, 651-3, and 1066-7, correction of a good many m inor inaccuracies, and a large number of small changes and additions which I- hope w ill make the book more useful. I have also added two short indexes. M urray's te xt and apparatus criticus are retained—not fo r reasons of sentiment or modesty, as one reviewer suggested, but because resetting the Greek would make the book too expensive for the kind of reader for whom it is p rim a rily designed. E. R. D. OXFORD

February igyg

P R E F A C E TO T H E F IR S T E D IT IO N No o t h e r play of Euripides has been so much discussed as the Bacchae ; very few have been the subject of such exact and careful study on the linguistic side. In the field of language and textual criticism a tw entieth-century editor is unlikely to better very substantially the w ork of Elm sley and Hermann, Paley and Sandys and W ecklein, except where he is lucky enough to be armed w ith new evidence : the solid scholars of the last century stated a ll the m ajor linguistic and textual problems of the play, and brought most of them as near to solution as they are lik e ly to be brought in the absence of such evidence. Their successors may s till occasionally find (or th in k they have found) new answers to old questions ; but their best hope of reaching a closer understanding of a d iffic u lt work probably lies in asking new questions, arising out of that new approach to Greek tragedy of which W ilam ow itz was the pioneer1— an approach which seriously concerns itself w ith the play not only as a piece of Greek but as a w ork of a rt and at the same tim e (like all works of art) a social document. I f the present commentary has any justification, it is, in the first place, th a t it asks a number of new questions, new at any rate in the sense th a t previous commentators have ignored them. That a ll or most of them are rig h tly answered is more than I dare hope; but if they are rig h tly framed I have done some service. In particular, I have aimed at bringing to bear on the interpretation both of individual passages and of the play as a whole that w ider and deeper knowledge of Dionysiae religion which m y generation owes 1 In his great commentary on the Heracles (1889). He left no con­ tinuous commentary on the Bacchae, but I have learned much from his translation (1923), from the notes he contributed to B ruhn’s edition (1891), and from his discussions of individual passages in Griechische Verskunst and elsewhere.

vi

PREFACE

TO

THE

F IR S T

E D IT IO N

to the w ork of men like Rohde, Farnell, W ilam ow itz, Kern, and Nilsson. I f such m atter bulks large in both Introduc­ tion and Commentary, the reason is th a t the last fifty years have achieved a greater and more fru itfu l advance in this field than in any other which has an equally im portant bearing on the play. I have also been enabled, thanks to the generosity of the Egypt Exploration Society, the Delegates of the O xford U niversity Press, and Mr. C. H. Roberts of St. John's College, Oxford, to add something to the positive evidence for the text by quoting the readings of two unpublished papyri (see Introduction, p. lv i). In accordance w ith the plan of the series to which it belongs, the text (and apparatus criticus) of the present edition is, apart from correction of one or two m isprints, th a t of Professor M urray (Euripides, O xford Classical Texts, 2nd edition, 1913). In the Commentary, I have made it m y first business to explain th is te x t; but where I disagree w ith it I have said so, and have given m y reasons. In the arrangement of m y m atter I have ventured to depart in two respects from the established custom of commentators, (i) Since I believe that linguistic, m etrical, and lite ra ry interpretation are alike indispensable, and can­ not be divorced w ithout peril, I have incorporated in the Commentary both m etrical analysis (presented, I hope, w ith a m inim um of technicality) and discussion of the sig­ nificance of the several scenes, instead of relegating the form er to an unreadable appendix and the la tte r to an Introduction which m ay be le ft unread, (ii) Since this edition is intended for schoolboys as well as for scholars, I have enclosed certain m atter in square brackets—m atter which is for the most part controversial, and concerned m ainly (though not exclusively) w ith textual criticism . I hope th a t those reading the play for the firs t tim e w ill in general ignore this bracketed stuff : it is addressed p rim arily to persons who are or wish to become professional scholars. I f the love and knowledge of Greek literature ever die in this country, they w ill die of a suffocation arising from its

PREFACE

TO

THE

F IR S T

E D IT IO N

v ii

exponents' industry. I do not wish to be accessory to the murder. Like all editors, I have pillaged m y predecessors, some­ times w ith acknowledgement, but often w ithout. I t is more im portant to acknowledge here what I owe to the learning and the unselfishness of my friends, and of two above a ll : Professor Eduard Fraenkel, who read the whole of m y type­ script and not only threw a completely fresh lig h t on several passages but saved me from more errors than I care to count and introduced me to many new sources of know­ ledge ; and Mr. J. D. Denniston, who generously sacrificed the scanty leisure of a tem porary c iv il servant in w ar-tim e to do me a sim ilar service. In addition, I have profited greatly by the expert advice of D r. Paul Jacobsthal on archaeological m atters and of D r. Paul Maas on a number of m etrical, linguistic, and textual points ; Mr. R. P. W innington-Ingram has perm itted me to quote several acute observations from an unpublished essay on the play ; Professor R. B. Onians has allowed me to consult the proofs of his forthcom ing Origins of European Thought ; and I have had valuable help of various kinds from Professor J. D. Beazley, Mr. E. L. B. Meurig-Davies, D r. R udolf Pfeiffer, Mr. Maurice Platnauer, and M r. C. H . Roberts. Lastly, I must thank Professor M urray, to whose lectures on the Bacchae I, like so many others, owe m y firs t real understanding of the play's great­ ness and of its religious background. A ll of this book is u ltim ately his : a part of it he made ; the rest grew from seed he planted th irty years ago. E. R. D. OXFORD

November 1943

CO NTENTS NOTE

.

.

.

IN T R O D U C T IO N I.

X .

D ionysu s

. .

. .

xi .

xi

i. The N a tu re o f D ionysiae R e lig io n

.

.

ii. D ionysiae R e lig io n a t A th e n s II.

xx

T ra d itio n a l E le m en ts in th e Bacchae i. H is to ry and R itu a l .

.

.

.

.

.

.

ii. E vidence fro m E a rlie r D ionysiae P la ys iii. E vidence fro m Vase P a in tin g s iv . F o rm a l E le m e n ts III.

.

.

.

i. The T ransm ission iii. P a p y ri

.

.

xxv

.

. x x x ii i

.

.

xxxvi . x x x ix

.

.

.

li

.

.

.

liii

.

.

.

lv i

.

li

ii. T he M e d ie va l Sources

TEXT

.

.

xxv

. x x v iii

The Place o f th e Bacchae in E u rip id e s ’ W o rk

I V . Sources o f th e T e x t

xi

.

.

I

C O M M E N T A R Y ............................................................................. 61 A P P E N D IX . A d d itio n a l F ra g m e n ts a ttrib u ta b le to th e Bacchae . . . . . . . .

243

IN D E X E S

247

.

.

.

.

.

NOTE F o r th e o lde r fragm e nts o f th e trage dians m y references are to N a u c k ’s T ragicorum Graecorum Fragm enta, second e d itio n , exce pt in th e case o f Sophocles where. I have fo llo w e d th e new L id d e ll and S c o tt (L.S .g) in re fe rrin g to Pearson's e d itio n . F o r m ore re c e n tly discovered fragm e nts I have where possible given references to H u n t, Fragm enta T ragica Papyracea (O .C .T., 1912), o r A rn im , Supplem entum E u rip id e u m (L ie tz m a n n ’s K le in e T e xte , B onn, 1913), o r Page, Greek L ite ra ry P a p y ri, i (Loeb L ib ra ry , 1942). K ü h n e r-B la s s , K ü h n e r-G e rth = R . K ü h n e r, A u sfü h rlich e G ram m atik der griechischen Sprache, D r itte A ufla ge , T e il i, besorgt vo n F . B la ss; T e il ii, besorgt v o n B . G erth. Beazley, A .R .V . = J. D . Beazley, A ttic R ed-F igure VaseP ainters (O xfo rd , 1942).

IN T R O D U C T IO N U n l i k e most Greek tragedies the Bacchae is a play about an historical event—the introduction into Hellas of a new religion . 1 When Euripides wrote, the event lay in the far past, and the memory of it survived only in m ythical form ; the new religion had long since been acclimatized and accepted as part of Greek life. B ut it s till stood as the expression of a religious attitude, and the memorial of a religious experience, different from anything im plied in the cult of the traditional Olym pian gods; and the forces liberated and embodied by the original movement were active in other forms in the Athens of Euripides’ day. I f we are to understand this play, we must first know some­ thing about Dionysiae religion—the intention of certain of its rites, the meaning of certain of its m yths, and the shapes it had assumed in Euripides’ tim e. The disagree­ ments of nineteenth-century critics should warn us th a t if we attem pt to seize the poet’s thought by a frontal attack, in disregard of the contemporary background, we shall be at the mercy of our own or other people’s prejudices.

I. D IO N Y S U S i. The Nature o f Dionysiae Religion2, To the Greeks of the classical age Dionysus was not solely, or even m ainly, the god of wine. Plutarch tells us 1 The characteristics of Dionysiae worship are so different from those of most other Greek cults that we may justifiably speak of it in this way. B ut in its Greek form it was never a separate ‘religion’ in the sense of excluding other cults. 2 The first modern w riter who understood the Dionysiae psychology was E rw in Rohde ; his Psyche (is t ed. 1891-4, Eng. trans. 1925) is still the fundamental book. See also Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, vol. v, chaps. 4-7, W ilamowitz, Glaube der Hellenen, ii. 60 ff., O. Kern, Religion der Griechen, i. 226 ff., W. K . C. Guthrie, The Greeks and their Gods,

x ii

IN T R O D U C T IO N

as much, confirm ing it w ith a quotation from Pindar,1 and the god's cult title s confirm it also: he is Δαάρίτης or "Ενδενδρος, the Power in the tree ; he is Άνθιος the blossombringer, Κάρπιος the fruit-bringer, 222-3 n., 234 n., 274-85 n. * The oldest evidence is a hydria painted about 440 (1C .V.A. Cracovie, pi. 12 ; Beazley, Greek Vases in Poland, 44 ff.), which shows that this version is not a late borrowing from the Agaue story.

xx v i

IN T R O D U C T IO N

Boutes, who chased the maenads of P hthiotis into the sea, went mad, and drowned him self in a well (Diod. 5. 50). Another group of stories tells of women who were maddened by the god—the three daughters of Minyas at Orchomenos, who killed and devoured the child Hippasos (P lut. Q. Gr. 38) ; the three daughters of Proetus, who induced the women of Argos to k ill their children and take to the mountains ([Apollod.] 2. 2. 2, from Hesiod, &c.) ; the daughters of Eleuther at Eleutherae, whose madness was a punishment for scorning a vision of the god (Suidas s.v. Μέλαν). These legends are evidently related to the Theban m yth of the madness of Cadmus’ three daughters and the death of Pentheus at their hands. Many w riters1 find in them sim ply a reflection of historical events—a tra d itio n of suc­ cessive local conflicts between the fanatical adherents of the new religion and the representatives of law and order, the heads of the great families. That such conflicts occurred is probable in itself ; th a t the infection of mountain-dancing should lay sudden hold of unbelievers is psychologically intelligible and has, as we have seen, its parallels in other cultures ; that the god should make his first converts among the women is natural in view of the narrow and repressed lives which Greek women commonly led. B ut while we need not reject this view, it does not, I th in k, provide by itself a complete explanation of the myths, {a) I t does not suit the Lycurgus story, which is located in the god’s Thracian homeland. (5 ) I t does not account for the odd fix ity of outline displayed by the other group : always it is the king’s daughters who go m ad; always there are three of them (corresponding to the three θίασοι of maenads which existed at Thebes and elsewhere in historical times, cf. Ba. 680 n.) ; regularly they murder their children, or the child of one of them, as Lycurgus did his son, and as Procne murdered Ity s at the τριετηρίς on M ount Rhodope (Ov. M e t 6. 587 ff.). 1 e.g. W ilamowitz, Glaube d. HelL 2. 66, Nilsson, Hist, of Greek Religion, 206 ff. Against this view, see now Guthrie, The Greeks and their Gods, 172 f., and Jeanmaire, Dionysos, 86 ff.

IN T R O D U C T IO N

x x v ii

H istory no doubt repeats itself : but it is only ritu a l th a t repeats itself exactly. (c) The M inyad story is connected by Plutarch w ith a ritu a l pursuit of the 'maenads1 by the priest of Dionysus which was s till performed at Orcho­ menos in his own day—a pursuit which could end (and had on occasion ended) in a ritu a l murder. I f we accept Plutarch's evidence, it is hard to avoid the conclusion th a t the pursuit of the Argive maenads by the priest Melampus, and that of the god's 'nurses' by Lycurgus and Boutes, reflect a sim ilar ritu a l.1 These considerations suggest th a t Pentheus may be a figure compounded (like Guy Fawkes) of historical and ritu a l elements—at once the god's historical adversary and his ritu a l victim . Euripides has given him a character th a t suits the former role : he is the conservative Greek aristo­ crat, who despises the new religion as βάρβαρον , hates it for its obliteration of sex and class distinctions, and fears it as a threat to social order and public morals. B ut there are features in his story as the play presents it which look like traditio n a l elements derived from ritu a l, and are not easily accounted for on any other hypothesis.2 Such are Pentheus' perch on the sacred fir-tree (1058-75 n.), his pelting w ith fir and oak branches (1096-8 n.), and Agaue's delusion th a t she carries the severed head of one of the god's bestial incarnations, a bull-calf or a lion, on which she invites the Chorus to feast (1184-7 nn.). And if we accept these as reflecting a p rim itive sacrificial ritu a l, we may reasonably connect w ith the same ritu a l—and therefore recognize as in substance traditio n a l—two m ajor incidents of the story, the enchanting or bedevilling of Pentheus and his dressing 1 Lycurgus’ βονπλήξ (II. 6. 135) looks like a ritu a l weapon. Does his imprisonment in the cave also reflect ritual? Cf. L iv y , 39. 13. 13, in Ita lia n Dionysiae cult ‘raptos a diis homines dici, quos machinae il li­ gatos ex conspectu in abditos specus abripiant’ : I am tempted to connect this w ith the cave-dwelling god or προφήτης of Rkes. 972 f. and Strabo, 7. 3. 5. (So now Festugière, Mélanges d’Arch. et d'Hist. 1954,

94 ff.) 2 Cf. A. G. Bather, J.H .S . x iv (1894), 244 ff., Farnell, Cults, v. 171 f.

