Department of the Classics, Harvard University

A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy

Author(s): Evelyn Spring
Source: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 28 (1917), pp. 135-224
Published by: Department of the Classics, Harvard University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/310642
Accessed: 23-03-2018 10:33 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Department of the Classics, Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A STUDY OF EXPOSITION IN GREEK TRAGEDY

BY EVELYN SPRING'

E XPOSITION is that part of dramatic composition which deals

with the unfolding of the plot. Every dramatist must provide
sufficient elucidation of the past to render intelligible the ever-ad-
vancing action of the present. He may complete the necessary ex-
planation in a few lines, or he may continue to enlighten his audience
throughout the play, by revealing various circumstances that are
antecedent to the action of the drama proper at the moment when the
announcement of each is dramatically most effective. To-day there
is a tendency among playwrights to choose so simple a plot that few
explanatory details are necessary. This is the case with Mr. Mase-
field's The Tragedy of Nan, with Mr. Yeats's The Land of Heart's
Desire, and with most of Lady Gregory's plays. The method is not
restricted, however, to the so-called English neo-romantic school, for
it is adopted by M. Maeterlinck in his L'Oiseau Bleu, and more con-
spicuously in his little no-plot plays. The one-act plays of August
Strindberg are similarly constructed. But the extreme simplicity
that characterizes the work of these dramatists is exceptional. As
a rule, the productions of modern writers are more complex, and il-
lustrate very forcibly the difficulties that beset a dramatist who would,
in a skilful and original manner, reproduce the past in the course of the
continuous scenic action of the present. There are some excellent
modern playwrights who do not balk at the old convention which
permitted two characters at the beginning of a drama to relate for the
benefit of the auditor facts with which they themselves were distress-

1 This essay in its original form, entitled Quo Modo Aeschylus in Tragoediis Suis
Res Antecedentis Exposuerit, was presented in 1915 in partial fulfilment of the re-
quirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Radcliffe College. Professor
Herbert Weir Smyth, to whom I am indebted for my subject, has been a constant
source of inspiration to me. I am deeply grateful to Professors Clifford Herschel
Moore and Chandler Rathfon Post for their helpful counsel and friendly interest,
and to Professor Edward Kennard Rand I owe many stimulating criticisms of the
paper in its English version.
135

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
136 Evelyn Spring
ingly familiar. Not yet can we describe as antiq
of exposition that are equally unskilful, especia
tom of so massing explanations in the opening
make every thing transparently clear to the au
no opportunity for the exercise of the imagina
sirable, of course, to avoid obscurity. But when
his interest in exposition to the opening scenes
resorting to a modification of the old and long
of the formal prologue, disguised in dialogue by
diffuse form. It is fashionable just now to emp
of the ancients. Were the great tragic poets
modern dramatists, occasionally baffled by the
of successful exposition, or were there peculiar
tions of their age which made this aspect of
for them an easier task?
Owing to the phenomenon of the trilogy in G
of exposition in Greek tragedy naturally falls i
the exposition in the plays of a trilogy which ar
matter; second, the exposition in each play c
dramatic entity. The latter investigation is c
such details as the extent of the preliminary k
that the poet assumed for his audience, the
disclosure of events preceding the action of t
methods of reproducing the past. The first
centres about the larger question of the interre
a trilogy which show continuity of plot, for ex
Did the poet present to his audience in each play
complete in itself, or did he think of the indiv
related to the others of the group that it was n
existing apart from them ? For a study of expos
Aeschylus is the most important poet. He is
formation for the technique of the trilogy. In
literature, he is the pioneer poet in the field of
historically, because he is credited with the inv
actor, and actually, for us, because our know
earlier or contemporary poets is so meagre as t
to form any accurate conclusions in regard t

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 137
early tragedies of Aeschylus, therefore, show us Greek tragedy in its
embryonic stage. In these the conventions of the Greek theatre and
the environment that influenced the dramatic poet are bared to our
gaze. Finally, Aeschylus was not only more interested in the technical
problems of the drama than either Sophocles or Euripides, but as far
as at least exposition is concerned, he was more successful in dramatic
construction. Construction has been so generally regarded as the
weak point in the technique of Aeschylus that any statement to the
contrary seems almost paradoxical. I shall emphasize, accordingly,
throughout the paper this aspect of Aeschylus's dramatic genius, and
discuss his plays in greater detail than those of Sophocles or Euripides.

I. EXPOSITION IN THE TRILOGY

The general tendency of modern critics is to associate very closely

the three dramas of a trilogy. Indeed, the statement that the plays
of a trilogy which are connected in subject-matter are but three acts
of one great drama is so often heard that it has acquired something
of the value of a truism.' A few scholars, however, have insisted that
each play is complete and intelligible without reference to the others
of the group to which it may be related in plot. Twining goes so far
as to affirm that the four plays of a tetralogy were not performed at
one hearing, but at different festivals,2 - a theory not supported by
the didascalia preserved in epigraphical or literary sources.3 B6ttiger
shares Twining's opinion, and emphasizes the self-sufficiency of each
play with special emphasis upon the Prometheus: * " Nimirum per-
petuitas ista argumenti, tribus fabulis, mutuo inter se connexis, con-
1 Cf. G. Hermann, Aristotelis de Arte Poetica, Leipzig, 1802, p. 175; A. W.
Schlegel, Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, London, 1889, p. 82; F. G.
Welcker, Die Aeschylische Trilogie, Darmstadt, 1824, pp. 307-308, p. 445, P. 483;
R.Westphal, Prolegomena zu Aeschylus Tragidien, Leipzig, 1869, p.5; A. W. Verrall,
The Seven Against Thebes of Aeschylus, London, 1887, Introduction, p. xxxii.
2 Aristotle's Treatise on Poetry, London, 1812, Vol. II., pp. 332 ff.
" Cf. the hypothesis of Aeschylus's Agamemnon; the scholiast on the Frogs of
Aristophanes, v. 67; C. I. A., ii, 2, 973; Michel, Recueil d'Inscriptions Grecques,
Brussels, 19oo, ? 881; A. Wilhelm, Urkunden dramatischer Auffhilrungen in Athen,
Vienna, 19o6, p. 40.
* De Medea Euripidea cum priscae artis operibus comparata, 1803. Cf. Mis-
cellanea Philologica, ed. A. H. Matthiae, Vol. I, second edition, Leipzig, 1809, p. 315,
footnote.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
138 Evelyn Spring

tinuati, haud dubie maximam vim habit

animos, si eis lav pKp6aov ut cum Aristotele
geretur. Tum vero non tres fabulas habe
per quindecim actuum ambages circumducta
lum. .... Intercidit Prometheus Aeschyli I
qui inter utrumque medius intercessit, su
diligenter sibi cavit poeta nobilissimus, ne q
sine ope et adminiculo vel antecedentis ve
satis liquido <non>' perspici posset. Absol
Promethei Vincti. Vel hinc apparet illum
cum Horatio loquamur, ambulare funem, qu
et per plures fabulas fusum rite explicare au
A priori theories, then, on this point are co
In order to determine the relation between t
show an obvious continuity of plot, it is
subject-matter of the plays themselves. T
associated tragedies like the Agamemnon,
Eumenides ought to throw light upon the s
propose, therefore, to point out the connec
plays of the Oresteia and of other trilogies
similarly constructed, before I discuss th
employed in each play considered as a distin

I. The Oresteia
The Agamemnon summarizes the plot of
dra says (Ag. I280-1285)2 that there shall com
and avenge his father, - an exile returnin
stone upon the infatuate iniquities of his
expression between line I282 of the Agamem

Ka. lvny04s 6'of t7res rab6E Choehorroeo

and line 1042 of the Choephoroe,

Op. 4diyw 'a'X7Xt7r-q r-ae& Y+7 &naev
1 I have supplied the non which seems demanded by
2 References are to the lines of Sidgwick's editio
Murray's edition of Euripides in the Oxford texts
Sophocles refer to Jebb's edition, Cambridge, 1897.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 139

is noteworthy. A little later (Ag. i317-I319), Cassandra asks the

chorus to bear witness that she faced death fearlessly, when, for her,
another woman shall die, and another man shall fall for an ill-wedded
man. The possible objection to the interpretation of these passages
as deliberate preparation for the Choephoroe on the ground that Aeschy-
lus here with true dramatic instinct simply seized the opportunity to
make the prophetic power of Cassandra effective upon the stage, is
eliminated by later references in the Agamemnon to the Choephoroe
which proceed from the mouth of the chorus. Several lines are clear
echoes of the definite summary of the plot of the Choephoroe already
revealed by the despairing prophetess; 1646-1648 constitute a repe-
tition in brief of 128o-1285 and i317-i319, for the chorus ask whether
Orestes is not alive that he may return home with favoring fortune,
and slay the guilty pair. The significance of these verses is, of course,
none the less clear, though the suggestions are put in interrogative
form as a possibility, not as a fact. They are a concrete restatement
of Cassandra's less direct utterances. But more convincing proofs of
deliberate preparation for the second play of the trilogy are not lack-
ing. The chorus envisage (1428) a clot of blood over Clytaemnestra's
eyes, and announce (1429-1430) that she must atone for her deed,
blow for blow. Again they state (1535-1536) that Fate is sharpening
Justice on another whetstone for another dreadful deed. The chorus
cannot know the facts they reveal at this point, but Aeschylus with
the thought of the Choephoroe clearly in his mind, not unnaturally
permitted the elders to indulge in moral clairvoyance. Finally, in
response to the threats of Aegisthus, they say (1667) that they have
no fear, if Fate but guide Orestes's footsteps homeward. The Aga-
memnon makes no preparation for the third play of the trilogy, but
verses 617 ff. and 674-680 may look forward to the Proteus. In re-
sponse to the inquiries of the chorus for Menelaus, the messenger
announces that he disappeared in a storm at sea, but warns them to
expect first and foremost his return. The question of the chorus is
also intended to show that the elders distrust Clytaemnestra.
Unlike the Agamemnon, the Choephoroe does not summarize the
following play of the trilogy, but it does prepare for the Eumenides.
Clytaemnestra warns Orestes (924) to beware a mother's vengeful
hounds, and Orestes beseeches Helios (993-997) to be his witness in

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
140 Evelyn Spring

court that he slew his mother justly. The f

Erinyes (1048-io62), whether they actuall
or are merely creations of Orestes's disorder

of the events of the Eumenides. Verses i

the ceremonial rite of purification perform
and the latter's announcement (1035-1038
Loxias's shrine foreshadows the opening
Wilamowitz's emendation2 of lines 1040 ff.,
of the Medicean manuscript, introduces a r
the passage. If this is correct, the Choeph
anticipates the Proteus.
Aeschylus, accordingly, made definite pre
of the trilogy for the second, and in the
method varied. The Agamemnon summar
Choephoroe. The latter play provides no r
but it alludes to events of the third play
the way for the opening scene.
Furthermore, each play of the Oresteia
preceding play or plays. It is often difficul
a particular reference to a preceding traged
to facts of a myth which the poet might ta
fectly familiar to his audience. In the C
Orestes announces (563-564) to the chorus
and he will imitate the Phocian dialect, and
of Orestes's death from Strophius the Pho
stitute a definite allusion to lines 88o-88i of
Clytaemnestra says that Strophius the P
care, or are they simply a general reference
which other poets had previously popu
Pindar3 had already represented Orestes
who dwelt at the foot of Parnassus. Aga
1 Cf. Eum. 282-283; 576-578.
2 Aeschylos Orestie, Zweites Stack, Das Opfer am
1040: r& 6'5v Xp6bvoY ordt7rvras 'Apyelovs

Io41b: <Ai,77t vXdlovEp, oL'> ropabvO877 Kia

Io4Ia: Kait iaprvpe7v iot MevAXews ~ <rar
3 Pyth. 11, 34 ff., ed. W. Christ, Leipzig, 1896.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 141
(Cho. 8-9) that he was not present at his father's death or burial, we
cannot tell whether this is a deliberate echo of line 877 of the Aga-
memnon, where Clytaemnestra comments on the absence of Orestes,
or merely a mention of a stereotyped detail of the myth. When the
chorus (Cho. 649-651) speak of the child which Erinys brings into the
house to atone for its pollution, did the spectators then remember how
Cassandra saw the clear vision of that child (Ag. 1280-I28I), and how
the chorus threatened Aegisthus with the vengeance of Orestes (Ag.
I646-I648; 1667) ? The objection may be raised here that by the
time of Aeschylus the myths had assumed so many protean shapes in
the hands of various poets that it was essential for Aeschylus to make
his own version clear. Very true; but as I shall show in my discussion
of the separate plays,' his individual treatment 2 of a given myth is
not always, to us at least, perfectly lucid. Hence it is dangerous to
be dogmatic when interpreting doubtful passages such as I have cited.
It is necessary, therefore, to discuss only those lines which, beyond
the shadow of a reasonable doubt, may be regarded as deliberate allu-
sions to a preceding play.
There are frequent references in the Choephoroe to the manner in
which Clytaemnestra slew her husband in the first play of the trilogy.
The details of the great king's death described so vividly in the Aga-
memnon are reiterated. Once more the spectators were reminded of
the doom that came upon him suddenly when in the bath,3 and of the
suffocating net 4 or robe 6 that helped to consummate the deed. There
are also lines in the Choephoroe which are so strongly reminiscent of
1 Cf. below, pp. 210 ff.
2 It is surprising to see how many details of a particular myth did remain con-
stant. Tucker in his edition of the Choephoroe (Cambridge, 1901, Introduction, p.
xviii, footnote) comments on the extraordinary fact that the tragic writers of
Athens, who are always quick to introduce a reference to their own city, show no
traces of the tradition that Orestes came back from Athens. The explanation is
possibly this: as soon as the introduction of the ritual of Apollo the Purifier had
associated the vengeance of Orestes with that god, the residence of Orestes in
Phocis, in the neighborhood of the oracle, would tend to become a fixed element in
the myth.
3 Cf. Cho. 491; 668-671; 983-985 with Ag. 11o7-1Io9; II28-1I29; 1538-1540.
4 Cf. Cho. 492; 985-986 with Ag. 1114-1117; 1382-1383.
" Cf. Cho. 493-494; 986; IOI--ioiI with Ag. 1126-1128; 1383; 1492-1493;
i58o-I58i.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 142 Evelyn Spring
passages in the Agamemnon that they may
allusions to the first play of the trilogy. I
Clytaemnestra attempts to gloss over her guil
lonely life that a woman leads when bereft of

&XWyos yvvat~ v &vbpas e6pyE-aOa, T7KVOV,

an extenuating circumstance already touched u

(861-862),
Tob ,Av UvatKa rpcoov &p'evos 61Xa
Jaic0a~ 66Mo/s 'p)//Lov K1ra'yXov KaKbV.
The other excuses, also, which Clytaemnestra proffers in the Choe-
phoroe recall her attempt to palliate her sins in the preceding tragedy.
In each play she refers to Agamemnon's love for another woman,1
and endeavors to shift the moral responsibility for her husband's
death to the curse that rests upon their house.2 Furthermore, two
passages in the Choephoroe describe the circumstances of Agamem-
non's death. Of these, the first (132-134) seems frankly expositional
in character; the second and longer passage (973-1oo6) is dramatically
effective, and at the same time illustrative of the gradual exposition
of the past which was a characteristic method of Aeschylus.3
The Eumenides, like the Choephoroe, contains definite mention of
the details of Agamemnon's murder, and emphasizes again the im-
portance of the bath4 and the net I or the robe.' It also reviews in
two passages the chief events of the Agamemnon. These two sum-
maries are analogous to the two summaries of the Agamemnon in the
Choephoroe. The first (458-461) is chiefly explanatory in character;
the second (625-635) increases the tension of the trial of Orestes. It
is introduced as a part of Apollo's argument, and is designed to affect
the emotions of the jury. The Eumenides similarly alludes to passages
in the Choephoroe. The statement that Orestes killed his mother at

1 Cf. Cho. 918 with Ag. 1438-1447.

2 Cf. Cho. go8--9IO with Ag. 1475-1477; I500-I504; 1568-1571.
3 Cf. below, pp. 192 ff.
4 Cf. Eum. 461; 631-633 with Ag. 1107-1Io9; 1128-1129; 1538-1540.
6 Cf. Eum. 460 with Ag. 1114-1117; 1382-1383.
6 Cf. Eum. 458-461; 634-635 with Ag. 1126-1128; 1383; 1492-1493; i58o-
x58i.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 143
the bidding of Apollo is reiterated,' and emphasis is again put upon
the command of Loxias that Orestes come to his shrine.2 The Eu-
menides also furnishes a summary (462-467) of the main events of the
second play of the trilogy.
In the Oresteia, therefore, the practice of Aeschylus in alluding in
one play of the trilogy to a preceding play was more uniform than his
method of preparing in the first or in the second play of the group for a
following drama. The Agamemnon looks forward to the Choephoroe, and
possibly to the Proteus, but not to the Eumenides. The Eumenides,
however, makes clear reference to the events of both the Agamemnon
and the Choephoroe. These allusions forward and back to the different
plays of the trilogy undoubtedly establish a close connection between
them that was intentional on the part of Aeschylus. The appeal of
Orestes (Cho. 491) to his father to remember the bath in which he was
slain, would lose much of its pathos and force did not the spectators
recall Cassandra's prophecy and vision of that very death in the Aga-
memnon. An audience in whose ears were still ringing her frenzied
utterances at the time of the consummation of the murder would be
quick to grasp the terrific irony of Clytaemnestra's welcome to the
strangers, when she announces (Cho. 668-671) that her house has warm
baths for their comfort. Surely when Orestes displays (Cho. 985) the
robe stained with his father's blood, referring to it as a ~LKTVOV, the
sympathy of the spectators for Orestes was increased as they remem-
bered Clytaemnestra's exultant mention of the net (Ag. 1382-1383),
and her pride in the accomplishment of her unholy desire. Especially
worthy of notice here is Clytaemnestra's appeal to Orestes (Cho. 920):

&Xyos yvvatLlv avSpps e'lpyeaO~a, riKVOV.

This line, touched with pathos and spoken in all sincerity, as Cly-
taemnestra pleads for her life, would lose much of its power, if Aeschy-
lus's audience did not recall the hollow mockery and dissimulation of
the same thought as expressed in the Agamemnon (861-862). In
the same way, although Clytaemnestra in the Choephoroe offers virtu-
ally the same excuses for her crime that she does in the Agamemnon,3

1 Cf. Eum. 84; 579-580 with Cho. 269-273.

2 Cf. Eum. 205; 577 with Cho. o1038-o1039.
8 Cf. below, p. 146; pp. 148-149.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 144 Evelyn Spring

yet the excuses of the Choephoroe contrast

the first play. In the Agamemnon, Clytaem
sincere after the murder as she is in the Cho
tions at the moment of impending death
pathos. Aeschylus also desired his audienc
wishes to palliate her guilt.
Not to go into detail unnecessarily, I sha
to be the best illustration of the dependence
upon the others of the group. Although
phoroe to the dream of Clytaemnestra do n
Agamemnon, they show that the poet ass
clear recollection of the first play of the tr
(274-275), Clytaemnestra is scornful of d
to suspect that she is not sincere in this pa
is speaking the truth is probable from lin
presence of her husband, among other fabr
upon the terrifying dreams that have distur
To an audience that understood her real
power of dissimulation here must have been
the more insolent in the face of the chorus who know her sin. The
Clytaemnestra of the Agamemnon is at all times fearless, although
not, perhaps, for the reason that she proclaims (Ag. 1434-1436),

ovi /OL 46fov pLfXaOpov Xri~ //T7rarEi,

ews apV at0l 7r^p f ' frLa 1/mS
AZlOos, o r6 7W rpaOe-EV E 4povwJv /ioL.
But in the Choephoroe, Aeschylus wished to indicate that a change
has come over Clytaemnestra in this respect, and that the guilty
queen now knows what fear is. This transformation, however, he
could not possibly bring home to the spectators, if he did not take it
for granted that they would recall her attitude toward dreams and
her fearlessness in general, as revealed in the Agamemnon. For be-
yond all doubt, the Clytaemnestra of the Cloephoroe has come to
give credence to the dreams that shake her soal with terror. The
chorus refer vaguely at first (32-46) to the fear arising from dreams
that holds sway within the palace, and later, state openly (523-525)
that the queen, alarmed by visions of the night, has sent libations to

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 145
Agamemnon's tomb. The fact that Clytaemnestra mentions her
dream (928) just before her death proves convincingly that she feared

it. Similarly, in the Eumenides, lines ro4-io5,

6Cr'ov'aa y'p 4p-v 6v 1tccaarv XcXtairpbverc,
iv /pA pi UljoAp' F&rp66KoiTro f porP0v,
where Clytaemnestra rebukes the sleeping Furies, although these verses
are lovely enough in themselves, yet they demand for an appreciation
of their supreme significance the vivid recollection of Clytaemnestra's
earlier attitude toward dreams, as revealed in both of the preceding
plays. A later passage in the Eumenides (io6-IIo), which tells us
that the queen, alarmed after the death of her husband, attempted
to appease the Erinyes with many sacrifices, shows us the terror-
stricken Clytaemnestra of the Choephoroe in contrast to the resolute
woman of the first play of the trilogy.
This is proof not only of the intimate relation between the three
plays of the Oresteia, but also of Aeschylus's skill in seizing the en-
larged opportunity presented by the trilogy to portray the develop-
ment of character. Modern critics seem strangely blind to the dra-
matic advantages of the trilogy in this respect. Sidney Lanier'
comments on the absence of all provision for the growth of personality
in the dramas of Aeschylus, and Brander Matthews,2 although con-
scious of the other opportunities that the trilogy provided for a skilful
dramatist, does not discuss the possibility afforded by the larger dra-
matic unity for marking the evolution of character. The Clytaem-
nestra of the Choephoroe, as we have seen, is broken down with fear.
Another illustration of the interest and skill of Aeschylus in depicting
the transformation of character is seen in that part of the Choephoroe
where the poet emphasizes the love of Clytaemnestra for Aegisthus.
At line 585 begins a choral ode describing the passionate love of women.
Since it immediately precedes the interview of Orestes with his mother,
it is but natural to apply its moral to her. Indeed, lines 626-627,

yUvvaLopobXovss 7 7trlr76ans Opevw.v

ir' av6pIt reUeo6pqy,

1 The English Novel, New York, 1897, p. go.

2 The Development of the Drama, New York, 1903, PP. 70-71.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
146 Evelyn Spring

seem a direct allusion to Clytaemnestra.

