JACOBSON, HOWARD, Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:2 (1981:Summer) p.167 Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian Howard Jacobson I. Was the Exagoge Intended for Production? D ID EZEKIEL write the Exagoge for the stage or for readers?1 Although scholars have their opinions on the question, few have attempted to buttress their views by any examination or analysis. 2 Can any substantial conclusions be reached? First, can Ezekiel have conceived of a tragedy meant for readers rather than for stage-production? In other words, was there such a genre in the Greek world? The question of Lesedramen among the Greeks revolves almost entirely around a passage in Aristotle (Rhet. III 12 1413b) in which he includes Chaeremon the tragic poet among of dvayv(J)(JTlKOi. These words have often, even to the 1 1 shall also take note of the middle ground between staging and reading, a public recitation. One could even imagine a recitation with different speakers taking the various parts, as in our performances of opera 'concert-style' or in presentations of Shaw's Don Juan in Hell from Man and Superman. However, the fundamental question raised by the Exagoge is whether the play was intended for the stage. The distinction between Lese- and Rezitationsdrama is of far less importance in this case. 2 Those who have held, in one degree or another, for a Lesedrama include: ]. GeHcken, NJbb 29 (1912) 602 ("naturlich"); B. A. Muller, PhilWoch 54 (1934) 702; O. Weinreich in Genethliakon W. Schmid (Stuttgart 1929) 337f; G. Bcrnhardy, Grundriss der griechischen Litteratur3 11.2 (Halle 1880) 76; G. Dindorf, Eusebii Caesariensis Opera 1 (Leipzig 1867) xxv (with some hesitation); ]. Wieneke, Ezechielis Judaei Poetae Alexandrini Fabulae Quae Inscribitur Exagoge Fragmenta (Diss. Munster 1931) 118f; B. Snell, Szenen aus griechischen Dramen (Berlin 1971) 175f (though he does not exclude the possibility of staging); C. R. Holladay, SocBiblLit 1976 Seminar Papers (Missoula 1976) 452; O. Zwier­ lein, Die Rezitationsdramen Senecas (Meisenheim am Glan 1966) 138H; M. Hadas, Hellen­ istic Culture (New York 1959) 100; H. Lloyd-Jones, CR 87 (1973) 193; R. Marcus in L. Finkelstein, The Jews3 (New York 1960) 1099; N. Walter, Neue Beitr. Ges. Alt. Welt 1 (1964) 373; G. G. Bilezikian, The Liberated Gospel (Grand Rapids 1977) 44. Those who, in one degree or another, think it was intended for staging (or was suitable for staging) include: E. R. Goodenough, By Light Light (New Haven 1935) 291; M. Freyhan, Jahrb­ JiidGesLit 31 (1938) 73; C. Kraus, RivIC 96 (1968) 170; G. M. Sifakis, Studies in the His­ tory of Hellenistic Drama (London 1967) 123; Christ-Schmid-Stahlin 11.1 608; E. Schurer, Geschichte des ;iidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi4 III (Leipzig 1909) 502 (though he also speaks of readers); I. Trencsenyi-Waldapfel, ActaO 2 (1952) 162f; Y. Gutman, The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature II (Jerusalem 1963) 67-69; A. Kappelmacher, WS 44 (1924-25) 83f; D. Bazzell, Zur Geschichte des historischen Dramas im Altertum (Zurich 1932) 15; K. Kuiper, Mnemosyne N.S. 28 (1900) 270-73; R. Petsch, NJbbWj 1 (1925) 806; C. Magnin, Journal des Savants (1848) 200; F. Momigliano, Nuova Rassegna 1 (1893) 314. 167 JACOBSON, HOWARD, Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:2 (1981:Summer) p.167 168 TWO STUDIES ON EZEKIEL THE TRAGEDIAN present, been taken to mean that there was a class of tragedians who wrote dramas for reading, not for production.3 Crusius effec­ tively argued that this was a misunderstanding and that Aristotle's words are a stylistic judgement, i.e., these writers' works are par­ ticularly suitable for reading. 4 His position has recently been gain­ ing its deserved acceptance.5 As Pfeiffer has written,6 "Aristotle even distinguished certain plays which were particularly st.itable for reading .... But it is a mistake to think that there were poets who wrote their plays only for reading.'" To my knowledge, the strongest argument for Crusius' interpretation of Aristotle has not been pointed out; it is from Aristotle himself.8 At Poetics 1450a7ff Aristotle writes that there are six parts to every tragedy and one is OIflIC;. This suggests that Aristotle knew nothing of tragedies not meant for the stage. 