UC-NRLF B 4 035 b?E S0PH0CLEAN FRAGMENTS EMENDED BY RICHARD JOHNSON WALKER LONDON BURNS OATES & WASHBOURNE LTD. SOPHOGLEAN FRAGMENTS SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS EMENDED BY RICHARD JOHNSON WALKER 'EvrauSoc [asvtoi rcavTOc Ttxv0pw7t«v voosi, xaxoT? oxav 0£Xtoaiv laaOoa xaxa. Sophocles, Aleadae. LONDON BUENS OATES & WASHBOURNE LTD. 28 ORCHARD ST., W. 1 8-10 PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.4. A.ND AT MANCHESTER, BIRMINGHAM, AND GLASGOW 1921 7) PrmO PROOEMIUM TOTA admiratur tragicos tres terra poetas, Quos, Sophocles, inter sceptra secunda geris. Non tribus unus honos : fallit nisi fama, videtur Qui natus, idem laudis et esse gradus. Ingentes sculpit statuas pater Aeschylus : illis 5 Religio et priscus terror in ore sedet. Vix homo vix homini concessa hie audet, et ausus Arguitur coepto non minor ipse suo. Primum itaque, at non ut sit idoneus incola nostris Aedibus, obtinuit, dignior aede, locum. 10 Cui fama ignota est Euripidis ? Haud tamen una Huic auri species continuusve color. Omnibus, hie, titulis opus admirabile, Bacchas (Hujus et Hippolytus laus liber, hujus Ion) Scripsit : at ipse idem non pauca poemata panxit, 15 Quorum haud judicium fit nisi lege sua, Centum equidem versus ubi vix centusse liceri Vel re spectata vel ratione velim. Dexteritas certe sermonisque Atticus usus Ante oculos. At quid talia sola queunt ? 20 Sed tamen— idque inter rerum miracula pono— Vi propria quadam fabula tota valet. Fabula tota valet : securus judicat orbis, Tertiaque huic pleno jure corona cadit. Jure igitur, Sophocles (pia nee te lusit imago), 25 Jussisti indecorem sic sine flore chorum Ire tuum, ut dixit tibi nuntius advena : " Vates Occidit, heu, Macedo, qui modo noster erat." Te tamen, o carum caput, o venerabile, quali Barbaricae cumulem munere laudis ego, 30 Cui pietas suadet coner, pater inclite, paucis Pandere sit musae gloria quanta tuae ? Sim brevis. Arctis ipse minus sic finibus errem, Sintque tibi a dictis damna minora meis. vi SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS Haud in dramaticis vicibus decus est tibi primum, 35 Nee bene morata est fabula summus honos, Antigona Electraque licet stent pignora famae, Pinxeris et caecum, pinxeris, Oedipoda. Ordine res agitur. Nos te praeeunte timemus ? Et decet et legi est subditus ipse metus. 40 Compatimur ? Non cura caret ratione, potestque, Auctus eat quamvis, sobrius ire dolor. Saepe cies ventos, miris sed es usque serenus Ipse modis : salva proelia pace moves. Quidquid et humani scit tangere corda virorum 45 Non tantum in vita est : est et in arte tua. Ars immo vincit— modo fas sit dicere— vitam ; Ars dat enim cultum quod rude vita dabat. Haec inter venerum fastigia, magne, tuarum. Unus in his tecum par sociusque Maro. 50 Matronae rupta ceu circum colla catena Tota smaragdineo flumine fulget humus : Accurrunt pueri dispersaque gaudia cogunt Et filo nectunt ordine quodque suo : Sic tibi, sed pretiosa magis, fragmenta monili 55 Majori studium restituisse meum est. Arduus ille labos. Male si disjuncta rejungo (In peccata patent nam mihi mille viae), Ignoscas, pater alme : haec in discrimina tanta Et tuus— haud spernes— egit et artis amor. 60 PREFACE My Eurividean Fragments and Observaciones acerca de los ERRATA On p. vi, 1. 24, for " peccata " read "peccanda." On p. 36, 1. 23, and on p. 37, 1. 4, for MsveXsco read MsvsXew, and on p. 37, 1. 13, for MsveXeto read MevsXsw. I suggest however that in Attic proper the nominative MsvsXeooc (standing, by metathesis, for MeveX-yjfoc;) must have had a genitive MsvsXeco (standing, by metathesis, for MevsXyj^bu) and a dative MsveXsw (standing, by correption, not by metathesis, for MevsXqfco). On p. 119, 1. 27, for 7i;pcoT(ovy)0' read 7rpcoTovy)0'. Sophoclean Fragments. Jebb's brilliance is the admiration of scholars and his services to learning are incontestable ; but, for all that, I cannot— it may be my misfortune— quite say of him, as Henry the Eighth, in his happier days, said of Colet : " This is the doctor for me ! " Neither, indeed, do I follow Nauck blindly ; but my detestation of the pseudo-science of Germany is a reasoned detestation, extending in no way to the splendid achievement of such giants as Dindorf , as Meineke, or (though he be of lesser stature) as Nauck himself. viii SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS The emendation of the Fragments of Sophocles differs not a little from the emendation of the Fragments of Aeschylus and Euripides. Those two authors, however divergent otherwise, agree at least in this : they both write, though in separate styles, with extreme straight- forwardness and simplicity. As a consequence, in a highly corrupt Fragment— and the Fragments of all three tragedians are far more corrupt, as a rule, than are their extant plays— the kind of language that has been replaced by some distortion can usually (at any rate if that dis- tortion extend but to the space of a word or two) be inferred with adequate security from the undisturbed context, and, the metre being known, the ductus liter arum serves sufficiently to show which of only a few probable ways of saying the same predictable thing was, as a matter of fact, preferred and employed by the poet. Now I do not mean to say that this is not, in large measure, true of Sophocles' Fragments also : were it not. the scientific emendation of them would be a matter of sheer impossibility. But there exists a vast difference of degree. Sophocles constantly introduces what I can best describe as colour : precisely what he says— not merely how he says it— in the middle of a sentence is by no means always securely ascertainable either from the beginning and end of that sentence or from the more extended context. He is almost as likely as not to throw in colons gratia some touch or other without either previous preparation or subsequent allusion. His employ- ment of ye, in particular, is frequently of this character, while his practice includes many ramifications of a nature far less simple. In cases of Sophoclean corruption the corrector's one safe course is to pay the minutest attention —in the spirit, often, rather than in the letter— to the usage of the poet himself. If he do this, he will find from time to time that a restoration conceived, not in virtue of any reliance on the light of nature, but as a result of a study of Sophocles' especial predilections, will accord so closely — though by no means entirely — with the indications of the ductus that, having got thus far, he is able both to modify it, without undue violence, into a reading in full agreement with those indications and pari passu to produce a result that has every appearance of PREFACE ix authenticity. More he cannot do : to do even that is extremely difficult. Fortunately there remain over a multitude of passages that, usually as a consequence of the ductus being conclusive, present none but easy problems. As in my Euripidean Fragments, so here also I adopt a quadripartite division into " Papers," the first three ' Papers " in this case corresponding to the volumes of Pearson's work. Monte Carlo, March 6, 1921. CONTENTS PAGE Paper I. A-IX (following the Alphabetical Order of the Greek Titles) 1 Paper II. IQ-X (following the Alphabetical Order of the Greek Titles) 20 Paper III. Other Fragments 72 Paper IV. Paulo Majora 101 Index of Select Topics 117 Index of Emendations 119 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS PAPER I. A— IX [following the Alphabetical Order of the Greek Titles) Athamas, I. and II. See my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 611). Fr. 5. Unemended text : oivto yap Tjfjuv 'AjrsXtoioi apa vqc. Read : oivco yap r^tv 'Ax £ ^°? aft 51 * v ^- The emen- dation 'A/sAcock; is, of course, accepted, but with the spelling axsAcTjcx; : why crasis, when it affects breathing and quantity only, should cause a capital letter to be written small I fail to see. Of course I do not mean that the mss. give 'Ayzk&ioi a capital. Ajax Locrus. See my Macedonian Tetralogy (pp. 123, 124). Fr. 11. In 1. 2, for TOxpSaXvjcpopov, read with Liddell and Scott, 7rapSaXr]cpopov. See my notes on Fr. 696. See also my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 92. Fr. 12. See my Macedonian Tetralogy, p. 124. Fr. 14. We should probably here adopt the ms. reading : aocpol Tupavvot, tv) aocptov fxsTouaia. Of two other ms. readings, one, viz. Sv x' aXupots B 2 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS xXIovts? fyvoL? (Alcestis, 11. 446, 447). Though elsewhere the adjective tc^o? and the adverb to£9j are used of diction which, while unmusical, is at the same time, it would seem, metrical, nevertheless to speak of hymns as pedestrian would (inasmuch as, even if unaccom- panied by the lyre, they are sung, not said) be far more violent. I incline, though with hesitation, to suppose that it is the pan-pipe that is being contrasted with the lyre and to read : xafrcsfrc xal cpopinxTa, goat-foot songs and songs to the music of the lyre. For an adjective afrcs^o? compare, on the one hand, abroXo?, as also the aX- compounds in the Ichneutae, and, on the other, db Y u P 6 TO to and stefo. If this suggestion happens to be sound, there are possibly other passages to which it may have an application. But it must be understood that I am here myself speaking with extreme tentative- ness. Aegeus. Fr. 20. In 1. 2 follow Liddell and Scott in reading ^Xotas, and adopt Casaubon's uaicov. Fr 23 Unemended text : tocnrep yap sv cpuXXotaiv Ivr E&ptaXowiv for ev cpuXXoicnv) alyetpou [xaxpa?, | xav aXX6 p>&v, aXXa Touxetv^ (v.r. rfe xsCvtqs) xapa | xwiptf a5pa^ dcvaxoucp^a 7tts P 6v. Read: tosp jap sv fottoioiv atpfpou {xaxpae, | xav aXXo [^8sv aXXa X ou, xsbvj? axpa | xbual t aopa xavaxoucpKa uxspcov It is a mere accident that xCvuju (=xivffl) is elsewhere found only in the passive. Brunck proposed xavaxoucp^t : but he did not under- stand that aopa x- had been read as atipau;. .,, , JV 24 Unemended text : 6 xcanQp copiasv | ejxot (xsv av *' axxa<; rijafe y^ | upsa^a vete a Aux

? xat 7rou yepovra IspoXav 'Ayi- povTo? Xeyet. The ax; — Xsyst, sentence seems to me to be an addition in conversational style, jotted down, I sup- pose, by some scholarly reader. The Fr. UpoXa? 'Iaaou? is Fr. 57 : the words fepoXav 'Ayjtpovxoc; I number as Fr. 799 b. ACRISTUS. Fr. 65. Unemended text : Oapret,, yuvar toc rcoXXa twv o*£!.vcov, ovap | 7Tveut7avTa vuxto?, yjjiipac; [xaXaacrETa!,. Read : Gapasi, yovai* xa rcoXXa tcov 8et,vc5v, ovap | 7ivi£avTa vuxtoi;, •yjjxepac; (xaXao-asTat. For Ttv^avra, c/. TuvtyaXttov, a night- mare. Fr. 69. See my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 117. Aleadae. See my edition of the Ichneutae {pp. 614, 615): but also see, in this book, under the heading Inachus. Fr. 82. Unemended text : xi Tauxa 7toXXv £x' zaxi Got ; | xa yap 7tspt,crcra 7Tavra^oii Xutoqp' etcy). Read : 6 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS lie, alcra TtoXXwv p7)(j.dxcov ex' scrxt, aoi ; | xd yap 7rspicrcrd 7ravTaxou >.u7a)p' £7iY]. The slight shifting, rather in environment than in sense proper, of the Homeric alcra appears to me so Sophoclean that I propose this emendation with some confidence. It exhibits the kind of consideration that an emend er of Sophocles has con- stantly to keep before his eyes : the mental criticism involved is delicate and often difficult. Fr. 88. Unemended text : xd /p-y^ax' dv0p co7iot.cn. v supicrxst. 6yov. Bergk proposed TjXsy^a?. Fr. 106. Unemended text : tC? 8r) 7tot' oX(3ov t) fjtiyav 0S17J PpOTOU (v.r. ppOTCOv) I 7} Kpovco. Read : A. 3j [aeiov ou xoupsiov 7)p£<707] ttoXsi ; | B. vojxoc, ydp ectti pocppdpot? 6uy)7toXsiv | (BpoTEtov dpx^Qsv ye tw Kpovcp yspa;;. For the passive aorist of dpsaxsiv in the sense required cf. 1. 500 of the Antigone. xoupsiov, which is generally accepted, was proposed by Musurus. Tucker suggested the omission of toic, before (3ap(3dpoi(;, and Buttmann changed yspo<; to yspac;. Editors, as a whole, have dealt too violently with the text. Antenoridae. I have no remarks to offer. Atreus. I have no remarks to offer. ACHAEON SYLLOGOS. See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 611, 612). Fr. 142, 1. 22. Papyrus text: x[ . . ]co(j.£vox7opai[ . ] sSpavsTotfjioacov . If there be no miswriting in the papyrus itself, the only way of filling up the line is this : xdyw [zsv, ?) crw^s ttjv sutpTjfiiav. Read : yvjpat. 7rpocry]xovx' d>£', £7nr) 8' £ucpy)[ji' &i. I suppose that yyjpai is the only correct form : &iC, until further evidence is produced, I shrink from writing. Fr. 197. Unemended text : a7rsX0' kx.zivy)c, uttvov fyxpov voaou. Read : a7rsX0' - IxoijxTja' u7rvo<; laxpeuoov vocrou. Valckenaer proposed forvc^, but with a different context and nothing (such as an adjoining taxpsuwv) to account for the change of case in the text. Is not Pearson's voctov, the last word in his quotation from Clement, a misprint for voctou ? Ems. I strongly suspect that no such play ever existed, and that the Frr. attributed to it come in reality from a Sophoclean Eridion Agyrticum : see my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 353-377), where I go into the whole question at considerable length. Fr. 199. Unemended text : lyw 8s 7ust,vco<7ayau (v.r. 7t£t,vcoa' ayav) 7rpo<; ixpia (3Xs7r 8' ztziv&c, ayav Tzpbc, I'xpia (3X£7tco. See my edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 354, 355, and, as regards the use of the metre of comedy, pp. 359-361, 376. Fr. 200. Follow Nauck. See my edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 354, 356. Fr. 201. See my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 357. Hermione. Fr. 203. As regards yvcoaxo<; it must be remembered that the morphologically later of two forms may never- theless be the more archaic : potesiur is morphologically later than potest. EUMELUS. I conjecture that Eumelus of Cos is in question and that the play deals, inter alia, with the story of Merops and Ethemea. 