play to her passion for Aegisthus are more
the death of her lover, she utters a cry of

of "yc,'. r~PKCxas, 4XCrar' AlytOov #3

and Orestes questions her scornfully (Cho. 8
~tLXElEs Tov a5vpa; roLyCap iv rabr' 7 r@
KELcYE. Oac6vrac c'oi5rt ni1 lrpoW4s rore

Finally, after Pylades's words of warning, he

with her love for her paramour (Cho. 904-9

erov, irp6s abroV r6voe u~ a& 4"ta Ot~X

KaI K3v)7ra yacp VLV KpGEOoOV' )ylfOw rC

-ob7-y OCavoOva vyx&EV6Sv', irel 4tLXEts
ToY eAvpa roTrov5, 0v ' 4xpqv XEThV -T

In remarkable contrast to these passages in

memnon strikes no note of real passion. I d
motive is not present in the Agamemnon
between the lines.1 But Aeschylus did not
it in that play. Even after Agamemnon'
speaks of Aegisthus with marvelous reserve

AVUlos, cs 7rb6 rp6oOev eD 4povw^ov 1

Her allusion to the death of Cassandra, as
ditional delight for her luxurious couch (
burst of fiendish glee rather than of deep a
the end of the play (Ag. 1672-1673), Clytaem
in her desire to protect Aegisthus from the
but her real passion is still controlled, and i
to cling to her lover. By suppressing any al
to the sacrifice of Iphigenia as a motive f
and by throwing into high relief the love o
Aeschylus was able to depict her as a wom
that perfect control of her feelings which
Agamemnon. This emphasis upon the erotic
has also great dramatic importance.2 It is
2 Cf. below, p. 153.
1 Cf. Ag. 1223-1226; 1625-1627.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 147
Aeschylus's versatile technique. In the Eumenides, we find a Cly-
taemnestra who more strongly resembles the virile queen of the Aga-
memnon than the weaker woman of the Choephoroe. Death has not
made her more gentle, but has restored her former steadfastness of
purpose.
A transformation of a different nature has come over the Orestes
of the Eumenides as contrasted with the Orestes of the Choephoroe.
In the latter tragedy (269-273), when Orestes is recounting to Electra
the command of the oracle that he must slay the murderers of his
father, it is the penalty for disobedience, not the divine injunction of
Loxias, that seems to inspire him with courage for the act. Besides,
in the passage (297-304) where he gives various motives for his de-
termination to kill his mother, the commands of the oracle are but
one of many impelling influences. At the crucial moment he hesitates
(879), and Pylades must needs admonish him of the consequences of
failure to consummate the deed at the behest of the god (Cho. 9o0-
902). But in the Eumenides (85-87), Orestes appears as a man who
who has been purified of all doubt by his sufferings. His religious
nature has deepened. There are not a few outward and visible signs
of an inward and spiritual grace that has come upon him. Above all
else, he is perfectly convinced of the righteousness of Apollo. His
submission is not due to mere physical exhaustion, because Orestes
himself bears witness to the lessons that sorrow has taught him (276-
279).
In another point of minor importance, the interest of Aeschylus in
the evolution of character is apparent. The love of luxurious living
which seems to have been a trait of both Clytaemnestra and Aegisthus
is merely suggested in the Agamemnon, but emphasized more dis-
tinctly in the Choephoroe. In the first play of the trilogy, there is
just a hint of this when the queen says (1574-1576) that it is enough,
though she have little wealth, to have freed the house of its mad-
ness that makes one man destroy another. But in the Choephoroe,
there are several definite references to this penchant of the guilty
pair. Electra refers (135-137) to the riotous existence indulged in
by the inheritors of her father's possessions, the chorus exult (942-
945) in the release of the house from its two ravagers, and Orestes
refers (973-974) to the dead lovers as plunderers within the palace.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
148 Evelyn Spring

Suggestive of this, also, are the frequent

prived of his possessions.1
These are some of the instances of the supe
poses, of the trilogy over the separate play
fifth century before Christ, as it witnessed
must have experienced a very unique and co
If, when they viewed the Agamemnon and t
nations were stimulated by many passages p
follow, their emotions could have been no l
piercing echoes in the latter tragedies of al
first consideration, therefore, it would app
Oresteia is so closely related to the others o
be regarded as an independent dramatic ent
arises whether each tragedy would be intell
had not witnessed the preceding play or pla
to the Choephoroe and to the Eumenides. Fo
only the definite allusions to preceding p
because, as I shall point out in discussing
the audience was clearly supposed to be conv
outlines of the myth.2
The Choephoroe is intelligible without as
any knowledge of the Agamemnon. When O
of his father (Cho. 491) to remember the ba
he alludes to an event that took place in the
Now the manner of Agamemnon's death, if
sions from extant dramas, was a detail of th
was likely to exercise his imagination and
But even if the murder of the king in a bath
peculiar to Aeschylus, the allusion to it her
the context. Similarly, lines 668-671 of th
obscurity; lines 983-985, if puzzling in th
been illuminated by line 491. The referen
are also lucid without any prior knowledg
excuses, too, that Clytaemnestra gives in
telligible without reference to the preceding
not awaken in the minds of the spectators (
1 Cf. Cho. 249-250; 275; 301;
2 Cf.407-409; 865.
below, pp. 170 ff

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 149
the memory of similar excuses familiar to them already from Homer.
Orestes, for instance, is ashamed to name the price which his mother
got for selling him (Cho. 917),

aaXtvvoca, ao oL roir') 6E,,eilL cacs4,

and Clytaemnestra replies (Cho. 918):

'XX' ed' 0 t'oos Ka' S rarp s rol oga' ras.

Here the allusion to Agamemnon's love for another woman is unmis-
takable, without the recollection of passages in the first play of the
trilogy that speak more plainly.1 It is not necessary for the sake of
clarity that Clytaemnestra should name Cassandra; in any case, the
identity of her husband's mistress must have been known to an audi-
ence familiar with Homeric traditions. 2 Verses 90o8-91o of the
Choephoroe are self-explanatory, and touch upon mythical details
which were perhaps already matters of common knowledge, since
Homer had represented Clytaemnestra as impelled to sin, not only
because of Aegisthus's entreaties, but also because of the decrees of
Fate.3

The Eumenides, also, is clear without the assumption that the audi-
ence possessed any familiarity with the Agamemnon. For lines 460-
461 seem to me lucid in themselves, but any possible obscurity is
obliterated a little later when the murder of Agamemnon is described
in detail.4 Similarly, the Eumenides does not demand, as far as clarity
is concerned, the recollection of the Choephoroe. Line 84 is a repetition
of the information given in lines 269 ff. of the preceding tragedy, and
line 205, without regard to lines io38-o039 of the Choephoroe, explains
why Orestes appears at Loxias's shrine as a suppliant at the beginning
of the play. It may be objected that, assuming no preliminary
knowledge of the Choephoroe, the significance of the opening scene of
the Eumenides would remain, if not actually obscure, at least ineffec-
tive, until line 205. But undoubtedly the spectators were supposed
to be conversant with the outlines of the myth,5 so that it is un-
reasonable to think that actually they would have to wait for com-
plete enlightenment.

1 Ag. I438-I447. 2 Odyssey, I1, 421 ff. 3 Odyssey, 3, 269.

4 Eum. 631-635. 5 Cf. below, pp. 17o ff.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 150 Evelyn Spring

There are other evidences, too, of the i

each play. If the Oresteia may be regarded a
lean trilogy, it was evidently not the practi
in the second and in the third dramas of the
obscure in preceding plays. Why, for instan
home when his father returned from Tr
(Ag. 877 ff.) that she sent Orestes to Stroph
latter, who warned her of the danger to he
so audaciously insincere throughout the ent
supposition is that she is consistently lying
sence of Orestes. Since Clytaemnestra aff
Orestes at the instigation of Strophius, the
Aeschylus's audience would be quick to suspe
desirous of getting rid of Orestes.' The Choe
ating than the Agamemnon in regard to t
915) refers to the fact that he was sold by h

aloaxp'Cs irprt'.y 9 AXevuOpov rarp6

but since Electra (Cho. 132) uses the same ex
and herself,
7rerpapL&ot yap PiOv y4 rcs aXX6e0a,

we must be careful not to interpret line 915 too literally, as Verrall

does.2 The most important passage in the Choephoroe for the solution
of this difficulty is line 913 where Orestes says that his mother cast
him forth to misery. But this, like line 915, may be figurative. We
may perhaps go so far as to say that Clytaemnestra was responsible
for the absence of Orestes, whether she herself sent him away, or a

1 Ag. 1282: 4tr&yds 8'&Xtlrs r7oS5e y s &r6bevos cannot be adduced as proof that
Clytaemnestra really banished Orestes (cf. T. D. Seymour, On the Duration of the
Action of the Orestean Trilogy, Classical Review VIII, 1894, p. 439), because of the
loose use of the word qvy-s in Greek literature. In the Electra of Euripides line 233:

To s Orestes
that , r XAwUJ rXigttovas
was banished. 4 r'yr
The poet XcSp; cannotexplained
has already be interpreted
(i6 ff.) literally
that the as
oldmeaning
nurse of Agamemnon rescued Orestes from the hands of Aegisthus and gave him to
Strophius.
2 The Choephoroe of Aeschylus, London, 1893, Introduction, p. xv. Verrall keeps

the Medicean reading 5Lxs, and understands &x&3s rp6dOnv to mean " a two-fold
sale of me."

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy I51
friend rescued him from peril. The Choephoroe, however, leaves the
details as obscure as they are in the Agamemnon.
Several passages in the Choephoroe also show that the poet did not
attempt to supplement the events of the Agamemnon by providing
additional information in the second play of the trilogy. There are
four of these passages.' Unfortunately for our purposes, however,
the interpretation of all, with the exception of lines 429-433, is dis-
puted by scholars, who do not agree upon a point that for the present
discussion is most important, - namely, the time when the events
here described took place.2 When did the chorus display the emotions
to which they refer (Cho. 423-428) ? When did the mutilation of
Agamemnon occur (Cho. 439-443) ? When did Electra bewail her
father's death (Cho. 444-450) ? There has been a general tendency to
refer these occurrences to the time either of Agamemnon's death or
of his funeral. K. O. Miller solves the difficulty somewhat too easily
by affirming that all these passages describe the circumstances of the
burial of the king.3 But the time of the mutilation is only vaguely
indicated in the text (Cho. 439-443), and for that reason it is not possi-
ble to dogmatize to the extent that Miiller does. A careful examination
of the text, however, puts no obstacles in the way of the statement
that these passages allude to events that occurred between the close
of the Agamemnon and the beginning of the Choephoroe, some of
which may have preceded the burial itself, for example, the mourning
of the chorus for Agamemnon and the mutilation of his body. Ac-
cording to this interpretation, these passages of the Choephoroe do
not illuminate the Agamemnon itself, but rather the period of time
which elapses between the first and the second play of the trilogy.
In the Eumenides, also, there is one passage that refers to a fact not
revealed in the preceding tragedies. It is in this third play of the
1423-428; 429-433; 439-433; 444-450.
2 Cf. F. Blaydes, Aeschyli Choephoroe, Halle, 1899, p. 131; J. Conington, The
Choephoroe of Aeschylus, London, 1857, p. 68; J. A. Hartung, Aeschylus Mutter-
miurder, Leipzig, 1853, p. 155; T. W. Peile, The Choephoroe of Aeschylus, London,
1844, pp. 208 if; T. G. Tucker, The Choephoroe of Aeschylus, Cambridge, i9oi,
p. ioi and pp. o05-1o6; A. W. Verrall, The Choephoroe of Aeschylus, London, 1893,
pp. 61 ff. and p. 65; Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aeschylos Orestie, Berlin, 1896,
pp. 200-201; Aeschylos Interpretationen, Berlin, 1914, p. 207.
3 Dissertation on the Eumenides of Aeschylus, London, 1853, pp. 204-205.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
152 Evelyn Spring
trilogy (io6-io9) that the spectators learn
Clytaemnestra during her lifetime made man
In the Choephoroe, mention was made only o
non's tomb. The sacrifices to the Erinyes ca
the course of the dramatic action of eith
Choephoroe. This allusion to them, then,
light not on the details of the preceding pl
that took place in the interval between th
and the beginning of the Choephoroe.
But it was not the primary intention of Ae
circumstances which occur between the play
period of time.' In the first place, if it wer
to inform his audience of events that too
tween two plays, he furnished astonishingly
place, he did not enlighten his audience i
importance. If his intention was to make
of the past, surely it was more important fo
years elapse between the end of the Agamem
the Choephoroe, and how Orestes first learn
rected him to slay his mother, than that
chorus lamented Agamemnon's death, an
ously for her father! Rather the poet to
not so much that he might elucidate obscur
of the past, as that he might render more d
plays in which these allusions are provide
which describe Electra's sorrow for her fath
are picturesquely pathetic, but not of special
ence's knowledge of antecedent circumstanc
ever, they are admirable, because they no
of the spectators for Electra and Orestes, b
factor in inspiring Orestes to resolve upo
Lines 429-433 and 433-443 of the Choephoro
terpreted. Here Aeschylus obviously dwel
took place between the end of the Agamemn
the Ckoephoroe, not primarily to clear up t
the emotions of his audience, - in short, to
1 Cf. K. O. Milller, Op. cit., p. 37.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy I53
totelian "pity and terror." In lines lo6-1og of the Eumenides, too,
Aeschylus did not announce that Clytaemnestra had sacrificed to the
Erinyes on many occasions in order that the spectators might realize
that she had been haunted by fear in the interval between the murder
of Agamemnon and the beginning of the Choephoroe. The terror of
Clytaemnestra he had already sufficiently emphasized in the Choe-
phoroe. But the dramatic exigencies of the Eumenides made the reve-
lation of her sacrifices to the Erinyes desirable at this time, and
Aeschylus did not miss his opportunity. He deliberately represented
Clytaemnestra as so little overcome with remorse after death, that
those very goddesses whom in life she had often sought to appease
with offerings she now beseeches to avenge her. A more startling
manifestation of the do ut des doctrine could scarcely be imagined.
Clytaemnestra asks the Erinyes to help her because when alive she
made sacrifices to them to avert their attacks upon her!
From another aspect each play of the Oresteia is in itself a complete
dramatic product. Aeschylus chose to represent Clytaemnestra in
the Agamemnon as chiefly influenced to murder her husband because
of the sacrifice of Iphigenia. The fact that in the Choephoroe Aeschy-
lus suppressed this motive, and threw into high relief the passion of
Clytaemnestra for Aegisthus, gives an entirely new atmosphere to the
second play. If, therefore, we may regard the Oresteia as characteristic
of Aeschylus's peculiar manipulation of the trilogy, it is exceedingly
dangerous to postulate the contents of a missing play of a connected
group from the subject-matter of an extant play of the same trilogy.
The new emphasis in the Choephoroe has its dramatic significance.
The erotic motive for the murder of Agamemnon would be particularly
likely to inspire Electra and Orestes with hatred for their mother, and
reasonably strengthen the justice of their vengeance. Besides, any
allusion in the Choephoroe to Iphigenia as a motive for Clytaemnestra's
crime would justify too much, for the dramatic exigencies of this play,
her claims upon the mercy of Orestes. The only direct allusion in
the Choephoroe to the sacrifice of Iphigenia is so untimely that this
excuse of Clytaemnestra's, made so much of in the Agamemnon, seems
to have been virtually abandoned by the poet. Electra refers (Cho.
242) to Iphigenia as piteously slain, at the very moment when she
greets her brother as the restorer of her father's house (Cho. 235-

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
154 Evelyn Spring

237)! In revealing Clytaemnestra's love of

the Choephoroe than in the Agamemnon
simply to bring out the heartlessness of Ag
justification for the crime that her son mu
every possible device, the poet endeavored i
her cruelty. The harshness toward her servan
exhibited in the Agamemnon, is intensified
Noteworthy in this connection is the suggest
that Clytaemnestra, when she murdered an
was eager to make life unendurable for Ore
for the murder which, of course, cannot
passive Orestes of the Eumenides, as contras
Orestes of the Choephoroe, is another cas
Orestes in the last play of the trilogy with
mother by divine command. It was in kee
dramatic purposes of the poet to portray Or
to the will of the god.
Aeschylus, accordingly, did not attempt to
dim outline of events depicted in preceding
clarify the interval between the plays. H
each tragedy most successful from a dra
sense, then, each may be said to have an ind
from its connection with the trilogy. In fa
consciously endeavored to produce in th
Eumenides dramas that would be intelligible
preceding plays of the trilogy. I say " con
summaries of preceding tragedies that h
132 ff. of the Choephoroe which contain th
Agamemnon are dramatically unnecessary
powers, and the shade of Agamemnon whom
the facts she recounts. If the purpose of th
to the emotions of the spectators through t
Electra, he expressed himself less happily
entire passage is explanatory in tone. Sim
(458-461), the first summary of the Aga
superfluous. Had Aeschylus not wished t
complete dramatic entity, he might easily h

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 155

as omniscient, although actually in this play, she does seem palpably

lacking in the highest attributes of divinity. Orestes relates to her
the experiences of his past, as if she were not in truth a very goddess
who heard his prayers from the Scamander.1 Deities in the epic and
in tragedy, it is true, never have their omniscience forced upon them,
but they seldom manifest the incredible ignorance of which Athena
is guilty.
To summarize, therefore, the points thus far emphasized, the con-
structive power of Aeschylus is admirable as revealed in the exposition
of the Oresteia. He did not think of each play as absolutely unrelated
to the others of the group, for he associated them closely. The direct
allusions forward and back to each tragedy demand for an appreciation
of their full significance an accurate knowledge of the entire trilogy.
The poet was also exceedingly interested in depicting the evolution
of character in the different plays of the trilogy. At the same time,
he was careful to make each play an intelligible dramatic entity with-
out reference to the others of the group. He further provided in each
a summary or summaries of preceding dramas. He did not clear up
in the following plays of the trilogy points left obscure in preceding
plays. He did not attempt to illuminate the period of time that
elapses between the plays. He manipulated the plot and characteriza-
tion in each tragedy so skilfully as to endow each with a distinct and
highly effective dramatic atmosphere of its own. The Oresteia, ac-
cordingly, is not really analogous to a play like Milestones,2 which
has been compared to a Greek trilogy. In Milestones, it is true, there
is a long interval between the acts. But Act II explains what has
occurred between the end of Act I and the beginning of Act II. It
gives no resume of Act I, nor would Act II be intelligible without
Act I.3 The true relation between the three plays of the Oresteia has
been admirably expressed in a recent comment made by Wilamowitz: *
" Wenn der Dichter die Kraft besass, jedes der drei Dramen zur vollen
Selbstaindigkeit auszugestalten und doch die drei inhaltlich, bis zu
1 Eum. 397-398.
2 By Arnold Bennett and Edward Knoblauch, New York, 1912.
3 For a play of the same unique structure which seems less widely known, cf.
Georg Hirschfeld's Agnes Jordan, Berlin, 1898. Act I takes place in 1865; Act II
in 1873; Act III in 1882; Act IV 5 days after Act III; Act V in I896.
*Aischylos Interpretationen, Berlin, I914, p. 51.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 156 Evelyn Spring
einem gewissen Grade auch formell, als e
lassen, wie wir es an der Orestie bewundern
und tragische Kunst in erh6hter Potenz."
Wilamowitz, however, does not analyze fro
single plays or fragments of other trilog
Were they similarly constructed ? Conjectu
ject-matter of lost trilogies have always been
I shall endeavor not to add to the imbroglio
the conclusions which may be drawn from
in regard to exposition in the trilogy.

2. The Supplices
The Supplices, like the Agamemnon and th
ward to the next play of its trilogy. The he
that Ares does not try this case by witnesses
it, many a man is to fall and shuffle off his li
ence to a battle that is to take place in the in
or to the murder of the sons of Aegyptus b
interpreted as a preparation for another pla
in which the maidens state that they have bo
(1043-1044) are similarly prophetic. Here
a summary of the plot of the next play, lik
Choephoroe contained in the Agamemnon, b
the succeeding drama in much the same w
Eumenides at line 924 of the Choephoroe.
to the events of the next play occurs in the

1 But cf. his observations on the Persae (Die Perser

1897, p. 397): Auch die Perser haben drei Acte, der
geworden sein wird. Denke man sich jeden von d
wie die Hiketiden und etwa fiir das Mittelstiick ei
Choephoren, die mit der Kinigin zum Opfer komm
Sinne der Oiltesten Trag6die." Cf. Interpretationen
ist besonders merkwiirdig, dass sie selbst der trilogi
poniert sind."
2 Rather than in the following play, if this was the Aegyptii. Cf. Wilamowitz,
Interpretationen, p. 20; Wecklein, Aschylos Die Schutzflehenden, Leipzig, 1902,
Introduction, p. 16. Wecklein, however, like Hermann, names the Thalamopoeoe
as the second play of the trilogy.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy I57
Pelasgus tells the herald that in time he and his fellow-travellers will
learn his name. The example of the Oresteia would lead us to expect
at the end of the Supplices a reference to the following play of the
trilogy. The division of the chorus is not in itself necessarily signifi-
cant, if the similar ending of the Septem, the last of its trilogy, is genu-
ine, as I would maintain.' But a succeeding play is certainly
suggested in the passage (1034-1042) in which one-half of the chorus
sing the praises of holy love, whether it is a defence of the conduct of
Hypermnestra in saving Lynceus,2 or a vindication of the crime of
the Danaids in slaying the sons of Aegyptus, as a protest against a
marriage where there is no love.3
The Supplices contains no allusion to a preceding play. It is the
opinion of Schlegel 4 that this drama is the second of its trilogy, and
that the poet was at fault because he connected it in no way with the
preceding (or following !) play. But the Choephoroe, the Eumenides,
and the Septem 5 consistently refer back to and give a summary of the
preceding plays. Hence, it is a plausible argument for assigning the
Supplices to the first place in the trilogy that it alludes to the events
of no preceding drama. Wecklein,6 Tucker,7 and Wilamowitz 8 place
it first in the trilogy.
The Danaides is generally assigned to the third place in the trilogy,
although the opinions of scholars in regard to its subject-matter differ
greatly. But Hermann is right in maintaining that much in this play
must -have been narrated.9 Most scholars who have attempted to
reconstruct this trilogy forget that the lyrical element so predominates
in the Supplices, that for the other plays of the group any complication
of plot is unimaginable. The Supplices itself, the first of the trilogy,

' Cf. below, pp. 218 ff.

2 Cf. Prometheus, 865-867:

KeLvatc abveuVov, &?XX' &"v'acXvO erac

3 Cf. Supp. 393-395-

? Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, London, 1889, p. 9o.
" Cf. below, pp. i6o ff. 6 Op. cit., Introduction, p. 15.
7 The Supplices of Aeschylus, London, 1889, Introduction, p. xxiv.
8 Aischylos Interpretationen, Berlin, 1914, p. 19.
g De Aeschyli Danaidibus, Opuscula ii, Leipzig, 1827, p. 323.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
158 Evelyn Spring

represents only the result of a catastrophe.

have been similarly constructed. I also dou
produced at a time when the drama was s
character, revealed more than the result of t
Danaids. The preserved fragment,1 contai
description of the power of love, points to a
forced into a marriage they abhor, or of
spared her husband for the reason suggeste
where.2 In either case, the third play of th
tained a summary of the events of the two
43, which seems to refer to the awakening o
morning, probably formed part of a narr
gests,3 although this interpretation of the
play I do not see how it is possible to regard
light. Like the Prometheus and the Eume
have been concerned chiefly with the elu
of the past. It is likely that it reiterated
provided in the Supplices. Pelasgus, havi
253) his identity for the benefit of the
938-939) the repetition of that informati
Aegyptus's sons until a later occasion. If H
Kai for 4 in Strabo, 5, 222,4 is correct, then
stated that the Pelasgians came from the
would imply an allusion in the third play of
related in the Supplices (249 ff.).

3. The Persae
It is the opinion of Wilamowitz 5 and of W
is in no way to be associated with the other
true that neither the Persae itself nor the f
trilogy bear out the supposition that the
1 Aesch. Frag. 44. 4 Aesch. Frag., 46.
2 Cf. above, p. 157. 6 Op. cit., p. 51.
3 Aisckylos Interpretationen, pp. 21-22.
6 Uber eine Trilogie des Aeschylos und giber die
berichte der philosophisch-philologischen und historis
demie der Wissenschaften zu Miinchen, 1891, p. 375.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 159

related in subject-matter as the Agamemnon, the Choephoroe, and the

Eumenides. But several passages show that the poet was careful to
establish a clear connection between the plays.
There is a probable allusion to the third play of the trilogy in the
passage (803-820) where Darius prophesies the disaster to come at
Plataea. It has been conjectured that the Glaucus Potnieus dealt with
the battle of Plataea.1 Indeed, Darius utters this foreboding of the
future with such meticulous detail that, with all due allowance for the
constant play to Greek sympathies that mars the Persae, it seems a
deliberate anticipation of events described in the next play of the tril-
ogy. The fragments of the Glaucus Potnieus are certainly suggestive
from this point of view.2 Glaucus, himself a Boeotian, perhaps de-
scribed the battle as he saw it.
The passages that mention oracles 3 allude plainly, as it seems to
me, to a preceding play.4 Now there is nothing obscure in the allu-
sions to oracles in the Persae, yet their full significance for this play
is not entirely clear. When Darius hears of the disaster at Salamis,
he refers (739-740) to oracles which have been fulfilled in Xerxes's
defeat. The Persae has no earlier mention of oracles. Was this point
elucidated in the first play of the trilogy ? From the analogy of the
Oresteia, I think it must have been. Since this matter of the oracles
is emphasized, the poet obviously regarded it as important. But the
new details in regard to the past set forth in the second and in the
third play of the Oresteia are comparatively negligible. None of them
approximate in importance the oracles in the Persae. Furthermore,
it is inconceivable that a Greek dramatist should make a sudden
allusion to the fulfillment of oracles, the real nature and significance
of which is left obscure throughout the play. The avoidance of dra-
matic surprises, as far as the spectators are concerned, is a character-
istic of Greek tragedy. The audience, like an Elizabethan audience,
1 Cf. Ahrens, Aeschyli Tragoediae Septem et Perditarum Fragmenta, Paris, 1864,
pp. 195-196; Lewis Campbell, A Guide to Greek Tragedy, London, 1891, pp. 158-
159.
2 Aesch. Frag., 37, 38, 39.
SPers. 739-740; 800-802; 829-831.
SWelcker (Die Aeschylische Trilogie, Darmstadt, 1824, P. 478) comments on
Pers. 739, and its conjectural relation to the Phineus, but does not give reasons for
his theory, in addition to the prophetic gift of Phineus.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 16o Evelyn Spring

is usually let into a secret early in the p

Persae have a striking resemblance to lin
where Clytaemnestra comprehends at las
dream, the details of which are given earlie
way, the nature of these oracles which is n
must have been set forth in the first play
probably their complete meaning was not
740 of the Persae were spoken by Darius. Ae
the same dramatic device in the Septem.2

4. The Septem
The analogy of the Oresteia applies more perfectly to the Septem,
perhaps because the three plays of this trilogy were more closely con-
nected in plot than the Phineus, the Persae, and the Glaucus Potnieus.
The Septem, like the Eumenides, contains summaries of the first two
plays of the trilogy. Lines 742-757 set forth in brief an essential
feature of the Laius and possibly part of the Oedipus. Lines 772-791
furnish a detailed r6sume of the Oedipus. There are also definite
allusions to the events of the preceding play. Like the references in
the Oresteia to preceding plays, these are clear in their context, but
require for an understanding of their full significance knowledge of the
other plays of the group. Such is the mention of the cause of the curse
in line 786, a specific reference which, although not absolutely obscure,
must have been previously explained. Similarly, in several passages
relating to the curse,3 the echoes of Oedipus's own voice must have
1 In the Choephoroe, the spectators saw Orestes place the lock of hair on his
father's tomb so that they did not share the bewilderment of Electra when she dis-
covers it. Similarly, in the Electra of Sophocles, Orestes prepares the way for
Chrysothemis's discovery by announcing that he will place a lock of hair on his
father's tomb. Again, Orestes directs the paedagogus to deceive the murderers
by telling them that Orestes perished in a chariot race. The audience, accordingly,
knew that his narrative is false. In the Philoctetes, there is a similar preparation in
the prologue for the false tale of Neoptolemus to Philoctetes that he was enraged at
the award of the armor of Achilles to Odysseus. In the Iphigenia at Aulis, the
spectators were informed in the prologue of the contents of the letter which Aga-
memnon wishes to send to Clytaemnestra at Argos, so that when Menelaus wrests
the letter from the paedagogus, they knew its contents.
2 Cf. below, pp. I6I ff.
3 Cf. 69-70; 653-655; 727-733.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 161
rung with dreadful clearness in the ears of many in the audience. The
allusions to the Sphinx 1 also have a reminiscent tone like the repeated
mention of the bath and the net in the Oresteia. Most interesting,
however, is Eteocles's exclamation soon after he learns that Polynices
is at the seventh gate (710-711): "Too true the phantoms that come
in dreams, visions dividing our father's substance." Since this is the
first mention of dreams in the Septem, they must have received fuller
treatment in the preceding play, to which this passage alludes, as
Hermann first observed.2 But the method of exposition adopted here
by the poet deserves further comment. These lines are but one of the
many suggestions in the Septem 3 that the curse of Oedipus was origi-
nally phrased in a cryptic manner. Although its baneful character
was probably clear, its real significance does not become apparent
until Eteocles knows that he must confront his brother. Lines 727 ff.
perhaps reproduce the symbolism of the dreams. The stranger from
Scythia, the mediator between the brothers, is now revealed as a sword
of iron. In lines 710-711, then, as in the references to the oracles in
the Persae, the gradual method of exposition, so characteristic of the
separate plays, is applied to the trilogy.
Fragment 173 apparently relates the circumstances of the murder
of Laius. Hermann 4 refers the passage to the Glaucus Potnieus, but
the mention of crossroads is certainly more suggestive of the death of
Laius. Furthermore, the region of Potniae seems to have been sacred
to the Erinyes. In the Orestes5 of Euripides, they are called 7orvim4es
Oeca. The meeting of father and son at a spot sacred to the Erinyes
would be deeply significant. Besides, an event of so much importance
as the murder of Laius must have taken place in the first play of the
trilogy. What would be the catastrophe of that tragedy, if it were
not the death of the king ? Aeschylus, in a trilogy produced as late
as this, would scarcely represent an event of such moment as occurring
in the interval of time which elapses between the end of the Laius
and the beginning of the Oedipus. If, then, this fragment is properly

1 Cf. 541; 558; 776-777.

2 De Aeschyli Trilogiis Thebanis, Opuscula vii, Leipzig, 1839, p. 19o.
s Cf. 727-733; 788-790; 816-818; 877-878; 884-885; 907-908; 942-944.
op cit., p. I95.
P 318.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
162 Evelyn Spring

assigned by Valckenaer to the Oedipus,i the

contained a recapitulation of the chief even

5. The Prometheus

The Prometheus outlines the plot of the foll

in the announcement of Hermes (1020-102
long concealment shall come forth into the
Zeus shall feed upon his liver, and there s
until a god shall be willing, by a vicarious
theus's place in Hades. The observation of
one to release Prometheus has not yet be
the events of the next play. Wilamowitz2
appearance of Heracles in the Prometheus So
Hesperides into the lines that mention (349
But the Prometheus probably refers to
I99 ff. should not be regarded as a review
The poet did not go into such unnecessary d
preceding plays that he provided in the Cho
and the Septem. Furthermore, in these lines
a full resume of a preceding play of the tri
(436-506) by describing minutely the pitiabl
before Prometheus brought them the gift of
from lines 555 ff. the third episode or end
which he believes was the first play of t
contrast their sympathy for the present suff
the joyful songs that they sang on the occa
Hesione. But quite apart from the doubtf
Aeschylus would use the same chorus in two
the actual dramatic representation of the m
play is unimaginable. This passage, like the m

1 It may, however, have formed part of the Laius i

2 Aiscylos Interpretationen, p. 122.
3 Caution must be exercised in interpreting the i
as really foreshadowing the future. Cf. 755-756 an
definite references to succeeding plays, would be inc
vided by Hermes (1020-1029).
* Die Aeschylische Trilogie, p. ii.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 163
the sacrifice of Iphigenia in the Agamemnon, is not to be interpreted
as an allusion to the events of any preceding play. Both illustrate the
poet's skill in vividly reproducing the past in choral passages.' If the
scholion on verse 94 of the Prometheus2 is not corrupt, the Prometheus
Ignifer must have been the third play of the trilogy. The theory that
it represented the founding of a cult of Prometheus the Fire-Bringer
is very tempting.3 The fragments of the Aetnaeae, the Bassarides,
the Edoni, and the Cabiri show Aeschylus's fondness for a local cult.
The Prometheus Solutus seems to have contained a definite allusion
to facts related in the preceding tragedy. In Fragment 194, Pro-
metheus is evidently recounting the benefits that he conferred upon
humanity, - a tale already twice-told in the Prometheus. The repe-
tition, however, is justified by the new chorus of Titans. Since they
are now released from Tartarus, the information set forth in lines
221-223 of the preceding play was perhaps reiterated. There Pro-
metheus states that through his schemes Zeus was enabled to bury
Kronos and his allies in the depths of Tartarus. The last play of the
triology, to judge from Fragment 208 a, must have alluded to preceding
tragedies. Here Aeschylus stated that Prometheus was in fetters for
three myriads of years. The discrepancy between this statement and
that given in lines 93-95 of the Prometheus4 is surely not important.
Both numbers are loosely used to express a long period of time.5
Westphal6 thinks that Fragment 208l has reference to the secrets
finally divulged to Zeus in the Prometheus Ignifer. If so, the play
must have contained passages reminiscent of Prometheus's obstinate
refusal to enlighten Zeus in the first play of the trilogy.

1 Cf. below, pp. 203 ff.

2 Aesch. Frag. 208 a: ev y&p r7 Trvpc6p Trpe~s pvptLdas ~5a il [AtldXos] 6e5&a0ao
abr6v.
3 Cf. R. Westphal, Prolegomena zu Aeschylos Tragddien, Leipzig, 1896, pp.
220-222.

e 8EPX?8' olats alawrtv

&taKvatL6levos 7r6 pupLer?
Xp6vov dOXebcw.

1 Wilamowitz (Aischylos Interpretationen, pp. 125-126) point

logical difficulties presented by the Prometheus.
6 Op. cit., pp. 217-218.
' oyWv O'67rov bet Kal X7ywv r7 Kalpta. 8 Cf. below

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 164 Evelyn Spring

6. The Myrmidones, the Nereides, and t

It is generally acknowledged that the My
and the Phryges formed a trilogy. The su
has been plausibly reconstructed, with co
regard to the chief events of each.' In the s
Thetis is thought to have appeared with arm
to his prayers. A preparation for the arriva
nized in the fragment from the Myrmidon
seems, exclaims 06rrXw 6rXowv 66ea. The Ne
with the death of Hector. Fragments 265
then, which apparently refer to the dead H
Wecklein to Priam and by Croiset to Herme
reference back to the events of the Nereides
midones. Fragment 490 which Wecklein assi
which may well have been uttered by Priam,
of Hector, with special reference to the dea
play of the trilogy perhaps summarized the
midones and of the Nereides.

7. The Armorum ludicium, the Threissae, and the Salaminiae

To a connected group are also assigned the Armorum ludicium,
the Threissae, and the Salaminiae.3 Fragment 177 from the Armorum
ludicium, 7rL yap KaXob'v v 4 Y 0lo0 XLiras 4opEL; is prophetic of the
catastrophe of the following play of the trilogy which contained the
death of Ajax.4 The scholiast 5 on verse 134 of Sophocles's Ajax
1 Cf. Hermann, De Aeschyli Myrmidonibus, Nereidibus, Phrygibus Dissertatio,
Opuscula v, Leipzig, 1834, PP. 136-163; Welcker, Die Aeschylische Trilogie, pp. 415
ff.; Wecklein, Ober eine Trilogie des Aeschylos und iiber die Trilogie iiberkaupt,
Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen und historischen Classe der k6n.
bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Miinchen, 1891, pp. 327-385; Croiset,

Eschyle Imitateur d'Homdre dans Les Myrmidons, Les Nirtides, Les Phrygiens,
Revue des Atudes Grecques vii, 1894, pp. 151-I8o.
2 Aesch. Frag. 140.
3 Cf. Welcker, Op. cit., pp. 438 ff.; Hermann, De Aeschyli Tragoediis Fata Aiacis
et Teucri Complexis, Opuscula vii, Leipzig, 1839, pp. 362-387.
4 Cf. Aesch. Frag., 83.

5 7-6 TW5 aLx.aXjrTw v K?7ep/ovKpYV /Cph, Ws AlBrxbhos sv Opihirats, ob /P)Yv brp-

onWrov. 6pac& y&p oio aiXYaXroVu irrtkY v r^ 7- MeUreX4L .

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 165
informs us that in the Threissae the chorus of captives inveighed
against the part taken by Menelaus in the award of the armor. This
implies a reference to the events of the first play of the trilogy. The
Salaminiae is conjectured, and I think rightly, to have told how Teucer
brought to Telamon the news of the death of Ajax. It must, there-
fore, have provided a summary of the first and of the second plays of
the trilogy, in order that the circumstances leading up to the suicide
of Ajax might be made known to Telamon. The Salaminiae would
thus conform to the practice of Aeschylus in the third plays of other
trilogies already discussed.
The conclusions, therefore, drawn in regard to the interrelation of
the plays of the Oresteia, are confirmed rather than contradicted by
an examination of other connected groups. Of course, all trilogies,
the plays of which were related in subject-matter, cannot have been
so carefully constructed as the Oresteia, but the plays of the other
trilogies are unmistakably cast in an analogous mould.

II. EXPOSITION IN THE SEPARATE PLAYS

In order to appreciate the methods of exposition that the Greek

poets used in the separate plays, each being considered as an intelligible
dramatic entity, it is necessary to understand the peculiar character
of ancient dramaturgy. The admiration that Horace expresses 1 for
the skill displayed by Homer at the beginning of the Odyssey because
"Semper ad eventum festinat, et in medias res
Nec secus ac notas, auditorem rapit,"

he must have felt also for the tragic poets of the fifth century before
Christ. Indeed, the successful playwright, even more conspicuously
than the epic poet, must skilfully condense the mass of material
available for literary treatment. Certainly the Greek dramatists of
this period were careful to obey a more or less conventional canon
which demanded that the poet should present to his audience merely
the culminating moments of his plot. This phenomenon, so far as I
can discover, was first commented upon by Dryden.2 " This rule of
time," he remarks, " how well it has been observed by the ancients,
1 Ars Poetica, 148-149.
f Essays on the Drama, New York, 1898, The Essay of Dramatic Poetry, pp. 19-20.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 166 Evelyn Spring

most of their plays will witness; you see

(wherein to follow this rule is certainly mos
beginning of their plays, falling close into th
they intend for the action or principal objec
part to be delivered by narration; so th
as it were, at the part where the race is to
them the tedious expectation of seeing the
beginning of the course, they suffer you n
in sight of the goal and just upon you." T
discussed in detail by Professor Post.' For
Greek tragedy this method of construction
in a Greek play, the spectators saw acted up
constitute simply Act III of a modern dram
of the play, it was necessary for the ancien
of the catastrophe, - the normal subject-ma
modern play. At the same time, it was ne
extraordinary skill in condensation, if he w
for his audience characters who appear on
existence.
Shakespeare reverts to the Greek method conspicuously in The
Tempest and in Hamlet, and in many of the historical plays, for ex-
ample, in King Henry IV, Part I. Here, as in the case of a Greek
tragedy, considerable retrospect is necessary to make the situation
clear. But in general, his tragedies, as well as his comedies, demand
no formal exposition of the past, beyond the explanation of a few
facts that may be made plain in a very few lines, after the delivery
of which the drama of the present promptly begins to develop. For
the Greek dramatist, however, any development of plot, such as we
find in Shakespeare, was out of the question, since the former presented
to his audience simply the catastrophe, thrusting into the past all the
causes in their actual operation. A good example of the difference
between the Greek and the ordinary modern method is Shakespeare's
Julius Caesar, a play which at first sight seems analogous to a Greek
tragedy because Shakespeare, like the Greek dramatist, could assume
that his audience, before the presentation of the tragedy, had a general
1 C. R. Post, The Dramatic Art of Aeschylus, Harvard Studies in Classical Phi-
Jology, Vol. XVI, 1905, pp. 15-61.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 167
knowledge of the characters and events to be depicted. But whereas
a Greek poet in Julius Caesar would have shown as part of the action
of the drama simply the murder of Caesar, Shakespeare portrayed
as part of the drama of the present all the events leading up to the
catastrophe, - the assembling of the crowd to witness his triumph,
and every detail of the growth of the conspiracy against him, all of
which a Greek poet would have thrust into the past.
Modern writers on dramatic technique and composition have not
been slow to recognize in Ibsen the modern protagonist of the Greek
method of dramatic construction.1 Upon first consideration it might
seem that the problem of elucidating the past was for Ibsen a more
difficult one than for the Greek poet, since the latter could assume for
his audience familiarity with at least the general outlines of the myths,
whereas the modern playwright who adopts the Greek method must
explicitly make all the circumstances of the past intelligible. It is
undoubtedly true that the Greek poet did take it for granted that his
audience was conversant with many details of the myths from which
he chose material for his dramas;2 at the same time, it is quite possible
to exaggerate the amount of preliminary information that the specta-
tors were supposed to possess. Antiphanes, to be sure, insists 3 that
tragedy is far easier to write than comedy, because in tragedy the
story is already familiar to the audience. Aristotle, however, gives
us the serious antithesis to this observation of the comic poet by re-
marking 4 that the best known of the myths were familiar only to a
few.5 Furthermore, even a superficial survey of extant Greek tragedy
reveals great divergence in the treatment of the old legends by the
1 Innocent, a play by George Broadhurst, produced in New York in 1915, is an
extreme instance of a modem revival of the Greek method. In the prologue of this
play, which is founded on the Hungarian drama of Arpad Pasztor, the guardian
of McCormick's daughter, Innocent, commits suicide. The ensuing acts explain
the reason for his death.
2 Cf. below, pp. 170 ff.
3 T. Kock, Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, Leipzig, 1884, Vol. II, p. 90,
Frag. 191.
* Poetics, 9, 8, 1451 b.
5 If this statement of Aristotle's is based on an intimate knowledge of Greek
tragedy, then the plays of Aeschylus certainly must have been written for the
cultured few ! But how could the drama by the time of Aristotle have been so
esoteric in its character ?

