ΕΥΡΙΤΤΙΔΟΥ ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. THE IPHIGENEIA AT AULIS OF EURIPIDES. ϋ ■> Ί 1 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. THE IPHIGENEIA AT AULIS EU OF RIPIDES EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION AND CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES E. B. ENCxLAND, M.A., ASSISTANT LECTURER IN CLASSICS IN THE OWENS COLLEGE, VICTORIA UNIVERSITY, MANCHESTER. BOSTON COLLEg CH.E8T.NUT mu, >E Lin; X ΤΛ A 88. DLonfoon: MACMILLAN AND CO. AND NEW YORK. 1891 [The Right of Translation is reserved .] (£ambrftp: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A., AND SONS AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. ΤΛ^Ί·2> XL . m \ PREFACE. BEGAN this edition five or six years ago, in the hope that I might be able to clear away some of the obstacles which perplex all readers of what is still a most attractive drama. Though I cannot say that this hope became stronger as the work went on, I have certainly felt more and more the attract¬ iveness of the subject. If the task has turned out harder than I expected, it has at the same time come to seem more worth doing. On the general question of the state of the text and its possible history I have no original views to propound. All I have tried to do is to ascertain and weigh the views of others, and to arrive by selection at what seems to me the most probable hypothesis. This is, speaking generally, that the Iphigeneia at Aulis was left by Euripides in too unfinished a state to be put on the stage: that the man or men who prepared it for such representations not only added passages at the end and in the body of the play, but rearranged the prologue: and lastly that of small casual interpolations of a later, date the text of this tragedy contains an exceptionally large share. For further details under this head I must refer the reader to my introduction and commentaries. My original contributions have been confined to attempts at the emendation and elucidation of particular passages, and for these likewise I must refer to the Critical and Explanatory Notes. VI PREFACE . How largely this edition is based on the foundations laid by / many generations of Greek scholars will be evident on every page. My indebtedness to Prof. G. Vitelli of Florence, how¬ ever, calls for special acknowledgement. His collation of the Laurentian MS., to say nothing of the discussions in his Osservazione , or his edition of the tragedy, have been of constant and invaluable assistance to me. I also here take the opportunity of expressing my gratitude to Monsignor Ciccolini, the Chief Librarian of the Vatican Library, for the facilities which he with great courtesy af¬ forded me for collating the Palatine MS.: as well as to Prof. J. Strachan of this College, for his kindness in reading through my proof-sheets. But for the suggestive criticisms of the latter, and, I must add, but for the vigilant supervision of the authorities of the Cambridge University Press, this book would be far more imperfect than it is. E. B. ENGLAND. The Owens College, June , 1891. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE Preface.. Introduction : Outline of the Action . ix Dramaturgy .xii Minor Scenes .xiv Characters . xv State of the Text . xvi Time of Production .xxxi The Manuscripts . xxxii Text and Notes.i Appendix .155 Index to Greek words discussed in the Explanatory Notes . . 163 Index to Subjects discussed in the Explanatory Notes . . 168 ΤΑ ΤΟΥ ΔΡΑΜΑΤΟΣ ΠΡΟΣΩΠΑ. ΑΓΑΜΕΜΝΩΝ. ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΗΣ. ΧΟΡΟΣ. ΜΕΝΕΛΑΟΝ ΚΛΥΤΑΙΜΝΗΣΤΡΑ. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ. ΑΧΙΛΛΕΥΣ. [ΘΕΡΑΠΩΝ.]* [ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ·] * See Critical Note on υ. 855. INTRODUCTION. There is no tragedy of Euripides that has in recent times so severely exercised critical ingenuity as the Iphigeneia at Aulis. On few Greek plays have more or longer disquisitions been written. As these disquisitions have dealt in the main with the imperfections of parts of the text, its editors would seem to have claimed for it the same sort of respect that Dogberry does for himself when he says he is “a fellow that hath had losses”. Its notoriety however was not always of this unenviable kind. The tone of references in ancient authors shows the Iphigeneia at Aulis to have been among the best known and best liked of Greek tragedies, while in modern literature and art it is linkedriir various ways with such names as Erasmus, Racine, Gliick, and Schiller. We may conclude therefore that in it we have a work of excellence and beauty, and if we can discover these first, the main outlines, as it were, of the picture will not be obscured by our perplexity about some of its details. At the same time we shall be more willing to give some effort to the consideration whether any of these difficulties can be removed. It will be well then in the first place to turn a deaf ear to the discordant voices of the critics—to pass by all disputed points in the attempt to get a clear idea of the play as we have it—its main action, its personages, and the character of its principal scenes. Outline of the Action. The action opens at Aulis, on the Boeotian coast of the Euripus, where has assembled the Greek force that is to sail to Troy. The object of the expedition is to recover Helen and punish the barbarian who has carried her off. Though the Greek fleet has found at Aulis a convenient meeting-place, and a safe anchorage, further progress has X INTRODUCTION. been made impossible by the want of a favourable wind. In the midst of the growing impatience of leaders and men alike, the seer Calchas has revealed to Agamemnon, the chief commander, and his two principal advisers, Menelaus and Odysseus, that they have incurred the displeasure of the goddess Artemis, whose temple stands at Aulis, and that she will keep them where they are till her wrath is appeased: that moreover this can only be done in one way: Agamemnon must sacrifice at the altar of the goddess his eldest daughter Iphigeneia. On first hearing this, Agamemnon refused to make the sacrifice, and resolved to abandon the expedition, but Menelaus and Odysseus over-persuaded him, and at the suggestion of Odysseus he sent for his daughter to come to him, telling her mother Clytaemnestra that he wished to give her in marriage to Achilles. As the day of her arrival approaches Agamemnon’s mind shrinks afresh from the dreadful deed, and it is at this juncture that the play begins. He sends while it is still night an old household attendant, with a letter to his wife, countermanding his previous orders. This letter is intercepted by Menelaus, and at v. 317 the dispute between the two brothers begins again. In the end the sight of Agamemnon’s grief seems to recall his brother’s better feelings (p. 477): he is willing to renounce his claim, but Agamemnon here shows the impotence of an irresolute and feeble nature to renounce a pursuit once engaged in. He knows too that Odysseus and the army will not allow him to draw back now that he has gone so far. His own love of power and high position, to which his brother has skilfully appealed, concurs with this fear to drive him onwards. Accordingly he makes up his mind anew to proceed with his original plan. He meets his wife and daughter when they arrive, and though incapable of mastering his emotion, conducts them to his tent without betraying his purpose. At v. 801 a fresh turn is given to the action by the appearance of Achilles on the scene. The new-comer knows nothing of the necessity of the sacrifice, or of the artifice in which his name has been used to lure Iphigeneia to Aulis. He comes full of impatience, to remonstrate, somewhat unreasonably, with Agamemnon on his continued inaction. The first person whom he meets before the general’s tent happens to be Clytaemnestra. His surprise at finding who she is, is increased when she salutes him as her destined son- in-law. The intervention of the old attendant (who had been intrusted with the second letter) reveals to both their true position, and the dreadful fate which Iphigeneia’s father is preparing for her. Clytaemnestra then turns to Achilles as her only hope, and goes TNTR OB UCTION. xi on her knees to him to beg his protection. Achilles is moved both by indignation at the use that has been made of his name, and by pity for the helpless girl and her mother. He recommends the latter to try first by entreaties to dissuade her husband from the sacrifice, but promises that if she fails in this he will as a last resource use his own right hand to defend Iphigeneia from death. Then follows a meeting between Clytaemnestra and Agamemnon, who has come to fetch his daughter for the sacrifice. Finding that his wife knows all, he attempts no further dissimulation. Neither the reproaches of his wife nor the prayers of his tearful daughter,—who comes on the scene at v. 1210,—can move him. He says he has not the power to draw back : it is a national question : his daughter must be sacrificed to the interests of Hellas. At this juncture Achilles returns with some of his men, prepared to redeem his pledge. He knows that the army is against him, but he tells Clytaemnestra that he and his handful of men will brave Odysseus at the head of the whole force sooner than let Iphigeneia be carried off. At this point comes the turning-point of the tragedy. The heroine has formed within her own breast, while listening to her mother and Achilles, the resolution to give herself willingly to death for the good of her nation, and to prevent a hopeless struggle between her brave defender and the relentless army. It is as if the loyal self-devotion of her champion had roused in her the desire to do likewise. She will be the champion of the women of her nation against barbarous ravishers. Thanks to her, no Greek woman shall again be carried off as Paris carried off Helen. In this decision the sorrowing mother is forced to acquiesce, and so is Achilles, though he renews his offer to die if necessary, in her defence:—he will be near till the end in case her resolution should falter. This is the natural expression of his growing admiration of the heroine. She had been called his bride, and he now regrets feelingly that she will not be his bride in reality, when he says (vv. 1404 ff.) : Άγα/χε/χι ovos παΐ, μακάριόν /χε rts θεών ε/χελλε θήσζιν ει τνχοίμι σων -γάμων . ζηλώ δε σου μίν Έλλαδ’, Έλλάδο? δε σε 1 . 1 There are some points of similarity between the position of Achilles in this play and that of the lover of the Virgin Martyr in Massinger’s play of that name. With the Greek passage given above we may compare Antonio’s words in Act IV. sc. 3, when Dorothea is being led to execution: She ascends, And every step raises her nearer heaven. What god soe’er thou art that must enjoy her Receive in her a boundless happiness! INTRO D UCTION. • 4 Xll The time has now come for the sacrifice, and when Iphigeneia quits the stage it is to go to death, and the chorus who are left sing her praises as the real champion of Hellas, the real taker of Troy. Schiller in his translation breaks off with Iphigeneia’s parting words of farewell to life as she leaves the stage. All dramatic action, he truly says, closes here. The play as we have it concludes with an epilogue in which a messenger describes to Clytaemnestra the scene of the sacrifice, and tells how, when the fatal blow had been struck, it was discovered that the immolated body was not that of the princess, but of a doe. The question of the authenticity of this passage will be discussed elsewhere. All that need be said here is that it is important to remember that the religious character of a Greek dramatic exhibition, and the special partiality of Euripides for a complete setting or frame-r work for his subjects, are conditions which make it probable that the tragedy would not end merely, as a modern drama would, with the triumph of human courage and virtue, but would also indicate how the claims of the superintendent divinity were satisfied, and her approbation secured. Dramaturgy. Such then is the story. If we now turn to the method of its dramatic representation we shall find three turning-points in the action: viz. 1. The decision of Agamemnon to proceed with the sacrifice (vv. 510 f.): 2. The discovery by Clytaemnestra, her daughter, and Achilles that the sacrifice is intended : 3. Iphigeneia’s resolution to die of her own accord. Two classifications may conveniently be made of the dramatis personae. The first hangs on the question, are they or are they not aware from the beginning of the impending catastrophe? There are three who do know the fate that overhangs the heroine : Agamemnon, Menelaus and the old Attendant. The three who do not are Clytaem¬ nestra, Iphigeneia and Achilles, and it is their discovery of it at v. 873 in the third scene of the third Ιπζισόΰίον which forms the second περιπέτεια, or turning-point, of the play. The second and more important classification has reference to the INTR OB UCTION. Xlll disposition of mind with which the personages regard the sacrifice. Menelaus and Agamemnon decide to bring it about. Clytaemnestra, Iphigeneia, Achilles and the old Henchman regard it with horror, and are prepared to do their best to avert it. This division then, is not, like the former, an equal one: there are two on one side, and four on the other. But at v. 1368, in the 6th scene of the c^oSo?, Iphigeneia, the most nearly concerned of all, deserts the larger party and ranges herself with her father and her uncle. This transition forms the supreme crisis of the tragedy. Connected with the three 7r€pi7reretat—Agamemnon’s decision, Clytaemnestra’s discovery, and Iphigeneia’s self-sacrifice—are four main scenes by which the action of the drama is advanced. The first is the 2nd scene of the first Epeisodion— vv. 317—542 (assuming, as it will afterwards be shown we may, that the scene with the messenger, vv. 414—441, is spurious), in which Agamemnon and Menelaus argue, the former against, the latter for the sacrifice. The disputants here have no great earnestness of tone. There is an almost unseemly eager¬ ness shown on both sides, not so much to convince the opponent, as to make a telling answer. A fit end to such a scene is the (perhaps feigned) renunciation by Menelaus of his pursuit and the corresponding change of front on the part of his brother. Agamemnon ends by making up his mind to do what he has all along been arguing that he could not and ought not to do, just when his brother ceases to press him to do it. Next of the four comes the scene following on the 2nd TvepLirBaa :— the fourth scene of the third Epeisodion— vv. 896—1035. In this Clytaemnestra appeals to Achilles for help, and the appeal calls forth ready sympathy in the true-hearted warrior. There is no want of earnestness in this scene, but it has no conclusive issue. Achilles promises his help in the last resort, but bids Clytaemnestra first try by words to shake her husband’s determination 1 . The third main scene—technically two scenes; the 2nd and 3rd of the Exodus— vv. 1106—1275—is that in which Agamemnon is brought face to face with his wife and daughter. The wife is unable by her reproaches, the daughter by her tearful prayers, to shake his 1 This unexpected recommendation of Achilles seems to be due to dramatic necessity. As both mother and daughter appear in the play, both of them must have the opportunity of trying to shake Agamemnon’s resolution. If either of them did not do so, it would produce the impression that she had not the matter so much at heart as the other. It would be foreign to the nature of Greek Tragedy that both should try at once. XIV INTRODUCTION. purpose. Clytaemnestra’s language is here less impassioned than in the preceding scene, when she was under the full excitement of her new discovery, but it is more dignified. For the purposes of the action this scene is more important than the preceding. The alternative there left open—was the sacrifice to be averted by persuasion or force ?— is here settled. Persuasion has done its utmost in vain. Fourthly, in the 5th scene of the Exodus— vv, 1368 —1466—we have Iphigeneia’s resolution to sacrifice herself, and the justification from her own lips of the purpose, which throughout the play has given rise to such anxious discussion, and heated dissension,—thus putting an end, in the only way possible, to both. Minor Scenes. Ί We have now reviewed the three turning-points in the action, and the scenes which form, as it were, the steps by which it proceeds. If we read these four scenes by themselves, we feel that we have had too much debating. But we are not left with these alone. In the pauses of the action come scenes which though not directly affecting the developement of events, are of the first importance as revelations of the characters of the interlocutors. Of these there are two which I think dwell in our minds more than any others in the play. The first is the stichomuthia between Agamemnon and Iphigeneia on their meeting— vv. 6^0—6^2^ The second is the meeting of Achilles and Clytaemnestra at vv. 819—854. It would be hard to find, in any drama whatever, two characters pourtrayed with more vivid individuality than are those of Iphigeneia and Achilles in these two short scenes. In the former the heroine’s tender playfulness makes dissimulation an evident torture to her father, while it heightens for the spectator the pathos of her fate. In the latter we cannot witness without sympathy, nor altogether without amusement, the “biting jest” of which Fortune makes the stately queen the butt. Both the queen’s chagrin and the humour of the situation are heightened by the fact that it is Achilles who inflicts the rebuff. All men looked up to this heaven-born prince, and Clytaemnestra was specially inclined to credit him with every virtue of conduct and demeanour. He shows in this scene, it is true, a little brusqueness and impatience, but though blunt he is not discourteous. In such company, and dealt by such a hand, the full force of the blow to the queen is clearly felt. Take Malvolio, she has indeed been “ most notoriously abused ”, INTRODUCTION. xv Characters. Notwithstanding the elaboration and distinctness of these several scenes the art of the poet never allows us to forget the central figure, and so arranges the supreme crisis in her lot, that her sacrifice serves as the touchstone to reveal the true character of all the personages in the drama. From all consideration of separate incidents and characters we turn again to the heroine, only to find her image more perfectly winning, more wonderfully noble. Each in its way the several characters are a foil to that of Iphigeneia. Even Achilles, who has in him the stuff that makes the manly ideal alike of ancient, mediaeval, and modern society, who is the first (vv. 1404 ff.) to sympathize with the heroine’s noble aspirations, who is high-souled, strong, and generous, seems harsh by the side of her tenderness. The inordinate share which a sense of personal indignity has with Achilles in determining him to act in the heroine’s defence (cf. vv. 935—942), shows a weakness to which there is no counterpart in the heroic self-abandonment of Iphigeneia. Clytaemnestra has a strong and true love for her daughter, but it is a narrow and self-regarding affection as compared with Iphigeneia’s love for her father and her country—a blind passion of a character whose subsequent faithlessness to her husband balances her true-hearted love to her child. Of Agamemnon, as he appears in this play, it must be allowed that his wife gives a true description when at v. 1012 she says κακός τις Ιστι και λίαν ταρβαΐ στρατόν. He is a poor creature in a desperate situation. Whereas Iphigeneia’s first impulse to save herself (vv. 1211—1252)— which no less a critic than Aristotle 1 has blamed as inconsistent with her later conduct—gives way to an enthusiastic self-devotion, her father’s inconsistencies are all between good impulses and base action. He loves his daughter, but is incapable of renouncing his high position to save her. It is not the glory and honour of Greece, but fear of the consequences to himself that induces him to abandon his daughter to her fate. It is a marvellous ‘ touch of nature ’ that Iphigeneia, unlike her mother, is blind to Agamemnon’s faults. To her he is an ideal father. Her love for him speaks in her intercession for him with Clytaemnestra at vv. 1456 and 1458; and her mention of him when she first reveals her determination to die (at v. 1369) shows us that love for her father, and a clear perception of his desperate situation, have had their part in forming her decision. 1 Poetics c. 15, p. 1454, 31 a. XVI INTRODUCTION. As to Menelaus, he is cool and crafty in the pursuit of his object— the recovery of his wife and the punishment of her lover. It is open to doubt, but I think his renunciation of his claims at vv. 471 ff. is meant by the poet to be only a simulated one. The suddenness with which he admits the force of the arguments he has just been combating, and the artful suggestion at V. 495 — ιτω στρατεία διαλνθεΐσ’ Ανλίδος — of the consequences of the abandonment of the pursuit—and at v. 498 of Agamemnon’s interest in the expedition —d tl κόρης σης θεσφάτων μετεστί σοι— all point to the conclusion that he sees his brother is but half-hearted in his protest, and that all that is needed to decide him to sacrifice his daughter is that he should be brought face to face with the alternative. Such a character is consistent with the picture of Menelaus which Euripides gives of him in the Andromache and in the* Orestes. It is natural too that such should be the character in Euripides of the king of that people of whom he wrote at Andromache vv. 446 ff. that they were δόλια βονλεντηρία, ι J /ενόων άνακτες , μ,ηχανορράφοι κακών , ελίκτα κονοεν νγιε?, αΑλα παν περιξ φρονουντες. It has been held by many that in the Bacchae, which like the Iphigenia Aulidensis was a work of the last days of the poet, Euripides had the special object of vindicating his belief in the supernatural against a charge of infidelity. It is well known that he had been called a woman-hater as well as an infidel by his contemporaries. Is it not possible that he designed in this other work of his old age to show the world that, in his fancy at least, a woman might be perfect ? State of the Text. Having thus attempted to show that in the Euripidean Ifhigeneia at Aulis we have a great subject nobly treated—that the arrangement of the plot and the elaboration of the main scenes reveal consummate dramatic art—I now propose to consider what are the indications that the play as we have it has suffered something more than the usual ‘ wear and tear ’ of literary transmission. The two manuscripts on which we depend for our text are No. 287 of the Palatine manuscripts in the Library of the Vatican, which_ I follow Prinz in calling P (Kirchhoff’s B), and No. 32, 2 in the Laurentian Library at Florence, Prinz’s L (Kirchhoff’s C). Both of these mss. appear to have been copied from the same original, and to INTR O D UCTION. XVII date from the 14th century. The play was first printed in the Edition of Aldus published in the year 1503, which contained all the extant plays of Euripides with the exception of the Electra. Numerous translations and adaptations to the modern stage attest the interest which the tragedy has aroused in modern times 1 . Till a little more than a hundred years ago no one seems to have suspected that the Greek text did not give us the play as it was left by Euripides. Since the publication in 1761 however of Musgrave’s Exercitationes in Euripi- dem, the authenticity of large portions (and even of the whole) of the play has been repeatedly called in question. Musgrave was the first to direct attention to the following passage of Aelian Hist. Anim. vn. 39 : ο δέ Ευριπίδης lv rfj Ιφιγένεια έλαφον δ’ ’ Αχαιών χερσίν ενθησω [φι'λαις 2 ] κερουσσαν, ην σφάζοντας αυχησουσι σην σφάζειν θυγατέρα. It was the attempt to conjecture in what part of the Iphigeneia at Aulis this quotation occurred, that gave the first impulse to a far-reaching- sceptical criticism of the text. It was clear from the first that no place could be found for such lines as these in any part of our present text. Musgrave’s own attention was directed to the irregularity in the con¬ struction of the prologue as compared with those of other Euripidean plays, and he expressed the belief that the lines quoted by Aelian come from a lost prologue spoken by Artemis to an imaginary auditor ( i.e. one not present on the stage)—either Agamemnon or Clytaemnestra. Musgrave does not suspect our present opening of being spurious, he 1 Erasmus published a Latin transla¬ tion of it (and the Hecuba) in 1524 which was frequently reprinted, especially in Italy: Ludovico Dolce about 1540 pub¬ lished an Italian version, which though not a literal translation followed the lines of the story and action of the Greek. Thomas Sibilet translated it into French in 1549. From the same century date two German translations, one by Ch. H. Postellus and one by Baptista de Roch- litz 1584. An adaptation of the tragedy to the French stage was made by Rotrou in 1641, and in 1675 Racine founded upon it his Iphigenie. In the same year another tragedy of the same name was produced by MM. Le Clerc and Coras. In 1700 an Italian translation by Maggi E. was published at Milan, and in the same year an Iphigeneia at Aulis was produced at Drury Lane. A11 Italian translation with notes of the two Iphigeneia. ’s, by Padre Dom. Giambbatt. Carraciolo, was published at Florence in 1729, an un¬ published Italian translation by A. de Pazzi is also mentioned. About 1764 appeared a translation in blank verse by the Italian Laurenzo Guazzesi, and Gluck’s opera Iphigenie en Aulide was produced in Paris in 1774. I have not here mentioned any translation of the whole of Euripides. 2 I cannot believe that φίλ cus is the right word here. Wecklein suggests \άθρφ. b XV111 INTRODUCTION imagines that the real prologue is lost. Porson at one time shared this view. In his Praelectio in Euripidem (1792) we read: “Cum enim Aelianus tres versus ex hac fabula citaverit, qui in dramate nostro, prout nunc habetur, nusquam comparent; cumque hi tres versus Dianae totam tragediae constitutionem exponenti aptissime congruant; quis dubitet, prologum hujus quoque olim fuisse dramatis, sed injuria temporis jamdudum periisse?” Subsequently Porson appears to have devoted particular attention to this play, and to have thought of editing it 1 . His final judgement was that a large portion of the exodus of the tragedy was spurious—not added to the genuine tragedy, but occupying the place of a lost part—and that in this missing part Aelian’s quotation occurred. His words are ( Supplem . ad Praef. p. 23): “Si me rogas, utra harum vera sit lectio, respondeo neutra. Nec quicquam mea refert; quippe qui persuasus sim, totam earn scenam abusque versu 1541 [1532] spuriam esse et a recentiori quodam, nescio quando, certe post Aeliani tempora suppositam”. In his note too on v. 1338 of the Orestes he expresses doubts of the genuineness of this part of the Iphigeneia at Aulis. The next important piece of external evidence which influenced the theories of scholars on the subject was a scholion on ^ 67 of the Frogs of Aristophanes. In v. 66 Dionysus says τοιουτοσι τοίννν yu,e δαρδαπτει πόθος Ένριπίόου. Heracles thereupon asks : καί ταύτα του τεθνηκότος ; The scholiast’s comment on this is : rive? βούλονται εν πρόσωπον λεγειν όλον. τινές δε Βιορίζουσι τό τον τζθνηκότος' ώ? του 'Ηρακλύονς λόγοντος αυτό, οντω γαρ και αί διδασκαλιαι φερουσι, τελεντησαντος Εΰριπιδου τον υιόν αυτού δεδιδαχεναι όμωνύμως (so V, ομώνυμον G) εν αστει ’Ιφιγένειαν την εν Αΰλίδι, Άλκ/χ αιώνα, Βάκχας. Although it happened that the discovery of the fragment in Aelian had a greater and more immediate effect on the problem, this scholion is itself a more valuable piece of evidence. Its first effect was to suggest an explanation of the irregularities of structure and diction to which attention had been called. The mention of another hand as concerned in the production of the tragedy gave rise to the idea that two separate editions of it were produced at different times, and that we have pieces of both editions unskilfully joined to make our present text. This theory fits some of the facts—fits them too well perhaps. It accounts for passages quoted from ancient authors 1 “De quo latius agam si quando ad Praef. ad Hec. p. 23. fabulam istam edendam curabo”, Supplem . IN TROD UCTION XIX which we do not find in our text 1 by supposing that they occurred in some parts of one of the editions which have not been preserved, and as for discrepancies and irregularities, ‘ what,’ says the theory, ‘ is more natural than that parts should not unite well which belonged originally to different wholes?’ This view of the two editions was supported in one form or other by Eichstadt (De dramate Graecorum comico-satyrico , Leipzig, 1793), Boeckh ( Graecae trag. princ . &c., Heidelberg, 1808), and by Bremi {Phil. Beytrdge aus-der Schweiz p. 143, Ziirich, 1819). Zirndorfer (Dr. Eur. Iph. Aul Marburg, 1838) modified this theory by supposing that both the elder and the younger Euripides wrote a play of this name, and that long afterwards a grammarian selected parts of each to make into a single play, occasionally adding something of his own. Another quotation from the Iphigeneia at Aulis in an ancient author which has been the cause of some perplexity is to be found in the 13th book of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae p. 562. The difficulty in this case is not, as in that of Aelian’s quotation, that the lines are not .to be found in our text. It would have saved a good deal of trouble if they were not; but they are there:—at vv. 548—551: and the difficulty is that they are there assigned to “the tragic poet Chaeremon”. The passage of Athenaeus is as follows: ®εόφραστος S’ iv τω Έρωτικω Χα ιρήμονά φησι τον τραγικόν λεγειν ως τον οίνον των χρωμενων τοΐς τρόποις κεράνννσθαι, ούτως καί τον ’Έρωτα' ος μετριάζων μεν εστιν ευχαρις, επι¬ τεινόμενος δε και διαταράττων χαλζπωτατος. διόπερ ό ποιητής ούτος ον κακώς αύτοΰ τας δυνάμεις διαιρών φησι Δίδυμα γάρ τόξα αυτόν εντείνεσθαι χαρίτων, τα μεν επ’ ευαίωνι τνχα, τα δ’ επί σνγκυσει βιοτάς' ο δ αυτός οΰτος ποιητής καί περί των ερωντων εν τω επιγραφομενω Τραυματία, φησίν ούτως Τίς ουχί φήσει τους ερωντας ζην μόνους ; ει δει γε πρώτον μεν στρατεντικωτάτους είναι, πονεΐν τε δνναμενους τοΐς σωμασιν μάλιστα, προσεδρενειν τ αρίστους τω πόθω, ποιητικούς, ιταμούς, προθύμους, εύπορούς, εν τοΐς άπόροις βλέποντας, άθλιωτάτονς. 1 There are two minor items of this kind of evidence which were known to Musgrave and used either by or soon after him to support his theory; (1) the gloss of Hesychius άθραυστα' άπρόσκοπα’ Ei jpi- πίδ'ης’Ιφι.'γα'είφ. rr} iv A ΰ\ίδι, (2) the state¬ ment made by the scholiast on Ar. Frogs v. 1309 ff. that Aristophanes was there quoting from the Iphigeneia at Aulis. As to the former point see on v. 57. As to the latter, the word στωμύλλετβ, which could hardly have occurred in a tragic chorus, shows the passage to be a para¬ phrase, not a literal quotation. Very probably Iph. Taur. vv. 1089 ff. was the passage the scholiast had in his mind and he wrote iv Αύλίδι by mistake for iv Ταύροις. b 2 XX INTR OD UCTION. Gruppe devotes a considerable space in his work on the Greek stage— Ariadne , Berlin, 1834—to the argument that in the construction of the plot and in its elaboration in the dialogue, the Iphigeneia at Aulis is unlike, and superior to the work of Euripides. It might, he says, have been written by Sophocles, but never by Euripides. Athenaeus, he believes, has revealed to us its real author, Chaeremon. Euripides did write a tragedy of that name, and from that tragedy, Gruppe holds, Aelian quoted in his Hist. Anim. It is not necessary to confront this theory with all the external testimony which contradicts it, because Meineke’s examination (Hist. Crit. Comic. Graec. p. 520) of the passage of Athenaeus has destroyed the force of its evidence. He has shown that the words from Θεο'φραστος δ’ to βωτας cannot have originally been written (at least intentionally) in the position and with the context they now have. Immediately before, Athenaeus had quoted a passage from the Ά7 τοκοπτόμζνος of Alexis. Stobaeus Floril. 119, 15 mentions a Τραυματίας by Alexis. The passage quoted by Athenaeus as written by 6 αυ’τος οντος ποιητης is by its language, and still more by its metre, clearly declared to be from a comedy and not a tragedy. Hence Meineke thinks it evident that by ό αυτός ουτος Ίτοίητης Alexis is meant:—and moreover that Athenaeus, after writing the passage containing the two quotations from the comedies of Alexis, finding in Theophrastus the apposite quotations from Chaeremon and Euripides, inserted them carelessly, without giving the full context of the passage from Theophrastus, and taking no more care to distinguish between Euripides and Chaeremon than between the author of the Iphigeneia and the author of the Traumatias x . With Matthiae, whose edition of Euripides appeared between the years 1813 and 1829, begins a new era in the criticism of our play. The course which he took is the one which the majority of subsequent critics have followed in the main. He rejects the above-mentioned conjectures as to the two editions or the two plays, and regards the tragedy as the work of Euripides, left by him incomplete at his death, finished and arranged by the younger Euripides for the stage, but in such a manner as to leave gaps and inconsistencies, which gave rise to later alterations and additions by various hands. The main points in this view are the recognition of an original imperfection, and of the varying character and date of the interpolations. The imperfection may have been due, as Matthiae thought, to the fact that the author left the work unfinished at his death, or to an early mutilation of the 1 On the play of Chaeremon bearing chische Tragoedien , vol. III. pp. 1086 ff. the title Τραυματίας see Welcker, Grie- INTRODUCTION. XXI manuscript containing it. Naturally the views of scholars on the spuriousness of particular passages have varied greatly. On the main question however Matthiae is found to be in company with Hermann (1831 and 1847.), Hartung (1837), Monk (1840), Dindorf, Kirchhoff, Nauck, Paley, Klotz, Hennig 1 and Vitelli 2 . While these scholars differ among themselves in the appreciation and interpretation of the external evidence, they agree in holding that the internal evidence which condemns parts of the play is overpowering —that the inconsistencies, the superfluities, the inequalities of style, and (in the epilogue) the imperfections of the metre are so numerous and important as to compel the belief that other hands than that of Euripides have had a share in the work:—that if they did not make the gaps, at all events they filled up large gaps which they found. Two scholars of note, however, stand champions for the integrity of the play as it has come down to us. Firnhaber (. Eurip . Iph. in Aulis , Leipzig, 1841), and Weil ( Sept Tragedies d'Euripide , Paris, 2nd ed. 1879) maintain that the text is genuine from beginning to end : that such imperfections as disfigure it are due to the ordinary accidents of manuscript transmission, and are not beyond the cure of an acute and learned textual criticism. The full force of the internal evidence can only be brought out by a detailed commentary. Many of the debateable points turn on the interpretation of particular words and sentences which cannot be understood apart from their context. But there are one or two features of the text which may with advantage be viewed separately in this introduction, and which, I think, are enough to prove that the majority of modern scholars are right in their judgement of the general question. To begin with: the prologue ( vv. 1—163) consists of two passages of anapaestic dialogue with a long speech in iambics coming between them. If we leave the Rhesus out of account—partly because of its doubtful authorship, but still more because we are told in the second υπόθεσις to the play that it originally had an iambic prologue which had been lost, and for which another spurious prologue (also in iambics) had been substituted—the only other tragedy of Euripides which we have any reason to think began with anapaests was the Andromeda. The scholiast on v. 1065 of the Thesmophoriazusae of Aristophanes says of the passage beginning ώ νϊ>£ ιερά that it is του προλόγου ’Ανδρομέδας εισβολή, and again at v. 1070 he says και τούτο εκ του 1 De Iph. Aid. forma ac condicione, 2 Osservazioni intorno ad alcuni luoghi Berlin, 1870. della Ifigenia in Aulide (Florence, 1877). XXII INTRODUCTION, προλόγου, and at V. 1072 λείπει μέλλουσ a τυχεΐν — i.e. in the Andromeda the words μέλλουσα τυχεΐν followed θανάτου τλημων. The words τ. π. "A. εισβολή are usually taken to mean ‘ the beginning of the prologue of the Andromeda ’. Fritzsche in his note on the passage in Aristo¬ phanes translates the words “pars post prologum proxima’. Bohnhoff (“ Der Prolog der Iphigenie in Aulis des Eur.”— Programm des stddt- ische?i Gymn. in Freienwalde a. O. 1885 — p. 7) takes προλόγου to be a mistake for παρόδου. If there is a mistake, it seems to me preferable to conjecture that we have here an instance of the very usual confusion in uncial mss. between έκ and είς, and that the passage was described by the scholiast as του προλόγου "Ανδρομέδας εκβολή (for the word in the sense of ‘conclusion’ cf. Hesych. and Eustath. p. 900). The whole passage as far as we can gather it from Aristophanes ran thus : ω νυξ ιερά πως μακρόν ιππευμα διώκεις άστεροειδέα νώτα διφρευουσ’ αίθέρος ιεράς του σεμνοτάτου δι Όλυμπου ; τι ποτ *Ανδρομέδα περίαλλα κακών μέρος έξέλαχον θανάτου τλημων μέλλουσα τυχεΐν ; This passage is a monody—at Thesm. 1077 Mnesilochus, when inter¬ rupted by Euripides as Echo, says “ώ ’ γάθ ’ έ'ασόν με μονωδήσαι ”— and is spoken by Andromeda. As it is an address to Night it may be supposed to be spoken before daybreak. V 1098 of the Thesm. shows us that the monody preceded Perseus’s first appearance on the stage. Probably Echo was brought in by Euripides in the Andromeda, but it is not necessary to suppose that she appeared in the place in which the comic poet introduces her— i.e. so as to interrupt the monody. It would be a natural arrangement that the monody should come at the end of an ordinary iambic prologue and accompany the approach of the chorus. The anapaests are apparently not lyric anapaests, but such as accom¬ pany a march. However that may be, it was not—like the anapaestic prologue in our text of the Iph. in Aul. —a dialogue, and it is difficult to see how a monody begun in such a strain could have been made to serve the purpose of enlightening the.spectator about the circumstances of the following action. This however is a question about which I, at least, cannot be certain, and it is possible that after all εισβολή is the right word and that it meant ‘ beginning ’. It remains for us to consider the bearing of this matter on the INTRODUCTION. Λ · 6 XX111 present question. In the face of the scholion at the beginning of the Hecuba — εποίησε 8έ τούτο d ποιητης ξεπίτηδες, ϊνα δηλα πάσι ποίηση τα κατά τον Πολύδωρον, ο και εν αρχή πάντων των αντον δραμάτων ποιεΐν εΐωθεν — and of the words of Aristotle at Rhet. hi. p. 1415, 18 a — και oi TpayLKol δηλονσ ι περί το' δράμα , καν μη ενθνς ωσ7 τερ Ευ’/οιπιδ?;?, αλλ εν τω ί τρολόγω γέ που δηλοί, ώσπερ και Σοφοκλής “ εμοί πατήρ ην Ιίόλνβος ”— and of the ridicule of Aristophanes on this very ground— Frogs 946, where Euripides is made to say: αλλ’ ουριών πρώτιστα μεν μο ι το' γενο? ειπ’ άν ευ#υ? του δράματος — in the face of all this distinct testimony to Euripides’s universal custom, I think it is difficult to admit on the strength of the Aristophanes scholion above quoted that the Andromeda formed an exception. But surely this admission, if made, instead of opening the door, as some have thought, for a further admission in the case of the Iphigeneia at Au/is, closes it effectually. The words εν αρχή πάντων των δραμάτων are irreconcileable with two exceptions. It may be taken then as nearly certain that Euripides provided our play with an iambic prologue of the usual kind. Such a prologue we have in vv. 49—114. As Wecklein says, it did not need the quotation of a line of it by Aristotle (. Rhetoric 111. 1411, 29 b) to stamp it as the genuine work of Euripides. It bears that stamp on every line 1 . But in our text it does not stand as a prologue (in the narrower sense), but as an answer to the Old Attendant’s eager question in v. 43 τι πονεις ; τι νεον περί σοι, βασιλεύ ; Such an answer — a historical review of all the previous circumstances, and a detailed statement of the present predicament of the Greek leaders and their army, containing no hint until v. no that it is addressed to any special person—is ridiculously out of place. Besides the Old Man knew it almost all already. The change of metre too is awkward. Nowhere else can be found one long iambic passage answering and answered by anapaests, and forming with the anapaests an uninterrupted conversation. It should be remembered moreover that the most vital characteristic of the Euripidean prologue was, not that it was in iambics, nor that it was a monologue, but that it at once (ενθνς) put the audience in a position to understand the action, motives, and condition of the dramatis personae. Now, however significant this somewhat rambling conversation (vv. 1—48) may be to those who know what is happening, 1 G. Dindorf, Eur. ill. p. 441, Poet. sage unworthy of Euripides and assigned Seen. p. 264—thgouht this iambic pas- it to Euripides minor. XXIV INTR OD UCTION. we may feel sure that it would have puzzled and amazed an audience who came to hear a play of Euripides, to have to search for their clue in 50 lines of conversation between Agamemnon and an Old Man on the time of night, on the disadvantages of rank, and the necessity of contentment. ' A second difficulty which attends the usual arrangement of the prologue is this. At v. 106, after explaining the plan by which Iphigeneia is to be brought to Aulis, Agamemnon says none of the Greeks know of it except Calchas, Odysseus, Menelaus, and himself. Yet at v. 124 the Old Attendant asks ‘how can Achilles be expected to put up with the loss of his bride?’ To this Agamemnon at v. 128 answers that Achilles knows nothing of their plan. If this were a comedy Agamemnon’s long speech might be conceived to have sent the old man to sleep, and thus we could account for his not knowing what Agamemnon had just told him. But this is not a comedy; so commentators who uphold the mss. arrangement have to suppose either, as Hermann did at first, though he gave it up later, that Agamem¬ non had spoken 106 ffi (for some inconceivable reason) aside—“sub¬ mission voce et aversum ab sene ”—or else, as Weil, and (practically) Firnhaber do, that the old man was exceptionally stupid. Weil thinks that the old man’s denseness (or inattention) was arranged by the poet to give an opportunity of saying over again a thing which it was important for the spectators to notice. This does not sound like tragic art. Hennig, to remove this difficulty, rejects vv. 124—132 as spurious— put in by some one who thought VV. 133 ff. δείνα y ετόλμας κ. r. λ. inconsistent with Agamemnon’s words as given in vv. 115—123. But, as Vitelli well observes, it is even easier to believe that a manifest inconsistency such as that between vv. 124 ffi and 106 ff. should be left by inadvertence by the author of the play, than that it should be deliberately inserted by a would-be improver. Wecklein ( Ztschr. f. d. Oest. Gymn. xxix. p. 721) would get out of both difficulties by rejecting all the anapaests which come before the iambic passage (i.e. vv. 1—48) as spurious, and supposing that the old man only came on the stage after the iambic passage had been spoken. Hartung (whose arrangement Hermann approves of in his latest discussion of the play, see Ofinsc. vm. 218 ff.) also avoids both difficulties— i.e. that arising out of the position of the iambic prologue and secondly that of the contradiction between vv. 106 f. and vv. 124 ff. He supposes that, as Euripides wrote this play, first came the iambic prologue (vv. 49 ff); then the first anapaestic passage (vv. 1 —48), and INTRODUCTION. XXV then the second anapaestic passage (vv. 115 ff.). But inasmuch as v. 115 (or v. 117) does not make sense when following immediately on v. 48, he supposes that a passage (of 10 or 15 lines) was lost—“resectis utrimque uno alterove versu, substitutisque novis quibusdam ”, Hartung (I. in A.) p. 85. In these lines Agamemnon would no doubt have told the old servant what the former letter contained, and that he now wished to send another 1 . Bohnhoff (ut supra) adopts the same arrangement of the different passages and the assumption of a lacuna after v. 48, but differs from Hartung in his conjectures as to the origin of the transposi¬ tion which has produced the mss. arrangement. The latter thinks the passages were deliberately transposed by some one who thought the Euripidean prologue artistically a blemish 2 . Bohnhoff {ut supra p. xxii.) believes that the transposition was due to an accident: that the first page in a ms. copy of the play got loose and was turned round sideways and bound up the wrong way—so that what was really p. 1 became p. 2, and vice versa : that on the original p. 1 was the iambic prologue, and on p. 2 the first 55 or 60 anapaests, of which the few last have been lost owing to the damaging of the lower part of the loose page: that vv. no—114 were the work of a late interpolator into whose hands the ms. came in its transposed form, and who saw that the gap must be filled up somehow. While then all these considerations do not enable us to say that it is impossible that Euripides could have arranged a prologue such as our mss. give us (or that there is no possible way out of the second difficulty but those given above), I have no hesitation in accepting the hypothesis of a subsequent displacement of the parts of the prologue, as affording the most satisfactory explanation of the facts, and I have in the arrangement of the text endeavoured to restore the ‘ erratic block ’ to its original position, though I cannot hope to remove all traces of its long sojourn on foreign soil, nor to efface the scars which its intrusion has left in its unnatural position. That is, I have printed the iambics first, and left a lacuna in the middle of the anapaests. For the sake of convenience of reference I have affixed the ordinary numbers at the side of the lines. To proceed: it is almost universally admitted that the second half of the first stasimon is an interpolation. The reasons for this belief will be found in the commentary on vv. 231—302. 1 The probability that we have a la- port this hypothesis, cuna between vv. 33 and 34, the possible 2 See also Hartung’s views on the spuriousness of vv. 43—48 and of vv. Exodus, no—114 (see commentary), serve to sup- XXVI INTRODUCTION. The only other part of the play which need be discussed here is the Exodus— vv. 1532 to the end. It has been seen above that Porson condemned it. He was doubtless moved both by the imper¬ fections of metre and language, as well as by the passage in Aelian. There is however a third kind of internal evidence to consider besides the metrical and the linguistic, and that is the fitness of the Exodus from the point of view of Euripidean dramatic construction. It will be seen that the tragedian must have been in no little perplexity as to his denouetnent. Every indication in the play up to v. 1531 points to a consummation of the sacrifice. But the death of the heroine could not fail to jar upon an audience who were familiar—and had been made familiar by a previous play of the poet himself—with the story of her rescue by means of the substitution of a doe. On the other hand, according to all versions of the story, Iphigeneia’s own con¬ temporaries know nothing, until long afterwards, of her rescue 1 . Clytaemnestra, both by Aeschylus (Ag. 1417) and by Sophocles (Electra 530 ff.), is made to plead Iphigeneia’s sacrifice as a justification of her husband’s murder. In this very play, at v. 1182, and still more clearly at v. 1455, she uses words which would clearly indicate to the audience her intention to revenge her daughter by the murder of her husband on his return from Troy when she says to her daughter :— δεινούς αγώνας διά σε δει κείνον δρ α/χειν. Schiller’s remark quoted above (p. xii.) shows that he would have been content that the play should end without any explicit statement of the heroine’s fate and its effect on the survivors. It may be doubted whether a Greek audience \vould have submitted to this obscuration of the crowning action of the piece. Certainly Euripides would be the last man among dramatic authors to leave the whole of a tale untold. Not only did he make more use than his contemporaries of messengers’ speeches to enable him to tell his story fully, but he liked the story itself, as it were, to be fitted with a framework of previous and subsequent history. His prologues bring up the history to the point where the action begins, and when he uses a deus ex machina (as he was notoriously prone to do) it was not 2 because there was a “dignus 1 At v. 563 of the Iph. in Taur. Iphigeneia asks Orestes τί δέ', σφα^εία-ης dvyarpbs έ'στι tls \ 6 yos ; and he answers ούδείς ye , πλην θανοΰσαν ούχ δράν φάος. 2 See Hartung lit sup. pp. 92 f., also Mahaffy, Euripides p. 122. Aristotle is to be followed rather than the hint of Horace in a definition of the province in Greek tragedy of a deus ex machina. His words are (Poet. c. 15): άλλα μηχανή χρηστέον έπί τα έξω του δράματος η 'όσα πρδ του yiyovev, ά ούχ οΐόν τε άνθρωπον είδέναι., τ) όσα ύστερον, ά δείται 7 rpoayopeti· σεως καί ayyeXias' άπαντα yap άποδίδομεν τοϊς θεοί s δράν. INTRODUCTION XXVll vindice nodus” but because he wishes, by the help of a divine fore¬ knowledge, to put before the spectators such future events or unknown circumstances as shall settle their minds, satisfy all curiosity, and connect the subject of the piece with subsequent events, or, even with the times of living men. It must be confessed that the Exodus of this play succeeds par¬ tially in avoiding the peculiar difficulties of the situation. It does not definitely state, either that Iphigeneia was slaughtered or was not. The spectators would know what the sudden appearance of the doe meant, but the survivors on the stage would not. They are left with the belief that Iphigeneia has been taken away to the gods. The messenger says at V. 1608 ή παΐς σαφώς σοί προς θεονς αφίπτατο, and Agamemnon at ν. 1622 ίγει yap όντως iv θεοΐς ομιλίαν. There is nothing here to preclude the future discovery that she has been taken away by Artemis to be her priestess among the Tauri. At the same time we have nothing to show us that the divine interposition had at all reconciled Clytaemnestra to the loss of her daughter, or diminished her desire to be revenged for it upon her husband. In this respect the conclusion is not one which we should expect from Euripides. When we come to examine the passage in detail we find in it several marks proclaiming it the work of another hand 1 than that of Euripides. It is very difficult to believe that the poet would have reproduced so closely—in some instances verbally—the scene of the slaughter of Polyxena in the Hecuba. The full correspondence of the two scenes can only be felt when both are read together. As the most striking instances of verbal correspondence may be mentioned the following. Hec. VV. 548 f. εκονσ a θνήσκω· μή τις αφηται χροος τονμον, παρέχω γάρ δερην ενκαρδίως. Iph. τονμον δε σώμα... θνσαι δίδωμ εκονσα... προς ταντα μή φανσΎ] τις Apyειωv εμον * σιγή παρέξω yap δερην ενκαρδίως. 1 It would be more correct to say ‘other hands’, for from v. 1568 onwards far more and grosser faults of all kinds are discernible than in the previous part of the Exodus. (The fresh handwriting in P begins at v. 1572. We might almost fancy that the first copier wrote two lines, and, finding what the rest was like, let it alone.) The main charge however — of being a manifest imitation of the scene in the Hecuba —applies to both parts of the Exodus, so the variety of hands need not be noticed here. xxvm INTRODUCTION. llec. V 7 J. 535 ff. δε£αι χοάς μον τασδε... ... ελθε δ’ ως ττίης μελαν κόρης ακραιφνές αΐμ' ό σοι δωρονμεθα στρατός τε κάγω. Iph. δε'£αι τδ θνμα τδδ’ δ γε σοι δωρονμεθα στρατός τ' Αχαιών 'Αγαμέμνων άναξ θ' όμον, άχραντον αίμα καλλιπαρθενον δερης. Talthybius too is made to discharge the herald’s part in both the sacrifices. But, what is most suspicious of all, Achilles is made in the Iphigeneia to take a very similar part in the sacrifice of the heroine to that taken at Polyxena’s by his son. In the Hecuba (v. 523) we read : 7 τλήρες δ’ ε v χεροΐν λαβών δεττας πάγχρνσον αίρει χειρί τταΐς Άχιλλεως. In the Iphigeneia : ό τταΐς δ’ ο' ΙΙ^λεως εν κνκλω βωμόν θεάς λαβών κάνουν εθρεξε, χερνιβάς θ' όμον. It is inconceivable that Achilles, who, as we have seen, had done his best to dissuade Iphigeneia from her act of self-devotion, and had even promised to be at hand with an armed force to rescue her if she should relent at the last moment, should appear in this character at the sacrifice itself. Some further indications of a late hand may be mentioned. We find, not only such linguistic peculiarities as εθρεξε (v. 1569), iva ττληξειεν αν ( V . 1579), ττας τις ησθετ αν (ΐ). 1582), εραίνετ (ν. 1589)? ΟΥ ταντην μάλιστα της κόρης άσττάζεται ( V . 1594)? tmt such unmetrical verses as 1562, 1568, 1570, 1589 ( ης αΐματι βωμός εραίνετ άρδην της θεόν), 1593? Σ 59 ^ (ηδεως τε τοντ εδε£ατο και πλουν ονριον), 1599 (χωρεΐ τε προς νανν ως ήμόρα τηδε δει — evidently the work of some one whose pronunciation of ήμερα by the accent took the place of the classical rules as to quantity), 1610, 1611, and 1612, and such anapaestic lines as 1617, 1619 (και μην 'Αγαμέμνων άναξ στείχει — again scanned by the accent), and 1620 (τουσδ’ αΰτους εχων σοι φράζειν μνθονς - u ν-υυ -). On the other hand in the 74 iambic lines beginning at v. 1540 there are, if we omit proper names, hardly 10 trisyllabic feet: a proportion far lower than is usual in any of Euripides’s later plays. Matthiae, from the fact that at the moment of the sacrificial prayer we are told (at v. 1577) that the eyes of all were turned to the ground, conjectured, not unnaturally, that the passage was written INTRODUCTION. XXIX by a Christian, inasmuch as that was not an attitude familiar to an old Greek religious assembly. It is further to be noticed that in P from v. 1570 to the end is written in a different hand—the same hand that wrote the first 36 lines of the spurious fragment of the Danae '. The new hand begins two lines from the bottom of p. 146 b (of the ms.), and after the Danae fragment there is a column and three following pages left blank. This looks as if the writer of P either had not found any more in the ms. from which he copied, or else did not think what was there was worth copying, and had left some blank pages in his ms. which were afterwards filled in by another hand, copying perhaps from another original. The Hippolytus , which is the next play which follows after the gap, is in the same hand as all the rest of the ms. At all events it is the fact that some of the Danae fragment, which has been well shown by Elmsley and Jacobs 2 to be spurious, is in the same hand as the latter part of our Exodus. This indication that th€ two came from the same source involves the latter in suspicion. Then comes the question, what are we to say to Aelian’s quotation ? Weil tries to show that it could not possibly have come in the play. But his arguments would equally exclude the fragment from any play on the same subject. Most modern scholars accept Aelian’s testimony, and believe the verses to have been part of the missing Exodus of the play. Wecklein 3 , for instance, regards the fragment as of cardinal import¬ ance to the criticism of the play, and acquits Aelian of any mis-quotation or mis-citation. I cannot arrive at this certainty myself. It should be observed that Aelian does not say the lines come from the Iphigeneia at Antis , only from the Iphigeneia of Euripides. It seems to me very possible that an indistinct remembrance of the words ελαφον άντίΰονσά μου V A ρτεμίζ Άχαί,οΓς, which occur at v. 28 of the Tauric Iphigeneia , led Aelian to locate there a fragment which came from somewhere else:—not, I think, from Sophocles’ Iphigeneia; for this use of a νχησονσι was not Sophoclean, though it was common later:—possibly from the Iphigeneia of Polyeidus the Sophist mentioned by Aristotle in the Poetics (c. 16). Everyone 1 Wilam.-Moellendorf {Analecta Eti- ripidea p. 8) thinks this hand the same that wrote the earliest corrections. The hand that wrote the last 27 lines of the Danae fragment seemed to me the same as that which wrote the word κατεΐδε r over π ροσέβη* at v. 824. 2 See the references in Dindorf Poet. Seen. Eur. Frag. 1117. 3 Zeitschr. fur die Oesterr. Gymn. Vol. xxix. (1878) p. 721. XXX INTRO D UCTION knows in his own case, and in that of others, how a quotation which, owing to some prominent feature, has acquired an independent existence in the memory, loses its hold on its original context and easily makes new connexions— i.e. becomes associated in the mind with some other slightly similar context. For instance, the indistinct memory of King Lear’s words; “that she may feel How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is To have a thankless child” often leads to the assigning well-known parts of Amiens’ song in Act n. Sc. 7 of ‘ As you like it ’ to King Lear. In ancient times the difficulty of procuring copies of authors, the difficulty, in the absence of numbered pages and lines, of finding a special passage, left an author tenfold more exposed to the danger of mis-locating a quotation. But we need notl go only to ancient times, or to obscure or ill-trained minds, for such mistakes. It is curious that at p. 46 of vol. iv. of the collected edition of his prose works (1878) Sir Henry Taylor quotes a passage from the ‘Taming of the Shrew’, and says in a footnote (added in this edition) that it comes from the ‘Winter’s Tale’. If a distinguished writer, after the publication of a Concordance to Shakspere, can make such a slip, how much more likely was a man in Aelian’s day to make a similar one. With this possibility of error in view, and in consideration of the difficulty which has been generally felt of finding a place in our play for Aelian’s fragment—of imagining, that is, circumstances under which the words could have been spoken to any of the personages—we ought, I think, to refuse to this piece of evidence the high position which Wecklein and others assign to it. It started the discussion, but it ought not to rule it. I have given reasons for thinking that our Exodus is not the work of Euripides, but of at least two distinct hands of very unequal skill. Many scholars will still prefer to believe that Euripides did write an Exodus, and that the fragment in Aelian was a part of it. I incline to think that Aelian cited the passage wrongly and that Euripides left the play unfinished. The claims of this latter view can only be estimated properly by one who has carefully examined all the other passages where it is likely that spurious lines have been interpolated, and where it is possible therefore that gaps existed 1 . 1 There is much that is attractive and holds ( Osserv . &c. p. 61 ff.) that Euripi- much that is ingenious about Vitelli’s des the younger found the play without way of unravelling the mystery. He an exodus, and composed one: that as INTR OD UCTION XXXI Time of Production. The second important piece of external evidence mentioned above (p. xviii.), i.e. the scholiast’s note on Aristoph. Frogs v. 67, is, I think, to be trusted without hesitation, though its significance has not always been clearly understood. The passage of Aristophanes as well as the scholiast’s note must be considered. Dionysus in the Frogs must be taken to represent the average public opinion of the Athenian theatre¬ goers. An expression by Dionysus of a longing for Euripides roused by reading his Andromeda , and a resolution to fetch him up from the dead, can only mean that the Athenian public would gladly again see Euripides on the stage. Such a desire might conceivably have been satisfied by the reproduction of some old plays, but it is on all accounts more natural to suppose that both Aristophanes and his audience knew that the poet had left some unpublished dramas behind him at his death. At any rate the scholiast on v. 67 1 connected with the expression of Dionysus’s desire the statement of the didascaliae that Euripides the younger produced after the poet’s death the three tragedies which he names. “ As a matter of fact (καί) ” he says “that is what did happen. Euripides did appear on the stage. His son produced three of his tragedies at the great Dionysia, and in so doing, instead of producing them in his own name, preserved the name of the author” — i.e. Ευριπίδης ό Μνησάρχον — for this I take to be the meaning of the much discussed δμωνύμως. ετερωνυμως might have been used of posthumous or other works published under another name than their author’s, άνωνυμως of work published under no name, δμωνύμως would then mean ‘ name and all ’, ‘ keeping the author’s name \ The quotation from the didascaliae is supported in its main facts by statements made by Suidas (s.v. Ευριπίδης) and the author of the life of far as v. 1571 we have his work, and that the fragment of Aelian belongs to the latter half of the younger Euripides’ exodus, lost at a much later time by an accident, the place of which lost passage was filled by some late Byzantine with our vv. 1572—1629: that the words £\αφον δ’ ’Αχαιοί? χβρσίν κ.τ.λ. were part of a speech spoken by Artemis to Agamem¬ non (οΐιρ φαινομένη) in order to deter him from attempting to rescue Iphigeneia at the last moment from the sacrificial knife, and to make him resigned to the divinely ordered course of events. Vitelli prefers to think that such resignation, though possible in Agamemnon, was impossible for Clytaemnestra. 1 I believe that the scholion on v. 67 consists of two independent notes, so that the yap after the οϋτω does not intro¬ duce an explanation of the previous words about the division of the line between the interlocutors, but is the ordinary yap with which such explanatory notes are often introduced. XXX11 INTR OD UCTION. Euripides. The words of the former are: νίκας δέ εΓλετο e, τάς μ\ν τεσσαρας ττερίων, rrjv δε μίαν μετά τελευτή ν } ετηΒειέ,αμενον το Βραμα τον αδελφιδοΰ αντον Evpnri δου. The latter, speaking of the poet’s third son (named Euripides), says os εδιδα£ε τον πατρος ενια Βρόματα. Euripides died some time in the summer of 406 b.c. The Frogs was produced at the Lenaea, i.e. in January b.c. 405. We may conjecture therefore with much probability, that the Iphigeneia at Aulis, with the Bacchae and the Alcmaeon (the one called 6 διά Κορόζου), was put on the stage by the younger Euripides at the Great Dionysia,—in March, that is, in the year 405 b.c. The Manuscripts. In the critical notes are set down the readings of the mss. P and I) (see above, p. xvi.) wherever they differ from each other, or from the printed text. On giving the readings of L, I rely, with much gratitude to its learned author, on the collation and facsimiles published by Prof. Vitelli of Florence in his Osservazioni i. a. ale. luo. d. If. in Aul. Florence 1877. The ms. P I have collated myself. I also compared with the ms. the critical notes of Kirchhoff, and the collation of v. Wil.-Moellendorf given in his Analecta Euripidea. Of these two colla¬ tions I found the latter by far the more complete and accurate, though I am by no means always ready to accept the decision of this scholar 1 as to the distinction between P, P 2 , and p. I was not able myself to arrive at any very definite conclusion about the dates of the corrections. Some are evidently of much later date than others. There are a large number of apparently early corrections of P to the reading of L; others again where both mss. had the same original reading and are corrected in the same way. I do not think there are nearly so many where L has been assimilated to P. This would suggest that P was compared with L or an early copy of it. At least one ignorant reader has left traces in P in the shape of stops put in where he thought there was a break in the construction, and ‘long’ marks over vowels where he thought the metre required it. It is possible that this reader was the same as the latest corrector. (See C. N. on v. 92.) 1 See Analecta Eur. p. 8. ΕΥΡΙΤΤΙΔΟΥ ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ TTpo'AOfOC. ΑΓΑ. iyevovro Αήδα ®εστιάδι τρεις παρθένοι, Φ οίβη Κ Χυταιμνηστρα τ εμη ξυνάορος 5 ° 'Κλενη τε * ταντης οί τά ττρωτ ωΧβισμενοι μνηστήρες ηΧθον Έλ,λ,άδο? νεανίαι. δειναι δ’ άττειΧαι και κατ άΧΧηΧων φόνος 53· φθόνος Markland and Matthiae. 49· Θίσ-τιάδι] Euripides is fond of these patronymic adjectives—other exx. are Τυνδαρίς, Τ υνδάρειος, Ηράκλειος, Ile- λιάς, Ύιτανίς. 50. Φοφη] not mentioned elsewhere except by Ovid Her. vm. 77. €μή ijwaopos] It is usual in a Euripidean prologue for the speaker to announce his (or her) name. In this case Ag. suffi¬ ciently declares who he is when he says that his wife’s name is Clytaemnestra. 52. μνηστήρίξ ηλθον] As a secon- daiy predicate to έλθεΐν an adjective or verbal noun often indicates a purpose : ταύτης μνηστήρες ηλθον is equivalent to ταύτην ηλθον μνηστεύσοντες. Cf. Isocra¬ tes Enc. Hel. p. 216 ύπεριδόντες τούς οίκοι 7 άμους ηλθον εκείνην μνηστεύσοντες. So Ilec. 239 οΐσθ’ ηνίκ ήλθες ’Ιλίου κατά¬ σκοπος. Or. 1300 £λθ' επίκουρον εμοΐσι φίλοισι. Ion 297 επίκουρος έλθών. Έλ- λάδοδ] this gen. may depend purely on νεανίαι or (better) partly also on τά πρώτ ’ ώλβισμένοι which words are a ‘tragic’, i.e. somewhat grandiose variety of the simple όλβιώτατοι. Cf. for the gen. Soph. Ajax 435 τά πρώτα καλλιστεΐ’ άριστεύσας στρατού, and ib. ν. 1300 στρα¬ τού τά πρωτ’ άριστεύσας. 53—57· ‘And it was frightful to hear one threaten the other with death if he failed to win the maiden. So difficult was the decision, the giving and the refusing alike, that her father Tyndareos was at a loss how to enjoy fortune’s blessing without disaster ’. 53. κατ’ άλλήλων] But for these words the sentence would imply that each suitor threatened Tyndareos with death if his request were refused. 2 ΕΥΡΙΤΤΙΔΟΥ ξυνίσταθ\ όστις μη Χάβοί την 'παρθένον, το π pay μα δ’ άπόρως είχε Ύυνδάρεω ττατρί, 55 δούναι τ€ μη δούναι Τ6, τής τύχης όπως αψαιτ αθραυστα. καί vlv είσήΧθεν τάδε, 'όρκους συνάψαι δεξιάς Τ6 συμβαΧεΐν μνηστήρας αΧΧηΧοισι καί δι έμπυρων σπονδάς καθεΐναι κάπαράσασθαι τάδε* 6ο οτου γυνή yevoiTO Τ υνδαρϊς κόρη, τούτω συναμυνεΐν, εϊ τις εκ δόμων Χαβων οϊχοιτο τόν τ’ εχοντ άπωθοίη Χεχους, [κάπιστρατευσαν καί, κατασ κάψαν ττόΧιν 54· written over μή in L without much regard for the construction, by someone who thought the δστις clause must refer to the object of the threats. 56. Hemsterhuys had the penetration to see that αθρανστα (Hesych. αθρανστα * άπρόσκοπα. Ένριπίδης Ίφιχενείφ τη εν Αύλίδι) suited this passage better than the similar and commonplace άριστά. 62. σνναμύνειν PL, σνναμννειν Heath. 63. άπώσασθαι (in an erasure) P, άπωθοίη L. 64. καπιστρατεύειν PL, κάπιστρατεύσειν Markland.— κατασκάψειν corr. to κατασκάπτειν P, κατασκάψειν L. 54 · ξυνίσ-ταθ’] Literally ‘began to take shape o 3° an d at ρ. 185, 3 (of the same statement) oh και δ Ευριπίδης έν τη κατ’ αύτδν Ίφι yeveiq, συvηy ορεΐ (Matthiae). At Electra 1082 in a notable passage El. says of her father δν 'Ελλά* αυτής εϊλετο στρατηλάτην. It looks as if Eustathius knew this play better than the Electra. Perhaps Matt, is right in thinking that Eust. refers to vv. 337 ff. 88. αττλοία χρώμενοι] ‘weather-bound’ as we should say. Hennig (on w. 6 —ri) prefers to consider that it was the want of any wind—a dead calm—that kept the Greeks at Aulis. The only passage in this play which favours this view is vv. iof.:— aiyal δ ' άνέμων τδνδε κατ' Ε ϋρι- 7 τον έχουσιν. But this was in the night, and there could be no question of the fleet’s starting in the night. At v. 352 the detention is spoken of as due to the lack of an ουρία πομπή. At v. 1323 Iph. wishes Zeus had never sent the Greek fleet the άνταία πομπά which prevented their sailing. Aeschylus {Ag. 192 ff.) represents the Greek fleet as prevented from sailing by stormy weather. Fi 15 of Enr./. T. has been very variously emended and made to suit the ‘ calm ’ theory as well as the ‘storm’ theory. Soph. El. 564 has also been variously interpreted and emended. Livy (xxviii. 6) in describing the port of Aulis says it is about as bad a station for a fleet as could be found anywhere. The squalls were sudden and violent and the constant —the proverbial—changes of current quite baffled calculation. Pausanias vm. 28. 4 says cos δε τοΊς'Έιλλησιν ούκ έyίyι >ετο έπίφορα έξ Α ύλίδος πνεύματα άλλα άνεμος σφάς βίαιος έπί χρόνον εϊχεν έyκλείσας κ.τ.λ. Euripides himself had no doubt often seen crowds of ships waiting for a wind at this spot. When we consider that, in addition to the natural difficulties of the place, the Greeks suffered from special divine interposition enhancing those difficulties, we shall see that it is out of place to enquire too closely into the possibilities of the case, or to expect to find in the work of the tragedian an 6 ΕΥΡΙΤΤΙΔΟΥ Κάλχα? δ’ 6 μάντις απορία κεχρημενοις άνεΐΧεν 'Ιφιγένειαν ήν εσττειρ' β’γώ 9 ° Άρτεμιδι θυσαι rf) τόδ' οίκονσρ ί τεδον, καί 7 τΧουν τ’ εσεσθαι καί κατασκαφά ? Φρυγών [#υσασι, μη θνσασι δ’ οχ,κ είναι τάδε]. κΧνων δ’ β’γώ ταυτ, δρθίω κηρνηματι being the emphasizing καί — ‘ me of all men,—I wish they hadn’t ’. 89. κεχρη- μένος PL, κεχρημένψ Hemsterhuys, κεχρημένοι s Heath and Markland, and so almost all edd. Firnhaber keeps the MSS. reading, referring to Achilles’ abuse of seers at vv. 956 if. But this amounts to saying that Ag. believed Calchas had no divine warrant for demanding Iph.’s sacrifice, and consequently that it would have no efficacy to secure a fair wind. There is not a hint of this elsewhere. 92. κατα- σφα -yas PL. In P a late hand has crossed out φ and 7 and written κ and φ over them respectively. So Aid. and all edd. except Mehlhorn and Firnhaber. Other instances will be noticed in this play where the late corrections of P correspond with the readings of Aid., suggesting either that the corrections were made by someone who had the Alcline edition in hand, or that the scholar (Musurus?) who superintended the printing of that edition used this MS. and corrected it as he went on. 93. Nauck, followed by Vitz and Hennig, condemns this line. Even Firnhaber thinks it may have been added by a scribe. Weil pronounces it “certainement authentique”. Perhaps F. was the less inclined to defend it because (whether genuine or not) it gives some support to κεχρημένοι s. Vitelli (Chi. p. 3) calls attention to a paraphrase in Dio Chrysostom (Or. 59 § 9) of a verse from the Philoctetes of Euripides— δεικνΰντα τον Xpus ουττοτ’ άν τλάδ] Cf. Goodwin Moods and Tenses § 41, 3. 97. ου δη] used of time : cf. the οθι δη at v. 547. It is strange that Firnhaber takes it as ‘gen. obj.’ dependent on λό- yov. 98. κάν] the καί here introduces an explanation of the preceding words, of a kind which is more commonly introduced by a yap or a καί yap. In a similar way άλλα is used at /. T. v. 64 where an άλλα yap would have been more usual. 100. ΆχιΧΧίΐ] should be taken not closely with στέλλαν but with yaμoυμέ- νην. The position of the ΆχιλλβΓ is intentionally emphatic. 101. €Kyavpov[jL€vos] This compound does not occur elsewhere. Paley cps. the use of έκπayλoύμevoL at Hec. 1157. Both words seem used in the sense of ‘ to make much of.’ StadtmUller (Fleck. Jahrb. 1888, pp. 665 if.) would read e/c- πayλoύμevos here, quite unnecessarily. 103. X«XOs] for λέχos in the sense of ‘wife’ cf. vv. 389, 1266, 1275, and 1355. Markl. cps. the use of lectus at Prop. 11. 5, "Felix Admeti coniux et lectus Ulyxis. 104 f. συνάφας is explanatory of the τηνδε. I take the meaning to be not: ‘ I had ’ or ‘ used this means of persua¬ ding ’, but {πειθώ being predicative) ‘ It was to persuade my wife that I used this scheme ’ {τηνδε being attracted into the gender of πειθώ) ‘ and I concocted a sham marriage to get’ {αντί lit. ‘as the price of ’) ‘ the maiden ’. Monk takes this view of the αντί and retains it. 8 ΕΥΡΙΓΤΙΔΟΥ Κάλχα? τ’ Όδυσσενς Μβζώλβω? βγω θ'. a Λαλώ? τότ εγνων μεταγράφω Λαλώ? 7 ταλιν είς τηνδε δελτον, ην κατ' ενφρόνη [<; σκιάν λνοντα και σννόονντά μ εισεΐδες, γέρον, άλλ' εΐα χωρει τάσδ’ έπιστολάς λαβών προς ''Αργος. α δε κέκευθε δελτος ει/ πτνχαΐς, λόγω φράσω σοι πάντα τάγγεγραμμένα’ πιστός yap άλόχω τοΐς τ' έμοΐς δόμοισιν ει.] si 1 ) ον X * * * * ΑΓΑ. ^Ω 7 τρέσβυ, δόμων τωνδε πάροιθεν ι ίο Π 4 ι next ζ/. Certainly, the absence of the εγώ is remarkable. Vitelli proposes Μενέλεως εγώ θ'. α δ’ ού καλώς τότ' £γ νων μεταγράφω καλώς πάλιν. Herm. ( Opzisc .) doubted the correctness of the καλώς πάλιν coming after the αΰθις and the καλώς of the previous v. I have adopted Vitelli’s reading. We must suppose the lines to have been deliberately reconstructed. After the loss of the εγώ θ' the καλώς would be taken from the beginning of v. 108 and put at the end of v. 107. This would leave τότ' έ~/νων μεταγράφω καλώς πάλιν. Some copiers would have left this v. so, but there are many indications in this play that some one or more hands have set themselves to put in correct shape whatever they found or fancied awry. Hence the corrector wrote Ζ^νων τότ' and put in αΰθις. 109—114. In the following 6 verses, if the view I have shown reasons in the Introduction for adopting be correct, we have further deliberate work of a corrector. At the end of v. 109 P has βύφρόνης σκιάν, the σκ in an erasure; L has βύφρόνψ, the final v being in an erasure, corrected from an original s, and no σκιάν. I believe, with Hartung, that the genuine speech of Ag. ends with the word εύφρόνην (or εύφρόνης), and that he went on to say that under cover of the night he meant to send the second letter countermanding the orders of the first. I further believe that when, from whatever cause, the iambic prologue got displaced, vv. no to 114 were composed to patch together the iambic verses with the following anapaests {z>v. 115 ff,). Vv. 112 and 113 seem to have been taken from Iph. in Tanr. vv. 760 ff., and the τά^ε^ραμμένα which replaces the άϊ/αγγεΓλαι φίλοις of the latter passage comes in very lamely here after the ct δε κέκευθε δέλτος of the preceding line. V. 114 was suggested apparently by vv. 45—48 of the present play. I think too, though this is a small point, the είσεΐδες looks as if it were employed meiri gratia. The ind. είσεΐδον is very rare in Eur. though είσορώ and εισιδεΐν &c. are very common. In the original arrangement then I believe that after Ag. had concluded the iambic prologue by stating his intention of sending the second letter before day-break, he summoned the old man from the tent in the following anapaests. 1. τώνδε δόμων πάροιθεν with a β , α, γ, written ι. ττρεσ-βυ] the same personage (see on v. 47) who is here called πρεσβύτης is at 855 in both mss. (Kirchh. wrong) called θεράπων, a word which in its Homeric and tragic use corresponds to the older English use of ‘squire’ or ‘henchman’. The θεράπων was a subordinate of equal social position, and often a close personal friend. Patroclus, for instance, is the θε¬ ράπων of Achilles. This irregularity in naming the personage may have been due to the fact that Euripides left the play without indicating the persons throughout, and that this indication was ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 9 στεΖχε. ΠΡ. στβίχω. τί δε καινουργείς, Άγάμβμνον άναξ; ΑΓΑ. σιτεύσείς; ΠΡ. σιτβνΒω. μά\α τ ol γήρας τονμον άυττνον καί εττ οφθαΧμοΐς οξύ ττάρεστιν. 5 over the words respectively L, δόμων τώνδε ί τάροιθεν P. 3. πεύση P, πεύση with the 77 crossed through and et added, the last of these letters apparently in an erasure L, σπεύδε Pors., σπεύσεις Dobree. To judge from Vitelli’s facsimile of L, it looks as if πεΰσον may have been its original reading. After much hesitation between σπεΰσον and σπεύσεις ; I have adopted the latter. 4. to PL, rot Bames. Vv. 6 —9. The mss. make v. 6 a separate question and give vv. 7 and 8 to ΙΙρεσβ. as its answer, Σείριος being thus treated as the proper name of the star. Bremi however called attention to a passage of Eratosthenes de Ast. c. 33 in which σείριος is said to be an adjective technically applied by aarpoXoyoL to large bright stars δια την του (pXoybs κίνησιν. Matthiae gives quotations from the scholiast on Apollon. Rhod. 11. 518 from Et. Mag. p. 710, 28 and from Suidas, all supporting this use of σείριος. Still more to the point is a passage (first pointed out I believe by Kirchhoff) from Theon of Smyrna περί αστρονομίας xvi. (p. 202 ed. H. Martin) who after making the same statement about σείριος quotes among other passages the one in the text in the form Tt ποτ’ άρ’ δ άστήρ οδε πορθμεύει σείριος. The MSS. distribution gets some support from the imitation of the passage by Ennius preserved in Varro L. L. v. 19, vn. 73 Ag. Quid noctis videtur in altisono Caeli clipeo ? carelessly made or was the work of dif¬ ferent hands in different parts. The list of dramatis personae in both mss. gives ΙΙρεσβύτης and θεράπων as if they were two distinct people.—The building which formed the σκηνή for this play is here called δόμων, at v. 440 δωμάτων, and at v. 863 βασιλείων δόμων. Atv. 12 Ag. ’s dwelling is spoken of as a σκηνή. Monk and Hermann see in this a reason for rejecting the passage in which σκηνή occurs as spurious. They say “evidently, Ag. was living in a building, not a tem¬ porary σκηνή”. But at v. 189 the Chorus talks of the κλισίαι of the Achaeans : the army therefore was encamped in tempo¬ rary huts, and in all probability their leaders were also living in temporary erections of some kind. If the original stage decoration (the permanent stone σκηνή was probably not built at Athens till about 330 b.c.) was so slight that the word σκηνή became the technical term for it, it is not hard to imagine that the scenic decoration in this piece was so draped as to represent the general’s tent. To such a building it is not extra¬ ordinary that the general term δόμοι or δώματα should be applied. So at Hec. 66 5 tents are spoken of as δόμοι. We can form some idea of the building used by princes in a camp from the descrip¬ tion given in the last book of the Iliad of the κλισίη of Achilles (vv. 448 ff., 643, 673, 675. See Buchholz Horn. Real. 11. T > 34 2 )· 2. Wil.-Moell. (Analecta Eur. p. 197) thinks that the division of anapaestic lines here and at vv. 3, 16, 140 and 149 between different speakers, is a proof that this anapaestic part of the prologue was not written by Eur. He admits that Sophocles allowed himself that licence. This argument is of some force, but such rules cannot be admitted to be over- poweringly conclusive, when we consider how little comparatively of Euripides’ poetry is left on which to form them. 4 and 5. άυττνον and err’ όφθα\μοΪ5 οξύ] seem, from the run of the sentence, to be two predicates to πάρεστιν, both qualified by μάλα. Some interpreters prefer to ΙΟ ΕΥΡΙΤΉΔΟΥ . ΑΓΑ. τις 7 τοτ άρ' άστήρ δδε ττορθμενεο σείριος εγγύς της επταπόρου Πλεέάδο? αϊσσων εη μεσσηρης ; οϋκουν φθόγγος γ οΰτ ορνίθων ούτε θαλάσσης' σιγαλ S' άνεμων ΙΟ Sen. Temo superat Cogens sublime etiam atque etiam Noctis iter. But the evidence of so free a paraphrase cannot outweigh: (i) the testimony of Theon: (2) the difficulty, observed by many commentators from Scaliger downwards, of supposing that Euripides could talk of Sirius as being near the Pleiades: and (3) the want of any apparent connexion in the ideas—(Ag. ‘ What is that star ? ’ Sen. ‘ Sirius : it is still in mid heaven, and has come near the Pleiads ’. Ag. ‘ The cocks are not crowing and the sea is still’). Hennig tries desperately hard to make some connexion apparent. Though he credits Eur. with the astronomical blunder about Sirius, he makes Ag. draw a very abstruse conclusion from the position of the star: Sirius, he says, is only in mid heaven at such an hour late in the year —* here ’ he makes Ag. say ‘is Autumn come, and yet the weather is still so hot that the birds are quiet and the sea is still’. 8. άΐσσων PL, but in L a second hand has written “συνίζησή” over the word. Cp. Hemst. on Ar. Plut. 732, Valck. Phoen. 1388, Dawes M. C. 230. 9—13. Monk, following the MSS. in giving 7 and 8 to the old man, gives from οϋκουν to θαλάσσης to him also, rejecting from σιγαί to άναξ as spurious. Hermann ( Opusc .) follows him, except that he rejects ούτε supply a separate έστί with άυπνον, but this gives too much weight to πάρεστιν, as if it were used in some special sense. What he says is: ‘ Old age is a foe to sleep, and lends nimbleness to my eyes ’: i-e. ‘ they are ready at once to open The various ‘tropical’ uses of οξύς, which correspond very much to those of our ‘sharp’, have given rise to doubts as to the meaning here. Generally, as applied to eyes, it means ‘keen-sighted’, but this idea is foreign to the context here. (Erasmus, however, by the ergo at the beginning of his next line connects the king’s question with this sense of the word.)—It is important to understand when the old man appears on the stage. I think, with Bremi, that it is not till v. 12 : that from σπεύδω to πάρεσην are spoken from behind the scene through the door of the tent from which he ap¬ pears when Ag. has finished the soliloquy contained in vv. 6 —11 (see critical notes on vv. 6—9). It is certain that the old man is not on the stage to begin with, for Ag. calls to him to come out of the tent. At first sight it looks as if στείχω is said by him while he is coming out, and that his question τί δέ καινουργείς is spoken after he has appeared. But even supposing the σπεύσεις ; of v. 3 not to be the correct reading, the σπεύδω of the answer shows that the old man is not out yet, but is still making all the haste he can to leave his couch and appear out¬ side. If then τί δε καινουργείς ’ Αγάμεμνον άναξ, was spoken through the tent door vv. 4 and 5 may well have been so spoken also. 9. We must suppose that Ag. in his soliloquy puts the question about the star, like the child in Miss Taylor’s hymn, without giving it an answer. His mus- ings on the sky, the hour, and the weather serve to tell the spectators what it is important for them to know of the circumstances under which the action begins. 10. Monk says “ the poet could not have used σιγαί in the plural ”. Weil, ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 11 τόνδε κατ' Rv ρίπον εχουσίν. ΠΡ. τι δε σύ σκηνής έκτος άίσσείς , 'Κηάμεμνον αναξ; ν r / «ί » a €tl ο ησυχία τήοε κατ ΑυΧίν καί ακίνητοί φυΧακαί τειχέων. 15 στείγωμεν έσω. ΑΓΑ. ζηΧώ σε, yepov, ζηΧω ο ανορων ος ακίνουνον βίον έξεπέρασ άηνώς άκΧεης' τούς δ’ εν τίμαϊς ήσσον ζηΧώ. ΠΡ. καί μην το καΧόν y ενταύθα βίου. 20 ΑΓΑ. τούτο δε y έστίν το καΧον σφαΧερόν καί το ττροτίμον θαλάσσης. 1 6 . στείχομεν Ρ, στείχωμεν L: this mistake of ο for ω occurs several times in P. Aid. followed P and altered ’έσω to εΐσω metr. grat. 17 fif. This passage, from ξ'ηλω σέ to the end of v. 20, is quoted by Stobaeus Serin, lviii. 2, who has ησσον επαινώ (cp. Eur. Hipp. 264 οϋτω το λίαν ησσον επαινώ του μηδέν ayav ) : also, down to άκλεής, by Plutarch, De Tranqn. An. p. 471 c. Cic. Tusc. ill. 24 says nec siletur illud potentissimi regis anapaestum, qui laudat senem , et fortunatum esse dicit, quod inglorius sit atque ignobilis ad supremum diem perventurus. Barnes quotes Ov. Trist. III. 4, 25 Crede mihi bene qui latuit, bene vixit. 22. καί το φΐλδτιμον PL: many corrections of the metre have been attempted: καί φιλότιμον or το re φιλότιμον Markl., Dindorf adopts the latter; χω ( i.e. καί δ) φιλότιμον Lenting (so Firnh.), καί το πρότιμον Nauck; Herm. rejects the verse as “verba interpretis vel τό καλόν declarare volentis, vel nescientis, recte ad explicanda praegressa verba, sine copula inferri yλυκύ μεν”. I have adopted Nauck’s reading: φιλότιμος and φιλοτιμία are constantly used in late Greek for ‘distinguished’ and rightly, I think, holds that the poetic beauty of the plural aiyai is such that it may dispense with the authority of a parallel passage. 11. There is more difference than at first appears between this sentence and the similar one at v. 14. Here, as at v. 40, we have a case of ‘ tmesis’: in v. 14 Χδλιν is governed by the preposition, and makes with it an adverbial expression. (Blomfield would have made them more alike by reading τήνδε for τη δε at v. 14.) The reference in Ag. ’s words is to the stillness of nature, while in the latter passage the old man says that no one is stirring yet in the town or the camp. 12. τί δέ ο-ύ] this stillness he contrasts with Ag.’s restlessness: the emphatic σύ brings out this contrast, and serves to call out Ag.’s moralizings on the difference between the lot of a prince and that of common men :—they may rest when he cannot. 15. τ€ΐχ€ων] used of the defences of the camp, not of the walls of the town. This v. does not mean, ‘the watch has not gone or been changed yet ’ but: ‘ there is no sign of commotion among the sentinels ’. 