Aeschylus.

Eumenides, 674-680
Author(s): R. P. Winnington-Ingram
Source: The Classical Review, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Feb., 1935), pp. 7-8
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/697219
Accessed: 07-07-2018 12:07 UTC

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

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

Cambridge University Press, The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Review

This content downloaded from 137.204.24.180 on Sat, 07 Jul 2018 12:07:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 7

animosity against him.

friendThat mayand
of the tyrants, have
of the demo-
cratspolitical
been a consequence of afterwards. antago-
nism: the hostility of the continental
GUNTHER ZUNTZ.
follower of the aristocrats to the Ionian Rejfton School.

AESCHYLUS. EUMENIDES, 674-680.

AO. "H677 KEXE6w ro60-5' iTrb YyvC37S (qpetv after it is given, though there is no
675 7ov bV&Kalav, Wds &Xts XEXETevOv ; certain indication when.2
XO. 'HZv Aav 6&7 VraVT 7Er 6 erUra V&Xos"
AYvw 'dKKOaOL 7rw~ a yV Kppa7-ETat.L (iii) The metaphor in 7rctv T7eTevTa&
AO. Ti ydp ; rpds b &2v 7 r' rtOeo"' uoA or i ; ,~'Xo9 is appropriate to Apollo. When
XO. 'HKoUoraO' 5v ,KOt'ra7r', ev U KapG~L~
680 1//ppov d/povrE- 6PKOv aisie Oe, l'ov. he appeared to the Furies in his temple,
he was armed with the bow (181 ff.).
So the parts are distributed in the Then he threatened them with actual
MSS. But clearly either 676-77 or arrows; now it is a natural figure with
679-80 belong to Apollo. Karsten gave which to describe his arguments.3
him the latter couplet, and the majority (iv) No doubt the reason why Kar-
of recent editors has followed him.' sten's attribution was made and ac-
Weil in 1861 did likewise, but trans- cepted is that the solemn appeal to the
posed the couplets. In his Teubner jurors to respect their oath seemed
text however (1907) he reverted to themore appropriate in the mouth of the
traditional order of lines and attributed
Delphic god than in that of a Fury. I
676-77 to Apollo. This attribution do not wish to discuss here the part
seems to have all the internal evidence played by Apollo in this play and in the
in its favour. The following points trilogy
are as a whole, which I take to
not all equally cogent, but their cumu-
have been not altogether creditable.4
lative weight is considerable. But an earlier reference that he has
(i) Apollo has been presenting 'the made to the juror's oath must be taken
case for the defence' and has just into consideration. Lines 619-21 are
finished the last of several speeches of
difficult, but can hardly bear any mean-
fair length. It is more natural that he,
ing other than the following. He has
in answer to Athena's question, should answered Orestes' question (el 8ucatlc
state that he has finished his case, that EiC~Te ?): 612-13) with a resonant &Katcos,
she should then turn to his opponents and has claimed to speak with the
and ask if they have anything further authority of Zeus. He continues:
to say. 'Consider how great is the force of
(ii) The plural is used of both sides:this claim to justice (T' 8iratov roV~'ro);
7Igv 676, 14i6^v 678. But in the formerI bid you follow the will of my father.'
couplet there is a change from plural By p~v and 86 this is given the form
to singular in the second line. If it isof an antithesis between o &tIcatov and
given to the Furies, this change has no ,8ovX2, 2raTrpos. No doubt the distinction
motive except metrical convenience.
implied is to the confident Apollo purely
Further, it is harsh, if not impossibly
formal and rhetorical. But the follow-
harsh, to make their 'leader speak ining line still postulates it. He gives as
one line for the whole Chorus, in the
next in her own person, particularly in 2 Orestes has already said (243): d, .LMEv
view of the fact that she has done the r4XoV bl'rnr. And once he has been besieged by
the Furies he cannot but wait in any case.
talking, while they are all doing the That the Chorus make use of a similar ex-
waiting ! But Apollo can quite natur-
pression at 732 does not affect the argument
ally speak in the first line as advocate
either way.
3 The arrows of Apollo occur elsewhere in the
for Orestes, then announce his personal
trilogy, e.g. Agamemnon 5Io. At Choefhori
intention of waiting to see how the
verdict goes. Which in fact he does, the
1033mention of Apollo.(r76,
the metaphor At Eumenides 628 we
K-X.) is suggested by
and presumably leaves the stage soon find that the archer god can sympathize with
the far-darting Amazons, but not with the crafty
l E.g. Campbell, Headlam, Mazon, Sidgwick,
murderess Clytemnestra.
Verrall, Wecklein, Wilamowitz. " Cf. C.R. XLVII, pp. 97-104.

This content downloaded from 137.204.24.180 on Sat, 07 Jul 2018 12:07:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
8 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

a reason why they should

polite, for follow
she desires the th
favour of both
will of Zeus thatApollo
Zeus and the
is Eumenides
stronger for her tha
be-
an oath. What other oath can this be loved citizens. Indeed the idea in
than their juror's oath, which was, as
tpopoobo is one of the leading notio
of this play, which is to end to the sati
we learn from 674-75, ''rro v'y~V petv
ijrov SKacaav-to decide the case faction
on of all parties. It is the wish
its merits according to the best of Athena
their that offence shall be neither
judgment ?1 In effect, they must do given
as nor taken by any. Thus alpopo'oo
they are told, should a paradoxical here of Orestes would be complementary
conflict arise between Tob 'bcatovtoand
the point of the same adjective at
Apollo's interpretation of the will ofthere she says that she regards the
475:
Zeus. It is an attempt to browbeat city as having no claim to resentment
with which we can compare 713-14. against him, here she would be anxious
Now for Aeschylus such a conflict is at that he should have no fault to find
least conceivable (there could hardly with Athens. But it is no less appro-
otherwise have been a divided verdict); priate to the Furies. Taking it together
and I believe that in the 'T a~ Opevi ofwith the occurrence of the word in her
612 he has put us on our guard againstfirst address to them (413), we find the
the subjectivity of Apollo's coming pro- same suggestion of reciprocity. There
nouncement.2 However this may be, she was on the point of referring dis-
Apollo has, in form at any rate, incited paragingly to their outward appear-
them to perjury, in what is perhaps aance, but checked herself on the grounds
threat, as 667 ff. is a bribe. Now to that they had done her no offence. So
make him say in our passage 'pKIovhere she wishes to avoid giving offence
auStco-Oe might after this be an intendedto them-by cutting short the presenta-
effect of irony. But it is surely easier to tion of their case. On either interpre-
ascribe this couplet to the Furies, whotation it is not surprising to find a
have already displayed their interest in cognate word occurring towards the
oaths and the weight which they putend of the play, when the Furies, now
upon them. I refer to 429 ff., where the Z~epval, sing that the inhabitants of
they wish to make the issue depend on Athens will find nothing to complain of
a contest of oaths between themselves in their lot under the new r6gime, pro-
and Orestes upon the simple question
tected alike by Pallas and by them-
of fact, and are rebuked by Athena for
selves (IoI9: oi7r /p'JItercOe auv/zdopas
this undue simplification. Further,X1ov0).
it
is appropriate for the Furies to rein-
force Athena's words and remind the If the Medicean manuscript had given
679-80 to Apollo, the strength of these
jury that they must return a just verdict
according to their consciences, unin- considerations might well have justified
us in altering the attributions of these
fluenced by the bolts of cajolery, threat-
two couplets. As it is, the tradition
ening and (as I believe) sophistry that
have come from Apollo's bow. is neutral; and against a number of
(v) 678 might well be addressed reasons
by for giving 676-77 to Apollo and
Athena to Apollo and Orestes, thoughleaving
it the Furies with 679-80 there
appears not to be one for the course
is perhaps doubtful whether a goddess
would so lump together a fellow-deity
taken by the great majority of editors.
and a mortal. To both sides she is R. P. WINNINGTON-INGRAM.
Birkbeck College, London.
1 Cf. M azon, Eschyle I I, 151 n. The Athenian
dicast swore in cases for which the laws did
3 The ob i tpeoflat of Orestes at 596 hardly
not provide to give his verdict yvcY0, r & belongs
iKat- to the pattern, but reminds us that the
oradr (Demosthenes, XXXIX 40). Aeschylus
probably had the terms of this oath in mind.final solution will be satisfactory to him as well
as is
2 The tone of rob e'Lpoh rTE Kal AtOh (7J3) to athe Athenians-and the Furies (cf. 836:
similar warning signal. E7raLwvinre).

This content downloaded from 137.204.24.180 on Sat, 07 Jul 2018 12:07:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms