The Fragments of Sophocles, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Cambridge Library CoLLeCtion Books of enduring scholarly value Classics From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century...

Author: Richard Claverhouse Jebb (editor) | W. G. Headlam (editor) | A. C. Pearson (editor)

349 downloads 1537 Views 7MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Cambridge Library CoLLeCtion Books of enduring scholarly value

Classics From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century, Latin and Greek were compulsory subjects in almost all European universities, and most early modern scholars published their research and conducted international correspondence in Latin. Latin had continued in use in Western Europe long after the fall of the Roman empire as the lingua franca of the educated classes and of law, diplomacy, religion and university teaching. The flight of Greek scholars to the West after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 gave impetus to the study of ancient Greek literature and the Greek New Testament. Eventually, just as nineteenth-century reforms of university curricula were beginning to erode this ascendancy, developments in textual criticism and linguistic analysis, and new ways of studying ancient societies, especially archaeology, led to renewed enthusiasm for the Classics. This collection offers works of criticism, interpretation and synthesis by the outstanding scholars of the nineteenth century.

The Fragments of Sophocles Sir Richard Jebb (1841–1905) was the most distinguished classicist of his generation, a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and University Orator, subsequently Professor of Greek at Glasgow University and finally Regius Professor of Greek at Cambridge, and a Member of Parliament for the University. At his death, his planned volumes of the fragments of Sophocles, which would complete his edition of the complete plays and fragments, were not ready for publication, and the final editing of these three volumes was undertaken by W.G. Headlam and A.C. Pearson; the books were published in 1917. The first volume contains a general introduction; Volumes 1 and 2 present the text of the fragments and a commentary, and the final volume consists of addenda and corrigenda, spurious fragments and two indices. The plays are presented in Greek alphabetical order: Volume 1 contains fragments of plays from ‘Athamas’ to ‘Ichneutae’.

Cambridge University Press has long been a pioneer in the reissuing of out-of-print titles from its own backlist, producing digital reprints of books that are still sought after by scholars and students but could not be reprinted economically using traditional technology. The Cambridge Library Collection extends this activity to a wider range of books which are still of importance to researchers and professionals, either for the source material they contain, or as landmarks in the history of their academic discipline. Drawing from the world-renowned collections in the Cambridge University Library, and guided by the advice of experts in each subject area, Cambridge University Press is using state-of-the-art scanning machines in its own Printing House to capture the content of each book selected for inclusion. The files are processed to give a consistently clear, crisp image, and the books finished to the high quality standard for which the Press is recognised around the world. The latest print-on-demand technology ensures that the books will remain available indefinitely, and that orders for single or multiple copies can quickly be supplied. The Cambridge Library Collection will bring back to life books of enduring scholarly value (including out-of-copyright works originally issued by other publishers) across a wide range of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences and in science and technology.

The Fragments of Sophocles Volume 1 E di t e d by R ichard C l averhouse Jebb, W.G. Headl am and A.C. P earson

C A M b R I D G E U N I V E R SI T y P R E S S Cambridge, New york, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paolo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New york www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108009867 © in this compilation Cambridge University Press 2009 This edition first published 1917 This digitally printed version 2009 ISbN 978-1-108-00986-7 Paperback This book reproduces the text of the original edition. The content and language reflect the beliefs, practices and terminology of their time, and have not been updated. Cambridge University Press wishes to make clear that the book, unless originally published by Cambridge, is not being republished by, in association or collaboration with, or with the endorsement or approval of, the original publisher or its successors in title.

THE

FRAGMENTS OF

SOPHOCLES

IN THREE VOLUMES VOLUME I

CAMBRIDGE

UNIVERSITY

PRESS

C. F. CLAY, MANAGEJJ HonSon: FETTER LANE, E.C. fEfitnfcurgfr:

ioo PRINCES STREET

u £ei» ffiotft: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS JScmiag, (Mcutta anB lEatraa: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD. Toronto: J. M. DENT AND SONS, LTD. ?TnftEo: THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA

Ail rights resetDed

THE

FRAGMENTS OF

SOPHOCLES EDITED WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES FROM THE PAPERS OF SIR R. C. JEBB AND DR W. G. HEADLAM

BY

A. C. PEARSON, M.A. FORMERLY SCHOLAR OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

VOLUME I

Cambridge : at the University Press 1917

PREFACE

T

HE production of this book has been delayed by various causes, which require particular notice on the occasion of its appearance. It is well known that Sir Richard Jebb intended ultimately to include the Fragments in his edition of Sophocles; and in pursuance of this intention he delivered at Cambridge in the Michaelmas Term of 1895 a course of lectures on 132 selected fragments. The Ajax, the last to be published of the seven extant plays, appeared in the autumn of 1896; and it was then anticipated that the publication of the Fragments would be undertaken in due sequence. But the discovery of the Bacchylides papyrus drew the editor's attention in another direction, and, during the remainder of his life, the time which he could spare from public duties was mainly devoted to the preparation of a comprehensive edition of the Poems and Fragments of Bacchylides, which was published by the Cambridge University Press in 1905. Thus it fell out that, when after Sir Richard Jebb's death the task of completing the edition of Sophocles devolved upon Dr Walter Headlam, the material available for his use consisted solely of the notes prepared for the lectures already mentioned. Once again misfortune attended the prosecution of the scheme, in consequence of the premature death of Dr Headlam before he was able to put into shape the preliminary labour which for a number of months he had expended upon the text. Towards the end of 1908 I was entrusted by the Syndics of the University Press with the papers of both scholars, in order that the work so long deferred might be brought to a conclusion. I will frankly admit that, though conscious of having assumed

vi

PREFACE

a serious burden, I did not at first adequately realize either the magnitude or the difficulty of the task. I am afraid that, after these preliminary remarks, readers will be disappointed to find how small a share in the contents of these volumes has been contributed by my predecessors. Headlam, according to his wont, set to work thoroughly to explore the ground which he was preparing to develop, but he left very little evidence of the results at which he had arrived, and hardly anything in such a shape as could be adapted readily for publication. Yet even the adversaria of so eminent a scholar are of considerable interest, and not a few instances will be found where his insight has pointed out the way leading to the solution of a puzzling problem. Jebb's notes were of an entirely different character. Although well fitted to introduce to an undergraduate audience the salient features of some of the most interesting fragments, they were obviously unsuitable for reproduction as containing the matured judgement of their author upon the critical and exegetical questions which these fragments raise. They were chiefly the record of first impressions drawn up with the skill and taste which we have learnt to expect from such a source, but made without much exercise of independent research, or a full recognition of the departmental literature bearing upon the subject, so far as it was at that time accessible. To have printed any considerable portion of these notes would have been both misleading and unfair. Indeed, I am doubtful if I have not gone too far in including so much as will be found below; and it is with the greatest reluctance that I have in several cases quoted Jebb's notes, where I felt bound to argue in favour of a different conclusion. But my guiding principle has been this. The obscurity of the text of these fragments is so great, and so little has been done to dispel it, that we can only hope to arrive at the truth by a patient sifting of the clues suggested by competent authorities ; and an editor may often best recommend the solution which he considers probable by canvassing the views of other workers in the same field. Anyhow by this method the reader is the better enabled'to form his own judgement on the issues submitted to him : securus iudicat orbis terrarum. It will now be apparent that not only the responsibility for

PREFACE

vii

everything that appears in these volumes is entirely my own, but also the bulk of the commentary itself1. I must therefore explain the lines upon which I have worked. The general plan, modified only so far as was required by difference of subjectmatter, was prescribed by the character of the earlier volumes, and, although my predecessors had not advanced far in the appointed track, they had at least made it plain that the chief feature of the book should be a thorough and searching exegesis. Translation was less essential than in the complete plays and often impossible ; but in some of the longer fragments I am fortunate in being able to quote renderings made by Jebb and Headlam. In the elucidation of fragmentary and corrupt texts criticism and interpretation are complementary of each other. I have therefore endeavoured to present the critical data in as accurate a form as possible, taking Nauck's edition as my basis, and verifying, supplementing, and correcting its results so far as my opportunities permitted. It has not been possible for me to obtain unpublished information concerning the readings of the MSS of authors which have not been edited in accordance with the requirements of modern criticism ; but I have endeavoured to make myself acquainted with published results, although I cannot feel confident of having surveyed every part of so wide a field. In this respect not much has been done since the appearance of Nauck's second edition. It is true that editions of Stobaeus and Plutarch's Moralia, two of our most important sources, have been completed by Hense and Bernardakis. But Hense's results had been already communicated to Nauck, and the character of Bernardakis's edition is such that it is almost entirely useless for the present purpose. Our knowledge of the most important scholia is still imperfect, although progress has been made, especially in regard to Aristophanes and Pindar. Wendel's edition of the scholia to Theocritus appeared while this book was passing through the press. Much might be learnt from a critical edition of Eustathius, which is scarcely to be expected at present. But the lexicographers are the most 1 The letters J. and H. have been attached to the notes of Jebb and Headlam now first printed, and their full names are retained in references to their published writings.

viii

PREFACE

promising field of all, and, though a good deal of work has been done in sifting their records, very little of it has seen the light. Bethe's Pollux and de Stefani's Etymologicum Gudianum are both incomplete. Here too the recovery of fresh material from unedited sources which may be still preserved in the libraries of Europe has been shown to be more than a possibility by the labours of Reitzenstein, Rabe, and others. The actual increase of material that has accrued in the last twenty-five years is not completely measured by the fact that this edition contains almost exactly ioo more fragments than were published by Nauck. A considerable proportion of the accession comes from the recently discovered commencement of Photius, published by Reitzenstein in 1907. But the most important addition of all was of course the fragments of the Ichneutae and Eurypylus contained in the ninth volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. The discovery was made at a time when the greater part of the present commentary was written, and I am glad to be able now to express my thanks to Prof. A. S. Hunt, who was kind enough to allow me to inspect the sheets of the new fragments before publication, and has more than once replied to my queries concerning the actual readings of the MS in doubtful cases. I must also acknowledge my indebtedness to the Committee of the Egypt Exploration Fund and the Delegates of the Clarendon Press for permission to include the Oxyrhynchus fragments in the pages of this edition. In the General Introduction I have endeavoured to describe the literary history of Sophoclean tragedy, to estimate the extent and variety of its activity, to discover the vestiges of the material with which it worked, and to show how its monuments were transmitted to posterity until they passed into oblivion and how finally its scanty relics were preserved for the instruction of our own times. In this way I have tried to answer the questions, why the majority of the plays were lost, and by what means their fragments survived. It will be evident that the third section follows in the main the lines which have been sketched in various writings by Prof, von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. In dealing with the sources of our existing fragments I have entered at some length into the history of Greek philological literature

PREFA CE

ix

during the Roman and Byzantine ages, confining myself particularly to its connexion with the study of Sophocles. This is an arid region ; yet I am convinced that those who make themselves acquainted with its chief features will return not only with a clearer understanding of the limits within which the criticism of the Greek poets must proceed, but also with a deeper respect for the honest labours of generations of workers who struggled against the forces of barbarism to keep alive the purity of the classic speech. So much misconception prevails as to the significance of quotations made by these writers that no apology is needed for the space which has been devoted to them. The only work of reference in English which touches this branch of literature is Sir J. E. Sandys's History of Classical Scholarship. Shortly after the printing had commenced, it was decided to take advantage of the occasion by the preparation of a comprehensive index to the whole of the ten volumes. For this purpose Prof. Jebb's seven volumes have been carefully re-read, the old indexes have been consolidated, corrected, and considerably enlarged, and the entries so collected have been incorporated with those relating to the three volumes of Fragments. The work was at first undertaken by Mr G. V. Carey of Gonville and Caius College, who re-indexed the Ajax and Antigone; but, when he obtained a commission in the Army on the outbreak of the European War, the responsibility for the remaining portions passed into my hands. -It is hoped that the new indexes will be of service to students not only as a better means of access to the information which the volumes contain, but also as a register of Sophoclean usage for anyone who may attempt further researches in the sphere of tragic vocabulary and grammar. At the same time their users should be warned that they do not pretend to be anything more than a record of the material comprised in the commentaries ; for an attempt to provide by this means a complete digest of the language would have involved an enormous addition to a labour which was already sufficiently arduous. I have elsewhere discussed and tabulated the researches of those modern scholars who since the close of the eighteenth century have laboured directly on the fragments of Sophocles, «5

x

PREFACE

and it is unnecessary to repeat here the nature of my obligations to them. Most of this literature is scattered in various periodicals or contained in dissertations which are even more difficult of access. In this connexion my thanks are due to Prof. R. Reitzenstein of Freiburg for supplying me with information respecting the contents of one of his dissertations which I had been unable to procure. Nor must I forget to mention the singular kindness of the late Dr Siegfried Mekler of Vienna, the editor of Dindorf's Sophocles in the Teubner series, who, hearing that I was engaged on this work, sent me a number of notes bearing on various points of difficulty. This will explain the occasional references to Mekler's unpublished views. Dr J. B. Pearson and Mr R. D. Hicks have kindly permitted me to print extracts from certain notes formerly communicated to Prof. Jebb in reference to frs. Jj6 and 1128. Notwithstanding the considerable output of labour directed to the criticism of the fragments, the attention which they have received is scanty in comparison with the mass of comment which has accumulated upon the extant plays. Hence I have been often compelled to rely largely on my own resources. This is, in fact, the first systematic effort that has been made to put together a continuous commentary, though I have the best of reasons for knowing that its imperfections are not due to that cause alone. I must warn readers that the printing of the book was seriously delayed by the stress of recent events and that it went to the press at the beginning of 1913. Everyone knows the difficulties and inconsistencies that are apt to occur in such cases, and that they cannot be satisfactorily cured by the list of corrigenda. I desire to acknowledge the generous support which I have throughout received from the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, although the work has grown to a size which neither they nor I contemplated at the time of its inception. A. C. P. February, 1916.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME I PAGES

PREFACE

.

.

.

.

.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

.

.

.

.

.

v—x .

§ i.

The number of the plays

.

.

xiii—xxii

§ 2.

The subjects of the plays

.

.

xxii—xxxii

§ 3.

The tradition of the text

.

.

xxxii—xlvi

§ 4.

The sources of the fragments

.

xlvi—xci

§ 5.

Bibliography .

.

.

.

.

xci—c

FRAGMENTS OF NAMED PLAYS :

Introductions, text and notes

.

.

1—270

GENERAL INTRODUCTION § I.

The number of the plays.

T H E anonymous Life of Sophocles1 records on the authority External of Aristophanes of Byzantium that 1302 plays were attributed3 evldenceto Sophocles, but that 17 of these were spurious. The statement is entitled to credit, as coming from Aristophanes ; and it has been referred with high probability to his work entitled Trpo? Toi>? KaWi/^d^ov -nivaica^. Not much is known of the book in question, but it may be taken to have contained corrections and enlargements of the well-known TrLvaice.*; of Callimachus, which was not merely a catalogue of the books contained in the Alexandrian library, but included biographical details concerning the various authors, and in the case of the Attic drama the dates of the production of the several plays, as well as other points of interest drawn from the StSaa-KaXiai of Aristotle5. Suidas, however, reports that Sophocles produced 123 plays, and according to some authorities considerably more. This information may be reconciled with the Life in two ways, i.e. by the adoption either of Boeckh's6 correction of Suidas, which makes the total 113 (piy' in place of picy'), or of Bergk's7 1

xi p . liv Bl. ^X€i $£ dpafmTa, ci's (prjaip 'Api
pX cod. A. Other MSS give pd', which is the vulgate.' There was clearly a confusion of the uncials A and A, and the evidence of Suidas indicates that the number intended was 130 rather than 104. 3 ?x€l implies a reference to an established authority. The vulg. typa^pe should be rejected. * By Dindorf and others. For the work itself see Susemihl, Al. Lit. 1 392, 443; Nauck, Ar. Byz. p. 243 ff. 5 See schol. Ar. Nub. 552; Susemihl, I 327 ff.; O. Schneider, Callim. II 306. 6 Tr. Gr. princ. p. n o . 7 In the Preface to his text of Sophocles (1858), p. xxxix.

xiv

GENERAL

INTRODUCTION

substitution of 7 for 17 (£' for t£") in the Life. The latter proposal is palaeographically the easier, and the number 123 agrees better than 113 with the remaining data, as will presently appear. Number of The number of his victories is also variously recorded. According to Suidas, they were twenty-four; according to the Life, which followed the authority of Caristius of Pergamum1, twenty; and, according to Diodorus, only2 eighteen. The lastmentioned statement is now confirmed by the evidence of a recently discovered inscription3. Further, we are informed by the Life4 that, in addition to the twenty victories, he several times gained the second prize, but never the third. Cratinus5 intimates that on one occasion at least Sophocles was refused a chorus altogether ; but, even if the statement is literally correct, it is impossible to determine whether the plays written for that occasion were or were not included in the total number assigned to Sophocles by Aristophanes. It is conceivable, though not very probable, that the number of victories recorded by Suidas included occasions on which Sophocles received the second prize6. Others have thought that the inclusion of Lenaean victories is the cause of the discrepancy; and a parallel has been found in the case of Cratinus, who, though credited with only three victories at the Lenaea in the inscription already quoted, reaches the total attributed to him by Suidas by means of six others gained at the City festival7. This view is sufficiently plausible, and it would perhaps be unnecessary to look further, if it were not for the comparative unimportance of the Lenaea 1 He belongs to the second century B.C. The reference is to his treatise 7rep£ SiSa.aKa\i.Civ (Athen. 235 E : FHG IV 359). 2 13- 103. 3 CIA 11 977 a, where [So0o]/c\^s A n i l was restored by Bergk (Rh. Mus. xxxiv 298). 4 v p. li Blaydes. * fr. 15 (1 16 K.). 6 Cf. the use of VIKCLV in the fifth Argument to the Nubes (Arist. fr. 621 Rose). 7 The explanation was first put forward by Bergk in Rh. Mus. xxxiv 298. It is accepted by Haigh, Attic Theatre*, pp. 28, 46; but by a curious slip the number of the victories won by Cratinus at the two festivals is inverted. The text is thus at variance with the inscriptions quoted on pp. 363, 364. See also Wilhelm, Urkunden, p. 106.

THE NUMBER

OF THE PL A YS

xv

in the history of tragedy1. At the same time, where numerals are concerned, we must not neglect their constant liability to suffer corruption2. However this may be, eighteen victories at the City Dionysia, where tetralogies were always produced, involved the performance of seventy-two plays. Of the remaining fifty-one in the Alexandrian list, it is reasonable to suppose, even when we bear in mind Sophocles' extraordinary popularity, that at least nine tetralogies—if not more—consisted of plays which obtained the second prize. The calculation leaves little room for exhibition at the Lenaea, so that, if performances at that festival are used to account for the twenty-four victories mentioned by Suidas, it would follow that the titles of many of the plays which Sophocles produced were unknown to the Alexandrians. Objection has been taken3 to the number 123 on the ground that it cannot be divided into tetralogies. But several explanations are possible. Thus, since the evidence concerning the Lenaea seems to establish the fact that tragedies were produced in groups of three rather than of four, the inclusion of such plays might account for the odd number. Or, again, since we know that the Oedipus Coloneus was not produced until after the death of its author, it is possible, as Dindorf suggested4, that he left only three plays ready to be included in his thirtyfirst tetralogy, and that Sophocles the younger added the fourth. Further, it is almost certain that the Archelaus and Andromache of Euripides5 were not included in the official lists of tetralogies (StSacr/caXtat); and it is quite possible that similar exceptions were known to exist among the authentic works of Sophocles. 1 For the fifth century we have no evidence except the record of Agathon's victory (Athen. 217A: cf. Plat. Symp. 173A), and the inscription relating to 419 and 418 (CIA II 972). From the latter it is inferred that each poet submitted three plays. The Lenaea was perhaps reserved for inexperienced or mediocre playwrights (Haigh, op. cit. p. 28). 2 Bergk thought that K in the Life might be an error for KS'. 3 See Christ-Schmid, Gr. Litteraturgesch.^ p. 315s, where the statement of Aristophanes is now accepted. 4 ed. i860, p. xxxv. 5 Vit. Eur. p. 4 Dind.; schol. Eur. Andr. 445. The latter passage has occasioned much curious speculation, which need not detain us here.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

xvi Early loss of plays.

Numbers assigned to certain plays.

In the next place, it will be observed that, whereas in the case of Euripides we have a definite statement that 78 plays out of a total number of 92 were extant at Alexandria1, no similar information is available in relation to Sophocles. Yet the general probabilities of the case, as well as the analogy of the history of the other tragedians, forbid us to believe that Aristophanes had access to copies of all the plays whose titles were taken into account in his calculation of the total. The conclusion is assisted by the fact that losses of certain dramas are actually recorded in some of the extant Arguments2. Elmsley has shown3 that satyr-plays in particular often failed to survive, so that their existence was only known from their appearance in the SiSaaicaXiai: whether his criticism is applicable to the Sophoclean tradition will be considered later. A further question arises in regard to the puzzling statement in the Argument to the Antigone, that the play is reckoned as the thirty-second4. The figures recorded for the Alcestis, the Aves, the Dionysalexandros of Cratinus, and the Imbrians of Menander, 17, 35, 8 and some figure between 71 and 79 respectively, require examination in the same connexion5; but for the present purpose we must confine ourselves to the Antigone. The extant Aeschylean catalogue suggests that the figure might refer to the alphabetical order, and some critics have inclined to this view6. Inasmuch, however, as some twentythree titles beginning with A are known, in order to satisfy an alphabetical arrangement we should be obliged to assume that at least nine others were lost, and to place the Antigone last in 1

For an elucidation of the tradition see Dieterich in Pauly-Wissowa VI 1247. See the Arguments to the Medea, the Phoenissae, and the Acharnians. 3 On Eur. Med? p. 239. 4 See Jebb's Introduction, § 22. P'or \4\eKTac as indicating a reference to a catalogue see Wilamowitz, Anal. Eur. p. 133. 5 There is a discussion of the whole subject by R. C. Flickinger in Class. Phil. V 1-18. But the data have since been enlarged by the publication of Oxyr. Pap. 1235 (x p. 81ff.),containing Arguments of Menander's plays. From this it appears that the Imbrians was numbered eJ85o/x?jKO
THE NUMBER OF THE PLAYS

xvii

order or nearly so. The improbability of the double assumption is so great that we must look elsewhere for an explanation of the numeral. But the chronological solution is also open to objections of considerable weight. As the plays were produced in tetralogies, it is strange that the A ntigone rather than a satyrplay should have been reckoned as the last play of the eighth tetralogy1. Further, if Sophocles only produced thirty-two plays in the first twenty-seven (or twenty-six) years of his dramatic career, it is surprising that he should have written as many as ninety-one in the last thirty-five (or thirty-six). However, the latter argument is not entirely convincing, since several reasons are conceivable which might favour an increased productivity in the poet's later life. Flickinger, who has made the most recent examination of the problem presented by these dramatic numerals, seems to be justified in concluding that their original function was to record the arrangement of the volumes in some library,—presumably the Alexandrian. If each play of which the library possessed a copy was distinguished by a numeral, it is unlikely that their arrangement was arbitrary rather than according to some rational system. For the purpose supposed a chronological basis becomes the more probable, since several of the early plays may have been lost; but we should still be obliged to infer that Sophocles increased the rate of his output subsequently to the date of the Antigone*. It should be added that the recently discovered evidence respecting the Imbrians of Menander entirely confirms this conclusion. An alphabetical solution is absolutely excluded by the remaining titles, and moreover, since the roll to which the fragment belonged seems to have contained an alphabetical series of Arguments, the fact that the numerical order of the plays was also recorded clearly points to some other principle 1 The Lenaean hypothesis will not serve here, since tragedies were not performed at that festival until after 440 (Capps, A./.A. iv 86). Bergk avoided the difficulty by reading in the Argument to the Antigone: SeStSaKrcu de TO Sp&fm TOVTO rpiaKoarbv Sevrepos < ^ v > . Jebb has given good reasons for rejecting his proposal. 2 Flickinger is perhaps right in seeking to minimize the importance of this increase, if it actually occurred; but why does he assume (p. 13) that only one hundred of Sophocles' plays were known to the Alexandrians?

xviii

Number titles.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

of arrangement. On the other hand, although the date of t h e Imbrians may be open to argument 1 , the chronological solution would not involve any serious difficulty. Now that we have examined the external evidence bearing on the number of the plays, we must enquire how far the number of titles actually known to us from quotations corresponds with the total of 123 plays said to have been recorded by Aristophanes. The number of actual or ostensible titles of which we have information, including those of the seven surviving plays, is at least 132, but there is hardly any doubt that this total must be reduced for the purpose of ascertaining the correct number of the plays which the titles represent. Five certain cases of double titles have been counted as single plays in the reckoning

adopted above, i.e. 'Arpeu? fj MvicTjvaiai,, Maviet? fj Tlo\vi8o$, NavcriKcia t) TVkvvTpiai, 'Ohvcraevs aicavOoirXr)!; rj Ni7TTjoa, TlavBoopa i) X(j)vpoKOTroi. These double titles were chiefly, if not entirely, a device adopted by the grammarians in order to distinguish plays bearing the same title but written by different authors2. It will be observed that in each case, except 'OSvacrem a/cavdoTrXr)!; f) NtVTpa, the name of a leading character is combined with a name taken from the chorus; and in view of the prevalence of the latter among the titles of Aeschylus, it may be conjectured that the chorus-names Mvicrjvalai, MdvTei?, YlXvvTpiai, and X^vpoKoiroi, were the original designations chosen by Sophocles. It sometimes happens that this practice of the grammarians, instead of tending to precision, is actually a source of confusion, when quotations are made by means of one or the other of the alternative titles, so that, unless there is independent evidence of the combination, two different plays appear to be cited. Thus it is highly probable that the AlOioTres should be identified with the Me/juvoov (1 p. 22), the Kdfiiicoi with the MI'I/M; (11 p. 4), and the 'Hpa/cXij'; (but not the rHpaic\et<Tico<;) with the i-wl Taivdpa) aarvpoi (1 p. 167). The probable identity of the ''EarL^ovoi with the 'Epi(j)v\r} (1 p. 129) only differs in so far as 'ETTIJOVOI is not a name given to the chorus, but serves, like 'E7TT« eVt 0»;/3a?, as a succinct description of the subject-matter, 1 2

Oxyr. Pap. X p. 83. Haigh, Tragic Drama, p. 399 f.

THE NUMBER OF THE PLA YS

xix

—the second expedition against Thebes. The proposed identifications of the AoXoTres with the Qolvit; (I p. 120), of the second <£>ivev<; with the TvfiTraviarat (II p. 313 f.), and of the <S>^ttoTtSe? with the 'JLpfj,i,6vr] (ii p. 306), are much more disputable. A still more frequent source of error was the substitution for the true title of the name of one of the principal characters ; but, though scholars seem sometimes tacitly to approve such combinations as Olv6fj.ao<; rj 'linrohafieia,1, they are not really instances of double titles deliberately adopted by author or critic, but the results of lapse of memory, carelessness of citation, or confusion by a copyist. The matter is of so much importance not merely to the present investigation, but also to the arrangement and interpretation of the Fragments themselves, that we must first establish beyond the possibility of dispute that such errors are not infrequent. Now, the Orestes of Euripides is sometimes entitled Electra in late MSS (see e.g. C.R. II 172), just as conversely Longinus 7repi evpeaea><; (Walz, Rhet. Gr. IX 589) refers to El. 1122 as spoken by Electra in the Orestes. Similarly, the Phoenissae appears as the Oedipus (C.R. II 172), the Bacchae as the Pentheus2, the Hippolytus as the Phaedra3, and the Troades as the Hecuba*. Hence we are not surprised to find that the Oenomaus is cited once as the Hippodamia*, the Daedalus once as the Talcs6, the Heracles once as the Cerberus'1, and the Tyro once as the Pelias%. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Ion was an alternative title for the Creusa (II p. 23), and Clytaemnestra either for the Iphigenia or the Aegisthus (I p. 219) ; but hesitation is pardonable before we accept the identification of the Theseus with the Phaedra (or the Aegeus: I p. 184), of the Acrisius with the Danae (1 p. 38), of the Aletes with the Erigone (I p. 173), of the Andromache with the Pastores (I p. 78), or of the Tyndareus with the Aletes (II p. 268). It happens occasionally, though much less frequently, that a play is cited by the name not of a character, but of a person who is described The title is so printed by Dindorf and Nauck {TGF p. 233). So cod L and the codd. of Stob. flor. 36. 9 and 74. 8. So cod. L and Eustath. //. p. 490, 23. 4 5 Welcker, Gr. Trag. p. 456. fr. 472. 8 6 fr. 161. ' fr- 224. fr. 648.

xx

GENERAL

INTRODUCTION

or referred to by one or more of the speakers. We do not know enough about the Licymnius of Euripides to feel sure that the misquotation of fr. 472 in Bachm. anecd. I p. 412, 7 as coming from the Heracles is an error of this kind; but there can be no doubt in regard to schol. Plat. rep. 361 B, where Aesch. Theb. 579 ff. are cited as AtV^Xou i^'Afufjiapdov. A similar example is probably to be found in Soph. fr. 731, where, following Hartung, I have suggested that eV 'ld/A@r) covers a reference to the Triptolemus, and the mysterious title 3oavt}(f>6poi (fr. 452) may perhaps be explained as an allusion to a particular scene in the Laocoon. An error more easily detected is the ascription of a play to the wrong author, that is to say, to Aeschylus or Euripides instead of to Sophocles, or to Sophocles instead of to Aeschylus or Euripides. In the result there may be occasional difficulties respecting the genuineness of individual fragments 1 , but the discovery of the mistake seldom effects the removal of a title from one tragedian to another. Relying on the existence of this source of error, scholars have refused to credit the statement that Sophocles wrote a Prometheus'*; and similarly Welcker conjectured that the titles Ixion and Sisyphus belonged exclusively to Aeschylus and Euripides 3 . Important additions to the text of Sophocles, which result from the recognition of an error in the statement of authorship, will be found in frs. 581 and 684. Another cause of disturbance is the doubt which exists as to the number of plays corresponding to the titles Atreus and Thyestes, and Phineus and Tympanistae; and it is uncertain whether the titles '\L~kkvq, 'E\ez^»?9 aTraivqav;, and 'EXez/7?? apirayq, imply the existence of three, two, or only one play. When we have made allowance for all these disquieting considerations, we shall probably be disposed to deduct some twenty titles from the 132 mentioned above, so that of the 123 known 1

For examples see on frs. 14, 1080, Eur. frs. 474, 515, schol. Horn, T 471 (attributing Aesch. Ag. 282 to Sophocles), Hesych. I p. 227 farapBtvevTa• oi wpi-rovTa •wapQivois. 2O0OKX?JS 'ltj>i.yevelq. rrj iv A6\l6i (i.e. Eur. I.A. 993). Hence frs. 583, 769 and 941 have been assigned by some to Euripides. 2 Schol. Pind. Pyth. 5. 35, where however Schroeder suspects that a reference to the KoXx'Scs (fr. 340) has fallen out. 3 See 1 p. 213, 11 p. 185.

THE NUMBER OF THE PLA YS

xxi

to Aristophanes of Byzantium we are still able to identify about 112. Of all these there is, so far as I can see, only one, the Iberes1, of which it might be thought that it no longer existed in the Alexandrian epoch; and even of it we can only say that there is no positive indication of its survival. It has already been remarked that we have no record of the number of Sophoclean plays which were preserved in the Alexandrian library. Now, if Boeckh's hypothesis2 were correct, it would follow that we are still able to trace practically all the genuine plays as having passed into the keeping of the Alexandrians. But it is in the highest degree improbable that copies of every one of them survived throughout the interval between the fifth and third centuries. On the other hand, if we accept 123 as the actual total of the genuine titles, we are now in a position to say that some n o of the plays to which they belonged were known to the students of Alexandria. It is reasonable to infer that there are very few indeed3 of which Alexandria has left us no trace, and the result is a very remarkable testimony to the accuracy and comprehensiveness of our sources. The information available respecting the satyr-plays is not Satyrsuch as to disturb the previous calculation. There are sixteen p ays' plays universally admitted or strictly proved to be satyric4. To these we need not hesitate to add Aa/SaXo? and 'Hpaic\et
The relevance to Sophocles of this title is now disputed : Christ-Schmid, op. at. p. 318!. - See p. xiii. 3 It is possible that we know them all, just as we can identify all those of Euripides which were preserved : see Dieterich in Pauly-Wissowa vi 1248. 4 The names are as follows : A/AVKOS, 'Afupidpeus, 'Ax'XWws ipacral, AwvvaicrKos, 'E\evr)s y&fios, "Epis, 'HpanXfjs, '\%vevTul, KTjSaAiac, Kptais, Kuxpol, Mufws, HavSupa, SaX/iui'eOs, TTJX£0OS, "Tflpis. 5

Haigh, Tragic Drama, p. 392. P. S.

b

xxii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

is perhaps more to be said for Meineke's conjecture concerning the Aavdr) than the particular evidence relating to it seems to suggest1. It is possible that we should add the Chryses, for reasons given in the Introductory Note. Satyr-plays were not produced at the Lenaea; but even if we make a liberal allowance for the inclusion in the list of plays performed at this festival, it seems clear that several satyr-plays were lost before the time of Aristophanes. This is no more than might have been expected, in view of the scantiness of the information concerning them which we owe to the Alexandrians2.

§ 2. ClassifisuVectsf

The subjects of the plays.

The subjects chosen by Sophocles for the composition of his P ^ a v s w e r e taken exclusively from ancient legends. When we seek to analyse and arrange them, various methods of classification are possible. Thus the locality to which each particular story belonged might be adopted as the guiding principle of division ; and such a course would be justified, if the dramatic stories rested chiefly upon oral tradition, gathered directly or indirectly from different quarters of the Hellenic world. But, except incidentally or when belonging to Attica itself, the material of tragedy is not drawn from myths of merely local circulation. It was shaped from the Kkka dvBpdov which rhapsodes had sung from time immemorial throughout the length and breadth of Greece—icaff 'EXXdSa ical /xeaov "A/5705. Not that local associations are entirely to be neglected: the dramas whose scenes were laid in Attica, Boeotia, or Aetolia, tend to be grouped together, even where some other link has been chosen for their connexion. Genealogical affinity is a more promising point of departure. Every noble family could trace its descent, 1

IPP-38. " 5 The effect of schol. Ar. Ran. 1124 seems to be that Aristarchus and Apollonius disregarded the satyric play in speaking of Aeschylean tetralogies (or trilogies) like the Orestea. The Proteus itself was familiar ground to the Alexandrians {TGF p. 70). They knew of only eight of Euripides' satyr-plays, including one of doubtful authenticity. The marginalia to the Ichneutae are very meagre. See also p. xvi3 2

THE SUBJECTS OF THE PLA YS

xxiii

through generations of heroic ancestors, back to Dorus, Xuthus, and Aeolus, the sons of Hellen. The cherished unity of race was maintained by a network of relationships stretching from Thessaly to Sparta, and from Elis to Orchomenus. It would be easy, with the information at our command, to distribute among the chief houses the tales of the sufferings and achievements of their successive representatives. To this aspect of the matter we shall presently return. But the mythical past was not merely treasured in family chronicles ; it supplied the record of the glorious beginnings of Greek history. ' Pelops' line' was linked indissolubly with 'the tale of Troy divine.' The orderly disposition of the early saga, which preserved it as the common heritage of later ages, was mainly the work of the epic poets. To Sophocles the legends of Hellas were permanently embedded in its poetry; and the task of cataloguing his plays will only be adequately performed, in so far as we succeed in discovering their literary sources. Although the data available for the reconstruction of the influence lost plays are lamentably scanty, we are generally in a position of Homer to recognize the chief features of the stories which Sophocles adapted for the stage. The surviving titles entirely confirm the testimony of Zoilus, the speaker in Athenaeus1, that ' Sophocles delighted in the epic Cycle to such an extent that throughout the whole of a play he would follow closely the epic narrative.' To the same effect the author of the anonymous Life2: 'His plots follow in the tracks of Homer, and in several of his plays he produces an exact copy of the Odyssey! But it was not merely in the structure of his plots that Sophocles was considered a follower of Homer. In the delineation of character and in the artistic expression of his thought the writings of Sophocles seemed to revive the charm of Homer's poetry3. Aristotle had compared the art of Sophocles with that of Homer 4 ; and Polemo 1

277 E. For Casaubon's note on this passage see § 5. XII p. liv Bl. The words which precede (rb wav [tev ovv 'OfXTjptKws ojvbfxa^e) are unintelligible. Bergk proposed oUovonei for uwi/icife: one might also suggest 'Ofi.r)pi2

3

vit. Soph. XIII p. lv Bl. •fjdotTOLii 5e Kal TTOI/CIXXCI ical TOIS CTIV07}naa1 rex"'™?

XpfjTO.1., 'OfiripiKrjv iKfiarrd/tevos 4 poet. 3. 1448s1 26.

X^PLV' b 2

xxiv

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

the Academic took an equal pleasure in Homer and in Sophocles, declaring that Homer was an epic Sophocles, Sophocles a tragic Homer1. It was chiefly in respect of his diction that Sophocles was called ' the most Homeric' of Attic poets; but his most intimate point of contact with the Homeric spirit was his refusal to employ his art for the purpose of fostering religious enthusiasm, of promoting a purer morality, or of freeing the mind from conventional shackles, while he laboured to create afresh the heroic figures of ancient legend, and to present under new conditions the majesty of the life which Homer had first portrayed. The Homeric element in Sophocles' style is easily recognizable, but the evidence which establishes his close adherence to Homeric models must not be taken to imply that, as a dramatic poet, he was deficient in inventive power. We infer simply that, in erecting the framework of his plays, Sophocles selected Homeric material to a larger extent than his fellow tragedians. For this purpose no distinction need be drawn between ' Homer' The Epic and the poems of the epic Cycle. Down to about 500 B.C. yc e ' no doubt had arisen that the latter were actually written by Homer2, and the popular conception remained unshaken until a much later date. When Aeschylus said that his tragedies were slices from Homer's ample feast3, it is beyond question that he was not referring to the Iliad and Odyssey alone. Indeed, it is extremely unlikely that the phrase ' epic Cycle' or even the notion which it expressed had come into existence during the lifetime of Sophocles4. What then precisely was the epic Cycle? The answer is given by certain extracts from the chrestomathia of Proclus the Neoplatonist5, which are preserved partly in the 1

Diog. L. 4. io, Suid. s.v. Tlo\i/u.biii. See T. W. Allen in C. Q. n 88; the evidence is given by Christ-Schmid, op. cit. p. 92. 3 Athen. 347 E. 4 Monro, Horn. Od. p. 346, pointed out that there is no evidence of K6K\OS iir&v, or any such phrase, having existed before the time of Aristotle. Christ-Schmid, op. cit. p. 92, now take the same view. The inferiority to Homer of his rivals in the same field is asserted in Isocr. 12. 263, and the transferred sense of KVK\IK6S at Alexandria (Callim. ap. A.P. 12. 43) indicates that the notion of 'cyclic poetry' had been taken over from the Peripatetics. 5 A considerable controversy has arisen in recent years over these extracts. 2

THE SUBJECTS OF THE PLA YS

xxv

bibliotheca of the patriarch Photius (f. 318 B 21) and partly in MSS of Homer, i.e. chiefly in Ven. A supplemented by the Escurial and other less well known copies. What is called the epic Cycle commenced, according to Proclus, with the fabled union of Uranus and Gaia, and contained all the myths relating to the gods as well as such historical facts as emerged in the course of the description. It was the work of various poets, and came to an end with the landing of Odysseus on the coast of Ithaca, when his son Telegonus unwittingly slew him. Proclus adds that the preservation and currency of the epic Cycle were to be ascribed not so much to its merit as to the orderly sequence of events which it contained (TTJV aKoKovGiav TWV ev avrq) Trpayfidrcov). The later extracts, which are on a larger scale, relate to the subject-matter of the Cycle, and comprise what purports to be an abstract, beginning with the Cypria and ending with the Telegony, of six epics covering the period of the Trojan war. The character of Proclus's evidence and the value to be attributed to it were materially affected by the discovery of its affinity to the mythographical handbook which, though known as the bibliotheca of Apollodorus, was certainly not the work of the famous grammarian of the second century B.C. The bibliotheca, as formerly known from the available MSS, broke off abruptly in the course of a description of the adventures of Theseus, but the discovery in 1885 and 1887 of an abbreviated form of the conclusion in two separate but parallel fragments proved that it originally extended as far as the death of Odysseus1. Now these fragments, so far as they comprise the Trojan story, agree so remarkably both in substance and in Extreme views are represented on the one hand by Bethe (Herm. xxvi 593), who refuses to acknowledge that they have any value at all, and on the other by T. W. Allen in C. Q. II 64, 81, who seems to be almost alone in holding that the Cyclic epics survived until the fifth century A.D. It is not universally admitted that the grammarian and the Neoplatonist were identical. See W. Schmid in Rh. A/us, XLIX 133ff. and BphW 1907, 5 f. 1 The fragments were published respectively by R. Wagner from a Vatican MS (950) of the fourteenth century, and by Papadopulos-Kerameus in Rh. Mus. XLVI i6t ff. from a Jerusalem MS. They will be found, together with the extracts of Proclus, in the first volume of the Teubner Mythographi Graeci (ed. R. Wagner), 1894.

xxvi

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

language with Proclus's epitome of the six Cyclic epics that there can be no hesitation in attributing to them a common origin. The inference is drawn that there lay at the basis of the mythographical compendium which was produced, whether by Dionysius the Cyclograph1 or another, in late Alexandrian times, and was the common source of the extant mythographical literature, a composition known as the ' cycle of the events described by the epic poets' (KVKKCX; virb TWV eiroTroitov taroprj-

fievos). From the inclusion of their works in this cycle the term Cyclic was transferred from the handbook to the poems themselves2. The Alexandrian KVKXOS was not intended to serve a literary purpose, that is to say, the provision for readers of the old epics of detailed information about them, but rather to supply people of ordinary education with a succinct digest of mythical history based upon the writings of the ancient poets. Proclus indicates that the poems themselves were valued chiefly as authoritative records of the events which they described3. We should not therefore be surprised if the ostensible epitome, particularly in the form in which it has come down to us, is found to contain some elements foreign to the original sources, or even at variance with the other vestiges of our fragmentary knowledge concerning them4. Now, it will be observed that, 1

Diod. 3. 66 is a passage often quoted : Aionaiifi T$ ovura^afiivi^ TOSS ira\aias

/Avdoirouas' O6TOS yap rd r e ireplrbv Auwvaov /ecu TCLS 'A/j,a.£6vas, £TL 5e rous 'Apyovatiras, KO.1 Ta Kara rbv 'TKiaKov ir6\tix.ov TrpaxSevra, KO.1 irdW £repa crupT^rttKTtu, TapanSels ra iroirifiaTa. TWV apxa-luv, TSIV re p.vBoKbywi' Kal TWV TTOI.T]TQV. T h i s quotation however

refers to Dionysius Scytobrachion, the writer (among other works) of a 'romance' Ai-gonaulica, who is frequently cited by Diodorus and the scholia on Apollonius, and is sometimes confused (e.g. by Christ-Schmid, op. cit. p. 93) with Dionysius the Cyclograph. See Susemihl, 11 45, 57; E. Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa V 928, 932. There were of course several such KVKKOI, among others that of a certain Theodoras, whose account was followed in the Tabula Iliaca. 2 This account chiefly follows the article by E. Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa 1 28752886. No apology is needed for the prominence given to the subject; for some understanding of the development of mythological literature between Hesiod and Hyginus is neces-sary to a correct appreciation of the evidence touching the subject-matter of the several plays. 3 The reference must be assumed to be to the time when the (?7nicds KOKXOS was put in circulation, perhaps in the first century B.C. 4 These discrepancies were used by Bethe to assail the trustworthiness of Proclus. A flagrant instance is the statement in the epitome of the Cypria that Paris captured

THE SUBJECTS OF THE PLA YS

xxvii

although we have in Proclus a complete summary of the tale of Troy, we know nothing whatever about the epics from which the beginning of the cycle was. made up. The analysis of the poems which covered the period stretching from the marriage of Uranus and Gaia to the opening of the Cypria is entirely lost. It is unfortunate that the gap cannot be filled up with material drawn from other quarters : for even though we might learn but little of their distinctive versions, it would be instructive to discover the names of those poems which Alexandrian Scholarship regarded as the most authoritative documents concerning the early myths. The reference in Athenaeus to Sophocles' fondness for the epic Cycle follows immediately upon a quotation from the Titanomachia, which suggests that that poem was included in the Cycle. But the first place in order of time is claimed for a Cyclic Theogony, which is to be distinguished from Hesiod's work of the same name1. The only other poems which by general consent are assigned to the epic Cycle are the Thebais"1, its sequel the Epigoni, and its precursor the Oedipodea. The relation of the 'Afx^iapew e%i\aai<; to the other Theban epics, and consequently to the Cycle, is quite uncertain3. The rest is guesswork : some favour the inclusion of the Ot%a\to? aXcoats, of the Phocais, and of the Danais1, but the supposed antiquity of their origin is the only reason for their selection. There is a general impression that the Trojan series was the longest and most important part of the Cycle, but it rests upon no other evidence than the accidental preservation of Proclus's abstract. The Ionian epos, it is true, culminated in the TpunKa; but, if the iiructs KVK\O<; was such as we have supposed, it must have taken notice of Heracles and Dionysus, of the Argonauts, of Perseus, and of Theseus. Epics, in addition to those named above, on these and other subjects were written by Eumelus, Sidon after the abduction of Helen, notwithstanding the evidence of Hdt. i. 117. The version of Homer was preferred for the handbook here as in other cases. 1 EGF p. 5. There is no direct evidence of the existence of this work. See now Dietze in Rh. Jfus. LXIX 522. - TT)V KVKXIKTIV Q-qfiai&a, Athen. 465 E. 3 Introd. to Eur. Phoenissae, p. xix. 4 Christ-Schmid, op. cit. p. 100, treat these as outside the Cycle, owing to their non-Ionic character.

xxviii

Classifimyths.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Cinaethon, and Asius; and these, as well as the anonymous Phoronis, Alcmaeonis, and Naupactia, must have exercised some influence upon Sophocles and the other tragedians. We may add the Aegimius, which is sometimes ascribed to Hesiod ; but in their bearing upon Attic tragedy the most important of the Hesiodic poems was the yvvaiK&v i t appears from this discussion that, except in the case of the Trojan epics, and of these only in so far as we can rely on the statements of Proclus, it is impossible to make a list of Sophocles' literary sources so as to map out under each the plays whose plots are derived from them. The alternative has been adopted of arranging the plays according to the ' sequence of events' (a/coXovBlav TWV irpayfiaTcov) as established by the handbook of pseudo-Apollodorus. It is true that this does not rest either directly or at all upon a series of abstracts or arguments (virodeaets:) of poetical literature; and even where it seems to follow particular tragic authorities, it merely reflects the influence of tragedy upon the current conception of mythical history 1 . But the general outline which it presents corresponds in the main with the order in sequence of the myths as it was apprehended i n t h e fifth century; and the genealogical framework by which the various episodes were held together must ultimately be traced to the influence of Hecataeus, of Acusilaus, and above all of Pherecydes of Leros, the somewhat older contemporary of Sophocles. The genealogies, again, though fixed and distributed by these chroniclers, were derived by them from early heroic poetry, perhaps above all from the KaraXoyo*; of Hesiod 2 . I. Theogony. In the earliest age of the world, before the power of the Olympians was firmly established, was set the scene of the Pandora, the Cedalion, the Triptolemus, the Thamyras, and the Ixion. II. Issue of Deucalion : the Aeolids. The Aetolian princes traced their origin to Aeolus through several generations descending from his daughter Calyce. The Aetolian plays are 1 The rpaytptioi/j.eva of Asclepiades of Tragilus was just such a handbook of tragic mythology. The fragments indicate that if it had been preserved it would have contributed little to our knowledge of the works of the tragedians. 2 Rzach in Pauly-Wissowa v i n 1213. Christ-Schmid, op. cit. p. 123, describe the /caT
THE SUBJECTS OF THE PLA YS

xxix

the Oeneus, Meleager, and Hipponous. Among the sons of Aeolus were Sisyphus, Cretheus, Athamas, and Salmoneus. Here then belong the plays (a) Sisyphus, Iobates; {b) Athamas (first and second), Phrixus; and (c) Salmoneus, Tyro (first and second). Cretheus, the husband of Tyro, was also the father of Pheres and Aeson, so that we may add (d) the doubtful plays Admetus1 and Eumehis; and (e) the series of plays containing various episodes of the Argonautic adventure: Lemniae, Amycus, Phineus (first and second), Tympanistae, Colchides, Scythae, and Rizotomi. The Argonautic saga comes next to the Trojan in variety and extent; but, though there are several allusions to the Argonauts and their adventures in Homer, and many more in Hesiod, none of the Hesiodic poems, unless it be the third book of the KaraXo^o^, appears to have contained a complete narrative of the voyage. Of later epics the Naupactia, and the Corinthiaca of Eumelus, clearly related to this subject. III. Issue of Inachus. In the play entitled Inachus Sophocles handled the intrigue of Zeus with Io, and the result of the jealousy of Hera. Epaphus, the son of Io born in Egypt, was the father of Belus and Agenor, who were the ancestors of the two stocks into which the Inachidae were subsequently divided. (a) Belus was the father of Danaus and Aegyptus, from whom was descended Acrisius through Lynceus, the son of Aegyptus, and Hypermnestra, the daughter of Danaus. Here then belong the plays containing the story of Perseus: Acrisius, Danae, Andromeda, Larissaei. The grandson of Perseus was Amphitryon, the putative father of Heracles. The Heraclean plays are Amphitryon, Heracliscus, Heracles (or iirl Taivdpa)
and Trachiniae. The story of Danae and Perseus is undoubtedly old4, but we cannot identify any epic poem as the principal document from which the subsequent tradition started. The Danais, which has already been mentioned, seems to have contained the story of the Danaids. The kernel of the story of Heracles and his labours is believed to have been contained 1 8 3 4

See n. on fr. 851. Rzach in Pauly-Wisspwa VIII 1202, 1205 f. The identification is by no means certain : see p. [67. Horn. S 319, Hes. Scut. 216.

xxx

GENERAL

INTRODUCTION

in a Dorian epic which disappeared at a very early date and consequently exercised no direct influence on Attic tragedy1. Aristotle's slighting reference2 shows that the poems which existed in his time were not of much account. An exception should perhaps be made in favour of the Oi^aXYa? aX&Jcrt?, one of the chief sources of the Trachiniae, which was attributed to the Ionian Creophylus3. (b) Europa, the daughter of Agenor, became the mother of Minos, with whose story are connected the plays Daedalus, Camici, Minos4, and Polyidus (MaVret?). Cadmus, the brother of Europa, whose journey in search of his sister brought him ultimately to Thebes, was the traditional ancestor of the Theban dynasty. The following plays are connected with the fortunes of his descendants: Dionysiscus, Niobe, Oedipus Tyrannus, Oedipus Coloneus, Amphiaraus, Antigone, Epigoni (or Eriphyle), Oecles, and Alcmaeon. The Theban epics have already been mentioned. IV. Pelasgus, according to some the son of Zeus and Niobe, but by others reckoned as sprung from the soil, stands at the head of the Arcadian genealogies. The Arcadian plays are the Aleadae, Telephus, and Mysi. V. Arcadia was also the scene of the Ichneutae, which however occupies a separate class in view of its relation to the fortunes of Maia, daughter of Atlas the Titan. VI. The Asopids. We are here concerned with the adventures of the descendants of Aeacus, the grandson of Asopus. The 'A%tX\eftj? epaaral belongs here rather than to the Troica, but there is much doubt respecting the subjects of the Peleus, Phthiotides, Dolopes, and Phoenix. VII. Cecrops the earth-born was the earliest figure in the mythical sequence of the Athenian kings. The Attic legends were favourite subjects with Sophocles and Euripides, and here if anywhere they were indebted to local traditions at least as much as to literary models. No doubt the outlines of the chief stories had been fixed by previous writers, but we know scarcely 1

2 Wilamowitz, Eur. Her?' I 6Q f. poet. 8. 1451" 10. See Jebb's Trachiniae, p. xviii. In the previous pages (xvff.) the literary history of the Heracles myth is discussed. 4 Perhaps an alternative title : see p. xviii. 3

THE SUBJECTS OF THE PLAYS

xxxi

anything about the Theseidis (EGF p. 217), and the Atthis of Hegesinus is attested by a solitary quotation of Pausanias (9. 29. 1). The plays in question are the Tereus, Procris, Creusa {Ion), Aegeits, Theseus, and Phaedra. The Oedipus Coloneus, which in form belongs to the Theban Cycle, is largely Attic in substance, and entirely in spirit. VIII. The Tantalids. Here, as in the case of the Asopids, it is not possible strictly to separate the legends of the house of Atreus from the Trojan Cycle, but the Tantalus, Oenomaus (Hippodamia), Atreus, and Thyestes (first and second) clearly belong to the earlier period. IX. Troica. Thanks to the evidence of Proclus, we are able to arrange the remaining plays under the titles of the epics which contain the Trojan cycle. (a) Kvirpia: Alexander1, Eris, Crisis, Monms, 'E\ev7)<; ydfios, 'OBvaaevs fiaivo/Aevos, avWoyos, Iphigenia (Clytaemnestra), HvvSenrvot,, ITot{Andromache), 'EXevi?? diraiT-qai's (apirayrj), Troilus, Palaniedes. (d) Al8ioiri
"Tfipis,

'TSpotfiopoi..

If the number 112 is accepted as a probable total of the plays comprised in the preceding list, it will be noticed that 43 of them, or over 38 per cent., belong to the Trojan Cycle, A similar calculation applied to the plays of Aeschylus and Euripides yields percentages of 23 and 21 respectively. These remarkable figures entirely confirm the evidence relating to Sophocles' Homeric proclivities ; and if the limits were enlarged so as to include the plays whose subjects lie on the borders of 1 This play should in strictness have been associated with class V: cf. Apollod. 3. 150. But it would be inconvenient to separate it from the other Trojan plays. "- The subject of the play is extremely doubtful: see II p. 325.

xxxii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

the Homeric domain, the result would be even more striking. Want of information concerning the character and extent of the KV/CKO? prevents a closer enquiry. § 3. The tradition of the text. Tradition The seven plays which still survive have been handed down extant to u s m a number of MSS ranging from the eleventh to the plays. sixteenth century, of which the oldest and best is the well-known Laurentian, written in the first half of the eleventh century. But, whereas twelve MSS contain all the seven plays, either complete or with lacunae, and fifteen others four or more but less than seven, no less than seventy are restricted to the Ajax, Electra, and Oedipus Tyrannus alone, or to one or two of them1. The preponderance of the three plays is readily explained by their exclusive use for educational purposes during the Byzantine period. The existence of this selection may perhaps be traced as far back as to 500 A.D., if we may judge from the title of a treatise written by Eugenius, head of the imperial school at Constantinople under Anastasius I (491—518) and predecessor of Stephen of Byzantium in the tenure of that office2. The work was entitled KoKofieTpia rSiv fieXiicwp A.io-%v\ov ^otpoKXeovf icai RvpnrlSov a-jrb Bpafidroav ie'3. That is to say, Eugenius, no

doubt following earlier scholars, published analyses of the lyrical parts of the three tragedians similar to those which Heliodorus constructed for Aristophanes, but limited his activity to fifteen plays, three of Aeschylus, three of Sophocles, and nine of Euripides4. The number chosen corresponds to that of the plays selected from Aeschylus {Prometheus, Seven, and Persae), as well as of those taken later from Euripides {Hecuba, Orestes, and Phoenissae); and each of these groups consists of the first three plays according to the order of an earlier and larger collection. The history of the Euripidean tradition is more complicated, and does not concern us here, but the earlier collections made from 1

Thefiguresare taken from Jebb's text-edition of Sophocles, p. x m f. 3 Steph. Byz. p. 93, 1. Suid. s.v. Ei^vios. 4 So Colin in Pauly-Wissowa vi 987; Christ-Schmid, op. cit. 115 p. 879; Sandys, Hist. Cl. Schol. I 402; and C. H. Moore in C.R. xix 12. Wilamowitz, Einleitung, p- I97i62> thinks the statement obscure. 2

THE TRADITION OF THE TEXT

xxxiii

the works of Aeschylus and Sophocles undoubtedly comprised the fourteen plays which still exist. It must be recognized therefore that the survival of particular plays is due not to the accidental preservation of this or that MS from which all other copies were derived, but rather to the educational needs which prompted scholars to prepare annotated editions of select plays for the use of schools. Of the circumstances attending the publication of the earlier collection hardly a trace remains. An Argument is attached to each of the two plays Oedipus Coloneus and Antigone bearing the name of a certain Sallustius, and in the former he is described as Sallustius Pythagoras. In all probability therefore there was a tradition identifying him with Sallustius the Pythagorean1, the follower of Iamblichus and author of the treatise Trepl deSiv ical /coo-fiov2, who belonged to the latter part of the fourth century. This writer is probably the same man as the friend of the emperor Julian, and has also been identified with the sophist Sallustius to whom Suidas ascribes commentaries on Demosthenes and Herodotus3. Now, if Sallustius, the editor of the select plays, lived at so late a date as the second half of the fourth century, it is unlikely that he was the first compiler of the selection4. It will be shown later that the direct quotation of tragedies other than those contained in the select edition died out at the end of the second century. Further, it may be inferred, from the precise correspondence in subject between the plays chosen from each of the three great tragedians which contain the stories of Oedipus and Orestes, that the whole selection was made by a single person. Beyond this it is impossible to determine either author or date. WilamoTr

1

The title of the Argument is given in L as (TaKovcrrtov v irvBa/ybpov. Dindorf conjectured that irvdaySpov was the blunder of someone who did not perceive that the abbreviation represented inr66e<ns, but the view of Wilamowitz as stated above is preferable. F . Cumont, Rev. de Philol. XVI 53, rejecting the identification, points out that Sallustius was a Neo-Platonist. 2 For this work and its author see Gilbert Murray, Four Stages of Greek Religion, p. 163 ff. 3 A grammarian Sallust is quoted in schol. Ar. Plut. 725. Cumont assigns him to the sixth century. 4 Wilamowitz, op. cit. p. 199. Pius, a commentator on Sophocles, who is assigned to the second century (Christ-Schmid, op. cit. p. 345), is mentioned in schol. Ai. 408.

xxxiv

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

witz, who has once for all laid down the conditions of the problem, arrived at the conclusion that the selection was first made in the age of Plutarch, and after the lapse of a century secured universal acceptance1. We shall now proceed to give some account of the Sophoclean tradition in antiquity in order to prepare the way for an examination of the sources from which our knowledge of the lost plays Athens to is derived. The existence of written copies of Attic tragedies andria. c a n be traced back to the period of their production, that is to say, to a date not later than the close of the fifth century B.C., as is proved by the well-known passage in Ar. Ran. 52 where Dionysus speaks of reading to himself the Andromeda of Euripides ; and the force of v. 1114 of the same play is very much impaired if we do not understand it as implying that the text of the tragedians was studied in literary circles. The learning by heart of tragic pifuet? is mentioned by Plato2, and Alexis includes tragedies in a list of books which are recommended for the improvement of Heracles, who however chooses a cookerybook in preference to all of them3. The earliest recognition of the necessity for maintaining the integrity of the tragic texts is to be found in the law of Lycurgus the orator, which required that an official copy of the plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides should be preserved in the archives, and that in future performances the actors should adhere to the text of this copy4. It has been suggested that the official text only contained such plays as still kept the stage in the fourth century, but, as the plays of Aeschylus were seldom reproduced at that time6, it was probably more comprehensive. In fact, if such an official copy was ever made, although its primary purpose was not so much directly critical as to check the licence of the actors, it may be presumed that the net was cast as wide as possible, and that the most authoritative sources were consulted6. It is 1

Wilamowitz, op. cit. p. 202. 3 legg- 811 A : cf. Herond. 3. 30. fr. t 3 5 , 11 345 K. 4 Plut. vit. X orat. p. 841 F. The documents were no doubt preserved in the Metroum (Frazer's Pausanias, 11 p. 68). 5 Haigh, Attic Theatre*, p.. 76. 6 Wilamowitz, op. cit. p. 131, hardly allows so much. But his view that the 2

THE TRADITION OF THE TEXT

xxxv

generally supposed that this was the copy subsequently borrowed by Ptolemy Euergetes, when he left a deposit of fifteen talents as security for its return. His professed object was to make a transcript for his own use; but, when this had been done, he sent back the transcript to Athens in place of the original, and the Athenians were obliged to content themselves with a forfeit of the deposit1. It may be open to doubt whether the reference is to Euergetes I (247—221 B.C.) or to Euergetes II Physcon (146—117 B.C.)'2, although the former is generally preferred ; but the historical truth of the story is of less importance than the inferences to which it leads. Thus the acquisition of the official copy was certainly not regarded as having settled the text of the tragedians, for otherwise the conjectures of Aristophanes would riot have been recorded in our scholia. A still more important fact to which the story testifies is the migration of tragedy in the third century from Athens to Alexandria3, both as the home of the Alexandrian Pleiad, and as the place where the study of the old tragedians was pursued with the greatest zeal. It is to Alexandria that we owe our existing texts, and almost the whole of the information that can be recovered concerning the lost plays. Aesthetic and historical criticism of the tragedians had been Peripapursued almost exclusively by the Peripatetics in pre-Alexandrian tetlcstimes. With the former we are not immediately concerned, but on the historical side the publication of Aristotle's StSaa/caXiai was of considerable importance. This work was a collection of extracts from the archives giving the dates and circumstances of production of all the tragedies and comedies recorded in the official lists. The particulars which the archon registered were the names of the competing poets and their plays, of the choregi, and of the leading actors, and the order in which the competitors were placed by the judges. The concluding sentences of the ordinance was probably ineffective is to be preferred to Rutherford's contention that the story is inconsistent with the references to actors' readings in the scholia to Euripides {Annotation, pp. 57-60). 1 Galen in Hippocr. epidem. Ill 1 (xvn 1. 607 K.). 2 Sandys, History of Classical Scholarship, I p. 58. The later date is advocated by Usener in Susemihl, op. cit. II 667, but see ibid. p. 682. 3 Haigh, Tragic Drama, p. 439 ff.

xxxvi

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Argument to the Agamemnon of Aeschylus had been recognized as a fragment of Aristotle's treatise1, and a remarkable confirmation of the accuracy of our tradition came to light in 1886, when an inscription was discovered on the Acropolis, recording the production of the Orestea, and agreeing exactly in the facts which it mentions with the text of the Medicean MS2. But the stoneinscription was not the original record; for, so far as the contests listed were earlier than Aristotle's time, the details to be inscribed were taken from his book or were otherwise due to his researches3. Aristotle also wrote a treatise in one book entitled irepl TparytpSiwv, and another also in one book entitled viicai, k.iowcriaical4'. Of the former nothing whatever is known, and there is no probability in Mueller's view6 that it was related to the Bi&a
ical %o<j>o/c\eov<; fjuvOwv7 w a s

an investigation into the subject-matter of the plots of the various plays of Euripides and Sophocles, and especially into the sources from which they were derived, the extent of their deviations from the traditional versions, and the reasons which prompted such individual treatment8. Traces of the handiwork of Dicaearchus are to be seen in the first of the existing Arguments to the Alcestis and the Rhesus. Another of his works, 1

fr. 618 Rose. CIA IV 971; first published in 'E0>;M<7>'S 'Apxaio^oyiK^, 1886, p. 267. The inscription belongs to the class of victors' lists and is therefore not to be connected with the SiSaaxaMcu. 3 Wilhelm, Urkunden dramatischer Auffiihrungen in Athen, pp. 13—ig. 4 Diog. L. 5. 26. 5 pHG u l g 2 i 6 CIA 11 971 as contrasted with 972, 973, 975. See further Haigh, Attic Theatre*, p. 47; Reisch in Pauly-Wissowa v 398. 7 FHG 11 247. 8 The result was established by H. Schrader, quaest. Peripateticae, Hamburg, 1884. The work of Dicaearchus was more scientific than the Tpayipdoij/jiei/a. of Asclepiades, the character of which has already been explained (p. xxviii). 2

THE TRADITION OF THE TEXT

xxxvii

the Aiowcriaicol aytoves, probably a subdivision of the more comprehensive title irepl fiovcwcwv dyd>va>v, contained various items of information relating to the history of the Attic stage. Of less account is Hieronymus of Rhodes (c. 290—230 B.C.), another Peripatetic, who is quoted once or twice by Athenaeus as the source of certain anecdotes relating to Sophocles1, and may be compared with Dicaearchus as having been responsible for the statement that the plot of Euripides' Phoenix was drawn from the annals of a village community2. Passing to Alexandria, we find that at an early date (c. 285 B.C.) AlexZenodotus, the first librarian, shared with Lycophron and Alex- studies. ander Aetolus the task of putting in order the books in the library, and that to Alexander was assigned the special duty of superintending the arrangement of the tragedies and satyrplays3. Callimachus, who succeeded Zenodotus, completed the catalogue which his predecessor had begun and published it in

I2O books under the title vlvaices T&V ev irday iratZeia BiaXafiyfrdvTcov ical WV gweypayp-av. This celebrated work was more than a catalogue, since it contained biographical and other details of literary history, and, in the case of the dramatic writers, notices drawn from Aristotle's SiSaaKaXiai11 relating to the production of their plays at the Dionysia. Eratosthenes {c. 245 B.C.) confined his studies in the Attic drama to the production of a work on comedy (irepl ap^ala*; Kwfiwhias), but Aristophanes of Byzantium, who became chief librarian on the death of Eratosthenes (195 B.C.), was the first critic who laboured continuously on the text of the tragedians, and by his investigations laid a secure foundation for the benefit of later generations. We have already had occasion to refer to his work 71730? -roti? KaWifidxov irivaicas, which seems to have contained corrections of and additions to the treatise of Callimachus5. But his influence in the sphere of textual criticism was of much greater importance. There is no doubt whatever that he edited Euripides, for the allusions to him in the scholia do not admit of any other ex1

FHG II 450 n. See also vit. Soph. vi. His book was entitled irepl TroiijTav. 3 - TGFp. 621. Knaack in Pauly-Wissowa I 1447. 4 Schol. Ar. Nub. 552. For the whole subject see O. Schneider, Callimachea, 5 n 297 ff. Athen. 408 F. P. S.

C

xxxviii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

planation. There is no similar evidence to prove that he was also responsible for editions of Aeschylus and Sophocles ; but, since no other assumption accounts equally well for the existence of the vnroO&aei'i attributed to him which are attached to plays of all three tragedians1, recent scholars have been unanimous in so concluding2. It may be added that the discovery of the Ichnentae papyrus, with marginal variants attributed to Aristophanes3, makes strongly in the same direction. Wilamowitz argued that the virodeaeL? were not accompanied by a commentary on the text, and that the edition of Aristophanes was intended rather for the general reader than for scholars4. However this may be, there is evidence that he wrote a vTr6/j,vrj/u.a— or what we should call ' lecture-notes'—on the Orestes, as well as on other plays 6 ; and much of the aesthetic criticism which is found in the scholia to Sophocles and Euripides has been attributed to him. We must not forget his lexicographical studies, plentiful remains of which are to be found in Eustathius, and less patently in Hesychius, Pollux, and Athenaeus, not to mention the excerpts still existing in medieval MSS which have been published by Boissonade and E. Miller6. These studies were entitled Xe^ei?7 or yXwaaai, and were divided into two main classes: (i) collections of dialectical variants, (2) varieties of subject-matter (e.g. irepl 6rofiaa[a<; rj\t,Kiwv, Trepl (rvyyeviiccov OVOH&TWV). It was probably in this work that Aristophanes explained i/jLaaxaXLaOr) in El. 445 s ; unless the reference should 1

His name appears at the head of a virSSeins to the Antigone, and there are good reasons for referring to him also the anonymous Arguments to the 0. C, EL, and Phil., or at any rate parts of them. 2 Wilamowitz, p. 145; Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa II 998; Susemihl, I 442; Sandys, p. I28f. 3 His name appears in schol. Ickn. 73, 137, 140, 215. 4 This conclusion is based chiefly on the fact that those plays of Euripides which have no scholia (e.g. the Supplices) nevertheless show traces of the learning of Aristophanes. 5 Wilamowitz, p. 151 ff. 6 Boissonade, Herod. Epim. p. 283; Miller, Milanges de lit. gr. p. 427 ff. The best account of Aristophanes' lexicography is by L. Cohn in Jahrb.f. cl. Philol. Suppl. XII 285—374. 7 Schol. Eur. Phoen. 684. 8 Suid. Phot. s.v. /uaffxaMo>aTa. See on fr. 623.

THE TRADITION OF THE TEXT

xxxix

be taken to indicate that he published a viro^vri^a on the Electro1. Callistratus, a pupil of Aristophanes, followed up his master's researches in the dramatic sphere, and, although his name is better known from its frequent occurrence in the scholia to Aristophanes and Euripides, there is evidence that he also wrote commentaries on Sophocles2. Aristarchus (216— 144 B.C.), the most renowned of all the Alexandrian critics, was a fellow-pupil and rival of Callistratus. The fame of his labours on Homer has thrown into the shade his work on other poets ; but Dionysius Thrax s testifies that his familiarity with the tragic texts was so great that he was able freely to recite them from memory. We meet with his name here and there as a witness for a particular fragment , and fr. 449 and schol. El. 6 (Hesych. s.v. XVKOKTOVOVfleov)are sufficient to prove his interest in the interpretation of the text. Nevertheless, as compared with that of Aristophanes, his influence upon the course of subsequent research was slight. With Aristarchus should be named his chief opponent Crates of Mallus, the most distinguished representative of the Pergamene school, who wrote upon Aristophanes and Euripides, but is not proved by extant quotations to have given special attention to Sophocles5. We have now reached a period in which the political Roman period.

supremacy of Rome began to exercise an attraction upon the intellectual activities of the Hellenistic world. At the time when Aristarchus was acknowledged to have reached the fullness of his critical powers the glories of the kingdoms of Ptolemy, Attalus, and Seleucus had passed. Hitherto in Italy, although there was a considerable amount of colloquial familiarity with the Greek speech, the cultivation of Greek letters had been confined to a limited circle. Ennius (239—169 B.C.), who was half a Greek by birth, and earned his living by his skill as a teacher and writer, came forward as a propagandist of Hellenism, with the support of Publius Scipio and other leading nobles. 1

But it is hardly to be supposed that he was the author of the anonymous Snr6fJ.i>i)/M quoted by schol. L on 451, 488. 2 Sdiol. cod. Barocc. At. 283. R. Schmidt, de Callistralo, p. 324. 3 Etym. M. p. 177, 55. 4 frs. 449, 624, 728. 5 Hecker introduced his name by emendation in schol. 0. C. 100.

xl

GENERAL

INTRODUCTION

His tragedies were for the most part adaptations of Euripides, and he was followed by Pacuvius (219—129) and Accius (170— 105), who constructed their plays with greater skill and included Sophocles among their models. Unfortunately the fragments of these writers are so scanty that they are very seldom of service in the reconstruction of the Greek originals1. The Romans were thus familiarized through the stage with the form and contents of Greek tragedy before they were trained to study them as literature. But after 146 B.C. the assimilation of Greek culture spread rapidly. That which was at first the exclusive possession of the Scipionic circle became in the next generation the common heritage of every educated Roman. The everincreasing demand for instruction brought the learning of Pergamum and Alexandria into contact with the ruling class of the imperial city. Educational requirements not only gave an enormous stimulus to the multiplication of copies of the most famous Greek authors, but grammar and criticism themselves were internationalized. Alexandria ceased to be the home of the most learned professors, and gradually lost its supremacy in the world of letters, although, as the birth-place of Didymus, Herodian, Harpocration, and many others, it continued for three centuries to preserve its reputation as the ultimate source of philological erudition. It is not surprising, in view of these circumstances, that the name of Didymus, who, after the lapse of more than a century, comes next on the list of Sophoclean editors, should be associated with a change in method calculated to adapt his lucubrations to the requirements of the Roman world. Didymus. Didymus is the most important name in our survey, not so much in consequence of his individual merit, although this has perhaps been undeservedly belittled, as because we owe to him more than to any other single person the preservation of such fragmentary knowledge as we possess respecting the lost plays of the Greek tragedians. The extraordinary industry of Didymus, which earned for him the epithet ^aX/cevTepo?, may be estimated by his performance in the field of literary criticism alone, in 1 The leading authority on the plots of the Roman tragedians is O. Ribbeck, die Romische Tragodie, Leipzig, 1875.

