¹ This study continues a line of investigation from my ‘Studies in the Use of Myth in Sophocles' Philoctetes and the Orestes of Euripides,’ Traditio 32 (1976) 29–95. In the first part of this study I examined the unusual nature of Sophocles' portrait of Neoptolemus and suggested that the dramatist's portrait of this character was shaped in no small part by his evocation of the figure of Telemachus from the Odyssey; in the second part of that essay I proposed that in the following year Euripides responded to Sophocles' reaffirmation of traditional heroic ideals with the devastating portrait of heroism run amok in the Orestes. I believe that at the heart of Euripides' criticism was his objection to Sophocles' neglect of the validity of social parameters in determining the proper limits of heroic conduct. In pointed contrast to the Philoctetes where heroism is defined in terms of loneliness, pain, and isolation, the Orestes takes place in a developed social context in which the traditional demands and obligations of individual, family, and the body politic are examined in a most searching manner. The present study considers both the significance of the references to the realm of traditional myth in their own right and how they contribute to our understanding of the Orestes' social and political dimensions.Google Scholar

In addition to the standard sigla, the following will be used:

AJP American Journal of Philology

CJ Classical Journal

CQ Classical Quarterly

G&R Greece and Rome

GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies

HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

JCS Journal of Classical Studies: The Journal of the Classical Society of Japan.

RFIC Revista di filologia e di instruzione classica

SIFC Studi Italiana di filologia classica

SO Symbolae Osloenses

TAPA Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association

WS Wiener Studien

YCS Yale Classical Studies

² On the earlier popularity of the Orestes see Paley, F. A., Euripides (London 1860) III 224–29.Google Scholar

³ Mullens, H. G. ‘The Moaning of Euripides’ Orestes,' CQ 34 (1950) 153–58; Lesky, A., ‘Zum Orestes des Euripides.’ WS 53 (1935) 37–47; Krieg, W., De Euripidis Oreste (Halle 1931).Google Scholar

⁴ An important study of character portrayal in the drama is Biehl's, W. ‘Zur Darstellung des Menschen in Euripides' Orestes,’ Helikon 8 (1968) 197–221.Google Scholar

⁵ Doubts about the seriousness of Euripides' intent are attested as early as the second ancient hypothesis to the play and often have been reflected by modern commentators. See Wedd, N., The Orestes of Euripides (Cambridge 1895) xi–xiv, and Lucas, D. AY., The Greek Tragic Poets ² (New York 1964) 191, who parallel the drama to the Alcestis and consider both dramas as substitutes for a satyric drama. Another common approach, reflected in Kitto's, H. D. F. Greek Tragedy ³ (London 1961). is to classify the drama as a melodrama that aims more for dramatic effect than profound tragic intent.Google Scholar

⁶ Certain elements of this approach to Euripides were employed by Verrall, A. W. in his studies of Euripides at the turn of the century; see Arrowsmith's, W. A. comments on Verrall in his ‘The Comedy of T. S. Eliot,’ English Stage Comedy, ed. Wimsatt, W. K. Jr. (New York 1955) 148–72, and his general comments on Euripidean dramaturgy, ‘A Greek Theater of Ideas,’ Avion 2.3 (1963) 32–56. Other general studies of this temper which are useful to consult when considering the Orestes are: Chapouthier, F., ‘Euripide et l'accucil du divin,’ La Notion du divin, Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique I (Vandœuvres–Geneva 1954) 205–26; Kamerbeek, J. C., ‘Mythe et réalité dans l'œuvre d'Euripide,’ Euripide, Entretiens sur l'antiquté classique VI (Vandœuvres–Geneva 1960) 1–41. The variety of elements in Euripides' plays is stressed in Conacher's, D. J. Euripidean Drama (Toronto 1967). Strohm's, H. Euripides, Zetemata 15 (Munich 1957), and Burnett's, A. P. Catastrophe Survived (Oxford 1971) offer important studies of Euripides' structural patterns and combinations of various plot types. On the experimental manner in which Euripides combined various elements in his dramas see Winnington-Ingram, R. P., ‘Euripides: Poiêtês Sophos,’ Arethusa 2 (1969) 127–42, and Arnott's, G. ‘Euripides and the Unexpected,’ G&R 20 (1973) 49–64. See also Solmsen's, F. Intellectual Experiments of the Greek Enlightenment (Princeton 1976). Although this study does not offer extended interpretations of Euripides' dramas, it does offer invaluable information on the manner in which the playwright employed and developed the new ideas and techniques of the period. 1 am deeply indebted to Solmsen's discussion of persuasion, Utopian wishes, and empirical psychology (Chaps. II, III, V). On this last topic see also Lesky's, A. ‘Psychologie bei Euripides,’ Euripide, Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique VI (Vandœuvres–Geneva 1960) 125–68, and ‘Zur Problematik des Psychologischen in der Tragödie des Euripides,’ Gymnasium 67 (1960) 10–26.Google Scholar

