Arts, Faculty of
Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies, Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Graf, Livia
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
In this thesis I examine the supplication within Aeschylus’ Suppliant Women through the lens of the expectations a tragic audience would have of the scene. By looking at all examples of supplication and all uses of ἱκετ- language in tragedy, expectations of the suppliant and the supplicandus become evident. The suppliant is expected to show reverence to the supplicandus, the receiver of the supplication. The suppliant typically does this in three main ways: the use of gesture, the presentation of objects, and the use of appeals. The supplicandus is expected to provide a response to the suppliant, by either rejecting the supplication if they are threatening the suppliant or accepting the supplication if they are saving the suppliant from external harm. Rather than present the Danaids as reverent, Aeschylus alters these three common means of showing respect and further adds threats and expressions of anger, thus presenting the women as aggressive. Pelasgus, unlike the Danaids, meets his expectation and accepts the women’s supplication due to the fear incited by the women. By presenting the supplication scene in this way Aeschylus highlights the manipulative potential of the practice; Pelasgus is compelled to accept the Danaids despite the fact that they do not fulfill the expectation the audience would have of them.
MANIPULATIVE SUPPLICATION VIOLENCE AND AGGRESSION IN AESCHYLUS’ SUPPLIANT WOMEN by Livia Graf B.A., Boston University, 2018 M.A., The University of British Columbia, 2021 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Ancient Culture, Religion & Ethnicity) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2023 © Livia Graf, April 2023 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled: Manipulative supplication: violence and aggression in Aeschylus’ Suppliant Women submitted by Livia Graf in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Ancient Culture, Religion & Ethnicity Examining Committee: Florence Yoon, Associate Professor, Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Studies, UBC Supervisor CW Marshall, Professor, Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Studies, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Philip Yoo, Assistant Professor, Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Studies, UBC Supervisory Committee Member iii Abstract In this thesis I examine the supplication within Aeschylus’ Suppliant Women through the lens of the expectations a tragic audience would have of the scene. By looking at all examples of supplication and all uses of ἱκετ- language in tragedy, expectations of the suppliant and the supplicandus become evident. The suppliant is expected to show reverence to the supplicandus, the receiver of the supplication. The suppliant typically does this in three main ways: the use of gesture, the presentation of objects, and the use of appeals. The supplicandus is expected to provide a response to the suppliant, by either rejecting the supplication if they are threatening the suppliant or accepting the supplication if they are saving the suppliant from external harm. Rather than present the Danaids as reverent, Aeschylus alters these three common means of showing respect and further adds threats and expressions of anger, thus presenting the women as aggressive. Pelasgus, unlike the Danaids, meets his expectation and accepts the women’s supplication due to the fear incited by the women. By presenting the supplication scene in this way Aeschylus highlights the manipulative potential of the practice; Pelasgus is compelled to accept the Danaids despite the fact that they do not fulfill the expectation the audience would have of them. iv Lay Summary Supplication is a ritualized form of request-making common throughout the ancient Mediterranean. This thesis examines the practice’s skewed representation within Aeschylus’ Suppliant Women. I first determine the expectations a tragic audience would have of this supplication scene: the Danaids, the suppliants, are expected to show Pelasgus, the individual receiving the supplication, reverence, and Pelasgus is expected to accept the Danaids’ supplication. I then argue that in this play Aeschylus alters typical supplication behaviors, thus countering audience expectations. The Danaids do not engage in expected reverential behaviors towards Pelasgus. Instead, they express anger and threaten Pelasgus who, nevertheless, fulfills the expectation the audience has of him: he accepts the women’s supplication. Through this representation of the practice, Aeschylus highlights supplication’s manipulative potential. v Preface This thesis is the original, unpublished, and independent work of Livia Graf. All translations are original. All data was compiled by Livia Graf. vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface .............................................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................x Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................1 Chapter 2. Tragic Supplication: Audience Expectations ...........................................................6 2.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Reverence and the Tragic Suppliant ................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Gesture ......................................................................................................................... 19 2.2.2 Presentation of Objects ................................................................................................ 23 2.2.3 Appeal .......................................................................................................................... 26 2.2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 29 2.3 Tragic Supplicandi: Rescuers and Threateners ................................................................... 30 2.4 Altar/Individual Supplication .............................................................................................. 38 Chapter 3. Aeschylus’ Alterations of Tragic Supplication.......................................................42 3.1 Aeschylus’ Changes to Common Supplication Behaviors ................................................. 42 3.1.1 Gesture ......................................................................................................................... 43 3.1.2 Presentation of Objects ................................................................................................ 44 vii 3.1.3 Appeal .......................................................................................................................... 47 3.2 Aggressive Supplication ..................................................................................................... 53 3.2.1 Control of the Interaction ............................................................................................. 54 3.2.2 Expressions of Anger ................................................................................................... 57 3.2.3 μηχανὴ καλή: Τhe Women’s Suicide Threat ............................................................... 63 3.2.4 Pelasgus’ Expressions of Fear ..................................................................................... 66 3.3 Pelasgus’ Response ............................................................................................................. 69 3.4 Suppliant Women Compared to Altar/Individual Supplications ......................................... 70 3.5 Inconsistent Characterizations ............................................................................................ 73 Chapter 4. Conclusion .................................................................................................................79 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................83 Appendices ....................................................................................................................................86 Appendix A: All Tragic Supplication Examples ...................................................................... 86 A1: Altar/Individual Supplications ........................................................................................ 86 A2: Face-to-Face and Altar/Tomb Supplications .................................................................. 87 Appendix B: ἱκετ- language ...................................................................................................... 92 viii List of Tables Table 1 Suppliant Women and the myth of the Danaids ................................................................. 2 Table 2 Expressions of reverence ................................................................................................. 18 Table 3 Frequency of expressions of reverence ............................................................................ 29 Table 4 Rescuers and threateners .................................................................................................. 36 ix List of Figures Figure 1 Heracles’ child supplicates him ...................................................................................... 23 x Acknowledgements I am eternally grateful to have had so many wonderful people support me throughout this writing process. I would first like to thank Professor Florence Yoon, Professor CW Marshall, and Professor Philip Yoo for their support on this project. Their comments transformed my work, and I am so grateful for their guidance. I am entirely indebted to my family: my parents for their constant support and their guidance in navigating academia, Ted Parker for spreading his enthusiasm for language, and Chiara Graf for always encouraging me and for allowing me, in the typical manner of a little sister, to copy her well into adulthood even when it comes to academic interests. Their willingness to spend two nights each taking on the role of a character in Suppliant Women and doing a live reading together encapsulates their loving and supportive nature. I am also so grateful to Bronwyn Langley, who has provided me with never-ending support and guidance, and to all my fellow graduate students for all I have learned from them and for providing a supportive and intellectual environment. I would also like to thank David Cole and all members of our Greek and Latin reading groups for being the highlight of my week and constantly furthering my love of Classics. Lastly, I would like to thank my wonderful friend Daniella Shein for always believing in me and providing her enduring friendship and love. 1 Chapter 1. Introduction Supplication is a ritualized form of request-making common throughout the ancient Mediterranean, in which a suppliant makes a request of a supplicandus, who is either an individual, an altar/tomb, or both. The practice centers around the use of gestures such as the grasping of the beard, chin, or knees. In this thesis I examine the supplication scene in Suppliant Women and answer the question of how the supplication within the play deviates from and conforms to typical tragic supplication norms. In Homer’s Iliad, Thetis presents the prototypical example of supplication when she pleads with Zeus to honor her son: καί ῥα πάροιθ᾽ αὐτοῖο καθέζετο, καὶ λάβε γούνων σκαιῇ, δεξιτερῇ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἀνθερεῶνος ἑλοῦσα λισσομένη προσέειπε Δία Κρονίωνα ἄνακτα· Ζεῦ πάτερ εἴ ποτε δή σε μετ᾽ ἀθανάτοισιν ὄνησα ἢ ἔπει ἢ ἔργῳ, τόδε μοι κρήηνον ἐέλδωρ· τίμησόν μοι υἱὸν ὃς ὠκυμορώτατος ἄλλων ἔπλετ᾽· ἀτάρ μιν νῦν γε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων ἠτίμησεν· ἑλὼν γὰρ ἔχει γέρας αὐτὸς ἀπούρας. ἀλλὰ σύ πέρ μιν τῖσον Ὀλύμπιε μητίετα Ζεῦ· τόφρα δ᾽ ἐπὶ Τρώεσσι τίθει κράτος ὄφρ᾽ ἂν Ἀχαιοὶ υἱὸν ἐμὸν τίσωσιν ὀφέλλωσίν τέ ἑ τιμῇ.1 And she sat before Zeus, grasping his knees With her left hand, and with her right grasping him below the chin. In prayer she spoke to lord Zeus, son of Cronos. “Father Zeus, if I ever pleased you among the immortals, With either word or deed, fulfill this desire for me: Honor my son who is otherwise destined for the quickest death Of all men: for Agamemnon, king of men, has now Dishonored him and taking his prize he now keeps it for himself. But now avenge him, Zeus, you wise Olympian: Give strength to the Trojans up until the Achaeans Honor my own son, advancing him with honor.” (1.503–10)2 1 All Greek text of Suppliant Women is taken from Sommerstein (2008). All other Greek texts are taken from the Loeb Classical Library. 2 All translations are my own unless otherwise stated. 2 Thetis grasps Zeus’ beard and knees repeatedly (first from lines 500–1 and again from 512–3), she appeals to the principle of justice for her son (506–7), and she speaks to Zeus reverentially (508). Zeus, then, ponders her request and provides a response, physically raising Thetis and thus accepting her request. The supplication scene in Suppliant Women, however, differs from this scene. Table 1 includes a summary of the play and a comparison to the general myth of the Danaids. Suppliant Women General myth of the Danaids3 Tragedy 1 or 2: Egyptians (lost) Tragedy 1 or 2: Suppliant Women (Start of supplication scene) The 50 daughters of Danaus (Danaids) arrive at the altar of Zeus in Argos with their father, fleeing marriage with their cousins, the Egyptians. The women, the suppliants, supplicate Zeus and the king of Argos, Pelasgus, the two supplicandi, for help. Pelasgus tells the women he cannot accept their supplication without taking it to the assembly. After a long argument, the women threaten Pelasgus and tell him they will commit suicide if he does not accept their supplication. Pelasgus takes the matter to the assembly, but promises to attempt to persuade the assembly in favor of the women, thus accepting the supplication. (End of supplication scene) The Argives accept the women into Argos, promising to protect them. The Egyptians arrive, demanding the women back. The Argives refuse and war with the Egyptians is impending. Tragedy 3: Danaids (lost) Satyr: Amymone (lost) Danaus and his brother Aegyptus quarrel. Danaus and his 50 daughters, the Danaids, flee from Egypt to Argos. The 50 sons of Aegyptus pursue the Danaids in the hopes of marrying the unwilling women. Danaus eventually agrees to the marriage. Danaus gives all his daughters daggers in order to kill their husbands on their wedding night. All but one, Hypermnestra, kill their husband. Hypermnestra and her husband Lynceus take over Argos. Table 1 Suppliant Women and the myth of the Danaids 3 From Pausanias’ Library 2.1.4–5, summarized in Sommerstein (2008: 280), and Garvie (2006: 164). 3 In the midst of their supplication, the women tell Pelasgus, who hesitates to accept their supplication: ἴσθι γάρ· παισὶ τάδε καὶ δόμοις, ὁπότερ᾽ ἂν κτίσῃς, μένει· dεῖ κτίνειν ὁμοίαν θέμιν. τάδε φράσαι. δίκαια Διόθεν κρατεῖ. Know this: whatever you decide, It remains for your children and your household. It is necessary to pay The corresponding justice. Consider that. Justice prevails through Zeus. (434–7) This passage contrasts sharply with that of the Iliad. The women threaten Pelasgus and his offspring with the wrath of Zeus if he does not comply with their request, motivating him to act through fear rather than compassion. I argue that Aeschylus counters tragic supplication expectations in Suppliant Women. He subverts these expectations by characterizing the supplication in his play as unusually aggressive, highlighting the manipulative potential of the practice: through the use of supplication, suppliants can pressure others to gain their desired ends. We see this in Suppliant Women through the chorus’ lack of reverence. The women’s aggression, anger, and threats towards Pelasgus present him with an inescapable situation, thus forcing him, in turn, to manipulate the assembly, bringing about war for the Argives. I do not, however, argue that Aeschylus presents the women as unsympathetic. As I explore in the conclusion, we cannot properly understand Aeschylus’ ethical portrayal of the women without a complete trilogy. When speaking of the morality of the women, I speak solely of Aeschylus’ desired audience interpretation, and not how we as an audience should view the women. This play deals clearly with an instance of sexual violence, and thus, whether or not Aeschylus wants the audience to view the women sympathetically, we as an audience must 4 acknowledge this. Without the trilogy we lack enough information to comment on this justification, and our moral understanding of the women should be based on more than Aeschylus’ desired interpretation. The term ‘manipulation’ involves a judgment on the manipulator’s negative intentions, but I do not add any sort of moral judgment to this term and use it purely as a behavioral descriptor. Similarly, terms such as ‘anger’ or ‘aggression’ include no moral judgments and instead describe the women’s behavior without commenting on whether these behaviors are justified. In Chapter 2, I provide an analysis of tragic audience expectations of a supplication scene, examining expectations both of a suppliant and a supplicandus. I show that tragic suppliants are expected to show the supplicandus reverence. This reverence takes on many forms and is frequently expressed through gestures, the presentation of objects, and appeals. Tragic supplicandi are expected to accept the supplication if they are saving the suppliant from an external threatener and to reject the supplication if they themselves are threatening the suppliant. I then examine features common to tragic supplications of the same type as Suppliant Women, i.e., those that include both an altar and an embodied individual as supplicandi. In Chapter 3, I focus on Suppliant Women. I compare the features of its supplication scene to the expectations examined in Chapter 2, showing how Aeschylus alters them, creating a violent supplication. Through an examination of the chorus’ aggressive behavior — namely, their control of the supplication and their threat — Pelasgus’ fear, and a comparison of Suppliant Women to other supplications including an altar and an individual as supplicandi, I argue that the women manipulate Pelasgus in order to achieve their desired outcome. I also examine Pelasgus’ response to the supplication, showing how his acceptance and promise to sway the assembly supports my manipulative reading of the scene. Pelasgus is unable to accept the women into the city without the assembly’s approval. However, he also cannot reject their supplication due to their threats. 5 Thus, he must bring the affair to the assembly for a public vote and then, in turn, resort to manipulation of the assembly. 6 Chapter 2. Tragic Supplication: Audience Expectations 2.1 Methodology Supplication scholars such as John Gould (1973) and F.S. Naiden (2006) focus on a general, all-encompassing understanding of the practice. Their scholarship aims to understand supplication’s common features, using the specific to then induce the general. Their main focus is to understand the reasons for acceptance and rejection. I, instead, work with the goal of understanding the nuance within one supplication example: the chorus’ supplication of Pelasgus in Aeschylus’ Suppliant Women. In order to do this I compare the behaviors within Suppliant Women to behaviors common to two sample sets of supplication examples: all tragic supplication scenes (Appendix A)4 and those scenes that specifically include both an individual and an altar as supplicandi — what I will from now on refer to as altar/individual supplication (Table A1) —as Suppliant Women does. I also examine a list of all uses of ἱκετ- language in tragedy in order to understand how tragic characters speak about and view supplication (see Appendix B). Through an analysis of all tragic supplication scenes, I will induce common expectations a tragic audience likely would have of a suppliant and supplicandus in order to examine how Aeschylus counters these expectations in Suppliant Women. I use Naiden and Gould’s scholarship as a starting point for creating my list of supplication examples. Their examinations provide a strong overarching framework of supplication and its main features. I also use Homeric supplications as the prototypical examples, since an Aeschylean 4 Appendix A includes both table A1 and table A2, as the two tables together provide a list of all tragic supplication examples. Table A1 includes supplications of the same sort as Suppliant Women (i.e., altar/individual supplication) and Table A2 includes all other tragic supplication examples. 7 audience would be quite familiar with these scenes. My aforementioned list of all tragic supplication examples is based on these main features. The examples in the two tables follow similar patterns with slight differences. My criteria for inclusion in this list are the use of ἱκετ- language and/or the inclusion of behaviors typical to supplication, such as the grasping of the knees or beard. In Chapter 2, I examine the behaviors most frequently present in tragic supplications in order to understand these supplication expectations. This analysis focuses specifically on tragic supplication, but the frameworks presented take into account Greek supplication scenes outside of tragedy. I focus on tragedy specifically because, though the general practice of supplication in tragedy maintains its same form as in epic, for example, its particular expressions may differ due to differences in genre.5 Because these are literary works and authors can manipulate the details of their supplication scenes, unique aspects of individual supplications do not always represent greater patterns of the practice, and so focusing on general features is more effective in understanding how Aeschylus counters expectations. However, I do not ignore individual instances that differ from broader patterns. Certain classic examples (e.g., Clytemnestra’s supplication of Orestes in Libation Bearers) affect audience expectations because of their uniqueness. I categorize supplication examples by what is supplicated: an individual, an altar, or both. Suppliant Women (ex. 1A, 1–523)6 is an example of altar/individual supplication with both an altar/Zeus and Pelasgus as supplicandi. In section 2.4, I analyze the expectations specific to this 5 For example, because epic has a narrator, the uses of gesture language or supplication language may differ. 6 Here and throughout, I refer to the example number in Appendix A or B, followed by the line number(s). 8 sort of example, and in section 3.4, I compare Suppliant Women to the only three tragic supplications of this same sort: Children of Heracles (ex. 2A, 1–252), Euripides’ Suppliants (ex. 3A, 1–364),7 and Oedipus Tyrannus (ex. 4A, 1–77). An effective analysis includes these categories because expectations differ depending on the nature of the supplicandus. There are three sorts of supplications: face-to-face, altar or tomb, and altar/individual supplication. Supplication including only an embodied supplicandus (face-to-face supplication)8 is by far the most common type of supplication. In these examples one individual supplicates another individual without supplicating an altar or a tomb as well. Though a suppliant might mention or appeal to the gods, the suppliant focuses their behaviors and requests towards an embodied supplicandus only, and the audience expects action from the physical individual. An analysis of Suppliant Women suffers when it engages only with face-to-face supplication because it ignores the role of the gods. The comparison of the chorus’ treatment of the gods to their treatment of Pelasgus highlights their aggressive behavior towards Pelasgus: the women treat the gods reverentially and their aggression is limited to Pelasgus rather than a general characterization of the women. Certain instances of supplication include no face-to-face interactions, and rather are centered only on tombs or altars.9 In these situations, the suppliant requests an outcome from the 7 Throughout this thesis Suppliants will refer to Euripides’ text and Suppliant Women will refer to Aeschylus’. 8 The term “face-to-face” is taken from Gould (1973: 75). 9 The supplication of altars with no living individual occurs in Andromache (ex. 10A, 103–1272, and ex. 13A, 859), Heracles (ex. 23A, 1–327, and ex. 25A, 713–7), Ion (ex. 31A, 1253–1436), and Seven Against Thebes (ex. 8A, 94–792). The supplication of tombs occurs in Helen, when Helen supplicates Proteus’ tomb (ex. 20A, 1–556), in Libation Bearers when Electra and Orestes supplicate Agamemnon’s tomb (ex. 5A, 315–510), and even in Ajax when Eurysaces supplicates a dead Ajax (ex. 50A, 1171–3). Here Eurysaces supplicates Ajax’s body, not a tomb. However, this passage should still be characterized as supplication of a tomb because it shares more in common with the supplication of tombs than face-to-face supplication due to the fact that Ajax cannot provide Eurysaces with an active response. This example emphasizes that the tomb itself is not essential. 9 deceased individual or altar with no embodied individual as a joint recipient of the request. If a god is embodied, such as Apollo in Eumenides (ex. 7A, 39–93), I categorize the supplication as face-to-face supplication rather than supplication of an altar. Because in supplication of only an altar or a tomb the supplicandus is not a physically present and living entity, we see no active response from the supplicandus with either words or gestures. In the supplication of altars or tombs the response to the supplication is determined by the outcome of the situation and so the supplication scene ends when the affair is resolved. We see an example of altar-only supplication in Seven Against Thebes. The chorus refers to themselves as a ἱκέσιον λόχον (“suppliant band,” 110) and asks if they should fall before the βρέτη δαιμόνων (“statues of the gods,” 95). From 109–80 the chorus supplicates a multitude of gods but neither gestures towards nor mentions any embodied individual as a supplicandus. In this example, the gods respond to and resolve the supplication when the chorus learns the outcome of the battles at the gates (821). In the supplication of an altar, the expectations of the suppliant and supplicandus differ from face-to-face supplication because the capabilities of both parties differ. A suppliant cannot, for example, grasp the knees of an altar, and an altar cannot provide a verbal response. An effective analysis of Suppliant Women cannot rely solely on these examples because there is no treatment of an embodied individual to which we can compare the women’s treatment of Pelasgus. Certain tragic supplications involve an altar but are directed towards an embodied supplicandus.10 I refer to these supplications as altar/individual supplications. They include two 10 It may also be possible to have supplication with both an embodied individual and a tomb rather than an altar as supplicandi but we have no examples of this in extant tragedy. 