Aeschylus’ Agamemnon was first performed in 458BC, and its parodos is the chorus’ entry-song. In contrast with later extant 5th Century BC tragedies where the actors and dialogue seem to be more important than the chorus, the chorus of the Agamemnon (in this case consisting of Argive elders) plays a much larger role in the tragedy. This significance is highlighted clearly by the length of the parodos of the Agamemnon, which is “by far the longest in extant Greek tragedy” (Reeves, 1960). The parodos undergoes a variety of metrical changes, covering a wide variety of themes, and Aeschylus cleverly disguises the exact nature of its portentous content through ambiguity; the very reason behind the anger exhibited by Artemis remains exclusively within the metaphorical realm throughout the play[1]. Its musical design is clear, with metrical structuring and variation inducing unparalleled tragic emotional effects on his audience. In particular, the audience’s lack of awareness concerning Clytemnestra’s intentions within the play heighten the power of the pseudo-philosophical parodos, given its place in the action and apparent irrelevance to the omens described. Aeschylus’ choices to surprise the audience with certain metrical patterns, easily discernible given the chorus’ singing en masse, as well as musical accompaniment from the aulos to enhance the rhythms, are clear and deliberate. To consider a text such as Aeschylus’ Agamemnon without due regard given to the significance of its metre and music is to neglect much of the meaning and style with which Aeschylus injects his work; his word-painting and the inextricable link between music and his choral lyric successfully suffuses the following dialogue, while still maintaining a vague and confused atmosphere, ensuring the audience’s internalisation of the parodos’ anxious message: something bad is going to happen…
The Metrical and Musical Design of the Parodos
“An awareness of the full musical design will bring a new dimension to the long odes of the chorus, enabling reader, director, and audience to appreciate their complexity in both thought and form.”[2]
Structure
The odes of the parodos can be separated into the following widely accepted units:
Strophe/antistrophe (104-39) dactylic
Epode (140-59) dactylic
Strophe/antistrophe (160-75) trochaic
Strophe/antistrophe (176-91) trochaic
Strophe/antistrophe (192-217) iambic and choriambic
Strophe/antistrophe (218-37) iambic and choriambic
Strophe/antistrophe (283-57) iambic
I have excluded the anapaests, as they are chanted and not sung; they range from lines 40-103.
After the watchman’s speech in the prologue, the chorus commences the parodos with an extremely long anapaestic section of 64 lines; this is not metrically unusual, and features use of the anapaestic dimeter (⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ —), as well as occasional paroemiac (⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — —) and monometric (⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ —) substitution (Dale, 2010). The anapaestic unit serves as the start of a regular triadic structure; it precedes one strophic pair and an epode. At line 104, the first shift in metre is observed, with the three following stanzas being largely dactylic (— ⏑ ⏑ or ⏑—⏑ —). Strophic responsion is for the most part strict, while multiple lines of 8 metra can be found (typically occasionally) within the strophic pair (Raven, 1968). The epode, however, bears the addition of choriambic (— ⏑ ⏑ —), bacchiac (⏑ — —) and cretic (— ⏑—) metra. Sometimes in these stanzas, a holodactylic line is preceded by one iambic metron (⏑ —). The next metrical shift results in the two following strophic pairs’ trochaic (— ⏑— ⏑ ) metres, facilitating the slow exploration of grave matters (Kitto, 1956), such as the impending fulfilment of Calchas’ prophecy. Finally, the last three strophic pairs are largely iambic, which can be difficult to differentiate from the many lecythia (— ⏑— ⏑— ⏑—) of the four trochaic stanzas as other metrical shifts. A closer reading reveals the necessity for the powerful compound iambics which Aeschylus employs, given the change in time and content between rhythmical sections. Thus, we can see how an understanding of the musical form and structure is imperative for an exploration of the way in which rhythmical modes create meaning and effect in the parodos.
Rhythmical Modes and Thematic Associations
Now that the musical and metrical workings of the parodos have been outlined, an analysis of the association of its rhythmical modes and musical structure (with certain themes present both within the Agamemnon and the entire Oresteia) can be made. The function of the anapaestic recitative section is not only to prepare the audience (and the chorus, by providing a marching rhythm for them to use in their entrance and movement towards the orchēstra) for the forthcoming song[3], but to characterise the chorus as a group of old men. As in the Persians, the elderly chorus requires a longer anapaestic section in order to make their entrance slowly and purposefully, with standard rhythms familiar to the audience enforcing this effect and facilitating ordered movement. Aeschylus’ intention here is clear and purposeful; his ability to use alternative rhythms to highlight characterization is further demonstrated in the Seven, where “in contrast, the panicked women… enter tumultuously to short anapaestic dochmiacs in less than half the lines of the Persian and Argive elders” (Scott, 1984). The dochmiacs (⏑ — —⏑—) subdivide a bar of 8 beats into an irregular 3/5 as opposed to the anapaestic 4/4, used in the Agamemnon, which is more conducive to marching.
The first line that is sung by the chorus of the Agamemnon directly follows the anapaestic prelude and is in dactylic hexameter: “κύριός εἰμι θροεῖν ὅδιον κράτος αἴσιον ἀνδρῶν”[4] (“I have power to tell of the auspicious command of the expedition, the command of men”). Known as the “metre of epic” (Raven, 1968), the use of dactylic hexameter here transports the audience to the world of Homer, with the content of the strophic pair and epode recounting the story of the Trojan War told in Homeric epic. Contrastingly, Aeschylus relates the sacrifice of Iphigenia, a myth whose origins are not Homeric. In fact, in Iliad 9 Iphigenia (called “Iphianassa”) is offered by Agamemnon himself as part of his compensation package for Achilles, implying that she is both alive and perfectly healthy. Thus, the reminiscent tone of the anapaestic introduction is simultaneously maintained and overturned, much like the dactylic metra maintain the length but overturn the order of the anapaestic metra. The audience are also encouraged to ponder the omen described in the strophe of two eagles attacking a pregnant hare[5], and its dark interpretation by Calchas. This serves as a stark contrast to the interpretation of Calchas’ words in the Iliad, used by Odysseus to spur on the Achaeans: “[the audience] might even remember Odysseus’ speech at Iliad 2.284, where he recalls the events at Aulis and Calchas’ hopeful prophecy given there”. (Scott, 1984). The chorus reveals in the antistrophe that Artemis has been angered by Agamemnon’s hybris, and her exaction of Aeschylean dikē will result in the sacrifice of Iphigenia. Moreover, there is metrical backing to the chorus’ internalisation of the significance of the portent; the strophic pair is heavily dactylic, but degenerates into a largely dactylic epode commingled with iambic, cretic and bacchiac metra, reflecting the realisation that the chorus are in fact “unintentionally helping to weave [Agamemnon’s] doom round him” (Scott, 1984). The refrain “αἴλινον αἴλινον εἰπέ, τὸ δ᾽ εὖ νικάτω”[6] (“Sing sorrow, sorrow, but may the good prevail!”) occurs thrice during the triad and serves to demarcate the strophic pairs from the epode, as well as the epode from the following four stanzas (the Hymn to Zeus). In the first strophic pair, the refrain is preceded by two regular iambic metra which are the only standalone iambic lines in the two stanzas; in the epode, which is unbalanced due to a lack of responsion (thus containing a unique rhythmical pattern), it is preceded by a catalectic dactylic dimeter (— ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑). The iambic form, so associated with tragedy, echoes the tragic nature of the strophic pair’s content: “βλάψαντε λοισθίων δρόμων”[7] (“checked from running her final course”) and “στυγεῖ δὲ δεῖπνον αἰετῶν”[8] (“she loathes the feast of the eagles”). Aeschylus’ choice to include iambic lines just before the first and second refrain taints all of its occurrences with the sense of a condensed kommos (a lyric song of lamentation). It must also be acknowledged that the final refrain is preceded by catalexis. Catalexis is quite common within lyric verse (Raven, 1968); however the suppression of the last of two feet, combined with the proximity of the subsequent refrain, suggest the chorus’ yielding to Calchas and the prophecy, serving as an acknowledgement that they accept Agamemnon’s fate, hence: “τοῖς δ᾽ ὁμόφωνον”[9] (“and in harmony with [the words of Calchas]”).
After the musical, metrical and topical unit of the first strophic pair and epode comes the so-called ‘Hymn to Zeus’[10]. As this prayer is an interlude between the words of Calchas and the description of their fulfilment, it is only right that a shift occurs to a metre which “Aeschylus regularly uses…for passages of grave or anxious reflection”. (Kitto, 1956). The prayer presents the chorus’ anxiety regarding their ignorance of the nature of Zeus and therefore of the form his dikē may take, one of the central themes of the trilogy. It marks both the end of the ambiguous, prophetic refrain, and the beginning of their pseudo-philosophical probing into what causes the events which form human experience and knowledge. The chorus turns to Zeus in the pursuit of knowledge, and their anxiety is revealed from the first moment of their address: “Ζεύς ὅστις ποτ᾽ ἐστίν”[11] (“whoever Zeus may be”); it is clear that the aforementioned degeneration of the chorus has developed into an introspective analysis of their entire belief system. Their palpable confusion is reflected by the spondaic foot at the start of the line, with “Ζεύς ὅστις” scanning as (— — —). Paired with the strong spondees of “τὸ δ᾽ εὖ νικάτω”[12] (⏑ — — — —) the ‘good’, or moral superiority, of the refrain seems to be associated with Zeus but the content does not conform, with the chorus immediately admitting the extent of their ignorance of the very nature of Zeus. Theoretically, Zeus’ punishment should be justified and have an intended effect (the criminal’s learning, which the chorus will later explore). In Agamemnon’s case, his fate will result in his murder, from which, dead, he cannot learn, and so the definition of ‘good’ is rendered ambiguous. Whether or not the chorus truly wants Zeus’ retribution to prevail (since the details of this are also ambiguous), there is an understanding and perpetuation of the power of the immortal gods, whose punishment cannot be avoided, hence the supplication of Zeus as a final resort. Aeschylus presents the chorus as conscious of the direction in which they and the action of the play are headed, and the ‘Hymn to Zeus’ is thus rendered a beautifully-composed but futile prayer. The decision for this section to spill over into half of the following strophic pair, given that it is in this strophe[13] that the maxim “πάθει μάθος”[14] (“by suffering they shall learn”) occurs, is significant. There is philosophical meaning in the understanding that πάθος (suffering) is passive – human experience deals not only with the action, but with the experience of suffering (the πάσχων of πάθος). It is only through this passivity that we can learn, a fact which the chorus embraces this, using Calchas’ prophecy (one of which the audience is by now aware foreshadows later events in the play and the following antistrophe) as a springboard for their lament (reflected in their “αἴλινον αἴλινον εἰπέ”). The anapaests’ characterisation of the chorus is heightened by Aeschylus’ use of the maxim – the audience are aware of the chorus’ helpless, passive nature from the very beginning, and the chorus accept this fate, with Aeschylus dictating that they become “inactive and helpless upon hearing the cries of Agamemnon from within the palace and again when it attempts its pitiful resistance to Aegisthus and his soldiers at the end of the play”. (Scott, 1984).
In tragedy, strophes are commonly echoed by their antistrophic counterparts in content and metre. However, in the parodos of the Agamemnon, the transition between the finale of the ‘Hymn to Zeus’ and the fulfilment of the prophecy is purposefully blurred, in that the continuation of the story with which the chorus starts their song occurs during the antistrophe as opposed to the following strophic pair. The effects of this are twofold; the effects of Zeus’ supposed teachings (“πάθει μάθος”, more likely moral values with which Aeschylus wishes to inculcate his audience) are foreshadowed in the prelude to the story of Iphigenia’s sacrifice, while the audience are made to question the reason behind Aeschylus’ withdrawal from the strict and easily followed musical form of the parodos with which they are familiar. I propose that this is the case so that the content of the metrically identical strophic pair might be treated as identical too. In this way, the audience is encouraged to think about the intervening prayer’s relevance to the tragedy as a whole, as well as the following musical unit (which lasts until the very end of the parodos). Once again, Aeschylus’ metrical composition does not fail to demonstrate this, given the similarity between the many lecythia (— ⏑— ⏑— ⏑—) and iambic metra (⏑— ⏑—) of the two stanzas. The next musical unit[15], the start of which is marked by the antistrophe[16], is perhaps the most emotionally powerful of the parodos, using music and word-painting to depict the horrific story of Iphigenia’s sacrifice; indeed, Taplin argues that it is so descriptive that there was most likely no “mimetic physical enactment by the chorus to accompany the verbal vividness” (Carrara et al, 2023) nor the internal dialogue of her father and murderer, Agamemnon. Furthermore, upon hearing that the sacrifice of Iphigenia is the only way to assuage the wrath of Artemis, Agamemnon and Menelaus both react as follows: “χθόνα βά-/κτροις ἐπικρούσαντας Ἀτρεί-/δας δάκρυ μὴ κατασχεῖν”[17] (“the Atreidae beat the ground with their staves and could not hold back a tear”). Since these actions are identical to those of Telemachus in Odyssey 2, for in Homer, “ποτὶ δὲ σκῆπτρον βάλε γαίῃ/ δάκρυ᾽ ἀναπρήσας”[18] (“he burst into tears and flung the staff on the ground”), the Homeric parallels from the strophic triad continue. They are further enhanced by the “run of nine choriambs…giving a rhythm well-suited to express the violent reaction of the princes to the prophet’s words” (Lloyd-Jones, 1982). Moreover, Agamemnon’s initial reluctance to carry out the sacrifice of Iphigenia and understanding of his tragic double-bind are overpowered by his acknowledgement of the importance of the gods and the fact that their dikē, though puzzling and seemingly unjustified, must be effected. The end of the antistrophe, “παυσανέμου γὰρ θυσίας/ παρθενίου θ᾽ αἵματος ὀρ-/γᾷ περιόργῳ σáφ’ñ ἐπιθυ-/μεῖν θέμις. εὖ γὰρ εἴη”[19], echoes the thoughts on justice explored in all previous musical units of the parodos. It represents the chorus’ struggle and submission to divine will and fate, their commitment to a role of passivity, and their futile hope that things might turn out well. One may recall the end of the refrain “τὸ δ᾽ εὖ νικάτω” (“But may the good prevail!”) and appreciate its similarity to the hopeful phrase “εὖ γὰρ εἴη” (“May all be for the best!”)[20] which concludes the antistrophe. There is something irreducibly poetic about this reclamation and rendition of the refrain; indeed, the loss of the refrain further obscures already ambiguous distinctions between musical units and form such as those between the ‘Hymn to Zeus’ and the following musical unit. Aside from once again demarcating strophic pairs, the phrase equates the philosophies of Agamemnon and the chorus (possibly representing Aeschylus’ own opinions), since both parties share an understanding of the cause of his punishment and the effects of his actions regarding the military success of the Argives. Nevertheless, they still express a deliberate wish for the good, whether that be the fulfilment of the will of Zeus or a ‘good’ outcome for Agamemnon. Following this, the chorus are able to elaborate on that which they, in contrast with Agamemnon, have the capacity to recognise – the remainder of Calchas’ prophecy. They do so in syncopated iambics until the end of the parodos. Indeed, the final lines of the parodos do not disappoint – “ἴσον δὲ τῷ προστένειν:/ τορὸν γὰρ ἥξει σύνορθρον αὐγαῖς./ πέλοιτο δ᾽ οὖν τἀπὶ τούτοισιν εὖ πρᾶξις, ὡς/ θέλει τόδ᾽ ἄγχιστον Ἀπίας γαί-/ας μονόφρουρον ἕρκος.”[21]. Here, we are exposed to the culmination of Aeschylus’ wily foreshadowing, left questioning whether the chorus truly have some knowledge of the events that will soon unfold. They view “προστένειν” (“lamenting before”) as advantageous in some way, finally elucidating the recurrent refrain – they cry “αἴλινον αἴλινον” both for Iphigenia’s miserable end and in advance of the inevitable lament for Agamemnon’s death. The conclusion drawn from this is that the chorus knows full well of the events to come but leave them in the metaphorical realm, possibly out of fear and a form of ‘survivor’s guilt’ concerning the events at Aulis (given that it is still unclear exactly why and how Iphigenia was present at or transported to Aulis, and the chorus seem also to have been present during the sacrifice[22]). This presentation renders them a perfect chorus for Aeschylus’ exploration into portents, the events of the past, present, and future, and the nature of dikē.
Metrical Variations and Their Effects
I shall now discuss select metrical variations, irregularities, and their respective impacts on textual interpretation.
During the first strophic pair[23] of the ‘Hymn to Zeus’, including a one-foot spondaic introduction to the first line, all but one of the lines are trochaic and consist solely of lecythia (— ⏑— ⏑— ⏑—). The exception is markedly different, a sole line of dactylic pentameter (— ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — ⏑ ⏑ — —). Responsion is practised, and out of the two stanzas stand two unusually long, metrically inappropriate lines: “πλὴν Διός, εἰ τὸ μάταν ἀπὸ φροντίδος ἄχθος”[24] and “Ζῆνα δέ τις προφρόνως ἐπινίκια κλάζων”[25]. Between them, they comprise half of the occurrences of Zeus’ name in the ‘Hymn to Zeus’. Aeschylus deliberately contrasts the content of the strophe and antistrophe; the strophe expresses a warning of the dangers of transgression of divine will, while the antistrophe justifies Zeus’ position as the almighty ruler of Olympus and therefore his reverence.
