Essays on Aristotle's
Poetics
edited by
Amélie Ok:senberg Rorty
+
"ARISTOTLE ANO IPHIGENIA"
ELIZABETH BELFIORE
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
Aristotle and lphigenia
Elizabeth Belfiore
l
j
'
~
1
j
1
!
l
In Chapter 14 of the Poetics, Aristotle writes that the best kind of tragedy is
exemplifi.ed by Euripides' Iphigenia in Tauris (IT ): "the best is the last; I mean for
example in the Kresphontes Merope is about to kili her son, but she recognizes
him and does not kili him, and in the lphigenia sister (is about to kili]
brother ... " (1454a4-7). 1 Few modern readers have agreed with Aristotle
about the superiority of this tragedy. In the view of most scholars, the IT is either
an inferior tragedy, or it is not really a tragedy at all. H. D. F. Kitto calls the IT
a "romantic melodrama," a kind of drama in which the emotions are "lightly
engaged," and in which there is no "tragic theme" or "intellectual profundity." 2
M. Phitnaur, ignoring Aristotle, remarks that the Iphigenia "has never been
ranked as among its author's greatest plays," and that it "is nota tragedy at
all." 3 Bernard Knox sees the IT plot type as the ancestor of Western melodrama,
in which we have "not tragic catastrophe but hairsbreadth escape from it. " 4 T.
B. L. Webster says that this play is "light-hearted," 5 and according to Anne
Burnett6 and Dana Sutton, it closely resembles the comic satire play.
Why are modern evaluations ofEuripides' play so radically different from that
of Aristotle? The question is an important one, especially since we cannot dismiss
Aristotle's admiration for the IT as mere individual eccentricity. Because
Aristotle's preference for the dramatic type modern readers tend to scorn as
"melodrama" appears to have been shared by Greek playwrights and audiences,7 a study of Aristotle's reasons for preferring the IT can tell us much about
Greek tragedy as a whole, as well as about the philosopher's own views. In
attempting to see Euripides' IT through Aristotle's eyes, this essay begins by
examining sorne modern assumptions about tragedy that can lead us to focus on
very different aspects of the IT from those that were of central importance for
Aristotle. These differences in perspective mean, in effect, that our IT is not the
same play as Aristotle's. After a brief discussion of Aristotle's theory ofthe tragic
359
361
E. Belfiore
Aristotle and Iphigenia
plot in general, and his comments in the Poetics that are directly applicable to
the IT plot in particular, 1 conclude with an analysis ofEuripides' play according
to Aristotelian criteria. On an Aristotelian reading, 1 argue, the IT is a betterconstructed, more serious, and more "tragic" play than modern scholars often
believe.
Sorne ofthe differences between our IT and Aristotle's are strikingly apparent
in modern studies comparing Euripides' IT with his Helen. lt is a commonplace
in modern criticism that the structures of these two plays are nearly identical.
Henri Grégoire, for example, calls them "twins," and remarks that "one can
make a résumé ofone of these tragedies that is perfectly suited to the other." 8
In both plays, according to Grégoire:
Iphigenia and Orestes, and he writes that recognition prevents brother from
being sacrificed by sister. He explicitly excludes divine intervention (the oracle)
from the plot, and he omits entirely the "intrigue," the means by which brother
and sister escape, concluding, in three words: "thence is salvation." This
"intrigue" is not part of the plot, but only an episode, for, immediately after the
plot outline just quoted, Aristotle goes on to write: "After this, having set down
the names [the poet should] 'episodize.' The episodes should be appropriate, as
is, for example, in the case of Orestes, the madness by means of which he was
captured, and the salvation by means of the purification" (1455b12-15).
Grégoire, on the other hand, does not mention any relationship between "the
princess" and "the man she !oves most." Nor does he note that in the IT, but not
in the Helen, relative is about to kili relative. Most of Grégoire's outline concerns
the "intrigue" omitted by Aristotle, and he pays particular attention to the final
deux ex machina, which is also not part of Aristotle's outline.
Grégoire is typical of modern scholars in emphasizing "intrigue" and neglecting aspects of the IT plot that most concern Aristotle. Other scholars who
compare the IT with the Helen also fail to note that the threat of kin murder in
the IT distinguishes this plot from that of the Helen, or they mention this
difference between the two plays only in passing. 11 Seen from their point ofview,
the IT plot does not, indeed, differ essentially from that of the Helen: both are
"intrigue plays." 12 Aristotle, on the other hand, focuses on kln murder and
recognition, while ignoring "intrigue.'' Seen from his point of view, the threat
of kin murder in the IT sharply distinguishes this play from the Helen, in which
there is no such threat. According to Aristotle, the IT is one of the best tragedies
because in it, sister is about to kili brother, recognizes him and does not do so
(Poetics 14.1454a4-7, quoted at the beginning of this essay). Because there is
no danger of kin harming kin in the Helen, this play would be, by Aristotelian
standards, a very poor tragedy.B
These different points of view, ancient and modern, are bound up with very
different concepts of tragedy. While Aristotle believes plot to be of central
importance in tragedy, modern concerns instead center on characterization and.
psychology.
Aristotle admires plays like. the IT because they ha ve excellent plots. He
defines tragedy as "imitation of action" (Poetics 6.1449b24), and states that the
plot (muthos) is the imitation of action (1450a3'-4). A plot is a formal structure,
a "composition of events" (1450a4-5), having a beginning, middle, and end
(Poetics 7.1450b21-31), and proceeding, according to probability or necessity,
from good to bad, or from bad to good fortune (7.1451al3-15). A good Aristotelian tragedy also has "character" (ethos), a part oftragedy something like our
"characterization." Character is what gives people in the play certain ethical
qualities (6.1450a19), and "shows what kind of choice someone makes"
(6.1450b8-9; cf. 15.1454a17-19). In Aristotle's view, however, character is
strictly secondary to plot, which alone is essential to tragedy: "Without action
there could be no tragedy; without character there could be" (6.1450a23-25).
