Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Classical Philology.
http://www.jstor.org
67
Lindsay, the transposition arma perdidit, the verse need no longer create
metrical difficulties, or give rise to a large number of additional emendations, as it has in the past.19 The two cretics at the beginning of 57 (Epidice
perdidit) are followed by four iambic feet (me. quis? Ille qui arma perdidit);
if we add to these the eight iambic feet of 58, we have a sequence of two cretics
followed by twelve iambics-the same system which has already been shown
to exist in 9-10, 25-26, and 29-30. The passage should perhaps be printed
as follows, to bring it into conformity with the corresponding passages earlier
in the scene:
Epidice?
EP. perdidit
me. TH. quis? EP. ille qui arma perdidit.
TH. nam quid ita? EP. quia cottidie ipse ad me ab legione epistulas.
Furthermore, the possibility that 57-58 contain the same metrical scheme that
Plautus has previously used gives added weight to the soundness of the reading arma perdidit.20
Plautus' fondness for cretics in the latter part of the first scene of the Epidicus has long been recognized. Crusius, by paving the way to a clearer
understanding of the systems of cretics and iambics in the first part of the
canticum, has done a signal service for Plautine scholars. Plautus' use of this
system must now be extended more widely;2' 25-26, and probably 57-58, are
further illustrations of his tendency to use a combination of two cretics and a
"run" of twelve iambic feet.
GEORGE E. DUCKWORTH
PRINCETONUNIVERSITY
68
to the latter view.3 The sons of Theseus create the dilemma. Does Euripides
regard human sacrifice as justifiable? Surely a man so humane and so unsuperstitious cannot. But then, does he go out of his way to put the Athenian
chiefs in the wrong? Gilbert Murray4feels that he does; the introduction of the
Theseids is, then, a slap at Athens by a disillusioned patriot, rebelling against
the faults of his beloved country. Though this interpretation carries weight
because of its source, I cannot accept it.
In the above-cited expository passages the poet states objectively the facts
of his play; no feeling appears but the inevitable recoil of Hecabe and the
chorus. The following scene,5 however, is the focus for the appearance of the
poet's sentiments. Odysseus comes to lead Polyxena to her death. Hecabe
pleads her cause to him on behalf of her daughter. First, she claims his
gratitude-a claim he acknowledges is just; she then argues against human sacrifice, and, in particular, the choice of Polyxena. Odysseus is chiefly
concerned to defend his advocacy of the sacrifice. He does so on the ground
that gratitude to benefactors is a cardinal virtue for cities, and therefore
Achilles must receive honor from the Greeks.
What impression should we derive from this scene? Our sympathy is with
Hecabe, as Euripides intended; so much is clear. Is Odysseus, therefore, in
the wrong? I think not. He cuts a poor figure, it is true; in two respects,
perhaps, he resembles the slippery schemer of the Philoctetes, Trojan Women,
and elsewhere-in his sophistical implication that he is bound to protect
Hecabe, but not her daughter, and in his prudent preparations to avoid
Polyxena's supplication.6 But this is the worst that can be said of him, and
perhaps worse than need be said. His point of policy is entirely sound and admirable. Surely, then, we cannot expect him to put a private obligation ahead
of the public interest. Agamemnon does just this, thereby proving that
Euripides takes the king as he finds him in the Iliad. But could the poet possibly approve such conduct? I think not; to subordinate one's self, even one's
virtues, to the state was recognized as a virtue in Greece. Only an Aristides
or a Socrates, perhaps, perfectly honored the principle; but only an Alcibiades
would argue against it. The worst, then, of Odysseus' position is its awkwardness and dramatic thanklessness.7
The reality of the ghost of Achilles is unquestioned in the play. I see not
the slightest hint that the Achaeans are deluded or "too superstitious."8 In3 L1. 116-40.
4 Euripides and His Age, pp. 89-90; and cf. p. 126: "It is against the gods and
69
deed, it would be hard to cast doubt on ghosts in a play for which a ghost
speaksthe prologue.9Polydorusis an entirelyhonestghost,andso his authentication of Achilles (11.37-41) is valid. We are requiredto believe that
Achilles appeared and demanded Polyxena. Odysseus, therefore, is quite
right in advisingthe sacrifice;and if Odysseusis right, the sons of Theseus
are right, and their inclusionis a patriotictouch such as aboundin Euripides'
plays.
This result entails an interesting corollary.Euripideshas accepted for
purposesof this play a piece of machinery,the ghost, and a practice,human
sacrifice,about both of whichwe wouldexpectEuripidesto be at least skeptical, if not definitelyhostile. This is a smallbit of evidencetowarda conclusion
-for whichfar moreamplefoundationsare available-that Euripidesvaried
fromplay to play anddid not have a systemof principleswhichhe consistently
preached.The patriotictouch appearsas consistentlyas anythingin the way
of specificattitudes;the foundationherewas probablygenuinefeeling,but the
specificphenomenaare chieflygood "boxoffice,"elsewhereas in the Hecabe.
Suchphenomenashould,I think, alwaysbe takenat theirface value;thus,for
the Ion I can accept neitherVerrall'sview that Athena is bogus,10nor Murray's, that Euripidesis attackingthe legendsof Athensas shamglories. Since
Euripidestakes the painsto makeDorusjuniorto Ion," it seemsthat we must
understandthat he meant to flatter Athens in this play, and that here, as
elsewherein Euripides,love of countryis a sentimentmore dependableand
less fluctuatingthan his view on ethics and theology.12
B. DEBATES
70
Plays
of Euripides,
pp.
146-51.
11 have adopted the small letter, rather than the Y of Valentini, in accordance with
my previous practice of designating by small letters manuscripts containing excerpts
from Valerius, and by capitals those containing the full text.
2 Classici e Neolatini,
VI (1910), 251-77.