During the later syncopated iambics[26], choriambs, “associated with the inspired frenzy of the prophet”[27], interrupt the latter part of both the strophe and the antistrophe. This interruption appears to be unnecessary, given that they appear during a description of hostile winds and their effects on the Greek army; however, just as the sacrifice is introduced as a means of relief for the Greeks[28], so too are its dire consequences (as yet unspecified) for Agamemnon. Therefore, choriambs take their place in the stanzas, extending into the words of Agamemnon himself. His final words, “[ἐπιθυ]-μεῖν θέμις. εὖ γὰρ εἴη”[29], comprise one choriambic and one bacchiac foot, connoting his struggle to escape the prophecy and his futile hope. He comes to be sure of the ‘greater good’ that will come of his filicide, and therefore accepts the punishment of Artemis, but is left oblivious to the further chaos that will ensue.
Parodying the Parodos
An interesting example of the metrical reception of the Agamemnon’s parodos can be found in Aristophanes’ Frogs, wherein he parodies the rhythm and content found in the Aeschylean lyric which I have been discussing. Aristophanes’ character of Euripides attempts to expose a monotonous side of Aeschylus’ choral songs, thus humiliating him for his apparently feeble compositional skill. Lifting lines 104, 109 and 111 from the parodos[30], genuine rhythms and words of the Agamemnon are interspersed with the ‘vocable’[31] “τοφλαττοθρατ τοφλαττοθρατ”[32] to mimic the rhythmic strumming of the old-fashioned kithara, as opposed to the newer aulos. Aeschylus’ refrain is comparable to that employed by Aristophanes[33] in this section of Frogs, and the latter’s metrical form (a paroemiac variant, dactylic with a typical Aeschylean “iambo-dactylic combination”[34]) suggests a more traditional nomos. Melodic repetition and correspondence of pitch accents between the parody and original demonstrate Aristophanes’ grasp of the music of the Oresteia, while leaving us with metrical structures from which we can attempt to extrapolate the Agamemnon’s archaic lyric influences. In proving the ‘monotony’ of Aeschylean lyric, Aristophanes presents the audience with more reason to trust Aeschylus’ musical and metrical decisions. The accompaniment suits the grave matters of his works, matters which are, after all, his key to victory by Dionysus’ judgement.
Conclusion
Overall, the parodos of the Agamemnon presents us with a progression; the chorus recounts bygone times whilst still looking to the future, knowing that a grave prophecy has been made. The growing sense of anxiety is reflected by what I term ‘metrical degeneration’. The opening triad teases the audience with occasional iambic metra, and the ‘Hymn to Zeus’, though trochaic, foreshadows the iambics to come through metrically similar lecythia. The metrical degeneration continues, falling to compound iambics after the antistrophe (bound by form to responsion), maintained until the end of the parodos. This renders the transition to the iambic metre of tragic dialogue especially smooth, and I believe that it serves the purpose of cementing the chorus’ position in the action. Their refrain is sung with hopeful and futile undertones alike, and Aeschylus’ deliberately crafted musical form and metrical patterns serve to emphasise and illuminate the meaning, portents, and impactful nature of his stunning parodos.
Bibliography
Greek text from J.D Denniston and Denys Page: Aeschylus, Agamemnon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957
Aeschylus, & Fraenkel, E. (1998). Agamemnon. 2: Commentary on 1-1055 (Reprint). Oxford Univ. Press.
Aeschylus, Lloyd-Jones, H., & Aeschylus. (1982). Oresteia. Duckworth.
Agamemnon Vol. 2 Commentary on 1-1055 / Aeschylus ; Eduard Fraenkel (ed.). (2017). Oxford University Press.
Aristophanes, Stephen Halliwell, Aristophanes, Aristophanes, and Aristophanes. 2016. Frogs and Other Plays. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carrara, L., Medda, E., & Ferri, R. (2023). Il mito degli Atridi dal teatro antico all’epoca contemporanea. Edizioni Ca’ Foscari.
Dale, A. M. (2010). The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press.
D’Angour, A. (2016). Vocables and Microtones in Ancient Greek Music. Greek and Roman Musical Studies, 4(2), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1163/22129758-12341279
Danielewicz, J. (1990) “Il nomos nella parodia di Aristofane (Ran. 1264 sgg.).” AION, 12:
131–42.