14 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS EtTRYALUS. I have no remarks to offer. Eurypylus. Fr. 207. In spite of the second hand's touti (1. 4) in correction of the first hand's touto, this papyrus Fr. is, I think, rightly assigned to the Eurypylus, and does not belong, as has been suggested, to the Ichneutae. Lines 5-7 are in a much shorter metre than 11. 1-4. At no place in the Ichneutae, where either demonstrably or probably such a change of metre occurs, will the remains of the seven lines of the Fr. fit in : so comparatively well preserved a Fr. can scarcely come from the lost portion of that play. Hunt evidently inclines to fear that somehow or other the Frr. of the two dramas have been mixed up together : on the evidence, such as it is, of their contents I am disposed to think the} 7 have not been mixed up. But in the Eurypylus the second hand would not substitute toutE for touto, unless he had come fairly fresh from the correction of a Satyric drama : in other words the Ichneutae preceded the Eurypylus. This con- sideration strengthens my contention (see p. 172 of my edition of the Ichneutae) that the papyrus title of the Ichneutae was the Efipeau; Aupa?, with or without the addition y) 'I^eutou. Fr. 210, 11. 8, 9. In the papyrus there are preserved only a penultimate portion of 1. 8, viz. ]iafiJe(iJXTj[Jt.[ s and the end of 1. 9, viz. ]aXxsoovo7cXtov. But Plutarch presents : xal t6v N£07Tt6Xs[xov 6 SocpoxX9j<; xai t6v EupumjXov otzILgoc; ex6[X7iaa' aXoiSopvjTa, 97)51, £pp7)£aT/)v kc, xuxXa /aXxguv otcXcov. Restore the papyrus thus : exofjwcaaav Sopvj ts 8iapspXv)[i£voi I £pp7)£aTY)v kc, xuxXa /aXxIcov otcXcov. The sxofATratf' aXoiSopyjTa of the text of Plutarch, who omits BiafJefJXvj(i£voi, is a corruption of ex6[jara8\ 77 : Xa(3pa8e is universally accepted, Bergk first gave ^Xcopov, Barnes olvocvOt)^, while Meineke suggested xXdcCTToo. I wonder whether Pearson, whose opinion on a point of scholarship cannot safely be disregarded, has really said his last word on 1. 6. My objection to xal xXivsxat te has nothing to do with the te (as to which I fully agree with him), but is based on the, to my mind, incredibly violent change of nominative involved. " To plump all fruit with ripeness to the core." " Conscia nympha Deum vidit et erubuit." Fr. 258. Unemended text : iyzi [ikv aXystva (v.r. aXyetv a), o!8a* 7rsipa<70a!, 8s XP"^ | <*K $%&?& Tavayxata tou Ptou cpspst.v | lx tcov TotouTWV ^pvj tyjv I'aaiv (v.r. taatv) XafJsiv. Badham rightly ejected 1. 2, which comes from Euripides. Read : e'xei [xev dXysiv', olSa* 7T£t.paa0at, 8s XP^ I ^ x ™ v Totouxtov xpvjyuTjv alcrav Xa(3siv. The writing aXysiv' is of course accepted. Iberes. See my edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 569, 577, 578. c 18 SOPHO CLEAN FRAGMENTS Inachus. Correct what I say in my edition of the Ichneutae f pp. 614, 615. I now (see under the heading Cedalion) take the Inachus as second play of the tetralogy beginning with the Pandora. Fr. 272. Unemended text : yoy/] xlq v^Ss auXyjva? (v.r. cjuXTjva?) 'ApxaSoc; xuv9j ; Read : yuvrj, | ric, t^Ss cpjXy) Saajjia t' 'ApxaSo? xuvvji; ; IXION. I have no remarks to offer. Iobates. Fr. 297. According to Rabe the Lexicon Messanense (which is the sole source) attributes this Fr. to Sophocles lox . cttt] (the dot representing a lacuna of the space of one letter). Now lox.cmq can mean 'Ioxacrry) only : 'loader?) is merely an emendation. Pearson says : "A tragedy by Sophocles entitled Iocasta is of course incredible." I agree to the extent of denying the moral possibility that Sophocles can have written any tragedy reasonably patient of a title Jocasta in addition to the Oedipus Tyrannus : that tragedy indeed might perhaps be referred to under the name in question ; but in any case the quotation is not from the Oedipus Tyrannus. What, however, of a Satyric drama ? I am disposed to suggest that, rather than without evidence assume corruption, we ought to interpret the Lexicon Messanense as intending by Sophocles' Jocasta Sophocles' Satyric Cnops (see later under the heading Cnops). It would follow as a result — an eminently reasonable result — that in the Cnops Jocasta figures as a prominent character. Hipponous. I have no remarks to offer. Iphigenia. Fr. 307. Unemended text : voei 7rp6<; avSpl acofxa 7iouXij7rou<; forto? TOxpa Tpa7i£C0oa yv^ciiou 9povyj[xaTO<;. A— IX 19 Read : vost, upbc, y£ opa-rs there are v.rr. ou x op a T £ and ou ■£ opaxat,). Read : xav 8' avxaiov | tcS' 'Epivuv y' 0U X opaxs ; Of course avxouov and (though only as what lies at the back of oux' and ou %, and subject to further, in my opinion unnecessary, emendation) oux are universally accepted. I suggest that Erotian's av0pco7iov (see Pearson) is uncorrupt and emphatic. For Erotian's avrouov 8' IxdcXouv ol 7iaXai,ol t6v aco of the title really means The Blind Man, not The Spider. It by no means necessarily follows from Dioscorides' epitaph on Sophocles (.4 nth. Pal. vn. 37) that Antigone— impossible in connexion with the Sphinx— was a character in the play. I would go a long way to avoid the necessity of dis- cussing the topic which I here approach. Though I am about to clench the argument, as to the tetralogy, con- tained in my edition of the Ichneutae, yet I am about to do so at a risk which I am far from relishing. The cursory reader— nay, if there be such a thing, the cursory re- viewer—will, I fear, set me down as a sort of " Baconian " bedlamite. That, however, I cannot help : if one plays the game, one has always to put up with the " rubs of the green." In Sophocles' Antigone, according to the existing text, 11. 34-60 run thus (notice that immediately before aaqjyj 7rpoxY]pu£ovra, the beginning of 1. 34, comes xaura toIc,— Heath corrects toxoid — (xyj ziSooiv : the occurrence, at this particular point, of TaijTa xoiai \irr\ siSoatv aaqjyj 7rpo)a]pu£ovTa will soon acquire significance) : (ANTirONH) aracpyj 7rpox7)pu£ovTa, xal to 7cpay[x' aystv ou% 6)Q 7iap' ouSev, ocXX' oc, av toutcov ti Spa, 35 90VOV 7ipOX£t(70ai. SvpoXsucTTOV ev 7coXsi. o&Twc, eyzi aoi raura, xai 8zi£,zic, vkyjx ztx euyevyj^ racpuxas sit' ea0Xwv xaxvj. I2MHNH Tt 8', ti> xaXalcppov, el raS' ev toutoiq, lyto Xuoucj' av 7] 6a7rrouia, KpsovTO<; avTSipyjxoTOi; ; AN. dXX* ouSsv auTw twv sfjwov (Brunck inserts jj.' ) stpysiv {xsTa. IS. otfxor cppov-/]crov, xacrtyvrjTy], 7car/jp oic, vwv a7cs/07]? SuaxXsyj^ t' dot to Xsto, 50 7rpo<; auTocptoptov d(JtjrXax7] [i.aT tov SwrXa? otyzic, apa^ai; auTo? auToupyto X Z P 1 ' £7CSlTa fXY)T7]p XfXl yUVY), Sl7lX0UV £7T0<;, 7rXsxTatatv dpTocvoucrt, Xto (Sarai (3tov TpiTov 8' aSsXfpci) Suo puav xa0' yjfiipav 55 auTOXTOvouvTS tco TaXoautopto ;j.6pov xoivov xaTsipyacravT' etc' dXX/jXoiv (Hermann corrects £71' dXX/jXoiv to s7raXXY]Xoiv) ^spotv. vuv 8' aO [j.6va 8yj vtb XsX£i.[j(.[JiEva axoTCt ocrto xaxLCJT' oXoupLsO', si v6(jt,ou (3ia '];9jcpov Tupdvvtov yj xpdcTYj 7raps£ifx£v. 60 From this passage, as it stands, and without any altera- tion, it is manifest that we have before us a single acrostic — the initial letters read, as regards vowels, in the pre- Euclidean script— recording the composition by Sophocles of the two Oedipi, the Hepta, and ^eCnops. This acrostic is mutilated indeed, but not to such an extent as to render it unintelligible. It runs, mutilations included, and with- out any attempt at emendation, thus (iota diphthongs evidently rank as single letters) : C. O, O, 0, EI. T, A, EI, n, EI, H, T, A, A, Q, A, 01, Q, II, O, E, II, T, A, K, N, O, Y. In the pre-Euclidean spelling (as regards vowels) this would be : C, O, $, O, EI, T, A, EI, II, EI, E, T, A, O, A, 01, O, n, O, E, II, T, A, K, N, O, Y. That is to say : SocpostrXsi (clearly a distortion of SoqjoxXsi) 7T£iy)Ta (similarly a distortion of noirfia.) oaoio (see what I have to say later) iza (doubtless, in view of the following context, the last two letters of OiSforto) "Etttoc KvcovJ;. Such, as it stands, uncorrected and incomplete, is the single acrostic. A few slight corrections are all that is m— X 25 needed to restore it in its completeness. But, as one effects these alterations, one becomes aware of the exist- ence of a second — this time a terminal — acrostic : in other words, a double acrostic is revealed. Read : CTa<; e^si (jot Taura xal Sei^st, Ta^a. 37 xal TTw?, TaXaicppov, eI t ToeXou/ppov, el tYYpa[Afi.<; 8' sti a7U j v£7)|vi<;. la'' j iaoi\cn<;. vav vsav | . On this, as translation is hardly indicated, I would take occasion to remark that Nai-dc or Nai' is manifestly the vocative of Naidc?, and that phrases can easily be imagined (such as W lax, yev/jTai ) in which laa could fairly be equated with fowct?. But it is more necessary to direct attention to the extreme difficulty of framing in Greek any kind of final acrostic. The letters permitted by the rules of the language to end words are far from sufficient to render the composition of final acrostics even tolerably easy. This consideration— and it is most important— weighs greatly in the direction of inducing me to believe that this particular final acrostic is not factitious. But, given the final acrostic, it must clearly be con- nected in some way or other with the initial acrostic. That means, seeing that neither Nat.dc, laa., nor vav occurs in the extant Oedipodean trilogy ( e E7TTa obviously ='Avtl- yov7)),that they must have been all three presented in the Cnops Satyrica. Hence the following three Fragments : Fr. 335b. Nock*. Fr. 335c. laa.. Fr. 335d. vav (mss. vvv). To these, as coming from the Cnops, should apparently be added a fourth Fragment, namely Fr. 733 (q.v., to- gether with my remarks thereon, in its numerical order later in this book), and possibly also a fifth Fragment, IQ-X 29 namely Fr. 297, which (under the heading Iobates) I have already discussed. COLCHIDES. Fr. 337. Unemended text : farffee wSfjupi^iv ou 7reXa? 9opou. Read : oocyj^s iz£y.i£. Fr. 339. Unemended text : 9j tpfy u7rofi.vu<; dv0u7toup- ■fifiaoii x<*pw ', Read : ^ (&) XP^" 6 ™ 1 , XP?) £ ™, XP^ai, (?) xp-/)f£cr0ov, Xp7)£-T0ov, xpvjaOov, (m) xp^fofjisOa, xpsw[xs6a, (rc) xp^feaOs, Xp7]£C70£, xP^^s, (o) xP^Fovxat, xpstovTou. Now the forms exhibiting Attic metathesis as a result of the combination -7]Fo- (wz. xP">>fA£v, ypioiai, xp£W[xai, xpsw^Qa, xpswvrai) are — c/. paaiXTJfb?, pacnXsw? — pre-eminently patient of synizesis, but are not, by law, capable of contraction. But is this perhaps a purely graphic point ? Did the ordinary Athenian pronounce (SaaiXeox; as (3amXo5<;, and was the spelling (3a iptXai, | out' av oX(3ov sxjxsTpov | IvSov su^aifx' av(I seem to gather from Pearson that for eu^oafx' av there is a v.r. su£ai[xav) £X £lv ° cpOovspat. yap 6Soi. Read : XO. outs yap ya[j.ov, d> cpiXai, | out' av 6X(3ov sxfASTpov y* | IvSov su^aifxav £'x £lv ' | v avoaoc, dXX' del voctelv. The employment of ou xiq, instead of ouSsl?, avoids the otherwise inevitable " zeugma " at the end of 1. 7. Though some authority, at least superficial, can be adduced for such a " zeugma," it yet appears, to me at any rate, an unlikely blemish in the case of a careful writer. I there- fore propose ou xiq. Could the " zeugma " be established as an idiom, it would be quite another matter. Crisis. See my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 613. Fr. 360. Unemended text : xal 8t) 9, xaXuTuxojxai. My proposed lfj.65 is the second person singular of the imperfect indicative of fi.acr0a!, (this is a Satyric drama). Doubtless Aphrodite is speaking, perhaps to Athene. The double citation in Herodian makes it almost necessary that any correction should be of a character scarcely graver than that of the omission of an iota " subscript." Fr. 361. For the probable (or, as I think, certain) absence of Hera from Sophocles' Crisis, an absence originally suggested by Stephani, see my edition of Sophocles' Ichneutae, p. 613. Cophi. See my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 613. Fr. 363. See my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 195. Fr. 365. Unemended text of Zenobius : Kzk\Lic, yap, elc, twv 'ISouoov AaxTUAcov, tt]v |i.7)T£pa 'Psav i>Pptaa^ xal fj.7) u7to8e£a[ji.svoc; utco tcov a8sA9a>v sujxevco? ev ty) "JStj, a7ro8££afX£vo<; u7roy£cov eS^cov e'Su a[x' svocret tyj<; "IStj? Tcfopov, oc, crr£p£a>TaTO<; iysvsxo (7tSy)po<;. [iifAv-qxat. Tvjc; ItJTopta? 2o9oxX9j? Iv Ka>9ot<; craxupoti;. See my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 613. Lacaenae. Fr. 369. Unemended text : lv Y) 7cau<7£T' ajxepcov [xo/Ocov ts xal SavoTYJxcx;. I propose : vyjl 7ra<7£a6' dptiTpoov [xo^Bcov t£ xal evSlotyjtoc;. For no suggested substitute in place of SavoTY)TO<; to have, it would seem, been known to Herodian, it looks as though the passage was already felt to resist trite emendation. As obdurate texts do not mellow with time, I am forced to have recourse to the unobvious. Consequently, I make my suggestion ; and I make it, if with hesitation, yet with a sense that some not less difflcilis lectio is indicated by the data. Nothing, I will add, but the fact that the Lacaenae is, at least in a sense, one of the Homerica restrains me from Doricising the hexameter. IQ-X 33 Laocoon. Fr. 371. Unemended text : IIogeiSov, o<; Aiyawu £jti8£t.c; j 7rppuycov. Read : vuv 8' ev TcuXatcriv Aiveac;, (3oT7]<; 0EOU, I 7iap£CTT', £Tc' OOJXCOV TtOCTEp' E^OiV XEpOCUVlGU | varrou xaTaayac^ovTa (3uacn.vov 9apo<;. | xuxXoi 8' stc' dccaov oixetcdv 7ia[X7r/]oria, | aufXTcXa^srai Ss 7uX9j6o<;, t&jps ^ v Soxat? | otoi? ISpucou ttjX' a7ro!.xia<; Opuywv. Notice the picture-like effect : the passage is certified by Dionysius of Halicar- nassus as being from the speech of a messenger. xaTaa^a- £ovxa is from crya^eiv, laxare or demittere (cf. Fr. 374) : aofjwcX<££eTai=ou[jwrsX<££eTai. The correction Aivietq is recognised ; Naecke proposed Troqjurrjcriav (in the accusa- tive). Fr. 374. Unemended text : ttovou [X£TaXXay0£VTo«; 01 tovoi. yXuxsu;. Read : xovou [i.£Ta<7y£ 8' s Xd^o^ hi Sicrxeufj-aTt. . For the verb Sicrxsueiv, applied to the particular event in question, see the scholium 011 Apollonius Rhodius, iv. 1. 1091. Fr. 381. Unemended text : \xr\Sk tw tsBvtjxot!. | t6v ^gWt' sTrapxstv auxov cbq 6avoofA£vov. Read : [i.y]8s7tto teOv/)- XOTl I TOV ^6Wf' £7CapX£CV ai)TOV WC 0aVOU[X£VOV. Or [J.7]8e TCO) might stand instead of u-TjSibroo, in which case 1. 1 may have run in full : 6avoutjiv

