Is "Orestes" 1503-36 an Interpolation? GREDLEY, B Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1968; 9, 4; ProQuest pg. 409

Is Orestes 1503-36 an Interpolation? 
B. Gredley 

THE ENCOUNTER between Orestes and the Phrygian (Or. 1503-36) 
has been commonly recognized as one of the most remarkable 
scenes in Euripidean tragedy. Criticism of it by early scholar­

ship is embedded in the remarks of the scholia (cf 1.: ad 1512 &J)a~LCX 

Kat -rpaycpo{as Kat TijS 'Op~a-rov aVfLcpopas T<X AEyofLEva, and ad 1521 

Tav-ra KWfLLK<h-rEpa Ean Kat, 7TE~a), and it is presumably partly in 
reference to this scene that the pronouncement of Aristophanes is 
made (Hyp. 10) TO opafLa KWfLLKw-r~paJ) EXEL T~V Ka-raaTpocp~v. The re­
sponses of modern scholarship to the uneasiness evidently felt by 
some in antiquity have been various. l 

Griininger appears to have been one of the first commentators to 
examine the question of the authenticity of these verses (as a piece of 
evidence for the substantial reshaping of the text which he believed 
had taken place at the hands of actors), and, perhaps predictably, pro­
nounced against their genuineness. In more recent times, however, 
there seems to have been a marked movement of opinion in their 
favour; Page appears to mark the beginning of reaction to Griininger's 
position. His defence of 1506-36 (pp.44ff) has, as the result, the appear­
ance of a direct attempt to refute the arguments of his predecessor; 
by and large, it concerns itself with comparatively isolated difficulties 
in the scene, which are explained (or explained away) with varying 
degrees of success. What is absent from Page's analysis is any attempt 
to consider what may be the positive, thematic relationship of these 
verses to their context or the implications of certain of the scene's 
characteristics in juxtaposition to the dramatic conventions which 
Euripides is elsewhere agreed to have observed. 

Such general considerations have been the preoccupation of more 

1 Cf. e.g. A. Griininger, De Euripidis Oreste ab histrionibus retractata (diss. Basel 1894); 
D. L. Page, Actors' Interpolations in Greek Tragedy (Oxford 1934) 45-48; W. Biehl, Text­
probleme in Euripides Orestes (Gottingen 1955) 84-85; id., ed. Orestes (Berlin 1965); V. di 
Benedetto, ed. Orestes (Firenze 1965). Other works which have proved of assistance include 
P. Maas, Greek Metre, trans. H. Lloyd-Jones (Oxford 1962); T. B. L. Webster, The Tragedies of 
Euripides (London 1967). These works will be cited by author and page reference through­
out this essay and the following notes. 

409 



410 IS ORESTES 1503-36 AN INTERPOLATION? 

recent commentaries. The attitude of Biehl (Textprobleme 84) is typical: 
"Die Konfrontierung Or.s mit dem von Natur aus weit unter ihm 
stehenden Gegner enthalt innerhalb der Gesamthandlung wichtige 
dramat. Funktionen." Di Benedetto (ad 1506ff) persuasively explains 
the passage as a product of Euripides' desire < di ricercare sempre nuovi 
effeti di carattere spettacolare in questa ultima parte della tragedia." 
While discussion of these points of view will be best deferred, it is per­
haps worth noting that both these commentators feel obliged to offer, in 
the same way as Page, explanations of isolated inconsistencies in these 
verses, which seem to have diminished little as a result of their more 
abstract argumentation about the significance of the scene as a whole. 

It is therefore certain that any judgement of these verses must pro­
ceed from considerations not only of their internal coherence but also 
from their relationship to what precedes and follows them and to the 
conventions normally observed by Euripides. The two are perhaps 
inevitably separate, but it is from their cumulative weight that the 
authenticity of this passage can best be assessed. It is the principal in­
tention of what follows to suggest that there may be more solidity in 
the objections against its authenticity than has recently been allowed. 