THE TRADITION

OF THE TEXT

xli

which he undertook the interpretation of Homer, Hesiod, Pindar and Bacchylides, the tragedians, Aristophanes and other comic poets, and the Attic orators. The importance of his collections to modern research becomes apparent when we learn that large portions of the existing scholia to Pindar, Euripides, and Aristophanes are drawn from the commentaries of Didymus, and that his writings are the ultimate source of the scholia to Sophocles. It is significant that in these, while the names of the older Alexandrian grammarians are scarcely mentioned or else are replaced by such general descriptions as ' the commentators1,' that of Didymus occurs at least nine times2. These commentaries were not simply virofj.vij/iaTa in the sense previously indicated, but were accompanied by a text3. The older grammarians had lectured to their pupils from a plain text, but conditions were now very different, and the wider public for whom the editions of Didymus were intended could not dispense with explanatory notes. The function of Didymus should not be misconceived. He was neither an original thinker nor an independent investigator : his province was to collect the results garnered by earlier scholars, and to make them serviceable to the needs of his contemporaries and his successors. It has been inferred that these books were the prototypes of the class afterwards represented by the medieval MSS, in which the margins surrounding the text are occupied with exegetical comment and critical variants4. Recent discoveries of papyri, which have been sufficiently numerous to familiarize us with the form and aspect of the papyrus roll, have only partially confirmed this conclusion. It is true that critical and explanatory notes are found in them, 1 See Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa v 452. There is a good instance in schol. Ant. 45, which shows that they were anterior to Didymus. 2 For Didymus as an interpreter of Sophocles see also fr. 718. Etytn. Gud. p. 81, 37 (Track. 1054) is to be added to the passages in which Didymus is referred to by name. 3 This is proved by schol. 0. C. 237, Ai. 1-225. The account given above follows Wilamovvitz, p. 166. He finds in the scholia to the O. C, besides the work of Didymus, traces of a i-irtuwqiia devoted chiefly to the explanation of antiquarian and mythological details. Cohn, however, is inclined to refer this part also to Didymus. 4 Wilamowitz, I.e. The same opinion is maintained in 'Die griech. Literatur des Altertums' in Kultur d. Gegenwarl, I viii2 (1907) p. 96. See also Susemihl, II 201,

xlii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

and particularly in the Paris fragments of the Partheneion of Alcman, which are ascribed to the first century A.D., and the Oxyrhynchus papyrus of the Paeans of Pindar, which belongs to the early part of the second. But they are very scantily represented in the Hypsipyle and Ichneutae papyri, and there are obvious reasons why a continuous commentary was less suitable for inclusion in the papyrus roll than in the parchment book of a later age. It follows that the existing scholia, although in substance based upon the results of Alexandrian learning, are not formally and directly the completion of an original Alexandrian nucleus1. The growth of the various collections cannot be traced in detail, since for the most part the secure support of names and dates is wanting2. A glance at Nauck's Index of Sources will show that many of the fragments are quoted in the scholia to the writers enumerated above, but a still greater number is derived from the lexicographical labours of Didymus. The prefatory letter to Eulogius, which Hesychius placed in the forefront of his lexicon, refers to the separate vocabularies of comic and tragic diction (X<=£«
THE TRADITION OF THE TEXT

xliii

of lexicographical excerpts from the commentaries, and the identity of treatment is proved by examples of the same matter expressed in the same words by the lexicographers, who used only the \e'£et?, and the scholia, which derive from the commentaries of Didymus1. Of course the lexicographical notes of Didymus were largely a compilation from the Xefet? of Aristophanes, from the 'ATTIKUI Xe£et? of Crates of Mallus, and other authorities too numerous to mention. But the rpayncrj Xeft?, in its turn, became a treasure-house for successive plunderers to rifle. A lexicon, as Wilamowitz remarks2, soon ceases to be left intact, as befits a private possession : each succeeding generation reconstructs, abbreviates, or enlarges, according to its needs. Pamphilus of Alexandria, who belonged Pamphilus. to the middle of the first century A.D., and was the last of the Aristarcheans, incorporated the rpayi/crj Xe'£(? in his encyclopaedic treatise entitled Xei/Acov or Trepl yXacrcraiv KOX ovofidrwi/ in ninety-five books. His object was to collect and enlarge the departmental labours of his predecessors in their various provinces. The first part of the work (Trepl yXwaadov) contained the lexicons devoted to particular authors, branches of literature, and dialects 3 ; and the second (irepl ovopaTinv) was divided according to varieties of subject-matter (cookery, shipbuilding, and so forth). In the reign of Hadrian appeared an epitome ('EWrjviKa ouofiara) by Julius Vestinus, probably in thirty books4. But for practical purposes even this reduction in bulk was insufficient. Shortly afterwards Diogenian, a native ofDiogenian. Heraclea in Pontus, produced another epitome in five books under the title Xeft? TravroBaTnj. He reduced the whole collection to alphabetical order and is the first author of a general lexicon which had the benefit of this arrangement5. The desired result was effected by the removal of most of the quotations, 1

For examples see the sources quoted for frs. 11, 36, 42, 59, 272, 425, 511, 619, 673, 88,5. Of course it is not pretended that strict proof is possible in each case. 2 a p. 164. Hence 'ATTIKOI M%€is in Athen. 494 F. 4 According to the emendation of Naber (Phot. prol. p. 30), who gives V for"5' in Suid. s.v. Ouijcmcos. 5 Reitzenstein in Rh. Mus. XLIII 456 ff. In this article the author divides the history of lexicography from the Alexandrians to Suidas into four periods. Pamphilus ends the first, Diogenian belongs to the second, and Hesychius to the third.

xliv

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

and by a severe restriction of the explanatory material. The work of Diogenian, notwithstanding these deficiences, proved adequate for its purpose. It was widely used as a handbook of reference so long as the classical authors continued to be read, and its existence can be traced in the Byzantine period down to the twelfth century1. So completely was Pamphilus superseded by the epitomator that Athenaeus and Herodian are almost the only writers who made use of the fuller collection. For us the TravTohairrj Xeft? of Diogenian is especially of interest as the Hesychius. source from which Hesychius drew most of his material; for the weight of authority inclines strongly in favour of the identification with it of the frrepiepyo'7rivr]Te<; which Hesychius ascribes to Diogenian in the prefatory letter2. Thus Hesychius is the chief extant authority through which we can pass back to the rpayifcrj Xe£t
Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa v 781. * Objections to the identification are stated by H . Schultz in Pauly-Wissowa v n i 1320. The strange title TrepiepyoHi>i)Tes is explained as ' the book for poor pedants:' 3 e.g. the note on Achelous in Macrob. 5. 18. 4 Phot. lex. I p. 9. 5 Wilamowitz, Ttxtgesch. d. gr. Bukol. p. 110; Schneider, Callim. n 37.

THE TRADITION

OF THE TEXT

xlv

papyrus as authority for a variant adopted in his edition1. For there is no other evidence except the statement already quoted from Hesychius to connect Theon with the tragic poets2, and the character of his edition and its relation to Didymus are equally obscure. It should be added that another grammarian, whose name may have been Nicanor, is quoted in the same papyrus but cannot be identified3. After the time of Didymus and Theon there is no further The record of editions of the tragedians. In fact, after the lapse of century a century, the need for such comprehensive studies in this branch A-Dof literature was rapidly disappearing. The age of Hadrian, so often celebrated as an era of renaissance in literary taste, was actually that in which the causes of ultimate decay begin to be visible. The days of creative genius were past. Literature had become self-conscious, and every literary aspirant, instead of seeking to express his own thoughts in his own way, made it his prime object to fashion his style according to the recognized classical models. Rhetorical sophistic, of which Aelius Aristides and the Philostrati are the most characteristic representatives, flourished exceedingly throughout the reigns of the Antonines. The vices of this literature were its artificiality, affectation, and excessive elaboration; its indifference to reality, and its hollowness ; and its entire sacrifice of matter to form. Quintilian's maxim pectus est quod disertos facit was forgotten; and the researches of the Atticists from Aelius Dionysius to Phrynichus were directed primarily to the practical end of assisting the art of public speaking4. The last thing they had in view was a scientific study of the Attic dialect; and, besides the Attic orators, only those authors were cultivated whose vocabulary was adapted to rhetorical requirements. In these conditions, tragedy and lyric poetry were the first to suffer,—not that Sophocles and Pindar were dethroned from their high place, but 1 Theon is, of course, a common name, so that some other critic than the son of Astemidorus may be intended. 2 The references to his studies on Pindar are also rare: see schol. Pind. 01. 5. 42, Paean. 2. 37. 3 p. 224. 4 ' Die grammatische arbeit des 2. jahrhunderts ist im grunde nichts als
xlvi

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

in a busy world they must submit to exercise their sway chiefly within the walls of the school-room. Hence arose the need for a selection, since the schoolmaster does not claim to be a scientific investigator who requires constant access to the whole of his material. There is thus good reason for the conclusion adopted by Wilamowitz that the selection of seven plays came into being during the course of the second century, although the name of the selector has not been recorded. It does not of course follow that the appearance of the selection led at once to the loss of the remaining plays. Copies of them were preserved in the public libraries, which might still have been consulted by professional students. We know also that the multiplication of transcripts on papyrus rolls still continued in Egypt 1 ,and no doubt elsewhere, so that readers must still have been forthcoming in certain circles. But, as demonstrating the loss of their influence on general culture, the subsequent absence of direct quotation is decisive.

| 4.

The Sources of the Fragments.

Now that we have followed the course of the tradition by which the plays of Sophocles were transmitted through Alexandria to the Roman and Byzantine eras, we are in a better position to examine the character of the documents in which the surviving fragments are preserved. These may be classified according to their origin as follows : (1) fragments of Sophoclean papyri; (2) direct quotations ; and (3) indirect quotations. T h e third class, which is by far the most numerous, includes every case in which the author of the extant source owes his information not directly to Sophocles, but to some intermediate writer. Papyrus The papyrus fragments are very few in number, and, except ragmen s. ^Qse belonging to the Eurypylus and Ichneutae, not of much intrinsic importance. Still, the lines recovered from the ''A^aiiv (T11XX0709 have settled the vexed question relating to the plot of 1 See below. The parchment fragment of the Melanippe of Euripides (fr. 495) is now assigned to the fifth century: but that is an exceptional case. To the Same effect Wilamowitz, Sappho u. Simonides, p. 288.

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

xlvii

that play1; the scanty relics of the Niobe have some bearing on Sophocles' handling of the story2 ; and the fragments provisionally assigned to the Tantalus in this edition, if they are the work of Sophocles at all, raise a question of considerable interest3. All these, except the Niobe fragments, which are attributed to the third century B.C., are believed to have been written in the second century A.D., so that their date is entirely consistent with the conclusion reached in the last section4. It is a more difficult matter to decide which are the latest direct quotations from the lost plays, because we cannot always be certain whether a reference which purports to come direct from Sophocles has not in fact been borrowed from an earlier authority whose existence is not acknowledged in the source. To take a capital instance, no one now believes that the swarms of quotations with which Clement of Alexandria fills certain portions of his writings were due to his immediate acquaintance with the text of the authors cited. We shall subsequently explain how he came by them. The sources which beyond all dispute show a first-hand Direct acquaintance with the text of Sophocles are a small proportion qno of the total. Of those which are altogether or almost contemporary the most numerous and important are the plays of the comic poets. Aristophanes refers to the Niobe by name and to the Tereits and Tyro in unmistakable terms5; and at least sixteen other allusions to or parodies of the Sophoclean text are warranted by the evidence of the scholia6. It is curious that five of them belong to the Peleus, a play not otherwise much quoted ; and one of the same group is further echoed by a comic writer, who may have been Aristophanes himself, and was at any rate his contemporary7 The Old Comedy is also represented by single quotations of Philonides, Eupolis, and Phrynichus8, and 1

2 i p. 94 ff. ii p. 96 f. 11 pp. 97 f-, 209 ft. 4 The papyrus of the Hypsipyle (Oxyrh. Pap. no. 852) is considered to be not much, if at all, anterior to 200 A. D. 5 Ar. Vesp. 579, Av. 100, Lys. 138. 6 frs. 178, 275, 371, 469. 4/6, 487* 489. 49°. 49i, 493> 578> 654, 668, 683 (doubtful), 710, 727, 890. 7 8 See n. on fr. 487. frs. 491, 811, 890. 3

xlviii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

the Middle by an interesting parody of Antiphanes1. At a later date Menander copied a famous trimeter which was in everyone's mouth 2 ; and another imitation of the same line appears in the collection of monosticha which passes by the same writer's name. This miscellany, which was not put together until Roman times, while containing much that Menander certainly did not write, includes a number of lines which appear to follow the tracks of Sophocles. Here or there may be an instance where Menander deliberately repeated a tragic verse; but most of them, whether transmitted through his agency or that of others, had become current as publica materies, having long ceased to be recognized as subject to the private dominion of Sophocles3. We pass to the prose-writers of the fourth century. Two allusions to Sophoclean fragments have been traced in the dialogues of Plato, but neither is free from doubt4. On the other hand, by a curious error, which he shared with Aristophanes and Antisthenes, he attributed to Euripides a line which certainly belonged to the Locrian Ajaxb, Demosthenes in a well-known passage mentions the appearance of Aeschines in the title-role of the Oenomaus. Aristotle in the poetics refers to the Eurypylus, Lacaenae, Niptra, Peleus, Phthiotides, Terens, and Tyro, and perhaps to the Polyxena; while in the rhetoric he cites the l,vi>Benrvoi, Teucer, and Tyro6.

Reasons have also been

given for supposing that he has wrongly ascribed to Aeschylus a fragment of considerable length which actually came from the Tereus7. The plot of the Aleadae was detected by means of indications afforded in the Odysseus attributed to Alcidamas. 1

fr.754fr. 319. It should be added that the alleged quotations by Aristophon (fr. 198), Alexis (fr. 895), and Philemon (fr. 918), are extremely doubtful. 3 Similarly the Greek original which no doubt lies at the back of Plaut. Stick. 522 cannot be proved to have been imitated from fr. 88, 1. 4 frs. 256, 662. 6 See n. on fr. 14. Attention should have been directed to the significant statement in the Aristophanic scholia, that the play of Euripides in which the words occurred was not preserved. 6 Here, and generally throughout the present section, the reader is referred to Nauck's Index of Sources for the verification of statements not otherwise vouched. 7 See on fr. 581. 2

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

xlix

This work is a sophistic exercise of uncertain date ; but, even if not composed within the limits of the fourth century, it cannot be placed much later1. There is not much to be said of the literature of the following Roman centuries until we reach the Roman age, since the learning ofpen0 Alexandria is known to us almost entirely at second hand. An exception should perhaps be made in favour of the KarotTTepi,cr/j,ol of Eratosthenes, in which the various constellations are enumerated in connexion with a series of poetical legends. The epitome which has come down to us is a miserably distorted copy of its original, but the trend of recent criticism favours the view that some such treatise was actually written by Erastosthenes, and that a residuum of his learning is to be found in the existing text2. In that case the information respecting the plot of the Andromeda3 comes direct from a handbook of the third century B.C. The fragments of a description of Greece wrongly attributed to Dicaearchus yield a single quotation from Sophocles4. These interesting extracts have now been identified as the work of Heracleides 6 KpiTi/c6<;, whose name has been recovered from a quotation by Apollonius, the collector of •n-apa&ofja5. Nothing further is known of the author, and the composition of his book has been variously dated between the limits 289—171 B.C.6 Polybius, who makes a vague allusion to the Antenoridae''', stands on the threshold of the Roman epoch. In an examination of the Greek and Roman literature of the Indirect two centuries which respectively precede and follow the opening 1 uotatlons of the Christian era, there is no longer a presumption in favour of the immediate derivation of a quotation from its source. Literary production had become a well-organized profession with specialized branches. There was a vigorous demand for handbooks of all kinds, in the interest of a cosmopolitan culture thereby the more easily attained. Philosophy, science, and the 1

Blass, Attische Beredsamkeit, II2 p. 363. A summary of the controversy is given by Knaack in his article on Eratosthenes in Pauly-Wissowa vi 377 ff. 4 5 3 1 p. 78. ff- 773' hist, mir. 19 (Westermann, p. 109). 6 See Daebritz in Pauly-Wissowa VIII 484 ff., and W. H. Duke in Essays presented 7 to Ridge-way, p. 228 ff. -1 P- 88. 2

1

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

art of rhetoric must be distilled to serve the needs of the less robust intelligences. In addition to the stimulus imparted by the requirements of the higher education, there arose a spirit of general curiosity in polite circles, which contributed towards the literary splendours of the Augustan age. Such considerations will explain that, where dependence upon authority was universal, its frequent acknowledgement became tedious and unnecessary : a reference or allusion might be borrowed without any sacrifice of literary candour. But the character of the witness is a most material factor in the valuation of the record, and it is also essential to remember the particular object which he had in view. At first sight there is no reason to suspect that Ovid's reference to the 'A^tWeoK epaarai1, and Horace's to the Pe/eus2, were not inspired by their familiarity with the texts of the Greek tragedians. But we cannot so conclude with any certainty: there is abundant evidence of Ovid's dependence on the mythographical tradition, and the Ars Poetica is known to have been based upon the treatise of Neoptolemus of Parium3. A specimen of the manuals available for the use of the Augustan poets is preserved in the booklet of Parthenius of Nicaea 7rept epcoTiKwv 7ra0rjfji,dTa>v. As its title indicates, this was a collection of love-stories with unhappy endings, each of which is prefaced with a statement of the literary authority or authorities responsible for the form of the narrative adopted4. The work was dedicated to Cornelius Gallus, the elegiac poet, and was written expressly for the purpose of assisting his memory, if he chose to employ the material in future poems. The Euryalus of Sophocles5 is quoted as sole authority for the tale of Odysseus' love for Euippe and its fatal issue, and to Parthenius, if not to Cicero and Gallus, the play was probably familiar. Cicero stands on a sophers.° different footing to most of our informants; for he has admitted us to the secrets of his workshop. Cicero was undoubtedly a 1 3

i p. 104.

2

A. P. 96.

Meineke, Anal. Alex. p. 360. Catull. 70. 3 refers rather to a familiar proverb than to the text of Sophocles (fr. 811). 4 Hercher in Herm. XII 306 ff. contended that the names were a later addition, but their trustworthiness in general was maintained by Bethe (ib. x x x v m 608 ff.). It is possible that they were taken from Pamphilus' Aei^iiv.

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

li

student of the text of Sophocles. In this connexion the allusions to the Latin versions of the Erigo/ie1 and the ivvSenrvoi2 which Quintus sent to his brother from Gaul are more significant than the casual quotations in the letters to Atticus3. But when he compares the treatment by Pacuvius and Sophocles of the scene where the wounded Ulysses is carried home to die4, when he recalls the line of the Epigoni with which Cleanthes rebuked the apostate Dionysius5, and when he offers a Latin rendering of the speech in the Teuccr moralizing on the hypocrisies of consolation6, it is not difficult to guess that the references to Sophocles were suggested to him by the Greek originals from which he put together the Tusculan disputations. In the postAristotelian schools there had arisen a custom which, if not originated by Chrysippus, found in him its chief representative,—that of enveloping their arguments with a cloud of poetic witnesses. To this custom we owe the quotations and allusions of Philodemus the Epicurean, even if he did not borrow all of them from an earlier source. No such hesitation is necessary in regard to Seneca17, whose natitrales quaestiones were largely drawn from Posidonius through the medium of Asclepiodotus. The name of Philo of Alexandria (c. 39 A.D.) occurs only twice in the list of sources8: in one case it is not certain that he is referring to Sophocles at all; in the other the Stoic colour of the context is so clearly manifest that the "origin of the quotation is scarcely doubtful. The writers on the art of rhetoric are open to a similar Writers on suspicion,—that of having borrowed from their Peripatetic predecessors. Demetrius in his de elocutione,—a treatise whose authorship and date are both uncertain, but which recent critics put somewhere within the limits 100 B.C. and IOOA.D.,—quotes fr. 611 on the authority of Theophrastus9, just as he takes Eur. 2 3 1 I p. 173. II p. 101. frs. 636, 662, 768. 4 5 6 Tusc. 1. 48-50. Tusc. 1. 60. fr. 576. 7 fr. 8S2. Laurentius Lydus derives from Seneca. For the history of the doxographical tradition concerning the causes of the summer rising of the Nile see Diels, Dox. Gr. p. 226 ff. The scholia to Apollonius Rhodius are, of course, not independent. It would be rash to assume that Seneca translated fr. 665 in the Hercules 8

s.

frs. 755, 945-

9 fr

' 94 Wimraer.

Hi

Strabo.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

fr. 515 from Praxiphanes. No such declared source is forthcoming for the allusions of the author of the de sublimitate or of Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the de compositione verborum1. The miscellaneous learning recorded by the last-named author in the first book of the Antiquitates Romanae, in connexion with the Oenotrians, the Tyrrheno-Pelasgians, and the flight of Aeneas from Troy, was collected in part at any rate by Varro 2 . T h e book irepl rpoTvuiv, which passes for the work of Tryphon, is a garbled extract from the grammarian who was a younger contemporary of Didymus 3 . Strabo (c. 63 B.C.—23 A.D.) owed his geographical information more largely to books than to the records of his own observation. His two chief sources were Artemidorus of Ephesus 4 (c. 100 B.C.), the writer of a periplus of the Mediterranean Sea in eleven books, who in his turn compiled from Agatharchides, Timosthenes, Eratosthenes, and others, and Apollodorus of Athens, whose commentary on the Homeric catalogue of ships was not the least remarkable of his critical labours 5 . Thus at least six of the fragments preserved in Strabo may be referred to the authority of Apollodorus 6 ; one at least appears to go back to Eratosthenes'; and Demetrius of Scepsis (c. 150 B.C.), whose work on the Trojan catalogue (Horn. B 816— 877) was used by Strabo as well as the better-known treatise of Apollodorus, has been identified as the original source of the 1 frs. 768, 774. See also Introductory Note to the Polyxena (11 p. 162). The work of pseudo-Longinus is now with general consent assigned to the first century A.D. The later rhetoricians contribute little. Hermogenes (b. 160 A.D.) probably took his illustration
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

liii

curious information relating to the Idaean Dactyls1. The The elder naturalis historia of the elder Pliny (23—69 A.D ) is a work Pliny ' which to an even greater extent was made up of excerpts taken from previous authors. No fewer than 146 Roman and 327 foreign writers were utilized for the purpose ; and so little was Pliny disposed to conceal his obligations that he prefixed to each book a list of the chief authorities upon which it depended. Of the fragments which he cites from Sophocles2 the first is inserted in the course of a passage borrowed from Theophrastus, and the manner of its introduction shows that Pliny had access to the tradition of the didascaliae; the second is a botanical memorandum, which came immediately from Sextius Niger, but may have been drawn ultimately from the pt^orofiiKov of Diodes of Carystus, a distihguished physician contemporary with Plato. Dion of Prusa in Bithynia, or Dion Chrysostom, as DionChryhe is usually styled, belongs to the end of the period nowsostomunder discussion. His devotion to the study of the great Attic tragedians is attested by his well-known essay on the treatment of the story of Philoctetes by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides respectively3. We should not, therefore, expect him to quote at second hand ; but his testimony consists only of an allusion to the Tkyestes*, with perhaps another to an important fragment of the Aleadae5. Last of all comes Plutarch (46— Plutarch. 120A.D.), one of our most valuable sources, whose quotations are those of a first-rate artist steeped in the knowledge of his native literature. Although he sometimes quoted from memory, particularly if the line had become somewhat hackneyed6, it is scarcely doubtful that in most cases he drew from the originals. The occasional coincidences with Stobaeus and Clement7 are probably accidental, and are anyhow quite insufficient to prove that Plutarch habitually made use of an anthology. Here and there he repeats a quotation which he must have found in his 1

E. Schwartzin Pauly-Wissowa IV 2809. Otherwise Bethe in Herm. xxiv 411. frs. 600, 830. Cf. n p. 66. A particularly interesting example, which shows conclusively the second-hand character of Pliny's information, is referred to by Jebb on 0. T. p. 232. 3 Or. 52 (11 104 Arn.). For a description see Jebb's Philoctetes, p. xvi. 4 1 p . Q2 . 5 fr. 8 8 . 6 frs. 662, 776, 840. 7 For examples see frs. 81, 88, 636, 770, 771, 929. 2

P. S.

d

liv

GENERAL

INTRODUCTION

source. Fr. 873 is a clear instance, made more conspicuous by the repetition of Dio Cassius and Appian ; and one may suspect that in some of the ethical treatises, such as the trep\ TVXIS a n d the irepl aperi)? icai icaicias, which by their style betray the influence of the philosophical schools, the quotations were taken over together with the text which they served to illustrate 1 . It is probable also that in the book TTCS? Bel rbv vkov TTOir\jxa-T<£>v a-Koveiv Plutarch borrowed extensively from a work of Chrysippus similarly entitled 2 , although the limits of his obligation cannot be accurately fixed. Atticism. The second century A.D. owes such importance as it possesses in the history of Greek literature in large measure to the classical revival known as Atticism. It was, as has been already pointed out, the product of an age to which substance had become less essential than style, and whose study of the ancient classics was limited by the practical object of fostering rhetorical ability. We shall presently describe the efforts of the lexicographers to provide the studious with the necessary material for the cultivation of purity of diction ; the general literature, if we include under this term the representative sophists, is of minor importance for the present purpose, and will not detain us long. The most famous names of the Hellenic renaissance which started in the reign of Hadrian, and lasted for more than a century, are Lucian, Aristides, and the Philostrati. Lucian refers to the Locrian Ajax3, perhaps also to the Cedalion*, and quotes a fragment from the Meleager without naming the play 5 . Aelius Aristides shows his acquaintance with the text of the 'E\evT]<; ydfiuv^, and compares the treacherous beacon of Nauplius with the work of incendiaries at Eleusis 7 . The Philostrati scarcely 1 The remark applies to frs. 373, 843, 844. It should be.observed that the reference to rjdos as 707777, which almost immediately precedes the quotation of fr. 373, was borrowed from Zeno (1 203 Arn., fr. 146 P.). The difficulties which Plutarch's text involves (see note in loc.) are perhaps the result of a confused epitome. 2 3 II p. 202 Arn. 1 p. 10. 4 5 n P- 9fr- 401. 6 I p. 126. Phot. bibl. p. 438 s 6, and Choric. pro mimis 6. 27 (Revue de Philol. 1 222), follow Aristides. For fr. 756 see note in loc. The repetition of two familiar tags (frs. 14, 733) is unimportant. 7 &• 435-

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lv

come into the account. Philostratus the Athenian quotes only from the Oedipus Tyrannus, Oedipus Coloneus, and Antigone, in the Life of Apollonius, and from the Electra in the Lives of the sophists,—sufficient evidence surely that in his day these plays had a certain degree of celebrity above their fellows. In the heroicus and imagines, which are ascribed to his kinsman and contemporary known as Philostratus the Lemnian1, there may be many reminiscences of tragedy, such as the passage quoted by Nauck in illustration of the discoveries of Palamedes2; but they are seldom acknowledged, and have in consequence generally ceased to be traceable. The imagines of the younger Philostratus, who describes himself as grandson of the Lemnian on the mother's side, are separated by an interval of seventy or more years from the publication of the earlier series. He quotes the Oedipus Coloneus and the Philoctetes, and his allusion to Sophocles' description of Scyros as wind-swept3, and his description of the meeting of Phoenix with Neoptolemus, suggest that he was acquainted with the Scyrians. But the general character of his work, apart altogether from his date, makes the inference extremely questionable4. Aelian, who survived the death of Aelian. Caracalla (222 A.D.), was a contemporary of Philostratus the Athenian. Though in intention a stylist, being at the same time an industrious collector of unconsidered trifles, he reflects the preference of his age for spurious learning to independent research. The fragments resting on his authority are taken from the de natura animalium, and were derived by Aelian through his source Alexander of Myndos (before SOA.D.) from Aristophanes of Byzantium and others of the Alexandrian school5. From Aelian we pass to Athenaeus, an important Athewitness, to whom we owe more than sixty quotations. The investigation of the sources from which Athenaeus drew his 1

On the Philostrati see J. S. Phillimore's Philostratus, 1 pp. xxxiv—XLV. A different distribution of the extant works is recommended by Christ-Schmid, op. cit. II s p. 608 ff. 2 3 See on fr. 432, 2. fr. 553. 4 Wilamowitz, Einleitung in d. gr. Tr. p. 201. 5 See especially nat. an. 7. 39 adfin. The reference to Aristotle {ibid. i r . 18) points in the same direction, since Alexander's chief source was Aristophanes' kwiTop.i\ of Aristotle's zoological teaching.

lvi

GENERAL

INTRODUCTION

abundant supply of quotations is rendered unusually difficult by the fact that the Deipnosophists has come down to us in an abbreviated form, and by the tendency of its author to interrupt the course of a borrowed extract with material which he had gathered elsewhere1. It is admitted that he was not merely a compiler. He had studied widely in the ancient texts for the purpose of illustrating his various topics, and a considerable proportion of the numerous passages taken from the plays of the comic poets was undoubtedly due to his own researches. Tragedy was less likely to provide him with material; and he was content to accept its evidence at second hand. At any rate, a careful scrutiny into the character of his quotations from Sophocles will confirm the judgement pronounced by Wilamowitz2 that not a single tragedy was quoted directly. Although the nature of Athenaeus' book, even apart from its tradition, is such as unduly to favour the impression that it largely consists of glosses unskilfully strung together, we shall hardly err in concluding that many of the Sophoclean fragments were derived from the lexicographers. That the glosses were taken from a lexicon is sometimes betrayed by their alphabetical order, as may be seen from the list of cups given in the eleventh book, where the name of Pamphilus occurs several times. It has already been mentioned that Pamphilus, who was perhaps the chief lexicographical authority of Athenaeus, had incorporated the results of Didymus' rpajiKal Xefet?. Athenaeus often discloses the name of his authority,—the ultimate, it may be, rather than the immediate source. Thus, fr. 718 was derived from the commentary of Didymus, fr. 324 from Speusippus 7repl o/xolcov3, fr. 28 from Cephisodorus the pupil of Isocrates, fr. 111 from Tryphon4, and fr. 12 from Aristoxenus' Life of Archytas. In 1 Clear instances of such interruption will be found in the quotations relating to the polypus and the /tdiojs inserted at 513 C and 487 D respectively. 2 op. cit. p. 176. 3 This was a survey and classification of natural history. See Zeller's Plato and the older Academy, p. 56728 E. tr. * The statement suggests that he was also the source of frs. 137 and 230. In regard to fr. 606 a neat point arises which is not without a bearing on the criticism of the text. It is clear that Athenaeus and Pollux both used the same source; and, apart from the evidence of the Philetaerus (of which more presently), irtpi nov. X<£.

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lvii

other cases the source may be identified by inference or probable conjecture. Thus fr. 502 is shown to have been derived from Apollodorus irep\ eraipaiv by its recurrence in Harpocration, fr. 448 may be referred to Chamaeleon1, fr. 765 to Satyrus or Hermippus, fr. 121 to Clearchus irepl yptywv, fr. 474 to the same writer's ipuriK/i, fr. 307 to his Trepl irapoifuwv", and fr. 735 to Theophrastus irepi fie6r]<;. Sometimes the ownership of the borrowed material is no longer traceable3, or the quotation bears the appearance of having been made independently for the position which it occupies4. But an example will show that appearances are not always to be trusted. In the course of a discussion on the use of fivpov and its effect upon the senses, Athenaeus interpolates as a reason for anointing the breast the statement that the vital principle (^vxv) is situated in the heart5, and appeals to the testimony of Soph. fr. 766 amongst other poetical authorities. The names of two physicians Praxagoras and Phylotimus are mentioned as holding the same opinion, and at first sight it might be inferred that Athenaeus either took his quotations from one or the other of them, or collected them himself in corroboration of their view. But the dogma that the principate (rjyefj,oviic6v) of the soul, that is to say, the mind, resides in the heart was strenuously maintained by the Stoic school, and Chrysippus supported it by thousands of p. 35, 19, quoting Aesch. fr. i n , suggests that this was Herodian. But there are good reasons for believing that Athenaeus did not use Herodian: see Kaibel on 52 D. The common source must therefore be earlier than his time, and we shall find subsequently that this conclusion may be recommended on other grounds. 1 fr. 345, which .relates to the same subject, occurs in the neighbourhood of two other quotations which are repeated in Plut. ai?iat. 5 p. 751 c. It may be inferred that Plutarch and Athenaeus were indebted to the same original. Plutarch then proceeds to quote Pind. Pyth. 2. 42, and illustrates it by the same fragment of Sappho (fr. 34) which is adduced by Pindar's scholiast. 2 Cf. 317 A. 3 frs. 760 and 761 come from a rhetorical discussion of fieratpopa after Arist. rhet. 3. 10. 141 i a 1 ff., fr. 378 from some writer of o-u/tirocna/cd, frs. 277 and 537 from a dissertation on the game cottabus, frs. 239, •241, and 412 perhaps from the OearptKij ia-ropia of Juba (FHG i n 481). 4 The remark applies especially to such cases as frs. 329, 563, and 757, or Eur. fr. 899, where the quotations belong to the framework of the dialogue. 5 See 687 E.

lviii

Scientific and technical writers.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

quotations from the poets1. Here then is enough to awaken suspicion. Now, a good deal of Chrysippus irepi ^vx??? has been preserved by Galen, and our suspicion is confirmed when we find that the two separate lines which Athenaeus quotes from the Odyssey appear at the head of the list of Homeric quotations which Galen repeats after Chrysippus2. If any doubt remains concerning the source of Athenaeus, it is dissipated by the further discovery that Chrysippus appealed to the authority of Praxagoras in opposition to those medical writers who made the head the centre of the nervous system3. The scientific and departmental writers who flourished in the second and early part of the third century shared the general failure of independence which characterized their epoch, and their show of learning is even less to be credited when it falls outside their proper sphere. It is a rare exception when Aulus Gellius testifies to his personal acquaintance with the text of the Locrian Ajax*. Galen professedly owed his poetical illustrations of the word Tre^iy!; to the ypa/AfiaTiicot,5, from whom also Sextus Empiricus quoted the Phrygian fiaWriv6. The same source may be confidently assumed for Rufus Ephesius, the writer on anatomy, from his agreement with Hesychius and the scholiast on Aristophanes7. Achilles, the commentator on Aratus, drew his material from Posidonius through Diodorus of Alexandria8. Diogenes Laertius quotes two of the fragments9: one of these he derived from Antigonus of Carystus10 (third 1

E. V. Arnold, Roman Stoicism, p. 24538. Galen Hipp, et Plat, plac. 3. 2 p. 260 M. (n 906 Am.). From /*. 3. 4 p. 281 M. (11 907 Arn.) we learn that tragic quotations were included in the collection. 3 Galen ib. 1. 7 p. 145 M. (11 897 Arn.). 4 fr. 14. Cf. fr. 695. He states that he heard Peregrinus quote fr. 307. 5 frs - 337' 338> S38» 539- Wilamowitz, op. cit. p. 176. Note the coincidence with Photius in regard to Aesch. fr. 170. 6 fr. 515. 1 fr. 596. 8 frs. 432, 737, 738. With him goes the anonymous writer who quotes fr. 752. In regard to all this class of literature I transcribe the caustic judgement of Diels (Doxogr. p. 19): 'scilicet turn ea ars, quae vetera furando nova scripta gignebat non inventa quidem, sed consummata esse videtur. neque frustra Clemens Alexandrinus ipse fur callidissimus furtorum catalogum congessit sive potius et ipsum descripsit Strom. VI 2.' 9 10 frs. 477, 873. Wilamowitz, Antigonos von Karystos, p. 74. 2

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lix

century B.C.) and the other from Diodes of Magnesia (b. 80— 70 B.C.). Artemidorus, who wrote on the interpretation of dreams, cites fr. 860 without the author's name and obviously at second hand1. Porphyrius (233—304 A.D.) quotes fr. 398 in the de abstinentia fr. 879 in the de antro nympharum, and fr. 108 in the quaestiones Homericae. As a Homeric critic he was of course familiar with grammatical learning, and, though he was skilful enough to present the appearance of an independent writer, Bernays showed that the de abstinentia was largely composed of extracts from Theophrastus irepl eucre/Seia?2. Hyginus the mythographer is of importance rather in relation to the plots of the lost plays than as a witness to the fragments. The date of the handbook can only be determined in so far as it was certainly written before 207 A.D., when it was translated into Greek3; but the scholarship of its author may be gauged by his description of Melanippe as daughter of Desmon, no doubt after the Euripidean title MeXaviTnrr; r) Sea/Awns*. It is beyond question that he derives from a Greek original belonging to the same stream of tradition as that which pseudo-Apollodorus followed5. The sources of the second book of the poetica astrouoi/iia, another work passing by the name of Hyginus, have been examined by Robert6: it is sufficient to say that the chief authority used was the Karaarepiafioi of Eratosthenes, but that traces are also to be found of Parmeniscus, Asclepiades of Tragilus, and some others. Servius, the Vergilian commentator, refers to the Laocoon of Sophocles7 for a mythological detail which no one supposes that he had learnt by an inspection of the original; but from what source he derived this and his veiled allusion to the Lacaenae* we are not in a position to determine. 1

For the work of Artemidorus see Susemihl, I 868. '- J. Bernays, Theophrasls Schrift iiber Frommigkeit, Berlin, 1866. He has, however, demonstrated that the passage in which the Sophoclean extract occurs is actually an inset made in accordance with the plan acknowledged by Porphyrius at the end of 2. 33, and interrupting the course of the argument. He identifies the grammarian (p. 71) from whom Porphyrius got the quotations with Aristomenes, who was a freedman of Hadrian, and whose r i 7rpds T K iepovpyias is quoted by Athen. 115 A. 3 i See M. Schmidt's edition at p. Liv. Fad. 186. 5 For the earliest mythographical handbook see Susemihl, II 50 and sup. p. xxvi. 6 Eratosthenis cataslerismorum reliquiae, Berlin, 1878. 7 fr_ 372. 8 fr. 3(5-,. Hyginus and Varro were among his sources.

lx

Fourth centuries

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The interpretation of Vergil gives Macrobius occasion to cite a remarkable fragment1 from the 'Fi^orofioi of Sophocles, which he supposes Vergil to have copied; but it is impossible to allow Macrobius himself the credit of making the comparison. The same writer reproduces the whole of Athenaeus' note on Kapxv a n d, as included in it, the quotation of fr. 660. The names of Servius and Macrobius have been introduced by anticipation. Though neither of them wrote in Greek, they are both representative of the last stage of the common GraecoRoman culture which immediately preceded the centuries of Byzantine decadence. In its various branches Nonnus, Libanius, Heliodorus, and Proclus were the chief pillars of the dying Greek literature. But, except in the mechanical repetitions of successive generations of grammarians and lexicographers, or in the traditional quotation of a stock passage by sophists and rhetoricians2, the memory of Attic tragedy was almost entirely extinct. The partisans of Hellenism were fighting in a losing cause, and the efforts of the best of them, praiseworthy as they are, show how narrow and superficial was their acquaintance with the works of the ancient masters. Julian never quotes Sophocles by name, and none of the fragments so far as we know has the support of his authority3. It would be too much to assert that he was not acquainted with a single one of the plays ; for phrases occur which are reasonably regarded as echoes of the Antigone and the Philoctetes*. But Homer and Plato, the 1

(jr. 534. It is clear that he followed one of the ancient commentators on Vergil both here and in his comparison of Aen. 4. 698 with Eur. Ale. 73. See Nettleship in Conington's Vergil, I4 p. XLVIII f. These Vergilian scholia, as well as those on Lucan and Statius, go back to Greek sources (Wilamowitz, op. cit. p. 167). The point illustrated by Macrobius is the ritual sanctity of brass, and Sophocles is the only Greek author cited. 2 Such is the quotation of fr. 940 by Gregory of Nazianzus. Echoes of frs. 662 and 929 are found in Nicephorus Gregoras and Ioannes Chumnos, who lived as late as the fourteenth century. A familiar instance is the wearisome recurrence of Eur. fr. 484, 1 oi>K (fibs 0 fwBos a\\&...'m Julian and others. Fr. 14 is quoted both by Libanius and Themistius. 3 The passage quoted by Nauck on fr. 811 is obviously not an allusion (except indirectly) to Sophocles. 4 132 c dKTii &e\lov (Ant. 100); 447 B rbv QiKraTov, (is 0>)s, dvifuav {Phil. 273). Sandys, Hist. Cl. Schol. 1 p. 359, infers from the fact that 0.7'. 614 is followed (338 c)

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lxi

study of whose writings was kept alive by the lectures of the Neoplatonists, are the only ancient authors to whom he freely refers1. Libanius (314—393 A.D.), the foremost man of letters of his age, is hardly in a better case than his imperial patron, although his reading was naturally wider2. It is true that his acquaintance with Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides is vouched on the authority of his latest editor3; but it is not evident that this implies a wider knowledge of their text than is open to a scholar of the present day. His reference to the Tereus (11 p. 224) does not prove that he knew the play, and his allusion to the ill treatment of Minos on the stage was derived from Plutarch or the pseudo-Platonic Minos*-. Though Libanius is our sole authority for fr. 808, the sentiment there expressed is of a familiar currency; and the appearance of two parallel passages from Euripides5 in the immediate context suggests that all three were borrowed from an anthology. Nor is the character of his other references to tragic fragments such as to inspire confidence in the extent of his knowledge6. Synesius, who was born a few years after the death of Julian and survived Libanius by some twenty years, is one of the most attractive figures of his age. He is the last representative of the genuine Hellenic spirit, never ceasing to urge upon his hearers the importance of literary and philosophical studies7. But his own knowledge was neither deep nor wide, and the preponderating influence of Homer and Plato is even more clearly marked than by the words i>% iraph TSIV ^inrpmrBev Zyvoinev, that the name of the author was unknown, and that Sophocles was evidently no longer read. His quotations from Eur. (see e.g. 445 B) are confined to the Bacckae, Phoenissae, and Orestes. 1 He had also studied Aristotle and Theophrastus : Sandys, p. 357. 2 Themistius (iv 71) mentions Thuc, Isoc'r., Dem., Plat., and Arist., as the five classics chiefly studied at Constantinople, and elsewhere (xxill 350) adds Aristophanes as a sixth. Libanius (iii. 438) speaks vaguely of his readings in the poets. 3 R. Foerster in Rh. Mus. xxxil 87. Unger cleverly emended ep. 1398 from Eur. I.A. 128. 4 [Plat.J Min. 318E, 321A; Plut. Thes. 16; Liban. Ill 64. It is highly probable that the Camici (11 p. 3) was one of the plays illustrating the tragic conception of Minos as an overbearing and cruel tyrant. 5 Hec. 596, Or. 126. 6 Aesch. fr. 340 and Eur. fr. 934 are among the more favourable examples. 7 R. Volkmann, Synesios, pp. 134—136.

lxii

Scholia.

Aristoscholia.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

in Julian 1 . H e can hardly be cited as a witness for fr. 948, and a vague reference to At. 11462 is almost the only indication of an acquaintance with Sophocles. T h e immediate sources of the greater number of the fragments are the collections of scholia, the Byzantine lexicons, and the anthology of Stobaeus. T h e most important of the scholia are found in the MSS of the three tragedians, Aristophanes, Homer, Pindar, Plato, and the Alexandrian poets. The labours of Didymus in relation to Sophocles and Euripides have already been mentioned, and his services to Aeschylus, although less clearly attested, are believed to have been of a similar character 3 . The remaining scholia, so far as they concern us here, will next be briefly described. T h e scholia of Aristophanes, although for obvious reasons their evidence more often touches Euripides, are nevertheless, as we have seen3, of considerable importance for Sophocles. The citations from ancient poets were due almost entirely to Didymus 5 , who here as elsewhere drew upon the learning of his predecessors. The extent of his influence is not to be measured, except in comparison with others, by the sixty-four explicit references to his name 6 . Phaeinus and Symmachus, who are mentioned in the subscriptio of the Venetus to the Nubes and to the Pax, have been identified as the immediate sources of the extant collection. Symmachus, whose name occurs some forty times in the scholia, was an Alexandrian who lived about a century after Didymus, and shows himself to be capable of exercising an independent judgement 7 . Phaeinus, by some regarded as an early Byzantine, is of no importance except as 1 W. S. Crawford, Synesius the Hellene, 1901, has a useful list (pp. 522—579) of the literary quotations in Synesius. If must, however, be used with caution. 2 Quoted by Jebb, in loc. For references to Euripides, such as they are, see frs. 300, 723. 3 4 Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa v 451. p. xlvii. 6 His commentary is mentioned by Athen. 67 D Aldv/xos S' e£riyo6/j.eiios T& lanpetov (Plut. 720) KTL A good account of it is given by Cohn, I.e. 455. 6 No less than thirty-three are in the scholia to the Aves. 7 Wilamowitz treats Symmachus as the first compiler of our collection of scholia. Williams White, however, as we have already seen (p. xlii), holding that such collections were not anterior to the age of the parchment book, takes a somewhat different view of the activities of Symmachus.

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lxiii

a compiler, and may have been responsible for the inclusion of the colometry of Heliodorus, and of extracts from Herodian and other authorities later than Symmachus. We owe twenty-two valuable quotations to the scholia on Pindaric Pindar. These may be assigned without hesitation to Didymus, who was responsible for practically the whole of the learned material preserved in these commentaries1. Our collection goes back to an edition of the Epinicia in the second century A.D., which repeated the substance of Didymus' work without adding much of importance. The date is approximately fixed by a quotation from Amyntianus2, a writer who dedicated his history of Alexander the Great to the emperor Marcus. In two instances at least we are able to go beyond Didymus: the illustration of TWV Tpiwv evs was taken from the -irepl irapoi/Miwu of Aristides of Miletus, which is dated in the second half of the second century B.C.4, and the proverb dcj>' k
Wilamowitz, op. cit. p. 157; Cohn, I.e. 450. 3 Schol. Pind. 01. 3. 52. fr. 908. 4 For Aristides see Paroem. I p. XII, Crusius, Anal. p. 79. Steph. Byz. p. 249, 12 (cf. Suid. s.v. AuSwvaiov xaX/ceioi') shows that he was later than Poleraon, from whom he quoted. 5 FHG IV 336. 6 frs. 59, 425, 633: cf. also fr. 408, the substance of which goes back to Aristophanes of Byzantium. 2

lxiv

Scholia

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Thus Didymus is referred to on Cratyl. 384 A in connexion with the proverb ^aXeTrd ra KaKd, and to him rather than to Tarrhaeus 1 were due most of the quotations in schol. rep. 337 A. It should be noticed that the explanations of the Platonic scholia are generally fuller and richer than the text of the corpus. The scholia to the Alexandrians, of whom Apollonius Rhodius

o nA l e x - .

.

.

andrians. is for the present purpose the most important, may be taken together. In all of them Theon2 occupies a position analogous to that of Didymus in the criticism of the tragedians and Pindar. The subscriptio to the Laurentian MS of Apollonius states that the scholia are taken from Lucillus Tarrhaeus, Sophocles, and Theon. This is interpreted to mean that Sophocles put together the collection in the fourth century from the earlier commentaries of Lucillus and Theon3. Irenaeus (also known by the Latinized name of Minucius Pacatus), who is mentioned four times in the scholia as the author of a commentary (virofivrifia), seems to have belonged to the latter part of the first century A.D. Theon was the sole source of all that is valuable in the scholia to Theocritus, but our collection belongs to a later date. Wilamowitz conjectured that they were edited by Amarantus, an elder contemporary of Galen, whose name is attached in the Etymologicum Magnum to the views expressed in the scholia4. This assumption agrees with the fact that the scholia often controvert the opinions of a certain Munatius, who is identified with Munatius o KPITIKOS, a native of Tralles and a member of the circle of Herodes Atticus5. In Steph. Byz. p. 375, 10 we read that Theon, Plutarch, and Demetrius Phalereus were the names of the commentators on Nicander. The last-mentioned is unquestionably an error for Demetrius Chlorus who is referred to in several notes6 as supporting views subsequently rejected by Antigonus. Antigonus lived in the early part of the first century B.C., as is inferred from the position in which his name 1 Cf. fr. 160. According to Cohn, in Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. Suppl. x m at p. 840, Tarrhaeus was the immediate source of these scholia. See however Crusius, Anal. p. 94 f. Is KXeirapxos an error for KXtapxos (Crusius, Anal. p. 83) in schol. rep. 337 A ? 2 3 See p. xliv. Wilamowitz, op. cit. p. 187. 4 See Etym. M. p. 273, 41, as compared with schol. Theocr. 7. 154. 5 6 Philostr. vit. soph. 1. 25. 16. Ther. 377, 585, 748.

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lxv

occurs in the preface to Erotian1, so that in the case of Nicander we are able to pass back to sources anterior to Theon. On the other hand, with the exception of Theon, tradition is silent respecting the names of those who worked on the text of Lycophron until the time of Nicetas, the bishop of Serrha, who copied out the codex Marcianus 476 in the eleventh century. It is unnecessary for the present purpose to examine in Homeric detail the history of the Homeric scholia; for it is notorious that they contain rich stores of Alexandrian learning. Even in the limited field of Sophoclean quotations the value of Venetus A is manifest. From the subscriptiones at the end of every book it appears that the collection, which was perhaps made in the second century A.D., was based upon an amalgamation of excerpts from Didymus' Ttepl rrjs Wpicrrap-^euov 8oop8d>crea>s, Aristonicus' irepl arjfieicov TWV TT}? IX-taSo? ical T?)? 'O&vcraeias2, Herodian's irepl T?)? 'O/x^pt/e?)? "Trpoaa>hia<;, and Nicanor's Trepi 'Ofirjpiicfjs crrtY/ui}?. The works of Didymus, Aristonicus, and Nicanor belonged to the department of textual criticism ; and of the ten quotations and allusions which rest upon the authority of Ven. A five may be conjectured to owe their survival to Herodian8. The explanation of y\wa-crai and \i^ei<;i, where the scholia are found to be in agreement with the extant lexicons, was largely the work of Aristarchus, whose name is mentioned together with Apion and Heliodorus in Hesychius' prefatory letter to Eulogius. The lexicon of Apollonius, which depended on the same sources, survives only in an abridged form, so that it is seldom of value where a fuller version exists elsewhere5. In one case we are referred to the authority of Crates of Mallus6. The elucidation of mythological details was the principal subject of Didymus' v7rofivrjfiaTa'!, and many notes of this complexion in the scholia are attributed to him by name. In connexion with the scholia the Homeric commentaries Eusta1

p. 32, 11 Klein. Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa 1 2422. 2 This was a digest of Aristarchus' explanation of the critical signs (obelus, &c.) used by him in his edition. 3 frs. 43, 94, 582, 901, 1056. 4 See e.g. frs. 454, 611, 785, 793, 906. 5 Apollonius, s.v. Hard, quotes A 424 (fr. 898) for Kard^eirl. 6 7 fr. 1060. Schol. 5 4 may be an example (1 p. 141).

thius.

lxvi

GENERAL

INTRODUCTION

(•jrapeicfioXai. et? T»)I/ 'Ofir)pou 'lXidba ['Ohvaaeiav]) of Eustathius

must be mentioned. They were written at some time before 1175 A.D., in which year their author was appointed Archbishop of Thessalonica by the emperor Manuel I. The value of the books consists in their enormously rich store of extracts from philological writings which have now been lost; for it is quite certain that the quotations from the ancient classics were all at second hand, and that the plays of Sophocles outside the selection had perished long before the time of Eustathius1. Nor does Eustathius seek to conceal his dependence upon earlier sources, although he often succeeds in hiding their identity by the use of such vague expressions as cfiaai, Kara

TOU?

iraKa-iois, Xiyerai,

and the like2. But, although this lack of precision and still more the tendency to garble his extracts by abbreviation are to be regretted, the main channels of tradition which Eustathius followed are either obvious or have been definitely ascertaineds. Thus, he borrowed large blocks of material from the Deipnosophists of Athenaeus, and is in no sense an independent witness for the quotations of the earlier writer4. It should also be noticed that his text of Athenaeus was the epitomized version represented in the MSS known as C and E5. Strabo was copied almost as freely as Athenaeus, but only twice where Sophocles is concerned6. Next, it is certain that much of Eustathius is nearly related to the tradition of the Homeric scholia. For the Iliad he employed a MS containing a collection of scholia which 1 This fact was first clearly recognized by Valckenaer, Opusc. I 337 f. Jebb on O. T. 1264 and on Ant. 292 (at p. 250) gives the impression that Eustathius' quotations were usually made at first hand. It is clear, also, from the remarks in his Bacchylides (p. 76) that he took the same view of citations by such writers as Stobaeus and Priscian. Rutherford in his New Phrynichus (p. 84) does not appear to have observed that the evidence of the Etym. M. goes back to the older authorities from which it is derived. 2 0a<7(: frs. 166, 237, 702, 791, 794, 1006. Kara TOVS Tra\aiois (acric oi iraKaiol) : frs. 108, 1046, 1049, 1087. \4ytTai: fr. 1105. 3 In the following account much use has been made of Cohn's article in PaulyWissowa vi 1452—1489. 4 frs. 19, 28, i n , 127, 154, 181, 314. 275, 318, 329, 378, 395, 565, 718, 760. 6 For examples see the nn. on frs. 154, 181 (where A has viirov), 318. 6 See fr. 1086, I p. 86. Eustathius frequently quotes from an epitome of Stephen of Byzantium, but there is no such instance in the Sophoclean sources.

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lxvii

bore the names of Apion and Herodorus1, and was derived from the same sources as the scholia in the extant MSS. Thus, the text of Eustathius sometimes coincides with Ven. A2, sometimes with Ven. B or Townl., and is sometimes supplementary to both. As an instance of the last-named alternative we -may quote fr. 458, which is one of several examples of irapaK.et^t<; given by Eustathius as well as by the Paris MS 2766 of the thirteenth century3 in addition to those appearing in schol. BT. In the Odyssey Eustathius followed a similar course; but, since the existing scholia to the Odyssey are much less full and important than those to the Iliad, the value of the tradition represented by Eustathius becomes comparatively greater. Fr. 108 was found by Eustathius in his MS, amongst other illustrations of the word l-irr\fiokop6vr)cn,<; and Poseidon as v
tious.

Nothing is known of these persons except their names, which are possibly fictiApion cannot be the Alexandrian grammarian of that name.

2

See frs. 43, 94, 1056. Cramer, anecd. Par. i n 274. But cod. 2679 {an^d- P"r- HI 5) was copied from Eustathius and is consequently worthless : cf. fr. 611. The same remark applies to cod. 2767 (frs. 776, 929). See Cohn, I.e. 1485. 5 * Schol. EQR Horn. /3 319. fr. 37, I 687 K. 6 Porphyrius' note appears also in Etym. M. p. 357, 18, with all the Attic quotations except that from Sophocles. 7 The latter identification was Stoic: Cornut. 22, Cic. n.d. 1. 40. 3

8

I P- 145Eustath. Od. p . 1796, 35 1ea.\oyov
lxviii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Eustathius seldom referred to the scholia on other authors, so that it would be wrong to suppose that fr. 895 was borrowed by Suetonius, him from the scholia to Euripides. An examination of the context in Eustathius reveals that he has introduced into his commentary a long extract from the work of Suetonius irepl TWV Trap "EXkrjai, TraiBiwv. The same origin is to be attributed to frs. 429 and 479. The name of the author is not given by Eustathius, but is mentioned by Suidas1, who records the existence of another work by him entitled Trepl 8v(Tri/j,a>i> Xe^eoiv rfTOb /3\aaf}>ri/jLidJv KCU ir/iOev knaaTi).

T o t h e -rrepl {3\a
Eustathius owed his acquaintance with frs. 720 and 885. It is at first sight surprising that these little-known works, written in Greek by a Roman historian of the age of Hadrian, should have survived and continued in use until the late Byzantine era. No less striking than the survival of Suetonius, who was, of course, the depositary of earlier learning, is the appearance in Eustathius of a number of quotations ascribed to Aristophanes of Byzantium2. The latter were held by Nauck in his monograph on Aristophanes to have been derived from the Homeric scholia; but the publication by Emmanuel Miller in 1868 of the contents of a remarkable MS formerly at Mt Athos3 showed that these as well as the extracts from Suetonius had a peculiar history. For the MS comprises, besides the collection of proverbs attributed to Zenobius, short excerpts from Zenodorus trep\ T17? 'Ofirfpov (jwrjOeia^, from the \e£et? (irepl dvo/Aaaias rjXi/ciwv and so forth)

of Aristophanes, and from the works of Suetonius already quoted. Each of them contains passages closely parallel to the text of Eustathius, although he names Aristophanes alone of nijve\6in!S

TijX^uaxoe"ATOV Si KOX IloXu/cdo-njs rijs N&rropos HepaivTokiv,

(fr. i7)...'A/)icn-OT
0 a t r l NawriKciac yijfuu

TTJV 'A.\KIV6OV KO.1 yevvijirat. rbv Repv^irroXov

~K6yois hevnaipovaw.

•j) TriXiSafiov

NavaWoos

(EGF p . 58) £K fih KaXvfovs

£K Se HyveXSirris

Tl-qKifw,xov

aal Nawicoos. Trjkiyovov

1 3

TyXetidx0"

Kat

6 5£ TTJV vibv 'Oftvfftrei

trjkeyivuav avayp&fei.

« a i 'KfiKealXaov • (card Se Avcrl/iaxop KTL

Contrast with this schol. Q Horn, TT 118 'ApKelaios % \ S i T s -

• rives Sk

en KlpKys viol Ka6' 'H(r£oc5o>' {Theog. 1013) 'OcWcre?

"A7P10S KOX Aaru/os, tic 5£ Ka\vfovs •ypaipas KvpTjvaios

us "KvioSos

5£ iv 'ISaKrjalwv lroXndq. (fr. 506) /ecu 'EXKdviKos 5t (FHG I 64)

'EipvoSias

noXuxdo-T^s Uepae'wToXis.

ical Ai6s, Aai-pTjjs 5e

S e e also fr. 454.

454 2 s.v. TpdyKvKKos. See frs. 792, 793, 1062, 1069. Now Paris, suppl. Gr. 1164. See Miller, Milanges de litt. gr. pp. 407 436.

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lxix

the three authors, and even in his case sometimes substitutes (paa-i, or Kara roiis 7ra\atcw?. Thus the nature of the evidence leads irresistibly to the conclusion that Eustathius had before him a MS similar in character to the Athous, but giving the extracts in question in a much fuller form. Among the chief sources of Eustathius must be included the Aelius . > , - . . .

Dionysuis

r

Atticist lexicons of Aehus Dionysius and Pausanias, but, owing and to his unfortunate methods of reference already described, it Pausaniashas become a question of some difficulty and complexity to determine the extent of territory to be assigned to one or both of them, and in a less degree to distinguish the boundaries of their respective provinces. So far as Sophocles is concerned, the name of Aelius Dionysius is not given as authority for any of the fragments, whereas that of Pausanias occurs four times1. But that is not all; for it is certain that many concealed references to them are introduced by the formulas aal,, Kara TOVS 7ra\a \etjtiea)s, iv Kara aroLj^elov Xef(/coo4, a n d

the like. There is a large number of instances in which the tradition of the Atticists is repeated by Hesychius5, and various explanations have been given of their agreement. Thus, it has been argued both that Aelius Dionysius borrowed from Diogenian, and that Diogenian plundered the Atticists. But since Diogenian and the Atticists were contemporary writers, it is a more likely explanation that the coincidences result from their having used the same sources6. Eustathius is usually fuller than Hesychius7, and it is deserving of attention that he expressly adduces Didymus as his authority for the explanation of dpye/j,a, where Hesychius is silent8. Herennius Philo, to Herennius whom we shall return in another connexion, is mentioned by Eustathius six times,—twice as the author of the work •wepl 1

frs. 268, 272, 311, 877. Aelius Dionysius (p. 234 Schwabe) is considered to have been the source from which we get fr. 1087. 3 4 frs. 138, 748, 1093. fr- 4°6. 5 6 2 The clearest instances are frs. 268, 311, 4*9, 59 > 7° > 877, 1006, 1046, 1084; but the list is not intended to be exhaustive of the points of contact between Hesychius and Eustathius. 6 Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa V 990. 7 8 See especially fr. 1046. fr- 233. 2

P. S.

«

Ixx

GENERAL

INTRODUCTION

Btacf)Qptov arjfj,aivofiev(ov. This book, which survived until the late Byzantine age, was the source of various lexicons of synonyms which were current under different names; and that such was the history of the extant lexicon of Ammonius irepl ofiolcov KOL hia6pa>v Xe^ewv is shown by its agreement with the fragments of Herennius preserved by Eustathius. To Herennius, therefore, belongs the distinction between ecr^dpa and /3&>/4o? which occasioned the quotation of fr. 7301, and the record of iiri^aTOf in fr. 1048. We are not here concerned with the relation of Eustathius to any of the technical grammarians except Herodian; and the coincidence of his text with the eTTiTOfirj TGOV 6vofj,a,TiK(ov Kdvovoiv eK Twv ' Rpw&tavov,

«n-

edited by

Hilgard in a Heidelberg program of 1887, supports the view that such excerpts rather than the complete treatises of Herodian were alone accessible to him2. Before leaving the subject of Homeric exegesis, some reference n i u s t k e m a ( je to the e-rrifiepio-fioi, class-books 'of grammatical analysis applied to the text of the Homeric poems. The analytical process must, of course, have existed from the earliest days of literary study3, but in Byzantine times, as the circle of such studies continually narrowed, the professional teacher relied more and more upon the practical manuals variously assigned to the most eminent grammarians, and revised according to the needs of the age by their successors. Examples of such books have come down to us and some of them were published by J. A. Cramer in his anecdota. The earlier type was so arranged that the verbal explanations were made to follow the order of the text 4 , but we are more immediately concerned with the class in which the lemmas are arranged in alphabetical order. Its 1 From the same source Eustathius derived the excerpt from Alexion quoted on fr. 564, 1. 2 There is a reference to these excerpts in I p. 168 (Hilgard, p. n , 3). The epitome was also published by Cramer {anecd. Ox. IV 333). A similar epitome irepi O.K\ITIIIV pyuaTuv AlXlov 'Hpudiavov (ibid, iv 338) appears in the same program and connects Herodian with fr. 164. 3 Sext. Emp. math. 1. 161 speaks of 6 Kara ypafiixariK^v /lepur/ios as requiring subtraction (TO a.
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lxxi

most remarkable representative is the New College MS 298 (xiv cent.) published in vol. i of Cramer's anecdota Oxoniensia, which quotes five Sophoclean fragments1 and is the sole authority for four of them. The grammatical sources most frequently named are Herodian and Aristonicus, and amongst others we find mention of Apollonius, Alexion, Heliodorus, Seleucus, and Tryphon. The latest in time are Philoponus, Orion, and Charax ; and, since the name of Choeroboscus is absent, the collection may be assigned to the early part of the sixth century, between the dates of Charax and Choeroboscus2. It is certain that these works were based largely on the results of Herodian's labours, and several of them circulated in his name, although their authenticity is open to question3. The name of Herodian, known as 6 re^vi/ccs for his eminence Technical among them, introduces us to the technical grammarians, ypa/j,- ™™ /xariKi] was a comprehensive term, embracing the various branches of scholarship, and, although Aristarchus paid much attention to •n-poaahia and 6p6oypa
2 frs. 114, 393, 521, 749, 750. Reitzenstein, Gesch. d. Etymol. 206. Lentz, 1 xvii—xxxiii. Reitzenstein, op. cit. 374. 4 Four fragments are quoted in the scholia to his rex^V, one of which (fr. 751) •certainly, and one (fr. 962) probably, belongs to the collection of Stephanus. Herodian is now ascertained to have been the authority followed in the citation of fr. 751. 6 Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa II 136. 6 From this book is quoted fr. 753. Fr. 471 comes from the separate work irepl 3

lxxii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

rodian, who was born at Alexandria, but lived subsequently at Rome and enjoyed the favour of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, made himself supreme in the domains of morphology and accentuation. His reputation, continually enhanced by the passage of his writings through the centuries, was earned by the skilful reconstruction and careful elaboration of the results which his predecessors had garnered, rather than by his success in establishing new principles of general application1. Thus the irepl 6p6oypa(f>La<; was derived from Tryphon2, and his great work, the icadokiicT) TrpoawSta in twenty-one books, was founded on the writings of Aristarchus, Tryphon, and Heracleides of Miletus3. The book is known to us chiefly through excerpts appropriated by Theodosius and Arcadius, and we are similarly placed in regard to all his other writings4, with the exception of the small tract irepl fiovijpov; A.e£' e&>
2 Reitzenstein, op. cit. 311. ibid. 302. * Sandys, p. 321. * His fragments were collected and edited by A. Lentz in 2 vols., Leipzig, 1867 1870. For the excerpts published by Hilgard after Cramer see p. lxx. 5 See Nauck's Index. In fr. 521 Herodian is, of course, the source of the other authorities, and in fr. 46 his tradition is independent of Hesychius and the rest. Two quotations (frs. 360, 586) are repeated in the irepi dixp^wv (Cramer, anecd. Ox. Ill 282 ff.), perhaps an excerpt from the naBokiKT) irpo
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lxxiii

the authenticity of the severely curtailed Qikeraipos, which is printed at the end of Pierson's edition of Moeris (pp 431—453 of the 1759 edition). The little book is undoubtedly of the Atticist class, and has much in common with Phrynichus and the lexicographical sources of Pollux and Athenaeus. It is generally considered that Herodian had no affinity with the Atticists1; and, although the possibility of its genuineness has been advocated by Reitzenstein?, neither title nor contents appear to support his view3. The edifice constructed by the labours of Herodian and his father was continually patched and repaired, enlarged or allowed partly to fall into decay, by the various workers who succeeded them; but the plan was never remodelled. It is needless to recite a list of these worthies, but mention must be made of Orus, who lived in the fifth century at Alexandria or Miletus or at both4, since the lexicon Messanense edited by Rabe has been identified as a fragment of his work irepl 6p0oypaia
Some would except the cv/j.Trdaioi'. Gesch. d. gr. Etym. pp. 377, 388—396. 3 Lehrs (p. 421) thought that here and there might be a trace of Herodian. See L. Cohn in Rh. Mus. XLIII 406, who is followed by Schultz, I.e. 973. It should be observed that the reference to fr. 606 is undoubtedly an abridgement of the fuller account preserved by Pollux and Athenaeus. Now, Aesch. fr. 211, which is referred to by Athenaeus and indicated in the iiKirai.pos, is quoted precisely by Herodian T. ixov. \ef. p. 35, 19. At first sight this appears conclusive; but, when the various passages are examined with their context, it will be found that the surrounding conditions in the ir. fiov. \tt,. are entirely different from those in Pollux and Athenaeus, and that, whereas the lexicographers were dealing with vocabulary, Herodian was seeking to establish a rule of morphology. Cohn's theory, which Reitzenstein combats, that Atticism was derived from the Pergamene scholars, or more particularly from Alexander Polyhistor, is another matter altogether. In Nauck's Index Fontium the QMraipos is run together with 4K TUIV 'HpuiSiavov also printed by Pierson(pp.4j4— 480) and in Lobeck's Phrynichus, p. 451 ff. That also is a work definitely Atticist in character. 4 Some authorities put him about two centuries earlier (see Christ-Schmid, op. cit. II5 p. 885) on account of his work Kara Qpvvixov Kara
Ixxiv

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

quotes fr. 526, apparently from Orus. But he was himself a representative of the grammatical tradition, and fr. 461 appears in his e x t a n t work irep\ TWV 8ta<£op&>? Tovovfiivwv

KCU &ul<j>opa

<ji)ixaivovT(ov. Five fragments are preserved by Priscian, who was a contemporary of the emperor Anastasius (491—518). Though a Latin grammarian, he depended largely upon Greek authorities, and acknowledges in his dedication that it was his intention to translate into Latin the rules of Apollonius Dyscolus and Herodian. In fact, much of the Institutes proves to be a reproduction of extant works of Apollonius and of the scholia to Dionysius Thrax 1 . Fr. 880, which comes from the minor work de Terentii metris, is of interest as belonging to another branch of learning. Priscian's source was Heliodorus the metrician, now securely dated in the middle of the first century A.D., who quoted Sophocles' line from the commentaries of Seleucus, the Homeric scholar and contemporary of Tiberius2. George Choeroboscus, perhaps the latest in date but by no means the least distinguished of the classical grammarians, occupied a professional chair at Constantinople in the early part of the sixth century. Several fragments of Sophocles are preserved in his lectures on the elcraywyiKol icavcves 7repl xXiaecof ovofxnTajv

ical prjfi'iTcov of Theodosius of Alexandria, which were afterwards published from the notes of his pupils. There is no doubt that he depends upon lost works of Apollonius Dyscolus, Herodian, and Orus, but he seams to have used them only in intermediate sources, especially the writings of Philoponus and the grammarian Zenobius3. Choeroboscus is also our chief authority for two quotations drawn from his commentary on the Enchiridion of Hephaestion4, in which he represents the tradition of the 1

Teuffel-Schwabe, t>\ Warr, II p. 523. The eighteenth book of the Institutes corresponds to the third of Apollonius wepi crwrdlews: Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa 11 139. Bekker's third lexicon {anecd. 117—180) may be mentioned in this connexion: see frs. 696, 739. In its present shape it is very late, as the quotations show; but it also contains old material and was originally based on collections made from the speeches of Demosthenes and Isocrates. - Hense in Pauly-Wissowa VIII 28, Susemihl, op. at. II 22621. '•' Reitzenstein, op. at. 361. 4 Now published in full in Consbruch's Hephaestion, pp. 177—254. Parts of it taken from the inferior codex Saibantianus appeared in Gaisford's posthumous edition

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lxxv

ancient metrical learning descended from Aristophanes of Byzantium. The influence of the paroemiographical tradition has been Paroemionoticed in relation to the scholia on Pindar and Plato; and the sraPherssources employed by these writers will next be described. It is unfortunate that the proverbial corpus is still accessible only in the edition of von Leutsch and Schneidewin published at Gottingen in 18391. For the publication by Emmanuel Miller of the Athoan MS mentioned above2 threw an entirely new light on the history of these collections. It has been shown by Otto' Crusius3 that the vulgate MSS used by the editors of the corpus represent later collections made in alphabetical order, and containing either 552 proverbs attributed to Zenobius or about IOOO without an editor's name4. But, though these MSS still have their value in supplying the gaps in our knowledge of the earlier corpus, it is certain that the Athoan and other MSS which have since been found to belong to the same group represent a more primitive attempt to form a corpus in which the proverbs of Zenobius were retained in their original order. In the archetype of these MSS the corpus was divided into five parts, of which the first three contained the proverbs of Zenobius, the fourth those passing by the name of Plutarch, and entitled irepl TWV Trap' 'AXe^avSpevai trapoijxmv5, and the fifth a collection (1855). Hoerschelmann (Rh. Mas. xxxvi 300) was the first to recognize the authorship of Choeroboscus, since confirmed by the heading of cod. R. The two passages of Sophocles quoted by Choeroboscus (frs. 240, 795) are adduced in the same connexion by the Anonymus Ambrosianus de re metrica edited by W. Studemund in Schoell and Studemund's anecdota varia^ I pp. 211—256. I am not aware that the relation of the anonymous writer to Choeroboscus has been investigated. 1 This book, which is itself not easy to procure, superseded for practical purposes the edition of Gaisford (Oxford, 1836). In the present work, except where for special reasons it has been necessary to refer to Miller's Melanges, the notation of the Gottingen corpus has been preserved in preference to the numbers of the Athoan 2 and other MSS. P- lxviii. 3 Ana'ecta crit. adparoem. Gr. (Leipzig, 1883), p. 16 ff. 4 The Paris MS 3O7ob (xn cent.) is the chief representative of the former class, and the Bodleian (xv-cent.) of the latter. Gaisford's edition is still valuable for its reproduction of the Bodleian; for the Gottingen editors transferred to an Appendix proverbtorum (1 379—467) only such proverbs belonging to the anonymous collection as were not found in the ZenObian. 5 Fragments separately edited by O. Crusius, Leipzig, 1887.

lxxvi

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

made by an unknown sophist at a late date for use in the rhetorical schools. A reference to Nauck's Index Fontium will show that Zenobius—even within the limits of the Gottingen corpus1—is by far the most important of the paroemiographers as a source of quotations from tragedy; and although Macarius, Gregory of Cyprus, and Apostolius are not entirely valueless as witnesses to the tradition, they belong essentially to the same group, and do not represent an early collection independent of Zenobius. The same remark applies to the collection of yj6 Zenobian proverbs which passes by the name of Diogenian but has nothing whatever to do with the lexicographer of that name2. Zenobius, the author of the collection which lies at the base of all extant records, was a sophist who lived in the reign of Hadrian, and his work is described by Suidas as iirirofir) TWV 7rapoi/j,uov

ACBV/JLOV

ical Tappalov

ev /8t/3\/ot?
Lucillus

Tarrhaeus we have already encountered as one of those responsible for the scholia to Apollonius Rhodius ; but, though materials are lacking to determine the exact date of his literary labours3, the character of the two passages where he is quoted verbatim, apart from the fact that, while Didymus wrote in thirteen books, Tarrhaeus as well as Zenobius wrote in three4, shows that Tarrhaeus cannot have been the intermediate source between Didymus and Zenobius6. We must rather regard Didymus, with whose methods we are now familiar, as having provided Zenobius with the bulk of his material and especially with his quotations, while additions of moderate length were made from the stories relating to various localities collected by Tarrhaeus in the course of his travels. Thus we have seen that Didymus rather than Tarrhaeus was the source of fr. 1606, and the same is doubtless true of the remainder of our fragments, 1

It should be remembered that the Appendix proverbiorum is also Zenobian. Their ascription to Diogenian is explained by Crusius, Anal. p. 23. See also Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa V 7833 C. Mueller (FUG IV 440), who has collected all the notices relating to him, makes him a little older than Didymus or else his contemporary. 4 Helladius ap. Phot. bibl. p. 53oa 10. 6 Crusius, op, cit. p. 93 f. 6 See p. Ixiv. His name is expressly recorded in connexion with fr. o.8r. For fr. 811 see Crusius, p. 78; and for fr. 37 id. p. 141. 2

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lxxvii

although his authority cannot in every case be directly traced. Didymus, of course, made his collection from the earlier writers who had occupied themselves with the investigation of proverbs either current in speech or recorded in literature. Of these the most important were Aristotle, Theophrastus, Clearchus, Demon, Chrysippus, Aristophanes of Byzantium, Dionysodorus of Troezen, and Aristides. But Didymus was not merely a compiler: while he brought together the explanations previously given, he exercised his judgement freely in selecting from amongst them, or in rejecting them all in favour of another suggested by his own researches. Hence the fact that Zenobius often records a series of explanatory glosses, although the names of their advocates are seldom preserved1. Thus Aristophanes of Byzantium, whose name is recorded in connexion with fr. IO442, and who, according to the reasonable inference of Crusius, was the source of fr. 1983, was rebuked by Didymus for charging the old poets with plagiarism4. Fr. 406 was one of the proverbs explained by Chrysippus5; and Demon, who belonged to the end of the fourth or beginning of the third century, certainly discussed the proverb SapSoz'/o? <;, although he is not the source to which we owe the reference to the Daedalus6. We pass to the lexicographers, the most copious, if not the Lexicomost fruitful source of our information. The supreme importance of Hesychius in relation to the tragedians can easily be measured by consulting the references to him in Nauck's Index ; but the history of the development which explains the composition of his work has been treated in the preceding section, and sundry explanations bearing on other lexicographers have already been given and need not be repeated here. Aristophanes of Byzantium was the founder of Greek lexicography; and his immediate followers, adhering strictly to his example, confined their efforts to the compilation of lists (ykaxrcrai or \ef«s), not necessarily alphabetical, of the words and phrases current in a particular branch of literature or appropriate to a particular art. 1 2 5 6

For examples see Zenob. 5. 85 (fr. 160), 6. 11 (fr. 908). 3 Zenob. 3. 63. Anal p. 150. Arnim HI p. tot; Crusius, op. cit. p. 82. See p. Ixiv.

