464 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



The Choephori of Aeschylus. 



In considering the recognition scene of the Choephori I shall try to 

 avoid any generalizations on Aeschylus's mode of dealing with recogni- 

 tion scenes, except to state that it seems likely that the real father 

 of Greek tragedy probably adhered more closely to the models of 

 his predecessors, and that his recognition scenes were simpler than 

 those of his successors. What then is the nature of the recognition 

 scene in the Choephori ? I consider it somewhat as follows. Knowing 

 that every form of the legend upon which this drama is built requires 

 an di/ayvwptcrt5, the audience ^^ at the very outset has a preposses- 

 sion that there is to be a recognition scene, and it seems safe to assume 

 that to this the nimble-witted Greeks look forward, eager and curious 

 to see how Aeschylus is going to handle the scene. This preposses- 

 sion of the audience is reinforced by the action of Orestes in 6-7.^^ 



-rrXoKa/JLOv 'Ivo-X!^ Opeirri^pLov, \ tov SeuVfpov 8e rovSe TrevdrjTrjpLov. After 

 this it is only a question of delay, and, in this case, the ' primary ' 

 delay continues to 165 where Electra says, viov SkfxvOov rovSe Kotvutvricrarc, 

 and 167, 6pw To/xaiov rovSe fSocTTpvxov, the beginning of the ' secondary ' 

 delay. These words of Electra mean to the audience that the recogni- 

 tion is about to take place, and I venture to say that every Greek in 

 the audience ' sits up and takes notice ' accordingly. This ' second- 

 ary ' delay continues through 211, where Electra says, TrdpeaTL 8' (iSis 

 Koi (f>pevwv KaTa(f>Oopd. By the locks of hair and the footprints Electra 

 is almost convinced, and yet in doubt. For the resolution of this 

 doubt Orestes appears at the psychological moment and the final act 

 of recognition takes place, not only through Orestes' reiteration of the 

 evidence already adduced, but by producing a piece of weaving (tSoC 8' 

 v<^aa-p.a tovto, 231), adding thereto all the expression of which a good 

 actor 27 is capable. Thus ends the recognition, which occurs rather 

 early in this play as compared with recognitions in Sophocles and Eurip- 

 ides. It suited Aeschylus' dramatic economy to make it thus. Surely 

 there is no evidence that it fell flat. The reason for its early occur- 

 rence does not here concern me ; and as it stands it supports my theory 

 of a ' secondary ' delay. 



25 Throughout this inquiry I try to consider the matter from the point of view 

 of the audience. 



26 I quote the Oxford text, edited by A. Sidgwick. 



" I am inclined to believe that modern critics too often underestimate histri- 

 onic ability and effectiveness, which must have meant much to the Greeks. 