⁷ In addition to the works of Burnett, Conacher, Kamerbeek, and Lucas cited above, see Parry, H., ‘Euripides' Orestes: The Quest for Salvation,’ TAPA 100 (1969) 337–53, and Wolff, C., ‘Orestes,’ Euripides , ed. Segal, E. (Englewood Cliffs 1968) 132–49, for extended studies of the play from this perspective.Google Scholar

⁸ Lucas (above, n. 5), for example, believes that Euripides' treatment is to reveal the ‘bizarre loathsomeness’ (191) of the myth, and both Tarry and Wolff (above, n. 7) stress the rift between appearance and reality in the play. This last motif has been stressed by Barlow, S. A., The Imagery of Euripides (London 1971) 82–83, and Jones, J., On Aristotle and Greek Tragedy (London 1962) 259. Kamerbeek (above, n. 6) stresses in particular the antinomy between psychological realism and presentation of myth. Other scholars, such as Whitman, C. H., Euripides and the Full Circle of Myth (Cambridge 1974), have felt that the dramatist achieved a limited accord with his mythical subjects.Google Scholar

⁹ See D'Arms, E. F. and Hulley, K. K., ‘The Oresteia-Story in the Odyssey,’ TAPA 77 (1946) 207–13, for a good, general statement of the significance of this motif in the epic. Rose, G. P. ‘The Quest of Telemachus.’ TAPA 98 (1967) 391–98, stresses the importance of the revenge motif epitomized by Orestes' actions in the epic and Wolff (above, n. 7) has emphasized this element in the Orestes. Google Scholar

¹⁰ Kirk, G. S., The Nature of Greek Myths (Woodstock 1975) Chap. 12; ‘Aetiology, Ritual, Charter: Three Equivocal Terms in the Study of Myth,’ YCS 22 (1972) 83–102. These studies are important supplements to the author's Sather Lectures, Myth: Its Meaning and Function in Ancient and Other Cultures (Berkeley and London 1970).Google Scholar

¹¹ Both Arnott and Winnington-Ingram (above, n. 6) offer excellent comments on Euripides' ingenuity in the Orestes. Google Scholar

¹² On Euripides' concept of law in the Orestes see Wedd (above, n. 5) xxx–xxxiii, Steiger, H., Euripides (Leipzig 1912) 32–33, and Lanza, D. ΝNόμος et ισον in Euripide,' RFIC 41 (1963) 416–39.Google Scholar

¹³ Commenting on Euripides' use of small farmers in the Electra, Orestes, and Bacchae, Lesky, A., Greek Tragedy, trans. Frankfort, H. A. (London and New York 1965) observes: ‘Here we see the dissolution of the polis in yet another form: the city as the educator of the right type of man has become questionable; it is contrasted with the country, where goodness still prevails’ (172). Although it is quite clear that Euripides increasingly doubted the validity of the norms implied by civic life, his attitude was in marked contrast to Sophocles who, as Knox, B. M. W., The Heroic Temper (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1964) Chaps. I–II, has shown, consistently portrayed them as anathema to his central figures.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The most telling index of the conspirators' degradation is provided by the dramatist's use of animal motifs in the drama; see Boulter's, P. N. ‘The Theme of’ APIA in Euripides' Orestes,' Phoenix 16 (1902) 102–106. On the tension between animal and civilized behavior see Segal's, C. ‘The Raw and the Cooked in Greek Literature,’ CJ 69 (1974) 289–308.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Greenberg, N. A., ‘Euripides' Orestes, An Interpretation,’ HSCP 66 (1962) 157–92. The three incidents Greenberg singles out are the significance of the bow Apollo gave to Orestes to ward off the Furies, the appearance of Glaucus to Menelaus, and the disappearance of Helen.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Verrall, A. W., Essays on Four Plays of Euripides (Cambridge 1905) 263, 216. Such an attitude toward the Chorus reflects quite clearly Verrall's belief that Euripides wrote for two audiences, an intelligent coterie which would comprehend the ‘real’ meaning of his plays and the general public which would be satisfied by the façade. Vellacott, P. W., Ironic Drama (Cambridge 1975). maintains much the same stance and uses an analysis of the Orestes (Chap. 3) for a full–scale demonstration of what he considers Euripides' use of irony as hisbasic mode of dramatic expression.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Kitto, (above, n. 5) 343.Google Scholar