9 There is then no evidence from Aristotle that the concept of Lesedramen existed in classical antiquity. Dover has revived the view that Aristophanes circulated for reading an incompletely revised second edition of the Clouds. The evidence does not seem to me to support such a conclusion. 10 But even if it did, this would not affect the question whether an an­ cient Greek dramatist would have written a play primarily for readers (after-the-fact revision-and partial at that-might be a different matter). As for Athenaeus' reference to comedies of the fifth-century poets Metagenes and Nicophon, dMoaKui earl (270A), we may simply want to dismiss his testimony as unreliable, as Taplin does. ll Otherwise, it is by no means obvious, within the 3 See F. G. Welcker, Die griechischen Tragodien (Bonn 1841) 1082ff. 4 In Festschrift T. Comperz (Vienna 1902) 381-87. 5 See, e.g., A. Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy2 (ed. T. B. L. Webster, Oxford 1962) 54 and n.3; C. Collard, jHS 90 (1970) 22ff. 6 R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford 1968) 28f. 7 P. Venini, Dioniso N.S. 16 (1953) 14, still believes in Hellenistic dramas for readers only. But see now O. Taplin, The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford 1977) 13 n.1. 8 I. Bywater, Aristotle on the Art of Poetry (Oxford 1909) 355f, seemed to realize this, but he never points to the directly relevant text. I follow the generally accepted interpreta­ tion of Poetics 1450a7ff. 9 Aristotle's observation at 1450b18ff, that the tragic effect (ovvaIlU;) is possible without performance and actors, is further support. The implication is that plays were intended to be performed. 10 K. ]. Dover, Aristophanes, Clouds (Oxford 1968) lxxx-xcviii. The view espoused by Dover had already been discussed and rejected by Th. Kock in his edition of Clouds, Ausgewahlte Komodien 4 I (Berlin 1894) 25f£. Athenaeus' remarks at 374A-B suggest that failed plays were routinely revised in the hope of more successful production. One immedi­ ately thinks of Euripides' two Hippolytus plays. For recent disagreement with Dover, see Taplin (supra n.7). 11 Supra n.7. The playwright is Nicophon, not Nicophron as Taplin has it. JACOBSON, HOWARD, Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:2 (1981:Summer) p.167 HOWARD JACOBSON 169 context of Athenaeus' observations, that d<5i<5aKra means 'not meant for performance' or 'not performable', i.e., intended for reading. The word may mean simply 'unperformed'. Hellenistic philosophers, especially the Cynics and in particular Diogenes (TrGF I no. 88), wrote tragedies. Many authorities hold them to have been pure Lesedramen, calculated to spread abroad their philosophical dogma in a pleasing guise. 12 Leaving aside the fact that we are not even certain that Diogenes of Sinope wrote the tragedies attributed to him, we know very little about the plays themselves. The fragments are few and not revealing, nor do we have much external testimony about them. On what basis are we to conclude that they were not intended for production? To my knowledge only one scholar has discussed this question, and it is apparently on his authority that others maintain the Lesedrama notion for Diogenes. A. Meineke argued13 this on the basis of passages in Clement (Strom. 2.20) and Julian (7.2I0c-d, 2I2a). Yet these passages do no more than vilify the tragedies of Diogenes, and Meineke's arguments amount simply to the assertion that such plays were not worthy of the tragic stage. 14 Thus, while it is possible that the Cynic dramas were not intended for stage per­ formance, no evidence for this has been adduced. There is some evidence for the recitation of tragedies in the early Empire and many scholars believe that Seneca's plays are Lese- or Rezitationsdramen,15 but in the absence of all other evidence it is best not to take this as reflecting the existence of a Hellenistic Greek Lese- or Rezitationsdrama. There is then no real evidence for the concept of such dramatic literature in the ancient Greek world nor any substantial evidence for specific examples of such works. Absence of evidence, how­ ever, is not proof: there may have been such 'closet-dramas'. And even if there were not, this is not irrefragable evidence for Ezekiel, who could himself have conceived the notion of such a drama. In the case of recitation, he could have been influenced by the familiar role of public recitation in Jewish religious and liturgical services. 