4

ibid. p. 153.

lxxviii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

An early example was the jXwa-a-ai of Nicander, frequently quoted by Athenaeus, which seems to have been intended to explain obscure terms of local currency; another, also familiar to readers of Athenaeus, was the dyJrapTvriical Xeftt? of Artemidorus; and several collections of dialectical and literary words were made by Tryphon. A favourite subject was, of course, the explanation of Homeric yKwaocu, in which all subsequent workers drew largely upon the labours of Aristarchus. The extant lexicon of Apollonius has already been mentioned in this connexion 1

T h e avvaycoyr) TWV Trap 'iTriroicpaTei \e%ea>v

of Erotian is one of the most valuable remnants of Greek lexicography, and alone preserves a number of tragic fragments, though often, unfortunately, in a corrupt form. The author belonged to the second half of the first century, and his book was dedicated to Andromachus, the emperor Nero's physician. His chief source was the Hippocratean glossary of Baccheius of Tanagra (c. 200 B.C.), which is quoted 64 times, and through him he derived much grammatical learning, including many quotations from the poets-, from the Xefet? of Aristophanes of Byzantium8. But Erotian also relied on other authorities, amongst whom Heracleides of Tarentum (c. 75 B.C.), the author of a grammatical treatise in three books 7rpo9 BaK^elov rrepl TWV '\irTroicpdTow;

Xe^ecov*, deserves special mention. The coincidence of Hesychius and Erotian in fr. 550 is due to the fact that Erotian was amongst the authorities consulted by Diogenian5 An explanation of the greater fullness of Hesychius is to be found in the condition of our 1

See p. Ixv. Although in frs. 729, 1092 Apollonius gives more than Hesychius, a fuller version is usually preserved by Hesychius and other Byzantines. Fragments of such a version were published from an Egyptian papyrus by E. W. B. Nicholson in C.R. XI 390. 2 Erotian p. 31, 12 (of Baccheius) TTOXA&S -aa.pa9iii.tvov eh TOVTO naprvpias iroirirtiv. 3 His influence can be established in other passages than the seven or eight where he is cited by name. For the use made of him by Baccheius see Klein's Erotian, p. xxiv. 4 Erotian, p. 22, 19; 32, 2. The date of Heracleides was wrongly given (after authorities now obsolete) in the n. on fr. 236. But Erotian, p. 32, 2, has been strangely misinterpreted; for, though Klein's statement (p. x x v m ) is quite clear, Wellmann (in Pauly-Wissowa 11 149, 279o)t\vice makes Apollonius of Citium the author of the three books against Baccheius. 5 So Cohn infers from the statement in the introductory letter to Eulogius that Diogenian collected ras irapa TOIS larpoit A&feis (Pauly-Wissowa VIII 547).

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lxxix

text of Erotian, which has been proved by Daremberg's discovery of extracts from Erotian among the Vatican scholia to Hippocrates1 to be a mangled abridgement of the original work. Aristophanes' collection of ' ATTIKCU, Xe£e
Klein, p. xvn ff.

2

329 D, where the title is given as Xi^eav avvayayr/. 3 See p. lxxiv. The same date is indicated by the fact that Erotian quoted him (P- 25, 3). 4 5 6 fr. 719. Od. p. [944, 8; p. 1958, 1. cod. 152. 7

Phot. bibl. cod. 153 aveyvtbuBrj 8£ ev Ty avr<£ rev^ti.

lxxx

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

them has been increased, as we have seen, by the carelessness of Eustathius; but in general it may be inferred that Aelius Dionysius was more nearly concerned with questions of form and expression, whereas Pausanias dealt with the technicalities relating to public and private antiquities, and especially with the explanation of proverbs1. Though the general line of their tradition is free from doubt, the identity of the sources actually followed is often obscure; for it is uncertain how much they took direct from Aristophanes of Byzantium, or how much from Didymus, Pamphilus, and Irenaeus. Their relation to Diogenian has already been considered2. In spite of the difficulty involved in tracing the influence of lost works, Eustathius has revealed enough to enable us to identify them as one of the chief sources followed by Photius in his lexicon, and to establish their claim to the ownership of a number of glosses in the sixth lexicon included in Bekker's anecdota*. Evidence bearing on both these points will be found in the glosses which contain some of the Sophoclean fragments4. The survival of part of his work has made Phrynichus the best known of the Atticists to modern scholars. He lived in the latter half of the second century, and his great work the cro<j>ia-TiKrj irpoirapaaKevrj was composed in

thirty-seven books. With the exception of the fragments which can be recovered from other texts, the only part which has come down to us is the extract (i/c TWV <$>pwlxov T 0 " 'Apaffwv r>}i<jTLicri<; -irpoTrapacncevf)?) preserved in the codex Coislinianus

345, and published as the first lexicon in Bekker's anecdota (pp. 1 — 74). It has recently been re-edited by J. de Borries5, together with a collection of the fragments. Much better 1 E. Schwabe in his edition of their fragments (Leipzig, 1890) made no attempt to distinguish between the two writers. 8 p. lxix. 3 PP- 3'9—476- I t is entitled avvayiayi) \i%ewv yj>Tia\.fi.wv 4K Siav re rai pryr6poiv TTOXXUC. The part published by Bekker only covers the letter a. The name of Dionysius occurs at p. 362, 3. 4 For Photius see frs. 1087, 1093. The name of Pausanias appears in connexion with frs. •268,877, and may perhaps be inferred in relation to fr. 420. pijTopwbv AefiKiv is quoted for frs. 138, 748; and 01 naXaiol (fr. 994) is probably Aelius Dionysius. 6 Leipzig, 1911. The book is unfortunately disfigured by numerous errors, and many of the fragments are assigned to Phrynichus on unconvincing grounds.

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lxxxi

known, however, owing to the editions of Lobeck and Rutherford, is his earlier and shorter work in two books, which was e n t i t l e d ii<\ov Kal bvofjuaraiv 'ATTIKOIV.

Phrynichus be-

longed to the severest school of Atticism, and framed his canons in accordance with the usage of Aristophanes, Thucydides, Plato, and Demosthenes; so that his appeals to Sophocles were occasional in character, when examples of the poetic style were introduced by way of illustration1. The influence of Phrynichus upon his successors is recognizable for us chiefly in Bekker's sixth lexicon, where his name is quoted more frequently than in any other ancient document2, and in Photius. This relationship has been much more clearly established since the recovery of the early part of Photius, to be mentioned later3. Phrynichus was by no means a mere copyist or epitomator; he was diligent in collecting material from the sources available to him, and he exercised an independent judgement in the general inferences which he drew from it. His eminence is shown by his rivalry with Julius Pollux for the favour of the emperor Commodus4, although he failed in his candidature for the professorial chair at Athens which was given to Pollux. But it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that he went so far as to gather most of his illustrations directly from the pages of his Attic models6; for we cannot believe that he discarded the labours of his predecessors any more than a modern scholar would refuse to avail himself of the help of indexes and lexicons. Thus, it is highly probable that he profited by the work of Irenaeus irepi T?)? 'A\e^avSpi(oi> SiaXeKrov, in which an attempt was made to show that the Alexandrian usage was the direct descendant of the Attic6. But we are not left to rely upon conjecture, since there is direct evidence that he used the lexicons of Diogenian and 1

frs. 128 and 1064, the only two from the exXoyr), illustrate this point. fr. 357 is a good example. 3 No less than nineteen of de Borries's fragments contain references to Sophocles. But several of these (frs. 53, 68, 133, 134, 146, 244) are of uncertain origin. 4 Scarcely veiled instances of the controversy will be found in Rutherford's edition at pp. 157, 208, 251, 267, 321. 5 As de Borries seems to suggest on pp. x n , x x m , though he subsequently modifies the statement (p. xxvi). 6 Rutherford, p. 479; de Borries, p. XXVI. 2

lxxxii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Aelius Dionysius1. Helladius, the author of a miscellany of useful information composed in verse, who belongs to the early part of the fourth century, survives in the prose version preserved by Photius in his bibliotheca. He has so many points of contact with Phrynichus that the ao^tiuTiicrj Trpoirapacricevr) has sometimes been regarded as the sole source of his grammatical information; but the conclusion is not generally accepted2. The Antiatticist, the second in order of Bekker's lexicons3, represents a reaction against the severest school of Atticism, and was written with the object of showing that numerous words and phrases which had passed under the ban, were in fact employed by Attic writers of the best period. The authorship is quite uncertain, but it was probably first put together before the time of Orus, to whom Ritschl and others have assigned it4. The author's method was to take illustrations from earlier grammarians of repute, and to quote the reference to the ancient text. It has been argued that his chief source was the 'Am/cal Ae'^et? of Aristophanes of Byzantium5; and several of our glosses show points of contact with Diogenian6 and Herodian7 There are two cases in our collection8 showing an unexpected agreement with Phrynichus, but these may be due to the mutilation of our text. It should be observed that .the Antiatticist quotes twenty-five fragments from Sophocles as against twelve taken from Euripides and four from Aeschylus. Just as Euripides was for obvious reasons the favourite of the anthologists, so Sophocles, not because of any preference based on literary grounds, but owing to the character of his diction, was the tragic model selected by the ypafi/j,ariKoL 1 Schol. Hermog. ap. Walz, Rhet. Gr. V 486 (praep. soph. p. 115, 23 de B.). For Aelius Dionysius see also Rutherford, pp. 132, 209. 2 Gudeman in Pauly-Wissowa VIII 101. There is a coincidence with Phrynichus in fr. 811, but not in fr. 734. 3 Bekk. anecd. pp. 75—116. 4 Christ-Schmid, op. at. n 5 p. 696; de Borries, p. xxxv. Our version is clearly an epitome. 5 See L. Cohn in Jahrb. f. cl. Philol. Suppl. XII 292. Observe the agreement of p. 91. 16 with Ar. Byz. ap. Eustath. Od. p. 1761, 31. 6 frs. 169, 517, 616. 7 frs. 280, 518, 612. 8 frs 4 o 8 > gg g

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lxxxiii

The lexicons hitherto discussed were known among the Rhetorical Byzantines as ' rhetorical' owing to their subservience to prac-lexlC0nstical needs, but there is another class more properly so called which had for its object the elucidation of the Attic orators. We are chiefly concerned with Harpocration, whose ultimate sources were the commentaries of Didymus1 on the orators, and the \-\T0t8e? composed by various historians. He seems to have employed immediately the same onomasticon which was epitomized in Bekker's fifth lexicon2. Harpocration is usually identified with the teacher of the emperor L. Verus, although some authorities place him as early as the reign of Tiberius. The citation of fr. 502 is the occasion of a remarkably puzzling coincidence between Harpocration and Athenaeus. Both texts have been confused by compression, but in a different way ; and, according to a recent explanation, it appears that the codex of Harpocration was interpolated from Athenaeus at a time when the Deipnosophists existed in a fuller form than is represented by the Marcianus3. Claudius Casilo, who, according to Nauck's conjecture4, was a sophist of the fourth century, is nearly related to Harpocration. The fragments published by Miller from the Athous5 bear a close resemblance to the glosses in the margin of the Cambridge Harpocration6, and it is possible that Claudius Casilo, whoever he was, was also the editor of that collection. Julius Pollux, the rival of Phrynichus, whose 6vo/j,aaTiic6v in Pollux. 1

One of the new fragments (fr. 510) comes from a papyrus containing a portion oi Didymus' commentary on Demosthenes. 2 Xefeis prjTopiKai: Bekk. anecd. pp. 195—318. For an example see fr. 449, originally attached to a passage in Lysias. 3 See H. Schultz in Pauly-Wissowa VII 2415. The problem is too intricate for discussion here, since it has no bearing on the text of Sophocles, unless we infer that Harpocration's irirpav should be rejected in v. 3. But, though it is held that Harpocration was interpolated from Athenaeus, so that the authority of the latter's text would be superior, it will be observed that on Schultz's hypothesis the accidental substitution of dicpav for irtrpav may have been due to the epitomator of the Deipnosophists. 4 See L. Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa Suppl. I 318. 5 Melanges, p. 397 f. 6 The lex. Cant, was first edited by Dobree, and published as an Appendix to Porson's Photius.

lxxxiv

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

ten books published between 166 and 176 A.D. is still extant, was an Atticist of the milder type. He admitted much that Aelius Dionysius and Phrynichus had rejected ; for it was his object to construct a complete vocabulary of Attic names arranged according to subject-matter. But, while following the precedent set by Telephus1 in his alphabetical irepl %pr)crea)<;, r)Toi

OVO/JLCITCOV

ia8r)To
to aim not so much at comprehensiveness as at purity of diction2. He made use of various sources in the composition of the different books: in the preface to the seventh book he speaks of the numerous writings, both verse and prose, which he has consulted, and in those to the ninth and tenth books he refers to the disappointing character of the information to be gathered from the ovoixacmKov of Gorgias3 and the cr/ceuo^opi/co? of Eratosthenes. Thus in the second book he followed the anatomical treatise of Rufus Ephesius4, and his close agreement with Athenaeus in the passage from which fr. 241 is taken probably indicates that Pollux drew from Juba's dearpiicri laropia or from the monograph Trepl aiXwv ical opydvcov constituting the third book of Tryphon's irepl ovo/xaaiuiv. The fragments of Sophocles comprise some 36 for which Pollux is our sole authority, and 15 in which he is supported by Hesychius either alone or with others. Fr. 877 shows that the quotation ultimately goes back to the common source of Pausanias and Diogenian; in all probability to Didymus, whose influence can be detected in regard to frs. 11, 36, and 482. Fr. 89, if not also fr. 734, goes back to Aristophanes of Byzantium ; and the same writer's work irepl irpoaunraiv was probably the source of Pollux 4. 133—154, from which we learn interesting details respecting the masks worn by the actors taking the parts of Thamyras and Tyro5. Stephen of It has already been mentioned6 that Eustathius quotes a wor tram" k o n s y n o n v m s by Herennius Philo of Byblus, whose period of activity was late in the first or early in the second century. 1

Suid. s.v. 1. 2 7TC0IXOW/«;TCU oi TOCOVTOV els ir\ijdos birbaov ds /cdXXoi/s en\oyfiv. 3 The identity of this writer is doubtful: Susemihl, 11 501151. 5 * See p. lviii. I p. 177, 11 p. 271. « p. lXx. 2

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lxxxv

But another of his works, which was entitled irepl -rroXewv ical oi/s €Ka<7Tr) avTwv evho^ovi Tjveyite in 30 books, is of much

greater importance, since it was the principal source followed by Stephanus of Byzantium (c. 530A.D.), who even in the extant epitome of his etknica mentions Philo's name 33 times. From the fact that Apollodorus is mentioned by Stephanus 82 times and Artemidorus about 801, it has been inferred that both were extensively used by Herennius. To these authorities we should at least add Hecataeus and Alexander Polyhistor, whose names occur 300 and 100 times respectively. The position of Strabo (cited 200 times) is more doubtful, since Herennius would have no occasion to follow the copy when he had access to the originals. Stephanus, of course, did not follow Herennius exclusively ; but in matters of etymology and irpoaaSia had recourse to Herodian (cited 80 times) and Orus (cited 14 times)2. An examination of the context in which the quotations from Sophocles occur, favours the conclusion that the majority of them reached Stephanus through Herodian. A rhetorical lexicon attributed to the Patriarch Cyril of Cyril— , .

, .

. . .

,...,.

.

glossaries.

Alexandria exists in numerous MSS exhibiting various recensions, but has never been edited except in extracts arbitrarily selected3. In these circumstances neither the date of its composition nor the sources from which it was derived have been ascertained, although it is admitted to have played an important part in the successive developments of Byzantine lexicography. Thus, a Cyril-glossary was the basis of the avvaywyr) Xe^eav 'XprjaLn.wv published from cod. Coislin. 345 in Bachmann's anecdota\ The glosses beginning with a and taken from the same MS had already appeared as the sixth lexicon comprised in 1 For these authors see p. Hi. It is hardly possible to place the Sophoclean fragments; but one might guess that fr. 579 came from Apollodorus. It should of course be remembered that Stephanus exists for the most part only in an epitome. For a specimen of the fuller text see on fr. 460. 2 The above facts are taken from Gudeman's article in Pauly-Wissowa v m 654 ff3 See Cramer, ane
lxxxvi

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Bekker's anecdota>. T h e earlier condition of the first part of the avvajujij which corresponds to that of the letters /3—a in Bachmann can be seen in the fragments relating to the letter a edited by Boysen from cod. Coislin. 3472. An enlarged revision of the original crvvayayrj, which, with abbreviations and interpolations, was incorporated by the writer of Bekker's sixth lexicon, was one of the chief sources of the well-known lexicon Photius. of the Patriarch Photius (c. 820—c. 891) 3 ; but the main constituent has been enriched with numerous additions from other sources, especially Aelius Dionysius, Phrynichus 4 , Harpocration, and the lexicons to Homer and Plato. Photius announced that his purpose in contrast with Diogenian was the collection of Xe£et? from prose writers, but in practice his quotations from the poets are scarcely less numerous. T h e lexicon of Photius is preserved only in the Cambridge codex Galeanus ( x i l cent.), which is seriously mutilated, especially in the earlier part. A certain portion of the early gaps has been supplied (a) from the Athenian MS 1083, which contains two short fragments published by Fredrich and Wentzel in 18966, and (b) from the Berlin MS (cod. Berol. graec. vet. 22) of the late eleventh or early twelfth century, which contains the commencement of the lexicon and extends as far as the gloss atrapvos. The latter, so far as it relates to Photius, was published by R. Reitzenstein in 1907 with the title Der Anfang des Lexicons des Photios. It has brought to light an extraordinarily rich increment of tragic and comic fragments, no less than 37 of which belong to Sophocles. Suidas. T h e enlarged <jwa-yrj was also incorporated in the lexicon of Suidas (912—959), whose agreement with Photius is explained by their employment of a common source. Suidas, of course, 1

See p. lxxx3. Lexici Segueriani avvayuyT) X^fewp xp'ta^wv inscripti pars prima ex codice Coisliniano 347 edita, Marburg, 1891. 3 L. Cohn in Iwan Mueller's Handbuch, II p. 699. Reitzenstein, Photios, p. XLVI. Observe that the newly recovered opening of Photius is entitled KvplWov KOX Qwriov. 4 The recognition of the extent to which Photius was indebted to the UO^HTLKT] irpoirapaffKewq was one of the chief surprises of the new Photius (Reitz. p. xxxix). One of the best instances is the gloss dKodxai dpyd, in which ft. 25 is quoted. 6 Nachr. d. Kgl. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaflen, Gottingen, 1896, p. 309 ff. The glosses comprised are 'A^pafuatos—dydatrei and ayKicrrpefai—'A.dp6.
THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lxxxvii

amassed much material of a different character, but we are not concerned with the historical and biographical articles, owing to which his work bears some resemblance to a modern encyclopaedia. He also borrowed many of his glosses on points of grammar and lexicography from the paroemiographers and from the scholia to Aristophanes, Sophocles, and Thucydides1. A few words must be given to the Etymologica. The etymo- Etymological speculations of the Stoics, especially of Chrysippus, were ogica' contested by the Alexandrian grammarians of the Roman period, and above all by Philoxenus, a contemporary of Varro2, and Tryphon, who together developed the formal classification of words as Trapaywyai ranged under their respective TrpcaroTwrra. The earliest etymological lexicon known to us was compiled by Orion in the first half of the fifth century, and is still partially extant in an abbreviated form. Besides Philoxenus, to whom he clearly owed fr. 621, the predecessors to whom he most frequently refers are Heracleides, Herodian, and Soranus3. Several centuries later the reviving interest in classical literature shown by some eminent people, as well as generally by the church, led to the appearance in successive redactions of encyclopaedic collections in which etymology was a leading feature. The oldest of these, now known as the Etymologicum genuinum in accordance with the suggestion of its discoverer Prof. R. Reitzenstein, was completed in the first half of the ninth century. It rests on the authority of two MSS of the tenth or eleventh century (cod. Vat. gr. 1818 and cod. Laur. S. Marci 3044), but has not been published5. 1

The statement may be illustrated from frs. 15, 165, jo8, 596, 885. Fr. J07 is interesting, since the gloss appears to come from Phrynichus (praep. soph. p. 43, 3 de B.). Fr. 623 is ultimately derived from Aristophanes of Byzantium, to whom all the ancient authorities on yua
lxxxviii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Among its numerous sources may be mentioned Orus, Orion, Herodian 7rept iraQS,v, and various annotated MSS of classical authors. The Etymologicum Gudianum, so called after a former owner of the MS from which the edition of Sturz (1818) was printed, was compiled independently of the genuinum, but from similar sources. It appears in three distinct recensions represented by various MSS1, and has a very complex history which cannot be described here2. The Etymologicum Magnum, which was edited by Gaisford in 1848, belongs to the early part of the twelfth century. The author took as the basis of his work a copy of the genuinum, which he describes as TO fieya iTVfj.dXoyitcov, but he also made use of the Gudianum (TO dXXo iTvfioXoyiKov) and a number of additional authorities3. Stobaeus. The most important of all the sources in regard both to the number and to the character of the quotations preserved in it is the Anthology of John Stobaeus. His date can only be ascertained by reference to the authorities quoted, of whom Iamblichus is possibly the latest4; and, since he also shows no sign of Christian influence, it is unlikely that his collection was put together later than the fourth century. As known to Photius, the work was comprised in four books making two volumes (revxv)5 J but owing to disintegration and confusion of its order in the middle ages it was treated as two separate works, distinguished as eclogae and florilegium. The eclogae is actually the first two books, considerably mutilated, of the original dvdoXojiov, while the third and fourth made up the so-called florilegium. The original form of the work, with the correct order of chapters and extracts, so far as it can be restored from the best copies, is only 1

See fr. 789 (Etym. Sorb.), fr. 390 (Etym. Paris.). For further details respecting the chief Etymologica see Reitzenstein in PaulyWissowa VI 812 ff. It is important to observe that each scribe adds some particulars and alters others, so that the work is continually in flux. The first part of a new edition of the Etym. Gud. by Al. de Stefani has recently appeared. 3 The Etym. Voss. (Voss. gr. 20, x m cent.) occasionally cited by Gaisford contains the so-called p.ey&\y ypafifiariK^, a reconstruction of yet another Etymologicum which passed by the name of Symeon (Reitzenstein, I.e. 816). 4 The supposed quotations from Hierocles the Neoplatonist really belong to Hierocles the Stoic, who lived in the reign of Hadrian (v. Arnim in Pauly-Wissowa 2

VIII 1479). 5

Bibl. cod. 167.

THE SOURCES OF THE FRAGMENTS

lxxxix

to be found in the recent edition of Wachsmuth and Hense1. Those who have followed the present discussion will not need to be assured that Stobaeus did not gather his select passages in the course of his own reading, although he may well have been responsible for the addition of some of the later extracts. He himself often refers to the Tomaria of a certain Aristonymus. A conclusive proof that Stobaeus made use of earlier anthologies was given by Diels2 some forty years ago from the coincidence of his quotations with those which appear in the Christian apology addressed to Autolycus by Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (c. 180 A.D.)3. Exactly the same kind of coincidence has been observed in the case of Clement of Alexandria. Thus, it cannot be due to chance that three quotations on the same topic which appear in the same chapter of Stobaeus, and in close proximity to each other4, should be cited in immediate sequence by Clement, though one of them is attributed to Aeschylus with a significant addition5. But, though the existence of such anthologies is thus brought back to the second century A.D., and by reasonable inference to a much earlier date6, and, though Plato recommended the making of selections from the poets, so that extracts from their works might be committed to memory as an aid to moral instruction7, there is no express reference to their composition and no record of the names of their authors. Only within very recent times has evidence come to light Early ana which reveals the tradition represented by Stobaeus as already tholoSle* current at least 600 years before his time. In the Journal of 1

Hense's concluding volume is still unpublished. The references to the vulgate of the florilegiiim have been retained in the present edition as being more generally accessible, but Hense's pages have also been cited. 2 Rh. Mus. XXX 172 ff. 3 Both assign fr. 229 to Aeschylus as well as to Sophocles. The clearest case is the ascription by Theophilus to Aeschylus as a single quotation of three distinct passages which have run together owing to the loss in the anthology of the lemma belonging to the two latter: see Stob. eel. 1. 3 p. 57, 4 ff. with Wachsmuth's notes. Cf. also frs. 961, 962. 4 Flor. 39. 11, 13, 14. 5 See on fr. 934. Points of contact between Stobaeus and Clement will be found in frs. 87, 929, 949. On their relation see Wilamowitz, Einleitomg, p. 171. 6 Wilamowitz, I.e. " Plat. legg. 811 A.

xc

GENERAL

INTRODUCTION

Hellenic Studies for 19071 F. W. Hasluck published from an inscription, which was found at Kermasti in the Cyzicus district and is dated about 300 B.C., a long list of aphorisms, such as 0i'Xot? fiorjOei, 0V/J.OV Kpdrei, ahiica <j>evye, a n d so forth, obviously

intended for the moral edification of those who frequented the immediate neighbourhood. When the list is compared with the collection of the precepts of the Seven Wise Men attributed to Sosiades in Stob. flor. 3. 80, it is abundantly clear that the former, if not the original, is at any rate an early version of the latter2. Even more remarkable in their relation to Stobaeus were the fragments of florilegia published in Berl. Klassikertexte, V 2 pp. 123—130, from two papyri (Berl. 9772 and 9773) of the second century B.C. Thus 9773 not only contains the extracts 9 and 11 of Stob. flor. 69 next to each other though in the reverse order, but also the title yjroyos yvvai/cdov, which is prefixed to the same chapter of Stobaeus. Though the text of Stobaeus may thus be shown to depend upon very ancient authority, it cannot be considered to possess the same weight as the text of an extant play which can be traced to the Alexandrian edition. In fact, when a comparison is possible between the two, the differences are often such that they cannot entirely be explained as the deliberate modifications of the anthologist made for the purpose of adapting his quotations to their place. In dealing with the Berlin fragments Wilamowitz suggested that the text of Euripides might have come from a bad actor's copy, while at the same time he pointed out the possibility that the anthology was constituted before the date of Aristophanes' edition3. But, whatever the defects of his text, Stobaeus is so precious a witness that one would willingly barter much of the lexicographic material for an increased supply from the anthologies. In this respect Euripides was more fortunate, as has already been mentioned. Apart from Stobaeus and his copyists the only extant authority in this department is the dvQoXoyvov fjiwv addressed to the empress Eudocia by the grammarian 1

x x v n 62 f. This was first pointed out by Diels in Sitzungsb. d. k. pr. Akad. 1907, p. 457. See also Vorsokr. II 3 p. 214. 3 See also his Sappho u. Simonides, p. 270. 2

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xci

Orion (c. 440 A.D.), which for three fragments stands entirely alone1. § 5.

Bibliography.

The scholars of the centuries immediately following the revival of learning were occupied with weightier matters than the collection of the scattered remains of the ancient masters, which the nature of the texts then available would have made a task of exceptional difficulty. All the more credit is due to Casaubon for constructing, by way of excursus to Athen. 277 E2, a catalogue of all the titles of Sophocles' plays of which he could find a record. Bentley once dreamed of the project of editing the fragments of all the Greek poets, and the Letter to Mill and the contributions to Graevius's Callimachus were foretastes of what he might have accomplished in this sphere. But it was not until the latter part of the eighteenth century that attention began to be directed to those of Sophocles in particular. In 1762 Benjamin Heath (1704—1766) published at the Clarendon Press a series of notes on Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, including (pp. 93—112) critical comments on a number of tragic fragments taken from Grotius's excerpts from Stobaeus3. A contribution of a similar kind was made by the well-known philologer Jonathan Toup (1713—1785) in his Epistola Critica addressed to Warburton and published in 1767 ; and in the same year appeared L. C. Valckenaer's Diatribe in Enripidis perditontm dramatum reliquias, which incidentally discussed several fragments of Sophocles. Valckenaer had in fact devoted much labour to these latter, and it is clear from the Preface of Brunck, their first editor, that the collection contained in his edition of Sophocles (1786) was largely indebted to the Dutch critic. Brunck also acknowledged his obligation to David Ruhnken, by whom a number of quotations was contributed from hitherto 1 frs. 228, 247, 302. What remains of Orion is only a scanty fragment, which was first edited by Schneidewin from a Vienna MS. It is also printed in Meineke's Stobaeus IV 249—266. 2 It is reproduced in Schweighauser's Athenaeus, IX pp. 27—52. 3 Dicta poetarum, quae in Eclogis turn in Florilegio Stobaeus adfert, recensuit... H. Grotius, Paris, 1623.

xcii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

unedited lexicographical sources. The arrangement of the editio princeps was somewhat inconvenient. The plays in alphabetical order with most of the longer fragments attributed to them came first; then more than ioo fragments 'ex incertis tragoediis'; and lastly a number of glosses from the lexicographers arranged alphabetically as ' Lexicon Sophocleum,' and containing complete lines as well as isolated words and phrases. Nevertheless, Brunck's edition, which was reprinted several times, held the field for more than forty years, during which period little was done either for the increase of the collection or for the better understanding of the fragments which had been already printed. Mention should, however, be made of a paper by Blomfield in Mus. Crit. Cant. I (1826) 141 —149, containing addenda to Brunck's collection and critical notes on several passages. Blomfield's results were incorporated by W. Dindorf, who, in his Poetae Scenici of 1830, was able by recasting Brunck's work to issue it in a much more convenient form with various corrections and enlargements. Dindorf acknowledged in his Preface that he had taken slight pains to improve the work by his own investigations, and lamented that there was no prospect of a new edition adequate to the needs of the time. Hasty and superficial as the book was, it shared the popularity which Dindorfs publications enjoyed for about half a century, and in its latest form, as represented in the fifth and greatly improved issue of the Poetae Scenici (1869), it is probably still in more general use than any other edition. A new epoch in the progress of knowledge concerning the literary output of the Greek tragedians was opened by the publication in three volumes of F. G. Welcker's Die griechische Tragodien mit Rucksicht auf den epischen Cyclus geordnet, Bonn, 1839. This was an exhaustive examination of all the evidence which could be discovered bearing upon the literary history of the plays of the three great tragedians, and especially on the contents of their plots. The plays were arranged according to the order occupied by the events which they comprised in the series of the epic Cycle. Welcker's book is as readable to-day as when it was first printed. He had spared no exertion in sifting the whole of the data provided by the mythographical

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xciii

authorities, and in comparing them with the relevant indications of the tragic fragments. On the basis of this evidence the plots were reconstructed with remarkable acuteness; and the results, though necessarily often conjectural, can be checked, even where they fail to convince, by the openly displayed material of the sources quoted. It should be added that the satyric plays had been separately treated by Welcker in an earlier work entitled Nachtrag zu die Aesch. Trilogic Prometheus, Frankfurt, 1826. Welcker's work gave an extraordinary impulse to philological activity, and the following years witnessed the appearance of a number of critical papers in the various periodicals by Bergk, Meineke, Nauck, Schneidewin, and others, directed to the emendation and elucidation of the tragic texts. The influence of Welcker is more directly visible in editions of the tragic fragments which began to appear in the course of the following decade. This applies to F. H. Bothe's Poetarum scenicorum Graecorum quorum Integra opera supersunt Fragmenta, Lipsiae, 1844—18461, to F. W. Wagner's Poetarum tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Vratislaviae, 1844—1852, and to E. A. I. Ahrens's edition of the fragments of Aeschylus and Sophocles in the Didot series (1842), which was prepared with the avowed object of popularizing Welcker's results. J. A. Hartung's Sophokles' Fragmente (1851) was a more ambitious effort upon the same lines, but his speculations, though sometimes ingenious, are seldom such as to command assent. In 1856 appeared the first edition of A. Nauck's Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, which was the earliest systematic attempt to produce an edition acceptable to the requirements of modern criticism. His aim was critical rather than explanatory, and one of his chief merits was the provision of accurate information concerning the textual data of the sources. Even where these had not been satisfactorily edited, as was the case with Stobaeus, Nauck succeeded in procuring collations of the material readings of the best MSS. Nauck's second edition, enlarged and revised so as to include the latest available material, appeared in 1889, 1 In 1806 Bothe published an edition of Sophocles in 1 vols., in which the fragments were reproduced from Brunck. A second edition appeared in 1826. Neither this nor the later work is of much independent value.

xciv

GENERAL

INTRODUCTION

and has remained the indispensable foundation of all subsequent work. In the meantime Lewis Campbell had edited the fragments after Nauck in the second volume of his Sophocles (1881), excluding those which consist of single words or of very short phrases. Campbell contributed some useful notes, but did little to elucidate the difficulties which the fragments present; and he evidently considered that they did not demand the same measure of careful criticism which he applied to the text of the extant plays. In the course of the twenty-five years which have elapsed since the appearance of Nauck's second edition a considerable mass of fresh material has accrued, and the extraordinary development of the various branches of Classical learning which has taken place during that period, while it has thrown welcome light on many obscurities, has enormously increased the difficulty of focusing its results so far as they bear upon the scattered texts. There has been no fresh edition of the whole of the fragments ; but, since the publication of the papyrus remains of the Ichneutae and Enrypylus in 1912, a convenient text entitled Tragicorum Graecomni Fragmenta papyracea nuper reperta has been edited by A. S. Hunt, and the additions to Sophocles brought to light in recent years have been collected and edited by E. Diehl as Supplementum Sophocleum, Bonn, 1913. The Ichneutae has been separately edited by N. Terzaghi, Firenze, 1913. There is also a German translation by C. Robert, Berlin [second ed.], 1913. The following list contains all the occasional contributions which have been consulted for the purpose of the present edition, as well as some marked by an asterisk which I have not had an opportunity of examining. BAKHUYZEN, W. H. VAN DE SANDE. De parodia in comoediis Aristophanis. Utrecht, 1877. BAMBERGER, F. Conjeclaneorum in poetas Graecos capita duo. Braunschweig, 1841. [Reprinted in his Opuscula philologica : see pp. 163165.] BENECKE, E. F- M. Antimachus of Colophon, London, 1896. [On the Phaedra of Sophocles at p. 201.] BERGK, Th. Commentatio de fragmentis Sophoclis. Lipsiae, 1833. De duodecim fragmentis Sophoclis. Marburg, 1843/4. Nachtrdge zit den Fragmenten des Sophokles. Zeitschrift fur Altertumswissenschaft, x i n (1855), p. 108.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xcv

BLASS, F. [On the Niobe.] Literarisches Zentralblatt, 1897, p. 334. Rhein. Mus. LV 96-101. BLAYDES, F. H. M. Adversaria in Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Halis Saxonum, 1894. Adversaria in varios poetas Graecos et Latinos. Halis, 1898. [On Soph. frs. at pp. 158-165, 201.] Spicilegium Tragicum. Halis, 1902. [On Soph. frs. pp. 156-163, 243-] BUCHERER, F. Zu Sophokles1 Ichneutai. Berl. phil. Woch., 1912, no7f. BUECHELER, Fr. Coniectanea. Rhein. Mus. xxxix 274. CAMPBELL, L. [Letter in reply to R. Ellis: v. infra.] American Journal of Philology, ill 128. COBET, G. C. Collectanea Critica. [De nonnullis fragmentis Tragicorum, pp. 187-208.] Lugduni Batavorum, 1878. CONINGTON, J. Epistola critica de quibicsdam Aeschyli Sophoclis Euripidis fragmentis. Oxford, 1852. [Reprinted in Miscellaneous Writings, 1872 : see 11 pp. 455-457-] Ad Tragicos Graecos. Hermes, II 142 ff. CRUSIUS, O. Der Sophokleische Dionysiskos. Rhein. Mus. XLVIII 153. DECHARME, P. Le Drame salyrique sans Satyres. Revue des Etudes grecques, XII (1899), pp. 290-299. DINDORF, W. Vermischte Aufsdtze. Philologus, XII 188-192. DOBREE, P. P. Adversaria. Cambridge, 1843. n PP- 5'^55DUENTZER, H. Zu den Fragmenten des Sophokles. Philologus, ill 136138. EBERS, A. Ueber die Fabel der Aloiden. Zeitschrift f. Alterthumswissenschaft, IV 785-792. ELLIS, R. On the fragments of Sophocles and Euripides. Journal of Philology, IV 251-271. On the fragments of Sophocles. American Journal of Philology, 11 411 ff. Blaydes's Adversaria iti Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Hermathena, ix 144-154. Some emendations of the Greek Tragici. Classical Review, IX 105. ENGELMANN, R. Archdologische Studien zu den Tragikern. Berlin, 1900. ENGER, R. ZU Sophokles [fr. 88]. Rhein. Mus. xxni 537 ff. Adnotationes ad Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Ostrovii, 1863. FOERSTER, R. Zum Laokoon des Sophokles. Verhandlungen der 40. Versammlung deutscher Philologen u. Schulmanner in Gorlitz 1889 [pp. 432438]. Leipzig, 1890. FRITZSCHE, F. V. Emendationes in Aristophanis fragmenta. De Sophoclis Niobe. Ind. lect. acad. Rostochi, 1836. GERCKE, A. Telegonie und Odyssee. Neue Jahrb. f. d. kl. Altertum, xv 313-333GOMPERZ, Th. Zu den gr. Tragikern. Rhein. Mus. x m 477 ff. Beitrdge zur Kritik u. Erkldrunggr. Schriftsteller [pp. 4-15]- Wien, 1875. Die Bruchstiicke der gr. Tragiker und Cobets neueste kritische Manier. Wien, 1878.

xcvi

GENERAL

INTRODUCTION

GOMPERZ, Th. Nachlese zu den Bruchstucken der gr. Tracker [pp. 4-17]. Wien, 1888. HARRISON, J. E. Athene Ergane. Classical Review, v m 270. Pandora's Box. Journal of Hellenic Studies, XX 99 ff. Sophocles Ichneutae Col. IX 1-7 and the Spa/ievov of Kyllene and the Satyrs. Essays and Studies presented to William Ridgeway [pp. 136-152]. Cambridge, 1913. HAVERFIELD, F. A fragment of Sophocles. Classical Review, II 324. HAYMAN, H. Emendations of Sophocles. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, 1882, p. 30. HEADLAM, W. G. Various Conjectures I. Journal of Philology, XX 2943"Various Conjectures III. Journal of Philology, XXIII 260-323. Critical Notes I. Tragicorutn fragmenta ed. I\'auck. Classical Review, x m 3 ff. Emendations and Explanations. Journal of Philology, xxxi 8-10. HEIMSOETH, Fr. Kritische Studien zu den gr. Tragikern. Bonn, 1865. HENSE, O. Exercitationes Criticae. Halis, 1868. HERWERDEN, H. VAN. Exercitationes Criticae [pp. 10-30]. Hagae Comitum, 1862. Emendatur Sophocles ap. Stob. Flor. 26. 1. Mnemosyne, I 312. Adpoetas scenicos Graecorum. Mnem. VI 280-282. Epistola Critica ad Nauckium. Mnem. x v n 265-267. Ad Tragicos. Mnem. XX 432-434. Lucubrationes Sophocleae [pp. 77-83]. Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1887. Analecta Tragica. Appendix in Eur. Hel. [pp. 101-103]. Lugduni Batavorum, 1895. Ad tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Melanges Henri Weil [pp. 179191]. Paris, 1898. Novae Observationes ad Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Rhein. Mus. LVlli 138. —— Varia ad Varios. Mnem. xxvn 390. HILLER, E. De Sophoclis Phaedra et de Euripidis Hippolyto priore. Liber miscell. philol. Bonn, 1864. p. 34 ff. HILLER V. GAERTRINGEN, F. De Graecorum fabulis ad Thraces pertinentibus. Berlin, 1886. HOLLAND, R. Die Sage von Daidalos und Ikaros. Progr. der Thomasschule in Leipzig, 1902. HOLZNER, E. Zu den F?agmenten des Sophokles. Wiener Studien, xvi 324-328. Zu den Fragmenten der griech. Tragiker. Philologus, I.v 566-568. IMMISCH, O. Ad Sophoclis Epigonos. Philologus, XLVIII 554. Klaros [p. 180ff.]. Jahrb. fur cl. Philologie, Suppl. Bd XVII. Ein Sophokleischer Vers [fr. 768] und das Urtheil u'ber Clitarchs SHI in der Schrift vom Erhabenen. Rhein. Mus. XLVIII 512-528. JEBB, R. C. Adversaria in Sophoclis fragmenta [p. 121 f.]. Album Gratulatorium in honorem Henrici van Herwerden. Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1902.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xcvii

KALKMANN, A. De Hippolytis Euripidis quaestiones novae. Bonn, 1882. KEIL, H. Sophokles [fr. 432]. Philologus, I 157 ff. KNAACK, G. Charnabon. Neue Jahrb. fiir Philologie, cxxxv 318, 800. KOCK, Th. Verisimilia. Jahrb. fiir cl. Philologie, Suppl. Bd VI. *KRAMER, A. De Pelopis fabula. Diss. Halle, 1886. KURFESS, A. De Sophoclis Indagatorumfontibus. Mnem. XLI m f. LUDWICH, A. Zu Herakleitos Homerischen Allegorieen. Mil einem Anhang zu gr. Dichtern [Soph. fr. 391]. Rhein. Mus. xxxvn 434 ff. L On S o P n - fr- 8 l 2 - ] B e r l - phil. Woch., 1902, 766. MAAS, P. ZU den neuen Klassikertexten der Oxyrhynchos-Papyri (vol. IX). Berl. phil. Woch., 1912, 1075 ff. Review of Hunt's Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Papyracea. Deutsche Literatur-Zeitung, 1912, 2781-2785. MADVIG, J. N. Emendationes per saturam. Philologus, I 670-677 [Reprinted in Opusc. acad. p. 699 ff.]. Fragmenta aliquot poetarum Graecorum quae apud Athenaeum exstant emendata. Melanges Graux, Paris, 1884, PP- 7l~7%MARX, Fr. Die Zeit der Schrift vom Erhabenen. Wiener Studien, x x 169 ff. at p. 191 ff. MAYER, M. Mythistorica. 3 Tereus. Hermes, XXVI [ 489 ff. MEINEKE, A. Marginalien. Zeitschrift fiir Alterthumswissenschaft, I 293, ibid. Ill 1066, VIII 500. Zu den Fragmenten des Sophokles, Philologus, XIX 144. Miscellanea. Neue Jahrb. fiir Philologie, LXXXVII 369 ff. Miscellen. Philologus, XVII 558. MEKLER, S. Lectionum Graecarum specimen [fr. 88]. Wien, 1882. irovTOvavTrjS [fr. 555]. Philologus, LIV 376. Lucubrationum capita quinque [fr. 432]. Progr. des CommunalObergymn. im 19. Bezirke. Wien, 1895. Exegetisch-kritische Beitrdge zu den Fragmenten der grieck. Tragiker. Jahresb. d. Elisabeth-Gymnasiums in Wien, 1903. Bericht iiber die die griech. Tragiker betreffende Literatur der Jahre 1898-1902. Bursians Jahresbericht, cxxv 180-184, cxxix 29-32. Bericht iiber die die griech. Tragiker betreffende Literatur der Jahre 1903-1907. Bursians Jahresbericht, CXLVII 95-123, 277 ff. MUNSCHER, K. Zu Sophokles Ichneutae. Rhein. Mus. LXIX 170-190. NABER, S. A. Sophoclea. Mnem. IX pp. 241-244. NAUCK 1 , A. ZU den Fragmenten der griech. Tragiker. Philologus, IV 538-543 Zu den Fragmenten der griech. Tragiker. Philologus, vi 384-401. Zu den Fragmenten der griech. Tragiker. Philologus, XII 193-196. * Observationes criticae de tragicorum Graecorum fragmentis. Progr. Gymn. Joachim. Berolini, 1855. 1

This is not a complete list of his published work on the Fragments; but, since his latest results are to be found in his second edition, it did not seem worth while to refer to all the scattered publications, which are partly superseded and often difficult of access.

xcviii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

NAUCK, A. Zur Kritik griechischer Dichier. Neue Jahrb. fur cl. Philologie, cv 803-807. Tragicae dictionis index spectans ad Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Petropoli, 1892. [The book contains an important supplement to the edition of the text: see especially pp. xi-xiv.] *NEUMANN, W. Die Enlwickelung des Philoktet-Mythos mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung seiner Behandlung durch Sophokles. Progr. des Gymn. Coburg, 1893. PAPABASILEIOS, G. A.

hiopdaxTLS ^wpiW

2o<paK\fOVS KTe. Ilapvao-rros,

X 5I3KpiTiKai TrapaTr)pri
'A0r]va, VI

65-73PAPAGEORGIUS, P . N . KpiTiKa /ten ipfirjVfVTiKO. els Ta airoiT7rd(rp.aTa Ttov 'TZWTJVIKWV rpayiKav iroirfTav. Lipsiae, 1880. Siopddxreis els Ta duo(T7ni(r)iaTa TWV TpayiKav wourraiv. 'Adrjvaiov, IX

333ff-,34i ff.

Beilrdge zur Erkldrung und Kritik des Sophokles. Pars I. Jenae, 1883.

*PAUCKER, C. Doppelpalladienraub nach den Laconerinnen des Soph, auf

einer Vase von Armento. Mitau, 1851. PEARSON, A. C. Notes on Sophocles, Ichneutae and Eurypylus. Review, xxvi 209-212. Alrvaios
Classical

R. In poetas Graecos [Soph. fr. 126]. Progr. d. Gymn. Seehausen i. A. Halle, 1887. PETERSEN, E. Andromeda. Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxiv 104-112. * Atreus und Thyestes nach Sophocles. Progr. Dorpat, 1877.

*PEPPMUELLER,

*PFLUGK, J. Schedae criticae.

[In Sophocles Iphigenia?n.~\ Gedani, 1835.

C. Quomodo Telephi fabulam et scriptorei et artifices veteres tractaverint. Halae Saxonum, 1886. PORSON, R. Adversaria [p. 215 f.]. Cantabrigiae, 1812. POWF.LL, J. U. On Recent Discoveries. Classical Quarterly, IX 142 f. RABE, H. Lexicon Messanense de iota ascripto. Rhein. Mus. XLVII 404-413. REITZENSTEIN, R. Inedita poetarum Graecarum fragmenta 1, 11. Ind. lect. acad. Rostoch., 1890/1, 1891/2. RIBBECK, O. Die rb'mische Tragbdie im Zeitalter der Republik. Leipzig, 1875. Rizzo, G. E. Studi archeologici sulla tragedia et sul ditirambo. Riv. di filologia classica, xxx 462 ff. Theaterdarstellung und Tragbdienszene. Jahreshefte des Osterr. Archaol. Instituts, v m 824. ROBERT, K. Bild und Lied [vol. v of Philologische Untersuchungen: Kiessling u. Wilamowitz]. Berlin, 1881. Niobe auf einem pompejanischen Marmorbild. Hermes, xxxvi 368387. [Revised and separately published : Hallisches Winckelmanns programm, 1903.] Der pergamenische Fries. Jahrb. d. Deutsch. Archaol. Instituts, 11 246 ff.; ibid, m 61 ff. Aphoristische Bemerkungen zu Sophokles1 'lxvevrai Hermes, XLVII 536-561. PILLING,

BIBLIO GRA PH Y

xcix

ROBERT, K. Pandora. Hermes, XLIX 17-38. ROSSBACH, O. Bemerkungen zu gri'echischen Papyri.

Berl. philol. Woch.,

1912, 1460 f. *ROSTAGNI, A. UEuripilo di Sophode ed un frammento epico adespoto. Bollettino di filologia class., x i x 156 ff. RUEHL, F. Vermischte Bemerkungen. Neue Jahrb. fur Philol., cxvn 3I5SCHENKL, H. Zu den 'I^i/curm des Sophokles. Hermes, XLViii 153-156. SCHMIDT, F. W. Kritische Studien zu den griech. Dramatikern. [See especially I pp. 247-282.] Berlin, 1886. SCHMIDT, M. Variae Lectiones. Philologus, vn 749. Vermischtes. Philologus, vm 112. [From an elaborate review of Nauck's first edition.] Zeitschrift fiir Alterthumswissenschaft, XIV 534-547. Zu den gr. Dramatikern. Philologus, x n 748 ff. Kritische Bemerkungen. Philologus, XVIII 229 f. Verbesserungsvorschldge zu schwierigen Stellen griech. Schriftsteller.

Rhein. Mus. XXVI 207-218. SCHNEIDEWIN, F. \Y. Conjectanea Critica. Gottingen, 1839. \_Spicilegium fragmentorum Sophocleorum, at p. 98 ff.] Lanx Satura. Rhein. Mus., 11 296 f. Sophokles Tereits[ix. 583]. Philologus, 11 755. —•— Ueber Soph. Aletes fr. 241 [fr. 646]. Philologus, m 89. Ueber Soph. Tyro. Philologus, in 168. SCHNEIDEWIN, O. [On Soph. fr. 567.] Zeitschrift fiir d. Alterthumswissenschaft, vil 1275 f. SCHROEDER, P. Zu Sophokles Phaidra. Neue Jahrb. f. Philol., cxxi 408. SEYFFERT, M. ZU dtn Fragmenten d. gr. Tragiker von A. Nauck. Rhein.

Mus. XV 614 ff. STAHL, J. M.

ZU den 'Ixvtvrai des Sophokles.

THRAEMER, Ed.

Pergamos.

Rhein. Mus. LXVIII 307 ff.

Leipzig, 1888.

TUCKER, T. G. Adversaria upon the Fragments of Sophocles. Class. Rev., xvil 189-191. Further Adversaria upon the Fragments of Sophocles. Class. Rev., xvni 245 f. *VALGIMIGLI, M. [On the 'Ixvevrai of Sophocles.] Athenaeum (Pavia), vol. I, part 4 (1913). VATER, Fr. Die Aleaden des Sophokles. Berlin, 1835. Miscellaneorum criticorum fasciculus tertius. Neue Jahrb. f. Philol., Suppl. Bd xvii pp. 165-209. VILJOEN, H. G. Sophocles' Electra 1074 sqq. [Contains several notes on Ichneutae] Classical Quarterly, X 1-6. VITELLI, G. [On fr. 679.] Melanges Graux, p. 99. [On fr. 85.] Studi Ital. di filolog. class., 1894, p. 298. VOLLGRAFF, W. Ad Sophoclis Indagalores. Mnemosyne, XLil 81-90, 165-177VtiRTHEiM, J.

De Eugammonis

Telegonia.

Mnemosyne, x x i x 23-58.

c

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

WAGENER, A. Un vers de Sophode. Revue de l'Instruction publique en Belgique, XXXII 171 f. WAGNER, F. W. ZU Sophokks. Rhein. Mus. VII 149 f. Kritische Aehrenlese. Zeitschrift fur d. Alterthumswissenschaft, X 15 f., 412-414. Niobe -von Sophocles. Ibid. IV (1837), nr 12. WAGNER, R. Epitoma vaticana ex Apollodori Bibliotheca. Accedunt curae mythographae de Ap. fontibus, etc. Lipsiae, 1891. WECKLEIN, N. Ars Sophodis emendandi. Wirceburgi, 1869. [Review of Papageorgius, op. cit.~\ Philol. Anzeiger, XI l8ff. Zu gr. Schriftstellern. Rhein. Mus. x x x v i 141. Zu den Fragmenten des Sophokles. Rhein. Mus. XXXVIII 136 f. Ueber die Textueberlieferung d. Aeschylos u. anderer gr. Tragiker. Sitzungsb. d. Kgl. bayr. Akad. d. Wissensch., 1888, 11 327-374 [pp. 356358]. Dramatisdies u. kritisches zu den Fragmenten d. gr. Tragiker. Sitzungsb. 1890, 1 1-57. Zu Sophokles. Neue Jahrb. f. Philol., CXLV 238. Ueber die dramatische Behandlung des Telephosmythus u. iiber die Dramen 'OoroXdyoi, Kaffipoi, 2vv8ei7rvoi. Miinchen, 1909. Zu den 'Ixvevrai des Sophokles. Bl. f. bayer. Gymn. 1913, 437. W E I L , H. Sur quelques fragments de Sophode. Revue des dtudes grecques, i n 339-348. WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF, U. VON. De Iragicorum Graecorum fragmentis. Gottingae, 1893. Die Spiirhunde des Sophokles. Neue Jahrb. f. d. Klass. Altertum, x x i x 449-476. Einleitung in die gr. Tragodie. Berlin, 1907. [Reprint from first edition of Euripides, Herakles (1889).]. WOLFF, G. Kritische Bemerkungen. Philologus, XVI 527. Zu Sophokles. Philologus, x x v m 543 f. WORDSWORTH, Chr. Conjectural emendations. London, 1883.

204>0K A E 0 Y 5 A0AMAZ A AND B There are two famous stories connected with the name of Athamas, which are recorded by our authorities with great variety of detail. One of these, the escape of Phrixus and Helle, was the starting-point of the Argonautic saga; and, though the evidence of the tragedians is the earliest to which we can now appeal, it must have been related in the lost epics. Athamas, king of Thebes, by his union with Nephele, an immortal, had two children, Phrixus and Helle. He subsequently married Ino, who bore to him Learchus and Melicertes. Ino was jealous of the children of Nephele, and, when a drought occurred—produced, according to one version, by the cunning of Ino herself—she bribed the messengers who were sent by Athamas to consult the oracle at Delphi, and persuaded them to give a false report. They accordingly announced that the god required the sacrifice of Phrixus as an expiation. Athamas was obliged against his will to consent, but Nephele succeeded in saving her children by means of a ram with a golden fleece, which Hermes gave to her. This ram, placed among the flocks of Athamas, was not only endowed with the power of speech, so that it was able to warn Phrixus of his impending danger, but also rescued him and his sister by taking them on its back, and flying away with them across the sea. Helle, unable to keep her seat, fell into the sea, and gave her name to the Hellespont; but Phrixus escaped to Colchis, where he sacrificed the ram and presented its fleece to Aeetes. Such is the general tenor of the more or less discrepant versions of Apollod. i. 80—83, Philosteph. fr. 37 {FHG III 31), schol. rec. Aesch. Pers. 71, Zenob. 4. 38 and others ; and there is some reason for supposing that Euripides made these events the basis of his Pkrixus (TGF, p. 626), possibly with some of the variations recorded by Hygin. fab. 2. Sophocles wrote two plays entitled Athamas, and, although the fragments preserved are almost entirely insignificant, we have direct evidence that one of them was concerned with a version of the story given above. But the central incident in p.

Sophocles was not the rescue of Phrixus, but the subsequent fate of Athamas. This appears from schol. V Ar. Nub. 257 (wcwep pe TOV 'AOdfiavB1 oVw? fir) dvaere) TOVTO 77-/30? TOV erepov 'Addfiavra 2oo«A.eoi/? diroTeivofievos Xeyet. 6 yap TOL Zooic\r}avu>/j.evov ical irapeo-TCOTa TO> flay/Aw TOV Aio? ft>? , icai /xeAAoi/ro? (-ra cod.) diroartfiaTTeaOai avrov Trapayevofievov 'UpaicXea, ical [TOP] TOVTOV

Oavdrov pvo/Mevov. The recent scholia, partly reproduced in Apostol. 11. 58 {Paroem. II 529 f.) under the lemma pr) deas avdpcDTrovft>?'A6tifui<;, add (1) that the punishment of Athamas was brought about by Nephele on account of his conduct to her children ; (2) that Heracles saved Athamas by announcing that Phrixus was alive. The latter point is also mentioned in Suid. s.v. 'AOdfias, who omits the reference to Sophocles. The rejoinder of schol. R, to which some critics have attached too much importance, is merely an ignorant objection : d>? aypoucos 'Add/jLavTa 'AddfiavTa

elirev CLVTI <$>pl<;ov dvTi TOV eiTreiv TOV ^pi^ov TOV elirev a>? ay pot/cos dyvocov TO? lo-Toplai' ov yap

'A^a/ia? i(po, dX\d <&pl%o<;. For the tradition that Athamas was sacrificed does not depend upon this evidence alone, but is recorded as a local legend, which was current at Alos in Thessaly, by Hdt. 7. 197. His narrative is not at all clear, but so much at least is germane to the present discussion, that Athamas was sacrificed icadapfiov TT}? ^mprjs iroiev/nevav 'A%aic!)v e/c OeoTrpoirLov, and that Cytissorus the son of Phrixus arrived from Colchis and rescued him. Several questions will at once suggest themselves in reference to the dramatic treatment which Sophocles may have applied to this material, but to most of them no answer is possible. It is, however, a legitimate observation that the means by which Nephele compassed the sacrifice of Athamas, together with the arrival of Heracles, the delivery of his message, and the release of Athamas, were amply sufficient to occupy the whole of the action. I infer that the history of the plot against Phrixus, with all its aXoya, although iv TOK Trpdyfiaaiv, to use Aristotle's language {poet. 15. I454b 7), was nevertheless e^&> T»J? Tpaya>Bi,a<;. It seems to follow that Athamas must have supposed Phrixus to be dead, although he was not slain at the altar; and, since Helle actually perished, that she cannot have been included in the design aimed at her brother. The religious questions connected with the sacrifice of Athamas, which are discussed by Frazer (Pausan. V p. 172) and others, do not concern us here. The date of this play must have been earlier than B.C. 423. In the other story mentioned above Athamas was the apparently innocent victim of the wrath of Hera. She afflicted

AOAMAI

3

him with madness, because Hermes by the command of Zeus had given Dionysus to Ino and Athamas to be reared as a girl: see Hygin. fab. 5, Apollod. 1. 84, 3. 28, Pausan. 1. 44. 7. The result was that Athamas, believing that he was hunting on Cithaeron, mistook his elder son Learchus for a lion (or a stag) and killed him with his spear; and that Ino, distraught with frenzy and grief, took the other child Melicertes in her arms and threw herself into the sea. Hence the proverb 'I1/0O9 &xv in Zenob. 4. 38 and Horace's flebilis Ino {A.P. 123). The story can be traced to Pherecydes (Schol. Horn. 2 486: FHG I 84); and Seeliger (in Roscher I 670), and more doubtfully Escher (in Pauly-Wissowa II 1931), identify it as the subject of the second play of Sophocles1. Apart from the general probabilities of the case, it is possible that frs. 2 and 9 refer to the delusion of Athamas. Ov. Met. 4. 420 ff. elaborates this version of the story in his usual manner, but the following touches (512 ff.) appear to be taken from his Greek models : protinns Aeolides media furibundns in aula \ clatnat ' io, comites, his retia tendite silvis ! I hie modo cum gemina visa est mihi prole leaena! See fr. 2 and Tr. fr. adesp. 1 ^pva^ovatj'i Xeaivtjs, which may just as well belong to Sophocles as to Aeschylus. Cf. Plut. de superst. 5. p. 167 C o 8' Addfias fiel^ovi (sc. e%pr)TO SvaTvyLq) icaX rj 'Ayavrj ftXeirovTes (sc. rd re/cva vel rovs avvrfOei'i) &>9 Xeovras ical

eXdcfjov;. There is nothing to show whether Athamas used his bow (Stat. Theb. 1. 12), or whether the scene was inside the house, as in Ovid, or on the mountain side (Stat. Theb. 3. 186), unless indeed eirnrXa fr. 8 has any significance. Further, as Welcker has observed, fr. 4 suits the final plight of Athamas restored to his senses and realising the extent of his losses. This would precede his withdrawal to another country, for which cf. Apollod. 1. 84. But none of these indications are so strong as that of fr. 5, where we can hardly fail to see an allusion to the miraculous power of Dionysus. Unless then the reference to the influence of the god is to be explained by his nurture in the palace of Athamas (cf. Lucian dial. mar. 9. 1), it would seem that in this play, as in the Ino of Euripides (Hygin. fab. 4), the wife of Athamas had joined the Maenads to share their mystic worship on the hills. It is generally believed that in that play Euripides introduced the story of Themisto, the third wife of Athamas, who plotted against the children of Ino as cruelly and as unsuccessfully as Ino had plotted against those of Nephele. There is nothing to connect Sophocles with this story, although the name of Themisto was freely used by later writers as the 1 Ahrens suggests that Cic. harusp. resp. 39 ilia exsultatio Athamantis, whi follows a reference to tragedies, may be an allusion to the play of Sophocles.

cause of the ruin of Athamas' household : see Athen. 560 D, Westermann Mythogr. p. 345. The evidence which connects the play with the Dionysus-motive is clear enough, and allusions to the madness of Athamas and to the final catastrophe may fairly be inferred; but beyond this we cannot go. There is nothing to show that the fragments of Accius' Athamas can be legitimately used to elucidate the plot of Sophocles1. It should be observed that the progress of the Athamaslegend shows the gradual combination of at least three stories, which were originally entirely distinct, and belonged to different localities. The subject cannot be pursued here ; but an illustration may be given from the fragment of Philostephanus (Schol. AD Horn. H 86, cf. Pausan. 1. 44. 7), the pupil of Callimachus, who omits the Bacchic influence entirely, and attributes the death of Learchus to the retribution exacted by Athamas for Ino's treachery. See also Introductory Note to the Phrixus. Dindorf held that 'AOdfias a and /3' were not separate plays, but different editions of the same play. He applies the same principle to other similar cases, but in the absence of specific evidence of revision the presumption is strongly against him.

KaTayvwvai 1 Hesych. II p. 421 Karayvdvai.' 4myvuvai, fiiji^aadai.. 2o0o/cX^s 'Afid/iavri a'. A few lines before Hesych. has the gloss Ka.Tayivd>aKw /ni/i^m/uu. itnyviavai. is added as an explanation, because the sense 'to find out' was common in later Greek: see e.g. Plut. Philop. 12 iiri-

rpdirovs, 'to find out to another's detriment,' with various constructions. A good example is Thuc. 7. 51 KareyvuKbTOIV ijSri /J.TIK4TI Kpetaudvav e&at, where the inf. takes the place of the ace. of the thing, It should be observed that KarayiyviiaKU occasionallyappearswithouttheinnuendo, being precisely equivalent to 4iriyiyvu
yvwadeiarjs T?}S imflovXijs. T h u s KarayiX e n . Oec. 2. 18 Kai SCLTTOV KOX pqj>v Kai yvibcTKO: is, as observed by Neil on Ar. KepdaXeibrepov Kartyvuv Trpdrrovrat. £q. 46 oifTOS Karayvovs rod yipovros TQVS

2 Hesych. 11 p. 192 ipKeai' SIKTVOLS. 2o0o/c\^s 'AdaimvTi §'. The same gloss occurs in Phot. lex. p. 14, 12 without the

eci7r>-)jfwcri (a confused quotation of Horn. x 468). The same sense occurs in fr. 431, Ar. Av. 528 'ipnti, ce0Aas, Unrva, v-qK-rds,

name of author or play. Pind. Pyth. 2. 80 0eXX<Js us birep i-pKos. Cf. Etym. M. p. 375, iolpKOi...(Trj/j.aivei For a possible explanation of the allusion Kai rci SlicTua ws T6 6TC 5T/ irapa. \ivov ^picec see Introductory Note. 1 The conjectures that have been made as to Accius' sources are mutually destructive. It is now thought (Escher in Pauly-Wissowa II 1933) that his play comprised the material of Hygm.poet. astr. 2. 20, which Sophocles may have used in the Phrixus.

AOAMAI 3 3

Hesych. n p. 249 k\pia- 7^Xws,

ircuSid, xAei)i). ?0o5os' dirb rod iirecrdai. bfxCKla. 2O0OKX?)S 'A.6d/j.avTi devrtpy.

Outside the lexicographers, the word seems only to occur in Nic. Ther. 880

31. There was, however, some wavering as to the breathing; and on this account an alternative derivationfrom^jros was propounded : schol. Ap. Rhod. 1. 459^16-

uvra.1. wapd TT)V i\jjlav, % 4UTL Sia \byuv Tat-Std' otov eirea'ia. rts oucra' 7rapct r6 ^7ros. dio Kai \pi\ovTai., ori Se SaaiveTai, dvri TOV pou, where the schol. explains it by waiduokovdovinv. So .wv or (pi\6ff7T^p/i' oKobv

KvibT)%, rid' expirj (rrXero

KOV-

is somewhat more common. There are also to be taken into account the gloss dif/iaf eoprai. Adicoives (Hesych. I p. 347) and the compounds 0iXei/
X070S, according as the second syllable was or was not aspirated (Etym. M. p. 406, 8, Suid. s.v. i\pia). Some modern scholars have favoured the view that i- is prothetic, and that the word is to be connected with \f/tdddovTi = hidunt, in Ar. Lys. 1302 : this was adopted by Curtius (G. E. 11 p. 394 E. tr.), who however forbore to speculate on the derivation. Lobeck's {Path. El. I 52) notion that efla was 'a game played with pebbles' rests on the assumption that \j/id was another form of aria. Monro on Horn, p 530 takes an entirely different line, holding thatei/'idO|U(u 'implies a noun S^is, from a root or-, Indog* ieq, seen in Lat. iocus.'

cuv a7rcus re Kayvvai^ 4 Choerob. in Theod. p. 307, 15 [ = p. 289, 2 s Hilgard] (Bekk. anecd. p. 1304) TO yuva.t.% OUK 7]Svvaro dpatviKOV yeyots eTfac.-ev 8e rr} awdtatl 4TT€L57} yiverat. T dpaeviKov yevovs, dva5ex€TaL V" e l s a i £ Kard\Tj^LV, olov ' ws UJV ajraiS.. .dveo~TLos' Trapd 1,QTi.—dyiivai^. Cf. Poll. 3. 48 'Apia-TOipdi/rji (fr. 735 I 569 K.) 5£ TOV dyivt)V dyvvov, $pvvix°s (fr- 19 I 376 K.) 5£ 1TTJ\LKOVTO(TI ytpwv airats dyvvaiKos.' T h e forms KaWiyuvaiKa, opo~iyu-

owe*) nap 5 S

rjfLtp

irap H . : yap cod.

Lex. Messan. f. 280 sq. (Rh. Mus.

Kavecmos

vcuKa, i\oytjva.iKes, ijfuyi/vaiKa. and

the

like have no nominative in existence, as was pointed out by Lobeck on Phryn. pp. 185, 659.—dv«TTios was no doubt borrowed from Horn. 163 dcpprjrap, ddefuaros, dveffTibs 4<JTLV €Keivos, \ 6s 7ro\^/j.ov ^parai ^Trtd^^iov oKpvoevros. Our homeless gives

the general idea; for Tarpifia e
dpa va. dpa cod. quoted for the use of va., I do not know

why Nauck should have shrunk from xlvii 405 ff.) vox vbv rep I /xia o"y\\a/3^ —offioKXrjs 'Ad&jjLOLVTi (ad&var. cod.: corr. writing dpa. But in that case yap T\pXv Rabe) 'o'ivusi yap 7}(JXV dxeXtStot dpa cat.' must be> wrong, and should probably H. wrote: 'As the passage is expressly

be replaced by Trap' TI/UV (ifuv).'

The

IO*OKAEOYI with the story of I n o : Hygin. fab. 4 postea resciit Inonem in Parnasso esse, quae (quam Muncker) bacchationis causa eo pervenisse. Nonn. 9. 247 ff. Cf. also Eur. Bacch. 229, Med. 1284. Thus.'AxeXifios is used for water, as in Eur. Bacch. 625 dfitafflv :Axe\£ov tfttpeiv \ evv^iruv, and elsewhere.—v<£: for derivatives from this ' 4 3 Pet &t ydXaKTl viSov, pel d' otvij>. ib. 707 Kol TijSe Kp-fivqv l^avTJK.' otvov Beds. root cf. fr. 270 varop, fr. 621 vapd. Such an allusion accords well enough

inferential use of apa (for apa) is clearly seen in 0. C. 409, 858, and may be taken to be established: see on fr. 931, Eur. Hclid. 895. Mekler (Eranos Vindob. p. 208) conjectured aSpa va.—The verse refers to the miraculous draughts of wine provided by Dionysus for his votaries: Eur. Bacch.

r/fiepav 6 \evKi\v

Antiatt. rj/itpav

'A$d/j.avn.

(Bekk. anecd.) p. 106, 33 T^V dya8i)v.

2O0OKX?JS

Cf. Phot. lex. p. 217, 5

Xeuirij ii/xipa' 7} dyatfij. ttai £ir' ei^poaiivy. E07roXis K6Xa£i (fr. 174 I 306 K . ) . T h e

same occurs in Suid. s.v., and in some

rical usage, which is found also in Latin : Catull. 8. sfulsere quondam candidi tibi soles, as contrasted with Hor. Sat. i. 9. 72 huncine solem tarn nigrum surrexe mihi! There is no need to seek for any artificial explanation, such as that which Suidas

(s.vv. \evKri 7)ix£pa, TWV eh tpapirpav) MSS SO0OKX^S is substituted for Efa-oXis quotes from Philarchus (FHG I 355), K<S\ai;i; b u t At. 672 f. follow immediately. based on an alleged custom of the Zenob. 6. 13 (Paroem. I 165) KOX M4Scythians to put a white stone into their vavBpos S4 cfrqtnv iv AevKaSLip (fr. 315 III quiver at night-time for a day spent 90 K . ) T7je dyadriv rnxipav \evKT)v KakeXhappily, or a black in the other event. ws TJHTJ \dfnrov
and so might be said metaphorically of relief, cheer, comfort, as in Pers. 304 i^oU

discipline and enjoy themselves as they

pleased : Sib nai (pain TOI)S ev einra.6eia.is juip eliras 5i&na.(nv
Is it merely a coincidence that Eupolis in the K6Xa/ces referred to this siege (fr. 154 Tlixipa is used proverbially much as we say I 299 K.)? Horace speaks of Genius as alias el ater (Ep. 2. 2. 189), i.e. evdal'a red-letter day' in Eunap. fr. 28 Boiss., ixav or the reverse. Aristaen. 1. 12. The purpose of the grammarians was to mark the metaphoSophocles may have used it.' (H.) So

\evKbv eid/xepov 0dos in Ai. 708.

7

Hesych. 1 p. 36 yxtyi

J/TJS cod.) 6 ^771)5.

\evnT)

f

2O0OKX?JS 'ABd/iavTi.

The correct reading is preserved in Elym. M. p. 15- 33 * w W s ' hl<>sThe termination, usually connected with dpapiaxu, is the same as that found in h S j XJ

pyip, d/^pijsand others. The history of some of these words is not free from doubt, but the force of -ypiis as an element of composition seems tohave been reduced, so that in the time of the tragedians it had become productive as a merely adjectival suffix. See also Wilamowitz on Eur. Her. 243-

A0AMAZ

8 eirnrka 8 Harpocr. s.v. ITTITTW p. 82, 10 TA Kara rrjv oiKlav fTseuij ^TmrXa \4yovcri, TT}V otov tirnrdXaLov KTT\(JIV KOX fj.eTaicop.tfeo-0cu Swa^hriv. 2OOK\?)S 'ABdfxavn (so Casaubon for aKa.fj.aPTi). Hesych. II p. 164 goes more into d e t a i l :
/i7) gyyeia, dX\' ^TrtiriXaia. Snidas, who has three separate glosses on the word, is much to the same effect, but gives alter-

native derivations from ewiwXea or Swart] Tr\olfc(rdai ('to be put on board'). The word means moveables; but it is an elastic term, and is sometimes restricted to what we call furniture )( dresses or jewels, as in Dem. 27. 10. Etymologically it may be connected with 5i-7rX6-s, sim-plex and our three-fold: see Brugmann, Comp. Gr. in p. 50 E. tr. The fullest discussion of the word is in Pollux 10. 10 f.

eTri-crty/xara 9 Hesych. II p. 170 e^n<7Tr|y^l1aTa^ rjxop ^T'/3oi}
Suid.

e7riffi^ei'

6i)pevoas aviicTeivev.

Note.

See Introductory

It should be added that Hesych.

II p . 167 has also €Trl
TTOL6V TIVO.

10

1O Hesych. 11 p. 248 xP 7 avvexp^fydi). XocpOKXfjs 'Addp-avn. Cf. Suid. s.v. ixpvfta-TicrBy xpci/na id^

Tr. fr. adesp. 275 x/'m/*ctT'ff^'s evvrjs
IOOKAEOYI

AIAZ AOKPOI Ajax, 'OtX.»}o? Ta%u? w/o?, is introduced in Horn. B 527 as leader of the Locrians who dwelt opposite to the coast of Euboea. He is often mentioned in the Iliad in conjunction with the Telamonian Ajax; and, though inferior in strength as compared with his namesake, is nevertheless a distinguished warrior who comes especially into prominence at the battle round the wall (N 46). The circumstances of his death are related in 8 499 ff. He was one of the victims of the storm which overtook the Greeks on their return from Troy, and, when landing on the rocks at Myconus known as the Gyrae, was hurled back into the sea by Poseidon and drowned, in punishment for a boastful speech that he needed no divine aid to escape. Homer says that he was e^o/aevo? 'Adrjvrj, without explaining the reason ; but, if we accept the explanation of Strabo (600), this merely implies that he was involved in the common fate which befel the Greeks for abusing their victory in the sack of Troy. Homer, he says, has not mentioned any outrage committed against Cassandra, and knows nothing of her violation by Ajax. Yet, even in Homer, the character of Ajax showed traces of a cruel and savage disposition, and his arrogant contempt for the gods led to his destruction. It is clear, however, that an act of sacrilegious violence committed by him was described in the Ihupersis1: see Proclus chrestotn. {RGF p. 49) K.atradvBpav Se At'as 'Ot\ea)9 irpos /3oav airoairwy avvefyekKerai TO T^? 'A8r]va<; £6avov i(f>' a> Trapo^vvdevTes oi "EXA-T/fe? KaraXevaai, fiovKovrab TOV Aiavra. 0 Se eirl TOV TT}? 'Adi]va<; /3a)/xdv KaTa(f>evyei, real Biaaai^eTcCi IK TOV eiriKei/j-evov KIV&VVOV. T O the latter part of this corresponds Apollod. epit. 5. 25 &>? Se e/j,e\\.ov aTTOTrXelv iropOrjaavre'i Tpoiav, inro KaA-^ai/ro? Karei^ovro, fx/r}vievv 'Adrjvav ai/TOK Xeyovros Sid TTJV Atavro1; daeftetav. /ecu TOV fiev A'lavra KTeivevv efieWov, (frevyovTa Se eVt /3a>/jLov elaaav. Cf. schol.

Horn. 7 135. Welcker (p. 162) rightly observed that the Homeric story does not seem capable of dramatic treatment; but in the extracts just quoted the possibility of a tragic conflict is manifest. It can hardly be doubted that we have here part of the frame1 On the question relating to the overlapping of the Little Iliad and the Iliupersis and as to whether there were or were not two poems with the latter title, composed by Arctinus and Lesches respectively, see Frazer, 'Pausanias, V p. 362; T. W. Allen in Cl. Q. 11 84.