x x v iii

IN T R O D U C T IO N

in ritu a l garb. I f Pentheus is to be the god's victim , he must become the god's vehicle (that is the Dionysiae theory of sacrifice) : Dionysus must enter into him and madden him , not by drink or drugs or hypnotism , as modern rational­ ism too g lib ly suggests, but by a supernatural invasion of the man's personality (cf. introductory note to scene 3 c). Also, before the victim is torn, it must be consecrated by a rite of investiture : as the calf on Tenedos wore the god's buskin, so Pentheus must wear the god's μίτρα (831-3 n., 854-5 n.). We may say w ith some confidence th a t neither the bedevilling scene nor the ‘to ile t' scene is, in its main content, the poet's (or any poet's) invention as has been alleged, although from these trad itio n a l elements he has created something which is unique in its strangeness and compelling power. The same seems to be true of much of the content of the firs t messenger-speech (see Commentary). ii. Evidence from E arlier Dionysiae Plays The πάθη of Dionysus, the patron god of drama, may well be the oldest of all dram atic subjects. For us the Bacchae is a unique specimen of a Dionysiae passion-play ; but for its first audience it was a rehandling of a theme already fam iliar to generations of Athenian play-goers. The ascription of a Πενθευς to Thespis is probably a fic tio n ; but in addition to the two Dionysiae tetralogies of Aeschylus we hear of a Lycurgus-tetralogy by Polyphrasmon, exhibited 467 ; a Βάκχαι by Xenocles, one of a set of plays which gained the firs t prize in 415 ; a Β άκχαι η Πενθευς by Sophocles' son Iophon ; a Σεμέλη κεραυνουμένη by Spintharos (late fifth century); a Β άκχαι by Cleophon (period uncertain). No Dionysiae tragedies are a ttributed to Sophocles, unless his 'Υδροφόροι dealt, like the Σεμέλη rj Υδροφόροι of Aeschylus, w ith the b irth of Dionysus (whom we know to have been mentioned in the play, fr. 674). The Διόνυσος of Chaeremon (in which Pentheus seems to have figured), the Σεμέλη of Carcinus, and the Σεμέλη of Diogenes probably belong to

IN T R O D U C T IO N

x x ix

the fourth century ; a longish extant passage from the lastnamed testifies to the continued interest of Athenian audiences in exotic orgiastic cults. O f none of these do we know much beyond the title — the great popularity of the Bacchae1in later a n tiq u ity doubtless kille d them. And even of Aeschylus1 Dionysiae plays our knowledge is lam entably sm all.23 H is Lycurgeia consisted of the Ή δω νοί, Βασσάραι (or Βασσαρίδες), Νεανίσκοι, and the satyr-play Λυκούργος (schol. A r. Thesm. 134). As to the plays which made up his (presumed) Theban tetralogy there is much dispute. The Medicean catalogue offers us Β άκχαι, Ξάντριαι, Πενθεύς, Σ ε μέλη η * Υδροφόροι, Τροφοί ( = Διονύσου Τροφοί, hyp. Eur. Med.). This is one too many : the likeliest guess is perhaps th a t the Β άκχαι is an alterna­ tive title for the Βασσάραι* The Σεμελη must have been the

firs t play : it dealt w ith Semele's mysterious pregnancy and the beginning of the Dionysiae possession at Thebes (schol. Ap. Rh. i. 636), and presumably ended w ith her death and the supposed death of her c h ild ;4 the Chorus are women who have brought water for the ceremonial washing of the 1 I t was well known as a schoolbook (Call, epigr. 48 W ilam. = Anlh. Pai. 6. 310) ; popular recitations were given from it (Lucian, Ind. 19) ; it was widely quoted and excerpted in the Roman period, as may be seen from the ‘testimonia’ cited in K irch ho ff’s apparatus, and was im itated by Nonnus at a time when almost all memory of Greek tragedy was fading. 3 To the fragments in Nauck’s T.G.F. must be added P . Oxy. 2164, now conveniently accessible in Mr. Lloyd-Jones’s appendix to the Loeb Aeschylus, and a few scraps collected by Mette in his Frag­ mente der Tragödien des Aischylos (Berlin, 1959). Discussion: Welcker, Atsch. Trilogie, 320 ff., Hermann, Opusc. v. 3 ff., Bruhn, Introd. to Ba., Zielinski, Tragodoumena, 67 ff., Murray, Aeschylus, 153 ff., Deichgräber, Gött. Nachr. 1939, no. 8, Latte, Philol. xcvii (1948), 47 ff. 3 Or for the Π εν θ εύ ς (as the Β ά κ χ α ι of Eur. and Iophon bore the alternative title Π εν θ ε ύ ς). In tha t case the Alexandrine scholar who made the catalogue has blundered surprisingly. On the view suggested in the text, the blunder may be that of a copyist, who wrote Β ά κ χ α ι Β α σ σ ά ρ α ι Γ λ α ύ κ ο ς Π ό ν τ ιο ς instead of Β ά κ χ α ι η Β α σ σ ά ρ α ι Γ λ α ύ κ ο ς Π ο τ ν ιε ύ ς Γ λ α ύ κ ο ς Π ό ν τ ιο ς .

4 Cf. fr. 221 Ζ ε υ ς

ος κ α τ ε κ τ α το ύ το ν

(i.e. Dionysus, cf.

Ba,

244 f.?).

XXX

IN T R O D U C T IO N

new-born in fa n t.1 Hera may have intervened to tem pt Semele to her destruction (cf. Ba. 9), as she does in some later versions of the story. The Oxyrhynchus fragments, however, in which Hera figures, belong, if Asclepiades2 can be trusted, not to this play but to the X antriae. In the main fragment a chorus—presumably the 'wool-carding women' of the title —defend Semele's reputation against jealousy and slander concerning her union w ith Zeus (cf. Ba. 26 fif.).3 To them enter Hera disguised as a begging priestess: her purpose is doubtless to s tir up opposition against Semele's son (cf. Ba. 98, 294) ; I take her to be the person referred to elsewhere in the play as τώνδ€ ßovXevns πόνων (fr. 172). ( It is interesting that Euripides discards this supernatural intervention, m aking the opposition purely human and basing it on very human motives.) Dionysus' reply to Hera’s plot is to send Lyssa to madden the unbelievers (fr. 169). (Observe, again, that whereas Aeschylus brought Lyssa in person on the stage, Euripides is content w ith a 1 Others say, to put out the fire started by the lightning. B ut this unforeseen event seems to have occurred at or near the end of the play, and the entry of the Chorus could hardly be so long deferred. Descrip­ tive titles elsewhere describe the in itia l situation, e.g. Choephoroe, Ichneutae, Plyntriae, Hippolytus Stephanias. 2 Apud schol. A r. Frogs 1344. Latte has argued forcibly that we should throw Asclepiades’ testimony overboard and assign the frag­ ments to the Semele, thus giving Hera the function which she has in some later versions of the story. His argument rests, however, on two assumptions : that the Xantriae dealt w ith the death of Pentheus, and tha t in the fragments Semele is implied to be still alive. Neither assumption seems to me secure. As to Pentheus* death see p. x x x i n. i. Semele’s life hangs on a supplement to an incomplete sentence, [Tje/icAas 8* €[ΰ]χόμ(θ* €ivai διά παν €υθυπορον λα[, which Latte Com­ pletes w ith λά[χο$ αίοΰς, Lloyd-Jones w ith λά[χο$ δλβον. B ut other supplements are possible, e.g. Xarpelav (for the rhythm cf. Agam. 204) : the sentence would then refer to the continuing cult at Semele’s grave (cf. note on Ba. 6-12). 3 They are therefore not the women who were punished w ith madness for their lack of faith. Hence Elmsley’s view tha t Ξάντριαι — ‘ The Dismemberers’ (of Pentheus) seems to be mistaken (it is also open to objection on the ground stated in n. 1 above).

IN T R O D U C T IO N

xxxi

passing allusion (977) ; he had used her in the Heracles, but here there is no room for such a purely symbolic figure.) In the Βάντριαι I suspect th a t Dionysus did not appear in person but worked through his agent Lyssa ; the god him ­ self was reserved for the th ird piece. The Ξάντριαι may have ended where Euripides' Bacchae begins, w ith the retreat of the Theban women to Cithaeron, which we know was mentioned in it , 1 and Pentheus' threat to pursue them. The th ird piece, the Πένθους, w ill then have covered the same ground as Euripides' play, which agrees w ith the state­ ment of Aristophanes of Byzantium in the νπόθ^σις to the la tte r.2 Enragingly, only one line of it survives, fr. 183 μηδ' αίματος πύμφιγα προς πάΒιρ βάλης—an injunction which recalls Ba. 837 and was perhaps uttered in sim ilar circum ­ stances. Of the Διονύσου Τροφοί we know only th a t it dealt w ith, or mentioned, the rejuvenation of the Τροφοί and their husbands by Medea (fr. 50). This reward of the fa ith fu l would suit a satyr-play, having obvious humorous possi­ bilities. The fragments of Aeschylus’ Lycurgeia offer some in te r­ esting parallels to the Bacchae, (a) In the Ήδωνοί, as in our play, Dionysus was taken prisoner (schol. A r. Thesm. 135), questioned about his birthplace, evidently in ignorance of his id e n tity (fr. 61, cf. Ba. 460 ff.), and taunted w ith his effeminate appearance and costume (fr. 61 and probably 59, 60, 62, cf. Ba. 453-9 n., 831-3 n.). I t looks as if the firs t scene between Pentheus and Dionysus in the Bacchae 1 Schol. E u tn . 26 vvv φ η σ ιν iv Π α ρ να σ ω tlvai τά κατά IJevdea, tv τ α ΐς Ξ α ν τ ρ ία ις eV Κ ιθ α ιρ ώ ν ι. I t is usually inferred from this that the death of Pentheus occurred in the Ξ ά ν τ ρ ια ι, which was therefore the third play

of the trilogy. B ut if so, (o) what was the second play about? (b) why does Aristophanes say that Aesch. treated the subject-matter of E u r.’s Bacchae cv flevdeî? Cithaeron may well have figured both in the Ξ ά ν τ ρ ια ι and in the Π ςν θ εν ς , and Pentheus’ death may have been pre­ dicted in the former play. 2 IJcvOcvs here has sometimes been taken for the name of the whole trilogy. But A r. parallels the Phoenissae w ith the Septem, not w ith the Oedipodea.

x x x ii

IN T R O D U C T IO N

followed the older poet's model p re tty closely, (b) Some­ where in the tetralogy there was an epiphany of the god in his true nature, whose effect on Lycurgus' palace was described in the line ένθουσ ta δη δ ώ μ α · β α κ χ ε υ € ΐ σ τ4 γη (fr. 58). We may probably infer th a t in the ‘palace miracles' of the Bacchae Euripides was following tra d itio n , although the words preserved need not im ply an actual earthquake. Cf. Naevius, Luc. frs. 20, 23, quoted below, p. x x x iii, n. 1. (c) From two fragments of the Β α σ σ ά ρ α ι we may infer that Aeschylus—like Euripides—spoke of the god's dangerous bull-shape (fr. 23, cf. Ba. 618, 920, 1017) and represented him (if α σ τρ απ ής is sound) as Master of the Lightning (Mette, Suppl. Aesch. fr. 31 = fr. 12 W eir-Sm yth [Loeb] ά σ τρ αΊτή ς π€υκα€ν σ4λας on M ount Pangaeum, cf. Ba. 594— 5 η., 1082-3 η.). Three further conjectures may be added, (i) Some character in Aeschylus (?Lycurgus or Pentheus) applied the abusive term χα λιμ ία ι or χαλιμάδες to the bacchanal women (fr. 448), which suggests that the allegations of im m orality put by Euripides into Pentheus' m outh are traditio n a l charges, (ii) The im prisonm ent and miraculous escape of the bacchanals, briefly described in our play (443-8), figures in ‘Apollodorus' ' summary of the Lycurgus Story (B ibl. 3. 5. I Β άκχαι eyeVovro αΙχμάΧωτοι . . . αΰθις δ4 al Β άκχαι ίλύθησαν 4ξαίφνης), and perhaps appeared also in the Lucurgus of Naevius (fr. 6, cf. Ribbeck, Römische Tragödie, 59b). ‘Apollodorus’ is not follow ing Euripides, for he makes Lycurgus ja il the satyrs too. We must suppose th a t he and Euripides (and Naevius?) are drawing here on a common source, in all likelihood the Lycurgeia of Aeschylus.1 (iii) Naevius reproduces also the interroga­ tion of the captive god (frs. 11-14) and the description of his effeminate dress,2 which certainly go back to Aeschylus; 1 Cf. Zielinski, Tragodoumena, 66. % Naevius, fr. incerti nominis 4 ‘diabathra in pedibus habebat, erat amictus epicroco’. I t seems fairly certain that Dionysus is the person described.

