Paths of Song

The Lyric Dimension of Greek Tragedy

Edited by Rosa Andújar, Thomas R. P. Coward and Theodora A. Hadjimichael ISBN 978-3-11-057331-2 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-057591-0 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-057399-2 ISSN 1868-4785

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Editorial Office: Alessia Ferreccio and Katerina Zianna Logo: Christopher Schneider, Laufen Printing: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com TableofContents

Abbreviations IX

RosaAndújar,ThomasR.P.Coward, and Theodora A. Hadjimichael Introduction 1

I Tragic and LyricPoets in Dialogue

P. J. Finglass Stesichorus andGreek Tragedy 19

ThomasR.P.Coward ‘Stesichorean’ Footsteps in the Parodos of Aeschylus’ Agamemnon 39

Pavlos Sfyroeras Pindar at Colonus: ASophoclean Response to Olympians 2and 3 65

Lucia Athanassaki Talking Thalassocracy in Fifth-centuryAthens: From Bacchylides’‘Theseus Odes’ (17 &18) and Cimonian Monuments to Euripides’ Troades 87

II Refiguring Lyric Genres in Tragedy

LauraSwift Competing Generic Narratives in Aeschylus’ Oresteia 119

AndreaRodighiero How Sophocles Begins: Reshaping Lyric Genres in Tragic Choruses 137

Anastasia Lazani Constructing Chorality in Prometheus Bound: The Poetic BackgroundofDivine Choruses in Tragedy 163

Alexandros Kampakoglou Epinician Discourse in Euripides’ Tragedies: The Case of Alexandros 187 VIII TableofContents

III Performing the Chorus: Ritual, Song, and Dance

RichardRawles Theoric song and the Rhetoric of Ritual in Aeschylus’ Suppliant Women 221

Giovanni Fanfani What melos forTroy? Blending of LyricGenres in the First Stasimon of Euripides’ Trojan Women 239

RosaAndújar Hyporchematic Footprints in Euripides’ Electra 265

Enrico Emanuele Prodi Dancing in Delphi, Dancing in Thebes: The Lyric ChorusinEuripides’ Phoenician Women 291

NaomiA.Weiss Performing the Wedding Song in Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis 315

Timothy Power New Music in Sophocles’ Ichneutae 343

Andrew Ford Afterword: On the NonexistenceofTragic Odes 367

Bibliography 381

Notes on Contributors 415

Index of Proper Names and Subjects 419

Index Locorum 433 EnricoEmanuele Prodi Dancing in Delphi, Dancing in Thebes: The Lyric Chorus in Euripides’ Phoenician Women

Despite the great popularity of Euripides’ Phoenician Women throughout antiq- uity,its chorus had abad press alreadyatthat time.c When Aristophanes’ Di- caeopolis jibes that,asheputs on Telephus’ garb for his peroration to the old men of Acharnae, ‘the audience [must] know me, who Ireallyam, but the mem- bers of the chorus [must] stand therelikeidiots’ (Acharnians 442–3), an un- named critic remarks:

το￿ςδ’ α￿ χορευτ￿ς : κα￿ δι￿ το￿των τ￿νΕ￿ριπ￿δην διασ￿ρει. ο￿τος γ￿ρε￿σ￿γει το￿ς χορο￿ςο￿τε τ￿￿κ￿λουθα φθεγγο￿￿νους τ￿ι ￿ποθ￿σει, ￿λλ’ ￿στορ￿ας τιν￿ς ￿παγγ￿λλοντας, ￿ς ￿ντα￿ςΦοιν￿σσαις, ο￿τε ￿￿παθ￿ς ￿ντιλα￿βανο￿￿νους τ￿ν ￿δικηθ￿ντων, ￿λλ￿ ￿εταξ￿ π￿πτοντας._

(Schol. EΓLh Ar. Ach.443 Wilson) ‘But the members of the chorus’ :With these words tooheisridiculing Euripides,for the choruses that the latter bringsonthe stage do not saysomethingrelevant to the plot,but tell some stories, as in the PhoenicianWomen,nor do they emotionallyside with those suf- feringinjustice,but are simplyinterposed.

Iamdeeply indebted to audiences in Oxford, Seattle, Liverpool, and Venice,which heardver- sions of thispaper and helped it develop into its present shape; to the editors of thisvolume, fortheir feedback as well as forkindly requesting it in lieu of the one originally delivered at the Paths of Song conference; and to Vanessa Cazzato, who much improved it. Quotations from the Phoenician Women aretaken from Mastronarde’sTeubner text (Leipzig 1988). Alltranslations aremyown. Thispaper wasfirst delivered at the memorialcolloquiumfor James Worthen in 2010, and the written version, though much changed, remains dedicated to his memory.

￿ On the popularity of the Phoenician Women see for instanceBremer1983, 294;1984;Cribiore 2001. ￿ π￿πτοντας is found in placeofthe transmitted ￿ντιπ￿πτοντας onlyonthe TLG-E (the newer online version has again ￿ντι⌅). Filippomaria Pontani, whoalerted me to this fact,must be right that the reading – be it duetoaroguescribe or ameremistake – is the correct one. The sense of the text as transmitted is unclear,asisshown by the paraphrases givenby Riemschneider 1940,55(‘sondern gegenden Zusammenhang dazwischenfallen’)and Nikolai- dou-Arabatzi 2015,26n.2(‘but their narration lies somewhere in between the plot of the myth’,significantlyignoring ￿ντι⌅); conversely, ￿εταξ￿ π￿πτειν is amplyattested and unproble- matic in context. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110575910-014 292 EnricoEmanuele Prodi

He wasnot alone. Acommentator on the Phoenician Women itself curtlynotes the ostensible irrelevance of the third stasimon to the present events – specifical- ly,toMenoeceus’ heroic self-sacrifice – to which it ought to have reacted:

￿βας ￿βας ￿ πτερο￿σσα : πρ￿ςο￿δ￿ντα￿τα· ￿δει γ￿ρτ￿νχορ￿νο￿κτ￿σασθαι δι￿ τ￿νθ￿να- τον Μενοικ￿ως ￿￿ποδ￿χεσθαι τ￿νε￿ψυχ￿αν το￿ νεαν￿σκου, ￿λλ￿ τ￿ περ￿ Ο￿δ￿πουν κα￿ τ￿ν Σφ￿γγα διηγε￿ται τ￿ πολλ￿κις ε￿ρη￿￿να. ‘Youcame, youcame, Owinged one’ :This is pointless. The chorus should have expressed pity for Menoeceus’ death or approval for the young man’scourage;insteaditnarrates the story of Oedipus and the Sphinx, stuff told over and over.

￿ρα￿σι τ￿κεα ￿￿λεος : ￿π￿ το￿των ￿χρ￿νε￿θ￿ως ￿ρξασθαι τ￿νχορ￿ν. ￿κε￿να γ￿ρπεριττ￿ ￿στιν. ‘With curses his children, wretched one’ :The chorus should have begun from this straight- away.What comes beforeissuperfluous.

(Schol. MTAB E. Ph. 1019,1053 Schwartz)

Contemporary scholarship has put much effort into investigating the role of the chorus and qualifying these rather ungracious statements.a On this occasion we shall focus on aparticularand hitherto undervalued aspect of the Phoenician women’srelevance to the playnamed after them: namely, the intimated charac- terisation of the chorus as a(cultic) chorus within the dramatic fiction, achar- acterisation which is parallel to, but independentof, their being achorus in the theatrical reality.↵ Helene Foleyput her finger on this characterisation over three decades ago: ‘This chorus, unlike Aeschylus’ chorus of native-born women [sc. in Seven against Thebes], is almost achorus by profession … The Phoenician maidens dedicate themselvestoApollo and to alife of celebrating myth in aforeign land through dance, song,and prayer in honor of the gods’. However,she did not pursue this valuable insight further or investigate

￿ Beside the relevantparts of the commentaries by Balmori 1945, Craik 1988, Mastronarde1994, and Amiech 2004,see Riemschneider 1940;Arthur 1977;Parry 1978,166–73;Cerbo 1984–1985; Foley 1985, 118–19,136–9; Mueller-Goldingen1985 passim;Nancy1986;Calame 1994–1995; Gould 1996,224–5; Medda 2005 (condensed into 2006,18–27); Papadopoulou 2008, 78 –87;La- mari 2010 passim;Hilton2011,41–6. ￿ By arguingfor afurther,exceptional layerofchorality in the PhoenicianWomen,this approach complements and enriches the argument made by Calame 1994–1995onthe enduring cultic function of the tragic chorus with reference to the same play. Comparealso Zimmermann 2002 on the ‘duplice carattere del coro, contemporaneamente dramatis persona ecorocultuale’ (p.122)inAeschylus’ Sevenagainst Thebes. ￿ Foley 1985, 119,144;see also Hilton2011, 42.Asimilar argument is compellinglymade by Mur- naghan 2006,99–100 with reference to Euripides’ moreobviouslymetatheatrical Bacchae, Dancing in Delphi, Dancing in Thebes 293 its significance for the chorus and for the playmore broadly. Doing so shall thereforebeour purpose on this occasion.The first part of this paper investigates the elements of choral characterisation that are subtlybut persistentlywoven into the chorus’ self-presentation in the earlyphases of the play, with parallels from cultic (and para-cultic) lyric and dedicatory epigrams; the second and final part explores the Phoenicianwomen’sstatusasatheoric chorus sent from Tyre to Thebes and Delphi and how such status is integraltothe narratives they sing and to the role that they perform in the rest of the play. The Phoenician women introduce themselvestwice: first to the audience in the first strophic pairofthe parodos (202–25), then to Polynices in the first epi- sode (280 –5). The latter passagealmost soundslike amoreprosaic résumé of the bare facts of the first, and we shall return to it shortly. But let us first exam- ine the openingofthe parodos:

Τ￿ριον ο￿δ￿α λιπο￿σ￿￿βαν ￿κροθ￿νια Λοξ￿αι Φοιν￿σσας ￿π￿ ν￿σου, Φο￿βωι δο￿λα ￿ελ￿θρων (205) ￿ν￿￿π￿ δειρ￿σι νιφοβ￿λοις Παρνασσο￿ κατεν￿σθη, ￿￿νιον κατ￿ π￿ντον ￿λ￿- ται πλε￿σασα, περιρρ￿των ￿π￿ρ ￿καρπ￿στων πεδ￿ων (210) Σικελ￿ας Ζεφ￿ρου πνοα￿ς ￿ππε￿σαντος ￿νο￿ραν￿ι κ￿λλιστον κελ￿δη￿α.