It is Euripides' normal practice with ayy€Aot (unless they have some 
sort of independent status within the drama) to confine interest in 
them to the strict limits of their expository function and to hurry 
them off stage the moment their narrative is completed.2 There can 
scarcely be any doubt that Euripides has significantly extended his 
usual technique in composing the Phrygian's narrative in lyrics 
(rather than in the otherwise universal iambic trimeters), and what­
ever the reason for this singular innovation,3 it is clearly intended to 
be an elaboration of the normal form of a pfjULS ayydLK~. It is, how­
ever, hardly possible by the same reasoning to justify the retention on 
stage of the Phrygian after the completion of this speech for a humor­
ous dialogue with the enraged Orestes. Such a departure from the 
normal economy of Euripidean structure is, of course, not in itself any 

2 Account is here taken of such prima facie exceptions as He!. 7ooff, where the aYYEAo, is 
retained on stage after the end of his exposition (621). He emerges, however, in 700ff as a 
typical SOUAO, YEwaw" a class for which there are strict standards of treatment in Euripidean 
tragedy. His rhesis is so short as to make him scarcely an aYYEAo, at all, and it is to be won­
dered whether the Mss rightly designate him so. Cf the similar instance of the aYY£Aos in 
P/toen. l067ff, whom Wecklein renamed fl£pa7Twv. Page (p.45) does not, I think, take Euri­
pides' departure from his normal practice in the case of the Phrygian seriously enough. 

3 Cf P. Maas, p.53 §76, "Characters of low social standing (except the Phrygian in the 
Orestes) are never given lines in sung metres, but are given instead anapaests ... " 



B. GREDLEY 411 

grounds for suspecting the scene, but it is, perhaps, bound to stimulate 
a somewhat closer examination of the reason for its composition. 

The episode as a whole is clearly not intended to make any contri­
bution to the furtherance of the action; it forms a self-contained unit, 
the avowed purpose of which is to prevent the Phrygian calling for 
help from Menelaus (1510). This end is attained by forcing him back 
inside the palace. Undeniably then, the scene is meant to exploit 
further the comic possibilities inherent in the Phrygian and hinted at 
in his lyric narrative. This admission likewise provides no evidence 
against the authenticity of the dialogue, although a precise parallel in 
Euripides to an episode so completely separate from the main thread 
of the mythos does not readily come to mind.4 If, however, the scene 
can be shown to be actually at variance with the substance of the plot 
and detrimental to its smooth progress, suspicion will, perhaps, be 
justified. 

It will be useful first to look at the motivation of these verses for 
some indication of the way in which their author regarded them as in­
tegrated with the movement of the playas a whole. Orestes' alleged 
reason for coming out of the palace is to prevent the Phrygian from 
sending up a KpavY-rJ to Menelaus (1510),5 and this leads logically to the 
core of the scene, which consists in the Phrygian's attempt to persuade 
Orestes of his sympathy for his, and not Menelaus', cause (1511ff). 

Such a motivation makes the entry of Menelaus at 1549, even with the 
interposition of the choral ode at 1537ff, almost absurd in its im­
mediacy. The incongruity is emphasised by 1529, which is followed by 

4 Di Benedetto (ed. ad 1506ff) is also of the opinion that the motivation of Orestes' exit is 
subsequently undeveloped. He assumes that this motivation is to stop the Phrygian calling 
to the Argives, a deduction from 1529ff. Di Benedetto does not consider the disparity be­
tween 1529ff and Orestes' stated intention at the beginning of the scene, which is discussed 
below. Biehl (Textprobleme 84, v. supra) represents, on the other hand, a point of view anti­
thetic to that expressed here. He considers that the interpolation of such a long passage of 
stichomythia is per se unlikely, and attempts to ascribe to the scene a positive and thematic 
relationship to the later part of the play. This hypothesis he supports with five contentions, 
none of which seems to merit serious consideration; the fourth (85), for example, alleges 
that the victory of Orestes over the Phrygian "entziindet bei Or. das fUr den Kampf gegen 
Men. notwendige Starkebewusstsein." 1531-36, however, show that the basis of Orestes' 
confidence against Menelaus is his possession of Hermione, and this remains the crux of his 
dealings with Menelaus until the appearance of the deus. Orestes' alleged fear of Menelaus, 
the basis of Biehl's inferential superstructure, is in fact a dramatic superfluity imported into 
the drama precisely by the presence of this interpolation. q: for a view similar to that of 
Biehl, N. A. Greenberg, HSCP 66 (1962) 187ff. Professor T. B. L. Webster (p.250 n.17) also 
thinks it unlikely that this scene is interpolated, a view which he bases on metrical con­
siderations. 