360
A Greek princess, belonging to the illustrious house of the Artrides, is kept
against her will, far from the Hellenic land, by a barbarian king who
slaughters all the strangers who reach bis domain. The sorrow of the
unfortunate woman is at its peak when she acquires the certainty that the
man she !oves most has perished. Suddenly this man is before her ... After
a touching recognition, both people examine their chances for escaping
together. The woman, who shows herself to be the more ingenious, devises
a ruse that succeeds beautifully: the Barbarian, tricked by the Greek woman,
consents and agrees willingly to the execution of this plan. Pretending that
she has the greatest zeal for the interests of the monarch, and alleging as a
pretext certain rites that can only be celebrated in the sea, the princess goes
away with her accomplice and an escort furnished by the king himself. The
two Greeks are aided by sorne compatriots, who were waiting for them,
hidden in an irregularity of the coastline. The king's people at last discover
the betrayal; one ofthem runs to alert his master, who orders all-out pursuit
of the fugitives. But a divinity appears, who orders the king to submit, and
to respect the power of destiny and the will of the gods. 9
Aristotle would certainly not have agreed that this résumé is "perfectly
suited" to the IT, for his own plot outline of this play is very different. In Poetics
17, Aristotle summarizes the "universal" (1455b2-3) of "the lphigenia," that
is, the plot common to Euripides' and Polyidos' versions of the story:
A certain girl after being sacrificed and disappearing from the view of those
sacrificing her was settled in another Iand where the custom was to sacrifice
strangers to the goddess, and she carne to hold that priesthood. A while later,
it happened that the brother of the priestess arrived. The fact that the ora ele
commanded him to go there, for sorne reason that is outside the universal,
and his purpose [in going], are outside the plot. 10 He arrived, was seized, and
when about to be sacrificed, he made himself known, either as Euripides or
as Polyidos wrote it, saying, as was plausible, that not only his sister but
himself also had to be sacrificed. Thence is salvation. (1455b3-12)
1t is obvious from these two plot outlines that Grégoire's IT is not at all the
same as Aristotle's. In fact, if we did not know that both are based on the same
play, we would not be likely to guess that this is so. Among the many differences,
a few are especially significant. Aristotle notes the relationship between
r
E. Beifiore
The plot is "the first principie and as it were the soul of tragedy; character is
second" (6.1450a38-39). This concern with plot leads Aristotle, in giving his
outline of the Iphigenia plot, to concentra te on the major events that forward the
movement of the action from bad to good fortune: the arrival and capture of
Orestes, the threat of kin murder, recognition, and salvation.
Grégoire's résumé, on the other hand, shows that bis main concern,like that
of moderns generally, is with psychology and character. He mentions the
princess' "sorrow" and "the man she !oves most"; he states that she is
"ingenious," and "devises a ruse" that tricks her enemy, "pretending" to have
bis interests at heart. For Grégoire, the character oflphigenia, and in particular,
her cleverness and ability· to trick and deceive, is of most interest in this play. This
one reason why he concentrates on the "intrigue," in which her clever character
is most clearly revealed. 14
Another example can help us see more clearly the difference between Aristotle's
plot-centered view of tragedy and modern psychologically oriented expectations.
In Poetícs 17, just after the plot summary quoted above, Aristotle gives a similar
outline of the story (logos) of the Odyssey, that is, its plot:
The story of the Odyssey is not long. A certain man is away from home for
many years, carefully watched by Poseidon and alone. Moreover, things at
home are in such a state that his possessions are wasted by the suitors and
his son is plotted agaiost. He himself arrives, storm-tossed, and making
himself recognized by some, attacks and is himself saved while he destroys
his enemies. This is what is proper [to the story]; the rest is episode.
(145Sbl6-23)
This outline carefully excludes all the psychological aspects of Homer's poem
that modern readers often find most interesting: "the man of many ways" who
encounters the cities and minds of many people, and who suffers many pains as
he strives to reach home (Odyssey 1.1-5). lnstead, Aristotle focuses only on the
main events that forward the progress of the action from bad to good fortune:
Odysseus' return home, the recognitions, his punishment of the suitors.
Before we laugh at Aristotle's simple-minded account of the story of the man
of many ways, however, we would do well to reexamine our own prejudices.
John Stuart Mili wrote that "story-telling" is most honored by societies "in a
rude state," and by "rude minds." 15 The same bias, somewhat less crudely
expressed, is found in Otto Brendel, who notes, without further discussion:
"lmplicit in the modern reaction [to the IT] is the axiom that a good drama
should do more than tell a story, however exciting." 16 This modern prejudice
against plot goes along with the assumption that tragedy is centrally concerned
with character: with the individual as a psychological entity that wills and
desires, strives and fails. For example, D. D. Raphael writes that tragedy represents "a conflict between inevitable power, which we may call necessity, and the
reaction to necessity of self-conscious effort." 17 According to William Chase
Greene, "The greatest Greek drama . . . rests on the interplay between fate and
Aristotle and Iphigenia
363
character, between what man cannot change and wha remains within his
power." 18 And, in Martha Nussbaum's view: "The great tr gic plots explore tñe
gap between our goodness and our good living, betwee what we are (our
character, intentions, aspirations, values) and how human y well we manage to
live. " 19
This character-centeredview has important consequenc s for studies of Greek
tragedy, and for interpretations of the Poetícs. For one thing, it often leads
scholars to attempt to find a psychological realism in Gr ek tragedy that the
dramatic conventions ofthis genre did not allow and that t e extant plays do not
display. The inappropriateness of the view that character in Greek drama are
psychological entities much like their real-life counterparts is now widely recognized, as scholars from Tycho von Wilamowitz to Thom s Rosenmeyer have
argued against the idea of "a constant dramatic personal ty existing independently of the sequence of scenes in which the playwright d velops the action. '' 20
Another consequence of the modern character-cente ed view of tragedy,
however, is less well understood. This is the tendency of m ny modern scholars
to incorporate character into plot. R. S. Crane explicitly a ues for the integration of plot and character when he states that we should se plot as a "particular
temporal synthesis ... of the elements of action, charac er, and thought." 21
This view ofplot and character may well be appropriate to study ofthe modern
novel. Crane's primary concern. It is, however, a serious mi take to attribute this
view to Aristotle, as do many scholars. This is what Joh Iones, for example,
appears to do when he writes that in the Poetics Aristo le has a concept of
"characterful action," in which "the human selfis present i its acts." 22 Stephen
Halliwell also appears to confuse the Aristotelian distinctio between character
and plot when he writes that the Poetics has an "agent-ce tred perspective. " 23
Halliwell's statement that "we must be able to identify it [se. Aristotelian
character] as a specific dimension of the action" is quot with approval by
Simon Goldhill. 24 This ''agent-centred perspective," howev r, is modern rather
than Aristotelian. 25
To a great extent, it is this modern bias ín favor of chara ter and against plot
that is responsible for negative evaluations of Euripides' IT. There is no significant conflict between characters, 26 or within a single charac er, 27 or between the
characters and fate: indeed, the play ends happily. Iphigenia and Orestes are not
tom and twisted; they make no agonizing decisions; they e gage in little questioning of the human and divine order; they are not Ion deluded. Because
Euripides' play frustrates modem expectations about what tragedy should be,
scholars tend to view it as something other than a trag dy. To understand
Aristotle's admiration for the IT, then, we must make a co scious effort to see
it from his plot-centered point of view.
A brief study of Aristotle's theory of the tragic plot in ge eral is an essential
preliminary toan analysis ofhis views on the IT plot in partí ular. 28 As we have
seen, plot, imitation of action, is, according to Aristotle, "th first principie and
as it were the soul oftragedy" (6.1450a38-39). To create a ood tragedy, then,
364
E. Belfiore
Aristotle and Iphigenia
one that arouses pity and fear (6.1449b27). the poet must create a good plot.