Homer, Rieu, E. V., & Rieu, D. C. H. (2003). The Odyssey. Penguin Books.
Kitto, H. D. F. (1956). The Greek Chorus. Educational Theatre Journal, 8(1), 1–8. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/3203909
Stuart E. Lawrence. 1976. ‘Artemis in the Agamemnon’. The American Journal of Philology 97 (2): 97–110. https://doi.org/10.2307/294396.
Raven, D. S. (1968). Greek metre: An introduction (2nd ed). Faber.
Reeves, C. H. (1960). The Parodos of the ‘Agamemnon’. The Classical Journal, 55(4), 165–171. JSTOR.
Scott, W. C. (1984). Musical design in Aeschylean theater. Published for Dartmouth College by University Press of New England.
Thomson, G. D. (2013). Greek lyric metre. Cambridge University Press.
1 Much scholarly ink has been spilled concerning the justification of her anger, highlighting the enduring nature of Aeschylus’ ambiguity: See (Lawrence, 1976).
[2] (Scott, 1984)
[3] “This form of the parodos, in which anapaests precede the song in lyric metres, seems to be the oldest.” (Fraenkel, 1998)
[4] Aeschylus, Agamemnon 104 trans. (Lloyd-Jones, 1982)
[5] Aeschylus, Agamemnon 115-20
[6] Aeschylus, Agamemnon 121, 139 and 159 trans. (Lloyd-Jones, 1982)
[7] Ibid. 120 trans. (Lloyd-Jones, 1982)
[8] Ibid. 138 trans. (Lloyd-Jones, 1982)
[9] Ibid. 158 trans. (Lloyd-Jones, 1982)
[10] Aeschylus, Agamemnon 160-83
[11] Aeschylus, Agamemnon 160 trans. (Lloyd-Jones, 1982)
[12] See 4
[13] Strophe 3: Aeschylus, Agamemnon lines 176-183
[14] Aeschylus, Agamemnon 178 trans. (Lloyd-Jones, 1982)
[15] Aeschylus, Agamemnon 184-257
[16] Ibid. 184-91
[17] Ibid. 201-4 trans. (Lloyd-Jones, 1982)
[18] Homer, Odyssey 2.80-1 trans. (Rieu, 2003)
[19] Aeschylus, Agamemnon 213-17: “For that they should long for a sacrifice to still the winds and for a maiden’s blood with passion exceeding passion is right in the eyes of heaven. May all be for the best!” trans. (Lloyd-Jones, 1982)
[20] See 4 and 17: Trans. (Lloyd-Jones, 1982)
[21] Aeschylus, Agamemnon 253-7: “But all is one if we lament before; for it will come clear with the rays of dawn. Well, in what follows may achievement turn out prosperous, as is the will of this nearest sole bulwark of the Apian land!” trans. (Lloyd-Jones, 1982)
[22] “τὰ δ᾽ ἔνθεν κτλ. indicates that the Elders have themselves experienced in Aulis the events which they have so far been telling.” (Fraenkel (Ed.), 1950)
[23] Ibid. 160-75
[24] Ibid. 165: “None but Zeus, if from my mind the vain burden…”
[25] Ibid. 174: “But he who gladly sings the triumph of Zeus…”
[26] Strophic pair at Aeschylus, Agamemnon 192-204 (str.) and 205-17 (ant.)
[27] See p.58 of Greek Lyric Metre (Thomson, 2013)
[28] “πικροῦ
χείματος ἄλλο μῆχαρ βριθύτερον πρόμοισιν” (“another remedy against the cruel storm more grievous for the chiefs”) trans. (Lloyd-Jones, 1982)
[29] Aeschylus, Agamemnon 216: “[is right] in the eyes of heaven. May all be for the best!” trans. (Lloyd-Jones, 1982)
[30] Aristophanes, Frogs 1276, 1285 and 1289 respectively
[31] See (D’Angour, 2016)
[32] First occurs at Aristophanes, Frogs 1286; there are four further iterations from 1288-95
[33] Aeschylus’ “αἴλινον αἴλινον εἰπέ, τὸ δ᾽ εὖ νικάτω” and Aristophanes’ “ἰὴ κόπον οὐ πελάθεις ἐπ᾽ ἀρωγάν;” (“Alas, alas, toil of battle, comest thou not to our aid?”) trans. (Halliwell, 2016) at Frogs 1265 and four further iterations from 1267-77
[34] Danielewicz, J. (1990)