12 See, e.g., A. Lesky, Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen 3 (Gottingen 1972) 530f, Ge­ schichte der griechischen Literatur2 (Bern 1963) 719; K. von Fritz in OCD2 s.v. "Diogenes (2)." 13 Athenaei Deipnosophistae IV (Leipzig 1867) 305-07. 14 Zwierlein (supra n.2) 134-37 simply repeats Meineke's views. 15 See, e.g., Th. Bin, "Was hat Seneca mit seinen Tragodien gewollt?" NJbb 27 (1911) 336-64, and Zwierlein (supra n.2). JACOBSON, HOWARD, Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:2 (1981:Summer) p.167 170 TWO STUDIES ON EZEKIEL THE TRAGEDIAN Some scholars believe that IV Maccabees was intended for oral recitation on a solemn occasion with religious connections. 16 One further aspect of the problem must be addressed, namely the Jewish attitude toward the theatre (i.e., the place, not the literature). 17 The Rabbis strongly disapproved of-indeed, utterly scorned-the theatre and considered it a place of idolatry and baseness. Rabbi Nehunia's prayer of thanks is characteristic (Jer. Tal. Berakhot 7d), "I thank you, Lord, for giving me my lot among those who sit in the study-halls and synagogues and not among those in the theatres and circuses."18 Josephus (AJ 15.267ff) ob­ serves that Herod departed from native customs and introduced foreign practices into Palestine by which he corrupted the old way of life. Among his examples he includes Herod's erection of a theatre and amphitheatre, both alien to Jewish custom. The Rabbis had strong feelings about the theatre both because they saw it as a corrupting influence likely to occupy Jews' attention instead of traditional pursuits and also because the theatre was sometimes used as a place in which to mock the Jews. 19 The intensity of the Rabbis' hostility may however suggest that many Jews did in fact frequent the theatre. If we may credit their testimony, the Church fathers are also witness to this.20 But, as Feldman has pointed out,21 the attitude seems to have been quite different in Alexan­ dria, where Philo was a regular spectator at the theatre (Ebr. 177).22 Both Philo and the Letter of Aristeas suggest, however, that attendance at the theatre should be selective and guided by moral considerations. Aristeas (284) approves attendance at the theatre for performances done with respectability and moderation. Philo attended the performance of tragedies (Probus 141) but scorned shows of mimes and dancers and those who watched 16 See M. Hadas, The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees (New York 1953) 103ff. 17 On the general subject, see S. Krauss, Talmudische Archaologie III (Leipzig 1912) 116-21; J. Bergmann, Jiidische Apologetik im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Berlin 1908) 16-20; L. H. Feldman, Jewish Social Stud. 22 (1960) 226f. More recently, A. Kasher, American Journal of Ancient History 1 (1976) 154ff. 18 See too, e.g., Tosefta Avodah Zarah 2.5, Pesikta de-Rav Kahana p.385 (Mandelbaum), Cen.Rab. 67.3. More references at Krauss (supra n.17). 19 See Lamentations Rab. in trod. 17 (Buber p.14); H. Box, Philonis Alexandrini in Flaccum (London 1939) 92; E. M. Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (Leiden 1961) 321£. 20 Socrates HE 7.13 (Migne, PC 67.761), Augustine, Serm. 9.3 (Migne, PL 38.77). 21 Supra n.17: 226. 22 An inscription from Miletus (el] II 748) indicates that there was a section in the theatre for practicing Jews; for discussion see E. Gabba, lscrizioni greche e latine per 10 studio della Bibbia (Turin 1958) 109f. JACOBSON, HOWARD, Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:2 (1981:Summer) p.167 HOWARD JACOBSON 171 them (Moses 2.211). Thus there is no evidence to suggest that the Alexandrian Jewish community would have disapproved of a respectable tragedy presented in the theatre. 23 Finally, the practice of dramatizing one's history would not have been alien to Jews within their ritual: consider the first-fruits rite at Deut. 26.3ff. Injunctions such as Exod. 12.26f, 13.14ff, and Deut. 6.20ff might have inspired dramatized rituals at Passover, and consequently one may well believe that the still-preserved custom of Oriental Jewish communities to act out scenes of the Exodus at the Passover meal-a kind of limited dramatic parallel to the Exagoge-is of remote antiquity.24 Internal evidence (in particular the nature of the Biblical exegesis and the polemic) suggests that Ezekiel intended the Exagoge for both a Jewish and non-Jewish audience. This in itself supports the probability of public performance in the theatre, for the poet's expectation of a non-Jewish audience seems more reasonable if there was to be a public production than if the play were intended to circulate in written form.25 Where and under what conditions would the play have been presented? Wolfson believed26 that there may have existed a Jewish dramatic organization which sponsored such events. 27 Gutman, who believes that Ezekiel lived in Cyre­ naica, thinks that two inscriptions demonstrate the existence of a Jewish amphitheatre in Berenice in the first century B.C. and that it could have been the site of the production of the Exagoge. 28 This Jewish amphitheatre in Berenice leads Sifakis to conjecture that there may have been a Jewish theatre in Alexandria. 29 Of the production of drama in an amphitheatre I know no example, though it need not be impossible. 30 But both Gutman and Sifakis inexplicably ignore Caputo's argument31 that there was no Jewish 23 In Rome we hear of Jewish actors and poets: Martial 7.82, 11.94. It was through a Jewish actor that Josephus met Poppaea (Vita 16). See H. J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia 1960) 234. 24 Compare F. Momigliano's view of the production of the Exagoge as part of the Pass­ over celebration in Jerusalem (supra n.2). 25 Support for this view can be found in the discussion of the goals of Hellenistic Jewish literature by V. Tcherikover, Eos 48.3 (1956) 171ff. 26 H. A. Wolfson, Philo I (Cambridge [Mass.] 1947) 81. 27 Cf, M. Hengel, Juden, Griechen und Barbaren (Stuttgart 1976) 135. 28 Gutman (supra n.2). J. and G. Roux, REG 62 (1949) 281-96 (5.EG XVI 931). 29 Supra n.2. 30 But the acoustical problems would, it seems, have been serious. At all events, it is hard to be certain exactly what kind of building was implied by the word dj.1rpdJearpov at that time. See S. Applebaum, Greeks and Jews in Ancient Cyrene (Jerusalem 1969) 141-43. 31 G. Caputo in Anthemon: scritti di archeologia e di antichita classiche in onore di Carlo Anti (Florence 1955) 283-85, that this was simply the civic amphitheatre. JACOBSON, HOWARD, Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:2 (1981:Summer) p.167 172 TWO STUDIES ON EZEKIEL THE TRAGEDIAN amphitheatre in Berenice.32 Thus, there is no certain evidence for the existence of a Jewish amphitheatre or theatre anywhere.33 We do not know enough about the procedures leading to the production of a tragedy in the theatre in Hellenistic Egypt to make any substantial hypotheses,34 but there seems no reason why the Exagoge could not have been presented in the municipal theatre of Alexandria. That the Greeks would have been interested in Jewish exotica is reasonable speculation.35 According to Philo (Moses 2.41), many non-Jews attended the annual festival on Pharos to celebrate the translation of the Scriptures into Greek. At all events, the possibilities for makeshift accommodations are many. The Romans, we do well to remember, maintained a flourishing drama for about two centuries without a permanent theatre building (55 B.C.). Only Gutman, Kuiper, and Zwierlein have sought to argue from the play itself.36 Kuiper asserted that because Ezekiel's style is so different from that of Aristotle's dvayvW(7rlKOi, he could not have written the play for readers. He also pointed out the implications of verses 101f, an argument to which we shall return. Gutman added that had the Exagoge been intended merely for recitation, Ezekiel would have described the plagues and the crossing of the sea in greater detail and first hand. In contrast, Zwierlein argued that Ezekiel's violations of the unities of time and place so strongly trespass the norms of classical drama that his play could not have been intended for the stage. This, however, is not argument, merely unsubstantiated assertion. The Exagoge is not, after all, classical drama, and we should recall the anomalies of the Eumenides or Ajax, or Aeschylus' Aitnai. 