^ — > Edv0"yj<; | afi.ev6<; xat, Teipeaiou nalc,. Nauck proposed HavOyj? Oapisvcx; xal Tstpscriou as the complete reading. Fr. 395. Unemended text : 7rpooxov y.zv o^fl Xsuxov dv0ouvxa (a v.r. omits dv0ouvxa) axd^uv, | eueiroc (poiv^avxa yoyyuXov (v.rr. yoyyuXcov and axpoyyuXov) (zopov, | imira. yyjpac; Xa£x(3avs:i<; Atyu7mov. Read : jcp&xov [xev 6zi Xeuxov dv0ouvxa (yxd^uv, J ckslto. cpoivi^avxa yoyyuXov (jiopov, | xpixov S' s yv)pw? Xa^pdvst. (paoou 7rxspov. I imagine that xptxov 8' s was written y$£. For 6^y], o Saij^Xo; xidpa^ xal maup- votSy) ctxoXtjv. I do not know why Liddell and Scott give aiCTupvco$7)<; axoXo<;. The d/aXi8a<;, pairs of scissors, of the d2 36 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS mss. is inappropriate, while Bergk's emendation ^sXXia, accepted by Pearson in the form c, EocX%M), Fr. 420, SocpoxXTJ^Mtofj-tp, Fr. 421, SocpoxXYJ? fj.tofj.to (note the accent, which may be either a true circumflex or else a mark of contraction), Fr. 422, SocpoxXr]^ xtofj-to (Joseph Hill emended to Mto(j.to), and Fr. 423 (which consists apparently of the one word aTOxoAous), SocpoxXvj? Mtofxtp. But, as regards Fr. 423, we read in Bekker's Anecdota (435. 25) : SocpoxXyjc; 8s to dbtoxoXous sv MsvsXatp (see also my note, below, on Fr. 423 b). I infer that fj.tofj.tp and fj.tofj.to (as also fj.tofj.tov dx;, a mistake for fj.tofj.tovto) are contracted ways of writing MsvsXatp (or MsvsXstp) Msfi.ovcofj.svoi, " in the Deserted Menelaus ." Late Greek by no means rejected the duplication of identical contractions that did not stand for identical uncontracted words : cf. the established schismatical symbol $ (a double cp), which means Ocotio? 6 cpomCtov, Photius the Illuminator. For the existence — in which I disbelieve— of a Sophoclean play called the Momus there is no other evidence. For Frr. 421 and 423 see also my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 615). Fr. 423 B. A character in this Sophoclean play seems to have been an Achaean soldier ('A^aio*;), who appears to have spoken the prologue. A misunderstanding of the record has resulted in the modern invention of a Momus by Achaeus the tragedian and in the cataloguing as Fr. 29 of Achaeus of a passage which, as Fr. 390 B, I here restore to Sophocles. In Aristophanes' Vespae (1. 1081) we find : suOeox; yap £x8pafi.6vTS<; auv Sopl ouv ao-mSi. Similarly in his Pax (1. 357) we find : he, Auxaov xax Auxstou auv Sopl ouv aa7u8i. Now Choeroboscus IQ— X 37 remarks (In Theodos. p. 376, 18) : to guv Sopsi cruv dcrmSi, oTcep 'ApioTocpavT)? 7rapE[xcpoav£t (Nauck rightly alters to 7rapevu9atvei.) ev Eipyjvy], lv Maijxw (read McoMco, i.e. MevsXaoi — or MeveXeco — Mefxovcofxsvw) SocpoxXsou^ 7ipox£ifX£vov co<; cto tou Sopoc; ecmv. This is plain enough, and Choeroboscus is an authority of some importance : incidentally we learn that the true reading is cruv Sopst, cruv dcrmSt, not— as might be suggested— £uv Sopl £uv dcnuSi, which would violate Hilberg's canon. But two scholia have led editors astray. The one, on the passage from the Vespae, runs : to tou 'Ayouou a (above this a is written a t) Mcojjiou Spd[j.aTo^. We should read : to too ' Ayatou, a Mco (i.e. MeveXeco) Mou Bpd.y.oxX9)<; v6[xco craTupixto. The word v6[xq> may well stand for Tqxcp. See my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 615). NaUPLIUS, I. AND II. For the distinction between the two plays see Pearson and also my remarks under the heading Fr. 431. Fr. 431. Unemended text : xoctco xp£(j.avTou, cnu^a xioic, sv spxsmv. Read : xoctco xpsfxavToa, errata Tax; lv 38 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS EpxEcnv. My emendation tw? is as certain (in view of the Ichneutae) as anything in the way of emendation can be. As the Fr. is from the Pyrcaeus, it follows that the Nauplius Pyrcaeus was distinct from the other Nauplius and, like Aeschylus' Prometheus Pyrcaeus, a Satyric drama. This conclusion is highly important. Fr. 432. Unemended text : out£7utuy' sup£<; (for out£7Ut0y' eopzc, there is a v.r. ouro? 8' ecpsups) Tziyjoq 'Apysicov crrpaTcp | yap xaxw? 7cpaaaovn. jxupta \d tov d7iofi.do"o~ovTa xal xaOoapovTOC. There are two words (perhaps originally identical), [mxggziv, to knead, and [xdwrareiv, to rub. The latter bifurcates into two meanings, to wipe and to smear. It does not else- where occur uncompounded, except in the derivatives [xocy£u<;, a wiper (said of a sponge), and [xdcyfxoc, a liquid unguent. For this fxdyjaa Sophocles here substitutes [xay^.6<;, in the sense of ink. At least that is what I make of the Fr. The alternative is to suppose that in the time of Sophocles the Latin, or at least the Italian, magnus had already, via, I suppose, Sicily, passed to some extent into Greek speech. A priori that proposition is not impossible : but it is improbable in an extremely high degree. IQ-X 45 Oecles (?) See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 577, 578). Oeneus. I believe in the existence of this play : cf. Fr. 732. Fr. 470. Cf. Fr. 732. Oenomaus. Fr. 471. Unemended text : yj jxsv (for yj jiiv there is a v.r. si jj.sv)wast (v.r. (ocrsi) Gaacrova (v.r. Gaaaova) | yj 8s tocriTs^ou (for yj 8s warixs^ou there is a v.r. st,8Tov apyou (v.r. apx.ov) mXov (v.r. TcyjXov) 6pya£eiv (v.r. opya^oov) /spotv. Read : xocl Tcpcoxov apx&v 7ry]Xov opya^siv /spotv. In prose •rcpwTov (which I take to be masculine, not neuter) could scarcely, I suppose, be kept in agreement with TiyjXov : but the underlying idiom, if here handled with some boldness, is essentially Greek. Cf. " principi limo." 46 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS Fr. 483. Unemended text : xal TrXvjpsG sxraov-r!, xpucreov xspac; | xpt^si ysfxovTa |i.aX0axYJi; u7toXat.v7]c;. Read : xal Tz\r)pzc, £X7ria)V Tt? ey^puaov xspa<; | pi^si xsvov y' ou {AaXOaxvj? fat' 7r' wXevt^. A Aom, except in certain stories not here in question, cannot be yjibaeov. This Fr. does not point in the direction of a Satyric drama. Fr. 484. Erotian's evidence does not suggest the use of (3Xtfi.a££t,v by Sophocles in its amatory sense. Rather, I take the word to refer to the moulding of Pandora. This Fr. does not point, any more than the last, in the direction of a Satyric drama. Fr. 485. This Fr. is anatomical, not salacious, referring doubtless to the construction of Pandora, and not pointing in the direction of a Satyric drama. Both Sophocles' GvoupvjOpa and Pollux' 6l\jXc, must be under- stood, quasi-metaphorically, of the bladder. Similarly, oupavyj, which both Aeschylus [Fr. 179) and Sophocles (Fr. 565) employ in the literal sense of ajxt?, was also used in one or other of the two anatomical senses of oup7]T7)p (see Pollux himself, n. 223). Cf. Ecclesiastes, xn. 6 : ; ' Antequam rumpatur funiculus argenteus, et recurrat vitta aurea, et conteratur hydria super fontem, confringatur rota super cisternam." Peleus. See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 611, 612). Fr. 490. Unemended text : faco £tco itco (a v.r. gives itw twice only) Kz IIuOn*; (3oa tco 6ew. Bentley, defer- ring justly to the Aristophanic antistrophe, adopts the reading which omits an trw and himself omits the article iw. But the v.r. is probably a conjectural emen- dation. I propose : hq 7rat, xal cpuXaaae \iy\ 8eo<; | xXtvvjc; dTrtoav) g\ dXXa 7rpocr7r£a86<;. " But soon wilt thou wax weary of thy wantonness, if so be I, belabouring with the upturned sinew of thy proper foot thy proper bottom, drive thee before me." Qui facit per alium, facit per se, but (pace Pearson) within limits xal cb<; av 6 (ppovi[ioc, opfoeiev. The addition of o-ou cov makes all the difference. Obviously puxyjpt is a mere variation of xevovxi. Fr. 503. Unemended text : e'vG' (v.r. ei0')y) 7rdpoixo<; 7TY)Xa[j.u<; yzi\LoL,z , zca | 7idpoixo<; 'EXXtjctttovxu;, copaia Oepoix; j tw BoortoptxY)* xwSe yap Oajju^exai. Read : ev0' yj nzSoixoc, 48 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS 7Ty)Aafj.u<; ^etjxdt^erai, | 7rdpo<; 7to0' yj 'AXy]07eovt£?, wpcaa Ospouc; j pco BocnropiTT] tw8' ev ap6p' dXi££Tai. JFY. 504. Unemended text : y.'/][xolai tcXextoi? 7iop] tou<; ito«tci8m)U? | 0piyxou<; c, is accepted. Fr. 508. Unemended text : Xoyco ydp ouSev eXxoc; olSd tcou x avov (f° r ouSev ekxoq o!8d tcou yjxvov there is a v.r. eXxo<; ou§£v 61 ttou— the ou is written, contracted in the ordinary manner, above the tt— tu^£iv). Read : Xoyco ydp eXxo<; ouSev oIS' ittouv yavov. The variant Tuy£Lv, for yavov, is quite outside the ordinary run of corruption, and seems to me to suggest that the line, already mis- written, was once emended into Xoyco ydp eXxoc, ouSiv olSd tiou 7m>y£Lv. The substantive 7m>y(xa is late Greek for a pledget (a piece of lint, or the like, inserted, to stop bleeding, into a wound), and of the verb Tczuaoeiv the compound second aorist passive dva7iTuy9}va!., is Hippo- cratean. Fr. 509. Unemended text : xuvoc; niXkrfi te }X7]xdSo<; fiobc, p7)V£cov. Read : Kuxvoc; T£ toXXt] crpt.7]xd^ co; (3cocrrp£l 0£oov. A trace of a^xd^, for fr/]xd<;, is probably to be found in Hesychius' o^nqXaxEiv (a corruption, I suggest, of a[xy]xaS£iv), to produce a sound. Fr. 511. Unemended text : "ISyj<; frrpzoyz [jiyjXoTpocpw dy£vvou tt) zi tyjv t?)<; "IS-/)*; | Tpt.oXuu.7ii.ov dppta. Read "ISy)<; "I8t)<; j ttote [XTjXorpocpot.' dy£X/)T7) 'craq | — lie, vyj<; "I8v]<; I "ISr^; — TpioXufxraov dp[xa. Cobet proposed Syj 7tot£ for Sy)7roy£. ia-X 49 POLYXENA. Fr. 522. Unemended text : sou (v.r. g\j) 8' a06t (xi[xva)v ty)v (v.r. tou) xar' 'ISaiav ^Qova | Tuoiptva? 'OXu^ttou cruvayaywv OuyjtoXeu Read : (3ou<; aOOi. jxi^vcov ttj xoct' 'ISoaav ^06va | 7rp6[xvo!.<; 'OXuprou 7)7Tr6X£t.. The ablatival 'OXupurou of the mss. text, apart from a geo- graphical difficulty, does not go well in tragedy with a verb (cruvayayoov) that is not distinctly a verb of motion. Besides, Strabo's reference to Athene ought to find its counterpart in the quotation. For ty) in tragedy see my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 421. Fr. 523. Unemended text : oo tocq am' atcova? te xai (x£Xa{i.pa0e^ (v.r. fX£Xafxf3acp£^) | Xwcouaa Xifxvy)? | 'Ax£povro<; 6£u7iX9jya<; yj^oucra yoouc, | ^X6ov &pasva£ x°^- Read : va<; ts xal [izKcc^oidzlq j Xwrouaa Xifxvyj<; ^X0ov, apcrevac; y_X6a<; | 'A^epovro? o^uTiXvjyac; yj/oucrai; yoouc;. From the pit's songless fringes, deep in darkness, am I come hither, even from the male greenwood growths of Acheron, that re-echo with loud beatings of the breast in lamentation. apa£va<; x^° a ? (x^° a ?> ^ or X 0( *C, should also be read in Apollodorus' explanation of the passage) 'Ax£povTo<; is an expression referring to the tree called axspcoi? (Iliad, xiii. 389, and xvi. 482), which Hercules was reputed to have brought to earth from Hell. In Attic the axspoH? was called the Xeuxyj. The tree is a variety of the aiyeipot;. The bisexuality of the aiyeipo? was known to the ancients, who distinguished (see Liddell and Scott) between the aiysipo? axapTco? and the atystpo? xap7ro xuc,, whereas axTa? (pro- posed by Jacobs, for v (v.r. av) £x Ovtjt^? t£ 9U? I Aibc, y£voijr/)v £5 cppov£tv (for e5 cppov£tv there is a v.r. £ucppov£l!v) aoq)(OT£po^ ; Read : ou yap ti? av SuvaiTO 7rpa>- paryjc; oTpaTOU | toic, 7raat.v sl^at xal rcpocrapxlaat, x<*P iv ' | stcsI ouS' 6 xp£tcro-wv Z£u<; ky.ou TUpavvtSt. j out' £^£7ro[x6pcov out' £7iau^[jLY)CTa^ 91X05, I ^poTOi? 8' av eX0cov ic, Sixtjv y' aytov' 69X01. I 7t:c5<; 89]t' £yoi 0vt}t6<; y' av lx 0vy)ty)i; t£ 9U5 | At, 6? ysvoifjnqv Zsu? 9pov£tv ao9coT£poi; ; Wecklein proposed 7rao-t.v sl£ai, Grotius s^£7co(xPpcov, Dobree 8' av IX0a)v, and Brunck 69X01 . Procris. I have no remarks to offer. Rhizotomt. Fr. 534. In 1. 