5 He appears to have heard 15ooff, which speak sympathetically of Menelaus. 



412 IS ORESTES 1503-36 AN INTERPOLATION? 

the clumsy attempt made in 1530-36 to adapt the pretext of the scene 
in such a way as to minimize the strain which will be placed on the 
audience's belief in the probability of the dramatic sequence by 
Menelaus' arrival. In these verses, Orestes states that his fear was that 
the Argives, rather than Menelaus, would hear the cry and come to 
the rescue (1530-31), and then explicitly invites the latter to come 
(dAN tTW ••• , 1532), even with the Argives (1533ff).6 

The clarity of thought in 1533-36 is extremely suspect. It is true that 
explanations of these verses may be made by reference to allusions 
elsewhere in the play (as, for example, 1621); such explanations rely 
heavily on unnecessary (if plausible) inferences about what mayor 
should be Orestes' sequence of thought, and can in each case be 
matched by inverse suppositions of at least equal probability. Never­
theless, there are certain difficulties which seem to remain constant. 

Within the limits of the information provided by this scene, the in­
troduction of a third alternative which envisages a combination of 
Menelaus and the Argives is not only gratuitous (since Menelaus 
arrives only with attendants, cf. 1554ff, 161Of) but invalidates the 
mutually exclusive possibilities outlined in the preceding verses. If we 
omit the question of the suitability of yap as a particle introducing a 
third and disjunct alternative,7 a difficulty still remains in the inter­
pretation of KajL€ jL~ acfJ~€w (}€A€t (1534). Biehl (ad loc.) assumes that Kat 

is epexegetic (und somit'); this involves the improbable assumption 
that Menelaus' unwillingness to save Orestes will in some way be 
more likely ifhe is accompanied by Argives. Yet any other interpreta­
tion is scarcely possible, since Orestes' determination to kill Hermione 
can be governed only by the attitude Menelaus adopts towards him, 
and not by his accompaniment or otherwise by an Argive force. The 
connection Biehl draws between the two elements in the protasis 
tends to be further confirmed by the emphatic position accorded to 
the mention of the Argives in 1533. 

Equally unfortunate is the tedious precision of 1535, and early 

6 Biehl's assertion (p.84) that Orestes' anxiety about Menelaus' retaliation "ist durchaus 
berechtigt, auch wenn sich Hel. bei den Argeiern keiner Sympathie erfreut," is scarcely 
supported by the tone of Orestes' reasoning in 1531-36. 

7 The wide range of meanings which yap may bear and its sometimes rather imprecise 
connection with surrounding ideas are well known, and Biehl (ed. ad 1533) may be right to 
translate "l yap 'hypothetisch' as 'denn wenn .. :. Certainly no satisfactory alternative read­
ing has been proposed; Weil's £l S' apa supplies exactly the sense required, but is unpar­
alleled in tragedy, cf J. D. Denniston, Greek Particles a (Oxford 1954) 37-38. 



B. GREDLEY 413 

editors, such as Nauck and Paley, recommended its excision on metri­
cal and what may be loosely termed aesthetic grounds. No weight 
attaches to the former objection,S but Paley's comment (ad loe.) still 
has general validity: "It is just such a verse as interpolators were fond 
of inserting to make the narrative agree accurately with some former 
statement," as instances of which he cites 1178 aWTT)plav aOL TijJO€ T' 

, I "1 d 1192" ,~ , \ ~ \ " ,/.. '\ I~ Th €K TpLTWV T €ILOL an 'YJ TOVO€ KCtIL€--'TT'CtV yap €V 'f'LI\OV TOo€. e 
deletion of a similar verse in the introductory monologue (33) was 
proposed by Herwerden. 