10 supplicandi: the altar and the individual. We see four examples of this supplication in extant tragedy (Children of Heracles ex. 2A, 1–352; Oedipus Tyrannus ex. 4A, 1–77; Suppliants ex. 3A, 1–364; Suppliant Women ex. 1A, 1–523). In these situations, an individual supplicates through the grasping of an altar and frequently invokes a specific god whose altar it is while also directing their gestures towards an embodied individual. Both altar and individual are supplicandi. The suppliant does not always use ἱκετ- language or supplication behaviors in relation to both supplicandi. Instead, what ties the two supplicandi together is that they receive the same request. For example, in Suppliant Women, the chorus asks both Pelasgus and Zeus to save them. The women sit at the altar of Zeus with suppliant boughs and they request help both from Zeus and Pelasgus. Pelasgus makes his supplicandus status clear when he tells the women: τί φής μ᾽ ἱκνεῖσθαι τῶνδ᾽ ἀγωνίων θεῶν, λευκοστεφεῖς ἔχουσα νεοδρέπτους κλάδους; Why do you say you supplicate me in the name of these Assembled Gods, Carrying white-wreathed, freshly-plucked boughs? (333–4)11 In this passage certain manuscripts omit “μ’” (e.g., Smythe 1973). However, the most recent Loeb includes this pronoun and, because ἱκνέομαι takes the accusative, it is more grammatically coherent to include it. This passage shows us that Pelasgus is in fact supplicated along with the gods.12 Though Sommerstein chooses to translate the relationship between Pelasgus and the gods in the supplication as “in the name of,” the Greek itself does not make clear the exact relationship between the two supplicandi, However, it is clear both are supplicandi. 11 “In the name of” is taken from Sommerstein 2010: 333. 12 Though ἱκνέομαι can mean purely “to come,” given this supplication context it is clear that it should be interpreted as “to supplicate.” 11 Looking at common trends among all altar/individual supplication scenes may shed light on this relationship between the two supplicandi. A main factor is at play when understanding why an individual might engage in altar/individual supplication: whether the suppliant is requesting help from a king. Generally, a suppliant will include an altar in their supplication if they are supplicating a king or ruler for some sort of help that revolves around their legal status, such as a request that will likely bring about a war. There are exceptions to these rules, but generally this is the trend. In all altar/individual supplications the suppliant makes a request of a ruler that they could not make of a citizen not in power. Suppliant Women (ex. 1A), Children of Heracles (ex. 2A), and Suppliants (ex. 3A) all include requests of protection that will likely lead to war. In Oedipus Tyrannus (ex. 4A) the citizens supplicate Oedipus to learn from an oracle a defense against this plague that has overtaken Thebes. Thus, this inclusion of both an altar and an individual might strengthen the supplication. Similarly, because the supplication deals with a public affair, an individual may not be able to supplicate the individual ruler alone and thus including the altar is a way of addressing the entire city. In this example, little ἱκετ- language is used referring to the role of Pelasgus as a supplicandus and, as I will show, the women present Pelasgus with few behaviors typical of a suppliant to a supplicandus. However, Pelasgus refers to himself as being supplicated and he receives the same request as Zeus and his altar — an obvious supplicandus due to the usage of ἱκετ- language. The women ask both supplicandi for help against the Egyptians, and Pelasgus presents a response to this request. He is central to the supplication. If an individual and an altar/tomb receive two different requests, the requests are considered two separate instances of supplication. For example, in Helen, Helen supplicates Proteus’ tomb and Theoklymenos separately because the requests are different. She asks Proteus 12 to save her from marrying Theoklymenos out of respect for her husband (ex. 20A, 63–7) and she asks Theoklymenos to allow her to give Menelaus the proper funeral rites (ex. 22A, 1239). Because Helen supplicates Theoklymenos while she is in the midst of her supplication at Proteus’ tomb, the supplication of the tomb may play a role in Theoklymenos’ acceptance of Helen’s supplication, showing his respect for the practice. However, her supplication of Theoklymenos is separate. Similarly, in Heracles, Heracles’ family specifically supplicates an altar (ex. 23A, 1–327). Though Lycus attempts to snatch the family away, he is not supplicated alongside the altar because Megara makes a different request of him. He is supplicated only from 327–32, when Megara specifically refers to him as a supplicandus, asking to clothe her children in the robes of death (ex. 24A). This request differs from the one Megara and her family make to the altar, asking to be saved. In these two examples, Theoklymenos and Lycus may take the implications of the practice of supplication into account when behaving, but they are not supplicandi along with the altar. I begin my examination of audience expectations by looking at all tragic supplication examples (Appendix A) and tragic uses of ἱκετ- language (Appendix B) in order to identify the features common to the behavior of the suppliant (section 2.2) and the supplicandus (section 2.3) in all types of supplication. I conclude that audience expects the suppliant to show the supplicandus reverence, most frequently through gesture, the presentation of objects, and/or the use of appeals, a speech act which presents respectful reasoning for acceptance. The audience expects the supplicandus to provide a response. This response depends on the relationship between the suppliant and the supplicandus: if the supplicandus is threatening the suppliant, they will reject the supplication, and if they are supplicated for help in a pre-existing conflict, they will accept the supplication (the former I call a “threatener” and the latter I call a “rescuer,” two terms I have 13 identified and will discuss in section 2.3). I compare the use of these features in Suppliant Women to their use in tragedy as a whole.13 Finally, I examine features common to the three plays that, like Suppliant Women, are altar/individual supplications, namely Children of Heracles, Oedipus Tyrannus, and Suppliants (section 2.4). This analysis shows that the three supplication scenes follow three similar patterns that the supplication scene in Suppliant Women does not follow: the use of gesture, the use of ἱκετ- language, and the starting of the play mid-supplication scene. I argue that the chorus’ behavior towards the gods and Pelasgus’ acceptance of the chorus’ supplication are in line with the expected behavior from these tragic examples. However, the chorus’ behavior towards Pelasgus counters these expectations. In Chapter 3, I compare these expectations to Suppliant Women, showing how Aeschylus subverts audience expectations in order to show the manipulative potential of supplication. Before beginning this analysis, it is necessary to ground the important terms I use throughout the thesis, specifically anger, violence, aggression, manipulation, coercion, and reverence. As previously mentioned, no terms include any sort of moral judgments. The women manipulate Pelasgus, but they also may have solid moral grounds on which to manipulate. These terms also all refer to behaviors rather than feelings. Reverence, for example, refers specifically to the expression of reverence. A suppliant does not have to feel reverentially towards the supplicandus in order to express reverence. A suppliant may feel anger but express reverence. 13 Throughout the thesis, when I refer to supplication, I am specifically referring to tragic supplication unless otherwise stated. 14 I use the term anger to refer to an expression of the feeling of anger, which frequently overlaps with aggression or violence. Violence and aggression refer to intentional behavior that has the potential to harm another individual. Manipulation refers to an intentional attempt to control another individual’s behavior without regard for the effects the behavior has on that individual and coercion refers to the act of inciting action in another individual through the threat of harm, and this threat of harm is what differentiates manipulation from coercion. Anger, aggression, and violence are all ways to manipulate or coerce. Lastly, reverence refers to the act of showing another individual respect. This reverence involves acknowledging the superiority of the individual. 2.2 Reverence and the Tragic Suppliant The chorus of Suppliant Women enters the stage. Their father Danaus follows, telling them: ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τάχιστα βᾶτε, καὶ λευκοστεφεῖς ἱκετηρίας, ἁγάλματ᾽ αἰδοίου Διός, σεμνῶς ἔχουσαι διὰ χερῶν εὐωνύμων, αἰδοῖα καὶ γοεδνὰ καὶ ζαχρεῖ᾽ ἔπη ξένους ἀμείβεσθ᾽, ὡς ἐπήλυδας πρέπει, τορῶς λέγουσαι τάσδ᾽ ἀναιμάκτους φυγάς. φθογγῇ δ᾽ ἑπέσθω πρῶτα μὲν τὸ μὴ θρασύ, τὸ μὴ μάταιον δ᾽ ἐκ μετώπω σωφρονῶν ἴτω προσώπων ὄμματος παρ᾽ ἡσύχου. καὶ μὴ πρόλεσχος μηδ᾽ ἐφολκὸς ἐν λόγῳ γένῃ. τὸ τῇδε κάρτ᾽ ἐπίφθονον γένος. μέμνησο δ᾽ εἴκειν χρεῖος εἶ, ξένη, φυγάς. θρασυστομεῖν γὰρ οὐ πρέπει τοὺς ἥσσονας. Come as quickly as you can, bringing reverently In your respectful hands the white-wreathed Suppliant boughs, symbols of reverential Zeus, And respond to the strangers as is fitting for foreigners, With reverential and distressed and needy words, Speaking clearly of your bloodless flight. First, do not let arrogance follow your speech, 15 And let nothing impious come from your Modest faces and calm eyes. And in your speech be neither eager nor hesitant. The people here are very prone to hostility. Remember to yield: you are a needy foreign fugitive. For it is not fitting for the inferior to speak boldly. (191–203) In this passage we see the one extant tragic example where a character teaches another how to supplicate. Danaus, the women’s father and guide, instructs them on how to behave and shows our modern audience the central feature of supplication present throughout extant tragic supplication: reverence towards the supplicandus. This passage highlights to the audience that a suppliant has responsibilities and expectations to fulfill towards the supplicandus. Stano (2005: 234) notes, “suppliants have not been expected to bear any of the cost of their supplication. They normally inflict the burden, but do not usually have to pay for their protection.”14 The supplicandus takes on a great behavioral responsibility and may incur danger due to supplication that is almost exclusively unsolicited and unwanted, as is the supplication in Suppliant Women. However, the practice also includes the expectation that the suppliant will be reverent. The idea of reverence encompasses many behaviors. Here I refer specifically to the suppliant admitting the superiority of the supplicandus, showing them respect and gratefulness, and debasing themselves through admitting their own weakness, 14 We see exceptions to this first in Hecuba’s supplication of Odysseus (ex. 16A, 275–301), when she uses her acceptance of Odysseus’ supplication during the Trojan War as a reason for him to accept her supplication. He responds stating that he said many false things to save his own life, and his rejection of her supplication, portrayed as morally wrong, further emphasizes his wily nature. We also see an exception to this statement with the daughter of Heracles, frequently referred to as Macaria, in Children of Heracles (ex. 2A, 474–83). As Stano (2005) explains, this moment shows a “reversal of the customary order of events is happening” (234). The daughter takes on some burden of the supplication in a way that is unusual. Lastly, we see an exception to Stano’s original statement in Medea’s supplication of Aegeus in Medea (ex. 38A, 709–55). Here, Medea presents a promise in return for accepted supplication. However, even this example does not fully reflect any obligation on behalf of the suppliant. Medea of her own choice has presented Aegeus with a quid pro quo; she was not compelled to do so by any custom. 16 desperation, and need for help. A suppliant should use αἰδοῖα καὶ γοεδνὰ καὶ ζαχρεῖ᾽ ἔπη (“reverent and mournful and needy words,” Suppliant Women ex. 1A, 194). An examination of characters’ discussions of supplication proves useful in an initial examination of reverence in supplication: tragic characters emphasize reverence when providing reasoning for refusing to supplicate despite the serious consequences of not receiving the potential supplicandus’ help. These are powerful male characters who fear appearing weak. In these passages, supplication is presented as the behavior of a cowardly and worthless man because it requires submission and admitting defeat, aspects included in this idea of reverence. Though these refusals represent the feelings of societally powerful men and not the average Athenian citizen, they show that supplication is not in line with the characterization of this sort of man. In Helen, Menelaus and Helen require Theonoe’s help in their plot to escape, needing her to delay revealing to Theoklymenos that Menelaus has arrived in Egypt. However, Menelaus refuses to supplicate Theonoe despite the potentially life-threatening consequences of not receiving her help. He gives the following reasoning: ἐγὼ σὸν οὔτ᾽ ἂν προσπεσεῖν τλαίην γόνυ οὔτ᾽ ἂν δακρῦσαι βλέφαρα· τὴν Τροίαν γὰρ ἂν δειλοὶ γενόμενοι πλεῖστον αἰσχύνοιμεν ἄν. I could not suffer to fall at your knees Nor flood my eyelids with tears: For by being wretched, we would greatly dishonor Troy. (947–9) A man who supplicates is δειλός. Menelaus believes supplication is a shameful behavior worthy of a wretched man and he is too powerful to engage in it. He specifically emphasizes the negative characterization associated with falling at one’s knees and crying. In supplicating Theonoe, Menelaus would admit his inferiority and need for Theonoe’s help. To fall before her knees — one of the most common supplication gestures — would dishonor Troy. 17 Oedipus, too, refuses to supplicate Creon in Phoenician Women, despite knowing that his life is at risk, and he will likely die without help. He states: ἀποκτενεῖς γάρ, εἴ με γῆς ἔξω βαλεῖς. οὐ μὴν ἑλίξας γ᾽ ἀμφὶ σὸν χεῖρας γόνυ κακὸς φανοῦμαι· τὸ γὰρ ἐμόν ποτ᾽ εὐγενὲς οὐκ ἂν προδοίην, οὐδέ περ πράσσων κακῶς. You will kill me if you banish me from the land. But I will not appear κακός by wrapping my arms around your knees: For I would not betray my previous nobility, I do not do this κακῶς. (1621–4) Due to the frequency of their use throughout Greek literature to represent a multiplicity of different meanings, κακός and κακῶς have many potential translations. Because of this, I have not provided a specific translation in order to avoid imposing a definition. However, its most simple translation as “bad” shows us the negative connotation associated with a powerful man supplicating. Oedipus understands that these physical gestures have a great symbolic significance. The grasping of the knees or any physical touch involved in supplication forces the suppliant to acknowledge the superiority of the supplicandus and their own need for help. Through grasping the knees, Oedipus would present himself is a way that he considers κακός for a powerful man. Euripides and Sophocles use these passages to further the characterizations of Menelaus and Oedipus rather than to present an objective account of supplication, and so these passages should not be taken as common views of the practice. However, the fact that these men disregard the practice as shameful emphasizes the important role of reverence in supplication. Submitting oneself to another is cost enough for certain potential suppliants to be unwilling to engage in the practice. Supplication maintains a ritualized and strong historical framework solidified over hundreds of years, and thus presents the supplicandus with a societal pressure to strongly consider 18 — though not necessarily to accept — the supplication. However, prideful individuals do not want to appear submissive. Thus, they prefer to suffer harm than to debase themselves in any manner, even if the likelihood of receiving help is high. In an analysis of all examples of tragic supplication we see this reverence expressed most frequently through gestures, the presentation of objects, and appeals. In this section I show the importance of these three methods of expressing reverence towards the tragic supplicandus. Though their uses differ slightly depending on the nature of the supplication, they are consistently present throughout tragedy, with all but two examples of supplication containing at least one method (Heracles ex. 24A, 327–32 and Antigone ex. 51A, 1225–39). Table 2 gives a general introduction to these three expressions of reverence, giving an example of each and their frequency. Reverential expression Example Translation Frequency Gesture language ἱκετηρίαν δὲ γόνασιν ἐξάπτω σέθεν/τὸ σῶμα τοὐμόν. (Iphigenia in Aulis, 1216–7) Around your knees I wrap my body as a suppliant. 43/61 supplications 74 total gestures Mean of 1.3 and median of one gesture word per example Presentation of objects τί φῶ χέουσα τάσδε κηδείους χοάς; (Libation Bearers, 87) What should I say as I pour these funeral libations? 8/61 supplications 8/13 altar/tomb supplications Appeals πρώτη σ᾽ ἐκάλεσα πατέρα καὶ σὺ παῖδ᾽ ἐμέ/πρώτη δὲ γόνασι σοῖσι σῶμα δοῦσ᾽ ἐμὸν/φίλας χάριτας ἔδωκα κἀντεδεξάμην. (Iphigenia in Aulis, 1220–2) I was the first to call you father and you to call me child. I was first to place my body on your knees and give and take familial embrace. 50/61 supplications 99 total appeals Mean of 1.6 and median of one appeal Table 2 Expressions of reverence 19 2.2.1 Gesture As Agamemnon prepares to kill Iphigenia, she supplicates him, saying: ἱκετηρίαν δὲ γόνασιν ἐξάπτω σέθεν τὸ σῶμα τοὐμόν. Around your knees I wrap My body as a suppliant. (Iphigenia in Aulis ex. 32, 1216–7) In her supplication Iphigenia presents a central feature of supplication: gesture, here specifically the grasping of the knees. A gesture of this sort is frequently the first step in an instance of supplication and is one way for the suppliant to show the supplicandus reverence. The suppliant uses some sort of physical movement or touch in relation to the supplicandus, most frequently falling before the supplicandus and grasping their knees, beard, chin, or neck. These gestures emphasize the superiority of the supplicandus and the desperation of the suppliant. As Zartaloudis (2019: 72) explains, “the physical act and the linguistic utterance of supplication take place in what we could call a threshold topos between the linguistic and the non-linguistic.” Language and behavior are inherently intertwined in supplication. Because we have no stage directions for these examples of supplication, we rely on language to inform us of gestures occurring on stage. It is unclear if there are examples where supplication gestures occur that are not written in the text. Most commonly πίπτω or προσπίτνω are used in relation to falling before the supplicandus, and some form of the verb πίπτω occurs 17 times in relation to supplication in the 61 examples of supplication and the 120 passages including ἱκετ- language.15 Tragic suppliants 15 Andromache ex. 11A/22B, 537; Ajax ex. 50A, 1181; Hecuba ex. 16A/49B 274, ex. 17A, 339, ex. 18A, 741 and 787; Helen ex. 20A/56B, 64, ex. 21A/57B, 894; Heracles ex. 27A/60B, 1208; Orestes 42A/84B, 1332 and ex. 42A/71B, 1338; Philoctetes ex. 60A/115B, 485; Seven Against Thebes ex. 8A, 95; Suppliants ex. 3A/93B, 10, ex. 3A/90B, 43, ex. 3A, 165, and ex. 3A, 274–5. 20 use a multitude of other terms as well to reflect this same idea and there is no strong evidence that different word choices imply significant differences in the nature of the supplication.16 The importance of grasping specifically the knees and beard is central to supplication, and, because of its significance and uniqueness to the practice, grasping is considered by scholarship a sufficient condition for supplication to occur.17 This gesture does not have to be a phrase directly stating stage directions. It can also be a phrase referring to this sort of touch, such as πρὸς γονάτων (“by your knees”) or πρὸς γενείου (“by your beard”), since this language has taken on the meaning of physical touch. For example, when Adrastus supplicates Theseus in Suppliants (ex. 3A, 1–364) he begs him πρός <σε> γενειάδος (“by your beard,” 277). Though Adrastus may not physically grasp Theseus, he does so figuratively, using a physical language that highlights his awareness of the practice and its reliance on touch. It is unclear whether or not this sort of language implies any physical movement. At times this language is used in situations where the suppliant cannot physically grasp the supplicandus’ knees or beard, such as when Heracles’ father attempts to grasp him but is unable to (Heracles ex. 26A, 963–76). A suppliant may also intentionally avoid touch out of fear of appearing inappropriate.18 16 Other words reflecting the falling before or reaching for the supplicandus include προστροπή (Ajax ex. 50A/95B, 1173; Children of Heracles ex. 2A/39B, 107), χειροτόνους (Seven Against Thebes ex. 8A, 171), περιπτύσσω (Iphigenia in Aulis ex. 32A/71B, 992), προσκυνέω (Oedipus Tyrannus ex. 59A/113B, 327), and ἐξάπτω (Iphigenia in Aulis ex. 34A/69B, 1216). Phrases representing physical movement can also be used by a suppliant for this same purpose of self-abasement. Examples include: χέρας ἱκεσίους ἔβαλον ἔβαλον (Orestes ex. 78B, 1414), γονάτων ἐπὶ χεῖρα βαλοῦσα (Suppliants ex. 3A, 272), γούνασι δεσπότου/χρίμπτων (Andromache ex. 11A, 529–30), ὀρέξας…δεξιὰν (Children of Heracles ex. 25B, 844), μοι θοάζετε (Oedipus Tyrannus ex. 4A/112B, 2), ὠρέχθης (Helen ex. 22A, 1238). 17 An example of this is Helen’s supplication of Menelaus in Trojan Women (ex. 47A, 1042–57). Its gesture language (πρός σε γονάτων, 1042) shows the audience this is an example of supplication. There is no debate among supplication scholars that this is an example of supplication and its treatment as an example of supplication is based mainly in this use of gesture. 18 See Naiden (2006: 39) for further discussion of this reason for avoiding touch. He specifically references Odysseus’ supplication of Nausikaa at 6.145–50. Odysseus does not want to anger her by physically clasping her knees, so he refrains from a physical gesture, relying instead on language. We see no examples of this in extant tragedy. 21 In the supplication of an altar or tomb, suppliants use similar gestures. One cannot reach for the beard or knees when supplicating an altar, but suppliants use gestures such as grasping or sitting at an altar to show this same reverence. The chorus in Seven Against Thebes provides an example of this when they state: πότερα δῆτ᾽ ἐγὼ πάτρια ποτιπέσω/βρέτη δαιμόνωνας (“or should I fall at our ancestral gods’ statues?” ex. 8A, 95–6). The grasping of altars occurs in seven out of 10 examples of the supplication of only an altar/tomb.19 I will address the use of gestures in altar/individual supplication in section 2.4. In total, 43 out of 61 examples of tragic supplication include some sort of gesture, ranging from one to 10 gestures. Slightly over two thirds of the supplication examples include a mention of gesture. This frequency of verbal expressions of gesture is surprising given the performed context of these examples. As Taplin (1977: 15) explains, “there is no good reason to think that the reading of tragedy was at all widespread before the end of the [fifth] century, let alone that tragedians composed with any consideration of a public of readers.” In addition, Taplin (15) mentions that the first reference to reading tragedy occurred at the end of the fifth century in Aristophanes’ Frogs. The exclusively performed nature of these texts shows that gesture language was not required; these gestures could be performed with no verbal accompaniment. Taplin (19) further states, “when the playwright draws attention to a stage action, we should take up the invitation and consider what the significance of that action is meant to be.” The inclusion of this language should not be considered arbitrary. It emphasizes the central role of gesture in supplication. 19 Ajax ex. 50A, 1172, 1175; Andromache ex. 10A, 115; Helen ex. 20A, 64; Heracles ex. 23A, 49, and ex. 25A, 715; Ion ex. 31A, 1258; Seven Against Thebes ex. 8A, 94–5, 97, 172. 22 Material culture further informs our understanding of tragic supplication gestures and helps visualize scenes we now can only read and reperform. We are unable to watch these scenes in the way a tragic audience would be able to. In the pottery shown in Figure 1, the artist Assteas provides an artistic portrayal of a deranged Heracles about to murder his child. This vase, from ca. 350, is thought to be the artist’s representation of a tragic supplication scene, though it is unclear which tragedy it refers to.20 Here, the child’s grasping of the beard emphasizes the inherent role of this gesture in Greek society at the time. The child, whose age cannot be discerned from this vase but who appears quite young and is small enough for Heracles to carry, knows to reach for Heracles’ beard. The reasons for this grasping are unclear: does the child do so out of instinct, or is grasping the beard a learned behavior? Either explanation reflects the gesture’s prominent role in society. If the child reaches for Heracles’ beard out of instinct, this shows us the behavior is inherent to human nature. If the grasping is a learned behavior, then this shows us that the child was so exposed to this gesture that he would know to engage in it even at a young age. This vase is, of course, an imagined representation of an imagined retelling of the story of Heracles. However, this representation still emphasizes the gesture’s prevalence. 