π￿λεος ￿κπροκριθε￿σ￿￿￿￿ς καλλιστε￿￿ατα Λοξ￿αι (215) Καδ￿ε￿ων ￿￿ολον γ￿ν, κλειν￿ν ￿Aγηνοριδ￿ν ￿￿ογενε￿ς ￿π￿ Λαΐου πε￿φθε￿σ￿￿νθ￿δε π￿ργους. ￿σα δ￿￿γ￿λ￿ασι χρυσοτε￿-(220) κτοις Φο￿βωι λ￿τρις ￿γεν￿￿αν· ￿τι δ￿ Κασταλ￿ας ￿δωρ περι￿￿νει ￿ε κ￿￿ας ￿￿￿ς δε￿σαι παρθ￿νιον χλιδ￿ν Φοιβε￿αισι λατρε￿αις.(225)

where ‘[t]he chorus of Asian bacchantes is playingarole, but it is the role, effectively,ofacho- rus’ (p.100). ￿ On the relation between the two passagessee Lamari 2010,51. 294 EnricoEmanuele Prodi

Leavingthe Tyrian swellIhave come as achoice offeringfor Loxias from the Phoenician island, aslave of the halls for Phoebus where he dwells below the ridge of snow-strewn Parnassus; Isailed through the Ionian sea by ship as Zephyr with his blasts galloped in the sky over the barrenplains that wash around Sicily, amost beautiful sound.

Chosen out of my city as the fairest gift for Loxias, Ihavecometothe land of the Cadmeans, sent heretothe towers of Laius,kin to the glorious Agenorids.Equal to the gold-wrought statues Ibecame aservant of Phoebus;but the water of Castalia is still waitingfor me to steepthe maidenlyfinery of my hair in Phoebus’ service.

What invites attention is the interlacingofthe languageofservitude, offering, and desirability across strophe and antistrophe. Servitude to Apollo is first men- tioned at line 205(δο￿λα), when the song icasticallymoves, like the Phoenician women themselves, from Tyre to Delphi, from origin to destination.✏ The chorus returns to it in the second half of the antistrophe, with the repetition in close proximity of the co-radicals λ￿τρις (221)and λατρε￿αις (225): the former looking back to their dedication to Phoebusat thepoint of origin, the latter looking for- ward to their eventual enteringhis service at Delphi (though pointedlyavoiding all mention of their journey there). Consistentlywith their projected status as sa- cred slavesgifted to the divinity,atthe very beginning of their song they describe themselvesas ￿κροθ￿νια ‘choicest offerings’ (or,inamilitary context, ‘spoils’) (203). As though prompted by the West Wind’s κ￿λλιστον κελ￿δη￿α,inthe anti- strophe they dwell on their beauty.They are καλλιστε￿￿ατα ‘most beautiful things’ for Loxias (215), chosen as such out of their entire city (214). In their serv- ice to Phoebus they are like golden ￿γ￿λ￿ατα,statues or pleasing gift-offerings (220–1). The referencetothe ‘maidenlyfinery of [their] hair’ (223–4) completes and specifiesthe picture as one of almost eroticised femaleattractiveness. The focal point of this complex description is the chorus’ self-definition as ￿κροθ￿νια, which connects the Phoenicianwomen’ssacred role with their physical attrib- utes.This connection is highlighted by the very structure of the antistrophe: καλ- λιστε￿￿ατα Λοξ￿αι (215) resumes the tautometric ￿κροθ￿νια Λοξ￿αι of the strophe (203), while the two further references to their desirability accompanythe two references to their subordination (221 λ￿τρις,225 λατρε￿αις). An emphasis on the beauty or worth of the offering is integraltoancient Greek discourse on dedication;soisself-reference as adedication.Ahandful of examples from Maria Letizia Lazzarini’scollection of archaic dedicatory in-

￿ On the languageofservitude, labour,and submissioninGreek religion (which becomes prev- alent in Hellenistic and Roman times,but with afew fifth- and fourth-century antecedents) see Pleket 1981,159 –71 (164 on the PhoenicianWomen). Dancing in Delphi, Dancing in Thebes 295 scriptionswill suffice to illustrate this point.⇣ An ￿κροθ￿νιον can openlyrefer to itself as such: Lazzarini 704 ￿￿ροθ￿νια το￿ ￿ι￿ςτο￿ ￿λυ￿π￿ο, ‘choicest offeringsfor Olympian Zeus’;705 το￿ ￿ι￿ςτο￿ ￿λυ￿π￿ο hακροθ￿νιον το￿ πεδι[, ‘choicest offering of … for Olympian Zeus’;981 ￿Aθενα￿οι τ[ο￿ι] ￿Aπ￿λλον[ι ￿π￿ Μ￿δ]ον ￿κ[ροθ]￿νια τε￿ς Μαραθ[ο￿]νι ￿[￿χες, ‘the Athenians (dedicate) to Apollo the spoils of the battle of Marathon’.⌘ ￿γαλ￿α is another frequentlyemployed term, either on its own or coupled with words or expressions highlightingthe beauty of the object of- fered:c Lazzarini 720=CEG 363 Χαλ￿οδ￿￿ανς ￿ε ￿ν￿θεκε θιιο￿νπερικαλλ￿ς ￿γαλ￿α, ‘Chalcodamas dedicatedme, amost beautifuloffering for the gods’; 728b = CEG 422 Χηρα￿￿ης ￿’ ￿ν￿θηκε θ￿ε￿￿ιπερικαλλ￿ς ￿γαλ￿α, ‘Cheramyes dedicated me, amost beautiful offering for the goddess’;856.1 = CEG 302.1 [Φο￿]βο ￿￿νε￿￿’ ￿γαλ[￿α Λ]ατ̣ [ο￿]δα καλ[￿]ν, ‘Iamabeautifuloffering for Phoe- bus son of Leto’.The whole apart of which is selected as an offering can also be mentioned, providing aparallel for the reference to the choice of the Phoenician women at line 214: Lazzarini 636=CEG 193 Ν￿αρχος ￿ν￿θεκε[ν hοκερα￿ε]￿ς ￿ργον ￿παρχ￿ντ̣ ￿θ[ενα￿αι, ‘Nearchus the potter dedicated atithe from his work to Athena’;638.1–2=CEG 205.1–2 Παλ￿δι ￿Aθανα￿αι Λ￿σον ￿ν￿θεκεν ￿παρ- χ￿ν / hο￿ν ￿υτο￿ κτ[ε￿]νον, ‘Lyson dedicated to Pallas Athena atithefrom his own possessions’;803.1–2=CEG 414.1–2 ￿η￿οκ￿δης τ￿δ’ ￿γαλ￿α Τελεστοδ￿κη τ’ ￿π￿ κοιν￿ν / ε￿χσ￿￿ενοι στ￿σαν παρθ￿νωι ￿Aρτ￿￿ιδι, ‘Democydes and Telestodiceset up this offering from their common possessions to the virgin Artemis in fulfil- ment of avow’. Several of the examples just cited refer to two further elements in the dedi- cation process: the name of the dedicator(s) and the act of dedication itself.Ref- erencetothese is absent from the parodos (though note the hint at 219, πε￿φθε￿σ￿ ￿νθ￿δε)but appears explicity in the chorus’ subsequent self-presentationtoPo- lynices(280 –5):

Φο￿νισσα ￿￿νγ￿ πατρ￿ς ￿ θρ￿ψασ￿ ￿ε,(280) ￿Aγ￿νορος δ￿ πα￿δες ￿κπα￿δων δορ￿ς Φο￿βωι ￿’ ￿πε￿ψαν ￿νθ￿δ’ ￿κροθ￿νιον· ￿￿λλων δ￿ π￿￿πειν ￿’ Ο￿δ￿που κλειν￿ςγ￿νος ￿αντε￿ασε￿ν￿ Λοξ￿ου τ’ ￿π’ ￿σχ￿ρας, ￿ντ￿ιδ’ ￿πεστρ￿τευσαν ￿Aργε￿οι π￿λιν.(285) The soil of Phoenicia is the fatherland that nurtured me. The sons of Agenor’ssons sent me here, spoils of the spear for Phoebus; but when Oedipus’ glorious son was about to send me to the revered oracle and altars of Loxias,just then the Argivesmarched upon the city.

