¹ I share the generally held view that this means: ‘the drama is not one of the best’. For a discussion of other interpretations see Stevens, P.T., Euripides: Andromache (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar — henceforth Stevens — pp. 27 f. Further ancient criticism, often shallow, will be found in the scholia on 11. 330, 362, 885, 1077.

² Essays on Four Plays of Euripides (Cambridge, 1905), pp. 7 ff. He was, however, in the end able to rescue the play from these charges by a theory as ingenious as it was fantastic. Although objections fatal to his interpretation were raised by Wilamowitz (Kleine Schriften, Vol. iv [Berlin, 1962], p. 379) and Grube, G.M.A., (The Drama of Euripides [London, 1961], pp. 16 ff.),Google Scholar the ghost of Verrall has, it seems, not yet been laid: see Vellacott’s, P. introduction to his translation in Euripides: Orestes and Other Plays (Harmondsworth, 1972), pp. 26 ff.Google Scholar

³ Op. cit. p. 383.

⁴ Geschiehte der grieehisehen Literatur (Munich, 1940) i. 3, pp. 400, 404. On the problems raised by the scholium see Stevens, pp. 19 ff. and the literature cited there.

⁵ So A. Rivier: L’ensemble, il faut l’avouer, est peu convaincant. On dirait que le poète n’a pas réussi à fondre les divers éléments de son inspiration’ (Essai sur le Trugique d’Euripide²[Paris, 1975], p. 153).

⁶ See, for example, the comments of Gilbert Murray in Euripides and His Age (repr. Oxford, 1965), pp. 55 f. and Pohlenz, M., Die griechische Trauödie² (Göttingen, 1954), pp. 289 f.Google Scholar, For Kitto, (Greek Tragedy³ [London, 1961], pp. 230 ff.)Google Scholar the attack on Sparta is the theme of the play. He overstates the case, but 1 think he is right in saying that ‘the unity of the play lies in its idea’ (p. 230).

⁷ For a discussion of dating and a summary of the conclusions reached by the ‘contemporary allusionists’ see Stevens, pp. 15 ff. Useful literature on this problem is cited by Lesky, A., Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen³ (Göttingen, 1972), pp. 347 f.Google Scholar The discussion of Harbsmeier, D., Die alien Mensehen bei Euripides (Diss. Göttingen, 1968), pp. 132 ff.Google Scholar and esp. pp. 138 ff. is instructive; he steers a middle course between the French school, which finds specific allusions everywhere (cf. Delebecque, E., Euripide et la Guerre du Péloponnése [Paris, 1951], pp. 178 ff.),Google Scholar and the extreme ergocentric position expressed by Zuntz, G., in ‘Contemporary Politics in the Plays of Euripides’, Acta congressus Madvigiani 1 (Copenhagen, 1958), pp. 155 ff.Google Scholar

⁸ I have resisted the temptation to increase the length of this paper by including a detailed summary of existing views. Adequate treatments of the status quaestionis can be found in Stevens, pp. 9 ff.; Erbse, H., ‘Euripides’ Andromache’, Hermes 94 (1966), 276 ff.Google Scholar (= Euripides [Wege der Forschung 89], pp. 275 ff.); Ferrari, F., ‘Struttura e Personaggi nella Andromaca di Euripide’, Maia 23 (1971), 209 ff.Google Scholar

⁹ Op. cit. 291 ff.

¹⁰ ‘L’Andromaque d’Euripide’, Mnemosyne 11 (1943), 47 ff.

¹¹ Op. cit. 294 ff.

¹² The case for the other view, that Andromache does not return with Peleus in 1. 1047, has been argued at some length by Steidle, W., Studien zum antiken Drama (Munich, 1968), pp. 118 ff.Google Scholar In this connexion a question arises which Erbse appears not to have considered: if the silent presence of Andromache were meant to carry so much dramatic weight, is it likely that Euripides would have been so reticent about such a key entrance? His normal practice suggests otherwise; cf. the ending of Alcestis, to which Erbse himself refers. The text there makes the situation perfectly clear and this ‘parallel’ argues against, rather than for, Erbse’s view of the exodos.