20 The vase likely does not represent the supplication in Euripides’ Heracles (ex. 27A, 986–95) because of differences in details between the vase and the play (Taplin 2007: 143). 23 Figure 1 Heracles’ child supplicates him21 The prevalence of gestures in tragic supplication highlights the expectation of a tragic suppliant to show reverence to their supplicandus. In this symbolic gesture the suppliant physically lowers themselves and emphasizes the superior status of the supplicandus, fulfilling the expectation of debasement and respect to the supplicandus. Though these physical gestures may vary slightly depending on the type of supplicandus, each gesture is a way to emphasize the supplicandus’ superiority. 2.2.2 Presentation of Objects In Libation Bearers, Electra supplicates the tomb of Agamemnon and asks her handmaidens: τί φῶ χέουσα τάσδε κηδείους χοάς; πῶς εὔφρον᾽ εἴπω, πῶς κατεύξομαι πατρί; 21 National Archaeology Museum, Madrid, found in Naiden (2006: figure 2.7, 54), and Taplin (2007: 143). 54 Ancient SupplicationFIGURE 2.7 A child of Heracles with his murderous father. Courtesy of PhotoArchive, National Archaeology Museum, Madrid.24 πότερα λέγουσα παρὰ φίλης φίλῳ φέρειν γυναικὸς ἀνδρί, τῆς ἐμῆς μητρὸς πάρα; τῶνδ᾽ οὐ πάρεστι θάρσος, οὐδ᾽ ἔχω τί φῶ, χέουσα τόνδε πέλανον ἐν τύμβῳ πατρός. What should I say as I pour these funeral libations? How will I speak kindly, how will I pray to my father? Saying that I bring them from a loved wife to a Loved husband, from my own mother? I do not have the courage for those things, nor do I know what to say, As I pour this libation on the tomb of my father. (ex. 5A, 87–92) Here, Electra emphasizes the important role the presentation of objects, most frequently boughs or libations, can play in supplication. In this deliberation, she ponders how to best use libations to honor her father. Suppliants use objects in eight of 61 examples of supplication.22 These examples all include the supplication of altars or tombs (e.g., the chorus’ supplication of the gods in Seven Against Thebes (ex. 8A, 96–792) or Electra’s previously mentioned supplication of the tomb of her father). Objects are less frequent in the supplication of embodied individuals with no altar.23 The one example we see of objects used without an altar is Orestes’ supplication of an embodied Apollo in Eumenides, bringing him ἐλαίας θ᾽ ὑψιγέννητον κλάδον (“an olive branch from the top of the tree,” 443). Because of their almost exclusive use in the supplication of altars and tombs, objects may at first appear irrelevant to face-to-face supplication. Though we have no extant tragic examples of objects used in face-to-face supplication beyond their presentation to an embodied god, in 22 Ajax ex. 50A, 1172, 1175; Eumenides ex. 7A, 443; Children of Heracles ex. 2A, 71, 226; Oedipus Colonus ex. 52A, 470–92; Oedipus Tyrannus ex. 4A, 3, 15–6; Seven Against Thebes ex. 8A, 101–2; Suppliants ex. 3A, 10, 36, 102; Suppliant Women ex. 1A, 21–2, 160, 191–2, 241, 334, 482, 506. 23 In Greek literature generally an individual can use objects to show an approaching supplicandus that they are a suppliant and not someone to fear, but we see no instances of this in extant tragedy (Naiden 2006: 56). 25 Orestes’ supplication of Menelaus in Orestes (ex. 41A, 380–716), Orestes hints at the usage of objects in face-to-face supplication when he tells Menelaus: τῶν σῶν δὲ γονάτων πρωτόλεια θιγγάνω ἱκέτης, ἀφύλλου στόματος ἐξάπτων λιτάς. But for the first lot I grasp your knees as a suppliant, From the mouth of one without the suppliant's bough. (382–3) In this passage, Orestes stresses his lack of a bough or of any other object. This mention is telling in our understanding of objects: Orestes shows us that the use of an object in face-to-face supplication is not strange. If it were, he would not highlight its omission. Though we have no extant tragic examples of objects used in face-to-face supplication, the use of objects for an embodied individual was not unheard of. The difference between the use of objects in comparison to gestures is unclear. Perhaps objects produce the same effect as gestures when gestures are not possible, and gestures replace objects when the suppliant has none. Objects may also further strengthen the suppliant’s request for help, increasing the probability of an acceptance. In the use of objects an individual emphasizes the status of the supplicandus. A gift or offering emphasizes the reverence of the receiver to the giver. Through the presentation of objects, the suppliant fulfills their expectation of respect towards the supplicandus. In the supplication of altars and tombs, the use of libations or other objects is similar — if not analogous — to their use in other rituals, such as prayers, in which these objects are also used to express reverence and respect. 26 2.2.3 Appeal In Iphigenia in Aulis, Iphigenia supplicates her father using another feature common to supplication: an appeal, in this case specifically to family. πρώτη σ᾽ ἐκάλεσα πατέρα καὶ σὺ παῖδ᾽ ἐμέ· πρώτη δὲ γόνασι σοῖσι σῶμα δοῦσ᾽ ἐμὸν φίλας χάριτας ἔδωκα κἀντεδεξάμην. λόγος δ᾽ ὁ μὲν σὸς ἦν ὅδ᾽· Ἆρά σ᾽, ὦ τέκνον, εὐδαίμον᾽ ἀνδρὸς ἐν δόμοισιν ὄψομαι, ζῶσάν τε καὶ θάλλουσαν ἀξίως ἐμοῦ; οὑμὸς δ᾽ ὅδ᾽ ἦν αὖ περὶ σὸν ἐξαρτωμένης γένειον, οὗ νῦν ἀντιλάζυμαι χερί· Τί δ᾽ ἆρ᾽ ἐγὼ σέ; πρέσβυν ἆρ᾽ ἐσδέξομαι ἐμῶν φίλαισιν ὑποδοχαῖς δόμων, πάτερ, πόνων τιθηνοὺς ἀποδιδοῦσά σοι τροφάς; τούτων ἐγὼ μὲν τῶν λόγων μνήμην ἔχω, σὺ δ᾽ ἐπιλέλησαι, καί μ᾽ ἀποκτεῖναι θέλεις. μή, πρός σε Πέλοπος καὶ πρὸς Ἀτρέως πατρὸς καὶ τῆσδε μητρός, ἣ πρὶν ὠδίνουσ᾽ ἐμὲ νῦν δευτέραν ὠδῖνα τήνδε λαμβάνει. I was the first to call you father and you to call me child: I was first to place my body on your knees and give and take familial embrace. You would say the following to me: “Will I see you in the house of a good man one day, my child, living and thriving in a manner worthy of myself?” And I would then respond, clinging to your beard which I now hold: “What will I do for you? Should I welcome you, an old man, with a special reception in the halls of my home, father, repaying your troubles in rearing me?” I hold the memory of all these words, but you now have forgotten and wish to kill me. By Pelops and your father Atreus and my mother here, who suffers now a second time the pains of birthing me, do not do it. (ex. 34A, 1220–35) An appeal is a way to present one’s reasoning for acceptance in which the suppliant references a greater social power as a motivation for acceptance. We see appeals throughout tragedy in 27 examples with a physical supplicandus, an altar/tomb, or both. The two most common appeals are to family, in which a suppliant uses the sanctity of familial relations as reasoning for acceptance, or appeals to justice, in which a suppliant argues that they unjustly face harm. Characters also appeal to other powers, such as pity. Iphigenia’s monologue embodies the goal of an appeal. In this situation, we see the appeal in statements such as “first to call you father” (1220) and “by Pelops and your father Atreus and my mother here, who suffers now a second time the pains of birthing me” (1233–5), and in the emphasis on how Iphigenia planned to care for her father in his old age (1228–30). In using this explanation of their familial relations and her closeness to Agamemnon, Iphigenia reminds her father of his familial duties and the importance of relational bonds, providing her father with a reason to accept her supplication while avoiding an aggressive argument. In this long passage only twice does Iphigenia tell her father not to kill her. Her appeal primarily is indirect, and her emphasis is on their relationship. She reminds Agamemnon of the special moments they shared, hoping to produce an emotional response. Appeals to justice are also common. In his supplication of Demophon in Children of Heracles (ex. 2A, 1–252), Iolaus appeals to the power of justice by explaining to Demophon that the Argives have no right to seize him or Heracles’ children (185, 205). Here he appeals to the power of justice, subtly showing Demophon how in rejecting his supplication, Demophon would also be rejecting the importance of justice. In doing this, Iolaus persuades Demophon without giving him any sort of order or command. What is unique to an appeal is its reverential presentation, which an argument does not have. Appeals and arguments are both a form of negotiating, but the presentation differs. A change in presentation is powerful in the way it affects the statement’s reception by the supplicandus. Arguing with a supplicandus is aggressive and 28 angry but appealing to a greater power is respectful and reverential. In directly calling an individual unjust for not accepting supplication one criticizes and orders the individual, but in emphasizing that justice requires acceptance of supplication without presenting a command or targeted statement, the suppliant presents a respectful reasoning to the supplicandus. Thus, though the content is the same, the argument is perceived differently. Appeals to family occur in 19 of 61 examples of supplication with a total number of 24 appeals to family.24 Appeals to justice occur in 12 examples of supplication with a total number of 15 appeals to justice.25 Some sort of appeal occurs in 50 of 61 examples of supplication with 99 instances of appeals in total. These appeals are not exclusive to embodied supplicandi and also occur in supplications of only altars or tombs. In these examples the suppliant speaks to the altar or tomb. Naiden (2000: 14) argues that supplication contains both performative aspects, such as gestures, and substantive aspects, specifically referring to arguments as an example of the latter. Where I disagree with Naiden is in this creation of a strict dichotomy in behaviors. An argument for the acceptance of supplication contains both performative and substantive aspects because the same concepts can be expressed in many ways. In supplication, the presentation of the reasoning for acceptance as an appeal reflects the reverence present in supplication. 24 Ajax ex. 49A, 588; Alcestis ex. 9A, 401; Children of Heracles ex. 2A, 213; Electra ex. 15A, 1206–9,1215; Hecuba ex. 18A, 830–5; Heracles ex. 27A, 987–8; Ion ex. 31A, 1397–1401; Iphigenia in Aulis ex. 34A, 1220–40; Iphigenia in Tauris ex. 36A, 1071; Libation Bearers ex. 5A, 334, 456, 502, and ex. 6A, 896–8, 908, 922; Medea ex. 37A, 340–7 and ex. 40A, 863–5; Oedipus Colonus ex. 57A, 1326–9 and ex. 58A, 1439–44; Orestes ex. 41A, 674; Phoenician Women ex. 46A, 1568; Seven Against Thebes ex. 8A, 140; Suppliants ex. 3A, 263–4. 25 Andromache ex. 12A, 559–72; Children of Heracles ex. 2A, 185, 205; Eumenides ex. 7A, 87; Hecuba ex. 17A, 291–2 and ex. 18A, 756, 786–97, 792; Helen ex. 21A, 940–1; Iphigenia in Aulis ex. 32A, 905–8; Libation Bearers ex. 5A, 398; Orestes ex. 41A, 416; Oedipus Colonus ex. 52A, 548 and ex. 57A, 1330; Seven Against Thebes ex. 8A, 87. 29 2.2.4 Conclusion What ties these three features of supplication together is their reflection of reverence. All supplication examples except Megara’s supplication of Lycus (Heracles ex. 24A, 327–32) and Creon’s supplication of Haemon (Antigone ex. 51A, 1225–39) have at least one of these three methods through which a suppliant can show reverence, unless the example is a retelling of a supplication that provides no information on the supplication itself, such as the retelling of Agamemnon’s supplication of Tyndareus (Iphigenia in Aulis ex. 33A, 1155–6). There is an average of 1.8 and a mean of two of the three features per supplication example, showing the frequency of these features. Table 3 shows the frequency with which each expression of reverence occurs, and then shows how frequently zero of the three, one of the three, two of the three, and all the three expressions occur. Gesture Object Appeal 0/3 1/3 2/3 3/3 NA26 43/61 8/61 8/13: altar/ tomb 50/61 2/61 16/61 33/61 6/61 4/61 Table 3 Frequency of expressions of reverence These are three main ways to reflect reverence to the supplicandus, but these are not the only ways to do so. Behaviors such as reverential language (ὦ Ζεῦ πάτερ παντελές, “Zeus, all-accomplishing father,” Seven Against Thebes ex. 8A, 116) or modest language (νεύσατε τὰν ἀδόκητον χάριν, “grant this favor we would never expect you to grant,” Oedipus Colonus ex. 54A, 249) can accomplish this same goal.27 From this analysis it is clear that when watching a tragic 26 These are examples that are retellings and do not provide information on what occurred during the supplication scene. 27 Though this language is frequent, I chose not to include it as a central analysis for two reasons: it is much harder to pinpoint and it is less distinctive to supplication that the other expressions of reverence are. 30 performance, the audience would expect the suppliant to behave reverentially towards the supplicandus regardless of the specific variables included in the supplication. 2.3 Tragic Supplicandi: Rescuers and Threateners The expectations of the tragic supplicandus lie within their response to the suppliant. Supplicandi have no set ritualized behaviors in the same way suppliants do, but the tragic audience still has expectations of supplicandi, specifically to provide a response. This response depends on the nature of the relationship of the suppliant and the supplicandus, as I will explore in this section. Only four of 57 supplicandi do not provide a response.28 Though a response is expected, there is no consensus on the certainty with which one can expect a supplicandus to accept a suppliant. John Gould and F.S. Naiden have provided the two main theories on why supplications are accepted or rejected. In Hiketeia (1973), John Gould argues for the game-like nature of supplication and explains that when a suppliant engages correctly in the practice then the supplicandus is compelled to accept the supplication, even when it might lead to war or a δορὸς τὸ πρᾶγμα (“matter of the spear,” Children of Heracles, 161). The supplicandus is compelled by the practice’s ritualistic nature. Proper supplication must be followed by an acceptance and when supplication fails it is because of a mistake on the part of the suppliant, such as prematurely ending contact. The importance of acceptance is due both to the supplicandus’ need to present αἰδώς to the suppliant and to the practice itself. It is this shame that compels the supplicandus to accept the supplication. 28 Heracles ex. 23A, 1–327; Orestes ex. 41A, 380–716; Phoenician Women ex. 45A, 923–59; Oedipus Colonus ex. 53A, 142–69. This number of supplication examples refers only to supplications that have occurred, rather than imagined or potential supplications. 31 F.S. Naiden (2006), on the other hand, differs from Gould in his views on the certainty of the acceptance of ritualistically proper supplication. In Ancient Supplication, Naiden argues that, rather than a separate practice that follows its own rules, supplication is intertwined with legal practices, and, because of this, a convincing argument is more important for acceptance than proper behaviors. Supplication is a νόμος and a supplicandus can reject perfectly executed supplication if an argument is invalid. Both scholars present arguments that further our general understanding of supplicandi. However, neither scholar presents a framework that sufficiently explains tragic patterns and predicts audience expectations. I argue that an understanding of expectations of a tragic supplicandus flows from a distinction between two types of supplicandi: a “threatener” and a “rescuer.” Supplication includes either a supplicandus threatening harm to the suppliant (a threatener) or a supplicandus providing external aid to the suppliant (a rescuer). I argue for this distinction, showing that a threatener is expected to reject a suppliant and a rescuer is expected to accept a suppliant. Though in tragedy we see a greater inclination towards acceptances than rejections, acceptance cannot be universally assumed: of the 61 instances of supplication, 30 are acceptances29 and 20 are rejections.30 Not all responses are a concrete acceptance or rejection: in Alcestis, 29 Ajax ex. 50A, 1171–3; Andromache ex. 12A, 539–717 and ex. 14A, 894–984; Eumenides ex. 7A, 39–93; Hecuba ex. 16A, 245–50, ex. 18A, 749–904, and ex. 19A, 1127–8; Helen ex. 20A, 1–556, ex. 21A, 894–1029, and ex. 22A, 1235–80; Heracles ex. 24A, 327–32 and ex. 25A, 713–7; Ion ex. 30A, 1119–21 and ex. 31A, 1253–1436; Iphigenia in Aulis ex. 32A, 900–36 and ex. 33A, 1155–6; Iphigenia in Tauris ex. 36A, 1068–78; Libation Bearers ex. 5A, 315–973; Medea ex. 37A, 324–56 and ex. 38A, 709–55; Oedipus Colonus ex. 52A, 44–631, ex. 55A, 518–25, and ex. 56A, 1156–1205; Oedipus Tyrannus, ex. 4A, 1–77 and ex. 59A, 326–58; Orestes ex. 43A, 1506–27; Philoctetes ex. 61A, 927–35; Phoenician Women ex. 44A, 88–91; Seven Against Thebes ex. 8A, 94–792; Suppliants ex. 3A, 1–364; Suppliant Women ex. 1A, 1–523. 30 Ajax ex. 49A, 587–90; Andromache ex. 10A, 103–1272 and ex. 11A, 529–746; Antigone ex. 51A, 1225–39; Electra ex. 15A, 1206–15; Hecuba ex. 17A, 275–331; Heracles ex. 26A, 963–76 and ex. 27A, 986–95; Hippolytus ex. 28A, 325–35 and ex. 29A, 605–11; Iphigenia in Aulis ex. 34A, 1216–75 and ex. 35A, 1245–8; Libation Bearers ex. 6A, 32 Alcestis does not respond to her child’s supplication because she is unaware it is happening (ex. 9A, 400–3); in Orestes, Menelaus evades Orestes’ supplication (ex. 41A, 682–716); and in Phoenician Women, Creon ignores Tiresias’ supplication (ex. 45A, 923–59). There are also five unclear responses (Andromache ex. 13A, 859; Heracles ex. 23A, 1–327; Medea ex. 40A, 856–65; Oedipus Colonus ex. 53A, 142–69; Orestes ex. 42A, 1332–45), one lie when Neoptolemus accepts Philoctetes’ supplication deceitfully (ex. 60A, acceptance from 524–9 and Philoctetes’ realization of the deceit at 927), one deferral (Oedipus Colonus ex. 54A, 237–95), and one change of mind (Children of Heracles ex. 2A, acceptance from 236–62 and change of mind from 389–424). Though we have no stage directions and thus cannot be certain about changes in contact, these passages include no reason to believe there was a change in contact between the suppliant and the supplicandus. Thus, these acceptances and rejections counter Gould’s argument. In addition to this quantitative evidence showing that a suppliant cannot expect acceptance, characters’ comments regarding supplication show that suppliants did not assume that their supplication would be accepted. When debating whether to supplicate Theonoe for help, Helen tells Menelaus: ἴσως ἂν ἀναπείσαιμεν ἱκετεύοντέ νιν (“perhaps we might convince her by supplicating,” Helen ex. 21A, 825). The use of ἴσως and the optative shows us that Helen in no way assumes that Theonoe will accept her supplication. Similarly, in Heracles (ex. 25A, 713–7), when Lycus describes to Amphitryon Megara’s supplication to the gods, he says she was ἀνόνητά γ᾽ ἱκετεύουσαν ἐκσῷσαι βίον (“supplicating them uselessly to save her life,” 716). Supplication 896–930; Medea ex. 39A, 846–905; Oedipus Colonus ex. 57A, 1255–396 and ex. 58A, 1414–47; Phoenician Women ex. 46A, 1567–76; Trojan Women ex. 47A, 1042–57 and ex. 48A, 1042–57. 33 with a guaranteed acceptance would not be described as useless. Though these are passing comments, they emphasize the uncertainty of the outcome of supplication. We see no guarantee of acceptance in supplication, but there is a pattern to the acceptances and rejections, which becomes clear through looking at the supplicandus’ involvement in the situation requiring supplication and their relationship to the suppliant. An external supplicandus who enters the situation as a rescuing figure is expected to accept supplication, whereas one innately involved in the situation who takes on a threatening role is expected to reject it. Unlike Naiden and Gould, I provide a descriptive rather than a causal examination of acceptances and rejections. An in-depth analysis of why supplicandi behave in the patterns they do is distracting and unnecessary to an analysis based in noting expectations. Thus, though I hypothesize on potential reasons for this pattern, I come to no definite conclusions as to why the pattern is in place. From this analysis I argue that the audience of Suppliant Women would expect Pelasgus to accept the women’s supplication. This expectation of Pelasgus’ acceptance is due to his role as a rescuing supplicandus.31 A rescuer is a supplicandus who enters a preexisting conflict and to whom the suppliant reaches out for help, most frequently asking for protection against a threatening individual. Neoptolemus in his first interaction with Philoctetes is an example of a rescuer (Philoctetes ex. 60A, 468–534). He is not the cause of Philoctetes’ perils, and instead is an outsider entering the situation and being supplicated for saving. Pelasgus in Suppliant Women, too, is an example of a 31 In part this expectation would stem too from audience knowledge of the myth. However, mythical plots cannot be used to universally describe supplication outcomes as not all outcomes are mythologically determined (e.g., Antigone’s supplication of Jocasta in Phoenician Women ex. 44, 88–91). Furthermore, the mythological outcome is not the cause of the pattern of acceptances and rejections, and instead only reflects this pattern. Lastly, because myths evolve and are determined by their artistic expressions, no mythological outcome is set in stone. 34 rescuer; the women supplicate him for help in their pre-existing strife with the Egyptians. In extant tragedy all examples of supplication including an altar or tomb have rescuing supplicandi. It seems unlikely, though not impossible, that an altar or tomb alone could be a threatener. A threatener, on the other hand, is a supplicandus who endangers the suppliant and threatens harm. The threatener is an individual involved in the conflict and brings about the supplication. The suppliant supplicates the threatener not to bring about this undesired outcome and the supplicandus plays an essential role in the supplication, as they could not be replaced by another individual in the same way a rescuing supplicandus can be. For example, in Philoctetes’ second supplication of Neoptolemus (ex. 61A, 927–35), Neoptolemus’ role changes, and he becomes a threatener because he plans to betray Philoctetes. Philoctetes supplicates him in the hopes of changing his mind. Similarly, Agamemnon in Iphigenia in Aulis is a threatener; he plots to kill Iphigenia, and she supplicates him in the hopes that he will not follow through on her murder (ex. 34A, 1216–75). This harm can be threatened to someone other than the suppliant. For example, in Antigone, Creon supplicates Haemon to not kill himself (ex. 51A, 1225–39). Though Haemon threatens to physically harm himself rather than Creon, this harm also affects Creon, and thus in his threat to himself Haemon threatens Creon as well. Threats do not have to center around direct bodily harm; for example, Theonoe in Helen is also a threatener. She plans to tell Theoklymenos about Menelaus’ arrival in Egypt, potentially ruining Helen and Menelaus’ escape. Helen supplicates her not to follow through on this threat (ex. 21A, 894–1029). 35 These two categorizations are necessary because they represent different suppliant-supplicandus dynamics.32 The way a threatening supplicandus relates to their suppliant is inherently different from how a rescuing supplicandus does. Because of this, the supplicandus’ style of interaction with the suppliant will differ, and there is a clear difference in trends between these two types of supplicandi: a threatening supplicandus will likely reject the suppliant, whereas a rescuing supplicandus will likely accept the suppliant. Of 32 examples of rescuing supplicandi, 25 include an accepted request,33 and two include a rejected request (Andromache ex. 10A, 103–1072; Hecuba ex. 19A, 1127–1251). I categorize six examples neither as an acceptance nor as a rejection.34 Of 28 examples of threatening supplicandi, only five include an accepted request,35 21 include a rejected request,36 and two include responses that are neither an acceptance nor a rejection.37 78% of rescuing supplicandi accept their suppliant and only 3% reject their suppliant. 32 A helpful further line of analysis would examine the differences in the ways suppliants show reverence to threateners in comparison to rescuers. 33 Ajax ex. 50A, 1171–3; Andromache ex. 12A, 539–717 and ex. 14A, 894–984; Eumenides ex. 7A, 39–93; Hecuba ex. 18A, 749–904 and ex. 19A, 1127–8; Helen ex. 20A, 1–556 and ex. 22A, 1235–80; Heracles ex. 24A, 327–32 and ex. 25A, 713–7; Ion ex. 30A 1119–21 and ex. 31A, 1253–1436; Iphigenia in Aulis ex. 32A, 900–36 and ex. 33A, 1155–6; Iphigenia in Tauris ex. 36A, 1068–78; Libations Bearers ex. 5A, 315–973; Medea ex. 38A, 709–55; Phoenician Women ex. 44A, 88–91; Seven Against Thebes ex. 8A, 94–792; Suppliant Women ex. 1A, 1–523; Suppliants ex. 3A, 1–364; Oedipus Colonus ex. 52A, 44–641 and ex. 56A, 1156–1205; Oedipus Tyrannus ex. 4A, 1–77 and ex. 59A, 326–58. 34 One includes an unclear response because the request is unclear (Heracles ex. 23A, 1–327), one includes no response because the supplication is only potential (Andromache ex. 13A, 859), one includes an acceptance with a change of mind (Children of Heracles ex. 2A, 1–252), one includes an evasion (Orestes ex. 41A, 380–716), one includes a deferral to the king (Oedipus Colonus ex. 54A, 237–95), and one includes a deceitful acceptance (Philoctetes ex. 60A, 468–534). 