￿ Lazzarini1976. ￿ On the dedication of spoils see Jim2014, 176–202. ￿￿ On ￿γαλ￿α as akey word and concept in dedicatory inscriptions see Day2010,85–129. 296 EnricoEmanuele Prodi

The similaritybetween the first threelines of this extract and dedicatory epi- grams such as Lazzarini 856=CEG 302(cited above) is remarkable. It strength- ens the impression that the first strophic pairofthe parodos persistentlyand deliberatelyechoes the languageofdedication as familiar from dedicatory epi- grams, thereby underscoring the Phoenician women’senvisagedrole as human offeringstoApollo. The dedication of human beingsinsanctuaries abroad is not uniquein Greek mythology, or indeedhistory.cc In literature it is attested as earlyasthe cy- clic Epigoni,whereTiresias’ daughter Manto was said to have been dedicated as an offering in Delphi (fr.3Bernabé =4West ap. schol. A.R. 1.308b Wendel). Upon hearing Ioncall himself a ‘slave of the god’,Euripides’ Creusa politelyinquires whether he is the dedication of acity(￿ν￿θη￿α π￿λεως)orwas sold by some- body(Ion 310), showingnosign of finding either optionstrange. Several founda- tion myths employ astory pattern accordingtowhich agroup of people, or sometimesanentire population, is dedicated or tithed to atemple (using explicit terms such as ￿ν￿θη￿α ‘dedication’, ￿παρχ￿ ‘tithe’, δεκατε￿ω ‘to tithe’, ￿κροθ￿- νιον)and then goes on to found acity.c_ The Mycenaean record also offers exam- ples of what appears to be construed as agift of men or women to divinities, al- though it is unclear how it worked in practice.ca But are we to think that the service the Phoenician women see themselves performing in the ‘kultisches Idyll’c↵ of Delphi is limited to being there quite beautifullyand belonging to Apollo, likethe golden statues and the other offer- ingsinhis temple? The mesode (226–38) points us towardsamore complex and far-reachingsolution:

￿￿ Awell-known historical case is that of the so-called Locrian Maidens,onwhich see Graf 1978.Onhuman dedicationsinthe Hellenistic and Roman East see now Caneva/Delli Pizzi 2015,emphasising that this cluster of phenomena ‘cannot be framed within asingle interpreta- tive paradigm, beyond the merefact that they all shared in aspecial relationship with asanc- tuary’ (190). ￿￿ See the evidencecollected by Ducat 1974,100 –6and Jim2014, 281–8; one instanceisalso recalled at p. 307below. ￿￿ The example that first comestomind is atablet from Pylos,PYTn316 (DMG 172) where a series of divinities areallocated gold bowls,gold cups,women, and/or men. The human offer- ingshavebeen variouslyinterpreted, from cup-bearers (Ventris/Chadwick in DMG p. 284) to vic- tims for human sacrifice(Chadwick in DMG2 p. 460) to temple-servants (Hughes 1991,199–202), the latter seeminglythe likelier.Human beings also exchange hands,with adeity as the recip- ient in at least two cases, in PY An 1281 (DMG2 312). Several other Pylian tablets (and possibly one fromCnossus, KN X966) refertonamed individuals as te-o-jodo-e-ro or do-e-ra ‘slave of the god’,see Gérard-Rousseau 1968, 76 –8. ￿￿ Mueller-Goldingen1985, 66. Dancing in Delphi, Dancing in Thebes 297

￿ λ￿￿πουσα π￿τρα πυρ￿ς δικ￿ρυφον σ￿λας ￿π￿ρ ￿κρων βακχε￿ων ￿ιον￿σου, ο￿να θ’ ￿ καθα￿￿ριον στ￿ζεις, τ￿νπολ￿καρπον ο￿-(230) ν￿νθας ￿ε￿σα β￿τρυν, ζ￿θε￿ τ’ ￿ντρα δρ￿κοντος ο￿- ρεια￿ τε σκοπια￿ θε￿ν νιφ￿βολ￿ντ’ ￿ρος ￿ερ￿ν, ε￿- λ￿σσων ￿θαν￿τας θεο￿ (235) χορ￿ςγενο￿￿αν ￿φοβος, παρ￿ ￿εσ￿￿φαλα γ￿αλα Φο￿- βου ￿￿ρκαν προλιπο￿σα. Orockthat flashes the twin-peaked light of fire over Dionysus’ rapturous heights;vine that drips every dayasitsends forth the grapeofthe vine which bears much fruit; divine cave of the serpent; mountain lookouts of the gods; holysnow-strewn mountain; – mayIbecome a fearless chorus of the immortal goddess,whirlingroundbythe hollow of Phoebus,the navelofthe earth, once Ihaveleft Dirce.

After remarkingtheir absencefrom Delphi at the end of the preceding antistro- phe, the women elaborate in almostfantasising terms on the singingand danc- ing that awaits them there. This is easilyrelated to the phenomenon thatAlbert Henrichs – in apaper whose title the present one consciouslyechoes – terms choral projection: ‘when Sophoklean and Euripidean choruses locate their own dancing in the past or in the future, in contrasttothe here and now of their immediate performance, or when choruses project theircollective identity onto groups of dancers distant from the concrete space of the orchestraand dancing in the allusive realm of the dramatic imagination’.c Choral projection, yes, but with atwist. Firstly, in its context within the playitisnot an escapist fantasy like many other occurrences of this topos, but rooted in the reality of adetermined, explicit, and indeeddivinelysanctioneddestination (however hin- dered and rendered uncertain by the present war,aswill be explainedinthe sec- ond strophic pair). Moreover,and more importantly,the choral singingand danc-

￿￿ Henrichs 1996,49. In that publication he lists the Phoenician Women amongplays which fea- ture ‘acomplex pattern of choral projection and choral self-referencethat extendsoverthree or morechoral odes’ (51) but does not elaboratefurther beyond noting καλλ￿χορος at line 786and chastisingMastronarde 1994,378 n. 1for excluding ametatheatrical interpretation of that adjec- tive.Myargument proceeds in asomewhat different direction, although the twoare not mutually exclusive.For recent treatments of choral projection that include its ritual dimension (which is crucial for the PhoenicianWomen,asthe rest of our discussion will show) see Kowalzig2007b, esp. 232–42,Nikolaidou-Arabatzi 2015. 298 EnricoEmanuele Prodi ing thatthey envision themselvesdoing upon theirarrivalinDelphi is not only the actual occupation of the Athenian choreutes in the reality of the tragic per- formance, but also consistent with the characterisation of the Phoenician women throughout the action of the play, as we shallsee. This is aconsequenceofthe wayinwhich the cluster of dedicatory self-references in the first strophic pair of the parodos and the choral tension of the mesode resonate with an established network of associations between song – especially, but not exclusively,c choral songsfor public worship, or ‘hymns’–and dedication. In Simon Pulleyn’swords, ‘[t]he hymn is clearlyseen as agift or offering,an ￿γαλ￿α for the god’.c✏ Twoancient anecdotes, or perhaps two variants of one, have Pindarstate that he composed adithyramb or apaean for the purpose of asacrifice, θ￿σων.c⇣ As Mary Depew has convincingly shown, ‘hymns’ partake of adiscourse of self-referential deixis that is shared with material dedications.c⌘ ‘Dedicatory statues, votive reliefs,inscriptions, and hymns have one thing in common: they typicallypresent,indeictic terms fitting to theirmedium, the act of dedication itself’._ So, as we have seen, does our chorus, both in the first strophic pair of the parodos and (in more concise and explicit terms) upon their meeting Polynicesinthe first episode.Greek cult songsfrom the ar- chaic to the Hellenistic ageoffer parallels for several of the dedicatory self-refer- ences whereby we have linked the parodos to dedicatory inscriptions. Firstly, prayers for reception implytoanextent one’sself-representationasanoffering. In the final stanza of Pindar’s Paean 5(D5 Rutherford, quoted in full at pp. 309 –10 below)the speakerentreats Apollo and Artemis to receive (δ￿ξασθε) him, theirservant,kindly, togetherwith the sweet-soundingpaean he brings._c A similar prayer,addressed to Apollo as Παι￿ν,concludes what is commonly known as the third triad of Paean 6(D6 Rutherford). The opening of the same poem – if it is indeedthe same poem – is an elaborate prayer to Delphi that she might receive (δ￿ξαι)the speaker,the ‘songful mouthpiece of the Pierian

￿￿ See for instanceSteiner 1993onPindar’sassociation of songand material artefacts such as statues and stelae (with their respective inscriptions) in the victory odes. ￿￿ Pulleyn 1997, 49. ￿￿ Dithyramb:Phld. Mus.4.135 p. II 261Delattre(fr.*86a Sn.-M.). Paean: Pi.apophth. p. I3 Drachmann, Eust. prooem. in Pi. 31.1Kambylis =p.III 302Drachmann. See Svenbro1984,926 (suggestingthat the anecdote on the paean mayreferto Pae.6.127–8), 929; Pulleyn 1997, 49–50,who notesthat the topos of the ‘smokeless’ sacrificeofpoetry persists in post-Classical poetry (Call. fr.494 Pf., Leon. Alex. 1.3Page=FGE 1866); compareKowalzig2004:49–50. ￿￿ Depew 2000.Parts of her arguments had been anticipated by Svenbro1984;Day 1994,55–6; Pulleyn 1997, 49–51. ￿￿ Depew 2000,64. ￿￿ Day1994,55–6. Dancing in Delphi, Dancing in Thebes 299

Ones’,togetherwith the Graces and Aphrodite.__ The latter is athinlyveiled ref- erencetothe charm and attractiveness of the performance (and of the perform- ers);_a asimilar allusion can be found in ‘Paean’ 12.5 –8(G1 Rutherford, actually a Prosodion),_↵ wherethe sacrifices sent from Naxos to Delos are said to come Χαρ￿τεσσι ￿￿γδαν ‘together with the Graces’.Furthermore,the notion of the pleasantness of the offering stands behindthe emphasis on χα￿ρειν that per- vades both dedicatory inscriptions and hymnic poetry._ Beside the obvious ex- ample of the Homeric Hymns,where χα￿ρε normallyintroduces the conclusion of the poem, similar expressions are usedinexplicit connection with the song itself in the refrain of the Dictaean hymn to the Kouros (IC III/22= CA pp. 160 –1),_ Aristonous’ hymn to Apollo (FD III/2192.45=CA p. 164),_✏ and the so-called Er- ythraean paean to Asclepius in the version found at Ptolemais (IGR I/51154.30 –1 = CA p. 138)._⇣ Isyllus’ paean (IG IV2/1 128=CA p. 135) and the history of its com- position are explicitlyequated with adedication by the inscriptionthat preserves it: τα￿τα το￿, ￿ ￿￿γ’ ￿ριστε θε￿ν, ￿ν￿θηκεν ￿συλλος (83), ‘to you, Ofar the best of the gods, Isyllus dedicated these’_⌘ – an equation emphasised by the fact that, like the other hymniccompositions just cited, its text wasreallyset up as aded- icationinasacredspace. One can thus arguethatthe Phoenician women’sself-presentation in the pa- rodos and the associations that it evokes bestow on them aclear overtone of choralitythat is internal to the dramatic fictionand consequential with it,over- lappingwith and emphasised by (but not exclusively relying on) the obviousfact that they actuallyare achorus in the reality of the stage. It is important to note, with Leslie Kurke, thatthe analogywith sacrifice and dedication concerns ‘not the poem per se … but the poem in full choral performance, sung and danced in unison and in perfect synchronization by awell-trained, beautifullyoutfitted chorus’.a In Pindar’sfifth and sixth Paeans,aswehavejust seen, what Leto’s

￿￿ Day1994,61; Depew 2000,64, 75 –6. ￿￿ See Rutherford2001,307 with Day2010,252–3. ￿￿ On P.Oxy. 1792 (whose fr.1preserves ‘Pae.’ 12) as amanuscript of Pindar’s Prosodia not Paeans see D’Alessio 1997, 25–7. ￿￿ See Day2000,46–57;Depew 2000,62–4; Day2010,234–8, 248–54,262–3. On the func- tioningof χ￿ρις between the divine and the human spheresee also Jim2014: 22–3, 60 –84. ￿￿ Depew 2000,63. ￿￿ On Aristonous’ hymn see Furley /Bremer2001,II45–52; LeVen2014, 299–304,esp. 304. ￿￿ Day2010,249 –51.Onthe Erythraean paean see Furley /Bremer 2001,II161–7; LeVen2014, 286–94,esp. 292–3. ￿￿ Depew 2000,64. On Isyllus’ paean and the inscriptioninwhich it is embedded see Furley / Bremer 2001,II180 –92;Kolde 2003,esp. 47–8, 220; LeVen2014, 317–28,esp. 318, 328. ￿￿ Kurke2012,221. 300 EnricoEmanuele Prodi children and Delphi are asked to receive is the speaking first person with his ac- coutrement of gracefuless and song,not merelythe song as such. Just as aded- icationinatemple inseparably joins the original act of dedicationwith the per- manence of the dedicated artefact (with the inscription on the latter testifying to and memorialising the former),ac so an offering of song involves boththe text in its envisioned permanence through time and the original performance in its em- bodied totality.This is the keytosolving one potential oddity that mayotherwise affect our interpretation as outlinedabove, namely the Phoenicianwomen’s equation of themselves – not specificallyoftheir song and dance – to dedicated objects. This is obviously mandated by the back-story that Euripides assigns to them, but does not conflict with their characterization as achorus. Forthe time of the performance, the singer and dancer is herself apart of the offering she bringsinto visible and audible existence, at once dedicator and dedication. The allusions to the Phoenician women’sattractiveness (215,220 –1, 223–4) are part and parcel of this conceptualisation of choral performance, as is more ob- viouslythe case in Alcman’smaiden songs(PMGF 1and 3 passim)a_ but also, for instance, in the openingofPindar’ssixth Paean,with its emphatic reference to Aphroditeas an attendant to the (male)speaker. The portrayal of agroup of women as adedication, arguablyinconnection with amusicalperformance, findstwo hitherto unremarked parallels from the earlydecades of the fifth century.Neither of them is an exactequivalent of the situation we have unpicked in the parodos of the Phoenician Women – far from it – but they allow us better to contextualise Euripides’ representation of his chorus and its implications. The first of these texts is anotorious poem of Pindar, four fragments of which – covering justoverfifteen verses, perhaps a substantial proportion of the original poemaa – are transmitted by Athenaeus, who quotes them from Chamaeleon’smonograph On Pindar (fr.31Wehrli =35 Martano ap. Ath. 13.573c–574b). As Chamaeleon’snotoriouslyimaginative story- tellingwould have it,the Corinthian athlete Xenophon vowed thathewould

￿￿ Day1994,43–6, 54 (see also 1989,22–5onfunerary epigrams). ￿￿ On visual self-referentiality in maiden song(both partheneia properand references to cho- ruses of youngwomen in other literature) see now Swift 2016.The often neglected but crucial point that such emphasis on the performers’ attractiveness has adivine as well as ahuman au- dienceinmind is at p. 282. ￿￿ The minimumpossible total is twenty lines (four stanzas). It is endorsed as the true figure by Snell and Maehler as well as Burnett 2011,50 –1and Liberman 2016,55n.65; this is not without problems,asitnecessarilyimplies that asingle verse is missingbetween 16 and 18. Aslightly higher figure,such as twenty-five lines,may be closer to the truth: see vanGroningen 1960, 49–50 (at least twenty-five); Currie 2011,289 and n. 80 (‘We do not know how much of the orig- inal poem is missing’). Dancing in Delphi, Dancing in Thebes 301 bring (￿π￿ξειν)courtesans to Aphrodite, accordingtoasupposedlocal custom, if he won at the Olympic games;his wish was granted, whereuponthis skolion – the onlysurviving poem of Pindar that was certainlycalled so by its authora↵ – was performed duringthe sacrifice in which said courtesans took part.IfCha- maeleon is right at least in connectingthe poem to Xenophon’sdouble Olympic victory,which Pindar commemorated moredirectlyin Olympian 13,then its com- position and performance are to be dated to 464 BC; giventhe explicit reference to Xenophon, we cannot be very far off that dateinany case. The first passage that Chamaeleon quotes (fr.*122.18–20 Sn.-M.)probablyconstituted the end of the poem:

￿ Κ￿πρου δ￿σποινα, τε￿νδε￿τ￿￿ς ￿λσος φορβ￿δων κορ￿ν ￿γ￿λαν ￿κατ￿γγυι- ον Ξενοφ￿ντελ￿αις ￿π￿γαγ￿ ε￿χωλα￿ς ￿ανθε￿ς.(20) Omistress of Cyprus,here to your sanctuary Xenophon broughtahundred-limbed herdof grazinggirls,rejoicing in the accomplishment of his prayers.

Following Heinz Alexander Schmidt,Leslie Kurke has rightlyremarked the sac- rificial undertones of φορβ￿δων, ￿γ￿λαν,and ￿κατ￿γγυιον (the latter recalling a hecatomb).a However,the picture should be broadened slightly. The entirety of these three remarkablyself-contained verses is essentiallyadedicatoryinscrip- tion in lyric formulation.a As Schmitz pointed out,itcontains all the elements that we would expect from one:a✏ references to dedicator,dedicatee, dedicated

￿￿ Hubbard’s2011,353 –5contention that ￿ρχ￿νσκολ￿ου at line 14 does not designatethe poem itself as a skolion,but as ‘asubtext of witty σκ￿λια at futuresymposia’ is not justified by the text, see Currie 2011, 289n.82. On the generic label and its implications see Liberman 2016, esp. 54–7; see also Carey 2009a, 31–2, suggestingthat the label skolion here is less than serious. As Thomas Cowardpoints out to me, Pindar mayhaveused the word skolion also in another poem (presumably the one which included frr.*124–*126Sn.-M.) if [Plut.] Mus.28=Mor. 1140fiscorrecttoclaim that he creditedTerpander with the invention of skolia. ￿￿ Schmitz 1970,73n.70; Kurke1996,58; see also Budin 2008b, 122–5, but note Pirenne-Del- forge 2009 and Burnett 2011,58–9onsome over-interpretations in her analysis of the poem. ￿￿ The initial asyndeton is noteworthy; so is the aorist ￿π￿γαγ(ε), which is moreathome in a dedicatory epigram – memorialising an event that took placeinthe past,fromthe reader’sper- spective at anyrate – than in asongpurportedlyreferring to acontemporaneous event.Apos- sible explanation is that lines 18–20 werepresentedasreportedspeech, as though they were read out or proclaimed by athird party:maybe the same ￿σθ￿ο￿ δεσπ￿ται whose speech is ref- erencedat13–14,orthe usual τις of projected reception (Il.6.459,462;7.87,91; etc.)? ￿￿ Schmitz 1970, 71 n. 50;see also Hubbard2011,354. 302 EnricoEmanuele Prodi

