UC-NRLF Of Cbicado ;TUDIES IN SXICHOMYTHIA • ( V ''" ft. ;; A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (department of greek) BY JOHN LEONARD HANCOCK A Private Edition Distributed By The University of Chicago Libraries A Trade Edition Is Published By THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 1917 ^be XHniversits of CFMcaao STUDIES IN STICHOMYTHIA A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (department of greek) BY JOHN LEONARD HANCOCK A Private Edition Distributed By The University of Chicago Libraries A Trade Edition Is Published By THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 1917 Copyright 1917 By The Umr^rsity of Chicago All Rights Reserved Published March 1917 Composed and Printed By lie Univenitv of Chicago Press Ctil-i.ifu. Illlnnls. U.S.A. Pl\; ) =» e» L H S s . PI IT M/^f/^ PREFACE The following dissertation aims to be a grouping of facts, not new to humanist scholars in the several fields, into a comprehensive treat- ment, a non-technical presentation of a literary subject concerning which, too often, knowledge is taken for granted. Problems of philology and text criticism are only incidental to its main purpose. The chapters on drama subsequent to the Greek and Latin are admittedly from the lajinan's point of view. The chapter on particles and stylistic devices is distinct in treatment from the rest. The dissertation differs, in this avoidance of technicalities and in the extent of literature considered, from the only notable work on the subject known to me, Die Stichomythie in der griechiscken Tragodie und Komodie, ihre Anwendung und ihr Ur sprung, by Adolf Gross (Berlin, 1905). His treatment is more objec- tive than subjective, and reference lists add to the value of his book. In the many places where our discussions overlap, note has been made of the fact in footnotes. I must differ from him in his thesis that sticho- mythia developed from choral responsion, while admitting the consider- able part such musical symmetry must have played. Maccari, in a little pamphlet, Stichomythica (Urbini, 191 1), has touched (rather gropingly) on the place of stichomythia in comedy, an interesting topic but outside the limits of this dissertation. The few earlier papers and monographs on the whole subject are either attempts to restore absolute symmetry in line-dialogue by text revisions, or are too vaguely general as compared with the modern treatment of Gross. The subject was suggested to me by Professor Paul Shorey, and has been carried on at all stages under his guidance, my appreciation of which I wish here to record. J. Leonard Hancock University of Arkansas September, 19 16 dd / CONTENTS PAGE Introduction ^ CHAPTER I. Stichomythia in the Greek Drama 5 II. Stichomythia in Seneca 23 III. Use of Particles and Special Devices in Stichomythia 26 IV. Platonic Dulogue and Stichomythia 5° V. Stichomythia in Later Drama 61 A. Mediaeval Latin 61 B. Early Italian 64 C. Early French 66 D. Early English 71 E. Shakespeare °° VI. Stichomythia in Modern Dialogue ...... 87 Index ^9 INTRODUCTION In its perfected and unbroken form Greek stichomythia is a growth which could never have been achieved elsewhere. Oriental subtlety of expression combines with occidental conciseness of phrase in a sym- metry which owes its inspiration to Greek love of balance and formal beauty.' This symmetry reaches its climax in stichomythia but is not unique here, for we see it evident^ in choral responsion in the drama,^ in the primitive songs and children's rhymes (though this is true in all lands), in the balanced clauses invented and delighted in by the Greek rhetoricians, in amoebean verse— though this may be only an echo of dramatic line-dialogue. So, too, the love of subtlety is apparent— and from the earliest times expressed in the concise phrase— in the early yvw/xat of the sages,"* the traditional arid characteristic responses of oracles, the quibbles of the Sophists, the artifices of professional law-court speeches, and even in language forms and inflections, and the large use of particles and idioms. Just so in EngHsh, slang adopts the subtlest, most metaphorical, yet most concise phraseology. But all this brevity and cleverness is really only a weapon for the agonistic spirit which motivates most of the stichomythia and pervades all Greek literature. The earliest and greatest epic poem centered about a quarrel. The first book of the Iliad is a very agonistic dramatic extract, lacking only stichomythic parts to give it the general form of a scene from an Attic play. The traditional contest between Hesiod and Homers is a curious addition to the Hst of agonistic literature. It is mentioned— and usually with entire confidence — by a dozen writers, including Varro {ap. GelHus), Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, and Lucian. According to Kirchoff^ this odd Kterary forgery dates back to Alcidamas of Elea, the opponent of Isocrates, in a fragment of whose Moro-etov ' Gross, pp. 95 ff. » Perhaps also in the dithyramb; cf. Bacchyl. i8, a lyric dialogue. 3 More or less true of the proverbs of all nations. ■» Miiller and Donaldson, History of the Literature of Ancient Greece, I, 418: "The arrangement of the dialogue is remarkable for that studious attention to regularity and symmetry which distinguishes Greek art." s Rzach, Wiener Studien, XIV, 139-44- * Sitzungsberichte d. Berl. Akad., XCII, 865-91. 2 STUDIES IN STICHOMYTHIA Petrie found part of the 'Ayciv. In other words, as early as the latter half of the third century before Christ this poetical contest was pro- duced and accepted as a reasonable thing. Surely, then, as a basis for this belief there must have been other poetical contests of this nature in Greece. Some suggestion may have come from the contest between Aeschylus and Euripides in the Frogs, yet the spirit and the method here are essentially different. The 'Aywv is not a contest in art between two masters of poetry, but a clash of wits, a quibbling over meanings of words and phrases. It appealed, not to Greek love of truth, but to Greek love of a clever debate. After the placid didacticism of Hesiod and the elegiac poets (unless we except Xenophanes) the agonistic spirit crops out again in the bitter iambics of Archilochus and Hipponax, but it was limited by its form. In drama, however, both tragedy and comedy, it came into its own. The very nature of drama involves the conflict of wills or personalities. In the growth of tragedy from the dithyramb, this, to us, very obvious fact was overshadowed by the prominence of the chorus and the lack of emphasis upon the plot. But by the time of Aeschylus the agonistic element in a play was the central interest. Even in the SuppUces this is true, perhaps even in the Persae, though here the conflict is rather within ourselves, between our exultation and our sympathy. In the SuppUces there is but one agonistic stichomythia; in the Persae, none at all which might be strictly so called; yet in the Prometheus, the Septem, and the Oresteia they are common. The beginnings of comedy certainly involve agonistic elements, especially in the rude play of wits of the speeches e^ d/xa^i/s. A good part of the fun of comedy lies in the exaggerations and the piled-up epithets of characters matched against each other. More than that, the skeleton of ever\' Aristophanic play has as its backbone an dyciv between two ideas represented as a rule by the two principal actors, or, better, for and against the absurd idea or scheme proposed by one party. Take this dywv away and }-ou would have no more plot than in a modern comic opera. Meanwhile in the field of prose the argumentative instinct was proving an important factor. Granting that the spirit of inquiry and the love of truth were at the root of Greek philosophy, we must yet recognize that the fondness for debate per sc was an efficient cause of the rapid and extensive growth of that study. Even Socrates did not hesitate to use specious arguments and to quibble over meanings of words or phrasings of sentences, provided that it led to a realization of the imperfections of existing definitions. Indeed he delighted in argu- INTRODUCTION 3 ing with the man wise in his own eyes for the mere satisfaction of non- plussing him, with or without progress toward truth. That this was true of the rhetoricians and the Sophists is perhaps the best founded of the charges against them. Just so now the complaint is often made that college debating trains men to care nothing for the truth, but everything for outwitting the opponent. Yet the Sophists merely exag- gerated the popular Greek tendency and themselves became unpopular simply because of their over-cleverness. In the law courts of Athens we see a less exaggerated but clearly marked form of the same agonistic spirit. It is hard for us to imagine a state of things in which men count it a privilege to sit on the jury, yet more than 10 per cent of Athenian citizens were drawn annually and Hstened with pleasure — possibly with judgment — to the pleadings of plaintiff and defendant. That jury service became a vocation for some enthusiasts is clear from even the humorous exaggeration of Aristophanes' Wasps. It is equally hard to imagine the professional lawyer out of existence and each man his own advocate, yet it is merely a manifestation of the same instinct. In the pastoral verse of Theocritus and his imitators the stichomythic form is evidently an affectation. In the fourth Idyl of Theocritus the dialogue is one of question and answer only. In the eighth, Daphnis and Menalcas very dehberately work up to their contest of skill: 6. AI.: fivKrjTav iiTLOvpe ySowv Adcfivi, Xjjs /xol deicrai; (fiafjLi TV VLKacruv ocrcrov deXu) avros dctSwv. 9. D.: Troijx-qv clpoTTOKUiv OLCJv, avpiKTo. MevdAKa, ovTTOTc viKacrets /a', ouS' et ti ird.6oi5> A.-' x^'-P^ TTws, ore y' dvS/aas opo), tovs /jlt] irpXv oiruiira; ' So in Vergil's third Eclogue, which is, of course, in imitation of the fifth and eighth of Theocritus. 4 STUDIES IN STICHOMYTHIA P.: ddpact.' fx-qr' oStKOus, fJLrJT^ €$ dSiKODV ddL Acuco-civ. A.: dapcriiii' KOVK Ik crtv fxk StBdarKecrOai. toS' coikcv. continuing in the same tone and form through vs. 74. With this brief review of the elements of stichomythia in other literature and literar\' origins (leaving Platonic dialogue for more detailed treatment in a later chapter), we are prepared for the study and analysis of true dramatic line-dialogue. CHAPTER I STICHOMYTHIA IN THE GREEK DRAMA Writers have differed and will differ as to a precise definition of stichomythia, Pollux' gave the first and narrowest: a-TLxo/xvOiLv 8c lAeyov to Trap' cv lafx^elov avriXtyeLV, kol to irpayfia a-TLXOfXvOiav. The latest and most satisfactory formal definition known to me is given by Gross: ". . . . eine Stichomythie [ist] vorhanden wenn beide Personen, die sich unterhalten, entweder immer je einen Vers sprechen oder immer zwei Verse, was man auch Distichomythie nennen kann, oder immer nur Halbverse, was man .... Antilabae nennt."^ This limits the term rightly in the classical drama and its modem imitations to the dialogue parts. Choral responsion, if akin, has acquired a different character through its different associations. The word "stichomythia," loosely used, covers all balanced lines or half -lines or distichs in dramatic dialogue, classical or post-classical, whether (in the latter case) imitation or native-born parallel. "Line-speech," subtle and forceful, is not Euripidean or Greek or classical, but a universal expression of keen minds. It is both a natural variety of conversation and a literary form. In modern literature we need to emphasize the latter, less-considered aspect. In Greek and Latin we must for the same reason keep well in mind the "natural" view.^ This will help us to analyze the literary form and understand its development. It needs no searching analysis to find as the motives for stichomythia the tendencies toward the agonistic, the subtle, and the symmetrical — tendencies which were especially marked among the Greeks. In the earliest plays of Aeschylus, in the latest "Dolly Dialogue" of our own day, these motives are equally apparent. Of course all three are not always noticeable in each passage. A question-and-answer stichomythia may be absolutely lacking in argument or hidden meaning, as is indeed the first one we meet, in Aeschylus' Supplices. A quarrel scene may be so bluntly phrased that it has no subtlety. Many Sophoclean passages are admirably agonistic and full of between-the-lines suggestion, and 'IV. 113. 'Op. cit., p. 9. 3 Pollux, it is true, gives his definition in a list of words descriptive of the actor's art, not in a list of literary forms, which may indicate that he thought of it as an approach to natural conversation rather than as a stilted literary symmetry. 5 6 STUDIES IN STICHOMYTHIA yet are purposely a little unsymmetrical. Yet it is significant that those stichomythic passages in which all these motives are apparent are the ones which most satisfy us. True, a lively conversation is not thus symmetrical for longer than a few responses, but there is no denying the pleasure which such balance gives in the written dialogue, especially where the even lines of verse invite it. And if we moderns find pleasure in it, how much more must the Greeks, with their love for beauty and perfection of form. So closely linked are the three tendencies of which we speak that any theor}- which would dissociate them in the origin of stichomythia must fall, as much from inherent improbability as from lack of positive evidence antedating Aeschylus. The purpose, then, of the following analysis of stichomythia in the Greek dramatists is not to unearth origins, but to study types and tendencies. Taking first the Supplices as probably our oldest play, we find in it six passages of stichomythia.' The first (206-22), between Danaus and the chorus, his daughters, serves merely to give the stage setting and afford an opportunity for a tableau of the chorus grouped about the altar. It has no agonistic element, but combines in a way question and answer with parallel prayer to the gods, not in the emotional tone of the kommos, but in a calm, matter-of-fact way. It contains the trick of speech characteristic of stichomythic subtlety by which a word of the one speaker is picked up and emphasized by the other, but on the whole it is not subtle. The second (291-322) is also like a Euripidean prologue whose purpose is solely to give the hearers the previous story in outline. The Argive king questions the chorus to test their claim to Argive descent, and the story of lo and Aegyptus results. Even if, with Tucker, we make the chorus the questioner, the motive and pur- pose of the stichomythia are unchanged. Then after a little dialogue of more natural form comes a fourteen-line passage (333-46) in which the chorus urge the king to protect them, and he demurs — a touch of the agonistic. Note the argumentative ye — five cases. Here, too, for the first time the arguments on both sides are expressed in gnomic and rather cryptic utterances. There follow a kommos and two speeches by the king with a choral interlude, and the chorus conclude their appeal by an enigmatic threat (455-68) to hang themselves if aid be not granted. Their riddling words, alternating with the king's repeated ' The style and structure arc safer evidences than historical references. Tucker, however, finds in the Panhellenic si)irit of the play reason to [ilace it about 492, when an oriental attack was anticipated. Bockh, iMiiller, d al. assign it to 461 on political and historical grounds. STICHOMYXraA IN THE GREEK DRAMA ^ insistence that he does not understand, make a stichomythia vety like some of Euripides'. Subtlety is here predominant and the feeling is in a measure agonistic. Again, at 504 they express a final flutter of fear at being left alone, a feeling that the king ridicules. Tucker makes the interchange of words here very subtle, but beyond a slight allegorical touch the dialogue is perfectly natural.^ There is not a conflict of tem- pers or opinions here, merely one of desires. To that extent it is agonistic. Finally in 915-30 we find a line-dialogue between the angry king and the herald, of the type of our modern stichomythia— that is, a true quarrel scene. Words of the opponent are picked up and hurled back, forms of phrase are tauntingly echoed, charges give place to threats, all in the space of fifteen lines and without once running over a line or requiring a "stop-gap" verse. ^ In the Persae, of 472 B.C., there are only a half-dozen lines of stich- omythia in iambics, but there are two long passages in trochaic tetram- eter. Both are purely question and answer for the sake of information. In the first (231-46) the chorus answer Atossa's innocent inquiries about Athens with a very natural effect, each answer suggesting the following question, but with no rivalry of wit or feeling. In the second (714-38), Atossa gives the ghost of Darius the sad outlines of Xerxes' defeat. Here, too, the eager questions and the balance in form of answer with question are perfectly natural. There is nothing agonistic in the passage. The four lines of stichomythia at 792 are riddling in character but otherwise not noteworthy, merely question and answer. The last seventy-five lines of the play consist of an antiphonal lament by Xerxes and the chorus of full strophic structure but with the speakers alternating in dialogue fashion. It has many tricks of language like those of stich- omythia and might serve (together with the similar Septem 961-1004) as ' He translates: Chorus: Why, how should an open lawn protect me? King: Be sure we mean not to deliver you to birds of prey. Chorus: But what if to foes more hateful than fell serpents ? King: Fair be thy speech, who thyself art spoken fair. and expands: "King: 'Do not be alarmed; I am not about to put j'ou at the mercy of your cousins, as men expose children to be carried off by birds of prey.' Chorus: 'Birds of prey! It is worse than that we fear; worse even than that most loathsome thing the serpent. What if you put us at the mercy of such foes as these ? ' King: ' Your speech is not courteous. I said I should not put you at their mercy, and you treat my promise with little respect. I give j'ou fair words and I look to receive them.' " And Tucker adds : " This is very condensed, but not more so than many other passages of (TTixo/xf^ia." ' Cf. pp. 39 ff- 8 STUDIES IN STICHOMYTHIA an argument either for the development of stichomythia from KtIcs or for the influence of stichomythia on lyrics. Or better still, it shows the natural effect of mutual suggestion when two are speaking in alternation, either to each other or in lament. In the Seven against Thebes, 467 B.C., the case is somewhat different. Of the four stichomythic passages, one (803-11) is mere question and answer for information, one (712-19) is argument, one (245-64) is the passage in which Eteocles berates the frightened chorus, and one (1042- 53) is pure quarrel between Antigone and the Herald. Of the antiphonal chorus of the sisters (961-1004) the same is to be said as of the end of the Persae. Next in date comes the Oresteia trilogy of 458 b.c. In the Agamem- non there are a large number of short stichomythic passages which may be characterized briefly. 268-81 would be mere question and answer for information but for the incredulity of the chorus which adds insist- ence to the words of Clytemnestra. 538-50, on the surface mere by- play, but giving a desired effect of gloomy mystery, has a touch of opposition in the riddling words of the chorus. The distichs of 629-35 are unmotivated question and answer. In 931-44 the air is charged with hostile feeling. There is a suppressed bitterness beneath the surface irritation which shows well in the gnomic phrases of 938 ff . and the repetition of yvoifx-qv (932) and vU-qv (942). 1202-13 is question and answer merely for information. 1246-55 is again an incredulous chorus, this time remonstrating with Cassandra instead of Clytemnestra as in 268-81. 1299-1312 continues in somewhat the same tone. In 1650-54, 1665-73 the chorus and Aegisthus wrangle in excited trochaic tetram- eters, with which the play ends. In the Choephori it is diflicult to characterize definitely the passages, with the exception of one. In 106-23 the chorus instruct Electra how to make her vengeance prayer. Yet she really establishes the tendency of the thought by her questions.' So in 164-82 Electra leads an unsus- pecting or doubting chorus to share in her own suspicions. Neither of these passages is explicitly agonistic, yet there is a matching of wits underlving both. In 212-25 Orestes convinces the doubting Electra of his identity in what might be called argument. 489-96 is a brief passage of antiphonal appeal to the gods in the tone of the long komraos pre- ' Verrall, ad. loc: "Her purpose, as before, is to prompt and draw on the inter- locutor, who is so far encouraged by applause as to venture half a step (vs. 116) without assistance and finally (vs. 120), not without pride, to complete the step and to take the lead." STICHOMYTHIA IN THE GREEK DRAMA 9 ceding. There is balance but no opposition.' In 526-35, while the chorus tell Clytemnestra's dream, there is only a suggestion of opposition in the surprised interrupting verses of Orestes. 766-70, 774-82 are of practically the same type. In 1051-64 the chorus labor with the dis- traught Orestes in a series of double verses to which his insistence gives a slight tone of opposition. The one purely agonistic passage is 908-30, where Clytemnestra pleads with Orestes for her life. All the arts of ellipsis, balance, picking up of the opponent's words, gnomic utterance, etc., are here used. The Eumenides is the most satisfactory play to analyze, for, because of its judicial setting, the stichomythic passages are sharply cut through- out.^ The first (200-212) is vigorously agonistic. Apollo is driving the polluting Furies away from his sanctuary, and they accuse him of being TravaiTtos in the murder of Clytemnestra. 225-29 is another bit of the same passage-at-arms, following Apollo's bitter speech and itself followed by a three-line declaration of rights by each party. In 418-36 Athena questions the Furies sharply as to their motives and evidently looks with disfavor on their cause. The tone is not so bitter as in the earlier passage, but the opposition is plain. 587-608 is a formal, judicial "agon" as the introduction, 583-86, avows. It is manifestly important in showing a motive for such amoebean passages. In 711-30 Apollo and the chorus exchange threats and counter-threats in distichs. 744-47 are four lines in the style of Choephori 489 ff., q.v. In 892-903 the Furies bargain with Athena for honors in case they yield. I have left the Prometheus to the last because of the uncertainty whether this is an early play or a late edition, worked over in form, of the earlier production. The artificiality obvious in parts of the dialogue would add to the weight of argument favoring the latter view. Lines 39-83 are carefully balanced in the novel arrangement of one line to two, a method clearly affected, and cleverly so in that it reflects the moods of the two workers. There is a subtle opposition of these moods without an express opposition of words or ideas. In 246-58 the chorus ask for information. Prometheus' answers are defiant but not toward ' In regard to Gross's use (p. 96) of this passage and Etcmenides 744-47 to support his theory that stichomythia arose from choral parts and gave rise to dialogue, note that this passage contains 23 hnes of two- and three-line speeches in the same tone. That is, the character of choral responsion here enters into the iambics both in stichomythia and in unequal and longer speeches, as is at times perfectly natural. ' Note the connection in spirit between stichomythia and Athenian court practices. Cf. p. 3. lO STUDIES IN STICHOMYTHIA the chorus. It is merely his av^aSia showing in all his speech. In 377-93 Prometheus rejects the offer of Oceanus to intercede with Zeus. There is a somewhat greater effect of personal defiance in this. In 5 1 5-2 1 there is no opposition except that Prometheus keeps his secret from the chorus. Likewise in 613-30 there is opposition only in the latter half, where Prometheus is unwilling to reveal to lo her future. In 756-79 we have merely a story told in alternate verses. In 928-37 the chorus are skeptical and inclined to give good advice, with a slight tone of opposition as the result. Finally, in 964-88 and 997-99 we have a strongly agonistic passage, quite artificial in form. However unsatisfactory such a hasty analysis of the dialogue pas- sages may be, it has at least a negative value. It shows us that from the material at hand we cannot deduce one, and one only, original motive for stichomythia. Any attempt along that line will be mere theorizing for the pleasure of advancing a theory. The positive value of our analysis is in showing the motives, both surface and subtle, which produce line-dialogue and are visible in it. Speaking broadly, we come back to the three main characteristics already mentioned, summed up best, perhaps, by Croiset, whose emphasis is placed rightly, I think, on the agonistic element. Le type le plus characterise de ces parties d'entretiens, c'est ce qu'on nomme stichomythie: forme de dialogue singulierement frappante, tout a fait comparable a un assaut d'armes, puisque le vers repond au vers comme une riposte instantanee repond a une attaque. Toute I'agilite de I'esprit grec y entre en jeu; la subtilite logique y vient en aide a la passion. Outre le don de rexpression fine et aceree, Tinvention prompte des formules concises y fait merveille.' In analyzing the stichomythie passages of Sophocles, we meet with a hindrance which in itself marks an advance in the use of dialogue. We no longer have a definite division between rhesis and line-dialogue; the one glides into the other through speeches of varying length, and two- or three-line speeches crop out in tlie stichomythia and break up the formal symmetry. As a result we get a far more natural effect but meet a real difhculty in determining the limits of the stichomythia proper. This freedom from formal constraint is greater in Sophocles' later than in his earlier plays. So marked is this, as we shall see, that com- parative irregularity of dialogue sliould constitute one argument in determining the date of the uncertain plays. Wilamowitz^ and Jebb^ ' Ilistoire, III, 151. ' Analecta Euripidea, p. 195. * Introductions to the Electra and the Ajax. STICHOMYTHIA IN THE GREEK DRAMA II have already used as an evidence of comparative date the frequency of antilabe in the plays, but they went no farther, possibly because they distrusted this sort of evidence, probably because it had not occurred to them as being valuable. For the present, however, let us take the plays in the order in which Jebb placed them, the Antigone first, dated about 443 B.C. Vss. 39-48 open with a distich spoken by Ismene, and if we keep vs. 46, Antigone has a distich at this point. Dindorf drops the line. It might easily have been added to explain the somewhat condensed thought in vs. 45, and, as it stands, slows up the passage decidedly. The lines of the stichomythia are rather closely bound together by continued con- structions. The horror of Ismene at Antigone's proposal gives a slight spirit of contention. Vss. 78-92 start with two distichs and contain two others. The passage is decidedly more agonistic, as both sisters are determined. Vss. 215-22 end in a distich. There is no opposition; the chorus are submissive to Creon. There follows irregular dialogue between the guard and Creon in which single-line speeches occur; then, as usual just before the speakers conclude, comes a short passage of stichomythia, vss. 315-23. Creon pettishly blames the guard for his message, and the latter in the tone and phrases of a Sophist defends himself. The extra-metrical 4'^v of 323 becomes from now on a com- mon usage.' Vss. 401-6 (with distich 404-5) introduce the guard's story very naturally. Creon is incredulous, the guard matter-of-fact. Antigone's curt and defiant single-line answers to Creon are also very natural. The stichomythia which follows, 508-23, is typically Greek. A modern writer would hardly have an angry king and a princess in peril of death argue a technical point in this dialectic fashion. Yet the passage is lively and natural and full of the Athenian subtle and argumentative spirit. Vss. 536-77 begin with six distichs and contain three more, vss. 559-64. In the first part Antigone refuses Ismene the right to share her honor and her fate. At 561 Creon interrupting becomes the chief speaker, with Ismene, Antigone, and the chorus alternating in response. Vss. 726-55 are introduced by two lines spoken by the chorus as peacemaker, Creon and Haemon having just finished their respective pleas. Then come two distichs, then a very animated, because very quarrelsome, stichomythia. After four lines each by Creon and Haemon, the chorus and Haemon each speak a distich, followed by four lines of ' Cf. 1048 of this play, Alcestis 536 (438 B.C.), el passim. Aeschylus has the same thing at the beginning of a long speech, Agam. 1215, 1256; Choeph. 1048, or in the meter, Agam. 1307; Prom. 742, 980. 12 STUDIES IN STICHOMYTHIA stichomythia running into Creon's final speech. Vss. 991-98 between Teiresias and Creon serve only to introduce the longer speeches. In 1048-63, however, the same speakers are quarreling and we have a lively interchange of opinions. Finally, in 1098-1108, at the advice of the chorus, Creon yields to fate. Distichs and monostichs are mingled with no attempt at symmetry. The Ajax, though of uncertain date, is surely an early play. In vss. 38-51 we find narrative told through eager question and answer. This is not the calm working out of a story, as in Aeschylus' Supplices, but a rapid piecing together of facts by a man in a hurr}'. Note koX, 40 and 50; Ti S^Ttt, 42, and three cases of ^ Kat, 38, 44, 48.' In 74-88 Odysseus is even more excited as Athena calls Ajax out from his tent. Vss. 94-117 have six distichs set among the single lines. There is no opposition expressed in the passage, but to the listener all of Athena's words would be filled with subtle mockery. 265-70 is brief but characteristically subtle. The kommos, 330-427, has many stichomythic details, but should not, technically, come into our field of investigation. Vss. 525-44 begin with two distichs, and Tecmessa has a distich when she calls to the servants and the boy. There is no controversy in the passage. In 585-95 we find two single lines, two distichs, and four lines of antilabe, the last speaker taking a line and a half. This is our first instance of antilabe, which later became so common, especially in trochaic meters and in Seneca's dramas. It is introduced here at a scene of great excite- ment, and Sophocles uses it throughout* only at such points where alone it has real excuse for being. In vss. 784-802 we have the most irregular passage in the Ajax. The chorus has three lines, Tecmessa and the chorus a distich apiece, then Tecmessa one line and the messenger two to the end of the passage. It has no trace of quarreling or even argument. From 865 to 973 runs a kommos with some interesting details of respon- sion. In 975-85 Teucer and the chorus voice an antiphonal lament in iambics with irregular verse division. Vss. 1044-5 ^ have nothing unusual except the entrance of a new speaker, Menelaus. 11 20-41 is the cus- tomary "agon" in stichomythic form following the longer speeches of the same contestants.^ As usual in quarrel scenes, it is very lively and ' See p. 30. ' Cf. p. IS Cor only exception. ^ a. Antigone Tib R.; Mouhon, Ancient Classical Dratna, p. 192: "The elaborate speeches are usually succeeded by a spell of parallel dialogue, suggestive of cross- examination"; Browning, " Halaustion's Adventure" (on Alces. 708 Cf.): And so died out the wrangle by degrees In wretched bickering. STICHOMYTHIA IN THE GREEK DRAMA I3 natural. Vss. 13 16-31 are composed of single lines and distichs sym- metrically arranged. As the feeling becomes stronger, after Odysseus' longer speech, the stichomythia becomes regular and very animated. As befits an argument rather than a quarrel, it has a decided tendency to the gnomic and the subtle. In the Oedipus Rex (dated 429 by K. F. Hermann), of the 1121 trimeters — I use the figures of Gross' — 454 are stichomythic, that is, occur in passages stichomythic in form and feeling. For the most part we find here natural irregularity and lack of symmetry, but there are at least three unbroken passages of considerable length. Distichs in series are more noticeably used than in any other of Sophocles' plays. Because of the great number of short dialogue passages a very condensed analysis must suffice. Vss. 78-131: mainly distichs but irregular. No opposition, merely narrative. Creon enters at 87 and takes the priest's place as respondent. 316 ff.: a long episode, in which Oedipus and Teiresias alone appear and in which there is argument or violent alter- cation throughout. Distichs 320-40, single lines and distichs 356-79, 432-46, otherwise irregular, with the usual agonistic rheses, 380-428. 523-31: chorus and Creon; mainly distichs. 543-83: Creon and Oedipus; single and double lines, symmetrically irregular, spirited because agonistic. 622-30: same speakers and spirit; runs into antil- abe 626 ff. 697 ff.: locasta and Oedipus; monostichs and distichs, usually symmetrically combined, 697-706, 726-57, 765-70, 834-41, 859-62, otherwise rheses. No opposition, but eager question and answer as Oedipus begins to read the mystery. 924 ff. : episode of the messenger from Corinth, Oedipus, locasta, and messenger taking part. Very irregular, with frequent shift of speakers until 1007-46, where the mes- senger reveals to Oedipus part of the mystery of his birth, and 1054-72, the impassioned scene between Oedipus and locasta. The arrival of the old servant brings on another long stichomythia, 11 19-77, sprinkled with distichs, interrupted by one nine-line speech, and ending in antilabe. The servant, as being originally at fault, is throughout on the defensive. There are also a few other irregular passages containing stichomythic lines, at 276 ff., 523 ff., and 1435 ff., and the play closes with antilabe in trochaics between Oedipus and Creon, 1515-23, not so violent as in their earlier quarrel scenes, but still with the bitterness of friends become enemies. The Electra is more regular in its stichomythia than the Oedipus Rex, though it is undoubtedly later {ca. 420 B.C. ?). True, it has more cases ^Op. cit., p. 51. 14 STUDIES IN STICHOMYTHIA of a speech beginning or ending in the middle of a line than any other play of Sophocles except the Philoctetes,^ but these breaks, for the most part, occur in passages already lacking in stichomythic symmetry. Distichs and single lines are freely but symmetrically mingled, but there are at least three long passages of rigid stichomythia. Vss. 310-23: distichs and single lines; Electra and chorus; gives setting to the story. 385-416: spirited and natural, though rigid in form; Electra opposed to Chr}'sothemis, like Antigone or Prometheus in spirit. 622-33 : distichs; Cly temnestra against Electra in vigorous opposition. 660-79 • announce- ment of the old man to Clytemnestra and Electra that Orestes is dead; symmetrically irregular and very lifelike. 790-98: mixed; Clytem- nestra vs. Electra — considerable harping on words. 875-92: distichs; Electra incredulous at the good news of Chrysothemis. 920-46: stich- omythia, mixed with two- and four-line speeches; same speakers, both puzzled and incredulous. 1021-51: same speakers; rigid in form, bitter and sarcastic in spirit. 1097 ff.: mostly pohte formulas, irregular. 1 1 74-1 2 26: the recognition scene; no opposition except in Electra's failure to understand; ends in excited antilabe. The remainder of tlie play contains some thirty or more lines of irregular short speeches, in two places, 1339 flf. and 1450 ff ., becoming for a few lines formal stichomythia. The Trachiniae Jebb placed with good reason in the decade 420- 410 B.C., the latter date being the more likely. It is decidedly irregular and more noticeably so because its few rigid stichomythiae occur toward the beginning and the end of the play, leaving a great part of the dialogue absolutely irregular. We also miss here what we find without exception in the other plays, a certain symmetrical setting of speeches of irregular length. Yet oddly enough the Trachiniae has only four cases of a speech beginning or ending in the middle of a line, though, as we have seen just above, this trick of style shows a fairly regular development else- where in Sophocles. I shall comment on only the more noteworthy passages. 64-78 is mere Euripidean prologue. 385-435 is ver}' irregular, with frequent shift of speakers. At 403 the messenger breaks into and carries on the rigid stichomythia. Between Lichas and the messenger, at least, the tone is very agonistic. At 871 ff., where the nurse announces the death of Deianeira, occurs a kommos more than usually interesting for its stichomythic detail. The most regular dialogue passages appear ' Figures for these "linked verses," to use Flagg's phrase {Harvard Studies, XII, 58-68), are rather interesting: Antigone, o; Ajax, 2; Oedipus Rex, 4 (one suspected); Electra, I s; Trachiniae, 4 {I); Oedipus Coloneus, 14; Philoctctes, 22. STICHOMYTHIA IN THE GREEK DRAMA 1 5 in the long episode in which Hyllus and the dying Heracles take part. 1126-42: Hyllus in argument defends his mother against Heracles. 1 181-92 and 1203-20: Heracles binds his unwilling son to an oath, to which Hyllus finally consents, 1241-49. These last four are the only passages at all like the stichomythiae of the earlier plays. The Philoctetes, by the nature of its plot, contains no long messengers' speeches or long rheses of any sort. It runs its course in dialogue pure and simple, with choral interludes. Hence there is room for considerable formal stichomythia and with it a great deal of very loosely constructed dialogue, part of it still influenced by a desire for symmetr}^, most of it entirely untrammeled. In this play speeches ending or beginning in mid-line become almost a regular thing — the verse unit begins to give way to the sense unit. This irregularity may be due in part to Philoctetes' raving. From this dialogue of a sort natural and irregular (much of which, of course, is valuable for stichomythic details) there stand out some five passages of pure stichomythia. In 28-38 Neoptolemus, up the slope, describes the situation to Odysseus below (like Pylades and Orestes in Iph. Taur. 67-76). 100-122 is a good old-fashioned argumen- tative stichomythia which seems, because of its new environment, almost artificial. 893-99, followed by an irregular passage, is another familiar type. Neoptolemus speaks in veiled language which Philoctetes does not understand. 1222-46, also continuing in irregular dialogue, is a spirited argument between Odysseus and Neoptolemus containing some interesting details. Finally in 1373-92 the stubborn Philoctetes holds out against Neoptolemus' assurances of good faith. Were it not for Neoptolemus' patience and self-control, it would be a quarrel scene. 1402-7 is notable as Sophocles' only antilabe in trochaics (cf. p. 21, n. i), and also as his only unmotivated antilabe (cf. p. 12). The Oedipus Coloneus, whatever the truth of the traditions attached to it, is evidently a work of the poet's ripest old age. Its dialogue is as irregular as that of the Trachiniae, and, as in the earlier play, the cases of rigid stichomythia are "bunched," this time in the first third of the play. The first two, 21-27 and 64-74, with dialogue of irregular form between, have the motive of a Euripidean prologue but are far more natural. 327-36 is chiefly antilabe of the "joint chant" style, by Oedipus and Ismene, newly arrived. 385-420 contains occasional distichs but is in the main regular. Ismene tells, by the aid of Oedipus' indignant questions, the new situation brought about by the oracle. 465-85 is a fairly symmetrical stichomythia of the liturgic type. That is, the chorus recite the necessary rites of purification with Oedipus constantly l6 STUDIES IN STICHOMYTHIA interrupting with questions which anticipate the next step in the explana- tion. The purpose is apparently to emphasize the details of the ceremony and prevent a tedious recital, just as is the motive in the Platonic dialogue structure. 575-605 is stichomythia broken by a few two- and three-line speeches. Theseus' incredulous questions are answered rather enigmatically by Oedipus. In 642-56 the last five lines are antilabe in which Theseus impatiently interrupts Oedipus, who fears that the young king does not realize the gravity of the situation. The last 1,100 lines of the play contain no rigid stichomythia and comparatively little short-speech dialogue. The scene between Creon and Oedipus is too animated to be regular, and the rest runs to longer speeches or to kom- motic structure. It will be seen that the stichomythia of Sophocles shows the same three tendencies as that of Aeschylus, but in different proportions. The agonistic element remains about the same, the most striking, yet not an invariable, characteristic. In subtlety of thought Sophocles made a decided advance, especially in that which goes below the surface subtlety of expression. In fact, no other writer, ancient or modern, until the time of George Meredith, can compare in this respect with Sophocles at his best. But in the matter of symmetry we see the greatest change from Aeschylus. The later poet used rigid stichomythia of single lines, half-lines, and distichs, and also much dialogue that is symmetri- cally irregular, but with this went so much entirely irregular dialogue that the effect of the whole is a sacrifice of symmetry of form to natural freedom of expression. To go in this fashion through all of Euripides' extant plays would be tedious and unprofitable. I have selected seven which best represent his methods at different periods of his work. They are: Alceslis, 438; Medea, 431; Ilippolytus, 428; loti, 418; Iph. Taur., 414; Orestes, 408; Iph. AuL, 405.' The Alceslis, generally dated about 438, is certainly one of his earliest plays, 38-64: spirited though rather subtle argument between Apollo and Thanatos. 141-51: servant and chorus, purposely subtle. 371-92: parting of Admetus and Alcestis, growing disconnected as she grows ' These dates, it will be noted, are certain except for the Ion and Iph. Taur. Bergk placed the latter just after the Elcclra and just before the Illicit (412), but Weil dates the Elcclra 413. It is pretty certain that Iph. Taur. is late and also that it preceded Helen, even though we do not believe with Vcrrall that the latter is a parody of the former. Evidence for Ion is lacking except that its trochaic tetrameters mark it as late. The date mentioned is given by Jerram. Earlier editors placed it at 425-417- STICHOMYTHIA IN THE GREEK DRAMA 1 7 weaker; with her last farewell the verse is broken into three. 476-98: Heracles tells the amazed chorus of the labor on which he is at present engaged. 509-45: Admetus by sophistic quibbling leads Heracles to believe that one of the serving women is dead. Heracles yields and consents to become a guest in the house. 708-30: a wonderfully well- done quarrel between Pheres and Admetus over their common selfishness in allowing Alcestis to die.' 803-25: the servant reveals the truth to Heracles. The tone changes from surly anger to a better feeling on both sides. In 1072-1119, taken up again in 1126-35 ^-^d 1140-44, Heracles gradually persuades the at first unyielding Admetus to accept the veiled woman whom Heracles has brought back as a prize. The tone is agonistic and subtle. At 11 26 Admetus recognizes his wife, and the following stichomythia is weaker because its motive is merely amaze- ment in Admetus, reassurance and explanation from Heracles. Each passage mentioned begins with a couple of two- or three-line speeches. In the Medea of 431 B.C. we should expect from the nature of the plot and the character of the heroine a great deal of vigorous stichomythia. In fact, however, most of the bitterness is vented in longer speeches and there is comparatively little line-dialogue. In the irregular verses between the nurse and the paedagogus at 59 flf. there are some lines of stichomythia. At 324-39 Creon is bitter, Medea, in despairing mood, calling upon the gods to witness her misfortune, rather than answering Creon. Vss.^ 605-9, in the middle of the passage-at-arms between jNIedea and Jason, are good both in the matter of continued construction and in the open sarcasm, an unusual thing in Greek drama. 663-708, beginning with two distichs, is politely formal.