The confusion created by 1529-36 requires but does not perhaps de­
serve explanation; what seems undeniable is that having stressed as 
the motivation for Orestes' exit from the palace his anxiety about the 
Kpavy/j (1510, and the word is picked up in 1529), the author was com­
pelled, towards the conclusion of the interlude, to adjust his attitude 
as far as possible to the glaring inconsistency of Menelaus' arrival. He 
chose to do this by importing the superfluous idea of the Argives.9 

Nevertheless, Menelaus' entry at 1549 remains unconvincing, and 
the question which inevitably suggests itself is the source of his in­
formation about events within the palace. Lines 1529-36, although 
they attempt to make it seem probable that he will appear, are pre­
vented from offering any answer by the premise on which the scene is 
constructed (viZ' Orestes' successful mission to prevent the Phrygian 
from calling for help-cogently stated in 1529). The indisputable im­
plication of 1554-59 is that someone has brought an account of events 
to Menelaus. The details known to him would otherwise presuppose 
that he had heard part or all of the Phrygian's narrative while still in 
the 7TOALS'! 

At this point commentators are either mute or lack persuasion. 
Chapouthier suggests (Bude ed. ad [oc.), "on peut penser que quel­
qu'une de ses (i.e. the Phrygian's) declarations a ete entendue du 
dehors, ou que Ie poere ne s'est pas pose la question." The latter lame 
expedient of criticism remains, of course, unanswerable;lO the former 

8 This led to such emendations of I1vAcf~1}II as -rpt-rOll (Elmsley) and 4>0..011 (Weil). Cf di 
Benedetto, ed. ad lac. and also A. M. Dale, Glotta 37 (1958) 102-5 (rf Lustrum 2 [1957] 40); 
F. Perusino, RivCultClassMed 4 (1962) 55ff. I am indebted to Professor E. W. Handley for 
these references. 

9 Suggested, perhaps, by e.g. 1355-56, where, given Euripides' intention to have Menelaus 
arrive at 1554, Significantly he is not mentioned. 

10 Similarly unanswerable is di Benedetto's statement (ed. ad 1550), "Ma si tratta di cose 
che avverte illettore moderno, non 10 spettatore antico, il quale dopo il dialogo tra Oreste 
e il Frigio non poteva non aspettarsi l'arrivo di Menelao." Cf also Biehl (ed. ad 1556ff). 



414 IS ORESTES 1503-36 AN INTERPOLATION? 

not only fails, I think, to account adequately for the description of 
Menelaus' informant as cf>6f3c.p ucf>aAEt~ (1558), but is forced to assume 
the existence of some person apparently not on stage, and certainly 
not mentioned, who escapes to the city with information derived from 
the &YYEAO~, at about the same time as the chorus decides not to take 
the news. More promising at first sight is the hypothesis of Page (p.46), 
which does not involve the presupposition of an unmentioned ano­
nym: ce ••• we know (from 1486 sqq.) that the slaves fled through the 
house this way and that, we know that one escaped from the house. 
This one lingered improvidently in a very dangerous place, and was 
caught by Orestes. Others climbed out of the palace at the back in­
stead of the front, and went straight to Menelaos instead of waiting to 

be apprehended. So at least we are entitled to assume. We know that 
there were those who could and most naturally would have taken the 
news to Menelaos ; we know that Menelaos has heard it. That is all we 
need to know." This is imaginative, but Page's central assumption 
that other slaves have escaped is dangerous and unjustified surmise. 
While no certain inference may be made from 1550,11 the Phrygian 
uses the singular in 1369 and 1498, and the author of 1503-3612 evi­
dently deduced from this that he was alone in his escape. 1486 0 p.Jv 

OlXOP.EVO~ cpvyas and 1488 tmo UKOTOV S' EcpEVyOP.€V may suggest the re­
verse, but whatever deduction is made from them, they refer to 

activities which preceded the disappearance of Helen and are there­
fore irrelevant as far as the information subsequently brought to 
Menelaus is concerned. Had Euripides intended the inference drawn 

