22 James T. Lees, 



i]aa(ov elrj tovtov airojaaadaL Kal d/jivvaaOac Bvvaro'i ; el 8' 

 earlv avOpcoinvov voarj/jua Kal "v/^f^^f dyvoTj/xa, ov'x^ &)? dfidp- 

 rrj/jba fie/xTrreov dXX' co? dTV')(7]iJLa vofxiareov • yXde yap oh rfk-de 

 TvxV'i dypeu/xaatv, ov yvcofXTjf; /dovXev/JLaaL, Kal epa)TO<i dvdyKaL'i, 

 ov T6'^vr]'i 7rapaaK€val<i. 



Compare the argument of Helen before Theonoe in Eur. 

 Hel. 929 ig. : 



rjv S' 'EXXaS' €\6(i) KdTTLjSa) S7rdpTrj<i irore, 

 K\vovTe<i €lcn86vr€<; &)? re^vai? Oecov 

 mXovt, iyco 8e TrpoSort"? ovk i]/x7]v (f)L\(ov. 



Also the remarkable statement made by the "deus ex 

 machina" in Elek. 1282 ig. : 



Zeu? 8', ft)? ept? yevoLTo Kal (j)ovo'i ^poTcov, 

 etSwXov 'EXeVr;? e'|'e7re/i'\^' e? 'iXtov. 



Such arguments as the above were common enough among 

 the sophists at Athens in Euripides' time, and no doubt the 

 poet drew from them in this p^o-t? of Helen as well as in 

 other speeches, especially the pi]ai<i of Kassandra in Troad. 

 353-405, where the sophistic element is at its highest in 

 Euripides. 



B. — DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN TWO OR MORE SPEAKERS. 



1. Alkestis, 614-738. 'P>;o-ei?, 629-672, 675-705. 

 Disputants, Admetos and Pheres. 



2. Andromache, 147-746. 'P?;cre<9, 147-180, 183-231, 

 319-363, (384-420), 590-641, 645-690, {693-726). 



Dispjitants, Hermione and Andromache ; Andromache and 

 Menelaos ; Menelaos and Peleus. 



3. Bakchai, 210-369. 'P?;crei9, 266-327, 330-342. 

 Disputants, Teiresias, Kadmos, and Pentheus. 



4. Kyklops, 203-355. 'P';Vef9, 285-312, 316-347. 

 Disputants, Odysseus and Kyklops. 