^ In the first half, to 688, Medea inquires Aegeus' business at Corinth; from 689 to the end Aegeus asks about Medea's plight. The questions lack eagerness and there is considerable padding with stop-gap verses. At 754, 816, 925, there are ' Cf. p. 12, n. 3. ^ Verrall, ad loc: ". . . . the scene is not made more attractive by the long ffTixoiMvdla, which (as Wecklein observes) is proper to the quick exchange of thoughts in haste or passion (cf. 324 ff.), but in such a place as this has a very frigid effect, which the poet has sought to increase rather than to diminish." Wecklein, ad loc: "Die Kunstform der Stichomythie, sehr geeignet bei Streit- und Widerreden, bei welchen ein Wort das andere trifft, hat Euripides auch bei langeren Auseinander- setzungen angewandt, wo die Verbindung mehrerer Verse oft dem Inhalt angemessener sein wiirde. Damit die der Lebhaftigkeit des griechischen Geistes und der griechischen Konversation entsprechende Form festgehalten werden kann, werden miissige Fragen und Bemerkungen wie 680, 678, 701, 693, dazwischen geschoben oder sind die Ant- worten halb und allgemein gehalten um neuen Fragen ankniipfen zu konnen. Vgl. Fkon. 408 ff." l8 STUDIES IN STICHOMYTHIA a few consecutive lines of no importance. 1006-17 is quite irregular but good in spirit. Porson, by his clever emendation of Kpareis to kotci in 1015, furnished a play on words which helps the passage whether it be a true restoration or not. At 1306-13 the chorus break the news to Jason of his children's murder. It really serves merely to introduce the scene between Medea and Jason, which itself culminates in the stich- omythia of 1361-78 and the stichomythic anapests which close the play. The bitter recriminations of this passage with the taunting balance of phrase, as we find it so often in Shakespeare, make a stichomythia very effective in form and spirit. In the Ilippolylus of 428 B.C. the dialogue is quite regularly stich- omythia with the exception of the quarrel scene between Theseus and Hippolytus, where short speeches alternate with distichs. In 88-107 the attendant, with much circumlocution, urges his master to reverence the goddess Aphrodite. The servant is subtle, Hippolytus stubborn. The use of o-eju-vds in both good and bad senses may be part of the sub- tlety; at any rate it makes the argument fallacious. 270-81: the chorus quiz the nurse. 310^52 opens with a line broken in three, and two dis- tichs, closes with interruption by a line broken in two, and is equally natural throughout. The nurse drags from Phaedra a confession of her love for Hippolytus. Note the temporary distraction of Phaedra, vss. 337-43, and the touch of quibbling on her part all through, but especially at the last. 516-21: close of the episode between the two. 601-15: the famous scene between outraged Hippolytus and the pleading nurse. She changes her plea with each line so that the verses fall into distinct pairs. Hippolytus is decidedly gnomic. 797-805: the chorus break the news to Theseus; same situation as Medea 1306-13, same subtlety as Alcestis 514 ff. 1064-89: distichs of increasing violence ending the scene between Theseus and Hippolytus. 1389-1407: Hippolytus and Artemis together commiserate his fate, paving the way for the farewell words of father and son, 1408-15 and 1446-58, which are less dialogue than alternating laments. Iphigeneia in Tauris {ca. 414-13 B.C.) is also ver}^ regular in its dialogue, with the exception of the recognition scene so artistically brought about by Iphigeneia's letter. In 67-76 Orestes is behind or below Pylades and questions him about the outlook like Odysseus in Philoc. 26 a. 246-55: a shepherd reports to Iphigeneia. Her questions follow each other connectedly; his answers are categorical. 492-509: Iphigeneia plies Orestes with questions about her family and the Greeks in general. Each is ignorant of the other's identity. He is stubborn STICHOMYTHIA IN THE GREEK DRAMA 1 9 and evasive until in 507 she shows that she is not commanding but asking a favor. The passage, though long, is made spirited throughout by her eager interest in the replies/ 617-27: Orestes asks Iphigeneia details as to the death awaiting him. 734-54: Iphigeneia with the aid of Orestes "hnes out" the oath (i^dpx^i- opKov) for Pylades. 805- 21: following the letter scene, Orestes proves his identity, overcoming Iphigeneia's skepticism.^ 915-38: Iphigeneia questions Orestes in greater detail, and from her new viewpoint, about the family. 1020-51 : Iphigeneia, in response to Orestes' questions, formulates a plan to escape from the country. The long scene, 1157-1221, between Thoas and Iphigeneia is very like that between Helen and Theoclymenus (1193 ff.) in the Helen of a year or so later. She deceives Thoas as to the need for purification, and so secures his help in carrying out her plan of escape. For the purposes of the stichomythia he serves merely as interlocutor,^ to draw out the details of the plot. In the trochaic antilabe that runs from 1203 to 1221,4 he has nothing but stop-gap verses, while she gives directions in verses that are grammatically continuous. Vss. 1317-22 are unimportant. In the Ion (ca. 418 B.C.) and the Orestes (408 B.C.) Euripides is at his worst from our modern viewpoint, though the second hypothesis calls the Orestes rdv IttI aKr]vr}<; evSoKL/MovvTuiv. The former contains the longest stichomythiae we have, one of 114 lines, one of 95 lines, and one in antilabe of 33 lines. That is too much of even the best of dialogue, and this lacks both cleverness and subject-matter.^ 255-368 begins with distichs. Ion and Creusa learn each the other's woeful tale. 255-307: Creusa's family history; 308-29: Ion's history; 330-58: Creusa's early amour with Apollo; 359-68: general observations, with a touch of argument. The whole is like an exaggeration of Medea 663-708. ' Stichomythic spirit would favor the following arrangement: vss. 5x0, 515, 516, 513, 514, 511, 512, 517. So i^ "Apyovs would be "picked up" from iK rwv 'SlvK-qvCsv, cpvydi from dva-irpa^las. ' Flagg on Iph. Taur. 811.: "The distich marks the shift from one person to the other as questioner." ^Flaggon//*//. ra«r. 1040: "Interposed in a critical tone, like vs. 1038. Dramat- ically such interruptions indicate impatience, wonder, or some similar feeling; ar- tistically, the stichomythia in this way retards the mental movement and reflects the progress of ideas in the mind of the spectator, instead of hurrying his wits — an art well understood in the 'minstrel business' of the present day." ■* Cf. p. 21, n. I. 5 It is on this passage Vaughan generahzes — wrongly. See below, p. 23, n. 2. Yet Patin (II, 53-57) exclaims at this passage, "Que d'art et de naturel dans ce dialogue!" 20 STUDIES IN STICHOMYTHIA 517-62 (530 to end, antilabe): trochaics, teeming with interruptions and continued constructions. Until 556 Ion catechizes Xuthus to prove the oracle improbable or untrue; 556 to the end is a sort of double soliloquy on the new situation. 934-1028: Creusa and the old man; 934-70: Creusa retells her story; 971-1028: the two plot revenge. There is much padding with stop-gap verses and useless repetition. 1250-60: trochaics, as irregular as anything in Sophocles. 1282-1311: Creusa and Ion again, this time with notable thought-ellipses. Nauck changed the order of verses rightly by application of the principle of "catchwords"; cf. p. 19, n. i and p. 35. 1324-56: a somewhat padded stichomythia between Ion and priestess, who acts as peacemaker, and gives him his long-concealed swaddUng clothes. 1395-143 2 (irregular to 1406): recognition scene between Ion and Creusa; very elliptical and correspondingly lifelike. At the close of the play three lines of antilabe, 1 616-18, are spread symmetrically among three speakers. The Orestes contains even more stichomythia than the Ion (381 verses to 357), but no single passage of such length. 88-110: Helen urges Electra to take offerings to Clytemnestra's tomb, but is persuaded to send Hermione ; unimportant in motive and details. 217-67: distichs, Euripidean pathos become a mannerism. Electra, siting by his bedside, comforts the half-crazed Orestes. At 255 he begins to rave. 385-448: Orestes reveals his situation in response to the eager questions of Mene- laus; Hvely and natural in spite of its length. 482-91: Menelaus is rebuked by Tyndarus for associating with Orestes; argumentative and epigrammatic. 733-73: trochaics; Orestes and Pylades tell their respective plights, the break coming at 763. 774-98: they consider plans for safety in crisp antilabe. 1022-59: distichs (broken by five lines, 1047-51) of joint lament by Orestes and Electra. 1069-75: Pylades would die with Orestes. 1 100-31: they plot to kill Helen. 1177-90: beginning with two distichs, Electra speaking to both but answered by Orestes only, suggests taking Hermione as hostage. 1231- 40: two distichs, followed by Orestes a half-line, Electra a half-line, Pylades a full line, three times over, then a kommos. The passage is a miniature of Aesch. Choeph. 479-508.' 1326-36: Electra deceives Hermione by half-truths. 