6 follow Ellendt. Salmoneus. See my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 615). Fr. 537. Unemended text : tocS' ecttI xvt.07i.65 xat 9tX"/]!i.aTcov 96905* I Tw xaXXixoTTapouvTt vtx7)T7]pt.a j TiBvjfju xal ^aXovTi x^ x£l0v *apa. Read : yavv] 'ctI xvt.0-^65 xal 9iXy][j,aTwv 9690*; | Trrdoy' - aXXa xoocra(3ouvTt, vt,XT)T7jpia | Ti0y)[i,t. xal ^aXovTi yaXxEiov xapa. The paratactic xoacra- (iouvTt, xal (3aXovTi is idiomatic in place of the anti-idiomatic IQ-X 51 xo(7<7a(3ouvTt. paXovxt (to him that shall have hit in the course of play) : xaXXt,xo<7cra(3ouvTt. would scarcely suit this construction. ^aXxsiov, in lieu of yaXxsov, is evidently Satyric. SlNON. I have no remarks to offer. Sisyphus. I will only say that I see no reason lor doubting the existence of this drama. SCYTHAE. Fr. 546. Under the headings Fr. 343 and Fr. 344 I have referred to what I have here to say. Fr. 343 (belonging to the Colchides) consists, so far as it exists, of a statement, in a scholium on Apollonius Rhodius, that runs thus : ScKpoxXJjc; Ss sv KoX^iai cpvjal xaxa t6v oixov tou AirjTou tov 7iatSa (i.e. Absyrtus ) crcpay^va!, . It is thus manifest that Absyrtus is mentioned in the Colchides. Observe — the reason for the observation will shortly appear— that the name "A^upxo? closely accords prima facie in etymology with the name I/rpo(3iX7]. Fr. 344 (commonly attributed to the Scythae and regarded as a mistaken quasi-presentation of Fr. 546, but assigned by Pearson to the Colchides) consists, likewise so far as it exists, of a statement, in another scholium on Apollo- nius Rhodius, that runs thus : Aiovu concludes that it seems better to transfer the fragment here (i.e. to the Colchides). I agree that " it is certain that in the ZxuOca Sophocles made Idyia the mother of Medea " : but in the passage in the Scythae dealing with the matter (Fr. 546) it is to be noted (a) that part of the extant language employed is such as strongly to suggest that the personage once e2 52 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS known as Idyia subsequently changed her name, and (6) that there is a lacuna which may easily be filled up with a statement that she changed it to Neaera. Here is the unemended text of Fr. 546 : ou yap ex \uolc, | xout)<; s'pXacrrov, aXX' 6 jiiv NvjpTjtSo^ J rexvov ap-a pXaareaxsv y\v (for pXacTTScrxsv -qv there is a v.r. pXaaravecrxs tyjv S') j EtSuta 7rptv tcot' '£2xeavou xopvj tixtsv. Now, though uptv 7tot\ in opposition to apTt, merely conveys that Medea was older than Absyrtus (one form of the legend), yet apxi (SXaaxsCTxev is so obviously corrupt (apart from metre, the iterative form in -eaxev is impossible in the context) that one is even at first sight led to wonder whether the opposition may not be non-original and whether, in view of the lacuna in 1. .3, ixpiv 7tot' may not really mean that a daughter of Ocean, whose later name has disappeared in 1. 3, was at an earlier date known as Idyia. Every- thing becomes clear if, with strict regard to the ductus, so far as it extends, we read : ou yap ex fxia? | xoitt]<; s'pXaerrov, aXX' 6 (j.ev N/jpTjiSo; | tcxvov Srpo[3tX7]<;, he, o° svtjv , | EiSuZoc 7ip(v tot', '£2xeavou TixTei xopv). Nauck proposed tixtei xopy) (Bergk, I understand, had previously proposed stixtsv xopvj). On marriage with a mortal EtSuta doubtless lost her supernatural know- ledge. I put forward my reading with confidence : it solves difficulties. I infer that in the Colchides Sophocles had, in the context to which " Fr." 343 refers, without qualification called Medea a daughter of Neaera, and that in the Scythae he wrote as above in order to reconcile —though he is not necessarily himself the inventor of the reconciliation — that statement with the more prevalent legend. Note that, on this view, Sophocles styles Strobile only, not Idyia, alias Neaera, into the bargain, a Nereid : the latter he speaks of merely as a daughter of Ocean. But the Apollonian scholiast (see, just above, the quotation called by Pearson Fr. 344) speaks of Sophocles representing " Neaera, one of the Nereids," as mother of Medea and Circe ; for the exten- sion of the term Nereid see Jebb on Bacchylides' Eitheoe. I draw the further inference that the Scythae was com- posed and produced later than the Colchides. Fr. 550. See my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 34. m-x 53 SCYEII. Fr. 555. Unemended text : ^ (a v.r. omits 7^) 7tovto- vaurat, twv TaXaurcopcov (3poTcov, | olc; outs 8ai|i.cov outs rt? 0£wv vspicov I 7iXoutou 7tot' av vstyisiav di;iav x^P lv - ! Xs7ct% (v.r. X£7iT7J(;) s7uppo7TYJo"t.v (v.rr. £tcI po7rYJcn.v and £7uppo7r9iat.v) EfjuroXdc; fjiaxpat; | ael TcapappiTTTovTS? ol 7roXucp0opoi. | yf, waav (v.r. coc; dv) r) xspSavav tj St,a>X£ciav. Read : r) 'vouTpa vauTai y' & v TaXat,7rcopcov TpoTrcov, | olc, out£ Saoycov out£ ti? Gcocov ys[i.cov | tcXou? y' ouuot av vsi^sisv d^iav y&pw | Xstctkii; £7i£t po7njcnv sptoXdc; dxpac; J del 7rapappL7iT0VTE<; ol 7coXucp0opoi I 7} 'acoaav dxspSavav y\ SicoXscrav. The accentu- ation 9) is accepted : Meineke proposed ys^cov for vsfj.cov and X£7iTaL^ for Xs7roj<; or Xs7rr9j<;, as also the emendation y\ 'crcoaav dxspSavav : Brunck changed vsijxsiav into vetfjtsiev. I consider my Sacrfxcov and 0cpcov (apart from the question of the iota subscript) certain, and I suspect some topical reference, vaurai y ... olc, I take as roughly equivalent in the long run to vaurat. . . . olc, y' , and (I must here beg the reader to pardon a statement that, unless read more than once, may seem unintelligible) outs SacruSv outs tic 00svTa 7ip6? to cpei? aysiv J xai \xoi ydp dv Ttar/jp ts [v.r. ys) Saxputov 54 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS yjxpiv | avyjxx' av etc, 9001;. Read : dXX' st [j.sv ^v xXatouctv taaOat xaxd j xat t6v 0av6vxa Saxpuoi^ dvtcrrdvat, | 6 ypuo"6c; ^ottov xTY)fi.a tou xXatstv av ^v. I vuv 8', 00 yspats, TauV dv/)vu6', d)^ s^st I to. y' lv Tapw xpucpOsvxa Ilsposqjacrcr' ay/]' I xd[xot yap av TiaTYjp to ys Saxpucov ydptv | ocvtjxt' av £<; 9(0?. The emendations 9jo-aov, Iv TOC90) (proposed by Bergk), xajxoi, and s<; are accepted. Herwerden and Nauck expel 1. 5 ; but my slight alteration of 11. 4 and 5 removes the obvious stumbling-block. In 1. 6 xdptot yap av 7raT7)p y£ is generally approved : but yap . . .ye, in such close connexion, is an impossibility, whereas yap . . . to y£ is a different matter (and the y£ becomes fully intelligible). Syndipni. There seem to have been two Sophoclean plays of this name, one dealing with the banquet of Polydectes at Seriphos, the other with that of the Achaeans at Tenedos : see under Fr. 564. With regard to the latter of these consult my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 608, 609). Fr. 562. Unemended text (of the anonymous Ilepi. Tpoircov and of Dionysius Thrax) : ytvsTat 8s dcvaarpoqw] xat 8ta 7tXei.6vcov [XEpwv tou Xoyou, oic, 7rapa Zo90xXEt ev XuvSEtirvotc; yj 0£Tt<; Tipbc, tov 'A^tXXsa yn\ai' (up to this point the two authorities agree : the former continues thus) XtTtouaa [jlev tovtlov yopov wpouaa N7)py]t8(ov to yap e£% outoo<; hart- 7rovTtov yopov Xtr:ouo-a Ny]p7)t8(ov wpouaa. OTt [xetoc ah dvTt tou izpbc, ck xat Trap' 'HatoSco. (but the latter authority continues, instead, thus) Xsi7rou(ja (jlev 7iovTtov yopov NvjpYjtScov ojpouaa on fjiETa as dvTt tou 7cp6^ cte xat Trap' 'Ho-toSto. Read the Sophoclean Fr. as : ak Xi7couaa (xsv 7c6vti.ov | /opov oopouaa N'/jpyjtScov. The whole point of the grammatical note, which in the Flspi. Tpoucov is but slightly corrupted, is that Xtjrouo-a [xev tcovtiov comes after (fxETa), instead of before (dvTt tou 7rp6, mis- written dvTt tou Tipbq), the word ck, which word is ' governed " by a>pouo-a, wo£ by Xwroucra. Evidently Hesiod presented some similar interlacement. Emend the relevant part of the note thus : ak Xmouaa (j.sv tcovtiov yppbv oSpouaa Ny)p7]t8o:>v to ydp s^yjc; outcoc; Icm (/o/* the ordo is ^i'-s)- tuovtiov yopov XtTCouaa NvjpvjiScov cSpoucra as. to ti [jletoc as dvTt tou 7ipo as (sifc/i and such words come after, instead of before, cte). xat Trap' 'Ho-t6v xal ZocpoxXvj? <7UvS£t7rvot 97)v xal So- GCH.C, iyzi | 0paauv 7T£Tpatov opvtv lv 7iavT£u/ia' | be, f$i [i.sv 9avsvTi SiaraxXXst, 7iT£p6v | xipxou XETrapyou* 8uo yap oOv [xopcpa 'X9av£i,, | tzvXc, oc, texovtolv ^v 8uotv [note, octco" | vsa<; 8' 07ra)pa<;, 7)vix' av |av0yj ctoc^Ui;, | cttixty) vlv aO0i.<; dqxepsveo- ticje 7TT£pu£ - j aSa 8' afJit.o-0', "Ituv 0' 6 t' aXyo? extotcov | Spufj.ou<; iprniovc, xal Tcayoix; £l7r' obmaat.. In 1. 4 860 [xopcpa 'Xv (3tov | xspTrvcoc; yap a£t rcavxac; 7] dvota xpecpsi. | oxav (after oxav a v.r. inserts 8') !<; tj^yjv e£iXG>[xe9' sucppovs?, j v etjjtt xcopvtc/ dXXa 7roXXdxtc, yuvvj | efJXevJ/ zt auxT] x>)v yuvatxstav cpuatv, j coc ouSev £(7[X£v. | at veat fxev lv 7raxpo<; | ^Staxov, oljjtat, £co[i.ev dv0pto7uov (3tov j xsp7rvco ydp eta 7iat8ac, dvota xpscpst. j oxav 8' zq "^rjv s£txcou.s0' sutcppovs?, I coOoujjtsO' f£oo xat 8t£u.7coXcoa£0a | 0ecov 7raxpcocov xcov x£ cpuadvxtov a7ro, | at fjtsv £evouc, izpbc, dvSpac,, at 8e (3ap(3dpou<;, | at 8' etc, dY)89j 8co[Jta0', at 8' smppoOa. | xat xaux', £7T£t8dv sucppov/j £su£y) (xta, j XP £< ^ V £7catv£tv xat Soxstv xaXcoc, £X£tv. In 1. 1 (particularly in view of the zfiXztyy. xauxv) or xauxvjv of the mss. in 1. 2) the change of ouSsv to d'/jScov (the u of ouSsv, in a diphthong, is no objection) and the addition of yuvyj appear to me rather necessary than desirable. The resultant trochaic tetrameter was cut down into an iambic trimeter because of the sequence of such trimeters that immediately follows. For the change of metre (though not in the middle of a sentence, and though in the reverse direction) compare a speech of Cassandra in Euripides' Troades (11. 426-463, Kirchhoff's numbering), where the transition presents itself thus (in the course of 11. 443-446, the same numbering) : doc, 8s auvxlu^co, | xal (for xat read fixe,) (wv he, "AtSvjv xdxcpuycov Xt[j.vr,c; uScop | xdx' lv 86[j.otat jxupt' supvjaet fjtoXcov. | onXkk ydp xt xouc/OSuaaEco? lc>.xovxt£co tovouc;; In his extant plays Sophocles employs trochaic tetrameters so sparsely (there are sixteen non-lyrical trochaic tetrameters in the Oedipus Tyrannus, four in the Oedipus Coloneus, and six IQ-X 59 in the Philoctetes, but none in Sophocles' other plays) that we really gather no notion how, when, if ever, he gave himself a looser rein, he is likely to have dealt with the metre. I have considered, but only to dismiss, the theoretical possibility that the whole passage was once couched in tetrameters : true, the caesura is penthe- mimeral throughout, and true also a sequence of eleven trimeters with penthemimeral caesura comes, as a rule, not more than a dozen or so times in a play ; but, on a balance, the probabilities against such wholesale altera- tion as would be involved are overwhelmingly greater. We know definitely from a scholiast on Aristophanes (Aves, 99 et seq.) that in the Tereus of Sophocles Procne appears in the form of a bird (editors have been so silly and arrogant as to contradict point-blank the scholiast's express statement). I wonder whether she was of full human size : in that case recourse, one would think, must have been had to some such relative adap- tation of magnitudes as not many years ago we saw at Porte St. Martin in Rostand's CJiantecler . But, if she was of the size of an ordinary nightingale, then, doubtless, she was a dummy, moved by strings, and an actor in con- cealment, when her beak opened, spoke her part. In 1. 3 at vsat. [j.£v ev uaxpo? is Valckenaer's emendation. In 1. 5 F. W. Schmidt proposed TcacSa? for7ravra?, and the spelling ocvoLa is accepted : after much consideration I adopt Schmidt's tzoli&v.c, (as an uncial corruption of toxvtoc?), but I cannot— least of all from Sophocles, who knew his Herodotus— take, in the one sense here possible, the expression ast tzolISv.c, ; consequently I alter zzp-KV&c, yap del to T£p7rvco yap sta (adjectives in -oq, e.g. "kiyvoc,, are biterminational at will : of s£a, cibus, I have treated in my 'Avxl Mtoc?). In 1. 6 Dobree proposed s[x]v Ai6^ ouSsl? tcov [jlsXXovtcov | Ta^tia? on xP"^ TsxsXeaOai. Read : Ovyjtoc 9pov£LT(o | 0vy)T7] cpuffi? sO touto xaxaSuT, I oic, ou8' sl<; Tl£ tcX>]v Aio? oISsv I tcov [xsXXovtwv I Ta[xia<; 6 n -/jpr\ TsxeXeaOat.. i xustv. For XEpaalov (of Cherrha or Cherse : observe the 0p9)i£ av/]p in the passage of Archilochus quoted— vide Pearson's note — by Athenaeus) see my Macedonian Tetralogy, p. 53. Troilus. See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 613, 614). There has been much folly written about this play. I should fancy that Sophocles' Troilus was a good deal less dissimilar from Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida than from the vain thing fondly imagined by some scholars : Sophocles respected at least the elementary moralities. Fr. 620. Unemended text : axaXfi-TJ yap opx E! ^ (3aaiXl<; !xT£[i.voucr' k\Lo\ic,. Qui facit per alium facit per se, says Pearson. Yes ; but, when it is quae, not qui, and the particular quae a fiuaikic, ? Read : o-xaX[A7) yap opyzic, PaffiXl? ixT£[avouo-' efi.ou?. Bergk proposed this, except that he wrote axaXfAT) : why he has not been followed I do not understand (the adjectival (3ao-iXt?, royal, is tragic). The change of accent (axaX[j.^ to o-xaX[xy)) was first made by Dindorf . IQ-X 63 Tympanistae. The occurrence of 8paxauXo<; (Fr. 643), plus the pre- sumably non-lyrical nature of the Chorus, suggests to me (see my edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 58, 59) that the Tympanistae was in some sense a satyricum. Boeckh and Hermann both considered it to be such. Fr. 636. Unemended text : xi toutou x°wa fxst^ov av Xa(3ot,<; tote (a v.r. gives the line as - £ ^ov, 77 'v Xa(3ai£ | orw yyj^ E7ui];auo"avTt. cav uto crrEy/jv | tiuxvtj^ axouaou there are v.rr. xal oXiyco and xoXtyco) ypovco I 7iav tcXoutov (v.r. tcXoutov) 6X[3ov 8aifi.ovo<; xaxou <$6gic„ I oTav pLSTao"T?j xal Qtoic, Soxvj tocSe. Read : ou XP"*) tot' e5 TcpacraovTOi; 6X(3tcrat. i^yjxc, | avSpoc, 7cplv av to> rcav- tsXouc; ijlyjSt) Alo? | 8isx7Tspav07) xal teXsuttjo"/) (3iov. | lv yap Ppax^t xaOstXs xaxXuasv XP° vc : i I TiaprXouTov 6X(3ov 8aifju>vo<; xaT' oOpov Xc,i I OTav fjLETacrTT] xal 6eoi<; 80x7) tocSe. Gesner restored 7cdc(jwcXourov. Tyro I. and II. For these plays and their plots see my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 378-431). As regards Tyro I. see also 64 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS my remarks in this book re Fr. 322, and as regards Tyro II . those under the heading Camici. Fr. 648. See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 379, 380). Fr. 650. See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 380, 381). This Fr. does not come from either of the Tyro plays : it is from the Tyria Rhoeti, a Paean. Fr. 651. Follow Kuester : see my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 381, 524). Fr. 652. See my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 381). Fr. 653. See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 380, 382, 428). Fr. 654. Unemended text : xocl \xr\ scrrco tic, &v elg riixoic, !