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
168 Evelyn Spring

individual poet. It was perhaps a point o

poets, while observing the traditional outlin
?rapeLXrAtkvovs bOovs, as Aristotle puts it,'
a manner as was possible. The Greek dram
less handicapped than the modern playwrig
res, as far as the clear exposition of the past
is hampered by the necessity of explaining t
of the past, the former, although he could
knowledge of what might be called the " sc
well have felt with Horace,
" Difficile est proprie communia dicer

I do not agree, however, with Professor Post

to which I have already referred, where, in
versions of a given myth, he observes: 3 " So
ledge that the people already possessed of th
ence at all, instead of giving the authors any
it all the more imperative that each dramat
takable the manner which he individually
first place, there were advantages for the a
tion of preliminary knowledge for the spect
Aeschylus, at any rate, seems not to have b
making plain his particular version of th
known in his day.5

I. Exposition in the Parodos or Prolo

The first question to be considered in exam
the separate plays is whether the situation a
drama is sufficiently clear. The parodos of t
tains enough explanatory matter to make in
action of the drama. The audience is infor
the chorus, the place of the dramatic action,
at which the play begins. Much of this ex
could be dispensed with, because it would
1 Poetics, 14, 5, 1454 a.
2 Harvard Studies in Class. Phil., Vol. XVI, 1905,
Cf. below, pp. 5
I Op. cit., pp. 23-24. Cf.ff.
196 below, pp. 210 ff

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 169
municated to the spectators in the program. But in the absence of this
modem convenience in Aeschylus's time, the suppliant maidens must
needs speak openly of themselves (I-io), state their father's name
(ii), and announce that the soil on which they stand is Argive.
Euripides, in general, adopted an equally direct method of establish-
ing the identity of characters who appear in the opening scene, as
Von Arnim has observed.' Frantz has shown2 that Sophocles was
similarly careful about this point. Owing to the lack of a curtain,
the chorus of the Supplices cannot be " discovered " grouped as sup-
pliants about the altars of the gods, as the curtain rises; hence, they
must state that they are suppliants (21) before they turn to their
prayers.3 The spectators further learned what part of the myth re-
lating to the Danaids was to be treated in this play. Although the
poet did not state openly whether the betrothal of the Danaids to the
sons of Aegyptus had already taken place, yet he made it plain that
departure from Egypt or acquiescence in the marriage was necessary.
The method that Aeschylus used to disclose antecedent circum-
stances in the parodos of the Supplices is interesting because it is
precisely the same that Euripides adopted in his formal prologues.4
Everything that relates to the past is frankly set forth with no attempt
at gradual elucidation or natural dramatic action to accompany the
necessary explanation of the situation. This mode of exposition may
seem to have a legitimate excuse since the Danaids are strangers in
a strange land, and yet from the later plays of Aeschylus it is evident
that the poet did not regard such open explanations at the beginning
1 De Prologorum Euripideorum Arte et Interpretatione, Greifswald, 1882, p. 82:
" In eis fabulis omnibus quae ante Siculam expeditionem actae sunt primis statim
versibus persona rpoXoyilovaa quae sit significat; neglegentiorem se gessit Euripides
in fabulis quas post illam scripsit; " pp. 83-84: " Locum actionis intra procemium
indicatur notaturque pronomine 6e."
2 De Comoediae Atticae Prologis, Treves, 1891, p. 68: " Sophocles quinque in
tragoediis ita instituit ut altera duarum personarum quae primae in scaenam pro-
grediuntur ordiatur ab alterius nomine proferendo; paulo post illa respondet et
plane eodem modo in responsi initio illius nomen ponit."
3 Similarly, the fettering of Prometheus in full view of the audience forms part
of the dramatic action of the Prometheus.
* Throughout this paper I have used the word " prologue " in its Aristotelian

sense. Cf. Poetics, 12, 2, I452b: laTLy 6b rpb6oyos pip / 6Xpos 6Aov rpayTcylas r rp5
Xopo0 irapbov.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 17o Evelyn Spring
of a drama as either necessary or artistic. Th
from the time that they first appear upon th
terror and their reverent trust in Zeus, and, acco
lifelike than many of the speakers in the prologu
often display no emotion. Whether Thespis 1 o
dramatist, possibly Phrynichus, was the inventor
is easy to see how it was the natural development
ginning, like the Supplices, with a chorus exp
after its entrance all the circumstances antecedent to the action of the
drama proper. Later, when the appearance of an actor preceded that
of the chorus, the explanatory remarks of the chorus were naturally
transferred to his lips without any necessary modification of the formal
substance of the opening lines.
The situation at the beginning of the Supplices is, as I have said,
clear, - that is, the poet gave his audience all the facts of the past
which it was necessary for them to know in order to understand the
rest of the play. But I am sure that he assumed that his audience was
familiar with some details of the myth to which he might safely refer
without immediate explanation. The allusions (15 ff.) to the descent
of the Danaids from the heifer would be sheer nonsense to an audience
that had no preliminary knowledge of the transformation of Io. It
is true, however, that in lines 291 ff. the story of Io is told in great
detail. We are, therefore, confronted with the question whether
Aeschylus deliberately adopted here the gradual method of exposition
for the myth, so that it is not necessary to suppose that the references
at lines 15 ff. were perfectly lucid to his audience. The distributive
method of exposition was characteristic of Aeschylus and skilfully
manipulated by him.2 But he did not make use of it in instances where
ambiguity would result in the allusions leading up to complete eluci-
dation. Here, then, I should say that the poet believed that the
references at lines 5 ff. would be sufficiently intelligible to his audience,
so that he might reserve for the proper dramatic moment the revela-
tion of the details in the myth of Io.

1 Cf. Themistius, Orat. 26, 316 d, p. 382, ed. Dindorf, Leipzig, 1832: Kal o b rpoa-
xo/Aev 'AptrromrXet 6rt r6 jv 7rpcro7o 6 xopbs eiLortc ev el' sros Oeobs, Ooirts 6~

Irp6Xobyov
2 Cf. below,re
pp.Kap
192 Iff.Lv te.vpe.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 171

Sophocles, like Aeschylus, assumed that the spectators were con-

versant with the outlines of the myths that he treated in his dramas.
In the Philoctetes (72-73), and in the Ajax (1111-1114), he plainly
took it for granted that his audience was familiar with the story of the
oath by which the suitors of Helen had sworn to her father Tyndareus
that they would help Menelaus if he were robbed of her. Otherwise,
the observations of Odysseus and Teucer respectively would have
been meaningless. In the Antigone, also, (1303) it is evident that the
spectators were supposed to know about the heroic sacrifice of Me-
gareus. Line 552 of the Oedipus Coloneus shows that they must have
been familiar with the circumstances attending the blinding of Oedipus.
The allusion to the unnamed master of Heracles in lines 35-36 of the
Trachiniae, as well as the subsequent mention (Io49) of the tasks
imposed by Eurystheus, implies preliminary knowledge on the part
of the spectators. Similarly, they would not have understood the
taunting reference to Odysseus in the Ajax of Sophocles (190) and in
Fragment 175 of Aeschylus, had they not known the legend that
represented Sisyphus as the lover of Anticleia before her marriage to
Laertes.

Euripides, also, in spite of the innumerable details that crowd his

prologues, presupposed a certain degree of knowledge for his audience.
In the Electra, for example, he certainly assumed that the spectators
knew of the oracle that directed Orestes to slay his mother. This is
obvious from two passages' that lead up to the definite mention of
Apollo's dread command in lines 971-973. In like manner, in the
Andromache, it is evident that the. audience must have been familiar
with the legend that represented Neoptolemus as having demanded
reparation from Phoebus for his father's death.2
Did Aeschylus also suppose that his audience would understand the
reason for the aversion of the Danaids to the marriage ? This is not
clearly indicated in the Supplices, as is proved by the contradictory
conclusions of modern commentators.3 Like the sin of Agamemnon
which brought down upon his head the wrath of Artemis, it is entirely

1 87-89; 399-400.
2 Cf. 49-55; 1002-oo003; iio6-iio8.
3 Cf. G. Hermann, De Aeschyli Danaidibus, Opuscula ii, Leipzig, 1827, p. 330;
W. Ridgway, The Origin of Tragedy, Cambridge, Ig9o, pp. I87-189; N. Wecklein,

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
172 Evelyn Spring

TO) aro^ bpdEaros. It is really impossible to

thought that his audience would follow a
myth current at that time, or whether he in
only partially explained. The matter is n
serve, of especial dramatic significance. F
Aeschylus needed to make plain only that t
the thought of marriage with their cousins
occur to us to criticize Shakespeare for no
reason for the enmity between the Mont
Romeo and Juliet, since he made it clear th
other. Similarly, in the Supplices, Aeschy
perfectly well consign the precise causes for
to the marriage to a convenient limbo of
summary of the Laius contained in the Se
did not dilate (as I believe he did not in t
sin of Laius which induced the prohibitive w
dwelt simply upon Laius's disregard of d
Agamemnon, the " original sin " of the r
Atreus. The poet did not take his audien
history of the ill-fated house. Even Eurip
with explanations, did not review the pas
hear in the Alcestis how Apollo persuaded th
substitute Alcestis for Admetus. The except
in the case of the observation " nothing has
fully illustrated in the drama, for it is absol
should have a definite starting point. Thi
arrival of the Danaids from Egypt, in flight
The situation at the beginning of the Pe
outlined by the poet as in the parodos of th
learned, to be sure, in the parodos of the Pe
is composed of Persian elders whom Xerxes
of the Persian kingdom in his absence (i-7
mighty army into Greece (12-13), and that

Studien zu den Hiketiden des A eschylos, Sitzungsberich

und der historischen Classe der kin. bayer. Akademie
1893, Zweiter Band, pp. 393-450; Wilamowitz-Moel
tationen, p. 15.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 173

of the expedition been announced (I4-15). But there is no mention

of the Persian city in which the scene of the play is laid,' and what is
more important, the parodos of the Persae does not explain the pres-
ence of the chorus. After the parodos (140 ff.), the elders, indeed,
provide an apparent explanation of their assembling together, but
this is really no explanation at all, for they represent themselves as
coming together to deliberate upon the question as to how Xerxes
fares ! Naturally, they do not proceed to consider this futile topic,
and the appearance of Atossa is welcome. Now it would have been
so easy for Aeschylus to represent the elders as having come to con-
sult with Atossa at her summons that it is strange that he did not ex-
plain the appearance of the elders upon the scene of action in a really
satisfactory way. Perhaps we may see here the influence of Phrynichus
upon Aeschylus. The hypothesis of the Persae found in the Medicean
manuscript mentions the fact that this play is an adaptation of
Phrynichus's Phoenissae. It adds that the opening scene of the latter
introduced a eunuch arranging seats for a meeting of the councilors
of the Persian kingdom. Aeschylus may have incorporated into his
Persae the beginning of Phrynichus's drama. In other respects, how-
ever, he was careful not to follow the example of Phrynichus. He
adopted a chorus of men rather than of women; he dispensed with
the eunuch; he postponed the announcement of the defeat of the
Persians until later in the play. It is curious that he should not have
been equally cautious with regard to the meeting of the elders.
But in other details, the parodos of the Persae, as compared with
that of the Supplices, marks a distinct advance in the dramatic art of
Aeschylus. For one reason, it does not immediately unfold the past,
but holds a few important facts in reserve for later revelation.2 Again,
it seems less frankly explanatory of antecedent events (although it
smacks somewhat of the formal prologue), because it surrounds the
play with the proper atmosphere at the very beginning. The vague
forebodings of disaster uttered by the chorus prepare the way for the
evil tidings to come, and strike immediately the note of despair that
is characteristic of the entire drama.

1 I am unable to find in the text any statement to the effect that the scene is laid
at Susa, although commentators frequently assert this. Aeschylus perhaps had
in mind another capital city of the great Persian empire.
2 Cf. below, pp. i93-194-

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
174 Evelyn Spring

In the Septem, the information that the a

beginning of the play is supplied, not in a so
but in a prologue divided into two parts. In
Eteocles addresses the citizens of Thebes
messenger brings news of the Argive army
is made clear in the first part of the prolog
audience was familiar with the outlines of t
himself (6); the place of the action is fix
after a long siege the Achaeans are now p
the city (28-29). There are several indica
garded his audience as cognizant of the main
to Oedipus and his house. The question is
the case of the Agamemnon, which we know
trilogy. Of course we cannot ascertain th
dramas that preceded the Septem. We need n
baffled. I am convinced that Aeschylus pres
knowledge of the quarrel between the son
then realize at the beginning of the play tha
city against the attack of Polynices. Sid
contention of the brothers was treated in O
the trilogy. But it would certainly be un
an Oedipus containing both the catastroph
the catastrophe of his sons' quarrel, even
treated in the same detail as the fall of Oed
of the Oedipus contained in the Septem has
agreement of the brothers. The poet would
this in silence, had it been a part of the
ence must also have had preliminary know
Amphiaraus referring to Adrastus. The m
that the Argive chiefs hung tokens for their
Adrastus, an unintelligible proceeding to an
with the prophecy foretelling the escape of
Argive leaders.
It is interesting to observe that Aeschyl
only were the spectators familiar with th
chiefs also knew of it. Otherwise, why did
1 Aeschylus, Septem Contra Thebas, Oxford, 1903

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 175
chariot of Adrastus ? But as Tucker1 points out, if the Argive leaders
had known that they were to die, the entire attack and the oath that
they give (46-48) would be ridiculous. He suggests the possibility
that the chiefs, though not convinced by the seer, yet took these
precautions. But later in the play (378-379), we are told that the
seer does not permit the Argives to cross the river Ismene because the
omens are unfavorable, not because of any prophecy that they will die.
If they knew of the oracle that doomed them to death, then lines
378-379 are certainly an anticlimax. Amphiaraus refers (587-588)
only to his own approaching death, and nowhere in the entire drama
is mention made of the impending death of the other leaders. The
saner interpretation of lines 49-51 is that Aeschylus for the moment
thoughtlessly assumed for some of his dramatis personae knowledge of
facts that he might without reprehension assume for his audience.
Sophocles was in like manner at fault in the Trachiniae (821-836), when
the chorus refer to the prophecy that after twelve years the toils of
Heracles should be ended. But Deianira, who first informs the chorus
of the inscribed tablet that Heracles gave to her as he departed, says
nothing of the oracle, and what is more important, does not refer in
any way to the period of twelve years.2 Logically, of course, the
chorus should not know what Deianira does not tell them. Sophocles
evidently forgot that his chorus ought not to be represented as cog-
nizant of all the facts of the myth which he took for granted on the
part of the audience.
The entire prologue of the Septem is constructed with a high degree
of art. The first part combines with the necessary exposition natural
dramatic action. Eteocles has come to direct the citizens to man the
battlements in preparation for an attack. Here all purely explanatory
details are reduced to a minimum, and the action begins immediately
with something of the admirable swiftness of more modern productions
like Cyrano de Bergerac. The absence of playbills, a curtain, programs,
and other paraphernalia of the theatre seems to have been no draw-
back in the way of a display of the poet's great dramatic ability. In
addition to this, the first part of the prologue, like the witches' scene
in Macbeth, puts the spectators in the right mood by emphasizing
1 The Seven Against Thebes of Aeschylus, Cambridge, 19o8, p. 21.
2 Cf. Tr. 156-158; 164-165.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 176 Evelyn Spring

immediately the tense patriotism of Ete

the prologue is skilfully prepared for by th
announces that he has sent forth scouts, an
the details given in the first part in regard
part of an Euripidean prologue so often
instance, the dialogue between Thanatos
constitutes the second part of the prologue
nouement, simply repeats the explanations
But lines 39-77 of the Septem relate absolut
antecedent circumstances, and elucidate fur
ready set forth in lines 1-38. For the detail
provided in lines 39-56 are new, and line 59
y'yv s y&ap 1qS qrcavorXo s 'ApyELcwv ar

throws light on line 28,

Xyry t etiryrT7r7v pocr3oX'v 'AXauSa,

in substituting the particular word 'Ap-yewv
'AxacLa.
This was the method of Sophocles, too, in most of his tragedies. In
the Trachiniae, for example, the second part of the prologue begins at
line 64 with the entrance of Hyllus. In the course of lines 64-93, it be-
comes evident that Heracles has been for many months in the service
of a Lydian woman, an important fact not divulged in the first part
of the prologue. Moreover, lines 64-93 clarify the preceding expo-
sition, for lines 76-81 throw light on the rather obscure reference in
lines 46-47 to the X7Trov that Heracles left with Deianira. In the
Oedipus Coloneus, the exposition proper is transposed to the second
part of the prologue. The first is a very natural and exceedingly
beautiful conversation between Oedipus and Antigone.
The prologue of the Prometheus, like that of the Septem, has two
parts, of which the first provides sufficient explanation of antecedent
conditions. The place of action (1-2) and the speakers of the pro-
logue (3; 12; 85) are named; the tragic situation of Prometheus at
the beginning of the drama is also explained (7-8). The point in the
myth at which the play opens is clear, for it is evident that Prometheus
has stolen fire, and is about to submit to punishment for his daring.
The information provided here is much more baldly explanatory of

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 177

the situation than that disclosed in the prologue of the Septem. It

resembles somewhat the method used in the Supplices and in the
Persae, but the dialogue form that the exposition assumes reveals
a distinct improvement in dramatic technique. The ascription of the
invention of the second actor to Aeschylus would point to him as the
originator of this form of exposition which Sophocles used with such
consummate artistry. If the Hectoris Redemptio of Aeschylus began
not with an anapaestic parodos, but with a prologue, the latter was
cast in a mould analogous to that of the Prometheus. But v apxats in
the fLos' should perhaps not be pressed to mean the prologue. In the
Prometheus, the presence of all the characters upon the scene of action
is reasonably explained, and the necessary elucidation of the past is
supplied dramatically in the conversation relating to the fettering of
the rebellious god. The second part of the prologue (88-127) adds
several new details relating to past events. From lines 93-95 it is
apparent that Prometheus knew, when he stole fire for mankind, that
he must suffer for his sin thousands of years, and lines log-III expand
the tale already told (7-8) of his misdemeanor. The effectiveness of
the outburst of the impassioned Prometheus to the elements, coming
as it does, after his long silence during the first part of the prologue,
is one of the many instances of Aeschylus's skill in combining necessary
explanation with dramatic situations of supreme power. If we may
postulate for this tragedy only two speaking actors,2 the silence of
Prometheus is perhaps inevitable, but the ability of Aeschylus to
make the exigencies of the Greek stage subserve the purposes of his
art is none the less admirable.
In this play, also, it is plain that Aeschylus credited the spectators
with knowledge of the myths that he treated. Hephaestus announces
(27) to Prometheus that the one to release him has not yet been born.
It would be absurd to read into this line any enigmatical allusion to
the fate of Prometheus. Such surprises are not Greek; I besides,
Hesiod had already made Heracles as the deliverer of Prometheus a
familiar figure.4 It is, therefore, unnecessary to suppose that in a
1 Cf. the AclabXov los: 9v re 7Ois 'EKTopos Xsrpots 'AX&XXebs 6/lotWs tyKeaXvu/Calv os
ob O&'-ycraet, rXj) v &pXacLs 6Xya c pcs Eppulv &po43oa*a.
2 But cf. K. Rees, The So-Called Rule of Three Actors in the Classical Greek
Drama, Chicago, 1908, p. 56, note 2.
2 Cf. above, pp. 159 ff. 4 Theogony, 526-527, ed. A. Rzach, Leipzig, 1913.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 178 Evelyn Spring

preceding play mention was made of a d

More probably, Aeschylus assumed here
miliar not only with the manner of Prometh
the identity of his rescuer. Two passages
873) discuss the releaser of Prometheus, but
It is evidently a detail of the myth with wh
posed to be acquainted.
The situation at the beginning of the Agam
The audience learned the identity of the s
io), the place of the action (23-24), and th
myth with which the plot of the play is
points relating to antecedent circumstances
more carefully than in the opening scene of
discussed. The spectators were informed,
the action is Argos (24), but also that the sc
Agamemnon (3). The poet also specificall
time of the opening scene. The exposition
because the musings of the watchman are d
tory in character. There is a reasonable mot
the scene of action. The business of expos
ately despatched. In this respect, the opening
is more artistic than most of the prologues o
suggests: " Dagegen hat Aischylos sich sehr
das Drama mit einem fertigen Bilde zu b
dem Schlosse von Argos wird eine Weile s
beginnt, Orestes auf dem Grabe des Vaters s
beschdiftigen, ehe er heruntersteigt: die
Stimmung. So war es auch in der Niobe u
Hauptpersonenen verhtillt auf der Biihn
moreover, contains the exciting force which
since all the events that ensue come as the inevitable result of the
appearance of the signal-fire that meant the fall of Troy. It also
envelops the tragedy at the very beginning with an atmosphere of
mystery and gloom, by means of the naive but deeply significant ob-
servations of the watchman. Finally, the poet's obvious interest in
characterization is revealed by the manifest pains he takes to provide
1 Aischylos Interpretationen, pp. 56-57.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 179
the speaker, humble man though he be, with a strong individuality of
his own.
Here, if ever, the audience was supposed to have preliminary
knowledge of the myth upon which the tragedy is based. The state-
ment of the watchman (2), for example, that he has been on guard for
a year implies familiarity with the myth which told of the prophecy
that Troy would be captured in the tenth year of the war.' Otherwise,
the reason for the watch of a year's duration would not be clear.2
Obviously, Aeschylus thought it unnecessary to explain what or where
Troy was or who the Atridae were, but these are, after all, superficial
details. Others are of far more moment. For unless the poet could
be absolutely sure that the spectators knew the plot of the play before
its actual presentation in the theatre, the watchman's subtle remarks
(I8-Ig) about the disaster that has come upon the house, no longer
managed as is best, would have been meaningless; the audience would
have lost to a lamentable degree the force of his ambiguous and
ironical characterization of Clytaemnestra (ii), and would have com-
pletely failed to appreciate his loyal reticence when he learns that his
master is coming home (38-39).
In spite of the lacunae at the beginning of the Choephoroe, the con-
dition of affairs when the play opens is even clearer than in the pro-
logue of the Agamemnon. The city, to be sure, in which the action
takes place is not named, but Orestes refers (6) to the river Inachus,
and states openly (3-5; 18-19) that he has come to his father's tomb
to avenge his death. Like the prologue of the Agamemnon, the open-
ing scene of the Choephoroe is dramatic as well as expository. Orestes
is no 7rpbcr nwrov 1rpoTa1TK6v. He is present for a purpose, and the lock
of hair that he places on his father's tomb provides the exciting force
of the action that follows the prologue. The intensely serious and
sad temperament of Orestes is also emphasized immediately. The
assumption that the audience knew the outlines of the story to be
represented dramatically is conspicuous here as in all the plays.
Orestes does not name himself, at least in the fragmentary prologue