AIAZ AOKPOI

9

work of the Sophoclean plot, more especially as the account of Apollodorus explains Eur. Tro. 69—71 : A®, ov/c olaff vfipioQeladv /Me ical vaovs i/iovs; \ IIO. olS' rjviic At a? el\ice YLaadvBpav /3ta. [ A©. /covSev 7' 'A-^aicov 6-7ra6ev ovS' tficova'

Further details are given by Pausanias in his description of the painting by Polygnotus in the Lesche at Delphi (10. 26. 3): ' Ajax the son of Oileus stands by the altar with his shield, taking an oath concerning the outrage on Cassandra; while Cassandra is seated on the ground clasping the image of Athena, as it seems that she overturned it from its pedestal, when Ajax dragged her from the sanctuary.' Robert {Die Iliupersis, p. 63) thinks that Ajax was swearing to atone for his crime by sending two Locrian maidens annually to the temple of Athena at Troy. He thus connects the oath with the temple-story (Toepffer in Pauly-Wissowa I 938) which sought to explain the historical custom by reference to a heroic legend. The chief authorities for the Locrian tribute, which lasted until shortly before the time of Plutarch, are Timaeus ap. Tzetz. Lycophr. 1141 (FHG I 207), and Callimachus ap. schol. AD Horn. N 66 (11 126 Schneider). See also Holzinger on Lycophr. 1153. But Robert's explanation of the oath taken by Ajax is somewhat far-fetched, and it is simpler to suppose that there is a reference to the exculpatory oath which is prescribed as a mode of trial by primitive systems of jurisprudence: see Wyse on Isae. 12. 9. In any case, the trial of Ajax before the council of elders provided an occasion for a formal debate (\6yoov dya>p) such as the tragedians loved. It is sometimes stated (as by Toepffer i/.s.) that the erotic motive and the violation of the priestess did not belong to the original story, but were the invention of later writers (e.g. Dio Chrys. 11. 153). The conclusion is questionable; and it is worth notice VTTO.

that Apollod. epit. 5- 22 Alas Be 6 Aoicpos KaadvBpav 6pa>v TrepL7T6Tr\eyfievT)v TCL %odv<j> 7779 ^AOrfvas /3id^eraf

Bid TOVTO TO

%6avov elf ovpavov (SXe-rreiv, which is believed to derive from epic sources, agrees exactly in its account of the miraculous aversion of the gaze of the image with Lycophr. 361 f. (cf. Strabo 264). The early appearance of the motive is also attested by Theogn. 1223 f. doXero B' AlyeiSrjs ©Tjaev'i /J,eya<; wkero B' At'a? | eV^Xo? 'OiXidSrjs arjaiv (sc. "Epwro?) draaQaXlai^, as well as by the

evidence of early vase-paintings collected by Furtwangler and Reichhold, Griech. Vasenmal. Miinchen 1904, I p. 185, and summarized by Gruppe in Bursians Jahresb. CXXXVII 387. The effect of the above discussion is to determine the outlines of the story as known to Sophocles : we are still as far as ever from being able to fill in the details, or to trace the

io

I04>0KAE0YI

process by which the tragic TrepnreTeia resulted. No doubt the outrage in the temple was outside the action of the play, and the two chief moments that fell within the time covered by it were the acquittal of Ajax by the Achaeans, and his subsequent death at Gyrae. It was impossible for the latter to be enacted on the stage, and it must either have been related by a messenger or foretold by a god. The former alternative is clearly to be preferred, but involves the assumption that Ajax sailed before the rest of the Greeks, and that his death was reported at Ilion before the other characters in the play had started. It is more difficult to conjecture how the acquittal of Ajax was procured. A possible suggestion, based on the lawless character of the accused and the oath mentioned by Pausanias, would be that he escaped death by a brazen act of perjury, but was required as being ceremonially unclean to withdraw from the rest of the army. The retribution of the offended deities was not long in coming; but even so the shadow of impending disaster hung over those who had connived at the crime of Ajax. It may be inferred from Pausan. io. 31. 2 that the chief opponent of Ajax was Odysseus. The version of the story adopted by Philostr. heroic. 9 presents certain features which suggest a dramatic origin, although we have no means of identifying it. According to this, Ajax dragged Cassandra from the temple, but offered no violence to her, and kept her in his tent. Agamemnon saw the girl, fell in love with her, and took her from Ajax. When the spoils were divided, Ajax claimed her, but Agamemnon refused to give her up and accused Ajax of sacrilege. In order to excite odium against Ajax, he also caused a rumour to be spread through the camp that Athena was incensed in consequence of the outrage, and would destroy the army unless Ajax were put to death. But Ajax, fearing injustice and oppression, if he submitted himself to trial, secretly withdrew by night in a small boat and was drowned off Gyrae. From Lucian de salt. 46 /ca6' etcaarov yovv TMV eieei (i.e. at T r o y ) weaovTCOV Spdfia Tjj
ev Tat? Trerpaw diru>\eia, Nauck is justified in inferring an

allusion to the present play. Hygm. fab. 116 cannot be used in support of Hartung's view that the story of Nauplius was combined with that of the Locrian Ajax in a single tragedy.

AIAZ AOKPOI

11

II KOLTaCTTLKTOV

AL/3var
2

o"7roXa cratjSi^crcra

1 1 Schol. Ar. Av. 933 Trpos TT\V <77roXd5a, fin ditpde'pa. biroiaovv. 2o0o/cX?Js Ai'ai'Tt AoKptf ' Ka.Ta.(TTlKTOv...84pos.' KaXXiffTparas de ofo!* itpairrov Sep/ndrLvov. Eixppbvws Si x'T&va Sep/idTivor. TrapifoOij Se Iffws €K TOV iiri
CTTOS

Sepos

R

should read irapdaKijs o~TiKrbv 54pos and eject KaraaTtKTOv Kvvbs as a gloss. But this is contrary to all analogy, and there is no more difficulty in the transference of the epithet than e.g. in Kep<xo~(p6povs o-rSpdvyyas

fr. 89, %i<pr)
d7&
Aesch. Cho. 582 or Kiircro06pois if 8a\iais Eur. Bacch. 384. Much confusion in the treatment of compounds would be avoided, in an abridged form in Suid. s.v. (nroXds, if critics would pay more attention to the and v. 1 is quoted by Pollux 7. 70 withsimple and logical methods of the Sanskrit out the name of the play. grammarians: see Peile, Notes on Tale of Nala p. 3 ff, Brugmann Conip. Gr. II 2 cnroXds may be conveniently renp. 92 E. ti\ dered 'jerkin.' Pollux {I.e.) speaks of it as a leathern cuirass, fastened at the The reference is to the leopard-skin shoulders, and Photius (lex. p. 531, 17) as hung outside the house of Antenor, in dep/xdriov e^awriSSej, suitable for use in order that it might be identified and war. It is sometimes described as x' 7 "^, spared when the Greeks entered Troy: as by Euphronius and Hesych.; but the see Strab. 608, a passage to be quoted in distinction (Traprix^'t), according to the connexion with the Antenoridae. Hartung schol.'s suggestion, lay in the mode .of thinks that our fragment actually came attachment, since a leather coat could from the last-named play and is wrongly not be strapped with a girdle.—irapSaXr)attributed to the Locrian Ajax, but the opov Sepos. L. and S. give irapdaXrj- incident might well have been mentioned (popov and are followed by Campbell, who in a play which was so closely concerned renders 'the hide the leopard wore,' as with the circumstances of the sack of the if it could be assumed at will. So also city,—perhaps, as Wagner suggests, in Blaydes, who however suspects that we the speech of Cassandra accusing Ajax.

12

ro xpvaeov Se ras AiVa? p x, TOV 8' OZLKOV a/xei/Jercu. 12.

1 rds diKas Stob. et Ath. codd.

Pare dtKTjs d
IO*OKAEOYS

12

564 TO rijs A/KJJS (Tfjifuc <j>dos is dovibtful. Similarly Tr. fr. adesp. 500 Aliens 8' 4^\afi^/e deiov aiielfierai., a word 175, 659. Tr. fr. adesp. 43, 278. Cf. suspected without any cause in Aesch. E u r . fr. 555 dXX' r\ BIKT] yap Kai Sid <XK6TOV Prom. 239 Ka.Ka?
13 i(TTL

Kal

1 3 Stob.Jlor. 98. 48 (IV p. 840, 14 Hense) 2o0o«:A-i;s Aiavri (sic MA, Afavri om. S) 'av8p(jirbs...[J'6vov.' The line is referred to this play, as not being extant in the Ajax; but it is not unlikely, as Dindorf and van Leeuwen suggested, that the ascription Aiavri is an error. The latter thought that A'iavri was due to a slip of memory on the part of the anthologist, who had in mind Ai. 125, and that the true source of the quotation cannot be ascertained (de Ai. Soph, uuthentia, p. 119). The epigram marks by two images the emptiness and unreality of human life: 'Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher.' In Eccl. 1. 14 the R.V. has 'all is vanity and a striving after wind' {irpoaipeais irvev(Uaros LXX). But irveC(j.a is rarely used

(TKLOL jJLOVOV.

in this connexion, mere breath without any substance : cf. Phoenix Coloph. ap. Athen. 530 F iyii Nivos TrdXai. TOT' (fevbfj.7]v wveufia, \ vvv 5' oi)K ^r' oud4v, aWa 77J Trerroi-Qfj.ai. More familiar is dve/j.os of things variable: Suid. s.v. dvi/xov Traidlov, Eupolis fr. 376 (1 358 K.) avefxos Kal SXedpot dvBponro;.—(TKid, of things unsubstantial, is common: fr. 945. Eur. fr. 509 ri 5' dWo; tpwvi] Kal ffKid y^pojv dvqp. Ai. 125 bpth yap TJ/ACIS ouSiv ovras d\\o TTXT/I/ I etdoiX', offovirep ffifj.ei', 7} Koi)tpT\v (XKidv. Eur. Med. 1224 TO Ovr/rd 8' ov vvv wpQrrov rjyov/iai UKidv. Or the notion is emphasised by some addition: fr. 659, 6 (n.) et8w\ov aKids, Ant. 1170 xairvov (TKid. Pind. Pyth. 8. 9^ tirdfiepoi.' rl de TLS ; rl 5' OUTLS; c/aas b'vap dvdpunros. For iaTi Burney conjectured ladi.

14 o~ooi

crocf>5>v qwovcricn.

1 4 The verse is assigned to Sophocles identical with schol. Plat. rep. 568 A. by Libanius epist. 33. A fuller tradition The schol. on Ar. Thesm. 21 adds that gives the name of the play and discusses Aristophanes in the "Spues (fr. 308 I 471 Plato's error: Zenob. •;. 98 (Miller, MeK.) distinctly attributed the line to langes, p. 363 ; Crusius, Anal. p. 153) TOVTO Euripides, and that Antisthenes as well as So0o«"X^ous etTTiv e£ Aiavros rod Aonpod. Plato did the same ; he is quite at a loss n\dTwc Si (pricnv Ebpnrldov elvai rb la/J.- to account for the confusion, but mentions fieiov. Kal ovfttv daii^aardv'
AIAZ AOKPOI the same line. See also Aristid. 11 p. 373 Dind., who treats Plato's view as an error, and Aul. Gell. 13. 19. 1, who adds to the confusion by substituting the Theaetetus for the Theages as the dialogue containing the misquotation. On the other hand, Plato's attribution to Euripides is accepted by Stob. Jior. 48. 5 (iv p. 251, 10 Hense), and hesitatingly by Themist. p. 72 c Eiipurtdijs TJ Sons

8rf iroTi iaTLV 0 iroii7
Several late authorities, references to which will be found in Nauck, cite the line without giving the name of any author. The circumstances detailed above raise a curious literary question, viz. why Plato (in Theag. 125 B and rep. 568 A) assigned a line to Euripides which was in fact written by Sophocles. We may leave out of account the possibility of coincidence, although Didymus is thought to have been responsible for this suggestion in criticising Aristophanes of Byzantium, who gave this v. as an instance of KXOUT) (Nauck, Arist. Byz. p. 280). It is possible but not very likely that one poet was quoting from the other; so that an error, rendered still more remarkable from the fact that it was common also to Aristophanes and Antisthenes, is the only supposition remaining which will account

for the facts. Adam (on rep. 568 A), while pointing out that such an error was more likely to take place in ancient times than it would be now, thinks that the cant use of
15 TL
T'KJLV Macar. | eKidapiaev Plut.

dijT* 'ATT^XXWV troi re^pta/cep (cf. fr. 466), and Nauck, following him, ivTedpiaxev (coll. Hesych. II p. 108), which Dindorf TO ' K€Ki8dpLK€V ' 0X0V €/J,aVTElJ<jaTO' WS approved. Cobet (Coll. Crit. p. 187), who cfyqffiv AtVxi'Xos tv A'lavTt Ao/cpy. Suid. says 'nihil horum est Sophocle dignum s.t'.: 'TI TL£s. H i s oracles were with that of the god: H., who thinks that Ififierpa and fifli), and as such properly either the reading or the explanation must accompanied by the Kldapis, and referred be wrong, refers to Ar. Plut. 39 W SrJTa to the god of music and song: see Gruppe, $o(/3os aa/cei* £K TU>V
Zenob. 6. 14 (Miller, Melanges,

p . 370): ' T'L trot 6 'ATT6X\OJI> KeicidapiKtv;'

IO*OKAEOYI Pyth. or. 5 p. 396 c Kalroi iLov<jrryeT7)i 6sented in art both as KiffapuTTr/s and KidapifiSds, should be said KiBaplfciv in his 0e6s, Kal T?5S Xpyo/t&'ijs XoytAnjTos ov% mantic capacity. The citharoede is the T)TTOV avrqi KOXOV 7} TTJS irepl fi^Xrj teal (pSas evwvlas [itTeivai. ib. 6 p. 397 A rdxa interpreter of the citharist, as the irpoa.Teii
16 /ecu 7re£a KOX opjAu5o0a"', jestingly applied to hetaerae: Kal irefal 8i dXXa ire£ri fioi ippaaov, or the gloss of Phot. TIKES ercupcu \iyovT
17 "EUas 1 7 Antiatt. (Bekk. anecd.) p. 97, 4 yalav KaOaipuy lKbji.t}V Hpaat ira, \ yvv^ 'EXXdr 6 dvrjp. 2O0OKX^S Mavn AoKpi^. H. 5^..., where &y\wT€ waXlyyXoxraos JT6XIS). Here is a fem. adjective similar to ireSids, opyds, it is evident that what is to be understood Tptjids, 'AiTids, 4>Sids, 'ATTIKTJ, and so with 'EXXds is 701a, but since the meaning forth; and it is difficult to believe without is no inhabitant of such a land, the transidefinite proof that it was used for"EXXi;i'. tion to a person is easy. So in Eur. The cause of the misunderstanding apPkoen. 1509 TIS "EXXds r}fidpflaposij rQiv pears to have been that oil)' 'EXXds oilre irpoirdpoiff' eiiyeverav ircpos irXa...; fidpfiapos or TiS 'EXNds rj f3dp(3apos, with or although we pass to irepos, we shall hardly without yr\, were phrases commonly emdoubt that ris EXXds = 'what Hellene ployed: Dem. 9. 27 oilff' i] 'EXXds ollff' r\ land?' Yet there the scholiasts vary: one §dp^apos TTJV Tr\eove!-lav xwPe'- Max. rightly says TU 'EXX^HKT; 777, another has Tyr. 6. 3 ef irov Kal yhono rijs 'EXXdSos r} rts EXXT/PI/C^ 7] (idpfiapos, 5T)XOT>6TI yvvr), TTJS (iapfjdpov yijs. The transition to the another ifyovv rh TSIV dvffptlnruv, y)"'EiKXriv idea of a person is found in Track. 1060 rj pappapos, yet another, yp. T oilff' EXXds OBT' d"y\w
A I A I AOKPOS—AITEYI 18

18

Schol. Aeschin. 2. 121 p. 6j, 7

clearly that Nauck was wrong in conjec-

Dind. Si^SaXXe 5e Katceivov 8La.Lpotifj.evas TOP turing 5La\afi.(3avLov in schol. Aeschin. X67O1/] oiovei aaws \^yuv nal ILvTiKpvs The annotators there doubted whether Kara diaipeaLv KCLI tpavep&s' TJ uwofiepifuiv dLatpov/xevos meant' accurately defining' or KO.1 5ia/3d\Xaw (8iaXaJu/3di'wi/ conj. Nauck) ' dividing up and so censuring,' and quoted us 2ooK\yjs AiavTL
Schneidewin (Coni. Crit. p. 102) concluded that the scholiast had made a mistake, and that the passage which he really had in his mind was Track. 791 TO duffirdpewov X^KTpov ev5aToi)fievos | (rod TT}S

TaXalvqs. Dindorf was of the same opinion; but their inference is too hasty. There is no reason why Sophocles should not have used Barovfj.evos in the same sense as ivSa.Toifj.evos; and we have no sufficient ground for suspecting the scholiast of a double error. The metaphor in e'viaTeladai is clearly explained by the

as printed in Dindorf's Poet. Scenici, are unintelligible, owing to a strange dislocation of their order. There is no variation in the MSS, except that cod. F does not contain the second part of the note.] Lycophr. 155 rbv tb\evlTT}v yjivhpov e'fda-

Tovfie'vT], ' chewing the shoulder muscles,' testifies to the literal meaning. Hence, through the ideas of repetition and insistence, is developed the metaphorical sense of 'to dwell upon,' as applitd to abstract ideas or to speech: see Verrall and Tucker on Aesch. Theb. 565. The notion of blame is not essential to the schol. on Track. I.e. a4>oSpws \oi5opoifigurative meaning of ev&aTuadat, and the fxevos' ivdaTeio'da.i yap atpodpws eadieiv. same was probably true of the simple \01S0pwv, fi.efxV Xeyofxe'vuiv avanaXCiv' e'vdaTelo~$ai yap TO verb, although the evidence is defective. fiepiaao-daL, 7} be fieTatpopa diro TQV daivv- The Latin phrases differre or discerpere dictis, like our 'to pick to pieces,' arose fievuv. To the same effect but more briefly Hesych. II p. 89 ivSare'iTar dwo- in a different way : cf. Siacnipu. Observe also that the English 'to mince' acquired fiepLfet (1. viro/j.£pi£ei)...€v5aTovfj.evos' fj.epit^bfievos KO.X olovei KaKws \iyoiv c70o5pws. the sense of ' to depreciate (a matter)' by yet another course of development. airb TTJS Sairos. [These extracts show

AITEY2 Casaubon on Athen. 122 F seems to have thought that the early adventure of Aegeus at Troezen related in Plut. Thes. 3 was the subject-matter of Sophocles' play. But, as Welcker (p. 394) remarks, the material is only sufficient for the beginning of a tragedy. Of the six fragments which are cited from the play four clearly refer to the journey made by Theseus to Athens for the purpose of discovering his father, and the dangers which he encountered before his identity was established. This fact leaves little doubt as to the period covered by the story, and makes it probable that the avayvmpiai^ of Theseus formed the climax of the action rather than the death of Aegeus after the return from Crete. It is thus impossible to agree with Wernicke (in Pauly-Wissowa I 954) that the contents of this

16

ZO*OKAEOY1

play are entirely unknown ; and it rather appears that Ahrens was right in supposing that the plot was similar to that of the Euripidean Aegeus, which culminated in the recognition of Theseus and the discomfiture of Medea (Plut. Tkes. 12). But the new fragment (fr. 25) relating to the capture of the Marathonian bull is of peculiar importance, as showing that in Sophocles this adventure preceded the recognition, instead of occurring at a later period according to the account of Plutarch (Tkes. 14). In the Hecale of Callimachus it happened in the lifetime of Aegeus, but was subsequent (it would seem) to the recognition: see Cl. Rev. VII 429 O^cret)? ovx e««? w'o? drr evvBpov M.apaOS>vo<; \ £cobv dycov TOP Tavpov, a n d cf. Diod. 4. 59>

where Aegeus receives and sacrifices the bull: But in Apollod. epit. 1. 5 Medea warns Aegeus to beware of Theseus, who is accordingly sent against the bull; on the victorious return of Theseus, the attempted poisoning and the recognition follow. Ov. Met. 7. 434 gives the same order of events. Thus, Apollodorus confirms the statement of Myth. Vat. 1. 48 that Theseus was sent against the bull at the direct instigation of Medea, and we may conjecture that Sophocles adopted this version. The disappearance of Medea's agency in other accounts is attributed by Gruppe (p. s8o2) to the influence of Euripides, who did not include the Marathonian adventure1. The considerations which have been mentioned justify us in restoring fr. 24 to the Aegeus, from which Nauck in his second edition separated it; and it is probable that fr. 905 also belongs here. 19 19

wofjuo. cod. : corr. Nauck

1 9 Athen. 122 F TO di Taipewv BSoip inferred that the lemma of Hesych. repreuii'6iJ.a AiyeX by Casaubon, to (Nauck) should be restored in place of Alyel by Schweighauser) airo rod irepi the later substitute 7nS,ua: see Cobet, Tpoiffiva Trora/iov Tavpov, Trap' 1} Kai Kpi\vq N. L. p. 455, V. L. p. 85. M. Schmidt TIS 'Toetrira KaXeZrcu. To the same effect preferred GTS/M. It should be added that but without the name of the play Eustath. Athenaeus shortly before (122 A), after //. p. 881, 22, who copied the epitome of quoting Ar. Eq. 83 f., adds 01) yap ftp Athenaeus. With the help of Athenaeus dirot/11 Tavpewv iidwp tneiv, tijrcp aii oin Casaubon corrected the corrupt gloss of oXada ri iernv. Brunck strangely inferred Hesych. IV p. 133 Tavpeiov irofia- aird that Athen. and Hesych. were really alyenaipov irorafioO So0o/cX^s Tpoc^TJva quoting fr. 178, which he accordingly irapa nal KTr/vrj 'T6eooa to 2OOKX?}S Afyei supposed to have belonged to the Aegeus, dirb Tavpov worap-ov Tpoif^ca, substituting irwfia taipewv for afyta ratiirap' £ /cat Kpi]vr\ 'Tdetrtra. peiov. From these facts it has rightly been Pausanias (2. 32. 7) mentions that the 1 R. Wagner's theory (Epit. Vat. p. 125) that Euripides was the first to connect it with Medea is altogether improbable.

AITEYI source of the river Hyllicus, which was originally known by the name Taurius, was to be found on the mountain path l~~,q:~~ <J——-* - - J *1—± : . L . leading to XHermione, and that in the same neighbourhood was the rock called after Theseus, because he found beneath

it the sandals and sword of Aegeus. This is enough to show that an allusion to the river Taurus is appropriate to the subject _r C--.1 i-_J - 1 .1 •• -• For the situation of*• of Sophocles' play. T^ the Hyllicus see Frazer's Pausanias, ill p. 279.

20

Kecrrpa criSrjpa irXevpa. KOLI /caret TTatWU 2 O . 2 iraiwv dirr)\6ri(re scripsi: ijKori)(ra) TTCUCOK N a u c k , rjkKUae vaioiv Hervverd'en, rj\6ri<ja. (vel -e) \eiov Mekler

2O

Pollux 10. 160 sat Kiarpa Sk

&
Kearpiai aiS-qpai no doubt refer to v. 1, but the explanation has fallen out. Just before he has KeaTpa.- dixvvT-qpwv SirXov.

crfiOpa.. Hartung interpreted these words as referring to Periphetes, called also Corynetes, whom Theseus overthrew in the first of his contests not far from Ep> daurus. This view might be supported from Apollod. 3. 217, where his weapon is described as Kopvvijv aiiripiiv; but two of the recently discovered authorities establish beyond doubt that the allusion is to Procrustes (or Procoptes), who fitted his victims to the bed provided for them either by cutting off the extremities of those who were too big, or by hammering out the bodies of those who were too small. The duplicated name corresponds to the double function. His weapon, at any rate for the beating-out process, was a hammer: see Bacchyl. 17. 27 IIoAu7r>7-

-• - Opais £TVTTT€V. Similarly Hygin. fab. 28 inciidibus suppositis ex-

tendebat. Schol. Eur. Hipp. 977, confusing Sinis and Procrustes, says of the former: fj.€Ta avpas O.TT^KOTTT€ roi)s ToSas. 1 KaTa must be taken dvo KOIVOV with TrXevpa as well as with p'dxiv. Cf. Alcman fr. 22 <poii>cus 5e Kal iv dia.aoiaivy

Pind. Nem. 10. 38 x t V' Teffff ' r e ™2 « ivvdapLScus, Eur. Hclid. 756, Phoeti. 284, Soph. O. T. 734, fr. 314. 367. 2 The reading is very uncertain (see cr. n.); but TrXeiop is in any case untenable, and Casaubon's iraiwv has a high degree of probability. On the other hand, rj\6rj Upoa descriptive passage. KOTrras. Apollod. epit. I . 4 TOVS ixiv

21

K\VO) fiev OVK eywye, 21

xXti

Meineke :

v S' opal

cod. K, (K\6ofiev vulg. | 5' Meineke : 7' cod. R,

IT' vulg. Steph. Byz. s.v. x^Pa V-

21

XW/HTTJS, ws dirb rod e'Spa edpiTTjs, 6(77reptTTjs. 2o0o/fX^s XlyeZ ' t^Ai'

1 ia

opw: I have followed Meineke, but without P.

any confidence; for the absence of a context makes restoration peculiarly difficult here.

Brunck read eK\iio/j.fv. OVK 'iytiiye

xaph-qv
IOOKAEOYI

i8

his arrival. But the emphasis so thrown 0. C. 139, 1642, Phil. 1412. Meineke, on fyurye seems unnatural. Blaydes prehowever, thought that in reply to a a T s fers x pt- V 8' bpg, (cr bpuli). The meaning remark by his interlocutor that he heard of the text may be ' I do not learn by the sound of shouting, the speaker said hearsay, but see with my own eyes that that he himself had heard nothing, but you are a native,' with the same contrast now saw a native approaching.—Xwp'~ as in Trach. 747, Phil. 68 j and elsewhere; TT\V, a fellow-countryman : cf. Aesch. or 'though I don't hear your voice, I can Eum. 1035. For the word see on fr. 92. see' etc., in which case we might compare

22

7TW5 Srjd' oSovpbv

olos

\a6oiiv;

2 2 dSovpbv oios Valckenaer: bSovpwv (biovpbv CP) S/ioios codd., bdovpuv Nauck 22

Schol. Pind. Pyth. 2. 57 Tre

Staircase' (Eur. Hclid. 860 n.).

Other-

Tot)s Kara iriXayos XrjTras \4 wise, Nauck's bSovpCv
who infested the Scironian cliffs in the neighbourhood of Megara; and e^iB'ns ((35' £/3?;s conj. Blaydes) would then express the successful crossing of the 'Evil

(Mekler).—oSovpov, highwayman. Later synonyms were 6Soi56«os and bSooTar^, but bSovpbs soon became obsolete: cf. ovpos, iiriovpos, (ppovpbs.

23 axnrep yap iv vXXoicnv alyeCpov fxa.Kpa.%, Kav dXXo fjt.rjSev, dXXa rovKeivrj'S Koipa Kivrjcrav avpas Kdi>aKov<j>[£ei. irrepov 23. 1 iv (pij\\oL
Tuxoi^ffijs (the addition of rijs is Nauck's correction) aijpas, ws Zo^o/cXiys iv Alyei (so Heath for ivapyws or ei>"Apyei of the

j see n. on fr. 940 el aS>na SodXov, ah\' b vovs e\e68epos, and Headlam on Aesch. Ag. 357 ff. (2) With KOIV must be supplied Kivqa-g or whatever may be the verb in v. 3 : cf. Ar. Ach. 102 r ixi-

MSS) 'u
rprjaov

1 ff. The last line is certainly corrupt (see cr. n.), and has not hitherto been satisfactorily emended. The following points should be observed: (i) it appears to be certain that diXXo (j.r|8ev and Kapa are both accusatives, so that the subject is to be looked for in v. 3. At any rate, the order of the words shows that rovKeiv-qs Kipa bears the main emphasis, and is co-ordinated and contrasted with SXKo

(3) The words iv <j>ii\\oi.a-iv have a certain awkwardness; and clearly they do not qualify the clause Kav d\\o fi-rfSiv. Thus the general sense would be 'even if the breeze is so light as to stir nothing else, it sways the poplar's head amidst its foliage,'—in summer as well as in winter. But it is difficult to see how iv
23 Schol. Od. r) 106 TO
eipr/vris ri

/ioi,

K$.V TT4VT' ITT).

AITEYI

19

Hence conjectures like F . W. Schmidt's F. W. Schmidt altered irrepbv to piwov, tlis ev 0utXXaia.Kov<j>Lfu, which seems inevitable) is Met. 1. 264 madidis Notus evolat al/s, and accepted by Nauck, but it does not get see Thesaurus i 1465, 50. It is possible over the difficulty of wrepdp. The same that this was M. Schmidt's view, who in remark applies to Tucker's ingenious supPhilol. x v n i 229 f. proposed to read plement to Dind or f's correction, TOVV Ke'wqs TTrepip for TrrepSf, but he gives no exKapa for TOVKCIPTIS Kapa. Blaydes, making planation of his conjecture. Wecklein's Kapa subject, proposed KivrjOep aupcus Cos KIVT) TLS a&pa, iravTa Kovtpifei Tnepbv tTTepbv Kovfpi^eTat (or TTJV Kbp.t}v avairrepoi), (i.e. 'omnia tolluntur') is condemned as well as several other alternatives. Herby the awkwardness of wrepSp. H., who werden reads tcXtvei. TIS avpa KdvaKov
ijfj.wv &pefj.os &Kpa KLPTjay.

24 ajpicrev f [lev d/cras TrjcrSe yrjs < aTrouacrai, > npecr/3ela veijaas1 < etr > a AVKCO 24. 1 irarrip upi(Tei> Strab. 2 ipol fj.iv a...v ei's d/cTas rijo-Se y-ijs Strab. | diroilaai. add. H . 3 eira supplevit Meineke 2 4 Strabo 392 oi' re 5i) TI)I> 'ArBida thecommon opinion, subsequently changed ffvyypaipavTes, iroWa bta<poji>odvT€S, TOVT6his mind, and without giving any reason ye dfjioXoyovtriv, o'i ye Xbyov &£toi, on TUIP spoke of the ascription as 'improbable.' Hav5ioi>i5wv reTT&pojp OVTLOV, Alytojs re I cannot see to what play the words are Kai AVKOV Kai Il&Wavros Kai rerdprov appropriate, if not to the Aegeus, especiNiffov, /cat TT)S 'ArrtKijs els r^rrapa fi^pyj ally now that our data have been enlarged diaipedeiayjs, 6 Nitros TT)V Me*yapt5a \dxoi in regard to the scope of the play: see Kai KTiaai T7]v Niffcuaj'. $tX6xopos (FHG Introductory Note. The reference to I 389) fj.er ovv diro'Itrd/xoO ^.expirov Tlvdiov Pallas points in the same direction, as SiijKeiv avrov
ZO*OKAEOYI

2O

TOV avTLTrXevpov KTJTTOV Evfioias Nicrw he rrjv ojAavXov i£cupeZ ^dova %Kipa)vo<; a.KTTjo)v 4 vi/iei Coraes: vipuv vulgo, litteris n<w in cod. A. m. sec. suppletis et SfidXov al. 6 SKe/puvos Strab. TTJV wapa (1. irepl) rb affrv

cr. nn. (r) Meineke (followed by Nauck)

fxP

IldXXavTi.

Si rty TrapaXiav,

Aiaxpiav,

N(o-if) Si TTJV MeyapiSa.

Avucp Si rrjc The

allusion to the Pythion in the Daphne pass, where a monastery afterwards stood, indicates that Philochorus is the ultimate source of the scholiast. Briefer but to the same effect, though without the words Au-Xf" ni'Ofov, is schol. Ar. Vesp. 1223. The schol. on Eur. Hipp. 35, who derives other parts of his note from Philochorus, has a garbled account, omitting Lycus, and giving no explanation of the divided rule. A somewhat different version appears in Apollod. 3. 206, which agrees with Pausan. 1. 5, 4. 39, 4. According to this, the four sons divided the country between themselves after the death of Pandion, when they had returned to Athens and expelled the Metionidae: Apollodorus illustrates Soph, by concluding with the words elxe Si TO Triiv np&Tos Aiyevs.

5 SpavSov

gave : ifioi (J.tv ojpio~ev Trarijp \ &KTG.S direX-

Oeiv rija Seyijs... | irpeffpetavel/las' elra... AvKif. He would fill up the gaps with wpoo-eo-rripovs and Sevrtpiji. (2) Casaubon conj. and Brunck edited: irarrip 5' dirtXBelv wpicr' ett cU-rip efioi, | irpeafieia veifias Tij—but the comb nation ifiol piv ought to be kept. (3) J- suggests either 4fi.ol fiiv apxea> (or dpxT}") wpt
'Aegeus speaks: Trarrip is Pandion. 1. Aegeus obtained the capital, Athens, with the Athenian plains, and the coast of those plains which was specially called 'AKTTJ (Diet. Geo. 1 p. 322: cp. Strabo 9 Ill p. 201 has 8/j.av\ov dfj-otcoiTov, 6/J.OO p. 391), the darv, the iredids, and the &KT-J). aiXitffj.ei'ov, and cf. fr. 717, Aesch. Cho. 2. Lycus got the AiaKpia, the highland 597 fuftfyous 5' 6fj.av\las.—Taipei: the act. district in the N.E. of Attica, between is used of the donor, and the middle of the Parnes, Pentelicus and the sea. 3. Nisus recipient. See Jebbon Trach. 245. Hdt. got Megaris, where he founded Nisaea 4. 161 TC5 fiaaCkh BdTTCj) Tefiivea e^eXtiv. the sea port. 4. Pallas got T6 -n-p&s 6 SKCpuvos aKTTJs. The genitive is VOTOV—i.e. the southern coasts, from governed by SfiavXov a.s = yeirova. For Sunium to Cape Brauron on one side the Scironian rocks see on fr. 905. The (the E.) and to C. Zoster on the other— route extending for about six miles along the irapaXia. the cliffs between Megara and the EleuThis legendary division must have had sinian plain, and known in modern times a basis of fact. After the Megarid had as the ' Evil Staircase,' is described in been reft from Attica, the three other Frazer's Pausanias, II p. 546 f.— For the divisions are found corresponding with form ltdpuv (not ZKEI'/JMC) cf. Callim. fr. political parties in the sixth century B.C. 37N. That the form with 1 is the older is —the IleSie?!, the IldpaXoi, and the attested by inscriptions on stone (CIG Aid/(/)ioi (Hdt. 1. 59: Plut. Solon 13, 7723) and vases (Gruppe, p. 5996).—TO Diet. Geo. 11 p. 324).' (J.) irpos VOTOV. Blaydes should not have 1 If. These lines cannot be restored jectured vbrov, for the accusative is well with any certainty, more particularly as established: see Kuehner-Gerth 1 515. the tradition of Strabo is mutilated : see 7 f. The-fifty sons of Pallas had

AITEYI—AiniOOI already plotted against Aegeus before the appearance of Theseus, wishing to secure for themselves the succession to the throne (Plut. Thes. 3). Subsequently, Pallas and his sons revolted against Theseus (Pausan. 1. 22. 2), but were destroyed by him (Apollod. efit. 1. 11, Plut. Thes. 13, Pausan. 1. 28. 10, Eur. Hipp. 35).—The description of Pallas's sons as giants is very remarkable, and the reason is not plain. We may note, however, the following coincidences which link the legend of the battle between the giants and the gods with the defeat of the Pallantidae (Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. 438). (1) Athena was called Pallas because she

21

slew a giant of that name: Suid. s.v. IldXXas, Etytu. J\I. p. 649, 54 ; cf. Apollod. 1. 37. (2) As the Chalcidic Pallene was the scene of the giants' defeat, so Theseus destroyed the Pallantidae at the Attic Pallene (Plut. I.e.). (3) Two of Pallas's sons were named Clytus and Butes (Ov. Met. 7. 50b), two of the giants Clytius and Botes. It is further to be observed that Tzetzes theog. Matranga 11 580 calls Aegeus and Hippolytus giants. It may be, however, that the Pallantidae are called yiyai/res in virtue of their insolent opposition to authority; in the case of Capaneus (Aesch. Theb. 411, quoted by J.) the significance of the name is obvious.

25 jpL ~)(<Eipu>v cretpala 8eo"//,a.

dpydcras

25

Phot. ed. Reitz. p. 64, 8 aKovacu TT\V aKphirokiv £\6.(rai rat dvaat \4yerai TTJ 5e WOIKLKUS xP&VTaL TQ °v&~ ffeif. The words of Sophocles describe IMTf KOX ykp iirl rod |3/>l£ai, us 'Apx^°X<"> the preparation of the cords by which the AicrxtfXos Se ewl rod raiorra efeXawei^ KOX bull was led. KX
KadoKov

fiaXaTTeiv rWrivi, ZO0OKX?JS S$ iv Aiyel < 0 i ; < n > rbv Q-qaia urpi(j>ovTa. KOX naXdrrovra Toils \6yovs irotrjaat Seff/ia Tip raupu). Xe*yet 6^ otfrws' 'K\oj(TTTJpin...d€(Tfj.d.'

hand-made

twistings

Pollux 7. 31

(of

withies).

Cf.

KXOKTTTIP' OVTW Se KOX TTJI/

irept(TTpo(prjV TOV \ivov TZvpiTridris uivbpuxGev (fr. I O O J ) , \tpou K\a)
/3cii>. Eur. Tro. 537 KKUXTTOV S' d/*0i/36Xois \ivoio, of the ropes used to pull the Trojan horse into the city. For opYacras cf. frs. 482, 787 and for <mpaia Eur. Her. 1011 obv rif yipovTi 5eufia aeipaiuv pp6xw I di'^irrofiei' Trpbs Klova. Reitzenstein thinks that the extract is made from a somewhat lengthy discussion X€ipco KaTe6v
£v T<£ MapaS&vt. radpov varepov Qrjueijs es

Aimooi The evidence connecting Sophocles with a play bearing this title is so doubtful that it is idle to speculate as to its contents. Livius Andronicus wrote an Aegzsthus, which apparently was based on the Homeric version of Agamemnon's murder ; and Accius an Aegisthus as well as a Clytaemestra : Ribbeck, TRF* pp. 1, 161. See also Introductory Note to the Iphigenia.

Z04>0KAE0YI

22

26 7]\LCOITOIS 2 6 Philodem. depiet. p. 22 G. Xos> 5' ex 'HXid < me TOI/> Aid Ka! aW4<pa "hiyei K>al yijv Kal v Kal ret irav < r a /cat v > irkp ret Trap < r ' • Efy>i7ri>5?;s S' eV Mu<eroJs KaX>rbv Ala Kal < oipavb > v i)\i.uirbv, <: SO0OKX^S > 5' Alyl6voi>, if Ot 6 I '

Ala.

ovpavos Zeiis TOI TCI. wavra x^n

TWI>5'

iviprepov;

and the evidence of Philodemus has effectually silenced the doubts of those who thought that Clement was handing down a false tradition. It has now been shown that the pantheism of Aeschylus is due to Orphic influences, and that such a doctrine flourished in Orphic circles in the sixth century or even earlier: see Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, I p. 97 E. tr. Perhaps then the hinted identification of

Such is the restoration of Gomperz as given in his edition; and it is evident that the latter part of the extract is very doubt^Xiw7ros oipavbs a n d ijkibnrbs Zeijs is less ful, and that both the name of Sophocles remarkable in Sophocles than it appears and what he said rest upon an uncertain at first sight. conjecture. Wilamowitz (Anal. Eur. p. 161) also reads < 2o0o/c > [Xjijs 5' iv Mwrois For the connexion of Helios with Zeus above. This is the more vexing, as there see on fr. 752.—^XiwTnis does not occur is no extant passage of Sophocles with a elsewhere, but belongs to a class of adpantheistic import so clearly marked as jectives (KOIXWTTAS, dpusirds, MKTepuwbs the fragment of Aeschylus (fr. 70), or etc.) which is common in tragedy. In E u r . fr. 877 dXX' aW^p TIKTCI
27 appvdfJLeov 2 7 Hesych. 1 p. 293 dpv8fi.(ov da-v/j.(pibvwv. 2O0OKX?}S Myladtji (so Musurus corrected trie MS, which gives aiyi®">: Dindorf conjectured Aiyet or AWioipi, Bergk AWwi/i)appv9|JLOS may be either without rhythm as in Arist. rhel. 3. 8. I4o8 b 24, where it is contrasted with 2/j.fieTpos having the

rhythm of verse, and is said to be unlimited (airtpavTov); or else having bad rhythm, discordant, as when it is contrasted with TO ei!pvd/j.ov (Plat. rep. 400 D). It was employed in the latter sense by Sophocles, and so metaphorically by Eur. Hipp. 529 /xr/T' appudnos t\0ois (of Aphrodite).

AIOIOFTEI Heyne conjectured that this title should be identified with the Memnon which is mentioned with other Trojan plays in the Argument to the Ajax (p. 3 J.). He is followed by Welcker (p. 136), and is probably right, although anything in the nature of proof is of cotirse impossible. The outline of the plot may

AiniGOI—AlOIOriEI

23

in that case be gathered from Proclus chrestom. (AWIOTTL<;, EGF p. 33) Me/ij/G)!/ Se 6 'HoO? vlbs e%wv r)4>ala"r°'Tel"CT0V iravoir\iav -irapayiveTac rot? Tpwal ^ortOrjffmv ical ®eV(? TCO Trathl rd Kara TOV yiifivova irpoXeyet. teal cru/i/SoA,?}? yevon,evr)S 'AVTL\O%O<; VTTO ^Aeixvovos dvaipelrai, eireiTa 'A^tXXeii? Me/xvova KTelvef KOX TOVTQ) /u,ev 'Ho)? Trapa Aio9 alTrjaa^kv-r) a9avaalav SCfiioai.

Aeschylus also wrote a play entitled Meinnon (TGF p. 41), and made the death of Meinnon the subject of his "^v^oaraata. Wagner thought that Strabo 728 made a slip in quoting Aeschylus (fr. 405) as his authority for the statement that Memnon's mother was a Cissian woman, and that it ought to have been attributed to Sophocles.

28 Toiavrd TO'L croi vrpo? yapiv re KOV y8ux Xeya)' crv o' auros wenrep 01 crotftol TOL SLKCLL iTratpet,, TOV Se KepSaivew

/JL€I>

2 8 Athen. 122 C eiipoi TIS &V inrb TWV 2 f. O~OC|>OL. This appears to be a aWaif TroLrjrwv TJ KOX GOV ei/ 77 dOo reference to contemporary Sophistic : for yovv Tro»7)pu>s elprifxeva, ofa irapa...2,o<poK\ei its influence on Sophocles see Nestle TO ev AWiotpLV eipT)fj.evov 'rotaura.. .^xou-: in Class. Phil. v. 154. Athenaeus also V. 7 f. cry 5' CLUTOS. ..^xov a r e a l s o quoted refers to El. 61, and quotes from Theoby Eustath. //. p. 752, 31, who drew from dorus rb KeXevcw jxev irKtov ?x e " / ' ivatveiv

the epitome of Athenaeus. 1 TOI is attached to the pronoun with determinative force: see jebb on Ai. 776 f., Kuehner-Gerth, § 506. 6.—irpos \6.piv KT€., 'to persuade and not to comv

K

pel.' Cf. O. T. 1152 ai irpbs x^P'" ^ °^ epeh, Khaiwv 5' epe'15, where it is the person

de TO lo-ov. Eteocles expresses a similar sentiment in Eur. Phoen. 509, where see n. H. quotes Tr. fr. adesp. 4 TOV jikv duiaiov TT]V 5nK7]
our passage may belong to Odysseus, of whom Antisth. Ai. 5 makes Ajax say 6 5e

Kav Kp€/j.d/j.evos el ye Kepdaiveiv TL fitWoi. Phil. 593 Sidfioroi ir~k(ovcnv 17 jity See also on fr. 354, 4.—For Ta (lev similarly placed at the end of a line cf. O.T. 7) \6 ^^ , }} pd i x ]] i p 1237 ra p.ev I a\yi(TT\ and for the same TOS. Eur. Supp- 38,^ Orjirevs a' airaiTtZ licence in the use of the article and /cat X"/"" tfa'Aai veKpois. D e m . 8. 1 see Tebb's nn. on Ant. 409, Phil. 312.— airavTas p-r/re 7r/)6y edEL. .Toiis \eyovras " Troieicrffai \byov ur)5ei>a ii-qTt Trpbi€iraiv€i implies what we express by ' to

to be addressed who hints at the use of

force.

X^-pL"- For the emphatic tautology cf. 0. C. 635 /3ig re KOI>X tKthv. Eur. Hclid. 885 ou p.r\v eKovra 7 ' abrbv, dXXd irpbs

damn with faint praise': so Hes. Op. 643 vrf 6\lyr)v aiveiv, /iey&\rj 5' tvi (popTlct d^trdai. Cf. J u v . 1. 74 probitas laudatur et alget. T h e combination dpeTTjv iwai.-

(Slav I £feu£' avdyKy. In Eur. / . A. 360 (K eonim. not. 6 p. 1061 A), (Eur. ffel. p. 101) thought that Sophocles and Chrysippus employed it as an axiom must have written irpos X"-Piv Te K0" to deduce therefrom the existence of fate fiiav as 'longe concinnius.' This is an odd judgment: for such variations are of (Alex. Aphr. defat. 37 p. 2(0 Br.). the essence of Greek style.

I04>0KAE0YI 29 ya-p 29. editur

2

VWTOV £V

Phot., Etym. M. cod. D : fieMmbpi-ves vulgo ap. Elym.

M.

2 9 Phot. lex. p . 22, 15 eaT|Ko£, rrj ffap/fciffei' lTeTp&TTTepoi...Ke\cuvbpii*es.'

The same words are found in Etym. M. V- 385. 3. but without the name of the play. Hesych. IV p. 114 a
'pinched with strapping': cf. Nonn. Dion. 1. 192 hiaft-iov 'Avdpt>nt5r)v Mpij) ff
Poll. 2. 25 OVK

i v , OVK ZvSerov. A.P. 16. 195 X^pas^

iiTb
dyje&tievos;

(TcprfKbs appears to be an adjeciive with p y p p y

the sense of a<prjKui5-qi: Ar. Plut.

xl

561

TTJ (xapKiiiffei, and ingeniously conjectured l
30 avapKTOv 3O Hesych. I p. 181 &va.pKTOV avvirb-

dvapKTov is given by M in Aesch. Eum. 529, where most editors substitute tivapap£eie conj. Blaydes). 'So(poK\ijs AWioipL. XtTO" (Wieseler) for metrical reasons. ou was added by Muslims.

TCLKTOV, < o 5 >

ot)5ets ??/>£e (yp^ou cod. av

31 3 1 Hesych. I p. 203 dvBo^offKov (cod. of the bee, the compound agrees with the normal usage of ^6
AI0 ion EI—AIXMAAQTIAEI 32 3 2 Hesych. I p. 242 diria-rft- direitfei. (Stallbaum on Apol. 29 c ) ; but is other2O0OKA?7S AlSio'pi (al8lo\p cod.). wise unknown to Attic prose. For airnrros dwicrTelv in the sense of to disobey is see on fr. 627. On the other hand iricrcommon in Sophocles : see Ant. 219, 381, refeui for to obey is rare: Jebb on Track. 656 etc. Harpocration quotes Antiphon 1228. (fr. 21) as using it, and it occurs in Plato

33 3 3 Phot. lex. p. 346, 19 dpOiirrepov the meaning is easy: 6. would be like 6p6oiis Zx°VTa KOKWOI/V •jrepltrTepos an epithet of vaos, signifying TO. yap €t's ii^os avix0VTa irrtpa £\eyov flanked with columns. The word irepiKai ret ireplaTqa. Hesych. Ill p . 219 Trrepos occurs several times in Athen. explains t h e word but does not refer to 205 A—E, and was interpreted by CasauSophocles as using i t : opBbwrepos' ixeydbon with the help of Vitruv. 3. 3. 6, \ovs KOXWO'JS (fj.€ya\iii. ovs cod.) ^x.ovua' describing eustyli ratio. irrep6i> is properly TTTepa yap ra els Hiij/os dvexovra. rj fxey&Xas applied to the projection of the ceiling of e the colonnade which stretches out from the ?X<>votis graphers appear to assert that Sophocles in Phot., thus giving to the adjective a gave to opdoTrrepov the meaning, 'with meaning similar to that of eipitmpvos. lofty hills.' It is impossible to say what But there can be little doubt that op8o- justification, if any, they had for making irrepos was used by Soph.in reference to a this statement. place or building. (1) In the latter case 2O0OK-XT)S AWiofiV

AIXMAAQTIAEI Welcker's treatment of this play (pp. 171—176) is fanciful and unconvincing. From fr. 35 as compared with Eur. Tro. 1136 he concludes that the death of Astyanax was the central incident of the action. Next he infers that the Astyanax of Accius (Ribbeck, Rom. Trag. 412ff.)was copied from Sophocles, because the remaining fragments do not show any point of contact with the Troades and no other model suggests itself. Accius also wrote a Troades, which Welcker thinks was copied from Aeschylus. All this is uncertain in the extreme, and, even if outplay was one of Accius' sources, we know too little of his methods to be justified—in the absence of any corroboration—in using the fragments of the Astyanax for the reconstruction of the

26

S04>0KAE0YI

The title obviously suggests that the plot was ^ similar to that of the Troades; but the fragments are unfortunately indecisive, and the only certain fact is the statement in the Argument to the Ajax that the play belonged to the Tptoi/er) Trpayfiareua. There is nothing whatever to support Ahrens's guess that the plot is to be found in Hygin. fab. 109, which deals chiefly with the story of Iliona. On the other hand, A. Schoell and Bergk1 conjectured that the play was largely concerned with the demand for the restitution of Chryseis as related in the first book of the Iliad. This view was mainly based on frs. 40 and 43 ; but Hartung, who accepted it, unwarrantably assumed that Chryses was an alternative title for the same play on the ground that frs. 38 and 730 should be identified. Brunck strangely thought that the At'^/zaXwrt'Se? was a satyrplay. The reason which moved him is no longer applicable, since it is now admitted that the line which Harpocration appears to attribute to Sophocles (fr. 34) is actually a fragment from a comic poet. More recently O. Rizzo2 endeavoured to reconstruct the play, with the help of a sepulchral relief discovered near the Porta Salaria at Rome, and of the fragments of Accius. He concludes that Odysseus was the chief character on the Greek side, and that he announced to Andromache the impending execution of Astyanax. The latter was not a child, as in Euripides, but a full-grown youth. 34 KaOapTrjs KaTrofiayfjidTcov iSpts 3 4 Harpocr. p. 28, 5 airopLixTTuv... both technical terms in connexion with 2o<poK\ijs iv AlxiJ-^uiriaL ' arpaToS... ceremonies of lustration and purification. l'5/ns' KOX iraXiv ' detvoroLTos a7ro,uaKT?7S re The former, according to the explanation The second extract of Wyttenbach (on Pint, de supers'. 3 ;u£7dAa)i' avix<popCov.' in Harpocration was printed by the earlier p. [66 A), denotes the smearing of the body editors as a fragment of Sophocles, but with the magic substance, and the latter Nauck is almost certainly right in attrithe wiping off, 'sed utrumque promiscue buting it to a comic poet. The lexicode tota lustratione dicitur.' Hence both grapher's note is attached to Dem. 18. words are sometimes coupled with KO.6259 (part of the famous description of aipeiv : cf. Etym. M. p. 573, 1. aTronayAeschines) Kadaipav roiis reXovitevovs fiara. is strictly the offscourings (TO diroKOX a7r0fxarruiv Tt2 TTT/XC/J /ecu rots TLTI!/Kaddp[/.a.Ta. Bekk. auecd. p . 4 3 r , 3 1 ; pots. TrepcfidTTeiv and a.irop.aTTtiv are TrepiSciii^ara Hesych.), and it is unneces1 Alternatively, he argued from scho!. Horn. A 547 that the subject might have been the oir\o>v Kpiats. See Jebb, Ajax, p. xvi. - 0. Jh. v n i 824: the article became known to me from Gruppe's summary in Bursiaus Jahresb. cxxxvn 157.

AIXMAAQTIAES sary to follow Campbell in making it equivalent to 'acts or means of p purification' Cf. Cf Menand. Menand fr tion.' fr. 530 530 111 111 152 152 K K. { = Phasma 54 p. 205 Korte) irepL/xa^a$, ]] Kai irepip a' al yyvvaUes iv KVKXI$, 6ew
27

Hartung, following Schoell's view that the subject of the play is the same as that of the ist book of thelliad, thinks that this line is part of an appeal for a prophet who shall be competent to save the army p y from h plague. l Wlk h l d that h th the Welcker holds the reference is to Calchas.

35 a
3 5 77,1177 Xlydos N a u c k : i)iJ.LXiydos codd., rj/xlu Bentley: TrvKviaixan A B , TCVKVOV iraret C

3 5 Pollux 10. 189 avrb 5£ rb TTTJXLVOV, cire perdue) is described by Bluemner 6 •Jrepiel\7]Opa.V T7)K€TCLL Kal TToXXd. p. 223, 6 Xiybos is not clearly distinguished from the melting-pot or crucible itself: €K€tv(p Tpv7nf]/j.aTa evawoXeLireTat, Xiydos X&vos rp^ifjiara ^x0311
r y 5) TrapairXTjiria, Si' tov 6 x&\tfos 7}d€?rat.

Both meanings appear in the glosses preserved in Eustath. Od. p. 1926, 52 (Ael. Dion. fr. 249 Schw.), the last of which Karipx^Tat TO iv TTJ X& V ^'^ & xtvT'qfj.&T<*>v. T\GO.V hi TrrtXtvot. 2O(POKXT}S. Cf.agrees with Photius: taois di etc TOIOIJTOV To this passage Hesych. 1 p. 434 alludes: yXiSov x°» I ' a '' f 's oOs rvwovs

lxa.Ti.'

V

r

v

Ill p . 38 XlySos' Tbwos x0^7!^, Kat- V 6vela iv rj xuvevovenv. Xiybov x°&pV °^ $i r ct XiKva Tdv apyvpiujv.

Tivbi Tpbirov Kai ArySos 7rapa A-lXi
T).

The speaker describes his shield as riddled with holes, like a XiyHos. No doubt Welcker was right in interpreting this as referring to the holes made by the spears of the enemy and not to eyeletholes, as L. and S. take it. XCySos is traditionally explained by the lexicographers (Pollux, Hesychius) as the clay mould covering the wax models w hich were subsequently melted and poured out through holes made for the purpose on the upper surface of the XiySos. In this way room was left for the molten metal to be poured in. The process (en

y

x 7 p ,

StaruTTweriS (? -eis). X&vos Tpr/fj.ara

^x

x >

pf

iv fiXXoi di, on Xiydo1;

WI/

ffwtXV

TrapairX7}(Tta

ry 5, 5t' uiv xctX/cos 7]delrat. And in the epics it is the x0"-"0" which is said to be bored with holes : Hes. Theog. 862 Ka<x<xlrepos us J rixvy vir' aifa&v vird r' evrp-qTOV x°°-v01-0 6aX(p8ds, Apoll. Rhod. 3. 1299 ws 5' or' ivi rptjro'ttTLV ivppn/01 XoavoitTLV j 0D
36 v(j>rfp€0r) crov,

l \vpas

3 6 aov Poll.: o-oi schoi. V Ar. (aov ed. Aid., aou, i.e.
Schol. Ar. Ran.

231 Ka\a/j.os

waXai &PTI rod Keparos vtrerideTO ry Xvpq.. Kai 81a TOVTO £K ffWTjdeias KaKaixov KOKOVVL

TO K^pas, (hs 2o<poK\i]s kv KixfJ-aKibrKn (AlxfJ-aXuTois Y) iv<pr}pe0ij...\vpai.' Pollux 4. 62 Kal BbvaKd S4 rtva vwo\tipiov ol KOifUKoi (hvbfMa'^ov uis 7^d^al avrl Kepdrwv viroTid4fx€VOv rat s Xvpais" 08ev i 4 d ) . . . \upas.'

There is a trace of the same commentary in Hesych. I p. 529 dbvaKa. vTro\6ptov' TraXai yhp rats Xtipais /caXa^uos avri K€po.ros inreridcTO and in Etym. I\f.

p. 283, 8. Eustath. //. p. 1165, 26 expressly ascribes it to Aelius Dionysius (fr. T33 Schw.), the Atticist who lived in the time of Hadrian: Ai'Xtos 5£ AioviVtos eiwtov ws 8ova,£ /cat TO viro\vptov iirayei' TO

I04>0KAE0YI

28

as fixed in the shell to form a framework over which oxhide was stretched so as to produce a sounding-board. (Allen and Sikes's reference to the passage of Pollux B6vam. There can be very little doubt that the note with the quotations goes is based on a wrong assumption that K^para back to the best days of Alexandrian in his text = 7n)xeis.) And, in spite of the traditional opinion to the contrary, such scholarship, and it would also appear may have been the meaning of Ka.Xafi.os that at that time the mention of S6va£ both in Soph, and in Aristoph. In either (or KaXa/ios) in connexion with the lyre case, whether Ka.Xau.os is the bridge or part was an obscure matter. The explanation of the sounding-board, the meaning of they adopted wss that the bridge over which the strings are stretched so as to our line is clear: 'you are like a lyre which has lost its reed.' Campbell, who keep them from adhering to the soundingreads aoi, renders: 'a reed, as it were, board was a reed instead of being made has been abstracted from your lyre,1 and of horn, as in later days. (This is entirely thinks that it is appropriate to a chieftain, distinct from the common use of Kipara = TT7)xeis for which see on fr. 244.) In perhaps Agamemnon, who has had his other words, KaXa/ios was to be understood yipas taken away. Rut it seems more as the equivalent of fn.aya.Siov (Lucian likely that the subject to in^piBtf occurred in the previous line, and I have accordingly dial. dear. 7. 4 nal fi.ayaS1.0v viroBds), and the same interpretation was adopted for Ar. placed a comma after eica Sdvanas, Sv viroXvpiov virtue. Thus of Cassandra, after the loss fvvSpov ev Xiftvats rp£<jxa. W e are not in of her honour, it might have been said: a position to say whether the Alexandrian •CKOX rb Beoirlfciv v(pj)piBt]...Xiview is correct; but it is not altogether pas. Herwerden, reading
yap iraXaibv avr\ TOV K^paros vireTidevro KaXafiov. efnpaiv€i 8e TOIOVT6V TL KOX 6 Kwfiitcbs tv BaTpct^ots, tiiroXvptov etirojv

37 iv TTCLVTX yap

TOL
3 7 Schol. Nic. Ther. 18 viroxdroi XiffojV

OL (TKOpTTlOl KpOiTTOVTat.,

e'v Aixf^aXojTio'iv

US

(alx/^aXibrots

rdv

^OtpOKXijS

A)

l

iv...

This was an old proverb to enforce the warning' don't trust appearances.' Hence

fypovpel

cographers and paroemiographers apply it ivl ru>v KaKoriOuiv. see Phot., Hesych., Suid., Zenob. 6. 20, Diogen. 8. 59. Nauck thinks that in Zenobius the words ravTrjs fiip.vrjTai 1,o
tached to the previous proverb (see on fr. 814) should be transposed to follow this. For the similar saying (va \iffov fipas irivff vwijixav aKopirloi see Preller on Pnlemon fr. 151. It has been well remarked by Weir Smyth (Greek Melic Poets, p. 485) 4 amplified in the scolion (23 B. ) quoted by that the Greeks did not expect fair dealing Athen. 695 I) inrb iravrl XiOqi GKOpwios, u from strangers. iratp', virobierai. \
X&pos afiarbs iariv iirb iravrX yap Xldtf KaX fitiXw irdo-ij crKoptrios eari. T h e lexi-

iroTafiif. Plat. legg. 625 B dvairavhai TO7S yi/'j/Xois SivSpecriv den tTKiapai.

iv

AIXMAAQTIAEI

29

38 ecr^apas \a/3(ov.. 3 8 Steph. Byz. p . 191, 8 /3&>/u>f...Kai vois. The usage of both words fluctuates: /3w/xos 6 TOTTOS TWC Svaiitit', 6 Tpbs ri}v t&Xapa is generally the more specific, m iaX&pav 5id<popos S jxiv yap otKoSotiijTos, meaning (1) a sacrilicial hearth level with rj 8e GKairTr}. rb roirtKbi* (3d)fj.ios Kal Kara the ground, (2) a movable brazier, (3) a ^^ 2 0 ^^ A l X hollow on the upper surface of the altar; p y y but just as /3w^6s is sometimes employed riffi 'Kai...\af3div.' in the two former of these senses, so i<sMeineke supplied \Wov as the missing Xapa takes the place of ^w/xos frequently word at the end of the line, but Campbell's in verse (cf. fr. 730) and occasionally in suggestion of ftadpov is perhaps better. prose and inscriptions. Here of course He remarks that the words may have apthe explanation of Stephanus has no plied to a suppliant taking refuge at the reference to the text of Sophocles, for «raltar, and might have quoted Eur. / . T. 962 eyw /J.& ddrepov Aa/3wp fiadpov,—of Xapas appears to be a possessive geni ive, andfitafjLia.'iovrelates to the structure: ' the Orestes on his trial before the Areopagus. raised (pedestal) cf the altar.' Similarly Vater on Mies. 913 proposed is x?P as in Kur. Phoen. 274 (n.) ^c6/xtot eaxo-pat. are Xa.Sui' 8e6v. /3u/tiaios does not appear to 'the structured a l t a r s ' ; but in Andr. occur elsewhere. The distinction made by Stephanus between fluixbs and e&xa-pa 1138 /3w^ioC Kevdaas Se^i^rjKov iax&pav the meaning is rather 'the sacrificial slab is supported by other ancient authorities of the altar (mound),' for it is impossible to such as Phot, lex p. 23, 3 eux^pa' i) iid say whether the form or the character of yrjs earia arpoyyv\oeid7is-...b dc /}w,ao; rb €v f/i/'ei ecrrt 7rpos dvalay OLKo56fj.7][j.a, a n djSw/ios is the more prominent. For further information see Reisch in Pauly-Wissowa schol. E u r . Phoen. 274 curia...6 iirl yijs @68pos, i=v6a €vayi£ov<Ti rots Karco ^pxofJi^- VI 614 ff.

39 vrjcri(i}Ta
For naicpas Brunck conjectured /j.aKpai>, Ellendt paKpds, Bergk KaKftaKpas : Campbell, however, remarks that the succeeding words may have been olKovvras d/craj or the like.

40 iyca, KtAAav re Kal

Xpvcrrjv...

4O Steph. Byz. p. 697, 1 Xpvcrri, Bapv- town, to which the temple of Apollo was transferred, was near Hamaxitus on the slope of Mt Lekton. It should be ol.vov. 2o0OKAi}s Aijpiou (fr. 384)...Kal iv served that Stephanus has confused this Alx/J-aXwrio 1 ' TavrTjV.. .Xpinxrji'.' Chrysi (or Chryse) with the small island Cilia and Chrysa were both places in of the same name in the neighbourhood of the Troad where Apollo had sanctuaries: Horn. A378s X/)i5(ri)j'd/u0i/3^/37;«:as | KlXXav Lemnos, for which see on fr. 384. re fad£r)v TeviSoib re Irpi avaaaeis. Their Meineke, who observes that the codd. position in the neighbourhood of the gulf of Stephanus indicate a lacuna after of Adramyttium is described by Strabo Xpu&Tjv, plausibly suggested that the words 612 ; he also states that the older town of were spoken by Apollo, and that ve/j.w Chrysa was destroyed, and that the new should complete the line. It is, however, T6J/WS, 7} TT6X(S rod 'A-rrSWavos eyyvs ATJM-

£00KAE0YI extremely awkward to connect TaiV^p with the place-names; and I think it is more likely that Hartung was right in placing a comma after iyili, and in making

rair-qf refer to one of the captive women. In the latter case a participle such as Hartung's eXwi/ would follow Xpiiav" • he takes the speaker to be Achilles.

41 el fUKpos a>v TO. (f>av\a 4 1 Phot. lex. p . 643, 8 (pavXov...7 edei-q 6" av KOX CTTI TOV /j.eyd\ov. Zo0o/cX^s AlxiMn^-uTKnv •ei...ixa-' '1he same words

are found as part of what is substantially the same article in Etytn. AJ. p. 789. 43 and Suid. s.v. (pavXov. Nauck adds schol. Greg. Naz. in Piccolomini's Studi difilol. gr. 1 p. 166 and lex. Vindob. p. 1S7, 8, where the line is quoted without the name of the play. The statement of the lexicons that (pavXov =p.iya is incredible, even when supported by the gloss of Hesych. IV p. 234 giving aSpbv and piya among the explanations of 0aO\oc. But it does not seem possible to account for the error either by supposing (1) with Campbell, that the words are used ironically, or (2) with Ellendt, that the grammarian who made the quotation was so stupid as to take (pavXa for the antithesis to /uKpos- It is much more likely that the words £TTI TOV /xeyaXov are the result of a corrupt tradition. In favour of this conclusion it should be observed (1) that in Etytn. M., though not in Phot, and Suid., the catalogue of meanings and examples is intro-

ferred that the jit^ya-categoiy was not part of the original note, that the Sophoclean example was probably cited under the category named TO ao-Sevh in Bekk. anecd., and that the words ^7ri TOV fueyaXov are a corruption of iirl TOV ivavrlov Tip iieydXip or something of the same kind. But, if it seems incredible that the line of Sophocles was ever seriously quoted to prove that (pavXov was a synonym of M^7"> some other explanation must be sought for the persistence of the category fiiya in Eustath. //. p. 1356, 64 and schol. Plat. Alcib. II p. 147 D TO (pavXov in reo-adpuv ivvoiSiv Tao-aerai, /car' ivavTitn-qTa TrapaXa/xflavoixivwv. eiri O.WX6TT)TOS Kai eirr)9elas Ayfj.oo-&ivi)r (19. 30, cf. 3. 27) oi yap ei ipaiXois i/ieTs irpoardrais xPV<^^e' ^ i ^ TOV erraivov EvpnrlSris (fr. 473). 4TI di peyidovs, <pav\ov CTb/j-a dvTi TOS /U^ya. iiri 5e /xiKpoTT/Tos /rrf. Stephanus under-

stood (pavXov o-Tofia as an ugly mouth; but perhaps <pav\ov was interpreted powerful as being injurious: cf. Eur. Phoen. 94, Andr. 870. Ellendt well suggests that the words quoted may have been preceded by /nj duced by the words (pavXov o~vt*alvei dena ; BavfidfeTe, 'don't be surprised that I who (2) that the tenfold division is recognized am naught have won a paltry victory.' in the abbreviated list without examples They are a particular application of progiven in Bekk. anecd. p. 315, 1 rb (pavXov verbial wisdom: cf. Pind. Pyth. 3. 107 ffTjfjLaivei d^Ka, eirl re irpotrojirov Kai irpdy,uaros T6 KUKOV, TO fiiupbv Kai TO evKaTa
Xois; (3) that the last-quoted list, which contains ten categories but has nothing corresponding to ixtya., agrees generally (though not exactly) with the lists of the three other lexicons, and that all alike go back to a common original Boethus, the author of a Platonic lexicon, according to Naber. From these facts it might be in-

0-p.iKpbs iv

cryiKf'Ois, /U^-yas iv

fieydXois

2aaofj.ai. So in another connexion TTJK /cord aavrbv Aa.—Ta 4>aOXa is an internal ace. rather than the direct object: cf. Eur. Ale. 1029 TO. fiif yap Kov<pa TOU viKuxnv... Toiat 5' a3 TO. /jLeifova yiKuJtrt, fr. 1034 TO VLKCLV TdvBcx' us KaXbv yepas, \ TO. /J.TJ

Skaia 5'us d7raKTaxoO Kaxbv.—Wecklein (Sitzgsb. bayr. Ak. 1890 p. 28) proposed to substitute yavpa for <pavXa, but there is no ground whatever for suspecting the text of Sophocles. Blaydes boldly suggested ra neydXa.— For the periphrasis with lxu s e e ° n fr. 489.

AIXMAAQTIAEI 42 eo"77etcra ySatas

KVXIKOS

wcrre Sevrepa

4 2 Schol. Soph. O.T. 750 (cod. Flor. less as they stand and probably, though G ed. Dind. p. 42) /3ai6r iSLws avrl rod not certainly, corrupt. Bergk proposed h A l X i &5 wore Sevrtpav with airovhfy in the following line (M. Schmidt reports him as proripa..' Suid. .r.?'. 0aiaL...Kal fiaibr iSiws dvri Ti,v eh 2oo/cX??s' ' irbrepov ' /ere. {O.T. posing devrepas), and Bernhardy (is TA 750) Ka2 fV KL-xpjxKunlaiv 'fffjrcura ..Seu- 5ci5Te/)a. But Herwerden's elegant elra Sevripas is much more attractive, if any ripa.' Here belongs a badly corrupted change is to be made: there must have gloss of Hesych. I p. 353 (iaibv iXiyov, been such a context as to make the mean[xiKphv. 2O0OKA?7S 5e Ot5t7ro8i Tupdci'y dart ing 'one, single' at least a possibility for TOV dtpdopos Kal voXXbs. (dvri rod a eirt).— Bcu#?j\ OXKOS deou. f3atd:v' eKfiaKdiv. KO.1paids is used of size as in Phil. 286 jia.iq, iv Atx^aXctiTt(7i (3aloi>, if (/3CU6P" ^V M. T7]d' virb trre'yr], Aesch. Pers. 451 vrjaos /3aid. Cf. Lycophr. fr. 3 etc f3 Schmidt). dcurbs 7) /3aid ia!/\i£. The words wore devrepa. are meaning-

43 M.vvov T' 'RiruTTpocfiov r e 43

TeGaisford: 76 codd.

4 3 Schol. A Horn. 0 302 TO 7OM" Miicijs Xd3 ^ \ 6 p / 5e SO^OKX^S iaoavWdfiois 'MI/POU T' 'BITI-

GTpb<pov ye.' To the same effect Eustath. / / . p. 1017, 10, who attributes the genitive Mtixou to Sophocles. T h e name of the play is given by Choerob. in Theodos. p. 140, 5 = p. 158, 13 Hilgard M Miiro» Kai Mivrrror 6 fiev yap S Mwou ZicKLvev ev At'xAtttXojTtVtj' elirwv 'Miyvou rt 'E7T(o*rpe0ou 7c,' 6 5e irotr/Tris avaXbyws *MW7?TOS.

Mynes and Epistrophus were brothers, sons of Euenus and grandsons of Selepus. Mynes was king of Lyrnessus and husband of Briseis. Both brothers were slain

by Achilles when he sacked the town, and Briseis became the yepas of the conqueror. The Homeric passages are B 091 AvpvTiuabv diavop8-riTITOS. Strabo 612 draws the inference that Lyrnessus was the town of Mynes, since Thebe is excluded as being the stronghold of Eetion. Both were in the south of the Troad on the Adramyttian plain.

44 Se 4 4 Hesych. I p . 162 d/j.
Bergk Xpiarjs dfupiXeyvrj or Xpuarjidos a/j.fpL\iva, M. Schmidt irariip \expts dus ('putting on his boots awry!'), and M. Mayer Tarrjp 5' vweKSvs (inreatvs Diels). Campbell sought at the same time to set right the prosody of dfitplXiva by reading TraTT)p de Xpvarii dfKpiXfjva Kpa
£00KAE0Yl A 14 f. Headlam (/. P. x x x 316), folword conceals an allusion to the elabolowed by J. M. Edmonds in C. A'. rately fashioned shoes of the oriental xxvil 4, endeavours to defend the long 1 monarch with their decoration of gold. of ifupi\tva by Antiph. fr. 49 II 30 K. So xPua.\lba% re \u>otrapKovsof• the Muses in Eur. Or. 1468, / . A. 1042. fj.af6a.veis; rvpbv Xeya and other passages, Pollux 7. 86, 92 mentions aavSaXa Tv/jbut the evidence is too weak to count pf\viK& as having wooden soles and gilded against the numerous instances to the straps, and adds that Phidias represented contrary. However this may be, it is imAthena as wearing them. Duris (FHG probable that Campbell was right in II 477) ap. Athen. 535 F, describing the eliminating the reference to some kind of shoe of Demetrius Poliorcetes: TOUTCJJ Si shoe: Hesych. II p. 540 has Kpoiiwava- Xpvaov TroXXi)!/ evu<pat.vov iroiicMav birlaa £vXiea inroSij/uara, but Kpoiire$ai is the Kal t/jnrpoff6ei> ivifrres ot rex"'™'- Parbetter-supported term (Cratin. fr. 310 I rhasius had golden shoe-buckles : Athen. 103 K. OVTOI 5' eialv avofloiuiToi, Kpoujrefo- 543 F. afupiXiva would refer to thongs (pdpov yivas av$p&v). if this be so, it is of linen, fastening the shoes round the worth considering the suggestion of M. ankles, and themselves embroidered with Mayer that the line refeis to Priam, makgold. The metre might be patched with ing an attempt to escape from the Greeks. Xpvaa iraTTjp 5i>s afup'Ckiva < r e > tcpovBut viTEKStis will not account for x/^ffStfs, xaXa, but the corruption probably lies and I cannot help thinking that the corrupt deeper.

45 45

\v5ls cod.: corr. Musurus

4 5 Hesjch. I p. 345 axvqv AvSrjs gestion that this use of axw) arises by Kepuldos. Zo<poK\rjs AiX/^aXcirois. axv-qv direct transference from the meaning TO &Kpov Kara TT)V epyaalav aicpas ?x°"> V spray is unnecessary. &Kpus is a'common onrd T^S daXacoias axvr/s • iari. •yb.p\aixi\pa word in the scholia to Sophocles: see Kai diafowfy. ypdeT V °-1r0 Tfy @a~ fashions were copied by the Ionians of \arrias ax""?s. It is idle to emend 'ix"V Asia Minor at the time when Sardis was (VXW Nauck formerly, aKixfy Blaydes). the capital of Croesus. Cf. Aesch. fr. 59 The most comprehensive gloss on &x"V SffTis X1™"1" (3o
AIXMAAQTIAEZ

33

46 4 6 Herodian IT. /j.ov. Xe£. p. 9, 10 Xap-jr-qduif SapT^Sofos, etre 6 17'pws, ecre ^ ivirpa, efre ^ OKTTJ, efre ^ Zeros' ws irapd 2o<£iwcXei ey AlxpaXuTlatv (cod. -rjjcrii') efpjjrai 2ap7ri;5djj/ d/cr^. Other authorities for the Sarpedonian promontory are Hesych. IV p. 12 2ctp-

Sarpedon is both a personal and a place name, and Sarpedon, the son of Poseidon, who is to be distinguished from his famous namesake, the son of Zeus, was the eponymous hero of the Thracian promontory (schol. Eur. Rhes. 29). He was slain by Heracles on his return from Troy (Apollod. 2. 105). The 7TT;5UX' aKT-f)' avri TOC ^apTrrjSovta. rbirot 0 Kai occurrence of the name in these parts has hk OVTOS Qpq.KT]S del K\u5oji>as ^x "' been connected with other evidence of Kufxart^ofievos, lepbv Uoffetduivos. The the settlement of Cretans on the N. coasts same words occur in Zenob. 5. 86. Phot. lex. p . 502, 3 = Suid. s.v. ~2tO,pvr\hu)v aKT-fj' of the Aegean (Gruppe, Gr.Myth. p. 209). Our authorities also mention a rocky &Kpa TTJS Gp^Kijs' KpaT-qs TTJV ixeyi.\-r]v. island Sarpedon in the Ocean stream, The last words mean, I suppose, that which was the home of the Gorgons : Crates of Mallus described Sarpedonia see Cypr. fr. 21 (EGF p. 31). See as 'the great' promontory. Its position, further on fr. 637. between the mouth of the Hebrus and the Thracian Chersonese, is fixed by Strabo 331 fr. 52. Cf. Hdt. 7. 58.

