1454a32_2 ἡ ἐν Αὐλίδι Ἰφιγένεια: Iph. Aul.1211 sqq. and 1368 sqq.

1454a33

15.9 Le même Poëte a peché contre l'égalité dans ſon Iphige-nie en Aulide, car l'Iphigenie ſuppliante qu'on voit au commen-cement, n'est pas la même que l' Iphigenie courageuse qu'on voit à la fin.] ¹

15.9 OF UNUNIFORM MANNERS, IN THE IPHIGENIA AT AULIS, &C. —

"How does this appear, independently of the name of this great critic? Iphigenia is drawn indeed at first, fearful and suppliant: and surely with the greatest observance of nature. The account of her destination to the altar was sudden, and without the least preparation: and, as Lucretius well observes, in commenting her case, NUBENDI TEMPORE IN IPSO; when her thoughts were all employed, and, according to the simplicity of those times, confessed to be so, on her promised nuptials. The cause of such destination too, as appeared at first, was the private family interest of Menelaus. All this justifies, or rather demands, the strongest expression of female fear and weakness. But she afterwards recants and voluntarily devotes herself to the altar." And this, with the same strict attention to probability. She had now informed herself of the importance of the case. Her devotement was the demand of Apollo, and the joint petition of all Greece. The glory of her country, the dignity and interest of her family, the life of the generous Achilles, and her own future fame, were, all, nearly concerned in it. All this considered, together with the high, heroic sentiments of those times, and the superior merit, as was believed, of voluntary devotement, Iphigenia's character must have been very unfit for the distress of a whole Tragedy to turn upon, if she had not, in the end, discovered the readiest submission to her appointment. But, to show with what wonderful propriety the Poet knew to sustain his characters, we find her, after all, and notwithstanding the heroism of the change, in a strong and passionate apostrophe to her native Mycenæ, confessing some involuntary apprehensions and regrets, the remains of that instinctive abhorrence of death, which had before so strongly possessed her.

Εθρέψας Ελλαδι μέγα φαβ / Θανεσα δ᾽ ἐκ ἀναινομαι.

Once the bright star of Greece / But I submit to die.

"This, I take to be not only a full vindication of the consistency of Iphigenia's character, but as delicate a stroke of nature as is, perhaps, to be found in any writer."

Commentary on the Ep. to the Pifos, &c. vol. i. p. 113, &c.

If all I knew of the Tragedy in question was from this ingenious defence, I should certainly acquit Euripides. I cannot acquit him, or can only partially acquit him, when I read the Tragedy itself. The fact perhaps is, that the question, whether the critic's censure be just or not, cannot possibly be decided by any general statement of the case. That Iphigenia, so circumstanced as she is here, and very justly, described to be, might at first be timid and suppliant, and, at last, meet death with resolution, and this, without any inconsistence, or duplicity of character, will hardly be disputed. But the question is, whether Euripides has actually so drawn this timidity, and this resolution, as to preserve the unity of character. To determine this fairly, we must, at last, have recourse to the detail of the Poet's execution, and the actual impression which, on the whole, it leaves upon the reader's mind. All depends here upon degree and manner. A single nuance in the colouring, a flight depression or elevation of tone, in the suppliant, or the heroine, may be sufficient to determine the impression this way, or that. What this impression was upon Aristotle's mind, it may be observed that he has marked very precisely and clearly by the expression, :—"the supplicating Iphigenia is NOTHING LIKE the Iphigenia of the conclusion." The expression, I think, does not imply, that he thought the mere circumstance of her supplicating at first for life, and recanting afterwards, was, of itself, necessarily inconsistent, but, that the manner in which she supplicated was such, as to make her, in that part, appear to be a different character, another person, from what she appears to be when she recants.