Such a plot need not be "tragic" in the modern sense, for a good tragedy may
end in either bad or good fortune (7.1451al3-14). What is essential, in Aristotle's
view, is that the plot ha ve certain formal properties, and that it deal with certain
important subjects.
The most important rule for plot construction, according to Aristotle, is that
events should proceed "according to {>robability or necessity" (kata to eikos e to
anagkaion). 29 Poetry is "more philosophical and more serious than history"
beca use it states "the universal." that is, "what kinds of things a certain kind of
person says or does according to probability or necessity" (9.1451b5-9). This
principie of probability or necessity governs the plot as a whole. A good tragic
plot represents a change from good to bad fortune, or from bad to good fortune,
in which events succeed one another according to probability or necessity
(7.1451a12-14). Such a plot proceeds from beginning, to middle, to end according to this principie:
10.1452al8-21. and at 11.1452a23-24. While the pathos is not explicitly said
to follow this principie, it must clearly do so, since it is one of the three parts of
a plot (11.1452b10) that is itself constructed according to this principie.
When recognition and reversal occur together, as they do in the best plots,
this point in the play is its structural and emotional focal point, marking the
beginning ofthe change from good to bad (or from bad to good) fortune. Aristotle
calls attention to this focal point in Chapter 18, where he says that every tragedy
has two sections, a complication anda solution: "By 'complication' 1 mean the
[tragedy] from the beginning until the last part from which it changes to good
or bad fortune. By 'solution' 1 mean the [tragedy] from the beginning of the
change until the end" (1455b26-29). The complication often includes sorne of
the action represented on stage (1455b25). In the lphigenia story, for example,
Orestes' arrival, capture, and his being about to be sacrificed are part of the
complication. The complication also includes the "things done before" (ta propepragmena: b30), and thus "outside" (b25) the stage action, that are nevertheless
essential to the plot. 32 These events outside the stage action are a part of the
beginning, because other events follow them according to probability or necessity. Por example, in the Iphigenia plot, the sacrifice at Aulis. and lphigenia's
settlement in the Taurian land, forro part of the complication and the beginning,
and are therefore mentioned in Aristotle's plot outline in Chapter 17, even
though they are not represented on stage. These events make necessary or
probable the action of the Iphigenia plot, but do not themselves follow other
events by necessity or probability, in this plot. The solution begins, in the
Iphigenia story, at that point in the plot at which reversal and recognition
coincide. Here, the action changes direction and heads towards good fortune, for
recognition is itself good fortune, and it a1so makes salvation probable or
necessary.
In contrast to the plot itself, the episodes of a good tragedy are not probable
or necessary, but only plausible (eikos, in this sense). 33 Aristotle's distinction
between plot ("the universal": 1455bl) and episode is clearest from the
examples he gives in Chapter 17, two ofwhich are from Euripides' IT: Orestes'
madness "by means of which he was captured," and the "salvation by means
ofthe purification" of Orestes. These are "episodes" that are "appropriate" to the
story (1455b13-15). Orestes' capture and the salvation are included in the plot
outline as events of the plot itself: they follow by probability or necessity from the
previous events in this plot. There are, however, a number of different plausible
ways, besides madness and purification, in which the capture and salvation
might be brought about by the poet. Orestes might be captured as he attempts
to break into the temple, and Iphigenia might give a drug to the Taurians to
effect the escape. A play in which capture and rescue are brought about in these
ways would have the same probable or necessary events, and therefore the same
plot, but it would have plausible episodes different from those ofthe IT. Aristotle's
outline of the Iphigenia plot gives us examples of two different plausible episodes
that bring about the probable or necessary recognition. Orestes is recognized.
The beginning is that which is not itself after something else by necessity. but
after it something else is or comes to be by nature. The end, on the contrary,
is that which is itself after something else by nature. either by necessity or
for the most part, but after this there is nothing else. The middle is that which
is itself after something else, and after it there is something else [by necessity,
or for the most part]. (Poetics 7.1450b27-31). 311
The principie of probability or necessity also governs the individual parts of
the plot. The most important, of the events that make up the tragic plot, or
"composition ofthe events," are the three "parts ofthe plot": pathos, recognition,
and reversal (11.1452b9-13). These three parts of the plot contribute to its
function by arousing pity and fear (see. e.g., 11.1452a38-bl, 14.1453bl4-22).
Every tragedy, simple and complex, has a pathos, defined as "a destructive or
painful action" (11.1452bll-12). In addition to apathos, the best plots, the
complex, also have recognition, reversal; or both (Poetics 10, with 13.1452b3032). Aristotle defines "reversal" (peripeteia) as "the change to the opposite ofthe
things done" (11.1452a22-23). 31 That is, reversal occurs when the action
changes direction, and goes towards good fortune when it had been heading
towards bad, or towards bad fortune when it had been going towards good
fortune. Aristotle defines "recognition" in Chapter 11: "Recognition, justas the
word also indicates, is a change from ignorance to knowledge, either to philia
[kinship) or to enmity. of those defined with respect to good or bad fortune"
(1452a29-32). Aristotelian recognition is not simply a mental state in which
one comes to acquire knowledge. Beca use it is a part of the plot, it is an actual
event affecting the movement of the action between good and bad fortune.
Recognition, like reversal, results in good or bad fortune, and arouses pity and
fearfor this reason (14 52a38-b3 ). Aristotle explicitly states that recognition and
reversal should occur according to the principie of probability or necessity at
365
366
E. Beifiore
Aristotle states, "either as Euripides oras Polyidos wrote it, saying, according to
what is plausible [eikos] .... " Here, eikos occurs without its usual companion
"the necessary." Orestes' speech, in Polyidos' version of the Iphigenia story, is
again called "plausible" (eikos, without "necessary") at 16.14 5 5a 7. This speech
is plausible, and not probable or necessary, for Euripides' way ofbringing about
the recognition, by means of the letters Iphigenia wishes to send, is equally
"plausible" (eikos, again without "hecessary"), as Aristotle makes clear in
16.1455a18-19.
If the episodes in a good tragedy are plausible and appropriate to the story,
though not a part of the plot, other elements are even more extraneous, as
Aristotle's outline of the lphigenia plot makes clear. These are events "outside
the universal," that is, "outside the plot," such as the oracle, and Orestes'
reasons for going to the Taurian land (16.1455b7-8). Orestes' arrival is an
essential part of the plot, for the other events follow from it by probability or
necessity. However, if this arrival itself followed anything else, such as adivine
command, by probability or necessity, it would not be part of the beginning of
the Iphigenia story, but part of the middle of another story.