17. os] (‘ the man who ’) is more defi¬ nite than οστις (‘a man who’), there being a special reference to the lot of the old man himself. 20. It is best perhaps to take βίου with ενταύθα. Monk quotes Aesch. Cho. 891 ενταύθα yap δη τοΰδ ’ άφικδμην κακού. 12 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ γλυκύ μεν, λύπη δε προσιστάμενον. τότε μεν τα θεών ούκ όρθωθεντ ανάτρεψε βίον , τότε δ’ ανθρώπων 25 γνώμαι πολλαϊ και δυσάρεστοι διεκναισαν. ΠΡ. ούκ άγαμαι ταυτ άνδρδς άριστεως. ούκ 67 τι πάσίν σ εφύτευσ άγαθοΐς, ’ Αγάμεμνον, Άτρεύς. 3 ° δει δε σε γ^αίρειν και λυπεισθαι * θνητός yap εφυς. καν μη συ θελης, ‘distinction’, but in Eur. the words mean ‘ambitious’ and ‘ambition’; cf. w. [520] and 527. 23. Pors. and other scholars quote a passage of the comic poet Macho which evidently parodies this line: εϊπεν, μάγειρε, μη προσίστα τοΰτό μοι τούστοΰν. ό δ’ εϊπεν, άλλα μην έστιν γλυκύ, και μην το 7 rpos όστοΰν φασί κρέας είναι γλυκύ, ό Χαι ρεφων δε, και μάλ’ ω βέλτιστ ', έφη, γλυκύ μεν προσιστάμενον δέ λυπεί πανταχη. I have adopted Headlam’s λύπη for the MSS. λυτει. He would emend λυπεί in the quotation from Macho in the same way. In this way the πανταχη gains greatly in force. Vv. 28—33 are quoted by Stobaeus Flor. xcni. (though some copier, finding the lines in parallel columns, has read them down instead of along), and by Plutarch, at Cons, ad Ap. p. 103 and again partially at De And. Poet. p. 33. Stob. has επί πασιν εφυς and Άτρευ and νενόμισται for βουλόμεν' ’έσται, Plut. has βουλόμεν ’ εσται. Markl. prefers έστίν for έσται, so too Herwerden .— άριστέος PL, άριστέως Stob. V. 29 occurs in a papyrus fragment of Chrysippus (Letronne, 23. Ίτροσιστάμενον] Weil takes the word here in the sense of ‘ to be repug¬ nant ’, 1 to give offence ’; but the μη προσ¬ ίστα in the passage of Macho quoted in the critical notes, and the context here, both make for the simpler meaning of ‘approach, encounter’.—If λυπεί is cor¬ rect what he says is: ‘on nearer ac¬ quaintance we find it grievous ’. But Headlam’s λύπη gives a much better sense:—‘a near neighbour to Sorrow’. He quotes Soph. 0 . C. 1216: λύπας εγγυτερω. 24 if. The displeasure of heaven and the ill-will of the multitude, spoken of by Ag. as the banes of rulers, are not men¬ tioned here without special reference to the action of the drama. The helpless¬ ness of the Greek armament is the result of the former ; and we shall find Ag. influenced in his decision by the fear of the latter. His wife says of him at v. 1012 λίαν ταρβεΐ στρατόν . —Hartung is, in my opinion, the only commentator who has rightly interpreted τα θεών όρθωθεντ : his note is “ errant qui ad deorum cidtum neglectum haec verba refe- runt: nam τα θεών sunt quae divinitus eveniunt hominibus, quae cum prospcra accidunt όρθουσθαι dicunUtr”. There is no reference at all in this play to the story given in the prologue to the /. T. that Ag. had incurred the wrath of Arte¬ mis by failing to pay a vow. 28. ctvSpos cipurTcios] the genitive of the ‘ person in whom ’, as commonly with θαυμάζω (Eur. Hipp. 1041). 29. err!] has here the same force as in έφ' φτε, επί tovtois (‘on these terms’). In other words ‘ unmixed good fortune was not pledged to you at your birth’. Vitelli quotes Andoc. 11. 5 πάντες άνθρω- ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 13 τά θβών οντω βούλόμβν €σται. * * * * [συ δε λαμπτήρος φάος άμπετάσας δελτον τε γράφεις 35 τηνδ' r/v προ χερών ετι βαστάζεις, και ταυτά πάλιν γράμματα σνγχεΐς και σφραγίζεις λύεις τ’ δπίσω ρίπτεις τε πεδω πενκην, θαλερόν Journ. des Sav. 1838, ρ. 313) with the reading άριστέως. Vv. 34—42. I have marked these vv. as spurious for the following reasons: (1) the transition from v. 33 to v. 34 ff. is very abrupt: (2) if, as is clumsily implied by the historic presents, the Old Man saw Ag. writing the letter he must have been in the same tent, or rather division of the tent, as Ag. If so, why did Ag. call him out to speak to him? It is also more in accordance with the habit of the Greek stage that the Πρεσβύτης should make his appearance from a side door. If the old man had seen through a chink in the wall, or a door connecting his room with Ag.’s, it is not like Eur. not to have told us so: (3) in the language the following points are suspicious: the use of πρό in προ χερών: the use of όπίσω for πάλιν or αΰθις: though the tragedians often use Homeric words they do not reproduce such undigested morsels as κατά δάκρυ χέων (Z 496, δ 556): vv. 41 f. (though of this I do not feel so sure) seem to be modelled on Tro . 797 τίνος ένδέομεν μη ού πανσυδία. χωρεΐν ολέθρου διά παντός; (4) there is indication both in P and L of uncertainty about the reading in v. 42, especially at the end of the v. Besides the fact that both mss. seem to have originally read μη Θυμαίνεσθαι (the upper half of the Θ is obscured by a dot in P and erased in L) the first τί πονεΐς is in L crowded into a small space made by an erasure, v. 43 in L begins with τί νέον τί νέον, the first τί νέον straggling over an erasure. In P a corrector has added the second τί νέον. Vitelli conjectures with great probability, that L had originally τί νέον τί πονεΐς at the end of v. 42 and τί πονεΐς τί νέον at the beginning of v. 43. I conjecture that, when the prologue was remodelled (cf. Introd. p. xxv), a passage somewhat to this purport—telling of the writing of this second letter, and the anxiety and hesitation in which it was written—was struck out 7 Γ 01 yiyvovTai επί τφ ευ καί κακώς πράττειν. Cf. also Eur. fr. 46 (Nauck) ώστ οΰτις άνδρών εις άπαντ' ευδαιμονεί. 33· It is best to take together τά θεών βουλόμενα in the sense of ‘ the will of heaven’. Weil quotes from Antiphon V. 73 το ύμέτερον δυνάμενον , and τό τών εχθρών βουλόμενον. ούτως (καλώ* &C.) έσται is the fut. of ούτως ( καλώς & c.) έχει. 34 · άμιτετάσ-ας] this must be, as Weil says, a poetical word for ‘having kindled ’. He compares ήλιου τ άναπτυχαί at Hipp. 601, λαμπράς αιθέρας άμπτυχαί Ion 1445 and όμμάτων άναπτυχαί at El. 868. Most commentators take it most prosai¬ cally as ‘ having made the flame broader’ — i.e. as we should say ‘having snuffed the candle ’—a mark of deliberation not likely in Ag.’s desperate state. 36. ιτρο χερών] can only be accounted for by supposing that the writer had the phrase πρόχειρον ’έχειν in his head. Cf. however, Rhes. 274. 38. όττίσ-ω] is used of time in the sense of ‘hereafter, in the future’, but never (as here) for ‘afterwards’ in the sense of πάλιν or αΰθις. 39· Ίτεύκην] best taken, with Musgr., to mean ‘a writing tablet’, not, as some, ‘a torch ’. ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ 14 κατά δάκρυ xeW, 4° καί των α πόρων ουδει/δς ενδεις μη ου μαίνεσθαι. τι 7rov€ts;] τί πονεϊς; τι νέον παρά σοί, βασιΚεϋ; φέρε κοίνωσον μύθον ες ημάς. προς δ’ άνδρ' άηαθόν πιστόν τ€ φράσεις' 45 ση yap μ αλόχω τότε Ύυνδάρεως πέμπει φερνήν συννυμφοκόμον τε δίκαιον. * * *- λεγε και σημαιν, ΐνα καί yXoiaap II J from the end of the iambic prologue, and that the sense of it was given in these anapaests, which were put in to lead up to v. no in the spurious part of the iambic prologue composed by the same person. If the remodelling was, as Bohnhoff thinks, consequent on the accidental interchange of the two first pages, we must assume that a considerable number of the original anapaests have been lost here, i.e. between vv. 33 and 43: this may well have been the case anyhow. L has πεύκην πέδω with β and a over the words respectively. 43. περί PL, 7 rapa Pors. (also Dobree). 45. 7rpos άνδρ’ PL, irpos δ’ άνδρ ’ a corrector of P. 48 and 117. The arrangement of the text which I have shown reasons in the Introduction for adopting brings these verses together. In the mss. the verses that follow v. 114 are those numbered 115 and 116. Reiske placed vv. 117 and 118 before them and this transposition has been generally adopted by later editors. Vitelli rejects vv. 117 and 118. It seems to me the least violent and unnatural of the suppositions that have been made about the state of the text, to suppose that some anapaestic lines following v. 48 have either been accidentally lost or purposely omitted in the remodelling of the prologue. It is now our task to conjecture what the substance of these lines may have been. From what has gone before we conclude that the old ‘ henchman ’ did not know anything more than that Agamemnon was greatly disturbed and perplexed about something. From what follows we find that he had been told that a previous letter had been sent to Clytaemnestra bidding her send Iphigeneia to be married to Achilles, and that he was now at once to set off with a second letter to Clytaemnestra. The διασκευαστώ who recast the prologue conveyed this information, I conjecture, partly in the interpolated passage— vv. 34—43,—and partly in the further interpolation at the end of the iambics — 7jv. iio —114—and, in case these anapaestic lines which followed v. 48 were not accidentally lost as Bohnhoff supposed, owing to the tattered condition of the bottom of the loose first 46. τότί] as often, referring to some well-remembered occasion—here to Ag.’s wedding. 47. φφνήν] Cp. v. 869 χώ'τι μ έν rais σαϊσι φερναΐς ελαβεν Ά,^αμέμνων άναξ — a verse which among other things serves, with v. 891, to prove that the πρεσβύτης and the θεράπων of the drama¬ tis personae were one and the same. Cf. Aesch. Suppl. 979 θεραποντίδα φερνήν of the maiden attendants given by Danaus as his daughter’s dower. 48. <τυννυμφοκόμον] not found else¬ where ; it seems to mean ‘bridal atten¬ dant ’. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. ΐ5 σύντονα τοΐς σοΐς ηράμμασιν αΰδώ. 1 18 ΑΓΑ. πέμπω σοί προς ταΐς πρόσθβν 1 15 δέΧτοίς, ώ Αηΰας ερνος, Ιΐ6 page, he (the ‘ diaskeuast’) would naturally leave them out as saying the same thing over again. These lost anapaestic lines, then, I conjecture to have contained the statement by Agamemnon to the Old Man that he had sent a letter ordering Iphigeneia to come to be married to Achilles, and that now he, the old man, is to be the bearer of a second letter to Clytaemnestra. As the spectators already knew, from the iambic prologue, the true state of the case, it was not necessary for the poet here to be more explicit, and a few lines only need be supposed to be lost. This supposition, after a long consideration of the various difficulties in the way of any supposition whatever, I think decidedly less difficult than any other view. The transposition, in the mss. text, of vv. 115 and 116 points to an original confusion at this point in some earlier ms., and this is somewhat in favour of a lacuna at this point. The old man’s \eye καί σήμαιν’ κ.τ.λ. {vv. 117 and 118) may have been the result of a question of Agamemnon’s as to whether he should tell him the contents of this second letter, or they may have been the concluding words of a longer speech of the old man asking to be told what the second letter contained. On the supposition of this lacuna, and with the arrangement of the prologue given in the text, the question of the Old Man at vv. 124 ff. is intelligible, but not otherwise. We must then further suppose that at v. 133, when the old man learns that the promised marriage was only a pretence, the same suspicion suddenly enters his mind, which we are told at v. [433] entered the minds of some of the army when they heard of Iphigeneia’s arrival— i.e. that she was to be sacrificed for the common good of the Greeks. In v. 136 Ag. virtually confesses that this suspicion is correct. It is important in this connexion to compare the old man’s words at v. 891. When there asked by Clyt. how he knew that Ag. meant to sacrifice Iph. his answer is δέλτον ωχόμην φέρων σοι, 7 rpos τα πριν χεχραμμένα. This accords very well with the theory that it was not till he heard the contents of the second letter that the old man found out what Agamemnon’s purpose had been. 115. τάς.,.δέλτους Monk, who 118. σύντονα] Dindorf remarks that this meaning of σύντονος ‘ in harmony with’ is not the usual one. The word generally means ‘eager, vehement, vio¬ lent’; and, of sounds ‘shrill ’. At Bacch. 1091 ( συντόνοις δρομήμασι) it is generally taken to mean ‘eager, swift’, but it might there mean ‘uniform’, i.e. ‘keeping step together’. At v. 126 of the same play, though the passage is probably corrupt, it seems to mean ‘ shrill ’, but at Hipp. 1361, which Weil quotes as an analogy for the use here, the word certainly cannot mean ‘violently Weil there translates it ‘ egalement ’. The technical sense (in music) of the compound διάτονος is in favour of the possibility of using σύντονος in the sense of σύμμετρος. Paley thinks συντείνει at Hec. 189 means ‘agrees’.—The reason given here, for reading out to a messenger the contents of the letter he is to carry, is not the same as that given at /. T. 760 ff., but the same reason as this is assigned in a passage of the Cyrop. (iv. 5. 26) which has been often compared with this pas¬ sage:— "ινα, είδως αυτά, όμολογρς αν τί σε προς ταΰτα έρωτα.. 115—123· It should be observed that in reading out the letter Ag. changes from the ‘regular’ anapaests of the con¬ versation to ‘ threnic ’ or ‘ lyric ’ anapaests, characteristics of which are the Doric dialect ( τάν σάν), the prevalence of 1 6 ΕΥΡΙΤΤΙΔΟΥ μη στελΧειν τάν σαν Ivlv προς lig τα ν κοΧπώδη 7 rrepvy Ε υβοίας 120 A ΰΧιν άκΧΰσταν. εις αΧΧας ώρας γάρ δη 7 ratSo? δαίσομεν υμεναίους. ΠΡ. και πως ΆχιΧεύς Χεκτρων άπΧακών ού μεηα φυσώ ν θυμόν επαρεΐ; 125 τόδβ καί δεινόν σοί, ση τ αΧόχω σημαιν ο τι φης. compares ν. 891· ΐ2ο. Dindorf and Monk, followed by Paley, reject the ταν at the beginning of v. 120, under the impression that it was added metri gratia. 122. In both P and L an early hand (perhaps the first) has added τα s above εις aXXas. In P it is written fully, in L small and in an abbreviated form. This looks as if in the MSS. from which P and L were copied, the ras had been added small over the line—no doubt by some one who wanted to make a complete di¬ meter. 124. ΆχιΧΧεύς P, ΆχιΧεύς L, with space for second λ. — Χέκτρ ' άμπΧακών PL, in L κατα is added above Χέκτρ ' by an early hand, and the άμ is in an erasure large enough for 4 or 5 letters: Χέκτρων Scaliger, άπΧακών Burney (see Monk on Hipp. 145 and Elmsley on Med. 115). 125. φνσσων PL (the first σ perhaps crossed out in L). This doubling of the σ was due to a desire to get the metre right on the part of someone who did not know the quantity of the vowel: so these MSS. write πίσσαν for Ή,ϊσαν at I. T. 1 and P often, and L generally, writes έριννύων for 'Έρινύων. — έπαίρει PL, έπαρεΐ Pors., Elms., Cobet.—The Aldine ed. put the ; after έπαίρει and no stop after άλόχφ. I believe all subsequent editors but Firnhaber put the ; after άλόχφ. 127. In P τοδε καί δεινόν is written as a separate verse, in L σοί στ) τ άλόχιρ is stuck in rather awkwardly (as a fresh verse—this is indicated by a small reXos and a gap—) at the end of the preceding line, with a dash at the end. There is also a dash at the beginning of the next verse, which dashes indicate that the writer of them thought that σοί σή τ' άλόχφ and the τόδβ καί δεινόν ought to form one line. spondees and the frequency of catalectic lines. Such an irregular anapaestic line as v. 123, where a dactyl is followed by an anapaest, is more likely to occur in lyric anapaests than in the systematic anapaests. 119. μή (ttcWciv] For πεμπειν with no direct obj. and followed by an infin., like a verb of commanding, L. and S. compare Xen. Hel. III. 1. 7, πέμπουσιν oi 'έφοροι άποΧιπόντα Αάρισσαν στρατεύεσ- θαι επί Κ αρίαν. 120. κολττώδη τττίρυγ’ Εύβοιας] ‘the wing-shaped Euboean bay’. I think Paley is right in taking the ΑΰΧιν of the next v. in apposition to πτέρυγα, and in regarding the whole expression as a de¬ scription of the bay of Aulis. The poet calls it the Euboean bay, by way of indicating that Euboea made one side of it. 125. €Trap€t] Cobet (Var. led. 607) remarks that /. T. 117 is the only passage in which transcribers have left the future άρω unaltered (? Pers. 795). 127. σήμαιν’ δ τι φήξ] This is difficult. At first sight it looks as if he were going to say ‘tell me what you mean to say' (i.e. ‘when Achilles visits you with his wrath’). But the φης can- ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 1 7 ΑΓΑ. ovofi , ουκ epyov ηταρβγων ΆχιΧβύς ουκ οίδβ γάμους, οι)δ’ ο tl 7 τράσσομβν, ουδ’ οτί κβίνω 7 ταΐδ' βΊΓβφημισα 130 νυμφβίους βίς άηκώνων βΰνάς βκδωσβιν Χβκτροις. ΠΡ. Ββίνά y βτόλμας, Ά ηάμβμνον άναξ, ου τω της θβάς σην ί ταΐδ' άΧοχον These amount to slight indications of a confusion in the ms. from which P and L were copied, as to the relative position of the two anapaestic δινοδίαι. I conjecture therefore that the passage originally ran καί πώς.,.έπαρεΐ; | τάδε καί δεινόν σοι, σή τ’ άλόχ^ | σήμαιν' δ,τι φής. (See explanatory notes.) 128. Libanius Ep. 1398, p. 642 τούτο δε έστι δοκονντος φιλεΊν ού φιλοΰντος, καί κατά την Tpayipdiav δνομ' αντ ’ epyov 7 ταρεχομένον. Unger, who first quoted this passage (and emended the MS. tv τερττου to αντ ’ epyov) thinks we ought to read αντ ’ epyov for ονκ epyov here. So Nauck. If Libanius did quote from this tragedy he most likely slightly altered the original to illustrate his point better .— άχιλλενς PL, corr. in P to άχιλεύς. 129. P began to write ττοι- but altered it to -ττρασσ-. 130. εττεφησα PL, εττεφήμισα Markland. 132. ένδώσειν PL, έκδώσειν Markland. 133. δεινά yε τολμάς PL, δεινά y' ετόλμας Mark!. 134. οϋτω της PL, os τφ της one of the Paris copies of L and so Canter. Markl. reads οϋτω τφ θεάς and puts a ; after Ααναοΐς. I have adopted Markland’s ; and suggest not refer to the future, and σημαινε means ‘ say distinctly, explain ’, rather than merely ‘ tell ’. Several editors have ac¬ cordingly followed Musgrave in giving the words τάδε καί δεινόν to Ag., and taking τάδε to mean ‘this other thing (that I am going to mention)’. To such a remark σήμα iv' 6 τι φης would be a very good answer on the part of the old man, but on reading the whole passage we see that the question begun in v. 124 wants an answer; and that vv, 128—132 must be the answer to that question. If the text is right I think it is best to suppose, with Firnhaber, that the words σήμαιν ’ o τι φής are a request from the old man for an explanation of some gesture or excla¬ mation on the part of the king. This being the best that can be made of the existing text, it is natural to suppose that something is wrong in it. (See critical notes.) The meaning of the text as I have printed it would be ‘This is enough to make you afraid ; let me know what ού τφ τής. This involves less alteration you are saying’ (in the letter, that is) ‘to your wife’ (about it). 128. If Unger is right (see C. N.) in supposing Libanius to refer to this pas¬ sage it is a proof that the passage was a very well known one ; for it is not in itself either striking or a strikingly appo¬ site parallel to the words it illustrates. Cp. on v. 1173 below. 129 ‘ Knows nothing about a marriage or of our plot either.’ 130. κείνω] I doubt if any other instance can be found of an oblique case of εκείνος used in a subordinate sentence of the subject of a principal verb of say¬ ing or knowing. Hennig compares Or. 292: there however εκείνος is in the nom., and the contrast necessary between it and the tyoo δ’ of the next v. makes its employment natural. It is going too far though to say that this use of κείνιρ is impossible. There is no danger of its being taken to refer to any one but Achilles. It is an extreme instance of E. I. 2 18 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ φατίσας η<γες σφάηιον Δαναοΐς; 135 ΑΓΑ. οϊμοι, ηνωμας εξεσταν, αίαΐ, πίηττω δ’ βις αταν. αΧΧ ιό βρβσσων σον ποοα , γήρα μηΰβν υπείκων. ΠΡ. σπεύδω, βασιΧεΰ. 140 ΑΓΑ. μη νυν άΧσωΰεις ΐζου κρήνας, μη θ' υπνω θεΧχθης. ΠΡ. εύφημα θρόει. ΑΓΑ. πάντη δε πόρον σχιστόν άμείβων Χενσσε, φυΧάσσων μη τις σε Χάθη 145 τροχαΧοΐσιν οχοις παραμενφαμενη παιοα κομιζουσ ενυαο αττηνη Δαναών προς ναΰς. ΠΡ. εσται τάδε. ΑΓΑ. κΧηθρων δ’ εξόρμοις of the mss. reading than any other alteration, and suits the view I have adopted in the Introduction (p. xxiv f.). These words express the first utterance on the part of the old man of his sudden guess at the true state of the case. 141. I have left out the μητ ’ which L and P have before άλσώδεις: there are indications that some would-be metrical reformer has been at work in this passage expanding catalectic dimeters to acatalectic ones, and I think the introduction of this μήτ’ was a piece of his work. In P there is an erasure big enough to hold 2 or 3 letters before the 77s of θβλχθψ : possibly the same metrical corrector had introduced a syllable into this word to make this line also a full dimeter. 145. τί ae PL, tls ae Markl. 148. ναού s corr. by a late hand to vavs P, ναούς with the 0 erased and a Λ added over the u L. vv. 149—151. The original mss. version of these much emended lines was εσται ΑΓ κληθρων δ’ έξόρμα 149 -ήν νιν πομπαΐς άντησης 150 πάλι,ν έξορμάσης χαλινούς. Ι 5 Ι the Greek tendency to modify the normal form of ‘reported speech’ to suit the exigencies of a particular case.— ειτεφη- μκτα seems used in the sense of ‘allege’, ‘profess’ (to Clytaemnestra): possibly the 67 rt has here something of the force it has in επίορκος and επιορκέω. έπιφάσκω was used in later Greek in the sense of ‘pre¬ tend’.— κείνω λεκτροΐδ = κείνου λέκτροις. 136. In these words Ag. admits the truth of the astonished old man’s suspi¬ cion. 138 f. In a fragment of the Iphigenia of Ennius we read procede gradum pro- ferre pedum , Nit ere: cessas 0 fide senex? words which clearly recall these lines, as was first perceived by Scaliger. 142. κρηναδ] Such an accusative, though not found elsewhere with ϊζομαι is found several times with εζομαι, and is common with θάσσειν. 143. εύφημα θρόει] ‘ Mind what you say !’—a variety of εύφημα φώνει, ‘ favete linguis’—vehemently repelling the sug¬ gestion that it was possible that he should go to sleep on such a mission. 149. κΧηθρων] The barred - doors, from which Iphigeneia and her escort 19 ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. ην ταις πομπαΐς άντησης, Ι$0 πάλιν ορμησον, σβΐβ χαλινούς, βπι Κυκλώπων Ιβϊς θυμβλας. ΠΡ. πιστός δε φράσας τάδε 7τώ? βσομαι, λεγβ, παιάι σβθεν [τη στ} τ αλοχω ]; The emending began in the mss. L has ’έσται τάδε for the simple έσται of P. In L in 149 there is an erasure before the 0 of έξόρμα. In both MSS. a yap was inserted between ην and viv (without any alteration of the accent of the ην). άντησης was in P corrected (not by the first hand) to άντησεις and έξορμάσης corr. in both MSS. (certainly P and I think also L read -ης originally) to έξορμάσεις. In L a τούς was inserted after έξορμάσεις in v. 151 (by the metrical reformer who thought the penult of χαλινούς was short). The more important corrections made in later times are Hermann’s transposition of v. 149:—he put it after v. 152 but subsequently adopted Monk’s view that it was spurious:—Blomfield’s εξόρμα σεΊε for έξορμάσει s in 151. Wecklein proposes έξορμώσαις in 149 and εισορμά in 151. Weil έξόρμοις in 149 (Hermann had proposed έξόρμους in v. 151) and (ingeniously) εξ ορμάς in 151. Weil also reads οΰν for viv in 150. I have adopted Weil’s έξόρμοις and Blomfield’s σείε (though the discovery that the MS. from which P and L were copied probably had έξορμάσης makes this seem less certain than before), I also read reus for viv (which I think may have been due to the iv in the ττάλιν at the same place in the next line) and I imagine that the origin of the corruption m v. 151 was that a transcriber, with t'he έξόρμ<οις> of v. 149, and possibly also the common phrase πάλιν εξ άρχης in his head, wrote by mistake ττάλιν εξόρμα , (or perhaps ττάλιν έξόρμησον ) instead of ττάλιν ορμησον. 154. σέθεν τη ση τ άλόχιρ PL. I have no hesitation in following Vitelli in regarding τη ση τ’ άλόχ^ as an interpolation due to a reminiscence of v. 126. Not only is there no reason why either Ag. or the old man should think Clytaemnestra would be with Iphigeneia when he met her, but the addition makes both question and answer unmeaning. The old man is not asking how he is to gain credit for the letter but for his words ( φράσας τάδε), may have emerged, are I think rightly explained by Weil to be those of the όχνροΊσι παρθενωσι of v. 738. Callima¬ chus, he says, calls {frag. 118) young girls κατάκλειστοι. (η τταΐς ή κατάκλειστος. So Philo Jud. II. 530 yvvaia κατάκλειστα μηδό της αύλείου προερχόμενα , και θαλα- μευόμεναι παρθένοι.) Eur. has transferred to the heroic age the customs of his own time. Homer’s maidens are not so shut up. 152. errl Κυκλώπων 0 vp.€\as] Mus- grave translates θυμέλαι by atria ampla et magnifica. Weil, following a tradi¬ tional interpretation for which I can find no early authority, says they are les murs sacre's. So Paley—‘the piles of ancient masonry’. At El. 715 Euripides uses the word apparently in the sense of temple: —the altar, being to the temple what the hearth is to the home, may well have been used instead of it. If this is the meaning of the word here we must suppose the expression, like the εστία cf. /. T. v. 845, to be a picturesque synonym for Mycenae—‘the Cyclopean shrines’. (So Monk.) 153 f.—156. If the old man met Iphi¬ geneia on the way, he would not be able to give her the letter; that was for her mother’s hands, and neither he nor Aga¬ memnon anticipated that Clytaemnestra would come with her daughter (cp. C. N. on v. 100). Such a message delivered verbally would naturally want confirma- 2—2 20 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ ΑΓΑ. σφραγίδα φνλασσ ην επι δελτω 15 5 τηνδε κομίζεις, ϊθι. λευκαίνει τάδε φως ηδη λάμπτουσ ηώς πυρ τβ τεθρίππων των Ά ελίου. σύλλαβε μόχθων. ΐ6θ θνητών δ’ όλβιος εις τέλος οΰδεις ουο €νοαιμων' ον πω γάρ εφυ τις άλυπος. TTa P oAoc. ΧΟ. εμολον αμφι παρακτίαν στρ. supposing he meets Iphigeneia after she has started, line is omitted in P. 156. τηνδε PL, τηδε L 1 . tion. Agamemnon meets the difficulty admirably: he says, in effect ‘you need not undo the letter: keep the seal intact and that will be a sufficient warrant for your message vv. 156—159. With these lines com¬ pare the words with which, at vv. 82 ff. of the Ion , the hero on his first appearance salutes the dawn. I think the run of the sentence here is in favour of taking λευ¬ καίνει intransitively and λάμττουσα transi¬ tively. Most editors prefer though to take them the other way. 157 · i^tos] This is the only instance of this epic form in tragedy. ‘Photius has preserved the fact that Xenophon used ηώς for ’έως.’ Rutherford New Phryn. p. 164. vv. 161—163. These verses, forming the conventional conclusion to the scene, must have been spoken, as Firnhaber remarks, after the old man had left the stage. The ‘ γνώμη' is quoted by Clem. Alex. Stromat. in. 3, 23 (Weil) and Orion Anthol. viii. 8 (Firnh.). els tcXos] These words cannot here have their ordinary meaning of‘at last’, nor is there any reason, except that such a translation would give a suitable mean¬ ing in this passage, for taking them as equivalent to διά τέλους. I think that 155. The ΑΓ. before this 164. τταρ άκτάν PL corr. here and at Hec. 817 es τέλος is used nearly in the sense of in fact; somewhat like the French enfin. At v. 164 begins the Parodus. The chorus consists of young married women from Chalcis whose curiosity has led them to come across the strait to see the encampment at Aulis. That they were young we may conclude from vv. 186 f. and from the fact that they are addressed by Iphigeneia at v. 1310 as κόραι, and at vv. 1468 and 1492 as νεάνιδες. This latter fact has been taken by Hermann (Dissertatio &c.) as support¬ ing Dindorf’s statement that the members of the chorus were unmarried girls, and his consequent rejection of vv. 171—184 because in them the Chorus talks of their husbands. Dindorf does not however reject vv. 548 f. in which the chorus say άπενέπω νιν άμετέρων Έ.ύττρι καλλίστα θαλάμων, wdiich hardly sounds natural in the mouths of unmarried girls. Nor, again, as Arnoldt (C/ior. Tech. 103) has shown, are the terms κόρη and νεάνις confined to unmarried girls. At v. 489 of the Andromache the heroine is called την τάλαιναν Ίλιάδα κόραν (cf. also Stippl. 1073 and El. 481) and at v. 192 of the same play Andromache calls Plermione νεάνις (cf. Soph. Trach. 307 f. τις 7 tot' ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 21 φτάμαθον Αυλίδος εναΧίας, 165 Έίύρίπου δία φυμάτων κεΧσασα στενοπόρθμων , Χαλκίδα 7 τόΧιν εμάν ιτροΧιττουσ , άγχιάΧων νδάτων τροφόν τα? κΧεινάς Άρεθονσας, IJO 'Αχαιών στρατιάν ω? εσιδοίμαν ayavwv τε η τλάτα? ναυσπτόρους by an early hand in both to παρακτίαν, in P the accent is altered and the apostrophe and breathing crossed out, in L only the l is inserted. 167. στβνόπορθμον PL, στβνοπόρθμων Weil (the mistake of 0 for ω is a common one in these MSS.) 168 f. Both P and L originally made 168 end at the 1 of προλι,πουσα: in both the correction is made of shifting the που from v. 169 to the end of 168, leaving the σ’ in 169. Such a curiously identical correction could not have been made independently in each MS. and yet it is by an early hand. In 189, the v. of the antistrophe corresponding to 168, in L the as of κλισίας is erased and is added at the beginning of v. 190. There are in L several other such shiftings, but in most cases the transposed syllables have been shifted back again (see Vitelli’s facsimile). 171. tbs ϊδοιμ' αν PL with no gap or erasure after the tbs, καί ϊδοιμ ’ av a Paris copy of L (where the καί is a mistake for tbs), tbs αν ίδοίμαν Markl. tbs έσιδοίμαν Elms, tbs κατιδοίμαν Dind. I have adopted Elmsley’s reading, as I think it very likely (Vitelli compares El. 1242 where the MS. has tbs βΐδομεν, and the ed. princ. είσείδομβν) that ecr- may have been omitted after tbs from the similarity of the abbreviations in cursive writing -s (tbs) and _5(εσ). 171. ’Αχαιών PL Ά τρβιδάν Camper on Electr. 246. 172. ’Αχαιών PL άγαυών Nauck. Hermann and et νεανίδων, άνανδρος , η τβκνοΰσσα;) An¬ other reason for supposing the members of the chorus to be married women is that it would have seemed to the audience (cf. above on v. 149) impossible for a troop of unmarried girls to have come on such an expedition.—The parodus does nothing to further the action of the tragedy. It serves to give the audience a view of the surroundings of the scene of action—of the composition, situation and anticipa¬ tions of the Greek forces encamped at Aulis. The metre is mostly logaoedic but in the middle of the strophe and anti¬ strophe comes an ionic passage {vv. 171 —174, and 192—195). See the appendix on the metres at the end of the book. The strophe and antistrophe are followed by an epode {vv. 206—230).—Nearly all editors are agreed in regarding vv. 231—302 as a later interpolation and not from the hand of Euripides. It is a mere catalogue of the forces modelled on that in the second book of the Iliad— 1 putidissinms index ’ Hermann calls it. 169. ύδάτων τροφο v] It seems to us more natural to regard the city or land as fed by the spring than as feeding it. A still stranger metaphorical use of the word occurs at El. 54:— ώ νύζ μέλαινα χρνσέων άστρων τροφέ. 170. Tas tcXitvas ’Ap€0ov> j μορφαι a PL, Spiv hjHM< fwpfyai dv Pors. This correction was made on the assumption that Sipia is if, quantity - but even supposing that Nauck is not right in reading Sip v/ there (cf, Rhei. 708 Όδυσσή, Jil. 43 ()' λχιΧΚη, οΐ'ΧχΙΧη, Ale. 25 Up -η ), the -ea can be scanned as one long syllable as at Ar. Thesm. 26 ' ϋρακλία, and at Ilhes. 977 hrar' Άχίλλ/α Ο (σώοι h rrlvOci π<ηί. ιΗ6. όρωμίναν PL, bpopxva Canter. •.hip 5 of the chieftains (dvyav&v q/uOlorv - M 7,3 ipuO/7? ανασσε Φυλεως λόχευμα, τάς Έχίνας λιπών * * * * νήσους ναυβάταις άπροσφόρους. Αίας δ’ ο ^ϊαλαμΐνος εντροφος δεξιοί; κεράς προς τδ λαών £υναγε, των άσσον ωρμει πλαταισεν εσχάταισι συμπλεκων δωδεκ ενστροφωτάταισί νανσίν' ως άων και νανβάταν είδόμαν λέων' ω τι? ει προσαρμόσει βαρβάρους βάρίδας, νόστον ουκ άποίσεται , ενσαο οων εωομαν νάων 7 τόρευμα, τα δέ κατ’ οίκους κλυουσα συγ- 28ο * 8 s άντ. 2go 295 3 °° latter as an emendation). 281. ονόμαζε P (0 for ω is a common error with P), ωνόμαζε L. 284. rjyev ων PL, ηχεμών Herm. The word άνασσε which stands in the MSS. at the end of this v. cannot stand here: it probably was put in by a transci’iber after the ήγεμών was corrupted into ήγεν ων. Firnhaber reads rjyov, ών M 0 yys άνασσε. 286. έχίδνας PL, in P a commentator has written at the side ras εχιναδά s φησι. ’Έχινάδας Voss, Έχ /vas Brodeau. 290. tyvaye PL, i-vvaye Weil. 299. άιον PL, olov Herm. 301. συγκλήτου PL, Dind. 280. δυνάσ-τωρ] is ‘ a vile word ’ formed on the analogy of άνάκτωρ. 285. Φυλέως λόχευμα] This use of λόχευμα with the genitive of the father is outrageous: the writer must have used something of the nature of a ‘ Gradus ’. 287. ναυβάταΐξ airpo0pous] Vitelli refers to 0 427 where we read of Ύάφωί ληίστορες άνδρες. 289—293. Weil’s comment on these lines begins as follows : ‘ Pour trouver le sens de ces lignes, il ne faut pas prendre pour point de depart les mots, qui sont obscurs, mais il faut d’abord se demander ce qui le poete a dii dire’. 296. ττροσ-αρμόσει] apparently used here in the sense of bring to close quarters with; the sense of the whole passage is ‘ whoever brings outlandish hulks to attack such a fleet as this will not be allowed to escape ’. 300. νάιον τόρευμα] another lame phrase for ‘ fleet ’; the author has pre¬ viously used πλάτη (236), δπλισμα πόντων (253, if the reading is right), and volos στρατό s (260). Λ 30 ΕΥΡΙΓΤΙΔΟΥ κλητόν [μνήμην] σωζομαυ στρατεύματος.] ’ ΕπειοόλιοΝ λ. ΠΡ. Μβϊ'ελαε, τολμάς Beiv, α σ ου τολμάν χρβων. ΜΕ. αττβλθβ' λίαν δβσττόταισι ί τιστός el. ΠΡ. καλόν γε μοι τ ovvethos έξωνείδίσας. 3°5 suggests σύγκλυδος but prefers avWoyov. I am inclined to think that μνήμην in v. 302 is an explanatory addition, and that v. 301 originally ended with the first syllable of ovy κλητόν, the gen. στρατεύματος depending on the τα δε, σφζομαι for ‘I remember’ is a poetical but μνήμην σώζομαι τίνος a most prosaic phrase. 303. δεΐν ’ PL. 304. A late hand in P inserted yε after λίαν: Aldus printed the yo: Barnes was the first to reject it. The corrector evidently did not know that FIRST EPISODE vv. 303—542. It is with a sigh of relief that every student must turn from the perplexities of the prologue and the doggerel navy list at the end of the parodus, to a scene of definite intelligible action, and of a genuine Euripidean stamp. Menelaus, impatient for Iphigeneia’s arrival {vv. 328 and 330) has gone out at daybreak to look for her along the road. All he sees is the old henchman going from the camp in haste, the bearer of the letter which is to send Iphigeneia back. The suspicions of Menelaus are aroused. He challenges the messenger, robs him of his letter and reads its contents. At v. 303 Menelaus appears before Aga¬ memnon’s tent struggling with the old henchman, who is endeavouring to re¬ cover the stolen letter. At v. 314 the latter calls to his master for aid. Aga¬ memnon appears, and a brisk ‘ stichomu- thia ’ between the two Atreidae forms an introduction to a formal pleading between the two, such as an Athenian play-goer loved to listen to. On the question of the spurious passage that follows, see Notes on vv. 413—441. After this pleading both sides give way. Agamemnon bewails his fate, and the sight of his brother’s dismay and grief, or else his natural cunning, then moves Menelaus to waive his claim. He offers Ί to abandon the expedition. Agamemnon however will not accept his offer, and the first Episode closes on the understanding that the sacrifice must proceed. It is perhaps a mark of the unfinished state in which the author left the play, that there are no anapaests at the end of the parodus such as those in which the chorus usually announce the arrival of a new character. Such formal lines ap¬ proach very nearly in kind to our stage directions, and may well have been put in after the main scenes had been com¬ posed. Scene I. The Old Man and Menelaus. 305. καλόν yk μοι rovvetSos] a pro¬ verbial oxymoron: ‘ your reproach does me credit ’. Cf. the ‘ proverb ’ quoted (from Diogenianus IV. 85) by Suidas s.v. y αστήρ ' yaaTlpa μοι προφέρεις, κάλλιστον ονειδος απάντων, Eur. Phoen. 821 yevvav όδοντοφυή, θήβαις κάλλιστον όνειδος, Bacch. 852 ώνείδισας δη τούτο Αιοννσιρ καλόν. It is a proof of the familiar nature of the phrase that Eustathius on A 211, and on P twice quotes Soph. 0 . T. 1035 as καλόν y* ονειδος instead of δεινόν y ονειδος. At Medea 514 καλόν y όνειδος τιρ νεωστι νυμφίφ, we probably have this phrase used ironically, ‘ a credit- ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 3ΐ ΜΕ. κλαίοις άν, el 7 τράσσοίς α μη πτράσσβιν σε δεΓ. ΠΡ. ον χρην σε λνσαί δελτον, rjv eydo "φερον. ME. ουδέ ye φερειν σε πάσιν ν Ε λλησιν κακά. ΠΡ. άλλους άμΐλλώ ταυτ ’ άφες δε τήνδ' εμοί. ΜΕ. οΰκ άν μεθείμην. ΠΡ. ουδ’ eyooy άφησομαι. 3 10 ΜΕ. σκηπτρω τάχ άρα σον καθαυμάξω κάρα. ΠΡ. αλλ’ εύκλεες του δεσποτών θνησκευν υπέρ. ΜΕ. μεθες' μάκρους δε δούλος ών λεγε^? λόyoυς. ΠΡ. <2 δεσποτ, άδυκούμεσθα. σάς δ’ επυστολάς the ι of λίαν is sometimes long. 306. κλαίεις P, corrected by an early hand to κλαίοις. 30 7· I have printed σέ with Paley instead of the ordinary σε . —In P the mark of the breathing over the absent augment of ( ’έ)φερον is obliterated by a dot of ink. L has the breathing but no accent. 308. ουδέ ye φέρειν σε δει PL, corrected in both by an early hand to ουδέ σε φέρειν δεϊ: the correction of ye to σε is manifest in both: in L the eiv of φέρειν is in an erasure large enough to hold ειν σε. It is clear that the δει has no business here but was originally an explanatory addition. 309. άλλως PL, άλλοι s Markl. The άμιλλα of Aid. may have been due to the fact that in P the ώ resembles a: άλλως άμιλλα gives a tolerable sense, but it is far more likely that άλλοις was miswritten άλλως, than that άμιλλρ was miswritten άμιλλω. 313. In P a late hand has written an explanatory yap over the able sort of reproach that though its very familiarity may have led to a mis¬ take such as that made by Eustathius. Vitelli suggests that in the Medea we ought to read κακόν y δνειδος. Anyhow this passage in the Medea is the only one which at all bears out the extraordinary statement made by the scholiast on Eur. Phoen. 821 'έστι δέ το όνειδος των μέσων λέξεων, ώϊ και τύχη, και δόλος, και ξ'ηλος : a statement made also by Eust. on A 211 and Z 367, and in the Et. Mag. 626, 37— due probably to a misapprehension of the proverbial καλόν y όνειδος. SeeValc- kenaer and Geel or Phoen. l.c. and Vitelli on this passage. The above ex¬ planation seems better than to take the καλόν ye ironically here : ‘ a pretty sort of reproach’. When at v. 311 Menelaus repeats (‘more explicitly’ as Weil says) the threat of v. 306, the Old Man again refers to the honour Menelaus will unin¬ tentionally be doing him. 307. σέ] emphatic because of the σε δει of the previous line : ‘ you talk of my duties, let me remind you of yours ’. 308. For the rare ουδέ ye cf. Soph. El. 1347 Ο. ούχί ξυνίης ; Η. ουδέ y ές θυμόν φέρω, Xen. Cyr. I. ν. ir (bis). Usually some word or words intervene between the ουδέ and the ye. δέ ye is not uncom¬ mon. 310. The άφησομαι shows that by this time the old man had got hold of the letter. Probably an unsuccessful attempt to do so caused Menelaus to say what he does at v. 306, and he succeeded in getting it when he said the word τήνδ' in v. 309. 311. At Andr. 587 Peleus says to Menelaus : σκήπτριρ δε τφδε σόν καθαιμά- ξω κάρα. 313· μ€0€$] very likely at this word, as Paley says, M. snatches the letter from his hand. SovXos ών] ‘ for a slave’: cf. .Soph. 0 . C. 20 μακράν yap ως yέpovτι ττρούστάλης όδον, and Ο. T. 1078 and 1118. 32 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ όξαρττάσας οδ’ έκ χβρων Ιμων βία, 3 J 5 'Α<γάμ€μνον, ovSev τ y Bi/cy χρησθαι OeXeL ΑΓΑ. βα¬ τ/? 7 τοτ iv 7 τνΧαίσί θόρυβος καί Χόγων ακοσμία; ΜΕ. ονμός ονχ ό rovSe μύθος κυριωτερος \eyeiv. ΑΓΑ. σύ δβ τί τώδ’ e’? eptv άφΐξαί, Μβζ'βλβω?, βία τ’ άγβις; δέ. 3 j 7· At Bekker, Anecdota ι, 369 this v. is quoted in the form τίς tot ’ εν θύραισι κ.τ.Χ. P has τις δ^τ’ ei> τύΧαισιν, L ris δ^τ’ eV τύΧαις k.t.X. with an erasure before τις, after ΊτύΧαις and after θόρυβος. Evidently the erased additions and the δήτ’ for 7 tot’ are to be explained by the fact that in L the line was originally written as two (iambic!) verses. The hand that erased the additions wrote αρχή over rts and TeXos over ακοσμία : i.e. he had found out that it was only one trochaic line, though apparently he thought the second syllable of θόρυβος was long. τύΧαισι, the grander word of the two, is probably right, and not θύραισι. Hermann (Ofusc.) thought a verse spoken by the old man was missing after 7 ). 317, and so Kirchhoff. Anyhow H. was right in ascribing v. 318 not, as P and L do, to ΠΡ. but to Menelaus. See Expl. Notes. Nauck suggests καιριώτερος κΧύε iv for κνρίώτβρος Xiyeiv: this amounts to re-writing Euripides: moreover κνριώτερος better suits Menelaus’ imperious 316. This seems rather a weak line. It would be easy to believe that the preceding line ended originally with and that the author, or some later hand, in finally adapting it for the stage altered the 'έχει to βία and added ^.316 solely in order to bring in ‘ Agamemnon’, the name of the character who now appears. Anyhow such is the purpose of the line. The ‘ playbill ’ element in tragedy must not be judged by rigid canons of style. Scene II. Agamemnon , Menelaus. The Old Man probably retires at v. 319. By the side of v. 317 L has the follow¬ ing scholion : τροχαϊκοί διά το μετά δρόμου εξεΧθεΐν τόν Ά-γαμεμυονα. The livelier metre not only suits a rapid appearance on the stage, but also the hasty tempers of the interlocutors in the following scene. 318. The old man has called his master out from his tent; it is natural that the first words of Agamemnon should be addressed more particularly to the man who has summoned him. These words of Menelaus are spoken to draw his attention from the old man to him¬ self. 319. τωδ’] It is best to take the dat. not, as at Cyclops 328 (Aios β pov- ταϊσιν eis 'έριν κτυτων) directly with ei’s ‘έριν, but with the whole phrase eis έ. άφ. βία τ’ α -yeis] This άγεις is diffi¬ cult. At Tro. 998 e.g. Hecuba says to Helen βίμ yap ταιδα φής σ’ άγειν έμόν : there άγειν βίει has its natural sense of carry off by force : so too at Heracl. 254 : at Medea 1216 εί δε τρος βίαν ay οι means : but if he dragged at it violently; but in the present case there seems to be nothing resembling a carrying off or a dragging, unless it be at the letter. But the old man apparently had ceased at v. 315 f. to hold the letter. Unless άγεις is corrupt, perhaps the best explanation is that Agamemnon here accuses his brother with having (waylaid and) car¬ ried off his messenger by force (historic present). ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 33 ΜΕ. ΑΓΑ. ΜΕ. ΑΓΑ. ΜΕ. ΑΓΑ. ΜΕ. ΑΓΑ. βΧεψον eh ημάς, ϊν άρχάς των Χόγων ταύτας Χάβω. 3 20 μών τρέσας ούκ άνακαΧυψω βΧέφαρον, Άτρεως ^/ε^ως; τήνδ' ορας δεΧτον, κακίστων γραμμάτων ίπτηρετιν; είσορώ, καί πρώτα ταύτην σών άπάΧΧαξον χερών, ον, πρϊν άν δείξω ye Δαναοΐς 7 τάσι Tayyey ραμμένα, η yap οίσθ' ά μη σε καιρός είδεναι, σήμαντρά άνείς; 3 2 5 ώστε σ aXyvvai y , άνοίξας, ά σύ κάκ eipyάσω Χάθρα. που δ'ε κάΧαβες νιν; ώ θεοί, σής αναίσχυντου φρενδς. tone. 322. τηνδ’ in an erasure in Ρ. αγραμμάτων PL, ττρα·γμάτων or ερ~γμάτων Markl., ραμμάτων Gomperz. See Ex. Notes. 324. άττασί τά eyyey ραμμένα with the first e of eyy. crossed through Ρ, τάσι τάyyeypaμμέva, the τά being in an erasure and the σι written above it L. Vitelli ‘dubitanter ’ πάντα for ττάσι: this is no improvement to the sense but provides a possible explanation for the erasure in L. Aid. and subsequent early editors adopted P.’s άττασι and omitted the 320. IV ap\as κ.τ.λ. ] This paren¬ thetical use of ϊνα with an ellipsis of a previous I say it is not uncommon in Greek. A well known instance is to be found in St Matthew ix. 6 : another at Soph. Phil. 989 (Zei)s ’έσθ', ϊν' eldrjs, Zet)s ό τήσδβ yrjs κρατών), probably also, though all commentators do not so take it, at Soph. Ant. 310. The Latin ut is used in somewhat the same way : eg. Ovid Met. XIII. 177 Utque alios taceam, qui saevum perdere posset Hector a nempe dedi: only the Latin ut is here consecutive, the Gk. ϊνα is final. 321. ‘Do you expect the son of Atreus to shut his eyes from fear?’— Vater (Prolegg. ad Rhesum) notices the fact that the name Άτρβύς is said by Plato (Crat. 395 b) to be significant from its likeness, to άτρβστος (among other words). No doubt the poet here was thinking of a possible etymological con¬ nexion between τρέσας and Άτρέως : in pronunciation σ between the e and a of the former word would perhaps be some¬ what slurred over. — βλέφαρον for ομμα is common in tragedy; but perhaps here, as in the passage of Aristotle (quoted— wrongly—in L. and S 7 .) p. 444 252 βλέφαρον is literally eyelid and άνακαλ. means lift (a covering). E. I. 322. γραμμάτων ύττηρετιν] fanciful, but quite Euripidean : the servant bears the tablet, and the tablet in its turn per¬ forms the same office, and bears the writing. 326. With άνοίξας it is best to under¬ stand σήμαντρα , or δέλτον, and not to take it, as L. and S. and others do, directly with ά σύ κ.τ.λ. in the sense of disclose, make public. Menelaus had not yet made his discovery public. Ag. has asked ‘ Have you undone the seal and do you know what you have no business to know’? Men, answers ‘Yes, to youi cost, I have opened it, and I know the evil you wrought in secret ’. Firnhaber takes ά σύ κ.τ.λ. as the subj. to άλyυvaι, but this leaves άνοίξας in a very awkward position: it is best therefore to suppose the relative clause as governed by the όΐδα which is implied in the ye. 327. ιτού δ! κάλαβές νιν] Porson on Phocn. 1373 has collected many instances of καί thus placed after an interrogative word: among them several in which, as here and at v. 1192, a δέ comes between the interrogative and the καί. This καί is generally placed immediately before the verb, or only separated from it by an unemphatic word, and is best ren¬ dered by putting an emphasis on the 3 ΕΥΡΙΓΤΙΔΟΥ 34 ME. 7 τροσΒοκων σην παίΒ' απ' 'Άργους el στράτευμ' άφίζεται. ΑΓΑ. τι Be σε τάμα Bel φυλάσσειν; οΰκ αναίσχυντου τόΒε; ΜΕ. οτι το βούλεσθαί μ ’ 'έκνιζε' σος Be Βοΰλος οΰκ έφυν. 33 ° ΑΓΑ. ουγΐ Βεινά; τον εμον οίκεΐν οίκον οΰκ έάσομαι; ΜΕ. 7 τλάγια γάρ φρονείς, τα μεν νυν, τά Be πάλαι, τα Β' αντίκα. ΑΓΑ. εύ κεκομψευσαί πονηρά · γλάσσ' επίφθονον σοφή. ye. 33 Γ · Hermann’s ούχι δΑν’, el for the MSS. ούχΐ δεινά; is certainly not refuted by Monk’s statement that the following ούκ would in that case have been μη. — έάσομαι PL, έάσομ€ν Firnhaber, έας Ige Nauck. 333. έκκeκόμφeυσaι‘ 7 τονηρον PL. ed KeKogxpevaar Ruhnken ad Tim. Lex. 155. έκκ€κόμ\{/€νσαι πονηρόν, Matthiae. ed κεκόμφ€υσαι πονηρά, Monk, πονηρών Bothe and Nauck (so Weil and Vitelli). έπίφθονον PL, έπι φθόνον Musgrave (so Bremi, Hartung, Hermann, Dindorf and Vitelli). Bremi, followed by Matthiae, Bothe, Firnhaber and Vitelli prefer to keep eKKeKogpevaai, reading πονηρών (Firm πονηρόν, adverbially with έκκ.). I have, with Paley and Jebb (on Soph. Ant. 324) adopted Monk’s reading of the line. Musgrave’s έπ'ι φθόνον seems at first sight a simple solution of the difficulty, but έπί with the acc. auxiliary which accompanies the English verb. Cf. Soph. Aj. 1290 dda^ve, πόι βλέπων ποτ αυτά και 0poeis ; ‘ with what face can you utter it?’ (Jebb, in lecture).— I am inclined with Firnhaber to take viv to refer not to the letter, but to the tnessenger. In that case the question takes up that put at v. 319 (see notes there) : not 1 where', or ‘ how' (cf. v. 406) ‘ did you get it ? ’—both these questions would be unnecessary after the old man’s words at v. 315—but ‘where did you get hold of him?’ The exclamation at the end of the v. is prompted by indigna¬ tion not at the opening of the letter but at the interference with the messenger. This is borne out by v. 329. 328. ττροσ-δοκάν τούτον el as δ’. Hartung transposes 351 and puts it after 353: this Iderm. {Opusc.) approves. 355. τδ Πριάμου re PL, with the to crossed out in both. Elmsley rejected the re and so all later editors, έμπλήσας PL, τ’ el for re (PL) (in 354), and εμπλήσείς Musgrave, έμπλήσων Matt., εμπλήσαις Lenting (a bad form). I have adopted Musgrave’s correction. The re after Πριάμου was evidently put in by some one who thought Ag. feared (cf. v ‘ 357) t0 l° se the command of the fleet and this insertion may have gone along with the change of έμπλήσεις to έμπλήσας. 35 6. τίνα πόρον εϋρω ποθέν PL, with a δε inserted after τίνα by an early hand in both: τίν ’ άπορων εϋρω πόρον Nauck. Weil has improved on this by reading απόρων. Monk and Wecklein adopt at /. T. 897 Hermann’s reading απόρων πόρον (for the mss. πόρον άπορον ), where the gen. has exactly the same sense as here: [πόθον L. Dind.). 357. στερέντα σ’ PL, στερεντας Musgrave. Nearly all recent editors accept Musgrave’s emendation. If we follow them we ought to take στερεντας, as Dobree says, to apply to both the 351. οΐιδεν η<τθ’] with reference to the ώς ταπεινός ήσθα of the previous charge. ‘ This time you were brought lower still’. Monk compares I. T. 115. Cf. also Tro. 1007 εί δ’ εύτυχοΐεν Τρώες, ούδεν ήν όδε. Cf. vv. 968 and 945 of this play.— τή τύχρ τή των θεών is a variety for the common 0 eiεσθαι Xoyov ς μάχας θ\ δταν ποτ εμιτέσωσιν εις εριν. ΑΓΑ. βούΧομαί σ’ είπεΐν κακώς αν, βραχέα, μη Χίαν άνω βΧεφαρα προς ταναιδές ayayoov, άΧΧά σωφρονεστερον, ώς αδεΧφδν οντ\ άνήρ yap χρηστός αιδεΐσθαι φιΧεΐ. 3^0 είπε μοι , τί δείνα φυσάς αιματηρόν δμμ εχων; condemns this verse. 375 · πόλεωί PL, πόλεοί Grotius. I agree with Hartung in thinking that first some ‘sententiarum generalium venator’ wrote the (Stoic-like) iambic trimeter ‘nescio unde petitum’ άρχων,.,τύχη, at the side; next it got into the text ‘ scribarum errore ’, finally c aliquis numerorum male peritus ’ (he evidently scanned by accent and neglected vowel length), made it into a tetrameter by prefixing 7 τόλεωί il>s.—It will be seen that out of the last 13 lines of Menelaus’ speech more than half have by one commentator or another been pronounced spurious. This is not healthy, but it is very hard to say where the fault lies. At any rate difficulties of this kind are not to be solved by following a scholar who spends 3^ pages in defending the syntax of μηδέν’ άν θείμην. 376 and 377 are quoted by Stobaeus Anth. 82, 3. yiveadcu P, yiyveadou L. 378. ed PL, ad Markland (Dobree defends cd, comparing ed διαβαλών at Thuc. 3, 42), οϋ Herm. (Opusc.), άν ώ PL, L adding yp. άνω in the first hand, in P there may have been an erasure where the v stands, άνω Stobaeus, who quotes 378, 379 and 380 at Anth. 31, 2. 379. σωφρο- νέστεροί PL, σωφρονεστέρω s Stobaeus: in P at all events the os, as in Aid., is indicated by an 0 over the p. It is more likely that this was a mistake for ov than for ws.—Wattenbach (Gr. Pal. Snppl. p. 17), says this 0 sometimes stands for ov .— So with Matthiae and Monk I have written σωφρονέστερον. 380. αισχρό s ούκ PL, χρηστοί χρηστόν Stobaeus, χρηστοί Grotius, in P ώ (i.e. ώραΐον ) and yv (i.e. sing, collectively Heracl. 275 ήξω δβ χολ· \ην "Apeoi Ά pyeiov λαβών παγχα λκον αιχμήν δεύρο. Probably the use of χειρ and the Latin inanus for a force is of the same kind as this of αιχμή , i.e. collective. 376 f. This anticipation of Dr Watts (‘But ’tis a shameful sight, When children of one family Fall out and chide and fight ’) seems to have been popular in antiquity. Stobaeus quotes it in his Anthology. 378. Weil keeps the mss. ευ and translates ‘je veux te dire des injures, mais les dire convenablement ’: but κακώί i είπεΐν (or λέχειν) does not so much mean maledicerep abuse’, in Tragedy, as incre- pare , ‘ find fault with ’; cp. Soph. El. 523 ^γώ δ’ ϋβριν μέν ούκ έχω, κακώί δέ σε λέγω κακώί κλύουσα πρόί σέθεν θαμά : in male· dicere, ‘dire des injures’, ‘abuse’, there A the notion of ΰβριί. 379· Trpos τάναιδ€δ] (for the form of phrase cf. έί κοινόν v. 408) must be con¬ sidered along with the σωφρονέστερον and the αίδεΐσθαι in the next v.: it is probably not effrontery, or even disdain , but reck¬ lessness, mercilessness, which Ag. says his gestures shall not express. It is difficult to decide whether βλέφαρα here means eyes or eyelids. Cf. v. 321, and Prov. 30. 13 ‘ There is a generation, oh how lofty are their eyesl And their eyelids are lifted up ’. 381. δ€ΐνάφυ«τάν] οι ov opyifcadai και νττό όρχήί άποσχετλιάζειν Phrynichus in Bekk. Anecd. 1, 36, 1. Cf. μέya φυσών V. 125 · αιματηρόν ό'μμα] Monk renders vultum sanguine su fusum, Paley ‘ that sanguinary 42 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ τις άδυκβΐ ere; του κεχρησαυ; χρηστά Χίκτρ δράς Xafielv ; ού /c e%ot) α άν σου τταρασγβϊν' ών yap έκτήσω, κακώς VPX e ?· e ^ T ' δγώ δίκην δώ σών κακών , 6 μη σφαΧβίς; η δάκνβυ σε το φυΧότυμον τούμόν; αΧΧ ’ eV άγκάΧαυς 3^5 6V7T ρ€7τη γυναίκα χρηζ^υς, τδ ΧεΧογυσμβνον τταρβίς καί το καΧόν, βχβυν; ιτονηρου φωτός ηδοναί κακαί. eu δ’ εγώ γνους ττρόσθβν ουκ ev μετβθεμην βύβουΧίαν, μαίνομαι; σύ μάΧΧον, δστις άιτοΧβσας κακόν Χέχος γνώμη) are written at the side. 382. λέκτρ' ipqs χρηστά PL, λέκτρα χρήστ' ipqs Heath, χρηστά λέκτρ ’ epas Reiske and Wecklein. I prefer the latter, as it involves a smaller change in the mss. reading, and seems to me to emphasize χρηστά (see Ex. Notes). Also, as Wecklein says, the corruption is easily explained, if this was the order, from the similarity of -χρησαι and χρηστά. 384. δώσω PL, δώ σων Dawes Miscell. Crit.'p. 341; a splendid emendation. 388. μβτετέθην εύβουλία, PL, μετεθέμην εύβουλίαν Monk, who compares Orestes 254 μετέθου λύσσαν. The word μετεθεμην is very liable to be mis-written (Monk says a Paris copy had μ ετέθην), as is also the last syllable in a tetrameter; on the other hand μετετέθην εύβουλίφ is not a natural Greek expression, and in particular, though μεταθεσθαι for ‘to change one’s mind’ is common, the passive is, I believe, nowhere so used. Weil accepts μετεθεμην but keeps εύβουλίφ. 389. Over μάλλον an early hand in L has written μαίνη : a good instance of an explanatory addition in look’, Firnhaber ‘ mordgieriges Auge\ The ’ύχων points to something more en¬ during than a glance, and this, as well as the general tone of the passage inclines me to think with Monk that at. 6 . ’έχων means ‘ with flushed face ’. Menelaus had shown no fratricidal hate. 382. κ€χρη<ται] elsewhere it is only the participle κεχρημένος that is used in the sense of ‘ zvant '. There is, I think, a significance in the emphatic position of χρηστά which helps us to understand the train of thought. Ag. says in effect: ‘ you have had a bad wife, are you angry because you can’t get a good one?’ cp. v. 486 and see notes there. Some have thought that λαβεΐν stood for άναλαβεΐν : but χρηστά λέκτρα (cp. Hipp. 636 and frag. 524 Nauck) cannot refer to Helen. 383. ‘ That is more than I can promise to secure to you, you managed so ill last time’. Vater compares Andromache 591 ff. 384. ‘ Imitatur Ennius Iphigenia apud J. Rufinianum de Fig. Sent, et Eloc. c. 37 ’ Pors. The lines quoted from Ennius are : Ego protectory quod tie pec - cas ? tu delinquisy ego arguor? Pro viale- factis Helena redeat ? virgo pereat inno- cens ? Tua reconcilietur uxor ? mea necetur filia? (Ribbeck, Ennius y v. 194). 385. τδ φιλότιμον] used as in v. 342.— άλλ’ ‘ No ’. 386. τδ λίΧογισ-μένον] Monk trans¬ lates ‘ discretion ’. τό λελ. and τό καλόν answer roughly to our expediency and duty. 387. ττονηροΰ φωτό§] has the empha¬ sis, ‘ des plaisirs honteux sont la marque d’un hornme sans valeur’ Weil: ‘ proprii di turpe uomo sono turpi piaceri ’ Vitelli. The v. is marked γνώμη in L and ωραίο v in P. 389. In κακόν there is a re-echoing of the charge made at the end of v. 387. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 43 άναλαβεΐν θελεις, θεού σοι την τύχην διδόντος εΰ. 39° ώμοσαν τον Ύυνόάρειον op/cov οί κακόφρονες φι\ό Γ γαμοί μνηστήρες’ ή δε y ελπίς, οίμαι μεν, θεός, κάξεπραξεν αυτό μάλλον ή σύ καί τό σόν σθένος ’ ούς λαβών στράτευ’ έτοιμοι δ’ εισι μωρία φρένων’ 394 ού yap άσννετον τό θειον, αλλ’ εχει συνιεναι 394 α a MS. 39 2 · V δέ γ’ £λπίς, οίμαι μεν PL, i}ye δ’ ελπίς κ.τ.λ. Matthiae and Seyflfert, ή yap ελπίς κ.τ.λ. Hennig, η δε σφ' ελπίς ώρμαινεν Herwerden : it seems to me that all these changes are for the worse. See Expl. Notes. 393. κάξέπραξεν PL, corrected in P to εξέπραξεν which is printed in Aid. This is one of the many corrections made by Musurus, the Greek scholar who owned the ms. and who most probably superintended the printing from it at Venice of Aldus’ first edition of Euripides. 394. στράτευε . οίμαι δ , εϊση PL, only in P a 7 is inserted by a later hand after στράτευε and before the stop, στράτευ ’ έτοιμοι δ ’ εισι Monk. Matthiae is doubtless right in conjecturing that the alteration of this v. arose from the loss of v. 394a and the consequent necessity of finding a verb to govern τούς κακ. iray. όρκους. Though most modern editors adopt Monk’s emendation, they do not, as he did, regard er. δ’ εισι as a parenthesis. 394a. This verse does not occur in the mss. and early editions, but was discovered by Reiske, Heath, Markl., Musgr. and Valckenaer quoted along with v. 395 by 391. τον Τυνδάραον δρκον] a good instance of the identity in use of the adj. formed from a proper name and the genitive in Greek. It is only to a very limited extent that this is the case in English: e.g. Elizabethan , Darwinian could only in a few cases stand for Eliza¬ beth's or Dartvin's. 391—393. The difficulty here lies chiefly in the αυτό in v. 393. It cannot be right to interpret it, as most commen¬ tators do, of the taking of the oath. There could be no question of Menelaus’s using force to compel the suitors to take Tyndareos’s oath. He was himself on a level with all the other suitors at that time, and took it like the rest. But when we see that εξέπραξεν αυτό, and indeed the whole three lines, is an explanation of the words θεοΰ σοι την τύχην διδόντος εΰ all difficulties vanish. The connexion of ideas is this. After saying in 390 ‘you want to get her back just because a divinity has given you a good chance of doing so ’, Ag. digresses to explain that Hope was the divinity in the case, and that as Hope had made the suitors swear, it was she who had * brought it about ’, i.e. made the expedition possible, and so given Menelaus the chance. For the converse of this personifica¬ tion of ελπίς cf. Troades 987 ff. ην ουμός i )ios κάλλος ευπρεπέστατος ό σός δ' ίδών νιν νους έποιηθη Κύπρις' τα μωρά yap πάντ έστιν Αφροδίτη βρότοις. Monk quotes Cyclops 316 δ πλούτος άνθρωπίσκε τοΐς σοφοΐς θεός and Verg. Aen. ix. 185 an sna cnique dens fit dira cnpido ? Headlam well quotes Theognis 1135 ελπίς εν άνθρώποις μούνη θεός έσθλη ενεστιν and also ib. 637 f· 394 a. This v. seems to be mainly a comment on the word μωρ'μ t, though the position of the word in its sentence hardly seems important enough to justify such a comment.—‘ They are ready to go, fools that they are:—they must be fools not to know that Heaven would not hold them bound by oaths fastened on them by wicked force ’. πayέvτaς lit. 44 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ χο. ΜΕ. τούς κακώς πατέντας ορκους καί κατηναηκασμένους. 395 τάμα 8 ’ ονκ άττοκτενώ yoo τέκνα' κον το σον μεν ευ 7 ταρά 8ίκην εσται κάκιστης εΰνι8ος τιμωρία, εμε 8ε συντηζουσυ νύκτες ημεραι τε 8ακρνοις , άνομα 8ρώντα κού 8ίκαια τταΐ8ας ούς εηεινάμην. βραχέα ταυτά σοι λελεκ,ται καί σαφή και ρα8ια' 4°° el 8ε μη βούλει φρονεΐν συ, ταμ ’ €γώ θησω καλώς. οϊ8 ’ αύ 8ιάφοροι των ττάρος λελεημενων μύθων , καλώς δ’ εχουσι , φεί8εσθαι τέκνων. αίαΐ, φίλους άρ ούχϊ κεκτημην τάλας. Theophilus ad Autolycum II. 54 ? [ 37 ] an d Stobaeus Anth. 28, 10. 395. σννη- vay κασμένους PL, κατηνα^ κασ μένους Theoph. and Stob. 396. /cat τό σον PL, κού το σον Lenting (on Androm. 307) and Hermann. 397. πέρα δίκη s PL, παρά δίκης Reiske, 7 ταρά δίκην Pors. Monk (like all editors before Musgr.) reads τιμωρία (it is true that the mss. omit the t subscr., but so they do constantly in datives, eg. μωρία 393, εύβουλία 388 (L)),—keeping καί in v. 396, and he understands το σον εΰ in the sense of ‘that which benefits you’, ‘your advantage’, comparing τό δ’ εΰ at Ag. 119 and I. T. 580. 399. έγείναμεν PL, con*, by an early hand in L to ε^εινάμην. 400. ράδια PL. It is probable that like so many last words in a tetrameter this is a corruption. Stadtmiiller suggests καίρια comparing v. 829. 401. εΰ PL, σύ Markland. 403. Perhaps we ought to read here καλώς δ’ ’έχει r * s\ / v ) * λ . / *ητ i/ 5 9 9 t ae (peioeavcu τέκνων. 404. ap ονχι αν ούχϊ κεκτημην Elmsley (ingeniously but ‘compacted’, ‘made fast’, as if the oath were a cage or a trap into which the suitors had been forced. 396. κού κ.τ.Χ.] for the idiomatic oi) negativing both a μεν and a δέ clause cf. I. T. 116 f. οϋτοι μακρδν μέν ηΧθομεν κώττη πόρον, εκ τερμάτων δέ νόστον άροΰμεν ττάΧιν. 397 · παρά δίκην] παρά τό δίκαιον Hesych. (Dind.), παρά τ’ ελπίδα και παρά δίκαν Trag. adesp. fr. 7 2 Nauck. τιμωρία an extended use of the dat. oimanner. 398. With this v. is compared the varying construction at Med. 2 5 τον πάντα συντηκονσα δακρύοις χρόνον, ib. 14Γ η δ’ εν θαλάμοις τήκει βιοτήν: Monk adds Ω 714 νύκτας τε και ηματα δακρυχέουσα. 399* δρώντα] a sort of historic present used as a poetic variety for the aorist, ‘the doer’ of wrong for ‘because I did’ wrong. Cf. Here. Fur. 727 προσδόκα δέ κεκτημην rL, ap ονκ εκεκτημην needlessly). Monk and Weil make the δρων κακώς κακόν τι πράξειν. Hel. 814 δρωντας "γάρ η μη δρωντας ηδιον θανείν. 4θΐ. τάμα] just like the τό σόν in ν . 396. 403· φ€ίδ€(τθαι] a variety of the im¬ perative use of the inf. Cf. Tro. 1031 νόμον δέ τόνδε ταΐς άλλαισι θές yvvai^i, θνησκειν ητις άν προδφ πόσιν. Cf. also Soph. Ai. 1264 and z/. 512 below. (See however Crit. N. for a sugested altera¬ tion.) 404. Markland compares Or. 721 άφιλος ησθ' άρ' ω πάτερ πράσσων κακώς, κεκτημην is in sense an imperf. This converse of the historic present— i.e. the using a past tense in talking of some state still continuing—is common in many languages. In Greek apa as indicating a discovery naturally accompanies it. For the omission of the augment cf. Soph. Ant. 41 r. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 45 ΑΓΑ. el τούς φίλους ye μη θέλβις an τολλύναί. 4°5 ΜΕ. Ββίξβις Be 7 του μοι πατρος έκ ταντου yeyώς; ΑΓΑ. συνσωφρονβΐν yap ού-χϊ συννοσβιν βφυν. ΜΕ. βς kolvov akye'iv τοΐς φίλοισί χρή φίλους. ΑΓΑ. βύ Βρών παρακάλβί μ , αΧλα μη λυπών εμ,ε. ΜΕ. ούκ αρα Βοκβϊ σου τάδε πονεϊν συν Ελλάδα; 4 ΪΟ ΑΓΑ. Ελλά? δε συν σοϊ κατά θβών νοσβΐ τινα. ΜΕ. σκηπτρω νυν avyei, σον κaσίyvητov προΒονς. .ψ. ^ ψ ,ψ, -ψ- α* <Τ· φ yjv vjy φ [εγω δ’ Ιπ άλλας ειμι μηχανάς τινας, line a question. 4 ° 7 · συνσωφρονεΐν σοι βούλομ 1 άλλ’ οά συννοσεΐν PL, συσσω- φρονεΐν yap, ούχί συννοσεΐν ’έφυ Plut. II. ρ. 64 C (first pointed out by Porson). Fix conjectures that Plutarch, quoting from memory, was misled by a remembrance of Soph. Ani. 523 ovtol σννεχθεϊν άλλα συμφιΧεΐν ’έφνν, and like Nauck, Vitelli, Weil and Wecklein prefers some emendation ( βουλόμεσθ ’ ού Fix, βούλομαι κού Ν., θέλομεν άλλ’ ού, and later βου\όμενο$ ού Vitelli, συνσωφρονεΐν έτοιμος, άλλ’ ού Wecklein) which will remove the impossible elision of the at in βούλομαι. It seems to me less likely on the whole that Plutarch should have quoted the line wrong than that modern scholars should have guessed it right. At the same time the coi of the mss. fits the context much better than Plutarch’s yap. Perhaps the yap, like the 'έφυ for έφνν was an intentional modification of what Euripides wrote, which may have been ταρ\ The yap is at any rate not more abrupt than the δέ in ^.411. Porson notices that where at Ion 1521 the MSS. have yo.p, the scholiast on Phoen. 909 has coi, which he thinks right there. 411. θεόν PL, θεών Porson. 412. ανχεΐς PL, αϋχει Tyrwhit (a beautiful emendation). w. 413—441. I have no hesitation in following L. and G. Dindorf, Kirchhoff and Nauck in regarding these verses as an interpo¬ lation. They contain just three good lines (vv. 427—429) which I should conjecture to have been borrowed by the interpolator. The inequality of texture is specially noticeable at the two junctures, but there are throughout many irregularities in both thought and language which will be commented on in the Explanatory Notes. This omission involves important dramaturgical results. Clytaemnestra appears in the next Epeisodion. Agamemnon first addresses her at v. 685 without any expi'ession of astonishment at seeing her, though in all earlier references to the expected arrival (rrj crj τ’ άλόχιρ at v. 154 being probably spurious) whether made by Ag. or Menelaus, the daughter only is spoken of. Still greater difficulty is occasioned by vv. 456—459 where Agam. definitely implies that Clytaemnestra was not expected. This fact makes it still more remarkable that Ag.’s first words to his wife at 407. Cf. Phoen. 394 και τούτο XvirpSv, συνασοφεΐν τοΐς μη σοφοις. 4θ8. 6S κοινόν] Adverbial phrases con¬ sisting of a prep, and a noun or adj. are as common in Greek as in English. Other instances in this play are εις τέλος ν. ι6ι, προς τανειδές ν. 379 * Cf. Soph. Phil. 594 προς Ισχύος κράτος. 409. i.o. ‘ Such a claim comes with a bad grace from one who is causing his friends pain ’. φ ΕΥΡΙΤΤΙΔΟΥ φίλους τ’ επ’ άλλους. ΑΓΓ. ώ Πανελλ^νων άναξ, Άγάμεμνον, ηκω παΐδα σοι την σην άγων, 4*5 ην Ιφιγένειαν ώνόμαξας εν δόμοις. μητηρ δ’ δμα ρτεί, σής Κλυταιμνήστρας δέμας, [και παις Όρεστης, ώστε τερφθείης ιδων,] χρόνον παλαιόν δωμάτων έκδημος ων. α’λλ’ ως μακράν ετεινον, ευρυτον παρά 4 20 κρηνην άναφυχουσι θηλυπουν βάσιν, αυταί τε πώλοι τ’* εις δέ λειμωνών χλόην καθεΐμεν αυτός, ως βοράς γευσαιατο. εγώ δέ πρόδρομος σης παρασκευής χάριν ν. 685 (to which the fact that they begin midway in a line gives a specially off¬ hand air—making them seem like the resumption of a former conversation) should contain not only no formal welcome but no reference to the fact that her coming is a surprise to her husband. On these grounds I cannot help believing that a passage containing the first meeting of husband and wife has been lost. Probably this passage came before v. 640. This belief involves the rejection of at least vv. 456—459 where see Crit. Notes. 413 and 414 Hennig, who protests against rejecting the whole passage, rejects these two verses. This lightens the ship considerably but cannot save it. 416. ώνάμαξας PL, (though Vitelli is silent) with 7ror’ added by a late hand in P, doubtless by Musurus, who printed ώνόμασας ποτ\ ώνόμαξ’ες Markl. 417. όμαρτεΐ L, όμαρτοΐ corrected by an early hand to όμαρτεΐ P. σης Κλυταιμνήστρας δέμας PL, σή Κλυταιμνήστρα δάμαρ Elmsley. 4 Γ ^· ώστε τερφθείης PL, actually defended by Hartung, Firnhaber and Klotz, ώί τι τερφθείης Herm., ώς σύ τ. Monk, ωστ ’ civ ήσθείης Hennig. 4' 2 ϊ· Hennig proposes χηλόπουν for the θηλυπουν of the mss. thus avoiding (see on next v.) the absurdity of talking of sending the ladies and the horses together into the field to feed. Musgrave avoided this by reading καθίεμεν τάσδ' in v. 423.—( άφεΐμεν αύτάς Hennig). 422. αύταί τε πώλοι y ’ PL (the 7’ added later in P), πώλοι τ’ 414. φίλους τ’ έττ’ άλλους] This comes in very awkwardly just after Men. (■ v . 404) had bewailed his friendless con¬ dition. 417. δε'μας] Paley quotes Electr. 1340 and Hec. 724 and Monk Orest. 107 for this use of δέμας with a gen. of a person. It is a circumlocution of the same kind as the Homeric βίη Ήρακληείη. 418. Paley quotes Ion 1375 f. (καί τι τερφθήναι βίου) in support of Hermann’s ώς τι τερφθείης. 420. ώς μακράν Ετεινον] At Soph. Aj. 1040, Aesch. Ag. 1296 μακραν τεί- νειν is used in the sense of the prose λόyov μακρόν αποτείνειν, 1 to speak at length’, and it is strange to find it used in so different a sense here. The tense too is strange. L. Dindorf says a clause in which ώς means nam can never come before its principal clause. This seems an arbitrary rule, and indeed Hermann quotes from Xen. Cyr. 4, 2, 29, a clear instance in which it does so. 424. σ-ής παρασκευής χάριν] It is not till after a digression of 10 lines that we find what this strange expression means. The possessive σής is used subjectively, not objectively. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 47 ηκω ' πέπνσταί yap στρατός , ταχεία γάρ 4 2 5 φημη, παιδα σην αφιγμένην. 7τα9 ό ει? c /εαν ομίλος ερχεται όρο/ζω, \ ν νς\ . « SJ* »ί ' σ>?ν παιο ο7τως ιοωσιν οι ο ευοαιμ,ονες εν 7τάσι κλεινοί, και περίβλεπτοί βροτοΐς. λεγουσι δ’· υμέναιός τις η τι πράσσεται; 43° τ; 7το0ον εχων θυγατρός 'Αγαμέμνων ανα£ εκόρ,ισε παΐ8α; των δ’ άν ηκονσας τάδε' Άρτέμ ιδι προτελίζονσί τ^ν νεάνιδα, Αΰλιδος ανάσαν), τις νιν άγεται 7τοτε; άλλ’ εια, ταπί τοισιδ’ έπαρχον κανά, 435 στεφανονσθε κράτα και συ, Μενελεως άνα£, Markland, αύτοΐσί (? for αύταίσέ) πώλοις Porson, ίπποι τε πώλοι τ’ Hennig. 4 2 5 · ταχεία yap PL (the 7<*p being corrected by an early hand in P to δε), Hartung reads δ^ for the first 7έσθαι των εμών σοφωτερος. 445 η δνσ<γένεια δ’ ως εχει τι χρήσιμον. aut corrnptus’ Nauck. Herm. ( Opusc .) inserted φύλλοις before κράτα and omits thq next six words. 438. Xotos corr. (as in P, in v. 375 άρχον to αρχών) to λωτος PL. 441· ίούσης PL, Ιωσης Lenting. 442. άξομαι PL, άρξωμαι Burges, σέθεν PL, πόθεν Grotius. 443. ds 01 7’ άνά^-κης with the 7 crossed out— i.e. the 7 had been put in by someone who was correcting P by L, but there is no trace of the a of οΐα· εις ota 7’ ανάγκης L. In P the μ of εμπεπτώκαμεν is put in 440. ειτηνεσ-α] does not seem to be used like the pres, both of this verb and αίνέω in the sense of ‘no, thank you’. It generally corresponds to our ‘good !’, and the French ‘c’est bien’. It is better to punctuate more decidedly after the word, as Paley does. The άλλα will then be ‘pray', not ‘but', which gives no sense. There is no contrast between Ag.’s commendation and his request to the messenger to go inside the tent. The line is a copy of Medea 1019, where how¬ ever a reason for the request follows. 441. What are τά άλλα? and what does ίούσης της τύχης mean ? Hermann’s translation * fortuna cur sum suum perse- quente ’ as against the old ‘ favente for¬ tuna' (he quotes Soph. 0 . T. 1458) is now generally approved of. Paley says the phrase is intentionally ambiguous. In the third place καλώς ’έσται with τά άλλα as its subject is irregular for καλώς εξει (καλώς Ίσται ην θεός θέλη at Ar. Pint. 1188 and at Xen. Anab. 7, 3, 43 gives it some support, but there the &τται has no subject). When all is said and done we get ‘But the other things, in the course of events, will turn out well’. 443. εί? οΐα = otl εις τοιαΰτα. 444. υττήλθεν] is used in very much the same sense at v. 67.—These laments of Ag. are generally supposed to be caused by the announcement of his wife and daughter’s arrival. As I have said above, I believe no such announcement had been made, and I take these words to refer to the crossing of his plans by the interception of the letter. He knew now that his daughter must arrive soon. 446—449. Cp. Beaumont and Fletcher, The Maid's Tragedy v. 2 ‘But such the misery of greatness is, They have no time for tears’. For άπαντα είπεΐν ( qjiidvis dicere) Musgr. compares Diphilus (in Athenaeus 4, 223 b) oh εξουσία έστίν Xbyeiv άπαντα καί ποιεΐν μόνοις, also Plat. Af. 38 D and 39 A. Ennius \Iph. v. 197 Ribbeck (fr. xi. Vahlen)] imitates this passage: Plebes in hoc regi antestat loco: licet Lacrumare pleln, regi honeste non licet. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 49 καί yap δακρΰσαί ραδίως αύτοΐς εχεί, απαντά τ είπεΐν. τω δε αίω φύσίν ανολβα ταΰτα. προστάτην δε του βίου τον οηκ,ον εχομεν τω τ οχλω δουλεύομεν. 45° iyco yap εκβαλεΐν μεν αίδοΰμαι δάκρυ, το μη δακρΰσαί δ’ ανθίς οΰ σθενω τάλας, είς τάς μεyίστaς συμφοράς άφίy μένος. [cTev, τι φησω προς δάμαρτα την εμην ; πώς δεξομαί vlv; ποΐον δμμα σνμβάλω; 455 και yap μ άπωλεσ επί κακοΐς ά μοί πάρος by a later hand above the line. 448—450. In P and L ανολβα begins v. 448 and άπαντα v. 449. Musgrave was the first to see that these two words were accidentally transposed. In P έστί is written (though not by the first hand, I think) over άπαντα. This is an indication that ανολβα once stood there, έστι would not so naturally be supplied to άπαντα (it would have been put in after ταυτα). The εστι was copied in the right line by someone who did not notice that the words were transposed. —ye του PL, δέ του in Plutarch, who at Nic. 5 26 C has προστάτην δέ του βίου τον oyxov ’έχομεν τύρ δ ’ οχλψ δουλ€ύομ€ν ( τον δήμον, and τψ τ’ PL). Firn- haber, the great champion of the mss. leaves ανολβα and άπαντα untransposed (though he adopts Matthiae’s re for the MSS. ye in v. 449), and prefers δήμον to oyxov, but he actually proposes (and prints) an emendation in the latter half of the line. Here it is: τφ r’ 6 ytap δουλεύομεν !! (It is hard to account for δήμον. Probably ’όχλον was first written by mistake for oyxov , and then δήμον substituted by an “ improver ” for όχλον . — Bremi thinks it got in as a gloss on όχλψ.) 452. αΰτ is PL, αίδοΰμαι. PL, clearly repeated by mistake from the preceding v., ου δύναμαι Markl., αδύνατος Wecklein, ούχ ’έχω or ού σθένω Dobree. I think Dobree’s second is the best of all the guesses. w. 454—459. I think these words are an interpolation by the hand of the interpolator of vv. 413—441. Some reference to Clytaemnestra’s unexpected arrival was inevitable here if Agamemnon knew of it. It is equally necessary though that when Ag. first meets his wife he should express his surprise. This expression however our interpolator has failed to provide for us. As we have the text Ag. first addresses his wife in the middle of v. 685. See above on 7 JV. 413 if. 455. συμβάλω PL, corrected by a later hand in P to συμβαλω —the same question as came before us on v. 442 In both cases I have left the mss. reading unchanged. It is curious that a Paris copy of L should have όνομα for 6 μμα here (cf. on v. 354). It shows that this common mistake was due to the eye or ear, and not to a misapprehension of the sense. 456. πάρος PL, corrected to 451. Ικβαλεϊν δάκρυ] Cf. τ 362 δάχρυα δ’ ’έχβάλ€ θερμά, below ν. 477’ Hec. 298, Heracl. 129, Ion 924· 455· For ποών ’όμμα Vitelli compares Soph. Ai. 462: ’όμμα συμβαλεΐν does not seem to occur in this sense elsewhere, but it sounds good Greek. Indeed this E. I. and the preceding v. are two good lines: far better than the following four. 456 f. Iir'i KaKoIs...€\0oi5ora] At v. 1237 below ελθεΐν επί with the dat. is used in quite a different sense. There επί means with a view to, here on the top of or in the midst of. i 4 50 ΕΥΡΙΓΤΙΔΟΥ )\Λ « > * \ » / £» */ 1 *Τ ελυονσ ακλητος. εικοτως ο αμ εσ 7 rero θνγατρί, ννμφενονσα και τά φίλτατα δωσουσ’, ιν’ 77 /Λας όντας ευρησει κακούς.] δ’ <ζυ τ άλαιναν παρθένον' τί παρθένον; 4^° 'ΆίΒης νιν ως eot/ce νυμφβνσβί τάχα/ ώς ωκτισ' [οι/χαι yap vlv ίκετεΰσειν τάδε 1 ώ πάτερ, άποκτενεΐς ρ.ε; τοιοΰτους yάμovς γημα,ας αυτός χωστις εστι σοι φίλος. παρών δ’ Ορέστης εγγύς άναβοησεται 4^5 οΰ συνετά συνετώς' ετι yap εστι νηπως. αίαΓ, τον] Έλευ ?79 ως μ άποολβσβν ηάμον Γ γημας 6 ΐΐριάμου ΤΙάρις , δ μ’ etpyaarao τάδβ. 7τάρα (by Musurus?) in Ρ: in L υπήρχε is written over 7τά/)ο$ by m 2 . 458. νυμ- φεύουσα PL, νυμφεύσουσ a Markland (cf. on v. 885). vv. 462—467. I believe from οΐμαι in 462 to τόν in 467 to be an interpolation. In the first place the wish expressed by Iph. in 464 is stupid in itself and utterly out of harmony with the heroine’s character. It was doubtless suggested by I. T. 364 (ώ πάτερ νυμφεύομαι νυμφεύματ ’ αισχρά προς σέθεν). As Hennig says, too, such a wish is an imprecation , not a supplication (ικετέυσα t). Markland took it ironically. In the next place I thoroughly agree with Wecklein that the Baby is a supposititious one, and that all passages in which he is introduced are, like itself, not Euripidean (see Introduction). Possibly it was introduced by some enterprising theatrical manager, who thought a baby in arms would improve the look of the group or please the audience. One funny idea about this Baby is that of P. Brumoy (Thedtre des Grecs Eng. Trans. I. 358), that vv. 468 and 469 are what the Baby is supposed to call out ( άναβοήσεται ). 462. Ικετεΰσι u PL, Ικετεύσειν (which is much better) Markl. 466. οΰ ξυνετά ξυνετως P, in L these woi’ds begin with σ (m 1 ) in an erasure: i.e. £ was in the original from which P and L were copied, ασύνετα σ. Monk. 468. os μ ’ PL. Porson (on Hec. 13 where see his note) approves of Markland’s (so also Musgrave and Heath) 8 μ\ but most editors have followed the alternative suggestion of Heath and Markland to reject the μ\ Surely it is more likely that the 0 should have been turned to os than 458. τά φίλτατα] An ordinary peri¬ phrasis for τέκνον (cf. Valckenaer’s note on Phoen. 437 [434])· It comes in very lamely here. 459. ΐνα] A Latinism, ubi could stand very well for wherein , but not tv a. At f 27 tv a means when , an occasion on which , but the words here do not (I think) mean that Clyt. will find out his villainy on the occasion of the actual marriage , but that she will find out that he has played her false in the matter of the marriage. 460. τ£ παρθένον;] Cf. Hec . 612 παρ¬ θένον τ’ άπάρθενον, spoken of Polyxena in a like situation. 461. For the idea of this v. cf. /. T. 369 "Αιδης ΆχιΧΚεύς ην άρ’, ούχ 6 Π^λεω? ον μοι προτείνας πόσιν κ.τ.λ. Monk also compares Or. 1109, Soph. Ant. 653, and 815, Romeo and Jiiliet iv. 5 and v. 3. 465. The εγγύς is evidently put in to make out the verse. 466. For ού συνετά συνετά Vitelli cf. Tro. 625 T αλθύβως αίννγμ ού σαφώς εΐπεν σαφές. Cp. also Phoen. 1506, and I. T. 1092. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 5ΐ ΧΟ. Λταγώ κατώκτιρ, ώς γυναίκα δει ξένην υπέρ τυράννων συμφοράς καταστένειν. ΜΕ. αδελφέ, δός μοι δεξιάς της σης θιηείν. ΑΓΑ. δίδωμι’ σδν yap τδ κράτος, άθλιος δ’ iyoo. ΜΕ. ΤΙέλοπα κατόμνυμ , δς πατήρ τούμοΰ πατρδς του σου τ εκληθη, τον τεκόντα τ Άτρέα, η μην ερεΐν σοι τάττδ καρδίας σαφώς και μη ’ττίτηδες μηδέν αλλ’ δσον φρονώ. y f 5555 / 5/·)« χ /5 5^\ βγω σ αττ οσσων e/cpaXovr ιοων οακρυ ωκτιρα καυτός άνταφηκά σοι πάλιν και τών παλαιών εξαφίσταμαι λόyωv, ούκ εις σε δεινός * ειμι δ’ οΰπερ ει συ νυν * καί σοι παραινώ μητ άποκτείνειν τέκνα 470 475 480 that a μ’ should have been inserted. Hartung rejects this verse, taking ’γάμον as acc. after aial. 470. If it were not for the quotation of v. 377 by Stobaeus I should be¬ lieve that it and v. 403 and this v. 470 were all added by an interpolator (οί'δ’ having been put for τάδ’ at 403). Anyhow I think there must be some corruption here (see Ex. Notes). Perhaps we ought to read άνδρων τυράννων συμφοράς. 481. τέκνον PL, τέκνα Elmsley. A very likely mistake; since the next line ends in ov and the 469. cos] The sense shows this to be not causal (‘since’) but limiting (‘in as far as ’). Firnh. aptly quotes Rhes. 904 where 'όσον is used. 470. ύττέρ τ. συμφορά] The simple στένω is properly intransitive, but κατα· στένω is always transitive, and it is very extraordinary to find it here with υπέρ. There is no special point in the τυράννων coming after ξένην. If for ξένην we had had some word meaning ‘subject’ it would have been in place, but now it is not. 471. It is not, as Firnhaber says, 'tout comme chez nous’, in token of re¬ conciliation, but as part of the formality of swearing the oath that follows in v. 473, that Menelaus asks Ag. to let him take his hand. 472. ωμας εσοράν 5^5 το Βεον, ένθα Βόξα φερεο κΧεος dyrjparov βίοτα. pbkya τι θηρεύειν άρετάν, yvvat^l μεν κατά Κύπριν, κρυπτόν τ, εν άνΒράσι δ’ αν 57° κόσμος ενων ό μυριοπΧη- θης μείζω πόΧιν ανξει. εμοΧες, ω ΐΐάρις, ητε συ yε επωδό? Ί·' written over ets followed by two or three indistinguishable letters P, eis άρετάν the σ being in an erasure large enough to have held three or four letters L. Probably the τάν was erased to make the v. correspond in metre with μαινόμεν* οίστρων o 9 l δη, the MSS. reading in v. 547. The words μeya φερουσ ’ eis look to me like a * gloss Neither here nor at v. 547 do I think we have the right reading. 563. σοφία PL, σοφία Aid., corrected by Scaliger to σοφία. 564. τάν τ PL, I read παν τ (Monk suggested πάντ), I think every one must recog¬ nize that the article of the MS. is ‘ otiose ’ here. 566. δόξαν PL, δόξα Barnes. 567. βίοτάν PL, βιοτα. Markland. 569 f. κατά ~Κ.ύπριν \ κρυπτάν, έν άνδράσι δ ’ ad PL, in Ρ a letter has been erased after κρυπτάν, and ev δ ’ άνδράσιν αΰ is corrected to ev άνδράσι δ’ αΰ, L apparently had έν άνδράσί δ’ αΰ at first: there is an erasure over the end of the ev, as if δ ’ had been inserted over the v. by a corrector and then erased. Following the indication of the erasure in P after κρυπτάν, I read κρυπτάν τ. κατά K ύπριν κρυπτάν would certainly be used in a bad sense by Euripides, and it is too violent a twisting of plain words to interpret it “by keeping free from illicit love”, see Exp. Notes. 571. ’ένδον PL, ένών Markland. If this emendation is correct, we may suppose first that 0 was written for ω (as was often done) and that then, with or without the influence of the mistaken ev δ ’ in the previous line, the δ was added. vv. 573—589. I do not agree with Dindorf and Vitelli in thinking this epode spurious. It is however sadly mutilated. fyioXes and 777-e abye in v. 573 most commentators agree in regarding as hopeless. I am surprised that many think έτράφη s (either after effre or evda, or standing as the principal verb) can have the participles συρίξων and πνέων subordinated to it. I have therefore marked a lacuna after μόσχοις, taking vv. 576 ff. as part of a description of the scene 563. Here ’έχει must be supplied from the following v. 566. £νθα] i.e. in the man of right feeling. 569 if. In the case of women virtue must be sought in the relations of love, and it is a hidden—what Milton calls a ‘ cloistered ’—virtue, whereas a man’s honour and fame is won in many ways (μυρωπληθής), and has a larger sphere. 571. As an analogy to κόσμος ένών Markland quotes όπόταν καλοί ev ψυχή λόγοι ένόντε s μηδέν 7 τοιώ<τι πλέον from Plato Legg. III. [689 b] ; the verb is, in the finite moods, very common in Euripi¬ des. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 61 βουκόΧος άργενναΐς ετράφης Τδαίαις παρά μόσχοις, 575 * * * βάρβαρα συρίζων, Φρυγ/ωρ αυΧών ΟυΧυμπου καΧάμοις μι μη ματ α π νέων, ευθηΧοι δε τρέφοντο βοές, ότι σε κρίσις εμηνε θεάν, ' 5^° ά σ’ Ελλάδα πεμπει εΧεφαντοδετων πάροι- θεν θρόνων, όθι τάς Έλει >ας εν άντωποϊς βΧεφάροισιν έρωτα τ εδωκας, 5^5 ερωτι δ’ αυτός επτοάθης. <■/ η ν >/ οσεν ερις εριν Ελλάδα συν δορϊ ναυσί τ άτ/ει εις περηαμα Τροίας. and circumstances of the appearance of the three goddesses. Several attempts have been made to re-write the beginning of the epode. 575. ’Idaicus PL, ?"I 5 as. 577. Όλύμπου PL, Ουλύμπου Heath (the musician’s name is written 0 ύ\. at Ar. Equ. 9). 578. πλέων corrected by an early hand to πνέων and by a later (that of Musurus ?) to πΚέκων P, πνέων L, πνβίων Dind. 580. ort PL. This cannot be right as the text stands. 66 l and ore have often been proposed instead, but the belief that we have lost an important part of the sentence before v. 576 makes it impossible to decide what word is wanted here, ’έμβνβ PL, ’έμψ€ Herm. 582 f. πάροίθβν P, πάροίθε with an erasure after it L (the erasure is probably due to the fact that δόμων was first written in v. 582 and then erased and put in at the beginning of v. 583, where it is written in the margin, and [so Vitelli] in an erasure). δόμων PL, θρόνων Herm. (a very possible copier’s mistake (cp. on v. 1174). The sense is much improved by θρόνων , more especially if 0Θ1 or oS is adopted), os PL, οΰ Musgr. Weil writes 0Θ1 with no comment.—I think it very possible that we have lost a line or more between vv. 581 and 582. 585. ’έρωτα δέδωκας PL, έρωτα τ’ έδωκas Blomfield. 587. In the margin L has the following scholium: την εριστικήν Ελλάδα* uk που και πόλεμον ’έριν έφη τον εριστικόν. The meaning of the first part of this scholium seems to be that Greek strife is the same as angry Greece (it seems better to suppose the scholiast knew that 'Ελλάδα could be used as an adj.): the latter part is an explanation of έριτ as used for πόλεμ os. 589. is Tpoias 574. apyivvcus] An Epic word for which the only other reference in tragedy is in a passage of Chaeremon quoted by Ath. 608 F. 576. Φρυγίων αυλών] This amounts to calling Olympus a Phrygian: he is generally spoken of as a Mysian. Cp. Suidas s.v. ’Όλυμι tos, though s.v. Συναυ¬ λίαν he says O. taught in Phrygia. 588 f. The hiatus between ayei and ets is remarkable. 