35 Hecuba ex. 16A, 245–50; Helen ex. 21A, 894–1029; Medea ex. 37A, 324–56; Oedipus Colonus ex. 55A, 518–25; Philoctetes ex. 61A, 927–35. 36Ajax ex. 49A, 587–90; Andromache ex. 11A, 529–746; Antigone ex. 51A, 1225–39; Electra ex. 15A, 1206–15; Hecuba ex. 17A, 275–331; Heracles ex. 26A, 963–76 and ex. 27A, 986–95; Hippolytus ex. 28A, 325–35 and ex. 29A, 605–11; Iphigenia in Aulis ex. 34A, 1216–75 and ex. 35A, 1245–8; Libation Bearers ex. 6A, 896–930; Medea ex. 39A, 846–905; Oedipus Colonus ex. 57A, 1255–1396 and ex. 58A, 1414–47; Phoenician Women ex. 46A, 1567–76; Trojan Women ex. 47A, 1042–57 and ex. 48A, 1042–57. 37 One supplication is accepted but only because the supplicandus, Orestes, was never actually planning on bringing about the harm the suppliant thought (Orestes ex. 43A, 1506–27) and one includes a supplicandus who is unaware of the supplication (Alcestis ex. 9A, 400–3). 36 75% of threatening supplicandi reject their suppliant and 17% of threatening supplicandi accept their suppliant. Thus, we see that it is both rare to reject a plea for help and to accept a request to be spared from harm. Table 4 gives an overview of the numbers of acceptances and rejections for rescuers and threateners. Type of supplicandus Expected response Total number Total acceptances Total rejections Frequency Threatener Rejection 28 5 21 17% acceptance 75% rejection Rescuer (e.g., Pelasgus) Acceptance 32 25 2 78% % acceptance 3% rejection Table 4 Rescuers and threateners There are many potential causes for this pattern. On the one hand, this pattern may support Naiden’s idea of the importance of argument in supplication. A threatening supplicandus has already decided their desired outcome and so it may be harder to convince them than it is a rescuing supplicandus who enters the situation with a relatively blank slate. This pattern could also support the importance of societal expectations specifically regarding strength and courage. If individuals are pressured to be courageous then they will likely accept instances of supplication where they are asked to step in and aid a helpless individual out of fear of appearing cowardly if they reject them.38 Threatening supplicandi do not risk this same outcome; refusing to spare a suppliant out of anger or hatred may not appear cowardly in the same way refusing to help a suppliant out of fear of war does. The most likely reason for this pattern is that in this literary context these differences in behavior are due to the characterization of the supplicandus. A threatener is frequently presented 38 See, for example, Demophon’s three reasons for accepting Iolaus and the children of Heracles’ supplication (Children of Heracles ex. 2A, 236–49). His first reason is respect of Zeus, his second is kinship, and his third is fear of the disgrace that will come about if people think he rejected suppliants out of fear of the Argives. 37 negatively, whereas a rescuer is presented positively. The responses feed into this characterization. A paradigmatic example of this use of rejection to further a characterization is Odysseus’ rejection of Hecuba’s supplication in Hecuba, when she supplicates him not to take her daughter Polyxena to Neoptolemus, who plans to kill her (ex. 17A, 275–331). In this supplication and in his rejection of Hecuba, Odysseus is characterized as cruel. Despite Hecuba’s previous acceptance of his supplication during the Trojan War, he rejects her supplication, stating that he told her many lies in order to save his own life (250). This rejection characterizes Odysseus, as is emphasized by the chorus’ statement in the lines just before Odysseus rejects Hecuba’s supplication: οὐκ ἔστιν οὕτω στερρὸς ἀνθρώπου φύσις, ἥτις γόων σῶν καὶ μακρῶν ὀδυρμάτων κλύουσα θρήνους οὐκ ἂν ἐκβάλοι δάκρυ. The nature of humans is not so harsh, That hearing laments of sorrows and great misfortunes, It would not shed a tear. (296–8) The chorus speaks this line explaining how human nature is sympathetic and thus it is natural to sympathize with Hecuba’s troubles. One who does not sympathize with Hecuba counters human nature. Directly after the chorus speaks this line, Odysseus rejects Hecuba’s supplication, shedding no tears over her toils (299–331). He then physically turns and distances himself from Polyxena, hiding his hand and moving his face, so she cannot grasp him in supplication (342–4). His rejection of Hecuba presents a negative characterization. A threatener schemes to harm an individual, and thus is already characterized as harmful. A rejection, then, is in line with this characterization. The exact reasons for this pattern are still unclear, but it is evident that a tragic rescuer is expected to accept a suppliant. Though one would not expect this with complete certainty, this 38 pattern sets up a general expectation. Thus, because Pelasgus is a rescuer, the audience would expect him to accept the women’s supplication.39 2.4 Altar/Individual Supplication Expectations of a suppliant and an embodied supplicandus are similar in both face-to-face supplication and altar/individual supplication. However, the latter form of supplication also follows its own patterns that differ from face-to-face supplication: the use of supplication gestures, the use of ἱκετ- language, and the placement of the supplication scene at the beginning of the play in medias res. These features are relevant to an inquiry of Suppliant Women because they are consistently used in all other altar/individual supplication scenes (Children of Heracles, Suppliants, and Oedipus Tyrannus), but are missing in the chorus’ supplication of Pelasgus in Suppliant Women, emphasizing Aeschylus’ view of the manipulative potential of supplication. Here I will examine the features the three plays share and will compare them to Suppliant Women in section 3.4. When both an altar and an embodied individual are included as supplicandi, all examples but Suppliant Women contain language referring to grasping the embodied supplicandus (Children of Heracles ex. 2A, 227; Oedipus Tyrannus ex. 4A, 2; Suppliants ex. 3A, 10, 43–5, 108, 162, 272, 274–5, 277, 278, and 284). In Suppliant Women, the only two mentions of gesture relate to the altar (ex. 1A, 189 and 223). In Euripides’ Suppliants the chorus refers once to falling before an altar (ex. 3A, 63–4). However, most gesture language relates to the physical supplicandus rather 39 A further line of research would be to see how this pattern carries over into other forms of supplication, such as epic or historical accounts. A preliminary investigation shows that these patterns do seem to apply to other examples of supplication as well and explains why, for example, epic supplications in battle are rejected. 39 than the altar. In Euripides’ Suppliants, of the eight mentions of gesture language, seven refer to Aethra or Theseus (10, 43–4, 108, 165, 277, 278, 284). Only one, on the other hand, refers to the gods (63–4). Similarly, in Children of Heracles there is only one gesture word, which refers to Demophon (226–7). In Oedipus Tyrannus there are two words referring to gesture, and one unambiguously refers to Oedipus (3). The other is a mention of gesture referring to the altar, but it is emphasized as being Oedipus’ altar, thus referring to both supplicandi (ὁρᾷς μὲν ἡμᾶς ἡλίκοι προσήμεθα/βωμοῖσι τοῖς σοῖς, “you see that we, people of every age, are sitting here at your altars” 15–6).40 Gesture language is used both towards the altar and the individual, with a slightly higher usage in relation to the individual. The usage of ἱκετ- language follows similar trends to the usage of gesture language. In each example of altar/individual supplication aside from Suppliant Women there is ἱκετ- language directed specifically at the embodied supplicandus, not only the gods. In Children of Heracles, out of seven supplication language usages, two examples refer specifically to the children as suppliants of the gods (ex. 27B, 70, and ex. 42B, 101), one refers to Demophon (ex. 28B, 93), and four do not refer to the supplicandus (ex. 26B, 34, ex. 39B, 107, ex. 29B, 123, and ex. 30B, 196). Though we have limited data there is a fairly even split in the ἱκετ- uses. In Euripides’ Suppliants, there are potentially patterns in ἱκετ- usage related to gender. In this play there are six examples of ἱκετ- language, five in relation to Aethra as a supplicandus, and one to Theseus. The chorus of women tells Aethra twice they supplicate her (ex. 90B, 42, and ex. 91B, 68) and three times Aethra emphasizes that she is being supplicated by the women (ex. 93B, 10, ex. 88B, 102, and ex. 89B, 108). However, the last use of supplication language is of Adrastus 40 Italics are my own. 40 to Theseus. This hints at a potential gender dynamic within the use of ἱκετ- language. Adrastus is present as the women address Aethra, but he does not participate. Instead, he engages in the supplication only when Theseus arrives, and he refers to himself specifically as a suppliant to Theseus and his city, whereas he uses no ἱκετ- language in reference to Aethra. The use of the singular and masculine σός emphasizes he does not consider himself a suppliant of Aethra (ex. 94B, 114). Because this evidence is limited, we cannot make concrete conclusions about the uses of supplication language. However, this gendered language shows the potential implications of supplication language. If the usage of ἱκετ- language relates to respect and reverence, a man may be unwilling to use this language towards a woman. The third common feature of these supplication scenes is that they all occur at the beginning of the play and the play begins in the midst of the supplication scene. Children of Heracles begins with Iolaus explaining why he and the children are seated at the altar of Zeus Agoraios in Marathon. Though Demophon, the embodied supplicandus, has not yet arrived, when the play begins, they have already approached the altar and seated themselves in front of it (33). Oedipus Tyrannus, similarly, begins with Oedipus asking the citizens why they sit before him with suppliant wreaths (1–3). The citizens have already begun their supplication and they have already encountered Oedipus, though we likely witness their first interaction with him. In Suppliants, Adrastus and the women have already arrived at the altar and supplicated Aethra when the play begins. They have not yet encountered Theseus, who arrives 87 lines in. This start mid-supplication tells the audience something important: because the audience does not see the supplication, it implies that the supplication was initiated in typical, expected ways. Though these three altar/individual supplication examples follow this same format, Suppliant Women does not. The women present no gestures to Pelasgus and use no ἱκετ- language 41 in relation to him. In addition, the play begins as the women are about to supplicate, but they have not yet seated themselves at the altar, as we see from Danaus’ command at 189 to sit at the altar. It is not unusual that they have not yet encountered Pelasgus, but it is unusual that they have not yet approached the altar. As I will show at in the following section, these differences highlight Aeschylus’ emphasis on the atypical supplication of the women as a way to show the manipulative potential of supplication. His alterations to this common practice show the women’s disregard and lack of respect for Pelasgus.42 Chapter 3. Aeschylus’ Alterations of Tragic Supplication In Suppliant Women, Aeschylus counters his audience’s expectations of reverence in the chorus’ behavior towards Pelasgus, and he does so in two different ways: firstly, he alters the expected use of gesture, the giving of objects, and the presentation of appeals, and, secondly, he characterizes the women as aggressive and angry towards Pelasgus, instead of presenting them as reverent. In the former he alters expected elements of supplication, and in the latter he adds unexpected elements to the supplication. This contrast between the women’s behavior towards Pelasgus and their behavior towards the gods emphasizes to the viewer that the women’s lack of reverence is limited to their interactions with Pelasgus rather than a general characteristic of the women. As Sommerstein (2019: 156) states, “we no doubt expect them to follow their father’s advice (191–203) to be ‘yielding’ and deferential. They do nothing of the sort. They turn the tables on Pelasgus.” Through their anger, control of the conversation, threats, and the manner in which they incite fear in Pelasgus, the women, not Pelasgus, control the supplication. Because of this control, Pelasgus is compelled to accept their request and attempt to sway the Argive assembly in their favor. The fact that the women are able to control Pelasgus’ behavior highlights the manipulative potential of the practice. 3.1 Aeschylus’ Changes to Common Supplication Behaviors In Suppliant Women, Aeschylus alters the common methods used to show reverence to the supplicandus. He deliberately sets up his audience’s expectations so that, when he counters them, this violation of what is expected surprises the audience. By subverting a central trait of 43 supplication, Aeschylus reveals the manipulative potential of the practice. I will begin by showing how the women disregard the three behaviors common to supplication. 3.1.1 Gesture The chorus in Suppliant Women differs from other tragic suppliants in their lack of engagement in gestures towards Pelasgus. Before the women encounter Pelasgus, Danaus tells them: ἄμεινόν ἐστι παντὸς εἵνεκ᾽, ὦ κόραι, πάγον προσίζειν τόνδ᾽ ἀγωνίων θεῶν. It is best, women, in all ways, To sit yourselves down at this seat of the assembled gods. (188–90) Though the women sit at the altar, an act common to supplications including an altar, no character mentions any grasping or uses any gesture language in reference to Pelasgus, whether that be πίπτω, προσπίτνω, γενειάς, γόνυ, or any other word implying some sort of physical contact.41 The women’s lack of gesture towards Pelasgus is emphasized at 365, when Pelasgus explains that he cannot help the women without consulting the assembly because the women supplicate the hearth of the state, not his own. In this statement, Aeschylus reminds the audience that this gesture is not towards Pelasgus, thus countering the expectations the audience would have. Ellis (2021) argues that in Suppliant Women Aeschylus tells a narrative of trauma: through the focus on touch the women explore the intergenerational trauma they suffer from Zeus’ rape of 41 We do see πίπτω used at 91 and 450 but in neither of these situations does the mention relate to supplication or supplication gestures. The mentions are: πίπτει δ᾽ ἀσφαλὲς οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ νώτῳ, κορυφᾷ Διὸς εἰ κρανθῇ, πρᾶγμα τέλειον (“it falls safely, and not on its back, if some affair comes to be at the nod of Zeus,” 91–2), and δεῖ κάρτα θύειν καὶ πεσεῖν χρηστήρια/θεοῖσι πολλοῖς πολλά, πημονῆς ἄκη (“it is necessary to sacrifice and for many offerings to fall for many gods, a cure for this trouble, 450–1). 44 Io. Surprisingly, Ellis does not reference this lack of supplication gesture as evidence for the traumas. A lack of touch could be representative of this aforementioned trauma. However, this lack of gesture argues against his main point. The one supplication gesture present in the text is related specifically to Zeus, Io’s assaulter. If the women avoided presenting Pelasgus with a physical gesture out of a response to Io’s trauma, it is unlikely that they would gesture specifically to the altar, which is representative of Zeus. In addition, the women speak of Zeus reverentially throughout the text. This reverence contradicts the argument that the women experience a strong trauma response to Zeus’ behavior. Because the women gesture to the altar and the gods, the lack of gesture to Pelasgus, the embodied supplicandus, stands out. As I argued in section 2.4, gesture language referring only to the god or altar is unusual for altar/individual supplication. In no play aside from Suppliant Women is the altar the central or only recipient of the gesture. This inclusion of the women sitting at the altar but the exclusion of them grasping Pelasgus emphasizes to the audience that the women are not engaging in this important feature of supplication to Pelasgus. 3.1.2 Presentation of Objects Another central element of tragic supplication is the presentation of objects, frequently some sort of branch, such as in Euripides’ Suppliants, when the chorus carries ἱκεσίοις κλάδοις (ex. 3A, 102). Objects are common especially in supplications involving an altar. In Aeschylus’ Suppliant Women, Aeschylus includes the use of physical objects and specifically suppliant boughs. In their entrance the women state: 45 τίν᾽ ἂν οὖν χώραν εὔφρονα μᾶλλον τῆσδ᾽ ἀφικοίμεθα σὺν τοῖσδ᾽ ἱκετῶν ἐγχειριδίοις ἐριοστέπτοισι κλάδοισιν To what better land Than this could we come, Holding the white-wreathed ἐγχειριδίοις of suppliants? (19–22)42 The women refer to these branches throughout the text, using language such as λευκοστεφεῖς (191, 334), ἱκετηρίας (191), κλάδοι (241), and κλάδους (506). In a certain respect, the women do follow this supplication ritual. However, the use of the adjective ἐγχειρίδιος for this first presentation of the boughs gives the scene a violent flavor. In his translation, Sommerstein (2008: 293) translates ἐγχειρίδιος as ‘hand-held emblems,’ noting that when used as a substantive adjective ἐγχειρίδιον refers to daggers. Sommerstein cites Apollodorus’ retelling of the Danaid’s murder of their husbands in Library 2.1.5, where he uses ἐγχειρίδια to refer to the daggers used in the murders. Though Sommerstein chooses to translate the adjective as ‘hand-held,’ he views this first mention as violent. I argue in favor of the view that this first mention of the women’s boughs is violent. Not all scholarship sees this term as one referring to daggers. Liddell and Scott (1888: 223) translate the adjectival use of ἐγχειρίδιος as hand-held object, specifically referring to this passage in Aeschylus, only translating it as dagger when used as a substantive. Naiden (2004: 86) and Stano (2005: 61), too, interpret ἐγχειρίδιος at face value. They interpret the women’s objects as significant in that they represent one of the few steps of supplication that the women engage in correctly. However, other scholars view the use of this adjective as foreshadowing the violent end to the story. The use of ἐγχειρίδιος is most often interpreted to refer to the women’s future murder 42 Here I leave ἐγχειριδίοις untranslated in order to not to impose any meaning on the word until after the analysis. 46 of their husbands.43 Johansen and Whittle (vol. 2 1980: 21) note that, despite its 4th-century meanings of “handle,” “handbook,” or “tool,” its use in Herodotus and Attic prose is translated exclusively as “hand-knife” or some sort of weapon. Because of this, “the present phrase would necessarily signify ‘suppliants’ daggers’ to a 5th cent. audience” (Johansen and Whittle vol. 2 1980: 21). Word order further emphasizes this point. ἐγχειριδίοις occurs at the end of line 21 before the women have made any mention of their suppliant boughs. The audience then has to wait until the following line begins to hear the resolution of the phrase and the fact that it refers to boughs. Though the audience would only wait for a brief moment, the unresolved mention of ἐγχειριδίοις creates an instinctual understanding of dagger, which then may be reinterpreted as a general hand-held object when the sentence is completed in line 22. The use of the adjective here is essential. Though the women do present some sort of object, as is in line with audience expectations, its first presentation is a violent one. “The oxymoron conveys the paradox that the very symbols of the Danaid’s helplessness constitute a sort of weapon” (Johansen and Whittle vol. 2 1980: 21). The women are not presenting an innocent object as a way of playing into supplication’s ritualized power dynamic. Though the boughs are spoken of throughout the rest of the text without any violent mention, this violent language only 21 lines into the play taints the encounter between the women and Pelasgus, upending the submissiveness of the suppliant. ἐγχειριδίος is never used to describe boughs or supplication objects in other 43 See, for example, Bacharova (2009: 297); Belfiore (2000: 41); Ellis (2001: 12); Johansen and Whittle (vol. 2 1980: 21); Sandin (2005: 48–9); Sommerstein (2009:293) and (2019: 100). 47 supplications. It is unique to this specific play and should not be taken as a word generally associated with supplication. Aeschylus reminds the audience of the importance of objects in supplication. However, in choosing this first mention, he presents a manipulative side to the women’s supplication. Including a typical supplication object but describing it as a dagger gives the supplication a threatening undertone. This represents the threats that are to come from the women, which in turn manipulate Pelasgus. Thus, an aspect that is in its typical use a symbol of the superiority of the supplicandus here is changed and given a violent nature. It is highly unlikely that the women were holding daggers on stage, but this violent language emphasizes the women’s control of the interaction. 3.1.3 Appeal In Suppliant Women, Aeschylus presents the potential for appeals to family or justice but does not include one, setting up his audience’s expectations while also countering them. Pelasgus asks the women leading questions, and the audience would expect the women to respond to these questions with an appeal. However, the women provide no such appeals. Instead, they respond with threats and refer to the anger of Zeus, further presenting an aggressive tone to their supplication.44 Far from engaging reverentially, they replace appeals with coercive statements. Though appeals and coercive statements are both a form of negotiation, what differentiates them is the motivations for action presented by the suppliant: in an appeal the suppliant presents the fulfillment of a social duty as the supplicandus’ motivation for action, whereas in a coercive 44 βαρύς γε μέντοι Ζηνὸς ἱκεσίου κότος (“The wrath of Zeus god of suppliants is truly heavy,” 347); μένει τοι Ζηνὸς ἱκταίου κότος (“The wrath of Zeus god of suppliants is lasting,” 385); ὅμως δ᾽ ἀνάγκη Ζηνὸς αἰδεῖσθαι κότον/ἱκτῆρος (“Nevertheless it is necessary to respect the wrath of Zeus god of suppliants,” 478–9); ἱκεσίου Ζηνὸς κότον/μέγαν προφωνῶν (“Asserting how great the wrath of Zeus of suppliants is,” 616). 48 statement the suppliant attempts to motivate the supplicandus through a reminder of the potential for harm. As examined in section 2.2.3, in Agamemnon, Iphigenia presents an appeal by reminding Agamemnon of their familial relations and the special memories they shared together, providing him with an incentive to save her. She does not attempt to motivate Agamemnon through some sort of potential for harm, such as vengeance. Unlike Iphigenia, the Danaids present coercive statements, reminding Pelasgus of the anger of the gods against those who do not accept suppliants and they threaten him with a negative consequence. Pelasgus is well aware of these consequences without a reminder from the women: from his statement at 347 when he mentions the wrath of Zeus, it is clear he is aware of the possible harm from Zeus. It is also true that the women have no power in preventing or bringing about this potential harm. However, the women’s statements should still be considered threatening, not because they bring about this negative consequence, and rather because they motivate Pelasgus through this potential for harm. Not only do the women remind Pelasgus of the potential threats but with their behavior they upset the expected ritual of supplication, violating not only the audience’s expectations but those of Pelasgus, thus leaving him with a sense of uneasiness and fear. Instead of presenting appeals, the women avoid questions, make cryptic statements, and coercively invoke Zeus. The women could present appeals, as Pelasgus multiple times gives them the option to appeal both to family and to justice. For example, Aeschylus could have presented appeals to familial relations after the women’s 50-line interaction with Pelasgus (274–324), where they prove their Argive ancestry to Pelasgus. Aeschylus creates an unfulfilled expectation in the audience. This further underlines the women’s refusal to submit to Pelasgus. 49 Bao (2019: 114) disagrees, stating: “The essential argument that the Danaids make is that their Argive origin, which is of a seemingly mythic nature and dates back to Zeus’s rape of Io and her flight into Egypt, entitles them to be resettled in their ancestral homeland.” Similarly, Konstantinou (2020: 26) explains that “their family relation to the Argive heroine is part of their argumentation on why they should be received as suppliants at Argos.” Lastly, Belfiore (2000: 41) argues that the women “claim kinship as Argives,” using their shared Argive lineage as an argument for acceptance. She references specifically lines 323–4, when, after their long interaction with Pelasgus explaining their connection to Io and the Argives, the chorus tells Pelasgus: εἰδὼς δ᾽ ἁμὸν ἀρχαῖον γένος πράσσοις ἂν, ὡς Ἀργεῖον ἀνστήσαι στόλον. Since you know my ancient lineage, You should act and help this Argive group. (323–4) I begin with Belfiore’s claim. These two lines do not directly provide an appeal for the acceptance of supplication. Pelasgus responds: δοκεῖτε δή μέν τῆσδε κοινωνεῖν χθονὸς/τἀρχαῖον (“It does seem to me that you share in common from long ago this land,” 325–6). Neither statement directly addresses the lineage as a reason for acceptance. The women are bringing to a close this conversation on their lineage, transitioning to their request. In a context where lineage is frequently mentioned throughout the supplication scene, these lines could be interpreted as an appeal but in this supplication scene the women never again mention their Argive lineage in their interactions with Pelasgus beyond this passage, including when Pelasgus hesitates to accept them, and the women have to work harder to persuade him. At this point in the passage, the women have not even presented their request yet. Thus, lines 323–4 should not be interpreted as a main argument of the women. 