¹⁸ A number of passages are commonly cited in connection with this belief; the relevance of the ‘Achilles ode’ in the Electro. (432–86) has especially troubled the critics. Barlow, (above, n. 8) 21, cf. 132, 138, reiterates many of the standard charges when she states that the ode is not connected with the main themes of the drama. See, however, O'Brien's, M. J. ‘Orestes and the Gorgon: Euripides' Electra,’ AJP 85 (1964) 13–39, for a convincing analysis of the manner in which the ode is connected. O'Brien's analysis is supplemented in a useful and suggestive manner by Kubo's, M. ‘The Norm of Myth: Euripides' Electra,’ HSCP 71 (1965) 15–31.Google Scholar

¹⁹ von Fritz, K., ‘Die Orestessage bei den drei grossen griechischen Tragikern,’ Antike and moderne Tragödie (Berlin 1962) 113–59. On the manner in which Euripides criticized the Aeschylean theodicy see Burnett (above, n. 6) 211–13. As I have discussed in my other study (above, n. 1) 81–83, one of the major avenues of Euripides' criticism of Sophocles is to be found in his employment of the φύσις theme. This motif, which is prominent in all Sophoclean drama and especially the Philoctetes, serves as an important index of the dramatist's convictions about heroic integrity. In the Orestes, as in the Electra a few years before, Euripides attacks Sophocles' use of this theme. In the Orestes the φύσις of the three conspirators proves to be not a guarantee of heroic potential but an indication of their proclivity for pride, self–deception, and finally bestial behavior.Google Scholar

²⁰ Greenberg (above, n. 15), developing a suggestion by Perrotta, G., ‘Studi Euripidei, II & III,’ SIFC 6 (1928) 89–138, believes that the Orestes should be seen as ‘a retelling of the Orestes story in which the murder of Clytemnaestra is repeated in the attempted murder of Helen’ (160). For Greenberg, , ‘The central irony of the play, drawn with telling artistry, is that the same killers who claim that the fault is solely Apollo's can bring themselves to commit a most similar murder without that excuse’ (162). A number of Greenberg's conclusions have been further developed by Rawson, E., ‘Aspects of Euripides’ Orestes,' Arethusa 5 (1972) 157–67. A similar thesis was advanced by Steiger, H., Wie entstand der Orestes des Euripides ? (Augsburg 1898) who stressed the analogies between the last part of the Orestes with Sophocles' Electra and the latter's presentation of the deaths of Clytemnaestra and Aegisthus (cf. 20–24). Krieg (above, n. 3) considered the attack on Helen a noble effort (cf. 22–23), and, although Lesky (above, n. 3) does not share Krieg's warm opinion of the conspirators, he considers their attempts heroic because of the dreadful situation in which they are placed.Google Scholar

²¹ In my comments on the play I have been greatly aided by di Benedetto's, V. edition, Euripidis Orestes (Florence 1965) and Biehl's, W. extensive commentary, Euripides, Orestes (Berlin 1965).Google Scholar

²² This pattern of associations which continues throughout the play is a clear-cut example of what Solmsen (above, n. 6, Chap. III) terms a ‘utopian’ wish or thought. As Solmsen has shown, this habit of thought, which can be in the form of either a simple wish or a demand for impossible change, was a natural product of Greek interest in first causes and was quite germane to the Greek enlightenment and its questioning of traditional values. Euripides often traces events in his dramas back to the remote mythical past in order to develop the contrast of ideal and possible. It is also important to recognize that this contrast between past and present offers not only a context against which present events can be judged but also one in which the action is set and intimately related. This combination of continuity and contrast is fully exploited in the Orestes. Google Scholar