According to Aristotle, a good plot not only follows the principie of probability
or necessity, it also deals with certain significant human actions. This point
emerges from his statements about the parts of the piot. The three parts of a good
tragedy arouse pity and fear not only beca use they follow one another according
to probability or necessity, but also because they are concerned with philia
(kinship) relationships. 34 The importance of philia in the tragic plot is clearest
in Aristotle's statements about the pathos. Not just any destructive or painful
event, for example, one in which enemies or neutrals kili one another, arouses
pity and fear in the best way ( 14.14 53 b 17-19 ). A pathos is truly pitiable and
fearful only if it is one between philoi (relatives): "When the pathe take place
within philia relationships, for example, when brother kills or is about to kili
brother, or son father, or mother son, or son mother, or does something else of
this sort, this is to be sought [by the poet]" (1453b19-22). Such an event need
not actually take place in order to arouse pity and fear in the best way: it need
only be "about to occur" (mellon), like the sacrifice in the lphigenia story.
Philia is also of central importance in the two other parts of the plot. While
reversa!, a change to good or bad fortune, is not explicitly said to be concerned
with philia, Aristotle believed that philia is essential to good fortune, and that loss
of philoi is the most terrible bad fortune (Eudemian Ethics (EE) 1234b32-33,
Nicomachean Ethics (NE) 115 5a4-6 ). Moreover, in the best tragedy, reversa!
occurs together with recognition (Poetics 11.1452a32-34), and a good recognition, like a good pathos, concerns philoi. The best recognition, Aristotle writes,
is recognition ofpersons (1452a29-38), and, as Aristotle's definition indicates,
is a change "to philia or enmity" (1452a31 ). That recognition is concerned with
philia is also clear from Aristotle's remark in Chapter 14 that in one kind of plot
people "recognize philia" after doing a terrible deed (1453b30-31).
In Aristotle's view, then, the tragic plot is a formal structure governed by the
Aristotle and lphigenia
367
principie of probability or necessity, and dealing with the most important human
actions. Its function is the arousal of pity and fear. The three parts of the plot _
pathos, recognition, and reversal- are the most important elements in the formal
structure, the universal. This plot structure is a composition of events, proceeding according to probability or necessity from beginning, to middle, to end.
Character and the merely plausible episodes are not part of this plot structure.
In the best tragedies, the pathos is a destructive or painful event in which philos
kills or is about to kili philos. The best tragedies also ha ve recognition (a change
to philia or enmity), and reversa!. Their focal point, their emotional and dramatic
climax, is the beginning of the solution, when reversa! and recognition occur
together, anda change begins from good to bad, or from bad to good fortune.
Thus, the best tragic plot, in Aristotle's view, is not justan exciting story. It is
instead a story, with the compelling force of probability or necessity, that
concerns philia relationships.
In focusing on philia, Aristotle's theory reflects the actual practice of the
tragedians, for philia is a central theme in the plots of nearly all of the extant
tragedies. 35 The view that tragedy concerns philia is also deeply rooted in
Aristotle's views on the importance of philia in human society. According to his
Politics, "the human being is by nature a political animal," that is, one whose
nature it is to live in communities consisting of kin and other philoi. 36 This
concept of human nature is the basis for Aristotle's belief that "lack of philoi and
isolation [is] most terrible" (EE 1234b32-33). In his view, Oedipus is pitiable not
so much because he suffers blindness, pain, and the loss of wealth and power,
as because he is irrevocably cut off from the philia relationships that make him
part of the human community. 37 Because it deals centrally with philia relationships, Greek tragedy, in Aristotle's view, is concerned with the basis for society
and civilization, for our very humanity, our nature as political animals. Seen
from Aristotle's point of view, then, a tragedy in which plot is of central
importance certainly need not show "a lack of depth in the dramatic
handling.'' 38 On the contrary, a drama that is concerned with terrible events that
threaten our very humanity is essentially serious, important, "tragic."
Within this context of Aristotle's views on tragedy as a whole, his preference
for Euripides' IT is readily understandable. Aristotle admires this play beca use it
is a story about philia relationships, with the formal plot structure best suited to
arouse pity and fear. His explicit statements about this play, and other statements in the Poetics that are directly applicable to it, help us to see that this is
so.
Aristotle explicitly mentions Euripides' IT, or a play about Iphigenia among
the Taurians, in six passages in the Poetics. 39
(1) In Poetics 11.1452b3-8, after stating that the best kind of recognition is
that of persons, Aristotle cites the recognitions in the IT as examples of this
best kind: "Since recognition is recognition of persons, sorne of them are
[recognitions] only of one person by the other, when it is clear who the
368
E. Belfiore
other is. At other times, it is necessary for both people to recognize [each
other], for example, Iphigenia was recognized by Orestes as a result of the
sending of the letter, but it needed another recognition for him to be
recognized by Iphigenia.''
(2) In Chapter 14, Aristotle ranks plot types in order from worst to best
(1453b37-1454a9). The worst plot is that in which someone is about to
act (that is, as Aristotle's exatnples show, to kili a philos), knowing of the
relationship, but does not act (1453b37-38). Next to the worst is a plot in
which someone is about to act, knowing of the relationship, and does act
(1454a2). Still better is a plot like that of Sophocles' Oedipus the King, in
which someone acts in ignorance, and then recognition of philia occurs
(1454a2-3, with 1453b29-31). The best plot, writes Aristotle, is one like
that of "the Iphigenia," in which someone is about to kili a philos, but does
not do so because recognition occurs (1454a4-7. quoted at the beginning
of this article).
(3) In Poetics 16.1454b30-36, in a ranking ofkinds ofrecognitions, Aristotle
classifies the recognition of Orestes by Iphigenia as next to the worst:
"Second [from the worst] are those [recognitions] made up by the poet,
because they are lacking in art. For example Orestes in the Iphigenia is
recognized as Orestes. She [is recognized] by means of the letter, but he
himself says what the poet and not the plot requires. So that this is much
like the error previously mentioned [se. recognition by signs], for it would
also have been possible to bring in sorne [signs]."
(4) In 16.1455a6-8, in giving examples ofthe fourth kind ofrecognition, that
"from reasoning" (1455a4), Aristotle writes of "the [se. recognition?} of
Polyidos the sophist concerning the Iphigenia. For he said that it was
plausible [eikos] for Orestes to reason that his sister was sacrificed, and that
it happened to himself also to be sacrificed." While this statement most
probably refers to an Iphigenia written by Polyidos (cf. 17.1455b10-ll:
"as Polyidos wrote it"), it might also be a suggestion made by Polyidos the
sophist about how Euripides' play could have been better written. 40 In any
case, this statement does not characterize a recognition that actually
occurs in Euripides' play.
(5) At 16.14 5 Sa 16-19, Aristotle gives the recognition oflphigenia by Orestes
in the IT as an example of the best kind of recognition: "The best recognition of all is that which results from the events themselves, when
emotion comes by means of plausible things [eikotónJ, for example, in the
Oedipus ofSophocles and in the lphigenia. For it was plausible [eikosJ for her
to want to send letters."