1 Cf. Iliad, 2, 329: r 8^K cT 7r6X L alpaoo/E ep,6pyv4cua,.

2 But to say, as Verrall does (The Agamemnon of Aeschylus, New York, 1904,
Introduction, p. xxxiii), that this year-long watch presupposes the adoption by
Aeschylus of the Homeric plot, as set forth in the Odyssey, 4, 526 if., would be un-
justifiable.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 180 Evelyn Spring

that has come down to us. It is sufficient

18) his sister Electra. At lines 20-21 the casu
addresses Pylades shows that by this time h
a familiar if not stereotyped element of th
supplies no later explanation of their relatio
The opening scene of the Eumenides is laid
(34-35). The priestess of the great god is th
logue (29). Orestes is still pursued by th
state of affairs is sufficiently lucid, only if
thought it superfluous to label all his dramat
familiar with the story of Orestes. He did n
Orestes or the Erinyes. The prologue of the
cause of its quadripartite structure. Line
pository matter; the three remaining parts '
details, but are far more skilfully constructe
much the first division of the priestess's sp
Euripidean prologue in its baldly expositi
perfluous nature. Ziel 2 has commented
sition of this play, but only lines 34 ff. sho
cannot account for the lack of artistry di
trilogy which is so perfect a specimen of A
as a dramatist in any other way than by
desired here to make plain his own peculiar
He put great emphasis upon the just succe
shrine (5 ff.), and upon the Zeus-inspired
It is easy to see the importance of these d
The first strikes the keynote of peace that
which the dread Erinyes are to undergo a tr
goddesses. The second is necessary for a clear
where Apollo asserts that all his oracular ut
by the will of Zeus. From a dramatic poi
recital of the priestess is a blot on the artis
maintain that the speech has something of

1 34-63; 64-93; 94-116.

2 Uber die dramatische Exposition. Ein Beitrag zur
1869, p. 16.
3 Cf. his description of the Furies (46 ff.), which is obviously original.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 181
ophany in Euripides is not an adequate apologia for its undramatic
exposition. Deities, it is true, need not be involved in dramatic
business. But the additional explanations of the second part of the
prologue, although they, too, proceed from the inspired lips of the
priestess, assume a natural and dramatic form. As she turns away
from the audience to enter the shrine, she catches sight of Orestes,
and her horrified exclamations come as a result of what she has seen.
The remainder of the prologue, also, consisting of the conversation
between Apollo and Orestes, and Clytaemnestra's angry appeal to
the sleeping Erinyes, is a reasonable part of the development of the
drama of the present, and also provides the opportunity for further
elucidation of the past.
To recapitulate: The situation at the beginning of all the extant
plays of Aeschylus is clear, provided it is admitted that the poet pre-
supposed for his audience a general knowledge of the myths that he
used as foundation for his plots.' The technique of the poet reveals
the normal development that is usually characteristic of a great literary
genius. The exposition in the Supplices and in the Persae is less skilful
in point of form and substance than in the later plays. In these the
necessary elucidation of the past is combined with natural and suitable
dramatic action.
It is difficult for us to realize how baffling the problem of successful
exposition must have seemed at a time when the drama was still in
its embryonic phase. Centuries afterward, even Ibsen, who is generally
and not unjustly regarded as a past master in the art of dramatic
construction, occasionally found it no easy task to unfold the past
with originality and ease. The method to which he resorted at the
beginning of Hedda Gabler is certainly trite. The dialogue between
Miss Tesman and the servant Berta is rather frankly explanatory of
the situation than dramatically necessary, and similar dialogues with
servants have been part of the stock-in-trade of all dramatists from
time immemorial. Even the device of the sewing-bee in Pillars of
Society is really not much more commendable. Euripides is perhaps
1 In the Ranae of Aristophanes, verse 1122, Euripides implies that the Aeschylean
prologue was obscure: dras-s 7&p j v & 4 r pcva 7nov pTrlyrpaT&rw. Meineke
(Aristophanis Comoediae, Leipzig, i86o) rejects the line. Most commentors refer
it to the purely verbal criticisms that follow. In any case, it need not be taken
too seriously.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
182 Evelyn Spring

rightly censured for introducing as a speak

acter who takes no part in the action of the
ance at the end of the monologue. But i
obvious purposes of exposition, several ch
though they are much more lifelike than th
by Euripides, are not intimately concerned
or plot of the play. In general, the methods
by both Aeschylus and Sophocles do not c
those of the best modern playwrights.

2. The Repetition of Expository Details a

or Prologue.
It is astonishing to discover how often in
ancient dramatists repeated facts already
parodos or prologue. The recapitulation
plays of Euripides. In the Electra, for ex
modified the conventional characters and
conventional plot by many innovations of h
put so much stress upon events which occur
of the play, that, without assuming for the
general knowledge of the myth, the action
if the prologue were omitted, and the pla
the Helen and in the Medea, also, the repeti
vided in the prologue is so constant as to re
from the point of view of clarity, unnecess
of Euripides's plays are the explanations sup
dispensable in order that the dramatic actio
intelligible. In the Ion, unless the spectators
of the prologue (i-8i), they would have be
all that ensues up to line 859 ff., where Creu
would also have failed to comprehend the in
many intervening passages.' The prologue of

1 Cf. 329 ff. The field of Latin comedy lies outsid

the Captivi of Plautus provides a parallel illustra
there is sufficient recapitulation to render the prolo
purposes. Cf. 92-IoI with 24-34, and 224 and 241
prologue, the spectators would have been kept rat

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 183

in order that the identity of Dionysus, when he appears before Pen-

theus, may be clear.
The phenomenon is not lacking in the dramas of Sophocles, although
he, to a lesser degree than Euripides, had recourse to repetitions.
In the Antigone, there is sufficient recapitulation to make it possible
to dispense with the prologue as far as purposes of exposition are con-
cerned. In that case, the explication of the past would, indeed, be
less immediate, but, owing to the gradual method of exposition which
was characteristic of Sophocles as well as of Aeschylus, entirely lucid.
The prologue of the Oedipus Tyrannus, the Electra, and the Trachiniae
can be similarly detached from the rest of the play. But the prologue
is indispensable in the Ajax, the Oedipus Coloneus, and the Philoctetes.
In the Ajax, the prologue is demanded in order that it may be under-
stood that Ajax killed the cattle of the Greeks under the delusion that
he was slaying the Atridae (56-57), an important point not repeated
later in the play. The reason for the appearance of the chorus in the
Oedipus Coloneus would not be clear without the prologue (77-80),
and the detailed account of the oracle (84 ff.) which spoke of the seat
of the aeyvalw Ocal as the final resting place for Oedipus, and of thunder
as the sign of the approaching end, is necessary if the conclusion of
the drama is to be intelligible. In the Philoctetes, it must be made
plain that the story of Neoptolemus's wrath at the award of the armor
of Achilles to Odysseus is a fiction, as revealed in the prologue (54 ff.).
The plays of Aeschylus present similar repetitions. Indeed, the
reiteration of the expository details of the parodos or prologue is so
constant in all his extant tragedies that each, irrespective of the
parodos or prologue, provides sufficient repeated information to make
the development of the action absolutely plain. Let us imagine that
we did not possess the parodos of the Supplices, and that the play
opened with line 40. In the course of lines 40-48 we should learn that
the suppliant maidens are descendants of Epaphus (a repetition of the
information of 15-i8); lines 70-72 would reveal their Egyptian origin
(cf. I-4); at lines 76 ff. we should perceive that they are suppliants
(cf. I; 21-22), and a little later (iI7), that they have come to the
regard to the real identity of Tyndarus, a point made clear by line 4, and not ex-
plained again until 990. They would also have failed to comprehend the comic
irony, so to speak, of a line like 304.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
184 Evelyn Spring

Peloponnesus (cf. 15) in flight from a marr

tasteful to them (cf. 9-Io). Finally, in their
gus (234 ff.), comes as complete a revelation
be found anywhere in the play, - a detailed
planations of the parodos. If, then, the S
40, the elucidation of the past would be mo
play as we have it, but equally clear. In fa
gibly open at verse 176 where Danaus spe
even at verse 234 where Pelasgus appears
case the exposition would be as immediate
the same way, the parodos or prologue of h
disregarded without rendering the rest of t
the Persae, the first choral ode supplies suff
the parodos unnecessary for purposes of
149; 170-171). The prologue of the Septem
because of recapitulation later (cf. lines 5
70-72 of the prologue with lines 120-121
the Prometheus, lines 199-243 and 254 repea
Lines 40 ff. and 264-316 of the Agamemnon
without the prologue. In the Choephoroe, li
269-273 rehearse the explanations of the pr
202 of the Eumenides make it possible to di
(cf. 40-45 and 84).
How are we to explain this frequent repeti
The causes are not far to seek. In plays that
chorus, the antecedent events which it was d
immediately to know are disclosed in the
But since the first song of the chorus re
after this exposition, before the action of th
it is obviously unavoidable that there sho
to the past. Otherwise, the chorus would ha
and descant upon a subject having no im
dramatic situation. The Supplices and the
these conclusions. Moreover, after the comp
and the appearance of an actor upon the sce
been no real action in the drama, allusion m
antecedent events until the action proper

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 185
the explanation of the references in the Persae to the events of the
past in the conversation of the chorus with Atossa (155 ff.). Repeti-
tion seems occasionally demanded also in order that various dramatis
personae may be enlightened in regard to details which have already
been explained to the audience earlier in the play. In the Supplices,
the Danaids must needs once more rehearse (234 ff.), for the benefit
of Pelasgus, the tale of their sad plight. Conversely, after the intro-
duction and acceptance of the prologue as the proper preliminary
scene for a Greek drama, the speaker of the prologue, having explained
the situation to the audience, often found it necessary to acquaint
the chorus, after its entrance, with the same facts. To cite an in-
stance from the Agamemnon, the spectators heard from the watch-
man's lips in the prologue the news of the fall of Troy, but the chorus
learned later from Clytaemnestra of the arrival of the beacon-fire.
In the Prometheus, too, Prometheus repeats many details concerning
the past for the sake of the daughters of Oceanus. The Trachiniae
of Sophocles, and the Helen, the Heraclidae, and the Troiades of
Euripides have analogous repetitions. When the first part of the pro-
logue is a monologue, it is sometimes necessary to recapitulate the
information contained therein for the benefit of both chorus and
characters. In the prologue of the Hippolytus, Aphrodite states that
it is she who is to bring destruction upon Hippolytus, an important
fact that is explained at 1327 to Theseus and the chorus, and at 1400
to Hippolytus. Occasionally, the chorus is cognizant of part of the
past as set forth in the prologue, but must be enlightened about some
details. In the Hecuba, the chorus themselves repeat many facts of
the prologue, but they must be informed at 710 ff. of the significance
of Polydorus's death which was explained in the prologue. Sometimes
the facts of the opening monologue are reiterated for characters who
appear later. In the Supplices of Euripides, the chorus is present
during the monologue of Aethra, but repetition is resorted to for the
benefit of Theseus. There are similar repetitions in the Iphigenia
Taurica, the Orestes, and the Bacchae.
These practical reasons for frequent recapitulation in Greek tragedy
are, of course, not exhaustive. There are other explanations which
might be given in the case of individual plays. When the Theban
maidens who form the chorus of the Septem first appear upon the scene,

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
i86 Evelyn Spring
they are sufficiently cognizant of the situat
the audience in the prologue. Here the rep
to the danger that threatens Thebes serve
impression of terror which Aeschylus appare
this scene. The Choephoroe affords an analog
Electra nor the chorus is ignorant of the fact
logue by Orestes, yet for dramatic reasons th
of many details throughout the play. The sy
for Electra and Orestes would be the keener,
recalled to their minds the fact that the son
home when his father was slain, has returne
the murderers. There is slight repetition of
in the Eumenides. The chorus know all that h
action of the play begins. One important p
logue (84), namely, Apollo's statement tha
slay his mother, is constantly rehearsed
serves to alleviate the guilt of Orestes. In th
the repeated emphasis put upon the volun
enhances her unselfishness. In the Heracles,
formation revealed in the monologue of Amp
banal. Both the chorus and Lycus know th
ing way in which Lycus refers to the past ac
perhaps justifies the repeated allusion to so
ments. There are two reasons for recapitulat
pides which would not apply in the case of A
the first place, Euripides apparently often reso
sake of dwelling, with perhaps a certain degr
modifications of stereotyped details of the
the prologue of all but two plays may be deta
drama without endangering the clarity of en
did not adopt a formal prologue in order t
the radical changes that he introduced into s
In the second place, although I do not know
undramatic introduction for his plays, I am
fully conscious of the purely formal characte
as his modern critics. It is true that it is pos
parodos or prologue in all the extant tragedi

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 187
the prologue in four plays of Sophocles, yet, with these two poets, the
opening scene seems an organic part of the action of the drama. It
would be absurd to argue that they deliberately endeavored to make
their tragedies intelligible without the parodos or prologue. But to
consider an Euripidean prologue, in general, an essential part of the
rest of the play, is an injustice to the poet.
Clayton Hamilton, who believes that scenes of violence were im-
possible on the Greek stage because the actors were encumbered with
the cothurnus,' and who adopts a similarly mechanical explanation of
the "falling action " in Greek tragedy,2 would probably prefer to
attribute the repetition in Greek drama to poor acoustic arrangements.
Such an explanation, however, would be ridiculous in the light of a
play like the Ranae of Aristophanes, every word of which is so ex-
quisitely chosen. If the Greeks had not remembered with astonishing
accuracy innumerable lines from tragedies, the parodies of comic
poets would have had for them no point. Owing to lack of statistics
regarding the relative proportion of men and women in an ancient
Greek audience, it is, unfortunately, impossible to apply to Greek
tragedy Clayton Hamilton's ingenious explanation of the same phe-
nomenon of repetition in modern drama.3 Commenting on the com-
paratively negligible number of men who are theatre-goers, he observes:
" Furthermore, since women are by nature comparatively inattentive,
the femininity of the modern theatre audience forces the dramatist
to employ the elementary technical tricks of repetition and parallelism
in order to keep his play clear, though much of it be unattended to."
Now neither Aeschylus nor Sophocles revealed all the important
facts of the past in the parodos or prologue, but adopted the distribu-
tive method of exposition in all their plays. Consequently, those
antecedent events that they disclosed after the opening scene, they
often repeated in the course of the drama, in the same manner in
which we have just seen that they recapitulated the information set
forth in the parodos or prologue itself. In short, there is a dual repe-
tition of explanatory details in Greek tragedy. Naturally, it was
1 The Theory of The Theatre, New York, 19io, p. 26. But cf. K. K. Smith, The
Use of the High-Soled Shoe or Buskin in Greek Tragedy of the Fifth and Fourth Cen-
turies, B.c., Harvard Studies in Class. Phil., Vol. XVI, 1905, pp. I23-I64.
2 Cf. The Bookman, October, 1915, Timhe Troublesome Last Act, pp. I54-I55.
3 The Theory of the Theatre, p. 53.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
188 Evelyn Spring

desirable that this constant reversion to

should be as little trite as possible, a difficu
poets accomplished by adopting the same de
in The Ring and the Book. Their audience
hearsal of antecedent circumstances from
very unlike temperaments who reflect upon
different points of view. In this way, the G
to the repetition a subtle psychological in
avoid the repetition altogether ? I have poin
sons for the recapitulation of the facts of p
of which apply to the repetition of additiona
audience after the opening scene. But a ge
found in the peculiar structure of Greek tr
a tragedy represented merely a catastrophe o
phe occurring before the drama begins.- In
subject-matter must deal largely with the
action of the present can be of scarcely
importance. Hence, considerable time is cons
spectators of the way in which various dram
by the recollection of the past. Their ref
follow the catastrophe. But in dramas that a
the results of a great calamity, the plot m
the past. The entire tragedy can scarcely
collection of diverse opinions in regard to a
To illustrate this point with special referen
lus, the Supplices cannot be said to have a re
It rather exhibits the consequences of a c
6pLaromTs; hence the frequent recurrence in
the past. These are successively rehearsed
by the Danaids for the benefit of the audien
suppliant maidens to Pelasgus (234-347), an
the herald of Aegyptus' sons is revealed (
Persae is wholly concerned with the past; for
host has already taken place when the play
of the details of the battle by the messenge
practical purposes with a catastrophe of i
1 Cf. above, pp. i65 ff.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 189
drama opens, the poet describes the vague anxiety of the elders (8-15)
and the more definite fears of Atossa (159 ff.) in regard to the expedi-
tion which has gone to Greece. After the announcement of the disaster,
the emotions of the messenger, the chorus, and Atossa are depicted
(249 ff.). The account of the defeat is repeated in the conversation
of Atossa with Darius, and the attitude of the latter toward the calam-
ity is made clear (709 ff.), with new references to its historical signifi-
cance. At length its effect upon Xerxes is revealed (909o ff.). It must
be admitted, however, that on account of the faint differentiation of
character in both the Supplices and the Persae, and the rather mo-
notonous atmosphere of woe that pervades each play, the method
is less skilfully used than in the later tragedies.
The Septem has a tremendous catastrophe of its own which, never-
theless, is so largely the result of antecedent events that many allusions
to the past in this play are unavoidable. But the repetition is less
apparent than in the Supplices and the Persae because the characters
are more strongly contrasted, as, for example, early in the play where
the terror of the maidens in the face of an impending attack of an
enemy (78-I80) is a fitting foil to the bravery and self-forgetful
patriotism of Eteocles (I-77). The poet took special pains to interest
his audience in the attitude of various characters toward the curse of
Oedipus, as revealed both before and after the death of the brothers.'
It was necessary for him to make constant reference to the curse because
it is the cause of the catastrophe.
The Prometheus is an extraordinarily good illustration of the fact
that a Greek tragedy, although it may have a catastrophe of its own,
is largely dependent upon the past for its subject-matter. Here the
denouement does not occur until the end of the play, and there is
scarcely any development of the dramatic action of the present.
What Francisque Sarcey would call scenes d faire are absent to an
astonishing degree; indeed, the entire play is nothing but an unfolding
of conditions already existent. A more static drama is almost unim-
aginable. In this respect, the Prometheus is more analogous to Ibsen's
Ghosts than is the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles to which Ibsen's
I Eteocles: 70off., 655; 695-697; the chorus: 720-791; 832-834; 895-899;
907-910; 940-944; Antigone and Ismene: 875-878; 881-887; the messenger:
814-820.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
19o Evelyn Spring

play is often compared. In the Sophoclean

plete revelation of the past, there is still
Oedipus, the suicide of Iocasta, and the fina
the departure of Oedipus for Thebes. But in
Prometheus, the drama of the present is of
tance at the end of the tragedy. It is th
occupies our attention. Yet in the Promet
quent references to the past, the characters
peraments so dissimilar that the repetition
remarks of Kratos and Bia, Hephaestus,
Hermes, and Prometheus himself, apropos of
god, reveal an exquisite variety of opinions.
It is in the Agamemnon, however, wher
satile dramatic genius of Aeschylus is mo
subtlety and delicacy of Browning in cha
pated. Both before and after the catastr
of the past is exceedingly skilful. Det
wearisome here, but two instances of eff
comment. First the watchman, and then
the fall of Troy to the spectators and to th
repetition is, nevertheless, scarcely noticeabl
ways in which Agamemnon's loyal servant a
affected by the beacon-fire. The joy of t
sincere, the spontaneous outburst of a hum
thought that he may soon clasp his mast
greeting; but Clytaemnestra's happiness
far as she inwardly exults at the thought of
revenge. It is also interesting to compare th
Clytaemnestra in imagination visualizes t
city with the messenger's account (503-53
that prevailed there when he left. For if w

fpws 6e' 17 7LS ~7rpOrepo' e'/'rT7?fl rTpa

7rop~eLV a '/In' XPn7, KkpbeL' 'LKW/II&OVS,

where Clytaemnestra apparently voices as a

her highest hope, namely, that Agamemn
gods so that his death at her hand might se

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 191
we appreciate the admirable dramatic irony of the messenger's naive
boast in regard to the sacrilegious destruction of the altars and
temples of the gods at Troy (527):
#wjA01 'IrOL a KO Oew'p t!pvtara.

