¹ See nn. 58, 62, 63, 64 below.

² Sappho fr. 104(a) Voigt; Soph. Trach. 527–31, fr. 583; Theocr. 18.38–9; Poll, iii 42; Catull. 62.21–2, 32; Dracontius 6.92–5; Claudian Epithal. in Pall. 125; cf. e.g. Politis, N., Λαογραφικὰ Σύμμεικτα iii (Athens 1931) 281;Google ScholarCampbell, J. K., Honour, family and patronage (Oxford 1964) 121;Google Scholar Sourvinou-Inwood, below p. 140.

³ Sappho fr. 114; Poll, iii 42; Theocr. 8.91; Schol. Theocr. 18.34; Plut. Lyk. 15, Mor. 289a; and for fifth century Attic vase-painting see Jenkins, Ian in BICS xxx (1983), 137–45;Google Scholar Sourvinou-Inwood, below pp. 139–141. Cf. also n. 2 above, and Claudian Fesc. Honor. 4.3–4, de Cons. Stil. ii 357–8; Auson. Cento Nupt. 91 ff.; Varro Sent. 11 Riese.

⁴ See nn. 82–92 below; also Jenkins (n. 3) Williams, D. J. R. in Ancient Greek and Related Pottery (Proc. Internat. Vase Symp. Amsterdam 1984), 279Google Scholar (on ARV² 89.13); Antiph. Soph. fr. 49 (cf. Thomson, G., The prehistoric Aegean [London 1949] 338)Google Scholar.

⁵ Praise: Sappho frr. 108, 113; Ar. Pax 1350; Theocr. 18.20–38; Himer. Or. 1(9).19–20; Men. Rhet. 403.29 ff.; Ps. Dionys. Epid. 265, 270; Catull. 61.16 ff.; etc.; Politis (n. 3) 278–89. μακαρισμός: Hes. fr. 211.7; Sappho fr. 112; E. Alc. 918–19, Tro. 311–12, Hel. 375–6, 640, 1434–5, IA 1076–9, 1404–5, Phaeth. 240; Ar. Pax 1333, Av. 1722–5, 1759; Theocr. 18.16, 52; Od. iv. 208; Pi. Pyth. 3.88; Antoniad. Cret. 66 (Politis [n. 2] 284 n. 3).

⁶ Notably at Catull. 62.38–56 (a poem largely Greek in inspiration); cf. n. 9 below.

⁷ At the προτέλεια: W. Burkert Homo necans (Translation, Berkeley 1983) 62–3; cf. IA 433 with 718–19.

⁸ See esp. Redfield, James in Arethusa xv (1982), 192–4Google Scholar (add e.g. Ps. D.H. Epid. 262 (Radermacher) τοῦ μὲν θηριώδους καὶ πεπλανημένου βίου ἀπαλλάγησαν, βίον δὲ ἥμερον καὶ τεταγμένον ἔσχον διὰ τοῦ γάμου).

⁹ See e.g. Magnien, V. in AC v (1936), 129–31, 1334;Google ScholarVernant, J.-P. in Myth and society in ancient Greece (London 1982) 138–9, 150;Google ScholarDetienne, M., The gardens of Adonis (London 1977), 116–17;Google Scholar Redfield (n. 8); the formula γνησίων παίδων ἐπ᾿ ἀρότωι (Men. Dysk 842; etc.); Aelian De Nat. An. xii 24; n. 58 below.

¹⁰ Cf. Hipponax fr. 68 West: δύ᾿ ἡμέραι γυναικός εἰσιν ἥδισται, / ὅταν γαμῆι τις κἀκφέρηι τεθνηκυῖαν.

¹¹ E.g. Peek, W.Griechische Vers-Inschriften (Berlin 1955) 658, 1162, 1238, 1551, 1553, 1989;Google Scholarcf. e.g. S. Ant. 810; E. IA 461; cf. Aelian fr. 50 Hercher. For a striking recent example see TA NEA for 16.3.1987.

¹² On wedding lamentation etc. see §4 below and n. 4 above; on equivocal elements (and wedding laments) in Greece today see Alexiou, M., The ritual lament in Greek tradition (Cambridge 1974), 120–22Google Scholar. Note that such ambiguity within the wedding does not for the audience underlie the lament of Capulet (Romeo and Juliet iv 5.84–90): All things that we ordained festival / Turn from their office to black funeral: / Our instruments to melancholy bells, / Our wedding cheer to a sad burial feast; / Our solemn hymns to sullen dirges change, / Our bridal flowers serve for a buried corpse; (quoted by Alexiou, M. and Dronke, P., Studi Medievali xii [1971] 831)Google Scholar.

¹³ In fact the corpse might be carried either on foot or on a cart (sec e.g. Beazley ABV 346.7 and 8, = Vermeule, E., Aspects of death in early Greek art and poetry [Berkeley 1979] 20,Google Scholar figs. 15 and 16). Equally unsurprisingly, the bridal pair sometimes went on foot (see e.g. Poll, ii 195).

¹⁴ Description of the funeral: Vermeule (n. 13) 11–21; Kurtz, D. C. and Boardman, J., Greek burial customs (London 1971)Google Scholar ch. 7; Garland, Robert, The Greek way of death (London 1985)Google Scholar, ch. 3; of the wedding: Erdmann, W., Die Ehe im alten Griechenland (Munich 1934)Google Scholar, ch. 5; Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquités s.v. ‘Matrimonium.’ On Χεὶρ ἐπὶ καρπῶι see Jenkins, art. cit. n. 3.

¹⁵ E.g. Peek (n. 11) 683, 1238; Alexiou (n. 12) 230 n. 63; cf. E. Tro. 1218–20.

¹⁶ E.g. Peek (n. 11) 658, 1238, 1553; Jenkins (n. 3).

¹⁷ E.g. Anth. Pal. vii 185 (torches), 487 (bed), 489 (θάλαμος); Peek (n. 11) 1450 (house), 1823 (torchlit journey); cf. e.g. S. Ant. 806–16 (journey, bed).

¹⁸ Peek (n. 11) 683.7–8.

¹⁹ E.g. Anth. Pal. vii. 291, 568; Peek (n. 11) 988, 1976, 1989; Ach. Tat. i 13.

²⁰ Anth. Pal. vii 182, 183, 188, 568, 610 (obviously imaginary), 711, 712; Peek (n. 11) 228, 1238, 1522, 1801, 1825, 1910, 1989.19, 2038, cf. 878; A.R. iii 656–61; Hor. C. iv 2.21; Heliod. ii 29.

²¹ E.g. Peek (n. 11) 1238 is an epigram which illustrates how easily the idea of death just before the wedding might arise from the practice of burying the unmarried girl in bridal attire.

²² I.e. the same shaping as operates on the natural event of death (see above).

²³ E.g. von Fritz, K. in Philologus lxxxix (1934), 19–33,Google Scholar reprinted in Antike und moderne Tragödie (Berlin 1962), 227–40;Google ScholarWinnington-Ingram, R. P., Sophocles, an interpretation (Cambridge 1980), 92–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar (similar to the failure to see that Antigone laments because it is her funeral: Seaford, in CQ xxxiv (1984), 254)Google Scholar.