62 ΕΥΡΙΤΤΙΔΟΥ [ίώ ίώ * μεγάλαι μεγάλων 59° ευδαιμονίαν την του βασιλέων ίδετ Ιφιγένειαν ανασσαν έμήν την Τ ννδαρέου τε Κλυταιμνήστραν , πέργαμα PL, els ττέργ. Τ ρ. Blomfield. νν. 590—639· I agree with Dindorf that this whole passage is spurious. It is clear however that it is not all by one hand. It falls into various sections. Vv. 590—597 might, as far as the language goes, have been written by Euripides, but as Hennig (whose analysis of the whole passage seems to me one of the best parts of his book, though I do not agree with his defence of a good deal of the iambic parts of this passage) says, it is too coarse a bit of ‘irony’, to be Euripidean. It is inconceivable that Euripides should make the chorus, who knew the fate prepared for Iphigeneia, talk in such fulsome language as that of vv. 594—597 of her exceptional good fortune and blessedness. But the nonsense of the rest of the anapaests (to say nothing of the metre of vv. 602—604) condemns them as the work of a “miserrimus interpolator” (cf. Hennig pp. 80—83). Of thfe iambics too some are much worse than others. Porson was the first to attack any part of them ( Misc. Crit. p. 223) and he began near the end. Later commentators, from Matthiae onwards, have rejected more or less of the rest of the iambics. E.g. Nauck rejects all from 619—637, excepting vv. 633 and 634, Kirchhoff does not even except these. It is evident that Clytaemnestra and Iphigeneia make their first appearance on the stage at the beginning of the second epeisodion, but I think that the anapaests with which the chorus would naturally greet their arrival were either left unwritten by Euripides or have been accidentally, lost. In the beginning of the epeisodion it seems impossible that there should not have been some words of greeting spoken by Agamemnon to his wife, even if he did not give expression to the surprise with which he saw her. Such a passage as this can hardly be supposed to have been left unwritten by the poet. Either it has been accidentally lost or has ' been intentionally cut out by a διασκευαστώ . The reasons for this excision may have been the desire to remove inconsistencies between this passage and the passage interpolated after v. 412, and the necessity of introducing some mention of the baby Orestes, who, as we above saw reason to believe, was another interpolation. The genuine look of vv. 633 and 634 (and also, I think, of vv. 631 and 632 which should follow them) inclines me to believe in an intentional reconstruction of the passage— these two couplets being selected patches of the old material. Vv. 607 and 608 have also an Euripidean sound and may likewise have formed part of the original scene, and have been spoken to Agamemnon. All the rest of the iambics and the anapaests from v. 598 to the end may well have been the work of the same rash hand. Special imperfections will be noticed on the separate lines. v. 590. In L μεγάλαι, which was first written in the line with ίώ ίώ and then erased, is in an erasure at the beginning of a fresh line. 592. εϊδετ ’ PL. No editions seem to have had this reading, but curiously enough Matthiae introduces εϊδετ as a correction being, like Markland, under the impression that the first syllable of ’Ιφιγένεια was short. No doubt the composer of these lines was not responsible for the έμήν, which was very likely put in by the same metrical “improver” who altered ϊδετ ’ to εϊδετ , and introduced the articles in vv. 597 and 600. 593. γε PL, τε Aid. 593. Τυνδαρεου] this Epic form occurs sages, the latter, like the present, ana- also at El. 117 and 989, both lyric pas- paestic. In the iambic parts of tragedy ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 63 ώς 6Κ μβγαΧων ΙβΧαστηκασ iiri τ’ βνμήκβις ηκ,ονσι τύχας. 595 θβοί y οί κρβίσσονζ οί τ ό\βοφόροι τοΐς ονκ βΰδαίμοσί θνατών.\ [στώ/χεν, Χαλκιδος εκγονα θρέμματα , βασιλείαν δεξωμεθ’ οχων αττο μη σφαΧερώς επ\ γαιαν, 600 αγανώς δε χεροίν μαΧακη γνώμη, μη ταρβηση νεωστί μοί μολόν κλεινόν τεκνον Άγαμέμνονος, μη$έ θόρνβον μη& εκπΧηζιν ταΐς Άργειαις 6 05 £ είναι ξείνα ig 7ταρεχωμεν.] 597 * τ ων * s inserted by an early hand in both P and L before θνατών. 599· τηνδε P (the δε is scratched through and the accent altered by an early hand), την (in an erasure) L. δεξώμεθα P, δεξόμεθα (the 0 in an erasure and a note at the side δία τδ μέτρον referring expressly to the 0) L .— όχλων PL, οχων Canter. 600. την inserted by an early hand in P and L before yaiav. Heath was the first to eject it on metrical grounds. 603. τό inserted by an early hand before κλεινόν PL. 606. ξείναις with an erasure before the v and ει written as a correction P, ξείναισι with the final 1 erased L. In L there is an erasure not filled up between the 1st e and the Eurip. uses the form Ύυνδάρεωϊ. At Aesch. Ag. 83 (anapaests) M gives the gen. Τ ννδάρεω with a variant Ύυνδαρέου. 595. εΰμήκεΐδ τύχα^] 4 high estate ’. See Jebb’s note on Soph. Ant. 393 for μακρό s as applied to ολβος and similar words. In all these instances, however, the noun has a far more positive meaning than τύχη. Perhaps the εύ in the εύμή- κειι gives the necessary hint of a good meaning in the τύχας. 596. όλβοφόροι] For similar com¬ pounds cf. Hipp. 750 χθων όλβιόδωρος, Bacch. 419 όλβοδότειραν Έιρήναν, and 57α (of a river) τον δλβοδ&ταν. The epithet here gracefully implies the wealth of which we are expecting to hear. They must be rich to be bounteous. This seems to me better than with many com¬ mentators ( e.g. Musgrave and Weil) to take the -φόρος as in άθλοφόρος, μισθοφό¬ ρο s to indicate the recipient. 598. στώμεν] Hartung [Introd. pp. 72 f.) is of opinion that the ‘homo pin- guissimi et hebetissimi ingenii’ who fabri¬ cated vv. 598—606, got his material out of vv. 613 ff. Certainly no better expla¬ nation can be given of this senseless στω- μεν, than that it is so due to the στητε in v. 619. έκγονα θρέμματα] 8Kyovos in tragedy is always a substantive (at Hel. 318 and 1647 cKyovov and κόρη s are in apposition). This phrase and the ένδότω (for δότω) in 617, and the uis civ (for ws) in 618, and the Νηρηϊδος in 624 reveal the versified- tor. 601 ff. It is questionable whether the 4 versificator ’ knew what he meant by this line. It has about as much sense as the next two verses have metre. In v. 604 the second syllable of θόρυβον was meant by the writer to be long. In fact it is marked long in P, but not by the first hand : (so too the t of νεωστί, by the same hand). ΕΥΡΙΓΤΙΔΟΥ ΈπειοόλιοΝ Β'. ΚΛ. [όρνιθα μεν τόνδ’ αίσιον ποιον μέθα, το σόν τε -χρηστόν και λόγων ευφημίαν’ ελπίδα δ’ εχω τιν ως επ' εσθλοΐσιν γάμοις πάρειμι ννμφαγωγός. άλλ’ οχημάτων 6ΙΟ εξω πορευεθ * ας φέρω φερνάς κόρη, καί πεμπετ εις μέλαθρον ευλαβούμενοι. συ δ’, ώ τεκνον μοι, λείπε πωλικονς όχονς, αβρόν τιθεΐσα κωλον άσθενες θ' άμα. υμείς δε νεανίαις νιν άγκάλαις επι 615 δεξασθε καί πορεύσατ εξ οχημάτων, καί μοι χερός τις ενδότω στηρίγματα, χ of παρέχωμεν. 6og. έσθλοΐσι Ρ, εσθλοΐσιν (the ν being a subsequent addition by the first hand) L. 613. In L there is a stop ( = a comma) after μοι : i.e. the writer took the phrase for a σχήμα K ολοφώνιον. Cf. Ale. 313. 614. θ’ άμα PL, χαμαί (with ασφαλώς for ασθενές) Herm., ποδός Hennig (who takes αβρόν adverbially), I think however that it is more like the ‘ versificator ’ as it stands:—the phrase αβρόν τιθεΐσα κωλον being modelled on άβ. πόδα τιθείς Hel. 1528, and ώκύν πόδα τιθείς I. Τ. 33 » and the ασθενές θ ’ άμα being added to make up the verse. 615. νεανίδαισιν Ρ, νεανίδεσσιν (the εσ being a correction of an early hand for at) L, νεάνιδές νιν Pierson (and Markland), νεανίαις νιν Lobeck. Though L. himself subsequently rejected this, I agree with Hennig in preferring it. It is sup¬ ported by Hel. 1262 νεανίαις ωμοισι, and also by Phot. Lex. νεανίας' τολμηρούς. Though we can hardly dispense with an acc. the vocative is not absolutely 607 f. These two lines—especially the former one—are quite Euripidean, but the feebleness of the contrasted clause and the utter want of any contrast in the sense (‘ I take your kind words as a good omen but I am not without hopes that I am on a happy errand ’), shows that they were not originally written in their present connexion. Indeed the peculiar position of the re in v. 608 suggests that possibly even these two verses were themselves not originally neighbours. 610. The word νυμφα^ω^ός is not elsewhere found except in late Greek. 613. ireoXiKov's] Attention has by several commentators been called to the frequent repetition of this word in the passage. Wecklein associates with it the fact that also in the Rhesus this word is of frequent occurrence, as indicating a common authorship. 615. It is extremely doubtful whether vea- in νεανίας or its derivatives was ever scanned as one syllable. At Ar. Vesp. 1067 and 1069 Dind. is very likely right in reading vdv-. It is possible that at Eur. I. T. 647 we ought to scan νεανία as a trisyllable, but the reading of the earlier part of that v. is doubtful. It is curious that Pierson who leaves in his correction the anapaest here, actually introduces an anapaest at Cyclops 28 by reading νεανίαι for the MSS. νέα νέοι. 6 1 6 . ττορίύσατ’ οχημάτων] notice the weak repetition of this weak phrase from v. 610 f. 617. στηρίγματα] another suspicious word occurring only in late Greek else¬ where. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 65 θακονς απηνης ως αν εκλί7τω καλώς. at δ’ εις το πρόσθε,ν στήτε. πωλικών £υγών, φοβερον yap ά-καράμνθον ομμα ττωλικόν' 620 και παΐδα τδνδε τον Άγα μεμνονος γόνον λάζνσθ\ Όρεστην' ετι yap εστι νήπιος. τεκνον, κα^εΰδεις 7τωλικω δα/χεις δχω; εγειρ’ αδελφές εφ’ νμεναιον ευτυχώς* ανδρδς γαρ αγαθόν κή 8 ος αυτός εσ#λδς ών 625 Χηφεί, τδ τ^ς Ν^ρ^δος Ισόθεον γένος, ε^ς κάθησο δεΰρδ μον ί τοδός, τεκνον, 7τρδς μητερ\ ’Ιφιγένεια, μακαρίαν δε ρ,ε necessary, as the men addressed are the same as those addressed in w. 610—612. 619. at δ’ PL, ot δ’ Dobree, which would remove some absurdity. 623. θακεύ- ets corrected by a late hand to καθεύδεπ P, to vripybos P, ρηρήϊδος L (Milton suggested 619. αϊ δ’] It would be difficult to find another instance of the article used, as ouros sometimes is, as a vocative, for the pron. of the 2nd person. The idea of the writer seems to have been that as ό δέ sometimes = ovros, it could stand, like it, as a vocative. 620. In both mss. this line is marked as a beauty (ώρ. for ωραϊορ ) ! It is just possible that, as Hermann ( Opusc .) holds, φοβ. was meant to be taken as an adverb qualifying άπ. Others prefer to take φοβ. in the sense of ‘ timid \ or as ‘ an object of terror ’. Weil supplies ov with airap. If άπαράμυθος is to be scanned as at Aesch. P. V. 185 we should have an anapaest in the 3rd foot—the second in the line. 622. £ti k.t.X.] This repetition from 7 >. 466 may be taken to mark both pas¬ sages as the work of the interpolator who brought the Baby on to the scene. 623. δαμείς] Weil translates ‘ assoupi\ taking the word to be used in the sense of the Homeric μαλακιρ δεδμημένοί ϋπνιρ and modern phrases like ‘ succumbing to , overmastered by , sleep ’. But for such phrases the mention of the sleep is neces¬ sary. It is more likely that the word was used only in the sense of wearied ', θακεύεις L. 626. νηρηΐδοϊ corrected to N^pecos παιδό?, Portus τό τψ N? ιρτ/δος. worn out , i.e. in the sense of the κόπφ δαμέρτε s of Rhes. 764. 624. g-yeip’] for έγείρου : very suspicious, in spite of Porson’s note on Or. 288 (294). Both at Or. 294 and 799 synize- sis of the final ov with a following vowel seems a less violent explanation than that which Porson gives. At Hec. 916 ff. where Porson takes καταπαύσας as = καταπαυσάμερος modern editors read θυ- σίαρ not θυσιαρ, as do four MSS. out of the seven cited by Prinz. Here, I should believe in synizesis of ov if I thought that the passage had been written by a man who was scholar enough to be careful about the difference between active and middle. But it is doubtful whether the man who could write ’Nrjpfidos (626) and έξης μον ποδός for ‘close to my feet’ (in 627) would be careful to observe such a distinction. 628 ff. Certainly it is impossible to make this v. fit on in sense to the previous line. Hennig thinks something has been lost both before and after v. 628. I think 7 rpbs μητέρ’ is a conversational repetition of the εξής μον ποδός such as the ‘ miserable ’ interpolator was quite capable of: also that he went on with δδs με μακαρίαρ ξέραισί ταΊσδε in the sense of 5 E. I. 66 ΕΥΡΙΤΤΙΔΟΥ ζέναισι ταΐσδε πλησια σταθεΐσα δδ?, καί δενρο δη πατέρα πρόσειπε σδν φίλον.] ΚΛ. ω σέβας εμοϊ μέγιστον, Αγαμέμνων άναξ, ηκομεν, εφετμαΐς ουκ αιτιστονσαι σέθεν. ΙΦ. ω μητερ, υττοδραμουσά σ, όργισθης δε μη, προς στέρνα πατρος στέρνα τάμα προσβαΧώ. εγω οε ρονλομ αι τα σα στερν , ω πατερ, νποδραμονσα προσβαλεΐν δια χρόνον, ποθώ γάρ όμμα δη σόν. δργ ισθης δε μη. ΚΛ. άλλ\ α τέκνον, χρη’ φιλοπάτωρ δ’ αει 7τοτ* et μάλιστα παίδων τωδ’ οσονς εγώ ν τεκον.] Ψ JV λΙ» ^4 Φ Φ Φ Φ φ ΤΦ. ω πάτβρ, eaelSov σ άσμβντ/ ποΧΧω y_pov(p. ΑΓΑ. καί yap πατήρ σί* τόΚ ίσον vnrep άμφοΐν λΑ/βί?. 630 633 634 631 632 635 η 640 Aid. put in ttcuSos after N^/bjSos). 631. σ altered to 7’ by an early hand in both P and L. 632. περιβάλω PL, προσβάλω Porson. 637. δη added above the line by a second (early) hand in both P and L. 638 f. Given by P and L to Ag., by Porson to Clytaemnestra. χρώ corrected to χρη P, χρη L (so I conclude from Vitelli’s silence), χρω is the Aldine reading. 639. τωνδ’ PL, τφδ’ Monk and Fix. τέκνον (corrected by a late hand to τέκον) P, τέκον L (Vitelli says nothing of the correction to τέκνον in L mentioned by Wil.-Moell.). Heath conjectured’Ve/coi' redde me beatam his mulieribus [in the eyes of these women). At any rate what could be weaker than v. 630, with its δεύρο repeated from v. 627? 640. At this line we begin to breathe again. Indeed the beauty of the scene which now follows is of itself a sufficient vindication of the labour which has been expended by many generations of students in unravelling the perplexities of this mutilated and interpolated.tragedy. Aga¬ memnon’s thoughts have been laid bare in the previous scenes. The distraction and despair which his answers to his daughter half reveal to us heighten the exquisite sense of the girlish innocence which cannot interpret the signs of dis¬ tress and thinks of nothing but the joy of the meeting. In the absence of any definite announce¬ ment of Agamemnon’s appearance on the stage we can only conjecture about it. Bothe thinks that at v. 607 Clytaemnestra is already addressing her husband. Most editors however take v. 630 as an indica¬ tion that Ag. has just come out. See above the critical notes on vv. 590 if. ιτοΧλω χρόνω] just the same dat. as τω χρόνψ in v. 694 (cp. Kruger II. 48,. 2, n). Klotz well compares also Tro. 20 ώ$ δεκασπόρφ χρόνφ άλόχου$ τε καί τέκν’ είσίδωσιν ασμενοί. 641. καί γάρ] The meanings of καί yap fall into two classes according as the first or second particle takes the promi¬ nent share of significance. Here the καί is prominent. Cp. e.g. Soph. Phil. 1121, Xen. Cyr. ill. 1, 11. Usually the yap has the greater significance.—IVov not an adverb here, but used predicatively with \έyε^s and qualifying τόδ'. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 6 ; ΙΦ. Χ α φ ’* ζν δε μ dyaycov προς σ εποίησας, πάτερ. ΑΓΑ. ούκ οϊδ' όπως φω τούτο καί μη φω, τεκνον. ΙΦ. εα' ως ον βΧέπεις εύκηΧον, άσμενός μ ιδών. ΑΓΑ. 7τόλλ’ ανδρϊ βασιΧεΐ καί στρατηΧάτη μεΧει. 645 ΙΦ. παρ' εμοϊ yεvoύ νυν, μη 'πϊ φροντίδας τρεπου. ΑΓΑ. αΧΧ' είμϊ παρά σοϊ νυν άπας κούκ άΧΧοθι. ΙΦ. μεθες νυν δφρύν ομμα τ εκτεινον φίΧον. ΑΓΑ. Ιδού y ^ηθά σ' ώς yεyηθ' ορών , τεκνον. ΙΦ. κάπειτα Χείβεις δάκρυ' απ' δμμάτων σεθεν; 650 [ΑΓΑ. μακρά yap ημΐν η 'ττιονσ απουσία. ΙΦ. ονκ οΤδ’ ο τι φης, ονκ οΐδα, φίΧτατ £μοί πάτερ.] independently. 642. δ’ £μ* altered by an early hand to δέ μ' P. προ σ’ έττοί- rjaas Ρ (a late hand accented the 0 of the προ and added a s), wpbs σ’ έποίησαϊ L. 644. μ βϋκηλον Ρ, βυκηλον L (Dobree ejected the μ ’ independently). Many modern edd. have followed Blomfield in writing 'έκηλον instead of εϋκηΚον here. I cannot see sufficient reason for this. Both are Epic words of apparently the same meaning. Sophocles evidently preferred the former. Euripides uses the word nowhere else. In the one passage of Aeschylus in which it occurs the orig. MS. reading is Ευκηλος. 645. στρατηλάτΕί corrected (by a later hand in P) to στρατηλάττ] PL (a merely mechanical slip, caused by the neighbouring words ending in et. As the error occurs in both MSS. it must have stood in the MS. from which they were copied). 646. παρ’ έμοΰ (sic) with the παρ’ crossed through and προς written over it by a late hand Ρ, παρ’ έμοί L (the έμοΰ in P was no doubt due to a similar error to that noticed in v. 645—due, i.e. to the ου in yEvov). καί μη PL, Barnes ejected the και. 647. ΕΪμι corrected (by a late hand) to Είμϊ Ρ, ΕΪμι L. 648. νυν with δη written over it by a late hand (as an explanation) Ρ, νυν L. όφρΰν corrected to δφρύν P, δφρυν L. 649. 7^777#’ 'έως ^έ^ηθά σ’ ορών PL, *γ^ηθά σ’ ώς 'γέ'γηθ ’ ορών Musgrave (an excellent emendation). 651. (See on v. 652.) One of the Paris copies of L has η’πιτυχουσ’ for η'πιουσ\ a good instance of the way in which an explanation (and a wrong one) gets into the text. 652. This v. which I have given as it occurs in the mss. is equally inexplicable as an answer to the preceding 644. ‘ βλέπΕίν Εϋκηλον est placido vultu esse, ut [σΕμνδν και ] πΕφροντικδς βλδπΕίν Ale. 773 » δρψύ βλέπΕίν ap. Aristoph.’ Matthiae. aoqLevos μ’ ίδών] with a reference to the έσΕΐδόν σ’ άσμένη of v. 640 and Ag.’s answer in v. 641 : ‘for all your joy at seeing me ’. 648. ϊκτίΐνον] cp. Soph._/r. 768 ώ$ h> Αιός μέτωπον έκταθή χαρφ. φίλον] proleptic ; not merely ‘thy dear face ’ : still less the weak Homeric use for a possessive pronoun. 649. γί'γηθα cos γί'γηθα] A favourite idiom with Greek tragic writers. Its reticence always veils a sinister thought. Cf. Med. ion 1777 ΕίΚας oV η-γχΕίλας. I. T. 575, Tro. 630, El. 289 and 1122, Soph. Ο. T. 1376, 0 . C. 273, and 336 (e Ίσ ούπΕρ Είσί’ O. C. 974 which Jebb on v. 273 compares is not parallel). Cp. the English ‘ we shall see what we shall see ’, where however the reticence is not generally sinister. 5—2 68 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ ΑΓΑ. συνετά λεγονσα μάλλον εις οίκτον μ άγεις. ΙΦ. ασύνετα μην ερουμεν, εί σε y ενφρανω. ΑΓΑ. Ίτατταΐ. το σιγάν ον σθενω’ σε δ’ ηνεσα. 6 55 ΙΦ. μζν\ ω 7 τάτερ, κατ οίκον εττϊ τεκνοις σεθεν. ΑΓΑ. θέλω γε το μενειν' ου% εκών άλγννομαι. and as the ground of the following verse. Ag.’s reference to his impending absence was perfectly intelligible; a profession that what he said was unintelligible could by no possibility have called forth from her father a comment on his daughter’s sense (συνετά Xtyovaa). Hence no emendations which merely get rid of the two anapaests in 652 will meet the difficulty, nor will the suggestions that we have here some marginal explanation or parallel passage incorporated by mistake in the text. Weil’s ούκ οΐδά θ' otl φης, κοΐδα φίλτατ ώ 7 τάτερ may be said to furnish a riddle to which v. 653 is an answer, but it is itself inexplicable as an answer to v. 651. The course which presents far the least difficulty to my mind is to reject both 651 and 652. There is enough in the half playful expostulation of v. 6 50 to call for the father’s comment and also the “ δάκρυα ” of 650 leads on to the οίκτον in v. 6 53. I have therefore enclosed both w. in brackets. 653. μάλλον μ ’ εις οίκτον corrected by a late hand to μάλλον εις οίκτον μ' P, μάλλον εις οίκτον μ' L (as the -ov εί - and the -ον μ’ are corrections in erasures, L had no doubt the same mistake originally). 654. μέν P (corrected by a late hand to μέν y), νυν L. Both Monk and Nauck (independently) suggest δητ\ It is possible that the δητ* was changed to νυν (enclitic) by some metrical corrector who thought that the υ of ασύνετα was long. This assumes that νυν was the earlier reading and μεν a mistake of a copier. If μεν was the earlier reading I should suggest μην, comparing Soph. O. C. 28 άλλ’ ’έστι μην οίκητός, where the MSS. have μέν and an early corrector, as here, altered it to μέν y\ In that case νυν was a mistake for μην, the pronunciation help¬ ing.— I heartily agree with Hennig’s indignant vindication of this beautiful answer from Dindorf’s charge of spuriousness. A corrector of P changed εί σε 7’ to εί σέ y . 655. παπαΐ PL. 657. θέλω yε' το θέλειν δ’ PL, θέλω' το δε θέλειν (or το δ ’ έθέλείν) Scaliger (so as to get rid of the 7ε — δέ used like μέν — δε, which Monk and Hermann also condemn), τό τελεΐν Markland and Nauck, τό θέλον δ’ Campbell, θέλω’ το δ’ Zpyov Wecklein. I do not believe in the impossibility of the 7ε — δέ but I think the δέ looks like an addition. I conjecture that Eur. wrote θέλω yo τό μένείν ούχ έκών άλyύνομαι and that the δ’ was only added after a transcriber had 653. This verse was perhaps half an ‘ aside ’. 654. A striking instance of the indis¬ criminate way in which in tragedy the two numbers were used in the first person. Cf. Tro. 904 cos ου δικαίως , ην θάνω, θανούμεθα. 655· δ’ ηνεσ-α] (‘you’re a good girl ’, cf. w. 440 and 506) is addressed to Iphigeneia but all before it in this v. is an ‘ aside ’. 656. err! reKvots] ‘‘for your children ’. I cannot find anywhere another instance of επί used quite as it is here with the dative of a person. It does not mean only near or with, as most take it. There must be some notion of purpose in it. I think the instance most nearly parallel is Fr. 324 έρως yap dpybv κάπί toIs apyoh ’έφυ : in both cases we might translate it by our l for\ Cp. also Ion 480 δι,αδέκτορα πλούτον cos 'έζοντες εκ πατέ¬ ρων έτέροίς επί τέκνοις. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 6 9 ΙΦ. ολοιντο λόηχαι καί τα Μεζ/ελεω κακά. ΑΓΑ. άλλους όλεΐ 7 τρόσθ' άμε δυολεσαντ βχεί. ΙΦ. ώ? 7 τολύν άπήσθα 'χρόνον εν Αύλίδος μυχοϊς. 66θ ΑΓΑ. καί νυν ηκείς πατρί. 665 transposed the χ and the κ, and that the θέλειν for μένειν (due to the preceding θέλω , cf. on v. 660) came later. If it be objected that the inf. after θέλω would not have an article, it may be answered that it would be equally hard to find another instance of έχω with to before the inf. If the vulgate is retained the second θέλειν must be supposed to have the sense given to it by the scholiast on Aristoph. Birds 582 and on Φ 366 ( ούδ ’ έθελε 7 τρορέειν) of δύνασθαι. Cf. also N 106, 7 120 and the scholia. 659. 7 τροσθ’ άμέ corrected by a second hand to πρόσθεν a με P (the abbre¬ viated εν abov6 the line is in darker ink, and the same ink has obliterated a just discernible apostrophe after the θ), πρόσθεν ά με L (as I have said else¬ where, I believe P to have been corrected to agree with L). This is made specially interesting by the fact that Porson arrived independently at the right reading. 660. άπήλθα corrected by an early hand to άπήσθα P, άπήσθα L (the λ was due to the preceding λ in πολύν ). 602 . ιρκήσθαι. PL, φκίσθαι Porson. 664. μακράν άπ cupeis PL (between these words 7’ is inserted by a corrector in L, Vitelli is not sure whether by an early or late one). In P there is a ; at the end of the v. possibly an addition of a late hand. Wilamowitz thinks that the corrector of 'L put in the 7’ because he did not know that the last syllable of μακράν was long. On the whole the v. suits its context best as a question. 665. et’s ταύτόν , ώ θύ^ατερ, ήκει.$ σ£ πατρί PL. In both MSS. a late hand has inserted σύ Θ ’ above the v. before ήκει s, a would-be metrical correction which leaves an anapaest in the 3rd foot and offends against Porson’s canon in the 5th. Porson suggested ώ θύγατερ ήκεις καί σύ 7’ «s ταύτόν πατρί. This emendation was made under the impression that the σύ θ' (though ‘mendosum’), was to be reckoned with in reconstructing the line. I would suggest ets ταύτόν, ώ παΐ, συμφοράς ή /cets πατρί. At Or. 374 (3^8 Porson), and I believe also at I. T. 5, some transcribers altered 7ra?s to θυ~γάτηρ, and I conjecture that this change was made here and led to the exclusion of συμφοράς or some such 658. τά MfveXeo) κακά] not as Weil * les rnaux qui nous viennent de Menelas ’, but ‘ the ivrongs of Menelaus his griev¬ ances .—With this and the following v. Firnhaber and Vitelli well compare Med. 1015 f. ΠΑΙΔ. θάρσει' κάτει tol καί σύ προς τέκνων ’έτι. ΜΕΔ. άλλους κατάγω πρόσθεν ή τάλαιν’ έ^ώ. 664. To this question as to the pre¬ vious one Agamemnon’s distracted state of mind prevents his giving a direct answer. Plis mind is evidently working with horror at his daughter’s impending fate, to which in his next few utterances he refers with growing clearness. 665 ff. Cf. Tro. 684 εις ταύτόν ήκας συμφοράς, and elsewhere εις ταύτόν ήκειν, used as here in the sense of to be in the same plight with some one. That Iphigeneia takes her father’s words in this sense is clear from the next line, where she at once jumps at the idea of going on 70 ΙΦ. ΕΥΡΙΤΤΙΔΟΥ φευ’ εϊθ' ην καλόν μου σοί τ άηειν σύμπλουν εμε. ΑΓΑ. ετ εστί καί σοί πλους, ϊν εύ μνήσει ί ιατρός. ΙΦ. συν μητρί 7 τλεύσασ' ή μόνη πορενσομαί; ΑΓΑ. μόνη μονωθεϊσ , από πατρός καί μητερος. ΙΦ. ον που μ ’ 69 άλλα δώματ οίκίζεις, πάτερ; 6 1 /Ο ΑΓΑ. εασον. ού χρη τοίάδό είδεναί κόρας. ΙΦ. σ-πεΟδ’ εκ Φ pvycov μοι, θεμενος ev τάκεΐ, πάτερ. ΑΓΑ. θυσαί με θυσίαν πρώτα δει τιν ενθάδε. word and the introduction of the unmetrical σφ. 666. ei δ’ corrected by a late hand to εϊθ’ P, et' 0 ’ L. 667. aireis re PL (as a question in L, Vitelli), ’έτ' εστι Porson. In L ϋσται is written by an early hand over π\ου$. ϊνα μνήση PL, with ύπο written over the beginning of the latter word in an early hand in L. It ( was evidently interpreted as a subjunctive. All modern editors have seen that it is a fut. indie, tv* eS μνήσει Vitelli, who reminds us that at vv. 68 and 847 an initial μν fails to make the preceding short vowel long, and that a and ev were very easily interchanged in mss. This whole scene has apparently suffered greatly from the indistinctness or obliteration of some MS. 669. μονοθεΐσ’ corrected by a later hand to μονωθβΐσ P, μονωθβΊσ' L. 670. ού 7 rod μ ’ eis (corrected by what I think was a late hand to ήπου μ ’ es) P, ου* που μ’ es (the e in an erasure by an early hand) L. οϋ που was evidently the original reading: there are other instances of οϋ που being misunderstood and altered by transcribers: at Hel. 135 and (I believe) at Or. 426 it is altered to οϋ πω. The eis is a natural blunder of an unmetrical scribe. 671. ϋα ye' ού χρή tol τάδ’ PL, and in P an early (?) hand has added a τ slightly above the other letters between the ye and the ού. eaaov Blomfield, who compares Orest. 627, Hipp. 521, and Aesch. Prom. 340. Here we have further traces of obliteration; the gap being filled by a hasty transcriber with the ubiquitous ye. It is not clear whether the man who filled the gap still left between the ye and the ού meant the line to run ’έα y ’· έτ’ ού χρη (in the sense of οΰπω χρή) or, as the earlier editions have it (senselessly enough) ea yέ τ’* ού χρη. τοιάδ' Markland. a journey with her father. In v. 667 however he obscurely hints that the journey he means is that to ‘ The undis¬ covered country from whose bourn No traveller returns ’, and that she will bear with her a vivid memory of him though he will not accompany her. In v. 668 she very naturally asks, if he is not to be with her is it her mother who will take her? Apparently in her next question (v. 670) she is not thinking of going as a bride, only of being banished from her home. Ag.’s answer however ( v. 671) assumes rather brutally that such a no¬ tion had been in his daughter’s mind. 669. αϊτό] is strangely used here. Markland thinks we ought to put a com¬ ma before it, and take it as at Λ 242 άπο μνηστψ άλόχου, comparing also N 227 απ’ ’Apyeos and 2nd Ep. to the Thess. 1. 9 άπο προσώπου του κυρίου κ.τ.λ. I have adopted this punctuation, as I think the difficulty of taking μόνη μονωθοΐσ ’ together less than that of taking αχό in the sense of υπό. 67 2. θέμενος ev τάκεΐ] Cp. Bacch. 48 f. eis δ’ άλλην χθόνα, τάνθένδο θέμ evos ed, μeτaστησω πόδα. For ed θέσθαί cp. Elmsley on Med. 896 (926). ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 7 1 ΙΦ. 7 τοίοις ξύν ίεροΐς; el τόδ’ ενσεβες σκοττεΐν. ΑΓΑ. εϊσεο σύ' χερνίβων yap εστηξεις ττελας. 6/ζ ΙΦ. στησομεν αρ άμφϊ βωμόν, ώ ιτάτερ, χορούς. ΑΓΑ. ζηΧώ σε μάΧΧον η ’με του μηόεν φρονεΐν. χ(όρεί 8ε μεΧάθρων εντός ' όφθήναί κ,όραις οϋτοι χρη τάδ’ Monk (and Vitelli). 674· άλλα ξύν Upols χρη τόδ’ ευσεβή σκοπεΐν Ρ, L has το γ’ for τόδ’, otherwise it agrees with P. Most editors adopt to 7’ and follow Musgrave in interpreting ίεροΐς as a masc. meaning the same as ίερευσι. But Ion 1224 (which M. quotes) is not enough to prove this use for iepds. Besides, as Weil says, even so v. 675 is no answer to our present line. Weil conjectures ξυνούσας for ξύν ίεροΐς. I too think the line has suffered in the same way as several others in this scene, but I start from the τύδ' of P, believing it not to be a mistake for τδ 7’ but part of the original line which the writer of L corrected to suit the already transformed remainder. What I believe Eur. to have written was something very near ποίοις ξύν ίεροΐς ; ei τόδ’ ευσεβές σκοπεΐν. The ποίοις became obliterated, and either a δει resulting from the ei got interchanged with a χρη from the previous v. (where it seems more appropriate than the δβί), or a χρη was written under the δει as an explanation of it, and so got into the next v. 675. εϊση (with 1 subs, added by a late hand) Ρ, εϊση L. έστήξει (the ei corrected by a late hand to η), εστήξη L, έστήξεις Elmsley (cf. (Jurtius Gk. Vb. p. 436 Eng. Tr., Cobet N. L. 264, Rutherford New Phrynichus , p. 411 f.). 676. Following a hint of Markland’s, I have removed the ; which usually stands at the end of this v. See Expl. N. 677. ή με PE (altered in P, perhaps by Musurus, to τ) ’ μέ , a manifest improvement. So too Blomfield, correcting Barnes and Musgrave). 678 f. Commentators all take one of two courses with reference to these two lines. Either they attempt to make sense out of them as they stand, taking όφθηναι as an infinitive of purpose after χώρα, or they follow Hermann in supposing that two half lines have dropped out after εντόί. (He ingeniously suggests (Ofiusc.) that the lost passage was something like ώ$ μετ’ άνδράσίν j μωμητόν οϊκων εκτόί, and that the omission was due to the confusion by the transcriber’s eye of the e/cros with the evTos.) All alike construe τηκρδν with φίλημα. I think the true explanation is that όφθηναί nbpais -πικρόν is a parenthesis, and have put the stops accordingly. (It is worth mentioning that a late hand in P put a stop (·) after εντός.) I further think it not improbable that πικρόν is a mistake for 674. o-Koimv] used here just as we might often put think about instead of ask about. Cp. Soph. Ο. T. 286 and 291. 675. For χερνίβων πέλας and άμφί βωμόν (in v. 676) Firnhaber compares PI. 792 ώ$ άμφι βωμόν στωσι χερνίβων πέλας. 676. This seems more natural as a suggestion than as a question. The light¬ hearted eagerness with which the daugh¬ ter settles how it is all to be arranged gives rise to the father’s next remark. 677. This v. is best taken I think, like part of v. 655, as an ‘aside’. For the sense Monk quotes Soph. Ajax 552 f. and Gruppe well compares O. 71 316 φευ φευ φρονεϊν cos δεινόν 'ένθα μη τέλη λύη φρονοΰντι. 678. όφθηναι Kopais ττικρόν] Cp. Pseudo-Phocylides 216 f. παρθενικην δέ φύλασσε πολυκλείστοις θαλάμοισιν’ μηδέ μιν άχρι yάμωv πρό δόμων όφθημεν έάσης. Cf. ν. 738, El. 343 f· Phoen. 89 ff. Here (if πικρόν is the right reading), the refer- 72 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ 7 τικρόν’ φίΧημα δονσα δεξιάν τ' εμοι. [μδλλουσα δα ρον πατρος αποίκησαν χρόνον.~\ (ο στέρνα /cal παρηδες, ω ξανθαΐ κόμαι, ώς άχθος ημΐν εγένεθ' η Φρυγών πόΧις 'ΈΧενη τε' παύω τους Χόλους' ταχεία γάρ νοτϊς διαίσσει μ' δμμάτων ψανσαντά σου. ϊθ' εις μεΧαθρα. σε δε παραιτούμαι τόδε, Λ?;δα? γένεθΧον, ει κατωκ,τίσθην άηαν. [/χελλωι/ ΆχιλλεΓ θνγατέρ’ €κ8ωσειν εμην.] άποστοΧαϊ s δ’ εστιν ’όνομα κεραμέως. 703· The historic present following the aorist marks that the betrothal (naturally) preceded the wedding. 709. We are reminded by this line of Swift’s Houyhnhnms and Yahoos. 710. For this use of φευ cp. that at v. 977, also spoken by Clytaemnestra.—This v. is not, as Musgrave thought, a general statement that it is wiser of a parent to hand over his son’s education to another, but a commendation of a special device for the seclusion of children, when being trained, from the possible contamination of bad men. 712. Cly. here introduces the second of the two questions broached at v. 696. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. ΑΓΑ. κείνω μεΧήσει ταΰτα, τω κεκτημενω. ΚΛ. άΧΧ' εύτυχοίτην. tlvl δ’ εν ήμερα γαμεΐ; ΑΓΑ. όταν σεΧήνης ευτυχής βΧθη κύκΧος. ΚΛ. 7 τροτεΧεια δ' ήδη τταίδος εσφαξας θεα; ΑΓΑ. μέΧΧω' 'πϊ ταύτη καί καθεσταμεν τύχη. ΚΛ. κάττειτα δαίσευς τούς χαμούς είσύστερον; ΑΓΑ. θύσας γε θύμαθ' άμε χρή θύσαι θεοϊς. ΚΛ. ημείς δε θοίνην ττού γυναυξϊ θήσομεν; ΑΓΑ. ενθάδε παρ' εύπρΰμνοισιν Άργείων πΧάταυς. ΚΛ. κάΧως αν' άγκυρας τε; συνενεγκοι δ’ όμως. ΑΓΑ. οϊσθ ’ ούν δ δράσον , ώ γύναι; πίθου δε μοι. 75 7ΐ5 720 725 3rd person here is preferable. 715. κείνιρ PL, κάνην Herm. 716. εύτυ- χείτην PL, εύτυχοίτην Portus. 7 Τ 7 · εύτυχής PL, εντελής Musgr., σελήνής κύκλος however by itself meant the full moon. 719. μέλλω επί P. A 7’· is in¬ serted by a late hand in P after μέλλω, and so Aid., μέλλω, Vi L. I am not sure whether the έ of the έπι, which is written above the line in P is also by a late hand: I think not. Porson and Heath both rejected the 7’ e. 720. εις PL, corrected by an early hand in both to es. 721. αμ ’ έχρήν PL. In both an early hand has written 7rep over the line between the a and the μ’, άμέ χρή (as an alternative with αμ ’ έχρην) Porson, d με χρεών Monk. The imperf., though difficult, might be defended, but it may very well have arisen by the mistake of a scribe who read the e along with the following letters. The emphasis on the pronoun has the same implication as the ημείς μέν in v. 727, i.e. that it was the father’s special business. 722. θήσομεν PL, δαίσομεν Nauck. 724. καλώς δ ’ dvay καίως τε συνένε^και δ ’ όμως Ρ and so L except that it omits the δ’, φαύλως άναξίως τε Musgr., κακώς Markl., who also apparently corrected the accent of συνενέ^και, κακώς, άνα"γκαίως δέ Heath, σννενέ^κοι L. Dind. (cf. Rutherford, New Phryn. pp. 433 ff. 715. Weil thinks there is a sinister double entendre here, and that Ag. is thinking of the God of the world below who will soon claim the heroine for his own, comparing with Hartung, /. T. 369 Άίδης Άχιλλεύς ήν dp’, ούχ ό ΐίηλέως, ον μοι, 7 τροτείνας πόσιν..., 71 7 · «ντυχηδ] Musgrave notices that at Pindar Isth. vn. 44 the wedding of Peleus and Thetis is said to have taken place at the full moon— εν διχομηνίδεσσιν εσττέραις. 7 1 8. ιτροτίΧεια] Schol. on Ar . Thesm. 973 'Ήρα τελεία και Zeus τέλειος έτιμώντο εν τοϊς ~γάμοις ως τρυτάνεις δντες τών 'γάμων * τέλος δέ δ y άμος. διδ και ττρο- τέλεια εκαλείτο ή θυσία ή ττρδ τών yάμωv yιvoμέvη. 719· τ^ΧΤΐ] Intentionally ambiguous : Cly. with the μέλλω in her mind would interpret it to mean position, condition of affairs. Ag. in saying it would think of the έσφαξα s of the question. 725. οϊσ-θ’ ουνδ δράσον] This‘collo¬ quial breach of strict grammar’ is well discussed by Jebb on Soph. Ο. T. 543. Compare also Postgate in Camb. Phil. Soc . Trans. Vol. III. 1, p. 50, and Ruther¬ ford Babrius p. 38 f. The δέ which follows in our present line does not connect πίθου directly with δρασον, but marks the last 3 words of the v. as a parenthesis, and there is no need to change, with Cobet, the δέ into τι. 76 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ ΚΛ. τί 'χρήμα; ί τείθεσθαι yap είθισμαι σεθεν. ΑΓΑ. ημείς μεν ενθάδ', οΰπερ εσθ ’ ό νυμφίος , ΚΛ. μητρός τί χωρίς δράσεθ', άμε δράν χρεών; ΑΓΑ. εκδώσομεν σην ί ταϊδα Δαναϊδών μετά. ΚΛ. ημάς δε που χρη τηνικαυτα τυγχάνειν; 73° ΑΓΑ. χώρει προς 'Άργος παρθένους τε τημεΧεί. ΚΛ. Χιποΰσα παϊδα; τις δ’ άνασχήσει φΧόγα; ΑΓΑ. εγώ παρεξω φως δ νυμφίο ις πρεπει. ΚΛ. ουχ ο νόμος ουτος, καν συ φαυΧ ’ ήγη τάδε. where however he ignores this passage), κάλως αν’ ayK0pas re; A. Palmer Class. Rev. II. p. 262. όμως Nauck. After spending a day over the line I have come to the conclusion that Prof. Palmer’s emendation provides the best way out of the difficulty, though I do not like disregarding the δ’ of the Palatine MS. Perhaps we ought to insert it after κάλως. 726. In P the at of ττείθεσθαι is written by a corrector by the side of an erasure, εΐθισμα ι σεθεν P. In L the at of εϊθεσμαε, which was written above the line, was erased, and έκ written in its place by an early hand. It looks as if a corrector of P intended to make the same alteration, but erased the wrong at, and that the original at was restored by another hand. Person adopted the έκ writing εΐθισμαι ’κ and quoting Soph. El. 409 for the construction. See Expl. Notes. 728. άμε PL, altered in P by a late hand (Musurus ?) to αν με, and so Aid. Markl. corrected the accent and wrote άμε, ών με Reiske. It suits this animated stichomuthia much better to take τί as what? rather than as why? and ών certainly suits this meaning of τί best: but if we read ων με we sacrifice the emphasis on the pronoun which is necessary to the sense of the line. It is best therefore to give up the attraction. 731. apyovs P, corrected to apyos, apyos L. 734. σύ δέ φαΰλ ’ rjyrj PL. Of the many corrections of the metre which have been 726. , ir€i0€(r0cu...o-e0€v] πείθεσθαε oc¬ curs with the gen. 4 times in Hdt. (1. 126, v. 29 and 33, vi. 12); it is natural that the word should follow the analogy of ύττακούειν, and not remarkable for an Ionism to be found in the dialect of tragedy, but the construction has the further support of Thuc. vn. 73, 2 καί τνάντα μάλλον έλπίζει,ν άν σφών ττείθεσθαε αυτούς. 727· Ag. in his perplexity has at all events settled one thing: that his wife, whose unexpected arrival has so discon¬ certed him, must be sent away as soon as possible, but whatever encouragement he may have got from her ominous profes¬ sions of subordination in v. 726 is soon dissipated. His wife is very quick to see what is implied in the ημείς μέν ενθάδε, and protests vigorously at once at being separated from her husband before the wedding is over. 729. Δαναϊδών μετά] Ag. here intro¬ duces sideways, as it were, the same argument which he enforces explicitly in »· 735 * 730. τυγχάνίΐν] See Rutherford New Phryn. p. 343 for other instances of the omission of the participle with Tvyxavetv. For the sense cf. /. T. 1046 Πυλάδ?;* δ’ ό'δ’ ημίν 7 το 0 τετάξεταε χορού ; 73 Γ * Trap0evovs] Vv. 737 f· show that Ag. refers to their other daughters. Cf. v. 1164. 733. νυμφίο is] as at Med. 3 66 (£r’ εϊσ' άχωνες τοΐς νεωστί νυμφίοις) the refer¬ ence is specially to the bride. 734. Cf. Phoen. 344 ff. iyih δ’ ούτε αοι ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 77 ΑΓΑ. ον καλάν εν ογλω σ’ εξομϊλήσαι στρατού. ΚΛ. καλάν τεκονσαν τάμα μ εκΒουναι τέκνα. ΑΓΑ. καί τάς y ip οϊκω μη μάνας είναι κάρας. ΚΛ. οχυροΐσι τταρθενώσι φρουρουνταί καλώς. ΑΓΑ. πίθου. ΚΛ. μα την άνασσαν Άργείαν θεάν, ελθών σύ τάζω ττράσσε, τάν Βάμοίς Β'' εγώ. [α χρη παράίναι ννμφίοισι παρθένοι?.] ΑΓΑ. οϊμοι' μάτην τ}ξ\ ελττίΒος δ’ άιτεσφάλην, εξ ομμάτων Βάμαρτ άποστεΐλαί θελων. 7 35 740 suggested, I think Musgrave’s καν σύ φαΰ\ ’ is the best. The καί before the σύ which stands in many texts was inserted by Aid. We must suppose the kclv to have been early obliterated and the δέ to have been introduced by an unmetrical scribe, κεί σύ φσΰλ ’ ή-γεΐ Weil. 735 · έξομιλείσθαι PL. Neither όμιλεΐν nor any of its compounds (προσομιλεΐ v is the only one in common use) occur elsewhere in the middle voice: the active of έξομιλεΐν occurs at Cycl. 518 in the sense of consort. It is therefore very bold of L. and S. to follow Abresch (quoted in the ‘Variorum’ ed.) in taking the middle of this verb as ‘to be away from one’s friends’. έξαμιλλάσθαι Herwerden, the objections to which are that we cannot imagine the present dispute between the husband and wife to have been carried on εν δχλιρ στρατού, and that the next v. clearly refers to the time of the wedding. I much prefer to read έξομιλήσαι, supposing e£ to have its usual intensive force—as we might say “right in the middle” as an intensive of “in the middle”. 736. τάμα y’ PL, τάμα μ ’ Markl. It is awkward (though possible) to supply the με from the σε of the preceding v., and the emphasis which the y throws on the έμά is out of place. 739. Wil.- Moll. (An. Eur. p. 197) puts the whole of this verse in the mouth of Agamemnon. In L the original hand has written an οϋ over the μά, perhaps by way of explanation of what he takes to be the sense. 740. ελθών δέ P, ελθών (sic) yc L, the 7 being by an early hand in an erasure, ελθών σύ Markl. If the suggestion of Wil.- Moll. mentioned on v. 739 were adopted the δε of the mss. would stand. 741. Monk was the first to recognize that this verse is an interpolation. It weakens the force of the declaration with which Cly. departs, and the use of ννμφίοίσι as an adjective qualifying παρθένοι is not Greek. 742. y^a (sic) PL. In P the a is crossed through, and an apostrophe written over it by a late hand. 743. In P the final Trvpbs άνηφα φώ s | νόμιμον εν y άμοι$, | ώ$ πρέπει ματέρι μακαρία. Cf. also Med. 1027 λαμ πάδas τ’ άνασχεθεΐν. 738· Cf. above on v. 149. 739. μά την άνασ-<ταν] A feminine form of oath: cf. Andr. 934, Hipp. 307. 740. ΙΧΘών] Schiller in his translation has a note on this word. He says it contains an implied rebuke to Ag. for having left his home and his home duties. All the less, his wife hints, ought he to interfere in what so intimately concerns the household. ‘His dictis abit irata’ Bothe. 742. μάτην ηξ’] answers to our con¬ versational ‘it was a false move’. Din- clorf well compares Ion 572 δ δ’ fj£as όρθώς, τούτο κάμ ’ ’έχει πόθος. 743 · Whether this ν. is genuine or not the disappointment expressed in the preceding v. was no doubt that felt at the failure to get rid of Clytaemnestra. 78 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ σοφίζομαι Be κάττί τοισυ φίλτάτοίζ τάχνας πορίζω, πανταχή νικώμενος. 745 [δ/χως δέ σνν Κάλχαντι τω θυηπόλω κοινή τδ τής θεόν φίλον, εμοί δ’ ονκ ευτυχές, εξίστορήσων είμι, μόχθον Ελλάδος.] χρή δ’ ev Βόμοισίν άνΒρα τον σοφόν τράφειν γυναίκα χρηστήν καγαθήν, ή μή γαμβΐν. 75° ' , · Στλοιμον Β'. ΧΟ. ήξβί Βή Σίμόβντα καΧ στρ. ν of βέλων is by a late hand. We could do very well without this line. 746— 74 ^· Monk also expunges these 3 vv. They make nonsense as they stand, τό της θεού φίλον is, as M. says, very bad Greek for ‘the pleasure of the goddess’, and however explained μόχθον Έλλάδο? remains intolerably harsh. Hennig would only reject v. 748, supposing that something of the original has been lost here. Certainly the lacuna, if this is the case, begins after the words τής θεοΰ. On the whole though I prefer to follow Monk. 747. In L κοινή is crossed through. In L an early, and in P a late hand has inserted a 7’ after φίλον. 748. In P the 1 of έξιστορήσων is corrected (I think) from ε, there is a space following it in which something has been erased and the στ is by a later hand than the rest of the word. In L too there is the same space after the 1, which is itself in an erasure. Vitelli says nothing about the στ. The original word must have been an unusual one. I should guess it to have been έξευπορήσων (ττ might easily be altered to which is how στ is written in P). μόχθων P, corrected by a later hand to μόχθον. 750. The second τρέφειν is evidently due to ‘dittography’. Hermann writes yapoiv for it, 744 f. σοφίζομαι δε κ.τ.λ.] ‘I use subtleness, I plot against those dear to me, and I am baffled at every point ’. 