47 47

aixnoSeros cod.: corr. Meineke

the place of aixP-oSeros or ( x , prefer the latter, which is due to Meineke's conjecture: cf. iopiX-qirros, 5optKTt}Tos, do(aixi^a.\iini' ' s o u t °f place in is of course 'bound in war ' (L. and S-). Etym. M-, where it has probably taken 47

Hesych. I

x/

2

p. 0)

48 akiTpia Dindorf proposed to restore dXirpias in 0. C. 371, but, as Jebb remarked, the lengthening of the second syllable would XcixijcRi' (1. Aix^o-X'^Tio'iv) \4yei. not be permissible. Neil on Ar. Eq. 445 The word is a rare one, and only occurs elsewhere in Ar. Ach. 907 airep iridaKov points out that the cognate dXiriJpio? is a word of grave import, and it may be indXirptas 7roXXas ir\cuv,—a monkey full of mischief. Hence Bekk. anecd. p. 377, 6 ferred that in Ach. I.e. dXtrpia is mockheroic ( = steeped in sin). (Phot. ed. Reitz. p. 76, 1) and Suid. ahiTpio. avrl rod afiapria 'A 4 8 Hesych. I p. 124 l dX p Z 0 fp i

P.

X

34

100KAE0YS 49

Hesych. I p. 199 dyne's • aiJKov. where, but is related to duos as dwaS^s to wddos, Svapevfis to ixb>os, dvayr/s to ayos, aadevrfs to adtvos etc. The long is required by the alphabetical order, vowel, for which see Monro H. G.2 §125 was restored by Musurus, and avqutarov (for aiJKov) by Pierson on Moer. p. 78, (8), is due to the influence of dvi)Ke<XTOv. who compares iravaicris, and the glosses Cf. Moeris p. 191, 21 avaicis 6£VT6VUS 'ATTIKOI, US Kal EftroXis Ai^tv (fr. 21 I Trpoaaich and XriSr/ich. This is better than M. Schmidt's suggestion Av-qfits • 263 K.), ddepdvevrov HXKr)i>es. $.vr)fiov. dcij/c^s does not occur else49

2O0OKX?)S XixfJ-o.\i3)Tl(Tiv. avTjKes, which

50 5O Hesych. I p. 230 direiflijs- dvvitbTIXKTOS, airiaros (direiffTos conj. Nauck: see on fr. 627). SO0OKX^S (-t&Tr)
Alxf-^urlaiv

This word is not extant elsewhere

in tragedy, though otherwise common enough. Matthiae on Eur. Or. 31 exploded the view that diriO^s was the Attic form. Pindar employed dirties as an

epithet of rixv (fr. 40).

51 dproivr) 5 1 Bekk. anecd. p. 447, 7 ap hanging. It must not be supposed that Kvpias fih T] <: Sia > (so Ellendt: airb in the Aix/iaXwriSes Soph, was referring Blaydes) TS>V KaKiptilw ayx to a rope used for any other purpose, 5£ €v Al\jxo.\taTlaLV CTTI TOV deafiov. Healthough at first sight such an inference sych. 1 p . 291 apT&VTi' ri Sia KaKifSiiovmight appear legitimate. For the artidyx^vTjt < SO^JOKXTJS 5' > £v AixfiahuTLtrii' ficial character of the note can be tested (rl alxfJ-o&&T7]<ns cod.) iiri rod deufiov. Toby the scholia. Thus on O. T. 1266 these testimonia should be added Etym. X&X$ KpenanT^v dpr&vrjv we have dprdirniv} M. p. 150, 2 dpravrf ij £K TGSV di SeV KcCkipSLav dyxovri, but on Ant. 54 •Kh.tKToXai.v iiri Secr^oO, 4v 'AvTiySvri (v. 54) ' jrXe/cTaiaiv apTdvaujiv ' d*yx^pat5' The reason dprdvauri XaflaTat filov the comment is apTdvcutri] dyxovais. The annotator sefor the supplement will appear presently. dp-ravri means a rope, noose, and is lects arbitrarily one or the other of the always applied by Aesch. and Soph, (it fixed synonyms. does not occur in Eur.) to a death by

52 dcreiTTOv 5 2 Hesych. 1 p. 297 EatVTov datfih. 2o(poK\r)sAixnaXt0Ti(nv(alxfu>.\ibToiscod.). Cf. Bekk. anecd. p . 451, 19 aaewrov TO aae/iis CCO-CTTTOS (whence do-eTrreix Ant. 1350) occurs also in 0. T. 890 el /tf) TCIV daiirTUP Zp&Tai, and in Eur. Hel. 543, Bacch.

890, / . A. 1092. It belongs to the list of verbals in -TOS collected on fr. 210, 8 which have an active, or at any rate not i fforce. a passive Tucker restores tfffeTrr' for aeTrr' (vulg. HeXirr') in Aesch. Suppl. 920 (876).

AIXMAAQTIAEI

35

53 53 Hesych. II p. 8o efiirXeiipov • els TTJV yao-re'pa. rois dvSpdaiv fotKas AueVdXXou eis (eeaXotieis cod.) T&S nXevpds. \eiafftu. Blaydes proposes i/j,ir\evpoO, in 2o<po/cXi}s AixfiaXartaiv (-iiinjai.p cod.). place of efiir\e6pov. At first sight this is There is no other trace of the existence plausible, but it appears that i/xwXevpovv of efiirXevpovv. The meaning would seem follows the analogy of yvadovv (Bekk. to be 'dash against his ribs,' 'charge him,' anecd. p. 87, 9 7Pa0ot- dvri rod Try if we may judge by the usage of ivd\\eyvddov TijTrreL. Qpijnxos MovoTpdiru.
54 54

evdrrcus cod.: corr. Bentley

5 4 Hesych. II p. 112 ivibrtus- ivuriots. of earrings by women in Homeric times rrj Trpoffotdiq. ibs mon, and is attested by a variety of names, rats TCOV LOTWV otrals KeZadai 1^o(poK\rjS.such as ivdjTta (also ep<jj5ia on inscrr.), xXdorpa, eXiKrrjpes, and (later) (Wdfiia. Ivoirais was restored by Bentley on See Iwan Mueller, Privataltertumer^, Hor. Carm. 1 9. 7. In place of 0tX<57rois Heinsius conjectured dtdirais, a word p. 111; Diet. Ant. \ 1002. For the compounds from OTT-/], 'hole,' see Sturtealso meaning earrings and found in Ar. vant in Class. Phil, vil 422. fr. 320, 10 (1 474 K.). For the wearing

55 5 5 Hesych. II p. 160 iTn^daaerai • e7rai5|eTai iiri TX^OV, djro TOO udoaovos, 0 fort. iiaKpoTipov. of de id\j/eTat, \prj\a
Three interpretations are given, of which the last was emended by Reiske with XijUcifet and irpoaeinixaaifcreTai. In the absence of context we cannot tell why Sophocles' use of the word was obscure, but Dindorf is justified in his view that the second explanation is alone

correct. If that is so, Sophocles adopted the Homeric future of iirLfxalo/j-ai in the same sense which it bears in A 190 S\KOS 5' ITJTTJP e'vifj.diTo-eTai rjS' iindricrei \ (pdpixana.

L. and S-, on the other hand, refer it to ^TTtfxdo'o'iij, to knead again: but in A. P. 7. 730 Stadtmueller returns to the MS reading irarrip | Se^trep^t Ke^>a\dv e"ire^daaaTo (e7re/Ad£aro Reiske, e'in/j.do'o'zTai Jacobs), and iinixao-aui should perhaps disappear from the lexicons ((TL fiaTruv is read in schol. Ar. Pac. 14). 3—2

I04>0KAE0YI 56

foreigners as the Persians. Timoth. Pers. 5 6 Hesych. II p. 338 "Iarca- iv jj.h 161 'ldova y\&o-oa.v i^ixveiuv, where the Alxixahwriai (-wnj<7i cod.) 2ioipoK\iovs curious broken Greek of the Persian is airiSoaav ' EWr/viKr/, tird (4n cod.)"Iawas quoted. The prevalence of the archaic TO!>S "BXXi/J'as X ^ o w w ex 8i Tpi7TToX^u<ji form indicates an attempt to represent (fr. 617) ^TTI yvvaiKbs, us Kal if Ii.oifi.iai. the Persian pronunciation: ' in Persian (fr. 519)- TLV^S dk TTJV 'Et\ivijv. eiriciKws all Greeks were called Yauna' (Starkie Be oi pdpftapoi roi/s "EXXrjpas "lavas Xeon Ach. 1. c ) . The effeminacy of the yowiv (\iyovpa.KTOs "lavvas it seems almost certain that we ought to read 'Iaras with L. Dindorf, "Aptjs, id. 1014, 1027. There is the same Lobeck, and others ('Idovas Casaubon). intention in Suppl. 71 'IaoWonu co/toim, Similarly, Lobeck (Path. Prol. p. 32) where the schol. has rightly dvrl rod iovrj 'EXX^pt/ciJ, but the editors have would give 'Idvij (or 'Iowa, as Ellendt prefers) in place of "lavva in the lemma. sought for a more subtle explanation, Blaydes strangely prefers "Icuva. forgetting that the Danaids are as much

57 lepoXas 57

Hesych. II p. 347 Iep6\as- iWus.

M. Schmidt combines it with the present

~LooKk?is Alxf^oXJiTOLS. OJS Kal TOV ytpavra g l o s s t h u s : i c p 6 \ a s ' T C J V lepuiv i X d yepoiddv fi yepovvros \tyei (\4yovei conj. iiX Z j Alx/J.a\oiTi
Blaydes). For laiavs Heringa restored iepetis, and nothing better has been suggested. For yepoiddv J. Pearson conjectured yepoirav, altering Upo\as to Upoiras accordingly, and this view, so far as concerns 7cpoirav, was approved by Lobeck (Path. Prol. p. 387). On the other hand, Dindorf proposed yqptihav to correspond with the lemma. 57 yepovvros baffles the critics altogether, and is rejected by M. Schmidt as a marginal gloss. Heringa's ij yepovrlav has no probability. It should be added that a few lines before the MS of Hesychius gives iepd/iaf TSIV iepuv ^n-i^eX t f s . Musurus restored iepoKo/ios, but

Kai rbv yrjpujvTa yrjpbXixv \£yei. But what is Icrurvs? Iep6\as may be right, but it belongs to a class of words more appropriate to comedy than tragedy, and, if used by Sophocles, was probably contemptuous. The best-knownof its cognates are fiaiv6\rjs (Sappho), and OKuwT6\-qs (Ar. Vesp. 788); some are mere vulgarisms, such as <5f6X?)s, 0^0X178, aupbXris, KopvTTT6\T}S, 6irvt6\ris; KOI6X)JS, said to mean a

priest, is obscure. Lobeck (Phrynichus, p. 613; Path. Prol. p. 129) adds the proper names M.iayb\a,\, 'Apy6\as, QetdbXas, n.v0b\r)s. The formation, though not primitive (Brugmann, Comp. Gr. II p. 211), is not compounded from O\\V/M.

AIXMAAQTIAEI

58

Hesych. 11 p. 354

p

37

is derived from the form turnip, which

iKeTeiaofiev. 2o0o/cX?)s Aix/*a\t6rois. Is. appears also in the compounds aipiKTup Voss restored iKTopeijo~op.ev. ibid, p . 352 and Trpoalnroip. ixtTopeutyoixev • iKeTcvo-op-ev. T h i s verb

59

59 Pollux 1. 162 Ko! o~Tepv6p.avTiv 2O$OK\?7S TOV Ka\o6/j.evov £yya&rpi/j,v8ov. Hesych. II p . 107 tvo"T€pvop.avTiat5• £7yaffrpifUjdoLS. 2O0OK\T}S AixfLa.XbiTiaiv :

(puvals x/)c^ueI'01' opyavots. Aristid. I 30 Dind., speaking of the inspiration of

no doubt this is rightly corrected by

same way as Plutarch, that Eurycles

Dionysus, aKpifitaTepov EvpvxXiovs TO\V~ do8ev KaTa\ap.[3av<jjv, indicates, in the

N a u c k to (TTepvofj.ai'Ti.ES • iyya.UTpip.vdoi.. was a generic name given to spirits Suid. s.v. eyya.dTpip.vdot. eyyaurplp-avris temporarily occupying the body of a 6v vvv TLVCS Hv8uva., 2o<poK\rjs 5e UTepman. There is nothing in these passages

v6p.avnv.

Schol. Plat. Soph.

252 c

e'yyao~Tpip.vdos hk E'GTIV 6 £v ya&Tpl jxavrev6/J>€vos. TOVTOV TOP lyya.<STpip.a.vTiv vvv Tives Ilvduva 0acrt, ^otpoKXrjs 5e aTfpv6ixavTiv. Phot, epist. 64 p . 368 Xo
Considerable notoriety was acquired at Athens during the time of the Peloponnesian war by a ventriloquist named Eurycles, who professed the power of divination by means of a familiar spirit. Hence Aristophanes producing his plays through others compares himself to Eu-

which is not satisfied by the simple inference that Eurycles alleged his oracles to be the voice of a demon lodged in his own breast. So schol. Plat.: EvpvKXijs

yap eddKci 8a.ifj.ovd riva e*v TTJ ya.
Saipiovos. Such a proceeding corresponds exactly with the methods of savage magicians, as reported by E. 13. Tylor in Kncycl. Brit? VII 63 : ' cheating sorcerers use ventriloquism of the original kind, rycles: Vesp. IOI9 p.lfiT]p.tpdtKa woWa. inside the body of the speaker, who really himself talks in a feigned human voice, or Xea.o-8ai. Plat. Soph. 252 c says that the in squeaking or whistling tones thought opponents of predication are convicted suitable to the thin-bodied spirit-visitor.' out of their own mouths : ZVTOS inroIt is unnecessary therefore to suppose (pdeyyofievov wairep TOV OLTOTTOV RvpvK\ea that Eurycles was a ventriloquist in any irepitptyovTes del iropevovTal. Cf. Plut. other sense, or to accept Campbell's indef. or. 9 p . 414 E evijdes yap effTt KO.1 iratSiKov Kop.i5rj TO oUaBat. TOV Oebv aiTov ference (on Plat, /.c.) that 'he made his voice sound as if from within the person wfTirep TOUS iyya.
38

IO*OKAEOYZ

AKPIZI02

Jacobs identified this play with the Danae, supposing that it had an alternative title ; and Welcker (p. 349) was inclined to agree with him, while reserving the possibility that the same material was used over again by Sophocles for the production of a satyr-play. It should be added that Meineke (on 0. C. p. 275) also held that the Danae was a satyr-play, but there is little to justify the assumption1. Alternative titles are not common and should only be accepted where the evidence is quite clear, as in the case of the <E>pi>ye? or "Exropo? \vrpa of Aeschylus (TGF p. 84). Besides, it is not likely that a play would be named alternatively after one or other of the principal characters. It would be more natural to suppose that the citation of the play as Danae was a mistake, due to the identity of the subject-matter with that of Euripides' Danae and the greater celebrity of the latter. For similar errors see Introduction, § 1. It must, however, be admitted that the error, if such it was, was more persistent than is usually the case, and had infected even the best critical tradition. Brunck, on the other hand, considered that the Acrisius must be identified with the Larissaei, and that its subject was the accidental killing of Acrisius by Perseus when throwing the discus. The variation of title would be more natural than in the other case, but Jacobs appears to be justified in arguing that frs. 64 and 65, at any rate, are more suitable to the story of Danae. See also Escher in Pauly-Wissowa IV 2086. If the identification of the Acrisius with the Danae is correct, it contained the story up to the time of the discovery of the birth of Perseus, when Acrisius sent mother and child adrift on the Aegean in a Xdpva^. Perseus was known to Hesiod as the son of Danae {Scut. 216), and is mentioned as the son of Zeus and Danae in Horn. H 319 f. The fullest and best account of the legend depends on the authority of Pherecydes in schol. Ap. Rhod. 4. 1091, 1515 (FHG I 75). Sophocles refers to the imprisonment of Danae in the brazen chamber in Ant. 944. There may be a reference to our play in Menand. Sam. 244 OVK a/crjicoas XeyovTajv, enre fioi, Nucrfpare, j rdv rpaymhoov, a>9 yevo/j.evo<; -^pvaos 6 Zeu? eppvrj | 81a reyovs, KaTeipyfievrjv 8e 7ratS' ifMol^evcrev irore ; 1

See n. on fr. 165. Meineke also relied on frs. 166, 167.

AKPIIIOI

39

60 ws eVii/*a\Xeiv fibSrjv re /cat

£vvav\iav

6O wffr'coni.Ellendt | ^Tri^acod.: corr. Musurus | jUSyvTai cod.: cor. Maussacus 6 0 Hesych. I p. 375 fiiH-qv" etSos. dxnrepei | if/aXXoL (or ws iirlvTaTai \ ipdXXeiv), with etSos Kpoii/iaros in the gloss. Kpodfia. 2O0OK\77S '&Kp ...' (US... £vvavXiav' • CLXK01 fiWvv. For the last word, £uvau\Cav has various meanings which which is otherwise unknown, Nauck conj. are not adequately distinguished in the f}v$7)ii, comparing ibid. p. 405 (3u5or of lexicons. (1) The concerted playing of fjLovffLKoi 77 Kpodfid TI. votpQs Kfyr^aiv (cor- lyre and flute: Athen. 617 F illustrates rected by Fungius to 2O0OKXI;I 'AKpicrlifl). this from Ephippus fr. 7 (11 254 K.). So Nauck thinks the second passage un- schol. Ar. Eq. 9 !-vvavXla Xtyerai orav doubtedly belongs here, but Dindorf, Kiddpa KCU avXbs ffvfitpuvrj, schol. Greg. while admitting this to be possible, prints Naz. II p. 106 X4yo/j.€V 5£ avvavXlav nal it also under the title Kplvis as fr. 332 of Kid&pas dfj.a ffvyKpouo/j.evris avXip /ecu his edition. Nauck's view is the more ffVfj.on'ta TLS avT-q TCJV ev TiavaBrivaiois avvavKoivTinv. (3) The accoma note played on a musical instrument, strictly on the lyre ; and eTi\p&X\eiv shows paniment of the voice by the flute, differing from aiXipdla in this respect, that no that the lyre is in question here. But articulate words were sung. Such appears what kind of a note ? No answer can be to be the meaning of the definition given given, and it is idle to enquire whether ^idijv, ^68TJV, {HOw or some other form by Semus ap. Athen. 618 A fiv T « 07011' Tos. T o the same effect but less precisely Pollux 4. 83 itself, but, although it is sometimes explained by Uavus (Hesych., Etym. M.), ot 5£ TT]V GvvavkLav eT5o? wpo(rav\Tj(r€ojs there is no trustworthy evidence of its olovTai dis rty av\t$biav. The best account usage otherwise than as = confertim. of the word is to be found in Hemsterhuis on Lucian dial. mar. 3. 1, who proceeds Hartung, who supposes that fii§t\v was a to show that it is often used figuratively by-form of/3i)f7)1/, iscertainlynot justified in rendering i t ' i n muffled tones.' iirupdWeiv to express consent or harmony. So far as it is possible to judge. Soph, appears to is probably only a strengthened form of have used the word in the first sense. \f/a\\etp = ' to play on the lyre,' as in The verse is a trochaic tetrameter with Pollux 4. 58: there is no authority for L. and S.'s translation 'to accompany an iambus wanting at the end. with the lyre.' Blaydes conjectured

6i XO.

/3o<£

OLKOveT ; TrduTa

yap 61.

61

Stob. flor. 8.

TJ

fxaTrjv TOL TU> (f>of3ovfJLevcp \po€l. 3 Trdvra SMA: airavra. vulgo

((III pp. 340, 13

Hense) 2o(poK\eovs 'Aicpimos. /£ \po
restore two senarii by reading y\w for V\O.KT£> ; Gaisford, Conington, G. H. Mueller and Naber conjectured OVK aicover' and Gomperz etVa/coiW for c£' a/cover' ; and for 7; jxar-qv V\O.KTU> Porson substituted 7] XdffKOi fj-dTyv, H a l m 7; fxdr7)v KXIJOI, Naber ij p.a.TT]v KaAcD, Vater 7} /xdrijv

itruirei, Nauck r) fiovrriv 6,\VKTG>. Wecklein (schol. i^o0o5er)S aTparuirris, /irjdk \p6(pov approved the restoration of j3o!} ris • OVK rijs Safaris (pipuv Swd/ievos), "stuffs his a/cover'; r) /MXTYIVKKIJU; airavra KTe. Hense ears against the crackling of cinders and of laurel in the fire with the fringe of his thinks the original may have run d/coiier' < a yvraiK€s> ; rj /idTr/v KTC., and accepts military woollen cloak." Cf. Hesych. Eur. Hec. the vulgate airavra. They quote El. 1406 /MevtKTvwos' 6 /jirj tyotpoSefy. av jSoa rts itvSov OVK aKoder', w 0£Xcu; The 1113 tp6[3ov Trap^ffx' °^ f^ws #^e KTIJTTOS. Rhes. 565 OA. Ai6^4i)Scs, OVK iJKOvffas—r} objection taken to |«{TIIV VXOKTW appears Kevbs \po<pos I arafrei 5i' OJTCIJV ;—Teu^w to be ill-founded, and the connexion is, ' Do ye hear ? Or am I but an idle TLVO. KTVTTOV ; AI. oi)K, ctXXa 5eff/j.a 7rwXt/cwv \ /cXafei (nSr)pov ' Ka/xe rot, irpiv babbler? For in my fear it may be that I Sean&v &payii.bv lirirtKuiv, I5v I hear a sound where there is none.' H., In Aesch. Theb. 97—100 the who justifies the text, quotes for fidrnjv pp vXaKTeiv Aesch. Ag. 1672 fuiTaiav TQVS' panic-stricken maidens are made by the MSS to cry riicoiW T) OVK amier' dinriSav vXayfidruv (Clytaemnestra of the Chorus). KTOTTOV ;...KT6TTOV S^dopKa ' irdrayos ovx evbs Plat. legg. f)^'] C roiit (pi\oovvTa.s Kval Sopbs, and S48opKa was accepted by Jebb on fiaraiaxs direiKa^ovTas XPUf*£vai<Tiv vXaKdts. 0. T. 186, Phil. 215; but we must Tryphiod. 421 (of Cassandra) /I&TTJV vXaovaa. Dion Cass. 46. 26 TTOXXGI yovv KOX surely read diSoiKa : cf. 23J, 185, Again. H&TTJV vKaKTeis. So fiaif/vXdKas in Pind. 1535, Soph. O. C. 1462 KTiiros, Ide, fid\' Nem. 7. 105, and fia^vXaKav yX&aaav 35' ipdirerai \ Sio^oXos a<paros (so I read : in Sappho fr. 27. Observe the appro- fieyas is a gloss, as may be seen from priateness of the metaphor from a dog Suid. s.v. &<paTos)\..S48oLKa 5'• ov yap aXio^...Dr Verrall, comparing Rhes. 784 barking at a sound or shadow by night. ' To fear a sound' was proverbial (note %eip£ avv Kevrj dopos, conjectures in Theb. mi in v. 3) of a nervous or baseless fright: 100 ira.TO.yos oil Kevos Sopos, which is very cf. fr. 314,139. Hence Eur. Phoen. 269 &r) probable in my opinion, except that I would rather punctuate KTiitov 845oiKa— TIS OSTOS; rj KTVTTOP 0o/3oi),ue0a;|aVa»'Ta ydp ToAjUuiai Setva (paiverai, which closely 7rara7os ou Kevos—5op6s. Similarly in Eur. Suppl. 179 Tyrwhitt corrected deSopKe'vai resembles the present passage. H. writes: ' ^otpoSe-qs was the title of one of for deBoiKerai of the MSS. In an epigram Menander's plays, from which, I suspect, quoted by Meineke Anal. Alex. p. 397 was borrowed a detail in A. P. 11. 210 read rlfxa rbv o-Ttpyovra, Tra\ia d'Zpya 5eSo«i!s (for SedopKiis) | irupdf)T)Ti tppaveiv dvdpaKa Kai Sdvr]v TrapafitjeTai 6 trrpa' AuXos drrocr
62 dXX.' ovSev epneL i^euSos eis jrjpa-<s xpovov. an arbitrary proceeding, which destroys a 6 2 Stob. flor. 12. 2 (ill p. 444, 6 characteristic subtlety of diction. Tr.: Hense) 2o0o (so 0 'A/c/mr? / ( S,, So. 0 p ' no falsehood lasts through time's decay.' cod. Voss., 'AXeuoSais B : the extract is yijpas xpbvov follows Aesch. Prom. 1013 omitted in MA). ' dXX'...x/)iS^ou.' dXX' 4KSt8daK€L irdvd' b yripdanuv xfibvos, The sentiment, that falsehood is a Eum. 286 xpbvos KaSatpei wavra yt\pda-nuv sickly growth which soon decays, may be illustrated by Aesch. Ag. 625 OVK iaff1 0/J.OO. F. W. Schmidt added Tr. fr. adesp. 508 /iera TTJV O~KIO.V Tdxio~Ta yrjpdOTTtos \4l-aL/j.i TO. ipevdri Ka\a ] is TOV TTOXVV 66vov fevSos iir' oXiyov l(7X^(7aJ/ dire//.apdv8ri. Menand. monost. gest the meaning that falsehood is ever young: cf. U. C. 954 6v/iov yap oiSiv 547 ipev8bfj.tvos ovSels XavSavei iroXvv Xpivov. Similarly xpb"os SeiKvvo-w avSpa yrjpas ianv aXXo vXrjv \ ffaveTv, Aesch. Theb. 669 OVK (art yrjpas ToOSe TOV fud
AKPIIIOI 63 j yap- iv Seo-fioicrL 8paireTr)<; avrjp K(t)kov troSicrOels irav rrpbs rjSovrjv Xeyet. 6 3 Stob. Jior. 62. 30 (iv p. 427, 10 the order of the words is against taking Hense) "ZofyoKkiovs 'AKpialtp. 'irfKov... Srfkov as a grammatical qualification of \4yei..' the clause iv...\iyei, as if it were an The situation supposed, that of a runadverb or a parenthetical adjunct (scil. away slave who having been caught says earlv). He quotes Ai. 906 avrbs irpos all he can to win favour, is exactly reavrov, dfj\of, fr. 585 aXyeivi, TlptiKvq, produced in Eur. Or. 1498 ff. in the case firjKov. So some take 0. C. 321 ^6^175 T65' of Orestes and the Phrygian, who says of earl 5ij\ov '\ffiJ.J}vt)S Kapa. Add Theocr. himself bpairtrrjv yap {££K\GTTTOV e/c 10. 13 « iridui dcrXas Srj\ov. But, so Sb/xav iroSa. Orestes taunts him (1514) used, Srfkov could not stand at the beginSeiXia y\iJo(j(77j xaP*-£v> T^-V^ov ofix oi^w ning of the sentence. <j>povQ>v, and threatens him (1516) H/xovov,2 irpis liSoviiv means the same as el de pirj, KrevSi (ye, ^77 Xeyetv ifj.ijv x<*ptp. wpbsxd'PLl' (cf- XaPLT°y^ul(Tae^v) with which 1 1 have followed Nauck in putting it is interchangeable : see Dem. 4. 38, 51. a colon after 8tjXov -yap : the asyndeton Cf. El. 931 oi 7rpos riSovrjv \eya Tade; in the explanatory clause is usual, as with Kur. Med. 773 d^xov $£ f^V ^pos rjdovTjv drjXoi' 6£, OTjixeiov 5i, and the like (Kueh-X67OUS, fr. 28 (n.). Blaydes needlessly ner-Gerth, § 469, I). Grotius altered conjectured KU>\' (p.iro5wflels: cf. 0. C. SijXov to SouXoi', and was followed by 183. Brunck and Dindorf. H. points out that

64 p'rjcris fipayjELa. r o t s <$>povovcri (rp Trpos r o w ? TeKovras KOLI (jiVTevcrairras dXX.ws re / c a t Koprj r e Kapyeta yivo%, 64.

3 Kopr]...Kdpyela Meineke: K6prj...Kapyelacodd.

tie of relationship. So El. 12 npbs OK\£ous 'A/cpt<jiy. ' pTJ(ns...bfj.ai/j.ov Kal KaaLyp'/jrijs, Aesch. Cho. 328 Trarepiov re Kal reKovruv, Eur. Her. J367 rp^-irei..' Stob.flor. 74. 28 (IV p. 579, 10 6 (pvaas x& reKwv Ly^as Trarrip, Sltppl. 1092 Hense) 2o0o/cA?}s'A.Kptpovovpova. d^AXais re wdvruis Kal KauT€i)(ravTas is tauffroLS, Aesch. Suppl. 279 fj.aKpdp ye fj.ev drj tologous, but intended to emphasize the

I04>0KAE0YS ous

rj crvyt) re KG.1 TOL iravp 4 T\ aiyf) Te] treaiyiyriu M et primitus A

pp Kixr/iov o~iunrd.—ots. For the plural see on Eur. Hel. 440 and add Plat. rep. 554 A Sriaavpowoios dvi\p' 08s KT4. H., 4 KOO-|IOS : cf. Ai. 293 yvvari-1 K6<TIAOV who thinks that the speaker is Acrisius, T) 4pei. In this and similar phrasesrenders : Short speech for those of proper modesty the idea of personal ornament seems to Is seemly toward the parents that begat be conveyed (fr. 846); one suspects that cnyij K6
prjcu* oit ffrtpyei TT^XIS, ib. 206 f., Soph, fr. 462.—7«vos : for the ace. of respect see Jebb on Phil. 239.

65 p i , yvvav rd iroWa TS>V 8eiva>v, ovap TrvevcravTa VVKTOS, rjfiepa1; jxakacrarerai. KQTOV I irvtojv dojpbvvKTOV ^f where the language has several points of similarity, makes this explanation doubtful. Kaibel (on El. I.e.) suggests that the metaphor is taken from the breath of the voice : a dream is a message heard. It should be added that /j.a\dao-enxi is not an apt word in relation to a gale; its usual application is rather to express the assuagement of an emotion. Anyhow, there is no occasion for Blaydes's (puvivra (for irveifravTa).—The daylight was believed to be effective in purging the evil in Ar. Eq. 437 OSTOS ijSrj Kai/cias ^ rias 71-xei, and would be contrasted Kaivh, 5' 7]K€t vv% (ptpovtja. tpdfffiara, | Xi^oi with fj.akdiTo'eTaL. Phot. lex. p. 321, 23 jrpds aWip', ei n STJ T6O" tar' &KOS. Rihbeck, Rom. Trag., p. 55, refers irveijaas" trtpodpQs dpyioOeh. Suid. s.v. this fragment to a significant dream of Hesych. Ill p. 348 Trveiaas- dpycaBds, atrb fj.€Ta<popas T&V dfef/.tov. (2) But the Danae or her mother, and compares Naevius Danae fr. V aninis niveo fonle association of we?;' with dreams in El. 480 advKPdojv K\6ovaav | dprlixis dveipdroivlavere me meinini manum, where he finds and in Aesch. Cho. 33 ropds yap 6p866pi£ an allusion to a dream. (pdftos I bbixoiv dpeipd/j.ai'Tis e£ Onvov 6 5 Stob. Jlor. 108. 56 (iv p. 971, 13 Hense) 2o0o/f\eoL>s 'A.Kpiaii$ (so MA : S omits the name of the play). ' B&paet.... /xaXdccerac' (1) The metaphor is generally taken, as by Ellendt and Campbell, to be that of a gale which blows for a time and then subsides. A simile will be required in English : ' most of the terrors that come in dreams are like a wind that blows by night and sinks in the day-time.' Thus irveiv used metaphorically would connote a certain degree of vigour or violence as

66 TOV tfiv yap 6 6 Stob. Jlor. 119. 7 (iv p. 1076, 3 Hense) rod avrov (sc. 2o^o/cX^oi/s) 'AnpitTiy. 'rov..Jpg..} In Stob. Jlor. 115. 9 (IV p. 1022, 8 Hense) the line is attached to a passage from a comic poet (Antiphanes fr. 238 11 116 K.), and appears again in Stob. Jlor. 116. 39 (iv p. 1046, 7 Hense) 2o<poic\£ous. 'jfiv... tpij..'

ipd. For the sentiment see on fr. 298. ov8«ls (is, ' none so much as,' is like oiiiv olov, for which see on fr. 556. The converse ws ouSeis, ' more than any,' occurs in Plat. apol. 35 D. Cf. Eur. fr. 320 oin. (aTiv...Svarj>i\aKTOv ouSh uis yvvi). Aesch. Cho. 848 oliSh dyytXwv aBivot I iis avris.

AKPIIIOI

43

67 TO

t,r\v ydp, co

178101' yepas*

TTOU, TTCUTOS

Oavelv yap OVK efecrri rots avroiai Si's. 67.

1 rjdcov M e i n e k e : yjtiiffTov codd.

1 -fjStov. • I have accepted Meineke's correction : for the common confusion of comparative and superlative terminations see Cobet, N. L. p. 119. itavrbs ijdurTOv cannot be defended either by the anomalies, mostly corrupt, collected in Kuehner-

67 Stob. flor. 119. 12 (iv p . 1074, 12 Hense) "ZofyonXiom ' Ait.p\.ai.ov (so A :

om. S). 'T6 f^i/...5is.' No man can die twice ; and that makes life all the sweeter, as an experience that can never be repeated. The second line is a variation of the saw often remodelled after Horn. I 408 dvZph Si \pvxh ird\iv

Gerth

iX8eiv oSre Xi/iVr?) | 068' eXerij, eirei dp Ken a^ei-ipxi ipKos OSWTWP. Cf. Aesch. Eum. 651 a7ra£ $av6vros ofiris &rr' avdcrracris.

Eur. Her. -297. Ale. 1076. etc.

I IT. f.,

or by TrnvTb1* fidXiara

quoted by Stephanus from Dion. Hal. ant. Rom. 1. 24, 2. 75, 3. 35 and other passages, where it takes the place of the Platonic iravris /j.a\\ov. Blaydes preferred Tracrte (or irov Vric) -d

Suppl. 77;

68 68 Hesych. I p . n o d/crmjs (aKTr/ris cod. : corr. Musurus) Xiffos • dirb TT^S iv lie\oirovvj}(Xip CLKTTJS. 2o^o/cX^s 'A^pttrt^j. Cf. Harpocr. p. 10, 4 'AKTT) iirida.\a.Trl^L6s ns iwipa rfi% ' A T T I C S ' 'T-n-epidris iv T$ wepi rod rapixovs' odev KOI b aKTirrjs

\iffos. To the same effect, but without the reference to Hyperides, Bekk. anecd. p. 370, 9, Suid. s.v. 'AKTLTTJS X£8OS was the name given to

the limestone taken from the quarries worked at Acte, the peninsula to the S. of the Peiraeus and lying between it and the bay of Phalerum. Cf. CIA 11 io;4, 16 olKo8o/j,7)aet 5£ TOVS TO'LXOVS TYJS aKevodriKrjs Kai TOVS Kiovas 'AKTLTOV \idov. See

Dittenberger's note (Syll.* 537, 17). Hesych. I p. 108 explains d/craia, supposed to be a kind of mortar, as 17 in

rod 'AKTITOU \idov Karao-Kevaadeiaa., rod HevreXtKou (? IleipaiKov). In Tr. fr.

adesp. 467 from Steph. Byz. p. 64, 15 'AKTITTJS,

ii; oil TO ''KKTITOV

TpaywHia

dvri

rod 'ATTIKOV

Trirpa'

iv rrj

Nauck

is

probably right in restoring 'AKTITIS irirpa. The scene of the Acrisiits was laid at Argos, and this fact confirms the statement of Hesychius that Sophocles referred to the Peloponnesian Acte; for this was also the name given to the east coast of Argolis between Troezen and Epidaurus. The alternative is to suppose that he was alluding to stone imported from Attica, and that Hesych. is mistaken. For the form aKrir^s, which would properly be applied to an inhabitant of Acte, see on fr. 92.

69 dXot/xds 69

Ktym. M. p. 69, 42 dXoij&os' rets

Xpiaas Kal r a s iwa.\ei\peis dXoi/xous ?\e7oi'. So yav&veus ivieiaa ^ r a X a ^ ? , naBatrepavei TrerdXcijats odtra iv aiiTi^. T h e

information

is attributed

to Orus, a

grammarian of uncertain date (Sandys, Hist. Cl. Scholarship I p. 325). Hesych. 1 ZO^OKXTJS 'AKpicrliji. Bekk. anecd. p . 385, 9 dXoinos' TO Tuiv TOLX^V ^pitTjUa.

The reference is to a method of wall-

IO*OKAEOYS

44

decoration by a process of polishing or Xct\K
70 yova<s 7O Hesych. 11 p. 356 iXXdSas yovds- <7V(7Tpo dphTpoiv. explanation, and that we ought to read I presume he took i'XXaSes as = ' turning dyeXalas /card rds avaTpotpds. For avmpi<j>uv, avaTpo
71 71

Hesych. I p. 47 aSoJa' Trapd8o£a d86£aoTos (fr. 223), fieXirros, dveXwio-Tos. oi/K dv TLS iSo^atrev. 2O

7 2 Hesych. 1 p. 209 dvTaiav • IKTOWOV, is discussed on fr. 334. UTOTTOV means XaXeTTTjv. 2o(poK\rjs TLO~IW (Musurus re-'strange,' in the sense of 'startling.' stored 'AKpialif). The meaning of dvTaios Hesych..11 p. 54 HKTOWOV xa.Xeir6v. f<W.

AKPI2I0I

45

73 diroSpofiov 73

Hesych. I p. 245 aTrbbpop.ov'

4\aTToip.evov TOIS Spbp-ois. 7) ira\iv5pop.ov. 7) /ier' tirdvofiov. aKprjaio) (2O0OK\?)S

'AKpia-iij! Musurus). This is extremely obscure, and Ellendt corrects p.er' itrav65ov, with the intention, I suppose, of accommodating it to ira\li>dpo/j.ov. Our only other authority for dTrbSpo/ws is to be found in certain passages of Eustathius (//. p. 727, 21, Od. p. 1592, 56, p. 1788, 56). Eustathius takes his information in part from Alexion, a grammarian in the latter half of the first century A.D., who drew from the best Alexandrian sources. According to Eustathius d-Kbhpop.oi was used in two senses : (1) ustfdr)ireiravp.b>ov dwb TWV dp&fiwp. This use is ascribed to ' certain of the ancients' on the analogy of dirbp-axos. (2) As a name given to the

by the Cretans, dia TO /irjSiirw TUII> KOLVSIV dpbp.oiv u€T^x€LI/It may here

be mentioned that M. Schmidt thought aKpTjcrlifi in Hesych. was an error for irapd Kpri
74 7 4 Hesych. I p. 262 diro(pav0eif iv (pvaiv atirov XijKOt e£a.
Ar. Nub.

3^2 aTro<paivov
75 7 5 Hesych. I p. 295 apiifiara (dp6The word is entirely distinct from para cod., against the order of letters : dpwfictTa = eTn.dviudfji.aTa (Apoll. lex. p. 4 1 , corr. Voss) • apoTpid/iaTa (or perh. rather 29): hence Bekk.a/Z£
€§ TTOLOVVTOS Kih>pe\0VVT0S

TOV deOU

cvdv TOJV dpUjAaTUV,' dvrl TOV TQV

dXfptruv.

schol. has apibfxaTa 5e rd dpoTpcp e^etpyaa-

TapdipLara, where the schol. makes it p^va. iredia, Aelian n. a. 7. 8 ves iv TOLS apuj/xaci <po.tvbp.evtu, 16. 14 ev TO7S j3a&eatp plain that the mention of dXtpira in dpibp.aaip. For the late form dpop.at which Hesych. actually refers to a passage of E u p o l i s : TO, d,poTpiafjt.a.Ta, irapa. T6 dpo- is to be rejected, see Cobet, V. L. p. 85. Tpiovv. TO, irpoTjpoTpiiijfjL^va. \4yov<Ti 8e 1-VLOI The spread of the short penultimate in late Greek is illustrated from the papyri Kal ra a\(piTa Kal rbv Xifiavurbv dpufiara, by J. H. Moulton in C. R. x v m 108. OJS Trap' EVITOXLBL (fr. 304 I 336 K.) ' Kal

46

I04>0KAE0YZ 76 CtCTTO/AOS

76

Hesych. 1 p. 306 Hero/ios' 6 pi)

0. C. 981. In Strabo 70 ol TONS

dvvdfievos \^yeiv. 2O
re nai apptvas ivropovvTes and in Lucian Lexiph. 15 aKoylav rj/j.tv i-TriT&TTeis us

horse (El. 724), is here a synonym of avavdos, &
duTofiois ovai KOX awey-fkiaTTiaixivois the meaning is different, 'without a mouth.' But cf. Epict. diss. i. 24. 26, Achilles reduces Odysseus and Phoenix to silence

croD 7' eis T66' QtKBbvros dvbawv ardfia

(dorifyious

x

i

)

AAEAAAI The mistaken correction of the title to WXcoaSai was due to Hemsterhuis on Lucian Charon 3 p. 494, and was supported by an explanation of fr. 89 from Apollod. 1. 55, where Artemis takes the form of a stag, and by a stratagem induces Otus and Ephialtes to shoot each other. But e«7^Xo9 is inconsistent with this view. Subsequent investigation has decisively shown that the subject of the play was the fortunes of Auge and her son Telephus, and the credit of establishing the truth belongs to Fr. Vater, who in his dissertation die A leaden des Sophokles, Berlin, 1835, first pointed out the significance for the present purpose of a passage in one of the declamations attributed to Alcidamas (Odyss. 13—16, p. 187 Bl.2). It is there related how Aleos, king of Tegea, went to Delphi and received an oracle from the god, warning him that, if his daughter bore a son, his own sons must die by the hand of his grandson. Accordingly, on his return home, Aleos made his daughter Auge priestess of Athena, vowing that he would kill her if she ever became a wife. It so happened that Heracles came to Tegea, when on his way to Elis to attack Augeas, and was entertained by Aleos in the temple of Athena. Heracles saw the girl, met her in secret, and left her pregnant. When Aleos discovered the state of affairs, he sent for Nauplius, king of Euboea, and handed over Auge to him, with directions that she should be drowned1. However, on the journey from Tegea, Auge gave birth to Telephus on Mt Parthenius ; and Nauplius, disregarding his instructions, sold mother and child to be conveyed across the sea to King Teuthras in Mysia. Teuthras, who was childless, married Auge, and adopted her son, to whom he gave the name 1 Cf. the similar story of Aerope, related in the Kpijaaai of Euripides: schol. Ai. 1295, Apollod. 3. 15.

AKPIIIOI—AAEAAAI

47

Telephus. The story was current in several versions, but the importance of the account preserved by Alcidamas is that he alone refers to the oracle given to Aleos, and mentions this as the reason why Auge was entrusted to Nauplius. This at once explains the title of Sophocles' play. Confirmation of Alcidamas is to be found in Proverb. Append. 2. 87 (Paroem. I 412) as well as in Hyg'm. fab. 244 Telephus Herculis filius Hippothomn et Neaerae aviae suaefilios (sc. occidit)1. It will be seen that the name of the other son is lost, and Hippothous is nowhere else mentioned as a son of Aleos. Apollod. 3. 102 calls the sons of Aleos and Neaera by the names Cepheus and Lycurgus, whereas Pausan. 8. 4. 8 and Ap. Rhod. 1. 161 ff. make them three in number, Lycurgus, Cepheus, and Amphidamas. As contrasted with the account of Alcidamas, that of Apollodorus (2. 146) mentions temple-defilement and consequent ~\.oi[i6<; (or Xifj.6<;, as in 3. 103) as the causes which induced Aleos to hand over Auge to Nauplius and to expose her child. Diodorus, however, whose version is more rationalistic, simply relates (4. 33) that Aleos discovered his daughter to be pregnant, and sent her away in disgrace, not believing her story that she was with child by Heracles. In regard to the circumstances of the birth of Telephus, Sophocles and Alcidamas followed different versions ; for the latter allows no place for the suckling of the infant by a hind, which is clearly referred to in fr. 89. Here, therefore, the Sophoclean plot approximated to the story as related in Diodorus, Apollod. //. cc, Pausan. 8. 48. 7, 54. 62. It is reasonable to infer that, according to Sophocles, Telephus was reared by the herdsmen of King Corythus3, or by Corythus himself; and that the question of his birth in some way or other presented itself to him, when he was grown to manhood. According to Apollod. 3. 104 and Diod. I.e. he went to Delphi to enquire of the oracle, and was sent by the god to Mysia. It will be observed that the above-mentioned authorities do not give any information concerning the return of Telephus to the palace of Aleos, or the manner in which he killed his uncles. The gap can only be filled by conjecture, and there is nothing to help us except that frs. 86, 8j appear to belong to a scene in which a question of doubtful birth was canvassed. Wernicke (in PaulyWissowa II 2302) inferred that Telephus was mocked by 1 The text is corrupt, but M. Schmidt is doubtless right in restoring Neaerae for Nerea from ib. 243 Neaera Autolyci filia propter Hippothoi filii mortem (sc. se ipsa

interfecit).

Robert however prefers (Arch. Jahrb.

i l l 61) to read Perea for

Nerea

and Hippothoi et.. .filiorum in 243. 2 The incident was hardly a late invention, as Jahn supposed: Frazer, Pausan. IV p. 437. 3 The eponym of the KopvOch in Arcadia (Pausan. 8. 45, 1; 54, 5).

48

IOOKAEOYI

Hippothous and his brother for the obscurity of his origin, and that he slew them in anger ; that subsequently Aleos demanded his surrender from Corythus; that in consequence of the explanation given he recognized his grandson ; and that he then required him to consult the oracle in order to learn how he should expiate his blood-guilt. Robert {Arch. Jahrb. Ill 61 ff.) thinks it more likely that the strife between Telephus and the Aleadae arose out of some incident similar to the Calydonian hunt in the legend of Meleager. He points out that in that case fr. 84 suitably describes the overthrow of two princes of the royal house by a foreign bastard. This carries the story to the period which is covered by the action of the Mysians. Welcker (p. 413) preferred to suppose that Heracles appeared as deits ex machina to clear up the dispute, and ordered Telephus to go to Mysia1. It should be observed that an entirely different version of the story was adopted by Euripides, to the effect that mother and child were cast adrift together in a chest by Aleos, but ultimately reached the mouth of the Caicus, and were rescued by Teuthras (Strabo 615). Such at least was the account given in the prologue to the Telephus ; for in the later Auge Telephus was separated from his mother and exposed (Wilamowitz, Anal. Eur. p. 189 f). The simpler story, which is parallel to that of Danae, was given by Hecataeus (Pausan. 8. 4. 8), and is believed, although the reasons assigned are hardly convincing, to have been derived from the Cypria and Little Iliad (Wernicke, n.s. 2300). The Pergamene dynasty established by Attalus traced their descent from Telephus, and the people claimed to be Arcadians sprung from the band which crossed with Telephus to Asia. Thus they were precluded from giving official recognition to the Xdpvag-story, and followed in preference, as has been shown exhaustively by Robert {Arch. Jahrb. II 244, III 45, 87), the versions of Aeschylus and Sophocles. See also Frazer, Pausan. II p. 76.

77 ivravOa

fjuevrot ireivTa. rdvOpcoTrcov voa-el, orav deXacTLv iacrOai /ca/ca.

7 7 Stob. flor. 4. 37 (ill p. 228, 17 MSS known as B, C. For these see Hense Hense) 2o<poK\4ovs. 'ivTavda...KaKa.' in Rh. Mus. XLI 59 f. The extract is omitted in SMA, ed. 1 ivTavBa looks forward to the followTrinc. gives as above, and 'AKedSais is ing clause: cf. Eur. fr. 497 Kal yhp added after 2o<poK\tovs by two of Schow's ivrevBev voaei \ TO. TWV yvvaiK&v ot /j.iv KTL 1

So also Fr. Vater, op. cit. p. 25.

AAEAAAI

49

Hec. 306 iv rt}de yap Kafavovaiv al iroWaX T/9«, where Jebb gives other illustrations. TrcJXeir, I Srav TIS KT€. Hel. 581 iml See also on fr. 854. Plut. de garrul. 4 voaoviuiv, 0V1 Sd/jiapr' aWriv ?x<"- I-T. p. 504 B'itjTLSe Otpairetiwv rrp vboov fiapi10 r 8 rrjde yap vo(rei vdffros Trpds OHKOVS repos (sc. 6 aS6\e
78 yap SIKCUOIS avre^ebv ov pahiov. 7 8 Stob. flor. 9. 4 (ill p. 346, 14 Hense) 2O0OKX^OUS (Ei5pi7r/5oi< A) 'AXed5ai (dXatdSat M, dXaiadai A). 'TOis... This is the converse of our proverb 'Might is Right.' Cf. O.C. 880 TOIS TOI StKalois x^3 PpQ-X^s yiKg. fj-iyav. Eur.

Sufpl. 437 vi-Kq. d' 6 neiav rbv fiiyav diicai' Eur. fr. 584 efs TOI SUaios , OVK ivSlKOjif j Kparet, TO detov TTJV SIKIJV re av\\afi
79 KOLKOV TO Ki.vQf.IV 79

KOV 7T/3O5 (Xt' KOU Gesner: xai S

Track. 988, Aesch. Cho. 101 /xrj Keiffer' 7 9 Stob. flor. 12. 3 (ill p. 444, 8 Hense) rod airov (sc. So0O(cX^ous) 'AXedSs. t-vdov Kapdlas 06/3y TIVOS, 'don't practise '/ra/coj'...ei57eeoSs.' The extract is con- concealment.' Herwerden conj. K%4irTeiy. With the addition, noblesse oblige, cf. tained in S only of Hense's MSS. Chaeremon fr. 27 {TGFp. 789) \pevSij Si Keu0Eiv, i.e. to hide one's true thought. Cf. Horn. I 312 ix^pos y°-P M<" /ceixos 6,uu)s TOIS 4
80 /cat yap St/cata yXaxrcr' e;»(et /cparos

fieya.

For the sentiment see on fr. 78. It is 8 0 Stob. flor. 13. 6 (in p. 457, 10 Hense) XocpoK\4ovs ff 'AXeaduv (L has ef referred to also in Phil. 1245 f. av 5' oiVe (puvels otire Spacefets o'AXedSai SMA) Kal yap...fUya. l P.

IO*OKAEOYZ 81 81

0-177; M et Plut. : OXWTTT; S

the truth must be avoided. Such at least was the ordinary man's morality: see Pind. Nem. 5. 16 oihoi airatra KepSlwv | (palvoura itpbaunrov &\d$ei' drpeicTJs' | Kal garrul. 2 p . 502 E Etiru>fj.ev irpbs rbv dS6- T6 ffiyav TroXXdxis iffrl ao(pv. Ag. 553 Menander is the author of the verse imTrdXat rb viyav (pdpfiatcov pXdfiTjs ^x01 mediately preceding it in Stobaeus. should be compared with Carcin. fr. 7 TTO\The verse is not a general recommen\wv yap dv$piiiiroi(Ti ipdpfiaKov KCLKQV \ dation of silence; and the context would 0-177}.—iroX\d...KaXd in place of the more probably have shown that silence was usual iroXXd KOX KaKa: see Jebb on Phil. enjoined in painful circumstances, where 8 81 Stob. flor. 33. 3 (in p. 678, 10 Hense) 2o<poic\4ovs 'AXedSais (aiX^ao-i M, but S omits the name of the play-, and A the whole extract). '<5...raXd.' Plut. de

82 r a u r a TTOXXMI' prj^aTOiv er' ecrrt croc TO, yo-p 7rept,crcra Travra^ov Xvirijp'

TI

8 2 Stob. flor. 36. 11 (in p. 692, 12

dpi.6fiijffai ox°^"s. Herodian Philet. (Pierson's Moeris, p. 475) 6X^7775 ian 1 'Why should this still need many 8i8av, Med. 819 7re/)i °^K bXiyrjs avvov- irdvTes ovv fifoy X6701. But in 0. T. 841 alas iajlv &rre IKCLVUS 5ia
83 iravT 83

1

ipevva

TTOXXO.

Kal Xadelv

KO\6V.

KaXbv Blomfield: \a\etv KO.K(IV codd.

8 3 Stob. flor. 41 4 (ill p. 758, 5

TIJXVI Tatirav iTKbra Kpiirruv ioiKev, Eur. fr. 460. See on fr. 64, where the phrase 0-177) xba/xos is discussed: it is worth notice The verse is a pendant of fr. 8 r: ' Silence that, in the passages there mentioned, is good, where there is a skeleton in the Bacchylides takes the conventional view, house.' On the other hand, good fortune whereas Euripides advocated the dignity should be proclaimed to all. Cf. Pind. of silence. Blomfield's correction is Pyth. 3. 83 TO, KaXh TptyavTt% Sfw. fr. 42 strongly supported by Eur. Hipp. 465 iv ,KO\CIV fikv &v it-oipav re Tep\Trvwv is fiiaov ao<poiOK\4OV ' X6'

AAEAAAI 84

84.

KOVK OlS' OTl XPV TPOS

TOLVTa

OTOLV ol

T£>V

y' ayadol

7jy>os

\4jtLV,

dyevcov

2 7'Valckenaer: r' codd. [ dyevdo Grotius: dyevv&v codd.

8 4 Stob.y?0?-. 43. 6 (iv p. 2, 12 Hense) matic: see Neil's Equites p. 190, Kuehner2o0o/cWous (TOUaurou S) 'AXeci&u. 'mix... Gerth § 509, 9 ( and dently of authority, the case for $' is strong KcLTcLviKai/rai, leaves the connexion of thethere. Robert, retaining T', assumes a lacuna after KaravtKwvraL. Hense sugclauses obscure. But T' does not seem to gests ol \afj.Trpol or the like. be in place as a connective, whether or not a heavier stop is placed after A^yeic. 2 f. For the political conditions asI have followed Valckenaer in giving 7' sumed, the overthrow of the nobles by for r\ and in joining the Srav clause with the masses, see on fr. 192. d-yevcov shows the words which precede it. The suborthat in a/yaOol the political meaning is dinate clause then conveys a causal impliforemost.—KaTaviKwvrai: the compound cation, as in Phil. 451 TTOV XPV rWeadai. does not seem to occur elsewhere (rdSe raura, irou 5' alveiv, b'rav | rb. 6eV 4iraLvQv—or 7ro\i)—vucojvTai conj. Blaydes, /j.e'ya, TOI>S Beods evpui Kaicotis; For 6rav so used VIKUVTCU Herwerden).—irpos: fr. 932. see my paper in A.J.P. x x x m 426 ff. 4 TdS€, 'things like these,' of what has been mentioned: cf. Thuc. 2. 71 ra.Seij.ev The appearance of ye, as after dirire, STTOV, eireitrii, edre and the like, is idio- T)[ui> Trarepes ol Vfitrepoi e'Socav.

85 SOKW

fxev, ovSeCs' aXk' opa

/JLTJ

KCLI Svo~cre(3ovvTa T£>V ivavTuwv

rj SovXov

OLVTOV

Kpeio-aov rj

Kparetv

ovra Ta>v rreXas

KXVZIV.

in other authors are collected by Blaydes 8 5 Stob. flor. 54- 21 (iv p. 351, 5 on Ar. Pac. 4,7. For fiAv solitarium in Hense) 2O0OKX^OUS 'AXeaSwy (d\eddav M, comedy see Starkie on Vesp. 7 7; and for dXeaiddoiv primitus A). '5o/cw.../cXt/eti'.' the orators Wyse on Isae. 1 1. 1 ' The preceding sentence must have opa ni]...^. For the subjunctive see been "Who would willingly be irreligious?" Ti? tv extov ?Xoiro 5vo-
I04>0KAE0YI Weil T) SovXov ayvbv&vra; Papageorgius changed SovKov to xPylCT^vt a n ^ Nauck conjectured SeCXbv for SoOXov. But the presence of xoi and afirbv shows that these corrections are misconceived: the thought is, ' I t is better to conquer one's foes even by foul means than to be so reduced as to be the slave of others.' To a freeborn Greek slavery is the worst of all evils; hence the arrogant note in atirbv, which contrasts as in Phil. 316. For the tpvoei. SoOXoi the case is different. It is not so much slavery that is contrasted with sovereignty, as degradation with power once enjoyed. In Eur. Phoen. 524 f." etirep y&p ddiKeiv XP^li rvpavvidos vipi I KaWiffTov aSixeiv' T&XXa b" eiHrefieiv

xpd", sovereignty is taken as the supreme limit of happiness, the attainment of which

justifies aSiicLa, much as here stress is laid on slavery as the extremity of misfortune. In Aesch. Ag. 478 the Chorus pray for the middle state : /M)T' eh)v irToXnrbpSris, | [IIIJT' ofiv airbs aXois vir' &X\\if fiiov KO.T-

IBoifu. H . compared Trag. fr. adesp. 181 la yue Kepdalvovra KeKXr/afftxi Kaxbv \ Kpetacov yap yj txifiovra TOI)S 0eQv vbfiovs ] WyijTO valuv 56%av ri/ji,TroXr)KbTa, a n d with v. 3 E u r . //el. 730 Kpeiaaav y&p rbS' (i.e. to

be a loyal slave with a mind free) rj Svoiv Ii ' H @ & '

p Koieiv Sov\ov

,|

X

OVTO. TUIV vi\as. Add Ant. 479 o<ms doSXbs i
86 KarapKei j

vecfivKoi

y •

TO rot, vofjucrdev 86.

2 fidoiv Gesner:

rovhe

/ce/cX^cr^ai TTGIT/OOS,

et Se firf, p.e.iu>v

/3\OL/3T].

rrj<; a\r)deCa<; SA,

8 6 Stob. ftor. 76. 9 (iv p. 610, 2 Hense) SO0OK\JJS 'AXeaSais (dXeiiSes A). i' p We may perhaps assume that these words were spoken by Telephus in reference to the supposed parentage of Heracles (or Corythus). 1 KCKXTJCTBCU iroTpos: cf. fr. 564 (n.). For the gen. cf. Track. 1105 6 TTJS di

b bf f o^ s . 2 tiirfp irlVKa 7'. For the meaning of elrep )( et ye see the exhaustive discussion by E. S. Thompson in his edition of the Meno, p. 258 ff. Here eiVep bears its common meaning of si mo Jo (fr. 104 n.), but the addition of 7' changes the tone. It is impossible to reproduce the nuances of Greek particles in English; but the speech-stress, which we indicate by the use of italics in printing, may serve roughly to convey the difference between etirep fitjTpbs

irt
M

3 TOC] ri A piimitus

UKT\V. For e'tirep ye in dialogue see on Eur. Phoen. 725, 1652.—(jieCuv p\afiij: i.e., to be called the son of such a father rather than to learn the truth. 3 TO TOI vo(iicr8«v Kre. Cf. the wellknown conclusion of Gray's ode On a distant prospect of Eton College, 'Thought would destroy their Paradise. | No more; where ignorance is bliss, | 'tis folly to be wise.' So Eur. fr. 205 (ppovSi S' 8 iratrxw KaX rod' 06 afjiiKpbv KaKbv • j rb jj.ri eiSe'vai. yap rjSovrjv §xel TL"^ \ voaovvTa' Ke"p5os d' iv

KaKdis ayvaala.

Apollod. Caryst. fr. 10

( m 284 K.) 01 y&p aTvxovvTes TOV xpbvov KepSalvo/tep | birbaov &v dyvounev i]TVXV

/fires. This comes from the Hecyra, which was translated by Terence, and the corresponding lines in his version are 286 f. nam nos omnes, quibus est alicunde aliqnis obiecltis labos, \ omne quod est interea tempus prius quam id rescitutn est lucre est. See also on fr. 583. 5. Ai. 554 T6 |UTJ cppovuv yap Kapr' dvciSwoi' KaKbv, Eur. Bacch. 1259 ff. Or. 236 upelrcrov Si rb doKelv, K&V d\ri$das airy.

AAEAAAI

S3

87 A. B.

oS', ei v60os TIS, yvf]crioivcnv.

87. 1 88', el scripsi: 6 5' el codd., 6 Sfj vulgo | rots yvrjalots SM, TIS TOU yv-quioa A : corr. Nauck | udivoi A 2 yv-qalav Stob.: rrjK t'cnyv Clem. 8 7 Stob. flor. 77. 9 (IV p . 614, 11 Hense) Zo0o/cXijs 'AXeaSais (-5es A,om. S). ' 6 8\. .rpiaiv.' T h e second v. is quoted by Clem. Alex, strom. 6 p. 741 2o0o/cAeous 5e e£ 'AXeuctSaje 'airav TO \p"q<jrov

first line should be read as a question (oi> 5^ v60os Tii...a6ive(.; 'surely a mere bastard is not the equal of the well-born?' with ov 5-i; interrogative as in Trcuh. 668, Phil. 900) throws an unusual emphasis TTJV Xan)v ^ x e t bai.v? on the indefinite pronoun. I have reverted to the reading of the MSS with The spirit of the second line (' 'Tis only SS' for 6 5' (see cr. n.): ' h e , as no other noble to be good ') is after the manner of Euripides : El. 3S4 TJ 5' 6/j.Ma flpoTovs | bastard....' Cf. Track. 8 &KVOV \ a\yioroir ia%ov, et n s AiVuXis ywq, 0. C. 1664 Kpivelre Kai TOIS ijdetTLv rovs evyeveis: fr. 336 6 fj.ev yap e'&dXbs eifyev^s e'fj.oty' d \ \ ' et TISfiporCbv\ Bavixaarbs (sc. i^eiriij.7rfT-o), and the well-known attracted exavqp. fr. 53 oi;/c ^anv ev KaKoiviv evamples At. 488, 0. C. 734. See also ytveia, \ Trap' dya0o2 %pj;ffros
88 aV0p(O7TOUTLV

TO.

8e

€VpL
<£LA.0U9,

T7JS 88.

2 aft

| Nauck coni. eidis

8 8 The whole passage is quoted by Stob._/?»-. 91. 27 (iv p. 740, 17 Hense) from ljorpoK\tovs 'AXeddai. Vv. 6—10 appear in Plut. de and. poet. 4 p. 11 B as from Sophocles. V. 1 was a wellknown tag: see Menander monost. 500, and Stob./?!?;-. 94. 8 (IV p. 770, 10 Hense), where it is attributed to Sophocles without the name of the play. Plut. de am. prol. 5 p. 497 B attributes it to Euripides, but, as he follows with 8ivaixlv re TrXeicrriiv TUIV iv av$p
clear that he intended to quote Phoen. 439. Nauck refers to Plaut. Stich. 522 res amicos invenit. It is thought that this passage is referred to by Dio Chrys. 7. 102 in the words rots virb HotpOK\4ovs els rbv irXourov elpTjfi.e'voi.s. p p O. Hense suggested that this was a gloss, which had taken the place of an original a\ei, comparing Hesych. I p. 134 etc. But there is no reason for disturbing the text: cf. El. 1061.

I04>0KAE0YS

54

y ) eSpav. ovre <j>veTai TT/JOS ^pTjjLia^' ot r e <£wre? apvovvrai crTvyelv. Seivos yap epiretv TTXOUTOS es r e raySara KCU 7T/3OS ySe/3^Xa, ^anodev Treirqs avr/p

8'

3 $a.Kovos SM, 7&0S A ] ?! re Gesner: £s iv £(rx&rri OeQv (n.). Cobet, Coll. Crit. equally well have found rd. fiaenfia, another scholiastic word, which Nauck p. 188, perhaps rightly, prefers ayxler-qv, actually wished to put in the text. thinking that rich men whose influence Madvig (Adv. Crit. p. 614) depraved is greatest with monarchs are said rrjs it still further by proposing x<27roi 6£\et. • iirepraryis rvpavvtdos OaKeiv ayx^rr/v 7r&7js 8' nv-tip. I t will be observed that iSpav. Mekler conj. fiaKapierty and the addition of ^-rfKa is redundant to the Wecklein apx^v. Gaisford approved sense, and serves merely to round off the ix6h*rt)v, another word sometimes conexpression. The Greek love of antithesis fused with alfxlvrijv. 4 f. are considered by O. Hense to be was sometimes indulged at the expense of logic : El. 305 ras oBffas ri /ioi [ Kal ras an intrusion, and Nauck agrees.—&n-eiTa diroiWs iXirlias SU<j>6opev, Ant. 1109 tr' 8', in the next place, distinguishes from Cr' dTrtioves, \ OIT'OVTCS ot r' airdvres. See the general advantages bestowed by also my note on Eur. Hclid. 182 (with wealth the particular fact that no one which passage Andoc. 4. 7 should be seeks to oppose its influence. ' Not only compared), and add Alcman fr. 23, 44 does no one become the foe of the rich e'jUe 5' otfr' iTraivyv | otire fxwfirfffffat viv man, but even his former enemies dissemble their hatred.' Meineke's o'i T' a. K\evva xopaybs \ otiS' afi&s irj. J. quotes Tr. fr. adesp. 436 8ov\e, defoTcu, Kal diKata KadtKa, and 437. The subject denoting ' it is no one's nature to b e ' is treated exhaustively by E. Kemmer, (cf. Tr. fr. adesp. 543 oiit ev yvvai£l tpierai WUTTT) X^/" S )> corresponds to <j>tivresdiepolare Ausdrucksweise, 1903. —those in whom the condition is realized. \COTTO8«V Kri. The general sense i s : For the strong aor. in this sense (which ' And to such places where the poor man L. and S. wrongly say is rare) see Ant. could not even obtain access so as to 721 i> ('prove to b e ' ) , 0. C. 1444 ravra has the entrie to influential quarters. We 8' iv r<# Sal/xovL \ Kal T7/5e <j>vvai xaT^Pa may illustrate by O. T. 597 f., where ('to be realized'), and many other inCreon parades the value of his influence stances in Sophocles. For re co-ordinated with Oedipus: vvv ol atde p with otire see Jebb on 0. C. 1397 f., and iiKKa\ovv ; but it seems

AAEAAAI ouS' £vTV)((t)v hvvaiT av aiv ipa Kal y a . p S u c r e t S e s c r w j u a Kal h v c r ^ yXaxraryj cro^tov Tidrjcrtv €vfiop(f)6v T' ISetv. Se yaipew KOLV vocra>v £vvovcrCa avToj Ka.irLKpvTrTe
SS

10

8 oiS' iinvxuv Plut.: fir)8' eiTvx&v (—wx A) Stobaei codd. 9 SvaeiSh Kal tr&iM Kal A | SVGWVVIXOV : v. comm. 1 1 i w vbaav £vvov
Gerth II 338.—8«
viov for •YXXOO-OT) troi|)6v, coll. Eur. fr. 575 ; Wecklein changed 7\V I am not convinced that Svaiiivvfiov is unis excused by the meaning of the latter : intelligible, though it cannot mean, as Eur. Hel. 674 (n.). Meineke's oi)5' ei5Brunclt suggested, prave loquentem. The (TTOX&V is unnecessary.—The negative description exactly fits the personality qualifies both the participle and the of Thersites, whom Sophocles may have main verb, as in Aesch. Ag. 302 8 5' had in mind: he too was ' hated for his O$TI ntWuv ovd' atppaaixbvws £!7rcy [ VLKOJ- tongue,' cf. Horn. B 222 rQ d' dp' ' pcvos iraprjKev dyy4\oo /j.4pos: see n. on ^ £l f ^ y\ /] ^ 8 & Eur. Hclid. 813.—The explanation reOn this view, yXtlxrffr} should be connected commended above is confirmed by the with Svs el(ri dvad)vv/j.os % /x' '05i/o"?)os | ever, joins TUX«" to Seivos, interpreting: OIKOV aTro, and so Blaydes (see cr. n.).— fore efoKffia cannot stand. Moreover, the For <Sv Ipa TDX'' V s e e o n fr- 356. sense requires not xa'LP*iv Kaf- votreiv b u t Xaipeiv Kal VOUOVVTI, or, in a synonymous 9 f. Kal ^dp 8uo-«i8es /ere. Observe phrase, Kal vbaig ^vvbvri : 0. T. 303 o'iq. that Kal ('even') qualifies the following vboip ffuve&Tiv, Ai. 338 rots TrdXat vcxri}adjectives, although in such cases it is fiaui. £vvovowla. Wealth can be happy f

with Jebb's note.

See also Kuehner-

in spite of sickness because it can afford

IOOKAEOYI He also urged, as against Nauck's to pay physicians for a cure: Eur. El. 427 ffKoirCi ret xprifj.a.9' lbs &x€L j^^ya a&ipos, reading, that eiriKpiirreirdai. rather than £4POLS re iovvai trwua T' is vdvovs ireobv airoKpiiirTeffffat, is the vox propria in the 5ava.vai.ai trtbtrai. So in a Comparison of sense of to cloak: but the inference is by no means certain. Cf. Eur. fr. 416 (Stob. Wealth and Virtue (Stob. for. 91. 33) Wealth iaefivivero x/?«'<*s avBpdiirwv diop- Jlor. 4. 9) T(fi dpaa-ei ras trvfttpopas \ fijroCir' Bovv,...Trp4irecp /j.ev dpr/jry, iroXejUOis Si a/Mvpovv KaTTLKpiirTeadaj. (Trine, Kairox. Trap^xeLIrt Bepaweieiv 5* ^/c vbtxojp...v6t>v. In XP^p-drav.—Wecklein's change of x<»ipe'" fr. 460-1 XPV TfepL(TTei\aL Ka\&s J KptnrTOvra to x^eiv is unnecessary. Kal [Ay iraffi KTjpOaffeiv rdSe, the simple verb For the general sense H . quoted Menand. fr. 90 (ill 28 K.) TXOVTOS Si TTOXXLOV is found. Bruno Keil (fferm. x x m 379) iiriKdXvfj.fi' iariv KaKuv, and fr. 485 (in adduced Isocr. 1.42 in support of Nauck's reading. For the moral precept which 140 K.) TOVTO nbvov iruTicarrei | Kal dv
, P an, , opOueav ,

Se T I S Kepovcrcr' ekao<;

.

apaaa / ^ (TTOpdvyya'i elp(f>' e/ojXos

rrdy(ov . .

. l

K€pacr(j)6povs

8 9 Aelian nat. an. 7. 39 6V01 \iyovai 8-rjXeia Kipara oiiK ^xel V e BrjKvv i~Ka(j>ov ntpara ov ijiieui, otix ai&ovvgypa\//ev, schol. Pind. 01. 3. 52 emrat rotis TOO evavrlov iiaprvpas, So0o/cX^a /neXws ol TrotrjTal TTJV B^jXetav ^Xa<pov f/.tv eiirSpTa ' vo[ias.. JXatpos' Kal TTOXLV Kipara ixovaav eladyoveiv, KaBdwep Kal ' a'pa(ra...tKT}\os.' Kal ravra fJ.h 0 TOO TTJV 8i)Xd£ov(rav rbv Tr/Xetp'ov ypd(pov<Ti 2o0£\\ou iv TOIS 'AXedSais. V. 1 is Kal irXaTTovcri. The mistake is generally partly quoted by Etyin. Gud. p. 317, accounted for by the consideration that 12 (Eiym. Paris, p. 1444 E) and Zon. legend loves the miraculous, and is not lex. s.v. Kepdeis p. 1186 Kepovarra, olovcontent to follow the prosaic limits of ' vSfios Si n Kepovaa'- <.'Hpa5iav6s> irepl science; but Ridgeway in Early Age iraduv, and referred to by Pollux 5. 76 of Greece, I p. 360 ff., holds that the TSIV Si i\d(p(iiv dKepois fiiv T\ d^Xeta, 6 story of Heracles reflects a knowledge of 8£ dppr)v Kepojipdpos Kal xP^^iiKepias 6 the existence of the reindeer in northern vwb "RpaKheovs aXoiis. Kal 'AvaKpiuv Europe. In that case we must suppose (fr. 51) fi£i> !T0rfAXerai Kepoartrav fXaov other miraculous does were given antlers irpoaenriiv, Kal SO^OKX^S Ktpovaaav TTJP on the analogy of this famous quest.— TrjXicpov Tpotpbv. V. 3 is referred to by vo^ds: roaming. See Jebb on O. T. Pollux 2. 72 irapa Se 2o0OKXe? Kal fiiigai 1350.—opitav Trdywv. Dindorf quotes 01 flVKTTJpes K^KXTJVTai. Ant. 985 opBbiroSos virip wdyov. 1 Aelian continues his evidence from 2 Wagner suggested as a supplement the poets by citing Eur. fr. 857, fr. 740, TyXtyov viov Tpocpbs. Pind. 01. 3. 29, Anacreon fr. 51 ayavws 3 \i.i%ns = /tvKTrjpas. Cf. Phot. lex. old re vefipbv veoB-qXia | yaXadyviv, 8s r' p. 280, 3 fiij^av airbv rbv //.vKTrjpa Ka~ iv ilXr] Kepoiaa-qs | viroXeupdeU vro /j.ijTpbs Xovaiv, ovxl Tb vypbv' OOTOJS 'A.puTTO(pdvT}s iirTOTiBTf. Add Simonid. fr. 30 Bdvarov (fr. 820, 1 580 K.). Similarly Hesych. Kepotaaq evpifiep /xareiiiap £Xd(pq, Eur. in p. 128.—Meineke, who would have Her. 375 rav xpwKapavov SSpKa. The preferred /iv^arTJpe but for the evidence zoologists and grammarians were eager of Pollux, fills up the gap by reading to point out the blunder: Arist. h. a. 4. /atffas < iifi > . Blaydes supplied devpo. b b II. 538 18, poet. 25. I46o 31 IXarroy —Kcpao-<|>6povs: observe the transference yap (sc. a/j.dpTrj/jt.a) el f/.i) ijSei 8n HXaiposof the epithet, and see n. on fr. i t .

AAEAAAI—AAEZANAPOI

57

90

9O Hesych. II p. 244 4v|ivetv is to chant over, and both it in Aesch. Eum. 903 TI ofiv p' tivayas TT}5' and cTydew may be construed with ace. itpv/ivfjcrai x^ofl; of the theme and dat. of the person af-

91

(f>povelv 91

Erotian gloss. Hippocr. p. 84. 1

Similar statements are made by Etym.

Ka.Tep6v€€' Karevdei. (ppovelv yap gXeyov M. p . 800, 43 (ppovelv tjy]fxaivei. Kai TO ol 7raXcuo£ TO voeiv, us /cal Ei5p«ri57;s iv voeh and Hesych. IV p . 259. T h e r e are

'AvTidirrj (fr. 205) (pa&Kec '
fxep.vr]-

rat Kai 2O0OK\^S if 'AXedSais (d^ai^Sc codd.: corr. Schleusner) Kai h 'A/ttpiapdif> (fr. 119).

several such passages in Sophocles: Track.