²⁴ Notably in the behaviour of Haimon: the inconsistencies are described by Tycho von Wilamowitz, Die Dramatische Technik des Sophokles (Berlin 1917) 21–3 (‘… Man sieht also deutlich, dass es dem Dichter von vornherein feststeht, dass Haimon in Antigone's Grabe Selbstmord begehen wird. Er überlegt sich genau so wenig wie der Zuschauer, wie und wozu er hineinge-kommen sein kann, und denkt nicht daran, das noch besonders zu motivieren’); and cf. 36 with 773–80.

²⁵ E.g. Hdt. iv 34; Pausan. i. 43.4; Plut. Arist. 20; Pausan. ii.32.1–4 (and E. Hipp. 1425–7).

²⁶ FGrH 325 (F14(a) and (b)) (fourth cent. B.C.).

²⁷ Cf. e.g. E. IT 1450 ff., and in general Brelich (n. 109) 241–78.

²⁸ Krateros FGrH 342 F9; Schol. Ar. Lys. 645; Burkert (n. 107) 263.

²⁹ In Hermes xxviii (1883), 250Google Scholar = Kl. Schr. vi 196.

³⁰ Nikander ap. Anton. Lib. 27 (cf. E. IA 1355–6, 940); Lykophr. Alex. 183, 324; Duris FGrH 76 F88.

³¹ Cf. 1479, 1518, IT 58 etc., and a similar ambiguity at A. Ag. 1036–8 (Cf. §10). Cf. also IA 1080–88.

³² For other parallels between marriage and sacrifice see J.-P. Vernant (n. 9) ch. 7; Foley, H. P. in Arethusa xv (1982), 159–80Google Scholar (on the IA; a longer version in Ritual irony [Ithaca and London 1985]Google Scholar ch. 2).

³³ Seaford, in Hermes cxiv (1986), 50–4;Google Scholar Sappho fr. 104(a); S. Trach. 527–30.

³⁴ IA 732; Schol. E. Tro. 315; Ov. Ep. 8.96; Nonn. Dion. 46.304; and the vase-paintings referred to in n. 27. I find that the evocation of the wedding by the chariot is suggested also by Foley, Ritual irony 70–1.

³⁵ Daremberg-Saglio (n. 14) s.v., ‘Matrimonium’ 1652–3.

³⁶ There may well be much (early) interpolation or rewriting in this scene (Page, D. L., Actors' interpolations in Greek tragedy [Oxford 1934] 160–9)Google Scholar; but even (early) interpolated lines are not necessarily thereby excluded from our argument, which is not concerned with the personality of Euripides.

³⁷ Cf. below §9a.

³⁸ Ar. Av. 1731–44; Sappho fr. 44 (if hymenaial), cf. fr. 218 Voigt; Men. Rhet. 400–02 (includes Peleus and Thetis), etc.; Ps. D.H. Epid. 262; Claudian ix and Sidon. Ap. xiv (Peleus and Thetis); cf. Catull. 64. Note also the popularity of the wedding of Peleus and Thetis in vase-painting, e.g. on a nuptial lebes, ARV² 585.33.

³⁹ Catull. 62.21–2 (surely based on a Greek model); cf. Sappho fr. 104; S. Trach. 527–31; E. Hec. 90–1, 207– 9, 418, 611–12; Plut. Lyk. 15; Politis (n. 2) 281. cf. IA 1087.

⁴⁰ The absence or the extinguishing of the wedding torch was a πόπος of the death-instead-of-marriage theme (see above; e.g. Anth. Pal. vii 185; Bion 1.87; Daremberg-Saglio [n. 14] s.v. ‘Hymenaios’), and may be associated, as it seems to be here, with the darkness of Hades (e.g. Peek [n. 11] 804). On the association of φῶς, and especially torchlight, with σωτηρία, see Fraenkel on A. Ag. 522, Thomson on A. Ag. 522, 935–71.

⁴¹ Meaning lifetime, αἰών might easily refer to the (new) lifetime that begins at marriage: E. Or. 603, Med. 243, Su. 1005 (§7d), Ale. 475. For μοῖρα and marriage see Ar. Av. 1734; Poll, iii 38. And cf. Antiph. Soph. fr. 49.3: the wedding καινοῦ δαίμονος ἄρχει, κανοῦ πότμου.

⁴² A scene depicted in Attic vase-paintings (e.g. Beazley ARV² 1476.3).

⁴³ Cf. e.g. E. HF 562, Ba. 857. Cf. also the attention paid to Pentheus's dress (Med. 1161–2 with Ba. 928–34, 1165–6 with 937–8). In CQ 37.1 (1987), 76–8Google Scholar I suggest that Pentheus too is looking at a mirror.

⁴⁴ Cf. nn. 11–17 above.

⁴⁵ Garvie, A. F., Aeschylus' Supplices: play and trilogy (Cambridge 1969), 221;Google ScholarJohansen, H. Friis and Whittle, E. W., Aeschylus: the Suppliants (Copenhagen 1980), i 30–4Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Aeschylus and Athens ² (London 1946)Google Scholar, ch. 16.

⁴⁷ (n. 45) 221.

⁴⁸ (n. 45) i 34–7.

⁴⁹ ‘The reader may, at his own risk, take the themes of general aversion to marriage, ὕβρις in the Aegyptiads and legally prescribed endogamy as suggesting various motives for the Danaids' flight from their cousins, but the function of these themes in Supp. (and perhaps in the trilogy as a whole) is only that of placing the action in a complex and shifting perspective.’ ([n. 45] i 37.)

⁵⁰ See section A; also the general treatments of the ceremony mentioned in n. 14.

⁵¹ Su. 69–76; sec also e.g. 748–9.

⁵² 141–9; Seaford (n. 33.)

⁵³ 529–30; cf. also Lyk. Alex. 102; E. IA 1083–8, Hel. 1476–8, Hek. 205–10 (cf. 90–1, 416–18, 526, 612); Pi. Isthm. 8.48.

⁵⁴ 141, 539; cf. 51, 275 This appeal (1) expresses the Danaids' claim on the Argives; (2) may express, according to the psychoanalytic analysis of Caldwell, R. S. (in Arethusa vii [1974] 45–70)Google Scholar, their desire for a ‘fantasised mother’; (3) is highly apt for their quasi-hymenaial position, particularly given the hymenaial τόπος of the heifer parted from her mother. Cf. also PV 665 ff.

⁵⁵ 40–56, 538–40, 1063–6. Cf. PV 665 ff., where Io is forced out (ὠθεῖν) of the parental home to become a heifer on the margins of the land. Murray, R. D., The motif of Io in Aeschylus' Suppliants (Princeton 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ignores the ritual dimension.

⁵⁶ Seaford (n. 33) esp. nos. 10, 14, 20, 24; Koukoules, F., Βυӡαντινῶν Βίος καὶ Πολιτισμός (Athens 1948–1955) iv 88–92, 101–19, 148–85Google Scholar. Politis (n. 2.)

⁵⁷ Politis (n. 2) iii 283; Danforth, L. M., The death rituals of rural Greece (Princeton 1982), 114;Google ScholarZakhos, E., Poésie populaire des Grecs (Paris 1966), 66, 132;Google Scholarcf. Alkman fr. 82.