(6) In Chapter 17.1455b3-15 (quoted above), Aristotle gives an outline
summary of "the universal" of the Iphigenia plot, and states that the
episodes should be "appropriate," as are Orestes' madness and purification
in the IT.
Aristotle and Iphigenia
369
Aristotle also makes a number of statements that do not explicitly concern the
IT, but that are nevertheless relevant toan understanding ofhis views on the plot
of this play.
(7) In Chapter 11.1452a32-33, Aristotle writes that "the best recognition
occurs together with reversa!." While Aristotle's example is Oedipus the
King, he could also have cited the IT, in which recognition marks the
beginning of the change from bad fortune to good fortune. This change is
the beginning of the solution, the point "from which it changes to good
fortune" (18.1455b27). Aristotle's words in the plot outlinein Chapter 17
indicate the coincidence of recognition with reversa! and with the beginning of the solution in the Iphigenia plot: "thence [se. from the recognition]
is salvation" (1455b12).
(8) In Chapter 13, Aristotle praises Euripides for his unhappy endings: ''Most
ofhis [tragedies] end in bad fortune. This, as has been said, is the correct
way" (1453a25-26). While the IT is not mentioned, it clearly does not end
in bad fortune.
(9) In Chapter 14, as noted above, Aristotle writes that the best pathos is one
in which philos harms or is about to harm philos (1453bl5-22). That the
IT contains such a pathos is clear from passages 2 and 6.
(10) In Chapter 15, Aristotle writes that the deus ex machina should not be used
to solve difficulties in the plot, as it is in the Medea (1454a37-1454b2).
Instead, writes Aristotle, "the mechane should be used for things outside the
drama, either for things that carne before it that it is not possible for a
human being to know, or for things that come afterwards that require
prophecy or a messenger report. For we attribute to the gods the power of
seeing everything" (1454b2-6). This best way of using the mechane is
clearly the one employed by the IT: Athena appears to explain events that
will occur after the play itself.
Most of these statements in the Poetics reflect favorably on the IT. In the first
place, its plot as a whole is well constructed. Because the Iphigenia plot is given
as a paradigm of "the universal" in Chapter 17 (passage 6 ), it is reasonable to
suppose that this plot is a good example of a sequence of events proceeding from
beginning, to middle, to end, according to probability or necessity. Each of the
individual parts of the IT plot - pathos, recognition and reversa! - is also best of
its kind. Both the Chapter 17 outline (passage 6), and passage 2 show that the
IT contains the best kind of pathos, that in which philos, rather than enemy or
neutral, kills or is about to kili philos, and that it is a plot of the superior, complex
kind, since it contains recognitions. The outline of the lphigenia plot in Chapter
17 also shows, as we have seen, that this play contains reversa! together with
recognition. The IT contains two recognitions, both of which are of the best kind
in that they are recognitions of persons (passage 1 ). Of these, the recognition of
Orestes by Iphigenia is of an inferior subcategory, one "made up by the poet"
E. Belfiore
Arístotle and Iphígenía
(passage 3 ), while the recognition of Iphigenia by Orestes is praised in passage
S as the best kind, that arising "from the events themselves." The IT is also a
good tragedy because the episodes are "appropriate" to the story (passage 6).
Moreover, this play makes good use of the mechane (passage 10).
A notorious problem, however, arises in connection with Aristotle's statement in Chapter 14 (passage 2) that the IT is an example of the best plot, one
in which recognition prevents kin murder. While this plot necessarily ends
happily, Aristotle states, in Chapter 13, that the best tragedy ends unhappily
(passage 8)_41 While it may not be possible to reconcile these apparently inconsistent passages completely, it is important to realize that they do not simply
contradict one another. While Aristotle praises the unhappy ending in Chapter
13, in Chapter 14 he makes no mention of a happy ending. Instead, he praises
the IT for its good use of pathos and recognition. In this play, pity and fear are
aroused by a pathos that is about to take place between philoi: sister is about to
kili brother. Emotion is also aroused by the recognition of the relationship (see
14 S3b31: "to recognize philia"), which, by probability or necessity. prevents the
terrible event from occurring. Thus, recognition in the IT coincides with a
reversa! and with the beginning of the solution, the point in the play at which
the change to good fortune begins. It is, then, Euripides' creation of this drama tic
and emotional focal point that Aristotle praises, and not the happy ending as·
such.
In summary, then, Aristotle's statements in the Poetics tell us that the IT is a
good play beca use it has the excellent formal structure that allows it to deal in
an emotionally powerful way with events that are ofprimary importance for our
nature as human beings: those that concern philia relationships. The threat of
kin murder (a pathos about to take place) arouses pity and fear that reach an
emotional clímax in the powerful dramatic moment in which recognition ~f
philia prevents murder and brings about salvation. These events, this plot, make
the ITa good tragedy, while "intrigue," characterization, psychological conflict,
and religious qiJ.estions, as well as meter and diction, are of purely secondary
importance and interest.
Not only do Aristotle's plot-centered views on tragedy in general, and on the
IT in particular, make good sense in theoretical terms, his statements also
provide an excellent commentary on Euripides' text. In this case, at least,
Aristotle's theory reflects and explains the facts to perfection, showing that he
knew Euripides' play, and especially the recognition scene, thoroughly and in
detail, and that he read it intelligently and sensitively. 42 I conclude this essay by
analyzing Euripides' play, from beginning, to middle, to end, according to the
Aristotelian criteria just discussed.
mena, "the things done before" the events represented on the stage, and (b) sorne
ofthe events represented on stage (18.1455b24-30). The "things done before"
in the Iphigenia story are set forth as follows in Aristotle's plot outline:
370
l. The Beginning
In Aristotle's view, the beginning of a tragic plot comprises (a) the propeprag-
371
A certain girl after being sacrificed and disappearing frorn the view of those
sacrificing her was settled in another land where the custorn was to sacrifice
strangers to the goddess, and she carne to hold that priesthood. (l7.1455b36)
This information, essential to the plot, includes the fact that a girl was supposedly
sacrificed, but actually carne to the Taurian land, the fact that it is the law to
sacrifice strangers to a goddess in this country, and that the girl holds this
priesthood. This background information constitutes part of the beginning of the
plot because, while it is not made probable or necessary by anything else, it
makes other events in the plot probable or necessary. Because the girl was
supposedly sacrificed, but actually rescued, she is alive but her brother does not
know this. And because the girl must sacrifice strangers, her being about to
sacrifice her brother is probable or necessary.
In Euripides' play, this essential background information is given in lphigenia's speech in the prologue (1--41), where she tells us who she is, what
happened at Aulis, and what her duties are in the Taurian country. The
importance for the plot of this background information is shown by Iphigenia's
repetition of much of it in the recognition scene. Here, she states more clearly
that those in Argos believe her dead (771), and that Artemis saved her and
settled her in the Taurian land (784-786). In the prologue, we also learn that
Iphigenia has hada dream, which she interprets asan indication ofher brother's
death (42-64). This dream, however, is not mentioned by Aristotle, even as a
plausible episode.
