a right view of the question; for, not only had he access to the complete works of these dramatists, but he was in a position to judge, not merely of their literary merits, but of their effect when acted, with all the stage-accessories, the music, the effects of delivery and action, designed by their authors. We may take it, moreover, that he represented, not an individual judgment, but the high-water mark of Greek dramatic criticism in the hundred years following the death of Euripides.
If, therefore, those who find fault with the choral odes of Euripides are to derive support from Aristotle at all, it must be by reading into his words some meaning which they do not incontestably bear. The only phrase which affords an opening for such a liberty, is that which occurs in the doubtful text, "not in the manner of Euripides." And, in the absence of corroborating testimony from Aristotle, they are compelled to fall back upon the extant plays to substantiate their contention. But in the pages of our scholar-critics the reader will seek in vain for any detailed analysis of these choral odes: he will be met by general allegations, and by one or two instances given with wearisome iteration, from which he is expected to infer that, as is the sample, so is the mass. It is time, then, in the interests of fair play, and of literary justice, to sift these accusations by means of an analysis of the eighteen extant tragedies. I do not propose to go through each choral ode (that would require a long treatise, and would be superfluous in a work which places the odes themselves before the reader), but simply to summarize, in a catalogue raisonné of the plays, the results of a detailed examination of the subjects of the odes.
The point in dispute, then, being the dramatic relevance of the choral odes, we may define this as the criterion of dramatic relevance, that the sentiments of the ode spring directly from the dramatic situation to which the action of
