A Note on A. Ag. 410-28 and E. Alc. 347-56

927 03-03-1999 11:48 Page 150

A NOTE ON A. AG. 410-28 AND E. ALC. 347-56

MARY C. STIEBER

Two of the most intriguing references to statues in all of Greek tragedy occur in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon 410-28 and in Euripides’ Alcestis 347-561). It has not gone unnoticed that there appears to be a connection between the two passages, although the most influen- tial commentator on Agamemnon, Eduard Fraenkel, acknowledges but then rejects the suggestion2). On the contrary, as I shall argue, the

1) The following will be referred to by the author’s last name and, when neces- sary, the date: R. Aélion, Euripide héritier d’Eschyle, I-II (Paris 1983); G. Devereux, Dreams in Greek Tragedy (Berkeley 1976); J. Diggle, Euripidis Fabulae, I-III (Oxford 1984-94); E. Fraenkel, Aeschylus Agamemenon, I-III (Oxford 1962); J. H. Huddilston, The Attitude of the Greek Tragedians Toward Art (London 1898); D. F. W. van Lennep, Euripides. Selected Plays. Part 1, The Alkestis (Leiden 1949); S. Morris, Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art (Princeton 1992); A. Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Leip- zig 18892) (=N2); P. Riemer, Die Alkestis des Euripides (Frankfurt am Main 1989); G. Roux, Qu’est-ce qu’un kolossos?, REA 62 (1960), 5-40; M. Stieber, Aeschylus’ Theoroi and Realism in Greek Art, TAPhA 124 (1994), 85-119; and Statuary in Euripides’ Alcestis, Arion 4 (1998), 70-98; S. Trenkner, The Greek Novella in the Classical Period (Cambridge 1958); J.-P. Vernant, Myth and Thought among the Greeks (London 1983); and Figures, idoles, masques (Julliard 1990). The texts of Alcestis and other plays by Euripides used throughout are Diggle’s. For stylistic purposes I have replaced lunate sigma with sigma and terminal sigma and used iota subscripts. The text of Agamemnon that I have used is Fraenkel’s. 2) Fraenkel, II, 219 claims that there is no connection between Aeschylus’ eÈmÒrfvn d¢ koloss«n and “the motif of the statue of the dead wife as it appears in the lines E. Alc. 348 ff.”. Following, as he states, Wilamowitz, Kleine Schriften, 1, 525 ff., Fraenkel points to Euripides’ own Protesilaus as the source of inspiration for the Alcestis passage. We do not know the date of Euripides’ Protesilaus nor even whether it was produced before or after Alcestis. It is true that the myth of Protesilaus includes a spouse returning from the dead and a statuary motif which drives the plot. But it could be the myth, itself, which influenced Euripides in Alcestis rather than his own Protesilaus, which may not have been written yet. On the myth of Protesilaus and Euripides’ handling of it, see M. Mayer, Der Protesilaus von Euripides, Hermes 20 (1885), 101-34, and Trenkner 66-69. Fraenkel, II, 220, recognizes that there is a sequence of thought in the “dreams” of Alc. 354 ff. similar to that of Ag. 420 ff., but concludes that in this case the similarity is due not to any “literary dependence” of one passage on the other but, curiously, to “the nature of human experience”. Van Lennep 83; G. Paduano, Euripide Alcesti (Florence 1969), 76;

A NOTE ON A. AG. 410-28 AND E. ALC. 347-56 151

striking correpondences between the two passages in theme and expression in both the references to statues and the dream imagery which follows go against Fraenkel’s assertions. Since arguments on behalf of a connection are themselves scattered and incomplete, the parallelism between Ag. 410-28 and Alc. 347-56 deserves to be exam- ined more fully. In a lengthy ‘farewell’ speech to his dying wife, Admetus, respond- ing to Alcestis’ last requests (305 ff.), makes three promises. The first is a vow of celibacy (328-42), the second, to foreswear all forms of entertainment in the home (343-47), and a third, by far the most startling: to commission an apparently life-size portrait image of Al- cestis to replace her in their marriage bed (347-56): ... sÁ gãr mou t°rcin §je¤lou b¤ou. sofª d¢ xeir‹ tektÒnvn d°maw tÚ sÚn eﬁkasy¢n §n l°ktroisin §ktayÆsetai, ⁄ prospesoËmai ka‹ periptÊssvn x°raw 350 ˆnoma kal«n sÚn tØn f¤lhn §n égkãlaiw dÒjv guna›ka ka¤per oÈk ¶xvn ¶xein: cuxrån m°n, o‰mai, t°rcin, éllÉ ˜mvw bãrow cux∞w épantlo¤hn ên. §n dÉ Ùne¤rasin foit«sã mÉ eÈfra¤noiw ên: ≤dÁ går f¤louw 355 kén nukt‹ leÊssein, ˜ntinÉ ín parª xrÒnon.

‘… for you have taken the joy out of my life. Your body fashioned as in life by the practiced hand of a master stonecarver shall be stretched out on our bed. I shall fling myself upon this image and embrace it; calling your name, I shall seem to hold my own dear wife in my folded arms, although I do not. I think this would be a cold pleasure, but still I would lighten my heavy heart. And you might visit me frequently in dreams to comfort me3), for there is sweetness even if only in the night in gazing upon one’s dear ones for as long [the dream] lasts’. At Agamemnon 410-28 the chorus describes the seers of the house of the Atridae lamenting on behalf of their lord, Menelaus, over the loss of his wife, Helen, where the details of the lament are so inti- mate that they might be taken as the actual sentiments of Menelaus:

Vernant 1983, 310; and C. Franco, Una Statua per Admeto (a proposito di Eur. Alc. 348- 54), MD 13 (1984), 131-36, among others, have noted a connection; Devereux 88, 113-115 is concerned primarily with the fact that the statuary motif appears in both plays and not with the potential for interpretation that is suggested by the parallelism; Roux 24 and 26 appears to take the connection for granted. 3) For the sexual overtones to foit«sa, see H. G. Liddell, R. Scott and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford 1968), s. v. foitãv, 3.