£s8pov x^pav s^cav (there are v.rr. of the line xocl [XT] ECTTOt) TZ&C, COV ZIC, Tj^OiC, l^sSpOV X^P aV : T ' 1 ^ OpVIC, OOXOC; s£e8pov x°>P av s^wv ; Aristophanes writes in parody vvj Ai' sxspoc; 89]Ta /oSto? l^sSpov xP° av — v - r - X^P av — ^X wv ») Read: xav [iicrto ti? opv^ "Hpa<; e^sSpov x^P av ^X cov - See my edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 380, 382, 383, 422. jFr. 655. See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 380, 383). Fr. 656. See mv edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 380, 383). Fr. 657. See my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 265, re the anagnorisis in Pratinas' Neleus). Fr. 658. Follow Cobet. See also my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 380). Fr. 659. This .Fr. certainly refers to the loss, by some woman, of her hair, and it is ascribed by Aelian to a, or the, Tyro (I will in a moment be more explicit) of Sophocles. Everyone understands it of the indignities undergone by Tyro, daughter of Salmoneus ; and in my edition of the Ichneutae I followed, without adequate consideration, the general opinion. But vac, Siaxe- T',Xfjtivy)<; (v.r. 8t.aT£Tt,X[xsvfl) (p6fif}C,. | cpeu, xav avotx-upfxcov tic, oixxstpeis viv I 7TT7](JC70UC7av alcrxuvTjcriv ola [Aaivsxai I TievGoucra xal xXaiouaa rqv uapoc; cpo(3y]v. Read : x6fnr)<; Se TOvOo? Xayx^vo) ttwXou Sfoajv, | -fyu<; auvapTraaOeiG' av 6vo- xoXcov {j7ro I fxav Spate; sv br7t£iaicn.v aypia X z 9 l I 0£po? 0£pta07) £av66v au^£V(ov arco, | crya0£Lcra S' £V X£t(i. xal Zsuc; scpopfAYjcroi (v.r. ecpopfJLyjCTY]) xaxd' j voaouc; S' dvdyxY) xou<; 0£7)XdxoUi; (pspsiv. Read : aaxvjfxov', co yuvaix£^, ouS' av £l<; ©uyot. | d[3poxtov toSGcov, av Zsu? £x fcrav ouxo<; ovxiv' supyjasi^ eva. Read : to S' £uxuj(ouvxa toxvx', dpiO^aa? (Spoxtov | gxaaxov ou xoiov xt.v' eup^cst? Iva. i3w£, as /or 2/owr ma?i fortunate in all things, you may go through the whole gamut of humanity and yet never light upon one such. xoiov tlv' is idiomatic for xoiov, so that the xtv' and the sva do not interfere with each other. Fr. 682. Unemended text : ouxco yuvaixo? ouSev av [lziC,qv xaxov j xax% dvvjp xxY)<7at.x' dv ouSs: acocppovo? | xp£taraov (v.r. {j.£t£ov xp£Lv 7ty)x £ ^ The sub- stitution of an ordinary word for a much less ordinary word might perhaps cause u (not the second element of a diphthong) to appear by way of corruption. Fr. 683. Unemended text : ou ydp tot' dv ylvoivx' dv oLayaCkzic, izoXzic, (for ylvotvx' dv dacpaXet*; 7i6X£t,? there are v.rr. ysvoivx' dv dcrcpaXY)? 7roXi<; : 'yevoixo dcrcpaXfy; toSXu; : ysvoix' dv d<7xs xco Su^yjv (3ia. Read : to npbc, (3iav tuslv | i'crov xaxov rtlcpuxe toj Sm^yjv (3£a. See my edition of the Ichneutae (p. 358), in which book I suggest (see pp. 353- 377) that it comes from an Eridion Agyrticum. OTHER FRAGMENTS 73 Fr. 736. Consult my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 358, 360), in which book I suggest (see pp. 353-377) that it comes from an Eridion Agyrticum. Fr. 738. Unemended text : xavTocuOa (a v.r. omits xavrocuOa) 7ta? 7cpooxuvsi Be t6v axpecpovxa tjXiou xuxXov (for yjXiou xuxXov there is a v.r. xuxXov tjXiou). Read : xdviccu- a'toic, Tzupoic, | xuv' elBe tov crxpsfpovTa y' vjXtou xuxXov. The y' compensates, I think, for the not strictly normal position of tov (as regards its relation to eviauaiou; 7tupol<;) : in tragedy, at least, deviations from accustomed order are sometimes corrected, as it were, by ys. The reference is obviously to the Herodotean reason for the variation in the sun's course. Fr. 752. Unemended text (of the author of De Arati Interpretations) : oi Be Aia tov -qXiov voyjaavTS? Xeyouotv oti xod SocpoxXvjc; Aia tov t^Xiov xocXel, Xsycov yjsXioto XTeipeis e\ii, | aocpot Xeyoucyt ysw^r/jv 6scov | uaTspa toxvtcov. Read : "HXt.', oixzipoic, s(xs. j crocpoi o£ Aia Xeyoucrt, ysvvyjTTjv ts 0swv, j toxtyjp, a^avTcov. M. Schmidt proposed 'HeXto? oixTSLpot?, then Bergk "HXt,' outTsCpot?, and finally Nauck "HXt', ofompou;. JV. 753. Unrestored and unemended text of the papyrus (from Herculaneum) of Philodemus' De Poemati- bus (whether the original presents any spaces, stops, or diacritical marks I do not know) : xaXcoa£;££i.vr)xaxcj[i.£v[. .]7rapaaocpoxXst.[3apuo-papuo-uvoixo[. -]£ £v " ot,(3a[.]u(70U§t,aT7)v[. . JvOsoxvcoorivscrf ]tcoi[. . . . |c>£e- vot,xoo"co£evot,(3apuo"Papuc;. Goettling reads : xaXw? ex £tv ^ xaxw? t6v i\x ov tcoeiv xaXco? fxsv a>c roxpa 2o £svoi, (3apu<; (3apu?. Hausrath, on the other hand, reads: xaXco<; 'iyza r\ xaxw? tov ^}x 0V tco 5 ^" xaXcoc; ptev wc toxooc ZocpoxXsi [3apo? (3apu<; auvotxo<;, 91X01, Bapo?. As the Jn'pZe Bapu? is highly surprising in itself, and as none of 74 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS these three authorities— though all three are discussing repetitions or the like— hint at its existence, I conclude that a third (3apu<; has been interpolated into the first of the two versions of the line text of Philodemus for the mere purpose of completing a senarius. This conclusion enables us to understand Hausrath's cnjvOscnv [collocation), which — Goettling's z-rchQzaw (insertion) being almost patently impossible— is apparently the right reading, whereas, given a triple (Bapuc;, each of the two Philo- demian versions of the line exhibits cnSv8sm<; equally. Read : xoCh&c, £/ei (it is possible) 7] xax65<; tov 3jyov 7CoeZv xaXwc; [xev, toe, roxpa SocpoxXsi/ (3apuc; auvot,xo<;, d> £evoi, (3apu<;- ou Sia tt]v auvOsaiv, &c, twz$, r/]v (3' (i.e. Ssuxepou) (3apu<; tw (3ap\i<;- £uvoixo<;, d> £evot,, (3apu<; ftapu?. I gather then that Sophocles wrote (I take ^uvoixo?, instead of cnivoixot;, from the ^ivoixoc, of the second version in the text of Philodemus, though cruvoixo? must stand behind the first version : it is also preferred by editors) : (fopus £uvoixo<;, ax aTsp, I ] ptovov tlxtougiv at OvyjTat, Osou*;. Read : 0y][3ac; Xsysi<;, (isy' occjtu, tto 8' syxo? ev | toctI xuXivSstou ? .FY. 782. Follow Sylberg. Fr. 785. Mss. text : fxopco (v.n*. (xupco and [xupto) Xsuya- Xsto (v.r. XeuyaXstov : moreover a second v.r., viz. Xsuya>ia, may be deduced from Photius' XsuyocXsa* SiafBpoxo?. outw 2ocpoxX%). In view of the evidence of the more or less late identification in meaning of XsuyaXso? and 76 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS uypo<;, I suspect, in spite of the discovery of the excel- lently accredited reading jxopco, that Nauck is right in accepting (xopw XsoyaXsa. Had not Sophocles just a trifle of a weakness for whimsies of this sort ? Fr. 790. Is it certain that the words in Eustathius ou7T6> . . . xpcojxsvov stand in need of emendation ? Fr. 793. Follow Dindorf in 1. 1 and R. Ellis in 1. 3. Fr. 799b. See under the heading of Fr. 57. Fr. 805. In the text of John the Siceliot Jannaracis' fjtxojjLELTou (for (j.t.[i,ELToa) should, I think, be adopted. It looks as though the reference were to Sophocles' De Choro. See my edition of the Ichneulae, pp. 305-312, and, in particular, pp. 31.1, 312. Fr. 808. Unemended text : 6rt yap Tuapsivat, xal arufxcpiXoaocpsov oxav 8' duo <77raa0fj xxX. Unemended text of Plutarch (Qu. Conv.) : ou fxovov oaotq spuTo? Syjy^a 7ip6cr£crTtv, ax; 975(71. 2o7rd8t [3apEta 7iXY)y[jt,ao-tv 6' utiyjxoov | a^u^ov uXyjv Sy]fxioupyouvT£<; x £ P°^ v - T. Gataker first endeavoured to couple the passages, reading, after 7rpoo-xp£7r£o-0£, the words xat reap' ax[j.ovt | xutoxSi (iapEta, but carrying his treatment no further. The text, after 7rpocrxp£7rEo-0s, adopted by me is that of Hermann, with the sole ex- ception that, in lieu of Hermann's xat xo7cot<;, I accept Blaydes' 7rXy)y[xacrtv 6' . See my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 353-377, and in particular pp. 373, 374), in which I suggest that the Fr. belongs to a Sophoclean Eridion Agyrticum. Fr. 848. Here (1. 1), as in Fr. 349 (see my remarks thereon), the spelling of o- Ttai, -nxpXoc. -F'or, retarded in the lobes, the iron-point will only just and scarcely go through the ear when it is being bored ; though jar off I see, at hand, my child, I am blind. The reference is obviously to the popular belief (now discredited, rightly or wrongly, by the faculty), that to bore the ears improves the eye- sight, but with an addition— otherwise unknown to me— that difficulty experienced in the operation presages an unsuccessful result. Dindorf emended 7coppco to upoaco. For 7tpo<7(3oX/), the metal point of a puncturing imple- ment, see Dion Cassius (xxxviii. 49) and Phrynichus (in Bekker's Anecdota, 58). Fr. 859. No emendation whatever is necessary. Fr. 860. Unemended text of Plutarch : tou 2oTOV 9)X0sv a7ra£. Text of Artemidorus : dvrjp tcvtj? e8o£e Xeyeiv touto t6 lafApeiov* a7ravra TaSoxTjxa 7rpic, sucppovai? Suo I aTYJvat. Sovaif' dv outot' iv [xopcpTJ [xia, | dXX' s| dSyjXou TrpwTov Ip^sxat via OTHER FRAGMENTS 81 Ttpoacorac xaXXuvoucra xal 7cX7jpou{xevy], | yonoLVTzzp aim)? EuysvscrraTY) (v.r. euirpETCSCTTaTT)) 9p6va, but eucppovaii; is, I suggest, a mis- writing of sucppova eiQ. In 1. 8 the [rqSsv of xoori [r/)8sv is, of course, not Greek, not even late Greek : even Plutarch boggled at it, presenting once the perfectly grammatical (but, as parent of the corruption, hope- lessly impossible) xst? to (jltjSev. But good scholars will apparently swallow any rubbish, if only a copyist has happened to scribble it. xa7c' aSyjXov should be read, referring back to the IE, aSrjXou of 1. 5. Cf. " From the great deep to the great deep he goes." An identical correction must be effected in Sophocles' Electra, 1. 1000. Fr. 872. Unemended text : xal rav vsopyov (v.r. vsoupyov) occtet' v BouXsufxaxa. Read : ]crcov xal xaXco? 7rpaEcov tcote, j upcoTov y' Ev' l^cov tiocvt' a^ievai 0d(3p' oloc,, | suoyxo<; elvat yacrrpl [xtj 7rX7)poufi£V/] | o"T£py£tv t' iSpic pole; coctte 0Y)p, £7i£t,0' oloc, | /Ei^om t' dax£ov oxo[j.a 0£p{j.a0' yjXlou | TO^£U[xaT' aivsiv [XT] axt.aTpo(pou[x£vo<;. | vuv 8' oux I0ia0el? tout' s7uaTafj.ai fj.£V ou, | 9£p£tv 8' dvayxT) 'err', ou8' dp' 'Op9£a Xa(3cov | a^ovTa Mouarcov EWEoapOoyyov y.£\oc, | oux dv iz'Soitxi yaaT£p', ol'XXol Ssot, fiiou. See my edition of the Ichneutae (unnumbered page immediately before the Index of Subjects), in which book {I.e. ; and see pp. 353-377) I suggest that the Fr. comes from a Sophoclean Eridion Agyrticum. Fr. 947. Unemended text : o-repysiv 8s TaxTCo-ovTa xal 0£8' oxav (3dxxpov Xa^yj, | £[xvy)[x6v£i>aEV, dXXa xsxxyjxai [j.6Xicj. | xaux' o5v 9pcov (a v.r., ignored by Pearson, omits y) Soxppoov). It looks at first sight strange for an author of a lexicon to doubt coram populo whether certain words come from Sophocles or from Sophron. Let us then assume for the sake of argument (though the assumption will hardly be found to hold water) that the doubt expressed is the result of an alteration of the text. On that hypothesis, apparently simple alternative explanations would be (a) that a copyist had before him an abbreviation which he was uncertain whether to expand as Sophocles or as Sophron, or (b) that Sophocles stood in the text, but that some copyist, thinking that the passage savoured rather of Sophron, added the words or Sophron. But the open confession involved in the former alternative and the critical temper displayed in the second are alike foreign to scribal practice. I infer, on the whole, that the doubt is really that of the author of the dictionary, i.e. that we are dealing with a passage of deliberately disputed authorship. One can well understand, in view of the refusal to attribute tetralogies (or anything of the sort) to Sophocles, that the plots and titles of some of his Satyric dramas must have been found very inconvenient. Hence, I suggest, the 9] Scoopcov. The fact that a v.r. (and it is a v.r. of some authority) omits yj Soocppcov is significant. The words &y& to SeXyjtiov look to me like verse ; and therefore I take them more probably as from a Satyric— Satyric because of the diminutive— drama by Sophocles than from a mime by Sophron. Fr. 1125. This line seems to come from an hexa- metrical poem— ranking, I take it, with the Paeans— by Sophocles, called the Onomacles and written in honour of Onomacles' victory off Miletus in the year 412 B.C. OTHER FRAGMENTS 93 It appears to connect in some way or other Buthia, or Buthoea, in Ionia with Buthoe (as it is commonly called), on the Drilon, in Illyria, a city founded by Cadmus. Fr. 1126. Unemended text : st? Tat? (for el? xai? there is a v.r. Ivxat?) aXTjGeiaio-iv, etc, sarlv (v.r. ecmv) 6s6? (v.r. 6 Geo?), | o? oupavov x' exeu^e (for oupavov x' exeu^e there are v.rr. oupavov x' exeu^e : oupavov xexeu^e : oupavov xexeu^ai, : oupavov exeu£e : x6v oupavov exeu?e) xal yalav [xaxpyjv (v.r. (xaxpav) | tcovxou xe yjxponbv olSjjta xave(j.oov (v.r. xal ave^uov) (Jiav (v.rr. fjta? and (3ia). | GvyjxoI 8s tcoXXoI xapSiav (for noKkol xapStav there are v.rr. rcoXXol xapSb) : 7roXu xapSia : rcoXuxepSia) 7rXavdo[i.svoi, (v.r. 7TS7rXav7]!iivoi) { ISpuaoqjeaGa (v.r. ISpucdqxeGa) 7rv][xaxcov Tcapa^u^vjv (v.r. 7capa^u^a<;) j Geoov ayaXfxax' ex XiGoov tq /aXxeoov (for XiGoov ^ XaXxecov there are v.rr. x&v £uXcov % xaXxscov : XtGtvcov 7^ £uXcov yj ■/jxky.zcxtv : XiGcov xe xal ^uXcov : XiGcov xal £uXoov) | 7} Xpuaoxeuxxtov 7) eXcpavxivoov xutcou? (v.r. xuraav)- | Guaia? 