1 1 4 5 (ppovGj d-rj i;Vfufiopas 'Iv' izaTafxev,

ib.

289 tpp6vu viv us TJ^ofra, Ant. 49, 996, O.C. 872, and others. The examples are not well arranged in Ellendt.

AAEHANAPOZ

Fr. 93 confirms the view generally held that the story of the play is to be found in Hygin. fab. 91, and is therefore similar to that of the Alexandros of Euripides, which was put on the stage with the Troades in 415 B.C. When Hecuba was pregnant with Paris, she dreamed that she gave birth to a flaming torch, from which a number of snakes crawled forth. The diviners held that the welfare of Troy depended on the destruction of the child to be born. Consequently, .when Alexandros was born, he was sent away to be killed ; but his guards pitied him and were content to expose him, with the result that he was discovered by some shepherds, who reared him as their own son, and called him by the name Paris. Paris grew to maturity among the herds on Mt Ida, and made a special favourite of one of the bulls. At length Priam determined to celebrate funeral games in honour of his child long since lost, and sent some of his servants to choose a bull as prize for the victor in one of the contests. The bull of Paris was selected, and he was so much distressed in consequence that he went down to the town, entered for the contest, and defeated all his opponents, including his own brothers. Deiphobus1, in anger at the success of a 1

Or Hector, according to Servius.

58 clown, drew his sword upon him; but Paris took refuge at the altar of Zeu? epicelos. Cassandra then declared that the newcomer was her brother, and Priam recognised his son (by means of certain crepundid1, according to Serv. on Verg. Aen. 5. 370), and welcomed him to the palace. Of course there is nothing to connect Sophocles with any particular details in the above account; and we are not in a position to distinguish the treatment of Euripides from that of Sophocles. Robert {Bild und Lied, pp. 233—239) undertook to show that the story concerning the dream of Hecuba and the exposure of Paris, his rescue and ultimate restoration to his home, was not, as Welcker believed (Ep. Cycl. II 90), contained in the Cypria, but was the invention of the fifth century, and in all probability of Sophocles in the Alexandros, in the composition of which he was largely influenced by the Herodotean account of the youth of Cyrus (1 108 fif.). He had an easy task in demolishing the argument by which Welcker attempted to establish the indispensability of the story to the narrative of the Cypria, viz. that the circumstances of the judgment of Paris presuppose his residence on Ida, and that this in its turn implies his escape from exposure ; for his adoption of a pastoral life was in no way inconsistent with his recognition as one of the princely family of Priam. But there is a wide gap between the admission that the origin of the story cannot be traced to the Cypria and the conclusion that Sophocles was its author. Even if Robert is correct in his inference from Tro. gig ff. and Androm. 293 ff. that in the latter passage Euripides followed an older and simpler version, according to which Hecuba refused to surrender Paris to death, notwithstanding the vaticinations of Cassandra— a conclusion which is by no means certain—it helps very little towards the result which Robert desired to establish. Moreover, the discovery of the fragments of Pindar's Paeans has destroyed the foundation of Robert's theory; for in 8. 27 ff. there is an unmistakable allusion to Hecuba;s dream. But, apart from this, the onus of strictly proving their case lies on those who seek to show that any tragic plot was invented by its author; if even Euripides, so far as we can tell, never dared to do anything of the kind, we may be quite sure that Sophocles was far less likely to make the experiment. It will be observed that Hyginus states that Alexandros was the name originally given to the child, and that Paris was 1 The detail is suggestive of a tragic origin, and is referred by Ahrens to Euripides. On the other hand, there seems to be no reason for tracing to Sophocles the statement of Asclepiades (FUG i n 303) that the slave who exposed Paris was called Archialos (Agelaus, according to Apollod. 3. 149).

AAEEANAPOI

59

substituted by the shepherds. The exact opposite is asserted by Eur. fr. 64: cf. Enn. trag. fr. 38, Ov. Her. 16. 358, and perhaps Eur. L.A. 1293 (Murray). Apollodorus (3. 150) says that the shepherds who originally found him called him Paris, and that his exploits subsequently earned for him the name of Alexandros. Are we to infer that Hyginus followed Sophocles rather than Euripides ?

92 ov yap TL deajxa Toicrtv acmVcus 92 Steph. Byz. p . 139, 19 a<xTv...b TTOX(TT)S dor6s Kal dcrri}, Kal aarbv. aro rod d
oi •yap TI is a favourite combination in tragedy, with n sometimes qualifying a single word, sometimes the whole clause. See on Eur. Hdid. 193, Phoen. 112. Its exact force cannot be determined here: cf. frs. 755, 856, Ai. 1343, O.T. 433, Ant. 450. Wecklein's view that the line is interrogative is therefore improbable.—

OLOTCTCUS. The formation is analogous to xu/)'T'!S (fr- 21), aiXirris (fr. 502), dxTITTJS (fr. 68). The history of these words is obscure. According to Kretschmer in KZ xxxi 343 the long 1 is original (TTOXITTJS: 7r6Xi-s) and is retained under the influence of the accent. (Cf. irpeafUvTys: •n-piefiv-s.) Then 1 passed to other stems. Besides oirXirTjs and oSmjs other examples are avrlTijs, AV£(TT;S (Pausan. 8. 26. 1), do"7ri5iT7;s, avrpiTTjs, Troifj.vLTr}s, 6ptT7jsy T7]st eaTepirTjSy S d i

idpi-

93 IBoTrjp<x

VIKOV

avSpas dcrriVas.

9 3 Quoted by Steph. Byz.: see on fr. 92. The syntax is ambiguous, but the order of the words makes the meaning absolutely clear: the emphatic word is, as usual, put first. 'A herdsman the winner —against townsmen too !' Cf. Aesch.

rt

yap

avSpas aorCTas. The addition of dvSpas here is probably complimentary, although it might be the reverse, emphasizing, as it does, either praise or blame. It is depreciatory in O.T. 1118 cos »>o,uei)s av-qp, and in Ant. 690 avdpl 5i]fi6rr}. See Neil on Ar. Eq. 259, Starkie on Ar. Vesp. 269, Cho. 885 TOV favTa Kftlvetv roi)s T€dvT}Kora,s Ach. 168. Examples are collected by \iyo>. H. remarks that Tr. fr. adesp. Blaydes on Ar. Lys. 368.—T£ 'ydp; when 188 w ZeO, yivotro tcaTafiakeiv rbv avv used in a continuous speech, challenges iixt was quoted by grammarians as an contradiction. 'What else?' 'What example of ambiguity; and adds that, if then?' So in Aesch. Ag. 1134 oiSiv Zeus really mistook the meaning, he must TTOT' el fj.i] tZvvdavovfj.fry}!'. rt ydp; ib. have been very imperfectly acquainted 1238, Cho. 879. In answers it becomes with Greek usage.—Porijpa is Paris, who virtually a formula of assent: see e.g. was habitually called fiovr-qs or (SOVKSXOS : Plat. Theaet. 209 B. The words are see Headlam on Aesch. Ag. 718 ff. For obviously appropriate to the circumstances the story see the Introductory Note.— of Paris's victory in the ay tin.

6o

IO*OKAEOYI

94 8' dypaio-TTjv S)(\ov 9 4 Schol. A Horn. E 158 TO Si irapk So<poK\e1 iv 'A\ci-dv5ptfi ' arelxuv S' dypdart)v &xXov' irapdwixov. Thesame is found in Eustath. //. p. 533, 40, who omits b" after CTAXWV and gives 'A\et;di>dp$ for 'AXefdi" 5p(j>. The word dypiiffrris is introduced as analogous to the Homeric x?)/>w<m}?. There is nothing to indicate that ox^ov is related to arcixw as the goal of its action: 'approaching the rustic crowd.' But the construction is quite possible, although less common than when the ace. is a place-name: cf. O.T. 713 us airbv ijl-oi uolpa irpbs 7raiS6s Baveiv. Jebb on Phil. 141, fr. 314. 238, Eur. Phoen. 977 (n.), Hipp. 1371, Bacch. 848, Pind. Isth. 2. 48. There is in any case no need to alter the text (erelxopr' Nauck formerly, 5' F. W. Schmidt). Mekler

would complete the line with e&pi/iaeis fiiyav or the like. a/ypciio-rqs beside Aypdrr/s and dypiiT-qs, shows a non-essential
95 9 5 Phot. ed. Reitz. p 86, 9 d/j.a\8eieiv t 2 \ f 'AX^dd %d pp KOX T)

'

The existence of dna\$e6eii> was previously known only from Hesych. I p. 137 df/.a\de6ef

Tr\T}d6vei, TrXovrlfet.

7} rp^ipei.

Etym.M. p. 76, 38 d/iaXdevaei TrXiJSei a£ff«. The authority of the word is considerably strengthened by the new evidence; and there is no longer any probability in Gruppe's suggestion (p. 3411) that it was formed from the name Amalthea. Rather we should suppose that the noun and verb existed side by side, and that the idea of abundance or plenty was personified or deified in the various forms familiar to Greek legend. It should be observed that the earliest allusions to Amalthea (Pind. in schol. Horn. $ 194, Pherecydesfr. 37,FHGi 82) represent her

as a nymph in whose possession was the horn of plenty, and that the Cretan legend of the goat Amalthea which suckled Zeus is attested only by later writers. That is to say, the name Amalthea appears at a comparatively late date to have been transferred to the nameless Aif ovpavla (Zenob. 1. 26, 2. 48). Further, the fact that Kipas dfia\8eias was an attribute of various deities (Wernicke in PaulyWissowa 1 1721) indicates that Amalthea was not a distinctively conceived personality. The etymology of Amalthea is uncertain, and the suggestions which have been put forward (collected by Gruppe, p. 8249) are not satisfactory. But the meaning points to a connexion with d/xa\6s and dnd\ri ( = i) TO(Y(3I< aii^r)(ns Etym. M.).

96

SucraiAos 9 6 Hesych. I p. 542 Sfo-auXos' Svaai-

Wos. Zo0o^ s 'AX^S W (dXe^cod.). " V T ^ /»AU. where the

schol.'s note is SvtrxepS) rbv etra.v\uTtxbv

™™VTav- ffsc\f^ rfo ^ovs ydp p e r h a s t o t h e sh P epherds' life on Mt Ida.

AAEEANAPOZ

6l

97 9 7 Steph. Byz. p. 289, ig"E^>e5p(t> But why did Stephanus record the 2o0o/c\7?s. neut. plural, if it was used merely as an The form 'E0^
98 9 8 Hesych. II p. 314 B-rfkaoTpLa- rpo- applied to the mother. This fact is (p6s. iaTi 5k 'IaKiv. 2,O<J>OK\TJS 'AXe^dv- noticed in Suidas and Photius, for whose Spy. readers the ancient usage required explanation. Hence Photius (p. 90, 24) 8T)Xao-Tpia. For the formation of these explains 0i]\i
99 jjt.cuei>7piav 9 9 Antiatt. (Bekk. anecd.) p. 108, 31 /xai€jj7•piav dvri rod ixaiav. 2o0o/fX^s 'A\e£dv5p
p. 241, 9) shows that the Attic use of fxata for a midwife was well known to the grammarians. For the formation see on fr. 98.

100

1OO Antiatt. (Bekk. anecd.) p. 107, 25 fivelav TT)V p.vfifj.T)v. 2O0OKXT}S 'AXe&v5pu>. The same gloss is assigned to Sophocles by Phot. lex. p. 272, 17 and Suid. s.v., but without the name of a play.

The word is by no means uncommon, and there is no ground for Nauck's suggestion that 'AXe^dvdpifi is a corruption for 'HX^crpp, i.e. with a reference to El. 392 plov Si TOV Trapbvros oi fivdav fyeis.

62

Z04>0KAE0YI

AAHTHI

The title is only quoted by Stobaeus (floril.), and by him always as 'AXei/r^s. A tragedy with the title 'A\rjrr]<; is attributed to Lycophron by Suidas s.v. It is generally agreed that the title-r61e belongs to Aletes, the son of Aegisthus and Clytaemnestra, and that Welcker (p. 215) was right in finding the substance of the plot in Hygin. fab. 122. The story there related is as follows. Electra received a false message that Orestes and Pylades had been sacrificed to Artemis atTauri. Aletes, the son of Aegisthus, on learning that no survivor of the race of the Atridae was left, usurped the sovereignty at Mycenae. Electra set out to Delphi to enquire of the oracle concerning her brother's death. On the same day that she reached her destination, Iphigenia and Orestes also happened to arrive ; and the same messenger who had brought the news about Orestes pointed out Iphigenia as his murderess. Hearing this, Electra snatched a blazing brand from the altar, and in her ignorance would have blinded Iphigenia, but for the timely interference of Orestes. A recognition followed, and they returned together to Mycenae. Here Orestes killed Aletes, and would also have slain his sister Erigone, had not Artemis carried her away and made her a priestess in Attica. Orestes then married Hermione, and Pylades Electra. Welcker conjectured that fr. 646 belongs here, thinking that Tyndareus appeared as the guardian of Aletes, and held that frs. 104, 105 are part of a dialogue between Aletes and Orestes. Ribbeck {Rom. Trag. p. 469) finds the same plot in the Agamemnonidae of Accius. Whereas Welcker saw in Hyginus sufficient material for two tragedies, Ribbeck preserved the unity of place by supposing that Aletes and Erigone went to Delphi in furtherance of a plot against Orestes and Iphigenia. Comparing frs. 101—103 with Agamemnonidae fr. II he thinks that Aletes was represented as a hypocritical and specious talker. Fr. 107 suits the circumstances of Agamemnon's and Aegisthus' children. For the proposed identification with the Erigone see p. 173. Hense has recently revived a suggestion originally made by Bergk that the Aletes was a late play. He is thus able to account for the Euripidean tone of fr. 107. He points out that eh eXeyxov levai (fr. 105) is used by Sophocles only in the Philoctetes and Oedipus Coloneus, and that fr. 104 echoes O.C. 75.

AAHTHZ IOI X

yP

KCIX (f>povovo-a

KpeLcrcrcov cro<j>icrTov 101.

TTCU'TOS

TOVVSLKOV

icrnv

2 KpetTTOv A I ebperfy M

1O1 Stob. fior. 3. 8 (ill p. 194, 1 point of view that Thales and the rest Hense) 2oOK\i5s 'AXeir^. '\pvxy...evpe(o-weTot rives Kal vofi.o6iTi.Koi Diog. L . I. rls.' The extract is not in S. 40) were called troipio-Tal (Hdt. 1. 29)— 'A loving heart and an honest purpose 'Wise Men' rather than 'wise men.' will learn the truth sooner than any adept.' With the present passage cf. Eur. fr. 905 Ellendt thinks that ira.vr6s is neuter and /uUSTOV Trails. Theby Menand. fr. 472, 7 HI 135 K. rp6iros rhythm is the same as in El. 76.—ur£ir
which L. and S. have adopted without sufficient restriction, must be understood to apply to trained intellect as distinguished from natural ability. At an early stage of civilization the attainment of a high degree of such general culture as the times admit wears the aspect of a specialized branch of learning: it is from this

ivdu/j.rifj.ao'L Kai TrepihSots apTippoirov ^ x e t

TIGTIV, Demosth. 10, Stob. flor. 37. 34. It may be added that the parliamentary influence ascribed to the late Duke of Devonshire was of a similar character. eiipe-ris. The accentuation is disputed: see Chandler, § 38, who decides in favour of evpins because of the ace. evpiTiv in Diod. 1. 25.

102

Xoya) Se iroXXa TrpdcrKeirai aocfxx. 1O2

« TOWO. SM : Kal TroMct A

1O2 Stob. fior. 35. 4 (ill p. 688, 8 permanent qualities. The nearest parallel Hense) 2o0o/cX?js 'AXeW-Q (so MA. S in Soph, is Ant. 1243 TT)V afiovkiav | firif y.£yiGrov dvSpl wpdvKeirai KaKov. Cf. Eur. omits the name of the play). '/Spax«... Hipp. 970 rb 8' iLptrev avroiis u0eXcf
veiv \6yovs, and Polonius' ' Since brevity is the soul of wit' (Haml. ii. 2. 90).

wpocrKeifj.ei'ov, Rhes. 266 ri TT6XX} aypurrats tjKaia wpboKeirai
not noticed in L. and S. (H.) iroX\d...a; as TTOXXA KOXA. (fr. 81), iroXXd
200KAE0YI

64

103 dvrjp ydp ocrrt? ijSerat Xeycov del, \e\rj0ev

OLVTOV TOIS ^VVOVCTLV aiv /S 1O3.

1 yap S M : S' A I \4yeiv

1 O 3 S t o b . y?w. 36. 16 ( i n p . 694, 6 Hense) 2o0o/cXijs 'AXeirg, 'dv%>.../3apiJs.' 1 See cr. n. Although S<: is constantly corrupted to yap, t h e converse case rarely occurs: see Porson on E u r . Med. 1083 (1087). 2 )U\T|8€V airov...WV. I n this idiom the partic. is always n o m . , never a c e . : contrast %ii>oida tfiavrtf, after which either the n o m . or d a t . participle is legitimate,

S

and see Kuehner-Gerth 11 50.—pp tiresome. S o E u r . Suppl. 894 ovd' el-epiffTqs T&V \bywv7 b'Bev fiapvs fidXiGT* av etr/ &I)/I6T7IS re KO.1 %£VOS, P l a t .

Theaet.

210 C £av TE Kevbs 5S> iJiTOK l
H. rendered:—'The man that will be talking still forgets | That he is tedious to his company.'

IO4 akX' einep ei yevvalos, v

1O4.

OTOV r

a><; avros Xeyeis,

el yjairodzv

TO yo,p

2 ei birbdev S M A , el %' imbBev B , el nal irbBiv Gesner

1O4 Stob. flor. 88. n (iv p. 722, 1 Hense) Xo<poK\ijs 'A\elrrj. 'a\\'...\670s.' ' If you really a r e noble, as you say, declare your parentage a n d your h o m e : for good birth will not be shamed in t h e telling.' There can be n o reason for a noble t o conceal his identity,—rather t h e c o n t r a r y : cf. Arist. fr. 91 Rose eiyevetas /j,iv ow
T h o m p s o n o n Plato Meno, p . 258 ff. H e shows that si modo (fr. 86 n . ) is t h e principal, but not t h e only meaning, a n d that there a r e many instances in which (as here) etirep assumes the truth of t h e supposition it introduces. F o r the present passage cf. Ai. 547 e&rep Sixalus far' ifibs Ta TtarrpbBiV, Plat. Lach. 197 c T\fu yap by, Kal Aa/j.axbv ye, elirep (
f.

OTOV T' d

XWTOOCV:

the

usual

questions p u t t o a stranger after H o r n , a 170. Cf. Phil. 56, E u r . Hel. 8 3 , Phoen. 123, El.

J79, Ion

258.—KaXus IT«|>VK6S:

cf. El. 989 ?ijv ala\pbv irevKb
aiaxpws rofs KaXus

AAHTHZ 105 dXX' dfi'cos TjXeyfas ovS' rfiu p yivos yap eis eXey^ov i£ibv KOLXOV evKXetav av KTTJCTCUTO fiaXXov rj xjjoyov'. 1O5. 1 ^Xeyfas Bergk: Z\e£as codd. | ovS' T)[UV Hartung: ovde (ovdiv A) SMA, otiS' ^uoi Porson, otiSe ^v Brunck, ovd' ayav Blaydes 1O5 Stob. flor. 89. 8 (iv p. 728, i test,' as in Phil. 98 vvv 8' els ?\eyxov Hense) 2O0OKAJ}S 'AXeiTij. ' dXV... \j/oyov.' i^nbv opu KTL And in Eur. Her. 73 It has been often remarked that these ot 5' els ZXeyxov dWos dWodev ir'iTvuiv is verses appear to be a reply to the previous 'one after another questioning me.' Cf. fragment. This consideration recomPhilem. fr. 93, 3, 11 507 K. The object mends the substitution of ij\ey£as for to be tested, if expressed, is put in the ?Xe|asinv. 1 ('thy questions are justified'): genitive : 0. C. 1297 OOT' US aeyxoj' the change is a small one, and the imXetpds ovi' (pyov no\ often neglected by recent critics.—Hartung is 'to lay bare another's weakness,' occurs entitled to the credit of oi8' Tjpuf (see cr. n.), in a similar context: Eur. El. 35 (•riiuv) which was independently suggested by TTdT^pwv fji^f 'MvKTjvalcvv CLTTO j yey&oiv Xauck. Tucker proposed oiSiv i/j.inKp£>i>, ov dr} TOVTO y' 4£e\^yxo^ou, where see but this is less good, apart from the Keene's note.—KaXov, which is used as novelty of the form. e.g. in Eur. Hipp. 634 KT]Seicas xaXois yafAppoiffL x&Lpw crwferat irucpov X^x°s, 2 ds SXryxov !£iov, 'when it comes must be joined with 7^POS. Blaydes's to meet the test' : Eur. Ale. 640 Keijas conjecture X67WM is unnecessary. Hense tis l\eyxov i%e\dwv §s el, Plat. Phaedr. 278 C ets £\eyxov LWV wtpl wv Pypatpe. So thinks that Ka\6v was substituted by the in Eur. Hipp. 1310 ets f:\eyxov Tretjclv is anthologist for TO adv. ' to be discovered.' But the phrase may 3 KTii
106 rts av TTOT oX/3ov ov /xeyav Otirj fip r/ afXiKpov

ov yap

7} TCOV jjL'qZafj.ov Ti\i(a\x.ivu>v ;

TTOT avrSiv ovSev iv

i

1O6. 1 a.v Meineke: 8-q codd. | ov scripsi: rj codd. | pporwv A: /3poro0 SM 2 7) TWV...TifUiififrw Cobet: f) rbv.. .Tifidfievov codd., ifroi..,TiiJ.uiixtvov Heath permanent good, nor, again, as something 1O6 Stob. flor. 105. 42 (IV p. 940, 2 Hense) ~Zo<poK\iovs 'AX«TJ)S ('AXefr-r;! so transitory as to be trifling ; nor, lastly, can we leave it altogether out of account.' om. S). 'Tis...ix£vti.' Such was also substantially the view of J., who retained i) in v. 1 and accepted Gomperz {Bruchstiicke, p. 12), but I am fj.iy' av, a proposal of Cobet, for /xiyav unable to accept it. For, if prosperity is interpreted as follows: ' Who would neither great nor small nor of no account, count the prosperity of men as a great how are we to regard it? And in what thing, or as a trifle, or as a thing to be way does the instability of human affairs utterly despised? For good and bad establish this negative result? H. was fortune are continually succeeding each thoroughly dissatisfied with the text, and other. We can never regard it as a P.

66

ZO^OKAEOYI

suggested tentatively in the second line

ing the predicate J. quotes Plat. rep.

i) aiuKpbv; fjv TUV KT£., or (trrw.. .rifui- 424 C ifii...8h TGIV weireuTiihuiv, ib. 437 B fievov, or fj TWV .. .nnufitvwv; TrdvTa TO. TotauTa. T&V ivavriiiiv d\\ij\ois Selijs (&>>)•—|jn]So|i.oS is not ' nowhere Blaydes makes several guesses, none of which has any probability. I believe honoured,' but a genitive of price : ' held that Cobet's attractive /x£y' av has led to a in no esteem,' ' valued at nil.' Ff. quotes Eur. fr. 360, 49 IlaMos 8' ovSa/iov n^i]darkening of counsel, and that what aerai, O. T. 908 o{iSa/j.ov Tifials 'AvoWiav Sophocles really affirmed was that great 4/j.<pav7is, Aesch. Euni. 627 /M^T/J^S nijda.fi.oQ prosperity is of little or no account benfiis vipeiv, Menand. fr. 405 i n 118 K. cause of its instability. This meaning is •rijs fieplSos av TTJS oiSa/j.ov rerayiiivqs. So obtained by substituting ov for the first ij with Meineke's av for 5?; and Cobet's oi8a.fi.oO \4yeiv (Ant. 184), co/iifetc (Aesch. alteration in v. 2. The sentiment is then Pers. 498, Eum. 426, Ar. Nub. 1421). See also on Eur. Phoen. 1464 0i8a.iJ.0v exactly the same as that of fr. 593 01} xpt VIKI\ iri\oi.—In regard to Heath's fjrot J. ITOT' dvdp&irwv fiiyav 6\(3ov &TO- | jSX^cu • ravv(p\olov yap lo-afi^pios | <0t5\- observes that ij...ijroL is not found in \OLGIV :> alyelpov fiiorav d7ro/3a\\et. Cf. tragedy (Lobeck on Ai. 177), though it fr. 646, [Isocr.] 1. 42 vofufe fj.r)8iv chat TWV occurs in Horn, r 599, Pind. Nem. 6. y dvdpwjrcvwv (H^fiaiov' oftrw yap oijr evrvx&v4f. On the other hand iJToi...1) is not uncommon: e.g. Ant. 1182, Track. 150. H
107 Seuvov ye row? /xeu Sucrcre/Sei? KOLKOJV CLTTO fSkaaTovra<; elra rovcrSe [xev irpdcrcreLv /caXo)?, 1O7. 1 StivSv ye Gesner: Savin S, Sewbv 2 /SXacrrwcras M Bergk r' inseruit 1O7 Stob. flor. 106. 11 (iv p. 951, 12 Hense) 2o0o/cX^oi;s 'AXelrrji. ' Seivbv... yey&s.' It has been conjectured by F. W. Schmidt that this fragment has been wrongly attributed to Sophocles, and that it really belongs to Euripides. The moralizing tone is certainly suggestive of the latter, but the thought itself was a

MA, Setviv 8& B | post Kaxwv

commonplace, and might as well have proceeded from Sophocles as from Euripides. Theognis had dwelt at length on the injustice of the divine government: see vv. 373—386, 731—752- Cf. Eur. fr. 293. There is nothing in the language which points decisively one way or the other, and the indications, such as they are, are perhaps slightly in favour of

AAHTHI o OVTCLS icrdXovs e/c re yevvaucov afia yeywras etra 8vcrTv%el<; vev iript TOW;

i X TOVS

Ti

^

) / 3 l

KepSos ifjL(f>aves deatv irdpa,

8' ovras dSt/cous rcucrSe TT)V evavriav

hiK-qv KaKtov

/couSets a^

TifJuOipov ifju(f>avrj TCVCLW

OVTOIS

T^urv^ei Ka/cos yeya>s.

10

5 XP'?1' S: %p5 M, xpTl A 6 Tdff
evaefieis /cd£ evtre[3u>v fiXaarbyras, but it is

unnecessary to introduce it.—TO«o-8e resumes rovs pev with a certain rhetorical impressiveness. Cf. Track. 819 r-qv 8e repipty r\v \ rthfj.^} dldctxrt irarpi, rrjvS' auri]

X(i/3oi and Tr. fr. adesp. 78. The examples with viv and airots (O. T. 248, 270, Track. 287) are less emphatic. See also n. on Eur. Phoen. 498, Kuehner-Gerth 1 voo-T-qo-ei vaXiv. Sometimes the effect of 660, Maetzner on Lycurg. 27. ye is to throw a stronger emphasis on the 3 ofia is suspected by Nauck, but I adjective than in the instances just cited : can see no more objection to it here than see Jebb on Phil. 1225.—The addition e.g. in Ai. 1008 abs Trarijp i/ibs d' a/ia.— of T' (see cr. n.) after KaK&v has met with 4K is used indifferently with atro in v. 1. general approval, but I believe it can be For the ordinary distinction see Jebb on shown to be unnecessary, if not actually Ant. 192. harmful. Presumably those who accept 6 irpdcnreiv (see cr. n.) is used of T' regard Svaae^ets and KUKUV diro /3Xair- divine action in El. 200 etr' oSv 6ebs rbvras as co-ordinate, and the whole phrase eire j3porwv y\v 6 ravra irpdo'o'oiv and in as controlled by the articular rovs. But Track. 1267 fj-eydXijf de deois dyvm^.oa6vy)v the consequence, though this has not been eldbres Zpytjov r&v irpaffo~o//.e'i>pov. The adj. is apiffreoiv bvolvfi\a.o"rihp,i.e. 'born as the generally applied to persons, but is an impious children of wicked parents.' Of epithet of SlK-q in Eur. El. 676 56s Srjra course even so the connective particle irarpbs roio~de rtfj.uipby O"LK7]V, as well as in might have been used, as in El. 590 Plat. legg. 716 A, 872 E. p . 188 a n d cf. El. 341 dewiv ye vs | Keivov \e\f/(r()cu, Ar. Av. Ii6ty SeLvbv ye TQV KTjpvKa rbv Trapa rovs fiporovs j oixbfJ-efov el fMjdeirore

S—2

68

IO0OKAEOYZ

AAKMEQN

There is no doubt that the correct form of the name in classical times was 'AXK^etov rather than 'AXx/Malmv, as can be proved from the inscriptions both on stone and on vases: see the evidence quoted by Meisterhans3 p. 35. Alcmaeon was one of the stock heroes of tragedy (Arist. poet. 13. 1453a 20), and is represented as the typical madman: cf. Timocles fr. 6 (II 453 K.), 8 rovs yap rpayuSoiit; irpwrov, el /3ov\ei, cTKoirei I &>5 axfaeXovcri iravras.. .0 voaoiv Sefiaviicws 'AXiefiecov'

icnceyfraTo. There are two considerations which enable us to narrow the enquiry relating to the contents of the plot: (1) the fact that Sophocles also wrote plays1 entitled 'EiTruyovoi and 'Epi^t/X??; (2) fr. 108 shows that Alcmaeon had not yet recovered his reason. We may safely infer that the events on which the play is based were subsequent to the death of Eriphyle, while her son was still pursued by the Erinyes of his mother, and before he was finally released from suffering. Welcker (p. 279), who with high probability refers fr. 880 to the prologue of this play, builds on it a reconstructed plot with greater confidence than the facts warrant. Nevertheless, if we examine the legends with which Alcmaeon is connected, and exclude for the reason already given his revenge on his mother for his father's death, and his share in the expedition of the Epigoni, as well as the Corinthian episode dramatized by Euripides in his 'A\icfiea>v BLO. KopivOov (TGF p. 379) as being entirely disconnected from the healing of the hero's madness, we are forced to conclude that Sophocles must have utilized either the adventures at Psophis or those in Acarnania2. If we admit the relevance of fr. 880, only one answer is possible; but, even apart from that, there can be but little doubt as to the higher dramatic value of the Psophisstory, which Euripides also treated. It is conjectured but not proved that it was contained in the epic Thebais, or rather in the Epigoni, which is now regarded not so much as a separate poem as a subdivision of the Thebais (Bethe, Theb. Heldenlieder, p. 137). Our principal sources of information are Pausan. 8. 24. 8 ff. and Apollod. 3. 87 ff.3. From them we learn that 1 Or a play entitled Epigoni containing the story of Eriphyle: see Introd. to Epigoni, p. 129. 2 So also Ribbeck, Rom. Trag. p. 501, for similar reasons. 3 Ovid {Met. 9. 409 ff.) refers briefly to the story, as if the details were familiar: attonitusque malis, exul mentisque domusque, \ vultibus Eumenidum matrisque

AAKMEQN

69

Alcmaeon, pursued by the avenging spirit of his mother, came to Psophis in Arcadia, where Phegeus the king purified him and gave him his daughter Alphesiboea (Arsinoe, according to Apollod.) to wife. Alcmaeon gave to her the famous necklace and robe of Harmonia. His madness, however, was not allayed, and Alcmaeon was commanded by the Delphic oracle to settle in a new land which had been left dry by the sea since the pollution of the murder. Accordingly he went to the delta of the Achelous, where new land was continually being formed by the silting of the river; and there he settled and married Callirrhoe, the daughter of the river-god. But his new wife sighed for the necklace and would not be comforted, until Alcmaeon promised to return to Psophis and fetch it for her. Arriving at Psophis, he pretended to Phegeus that the oracle required the dedication of the necklace at Delphi as a condition of his release from the madness1 ; Phegeus believed the story and handed it over. One of Alcmaeon's attendants, however, betrayed the secret about Callirrhoe, with the result that he was waylaid and killed by the sons of Phegeus at their father's bidding. To Propertius (1. 15. 15) we owe a dramatic touch which does not appear in the other authorities,—although Apollodorus gives a hint of Arsinoe's disagreement with her brothers : Alphesiboea suos ulta estpro coniuge fratres, \ sanguinis

et cari vincula rupit amor*. Perhaps then, as Welcker suggests, Alcmaeon was given a more creditable role than is indicated by the account of Apollodorus. It may be added that fr. 108 exactly fits the situation, if we suppose it spoken by Phegeus or Alphesiboea in answer to Alcmaeon's request for the necklace, when he alleged that it was required for the god. If the right view has been taken above, it is clear that Valckenaer (Diatr. p. 150) was wrong in referring Tr. fr. adesp. 358 to this play. If written by Sophocles at all, the verses belong rather to the Epigoni, as Ribbeck (p. 495) thought3. agitabitur umbris, \ donee mm coniunx fatale poposcerit aurum, \ cognatumque latus Phegeins hauserit ensis. He goes on to describe the prayer of Callirrhoe that her sons might be immediately brought to manhood, in order to avenge their father's murder. The sequel is related by Apollodorus, but is hardly relevant to the play of Sophocles. 1 Cf. Athen. 232 F, where the oracle is given. 2 The other authorities, as we have seen, make Callirrhoe the avenger of Alcmaeon's death. Unfortunately little or nothing is known of the Alcmaeon and Alphesiboea of Accius. Nevertheless, Welcker and Ahrens have endeavoured to reconstruct the plot of Sophocles from his fragments, concluding (e.g.) from Alphes. fr. IX sed angustate inclusam ac saxis, squalidam that Alphesiboea was imprisoned by her brothers in order to prevent her from avenging Alcmaeon's death. 3 Inf. p. 131.

I0*0KAE0Y2: 108 d' ev fypovrjcravT eicriSoi/^t TTOJS ere. 1O8 Porphyr. qu. Horn, i TO 5e (xew rryilpovi\aa.vT^ ( = orav ev 'A\K/iai(iivi. 'etd'...ae.' Eustath. Od. p. 1448, 6 6n)/3oXos 5£ oi TTOLTITIKT] (i.e.pov/i brain.' T h e reading has been much pevS>v. Sophocles may have taken this canvassed, and Campbell condemns the touch from Herodotus: see 3. 25 ofa Se ' unmeaning tautology' of the text. Thus Cobet ejected eS cfipovriaavT' as a gloss, efi/iav/is TC euv Kal oi ippev/ipTis, 35 irapa(ppove'eiv Kal oiK eXvat voijfiova. See also Ribbeck corrected it to eirvx^o-avr'', F. W. Schmidt to oi (ppov/jiravT', Wecklein to on fr. 28, Jebb on 0- T. 58. For the word ^7n}/3oXos see Jebb on Ant. 1. c. and ap€v»v KaXiov cf. Eur. fr. 548 rl rrji evfj^optpias | o
109 CUVft) 1 0 9 Hesych. I p. 81 cuVur trapirjfu, Trapairovfiat. Kal iiraLvw. 2o0o/c\i5s 'A\Kfj.atuvi (corrected by M. Schmidt for cod. aK/xaloiPi)• Bekk. anecd. p . 358, 28 and Suid. alvCo- TrapaiTOvitai. SO^OKX^S. Kal iiraivGi. Suid. adds to this Kal alvd ae. Phot. ed. Reitz. p . 55, 5 cuVw" irapaiTod/xai Kal €irai.v£>. SO^OKXTJS. It is more usual to find iiratvw in the sense ofa polite refusal: Ar. Ran. 508 KCIXXKTT',

4iraivQ>, which is equivalent to the Latin benevocas: tarngratiast'(Plaut. Men. 387). In Phil. 889 aivS> T&S', U Trai, Kal /J.' e'nraip'1 uxnrep voeh, as may be the case with our ' thank you,' the words accompany an assent. On that passage Jebb refers to Hes. Op. 643 (quoted on fr. 28), which the scholl. explain by irapaireiirffai, as does Plut. poet. aud. 6 p . 22 F.

110

apaCas 11O Hesych. I p . 269 apalaf /3Xafiepds. 2o(poK\i)s 'AXKfxalwvi (so Musurus for dX/c/iai cod.). Cf. Etym. M. p . 134, 14

irapa. TO

Upeos, pha-rrnKov OVTOS, dpi. r/ ^XajSiJ- Kal apaia piaia, Seivd, xaXejrd, dSwr/pd. dpatos, meaning fraught -with a curse, has a double aspect like irpoo-rpdvatos (see my ed. of Eur. Heraclidae, p. 148),

AAKMEQN—AMYKOZ aXao-Toip, iraXa/ivahs. F o r the meaning dangerous, i.e. bringing a curse upon others, cf. 0. T. 1291 /xev&v 56/J.OIS apaios, Track. 1202 Kal vtpQtv av dpalos eiaael /lapis, Aesch. Ag. -24J 6byyov dpaiov ofoois, Eur. / . T. 778 r) trofs apala Sdfia-q
71

Sal/iooiv ppoTuv yiros, Med. 608 Kal ao7s ipaia 7 ' oucra Tvyxdva Sb/wts. See also on fr. 399. The sinner and his victim are both dpatoi as implicated in dpd, and possible sources of pollution: the so-called ' active' and ' passive ' senses of the adj. have a common starting-point.

AMYKOI IATYPIKOI

This play related to an incident which happened on the outward voyage of the Argonauts and is recounted among the feats of Polydeuces. Amycus, the inhospitable king of the Bebrycians in Bithynia, used to forbid all strangers to land on his coast and fetch water for their ships, until they had fought a boxing-match with him. Hitherto he had always killed his opponents, but when the Argonauts arrived he met his conqueror in Polydeuces (Apollod. 1. 119, Hygin. fab. 17). The boxingmatch is described by Apoll. Rhod. 2. 1—97 and Theocr. 22. 27—134. Whether these writers took any hints from Sophocles it is impossible to say, but one point in which they differ is deserving of notice. According to Apollonius, with whom most of the other authorities agree, Amycus was killed by Polydeuces ; but Theocritus (131 ff.) represents Polydeuces as sparing his life, and merely requiring him to swear an oath by his father Poseidon never to maltreat strangers in the future. Similarly, according to schol. Ap. Rhod. 2. 98, both Epicharmus (fr. 7 K.) and Periander stated that he was put in chains. Such an ending was more suitable to a satyr-play. We may conjecture that the satyrs were his slaves, and were liberated after the defeat of their master1. Ill

yepavoi,, -^eKcovat, yXav/ces,

IKTIVOL,

Xayoi

1 1 1 Athen.40015 TTJ 5e 7ov \aybv eviKy \tyovai de Kal 'ATTLKOI \dyos, ws 2o0o/c\^s* aiTiaTLKrj a.Kb\ovdbs IGTIV i} irapd 1io<poK\erL 'ytpavot, Kopwvai, yXavnes, IKTIVOL, \ayoi.' Iv 'AjxijKi^ (TaTvpt-KC^Tr'XtjdvvTiK^ dvofJ.affTLK'ii' Gramm. Herm. p. 320 = Cramer anecd. ' y4pai>oi...\ayoi' ...(c) ovrus (sc. \ayos) d' Par. IV p . 245, 24 TO jxkv "hay 6s... evprjTcu eXprjaaTo T$ ovopari Kal 'Ewixap/J.os (fr. 60 irapa So^o/cXei • y\avKes, LKTIVOI. (IKTIS Kaibel) Kal 'Hp65oros Kal 6 TOUS Ei'Xwras Kal anecd. Par.), \ayoL' Eustath. Od. Tronfa-as. elra IGTI TO iitv 'laKov Ac^os p. 1534, 15 quotes from Athenaeus, giving (Amipsiasfr. 181 675 K.) - ' \ay6v rapd^as as from Sophocles the words 'yAavKes, TTISL TOP &a\d
See Introductory Note to the Ichneutae.

Whether KopCivai in the second quotation of Athenaeus is a mistake for x^fipas, o r vice versa, and in what connexion this strange list was cited, it does not seem possible to determine. XcvyoC is the plural of the Ionic \ay6s, answering to the Attic \ayibs. The fact that it appeared in tragedy does not, of course, justify its use in ordinary Attic

(Rutherford, New Phryn. p. 273). Phrynichus says: \ay
Brtpevral.

Meineke thought that Sophocles must have written \ayip.

112

criayovas re Br) [j,ak6aKas TidrjcrL 1 1 2 A t h e n . 94 E cnaydvos Sc Kpartvos...tcal SO^OKXIJS 'A/j.6tc(p ' L (naydvas...

clearly describe the punishment inflicted by one pugilist upon another. H. quotes Herond. 8. 8 ^XP1 ff€v 7rttpa(rra(ra [ rb

Tidtjai..' Porson proposed to make an iambic trimeter by placing S17 after TWT\GI ; /Sp^y/ia T fii) iroi^irw iriirova /juurTiy&v o\ov, \ av /ITJ jroiijffu meaning occurs in Track. 460, Phil. 1065, Giroyyius tioXcLKibrepov \ TO irpbatanov. and elsewhere (Eur. Hel. 134 n.). Mekler Plaut. Aul. 422 ita fustibus sum mollior thought that the metre might be trochaic magis quam ullus cinaedus. Add Plaut. tetrameter. Blaydes preferred the order Mil. 1424 mitts sum equidem fustibus, TiOrjat fm\$a.K&s, with cov for 5iJ. H., however, suggests that naXOaicas riffr/in is Ter. Eun. 1028 utiriam tibi commitigari videam sandalio caput. So perhaps an ithyphallic following a trimeter, as in &l in Ar. Eq. 389. Aesch. Prom. 610 yeyvfivdicaffiv, 01)6" #xa ftadeTv 6TTTJ [ Tnjp.ovas dXi^^oj.

T h e words

AM4HAPEQI ZATYPIKOI Tragedies bearing the title Amphiaraus were composed by Carcinus (TGF p. 797) and Cleophon (Suid.), as well as comedies by Aristophanes, Plato, Apollodorus of Carystus, and Philippides (Kock I 396, 604, III 280, 302). It is difficult to guess which part of Amphiaraus' story was suitable for a satyr-play. A suggestion has been made in the note on fr. 113, but there is no other evidence to confirm or rebut it, and the words of the fragment itself are exceptionally obscure. An alternative subject, which has perhaps more claim to consideration on general grounds, would be the part taken by Amphiaraus in the events which led to the founding of the Nemean games. In that case the plot would cover the same ground as the Nemea of Aeschylus (TGF p. 49) and the Hypsipyle of Euripides {Ox. Pap. VI p. 21 ff.). The story of the death of the child Opheltes or Archemorus, in whose honour the games were founded, is told practically in the same form by Apollod. 3. 64—66 and Hygin. fab. 74. The locality, a remote fountain guarded by a dragon, was especially suitable to a satyrplay ; and the subject was clearly capable of lighter handling than the fortunes of Amphiaraus at Argos or at Thebes.

AMYKOZ—AM<J>IAPEQI

73

6 TnvoTi]pr)s rou uSe 113 113

cod. : corr. Dindorf |

Schol. V Ar. Vcsp. 1510 iriepo-

Meineke: x°P°"

allusion relevant. Ellendt, who is followed by Campbell (keeping x°P°")i absurdly supposes that a number of 2O0OK\T?S 'AfKptapdtfi '6 irivvoT'ripys.. .xopou.' parreis appeared in the play, and that The fabulous story of the TRHJTIJPIJS is the shortest of them by a ridiculous several times referred to, but not always comparison was called TnvvoTr/pris. So L. and S. interpret a little parasitical told in the same way. According to Plut. desoll. an. 30 p. 980 A it caused Chrysip- fellow. But there is not the slightest reason to suppose that Aristophanes was pus to waste a great deal of ink,—because it provided him with an excellent illustra- parodying Sophocles, although, when the comic poet says of the sons of Carcinus tion of irphvoia. His account is preserved (the Crab) ' here's the TrtvoTrfpris of the by Athen. 89 D (n 729 a Am.), quoted from the 5th book of the treatise irepl TOV family,' it is not difficult to infer that the 'baby-crab' is meant. There was Ka\ou Kal T?)S rjSoyyjs: i) Tivvrj, Ol'y 7] 5k 5T)X~ is known to us, which might possibly de?(ra av/x^Oet • Kal OVTWS TO dTo\yj(pdcv account for it, and would at the same ivSov KareaBiovai Kowfi. C i c . n. d. 1. 1 2 3 no doubt comes ultimately from Chry- time be suitable for treatment in a satyrsippus; and there are other authorities play, is the incident related by Hygin. to ihe same effect. But in dc.fin. 3. 63 fab. 73 (cf. Serv. on Verg. Aen. 6. 445, at ilia, quae in conchapatulapina dicitur, Myth. Vat. 1 152), how that Amphiaraus, isque, qui enat e concha, qui, quod earn knowing that he would perish at Thebes, custodit, phioteres vocatur, in eandemque concealed himself from Adrastus and the rest with the connivance of Eriphyle, and cum se recepit, includitur, lit videatur momcisse, ut caveret...aliorum etiam was subsequently discovered in consecausa quaedam faciunt', the pea-crab does quence of the treachery of his wife, who was bribed by her brother with a golden not assist the bivalve to obtain nourishment, but warns it against approaching necklace. According to Stat. Theb. 3. 570 ff. (cf. 606, 619), Amphiaraus hid danger; and this is the version given in a letter to Linnaeus, quoted by Mayor himself in his house, and refused to tell (on n. d. I.e.) from the English Cyclo- the result of his divination. May we suppaedia, which is of particular interest as pose that in such circumstances the satyrshowing that in the middle of the 18th chorus was posted outside in order to give timely warning to the seer of the century the Levantine Greeks continued to regale strangers with the same fable approach of danger? Welcker (Nachtr. p. 318) also conjectured on the strength to which their ancestors had given curof this fragment that the satyrs were taken rency more than 2000 years before. by Amphiaraus into his service as attenModern science recognizes the fact that the pea-crab habitually resides in the dants in the rites of divination. Bergk thought that a crowd following at the shell of the pinna, but does not counheels of the seer was meant, and that tenance the rest of the story. It remains Tiresias was the seer in question. to ascertain how Sophocles made the T7ipyjs...KapKivt6v TI £(TTI. G6VVO[LOV KOX del

Taijrri TrptHTexinevov (TpoaSex^^"0"

cod.).

IO<*>OKAEOYI

74

114 d' OVT€ Tre'Weis 01 aypavXos adopts ire\X7)s oibs, leaving the other 1 1 4 Cramer anecd. Oxon. I p. 344, 8 poros, for which irdKioio • OVK dyvoov/xev TTJV dupi-firi ypafiyv words untouched. Cramer substituted porr/p, is anyhow ' ire\iolo.'...ire\i.od odv irapa T6 TreXXw (ireWSsSchneidewin)* l i-vd* ...fibTOs.' 2o- corrupt. Schneidewin preferred ifSvfra. ireWris ptvbv dypaOXov poos, which Din
"5 er' av...ojp > evaiv 115

iradbvTa yvGivai., is referring to Horn. 1 1 5 Schol. Plat. Symp. 222 B 6 aX(ei)s Tr\iiyeh vovv cptiau. (past yap oXi^a 117P 32 pexSiv Si re vr/wios iyvw or Hes. Kio-Tpeiopra, iireibhv awi-a-r) Tip \lvui TOV Op. 216 iraduv Si re viiirtos %yvw. See IXS^V, TT) %upl irpotrayayovTa Karix^v, also schol. Aristid. Ill 681 Dind. Cf. 'iva. ixr\ elrre) ' Tr\rjyeis vovv povetv vtrb privet. irpoadyetv 4% iKelvov TT)V ^efpa. K£xPVTaL Of the attempts which have been made Trj Trapoiniy So0o/tX^s if Kn irXi;7e(S < (ppovciv • \ rip-irupla yap T&V evajv 5t5d(7KaXos. Here the seMilanges de litt. gr. p. 371) aXieus TTXT;cond line at any rate fits admirably with 7ei? vovv o'tau (an
ayutcrai 1 1 6 Hesych. 1 p. 26 ayviaai. {ayvijo-ai sacrifice of a victim. The best parallel cod.)' dwoBdaai. 'BovalpiSi. (i.e. Eur. is Eur. I. T. 705 d/X(pl pa/xbv ayvia-ffeis fr. 314). Kal Siatpdelpai. 2,o<poK\i)s if ipovqi, of Orestes supposed to be sacrificed 3 A[j.
AM4>IAPEQI

75

117 117

Hesych. 1 p. u

uepfwv CK&rafffxa.

7

dXefaidpiov •

Xo<poK\TJs 'Afifiiapdu).

The word was doubtless modelled on the Homeric dXe£di/e/ios: see on fr. 1112 Xewd/iwa. The latter part of the compound suggests the cold of a clear frosty

night: cf. fr. 149, 3 vdyov ipavivTos aidpiov, Ant. 358 dvaaijXojv Trdyoiv evaidpeia ...@4\r], Aesch. Ag. 347 TCIV ijTatQpiwv

irdyoiv. Blaydes needlessly conjectured

rpacria 1 1 8 Zonar. lex. p . 1742 Tpa.tsia.i- 6 T67TOS tvda. TO. avKa. ^ripaiverai, irapa TO reptraivew TO %-qpaiveiv. 6 di 2O0OKX^S (V T<£ craTvpiKy (ertpy cod.) 'An
quoted who used the word lox&threshingJloor. The name is suitable, as a dry spot exposed to the wind was selected for threshing : see the commentators on Verg. Georg. 1. 178. Tpa.ai6.vs, particularly aptract occurs in schol. Ael. nat. an. 3. 10 plied to the drying of figs. Aelian I.e. with the variants rpairid (which is right) relates of the hedgehog : eavrbv 4v ra?s 7rapct TOV Tpaffatpsiv for wapa T6 TepaaipeLvyTpaffiaxs KV\UI KO.1 T&V iVxaSwy rets irepiand the omission of TI$
119

(f>povelv 1 1 9 Erotian testifies that 0poce?c was used by Sophocles in this play with the

sense of voetv : see fr. 91.

120

capaKLaarai 120 Schol. A r . Ran. 481 uipa.KLa.aai aliclfew. The former was the Alexandrian 5e XeyeTai TO OTTO (pdfiov (bxpi-S.ffa.L • &irb view, as we learn from the scholiast on

the Pax, who says that Eratosthenes, from Lycophron, held that ff\ij3ofi4vT]S TT)$ aapdias. TOVTO dt TTOXXOIS iipaKiav was not strictly the pallor, but yiyveTai. The word occurs twice in Aristhe antecedent dizziness arising from tophanes (Ran. 481, Pac. 702) in the sense faintness. Fritzsche thought that the of io faint away. Hence Moeris p. 214, scholiast attributed to Sophocles the form 21 wpaKiav 'Arrt/fws, \enro^vxeiv 'EWr/vi- wpafd^etv, which must have fallen out KUJS. The origin of this obscure word is before the explanation dirb TOU TT\V wpa.v unknown. The ancients gave two ex- aUifcLv. He supports his view by Etym. planations of it: (1) as a by-form of M. p. 823, 33 uipaKlfa, irapa. TO Ul^d tbxpiav; and (2) as derived from upav TT)V wpav. TOV TT\V Cjpav aitd&iv.

TOVTO d$ SO0OK"A^S

elirep iv 'A/A0tapdcfi o~o-TupiK(^.

TO (JXpt-aeaL dissenting

76

S04>0KAE0YI 121

TOL ypatniarra 7rapdyei. 121 Athen. 454 F, after quoting certain passages in which an illiterate person is introduced giving a description of the letters composing a particular word, and amongst them the wellknown fragment of Euripides (fr. 382), proceeds: ral 2O0OK\T;S Si roirif irapairX-qtnov tiroly/rev 4v 'A/j.tpiapd

yeiiofitvri rr/v &pxt)opd, axwa, d 5e?|is, and says of the second (p. 747 c ) : &Tai>...
AM*ITPYQN Euripides wrote an Alcmena, about which we have better information than has been preserved concerning the Amphitryon of Sophocles ; for scholars are agreed that the chief dramatic innovation introduced by Euripides was that Amphitryon punished Alcmena for her supposed unfaithfulness by burning her on a funeral-pyre, and that only the timely intervention of Zeus rescued her from destruction: see Nauck, TGF p. 386, Wilamowitz, Eur. Herakl? I p. 54. Wernicke (in PaulyWissowa I 1573) infers that Sophocles followed the earlier version recorded by Apollod. 2. 61, according to which the deception practised by Zeus and his intercourse with Alcmena were made known to Amphitryon through the agency of Tiresias. The old guess that the Amphitryon was a satyr-play (Osann in Rh. Mfis. II 312) has nothing in its favour, unless indeed Porson's view of fr. 1127 is adopted. Accius wrote an Amphitryon, which is thought to have been adapted from Sophocles, principally because the only other tragedy so entitled was written by the Alexandrian Aeschylus {TGF p. 824). In any case, the plot may be taken to have covered the same ground as the wellknown travesty of Plautus. Hartung and Schoell maintained that both Sophocles and Accius dramatized the story of Euripides' Heracles under this title, but their view was rightly rejected by Ribbeck (p. 557).

AM0IAPEQI—AMITPYQN

77

122

iirei Se /SXacrToi, T£>V Tptcov fxiav evcroiav 122

Schol. Soph. 0. C. 390 tiVo/as

Xafielv

make no difference, unless dpxei is taken

Xapiv] tv Toh dvayKaioripois TS>V avTito be a dynamic (prophetic) present. yp&<jit3jv ypd
suspecting that the words may refer to <palKpavov ical ira... apicei.' X
whenever it grows, it is enough that one of the three should be preserved.' The details of the story are variously recorded: Alcaeus (fr. 118) spoke of nine heads, Simonides (fr. 203) of fifty, and EuriII p . 233 e&roior eidifvia, aaT-qpla, The meaning of this fragment is ob- pides {Her. 1188) of a hundred ; and the scure. Welcker (p. 372) interpreted: later authorities have the same or similar 'when he is grown, to receive one of variations. Thus it would not be surthese three provides security.' He sup- prising to find that Sophocles mentioned an outcrop of three heads at a time, one poses that Zeus promised to Heracles of which always survived. And there is three safeguards to protect him amidst a further detail in the mythological handthe dangers of his life, one of which books which would help to explain the would be at any time sufficient to keep text. Besides the ordinary version that him unharmed; and compares the golden two heads grew for every one cut off, hair of Pterelaus, son of Taphius (ApolApollodorus (2. 77) relates that of the lod. 2. 51), and for the triplication of the nine heads eight were mortal, but the security the three prayers of Theseus. Hartung renders : ' it suffices to find one middle one was immortal (ras ixh OKTU of your three roads to safety,' but refrains Bvqrds, TI}V Se fj.4atjv dddvaTov) : see also id. 80, Pedias. 7. Similarly, Aristonicus from explaining his meaning further. Neither of these versions takes due ac- of Tarentum [FHG iv 337), a writer count of eird (3Xd
123

123

Hesych. I p . 165 dixrf>i.TipiJ.w<: •the evidence that has been adduced (see

dwo < re > Tep/xaTiafiifut.

ZO0OK\T;S 'Ap.-

(piTptjwvt.

Nauck thinks this form incredible, and that either d/x0""ep/u<5>'ws or d/x0tTepfiav is required. But to conclude that an adj. diKplrepixo*, 'hedged round,' is impossible would be rash in view of

Brugmann Comp. Gr. II p. 27 E. tr.) for the substitution in compounds of 0- stems for stems in « - : cf. labupavov, dK/ndOerov.

It should be added that the preceding gloss in Hesych. is d/j.fiiTtpfj.ov (-T^p^oov cod.)" d7ro < re > T€p/j,aTi
78

IO<1>OKAEOY5:

124 a.T[JL7)TOV 1 2 4 Hesych. I p. 315 drpav/idrKTrov SO0OK\^5 'AfuJHTpiwri.. &Tfj.rirov • aptpiGTOv. Inasmuch as drpav/idTidTov is entirely out of place in the alphabetical order, and has no explanatory gloss, the conclusion seems inevitable that &THT)TOV has dropped out before it, and that Sophocles used this word in the Amphitryon with the meaning invulnerable. This was practically the view of Salmasius, who arranged the words aT\ayrav •

dy.ipt.aTov, drpaviidTurrov. 2 . ' A . The gloss iiUpurror is probably a reference to Plat., Phaedr. 277 B. That drpavfiaTKJTOV was a possible word of explanation is shown by Etym. M. p. n o , 52 dvoirams' 6 dTpavudnaros. Nauck's suggestion that 2o. refers to a previous gloss dr^fflippav • oide/u&s ToXfiijs gvvoiav (xwv n a s very little probability. And that is actually an error for dTXij
[ANAPOMAXH] There is no other reference to a play of Sophocles bearing this title than that of fr. 125 quoted below. But, as there is independent evidence that Sophocles employed the word "7rapa
ANAPOMEAA

There is some direct evidence of the events comprised in the plot of the Andromeda. See Eratosth. Catasterism. 16 (Westermann, Mythogr. p. 250) Kacraieireia. ravrrjv laropel 'Zocjio/cXfjt; 6 T7j irpoiceiTai TW icr/rei •q Ovyd-TTjp otKet'w?. ia^rjfxdTccrTai Se iyyvs eVi Blcfipov Kadr]fj.evr).

ib. 36 KOTOS', TOVTO icrTiv o YiodeihSyv <e7r>eVe/u.iJre YLytyel Bid TO KacrcrteVetaj' iplaai irepl tcdWovs rat? Nijprjia-iv. tlepaevs S'

AM*ITPYQN—ANAPOMEAA

79

avro aveiXe, /cal Bia TOVTO et? rd aarpa iredr) vir6fiv7]fia TT}? 7r/3a£eo>? avrov. laropel Be ravra 2OC/>OKX»}? 0 ro>v TpayaSiwp

TroiTjTris ev rjj 'AvBpofieSa.

The same version is followed in two

passages of the scholia to the Aratea of Germanicus Caesar (p. 138. 9, 21 : see R. Ellis i n / . P. IV 267, and now E. Maass, Comment, in Aratitm, p. 443 Cassiepeia. de dixerimt tit gloriata sit inter sidera sedens in

pp. 215, 257). Hy'gin. poet, astron. 2. 10 hac Euripides et Sophocles et alii complures se forma Nereidas praestarc. pro quo facto seliquastro constitnta est. But the play

cannot be reconstructed to the same extent as is possible with the more famous Andromeda of Euripides. The plot of Euripides knows nothing of a previous betrothal to Agenor (or Phineus): Cepheus refuses the proposal of Perseus on other grounds, and his opposition is overcome by the appearance of Athena airo fjLT)%avr)<;. It has been suggested1 that Sophocles followed the version of the denouement adopted by Hygin. fab. 64, according to which Cepheus and Agenor lay in wait for Perseus in order to slay him, but Perseus by showing them the Gorgon's head turned them into stone. But it is difficult to understand how the name of Sophocles found its way into the astronomical handbook, if there was nothing in his play to support the statement that the chief characters in the story were turned into stars. It should be observed that although the story of Perseus and Andromeda is not old—at least there is no trace of it in literature before the fifth century—it was already current at the time of the Persian wars, if we may lay any weight upon the statement of Herodotus (7. 150) that Xerxes claimed kinship with the Argives, as the descendant of Perses, the son of Perseus and Andromeda. It is improbable that Phrynichus had introduced Andromeda into one of his plays, as Dobree inferred from Ar. Nub. 556. The reference there is to a comedy : see schol. R and Starkie's note. Brunck, following Casaubon, considered that Sophocles' Andromeda was a satyr-play; but his opinion was founded on no stronger reason than the evidence afforded by fr. 136. Ribbeck, who takes the same view {Rom. Trag. p. i6$l6g), thinks that fr. 127 has a comic tone and also refers to fr. 132 ; but his main reason is that Euripides' play would not have been regarded as a startling novelty—as it undoubtedly was—if Sophocles had already treated the subject in a serious manner. But the innovation of Euripides was rather in the romantic setting. E. Petersen2 endeavoured to reconstruct the Andromeda of 1

So Wernicke in Pauly-Wissowa I 2156. J. H. S. XXIV (1904) pp. 104—112. The identification had been made by earlier critics : see also E. Kuhnert in Roscher III 1994. 2

80

IOOKAEOYI

Sophocles from a hydria in the British Museum (E 169) which is undoubtedly earlier than 412 B.C., the date of Euripides' play, and is consequently inferred to have been influenced by Sophocles. The painting shows Perseus arriving on foot, whereas in the works of art which follow Euripides he descends from the air ; Cepheus weeping for his daughter's fate ; posts being fixed into the ground, to which Andromeda is to be lashed ; and funeral offerings carried by slaves, as if the king's daughter were already dead. But most stress is laid upon the figure of an effeminate oriental supported by two attendants, who is identified with Phineus1, the plighted lover of Andromeda. From these materials Petersen draws the inference that the characters of the cowardly barbarian who abandoned his betrothed, and of the heroic Greek who rescued her, were brought into strong contrast at an early stage of the action, and that the subsequent conflict between Perseus and the barbarians was due not to the opposition of Cepheus, but to the renewal of his claim by Phineus after the rescue of the heroine. Petersen further contends that Accius followed Sophocles in his Andromeda, whereas Ennius had as usual copied Euripides ; but even if he is right, the Latin fragments are too ambiguous to assist his general argument. The value of the archaeological evidence must be left for others to determine2; but the attempts by means of it to establish a connexion with Eur. Ale. 611 ff., and to interpret fr. 130 as referring to funeral vases, and fr. 133 as a description of Phineus yoked to his attendants cannot be approved. 126 8r)iuot)vTov Kovpeuov ypedrj TrdXet* rot? /8a/oy8apois yap iemv ap^rjdev VO/JLOS yejoas fiporeiov TW Kpova) OvrjiroXeiv. 126. 1 rj/uovrbv cod. : corr. Tucker | Koipeiov Musurus: Kdpwv codd. 2 sq. ordinem verborum in hunc modum disposui: i-ifyios yap iari. TOIS j3apfSdpois ByrjiroKeiv Pp6rewp apx?idtv yipos T£ Kpdvtp cod. 3 yipas Buttmann : ytpos cod. 126 Hesych. II p. 526 Kovplov. '£o<poK\ijs'AvSpoiA£d<}. ' Tyxiovrbv...~Kpbvi$.' 1 The best correction of the corrupt •flfuovTov is Tucker's dT)/u68vToi/ (C. R. XVII 190), which H. was inclined to

anticipated by M. Schmidt's lepiBvTov, Diels's akWvTov fi a n d Mekler's luaiBvTov. Less probable conjectures are alfioppvrov Scaliger, eviaiaiov O . H e n s e , T\JIXV 9VT6V Campbell (perhaps better 77 5' IKBVTOV),

prefer to his own Tifj.i}dvTov or TL/U66VTOV

T)UIV T6S'

(C. J?. XIV 11.5 n.).

that i<6piov could stand, which is most

Both were partly

1 So the name is given by Ovid him Agenor. Others consider that 2 See the contrary view taken conclusion is criticized unfavourably

OVV J.

On

the

assumption

and Apollodorus (2. 44): Hyginus {fab. 64) calls the figure represents Andromeda. by Engelmann in Arch. Jb. XIX 143; but his by Gruppe in Bursians Jahresb. c x x x v n 394.

ANAPOMEAA

81

improbable, Herwerden proposed aitf/uov first. Tucker, who regards apxhSev as ('culpa vacans ') TO Kdpiov.—For the Attic corrupt and thinks that the articles were Kovpciov, an offering made in connexion later additions, proposed: t>6/ios yap ian with the ceremony of introduction to the /3ap/3dpcHS dvyjiroXetv | <0i5os> fipdretov, phratries see Pollux 8. 107 Kal «'s TJk).ida.v aipedtv 7^/ms Kp6vip.—dpxtjSev : for the irpotKQbvTbjv ev TTJ KaXovfj.tv'y /coupecinSi history of this word see the admirable Ttfi^pq birkp iikv TCJV apphuv rb Koipeiov account of Lobeck, Phryn. p. 93, who tdvov, virip 5e TQV $r)\ecQv TT^V ya/j.rj\la.r. shows that it and other -Ser forms, after For the difficulties of detail which have failing to establish themselves in Attic, to be overcome in reconciling the conbecame fairly common in late Greek. flicting statements of our authorities see The only objection to the word, apart from Wyse's Isaeus, p. 358, Toepffer in Paulyits position in the sentence, is the stateWissowa I 2676. The word has been ment in Bekk. anecd. p. 421, 5 OVK £OTI derived either (1) from neipu, as signifying irapa ro?s 'ATTIKOIS TT\T]V wap' AtVx^Xy an offering made on cutting the hair, or (fr. 416 N . ) . wap' "RpoSdrip Se IITTI. Kal (2) from icdpos (/coupos). Both derivations TOIS'TWIR. But it would be dangerous to appear to have been put forward in refuse the word to Sophocles on this antiquity (Suid. s.v., Etym. M. p. 533, ground alone.—-ye'pas is the certain cor51): for the latter Wyse refers to the rection of Buttmann (7^05 Scaliger, Sepos Delphic waiStfia. In the absence of more Gomperz). For sacrifice as a ytpas of the precise evidence it is idle to speculate god cf. Aesch. Cho. 256, Achaeus fr. 2, what bearing this passage has on the Tr. fr. adesp. 118.—In spite of the significance of the Kotipeiov in primitive frequent occurrence of human sacrifice in times, and whether the animal-victim was the Greek legends, it is always spoken of the surrogate for a human sacrifice. in literature as something abhorrent to Greek feeling and only suitable to 2 f. It is fairly certain that these lines barbarians: cf. Eur. / . T. 464 Sefai have suffered confusion owing to a dislodvulas, I ds 6 Trap' 7]fuv vb[j.os ovx oaias... cation of the original order, and that the ava<paiveL. See Stengel, KiiHusaltert? displacement was caused by the desire of p. ii4ff. The Greeks identified Cronos the scribe to arrange the words according with Moloch to whom the Phoenicians to their grammatical construction: see children: Diodor. 13. 86, 20. H. in C. R. xvi 245. Cobet, Coll. Crit. sacrificed 14. [Plat.] Min. 315c. Gruppe, Gr. p. 188. But their rearrangment is not so Myth. p. 254. For possible traces of simple a matter, and there are several human sacrifice in festivals of Kpovia and possibilities from which I have chosen Saturnalia see Gruppe in Bursians Jahrwhat seems to me the best (see cr. n.). esb. cxxxvn 544 rf. Frazer, G. £.- in The objections to Scaliger's roici /3ap/3d147 ff. E. B. Tylor, Primitive Cztltzirei, pois Kp6vifi I dvywokelv fiporewv apx^f II p. 398. There is an article by the 7f^os, apart from the introduction of present writer on Human Sacrifice (Greek) 7^eos, are (r) the position of apxv^eP > in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and (2) the distribution of emphasis, which makes it unlikely that vo/ios yap i
127 ZTTTTOMTIV fj KU/A/3cucri vavcrToXeis 127 Athen. 482 E 6'TC Se Kal ir\6lov T\ Kv/xpri, 2o(/>o/cX?)s iv ''AcSpo/teSa tp^aiv 'iTriroi
2O^>OKX^S.

The words may be taken to have been addressed to Perseus, but hardly by Andromeda, who must have seen him arrive. But whether the occasion was P.

ydova

the banquet which some of the authorities describe as part of the sequel, cannot be determined : see Introductory Note. Petersen attributes the line to Phineus, who, he thinks, might well have used an affected style of utterance. The meaning is correctly given by Eustathius, who, quoting the passage for another purpose, is here independent of Athenaeus. There is thus an instance of zeugma, since vavuTokeh does not fit iVTroicrii': cf. Eur.

IO<J>OKAEOYI

82

belonging to Gades) roiruiv yap TOM fit" Bacch. 687 S Si ^60if>, Aesch. Prom. 21 iV oire tpwvriv otire TOU i>.of><pr\v jiporiiv \ otyr), C o p e o n ire"vqTas fUKpd, a Ka\eiv iirirovs drrb TCJV iv r a t s irpippais iirtcr^/ioii>, a n d refers t o Arist. rhet. 1. 4. 6.—Kvp.pai.o-t. is probably not a native Greek word. Athenaeus here adds that Kififia for a £«/ was said by Apollodorus to be a Paphian word. Cf. Plin. n. h. 7. 208 cumbam Phoenices (invenerunt). Torr, Ancient Ships, p. 112C, not only holds that the use of Ki/j.^71 indicates that a Phoenician vessel is meant, but also that ITTTOI was the name given to Phoenician merchant-ships bearing a horse as figure-head. He quotes Strabo 99 (a figure-head recognized as

Horn. A 708 and other passages where ships are compared to horses. But this ingenious interpretation is hardly convincing.—\66va is, of course, ace. termini, not, as L. and S. strangely suggest, of space traversed: cf. Eur. Med. 682. It is surprising that E. Mueller, quoted by Hartung, should have taken the use of vaiiVTokeiv to be evidence of the satyric character of the play.

128

phorical sense, which, as Lobeck points out, is fairly common. It should, however, be observed that the metaphor is pf fievos el jxbvov \4yerai ' Trp6ir<j>aTos veKp6s ' vigorous in Aesch. Cho. 800 \baaaf)' al/ia Trpoffipdrois SIKIUS, and in Pind. ( H d t . 2. 89 etc.) KOX /IT) ' irpoatparov Pyth. 4.299 evpe irayav afxjipoijiwv eirtwr | irpay/M.' eipiffKero 8£ i,o(a8els, of fresh ' A S t S Ti$eis OUTW ' /tr/div...iirtffwater, where all the editors take TrpbtT(paTov as an adverb, although Lobeck had Rutherford preferred the variant rpoj3ei6.Tov t h e m e t a p h o r is are part of Phrvnichus' statement, and do not belong to Sophocles at a l l ; but in full-grown. Even to Zeno and the Stoics, who defined \tjwi) as Sofa wpoatparos /COKOC that case some alteration of the text irapovalas (fr. 143 of my ed., I 212 Arn.), would be necessary. the metaphor was probably still living. It is curious that Phrynichus should In later Greek it became worn-out: see have had so much difficulty in finding an example of Trp6(rtj>a.Tos in the meta-Holden on Plut. Them. 24. 128

Ruth.)

Phryn. epit. p. 374 Lob. (CCCL

irpba
KOX irepl

TO-UTOV

129 ISoV S e (f>0LVL0l>

hiyovov 129 Sabbait.

iSoi

5e <polvioi> B r u n c k :

ISoi

129 Etym. M. p . 272, 5 Siyovos fidffdXrjs ' diirXovs Ifids' $) Hrt oii /xovov /caret TT)V §a.(p7]v T)V Toiouros, dWa Kal dird rod ai'/xaTos ' ' ldoi...5lyovoi>.' iK rod pp fnjropiKod • 6 diio

Xp/ xp An abbreviated form of this note appears in Hesych. 1 p.

503 Sfyovos fid
6 SiwXovs, ij

Si (paivbv Etym.

M.,

SiSov

Sa
Svcri xP&V-iai. Kexpi/Jiivos (Kexprmtros

cod.,

Kexpunivos Musurus) : if. Campbell had referred to Etym. M., he would not have proposed lfia
(

ras Wecklein) yvlas.

ANAPOMEAA Kai yap i) iiaad\-q (i/j.aff6\ri Eruno Keil). SO^OKXTJS 'AvSpOfitSa Kai 2w5eiVco«. For the last extract see fr. 571. The quotation, without lemma or explanation, is found in lex. Sabbait. p. 50, 18. |id
lash, and that Leaf (on if 387) is mistaken in extending the inference which he draws from Homeric usage to the language of the tragedians. On the other hand, it will be observed that these passages do not relate to the driving of chariots, and it is certain that goads (El. 718, Eum. 156, Eur. Hipp. 1194, / . A. 220, Phoen. 182, Her. 881, 949) with a double point (0. T. 8OQ) were employed for that purpose. The only passage in tragedy where it might plausibly be urged that /x
130 13O

Pollux 10. 120 2o<poK\rjs 8' iv But the practice was as old as Homer:

5 615 SdxTto roi Kp-QTTJpa TtTvyiiivov. 'Av8pofj.4dq. aurox^Xecri \TJK68OLS (XLdois 7r cod. C) £
KeKpaavrai, ib. 132. Thus the compound Hemsterhuis conjectured airoXlffouri Xr/KtiSoLS, and Wakefield auro/cdXXois means ' with natural rims,' and the whole X-rjKvdots; but there is no ground for these phrase is exactly parallel to avrdKaira (3£\T} in Aesch. Cho. 163, weapons whose suspicions. a«TOX«iXeo-i indicates that hilt is in one piece with the blade. the rim of the flask or pot was of the Similar are airoKrirovs Sdpovs fr. 332, same material as the rest of the vessel. aiiTOTrirpov (3r/[i.aTos O. C. 193, avro^vXdv It was the custom to gild the edges of silver cups, or to cover horn with silver: y' lKww/j.a Phil. 35, and other instances quoted in the n. on Eur. Hel. 356.— cf. Aesch. fr. 185 apyvpi]XaToi.s | Kipaai Xpvffa (TTOIXLO. irpo.£vois, quoted byavToxtiXtai is the regular accentuation, as Blaydes points out: see Chandler, § 698 ff. Athen. 476 C. Similarly Theopompus h Sevrepq. iCkunriKQiv (FHG I 285 ap. Athen. But Nauck and Dindorf print aiiTox^Xem, I.e. D) says that the kings of the Paeonians following, I suppose, the tradition in TQV j3ou>v TWV Trap' aurois yivoptvuv [/.eydka Pollux. K^para (pvovruv, u>y %a>pe«' rpets /cat T^TObserve that the words form an orra/jas xoos, eKirdifiaTa noitiv i% airuv, rd. dinary glyconic line. v<X0 Tas X^i\v wepiapyvpovvras Kai xP ™ '

(,TTpv\hvov

irXolov

dp.<j)iirp\»(j.vov. This adjective is applied TT\O7OI> ' eKartpwdev irpvfivas $xov' 2o<po- to vessels which for various reasons were so constructed that they could be propelled KX??S 'Av5pofi.45a. Kai ra eiri cruiTTjplq. in either direction without turning. Dio jre\w7r6|Uej'a 7rXo?a. The last clause is Cass. 74. 11, describing the siege of unintelligible, and neither Musurus's ire/iByzantium by Septimius Severus: Kai irbixeva nor M. Schmidt's arb\if eirop.ei'a Tiva avr&v (irXoiiov) eKaT^pwdev Kai £K TT\S throws any light on the mystery. Luebeck Kai £K TT/S irpi^ipas wr/SaMms (Pauly-Wissowa I [953) thinks that boats .bT0>s avTol /4^ avatJTpe
Hesych. I p. 164

6—2

ZO^OKAEOYS Kal tirnrXtwot nal avaxtupHai, Kal roiis evavrtovs Kal iv Ttp TrpbffirXip Kai iv r{p airbirXif aipwv cr0dXXw
the explanations still given in some books, that the meaning of &/j.rjpes Sopv in Eur. Cycl. 15 and &K6.TWV aiup-qpiKov in Thuc. 4. 67 is fixed by the schol. on the latter passage [£v § ^tcaaros T(CV £\avv6vTU>v 8tKtoirL
132

conclusion. All we can say is that 1 3 2 Hesych. I p. 141 f d/i/3X/(TKw and (•fayu/3XoCj' are the bestefajn/3Xoi (^{a7rXof cod.: corr. Salmasius) Kvpiois 8£ iiri df/.ir^\ov. Kal e/crtrpcitr/cet. attested forms, and that kKJcrpihaKuv is Ionic and Hellenistic. Both Lobeck and 2O0OK\7}S 'Avdpo/J.(d<} (avSpo cod.). Rutherford (p. 289) make the strange M. Schmidt maintained that the form mistake of assigning ^KTiTpiiaKfiv to afif}\tiaKui was an error, and that either Sophocles on the strength of the above &fi[i\ia.p\oSfieii (?) • eKTiTpiiaKOjiev. the evidence does not warrant a dogmatic S u i d . &Za/j.f3\L
133

1 3 3 Hesych. II p. 256 feu£iXews • feuKris Xaos {^VKTTJS XaoO Ellendt), 17 tp virefrvy/ifroi dfis cod.) 'ArSponidi}. Cf. Phot. lex. p. 53, 8 (=Suid. s.v. feuifiXews) feuJiXeus • 1? virefcvyfiivoi dalv ol Xaol. Eustath. //. p. 4or, II fevi-lXews eiprjrai. Trapa roh fieS' "Onvpof 0 paoiXeis. The description refers to an oriental despotism, where the subjects were crushed beneath the yoke of slavery:

Isocr. 4. 151 ras 5£ \pvxas Std. ras fiovapXLM raireivhs Kal irepideefc ZxovTts. Plat. Menex. 240 A oi 8i yvdfi.at 8e8ov\u}[i4va.i avavTUv avBp&Twv yaav, ibid, c 'KB^valovs iv rrj adrrj rairri avayKri fei^avras 'EperpteOffiv aytiv. Aesch. Pers. 594 oiS' in yKGxraa fipoToT
ANAPOMEAA 134 0177701?

134 TOVS

Phot. lex. p. 317, 7 oiijras-

Kuprp-as.

Hesych.

HI p .

2,OJ>OKXTJS

'AvSpo^Sa.

182 oi-qTav • KWHT]TQI>

(olar&v KO/MJTOP cod.) olai (oi cod.) yap at Kufiai.

ibid. p . 183 ob)TaV KUfiy/Tuiv

(KOflfJTWV COd.).

The word oh\ for a village occurs in Apoll. Rhod. 2. 138 irtpdovTo yap rnj.ii> dXoiai I r)d* olai Trjfj.os 5?Jw virb dovpi AOKOIO.

It corresponds to the Laconian uifia, a local division of the country (Gilbert, Staatsalt.'1 p. 45), in which /S appears to represent f. See Curtius, Gr. Et. II p. 214 E. tr.: but the connexion with laiu is inadmissible. Oea was the name of an Attic deme [0. C. 1061, with Jebb's n.), and also a place-name in Thera.

135 <japr\TOv 135 Hesych. IV p . 6 aaXr\Tov 2o<poKXTJS ' Avdpofie'Sa. 'AiTtTrarpos [avri irarpos

Xeu/cot, ot 5e a\oup7e?s.

7) cod. A grammarian of this name is mentioned in schol. Ar. Av. 1403) fiap-

Such a tunic was part of the royal apparel of the Persian king: Xen. Cyr.

lT

va

5 2 5 c trapdireLS

/xTjXtpoi Kal Trop
j3apiKoi> x & "J S^ Kal fiea&XevKov 8. 3. 13 opdrjv ?x«» TT]V Tiapav Kal x""". It was adopted by

And this form is supported by Phot. lex. p. 501, 24 aap-qrov /3ap(3api/c6s yyr&v. Cf. Hesych. IV p. 10 adpains' HepviKos Xiruv fiecr6\evKos, ws Krqtjias. Poll. 7. 61 6 de ffdpairtSt yiTjdoji' TO (poptjiia, iroptpupous juetro'Xeufcos x'™*"/- P h o t . lex. p . 500, 7 adpa-iris • xlr^v IlepffiKO! /xeaoXevKOS.

Democr. Ephes. (^ZTG IV 383) ap. Athen.

Alexander when he assumed the Persian dress: Athen. 537 E, Plut. Alex. 51 (where 5id\eu/cos is used for peaoXevKos). Elsewhere we find it worn by upstarts and imposters, such as Lysias the Epicurean philosopher who became tyrant of Tarsus (Athen. 215 c), or Alexander the false prophet in Lucian Alex. 11.

I36

liases is quoted, as other evidence shows, for the existence of two Pans. But he subsequently admitted (Index, p. xi) that the true solution had been found by Wecklein (fr. 35), 2O0OKX?JS de iv 'Avdpofie'da.. (Silzungsb. d. K. B. Akad. 18901 p. 31), So the extract is given by Nauck, withand that we ought to read TOVS llamas... out stating his authority. Duebner gives the opening words as roi>s craripovs oi rrarvpovs, as printed in Ahrens's and irXfioves KpaGiv, and notes that EU have Ziegler's editions. The passage in 136

Schol. Theocr. 4. 62 rods aari-

povs irXelovs <pr)
Kal ffarvplffKovs rous Jidvas oi irXeiovs ipaaiv, us Kal rois SeiXixois Kai TOVS o~aT6povs. Dindorf prints TOVS aaTtjpovs aKpaTets ot irXeiovts a
addition of dKpareis is due to a conjecture of Casaubon. Nauck inferred that Sophocles spoke of Sileni in the plural on the ground that the authority of Aeschylus

Theocritus runs : TO TOL y&os r] JjaTvpiJKOIS I ^7Yt20ej' rj Hdvetrfft KaKOKvdy.oio~t.v

epitrSei. So soon as we consider what comment is likely to have been made on these words requiring the citation of parallels, it becomes clear that the editor, possibly Theon himself, was defending the use of Haves in the plural by Theocritus.

86

I04>0KAE0YI

The alternative offered by Casaubon's restoration would be inconsistent with the quotation from Aeschylus. Pan was acknowledged by Herodotus (2. 145) to be one of the youngest of the Greek gods, and his name hardly appears in literature before the fifth century B.C. It seems highly probable that the generic use of the name is actually the earlier, and that Pan the god is developed and individualized from the class of demonic beings with whom the rustic fancy populated the hills and forests of Arcadia. The same history has been deduced for

the parallel conception of the Italian Faunus: see Warde Fowler, Roman Festivals, p. 260. For other early evidence of the plural cf. Ar. Eccl. 1069 Si liases, Plat. legg. 815 c Ni3/i0as re KDX IlSi/as (ecu~ZCkr\vomKOX Xaripovs iwovc/idfoi/res. The Panisci, parallel to a-arvplffKoi, are not mentioned before Cicero (n. d. 3. 43), but this is probably accidental. See also A. P. 6. 108 liiprikGiv ipiwv 2<popoi, tcepaoi, xopoiraiKTiu, | tlaves, /Soi/X'^°u xpdvropes 'Apxadiris. Prop. 3. 17. 34. Pausan. 8. 37. 1.

ANTHNOPIAAI The following extract from Strabo (608) is usually referred to the Antenoridae. 'Sophocles says that at the capture of Troy a leopard's skin was placed in front of the door of Antenor, to serve as a warning that the house was to remain unscathed. Accordingly, Antenor and his sons, together with the Eneti who had joined them, found their way in safety to Thrace, and thence escaped to the country called Enetica on the Adriatic. Then also Aeneas, together with his father Anchises and his son Ascanius, collected his followers and set sail1.' The leopard's skin was also mentioned in the Locrian Ajax (fr. 11). Pausanias (10. 27. 3), describing the picture of Polygnotus in the Lesche at Delphi, which set forth the incidents belonging to the capture of Troy, referred to the house of Antenor, with its leopard's skin over the entrance ; in front of it were represented Antenor and his wife Theano (Horn. Z 298), with their sons Glaucus and Eurymachus, and their daughter Crino and her infant The leopard's skin is mentioned in the same connexion by schol. Pind. Pyth. 5. n o . In the same account (10. 26. 7, 8) Pausanias states that Lesches in the Little Iliad (fr. 13 K.) related the rescue by Odysseus of Helicaon, another of Antenor's sons, when wounded in the night-battle; and gives reasons for concluding that his wife Laodice was exempted from the fate of the other Trojan women. Apollodorus (epit. 5.21) similarly recounts that Odysseus and Menelaus, recognizing Glaucus the son of Antenor, as he was fleeing to his house, saved him by force of arms. Pindar (Pyth. 5. 83) followed the tradition that the Antenoridae settled at Cyrene : exovrcrav xa^-K0X''>PtMI' ^voi \Tpa>e<;'AvTavopi8af avv 1

Strabo is extracted by Eustath. //. p. 405, 29.

ANAPOMEAA—ANTHNOPIAAI

87

EXeva yap fioXov, j Kairvwdeicrav Trdrpav eVei. IBov. The family was so numerous that its migrations might well have been in more than one direction. Bacchylides spoke of them as fifty: schol. Horn, fl 496 iriOavov fi'iav Teiceiv iff, ov-% to? ~BaK^v\iBrj<; v T?)?

QeavovsinroypafabTraiSa';. Homer names eleven: besides Coon, Demoleon, Iphidamas, Laodamas, and Pedaeus, who were killed, Acamas, Agenor,Archelochus,Helicaon, Laodocus, and Polybus 1 ; and Verg. Aen. 6. 483 has Glaucumque Medontaque Thersilocku?nque, \ tris Antenoridas, though these three are not so specified in Homer P 216. A few other names besides those which have been already mentioned appear in later writers. The reasons which induced the Greeks to accord a special protection to Antenor are recorded in Qu. 13. 291ff.and more briefly m T r y p h i o d . 656 ff. rkuva

8e /ecu yeverjv ' Avrtfvopos

avnOioio

AtpeLhri<; i(}>v\a!;e, (piXo^eivoio yipovTOS, \ fxeiXi^trj, irpoTeprjt; TLVICV

yapiv, r/8e TpaTrefjys1 | /ceivr)<;, y fjbiv ehetcro yvvrj nrprjela ®eava>. Cf. T z e t z . Posthom. 741 ff- olr^v /xev 'AvTrfvopos eipvaavro yevedXnjv \ Apyelot 'gevirjs fjbvjjfinjv <$opeovTe<s eiceivov, \ irapSaXerjv Trpodvpois

dpiyvwTov a-fjfia tfaXovTes. He had entertained Menelaus and Odysseus, when they came to Troy to demand the restoration of Helen (Horn. F 207), and protected them from injury (schol. ad loc). He was the leader of the peace-party among the Trojans, and had recommended the surrender of Helen and her treasure (H 347 ff.; cf. Hor. Ep. 1. 2. 9); and his honied speech was compared to that of Nestor : el fioi TO Ne&ropeiov evykaxxcrov fj,e\o< | AvTrjvopo'i re TOV <£>pvyo
The tradition that Troy fell in consequence of the treachery of Antenor has not been traced to any early writer 2 ; and there is no evidence to show that Sophocles was acquainted with it. It is generally admitted that the passage in Strabo contains a summary in brief of the plot of the Antenoridae*; for otherwise the allusion cannot be traced to its source. It is scarcely to be referred to the Locrian Ajax; for the incidents related by Strabo, if included in the action, would have been incompatible with the dramatic development of the fate of Ajax. There is, moreover, a play of Accius with the same title ; and it is unreasonable to doubt that it was adapted from Sophocles (Ribbeck, Rom. Trag. p. 406 ff). The Latin fragments are more plentiful than the 1

Jebb, Btuchyl. p. 221, who mentions only ten, has omitted Laodamas (0 516). It appears first in Lycophr. 340, where see Holzinger. Wagner in PaulyWissowa I 2352 thinks that it was a late invention. 3 Bergk, however, in his early work on the Fragments (de frag. Soph. p. 3), dissented, holding that the substance of Strabo's reference was drawn from the Locrian Ajax. But he failed to give a satisfactory account of the Antenoridae, which, on the strength of the fragments of Accius, he guessed to contain the arrival of Rhesus. 2

88

ZO*OKAEOYZ

Greek, and in at least one important particular they assist in enlarging our conception of the plot. From the story as outlined above we receive no impression of a dramatic conflict. Antenor was saved by the Greeks in consideration of his past services, and that is all. But Accius has : ad populum intellego j referundum, quoniam horum aequiter sententiae \ fuere (fr. i). From this it was inferred by Welcker that the Greek view in favour of Antenor was by no means unanimous, and that he was saved from destruction only after a protracted conflict1. What may have been the arguments on the one side or the other we have no means of ascertaining ; but the association of Antenor with the Eneti is a circumstance which perhaps bore nearly on the issue. In Homer this people are a Paphlagonian tribe (B 852) under the leadership of Pylaemenes, and are reckoned among the Trojan allies; but the fragments of Accius led Welcker to conclude (p. 169) that a new leader had arrived with a fresh contingent of Eneti just before the capture of the city: namque hue em venio ut mea ope opes Troiae integrem (fr. IV); qm aut illorum copias \ fundam in campo, aut navis uram, aut castra mactabo in mare (fr. V.). It will be noticed that, according to Strabo, Sophocles recognised the connexion of Antenor with the settlement of Eneti (Veneti) in the north of Italy. We thus get an interesting link with the Latin authorities : Liv. 1. 1 iam primum omnium satis constat, Troia capta, in ceteros saevitnm esse Troianos; duobus, Aenea Antenoreque, et vetusti iure hospitii et quia pads reddendaeque Helenae semper auctores fuerunt, omne ius belli Achivos abstinuisse, casibus deinde variis Antenorem mm multitudine Henetum, qui, seditione ex Paphlagonia pulsi, et sedes et ducem, rege Pylaemene ad Troiam amisso, quaerebant, venisse in intimum maris Hadriatici sinicm, Euganeisque qui inter mare Alpesqueincolebant pulsis, Henetos Troianosque eas tenuisse terras : et in quern primuni egressi stint locum Troia vocatur, pagoque inde Troiano nomen est, gens universa Veneti adpellati. Cf. Verg. Aen. 1. 242 ff. Further confirmation of Strabo's evidence is to be found in Polyb. 2. 17. 6, who asserts that the tragic playwrights told strange stories respecting the settlement of the Veneti (jrepl wv oi Tpayq>Sioypd(f)oi iro\.vv rtva ireiroirjVTai \6yov ical TTOWTJV 1 Ribbeck (p. 408) interprets differently. According to him, the reference is to a decision of the Trojan people, after the council had been equally divided on the question whether a last attempt should be made to secure a friendly arrangement by the surrender of Helen after the death of Paris; and here Antenor, as on earlier occasions, was the advocate of peace. This seems less likely. Ahrens thought that, though Antenor's life was spared, his treachery was condemned, anrl he was refused permission to settle in the Troad. Therefore he was sent away with the Eneti, who, owing to the lateness of their arrival, would feel no resentment against him.

ANTHNOPIAAI

89

Tepareiav) : in customs and dress, according to him, these people closely resemble the Celts, but differ from them in language. Strabo elsewhere (48, 150, 543) mentions the settlement of Antenor and the Eneti as a common tradition, and in 212 appeals in support of it to the fact that Dionysius of Syracuse recruited his racing stable from Venetia, recalling the line in Homer (I.e.) which connected the Paphlagonian Eneti with rjfiiopaiv yivos dyporepdcov (cf. Eur. Hipp. 231).

For the

trade route between the Black Sea and the Adriatic see Ridgeway, Early Age in Greece, I p. 366. According to him, the Veneti were Illyrians, i.e. Pelasgians belonging to the melanochrous dolichocephalous race indigenous in the Mediterranean (id. p. 377). The omission of the Laocoon and the inclusion of the Antcnoridae in the list of Trojan plays given in the Argument to the Ajax (p. 3, ed. Jebb) suggested to Robert (Bild undLied, p. 201) the identification of the two titles ; but he recognized that there was much to be said on the other side. Fr. 373, as compared with Strabo 608, indicates that the departure of Aeneas may have been mentioned in both plays. The fourteenth poem of Bacchylides is entitled 'AvrrjvoplBai fj 'EXevrji; direuTr/a-it. Theano opens the door of Athena's temple in order to receive Menelaus and Odysseus on their embassy ; and it is evident, in spite of a lacuna, that they are conducted by the sons of Antenor, who goes himself to inform Priam. The Trojans are summoned to the agora, and pray to the gods for a cessation of their sufferings. The debate is opened by Menelaus with a brief warning that Zeus is not the author of men's troubles ; SLKTJ lies within the choice of all, while vftpis, her opposite, leads to ruin and destruction. At this point the ode abruptly ends. Jebb (p. 220) remarks : ' Blass and Wilamowitz regard the double title of the Bacchylidean poem as making it probable that the 'AvrrivopiSai of Sophocles was only another name for his 'EXej/r;? d-waLT
I00KAE0YI

137 OpVlda

KaX KTJpVKCL K(tl SlCLKOVOV

1 3 7 Athen. 373 c, D en Sirov bpaevi-

that Aesch. fr. 95 is quoted by Athenaeus directly afterwards. (2) Ellendt holds that opvida is the eagle. He is presumably thinking of the rape of Ganymede, The reference underlying this quotation and of such passages as Pind. Tsth. 6. 50. is obscure. (1) Hartung suggests that opvi&a. = omen, as in 0. T. 52 ([ebb): see So apparently Blaydes, who renders Kal KijpuKa 'botk as herald.' also on Eur. Hel. 1051. Some slight confirmation may be drawn from the fact KOO ov fibvov opmv dXXa nal opvi8a...Kal SO0OK\T}S 'AvTT)vopL8at.s 'opvida...di&icovov.'

138 1 3 8 Hesych. I p . 334 a.
cod.).

Bekk. anecd. p. 470, 13

ppf}&(pu]fiL\7i
OUTW SO^O^XTJ?.

Eustath. Od. p. 1831, 3 afpe^iaadfiriv ijroi acpui/llXrjaa, us ir pr]TopiKi£ KUTai XeflKiJ

For this word and its cognates see on fr. 3. £<j>ej//ia
(Ael. et Paus. fr. 389 Schwabe, who how-

139 139 139

Hesych.

11 p. 40

£KJ3apa.£ai. cod.: corr. H ^ /

Srav 8e~pos T 5 KTjx^rai PaPpd^uinv,

of chir-

ruping crickets. H., however, thought that eKuaXevtrat There appears to be something wrong was sound, and restored ^KjSa/3pi££ctfw was related to ppifa as xa^Xafw (Safi&feiv' TO ditjpdpojfJ.^va X^yei*'. to 0Xi5fw, KaxXcifti) to KXI^^W. The assoft/ioi 5e ^oai', and several scholars support ciation with sound (ppvxdo/iat etc.) is el nil Pap&fri 7' in Ar. Av. 1681. Cf. paralleled by repiflpixios (schol. Ant. pa§6.KTT)S (Cratinus) and /3a/3af (Archi- 336). For eKffaXeCffai = ' t o shake out' lochus). But Hesych. I.e. has also pafipdsee Suid. eKadXevaov CL?IT6. t^veyKov, A r . £uv KeKpayws avvrovias, and this is sup- Lys. 1028 (where iKaK&Kevaov is n o w ported by Ananius (fr. 5) ap. Athen. 282 B read), and lK
(iv

ANTHNOPIAAI—ATPEYZ

91

ATPEYI H MYKHNAIAI This play cannot be considered apart from the title Thyestes (p. 185). There is surprisingly little evidence for the existence of an Atreus : Hesychius quotes 'Arpel ?; MviajvaK, and a scholiast on Euripides refers to Mu/^aitu?. The Thyestes is quoted twenty-two times, for the most part simply under that title; but Hesychius refers four times to ©ueo-n;? StKf&wto?, once to ®i/ea-r?/? 6 iv ILKV&VI, and twice to %ve>jrr)s hevrepos, and Orion cites 4K TOV a ©vio-Tov. On these facts it has generally been held that Sophocles wrote three plays dealing with the gruesome legends concerning the two brothers ; that the famous incidents of the golden lamb and the Thyestes-feast occurred in the Atreus; and that the plays entitled Thyestes related to the unnatural intercourse of Thyestes with his daughter, and the fatal issue by which Aegisthus became the appointed avenger of his father (Welcker, pp. 357—370). The problem is unusually intricate, and it is hardly possible from the existing data to ascertain which parts of the traditional material were selected by Sophocles for treatment. The fragments themselves, with the possible exception of fr. 247, which seems to refer to the Sicyonstory, do not give any assistance towards the unravelling of the plots ; and it is scarcely legitimate to draw any inference from the more numerous fragments of Accius, whose Atreus (Aul. Gell. 13. 2. 2) has been supposed to be an adaptation of Sophocles: see especially the passages quoted by Cic. n. d. 3. 68, de orat. 3. 217, 219. For it must be remembered that Ennius had already written a Thyestes; and, while it is likely that both these Roman tragedies dealt rather with the central motive of the story than with its outlying incidents, we cannot believe that Accius was content simply to reproduce the treatment of Sophocles. Indeed, his known attitude towards his models forbids such a conclusion : it is certain that in his Antigone he departed widely from Sophocles, and his Philoctetes depended on more than one original (Schanz, Rom. Litt. p. 76). Hitherto it has not been convincingly shown that Sophocles wrote more than two plays upon the story of the brothers, one containing the events which occurred at Mycenae, and the other the Sicyon-story. Since everyone hearing the name Thyestes at once recalls the banquet, the other part of his story when referred to would naturally be distinguished as happening in Sicyon, even though the banquet-play were known by the title Atreus ; and, on the other hand, it would not be unnatural for the banquet-play, whatever its traditional title may have been, to

92

I0*0KAE0Y2:

be referred to either as Thyestes or as Atreus.

This may be

illustrated by Epict. diss. i. 28. 32 Kal irola TpayqtSla aXXrjv dpXVv ^Xel> 'Arpeiis JLvpnrlBov Tt e'o"Tt; TO (pairopevov, which is

admitted to be a reference to the Thyestes of Euripides. For the present, however, we may put aside the question of the contents of the play (or plays) entitled Thyestes, except in so far as that title may have been an alternative for Atreus. No one denies that Sophocles wrote a play covering much the same ground as Seneca's Thyestes, whatever its exact title may have been. The general ambit of these plays may be gathered from Dio Chrys. 66. 6 (II p. 162 Arn.) OTI p,ev yap Bid ^pvcrovv irpo^arov dvdararov aacv. Kal KaTeKoirrj /j,ev rd TOV ®veo~Tov Tercva, Ty UeXoTrua Be 6 iraTrjp i/Ai^Or] Kal TOV Aiyuadov eairecpev...TovTots Be OVK d'^iov d-iTLGTelv, a yeypcnrTai fiev ov% virb TWV TV^OVTCOV dvBpSiv, iivpiiriBov KOI %o<$>oic\eov<;, Xeyerai Be iv fxeaois TO??

6edrpoi<;. We may also infer that the golden lamb was the initial cause of the trouble between the brothers, according to both tragedians, and in this respect they appear to have followed the author of the Alcmaeonis (schol. Eur. Or. 997). Is it possible to obtain a better estimate of the scope of the banquet-play? The answer will depend upon the weight to be assigned to schol. rec. Eur. Or. 812 (Atreus and Thyestes, contending for the throne, agreed that whichever could produce some divine sign should prevail) iv Tot? TTOIP-VLOLS Be rod 'Arpewi evprjrai xpvcrovv dpviov p.r)viBi 'Eip/Jov...Kal fieWovTOS 'ATpecos Beifjai, TO repots TO?? BiKaarah, teal \a/3elv rrjv dpj(r)v, ' Aepoirr] rj TOVTOV yvvrj fMoi^evofjuevr) ®vearj) ra> dvBpabeXfya), tcKetyaaa TOVTO 7rapiBa)Kev aura). <&ve? <pr](ri SO^O/CXT)?, Kal Toi)<; Tpeis vloi><; TOV &ve, aTrotcTelva1; irapeQr\icev els rpdire^av T<3 Trarpt, ical avrov vcrrepov dnreKTei.vev. Bi a 6 r/Xios firj o-repljas TO irapdvop-ov, piav r/fiepav ex Bucrp,a>v Trpos eco Bicppevei, KT£. T h e

notion of Atreus and Thyestes submitting their claims to a panel of jurymen is certainly not old, but that the lamb was a mark of divine favour and that its possessor was entitled to claim the succession are propositions so well supported that they are much more likely to belong to the original legend than the variant recorded by Apollod. epit". 2. 10. Cf. Eur. El. 722 repas iicKOfj,i,\£ei, irpbs BwfiaTaw veo/xevos B' els dyopovs XX Kara Ba>/j,a irolfivav.

dvrel \ rav tcep6ecro~ai> e%eiv Ace. fr. VIII quod mihi

ATPEYZ

93

portento caelestum pater \ prodigium misit, regni stabilimen met. Sen. Thyest. 230 possessor huius regnat, hunc cunctae domus fortuna sequitur. The purport of the reference to Sophocles has been variously estimated. If it is intended for the Atreus, as Dindorf and other scholars thought, we obtain a valuable clue to the construction of that play; but it may be merely an inaccurate reminiscence of Ai. 1295,—if indeed the vulgate text of that passage is not corrupt (see Jebb's n.). Nauck evidently attached no value to the scholium, which he omitted from his edition of the Fragments. There is, however, a further indication in the note, which can almost with certainty be assigned to Sophocles, and which increases the probability that we have here a rough outline of his plot. That is the statement that the alteration of the sun's course was due to the sun-god's horror at the impious feast. For this very thing is mentioned by Statyllius Flaccus in his epigram in honour of Sophocles (A. P. 9. 98): OtSwroSe? Bicrcroi ae iced 'HXe/cT/sr; ^apv^vu^

\ ical beiirvon eXadels 'Arpeo<;

'He\io? /ere1. The same version was generally adopted by the Latin poets (see, besides Sen. Thyest. 785 ff., Ov. Her. 16. 205, Am. 3. 12. 39 aversnmque diem niensis furialibus A tret); but it is more important to observe that it also occurs in Hygin./a^. 88, which is connected with Sophocles for other reasons (see p. 185), and in fab. 258. For another tale was current according to which, after Thyestes by his treacherous and shameful plot had temporarily obtained recognition as monarch, Zeus promised to Atreus that the course of nature should be changed in his favour and that he might promise this marvel to the people as a token that he was the rightful heir (Apollod. epit. 2. 12). This was accepted by Euripides (fr. 861 Set£a? yap darpav rrjv evavriav 6B6v I Sijfiovi T ea-uiaa Kal Tiipavuos l^onrjv), and is apparently

referred to by Sophocles in fr. 738, where see note. Hence Welcker (p. 361) was undoubtedly mistaken in referring it to some later tragedian. To later rationalists Atreus was an early astronomer : Strabo 23, Lucian de astro/. 12. It seems clear that Aristotle's allusions to Thyestes in poet. 13. 1453a I O etc., whether they relate to Sophocles or to Euripides, concern the banquet-play and not the story of Pelopia. Welcker thought that Mv/ajvaloi should be restored as the alternative title. The evidence is very slight, but, if the feminine form is correct, it would follow that Aerope was one of the most prominent characters. 1 The importance of this passage was first pointed out by O. Crusius in Philol. Suppl. VI 304 sq., but is overlooked by Escher in Pauly-Wissowa II 2143, who refers to it. It is of course possible that the epigrammatist was simply alluding to the story of Atreus in the form most familiar to him.

IOOKAEOYI

94

140 fxa TJ]V ine'ivov heikiav, 77 /Socr/cerai, drjXvs {Jiep auros, apcrevas 8' i)(6povs 14O.

2 dppevas (dpaevas N) codd.

14O Schol. Eur. Hipp. 307 eluiBaaiv elpuivev6//.evoi Kara, rail' ex^puv dfivwou, ws /cai !2O0OK\J7? & Mvx^palais (Mu/cTjpats

AB) 'p.a..Jxolv-' ' Not so! by the cowardice that is his daily portion,—that man whose heart is a woman's, with men for his foes.' It is important to observe that v. 2 is subordinate to /3<Sff/cer

which depends directly upon icrBi: 'know that,—however stubbornly you contest it —if you die and abandon your children, they will never receive their inheritance, no! I swear by the Amazon' &c. The construction was correctly explained by Paley, but several editors strangely make •irpoSowa supplementary to iadi, which could only mean 'know that you have

abandoned'...—POO-KCTIU, as usual, implies a certain degree of contempt. Cf. fr. 591 /36<7Ket Sk roiis /J.£V fioipa Svuajie-

pias. R. A. Neil, who examined the history of this word in an excellent note on Ar. Eg. 255, pointed out that it is generally metaphorical in tragedy. See also Cobet, V. L. p. 67.—0tjXus, of a man: cf. Track. 1075, Aesch. Cho. 304 0)jXeicx yhp (ppi}v (of Aegisthus, who is addressed as yvrfi in Ag. 1625). The taunt is well illustrated by Eur. Hdid. 700 uiaxfiv yhp OIKO{Ipijfia ylyverai r65e, j TOVS p.kv

fMXtaBai, TOVS Si SeiXla. nivuv. The parallel to Aegisthus is so close, that one may suspect that his father Thyestes is referred to. Ribbeck (p. 200) compared this fr. with Ennius Thyest. fr. V, where he supposes Thyestes to repudiate the charge of cowardice.

1 4 1 Hesych. 11 p. 168 eirurTavet.' iwi- fr. 210. 40. Jebb's apology for the use of the active, that it is prompted by metrical considerations, is surely unnecessary. The use illustrated is the same as that Though the middle naturally tended to found in Ai. 769 irtiroida TOVT' iirnnrdtreti' assert itself, as the metaphorical meanK\£OS, where see Jebb. The meaning is ing became increasingly familiar (see to draw in, as a fisherman secures his Wyttenbach on Plut. mor. p. 39 A), no c a t c h : cf. A. P. 6. 109 KO1 Kpv4peiv (e.g. EL OLS Xafi^avdvrojv.

AXAIQN SYAAOTOZ

Until quite recently it was generally held that 'A^
ATPEYZ—AXAIQN Z Y A A O f O I

95

belonged; and, since the language appears to be that of Sophocles, as is pointed out in the notes, the inference drawn by Wilamowitz that it comes from the 'Ayaiwv avWoyos can hardly be resisted1. Not only does no other title seem to fit the data, but the words in col. ii 12 irov 'v ; are a strong confirmation of the proposed identification. Also egeTd&Tat in v. 17 may be compared with fr. 144. The chief interest of the plot lay in the relations of Achilles with Telephus. When the Greeks first sailed to Troy, through ignorance of its real situation they landed in Mysia. Here Telephus, who was king of the country, came out to meet them, and killed Thersander the son of Polynices. But, fleeing before Achilles, he became entangled in a vine-plant, and was wounded by Achilles' spear. The Greeks retired, and were scattered by a storm ; Achilles reached Scyros, where he ultimately married Deidamia. At length the confederates assembled for a second time at Argos. Meanwhile Telephus, whose wound refused to heal, had visited Delphi and learnt from the oracle that he could •only be cured by the hand which had inflicted the wound (0 Tpuxras idaerai schol. Ar. Nub. 919). The sequel is described in Procl. Cypr, (EGF p. 19) eireiTa TijXecjjov Kara jxavTeiav irapayevo/xevov •€i? ' Apyos iarai, 'A^iWeu? a>? r/yefiova yevr)o~6/J,evov TOV eV "IXiov ir\ov : and more fully in Apollod. epit. 3. 19, 20 avveXOovTcov Se uvrrZv ev " Apyei av0i<; fierd Trjv prjOelaau oKTaerlav, ev dwopla TOV -TTXOV TroWrj icadeaTTjKecrav, Kadrjye/Mova fir) ej^ovTes, o? r/v SwaTos hel^ai rrjv et? Tpolav. l^X-e^o? 8e eic TJ75 Mucrta?, aviarov TO rpadfxa ej(wv, eLTrovTos avrcp TOV 'ATr6\\a>iioo<; et? 'Apyos dcpLKeTo, /cal SerjOels 'A^iXXeo? ical VTrea-^rjfievo'i TOV •els Tpoiav TTKOVV Sel^ai OepcwrreveTai dTrotjvaavTO<; 'A^tXXea)? T?5? Tlrj\cdBo<; fieXlas TOV iov. depairevdels oi/v eSei^e TOV ifkovv, TO T?)? Sei^ewi acrc^aXe? iriaTovfxkvov TOV KaX%az>TO? Sid T?}? EUVTOV jU.a,VTiicr)
The story of the healing of Telephus formed the subject of the famous play written by Euripides2 under this title and produced in 438 B.C.; and the words Tpv^ecriv r/fj,
96

Z.OOKAEOYI

According to one account (Hygin.y^. 101), Telephus, in concert with Clytaemnestra, seized the child Orestes from his cradle before taking refuge at the altar, and threatened to kill him unless his prayer was granted. When the Berlin papyrus was first deciphered, Wilamowitz inferred from the reading "Opea-ra in col. i 2 that the incident formed part of Sophocles' design, but, now that Schubart has restored trapkata, the inference falls to the ground. It had already been argued by L. Pollak (Zwei Vasen aus der Werkstatt Hierotis, Leipzig, 1900) from a vasepainting, which he refers to a date earlier than 470 B.C., that the Orestes-episode did not belong to the original version of the story given in the Cypria. On the vase Telephus has taken refuge at the altar : his right hand covers his wounded foot, and his left hand is stretched out in the direction of a warrior (Achilles) who has drawn his sword against him, while he looks for protection to a seer (Calchas) who is approaching on the right. Pollak's conclusion is entirely consistent with the statement of the schol. Ar. Ach. 332, attributing the Orestesepisode to Aeschylus. Nauck {TGF•p. 76) regards the insertion of Aeschylus' name as a mere blunder, but, whereas most writers have agreed in supposing that the seizure of the child was introduced—if not for the first time—by Euripides, Wecklein (Die dramatische Behandlung des Telephosmythus, Miinchen, 1909, p. 16) has gone so far as to deny that it was mentioned by him at all, except possibly by way of criticizing Aeschylus. However this may be, there is no evidence connecting it with Sophocles, and it is more agreeable to his usual procedure to suppose that he adhered as closely as possible to the narrative of the KVKXOS (Athen. 277 D). It is a fair inference that the action of the play took place at Argos, and the new fragment indicates that the reconciliation with the Greeks had already been achieved. The words ere 7.)p TeyeaTis.. .aXicov iperfimv (col. ii 7—10) may be taken to show that the Greek origin of Telephus had been established, and that the Greeks had accepted him as their destined pilot to the Trojan coast in accordance with an oracle imparted to them by Calchas. We may compare Hyginus (I.e.): Achivis autem quod responsum erat, sine Telephi ductu Troiam capi non posse, facile cum eo in gratiam redierunt et ab Achillepetierunt, ut eum sanaret. It remained only to satisfy the requirements of the oracle given to Telephus (6 Tpdxras idaerai,), and for this purpose the words addressed by Odysseus to Achilles are significant—iv heovri 8' rjXdes, <w nval UrjXecos. Odysseus was chosen for his discretion to negotiate with Achilles, who had not arrived at the beginning of the play (cf. fr. 144). We cannot tell how he gained his point, but it seems unlikely that the discovery

AXAIQN lYAAOTOI

97

of Telephus' origin was the chief factor in persuading Achilles to give his assistance. The course of the subsequent denouement is perhaps to be traced, as Wecklein (p. 20) suggests, in Hyginus: quibus Achilles respondit se artem medicam non nosse. tune Ulixes ait: non te dixit Apollo, sed auctorem vulneris hastam nominat. quam cum rasissent, remediatus est. The title was well known in antiquity, as appears from schol. BT on Horn. © 5*9 \£%aa6(U...o6ev KOX ~\.oyd8e<; /cat crvWoyo
'A-^aioiv. Wilamowitz argues that the date of composition must have been earlier than the production of Euripides' more complex play. 142

col. i desunt duo versus

\i(TKOV

IO

desunt cetera col. ii r) VOT\OV rj] £e<£up[o]io hiva ireH^xjjei T]pwdSas d/crds. 142.

ii 1 diva Murray : SOTO pap.

1 4 2 Berliner Klassikertexte v 2 p. 64. The above fragments are taken from the upper part of a roll 14 cm. high and 19 cm. broad. The writing tends to assume a cursive form, and is stated to belong to the second century A.D. The first column was entirely occupied with the chorus which is concluded in col. ii. Col. i 2 Traptora was restored by Schubart. Wilamowitz at first read 'Opiara, deducing therefrom an important argument concerning the development of theplotwhichhesubsequentlyabandoned. See Introductory Note. Col. ii 1. On the assumption that

p.

some such word as aiipa. must have gone before, Wilamowitz suggested vw yap arbXov an'ov aeXXo. He points out that the genitive in -010 was not previously certified for Sophocles, although Qpvyioio had been conjectured in Ai. 210. But it is probable that Murray's correction diva should be adopted: the same error was detected by Hermann in Aesch. Pers. 579. The objection that diva should mean an eddying wind is not maintainable; for swift rather than circular motion might have been expressed by it. Cf. Eur. Ale. 245 oipaviol re divai vetptXas dpofiaiov.

7

98

IOOKAEOYZ crv r e Ti^jqSjakioJL Trape8pev\_pdcre[i<; TO>] Kara irpai < i > 6i 'l[\Co]v iropov

[8 ] S # ere yap Te[yJeans 'EXXas, ou|j(]t Mucrta, vavrav crvv TLVL S77 0e£)v Kal irefXTTTTip dkicav iperficov.

10

AXIAAE fxiov /cal (ri/ /catvos irovrias dnb ij/ceis, 'OSvcrcreu; TTOV 'cm cruXXoyo? ri jtAeXXer'; ov XPVV 'QO'vxov Keicrdai 7r[o]8a. OA

So/cei (rrpareveiv Kal jote'Xet rots eV re'Xet TdtS'* iv heovn S' lyX^es, c3 iral Il^Xe'cos. 6

15

'ArpeiSav scripsi: 'ArpelSa, Wilamowitz

3 ff. If the restoration of Wilamowitz an objective genitive with the possessive: is adopted, it is remarkable that, in, a see O.C. 729, Eur. Phoen.ijn (n.). For passage where the functions of irpypetis lSi<x6ai = to look out for, cf. Ai. 1165 Phil. and KvfSepvqTT)s are so sharply distinguished, aicevaov KoiXrjv K&irerdy Tin' ISeiv. 467 TTXOVV fiij 'I dirbirTov paXKop ri 'yyuBev Agamemnon should be identified with the VKQTreiv. E u r . Hec. 901 yivav avayia) former and described as subject to the TTXOVV bpuivras T]av\ov. Plat. legg. 866 D orders of Telephus. Cf. Plut. Agis i oi aKrjvqaa.iJ.evos if daXdrrri riyyav TOVS ir pig pels TO, ^irpoffdev tr poop&fiievoO TCJV KvfSepvrp-Civ a<popw
look-out man was specially charged to watch for a change in the wind : Ar. Eq.

the form Te7eas (fr. 1100). S orvv TIVI 811 6«5v: cf. Aesch. Pers.

543 irpippaTevaau Kal TOI>S avifiovs Sia6pij
167 b'X^ov, $v Aapetos r\pev oin &vev ffeuv TLVOS. E u r . Phoen. 1614 (ware) avev deuiv rov TOLVT' efiTjxa'vVa'^iVl/'

Was it likely that Agamemnon would undertake such a task? Nor do I think that the text is justified by the metaphorical use of irpqjpATTis in fr. 524, r, where see n. I hesitate therefore to accept 'ArpeLSq. in v. 6, and should prefer to substitute 'Arpeibav. It is worth notice that, although 'ArpeiSai etc. occur in Sophocles more than 30 times, the singular is only found in Ai. 1349. For the metre, bacchiac dipody in place of Reizianum, see e.g. Eur. Tro. 321. I am also unable to agree with Wilamowitz in joining ei$bs 'l\lov, which he compares with the isolated Eur. Hipp. 1157. It is simpler to give eidiis its usual meaning, and to treat 'IMou as an objective genitive: cf. Eur. Cycl. 108 iropf)-

IO ir«(Mrr^p is a new word. II irovTCas...x6ovos, his island home of Ithaca. Wilamowitz points out that this use of irbvTios does not occur in Aesch. or Eur. and quotes Phil. 269 wovrias Xpiar/s. Pind. Nem. 8. 18 Trovriq. Ktiwpip. 12 CTVWOYOS <|>I\(DV helps to identify

the play.

Cf. Eur. I. A. 1545 'Axatuv

aijhXoyos <7Tpa.Te6fj.aT0S. 1 3 i]OTJxov...ir68a occurs also in E u r . Bacch. 647 arijaov TT65', dpyrj 8' inrbBes

ijavxov wbda, where however it has been much suspected, and in Med. 217 ot d' d0' i/aixov irodbs \ diavoiav iKT^aai/TO Kal pq.6vij.lav. jj.bv OVK f/Seiffda irarpipas %8ovb%; l.T. 1066 14 TOIS Iv T^Xei is another slight indi717s irarpipas vdaros. Horn, e 344 vbarou \ cation of Sophocles' authorship, since this yalrjs ^ai^KOiy. So perhaps 'lXlov GT6phrase occurs four times in the extant \ov Eur. LA. 816 (England). There is plays, but nowhere in Euripides. no difficulty in the combination of such

AXAIQN IYAAOTOZ AXIAA OA

99

ov fxrfv in' CI/CTCUS y ecrri KCOTTT^TJS arpa.ro'i, OVT ovv OTTXITIJ? efera^eTai irapcov. dXX awi/ccr

crTrevSew' ya/3 ev Kaipaj

AXIAAE aiei TTOT' ecrre rw^eXets /cat //.eXXere, p'y]crei<; 0" e«a(rTos nvpias Ka Xeyet, TO S' epyov [ou]Sa/i.ou [d] eV, a)? oyoafVJe, S^oaf eroi/xos wr [vp]fj.L8d)v, Kal 7rXeucr[o/u,ai]

ai crr/mrou]

[

]

[

]

2 2 opai[. Je pap. 1

16 ov |I,IJV... Y' is adversative, {yet... 19 vw^eXeis: also in Eur. Or. 800 KO/). 7e never follows /xr/v immediately Tr\evpa vurxc^V vbo<$. Wilamowitz calls and sometimes the intervening word or it an Ionism. words alone are emphasized: cf. O. T. 2 0 pTJras, here of deliberative speeches; 810 ov fxi}v XG7\V 7 ' ZTeiaev. See also on but the word never developed this as a Eur. Phoen. 1622.—Wecklein objects to technical sense. Cf. Aesch. Suppl. 623 Kwn-TJpt]9 crTpards, requiring ' T}fxwv Xeywv. Aesch. Pen. 417, and would read iiaceiab- Achilles is the typical man of action, who irevrai arrpards from fr. 145. The objec- finds debate trivial, and pijireis X^eiy has tion is hypercritical, and the proposed the same slightly contemptuous force as alteration would make OTTXLTTJS in V. 17the common \6yovs \4yew (Wilamowitz). unintelligible. —KO.0TJp.Evos, inactive: so Dem. 2. 23 dXV olfjLaL Kadrj/xed' ovdtv TtOLOvvres. ib. 17 OUT' OVV. Since the time of Elmsley scholars have generally agreed in con- 24 TO. d' Vftfrep' CLUTCJV d7ro\a)\e/cdTes /fddemning ov.. .oftre in parallel clauses, where $yja$(. 4. 9 f/.4XKovTas r/p-as Kal Kadr}fj.4rovs TrepLCTTOLxi^Tat. it is given by the MSS of Attic writers (Kuehner-Gerth n 28, Jebb on Track. 2 1 oi!Sap.oS TropeutTcu, 'in no degree 1058). Homer has received less strin(quarter) is forwarded.' The local sense gent treatment: see Leaf on X 265. of oi5a/j.ov is transferred to the moral Wilamowitz argues that oiir' should be sphere (fr. 106 n.), but it has not become kept here, on the ground that where equivalent to oOSafjutis. So in Eur. Her. the first negative is strengthened, as here 841 fj deal /th oida/j.ov and elsewhere, but or by Tis, TOL or ri, re may stand in the in O.T. 908 the ordinary meaning is second clause. The suggested rule is possible. The passive sense of iropeveGdai questionable, but, when he says that oi5' appears in At. 1254. Cf. fr. 314, 324. would be impossible with odv follow2 2 opjs p.e was printed in the editio ing, he undoubtedly goes too far: cf. 0. C. princeps, but Schubart has since reported 1134 OVK Zyoiyt
2 4 is echoed in Eur. I.A.

818 ra TSIV

'ATpeiduw /j.i} p&oiv /j.e\\r]/xara. This is 18 dXXa, introducing an objection: not so much imitation as involuntary Kuehner-Gerth II 288. Cf. Eur. Phoen. reminiscence, and there are several simi1618 (n.). Odysseus replies with a lar instances, such as e.g. Eur. Med. 523 familiar tag, not far removed from our a\\' afore vabs K€5vov olcLKoffTpbov after 'more haste, worse speed.' Cf. Phil. 637 7\ TOL Kaiptos ffirovdi] irovou J X^apTos Aesch. Theb. 61 txii 5' ui
IOO

ZOOKAEOYI

The metres of the choral ode present hardly any difficulty:— --w __ Alcaic, quatern. (enhopl.) pherecr. . ______ paroem. (enhopl.) • ~- pherecr. - •— lecyth.

- — ~_~~_ -~_

ba. ba. enhopl. Archil. - — cr. ia. sp. (cf. Ai. 197- 4°°) • glycon. ~- - - - Alcaic, quatern. (enhopl.)

col. iii restant tantum personarum nominum hie illic vestigia, ita tamen ut cmyoiLvdiav a versu undecimo usque ad vicesimum et fortasse latius pertinuisse ostendant 143 o>s vaocj>vXaKe<s vvKrepov jp Tr\i]KTpoL<s direvOvvovcnv ovpiav Tpoiriv. 1 4 3 Pollux 10. 143 vauTiKb. Si <jKeit\ KaKoi...iri)bahi.a w'XyJKTpa, ws 2O0OKXTJS iv 'Axai&v ffvKXbycp '
7] yhp vii; aicpifieCTipa rrjs T)iiipas rots TreXayoSpofAovpi, dia ras rwv affTpuv rty 'ov' airotpaaiv 'vvKTiirXoeis' ttirev {Stoic, vet*

It is a mistake to suppose that the Greeks did not sail by night, seeing that fr. Ill p. 202). Strabo 757 : the Sidonians the use of the stars for the purpose of became skilled astronomers largely in connavigation was attributed to Palamedes sequence of their enterprise in nocturnal (fr. 432). But if the sky was clouded it navigation. was necessary to lay to, and the sailor's 1 vavKXigpCas. Campbell is probably dread of night became proverbial. Aesch. right in concluding that the word is used fr. 193 (Cicero's tr.) naveni ut horrisono here for a ship: see n. on Eur. Hel. 1519 freto I noclem paventes timidi adnecTIS 5^ viv ravKXrjpta | in TTJaS' A.iri)pe x
144 O~V S' iv 6pOVOLO~L

€)(O)V

ve/x' et rt? ov Trdpecmv os 144. 1 7TTDxasToup: 7TTDxasToup: TTTI^XOS TTTI^XOS codd. 2 vifi.' et TIS Bergk : dirivei/iov vi/iei jit codd. I irdpearus88sBBergk : v&pean TU k & U codd. dd 1 4 4 Schol. Pind. Isth. 2. 68 rh yap dirbvet.fji.ov dvrl TOV dvdyvwffi. ioQoKXrjs iv 'AxaiSiv avXXbyy ' 5' iv

8pbvoi.cn ypaunaroiv 7TTI>X"S ^X W " dirb viuei TIS oi Trapeari rls £vv
AXAIQN lYAAOTOI Valckenaer) dvri TOV dvdyvudi • icai avelfi-q dapurrl < 6 > /3ou«6Xos [referringto Theocr. 18. 47 f. ypdfifiara 5' ev tp\oug yeypa^ e r a i , (is irapuhv TIS | dvveifxri Aojpiari' '
The fragment relates to a muster of the Achaean chiefs held immediately before their departure for Troy. The number present is to be ascertained by reference to a list of the suitors of Helen, who had joined in taking an oath to Tyndareus: b'rov yvv-q yevoiro Tvvdapis Kopr), \ roijTtp ffwanweiv, el TIS £K 5b/j.oiv \afiiiv \ OI'XOITO

IOI

In Theocritus I.e. the meaning—' to read' to oneself (strictly, perhaps, 'to con over' or 'spell out')—is certain, and we may believe that Parthenius (first century B.C.), a learned poet, is following some such authority. In Pindar most editors have refused to follow the scholiast, but Bury is inclined to adopt avdvufiov with Tyrrell, who suggests for our line Avdvei/iov d TIS ov irap' 8s Jwci/iOffex. But they have omitted to point out that the Greek for recitare or recensere is dvav4/j.eo-6at: H d t . 1. 173 (lpofj.4vov 5^...Tts &rn, KaraX^ei iuvrov /iniTpoBev Kai TT\% /ATjrpbs dvave/iierai

(Eur. LA. 6i). Cf. At. 1113, Phil. 72, Thuc. 1. 9, Hes. fr. 96, 40 ff. Rz. H. T&.S urirtpas. The schol. on Ar. Av. 1289 suggests that probably Achilles was found held that direviixovro glanced at the meaning aveylvucKov. To this should corto be absent. 1 ev Spovouri. Welcker thought that respond t>4fieo-Bai citare, answering to the words were spoken by Odysseus to vilely ' to mark off, put down, register,' Agamemnon. However this may be, the which we find in the phrase vipeiv irpoperson addressed appears to be seated on o-Tdrriv: cf. Polyb. 6. 47. 8 r&v d$\r)rCiv a high chair for the purpose of taking the roiis ij.Tj nevefiTifiivovs, ' unlicensed athletes.' roll: Agamemnon was primus inter pares, So Karav4/iu in Aeschin. 1. 155 'iva i/neis and is never treated as monarch of the Karaveifnp-e els TT\V -n-poo'TiKOvo'av rdl-tv Achaeans, so that a reference to his TUfiapXov, ib. 159. It is possible therefore royalty would be out of place. For the that we should read vefj.-rj, and make the Homeric dpbvos see Ameis-Henze on sentence interrogative ('won't you call But, on the whole, Bergk's a. 132. Herwerden, thinking of a docu- over...?'). 1 ment kept in a place of security, pro- re /*' d TIS accounts better for the facts, and posed 4v 56/j.ouri.—irrv^as: here metre particularly for the interpolation of dirorequires the accentuation which is now veifiov (see cr. n.). We should render accordingly: ' mark off on your list any generally adopted. See Sandys on Eur. Bacch. 62. Cf. Eur. fr. 506, 2 h Sehrov who are not present.' Madvig, who restored ve^eis, interpreted it similarly TTTVX
avayivtbo-Keis.

vifxw

dvayiviiuKw)

and dvavi/un (cf. Epicharm. fr. 224 K.) are used in the same sense by other poets.

fj.o
be

too

145 145 Hesych. 11 p. 44 eKKeK<Jnn]Tcu (Musurus for eKKeKbirriTai) • e^-qprxirai (ef^pTT/Tai cod.). So^o/cXiys 'ZvKhbyq ('A.Xat&" vvWoytp Musurus). Meineke restored eKKeKtinrevTai., referring to Hesych. 11 p. 460 KeKibirevrai. arparbs,

6 eirl

n<Jnrr)S

and

proposed

i^rfprvrai.

to complete the gloss. Nauck thought that the simple verb KeKtinrevrai ought to be substituted, but the fondness of Sophocles for verbs compounded with ix and with slightly intensive foree makes

IOOKAEOYI

IO2

the suggestion unnecessary: see on fr. 524. Meineke thought that KtKdnrevrai arparas was taken from a tragic poet, and so Wecklein. The question remains whether iKKemlnrevrai meant ' is provided with oars,' or 'is equipped with weapons.' In favour of the latter, see on Eur. HeL 1128 novbuu-n-os av/ip and

cf. Timoth. Pets. 155 <Ti8ap6nwiros'EWdi'. But of course the other meaning, which Hesych. recognizes (11 p. 460 KeKtinrqrai' ij vavs), is perfectly legitimate, if required by the context. See also Boeckh, Urkunden, p. 291, who gives from an inscription rwv £vywv Ketcdtnriji'Tai P.

I46 146

Hesych. II p. 162 eirtfe

da.vovfi.ivri.

/tapripeaffcu, iropetieadai. SoiponXijs 'A-Xai&v vvWbytp /cat A/ff^iiXos Kprjacrais (fr. 120).

The inference to be drawn is that in one of the passages cited iir^evovaBai was equivalent to ixapripeadac, and in the other to iropeieaOat. For the first ( = to demand good offices), which arises from the host becoming bail (so to speak) for his guest to his fellow-countrymen, cf. Aesch. Ag. 1319 ^irilevopjuai ravra 8' us

£eivo86Kos and ^eivoSotceiv are

said to have been used for ndprvs and fuiprvpeiv by Simonides or Pindar: see Apollon. lex. Horn. s.v. and Etym. M. p. 610, 42. The other meaning is apparently to be on one's 'travels, or to sojourn abroad. It occurs in Isocr. ep. 6 r6 ft.ri rrphrtw iin£ei>ova6a.i TOU rrjh.KOIVOIS, Arist. pol. 4 (7). 6. I327 a 13, Etym. M. p. 470, 47, and is based upon the phrase £irl ij^ijs etvai, for which see 0. C. 184, 563, Eur. Andr. 135.

147 eTricreioucnjs 147

Hesych. 11 p. 167

eiruceXevofifrris. a.irb TCJV TOLS ijvlas ^7riX<*.\&VTW (^7rixaAej'TCiH' cod. : corr. Musurus, xaX&vToiv N a b e r ) .

y The action of a driver encouraging his team by slackening the reins and shaking them over the horses' backs is familiar to everyone : see El. 711 o£ 5' a^a iinrois X

6fWK\ricrai'Tes Tj^ias x 6 /""" ! iaeitrav, E u r . / . A. 151 TraXtp elcrdpfJA., Crete xa^lvo^^*

The transition from iirureiav Tjflas to iiriadeiv rivd. is illustrated by Eur. Or. 2 55 M'V 'TriaeU fAot j rets aip.a.TOJirovs Ktti SpaKOfTiiSeis Kdpas, ib. 613. T h e coinci-

dence of the latter with iirurlfeu' is accidental.

I48 148

Hesych. ill p. 172

(pp

TOIL'S 8ta TCIV TrTapfi&v olbwurfxovs IHXeyov. averWevro Se oSroi Ari/irjTpi. nvis Si rd$ 81a TTJS <jyqp.7}S ywoiUvas ftavTeias, as $c\6Xop6s
cod.). The first part of the gloss recurs in Phot, lex, p. 311, 1, Suid. s.v. (v/iS6\ properly an adjective to

oiwvos in the wider sense, was the name given to anything capable of significance as an omen which a man might encounter in moving from place to place. Aesch. Prom. 502 K\7}S6VO,S re 8vaKplrovs I eymipiff' aimis tvoSiovs re O-U/J.(36\OVS. AT. Av. 719 Spnv re vonifrre va,v6' Suaircp irepl /MVTetas SiaKpivei • I
AXAIQN ZYAAOrOI—AXIAAEQI EPAITAI ipnv, ovov ipviv. There the schol. gives a definition : f(5/u/3o\oi' tpviv t/njalv, tVeiSr; ™»Tas, fed ef dirai'Tija-etis n Trpoini/tatvovTas, and then proceeds in .words identical with the first part of Hesychius' note. In Xen. mem. i. i. 3 it is implied that ai^oKoi are derived from 01 avavTuvTcs. Several instances are given in Hor. Carm. 3. 27. 1 ff. So, to stumble on leaving the house was ill-omened : Tibull. r. 3. 19. The eagles and the hare are called Sdiov rtpas as
103

be observed that Hesych. and the schol. Ar. call 7rrap/t6s a case of av/ifioXos, although Aristophanes keeps them apart, and that Hesych. seems to identify 0iJ/C"? and
AXIAAEQZ EPAZTAI This was a satyr-play, as fr. 153 proves. It is probable that the satyrs were themselves represented as unsuccessful lovers of Achilles, and as filled with indignation in consequence. Wilamowitz thinks that Achilles was the pattern of the Athenian 7rat? K.a\o<;, and that Phoenix (see fr. 153) was his TraiBaywyos1. Another character appearing was Peleus (fr. 150), who may have warned Achilles that the sports of his boyhood must soon be exchanged for the life of a warrior (fr. 156). Welcker inferred that the scene of the play was laid in the home of Peleus at Phthia, but the cave of Chiron on Mt Pelion is a much more likely haunt of satyrs, and is clearly indicated by the language of fr. 154. It was moreover in the cave of Chiron that Heracles met Achilles and fell a victim to his beauty. The story was related by Antisthenes in his well-known work entitled Heracles (Eratosth. catasterism. 40 p. 264 West., Procl. in. Plat. Ale. I p. 98 Cr.), and was doubtless taken by him from older sources : cf. Ov.Fast. 5. 381 ff. It may therefore be conjectured with some confidence that the arrival of Heracles was an episode in Sophocles. There is some authority for reckoning Chiron himself as a lover of Achilles (Dio Chrys. 58. 4 II p. 130 Arn.); but that tradition is less likely to be early. The case of Patroclus must be left doubtful. Aeschylus in the Myrmidons (TGF p. 44) represented Achilles as the ipa&Trfs, and is followed by many late authors (e.g. Philostr. epist. 8, Martial 11.43. IO )- But Plato in Symp. 180 A rebukes Aeschylus as guilty of a perverse error on the ground that Homer makes Patroclus the elder (A 787), and does not hesitate to call Patroclus the epacrr^? : so also Aristarchus (p. 187 Lehrs). No inference should be drawn from Phil. 434. 1 Observe that, according to Apollod. 3. 175, Phoenix was cured of his blindness by Chiron. Wagner suggests that this may have been the motive of the presence both of Peleus and of Phoenix.

IO4

I04>0KAE0YZ

It is generally admitted that the play of Sophocles is referred to by Ov. Trist. 2. 409 est et in obscenos commixta tragoedia risus, multaque praeteriti verba pudoris habet. \ nee nocet auctori, mollem qui fecit Achillem, \ infregisse suis fortia facta modis.

149 TO ycLp vocrr^La

TOVT'

iifJi,epov KCLKOV

^Xpifx! av avrb /u.17 fcaKw orav wdyov <£cu>eVros aWptov ^p KpverTaXkov apiracraicri TrcuSes evnayrj, ra irpoiT eyovcriv T^Sovds TroTaivlovsreXos §' 6 xv[Ji.b<s ovff oircos a^y deXet, OVT' iv ^epovv TO Trrjyfjia crv/xifiopov fx.4vt.iv.

5

1 4 9 . 1 rb yap v6tnifm Dobree: ipoiros y&p vbayna SMA, vdo-qyZ Ipuros cod. Paris. 1985 I i(pip.epov Arsenius: i for XUM6S, comparing fr. 507 and Eur. fr. 6vo/JLdfav
AXIAAEQZ EPAZTAI

105

Se TOUS ipcJvTas awTOS i[/.epo<s Bpav Kal TO fj.rj Spav 7roAAa/as irpocrlerai.

OVTO)

8 OSTW 8i (oiirw ye Gesner) Meineke: oflre SMA codd.

9 TrpoaleTat. Meineke: Trpo'lerat

Goodw. § 572, or more fully by Hale in Trpay/j? d
Hense's offr' dir
WXei, and Gomperz's OUT' d7rooTr£o-0 «re. H. (in C. R. follows the analogy of such verbs as XVII 293) preferred that the first line ireWu and Trporp^Tru. For the use of the should run T£\OS 5' efxei viv oW 6 irais articular infinitive as complement (Spav SITUS dtprj, or rAos 5' SITUS a holding rightly that ?x ' simple infinitive would be expected, an demanded by the construction. He points idiom characteristic of Sophocles, cf. out that the indirect deliberative and Trach. 545 TO 8' a5 t-vvoiKeiv rrjd' 6fj.ov ris the infinitive after £%c' a r e combined by av yvvrr) I dtivairo; Ant. 78 TO de j j3ia TTO\LTC:V Sophocles in Ai. 428, Ant. ii\. There Spav lipvv a/xrixa-vos, ib. 1106 /x6\is fniv, are two objections to this view (j) that KapSias 5' e^tcrra/xat TO Spav, Phil. 1252 the change to the singular (6 irais) is dXX' ot)oV Tot cry X€LPL Treidoixai. Tb Spav. awkward, and (2) that ?x 6 ' does not fit For the co-ordination of the simple the following line. With Dobree's dvfios infinitive with the articular in the same (for xvp-os) m the sense of 'desire,' we clause cf. El. 265 KCLK TCOVS£ fxoi \ Xa/3e?p #' might continue ovd' OTTWS a<prj
Kal TO T7}Ta<j6ai 7r^Xet, inf.

fr.

treating v. 7 as a separate clause (scil. 188 n. For the adverbial use of abrbs eart). But it has also occurred to me ( = at once) cf. Phil. 119, 1330. H. conthat the corruption may have been from jectured TOV 7' epQvTos in v. 8 (J. P. an original TeXos 5' 6 x"/""' °fyt oVus x x i n 272), and, if that were accepted, the afiieTcu, oi)5' KT€. It is true that in use of irpocrleTai would be parallel to prose, where the idiom chiefly occurs, Eur. fr. 893. dXV ovS' invariably introduces the second The following rendering is taken from clause ; but El. 796 shows that Sophocles did not shrink from using oix SITUS, and J. (with slight modifications) : ' This distemper is a joy mixed with pain. Here there is not sufficient evidence of early usage to prove that d\\' OVK )( o6S4 was is no bad image of it;—when the frost hath come in bright weather, and children indispensable in the apodosis. With seize a solid lump of ice, at first they feel ai/jupopov sc. iari : but I cannot help suspecting that atj/j.(popos here meant a new delight; but at last the melting packed together (cf. Xen. Cyneg. 8, 1 oud' mass cannot be dropped, and yet their treasure will not rest packed firmly in edv irvevfia 17 fj.4ya' Pisides ap. their hands. Even thus desire often Suid. s.v.
ZO*OKAEOYI

io6

i5o TI? y a p fie fLO^(6o<; OVK eTrecrraVei,; \4
4.—lir«rraT«i. If the reading is correct, we are obliged to assume that iiriGTaTeiv is used in a sense otherwise unexampled ( = to beset, visit), but corresponding to

2 SSoip coni. Mekler werden's ^rcfdpet (Eur. Phoen. 45 n . ) ; but, as the metre is not entirely satisfactory, Nauck, who formerly proposed iTrtGTpa.Tf.itTo, suggests rls yap /j.e < T £ S IJie>- ...4wefrapei;—\e«v m, For the

metamorphoses of Thetis in her struggle to escape from Peleus see on fr. 618. The particulars here given correspond to Pind. Nem. 4. 62 irvp 5Z iraytcpaTh fipa
that of e-wuTTr)vai (Track. 1170 n&xBwv T(OV e
Tixv Toiab' iiricrrri) ; and that it is followed by an accusative of the person attacked on the analogy of such cases as O. C. 942 ofidets 7ror' avrobs.. .av efiw4aoL £77X0$.

ascribed to other sea-gods, such as Nereusand Proteus ; and that they must be taken to symbolize the unstable character of the element.

Otherwise the best correction is Her-

[17 ©erts vrrb

XoiSoprjOelaa

KaTeknrev

avrov.~\

151 Schol. A p . Kh. 4. 816 2oo/cXijs fire, not thrown into the water ; and this Se iv 'Ax'XX^ws ipatrraU <j>rialv virb tlrjXias is the usual version. Other authorities XoiSoprjdelffaf T^V G£TLV KaTaXtTre'LV ai)T6v. say nothing about the elder children:

The extract is repeated in schol. Ar. Nub. 1068. Dindorf should not have combined this notice with fr. 150. It is interesting to find the story of the quarrel between Peleus and Thetis vouched for by Sophocles ; but he is not the oldest authority, as it is said to have been described in the epic Aegimius (fr. 2 K.: see Bethe in Pauly-Wissowa 1 963). The schol. on Apoll. Rhod. u.s., giving the epic version, says that Thetis used to test whether Peleus's children were immortal by plunging them into a cauldron of water ; and that-this proved fatal several times. When it was the turn of Achilles, Peleus stopped her. So Lycophr. 178, who makes Achilles the seventh child, d0' cirra •walSoiv tpe^ahq cnroSovfitvwv \ p,ovvov tp\4yovaav Qakii-avTa oiroS6v. H e r e it will

be observed that the child is burnt in the

Apollod. 3. 171 CIJS 5^ eyivv-qae Qtns iK II\^ S d dX TOVTO, Kpticpa IITJX^WS els r6 irup ypfi Trjs VVKTOS e'tpdetpev 8 TJV aurcj OVTJTOV varpifov, neB' rifitpav Se Zxptev a^poGla. Il^Xeiis Se e>TrLTT)p'f)<7as Kal GiraipovTa TOV walSa ISOIP eirl TQU irvpbs efidij&e' Kal G^rts KwXvdclaa TT]V irpoatpefftv TeXetQecu, vr\iriov TOV waiSa a7roXi7rou
In Apoll. Rhod. 4. 783 fif. Hera pleads with Thetis to afford good passage for the Argo: she had given Thetis the best of mortals for a husband, and held up the wedding-torch with her own hand; moreover, it is fated that in the Elysian plain Medea shall be wedded to Achilles, ' who is now being tended by Naiads in the home of Chiron, though he longeth for thy milk : help, then, thy future daughter, and Peleus himself; why is thy wrath so firmly rooted?' Thetis accordingly

AXIAAEQZ EPAITAI

107

(851 ff.) appears to Peleus, and gives him d^/ias, T)I)T' oveipos, | /87J p' tixev 4K fieyapoio certain directions, but warns him not to 6ows, Kal eariXaro wovTov J x0Jffafx^t/1J' fi€Ta disclose her presence to his companions. 5' O(1TL TraXl(T(rvTOS 'luer' 6TTIGGUI. T h e r e vbip 5' ?xe; f-V Mf xo^ffVs i ""^f'oi' er' 7) rh are two or three touches here, which show ira.poi.6ev airrfkeyeus exbXwcras (863 f.). that Apollonius and, Apollodorus are Then she leaves him in great distress, for following the same original. The schol. he had never seen her since she left his on Ar. Nub. 1068 seems to be conflating wedded couch in anger, when Achilles two different stories. It is obvious that was still an infant. i) /nb> yap pportas the burning of Achilles in the fire is a alei irepl o-dpnas Zdaiev | VUKTO. Sia fxiaayv doublet of the better-known legend of \oy6s' TJKe 5' recording a rite of infant initiation, avTTjv I cTfj.epda\eT)v eaiS&v, fJ.e'ya. vrjirios' whereby the child's hold on life is supposed r) d' aiovaa \ rbv fxev Up' aptraySrjv xa.IJ.adis to be strengthened : see W. R. Halliday fia\e K€K\-qyCiTa, avr^j de irvoiij IK^XTJ in C. R. XXV 8 ff.

152 rj Bopbs hiy(6(TTOjJiov TrXaKTpov h yap o&vvai, [x.iv rjptKov 86paro<s. 152. 152

2 sq. viv ijpeiKOv 'AxtXXe'tov Bergk (ijpeucov iam L. Dindorf)

Schol. Pind. Nem. 6. 85 01k

eK Trapadpo/j.Tjs de ^CLKOTOV elire r6 dopu rod 'Ax<-X\e(jis...a\X' o n Idiairepov irapa TO dXXa KareaaevaaTO. SUpovv yap ware 5vo alx^as %x*LV Ka^ M1^ fioXrj [wore] Sio'trd TO. rpavfiara airepyafcffdat. Kai Aiax^Xos ev N^pe'tVt (fr. 1 5 2 ) ' Ka.fj.aKos eTtri KafxaKos yXwoo~7]fj.a b~iirXa<nov.' Kai SOI^O/CXTJS ev

'AxtXX^ojs epaarah 'r]...56paros.' It is generally admitted that something is wrong with the tradition, and that the text exhibits a conflation of two fragments, the first of which ends at TrXaKTpov. The difficulty was first observed by Heath, who claimed v. 1 as alone belonging to Sophocles. Dobree, however (according to Nauck : for I cannot trace the source of his statement), denied that any part of the quotation was Sophoclean. Bergk came to the same conclusion as Heath; but thought that vv. 1, 3 did not belong to another play of Sophocles such as the Mwroi—for so the reference to Telephus might suggest—but derived from a lyric source. Accordingly he prints them as fr. 95 of his cuiespota (PLG ill 720). Hermann on Eur. / . T. 210 was of the same opinion as Dobree. The tradition relating to the double point of Achilles' spear does not seem to be recorded except in the passages quoted

by the scholiast, viz. Aesch. fr. 152 and the Little Iliad (EGF p. 41) fr. 5. 1 irXttKTpov, any striking instrument, whether pointed as here, or not: cf. Eur. Ale.

128 §{.6(lo\ov irXTJKTpov Trupbs Ket av~

viov. (For the form of the thunderbolt see the representation given in C. R. XVII 276.)

Ar. Av.

759 alpe irXiJKTpov,

el fiaxel, of the cock's spur. 2 8ITTT\JX
io8

IO*OKAEOYI 153 7ra7rat, TO.

anecd. Par. \ airt&Xeirav anecd. Bachm. bpQ) a anecd. Bachm., 6pQs 5' ipaffrais dijXov ws scorn: more often it is used for simple (sell, kirl TCIV appivuv) i^elX-qitTai. astonishment, as in Plat. legg. 704 C TairaT Twv ydp TI T&V aaripoiv eh T%V olov X^yets='you don't say s o ! ' Eur. ywatKelav iiriBv/iiav (fyqalv o "fcoiKif Cycl. 572 irairaT, ao
154 S', & Svaype,

TLTJXLCJTIKOV

Tpe(f>os

154 Pptos Athenaei C, Eustath. curious coincidence with the account in 1 5 4 Athen. 401 D SO^OKX^S jxiv yi.p iv 'Ax'XX^us ipa.i7Ta.Ts ^iri KVVOS Ira^e Apollodorus (3. 171) may be noted : 0 hi roilvofia {sell, (rtiaypos) dirb TOVffvsaypeOew, (scil. Xeipwy) \a(3iiv airbv (rpeos.' Eustath. Od. p. 1872, 12 ZoOK\TJS ' ffil 5'.../3p^0OS.'fiveXoh Kal (hvbfxaaev 'Ax'XXea KTC. In the well-known description of Pindar From Athen. also are drawn the state(Nem. 3. 43—52) we find K&irpovs T' ments in Gramm. Herm. p. 320 and anecd. fectipe, but also that the speed of Achilles Par. lv p. 245, 20 (A. Kopp, Beitr. was such that he slew stags dvev KVVCOV. zurgr. Excerpten-Litt. p. 159). Nauck thinks that Steph. Byz. p. 521, 10 IIT]\I(I>TIK6V. In fr. T069 Achilles is Xtyerai Kal KTTJTIKOV HrjXtoiriKbv refers to referred to as hunting on Mt Pelion, and this fragment. Cf. Stat. Achill. 2. 410.— it is highly probable that the allusion is For Tp(<po$: Spi^a, like Bipos (fr. 11) : to this play. It was in his cave on Mt Sipiw., |8X&ros: fHX4/Atia, see Blaydes on Pelion that Achilles was reared by Chiron Ar. Nub. 1176. after he was abandoned by his mother (fr. 151): see Eratosth. catast. 40. A

155 y\d>crcnf]<;

/JLeXCcrcrrj r&J

1 5 5 fieXiircrri Ellendt: codd. 1 5 5 Schol. Soph. 0. C. 481 USaros, dative (or less commonly the ace.) of the fieXiff(ri;s] vSaros Kal fitXiros • enrb y&p TOV flowing liquid : Eur. Tro. 16 ipbvtf iroiovvTos TO irot.oviJ.evov • KOX iv ' Karappet, Bacch. 142, Horn. X 149 etc. The corruption of ixeXlaar) to /leXio-o-ijs is y p p hardly to be wondered at. The correction Nauck says 'versus corrupti medelam occurred to me independently, before I desidero.' But for the silence or hesitation found that it had been made by Ellendt of previous editors, I should have thought and Blaydes. Wecklein also {Berlin, that the remedy was obvious. Campbell, who half-heartedly suggests yXSio-
AXIAAEQI EPAITAI

109

remark applies to Gomperz's yXuao-r/s Jebb on Bacchyl. 9. 10. Theocr. 1. 146 fi4\i(rtra TavSpbs ippiii- Kara. The meta- TrXijpts TOL JU^XITOS TO KaXbv US TOV IX£XLTL TO arb/ia Kcxpwv-t>">v may be the person described here : Eur. {vit. § 13). Xenophon, whose speech was fr. 899 et fioi TO NeffTopetoj/ eiyKwaoav melle dulcior (Cic. or. 32), earned the piXi (Barnes for/x^\os) ...dolij 6e&s. Poets same appellation (Suid. s.v.). For are constantly compared to bees: see n4\i see on fr. 1064 Xlfiavos.

156 6 Be evd* OTTXOIS appS>t;w 'H^aiVrov 1 5 6 appSs^iv Bergk : dp<2£LV vel apwfiv Choerob. | T^X"3 Dindorf: Choerob. ao<poi \ 6edv post 'H.<pal
ting on the armour forged by Hephaestus; but iySOvai is regularly followed by the (cf. anecd. Par. I p . 396, 28) aX y.tvT0i ace, and Lobeck can produce no better /xeTaireirXa 'AxiX.X4us ipaaTais • ' 6 not well suited to the neut. 6VXois; but 5e kvd'...TCXVLTOV' TOUTO yd.p icaTa /ierato speak of 'metaplasm' is beside the irXa.o~is.bv airb TOV appiJKTOLS yevbfxevov, TOVmark. See on Eur. Hel. 1301 SpoixdSi ij TpairivTos eis rb w, Tpo-repiff-raTai KO.1 KiiXifi, Phoen. 1024. Jebb on Track. 930 oi -Tapo£vi>eTai. Part of the quotation is also found in Choerob. in Theod. p . 367, 32 (p. 339, 17 Hilgard) iirl TOD ' d ^ SirXois' TO appthS-w apcreviKbr ov T$ SirXois

6 8« Sv8' has been naturally suspected. Bergk conjectured 6 5' Zv 6', and Lobeck (Paralip. p. 287) hivvd'. The latter view, —an alternative would be 6 bi | ivSii— is attractive, as applied to Achilles put-

fyynabstract for concrete, of a work of art. So 0. C. 472 Kparijph e'unv, avSpbs eiixupos rex"Vt a nd in Latin: Hor. Carm. 4. 8. 5 divite me scilicet artium, \ quas aut Parrhasius protitlit aut Scopas and other exx. quoted in Thesaurus 11 673, 9 ff. This use of T^X"V probably always prevailed in artistic circles, as it is common in later Greek.