1506-26: trochaics, the last two lines broken into five. It is by-play between Orestes and the Phrygian slave like Aristophanes' or Shakespeare's clown scenes. Partly owing to its comic tone, it is full of good details of subtlety and ellipsis. 1575-1617: Orestes and Menelaus in bitter wrangle, not natural to our modern way ' Cf. Wilamowitz, Ilcrincs, XVIII, 223; Gross, p. 54, n. 51. STICHOMYTHIA IN THE GREEK DRAMA 21 of thinking, but very lively. From 1600 to the end it is antilabe in iambics, an unusual thing in Euripides/ In the Iphigeneia in Aulis (ca. 407 or 405 B.C.) Euripides comes back, strangely enough, from the stilted style of the Ion and the Orestes. It seems as if he had written those down to an audience clamoring for rhetorical effect, and now, in his last play, permits his real genius and good taste to hold sway. 303-13: actual struggle between Menelaus and the old servant. At 317 Agamemnon takes up the quarrel, and trochaics to 334 mark the intensity of feeling. 404-12: stichomythic "capping" of the longer speeches in the "agon" between the two.* 513-27: same speakers, no longer opposed. The passage is very ellip- tical; cf. p. 29. 640-77: Agamemnon's words are partly disconnected, partly soHloquies or asides, but always suggested by and suggesting Iphigeneia's. Sophoclean irony is prominent throughout. 697-738: up to 709 like Aesch. Supp. 295 ff. 710-24: Clytemnestra asks details of the approaching marriage, with evasive answers by Agamemnon; 725- 38: he tries to persuade her to return home, and the stichomythia breaks with her indignant interruption at 739. 819-54: distichs in which Achilles learns of the pretended marriage. At 855 the old servant enters to reveal the truth to Clytemnestra, and animated trochaics follow to 900, all three taking part. 1008-15: Achilles encourages Clytemnestra to plead again with Agamemnon. The resulting scene, 1098 ff., is very irregular, even in the stichomythic part, 1129-40, because of its emotional intensity. 1345-68 (introduced by irregular trochaics of Clytemnestra and Iphigeneia, 1338-44) is trochaic antilabe with the customary continuation of construction from line to line by the same speaker, but with perhaps less padding than usual. 1434-67: farewell of Iphigeneia and Clytemnestra; impulsive and irregular toward the end, finishing with antilabe of the kommotic t>^e. In Euripides, then, we find probably less true subtlety than in Sophocles, but more subtlety of language and form, a greater proportion of epigram and gnomic phrase and play on words. Again, his sticho- mythia is more controversial than the older poet's in that it runs far ' Of the eight clearly marked cases of antilabe in Sophocles, only one, Philoc. 1402 ff., is in trochaics. In Euripides' earlier plays, aside from scattered instances of iambic lines divided between speakers, there is no antilabe. The first real occurrence is in Here. Fur. 1418 ff. {ca. 421 B.C.), where the motive is just that of the Philoctetes passage (which is later by a decade). The first long passage is also in trochaics, I ph. Taur. 1203 ff. {ca. 414 B.C.). Iambic antilabe of more than three lines is found only here, in Cyclops 669 ff., and in Phoen. 980-85, 1273-78. ^'Cf. p. 12. 22 STUDIES IN STICHOMYTHIA more to rhetorical debates, arguments, and quarrels.' The difference lies, perhaps, more in quantity than in quality, but the effect is as marked as if the "agons" of Euripides were individually more keenly contro- versial and more spirited than those of Sophocles. In the matter of symmetry he goes back almost to the ideals of Aeschylus; at least, we may say that his stichomythiae and his dialogues in general are rigid and regular by contrast with those of Sophocles. And certainly there is more artificiality, more of the mannerism, in Euripides than in either of the other poets. ' Flagg, Intro, to Iph. Taur., p. 40: "The poet's fondness for dialectics and set debate, 'words wrestling down words' {Iph. Aid. 1013), found one of its outlets in this form of dialogue. Sharpness of repartee and an exquisite subtlety are character- istic of the stichomythia in all three of the tragic masters. Euripides extended its compass as the vehicle of matter-of-fact conversations intended chiefly to elicit information or to interchange counsel." CHAPTER II STICHOMYTHIA IN SENECA The most surprising thing in Seneca's stichomythia, by contrast with the Greek, is its infrequence, at least in a rigid form. This goes hand in hand with his increased use of long speeches in both monologue and dialogue. On the other hand, the frequence of antilabe and the uniformly high tension in the stichomythic passages give the hasty reader the impression that they form, a large part of the whole.' The irregularity of form in the short-speech dialogue passages, as in the later plays of Sophocles, makes it impossible to define formally the limits of the stichomythia and give definite statistics for comparison. It is worthy of note, however, that the Octavia, which is probably not Seneca's, has more stichomythia in proportion to its length than the plays which are certainly his, and that the form of these passages is more rigidly symmetrical. In other words, the Octavia is in this respect a closer imitation of a Euripidean play, though entirely Senecan in its epigram- matic style. By the phrase "high tension" used above I mean that the speakers are keyed up to a pitch where alert responses, keen retorts, are the normal, not the exceptional, thing. The conversations approach in sub- tlety and brilliance those of Meredith's characters. This over-brilliance manifests itself especially in a tendency to epigram^ and to allusiveness.^ The same tendency, of course, appears in Euripides and even in Sopho- cles, but not to such a degree. Contrast, for instance, Seneca's Agam. 144-63, with its succession of epigrams, with the most gnomic of stich- omythic passages in Aeschylus' Agam., vss. 931-43, between Agamemnon ^ Cf. A. W. Ward — anything but a hasty reader! — History of English Dramatic Literature, 1, 192: "His [Seneca's] dialogue bristles with antithesis, to which effect is added by the device of stichomythia and even by that of breaking up a single line into thrust and parry." 2 Vaughan, Types of Tragic Drama, p. 97: "In epigram and sharp sentences, in the art of logic chopping and hair splitting, Seneca more than follows the example of Euripides. He has not, indeed, those interminable screeds of repartee — of "thrusting and parrying in bright monostich" extending sometimes to more than a hundred lines — in which Euripides exulted. And for this relief we must be thankful." 3 Cf., e.g., Troades 320 ff.; Phaedra 240 ff. 23 24 STUDIES IN STICHOMYTHIA and Clytemnestra. Or again, compare Oedipus 693-706 with the corre- sponding passage in the Oedipus Rex of Sophocles, 622 f!., and observe the lack of anything in the Greek Trachiniae to match with vss. 886-902 of the Hercules Oetaeus. Or finally, read Seneca's Here. Fur. 448-58 and Troades 322-48, both vigorous quarrel scenes but both in an allusive, subtly sarcastic style, and find if possible anything in Euripides to correspond. Such quarrel scenes as we find in Iph. Aul. 302 ff. or 404 ff. or Orestes 1576 fif. approach these in spirit but not in style of expression. This tendency to epigram and subtle allusion made it inevitable that Seneca's stichomythia should be more sophistic than even that of Euripides. Quibbles are often introduced by the Greek writers into a passage of real value to the play; Seneca makes a whole passage out of sophistic quibbles while his dramatic situation waits.'' On the other hand, Seneca has none of the artificial stop-gap verses of Euripides. Such crisp repartee involves much asyndeton. But so completely are particles and connectives lacking in Seneca's stichomythia that the result is a consistently unconnected series of verses which, for lack of contrast, do not impress us as asyndetic. While there is much thought- ellipsis, grammatical ellipsis is less frequent than in the Greek, where it is at the bottom of most asyndeton and is accountable for many cases of continued construction between speeches. Of this latter phe- nomenon, so common in Greek, there is little in Seneca. The cases which do occur are usually of the fixed type found, e.g., Here. Oet. 439: Nut.: Quis iste furor est ? Dei.: Quem meus coniunx docet. There are also some cases of mere apposition or of categorical answer with case changed to suit the need, a few in interruption with changed thought (e.g.. Thy. iioi), a couple with complementary infinitives, none at all with a participle, the device most frequently used by the Greeks. All this, again, is due to the artificiality of Latin stichomythia, which rejected all that was natural but not striking. Most of the few cases of continued construction in Seneca are, like the one cited, more rhetorical than natural. On the other hand, "catchwords" in Greek sticliomythia are both natural and striking. Hence we find Seneca multiplying their use until they become the most noticeable thing in the dialogue