11 Line 1550 has been used as evidence that Euripides did not regard the question of 
Menelaus' informant as important. 7TOV suggests that the coryphaeus makes the only reason­
able assumption to account for his arrival. But I am by no means certain that Nauck was 
wrong in deleting this verse. 1549 makes sense by itself, but I am inclined to suspect that 
our 1550 is a revised version of what Euripides wrote, designed to minimize the improba­
bility of Menelaus' arrival which had been created by the re-entry of the Phrygian into the 
palace. Di Benedetto (ed. ad 1549) observes that this is the only place where &>v\a /L~V is used 
in place of Ka~ /L~V to announce a character's entrance. His explanation is that 1549-55 are to 
be taken closely with the preceding 'intermezzo' and the concluding allusion to the fate of 
the Atridae. "E l'arrivo di Menelao in questo momento, con Ie fiaccole che gia sono accese, 
e sentito come una conferma di questo presentimento. 'AMa /L~v e quindi da intendere nel 
senso di <'e appuntm>: si noti anche il Kat, che presenta l'arrivo di Menelao come un altro 
anello di una serie negativa." This argument for a confirmatory sense is certainly more 
satisfactory than Denniston's (op.cit. [supra n.7] 342) attribution to it of an adversative force; 
but the assumption of a direct link between these verses and the content of the choral ode 
which precedes them is open to objection. The conclusion of the antistrophe is general, and 
it is normal Euripidean practice that conventional choral announcements of this sort bear 
no such relation to their lyric utterances. 

12 Cf. e.g. 1506. 



B. GREDLEY 415 

by Page, it seems not unreasonable to expect that he would have taken 
the trouble to provide a hint of the existence of such a person (who 
forms a vital link in the dramatic sequence), as he had earlier sug­
gested the escape of other dramatically unimportant persons. 

If, then, the Phrygian had left the stage after the completion of his 
SL-r}yr]atS (according to the normal Euripidean practice), the choral ode 
(1537-48) would, as often, mark a lapse of time allowing off-stage 
events to take place, and Menelaus would arrive informed by the 
ayy€A.os. The final verses of his narrative (1500-02) imply that this is 
what will happen by directing attention to Menelaus. This would be 
a natural course for the Phrygian, who, having gathered his wits, 
might well take the news to his master and enjoy his protection. Pre­
sumably he would have done so at once, had not the unreality of the 
messenger-convention detained him to give an account to the chorus. 
This fact is in itself unusual, since the recipient of a pfjaLS &yy€A.LK~ is 
normally an interested party commanding the €VJlOLCt. of the messen­
ger. With such requirements Menelaus conforms. Certain statements 
made by Menelaus on his arrival tend to confirm the identification. 
His informant evidently used the word acpavTos (1557), as did the 
Phrygian (1495-96), and the description of him as cp6fJep acpaA.€Ls (1558) 
suits perfectly the impression created of the Phrygian in the messenger 
scene. Admittedly, these words might apply to any informant, but 
they would gain in point significantly if intended to remind the 
audience of the Phrygian.13 

At this point it may be worth considering briefly what is gained 
structurally if the episode is deleted. 

After the illusion that Helen has actually been murdered has been 
carefully built up (1286-1310) and Hermione has been taken hostage 
within the palace (1323ff), the emotional excitement is heightened by 
the choral song (1353-65) which centres on the theme of Helen's mur­
der (treated as a fait accompli, cf 13540 7TpaX8€ls cpovos) and prepares 
for the entrance of the Phrygian with a fuller account of TtX EUW 8o{-twv. 
This account given, it is not until the closing verses of his lyrics (1493ff) 

13 Professor R. P. Winnington-Ingram points out to me that a third point of contact may 
be the apparent recalling of the imagery used in 1401 in 1555. Di Benedetto (ed. ad lac.) 
notes all the similarities between the informant of Menelaus and the Phrygian which have 
been observed here, and explains them by supposing that Menelaus' informant He un 
.duplicatot del Frigio." The extraordinary nature of such a procedure would be, as far as I 
know, unparalleled in Euripides, and is some indication of the implications of maintaining 
the authenticity of 1503-36. 