IN T R O D U C T IO N

x x x iii

and the burning of the palace,1 w hich probably does. Hence it m ay w ell be from the same source th a t he and E uripides derived the com parison o f the maenads to b irds and the account of th e ir ra id on the va lle y farm s (frs. 7 and 3, quoted on B a. 748-50). The im pression le ft by the Lueurgus frag­ m ents as a whole is th a t N aevius d id not borrow from the Bacchae , b u t used an o rig in a l ve ry sim ila r to it both in general colouring and in the p a tte rn o f its p lo t. A nd the p ro b a b ilitie s are th a t th is o rig in a l was the Ή δ ω ν ο ί o f Aeschylus.2 O f the Rom an tragedies on the Pentheus sto ry, the Pentheus o f Pacuvius was based on E uripides, if we are to believe Servius on A en. 4. 469 ; b u t some o ther source was apparently used as w ell, fo r Pentheus* prisoner was called Acoetes, as he is in O vid. M et. 3. 574 ff. (where the nar­ ra tiv e diverges w ide ly from E uripides in other respects). The Bacchae of Accius appears from the fragm ents to have been a fa irly close adaptation o f Euripides* p la y. iii. Evidence fro m Vase P a in tin g s $ The death o f Pentheus was, lik e other D ionysiae subjects, a great fa vo u rite w ith the vase p a in te rs; and from th e ir tre a tm e n t of i t a ttem pts have been made to draw inferences as to Aeschylus* handling o f it and the innovations a ttrib u t­ able to h im or to E uripides. i. The earliest e xta n t representation of the scene ap­ pears on a p sykte r in Boston (and F re ibu rg ), painted about 520 B .c . in the m anner o f E uphronios (A rch . Jhb. v ii (1892), p i. 5, P h ilip p a rt, p i. 12, No. 150, Beazley, A .R .V . p. 19. 5). The largest fragm ent shows Pentheus (id e n tifie d b y name) 1 fr. 20 ‘ut u ideam Volcani opera haec flammis flora fieri* ; fr. 23 ‘late longeque transtros feruere’. 1 C i. Deichgräber, loc. cit., pp. 260 ff. 3 Most fu lly collected and illustrated by H . Philippart, Tconographie des Bacchantes d ’E u r.’, Rev. belge de p h ü . et d 'h is t, ix (1930). Cf. also Sandys4, Introd ., pp. evii ff., and L . Curtius, Pentheus (Berliner Winckelmannsprogramm 88, 1929). 4003.0

C

X X X IV

IN T R O D U C T IO N

being to rn b y tw o maenads, one o f whom is named Galene ;x the name of th e other is m issing. I t has been inferre d th a t in the oldest form o f the m y th the k ille rs were n o t Agaue and her sisters b u t the follow ers of D ionysus; and th a t eithe r Aeschylus or E uripides was the firs t to make Agaue the m urderess.2 T his is n o t im possible, b u t the p arallel m yths o f the M inyads and Proetids seem to me to te ll against it ; and the V illa G iu lia cup (in fra ) is against m aking E uripides the inn ova to r. 2. O ther pre-E uripidean vases present noth ing th a t con­ flic ts w ith E u rip ide s' account. T h a t the g hastly p la y w ith the m angled lim bs ( B a . 1133 ff.) is an in ve n tio n neith er o f E uripides nor o f Aeschylus appears from tw o e arly w orks : the Louvre cup G 69 (A rch, J h b ., l.c „ p. 162, P h ilip p a rt, p i. 13 a, No. 151), w hich belongs to the last decade o f the s ix th c e n tu ry ;3 and the stamnos b y the B e rlin p a in te r in O xford (Beazley, A .R .V , 138. 112, J .H .S . x x x i (1911), 282, p i. 17), painted in the firs t decade o f the fifth . The triu m p h dance led by a maenad who carries Pentheus' head is shown on fragm ents of a cup in the V illa G iu lia a t Rome (C .V .A . V illa G iu lia , fasc. 2, I I I . i. c, p i. 37) painted e arly in the last q ua rte r of the fifth ce ntu ry b . c . Here the leading figure stands out from the others, and it is a reasonable guess to ca ll her Agaue, though we cannot be absolutely certain. 3. A bout contem porary (at earliest) w ith E u rip ide s' p la y is the H eidelberg p yxis (C urtius, A bb. 2-6, P h ilip p a rt, No. 132, p i. V I I b), w hich shows Pentheus se tting o u t from his palace w ith net and hunting-spears, presum ably to h u n t the maenads (cf. the fig u ra tiv e h u n tin g o f the faw n, B a . 868 ff.). N eith er here nor elsewhere in Greek a rt is there 1 A figure so named appears also in a Dionysiae θ ίασος on a red-fig. bell-krater, c. 430 B.C. (Reinach, R épertoire des Vases, ii. 6. 3, C. Frankel, S a tyr - u. Bakchennamen a u f Vasenbildern, No. η). Elsewhere Galene is a Nereid or a local nymph. 2 Aesch., P. Girard, R .E .G . x v ii (1904), 190; Eur., Hartw ig, A rch. Jh b . v ii (1892), 157 ff., W ilamowitz, B a. übersetzt, E in le itu n g 34. 3 The dates assigned by Curtius (V. 470’) and Philippart (‘early fifth century’) are mistaken.

IN T R O D U C T IO N

XXXV

any in d ic a tio n th a t Pentheus is disguised. T his m ay be due m erely to the d iffic u lty of m aking a disguised Pentheus easily recognizable (H u dd ilston , Greek Tragedy in the L ig h t o f Vase-paintings , 16). A nd i t is in any case rash to conclude, as some do, th a t E uripides invented the disguising (cf. supra , p. x x v iii) : more th an one version o f Pentheus' end m ay w ell have been current before he w rote. 4. A n Ita lio te ka lp is (München 3267, Sandys, N o. 1, C urtius, Abb. 14, P h ilip p a rt, No. 137, p i. V II a), rou gh ly con­ tem porary w ith the firs t perform ance of the Bacchae , shows an armed Pentheus discovered in h id ing between tw o trees ; and a series of other vases o f sim ila r date and o rig in 1 show h im in arm ed co n flict w ith the maenads. T his conception has been th ou gh t to go back to Aeschylus,2 on the strength of E u m . 25 f. Βάκχαις ζστρατηγησεν θεός, | Aaytü δίκην Πενθ *Γ καταρράφας μόρον, w hich is understood as im p ly in g th a t D ionysus led his women in to pitched b a ttle w ith Pentheus and routed him (cf. B a . 52, 798 f., w hich m ig ht ca rry a reference to th i$ version). The com bination w ould be more convincing if Aeschylus' words were m ore e x p lic it and the a rt tra d itio n were traceable to a date nearer to Aeschylus' tim e. Speculations of th is type are necessarily hazardous. W h a t does, however, emerge from a stu d y o f fifth -c e n tu ry p a in t­ ings o f D ionysiae subjects is th a t some a t least o f the painters had seen women in religious ecstasy (possibly a t the Lenaea).3 A nd w hat th ey could see E uripides m ig h t see also, w ith o u t going to Macedonia fo r the purpose. B u t the p ainters' conception o f a maenad changed as the fifth ce ntury advanced. Those by the great a rtis ts of the age of the Persian wars4 breathe the fiercest fire. In the last 1 P hilippart, Nos. 133, 134, 138, 139 = Sandys, Nos. 2, 6, 3, 4. 2 G. Haupt, Commentationes archaeol. in Aesch. (Diss. phil. Hal., 1897), 114 ff., Bruhn, E in L 25 f. ; contra , Séchan, Études sur la Tragédie grecque dans ses rapports avec la Céram ique, 102 ff., 308 ff. 3 See above, p. xxii. 4 e.g. the amphora by the Kleophrades painter, Pfuhl, figs. 379-80 (Beazley, A .R .V . 121. 5); white-ground cup by the Brygos painter

xxxvi

IN T R O D U C T IO N

q u a rte r o f the fifth century noble maenads were s till created, e.g. in the reliefs reflected b y a Greek bronze k ra te r1 and b y n e o -A ttic m arble copies,2 or on the Lenaeastamnos in Naples.3 These do n o t lack σ€μνότης, b u t the a n im a lity and savage ecstasy o f the older period is toned down— the άχάλινον and βάρος have given w ay to an ideal of tam ed m elodious beauty. I t is the older pictures w hich best illu s tra te the s p irit of E u rip ide s' poem. iv . F o rm a l Elements W e have thus fa r considered o nly the content o f the Bacchae . W hen we exam ine the form , we are a t once stru ck by the archaic aspect w hich th is ve ry la te p la y presents. In th is it is n o t unique : a certain archaizing tendency shows its e lf here and there in a ll E u rip id e s' la te r w ork.4 B u t the Bacchae carries archaism fu rth e r than any other o f his p la ys; M urray even calls it ‘the m ost fo rm a l Greek p la y know n to us'.5 In a measure th is is d ictate d b y the p lo t. Here fo r once E uripides had a Chorus whose presence needed no apology and whose personal fortunes were in tim a te ly bound up w ith the action : they can thus σνναγωνίζασθαι in the m anner approved b y A ris to tle (Poet. 1456^5), and to an extent w hich is unusual b o th in E uripides and in the su rvivin g plays o f Sophocles. Hence there was no need to c u rta il th e ir p a rt or to replace any o f th e ir songs b y actor's solos Furtwängler-Reichhold, pi. 49 (A .R .V . 247. 14); cup by Makron, Pfuhl, fig. 438 ( A .R .V . 304. 37). 1 W . Zuechner, D er B e rlin e r M änadenkrater (Berliner W inckelmannsprogramm 98). 2 Gisela Richter, A .J .A . x l (1936), 11 ff. 3 Pfuhl fig. 582 (A .R .V . 789. 2). 4 W ilam owitz, E u r. H erakles , i2, p. 145, cf. H. B urkhardt, D ie Archaism en des E u r . (Diss. Erlangen, 1906), 95 ff., W . Kranz, Stasim on, 232. A striking example is Euripides’ revival of the original metre of tragic dialogue, the trochaic tetram e te r which after a long interval of neglect reappears in the Heracles and is used in most of his subsequent plays. 5 E u rip id e s and H is Age , 184.

IN T R O D U C T IO N

xxxvii

(μονωδίαι),1 F u rth e r, the presentation o f a m iracle p la y,

unless the producer commands the technical resources of D ru ry Lane, imposes an extensive use o f n a rra tive . The poet has p u t a psychological m iracle a t the centre of his stage action ;2 b u t the physical m iracles have to be reported. A nd so the Bacchae reverts to the oldest dram atic m odel: n o t o n ly are there tw o form al messenger-speeches, each over loo lines long, b u t we have in a dd itio n the soldier's n a rra tive (434-50) and th a t of the Stranger (616-37) ; a ll fo u r describe m iraculous events w hich could n o t be shown on the stage. B u t it is significant th a t in d ic tio n and style also the p la y reverts to an older m anner. A recent continental in ve sti­ gator finds more archaic form s in the Bacchae than in any other p la y of E uripides, and fewer colloquial or prose form s than in a nyth ing he had w ritte n since the Troades .3 There is, i t is true, an unusually high p ro po rtio n of 'new ' words, i.e. w ords n ot found in any earlier w rite r.4 B u t few of these seem to be taken from contem porary speech : some of them belong to the language of D ionysiae religio n, lik e θιασώτης or καταβακχιοΰσθαι : others are refinem ents o f poetic d ic­ tio n , lik e χρυσορόης or σκιαρόκομος. There is a considerable Aeschylean elem ent in the vocabulary,5 and some uncon­ scious echoes of Aeschylean phrases have been noticed6 (probably we should fin d more if Aeschylus' D ionysiae plays were e xta n t). The grave se m i-litu rg ica l style w hich 1 I t seems likely that the long solo, overdone in plays lik e the Orestes and no longer a novelty, had begun to bore audiences (cf. Ar. R an . 849, 1329 ff.) ; for the contemporary Oedipus Coloneus shows a sim ilar rever­ sion to the older practice as compared w ith the Philoctetes . 2 See note on Scene 3 {c)y p. 172. 3 J. Smereka, S tudia E u rip id e a (Lwow, 1936), η 7. 4 Ibid . 241. 5 Cf. Burkhardt, op. cit., 62 ff. 6 0 . Krausse, de E u rip id e A eschyli instauratore (diss. Jena, 1905), 158-62. See esp. 850-3 n. and 1101-2 n. I t is unsafe to attach much significance to stock tags like 764 ούκ άν*υ θζώ ν τ ίν ο ς — Ρ e r s. 163, o r 753 π ά ν τ άνω re κ α ί κ ά τ ω = E um . 650, or to proverbial phrases like 795 προς κ έν τρ α λ α κ τ ιζ ο ιμ ι (cf. A g. 1624).

x x x v iii

IN T R O D U C T IO N

predom inates in the choral odes often recalls Aeschylus; there is little o f the baroque p reciosity and preoccupation w ith the decorative w hich characterizes m ost of Euripides* la te r ly ric s . In keeping w ith th is tone is the choice of rhyth m s associated w ith actual hym ns o f w orship (Com­ m entary, p. 183), and especially the extensive use o f ionics (p. 72). So too is the in tro d u c tio n o f refrains (876 ff., 991 ff.), w hich belong to the tra d itio n o f the c u lt h ym n : it is note w orth y th a t Aeschylus uses them freely, Sophocles not a t a ll, E uripides elsewhere o n ly in Io n 's hym n to A p ollo and E le ctra's w ater-ca rrying song. The iam bic trim e te rs give away the date o f the p la y b y the high p ro po rtio n o f resolved feet (one to every 2*3 trim e te rs, a frequency ex­ ceeded o nly in the Orestes) ; b u t the dialogue has never­ theless a certain archaic stiffness as compared, e.g., w ith the contem porary Iphig e n e ia at A u lts . One m ark o f th is is the ra rity in the spoken passages o f α ντιλαβ ή (division o f a line between tw o speakers). In other late plays th is is a fa v o u rite 1 device fo r conveying the s w ift cu t-a n d -th ru st o f excited discussion, especially in the trochaic scenes; in the Bacchae iam bic lines are divid ed in tw o places o nly (189, 966-70), trochaics never. T his se verity o f form seems to be d eliberate: it goes beyond w ha t the conditions o f the theatre enforced. A nd in fa ct the p la y's trem endous power arises in p a rt from the tension between the classical fo rm a lity o f its style and structure and the strange religious experiences w hich it depicts. As Coleridge said, the creative im agination shows its e lf m ost intensely in ‘the balance or reconciliation o f opposite or discordant qualities*, and especially in com bining ‘a more than usual state o f em otion w ith more than usual order*. Such a com bination is achieved in the Bacchae . 1 52 spoken lines are so divided in the Orestes, 36 in the I A ., 53 in the OC .

IN T R O D U C T IO N

III.

T H E P LAC E OF T H E

BACCHAE

X X X IX

IN

E U R IP ID E S ' W O R K A fte r the production o f the Orestes in the spring o f 408 E uripides le ft Athens, never to re tu rn : he had accepted the in v ita tio n o f Archelaus, the H ellenizing kin g o f the sem i-barbarous Macedonians, who was anxious to make his co urt a centre o f Greek culture. The poet was over 70 and, as we have some reason to th in k , a disappointed man. I f the p rize-lists were any test, he had been re la tiv e ly un­ successful as a dra m a tist ; he had become the b u tt o f the com ic poets; and in an A thens crazed b y tw e n ty years o f increasingly disastrous w ar his outspoken criticism s o f demagogy and o f pow er-politics m ust have made h im m any enemies. There m ay w ell be tru th in the tra d itio n preserved in a fragm ent o f Philodem us — φασϊν άχθόμενον αυτόν επί τω σχεδόν π ά ντα ? επιχαίρειν προς Αρχέλαον άπελθεΐν.1 In M acedonia he continued to w rite , producing the A rchelaus , a p la y about his host's eponymous ancestor, w hich m ay have been acted in the new theatre b u ilt b y Archelaus a t D ion. A nd when he died, in the w in te r o f 407-406, three fu rth e r pieces were found among his papers, the Bacchae , the Alcmaeon at C o rin th (now lost), and the Ip h ig e n e ia at A u lts — the last-nam ed probably unfinished. These were subsequently staged at Athens b y the poet's son (or nephew), E uripides the younger,2 and won the firs t p rize.3 The presum ption thus created th a t the Bacchae was com­ pleted, if not conceived, in Macedonia derives support from the com plim entary references to P ieria (409-11 n.) and to the va lle y o f the Ludias (568-75 n .)— b oth o f them d is tric ts 1 De v itiis , col. 13. 4. I t is not certain that the words refer to Euripides, but it is highly probable. Cf. v iL E u r . 1. 115 Nauck πλέον τ ι φρονήσας ε ικ ό τ ω ς π ερ ά σ τα το τ ω ν πολλώ ν, ο ύ δ εμ ία ν φ ιλ ο τ ιμ ία ν π ερ ί τ ά θ έα τρ α π οιούμενος. . . . επ ε κ ειν το δε κ α ι ο ι κ ω μ ικ ο ί φθάνω αυτόν δ ιασυροντες. ύπεριδώ ν δε π ά ντα ε ις Μ α κ εδ ο ν ία ν άπ ηρε. 2 Schol. Ar. R an. 67 (from the δ ιδ α σ κ α λ ία ι) ; cf. v it. E u r . , 1. 29.