Wilamowitz, whose comments are generally more illuminating, has

failed absolutely to appreciate the dramatic value of Clytaemnestra's
speech beginning at line 320. He alludes to the " naive Dramaturgie "
of the passage, and asks how Clytaemnestra, " die Frau, die zu Hause
sass," knows what she relates.1 Naturally, she does not know, and
she does not need to know. Much of the power of the passage is due
to the fact that it is the creation of Clytaemnestra's vivid imagination,
marvelously quickened by the longed-for news that Troy has fallen.
Her entire speech is a splendid example of Aeschylus's skill in accom-
plishing many ends simultaneously. It serves the practical purpose of
revealing the past in its suggestions of the scenes in the captured city;
it prepares the way for the fall of Agamemnon through its hint of
sacrilege; and it reveals Clytaemnestra as a woman of compelling
personal force. She pays not the slightest attention to the request of
the chorus (3I8-3I9) that she repeat to them the story of the beacon-
fire; yet, at 351 ff., the elders, forsooth, "having heard her sure proofs"
are convinced. Aeschylus was a master of dramatic construction.
There is a similar diversity of opinion in the Choephoroe in regard
to the past, particularly in the various attitudes of different characters
toward the death of Agamemnon. The speech of the nurse (734 if-)
gives the humorous relief desirable after the intensely solemn words of
Electra and Orestes. Aegisthus is touched already by the conscious-
ness of sin (841-843), but Clytaemnestra is remorseless even in the
face of death. Finally Orestes, after the completion of his task, in-
terprets the past from his point of view. In the Eumenides, which
represents simply the result of the catastrophes of the two preceding
plays, the detailed repetition of the facts relating to the crime of
Orestes is alleviated by the interesting controversy between the
Erinyes and Apollo, who have very different comments to make on
the events of the past.

1 Aischylos Interpretationes, pp. 167-168.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 192 Evelyn Spring

In the plays of Euripides, also, which a

character, the polemical discussions of his d
conceal many repetitions. At the beginni
(1-27), Thanatos (28-76), the chorus (7
(I4I ff.), and others give vent to their opinio
approaching death of Alcestis. After Alce
Pheres and Admetus (614-670) indulge in
The method is very noticeable in the Electr
Sophocles, too, was similarly skilful in giv
to passages of recapitulation. The Ajax affor
tion, where in the passages leading up to
revealed the various feelings of Odysseus
the insane Ajax (91-117), the chorus (134
and the sane Ajax (348-595) in regard to t
of the Greeks. The variety of temperam
displayed is truly kaleidoscopic. After A
to his life, Menelaus, in order to show good
Ajax does not merit burial, again reverts
In the Trachiniae, Lichas's reluctant conf
messenger's report to Deianira (351 ff.)
Eurytus and Oechalia for Iole's sake, is anoth
repetition.
3. The Gradual Exposition of the Past
The modern dramatist, as I have said, frequently devotes several
scenes at the beginning of a play, or even an entire first act, to ex-
planations intended to acquaint the audience with the situation.
Neither Aeschylus nor Sophocles, however, so concentrated his at-
tention to exposition upon the opening scenes. Aeschylus, more
conspicuously than Sophocles, by adopting the gradual method of
disclosing antecedent conditions, contrived to elucidate the past in a
manner that is interesting as well as dramatically effective. His skill
in this respect is one of the most convincing proofs of his dexterity in
dramatic construction.
In the Supplices, the poet used this mode of exposition less success-
fully than in other plays, - an evidence of the early date of this drama,
and of Aeschylus's improved technique in his later tragedies. It is
almost impossible to avoid the conviction that the poet in this play,

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 193
having given his audience the key to the dramatic situation in the
frank and unstudied revelations of the parodos, felt with a sigh of relief
that the troublesome task of exposition was over, and that he could now
safely approach the situation from the lyric side. Certain points that
are obscure in the parodos remain obscure throughout the play, for
instance, the events immediately preceding the flight of the Danaids
from Egypt. Furthermore, few facts relating to the past, of impor-
tance for an understanding of the plot or characters of the drama,
are revealed after the parodos. After lines 11-33 no further light is
thrown upon the personality of Danaus; 1 the sons of Aegyptus
throughout the play remain the violent suitors described in the open-
ing scene. Yet even in the Supplices, Aeschylus at least experimented
with the gradual unfolding of the past, and not altogether ineffectively.
For the first time at lines i6o-i6i the Danaids announce that they
will hang themselves if they cannot escape the marriage that they
loathe, - a plan which we may suppose is not suddenly conceived,
but has been in their minds since their departure from Egypt. The
audience, it is interesting to note, was let into the secret fairly early
in the play, but the announcement to Pelasgus of the maidens' inten-
tion was wisely deferred until lines 455 ff., when it turns the scales
of Fortune at a moment of great dramatic tension in their favor.
Again, in the long harangue of Pelasgus about himself (249-273),
nothing was said of the fact that his power is limited, but the revela-
tion of this rather important item was reserved for the moment (368-
369) when the king proclaims that he must consult this assembly
in regard to the fate of the suppliants. By this device Aeschylus
prolonged the action of the drama, and secured the ever-desirable
suspense. The gradual revelation of facts pertaining to the experiences
of Io is most conspicuous. This is to be ascribed to the practical
necessity of finding material for the numerous choral passages in a
play so largely lyrical rather than to the desire of the poet to keep
his audience in suspense. But he attained a slight dramatic tension
in the passage (291 ff.) where he used the facts of this myth to work
up to proof of the Argive descent of the Danaids.
In the Persae, the poet seems to have arrived at a fuller conscious-
ness of the dramatic value of distributive exposition. He was careful
1 Cf. 176-177; 991-992.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 194 Evelyn Spring

not to follow the example of Phrynichus a

Xerxes at the beginning of the tragedy. He
news in order that it might be revealed at t
The audience, however, was prepared for t
with his lugubrious tidings, not only by th
prologue, but by other more definite state
gestions or the frank avowal that the Pe
i~pLs,' and the implication that the gods
Persia to destruction.2 The terrifying
gloomy omen of the eagle and the hawk ar
of disaster. But the mention of the oracles
fittingly held in reserve until after the ap
Previous to this point, any reference to th
disastrous to the peculiar aspect of terror c
of the chorus and Atossa.
Of many illustrations of this method that might be cited from the
Septem, the most interesting for this essay is the frequent reference
to the curse of Oedipus, because it bears upon the interrelation of
the plays of the trilogy. From many passages in the Septem, but
especially from lines 720-791, which summarize the plots of the two
preceding plays, it seems probable that the curse of Oedipus against
his sons was uttered in the second play of the trilogy. But in spite of
this, in the Septem, Aeschylus adopted the gradual method of expo-
sition in his allusions to it. Similarly, in the Choephoroe and in the
Eumenides, he elucidated only by degrees the details of Agamemnon's
death, although this had formed the plot of the first play of the trilogy.
The poet, accordingly, for dramatic reasons did not hesitate in one
play to resort to a gradual unfolding of facts which had already been
clearly set forth in a preceding play, in precisely the same way in
which he used the method in all his tragedies for the revelation of new
information concerning the past. That he did this for dramatic
reasons in the Septem is perfectly plain. Eteocles refers to the curse
early in the drama (69-72) when he beseeches the gods not to over-
throw utterly the city, and again (653-655), when he learns that
Polynices is stationed at the seventh gate. But it is not until the
chorus entreat Eteocles not to go out to meet his brother in battle
' Cf. 65-72; 1o8-m19. 2 Cf. 93-114.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 195
that the spectators learned that Eteocles now understands that the
fulfilment of the curse means death for him (695-697):

O1Xov y-p / xOp& got irarpbs Xawv' bp&

?Ilpo's" &KXabrTOLs 4paauLv rpooaL&vet,
Xkyovaa Kep'os 7rp6brpov iarepov g6bpov.1

The revelation at this crisis, and not before, is admirable, because it

throws into high relief the grim patriotism of Thebes's defender, as
he goes forth to meet his brother in the spirit of Macbeth when he
hears that the witches' prophecies have played him false:
Yet will I try the last. Before my body
I throw my warlike shield; lay on, Macduff,
And damn'd be him that first cries, " Hold, enough ! "

It is also indicative of Aeschylus's interest in the details of dramatic

composition that the references to the curse become more specific as
the play advances. Not until the pause in the action that ensues after
the departure of Eteocles did the poet mention the cause of the curse
and speak openly of its nature (785-791). Such plain speaking earlier
in the play would not have been desirable. The disclosure at this time
is a fitting prelude to the appearance of the messenger with his sad
tidings.
In the Prometheus, Aeschylus observed the principle of suspense by
disclosing gradually the nature of the secret with which Prometheus
threatens Zeus. To this Prometheus merely alludes in his conver-
sation with the Oceanids; 2 details he explains at length to Io,3 who
is naturally interested in anything that concerns Zeus. After the
departure of Io, the additional remarks of Prometheus about the fatal
marriage of Zeus 4 pave the way for the appearance of Hermes. The
complete disclosure of the facts relating to the benefits which Pro-
metheus has conferred upon mankind, referred to very early in the
play,5 is appropriately made in the course of the conversation of
Prometheus with the Oceanids (230-243; 436-506), where it is most

1 Cf. 703: Er. r1 ob", 9r' I G Ialope' 6XAOpLov pi6pov; also, IOI4: K17. - Ta ryCW ydp
xOpovis Odvarov e Xer' ev vr6Xe&.
2 Cf. 168-172; 188-194; 519-525.
" Cf. 755-770o. * Cf. 9o7-91o.
' Cf. 7-8; 29-30; 37-38; 82-83; 107-III.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 196 Evelyn Spring

likely to arouse sympathy for the suffe

extraordinary sense of the dramatic fitness
in reserve the disclosure of the fact that O
Prometheus until the moment when the pur
of the former is in strongest contrast to h
332-333,

Hp. frl?XW a' bOV'VEK' EKrTs airLaS KUpEJS,

7ravrwv /yTWaTXrVx KaL T ETo0X/LrKCWS 4Olo
are not necessarily contradictory of the thought of line 236,

IIp. KaL TOL71i' oo6el~ s AVT3aLVe rXTv 64uo,

which may be interpreted to mean that Prometheus took the initiative
in opposition to the plan of Zeus to destroy the human race. The
imperfect tense d?ripae~ is suggestive of this. Paley's' translation
based on the scholia, distorts the Greek. To give a final illustration
from the Prometheus, there is no mention of the curse of Kronos against
Zeus until the attitude of Prometheus toward Zeus becomes most
menacing (91o-912). At this juncture, the allusion to the curse adds
weight to the threats of the angry god.
I have already2 touched upon the question of the comparative
advantages and disadvantages of dramatic composition in ancient
and in modern times. As regards the gradual method of exposition,
however, the ancient dramatist had an indisputable advantage over
the modern playwright who would resort to the same device. Owing
to the familiarity of his audience with the myths to which he gave a
dramatic form, the ancient poet could safely reserve for the most
fitting occasion definite mention of a fact to which a modern dramatist
would be forced to make an earlier allusion for the sake of clarity.
The advantage of the Greek dramatist in this respect was really two-
fold. In the first place, he could more easily maintain an atmosphere
of suspense. In the second place, he could make far more frequent
and effective use of dramatic irony. A situation or a sentence might
be intensely ironical to an audience familiar with the myth, whereas
a modern playwright would have to be much more direct, and con-
sequently, less stimulating in his suggestions.
1 The Tragedies of Aeschylus, London, 1879, p. 119, note on v. 338.
2 Cf. above, pp. 167 ff.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 197
Nowhere is this truth more convincingly illustrated than in the
Agamemnon, especially in the speech of the watchman which consti-
tutes the prologue. Here the poet without danger of obscurity could
use ambiguous phrases like those of lines io-ii:

Of6 'yap KparEm

yvvaLKS aV6pb6ovXov AXortLov KLap.

He could make ironical allusion to the wantonness of Clytaemnestra

and Aegisthus (18-19):
KXaLto rr' O'KOv rTOO& ovAl4opadv v-EVW
obx cs wl rpb&O' apLTrTa lta~rovovAVEov.

He could represent the watchman as absolutely loyal to those he

serves, and yet show unmistakably that the sin of Clytaemnestra is
an open secret (38-39):

ALaOo,ov a6vj Kob M aOoDioL XltOojacL.

A soliloquy so subtly suggestive at the beginning of a modern play
would be unimaginable. To Aeschylus's audience it can have been
nothing short of thrilling, and in its appeal to their imaginations must
have more than compensated for any triteness in the myth itself. The
Agamemnon, too, more than any other extant play of Aeschylus,
reveals the advantages of the distributive mode of explication for
purposes of suspense and climax. The tragedy contains a host of
references to the sacrifice of Iphigenia,l some of them purposely
ambiguous, others more direct. All of them, however, seem to lead
up to the climax at 1412 ff., where Clytaemnestra for the first time
states that her motive in slaying Agamemnon was to avenge the death
of her daughter. It was a stroke of true dramatic genius to defer the
announcement of Clytaemnestra's motive until this moment. She
is here absolutely truthful; up to this point she has lied " like
truth." It is, therefore, the proper psychological time for the dis-
closure of the principal reason that goaded her to murder. Besides,
her silence on the subject of Iphigenia during her interview with
Agamemnon earlier in the play (855 ff.) is indicative of her self-

1 Cf. 69-71; 131-133; I4I; 151; 155; 204-247; 346; 369-372; 763ff.; 904-
905; zoI9-1o21; 1338-1342.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 198 Evelyn Spring

possession and of the depth of her passionat

the restraint of Clytaemnestra is the restra
not the restraint of coldness. Otherwise
Iphigenia so tenderly (1417-1418) as
4LX0 cL7flV tol

and again (1526) as

7rv rOXvKXaClr7v 'I4LyeveLav.

With his usual skilful technique, Aeschylus

method of exposition here to purposes of ch
to purposes of suspense. The dramatic f
who represents Clytaemnestra as speaking
when she greets her husband on his return
worthy:
Welcome, my king, and welcome, husband, home !
The old house of your fathers laughs once more,
That was so long a place of woman's tears;
And the old faithful love spreads out its arms,
To take you to your ancient place again.
Not, stitch by stitch, a woman's tale I'll tell,
Here, in this laurelled hour, of all my fears,
Of lying tales that come on travelling lips,
And omens of the night, and whispered things
Of seas and wind, that moaned about the house,
Nor of a mother's aching heart will speak.
That scans your sunlit laurels all in vain
For the white flower of Iphigenia's face.

A similarly effective use of deliberately retarded explanations appears

in the references to the feast of Thyestes 2 that form the prelude to
the speech of Aegisthus (1577 ff.) in which he states that, although
not a resident of the palace, he planned the entire murder (1608-1609)
to avenge the deeds of Atreus, Agamemnon's father, against his own
brother Thyestes, the father of Aegisthus. Here the method makes
for suspense, and produces an excellent climax. There is no reason
to suspect that Aegisthus is not speaking the truth in taking to himself
the credit for the plot against Agamemnon. Cassandra herself uses
1 Richard Le Gallienne, Orestes, New York, 191o, p. 9-
2 Cf. 701-705; 1095-1097; 1217-1226; 1242-1244; 1500-1504.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 199
the word flovXEfItV of Aegisthus (I223), and states the motive for his
crime (1217 ff.). Another purpose in the mind of the poet, when he
held in reserve for so long the disclosure of Aegisthus's part in the death
of Agamemnon, was this, that, having shown through Clytaemnestra's
deed of vengeance one motive for the murder, he might at the end of
the play round out the picture by revealing the larger significance of
the crime as but one incident in a sad succession of disasters.
I have already' referred to the distributive exposition of the Choe-
phoroe and the Eumenides, and to dwell upon it at greater length is
unnecessary. What distinguishes the Choephoroe from the other plays
of Aeschylus is that the poet in this tragedy was exceedingly chary of
this method. The entire drama is characterized by a striking direct-
ness. Simultaneously with the first mention of the oracle of Apollo
(269 ff.) comes a complete elucidation of the god's directions, with no
attempt to retard any explanations. In lines 269 ff. Orestes reiterates
the divine ordinance, and adds thereto all the other motives for the
murder, - sorrow for his father, the pinch of poverty, and the patri-
otic desire to rescue his countrymen from tyranny. The explanation
is to be found in the poet's conception of the temperament of Orestes.
The latter has none of the self-reliance of Clytaemnestra. The deed
that he must do is an ever-present horror to him. In order that the
audience might understand this, it was necessary for the poet to show
them that Orestes, having once steeled himself to act, does not dare
to hesitate, but must keep all his motives clearly in mind, and con-
summate the crime with all speed. The Choephoroe is not unlike a
modern drama in which we generally see the workings of the motives
that induce the catastrophe, - a psychological process not usually
revealed in a Greek tragedy, or explained only after the catastrophe.
Sophocles, too, realized the dramatic value of the gradual unfolding
of conditions already existent when the play begins. The powerful
irony of the Oedipus Tyrannus is intensified by the gradual explication
of the past. But with the exception of the Oedipus Tyrannus, in
Sophocles's plays, the subordination of the principle of suspense to
his supreme interest in characterization is apparent. At the beginning
of the Antigone (35-36), it is announced that whosoever disobeys the
king must die a death by public stoning. Now a poet whose energies
1 Cf. above, pp. i44 if.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 200 Evelyn Spring

were primarily directed toward effective dr

have reserved the announcement of the spec
for line 460, that the audience for a time m
Sophocles, however, preferred to reveal t
and determined spirit of Antigone, when sh
scene. The postponement of any mention of
seems upon first consideration to be quite i
but the tension created by the uncertainty
be moved or not by this final appeal of Ism
is but momentary. The attention of the
immediately concentrated upon Antigone's u
lover (572):
o q5iXraO' Alw, &S oW ' sar'ri fargCop.
In the Oedipus Coloneus, Oedipus does not refer in detail to his un-
happy past until lines 5io ff., but Sophocles made no careful prepara-
tion for this exposition, nor is it in the least productive of suspense.
Here Sophocles was chiefly interested in the vindication of Oedipus's
moral innocence. Similarly, in the Electra, the heroine does not tell
Chrysothemis that her plan to slay Aegisthus was conceived of old
until line 1o49, but her remark creates no climax like Clytaemnestra's
impassioned defence of her deed over her dead husband's body as
she speaks of her long-contemplated revenge (Ag. 1376-1378). Elec-
tra's observation serves rather to bring out her own deeply thoughtful
and deliberate temperament. It is also interesting to compare the
immediate revelation of the details of Clytaemnestra's dream in this
play (410 ff.) with the studied distribution of information regarding
the dream of Clytaemnestra in the Choephoroe of Aeschylus. Sopho-
cles, like Scribe, disposed of many necessary explanations early in his
plays.
Euripides rarely resorted to gradual elucidation. Von Arnim makes
the statement' that the exposition in some of Euripides's tragedies
is continued after the parodos, and cites the Orestes as an instance
1 De Prologorum Euripideorum Arte et Interpolatione, Greifswald, 1882, p. 99:
"Nam cum plerumque, in antiquioribus maxime fabulis, tota expositio ipso pro-
logo absolvatur, ut actionis initium parodum statim sequatur, sunt nonnullae
Euripidis tragoediae, ubi etiam post parodum expositio continuatur. Cuius rei

luculentissimum exemplum Orestes praebet, cuius iretaaho, primum totum ad ex-

positionem pertinet."