5-G·JI.·B.s. 



416 IS ORESTES 1503-36 AN INTERPOLATION? 

that the disappearance of Helen is recounted. It would seem that 
Euripides has deliberately created a false impression of Helen's mur­
der and suspended its refutation for over a hundred verses in order to 
make the news of her disappearance the more unexpected and effec­
tive. If the Phrygian were to leave after 1502, i.e. immediately follow­
ing his account of Helen's disappearance and his allusion to Menelaus, 
the choral ode (1537-48) antistrophic to 1353-65 would fall (logically, 
it seems) immediately after the Phrygian's account, as the strophe 
preceded it. Euripides clearly indicates the intended parallelism of 
these two odes by constructing them as strophe and suspended anti­
strophe; and a similar parallelism is apparent in their tone and sub­
ject matter, the second dealing with the power of TV)(17 and its implica­
tions for the three conspirators as suggested by the thwarting of the 
plan to murder Helen (which constitutes the €TepOS aycf,y, cf 1537-38), 
as the first had dealt with her apparent murder.I4 It is arguable that 
this parallelism should by corollary extend to their place in the struc­
ture of these scenes, as the medium for heightening the emotional 
tension before and after the crucial announcement of Helen's disap­
pearance. The structural symmetry and cumulative emotional effect 
which such a sequence produces seems to me irreparably disturbed by 
the intervention of the humorous dialogue between Orestes and the 
Phrygian, between the lyric account of the disappearance and the 
antistrophe crystallizing its impact. 

Finally, a comparatively isolated phenomenon may be considered. 
At the end of his account the Phrygian announces napa npoaooKlav 

(1493ff) 
EK OaAcXfJ-wy 
• I ~ ,~ , 

eYEYETO o£anpo OWfJ-aTWY 
acpaVTos. 

the importance of this revelation being confirmed by the elaborate 
apostrophe which follows.IS This is what Menelaus has heard (1557), 
and the point is subsequently stressed by Orestes (1579ff). Yet in the 

14 Biehl (ed. ad 1353--68) observes that strophe and antistrophe divide themselves into 
"einen mehr 'dramatischen' (1353--60 bzw. 1537-44) und einen rein 'lyrischen' (1361-8 bzw. 
1545-8) Teil." 

16 1 am unable to accept the view which suggests that the disappearance is left indefinite 
at the end of the Phrygian's account (1495ff), relying on 'Tet 8' VU'TEP' O?JKt'T' olBa (1498). This 
means only "I didn't see what happened after that (because that was when I escaped)," and 
cannot be used to impugn the finality of the announcement of her disappearance. Biehl 
(ed. ad loc.) is probably right to refer the words to the fate of Hermione. 



B. GREDLEY 417 

course of 1506-36, there are two distinct statements which presuppose 
that the murder has in fact taken place.16 In the first (1512-13) Orestes 
asks the Phrygian whether Helen EVOLKWS ••• OtWAETO ;17 it is, of course, 
particularly easy in stichomythic scenes, where the syntax is seg­
mented, to propose the expedient that these verses are interpolated 
into a genuine context. A reason for any such insertion is difficult to 
see, and the deletion of this couplet will further involve the removal 
of 1514-15. Equally, it is possible to suppose that Orestes is ignorant of 
the Phrygian's knowledge of Helen's disappearance; any such sugges­
tion must ultimately be judged by its own probability, but it is per­
haps worth mentioning here that 1536 (spoken after the Phrygian has 
left the stage) also assumes the murder, and therefore that Orestes 
himself actually believes in this fiction. That this is not his belief is 
clear from 1579ff. Finally, we may with Page (pA6) suppose that 
OtWAe-TO has an ambiguous force; but 1513 shows unmistakably that 
the Phrygian at least interprets the word in its fully physical sense, al­
though this too may be excused as an example of the diplomacies to 
which his self-preserving aJvEatS persuades him.1s In short, defence 
of 1512-13 seems to create a maze of psychological intricacies, which 
enjoy at mo~t a dubious probability. 