3 Suidas,

S .V .

Ε υ ρ ιπ ίδ η ς .

xl

IN T R O D U C T IO N

w hich E uripides is lik e ly to have visite d , since D ion was situ ate d in the form er and Aegae, the Macedonian ca p ita l, in the la tte r. I do not, however, th in k it probable th a t the p la y was designed p rim a rily fo r a Macedonian audience: the allusions to contem porary theories and controversies a t 201-3, 270-1, 274 ff., 890 if., and elsewhere (see Com­ m entary) are surely m eant fo r A thenian ears ;l and we have seen th a t a t th is period the social problem o f orgiastic religion had a t least as m uch to p ica l interest a t Athens as in Macedonia. W hy d id E uripides, tireless in n o va to r and experim en­ te r as he had always been, leave as his fin a l legacy to his fellow -countrym en th is to p ica l ye t deeply tra d itio n a l m iracle-play, 'old-fashioned' in style and structure as in the incidents it depicted, ye t charged w ith d istu rb in g emo­ tion? H ad he some lesson w hich he wished to teach them ? M ost of his w ould-be interpreters have th ou gh t so, though th ey have fa ile d to agree about the nature o f the lesson. Since the p la y e xh ib its the power of D ionysus and the dreadful fate of those who resist him , the firs t explanation w hich occurred to scholars was th a t the poet had experienced (or thou gh t it expedient to feign) a death­ bed conversion: the Bacchae was a 'p a lin od e', a recanta­ tio n of the 'atheism ' of w hich Aristophanes had accused its a u th o r (Thesm . 450 f.) ; it was w ritte n to defend E uripides against the charge of im p ie ty w hich was soon to overwhelm his frie n d Socrates (T y rw h itt, Schoene), o r 'to p u t him rig h t w ith the p u b lic on m atters on w hich he had been m isunderstood' (Sandys), or from a genuine co nviction 'th a t religion should n ot be exposed to the subtleties o f reasoning' (K . O. M üller) since 'he had found no satis­ fa ction in his u nb elief' (Paley). O ddly enough, good C hristian editors seem to have been g ra tifie d b y th is notio n o f th e ir poet's eleventh-hour conversion to pagan o rth o ­ d oxy ; and th is or som ething lik e it rem ained the p re va ilin g 1 Cf. R. Nihard, Le Problème des Bacchantes d 'E u rip id e (Publications du Musée Belge, No. 38, 1912), 33 1T., and 62, n. 2.

IN T R O D U C T IO N

x li

opinion t ill fa r on in the nineteenth century. A t th is period a generation arose w hich, having a d iffe re n t set of pre­ judices, adm ired E uripides fo r q u ite other reasons, and proceeded to make the Bacchae conform w ith its own views b y ra d ic a lly re in te rp re tin g it. P o in tin g out (correctly) th a t Cadmus and Teiresias are poor representatives of o rth o ­ doxy, and th a t D ionysus behaves w ith pitile ss cru e lty not o n ly to his opponents Pentheus and Agaue b u t to his supporter Cadmus, th ey concluded th a t the real m oral of the p la y was T antum religio p o tu it suadere m alorum '. T his in te rp re ta tio n , the germ o f w hich appears already in P a tin , was developed in the last decade o f the ce ntury b y W ila m ow itz and B ruhn in G erm any, Decharme and W eil in F rance; and la te r (w ith fa ntastic elaborations peculiar to themselves) b y Norwood and V e rra ll in E ngland. The devotional earnestness o f the choral odes, to these c ritic s an offence and a stu m b lin g -b lo ck, was va riou sly explained as a concession to a superstitious Macedonian audience (W eil) or as a successful characterization o f fanaticism (W ilam ow itz). The more th o u g h tfu l among recent c ritic s 1 have recog­ nized the inadequacy both of the 'p a lin od e' th eo ry and o f its riv a l. Each thesis fits some o f the facts, b u t m ani­ fe s tly does not fit others : i.e. both are too crude. (a) Closer stu dy of the poet's w ork as a w hole reveals no such a b ru p t volte-face as the 'pa lin od e' thesis postulated.2 1 Cf. Murray, T h e Bacchae of Euripides in relation to certain Cur­ rents of Thought in the F ifth Century’, Essays and Addresses, 56 ff., Nihard, op. cit., F. M. Wassermann, ‘Die Bakchantinnen des Eur.*, N . Jhb. f . W tss. u. Jugendbildung , v (1929), 272 ff., W. B. Sedgwick, C .R . x liv (1930), 6 ff., G. M. A. Grube, Trans. Am er. P h il. Ass. Ixvi (1935), 37 ff., and The D ram a o f E u rip id e s , 398 ff., H . D. F. K itto , Greek Tragedy , 382 f. To these can now be added W. Schmid, Geschichte der griech. L it. I. iii, 683 ff., A. Lesky, D ie griech. Tragödie 2, 250 ff., F. Martinazzoli, E u rip id e , 387 ff., and E. M. Blaiklock, The M ale Characters o f E u rip id e s, 209 ff. 2 Hartung pointed this out a century ago : ‘hi si magis quid carmina Euripidis docerent scrutari quam quid ipsi opinarentur effutire voluis­ sent, eandem sententiam iuvenem atque senem profiteri intellexissent’.

xlii

IN T R O D U C T IO N

On the one hand, his in te re st in , and sym pathetic under­ standing of, orgiastic religio n does n o t date from his Mace­ donian p e rio d : it appears already in the chant of the in itia te s in the Cretans (fr. 472), the ode on the m ysteries of the M ountain M other in the H elena (1301 ff.), and the rem ains of an ode in the H y p s ip y le (frs. 57, 58 A m im = 31, 32 H u n t). The Helena was played in 412, the H y p s ip y le somewhat la te r; b u t the Cretans seems to be e arly w o rk .1 The Choruses of the Bacchae are thus the last and fu lle st utterance o f feelings w hich had haunted2 E uripides fo r a t least six years before his death, and p ro ba bly fo r m uch longer. So too the attacks on ‘cleverness', and praise o f the in s tin c tiv e wisdom of sim ple people, w hich have sur­ prised c ritic s of the Bacchae , are in re a lity noth ing new : see notes on 399-401,430-3,890-2,910-11. On the other hand, the discrepancy between the m oral standards im p lie d in the m yths and those of c ivilize d h um an ity, to w hich m any of E u rip ide s' characters call a tte n tio n , is n o t ignored in the Bacchae. The vengeance of Dionysus is as cruel and u n d iscrim in atin g as the vengeance of A p hro dite in the H ip p o ly tu s . In each p la y one o f the god's hum ble w or­ shippers pleads against th is u n m o ra lity , and pleads in va in ( B a . 1348-9 n.). A nd each p la y ends w ith the sym pathies of the audience concentrated solely upon the god's v ic tim s . I t is not thus th a t E uripides, or anyone else, w ould have composed a palinode.3 For further evidence see my paper ‘Euripides the Irration alist’, C.R. x liii (1929), 97 ff. 1 W ilamowitz, B e rl. K l. Texte, v. 2, p. 79, Zielinski, Tragodoutnena , 226 .(no resolutions in the 40 surviving trimeters). 2 Significant in this connexion is his especial fondness for the meta­ p h o ric a l use of βάκχη, βακχεύειν, and related terms. I have counted over 20 examples, against 2 in Aeschylus and 1 in Sophocles. 3 One may add that the supposed ‘conversion’ to ‘orthodoxy’ must have been followed by an immediate backsliding. For one of the implications of the I A .—presumably the poet’s last work, since he seems to have left it unfinished— is certainly ‘tantum religio . . .* (cf. the judgement of the Chorus-leader, 1403 το τής θεού νοσεί).

IN T R O D U C T IO N

x liii

B u t we m ust n ot leap to the conclusion th a t E uripides regarded A p hro dite and D ionysus either as fiends or as fictio ns. To such an in te rp re ta tio n of the Bacchae one fa ta l obstacle is the characterization of Pentheus. I f D ionysiae w orship is an im m oral superstition and noth ing m ore, it follow s th a t Pentheus is one of the m a rtyrs o f enlighten­ m ent. B u t it is m uch easier to blacken D ionysus than to w hitew ash Pentheus. Some ra tio n a lis t c ritic s have essayed the la tte r ta s k ; b u t it takes a resolutely blinkered vision to discover in him 'th e defender of conjugal fa ith ', 'a con­ s iste n tly lovable character’.1 E uripides could conceivably have represented him thus ; he could ce rta in ly have made him a second H ip p o lytu s, fa na tical, b u t w ith a touching and heroic fanaticism . He has not chosen to do so. Instead, he has invested him w ith the tra its o f a ty p ic a l tra g e d y -ty ra n t :2 absence o f self-control (214, 343 ff., 620 f., 670 f.) ; w illin g ­ ness to believe the w orst on hearsay evidence (221 ff.), or on none (255 ff.) ; b ru ta lity tow ards the helpless (231, 241, 511 ff., 796 f.) ; and à stu p id reliance on physical force as a means o f se ttlin g s p iritu a l problem s (781-6 n.). In addi­ tio n , he has given h im the foolish ra cia l pride o f a H erm ione (483-4 n .), and the sexual c u rio s ity o f a Peeping Tom (222-3 n., 957-60 n.) .3 I t is n ot thus th a t m artyrs o f enlighten­ m ent are represented.4 N or do such m a rtyrs a t the m om ent o f death recant th e ir fa ith as Pentheus does (1120 f.). (b)

1 Masqueray, E u rip id e et ses idées, 147; Pohlenz, D ie griech . T ra g ö d ie i. 455· 2 CL Murray's translation, note on 215-62, M. Croiset, Jo u rn a l des Savants , 1909, 250, and now especially H . D iller, A bh . M a in z 1955, Nr. 5, 45 ^ 3 · 3 Pentheus’ ‘libidinosa spectandorum secretorum cupido’ was already noticed by Hartung. I t is th is curiosity which delivers him into his enemy’s hands (see Commentary on the tem ptation scene). As Zielinski has well said (N . Jh b ., 1902, 646), prim itive things rise against him not only in Thebes but in his own breast. 4 Nihard, op. cit. 103 f., instructively contrasts the character of Zopire in Voltaire’s M ahom et. (We must, of course, avoid the opposite error of seeing in Pentheus a mere stage villa in : if he were that, the poet could not invite our p ity for him as he plainly does in the later

x li v

IN T R O D U C T IO N

W hat of the d ivin e Stranger? He displays thro ug h ou t q ua litie s a n tith e tic to those o f his hum an antagonist: therein lies the peculiar effectiveness of the co n flict scenes. Pentheus is flu rrie d , irascible, fu ll o f an unhealthy excite­ m ent ; the Stranger preserves from firs t to last an u nruffled sm iling calm (η σ υ χ ία , 621-2 n.)— a calm w hich we fin d a t firs t touching, then vaguely disquieting, in the end inde­ scribably sinister (439 n., 1020-23 n.). Pentheus relies on a parade of m ilita ry fo rce ; the S tranger's o n ly weapon is the in visib le power w hich dwells w ith in h im . A n d to the σ ο φ ία of the K in g , the 'cleverness' o r 're alism ' w hich w ould measure everything b y the vu lg a r ya rd stick o f average experience, he opposes another k in d o f σ ο φ ία , the wisdom w hich, being its e lf a p a rt o f the order o f things, knows th a t order and m an's place in it. In a ll these ways the Stranger is characterized as a supernatural personage, in contrast w ith his all-too-hum an adversary: η σ υ χ ία , σ ζμ νό τη ς , and wisdom are the q ua litie s w hich above a ll others the Greek a rtis ts of the classical age sought to embody in the divin e figures of th e ir im agination. The Stranger behaves o la δή θ€0ς, as a Greek god should behave: he is the counterpart of the serene and d ig nifie d being whom we see on ce rta in red-figure vases, or in sculptured w orks of A ttic in sp ira tio n . B u t the Stranger is n o t sim p ly an idealized being from outside m an's w o rld ; he is D ionysus, the em bodim ent o f those tra g ic contradictions— jo y and h orro r, in sig h t and madness, innocent g aiety and dark cru e lty— w hich, as we have seen, are im p lic it in a ll religion of the D ionysiae type. F rom the standpoint, therefore, o f hum an m o ra lity he is and m ust be an am biguous figure. V iew ing h im from th a t stand­ p o in t, Cadmus a t the end o f the p la y e x p lic itly condemns scenes. As lines 45-46 show, he is a man o f conventional conservative piety, not a contem ptor deum like V irg il’s Mezentius, and he believes himself to be acting in the interest of the State. B ut neither in Greek tragedy nor in real life do good intentions save men from the con­ sequences of false judgement.)