32 Inexplicably because Gutman (68) refers to the Roberts' account of Caputo at Bull. epigr. 1955,278, while Sifakis refers directly to Caputo's article. Applebaum (supra n.30) 141 says that Robert believes the building a Jewish amphitheatre. It is not at all clear to me that Robert holds this opinion. See L. Robert, Les Gladiateurs dans [,Orient grec (Paris 1940) 34 n.l and BulUpigr. 1951,246. Gabba (supra n.22) discusses the two inscriptions (62-67) and concludes (especially 64f) that there is no Jewish amphitheatre here. 33 Applebaum (supra n.30) 141 adheres to the view that the building was a Jewish amphitheatre. 34 We do know that the Dionysiac Artisans existed in Alexandria, but our knowledge of how they functioned is minimal. See P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria I (Oxford 1972) 618f. Theocritus 15 offers an interesting and vivid description of a palace performance, though no drama is involved. For a discussion of the staging of dramatic excerpts in Egypt, see E. Turner, AntCI 32 (1963) 120ft. 35 See Trencsenyi-Waldapfel (supra n.2) 163. 36 For references see supra n.2. JACOBSON, HOWARD, Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:2 (1981:Summer) p.167 HOWARD JACOBSON 173 Zwierlein also notes that Ezekiel is tied to the Biblical text and wanted to present his material in dramatic dress "ohne dass er ... die ordnende Hand bewiese, die ein geschlossenes Ganzes mit lebendiger Biihnenwirkung gestalten konnte"-which I presume Zwierlein would then consider a manifestation of sacrilege. But we do not know enough of Ezekiel to make this sort of judgement. Finally, Zwierlein argues that the bush scene would have been virtually impossible on stage. The miraculous fire was technologi­ cally unfeasible, as were the miracles of the rod and the hand: to ask the spectator to tolerate so many dramatic illusions is too much to believe. The argument is faulty on two counts. First, it is hazardous to dogmatize about what stage tricks the Greeks could and could not achieve (consider the 'earthquakes' in Prometheus Bound and Bacchae).37 Second, and more important, Zwierlein ignores the force of convention. As Hadas once said in a different context, "We cannot realize how large a part convention plays in dra.ma until we come upon the drama of other peoples ... whose drama employs conventions different from ours."38 We do not know what could pass on the Hellenistic stage that would not suit our norms. The very fact that Moses describes what is happening to the bush, his rod, and his hand may have sufficed, whether the audience could actually see these things happening or not. If the audience is conditioned to believe that what an actor on stage describes as happening is happening, then so be it.39 As in modern pantomime, if one adopts the convention, even without the aid of words, one can 'see' objects on stage that are not there and events that are not happening. Wieneke believed that nothing in the play was unstageable, but felt that the necessary scene changes could not have been effected without a curtain, and consequently the play must have been meant for reading. 40 But could there have been a curtain? Gutman as­ sumed that there was. Pickard-Cambridge writes, "That there was a substantial curtain in late Hellenistic and Roman theatres and 37 "The skene cannot crumble ... but when the chorus say that it does, then, by all the rules of conventional drama, the audience must accept that it does": so P. Arnott, Greek Scenic Conventions in the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford 1962) 125, discussing the earthquake in the Hercules Furens. 38 AJP 60 (1939) 220. 