‘object’,act of dedicating,and occasion of the dedication (the fulfilment of a prayer,itself acommon trope in dedicatory epigrams).a⇣ Stephanie Budin mayvery well be right to suggest that an ￿λσος of Aphro- dite, coupled with the deictic δε￿τ(ε)inapoem that calls itself a σκ￿λιον,should be takenless thanliterally, as gesturing to the sympotic andron rather than to an actual temple.a⌘ She is certainlycorrect on two further points: that, contraryto some earlier interpretations, no permanentdedication in atemple for the pur- pose of ‘sacred prostitution’ is suggested by what survivesofPindar’stext (or of Chamaeleon’sfor that matter); and that Chamaeleon’saccount of the occasion of the skolion is likelytobehis own reconstruction based on no other evidence than the poem itself.↵ Nevertheless,the ‘bringing’ of the women is implicitlybut clearly presented as adedication in aspace thatis, at least imaginatively,por- trayed as sacred. Anycontrastwith the reality of the occasion would onlyhigh- light the significanceofPindar’sdescription as well as the tongue-in-cheek inter- playbetween the sacred intimations of his languageand its rather more earthly referent.And, much like true dedicatory epigrams do the objects they accompa- ny,itisthe quasi-epigram embedded in the song that memorialises and reper- forms (and, if Budin is right,altogether creates) Xenophon’s ‘dedication’ of the courtesans to whatever service of Aphroditethe occasion entailed.Ifthe courte- sans themselvesplayedarole in the performance of the skolion,asBruno Currie has recentlysuggested (the masculine persona loquens in line 14 need not be an obstacle),↵c the parallel with the Phoenician women becomes even more striking; but the relevance of this poem to the broader theme of dedication in song does not require this to have been the case. The second example is an epigram attributed to Simonides (14Page=FGE 732–5). It is quoted in slightlydiffent wording by three ancient authorities: Cha-

￿￿ On ￿π￿γω (and its variant ￿π￿γω,perhapssupported by Chamaeleon’suse of the same verb in his narrative)see van Groningen 1960,44–6; Budin 2008b, 138–9; Currie 2011,289 n. 81.For references to an earlier prayer or vowinconnection with the act of dedication in inscriptional texts see Lazzarini 1976,280 –2; Pulleyn 1997, 41.Here ε￿χωλα￿ς probablymeans prayers rather than vows,given the referencetojoy at their fulfilment; nevertheless,consideringthe racy oc- casion of the performance, a double entendre maywell have been intended, with Xenophon quiteasglad of his own fulfilment of his vowasofthe goddess’ fulfilment of his prayer. ￿￿ Budin 2006,85–6and 2008b, 115–9, 140; see also Burnett 2011,58–60.Differently, Cingano 2003,42–4and Currie 2011,289–92 arguefor apublic, choral performance in atemple, but largely on the precarious authority of Chamaeleon. ￿￿ Budin 2008b, 140, 150 –2, with references. ￿￿ Currie 2011, 290 n. 83.Whatever the case, the poem would certainlyhavebeen agood can- didatefor sympotic reperformances involving hetairai,see Hubbard 2011, 354–5(though with the caveat recalled above). Dancing in Delphi, Dancing in Thebes 303 maeleon immediatelybefore his discussion of Pindar’s skolion,Theopompusas reported in ascholiontoPindar’sthirteenth Olympian (BNJ 115 F285b ap. schol. 32b p. I365 Drachmann), and Plutarch in his essay On the Malice of Herodotus (39 = Mor.871b).↵_ All three sources agree thatthe epigramaccompanied an ob- ject representing the Corinthian women who prayed to Aphroditefor the salva- tion of Greeceatthe time of the Persianinvasion. This is the text printed by Sir Denys Page, aslightlyamended version of thatgiven by the Pindaric scho- lion:

α￿δ’ ￿π￿ρ ￿λλ￿νων τε κα￿￿γχε￿￿χων πολιητ￿ν ￿στασαν ε￿χ￿￿εναι Κ￿πριδι δαι￿￿νια· ο￿ γ￿ρτοξοφ￿ροισιν ￿βο￿λετο δ￿’ ￿Aφροδ￿τα Μ￿δοις ￿λλ￿νων ￿κρ￿πολιν δ￿￿εναι. These stood in wondrousprayertoCypris on behalf of the Greeks and their close-fighting fellow-citizens,for divine Aphroditedid not wish to give the citadel of Greece to the bow- carryingMedes.

In their commentary to the epigram, the three sources disagree as to the identity of the unnamed α￿δ(ε)ofthe opening verse – Corinthian women generallyaccor- ding to the Pindaric scholion and Plutarch, Corinthian courtesans accordingto Chamaeleon – as well as to the object(s) to which the epigramreferred, aset of bronze ε￿κ￿νες (Plutarch) or a π￿ναξ (Chamaeleon); in turn, the latter can be understood as either apainting of the hetairai or acatalogue of their names.↵a Another important variant concerns the main verb at line 2, which both in Plutarch and in Athenaus’ quotation of Chamaeleon is givenas ￿σταθεν – apassive form (perhaps with intransitive meaning)which has acon- siderable likelihood of being the true reading.↵↵ The first couplet effectively conflates the image(if this is what it was) with the women it represents. Both the women and their likeness stood in prayer for Greeceand Corinth; both this prayer and the artefactthat memorialises it are, each in its own way, dedicatedtoAphrodite. As BrunaM.Palumbo Stracca suggests, the γ￿ρ that introduces the second couplet is more easilyaccounted for if the main verb refers to the dedication of the imageaswell as (or instead of)to

￿￿ On this epigram and its different transmitted versions see Boas 1905,47–71;Page in FGE pp. 207–11;Palumbo Stracca 1985, 58–65;Budin 2008a and 2008b, 140 –9. ￿￿ See Palumbo Stracca 1985, 61–2. ￿￿ See Palumbo Stracca 1985, 61–3(passive); Sider 2008 (intransitive). 304 EnricoEmanuele Prodi the original prayer.↵ The aorist of ￿στη￿ι can be usedtodenote the act of ‘setting up’ an object as adedication to adivinity:↵ see for instance Lazzarini 688.1–2= CEG 429.1–2 α￿δ￿ τεχν￿εσσα λ￿θο, λ￿γε τ￿ςτ￿δ’ ￿̣ [γαλ￿α]/στ￿σεν ￿Aπ￿λλωνος βω￿￿ν ￿παγλα￿[σας ‘skilful voice of the stone, tell who set up this offering grac- ing the altar of Apollo’,679 = CEG 194 Παλ]￿δι ￿’ ￿γρε￿￿χαι ￿ιον￿σιο[ς ￿νθ￿]δ’ ￿γαλ￿α / στε￿σε Κολο￿οπα￿ς ‘Dionysius,the son of Coloius, set me up here as agift-offering for battle-rousingPallas’,and 803.1–2=CEG 414.1–2quoted above. This – especially, but not exclusively,if ￿σταθεν is the true reading – sup- ports the interpretation of the epigram as portraying not onlythe actual dedica- tion of the image, but also the notional dedication of the women it depicts. But there maybemore to it than this. The verb ￿στη￿ι,inboth the active and the mid- dle, is alsoafavourite designator for the act of setting up a χορ￿ς or participating in one.↵✏ In Pindar’ssecond Paean (D2 Rutherford), the bright-headbanded maid- ens of Delphi sing ￿στ￿￿ε̣ ν̣ αι χορ￿ν /[ταχ￿]ποδα ‘setting up aswift-footed chorus’ (99–100). The title character of Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis asks στ￿σο￿εν ￿ρ’ ￿￿φ￿ βω￿￿ν, ￿ π￿τερ, χορο￿ς; ‘shall we set up chorus around the altar,father?’ (676). In the same poet’s Electra,the heroine lamentsthat she will not be able to dance ￿στ￿σα χορο￿ς / ￿Aργε￿αις ￿￿α ν￿￿φαις ‘setting up choruses with the brides of Argos’ (178 –9).↵⇣ The twelve Spartan maidens of Theocritus’ Epithalamian of Helen πρ￿σθε νεογρ￿πτω θαλ￿￿ω χορ￿ν ￿στ￿σαντο ‘set up achorus in front of the newlypainted bedchamber’ (18.3). So one could easilysuggest,with David Sider,that the Corinthian women ‘stood as achorus … that is, thattheir prayer took the form of achoral ode’.↵⌘ Once we discount the intriguing but untrustworthystories spun by Chamae- leon, the details of the background and performance of these two short poems elude us. In neither case can choral performance by the women in question