The arrival of Orestes is the only part of the Aristotelian beginning of the plot
to be represented on stage, in Euripides' play. This arrival, together with the
"things done before," makes the events of the middle of the plot probable or
necessary. Aristotle mentions the arrival as follows:
A while later, it happened that the brother of the priestless arrived. The fact
that the oracle cornrnanded hirn to go there, for sorne reason that is outside
the universal. and his purpose [in going], are outside the plot. He arrived ....
(l455b6-8)
Orestes' past history, unlike Iphigenia's, is notan essential part of this plot, in
Aristotle's view. All we need to know is that he is the priestess' brother, and that
he arrives.
In Euripldes' play, Orestes' arrival takes place in the second half of the
prologue (67-122). Here, we also learn that Orestes is going to attempt to steal
the statue of Artemis, as commanded by the oracle (77-103). In addition, we
meet Pylades, and learn that Orestes is still pursued by Furies (79-84). None of
this, except the arrival itself, figures in Aristotle's plot outline, which in fact
373
E. Be/fiare
Aristotle and Iphigenia
explicitly excludes the oracle and Orestes' purpose in going to the land of the
Taurians.
to those of Pylades in Euripides' play, who remarks, just before the recognition:
"It is possible, it is, for great bad fortune/to ha ve great changes" (all' estin, estin
he lían duspraxia/lian didousa metabolas 721-722 ). In Euripides' play, the reversa!
clearly occurs at the same time as the recognition. The reunion of brother and
sister is in itself good fortune, as both Iphigenia and Orestes remark (eutuchousa:
837; eutuchoimen: 841), and. immediately following the recognitions, at 874,
lphigenia and Orestes begin to plan their escape.
On the other hand, Aristotle's plot outline excludes much in the central
section of Euripides' play that is of great interest to modern readers. The means
by which Orestes' capture takes place (his madness) is a plausible episode rather
than part of the plot (Poetics 17.1455bl3-14), and the means by which the
recognition occurs (Iphigenia's desire to send the letter: 16.1455a18-19) is also
an episode. Because these episodes are appropriate to the story, they enhance the
emotional effect of the events they bring about in the plot, but they are not
themselves part of the plot. Other passages in the IT are not even Aristotelian
episodes: all of the choral odes; Iphigenia's speech at 342-390, in which she
theologizes and expresses her emotions; the dialogue between brother and sister
at 472-642, in which Iphigenia's growing sympathy with Orestes is apparent;
the dialogue between Orestes and Pylades in which each offers to die in the
other's place (674-722). Many ofthese passages are important for characterization (ethos), but they are inessential to "the soul of tragedy."
372
11. The Middle
The middle of the lphigenia story, in Aristotle's outline, comprises the brother's
capture, his being about to be sacrificed by his sister (the pathos), and the
recognitions:
[He] was captured, and when about to be sacrificed, he made himselfknown.
either as Euripides or as Polyidos wrote it, saying. as was plausible, that not
only his sister but himself also had to be sacrificed. (1455b9-11)
In Euripides' play, Orestes' capture is recounted in the Herdsman's speech
(238-339). He is "about to be sacrificed" by Iphigenia as a probable or necessary
result of this capture and of the circumstances and events that constitute the
beginning. That the sacrifice is imminent is also clear from the preparations
made by Iphigenia at 467-471 and 725-726. Orestes remarks, ifwe accept A.
Seidler's emendation, that Iphigenia is "about to kili" (mellon ktanein) him at
484. 43 These are, interestingly, the very words Aristotle uses in Poetics 14 to
characterize a plot in which kin kills or is about to kili kin: apokteine e melle:
1453b21.
While Aristotle does not give an account of Euripides' recognitions in the
Chapter 17 outline. he does so in other passages, as we have seen. At
16.1455a16-19, (passage 5 in the list above), he praises the recognition of
Iphigenia by Orestes, stating that "emotion [ekplexis] comes by means of plausible things." In Euripides' text, this recognition occurs at 769 ff., when lphigenia
says, "Tell Orestes . . . ." In this passage, Orestes experiences the same strong
emotion (ekpeplegmenos: 795; cf. 773: ekplesse) that Aristotle mentions in his
account of Orestes' recognition. This recognition scene also has a quality Aristotle calls "the marvellous" (to thaumaston), for events occur "contrary to
expectation [para ten doxan] because of one another" (9.1452a4-5). Although
Aristotle does not mention the IT in this connection, he uses the same words
Orestes does in Euripides' play. Orestes says that Iphigenia's revelations are
"marvellous" (thaumast: 797, cf. 839). and that she now has the brother whom
she never expected (ou dokous') to have (802). The other, inferior, recognition
mentioned by Aristotle (passage 3) takes place, in Euripides' play, immediately
after the first recognition, when Orestes first states, and then proves, his identity
to his sister (795-826). When Iphigenia asks Orestes for a proof or token
(tekmerion: 808; cf. 822) ofhis identity, we remember Aristotle's statement that
this, inferior, recognition "made up by the poet" is much like recognition by
signs (1454b35-36). Recognition in the IT is coincident with reversa! and with
the beginning of the solution, the point "from which it changes to good fortune"
(ex hou metabainei eis eutuchian 1455b2 7-28). Aristotle's words are very similar
III. The End
The end of the Iphigenia story, in Aristotle's outline, is summarized in three
words: "thence is salvation" (Poetics 1455bl2). While Aristotle goes on to pralse
the episode by means of which salvation occurs ("the salvation by means of
purification": 1455b14-15), he is careful to distinguish this episode from "the
universal," the essential plot. According to Aristotle, then, most ofthe entire last
section of Euripides' play (8 73 to the end) is episode rather than part of the plot:
the "intrigue" in which Thoas is deceived, the Messenger's speech about the
wave that pushes the ship back to shore, and the appearance of Athena ex
machina. Here, of course, is where Aristotle's analysis of the play differs most
profoundly from that of mdoern scholars, for whom the "intrigue," and other
aspects of the last part of the play are of supreme importance. According to
Aristotelian criteria, these scholars err in focusing on episode and on even more
extraneous material, while ignoring plot.
According to Aristotle, then, the essential elements in Euripides' play are: (1)
the circumstances (the events at Aulis, Iphigenia's priesthood, the relationship
between Iphigenia and Orestes) that make the events of the plot probable or
necessary; (2) Orestes' arrival, capture and his being about to be sacr!ficed by his
sister; this in turn makes (3) recognition and reversa! probable or necessary. and
these events make (4) salvation and good fortune probable or necessary. The
E. Beljiore
Aristotle and Iphigenia
play is about these events, and it derives its most powerful emotional effects from
them. Other material in the play is also important and interesting, but its
function within the play as a whole is to enhance the emotional effects of the
essential plot, orto provide "color" (Poetics 6.1450a39-b3) and "sweetening"
(6.1449b28-29).