IN T R O D U C T IO N

x lv

his heartlessness. B u t the condem nation is as fu tile as is the sim ila r condem nation of A p hro dite in the H ip p o ­ ly tu s , F or, lik e A p hro dite , D ionysus is a 'person', or m oral agent, o n ly by stage necessity. W h a t A p hro dite re a lly is, the poet has to ld us p la in ly : φ ο ιτ$ δ* àv αΙΘ4ρ\ ε σ τι δ’ εν Θαλασσίω \ κλνδωνι Κύπρις, π άντα δ' εκ τα ν τη ς ε φ ν | η8* εσ τιν ή σπείρονσa κ α ι διδουσ* ερον, | ον πάντες εσμεν ο ι κ α τά ίγ γ ο ν ο ι { H ip p , 447 fi·)· To ask w hether E uripides 'believed in ' th is A p hro dite is as meaningless as to ask w hether he 'believed in ' sex. I t is n o t otherw ise w ith D ionysus. As the 'm o ra l' o f the H ip p o ly tu s is th a t sex is a th in g about w hich you cannot a ffo rd to m ake m istakes,1 so the 'm oral· o f the Bacchae is th a t we ignore a t our p e ril the demand of the hum an s p irit fo r D ionysiae experience. F o r those who do n o t close th e ir m inds against i t such experience can be a deep source of s p iritu a l power and ευδαιμονία. B u t those who repress the demand in themselves or refuse its satisfaction to others transform it b y th e ir act in to a power of d isin teg ratio n and destruction, a b lin d n a tu ra l force th a t sweeps away the innocent w ith the g u ilty . W hen th a t has happened, it is too la te to reason or to plead : in m an's justice there is room fo r p ity , b u t there is none in the justice o f N ature ; to our 'O u g h t' its sufficient re p ly is the sim ple 'M u s t'; we have no choice b u t to accept th a t re p ly and to endure as we m ay. I f th is or som ething lik e it is the th o u g h t u nd erlyin g the p lay, it follow s th a t the fla t-fo o te d question posed b y nineteenth-century c ritic s — was E uripides 'fo r' Dionysus or 'a g ainst' him ?— adm its o f no answer in those term s. In him self, D ionysus is beyond good and e v il; fo r us, as Teiresias says (314-18), he is w hat we make of him . The nineteenth-century question rested in fa ct on the assump­ tio n , common to the ra tio n a lis t school and th e ir opponents,2

χθόν

1 R. G. Collingwood, A n Essay on M etaphysics, 210, 2 As Grube expresses it (D ram a o jE u r, 399), ‘both schools are g u ilty of the same fundamental error : they put the poet himself in front of his play instead of behind it*. Cf. Zielinski, N , Jh b ,, 1902, 649, ‘W ar er

x lv i

IN T R O D U C T IO N

and s till too often made, th a t E uripides was, lik e some o f his c ritics, more interested in propaganda than in the dram a­ tis t's proper business. T his assum ption I believe to be false. W hat is tru e is th a t in m any o f his plays he sought to in je c t new life in to tra d itio n a l m yths by fillin g them w ith a new contem porary content— recognizing in the heroes o f old stories the counterparts o f fifth -c e n tu ry types, and resta ting m y th ic a l situ atio ns in term s o f fifth -c e n tu ry conflicts. As we have seen, som ething of the k in d m ay have been intended in the Bacchae . B u t in his best plays E uripides used these conflicts n ot to make propaganda b u t as a d ra m a tist should,1 to make tragedy out o f th e ir tension. There was never a w rite r who more conspicuously lacked the propagandist's fa ith in easy and com plete solutions. H is fa vo u rite m ethod is to take a one-sided p o in t of view , a noble h a lf-tru th , to e x h ib it its n o b ility , and then to e x h ib it the disaster to w hich it leads its b lin d adherents— because it is a fte r a ll only p a rt o f the tru th .2 I t is thus th a t he shows us in the H ip p o ly tu s the beauty and the narrow insufficiency o f the ascetic ideal, in the Heracles the splendour o f b o d ily strength and courage and its to p p lin g over in to m egalom ania and ru in ; i t is thus th a t in his revenge plays— Medea , Hecuba , Electra — the spectator's sym pathy is firs t enlisted fo r the avenger and then made to extend to the avenger's victim s. The Bacchae is constructed on the same p rin c ip le : the poet has neith er b e little d the Pentheus, war er Dionysus, Teiresias? Alles das, und noch vieles dazu*. Blaiklock quotes the judgement of André Gide (J o u rn a l, 2i August 1940) : ‘Euripides takes sides no more than does Ibsen, it seems to me. He is content to illuminate and develop the conflict between natural forces and the soul that claims to escape their domination.* 1 Cf. Virginia W oolf on the Antigone : ‘When the curtain falls we sympathise even w ith Creon himself. This result, to the propagandist undesirable . . . suggests that if we use art to propagate political opinions, we must force the artist to clip and cabin his g ift to do us a cheap and passing service. Literature w ill suffer the same m utilation that the mule has suffered; and there w ill be no more horses’ ( Three Guineas , 302). 2 Cf. Murray, E u rip id e s and H is Age , 187.

IN T R O D U C T IO N

xlvii

jo y fu l release of v ita lity w hich D ionysiae experience brings nor softened the anim al h orro r o f 'b la c k ' m aenadism ; d eliberately he leads his audience through the whole gam ut o f em otions, from sym pathy w ith the persecuted god, th rough the excitem ent o f the palace m iracles and the gruesome tragi-com edy o f the to ile t scene, to share in the end the revulsion o f Cadmus against th a t inhum an justice. I t is a m istake to ask w hat he is try in g to 'p ro ve ' : his con­ cern in th is as in a ll his m ajor plays is n ot to prove a n yth in g b u t to enlarge our se n sib ility— w hich is, as D r. Johnson said, the proper concern o f a poet. W hat makes the Bacchae d iffe re n t from the rest of E u rip ide s' w ork is not a nyth ing new in its technique or in its auth or's in te lle c tu a l a ttitu d e . I t is rath er w hat James Adam fe lt when he said th a t the pla y expressed 'an added dim ension o f em otion', and th a t it was ‘pervaded by the k in d o f joyous e xalta tion w hich accompanies a new discovery or illu m in a tio n '.1 I t is as if the renewed contact w ith nature in the w ild co un try o f M acedonia, and his reim agining there of the o ld m iracle sto ry, had released some spring in the aged poet's m ind, re-establishing a contact w ith hidden sources of power w hich he had lost in the selfconscious, over-intellectualized environm ent o f la te -fifth century Athens, and enabling him to fin d an o u tle t fo r feelings w hich fo r years had been pressing on his conscious­ ness w ith o u t a tta in in g to com plete. expression. We m ay guess th a t E uripides said to him self in M acedonia ve ry 1 The R eligious Teachers o f Greece, 316 f. Cf. André Rivier, E ssai sur le tragique d 'E u rip id e , 96: ‘La révélation d ’un au delà libéré de nos catégories morales et de notre raison, tel est le fait religieux fonda­ mental sur quoi repose la tragédie des Bacchantes.’ The depth and sin­ cerity of the religious feelings expressed in the choral odes has recently been emphasized by Festugière, Eranos , lv (1957), 127 ff. This seems to me right, so long as we are talking of feelings and not of convictions. But it remains perfectly possible that, as Jaeger puts it, ‘Euripides learnt how to praise the joy of humble fa ith in one of the religious truths which pass all understanding, simply because he himself had no such happy fa ith ’ ( P aideia, i. 352, Eng. trans.).

x lv i ii

IN T R O D U C T IO N

much w hat R ilke said to him self a t the beginning o f his last period : ‘W e rk des G esichts is t ge th a n : tu e n u n H e rz w e rk an den B ild e rn in d ir, jenen gefangenen. D e n n du ü b e rw ä ltig te s t sie ; aber n u n ke n n st d u sie n ich t.*

The 'added dim ension o f em otion' proceeds from no in ­ te lle ctu a l conversion, b u t from the w ork of the heart— from vision directed inw a rd upon images long im prisoned in the m ind. Note . In the above discussion I have not dealt, save b y im p lic a tio n , w ith the ingenious fancies of V e rra ll and (in his yo uth ) N orw ood,1 w hich had a vogue in th is co u n try 2 fifty years ago b u t lie outside the m ain cu rren t of th ou gh t about the p la y. So fa r as scholars are concerned, it m ig h t be su ffi­ cien t to say th a t tim e has dealt w ith them ;3 b u t since V e rra ll a t least is s till, I believe, read in E nglish schools, it m ay be useful to state b rie fly here some o f the grounds w hich make i t im possible to accept th e ir tw o m ain theses,4 viz. th a t the m iracles in w hich the p la y abounds are m eant to be under­ stood b y the audience as bogus m iracles, and th a t Pentheus’ 1 Gilbert Norwood, The R iddle o f the Bacchae (1908); A. W. Verrall The Bacchants o f E u rip id e s and Other Essays (1910). Verrall had already interpreted other plays of Euripides on similar lines. 2 I t is interesting that no continental scholar of standing has ever (so far as I know) taken Verrall’s interpretation of Euripides really seriously. 3 Since this was w ritten, the late Professor Norwood has dealt with them himself, in a characteristically honest and forthright manner. In his Essays on E u rip id e a n D ram a (1954) he recanted both the theses I have criticized, and gave his reasons. He still held that the destruc­ tion of the palace can only be an illusion in the m ind of the Chorus, but he had come to believe that the illusion, and also the many physical miracles reported in the play, are to be accepted as divinely occasioned, and that the Stranger is none other than the god. 4 Some of their interpretations of individual passages are considered in the Commentary. Most o f them I am unable to accept, but it is only fair to say that both writers have helped me in places to a better under­ standing.

IN T R O D U C T IO N

x li x

prisoner is n ot the god Dionysus b u t a hum an p riest or adept. (a) These contentions ignore the conditions o f the Greek th ea tre 1 (and of a ll theatres), under w hich an audience m ust in e v ita b ly accept stage personages and stage happenings as being— fo r the purposes of the p la y— w hat they profess to be, unless someone on the stage knows b e tte r and says so. N o th in g w ould have been easier than to have Pentheus expose the false m iracles— denying the re a lity o f the e arth­ quake,2 im pugning the good sense or the good fa ith o f the Herdsm an— had the poet so chosen. B u t the K in g , so quick to scent licence and v e n a lity , is allow ed on these points no single w ord of doubt. A gain, the prologue, whose speaker is at pains to make it clear to the meanest in te lli­ gence th a t he is a god preparing to masquerade as a m an, becomes e ithe r on N orw ood’s early view or on V e rra ll’s a g ra tuito u s m ystifica tio n . A ccording to the form er, he is in fa ct a man m asquerading as a god m asquerading as a m an. V e rra ll, perceiving th a t th is m onstrous fo rm u la was too com plicated fo r any audience to grasp (even were it ex­ plained to them , as it is n ot), and th a t D ionysus prologizes in v irtu e o f the same convention as other gods in other plays, a d m itte d the Dionysus o f prologue and epilogue as a 'th e a tric a l d e ity ’, d is tin c t from the 'a d ep t’ who represents h im in the body of the p lay. B u t how should the cleverest audience distinguish the man on the stage, who c o n tin u a lly h in ts th a t he is a god, and is seen b y them to exercise divin e power, from the god-m ade-flesh who has been prom ised them ? T h a t promise is on V e rra ll’s theo ry a pla in lie, whose o n ly discernible effect is to befog the spectator. Was E uripides re a lly such a bungler ? 1 Verrall was in fact driven to maintain that Euripides’ plays were, like the poetic dramas of his own time, w ritten w ith an eye to the study rather than the theatre : ‘to the ultim ate purpose the stage-exhibition at the Dionysia was indifferent’ (Introduction to the Io n , p. xlv). Yet Aristotle a century later still thought exclusively in terms of the stageexhibition. 2 On the supposed difficulties of the earthquake scene see pp. 147 ff. 4003.0

d

1

IN T R O D U C T IO N

(b) The supposition th a t E uripides th ou gh t it w o rth w hile to w rite a p la y about the sham m iracles of a sham god, having already represented sim ila r sham m iracles in a whole series o f other plays, is in te llig ib le o n ly if we assume th a t fifth -c e n tu ry Athens shared the b urning interest in the h is to ric ity of m y th ic a l m iracles characteristic o f lateV icto ria n England. Such an assum ption is h ig h ly im prob­ able: m yths were m yths, n o t scripture, and no m an was required to profess belief in them — e.g. the devout P indar could w rite νπβρ τον άλαθή λόγον | δζδαιδαλμόνοι ψξνδζσι ποικίλοις ςξαπατώντι μύθοι.1 VerraH's theories are in fa ct a classic instance of th a t in s u la rity in tim e w hich, b lin d in g men to the uniqueness both o f th e ir own and o f past ages, drives them to impose upon the past the fleeting image of th e ir own preoccupations. (c) The fin a l condem nation o f these bleak ingenuities is, fo r me a t least, th a t th ey transform one o f the greatest of a ll tragedies in to a species of esoteric and donnish w ittic is m (a w ittic is m so ill contrived th a t it was tw e nty-th re e centuries before anyone saw the p o in t).2 D id E a rth , fo r exam ple, acknowledge her M aster b y yie ld in g a t the touch o f his h oly wand 'm ilk and w ine and nectar o f the bee' (704 ft.) ? Doubtless, replied N orw ood ; b u t the clever spectator w ill realize th a t th ey came there in the picnic basket and were 'p la n te d ', as the police say, to give the messenger a little surprise.3 The οικεία ηδονή o f tragedy can be enjoyed in more form s than A ris to tle knew ; b u t (as Grube observes) it cannot be enjoyed b y those who are continuously occupied in sniggering up th e ir sleeve. 1 01. i. 29. Cf. J. Burnet, T h e Religious and Moral Ideas of E u ri­ pides', reprinted in his Essays and Addresses, 46 ff. 2 Verrall claimed {E u rip id e s the R a tio n a list, 106, 212) that his general view of Euripidean gods was anticipated by Aristophanes {Thesm. 450 f.) and by Lucian ( lu p . T r. 41). B ut the claim rests on a w ilful mistranslation of the former passage and a w ilful misunderstanding of the latter. 3 Op. cit. 7 3, η. I.