⁵⁸ E. Ba. 468, Phoen. 337,1366, IA 698, Tro. 676, Alc. 994; cf. S. Trach. 536; E. El. 99, Hipp. 549, Su. 822; and esp. S. fr. 583. Cf. Xen. Econ. 7.11; A.R. 4.96; Suda and Hsch. s.v. ‘ӡυγόν’; Ps. D.H. Epid. 262; etc. (Magnien [n. 9] 130–1.)

⁵⁹ Cf. Timarete before her wedding dedicating her childish things to Artemis Limnatis, κόραι κόρα, ὡς ἐπιεικές (AP vi 280.3); Seaford on S. El. 1238–9 in CQ xxxv (1985), 321–2Google Scholar. The Danaids' devotion to Artemis (cf. e.g. 1031) is of course not an explanation of their hostility to marriage (as believed by some) but a consequence of it.

⁶⁰ A word associated with δάμναμαι (see FJW ad loc.).

⁶¹ See Easterling ad loc; Seaford (n. 33).

⁶² E.g. Sappho fr. 115, and 117A (Lobel-Page Addenda); Theocr. 18.30; Seaford (n. 33) 52 n. 10; add E. Hipp. 630, Med. 231 (cf. 242); Greg. Naz. PG 37.1493 v 186 Νυμφίον ὐμνείοντες ἐοικότα ἔρνει καλῶι; Stud. Bizant. iv (Rome 1935) 234Google Scholar vs. 29–30 and 235 v. 64.

⁶³ Sappho frr. 105a, b; cf. Himerius ix 16 (Colonna); S. Trach. 144–9; Catull. 62.39–47; cf. e.g. Politis (n. 2) iii 281.

⁶⁴ Peek (n. 11) 1238; cf. e.g. 1162.8, 1801; Alexiou, (n. 12) 195.

⁶⁵ Cf. Pi. Pyth. 9.37 ἐκ λεχέων κεῖραι μελιαδέα ποίαν 109–11 χρυσοστεφάνου δέ οἱ Ἥβας καρπὸν ἀνθήσαντ᾿ ἀποδρέψαι κτλ. (Cf. Carson, in GRBS xxiii [1982] 121– 8Google Scholar).

⁶⁶ J.-P. Vernant (n. 9) 23.

⁶⁷ Cf. τὸ γὰρ νεάӡον κτλ. at S. Trach. 144 ff. (and n. 33 above).

⁶⁸ Jenkins and Sourvinou-Inwood (n. 3). It is interesting that at Iambl. Vit. Pyth. 18.84 certain rituals to which the bride is subjected are explained by her position as suppliant.

⁶⁹ Jenkins (n. 3) 142.

⁷⁰ The emphasis (719, 745) on their blackness, as they approach intent on abduction, may connote death. If it is thought that this can be no more than a realistic detail, cf. the black Egyptian Zeus-Hades gaining access to Io in S. Inachos (Seaford, in CQ xxx [1980] 23–9)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. And other references in Su. to black skin (of the Danaids) certainly connote death (154; Seaford, art. cit., 24; cf. also 785, 790–1, 778).

⁷¹ 104–10 and 112–16: I omit the very corrupt line 111.

⁷² Cf. S. Ant. 805 ff.; Seaford (n. 23) 254.

⁷³ As noted by FJW, who also suggest an allusion to Io.

⁷⁴ Cf. e.g. Simon. 520 PMC 4; S. Ant. 361–2; Peek (n. 11) 1039.7, 1593.1.

⁷⁵ Cf. Simon. (406–7 Page Epigr. Gr.) οὐκ ἐπιδὼν νύμφεια λέχη κατέβην τὸν ἄφυκτον / Γόργιππος ξανθῆς Φερσεφόνης θάλαμον. And S. Ant. 788, 800 mention the inescapability of Ἔρως in a context which combines the themes of marriage and death (cf. e.g. 804 τὸν παγκοίταν … θάλαμον). Cf. E. Med. 531, 634 (the ἄφυκτος arrows of love); also perhaps A. Su. 784.

⁷⁶ Cf. E. Su. 1019–30, Hcld. 913–5, Cyc. 515; Pi.fr. 139.6; cf. S. Trach. 662 (cf. 833, 857–8, etc.); E. Hec. 366–8. Cf. also below on S. OT, Trach, Ant., and A. Ag. (§6).

⁷⁷ The text as printed by FJW. With ἀνάσσοι they compare 906 ἄνακτας meaning husbands. Cf. also 804–5 (with κοίτα cf. e.g. S. Ant. 804, OC 1706; A. Ag. 1494).

⁷⁸ Cf. πλεκταῖς at S. OT 1264 and μιτώδει at S. Ant. 1222 (see below).

⁷⁹ In fact the only plausible replacement I can think of is the slight change ӡαργάναις (occurs elsewhere only in Schol. Opp. H. i 100 meaning ταινία), which would in fact suit my argument somewhat better. θανεῖν for τυχεῖν in 789 would remove all the problems noted by FJW, but the corruption would be hard to account for.

⁸⁰ Images of women in antiquity (London and Canberra 1983; edd. Averil Cameron and Amelie Kuhrt) 118–21Google Scholar. See now also Loraux, Nicole, Façons tragiques de tuer une femme (Paris 1985) 34–5, 41–5, 105Google Scholar n. 15.

⁸¹ Peek (n. 11) 1238.3; E. Tro. 1218 ff.

⁸² See e.g. Politis (n. 2) iii. 278–9; Danforth (n. 51) 74–9; Alexiou (n. 12) 120–2.

⁸³ Peek (n. 11) 947: from the second or first century BC, provenance unstated.

⁸⁴ Catull. 66.16–7; cf. also 61.181 flet quod ire necesse est; etc. (nn. 2 and 3 above).

⁸⁵ Chrest. ap. Phot. Bibl. 239 (p. 321.30 Bekker); cf. also Tzetzes, Chil. xiii 606Google Scholar (the wedding-song sung by ἐξαπευχόμενοι ἀφάνισιν παστάδος; cf. 600).

⁸⁶ Daremberg-Saglio (n. 14) s.v. ‘Hymenaios’, p. 335

⁸⁷ Alexiou–Dronke (n. 12) 830–7; cf. n. 20 above.

⁸⁸ Fr. 128c Snell; with χροϊӡόμενον cf. n. 76 above.

⁸⁹ Fera, M. Cannatà in GIFC xi (1980) 181–8;Google Scholarcf. Alexiou (n. 12)57–8.

⁹⁰ E. Hipp. 1425–9; Pausan. ii 32.1; ‘Die Tränen, die sie ihm weinten, flossen zugleich um Jenen Teil des eigenen Ich, der mit dieser Geste und an diesem Tage für immer ging’ (Fauth, W., Hippolytus und Phaidra, Abh. Ak. Wiss. viii [Mainz 1959] pp. 392–3)Google Scholar; cf. Wilamowitz, Euripides Hippolytus, 27; Séchan, in REG xxiv (1911), 115Google Scholar ff.; on the hair see Fauth 389–93.

⁹¹ 1032–3; for text and interpretation see FJW ad loc. I discuss this song in more detail in the most recent issue of Dioniso (in Italian).