¹³ It is not possible to draw any certain conclusions about the subject of a play or the identity of its principal character on the basis of its title. (Cf. Kamerbeek, op. cit. [see n. 10], 62.) ‘Troades’ is as informative as ‘Trachiniae’ is not, and even ‘Antigone’ may be misleading. Cf. Calder, W.M. III, GRBS 9 (1968), 390Google Scholar and Arethusu 4 (1971), 49 ff.

¹⁴ This is, of course, not meant in the literal sense, but if Pickard-Cambridge is right in his distribution of the roles among the three actors (The Dramatic Festivals of Athens² [Oxford, 1968], p. 145), it is significant that the three actors must have been practically equal in virtuosity.

¹⁵ Catastrophe Survived (Oxford, 1971), p. 131. It is a pity that Burnett’s treatment of the play, which illuminates many dark corners, is vitiated by a tendency to discuss phenomena in terms of ‘norms’ and to speak of them then as ‘complete but flawed’ or ‘maimed and diseased’ (p. 150), if they prove to be refractory. The criticism of Vickers, B., Towards Greek Tragedy (London, 1973), pp. 492Google Scholar f, is not too harsh.

¹⁶ The view of Lucas, D.W., that the play ‘falls feebly and mysteriously to pieces’ (The Greek Tragic Poets² [London, 1959], p. 182)Google Scholar is far too extreme.

¹⁷ On role-changing in the play see Garzya, A., Pensiero e Tecnica Drammatica in Euripide (Naples, 1962), pp. 62 ff.Google Scholar and Burnett, op. cit. pp. 130, 146. Burnett does not give any weight to the role of Peleus in this connexion — hence (or because of) her unsatisfactory interpretation of the finale.

¹⁸ Euripides und Diphilos (Munich, 1953), pp. 47 ff. Kamerbeek, op. cit. 67, takes a more reasonable view.

¹⁹ The most detailed examination of this formal element is Kannicht, R., Unter-suchungen zu Form und Funklion des Amoihaion in der attischen Tragödie (Diss. Heidelberg, 1957).Google Scholar See esp. pp. 7, 65, 79, 125 and 164 for his treatment of the scenes discussed here. More readily accessible, if less comprehensive, is Popp, H., ‘Das Amoibaion’ in Die Bauformen der griecliisclien Tragödie, ed. Jens, W. (Munich, 1971).Google Scholar See esp. pp. 260 ff., 271.

²⁰ I presume that Burnett’s ‘heavy choriambs from Menelaus’ throat’ (op.cit. p. 141) is a mere slip.

²¹ Kannicht (op. cit. p. 125) draws attention to the Attic form μάτην in 1218.

²² Op. cit. p. 345.

²³ Note the similarity of words and gestures in 826 f. – 1209 ff.

²⁴ I think Stevens is wrong (note ad loc.) in saying that ‘πίτνονια is surely metaphorical here’. On learning of Neoptolemus’ death Peleus falls to the ground (1076 ff.), but then rouses himself to hear the Messenger’s report and to receive the corpse; it is appropriate that he brings his lament to a climax by falling down again. The behaviour of Hecuba in Tro. 462 ff. is comparable. On the effective contrast between Peleus lying helpless on the ground and the goddess ap-pearing on high see Spira, A., Untersuchungen zum Deus ex Machina bei Soph, und Eur. (Kallmünz, 1960), pp. 95 f.Google Scholar

²⁵ Cf. the eloquent and instructive remarks of Burnett, op. cit. p. 146.

²⁶ Σκήπτρον here must mean ‘sceptre’ and be a symbol of Peleus’ royal authority. Harbsmeier, op. cit. (note 7 above) p. 21, is wrong in speaking of it as a ‘Stab’ on which Peleus supports himself; such a sense would deprive the gesture in 1223 of meaning. On the stage-movements discussed here see Steidle op. cit. (note 12 above), pp. 124 f., who does not, however, bring out the connexions between them.

²⁷ This is made clear by the wording accompanying the movement. Cf. the situations in IT 788 ff. and Ba. 934.

²⁸ For similar use of movements in relation to a place of asylum cf. Ion 1391 ff.