39 As Arnott (supra n.37) 123 puts it, "A thing can either be described or shown, and there is no need to do both." Further good observations on the power of convention and the spoken word at A. M. Dale, WS 69 (1956) 96-106. 40 Supra n.2. Snell (supra n.2) seems in fundamental agreement. JACOBSON, HOWARD, Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:2 (1981:Summer) p.167 174 TWO STUDIES ON EZEKIEL THE TRAGEDIAN special provision made for it in the stage buildings, admits of no doubt."41 Nonetheless, to my knowledge there is no evidence for a curtain in the Hellenistic stage.42 This does not mean that it is im­ possible for Ezekiel to have had one, but it places the burden of proof on those who would argue that he did. This question, how­ ever, may be regarded as immaterial, for the power of convention is such that scene-changes could have been accomplished on a curtainless stage in the full presence of the audience. Is there anything in the play itself that points decisively in one direction or the other? Probably not. Kuiper argued that verses 101f make no sense unless the play is staged: ioelv yap O'lllV r~v ej1~v dwjxavov (Jv'f/rov yeywra. These verses explain why no divine character steps out on stage and speaks, but only a voice is heard. This has some cogency, yet Ezekiel might have written these verses even in a text meant only for recitation or reading. For without such a disclaimer the reader might assume that God does appear visibly to Moses, an inference which would have antagonized many Jews and misled non-Jews. I would offer here a last suggestion. The language of the text may occasionally indicate actual production. At 243-46 the scouts tell Moses of their discovery of Elim: KpaTuHe Mwaij, npo (a )axee;, oiov evpoj1ev ronov npoe; avnJ njoi y' evaei van1). eanv yap, we; nov Kai av rvyxave1e; opwv, The abundance of local adverbs and pronouns is suited for the stage, and eKel certainly suggests that the scout points. Further, we; nov Kai av Tvyxave1e; opwv seems little more than 'not far off'. It takes on point if the address is also to the audience whose atten­ tion is now directed to a different part of the stage. When the daughters of Raguel enter, Moses declares opw oi raurae; inTO. nap()ivove; rlvae; (59). The sentence could do readily without raurae; or with some participle in its place. Its presence would seem to suggest that the audience can also see them entering. A similar argument might be brought to bear on the pronouns at 67 (rcpoe), 41 The Theatre of Dionysus at Athens (Oxford 1946) 130 n.1. 42 See the discussion by A. Muller, Die griechischen Biihnenalterthiimer, Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitiiten 111.2 (Freiburg 1886) 168-70, which remains valid. JACOBSON, HOWARD, Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:2 (1981:Summer) p.167 HOWARD JACOBSON 175 90 (roJ8), and 120 (rouro), though perhaps less cogently. Granted, nothing precludes the possibility that Ezekiel so wrote even for a reading (or listening) audience. But one would wonder why: there was no reason for a poet whose intention and practice it was to write for a reading (listening) audience to maintain and incorpo­ rate stylistic features especially suitable for visual presentation. Nothing in this question is decisive, but since the norm of dra­ matic composition was for stage production and no cogent argu­ ments to the contrary have been adduced for the Exagoge, we will do well to assume for the present that the play was intended for the stage.43 II. Moses and Oedipus Coloneus Ezekiel's Exagoge displays a wide familiarity with the tragedians of the fifth century and a "full knowledge of tragic ... usage."44 In his commentary on the play, Wieneke has pointed out many echoes of Sophocles, including of Oedipus Coloneus. 