²³ On the sickness theme see Smith, W. D., ‘Disease in Euripides’ Orestes,' Hermes 95 (1967) 291–307. Smith develops in considerable detail Boulter's observation that ‘Orestes’ νόσος may imply moral as well as physical sickness' (above, n. 14, 103; cf. di Benedetto [above, n. 21] on Or. 831–32). For Smith sickness in the Orestes is ‘a metaphor for the moral condition that confounds good and evil’ (291). Smith examines Euripides' extensive use of medical terminology and believes the notion of morbidity is ‘extended to include the family, society, and perhaps the human condition’ (301) and Orestes' illness culminates in a paranoia which is ‘not the destruction but the dislocation of the mind’ (306). In a similar manner the other major themes of the play are also related to mythical archetypes. The φύσις motif (above, n. 19) is used to stress the ‘physical’ continuity of the conspirators with their ancestors, animal imagery is used to characterize not only their behavior in the present but also events in the past, and the contest or ὰγών theme I have discussed in detail before (above, n. 1), 83–88, is employed to establish the contrast between heroic conduct and ‘modern’ legal procedure, to parallel the conspirators' attitude and behavior with events of the remote past, and, in particular, to establish Pelops' treacherous conduct in the race by which he came to power. In this way past and present are linked by both direct reference and imaginistic associations.Google Scholar

²⁴ It should be noted that at the same time Electra parallels these various sequences of events from different generations, she also expresses doubts about their propriety (cf. Or. 4 5, 11, 17, 26–27); in this way the ambiguity of the present situation is seen as having its analogues in the past.Google Scholar

²⁵ The opening of Or. 46 coupled with the infinitive constructions of the following lines appear to be a deliberate echo of the common Athenian legislative formula so familiar from inscriptions. This reference to the contemporary scene balances one of Orestes expressed in terms of horse imagery (Or. 44–45) which may have been intended to evoke Pelops' race.Google Scholar

²⁶ Hourmouziades, N. C., Production and Imagination in Euripides (Athens 1965), offers a number of suggestive comments on the staging of the play and the manner in which the dramatist links stage effects with the thematic structure. See also the works of Arnott and Winnington-Ingram cited before (above, n. 6). The concern Electra voices for the house (and by implication its mythological heritage) is shared by the other characters as well. Menelaus' first words are addressed to the house (Or. 356–57) and much of his dismay at the close comes from Orestes' firing of the palace (I do not share Seeck's, G. A. conviction, ‘Ranch im Orestes des Euripides,’ Hermes 97 [1969] 9–22, that these references should be excised). Tyndareus also displays a keen sense of the house and the implications of its past history.Google Scholar

²⁷ Although I concur with Vellacott's assessment of the importance of Helen in the drama, I do not share his positive view of her (or Menelaus') character (above, n. 16, 58–67 and Chap. 5). While Vellacott believes that both attempt to perform as well as possible under the circumstances, I feel that both display excessive caution and self-interest. A significant index of Helen's character is the manner in which she asks Electra to carry libations to Clytemnaestra's tomb but expresses doubts about the propriety of Hermione's doing so (cf. Or. 92–125). This passage also reveals her keen awareness of the Argive's resentment over her role in the Trojan War (cf. Electra, , Or. 127–31 and Orestes, , Or. 247–48). The narrowness she displays in this scene does not, in my opinion, warrant Vellacott's positive view, nor do I share his feeling that this figure represents in Euripidean drama ‘one symptom of the bad conscience of Greek society over its oppression of woman’ (151) or ‘a symbol of eternal beauty surviving in a world controlled by unwise and angry men’ (152). In the Orestes Helen's conduct directly anticipates that of Menelaus to Orestes. Both regard Apollo's mandate in a similar manner (Or. 75–76. cf. 413–18) and Menelaus' awareness of political realities and desire to turn Orestes' predicament to his own advantage are a reflection of Helen's desires turned into explicit actions.Google Scholar

²⁸ On the significance of this scene with the bow see Greenberg (above, n. 15) 164–65; whether actually on the stage or not the bow is a symbol of Orestes' divine role and the moral problems it poses for him as an individual.Google Scholar

²⁹ The manner in which Orestes' description of Apollo's role echoes Electra's initial description of Clytemnaestra's murder (Or. 285–80; cf. 24) is another instance of the way in which Euripides establishes the moral ambiguity of Orestes' acts; as if to ensure that the point would not be missed, it is reiterated in the contrast of λόγος and ἔϱγον in the following line (287).Google Scholar