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 201

of a play in which the first episode is entirely expository. It would

be nearer the truth to say that the exposition is repeated after the
parodos. The first episode of the Orestes, with the exception of lines
268-270, which contain an obviously incidental allusion to the bow
that Apollo gave to Orestes, is simply a repetition of facts already
related in the prologue. Indeed, all through the play, after the delivery
of the prologue, the audience learned little that is new concerning the
past. They heard something of Oeax for the first time at lines 431-
433. At line oo90 they were informed that Pylades planned the deed
for which Orestes now pays the penalty. But the casual way in which
the poet revealed these not unimportant facts almost shocks us after
the deliberate preparations of Aeschylus for elucidation. Euripides,
in general, seldom provided further explanations after the prologue,
and made no attempt to hold back the revelation of certain points
until the moment when the disclosure for dramatic reasons would be
most telling. Poseidon, in the prologue of the Troiades, proclaims the
fate of many captives, but the spectators first heard of the fate of
Andromache at line 273, and of the assignment of Hecuba to Odysseus
at line 277. At lines 914 ff. Helen gives several new details relating to
her past. But the purpose of Euripides in reserving these facts for
announcement after the prologue was not so much to produce dramatic
suspense or to mould more delicately his characters, as simply to add
to the overwhelming pathos of the tragedy by prolonging the sad tale
of the captive women's lot. In the Heraclidae, the poet did not
announce until lines 986 ff. that the hostility of Eurystheus to
Heracles was involuntary and caused by the power of Hera. The
information creates no climax at this point, but wins sympathy for
Eurystheus. Euripides was as deeply interested in emotional effects
as Sophocles in characterization or Aeschylus in problems of con-
struction.
4. The Forms of Exposition
Exposition in Greek tragedy assumes, in general, three aspects.
In choral passages it has a lyric form; it may appear as direct narra-
tion or dialogue; it may be dramatized.
The drama, as Richard Burton 1 suggests, is unlike other forms of
story telling in its substitution of direct visualized action for the in-

1 How to See a Play, New York, 1915, P- 3.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
202 Evelyn Spring
direct narration of fiction. He might have ad
and the indirect methods of exposition were
tragic poets, for the choral odes of Greek tra
in the indirect manner of the short story or
exposition is most conspicuous in the trage
chorus of Sophocles maintains an attitude of al
that enables it to reflect serenely upon the ab
transient experiences of human existence
Hence, the poet could scarcely employ it to an
elucidation of the past. In some of the trag
chorus, easily swayed by the impulses of the
to unfold the past dispassionately. But th
many of his choral odes is very noticeable,
methods are comparable to those of Aeschy
latter, however, is more consistently imperso
as has been observed, become the mouthpiece
or ethical convictions. It is more often the
he was enabled to paint a marvelously vivid
ceding the action of the drama. Although
in Aeschylus is about twice as large as the
either Sophocles or Euripides,' exposition b
method is not correspondingly frequent in the
But he, more often than the other poets,
entire choral passage, with the possible except
tory or concluding lines, to the reproduction
character is the parodos of the Supplices (I
599) that describes the experiences of Io. Th
(1-64), the story of the departure of the Pe
the account of the successful reign of Dar
expository lyrics. In the Septem, a long ch
entirely devoted to an unfolding of the unhap
of Oedipus. The parodos of the Agamemnon
stasimon (104-257) similarly explain the ci
ceded the arrival of the Greeks at Troy. Th
phoroe (22-83) is also expository in character.
1 Cf. A. E. Phoutrides, The Chorus of Euripides, Har
Vol. XXVII, 1916, pp. 79-81.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 203
There are similar passages in Sophocles and Euripides. The parodos
of the Antigone (ioo-i6I) describes most vividly the attack of Poly-
nices and the Argives upon Thebes. In the Heracles of Euripides, the
first stasimon (348-441) is occupied with the story of the labors of
the hero; the tale of the wooden horse forms the subject-matter of
a choral ode in the Troiades (511-567); in the Hecuba, the occurrences
of the night when Troy was captured are related in an exceedingly
beautiful lyric (905-952). But such a procedure was unusual for
these two poets. In the Oedipus Coloneus, there is not a single choral
passage that describes antecedent events. Occasionally, the lyrics
of Sophocles and Euripides provide a few new details in regard to the
past, but no extensive exposition. In the Philoctetes, the chorus allude
(68i-686) to the innocence of the hero's life before his affliction,
and in the Electra of Sophocles, brief mention is made in a choral part
(505-515) of the chariot race of Pelops. The chorus in the Orestes of
Euripides relate (819 ff.) the details of Clytaemnestra's death at the
hands of Orestes, and touch upon (96o-1012) the woes of Pelops's
house. Some choral odes in the tragedies of Aeschylus are similarly
constructed. The marriage of Prometheus is mentioned (555-56o)
in one of the lyrics of the Prometheus, and other brief references to the
past are introduced into several choral passages of the Supplices,1 the
Agamemnon,2 the Choephoroe,3 and the Eumenides.4 Sometimes a
lyric alludes to the past, but does not furnish additional exposition
beyond that already provided. Thus in the Oedipus Tyrannus, the
chorus mention (907-910) the oracles that Laius heard of old.5 In
the Ajax, allusion is made by the chorus (172 ff.) to the attack of
Ajax upon the cattle of the Greeks, the story of which Athena had
previously related to Odysseus.6 The chorus of the Trachiniae in a
beautiful ode repeat (497-350) Deianira's account of her wooing.7
Two of the choral passages of the Phoenissae (784 ff; o109 ff.) allude
to the ravages of the Sphinx, a matter already explained in the pro-
logue.8
If sufficient emphasis has not been put upon the fact that every
Greek tragedy is, to a greater or less degree, a backward-written
4o-175- 5 Cf. 711-714.
2 355-487; 681-8o9. 6 Cf. 36 ff.
S306-478; 935-972; o065-o076. 7 Cf. I ff.
14 43-177. 8 Cf. 45 ff.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
204 Evelyn Spring

drama, it is equally true that the exposition

odes of Greek tragedy has not been adequ
this indirect mode of elucidation, this intrus
narrative element into the drama, may se
doubt, it was a legitimate and popular me
fifth century before Christ. Many of the s
Euripides are really not irrelevant, if we
medium through which the poet was permit
of the past. Exposition in lyric passages i
dramatic. In the plays of Euripides, espe
quality of this kind of exposition that impr
quisite coloring and selection of picturesq
in general, a more skilful painter with words
Sophocles. The story of the theft of the g
(699-746) and the account which the wome
genia Aulidensis give (164-302) of what they
Greek warriors at Aulis, are exquisite ill
descriptive power. But Euripides in none of
the past with greater vividness or beauty of
in the lovely lines of the Agamemnon (227-2
genia's death at Aulis:

Xtards 6E Kal KX1Xr66as irarpcovs

irap' obi~6v al&va rapOL6v 7 '

OevTro 4tX6,aXotL paof^s.
qpdiaev 6' &6,ots lrarlp e'rE' ebXadv
SiKaV XLualpap is repOe wlpoD

7rrXotLtE repLre7' lraVTl OvyIC

rpovwir7 XafPEtv 6p-
r67l, OTO/tarOS TE KaXXLrp -
pov 4vXaKq KaTraaXE)V
8O6yyov apazov o'IKOLS,

l4i XaXtv6 v T' aivabb& IvetL.

KpOKOv faCas' E' s rfiov Xkovaa
9#aXX' ~'KaacYo 8vprOv-

pwv a7r' 6o/.aros OXEL 4LXOLKTrp,

irpckrovaa O' c's kv ypaoais, 7rpocEvveTreL

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 205

O0ova', )erd 'roXX&KLS

7rarpoS Kar' &vspwvas irpa~reovs
e/EX/ev, 'y)vi S' a'7avpwros a'SL 7rap'pbs
q)lXov TPLT60o-ovSov Eid67roErov

raLva 4LOXws T'L'a.

The passage illustrates, too, the brilliant constructive ability of the
poet. It is partly, but not primarily, expository in character. It
moves the past into the present more powerfully than almost any other
lines in Greek tragedy. At the same time, it reconciles us to the
" taking off " of Iphigenia's father. Finally, like the other allusions
to the maiden's death, it furnishes the foundation for Clytaemnestra's
later defence of her crime.
Exposition by means of direct narration or dialogue is very frequent
in Greek tragedy. Here, again, the technique of Euripides is like that
of Aeschylus. It is only in the Trachiniae of Sophocles that we find
many long narrative passages, the content of which is explanatory of
the past. But the long speech in the Orestes of Euripides, where Orestes
talks to Tyndarus (544-604), is typical of many passages in Euripides
in which the poet made no attempt to dramatize the exposition. Simi-
larly, in the Supplices of Aeschylus, Pelasgus provides (249-273) a
frank account of himself for the benefit of Danaus and his daughters.
In other tragedies, the elucidation of the past, although equally
direct, is more skilful. Thus in the Persae, the narration of Atossa's
dream is admirable. She herself relates (176-200) her dream to the
chorus, and it is fitting that she should do so. In the Choephoroe, the
chorus explain the details of Clytaemnestra's dream, in order that
Orestes, by interpreting it in its true light, may be imbued with
greater courage for his deed. Furthermore, although Aeschylus in-
directly made it clear that Clytaemnestra has been the prey of fear,
he did not desire to exhibit her to the audience as actually terrified,
for she is marvelously mistress of herself even when the death of
Orestes is announced. Besides, it would have been inartistic for her
to narrate her dream in full just before her death. But the circum-
stances of the Persae are different, and Atossa is cast in a different
mould. She foreshadows the interest of Aeschylus in characterization
that is more conspicuous in Clytaemnestra. Certainly the poet took
pains to endow Atossa with a little of that elusive something we call

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
206 Evelyn Spring

charm. Witness the lovely passage (598 ff.)

so much grace the offerings she brings t
Atossa herself to explain her dream, Aeschy
her rather emotional temperament, as co
virile self-restraint of Clytaemnestra. Fo
reassurance from her councilors, and is fille
of encouragement (226 ff.). The facts of th
and the Choephoroe are so given as to make e
for the development of the plot and for pu
In the Septem, the manner in which the poe
ment of Eteocles is also highly commend
skill on the part of Aeschylus in employing
sition, as compared with the same meth
Eteocles, at the beginning of the traged
(Supp. I76-177), proclaim his prudence and t
he shows that he possesses these qualities
conception of the duty of a ruler (I-3) and b
shrieking chorus (181 ff.).
In the Prometheus, the method of exposit
prevails; there is scarcely any attempt to re-
cally. It has been suggested that the tragedy
the original play as it proceeded from the h
study of the exposition in it leads to the
was plainly embarrassed by the fact that the
is nothing but a reproduction of antecede
exposition at times is unnecessarily, and
credibly awkward. Let us consider first the
poet provided for Prometheus to narrate in d
The Oceanids ask Prometheus (195-197) to te
Zeus is punishing him. Now since Oceanu
guilt of Prometheus (332-333), since his d
difficulty persuaded their father to let t
(130-131), and since they know that Zeus is t
present humiliation (150-z5I), it is really a m
1 Cf. Bethe, Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theater
pp. 138-185; C. B. Gulick, The Attic Prometheus, H
Vol. X, 1899, pp. 1o3-I14.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 207
that they should not already have heard the cause of Prometheus's
suffering. Sophocles exposed himself to like criticism in his Philoctetes,
where Odysseus, as soon as he reaches land (i ff.), explains to Neoptol-
emus in full the reason for the expedition, although it is absurd to
suppose that Neoptolemus has been kept in ignorance. Besides, there
are several passages which inconsistently represent Neoptolemus as
having knowledge of the facts that Odysseus tells him. To cite one
instance, it would appear, when the drama opens, that Neoptolemus
knows nothing of the oracle relating to Philoctetes (cf. 68-69; ioi;
12-113). But later on (1339-1341), the spectators hear from the
lips of Neoptolemus himself that this oracle had predicted the fall of
Troy in this very year, a point which neither Odysseus nor any other
character in the play explains to Neoptolemus. Sophocles obviously
desired to make the situation plain to the audience at the beginning
of the play. For the same reason, Aeschylus in his Philoctetes was at
fault in permitting Philoctetes to narrate his sufferings to the chorus.
The excuse which Dio Chrysostom proffers on behalf of Aeschylus
is ingenious, not to say magnanimous, but not convincing.'
In the Prometheus, the incredible ignorance of the daughters of
Oceanus is of course, dramatically speaking, a mere peccadillo, but
that the tragedy is really weak on its constructive side is more evident
in the passage (620-621) where Prometheus refuses to tell Io why he
is being punished. His refusal could be explained as a poet's avoid-
ance of the needless repetition of facts which have already been set
forth in detail to the chorus on two occasions.2 But one of these
expository passages might easily have been reserved for the enlight-
enment of lo's legitimate curiosity, in which case Prometheus could
have enjoyed the double sympathy of Io and the chorus. It would be
better to transfer to the scene where Io appears the first of these two
passages, (199-260), rather than the second (436-506), which is
excellent as it stands. The preceding ode (399 ff.) makes possible
the telling silence of Prometheus which surely is not to be ascribed
1 Cf. Dion Chryst. Or. 52, 550 M, ed. L. Dindorf, Leipzig, 1857, Vol. II, pp. 159-
16o: ob rolvvv o C'KeTO o0K0 JLOL uKacCsal &, 5p s al&rtdaacaL, r6 bryEZocTat rp6a sr6,
Xop6p, cb &'y7ooDpvra r rpe tr)p &&r6XabL r)vP rcp 'AXauSP Katc r KaO6Xov orvAalvopra
atrr. ol yiip 8bvorvxoDvre &svOpwcrot roXX&KE elcWaat p.co'aea r7v Ovwy4optv Kcal roZit

el666v &AKpLj 436-506.

2 199-260; 6 Kal clwbi & beolbotLs &xobeu' boYXX0o0v del 8t3yobevoLt.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
208 Evelyn Spring

solely to the practical limitations of th

278 the narration of Prometheus's future s
interrupted by the entrance of Oceanus.
theus (436 ff.), instead of resuming his tale
to brood over the contrast between his prese
alleviation of the misery of mankind wh
oblivious to his future woe. It is a highly
to emphasize the indignity that Prometheus
But since the audience was acquainted wit
ginning of the play in the prologue, the Oc
might easily have been represented as know
theus's plight, so that detailed reference
would be unnecessary. If the explanation
deferred until the appearance of Io, the spa
could be devoted to an expression of sympa
the Oceanids. The device that the poet a
exposition of Io's history is better, althoug
When Prometheus is about to tell Io her
interrupt him with the petition that they
(631-634). At lines 283 ff. Prometheus in
Io the course of her wanderings before she
that he can thus convince her that his proph
This is another awkward device for introdu
Prometheus uses the best method in fact, b
belief. In short, the reproduction of the pa
in the Prometheus seems labored as compare
method in the other tragedies of Aeschylus.
Direct narration and dialogue are emplo
with far more facility. In the passages whe
to the messenger (587-614) and to Agame
life as a wife during her husband's absence,
cedent conditions by direct narration is h
nestra's insincerity and audacity are so st
utters that the dramatic tension, especial
Agamemnon, is very great. It is the tremen
1 Cf. F. W. Dignan, The Idle Actor in Aeschylu
Press, 1905, pp. 21 ff.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 209
tive passages in the Agamemnon that imparts to them their power,
and to the entire play a large portion of its intensely tragic atmosphere.
The messenger's speech also (503 ff.), where the poet adopted the
same direct mode of exposition, is more effective than the messenger's
report in the Persae (249 ff.). The poet bestowed upon the speaker
in the Agamemnon such a clear-cut and interesting individuality of
his own that the primarily explanatory purpose of the passage is
scarcely apparent. The frequent reproduction of the past by direct
narration in the Choephoroe is highly suitable. The method here
enhances the solemn dignity and consecrated purpose of Orestes.
The trial of Orestes in the Eumenides is the best illustration in
Greek tragedy of the dramatization of the past. Horace might have
cited this tragedy as an illustration of the first of his alternative
precepts, aut agitur res in scaenis, aut acta refertur, for the exposition
in the court scene is never simply exposition. It is a necessary
part of the dramatic action. From the modern point of view, of
course, this dramatized form of exposition seems most artistic. Cu-
riously enough, in Greek tragedy, it often appears in a stichomythy,
which is probably the oldest form of dialogue.' Examples, indeed, of
undramatic stichomythies are not lacking. In the passage of the
Persae which is introduced by the absurd question of Atossa (231) in
regard to the site of Athens, the conversation has no direct bearing
upon the present situation. The stichomythy in the Electra of Eurip-
ides between Electra and Orestes (220-289) is purely explanatory
in character. But in the Supplices, the exposition provided in the
conversation between Pelasgus and the Danaids (291-347) is ad-
mirable. The poet by employing this rapid stichomythy to work up
to proof of the maidens' Argive descent dramatized the past, and
created a slight tension. The Oedipus Tyrannus affords two ex-
amples of similarly dramatic stichomythies. The conversation of
Oedipus with the messenger (1007-1046) and his dialogue with the
shepherd (1149-1177) alike lead up to his discovery of the truth. In
the Iphigenia Taurica, the stichomythy between Orestes and Iphi-
genia (494-569) is also an excellent instance of the dramatic revelation
of the past, for it is the prelude to the wvavcW'opo as. Sometimes the
1 Cf. Adolph Gross, De Stichomythiae in Tragoedia Comoediaque Graecorum Usu
et Origine, Pars Prima, Halle, 1904, pp. 25-26.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
210 Evelyn Spring

exposition of a long narrative passage is d

Tyrannus, Oedipus's terrible uncertainty as
stranger whom he slew are one, imparts dr
story of what happened at the crossroad
matic revelations of the past are unusu
narrative element predominates in exposito
parts and elsewhere.

5. The Selection of Expository Deta

The treatment of the myths by different
by an astonishing diversity of details. It wo
fore, for a Greek tragic poet to make his o
legend perfectly clear. Euripides generally
interested in displaying the inventive abilit
ally modified, in such a spectacular, if not
myths that had been the literary pabulum
years. Sophocles, too, did not hesitate to
into a new shape which was more likely to
acterization. Although he was less genero
Euripides, his innovations are generally plai
hand, not only introduced few novelties int
also had no scruples about leaving unexpla
to the past which the other poets would pr
the fabric of the drama. Sometimes, ind
Euripides were unconsciously obscure. In
nowhere lucidly stated that the oracle w
possessed by Deianira,1 nor did Euripides in
explain fully the part of Odysseus in the sc
was to be obtained for sacrifice.2 Sophocles
the Oedipus Tyrannus. Why is the man w
of Laius reported (122-123) to have said
robbers ? The lie is very important, beca
from Oedipus for a long time. But the poet
It was characteristic of Aeschylus alone,
neglect all but those events of the past which
1 Cf. 44-48; 76-77; i55-158; 1164-117
2 Cf. 1362 ff.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 211
importance for a given tragedy. What was the principle that gov-
erned his selection of these relatively few expository details ? It is
a commonplace of literary criticism to say that Aeschylus could hew
like a Cyclops, but that he could not carve like a Praxiteles. It is
undoubtedly true that he did not blur the dignity and grandeur of
his tragedies by too great attention to details. It is equally true that
he never lost his sense of the relative importance of the things of life.
The repression of individual traits in his characters is very marked.
He made no attempt to analyze the subtler, personal emotions. His
concern was with the less transitory, more elemental passions common
to all humanity. But Aeschylus did not touch upon many circum-
stances of the past solely or primarily because he wished to banish
from the field of his vision everything that might distract his attention
from the general impression of loftiness which he desired to impart
to his tragedies. The chief principle which governed his selection of
expository details was the best that a tragic poet of any age could
adopt. With an eye, as always, to skilful construction, he chose to
emphasize only those facts of the past which would tend to make his
plays, as a whole, most successful from a dramatic point of view.
Dramatic effectiveness, rather than an ingenious manipulation of an
old plot or subtle characterization, was his first interest.
To illustrate this point briefly: An excellent example of Aeschylus's
peculiar attitude toward the past is seen in the Supplices, where the
poet did not touch upon any aspects of Io's experiences which he did
not regard as important for the development of the drama. Although
he put emphasis upon the miraculous birth of Epaphus,' he did not
state whether or not Io recovered her human shape before Epaphus
was engendered. All the discussions that I have read on this subject
are unconvincing. Line 314,
TiS O~v 6 ATos r6prt e ixEratL o6bs;

is not enlightening, because from the point of view of one phase of her
existence, she is, of course, potentially, always a poDs. Two passages 2
suggest that Io was restored to human shape, but this is nowhere
stated definitely, and the allusions to Epaphus as the " Touch-born " 3
are perhaps against this interpretation. The matter has no particular
1 17, 40-48; 313-315; 514-58i. ' 571w58i; 1o64-1o67. S 17, 45; 313.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
212 Evelyn Spring

dramatic significance for this play, and the

enlarge upon it. But he was careful to ma
Zeus, was responsible for the suffering
again and again ask Zeus to grant them
that Aeschylus should lay stress upon th
the god to whom the maidens pray. The
reverence for Zeus; it begins and ends w
question as to whether he was not the fir
not even suggested. The procedure of the
as we shall see, was different. Aeschylu
detail the descent of the Danaids,2 because u
of the maidens for Argive assistance.
In the Persae, in order that the ill-starr
the stronger contrast to the prosperous Dari
the actual defeats of the latter and exagg
deed, he represented him in all respects
monarchs. On this subject the poet was m
He thus created in Darius a character who in
fortune is an effective dramatic foil to the a
In the Septem, as in the Supplices, Aeschy
the past veiled in complete mystery or touch
He did not state, for instance, whether Eteo
elder, or whether they were twins, an item
of in the Oedipus Coloneus.4 Here, too, we f
allusion to the cause of the quarrel between
death of Oedipus.6 But the poet did explain
that he thought were dramatically significa
instance, the lugubrious history of the hapl
In the Prometheus, it is not surprising th
explanations of how Oceanus came to share in
It was not necessary for an understanding o
tators should be told of the former relation
Oceanus. But is is interesting to see that