IN T R O D U C T IO N

li

IV . S O U R C E S O F T H E T E X T i. The T ransm ission1 We possess tw o d is tin c t groups o f plays b y E uripides, w hich derive from tw o differen t ancient sources. One group, the plays to w hich ancient com m entaries (scholia) are attached, appears to be descended from a school edition of select plays o f E uripides w ith notes, produced under the Roman E m p ire.2 I t resembled the school editions from w hich the e xta n t plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles descend, and was perhaps made by the same man. The m a jo rity of our MSS., inclu ding the oldest and best (M A V B and the Jerusalem palim psest H ), contain o n ly plays o f th is group. The other group, w hich has no scholia, e vid e n tly represents a fragm ent of a comprehensive lib ra ry e dition o f E uripides in w hich the plays were arranged in alphabetic o rd e r; fo r a ll the plays o f th is group have title s beginning w ith E , H , / , or K . From th is comprehensive e d itio n tw o nests (τ€νχη) of papyrus ro lls 3 survived b y some accident longer than the rest, and came in to the hands o f an unknow n scholar of early4 B yzantine tim es, who copied the select plays (w ith o u t th e ir scholia) and the a d d itio n a l plays from his new fin d in to a single codex, thus producing a com bined e d itio n of the nineteen plays w hich we possess to-day. This com bined e d itio n is represented fo r us b y tw o ra th e r late MSS., L and P. 1 For a general account of the transmission of the text o f Euripides see M r. W. S. B a rre tt’s introduction to his forthcoming edition of the H ip p o ly tu s , which corrects and replaces W ilam owitz’s description in E in le itu n g in die griech. Tragödie , Kap. iii. 2 The edition cannot be dated w ith any certainty, but such slender indications as we have suggest the second century a .d . 3 See B. Snell, Hermes, lxx (1935), 119 f. His ingenious theory is not, however, free from difficulties. 4 We may infer this from the considerable divergence between M A V B and L P in the tradition of the select plays which are common to both. And I learn from D r. Maas that Eustathius (1850.35 ff.) speaks of the Cyclops as extant in the tw elfth century.

lii

IN T R O D U C T IO N

The position of the Bacchae is peculiar. L ik e the ‘alpha· b e tic’ plays, it survives o n ly in the MSS. o f the com bined e dition — in P, and down to 1. 755 in L . B u t it cannot be p a rt o f the unknow n B yzantine scholar's papyrus find. F or (a) a ro ll w ith title -in itia l B (or Π if the a lte rn a tive title Pentheus was used) w ould n o t be found in the same nest w ith ro lls having title -in itia ls E to K , unless i t had strayed in to the w rong .pigeon-hole, (b) L ik e most of the ‘select' plays, b u t u n like any o f the ‘alphabetic' plays, it has tw o υ π ο θ έσ εις, one of w hich is a ttrib u te d by name (like the second hypotheses of M ed., Phoen., Or., w hich are ‘select' plays) to Aristophanes of B yzantium . (c) I t was know n to the a uth or of the Christus P atiens (see below), who otherwise shows acquaintance o n ly w ith ‘select' plays, (d) A lth ou g h it has been tra n sm itte d to us, lik e the ‘alphabetic' plays, w ith o u t scholia,1 it is quoted by the E uripidean scholiasts fa r oftener than any ‘non-select' p lay. We m ust conclude th a t it form ed p a rt of the Rom an e dition of select plays.2 I f we accept the num erals attached to the plays in L as representing the o rig in a l order, i t was the last p la y in the select e d itio n .3 A nd if so, we can b e tte r understand its absence from M A V B , its incom plete pre­ servation in L , and the m u tila te d state o f its ending in P : bored copyists are tem pted to o m it the la st piece in th e ir 1 A part from three glosses in L (on 151, 451, 611) and a few metrical notes in the same MS. 2 This conclusion is now (1959) confirmed by the second Antinoë papyrus (see below, p. lix ), which shows that as early as the sixth century the Bacchae was being copied along w ith annotated ‘select’ plays. J As L lacks the Troades, the Bacchae is numbered 9 ( θ ') . These marginal numerals in L have generally been attributed to the scribe, but according to P. G. Mason (C.Q. x lv iii (1954), 56) and T uryn ( The B yzantine M a n u scrip t T ra d itio n o f the Tragedies o f E u rip id e s, 240) they are in the hand of I. We heed not, however, assume w ith Turyn (242) that they represent merely Vs private fancy; he may have found them in an independent source, or even in the margins of L ’s exemplar— to which, according to T uryn himself (246), he must have had access.

IN T R O D U C T IO N

liii

exem plar,1 especially if it be defective or b lu rre d ; and the last pages o f a book are especially lia b le to in ju ry . ii. The M edieval Sources Laurentianus x x x ii. 2 (M u rra y’s L , also know n as C) is a MS. o f the e arly fourte en th ce n tu ry w hich was brought to Ita ly b y its owner, Sim on Atum anus, Bishop o f Gerace in C alabria, in or before 1348 ; subsequently it passed in to the Lau re ntia n collection a t Florence, where i t now is. I t contains a ll the e x ta n t plays o f E uripides except the Troades and the la tte r p a rt o f the Bacchae , together w ith 6 o f Sophocles, 3 o f Aeschylus, and H esiod’s W orks and D a ys . O f the Bacchae it never contained more than 11.1-755, w hich are follow ed by some pages le ft b la n k.2 The whole o f the w ork was checked w ith the exem plar b y a contem porary 8ιορθωτης, or, as T u ryn th in ks, b y the scribe h im se lf; he corrected occasional errors and omissions in the copy and added here and there va rian ts or glosses (probably from the m argins o f the exem plar) : e.g. i t seems to have been he who added ye in 401, the gloss εμοΰ on 451, and the note ήμιχ(όριον) at 590. U n fo rtu n a te ly correction d id n o t rest th e re : an­ other hand, id e n tifie d b y T u ryn as th a t o f the w ell-know n B yzantine scholar D em etrius T ric lin iu s , has introduced num erous conjectural emendations, in some cases o b lite ra t­ ing a ll trace o f the o rig in a l te x t. H is readings (m arked I in M u rra y’s apparatus) have no more a u th o rity than the conjectures o f m odern scholars, whereas those of the διορθωτης (L 2 in M urray) represent the tra d itio n ; b u t u n lu c k ily 1 Most of these copyists om itted more : B lacks Rhes. and T ro. ; A lacks A le ., Rhes., Tro. ; M lacks M ed ., A L ·., Rhes., T ro. V contains all the plays which have scholia, and may once have contained Bacch., since it is m utilated at the end. 2 W ilam owitz thought the Bacchae was w ritten in a different hand from the rest, and concluded that it was copied from a different exemplar ( Analecta E u rip id e a , 4 f.). B u t it is now generally agreed that although the ink is different the hand is the same which wrote most of the other plays (Spranger, S tu d i Ita lia n i, x (1932), 315 ff. ; Mason, loc. cit. ; Turyn, op. cit. 235 f.).

liv

IN T R O D U C T IO N

there is often d iffic u lty in deciding to w hich hand a p a rti­ cular correction is due. In the Bacchae I has been successful in rem oving a num ber o f sm all corruptions, e.g. in m ending lame syntax at 55 and lam e trim e te rs a t 227 and 503, and in correcting the meaningless κ λ ύ ζιν a t 653. He knew th a t strophe and antistrophe should correspond,1 and trie d to restore responsion a t 392-3 and 421— and I stron gly suspect a t 115 also, though there M urra y th in k s ο σ τις m ay be a genuine old reading preserved b y L 2. A n exam ple of V s recklessness in em endation, and the harm caused b y it, m ay be seen at 102, where his feeble and unnecessary con­ jecture θυρσοφόροι survives even in some tw e n tie th -ce n tu ry te xts because it is ‘a m anuscript reading*. The P alatinus (P) was w ritte n a t some tim e in the fourteenth c e n tu ry ; b y about 1420 it was s p lit in to tw o parts, one of w hich is preserved in the V atican as P alatinus 287, the o ther at Florence as Laurentianus Conv. Suppr. 172.2 I t contains a ll the e xtan t plays o f E uripides together w ith 3 o f Aeschylus, 6 of Sophocles, and 2 hom ilies of John Chrysostom . L ike L , it was checked b y a contem porary δ ιο ρ θ ω τή ς (P2). The P alatine p a rt, w hich includes the Bacchae and 12 other plays of E uripides, came in to the possession of Marcus M usurus (c. 1470-1517), who used it, together w ith a copy o f L , as the basis of the A ld in e edition (1503, the firs t p rin te d e dition w hich contains the Bacchae). I t m ay have been Musurus who introduced some or a ll of the numerous la te r corrections (p) w hich appear in the Palatine p a rt, p was a ra th e r b e tte r scholar than I, and found the rig h t correction fo r a good m any sm all slips in the Bacchae , e.g. a t 737 π όριν fo r π όλιν, 929 κ α θ ή ρ μο σ α fo r κ α θ ώ ρ μ ισ α , 1277 τίν ο ς fo r τ ι μ ο υ . There are other places where he is less happy, e.g. 477, 747, 1227. A t 314 he quotes a (false) v a ria n t from Stobaeus, whose readings he has 1 On I as a metrician see Denniston’s introduction to the E lectra , pp. x li f. 2 That these are parts of the same MS. was first recognized by C. Robert, Hermes, x iii (1878), 133.

IN T R O D U C T IO N

lv

introduced in other plays also ; b u t apart from th is instance there is no evidence th a t he had MS. a u th o rity fo r any of his readings in the Bacchae (he seems in th is p la y n ot even to have used L or a copy of L). The relationship of P to L — w hich was long com pletely obscured, and is s till to some extent obscured, b y the ravages of p and I — appears to be d iffe re n t in d ifferen t plays, (a) In the 9 ‘alphabetic* plays it now seems p re tty certain th a t P is a d e riva tive of L, whose only value lies in preserving readings of L w hich I erased.1 (6) In some at least of the ‘select* plays P is a t least p a rtia lly independent of L , since it not in fre q u e n tly agrees w ith M A V against L . (c) In the Troades , and in Bacch. 756-1392, b oth of w hich L lacks, P is an independent witness. H is source, w hich I w ill ca ll [Q ], is probably the same fo r both ;2 and to judge b y P's wide divergence from V in T ro ., [Q] is more lik e ly to have been a MS. o f the com bined e d itio n than a MS. o f the select plays. In Bacch. 1-755 P may depend in p a rt on L : in one place (568) his te x t looks lik e the result o f m isreading L*s h a n d w ritin g . B u t he m ust have drawn also on [Q ], since he preserves 1.14 and the w ord παρζΐται in 635, b oth of w hich L om its. H ad the scribe of P taken his te x t of the Bacchae from a MS. o f the select plays, we should be much b e tte r o ff: we should have a valuable dual tra d itio n fo r 11. 1-755, and p robably also a more com plete te x t o f the last 100 lines. We know from the adaptations in the C hristus Patiens th a t a more com plete te x t existed in the tw e lfth centu ry ;3 and 1 See esp. Wecklein, S itz.-B e r. B ayer. A ka d ., 1899, ii. 297 ff., and 1922, Abh. 5. 61 ; P. Maas, Gnomon, 1926, 156 f. Turyn, who maintains that P is throughout a tw in of L , derived from the same exemplar (op. cit. 264 ff.), does not seem to me to have disposed of their very strong arguments for the dependence of P on L in the alphabetic plays : cf. H . Lloyd-Jones, Gnomon, xxx (1958), 505 ff. 2 I t can be plausibly argued from the distribution of lacunas that both descend in P from an archetype which had on each page two columns of 35 to 38 verses : see 755-7 n. 3 See M urray’s note at end of text, and my Appendix. On the date of the C hr. P a t., see Brambs’s preface to the Teubner edition, 18 ff.

Iv i

IN T R O D U C T IO N

we can be fa irly certain th a t the MS. from w hich its a u th o r1 quarried the m ate ria l fo r his curious mosaic contained select plays o nly, since he shows knowledge o f no others. I t provided h im w ith a te x t of the Bacchae w hich was not o n ly fu lle r b u t in some places a t least more accurate than P 's : cf. 694, 1161, 1213, and especially 1084 and 1087, where the te x t deducible from C hr . P a t . is now confirm ed b y a papyrus.2 The in d ire c t evidence furnished b y the C hr . P a t . fo r several hundred lines o f our p la y m ust, however, be used w ith great caution ; fo r the a uth or altered his originals freely, n o t o n ly adapting them to a new purpose b u t often m odernizing them in language and m etre. iii. P a p y ri The te x t o f the Bacchae thus rests on a more slender fo undation than the te x t of any o ther ‘select' p la y o f E uripides. A nd a part from the C hr . P a t . and a few ancient cita tio n s we have h ith e rto had no means o f te sting the strength of th is foundation. L in e 1, i t is tru e , occurs in a schoolboy's exercise book, P. Teb. iii. 901 ; lin e 642 in a gram m atical fragm ent, P. L it. Lond. 183; and the ta il­ piece (1388-92) in P. H ibeh i. 25. B u t none o f these te lls us a n yth ing . Thanks, however, to the kindness of the E g y p t E x p lo ra tio n Society, the Delegates o f the O xford U n iv e rs ity Press, and M r. C. H . R oberts, I have been allowed to m ake use o f tw o unpublished p a p y ri.3 The more in te re stin g of th e ir readings are quoted and discussed in d iv id u a lly in the 1 Possibly Constantine Manasses (K . Horna, Hermes, Ixiv (1929)* 429) ; anyhow not Gregory of Nazianzus. 2 As it is also at Rhes. 52. The opinion of Kirchhoff, that the author o f C hr. P a t. used a MS. similar to L P and no better, was refuted by Doering, P h ilo l. x x iii. 517 ff., xxv. 221 ff. In the plays w ith a dual tra d i­ tion the C hr. P a l. supports now the one, now the other group of MSS., but is usually free from errors peculiar to one group : i.e. it seems to represent a stage in the tradition prior to the bifurcation. 3 Since published as P. Oxy. 2223 and P. A nt. 24 respectively. To these two I am now (1959) able to add another fragment from Antinoë : see below, p. lix .