My own opinion I confess to be, that though the considerations suggested in this ingenious defence of Euripides may prove the censure of Aristotle to be too strongly, or, at least, too generally, expressed, yet they do not prove it to be without foundation. I say, too generally, because perhaps there is but one passage in the speech of the suppliant Iphigenia, to which the is fairly applicable, in its full force. Her speech, , &c. v. 1211, which, on the whole, is highly pathetic, ends with these unhappy lines:

μαινεται δ᾽ ὡς ἐυχεται / Θανειν ΚΑΚΩΣ ΖΗΝ ΚΡΕΙΣΣΟΝ Η ΘΑΝΕΙΝ ΚΑΛΩΣ.

v. 1249. ¹ I leave it to the reader to determine, whether any intervening circumstances, that can be imagined, will make it at all conceivable, that the same Iphigenia, should, in the short space of time taken up by the recital of, at most, only 35 lines of dialogue, experience such a total change of sentiments, as to express the most heroic resolution, and the utmost sensibility to the glory of dying for her country; as to say,—

— δίδωμι σωμα τ' εμον Ἑλλαδι. / Θυετ , ἐκπορθειτε Τροιαν ταυτα γαρ μνημεια με, / Δια μακρε, και παιδες ἐτοι, και γαμοι, και δοξ᾿ ἐμη.

v. 1397. ²

For Greece I give my life. / "Slay me, demolish Troy: for these shall be / Long time my monuments, my children these, / My nuptials, and my glory."

Potter's Eurip. v. 1549.

It seems probable, that Aristotle had chiefly in view the particular lines I have quoted; and had he any way pointed his censure to that passage—had he said, , &c. quoting, or referring to, the verses, I think there could have been no objection to the justice of his criticism.

Gravina , who has also defended Euripides in his book Della Tragedia , lays great stress upon a circumstance, which does, indeed, seem to be of considerable moment in the Poet's justification; I mean, the effect of necessity in producing courage and resolution.

" Non é maraviglia, se Ifigenia, quantunque per naturalezza del sesso, timida, ed amorosa della vita, finchè la poteva sperare; poi resa forte dalla necessità, madre spesso anche delle virtù morali, come anima generosamente educata, disprezza la morte, e cangia l'amor della vita in compiacenza di gloria. Il che alla giornata anche osserviamo in persone di nascita e d'animo vile, che condotte alla morte, arditamente l'abbracciano, quantunque al primo avviso costernate rimanessero; perchè l'idea della necessità non avea usata ancor la fua forza."

[Sect. 19.] This seems much to the purpose; and it is supported by its agreement with what we find in the Tragedy itself. For the change in the sentiments and language of Iphigenia is not, as we have seen, produced before the scene in Trochaics between Cly- tæmneſtra and Achilles; the very scene in which the inevitable necessity of the sacrifice is first made clearly apparent. The effect of this on the resolution of Iphigenia is visible also in her speech: , &c. v. 1372.

The learned Mr. Markland , in his excellent edition of the two Iphigenias, defends Euripides upon very different ground. He admits the inconsistence, not only in the character of Iphigenia, but in all the characters of the play, except Clytæmneſtra; and even in the chorus. But all this he supposes to have been in- tended by the Poet, as a moral lesson—a striking picture of the "levity and inconstancy of the human mind." And he wonders, which I cannot say I do, that this should have escaped the of Aristotle ³ .

