One of the most difficult tasks which face a dramatist is to convey to the audience the facts of the past and present necessary for an understanding of the plot of the play, and, at the same time, to arouse interest in the plot as quickly as possible by creating suspense as to the outcome of the situation. The opening scenes of the tragedies of Aeschylus and Sophocles are evidence that the Greek playwrights became masters of the difficult art of exposition and were able to employ almost all the devices known by the dramatist to be effective in arousing the interest of the spectators in the plot. Euripides, perhaps the most sophisticated of the three playwrights, deliberately chose to open most of his plays with a monolog; and from the time of Aristophanes down to the present day, he has been alternately attacked and defended for this practice.

We shall not attempt to discuss the question of the artistic value of the prolog as a means of exposition as compared with the expository scenes of Aeschylus and Sophocles; but we shall try to point out that practically all the Euripidean prologs, in addition to serving as a means of acquainting the audience with certain facts of the past, present and sometimes of the future, perform another very important function, i. e., of foreshadowing and arousing suspense. Let it be said immediately, however, that foreshadowing as a term of dramatic technique, does not mean to foretell plainly events that actually come to pass in the future, nor does it mean to forestall interest in the plot in the slightest degree. To foreshadow signifies to give information, in a more or less vague manner, but in a way to arouse curiosity, as to what may happen in the future.

1

Both Lessing and Commer2 pointed out correctly that in order to enjoy to the utmost certain plays of Euripides, such as the Ion, the audience must be informed of certain facts, such as the relationship of Creusa to Ion, set before them in the prolog. Indeed, Commer says that the aim of the Euripidean prolog is to arouse pity and fear by narrating past events and by foretelling future events. At first glance, it might seem that Commer recognized the element of foreshadowing and of suspense in the prolog; but close examination of his discussion of the separate plays shows conclusively that he is emphasizing foretelling, not foreshadowing, although he defends Euripides from the charge of forestalling the interest. Furthermore, although Commer uses the expression metu suspensi, he does not recognize at all the fact that or the reason why Euripides states in the prolog certain facts or supposed facts fraught with hope or fear, as the case may demand. Suspense is not fear, but is a combination of hope and fear; and Euripides, a skillful dramatist, knows when to stress the element of hope, and when to emphasize the element of fear. Commer refers to that fear which is aroused by our knowledge from the beginning in the Hippolytus that Phedra and Hippolytus will die; but that is not dramatic suspense. We shall attempt to show that generally toward the end of almost every Euripidean prolog come lines of foreshadowing, which arouse suspense in the mind of the spectator as to what may happen and which stress the note of either hope or fear according to the exigencies of the situation at hand. Furthermore, we shall point out that often these lines actually mislead the spectator, that Euripides purposely foreshadows events in the prolog which do not take place, and that in certain plays the hope or fear aroused by those lines gives way to the opposite emotion in order that the spectator may be held in doubt as to the final issue of the plot and that the situation may remain in the balance.

In the prolog to the Alcestis, Apollo informs the audience that Alcestis is dying and that Thanatos is coming to conduct her to the halls of Hades. Any normal spectator will immediately infer that this is the end of Alcestis, if not of the play. Unless one takes into consideration preknowledge of the myth on the part of the

1

1 Lessing, Hamburgische Dramaturgie, 48 u. 49 Stücke.

'F. Commer, De Prologorum Euripideorum Caussa ac Ratione, Bonn, 1854, p. 29.

audience which would be manifestly unfair in such a discussionthe possibility of the resurrection of Alcestis and of a happy outcome of the situation would not occur to anyone. In the next scene, Apollo pleads with Thanatos to spare Alcestis; but the messenger of death is obdurate. Finally, Apollo says that someone will come to take Alcestis from Thanatos. The ray of hope dawns; but does not the spectator believe that Alcestis must be rescued while she is still alive? Otherwise, if Apollo knows that she can be saved even after death, why does he plead with Thanatos? But Alcestis dies, and her resurrection comes as a surprising coup de théâtre. Euripides has indulged in false foreshadowing in order to arouse suspense. Haigh calls attention to the fact that the prolog to the Ion deliberately misleads the spectator. Hermes, foreshadowing the outcome, says:

He (Apollo) shall give Xuthus, when he entereth,

His own (Apollo's) child, saying to him, "Lo, thy son,"
That the lad, coming home, made known may be

Unto Creusa, Loxias' deed abide

It is true that Apollo bestows Ion upon Xuthus as if Xuthus were the father of Ion, as is foretold in the prolog; but Creusa does not for this reason accept Ion as her son. On the contrary, she arouses great suspense by planning to slay this supposed son of Xuthus; and the manner in which she is saved from this terrible act is wholly surprising. Furthermore, in order to bring about the recognition scene between the mother and the son, Loxias' deed has to be made known, in spite of the fact that Hermes foretold that the amour between Creusa and Apollo would remain secret. This is more than false foreshadowing. It is false foretelling. At the end of the play, Athena says that the divine seer meant to keep this secret until the truth could be proclaimed at Athens; but evidently even the intention of a god must give way to the desire of the playwright to arouse suspense and cause surprise.