1 Cf. 162-165; 294-307; 562-564; 2 314-324. 586-589.

Cf. 554-557; 633-634; 652-656; 709-712; 779-781; 852-903.
1292-1298. 6 977-978; Ioo9. 8 Cf. above, p. 196.
6 881-885. 7 720ff.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 213
dramatic demands of this tragedy required a treatment of the myth
of Io very different from that of the Supplices. In the Prometheus,
Zeus is represented as the primary cause of Io's misery.' The case of
Prometheus against Zeus is thereby made the stronger, and more
sympathy is secured for both Io and the unfortunate hero of the
tragedy. Several passages might seem to show that Hera does not
escape unscathed,2 but all of them are tinged with irony, especially
lines 589-592, and imply greater blame on the part of Zeus. He,
forsooth, is aflame with love for lo; yet he now permits her to suffer
at Hera's hands!
The poet was similarly reticent in the Agamemnon with regard to
many events occurring before the opening of the play. He did not
tell, for instance, how Aegisthus succeeded in winning the friendship
and, at length, the love of Agamemnon's wife, nor did he explain
whether Clytaemnestra sinned after persuasion, as in the Odyssey,3
or willingly from the first. But he gave a definite answer to Pindar's
question4 as to Clytaemnestra's motive for slaying her husband,
because this was the best possible dramatic justification for her crime.
Furthermore, the parts that Clytaemnestra and Aegisthus respec-
tively play in the murder are much clearer than in Homer whose
accounts are somewhat confusing.5 Aegisthus is certainly the murderer
in Homer; but in some instances he is said to have devised the plot,
in others, to have been assisted by the queen. In the Agamemnon,
however, Clytaemnestra and Aegisthus stand out plainly, the one as
the slayer, the other as the plotter. Aeschylus thus produced in them
two tragic characters of effectively contrasting temperaments.
In the Choephoroe, far more conspicuously than in his other tragedies,
the poet was oblivious to all antecedent occurrences not directly con-
cerned with the action of the drama. For the reason which I have
already mentioned,6 it was necessary that he should consume as little
time as possible in exposition. And so he said nothing of the life of
Orestes before he came back to his father's house on his avenging
1 Cf. 577-584; 663-672; 734-738; 757-759.
Cf. 589-592; 703-704; 899-9oo.
3, 265 ff.
* Pyth. II, 22 ff.
Cf. Odyssey 3, 193-194; 249-250; 303-305; 4, 529; II, 409-411.
6 Cf. above, p. 199.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 214 Evelyn Spring

errand, but much of Loxias's oracle and o

taemnestra and Aegisthus. All these details
the evolution of the plot.
The exposition of the past in the Eumenid
markably minute. But full explanations a
in general, and by the court scene in pa
exigencies of this play enforce the careful r
If it is the business of a playwright, when h
into a drama, to choose only the most signif
he may produce the highest emotional effec
unimportant elements, then Aeschylus was
Sophocles or Euripides. Unlike them, he gav
an extraordinary intensity of treatm
the art of emphasizing just those events
introduced into the action of the present
tragedies a very powerful dramatic perform
For another reason, too, Aeschylus's choice
to be distinguished from the method of
is to be regretted that the modern "probl
its scope as to deal with only one phase of m
term could appropriately be applied to th
Perhaps the most characteristic feature o
tendency so to treat certain occurrences o
not to settle the question whether these
done. In other words, each of his tragedies
problem that is as far from a satisfying
play as it was at the beginning. Aeschylus
for art's sake. He certainly did not believe i
to the extent that the poet Thomson did,
memnon the naive announcement:

"Important is the moral we would teach:

(0 may this island practice what we preach)."
The method of Aeschylus was to suggest the moral dilemma, to stim-
ulate the consciences of his audience, but never to think out the
situation to its logical conclusion for them.
The moral problems presented in the tragedies of Sophocles are
less baffling. The guilty may suffer, as in the case of Ajax, who dies

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 215
so wretchedly because, as the poet was careful to explain,' he had
sinned against Athena before he came to Troy. The innocent too,
as in life, may meet with unmerited affliction. Critics who are loath
to admit that an innocent person is a suitable subject for a tragic
doom generally take refuge in one of two theories: they refer the down-
fall of such a character to the workings of a hereditary curse, or they
seek for the manifestation of a subtle and not unpardonable sin which
leads to punishment and consequent purification. But there are
really innocent characters in some of Sophocles's plays. Antigone
could scarcely be more perfect and yet human too. The principles
of poetic justice may not be satisfied in her case, but she is an intensely
tragic figure. To her we may apply the words which Heracles ad-
dresses to Philoctetes: 2

Kat (ot, Taa(' ZaGL, krofr' 6t 4EXera waOe^v

6K 7cT wr6vwv i-CwvY' E~KXEa Oo6'OaL 3Lov.

A life, even a sinless- one, may be made glorious by suffering. Some-

times Sophocles thought of the will of Heaven as combining with the
sinful heart of man to work disaster. Thus in the Oedipus Coloneus,3
Ismene says of her brothers:
PV V' YK OECAWv T70 KKXLrlTpLoV (PpeVbs
e9~WXOe rTov r7ps 'OXioLv pLs KaKd,
a&pXjs -XapfatOa Kal Kp7TOVs 7VpavvLKOu.4

The poet's attitude of mind toward other characters of both first and
second rank is not so clearly defined. Did he regard Oedipus and
Deianira as innocent or guilty persons ? It would be difficult for us
to give a definite answer to this question, but I do not believe that
Sophocles intended to mystify his audience. He was rather engrossed
in the creation of great tragic characters whose misfortunes it was
unnecessary to explain, in every case, by a theory of life as valid as
that by which the guilty may be punished, or the innocent ennobled,
through suffering. What distinguishes the method of Sophocles from
that of Aeschylus is that the latter in his tragedies consciously created
a moral controversy which, by suggesting arguments for either side,
he held so suspended throughout the play, that a just decision on the
side of right is impossible at the end.
1 Aj. 758-779. 2 Ph. 1421-1422. " 371-373. 4 Cf. Ant. 620-624.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
216 Evelyn Spring
The tragedies of Euripides, though someti
seldom problematical in tone. Having introd
logues into the drama proper, often, at the
shifted all moral responsibility from his chara
selves, or to fate, so that any discussion of th
his dramatis personae is absurd. In the Ele
Dioscuri cheerfully assert that Apollo will tak
of Orestes; later (1301-1302), they say that fa
the commands of Apollo, decreed the death of
thing of the same unmoral atmosphere pe
(1325-1328), where Artemis frees Theseus fro
ing that Hippolytus had angered Aphrodit
1661), the responsibility for the Trojan exped
ferred to the gods and to destiny. The Gre
Ion, which has much in common with a pr
naturally very different from the modern. Th
of Xuthus receives merely casual mention
nouement of the play depends upon it, for we
acceptance of Ion as his son.' But in view o
of fault on the part of Apollo throughout the
not very convincing absolution that Athena p
at the end (i595 ff.) is rather more startling.
The Aeschylean manner of so manipulatin
give a problematical aspect to the events of th
clearer if we examine each of his tragedies.
disputable question whether the sons of Aegy
side in demanding marriage with the Danai
not answer the prayer of Pelasgus (387-391) in
legal claims of their cousins upon them, but s
(392-396) that they may escape the abhorr
versation of the herald with Pelasgus later i
the course of which the former asserts his rig
property, is no more illuminating than the
984), which contrariwise points to an injury d
their cousins. The division of the chorus at th
in perfect harmony with the poet's attitude o
1 Cf. 1601-1602. 2 Cf. below, pp. 218 ff.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 217
entire drama. In the Supplices, it is to be observed that the problem
presented does not assume the tragic proportions of the moral issues
involved in the Orestes, but the poet's characteristic method is seen.
In this play, however, as always, he was careful to suggest sufficient
dramatic guilt to render reasonable the development of the plot.
Whether the sons of Aegyptus are in the right or not, they are certainly
too violent suitors, and their herald is an insolent messenger.
In the Persae, the i~jpLs of the Persians which has provoked the
vengeance of the gods against them, explains the catastrophe of the
tragedy. But the poet here was interested in the minor problem of
Xerxes's moral responsibility for the great disaster of his country.
Did Xerxes know of the oracles predicting the ruin of his empire, and
yet did he persist in his ambitious plans against Greece ? Line 829,

Aa. irpos ra^r' ?KEVOV, aoWPOPEpV KEXP77oIEVO,

is important for this discussion. If KEXP7O/Ivov is interpreted in the

literal sense of the word, it must refer to oracular information im-
parted to Xerxes. In that case, the line constitutes a reproof from
Darius, implying that Xerxes received an oracular message enjoining
the exercise of awopoarv77. But a later passage would seem to militate
against the supposition that Xerxes had been forewarned by an oracle
of danger to his kingdom, for he says (90o9-90o) that his fate was
rTEK/apror7drf, and that an unexpected calamity came upon him
(1026-1027). Other suggestions, however, as to the moral guilt of
Xerxes are less bewildering. Darius twice refers 1 to the sacrilegious
spirit of his son, and suggests that he overstepped the bounds of a
legitimate ambition. He also mentions specifically (782-783) the sin
of disobedience. In lines 923-924 the chorus speak reproachfully of
Xerxes as the ALtov aKTropL IlEpo~av. On the other hand, excuses are
offered for him. Atossa says (473-477) that Xerxes's purpose in going
to Greece was to avenge the defeat at Marathon, and she also asserts
(753-758) that evil men influenced her son by taunting him with
his life of idleness at home.
The Septem is a better example of an Aeschylean problem play.
The uncontrolled passion of Eteocles is the dramatic prelude to his
death, and the poet suggested enough guilt on the part of both brothers
1 744-746; 830-831.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
218 Evelyn Spring

to supply the motive for the catastrophe

Eteocles and Polynices had once incurred
father who prayed that they might divide h
But whether the claims of Polynices or Eteo
weight of justice is never clearly proclaimed
to be in higher favor with the poet, it is sim
so to speak, of the tragedy, the defender of
cause from the Greek point of view to attac
an almost unpardonable sin. The heral
that it has been decreed to bury Eteocles in
toward the land, and because he chose death

the enemy from his native city, whereas Po

forfeit the rights of burial as the penalty f
to capture Thebes. When Antigone threat
nices, the herald upholds the policy of th
(1055) that the weapons of Polynices were
against one. The reason which half of the ch
for not resisting the commands of the hera
the blessed gods and mighty Zeus, did m
ruin. But as a matter of fact, Eteocles, as w
his full share of censure in the course of th
(580-583) in scathing tones to Polynices's
city; yet he implies that his cause was jus

t-rlTp6os rE r?7y?7VT 3 KaTrao-EcrEL 6LKr1;

And justice herself is depicted on the shi

Eteocles, nevertheless, declares (662-667)
attended on his brother, and that she would
joined him now. Yet Antigone says (1054
requite evil with evil. The division of the
tragedy is in harmony with the problematic
Many scholars regard the last scene as a late
tragedy. Professor Smyth holds that its styl
and doubts its genuineness. But our mod
demand a reconciliation in the closing scene
to the fact that Aeschylus really created a ne
third play of a trilogy. Moreover, that the

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 219

this subject were unlike the modern, is proved by the ending of plays
like the Oedipus Coloneus, where Antigone entreats Theseus (1769-
1772) to send her and Ismene to Thebes that they may avert the blood-
shed of their brothers. The spectators were left in a state of uncer-
tainty as to what the outcome of the mission would be. Similarly,
the Supplices of Euripides ends with a general prophecy of the wars
of the Epigoni (I2i9 ff.), and with Theseus's promise to exact the oath
from Adrastus (1229) to which previous reference has been made
(1191 ff.). It is not necessary, therefore, if we would maintain that
the last scene of the Septem is part of the original tragedy, to say with
Verrall 1 that the poet intended to develop the motive therein sug-
gested in another play resembling the Antigone of Sophocles.
In the Prometheus, the guilt of Prometheus is sufficient to explain
the catastrophe, for it is obvious that he has sinned. Even his friend
and kinsman Hephaestus rebukes him (29-30); the Oceanids, who
sympathize with him, refer openly to his offence (261-263); and
Prometheus himself admits that he has sinned deliberately (268).
But the depth of his real transgression, whether it be that of self-will
or disobedience, is obscured not only by the fact that he has sinned
from a high, perhaps even praiseworthy motive, but also by the many
suggestions in the play of injustice in the punishment meted out to
him. Violent vituperation of Zeus is to be expected from the fettered
benefactor of mankind, but other more disinterested characters in
the tragedy affirm that Zeus, as a new ruler, is, in general, harsh, and,
in particular, cruel in his dealings with Prometheus. Such is the
opinion of Hephaestus (34-35), Kratos (76-77), the chorus (149-151;
160-167), and Oceanus himself (324-326). The ingratitude of Zeus
to Prometheus is also emphasized.2 Again, Aeschylus left in tantaliz-
ing ambiguity the cause of Zeus's determination to destroy the human
race, and whether or not it was right for Prometheus to preserve
mankind. Wecklein,3 without sufficient reason, states that the pur-
pose of Zeus was to create a new and more perfect race, made as he
would have them. Prometheus, apropos of Zeus's desire to destroy
mankind, says simply (234-235):
1 The Seven Against Thebes of Aeschylus, London, 1788, Introduction, pp. xxxii-
XXX111.

2 221-225; 306-308; 439-440; 985.

3 Aschylos Prometheus, Leipzig, 1893, Introduction, p. 14.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
220 Evelyn Spring

'XX' 'Lar''aas yevos

T iora'v XpTEV dXXO 54T^aaL ov.
The moral issues involved in the presen
Zeus with Prometheus remain obscure th
closest examination of the text does not le
tion of the question, and the example of
the conjecture that the matter was not ne
later play of the trilogy.
In the Agamemnon, for dramatic reasons
poet should prepare his audience for the d
fore took pains to display the weaker side
pride, and arrogance, and by several impli
that his untimely end was not undeserv
stance, he threw out the suggestion that th
as responsible for the tremendous loss o
lined only faintly the psychology of Agam
which he may have thought partial jus
The intimations that he has sinned, prior
are many, but it is impossible to decide
garded Agamemnon as morally culpable. In
of Agamemnon that had aroused the anger
obscure than in the Electra of Sophocles,2
seology of the omen of the eagles and
Calchas interprets with reference to Artem
to what degree was Agamemnon guilty
Upon the death of the maiden depended
202); besides, we are constantly reminde
decreed the expedition against the city of
imply that Agamemnon was a helpless in
powers mightier than man. Yet the poet r
(206 ff.) as if choice were possible, when h
reluctance to undertake the unnatural sacr
allies. Line 218,
E~rEt 5' v9 yKas iSv 9vMrabvov,

1 Cf. also 341-349; 369-372; 2 563527;

ff. 785 ff.
3 Cf. 60-67; 362-368; 522-526; 581-582; 746-749.
4 Cf. 128-130; 156-157.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 221
is apposite, for it is a perfect illustration of Aeschylus's method of
treating this problem and others like it. The verb is active, and
points to the exercise of free will on the part of Agamemnon, as do
also lines 220-221,
T0EV
76 TravTr6rolXo.Av poVEV jEri-yVCO,
and lines 224-225,
ErX a 5' o~v vOr)p yevi-
ro(e OtvyaTrpbs.

But it was the yoke of necessity that Agamemnon put on. To a

certain extent, then, the act of Agamemnon was unavoidable; to a
certain extent, he was morally accountable for it. It is the eternal
problem of free will, presented with a characteristically Aeschylean
reserve as to the processes of thought by which Agamemnon finally
resolved to sacrifice his child.
Neither Wilamowitz nor Plhiss, whose opinions differ widely on
this subject, has really understood the attitude of Aeschylus. Wila-
mowitz I believes that the poet intended to represent Agamemnon as
indisputably guilty in slaying his daughter: "Andererseits sind wir
durch die halb ratselhaften Worte des Whchters darauf vorbereitet,
dass es nicht sowohl der Fall von Ilion als das Schicksal Agamemnons
ist, um das wir uns sorgen sollen. Das macht uns empfainglich fiir
die Erzthlung von seiner Verschuldung: denn der Chor lisst keine
Zweifel dartiber, dass die Opferung der Iphigeneia trotz Artemis eine
Siinde ist; oder vielmehr die KaXt, die selbst an den L*wenjungen
ihre Freude hat, kann das gar nicht gewollt haben; damit bestreitet
der Dichter die Geschichten von G6ttern, die Menschenopfer hei-
schen; er denkt wie Goethes Iphigenie "der missversteht der Himmli-
schen, der sie blutgierig wihnt." Er halt sich nur von der offenen
Anklage fern, wie sie die Iphigeneia des Euripides erhebt. Der Chor
hat mit der Erklirung, dass kein Beschwichtigungsopfer hilft, zu-
nichst Uiber Paris, fiir uns auch Uiber Agamemnon das Urteil ge-
sprochen, oder genauer gesagt, der Dichter hat uns gleich die Weisung
gegeben, von welchem religiiis-sittlichen Standpunkte aus wir die
Handlung ansehen sollen, die er vorfiihrt." Pliss, on the other hand,
1 Aischylos Interpretationen, pp. 165-166.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 222 Evelyn Spring

who interprets the Agamemnon as a "Schick

sense of the word, maintains' that Agam
cent: "Agamemnon kommt nach unsere
Iphigeniens durch g6ttlichen Zwang und oh
schaft." He comments 2 on the contradicto
in many choral passages of the tragedy, as
poet cannot have desired to provide any
" Auch diejenige Gerechtigkeit, von der
Worten des Chores, ausdriicklich die Rede
und wo sie dieser Aihnlich sieht, steht sie in
zur Handlung und im Widerspruch mit
Stellen: iiberhaupt sind die Widerspriich
zahlreich und so stark, dass der Dichter ni
lehren wollen." Here Plhiss shows keener in
of the Agamemnon than Wilamowitz, b
Aeschylus intended to make the play probl
In the Choephoroe, there is but one brief
events of the past, - the conversation of O
(9o8 ff.) just before the latter's death, whe
her deeds. The attitude of both mother
vigorously disclosed. Aeschylus, howeve
audience by representing either as compell
or of eloquence to yield to the other. Clyta
result of her altercation with her son, b
mined resolution to avenge his father. T
of Orestes's act is still open to discussion.
The Eumenides is practically nothing but
moral problems of the past. The righteo
of Orestes's decision to fulfil the commands of Loxias is an ever-
present subject for a dispute that comes to no satisfactory conclusion.
Apollo assumes 3 the responsibility for Clytaemnestra's death, but
when the question arises whether the act of Orestes was just or not,
Apollo, evading a direct response, asserts 4 that all his oracles proceed
from Zeus. This would seem, perhaps, to be a solution of the dilemma
quite in the manner of Euripides, but actually Orestes is released,
not because he executed the divine command of Apollo, but because
1 Die Tragoedie Agamemnon und das Tragische, Basel, i896, p. 7.
2 O0. cit., p. 30. 3 84; 202-203; 579-580. * 614-621.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Study of Exposition in Greek Tragedy 223
it happens to be the purely arbitrary caprice of Athena to grant him
her favor. Born of no woman, but in all things, save for marriage,
approving the male, she casts her vote in favor of Orestes, and makes
his father's cause her own (734-741). The Eumenides differs from
the other tragedies of Aeschylus only in the detailed discussion of the
moral questions involved in the trial of Orestes. The results reached
are as inconclusive as those of the other plays.
Thus we see that Aeschylus was the inventor of a type of problem
play which treated of many more aspects of human experience than
the problem play of to-day. Here, as always, in dramatic criticism
the question occurs: to what extent are the thoughts of the characters
simply dramatic? How far do they reproduce the personal feelings
of the poet? Did Aeschylus believe that there are problems that
human logic cannot solve? In the case of choral passages, there is
perhaps more reason for attributing the thoughts of the dramatis
personae to the poet himself, yet even here we must proceed cautiously.
Witness the absurd extremes of belief and unbelief into which Eurip-
ides is brought, if we regard the contradictory statements of his
choral passages as revelations of his own faith. But with Aeschylus,
I am sure that we are on firmer ground, especially where the songs of
the chorus are concerned, although the chorus of Aeschylus is never
simply the raisonneur of French drama, the interpreter of the author's
thought to the audience. The tragedies of Aeschylus reveal to us a
poet who was not the consistent protagonist of orthodoxy that he is
popularly supposed to have been. To be sure, he was untouched by
doubt as regards belief in the divine guidance of the universe. The
gods of Aeschylus are never the far-away, shadowy figures that
the deities of Sophocles and Euripides often are. They seem really
to exist. But Aeschylus, although a deeply religious poet, applied
the principles of evolution to the conventional theology and morality
of his age. His was a mind strong and alert enough to throw aside
the traditions of the past, and think clearly for itself. He loved to
pass beyond the forms and ceremonies that made up the letter of
Greek religion in the fifth century before Christ, and brood upon the
more abiding things of its spirit. The exposition in his tragedies is
so manipulated as to give concrete expression to the problems in which
he was interested, - the clash of faith with logic and human experi-
ence, and the dilemmas of right conduct.

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
224 Evelyn Spring

CONCLUSION

Criticism that is destructive only, that rev

not done, the pitfalls that he has not avo
that he has not been quick to seize, is tem
case of the three great tragic poets of Gree
of comment was unavoidable in this essay
have tried to show, in a constructive manne
exposition that these dramatists had to f
methods and success in solving them. Of
the greatest master of dramatic expositio
marvelous treatment of exposition in the Or
each play with its own tragic atmosphere
larger unity of the trilogy. His skill is als
methods of making the situation clear at the
in his admirable use of distributive expositi
effective explanatory details. He was mor
Sophocles or Euripides in so manipulating th
as to produce many desirable dramatic effec
he provided the necessary elucidation of the
terity is the more amazing because he found
state. He transformed it into an astonishing
Something of the difficulties of his task his
Yet in spite of the years which since the tim
nessed the constant development, and in thi
metamorphosis of dramatic art, his genius r

This content downloaded from 5.12.119.221 on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms