1 the EURIPIDEAN PROLOGUE by James Geach

The Euripidean Prologue

Item Type text; Electronic Thesis

Authors Geach, James

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 01/10/2021 03:44:49

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/613579 1

THE EURIPIDEAN PROLOGUE

James Geach

______

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

2016

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR The thesis title The Euripidean Prologue prepared by James Geach has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for a master's degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that an accurate acknowledgment of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED: James Geach

APPROVAL BY THE THESIS DIRECTOR

This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

______Arum Park May 3rd, 2016 Assistant Professor of Classics

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………...4

1 Introduction...... 5-10 1.1 Ancient Theories of the Prologue...... 5 1.2 The Prologue After Euripides...... 7 1.3 Modern Scholarship...... 8 1.4 Scopes and Aims...... 10

2. Part One: The Prologue Monologue...... 11-44 2.1 The Prologist...... 11 2.2 The Elements of the Prologue...... 12 2.2.1 Identification of Self...... 13 2.2.1.a Identification of Family (and Self) ...... 19 2.2.2 Identification of Location...... 20 2.2.2.a. Delayed Identification of Location...... 22 2.2.3 Prehistory of the Drama...... 25 2.2.4 Current Crisis...... 26 2.2.4.a. Suppliant Drama Crises...... 27 2.2.5 Prediction of Events...... 28 2.2.5.a. False or Misleading Predictions...... 33 2.2.6 Identification of Characters...... 37 2.2.7 Announcement of Exit...... 41 2.2.8 Announcement of Entrance...... 43 2.2.9 Gnomes...... 44 2.2.10 How to Conclude the Prologue Monologue: Survey...... 44

3. Part Two: The Second Part of the Prologue...... 44-60 3.1 The Form of the Prologue...... 45 3.2 The Speaker of the Second Part of the Prologue...... 49 3.3 Summary of the Second Part of the Prologue...... 51-58 3.3.1 Monologue Followed by Monody...... 52 3.3.2 Monol. Followed by Dialogue Including the Monologist...... 52 3.3.3 Monol.-dialogue-monologue...... 57 3.3.4 Monol. Followed by Dialogue between Two new Characters...... 57 3.4 Survey...... 58

4. Conclusion...... 60-61 5. Bibliography...... 62-64

Abstract

This thesis examines the prologues of all the Euripidean plays except Iphigenia in Aulis and

Rhesus. It is divided between discussion of the monologues and discussion of the scene or scenes which followed it but preceded the parodos. The following elements were identified as common to the standard Euripidean form: Self-Identification, Identification of Location, Description of the Prehistory of the Drama, Identification of the Current Crisis, and Prediction of Future Events.

These, in addition to several other less prominent elements of the Euripidean prologue, are discussed in detail. The thesis attempts to define the standard form and position of these elements. It also contains discussion of Euripides’ choice of prologists and the various forms that the prologue could take.

1. Introduction

Beginnings are always difficult, in drama as much as in scholarship. They are of secondary status, supposed to introduce the audience to the material of true interest that follows, and yet they are also expected to be interesting in themselves. Euripides' prologues indisputably fulfilled that first requirement: they provided a wealth of information to his audiences about the plays which they were about to witness. In this thesis, I will posit that his prologues are also interesting, at least for scholars: studying them will allow us to understand key aspects of

Euripides' dramatic technique.

1.1 Ancient Theories of the Prologue

The prologue was already thought of as a portion of ancient drama by Euripides' contemporaries. In Aristophanes' Frogs, Euripides is represented as comparing his own prologues favorably with those of Aeschylus:

καὶ μὴν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς τοὺς προλόγους σοι τρέψομαι, ὅπως τὸ πρῶτον τῆς τραγῳδίας μέρος πρώτιστον αὐτοῦ βασανιῶ τοῦ δεξιοῦ· [ἀσαφὴς γὰρ ἦν ἐν τῇ φράσει τῶν πραγμάτων.]

Now I'll turn to the prologues by themselves, in order to first examine the first portion of tragedy of this good man himself: [for he was unclear in expression of affairs] (1119-22)1

These lines, introducing "the earliest surviving example of literary criticism" (Dunn 1992: 1), also provide us with our earliest definition of πρόλογος as τὸ πρῶτον τῆς τραγῳδίας μέρος "the first part of the tragedy". Half a century later, listing the elements κοινὰ μὲν ἁπάντων "common to all" tragedies (1452b17-18), Aristotle gave a stricter definition of the prologue in his Poetics:

1 All translations are my own. 6

ἔστιν δὲ πρόλογος μὲν μέρος ὅλον τραγῳδίας τὸ πρὸ χοροῦ παρόδου "the prologue is the entire portion of the tragedy before the πρόλογος of the chorus" (1452b19-20). This definition is slightly confused by the modern use of the term parodos as 'choral entrance song': the chorus in

Children of Heracles does not sing until line 353, despite entering and speaking at line 73, for instance. While it is true that Aristotle also gave his own definition of πάροδος as ἡ πρώτη λέξις

ὅλη χοροῦ "the entire first speech of the chorus" (1452b23),2 even according to this definition it cannot be said that the prologue is 'common to all tragedies': the earliest surviving drama,

Persians, and possibly the latest, Rhesus, both open with lines delivered by the chorus.

Moreover, Aristotle's definition is at odds with that of Aristophanes and probably many contemporaries. As Dover notes, all of the examples from prologues that Euripides and

Aeschylus argue over in the Frogs come from the opening monologues of their plays (1993:

331), a definition that Aristotle, by his use of μέρος ὅλον "the whole portion" seems to be deliberately defying (Erbse 1984: 5). This reflects a source of ambiguity throughout the ancient period: the prologue could be referred to as the opening section of the play, whether monologue, dialogue, or some combination of both, or it could refer to the simple monologue that opened many plays. This confusion is paralleled in the definition of προλογίζειν which, as Nestle has pointed out, could mean 'make the preliminary speech or dialogue', but could also imply exposition (1967: 10). 3

Hellenistic theories of the prologue were not articulated in the same comprehensive way as in Aristotle’s Poetics. Rather, we find their comments mostly in the notes of the scholiasts, of which the disputed line from the passage of the Frogs discussed above is probably one (Dover

2 Or, reading ὅλου for ὅλη, "the first speech of the entire chorus" This alternative reading could also be used to account for some, but not all, exceptions to Aristotle's definition. 3 προλογίζειν nicht bloß bedeutet "die einleitende (auch dialogisch gehaltene) Rede sprechen," sondern dabei auch an das inhaltliche Moment der Exposition gedacht wird 7

1993: 331). These comments often focus on the quality of Euripides' prologues: the scholiast to the Frogs implies that Euripides set out facts about the plot relatively clearly in his prologues, for instance.

1.2 The Prologue After Euripides

The prologue continued to develop and take a more definite form after Euripides. While it is not a common feature of modern drama, when it does occur we have certain expectations: that it be separate from the rest of the drama, and that it be delivered by an impersonal prologist who, acknowledging the presence of the audience, objectively introduces the dramatic situation.

Euripides' influence in this development has been noted since antiquity: in the Life of Euripides found in some manuscripts, it is claimed that he πολλὰ προσεξεῦρε "made many innovations," the first example of such being προλόγους (fr. 41 K.-A.). Hunter, discussing New Comedy, writes:

It is thus clear that in the late fifth century, the tragic prologue was well on the way towards becoming an extra-dramatic speech addressed to the audience, and here, as elsewhere, it was Euripidean technique which was decisive in determining the direction in which later drama moved. (1985: 25)

This development can be observed not only in the prologues of New Comedy, but centuries later in Renaissance and later drama: thus we read in the prologue of Shakespeare's Henry V, delivered by the so-called 'Chorus':

And let us, ciphers to this great accompt, On your imaginary forces work. Suppose within the girdle of these walls Are now confined two mighty monarchies (Prologue 17-20)

This sort of self-awareness is typical of Renaissance and Elizabethan drama. Braunmuller notes that, along with various other features, the prologue was increasingly used as a framing or 8 distancing device; he adds that the prologue would also serve to "describe action that cannot be represented mimetically," condensing action and filling in "details (of character relationships or past events, for example, the playwright could not or did not wish to convey in other ways"

(2003: 82-3). While there are some parallels between the function of the prologue in this later drama and the prologues of Euripides, there are also great differences, most notably that the audience is never directly addressed, as Bain argues (1975). While Bain notes that ancient critics also claimed that Euripides "indulges in extra-dramatic digressions" (15), this is probably due, as he states, to the desire of ancient scholars to discover biographical details of the tragedians. At any rate, modern scholars' familiarity with the more 'developed' form has had some influence on perception of the function, and form, of the Euripidean prologue: most infamously, Verrall found support for his theory about Euripides undercutting the dramatic illusion in his prologues (see

Todesco 1937: 83).

1.3 Modern Scholarship

Lessing's account of Euripides' prologues in his influential Hamburgischen Dramaturgie

(1769) focused on the amount of information Euripides conveyed to his audience, defending the

'excesses' against contemporary critics. While his treatment was cursory, focusing especially on the prologue-monologues delivered by gods, there is still some debate about the reasons for

Euripides revealing the information about the subsequent plot that he did (see section 2.2.5).

Euripidean prologues were the subject of several German theses in the 19th century: of special importance was F. Commer, the first4 to consider the function of the entirety of the prologue and

4 According to Erbse (1984: 11) Commer hat, wie von Arnim nach ihm, sämtliche Szenen vor der Parodos (also den ganzen Prolog) ins Ausge gefasst und gleichzeitig eine besonders wichtige Funktion dieses Teiles der Tragödie entdeckt: seine einheitstiftende Aufgabe. Lewin (1971: 13) 9 not just the prologue-monologue in his De Prologorum Euripideorum caussa ac ratione (1864).

Klinkenberg's dissertation (1881) is remembered for its overly ambitious rules for athetizing a large proportion of the verses of Euripides' prologues based on the information he believed

Euripides would have sought to convey in a prologue. His claims were mostly refuted only a year later in von Arnim's dissertation (1882); nevertheless, scholars continue to occupy themselves with questions concerning the authenticity of portions, or the entirety, of various prologues5. In the second part of his thesis, von Arnim produced a list of the standard features of the prologue. Méridier's Le Prologue dans les Tragédie d'Euripide (1911), while giving some attention to the question of athetization of certain lines, the choice of the prologue-monologist, and the relation of the prologue-monologue to the subsequent dialogue, is remarkable especially for its focus on the chronology of Euripides' plays, and the attempt he made to demonstrate a development in Euripides' technique. This focus on the chronology of Euripidean plays, like the attempt to discover interpolations, involves the danger of making circular arguments, as was proven in other aspects of Euripidean scholarship in the decades following Méridier's thesis (see

Michelini on the Historicist School, 1987: 28-30). Since Méridier, several other surveys have been composed, especially in German.6 English scholarship, however, has focused on individual or select groups of plays.

claims that von Arnim was the first, probably following Nestle (1967: 3) Hans v. Arnim zog zum erstenmal sämtliche Szenen vor der Parodos in den Kreis der Betrachtung. 5 This thesis will avoid discussion of the authenticity of lines as much as possible, to avoid the sort of circular argument that can be found in Klinkenberg's thesis. 6 The most recent, Erbse (1984), gives a more complete summary of previous scholarship (pages 6-19). 10

1.4 Scope and Aims

This thesis will provide a survey of the Euripidean prologue, examining the choice of the prologist, the form of the prologue, and most especially the elements that are typically found within it. I hope to show that Euripides had a working template in his creation of these prologues, and that not only the inclusion of the various elements in the prologue, but also their location within it, and the amount of time devoted to them, all had 'standard' values. I will identify those standard values, and offer explanations for the exceptions.

Any study of the Euripidean prologue should account for the parameters that the ancients set: while focusing on the opening monologue, attention should also be given to any speech that precedes the first utterance of the chorus. The second parts of Euripidean prologues are less consistent than the monologues that precede them, but they still tend to have some similarities, and on occasion7 they include elements that are normally found in the opening monologue. The unifying feature "everything preceding the parodos" justifies consideration of both monologue and dialogue since both are spoken without the chorus being present,8 and so convey information that the chorus has to learn in some other way.

7 Most notably in Alcestis, where Apollo's prophecies concerning future events only occurs after a dialogue with Death. 8 In Suppliant Women, Aethra delivers a monologue in the presence of the chorus; however, she delivers it as though they were not present. The chorus only exited the stage five times in Greek tragedy: Aesch. Eum. 231, Soph. Aj. 814 and Eur. Alc. 746, Hel. 385, Rh. 564 11

2. Part One: The Prologue Monologue

2.1 The Prologist

The Euripidean prologist could fit a number of character types. The most characteristically Euripidean is that of a god:9 Hermes in Ion, Aphrodite in Hippolytus, Dionysus in Bacchae, Poseidon (and Athena) in Trojan Women, Apollo (and Thanatos) in Alcestis. The shade of Polydorus in Hecuba may be included in this list. In Sophocles' plays, only Ajax includes a supernatural speaker in the prologue; the six plays most confidently attributed to

Aeschylus do not include a god in the prologue either. The disputed Prometheus Bound does, however; furthermore, it has been argued that other elements within Aeschylean tragedy, as well as lost tragedies, indicate that it was an archaic feature. Michelini, drawing a parallel with the

"naive approach" of narrative prologues addressed to the audience,10 describes the use of divine prologues as having "only tenuous roots in the past, though its archaic effect is undeniable"

(1987: 102). At any rate, the extent to which Euripides was hearkening back to older traditions must remain a matter of speculation; his undeniable effect on later drama has already been noted.

In Bacchae, Dionysus delivers the prologue and stays on afterwards as one of the main characters. However, for the course of the drama until the epilogue, he remains the 'Phrygian stranger'. Dunn has noted that Bacchae is also exceptional for Dionysus' delivery of both prologue and epilogue (1996: 29).

In all the other plays, except for Electra and Medea, the prologist is one of the main characters. In Helen, Iphigenia in Tauris, and Andromache the prologist is the titular figure. In

9 Easterling (1993) discusses the phenomenon and the parallels between the gods and didaskolos: the potential for irony would have been appealing to Euripides. 10 Concerning which we have evidence from fragments of a Phrynichan prologue (Nestle 1967: 23 on TGF 1.3 F8). 12

Electra, the prologist, an αὐτουργός, returns on stage for some time, though he eventually disappears, while the nurse in Medea probably does not speak after the prologue.

While the mortal figures that deliver the prologue tend to continue to have a role throughout their respective dramas, they are often traditionally less powerful figures. Every human prologist is female except in Electra, Heracles and Children of Heracles. In Electra, the prologist is first of all not central to the plot, and disappears after line 431, and secondly of low class despite his noble birth. In Heracles and Children of Heracles, the prologists Amphitryon and Iolaus are old and powerless. These female and otherwise marginalized prologists may be compared to Euripides' choruses: fourteen of seventeen extant Euripidean dramas have female choruses, as compared with two from seven Sophoclean dramas11. Furthermore, the three

Euripidean plays containing male choruses, Alcestis, Children of Heracles, and Heracles, have choruses made up of old men. It may be that women and the elderly were viewed as particularly suited for commenting on these events, or that youthful men were supposed to be reserved for action, but the question is outside the scope of this thesis.

2.2 The Elements of the Prologue

There are various elements, or pieces of information, that Euripidean prologues tend to provide, and they are normally fairly simple to identify. In this thesis, I count as major elements identification of self and family, identification of location, account of pre-history of the drama, identification of the crisis and prediction of the resolution; I also discuss identification of family, announcement of entrance and exit, and gnomic conclusions. While I consider this the ideal way to organize these elements, there will always be the possibility of organizing such an account in

11 For a more detailed survey, including fragmentary plays, see Mastronarde (2008: 101-106) 13 different ways, as in fact other authors have done. Méridier's, for instance, divides his discussion into main sections Present, Immediate Past, Distant Past, and Subordinate Elements, with various subjections; von Arnim found the following elements: Frame of the Beginning, Self-

Introduction, Statement of Place, Exposition of Prehistory, Digression, Frame of the Conclusion.

In addition to providing a more natural arrangement of the various elements, my thesis is distinguished from its predecessors in its focus on exceptions, which, as stated in the introduction, I hope to show are always significant. Nevertheless, other approaches will always be possible because the various elements within the prologue are often interrelated. A description of one's family in a certain sense is a description of the pre-history of the drama, for instance: in

Orestes and Heracles, the prologists give long genealogical accounts which are most appropriately considered as history. The current crisis is also intimately bound with the prehistory of the drama, given the continuous spectrum of time. It can also be connected with the identification of location: prologists reveal their positions at altars at the same time they reveal their positions as suppliants, for instance.

In this section I will describe the elements typical of Euripidean prologues. I will identify the standard form, both in terms of length and placement within the prologue, and account for the deviations where possible.

2.2.1 Identification of Self

With no one on stage to introduce them, prologue speakers needed to introduce themselves. This normally consists of a positive declaration of one's own name, and occurs 14 towards the beginning of the monologue:12 however, in a few cases, the prologist does not give a full self-identification, or only does so after a significant delay.

Supernatural creatures' self-identifications are often included in grand announcements of their arrival. The standard form was to make that announcement immediately. So, in Trojan

Women Poseidon says, Ἥκω λιπὼν Αἰγαῖον ἁλμυρὸν βάθος/πόντου Ποσειδῶν "I come having left the salty Aegean depth of the sea, I Poseidon" (1-2), in Bacchae Dionysus says, Ἥκω Διὸς παῖς

τήνδε Θηβαίαν χθόνα Διόνυσος "I, child of Zeus, Dionysus, come to this Theban land" (1-2) and in Hecuba Polydorus says, Ἥκω νεκρῶν κευθμῶνα καὶ σκότου πύλας λιπών, ἵν᾿ Ἅιδης χωρὶς

ᾤκισται θεῶν, Πολύδωρος "I come, having left the vault of the dead and the gates of darkness, where Hades lives apart from the gods- I, Polydorus" (1-3). The exceptions are Hippolytus, Ion, and Alcestis. Since the number of exceptions equals the number of plays obeying the rule, there is probably not much need to grasp for explanations. Nevertheless, we may make some observations: Hippolytus includes a slightly delayed introduction of location, and this shying away from the 'standard' form may have been to allow the opportunity to create surprise (see

2.2.2). However, while in Bacchae the verb Ἥκω is directly connected with the location that the supernatural being finds itself, in the other two plays Poseidon and Polydorus identify where they have come from rather than where they have arrived. We find a stronger case for deliberate variation in Ion, where Hermes introduces himself rather like a mortal in several ways (see

2.2.1.a). In Alcestis, Apollo does not introduce himself explicitly in his monologue: this receives special attention below.

Mortals, on the other hand, tend to introduce themselves after a few lines and with some context excusing their self-introduction. Andromache begins her self-introduction with a history

12 Tro. 1-2, Bacch. 1-2, And. 2-5, Hipp. 1-2, HF 1-2, Hec. 1-3, IT 5, Ion 4, Supp. 6.

15 of her birthplace and marriage, identifying herself at line five. Iphigenia begins by giving a brief account of her ancestry from Pelops through Atreus, to Agamemnon and finally herself in the fifth line. In Suppliant Women, Aethra begins by addressing a prayer to Demeter, identifying herself at line six as given by her father in marriage to Aegeus. She refers to herself only in the accusative, as an object: Αἴθραν πατὴρ δίδωσι "my father gave me, Aethra" (6). This may be related to her general feelings about women's subservience to men, exemplified in her concluding gnome πάντα γὰρ δι᾿ ἀρσένων γυναιξὶ πράσσειν εἰκὸς αἵτινες σοφαί "for it is right for women, if they are wise, to do everything through men" (40-1). Of mortals, only Amphitryon introduces himself immediately: Τίς τὸν Διὸς σύλλεκτρον οὐκ οἶδεν βροτῶν, Ἀργεῖον Ἀμφιτρύων᾿

"Who of mortals does not know the one sharing the bed of Zeus, Argive Amphitryon" (1-2).

Here, despite being in the accusative, the early placement of self-identification emphasizes

Amphitryon's pride in his position.

Three characters, the Nurse in Medea, the αὐτουργός in Electra, and Apollo in Alcestis do not identify themselves by name. The reasons for the lack of identification of the nurse and the

αὐτουργός are related, in that neither of them is particularly important for the drama or the social hierarchy: this is especially true of the nurse. The reasons for Apollo not naming himself are less clear.

The nurse in Medea is never given a name, or indeed described as a τροφός 'nurse'. She identifies herself only incidentally in her description of Medea as δέσποιν᾿ ἐμή "my mistress" (6).

She does not speak after the prologue.

In Electra, The αὐτουργός, 'peasant', is likewise never given a name or described as such.

He gives a fuller self-description, however:

ἡμῖν δὲ δὴ δίδωσιν Ἠλέκτραν ἔχειν δάμαρτα,πατέρων μὲν Μυκηναίων ἄπο 16

γεγῶσιν (οὐ δὴ τοῦτό γ᾿ ἐξελέγχομαι· λαμπροὶ γὰρ ἐς γένος γε, χρημάτων δὲ δὴ πένητες, ἔνθεν ηὑγένει᾿ ἀπόλλυται)

And he gave Electra to me to have, me born from Mycenaean fathers (for I am not refuted in this: we are famous in birth, but poor of possessions, from which good-birth dies (34-8)

The αὐτουργός functions as a foil for Electra and Orestes in the early parts of the play, reflecting especially the connection of nobility and wealth. His longer self-description is designed to allow that.

In Alcestis, Apollo only introduces himself through his family and deeds:

Ὦ δώματ᾿ Ἀδμήτει᾿, ἐν οἷς ἔτλην ἐγὼ θῆσσαν τράπεζαν αἰνέσαι θεός περ ὤν. Ζεὺς γὰρ κατακτὰς παῖδα τὸν ἐμὸν αἴτιος Ἀσκληπιόν, στέρνοισιν ἐμβαλὼν φλόγα· 5οὗ δὴ χολωθεὶς τέκτονας Δίου πυρὸς κτείνω Κύκλωπας· καί με θητεύειν πατὴρ θνητῷ παρ᾿ ἀνδρὶ τῶνδ᾿ ἄποιν᾿ ἠνάγκασεν.

O household of Admetus, in which I endured to acquiesce in the servant's table, despite being a god- For Zeus, killing my son Asclepius, was the cause, throwing into his chest fires: from which, being enraged, I kill the makers of the fire of Zeus, the Cyclopes: and my father forced me to be a servant for this mortal man as punishment of these things. (1-7)

It is possible that the audience, seeing Apollo's bow and arrows, would recognize him immediately upon his declaration that he is a god in the second line. The two further details, that he is the father of Asclepius (3) and the son of Zeus (6) can confirm this identity; however, they are in fact mentioned as part of the essential prehistory of the drama, on which see section 2.2.3.

In four plays, the prologists do not introduce themselves until relatively late in their monologues: Helen in Helen, Electra in Orestes, the αὐτουργός in Electra, and, more debatably, 17

Iolaus in Children of Heracles. Examination of the individual cases will reveal that this delay is more often related to character portrayal than to any effort to surprise the audience.

In Children of Heracles, Iolaus at first only introduces himself through his connection with Heracles. After giving a gnomic statement about self-interested people, he states:

ἐγὼ γὰρ αἰδοῖ καὶ τὸ συγγενὲς σέβων, ἐξὸν κατ᾿ Ἄργος ἡσύχως ναίειν, πόνων πλείστων μετέσχον εἷς ἀνὴρ Ἡρακλέει, ὅτ᾿ ἦν μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν·

For I, in reverence, honoring kinsfolk, it being possible to live peacefully in Argos, as one man I had the largest share of labors with Heracles, when he was with us (6-9)

This identifies Iolaus by reference to the labors he shared with Heracles, and his familial ties. He does not identify himself by name until the thirtieth line, however. It is interesting to note that

Iolaus is one of the less well-known characters to deliver a prologue in Euripides, together with

Polydorus in Hecuba. Whether or not the audience could be expected to know the name of the helper of Heracles must remain an open question.

In her play, Helen does not introduce herself until after identifying the location and giving a brief history of its rulers; she only identifies herself by name after giving a brief account of her birth which, while familiar to modern students, is first attested in this play (Allan 2008:

148). Allan offers an explanation for the delay:

the audience is told immediately of the setting, but the identity of the speaker is delayed (16), prompting the audience's curiosity as to how H. came to Egypt and why she is seeking asylum at the tomb of Proteus (144)

However, delaying the revelation of Helen's identity would have the opposite effect. The audience only begins to wonder why Helen is in Egypt at line sixteen, whereas if she had immediately introduced both herself and then given the account of Egypt, the curiosity of the 18 audience would have been truly piqued. This is related to an issue of some importance for consideration of surprise in Greek dramas, namely, the amount of information audiences would be given about the plays they were going to witness. Sommerstein makes the case that Euripides' audiences would have been told the title of the plays at the proagon (2010: 11-29); this would mean that the audience could be surprised by the declaration of location as Egypt. In that case, her own self-identification would not be so much a surprise as reflective of her demure character.

However, as Sommerstein himself admits (2010: 13), our knowledge in these matters is extremely limited, and our conclusions must remain tentative.

In Orestes, Electra does not introduce herself until after giving an extensive history of her family, and mentions herself incidentally among the children of Agamemnon:

ᾧ παρθένοι μὲν τρεῖς ἔφυμεν ἐκ μιᾶς, Χρυσόθεμις Ἰφιγένειά τ᾿ Ἠλέκτρα τ᾿ ἐγώ, ἄρσην τ᾿ Ὀρέστης, μητρὸς ἀνοσιωτάτης,

to whom we three maidens were birthed, Chrysothemis, Iphigenia, and me, Electra, and a boy, Orestes, from one most unholy mother. (22-24)

It is unlikely that the audience was expected to be surprised that the prologist was Electra.

Rather, the best explanation is that Euripides intended to show Electra's devotion to her family.

In Electra, the αὐτουργός, discussed immediately above, does not mention himself until nearing the end of his monologue for reasons similar to those for the nurse's passing self- introduction in Medea, that is, a lack of self-importance: he only mentions himself when he is strictly relevant to his account.

2.2.1.a. Identification of Family and Self

Given the importance of the family in the ancient world, it should come as no surprise that the introduction of self is often intimately bound with the identification of family. This is the case in twelve plays:13 the exceptions, Alcestis, Hippolytus, Medea, and Trojan Women, all involve gods or low-class figures.

In Children of Heracles, as Allan has noted, Iolaus gives a fuller genealogical description later in the play, at verses 207-13, for "expressly emotive and dramaturgical reasons" (133).

Three plays are particularly striking for the amount of genealogical information the prologists give: Orestes, Heracles and Phoenician Women. Electra's interest in her family has been noted above as supposed to be indicative of her character. Amphitryon's emphasis on genealogy in Heracles likewise seems to be intended to provide characterization, conveying his natural interest in such matters given his pride in his 'son' Heracles. Jocasta's long opening monologue begins with an account of her family, and much of the prehistory of the drama is intimately connected to it (see section 2.2.3). As Grubes points out, it also helps us understand

"the present disasters as but the last manifestation of the ancestral curse" (1941: 353).

Helen is exceptional in that Helen provides details about her conception by Zeus as a history, detailing his metamorphosis into a swan to impregnate Leda and calling it λόγος τις, "a story" (16). This reflects her doubts about the matter: she concludes the account εἰ σαφὴς οὗτος

λόγος "if this story is accurate" (21). Helen is likewise inclined to believe that her brothers have died rather than become gods.

There are various reasons for omitting genealogical details. The nurse does not recount her family line in Medea because she is low-born and insignificant; the αὐτουργός likewise,

13 El., Bacch., Heracl., And., HF, Hel., Hec., IT, Ion, Supp., Phoen., and Or. 20 despite mentioning that he is of good birth, does not give any names. The gods Poseidon in

Trojan Women, Aphrodite in Hippolytus, and Apollo in Alcestis do not recount their lineages14. It could be argued that this is because they are too well known. On the other hand, both Dionysus in Bacchae and Hermes in Ion mention their families. Dionysus does so because the fact that his aunts dispute his birth is central to the crisis the plot revolves around. Hermes' self-description seems to be fairly ironic, as he happily describes himself as the λάτρις of the gods,15 and this perhaps explains why the other gods do not give family histories: it would be too human to delve into such details.

2.2.2. Identification of Location

Identification of the location is an essential feature of the prologue: it is present in every single play, often at the beginning:16 in three cases, Hecuba and Medea and Hippolytus, it is slightly delayed. In Andromache, Children of Heracles, Iphigenia in Tauris and Orestes it is significantly delayed, and seems intended to cause surprise.

Sometimes the identification of location is made immediately through an invocation of the place or something associated with it: so in Electra the αὐτουργός begins: Ὦ γῆς Πελασγῶν

ἀρδμός, Ἰνάχου ῥοαί "O watering-place of the land of the Pelasgians, streams of Inachus!" (1)17;

Helen begins her eponymous play Νείλου μὲν αἵδε καλλιπάρθενοι ῥοαί, "These are the beautiful- nymphed streams of the Nile" (1); in Suppliant Women, Aethra begins: Δήμητερ ἑστιοῦχ᾿

14 As mentioned above, Apollo mentions his father Zeus, and son Asclepius, but only because they are part of the pre-history of the play; he does not mention his motHF 15 Knox notes that the term is used abusively of Hermes in Prometheus Bound v. 966 (1979: 259). 16 El. 1/5 (see below), Tro. 4, HF 4, Hel. 1, Ion 5, Supp. 1, Phoen. 3-4/5-6 (see below), Bacch. 1 17 He only later, more explicitly defines it as Argos: ἀφίκετ᾿ ἐς τόδ᾿ Ἄργος "[Agamemnon] came here to Argos" (5). 21

Ἐλευσῖνος χθονὸς τῆσδ᾿, "Demeter, guardian of this land of Eleusis" (1-2). A parallel may be drawn with Bacchae (1) and Ion (5) in which the god formally announces his arrival at the location.

Sometimes the identification of location is incorporated more 'naturally' into the prologue. In Phoenician Women, after addressing a prayer to Helios, Jocasta says ὡς δυστυχῆ

Θήβαισι τῇ τόθ᾿ ἡμέρᾳ ἀκτῖν᾿ ἐφῆκας, Κάδμος ἡνίκ᾿ ἦλθε γῆν τήνδ' "How unfortunate a beam did you send to Thebes on that day, when Cadmus came to this land" (4-6). In Trojan Women, after describing his place of departure, Poseidon begins a new sentence:

ἐξ οὗ γὰρ ἀμφὶ τήνδε Τρωικὴν χθόνα Φοῖβός τε κἀγὼ λαΐνους πύργους πέριξ ὀρθοῖσιν ἔθεμεν κανόσιν, οὔποτ᾿ ἐκ φρενῶν εὔνοι᾿ ἀπέστη τῶν ἐμῶν Φρυγῶν πόλει

from the time when, around this Trojan land, Phoebus and I put stone towers all around with straight measuring sticks, never from my mind has good for the city of my Phrygians been absent (4-7)

In Heracles, Amphitryon mentions the location at Thebes almost incidentally as part of his prehistory: ὃν Ἀλκαῖός ποτε ἔτιχθ᾿ ὁ Περσέως, πατέρα τόνδ᾿ Ἡρακλέους; ὃς τάσδε Θήβας ἔσχον,

[who hasn't heard of me]"whom Alcaeus, the son of Perseus, once produced- me, this here father of Heracles?-Me, who once held Thebes here" (2-4). It may be observed that the sentence structure is quite strange, serving to emphasize Amphitryon's pride and focus on himself.

In Alcestis, Apollo only identifies the 'house' of Admetus, not the city, Pherae; that is not identified until the chorus calls on it in line 235. This may be connected to the play's strange position in the place of a satyr play, and its concern with more 'local' events.

2.2.2.a. Delayed Identification of Location

In several plays, the identification of location is delayed for a number of lines. In these cases, there often seems to be some surprise involved in the setting; however, that explanation does not always apply.

In Hecuba and Medea the identification of location is slightly delayed. In Hecuba, the shade of Polydorus first gives an account of his own departure from Hades, and then begins a prehistory of the play, revealing the location incidentally: he was given to Polymestor, ὃς τήνδ᾿

ἀρίστην Χερσονησίαν πλάκα σπείρει "who sows this best flat Chersonese land" (4-5). In Medea, the nurse first gives a rueful account of the history of Jason and Medea, wishing that if they had done otherwise οὐδ᾿ ἂν κτανεῖν πείσασα Πελιάδας κόρας πατέρα κατῴκει τήνδε γῆν Κορινθίαν

"she would not, having persuaded the daughters of Pelias to kill their father, be living in this

Corinthian land" (9-10).

In Hippolytus, Aphrodite does not reveal the location at Troezen until line twelve. This is not excessively delayed. However, if there is any truth in the "commonly held assumption"

(Halleran 1995: 24; he argues against this view) that the first version was set at Athens, there may be some effort to surprise the audience in this slight delay. The delayed identification of location is especially notable because, as a goddess, Aphrodite could be expected to announce the location immediately, as noted above.

The case for surprise in the identification of location in Hippolytus is not decisive.

However, in Andromache Children of Heracles, Iphigenia in Tauris and Orestes the delay of identification, combined with other features, indicates that Euripides did intend to surprise his audience. 23

In her play, Andromache does not reveal the location at Phthia until the 16th line: Φθίας

δὲ τῆσδε καὶ πόλεως Φαρσαλίας σύγχορτα ναίω πεδί᾿ "I inhabit the plains bordering this Phthia and of the city Pharsalia" (16-17). This identification of setting is only slightly delayed.

However, it is worth noting that the first line of the prologue, Ἀσιάτιδος γῆς σχῆμα, Θηβαία

πόλι, "form of Asian land, Theban city", would probably be taken as referring to the location.

She goes on:

ὅθεν ποθ᾿ ἕδνων σὺν πολυχρύσῳ χλιδῇ Πριάμου τύραννον ἑστίαν ἀφικόμην δάμαρ δοθεῖσα παιδοποιὸς Ἕκτορι,

When once, betrothed with much-golden cloak I came to the kingly hearth of Priamus, to be given as a child-bearing wife to Hector. (2-4)

And the audience might expect that the play is located in Troy. She then reveals her unfortunate history, coming finally to the true setting of the play. Euripides seems to have been playing with his audience's expectations in this prologue.

In Children of Heracles, Iolaus does not reveal the setting at Marathon until the 32nd line:

πάσης δὲ χώρας Ἑλλάδος τητώμενοι Μαραθῶνα καὶ σύγκληρον ἐλθόντες χθόνα ἱκέται καθεζόμεσθα βώμιοι θεῶν

Being deprived of the entire land of Hellas, and having come to the famous land Marathon, we sit as altar suppliants of the god (31-3)

As the lines indicate, this follows an account of Eurystheus' pursuit of Iolaus and company; the delayed introduction is perhaps intended to surprise the audience. Unfortunately, this particular myth is not well reported by ancient sources. The only earlier source we have is Pindar's Pythian

9, in which he details that Iolaus cut off the head of Eurystheus (79-83), which, Gantz notes, 24 does not refer to Athens but has no reason to do so either (1993: 464). Whether or not Euripides was innovating in his placement of the drama at Marathon, we must conclude that he intended, patriotically, to stress the uniqueness of Athenian magnanimity in this play.

In Iphigenia in Tauris, Iphigenia does not reveal the location at Tauris until line thirty:

ἀλλ᾿ ἐξέκλεψεν ἔλαφον ἀντιδοῦσά μου Ἄρτεμις Ἀχαιοῖς, διὰ δὲ λαμπρὸν αἰθέρα πέμψασά μ᾿ ἐς τήνδ᾿ ᾤκισεν Ταύρων χθόνα,

But Artemis stole me away, giving in exchange a deer to the Achaeans, and, having sent me through the shining air, settled in in this land of the Taurians (28-30)

In this case, Allan's comments seem apposite, that the audience is supposed to be surprised by the "barbarian and mythically unconventional land" (2008: 144).

In Orestes, Electra does not reveal the setting at Argos until line 46, and she does so only incidentally:

ἔδοξε δ᾿ Ἄργει τῷδε μήθ᾿ ἡμᾶς στέγαις, μὴ πυρὶ δέχεσθαι, μήτε προσφωνεῖν τινα μητροκτονοῦντας· κυρία δ᾿ ἥδ᾿ ἡμέρα ἐν ᾗ διοίσει ψῆφον Ἀργείων πόλις εἰ χρὴ θανεῖν νὼ λευσίμῳ πετρώματι

Argos decreed, because of this, that we are not to be welcomed with roof or with hearth fire, and that no one is to speak to us, mother-slayers: and this day is decreed, in which the city of the Argives will vote if it is necessary for us to die by stoning (46-50)

The revelation of the location is clearly connected to a less conventional approach on Euripides' part: one would have perhaps expected the trial to take place in Athens, based especially on the earlier play by Aeschylus.

In each example that the location of the play is delayed, then, there seems to have been an intended surprise. However, it must be remembered that the setting of Helen in Egypt, which 25 would probably have been a greater surprise than any of these, is revealed immediately: the relevance of this issue to information the audience would learn in the proagon was discussed in section 2.2.1.

2.2.3. Prehistory of the Drama

A great part of most prologues is devoted to an account of the events preceding that of the play18. The question as to why Euripides often explains in some detail the background is a complicated one, related to the amount of knowledge the audience would have about the traditional Greek myths (and so also to their expectations about the resolution of the plot). The prehistory tends to occupy about half of the prologue, or between 20-30 lines. There are several prologues that are either exceptionally long or exceptionally short.

Three dramas, Medea, Hippolytus, and Suppliant Women, contain short prehistories. In the cases of Medea and Suppliant Women, it seems that the prehistory of the drama was well established, and since Euripides did not plan on making any changes to it, he was content to simply refer to it in brief. The case of Hippolytus is somewhat different: the prehistory of the drama does not seem particularly important, all that matters is that Hippolytus is the son of

Theseus, who has gone into exile, he is the step-son of Phaedra, who is in love with him, and he is disrespecting Aphrodite. Even the few lines accounting for the prehistory are taken up in great part by a rather incidental account of an establishment of a temple by Phaedra (28-33), which would mostly have appealed to Euripides' audience by connecting the play to their own surroundings.

18 El. 2-35, Tro. 4-22, Bacch. 13-38, Heracl. 7-30 34-38, And. 5-15 21-28, Hipp. 24-37, HF 4-34, Hel.16-55, Med. 1-13, Hec. 4-27, IT 6-34, Ion 8-65, Supp. 11-16, Alc. 1-18, Or. 1-33, Phoen. 1-9 13-77. 26

Three dramas, Ion, Phoenician Women, and Helen, contain long prehistories. Ion deals with a relatively obscure myth; Phoenician Women and Helen, on the other hand, involve something of a rewriting of a well-known myth.

2.2.4. Current Crisis

Most dramas begin with a 'crisis', a situation that requires resolution, and most dramas explicitly identify that crisis in the prologue. This account is normally quite short.19 The exceptions are Electra, Iphigenia in Tauris, Trojan Women and Hecuba.

Some plays begin with the crisis or crises that the entire plot will revolve around. In the

Bacchae, the crisis is that the women of Thebes are driven out to the hills in Bacchic frenzy (32-

38), and, more importantly, that Pentheus denies the godhead of Dionysus (43-46). In

Hippolytus, the crisis is that Hippolytus honors only Artemis, disregarding Aphrodite (10-20), or that Phaedra is secretly in love with Hippolytus (38-40). In Medea, the crisis is that Jason is planning on marrying another woman (17-19), and that Medea is upset about it (20-33), specifically hating her children (36). In the Ion, the immediate 'crisis' is that Creusa and Xuthus have come to inquire about children from the Delphic oracle (65-7); other crises could be that

Apollo's fathering of Ion upon Creusa is a secret, or that Creusa and Xuthus are childless. In

Alcestis, the crisis is that Alcestis is doomed to die that day (19-21). In the Phoenician Women, the crisis is that Polyneices is besieging the city of Thebes with an Argive army. In Orestes, the crisis is one in the Greek sense, an impending vote about whether or not to execute Electra and

Orestes (48-51).

19 Bacch. 32-38, 43-46; Heracl. 31-34, 39-44; And. 29-55; Hipp. 10-20, 38-40, HF 35-59; Hel. 60-67; Med. 15-36; Hec. 28-41; Ion 66-68; Supp. 16-27; Or. 34-51, 57-66; Phoen. 78-83; Alc. 19-20. 27

2.2.4.a. Suppliant Drama Crises

Dramas that begin with a suppliant scene have the most immediately identifiable crisis.

Suppliant dramas in Euripides are: Helen, Andromache, Heracles, Children of Heracles,

Suppliant Women. In Heracles the crisis is that Lycus desires to kill Amphitryon, Megara and the children of Heracles, who have taken a position of supplication (35-59). In Children of Heracles, the crisis is that Iolaus, Alcmena, and the children of Heracles are supplicants at Marathon (31-

34). In Suppliant Women, the crisis is that the mothers of the seven against Thebes desire to get

Theseus' support for burying their children. In Helen, the crisis is that Theoclymenus desires to marry Helen, who has taken a position of supplication (60-7), and that Menelaus is unaware of her situation (31-55). In Andromache, the crisis is that Hermione, being barren, is persecuting and making false accusations of Andromache (30-5), and, more specifically, intending to slay her, with help from Menelaus (39-42). As a result, Andromache has taken a position of supplication (42-44). The two details, that she has hidden her child (47-8), and that her husband is at Delphi, may be viewed as other 'crises'.

These initial crises of suppliant plays are often resolved before the middle of the play. In

Andromache, the suppliant drama is practically resolved with the entrance of Peleus (547).20 In

Heracles, the suppliant drama is resolved with the entrance of Heracles (523). In Children of

Heracles, the suppliant drama is resolved with Demophon's decision to accept Iolaus and company (237-52). In Suppliant Women, the suppliant drama is resolved either with Theseus' decision to get consent from the Athenian people for supporting Adrastus (334-64), or with his announcement that he has attained it (381-98). In Helen, the supplication drama is, in a certain sense, subordinate to the drama of reunion and recognition between Helen and Menelaus. This is

20 Indeed, Andromache herself does not seem to reenter after verse 765 (Erbse 1984: 130) 28 indicated by the fact that Helen abandons her position as suppliant immediately after the parodos.

With this in mind, we should not accept Arnott's claim regarding the first audience of

Heracles, that they would be led "by the conventionality of so much of the play's first 700 lines" to expect a quick and simple resolution to the plot (1978: 10). Theatre-goers who were familiar with typical suppliant dramas would actually expect some further complication, though the sudden arrival of Iris and Lyssa would still undoubtedly be a surprise.

Some prologues do not indicate any crisis. In Electra, the crisis is not clearly stated: the

αὐτουργός indicates that Aegisthus has set a bounty on Orestes' head (32-3); perhaps his marriage to Electra is also viewed as something of a crisis (34-5). In Iphigenia in Tauris, as in Electra, the crisis is not clearly stated. Iphigenia merely remarks on the local custom to sacrifice Greeks to

Artemis (36-41). In Trojan Women, there is not much of a 'crisis'; Poseidon merely points out that the Trojan women have been divided among the Hellenes; that Helen is likewise a captive; and that Hecuba is unaware that Polyxena has been sacrificed (28-40). In Hecuba, the situation is that Achilles has demanded the death of Polyxena (30-41); perhaps also that Polydorus is unburied (28-30). It is a crisis that Hecuba, the main character of the play, is unaware of, however, and is therefore more of a prediction of future events than a statement of the crisis.

Furthermore, their deaths are revealed in the first half of the play; the focus of the second half is

Hecuba's revenge on Polydorus' killer, which is not hinted at in the prologue.

2.2.5 Prediction of Events

Identification of the current crisis can in some way indicate the way the plot or some part of it will be resolved: in a suppliant drama, the audience could probably expect the resolution 29 that the suppliants desire, for instance. One can also find clues about how plays will resolve within a prologue: a good example is the mention of the items which will later be used as recognition tokens in Ion (18-26). This section of the thesis will not consider such elements; rather, it will examine the positive statements of prediction that occur within the Euripidean prologue.

Euripides' prologues have been compared with messenger speeches and epic poetry, to show that it reflects the ancient Greek approach to narrative. So Van Groningen:

There is reason to believe that the Greek spirit prefered to know in advance where a story would take them. Instead of being held in suspense by a conclusion that was kept secret, Greeks preferred to learn how an already-known conclusion was arrived at. (1958: 58)21

The original tendency in modern scholarship was to focus on that element, and to explain why

Euripides gave away so much information. In recent years, however, the focus has shifted to the amount of surprises that Euripides and other dramatists included within their plays:

Sommerstein, for instance, has recently argued- provocatively, if not absolutely convincingly- that the Sophocles' audience could be surprised by the revelation that Jocasta is Oedipus' mother

(2010: 215-23). I would maintain that Euripides does in fact give more information about events to come than modern audiences would tend to expect; nevertheless, there are also passages that were probably intended to mislead his audiences. Both of those aspects of Euripidean prologues will receive attention here.

Predictions can be found in the prologue of almost every Euripidean tragedy.22 These predictions may be divided into two sorts: those made by gods or conveyed in some supernatural

21 Il y a lieu de croire que l'esprit hellénique préférait savoir d'avance où on allait le conduire. Plutôt que d'être tenu en suspens par un dénouement tenu secret, il préférait apprendre comment un résultat déjà connu avait été atteint. 30 way, and those made by humans, expressed as fears, intentions, etc. The first sort is of course much more authoritative, and is found in all the plays which contain supernatural beings23 as well as two which do not: Helen and Iphigenia in Tauris. However, there is a fair amount of controversy about the accuracy of some of the predictions. Only the predictions in Hecuba and

Trojan Women are fulfilled in a straightforward sense. These, together with the predictions of

Helen and Iphigenia In Tauris, will be considered here; the other supernatural predictions will be considered below (2.2.5.a)

In Hecuba, the shade of Polydorus reveals that Polyxena will be sacrificed (40-4), and that Hecuba will also receive his corpse after a servant finds it (45-8). The prediction concerning

Polyxena's death is repeated first by Hecuba herself in the second part of the prologue, and then confirmed immediately afterwards by the chorus. It is in fact directly related to the discovery of

Polydorus' body: at line 609, Hecuba tells a servant to get water. With knowledge of Polydorus' specific prediction, the audience would anticipate the reentry of the servant with his body. In the

Trojan Women, Poseidon reveals that Hecuba will learn of Polyxena's death (39-40), and that

Agamemnon will lead off Cassandra as a concubine (41-4), all events which happen, though

Hecuba learns of Polyxena's death early on and Cassandra is not of central importance to the plot. In Alcestis, Apollo reveals that Alcestis is doomed to die; however, all of the characters within the drama are also aware of this. The rescue by Heracles is only mentioned in the second part of the prologue. In Helen, Helen recounts a prophecy related to her by Hermes that she will reunite with Menelaus and the two will live happily in Sparta (56-9). This practically resolves the

22 El. 47-49; Tro. 39-44; Bacch. 39-42; 47-52; Heracl. 45-47; Hipp. 21-23, 41-50, 57-58; Hel. 56-59; Med. 37-45; Hec. 42-52; IT 41-62; Ion 69-81; Supp. 37-40; Or. 52-56, 67-70; Phoen. 81- 83; Alc. 19-21. 23 Though the true prediction is reserved for the dialogue in Alcestis: see below. 31 whole plot, though the second part of the prologue presents some confusion with the false news brought by Teucer that Menelaus is dead.

The prediction in Iphigenia in Tauris is ambiguous. Iphigenia relates a dream in which her home in Argos collapsed, leaving only one pillar standing, which she anointed, weeping (41-

62). She interprets this as implying that Orestes is dead; however, because of its obscurity it cannot have provided much information to the play's first audience about events to come.

We may now consider the mortal 'predictions', which, as stated above, are of much less importance, since they could not carry the same weight with the audience. They may be found in

Phoenician Women, Suppliant Women and Medea. Two plays, Phoenician Women and Suppliant

Women, contain predictions that are resolved almost immediately, and as such do not require much explanation. Suppliant Women is also similar to Medea in that the prologist considers various possible conclusions, which would not lead the audience necessarily to expect any course of action in preference to the others. In Orestes and Electra, on the other hand, characters express hopes and fears indicating a course of action that is not followed in the rest of the play; they will be considered below (section 2.2.5.a).

In Phoenician Women, Iocasta reveals that she has convinced Polyneices and Eteocles to parlay (81-83), expressing hope that the two might be reconciled (85). The parlay, like the death of Alcestis, occurs almost immediately after the parodos; the idea that the two brothers could be reconciled would contradict tradition too well established to be considered plausible by the audience. In Suppliant Women, Aethra reveals that she has called for Theseus to come and decide what to do with the suppliants (35-40), leaving the possibility of assistance or rejection open. Theseus' arrival occurs immediately after the parodos. 32

In Medea, on the other hand, a prediction is made that concerns the essence of the play,

Medea's reaction to Jason's betrayal. The nurse expresses her fears about what Medea will do:

στυγεῖ δὲ παῖδας οὐδ᾿ ὁρῶσ᾿ εὐφραίνεται. δέδοικα δ᾿ αὐτὴν μή τι βουλεύσῃ νέον· βαρεῖα γὰρ φρήν, οὐδ᾿ ἀνέξεται κακῶς πάσχουσ᾿ (ἐγᾦδα τήνδε), δειμαίνω τέ νιν μὴ θηκτὸν ὤσῃ φάσγανον δι᾿ ἥπατος, [σιγῇ δόμους εἰσβᾶσ᾿, ἵν᾿ ἔστρωται λέχος,] ἢ καὶ τυράννους τόν τε γήμαντα κτάνῃ κἄπειτα μείζω συμφορὰν λάβῃ τινά.

And she hates the children, nor does she delight in seeing them. And I fear her, lest she plan something new: for she is heavy in her mind, nor will she bear suffering badly (I know this lady), and I fear her lest she push a sharpened sword through the liver, [having gone into the houses in silence, where the bed is laid out,] or if she kills the tyrants and the one marrying, and then get some greater suffering (36-43)

The text is ambiguous, and viewed as corrupt, and various athetizations have been suggested:

Mastronarde discusses various theories in his notes on these lines (2002). The Nurse seems to allow for the possibility of Medea killing either herself or the princess in line 40; other than that, she worries about the children of Medea (36-7),24 and Creon, his family and Jason (42).25

Mastronarde (2002) notes that Medea hints at the possibility of suicide at lines 97, 114, 144-7

(note at 37-45). This is true of the first and third passages, though the second can only hardly qualify as such:

παῖδες ὄλοισθε στυγερᾶς ματρὸς σὺν πατρί, καὶ πᾶς δόμος ἔρροι.

Children of a hateful mother, may you perish

24 Note that the Nurse worries whether Medea will 'plan something new' (37) concerning the children. This may be a fairly typical Euripidean nod to his own innovation concerning the murder of the children. 25 Mastronarde argues for accepting τύραννον instead of τυράννους in line 42 (2002: note ad loc.). This would remove the feared suicide of Medea. 33

with your father, and may the whole house collapse (114-5)

Her curse is mostly directed at her children. At any rate, while there is some indication of the possibility of Medea committing suicide, it is quickly dismissed and the plot focuses on her vengeful murders and escape. This prologue does not establish the possibility of surprise either in Medea's murder of the children or in her own survival: alternatives are considered, and the subsequent drama quickly indicates which path will be taken.

2.2.5.a. False or Misleading Predictions

While Lessing felt he had to defend the amount of information Euripides revealed to his audience, in recent years the focus has turned to the extent to which ancient tragedians misled their audiences. So, while Dodds' claim that "the element of surprise had more importance in

Greek stage-craft than modern critics usually allow" (1960: 69) was reasonable at the time he made it, in recent years attitudes have shifted in the opposite direction. It is impossible to deny that Euripides deceived his audiences in some of his prologues; this section will detail those deceptions, but also demonstrate that their extent and impact has been exaggerated.

There was undoubtedly ample opportunity for Greek tragedians to surprise their audiences: first of all, the dramatic tradition shaped audiences' expectations regarding new plays they came to see. The focus in tragedy on a select few families, already noticed by Aristotle, will have contributed greatly to the possibility for surprise: as Burian notes, "where there is a large- scale repetition, even small innovations will be disproportionately prominent and emphatic"

(1997: 179). Furthermore, the very context of authoritative predictions will have allowed for the possibility of surprise: audiences are most susceptible to being surprised when they think they know what is going to happen in a play. However, our knowledge in these matters is often quite 34 limited: we have only a fraction of fifth-century tragedies, and almost no knowledge of the information provided in the proagon; knowledge of the 'standard' form of a myth is often practically impossible, and trying to find one would be to misunderstand the variance of ancient myth. This discussion will be limited as much as possible to discussion of the text itself.

In the Bacchae, Dionysus announces his intention to reveal himself to Thebes (39-42); he soon repeats that intention (47-8), adding that he will soon go on to another city to continue revealing himself (48-50); he mentions the possibility that the Thebans will take arms against his

Bacchants, and a resulting battle (50-2).26 There seems to be a definite moment of surprise when

Pentheus later seems to decide on battle and Dionysus interrupts him with what has been described as the "monosyllabic turning point of the play" (Taplin 1978: 158).

In the two other prologues that seem likely to be intended to mislead the audience, the misinformation is engulfed in a wealth of information about the plot and its resolution. The two prologues are quite different in their tone, however: while Hermes in Ion mostly indicates a happy resolution to the play, Aphrodite in Hippolytus definitively declares the tragic ending with the deaths of Hippolytus and Phaedra.

After giving a long pre-history in Ion, Hermes explains that Creusa and her husband

Xuthus have come to Delphi to get information about how to end their infertility. He says:

Λοξίας δὲ τὴν τύχην ἐς τοῦτ᾿ ἐλαύνει, κοὐ λέληθεν, ὡς δοκεῖ δώσει γὰρ εἰσελθόντι μαντεῖον τόδε 70 Ξούθῳ τὸν αὑτοῦ παῖδα καὶ πεφυκέναι κείνου σφε φήσει,

Loxias drives fortune to this, and it does not escape his notice, as it appears for he will give to Xuthus, entering this temple,

26 This prologue in particular has inspired debate concerning the authenticity of its lines: see Dihle 1980. 35

his own child, and will say that he was born of that one (67-71)

So far, all of the information Hermes provides is correct; however, he then goes on about the intended result of Apollo's actions:

μητρὸς ὡς ἐλθὼν δόμους γνωσθῇ Κρεούσῃ καὶ γάμοι τε Λοξίου κρυπτοὶ γένωνται παῖς τ᾿ ἔχῃ τὰ πρόσφορα.

So that going to the home of his mother Creusa will recognize him, and the marriage of Loxias will be secret, and the child will have the things fitting (71-3)

This does not occur. Instead, Creusa does not recognize Ion, and, learning about Xuthus' plan to accept him as his son, tries to kill him, before the two eventually recognize each other on stage at

Delphi. The shift away from the god's design is marked by an unusual dramatic feature: the chorus informs Creusa of Xuthus' plan, one of the few times in later Greek tragedy that the chorus "is allowed drastically to effect the action" of a play (Conacher 1958: 38 n.52). On the other hand, the fact that Hermes precedes his statement with the remark that the matters have not escaped Apollo's notice, though it seems they have (68), and the revelation of Ion's future name and the slightly misleading account27 of his future achievements (74-5), seem to indicate the happy outcome of the play.

In Hippolytus, Aphrodite reveals that she will avenge herself on Hippolytus (21-22), later revealing that she will do so through the love of Phaedra:

δείξω δὲ Θησεῖ πρᾶγμα κἀκφανήσεται. καὶ τὸν μὲν ἡμῖν πολέμιον νεανίαν κτενεῖ πατὴρ ἀραῖσιν ἃς ὁ πόντιος ἄναξ Ποσειδῶν ὤπασεν Θησεῖ γέρας, μηδὲν μάταιον ἐς τρὶς εὔξασθαι θεῷ.

27 Professor John Gibert has pointed out (via email) that Hermes' description of Ion as κτίστορ᾿ Ἀσιάδος χθονός, "founder of Asian land" (74) is somewhat problematic: not Ion, but Ion's descendants eventually found the cities on the Ionian coast. Athena offers a more comprehensive prediction at the end of the play (1575-94). 36

ἡ δ᾿ εὐκλεὴς μὲν ἀλλ᾿ ὅμως ἀπόλλυται Φαίδρα·

I will show Theseus, and the thing will be revealed, and the father will kill the youth warring against us with prayers, which the sea-lord Poseidon promised Theseus as a gift, to pray not in vain to the god three times. And she, Phaedra, of good repute, but nevertheless she dies (42-8)

She ends her prologue by repeating that Hippolytus will die that day (56-57)28. Both Hippolytus and Phaedra die in the course of the play, but surprise is supposed to be created by the order in which Aphrodite recounts the events: she recounts the death of Phaedra last, but it occurs before the death of Hippolytus. There is a strong possibility that Euripides was taking advantage of his audience's expectations based on his previous play on the same subject. Even if we find reasons to reject the tradition that the surviving Hippolytus was in fact the second (as Gibert 1997 argues), the audience would still expect that course of events based on the traditional form of the myth, which would not have involved writing.29 However, if the audience would already naturally expect this course of events, one might question the use of such a restatement: perhaps it was intended to encourage the audience's preconceptions. It should also be noted that

Aphrodite's account reflects her own motivations: she is interested in the death of Hippolytus, and details it first; the incidental death of Phaedra is mentioned afterwards. This point is supported by Aphrodite's use of the present tense in the verb for Phaedra, opposed to the future for the events to come in the play: she is referring to the current state of dying that Phaedra is

28 Dunn notes that even the language of Aphrodite's prophecy is echoed later by Hippolytus at verse 1447 (1996: 88). 29 Sommerstein notes that the audience could be led to think of Euripides' previous drama "or it may have been Sophocles' Phaedra, or it may even have been an epic Theseis" (2010: 227 n.8). 37 experiencing.30 At any rate, while the prologue may be designed to slightly mislead the audience, it should be noted that its primary purpose is to imbue the entire drama with a sense of doom and the impossibility that human beings escape their fate.

The hope of Electra in Orestes and the fear of the αὐτουργός in Electra, as noted above, prepare the audience for events that do not occur in the play: however, the surprises are not as important as those prepared for in the prologues delivered by divinities. In Orestes, Electra expresses her hope that Menelaus will come to protect them (52-6), repeating it shortly afterwards (67-70). While Menelaus does arrive, he does not provide any assistance. In Electra, the αὐτουργός worries that Orestes will arrive and misunderstand the situation. This is all related to the proper treatment of Electra by the αὐτουργός, which is stressed by Electra herself shortly afterwards (67-8). When Orestes arrives, he claims to have heard that Electra is married and no longer παρθένον "a maiden" (99). However, the situation is resolved quickly, when Electra informs him otherwise (254-5). This is a strange piece of Euripidean misdirection, and quickly resolved.

2.2.6. Identification of Characters

Euripidean prologues rarely name every speaking character that will appear; however, they often only leave out one or two. Only Ion and Hippolytus name every character; Children of

Heracles at least makes reference to every character. The identification of the characters within the drama may be considered as a subset of the prediction of events to come since, in almost every case, characters that are not mentioned bring a change of direction of plot, or a new episode, with their entrance.

30 Halleran argues that this is in fact an 'oracular present' (1995: 131/ note on 47-8). It should be stressed that all the other prophetic verbs are in the future, however. 38

Messengers (and the herdsman in Iphigenia in Tauris, who functions as one) will not be included in this list, since their characters were almost entirely limited to conveying narrative concerning the other characters within the drama. On a related note, we may note that the heralds

Talthybius (Hecuba, Trojan Women) and 'Copreus' (Children of Heracles),31 and the prophet

Teiresias (Bacchae, Phoenician Women) are not mentioned, and will not be included in the individual examination of plays. I also do not consider characters that are not mentioned in the prologue-monologue but appear in the rest of the prologue.32 The chorus receives special note below.

We may first consider gods that are not mentioned. In Iphigenia in Tauris, Athena is not mentioned in the prologue: rather, Artemis dominates. The appearance of Athena, rather than

Artemis, at the end of the play, may be compared to her appearance in the place of Apollo in Ion: although she is mentioned in the prologue there, the audience would probably be more inclined to expect Apollo intervening at the end of the play.33 In Electra, the Dioscuri are not mentioned.

In Suppliant Women, Athena is not mentioned in the prologue, or until line 712. In all of these plays, there seems to be an attempt to surprise the audience with their entrance at the end of the play. The case for a manufactured surprise is even stronger in Heracles, in which Madness and

Iris are not mentioned, but break into the action midway through the play. Finally, in Helen,

Helen's brothers, the Dioscuri, are not mentioned in the prologue monologue, despite her account

31 Copreus appears in the prologue-dialogue; he is never given a name in the drama, rather being identified by the author of the play's Hypothesis. 32 The characters that are not mentioned in the prologue-monologue but are mentioned in the rest of the prologue are less numerous, and may be mentioned briefly, though there does not seem to be significance in any omission: Odysseus in Hecuba (he is mentioned immediately after the prologue, by the chorus); Peleus in Andromache; Demophon, referred to only as one of δισσοὺς Θησέως παῖδας "the two children of Theseus" (35), in Children of Heracles. 33 Demonstrating the limitations of these 'objective' lists: it would still be possible to surprise audiences with an entrance of a character even if that character were passingly mentioned at any point within a drama. 39 of her own birth. They are mentioned in the prologue-dialogue, though the possibility that they are dead is advanced. Helen's unquestioning acceptance of their death, like her despair about the death of Menelaus, and her skepticism about the story of her own birth, would probably not be unquestioningly accepted by the audience.

Characters that are not mentioned are distinct from characters that are not named:

Andromache in Trojan Women, counted only as part of the larger group, ὅσαι δ᾿ ἄκληροι

Τρῳάδων "all the captive Trojan women" (32); in Bacchae, Agave is only mentioned as one of

μ᾿ ἀδελφαὶ μητρός "the sisters of my mother" (26); in Children of Heracles, Makaria is only mentioned as one of τὸ θῆλυ παιδὸς...γένος (41), and never named in the drama. Children of

Heracles is remarkable in that, while all of the characters are named, many of them do things that would not be expected: Makaria's self-sacrifice, Hyllus' arrival with an army, and Alcmene's revenge are not prepared for in the prologue. In Alcestis, Alcestis is not named, but referred to as

Admetus' wife at line 17. This may be compared to Apollo's avoidance of giving his own name, as well as his circumlocution to describe Heracles in the prologue-dialogue.

Having devised various ways to 'purify' the list of the liminal cases, we may now consider the humans that are not named. While the gods would make more stunning entrances, humans were allowed more stage-time, and (with the exception of Madness and Iris in Heracles), could effect the plot of the actual drama more than the gods. As such, their entrances are just as significant and surprising, if not more so, than divine entrances.

In two plays, Phoenician Women and Suppliant Women, the characters not mentioned introduce, and are the focus of, an 'episode' within their respective dramas. In Phoenician

Women, Menoeceus, the son of Creon, is not mentioned, nor talked about in the play until line 40

779. In Suppliant Women, Evadne is not mentioned in the prologue, or until her entrance; Iphis, her father, is also only mentioned for the first time with her entrance.

In Hecuba, Heracles, Andromache, and Medea, the characters not mentioned enter to significantly change the apparent course of the drama. In Hecuba, Agamemnon is not mentioned in the prologue. He is mentioned by the chorus leader immediately after the prologue; he does not enter, however, until line 724, at which point the drama takes a turn in plot, focusing on

Hecuba's revenge. In Andromache, Orestes is not mentioned during the prologue, or until his arrival; on the other hand, Neoptolemus, who only arrives as a corpse, is mentioned. Orestes' arrival in Neoptolemus' place must have been intended as a surprise, even though more cultured audience members were probably familiar with the story of Neoptolemus' death at Delphi.34 In

Heracles, Theseus is not mentioned in the prologue. In Medea, Aegeus is not mentioned in the prologue, or until his entrance.

In Alcestis, the child of Alcestis and Admetus is not referred to nor named anywhere. Not mentioning the child is significant since his presence would not be expected according to the traditional myth, in which Alcestis was to die on the wedding day (Erbse 1984: 27).

In Trojan Women and Orestes, the characters that are not mentioned in the prologue are mentioned soon afterwards; while there may be some surprise in their entrances, especially in the case of Pylades, it is not as great as in the plays previously discussed. In Trojan Women,

Menelaus is not mentioned. He is mentioned in the parodos, as the husband of Helen, and the chorus later laments the possibility of encountering him in the home of Helen, in Greece: ἔνθ᾿

ἀντάσω Μενέλᾳ δούλα "there, a slave, I will meet Menelaus" (211); he is not mentioned again,

34 Euripides seems to have innovated in his account of Neoptolemus' story at Delphi in Andromache: rather than demanding reparation from Apollo when he is killed, Neoptolemus is asking forgiveness for his earlier trip to Delphi (Lloyd 2005: 2-3). 41 however, until his entrance at line 860. This introduces a new 'episode' to the admittedly episodic plot, as Menelaus sets up an agon between Hecuba and Helen. In Orestes, Tyndareus is not mentioned in the prologue; Pylades is either mentioned at line 33, a disputed line, or not in the prologue. Tyndareus is mentioned as the father of Clytemnestra and Helen twice before his entrance at 459. Pylades is mentioned at 406, but only enters at 725 as an unexpected help for

Orestes.

2.2.7 Announcement of Exit

Prologue-monologists rarely declare their own exits, since they normally would not exit before the next scene. Supernatural beings, however, always declare their own exits, even if they do not exit.35 Iphigenia in Tauris and Phoenician Women are the only plays with mortal speakers that exit before the next scene. Jocasta does not declare her own exit; Iphigenia does, perhaps because it is essential that she exit before Orestes and Pylades enter, and Euripides felt it had to be excused.

2.2.8. Announcement of Entrance

The announcement of entrances in all parts of Euripidean drama has been exhaustively discussed in Halleran's Stagecraft in Euripides (1985). This section will for the most part perform the rather perfunctory task of limiting that discussion to the prologue-monologue.

Prologue-monologists rarely declare the entrance of other characters, following a rule noted by Halleran, that announcements only occur with more than one person on stage (1985: 6).

35 Tro. 23-7; 45-7, both falsely, Bacch. 62-3, Hipp. 53, Hec. 52, Ion 76-7, Alc. 22-3. Wilson discusses all three announcements of exit, making the case for Trojan Women 45-7 being a 'true' announcement of exit, in (1967: 208-9). 42

Supernatural beings, on the other hand, can and in fact almost always do make such an announcement:36 the only exception is the entrance of Athena in Trojan Women, described by

Halleran as the "Talk of the Devil" sort of entrance found in a number of Euripides' plays (1985:

43-6).

In two plays, Children of Heracles and Medea, a mortal character announces the entrance of other characters. Iolaus announces the entrance of Copreus: he is allowed to do so, as Halleran points out, because he is not alone, and he makes the announcement as part of a command to the children (27 n. 11). The announcement in Medea is exceptional, and Halleran devotes some time to explaining it (6-7), concluding "Euripides thus breaks the convention to underscore the importance of the children and Medea's potential for violence" (7). This is a reasonable explanation; it may also be stressed that children could not have a speaking role in Greek tragedy, which perhaps distinguishes an announcement of their entrance is not the same announcements of characters that can speak.37

In Iphigenia in Tauris, Iphigenia says she will go to pour libations with her servants, identifying the chorus:

σὺν προσπόλοισιν, ἃς ἔδωχ᾿ ἡμῖν ἄναξ Ἑλληνίδας γυναῖκας. ἀλλ᾿ ἐξ αἰτίας οὔπω τινὸς πάρεισιν·

[I'll go] with the slave-women that the king gave me, Greek women. But for some reason they are not yet here. (63-5)

36 Bacch. 55-61, Hipp. 51-7, Hec. 52-8, Ion 81, Alc. 25-7. 37 We should also note Halleran's admission that the data we are working with regarding 'announced entrances with only one character one stage' is quite limited (1985: 6), and that explanations do not have to be grasped for. 43

Despite the fact that it would break the rules detailed above, this announcement may have led the audience to expect the entrance of the chorus; as such, it can be seen as a typically Euripidean moment of meta-theatre.

2.2.9. Gnomes

Several prologues conclude with a gnomic statement, as indeed do many speeches in

Euripidean drama. This would provide an air of finality, and prepare the audience for the next scene. Five prologue-monologues end with a gnome38 and Phoenician Women (86-7) ends with a gnome-like prayer, as it began.

These gnomes often reflect some overall theme of the play, as in Heracles, in which

Amphitryon says,

τοιοῦτον ἀνθρώποισιν ἡ δυσπραξία ἧς μήποθ᾿ ὅστις καὶ μέσως εὔνους ἐμοὶ τύχοι, φίλων ἔλεγχον ἀψευδέστατον.

Such a thing ill-fortune is for humans- may no one even a little good-willed to me get it, the truest test of friends! (57-9)

This signals the theme of 'friendship' that will continue throughout the play. Gnomes can also serve as characterization, as when in Suppliant Women Aithra says, πάντα γὰρ δι᾿ ἀρσένων

γυναιξὶ πράσσειν εἰκὸς αἵτινες σοφαί "It is right for women who are wise to do all things through men" (40-1). While this is a suggestive idea in a play about suppliant women, it also encourages the audience to look favorably on Aithra.

38 Med. 48, Supp. 40-1, El. 50-3, HF 57-9, Or. 70. 44

2.2.10. How to Conclude the Prologue Monologue: Survey

Six prologues end with a gnomic statement. Five end with an announcement of entrance preceded by an announcement of exit: Bacchae, Hippolytus, Hecuba, Ion and Alcestis. Two end with just an announcement of exit: Trojan Women and Iphigenia in Tauris. Two end with just an announcement of entrance: Children of Heracles and Medea.

Two plays do not end with any of these standard closing devices: Andromache and

Helen. Andromache ends with Andromache's account of where Neoptolemus is; Helen ends with

Helen's statement declaring that she will take the position of suppliant, and that she will not take any shameful action. In Andromache, as has already been noted, Neoptolemus is exceptional for being mentioned but not arriving, while Orestes, not being mentioned, arrives. The fact that the account of Neoptolemus' quest to Delphi comes at the end of the prologue-monologue may put him high in the audience's thoughts in the following scenes. Helen's claim is likewise striking, and has an almost gnomic quality to it, in her almost paradoxical resolution to remain chaste.

3. Part Two: The Second Part of the Prologue

Whereas the prologue-monologue was designed to provide a number of points of information to the audience, the rest of the prologue is often closer to standard drama, providing characterization or simply poetic description. Nevertheless, as stated in the introduction, the shared characteristic of preceding the entrance of the chorus is a fine defining feature of the prologue, and some prologues contain information in their second parts that were typically found in the prologue-monologues. This portion of the thesis will begin with a summary of the various forms that the prologue can take; it will then give a brief summary of the speakers of the second 45 part of the prologue, before continuing to focus on the same elements that were discussed in the prologue-monologue. However, rather than consider the elements separately, the plays will be considered according to their form, and the content they provide will be noted.

3.1 Formal Features of the Prologue

The most basic form of the Euripidean prologue is monologue followed by dialogue:39 the original monologist is usually one of speakers of the dialogue, though in three cases

(Iphigenia in Tauris, Phoenician Women, and Hippolytus) there are entirely new speakers.

Twelve prologues conform to that basic format: the exceptions are Bacchae, Suppliant Women,

Hecuba and Ion, and the disputed Iphigenia in Aulis and Rhesus.

While the basic format monologue-dialogue-entrance of chorus can be found within the great majority of Euripidean prologues, only five plays, Alcestis, Children of Heracles, Heracles,

Iphigenia in Tauris and Phoenician Women, are absolutely limited to that sequence, while the others contain minor variations discussed below.

In Alcestis, Apollo delivers a monologue before Thanatos enters, and the two engage in dialogue. In Heracles, Amphitryon gives a monologue in the presence of Megara, who then engages him in dialogue. In Children of Heracles, Iolaus delivers a monologue in the presence of the two children of Heracles; he only addresses them on the entrance of the herald, with whom he then engages in dialogue.

While Iphigenia in Tauris and Phoenician Women consist simply of monologue- dialogue-entrance of chorus, the speaker of the monologue exits before the entrance of the dialogue speakers; they will be discussed with Hippolytus below.

39 Die Grundform euripideischer Prologe ist die Zweiteiligkeit (Imhof 1957: 22). 46

Most prologues involve some variation on the basic format described above. In three cases, the original monologist remains after the departure of the other speaker in the dialogue scene, and delivers some lines before the entrance of the chorus. In Andromache, after her dialogue with her handmaid, Andromache delivers a speech and song; in Helen, after her dialogue with Teucer, Helen breaks into song before the entrance of the chorus; in Orestes, after her dialogue with Helen, Electra gives a short speech (furthermore, during the dialogue, a third character, Hermione, enters, though she does not deliver any lines).

In the other three cases, Trojan Women,40 Medea and Electra, a third speaker becomes involved in the prologue. Each of the ways in which the third speaker became involved is unique.

In Trojan Women, Poseidon and Athena engage in the initial monologue and dialogue; after they exit, Hecuba, who was present for their entire discussion, begins to sing. In Medea, during the discussion between the nurse and παιδαγωγός, Medea begins to cry from offstage (95); the

παιδαγωγός exits around line 110, and for the next lines the nurse and Medea engage in dialogue.

However, Medea remains offstage until after the chorus' first song. In Electra, after the

αὐτουργός and Electra engage in dialogue, they exit, and Orestes enters to deliver a speech to

Pylades, who remains silent. These three plays have at least one parallel with the monologues followed by dialogues involving new characters: they must involve all three actors. The prologue of Electra is similar to them in that it provides the opportunity for the audience to learn information from a new source without the original prologist learning it: in this respect it is similar to Iphigenia in Tauris.

40 The prologue of Trojan Women is the source of some controversy: Wilson (1967) has argued that the dialogue between the monologue of Poseidon and the monody of Hecuba is an interpolation. 47

As mentioned above, three prologues consist of monologues followed by dialogues between two new characters: Iphigenia in Tauris, Phoenician Women, and Hippolytus.

Hippolytus is exceptional in that it also includes a song by a 'chorus' of hunters (not the chorus for the play, however). It is also similar to Andromache, Helen and Orestes in that, after the dialogue between Hippolytus and his servant, the servant remains on stage to deliver a short monologue. The other two prologues, while simply consisting of monologue followed by dialogue, contain significant differences. In Iphigenia in Tauris, Orestes and Pylades enter following the prologue-monologue of Iphigenia: they engage in a brief dialogue, beginning with short exchanges before giving longer speeches, focused especially on the monologue-like speech of Orestes (77-103). In Phoenician Women, Antigone and an old servant enter following the prologue-monologue of Jocasta. The old servant delivers short speeches to open (88-102) and close (193-201) the dialogue, but the rest of the exchange is closer to normal dialogue, though interlaced with song. Furthermore, whereas the dialogue in Iphigenia in Tauris provides crucial new information to the audience, the dialogue in Phoenician Women seems mostly designed to provide a colorful description of the army outside Thebes.

Two prologues consist of a monologue on its own: Bacchae and Suppliant Women. In

Bacchae, Dionysus delivers a short speech before summoning his Bacchants, who make up the chorus. In Suppliant Women, the chorus is present from the beginning; however, Aethra delivers her monologue as though they were not present.

The reason for the omission of a secondary prologue scene cannot be determined absolutely. Leo claims the reason for it is obvious (1895: 173),41 but does not elaborate. Grube

(1941) gives a fair explanation for Suppliant Women:

41 der Grund der Abweichung auf der Hand liegt 48

As soon as Aithra's speech ends, it is appropriately the chorus, as mothers to a mother, who beg her to persuade her son to help them. Their song takes the place of the usual second scene, and the prologos consists only of the monologue. The emphasis throughout is upon maternal sorrow and the mother's need for help to perform a sacred duty. The only other person available to speak after Aithra is Adrastus, and he would have introduced a jarring note at this point (229-30)

It seems reasonable that the presence of the chorus is related to the brevity of the prologue: as noted above, Aithra speaks as though they were not present, but it would probably stretch credulity to have continued scenes ignoring them. Grubes also claims that there are specific reasons for the simple monologue of Bacchae (68), though he does not detail them. It may nevertheless be noted that Dionysus' role as 'play-director' can be emphasized by his unique summoning of the chorus, which is made easier by having the chorus enter immediately after his monologue.

Two prologues consist of a monologue followed by a monody: Ion and Hecuba. In both cases, the first speaker is a supernatural entity, and the second speaker has a claim to being the main character of the drama. Hecuba and Ion are at least the titular characters of their plays.

Furthermore, the two deliver monodies rather than monologues. However, beyond that they are quite different. Ion goes on to deliver the strophe and antistrophe of the 'choral' song, all before the entrance of the chorus, while Hecuba seems to enter with the chorus (59-61). They are also quite different in content: Hecuba's monologue is full of concern for the future, while Ion, carefree, details his day-to-day activities.

Iphigenia in Aulis and Rhesus are special cases, and both are disputed. Iphigenia in Aulis is made up of a dialogue between Agamemnon and a servant. Rhesus begins with a short dialogue between the chorus and Hector. Neither play will be considered in this thesis.

3.2 Speakers of the Second Part of the Prologue

There is much more variety in the choice of speakers for the second part of the prologue than for the prologue monologue; classifying them presents some difficulties, since their character is generally not determined by the form of the prologue. It is probably most convenient to divide the prologues between those involving major characters, those involving minor characters, and those involving characters never seen again after the prologue.

A number of plays introduce major characters in the second parts of their prologues. It has been noted already that this is especially true of the monologues followed by monodies: in

Ion and Hecuba, the two monodies are delivered by the titular figure of each of the plays. In this context one should also mention Trojan Women: following Poseidon and Athena's dialogue, the central figure of the drama, Hecuba also delivers a monody. In two of the plays with a dialogue not involving the prologist, Hippolytus and Iphigenia in Tauris, a main character is introduced: in Hippolytus, the titular figure, while in Iphigenia in Tauris, the second half of the recognition- pair, Orestes. In both cases, the main character is accompanied by a character of secondary importance: Pylades at least continues to play a minor role in Iphigenia in Tauris, while the huntsman in Hippolytus does not reappear after the parodos. In the exceptionally complicated

Electra, two main characters are introduced, Orestes and Electra. The fourth character, Pylades, does not speak; though he continues to appear throughout the play, he never has a speaking role.

In Heracles, Megara plays a major part in the drama until her murder by Heracles. Medea is exceptional in that it introduces the titular figure of the drama only from behind the skene:

Medea calls out in woe at intervals during the dialogue between the nurse and the παιδαγωγός. 50

Four plays' prologues contain 'minor' characters, though the distinction between major and minor characters is not absolutely defined.42 The herald in Children of Heracles remains after the entrance of the chorus, even delivering a long speech, but exits, not to return, at line

283. In three other plays, Euripides employed a remarkable technique of including characters in the prologue that would not reappear until much later in the drama: there seem to be different reasons for each time he did so. In Medea, the παιδαγωγός does not return until line 894 and does not speak until line 1002. Mastronarde has noted that the ignorance of the παιδαγωγός is useful to play "upon the discrepant awareness of the tutor and Medea" (2002: note at 1002). In

Phoenician Women, Antigone does not return until line 1270.43 In Orestes, Helen does not reappear until the deus ex machina at the end of the play: she is, nevertheless, the subject of constant denunciation by the various characters of the play. Helen remains a controversial figure in Orestes; she is discussed as a sympathetic figure by Vellacott (1975).

In a number of plays, at least one of the speakers of the second part of the prologue does not reappear in the drama. This is true of the gods Thanatos and Athena in Alcestis and Trojan

Women respectively. Teucer in Helen and the maid in Andromache, and the huntsman, the

'secondary' figure of the prologue-dialogue of Hippolytus do not reappear.

Just as in the prologue monologue, then, the second part of the prologue normally serves to introduce one of the main characters of the drama. It likewise also includes characters that do not reappear (as in the prologue-monologue of Medea) or are of secondary importance (as in the

42 In point of fact, there are two characters who do not absolutely qualify as major or minor: Megara only appears in the first half of Heracles, and the argument could be advanced that she has less in common with the other characters described as major than with the Herald in Children of Heracles. In Iphigenia in Tauris, Pylades, as mentioned above, plays a secondary position as a helper to Orestes, but he continues to appear for the better part of the play. The other cases are more clear-cut, however. 43 Factors such as these led e.g. Verrall to consider Antigone's presence in Phoenician Women as entirely post-Euripidean (Mastronarde 1994: 301). 51 prologue-monologue of Electra). On the other hand, the prologue-dialogue does include young male speakers: Hippolytus in Hippolytus, Orestes in Electra and Iphigenia in Tauris, and Teucer in Helen.

When the original speaker remains on stage, the speakers of the secondary part of the prologue tend to be friendly. Such is the case in Medea, Electra, Heracles, and Andromache. In

Orestes, Helen cannot be said to be either hostile or friendly. In Trojan Women, Athena is friendly, though treated as hostile at first. On the other hand, in Alcestis, Apollo and Thanatos certainly do not agree with one another, and in Children of Heracles, the Herald Copreus is decidedly hostile. Using a friendly character allows the dramatist to add details to the original prologue-monologue more easily, as in Medea and Andromache, though this is also possible with a hostile figure, as in Alcestis. In Electra and Heracles, on the other hand, the sympathetic figures only add a different perspective to information already provided, as with the hostile figure in Children of Heracles.

3.3. Summary of the Second Part of the Prologues of Euripidean Plays

In this section, I will consider the various plays individually, grouping them according to their formal features. I will only highlight, by underlining, those elements which are typically found in the prologue-monologue, in order to show the parallels that do occur between the second parts of prologues and the prologue-monologues that precede them. In the survey that follows, I will give a more general account of Euripides' use of the second part of his prologues.

3.3.1. Monologue followed by monody: Ion, Hek.

Hecuba's monody is mostly involved with a kind of prophecy of future events, in the form of a dream she had (68-97), namely that her son (unnamed), has died, and about the death of Polyxena. Both of these predictions of future events have been revealed more authoritatively by Polydorus in the prologue-monologue. This allows the audience to witness Hecuba's concerns while recognizing that her hopes are vain.

Ion's monologue does not contain the kind of formal features that are found in typical prologue-monologues; it identifies the time (81-90), and describes the location (91-101), allowing for some characterization of Ion, especially his reverence for the Delphic oracle; finally he describes his own duties (102-111). The central purpose of this monologue is characterization; it also imbues the drama with a lighter tone, as, like Silenus in Cyclops, he busies himself with cleaning.

3.3.2. Monologue followed by dialogue including monologist: Tr., Alc., Hkld., And., Her., Hel.,

Or.

In Trojan Women, after Poseidon announces his intention to leave, denouncing Athena,

Athena enters. Their dialogue is made up mostly of short (and gradually shortening) exchanges, ending in stichomythia from 69-76, before Athena (77-86) and Poseidon (87-97) each deliver short speeches. The main purpose of the dialogue is to provide information that would normally be found in an epilogue, concerning post-dramatic events. This is especially relevant to the knowledge of the characters within the play, since they never recognize that the Greeks will suffer. The dialogue also provides background information, in recounting the rape of Cassandra by Ajax. Cassandra makes a later entrance, but Ajax does not; his rape of her is only mentioned 53 obliquely, when Andromache refers to Agamemnon as ἄλλος τις Αἴας "another Ajax" in his seizure of Cassandra, and perhaps in Hecuba's reference to her as αἰσχύναν Ἀργείοισιν "a shame for the Greeks" (171). The dialogue ends with a gnomic statement (95-97) by Poseidon.

In Alcestis, Apollo announces the entrance of Thanatos, who gives a short speech (28-37) before the two engage in a long match of stichomythia (38-63). Finally, Apollo delivers a short speech (64-71), followed by an even shorter one by Thanatos (72-76). The dialogue recounts previous history (32-37), though this had been given in the prologue monologue. Apollo also gives a prediction of the resolution of the play (64-71), the most clearly stated prediction in

Euripidean drama; it is also among the most authoritative, since the god of prophecy delivers it.

As such it has caused some controversy. Critics unwilling to accept that Euripides would 'spoil' the outcome of the play have attempted to minimize the influence this prediction would have on the audience's expectations: Erbse points out that Thanatos ignores Apollo's prophecy, and continues to go about his business, claiming "There is no indication, which one will be proven right"(1984: 24),44 pointing out also that Alcestis actually dies on stage "almost in violation of

Attic theatre practice"(24).45

In a certain sense, the end of Iolaus' prologue-monologue in Children of Heracles is part of the dialogue that follows, as he addresses and denounces the herald as he enters. There is, at any rate, only a short dialogue, in which the herald states forcefully the current crisis of the suppliant drama, namely that Eurystheus desires to have them executed; they argue briefly, before Iolaus makes a kind of announcement of entrance, summoning the chorus to help (69-72).

In Heracles, Amphitryon delivers his prologue-monologue in the presence of Megara, though he cannot realistically be addressing her given the basic information he provides. Megara

44 Es fällt keine Andeutung darüber, wer wohl Recht behalten werde 45 beinahe ein Verstoss gegen die Praxis des attischen Theaters 54 answers with a fairly long speech (60-87), which is actually addressed to him. The two engage in a short dialogue (88-94) before Amphitryon delivers a short speech to conclude the prologue- dialogue (95-106). In her speech, Megara recounts past history (63-68) and describes the current crisis (69-85), adding pathetic details about the concerns of the children, and important details such as their inability to flee (82-3). Their short dialogue briefly characterizes them and provides the audience with two worldviews, Amphitryon's optimism and Megara's pessimism, which will continue through the first part of the play. Amphitryon's closing speech restates that optimism, divided between dealing with the specific hope for future events and Heracles' return (95-100), and more generally concerning the transience of suffering (101-106), which will be relevant thematically in the second part of the play.

In Medea, after the nurse announces the entrance of the children, their παιδαγωγός engages her in dialogue involving exchanges of varying lengths (49-95), interrupted finally by

Medea who begins crying from offstage. After a short time the παιδαγωγός exits together with the children, and Medea continues to cry from offstage, with the nurse responding in song. The

παιδαγωγός identifies the nurse once again by her relation with Medea (49), and the nurse likewise identifies him by his relation to the children of Jason (53). Their dialogue characterizes the two as sympathetic for Medea (49-60), and as having tempered hostility for Jason (74-88), though the nurse's opening monologue had sufficiently established that as far as she was concerned. The παιδαγωγός adds a new prediction, namely that Creon intends to banish Medea and her children (67-73); however, this is confirmed fairly early on in the drama (282 ff.). After a discussion of Jason's role in this, the παιδαγωγός issues a gnomic statement before the nurse falsely announces the exit of the παιδαγωγός and children by telling them to leave (89). She restates her prediction in the form of fear concerning the children (90-95). Medea calls down 55 wishing death on herself (96-7), which could be viewed as continuing the false prediction stated above; the nurse restates her prediction as fear about the fate of the children (98-9), as she will do again later including Jason (111-15), and once again announces their exit (100-4), finally wondering only about the eventual resolution of the crisis. The nurse continues to worry primarily about the children (116-19), ending with a series of gnomic statements before the entrance of the chorus.

The prologue-dialogue of Andromache is remarkable in that it is followed by a monody

(93-116) by Andromache, the original prologue-monologist. The θεράπαινα enters without announcement, gives a short speech (56-63), and the two engage in short and shortening exchanges (64-87) until the end, when they both deliver very short exchanges (88-93).

Andromache then delivers a short speech (93-102) alone before breaking into song (103-116).

The opening speech of the θεράπαινα only repeats the current crisis stated by Andromache; however, she soon gives more details, revealing that Menelaus and Hermione are targeting the son of Andromache (68-73). Andromache again refers to Neoptolemus, which has been discussed before (see Identification of Characters); they then plan to get the aid of Peleus, giving a prediction of the resolution of the present conflict. The θεράπαινα exits with a gnomic statement (89-90). Andromache's lament which follows describes her current situation and the prehistory of the drama in poetic terms.

The prologue-dialogue of Helen is also followed by a monody by the original prologue- monologist. Teucer enters unannounced and unexpected. He delivers a short speech about the location before turning his attention to Helen, declaring his hatred for her; he will repeat this in his closing speech, emphasizing the plight of Helen. Their mostly stichomythic dialogue involves self-identification (83-88) and previous history of Teucer and his family (89-104), transitioning 56 naturally from Ajax's fate to the previous history of Troy (105-32), involving a somewhat false prediction concerning Menelaus' death (131-2). Teucer finally recounts the previous history of

Helen's family (133-43), detailing the death of Leda and the possible deaths or apotheoses of the

Dioscuri. While Helen interprets pessimistically, it is perhaps better to consider this a true prediction of future events, since the audience may be expected to believe them transformed to gods; they will appear as such at the end of the play. Teucer finally makes a request dealing with future events but not related to the drama, the founding of the second Salamis; this gives us the opportunity to learn of a final portion of the current crisis, Theocylmenus' hostility to the Greeks

(151-55), though he is not named. Teucer's request to speak with Theonoe also repeats a part of the current crisis, namely the predictive powers of Theonoe.

As in Andromache, in Orestes the dialogue between Helen and Electra (71-125) is followed by a monologue (126-139) by the original monologue speaker, Electra. Helen enters unannounced. Their dialogue is somewhat confused, but it mostly is devoted to establishing the character of Helen. It also establishes the basis for future events as Helen somewhat heartlessly attempts to enlist Electra's aid in pouring libations at the tomb of Clytemnestra (92-110) before being convinced to send Hermione, who she summons (111-112) before giving her instructions about pouring libations (113-124), emphasizing that she should hasten (125-6). Hermione does not reappear until near the end of the play, however. Electra's monologue consists of a denunciation of Helen, and an announcement of entrance of the chorus (132-135), begging them to be quiet in order not to wake Orestes (136-139), which creates some expectation concerning future events.

3.3.3. Monologue-dialogue-monologue: El.

The prologue of Electra consists of a monologue by the αὐτουργός, a dialogue between

Electra and the αὐτουργός (54-81), and a monologue by Orestes (82-111) following their exit.

Electra's opening speech (54-63) is not addressed to the αὐτουργός but rather to 'dark night' (54); she bewails the current situation, and gives a different perspective on the prehistory of the drama than the αὐτουργός, complaining at being forced from the home by Clytemnestra (60-3) whereas he had stated that Clytemnestra had saved her (28). The audience would probably accept the view of the αὐτουργός. At the prompting of the αὐτουργός (64-6), Electra gives a reason for the action she is performing different from the one she had previously given in monologue. Her last words before exiting are a gnome (75-6), as are those of the αὐτουργός (80-1). Orestes' speech begins with an identification of his addressee, Pylades (82), identifying himself shortly afterwards (83). He provides the prediction of future events that was lacking in the prologue- monologue, saying that he has come to kill Aegisthus (87-89). He also provides some prehistory about events directly preceding the drama, his offering at the tomb of Agamemnon (90-93). He states his current purpose, to find his sister and enlist her help (94-101). He remarks on the idea that she has consummated her marriage (99), strangely. He plans to hide until they find a servant to ask, and, in the sort of 'Talk of the Devil' entrance mentioned above (2.2.8), Electra arrives.