But if defence of 1512-13 is possible, the same may scarcely be said 
for 1536, in which Helen is specifically referred to as a VEKpOS which 
Menelaus KaToif;ETat. Lines 1579ff show that Orestes is aware of her 
disappearance; there is only one scene in this play (2Uff) in which he 
suffers from hallucinations. From this verse, then, we are obliged to 
conclude that Helen has actually been murdered and that her corpse 
is within, ready for display to Menelaus when Hermione is killed. 
Page's explanation of this anomaly (pA5) is quite inadequate: "the 
new point is the death of Hermione; a slight inaccuracy of language is 
almost necessary to couple the similar fates of Hermione and Helen."19 

18 A third reference may be disregarded; of 1534 Page (p.45) rightly observes that it means 
no more than that "Orestes assumes that Menelaos will think that Helen is dead." 

17 Biehl (ed. ad loc.) cites Cic. Lae/ius 26.98 for this characteristic of "die zustimmende 
Antwort in der Form der 'Obertreibung'" as being typical of the parasite in comedy. 

18 Biehl's hypothesis (Textprobleme 84) that the assumption that Helen is dead in 1512-13 
is "nicht anstossig, wei! sie den einfachsten Ausgangspunkt zum Diskutieren darbietet" is 
extremely unsatisfactory. 

19 Biehl (ed. ad loc.) explains the linguistic inaccuracy as part of Orestes' pose as &A&twv. 
The inconsistency is too strong to be excused on any such grounds, but his contrast of 
Orestes as &A&twv with the Phrygian as KOAa, is instructive as a further illustration of the 
heavy debt of this scene to comedy. 



418 IS ORESTES 1503-36 AN INTERPOLATION? 

Their fates are anything but similar; a glaring inconsistency remains 
which can be bypassed only by attributing a singular lack of clarity in 
thought and language to Euripides and by placing on his audience the 
intolerable necessity of seeing anidea contradicted by its expression. It is 
perhaps ofinterest that in the only other place where KC1:r6z/;eraL is found 
in the text of Euripides (Hee. 45) it is preceded by 8uo V€KpcfJ, the phrase 
in this case being given rhetorical point by its association with 8vo'iv 8~ 

7Tal80Lv.20 Is it possible that the striking (and here strikingly misplaced) 
phrase is due to an interpolator's memory of a verse in Hecuba? 

The direction of the above arguments is clear, but no finality has 
been (or, perhaps, can be) achieved. Nor can anything approaching 
certainty be reached in guesses about the origin or nature of the sug­
gested interpolation. The popularity of Orestes is well known,2l and in 
view of the evidently increasing importance of the acting profession 
from the fourth century B.C. onwards, it is not impossible that the 
episode was inserted in the interests of a particular actor, in order to 
exploit more fully the comic possibilities of the Phrygian as outlined 
by Euripides in the lyric 8'~y1']U'S.22 

A possible terminus ante quem for its insertion may be inferred from 
a fragment of Apollodorus (6K.) , 

OU 7TaJITaxOU cf>pug €lP.L • 'TOU ~ijv (Xv opw 
~ \ \ y~ ; ~, 23 KP€L'T'TOV 'TO p.7J ~7JVJ XP7JU0p.aL 'Tep KPEt'T'TOVL. 

10 It is pOSsible, although not to be pressed, that the first half of 1536 7TapOIl'ol' TE Kal 
8&'/uxPTa is suggested syntactically by Hec. 46 £p.ov TE rijs TE 8vun11'ov K6p"ls. The contrast, as 
well as the possible comparison, between these two phrases is instructive. In the Hecuba 
passage 8vo,I' 8€ 7Ta{&", ••• KTA. are genitives dependent on 860 I'EKPW, whereas in our pas­
sage they are in apposition. Euripides elsewhere (as e.g. Hec. 671,679) uses the dependent 
genitive construction, but I can find no other instance in the extant plays of nouns in apposi­
tion with VEKpOS. In Hec. 45-46, the use of apposition would seem to be at least as appro­
priate as of dependent genitives, but no conclusions are warranted as the incidence of VEKPOS 
is small. Biehl (ed. ad loc.) compares also Or. 66 with Hec. 279. 