IN T R O D U C T IO N

lvii

com m entary ; b u t a w ord m ay be said here about the general bearing of the new evidence on the re lia b ility of the te x t. (a) A n O xyrhynchos fragm ent, w ritte n in a handsome professional book-hand assigned b y M r. R oberts to the second ce ntu ry a . d . , contains 11. 1070-1136, b u t w ith begin­ nings of lines m issing in the firs t colum n (1070-1104) and ends of lines in the second (1105-36). I t looks lik e a careless copy made from an excellent te x t— a m uch b e tte r te x t than P. Its fa u lts are num erous b u t su p e rficia l: w ith one possible exception (1131) its v is ib ly false readings are such as could be corrected a t a glance even w ith o u t the help o f P. Nowhere (apart from spellings lik e Upeia) does it agree w ith P in a m a n ife stly false reading; in the three places w h e re . it supports a te x t th a t has been seriously doubted (1098, 1103, 1125) the grounds fo r dou bt are, I th in k , inconclusive. On the other hand, it confirm s no fewer than th irte e n m odem corrections, m ost of them o ld 1 and extrem ely obvious. W hat is d istu rb in g , however, is th a t besides o m ittin g (I suspect rig h tly ) a line w hich has never been doubted (1092), and adding a new lin e (a fte r 1104) whose absence has never been fe lt, it presents defensible new readings in seven o ther places where the tra d itio n o f P has not been questioned. One of these (κά ρ α 1087) hap­ pens to be confirm ed b y the Chr. P at. ; tw o others seem to me defin ite im provem ents (βρ όμον 1085, S* ap* 1113); the rem ainder (τ(ε )ιμ ω ρ € Ϊτ ε μ ο ί 1081, σ εμ νό ν 1083, ό [σό?] I ll8 , π λ ευ ρ ο ΐσ ιν 1126) are more or less in d iffe re n t varian ts, such as we encounter fa irly often in the m edieval tra d itio n o f E uripides. The general effect is n o t to strengthen one's belief e ithe r in the re lia b ility of P or in the p o s s ib ility of correcting it outside ra th e r narrow lim its . I t looks on th is evidence as if the te x t of the Bacchae had suffered considerable a lte ra tio n since Roman tim es, in clu d in g the in tro d u c tio n n o t o n ly o f 1 The most recent critic of whose labours it takes any account is Paley— a distressing illustration of the law of diminishing returns to which conjectural emendation is subject.

l v i ii

IN T R O D U C T IO N

m any superficial errors w hich the c ritic s have been able to p u t rig h t b u t probably of a good m any others w hich rem ain unsuspected. T his appearance conflicts w ith the conclusion usually, and rig h tly , draw n from the study of pa p yri in general and of E uripidean p a p yri in p a rtic u la r.1 The difference is probably due to the exceptional m anner in w hich the Bacchae has been tra n s m itte d ; if we could read it as it stood in the e dition w ith scholia, the re la tio n between the m edieval and the Rom an tra d itio n m ig h t w ell appear in a d iffe re n t lig h t. In the same hand as the O xyrhynchos fragm ent are fo u r beginnings o f unrecognized lines on a detached piece of papyrus, w hich w ill be found in the A ppendix ; th ey m ay or m ay not be lo st lines of the Bacchae . (b) M r. R oberts's othe r c o n trib u tio n consists of three scraps from a papyrus codex found a t A ntinoë and assigned b y him to the fifth ce ntu ry a . d . The largest scrap has on the verso fragm ents o f 11. 459-71, on the recto fragm ents of 11. 496-508. The other tw o have on both sides fragm ents o f unrecognized lin e s; these are p rin te d in the A ppendix, where I have given reasons fo r a ttrib u tin g the tw o longer o f them to the Bacchae and s itu a tin g them in the lacuna a fte r 1329. The fragm ents of e xta n t lines are too meagre to ju s tify any confident generalization about the character of the te x t they represent. So fa r as they go, however, they tend to support the conclusion th a t the L P tra d itio n of the Bacchae is decidedly in fe rio r to th a t curren t in Roman tim es. T his papyrus, lik e the other, nowhere agrees w ith the m edieval tra d itio n in m anifest e rror. The scribe has made one slip (omission of Sé in 465) ; on the other hand, he avoids fo u r blunders common to L and P, confirm ing in one case (503) an ancient c ita tio n , in the othe r three the conjectures of early editors. In the tw o rem aining places 1 e.g. Schubart, E in fü h ru n g i. d. Papyruskunde , 88, says that ‘in general, papyri o f the Roman period have the text which we read to­ day* ; D. L . Page, Introd. to Medea , xl, that Euripidean papyri of postAlexandrian date ‘differ very little from our own manuscripts’.

IN T R O D U C T IO N

lix

where the papyrus differs from L P, e ithe r te x t is possible, w ith the balance of p ro b a b ility perhaps s lig h tly in fa vo u r o f the new reading (Δ ιό νυσ ο ς α υ τό ς μ 466, ουδ* είσ ο ρ α ς 5°2)· A t 469» where L and P d iffe r from each other, the papyrus confirm s L . (c) In the present (second) e dition I have been enabled by the kindness of M r. J. W . B. Barns and the Delegates of the Press to cite the readings of a fu rth e r papyrus scrap, as yet unpublished. I t comes from A ntinoë, b u t not from the same te x t as P. A n t. 24, described above. M r. Bam s te lls me th a t it is in the same fifth - or sixth -ce n tu ry hand as P. A n t. 23 (Medea, w ith scholia), and alm ost ce rta in ly from the same codex (or set of codices ).1 I t contains o nly frag­ ments of (recto) lines 1154-9 and (verso) lines 1183-6. B u t scanty as it is, it confirm s tw o m odern corrections, 21ώα fo r Άώαν a t 1157, and τλβίμον fo r τλάμω V a t 1184. Its evi­ dence thus points in the same d irection as th a t o f the other Bacchae p a p yri. 1 The surviving scrap of the Bacchae includes no scholia ; but what looks like an interlinear letter 'μ ' added (perhaps by a second hand) above 6 μόσχος at 1185 is possibly a reference numeral applying to a scholion which has not been preserved.

ΒΑΚΧΑΙ Τ Π Ο Θ Ε Σ ΙΣ

ΒΑΚΧΩΝ

Διόνυσον ο ι προσήκον τ ε ς ο υκ εφασαν et ναι θεόν' ο δ ! α ύ το ΐς τιμ ω ρ ία ν επ εσ τη σ ε

τη ν

π ρεπού σαν.

ε μ μ α ν ε ΐς

γάρ

επ ο ίη σ ε

τά ς

τω ν

Θ η β α ίω ν

γ υ ν α ίκ α ς , ών α ί το ΰ Κ ά δ μ ο υ θ υ γα τερ ες ά φ η γ ο ύ μ εν α ι το ύ ς θιάσους εξή γ ο ν επ ί το ν Κ ιθ α ιρ ώ ν α .

Π εν θ εύ ς &ε, ό τ η ς

β α σ ιλ εία ν

εδυσφόρει

συλλαβώ ν

εδησεν,

τ ο ΐς

h τ*

γ ιν ο μ εν ο ις

αντον

δέ

το ν

Ά γ α ύ η ς ττα ΐς , π αραλαβώ ν τη ν καί

τιν α ς

μ εν

θεόν

άλλω ς

ά π εσ τειλ εν .

τω ν

Βακχώ ν 5 οι

δ!

εκό ντο ς αύτοΰ κυρ ιεύσ α ντες i)γον προς το ν Π εν θ ε α , κ ά κ ειν ο ς

εκελευσεν

δ ήσαντας

ουκ

αυτόν

Ινδόν

φ υ λ ά τ τ ε ιν ,

ου

Δ ιόνυσ ος, αλλά, κ α ι π ρ ά τ τ ε ιν π ά ντα σ εισ μόν επ εισ ε γ υ ν α ικ ό ς

π οιησας το ν

εσ θ ή τα '

ζ α μ εν η ς .

κ α τεσ τρ ε φ ε

Π εν θ ε α Κάδμος

τα

β α σ ίλ εια ,

κ α τό π τη ν

αί

δ' δ!

αντό ν το

λόγω ν

μόνον

ώς κ α τ*

γενεσ θ α ι

ά γα γώ ν τω ν

διεσπ ασ αν, τ ή ς

γεγο νό ς

δ τι

θεός

ανθρώπου το λ μ ώ ν , δέ

ε ις

γυ ν α ικ ώ ν μ η τρ ό ς

κα τα ισ θ ό μ ενο ς

Κ ιθ α ιρ ώ ν α ί ο λ α μ β ά ν ο ν τα

Α γαύης

τά

εσ τι ο δ!

κ α τα ρ -

δ ια σ π α σ # !ν τα

μ έ λ η συνα γαγώ ν τ ε λ ε υ τ α ίο ν τό πρόσωπον εν τ α ΐς τ ή ς τεκ ο ύ σ η ς εφώ ρασε χ ερ σ ίν, β

Δ ιόνυσ ος

σ υ μ β ή σ ετα ι

δε

επ ιφ α νείς

διεσ άφ ησ εν

τα

μ εν

f ερ γο ις,

πασι

Γνα

μη

π α ρ ή γ γ ειλ εν ,

εκ ά σ τω

λ ο ^ ο ι^ Ί-

τίν ο ς

υπό

δε 15 τω ν

ε κ τό ς ώς άνθρωπος καταφ ρο νη θή .

Α Ρ ΙΣ Τ Ο Φ Α Ν Ο Υ Σ Δ ιόνυσ ος άν α λ α μ β ά νειν

απ οθεω θείς εις

μ α ν ία ν

Γ Ρ Α Μ Μ Α Τ ΙΚ Ο Υ

μή

βουλομενου

ά γα γώ ν

τά ς

τή ς

Π εν θ εω ς μ η τρ ό ς

Υ Π Ο Θ Ε Σ ΙΣ τά

ό ργια

αδελφ ός

α ύτο ΰ

ή ν ά γ κ α σ ε 20

Π εν θ ε α δ ια σ π ά σ α ι. ή μ υ θ ο π ο ιία κ ε ΐτ α ι παρ' Α ισ χ ύ λ φ εν Π ε ν θ ε ί.

Argumenta habet P : om. L 3 θιάσους Elmsley: θράσους P Kirchhoff : είσ ή γο ν Ρ 4 Α γ α ύ η ς ρ : spatium vacuum reli­ querat is qui argumentum scripsit in P, ut etiam Agavae nomen in personarum indice ignorabatur παραλαβώ ν Elmsley: παραβώ ν P 6 άλλω$] α γγέλο υ ς Elmsley : δμώ ας Wecklein 9 ανθρώπου Her­ mann : άνθρωπον Ρ ΐ2 κ α τ α * ξ α μ (asterisco supra μ posito) Ρ : corr. p 15 τ ά μ εν Elmsley : μ εν Ρ 16 Γνα μ ή ερ γο ις ή λόγοις Elmsley : fortasse λ ό γ ο ις , Γνα μ ή εργοις 21 διασ π άσ αι Musurus : διαστταεζή γ ο ν

σθήνοχ Ρ

4003.0

Β

2

TA

TOT

ΔΡΑΜ ΑΤΟΣ

ΠΡΟ ΣΩ ΠΑ

Δ ΙΟ Ν Υ Σ Ο Σ

Θ ΕΡΑΠΩ Ν

ΧΟ ΡΟ Σ

Α ΓΓΕ Λ Ο Σ

Τ Ε ΙΡ Ε Σ ΙΑ Σ

ΕΤΕΡΟ Σ Α ΓΓΕ Λ Ο Σ

ΚΑΔΜ Ο Σ

Α ΓΑ Υ Η

Π ΕΝΘ ΕΥΣ Διόνυσος 6 π ρολογίζω ν

Personarum indicem in ordinem reduxit Elmsley: sic habent L P διόρυσο?. πενθεύς. χορός {χορός β α κ χ ώ ν Ρ). θεράπω ν. τε ιρ ε σ ία ς . ά γ γ ελ ο ς . κάΒ μος. ετερο ς ά γ γ ελ ο ς . γυνή ( κ α ί γυνή Ρ ): apparet haec e codice descripta esse in quo nomina sic disposita erant Δ ιόνυσ ος. χορός.

θεράπων, ά γγελο ς,

Τ ειρ εσ ία ? . Κ ά Β μ ος. Π ενθ εύ ς.

ετερο ς ά γγελο ς. Άγαύη.

Cf. ad Person, indicem Phoenissarum. Eodem fere ritu expli­ candi sunt ordines dati a B V in Medea (sed παίδε? omissi erant in arche­ typo), a P in Alcestide (omissi π α ΐς et χορός in archetypo), alii Pro θεράπω ν, ά γ γ ελ ο ς , ετερο ς ά γγελο ς m avult θεράπω ν, β ουκόλος, ετερος θεράπω ν Wecklein verba Δ ιόνυσ ος ό π ρο λογίζω ν om. Ρ

A cta p au llo post annum a . c . 406 m ortuo poeta (Schol. A r. Ran. 67). Codices L P : L post v. 755 d e ficit. Scholia paucissim a.

ΒΑΚΧΑΙ Δ ΙΟ Ν Υ Σ Ο Σ

p M k 1^

"Η κ ω Δ ιός π α ΐς τηνδε Θ ηβαίω ν χθόνα Διόνυσος, ον τ ίκ τ ε ιπ ο θ ' ή Κ ά δ μ ο ν κόρη Σ εμ έλ η λοχ€νθ€Ϊσ* άστραπ^φόρω ττυρί’ μορφήν δ* άμείφ α ς έκ θ€θΰ βροτησίαν 2π ά ρ ειμ ι Δ ίρ κ η ς ν ά μ α τά Ίσ μ η ν ο ΰ θ' ύδωρ,

5

όρώ δε μητρός μνήμα τή ς κεραύνιας 3 τδδ’ εγγύς οίκω ν κ α ί δόμων τυφόμεγμ^βίου 7 τυρός ό τι ζώσαν φ λ ό γ α ,^ αθάνατον υΗ ρ α ς μ η τέρ ' είς i μην ϋβριν. αινώ δε Κ άδμον, άβατον δς ί τεδο^^οδε

ίο

τίθ η σ ι, θνγατρός σ η κ ό ν αμπέλου δε νιν π έριζ εγώ ' κάλυφα βοτρνώ δει χ λ ό η . Μ λιπώ ν δε Λ νδώ ν τούς πολυχρύσους γνας· Φρυγών τ ε , Π ερσώ ν θ' ήλιοβλήτους π λάκας W Β ά κ τρ ιά τε τ ε ίχ η τη ν τε δνσχιμον χθόνα

15

Μ ήδω ν επελθών Α ρ αβ ίαν τ ' ενδαίμονα Α σ ία ν τε πάσαν, ή παρ' αλμυρόν άλα κ € Ϊτα ι μ ιγ ά σ ιν "Ε λλη σ ι βαρβάροις θ' 6μου πλήρεις έχονσα καλλιπ νργώ τονς πόλεις, Ε ύρ ιπ ίδ ο υ Β ά κ χ α ι suprascr. in Ρ : consentiunt didascalia Strabo Plutarchus Athenaeus alii : cf. Schol. Ar. Ran. 67 : Ε ύ ρ ιπ ίδ ο υ 77eW?eus L : consentiunt codd. Stobaei bis, fl. 36. 9 et 74. 8: cf. H ippo lyti in it. - i Θ η β α ίω ν L P et Σ Tro. 1 : Θ η β α ία ν gramm. Ambros, in K eil. Anal. Gr. p. 10, 22. Anecd. Chisiana de re metr. ( Mangelsdorf p. 26), Schol. Hephaest. p. 183 : Θ η β α ία ν κ ά τ α Priscian ii. p. 151 8 Δ ίο ν Barnes : δίου r c L P : τυ φ ο μ ίν η ν άδροΰ Plut. Solon i : διού τ* Ir t πυρδς Porson 13 tous Elmsley : τα? L P γύ α ς L et Strab. i. p. 27, X V . p. 687 : γ υ ία ς l P 14 om. L 0 * om. Bothe et, ut v i­ detur, Chr. Pat. 1588 15 δ νσ χ ιμ ο ν Elinsley : δύσχ€ΐμον L P Strab. Chr. Pat. 1589 16 έ ιτίλ θ ώ ν L P cum Strab. p. 27 : έπήλθον Strab. p. 687 : π αρ(λθώ ν Chr. Pat. 1590 . /-t . f frA w n J j l f * '

Ε Τ Ρ ΙΠ ΙΔ Ο Τ ες τηνδε πρώτον tJAθον 'Ελλήνω ν πόλιν, τά κ ε Î χορένσας κ α ί καταστησας εμάς τελετά ς, ΐν* εϊη ν εμφανής δαίμω ν β ρ ο το ίς. πρώτας 8ε Θήβας τησδε γη ς 'Ελληνίδος άνωλόλυζα, νεβρίδ' εξάφας χροός θύρσον τ ε Βονς ες χ ειρ α , κίσσινον βέλος·

25

επ εί μ ' άΒελφαϊ μητρος, ας ή κ ισ τα χρην, Διόνυσον ούκ εφασκον εκφνναι Δ ιός, Σ εμελην δε ννμφευθεισαν εκ θνητόν τίνος ες Ζ η ν * άναφερειν τη ν αμαρτίαν λεχονς, Κ άδ μον σοφίσμαθ', ών νιν οννεκα κτανεΐν

30

Ζ η ν * εξεκαυχώ νθ1, ο τι γάμους εφευσατο. το ιγάρ νιν αντας εκ δόμων ω στρησ εγώ μ α νία ις, όρος δ* οίκοΰσι παράκοποι φρένω ν σκευήν τ

εχειν ηνάγκασ9 οργίων εμώ ν,

κ α ι παν το θήλυ σπέρμα Κ α δ μ είω ν, δσαι

35

γυ ναίκες η σαν, εζεμηνα δ ω μ ά τω ν όμοΰ 8ε Κ άδμου π αισϊν άνα μεμειγμενα ι χλω ραις ύπ ελά τα ις άνορόφοις ή ν τα ι π ετραις. δ ει γάρ πόλιν τηνΒ' εκμαθ ειν, κ ει μη θελει, ατελεστον οΰσαν τω ν εμών βα κχενμάτω ν.