²⁹ The references are collected by Boulter, P.N., ‘Sophia and Sophrosyne in Euripides’ Andromache’, Phoenix 20 (1966), 52Google Scholar n. 10. On the importance of nautical imagery in this nlay see Pot, E., De Maritieme Beeldspraak bij Euripides (Harder-wijk, 1943), p.78.Google Scholar

³⁰ E.g. by Kamerbeek, op. cit. 61.

³¹ The connexion of the saving goddess with the sea gives an ironical point to the comparison introduced by Menelaus in 537 f., which renders it different from the passages quoted by Stevens ad loc.

³² See Boulter, loc. cit.

³³ Worth quoting on the question of ‘dramatic unity’ is the statement by Else, G. in CW 49 (1956), 123:Google Scholar ‘The dogma [of dramatic unity], if it is one (1 mean the prejudice that every play ought to have ‘unity’, and of pretty much the same kind; further, that every good Greek tragedy does of course have it), stems from the Poetics rather than from an unprejudiced examination of the extant plays.’

³⁴ Wimsatt, W.K. and Brooks, C., Literary Criticism. A Short History (New York. 1957), p. 34.Google Scholar

³⁵ See Aldrich, K.M., The Andromache of Euripides (Lincoln, 1961), pp. 69 ff.;Google ScholarConacher, D.J., Euripidean Drama (London, 1967), pp. 172 f.;Google Scholar P.N. Boulter, op. cit. 53.

³⁶ We are now, fortunately, no longer anxious or content to explain a drama in terms of simple predications like ‘the Medea means X’, or ‘the Oedipus proves Y’. I should say that the Andr. has a multiplicity of meanings at several levels and that it is not possible to express them all and at the same time in an analytical way.

³⁷ See Heinimann, F., Nomos und Physis (Basel, 1945,Google Scholar repr. Darmstadt, 1972), pp. 132 f., and Lesky, op. cit. p. 441.

³⁸ This is the interpretation of Heinimann, loc. cit.

³⁹ ‘Nomos, physis e qualche riflesso tragico’, Vichiana 1 (1964), esp. pp. 365 ff. On this theme in Hipp, see Berns, G., Hermes 101 (1973), 165 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Cf. del Grande in Dioniso 36 (1962), 48: ‘Il poeta porta di peso sulla scena il contrasto dei filosofi, in un brano di vita; rappresenta e drammatizza senza discutere.’ On Euripides’ ‘Theatre of Ideas’ see the essay of Arrowsmith, W. in Euripides, ed. Segal, E. (Englewood Cliffs, 1968), pp. 13 ff.Google Scholar

⁴¹ For a synoptic view of these currents of thought see Guthrie, W.K.C., A History of Greek Philosophy (Cambridge, 1969), Vol. 3, pp. 148 ff.,Google Scholar 164 ff. and 201 ff.

⁴² In the Tro. Agamemnon, Talthybius and Menelaus are presenteqd as men who are not, in any real sense, free, and who are the inferiors of their Trojan captives. For the treatment of slavery in Hec. see Daitz, S., Hermes 99 (1971), 217 ff.Google Scholar

⁴³ The structure of the prologos is A–B–A¹. In 91 ff. we witness a rehearsal, in more emotional terms, of the exposition of 11.1–55. Presumably the scene which is framed in this way is dramatically important.

⁴⁴ On the relationship between Andromache and the Therapaina see the recent work of Brandt, H., Die Sklaven in den Rollen von Dienern und Vertrauten bei Euripides (Hildesheim, 1973), pp. 105 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Cf. 326 ff., 352 and 387.

⁴⁶ Cf. 30, 36 ff., 192 ff.

⁴⁷ Cf. 49 f., 268 f., 339 ff. and 568 ff.

⁴⁸ This is the description of one of Hermione’s gossiping friends (932).

⁴⁹ See, for instance, Norwood, G., Greek Tragedy⁴ (London, 1948), pp. 225 f.Google Scholar and Johnson, V., ‘Euripides’ Andromache’, CW 48 (1955), 11 f.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Cf. 184, 192, 215 ff. and 227 ff.