In the Phoenissae, Jocasta gives in great detail the facts of the tragic situation of her two sons. The tragedy has an unhappy outcome. Therefore, according to excellent dramatic practice followed as a rule by all Greek playwrights, the note of hope should be

A. L. Haigh, The Tragic Drama of the Greeks, Oxford, 1896, p. 241.
The translation of A. S. Way.

stressed at the beginning of the action. The last words of Jocasta in this monolog correctly shed a ray of light over the gloom. She has prevailed upon her sons to form a truce and to meet before they join battle. She prays to Zeus that her sons may be reconciled. This passage plainly foreshadows the obligatory scene of the play. It gives the element of hope necessary for dramatic suspense, and would cause an audience to believe that a happy outcome of the situation is very possible.

The first speech of Aethra in the Supplices is not strictly a formal prolog addressed to the audience, but is rather an integral part of the play, since it takes the form of a prayer and since the chorus and Adrastus are already on the stage. However, even in this speech we find foreshadowing lines preparing for a scene to come, when Aethra tells us that she has sent a herald to summon Theseus to the aid of the suppliants. Thus, in spite of the fact that this tragedy is so poorly constructed that there is little chance for dramatic foreshadowing, we find traces of Euripides' general practice in the opening speech, of "carrying forward the interest of the audience," as Mr. William Archer would say."

Euripides' skill in the foreshadowing appears to excellent advantage in the formal prolog to the Hercules Furens. Amphitryon tells us that Hercules has not returned from the house of Pluto, that the children of Hercules have no hope save to cling to the altar of Zeus, since Lycus aims to slay the children, their mother, and even Amphitryon himself. "Desperate of life" they are "barred from homes whose doors are sealed" (53-54). Thus suspense is immediately aroused. One gains the impression that almost all hope is gone. Since Hercules is in the realms of the dead, one hardly expects him to return; but the ray of hope necessary to keep suspense from being merely fear is given by Amphitryon when he says to Megara:

Daughter, a fair-wind course may yet befall
From storms of present ills for thee and me.

Yet may he come-my son, thy lord may come (95-97).

Thus, the appearance of Hercules, just at the moment when he alone can save the children is not wholly unexpected; but nevertheless the suspense caused by the knowledge that Lycus seeks to

William Archer, Playmaking, Boston, p. 185.

slay the children is ended by a dramatic coup de théâtre which comes as a great surprise. However, since the return of Hercules is almost unexpected, although strongly desired, the prolog gives the effect of false foreshadowing, since the events which we actually expect to take place the murder of the children, their mother and Amphitryon-do not come to pass. Had the playwright actually foretold the arrival of Hercules, or even foreshadowed it more strongly, suspense and surprise would have been immeasurably reduced. On the other hand, the speech of Iris, which is practically a prolog to the second part of the tragedy, correctly foretells the murder of the children by Hercules. If we were not given to believe that the children would be slain by Hercules, the action of the play at this point would wander on in a seemingly aimless manner. There would be no suspense, but only a shock of surprise when the deed is done; and, when one of these elements must be sacrificed to the other, it is almost always, and certainly in this scene, surprise which must be given up, even though suspense is thereby reduced to fear.

Even in the prolog to the Heracleidae, in spite of the fact that the tragedy is poorly constructed, there is suspense aroused at the end of the prolog. Iolaus has told how Eurystheus causes the children of Hercules to be driven from every place of refuge, and now he cries out that he sees the herald of Eurystheus approaching, by whom the wanderers are still pursued at the command of the pitiless Eurystheus. Certainly, even at this play, no spectator would be inclined to leave the theatre after the prolog has foreshadowed this obligatory scene. There is no hint as to the dénoue

ment of the plot.

The prolog of the Hecuba actually foretells that Polyxena must die, and that Hecuba will behold the body of Polydorus, whose phantom speaks the formal prolog; but these events are by no means the dénouement of the tragedy. Indeed, it is the sight of the body of Polydorus which causes the rest of the action to unfold, as Hecuba wreaks vengeance on Polymestor for the murder of her son at his hands. A part of the plot, and in this case a relatively small part, is foretold in order to catch the attention of the spectators; and then the major portion of the tragedy is enacted without even a hint having been given as to the vengeance of Hecuba and the trial scene before Agamemnon and its outcome.