Orestes ends his speech by announcing her entrance (107-111). Electra delivers the first part of the choral ode.

3.3.4. Monologue followed by dialogue between two new characters: IT, Phoin., Hipp.

In Iphigenia in Tauris, Orestes and Pylades identify each other by name fairly early on

(68, 71). The first part of their dialogue repeats information earlier given and establishes a tense 58 atmosphere. Orestes' speech provides some new background information (78-84) and the current crisis (85-102). After he says they should flee, Pylades formulates a plan to hide, lest they be captured (108-9), which is a hint at future events. His plan to seize the statue when night comes might be seen as a false prediction, except that the audience would probably understand night would never come during the performance.

In Phoenician Women, the prologue-dialogue is shared by Antigone and an old servant.

Antigone is identified in the first line of the dialogue (88). While the dialogue is quite long, it is mostly confined to a discussion of the various heroes aligned against Thebes. The descriptions sometimes almost amount to predictions, as when Capaneus is described as seeming to plan to climb the walls of Thebes (181-2); this is, however, insignificant to the drama as a whole. It also repeats the prediction of the prologue monologue referring to Polyneices' arrival (170-1). The prologue dialogue also establishes the character of Antigone and the view of her that the chorus has. It ends with the old servant announcing the entrance of and identifying the chorus.

In Hippolytus, after Aphrodite delivers her prologue-monologue, Hippolytus and, remarkably, a chorus of hunters enters, to deliver a song. Hippolytus dedicates a garland to

Demeter (73-87), before engaging in a discussion with one of his servants about the propriety of not honoring Aphrodite (88-107). Hippolytus announces the exit of the chorus of hunters (108-

9), then announces his own exit (113). The servant issues a short prayer to Aphrodite before concluding with a gnomic statement (120).

3.4. The Second Part of the Prologue: Survey

Having thus surveyed the various plays involving two or more scenes in the prologue, we may examine to what extent they served the same functions as the prologue-monologue. There is 59 a fairly even split between plays which provide important information about the drama and those that do not.

In Ion, Hecuba, Children of Heracles, Phoenician Women, Hippolytus, Heracles and

Orestes, the second part of the prologue does not do much to provide new information to the audience, but rather serves to establish characterization or the mood of the drama. In the case of the two monodies in Ion and Hecuba, this is certainly the case: the information provided in those prologues adds only to our understanding of the characters that are singing, or repeats things already conveyed to the audience in the monologue. We may add Children of Heracles,

Phoenician Women, and Hippolytus as plays in which the second part of the prologue does not provide new information about the development of the plot. The prologue of Heracles introduces a kind of prediction of future events, namely rescue by Heracles; this hardly needed to be stated to be understood, however. It also provides some details about the current crisis. Nevertheless, its main function is to establish character and themes for the rest of the drama. In Orestes, the return of Hermione at the end of the play is prepared for, although in a dramatic rather than a narrative process.

In Alcestis, Helen, Andromache, Medea, Iphigenia in Tauris, and Electra, and Trojan

Women, the second part of the prologue provides important information. The prediction of

Apollo in Alcestis has already been discussed. In Helen, there is a wide range of information provided, mostly involving prehistory of the drama but also concerning the current crisis. In

Andromache and Medea, a speaker enters to give new information to the prologist, and expand the audience's understanding of the current crisis. In Iphigenia in Tauris and Electra, the second half of the pair that need to recognize each other is introduced; Iphigenia in Tauris also provides new predictions of future events. The dialogue in Trojan Women, as mentioned above, 60 exceptionally provides post-dramatic predictions that nevertheless color the audience's interpretation of events they witness on stage.

4. Conclusion

Consideration of Euripides’ prologues has led us to several important conclusions. We have seen that Aristotle had good reasons for his definition of prologue: even when limiting our discussion to Euripidean prologues beginning with monologues, we have found that the second part of the ‘Aristotelian' prologue can often serve the same functions as the monologue.

However, we have also seen that the competing definition of prologos, referring specifically to opening monologues, also has some basis in Euripidean practice: there are definite points of information that Euripides included in his opening monologues, and, in a sense, he had a working template for those monologues far more than for the following scenes.

Examining Euripides’ opening monologues with this template in mind has helped bring to light some interesting characteristics of Euripidean prologues, as well as to make observations about individual plays. We have seen that mortal Euripidean prologue-monologists, like

Euripidean choruses, tended to be female or otherwise figures typically marginalized in Athenian society, that they tended to introduce themselves incidentally, rather than directly, whereas gods would introduce themselves grandly, and that exceptions to those two rules reflect the character of the prologist. Self-introductions tend to occur towards the beginning of the prologue- monologue, and I have made the case that exceptions to this also reflect the speaker’s character.

On the other hand, identifications of location, which are likewise normally mentioned early in the play, tend to be delayed when they are surprising or unconventional: this relates to a matter 61 of interest not only for this thesis, but also for the study of ancient drama generally regarding how much the audiences knew about the plays they were going to watch, and how much information was conveyed in the proagon. This study of the prologues gives some support to

Sommerstein’s theory (2010) that, at that event, audiences were given the names of the dramas as they are traditionally recorded. Consideration of the ‘crises’ that are identified in prologues has helped us understand suppliant dramas and the episodic quality of some dramas. I have also made the case that, while Euripides did prepare surprises for his audience in his prologues, the extent to which he did so has been exaggerated in recent years. We have seen that characters whose entrances are supposed to be surprising are typically not mentioned in the opening monologues; perhaps more importantly, characters that will not enter are typically not named.

The outstanding exception, Neoptolemus in Andromache, has led us to reflect once more on audiences’ knowledge of myth. Our survey of the concluding elements of Euripidean prologue- monologues has not led us to any great change in understanding of individual plays; it does, however, support the theory that Euripides had a few trusty habits that he employed in his writing process.

This thesis limited itself to discussion of the prologues of complete Euripidean tragedies that begin with a prologue-monologue. However, with more time and significantly more care, the same survey should be made of all Greek tragedies, including those that have only been related in summaries or in fragments. Information from those fragments would be particularly useful for discussion of Euripides' choice of the prologist, and the standard form of his prologues;

Sophocles' dialogue form would offer a remarkable contrast with the narrative-driven approach of Euripides. Continuing this study will offer an excellent opportunity to understand not only ancient drama but also our own. 62

5. Bibliography

Allan, W. 2008. Euripides: Helen. Cambridge.

Arnim, H. von. 1882. "De Prologorum Euripideorum arte et interpolatione". Diss. Greifswald.

Arnott, W. 1973. "Euripides and the Unexpected." G&R 20: 49-64. ——— 1978. "Red Herrings and Other Baits. A Study in Euripidean Techniques." MPhL 3: 1- 24.

Bain, D. 1975. "Audience Address in Greek Tragedy." CQ 25: 13-25.

Barlow, S. 1996. Euripides: Heracles. Warminster.

Braunmuller, A.R. 2003. "The Arts of the Dramatist." In Braunmuller and Hattaway eds. The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Drama. Cambridge. 53-92.

Burian, P. "Myth into to Muthos." In Easterling, P.E. ed. The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy. Cambridge. 178-208.

Burnett, A. 1971. Catastrophe Survived: Euripides' Plays of Mixed Reversal. Oxford.

Conacher, D. 1967. Euripidean Tragedy: Myth, Theme, Structure. Toronto.

Dalmeyda, G. 1915. "Observations sur les Prologues d'Ion et des Bacchantes." Revue des Etudes Grecques 28: 43-50.

De Jong, I. 1991. Narrative in Drama: The Art of the Euripidean Messenger Speech. Leiden.

Diggle, J. 1967. "Euripides, Hippolytus 88-89." CR 81: 133-4.

Dihle, Albrecht. 1981. Der Prolog der 'Bacchen' und die antike Ueberlieferungsphase des Euripides-Textes. Heidelberg.

Dominique Arnould. 2008. 'Les prologues d'Euripide : à propos de ληκύθιον ἀπώλεσεν (Aristophane, Grenouilles, v. 1203 sq.)'. Revue de philologie, de littérature et d'histoire anciennes 82: 17-23.

Dover, K. 1993. Aristophanes: Frogs. Oxford.

Dunn, F. 1992. "Introduction: beginning at Colonus." In Dunn and Cole, eds. Beginnings in Classical Literature. 1-12. ——— 1996. Tragedy's End: Closure and Innovation in Euripidean Drama. Oxford.

Easterling, P. 1993. "Gods on Stage in Greek Tragedy." In Dalfen, Petersmann and Schwarz, eds. Religio Graeco Romano: Festchrift für Walter Pötscher. 77-86. 63

Erbse, H. 1984. Studien zum Prolog der euripideischen Tragödie. Berlin.

Gantz, T. 1993. Early Greek Myth: A Guide to the Literary and Artistic Sources. Baltimore.

Gibert, J. "Euripides' Hippolytus Plays: Which Came First?" CQ 47: 85-97.

Gollwitzer, Ingeborg. 1937. "Die Prolog- und Expositionstechnik der griechischen Tragödie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Euripides." Diss. Munich.

Goward, B. 1990. Telling Tragedy: Narrative Technique in Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides.

Grube, G. 1941. The Drama of Euripides. London.

Halleran, M. 1985. Stagecraft in Euripides. London. ——— 1995. Euripides: Hippolytus. Warminster.

Hamilton, R. 1974. "Bacchae 47-52: Dionysus' Plan." APA 104: 139-149. ——— 1978. "Prologue Prophecy and Plot in Four Plays of Euripides." AJP 99: 277-302.

Herbert, A. 1971. "A Study of the Prologoi of Four Plays of Euripides." Diss. Ithaca.

Hunter, R. 1985. The New Comedy of Greece and Rome. Cambridge.

Imhof, M. 1957. Bemerkungen zu den Prologen der sophokleischen und euripideischen Tragödien. Winterthur.

Kassel, R. "Euripides Bakchen 23." ZPE 21: 35-6.

Kitto, H. 1961. Greek Tragedy. A Literary Study. London.

Klinkenberg, J. 1880. "De Euripideorum prologorum arte et interpolatione." Diss. Bonn.

Knox, B. 1972. 1979. Word and Action: Essays on the Ancient Theatre. Baltimore.

Kovacs, D. 1994. Euripidea. Leiden. ———1994. Euripides: Cylcops,Alcestis, Medea. Cambridge, MA. ———1995. Euripides: Children of Heracles, Hippolytus, Andromache, Hecuba. Cambridge, MA. ———1998. Euripides: Suppliant Women, Electra, Heracles. Cambridge, MA. ———1999. Euripides: Trojan Women, Iphigenia among the Taurians, Ion. Cambridge, MA. ———2002. Euripides: Helen, Phoenician Women, Orestes. Cambridge, MA. ———2003. Euripides: Bacchae, Iphigenia at Aulis, Rhesus. Cambridge, MA.

Lawrence, S. 1997. "Audience Uncertainty and Euripides' Medea." Hermes 125: 49-55. 64

Leo, F. 1895. Plautinische Forschungen zur Kritik und Geschichte der Komödie. Berlin.

Lessing, G. 1767. Hamburgische Dramaturgie. Bd. 1. Hamburg. ———1769. Hamburgische Dramaturgie. Bd. 2. Hamburg.

Lloyd, M. 2005. Euripides: Andromache. Warminster.

March, J. 1989. "Euripides' Bakchai: A Reconsideration in the Light of Vase Paintings." BICS 36: 33-65.

Mastronarde, D. 1994. Euripides: Phoenissae. Cambridge. ——— 2002. Euripides: Medea. Cambridge. ——— 2010. The Art of Euripides: Dramatic Technique and Social Context. Cambridge.

Méridier, L. 1911. Les Prologues dans la Tragédie d'Euripide. Paris.

Michelini, A. 1987. Euripides and the Tragic Tradition. Madison.

Nestle, W. 1967. Die Struktur des Eingangs in der attischen Tragödie. Hildesheim.

Parker, L. 2007. Euripides: Alcestis. Oxford.

Sommerstein, A. 2010. The Tangled Ways of Zeus: and other studies in and around Greek Tragedy. Oxford.

Stinton, T. C. W. 1990 Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy. Oxford.

Stuart, D. 1918. "Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Euripidean Prologue." SPh 15: 295-306.

Taplin, O. 1977. The Stagecraft of Aeschylus: The Dramatic Use of Exits and Entrances in Greek Tragedy. Oxford. ——— 1978. Greek Tragedy in Action. London.

Todesco, A. 1938. "I prologhi euripidei." Dioniso 6: 83-87.

Vellacott, P. 1975. Ironic Drama: A Study of Euripides' Method and Meaning. Cambridge.

Verdenius, W. 1980. "Notes on the Prologue of Euripides' Bacchae." Mnemosyne 33: 1-16.

Webster, T. W. L. 1967. The Tragedies of Euripides. London.

Willink, C. 1988. "Euripides, Medea 1-45, 371-85." CQ 38: 313-23.

Wilson, J. 1967. "An Interpolation in the Prologos of the Trojan Women." GRBS 8: 205-23. ——— 1968. "Poseidon in the Troades; A Reply." Agon 2: 66-8.