749 f. Some commentators have thought that the emphasis is on the εν δόμοισιν, others that it is on the χρηστήν καχαθήν. In the latter case the blame is too strong for the circumstances: in the former, the words χρηστήν κάχαθήν have been thought to imply equally too much praise: but perhaps they were used as formal epithets and with a slight irony. Here Ag. quits the stage. The second stasimon consists of strophe (75 1 —761), antistrophe (7 62 —772) and an epode (783 μήτ’ έμοί —8oo), all in loga- oedic verse (see scheme of metres at the end of the book). An interpolator has added vv. 773—783 (to ττρολιτοΰσα) which a metrical note in P describes as the se¬ cond strophe to which vv. 783 (from μήτ ’ έμοϊ ) — 8oo is the antistrophe. Hermann also (Oftusc.) thus arranges the passage, and has been at some pains to alter vv. 773 —783 to make the correspondence com¬ plete; but most editors who accept the whole as genuine regard vv. 773—800 as the epode.—The subject of the stasimon is a forecast of the success of the expedi¬ tion and the woes of the captive Trojan women, which naturally enlist the sym¬ pathies of the Chalcian women who com¬ pose the chorus. The whole structure of this choric passage is ably discussed by Hennig pp. 101 if. 751. καί] is here used to connect words in apposition: Vit. compares Θήβας καί ττόλισμ ’ έτττάχυλον. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 79 δίνας άρ^υροειδείς άγνρις Έλλάζ/ωζ' στρατιάς άνά τε ναυσϊ καί συν οιτΧοίς Ιλιον εις το ίροίας Φοιβήιον δάπεδον, τάν Κασάνδραν ιν ακούω ρίηττειν ξανθούς ττλοκάμους χλωροκόμω στεφάνω δάφνας κοσμηθεϊσαν, όταν θεού μαντόσυνοί ττνενσωσ άνάηκαι. στάσονται δ’ επί 7 τερ^άμων Τροίας άμφί τε τείχη [Τρω€9, όταν χαλκαστης ’Άρης and nothing better has been suggested. Herwerden excludes these two lines as well. 754. In L a second hand has written σύν over άνά. ναυσϊν P, νανσΐ L. 755. In P eis is corrected by a second hand to is. 761. παντόσυνοι P (this was actually adopted by some of the earliest editions), μαντόσυνοί. L (and so Markland before he knew of the ms. reading).—In L the σ’ of 7π/ει5σωσ’ is in an erasure. 764—767. Hennig (pp. 100 ff.) argues forcibly that these 4 verses were not written by Euripides but put in by a later hand to fill a gap caused by the mutilation of an early ms. His grounds are mainly metrical. It is extremely rare that in logaoedic verses a trochee or spondee comes between two dactyls. The only example in Euripides is Or. 841, where it would be easy to get rid of the anomaly by reading Ιδών for εσιδών. Aristophanes too, though he ridicules other unusual Euripidean glyconics never ridicules this. Of these 4 lines two have this fault (764 and 765). H. also takes exception to the matter. The arrival of the fleet at the mouth of the Simois has been already forecast in the strophe, and the picture of the Trojans (supposing TpcDes to be the subject of στάσονται) manning the walls would naturally be followed by a reference to the attack on the city. The three datives too (χλάταί?, είρεσίψ, and οχετοί s) with the one verb πελάζη, overload it, as he says. He grants that the expressions of the passage are ‘omnia exquisita, scilicet ex aliis poetarum locis’: χάλκασ -jrLS "A pr]s from Pind. Isthm. VI. 25, 2 i/xowriots δχετοϊς from Eur. Or. 809, εύπρψροίσι πΚαταις modelled on εύτρύμνοισι 7rXctrcus above v. 723. 755 760 άντ. 752. Cf. Ion 95 τά% Κασταλία? άρ^υρο- ειδεΐς βαίνετε δίνα$ (Monk). 754 f· T€ 1 connects the two accusa¬ tives Σιμόεντα and TXtoi', and είs τδ T p. Φ. δ. is in apposition to the latter. For the άνά Musgr. quotes Greg. Cor. de dial. Dor·. XVIII. tt]v άνά, άντί τη s σύν λαμβά- νουσιν. Cf. ν. 1058 below. 756· Φοιβηϊον δάττίδον] Weil cps. Hel. 1510 ούκ έλθοΰσα ττοτ Ίλιον Φ οιβείους έπί T 0 pyovs. Here the adj. has its mean¬ ing illustrated by what follows. That Phoebus has power on Trojan soil is attested by the spirit of prophecy which possesses Cassandra. The mention of this prophetess of evil to her native city is a subtle suggestion of the success of the Greek armament. So ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ πόντιος βνπρωροισι ητλάταις y 6 5 elpeaia πέλάζρ Σιμουντίοις οχετοί?,] τάν των ev αίθόρι Κισσών Αιοσκούρων Έλεγαν etc Τίριάμου κομίσαι θίλων JJO εί? 'Αχαιών βνθάδ * δ στρατηΧάτης; τις άν φράσβΐ€ προσπόΧων τον Π^λ,βω? ζητουντά νιν παΐδ ’ eV πύΧαις ΆχιΧΧέα; I believe to have happened is that Eur. wrote ws ’έτνχεν Αήδα | μιχθείσα πταμένιρ, and that ορνίθι, which was originally put in as an explanation of πταμένιρ , ousted μιχθεΐσ a. The ore marks the time spoken of as that of Zeus’s appearing to Leda, not that of the birth of her children: hence 'έτεκε would be out of place here. Monk proposed to insert πλατεία·’ before ορνίθι. 797. άλλάχθη PL, ηλλάχθη Monk. 798. δέλτοι s PL, δέλτοισι Monk. 802. των PL, corrected in both to τον. 803. In P the λλ of Άχιλλέα are in an erasure: perhaps a single λ was what 798. 4 v δέλτοισι Πιερίσι] i.e. ‘ in the writings of the poets’. 800. άλλωδ] For άλλως in the sense of to no purpose , falsely cf. Hel. 614 f. φημας δ’ η τάλαινα Τ υνδαρίς άλλως κακάς :ήκουσεν. At Hel. 21 the heroine, after relating this story as to her parentage, expresses the same doubt in the words el σαφής ουτος λόyoς. Third Epeisodion, vv . 801—1036. The intervention of Achilles. Admirable stage-craft is shown, both in the prepara¬ tion furnished by the conversation in the last episode for the appearance of Achil¬ les, and also in the subordinate incidents, and the main features and motives of his intervention. The second scene (vv. 819 —854) is exquisitely amusing. In the first scene (801—818) Achilles appears before the door of the general’s dwelling and calls for some one to sum¬ mon him forth. This is one of the trans¬ parent devices of the Greek stage for securing that the events of the drama should take place where the spectators could see and hear them. It must not be supposed that the regular Greek way of seeking an interview with a superior, or even an equal or an inferior, was to stand before his door and shout for a servant to fetch his master into the street. After doing this he proceeds to speak his mind—to the chorus, or to the spec¬ tators (vv. 804—818), and explain the purpose of his visit. There are many difficulties in this short monologue. The gist of it I take to be this: ‘I do not come as the spokesman of the whole army: our circumstances are too different (i.e. ‘though all may be impatient’—for this is implied—‘the grounds of their impatience are various’): each man must speak for himself. My position is this: I have left my father’s house to sit here idle;—idle, because it does not suit the Atridae to move: my men rebel at this inactivity, and clamour either to be led on or else to be led home’. 801. των ’Αχαιών ενθάδ’] Monk says this is for των ενθάδε Αχαιών but Dobree is doubtless right in taking it as at Ar. Ran. 432...Πλοι5τω^’ οπού ’νθάδ’ οίκεΐ and as the ενταύθα at Soph. Phil. 16 σκοπεΐν θ' οπού στ' ενταύθα δίστομος πέτρα: i.e. as half superfluous with που: cf. also Soph. 0 . C. 1256 f. δν ξένης επί χθονός σύν σφφν εφεύρηκ ένθάδ 7 , where the ένθάδε is somewhat superfluous. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. S3 ουκ εξ Ισου yap μενομεν Ε ύρίπου 7 τελας. οΐ μεν yap ημών οντες aζυyες yάμωv 805 [οίκους ερήμους εκ\πτόντες ενθάδε] θάσσουσιν άκτάς, οι δ' εγοντες ευνιδας καί παΐδας’ ουτω δεινός εμπίπτωκ ερως τήσδε στρατείας Έλλάδ’ ουκ ανευ θεών. was first written. 804· Έύρίππου Ρ (it is curious that the same mistake was made by L at v. 813).— πΰλας PL, 7reXas Barnes: no doubt the scribe, who made several mistakes just about here, was misled by catching sight of the πύλαις in the preceding v. Vv. 804—818. Hermann treats v. 804 as a question, connecting it with οϋτω δεινοί κ.τ.λ. in v. 808: “quanta cupiditate bellandi flagret Graecia...eo quod par est utrorumque stadium, cognoscitur”. Hennig pp. 113 ft. rejects vv. 805—809 on the ground that if they are retained the whole passage has no logical connexion. I do not think he is right (see Explanatory Notes for a summary of the speech) except in what he says about the ερήμους in v. 806. Certainly it is just those who were not married who would be least likely to be oppressed with the thought of the unprotected state of their homes (the word means more than simply empty). I would suggest that v. 806 has got out of place, and that the passage originally ran ol μεν yap ήμων <εσμέν> άξυ yες yάμωv άπαιδες, ol δ' έχοντες ευνιδας, ο’ίκους ερήμους έκλιπόντες ενθάδε θάσσουσιν’ οϋτω δεινός έμπεπτωκ' ’έρως κ.τ.λ. The δντες in ν. 805 was perhaps due to the -οντες in έχοντες or in έκλιπόντες, and the 67 r’ άκτάς or e7r’ άκταΐς supplied from Hec. v. 36. This reconstruction however involves so many assumptions, that I have not ventured to print it in the text, but have contented myself with inclosing v. 806 in brackets to signify that at all events it will not do where it is. Dindorf follows a writer in the Classical Museum vol. 11. p. 106 (? Conington) in rejecting vv. 810—818. This writer remarks that the interpolator is fond of speeches within speeches (cf. vv. 430 ff. and 463 f.). 806. In Ρ ερήμους was first written έρίμους. 8ο7· θάσσουσ επ' άκτάς PL, επ’ άκταΐς Markl. (cf. Hec. 36), θάσσουσιν άκτάς Hartung. 808. άπαιδες PL, καί παΐδας Musgrave (cf. above the note on the whole passage). 809. στρατείας corrected from στρατί ας Ρ. 'Ελλάδι y’ ούκ PL 2 , Έλλάδ’ ούκ L 1 (probably, for ι y’ is in an erasure), Scaliger and Porson, the latter taking it as a dative. Porson’s authority 804. γάρ] As Hennig says, this yap is proleptic. It gives the grounds for what is said in v. 8ro, where μεν οΰν resumes after the digression. 808. If the order of verses be kept as in the mss. (see Crit. Notes) we must, I think, adopt Musgrave’s και παΐδας. I share some of Vitelli’s distrust of the emendation, but I cannot go with him in thinking that άπαιδες must have meant (taken with θάσσουσιν) ‘senza procrear figliuoli ’. οΰτω Seivos κ.τ.λ.] A natural com¬ ment on such a sacrifice as that mentioned in the preceding statement, implying al¬ most a condemnation of the expedition. 6 —2 8 4 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ τουμόν μεν οΰν δίκαιον εμέ Χέγειν χρέος’ άΧλος δ’ δ χρρζων αυτός inrep αυτοί) φράσεί. r/fjv yap Χίπών ΦάρσαΧον ySe Π ηΧέα 8ΐΟ μένω Vt λβ 7 τταΐς ταισίΒ' Ευ ρίπον ροαΐς, Μ υρμιΒόνας ϊσχων' οΐ δ’ άεϊ προσκείμενοί Χεηουσ ' ’ Α χιΧλεν, τί μένομεν ; ποιον χρόνον 815 ετ εκμετρησαι χρη τον Ί\ίου στό\ον; ορα τί Βράσεις, η άπαη οϊκαΒε στρατόν, Ί· is great, but surely it is better with Elmsley [Quart. Rev. 1819) to take it as acc.: he cites Soph. 0 . C. 942 where έμπέσοι governs αυτούς, and where it should be noticed that the subject (ζήλος) is also a feeling. On Med. 93 however Elmsley rejects Έλλάδ’ and reads ούκ άνευ θεών τινός, leaving έμπέπτωκ' without an object. 810. χρεών PL, χρέος Hennig ( τουμόν δίκαιον is a little strange, but still quite good Greek for my rights , or my claim , but such a meaning is out of place here. Pfennig’s emendation seems to me altogether to restore its equilibrium to the line: as he says, the θεών in v. 809 may have influenced the change to χρεών). 8n. αυτού P, αυτού Victorias. 8r2. φαρσάλων corrected to φάρσαλον P, φαρσαλών L, Φ άρσαλιν Musgrave.—In P a gap of three lines ruled each with red ink follows this v., occurring at the bottom of the first column. There is no gap in L. 813. ταΐσδέ y' PL, ταισί δ’ Blomfield and Dobree, εύρίππου corrected to εύρίττου L.— πνοαΐς PL, ροαΐς Markland, who quotes from Strabo I. p. 104 the words of Ion of Chios λεπτό? Έύρίπου κλύδων. At Soph. Ant. 1238 the MSS. are divided between ροήν and πνοήν. There too it is the last word in the line. 814. ot μ' PL, oi δ’ Monk. 815. ποιον PL, πόσον Monk. (I have not ventured to adopt this because I think ποιον may have been used for πόσον in an indignant question. The πόσον would merely ask for information’s sake what the length of the time would be.) 816. πρδς’Ιλωυ (with ov written above ου by an early hand) PL. ’Ιλίου is retained by most edd. and is probably the right reading: but how is πρός to be taken ? not with ’Ιλίου, for that would be from Ilium : έκμετρήσαι προς cannot mean to spend zipon : Weil takes πρός (with ’Ιλίου) in the sense of until —‘ until we start for Troy ’:—but besides giving πρός a very unusual sense it does the same to στόλος : the στόλος had begun already. As I see no way of interpreting the text as it stands I have ventured to print a conjecture of my own: ’έτ έκμετρήσαι χρή τον Τλίου στόλον, πρός "Ιλίου was, I think, written over ’Ιλίου as an explanation of the genitive : hence the πρός, which ousted the τον, and the TXtov. 817. δρά y ’ εΐ τι P (it is doubtful whether the 7’ is by the first hand), δρά εϊ τι L, δρά δ’ εϊ τι Fix, δρα τί F. W. Schmidt. ή άπαγ’ PL (with the ά crossed through by a late hand 810. Cf. v. 1188 below άλλ’ εμέ δίκαιον Schol. on Phoen. 1689. aya 60 v ευχεσθαί τί σοι. 8ι6. τον ’Ιλίου στόλον] For the 812. For the Epic ήδέ cf. Hec. 323, gen. cf./. T. 1066 yής πατρφας νόστος. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. τά των Ατρειδών μη μενών μεΧΧήματα. ΚΛ. ώ τταΐ θεάς Ν ηρήδος, ενδοθεν Χάγων των σών άκούσασ εξεβην προ δωμάτων. ΑΧ. ώ πότνι αιδώς , τήνδε τίνα Χεύσσω ποτέ γυναίκα, μορφήν ευπρεπή κεκτημενην; ΚΛ. ού θαυμά σ' ημάς αγνοεί ν, οϊς μη πάρος προσήκες * αινώ δ’ ο τι σεβεις τδ σωφρονεΐν. ΑΧ. τις εΐ; τί δ’ ήΧθες Δαναϊδών εις σύΧΧογον, γυνή προς άνδρας άσπίσιν πεφραγμενους; ΚΛ. Αήδας μεν ειμι παΐς, Κ Χυταιμνήστρα δε μοι ονομα, πόσις δε μούστιν 'Αγαμέμνων άναξ. ΑΧ. Λαλώ? εΧεξας εν βραχεί τά καίρια. αισχρόν δε μοι γυναιξι συμβάΧΧειν Χόγους. 85 820 825 830 in Ρ). 8ι8. μελλήματα PL (altered in Ρ by a late hand—Musurus ?—to μελήματα). 819. 'Νηρηϊδος PL, corrected in P, by a late hand, to Νηρήδος, in L to Νηρήδος. 823. oi) ς PL, οΐς Nauck. 824. προσεβης αν' αινώ P, with the av crossed through: over προσεβης is written 7 p. ( i.e. ypacpe, or ? ypafpercu) κατεΐδες in the hand, I think, which wrote the last 27 lines of the Danae fragment which follows this tragedy in Ρ. προσέβης' αινώ L, with av written above the line over the end of the former word. (Several editions—misled, I expect, by the Paris copies of L—erroneously state that the προσέβης &v stands for the σέβεις.) προσήκες Nauck. 825. τις δ ’ εΐ PL, τις et Monk : it would be hard to find two questions close together each introduced by δε. 826. The v in άσπίσιν was by a second hand in L. 828. μοι ’ στιν PL, μούστιν Matthiae. 829. εν is in an erasure 818. This concluding line shows that the speaker has come to charge Agamem¬ non with the delay. Markland compares Aesch. c. Ctes. 72 ούδε τά των "Ελλήνων άναμένειν μελλήματα. 819. Sc. 2. 821. ώ πότνι aiScos] An almost comically outspoken expression of sur¬ prise. 4 In the name of Modesty, whom have we here?’ The same expression occurs in a fragment of the 'Ιππ-άλυτο* καλυπτόμενος 439 Nauck. 823. μή] The same generalizing μή as at v. 834, but it is slightly more re¬ markable here, as the relative with which it is joined has its antecedent expressed (ημάς). 824. irpocrfjKes] Cf. /. T. 550 μων προσήκέ σοι ; Suppl. 472 (a corrupt pas¬ sage however) προσήκοντ ούδεν ’Apyeiwr πόλει. σέβ€ΐς] So Heracl. 6 το συyyεvες σέβων : the active is constantly used by Aesch. and Eur. in the sense of hold in honour , show respect to. 826. dcrir. 7Γ€φρ.] Cf. below v. 1387, and P 268 φραχθέντες σάκεσιν. For the idea of the whole v. cf. above v. 735. 830. In mitigation of the brusqueness, not to say discourtesy, of these words, we may imagine that Achilles, full of his business as he is, fancies, notwithstanding v. 820, that Cly. has been sent out by Ag. to confer with the visitor in his (Ag.’s) place. In L the v. is marked as a yvώμη. With these words Achilles 86 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ ΚΛ. μείνον' τί φεύγεις; δεξιάν τ' εμη χέρι σύναφτον , αρχήν μακαρίων νυμφευμάτων. ΑΧ. τί φης; εγώ σοι δεξιάν; α'ιδοίμεθ' αν 'Ay αμεμνον , el φταΰοιμεν ων μή μοι θέμις. ΚΛ. θεμις μάλιστα , την εμην επει γαμβΐς παΐδ ', ω θεάς 7 ταΐ πόντιας Ν ηρηίδος. ΑΧ. ποιους <γάμους φης; αφασία μ' είχει, yvvai, el μη τι παρανοοΰσα καινουργείς Xoyov. ΚΛ. πάσιν τόδ' εμπεφυκεν, αίδεΐσθαι φίΧους καινούς δρώσι καί ηάμου μεμνημενοις. ΑΧ. ουπωποτ εμνηστευσα παΐδα σην, yvvai, ουδ' εξ Ατρειδών ηΧθε μοι λόγο? γάμων. ΚΛ. τί δητ άν εϊη; συ πάΧιν αΰ Χόλους εμούς θαΰμαζ'" εμοι yap θαΰματ εστϊ τα παρά σου. ΑΧ. είκαζε' κοινόν εστιν είκάζειν τάδε' 835 840 Ί» 845 in Ρ. 831· δεινόν tl Ρ (I think), δεινόν’ τι L, μείνον’ τί Valckenaer. — 7’ Iμη PL, τ’ εμη Markl., δ’ έμί ■} Matthiae. 832. μακαρίαν PL, μακαρίων Markl. 833· αίδούμεθ’ Ρ, α'ιδοίμεθ' L. 834· φαύοιμεν αν ων PL (in Ρ the Άν has been almost obliterated). 835. yaμo'ίs PL (I have noted in P no trace of the late correction to yaμεΐs mentioned by Wil.-Moll.). No printed edition has, I think, perpetuated the mistake of the MSS. 836. νηρηιδο s Ρ, νηρψδος corrected by an early hand to νηρηιδος L. 837. ’έφησθ' PL, φη$ Barnes: the ’έφησθ' was probably written over the original φψ as an explanation. Firnh. cps. Hel. 471 7rtDs φή s; τίν ' ehras μύθον , and almost the same words at Phoen. 915. 839. In L the v in ττασιν is added by another hand. turns hurriedly to depart, most probably not, as at v. 854, into the building, but back to his tent, i.e. by the right-hand side entrance to the stage. 833. Achilles may well have been surprised, as he knew nothing of Iphi- geneia’s presence in the army. He could only suppose that Clytaemnestra was making love to him. 834 f. Firnhaber and Vitelli compare Electr . 223 άπελθε, μη φαν ’ ων σε μη φαύειν χρεών: to which words of Electra Orestes answers ούκ έσθ’ οτου θ'^οιμ' αν ένδικώτερον. yaμεh is more probably the present than the future. μοι] Vitelli refers to O. Schneider on Isocr. Panegyr. § 14 for a collection of instances of this indiscriminate use of the 844. τα τναρα σου PL, τάττδ σου Dobree : sing, and plur. of the first person, and gives many himself from Eur. 837. αφασία μ’ 2 χ€ΐ] Firnh. cps. H. F. 515 αφασία δε καμ ’ έχει and Hel. 549 έκπληξιν ημΐν αφασίαν re προστίθης. 8 4 4· θαύμαζ’] A strong expression for δει σε θαυμάξειν: ‘you may well won¬ der’. For the (rare) tribrach in the 5th foot cf. below w. 1247 and 1415. Nauck (Stud. Eur. 2. 64) by reading αμ- for ava- in compounds gets rid of a great many instances. 845—852. Achilles’ native politeness now gains the upper hand, but Clytaem¬ nestra, when she realizes the state of affairs, is naturally so overpowered with shame that she cannot accept the way out of her confusion which the blunt ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 87 ΚΛ. ΑΧ. ΚΛ. ΑΧ. ΠΡ. ΑΧ. ΠΡ. άμφω yap ου ψευδόμεθα τοΐς Xόyoίς ϊσως. άΧΧ' ή ττεττονθα δεινά; μνηστεύω yάμoυς ούκ όντας, ώς εϊξασιν' αίδοΰμαι τάδε. ϊσως εκερτόμησε κάμε καί σε τις. άΧΧ ’ άμεΧία δδ? αυτά και φαύΧως φερε. » \ 5 /Ί Λ V / »}/>> ~ χαιρ ου yap ορσοις ομμασιν σ ετ εισορω, ψευδής yεvoμεvη καί τταθουσ ανάξια. \ \ /ςνι,ϊ \ Jf*’ «. > c^V \ και σοι τοο εστιν εξ εμού ττοσιν οε σον στείχω ματεύσων τώνδε δωμάτων εσω. 850 ώ ξεν, Αιακού yεvεθXov, μεΐνον, ω σε τοι λέγω, 855 τον θεάς yεyώτa τταϊδα, και σε την Αήδας κόρην, τις ό καΧων ττύΧας τταροίξας; ως τεταρβηκός καΧεΐ. δουΧος, ούχ άβρΰνομαι τώδ’ ? ή τάχη yap ούκ εα. cf. below ν. 1214. 847· V PL, ή Barnes: Heath first put the ;. 848. In L έοίκασιν is written over εϊξασιν. 850. αμελείς PL: in P an early hand wrote over it Ίωνικώς διά το μέτρον, and a late hand has changed ει into 1. 851. δμμασιν e -τ’ PL: a late hand in P σ’ δτ\ 853. Matthiae first accented the σοί. 855. In both P and L this speaker is called θεράπων all through this scene. Marlcland was apparently the first of modern editors to see that he is the same as the Π,ρεσβύτης who has appeared before (cf. for proof v. 891). ώς σέ PL, ώ σε Markl. (who cps. Ar. Av. 275). 857. τεταρβηκώς PL. This I have altered to τεταρβηκός (adv., cp. Ale. 773), as I think it better suits the tbs which here is exclamatory. 858. In P a letter has been erased before the β of soldier suggests : she only feels that ‘ she can never look him in the face again’. At 846 Ach. tells her he does not imagine she has invented the story, but she will not accept this ; she is ψευδής ^ενομένη, she has said what is not true: like Mal- volio she ‘has been most notoriously abused’— τταθουσ ’ ανάξια. — κοινόν εστιν means ‘it is open to us both’. Cp. Elmsley on Heracl. 426 for άλλ’ ή ; and Porson on Hec. 958 (972—a probably spurious passage) for όρθοϊς δμμασιν. 849. €Κ€ρτόμ.ησί] So used by Soph. Phil. 1235. Photius gives κερτομών' χλευάζων, έρεθίζων, σκώτττων. 853· τόδ’] i.e. χαϊρε (Matthiae and Monk).—Ach., in pursuance of his origi¬ nal object, makes for the central door of the σκηνή, and is disappearing through it, as the old henchman half opens the left- hand or tritagonist’s door, and calls to him to stop. Cly. was also departing ( καί σε 856) ; possibly by the right-hand door. 855. Sc. 3. A metrical note on the margin of P says : τροχαϊκοί s, ότι μετά σπουδής ό θεράπων άφίκετο. The metre corresponds to the exciting nature of the old man’s communication. 857. Trapoi£as] The old man is afraid to show himself until he has ascertained that neither Ag. nor Menelaus is in sight. 858. ούχ άβρύνομαι τωδ’] “ Non quoad hoc delicatum ago ” Heath : ‘ I do not show pride in this matter ’: i.e. I am not ashamed to confess it : ούχ άβ. τόδ' (see Crit. N.) could, I think, only mean ‘ I am not proud of this’. Bothe quotes Bekker Anecd. p. 322 άβρύνεται’ θρύπ¬ τεται, καυχάται. Cp. the use of σεμνύνο¬ μαι at v. 901. 88 ΕΥΡΙΓΤΙΔΟΥ ΑΧ. ΠΡ. ΑΧ. ΠΡ. ΑΧ. ΠΡ. ΑΧ. ΚΛ. ΠΡ. ΚΛ. ΠΡ. τ ινος; εμος μεν ονχι' χωρίς ταμα καηαμεμνονος. τησΒε των ττάροίθεν οίκων , ΎυνΒάρεω Βόντος ττατρός. 86θ εσταμεν’ φράζ', εϊ π χρηζεις, ων μ επτεσχες εϊνεκα. ή μόνω πταρόντε Βήτα ταΐσΒ' εφεστατον 7 τνΧαις; ώς μόνοιν Χε<γοις αν, εζω Β' εΧθε βασίΧείων Βόμων. ώ τύχη 7 τρόνοίά θ' ημη, σωσαθ' ονς εγώ θεΧω. 6 λόγο? εις μέΧΧοντ αν * ωση χρόνον * εχεί Β' ojkov tl νά. 865 Βεξίάς εκατί μη μεΧΧ ’, εϊ τί μοι χρηζας Χεγειν. οίσθα Βητά μ' οστίς ών σοϊ και τεκνοις εύνους εφυν. οίΒά σ' οντ εγώ 7 ταΧαιων Βωμάτων εμών Χάτρίν. χωτί μ' εν ταΐς σαΐσι φερναΐς εΧαβεν Αγαμέμνων αναξ. άβρύνομαι. — In L an ό is written by an early hand over the φ of τφδ’, i.e. it suggests a variant τόδ’. τάδ’ Dobree .—yap μ ούκ PL, yap ovk Elmsley, and so, acc. to Monk, one of the Paris copies of L. 860. τώνδε των P, τήσδε rrj s L, τησδε , των Herm., which seems to me to give a better sense and to explain the variation of the MSS.: we might perhaps omit the comma and make one gen. dependent on the other. 861. ’έσταμεν P. 862. 7 rapot-dev PL, παρδντε Dobree and Lenting, a good instance of the way in which a similar word in a neighbouring v. caught a scribe’s eye. — τταΐσδ' with the a crossed through P, ταίσδ’ L: a curious instance of a merely mechanical error: its consequence was that Aid. (and the other early editions) read μόνιρ and 7 ταΐδ’, Canter (1571) (μόνω and) 7rcus δ’, but it is hard to see what either of them understood by the words. Erasmus in 1519 translates the v. ‘Num fores ad hasce soli vos duo consistitis?’ What edition did he use? 863. In both P and L this verse is given to Achilles. 864. σώσα$ P (not σώσασ' as Wil.-Moll., the abbreviation is not I think used in P except for a final as, and the mark which looks like an apostrophe has come through from the other side of the page, which is very thin here), corrected by a late hand to σωσον. σώσασ ’ L (acc. to Vitelli), σφσαθ ’ Kirchhoff. (It is possible that σώσον was the original reading and that the as was due to a suggested as for ovs and that this as ousted the final ov, which may have been written in an abbreviation above the line.) 865. αν ώση PL, άνοίσει Markl., μέλλοντα λεύσσει. Reiske. Countless other corrections have been proposed. I think the case is hopeless. The general sense of the line I take to be ‘I see we shall have to wait some time for the speech (he has so much to say by way of preface): but the man seems to have something important to say’. As a less violent correction than many I would propose ets μέλλοντα νεύσβι χρόνον, lit. ‘will fall in the future’. 866. μέλ’ P, μέλ ’ the first hand of L, but an early hand has written a second λ above the line. 867. δηθ' οστί$ corrected to δητα y οστις PL, δητα μ ’ οστις Porson. ov corrected by early hand to ών P. 868. παλαιών PL; all editions have παλαιόν, but I think the MSS. are right, παλαιών δωμάτων being the same as τών πάροιθβν οϊκων in v. 860. 869. χώτι με ταΙ$ σαΐς Ρ (δη put in above the line by 859. i.e. ‘You can have no business with me ’: a hasty attempt to get rid of the old man. 866. 8e£ias ^κατι] cannot mean πρός (σε) δεξιάς, as some take it: rather it is ‘do not wait for a pledge ’, i.e. you surely need have no hesitation in speaking to me. 869. Cf. a 276—278 for an instance of the bride’s father giving a dowry with ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 89 ΚΛ. ΠΡ. ΚΛ. ΠΡ. ΚΛ. ΠΡ. ΚΛ. ΠΡ. ΚΛ. ΠΡ. ΚΛ. ΠΡ. ΚΛ. ΠΡ. ΚΛ. ηΧθες είς 'Ά p «ΟΛ 'λ' J Λ εστιν /χεν ουν tv ϊ/ου /χτ^ Atav φρονε tv, εστιν δε χα/που χρήσιμον γνώμην έχειν. 9 2 5 εγώ δ’ εν α νδρός ευσεβέστατου τραφείς Χείρωνος, εμαθον τους τρόπους απλούς εχειν.] /cal Tot? Άτρείδαις, ην μεν ηγώνται καλώς, ιτεισόμεθ' ’ όταν δε /α/) κα\ώς, οΰ ττείσομαο. αλλ* ενθάδ' ev Τροία τ ελευθεραν φνσι,ν 93 ° 7 ταρεχων, 'Άρη τό κατ εμέ κοσμήσω δορί. [σε δ’, ω παθονσα σχέτλια προς των φιλτάτων, 922 and 923 are ascribed to the Chorus by the mss. All editors have followed Burges in giving them to Achilles. Wilamowitz thinks some scribe mistook a marginal χρ. (i.e. χρήσιμον) for χορ. —Over rot- is written /cotv. (i.e. κοινή συλλαβή) in P.— είσί P,— the po in βροτων in L is a correction from something. 925. ’έστϊ corrected by an early hand to &mv L.— χ , ώπου L. 929. ού πείσομεθα P, ού πείσομαι (with the at by an early hand in an erasure) L (so also Scaliger corrected P’s reading later). 931. άρει with η written over the et (by the original hand in L and possibly in P) PL (in P the η is crossed through).— τω PL, to Brodaeus. 932. σχέτλια παθονσα PL, παθοΰσα σχέτλια Barnes. 932—934. Conington {Class. Mus. II. 106) condemns 932—943 as spurious. He points out that after the fashion of the interpolator he gets his material from the neighbouring verses: ά δή κατ' άνδ. κ.τ.λ. from τδ κατ’ εμε in 93 1 » περιβαλών καταστελώ (whatever he meant by it) from κοσμήσω , παρέξω τουμδν δέμας from έλενθέραν φύσιν παρέχων and τοϋνομα κ.τ.λ. (938 f·) from 947· A s t° ^ ie l as t instance we shall find that it is the later verse which in this case is spurious, so that the argument serves only to establish 938 the more securely, and in the last but one the resemblance is very slight. The first three lines however are in themselves so weak that they succumb to the attack. 932 comes from Aesch. Eum. '100, and both the general sense and the language of 933 f. condemn them at once. Why should a young man be deemed naturally correspondence of Horace’s ‘ dulce est desipere in loco ’ suggests that this like v. 920 came originally from a lyric poet. Seneca de Tranqu. an. 15 says: Si Graeco poetae credimus aliquando ct insanire iucundum est. Stiblinus cps. Soph. At. 554 iv τφ φρονεΐν yap μηδέν ήδιστος βίος. 930 f. The participial clause— έλευθέ - pav φύσιν παρέχων —contains the most important part of the declaration : ‘ while Ϊ do my best as a soldier I will keep my¬ self a free man still ’. uses of the passive of αίρω may be found at Hipp. 735 and Bacch. 748. Firnhaber for this use of πρόσω compares Soph. Track. 547 ερπουσαν πρόσω and Hel. 326 τί βλέπεις πρόσω ; 921. τά εξωγκωμενα] lit. fulness, i.e. prosperity. 922. λελογισμένοι είσ*ιν] lit. ‘have laid their plans ’: not very different in effect from our ‘have the sense to’. 924. φρονεΐν] The following v. shows that φρονεΐν here means not ‘ to be proud ’, but ‘ to be sensible ’. The exact ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 95 α όη κατ ανόρα γιγνεται νεανίαν, τοσοντον οίκτον περίβολων καταστελω,] κονποτε κόρη ση προς πατρός σφayr^σeτai, εμη φατισθείσ ' ον yap εμπ\έκείν π\οκάς eyco 7 ταρέξω σω ητόσει τονμόν δέμας, τοννομα yap , el καί μη σίδηρον ηρατο, τονμόν φονενσει παΐδα σην. το δ’ αίτιον πόσος σός’ ayvov δ’ ονκέτ εστϊ σωμ εμόν, el δί εμ οΧεΐταο διά τε τονς εμονς yάμovς η δείνα τ\άσα κονκ ανεκτά παρθένος. [θανμαστα δ’ ώς άνάζι ητίμασμένη.] eyco κάκιστος ην άρ 'Apyelwv άνήρ, ε’γώ τό μηδέν, Μενέλεως δ’ εν άνδράσιν' [ω? οΰχι ΐΐηλέως, αλλ’ αλα στορος γεγώ?, 935 940 945 poor in pity? (τοσοντον must be correlative to ά δη): and what, with or without περιβαλών, can καταστελω mean? At most καταστελω σε is I toill set you to rights , not I will right you. Perhaps by περιβαλών καταστελω was meant I will wrap you round in, will enfold you in. (Hesych. καταστέλλω' περικαλύπτω.) vv. 935 ff. seem to me to follow admirably after 931 (though it is possible we ought to read οϋποτε for κοϋποτε). 933. "γίνεται PL. 937. Nauck thought at one time that this v. (from which apparently v. 947 was concocted) originally ended: τοΰμδν δνομα σω πόσει. 93^· ei ’ V-V KaL PL, ει καί μη Aid .— -ήρατο PL, ήράμην Nauck. 940. ayvos P, ayvov L. 943. ητιμασμενη P (corrected by a late hand to ή-), η- L. Nauck and Herm. ( Opusc .) rightly reject this v. θανμαστα ώί is late Greek for the prose θανμαστως ώς, and the latter part of the line comes from Hel. 455 ω δαΐμον ws άνάξι ητιμώμεθα. 945. τ’ εν PL, but the first hand in L has written a δ’ over the τ’. 946 and 947. I suspect that the interpolator of these two vv. had in mind I. T. 369 (ff.). "Αιδης Άχιλλενς ην άρ', ούχ 6 ΐlηλέωs κ.τ.λ. and therefore that there is a little more sense in them than Hennig gives them credit for, though he and others are doubtless right in condemning them, as having no connexion with what precedes. The absolute use of φονεύσει is not Greek. The inter¬ polator doubtless meant them to refer to Achilles, but as they stand they can only refer 936. φατισ-θείοτ’] Cp. above v. 135. 937. τούμόν δε'μαδ] a mere periphrasis for ‘ myself ’. See however Crit. N. 938. εί...ήρατο] A bold picturesque expression, of somewhat the same charac¬ ter as Aeschylus’s atrvpos άρδις used of the gad-fly’s sting. There we have ‘ an arrow- point which no fire has forged ’: here, ‘a murderer who never lifted sword ’, i.e. ‘ my name ’. 940. σώμ’ εμόν] not a mere periphra¬ sis here, like the τούμ'ον δέμas of v. 937. Perhaps he is thinking, as Clytaemnestra does below, of his possible future wedding. ‘ It will be a personal stain upon me ’. 944. κάκισ -Tos] not vilest in a moral* sense, but most cowardly. 945. το μηδέν] Cp. Monk on Hipp. 634 (638). Cf. above v. 371 for a variety of the expression .— εν άνδράσιν. Cp. Monk on Ale. 748 (732). 9 6 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ ειπερ φονευσε ι τοη/χον δνομα σώ ποσει.] μα rw δά υγρών κυμάτων τεθραμμένον Ν η pea, φυτουργον θετιδος η μ * εγείνατο, ονχ άγεται σης θυγατρος Αγαμέμνων άναξ , ονδ ’ εις άκραν χβΓρ’, ώστε προσβαΧεϊν πεΎΓΧοις. [τ] 2ιπυλος εσται πολι? δρισμ α βαρβάρων, o^et' ΤΓίφνκασ οΐ στρατηλάται γένος, Φθία δε τονμδν τ ονδαμον κεκλφσετ at.] πικρούς 8έ ττρογντας χέρνιβάς τ ενάρξεται Κάλχα? δ μάντις. τις δε μάι/τις εστ άνηρ, 950 955 to Menelaus. 947 · otrirep φονεύα PL, είπε/) Aid., φονεύσβι Schaefer. w. 952—954. Nauck suspects v. 953, Hennig condemns 953 and 954. I think all three verses ought to go. They are a clumsy parallel to w. 945 and 946. ορισμα is possibly an ignorant scribe’s Greek translation of the Lat .fines. 954. φθΐα δύ τού μον τ’ ούδαμοΰ L, φ. δ. τούμον τούδαμου Ρ, the τ being crossed through. The accent of the τούμον , the absence of the ’ after the second r, and the shape of the letter itself, prove that this second τ was a subsequent addition to P (probably when it was corrected to agree with L). Hennig is probably right in holding that the composer of the line by τούμόν meant τούμον ορισμα (supplied from v. 952). The inserter of the τ before ούδαμοΰ probably supplied yevos from 953. Φθίας δε τούνομ’ ούδαμοΰ Jacobs. This emendation has been adopted by all editors who believe the v. to be genuine. 955. άνάξεται PL, ένάρξβται. Musgr. w. 959—974. Hennig (pp. 125 if.) has, I think, proved these vv. to be spurious. He also shows good cause for thinking that w. 963 and 964, and again vv. 973 and 974, betray in their language, as well as in their want of sense, a far later interpolator than the rest of the passage. In the latter we find a character w'hich at first sight seems to fit Achilles (cf. Hor. A. P. 121 f., Homer I 395 f.). A little reflection however shows this particular expression of the character to be quite irreconcileable with the earlier part of the speech. There he expresses indignation that his name should have been used as the instrument of such a deed as the sacrifice of Iphigeneia: here he is made to say that, if his dignity had not been offended by the way in which it had been done, he would have consented ; and moreover he is made 948. This v. is marked as ώραΐον in the margin of P. 951. €is] here apparently means ‘so much as’, lit. ‘to the extent of’. The hand (άκρα χε?ρ) spoken of is Agamem¬ non’s. ‘ He shall not even so much as touch her garments w T ith his hand ’. Cf. Homer’s use of els in Γ 158 alvQs άθανά· τ-ρσί deps els ώπα ZoiKev and in C1411 ou μύν yap tl κακψ els ώπα eipKei —perhaps ‘as far as face goes’. Paley compares els π\pσμovάs in Tro. 1211. 955. TriKpovs] ‘to his cost’ ns Paley says. Cp. Cobet V. Z. 573. 956. The άνήρ joined to μάντΐ 5 (cf. the Homeric Iprpos άνηρ Λ 5 r4, άνηρ όχετ- ηyόs Φ257, voμeύs άνηρ Soph. Ο. Τ. 1118, and the English fisherman , beggar man , sailor man) marks the noun as the desig¬ nation of a calling, and so, like the English ‘ professional * and ‘ professed ’, may be used in a slightly derogatory sense. Without the άνηρ the words would most naturally have meant ‘ who is a seer ? ’ ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 9 7 δ? όλίγ αληθή, 7τολλα δε ήτευΒή λβγ€ί τυχών, όταν Be μή τύχη, Βιοίχβται; [ου των γάμων εκατι, μνρίαι κόραι θηρώσι λέκτρον τονμόν, εΐρηται τδδε* αλλ’ νβριν ές ή μας νβρισ 'Αγαμέμνων ανα£ ' χρήν δ’ αντον αιτείν τονμόν όνο μ εμον πάρα, θήραμα παιΒός' ή Κλυταιμνήστρα δ’ εμοι μάλιστ Ιπζίσθη θυγατέρά έκδοννα ι πόσα. «δωκά ταν ^Έιλλησιν, el προς *Ιλιον €V τωδ* €καμν€ νόστος' ονκ ήρνονμεθ ’ αν το κοινόν av£eiv ών μέτ Ιστρατενόμην. ννν δ’ ονδέν ειμι παρά ye τοΐς στρατηλάταις, iv ενμα pei re Spav tc και μή Βραν καλώς. g 6 o 9^5 to say it in Clytaemnestra’s presence. If we suppose, on the other hand, that some of this part of the speech was an ‘ aside \ not meant for Clytaemnestra’s ears, it amounts to a confession that his previous indignation was feigned, and his character becomes that of a contemptible swaggerer. Neither supposition can be entertained for a moment. 959 f. ή P, η, L, ού Lenting, y αμούντων PL, *γάμων Canter. Hermann and Hartung would reject the parenthesis μνρίαι — τούμόν and insert δ' before dp -ητ ai. 963. δέ μοι PL, δ’ έμοί Matthiae. Hermann reads el for the MSS. ή with only a comma after πόσα in v. 964. 965. 'έδωκέ τ' αν PL, ‘έδωκα Hervagius, ταν Gaisford. 967. έστρατενόμην PL, έστρατεύομεν Monk: the 958. τυχών] ‘ -when he succeeds ’: i.e. ‘ at best 5 (he tells many lies for every truth).—Firnhaber and Vitelli are doubt¬ less right both in taking as the subject of διοίχεται, and in interpreting the latter to mean ‘ he is nowhere to be found ', ‘ he has vanished ’. Barnes, Matthiae, Her¬ mann, Weil, and others give translations of the word with res as its subject.—Firn¬ haber, on z». 515 above, has an interesting discussion (two pages long and more) on the way μάντεις and their art are spoken of in tragedy. It is interesting to notice that Euripides, like a true dramatist, gives us the view of ‘ the other side ’ as well: at Phoen. 954 Teiresias says ό'σ -m δ' έμπύριρ χρήται τέχνη, μάταιος' ήν μέν έχθρά σημήνας τύχη , πικρός καθέστηχ’ οις άν οίωνοσκοπή' ψευδή δ' νπ' οίκτον τοΐσι χρωμένοις \έ^ων αδικεί τα των θεών. I think Firnhaber is wrong in finding in Tei- E. I. resias’s words in the Bacchae (e.g. vv. 298 if.), and in his character in that play, an attempt to bi'ing ridicule on the seer’s art. 961. Cf. Bacchae 247 ύβρεις ύβριζαν and 1297 ϋβριν y ύβρισθείς. 963 f. θήραμα] generally means ‘prey’, but the interpolator seems to have used it in the sense of ‘snare’, i.e. ‘means of catching’. The two datives έμοί and πόσει must both have been meant to go with έκδοΰναι, and this gives a very loose construction, which is not improved by the weak μάλιστ’. 965 f. cl irpos ’Ίλιον cv τωδ’ ϊκαμν£ voittos] This seems to have been bor¬ rowed from I. T. 1018 f. τήδε yap νοσεί νόστος πρδς ο’ικονς. cj 6 g. Commentators are divided as to whether to regard Achilles as the subject or object of δράν. 7 98 ΕΥΡΙΤΤΙΔΟΥ τάχ ε'ίσεται σίδηρος, ον πρίν εις Φρνγας ελθεΐν, φόνον κηΧίσιν αϊματι χρανώ, εϊ τίς με την σήν θνγατερ εξαιρήσεται. αλλ’ ησύχαζε’ θεός εγώ πέφηνά σοι μέγιστος, ονκ ών * αλλ’ όμως γενήσομαι .] ΧΟ. εΧεξας, ω πταϊ Π^λβω?, σου τ αξία καί της εναΧίας Βαίμονος, σεμνής θεοΰ. ΚΛ. φευ’ 7 τώς αν σ’ ετταινεσαιμι μή Χίαν Xόyoίς; [,μήτ ενδεώς μή τοΰδ’ άττολεσαιμι την χάριν{] αίνονμενοι yap ayaOoi τρόττον τινα μισούσι τούς αϊνουντας, ήν αίνώσ ayav. \αΙσχννομαι δε παραφέρονσ οίκτρους λόγου?, Ιδία νοσούσα* συ δ’ ανοσος κακών γ εμών. 97 ° 975 980 Ί· active is much commoner in Eur. than the middle. 97 ο. σίδηρον P corrected by a late hand to σίδηρο$, σίδηρος L the -os being in an erasure by the first hand. 971. αϊματι PL, αίματος Porson, who read φόνον, omitting the comma after ελθεΐν. Perhaps Weil is right in regarding αϊματι as a gloss on φόνου κηλΐσιν which ousted a word—Herwerden suggests "EXX^os, used, as at /. T. 72, as an adj. α ίματοχρανώ Bothe. Possibly αίματώσομεν originally stood at the end of the verse, and αϊματι χρανώ was a marginal gloss intended as an explanation of φόνου κηλϊσιν αίματώσομεν. 978. μήτ ενδεώς μή τοΰδ’ άττόλέσαιμι την χάριν PL : in L ης is written (by m 2 Vit. says) over ώς. I think that this was a foolish addition by an early scribe, intended as an aside, and that he wrote άττόλέσω, which was afterwards assimilated in termination to the έτταινέσαιμι in v. 977. Its meaning would then be ‘nor too little, for fear I may lose this man’s favour’. Many attempts have been made to mend the metre and construction of the MSS. : μήτ ’ ενδεώς μήτ ’ ax- Aid., μήτ ’ ενδεής τοΰδ’ άχ- Markl., μήδ ’ ενδεής τοΰδ’ άχ- Dind., μήδ’ ενδεώς χου διοΧέσαιμι Weil. But whether mended or not the verse seems to me equally out of place. The following words refer exclusively to v. 977. 979. αγαθοί PL, corrected by a late hand in P to οίχαθοι or 01 ayadoi. ayadoi Pors. 980. ήν PL, altered by a late hand in P to εαν. 981—989. Hennig rejects these verses and Wecklein follows him. (1) Why should the queen, after thanking Ach. effusively for his offered help, turn 970. Monk compares Phoen. 1677 ΐστω σίδηρος ορκιόν τε μοι ξίφος and 253 αν’Άρης τάχ εϊσεται. 973 * It is possible that the interpola¬ tor here used φαίνεσθαι in the sense of δοκεϊν. If not, it is hard to find any sense in the following verse. 977. The μή shows that the sentence is meant as a wish. In effect she says : ‘My fear is that I shall not be able to avoid excess in my praise of you ’. 979 f. Barnes cps. Orestes 1162 βάρος τι καν τφδ’ έστίν, αίνεΐσθαι λίαν, and Monk adds Heracl. 202 καί yap οΰν έχί- φθονον λίαν έχαινεΐν έστι. 981. ‘τταραφερουσ·’] Not the same as χροσφέρουσα : there is in the xapa- the notion of bringing in something foreign to the occasion. The word would very well suit the first introduction of a suf¬ ferer’s petition, though not a. repetition of it. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 99 >\\> 9 V « Λ V Λ Τ αΛΛ ονν εχευ του σχήμα, καν a πωσεν ή άνηρ ο χρηστός, δνστνχονντας ωφελευν. ουκτυρε δ’ ημάς’ οικτρά yap πεπόνθαμεν. η πρώτα μεν σε γαμβρόν ουηθεΐσ εχευν, κενήν κατεσχον ελπύδ* ’ είτά σου τάχα όρνυς γενουτ αν τουσυ μελλονσυν γόμους θανονσ εμη παυς, ό σε φνλάξασθαυ χρ€s] The adv. here, with which we must supply ηζετε from the preceding v., must be taken actively: i.e. ‘ if you come without a suppliant’s prayer 5 . Other instances of similarly formed adjectives used actively ( e.g. αφύλακτος , Άπρακτος) are given by Kruger 41, n, 26. Closely parallel to άνικέτεντος is the ανενκτος quoted by Mark- land from an epigram in Plat. Ale. 143 a, where it is used actively. know of no other instance of a similar plural to τέλος in the sense of end— τέλη usually having various other special meanings. 995· ού] because Iph. actually was absent. 996. (Γίμνα yap σεμνυντεα] simply ‘ (her) shyness must be respected ’. σεμ- νύνοντα l at Plat. Rep. 405 A is generally taken as a passive in the sense of ‘are respected 5 , ‘gain respect 5 . 999. ov€i8os cl|Aa0€s] (incur) ‘the re¬ proach of the foolish \ ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. ΙΟΙ μέγιστος υμάς εξαπαΧΧάξαι κακών. ως εν y άκούσασ ϊσθί, μη ψευδώς μ ερεΐν' 1005 ψευδή Χέγων δε καί μάτην εγκερτομών θάνοιμι’ μη θάνοιμι δ\ ην σώσω κόρην. ΚΛ. δναιο συνεχώς δυστυχουντας ωφελώ ν. ΑΧ. ακούε δη νυν , ϊνα το ττράγμ εχη καΧώς. ΚΛ. τι τοΰτ εΧεζας ως άκουστέον γε σου; ΙΟΙΟ ΑΧ. 7 τεΐσον μεταυθις Ίτατέρα βεΧτιον φρονεΐν. ΚΛ. κακός τις εστι καί Χίαν ταρβεΐ στρατόν. ΑΧ. αλλ’ ουν Χόγοι γε κατατταΧαίουσιν φόβους. άνικετεύτφ θ\ Weil). 1004· άπαλλάξαι Ρ corrected by a late hand to έξαπαλλάξαι. 1005—1007. J. C(onington) regards these w. as spurious, and Dindorf has followed him. 1007. The μι of the second θάνοιμι is added above the line, I think by a second hand, in P. 1008. I suspect that συνεχώς, which is not a poetical word, and is weak here, whether taken (as is best) with 6 vaio or with ώφελών, is either a gloss or, more likely, a comment, directing that two words should be read as one (see above on v. 1004), which has crept into the text. This latter suggestion may be regarded as a faint support of the view that w. 1005—1007 are spurious: i.e. the συνεχώς may conceivably have referred to the word εξα- 7 ταλλά£αί. Possibly the words ousted by συνεχώς were δ' αυτός or καί σύ. 1009. δη νυν PL, δή νυν Barnes. Cp. on ν. 1146 below . —’έχη corrected by an early hand to !%ei Ρ, Ζχη with ei written over the η by the first hand (Vit.) L. Those who wrote εχει apparently took ϊνα in the sense of how , a natural extension of its use for the circumstances in which. ion. 7 τειθωμεθ' αυτις PL, but in P there is an erasure over the ω extending back to the Θ and the Θ itself is a correction, I think, for an earlier Lobeck on Soph. At. vv. 395 fif., Eur. Phoen. 361 οϋτω δέ τάρβο$ εί$ φόβον τ’ άφικόμψ : this idiom is post- Homeric. 1087 f. These lines are hard: they seem to mean ‘having not yet left her mother, though attired as a bride for some Argive husband’. For "γάμος in the sense of bride Weil cps. Androm. 103. There is no parallel for νυμφόκομον in the sense of ‘in bridal attire’, but nothing else can be made of it here, and the analogy of similar compounds allows it, and at Med. 985 the verb νυμφοκομεΐν is used in the neuter sense of ‘to appear as a bride’. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. ιο9 σθενειν τι ττρόσωττον; οπότε το μεν άσεπτον %χει Βυνασιν, ά δ’ άρετά κατόπι- σθεν θνατοίς άμεΧεϊται, ανομία δε νόμων κρατεί, Ι0 95 καϊ μη κοινός αγών βροτοΐς, μη τις θεών φθόνος εΧθη. ΚΛ. εξηΧθον οίκων προσκοπονμενη πόσιν, ;χρόνων άπόντα κάκΧεΧοιττότα στέκας. [εν όακρνοισι θ' η τάλαινα 7rats ίμή, 1 1ΟΟ ποΧΧάς Ιείσα μεταβολάς οδνρμάτων, θάνατον άκονσασ, ον πατήρ βουλευεται.] this έχει was equivalent in force to the following δύνασιν έχει, and that when it had made its way into the text, the second δύνασιν was altered, for variety’s sake, to δύναμήν. 