ABSTRACT
IN T R O D U C T IO N Tragedy created new possibilities for allusion: suggestive echoes could be multiplied, dispersed, and made to resonate in a poetic space extended far beyond the usual limits of polished lyric and pointed elegiac. H ints could be followed up and reinforced, shaped, and modified ju st as could the imagery internal to the play or even trilogy. Thus, extended or multiple allusions might seem a natural means for Aeschylus to use; but perhaps engaged in the labor of bringing tragedy from some primitive form into what we recognize as its classic shape, his creative energy was consumed in other m atters. In any case, the three earliest plays we have from Aeschylus, the Persians, Seven Against Thebes, and the Suppliants, seem to fall together into a group in which allusion was of relatively little importance. Perhaps if we had any respectable portion of Aeschylus’ dram atic output we would see this as part of a general pattern. Certainly he was generally less given to borrowing Homeric phrases and formulae than Sophocles or Euripides.1 However, with so few plays to judge by, we may simply be faced with coincidence. Very different from the early plays is the work which closes Aeschylus’ career, the Oresteia\ yet like so much in Aeschylus, it is a special case in m ultiple ways: besides being late, it is also our only extant trilogy, and, unlike his other extant plays, it is explicitly concerned with the story of Troy. Some or all of these circumstances may help explain why the Homeric past more frequently finds its way into the poetry of the trilogy than into that of the earlier plays. There is, of course, a seventh play, the Prometheus Bound, which here is reserved for separate treatm ent. The allusions in the play are so extensive, so closely related to each
other, and so im portant to the plot and themes of the play itself that they require more extensive exam ination. T H E EARLY PLAYS
T he Persians is Aeschylus’ first extant play, and its first line is as clear an echo as anything in Greek tragedy: xd6e (uiev TleQacov xcov oixo^ievwv paraphrases the first line of Phrynichus’ Phoenissae: x a6 ’ eaxi nspooav xcbv n a k a i |3e|3r)x6ia)V.Since Phrynichus’ play (probably produced in 476 B.C.) and Aeschylus’ (produced in 472) told much the same story, the tension that arises from the introduction of another poet’s words is quickly and easily resolved: prim ary field and secondary field areessentially the same. The authoritative position of both lines as the first in their respective plays helps trigger recognition, but one recognizes more a compliment than an allusion.2 In one small point exact memory makes Phrynichus’ line an effective foil for Aeschylus’: the earlier play’s neutral peprjxoxorv, which simply m eans ugo,” has been replaced by otxo^ievcov, with its idiomatic possibility of “go to destruction,” hinting ominously at the coming disaster.3Ju s t as the exam ination of Aeschylus’ use of earlier tragedy is severely limited by the scarcity of surviving m aterial, so observations about his allusions to lyric are generally confined to a bare identification of his sources. Thus, for example, Fraenkel declared that at Persae 763 the phrase “sheep-feeding A sia” was an “unquestionable borrowing” from Archilochus who had used the identical phrase (227W); since no context for the lyric line survives, no application of the vehicle to the tenor can be m ade.4 Similarly, a poem of Alcaeus’ (6V) has been thought to lie behind Aeschylus’ image of an arm y as a dangerous wave opposed by a worthy m an (.Pers. 87-92), and there are some striking verbal similarities between the two passages. In this case, both the fragm entary nature of the Alcaean song and the great frequency of nautical imagery in Greek poetry block further in terpretation of the echo.In contrast to tragic or lyric allusions and im itations, the Hom eric m aterial always includes a context so that the secondary field can be examined for relevance. In the Persians the Homeric echoes, few though they are, represent a typical range of Aeschylean use, at least for the plays we have. They also follow a
pattern which seems to hold true for tragedy as a whole: there are about twice as many imitations or allusions to the Iliad as to the Odyssey, and the Iliadic references tend to be crisper and more suggestively allusive. For example, Aeschylus seems to have taken the phrase used for O dysseus’ raft - “a stout-bound raft” (oxe6ir|c; JtoXu6eo(iou, Od. 5.33 and 7.264) - as the model for the description of the bridge the Persians build to cross into Greece-"a cable-bound raft . . . stout-clam ped” (Xivo&eo^io) o xzb iq . . . Jro^uyo^ujxrv, 68-71) . ) A phrase from the Odyssey has been im itated, but no gain is to be had by identifying its origin. A subsequent use of language from the Iliad seems to work somewhat differently. Thus, when the Persian elders learn of the destruction of their army, they cry that many Persian women have been made bereft of children and husbands (cog JtoXXac; FlepaiSayv jidxav exxioav dm 6a< ; f|6 ’ avavSpoug, 288-9). The word etm q, which must here be translated as "bereft of children,’1 is quite rare and properly seems to mean simply “bereft.” It occurs in earlier Greek literature only twice, once in the Iliad (22.44) and once in the Odyssey (9.524), and there are a num ber of reasons to suspect that it is taken from that same speech of Priam ’s in Iliad 22 which Tyrtaeus had used to such effect.0 First, as a general consideration, this scene in the Iliad is the most frequently echoed in all Greek literature, so heavily used that it seems likely to have been widely known in great detail — perhaps regularly learned by Athenian children - and so it seems a particularly likely candidate for a significant allusion. More specifically, the text of Persians has a small but puzzling ungram m aticality which may trigger an allusion to this Homeric passage in particular. Aeschylus has used the adjective “bereft” elliptically; in order for the lines to make sense, one must understand the complement “sons.” If one goes to Priam 's epic speech, the word is explicitly supplied. Moreover, like the Persian elders, Priam emphasizes the multiplicity of the loss (uicov jioXXcov xe x a i eoBXcbv euviv £0r|xe). Epic had concentrated the loss of so many sons in the grief of one father, Priam, and in the destructive agency of one enemy, Achilles: but Priam 's cr\ translates well into the woe of the many in Aeschylus. Finally, since Priam is an Asian ruler whose destruction is being carried out by a heroic Greek warrior, integration of the Homeric secondary field brings welcome connotations of brilliant Greek
achievement and complete Asian ruin.But supposing even the odd use of e im v combined with the popularity of the Homeric passage could not trigger an allusion. M any times in tragedy, even when the tenor is greatly enriched by the vehicle of another text, and the relationship seems too carefully created to ascribe to chance, it is nevertheless so difficult to specify a certain trigger that the poet’s work seems liable to be lost on his audience. Such circumstances can be paralleled in Greek literature: m odern readers of P indar and the tragedians have become accustomed to the presence of complicated features of their works which it is difficult to imagine their audiences could have noticed. M oreover, as with im itations, such details in poetic composition are interesting both as a guide to the au thor’s creative process and frequently as an index to accom panying allusions.7 I will use a term - the only one introduced by this book - for such allusions which have no trigger or a very weak one: the poet’s apparent play with another text in this way will be called collusion.Aeschylus’ other use of the Iliad in the Persians illustrates two trends common to all three tragedians in allusive and im itative practice. Homeric imagery has been incorporated into a battle report that is part of a messenger speech (Pers. 302-30). Such speeches, concentrating on eventful narrative, are rich in epic flavor and often contain specific allusions (see Appendix C). Here the focus is on a Homeric simile, and this choice as well is characteristic of Greek tragedy (see Appendix D). In this case, the simile com paring a blood-stain on M enelaus’ thigh to the dye used for ivory ornam ents (II. 4.141-7) has been converted by Aeschylus to a metaphor: blood from the fatal wound which stains the Persian com m ander’s beard is described as deep purple dye (314-17).8 Perhaps the charioteer for whom the ivory is ornam ented in the Homeric simile influenced Aeschylus to apply his m etaphor to a cavalry commander. The nature of this writing is hard to classify: it is certainly less than allusion, perhaps not even precisely collusion. Yet it makes a more precise use - more related to the context of the vehicle - than an example such as O dysseus’ raft and the bridge ju st discussed above. There will be more examples in tragedy where the Homeric simile im itated bears a similarly complex relationship to the tragedian’s material.Seven against Thebes enjoyed great popularity in antiquity and was alluded to repeatedly by Sophocles and Euripides; but although
Aeschylus famously made it 'Apecog (xeaxov (full of Ares), he chose not to achieve his warlike tone with extensive allusions to the Iliady Still, the range of technique represented in the scattering of Iliadic echoes bears examination. Three early passages in the play are often compared to specific models. First, the opening image of the helmsman keeping his eyes open through the night (vv. 2-3) has been likened to a similar passage in the Odyssey (5.270-1), but the scholiast saw a resemblance to Iliad 2.24, and nautical imagery in general is so common in Greek poetry that the lines may not even be a direct im itation .10 Next, Eteocles’ rebuke to the chorus of Theban women that they should tend to their domestic m atters and leave public m atters to men (200-1) has been seen at least since the scholiast as an echo of H ector’s similar advice to Androm ache (Iliad 6.490-3). Again, however, despite the popularity of the possible Iliadic source, this sentim ent may well be more a commonplace than an imitation. Finally, Eteocles presents a proverb to which the chorus responds with the assurance that god often helps the helpless even when clouds threaten (226-9). It has been suggested that the image recalls the incident of Athena clearing the mist from the eyes of the Greeks (Iliad 15.668-70), but except for the mention of eyes the two passages share little .11Three rem aining passages in this play can be tied much more confidently to the Iliad. First, a unique Homeric phrase for a jagged rock - xePM'a &t(P • • • oxpioevxi (II. 4.518) - has beenborrowed from a battle in the Iliad and put into the chorus’ fearful description of the battle for Thebes (/epM-CtS’ oxpioeooav, 300). This quotation from the Iliad may help serve as a trigger for the next one which in turn reinforces the effect of the trigger itself. The women fearfully envision their city cast to Hades, and their words \ \ t 6 a jipoi&'ijjai (322) are an obvious echo of the opening of' the Iliad, so often alluded to (vA i6i Jtpoioipev, II.1.3) .12 To add to the tension created by quotation, Aeschylus has placed the Homeric phrase at the beginning of a strophe where, by convention, a gap is easily created. Thebes is equated with Troy by means of this near quotation, with the effect that the ultim ate doom the chorus envisions for its city acquires ominous and authoritative weight. Here the play, surprisingly sparing in its use of epic, draws the maximum effect from the very simple allusion to the helpless plight of Troy. Considered out of context, an allusion to the opening lines of the Iliad seems unlikely to have a powerful
effect. But by giving these words to the frightened women of the city, Aeschylus suggests all the horror similarly foreseen by T roy’s terrified inhabitants at the climactic moments of the Iliad, particularly during the exchanges H ector has with his wife and parents in Books 6 and 22. G reat art has distilled much of the Iliad*s tragic power into two carefully placed w ords.13The final possible allusion in the Seven is another of the chorus’s lyric reflections - this one on the deaths of Polyneices and Eteocles at each o ther’s hands (930-6). The chorus says, “O f the same blood they are totally destroyed, in hostile parting and through frenzied strife, in the end of their quarrel.” The duel fought by Polyneices and Eteocles as leaders of their opposing forces is them atically reminiscent of that fought by H ector and Ajax in Iliad 7. At the conclusion of that conflict, however, H ector proposes that the two - one a Greek, the other T rojan - part with gifts of friendship. The statem ent he imagines will be typically m ade of their friendly parting has been pointedly inverted by Aeschylus in the chorus’ description:
(II. 7.301-2) They battled in strife that eats at the heartand then parted having formed an alliance in friendship. o^ioojiopoi 6fjxa xai jtavcokeOpoi, / diaxo^iaTg ou (juXaig, epidi iiaivofisva,/vexeog ev teKevto..