￿￿ Palumbo Stracca 1985, 63. However,ifBernardakis’ conjecture δαι￿￿νια is accepted (as it is by Page), γ￿ρ can also be taken as referringtothe adjective specifically: the women’sprayerwas athingofwonder and miracle, as is shown by the fact that Aphroditedid not allow the Persians to conquer Corinth. ￿￿ Palumbo Stracca 1985, 60,64. ￿￿ See Alonge2012. ￿￿ Ireproduce the textprintedbyJames Diggle in his OCT(Oxford1991). Alonge2012 advocates rejecting Reiske’s ￿στ￿σα in order to retainthe manuscripts’ στ￿σα and instead emend the trans- mitted χορο￿ς into Seidler’s χορο￿ς,onthe strength of IT 1143 χορο￿ςδ￿ στα￿ην and fr.122 Kan- nicht (Andromeda) ο￿ χορο￿σιν ...￿στηκ’.Seidler’semendation is plausible, but no less so is Reiske’s: as the Pindaric and Theocritean parallels suggest, ￿στη￿ι (or ￿στα￿αι) χορ￿ν (or χορο￿ς) can refertosimplytakingpart in achorus – which, as Alonge remarks, is the sense the context demands – with no necessary implication of beingthe chorus leader. ￿￿ Sider 2008. Dancing in Delphi, Dancing in Thebes 305 be proved. However,inboth cases we are presented with aperformance – of whatever kind – by women who are conceivedofasanoffering.Inone case they are explicitlypresented as such; in the other,the dedication is onlyintimat- ed by the text,but made evident by the actual setup of the artefact in the temple of Aphrodite. So, the intimated chorality of the dedicated Phoenician women is not as uniqueasitmight seem. Whatremains to be done is to tease out the sig- nificance of this choral characterisation of the chorus. On the external, contex- tual level, as Smaro Nikolaidou-Arabatzi has recentlyput it, ‘WheneveraEuripi- dean chorus introduces its own dancing into ritual choral events from the past or future, it broadens its choreia with fictional mirrors of its own performance, thus validatingits initial role of offering praise to the honoured godDionysus’ – an effect that is all the more powerful if what is introducedisnot onlyamomentary imagination of choralitybut aconsistent characterisation. But the details, impli- cations, and significance of this characterisation within the tragedyitself also in- vite exploration, and it is to such exploration that the second part of this paper is dedicated. AlreadyClaire Nancy,inone of the most perceptive analyses of the choral odes of the Phoenician Women publishedtodate, recognised abroadly ‘lyric’ quality to their discourse on the level of themesand imagery: ‘Lyrique en ce sens d’abordqu’il procède par une disposition de motifs, par un jeu de contre- point: imagecontreimage, scène contrescène. Qu’il réagence librement les don- nées légendaires pour faire émergerunsens enfoui jusqu’ici dans la trame de l’histoire’.c But the choral odes are ‘lyric’–beside the concrete sense of being sung and dancedonthe stage – under another aspect too. As we know from Pin- dar and the other late archaic lyricists, the normaldisposition of large-scale cho- ralcult song is to begin by introducing the speaker and the song itself before launching into an extended mythicalnarrative,typicallyrelated to the cult in which they are taking part or the locality in which it takes place, onlytoreturn to the present of the performance at the very end. The countless variations and the different combinations of specific topics in the poems that survive onlyem- phasises the persistenceofthis basic structure.And the Phoenician women’s singingthroughout the playcan be seen, on adeeplevel, to partake of asimilar fundamental disposition._

￿￿ Nikolaidou-Arabatzi 2015,28. ￿￿ Nancy1986,474;see also Cerbo 1984–1985, 190,who finds structural echoes of the ‘forme specifiche della lirica arcaica – ditirambo, inno, threnos’. ￿￿ The connection between the Phoenician women’smyth-tellingand their dramatic personais observed by Foley 1985, 144(quotedabove, p. 292). 306 EnricoEmanuele Prodi

After introducing themselves, their provenance,their purpose, and their present situation in the parodos,duringthe greatest part of the stasima (most of the first,the antistrophe and epodeofthe second, and the whole of the third) they engageinaseries of interwoven mythical narrativesabout Thebes and its royal house. That the stasima can be taken togethertoconstituteone such song cycle was noticed alreadybyWilhelm Riemschneider almosteight decades ago.a As Marilyn Arthur notes, ‘The choral odes of the Phoenissae ex- plain this connection between the city’spresent ills and the conditions of its foundation. They are organized in the form of asurvey of the history of Thebes which leavesoff onlyasthe last chapter is about to be added in the form of an assault on the city and the duel between the brothers’.↵ (Itisoften remarked that Euripides’ Phoenician Women and the eponymous chorus stand in markedand self-conscious contrast with Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes. One wonders if there is atouch of competition alsoinEuripides’ telescoping of the entireThe- ban tetralogyof467 BC into the choral parts of asingle play.)So, not aseries of independent songsinterlaced one by one with the dramatic action, as the an- cient critics quoted at the beginning of this paper would have wanted, nor the occasional pointless rambling thatthey sawinthem, but rather steps in one long path of song thatwinds its wayalongside the action and becomes conspic- uous when the action recedes into the background onlytobow out for atime when the action comes to the fore again. If the argument presented in the first half of this paper is correct and the Phoenician women present themselvesin the parodos with aclear suggestion of choralcharacterisation, then this fact be- comes easier to account for.The templateofchorallyric is (granted) blown out of proportion and to some extent distorted, but its imprint is recognisable nonethe- less. But we should not stop here, as thereisanother level on which the model of choral lyric in action, as it were, is relevant to our understanding of what the Phoenician women do and why. If the argument made so far in this paper is ac-

￿￿ Riemschneider 1940,16, 25.Inhis view,this ‘Liederzyklus’ includes the parodos and ex- cludes the fourth stasimon. However,the latter is anatural end-point for the songcycle, whose retracingofThebes’ history sinceits foundation culminates in the present situation and its immediatefuture (the duel of Eteocles and Polynices and their mutual fratricide), in which the fourth stasimon is absorbed. This return to the present,however,provides far from asense of closure: see below,pp. 313. ￿￿ Arthur 1977,163 –4; similarlyParry 1978,167.Ontime, myth, and narrative in the choral sec- tions of the PhoenicianWomen see Lamari 2010,chapters 2, 3, and 5 passim. ￿￿ See e.g. Rawson 1970,112; Aélion 1983, I197–227; Cerbo 1984–1985, 186;Foley 1985, 113–39; Hilton 2011,28–46;Torrance 2013,94–133. ￿￿ On the Phoenician Women as ‘aTheban mythical ‘megatext’’ see Lamari 2010,17, 135–7. Dancing in Delphi, Dancing in Thebes 307 cepted, upon their arrival on the stagethey characterise themselvesasachoral offering sent by their Tyrian sovereigns to the sanctuary of Apollo in Delphi via Thebes. Twoaspects of this endeavour need highlightinginthis connection. Firstly, that the women’sjourney from Phoenicia to Greeceisamythicallysignif- icant one; secondly, that the path of their song partlyretracesthis journey and plays out the complex relation between that myth (and others)and the present.✏ ‘[L]e voyage des Phéniciennes – writes Nancy – est une réédition: elles ont mis leurs pas, si l’on peut dire, dansceux de leur ancêtreCadmos, qui n’est autre que le fondateur de Thèbes’.⇣ Theopening of the first stasimon makes it clear (638–42):

Κ￿δ￿ος ￿￿ολε τ￿νδε γ￿ν Τ￿ριος, ￿ιτετρασκελ￿ς ￿￿σχος ￿δ￿￿ατον π￿ση￿α δ￿κε τελεσφ￿ρον διδο￿σα χρησ￿￿ν … Cadmus came to this land, the Tyrian man, for whom the four-leggedcalf fell to the ground without compulsion and gave fulfilment to the oracle …

The deictic τ￿νδε bringsCadmus’ journey into the chorus’ present space, and the very location of this referenceatthe beginning of their extended myth-making casts him as the foundational figure to look to – for them no less thanfor Thebes. This passagestands in atriangular relationship with twoothersignifi- cant nodes of the play.⌘ One is the opening of the parodos,which we examined above: both describeinsimilar languageajourney from Tyre to amythically chargedpresent space (note 216 Καδ￿ε￿ων ￿￿ολον γ￿ν), thus establishing an implicit but clear link between Cadmus and the Phoenicianchorus that retraces his steps in song no less thanindeed. The other is the very beginning of the trag- edy, whereJocasta describes Cadmus’ journey from Phoenicia into the present space in terms which the opening of the first stasimon replicates almost verbatim (3–6):c

￿￿ Arthur 1977,166;Nancy1986,463. ￿￿ Nancy1986,463. ￿￿ See Riemschneider1940,25. ￿￿ Mastronarde1994,334 (see also 8and n. 2onthe ‘arrivalmotif’ moregenerallyinthe play). ￿￿ Thereisacontinuingcontroversy over whether the playopened with what is now line 1or rather,asseveral ancient sourcesappear to suggest,with line 3itself. See most recentlyMecca- riello 2014 with references to earlier bibliography. 308 EnricoEmanuele Prodi

￿λιε, θοα￿ς ￿πποισιν ε￿λ￿σσων φλ￿γα, ￿ςδυστυχ￿ Θ￿βαισι τ￿ιτ￿θ’ ￿￿￿ραι ￿κτ￿ν’ ￿φ￿κας, Κ￿δ￿ος ￿ν￿κ’ ￿λθε γ￿ν (5) τ￿νδ’, ￿κλιπ￿νΦο￿νισσαν ￿ναλ￿αν χθ￿να. Sun, whoonswift mares drive your blaze around, how wretched was the beam youshed on Thebes that daywhen Cadmos came to this land, leavingthe coastal soil of Phoenicia.