8e xouxoi? xal xaxa? (v.rr. xeva? : xaXa? : xoiva?) 7ravY)yupei? | axecpovxe? (v.rr. vejxovxe? and xeu/ovxe?) ouxco? euaepelv (for ouxco? eucre(3elv v.rr. are yjfAei? eucrepelv and euaefSelv by itself) vofx^opisv. Read : aaxat? 'AXyjGet.' T/jcrev el? eaxlv Geo?, | ? oupavov x' e x e u £ e xal y a 1 a v [ia/- X7]v|7r6vxoux' a xa p 71 o v oIS[xa x a v e fi. to v (3 lav. I Gvt]xoI Se toXXou? 7rap6St,ot TcXavcofxevot | ISpuo-ajxeoGa, 7i7][i.axwv 7rapa^u^7]v | aGXtov x' ayaXjxa, xexxovtov 7] ^aXxecov I *) XP U<70T£UXT <° V *) 'Xecpavxi^cov xutcou?* | Guaia? xe xouxoi? xal xeva? 7rav>jyup£t,? | o"xe^, avnxpu? hz\ t% ctxyjvyji; !x(3oa' (here follow the nine lines of the fragment). Clement continues thus : Eupi7u8-/)<; 8s etcI tyjc; auTTJ^ ctxyjvyjc rpaycpStov opa? tov u^ou tovS' oarsipov ouOepa J xal y/jv rapt,?; ijovd' uypaic; ev ayxa- Xat? ; | toutov vojju^s Z9jva, tovS' yjyou 0s6v (this fragment —Fr., of Euripides, 941—1 emend in my Euripidean Fragments). Now Clement was a fairly good scholar, and, although, like Josephus, he was misled into thinking that the forged Jewish treatise about Abraham was a genuine work of Hecataeus of Abdera, yet — so at least I contend— he only mentions that treatise at all in order not to scandalise certain weaker brethren among his Christian readers : he lived in a period of acute sus- ceptibilities, and it was not only more prudent, but also more charitable, not to make an unnecessary parade of much first-hand acquaintance with the pagan classics ; and a few references, such as the reference we have here, to decorous sources of information, lend, as it were, a certain colour of inoffensiveness to other classical quotations as to the immediate provenance of which he is silent. But, for those that have ears to hear, his language is charged OTHER FRAGMENTS 97 with a meaning that would escape, and. was meant to escape, the vulgar. He is quite deliberately imitating Plutarch (Amat. 13, p. 757 a) : aXX' arco (zta? axY)v% 8s- ou KuTcpi? [xovov, | aXX' sort 7roXXwv ovo^xixtcov sto!>vu[xo<;. | &rav jxsv "Ai8y)<;, f is even more demonstrably untragic (would, I wonder, Jebb have approved $Ssiv 'yco, had he found it in a well-accredited text ?). As regards Satyric drama, the first four words above mentioned are not of a class so alien (see the Ichneutae passim) to that milieu as to tragedy, though they come much too close together even for Satyric drama ; but, for the purposes of Sophoclean (not Euripidean) Satyric drama sTr/ptpieqiivoc; is as deci- sive as for the purposes of Attic tragedy, seeing that Sophocles (unlike Euripides) does not admit comic licence. The above remarks are of course made subject to the proviso that, if emendation succeed in curing the faults mentioned, they cease to apply. But emendation is impossible ; the faults are inherent. To remove them, rewriting, not emendation, would be necessary. The passage then is to be rejected. Now in the mss. of Clement of Alexandria it is attributed to Sophocles in the words : 6 EcxpoxXYJc; Se suOuppTjfxovox; ypdccpsr (here follows the Fr.). I desire to raise the question whether a scholar of Clement's quite respectable calibre ever ascribed the passage to the eminent dramatist. I should much like to read, and I propose : 6 So^oxXtj? 8' 6 EuOuppyj^ovcx; ypatpst,. I understand by Sophocles, son of Euthyrrhemon, that third Sophocles who, according to Suidas, lived " after the Pleiad." h2 100 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS Fr. 1128. St. Justin Martyr accepts this passage as Sophoclean ; Clement of Alexandria however is careful to go no further than to assign it to tragedy (auvaSst 8e toutoi^ y.cd 7) TpaywSta St.a tcovSs). The subject is the ecpyrosis, or conflagration of the universe, expected by the Stoic philosophy, so that, although the diction is classical enough, Sophocles, the eminent dramatist, cannot be the author. I would assign it, like Fr. 1127, to the third Sophocles, whose date it suits. Fr. 1129. This Fr. I am inclined to ascribe to a Sophoclean Eridion Agyrticum ; see my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 353-377, and in particular pp. 366-368). PAPER IV PAULO MAJORA I have pointed out elsewhere that the Life of Sophocles and Suidas agree exactly as to the number of Sophocles' plays, if only in the former we combine two various readings, " 130 " and " 104," into a reading " 140 " : in Greek uncial numeration the graphic distinction between 130, 104, and 140 is extremely slight. Suidas simply says : :c Sophocles presented 123 plays, or, according to some, far more." The Life of Sophocles says (if we read " 140 ") : ' He has to his credit— so Aristophanes states — 140 plays ; but, of these, seventeen have been branded as spurious." Observe that 140-17—123. In any case, if you add the seventeen "spurious" plays to Suidas' figure of 123, you obtain a total of 140. In the course of my work I have acquired something like a conviction that the post-Aristophanic branding of seventeen plays of Sophocles as spurious is due solely to the superstition that he competed with single plays, not with tetralogies. The existence of obviously connected tetralogies militated against this superstition, and con- sequently various plays in such tetralogies were denounced as non-Sophoclean. 140 plays most naturally spell — let me add — 35 tetralogies (some of them, I think, connected, others, as regards the trilogies, unconnected), that is to say, 105 tragedies in the strictest sense and 35 fourth plays of tetralogies. On this general foundation, as a test, partly, of its solidity, I base the main portion of the present paper. Perhaps, if the ancient literature, of a technical order, that dealt with the Satyric Drama were still extant, we should be provided with an adequate nomenclature. As it is, we are not. In this paper I propose to call a tragedy belonging to a trilogy a " tragoedia solemnis " and a tragedy standing fourth in its tetralogy a " quarta tragoedia " : a fourth play of a tetralogy, irrespective of its particular character, I will style a " quartum quid.'''' 102 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS a play \vi>fc a Chorus of Satyrs a " satyr icum," and a play without a Chorus of Satyrs, but Satyric in tone and not a tragedy, a " quasi satyricum." I incline— by the way — to conjecture that the forma of quarta quae, as such, is a Chorus of twelve persons. Let me now proceed to the business on hand. On a balance of often complicated probabilities it appears to me, as at present advised, that the number of the plays of Sophocles known to us either by name or by contents may, not unreasonably, be stated as 125. Variations of nomenclature and possibilities of such variation create, indeed, bewildering difficulties, and my figure, I fully admit, may ultimately prove to stand in need of slight, though but slight, rectification. Of the 125 plays provisionally recognised by me as separate entities, thirteen only (including the Cnops, the existence of which I have myself, I claim, discovered, and the Telegonus, which I am the first to distinguish from the Telephus) are so manifestly quarta quae as (except, of course, as regards the Cnops and the Telegonus) to be generally recognised as such. That leaves 112 plays over. But we are working on the hypothesis that the tragedies, apart from possible quartae tragoediae, of Sophocles numbered 105 and no more. If that be so, it follows that of the 112 plays left over, seven at least must be quarta quae. Now eight quarta quae we can, I think, with high probability pick out, viz. the Acrisius sive Larisaei, the Daedalus sive Talos, the lambe. the Xauplius Pyrcaeus, Phineus (I. or II.). the Tereus, the Tympanistae, and the Ulysses Acantlioplex sive Ulysses Traumatias. As ex hypothesi the quarta quae numbered exactly 35, and as, given these eight plays, fourteen of them, or, without these eight plays. 22 of them, are missing or unidentified, it is clear that any number, up to and including 22, of the plays in the long list, altogether independently of their total, may be quarta quae : if therefore my figure of 112 err by way of excess, eight or more quarta quae are still possible, whereas, if it err by way of defect, seven, plus one or more, are necessary. The Sophoclean plays that I recognise as separate entities are these: (1) the Acha-eon Synodos, (2) the Acrisius sive Larisaei. (3) the Admetus, (4) the Aegeus, (5) PAULO MAJORA 103 the Aegisthus -sire Clytemnestra. (6) the Acthiopcs, (7) the A iax Loams, ( S ) the Ajax Mastigophoros. (9) the Alcmaeon* (10) the Aleadae. (11)' the Aletes. (12) the Alexander. (13) the Amphiaraus, (14) the Amphitryon. (15) the Amycus. (16) the Andromache. (17) the Andromeda. (IS) the Antenoridae. (19) the Antigone. (20) Athamas I.. (21) Athamas II.. (22) the Jfrew*, (23) the Catnici. (24) the Cedalion. (25) the Chryses sive Acchmalotidcs. (26) the C*nofW, (27) the Colchides. (28) the Copfo', (29) the Creum. (30)the Crisis. (31) the Daedalus sive Talos. (32)theDa»ae. (33) the D ion ysisc us. (34) the Dolopes. (35) the Elect ra. (36) the Epigoni. (37) the Erigone. (38) the Eriphyle. (39) the Eumelus. (40) the Euryalus. (41) the Eurypylus. (42) the Eurysaces. (43) the Helenes Apaetesis. (44) the Hclenes Gamos } (45) the Helenes Harpage. (46) the Hercules sive Epitaenarii. (47) the Hermione. (4S) the Hippodamia, (49) the Hipponous. (50) the Hydrophoroe. (51) the lambe, (52) the Iheres. (53) the Ichneutae. (54) the Inachus. (55) the Iobates. (5/>\ (82) the Phaedra. (S3) the Philoctetes Lemni. (84) the Philoctetes Trojae. (85) Phineus I.. (86) Phineus II., (87) the Phrixus. (SS) the Phryges. (89) the Phthiotides, (90) the Poemenes. (91) the Polyidus sive Mantels, (92) the Polyxena. (93) the Priamus. (94) the Procris. (95) the Ptochia. (96) the Rhizotomoe. (97) the &/mo^!/-s, (9S) the Seym, (99) the Scythae. (lOO)the S*'??o/?. ( 101 ) the Sisyphus. (102) the Syndipni Seriphi. (103) the Syndipni Tenedi, (104) the Tantalus. (105) the Ttlegonus. (106) the Telephus, (107) the Tercu-s. (108) the Teucer, (109) the Thamyras sive Musae. (110) the Theseus. (Ill) Thyestts I.. (112) Thyestes II.. (113) the Trachiniae. (114) Triptolemus I., (115) Triptolemus II., (116) Triptolemus III., (117) the Troilus, (US) the Tympanistae, (119) the Tyndareus, 104 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS (120) Tyro I., (121) Tyro II., (122) the Ule, (123) the Ulysses Acanthoplex sive Ulysses Traumatias, (124) the Ulysses Furens, and (125) the Xoanephori. For (26) the C?wps, see under that heading in this book : for (66) the Menelaus Memonomenos, see under the heading Momus in this book : for (95) the Ptochia, see under the heading Ulysses Acanthoplex in this book : for (102) Syndipni Seriphi, see under the heading Syndipni in this book : for (105) the Telegonus, see my edition of the Ichneutae (pp. 577, 578) : for (122) the Ule, see under the heading Ulysses Acanthoplex in this book. As regards (51) the Iambe and (114-116) Triptolemi I. -1 1 1., it is apparent from the date of production (in or shortly after 468 B.C.) that the legend of Triptolemus must have been dealt with in a connected tetralogy. The first play was concerned, I imagine, with the events that centred in the interrupted immortalisation of Triptolemus by fire, the second with his despatch as a missionary of material civilisation, and the third with the subsequent vicissitudes that ultimately culminated in his kingship. Welcker and Pearson are thus recon- ciled. The specific names given in antiquity to the first and third tragedies are not preserved (it is clear that no play of Sophocles named, in our records, otherwise than as " the Triptolemus " can form a member of the trilogy) : that it was the second play that, in strictness, went under the name Triptolemus I rather gather from Pliny (N.H. xviii. 