45 Here I wish to remark further parallels and to discuss why the OC may have made a significant impression on Ezekiel. Throughout the Exagoge one detects parallels to the ~C. At the outset Moses is introduced as a murderer in flight, arriving in a strange land. So too Oedipus arriving in Athens at the start of the OC (cf., e.g., lrAavwJwl of Moses [58], lrAaVaras of Oedipus [124]). The description of the utopia of Elim (243ff) shows some resem­ blance to the idyllic picture of Colonus (668-93). In the account of the Passover celebration (152ff, especially 175ff) there are simi­ larities to the instructions for the purification ritual at OC 469ff: the use of orav with the subjunctive to denote the completion of one stage of the ritual (Exag. 184, OC 471, 482); the abundance of participles delineating the actions of the performers (Exag. 172, 175, 179, 180, 182, 185, OC 470, 475, 477, 484); the final }.afJwv at both Exag. 175 and OC 475, in the one of taking a lamb (or cow), in the other of taking the wool of a lamb; the infinitives for imperatives (Exag. 186, OC 477, 481, 484); the order to take an 43 For a discussion of theatre production as late as the second century A.D., see M. Koko­ lakis, Platon 12 (1960) 67-106. 44 Fraser (supra n.34) 708. 45 Wieneke (supra n.2) passim. Needless to say, certainty in this kind of study is rendered all the more difficult by the loss of most Greek tragedy. JACOBSON, HOWARD, Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:2 (1981:Summer) p.167 176 TWO STUDIES ON EZEKIEL THE TRAGEDIAN item in one's hands (Exag. 185, OC 470), followed by an aorist form of (Jlyyavw. The flashes of lightning near the end of OC (1460f, 1466) call to mind Exag. 234f, un' orJpavov be rpeyyoc; wc; nvpoc; peya wrp(J1] n ~pfv. The phrase UBAfov ~vapii.v occurs at OC 1245 shortly after Sophocles describes a man beset by troubles as smitten by waves; Ezekiel writes fjAIOC; ~vapafc; npoaijv (217) shortly before reporting the drowning of the Egyptians. The scene of the burning bush in particular contains many pos­ sible echoes of the OC. I note several parallels (including some which in and of themselves could be coincidence): rpiroc; at verse end for the third of a series (Exag. 105, OC 8); the call to deity to be iAaoc; (Exag. 124, OC 1480, both preceded by Ibov);46 the command eniaXBC; (Exag. 96, OC 856);47 the imperative ar,palVB (Exag. 109, OC 51); nianc;, umaria, and {JAaaravw occur in one short passage (Exag. 91-95) and also in the single verse OC 611; {JaalAewc; evavriov (Exag. 115) and rwv~' evavriov (OC 1002), both in the context of speaking before other people-there is not a single example in Aeschylus or Euripides of evavrfov immediately preceded by the genitive at verse end, as here in both OC and Exagoge. God cheers Moses, (Japa1]aov OJ naf (100). Two verses in the OC (1104, 1112) have the identical line-structure, OJ naf preceded by an initial trisyllabic imperative, a pattern which occurs but once in Aeschylus (Cho. 896) and never in Euripides.48 The divine word to men is ro (Jefov ... aropa at OC 603,6 ... (Jefoc; AOYOC; at Exag. 99. In each case of trespass (Exag. 96f, OC 36f) the imperative ("go away," "do not approach") is accompanied by a npiv clause (in different ways since the one imperative is positive, the other negative). Why would Ezekiel have seen special significance in the OC ?49 I suggest that he may have perceived in Sophocles' playa kind of 46 But cf Eur. IT 271; Nauck2 adesp. 164; UPZ I 81 col. ii.19-20. 47 But cf. Aesch. Chao 896, PV 697, and Euripides passim. 48 Snell, in his edition of the fragments of the Exagage (TrGF I no.128), has noticed the very same phrase in a dramatic fragment at P.Oxy. XXXVI 2746.1. Whether this is influ­ ence or coincidence is impossible to say. Indeed, we are not even certain of the date of the original. The brief passage does not seem to show any other affinities with the Exagoge. 49 I leave aside such trivial considerations as that Ezekiel could have been attracted to the OC by the pejorative comments on the perverse mares of the Egyptians (337ff) or that the instruction to pour the libation while facing east (477) may have interested him because of the Jewish custom to face east (i.e., toward Jerusalem-which is indeed almost directly east of Alexandria) during liturgical ritual. JACOBSON, HOWARD, Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:2 (1981:Summer) p.167 HOWARD JACOBSON 177 Greek paradigm for the Biblical events in which he was interested. The mysterious sense of intimacy between Oedipus and the divine forces, the picture of a man who is in some sense chosen by deity, a theme that is nowhere so dominant and moving in extant Greek tragedy as it is in the ~C, might have suggested a sort of relation­ ship like that between Moses and God depicted in the Bible. Both Moses and Oedipus are murderers in exile who are destined to bring benefits to a particular nation, to the Jews who will be liber­ ated from slavery and to the Athenians who shall not fall before their Theban enemies (OC 1533ff). In each case, exile from one's native land is under divine guidance (OC 98) and will ultimately bring catastrophe on the erstwhile homeland. In the opening scene of the OC Ezekiel would have seen a dou­ blet of Moses' encounter at the bush. Almost immediately after Oedipus seats himself on a rock, a stranger rushes up and orders him to leave, for he is treading on ground holy and inviolate, npiv vvv ra nJ...eiov' laropelV, f.K rijaJ' eJpae; e~eJ...()' . exe1e; yap XwpOV oux ayvov narelV. Here are God's words to Moses when the latter approaches the bush (Exodus 3.5): p~ eyyia1]C:; w&· J...v(Jal ro vnoJr;pa f.K rwv noJwv aou· 0 yap ronoe;, ev cP av earr;Kae;, yij ayia eariv. The sacred area into which Oedipus stumbles is iifJaroc:; (167, cf. 675). The bush at Exodus 3.2 is fJaroe;. Whether the translators of the Bible delib­ erately chose fJaroe; as a euphemistic designation for that which was not fJaroe; we do not know. But Ezekiel would have been sensitive to the interesting choice of words here in the Septuagint and the OC.50 Colonus' sacred area is inhabited by 0 nupcpopoc:; ()eOC:; Tlrav llpopr;()c:vc:; (55f), the bush in Sinai is kindled by a miraculous fire. The Eumenides who occupy the grove show traits akin to those usual in the Jewish view of deity: these are gods whose name one is reluctant to recite (ae; rpif-lOPeV J...iYC:1V, 128) and whose shrines people pass without looking (131), just as Moses in the Septuagint turns his head away to avoid looking (Exodus 3.6). In the great hymn to Athens the olive is described in miraculous terms, such as Ezekiel found in Exodus' description of the burning bush. It is called cpvrc:vp' dxeipwrov auronOlov (698), adjectives which suit the 50 Philo plays on {JdTO~/{JaT6c; at Fuga 161-62 and perhaps at QE 2.45. Similarly, Josephus may be playing on the words at AJ 2.265-66. Christian writers also did. See Lampe s.v. i'i{Jaroc;. JACOBSON, HOWARD, Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:2 (1981:Summer) p.167 178 TWO STUDIES ON EZEKIEL THE TRAGEDIAN miraculous bush.51 Sophocles uses a participle of pAa(J'Uivw to describe the olive (697), as Ezekiel does for the bush (93). Ezekiel must have been impressed by the nearly mystical scene of Oedipus' death. In a passage perhaps unique in this respect in Greek tragedy, an unseen divinity calls upon the hero (1626-28): KaAef yap avrov nOAAa nOAAax6 {}eOC;· OJ aurae; aurae;, OI6fnave;, rf l1iAAOl1eV Xwpefv; mlAm b~ nino (Jau ppabt5verm. The peculiar repetition in the divine call OJ ouroe; ouroe; Olbinove; is almost Biblical in tone, like God's call at Exodus 3.4, Mwv(Jij, Mwv(Jij. One final suggestion. If Ezekiel did perceive a kinship between the trespass by Moses on the holy ground at Sinai and that by Oedipus at Colonus, it is then conceivable that Ezekiel's scene began in a way similar to the opening of the OC. There may have been a monologue by Moses in which he wonders where he has now come and what the nature of the place is (so Oedipus at 1ff).52 This would also accord with some post-Biblical accounts in which Moses brings the sheep to a place where no one had ever been before.53 In short, Ezekiel may have seen the Oedipus Coloneus as a Greek dramatic exemplar for Moses' exile from his native land, his encounter with divinity on sacred ground, and his future role as benefactor of the nation. 54 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN April, I98 I 51 On the assumption that Ezekiel took the first to mean 'unconquerable', as it is usually understood. 52 The possibility of some such monologue has been noted by Snell (supra n.2) 174. 53 See, e.g., Jos. AJ 2.267. 54 I am indebted to the journal's anonymous referees for helpful suggestions.