All past interpretations of this passage involve an obscure train of thought. There appear to be two ideas running right through; light-twilight-night, and quick-slow-. But how are we to combine these ideas so as to make sense of them ? Most, if not all, past commentators have agreed in taking to mean ‘punishes’’ and most interpretations conform to one or other of the following patterns.

All past interpretations of this passage involve an obscure train of thought. There appear to be two ideas running right through; light-twilight-night, and quick-slow-. But how are we to combine these ideas so as to make sense of them? Most, if not all, past commentators have agreed in taking to mean ‘punishes’’ and most interpretations conform to one or other of the following patterns.

By presenting ‘an Arab view’ on the much-discussed ‘footprint-scene’, Aeschylus, ch. 205ff., L. A. Tregenza was able to prove that, judging by Bedouin customs, this strange method of recognition is not so impossible and childish as some ancient and modern critics have believed. In addition, a specifically Greek aspect of the problem may be pointed out.

Sidgwick describes this strophe as ‘locus corruptus, coniecturis nondum sanatus.’ Mazon, who prints απεύχεται in 1. 625, leaving the rest as it stands, says ‘texte douteux.’ Of the three principal attempts to amend or otherwise interpret it, that of Hermann is too radical and far-fetched, requiring an excessive parenthesis. That of Headlam involves the strange theory that the chorus suddenly divides itself into two, and that one half indulges in a sort of disorderly interruption of the other. That of Wilamowitz (...) , while leaving the worst textual difficulty to stand, supposes that the chorus accuses itself of weakness and subservience to Clytemnestra, which, in view of Wilamowitz's own convincing interpretation of the Parodos, is highly improbable. (shrink)

By presenting ‘an Arab view’ on the much-discussed ‘footprint-scene’, Aeschylus, ch. 205ff., L. A. Tregenza was able to prove that, judging by Bedouin customs, this strange method of recognition is not so impossible and childish as some ancient and modern critics have believed. In addition, a specifically Greek aspect of the problem may be pointed out.

By presenting ‘an Arab view’ on the much-discussed ‘footprint-scene’, Aeschylus, ch. 205ff., L. A. Tregenza was able to prove that, judging by Bedouin customs, this strange method of recognition is not so impossible and childish as some ancient and modern critics have believed. In addition, a specifically Greek aspect of the problem may be pointed out.

The attempts of Verrall and Tucker to discover, without resorting to emendation, a construction for the participles in v. 285 have convinced only their authors. All other recent scholars either postulate a lacuna before this line or transpose it to follow v. 288, if they do not delete it altogether. All alike assume that both participles describe the behaviour of the victim of the underworld powers.

The line in question occurs towards the end of Orestes' final exchange with Clytemnestra, after her attempts at self-defence have all met with rebuttal.

The line in question occurs towards the end of Orestes' final exchange with Clytemnestra, after her attempts at self-defence have all met with rebuttal.

The awkwardness of the word in 997 has called forth various transpositions and excisions, but none so far suggested seems to put the passage right. Thus Fraenkel excised 991—6 and 1005 f. Professor H. Lloyd-Jones very rightly defends the passage against this, advocating the placing of 991—6 between 1005 and 1006. But although the verses do indeed fit here, is still slightly odd, since a few lines come between Orestes' first talking of the robe and his next mention of it (...) , and in these lines both Clytemnestra and Aegisthus are mentioned. (shrink)

The second play of the trilogy begins with the appearance before Agamemnon's tomb of the long-absent Orestes, who prays to Hermes for aid in his revenge and then dedicates upon the tomb a lock of hair cut from his own head. He is interrupted by the entrance of Electra together with the captive women who form the Chorus; in consequence of an evil dream, Clytemnestra has sent them to pour a libation to the spirit of her murdered husband. After discussion (...) with the Chorus, Electra resolves to accompany that libation not with words of appeasement, but with a prayer for her father's help in taking revenge upon his murderers. Going to the tomb to pour the libation, she notices upon it the lock put there by Orestes . She notices that the hair is like her own, and at once suspects that it may be her brother's. ‘How can he have dared to come here?’ the Chorus ask her ; and she replies that he must have sent the lock from his place of exile. The thought that Orestes' return is impossible plunges both the Chorus and Electra into deep sorrow, and in tears Electra broods over the lock . It can belong only to Orestes; she wishes it could speak, so that either she could know it not to be his, or else it could at least take part with her in mourning. At this point, if we cantrusttheone manuscript, Electra breaks off her reflections with a prayer . ‘But we call upon the gods,’ she says, ‘well do they know by what storms, like sailors, we are buffeted; but if we are fated to find safety, from a small seed may grow a mighty trunk.’ Next, if we are to trust what is transmitted, Electra catches sight of a new indication of her brother's presence. ‘Yes, and here are tracks,’ she says , ‘a second indication, the tracks of feet matching each other and resembling mine. Yes, for here are two outlines of feet, his own and those of some companion. The heels and the outlines of the tendons agree in their proportions with my prints. I am in torment, and my wits are confounded.’. (shrink)

Orestes has revealed himself to Electra and sworn with her to avenge Agamemnon. He outlines his plan and leaves the stage with a prayer to his father, after warning the chorus against indiscretion . They begin: Earth nurtures many dread hurts and fears; the sea's embrace is full of monsters hostile to man; lights in mid-air between earth and heaven also harm winged things and things that tread the earth; and one might also tell of the stormy wrath of tempests. (...) But who could tell of a man's unruly will, and of ruthless woman's unbridled passions, that share her heart with evil powers ruinous to mankind?3 But surpassing all is the wicked female passion whereby wedded union is worsted, among beasts and men alike. (shrink)

This paper proposes a slight emendation at Aesch. Choeph. 68, which allows to rescue the transmitted adjective διαλγής by referring it to the sufferer instead that to Ate, and to recover at the same time a connective particle which many editors missed in the passage.