B1 Cf e.g. Ar.Byz. Hyp. 21; CIA II 973, 13 and 18; Philostr. VS p. 232. For references to 
evidence in comedy cf E. W. Handley, BICS 12 (1965) 42, 45. At first sight, E ad 1366-68, 
which states that these verses are the insertion of actors rl'a p.~ KaKo7TaOWULI' a7Td TWI' 
/3aCTLAElwI' SoP.WI' KaOa>J.op.EVOL, seems to bear out other testimony for the popularity of 
Orestes and for the activity of actors on the text. Recent scholars have, however, strongly 
defended the passage, cf A. M. Dale, WS 69 (1956) 103--04; di Benedetto (ed. ad loc.). A 
statement of the arguments supporting the scholiast's suggestion is made by Biehl (Text­
probleme 79-81), and a similar position is taken by P. Arnott, Greek Scenic Conventions 
(Oxford 1962) 119. 

21 Cf Arist. Rhet. 3.1403b, fLE'~Ol' 8QI'avTaL viiI' TWI' 7TOL7JTWI' o[ VrroKpLTal. 
13 Cited by Stob. Flor. 121.14=4.53.14 H. The inference which I have drawn seems sup­

ported by Tert. De Anim. 279B, Comici Phrygas timidos inludunt, and more probable than the 
inverse supposition that Apollodorus is alluding to the scene in Orestes. I am indebted to 
Miss C. Baratt for draWing my attention to this fragment. 



B. GREDLEY 419 

The passing allusion to the cJ>pvg in this passage seems to imply that the 
tradition of Phrygian SEt/da and its dramatic representatives were well 
established (at least in comedy) by Apollodorus' time; and to judge 
from the uncomplimentary attentions which f3&.pf3apot in general enjoy 
in Aristophanes, the convention had probably been in existence for 
some time. If, then, the convention were one developed in comedy, 
and here imported into a popular tragedy which already contained an 
embryonic cJ>pvg, the comic tone of the interlude, which seems to be 
the basis of the criticism and anxieties of early commentators, is at 
once explained.24 

Here ideas must, in default of more specific evidence, remain con­
jectural, but even when more than due allowance has been made for 
the absence of realism evident on occasion in Euripidean tragedy, it 
seems that these verses create substantial difficulties, which have not 
hitherto been satisfactorily explained by those who support their 
authenticity. 

KING's COLLEGE, LONDON 

October, 1968 

24 Di Benedetto (ed. ad. 1506ff), in perhaps the most convincing recent defence of these 
verses, attempts to explain them as an instance of Euripides' tendency in his later plays to 
include elements of purely theatrical spectacle. He is conscious of their strongly comic tone, 
as parallels to which he cites the trochaics of He!. 1627ff and Ion 517ff, which he describes as 
having "un tono poco aderente alla tradizione tragica." But an examination of these 
passages reveals the similarity as superficial. The scene in Helen between Theoclymenus 
and the fEJEpa1Twv has a valid dramatic function as a bridge preventing the former from taking 
action between the aYYEAla and the following epiphany, and the gnomic conclusion (1639-
41) is alone sufficient to mark its speaker as a genuine Euripidean aoii'\os YEVVaios. In the Ion 
passage, any suggestion of comedy is confined to 517-26, the rest of the scene (to 565) having 
an obvious and serious dramatic meaning as the false avayvwpLuLS. In neither of these 
parallels does the element of comedy seem as strong as in the Orestes passage, but on this 
individual opinion will differ. What invalidates di Benedetto's comparison is rather that in 
both Helen and Ion the scenes in question can be seen to have a meaningful relationship to 
the whole, and it is this which separates them essentially from the intrinsic and irrelevant 
comedy of this interlude (which di Benedetto himself concedes). Likewise, his observation 
that &V'n'\af3~ is common to all three scenes can be shown to have only a nominal value by 
an examination of the form which it takes in them. In Helen there are 10 instances, in Ion 33, 
all of bipartite division. In our passage, however, there is only one instance (1525), and here 
the division is tripartite.