passages. Catcli- words are, in fact, the most important device in Senecan stichomythia, ' Cf. Here. Fur. 448-58; Here. Oel. 886-902; Agam. 144-61; Ocd. 509-30, 693-706; Thyestes 204-20. Each passage adds to the character drawing but not to development of the characters or advancement of the action. Cf., for the need of advancing action through dialogue, Wecklein, Uliid. zu Eurip., pp. 343 ff. STICHOMYTHIA IN SENECA 25 as particles subtly used and continued construction are for Greek, and continuation of metaphors for modern stichomythic conversation in fiction or drama. Moreover, most of his catchwords take on a new or added meaning, more or less subtle, with the new speaker, a device which in Greek is rather the exception than the rule. Where a word is caught up by a synonym or antonym, the two words or phrases are almost always formally balanced.' There are a great many cases of two or more catchwords in a line, whereas in Greek such a use is so rare as to be notable. In some details Greek uses find exact equivalents in Seneca, as the Kttt of surprise or doubt^ (cf., inter al., Tro. 429; Medea 525; Phaedra 1 1 21), the "demonstrative of the second person" with a catchword* {Eerc. Oet. 1357; Here. Fur. 431), or the unconcluded condition with ci to mean "What, if . . . ."4 {Tro. 493). Seneca agrees with Euripides also (and differs from modern custom) in his sparing use of interruption {Thy. iioi ; Here. Oet. 891), of the Yankee trick of question for question {Tro. 331; Oed. 696; Agam. 956, 962; Oet. 862), of open sarcasm {Tro. d>3°, 341; Agam. 955; Medea 201), and of continuation of metaphor {Oed. 517). To sum up: though Seneca achieved a surface brilliance, an epi- grammatic subtlety, he went no deeper, and fell behind the Greeks in representing the real progress of two alert minds subtly working together. And although his stichomythic passages are more uniformly agonistic in spirit, in natural vigor they are not beyond and perhaps not equal to the Greek. ' Virtual catchwords occur about as often as in Greek. Evidently they were not sufficiently striking to serve Seneca's purpose largely. =■ Cf. p. 29. 3 Cf. p. 38. 4 Cf. p. 30. CHAPTER III USE OF PARTICLES AND SPECIAL DEVICES IN STICHOMYTHIA The comment frequently made that the Greek language is very rich in particles should really run: Greek particles are very rich in meaning. Latin, French, and German have nearly as many, but not so subtly differentiated. English is practically without them, but is full of phrases, more or less awkward in bulk, to take their place. The Greek particle is a gem with many facets, for whose display there is no better setting than stichomythia.' The Greek genius, always keen for subtle dis- tinctions of language, found the condensed speech of line-dialogue an ideal place to carry out the tendency even to exaggeration. In the following pages I shall list the various particles employed and note the extent of their use without going into tabulations. The use of co-ordinate conjunctions and particles is so common that one often overlooks their value in continuing the thought smoothly. Tc is infrequently used thus in stichomythia,^ xat very largely, and that too wholly aside from its use in questions, which will be touched on later. 8e is even more frequent and is especially useful in continuing the thought of one speaker from line to line over the responses of the other in a series of "items," as in Eur. Bacchae 4655.; Here. Fur. 548 ff.3 Then come, approximately in order of frequency, xac ye, koI fXTjv ye, KoX /xijv, oAXa, and Mv. All these except dAXa, of course, are not pure connectives but have an intensive force as well, which often becomes the primary factor in the meaning. dAAa develops by the side of its usual meaning some interesting uses which are not noticed specifically in Stephanus, Liddell and Scott, or the commentators ad locos, with the possible exception of Jebb. In many places it must be translated by ' Wilamowitz, Ilerakles, IP, 126: "Kcin Tcil dcs attischen Dramas ist schwercr zu verstehcn als die Stichomythie, . . . . ein besonders ausgebildetcs Sprachgefiihl erfordert wird, um die Fiirbung des Ausdrucks zu empfinden, die oft durch vicldeutige Partikeln, oft nur durch die VVortstcUung bewirkt ist. Der Erkliirer muss vielc Worte machen; doch kann die Paraphrase oft aushelfen." 'The reason is obvious, ri implies an originally planned co-ordination, while stichomythia, with its rapid change of speakers, involves extempore co-ordination. J Also used in eflecting an asyndetic transition, as Bacch. 481 cl passim. Cf. Jebb on Soph. Ocd. Tyr. 319. 26 USE OF PARTICLES AND SPECIAL DEVICES 27 our idiomatic "Well! . . . ." which may be either (a) defiant or (6) yielding a point.' This type includes the use with the imperative cited by the lexicons as Homeric, but does not stop with that. To cite only a few of the many instances, cf. for (a) Aesch. Septem 1053; Soph. Antig. 48; Elec. 387;^ Eur. Ale. 716; Hec. 401; Iph. AuL 312; for (b) Agam. 944; Choeph. 781; Soph. Elec. 944; Track. 1211; Eur. Bacch. 818; Elec. 577. At other times it is exactly rendered by an exclamation of surprise or dismay, "What! . . . ." Cf. Aesch. Septem 1046 fif.^ (in six lines here the three uses); Choeph. 220; Soph. Elec. 879; Eur. Ale. 58; Iph. Taur. 1170; Supp. 135; Here. Fur. 1128. In this meaning it always introduces a question, often with the assistance of ^ or ^ Kat.4 This composite use is the only one mentioned in the lexicons. The various meanings of ye are fully recognized by the lexicons and in special treatises, notably Neil's appendix to his edition of the Knights and the excellent study of ye in Sophocles by Goligher in Herma- thena, XXXIV, 216 £f. It is enough here to say that all these subtly varying meanings are found in stichomythia, but especially frequent is the somewhat elliptical use of the particle to pick up a whole phrase or sentence in assent which is at once qualified by a further clause :s "Yes, for ... . ," "Yes, and ... . ," "Yes, if .' . . . ." This and the frequent yap to mean "Yes, for ... . ,"^ are the most obvious instances of ellipsis or of continuation of construction from speaker to speaker.'' yap, by the way, may also mean "No, for .... ,"^ as is ' Cf. Jebb on Soph. Track. 1179, "prefacing assent." ^ Shows connection with aWd at beginning of prayers. ^ Aesch. Septem 1046 : Herald: aW 6v ■jroXts (rrvyei, aii ri/i-^creis rdcfx^; Antig.: ^jStj rd to05' oi S/x* rerl/j-riTai deots. Herald: oO, irpiv ye x'^po.f T-qvSe KLvMvi^ ^oKtiv. Antig.: iraOthv KaKCbs KaKoTaiv dvTTj/jiel^eTo- Herald: aW els airavras dc0' evbs t68' epyov Jjv. Antig.: epis irepalvei fxvOov vcrrdTri deQiv. iy TtKfjLaipeTai, fiXivuv. Nurse: ?f Stj/uos iif yip rifffSe Ti;7xp6vwv ()(6tO(TLV. ["But what will happen if you be bidden to yield us up "] a regular idiom, which should be punctuated with a dash or question mark. Cf. Eur. Herac. 713 f. : lol.: TratSos fJie\i](T€L Traiarl rots XcXei/i/icVoi?. Ale: ^v 8' ovv, o p.rj yivoLTO, )(py(TU)VTaL Tv)(r]; Aesch. Agam. 121 1 f. (cf. also Soph. Oed. Tyr. 1019 f.): Chorus: ttuis 8^t' avaros rjada Ao$Cov kotw; Cass.: iirtiOov ouStV ov8e>', d)S ra8' rjp.Tr\aKov. ["I was not unscathed for "] USE OF PARTICLES AND SPECIAL DEVICES 3 1 In Soph Oed. Tyr. 994 the first part of a double question is answered, neglecting the second part; in Oed. Tyr. 1040 the reverse is true. A common ellipsis is that in Eur. Uerac. 271 f.: Copreus: IJ-rj Trpos ^etov KrjpvKa ToXfL-qarjs dtvdv. Demophon: d fxrj y' Krjpvi crw(f>povelv ixadrjCTtTai. ["I will unless "] Phoen. 1346 f . : Creon: olfiOL KaKwv Svcttt^vos • w raAas iyo>. Mess.: ct koI to. tt^os tovtoktl y' etSet'Tjs Ka/ca. ["You would be indeed if "] And another device equally frequent is repetition of the construction in the preceding verse without the controlling word. Cf . Eur. Herac. 682 f . : Servant: rjKUTTa irpos (tov p-dpov Tjv eiTreiv Itto?. lolcLUS: KO.L p.r] pi€Ta(T)(€Xv y' aA/ *X"5 — Chorus: -n-TjixdTwv y' oAts (3dpo^. Ores. 1606: Mene.: o(TTiv. Helen 1633: Theoc: rj /xc TrpovSwKev — Chorus: Kakrjv yt irpoBocriav, StKata 8pav. In the case of interruptions or of mere stop-gap verses (the Fullverse of Gross), the sentence is often continued by the original speaker. Unless, however, the construction is altered by the intervening verse, this is perfectly natural and need be considered only under the head of stop-gap verses.^ But continuation from one speaker to another marks ' Cf. Shakespeare's use, p. 86. ^ Both uses are well illustrated by Phocn. 603 ff.; Helen 1630-39. The latter passage, short as it is, includes practically all the devices of continued construction. Theoclymenus wishes to punish his priestess-sister for aiding Helen to escape; the chorus stoutly oppose him: Theo. — dXXA Seairoruv Kparr^ffen SoOXoi &v; Cho. — (ppovCo yhp ed. (dXX4 = "What! . . . ."; 7ip = "Vesfor ") Theo. — ouK (fjLoiye el ix-f) fi^ idfftLS — Cho. — oi) fxiv oDf cr' id.(Top.ev. (^/xoiyt with f^ (ppovQ; interruption; catchword.) Theo. — (rvyyovov Kravetv KaKlffTrjf — Cho. — ev