This plot-centered reading of Euripides' IT has severa! advantages. First, it
illuminates the underlying structure·or this play, focusing as it does on a few
important events. and considering the rest as material of secondary interest. The
plot of the IT is, according to Aristotle's analysis, a tightly-knit unity of events
that follow one another according to probability or necessity, rather than a loose
combination of two or more distinct sections, such as, for example, the recognition and "intrigue" of many modern scholars. 44 Second, Aristotle's reading
locates the clímax of the plot, in which recognition and reversa! occur, and
fortune begins to change from bad to good, in the recognition scene, the
emotional impact of which is obvious to any reader. Finally, if the IT is notan
intrigue play, ora psychological drama, ora thriller, ora melodrama, but a play
about philia, and therefore about our essential nature as political animals, it has
a serious, important, "tragic" theme.
There are sorne indications in Euripides' play that he, like Aristotle, thought
of the IT as a play about philia, and about relationships that are political in á
broader sense. According to Aristotle, human beings are political animals
beca use it is their nature to live in communities of philoi, and the person who is
by nature not political is "a lover of war" (Politics 1.1253a3-7). Similarly, in
Euripides' play, harm to philoi is closely connected with war, for it was the
sacrifice of daughter by father at Aulis that marked the beginning of the Trojan
War. On the other hand, avoidance of kin murder in the IT leads toa peaceful
solution of difficulties between Greeks and barbarians: Thoas is persuaded to
cease attacking the Greeks, and they in turn leav.e without shedding blood.
Avoidance of human sacrifice also has wider religious and political implications,
in Euripides' play. In Artemis' new rite to be established in Attica, a priest will
not kili but merely draw blood from a man's neck. Athena ordains this rite when
she tells Orestes:
As a play that arouses fear and pity at the threat of sacrifice of brother by sister,
the IT is itself a ritual in which human sacrifice and kin murder are commemorated and averted. This tragedy can be seen, then, as a kind of symbolic
sacrifice that helps to avert real murder. By providing an emotionally powerful
reminder of the dangers of kin murder, the lT teaches the audience to fear and
avoid the terrible deeds against philoi that lead not only to personal disaster but
also to war. When this play was produced, at the bitter end ofthe Peloponnesian
War of Greeks against Greeks, this lesson would have been an especially
powerful one. 47 .
Whether we believe with Aristotle that the IT is an emotionally powerful and
formally well-constructed tragedy, or see it instead as a light-hearted tragicomedy or melodrama depends ultimately on our subjective reactions as we read
or see the play. If we realize, however, that these reactions are conditioned in
large part by our expectations about what tragedy is and should be, we will not
reject an Aristotelian reading simply because it focuses on plot rather than on
psychology and character. The plot of the Iphigenia in Tauris surely is, in its
Aristotelian essentials, universally tragic and significant. What matters most
profoundly and fundamentally for our existence as human beings is whether we,
like Iphigenia, will recognize our brothers in time to avoid killing them. The rest,
as Aristotle puts it, is episode. 48
374
Establish there this custom: at the festival,
to atone for your uncompleted sacrifice,
let a sword be held to a man's throat. and blood be drawn,
for religion's sake, so that the goddess may have her rights. (1458-1461)45
The new, Greek Artemis is to be a more peaceful goddess, who no longer
demands human sacrifice. Athena's words suggest. however, that Artemis will
remain peaceful only so long as she is compensated and honored in a rite that
commemorates human sacrifice by actually drawing blood. While her statement, of course, provides an aition, an explanation of the causes, for the rites of
Arte mis Tauropolos, 46 the idea that líes behind it is also applicable to the IT itself.
375
Notes
l. Unless otherwise noted, for the Iphigenia in Tauris I follow the text ofJ. Diggle (Oxford,
1981; rpt, with corrections, 1986), and for the Poetics that of R. Kassel (Oxford,
1965; rpt., with corrections, 1966). All translations are my own unless otherwise
noted. Hereafter, these and the following works will be cited by author's last name,
or last name and date only: O. J. Brendel, "Iphigenie aufTauris," in Goethe Bicentennial
Studies, ed. H. J. Messen (Bioomington, IN, 1950), 1-47; G. F. Else, Aristotle's Poetics:
The Argument (Cambridge, MA, 19 6 7); S. Goldhill, Reading Greek Tragedy (Cambridge,
1986); H. Grégoire (ed.), Iphigénie en Tauride, in Euripide, Vol. 4 (Paris, 1968); G. M.
A. Grube, The Drama of Euripides (London, 1941); B. Knox, "Euripidean Comedy," in
The Rarer Action: Essays in Honor of Francis Fergusson, eds. A. Cheuse and R. Koffler
(New Brunswick, N], 1970), rpt. in Word and Action: Essays on the Ancient Theater
(Baltimore. 1979), 250-274 (refs are to the rpt. edition); R. Lattimore (trans. and
ed.), Euripides: Iphigenia in Tauris (Oxford, 1973 ); C. B. R. Pelling (ed.), Characterization
and Individuality in Greek Literature (Oxford, 1990); G.. Perrotta, "L' 'Elena' e 1' 'Ifigenia
Taurica' di Euripide," Studi italiani difilologia classica N.S. 6 (1928) 5-53; M. Platnauer
(ed.), Euripides: Iphigenia in Tauris (Oxford, 1938); M. Pohlenz, Die griechische Triigodie,
2d edn. (Gottingen, 1954); F. Solmsen, "Zur Gestaltung des Intriguenmotivs in den
Tragodien des Sophokles und Euripides," Philologus 87 (1932) 1-17. and "Euripides
Ion im Vergleich mit anderen Tragodien," Hermes 69 (1934) 390-419; D. F. Sutton,
"Satyric Qualities in Euripides' Iphigeneia at [sic] Tauris and Helen," Rivista di studi
classici 3 (1972) 321-330; A. W. Verrall, Essays on Four Plays of Euripides (Cambridge, 1905).
2. H. D. F. Kitto, Greek Tragedy (London, 1939), 311, 315, 316.
3. Platnauer, "Introduction," v.
376
4.
5.
6.
7.
E. Belfiore
Knox, 256.
T. B. L. Webster, The Tragedies of Euripides (London, 1967). 187.
A. P. Burnett, Catastrophe Survived (Oxford, 1971), 71-72.
This was argued by J. J. Winkler in "An Osear for Iphigeneia," Martín Classical
Lecture 4, Stanford, 1988 (forthcoming in Rehearsals of Manhood, Princeton).
8. Grégoire, 85. Among others who see a close similarity between the two plots are
Lattimore, 3-4; K. Matthiessen, Elektra, Taurische Iphigenie und Helena. Hypomnemata
4 (Gottingen, 1964); Perrotta; Pohlenz; Sutton; Verrall, 51-52. An exception is H.
Strohm. Euripides: Interpretationen zur dramatischen Form (Munich, 1957), 77-78.