³⁰ Speaking of Orestes' madness Barlow (above, n. 8) states: ‘Electra's descriptions are graphic but clinically precise, those of the chorus decorative with elements of fantasy. Both styles are necessary to present a contrast between old and new beliefs, and to allow an assessment of new in light of the old’ (121). Although I concur with Barlow's description of the antinomy between the realms of traditional myth and present reality, I do not share her assessment of the Chorus as simply decorative. Instead the Chorus projects the current events into terms characteristic of the remote past in a ‘utopian’ (above, n. 22) manner. The ode thus recreates the present in terms of the past in much the same way as Padel, R., ‘Imagery of the Elsewhere: Two Choral Odes of Euripides,’ CQ 24 (1974) 227–41, has shown that Hipp. 732–75 and Helen 1451–1511 mirror the action of those plays.Google Scholar

³¹ The divine dimension to Orestes' madness is suggested quite strongly by the use of such terms as ἀναβαϰχεύει (Or. 338) and its parallels throughout the play to describe Orestes' affliction. Although the language is highly traditional, Euripides employs it with good effect to delineate the parallelism and contrast between the human and divine aspects of Orestes' experience.Google Scholar

³² As di Benedetto (above, n. 21) observes on Or. 352, the last expression appears to be a clear echo of Aeschylus, , Aga. 45; possibly Euripides intended by the use of this term to echo his predecessor's misgivings about the Trojan War in that play.Google Scholar

³³ The manner is which the dramatist calls attention to the anomalies of his own treatment is an excellent example of what Winnington-Ingram (above, n. 6) has termed the poet's wit and sophistication.Google Scholar

³⁴ As I have discussed in my earlier study (above, n. 1) 71–76, the figure of Tyndareus represents the external pressures of society on Orestes while Menelaus and, to a lesser extent, Helen encapsulate the effect of the stresses from within the context of the family. A very convenient, balanced appraisal of Tyndareus is offered by Will's, F. ‘Tyndareus in the Orestes,’ SO 37 (1961) 96–99.Google Scholar

³⁵ See Greenberg, (above, n. 15) 165, 167.Google Scholar

³⁶ Rodgers, V. A., ‘ and the Expression of Conscience,’ GRBS 10 (1969) 241–54. Rodgers has shown how difficult it is to equate σύνεσις with any of the English meanings of ‘conscience.’ Rodgers parallels the word with the verbal expression and shows that it refers primarily to Orestes' consciousness of what he has done: ‘What he [Orestes] is conscious of is the full horror of the deed, a feeling which need have nothing to do with awareness of culpability or moral guilt’ (250). A similar analysis of the term is offered by Tange, K., ‘An Essay on Euripides’ Orestes: σύνεσις and φιλία,' JCS 20 (1972) 60–69, English summary 183–84. Smith (above, n. 23) believes that oxymoron is involved and σύνεσις here is equivalent to νόσος (297), but, while this association is developed in the conspirators' plot and its execution, I do not believe it is present at this juncture.Google Scholar

³⁷ Greenberg, (above, n. 15) sees σοφία as Menelaus' chief characteristic (168) and analyzes the play in terms of the contrast this quality offers with the demands of φιλία centered upon the figure of Orestes. Rawson (above, n. 20) develops a number of Greenberg's conclusions and suggests that Euripides' portrait of φιλία refers not just to the traditional aristocratic concept but also forms an indictment of the political φιλία which had caused so much trouble on the contemporary Athenian scene. Menelaus in the Orestes bears little resemblance to his Homeric prototype; he lacks both the stubborn courage of the Iliadic warrior and the gentle sagacity of the Telemacheia. Instead he seems a caricature of the traditional aristocratic mentality painfully adapting to the new realities of political life, and, while he prides himself on his σοφία, his discretion at the expense of family ties, epitomized by the use of εὐλαβέοεαι to describe his actions (Or. 698–701, 748, 1058–59), is an almost equally important characteristic. On Orestes' appeal to Menelaus see Solmsen's (above, n. 6) valuable comments, 59–60. The ‘traditional’ nature of Orestes' plea that family ties have priority over those of society at large anticipates the ‘heroic’ course of action Orestes will take later in the play.Google Scholar