⁵¹ Andromache has seen this (Μενέλεως δέ σοι μείζων Αχιλλέας 211 f.); she sees it as the cause, when it might in fact be the result, of Neoptolemus’ dislike for his wife.

⁵² Cf. Burnett, op. cit. pp. 139 ff. and Murray: ‘A. more stagey villain than Euripides in his better moments would have permitted’ (op. cit. p. 56).

⁵³ Norwood (op. cit. p. 223) speaks of ‘the apparent idiocy of Menelaus’ behaviour’. The explanation he proposed in an earlier edition and that of Vellacott (loc. cit.) go back to the Verrallian view of the play. For sensible remarks on Menelaus’ exit see Albini, U., Maia 26 (1974), 88.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Peleus’ threat in 588 is mere bravado, engaging, but ineffectual. As soon as Menelaus calls his bluff in 589, he resorts to merely verbal condemnation.

⁵⁵ This is clear from her subsequent behaviour and from what she says in 918.

⁵⁶ See on this point Ferrari, F., Maia 23 (1971), 219.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ The similarities are brought out in 856 ff. and 927 f. Does the image in 854 f. ίλιττες ίλιπες, ώ πάτερ, έπακτίαν μονάδ" ϊρημον οδσαν ένάλου κώπας recall οώτά δ' έκ θαλάμων άγόμαν έτά θΐνα θαλάσσας in 109?

⁵⁸ We are, of course, never meant to entertain the possibility of a reconciliation. Norwood’s talk (op. cit. p. 225) of ‘that interview early in the play which might have been priceless to both women’ is reminiscent of the naively optimistic remarks of the chorus (232 f., 423 f.). The play is not a paradigm for marriage counsellors.

⁵⁹ Cf. 649 ff.

⁶⁰ Cf. 119, 128, 136 f., 141.

⁶¹ The ambivalent tone of the question is conveyed by the choice of the verb έγκσρτερέω (cf. HF 1351) and the adj. οκληρος, which does not always have pejorative overtones (cf. Soph. Tr. 1260, Eur. Supp. 884, fr. 525, 5).

⁶² I think that Stevens (n. on 637) is wrong in’ calling the simile introduced here ‘curiously inapt’. The point is that just as our expectations of what can be done with poor soil can be false, so loo can we be misguided in our evaluation of the future which lies ahead of a bastard child. The same simile is used to make a different point in Hec. 592 if.

⁶³ DK, fr. 44B. It is not possible to date the π. ‘Αλ. with any certainty, but there is general agreement that it belongs to the latter part of the fifth century. Sec Guthrie, op. cit. (note 41 above), p. 286 n. 2. For the most recent discussion of the Π‘Αλ see Moulton, C., TAPA 103 (1972), 329 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ On this theme the remarks of Burnett, op. cit. (note 15 above), pp. 136 f. are useful.

⁶⁵ Cf. the wish voiced by the chorus in 468 ff.

⁶⁶ Kamerbeek, op. cit. (note 10 above), 58.

⁶⁷ Cf. the remarks of Grube, , The Drama of Euripides (London, 1941), p. 213.Google Scholar The detailed description of Polyxena’s death in Hec. 521 ff. is similar; its chief function is to emphasize the tragedy of Hecuba’s loss of so noble a daughter.

⁶⁸ Cf. the situation in Tro. 1118 ff., where the body of Astyanax is brought in not to excite pity simply for the child, but for Troy as a whole, and to act as a trigger for the final outburst of Hecuba’s grief.

⁶⁹ Cf. 546, 559, 572, 576, 678.

⁷⁰ Cf. 757 ff. I do not agree with Harbsmeier (op. cit. [see note 7], p. 25), that 747 f. are an indication of Peleus’ ‘körperliche Hinfälligkeit’. The tone of these words is different from that of 551 ff. Peleus asks the child and Andromache to stand by him and take him out in order to stress that they are now in his charge and no longer subject to the threats of Menelaus.

⁷¹ Cf. 1071, 1073, 1076, 1168, 1184, 1201, 1207.

⁷² On this application of the nomos-physis antithesis see Heinimann, op. cit. pp. 152 ff.