9. Grégoire, 8 5; ellipsis in original.
10. I adapt R. Janko's translation of1455b7-8 (Aristotle: Poetics 1: [Indianapolis, 1987]),
which makes excellent sense of the text, without need for bracketing día . . . katholou,
with Kassel.
11. Most ofthe scholars who stress the similarities between the two.plots (see n.8, above),
play down this crucial difference. It is not mentioned at all by Lattimore, Perrotta,
Sutton, or Verrall.
12. On the ITas "intrigue play" see esp. Solmsen's articles.
13. See Poetics 14.1453b14-22, discussed further below.
14. Cf. Solmsen's description of "intrigue plays" in terms of characterization: 19 32, 3-4.
15. J. S. Mili, "Thoughts on Poetry and Its Varieties" (1833), in Coiiected Works of John
Stuart Mili, eds. J. M. Robson and J. Stillinger (Toronto, 1981), 1: 345.
16. Brendel, 3. Cf. Grube, 329.
17. D. D. Raphael. The Paradox of Tragedy (Bioomington, IN, 1960), 25.
18. W. C. Greene, Moira (Cambridge, MA, 1944), 92.
19. M. C. Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness (Cambridge, 1986), 382. Cf. N. Frye,
Anatomy ofCriticism (Princeton, 1957), 214-215; and Knox, 250.
20. T. G. Rosenmeyer, The Art of Aeschylus (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1982), 211,
summarizing the view of T. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff expressed in Die dramatische Technik des Sophokles (Philolg. Untersuchungen 22. Berlin, 1917). Good accounts
of the modern controversy about "character" in Greek drama are given by P. E.
Easterling, "Presentation of Character in Aeschylus," Greece and Rome 20 (1973)
3-19, and "Constructing Character in Greek Tragedy," in Pelling, 83-99, and by
Goldhill, 168-172.
21. R. S. Crane, "The Concept of Plot and the Plot of Tom Iones," in Critics and Criticism,
ed. R. S. Crane (Chicago, 1952), 620; cf. 618. See also P. Brooks, Readingfor the Plot:
Design and Intention in Narrative (Oxford, 1984), 12. I am indebted to Thomas Clayton
for calling my attention to these works.
22. J. Jones, On Aristotle and Greek Tragedy (London, 1962), 33.
23. S. Halliwell, Aristotle's Poetics (London, 1986), 146.
24. Halliwell, 152, quoted by S. Goldhill, "Character and Action," in Pelling, 119.
25. I argue for a strict interpretation of Aristotle's plot-character distinction, and against
the tendency of many modern scholars to blur this distinction in Ch. 3 of Tragic
Pleasures: Aristotle on Plot and Emotion (Princeton, 1992).
26. This point is made by Brendel, 2.
27. See Grube, 329-330.
28. I discuss Aristotle's theory ofthe tragic plot in greater detail in Tragic Pleasures (n.25,
above).
29. This phrase, ora close variant, is used in connection with the events of the plot at
7.1451a12-13; 8.1451a27-28; 9.1451a38, 1451b9, 1451b35; 10.1452a20;
11.1452a24; 14.1454a34, 1454a35-36.
30. It is clear from 1450b29-30 that "by nature" means "either by necessity or for the
most part." Throughout this passage, Aristotle uses the equivalent expression "for
Aristotle and Iphigenia
377
the most part" in place of "the probable" [eikos]. On the equivalence of eikos and "for
the most part" in Aristotle's thought, see the passages cited by R. Sorabji, Necessity
Cause, and Blame (Ithaca, 1980), 55. n.36: Prior Analytics 70a5; Rhetoric 13 57a34,
1402bl6, 1403al. Also see, on this equivalence, R. Dupont-Roc and J. Lallot.
Aristote, La Poétique (París, 1980), 211-212.
31. On peripeteia see Belfiore, "Peripeteia as Discontinuous Action: Aristotle Poetics
ll.l452a22-29," Classical Philology 83 (1988) 183-194.
32. In other passages (e.g. 15.1454b3, 17.1455b7) "outside" refers to events that are
outside the plot.
33. Good accounts of the meaning of "episode" in the Poetics are those of K. Nickau,
"Epeisodion und Episode," Museum Helveticum 23 (1966) 155-171, and M. Heath,
Unity in Greek Poetics (Oxford, 1989), 49-55. I disagree with them in sorne important
respects, however.
34. Else argues against translating philia as "!ove," or "friendship" in the Poetics and
shows that philoi are relatives rather than merely friends: 349-350, 391-398,
414-415. In Aristotle's other works, of course, friends, are often included among
philoi.
35. The importance of the theme of philia relationships within the actual tragedies is
widely recognized. See Else, 391-398; A. Gudeman, Aristoteles: Peri Poíetíkes (Berlin
and Leipzig, 1934), 257-258; B. Vickers, Towards Greek Tragedy (London, 1973),
230-243; Goldhill, 79-106; M. W. Blundell, Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
(Cambridge, 1989).
36. Politics l.l253a2-3; cf. EE 1242a22-28.
37. On Oedipus and Aristotle's Politics see J.-P. Vernant, "Ambiguity and Reversa!," in
J.-P. Vernant and P. Vidai-Nquet, Tragedy and Myth in Ancient Greece. trans. J. Lloyd
(Sussex and New Jersey, 1981), 107.
38. Grube, 329.
39. Aristotle names Euripides in the last of these passages. His mention of the lettersending episode allows us to infer that passages l. 3 and S also concern Euripides'
particular version of the Iphigenia plot. Passage 2 concerns other versions of this plot
as well as Euripides'. On passage 4 see below.
40. The text and sense of 145Sa6-7 are uncertain. On the problem of Polyidos' identity
see Else, 509-510, who suggests that Polyidos wrote a criticism of Euripides' play.
41. A good survey of the controversy surrounding the problem of consistency of Chapters
13 and 14 is given by J. Moles, "Notes on Aristotle, Poetics 13 and 14," Classical
Quarterly 29 (1979) 82-92.
42. Further proofofthis is Aristotle's citation of IT 727 in Rhetoric 3.1407b34-35, which
establishes the reading poluthuroi.
43. J. Dingledefends this reading in Studies on the Text ofEuripides (Oxford, 1981), 82-83.
44. Among those who hold this view of the play are Solmsen, 1932, 2; 1934, 400;
Pohlenz, 399; and G. Zuntz. 'Die Taurische Iphigenie des Euripides," Die Antíke 9
(1933). 245-254, 248-249.
45. Lattimore's translation.
46. On this rite see Grégoire, 88-97: Platnaur, vii-xi; E. Simon, Festivals of Attica
(Madison, WI, 1983), 83-88.
47. "":hi~e the precise date of the IT is much disputed most scholars agree in placing it
Withm ayear or two of 414, around the time of the Sicilian Expedition.
48. I am indebted to Thomas Clayton for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this
essay.