1093. δύναμιν PL, δύνασιν Bothe (see on 1090). 1096. καί κοινός PL, καί μτ) κοινός Herm. This emendation of sense and metre alike is adopted by all editors but Firnhaber. 1098. ττροσσκοττουμένη PL: a late hand in P altered the σσ into / <7 > » Λ γ/ ΑΙΑ. Tt ο βσην; ω? /xot 7 ταντ€ς etναίως, πόσι. ΑΓΑ. ούΒβν κέλευα μου δεΐ y" ερωτάσθαί θέλω. 113 1125 ιΐ 30 were addressed to Iph., this must be her answer, altered κλυ (which is in the usual red-ink used for the indication of the speakers) to Ιφ (in black): and so Aid. and all early editions. Bremi (p. 237) first suggested that the vv. belonged to Cly., and Hermann’s was, I think, the first edition which so gave them. Bremi however (followed by Matthiae and Weil), believed that the 3 vv. were inserted from some other tragedy, on the ground that they are evidently the beginning of a long speech. I do not agree with this view (see Explan. Notes), but I have no hesitation in following Monk, Nauck and Vitelli in rejecting v. 1126. It is evidently a reminiscence or a quotation of part of another passage. In L καν ( i.e . καί αν) is written both times. This looks as if it belonged to a passage of a totally different construction from that of the present one. Even if we read καν it would puzzle us to fit the words in with the previous construction, which, moreover, gives a complete sense in itself.—In 1124 Herm. ( Opusc .) very plausibly conjectures λόγων for κακών. It is possible that κακών may have been due to a reminiscence of El. 907 (see Expl. Notes), λόγων, however, does not suit the following v. so well as κακών. Vv. 1129—1140. Several editors (mainly Hartung and Hermann) have proposed to rearrange these vv. in various ways. The chief motive seems to have been the desire to bring v. 1131 before 1140, or at all events to a later position in the conversation than it holds in the mss. I believe that the apparent inconsistencies are due to the fact that some of Ag.’s words are, as in some of his previous conversations, spoken aside (see Expl. Notes), and that no change is needed. 1129. Over d'v in P is written a av as an explanation, in L it is written d'v. 1130. ούδεν κέλευσμ ού δει γ’ PL (in L an ή is written over the ei — i.e. to suggest ού δη —and Vitelli marks no breathing over the v of ου), ούδεν κελευσμοΰ δει γ’ Canter (as printed, without comment, in his edition of 1571), δεΐ μ,’ Markland, and δει σ’ Dobree. Either μ or σ’ would give an excellent sense, but it is difficult to see how they could have been altered to γ’, even after the corruption to ού δεΐ, and the γ’ is not out of but must be supposed to turn towards her husband before he speaks v. 1127.— Heath cps. Eur. El. 907 f. εΐεν ' τίν ’ αρχήν πρώτα σ’ έξείπω κακών, ποιας τε¬ λευτάς ; τίνα μέσον τάξω λόγον; ιΐ27 f· I have removed the comma usually printed at the end of this line because I think that the participle 'έχοντες is to be taken closely with eis έν ηκετε :— ‘How you all combine to show me’, or ‘agree in showing me, faces full of trouble and distress’. μοι is an ethic dative, τί δ’ ’έστιν ; still spoken to Iphi- geneia.—From the word πάντες we may conclude (Monk) that Iphigeneia was surrounded by attendants, but there is doubtless a reference to Cly. as well. As Iph. is to be supposed still veiled, it cannot be the expression of her face to which her father refers. 1129. Firnhaber cps. Heracl. 890 f. ev δε τοΐς τοιοϊσδε χρη αψευδές είναι, τ ο?σι γενναίοι? στόμα. Ε. I. 8 114 ΕΥΡΙΤΤΙΔΟΥ ΚΛ. ΑΓΑ. ΚΑ. ΑΓΑ. ΚΛ. ΑΓΑ. ΚΛ. ΑΓΑ. την 7 ταΐδα την σην την τ εμην μέλλεις κτανεΐν; e a τλημονά y ελεξας, υπονοείς θ' α μη σε χρη. ήσυχος, κάκεΐνό μοι το πρώτον άπόκριναι πάλιν, συ ο , ήν <γ έρωτας εικοτ , εικοτ αν κλυοις. ουκ άλλ' ερωτώ, καί συ μη λεγ’ άλλα μοι. ώ πότνια μοίρα /cal τύχη δαίμων τ εμάς, κάμός γε και τησδ', εΐς τριών δυσδαιμόνων. τί μ ηδίκησας; ΚΛ. τοΰτ εμού πεύθει πάρα; 1135 place here. 113 1 · κτανεΐν PL, κτενεΐν Elmsley. (Cf. Goodwin, -M. and Τ. § 74.) 1132. In P a late hand has senselessly altered the r in τλήμονα to π. The first hand in L wrote τλημον’ ’έλεζας, but dy’ was added early above the line.—In P the Θ’ is in an erasure: I think what was first written was δ\ Among the many alterations made in this and the next v. with the view of including within the line the words ’έχ* ήσυχος may here be mentioned Herm.’s υπονοείς τ’ * £χ’ ήσυχος. In both P and L ήσυχος is followed by : to indicate that the verse is broken off short, i.e. that the words are extra metrum. Aid. omits them. 11 34· είκότα κλύεις PL, είκότ’ αν κλύοις Markl. and Musgr. Firnhaber retains the MSS. reading. 1135. ούκ άλλ’ PL (in L there is a * after ουκ ; if there is one also in P, I have failed to notice it) and so Aldus: Canter’s (1571) is the first edition in which I have found ούκ άλλ’. 1136. τύχη και μοίρα, δαίμων τ’ εμάς PL (altered in Ρ to τ. κ. μ. καί δαίμων y εμάς). Musgrave set the metre right by transposing the words μοΐρα and τύχη. ιΐ 37 · κάμός τε PL, κάμός ye Matthiae. 1138. τί μ' ηδίκησας Ρ, τί μ ηδίκησε L : in Ρ altered to τίν ήδίκησαι. (the ν is written twice, in the place of the μ by an early hand, and above it by a late one; the -a? is indistinct, as it has been scratched through and at written above it, altered 1132 fif. Here and in vv. 1134 and 11 37 Ag.’s first impulse is, naturally, to repel his wife’s suggestion. The excla¬ matory v. 1136 was not spoken to Cly. and not meant to be heard by her; nor, probably, was v. 1140. And from Cly.’s words in v. 1142 f. it looks as if, whether she heard these last two vv. of Ag. or not, she refused to take them as an answer to her questions, for she says that when pressed, .her husband is silent, and that this, and his exclamations (τό στενά- ζειν πολλά), she takes as confirmation of his guilt. 11 33 · ^X* ήσυχοδ] Used here, as at Med. 550, Hipp. 1313, Ar. Phit. 127, to deprecate interruption. Elsewhere a slight variation of the phrase (such as μέν' ήσυχος) means ‘ do not distress yourself’. At Hdt. v. 92. 3 we have εΐχον εν ήσυχίη, and at Eur. Suppl. 305 εΐχον ησύχως. κάκεΐνο might possibly refer to a question which is to follow, in which case πάλιν would merely mean ‘back’—‘answer me back’: but Ag.’s answer is rather in fa¬ vour of the view that he understood the original question to be repeated. ‘First answer again what I asked just now ’. 1138 f. τ£ μ’ ηδίκησαδ] ‘Why do you wrong me so?’ These words of Ag. refer to what he still ventures to assert is an unwarrantable suspicion on Cly.’s part: i.e. that expressed in v. 1131. Cly. adroitly uses the words of Ag.’s question ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 1 15 ΑΓΑ. ό νους δδ’ αυτός νουν εχων ου τυγχάνει. άητωΧόμβσθα. ητρο8ε8οται τά κρυπτά μου. II 40 ΚΛ. 7 τάντ ο!8α καί πεπΰσμεθ ’ ά συ μέλλεις με 8ράν' αυτό 8ε το σιγάν όμοΧογουντός εστί σου καί το στενάζειν πολλά. μη κάμης Χεγων. ΑΓΑ. 18ού σιωπώ' το γάρ αναίσχυντου τι 8ει ψευ8ή Χεγοντα προσΧαβεΐν τη συμφορά; 1145 ΚΛ. άκουε 8η νυν · άνακαΧΰψομεν Χόγους, from e which was written by the early hand. In L v ’ is written above the μ ’ with η after it), τί σ’ ηδίκησα or τις σ’ ηδίκησε Markl., τίν ηδίκησα and afterwards {Opuscl) τί δ’ ηδίκησαι Herm. There is much here that is inexplicable. The theory that seems to me best to fit the MSS. is that the original of P and L had τί μ ηδίκησ as, that L wrote ηδίκησε by mistake, and afterwards suggested nV for τί μ ’ to make sense out of nonsense, then that the first corrector of P adopted L’s suggestion of τίν ηδίκησε which Musurus further altered to τίν ηδίκησαι. I have therefore printed what I believe to have been the first reading of P. (See Explanatory Notes.) 1139. In both P and L this v. is given to Ag. 1141. πέπεισμ’ ά σύ with ye inserted above after σύ PL, over μ in L is an erasure which Vitelli says contained at ( i.e. πέπεισμαι), πέπυσμ ’ Aid., πεπύσμεθ' a συ Elmsley {Quart. Rev., No. xiv.) and Erfurdt. Ji43· κάμν -^s PL, κάμης Porson. 1144· Set PL, τί Set Elmsley, with a ; at the end of the sentence. (It is a curiosity of textual criticism that Firnhaber proposes μη Set, referring to his third excursus for this use of μη.) As Weil says, με was a marginal completion of the construction which ousted the τί. 1146. δη νυν P, 5 e νυν L, δη νυν Matthiae (cf. on v. 1009 a t> ove an d Valck. on Phoen. 918 ).— άνακαλύψω \ 6 yovs P, with yap inserted by an early hand over the line, άνακαλύψω yap λόγους L, ava- καλύψομεν Kirchhoff. Very possibly the same corrector, who changed πεπύσμεθ’ into πέπυσμ ’ or πέπυσμαι, here also altered the plu. into the sing. Weil and Vitelli keep L’s reading, but the asyndeton after άκουε (cf. Hec. 788 and 833). adds even more vigour to the sense than the short 0 adds rhythm to the metre. As at v. 1141 the ye, so here the yap, put in to save the metre, originates with L. I think it possible that the original scribe of P scanned the first, and that of L the second a of άνακαλύψω as a long syllable. The χρησώμεθ ’ in the to put him in the wrong. In the next v. Ag. says ‘The cleverness that can put such a question is no cleverness, but folly’, τυγχάνει is a natural variety for εστί in a sentence in which the predicate is a participle: it is best to take αυτός, as Markl. says, closely with τυγχάνει and to pause at ό'δ’: for ου τυγχάνει νουν ’έχων cp. Bacchae v. 25 2 ( άναίνομαι ) το γήρας υμών είσορών νουν ούκ ’έχον, and ν. 270 f. {θρασύς τε) καί λέγειν ol os τ’ άνηρ κακός πολίτης γίγνεται νουν ούκ έχων. For the form Dobree cps. Plat. Gorg. 519 d καί τούτου του λόγου τί άν άλογώτερον εΐη πράγμα; Firnhaber cps. for the sense Bacch. 655 σοφός σοφός σύ, πλην ά δει σ’ είναι σοφόν. Cf. also Soph. Phil. 1244 σοφός πεφυκώς ούδεν εξαυδα.ς σοφόν. ιΐ4θ. Evidently spoken aside. The weak and changeable Ag. finds himself unable to support the deception any longer. The reference in v. 1142 to his silence shows that Ag. stopped abruptly after saying v. 1140. 8—2 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ I ιβ κονκετι 7 ταρωδοΐς χρησόμεσθ' αίνίημασιν. πρώτον μεν, ΐνα σοι πρώτα τοΰτ ονειδίσω, εηημας ακόυσαν με κάλαβες βία, τον πρόσθεν άνδρα Τάνταλον κατακτανών, 115° βρέφος τε τονμδν ζών προσούδίσας πεδω, μαστών βιαίως των εμών άποσπάσας. next ν. in L suggests that at some time άνακαλύφωμεν may have been read here. 1147. χρησόμεθ’ P, χρησώμεθ’, corrected to χρησόμεσθ ’ by the first hand, L. 1148. ονειδίσω corrected by a late hand to - ίσω P, ονειδίσω L. 1151. σφ προσούρησας πάλιρ P, σφ προσούρισας 7τάλφ L. In Ρ something is written over ρη by a fairly late hand which may have been pi, but I cannot see exactly why the p should have been interfered with. It may be doubted whether the writers took προσούρισας (they evidently meant it for an inchoative) as the aor. of an Ionic form of προσορίζω (such a form would gain some sup¬ port from πρόσουρος Soph. Phil. 691 and τηλουρός) or, as Musgrave (in his first edition) preferred, as from προσονρίζω (formed like κατονρίξω) a derivative of οΰρος a fair wind. σφ προσώρισας πάλιρ Monk and Hartung, σφ προσούδίσας πέδιρ (or πάτιρ) Scaliger, and so Milton. Musgrave in his second edition conjec¬ tured ζών 7Γ pos όκρίδας βαλών, of which Jacobs adopted the ζών to go with Scaliger’s προσούδίσας πέδιρ. This compounded reading gives the best sense (Monk objects to the “horrid cruelty” of the action: but this was a mere trifle to what Suppl. 1095· 1175* ^' iri δακρυοις] επί here with the dat. has the notion of prospect or purpose : ‘ with nothing to do but weep \ 1180. eiret] With this word Cly. follows up the hint given in 1173 that her feelings would prompt her to re¬ venge. έδει] Your previous conduct (as de¬ scribed in vv. 1149—1152) has been such that we were already inclined to treat you as an enemy. This is I think the explanation of the impf., and δεξόμεθα in v. 1182 is a ‘vivid’ future instead of the more regular δεχοίμεθα, and is all the more in place here as it implies that the vengeance may yet be taken. 1182. See Expl. N. on v. 649, and 120 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ μη δήτα 7 τρός θεών μήτ αναηκάστ]^ βμε κακήν yeveaOai irepl σε, μήτ αυτός yevy. * 9 ' β 616 V θύσεις δε παϊδ'’ ενταύθα τίνας ονχάς βρεις; 1 185 τι σοι κατευξει ταηαθόν, σφάζων τεκνον; νόστον ττονηρόν, οικοθεν y αίσ'χρώς Ιών; αλλ’ εμε δίκαιον aya 0 ov ενγεσθαί τί σοι; ον τάρα συνετώς τους θεούς yyoif, ιεθ' άν, εί τοΐσιν αύθενταισιν εύ φρονήσομεν. II90 erased in L. 1185· θύσεις δε παΐδ ’' ένθα τίνας εύχάς ερεΐς ; PL, but in L a corrector inserts τήν before παΐδ\ and the iv is in an erasure. This is, I think, an indication that the same corrector who put in the την changed ενταύθα into ένθα. To account for the ένθα of P we must suppose that both ’ένθα and ένταΰθα were written in the MS. from which P and L were copied. The την seems to have been inserted in the early editions independently of the corrector of L. It is extraordinary that a long series of editors saw nothing wrong in ένθα. The δε, if it be sound, must be explained as a weak δη. There is much to recommend Nauck’s version of the v. : εΐεν’ σύ θύσεις τταΐδα · τίνας εύχάς ερεΐς ; ιι86. κατεύξη PL (so often the ending of the sec. pers. mid. and pass, of principal tenses), in P ^ενέσθαι σοι δήλον is written over it.—In L there is an erasure before σφάξων which Vitelli thinks contained 0. 1187. πονηρόν PL, άπδνητον F. W. Schmidt. Monk considers the line an importation. 1189. οϋτ’ ap’ άσυνέτους PL. I have ventured to read ου τάρα συνετώς. I think η~γοίμεθ' was used absolutely as at Bacch. 1326 ή^είσθω θεούς and Hec. 800 τούς θεούς ή^ούμεθα, and that -τώς was assimilated by mistake to the foil. τούς. It is a question whether we should read ού ταρ ’ άσυνέτως interrogatively or ού τάρα συνετώς without the ;. Though at vv. 1187, 1188. and 1191 P has the ; (due to a later hand than the first), at 1190 it is omitted, as also in the early edd. Monk prefers η ταρ' because he doubts whether οϋτοι can be used interrogatively, εΰ φρονήσομεν PL, cf. Bacchae 955 κρύφει σύ κρύφιν ήν σε κρυφθήναι χρεών. ιι 86. τάγαθόν] The following ν. shows this to be used ironically (and this meaning is helped by the possible similar use of κατεύχομαι which is often used of imprecations): much as at Soph. Ant. 2 75 · 1187. I think it is doubtful whether we ought to read this v. as a question. The sense seems to be: ‘ that your home¬ coming may match your out-going ’. ‘ That ’, she implies, ‘ would be a fit prayer’. Hennig and Vitelli prefer to take νόστον in the sense in which it is used in v. 1261 below, i.e. of the journey to Troy; but I think the juxtaposition of οικοθεν rather makes for the interpre¬ tation given above. 1188. ‘So much for you : have / any right to pray for any blessing for you?’ There is no need with Nauclc to put emphasis on the σοι (τι σοί). 1189. ‘We shall be foolish to believe in the gods and at the same time to take the side of unnatural male¬ factorsCf. Hel. 919 where Helen says to Theonoe: εί δ’ οΰσα μάντις καί τα θεϊ 1 ηΎουμένη τδ μεν δίκαιον του πατρος διαφθε- ρεΐς, τφ δ’ ού δικαίιρ aoyyovip δώσεις χάριν, αισχρόν τα μέν σε θεία ττάντ ’ εξειδέναι, τά τ’ όντα καί μή, τά δε δίκαια μή είδέναι. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 1 2 1 ηκων δ’ αν 'Άργος προσπέσοις τεκνοισι σοΐς; άλλ' οΰ θεμις σοι. τις δέ και ί τροσβλεψεται παίδων σ, ϊν αυτών ί τροσεμενος κτάνρς τινά; ταυτ ήλσες ήοη οια λόγων, η σκήπτρα σοι εϋφρον' ασομεν Musgrave, εϋφρον ’ ήσομεν Dobree and Weil. 1191—1193· Hennig rejects these vv. partly because of the unmetrical form in which 1193 occurs in the MSS. (see below), but mainly because they seem to him to interrupt the line of argument. He thinks that 1194 if. refer to the suggestion Cly. has just made that Agamemnon could not hope for good fortune on his journey (as he takes νόστος) if he did such a wicked deed at starting. But 1196 ff. show that she was not then urging the inexpediency of the deed, but the unfairness (v. 1299) ^at he should be the only sufferer. Hennig admits that the iniquity would be the same whoever sacrificed his daughter, but says Cly., being a woman and a mother, could not be expected to be logical enough to see this, where her own child’s safety was concerned. This is very special pleading. 1191. ets PL, is Aid .— προσπέσψ PL, προσπεσεϊ Musgrave, προσπέσοις Aid. This I think is the right reading (77 and 01 are often interchanged), and therefore read av for the unmetrical εις. Very possibly av was mistaken for άνά with the a elided and altered to εις. 1193. όάν αυτών προθέμενος PL, εάν σφών π. Reiske, IV αυτών προεμενος Elmsley, IV αυτών προσέμενος Weil. Hennig thinks the original composer of the v. thought that both syllables of εάν were short. It is more likely that this mistake was made by a foolish corrector, who could only see a reference to Iphigeneia’s case, which in her argument Cly. has at v. 1185 supposed already settled, προσέμενος comes nearer to the MSS. προθέμενος, of which it is a very possible mispronunciation , and gives a very natural sense, especially after 7 τροσβλέφεται. 1194. ήλθ' PL, corrected, V. says, by the first hand in L to ήλθεν, ήλθον Aid., ήλθες Herm.: the -es was very possibly written above the line, and escaped the notice of a scribe, who understood by the words (as L did) ‘has this entered 1192 f. καί] The same καί of ani¬ mated questions which was noticed above on v. 327. ‘What child will greet you, pray, when it knows that death will follow your embrace?’—lit. ‘in order that, taking her to your bosom, you may kill her’.— ττροσβλ€\}/€ται] ‘ meet you with a look', cf. above v. 1122. This I think is a more likely meaning of the Gk words than ‘ even look at you'. 1194. διά λόγων έλθίΐν] might equally well mean to discuss (with another, or before an audience), or to consider (with oneself, in one's own mind), according to the meaning of \ 6 yos in either case. Yitelli says if the phrase is to have the latter meaning the reflexive pronoun must be expressed. The only reason he gives 1191. Cly. conducts her husband in imagination stage by stage through the consequences of his action.— ήκει,ν is very often used of a return .—The position of the av is peculiar here (see Crit. N.), but not impossible, I think. A somewhat similar instance is Soph. Ο. T. 285 f. 7rap’ ου τις αν σκοπών τάδ’, ωναξ, εκμά- θοι σαφέστατα. The best explanation here, at all events, is that the writer began as if he were going to put two av's, but left the second out. (It must be remembered that the προσπεσης of the MSS. points to προσπέσοις more clearly than to anything else, and if we have προσπέσοις we must have an av somewhere; also that the "Apyos can do very well without es.) 122 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ μόνον διαφερειν καί στρατηΧατεΐν μεΧει; 1195 ον χρην δίκαιον Xoyov iv Άργβίοις Xeyeiv' βονΧεσθ\ ’ Αχαιοί, πΧεϊν Φρυγών εττι χθόνα; κΧηρον τίθεσθε ί ταΐδ' ότου θανεϊν χρεών. 5 V V Τ' / ’λ -V V \ 1 If. t εν ισω yap ην τοο , αΧΧα μη σ εξαιρετον σφαηιον Ίταρασχείν Ααναίδαισι ί ταΐδα σην , 1200 η ΝίενεΧεων ττρο μητρός 'Ερμιόνην κτανεΐν, ουττερ τό π pay μ ην. νυν δ’ εγώ μεν η τό σόν σωζουσα Χεκτρον τταιδός εστερησομαι, η δ ’ εζαμαρτουσ , ύττόροφον νεάνιδα into your calculation? 5 1195· σε δε? PL. But this can hardly stand after the σοι in 1194. Monk proposed to read σά for σοι, I think the better change is to read μέλει here with Musgrave. A simple mistake of Δ for Λ would give με δε?, which would be certainly corrected to σε δε?. (Vitelli reads σά and σ’ έ'δει, agreeing with Hennig that ταυτα means the arguments against the expedition , and that ήλθες διά λό~γων means ‘ expounded in speech \ If I took this view I should prefer to read to 1 for σοι.) 1196. χρη PL, χρην Reiske and Markland. ri 99 * VV σ ’ PL an< i early edd., μή σ’ Herm. 1201. 7Γ pos PL, 7 rpo Scaliger. J 203. ύστερησομαι PL, εστερησομαι Pors., 7 τα?δ’ άττοστερησομαι Markland. 1204. νπόστροφον P, υπότροφον L, ύττόροφον Scaliger (cf. Orest. 147), υπότροπος Heath. Monk says that as the schol. on X 35 [and Hesych. s. v. υπότροπος ] gives εξ υποστροφής as an explanation of ύπότροπον, it is likely that the same explanation written here over the v. gave rise to ύπόστροφον, of which υπότροφον was a modification. But νεάνιδα cannot do without an adj. If υπότροπος were read, we should have to transpose νεάνιδα and is that at Afea. 872 εγώ δ’ έμαυτη διά λό^ων άφικόμην the pronoun is so ex¬ pressed. I cannot see that the difference in the meaning of λόγοϊ matters at all to the question whether the dat. is to be expressed or not. I therefore consider ταυτ η. η. δ. λ. here as equivalent to ηδη διελο-γίσω ταυτα ; ιΐ95· διαφερειν] lit. ‘bear always about with you ’: “ gestare ” Heath. — Agamemnon has shown above, that the fear of losing his high position is stronger with him than any other motive. Cf. Menelaus’ taunt above at vv. 354 ff. 1196. ov] certainly does not agree with λ07 ov, but refers to Ag. and pro¬ vides an animated transition to another thought: ‘why, you ought to have &c.’ 1199 f. εν ϊσ-ω ην τόδ’] ‘That was a fair course’. The imperf. ην is of the same kind as that in χρην just above, and εδει at v. 1180. εΐκος ην at Thuc. VI. 78. 4. Cf. Menander 19 άπλοΰν y άρ ην, Xen. An. vii. 7. 40 αισχρόν ην (Kruger 53, 2, 7).— Most edd. take τταρασχεΐν in the follow¬ ing v. as depending on χρην. In this case έν Ϊ. y. η. r. would be a parenthesis. I think it depends on εν ϊσιρ ην. The full expression would have been έν ΐσιρ ην τούς μεν ’Αχαιούς κληροΰσθαι, σε δε μη 7 ταρασχεΐν, κ.τ.λ. ΐ2οι. κτανεΐν] This must be taken to depend on the χρην of v. 1196. 1202. ουττερ τό ττρά·γμ’ ήν] ‘ His concern it was, not yours ’. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. Σπάρτη κομίζουσ\ ei /τυχης yevrjaeTac. τούτων αμβίλίταί μ ’ el τι μη καλώς λέγω* el δ’ ev XeXeKTac μ€τανο€ί δη μη KTavelv την σην τ β κάμην τταΐδα, καί σώφρων eaei. ΧΟ. ττιθον. το yap τοί τέκνα συνσω^ιν καλόν, Άγάμ€μνον’ ovSels τοΐσδ' αν avTeiTroi β ροτών. ΙΦ. el μέν τον Όρφέως άίχον, ώ ira.Tep, λόηον TreiOeiv έπάδουσ , ώσθ ’ ομαρτ€Ϊν μοι πέτρας, κηλ€Ϊν Τ6 τοΐς XoyoiTLV οΰς έβουλόμην, ένταΰθ' αν ηλθον. νυν δε τάπ Ιμου σοφά, yevrjaeTcu and read ευτυχή. ΐ2θό. In Ρ a late hand wrote ον over at, i.e. it suggested άμεΐψον for άμείφαί μ\ 1207. el δ’ εΰ λέλεκταί νωι μη δη ye κτάνης PL, only Ρ wrote νώ to which a late hand added an t. In L there is an erasure after 'νωι which V. says contained a κ. νωι μη δή ye is evidently a clumsy piece of stuffing. What Euripides wrote has gone. A better stop-gap would be τάμα (Elmsley) τήνδε μη. (νώί as a disyllable and a dative occurs also in our texts of Theocritus, XU. 166.) Heimsoeth conj. μετανοεί δη μη κτανεΐν: this assumes, and possibly rightly, that the syllables νωι have some authority. At the same time it helps the καί σώφρων ecrei in the next v., which follows better on μετανοεί than on the simple μη κτάνης. I have therefore followed Weil and Headlam in adopting it. 1209. συνσώζειν PL, σοι σώφειν Nauck. 1210. irpbs τάδ’ άντείττοί PL, άντερεΐ Elmsl., but Burges’ and Monk’s τοΓσδ’ άν άντείποί admits of a ready explanation of the error of the mss., i.e. that the άν was omitted owing to the following av- and that to help out the metre τοΐσδ' was changed to 7 rpos τάδ’. 1214. άνηΚθον PL, corrected by a fairly early hand in P to άν ήλθον. 123 1205 1210 1205. κομίζουσ·’] Has here its early Epic sense, unusual in Tragedy, of keep safe: the word was doubtless chosen here for variety’s sake because σφξουσα has just been used above in v. 1203. Bothe cps. Her act. 91 του τνοτ εν χειρί σα κομίζει κόρους νεοτρεφεΐς; ι 2ο6. τούτων] depends on ε'ί τι. — For the acc. of the person after άμειφαι cf. Suppl. 517 καί 7 τρωτά μεν σε irpos τα ττρώτ άμείφομαί and Or. 608. 1209· If συνσφζείν is correct here it must mean help (your wife) to rescue. At Hel. 1388 it means to rescue along with another. I2i 1 if. It is best to take πείθειν and κηλεΐν as dependent on εΐχον (if 1 were able), and \oyov as governed by έπμδουσ' . At the only other place where έπαείδειν occurs in Eur. (A/. 864) it has an acc. (φδάν), and at Plat. Hep. 6 08 A we have έπάδοντες ήμΐν αύτοΐς τούτον τον \ 6 yov δν λ^ομεν, καϊ ταύτην την επψδήν .— ώσθ’ όμαρτεΐν depends directly on ττείθειν. The analogy of the similar passage in the Alcestis (357, where too the apodosis κατηλθον άν is curiously like the ενταΰθ' άν ηλθον here) might lead us at first sight to take \oyov as governed by εΐχον, and so those editors who put a comma after \ 6 yov seem to have taken it. 1213. έβουλόμην] quite regularly in the same tense as εΐχον. So at I. T. 354 εϊθε.,.Αωθεν ηλθε.,.ιτορθμίς, ητις... airrjyay'. It is the same sort of imperf. as that which is used with final particles to denote an unfulfilled purpose in past time. 1214. ένταΰθ’ άν ηλθον] ‘I would have taken that way’. 124 ΕΥΡίπίΔΟΥ 1215 1220 1225 Ί : · 1215· δυναεμεθα PL, δυναεμεθ' αν Markl. 1219· βλέπεεν’ τα δ' υπό yi]s PL, λευσ- σεεν' τα δ' υπό yrjv Plut. de Aud. Poet. 17 d. “Omnino legendum Αενσσεεν cujus scholium est βλέπεεν". Pors. As to the case with υπό Matthiae on Hec. 144 (147) says: “ Vulgaris consuetude posceret τούς υπό yrjs όντας , exquisitius est τούς ύπό yrjv He cps. Hdt. 11. 127, and Aesch. Eum. 952, and Ale. 896. 1221. yotivaai PL, yovacL Barnes. (So at Andr. 895 L and some other mss. have yobvaaev, such a mistake is the mark of a scribe used to copying Homer. In Andr. 892 y ουνάτων is demanded by the metre, but L and the two best MSS. have yovaTiov .)— δουσ’ PL. Monk, commenting on the awkwardness of δοΰσ’ followed closely by έδωκα, suggests άφεεσ' . 1224. εύδαίμονος άνδρός PL, εύδαεμονούντος Matthiae, εύδαεμον' άνδρός Pierson. 1227. νεν P, νυν L, άντελάζομαε PL, άντελάζυμαε Markl. Cp. Pors. on Aled. 1213 δάκρυα παρεξω’ ταύτα yap δυναίμεθ' an. ίκετηρίαν Be yovaaiv εξάπτω σεθεν τδ σώμα τούμόν , όπερ ετικτεν ηδε σου, μή μ άποΧεσης άωρον * ηδύ yap τδ φως Χεύσσειν’ τά δ' ύπδ yrj 5) : Weil cps. Med. 686 τριβών τά τοιάδε. 1256. μαινοίμην γάρ άν] See Kriiger I. 54 > *2, 9. 1257· γύναι] Ag. first addresses his wife, as she had spoken first. 1258. ττράξαι] intrans. here. 1259. όράθ’] The plural shows that here Ag. addresses both wife and daughter. This is best taken as an im¬ perative, as at Phoen. ιοί σκοπεί δε πεδία καί παρ’ 7 Ισμηνοΰ ροάς, Αίρκης τε νάμα, πολεμίων στράτευμ 7 οσον. 1260. δττλων άνακτίς] Weil is no doubt right in taking this as a poetical periphrasis for όπλΊται. He quotes Aesch. Pers. 371 πας άνήρ κώπης άναξ ές ναΰν έχώρει, πας θ’ οπλών επιστάτης. 1261—1263. ‘Unless I slay thee (so says Calchas), they can never sail against walled Ilium, no, nor overturn the stately piles of Troy’. 1264. άφροδίτη τις] The name of 128 ΕΥΡΙΓΤΙΔΟΥ πλεΐν ως τάχιστα βαρβάρων επί χθόνα , 1265 πανσαί τε λέκτρων άρπ ay ας Ελληνικά?· οι τάς εν ν Αργεί παρθένους κτενονσι μου υμάς τε κάμε, θέσφατ ει λνσω θεάς.^ ον Μενέλεως με καταΒεδονΑωται, τέκνον, [ουδ’ έπ\ τδ κείνον βονλόμενον €λ^λυ^α,] 1270 άλλ’ Ελλά?, y δει, καν θέλω καν μη 6εΑω, θυσαί σε’ ταυτης ησσονες καθέσταμεν. The latter passage, especially in the last three lines, urges the claims of Greece on all true patriots, the former says the Greeks are so madly bent on vengeance, that whoever withstands their fury will perish, with all his house. Such an appeal to fear, not the clumsiest rhetorician would prefix to an appeal to patriotism. Besides, the passage neither follows well on v. 1263 nor fits in with what follows, i.e. the mention of Menelaus in 1269, besides containing at least one very questionable phrase. On the other hand Hennig is quite right to defend vv. 1269 and 1271 —1275 against Dindorf. The above-mentioned inconsistency between the two passages becomes an additional argument in favour of the latter. 1267. κτεί- νουσί PL, κτενοΰσί Scaliger. 1268. θέσφατον PL, θέσφατ Scaliger. 1270. This slipshod verse, which adds nothing to 1269 and obstructs the grammatical and logical connexion of ου Mei^\eu>s in 1269 with άλλ’ ’Ελλά?, Hennig rightly condemns, and Nauck agrees with him. A corrector of P put " over the line before the κ of κείνου. The ms. must have fallen into bad hands. 1272. τούτου δ’ PL, ταύτης Nauck, which I have adopted. The τούτου is taken to refer to the necessity just mentioned, or generally (as Weil says) to patriotism. If so it is impossible to imagine anyone wilfully changing the simple ταύτη% into what is the goddess is used here in the same sense as έρως above at v. 808, and the Lat. cupido, whereas in the passage in the Phoenissae (v. 399), which is quoted in support of this use here, it has the meaning of the Latin venus , i.e. charm. The dative στρατφ with μέμηνε is also peculiar, and led Lobeck to conj. έμηνε ... στρατόν. 12 66. XeK. άρττ. *ΕΧληνικάδ] In sup¬ port of this somewhat harsh enallage Vitelli quotes Soph. Ant. 793, and Bacch. 866. Cf. also Ar. Vesp. 838 τρυφαλίδα τυροΰ Σικελικήν κατεδηδοκεν , below ν. 1347 πονηρόν εΐπας οιωνόν λόγγων. The harshness here comes from the fact that, with apTrayas, the adj. Έλλ. would more naturally have a subjective, active mean¬ ing, than that of * suffered by the Greeks ’ which is necessary for the meaning here. 1268. θέσ-φατ’ cl λύσ-ω] λύειν is used here in the quite legitimate sense of put an end to, cancel, but the expression, when considered in its context, reveals incoherence of thought. If the most natural construction be put upon it, and θέσφατα be interpreted ‘the demand of the oracle’, the only way of cancelling or satisfying that would be the sacrifice. But the words θέσφ. εί λύσω are here put for ‘if I fail to sacrifice’. Cf. below i486 where θέσφατ εξαλείφω is used of satisfying the goddess by submitting to the sacrifice. 1269. Ag. here refers to v. 1168. 1271. η] not to whom, but for whom = η$ ’ένεκα. (This is better than to take it as the rare dat., of the person bound, with δει, for Ag. always speaks of himself, and not the Greeks, as the sacrificer.) με must be supplied with δεΐ. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 129 εΧευθεραν yap δει νιν , οσον εν σοί, τεκνον, κάμοϊ, yeveaflat, μηδε βαρβάρων ύπο r/ E ΧΧηνας όντας Χέκτρα συΧάσθαί βία. ΚΛ. ώ τεκνον, ώ ζεναι, οΐ ’γώ θανάτου τον σου μεΧέα. φεύyεί σε πατήρ "AiSy παραδονς. ΙΦ. οΐ ’γώ, μάτερ' ταύτον yap δη μεΧος εις άμφω πεπτωκε τύχης, κούκετι μοι φως ουδ’ άεΧίου τάδε φέyyoς. ί \ > / ιω ιω. νιφόβοΧον Φpυyώv νάπος ’Ίδας τ far more difficult. I rather believe that the διασκευαστώ was puzzle-headed enough to put τούτου as a masc. referring to Menelaus, ignoring the context, or perhaps reading the sentence as a question. 1274. βαρβάροις PL, βαρβάρων Musgrave. Weil is doubtless right in suggesting that the alteration to the dative was made under the impression that β. ύπο went closely with ovras and not συλάσθαι. Puzzle-headed again. 1-275. L at first wrote συΧλάσθαι. and then erased the 1st λ. 1276. Monk would read τέκνον for ξέναι. 1277. οΐ εγώ PL, corrected in P by a late hand to ot ^γώ. — θανάτου σου PL, θανάτου του σου Heath and Musgrave. 1279. οΐ εγώ μάτερ ταύτον ταύτον yap Ρ with the a of μάτερ corrected to η, μάτερ substituted for the first ταύτον and the ov of the second altered to 0 ; the last correction by a later hand than the others, οΐ εγω μάτερ μάτερ ταύτο yap L. Vitelli says that in L the first μάτερ has its a corrected to 77, the second is in an erasure, ταύτο was originally ταύτον , and something has been erased after the yap. P apparently gives the earliest of the mss. readings. Dobree’s yap δη after a single ταύτον is the best of the many attempts to mend the metre. It is possible that in some MS. the δη, being written above the yap and somewhat to the left, was mistaken for 5 ts, i.e. an indication that ταύτον was to be repeated. 1284. The 1 of νίφόβολον is in an erasure in P, it looks as if it had been an e —Φpυyώv νάπος PL, νά -jros Φρυγώϊ/ 1275 128ο 1273. The ellipsis of εστί or yiyvετaL is common with δσον. 1276—1335· After a few words inter¬ changed between the mother and daughter (6 anapaests introduced by a dochmiac) Iphigeneia begins at v. 1283 a monody of mixed metres in which she bewails her fate. 1279. μάτερ] The Doric forms of this word, and άβλίου below, are ir¬ regular, as these six lines seem to be systematic and not threnic anapaests. -γάρ] introduces a justification of the repeated exclamation. 1280. €ls άμφω -ττεπτωκε] not ‘ has befallen both\ but 1 befits both'. It is rather hard to say what this gen. depends on. Most probably in strict grammar it depends on μύ\οϊ, though its position after πέπτωκε gives it a somewhat adverbial force: lit. ‘ The same cry about our lot \ 1281. It is better to supply έστί than ’έσταί: ‘It exists no more for me, it has come to an end 1284 f. veuros and δρεα form a hen- diadys. The speaker appeals to the bleak glen, or glen-side among the 9 E. I. 130 ΕΥΡΙΓίΙΔΟΥ ορεα, ΐΐριαμος όθι ητότε βρέφος απαλόν εβαλε 1285 ματρός άποπρό νοσφίσας επί μόρω θανατόεντι ΤΙάριν, 0? Ίδαιο? Ίδαιο? iXeyer eXeyer εν Φpυyώv πόλει. 1290 μη ποτ ωφελεν τον άμφϊ βουσϊ βουκόλον τραφέντα [’ Αλέξανδρον ] οίκίσαι άμφϊ το λευκόν ύδωρ, όθι κρηναι Ν υμφαν κεΐνται 1295 λειμών τ ανθεσι θάλλων [χλωροί?, και ροδδεντα 9 Hennig metr. grat. 1286. μητρδς PL, ματρος Herm. and Monk, μητέρος Seidler. 1291. ώφεΐλε PL, ώφελβς Elmsley, who supposed this to be still addressed to the νιφόβολον νάπος: but οίκίσαι could not have a mountain as its subject: ωφελεν Herm. 1292 f· τραφέντ ’ Αλέξανδρον PL (both MSS. make a verse end with the v of τραφέντ'), Monk, Bothe, and Hartung reject 'Αλέξανδρον as being out of place and unmetrical, Hartung improved the metre by writing τραφέντα. 1296. Both MSS. put a : after άνθεσι, though they make the verse end with χλωροΐς, i.e. they thought the five words ought to make two verses and not one. 1297. I have no doubt that Wil.-Moll. is right in saying that both P and L have καί and not oS. The abbreviation for καί in P is badly written, but it has a grave accent over it, which would not be the case if it stood for ου. Monk Phrygian mountains, where the infant Paris was exposed. ‘ Why’, she asks, in effect, why ‘ was not that exposure his death, as his father intended ? ’ 1289 f. Probably it was the music which was mainly responsible for this double repetition. 1291. ωφελεν] i.e. (so Barnes) Priam, but οίκίσαι cannot have applied to the original exposure. Apparently then Priam made two attempts to get rid of his son. First he exposed him as a baby. This attempt was as usual frustrated by a shepherd. The child grew up as a shepherd with the name Idaeus. Then, according to the story of the Cypria, which Euripides probably adopted, more or less, in his Alexandros , this Idaeus came to the city and suc¬ cessfully contended against his brothers in some public games, was recognized by Cassandra, and then, as we should conclude, sent back again to the hills by Priam, that he might not do the harm to the city which Cassandra had prophesied (cf. Eur. Androm. 294 ff.). A comparison of Hel. 29— λιπών δέ βούσταθμ' Ίδαΐος Πά /ots Σπάρτην άφίκεθ' — suggests that Euripides’s version of the stoxy supposed Paris, on his recognition by his family, not to have stayed in Troy, but to have returned to his hill pastures. 1294. λευκόν ΰδωρ] Eurip. uses λβι ik 6 s twice elsewhere as an epithet of water : H. F. 573 (Δίρκης re νάμα λβυκόν αίμαχθησεται), and Hel. 1336. It does not mean clear; that is μέλα% (Phot. μελάννδρος βαθέία ' κυρίως δέ καθαρά ϋδατος : (cf. W. G. Clark, Peloponnesus , ρ. 236), but sparkling , bright. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. Ι3ΐ άνθεα νακίνθινά τε θεαίσι δρεπαν] * ένθα 7 τότε Παλλα? εμοΧε καί δοΧιόφρων Εΰιτρις "Ήρα θ' 'Ερμάς θ', 6 Δίδ? άγγελο?, α μεν επί ττόθω τρυφώσα Κ07 τρις, α δε δονρϊ Παλλά?, "Ήρα τε Αίος άνακτος εύναΐσι βασιΧισιν, κρίσιν επί στυηνάν εριν τε [τα?] καΧΧονάς εμοί δε θάνατον , ονομα μεν φεροντα Ααναΐδαισιν, ώ κοραι. χο. πρόθυμα σ' εΧαβεν "Αρτέμιέ ητρος 'ΊΧων. rejected καί ρόδ....δρέττειν. It looks like a slightly altered passage from an idyllic or elegiac poem, where the strange ροδόεντα would suit the metre. The awkwardness of άνθεα following άνθεσι was noticed by Markland. The mention of the goddesses also is premature. (Hermann and others explain it of the nymphs or the goddesses generally, not of the three soon to be mentioned.) I have also rejected χλωροί? as being a very unlikely epithet for άνθεσι. (This objection is met by von Sybel by reading gpveac instead of ανθεσι.. Dobree proposes αλσεα for άνθεα.) It was possibly, in the form χλοεροί? or χλοεροΐσιν, an epithet of λειμωσίν in the poem from which the passage is taken. 1300—1303. Hennig suspects these four lines of being either corrupt, or added to fill a gap. 1302. The θ' after Έρμα? is wanting in P and added by an early hand in L. 1305· ^opt PL, δουρί Monk. 1307. βασιΧοΐσί P 1 , βασιλίσι. P 2 and L. 1308. Matthiae rejects the ra? “non solum ob metrum, sed etiam quod abhorret a viore tragic or um ”. 1309—1311. I have printed these w. as the mss. give them, not because I think they can be explained, but because I see no clue to a satisfactory emendation. l 3 ° 9 · eptot av PL, έμόν Elmsley. 1310· ονομα μεν P, ’όνομα μεν L: Weil reads ττομττάν for the two words, thus providing something to make sense with irpos ’Ίλιον : others read ονομα μάν. Possibly av or μάν is due to a τιμάν written as an explanation over όνομα. Monk’s and Hartung’s suggestion to write ώ κόρα for the MSS. ω κόραι, and to give it to the chorus seems to me a likely one. (The latter also rejects μεν and makes the chorus begin at όνομ.α.) Headlam writes Aavatbais , aivos κόρα, adopting Elmsley’s ττροθύματ ’ in the next v., assigning that v., as Elmsley does, to Iph., and reading μάν after όνομα. 1311. The words τρό? Τλίορ certainly cannot stand as they are I3OO 1305 1310 1304. τρυφαν e-irl] corresponds in meaning to the lighter English phrase to plume oneself upon. At Andr. 279 (όριδι arvyepa. κεκορνθμένον εύμορφίας, which has often been compared with v. 1308 below) κεκορνθμένον is used in a similar sense, I think. 1309. θάνατον] this is explained to be governed by έττί supplied from the preceding line. 1311. πρόθυμα] Whatever was the original force of the preposition in the compounds ^Γpόσφayμa and ττρόθνμα (probably it meant in front of the 9—2 132 ΕΥΡΙΓΤΙΔΟΥ ΙΦ. ο δβ τεκών με τάν τάΧαιναν, ω ματερ ώ ματερ, οϊχεται ητροφούς έρημον. ω ΰυστάΧαιν εγω, πίκραν πίκραν ΙΒουσα δυσεΧέναν. φονεύομαι ΒίόΧΧνμαι. σφαηαϊσιν ανοσιοισιν ανοσίου πατρός. μη μοί ναών χαΧκεμβοΧάδων πρνμνας ΑνΧϊς δέξασθαι τονσ& είς ορμους ώφεΧεν εΧάταν πομπαίαν, μη& άνταίαν Έιύρίπω πνευσαι πομπάν Ζευς , μείΧίσσων 1315 1320 Ί for τής προς ’Ίλών στρατβίας. I think some word for expedition has been lost here, of which προς’Ίλων was an explanation. See below on v. 1321. 1317. ανοσιοισιν P, but it is doubtful whether L had at first ανοσιοισιν or άνοσίοις, most probably the former. 1320. άδ’ Αύλίς, PL, Αύλίς Monk. The άδ’, which is insufferable by the side of the τούσδ ’ in the next v. was doubtless introduced by a metrical ‘improver’. Nauck agrees with Monk. 1321. 'όρμους eh Τροίαν PL. Here again I think Monk is quite right in suspecting an interpolation, and I have with him rejected eh Τροίαν. Hermann ( Opusc .) accepts this view. Cf. above on v. 1311. IIo/x7ratos might more easily have such words as eh Τροίαν dependent on it as an epithet of a wind, than as an epithet of έλατα. For τούσδ ’ I am inclined to suggest τάνδ’. 1322. ώφελέν PL, ώφβιλ' Bothe and Nauck, to avoid the proceleusmatic. χ 323· μήτ' PL, μηδ' Hermann. Hennig would reject Έύρίπω and write μηδ'.,.πομπαν as a complete dimeter. (In both P and L μηδ\..πομπαν are written as a single line.) His reason is, that “geographical regions have not backs and fronts”. But it is altar), it seems to have lost it, and only to have been recognized as suitable to the idea of sacrifice. Weil compares Aesch. Ag. 227 7 rpoTeKeia ναών. 1316. ίδοΰσ-α] is difficult. Perhaps it means ‘ when I saw \ i.e. ‘ It was a luckless day for me when I first set eyes on Helen’, πίκραν ‘to my cost’. See above v. 955 and Suppl. 1222. 1320. irpifivas] Headlam well quotes El. 1022 πρνμνουχον Αΰλιν. 1322. Ιλάταν ττομιταίαν] έλάτη is used here, like κώπη at /. T. 140, in the collective sense of fleet; πομπαίαν is a natural epithet of κώπη in its ordinary sense of oar, and is transferred here along with it. 1323. Ευρίπω] a local dative. In some places Zeus is sending favourable winds, but on the Euripus he sends a contrary one. 1324 f. ΊΓομΊτάν] άνταίαν πομπαν is best understood by a comparison of the phrase ουρίας πομπής above at v. 352. As an object to πνευσαι t πομπή is a natural poetical variety for ανβμος. μ€ΐΑί<τσων αύραν] Lit. ‘ making the wind pleasant ’, i.e. sending a favourable wind. The participle does not mean ‘ who sends ’—that would be ό μειλίσσων, but ‘ while', or ‘ whereas he is sending’. It is curious that the words Ζβι' /s μεϊλίσσων occur together also at HeL 1399. Cf. 7 ιεύς Μειλίχιος. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 133 αύραν αΧΧοις αΧΧαν θνατών I 3 2 S Χαίφεσι, χαίρειν, Γ Λ \ ' « Λ»»/ η [τοις ο€ λνπαν, rots ο αναγκαν,\ τοΐ 9 δ’ εξορμαν, το t? δε στεΧΧείν, τοϊσι δε μεΧΧειν. ή 7 τοΧνμοχθον dp ’ ψ' 7 ^ 0 ?, ?) ττοΧνμοχθον 133° άμερίων, το χρεών δε Tt ΰΰσττοτμον άνδράσιν άνευρεΐν. 5 \ * / 60) (Ο), μεγάΧα ττάθεα, μετ/άΧα δ’ α%βα. Δανα'ί'δαι,ς τιθεΐσα Τ υνδαρϊς κόρα. 1335 not right to take άνταίαν and Εΰρίττφ together. The latter word is necessary to the passage as a local dative. 1327. I have followed Hennig in rejecting this v. It overloads the passage and obstructs the connexion of ideas. He takes it to be a “parallel passage” which has, been mistaken for part of the text. Its unmetrical form—Heath would emend the metre by writing το?σ i in both cases— gives support to this view. 1329. I suspect this v. of being an interpolation, but see Expl. Notes. 1331. χρεών PL, το χρεών Hermann. 1332. άνευρεΐν PL, εύρεΐν Dind., άντλεΐν Weil, ερπει. Herwerden. I think the fault is in the άνδράσιν , which is very strange in the place of ανθρώπου or β porois. Possibly a simple έστίν stood here and was ousted by an abbreviated ανθρώπων written as an explanation of άμερίων. 1 333 - Both P and L had originally only one ίώ: the second was added in both by an early hand. This v. with the two following w. is assigned to the chorus in the MSS. Blomfield restored them to Iph. 1 335 * In P an early (I think) and in L a late (so Vitelli) hand inserted a tols before Δαρ ., so as to 1325 f. It is best not to take άλλοι s with λαίφεσι (so Firnhaber and Weil), but to connect the latter word closely with χαίρειν, which, like the following infinitives, is epexegetical—a wind to make the mariners rejoice in their sails as they see them filling. 