³⁸ The manner in which Orestes appeals for public approval anticipates not only his, defense before the Argive court but also serves as another hint of his forthcoming ‘heroic’ course of action.Google Scholar

³⁹ This encounter is an excellent example of Euripides' use of an ἀγών scene which, because of the Influence the courts and their procedures exercised on Attic drama, became a regular feature of the Attic stage. Both Duchemin, J., L'AΓΩN dans la tragédie grecque (Paris 1945) and Strohm, (above, n. 6, Pt. I), describe the many variations of the basic pattern found in both Sophocles and Euripides. Strohm, in particular, stresses the important role this type of scene plays in the Orestes and how it is used to delineate the characters and their fundamental differences.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Orestes' stance is in some ways as irrelevant to the basic facts of his predicament as Hippolytus' tirade against women (Hipp. 616–68) or attitude toward Theseus are in that play; both Hppolytus and Orestes try to appear what they are not and are hopelessly compromised in the process.Google Scholar

⁴¹ On the use of the salvation theme in the Orestes see Parry's analysis of the play from this perspective (above, n. 7) and Boulter's observations (above, n. 14), 105–06, on how it is linked with the play's animal imagery. See also Strohm (above, n. 6) 87, Krieg (above, n. 3) 43–47, and Spira, A., Untersuchungen zum Deus ex machina bei Sophokles and Euripides (Kallmünz 1960) 141–45. It is important to recognize that Pylades, as well as Orestes, has become a pariah because of the murder of Clytemnaestra (cf. Or. 763–68).Google Scholar

⁴² The story of the golden lamb was frequently used by Euripides to epitomize the strife in the house of Atreus; cf. Or. 812–18, 995–1012, El. 699–746, I. T. 189–202, 811–13.Google Scholar

⁴³ This passage also stresses the mental nature of Orestes' illness emphasized in Smith's study (above, n. 23); see also di Benedetto (above, n. 21) on Or. 831–32.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cf. Grube, G. M. A., The Drama of Euripides (London 1941, 1961), who says of the ode: ‘The subject is relevant in a general way, but the whole song is rather colourless’ (388).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ The Messenger's description of the trial (Or. 866 956), however, makes it appear a questionable gathering in which the outcome had been decided before the ease was even heard. In absolute terms the advent of legal process represents an advance over tribal or familial forms of justice, but Orestes' conviction at this particular tribunal makes it appear a rather dubious one which is potentially as vindictive as its predecessor. The trial seems to have been more of an opportunity for the display of personal animosities, prejudices, and venality than an exercise of a more advanced system than blood justice. The pointed references to Tyndareus' spiteful conduct and Menelaus' desire for the throne echo in an ironic. manner their conduct in the preceding episode. This portrait of Orestes' trial has often been seen as an indictment on Euripides' part of the contemporary Athenian legal scene; see Rawson, (above, n. 20) 161, Wolff, (above, n. 7) 133, and Melchinger, S., trans. Rosenbaum, S. R., Euripides (New York 1973), who believes that ‘Euripides’ purpose in presenting a suit by the people of Argos against Orestes was to point up the way the administration of justice in Athens was abused by those who had political power' (34). Other scholars have considered Euripides' concern over the contemporary scene in more general terms; see Paley, (above, n. 2) 228–29, Wedd, (above, n. 5) xxxiii–xxxvii, and Vellacott, (above, n. 16) who sees Orestes' sickness as that of the Athenian state after twenty-three years of war (54) and believes ‘Orestes is not merely Athens, but a whole war-crazed generation of Hellenes’ (74). Ebener, D., ‘Zum Schluss des Orestes,’ Eirene 5 (1966) 43–49, also stresses how the play relates to the contemporary scene and believes that Euripides is making an appeal for peace by showing what hatred and violence must lead to. A less positive perspective is taken by Scarcella, A. M., ‘Letture Euripidee: L'Oreste” et il probleme dell'unità,’ Dionisio 19 (1956) 266–76, who sets the play dominated by ‘un pessimismo senza soluzione’ (272).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ This passage is the clearest example in the play of Euripides' use of utopian thought as described by Solmsen, (above, n. 22, Chap. III).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ This is clear from both the acts themselves and the imagery used to describe them (above, n. 19); perhaps the most telling strands are in Euripides' use of the ἀγών motif and the animal imagery of the closing scenes. On the latter in addition to Boulter (above, n. 14) see Parry, (above, n. 7) 340.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ On the manner in which these passages both echo the parallel scene in the Choephoroe and are in marked contrast with the Aeschylean theodicy see Burnett (above, n. 6) 210–12; as Burnett observes, Orestes in this play bears an uncomfortable resemblance to Clytemnaestra in the Agamemnon. These echoes of Aeschylus are another reminder of the traditional myth.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ On the effective manner in which Euripides creates suspense by delaying Hermione's return and knowledge of the outcome of the attack on Helen see Arnott, (above, n. 6) 52–53, 56–59.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Bacon, H., Barbarians in Greek Tragedy (New Haven 1961) 118; as Bacon observes, although the Phrygian eunuch is an incidental character, he is the most carefully depicted foreigner in Euripidean tragedy (cf. 146–47, 153).Google Scholar