⁹² This point is made explicit by Artemidorus Oneir. ii 49; cf also Fischer, U., Der Telosgedanke in den Dramen des Aischylos (Hildesheim 1965), 52, 56–57Google Scholar.

⁹³ Frr. 27.10, 30.6–7, 43.8–9 L-P; Burnett, A. P., Three archaic poets (London 1983), 218;Google Scholar see also Seneca Med. 108; Himerius Or. ix 21; Procl. Chrest. ap. Phot. Bibl. 239, p. 321 Bekker. There are choirs of youths and maidens in the wedding procession in the Hesiodic Aspis (276–84).

⁹⁴ Mor. 264b; cf. also D.S. 5.73.24; Schol. Ar. Thesm. 973; Peitho and marriage: refs. in Buxton, R. G. A., Persuasion in Greek tragedy (Cambridge 1982) 35Google Scholar (add Pi. Pyth. 9.39; Himer. Or. ix, 19); Sourvinou-Inwood, below p. 145f.

⁹⁵ θεσμός mss.; for the case for ἑσμὸς see FJW. Cf. n. 106.

⁹⁶ 1051– 2; and note 1033 πέλοι = 1051 πέλει.

⁹⁷ On the ambiguity of τελευτά see nos. 161, 197.

⁹⁸ FJW ad 1062–7. I adopt their distribution of the lines in this passage, which is in essentials certainly correct.

⁹⁹ A comparable point is made about the metre of the exodos by Rash, J. N., Meter and language in the lyrics of Aeschylus' Suppliants (New York 1981), 194, 199:Google Scholar ‘… the [thematic] clash is summarised a final time in metrical form … The decisive “victory” of the Danaids' attitude is reflected … by the appearance of the lekythion which represents suicide, death, and murder to come …’.

¹⁰⁰ One ms. (B) has νόμοις (rather than νόμοισι).

¹⁰¹ Interpretation of the fr. has been hindered in part by the mistaken view, derived from the scholiast on Pindar (Pyth. 3.27) who quotes the passage, and Hsch. ii p. 526, that σὺν κόροις τε καὶ κόραις was a stereotyped wish for children of the marriage. Cf. Lambia, G. in AC 55 (1986), 66–85,Google Scholar which appeared too late for consideration here.

¹⁰² E. Phaeth. 227–44, ²7° ff.; cf. IT 365–8, Tro. 351–2; S. fr. 725; Alexiou-Dronke (n. 12) 833, 835.

¹⁰³ Propitiation was a function even of the normal lament: Alexiou (n. 12) 55, 182.

¹⁰⁴ E.g. A. Ag. 707–11, Cho. 342–3, Sept. 868–70, 915–21, Pers. 605; S. Phil. 212–19, fr. 861; E. Alc. 760 (δισσὰ δʼ ἦν μέλη κλύειν), 922, Su. 975, Hek. 685–7, HF 751–2, IT 185, 221–5, 365–8, Tro. 121, 148–52, 336 (cf. 351–2);fr. 122; Tr.fr. adesp. 663.16–18; cf. e.g. Ov. Her. 12.139–40; AP vii 711. The contrast is particularly effective if the songs also have elements in common.

¹⁰⁵ Hdt. ii 171; Hes. fr. 128 M-W; Robertson, D. S. in CR xxxviii (1924) 51–3;Google Scholar Thomson (n. 46) ch. 16. The Thesmophoria was apparently first suggested in 1838 by A. Tittler (Garvie [n. 45] 227).

¹⁰⁶ See e.g. Nilsson, , Geschichte der Griechischen Religion ³ i 465.Google Scholar It is interesting in this connection to consider the mss. reading θεσμός at A. Su. 1034.

¹⁰⁷ Parker, R., Miasma (Oxford 1983) 81;Google ScholarBurkert, W., Greek religion (translation, Oxford 1985) 244;Google Scholar Detienne (n. 9) 78–81.

¹⁰⁸ ‘The ritual focusses attention on the idea of productive sexual union by a paradoxical temporary insistence on its opposite’ (Parker [n. 107] 83).

¹⁰⁹ Seaford, in CQ xxxi (1981);Google Scholarcf. also E. Med. 1382 with Brelich, A., Paides e Parthenoi (Rome 1969)Google Scholar; and IT 1454, 1459 with Brelich 242 ff.

¹¹⁰ Although cf. Robertson (n. 105) 53, who cites Call. Hymn Dem. 19; V. Aen. iv 58; Calvus ap. Serv. ad Aen. iv 58; Plut. Mor. 138b. Cf. Od. xxiii 296. And the participants in the Thesm. are (mainly or) entirely married women: Parker (n. 107) 83; Detienne (n. 9) 76–82; Burkert (n. 107) 242.

¹¹¹ Cf. Pi. Pyth. 9, where the Danaids' (second) husbands are chosen by an athletic contest (also in Pausan. iii 12.2; Apoll. Bibl. ii 1.5). The disappearance of Hymenaios on his wedding night is associated with Argos at Tzetz, . Chil. xiii 599;Google Scholarschol, . Il. xviii 493;Google Scholar etc. (Roscher, , Lex. Myth i 2801)Google Scholar.

¹¹² E.g. for a detail of Aeschylus' Lykourgos trilogy preserved only in Hyginus see Sutton, D. F. in RSC xxiii (1975) 356–60Google Scholar.

¹¹³ Listed by Garvie (n. 45) 226.

¹¹⁴ Sappho fr. 194 Voigt (Himer ix 4); Men. Rhet. 412.12 εἰκὸς παρεῖναι …, 407.7 (cf. 404.19–25, 406.19–24); Dracontius 6; etc. (Reitzenstein, in Hermes xxxv [1900] 97–9)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ e.g. Men. Rhet. 407.7; Claudian x 251–85; Stat. Silv. i 2; etc. (Reitzenstein [n. 14] 97–9); cf. E. Hipp. 553 (at the ‘wedding’ of Herakles and Iole) Ἀλκμήνας τόκωι Κύπρις ἐξέδωκεν. Beazley ARV ² 1317.1 and 1317.3 both probably depict a bride with Aphrodite and Peitho (cf. also e.g. 1325.27, 1328.99). Cf. E. Hel. 1120–1 (quoted n. 191 below).

¹¹⁶ E.g. Beazley, ARV ² 1126.6, 1133.196.

¹¹⁷ Men. Rhet. 401, 408.13–19; Ps. D.H. Epid. 262; Himerius ix 8; etc. (Reitzenstein [n. 114] 97–9). If it dates back to the fifth century, then Aphrodite's speech might even have been presented as an aition for it. Cf. § 1 (Antigone); Procl, . Tim. iii 176.19–30Google Scholar Diehl ὃ δή (Heaven-Earth union the first γάμος, etc.) καὶ οἱ θεσμοὶ τῶν Ἀθηναίων εἰδότες προσέταττον οὐρανῶι καὶ γῆι προτελεῖν τοὺς γάμους.

¹¹⁸ Perhaps also therefore τὸ μὴ θέμις: see in detail Thomson, G. in Eirene ix (1971), 25–30Google Scholar and (n. 46) 302–6, 450. There is no substance in the objection of FJW that ‘φίλους can hardly mean “relation”, as the idea of intermarriage is not alluded to until 387 ff.’ (it is mentioned there by Pelasgus!). They also object to ὠνοῖτο by comparing 202; but the Danaids need not have been penniless in Egypt, ὄνομαι does not seem to occur elsewhere in Attic (though cf. v. 10).