ἔστι δὲ παράδειγμα κτλ. tria morum pingendorum praecepta illustrare ita pergit, ut quomodo peccatum sit in primum et tertium singulis exemplis, et quomodo id quod aptum ( τὸ ἁρμόττον) non servatum sit, duobus exemplis demonstret. πονηροῦ ἤθους (quod contrarium τῷ χρηστῷ) exemplar Menelaus est qualem Euripides in Oreste monstravit; τὸ ἁρμόττον violavit Euripides cum in Scylla lamentationem Ulixis et in Melanippa orationem minime convenientem puellae inseruit; inconstantiae vitium deprehenditur in Euripidis Iphigenia Aulidensi. Euripidis nomen epitomator brevitati nimium studens omisit. de singulis ordine dicam. Μενέλαος ὁ ἐν τῷ Ὀρέστη: primum illud praeceptum quo commendatur tragico poetae, ut χρηστὰ ἤθη fingat, Euripides in tragoedia Oreste violavit, cum Menelaum inconstantia foedum atque improbum finxit, eoque magis violavit quod neque argumenti illius natura neque fabulosae historiae traditione cogebatur (hoc est illud μὴ ἀναγκαῖον), sed civibus suis Laconas aversantibus gratificaturus Menelaum Laconem talem descripsit. conf. Marklandius ad Euripidis Iphigen. Aulid. v. 304. qui argumentum Orestae conscripsit monet: τὸ δράμα τῶν ἐπὶ σκηνῆς εὐδοκιμούντων, χείριστον δὲ τοῖς ἤθεσιν· πλὴν γὰρ Πυλάδου πάντες φαῦλοι ἦσαν. θρῆνος Ὀδυσσέως ἐν τῇ Σκύλλῃ: transit ad peccata in alterum praeceptum commissa. Scyllam' nonnisi ex hoc loco et ex c. 26 init. cognovimus. Euripidis fabulam fuisse inde discimus quod media inter Euripideas af-COMMENTARIVS! fertur, drama Satyricum fuisse vir in his litteris versatissimus, Welckerus noster, mox demonstrabit. - καὶ ἡ τῆς Μελανίππης ῥῆσις: Melanippam Euripidis tragoediam saepe, scriptores antiqui respiciunt, ac fragmenta non pauca inde servata sunt. inerat mira et arguta puellae Melanippae ad patrem oratio. illa enim cum geminum partuma Ne ptuno compressa edidisset et in patris stabulis clam exposuisset, ille autem infantulos tamquam monstra ex bubus nata comburere pararet, filia ex placitis Anaxagorae probare studuit, pueros quamvis ex bubus natos non pro monstris habendos esse; item multa alia attulit quibus patri interimendorum puerorum consilium dissuaderet. vid. Dionysii Halic. Rhetor. apud Reiskium vol. V. pag. 300 et 355. propter disputationis subtilitatem ea fabula Μελανίππη ἡ σοφή vocabatur. quemadmodum lamentatio non decet Ulixem virum fortem, sic oratio tam subtilis et parum verecunda non convenit virgini tantis difficultatibus impeditae. sane et illud epitomatorem sapit quod ῥῆσις Μελανίππης tam nude pro exemplo ponitur. – ἡ ἐν Αὐλίδι Ἰφιγένεια: constantiae in moribus observandae praeceptum egressus est Euripides in Iphigenia Aulidensi, nimirum non hoc reprehenditur quod Iphigenia vitam sibi a patre primo supplex deprecatur ac mox rerum condicionem perspiciens mactandam sese offert, sed id recte me iudice vituperatur, quod eadem virgo quae v. 1211-1252. abiecte et humiliter flendo ne immoletur precatur, quaeque adeo ad inhonesta et turpia illa descendit, τὸ φῶς τόδ' ἀνθρώποισιν ἥδιστον βλέπειν, い ​ τὰ νέρθε δ᾽ οὐδέν· μαίνεται δ' ὃς εὔχεται θανεῖν, κακῶς ζῆν κρεῖσσον ἢ θανεῖν καλῶς, quod eadem non multo post (v. 1368-1401) prorsus conversa et tamquam virago fortissima procedit. frustra non Euripidem sed Chaeremonem a se pro auctore fabulae habitum defendere atque hanc reprehensionem diluere conatus est Gruppius in Ariadna p. 487 sqq. et 498 sqq. idem totum hunc locum (§. 5) additamentum esse ab aliena manu insertum :opinatur. vid. p. 557 sqq. hoc si verum esset, tria alia exempla (§. 7) pro insertis maiore etiam iure habenda essent. sed hisce sublatis de moribus disputatio adeo quasi marcescit et vanescit, ut paucula quaedam frusta remaneant: sed cum eadem bonas observationes et pro illo interpolatore nimis egregias contineat, hunc de moribus locum ab illo non scriptum sed insigniter decurtatum et prave dispositum esse coniicere praestat. illud bene monuit Gruppius, ipsum Aristotelem Iphigeniam Euripideam non tam nude designaturum fuisse, cum et Sophocles et Aeschylus Iphigeniam docuerint et Polyidus sophista eodem nomine tragoediam evulgaverit. vid. infra c. 16, 6 et c. 17, 3. sed haec et alia in quibus offendit Gruppius, cur ita se habeant ex nostra ratione liquet. : :