The parallel between Cadmus’ arrival as described in the prologueand that of the chorus as described in the parodos validates and authorises the chorus’ be- ginning of their narrative in Cadmus’ name at the opening of the first stasimon. In turn,this nexus authorises the chorus’ narrativeinthe stasima as alens through which to reflect on the present situation of Thebes, echoing Jocasta’s lengthyexposition in the prologue(though as an individual character she has, understandably, amore pressingconcern for her immediate family) but enrich- ing it with different and broader perspectives._ The Phoenician women’skinship with Thebesand its ruling house, which they emphasize repeatedly, especially duringthe earlystages of the play(216–9, 243–9, 291–2, cf. 819), has asimilarly authorising function for their utterances.a But wheredoes theirchorality come in?Partofthe answer,Isuggest,lies in the well-established Greek practice of theōria: in Ian Rutherford’sterse defini- tion, ‘extraterritorial religious activity in which acity-state or other political en- tity sends sacred delegates to act on its behalf ’.↵ Such sacred delegations often included achorus, whose task it was to perform upon reaching their destination (and, in some cases, at chosen points along the waytoo): achoraloffering con- sistent with the conceptualisation we examined earier in this paper.Although not strictlyidentical to this practice,the sending of agroup of women to a pan-Hellenic sanctuary as sacreddedications with an offering of song and dance distinctlyresonates with it. Theōriai tooare oftenrepresented as retracing (in either direction) amythical journey,from which the delegation’sown journey drawsits raison d’être. Afew examples variously relatedtoAthens will suffice. The yearlyAthenian mission to Delos was thought to retrace the steps of Theseusand the ‘twice seven’ at least as

￿￿ See Lamari 2010,23–4, 41. ￿￿ Cerbo 1984–1985, 186;Nancy1986,464.See also Hilton2011,250 –1for the ‘moral and in- tellectual authority’ (251) displayedbythe chorus at various stagesinthe play. ￿￿ Rutherford2013,4. ￿￿ On the choral component of theōria see Rutherford2004;Kowalzig2005 and 2007a passim; Rutherford2013,41–2, 237–49. ￿￿ On theōria as ‘akind of cultural metaphor through which to express inter-staterelations’ in Attic drama, especiallycomedy, see Kowalzig2005,60 –1(quotation from 61). Dancing in Delphi, Dancing in Thebes 309 earlyasPlato, who claims that, ‘as the Athenians say’,the ship used by the theō- ria was the very one on which the hero and his companions had sailed (Phaedo 58a–b).✏ It can be argued that Bacchylides 17,though not an Athenian poem, suggests that this idea goes back at least to the first half of the fifth century.⇣ An intriguingintersection of (envisaged) theōria,human dedication, mythical travelling,and song is testified by afragment of Aristotle’s Constitution of the Bottiaeans paraphrased twicebyPlutarch (fr.485 Rose ap.Thes. 16.2–3, QG 35 = Mor.298f–299a). The treatise traces back the inhabitants of the northern Greek city of Bottiaea to the Athenian human tribute sent to Minosbefore The- seus’ time. According to this myth, their descendants werelater sent by the Cre- tans to Delphi as an ￿νδρ￿ν ￿παρχ￿ and subsequentlymigrated to Iapygia in present-day Italybefore comingback to the Greek peninsula and settling in Bot- tiaea; and for this reason, Aristotle concludes, at one of their festivals the young women of Bottiaea sing ￿ω￿εν ε￿ς ￿Aθ￿νας ‘Let us go to Athens!’.⌘ If Pindar’sfifth Paean (D5 Rutherford) is an Athenian commission, as has been commonlymain- tained since its first publication,✏ its final part displays asimilar preoccupation with mappingthe chorus’ theoric voyage to Delos onto the quasi-mythicalAthe- nian colonisation of the Aegean islesthat justifies it:✏c

Ε￿⌅](35) βοιαν ￿λον κα￿￿νασσαν·

￿￿ϊε ￿￿λι￿￿πολλον· κα￿ σπορ￿δας φερε￿￿λους ￿κτισαν ν￿σους ￿ρικυδ￿ατ￿￿σχον ￿￿λον, ￿πε￿ σφιν ￿Aπ￿λλων (40) δ￿κεν ￿ χρυσοκ￿￿ας ￿Aστερ￿ας δ￿￿ας ο￿κε￿ν·

￿￿ϊε ￿￿λι￿￿πολλον· Λατ￿ος ￿νθα ￿ε πα￿δες ε￿￿ενε￿ δ￿ξασθε ν￿ωι θερ￿ποντα (45) ￿￿￿τερον κελαδενν￿ι σ￿ν￿ελιγ￿ρυϊ παι- ￿νος ￿γακλ￿ος ￿￿φ￿ι.

￿￿ On this and other Athenian theōriai to Delos see Rutherford2004,82–9; see also Kowalzig 2007a, 56–128. ￿￿ See Kowalzig2007a, 88–94,esp. 92. ￿￿ See Rutherford2004,71–2. ￿￿ Grenfell /Hunt 1908, 20;see also Rutherford2001,296–8; Kowalzig2007a, 84.InWilamo- witz’sopinion (1922,327–8) it was aEuboean commission. ￿￿ Rutherford2001,297;2004,83–5; 2013,240 –1; Kowalzig2007a, 83 –6. 310 EnricoEmanuele Prodi

… they took Euboea and settled it. Ieie,Delian Apollo!And they peopled the scatterdisles that bear flocks,and held famousDelos,sinceApollo the gold-haired gave them the bodyof Asteria to inhabit. Ieie,Delian Apollo! There,children of Leto, welcomeme, your servant, with kindlydisposition,tothe resounding,honey-voiced strain of aglorious paean.

In this last case, the parallel with the Phoenicianwomen is particularlyclose, not least because the latter’sjourney tooretracesand recalls amythical path of colonisation. Another example worth citing is the Pythaïs, astate-sanctioned theōria sent by Athens to Delphi at irregular intervals since relatively early times.✏_ The earliest explicit evidence for it is the so-called Nicomachus Calen- dar,compiled probablyinthe last decade of the fifth century on the basis of ear- lier religious legislation,✏a but an allusion to the Pythaïscan be detected already in the opening of Aeschylus’ Eumenides (9–14 with schol. E12, M13Smith), pro- duced in 458BC,✏↵ and it has been plausiblyargued that apaean by Simonides – so no later thanthe first half of the century – is also connected with this rite (PMG 519 fr.35(b).1–10 =fr. 100 Poltera).✏ While in Aeschylus’ tragedythere is onlyahint that the mythical episodeinquestion – Apollo’slanding in Attica and his march to Delphi escorted by an Athenian contingent – findsanecho in contemporarycult practice,Apollo’sjourney and that of the Pythaïs are explic- itlyidentified by Ephorusinapassagequoted by Strabo (BNJ 70 F31 ap.9.3.12): ￿ξ ￿Aθην￿νδ￿￿ρ￿ηθ￿ντα ￿π￿ ￿ελφο￿ςτα￿την ￿￿ναι τ￿ν ￿δ￿ν, ￿ιν￿ν ￿Αθηνα￿οι τ￿ν Πυθαΐδα π￿￿πουσι ‘and when from Athens he set out to Delphi he journeyed on the very road on which the Athenians now send the Pythaïs’.✏ The ‘paean and prosodion’ composed by Limenius for choral performance by the Athenian ‘Craftsmen of Dionysus’ at amuchlater Pythaïs, probablyin128/7 or 106/5 BC (CID III 2=CA pp. 149–59),✏✏ leavesimplicit the connection between the myth- ical journey and the procession, but explicitlyconnects the former with the song

￿￿ On the Pythaïs see Boëthius 1918;Rutherford2004,76–81;Rutherford2013,222–30,312–3, and passim. ￿￿ On the NicomachusCalendar see most recentlyParker 1996,43–8; Lambert 2002.The data relevanttothe Pythaïs arebrought together by Rutherford2013,312–3, 376–7. ￿￿ Boëthius 1918, 31–7. ￿￿ Rutherford1990,173–6. Poltera 2008, 370disagrees, on the argument that fr.100 and fr.102 (PMG 519fr. 32) – probably aDelian poem, or at least one concerned with the Delian myth – ‘were probablynot far apart in the roll’:Lobel 1959, 54. ￿￿ Πυθαΐδα is Radt’spalmary emendation of the transmitted Πυθι￿δα (2002–11:III 92); that the passage refers to the Pythaïs was alreadyassumed by Boëthius1918, 31, 35–6. ￿￿ On the poem see Bélis in CID III pp. 84–129;Vamvouri 1998;Furley /Bremer 2001,II92–100. Bowie 2015b, 110 –7and Thomas 2015,33–7focus particularlyonits spatial aspect. On the date see Bélis in CID III pp. 133–42 (assuming128/7); Schroeder 1999,71–4(arguing for 106/5). Dancing in Delphi, Dancing in Thebes 311 itself, for which it serves as an aetiologyand which, accordingly, it validates (13–21):✏⇣