¹¹⁹ Denniston, The Greek particles ² 157–8; καί … γε is found in the play also at 296, 313, 468.

¹²⁰ (n. 45) 220; similarly FJW ad loc., who find an implausible link with 338 in the idea of male domination, which both gives the husband power and allows Pelasgus to abandon the Danaids easily! FJW also object that δυστυχούντων should refer to their present misfortune, and that it is hard to see ‘what sort of misfortune they can envisage as inducing their cousins to dissolve the union’. But the point is that the Danaids seem to envisage their present misfortune, isolation and hostility as continuing into the marriage.

¹²¹ So Tucker, Headlam, Thomson, etc.; cf. Page on E. Med. 236, Stevens on E. Andr. 529.

¹²² Garvie (n. 45) 220; similarly FJW ad loc.; this pseudo-problem prompts Mackinnon, J. K. (CQ lxxi [1978] 78)Google Scholar to take the line as an indignant question implying that divorce is not easy.

¹²³ Mackinnon (n. 122) 77.

¹²⁴ Thomson (n. 118) 29, compares Pi. Isthm. 3.2 and E. El. 427.

¹²⁵ Thomson (n. 118) 29 cites Plut. Mor. 289e (the Romans, unlike the Greeks, prohibit such marriages) ἤ, πολλῶν βοηθῶν τὰς γυναῖκας ὁρῶντες δι' ἀσθένειαν δεομένας, οὐκ ἐβούλοντο τὰς ἐγγὺς γένους συνοικίӡειν, ὃπως, ἄν οἱ ἄνδρες ἀδικῶσιν αὐτάς, οἱ συγγενεῖς βοηθῶσιν. And cf. the protection offered by the Attic state (together with ὁ βουλόμενος): n. 129 below.

¹²⁶ See e.g. Schaps, D. M., Economic rights of women in ancient Greece (Edinburgh 1979), 76Google Scholar. Add Isaeus iii 28, ὁ ἐγγύων would have wanted a receipt for the dowry ἵνα μὴ ἐπ' ἐκείνωι γένοιτο ῥαδίως ἀπαλλάττεσθαι, ὁπότε βούλοιτο, τῆς γυναικός.

¹²⁷ Schaps (n. 126) 26.

¹²⁸ Schaps, (n. 126) 57; cf. 27–8.

¹²⁹ Schaps (11. 126) 38; he notes that the archon has power over all possible abuses to which epikleroi were subject. Cf. also Ar. Ath. Pol. 56.6; Suda, Harpokr. s.v. ‘κακώσεως’; Harrison, A. R. W., The law of Athens i (Oxford 1971) 43Google Scholar. It was made easy for ὁ βουλόμενος to bring an εἰσαγγελία κακώσεως against the husband of an epikleros.

¹³⁰ Cf. the loyalties of the wife reverting to her old household in myth (Althaia, Psyche, Eriphyle).

¹³¹ It is interesting in this connection that no mention is made in the play of Danaids' mother(s); although they do claim kinship with the Argives through their ancestress Io, whom they call ‘mother’ (15–18, 51, 141, 533, 539). They also appeal more than once to their immortal ancestor (on the maternal side) Zeus, who is however associated with marriage: note their quandary at 1057 (cf. 40 ff., 1035, 1051, 1062–7).

¹³² On this point see esp. Vernant, J.-P., Myth and thought among the Greeks (London 1983) 143–6Google Scholar.

¹³³ In this respect the remark of FJW (40) that the play is the earliest known text in European civilisation to have dealt with the problem of the arranged marriage is misleading to the extent that it ranges the Danaids along with the bride forced to marry someone she does not love, usually to the exclusion of the man she does love. Such a bride has feelings opposite to what we imagine to be the normal bridal ones of joy, love for her groom, affection for her parents; whereas the feelings of the Danaids are an intensification of normal bridal ones (attachment to father, resentment, fear of isolation and of male domination, etc.). Hence, incidentally, the problem of Danaos, who though sympathetic to his daughters neither asserts his paternal rights nor even expresses great hostility to the marriage (see FJW 35–6, who offer a different solution): he is in these respects just like the father of a normal bride. Cf. Sourvinou-Inwood, below p. 143f.

¹³⁴ Cf. e.g. the Amazons. Even the Lemnian women require an external stimulus (as of course does Lysistrata).

¹³⁵ Esp. ὄκνος, uncertainty: 7, 181; cf. 37.

¹³⁶ 904–31; Seaford (n. 33).

¹³⁷ 530; cf. S. Ant. 887; E. Andr. 854–5, Tro. 563–5, IA 1314; John Chrys. PG lxii 386.

¹³⁸ (n. 33); cf. §11.

¹³⁹ See §9a. The rare word εὐπλοία occurs also at A. Su. 1045, again in the context of a disastrous marriage.

¹⁴⁰ Ps. D.H Epid. 271 (Rademacher); Men. Rhet. 399.29, 404.17; Catull. 64.35–42; Hes. Aspis 284–5; Xen. HG iv 1.9; D.S. xiii 84.1–3 (Tim. FGrH 566 F 26); Sappho fr. 44V 13–14.

¹⁴¹ βρυχηθείς (1265) on the other hand denotes an unrestrained noise associated with animals, and is used of Deianeira when she feels again the negative emotion of her wedding (S. Trach. 904; cf. 1071–2; Seaford [n.33]).

¹⁴² Cf. e.g. Od. xi 245; E. Tro. 501, 665; Plut. Lyk. 15; and esp. S. Trach. 924. At Plut. Mor. 253d a virgin undoes her ӡώνη and uses it as a noose for herself: this is interpreted by Helen King as an inversion of marriage and death (see §4 and n. 80).

¹⁴³ Plut. Fab. 12; Ar. Nub. 378; Philostr. Int. ii 27; cf. West, in BICS xxviii (1981) 68Google Scholar on καταρρήγνυμι; S. Trach. 852, 919.

¹⁴⁴ Fertilising rain in e.g. A. fr. 44R (see above); δρόσος can mean drizzle as well as semen (Dover on Ar. Nub. 977; Callim. fr. 260.19); the same association between rain, blood, and semen occurs also at A. Ag. 1388–92 (see below).

¹⁴⁵ Better at the end of the verse would be μονούμενα (Bruhn, Wilamowitz), μόνου κάτα (Jebb), μόνας κάτα (Bruhn; cf. Thuc. i 32.5, 37.4; Pl. Leg. 873d).

¹⁴⁶ Also 1195; and e.g. E. Andr. 1217 μάτην δέ σ' ἐν γάμοισιν ὤλβισαν θεοί; Seaford (n. 33) 55; cf. n. 5 above.

¹⁴⁷ The interpretation of dreams (1935) 398.

¹⁴⁸ Though cf. the striking evidence adduced in its support by Devereux, in JHS xciii (1973), 36–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Buxton, R. G. A. in JHS c (1980) 25Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁹ Devereux (n. 148) 42, and Dreams in Greek tragedy, 33–6; notably representation of phalloi with eyes, and PV 654.

¹⁵⁰ Cf. also Trach. 917–18, 924, 931, etc. (Seaford [n. 33], 57–8).