40

Σ ε μελής τ ε μητρος άπολογησασθαί μ ’ υπέρ φανεντα θνητοίς δαίμον δν τ ίκ τ ε ι Δ ιί. Κ άδμος μεν ονν γέρας τ ε κ α ί τυραννίδα Π ε ν θ ε ί Βίδωσι θνγατρός εκπ εφυκότι, ος θ εο μ α χ εί το κ α τ ' εμ ε κ α ί σπονδών άπο

45

ώ θ εΐ μ , εν ευχαΐς τ 9 ούΒαμοΰ μνείαν εχ ει. 20 ττολιν]

Chr« Pat, 1595: fortasse ες τή νδ ε δήποτ* ήλθον Ε λ ­ W ilamowitz : κ ά κ ε ΐ L Ρ : quo servato ν. 20 post 22 trai. Pierson: codicum ordinem tuetur Chr. Pat. 1594 sq. 22 ε ίη P 23 Be L P : γ ε l malim π ρ ώ την δ« Θ ή β ην τη ν δ ε 25 β έλος Stephanus : μέλο ς L Ρ 26 ή κ ισ τ * εχρήν L Ρ 31 καυχώ μεθ * L Ρ : corr. Elmsley 32 ο ΐσ τρ η α L Ρ : corr. Elmsley 38 άνορόφους ή ν τ α ι ιτετρ α ς Elmsley 46 ούδαμον Ρ et Chr. Pat. χθόνα

λήνω ν χθόνα

1571 ! ούΒαμώς L *

21 τ ά κ ε ΐ

ΒΑΚΧΑΙ

5

ών ovv€K* α ν τώ θζός γ ^ γ ώ ς iv S t iζ ο μ α ι 7τάσ ίν

τ€ Θ η β α ίο ισ ιν . €ς δ* ά λλη ν χθόνα,

τάνθάνδ* θόμςνος €ν, μ € τα σ τή σ ω π όδα, Scikvvç έμα ντό ν* η ν δ ί Θ η β α ίω ν π ό λις

5°

όργτ} σνν όπ λοις Ι ζ όρους β ά κ χ α ς ά γ ειν ζ η τ η , ζν ν ά φ ω μ α ιν ά σ ι σ τρ α τη λ α τώ ν . ών ovv€K €ΐδ ο ς θ νητόν ά λλά ξα ς Ζχω μορ φ ήν τ * i μ η ν μ ςτό β α λο ν €ΐς άνδρός φ ύσ ιν. ά λ λ \ ώ λ ιπ ο ΰ σ α ι Τ μ ώ λ ο ν €ρυμα Λ υ δ ία ς ,

55

θίασος όμός, γ υ ν α ίκ α ς, ας €κ β αρβάρω ν €κ ό μ ισ α παρόδρους κ α ί ζυν€μπόρονς € μ ο ί, αίρ€σθ€ τά π ιχ ώ ρ ι i v π όλ€ΐ Φ ρυγώ ν τύ μ π α ν α , 'Ρ ό α ς τ€ μ η τρ ό ς €μά θ ' ε υ ρ ή μ α τα , β α σ ίλ ε ιά τ

ά μ φ ι δ ώ μ α τ* ελθοΰσ α ι τά δ *

6ο

κ τν π € ΐτ€ Π ϊν θ ό ω ς , ώ ς όρα Κ ά δ μ ο υ π ό λ ις, όγώ S i β ά κ χ α ις , ός Κ ιθ α ιρ ώ ν ο ς π τυ χ α ς όλθών ΐν ' € ΐσ ί, σ νμ μ € τα σ χη σ ω χορώ ν. ΧΟ ΡΟ Σ

—

Α σ ία ς από γ α ς

65

Upèv Τ μ ώ λ ο ν ά μ€ ΐφ α σ α θοάζω Β ρ ο μ ίω πόνον ηδνν κ ά μ α τό ν τ* € ν κ ά μ α το ν , Β ά κ ~ χ ιο ν τνα ζο μ ό να .

—

τ ι ς όδώ τ ις ό δ ώ ; τ ι ς ; μςλ ά θ ρ ο ις Ζκτοπ ος ό σ τω , σ τό μ α τ μ ο ν άπ ας Ιξο σ ιο ύ σ θ ω '

€ νφ η yο

52 συνάψω Ρ 5 3 sq. del. Bernhardy 55 λιποΰσαι I cum Chr. Pat. 1602 et Strab. x. p. 469 : λιποϋσα L P 57 ανήμπορους L 59 τύπανα Nauck 62 πτύχας L P 64-71 nullam esse re­ sponsionem v id it W ilam ow itz: cf. Med. 130-7, Aesch. Sept. 78 sqq. 67 post €υαζομ€να add. Peov, m etri gr. u t putabat, I 68 τϊς (ter) Bruhn : cf. Soph. Trach. 865, Pind. Pyth. x. 4 post non post μ€λάθροις distinxit Elmsley : cf. I. T . 1210 70 ίξοσιούσθω L P : ef erasit I

6

Ε Υ Ρ ΙΠ ΙΔ Ο Υ τ α νομισθεντα γάρ α ίε ι Διόνυσον υμνήσω. τ ω

[σ τρ.

μά κα ρ , οσ τις ευδαίμω ν τελ ε τά ς θεών ειδώ ς β ιό τα ν ά γ ισ τεύ ει κ α ί θιασ εύ ετα ι φυχάν

75

εν όρεσσι βακχευω ν όσίοις καθαρμοΐσιν, τ α τ ε ματρός μ εγά λα ς ορ­ γ ιά Κ υβελα ς θεμιτευω ν. âvà θύρσον τ ε τινάσσω ν,

8ο

κισσω τ€ στεφανω θείς Διόνυσον θεραπεύει. V Ο/ V Λ/ ιτ ε β α κ χ α ι, ιτ ε β α κ χ α ι, Β ρόμιον π αΐδ α θεόν θεοΰ Διόνυσον κατά γουσ αι

85

Φ ρυγιώ ν εξ όρεων 'Ε λ ­ λάδος εις' εύρυχόρους άγυ ιάς, τον Β ρόμιον· ον

[α ν τ.

π οτ εχουσ* iv ωδίνων λο χ ία ις άνά γκαισ ι π ταμενας Δ ιός βροντάς νη-

90

δύος εκβολον μ ά τη ρ ετεκεν , Χιποϋσ* α ιώ ­ να κεραυνίω πληγα· \ f ^ ρ/ λο χ ιο ις ο α υ τίκ α νιν οε7ΐ διόνυσσον L υμνήσω] metrum sanum : cf. sequentia 75 θιασσενεται P 76 o p ta i L P 77 όσιο ις L : όσίοισι L 2 Ρ καθαρμοίσι Ρ : καθαρμόΐς in ras. I vel L 2 79 θεμιτευων Musgrave : θεμιστενων L Ρ 8ΐ κατά κισσω στεφανωθείς Hermann 82 διόνυσσον L 83 SIC L nunc : 5

όταν λαβή τ ις τω ν λόγων άνήρ σοφός καλός άφορμάς, ον μεγ* εργον εν λ ε γ ε ιν σύ δ* εντροχον μεν γλώσσαν ώς φρονών όχεις, εν το ΐς λόγοισ ι δ* ούκ ενεισ ί σοι φρενες. θρασει δε δννατός κ α ι λεγειν οίός τ

άνήρ

27°

κακός π ολίτης γ ίγ ν ε τ α ι νοΰν ονκ εχων. οΰτος δ* ο δαίμω ν ο νέος, δν σύ διαγελας, ούκ αν δνναίμην μεγεθος εξειπ εΐν όσος καθ' *Ε λλάδ * εσ τα ι. δνο γάρ, ώ νεανία, τ ό 7τρώτ* εν άνθρώποισι· Δ η μ ή τη ρ θεά—

27 5

γ η δ* εσ τίν, ονομα δ* όπότερον βονλη κ ά λει· αυτή μεν εν ξηροΐσιν εκ τρ εφ ει βροτονς· δς δ* ήλθ’ ε π ε ιτ , αντίπαλον ο Σ ε μελή ς γόνος prim itus L 257 φ όρειν I · Ρ 263 δ υ σ σ εβείας Reiske : εν σ εβ εία ς L Ρ : ασ εβεία ς Chr. Pat. 191 265 ante 264 trai. Musgrave 270 θρόσει Madvig : θρασύς L P δε L : τ ε Ρ 270 sq. del. D indorf : habet Stob. fl. 45. 2 276 ο νομ α\ όπόμα (ab όπότερον sequenti) Ρ 278 δς δ* F ix : όδ* L Ρ ήλθ* ε π ε ιτ α ντίπ α λο ν Housman (α ν τίπ α λ ο ς m alit Marchant) : ήλθεν (ήλθ* Ρ) επί τά ν τίπ α λ ο ν L Ρ 2 ζ ΐ β α κ χ εύ ο ν τα ς I 2 ζ2 εχω ν φερω ν L P 201 γό νος L : γ ό μ ο ς

14

Ε Υ Ρ ΙΠ ΙΔ Ο Y β ό τρ ν ο ς υγρόν π ώ μ

ηΰρ€ Κ € ΐσ η νέγκα το

θ ν η το ις , ο Ttavei το υ ς τα λα ίπ ω ρ ο υ ς β ρ ο το νς

28ο

λύπ ης, ό τα ν π λη σ θ ώ σ ιν α μπ έλο υ ροής, ύπνον τ€ λ ή θ η ν τω ν καθ* η μ έρ α ν κ α κ ώ ν

δίδωσιν, ούδ’ έ σ τ άλλο φ ά ρμ α κο ν π ό νω ν. ο ν το ς θ € ο ισ ι σ π ένδ € τα ι θ€ος γ ε γ ώ ς , ώ σ τ€ δ ιά το ΰ το ν τ ά γ ά θ 9 ανθρώπους έ χ € ΐν .

285

κ α ι κ α τα γ € λ α ς νιν, ώ ς έν^ρράφη A ιό ς μ η ρ ω ; δ ιδ ά ξω σ ώ ς κ α λώ ς €χ€ΐ τ δ δ ί. h r e i νιν ήρπασ* έ κ 7τυρός Kepavviov Ζ € υ ς, €? δ* ’Ό λ υ μ π ο ν β ρέφ ο ς ά νή γαγβ ν θ€ον, Ή ρ α νιν ήθ€λ’ € κβ α λ€ ΐν ά π * ούρανοΰ·

290

Ζ ^ ύ ς δ9 ά ντ€ μ η χ α νή σ α θ 9 ο ιa δη θ€0ς. ρ ή ξα ς μ έρ ο ς τ ι το ν χθ ό ν9 έγ κν κ λ ο υ μ έν ο υ α ίθέρ ος, έθηκ€ τό νδ * όμηρον έκδ ιδ ο ύ ς,

Δ ιόνυσον “ Η ρ α ς ν € ΐκ έ ω ν χρόνω δ έ νιν β ρ ο το ι ρ α φ ή ν α ί φ α σ ιν έν μ η ρ ώ Δ ιό ς,

295

όνομα μ € τα σ τή σ α ν τ€ ς, ό τ ι 0ea θ€ος “ Η ρ α ποθ* ώ μήρ€νσ€, σννθέντ€ς λό γο ν. μ ά ν τ ις δ* ο δ α ίμ ω ν δδ€* τδ γ ά ρ β α κ χ € υ σ ιμ ο ν κ α ι τ ο μ α νιώ δ € ς μ α ν τ ικ ή ν π ο λλή ν έχ€ΐό τα ν γά ρ 6 θ€ος ές τδ σώ μ* έλθη π ολύς,

3 00

λ έ γ € ΐν τδ μ έλ λ ο ν το υ ς μ € μ η ν ό τα ς π ο ΐ€ Ϊ. Ά ρ € ώ ς Τ€ μ ο ίρ α ν μ € τα λ α β ώ ν έχ€ ΐ τ ιν ά · σ τρ α τό ν γά ρ έν ό π λο ις ό ντα κ ά π ϊ τ ά ξ ^ σ ιν φ>όβος δΐ€π τόησ € π ριν λ ό γ χ η ς θ ιγ € ΐν . μ α ν ία δέ κ α ι τ ο ΰ τ 9 έ σ τ ι Δ ιονύ σ ο υ π άρα.

35

279 *μ Elmsley : π ό μ * L Ρ 281 π ληθώ σιν P : corr. ρ 286-297 suspecti Boeckhio 289 0