65). The title of the satyricum, the Iambe, speaks for itself : but how Sophocles treated the story is a matter for consideration. In no case is Iambe a Satyric monster (deities and the like excepted, Satyric characters seem always to be monsters), and, when once the grossness of the traditional tale is modified (as Sophocles was bound to modify it), there is no excuse for presenting her in even a similar light. I therefore take her to be one of the three tragic characters, and, as she was a native of Attica, borrow her from Tripto- lemus I., in which play I conjecture that she appeared as an assistant of Demeter. But as, in addition to being a native of Attica, she was a daughter of Pan and Echo, I much incline to bring in Pan himself as the one Satyric character required. In that case Silenus would be PAULO MAJORA 105 merely choragus of the Satyrs. A second tragic character was necessarily Demeter : I suppose she figured both in Triptolemus I. and in Triptolemus II., but I fetch her from Triptolemus II. The third tragic character cannot, I think, be Triptolemus himself, who at the time of the incident in question was not more than a babe in arms. In his absence I choose without hesitation King Celeus (whether Sophocles did or did not recognise him as Triptolemus' father), who (unless Sophocles innovated greatly) must have taken a leading part in the action of Triptolemus I., and who at any rate, after Triptolemus, was the chief character in the legend underlying Tripto- lemus III., from which latter play I adopt him. Brunck, I may observe, considered Frr. 606, 610, and 611, all three ascribed in antiquity to the Triptolemus, as Satyric, and deduced the conclusion that the Triptolemus (no one before myself has suggested three Triptolemi) was a satyricum. As regards Frr. 606 and 611 at any rate I am half-inclined to agree with him : it is not impossible, or even improbable, that the Satyric Iambe should sometimes be quoted under the general tetralogical title Triptolemus. We see then good ground for separating the Iambe from the tragedies (the title has been regarded as another name for a solitary Triptolemus) and including it among the satyrica : concurrently we appear to have done some- thing towards establishing a tetralogy. I have given this group priority, because in dealing with it I have had not merely to assemble plays together, but also to treat briefly of their existence. In like case — and therefore I put it second — stands the question of (123) the Ulysses Acanthoplex sive Ulysses Traumatias and its tetralogy. But that question I have discussed sufficiently in the earlier portion of this book (under the heading Ulysses Acanthoplex). It will here be enough to say that I regard the Ulysses Acanthoplex sive Ulysses Traumatias as a quarta tragoedia and build up the tetralogy thus : — (122) the Ule, (95) the Ptochia, (74) the Niptra, (123) the Ulysses Acanthoplex sive Ulysses Traumatias. The quartum, quid being, in this case, a quarta tragoedia, there arises no question of the borrowing of characters. 106 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS Thirdly, let me approach (31) the Daedalus sive Talos and its tetralogy. That the Daedalus and the Talos are identical I need not waste time in arguing : their identity is recognised as almost certain and no words of mine would add anything to the approximate certitude. But that the play is out-and-out a satyricum or quasi satyr icum, not even a quarta tragoedia, much less a tragoedia solemnis, it behoves me to show. I show it by pointing to Fr. 162, which (c/. Ichneutae, 1. 298) is, to my mind, absolutely conclusive. As collateral security I put forward the brazen Talos himself, with whom I compare the speaking and moving statue, also the work of Daedalus, which figures (see Euripides, Fr. 372) in Euripides' Eurystheus, a certified satyricum. Pearson himself suspects that the play was Satyric ; but he talks about the " cult-fellowship of Hephaestus and Dionysus ' and about "the donkey and the phallus." I do not understand such matters, but anyhow they are nihil ad rem : the learned editor — much of his work has put me under the deepest obligations of gratitude — will pardon me when I say that the sole reasons why Sophocles brought Satyrs (if he did bring them) into the story of Talos were that a satyricum about Talos suited his trilogy and that he thought he could make a good job of it. I think that the drama is a satyricum, not a quasi satyricum : my reason is that it seems impossible for any story to be involved that would demand a special Chorus in lieu of the ordinary Chorus of Satyrs. The actual story, what- ever it may be in detail, is obviously concerned with the making, or with some event soon after the making, not with the destruction, of Talos : in the latter case the tragic characters would have to be Medea and two Argonauts, and these could not conceivably be drawn from a Daeda- lean trilogy. That the trilogy is Daedalean is, I submit, sufficiently proved by the intimate association — which it would be inartistic to sever — of Talos with Daedalus and Minos, coupled with the mere existence of the Camici (in which, at Daedalus' instigation, Minos was killed), plus the consideration that, if Daedalus be present, then Minos, as well as Daedalus, is surely demanded as a tragic character in the Daedalus sive Talos, so that one other play of the trilogy, besides the Camici, must, in PAULO MAJORA 107 order for each of the two characters in question to have a separate provenance, have dealt with the same com- partment of legend. That means, of course, that the tetralogy is a connected tetralogy. The Camici, in view of its plot, must stand third in the trilogy. What are the two tragedies that went before it ? One might, indeed, suggest the Polyidus sive Mantels and Tyro II. ; but they are too remote in subject-matter, and to lead up to the slaying, at Daedalus' instance, of Minos one manifestly requires a drama or dramas dealing with the earlier relations of the two. Their quarrel had arisen out of the construction of the Labyrinth by Daedalus for Pasiphae, as a place of concealment for the Minotaur. Minos, finding this out, imprisoned Daedalus, who however escaped and flew away over the sea. Minos thereupon put the Labyrinth — and the Minotaur — to uses of his own. Later he went in pursuit of Daedalus, but at Camicus Daedalus got the better of him. I therefore take the recorded Minos, of the plot of which nothing is known, as a play distinct from the Camici, and conjecture that it deals with matters connected with the building of the Labyrinth. Again, I take the Theseus (this play, in my edition of the Ichneutae, I wrongly assigned, instead of the Alcmaeon, to the Eriphyle tetralogy), of the plot of which also nothing is known, as concerned with the imprisonment of Theseus in the Labyrinth and the slaying by him of the Minotaur. By no other method do I see my way to building up the trilogy : the process of exclusion is a perfectly valid process. If I am right, we have definitely separated (31) the Daedalus sive Talos from the tragedies as a satyricum, and have, with its help, arrived at this tetra- logy : — (67) the Minos, (110) the Theseus, (23) the Camici, (31) the Daedalus sive Talos. But we have not yet fixed the third tragic character of the satyricum. As Daedalus and Minos both come not only in the Camici but also, ex hypothesi, in the Minos, and as Minos, but not Daedalus, comes, similarly ex hypothesi, in the Theseus into the bargain, we are not limited for our choice of a third tragic character to any particular play. Surely, given Minos and Daedalus, that third character is Icarus, and the plot — Holland guessed something of this (see 108 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS Fr. 162) — of the satyricum is the escape, despite Talos' vigilance, of Daedalus and Icarus. But Icarus can be drawn only from the Minos. This leaves Daedalus no provenance but the Camici. This in its turn means that Minos is taken from the Theseus. Fourthly, we have, I submit, a connected tetralogy consisting of (32) the Danae, (17) the Andromeda, (102) the Syndipni Seriphi, and (2) the Acrisius sive Larisaei. This last play is doubtless a quarta tragoedia : for the third play see under the headings Syndipni and Fr. 564. These four are the only cases in which I find myself at present able to help the argument that a particular play is a quartum quid by depositing it as such at the end of a particular tetralogy . For proof that (71) the Nauplius Pyrcaeus is a satyricum see earlier in this book under the heading Nauplius. For reason for supposing that (85) Phineus /.or (86) Phineus II. — one or the other of them — is a quartum quid see earlier in this book under the head- ing Phineus, I. and II. For strong reason for holding that (118) the Tympanistae is a quarta tragoedia see earlier in this book under the heading Tympanistae. That (107) the Tereus is a quarta tragoedia, and a quarta tragoedia of a peculiarly uncompromising type, is, I contend, proved to positive demonstration by the appearance in it both of Tereus himself and of Procne in the form of birds (see the scholia on Aristophanes' Aves, 11. 99 et seq., and consult my remarks earlier in this book under the heading Tereus), as also by the scholiast's statement (I.e.) that in the Tereus Sophocles " mocked much at Tereus " (so Euripides mocked, though more covertly, it may be, at Admetus). This kind of evidence, however distasteful to editors, cannot be got round : facts are chiels that winna ding. The recognised quarta quae, I may note, are these : — (3) the Admetus, (13) the Amphiaraus, (15) the Amycus, (24) the Cedalion, (28) the Cophi, (30) the Crisis, (33) the Dionysiscus, (44) the Helenes Oamos, (46) the Hercules sive Epitaenarii, (53) the Ichneutae, and (97) the Sal- moneus, together with the alleged Eris, Momus, and Hybris. The title Eris I take as a mistake arising from an abbreviation of Eridion (see my edition of the Ich- neutae, pp. 354-6) ; the title Momus I explain as due to an PAULO MAJORA 109 erroneous reading of the abbreviated dative of Menelaus (or, possibly, Meneleos) Memonomenos (or, possibly, Monu- menos), a tragoedia solemnis (see earlier in this book under the heading Momus) : the Hybris — meaning the " Hy- brid " — I regard as a rather late alternative title for another tragoedia solemnis, the Tyro Cos (see my edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 417, 421, and earlier in this book under the heading Hybris). To these I have myself added two obvious satyrica, viz. (26) the Cnops and (105) the Telegonus, and also, though only as a possibility (see, in this book, under Fr. 322), a satyricum called Neleus Siones. Having dealt with the disputed quarta quae, I will now point out a connected tetralogy with an undisputed satyricum. A connected tetralogy appears clearly to be indicated by (45) the Helenes Harpage, (66) the Menelaus Memonomenos, (43) the Helenes Apaetesis, and (44) the Helenes Gamos (I withdraw certain remarks, inconsistent with this conclusion, on pp. 613 and 614 of my edition of the Ichneutae). But, if so, the trilogy is, in effect, only one tragedy. This is a carrying further of the tendency noted by me in the case of the Vie tetralogy (see earlier in this book under the heading Ulysses Acanihoplex), in which the whole tetralogy is, in effect, but one drama ; but there the one drama has also the completeness, despite its unity, proper to a connected trilogy. Here, on the other hand, there is only the completeness of a drama. Three such dramas would be needed to produce the effect of a trilogy. But consider with how admirable a field, in the case of this tetralogy, and especially of the Menelaus Memonomenos, the peculiar genius of Sophocles has provided itself wherein to expatiate ! Now such con- sideration leads on to a point that is possibly of some moment. In the Menelaus Memonomenos there is scope for but little action ; it is essentially a drama of the inner man. It amounts, inevitably, to an exposition in scenic detail of that interior desolation which in lyric outline Aeschylus had already depicted — the picture is a posses- sion for ever — in a chorus of his Agamemnon. To the Menelaus of Aeschylus Helen comes in the visions of the night. There is ground for thinking that she so comes — palpably, in this case, and on the stage — to the Menelaus 110 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS of Sophocles also. If she does, we see in part how action — of a kind — is provided. The ground is this. We know that two of the tragic characters in the satyricum are Helen and Paris ; the third tragic character is not known. Prima facie it would seem feasible to take Helen and Paris from the Helenes Harpage and the Helenes Apaetesis (both of them must figure in each of the two plays) indis- criminately, and for third tragic character to fetch some deity (only a deity appears possible), Aphrodite for choice, from the Menelaus. But I entertain the gravest misgivings with regard to this indiscriminate fetching of tragic characters. It is inartistic, and we have seemed to see already how in the Daedalean tetralogy Sophocles avoids it ; each tragic character ought definitely to represent a particular tragedy. The one via salutis, I suggest, is to find Helen's provenance — qua minime reris — in the Menelaus. You can then go on to borrow Paris from the Apaetesis and Helen's old Nurse (for her there is abundant precedent) from the Harpage. The Chorus was, we know, a Chorus of Satyrs. Doubtless the Satyric character was Silenus. Other connected tetralogies are the following : — (76) the Oedipus Tyrannus, (75) the Oedipus Coloneus, (19) the Antigone, (26) the Cnops (for this tetralogy see my edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 595-608, and earlier in this book under the heading Cnops) ; (103) the Syndipni Tenedi, (83) the Philoctetes Lemni, (84) the Philoctetes Trojae, (46) the Hercules sive Epitaenarii (for this tetra- logy see my edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 608, 609, and earlier in this book under the heading Syndipni) ; (20) Athamas I., (21) Athamas II., (87) the Phrixus, (33) the Dionysiscus (for this tetralogy see my edition of the Ichneutae, p. 611). There is yet one other connected tetralogy discernible. In my edition of the Ichneutae I partially disentangled it, but I wrongly included in it the Theseus, which I now see appears to be required for the Daedalean tetralogy, instead of the Alcmaeon, which manifestly deals with what is part and parcel of the legend. The tetralogy is this : — (38) the Eriphyle, (36) the Epigoni, (9) the Alcmaeon, (13) the Amphiaraus (for this tetralogy see my edition of the Ichneutae, pp. 608-611, with however the modification PAULO MAJORA 111 I have indicated ; the character Agon in the satyricum comes — Alcmaeon helped to found the Isthmian Games — from the Alcmaeon). Moreover I can point to one connected trilogy (the quartum quid is apparently unknown by name), viz. (5), the Aegisihus sive Clytemnestra, (35) the Electra, (37) the Erigone. With the unconnected tetralogies — elsewhere I have tried to piece some of them together, and one is on partial record — we have here no concern. Of these there was no temptation to label any of the constituent plays as spurious ; neither do I suppose that their quartet quae, though they had necessarily to cohere, more or less, with something, were felt as a difficulty. We have discovered, then, ten connected tetralogies (one of them with its quartum quid missing), viz. those beginning with Triptolemus I., with the Vie, with the Daedalus, with the Danae, with the Helenes Harpage, with the Oedipus Tyrannus, with the Syndipni Tenedi, with Athamas I., with the Eriphyle, and with the Aegisihus sive Clytemnestra respectively. I cannot see that any more remain to be discovered. Of these ten connected tetralogies seven, we have observed, appear to conclude with satyrica and two with quartae tragoediae, while of one the quartum quid seems to be unknown. For totals to square (see the next paragraph) the unknown quartum quid must have been a quarta tragoedia. The plays branded as spurious are seventeen in number. That, I maintain, means that the higher critics took one tragoedia solemnis— the third ?