¹⁵¹ Cf. also 1205 νυμφεῖον, 1207 παστάδα, etc., and §1 above.

¹⁵² σφαγὴν has been widely suspected. Fraenkel's ῥαγὴν is in fact supported by the erotic undertone, which he ignores (see above on OT 1279 ἔρρωγεν; West, in BICS xxviii [1981] 68)Google Scholar. ὀξεῖαν then has a special point, because a ῥαγἡ may be γλυκύπικρος (of semen) or painful (of blood). Cf. the similar common use of πικρός (esp. Seaford on Cyc. 589).

¹⁵³ The erotic undertone of this passage of Ag. has always seemed to me clear, ignored though it is by the commentators. I now find it argued in detail by Moles, J. L. (LCM iv 9 [1979] 179–89)Google Scholar, who points to the sexual occurrences of δρόσος and βάλλω, etc., but ignores the same τόπος in S. Ant. and OT, as does O'Daly, G.J. P. (Mus Helv. xlii [1985] 8)Google Scholar who is also I think mistaken in regarding λοχεύμασιν (1393) as ruling out erotic associations.

¹⁵⁴ See n. 117 above.

¹⁵⁵ Commentary ii (Groningen 1975) p. 358,Google ScholarSu. 990–1030, 1063–71. Cf. also n. 76 above.

¹⁵⁶ For the reverse displacement see E. Ba. 95, 561.

¹⁵⁷ S. Ant. 947, 804 (cf. S. Trach. 913, El. 190; Seaford [n. 59] 318); cf. E. Su. 1022. Even if we keep θαλάμας, there would surely be a play on θάλαμος (cf. Collard).

¹⁵⁸ Collard notes in his comm. that this word is transmitted paroxytone, incorrectly if the adj. is nom. plur., but perhaps a sign that the dat. sing, was at one time understood.

¹⁵⁹ Cf. Sappho fr. 44V n, 23(?); this does not mean that it was joyful for the bride! E. Hel. 724 τροχάӡων describes running quickly beside the bridal chariot.

¹⁶⁰ 1002 πυρὸς (πυρᾶς Bothe) φῶς τάφον τε = ἴτω φῶς γάμοι τε, 1019, 1029, 1071, also 1010–11. Perhaps this association of celebratory and destructive fire gives point to her opening question τί φέγγος, τίν' αἴγλαν κτλ.; (cf. Tro. 319–21 ἐγὼ δ' ἐπὶ γάμοις ἐμοῖς / ἀναφλέγω πυρὸς φῶς / ἐς αὐγάν, ἐς αἴγλαν.

¹⁶¹ Also n. 197 and §8 (Medea) below. τελευτά of wedding also at A. Su. 1050; Pi. Pyth. 9.66; Od. i 249–50 = xvi 126–7, xxiv 126.

¹⁶² See e.g. Ar. Ran. 1182–6, and in general de Heer, D., ΜΑΚΑΡ-ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ-ΟΛΒΙΟΣ-ΕΥΤΥΧΗΣ (Amsterdam 1969)Google Scholar. Cf. n. 5 above.

¹⁶³ ὀλβίσαι δὲ χρὴ βίον τελευτήσαντ' ἐν εὐεστοῖ φίληι (A. Ag. 928–9). Cf. §6 and §12.

¹⁶⁴ See Seaford (n. 33).

¹⁶⁵ That is why at 995 Collard is wrong to reject Haupt's αἰνογάμων on the grounds that ‘discrepat cum gaudio Evadnae’.

¹⁶⁶ E. Su. 1012; A. Ag. 745; and see n. 161 above.

¹⁶⁷ Seaford (n. 23) 251; cf. Med. ἡ δ' ἐν θάλαμοις τήκει βιοτὴν.

¹⁶⁸ Page also objects to (a) ἢ καὶ τύραννον (42), and (b) the proximity of ‘δέδοικα δ' αὐτήν and δειμαίνω τέ νιν, as well as βαρεῖα γὰρ φρήν and δεινὴ γάρ’ But (a) replace καὶ with τὴν, and (b) this expresses the nurse's anxiety. There may conceivably be radical corruption here, but there are no good reasons for wholesale deletion.

¹⁶⁹ S. Trach. 915–31 (esp. 918, 920, 924, 930–1); V. Aen. iv 648–65; cf. E. Alc. 175–84; Winnington-Ingram (n. 23) 81 n. 28. For (apparently) abrupt statements of (other) τόποι see Seaford (n. 23) 249, 251; cf. n. 195 below.

¹⁷⁰ As also at E. Andr. 137–41 … δμωὶς ἀπ' ἀλλοτρίας / πόλεος, ἐνθ' οὐ φίλων τιν' εἰσορᾶις / σῶν, ὧ δυστυχεστάτα, <ὧ> παντάλαινα νύμφα. / οἰκτροτάτα γὰρ ἔμοιγ' ἔμολες, γύναι Ἰλιάς, οἴκους …

¹⁷¹ Page calls this a metaphorical use of μέλπειν very rare in tragedy, and compares A. Ag. 1445 and E. Andr. 1037 (both in fact of the lament).

¹⁷² E. Hipp. 755–6 ἐπόρευσας ἐμὰν ἄνασσαν ὀλβίων ἀπ' οἴκων κακονυμφοτάταν ὄνασιν (i.e. instead of εὐδαιμονία), 766–70 τεράμνων ἀπὸ νυμφιδίων κρεμαστὸν ἃψεται άμφί βρόχον λευκᾶι καθαρμόӡουσα δειρᾶι (cf. S. Ant. 1239 λευκῆι παρειᾶι—see above; E. Med. 1189, IA 875); for hanging as suicide v. Antigone, Iokasta, Erigone (imitated by Athenian virgins).

¹⁷³ E. Alc. 866–7, 880–81, 898, 915–25.

¹⁷⁴ Given the tendency to describe adulterous union in terms of marriage ritual (cf. e.g. §11 Iole, or the paradoxical phrase ἰδίοισιν ὑμεναίοισι of Aig. and Klyt. at E. Or. 558), it makes little sense to ask whether Paris and Helen were actually married or not (cf. Il. xxiv 763, iii 140). Like the other cases in this category their union is extramarital in the sense that it violates the marriage of one of the partners, and ‘natural’ in the sense that it is effected by lust or violence or both.

¹⁷⁵ Cf. also 686 δορίγαμβρος, 720 προτελείοις, also (earlier) ἄγουσά τ' ἀντίφερνον Ἰλίωι φθοράν (406). Lebeck, A., The Oresteia (Cambridge, Mass. 1971) 48–9, 69–71,Google Scholar collects some of the obvious references to marriage in the trilogy.

¹⁷⁶ See LSJ. In both the apparent exceptions (A. Cho. 494; 5. Trach 1078) it may in fact have the same sense (cf. Seaford [n. 23] 252–3, and [n. 33] 56–7.

¹⁷⁷ (n. 33) 56–7.

¹⁷⁸ See G. Thomson in Comm. ad loc; add Parmen. fr. 1.10 (Thomson, , The first philosophers [London 1955] 289–90)Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁹ For this kind of abruptness see n. 169 above.

¹⁸⁰ J. H. Oakley in Arch. Anz. (1982) 113–14; Toutain, J. in REA xlii (1940), 345–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This fact underlies also Ag. 1178–81 (see below) and E. Pho. 1485–92 (see n. 185 below).

¹⁸¹ Cf. the passages quoted in n. 183 below, also A. fr. 154a Radt 3 ảλίμενον γάμον; A. Ag. 227 προτέλεια ναῶν. Dionysos apparently travelled to his wedding at the Anthesteria in a ship cart: Seaford, R., Euripides Cyclops (Oxford 1984) 8Google Scholar and n. 23.

¹⁸² ‘Clear’ of oracles, ‘bright’ of the bride's complexion, ‘keen’ of the wind, and ‘bright’ of the sunlight: Silk, M. S., Interaction in poetic imagery (Cambridge 1974) 197;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGoldhill, Simon, Language, sexuality, narrative: the Oresteia (Cambridge 1984) 85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸³ Cf. the attention focussed on a sea voyage in a hymenaial context at E. IA 667–70, E. Hipp. 752–63 (esp. 755–63, see n. 172 above), E. Tro. 455–6.

¹⁸⁴ Seaford (n. 33) 56–7.

¹⁸⁵ Pho. 1485–92. She overcomes her maidenly shame (1487–8), emerges from the παρθενῶνες (cf. 1275), sheds her veil, but is led not in a bridal profession but by the dead (1442 ἁγεμόνευμα νεκροῖσι—constantly mistranslated as active). Cf also n. 180 above. Her solitary, lamenting procession is similarly ambiguous (cf. §A) in Sophokles' version (§B1). This is not to ignore the influence of Hom, . Il. xxii 468–72Google Scholar (also a wedding veil!).

¹⁸⁶ Cunningham, M. L. in BICS xxxi (1984) 9–12;Google ScholarARV ² 466 n. 266. So too Armstrong, D. A. and Ratchford, E. A. in BICS xxxii (1985) 1–12,Google Scholar which appeared too late for consideration here.

¹⁸⁷ Defined by Hsch. as of Helen ἡ πρὸ τῶν γάμων θυσια καί ἑορτή. Cf. 720 ἐν βιότου προτελείοις of Helen. In Ag. 65 and 227 Fraenkel sees an inversion of its cheerful wedding associations. Similarly Zeitlin, F. in TAPA xcvi (1965) 465–6Google Scholar (‘unpropitious use’). Lebeck (n. 175) 186, notes that ‘it is precisely because she is sacrificed to Artemis that Iphigenia can be called προτέλεια ναῶν with a play on προτέλεια γάμων.’ It should be added that the story of this sacrifice had long been associated with marriage (see §2 above). Further dimensions of (ironic) aptness are that the sacrifice of Iphigeneia is, like the marriage προτέλεια, a necessary prelude (cf. also Ag. 65) to a man (Menelaos) taking off his wife (cf. the previous line, γυναικοποίνων πολέμων ἀρωγάν), and that ναῶν perhaps owes something to the nautical image discussed above (cf. E. IA 667–70).

¹⁸⁸ See nn. 58 and 53; Sourvinou-Inwood, pp. 137ff, 145.

¹⁸⁹ Cf. also e.g. A. fr. 242R Su. 1004–5; etc.: Thomson on PV 590–1 (his 614–15), Barrett on E. Hipp. 525–6 and 530–4.

¹⁹⁰ The slaughtering must come later; why nakedness?; etc. (see Lloyd-Jones, in CR ii [1952] 135–8;Google Scholar he suggests the robe hanging down to the ground). The objection to the robe might be avoided also by the view of Sourvinou, C. (CQ xxi [1971] 339–42)CrossRefGoogle Scholar that there is a reference to a (hypothetical) ritual derobing at the ἄρκτεια. But the άνακαλυπτήρια (enforced perhaps by the gagging) makes more sense in the context, and unlike derobing would be consistent with Maas' view of πέπλοισι περιπετῆ and προνωπῆ (233–4; CQ i [1951] 94)Google Scholar.

¹⁹¹ A. Eum. 214 (cf. Ag. 973; Salviat, F. in BCH lxxxiv [1946] 647–54)Google Scholar; Plut. Mot. 264b; D.S. v 73; Men. Rhet. 407.7; Ps. D.H. Epid. 262 Radermacher; cf. also 11. 94 above and n. 192 below. Cf. E. Hel. 1120–1 Πάρις αỉνόγαμοις πομπαῖσιν ̉Αφροδίτας.

¹⁹² See nn. 114–16 above.

¹⁹³ Cf. Pi. Pyth. 9.66 τερπνὰν γάμου κραίνειν τελευτἁν; A. Su. 138–40 (The Danaids:) τελυτάς δ̉ ἐν χρόνωι πατὴρ ό πανόπτας πρευμενεῖς κτίσειεν (cf. 1050–53); E. Phaeth. 100 (hymenaial) θεὸς ἔδωκε, χρόνος ἔκρανε λέχος, su. 1008 εί δαίμων τάδε κραίνοι (see §7). At A. Ag. 701 we should read Headlam's ἤνυσεν (see Thomson ad loc).

¹⁹⁴ See ad loc. Fraenkel, also Denniston-Pagc; also E. Hec. 948–9 (see §12).

¹⁹⁵ For the critical principle involved see n. 169 above. Note also Fraenkcl's remark (ad Ag. 1278): ‘Everything is compressed, hinting … rather than describing fully. Time and again in Aeschylus, above all in the Oresteia, do we encounter this “parodying” of sacred rites.’

¹⁹⁶ See nn. 82–90 above.

¹⁹⁷ Cf. E. Med. 1388 πικράς τελευτάς τῶν ἐμῶν γάμων ỉδών. The point is that τελευτά, like τέλος, can refer both to marriage and death: n. 166 above; E. Med. 153; cf. e.g. Artemid. Oneir. ii 49.

¹⁹⁸ Seaford (n. 23) 248.

¹⁹⁹ E.g. Sappho frr. 108, 110, 111, 112, 115, 116; Ar. Pax 1349–50; E. Ale. 920–1; Theocr. 18.19–38, 49; Men. Rhet. 402.22–404.14; Gregor. Naz. PG xxxvii 1493–5.

²⁰⁰ Il. xxiv 725, 748, 762; A. Ag. 315; E. Tro. 1167–72; Sappho frr. 108, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117; Ar. Pax 1344–6; Catull. 62.59; etc.

²⁰¹ Cf. the same irony at A. Ag. 1440–1 (quoted below, §10) and Bion 1.70; cf. e.g. A. Cho. 318; E. Hel. 1261; and in general Seaford (n. 23) 251 (on Ag. 1116); also perhaps the sepulchral AP vii 649 Ἀντί τοι εὐλεχέος θαλάμου…

²⁰² See above §4 and nn 6l–4.

²⁰³ Sept. 583; cf. e.g. S. Trach. 259, OC 525; cf. E. Pho. 580–2.

²⁰⁴ Emphasised by Men. Rhet. 404.27, 407.9, 23; Catull. 61.214–18; cf. Theocr. 18.21, 50–53; Sidon. Apoll. Carm. 15.191; Ps. D.H. Epid. 266. Cf. also Hes. Op. 235 and West ad loc. (add. Pl. Crit. 112c and Plut. Mor. 824c).