⁵¹ The lion imagery echoes the earlier description of Orestes and Pylades proceeding to the trial (Or. 846–47) and anticipates Menelaus' horrified description of the pair as ‘twin lions; I cannot call them men’ (Or. 1555).Google Scholar

⁵² The interchange between Orestes and the Phrygian in Or. 1522–24 offers a telling comment on Orestes' efforts. As noted before (above, n. 36) Orestes' use of σύÅεσις in the initial scene with Menelaus conveyed a sense of Orestes' comprehension of the horror of Clytemnaestra's murder. This awareness was questioned in the subsequent scene with Tyndareus (cf. his ironic use of ὰσυνετώτεοσ, Or. 493), and now σύνεσις refers simply to the Phrygian's natural desire for life. The interchange thus forms an ironic comment on both Orestes' earlier moral awareness and his present course of action.Google Scholar

⁵³ This passage, which serves as the antistrophe to Or. 1353–65, offers a structural indication that the scenes with the Phrygian and Menelaus are parallel. In the first we see the impact of Orestes' acts as viewed by someone who is outside of the immediate family and in the second we see it from a member of the house. The first song stressed events of the immediate mythical past and the second goes further back in time. In this way, as Euripides concentrates more and more on the personal implications of Orestes' acts in the scene with Menelaus, he also emphasizes how he carries the burden of the remote mythical past. This juxtaposition of past and present is similar to the manner in which Orestes' dilemma was delineated in the opening scenes.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ On the staging of this scene see Arnott (above, n. 6) 60.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ In making this assessment critics have stressed the description of Apollo's commands as ὰλαστόϱων…ὄπα (Or. 1669; cf. the problematic ά δύναμις †δι' ὰλαστόϱων in Or. 1546 quoted earlier); although the description is harsh, Euripides may well have intended it simply to reflect the moral ambiguity of Orestes' position as Apollo's agent. The sudden, extreme reversal of the situation and the characters' prompt espousal of it, may also be another echo of Sophocles' Philoctetes produced the year before.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Menelaus' attitude is similar to Cadmus' in the first episode of the Bacchae (see Winnington-Ingram, R. P., Euripides and Dionysus [Cambridge 1948] Chap. IV); both are very struck by the prestige conveyed by a new god in the family. This note is continued in Menelaus' pride over Orestes' and Hermione's good breeding (Or. 1676–7) which in light of the dramatist's earlier use of the φύσις theme (above n. 19) seems highly ironic.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Cf. Steidle, W., Studien zum antiken Drama , Studia et Testimonia Antiqua IV (Munich 1968) 96, who believes that the Orestes constitutes a direct continuation of the Electra without the appearance of the Dioscuroi.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cf. Barlow, (above, n. 8) Chap. II. Barlow stresses the manner in which Euripides creates a sense of the physical landscape; her discussion of landscapes of fantasy (35–42) has much in common with Solmsen's, (above, n. 6, Chap. III) observations on Euripides' use of Utopian wishes and thoughts and my comments on the dramatist's creation of a mythical landscape in the Orestes. My own views, however, are closer to those of Padel (above, n. 30) who stresses the manner in which references to the realm of myth in two odes of the Hippolytus and Helen are analogues to the dramas' action.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Burnett, (above, n. 6, cf. Strohm, , ibid.) stresses not only the variety of different forms of dramatic action but also how ‘each new peculiarity is insinuated with such skill that it is accepted before its eccentric nature has been recognized’ (184).Google Scholar