50 Though at the beginning of the play the women speak frequently of Io and a large section of the play is devoted to the women defending their Argive ancestry, the women never use this shared ancestry as part of their argument. There are three reasons this interaction should not be viewed as an appeal to family or an argument for acceptance. The first is that the women are not eager to relate to Pelasgus their shared ancestry. When Pelasgus first asks the women where they come from (234–45), the women avoid the question, instead asking him to identify himself (246–8). They only share their lineage when Pelasgus asks them a second time (272). The women show no eagerness to tell Pelasgus about their relation to Io. The second reason this passage on the women’s shared ancestry with the Argives should not be viewed as an argument for acceptance is that at the end of this interaction the women refer to their potential marriage with the Egyptians as a κῆδος ἐγγενές (“kindred marriage connection,” 331). The exact translation of κῆδος ἐγγενές and whether it refers to the Egyptians or the Argives is debated. Smythe (1973: 36) translates the phrase in relation to the women’s connection to the Argive race, as does West (1990: 142). However, as Sommerstein (2008: 333; 2019: 184–5) explains, because κῆδος refers specifically to a marriage connection rather than to any sort of connection, it would be odd for this phrase to refer to the women’s blood connection to the Argives rather than to the Egyptians, with whom the women face marriage. At the end of the chorus’ long interaction with Pelasgus where they explain their Argive ancestry, the women refer to the Egyptians, rather than the Argives, as ἐγγενής. Instead of re-emphasizing their Argive ancestry, the women end their discussion of lineage with an emphasis on their blood relationship the Egyptians, not the Argives. The final reason we should not view lines 274–324 as a familial appeal is that the women never again mention Io to Pelasgus, even when he is uncertain as to whether or not to accept the 51 supplication. The women repeat many times their hatred of the Egyptians throughout their interaction with Pelasgus (331–2, 335, 336, 426–7), but never again speak of ancestral relations with the Argives. The women reference Io only when asked and, despite having the possibility to use Io as a reason for acceptance throughout the supplication, they choose not to. The women are presented with multiple opportunities to appeal to familial relations but do not do so. The women also avoid appeals to justice. Pelasgus asks the women multiple times if they fled Egypt due to some injustice committed against them, or if the Egyptians have a legal claim to seize them. During his introductory warnings, Danaus insists to the women that they make clear their flight is not due to bloodshed (196).45 Despite this warning, the women do not present any argument showing their innocence in the situation and the injustice in the Egyptians’ pursuit of them. Pelasgus asks if they flee πότερα κατ᾽ ἔχθραν, ἢ τὸ μὴ θέμις λέγεις; (“because of hatred, or do you speak of unlawfulness?” 336). Here, the women evade this question, and rather than making an appeal to the unjustness of the behavior of the Egyptians, they ask Pelasgus: τίς δ᾽ ἂν φίλουσ᾽ὠνοῖτο τοὺς κεκτημένους; (“who would love those she purchased as owners?” 337). This rhetorical question gives no direct answer to Pelasgus’ question regarding the legal claims of the Egyptians. Though marrying one’s own kin is implied to be indecent in the women’s question, Pelasgus does not find this custom odd, stating σθένος μὲν οὕτως μεῖζον αὔξεται βροτοῖς (“in this way power is increased among mortals,” 338) and he does not view marrying the Egyptians as illegal or unjust. The women do not further clarify their stance, providing no appeal to justice. 45 From the text it is unclear if Danaus mentions this because their flight is actually not due to bloodshed or if he says this because it will give them the best chances of acceptance. 52 As Turner (2001: 28) explains, “the Danaids never argue the strictly legal merits of their abstinence from marriage. Pelasgus requests that they do just that, but they resort instead to strident histrionics (387–93).” Pelasgus further gives the women an opportunity to speak on the unjustness of their situation at 390, when he tells them: δεῖ τοί σε φεύγειν κατὰ νόμους τοὺς οἴκοθεν, ὡς οὐκ ἔχουσιν κῦρος οὐδὲν ἀμφὶ σοῦ It is necessary for you to plead according to the laws of the land you fled That they have no power over you. (390–1) The women emphasize their hatred of their cousins but continue to avoid presenting reasoning for the injustice of their situation. “Their response, highly emotive but completely ignoring the challenge posed to them, shows as clearly as anything could that Egyptian law would indeed allow the Aegyptiads to compel the Danaids to marry them” (Sommerstein 2019: 201). Though the women make brief mentions of justice at 395–6 and 428–30, they do not explain why this pursuit is unjust. From 395–6, the women tell Pelasgus: ξύμμαχον δ᾽ ἑλόμενος Δίκαν/κρῖνε σέβας τὸ πρὸς θεῶν (“taking justice as your ally, make the judgment honored by the gods”). From 429–30, the women tell Pelasgus: μή τι τλᾶς τὰν ἱκέτιν εἰσιδεῖν/ἀπὸ βρετέων βίᾳ δίκας ἀγομέναν (“do not dare to see the suppliant taken from the statues of the gods in defiance of justice”). They state they are being treated unjustly but, despite Pelasgus’ many requests for an explanation, they do not defend themselves through an explanation of unjustness of their situation. Aeschylus invites the audience to embrace the ambiguity of the women’s supplication. The important question for scholarship is not whether the women have grounds on which to supplicate but rather what Aeschylus’ motivations are for providing an unclear answer to this aforementioned 53 question.46 When watching these scenes, the audience might expect the women to make appeals given their frequent presence in tragedy. However, Aeschylus defies these expectations, presenting the potential but not the execution of an appeal. This lack of appeal adds a coercive tone to the passage.47 In referencing only the anger of Zeus the women remind Pelasgus of the potential negative consequences for him.48 Rather than remind Pelasgus of his duties, the women appeal to his fear. In addition to altering these common supplication features, Aeschylus includes literary techniques presenting the women as increasingly angry and aggressive. The women supplicate atypically due to this anger. In section 3.2 I will examine Aeschylus’ presentation of the women as aggressive. The women not only disregard these three reverential behaviors but actively behave angrily and violently towards Pelasgus. 3.2 Aggressive Supplication Aeschylus actively presents the women as aggressive, countering the typical portrayal of a suppliant. Passariello (2011: 306) explains that the women subvert this culturally important ritual, presenting themselves as egotistical, arrogant, and impious. This scene “presents a total reversal of power relationships” (Sommerstein 2019: 156). This reversal is evident from the women’s lack of reverential language towards Pelasgus, their control in the interaction, their use of anger language, Pelasgus’ fear of the outcome of the supplication, and the women’s suicide threat. 46 One could argue that if this play is the second in the trilogy then these questions may have been previously answered in the first play. It is, first of all, unlikely that these reasons would be included with no reference to them in the second play. Second of all, this ambiguity still stands even if Aeschylus explains the women’s reasons in the first play of the trilogy. Whether or not the audience knows, Pelasgus still does not know. 47 Naiden (2004: 86) notes how the women are “unduly argumentative” in their interaction with Pelasgus. 48 See n. 44 for a list of examples of the women’s references to the anger of Zeus. 54 3.2.1 Control of the Interaction From the start of their interactions with Pelasgus, the women hesitate to submit themselves to Pelasgus’ power. They control the conversation, ignoring him when they choose. In having the women lead the interaction and evade questions, Aeschylus crafts a situation in which expected supplication power dynamics are flipped, revealing the manipulative potential of supplication. This subversion of dynamics first occurs when Pelasgus makes his initial appearance on stage and asks the women where they are from, noting that they appear foreign in all ways besides their knowledge of Greek customs (234–42). The women acknowledge the strangeness of their attire, but rather than respond to Pelasgus by answering his question they flip the question, asking Pelasgus to explain who he is. They ask him whether they should speak to him ὡς ἔτην… ἢ τηρὸν ἱερόρραβδον, ἢ πόλεως ἀγόν (“as a private citizen, bearer of the sacred staff, or leader of the city,” 247–8). The chorus, instead of answering Pelasgus’ question, “captures the initiative by requiring him to establish his status” (Johansen and Whittle vol. 2 1980: 198). Immediately, the chorus controls the interaction. Presenting the initial meeting of the two parties in this way highlights to the audience the nature of the interpersonal communications that are to arise throughout the text.49 Pelasgus tells the women he is king of the Argives, showing the expanse of his rule as a way to prove he is εὐθαρσής (“trustworthy,” 249). Because Pelasgus clearly carries some sort of staff with him, Johansen and Whittle (vol. 2 1980: 198) note that “of the three possibilities offered [by the women at 247–8], the first looks like a pure formality.” Rather than a formality, I argue 49 As Johansen and Whittle (vol. 2 1980: 196) note, this first reference also contains a comparison to the Amazons, emphasizing the women’s violent nature. 55 this is included as an invalidation of Pelasgus’ power. The women engage in frequent subversion of Pelasgus’ power and in asking him his status they further emphasize his diminished power in the situation; he is dressed as a powerful individual, though not necessarily a king, and yet the women still do not treat him as such. Instead, they question if he might be an ordinary citizen.50 Here the supplicandus proves himself to the suppliants, assuring them that he is trustworthy. In no other instance of tragic supplication where the suppliant does not know the supplicandus (Children of Heracles, Suppliants, and Oedipus Colonus) does the suppliant have such an initial interaction with the supplicandus. This pattern of conversation continues in the following lines throughout their interaction. At 325, Pelasgus asks the women what misfortune came upon them that brought them to Argos and caused them to supplicate him. Rather than answer his question, the women present a five-line speech where they tell him that human suffering is ever-changing and that they never expected that they would be fleeing to Argos in order to escape marriage (328–32). In these five lines, the women provide a vague response without directly explaining why they travelled to Argos. We see this evasion again in the following lines from 333–7, when Pelasgus asks the women why they are supplicating him. They tell him that they do not want to become slaves to the Egyptians, and Pelasgus asks them if it is because of hatred or if the Egyptians wronged them. As mentioned on page 51, the women again refuse to give Pelasgus a direct answer. Their answer to his question is unclear, adding a layer of dubiousness as to whether or not the women really have a claim to 50 Pattoni (2017) argues that Aeschylus intentionally blurs Pelasgus’ status as king throughout his interactions with the women as a way to represent Argos as similar to democratic Athens. This account is not incompatible with my own, as the women’s manipulation of Pelasgus could also further Pattoni’s point. 56 Pelasgus’ help. The women refuse to submit to Pelasgus’ questions, presenting instead an aggressive tone. The women avoid answering Pelasgus again from 386–91 despite Pelasgus’ frequent attempts to understand the women’s motivations. He tells them that they must have some cause to flee their cousins that is in line with Egyptian laws and that they must prove the Egyptians have no claim to them. The women, again, do not explain why they are fleeing and whether or not the Egyptians have a legal right to pursue them. Instead, they respond: μή τί ποτ᾽ οὖν γενοίμαν ὑποχείριος κράτεσιν ἀρσένων. ὕπαστρον δέ τοι μῆχαρ ὁρίζομαι γάμου δύσφρονος φυγάν. ξύμμαχον δ᾽ ἑλόμενος Δίκαν κρῖνε σέβας τὸ πρὸς θεῶν. Never may I be subject To the power of these men. Led by the stars, I am determined to flee this hated marriage. Taking justice as your ally, Make the judgment honored by the gods. (392–6) As previously mentioned, the women avoid appeals to justice. These passages are also significant because they show the women’s unwillingness to follow Pelasgus’ steering of the conversation because once more they provide no answer to his question. They emphasize their hatred but give no cause or justification for this hatred. Furthermore, they reference δίκη, telling Pelasgus to act in line with justice. This stands out to the audience. As examined in section 3.1.3, Pelasgus has asked the women many times if their flight is a matter of justice and if the Egyptians have legal claim to take the women, as he cannot protect them if they do. Here, the women reference that their flight is in fact a matter of justice but still do not explain why. They control the 57 conversation by avoiding questions when they choose, and in doing so, they avoid presenting Pelasgus with the reverence common to supplication.51 By removing the submissive aspect of supplication and having the women control the conversation, Aeschylus flips the usual interactions we see in tragic supplication. The women show Pelasgus no submissiveness and are bold, daring, and aggressive. However, this is not the only technique used by Aeschylus to flip the power dynamic. Specifically, we also see this through expressions of anger, Pelasgus’ fear, and the women’s threat to Pelasgus. In the following sections I will examine how these other features of the supplication further emphasize that the women are not presenting the reverence typical to a suppliant-supplicandus dynamic. 3.2.2 Expressions of Anger Danaus warns the chorus to be calm and use pious language (197–203) because θρασυστομεῖν γὰρ οὐ πρέπει τοὺς ἥσσονας (“it is not fitting for the inferior to be bold,” 203). Despite this warning, the women speak boldly. They exhibit aggressiveness, continuing to behave in ways that undermine the respect and reverence that are common to supplication. Though the women do not go as far as to expressly insult Pelasgus, their anger shows their lack of reverence. This then in turn highlights their manipulation of Pelasgus because they motivate him to act with this anger and aggression, which do not fit the usual paradigm of a reverential suppliant. We see 51 Scholars such as Passariello (2011: 307) and Belfiore (2000: 40) provide overviews of the debate on the women’s reasons for avoiding marriage. Generally, this lack of concreteness on their reasons for fleeing the Egyptians is viewed as evidence that the women do not have grounds on which to supplicate. I believe engaging in this debate is engaging with the less interesting question of why the women avoid marriage rather than asking why Aeschylus gives no clear answer to this question of the women’s motivations. However, few scholars examine the ambiguity itself, which provides scholars with important but overall unexamined evidence on Aeschylus’ goals. Aeschylus chooses to keep these reasons ambiguous, and this ambiguity adds to the characterization of the women. 58 this anger through the use of language, specifically κότος, imperatives, and meter typically associated with males and war.52 Aeschylus uses the term κότος (“anger”) to highlight the expressions of anger of the women in two ways. 53 Firstly, he uses it to refer to the wrath Zeus will use against Pelasgus if he does not help his suppliants. Zeus is frequently mentioned as the god of suppliants throughout the text, starting from the play’s first line when the women invoke Ζεὺς μὲν ἀφίκτωρ. Throughout the women’s supplication, Aeschylus uses some form of the phrase Ζηνὸς ἱκεσίου κότος four times. These passages present an explicit threat of the negative consequences for Pelasgus if he does not accept the women’s supplication.54 Pelasgus should not risk incurring the wrath of an angry and powerful god.55 Secondly, Aeschylus places the noun in close proximity to ἱκετ- language, creating a violent association with the practice. Though κότος refers to Zeus rather than ἱκεσίος, the repeated use of “ἱκεσίου κότος” creates an association between anger and supplication. Far from being presented as a ritual of respect and submission, supplication instead is presented as one that has a violent undertone. κότος is a word used infrequently both in Greek literature and in tragedy. We see no uses in tragic supplication and there are no such threats of the anger of Zeus or any other god in tragic supplication. We do see κότος used to describe Orestes’ anger after he has 52 Here when I use the term ‘anger’ I refer specifically to expressions of anger rather than the feeling of anger. A suppliant may feel angry towards the supplicandus while still showing them reverence. 53 See n. 44 for a complete list of the uses of κότος. 54 Golden (1962) examines the changes in Zeus’ portrayal from Suppliant Women to Prometheus Bound, examining how Zeus in the former text is merciful and a protector whereas Zeus in the latter text is angry and vengeful. In addition to the fact that this analysis assumes both texts are written by Aeschylus, Golden’s analysis of Zeus in Suppliant Women appears simplistic. Though Zeus here protects the women, he does so in a vengeful and threatening manner. Though his portrayal is more positive than in Prometheus Bound, he is still portrayed as angry. See Picariello and Saxonhouse (2015) for a similar perspective. Their analysis also includes differences in the story of Io, and how Zeus’ rape of Io is not portrayed as upsetting in Suppliant Women but is not in Prometheus Bound, emphasizing the differences in his nature between the two plays. 55 Konstantinou (2020) looks at the imagery of Ares within the play arguing that frequent allusions to the god further this idea of the women being violent and taints the innocent imagery of the women. 59 rejected his mother’s supplication in Libation Bearers (951). However, we do not see this sort of consistent pattern in other texts. This anger language becomes threatening at line 427, when the women give Pelasgus a warning: γνῶθι δ᾽ ὕβριν ἀνέρων καὶ φύλαξαι κότον. Know the hubris of men And guard against wrath. (427–8) In this passage the anger (κότον) is of Zeus and not of the Egyptian men (ἀνέρων) previously mentioned in line 427. Though grammatically the language is ambiguous and it is unclear exactly to whom the κότον belongs, it becomes clear the anger is of Zeus when one refers back to 385 when Aeschylus states: μένει τοι Ζηνὸς ἱκεσίου κότος (“the wrath of Zeus of suppliants endures”), as Jacques Jouanna (2004: 89) notes. In their statement, therefore, the women mention the wrath of Zeus, not the Egyptian men.56 Through this threat, the women remind Pelasgus of the problems that will arise for him if he does not help them. This reading is further emphasized through the women’s statement only a few lines later at 434, previously examined on page 3. The women tell Pelasgus: ἴσθι γάρ· παισὶ τάδε καὶ δόμοις, ὁπότερ᾽ ἂν κτίσῃς, μένει· dεῖ᾽κτίνειν ὁμοίαν θέμιν. τάδε φράσαι. δίκαια Διόθεν κρατεῖ. Know this: whatever you decide, It remains for your children and your household. It is necessary to pay The corresponding justice. 56 Johansen and Whittle (vol. 2 1980: 334) and Sommerstein (2019: 211), also explain that, because of lines 347 and 385, a qualification as to whose κότος the women refer to is not necessary. 60 Consider that. Justice prevails through Zeus. (434–7) Their emphasis on the negative consequences for Pelasgus and on the wrath that will come upon him if he does not accept their supplication is coercive and one that does not fit the audience’s expected paradigm of tragic supplication. Though not all instances of the use of κότος are found in this context,57 its frequent usage in relation to supplication in this play emphasizes the violent nature of the women’s supplication of Pelasgus. Through this violent language Aeschylus emphasizes that the women will not submit to Pelasgus and are willing to put him in a dangerous position.58 As examined on page 48, though the women themselves do not control the outcome of the threat, their mention of Zeus’ wrath is certainly perceived as threatening, especially given their final suicide threat which risks pollution on Argos. We further see this anger expressed in the frequent use of imperatives throughout the passage. Frequent imperatives present an aggressive and angry tone. A command inherently pressures the recipient. Thus, their frequent use by the women emphasizes the anger the women are showing Pelasgus. Suppliants use imperatives towards the supplicandus in 32 out of 48 examples of tragic supplications that include discussions between the suppliant and the supplicandus.59 In these examples the number of usages of the imperative vary from one to 15, with a mean 2.1 imperatives per example, a median of one per example.60 In comparison to this 57 At line 67 the use of κότος refers to the anger of Procne. 58 Mitchell (2006) argues that this violence emphasizes Danaus’ eventual overtaking of Argos and his barbarian nature, especially since their foreign appearance is emphasized. However, none of this violent language or aggression is seen on the part of Danaus, and instead only the women. Danaus, in fact, pushes the women to show reverence. 59 The 48 total number of examples refers only to supplication scenes in which there is dialogue between the suppliant and the supplicandus, including a suppliant speaking to an altar or tomb. Retellings, for example, are excluded. 60 Ajax ex. 49A, 587–90: 0; Alcestis ex. 9A, 400–3: 0; Andromache ex. 10A, 103–1272: 0; Hecuba ex. 19A, 1127–51: 0; Helen ex. 20A, 1–556 and ex. 21A, 894–1029: 0; Heracles ex. 23A, 1–327: 0; Hippolytus ex. 28A, 325–35 and ex. 29A, 605–11: 0; Ion ex. 30A, 1119–21: 0; Iphigenia in Aulis ex. 32A, 900–36: 0; Oedipus Colonus ex. 53A, 142–69 and ex. 57A, 1255–1396: 0; Oedipus Tyrannus ex. 59A, 326–58: 0; Phoenician Women ex. 45A, 923–59: 0; Trojan Women ex. 48A, 104–57: 0; Andromache ex. 11A, 529–746 and ex. 12A, 539–717: 1; Antigone ex. 51A, 1225–39: 1; 61 low mean and median, 15 examples is extremely high. However, here length of the passage must be taken into account as well.61 Of the 32 examples including imperatives, there is an average of one use per 52.8 lines with a median of one use per 27.25 lines.62 15 imperatives in Suppliant Women’s 523-line supplication scene averages to one imperative per 34.8 lines which is slightly below the mean and is slightly above the median, showing an average use of imperatives. This is likely because of the length of the supplication scene. However, 9 of these 15 imperatives occur within a span of 124 lines (348, 350, 375, 396, 418, 418, 426, 434, 455). Within these lines we see an average of one imperative every 13.7 lines, well above the average. The frequent use of these imperatives begins at 345, once Pelasgus has told the women he is unsure if he can accept their supplication because of his fear of an outbreak of war. The frequent imperatives then end at 455 when the women begin their cryptic stichomythia and present Pelasgus with their suicide threat. In these 124 lines we see at least one imperative in 5 of the 8 responses the women present in their conversation with Pelasgus.63 Johansen and Whittle Eumenides ex. 7A, 39–93: 1; Helen ex. 22A, 1235–80: 1; Children of Heracles ex. 2A, 1–252: 1; Heracles ex. 24A, 327–32 and ex. 27A, 986–95: 1; Ion 31A, 1253–1436: 1; Iphigenia in Tauris ex. 36A, 1068–78: 1; Medea ex. 37A, 324–56 and ex. 39A, 846–905: 1; Orestes ex. 43A, 1506–27: 1; Trojan Women ex. 47A, 1042–57: 1; Andromache ex. 14A, 894–984: 2; Hecuba ex. 17A, 275–331: 2; Iphigenia in Aulis ex. 34A, 1216–75 and ex. 35A, 1245–8: 2; Libation Bearers ex. 6A, 896–930: 2; Oedipus Colonus ex. 55A, 518–25 and ex. 58A, 1414–47: 2; Oedipus Colonus ex. 54A, 237–95: 3; Oedipus Tyrannus ex. 4A, 1–77: 3; Philoctetes ex. 61A, 927–35: 3; Medea ex. 38A, 709–55: 4; Hecuba ex. 18A, 749–904: 6; Philoctetes ex. 60A, 468–534: 6; Orestes ex. 41A, 380–716: 7; Oedipus Colonus ex. 52A, 44–641: 8; Suppliants ex. 3A, 1–364: 8; Libation Bearers ex. 5A, 315–973: 14; Seven Against Thebes ex. 8A, 94–180: 14. 61 These numbers refer to the uses per total line length of the supplication, rather than the uses per total number of lines the suppliant speaks. 62 Here the standard deviation is 64.2, which is extremely high. This standard deviation is high because of 6 outliers with an average of one imperative per more than 100 lines. Every other average is under 100 lines. A more in-depth statistical analysis of the use of imperatives would take into account the number of lines spoken by the suppliant and supplicandus and would require a normative parameter of the usage of imperatives per line. Because even short supplications include a request, an imperative in a two-line supplication scene may be less unusual than five imperatives in a 50-line passage, though the former is a much higher frequency of use than the latter (one imperative per two lines compared to one imperative per 10 lines). 63 The women do not use imperatives in their responses from 356–64, 381–6, and 402–6. 62 (vol. 2 1980: 280) also notice the frequent use of commands and prohibitions, with 9 occurring in the chorus’ 20 colas over four stanzas from 418–37. The women condense these imperatives into a short span of lines, which increases their use’s impact on the audience in this passage. As Pelasgus continues to insist to the women that he cannot accept them without consulting the assembly, the women increase their aggression towards Pelasgus. The women first begin this frequent use of imperatives when Pelasgus expresses hesitation towards accepting their supplication and end when Pelasgus gives them his final acceptance. The women, aware of Pelasgus’ indecision and constant wavering, become angry, instead of flattering him to gain his help. The use of commands highlights this point: through commands the women counter the typical reverential suppliant, instead ordering Pelasgus to give them their desired outcome. Throughout this passage the meter, too, reflects this aggressive tone. In his analysis of this passage, Jouanna (2004) notices the strangeness in the women’s meter. The women’s last speech from 418–37 before their stichomythia with the king where they present their suicide threat contains a great number of cretic feet, including 25 lines in a row. The frequency with which the women use cretic meter is extremely unusual for Greek tragedy, and there is no other tragic instance including so many cretic feet in a row (91). As Jouanna (92) notes, this meter is an aggressive and war-related meter that Cretan children chanted as a way to become more courageous. We also see this meter used to portray aggressiveness in Aristophanes’ Acharnians and Aeschylus’ Eumenides from the Erinyes from 324–9, when they pursue Orestes. Jouanna argues that the Erinyes are far more threatening and menacing than the chorus in Suppliant Women, and that this meter shows purely the masculinity of the women. Jouanna’s conclusion seems to be too moderate. Instead, I argue that this meter shows the audience that the women are just as aggressive as the Erinyes. Aeschylus’ inclusion of cretic meter at this point in 63 the women’s supplication is powerful. After a 184-line argument with Pelasgus the women are about to present Pelasgus with their last threat: the threat of suicide. The use of an aggressive meter emphasizes the frustration and growing anger of the women as Pelasgus continues to reject them.64 Through their masculine meter usage the women counter the typical supplication expectation of reverence, instead appearing powerful and aggressive. The meter gives us important insight on the women’s behavior.65 These expressions of anger and aggressiveness show us that the women do not revere Pelasgus, neither genuinely nor performatively. They feign no innocence or admiration. Instead, they show Pelasgus their anger, thus undermining his authority. They behave exactly as Danaus warned them not to. In presenting threats and aggressive language, they manipulate Pelasgus. The women thus are θρασεῖαι, showing that they do not view themselves as τοὺς ἥσσονας to Pelasgus, as a suppliant typically does. 3.2.3 μηχανὴ καλή: Τhe Women’s Suicide Threat The women’s aggression culminates when they present Pelasgus with their threat to ἐκ τῶνδ᾽ ὅπως τάχιστ᾽ ἀπάγξασθαι θεῶν (“hang ourselves quickly from these gods,” 465) with their robes if Pelasgus rejects their supplication. This threat differs from their threat of the anger of Zeus because this threat is within the women’s control. When the women threaten Pelasgus with the wrath of Zeus they are not capable of bringing about or stopping Zeus’ wrath. A rejection will 64 Griffith (2018) argues that, when portraying women, presenting them with masculine qualities and especially masculine ways of speaking was powerful because language, rather than dress or mask, was the main way of differentiating between women and men on the stage. Thus, giving the women an aggressive and typically masculine meter would likely be jarring to the audience. 65 For another analysis of the way meter reflects the thematic and symbolic points of the play, see Rash (1977). 64 bring about this negative outcome for Pelasgus whether or not the women wish it. When the women present their suicide threat, however, this changes. The women can control their own suicide. Here, they actively choose to pollute the city. The women present what they refer to as the end of their αἰδοίων λόγων (“reverential account,” 455), an almost ironic statement given their lack of αἰδώς throughout the passage. During an 11-line stichomythia from 455–65, the women slowly unveil their μηχανὴ καλή (“wonderful device,” 459) to Pelasgus. After hearing this threat, Pelasgus’ fear becomes its most intense, as he says: ἤκουσα μαστικτῆρα καρδίας λόγον (“I hear a speech that flays my heart,” 466).66 Here the women aggressively take control in order to accomplish their desired ends.67 Susanetti (2008: 187) explains that “the suppliants’ words are the most imminent, plausible menace that Pelasgus feels pressured to deal with.” The threat is “aggravated blackmail” and Pelasgus has no choice but to accept the supplication (Susanetti 2008: 190).68 The threat of the κότος of Zeus has now intensified and Pelasgus’ impending demise is guaranteed: Pelasgus either enters a war with the Egyptians or he brings pollution upon Argos. In the 21-line speech that follows (468–89), Pelasgus despairs over the future of the city, appearing 66 For a discussion of this passage and how the imagery of Apis connects to the women’s pollution of Argos, see Moreau (1985: 201). 67 Garrison (1995: 85) compares this suicide threat to those the women make at the beginning of the play before the arrival of Pelasgus and at end of the play at the arrival of the Egyptians. She notes that, though in this passage the women are coercive, at 789 when the women learn of the arrival of the Egyptians, they have “no one to coerce [and] there is only despair and desperation.” Their interaction with Pelasgus incites their action and manipulation, whereas their language at 789 represents an end in action. In this passage, unlike in later passages not including Pelasgus, the women present aggressive calls to action rather than fear and despair. 68 This passage finds a parallel both earlier in the play, with the mention of ἐγχειρίδιος, examined in section 3.1.2, and with Euripides’ Hecuba, when Hecuba’s attendants blind Polymnestor with pins that hold their peploi together. Marshall (2001) and Jenkins (1983) provide in-depth analyses of this passage in Hecuba. As Jenkins (1983: 32) explains, in Hecuba these innocent objects “by stealth or violence (or both) the pointed end can be turned round to become the agent of ill intent.” In all three situations, objects that appear innocent are used to harm another individual. 65 devastated and defeated. He emphasizes the πολλαχῇ γε δυσπάλαιστα πράγματα (“troubles that are hard to wrestle with in all ways,” 468) and the κακῶν δὲ πλῆθος ποταμός (“great river of toils,” 469) that rushed against him. This pitiful image of a supplicandus is unusual, and not seen in other texts. From this passage we see a different side of supplication; what normally appears as ritualized and reverential practice here is presented as coercion.69 Pelasgus gives his final response, telling the women he will take the issue to the assembly and attempt to sway them. He gives the reasoning for his decision, stating: ὅμως δ᾽ ἀνάγκη Ζηνὸς αἰδεῖσθαι κότον ἱκτῆρος· ὕψιστος γὰρ ἐν βροτοῖς φόβος. Nevertheless, the wrath of Zeus of suppliants compels me to be reverent, For the fear of him is greatest among mortals. (478–80) It is out of ἀνάγκη — a force or constraint — that Pelasgus makes his final decision in support of the women. He again emphasizes the fear of Zeus and the impact that this has on his decision. Pelasgus is not a supplicandus who is in control and instead he is motivated to action by his fear. Through the women’s control of the situation, their anger, and their suicide threat, the women compel Pelasgus to accept their supplication. They choose to represent themselves differently from 69 Bednarowski (2010) is skeptical of the manipulative and coercive nature of this threat. He presents a different perspective on this passage, arguing that the threats are not manipulative and instead purely incite questions, and so this would not have been viewed by the audience as strange. Instead, the audience would impose their pre-existing views of the women onto this threat; if they already agreed with the women, they would view this threat as an example of their fear or desperation, whereas if they viewed the women negatively then they would view the threat as coercive. I do not argue with this point. However, given the ways Aeschylus has continuously portrayed the women as manipulative, it seems likely that most audience members would already have a negative view of the women and thus would interpret the threat negatively. 66 how Danaus tells them to at the beginning of the play. In doing so, they engage in supplication violently. 3.2.4 Pelasgus’ Expressions of Fear Though most of this analysis has been dedicated to the women’s behavior, Pelasgus’ behavior — specifically his expressions of fear — also emphasize the aggression of the women and the manipulative potential of supplication. As Pelasgus realizes the severity of his situation, he “ponders the archetypical dilemma of tragedy where either decision will bring ‘woe,’ both for him and his realm” (Susanetti 2008: 186). There is no potential for a positive outcome for Pelasgus, and Aeschylus emphasizes this through Pelasgus’ intense fear: he is afraid of the women and the inevitable pollution that their supplication will bring about.70 His frequent expressions of this knowledge of a negative outcome show the women’s manipulation of Pelasgus. They have knowingly presented him with an inescapable situation.71 When Pelasgus first begins to understand the severity of his situation, foreseeing the negative outcome, he tells the women: εἴη δ᾽ ἄνατον πρᾶγμα τοῦτ᾽ ἀστοξένων, μηδ᾽ ἐξ ἀέλπτων κἀπρομηθήτων πόλει νεῖκος γένηται· τῶν γὰρ οὐ δεῖται πόλις. May this affair of the citizen-foreigners be unharmful. And let no feud come about to the city from unexpected 70 See Johansen and Whittle (vol. 2 1980: 299) for a brief overview of this fear. 71 I say knowingly here because it is highly unlikely the women behaved aggressively out of a lack of understanding of the effects on Pelasgus. Their frequent emphasis on the wrath of Zeus and the negative outcomes for Pelasgus if he does not help them shows this intentionality, as does the fact that Danaus warned them to speak innocently and reverentially. Their statement at 467 further emphasizes this. After the women threaten Pelasgus with suicide and Pelasgus’ expresses fear, the women state: ξυνῆκας· ὠμμάτωσα γὰρ σαφέστερον (“you understand: I have made your vision clearer”). 67 And unforeseen causes. The city has no need for this. (356–8) Pelasgus begins to express his fear from the beginning of his interactions with the women. In his uses of the optative and subjunctive, Pelasgus not only expresses his hope for a positive outcome but also his awareness that this supplication may bring about serious problems for the city: a positive outcome is possible but not guaranteed. As the text continues Pelasgus’ fear grows and his hopefulness that the city will remain unharmed diminishes. At line 379 he tells the women: φόβος μ᾽ ἔχει φρένας (“fear grasps my heart”). This physical imagery of grabbing or holding emphasizes the intensity of the fear and the use of φρένας (“heart”) shows that this is affair is personal and meaningful to Pelasgus; he has a big stake in the outcome. At line 400, Pelasgus emphasizes that he does not want to make any sort of decision without a vote because the people will blame him for any negative consequences if he did not get the people’s consent. Here Pelasgus uses the optative, showing he still is not certain of a negative outcome, but acknowledges the possibility of one. In the following lines the negative outcome becomes more certain, though, and Pelasgus switches out of using the optative in describing a negative outcome. At line 407, Pelasgus emphasizes his need for a φροντίδος σωτηρίου (“a saving council”) and he uses this phrase again at 417, restating his need for saving. Through his desire for deliverance, Pelasgus acknowledges that he has no good options in this situation. This emphasis on an external savior shows his realization that neither his own deliberations nor those of the assembly can prevent a negative outcome. Rather than hoping that through deliberations the 68 assembly can solve the problem, Pelasgus presents this φροντίς as the only potential prospect.72 Towards the end of his dialogue with the women, Pelasgus transitions from a potential fear of a negative outcome to a certain fear of a negative outcome. He states: θέλω δ᾽ ἄιδρις μᾶλλον ἢ σοφὸς κακῶν εἶναι. γένοιτο δ᾽ εὖ παρὰ γνώμην ἐμήν. I prefer to be unknowledgeable than to be aware of evils. But may this situation end well against my judgment. (453–4) The σοφός man is aware of his impending doom. Pelasgus now uses the optative to express a positive outcome rather than a negative outcome, as he does at 356, showing his realization that he will likely suffer some sort of harm. As he continues to engage with the women, he becomes increasingly aware of his inevitable doom and expresses increasing fear. Pelasgus is hesitant to make any decision and when he does so he is led by constraint and fear. Pelasgus’ fear is specifically due to the women, their connection to Zeus, and their threat of suicide. The fact that his motivations are based in fear shows the coercive nature of the women’s supplication. In presenting Pelasgus in this manner, Aeschylus emphasizes the helplessness of Pelasgus and the power the women have in this situation. Through the removal of the women’s submissiveness and the addition of their anger and threats, the supplication becomes manipulative. Pelasgus is compelled to act in accordance with the desires of the suppliant, despite the fact that the women have refused to show him reverence. 72 In the coming lines from 428–37 we also see the use of dochmaics both by Pelasgus and the women as the women prepare to present their threat. This meter is used to express fear and agitation, and thus its use at this point in the dialogue is significant; Pelasgus is becoming increasingly fearful at the difficult decision he must make, and the women are becoming increasingly agitated at Pelasgus’ indecision. See Fleming (2007: 85–6), Johansen and Whittle (vol. 2 1980: 354–5), and Sommerstein (2019: 211) for further discussion of the meter’s usage in this passage. 69 3.3 Pelasgus’ Response Pelasgus’ response underlines the effectiveness of the women’s manipulation. Contrary to audience expectations, Pelasgus does not directly accept the women’s supplication, as rescuers typically do: his idiosyncratic political position as a democratic king prevents him from being able to single-handedly make such a promise. Instead, he defers the supplication to the assembly, a response we only see in Oedipus Colonus (ex. 54A, 237–92). This deferral has been Pelasgus’ intention all along, as he has repeatedly insisted to the women that he cannot independently grant their request (365–9, 376–80, 397–401, 452–4). The deferral is uncommon, but what is unique to this play is how Pelasgus promises to attempt to sway the assembly, explaining that he will speak to them τὸ κοινὸν ὡς ἂν εὐμενὲς τιθῶ (“so I can make the public well-disposed [to you],” 518). Pelasgus’ willingness to try to sway the assembly despite his persistent appeal to democratic processes speaks to the effectiveness of the women’s manipulation. Pelasgus knows that he cannot accept the women without consulting the assembly. Pelasgus is the role ruler, but he is aware that when the city as a whole is threatened, the city as a whole must be consulted (365–9). “Pelasgus has the formal power to act how he pleases… but he himself is also right to say (365–9) that on a matter so seriously affecting the public interest he cannot make any definitive decision or promise without public approval” (Sommerstein 2019: 30). Pelasgus also fears being blamed for a negative outcome (400–1). He is not free to respond to the supplication as he pleases. The women have, however, put Pelasgus in a difficult situation. Therefore, Pelasgus must resort to persuasion: in promising the women he will attempt to sway the assembly, he accepts the supplication and pleases Zeus, and in speaking to the assembly he consults the people before deciding, pleasing the people and protecting himself. Pelasgus accepts the women’s supplication as much as he is able to. 70 Because we do not hear Pelasgus’ speech directly, and instead only hear Danaus’ retelling, we cannot concretely know exactly how Pelasgus spoke to the assembly. However, Danaus explains that Pelasgus ἔπειθεν ῥῆσιν ἀμφ᾽ ἡμῶν λέγων (“persuaded [the Argives] by giving a speech about us,” 615). Danaus then goes on to explain how Pelasgus referenced the wrath of Zeus, the pollution a rejection would bring about into the city, and the grief that would come about from this rejection (616–20). From Danaus’ account of the events, Pelasgus manipulates the assembly in that he focuses on the information that will most likely bring about his desired outcome of acceptance, i.e., the negative consequences of rejecting the supplication rather than the potential war with the Egyptians. The Argives are aware of potential war (611–4), but this is not the central aspect of Pelasgus’ speech. Pelasgus is forced to manipulate the assembly. This unusual ending to the supplication is necessary given the supplication the women engage in. When Pelasgus presents hesitations, they convince him with threats. Thus, Pelasgus can make no other choice. Pelasgus’ acceptance highlights to the audience the manipulative potential of supplication because a suppliant does not have to fulfill their own expectations in order to gain help. The suppliant may not even have any grounds on which to supplicate — as is possible with the women — and the supplicandus is forced to help them. 3.4 Suppliant Women Compared to Altar/Individual Supplications Children of Heracles (ex. 2A, 1–252), Suppliants (ex. 3A, 1–364), and Oedipus Tyrannus (ex. 4A, 1–77), the other three altar/individual supplication scenes, all have specific features that are not present in Suppliant Women. As examined previously in section 2.4, in these scenes the suppliant gestures both to the embodied supplicandus and to the altar, the suppliant uses ἱκετ- 71 language towards both the altar and the individual, and the play begins in the midst of the supplication scene. These three features are different, however, in Aeschylus’ Suppliant Women. In contrasting Suppliant Women with other examples of the same type, Aeschylus emphasizes that the women do not present Pelasgus with typical supplication behaviors. As examined in section 3.1.1, the women gesture only towards the gods. There are three mentions of gestures in the play (189, 223, 365) but each example references the women sitting at the altar of Zeus. This is unusual in altar/individual supplication. In other examples the suppliant gestures to both supplicandi. In presenting the chorus’ supplication as different from those in other plays of the same type through gesture, Aeschylus emphasizes that the women are not showing Pelasgus the reverence typical to supplication. Similarly, we see this lack of reverence in the use of ἱκετ- language in the women’s interaction with Pelasgus and specifically the way they refrain from using any ἱκετ- language towards him and instead use this language only towards the gods. In this way the women refrain from showing Pelasgus of reverence. An audience at first may not notice the lack of supplication language towards Pelasgus due to the heavy usage of ἱκετ- language throughout the play. However, none of this language is directed at Pelasgus, and instead it all refers to the gods. In Suppliant Women, out of the 13 uses of supplication language only one is used in relation to Pelasgus when he refers to himself as a supplicandus. The women use no supplication language towards Pelasgus. Supplication implies submissiveness and the women, unwilling to submit themselves to Pelasgus, do not call themselves Pelasgus’ suppliants, instead only referring to the gods as such. The average number of uses of supplication language in Suppliant Women (about 1 72 in every 40 lines) is similar to those of the three other plays.73 Thus, the fact that the language is used frequently but used in a different manner stands out.74 Through the lack of reverential language, the women counter typical supplication expectations and emphasize their lack of reverence; they refuse to submit to Pelasgus. The women engage in no performative submissiveness, instead focusing on aggressive language while not even acknowledging Pelasgus as a supplicandus. Because of their language towards the gods and Zeus an audience would expect the same sort of behavior towards Pelasgus.75 Suppliant Women also differs in that it does not begin in the midst of a supplication scene and instead begins as the women are about to supplicate. We witness the entire supplication, from Danaus’ instructions to the women, to the approach, to the response. This is important because it highlights to the audience the atypical supplication.76 Though we witness the entire supplication, Danaus instructs the women, and the women counter his commands, supplicating in an unusual manner. If the author presents no introduction to the supplication, suppliants are assumed to have behaved in a manner that is in line with the expectations of the ancient audience. Danaus behaves as a guide, telling the women exactly what to do and where to place themselves.77 We get a behind- 73 Children of Heracles: 1 in 42 lines; Suppliants: 1 in 60 lines; Oedipus Tyrannus: 1 in 38 lines. 74 An interesting further line of research would be to look at the number of uses throughout all tragic supplication and see what trends emerge. 75 Because the submissiveness the women do not give to Pelasgus they do give to the gods, who are also a supplicandus in this supplication, this lack of ἱκετ- language directed at Pelasgus may emphasize the argument Vernant (1972) presents that tragedy reflects a tension between the mythological past and the political present; the gods receive what the ruler does not. 76 Francis M. Dunn states: “When a play begins with a suppliant scene, it usually does so in order to present a moral or political crisis in clear, unambiguous terms” (1996: 154). Dunn specifically cites Suppliant Women as one of the examples of this, referencing also Children of Heracles, Helen, and Heracles. Suppliant Women differs from these other examples, though, in that it begins just before the supplication starts. Both Dunn (1996: 154) and Turner (2001: 39) disregard this important difference. Aeschylus chooses to slightly change this aspect of supplication that relates to moral and political issues. He presents a supplication similar to those that reflect unambiguous moral and political crises with slight alterations, perhaps highlighting the ambiguity of the women’s situation. 77 For more on the role of Danaus in the play, see Bakewell (2008). 73 the-scenes look that we miss in other supplication scenes. Because we see this original information it is even more shocking when the women do not follow his advice. This comparison further shows us the ways in which the supplication in Suppliant Women differs from other supplication scenes. 3.5 Inconsistent Characterizations As we have seen, supplication in this play has coercive and violent undertones. While some have argued that these undertones are symptoms of the women’s character, in this section I will argue that Aeschylus ties these coercive aspects not to the women but to the scene of supplication specifically. Some have explained the violence of their supplication by appealing to a fundamental feature of their character, such as foreignness or gender. For example, Passariello (2011) and others relate the violence to the women’s foreign status,78 and Papaglozou (2018) argues that their behavior counters gender roles. According to Bacharova (2009), this violence alludes to the women’s role as Argive nymphs. Though all these features do inform the dynamics of Suppliant Women, they alone do not explain the violence of the supplication. Using violent supplication as a statement on the violence of foreigners, for example, requires the consistent characterization of foreigners as violent throughout the play, but neither the women nor Pelasgus are characterized consistently. In this section I examine three instances in the play where the women behave in markedly non-violent and non-coercive ways: the women’s praise of the gods throughout the play, their praise of the Argives (625–709), and their interactions with the herald and the Egyptians (824–952). I also examine Pelasgus’ interactions with the herald (911–74), as these interactions characterize him as bold and courageous rather than fearful. For this reason, I will argue that the 78 See, for example, Alexandri and Tzirvitzi (2019), Bakewell (2013), and Mitchell (2006). 74 violence the women display is not an inherent feature of their character but rather is tied specifically to their role as suppliants. In their first speech (1–175) the women use many reverential epithets for Zeus.79 This emphasizes to the audience that this lack of reverence to Pelasgus is not just a general trait of the women, and instead is specifically directed at Pelasgus. By starting the play in this way Aeschylus emphasizes that the women can, in fact, present reverence. However, they choose to show this reverence only to the gods. The women’s speech praising the Argives starting at line 625 also presents a drastically different characterization from previous interactions with Pelasgus, where the women praise Zeus but present aggression towards the Argives and Pelasgus. Here, women rarely engage in any praise of Zeus, but engage in 84 lines of praise towards the Argives. Throughout these lines the women present 17 desires in a row in the form of a subjunctive, all revolving around their hopes for the good things that will come to the Argives. They utter εὐχὰς ἀγαθάς (“good prayers”) in return for the ἀγαθῶν (“good deeds”) of the Argives (626). They pray that the Argives never endure plague, that they always be well-governed and have many offerings, that there always be new guardians of the land, that the city never be destroyed, and that the crops always be perfected, among other wishes. Though originally the women present Zeus as a threat to Pelasgus, telling him to beware of his anger, here they ask Zeus to hear their prayers by bringing all these good things to fruition for the Argives. The focus in this passage is no longer anger or threats, but instead is gentle, compassionate, and grateful. In their praise of the Argives the women also emphasize their pitifulness, explaining how the Argives ᾤκτισαν ἡμᾶς (“pitied us,” 639). They are ἀμέγαρτος (“pitiful,” literally “not 79 E.g., σωτὴρ (26), οἰκοφύλαξ (26), παντόπτας (139), πολυξενώτατον (156). 75 enviable,” 642). The emphasis here is not on the violence that gained their acceptance by the Argives, but instead their miserable status. We see dynamics and characterizations shifting. Another odd aspect of this passage is the women’s emphasis on the democratic aspect of the city and their respect of it. The women praise the city’s government, saying: φυλάσσοι τ᾽ εὖ τὰ τίμ᾽ ἀστοῖς τὸ δάμιον, τὸ πτόλιν κρατύνει, προμαθὶς εὐκοινόμητις ἀρχά. May the people, who rule the city, Guard well the rights of the citizens, a rule With forethought and deliberation for the public good. (698–700) This passage contrasts strongly with the women’s claim at 370, when they argue against Pelasgus’ desire to bring the supplication to the assembly, and the chorus tells him that he is the city and the people, and he alone can make this decision.80 This inconsistent characterization continues throughout the women’s interactions with the Egyptians. Unlike in their interactions with Pelasgus, here the women express no real anger or aggressiveness, and instead only express fear and despair. Due to the corruption of this passage and missing lines, it is difficult to make concrete conclusions about these interactions. However, in the extant text, the emphasis is not on anger towards the Egyptians. The emphasis is on their woe and despair, and it would be unusual for Aeschylus to include in these missing lines a vastly different, angry characterization of the women, dispersing lines of anger randomly among lines of despair. To Pelasgus, their potential savior, they emphasize the potential wrath of Zeus, but they make no threats to the Egyptians, who present imminent danger to the women. Despite knowing 80 This example counters Hall (2006) when she examines how in tragedy women tend to be their most dangerous when men depart, citing, for example, Clytemnestra. Here, the women become their most gentle and caring not when the men are around but when the men have left them alone. 76 Egyptian gods as well, they make no threats invoking the gods. In this passage we also see the only uses of laments. It is inevitable that the women’s interactions with the Egyptians will differ from those they have with Pelasgus, as the nature of their relationship is different. However, this interaction reflects a different side of the women; they are helpless and afraid rather than angry and aggressive. Pelasgus’ interactions with the Egyptians contrast strongly with those he has with the women. The women’s interactions after the supplication contrast with their supplication due to their expressions of helplessness, whereas those of Pelasgus differ from his previous behaviors because of his courageousness. Here Pelasgus takes control of the situation in a way he does not during the supplication. We see this, first, in the way Pelasgus controls the conversation and almost ironically parallels the way the women control their previous conversation with him. At 924, the Egyptians ask Pelasgus to prove to them that legally the women are free, a statement that is reminiscent of Pelasgus’ questions regarding the women’s legality in fleeing (see section 3.1.3). Rather than address this point, Pelasgus evades the herald’s question in the same way the women evade Pelasgus’ in their supplication, and instead he threatens to harm the herald if he attempts to take the women. The herald then asks Pelasgus who he is, and Pelasgus avoids the question, again, in a manner reminiscent of the women’s avoidance in their conversation with Pelasgus (246–8). Furthermore, Pelasgus appears determined, using strong language. He tells the herald: τῶνδ᾽ ἐφήλωται τορῶς γόμφος διαμπάξ, ὡς μένειν ἀραρότως. ταῦτ᾽ οὐ πίναξίν ἐστιν ἐγγεγραμμένα οὐδ᾽ ἐν πτυχαῖς βίβλων κατεσφραγισμένα, σαφῆ δ᾽ ἀκούεις ἐξ ἐλευθεροστόμου γλώσσης. κομίζου δ᾽ ὡς τάχισxeτ᾽ ἐξ ὀμμάτων. The bolt has been nailed through, and it remains strong. 77 These things are not inscribed on tablets Nor seated in the pages of books You hear it clearly from a free-speaking mouth. Now get out of my sight right away. (946–9) In this passage Pelasgus shows no hesitation but instead has an assertive presence. He is aware of the likelihood of an outbreak of war, but he steadfastly stands by his suppliants. He has command over the situation. This contrasts sharply with his previous characterizations in his interactions with the women where he is fearful. Pelasgus is not an innately fearful individual. Rather, the nature of his interaction with the women provoked fear greater than that he feels at an approaching swarm of angry, violent men.81 The change in characterization of the women and Pelasgus after the scene of supplication emphasizes to the viewer that women are not inherently angry and Pelasgus is not inherently fearful.82 We should not take their behavior during the supplication as a statement on their character and their qualities but rather on the practice they engage in. Though when the women supplicate they are angry and Pelasgus is fearful, after the scene of supplication the women appear innocent and fearful and Pelasgus steadfastly and courageously defends them in the face of danger.83 81 We see this change in characterization beginning even just after the women’s threat. As Sandin (2005) points out, Pelasgus immediately begins mirroring the women’s biased language with his reference to ὕβριν μὲν ἐχθήρειεν ἄρσενος στόλου. He mentions that this is perhaps an example of Aeschylus’ “disregard for psychological realism” (206). 82 Dawe (1963) argues that in Aeschylus we see prioritization of plot over consistency of character. Here it seems that Aeschylus is not prioritizing plot, thus leading to an inconsistent characterization, but rather that he uses this inconsistent characterization to further the manipulative reading of supplication. 83 As Rash (1977) notes, here we see the meter change to dochmaics, which have associations with agitation and fear. Rash argues that this meter contrasts with the content of the speech, as the two represent opposing themes, with the speech showing reverence but the meter showing impending doom and the troubles the women will bring about. However, the two do not have to oppose each other; the women can both praise the Argives and fear the impending war. The fear does not have to represent the negative consequences that the women will bring about for the Argives and instead can purely represent their fear of the Egyptians. For further information on the use of dochmaics to express fear in Seven Against Thebes see De Poli (2018). Here, De Poli argues that the dochmaics represent the chorus’ fear about the outcome of the battle. The use of meter, here, can represent an innocent fearfulness rather than an aggressive 78 one, and thus reinforces the change in characterization of the women. In their interactions with Pelasgus they use cretic meter, representing their aggression, and here they use a fearful meter. 79 Chapter 4. Conclusion In this thesis I examined the reverence typically associated with tragic supplication and showed how Aeschylus alters audience expectations, emphasizing the manipulative potential of supplication. I argued this first through showing how he alters the use of gestures, objects, and appeals. Secondly, I showed how Aeschylus presents the women as aggressive through the women’s control in the conversation, the use of expressions of anger, the women’s threats, and the fear of Pelasgus. Lastly, I examined how in presenting an unusual response to the supplication Aeschylus reveals a less innocent side to the practice. To conclude, I comment on the implications the missing two tragedies and satyr play have on our understanding of this supplication scene and specifically on whether or not the women are sympathetic characters. I also comment on our responsibilities as readers when understanding this play and the role of the women. Due to a lack of evidence, it is unclear whether Suppliant Women is the first or the second play in the trilogy, and there are no surviving versions of the other two tragedies, Danaids and Egyptians, or the corresponding satyr, Amymone.84 Though without the remaining plays it is impossible to know the exact plot and outcome of the trilogy, other versions of the myth provide a general understanding. Apollodorus, for instance, tells the story of the Danaids in The Library (2.1.4–5). He explains that Danaus fled Egypt with his daughters over a dispute regarding the kingdom. They arrived at Argos and the king surrendered the city to Danaus. The Egyptians came and Danaus agreed to allow his daughters to marry them, but he gave them all daggers, with which they were to kill their husbands. All but Hypermnestra killed their husbands on the night of their wedding. 84 See Sommerstein (2008: 279-287) for a full account of the debate on the missing plays and their order. 80 As Garvie (2006: 164) notes, the versions agree on very few details of the story. However, the four elements common to all “and what Aeschylus could not have failed to use” are the following: the story concerns the brothers Danaus and Aegyptus, descendants of Io, the former having 50 daughters and the latter having 50 sons; the brothers argue; the sons marry the daughters and Danaus commands his daughters to kill their husbands; all but Hypermnestra comply. This is further supported by a fragment from the third play in the trilogy referencing the musical awakening of the brides and grooms.85 A complete trilogy and the knowledge of whether Suppliant Women is the first or second play in the trilogy would provide us with two pieces of information that would greatly further this understanding of the manipulative aspects of this supplication scene: why the Danaids and their father left Egypt and what Danaus’ role in the plot is. This information would specifically help us understand Aeschylus’ characterization of the women. Though it is clear that this supplication is manipulative, what is unclear is how Aeschylus wants the reader to interpret this supplication: does Aeschylus present the women as sympathetic characters who manipulate as a desperate, last-ditch effort to save themselves, as cruel characters manipulating without consideration for others, or as something in between? If the play is the first in the trilogy, then this portrayal of the women is unsympathetic. With no information on the women’s flight and the events in Egypt, their violence is less likely to induce sympathy in the audience. Furthermore, with this play as the first in the trilogy, it is clear from the women’s cryptic answers to Pelasgus that the women have no real legal grounds on which to supplicate. When reading this play in our modern context, we can, and should, have sympathy 85 See Sommerstein (2008: 282) for a full discussion of this fragment. 81 for the women even if they have no legal backing for their claims. However, when thinking about Aeschylus’ characterization of the women to his ancient audience, this lack of legal authority intended to create an unsympathetic view of the women. If this play is the first in the trilogy Aeschylus also presents Danaus as innocent, attempting in vain to teach the women to supplicate reverentially. Though in the original version of the myth Danaus has had some sort of strife with his brother, with the trilogy beginning with Suppliant Women it is unclear if Danaus has unjustly brought about some harm upon his brother before leaving. Though Danaus clearly has behaved incorrectly due to his helping the women flee, because he takes no part in the violent supplication, he is portrayed more sympathetically than the women. However, if Suppliant Women is the second play in the trilogy, the women may be portrayed more sympathetically. Seeing the previous interactions of Danaus and the chorus with the Egyptians would help contextualize their behavior. If Egyptians is the first play in the trilogy then this context of the women’s flight would help us better understand their role in the situation. It would also help us better understand Danaus’ role in the situation and whether he has initiated the flight and controls the women more than he appears to in Suppliant Women. It is because of this ambiguity in the plot and the missing plays that the intended moral judgments on the characters in Suppliant Women are unclear. However, as a modern audience we face certain responsibilities in our own readings and understandings of the play. We cannot limit ourselves to viewing the play in light of what Aeschylus might have wanted, and instead must focus on the reality of the one surviving play: the women flee Egypt due to an unwanted marriage and this alone is enough to incite sympathy and compassion when reading the play, despite any characterization Aeschylus intended. Though through the literary techniques used in this play 82 Pelasgus is a character who is manipulated by the women, when thinking about Pelasgus’ responsibilities to protect these women, we as modern readers should feel contempt towards him that the women’s disgust of marriage with their cousins was not reason enough for Pelasgus to accept their supplication. 83 Bibliography Allan, W. (2005) Euripides: The Children of Heracles. Aris & Phillips. Alexandri, E. & S. Tzirvitzi. (2019) “Hiketeia and Asylia in Ancient Greek Mythical and Political Thought.” Revista de Investigación de la Cátedra Internacional Conjunta Inocencio 3(9): 171–200. Bacharova, M. B. (2009). “Suppliant Danaids and Argive Nymphs in Aeschylus.” The Classical Journal 104(4): 289–310. Bakewell, G. (2008) “Aeschylus’ Supplices 11–12: Danaus As ΠΕΣΣΟΝΟΜΩΝ*.” Classical Quarterly 58(1): 303–7. — (2013) Aeschylus’ Suppliant Women: The Tragedy of Immigration. University of Wisconsin Press. Bao, Yintong. (2019) Difficult Friends: A Study of Hospitality in Three Greek Tragedies. diss. The University of Buffalo. Bednarowski, P. K. (2010) “The Danaids’ Threat: Obscurity, Suspense and the Shedding of Tradition in Aeschylus' Suppliants.” Classical Journal 105(3): 193–212. Belfiore, E.S. (2000) Murder Among Friends: Violation of Philia in Greek Tragedy. Oxford University Press. Beltrametti, A. (May 2009) “Erranti e supplici, gli stranieri della tragedia,” in Stranieri ed esuli di ieri e di oggi: atti del Convegno «Greci Barbari Migranti», 47–55. G. Nuzzo, ed. Istituto Nazionale del Dramma Antico. Brill, S. (2006) “Violence and Vulnerability in Aeschylus’ Suppliants,” in Logos and Muthos, 161–80. W. Wians ed. SUNY press. Cohen, D. (2010) Law, Violence, and Community in Classical Athens. University of Cambridge Press. Csapo, E.G. (1990) “Hikesia in the “Telephus” of Aeschylus.” Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 34(1): 41–52. Cuniberti, G. (2001) “Le “Supplici” di Eschilo, la fuga dal maschio e l'inviolabilità della persona.” Museum Helveticum 58(3): 140–56. Daneš, J. (2011) “The Political Thought of the Suppliant Women.” Graeco-Latina Brunensia 16(2): 17–30. Davies, J.F. (1862) The Choephoroe of Aeschylus and Scholia. R. Clay, Son, and Taylor. Dawe, R.D. (1963) “Inconsistency of Plot and Character in Aeschylus.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 9(189): 21–62. De Poli, M. (2018) “The Metres of Fear in Attic Drama,” in Il teatro delle emozioni: la paura, 42–69. M. De Poli ed. Padova University Press. Dunn, F.M. (1994) Tragedy’s End: Closure and Innovation in Euripidean Drama. Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2021) “Touched by the Past: Trauma, Testament, and Postmemory in Aeschylus’ Suppliants.” Classical Antiquity 40(1): 1–44. Fleming, T. J. (2007) The Colometry of Aeschylus. Giampaolo Galvani, ed. Adolf M. Hakkert Editore. Garrison, E. P. (1995) Groaning Tears: Ethical and Dramatic Aspects of Suicide in Greek Tragedy. Brill. Garvie, A.F. (2006) Aeschylus’ Supplices: Play and Trilogy. Cambridge University Press. 84 Golden, L. (1962) “Zeus the Protector and Zeus the Destroyer.” Classical Philology 57(1): 20– 6. Goldhill, S. (1984) Language, sexuality, narrative: the Oresteia. Cambridge University Press. Goslin, O.E. (2006) Enacting Pity: a Study of Rhetoric, Supplication and Decision-Making in Euripides. diss. University of California Los Angeles. Gottesman, A. (2006) A Branch on the Altar: Supplication and Symbolic Capital in Ancient Greece. diss. The University of Chicago. Gould, J. (1973) “Hiketeia.” JHS 93: 74–103. Griffith, M. (2018) “Antigone and Her Sister(s): Embodying Women in Greek Tragedy,” in Making Silence Speak, 117–36. A. Lardinois and L. McClure, eds. Princeton University Press. Hall, E. (2006) “The Sociology of Athenian Tragedy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy, 93–126. P.E. Easterling, ed. Cambridge University Press. Jenkins, I. (1983) “Dressed to Kill.” Omnibus 5: 29–32. Johansen, H.F. and E.W. Whittle. (1980) Aeschylus: The Suppliants 1–3. Cambridge University Press. Jouanna, J. (2004) “Il canto virile delle vergini: Aesch. Suppl. 418–37.” Lexis 22: 87–96. Konstantinou, A. (2020) “Ares and the Danaids in Aeschylus’ Suppliants.” Classical World 114(1): 25–38. Letoublon, F. (2011) “La Supplication Comme Rituel Chez Homère: Le Geste Et La Parole,” in Genèses de l'acte de parole dans le monde grec, romain et medieval, 11–28. B. Cassin and C. Lévy, eds. Brepols Publishers. Liddell, H.G and R. Scott. (1888) An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Benediction Classics, Oxford. Loraux, Nicole. (1987) The Tragic Ways of Killing a Woman. Harvard University Press. Marshall, C.W. (2001) “The Costume of Hecuba’s Attendants.” Acta Classica 44: 127-136. Mitchell, L. G. (2006) “Greeks, Barbarians, and Aeschylus’ Suppliants.” Greece and Rome 53(2): 205–23. Moreau, A. M. (1985) Aeschyle: la violence et le chaos. Les Belles Lettres. Naiden, F.S. (2000) Greek Supplication to 300 BCE. diss. Harvard. — (2004) “Supplication and the Law,” in Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece, 79–91. E.M. Harris and L. Rubinstein, eds. Bloomsbury Publishing. — (2006) Ancient Supplication. Oxford University Press. O’Neill, K. (1998) “Aeschylus, Homer, and the Serpent at the Breast.” Phoenix 52(3/4): 216– 229. Papaglozou, E. (2018) “Mechanisms of exclusion: Women between ritual and emotion,” in Women and the Ideology of Political Exclusion, 132–145. T. Tsakiropoulou-Summers and K. Kitsi-Mitakou, eds. Routledge. Passariello, C. (2011) “La supplica paradossale delle Danaidi in Eschilo.” ὄρμος: Ricerche di Storia Antica 3: 305–17. Pattoni, M. P. (2017) “Democratic Paideia in Aeschylus’ Suppliants.” Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 34: 251–72. Picariello, D.K and A. W. Saxonhouse. (2015) “Aeschylus and the Binding of the Tyrant.” Polis, the Journal for Ancient Greek and Political Thought (2015): 271–96. 85 Podlecki, A. J. (1999) The Political Background of Aeschylean Tragedy. The University of Michigan Press. Rash, J.N. (1977) Meter and Language in the Lyrics of the Suppliants of Aeschylus. diss. Princeton University. Sandin, P. (2005). Aeschylus’ Supplices: Introduction and Commentary of vv. 1–523. Symmachus Publishing. Smythe, H.W. (1973) Aeschylus: Suppliant Maidens, Persians, Prometheus, Seven Against Thebes. Cambridge. Sommerstein, A.H. (2008) Aeschylus: Persians, Seven Against Thebes, Suppliants, Prometheus Bound. — (2019) Aeschylus: Suppliants. Cambridge. Stano, D. J. (2005) Hiketeia: Aspects of Supplication in Greek Tragedy and Vase-Paintings. diss. Queen’s University. Susanetti, D. (2008) “The Fear of Pelasgus: Aeschylus’ Suppliants,” in Il teatro delle emozioni: la paura, 185–94. Padova University Press. Tzanetou, A. (2012) City of Suppliants. University of Texas Press. Turner, C. (2001) “Perverted Supplication and Other Inversions in Aeschylus’ Danaid Trilogy.” The Classical Journal 97(1): 27–50. Vernant, J. P. (1972) “Tensions and Ambiguities in Greek Tragedy,” in Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece, 29–42. Princeton University Press. Zartaloudis, T. (2019) “Hieros anthropos — an inquiry into the practices of archaic Greek supplication.” Law and Humanities 13(1): 52–7.86 Appendices Appendix A: All Tragic Supplication Examples A1: Altar/Individual Supplications Text Lines86 Suppliant Embodied Supplicandus Type of supplicandus Type Response ἱκετ- language Gesture Object Appeal AESCHYLUS 1. Suppliant Women 1–523 (523) Chorus Pelasgus Rescuer Altar/individual Acceptance/ deferral to assembly with the promise of persuasion 21, 27, 192, 347, 350, 360, 385, 428, 479, 616, 641, 713, 815 189, 223 21–2, 160, 191–2, 241, 333, 482, 506 Zeus: 385, 478, 616, 641, 815 Pollution: 435, 455–67 EURIPIDES 2. Children of Heracles 1–252 (252) Iolaus/ Children of Heracles Zeus/ Chorus/ Demophon Rescuer Altar/individual Yes + changed mind 34, 70, 93, 101, 107, 123, 196 227 71, 226 Family: 213 Justice: 185, 205 Repayment: 220 3. Suppliants 1–364 (364) Chorus/ Adrastus Demeter/ Aethra/ Theseus Rescuer Altar/individual Yes 10, 42, 67, 102, 108, 114 10, 43–5, 63–4, 108, 165, 272, 274–5, 277, 278, 284 10, 36, 102, 259–60 Family: 263–4 Pity: 168–70, 194 Parenthood: 54–69 SOPHOCLES 4. Oedipus Tyrannus 1–77 (77) People Oedipus Rescuer Altar/individual Yes 3, 41 2 3, 15–6 Power: 51–5 86 The supplication begins at the suppliant’s first approach or gesture to the supplicandus. The supplication ends with the response. In the case of supplication of gods, the response is the outcome of the situation the suppliant requested help with. I include the line numbers and then the total length of the supplication scene in parentheses. 87 A2: Face-to-Face and Altar/Tomb Supplications Text Lines Suppliant Supplicandus Type of supplicandus Type of supplication Response ἱκετ- language Gesture Object Appeal AESCHYLUS 5. Libation Bearers 315–973 (658) Electra/ Orestes Agamemnon Rescuer Tomb Yes 336 None None Family: 334, 456, 502 Justice: 398 Pity: 418–9 6. 896–930 (35) Clytemnestra Orestes Threatener Face-to-face No None 897 None Family: 896–8, 908, 922 Pity: 896–8 7. Eumenides 39–93 (55) Orestes Apollo Rescuer Face-to-face (Physical Apollo) Yes 232, 577 None 443 Justice: 87 8. Seven Against Thebes 94–792 (698) Chorus Gods Rescuer Altar Yes 111 94–5, 97, 172 101–2 Family: 140 Justice: 87 9. Alcestis 400–3 (4) Child Alcestis Threatener Face-to-face Unaware None 403 None Family: 401 10. Andromache 103–1272 (1170) Andromache Thetis Rescuer Altar No 115 115 None Pity: 111 11. 529–746 (218) Molossus Menelaus Threatener Face-to-face No 538 529, 537 None Sympathy: 532 12. 539–717 (179) Andromache Peleus Rescuer Face-to-face Yes None 573 None Justice: 559–72 13. 859 (1) Hermione Gods Rescuer Altar Unclear: potential 859 NA NA NA 14. 894–984 (91) Hermione Orestes Rescuer Face-to-face Yes None 892, 895 None Zeus: 921 Pity: 925 Not responsible: 936–53 15. Electra 1206–15 (10) Clytemnestra Orestes Threatener Face-to-face No None 1206–9, 1214, 1216 None Family: 1206–9, 1215 88 Text Lines Suppliant Supplicandus Type of supplicandus Type of supplication Response ἱκετ- language Gesture Object Appeal 16. Hecuba 245–50 (6) Odysseus Hecuba Threatener Face-to-face Yes None 245–6 None None 17. 275–331 (57) Hecuba Odysseus Threatener Face-to-face No 276 274, 275, 286, 339 None Justice: 291–2 Pity: 286–7 18. 749–904 (156) Hecuba Agamemnon Rescuer Face-to-face Yes 752 741, 752–3, 787 None Family: 830–5 Justice: 756, 786–97, 792 19. 1127–1251 (25) Polymnestor Agamemnon Rescuer Face-to-face No None None None Vengeance: 1132–82 20. Helen 1–556 (556) Helen Proteus Rescuer Tomb Yes 65, 981 64 No Marriage: 63–4 21. 894–1029 (136) Helen Theonoe Threatener Face-to-face Yes 894, 939 894 No Justice: 940–1 Pity: 895 Reverence: 901 22. 1235–80 (46) Helen Theoklymenos Rescuer Face-to-face Yes 1238 1237 No Custom: 1241 23. Heracles 1–327 (327) Family Zeus Rescuer Altar Unclear 327: ἱκνοῦμαι 49 None Power of Zeus: 177 24. Heracles 327–32 (6) Megara Lycus Rescuer Face-to-face Yes 327 None None None 25. 713–787 (5) Megara Gods Rescuer Altar Yes 715 715 NA NA 26. 963–76 (14) Father Heracles Threatener Face-to-face No 968 Attempt No No 27. 986–95 (10) Children Heracles Negative Face-to-face No None 986, 1208 None Family: 987–8 28. Hippolytus 325–35 (11) Nurse Phaedra Threatener Face-to-face No 330: ἱκνουμένης 325, 326 None Pity: 328 87This is a one-line retelling so we have little information on the supplication. 89 Text Lines Suppliant Supplicandus Type of supplicandus Type of supplication Response ἱκετ- language Gesture Object Appeal 29. Hippolytus 605–11 (7) Nurse Hippolytus Threatener Face-to-face No None 605, 607 None Pity: 607 Promise: 611 30. Ion 1119–21 (3) Chorus Attendant Rescuer Face-to-face Yes 1119 None None Pity: 1119–21 31. 1253–1436 (184) Creusa Apollo Rescuer Altar Yes 1257 1258 None Supplication: 1282 Protection: 1291 Family: 1397–401 32. Iphigenia in Aulis 900–36 (37) Clytemnestra (on behalf of Iphigenia) Achilles Rescuer Face-to-face Yes None 900, 909, 911 None Justice: 905–8 Pity: 916 33. 1155–688 (2) Agamemnon Tyndareus Rescuer Face-to-face Yes 1155 NA NA NA 34. 1216–75 (70) Iphigenia Agamemnon Threatener Face-to-face No 1216 1216–7, 1227 None Family: 1220–40 35. 1245–8 (4) Orestes Agamemnon Threatener Face-to-face No 1242 1247 None None 36. Iphigenia in Tauris 1068–78 (11) Iphigenia Chorus Rescuer Face-to-face Yes 1069: ἱκνοῦμαι 1068 None Family: 1071 Pity: 1074 37. Medea 324–56 (33) Medea Creon Threatener Face-to-face Yes 338 324, 339 None Family: 340–7 Pity: 340–7 38. 709–55 (46) Medea Aegeus Rescuer Face-to-face Yes 710 709–10 None Pity: 711 Bribe: 717–8 39. 846–905 (60) Chorus Medea Rescuer Face-to-face No 854 853 None Motherly love: 856–65 40. 856–6589 (10) Children Medea Threatener Face-to-face Unclear 863 863 None Family: 863–5 88 This is a one-line retelling so we have little information on the supplication. 89 There is supplication language, but here the chorus is foreseeing the children supplicating, rather than them actually supplicating. 90 Text Lines Suppliant Supplicandus Type of supplicandus Type of supplication Response ἱκετ- language Gesture Object Appeal 41. Orestes 380–716 (337) Orestes Menelaus Rescuer Face-to-face Ignore 383, 673 382 None Justice: 416 Family: 674 Friendship: 450, 655 Debt: 453, 645 42. 1332–4590 (14) Orestes Helen NA Face-to-face NA 1332, 1334 1332, 1338 NA NA 43. 1506–27 (22) Phrygian Orestes Threatener Face-to-face Yes91 None 1507 None Tried to help: 1509 44. Phoenician Women 88–9192 (4) Antigone Jocasta Rescuer Face-to-face Yes 91 NA NA NA 45. 923–59 (37) Creon Tiresias Threatener Face-to-face No response None 923, 924 None Pity: 929 46. Phoenician Women 1567–76 (10) Jocasta Polynices/ Eteocles Threatener Face-to-face No 1569, 1569 1278 None Family/motherhood: 1568 47. Trojan Women 1042–57 (15) Helen Menelaus Threatener Face-to-face No None 1042 None Pity: 1042 48. Trojan Women 1042–57 (16) Hecuba Menelaus Threatener Face-to-face No None None None Allies: 1044 Children: 1045 SOPHOCLES 49. Ajax 587–90 (4) Tecmessa Ajax Threatener Face-to-face No 588: ἱκνοῦμαι None None Family: 588 50. 1171–83 (13) Eurysaces Ajax Rescuer Tomb (dead body) Yes 1172, 1175 1172, 1181 1174 None 90 Because this is a retelling of an imagined supplication, we have little information of the supplication. 91 Orestes accepts the supplication but was never actually planning on killing the Phrygian. 92 This is a three-line retelling and so we have no information on the supplication. 91 Text Lines Suppliant Supplicandus Type of supplicandus Type of supplication Response ἱκετ- language Gesture Object Appeal 51. Antigone 1225–39 (15) Creon Haemon Threatener Face-to-face No 1230 None None None 52. Oedipus Colonus 44–641 (598) Oedipus/ Antigone Eumenides Rescuer Gods Yes 44, 634 85 470–92 Justice: 548 Pity: 109 Innocence: 521–3 53. 142–69 (28) Oedipus Chorus Threatener Face-to-face Unclear 142 None None Law: 141 54. 237–95 (59) Antigone Chorus Rescuer Face-to-face Deferral 241, 285 None None Pity: 245–8 55. 518–25 (8) Chorus Oedipus Threatener Face-to-face Yes 520 None None Help in return: 520 56. 1156–120593 (50) Polynices Poseidon of Colonus Rescuer Altar Yes 1157 NA NA NA 57. 1255–1396 (141) Polynices Oedipus Threatener Face-to-face No 1327 None None Family: 1326–9 Justice: 1330 58. 1414–47 (34) Antigone Polynices Threatener Face-to-face No 1414 None None Family: 1439–44 59. Oedipus Tyrannus 326–58 (33) People Teiresias Rescuer Face-to-face Yes 327 327 None Power of state: 330 60. Philoctetes 468–534 (67) Philoctetes Neoptolemus Rescuer Face-to-face Yes (lie) 470, 484, 930 484, 485 None Mercy: 501 61. 927–1261 (341) Philoctetes Neoptolemus Threatener Face-to-face Yes 930 None None Deceit: 929–30 Gods: 933 93 This is a retelling of the supplication, so it is unclear which features are present. 92 Appendix B: ἱκετ- language Text Word Lines Speaker Sentence Translation AESCHYLUS94 1. Libation Bearers ἱκέτης 336 Electra τάφος δ᾽ ἱκέτας δέδεκται φυγάδας θ᾽ ὁμοίως. As suppliants and exiles they also take refuge at your tomb. 2. 569–70 Orestes τί δὴ πύλαισι τὸν ἱκέτην ἀπείργεται Αἴγισθος, εἴπερ οἶδεν ἔνδημος παρών; Why did Aegisthus close his doors on a suppliant if he is present at home and knows? 3. Eumenides ἱκέτης 90–2 Apollo κάρτα δ᾽ ὢν ἐπώνυμος πομπαῖος ἴσθι, τόνδε ποιμαίνων ἐμὸν ἱκέτην. You, being of the same name, be a guide, a shepherd for this suppliant of mine. 4. 149–51 Chorus ἰὼ παῖ Διός, ἐπίκλοπος πέλῃ, νέος δὲ γραίας δαίμονας καθιππάσω, τὸν ἱκέταν σέβων. Oh, child of Zeus, you have become a thief. you, a young man, have ridden down old divinities - by respecting the suppliant. 5. 232 Apollo ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἀρήξω τὸν ἱκέτην τε ῥύσομαι. I will aid and save my suppliant. 6. 473–5 Athena ἄλλως τε καὶ σὺ μὲν κατηρτυκὼς ἐμοῖς ἱκέτης προσῆλθες καθαρὸς ἀβλαβὴς δόμοις: οὕτως δ᾽ ἄμομφον ὄντα σ᾽ αἰδοῦμαι πόλει. Since you have come to me as a perfected suppliant, pure and harmless, to my house, I honor you since you are not dangerous to my city. 7. 577 Apollo ἔστι γὰρ νόμῳ ἱκέτης ὅδ᾽ ἁνὴρ καὶ δόμων ἐφέστιος ἐμῶν, φόνου δὲ τοῦδ᾽ ἐγὼ καθάρσιος. Since this man was a suppliant and a guest of my home, I am his cleanser of bloodshed. 8. Seven Against Thebes ἱκέσιος 110–1 Chorus ἴδετε παρθένων ἱκέσιον λόχον δουλοσύνας ὕπερ. See this suppliant band of maidens from slavery. 9. ἱκέσιος 347 Chorus βαρύς γε μέντοι Ζηνὸς ἱκεσίου κότος. Harsh is the wrath of Zeus of suppliants. 94 From existing fragments it is likely that Aeschylus’ Telephus includes supplication. However, due to its fragmentary nature it will not be included on this list. For further discussion of the text and the supplication within it, see Csapo (1990). 93 10. Suppliant Women 359–60 Chorus ἴδοιτο δῆτ᾽ ἄνατον φυγὰν ἱκεσία Θέμις Διὸς κλαρίου. May the daughter of Zeus Klarios, justice, protector of suppliants, look upon our flight as harmless. 11. 385 Chorus μένει τοι Ζηνὸς ἱκταίου κότος. The wrath of Zeus of suppliants remains. 12. 615–8 Danaus τοιάνδ᾽ ἔπειθεν ῥῆσιν ἀμφ᾽ ἡμῶν λέγων ἄναξ Πελασγῶν, ἱκεσίου Ζηνὸς κότον μέγαν προφωνῶν μήποτ᾽ εἰσόπιν χρόνου πόλιν παχῦναι. In this way king Pelasgus persuaded them by giving a speech about us, declaring that never in the future should the city suffer the great wrath of Zeus of suppliants. 13. ἱκέτης 19–22 Chorus τίν᾽ ἂν οὖν χώραν εὔφρονα μᾶλλον τῆσδ᾽ ἀφικοίμεθα σὺν τοῖσδ᾽ ἱκετῶν ἐγχειριδίοις ἐριοστέπτοισι κλάδοισιν; To what better land than this could we come, holding the white-wreathed hand-emblems of suppliants? 14. 27–8 Chorus δέξασθ᾽ ἱκέτην τὸν θηλυγενῆ στόλον. Receive as suppliants this band of women. 15. 641 Chorus αἰδοῦνται δ᾽ ἱκέτας Διός. Respect us suppliants of Zeus. 16. 815–6 Chorus σεβίζου δ᾽ ἱκέτας σέθεν, γαιάοχε παγκρατὲς Ζεῦ. Respect your suppliants, all powerful earth-moving Zeus. 17. ἱκτήρ 478–9 Pelasgus ὅμως δ᾽ ἀνάγκη Ζηνὸς αἰδεῖσθαι κότον ἱκτῆρος: ὕψιστος γὰρ ἐν βροτοῖς φόβος. The anger of Zeus of suppliants compels me to respect you: for it is the greatest fear among mortals. 18. ἵκετις 350–3 Chorus ἴδε με τὰν ἱκέτιν φυγάδα περίδρομον, λυκοδίωκτον ὡς δάμαλιν ἂμ πέτραις ἠλιβάτοις, ἵν᾽ ἀλκᾷ πίσυνος μέμυ- κε φράζουσα βοτῆρι μόχθους. Look upon me, a fugitive suppliant like a heifer chased around by a wolf through the steep rocks, where, relying on his help, she cries, telling the herdsmen about her distress. 19. 428–31 Chorus μή τι τλῇς τὰν ἱκέτιν εἰσιδεῖν ἀπὸ βρετέων βίᾳ δίκας ἀγομέναν ἱππηδὸν ἀμπύκων. Do not dare to see the suppliant dragged from the statues with strength unjustly like a bridled horse, and my threaded robes taken. 20. ἱκετήριος 191–2 Danaus ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τάχιστα βᾶτε, καὶ λευκοστεφεῖς ἱκετηρίας, ἁγάλματ᾽ αἰδοίου Διός. But now go as quickly as you can with your white-wreathed suppliant boughs to the statues of reverent Zeus. 21. ἱκεταδόκος 713–4 Danaus ἱκεταδόκου γὰρ τῆσδ᾽ ἀπὸ σκοπῆς ὁρῶ τὸ πλοῖον. εὔσημον γὰρ οὔ με λανθάνει: From this suppliant lookout I see a ship. For it is well-marked and does not escape my notice. 94 EURIPIDES 22. Andromache ἱκετεύω 537–8 Menelaus τί με προσπίτνεις, ἁλίαν πέτραν ἢ κῦμα λιταῖς ὣς ἱκετεύων; Why do you fall before me, supplicating me with prayers as if a rock or wave of the sea? 23. ἵκετις 114–5 Andromache ἇς ὕπο τειρομένα πρὸς τόδ᾽ ἄγαλμα θεᾶς ἱκέτις περὶ χεῖρε βαλοῦσα. Oppressed by her I come to the statue of the goddess as a suppliant, throwing my arms around it. 24. 859 Andromache τίνος ἀγαλμάτων ἱκέτις ὁρμαθῶ; To which statues should I go as a suppliant? 25. Children of Heracles ἱκετεύω 843–5 Herald κἀνταῦθ᾽ ὁ πρέσβυς Ὕλλον ἐξορμώμενον ἰδών, ὀρέξας ἱκέτευσε δεξιὰν Ἰόλαος ἐμβῆσαί νιν ἵππειον δίφρον. Then the old man, seeing Hyllus rushing away, supplicated Iolaus, reaching out his right hand, to take him on the chariot. 26. ἱκέτης 33–4 Iolaus ἱκέται καθεζόμεσθα βώμιοι θεῶν προσωφελῆσαι. We are sitting at the altars of the gods supplicating for help. 27. 70–2 Iolaus ἱκέται δ᾽ ὄντες ἀγοραίου Διὸς βιαζόμεσθα καὶ στέφη μιαίνεται πόλει τ᾽ ὄνειδος καὶ θεῶν ἀτιμίαν. We who are suppliants of Zeus Agoraious are being overpowered and our wreaths are defiled, a disgrace to the city and dishonorable to the gods. 28. 93 Iolaus ἱκέται σέθεν τε καὶ πόλεως ἀφιγμένοι. They have come as suppliants to your city. 29. 123–5 Chorus ἱκέται κάθηνται παῖδες οἵδ᾽ Ἡρακλέους βωμὸν καταστέψαντες, ὡς ὁρᾷς, ἄναξ, πατρός τε πιστὸς Ἰόλεως παραστάτης. These, the children of Heracles sit as suppliants at the altars holding wreaths, as you see, lord, and their father's trusted companion Iolaus stands beside them. 30. 196 Iolaus ἤλαυνες ἱκέτας βωμίους καθημένους. You expelled these suppliants sitting at the altar. 31. 223–4 Iolaus σοὶ γὰρ τόδ᾽ αἰσχρὸν χωρίς, ἔν τε πόλει κακόν, ἱκέτας ἀλήτας συγγενεῖς — οἴμοι, κακῶν: This is a shame for you, and bad for the city, suppliants, wanderers, kinsman — oh, evil things. 32. 245–6 Demophon Ἀργείων δ᾽ ὄκνῳ ἱκέτας προδοῦναι. I betrayed suppliants for fear of the Argives. 33. 254 Demophon καὶ πῶς δίκαιον τὸν ἱκέτην ἄγειν βίᾳ. How is it just to take the suppliant by force? 34. 344–5 Iolaus οὐκ ἂν λίποιμι βωμόν: εὐξόμεσθα δὲ ἱκέται μένοντες ἐνθάδ᾽ εὖ πρᾶξαι πόλιν. We will not leave the altar, but we will, staying as suppliants, pray that the city fare well. 35. 416–8 Demophon τῶν μὲν λεγόντων ὡς δίκαιον ἦν ξένοις ἱκέταις ἀρήγειν, τῶν δὲ μωρίαν ἐμοῦ κατηγορούντων. Some of them saying it is right to help foreign suppliants, others accusing me of madness. 95 36. 507–8 Daughter οὐ δῆτ᾽, ἐπεί τοι καὶ γέλωτος ἄξια, στένειν μὲν ἱκέτας δαιμόνων καθημένους. Surely not, since it deserves mockery, to groan sitting as suppliants of the gods. 37. 756–8 Chorus μέλλω καὶ ὑπὲρ δόμων ἱκέτας ὑποδεχθεὶς κίνδυνον πολιῷ τεμεῖν σιδάρῳ. Since we’ve accepted their supplication, we are destined to cut the danger with a sword for our homes and our city. 38. 955 Alcmene ἤλαυνες ἱκέτας δαιμόνων καθημένους. You pursued those sitting as suppliants of the gods. 39. ἱκέσιος 107 Chorus ἄθεον ἱκεσίαν μεθεῖναι πέλει ξένων προστροπάν. It is godless to stop this suppliant band of strangers. 40. 123–4 Chorus ἱκέται κάθηνται παῖδες οἵδ᾽ Ἡρακλέους βωμὸν καταστέψαντες. These suppliants, children of Heracles, sit at the altars holding wreaths. 41. 517–8 Daughter Τί δεῦρ᾽ ἀφίκεσθ᾽ ἱκεσίοισι σὺν κλάδοις αὐτοὶ φιλοψυχοῦντες; ἔξιτε χθονός. Why do you come here with your suppliant branches, you who love life? 42. ἱκτήρ 101 Chorus εἰκὸς θεῶν ἱκτῆρας αἰδεῖσθαι, ξένε. It is right to respect suppliants of the gods, stranger. 43. 362–6 Chorus ὃς πόλιν ἐλθὼν ἑτέραν οὐδὲν ἐλάσσον᾽ Ἄργους, θεῶν ἱκτῆρας ἀλάτας καὶ ἐμᾶς χθονὸς ἀντομένους ξένος ὢν βιαίως ἕλκεις. You, a foreigner, who came to another city not inferior to Argos, and dragged the wandering suppliants and entreaters away from my land with force. 44. 763–5 Chorus κακὰ δ᾽, ὦ πόλις, εἰ ξένους ἱκτῆρας παραδώσομεν κελεύσμασιν Ἄργους. But it is bad, oh city, to betray suppliant strangers at the requests of Argos. 45. Electra ἱκετεύω 302–3 Electra ἐπεὶ δὲ κινεῖς μῦθον, ἱκετεύω, ξένε, ἄγγελλ᾽ Ὀρέστῃ τἀμὰ καὶ κείνου κακά. Since you are starting the tale, I supplicate you stranger, tell Orestes of the troubles, mine and his. 46. 332 Electra ἀλλ᾽, ὦ ξέν᾽, ἱκετεύω σ᾽, ἀπάγγειλον τάδε. But stranger, I supplicate you to report these things. 47. Hecuba ἱκέσιος 851 Hecuba δι᾽ οἴκτου χεῖρά θ᾽ ἱκεσίαν ἔχω. I have pity for your suppliant hand. 48. ἱκετεύω 96–7 Hecuba ἀπ᾽ ἐμᾶς ἀπ᾽ ἐμᾶς οὖν τόδε παιδὸς πέμψατε, δαίμονες, ἱκετεύω. I supplicate you, divine powers, send this away from my child, away from my child. 96 49. 273–8 Hecuba ἥψω τῆς ἐμῆς, ὡς φῄς, χερὸς καὶ τῆσδε γραίας προσπίτνων παρηίδος: ἀνθάπτομαί σου τῶνδε τῶν αὐτῶν ἐγὼ χάριν τ᾽ ἀπαιτῶ τὴν τόθ᾽ ἱκετεύω τέ σε, "μή μου τὸ τέκνον ἐκ χερῶν ἀποσπάσῃς, μηδὲ κτάνητε: τῶν τεθνηκότων ἅλις." You grasped my hand, as you admit, falling before my aged feet: now I do this same thing to you, and demand in return this favor, and I supplicate you, do not take my child from my arms or kill her, there are enough dead. 50. 751–2 Hecuba ἱκετεύω σε τῶνδε γουνάτων καὶ σοῦ γενείου δεξιᾶς τ᾽ εὐδαίμονος. I supplicate you by these knees and your beard and your successful right hand. 51. ἵκετις 144–7 Chorus ἀλλ᾽ ἴθι ναούς, ἴθι πρὸς βωμούς, ἵζ᾽ Ἀγαμέμνονος ἱκέτις γονάτων, κήρυσσε θεοὺς τούς τ᾽ οὐρανίδας τούς θ᾽ ὑπὸ γαῖαν. Now go to the temples, go to the altars, sit at the knees of Agamemnon as a suppliant. Invoke the gods, both those in heaven and under the earth. 52. Helen ἱκετεύω 799 Helen ἐνταῦθα λέκτρων ἱκετεύομεν φυγάς. Here I supplicate for an escape from his bed. 53. 825 Helen ἴσως ἂν ἀναπείσαιμεν ἱκετεύοντέ νιν. Perhaps we can convince her by supplicating. 54. 939 Helen μὴ δῆτα, παρθέν᾽, ἀλλά σ᾽ ἱκετεύω τόδε. Do not do that, maiden, but I supplicate you for this. 55. 980–3 Menelaus λιμῷ δὲ θηρᾷ τύμβον ἱκετεύοντε νώ. κτανεῖν δέδοκται τήνδe μοι κἄπειτ᾽ ἐμὸν πρὸς ἧπαρ ὦσαι δίστομον ξίφος τόδε. If he hunts us, two suppliants at the tomb, by starvation, then I am ready to kill this woman, and then thrust this two-edged sword into my own heart. 56. ἵκετις 63–5 Helen τὸν πάλαι δ᾽ ἐγὼ πόσιν τιμῶσα Πρωτέως μνῆμα προσπίτνω τόδε ἱκέτις. Honoring my previous husband, I fall before this tomb of Proteus as a suppliant. 57. 894–6 Helen ὦ παρθέν᾽, ἱκέτις ἀμφὶ σὸν πίτνω γόνυ καὶ προσκαθίζω θᾶκον οὐκ εὐδαίμονα ὑπέρ τ᾽ ἐμαυτῆς τοῦδέ θ᾽. Maiden, I fall before your knees as a suppliant and sit on this chair not happily on behalf of me and this man. 58. Heracles ἱκέσιος 967–9 Messenger ὁ δέ νιν Εὐρυσθέως δοκῶν πατέρα προταρβοῦνθ᾽ ἱκέσιον ψαύειν χερός ὠθεῖ. But thinking it was the father of Eurystheus trying to touch him with a suppliant hand, he pushed him away. 59. ἱκετεύω 716 Lycus ἀνόνητά γ᾽ ἱκετεύουσαν ἐκσῷσαι βίον. She supplicates them uselessly to save her life. 97 60. 1207–8 Amphitryon ικετεύομεν ἀμφὶ γενειάδα καὶ γόνυ καὶ χέρα σὰν προπίτνων. I supplicate you, falling before your beard and knees and hands. 61. ἵκετις 715 Lycus ἱκέτιν πρὸς ἁγνοῖς Ἑστίας θάσσειν βάθροις. She sits as a suppliant on the altar's holy steps. 62. Ion ἱκετεύω 452–4 Chorus σὲ τὰν ὠδίνων λοχιᾶν ἀνειλείθυιαν, ἐμὰν Ἀθάναν, ἱκετεύω. You who were born with no pains of childbirth, my Athena, I supplicate you. 63. 468–71 Chorus ἱκετεύσατε δ᾽, ὦ κόραι, τὸ παλαιὸν Ἐρεχθέως γένος εὐτεκνίας χρονίου καθαροῖς μαντεύμασι κῦρσαι. Maidens, supplicate that the ancient race of Erechtheus may find clear oracles of the delayed birth. 64. ἵκετις 1119 Attendant πῶς; ἀντιάζω σ᾽ ἱκέτις ἐξειπεῖν τάδε. How? As a suppliant I beg you to tell me this. 65. 1257 Chorus ἱκέτιν οὐ θέμις φονεύειν. It is not right to kill a suppliant. 66. Iphigenia in Aulis ἱκετεύω 462 Agamemnon οἶμαι γάρ νιν ἱκετεύσειν τάδε. I know she will supplicate saying the following. 67. 1001–2 Achilles πάντως δέ μ᾽ ἱκετεύοντέ θ᾽ ἥξετ᾽ εἰς ἴσον, εἴ τ᾽ ἀνικέτευτος. If you supplicate me, altogether you would reach the same result as if you had not begged me. 68. 1241–4 Iphigenia ἀδελφέ, μικρὸς μὲν σύ γ᾽ ἐπίκουρος φίλοις, ὅμως δὲ συνδάκρυσον, ἱκέτευσον πατρὸς τὴν σὴν ἀδελφὴν μὴ θανεῖν: αἴσθημά τοι κἀν νηπίοις γε τῶν κακῶν ἐγγίγνεται. Brother, you are but a small ally to your loved ones, nevertheless share in my hears, supplicated your father that your sister would not die, since in babies there is present a sense of evil. 69. ἱκετήριος 1216–7 Iphigenia ἱκετηρίαν δὲ γόνασιν ἐξάπτω σέθεν τὸ σῶμα τοὐμόν, ὅπερ ἔτικτεν ἥδε σοι. Around your knees as a suppliant, I twist my body, which this woman of yours bore. 70. ἱκέτης 1155–6 Clytemnestra πατὴρ δὲ πρέσβυς Τυνδάρεώς σ᾽ ἐρρύσατο ἱκέτην γενόμενον. My aged father Tyndareus rescued you when you became a suppliant to him. 71. ἵκετις 992 Clytemnestra βούλῃ νιν ἱκέτιν σὸν περιπτύξαι γόνυ; Do you want her to grasp your knees as a suppliant? 72. Medea ἱκέσιος 709–10 Medea ἀλλ᾽ ἄντομαί σε τῆσδε πρὸς γενειάδος γονάτων τε τῶν σῶν ἱκεσία τε γίγνομαι. But I beg by your knees and by your beard I become a suppliant. 98 73. ἱκετεύω 862–3 Chorus οὐ δυνάσῃ, παίδων ἱκετᾶν πιτνόν. You will not be able to, when your children fall before you in supplication. 74. ἱκέτης 338 Medea φευξούμεθ᾽: οὐ τοῦθ᾽ ἱκέτευσα σοῦ τυχεῖν. I will flee, that is not what I was supplicating you for. 75. 853–5 Chorus μή, πρὸς γονάτων σε πάν- τᾳ πάντως ἱκετεύομεν, τέκνα φονεύσῃς. We supplicate you by your knees and in all ways possible, do not kill your children. 76. 969–71 Medea ἀλλ᾽, ὦ τέκν᾽, εἰσελθόντε πλουσίους δόμους πατρὸς νέαν γυναῖκα, δεσπότιν δ᾽ ἐμήν, ἱκετεύετ᾽, ἐξαιτεῖσθε μὴ φυγεῖν χθόνα. But children, when you enter the rich home, supplicate your father's new wife, by mistress, that you are not exiled from the land. 77. Orestes ἱκέσιος 1336–43 Electra περὶ τοῦ γὰρ ἄλλου μᾶλλον ἂν φθέγξαιτό τις; ἀλλ᾽ ἐλθὲ καὶ μετάσχες ἱκεσίας φίλοις, σῇ μητρὶ προσπεσοῦσα τῇ μέγ᾽ ὀλβίᾳ, Μενέλαον ἡμᾶς μὴ θανόντας εἰσιδεῖν. ἀλλ᾽, ὦ τραφεῖσα μητρὸς ἐν χεροῖν ἐμῆς, οἴκτιρον ἡμᾶς κἀπικούφισον κακῶν. ἴθ᾽ εἰς ἀγῶνα δεῦρ᾽, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἡγήσομαι: σωτηρίας γὰρ τέρμ᾽ ἔχεις ἡμῖν μόνη. What else would make someone speak more? But come and join the supplication of your friends, throw yourself before your mother in her prosperity, so that Menelaus might not see us die. Oh, you who were nourished by my mother's breast, pity us and lessen our evils. Come join in the struggle, I will guide you. You alone have the highest power over our safety. 78. 1414–5 Phrygian περὶ δὲ γόνυ χέρας ἱκεσίους ἔβαλον ἔβαλον Ἑλένας ἄμφω. They threw, they threw their suppliant arms around the knees of Helen. 79. ἱκετεύω 255–6 Orestes ὦ μῆτερ, ἱκετεύω σε, μὴ 'πίσειέ μοι τὰς αἱματωποὺς καὶ δρακοντώδεις κόρας. Mother, I supplicate you, do not shake at me those blood-stained, snake-like girls. 80. 526–8 Tyndareus ἐπεὶ τίν᾽ εἶχες, ὦ τάλας, ψυχὴν τότε, ὅτ᾽ ἐξέβαλλε μαστὸν ἱκετεύουσά σε μήτηρ; Miserable one, did you have no heart when your mother exposed her breast to you in supplication. 81. 673 Orestes ὑπὲρ γὰρ οἴκου παντὸς ἱκετεύω τάδε. I supplicate these things for my entire household. 82. 799 Orestes ὥς νιν ἱκετεύσω με σῶσαι. Now I supplicate him to save my life. 83. ἱκέτης 382–3 Orestes τῶν σῶν δὲ γονάτων πρωτόλεια θιγγάνω ἱκέτης, ἀφύλλου στόματος ἐξάπτων λιτάς. But for the first lot I grasp your knees as a suppliant, from the mouth of one without the suppliant's bough. 99 84. 1332 Electra ἱκέτης γὰρ Ἑλένης γόνασι προσπεσὼν βοᾷ. As a suppliant falling to Helen's knees, he let out a cry. 85. Phoenician Women ἱκέσιος 88–91 Pedagogue ὦ κλεινὸν οἴκοις Ἀντιγόνη θάλος πατρί, ἐπεί σε μήτηρ παρθενῶνας ἐκλιπεῖν μεθῆκε μελάθρων ἐς διῆρες ἔσχατον στράτευμ᾽ ἰδεῖν Ἀργεῖον ἱκεσίαισι σαῖς ἐπίσχες. Oh, famous child in the homes of your father, although your mother let you leave your maiden chambers for the highest floor of the house to look at the Argive army because of your supplications, wait. 86. ἵκετις 1566–9 Antigone δάκρυα γοερὰ φανερὰ πᾶσι τιθεμένα, τέκεσι μαστὸν ἔφερεν ἔφερεν ἱκέτις ἱκέτιν ὀρομένα. Her distressful tears were placed in view of all, she brought forward, she brought forward her suppliant breast towards her children, an incited suppliant. 87. Suppliants ἱκέσιος 37–9 Aethra κῆρυξ πρὸς ἄστυ δεῦρο Θησέα καλῶν, ὡς ἢ τὸ τούτων λυπρὸν ἐξέλῃ χθονός, ἢ τάσδ᾽ ἀνάγκας ἱκεσίους λύσῃ. A herald left to the city calling Theseus here to free the land from this trouble of theirs or to free them from these suppliant bonds. 88. 100–3 Aethra ὦ παῖ, γυναῖκες αἵδε μητέρες τέκνων τῶν κατθανόντων ἀμφὶ Καδμείας πύλας ἑπτὰ στρατηγῶν: ἱκεσίοις δὲ σὺν κλάδοις φρουροῦσί μ᾽, ὡς δέδορκας, ἐν κύκλῳ, τέκνον. Child, these are the mothers of the seven generals who died around the Cadmean walls. With suppliant boughs they hold me, as you see my child, circled around me. 89. 108 Theseus τί γὰρ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἦλθον ἱκεσίᾳ χερί. Why did they come with suppliant arms around us? 90. ἱκετεύω 42–4 Chorus ἱκετεύω σε, γεραιά, γεραιῶν ἐκ στομάτων, πρὸς γόνυ πίπτουσα τὸ σόν. I supplicate you, old woman, from my old mouth, falling at your knees. 91. 68–70 Chorus οἰκτρὰ δὲ πάσχουσ᾽ ἱκετεύω σὸν ἐμοὶ παῖδα ταλαίνᾳ 'ν χερὶ θεῖναι νέκυν. Having suffered horrible things, I supplicate you to place in my miserable hands my child's corpse. 92. 282–3 Chorus μηδ᾽ ἀτάφους, τέκνον, ἐν χθονὶ Κάδμου χάρματα θηρῶν παῖδας ἐν ἁλικίᾳ τᾷ σᾷ κατίδῃς, ἱκετεύω. Do not see in your life our children stay unburies in the land of Cadmus as a pleasure for wild beasts, I supplicate you. 93. ἱκτήρ 10 Aethra ἱκτῆρι θαλλῷ προσπίτνουσ᾽ ἐμὸν γόνυ. They fall around my knees with suppliant branches. 94. ἱκέτης 114 Adrastus Θησεῦ, σὸς ἱκέτης καὶ πόλεως ἥκω σέθεν. Theseus, I come as a suppliant to you. SOPHOCLES 100 95. Ajax ἱκετήριος 1173–5 Teucer θάκει δὲ προστρόπαιος ἐν χεροῖν ἔχων κόμας ἐμὰς καὶ τῆσδε καὶ σαυτοῦ τρίτου, ἱκτήριον θησαυρόν. Sit and pray, holding in your hands my hair, hers, and thirdly yours, the treasure of a suppliant. 96. ἱκέτης 1171–2 Teucer ὦ παῖ, πρόσελθε δεῦρο καὶ σταθεὶς πέλας ἱκέτης ἔφαψαι πατρός, ὅς σ᾽ ἐγείνατο. Child, come here and standing by your father grasp his as a suppliant, he who bore you. 97. Antigone ἱκέσιος 1230 Messenger ἔξελθε, τέκνον, ἱκέσιός σε λίσσομαι. Come out, my son, I, a suppliant, beg you. 98. Oedipus Colonus ἱκετεύω 142 Oedipus μή μ᾽, ἱκετεύω, προσίδητ᾽ ἄνομον. I supplicate you not to look upon me, a lawless man. 99. 241–3 Antigone ἀλλ᾽ ἐμὲ τὰν μελέαν, ἱκετεύομεν, ὦ ξένοι, οἰκτίραθ’ἃ πατρὸς ὑπὲρ τοὐμοῦ μόνου ἄντομαι. But my miserable self, we supplicate you, foreigners, have pity on me, who entreats you alone for my father. 100. 518 Chorus στέρξον, ἱκετεύω. Grant me this, I supplicate you. 101. 1326–8 Polynices οἵ σ᾽ ἀντὶ παίδων τῶνδε καὶ ψυχῆς, πάτερ, ἱκετεύομεν ξύμπαντες ἐξαιτούμενοι μῆνιν βαρεῖαν εἰκαθεῖν. All of us present here supplicate you by your children and your soul, father, begging you to stop this great anger. 102. 1414 Antigone Πολύνεικες, ἱκετεύω σε πεισθῆναί τί μοι. Polynices, I supplicate you to be convinced by me about this one thing. 103. ἱκετήριος 920–3 Theseus οὐ γὰρ φιλοῦσιν ἄνδρας ἐκδίκους τρέφειν, οὐδ᾽ ἄν σ᾽ ἐπαινέσειαν, εἰ πυθοίατο συλῶντα τἀμὰ καὶ τὰ τῶν θεῶν, βίᾳ ἄγοντα φωτῶν ἀθλίων ἱκτήρια. They do not like rearing unjust men nor would they praise them, if they discovered you were despoiling me and the things of the gods, driving away their miserable suppliant. 104. ἱκέτης 44 Oedipus ἀλλ᾽ ἵλεῳ μὲν τὸν ἱκέτην δεξαίατο. May they graciously accept their suppliant. 105. 284–5 Oedipus ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἔλαβες τὸν ἱκέτην ἐχέγγυον, ῥύου με κἀκφύλασσε. Since you received me as a suppliant under a pledge, rescue me and guard me. 106. 486–7 Chorus ὥς σφας καλοῦμεν Εὐμενίδας, ἐξ εὐμενῶν στέρνων δέχεσθαι τὸν ἱκέτην σωτήριον. We call them the Eumenides, so that they receive from their well-wishing chests the suppliant as a savior. 107. 634–5 Theseu ἔπειτα δ᾽ ἱκέτης δαιμόνων ἀφιγμένος γῇ τῇδε κἀμοὶ δασμὸν οὐ σμικρὸν τίνει. Since he has come as a suppliant, he pays no small tribute to me and this land. 101 108. 1008–9 Oedipus ἀφ᾽ ἧς σὺ κλέψας τὸν ἱκέτην γέροντ᾽ ἐμὲ αὐτόν τ᾽ ἐχειροῦ τὰς κόρας τ᾽ οἴχει λαβών. From her you stole me, the old suppliant, and seizing me, took away my daughters. 109. Oedipus Tyrannus ἱκετεύω 40–3 Priest νῦν τ᾽, ὦ κράτιστον πᾶσιν Οἰδίπου κάρα, ἱκετεύομέν σε πάντες οἵδε πρόστροποι ἀλκήν τιν᾽ εὑρεῖν ἡμίν, εἴτε του θεῶν φήμην ἀκούσας εἴτ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ἀνδρὸς οἶσθά του. Now, Oedipus, most powerful to all, we supplicate you to find some cure for us, either hearing the account from a mortal. 110. ἵκετις 919–21 Jocasta πρὸς σ᾽, ὦ Λύκει᾽ Ἄπολλον, ἄγχιστος γὰρ εἶ, ἱκέτις ἀφῖγμαι τοῖσδε σὺν κατεύγμασιν, ὅπως λύσιν τιν᾽ ἡμὶν εὐαγῆ πόρῃς. To you, Lycean Apollo, who are nearest, I come as a suppliant with these vows, that you might find some pure escape for us. 111. ἱκτήρ 143 Oedipus τούσδ᾽ ἄραντες ἱκτῆρας κλάδους. Pick up your suppliant boughs. 112. ἱκετήριος 1–3 Oedipus ὦ τέκνα, Κάδμου τοῦ πάλαι νέα τροφή, τίνας ποθ᾽ ἕδρας τάσδε μοι θοάζετε ἱκτηρίοις κλάδοισιν ἐξεστεμμένοι; Children, latest born of old Cadmus, why do you sit before me on these seats decked with suppliant branches? 113. 326–7 Oedipus μὴ πρὸς θεῶν φρονῶν γ᾽ ἀποστραφῇς, ἐπεὶ πάντες σε προσκυνοῦμεν οἵδ᾽ ἱκτήριοι. By the gods do not turn away if you know, since all these suppliants implore you. 114. ἱκέτης 181–3 Chorus ἐν δ᾽ ἄλοχοι πολιαί τ᾽ ἔπι ματέρες ἀχὰν παραβώμιον ἄλλοθεν ἄλλαν λυγρῶν πόνων ἱκετῆρες ἐπιστενάχουσιν. Mothers and grey-haired wives cry a lament by the altars here and there groaning in supplication at their miserable woes. 115. Philoctetes ἱκέσιος 484–5 Philoctetes νεῦσον, πρὸς αὐτοῦ Ζηνὸς ἱκεσίου, τέκνον, πείσθητι: προσπίτνω σε γόνασι. By Zeus of Suppliants, agree, child, be persuaded. I fall at your knees. 116. 495 Philoctetes ἔστελλον αὐτὸν ἱκεσίους πέμπων λιτάς. I sent for him sending suppliant prayers. 117. ἱκετεύω 932 Philoctetes ἀπόδος, ἱκνοῦμαί σ᾽, ἀπόδος, ἱκετεύω, τέκνον. Give it up, I come to you, give it up, I supplicate you child. 118. 1181 Philoctetes μή, πρὸς ἀραίου Διός, ἔλθῃς, ἱκετεύω. By Zeus of prayers, do not go, I supplicate you. 119. ἱκέτης 468–72 Philoctetes πρός νύν σε πατρὸς πρός τε μητρός, ὦ τέκνον, πρός τ᾽ εἴ τί σοι κατ᾽ οἶκόν ἐστι προσφιλές, ἱκέτης ἱκνοῦμαι, μὴ λίπῃς μ᾽ οὕτω μόνον, ἔρημον ἐν κακοῖσι τοῖσδ᾽ οἵοις ὁρᾷς ὅσοισί τ᾽ ἐξήκουσας ἐνναίοντά με. Now by your father and your mother, child, and by everything you love in your home, I supplicate you, do not leave me here alone, helpless in such horrible miseries I live in, as you see and hear. 102 120. 929–30 Philoctetes οὐδ᾽ ἐπαισχύνει μ᾽ ὁρῶν τὸν προστρόπαιον, τὸν ἱκέτην, ὦ σχέτλιε; Are you not ashamed looking upon me who turned to you, your suppliant, you miserable man.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Ancient Culture, Religion and Ethnicity
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Yoon, Florence, 1981-
Manipulative supplication : violence and aggression in Aeschylus' Suppliant women
Text