²⁰⁵ Cf. also Men. Rhet. 400.18–20, 406.22–4; on the origin of this style in ritual formulae see Thomson, G. in JHS lxxiii (1953) 82–3;Google Scholarcf. esp. Zenob. Prov. iii 98.

²⁰⁶ Jebb compares Klyt. as ἀλάστωρ at A. Ag. 1501. We of course think of Helen as Ἐρινύς at 737–49.

²⁰⁷ E.g. Men. Rhet. 404–20, 407.19, 411.13.

²⁰⁸ This bloody reunion is envisaged as a grotesque marriage by Aeschylus (see §10).

²⁰⁹ Cf. esp. 78 lines later τὸν αὐτοφόντην ἡμἱν ἐν κοίτηι παταρὸς / ξὺν τῆι ταλαίνηι μητρί; also S. Trach. 922; etc. (LSJ).

²¹⁰ Schol. Ar. Thesm. 973; D.S. 5.73; Plut. Mor. 264b; cf. esp. A. Eum. 214; in general see Salviat, F. in BCH lxxxiv (1946), 647–54,Google Scholar who sees a ref. to marriage in Ag. 973, but regards the point as being that Zeus in his association with marriage is the right deity to pursue a wicked father or husband. See also Lebeck (n. 175) 68–73.

²¹¹ Cf. Seaford (n. 23) 251.

²¹² See LSJ s.v. ‘τέλειος’ 2.b, and esp. Paus. Gr. fr. 306 τέλειοι οἱ γεγαμηκότες; add A. Su. 80, and cf. A. fr. 44.7.

²¹³ I suspect that she appeared wrapped with Ag. in the fatal cloth (1492, 1580), and therefore huddled in the bath (1540), which is described as a bed on the ground (χάμευνα, 1540).

²¹⁴ To the defence of ἱστοτρίβης (with an erotic sense) by Young, Douglas (in CQ xiv [1964] 15)Google Scholar add A. Su. 1042 τρίβοι τ' ἐρώντων (τρίβοι in an erotic sense, I believe, and a hymenaial context: §4).

²¹⁵ Note the stress on the paternal home left behind at 1277 βωμοῦ πατρώιου δ' ἀντ' ἐπίξηνον μένει (and cf. ἀμμένει referring to hymenaial consummation at S. Trach. 528; E. Cyc. 514 with Seaford ad loc).

²¹⁶ I find the suggestion that ‘the arrival of Agamemnon and Cassandra like a bride and groom at the door when Clytemnestra stands waiting to welcome her husband home has a blatant irony’ made independently by Ian Jenkins [n. 3] 138) on the basis of the fact that ‘Agamemnon’s arrival at the palace on a chariot with Cassandra by his side, and Clytemnestra waiting to greet them, corresponds pictorially with the vasepainter's formula for the arrival of bride and groom.’ He refers to Taplin, O., The stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford 1977) 302–6,Google Scholar who successfully argues that Ag. and Kass. were in the same chariot.

²¹⁷ Cf. above nn. 3, 82–92.

²¹⁸ Cf. above nn. 4, 68–9.

²¹⁹ Schol. E. Pho. 344; Jenkins (n. 3) continues ‘The position of Clytemnestra at the doorway of the house is that occupied by the groom's mother in the vase scenes of bride-fetching.’

²²⁰ The bride had a special seat in the chariot: Hsch. s.v. ‘κλινίς’; Poll, x 33, 52.22.

²²¹ 1052 ἔσω φρένων λέγουσα πείθω νιν λόγωι, 1049, 1054. Cf. persuasion in the wedding: §4 and n. 94.

²²² 1048, 1063, 1066, 1071; Cf. §4 and n. 58.

²²³ See §9a, §9c, and n. 198.

²²⁴ 445 ἐς Ἄιδου νυμφίωι γημώμεθα; Cf. A. Ag. 1291 Ἄιδου πύλας δὲ άσδ' ἐγώ προσεννέπω.

²²⁵ 449; Cf. the possibly ambiguous τὸν πεπρωμένον εὐνᾶι πόσιν ἐμέθεν (340–1): Cf. Seaford (n. 23) 250–1.

²²⁶ 312–13; cf. 311, 327, 336, 366; cf. n. 5 above.

²²⁷ 311, 356–62, etc.; also at other Argive and Greek sufferings: 363 ff.

²²⁸ 308, 320; cf. e.g. E. Phoen. 344–6, IA 732. So far as I know the bride never carries a torch in vase-painting.

²²⁹ 344 λυγρὰ…φλόγα, 348; with λυγράν cf. e.g. Med. 399 λυγροὺς θήσω γάμους, HF 1376 λυγραὶ φιληάτων τέρψεις, Su. 70 λυγρὰ μέλη.

²³⁰ e.g. AP vii 185 (sepulchral): πῦρ ἕτερον σπεύδουσα.

²³¹ ἀνολολυξάτω Burges; -ξετε LRAUY: -ξατε KZg.

²³² (n. 23).

²³³ cf. Theocr. 18.25–8; Sappho fr. 34V.

²³⁴ 546, 843, 857, 894; with 536 ἐӡευγμέην cf. E. Hipp. 544–54 (Iole as a filly yoked by Herakles in marriage).

²³⁵ For praise of the bride (usually for beauty) see n. 202.

²³⁶ See in detail Seaford (n. 33).

²³⁷ προσορᾶν generally refers to actual seeing; the only possible exception in Soph, is at OC 142. Cf. Trach. 1139 ὡς προσεῑδε τοὺς ἔνδον γάμους.

²³⁸ nn. 114–16.

²³⁹ 545–54: τὰν μὲν Οἰχαλίαι πῶλον ἄӡυγα λέκτρων, ἄνανδρον τὸ πρὶν καὶ ἄνυμφον, οἴκων ӡύξασ' ἀπ' Εὐρυτίων δρομάδα ναίδ' ὅπως τε βάκχαν σὺν αἵματι, σὺν καπνῶι, φονίοσι νυμφείοις Ἀλκμήνας τόκωι Κύπρις ἐξέδωκεν. ὦ τλάμων ὑμεναίων. Cf. n. 58 (yoking) and, on the bride as maenad, E. Su. 1000–01 (§7) and Tro. 307, 342, etc. (§10).

²⁴⁰ This is the mss. reading (Cf. ἀδαιδούχητος of clandestine marriage). ἁ νέορτος is generally printed.

²⁴¹ Sappho fr. 44 (composed perhaps to celebrate a real wedding).

²⁴² The text is here disputed (I give the main mss. tradition), with suggestions including ἀρτιτρόφοις, ἀρτιτρόπων, and ὠμοδρόποις. But this does not affect my point.

²⁴³ The sense of εἰρεσίαι μαστῶν is disputed (see Lee, K. H. in Philologus cxvii [1973] 246Google Scholar ff.); but this does not affect my point.

²⁴⁴ In particular Cf. ὄχοις… πορθμευομένην with ὄχοις…ἐπόρθμευσας at E. IT 370–1.

²⁴⁵ On the bridal journey imagined as to Hades see Jenkins (n. 3).

²⁴⁶ Cf. Andr. 98 (quoted above) and 178; also n. 58 above.