26 James T. Lees, 



Your present husband is not banished to avenge your son, 

 nor is he killed to avenge me, although I suffer a living 

 death at his hands. 



4. 'E7rtXo709, 1093 {el S')-I096 : 



ei S' ufieL-^Jrerat 

 (f}6vov ScKci^fov ^6vo<;, airoKTevo) a ijco 

 KoX TraZ? 'OpeaTTji; Trarpl Ttficopov/juevoi • 

 el jap hiKai eKeiva, koL rdS' evhcKa} 



After a short conversation between Klytaimnestra and 

 Elektra, in the course of which the usual o-ri-^^ofivdia is used 

 rather sparingly (1116-1123, 1128-1131), the scene closes 

 with the departure of Klytaimnestra to offer sacrifice. 



The prj(TL<i of Klytaimnestra contains three distinct and 

 separate divisions, the irpoOea-L'; being included in the first 

 part of the iriaTei'^. The Trpooifiiov is general except v. 10 15 

 — ft)? fiev "Trap' i)/jitv — by which the general statement is 

 applied to herself. In the Tr/crrei? we find four arguments 

 advanced in defence of her crime. The last of these is a 

 remarkable hypothetical case which corresponds in every par- 

 ticular to the real one, and to this hypothesis it is implied 

 there can be but one answer. The iirlXoyo^ is short, and 

 simply an invitation to the opponent to answer the argu- 

 ments advanced. 



In the pf]at^ of Elektra the Trpooi/jnov is very short and to 

 the point. In the first verse the word Trpooifitov occurs, which 

 is found in but one other passage in the rhetorical pi'/crei'; of 

 Euripides. In Hek. 1195 it occurs at the end of the irpooi- 

 fiLov. In the 7riaTei<i Elektra has not followed the order of 

 the arguments of her mother. In fact it cannot be said that 

 she has answered any one of the arguments clearly and dis- 

 tinctly. She barely touches upon an answer to /3. 1024- 

 1029 in the words aKri^iv TTporeivova, k.t.X. (1067 fg.), but 



^ Kirchhoff and Nauck rightly bracket vv. 1097-I101. The pijaLS ends far 

 better with v. 1096 than with v, 1099. Cf. rdd' evdiKa (1096) with ovk evdUus 

 (1050). 