— out of each of these ten connected tetralogies, together with all seven of the satyrica that come in question (quartae tragoediae, as not borrowing three, or indeed, in the strict sense, any, characters, were comparatively inoffensive), and, in order to kill the idea that Sophocles composed in tetralogies at all, branded them as spurious. Even of the tragedies of the Oedipodia they branded the A ntigone — mad knaves — as spurious, attributing it to Iophon (see Anecd. Oxon. iv. p. 315, 21), and circulated nefarious lies as to the time and circumstances of the production of the Oedipus Coloneus. 112 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS Well, time has had its revenge. To-day no record states what plays, besides the Antigone (and, it would seem, the Syndipni Seriphi), they branded, and as to the Antigone itself not one soul believes them. I conjecture that on the boards of the Alexandrian theatre, after the days of the Pleiad and of the greater Grammarians, in an age when new tragedies were aves rarissimae, it became the practice to present principally the works of the five tragedians of the Attic canon and to present them thus— either (a) a complete tetralogy, dignitatis jure, of Aeschylus, or (6) a complete tetralogy, connected or unconnected, popularitatis gratia, of Euripides, or (c) a composite group of four plays by Sophocles, Ion, and Achaeus, not more than two of them by the same author. This, as regards the vital detail, is conjecture pure and simple ; but on no other hypo- thesis can I see my way to account for the origin of the late superstition (late, but, it would appear, both known to the true and original Suidas and accepted by Athenaeus) that Sophocles— I am prepared, in another book, to show that the superstition also extended to Ion and to Achaeus— did not compose his dramas on a tetralogical basis. I ask to be permitted in this place— seeing that my treatment of certain Sophoclean problems cannot well be dissociated from my treatment of certain Euripidean problems— to confirm the argument with regard to fabulae necfabulae contained in my Macedonian Tetralogy of Euripides. I there show by apparently necessary inference that of the numerous quarta quae of Euripides eight only (including one antilegomenon) were by the stricter school of ancient scholars regarded as dramata. I can now offer what is, to all intents and purposes, direct proof. Thomas Magister (see Kirchhoff's Euripidis Tragoediae, vol. i. p. 375), speaking of the plays composed by Euripides, says : Iv die, ^v— notice the imperfect— 6xto> [j.6vov crccTupixa. I am thus seen to have correctly elicited the implicit tenor of a tradition so tantalisingly recorded— scribbled, indeed, on a Sibyl's scattered leaves —as in this passage only to appear in explicit form. PAULO MAJORA 113 Let me take further advantage of this opportunity by asking three questions. (1) What is the permissible extent, in practice, of the meaning of a tragic " victory " (there were three prizes) ? (2) What happened as regards performance— and consequent record in didascaliae— to such tetralogies of a great composer [e.g. Euripides) as failed to be awarded a chorus (and, therefore, one or other, ultimately, of the three prizes) at the Urban Dionysia ? (3) Is it reasonably certain that, in Arabic, Aristotle's Didascaliae is no longer in existence ? I more than doubt whether the libraries even of Spain have been properly explored. Finally, to satisfy my reference under the heading Cnops. I will touch on yet another Euripidean topic. Euripides' Ion exhibits (11. 29-53) an interpolated initial acrostic. The passage— contrast the oasis of its initials with the wilderness of other and unlinkable initials that lie on either side of it— runs as follows : <; opcoG* 6 tzcuq. 40 xupsi 8' avOTTCiJOVTO<; yjXtou xuxXw 7tpo 7cat.8l fj.7] 'xtcgsiv 86jjtcov. Tpe^ei 8s vtv Xa(3oucra' tov orcstpavra 8s 114 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS oux oISs Oot^ov ou8s (i.7]TSp' ffi EC0 xXd', £XTU7TY)T£ >X< 7t0>Eovr). Translate: "Cry Io, thou thunder-stricken child of the god of many arrows." There is a play on Ico and "Itov. The presentation of £xtu7T7]T£ (cf. sx(3povTav) as £XT7j7i7)T£— pronounced identically— is intentional : there existed a rooted objection to the employment of u except as the second element in a diphthong (extutciv is a recognised alternative to sxxtutteiv). Two lines (28 bis and 50 bis) must be added and two (41 and 44) eliminated : the consequential changes are of the slightest. Observe the result : Ico- 28 bis 6i cuyyov', eXOwv Xocov tic, auxo^Oova xXeivcov 'AOrivcov, oloOa yap Geoc? 7rr6Xtv, 30 Xa(3<; opa 8' &k<; Tsxovra? oux E7tiaTaTat,. vso<; [xlv o$v ot>v a[i.cpt.pco[jLiou^ Tpo<; 8' d7r7)vSp(o07j SE[i.a<;, (xtX.) I certainly conceive that this version (of course I do not tie myself down to such points as the detail of 1. 50 bis, but I do insist that the highly effective word, &.-KVLIC,, must have stood in 1. 40) is more original than the current text, which latter I take to have been concocted with the sole view of obscuring the existence of the acrostic. But the lines are not Euripidean : the repeated device of the parenthesis (11. 30 and 35) is enough to show that. Probably they replace, with more or less incorpora- tion, a Euripidean passage covering much the same ground, which was cut out in order to let the acrostic in. They— though (l) the alphabet of the acrostic is fully Euclidean, and (2) inherent etacism is exhibited— are of considerable antiquity. The conception of the a of xAdsiv, however remarkable, is no whit more illicit, per se, than the correption of the a of da. The accent of yovY) negatives the possibility of a versus technicus. The really extraordinary feature is the acrostician's identification of Ion with Phaethon. Yet even for this we ought to be in some measure prepared by the Hesiodic legend which, not indeed representing Phaethon as a son of Apollo, makes him guardian of a temple (of Aphrodite). Have I envisaged the problem of this acrostic in an honest and a sober spirit ? Such wares form so often the stock-in-trade of charlatans and of fanatics that I personally— fortunatus, si nunquam aenigma fuissetf— feel the answer to this question to be of some importance even to scholarship and of much importance to myself. Nor do I presume to judge in my own cause. 12 INDEX OF SELECT TOPICS Accentuation, Conventional Acrostics Corruption, the letter u in ... Delphi, Productions (perhaps) on Stage of Euripides, Fabulae Necfabulae of Iota "Subscript" Metathesis, Attic Sophocles, an alleged Momus by Sophocles, Homerica of Sophocles, Monotheistic Passage (probably) of Sophocles, Morality of ... Achilleos Erastae Play, Fragment, or Paper Fr. 24 Cnops ; Paper IV. ... Frr. 44, 339, 345, 378 Frr. 941, 1126 ... Paper IV. Frr. 349, 555, 848 Fr. 349 Momus (?) ; Frr. 419-424 .. Nausicaa; Frr. 236, 369 .. Fr. 1126 Frr. 345, 841 Sophocles, Oedipodia of Sophocles, Tetralogies of Spanish, Use of, in Greek Texts Cnops; Frr. 335b-335d, 733 Paper IV. Fr. 687 INDEX OF EMENDATIONS d(3poxwv 7ro0? exei 557 d£ia>[x' vjXey^a? ou8' qj.6v 105 drcavxd y' alevvyjxa TrpcoxcovyjS' area!; 860 aTuo, yeic' d[xev7]vd 506 drcoiva 166 dpdooei xdrct xoOvSov epxsxai 684 dpi0[j!.r)(ja? 681 dpxxco 7uspicpspei 432 dpx?j9ev Y e T V Kpovco yspa? 126 dpxoiv 482 &atf 929 daxai? 'AXrjQei' fjaev 1126 doxY)(i.6v' 680 'AxpetSatv 887 atjyavSei? 659 auT09tov x' dei y' epa 434 auTto? 1126 auxpt^pd? Tptx«? 475 d^ovxa 944b B papu? £uvotxo?, w £evoi, Bapu? 753 porr;? 373 (3ou? auGi (jitfxvcov xrj 522 Bpuycov 455 y' dytov' 524 ydv-r) 'orl 537 ydvo? 504 ye 245 yevoiax' da^aXei? Xeto 683 yyjpoa 7rpoar)Xovx' &£\ 'iizt] 8' £097]^.' let 193 yovewv 8' enl tcoXu y' dXaBeia yevexd? 667 8' btu' dooov olxextov Traumata 373 8' £7raGTa xejjivexai xXdaxou yeuv] 255 8' eTUvco? 199 8' epdax' S8e0X' 602 8' iov6cov 729 SaxpuppoeTxov xal xo xal xo xuy- xdvov 910 Saapicov ouxe xi? Qcct&v yeptcov 555 Sa^iXd? xidpa? xal otoupvotSir] 413 Seifj.' dypio? ELdv o5xd jj.'. dvxaTo? 0e6? 335 8exd8a 8' 432 Seot, 944b Seiixpia 42 S^yjx' dv dtSiov 844 SiSaoxaXeTa* [xouctixy]? 1120 Afoi? xduoi? 7idp' 320 Stxooxdxaiv 867 SwoXXuxat 921 8po? 8ii?, dpL^fXvjva 44 120 SOPHOCLEAN FRAGMENTS 8uy) ^o^oa?, km., 7i:poyu[i.vaaat 498 Suvaou; Sv^xot? eurcoTpLOTaxY} 568 EXSt TtxS' ou 0sot£ cy0p6<;, ou8' ecpterat 88 EXetv 837 E e'pXst]/ eV auri) 583 lyyuc eljjt', & 7taT, TU9X61; 858 syxXtvsi ts 941 EyXUTcov ^8 ISst 107 sSe^aO' o5 958 £-0' 471 £t yr)0STat yap rcoXuyovcov ootoTi; 941 eV, &8\ v) cpuXa^ Set, x°^P°S coots Sso^ta ; 230 £i(3' otioui; o^rj? eXyj 149 e't8co<;, [jl6vo<; 770 el'0', el', aveu, y *) ' v Xapatq 636 Zeu, ayooTov axot<; tov 887 Zeus 524 H 7) [xetov ou xoupetov Y)pea6v) 126 7) 'vo7iTpa vaurat y' cov TaXat7rco- pcov TpoTicov 555 7)you [X7iSx[x' ov to (J.Y) ou pievov 106 rjuuxXa^at 465 Y)[jtuvavT' taatxepov Ttrepov 589 v)vvu6' 156 W?) 397 Beta ^uvsotoi y' y)pe;j.et 950 0-^y/j y\ ev crnxxut 894 6vr)Ta (ppovetrco 590 GvyjTr) 9uo-ti; eu touto xaxetSui' 590 'Iaoou? 57 "ISti? "ISt]<; 511 "IS7)<;; — TptoXu;j.7nov 511 t'8pt<; pot? coots Orjp, S7rst0' olo? 944b tvtou Xsrrac^dpou 337 16ty]s 766 K xal 7uxp' tao0at 88 xatTie^a 16 xatax uveT0 " T£ 255 xaxXuosv 646 xaXco? 107 xaXco? 944b xajzyj 8' u(3pt£cov aurtx', st ce paBpov sXto 501 xdv (J.EOCO tic, opvt<; "Hpa; 654 xdviauatot? Tiupot? 738 xarc' ixStjXov 871 xar' oupov t'<; 646 x5ra 149 xsXsu0a 721 xivuai t' aupa xavaxou9^st TITSpCOV 23 xopa 861 INDEX OF EMENDATIONS 121 xoupeuat, xiy.ac, SiaTenXfxsvT) Tpu97]<; 659 xp7)yu7]v alaav 258 xpuaTaXX' avapTCacrwot. 7ra£8t.' laa YT) 149 xpucpatov x' 935 xpitysu; 8' 572 Kuxvo? ts tteXXt] 0[j.7)xa<; co<; fJtoOTpsi 0EWV 509 xuv' slSs tov arpscpovxa y' 738 xcoxutiIx; l;ji7r&rTv 38 "kzle.Yy.iva. 432 Xeux6xpou t' axxrjc detSeiv ' IxaXlav 600 " Xopoic 7) 858 X&v 1120 M [Lot.yy.6v 467 {iax^v 1126 y.iY aoTU, Ta? 773 (aeXeoov, c'p&aiv 568 (jleot6v 255 [X7)8e7TO 381 fjiTJ-rep, 7tt6Xi, yovciv 379 [i.v7]a£oo 307 [i.opq)a 'Xqjavet 581 (xouvac; 852 y.o\)aoy.6ivei EXatp07)v eyxaxa xal ttotI 245 N vav 335d viysiv 149 veocTepaSaiOTOV 349 vsucov SepTJ y' uTtc>9pu<;, s£ 236 vetoarl 876 V7)l TraoeoO' a.yizpo>v {x6/8cov te xal ev8iot7jto<; 369 vixa 8' 188 idv07)<; C*ajXEv6? xal Teipealou 7rat« 392 O 6 Ppotois 572 6 rraTTjp yap &pia£v 24 o Tl. dvuTSiVExai, yap dvr' 331 o^-u yap 960K; dcvEpt 80175 808 oixxipsiEv av 659 o!a6' 6 (AT) jjis 493 OITOU TOU G0EVSI 107 ol'Ttp 107 ov 8' EqjEVTst; 88 67rcopoxaXa8oi(; 255 oayric, ax^iou 7TXet 929 n 7Ta0wv 8' ExaoToc wv 682 7raT<; 8<; xex6vxoiv tjv 8uotv 581 *dp' afa' 192 Tcapo<; tco0' t) 'XXtjotcovt^ 503 7raT7jp, a7ravrcov 752 TraTOixo 683 tteS' 'Epivuv y' 334 ■ni8oix.o7t6 axeyrjv 636 ocov. Sv ewTexec; pXa(3oc; 935 t' 107 xa y' sv xacpco xpucpOevxa ITepoe- (paao' ayr) ^57 TaxT^eo6vT , av ata6eo6ai 947 xaux' av ^p5(0^VT£(; 837 xep7rva> y^P Sl, ' a ^^ xrj 670 tIvos 827 xl<; alaa 82 tC? vfc "I8r)<; 511 t6 ye 557 xotov ffeeiq SaitjLov'. el<; epco 'ot' axep 770 Touattov 371 x6jJtoupov 453 TOTrao6' &v [i.r)8ev 106 XO0OU 113 xoi? Wot; 941 xptxov 8' e y^QP"? Xaa(3avet 9alou 7TTEp6v 395 xuxt&v 506 xupavvbc' alo' btslysrvcti xpuyeiv 382 xwc; 431 weal 6Xcov 345 9epto 454 v rj 'Xe^avxt^tov 1126 9\>Xr) xl? ouxl TTJaS' St' t)0eou /op6 ? ; 94l' O co oopatpe 142 toac; 523 <5>8' ecpr) cpaXXatv' t8ouoa xov xaptxrjpov yapov 606 wXXuxat 920 a><; 770 co<; x e ^ eolv ^ ^ °^S orpaxou 9puxxcop(a 432 Printed by Spottiswoode, Ballantyne &* Co. Ltd, London, Colchester &" Eton THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW AN INI FINE OF 25 CENTS WILL BE ASSESSEB^EeW FAILURE TO RETURN THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY WILL INCREASE TO 50 CEMTS ON THE FOURTH DAY AND TO $1.00 ON im. SEVENTH DAY OVERDUE. ^-^ . 35— ALiG 1 19: .. 1 1^, *• '• 4M W^ ' APR 9 - 1966 2 I ■ '_ r H 1 PF^^ JUL1 '67 -9 AM LOAN DEPT. LD21-100m-7,'33 CDSEfll3fll3 ,-- 69297 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY MM