1328. crTcXXctv] is used in its idiomatic sense of take down, furl. It is possible that, if, as I suspect, the following v. is spu¬ rious, στελλειν does not mean that a con¬ trary wind makes the sailors take in sail, but that, as favourable winds start some men on their journeys ( έξορμάν —intr. lit. ‘so that some can start’—), so they take others safe to port and let them furl their sails at the end of their journey. In that case άλλαν άλλοι$ αύραν would not mean, as most interpreters take it, ‘ (sending) a favourable breeze to some and a con¬ trary one to others ’, but ‘ (sending) various favourable breezes according to the directions in which the men wish to go’. V. 1330 however somewhat sup¬ ports the former interpretation, and there¬ fore I have not ventured to bracket v. 1329. 1331 f. το χρ«ών χ.τ.λ.] The sense of these somewhat doubtful words seems to be: ‘When men search out their fate they are sure to find that it is a hard one ’. 1 335 * TiOeicra] The construction is the same as in the exclamation ώ rdXas έ^ώ. Markl. cps. I. Τ. ώ ραδίοις ορκοισι περψαλοΰσά με and Soph. Phil. 1402 ώ 7 ενναΐον είρηκώς έπος, so too Plato Euth. 303 C ώ μακάριοι σφώ. But in these cases the participle or adj. is in the voc. The nom. with ώ may indeed 134 ΕΥΡΙΓΤΙΔΟΥ χο. εγώ μεν οικτίρω σε συμφοράς κακής τυχοΰσαν, οϊας μηποτ ωφελες τυχεΐν. ΙΦ. ΚΛ. ΙΦ. ΚΛ. ΚΛ. ΚΛ. ώ τεκούσα μητερ, άντρων οχλον είσορώ πάλας, τον τε της θεάς παΐδα, τεκνον' εν δε δεΰρ' εληλυθεν. δυαχαλάτε μου μελαθρα , δμώες, ώς κρύψω δέμας. 134 ° τί δέ, τεκνον, φεύ^ευς; ΙΦ. Άχυλλεα τόνδ' υδονσ ’ αίσχύνομαυ. ως τί δη; ΙΦ. το δυστυχές μου των ηάμων αυδω φερευ. ούκ εν άβρότητυ κευσαυ προς τά νυν πεπτωκοτα. άλλα μίμν' ού σεμνότητος εργον' υν άμννώμεθα. make an iambic trimeter. 1 33 ^* κακών P, κακής L. 1337.. A suspicious- looking v. See above on v. 470. 1339. T & v Te Τ Ψ ® εάς Άχίλλέα τεκνον φ δεΰρ’ Ρ (with y inserted by a subsequent hand after τεκνον), τον τε της θεάς 7ταΓδ’ ώ τέκνον 7’ ω (sic Vitelli) δεΰρ’ L. (Vitelli marks the letters δ’ ώ and 7’ as in an erasure.) This last is evidently the attempt of a very ignorant scribe to make out the v. on the assumption that θεάς could only be scanned as two syllables. He has counted syllables and neglected quantity. Therefore we need take no account of the ώ before τεκνον and the 7’ after it (which P 2 has copied). It is generally assumed that Ά χιλλέα in P is a gloss on παΐδα which has got to the text by mistake. Editors are divided between the re of the mss. and Reiske’s 7ε. Heath (writing παΐδα for Άχ.) read φ yε, but Hermann’s φ σύ is now generally adopted. But the dat. is very harsh, and the whole remark makes a most unmotherly taunt. Apart from the rest of the v. it is just as possible that 7ταίδ’ was an explanation of the gen. in τον τε τψ #eas Άχίλλέα, as that Άχίλλέα was a gloss on παΐδα. I have ventured however, for the last part, to write εΰ δέ δεΰρ’ έλήλυθεν. The δε may have dropped out owing to the δε- which follows, the εΰ have been misread as φ, and θεν changed to das. The early edd. (e.g. Aid. and Canter) have the reading of L as there corrected. How did they get it? I34 1 · T ' 1 δε φεύyείs, τέκνον PL, τί δε, τέκνον, φεύ yois Heath . —τον ίδεΐν PL, τόνδ’ ίδεΐν Musgr. (There is no trace in either ms. of the τον which the early editions inserted before Άχίλλέα.) I have ventured to change ίδεΐν to ίδουσ , as τόνδε could hardly be used of a person whom she refused to look at. Plartung reads τί δέ σύ φεύyείs τέκνον; Ίφ. άνδρα τόνδ’ κ.τ.λ. 1343* In Ρ πράyμaτa is inserted as an explanation after πεπτωκοτα, this led to the reading πεπ pay μένα which is found in the editions before Markland. 1344 · ού σεμνότητος ’έρyov, ην δυνώμεθα PL, οΰ σεμνότητος 'έpyov άνδυώμεθα Weil. This is be really the same thing as an apostro¬ phizing voc. with ώ as it is written. “Ut Aemyl. Portus notat, redolet Ho· mericum illud η μνρί’ Άχαίοΐς faye’ έθηκε ” Barnes. 1342. «s τί δή ;] Why? The ώς is otiose here, as sometimes with future participles and in such phrases as ώς επί το πολύ, cos ές μάχην (παρεσκευάζετο), ώς αληθώς. Cp. I. Τ. 557 ’ O y · 79 ^> Ion 525· 1343· irpos] ‘/« viezu of’. The general sense of this expressive line is : ‘you are not in a position to deal with your present lot in a fastidious spirit ’. J344. άλλα] This word adds force to the impei-ative: ‘ Stay, I command you: this is no time for reserve: stay, that we may plan some measures of defence’. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 135 ΑΧ. ΑΧ. ΑΧ. ΑΧ. ΑΧ. ΑΧ. ΑΧ. ΑΧ. ΑΧ. ΑΧ. ώ ηΰναυ τάΧαυνα, Αηδας θύγατερ, ΚΛ. ου ψευδή θροεΐς. 1345 δείν εν Άρ^ειους βοαταυ . ΚΛ. τ ίνα βοήν; σημαυνε μου. άμφϊ σης παυδός, ΚΛ. τ τονηρόν εϊπας οΙωνόν Xoycov. ώς χρεών σφάξαυ vlv. ΚΛ. ώμου' κουτυς αντυάζεταυ; ευς θόρυβον έγωγε καυτός ηΧυθον, ΚΛ. τίν, ώ ξενε; σώμαΧευσθηναυπέτρουσυ. ΚΛ. μών κόρην σωζων εμην; 135° αυτό τούτο. ΚΛ. τις δ’ αν ετΧη σώματος του σου θιγεΐν; πάντες r/ ΕΧΧηνες. ΚΛ. στρατός δε Μ υρμυδών ου σου παρην; πρώτος ήν εκείνος εχθρός. ΚΑ. δυ αρ όΧώΧαμεν, τεκνον. ου με τον ηάμων άπεκαΧουν ησσον. ΚΛ. απεκρίνω δε τί; very ingenious, but wants a future not a subjunctive. iV’ όδυνώμεθα Herm. Those who retain the MSS. reading suppose an aposiopesis. I prefer to read IV’ άμυνώμεθα, taking ού σεμνότητα s epyov as a parenthesis. 1345—1348. These speeches of AX. are assigned to XO. in P and L. They were first rightly given in ed. Brubach. 1346. Send L .— βοαται ΚΛ. τίνα βοήν; σήμαινε μοι PL. This construction is harsh. It is possible that we ought to read βοωσι, or put the ; after τίνα. 1347· λόγον PL, λόγων Markland. 1348. vlv. ΚΛ. κουδείς εναντία λέγει PL. In P an early hand inserted τοΓσδ’ after κούδεί s, and a late hand altered εναντία to εναντίον. oi) 5 ets Markl., who held that the κ was due to the K for Clytaemnestra. ούδεί$ δ’ ούδέν άντίον XέyεL Vitelli. I incline to the belief that εναντία λέγει was an interlinear explanation which has ousted the true reading, which I conjecture to have been ωμοί * koUtls άντιά^εται ; The middle of άντιάζω does not appear to be found, but the sense ‘ set oneself against ’ is a very natural one here, and the rareness of the word would be a ground for the explanation, κούδείς is a very possible mistake for kovtls. The weak point in this suggestion is the supposition that ωμοί has fallen out. 1349. εγώ τοι PL, ’έyωyε Markl. with the approval of Poi's. and Dobi'ee, who quotes ’έyωye καί avTos from Plat. Gorg. 506 B. Cf. also Phccdo 117 c άλλ’ εμού ye βία καί αυτού and 59 Β KaL α ύτός έγωγε. εγώ τι Musgrave. The same hand which originally wrote δη by way of explanation over the νυν in v. 648 may have written roi over ye here. ηΧυθον. ΚΛ. es τίν' PL, ηΧθον es tiV Markland, -ήΧυθον τίν ’ Nauck. 1350. σώξ’ειν PL, σώξ’ων Canter. 1351. T °fi σώμaτos PL, but in L τού is crossed out, and no edition seems to have printed it. 1352. Μ υρμίδόνων PL, Μ υρμιδών Elmsley. T 354· To Matthiae belongs the credit of restoring inde¬ pendently the τον of P and L which the eaidy editions had corrupted to των. It is amusing to find that Firnhaber plants των and condemns as unnecessaiy Matthiae’s emendation of the “manuscript reading ”.— ησσονα P, and so probably L originally 1345· Ψ«υ 8 ή Opoets] i.e. ‘when you call me τάλαινα ’. Possibly we ought to put the comma after γόναι. 1347, λόγων] gen. of definition. For the enallage cf. above on v. 1266. 1351 . έτλη] The lengthening of e before τλ is extraordinaiy. 1353· δι άρ’ όλώλαμεν] Cf. Kriiger II. 68, 48, 1 and 2, and above vv. 11, [40], and 268. 1354. ot'] ‘Why, they’—The re¬ latives at the beginning of this v. and 1356 are slightly exclamatory, somewhat like the 010s which is explained to be = ori T010VT0S. ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ 136 ΑΧ. την εμην μελΧουσαν βύνην μη κτανειν , ΚΛ. 8ίκαια yap. 1355 ΑΧ. ήν εφημισεν πατήρ μοί. ΚΛ. KapyuOev y επεμψατο. ΑΧ. αλλ’ ενικωμην /cercpaypov. ΚΛ. το πο\ύ yap 8εινόν κακόν. ΑΧ. αλλ’ όμως άρήξομεν σοι. ΚΛ. και μαχεΐ πολΧοΐσιν εις; ΑΧ. εισορας τεύχη φέροντας τούσΰ*; ΚΛ. όναιο των φρένων. ΑΧ. αλλ’ όνησόμεσθα. ΚΛ. παΐς αρ ούκετι σφαγησεται; 1360 ΑΧ. ούκ, εμού ye ζώντος. ΚΛ. ηξει 8' όστις αφτεται κόρης; ΑΧ. μυρίοι y · a ξει δ’ Ό8υσσεύς. ΚΛ. αρ’ ό Σίσυφου yoi >ος ; ΑΧ. αυτός οντος. ΚΛ. Ϊ8ια πράσσων, η στρατού ταχθείς ύπο; ΑΧ. αίρεθεις εκων. ΚΛ. πονηράν y αιρεσιν, μιαιφονεΐν. 1364 (Vit. says the ’ of ήσσον’ is in an erasure), υπεκρίνω P, and so L originally, though possibly the first hand (Vit.) altered the ύ to a. Possibly in the MS. from which P and L were copied an a was written over the ύ as a suggested correction, and P mistook it for the last letter of the preceding word, while L adopted the correction. But whoever made the correction originally it ought to be adopted. The ύ was doubtless due to some scribe’s familiarity with Homeric forms. Cp. on v. 1221 above. 1 355 · € ^ V V V PL, είναι Scaliger, ευνιν Herm. ( Opusc .). I think it is possible that Cly.’s part of this v. should begin at μη. 1 35 ^· έφήμισε PL, v added by a late hand in P. 1357. ένικόμην P, the 0 corrected by an early hand to ω. 1358. μάχη PL, μαχεΐ Elmsley. Γ 359 · τούσδε PL, corrected in P by a late hand to τούσδ ’, see above on v. 1354. 1360. όνησόμεσθα PL, όνήσομεν σέ Elmsley. 1361. 7’ έκόντος PL, 7ε ζωντος Nauck, Vit. cps. A. 88, Heracl. 66 , 650 and Here. Fur. 261. We need the stronger pledge here. ‘If I can help it’ is far too weak for the context. 1363. Ιδια PL, and so Heath for the ιδία of the early edd. (In P there is a mark under the a which is really the ink on the other side of the page, which happens to be thin here. This was mistaken doubtless by jr355. μελλουσ-αν] For this absolute use of the part, of μέλλω cp. below v. 1380 and El. 626 η προ μέλλοντος τόκου ; The precisely similar sense of λέχος and the use of εύνή at Tro. 831 (though the reading there is doubtful), Androm. 907, Iiipp. 885, Soph. Ant. 1224 are enough to justify the metonymical use of εϋνή for wife. 1 357. το ττολύ] A poetical variety of oi πολλοί. Vitelli quotes Or. 772 δεινόν οί πολλοί. So at v. 1401 below τό.,.δοΰλον stands for ol... δούλοι. 1 359 · Τ€ ^Χ'Π] Probably, as Headlam says, these were Achilles’s own arms (it does not mean these armed men). He points to the men bearing his arms as a proof that he is ready to fight, even though single-handed. 1360. άλλ’ ονησΌμεσθα] The άλλα, like the old English nay , adds strength to the asseveration ‘ I shall have a reward ’: i.e. I shall win a bride. ούκε'τι] not ‘no longer’ but i now... not’. 1362. ά£ει] probably not ‘will bring them ’, still less ‘ wall be their leader ’ as Erasmus has it (“dux Ulysses ag- minis ”), but ‘will (i.e. ‘is to’) carry her off’—an answer to the όστις άφεται κόρης in the last v. The same duty was assigned to Odysseus at Hec. 220 if. and Soph. Phil. 6 ταχθείς τόδ ’ έρδειν των άνασσόντων νπο. 1364· μιαιφονεΐν] depends on the αίρεθεις at the beginning of the v. Monk ΑΧ. ΑΧ. ΑΧ. ΑΧ. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 137 αλ,Χ’ βγω σχήσω νυν. ΚΛ. άξει δ' ούχ εκούσαν άμπάσας; δηΧαδή ξανθής εθείρας. ΚΑ. εμε δε τί χρή δράν Tore; άντερου θυγατρός. ΚΑ. ώς τοδδ’ εΐνεκ ού σφα^ησεται. άΧλά μην εις τοΰτό y ήξει. ΙΦ. μήτερ, εισακούσατε των εμων λόγω ν' μάτην yap σ είσορω θυμουμενη ν σω ποσει' τά δ’ άδύναθ ’ ήμΐν καρτερεΐν ού ράδιον. 137 ° τον μεν ούν ξένον δίκαιον αίνεσαι προθυμίας’ άΧΧα καί σε τούθ ’ οράν χρή, μη διαβΧηθή στρατω , καί 7 τΧεον πράξωμεν ονδεν, δδβ δε συμφοράς τύχη, οϊα δ’ είσήΧθέν μ , άκουσον, μήτερ, εννοουμένην. Muslims for an ι subscript.) 1366. έθείρη s PL, έθείρα s L. Dindorf. 1367. άντέχη, corrected by a subsequent hand to άντέχου P, άντέχου L.— ένεκ’ PL, owe/c’ Aid., etVe/c’ Nauck. (The MSS. reading here is an argument in favour of the Ionic form. εϊνεκα is much more likely than οΰνεκα to have become 'ένεκα. This argument however needs to be supported by cases in which mss. give εϊνεκα.) 1368. In P λείπει is written over the end of εισακούσατε, i.e. in some MS. Iph.’s speech was made to begin at the beginning of a line and μήτερ εισακούσατε was taken to be an unfinished v. (Wil.-Moll. is wrong in saying that in P the λείπει is written over the early part of the following ν.). Ι 3 ^ 9 · Τ( ^ ν εμων’ μάτην yap είσορω P (an early hand inserted λόyωv after έμων above the line, and a σ after the σ of είσορω, i.e. el's σ’ ορω, but without putting a breathing to the 6 . των έμων λόyωv ‘ μάτην yάp σ’ L, but Vit. says the των έμων and the σ’ are added by a different hand and λείπει (crossed out) is in the margin. Hense suggested that the original was των έμων επών, accounting for the omission of the latter word by its similarity to the preceding έμων, Weil μύθων, as beginning with the same letter as μάτην. but L seems to establish λόyωv. Probably an early ms. was accidentally damaged at this point. 1372. διαβληθης PL, διαβληθη Monk and Hartung. The οδε in the next v. prevents us from taking this v. to be addressed to Achilles. 1373- δ δέ PL, in L Άχιλλεύς is written over it, οδε δε Musgrave, who says he found it in one of the Paris copies of L. For a similar οδε δέ cp. Or. 896. J 374 · In L the -εν of είσηλθεν is written by a late hand in an erasure ,— έννοουμένη P, with a v well cps. Hel. 1633 ΘΕΟΚ. η με πρού- δωκεν ΧΟ. καλήν yε προδοσίαν, δίκαια δράν. 1366. If the reading here is correct (Kirchhoff proposed δράν τί χρή), we have another extraordinary lengthening of a vowel. Cf. above on v. 1351. 1367· ώδ] for e8 ίσθι ω%, as in the similar line Hec. 400 ws τήσδ' έκοΰσα παιδ os ού μεθήσομαι: Cf. Elmsley on Med. 596 (609). 13681 cis τούτο] i.e. ‘to violence’, so that it really refers to the same thing as the τοΟδ’ of the previous v. €ίσ·ακούσ-ατ€] For the plural used in the same sentence with the singular Weil cps. Soph. 0 . C. 1104 προσέλθετ’, ώ παΐ, πατρί. In both cases there is the same reason for it: i.e. there is another person present who is meant to hear what is in form only addressed to one. In the Oedipus it is Ismene, here it is Achilles. 1370. καρτερ€ΐν] is here used, as Heath says, of active not passive courage (L. and S. wrong), τά αδύνατα is a cognate acc. ‘ It is hard to bear up against impossible odds ’. 1371 · aiv€ altered by a later hand to κανα, P. 1479. Traycuat. PL, Trayas Reiske and Seidler—the acc. is governed by δίδοτε, π\όκ. Ί 1480 1468 ff. The dative συμφορά is governed by the έπ- in ei τευφημήσατ , and the acc. κόρην the direct object of εύφημεΐν, πα Lava being an adverbial cognate accusative. ‘ Sing a paean to Artemis at my death ’. 1470. ϊτω δέ Δαναΐδαν ευφημία] For ϊτω cf. Phoen. 524 ϊτω μεν πυρ, ϊτω δε φάσyανα, Suppl. 1025 ϊτω φως yάμoι τε , Soph. Track. 207 έν δέ κοινός άρσένων ϊτω rXayya τόν εύφαρέτραν Άπόλλω, Ar. Αν. 857 ϊτω ϊτω δε Iluikas βοα θεφ. These passages, where ϊτω is used of the starting or raising of a shout or song, and the recent use of έπευφημειν and παιάν in the present passage, make it possible that ευφημία is here used in the later sense of a song of praise: —cf. Pind. Pyth. X. 53 f. ων θαλίαις ’έμπεδον εύφα- μίαις τε μάλιστ 'Απόλλων χαίρει: — ‘Let your song sound in the ears of the Greeks’. But the dat. presents difficulty. The paean referred to is evidently (from what follows) meant to be sung at the moment of the sacrifice. Perhaps the word means: ‘let it’ ( i.e. the paean) ‘ rise, a sound of good omen for the Greeks’. The passage has also been taken to mean : ‘ let a solemn silence be proclaimed among the Greeks ’. 1471 f. For the ceremonies observed at a sacrifice cf. above on vv. 1111 f. H 73 · Ινδεξιουίτθω βωμόν] Hartung is probably right in refusing to accept the ordinary explanation of ένδεξιόομαι, which is ‘dextra prehendere ', and inter¬ preting to mean ένδέξια περιέρχεσθαι. Cf. H. F. 926 f., and Ar. Pax 956 dye δη τό κανουν λαβών συ καί την χέρνιβα Ιϊερίιθι τόν βωμόν ταχέως επιδέξια (quoted by Firnhaber on v. 1557 below). Vv. 1475—1509. With this κομμός Iphigeneia quits the scene, and so, pro¬ bably, does Euripides. After begging the Chorus to attend her to the altar and to deck her for the sacrifice, she renews her request to them to honour the goddess, mentioning this time the dance which is to accompany the song. (See the passage from the H. F. quoted below on v. 1480.) Hartung is wrong in think¬ ing that at v. 1475 begins the paean asked for at v. 1469. Like the interpolator of vv. 1510— 1531» he failed to see that that was to be sung, not on the stage, nor even on the way to the altar, but during the sacrifice. 1477. ττερίβολα] περίβολος is elsewhere used as a noun. 1480 f. ελίσ-<τετ\ . "Αρτεμιν] For the acc. of the deity honoured by the dance ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. 147 άμφϊ βωμόν 'Άρτεμιν, τάν άνασσαν ’Ά ρτεμυν, τάν μάκαιραν' ω9 εμοΐσιν, εΐ χρεών, αϊμασι θΰμασι θεσφατ εξαΧείψω. ω 7 τότνια ιτοτνια μάτερ, ου Βάκρυά γ<Ξ σοι Βωσομεν άμετερα' τταρ' ίεροΐς yap ον πρεπει. χο. ^ νεάνιΒες, συνετταείΒετ ’Άρτεμιν * * * * 1485 149° οδε κατ. being a parenthesis. Τ480. λαόν P, vabv L, to which a later hand corrected P. Monk is, I think, right in regarding vabv as spurious (cp. above on v. 1432). I have also followed him, though with more doubt, in substituting βωμόν for it. Heimsoeth, Herwerden and Vitelli regard άμφϊ vabv as a Byzantine ‘gloss* on άμφϊ βωμ bv. 1485. θύμασί τε PL, in L τλ (for τέλος) is written over re and : put after it to show that the verse should end here. Bothe rejects θύμασί re, considering it, I suppose, as due to a ‘gloss’ explaining αϊμασι. Monk writes θύμασίν re. I prefer to reject the re as Hermann suggests, comparing Aesch. P. V. 691 -σήματα, λύματα, δείματα. Cf. also Eur. El. 711 φάσματα, δείματα. 1487—1490. These w. are assigned in P and L to the Chorus. Seidler gave them to Iph. and nearly all editors have followed him. In v. 1488 the mss. and all editions have ώ*. If the vv. are not, as Hartung thought, spurious, we ought surely to read ού for ώε. Otherwise there is a direct inconsistency with the heroine’s words at v. 1467 as well as in the passage itself: for the fut. δώσομεν can only refer to the time of the sacrifice.— μήτερ the early edd. (μερ L), μάτερ Herm. 1491—1497. These vv. I have given to the Chorus (i.e. to the κορυφαίος). If there had not been in some MSS. an indication that the Chorus spoke some lines somewhere about here, it is inexplicable that the lines beginning α πότνια πότνια μάτερ should have been given to them. The only objection is in the δι’ έμδν άνομα, but these words must be corrupt (see below). Monk also gives these vv. to the Chorus, but he makes the Chorus begin at v. 1487. ώ PL, ίώ, ίώ Nauck. 1492. After this v. I have followed Monk in indicating a gap. “ One word at least must after έλίσσειν Monk cps. H. F. 687 if. παιάνα μέν Αηλιάδες νμνουσ\ άμφι πυράς τον Αατοΰς εϋπαιδα γόνον είλίσσουσαι κάλ· λίχοροι. It is the same acc. of the in¬ direct object which is formed with μδειν, χορεύειν and even κόπτεσθαι. 1485. αϊμασ-ι] For the plural cf. El. 1172 άλλ’ οΐδε μητρος νεοφόνοις εν ( νεο- φόνοισιν Nauck) αϊμασιν πεφυρμένοι βαί- νουσιν έξ οίκων πόδα, also I. Τ. 73 αιμάτων...ξάνθ’, Orestes 1548, Phoen. 1051 and 1292 δι’ αιμάτων. θύμασ-ι] So used in the plur. in the sense of θυσία at Med. 1054, Phoen. 573. i486. €|αλ€ΐψω] lit. ‘blot out’. What she will do away with is the prohibition to the fleet contained in the oracle. 1490. Monk cf. Suppl. 289 f. μή δα- κρυρρόει σεμναΊσι Δηοΰς έσχάραις παρ-ημένη. Τ49' 2 · truveiraeiSiTc] ‘Join me’ (the ΙΟ —2 148 ΕΥΡΙΤΤΙΔΟΎ Χαλ/αδο? αντ'ΐΊτορον, ϊνα re δόρατα. μεμονβ haia [St* εμόν όνορ.α] τασδ’ A νλίδος ev στενοπόροισιν ορμοίς. ΙΦ. Ιω or ycuav or πέδον, or something of the kind,, with which the adj. άντίπορον agreed. That word is the epithet, not of Diana, but of a place or region, as in every other instance where it is found”. The re in the following v. shows that another description of the place preceded this. Prof. Strachan suggests αντίπεραν. 1495. Both P and L originally had δώρατα , but it was corrected early. 1496. δι’ εμόν ’όνομα PL. Monk rightly rejected these words (he also rejects the following τάσδ’). They are only consistent with μέμονε on the assumption that it meant remain. It is possible that they are a corruption of the two previous words repeated, or that there stood here an infin. depending on μέμονε. r 497 · Before στενοπόροισιν in P is inserted in faint ink what I take to be ev. This correction I have adopted.—In L όρμοι. s is erased and written (with a smooth breathing) at the beginning of the following v .—In P the vv. in this passage end at δόρατα, όνομα, στενοπόροισιν and μητερ. 1498. μητερ PL, μα rep Seidler. 1499· θεράπαι,ναι PL, θεράπναι Scaliger. Ι 5 ° τ · Κΐ'κλωτπωί' PL (and not, as usual, -είων). 1502. Έλλάδι μέ -ya f ιω ιω. λαμπαδοϋχος άμέρα Αι¬ ός τ€ φeyyoς, erepov erepov αιώνα και μοίραν οίκήσομβν. χαϊρέ μοι, φίλον φάος. Ι 5 10 Ι 5 Ι 5 following verse is awkwardly abrupt in the absence of some such reference in this. The μέya may have been due to a reminiscence of μέ-γα φως in v. 1063. In L εμέ is written by way of explanation over the end of ’έθρεψας. 1510. I have followed Kirchhofif in holding that all that follows is spurious. For the Epilogue (vv. 1532—1629) see the Introduction, pp. xxvi. ff. As to the Choric passage {vv. 1510—153 1 )> it is a feeble and at times senseless reproduction of the language and the ideas of vv. 1475 ff., following the supposed hint of vv. 1468 f. As has been said in the Introduction, some such addition as this Chorus and the Epilogue may well have been deemed necessary to the production of the tragedy on the stage. 1512. στέφεα Seidler. 1513. βαλομέναν Seidler, βαλουμέναν Hartung ,—vayais PL, but in L as is written over the cus. 1514. διαίμονος Markland, δ' αϊμονος Hennig. Monk omits θεάς as being a gloss upon δαίμονος. 1516. ρανουσαν Markland, χρανοϋσαν Monk. The word δέρην is in both P and L crossed out at the end of this v., and put in at the beginning of the next. 1517. Many editors follow Dindorf in regarding σφα^είσαν as a gloss on θανουσαν wrongly [XO. » > 5 / ιω ιω. Ιδεσθε τάν Ίλιου καί Φρνγών έλέπτολιν στείχονσαΡ, επ\ κάρα στίφη βαλλομέναν χερνίβων τε nayacs, βωμόν γε δα ίμονος θεάς ρανίσιν αίματορρντοις θανονσαν ενφνη τε σώματος 8έρην σφαγεΐσαν. ενόροσοι πα yal 1505 event. Elsewhere {e.g. Eur. H. F. 1235 ei 5 δράσας δέ σ’ ούκ άναίνομαί) such a con¬ struction means: ‘ I do not regret having done —’· The defence of this passage must lie in the meaning of the verb θανονσα. 1508. &τ€ρον αΙώνα και μοίραν οίκη- <τομ€ν] This use of οίκείν with such accusatives is a bold extension of its absolute use in the sense of ‘ live ’, for which cf. Eur. Fr. 708 άλυτος οίκείν (Nauck : the Variorum ed. gives αλντον οίκεΐν βίοτον), Soph. Ο. T. 139° τ '° 7 “Ρ την φροντίδ' έξω των κακών οίκείν yXvKV. This bold vague phrase gains additional impressiveness from the consideration that this and the following line were perhaps the last words Euripides wrote. 1514 ff. If these words are as their author wrote them we must suppose he meant βωμόν to be an acc. of the goal after στείχουσαν, θανουσαν and σφayeίσav to agree with έλέττολσ, and δέρην to be an acc. of respect with σφα ye?aav. 1517 ff. This sentence is not so flabby in construction as the last, but in the con¬ nexion of its thoughts it is flabbier. ΕΥΡΙΤΤΙΔΟΥ 150 πατρώαι μενουσί σε χερνιβες τε στρατός τ Αχαιών θελων ’Ιλίου πόλιν μολείν. 1 5 2 ° αλλά τάν Διός κόραν κλ ησωμεν *Αρτεμιν , θεών άνασσαν, · ώς επ’ ευτυχεί πότμω. ώ πότνια, θυμασι βροτησίοις χαρείσα , πέμφον είς Φρυγών χ 5 2 5 γαίαν Έλλάνων στρατόν καί δολόεντα Τροίας εόη, ’Αγα μεμνονά τε λόγχαις Έλλάδι κλεινότατον στέφανον δδς αμφι καρα εον ^53^ κλέος αείμνηστον άμφιθείναι. ΑΓΓ. ώ Τυνδαρεια παί, Κλυταιμνήστρα, δόμων ε£ω περασον , ώς κλυης εμών λόγων. ΚΑ. φθογγης κλυουσα όευρο σης άφικόμην, ταρβουσα τλημων κάκπεπληγμενη φόβω. 1 5 3 5 μη μοί τιν’ άλλην Συμφοράν ηκεις φέρων προς τη παρουση; ΑΓΓ. σης μεν ουν τταιδδς περί θαυμαστά σοι και δεινά σημηναι άελω. introduced into the text. 1524· In L the t of πότνια has been erased. 1529. 'Ελλάσι Markland. 1530. κάρα τεον Aldus, κάρα θ' eov Scaliger, κράθ' eov Seidler. The hiatus between κάρα and eov (cf. A. 533)» and the word δολόεντα in v. 1527, show the interpolator to have been familiar with Homeric forms. 1532— 1629. See Introduction, pp. xxvi. ff. 1 533 · kAvcis corrected by a late hand to κλύοι s P, κλύεις corrected to κλύρς L. 1536· r/xeis PL. I have retained this, putting a . at φόβ(ρ and a ; at παρούσρ. ήκρ s Portus, with a , at φόβω and a . at παρούστρ, and so all subsequent editions. It would be possible to retain the earlier punctuation and yet read rpceis. Cf. Kruger, 1. 54, 8, 12, Monro, Homeric Grammar , § 358 (d), Goodwin, M. and T. § 269. Cf. also Phoen. 93. 1538· δεινά PL, κεδνά 1522. θεών άνασσαν] by no means an appropriate title for Artemis, is a reminiscence of v. 1482. 1525. χαρ^ίσα] As Dindorf points out, Markland is wrong in deriving support from this place for his διαίριονο?. The aorist participle cannot refer to the goddess’ general predilections, but only to the satisfaction it is expected she will feel in this particular sacrifice. 1532 f. Cf. note on vv. 801—818 above. 1 535* Bacchae 604 εκπεπλτ/γμόναι φόβψ. 1 5 3 7. μεν οΰν] has its adversative force here. This makes the following δεινά appear, as Weil held it to be, quite out of place (see Crit. N.). If it is genuine it must have exactly the same meaning as θαυμαστά , and read that way the line becomes weak. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. ΐ5ΐ ΚΛ. ΑΓΓ. μη μελλε τοίνυν, άλλα φράζ ’ όσον τάχος. άλλ’ ώ φίλη δέσποινα, παν πεύση σαφώς. λε£ω ο απ αρχής, ην τι μη σψαλεισα ρ,ου 'γνώμη ταράξη γλώσσαν εν λόγοις ε/χην. επεί, γάρ ικόμεσθα της Διος κόρης Άρτέμιδος άλσος λείμακάς τ άνθεσφόρους, Γν’ ην Αχαιών σύλλογος στρατεύματος, σην παίδ’ άγοντες, εΰ#υς Άργείων δχλος ηθροίζεθ \ ώς δ’ εσεΐδεν Αγαμέμνων άναξ επί σφαγάς στείχονσαν εις άλσος κόρην, άνεστεναζε, κάμπαλιν στρεφας κάρα δάκρυα προηγεν, όμμάτων πέπλον προθείς. η δέ σταθεΐσα τω τεκόντι πλησίον ελεξε τοιάδ *· ώ πάτερ, πάρειμί σοί, τούμόν δε σώμα της εμης υπέρ πάτρας και της άπάσης Ελλάδος γαίας ύπερ θύσαι δίδω μ’ εκούσα προς βωμόν θεάς άγοντας, εΐπερ εστί θεσφατον τόδε. καί, τουπ’ εμ ευτυχείτε, και νικηφόρου δώρου τύχοιτε πατρίδα τ εξίκοισθε γην. 1540 1545 Σ 55° 1 55 5 Weil. 1541· ρου PL, που Markland. 1544· άνθεσφόρους PL : in L an η is written above -ecr- by an early hand, and in P a later hand has tried to alter -εσ- into -η-, 1550. προηγεν PL, προηκεν Dindorf. 1557. εύτυχοΐτε Aid. 1545. Cf. v. 514 above, and Hec. 521 f. where Polyxena’s sacrifice is being described : παρην μεν 0 χ\ος was ’ Αχαϊκού στρατού , with the 6%Xos in which Har- tung also compares the o%Xos in v. 1546. Bang ( Vitelli Oss. p. 39 note), to get rid of the contradiction between this v. and 1546 f., would give σύλλογοί here, not the meaning it had in v. 514 but, the meaning it has in Xen. Cyr. vi. 2. 11, of an habitual ‘ mustering Such a mean¬ ing is unlikely for poetry. 1548. The double construction after στείχονσαν (επί σ. and εις a.) is awkward. 1550· προηγεν] If the author of this passage is responsible for this word he must certainly have lived long after Euri¬ pides, and probably translated into Greek the poetical Latin lacrimasque ciebat. όμμάτων πέπλον προθείς] Cicero, Ora¬ tor 22. 74, with reference to the celebrated picture by Timanthes of the sacrifice of Iphigeneia, says : “ 'pictor ille vidit , cum in immolanda Iphigenia tristis Calchas esset , tristior Ulixes , niaereret Menelaus, obvolvendum caput Agamemnonis esse , quoniam summum ilium luctum penicillo non posset imitari ”. Cf. also Pliny H. N. xxxv. 10. 36, Quintilian 11. 13. 13. The veiling of Agamemnon’s face was therefore regarded as an invention of the painter’s. It may not be lawful to con¬ clude absolutely from this that these Latin authors knew nothing of such a suggestion in a Greek tragedy, but at all events they did not think, as Firnhaber (p. 285) suggests, that the painter bor¬ rowed from Euripides. 1 5 56. εϊπερ εοττί θε'σ-φατον τόδε] ‘ If that is what the oracle bids ’. Cf. Hdt. ΙΛ^, 164 μαθών το μαντψον έόν τούτο. 152 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ 7 τρός ταντα μη ψαύση τις Άργείων έμον· σιγή παρέχω yap Βέρην ενκαρΒίως. τοσαντ έλεξε' πάς δ’ έθάμβησε κλνων ευτυχίαν τε κάρετην της παρθένον. στάς δ’ εν μέσω Ύαλθυβιος, ω τόδ’ μέλον , ενφημίαν άνεΐπε και σιγήν στρατω * Κάλχας δ’ δ μάντις εις κανουν χρνσηλατον εθηκεν δ£υ χειρ! φάσγανον σπάσας κολεών έσωθεν, κρατά τ' εστεψεν κόρης. δ παις δ’ δ Π^λεως εν κύκλω βωμόν θεάς λαβών κανουν 'έθρεφε γέρνιβάς θ' όμον, έλεξε δ’ * ώ παΓ Zt;vos ’'Αρτεμις θηροκτόνε , τδ λαμπρόν ειλίσσονσ εν ευφρόνη φάος , δε£αι τδ 0υρ,α τδδ’ δ γε σοι Βωρουμεθ α στρατός τ 'Αχαιών 'Αγαμέμνων άναξ θ' όμον, άχραντον αίμα καλλιπαρθένον Βέρης, και 8 ος γενέσθαι πλουν νεών άπημονα Τροία? τε π έργα μ' ε£ελεΐν ημάς Βορί. εις γην δ’ ΆτρεΐΒαι πάς στρατός τ' εστη βλέπων. ιρενς δε φάσγανον λαβών επενξατο, ί 1560 15^5 ΐ57° Ί *575 1567. κουλεών Ρ, the ου altered by a late hand to ο, κολεών L, the 0 in an erasure. 1568. ΤΙηλέως P, IX^Xeos L. 1570. With this v. (which is the last line but one on the second column of the back of p. 146) a new hand begins in P. It continues through the rest of this play and down to v . 35 of the Danae fragment which succeeds it, i.e. down to the bottom of the second column of the back of p. 147. The remaining vv. of the Danae fragment are in a hand different from either of the two preceding ones, and occupy the first column of p. 148 (a), and one line of the second column. The rest of the second column of 148(a) and the whole of pp. 148 (b) and 149(a) and 149 (b) are blank. (1570.) ώ παΐ ζηνος ’Άρτεμις θηροκτόνε P, and so also no doubt L originally (see Vitelli, p. 72 note); in P from παΐ to θηροκτόνε is crossed out by a fairly early hand which writes for it: θηροκτόν ’ ”A ρτεμι παΐ Alos. In L the first hand erased παΐ favos (the " and the top of the ξ still show) and wrote dcos in their place.— ώ παΐ Ζηνος, ώ θηροκτόνε Nauck. 1578· φεύς Ρ, ίερεύ s L. 1561 f. Cf. Hec. 542 τοσαυτ ’έλεζε, 7ras δ’ έπηύξατο στρατό?. The following line, with the τη s before the παρθένου and no article before the first two nouns, is a very bad one. 1567. κολεών βτωθεν] Probably cor¬ rupt. The εξεΐλκε κολεού in Hec. 544 makes it probable that the word κολεό s was used here. It will hardly be believed that Firnhaber swallows the words whole, explaining that σπάσας is here used for λαβών and that the sword zvas put into the κάνουν zvith its scabbard on ! 1568. Cf. //. F. 926 ff·, a passage already referred to above on v. 1112. The monstrosities in the following vv ., some of which have been referred to in the Introduction p. xxviii., are too evi¬ dent to need special comment, and I do not think any gain can result from their correction. It would be better io write the whole passage over again. ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ 153 λαιμόν τ’ επεσκοπείθ’, ϊνα πλήξειεν αν' ίμοί δε τ’ άλγος ου μικρόν είσήει φρενί, 1580 κάστην νενενκως' θαύμα δ’ ήν αίφνης όράν' πληγής κτύπον γαρ πας τις ήσθετ αν σαφώς, την παρθένον δ’ οΰκ οιδεν οΰ γης είσέδν. ρ„ Λ JJ* « ' '> <>» * / / ροα ο ιερευς, απας ο επηχησε στρατός, άελπτον είσιδόντες εκ θεών τίνος 1585 φάσμ *, ου γε /χ^δ’ δρωμένου πίστις παρήν · ελαφος γαρ άσπαίρουσ εκειτ επί χθονί Ιδεΐν μεγίστη διαπρεπής τε την θέαν, ής αΐματι βωμός εραίνετ άρδην τής θεόν. καν τωδε Κάλχας πώς δοκεΐς χαίρων εφη· ι 59 ° ω τουδ ’Αχαιών κοίρανοι κοινού στρατόν, ορατέ τήνδε θυσίαν, ήν ή θεδς προνθηκε βω μίαν, ελαφον δρειδρόμον; ταντην μάλιστα τής κόρης άσπάζεται, ως μη μιάνοι βωμόν ενγενεΐ φόνω. Σ 595 ηδέως τε τοντ εδέξατο, καί πλονν ονριον δίδωσιν ήμίν ’Ιλίου τ’ έπιδρομάς. προς ταντα πας τις θάρσος αΐρε νανβάτης, χώρε ι τε προς νανν' ως ημέρα τήδε δει λιπόντας ημάς Α νλίδος κοίλους μνχονς ΐόοο Αιγαιον οιομα οιαπεραν. επει ο απαν κατηνθρακωθη θνμ εν Ήφαιστου φλογί, τα πρόσφορά ηνζαθ’, ως τνχοι νόστον στρατός. πέμπει δ’ ’Αγαμέμνων μ ’ ώστε σοι φράσαι τάδε, λέγειν θ’ οποίας εκ θεών μοίρας κνρεΐ 1605 καί. δο£αν εσχεν άφθιτον καθ’ Ελλάδα. εγώ παρών τε καί τό πράγμ όρων λέγω ’ ή παΐς σαφώς σοι προς θεούς άφίπτατο. 1580. apyos Ρ, corrected by first hand to aXyos. 1583· 01 yrjs P, corrected to οΰ yijs by a later hand. 1589. εραίνετ P, with a second p written below the -pa- by an early hand, έρραίνετ L. 1592. V θεός P, 6 deos L, corrected by an early hand to ή θεός. 1598. ναυάτη s P, corrected by a subsequent hand to νανβάτης. (The earlier uncial form of β which resembles v is not used in P, so probably this word was taken down at dictation from the mouth of some one who doubtless pronounced the word (in English letters) nar- wa-tees.) νανβάτης L. 1607. παρών τε Ρ, ταρών δε (the δε in an erasure) L. 1581. νενευκώς] With reference to Matthiae’s suggestion, mentioned in p. xxviii. of the Introduction, we ought to cf. Soph. Ant. 270 and 441, where a similar attitude results in the one case from fear, in the other from (perhaps) despondency. 154 ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΑΥΛΙΔΙ. λνπης δ’ άφαίρει καί πόσει πάρες χόλον' απροσδόκητα δε βροτοΐσι τα των θεών, σωζονσι ν ονς φιλονσιν. ημαρ yap τοοε θανονσαν είδε καί βλεπονσαν παΐδα σην. ΐ6ΐο xo. ως ηδομαί tol ταντ άκονο οσ άγγελον · ζων δ’ εν θεοίσι σδν μενειν φράζει τεκος. ΚΛ. ω παί, θεών τον κλεμμα γεγονας; πως σε προσείπω; πως δ’ ον φω παραμνθεΐσθαι τονσδε μάτην μνθονς, ώ? σον πένθονς λνγρον πανσαίμαν; ιόΐ5 XO. καί μην Αγαμέμνων άναζ στείχει, τουσδ’ αυτού? εχων σοι φράζειν μνθονς. 1020 ΑΓΑ. γνναι , θνγατρός ενεκ όλβιοι γενοίμεθ' αν’ Ί . εχει γάρ όντως εν θεοΐς ομιλίαν. χρη δε σε λαβονσαν τόνδε μόσχον νεαγενη στείχειν προς οίκονς * ω? στρατός προς πλονν όρα. καί χοίρε * χρόνιά γε τάμά σοι προσφθεγματα Τ ροίηθεν εσται. καί γενοιτό σοι καλώς. 1625 XO. χοίρων, Άτρείδη, γην ΐκον Φρυγίαν, χαίρων δ’ επάνηκε, κάλλιστά μοι σκυλ’ άπδ Τροίας ελών.] i6io. Both P and L have γνώμη in the margin opp. to this v. 1615. του L. 1616. A corrector of L altered δ’ ού to δέ. ι6ι8. παυσαίμην L (originally). 1621. οϋνεκα PL, corrected in both mss. to 'ένεκα. APPENDIX. Scheme of the metre of the Lyric passages. (In this Scheme the following signs are used: vy represents a ‘ cyclic ’ dactyl, 1 — a long syllable held on in singing for three ‘ tunes 3 or morae , < an ‘ irrational 3 long syllable, and a a pause equal to one mora at the end of a verse. I have in one or two instances marked as long, before such a pause, a syllable by nature short, on the ground that its position made it long. Where the bar is finished in the next verse, i.e. when the next verse begins with an anacrusis , I have put no pause mark. I have marked the end of a κώλον by a space between the verses. Such divisions, and generally the arrangement of the syllables in what seem to have been the bars , so to speak, of the music, must, in the absence of that music, be always merely tentative. But I have myself found such attempts useful, and I hope this may help my readers. Almost all the Lyric passages in the Iph. at Aulis are in Logaoedic metre, which, speaking musically, is in triple time. The Parodos and the three Stasima each consist of a Strophe, an Antistrophe and an Epode. I have not given any scheme of the spurious part of the Parodos, nor of the choric passage 1510 — 1531 . The metre of the former is of a puerile character; mostly trochees.) PARODOS. Strophe and Antistrophe. i8 5 - Λ - A 190 (' Choriambic) APPENDIX. 156 Epode. - Λ v; v; v — w - Λ ■ v O ^ l— — Λ APPENDIX. 15 7 543 545 550 555 < STASIMON I. Strophe and Antistrophe. KJ kj \J v-/ — < v_/ ^ V-/ ^ v-' — < \J V-/ w V-/ ^ w — vy — —w w < c - \y — V-/ v-/ "W -V/ ^ -w \y “W v»/ Vw/ - Λ A A Λ Λ Λ Λ Λ Λ Λ A - Λ - Λ 573 575 5 8 ° 5 8 5 V-/ 'w' V-/ — w W — < Epode. < — —w w \y \y ks L- ’ vy v_/ vy —^ w — v_y — V-/ — v^> wu\y v ^ 1 w - A - Λ - A * * * * * —^ V-/ — < -^ - Λ — < — < —O' w - A V-/ - W — - Λ - A - Λ - Λ - A - A - A 558 56 ° 565 570 158 APPENDIX. STASIMON II. Strophe and Antistrophe. (The following scheme is very unsatisfactory. It can only be said to furnish a further proof that the whole stasimon has come down to us in a very imperfect and corrupt state.) Epode. 773 I--' — 775 - L - 776 and 777 (omitting 7ro- λισρα Τροίας) 780 w 79° 795 8 oo KS — APPENDIX. W w u w u u w u —W W W v-/ - W ' < < w w o —v/ w WWW w < ^ w — < - Λ - A - w - Λ - Λ -W V. - Λ - Λ - Λ — w - Λ 159 ιο 3 6 1040 ιο 45 ^ < 1050 το 55 STASIMON III. Strophe and Antistrophe. kj —vy — y v-/ < w ^ KJ \J \J \J —w w -v V —w w — < V-/ — _ V-/ < KJ \j \J - —y — vy — vy — vy — vy - Vy — v-/ — vy —vy vy —N-/ vy —v^ vy —vy vy I2 95 — < < — <* 1_ 1_ —>y vy 1— - Λ APPENDIX. 1 6 1 t 1 - 1_ —vy vy — vy ~w vy vy vy — vy vy vy vy —vy vy - Λ 1300 1_ vy vy vy — vy vy vy vy 1_ vy vy vy — vy - Λ 1_ l_ 1_ 1_ vy vy V-/ -vy vy — V-/ vy vy vy — vy — vy ! 3°5 — vy — vy — vy — vy L_ — vy vy vy vy — vy L_ — vy vy vy vy - A vy vy vy — < — vy — vy — vy — vy — vy vy vy vy 1310 vy vy vy — vy — vy vy vy vy — vy — vy vy — vy vy vy vy — vy — vy — vy < 1 vy vy vy — vy — vy — vy 1_ — vy 1_ — vy — vy — vy — vy — vy 1315 1_ — vy — vy — vy — vy — vy — vy vy vy vy — vy — vy — vy — vy — vy — vy vy vy vy — vy vy vy vy — vy - Λ * 33 ° 1319—1322 anapaestic. vy —vy vy vy vy vy - Λ ' vy vy ' v-/ vy L_ - Λ WWW w w w w w w WWW 1 335 — Λ 1475 COMMOS. vv. 1475—1508. W W W - - - w — Λ — w — w — w — Λ WWW WWW WWW WWW WWW WWW — w — Λ — W — W I - — Λ E. I. 11 102 APPENDIX. 1480 w — w — — V^r — 1485 — v^/ - Λ - Λ - — v-/ — Λ - Λ 1490 V-' — ^ — W WWW — A w w Λ - W - Λ M 95 < — —W V-/ * * — — Λ * * * —w O V-/ V-/ v»/ ^ w — w V·-/ V-/ V»/ V-/ v^/ - vy w ^ Λ w w Ί INDEX TO GREEK WORDS DISCUSSED IN THE EXPLANATORY NOTES. N.B. The numbers refer to the verses of the play. αβρόνομα ι 858 αγαθόν 346 αγειν and αγεσθαι in the sense of marry 434 αγών 1455 ό,δίκήσομαί pass. 1436 αθραυστα 57 αιδώς 821 αίματα 1485 αίνεΐσθαι Χίαν gjg αίνέσαι thank 1371 αίνέω 44Ο5 5°^ άλγεΐν, genitive with, 370 άλλα 5oo, 1239, 1360 αλλά with imperat. 1344 άλλως to no purpose, falsely 800 άμπετάσας 34 dv 96 dv , position of, 1191 dv iterative 432 avd c. dat. 754 avd 1040, 1058 άναίνομαι with inf. and with part. 1503' ανήρ joined to designations 956 άνθελέσθαι 482 ανθηρόν 73 άνικετεύτως 1003 αντί 104 αντί in comp. 224 άντίλάζυμαι 1109 άπλοια 88 άττό 66g απωθεν 983 αρα 404 άργεννός 574 Άρέθουσα 170 αριθμός 231 άρματα for chariot and horses 250 άρχαί ggo άρχω, dat. with, 337 άσκεΐν 83 Άτρεύς 321 άφαιρεϊν with only the acc. of person robbed 895 αφασία 837 ’Αφροδίτη 1264 βάθρα 8 1 βάρβαροί 1400 βλέπειν with adv. 644 βλέφαρον 32i, 379 βρότειος 1083 γάμος in the sense of bride 1087 ydp proleptic 804 γε 1446 γεγηθα ώς γεγηθα 649 γελάω gi2 γη or χθων used instead of πόλις 535, 1070 INDEX. 164 δέ ye 308 δεινός 480 δέλτοι 798 δέμας 417, 937 δη νυν 1009 δία \oy ΐ 2 3§ ’όνειδος 305 όνομα 9ΐο ονομάζω ιο66 οξύς 5 όπίσω 38 οπλοφόρους 190 όπλων poetic for οπλιτών 374 όπλων άνακτες 1260 όρθιος 94 όρθοϋσθαι 24 όρώ, absolute use of, 1122 ού instead of μή 995 ού negativing both a μέν and a δε clause 396 ού δ ή used of time 97 ούδέ ye 308 ούκέτι for now...not 1360 πayήvaι 394 παρά 397, 1436 παρά in comp. 981 παρεπάλλετο 22 6 ΙΤάρις 1291 παρφδός 1147 πέδον 91 πείθειν ώστε 1 2 11 πείθεσθαι with the gen. 726 ΙΙελασγία 1498 πέμπω 119» mo INDEX. 1 66 πένθος 1442 πετρωμένος εις 882 περί 215, H 57 περίβολος as adj. 1477 ΙΙερσέως 1500 πεύκη 39 πικρός 678, 955* Γ 3 ι6 πίπτειν εις 1280 πλάγιος 33 2 πλάτη 236 πόθεν 1235 πολυπλόκοις 196 πομπή Ι3 2 4 πόρος, gen. with, 356 πράγμα 1202 πράγματα 366 7 r/xiatfeii' = machinari 1105 πριν, used for instead of, 1458 προ 36 πρόθυμα 1311 πρός in view of 1343 προς ιοΐ9 προσήκε 824 προσιστάμενον 23 προσονδίζειν 1151 πρόσω gig πρόσωπον 1091 προτέλεια 718 προτελεΐσθαι 433 προτελίζω 433 πρόφασιν 362 π ρόφασις 1434 προχύται m2 πτάμενος as a subs. 796 7 rwXi/cos 613 σαφής 560 σέβω 824 Σείριος 7 σειροφόρος 223 σεμνός gg 6 σεμνύνομαι goi σιγαί in the plural 10 σκηνή ι σκοπεΐν 674 σοι, dat. of the person judging, 1109 σοφίζομαι 744 σπαράσσειν 1458 σπέρμα 520 σπουδάζειν επί τινι g02 στέλλειν 178, Ι3 2 8 στένω 470, gen. with, 37° σύλλογος 1545 συνάπτω 58, 105 σύνεδρος 192 συνετός είμι with acc. 1255 συννυμφοκόμον 48 σύντονος 118 σύριγγες 1085 σχήμα Αλκμάνικόν 196 σώμα 1417 Τάνταλο* son of Thyestes 1149 τείνειν μακράν 420 τειχέων 15 η τέλη ggo τίθημι for ποιέω 1405 τις 884 τλ making position 135 1 τό μηδέν 945 τό πολύ for οί πολλοί 1357 τό στερόμενον = τό στέρεσθαι 889 τότε referring to some well-remembered occasion 46 τό χρήζον a periphrasis for desire 10 j 7 τροφαί g6i τροφός 169 τρυφάν επί 1304 τυγχάνει for έστί 1138 τυγχάνειν, omission of the participle with, 730 T υνδαρέου 593 τυχών 958 ύπ- 507 ύπήλθεν 444 ύπόροφος 1204 φατίζω 936 φέρεσθαι 1383 * φερνή 47 φιλοτιμία 22, 5 2 7 φιλότιμον, τό, 34 2 * 3^5 φιλότιμος 22 φυσάν 381 Φοίβη 50 -φορος 596 φράσσω 826 INDEX. φρθΙ>€Ϊν 924 φώ$ 1063 χαλκεο-, compounds in, 1042 555 » 1222 χεϊρ άκρα 951 χερνιφ ιι 12 χθών or 7 V used instead of πόλΐϊ 1070 χρεών, τό, 1332 χρψ instead of χρτ) ιι gg Xpovcp 640 χρυσεο-, compounds in, 1042 ώ with nom. 1335 ώδίς used figuratively 1235 -ιρδό s 1147 cl>s 469, otiose 1342 tl>s for εΰ ϊσθι ώί 1367 V INDEX TO SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THE EXPLANATORY NOTES. N.B. The numbers refer to the verses of the play. adjectival gen. 1230 adjective formed from a proper name 391 adverbial phrases 379, 408 Argos 242 article used as a vocative, for the pron. of the 2nd pers. 619 ‘asides’ 1140 Aulis 88 ; detention of Greek fleet at, ib. ceremonies preliminary to sacrifice 1112 change from acc. to dat. 492 change in the middle of the line of the person addressed 685 character, Spartan 517 conditional clause suppressed 1256 dative, local 1323; of effective accompani¬ ment 80, 82 ; of person judging 1109 dowry 869 education 558, 710 election of sovereigns 85 enallage 1266 Ennius 138, 329, 384, 446 Eubulus 370 Euripus 88 genitive 20, of definition 1347, of goal 816 hendiadys 354, 1284 historic present 245, 399 infinitive, imperative use of, 403 Molus 201 Mycenae 242 negative far from the word it negatives 1108 neuter participle used for the verbal noun 889, 1017 Olympus 576 oxymoron 305 Palamedes 198 Paris 1291 past tense used of state still continuing 404 patronymic adjectives 49 plur. of 2nd pers. used in addressing one person 1368 ‘ position’ 68, 1160, 1351 preposition implied with the first of two nouns, when only the second has it 210, 1085 ‘ Rhesus ’613 sing, and plur. of 1st pers. used indis¬ criminately 834 stage devices 801, 1098, 1115 Timanthes, picture by, 1550 tmesis 11 tribrach in the fifth foot of a trimeter iambic 844 trochaic metre, character of, 317, 855 wedding of Peleus and Thetis 1036 CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. ? BOSTON COLLEGE 9031 1236065 7 does not CIRCULATE PA 3? 73 ] .X L L· (JfflPf DfS .«33J 17 AUTHOR l~PHIGrENBIA A Γ h ) U L/ S TITLE • * .. . " -V 1 13517 BOSTON COLLEGE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS CHESTNUT HILL, MASS. Books may be kept for two weeks and may be renewed for the same period, unless reserved. Two cents a day is charged for each book kept overtime. If you cannot find what you want, ask the Librarian who will be glad to help you. The borrower is responsible for books drawn on his card and for all fines accruing on the same.