τ￿τε λιπ￿γΚυυνθ￿αν ν￿ασον ￿π̣ [￿βα θε￿]ςπρω̣ [τ￿- κα￿α￿ρπ￿γκλυτ￿ν ￿Aτθ￿δ’ ￿π￿ γαα[λ￿φωι ] Τριτωων￿δος· ￿ελ￿πνοον δ￿ Λ￿βυς α￿δ￿γχ￿ω[νλωτ￿ς ￿ν￿￿ελ]πεν [￿- δ̣ ε￿ειαν ￿πα ￿ειγν￿￿ενος α￿ει￿λ[οις κιθ￿ρι]ο̣ [ς￿￿λεσιν, ￿]￿α δ’ ￿αχε￿ πετροκατο￿κητος ￿χ[￿ παι￿ν ￿￿ παι￿ν.] ￿̣ δ̣ ￿̣ γ̣ ￿γα- θ’ ￿τι ν￿ωι δεξ￿￿ενος ￿α￿βρ￿ταν δω̣ []ν̣ , ￿νθ’ ￿ων ￿κε￿νας ￿π’ ￿ρχ￿ςΠαι￿ονα κικλ￿ισκ[ο￿εν ] λ̣ α̣ ￿ς̣ α￿̣ τ̣ [ο- χθ￿νων ￿δ￿ Β￿κχου ￿￿γας θυρσοπλ￿[ξ ￿σ￿￿ς ￿]ερ￿ςτεχνι- τ￿ων ￿νοικοος π￿λει Κεκροπ￿αι. Then, leavingthe Cynthianisland, the godreached the glorious land of the first crop, At- tica, on the hilly … of Tritonis. The Libyanreed poured its honey-breathingvoiceand sanga sweet strain, minglingwith the varied tunes of the kithara,and at the same time the echo that dwelt in the rock rang out, ‘Paean ie Paean!’ And he rejoiced because he understood the immortal … Thereforesincethat primeval time we call on Paean, we the … indigenous people and the great thyrsos-stricken holyswarm of the Craftsmen which livesinCecrops’ city.

As we have seen, the journey of the Phoenician women, likethe Pythaïs, is a mythicallysignificant one. If anything,onthe play’sown terms their mid-way stop in Thebes seems to be more significant,from this point of view,than their envisaged end-point in Delphi. It is incorrect to imply, as sometimesis done, that their true destination was Delphi and they merelygot stranded in Thebesmoreorless by chance on their waythere. Firstly, the chorus leader’s statement at lines 282–3explicitlycontradict this view: ‘the sons of Agenor’s sons sent me here,spoils of the spear for Phoebus’.Secondly, attentionshould be paid to the first strophe of the parodos,lines 208–11,wherethe chorus describetheir voyage through the ‘Ionian Sea’ with the West Wind blowing over Sicily. This ostensiblycounter-intuitive itinerary has led to (in Donald Mas- tronarde’swords) ‘agreat deal of nonsense’,✏⌘ which there is no point in rehears- ing here; as he has shown, aroute clockwise around the Peloponnese is aper- fectlyreasonable solution for anyone wanting to sail to Delphi comingfrom the east,evenmore so in the light of the precedent offered by the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (404–43).⇣ But this itinerary also creates afurther effect.Ifone is sailing to Delphi across the Ionian Sea, Thebesisnot on one’sway;one can simply dis-

￿￿ See Vamvouri 1998, 56–7; Rutherford2004,81; Bowie 2015b, 116. ￿￿ Mastronarde1994,210. ￿￿ Mastronarde1994,209–10. 312 EnricoEmanuele Prodi embark at Cirrha and walk the few miles up to Delphi from there. So if the Phoe- nician women have sailed that wayand now find themselvesinThebes, it means they werepositively going to ThebesasmuchastoDelphi.⇣c Despite the obvious divarication of their spatial (and temporal) perspective,which conspicuouslyen- compasses their Delphic destination and their Phoenicianorigin as wellastheir present location,⇣_ the centrality of Thebes in theirjourney – not onlyinthe play as such – oughtnot to be allowed to slip out of sight. As John Gould recognised, collective memoryiskey to the chorus’ engage- ment with Thebes, even more than kinship per se: ‘From the first stasimon to the last,the memory of the chorus plays over,and theirsongsrehearse, the long history of Thebes’.⇣a This provides astark contrast with the individual char- acters (with the partial exception of Jocasta and Tiresias); the Phoenicianwomen are ‘farmore firmlyconscious of the rootedness of the play’sevents than are the heroic protagonists’.⇣↵ This contrastinattitude is mirrored by the drasticallylim- ited amount of actual interaction between the chorus and the characters during most of the play, noted by Enrico Medda and especiallyglaringinthe finale, whereanelaborate lamentation such as the one sung by Antigone and Oedipus could have been expected to include amore substantial choralelement than the handful of anapaests at 1480 –4.⇣ Forall its knowledge of Theban myth, Medda argues, this ‘estranged’ chorus behaveslike an external observer who has no business intervening in the action.⇣ Forthe most part,the Phoenicianwomen speak to the audience, not to the characters in the play; indeedthey come close to being an internal spectator of the dramatic action,suspended between detachment and involvement and possessed of abroader viewpoint thanany of the characters have.⇣✏ Still, their detachment should not be overplayed: theirrel-

￿￿ Comparethe reconstructionproposed by Mastronarde1994,209–10 (the chorus made their waytoThebes in order for their Theban kin to escort them to Delphi fromthere). ￿￿ See Arthur 1977,169;Calame 1994–1995, 144; Lamari 2010,43–8, 167–9. ￿￿ Gould 1996,225. ￿￿ Gould 1996,225.See also Foley 2003,21–2; Medda 2005,128–9. ￿￿ Medda 2005,126–8. See also Arthur 1977,165;Cerbo 1984–1985, 189;Foley 1985, 139–40. Medda notesthe expectationsraised by the futures ￿αχ￿σω and θρην￿σω in the fourth stasimon (1295, 1303) and subsequentlyfrustrated. ￿￿ Medda 2005,129.See also the slightlydifferent argument put forwardbyHilton2011,252, whohighlights rather the chorus’ powerlessness –‘their roleasvictims in awar over which they have no control’. ￿￿ Medda 2005,129–30.CompareMurnaghan’sargument on the metatheatrical function per- formed by the chorus of the Bacchae and the ‘shadow chorus’ of Theban women that joins them: ‘Euripides givesustwo models of choral experience, and so presents within tragedy the terms of adebateabout the roleofthe chorus and the closeness of its relationship to the Dancing in Delphi, Dancing in Thebes 313 ative lack of personal involvement with the individual characters does not belie their deep, ancestral involvement with Thebes, her mythical history,and her des- tiny – with Thebes as cultural patrimony, one might say, or culturalinheritance, more than as aphysical place or civic community.⇣⇣ The Phoenicianwomen’sintimated characterisation as atheoric chorus is in- strumental to their ‘combination of foreignness and remotekinship’ (Foley)⇣⌘ and to the complex and peculiarrole thatthey takeupinthe play. As we have seen, atheoric chorus is naturallyinvested with the task of performing links be- tween time and time, place and place. And what the Phoenician women perform, with theirsongsand theirlong journey,isthe thread thatlinks Thebesand Phoe- nicia, theirpresent and their past.⌘ After the almostidyllic association of danc- ing with Dionysiacworship at the close of the strophe of the first stasimon (655–7), song and dance are repeatedlyevokedasafoil for the horrors of Thebes’ history,which are explicitlycharacterised by alack of music or by its perversion. Ares is Βρο￿￿ου παρ￿￿ουσος ￿ορτα￿ς ‘out of tune with the festivals of Bromius’ (785)and does not partake in (fulsomelydescribed) choral songs, leading insteadaκ￿￿ον ￿ναυλ￿τατον ‘utterlypipe-less revel’ (790); the Sphinx came ￿￿ουσοτ￿ταισι σ￿ν ￿ιδα￿ς ‘with most unmusical songs’ (807) and ￿λυρον ￿￿φ￿ ￿ο￿σαν ‘on alyre-less tune’ (1028), giving rise to songsofmourning throughout the city (1033–8). As Nancy notes,the chorus implicitlycounters this unmusicality with its own song and dance as well as by the alternative his- tories that it narrates.⌘c But musical resistance can onlygosofar.Once they have finallyrejoined the present and faced its sheer horror in the fourth stasimon,the Phoenician women and their song all but fade from sight.⌘_ In this light,their iridescent song-cycle and its strangerelation to the events in the playcan also serveasamise en abyme of mythicalnarrative and its relation to the present, of the poetic act and its relation to the world. By reference to the all-pervasive medium of choralsong in one of its most solemn, liturgical manifestations, Euri- pides is able to enrich his playwith further perspectivesand meanings – and perhaps to reflect, and invitereflection, on the possibilitiesand limits of tragedy itself.

main actorsthat we still struggle with’ (2006,100). Arguably, also the chorus of the Phoenician Women can be viewed from asimilar metatheatrical angle. ￿￿ Cf. Gould 1996,225. ￿￿ Foley 1985, 119 n. 25. ￿￿ Cf. Aélion 1983, I210,who notes ‘cette façon d’utiliser le chœur pour voyageràtravers le temps’.Ontime and spaceinthe PhoenicianWomen see Lamari 2010,chapter5. ￿￿ Nancy1986,471–4, see also Di Benedetto1971, 261. ￿￿ Cf. Arthur 1977,165.