157

1 5 7 d/i/idTav diro \ X6yx°.s Casaubon: d/j.fia,TOTrdXoyx<>. cod. cod., &cpL7](nv vel d0tefs Dindorf 157

Hesych. ws

Nauck:

Ill p. 203 KO.1 ev fiiXri TeTpQo-Oai avrbv ipfiijv. Arsen. prov.

kpcLGTaZs ' 6fj.fiaTOirdXoyxo.

p For the remainder of the gloss see on fr. 801. The shafts launched from the eyes which inflict the wound of love are fully illustrated on fr. 474. To the passages there quoted add Xen. mem.

171 yvvaiKos 6,u/xa TOIS dKf/.d£ovo~iP /S^Xos. Aristaen. ep. 1 avo'TOxtos eiriTo^eveiv TOLLS TSIV d/ifidroiv /3oXafs. Musaeus 95 air' dtpdaX/jLolo fioXdwv \ KaXXos oXiadaivei, Kal (iri tppivas dvdpbs bSevei. Dindorf supports

his conj. (see cr. n.) by the phrase Ifiepov

I. 3 . 13 latos di Kai oi Spares TO£6T
misinterpreted by Stallbaum) d
no

IO*OKAEOYS

AAIAAAOZ

The plot of the play is entirely unknown except in so far as a conjecture may be founded on the references to Talos 1 : see the nn. on frs. 160 and 161. I believe that fr. 162, which Nauck hesitates to attribute to Sophocles, was also an allusion to the brazen giant. The only mythical incident connected with the name of Talos is that which relates to the home-coming of the Argonauts and is described in Apoll. Rhod. 4. 1638—1688 : cf. Apollod. 1. 140 f. When Jason and his comrades desired to land in Crete, they were prevented by Talos, the brazen warder, who according to certain authorities had been given by Hephaestus to Minos, and whose duty it was to make a circuit of the island three times a day for the purpose of protecting it from strangers. Talos pelted the ship with rocks", and the Argo was obliged to sheer off. But Medea undertook to remove the obstacle, and, after invoking the destructive Keres, swift hounds of Death, to visit his eyes with destruction, made use of all her magical skill against the enemy. The result was that Talos struck his ankle against a pointed rock, and burst the avpoy^ which contained his supply of vital energy—i/c Be ol t%*>p | rrj/cofievqi («eXo? yu.oXi/'3&> peev (1679 f.). Fr. 161 suggests that this narrative may have been the central incident of the Sophoclean play. Talos is rationalized in [Plat.] Minos 320 C. The evidence that Daedalus was a representative title of Hephaestus is slight; but, though it is not universally admitted, there are insufficient grounds for contesting the identification : see C. Robert in Pauly-Wissowa IV 199S, Malten ib. VIII 360, and Bury on Pind. Nem. 4. 59. In Eur. Her. 471, where Kirchhoff, Dindorf, and Nauck retained AaoBdXov, Wilamowitz accepted Hermann's BaiBaXov. If we assume that DaedalusHephaestus, as the artificer of Talos, was a prominent personage in the play, there is the more reason for admitting the suitability of a satyr-chorus in view of the cult-fellowship of Hephaestus with Dionysus, and of his association with the donkey and the phallus (Malten u.s. 356, Gruppe, pp. 245, 1306, 1311). 1 Robert merely says that the Daedalus ' auf Kreta gespielt zu haben scheint' (Pauly-Wissowa iv 2006). Wagner suggested that the plot was similar to that of Euripides' Cretans.

AAIAAAOI

111

158 ikkei

[lev eicrw

TOV8'

1 5 8 fXXei /niv (eiXXei ph vel cl\\&/j.ev Diels) ei'crai van Leeuwen: cod., iXXoi/iex etaoi Nauck, el\ri
159 /Jiovcra Trvpyuxras p^/xara ae/xva, referring to 1 5 9 Pollux 7. 117 iirei di nal rods Aeschylus, implies magniloquence. MiloiKod6/j.ovs riKTOvas "Op-ripos (Z 315) KttXei, ton's (Lycid. 11) ' build the lofty rhyme' xai apxiT^KTUv elpijTai. irapii. IlXarwei has familiarized the metaphor in English. (polit. 259 E)' fiiaia yap r) (v T£ SO0OIn Latin condere carmen and the like /cXeous AtuSdXcfj ' reKrbvapxos fioScra.' were common: see Thesaurus iv 153. The context indicates that Pollux only The view of R. Holland that Daedalus criticized the formation adopted by Sophocles as forced, and (3(aios as a grammarians' in these words was invoking the assistance of the goddess in the building of his flyingword often means very little (Rutherford, machine seems improbable. Nauck unAnnotation, p. 319).—The muse is the necessarily suggests TeKTovovpyos on the chief of the builders of verse: Pind. Pyth. 3. 113 e£ iirtuiv KeKabevvGiv, | T^K- strength of Hesych. IV p. 138 reKTovovp76s' apxiTtKTwv. Ellendt renders 'qui roves ola aixpol \ apixoaav, yi.yvuKXKOfiei'. JVem. 3. 4 //.eXtyapvtav T^Kroves Kwfxojvarti fabrili praeest'; but the Muse could not be described as the patroness of veaviai (of the singers). Ar. Eq. 530 carpenters. T^/croves evTraXd/iw vp.vav. Ar. Ran. 1004

112

IO*OKAEOYZ 160

16O Schol. Plat. rep. 337 A aveKayx^ot

Be rbv TaXwv rbv fy (fr. 'ZapSoviovs 01) fiovKonivovs Trepaiaaai irpbs Minaa. eh irvp KaBaKKb/ievov, ais &v X a A " 202 A, PLG in 524) CITTA TdXw roC KOVV, irpotrTepvL^fievov (1. TpoffffTepvifdfJLCXOKKOV, bv "H0OKTTOS i8rjtuoipyriip vov) avatpeiv imxaaicovras. T h e words
ix&ha iov~i...2i/j.uvldr)s

Si

t-/j.}pvxop OVTIX TOUS 7reAdf<WTcU 07

ovftouXo/xevousand the introduction of

Kalovra avaipeiv. b'Bep diro TOU aeo-ijpivai 'ZapSovlovs are unintelligible. Bemhardy Sta T^P tfihbyoL rbv o~a.pbavt.bv d>7j
ep AcuSdXc^j. It is a legitimate inference from this passage that Sophocles introduced Talos as preventing intruders from entering Crete by consuming them with fiery heat, and also that the phrase oapSavios yi\ut occurred in connexion with the grimaces of the scorched victims. Being constructed entirely of bronze he was able to make himself red-hot in the fire, so that he could destroy with his embrace anyone who came near him. For the isolated and obscure phrase aapdavios (or aapSbvws) y£\us, which occurs first in

rather omit ZapSoviovs altogether as the blundering addition of someone who wanted to bring in Sardinia at all hazards, as if iwixdcKovTas were not enough, and read roi)s jSouXo^vous for ov j3ov\ofi4vovs. The result would tally with the text, but it is impossible to regard the account of Zenob. 5. 85 as anything but a deliberate attempt to conflate the two etymologies: 2t/j.(dvL8r]s 5i (fyrjtrl rbv TdXw irpb r ^ s ets | S i rCiv kv rating Stafp0eipat, oils TeKevrSiVTas aearipivaj., KOX ix rotirov 6 ~Za.pSbvi.os yi\as. T h e matter is of some

Horn, v 302 fitl8r)
AAIAAAOI being buried alive and laughing at their prospective happiness; and by Demon (FUG 1 380), who speaks of the most handsome captives and the old men over 70 being sacrificed to Cronos, and laughing at their own courage. Another fragment of Timaeus (schol. Lycophr. 796, FHG I 199), describing the sacrifice of the old men, makes their sacrificers laugh, while they beat them with clubs and thrust them over the precipice. [For the reference of this story to ' Aeschylus' irepi Q in Zenob. 5. 85 see Crusius,

Anal. crit. paroem. p. 148.] Clitarchus preferred the derivation from anj-qphiai, explaining that it was the custom of the Carthaginians, when sacrificing their children to Cronos, to place them in the arms of a brazen idol, with a heated oven burning beneath (schol. Plat., Phot. etc.). There is a special treatise by L. Mercklin, entitled Die Talossage u. das sardonische Lachen, Petersb. 1851, which I have not been able to see. For the assumed identity of Hephaestus and Daedalus see Introductory Note.

TeXeimjcrai]

[TctXw 1 6 1 Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 4. 1638 6 TdXws CTTI TOV fftpvpov crvpiyya elx^v V/JL4VL 6'TI 5e etfiapro avTip TeXevrTjffac. X£yei 2o<£oKX^S ev TaXy. TOV 5e TaXcov T6J/ (pi/Xaica TOV M£PW rpis /Ae^ ee i^fxipq. iraaav irepiTTohtlv

TTjV K p ? j T 7 / ^ TTJKlKCLVTTJV OIXTCLV, TT/f

5<: £W7)V fxbvOV

pp£

TU)V 4fl'il/tJ'^OJV

TOVTOV

kv T($

j

The scholia were edited from the Laurentianus by H. Keil in the second volume of Merkel's Apollonius (1854). They are stated in the subscript™ to be derived from Lucillus Tarrhaeus, Sophocles, and Theon: for the course of tradition see Wilamowitz, Einleitung, p. 186. The text as given in Wellauer's edition from the codd. Flor. and Paris, often shews differences of language, but not much important divergence. Dindorf quotes the above extract from Brunck.

For iv TaXiji Brunck substituted iv AaiSiXif, but this is probably one of the cases where the name of a leading character was substituted for the title of the play: see fr. 125. It has been suggested in the Introductory Note that the story of the death of Talos as told in the Argonautica may have been a leading incident in the play. Apollod. 1 140 describes the avpiyi; thus: el^e 5£
three different versions of the death of Talos, none of which agrees with that of Apollonius: (1) he became mad through the magic potions of Medea; (2) Medea promised to make him immortal and drew out the nail, so that all his vital fluid (lxp) escaped; (3) Poeas wounded him in the ankle with an arrow.

162 AITVCLCGDV < y e

>

1 oiW V: o^ cett. 2 7* addidi 162. suppose that it was a comment on the 1 6 2 Schol. Ar. Pac. 73 /xiyaXoi. \iyovrai eti'ai Kara T ^ Atrvtjv KavOapot, fiaprv- appearance of Talos himself.—Jebb on 0. C. 312 Afrvaias iirl ] iriiXov /Se/Jwiraj/ thinks that the Alrvaios piyurTos icdvBa'dXX'...7rctvTws,' X^yet Si iravTws et/cd^cuf pos of Ar. Pac. 73 was not a mere joke on ei's ixiyav. the Aetnaean breed of horses, but an The sense may be rendered: ' well, it allusion to a species of beetle actually certainly isn't a beetle,—not one from found there. The evidence seems to me Aetna anyhow.' R. Holland thinks that to point in the opposite direction, and the remark was made by Talos of Daedaalso to indicate that the joke in the time lus as he flew away; I should rather P.

IO*OKAEOYI

H4

also on fr. 672. The starting-point of of Aristophanes was a somewhat musty comparison was probably KOVBUV: Greg. one. If not, it is odd that the four illusCypr. 2. 24 MTVOZOV ndi/Bava' rbv lUyav.— trations quoted by the scholiast are all AXX* o-tiSk |iiv 8ij rejects an alternative, of a comic character; that, if everyone as in El. 913, Ai. 877, Track. 1128 dXX' knew that there really was an Aetnaean oihi iiiv di] rote y' *(/>' Tjnipav ipeis. I have beetle, Plato the comic poet should have added ye partly for obvious metrical reathought it worth while to say that it sons, and partly because it gives to AiVwas reported to be bigger than a man vaXiiiv exactly that slight stress which (fr. 37, I 610 K.); and also that the Sicilian Epicharmus (fr. 76 6 JlvyiiAiplwv seems to be required: see Track. I.e., Ar. \o\aybs etc T&V Kavddptav \ TWV fie^dvoiv oilsNub. 126 dXX' oiS' iyw iitvTOi ireaiii/ ye <pat>n rav Alrvav ?x e '") should mention a xeltrofuu, Plat. Symp. 197 A KOX fiev Sr; Ti\v -yt rav £(pwv irolrjo'iv.—The penultireport that there were big beetles on mate syllable of Afrvalwv was probably Aetna. The remaining passage is Aesch. fr. 233 Ahvatbs ean navdapos fSlq. irhvav shortened: cf. fr. 956 n.—irdvrws more often precedes the negative, — 'certainly (or TTOCWC), from the satyric 2{
163 yopyd.8 1 6 3 Hesych. I p. 442 yopyi&wv a/V«£dtav. AaiSdXy 2o<poK\ijs. ibid, yopytdts' ai uiKeavldes. Zonar. p. 448 yopyabes' al Si&irotvai. The adj. yopy6s appears originally to have meant 'flashing' (Eur. Phoen. 146 n.), but the transition to 'fierce, terrible (to look at)' is easy: cf. Topyii, yopyunns. Some modern scholars have used this evidence in support of their theory that the Gorgons were originally sea-nymphs (Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. i864)

who dwelt on the shore of the western sea (Roscher, Lex. II 1694); but it is sufficient to say that the epithet is naturally applied to the miraculous beings of sailor's stories. Gruppe (p. 12093) suggests a comparison with the Haliae, who fought with Dionysus against Perseus (Pausan. 2. 22. 1). In Lycophr. 1349 V irakiiuppuv Topyds is supposed to be Hera. It should be added that Gorgo is often mated with Poseidon.

164 1 6 4 Hesych. 11 p. 201 p69 i l9 AaidaTuj) (Palmer for watSdXij)). Phot. lex. p. 19. 7 iai^>Bi\v rb 6re/3d<s6t)v. SO(/>OKX^5. Choerob. z'» Theod. p. 489, 21 (p. 20, 23 Hilgard) (Tij/teio6fj.e&a irapa So^o/eXe? Kal Trapd. nXdrwft (Phaedr. 254 B) rb iaitpd-qv /col rb
- -j

i

't

S\*

—*

if

/V

/

T

absolutely in Plat. Phaedr. =in adoration (cf. Porph. vit. Plot. 12). A similarly isolated form eaepiaBriv occurs in O.C. 636 ayu> aejiujBds. The later laefiaaO-qv, recognized above by the grammarians, is attested by A. P. 7. 122~U.v8ayl>{rr\srt rbaov Kvd/iovs iae$aaBT\; The use of the so-called 'passive' form with an active meaning is actually a survival from the time when this aorist form was associated with the active voice: see Brugmann, Gr. Gramm. § 150. For other illustrations see on fr. 837, 2

AAIAAAOI—AANAH

115

AANAH

On the question raised by this title and its relation to the Acrisius see the Introductory Note to that play (p. 38). Of the fragments attributed to the Danae fr. 165 alone is significant, and that, while agreeing well enough with Jacobs's assumption, seems to be decisive against a solution which otherwise might have deserved consideration, that the Danae was parallel in construction to the Dictys of Euripides, and was concerned with the events in Seriphos. For Wagner, who adopted the last-named hypothesis, failed to show that the words of fr. 165 have any appropriateness in the mouth of Polydectes, to whom he would assign them.

OVK TOV

olSa TTJV crrjv irelpav ev 8" iraiSos Ofros TOUS' iycb 8io\kvfj,ai.

1 6 5 Schol. Soph. Ai. I ireipa yap r) avvovcia' Mivavdpos. Moeris p. 207, 2 /3\d/3)7, us Kai 4v Aavarj 'oiK...Si.6\\v[i.ai.' ireipav TT)V iratSa 'ATTIKOI, irupafav diaThe same words occur in Suid. s.v. irelpa, "EWrives. So the noun in A. P. who has oiS' in place of ?» b". 12. 251 Tp66a.\fi.obs iKKO^/av- Aesch. fr. 14 xdyuye TAS <7ds paKKapeis re TUIV e7ri Trelpg. the schol. gives the same Kai fiipa. Meineke (Anal. Soph. p. 274) explanation iirl fi\df3ri. The verb irupav conjectured TTJS TratBbs OVTWS rrjab'', supis used c. ace. of forcible attempts upon posing that Zeus was speaking of his women: Ar. Eq. 517. Phot. lex. p. 405, passion for Danae. 10 ireipav' rb iretpafeiv iirl dopa Kai

166 yovoicri

^.yjXwv KapoSicriav dypav

1 6 6 ybvouri scripsi: 761/0101/ cod., 76110c re Musurus, yovrp re coni. Nauck 1 6 6 Hesych. I p. 339 d
n6

IO
on the obscurities of Hesych.:

Bekk.

anecd. p . 472, 22 apoSiaia &ypa Ka8d ir£p5i%, oiiru KaiffOs• Kai yap Kai 6 x°tp°s KaroHpepijs els a
The proper inference to be drawn from the difficult text of Hesychius is that Sophocles used the phrase dippoduria aypa without clearly specifying in the context to what class of animal it applied. Some commentators held that partridges, 'which of course (5?j appears to be used ironically) are suitable for purification,' must be meant, because their uxoriousness is made a snare to entrap them. But Diogenianus, if he was Hesychius' original, argued that the partridge must be excluded, because, though a pig or a sheep might be sacrificed for the purpose of KaOappds, a partridge could not. He concludes that Ihe pig (or possibly the goat) is the animal intended. It is surely

implied in this statement that the context in Sophocles was concerned with a sacrifice of purification, although the words relating to it are not quoted. The sexual propensities of the partridge are mentioned in Arist. hist. an. 1. 1. 13, 9. 9. 2; and in Ael- not. an. 3. g, 16; 4. 1; 719. Cf. Plin. n. h. 10. 33. 100—102. The pig was the victim most commonly selected in purificatory rites: cf. Aesch. Eum. 283 KaSapiiols r}\d8ri (scil. vUa
Hermes freed the town from a plague by carrying a ram round the walls on his shoulder (Pausan. 9. 22. 1). Yovouri. I prefer this to ybvov re (see cr. n.) as more likely to have been corrupted to ybvotov, especially with /M/fKwv following. I cannot follow M. Schmidt's argument that the words ybvotov pvljKwv ought to be rejected altogether; and his transposition of the words ot Si...ap/j.6£ou(ri so as to follow aipovaw abrofc does

not yield a satisfactory sense. conjectured yoveia.

R. Ellis

I67 £77, 1 6 7 Anliatt. (Bekk. anecd.) p. 97, 32

of Sardanapallus: ladie, wive, jrcufc ws T&Wa Toirov oiiK ofm. Hor. Carm. 1. 9. 13. Sen. controv. 2. 6. 3 convivae certe pp{ est. No doubt the sentiment was ' Let us tuidicunt: bibamus, moriendum So often in the Anthology: see A.P. 11. eat and drink; for to-morrow we die.' It 56, 57, 62.—For the imperative £rj see was a commonplace of proverbial philosophy. Theogn. 1047 vvv p.£p irlvovres Jebb on Ant. 1169 Kai f^ ripavvov axon' Tepirfi*8a, KaXa, \iyovTer | aacra 8' ?7T«T' exuv, and cf. Eur. fr. 826 8C iXirlSos ty. l o r t u , r a u r a 0eoi
' ffi,

filov Xoylgov
of crTrjdi.

fr. 196. Athen. 530 B, from the epitaph

168

1 6 8 Hesych. 1 p . 203 avd-fi/iepov a?j/«pop vidpa. SO^OKXTJS Aavdri. Brunck restored a60r)p.epbv (ai6J)fiepoi>

Schrevel).

The error is an early one, as

it is implied in the alphabetical order. ai8r)fi.ep6v occurs also in Aesch. Pers. 459-

AANAH—AIONYZIIKOI

117

169

1 6 9 Antiatt. (Bekk. anecd) p. 85, 18 1115. Pind. Isthm. 5. 59 has ^c fip6.Xt-&TOV' /SpaxuTaTop. 2O0OK\^S Aavtir].
170

17O Antialt. (Bekk. anecd.) p. 90, 31 with the conception of dai/AW ris or SaiporifeaSm. SO^OKXTJS Aav&ri 5e5cu/uo- TVXV S Ka.Ta\£yeu>. Nor is its meaning Blaydes conjectured that Tedeua/ievov essentially different in Philemon fr. 191 ('dedicated') should be restored for re$e(II 530 K.) aWos KO.T1 a\\r)V SaL/iovi^eTiu u/xivov. rvxvt which must be read in connexion

AIONYZIIKOZ IATYPIKOS From the title and the three extant fragments it is clear that the Dionysiscus represented the god as an infant in his cradle, even then providing for his worshippers the miraculous gift of wine. It was a satyr-play; and the scene was perhaps laid in the fairy-land of Nysa, the home of the nymphs who were the nurses of the god, on the shore of the Ocean stream: see note on fr. 959. In view of the recent data, which were unknown to Welcker, it is no longer necessary to recall his guesses concerning the story of the play. The infancy of Dionysus as the nursling of the nymphs is described in Horn. h. 26. The subject was often celebrated in works of art: see Gruppe, p. 14351. In Ap. Rhod. 4. 1131 ff. Maeris, the daughter of Aristaeus, received the child from Hermes at her home in Euboea and gave him honey to eat. Silenus, who was probably the speaker in fr. 171, appears as the guardian of the young god also in Pind. fr. 156 6 &/j,evrj Ma\edyovo<;

edpetye

NaifSo? d/coira? | 2t\?/i/o?

(see however Schroeder's text). Diod. 4. 4 describes him as

IO0OKAEOYZ

n8

Trai8aya>y6<; and rpo(j)ev<; of Dionysus. The title, now correctly restored for kiovvataKos, is parallel to the 'HpaicXiaKcx; of Theocr. 2 4 : see Crusius in Rh. Mus. XLVIII 153. 171 yap avrS Trpocrepa) fipaxxiv otoous. rrjv piva. fj.' evdvs \jjii]\aepei TTJV yeipa. 7T/3O? a\a.Kpbv r)8v Stayekwv. OTCLV

171.

2 TT)V pivav ev$tis ^iXa0fi< cod.

3 TO add. Blaydes

1 7 1 Lex. Messan. f. 283 r. \j/rjka(j>ai i / w a and Athen. 507 C SOKCIP y&p 2
(\jji\atpai cod.) aiiv Tip I SO^OKXTJS AiovvtriGKtp ' OTav...StayeXwv.'

j pp p (pav. Add fr. 314, 359 iratiov rb Xeioc 0aXaKpbv ijSovri iriTvas. It would hardly be satisfactory to take irpbs <pa\aKp6v as ace. sing. masc. with faayeKGiv, although irpbs often follows verbs expressing emotion tive see Phil. 1301 p.£8es /xc, irpbi 0e£>v, (Track, m i , Kaibel on El. p. 198). Xeipo (with Jebb's n.). For the ridicule attaching to baldness cf; 3 Blaydes's addition of the article is no Ar. Nub. 540 and the passages collected doubt correct, for usage indicates that the by Jacobs Anth. IX p. 423, and Mayor neuter is used substantially. H., who on Juv. 4. 38, 5. 171. Blaydes's further made the same correction independently, conjecture tfiiwi yeX&v is altogether needquoted Herond. 6. 76 T6 <pa\a.Kpbv Kara- less. ]

Silenus is probably the speaker: see Introductory Note. 1 irpoo-^e'pw, of offering food, as in fr. 502. 2 njv piva |i*: for the double accusa-

172 TTOT' akviTov 2.V0OS cwias; T)vpov av\ 172.

1 sq. a5e evpov vulgo

1 7 2 Phot. ed. Reitz. p. 82, 18 = Bekk. anecd. p. 385, 23 aXu7roi' avOos dvlas' et 8£\ots ehreiv iirl (Nauck conj. irepl unnecessarily) TIVOS irpdyfiaros S XIJTTTJS dTraXXdrrei, oiirws &v xpfo1110 ws /cat So^o/fX-^s iv Tip AiofvaiaKw oa.Tvpu«} ( r y aa.TvpiK$ P h o t . ) iirl otvov irpwTov yevV KaTci Tbv x°Pov traTijpwv * ' Td8ev...ivtas'; &\ov Se rb peMSpiov iroXiTiicbv ayav ^ ^ o p e . /terd 'yap T?}S ei T aX\))s ivapyeias \e\v/j.&i]v lx V" eppyvelav Kal /ieSvovaiv dpixorTovaav. del di rets Xiitrets TTJS tpfirjvetas dpfi6rTeiv TOIS ^ Kal ^ atplyyetv, Kal firjSa/xov v TrapariBfaai, dXX' aKTiparov T^V

Campbell joins aXvirov avias, leaving fiv^os isolated and in defiance of the order of the words. He accounts for the latter by strangely interpreting the grammarian as imputing to the poet 'an inebriate looseness of expression,' whereas he actually says that ' the style is abrupt, though clear': see e.g. Demetr. de eloc. 193 Bia TOVTO dt Kal MtvavBpov

biroKplvovrai.

\e\vp.£vov iv TOCS jrXeitrrois. The purpose of the note is mainly to illustrate the transferred sense of akviros, which a few lines above had been glossed by 6 fify Xvn-oi/ievos. The words of Soph, are not easy, and Nauck thinks &v0os corrupt,
AIONYIIIKOI—AOAOTTEZ Mekler, and Weil avotas. I would render ' this sorrow-healing crown of pain,' with an oxymoron like i^l/iepov KO.K&V (fr. 149) or Juliet's 'Parting in such sweet sorrow': av8os arias is thus exactly parallel to fiavlus &v8os in Track. 999. (Valckenaer and Blaydes introduce /jtavlas here for dWas.) One may suppose that the satyrs did not appreciate the flavour of the wine, at least until they perceived its effect. But, even apart from this, the potency of the wine-cup may be described as wounding: Pind. fr. 218 de^oi/rat 0p^os d^7re\/j
119

is adapted fromBacchyl.fr. 16J. yXviceV av&yica (revofievdv KV\IKUV 8d\iry<7L 8vp.bv. For the commonplace to which ahvirov points see on fr. 758. There is not necessarily any reference to the result of excessive wine-drinking, as in Panyassis fr. 14 K. ird&as 5' €K icpadias dvlas dvbp&v dXctTrdfci I irivS/ievos Kara nirpov • imep fi^rpov Si xePe'<""'i a n d often in the comic poets: see the passages collected in Athen. 36 A foil. The metre is an acephalous Glyconic (Telesilleum) followed by a Pherecratean : For similar acephalous cola in Sophocles see J. W. White in Cl. Q. Ill 300. Schroeder does not always agree in the details (see Soph. cant. p. 83), but the principle may be taken to be established.

173

1 7 3 Hesych. II p. 335 dax^eisthe origin of this word and its relation to BapTjxSfh, ficffvoSeh. X<xpoK\fjs Atovv- 8S>a6ai (Etym. M. p. 461, 1 Odadai ataKif. Cf. Phot. lex. p. 99, 13 0wx#a's • \tyovtriv ol Ao>pteis TO ei5wxeiO.I, 6ow8ds, 8vu8eis. [In the last two glosses M. Schmidt intelligible metaphor. 8tax8els was connected by Ahrens (Dor. 182) with 8a.%ai would restore Sux^eis, but there may have been also a form 8io8els.] Etym. M. from 0?J7« : cf. Hesych. 11 p. 300 0a|cuIxeduGai. ib. p. 302 dax®VlJ-*v' 8wpiX®yvaLt p. 460, 31. Etym. Gttd. p. 268, 11 8G> rb eiaxoB/iai. AwpieTs. s.vv. TeBay/xfroL, Ka.T6S.%a1.. But

AOAOTTEI

The Dolopes were a Thessalian tribe, whom Peleus put under the leadership of Phoenix : Horn. I 484 valov S' ia^artrjp 4>(9t7;?, AoXd7T6<7
vfjaov, Av/cofj,ri8eo<; dcrrv.

Building on this very slender

foundation, Welcker (p. 140 ff.) held that the Dolopes and the

120

IO*OKAEOYS

Phoenix are alternative titles ; that the subject of the play was the fetching from Scyros by Phoenix of the young Neoptolemus, against the wishes of Lycomedes and Deidamia; and that the first elicwv of the younger Philostratus follows the Sophoclean tradition. R. Wagner {Epit. Vat, p. 224) agreed with Welcker, without giving any fresh reasons. Inasmuch, however, as there is now good cause to believe that the mission of Odysseus and Phoenix to Scyros was the subject of the Scyrians, Welcker's guess concerning the character of the plot of the Dolopes has no longer any probability. The Dolopians have no place in heroic legends, except as explained above, and only two possibilities seem to be open. Either Dolopes was, as Welcker thought, a secondary title to the Phoenix, but with a plot relating to the earlier adventures of that hero 1 ; or, if an independent play, it may have been concerned with the concealment of Achilles in the palace of Lycomedes, and his discovery by the Greek envoys. Fr. 174 is too insecure a prop to support the latter alternative.

174 evvalos

eh) SpaneTLv
1 7 4 Phot. lex. p. 36, 12 eAvatos* dynecontext may just as well have required tcpviiixivos. 2o0o/cX^s Ab\otf>iv 'evvaios... the third person.—Spair£nv
175 1 7 5 Cyrill. lex. ap. Schow. in Hesych. 28 xa/J-v?"'a' ravuv^i KOX cireXri y, p. 781 x ' W " ' ^ 1 V <^ri W tardicXKris. < ^ > KO.1 o-Ttfi&s. The word had already l TO TaTeLvbv K\IVISIOV X&H*6*V2O<£Obeen used by Aeschylus {Ag. 1541) in the Ab\o\pt. Bachm. anecd. I p. 412, figurative sense. 1

See Introductory Note to the Phoenix.

AOAOTTEZ—EAENHZ ATTAITHIII

121

EAENHZ A n A I T H I l I The subject of this play is indicated by the title1, and was derived from the narrative of the Cypria, as appears from the epitome of Proclus (EGF p. 19) : ical Biairpea-78'evovrat 77730? TOU? Ipcoa? TTJV 'Ed\ivt}v KOX TO, KTrjuara airaiTovvTe'i' &>? Be OV X VTrrjKovaav i/ceivoi, ivravda Brj reixofia^ova-iv. According to Proclus, the embassy was subsequent to the landing on the coast of the Troad, and to the deaths of Protesilaus and Cycnus ; but Apollodorus {epit. 3. 28) and the scholiast on the Iliad presently to be quoted make it precede the departure from Tenedos. R. Wagner {Epit. Vat. p. 197) conjectured that the latter was an innovation upon the version of the Cypria made by Sophocles himself. The embassy of Odysseus and Menelaus has already been mentioned in the Introductory Note to the Antenoridae (p. 87). They were entertained by Antenor on that occasion, as he himself explained to Helen (Horn. T 205 ff.): rjBr) yap teal Bevpo 7TOT' rj\vOe Bios ^OBvaaei";, asv eveic ayye\Lr)<;, aw api)o<j)t,Xa> MeveXday- | TOVS 8' iycb i^elvicraa ical iv fieydpoiai iXrii\ocf>p6va><;. ore yap e* TeveSov i-rrpeaftevovTO 01 irepl MeveXaov, Tore AvTtjvcop 6 'IiceTaovos inreBe^aro avroij
122

I04>0KAE0YZ

mission, they received the answer that Helen was not there (2. 118). For the poem of Bacchylides see p. 89. Engelmann {Archdol. Stud., Berlin 1900, p. 16) found a representation of certain characters in this play on a vase belonging to the Vatican Museum (Arm. 294), and identified them as Helen and two of her attendants listening to an interview between Odysseus and Antenor, which took place at a temple close to the sea-shore. He concluded from fr. 177 that the embassy arrived after Helen had reached Troy, and referred fr. 176 to Helen or one of her women overhearing the Laconian speech of Menelaus ; Welcker1 had previously inferred from frs. 176 and 178 that a meeting took place between Helen and Menelaus; and that Helen, when her surrender was refused, being now desirous of returning to Greece, contemplated suicide as her last resource. The connexion between fr. 180 and the events outlined above is not at all obvious ; and it does not seem possible that the strife between Calchas and Mopsus, and the former's death after his defeat, were narrated in the play as having already occurred. We must rather infer from Strabo's statements that the prediction of his death was either mentioned by Calchas himself, or used against him to counteract the effect of his own prophecies2. The tradition ran that, after the capture of Troy, Calchas, who had accurate foreknowledge of the disaster impending for the Greek fleet, refused to return home, and, accompanied by Amphilochus, the son of Amphiaraus, who was himself possessed of prophetic powers ^Cic. de div. 1. 88, Pausan. 1. 34. 3), after a period of wandering, settled with his followers in Asia Minor. The details of the contest with Mopsus are variously recorded, but all accounts agree that Calchas died from chagrin at his defeat. The preponderance of authority names as the place where the two seers came into conflict the Ionian city of Colophon, which contained the precinct and oracular shrine of the Clarian Apollo : such was the version of the epic Nosti\ of Hesiod (fr. 188), and of Fherecydes (FHG I. 94)4. A variant, recorded by Servius on Verg. Ed. 6. 72 on the authority of Euphorion, the Alexandrian poet, locates the contest at the shrine of the Grynean Apollo near Myrina in Aeolis. Herodotus, however, in agreement with Sophocles, preserves the tradition of 1 In ^Nachtr. p. 293 he referred frs. 176 and 177 to the threatening speech of the Achaean envoy. 2 Similarly Welcker, p. 123, and Wagner, Epit. Vat. p. 259. The story has been fully discussed by Immisch in Jhrb.f. Phil. Suppl. xvii 160. s The mention of Tiresias by Proclus is an error (EGF p. 53). 4 The two latter are quoted by Strabo 642: see also Apollod. epit. 6. 2 4, Lycophr. 424 ff., Conon 6.

EAENHI ATTAITHHZ

123

a settlement in Pamphylia (7. 91 : so Pausan. 7. 3. 7, Quint. 14. 369). Callinus (ap. Strabo 668) endeavoured to reconcile the conflicting statements by the supposition that Calchas died at Claros, but that his followers in company with Mopsus crossed the Taurus, and either remained in Pamphylia or scattered in other directions. It would seem that these are the aetiological stories spread by rival sanctuaries, which attest the successive immigrations of Greek settlers. The Argument to the Ajax (p. 3, ed. Jebb) mentions a play entitled 'EXer?/? up-wayy), as belonging, together with the Antenoridae, Aeckmalotides, and Memnon, to the Tpw'iicr) -jrpayfiarda. On the assumption that this play is meant, Nauck suggested that it had been confused with the "EXevr)<; ap-rayr} of Alexis, the poet of the Middle Comedy (II 320 K.). On the other hand, Welcker (p. 158ff.)had no hesitation in supposing that the subject was the recovery of Helen by Menelaus from the house of Deiphobus during the sack of Troy1. Whether ' Helen's rape' was a loose mode of referring to 'EXez/?/? aivaiii](Ti A

2 Trpouijyopd A M T | op/ja
176 Schol. Eur. Pkoen. 301 el yhp Trjs iri.Tpi.ov iai$$av &Tr-/jxW >' Nauck says 'locus nondum emendatus,' 1 In Nachtr. p. 294 he made another guess, founded on the abstract of the Cypria (EGF p. 20), that, after the refusal of the Trojans to surrender Helen, Achilles desired to see her, and that Aphrodite conveyed her from the town to him by the exercise of her magic power, and at the request of Thetis. 2 Cf. e.g. Hdt. 2. 118, and n. on Eur. Hel. 50.

124

Z04>0KAE0YI

and various attempts have been made to intended to suggest—narriyopei, which improve the text : (i) Herwerden, who belongs to the vocabulary of the Physiogformerly proposed d<j
177 •yvvcuKa 8' efe\ovres 17 re ws TOV /xkv Zaikov

acrcrei yevvv

f

i

1 7 7 . 2 efuXoi'] ^-qe\4to y' gqrovvres (or 8' igaiTOvvTes), comparing dprlws T}pTra. ~For0pd'. The phrase ypafllois ivr\ixthat SMXOP must not be pressed too much. fitvou has high probability, but the meaning given to the context is less Hartung extracts the same sense but attractive. Helen with a lighted torch reads iyypdQounv a'lixaatv (' mit angerecalls Verg. Aen. 6. 518 flammam media maltem Blut'), comparing Ant. 528 ipsa tenebat \ ingentem, et summa Danaos aluarbev piOos. Ahrens, following Herex arce vocabat; but it would not be easy mann's explanation, thinks that the to work that idea into • the traditional couplet came from Antenor's speech: text. (3) R. Ellis in C. R. IX 105 'shall we retain a woman like this?' proposed 6UTOVV 6' iuiKov ypa<j>t8lois freip(2) Nauck conjectures rpurrov Mei'Aeai ypafilois ivrmintvois; Mevt\e had pre- yufvois, as a description of a woman picking her teeth with a stylus. viously been suggested by Bergk, and

EAENHI AnAITHIlI

125

i78 ifiol

Se XCOCTTOV alfj-a Tavpaov

vieiv

KOL ixri Vt irXelov T£>V& 1 7 8 . 1 Ta.6pet.ov Trieiv Suid., Ar.: raipov y' ttcirieiv schol. Ar, 2 fii] Vt Wecklein olim: fufiye (pfre 8) codd., /*•/) TL Dindorf, /xi] in. Cobet | ir\uov 6 : ir\ela ceteri codd., 7rXeious Cobet 1 7 8 Schol. Ar. Eq. 84 ILTTL yovv 171 suggests that al/j.a raipov = menstrua, airb Xo(pOK\4ovs'E\efr)s 'ipoi...Svatprnilas.' on the strength of ravpov' rb yvvaineiov Tivis Si <paaiv on 2o0o/cX^s Tepi Qe/xcaro- aiSotov Phot. K\£OVS TOOTO might be adverbial (J. quotes Plat. Phileb. 45 c quoting the text of Aristophanes) irepl el TrXeiw xa^po"(ny oi 6Spa voaovvjei r&v 6 \ ^ S 2 $X) ) ^ i l ^\ l ' p vytcuvivTojv, rep. 417 B iro\v TrXetw KOLI Trieiv.' The words of Aristophanes {Eq. 83 f.) are (SiXrurTOv TJ/JUV atfia Ta6peiovfj.a\\ov deSt-dres TOVS ivbov y\ TOOS I£w0ei' Tieiv. I 6 Befu in Eur. Hclid. 974 to one version of the story, Aeson the with tio/x<pai> lxu" m Soph. Ai. 180, and father of Jason was driven by Pelias to see the comm. on Pind. Isth. 3. 54. suffer death in this way (Apollod. 1. 143, Diod. 4. 50). H. Johnson in C. R. XXV

179

Bekk. anecd. p. 393, 20 cwa^eW^ei 1 7 9 Hesych. 1 p. 186 avaxa-iTi^ew avairodifei, SKKOTTTU (1. eyKiywTei). Phot, aweiBeTv. draxaXii'oOi'. avaKpoverai' avairodifa. Kvpluis 5e eiri T&V 'liriroiv. ed. Reitz. p. 124, 28 avaxo-f-Tl^et' avairoXO
IO0OKAEOYI

126

rb direideiv Kai avrtrelvav. The evidence of Photius and Suidas leads to the conclusion that Sophocles used dvaxanlfciv in the sense of direiBeiv, and that there is some confusion in the order of the words as given by Hesychius. The words KvpiuK...trirwv (cf. Dion. H. ant. Rom. 5. 15 oi ttrToi...(Trirois 6Trt
di h SSoph, recognized vTai)iindicate that the metaphorical sense of which there is

a good example in Plut. Demetr. 34 (is ixi) ird\iv avax&iTiaavTa rbv Sij/wv o<7Xo\£as...ira/!)a(rx«o'. Cf. Ant. 291 Kpviprj xdpa aelovres, oiS' inrb fuy<£ \ \61pov Sucalws elxov. The explanations dvavoSL£ei and iyKbirrei no doubt refer to the usage found in Lucian Lexiph. 15 dvaxaiWfoi TOV Spbfiov TO pbOwv, of checking the way of a boat. In late Greek dvaxatH^eiv is often the equivalent of refrenare (Phryn. pracp. soph. p. 32, 8 de B.).

I8O [TOV ddvarov

TOV KaA^avTos ets Hafid^vXCau [x,era,£pei\

Strabo 643 ot Se TOV Kd\xa"Td

on a certain tree, and his calculation of the number proved to be absolutely \bytov. X^yet 5' avrb 2o0o/cX^s kv 'EX^iys correct. Pherecydes {FHG 1 95) reported the problem as concerning the size of the a7ratT^(T€tj ws elfxapfifrov ety dirodaveiv, litter of a pregnant sow. Other accounts &Tav KpdTTOvt. iavTov IIAVTU TreptT&xV(see Strabo 643) mentioned both problems, OUTOS Se teal els Ki\t/a'<w fieTcuptpei TT)V ipiv (scil. of Calchas and Mopsus) Kai rbv stating that Calchas propounded the latter to Mopsus, and that it was answered ddvarov TOV Kd\xo-fTos. Cf. ibid. 675 fjpurav irepi TTJS fiavTiKijs o re KdXxos Kai correctly; but that, when Mopsus submitted the former to him, Calchas failed 6 M6\//os' Tairqu re yap TT)V Ki\iKlav, icoX^iras eKehos avTTjv Hafion the same theme will be found in <j>v\iav TpayiKuis, tcaddirep Kai T^]V AvKiap schol. Lycophr. 427 and 980; but it is Kapiav Kai TjjpTpoiac xal Avdlav Qpvylav. impossible to trace the particular version Kai TOV QdvaTov Se TOV KdXxavTos ivTavBa adopted by Sophocles. Pausanias(7. 3. 7) irapaStSbaffiv &W01 r e Kai 2O0OKX^S. states that the Pamphylians were of Greek The various versions of the story origin, being descended from the comrelating to the death of Calchas have panions of Calchas who arrived there in already been discussed in the Introductory that country after the fall of Troy. For Note. We learn that the distinctive point introduced by Sophocles was the the geographical laxity, by which Pamphylia and Cilicia are confused or identichange of scene for the prophetic contest fied, we may perhaps compare Aesch. from Claros to Cilicia. On the other Supp. 560 (530) Kai §1' opwv K1X4KWP hand, in schol. Dionys. Perieg. 850 IIaJu0!)Xaij' re Siopw/j.ha, with Tucker's (GGM 11 454) Mopsus leads the emigranote. For the common identification of tion to Cilicia after the death of Calchas. the Trojans with the Phrygians see Jebb According to Hesiod (fr. 188 Rz.) Calchas on At. 1054. propounded to Mopsus for his solution the question how many figs were growing 18O

ipaffiv dirodavth

inch Xiiirijs Kal Hard TI

EAENHI TAMOZ ZATYPIKOZ The character of the play is clearly illustrated by Aristid. II p. 399 Dind., where he is speaking of hypocritical rhetoricians. el Se Tt9 avTwv irep\ 7779 i^/Kparelwi BiaXeyofj.ivcov aTravriicpv crratr) *X(0V evOpvTTTa Kai oTpeirTovs, iicfidWovcn rrjv yXcoTTav woirep 6 MeviXeo)? TO %l
EAENHI ATTAITHIII—EAENHS TAMOI

127

Gepdiratvav fj,ev ovv oiroiav itroir,(Te ~M.ivav8pos rijv <£>pwyiav, rw ovri TraiBidv dtro^jaivovao TOV? crarvpovs TOV ^.o<j>oK\iov<;. T h e

satyrs, then, were excited with passionate desire at the sight of Helen's beauty. According to the version of the Cypria {EGF p. 18), after landing at Sidon (Horn. Z 290) and taking the city, Alexander at length sailed to Troy, where he completed the celebration of his nuptials \ But, as Welcker remarks, the scene of the satyrplay was much less likely to be at Troy than before a shady cave or near a babbling brook. I should conjecture, therefore, that the action of the play took place at Cranae, of which Homer speaks as the first resting-place of the lovers : ore ere irpaiTOv AaKeBaifiovus e% epareivfj<; eirXeov dpird!;a<; ev irovroTropoiai vkeautv, vqaw 8' ev Kpavdr/ eply7)v t\0T7]Ti ical evvrj (T 443 ff.).

Pausan. 3. 22. 1 identifies Cranae with a small island off Gythium in the Laconian gulf; but Strabo 399 and Lycophr. n o understand Homer as speaking of Helena, the rocky island stretching along the E. coast of Attica (Eur. Hel. 1673 n.). Welcker suggests that the dance cncoirbs; (rdov diroaKOTTOVVTOIV

was suitable to the occasion : see Aesch. frs. 79, 339.

epwos is fSp£>criv a

Xoyco.

181 Athen. 76 C, speaking of Ipwa trvKa, figs of an inferior quality, says that Sophocles in a metaphor applied ipivbs, properly the tree's name, to the fruit : 2o<poK\rjs 5' iv ' T&\4vris ydfLy rpoTrinws T£ TOV devdpov dvdfian TOV Kapirbv eKaXetrev, ei-Kihv' ' Trtirwi'.. .\6y(p.' Tr4irtav 5' ipivbs tipjjKev &PTL TOV irtirov ipLv6v. Alexis, he

goes on to say, speaks of the fig-sellers putting r d UKX^pd Kai fj,ox&t]po. T&V CUKOIV

at the bottom of the basket, and ripe and fine ones on the top, and so iply' dwidoTO, avKa iroiXetV dftvijwp (fr. 128, II 343 K.). Eustath. //. p. 1205, 3, quoting avowedly from Athenaeus, says: 6V1 ineWev KO.1 p7}lj.a. ipivafeiv irapa S o 0 o « \ e ? , £v8a TOV KtxpTrbv Ty TOV ddvdpov eKaXeGev 6V6[JMTI, eiirwv 'T4TTU)VXd'

y p [qu. avTov] TO v/yqixa, 8/J.otov 1

' airatScvTOs

uiv 7rws av eT^povs

iraiSeOireias;'

'Being uninstructed, how can you instruct others ?' He took it therefore to mean ' Since you are yourself worthless, those instructed by your conversation turn out worthless too.' The explanation of Eustathius is accepted by Brunck, Schweighauser and Ellendt; and Meineke's version (Theocr? p. Vll) is practically to the same effect: ' tu ignavae et inutilis caprifici instar aliis ut item ignavos et inutiles se praestent oratione persuades.' He omitted dxpeios uv is fjpGxnv as an interpolation. On the other hand, Casaubon renders: 'tu cum sis grossus nihili et insipidus, ad comedendum inutilis, alios verbis increpas, tanquam ignavos et insipidos'; and this is also the view of Cobet (V. L. p. 289),

See n. on fr. 183.

128 who,

I04>0KAE0YI deleting dxpe'os, explains by the

though useless in themselves, they were useful for impregnating the cultivated : ' worthless yourself, you make out others see the Dictt. s.vv. ipiv&fa, (p-rfKyKbdpeirros, to be worthless, speak disparagingly of or Stein on Hdt. 1. 193. The proverb others.' di/eplvatrros el in Zenob. 2. 23 is differently explained. H., however, shows that the true meaning has been perceived by Stephanus The reading in the first line is either alone of previous writers : ' nam 6 epivbs defective or interpolated. Porson, holding quod ipse non habet, aliis tribuit,' i.e. the former view, conjectured iriiruiv fungeris vice cotis, exsors ipse secandi, kpuibs <w's> dxp«os < airbs > &v. you fertilize others by precept like some Casaubon's airbs <2v dxpfyos is impossible. Nestor: see Isocrates ap. Plut. mor. Scaliger inserted irat>Te\ws after tpwbs as 838 E. Similar is a proverbial line of an a stop-gap. On the other hand, Cobet old man marrying (Paroem. I p. 390) ejected dxp«os as a gloss, and Meineke, ytptav 4ptvbs efifppaveTs rovs yeLrovas, i.e. as we have seen, suspected the whole airbs axpeios wv, aXXous u0eXi} is ppwaiv. So far as wild figs were proverbially useless (hence the language goes, neither ayjpeios nor Spohn restored epivol in Theocr. 15. 50 fipwtns is open to suspicion in tragedy, for the ipiol or ipewi of the MSS). But, and & is quite normal. p a r a p h r a s e <pav\os tSv SXXoi/s iK(pavkl^ets,

182 VZVWTOLl 1 8 2 Etym. M. p. 601, 23 vivurai (so written in Sophocles and Anacreon ; but, FMV : peVwTai vulg.) 17 Karb. tniyKoirTjv as Nauck says, vtvofuu is an incredible TOV rj airb rod vevtyi]T
183 Ojoocrayycu 1 8 3 Claudius Casilo 7rapa TOIS 'ATTI(Eur. Tro. 1021). See Dissen on Pind. Kots pTjToptnfyToifiejiain Miller's Melanges Pyth. 11. 33. H. inferred from this de lift. ggr. p p. 39 397: hpoadyyai ^kv v p King's benefactors : cf. fr. 125. Priam See, delSc T 6 T ' i i r t p p e v r e v || y f ^ p appears in tragedy as an oriental despot (Aesch. Ag. 926}, and the customs at his however, Introductory Note. court are those of the later Persian empire

EAENHI TAMOI—EniTONOI

129

184 travov 1 8 4 Phot. lex. p. 377, 22 wavbv airb TOV iravTa (paiveu/ cxt)p.aTio~d£vTa {(rxrltia-Ti.<jd£v Naber), KCITA fierafiokriv TOV 0. 2o0o/t\?/s "ESivrp yd/At?. The same derivation is given by Eustath. / / . p. 1189, 24 iravbs airb TOV <j>alvew axv^-

Titrffeis, <j>aal, Kara fieTafioKty TOV 0, olov ' Travovxoi1 d^avres
EniroNoi EPI4>YAH

The Epigoni of Sophocles was one of his most famous plays ; and there is consequently a presumption that, when the title Epigoni alone is quoted without the name of an author, the play of Sophocles and not that of Aeschylus is meant. The inference may be strengthened-by the following considerations. It was customary in the fourth century, when the tragic art was declining, and the age of the actors had succeeded to the age of the poets, to reproduce the plays of the famous dramatists of the earlier period ; but it is well known that the practice was for the most part confined to the plays of Sophocles and Euripides, whereas those of Aeschylus were considered too old-fashioned and obscure for the purpose (Haigh, Tragic Drama, p. 99). Hence, when we read of the actor Andronicus, with whom Demosthenes studied elocution, having scored a success in the Epigoni (Athen. 584 D), we are justified in concluding that the line quoted from that play 6\6fj,eve TTaLhwv, irolov e'tp7]/ca<; \6yov; (Tr. fr. adesp. 2)

belongs to Sophocles. We arrive at the same result from Cic. de opt. gen. orat. 18 idem Andriam et Synephebos nee minus Terentium et Caecilium quam Menandrum legunt, nee Andromackatn aut Antiopam aut Epigonos Latinos reiciunt: immo Enniuin et Pacuvhtm et Accium potius quam Euripidem et Sophoclem legicnt. Since we know that the Andromache of Euripides was adapted by Ennius, and the Antiope by Pacuvius, the inference is almost inevitable that the Epigoni of Sophocles was adapted by Accius. Similarly, when Cicero (Tusc. 2. 60) reports : Cleanthem (1 607 Arn., p. 328 P.), cum pede terram percussisset, versum ex Epigonis ferunt dixisse, ' audisne haec, Amphiarae, sub terrain abditef' (Tr. fr. adesp. 3), we understand at once that the reference is to the Epigoni of Sophocles1. 1 Wilamowitz, de tragicorum argues briefly to the same effect.

P.

Graeconim fragmentis,

Gottingen 1893, p. 26, 9

130

SO^OKAEOYI

The direct evidence bearing on the plot of the Epigoni, scanty as it is, is sufficient to show that the central incident was the murder of Eriphyle, followed by the first beginnings of Alcmaeon's madness. All the authorities lay stress on the command given to his sons by Amphiaraus, when forced by Eriphyle's treachery to join the expedition of the Seven, that when grown to manhood they should exact retribution from their mother: see Apollod. 3. 62, Diod. 4. 66, Hygin. fab. 73. But Asclepiades1 (Schol. V Horn. X 326, FHG ill 305) reports this in the form that Alcmaeon was forbidden to join the expedition of the Epigoni until he had put his mother to death ; and Alcmaeon was said to have fulfilled the behest. Apollodorus, on the other hand (3. 86), makes the death of Eriphyle subsequent to the return of the Epigoni, stating that Alcmaeon was moved by the discovery of his mother's second act of treachery in accepting the peplos from Thersander, the son of Polynices, as a bribe for persuading her sons to join the expedition, and was also instigated by the oracular command of Apollo. From these facts Bethe inferred the existence of two epic versions in the Epigoni and the Alcmaeonis; in the former the murder occurred after, and in the latter before the expedition (Theb. Heldenlieder, pp. 129, 130 ff., 135 ff.: see also Gruppe, p. 537). Welcker (p. 272) had no hesitation in holding that in Sophocles the murder of Eriphyle preceded the expedition of the Epigoni; and treated the account of Apollodorus, which he regarded as damaging to the character of Alcmaeon, as the work of some later tragedian. This is as may be ; but it would be idle to suppose that, if'we see reason to place the expedition before the matricide, we are thereby compelled to accept all the details in Apollodorus. Indeed, his story (3. 81) is intrinsically absurd and dramatically impossible. If Alcmaeon was already convinced of the binding force of his father's command, how could he possibly postpone its execution to await the doubtful issue of the siege ? ' If I return safe, I will kill my mother '! And was Eriphyle so favourably placed as to be worth bribing ? What inducements had she to offer which could have the slightest effect upon a determined enemy ? Or, if she could persuade him to spare her life—if only for a season—surely she needed no bribe to make her undertake the task. The whole account is nonsense, unless we suppose that Alcmaeon was not yet aware of his father s command'2. On the other hand, Welcker's view has to meet the 1 The work of Asclepiades bore the title rpayifSoi/xeva, and it might seem natural to ascribe his version to Sophocles without more ado. But the character of his book does not warrant the inference that he abstracted existing plays: see Wenzel in Pauly-Wissowa 11 1628. 2 Immisch,however, contends that Apollodorus followed theA/cmaeonof Euripides, and finds in fr. 70 a trace of the discussion between Eriphyle and her son.

ErriroNioi

131

difficulty that, if the Erinyes assailed Alcmaeon at once, he must have become incapable of taking the supreme command. After the death of Eriphyle his first object would have been to procure expiation ; and, if any weight may be given to the fragments of Accius' Epigoni, it appears that after the matricide Alcmaeon sought to appease the offended powers by lustration and sacrifice: see fr. IX apud abundantetn antiquam amnem et rapidas undas Inachi, x nunc pergant lit suppliciis placans caelitum aras expleam. Since the Argives are described as eager for war (fr. Ill), it might be thought that the siege and capture of Thebes took place during the course of the play—a possibility not lightly to be rejected,' for which the Supplices of Euripides provides an adequate parallel. Nevertheless, Ahrens and Ribbeck (p. 496) agree with Welcker as to the time of Eriphyle's murder, and the latter suggests that the Furies postponed the execution of their vengeance until their victim should have finished his appointed task. We do not elsewhere find them so obliging1. Immisch (Jakrb. Philol. Suppl. XVII 180 ff.), who takes the same view, is not justified in supporting it by postea as used by Hygin. fab.J^^Alcmaeoti memorpatrispraeceptiEriphylen matrem siiam interfecit. quern postea furiae exagitaruni). Equally unconvincing is his suggestion that Alcmaeon was healed of his madness by Apollo forthwith, but that it subsequently broke out afresh. It is highly probable that a dialogue between Alcmaeon and Adrastus, the brother of Eriphyle, took place after the catastrophe, and that the incipient signs of frenzy showed themselves at this point. Since it has been shown that the Epigoni of Sophocles was the best-known tragedy dealing with the story of Alcmaeon and Eriphyle, a peculiar significance attaches to the inclusion of Alcmaeon by Antiphanes (fr. 191, II 90 K.) in a list of famous stage-characters : av TrdXtv Tt? AXK/Jiewva, ical ra iraiSla T eiiffii1; elprf^ 'on fi,avel$ aireKTOve firjTep', dyava/crdov 8' "ASpaerTO? evdeco<; cnreiai.

There is therefore good reason for following Ribbeck in assigning Tr. fr. adesp. 358 to this play: see p. 69. 1 If it were legitimate to use Accius in reconstructing Sophocles—and in this case Cicero's statement lends some justification to the attempt—there are several fragments which might be significant, particularly those relating to the appearance of Amphilochus (fr. i v : cf. Apollod. 3. 86, Pausan. 1. 34. 3) and Demonassa (fr. i x : cf. Pausan. 3. 15. 8, 9. 5. 15). By a brilliant conjecture in fr. xvi Bergk introduced a reference to Glisas, the scene of the decisive battle fought between the Epigoni and the Thebans (Pausan. 9. 9. 4).

9—2

132

ZO*OKAEOYZ

A difficult and important question remains: was Welcker right in identifying the titles Epigoni and Eriphyle} Or, in other words, is this a case where the name of a leading character —for we cannot say that Eriphyle was more important than Alcmaeon—has been substituted for the original title ? A prima facie case may be made in favour of separation : there are seven unambiguous references to the Eriphyle; there is no evidence of an alternative title; and the familiarity of the title Epigoni would have been against its displacement. On the other hand, there is much force in Welcker's contention that the tragic death of Eriphyle must have been described in the tragedy which bears her name, and there are several undisputed examples of a mistake arising in the course of the tradition through the substitution for the title of a name taken from the text1. On the general question see Introduction, § I ; but this is riot a case of isolated error. Rather we should have to suppose that the double title was introduced originally by the grammarians to distinguish the play of Sophocles from the less familiar and differently constructed work of Aeschylus ; and that subsequently the anthologists cited only one of the two titles2. Fr. 198 might seem to be decisive in Welcker's favour, but, as it is not quoted from the Eriphyle*, there is no reason why, if the occasion required, it should not be transferred to the Epigoni. Therefore we can only say that no other solution of the difficulty seems so probable as Welcker's ; and his identification has been accordingly accepted in this edition. Jacobs preferred to suppose that the Eriphyle related to the earlier expedition of the Seven, that it comprised the quarrel of Amphiaraus and Adrastus and the intervention of Polynices, and that the death of Amphiaraus (cf. fr. 958) was described at the end of the play. This theory cannot be disproved; but is it likely that such a play would have been entitled Eriphyle} There is an obscure reference to the play in Philodem. de mus. p. 87 TO S' i/c TGOV 'ETriyovwv f/.e\os (inroypd^o/nev ovie d-TriOavcorepav aWijv Stdvoiav, dX)C ewfiev cu? OVTOS ela fierd T??? ef77tar]fJLaaia<; TOV Kco/LtaiSoypdcftov) fivOiicov ecniv. Cf. ibid. p. 18 Tiivhdput
shows that the opponent against whom Philodemus was arguing brought forward certain instances in which music exercised a soothing influence. The object therefore of the ode in the Epigoni 1 The problem is none the less puzzling, when we find the titles Epigoni and Eriphyle also ascribed to Accius. Ribbeck (p. 489) takes the same view as Welcker. 2 See Haigh, Tragic Drama, p. 399. 3 This point is overlooked by Bethe in Pauly-Wissowa VI 462.

ETTirONOI

133

was to compose the strife which had arisen between certain of the characters, and probably, as Immisch has pointed out {Philol. XLVlii 554), the reference is to the altercation between Alcmaeon and Adrastus after the matricide. 185 6\6(JL€ve iraChcov, TTOLOV etprj/cas

Xoyov;

1 8 5 Athen. 584 D 'AvdpoviKov St TOV same way as the epic oi\6ixevos. It is an Tpay
186 \audisne haec, Amphiarae, sub terram abdite ?] 1 8 6 Cic. Tusc. 2. 60 Chant hem (1 607 Am.), cum pede terram percussisset, version ex Epigonisferitnt dixisse, 'audisne haec, Amphiarae, sitb terram abdite ? ' Here also the authorship of Sophocles is generally admitted ; see Nauck, p. 837. Nauck suggests that the original was K\0ELS rdd\ 'AfMpt&pae, yrjs Ktvdtav KCLTW ; (after 0. T. 968, but Kpv
AAKM. AAP.

especially at Oropus (Frazer, Pausan. 11 466 ff.), was well-known. Cf. El. 836 ff. otda yap ixvaKr' 'AfJ.(fn.dpewv xPv(ro^Tots I ep/ceffi Kpv
187 avSpoKTovov ywaiKo? 6 crv S' aurd^eip ye

£(f>v<;. r\
1 8 7 Plut. de and. poet. 13 p. 35 E to the Epigoni see Introductory Note. 6 rpayiKos "ASpatrros TOV ' AXK^WVOS 1 dvSpoKTOvou, husband-slaying: cf. Pind. Pyth. 4. 252 Aaft-vAv T' WVU yveiirbvTos irpbs airrbv lavdpoKr6vov...£aTO 'ai 8'.. .iyelvaro.' Plut. de vaiKuiv avdporpdvtov. 2 a^TOxeip, in reference to /IT)T/)6S : utilit. ex inim. percip. 5 p . 88 F 'dpdpoKTOVOV ... I0i/s' 7rpo? rbv "ASpaarov 6 see J e b b on- Ant. 55.—(J.r)rp6s fj o-' e-ycivaTO, El. 2 6 1 : cf. At. 1172 Tvarpbi 'AXKfieiov' TL ovv eKeivos; OVK aWbrptov b's 4p(>w b'veidos, '
IOOKAEOYI

134

188 (j>i\el yap r] SvcrKAeia rol<s <§>BOVOV\X.£VOI% in' aicr%po7<; fj V I rols /caXois ir\4ov.

VLKOLV

2 ti TTTO (sic) A, f) Vi yp. A 2

188.

envy, disgrace is wont to prevail, if their 1 8 8 Stob./or. 38. 27 (III p. 713, 11 Hense) SO^OKVOUS 'ETrtyoxoi (so M : rod deeds are evil and not good.' TOIS atirov tirlirovoL A, S omits the name of the <j>6ovov|iivois is thus the dative of the person interested, and with VLK&V used play). ' i\ei... irXiov.' absolutely does not differ essentially from This difficult fragment awaits elucidathe dativus iudicaniis (of mental interest tion. Campbell, who remarks that the only) in Ar. Av. 445 iraai vmav TOIS words are unmeaning in the absence of Kpirais I Kal TOIS $earais iraaiv. Tucker their context, adds that the general sense wished to substitute veiKeli/ for VLKOLV and seems to be represented by ' He who Wecklein Sticrvoia for 5tV6oveio-0ai Si #Aoiju' av eir' VCLKC'IV does not occur in tragedy. Blaydes proposed TJKetv for VIKO,V.—For the omisii\ov ev J3I6T(I>. See also

airrcTai. 'When men are attacked by

on fr. 149, 9.

189 ft)

TTOLV

crv ToX/Jujcracra Kal iripa

KO.KIOV dW

yvvaiKOS, 189.

189

yvvr\,

OVK €CTTLV O v S ' CCTTai

et TL vrjfjba

1 yvv-q MA : yivai S

Stob. flor. 73, 51 (iv p. 557, 7

Hense) 2O0OKWOUS 'ETI^OCOI om. S) ' w irav.. .jUporo'is.'

(iviyovoi.

1 I think that Campbell was right in preferring yvvrj to yivat (see cr. n.), but I do not print a comma after 7r^pa as he does. The nom. is used because the words are an exclamation rather than an address : cf. Horn. A 231 Srnxofiopos [3a
see Monro H. G.2 § 163.—Kal ire'pa is a frigid hyperbole, but is perhaps excusable on the ground that a irav is virtually identical with u f ' O thou who hast been wicked beyond all measure.' For the connotation of

ylyverai 3 f) et (ijei M) n codd.

TrdvTo\fj.os, a very strong word, see Headlam on Aesch. Ag. 228. There is a similar but less patent hyperbole in Eur. El. 1187 aXavTa fiiXea Kal vipa \ iradovaa <xS>v T£KVU>V viral. So J e b b takes O. C. 1745 TOTC ixev dwopa, rork b" tiTepBev. F o r

irav roXfiav cf. fr. 567 n. The words have not unnaturally been suspected: (r) Meineke conjectured 71*^5, treating vv. 1 and 3 as a separate fragment; (2) Nauck required something like <3 Seiva ToXfi-riaaaa Kal SsivQv ire'pa (cf. D e m . 4=;.

73, Ar. Av. 416, Thesm. 705); (3) Stadtmueller proposed iripa Xbyov. But the text is probably sound. 3 et TI KTL, 'among all the sorrows

135

ETTirONOI that are men's.' TTTJ^O. logically belongs to the principal clause, but is attracted to the protasis. The common reading is more idiomatic and effective than Tucker's V 'vl (Hill to HITI) irrifia ylyveTai PpoToU, which is an anticlimax. Blaydes conjectured ijns. Cf. 0. C. 1006 et TIS

777 ffeoiis iirio-rarai. \ Ti/teus aeptfav, ijSe T£8' iiirep
objection to the superlative ignores the development of the idiom, which has outstripped its logic. See also on ft. 87.

igo TO 19O

KOTKOV

Apyos ov KaroiKrjcrovT' e n

KaToiK-rjiTovT Blaydes : KaToiK-qoavT L (Karoi.Kiiaa.VTa m . pr.)

19O Schol. Soph. O. C, 378iroA\ax°i; TO "Ap-yos KoTKbv <parn, Kaddirep Kal iv "Ewtybvois

'TO KOIXOV .. JTI.'

KOIXOV. A glance at the map of Argolis will satisfy anyone of the appropriateness of the epithet as a description of the hill-girt Argive valley within the limits of which were situated the ancient towns of Mycenae, Orneae, Midea, and Tiryns: see 0. C. 378, 1387 with Jebb's n. on the earlier passage, where the reference to

this scholium requires correction.— KaToiKiio-ovT'. The aorist (see cr. n.) is unsuitable to in, and I have very little doubt that the future should be substituted : cf. Eur. Hel. 57 TO tc\ewbv fi' (-Ti KaToiKrjffeiv

ir^dov ^Trdprijs, ib. 1244,

Andr. 858, Suppl. 1231. This conjecture has been anticipated by Blaydes. For the critical difficulties affecting the quotations of the scholiast see the n. on fr. 242.

191 yXaxrcr' Iv Kevoicriv avBpdcnv OTTOV XoyoL 191.

191 0

x TT\4OV.

1 h> Ktvoiaiv J a c o b s : iv olaui L | tivSpatn. L | lx€i Brunck :

Stob. eel. II 15. 27 p. 189, 22 W. ppy

r/'vviouriv, Kvicala). Wecklein,retaining ^X ets > r e a d yXuio~o~ri o~v roTad1

iv.

2 oirov. On the assumption that iv 1 iv Ktvoitriv. I have adopted oltnv is retained in the previous line, Jacobs's conjecture as being on the whole Blomfield proposed to substitute e/cei. the best supplement of the defective text. But it is quite unnecessary to read b'rwv It seems also to have been made independently by Cobet (K L. p. 15), and (Wagner) or Srois (F. W. Schmidt), since b'-wov may very well follow a personal is approved by Wachsmuth. Nauck accepts Dindorfs yhQ>aaa<x' iv viomiv, and Papageorgius yk&Gff' rj V itceivoLS (y\&o~a'

TTXOVO-IOV, tppbvriiia Si | iv Tolaiv ipyoii, ovxi TOIS Xbyois, ^x03? (io~ov codd. Eur.).

IO0OKAEOYI

136

192 OTTOV Se (JLT) TOL ^pTQcrr' VIKO,

S'

iv

i\.evdepa>s

TroAet

ra

acfxiXkoVCTL T7)V (T(>}TT)piaV. 1 9 2 . 1 rd XPMT' Reisig: rd patera vel ra paera codd., rapier' Wyttenbach, rd •' Blomfield 3 a/iaprtai S : a/iaprtats MA 1 9 2 Stob. flor. 43. 7 (iv p. 2, 17 /iiiros ayavqi, Kal ?X0pa 'X2as. Theodor. Hense) TOO atfroO ([following fr. 84] Metoch. misc. 58 p. 341 rairoi ri Xeytu, SA, 2O0OKAA>I;S M) 'B/JI^XT;.

L

6VOU...

ei rd x c 'p w ' sard 76c X670!', dei CIK?, Kay

e(sJT7jpiav.' 7rc£cr]7 Kpdeei rQv evavriuv rwv avithvrojv p 1 f. Reisig's conjecture (see cr. n.) /j.ak\ov alff8a.v6fj.eda; xPWr^ and xfLpuv appears most appropriate to the context. are both employed in the political or Cf. Phil. 456 birov 8' 6 xilPav raya8oO social sense to express the opposition 01 fielipv aBhei \ K&iroipBlveLraxP7l
193 yqpa. TrpocrfJKov cra>£,e rr/v evdv/xiav. 1 9 3 TrpoeiJKov Gaisford: TrpoeriKdvrws A, TrpoeSvrws M, wpoeSvros vulgo, TrpevbvTOK Nauck I ev$vfj.tav Dindorf: eifiri/iiav codd. 1 9 3 Stob. flor. 117. 3 (iv p. 1055, (2) ei(pi)idav cannot mean 'silence''; the 4 Hense) "ZofyoxXtovs ''Eptv, which was adopted title on rb yfipas aveiraxBes Kal 7roXX^s by Hartung. But yhpa irpo(T'f]Kwv can aiSovs a^wv •>)ffiWcmawepydfcrai. We expect something that is relevant to the hardly mean 'having reached' or ' a p general defence of old age. F. W. proached old age.' Bergk proposed Trpo-fjicav. Recently Nauck's wpeir6vT(i}s Schmidt's evfiovXlav and eipvff/xiav have very little probability; and I think has won some acceptance, but, although Dindorf's evdvfxlav is far better, both for wpeirbvrus and 7rpoerijK<Wws were synonymous words, it is improbable that at any palaeographical reasons and in point of sense. Old age is not burdensome, if it period the former would have been exis borne with composure : cf. Plat. rep. plained by the latter. The indications 329 D dv fiiv yap K6G)J.IOI Kal efeoXoi iZeiv are rather the other way: see Elym. M. p. 690, 21 TvpoffTjKOV • rb irpiwov, Suid.(scil. olavdponru), Kal rbyrjpas fierplas earlv iivlirovov • el de fj.'rj, Kal yrjpas Kal veory)? wpoar/Kei. Trpi-rrei. Blaydes's Trapoucuv has no probability. For these reasons I prefer XaXfir-tj r$ roiovriji trvupalvei. Anaxandr. Gaisford's irpocriKov as an ace. abs.: for fr- 53. J l 159 K its use in tragedy cf. Eur. Suppl. 412.

ETTirONOI

137

194 ySe/Saiai §' eicrlv ai KT^creis 1 9 4 IC^PTJS Naber: fidvac M 1 9 4 Stob. y?or. i. 1 (in p. 1, 3 Eur. El. 941 i] yap ipiais /3^/3cuos, ov ra Hense) SO^OKXIJS e'v 'Epi0t/Xfl. 'dpe-rijs... Xpy^ara. Sophocles, one may think, fxivat.' The extract is omitted by SA, would have been on the side of Pindar with his contempt for didaxral dperal appearing only in M. (01. 9. 101) rather than on that of The contrast is between the permanence Socrates : contrast Critias fr. 9 Diels £K of dper?} as a natural endowment, and fj,e\eTT]s TrXetous 17 (pvaeojs dyadoi. In later the instability of wealth. It is explicit in Theogn. 317 -rijs aperrjs rbv TTXOVTOV, times the Stoics discussed the question whether virtue once acquired could be ewei TO fiev ^TreSov cuet, j xpVfJiaTa 5' avdpihirwii dWore aXKos f-x€f~ The pos-lost.—(3e'Pcucu. The only other instance in tragedy of the fern, termination appears session of apery is a gift of cpiais : see on to be Eur. El. 1263. Blaydes proposed fr. 808 and the illustrations quoted by to substitute I3eftai.oi. Headlam in J. P. x x m 276, especially

195 dvSpaiv ya-p icrOXaiv crrepvov ov jLtaXacrcrerat. 195

Stob.y?OT-. 7. 7 (ill p. 309, 13

The present passage is more akin to Or. 1200 (referring to the cowardly Menelaus) Kai VLV SoKw...xpopCfj fj.a\d^etv uirXdyx^ov. OVTC yap ffpairis | 06V dXn/xos iriOK\?)S ' E X

i

5

I96 ovv OTTOV TO BeLvbv

uiv eA.7rt§

deia,

ovSev

vention : Aesch. Suppl. 102 idirTei 5' (sc. Tieijs) e\7ridoiv dtp' vtyiirvpywv iravuiXeLs /Sporoiis. But the best illustration of the text will be found in Dem. 18. 97 Set di Toits dyaQoiis avfipas e'yxtt-pelv fj.ev airaaiv del TOIS /caXoZs, TT)V dyad i)v Trpoj3a\\ofj.e'vovs eX7r/5a, I r^l" &'

IOOKAEOYI

138

iinem miseriis, infers that in this play Alcmaeon was acting according to the direction of the oracle, and not merely in execution of his father's behest. The sense is grievously marred by Nauck's punctuation (adopted by Dindorf and Campbell), who makes the question end a t ri XH> puts a comma after Seivbv, and a full-stop after rj0eXei. Hence, inasmuch as v. 2 then becomes contrary to fact— for hope is often serviceable in danger— Bergk and Kock conjectured dirov rb 8eiov, and F. W. Schmidt 6Vou rb fieivbv hiiretr\ oiSev dxpeXel. The reason for this mistaken criticism is that ibcpeXeiv is

supposed to require a personal objec ; but Tucker has well shown (C. P. XVIII 197) that this is not the case by quoting E u r . fr. 274 TO yap etnuich ibtpeXei TOS ^vfupop&s a n d fr. 714 irXouros t!>tpe\el vbo~ov. 1 6«ia TV^T), 'heaven-sent d o o m . ' Sophocles is fond of this use of 8ews, which is illustrated on fr. 650. T h e meaning of deov 17X57717 (fr. 961 n.) is similar. F o r t h e general sense, t h e necessity of submitting to the divine ordinance, see on fr. 585. 2 T6 Seivov is used as in fr. 351, 0. T. I'll TO deivbv ovtpojiletTO,

ig7 /ctveis VTTVOV larpov vocrov. 197

dweXB' eKelvqs c o d d . : corr. Nauck | hyrpbv codd.

1 9 7 Clem. Alex, stroni. 6 p. 741 the ground, I suppose, that to particularize is beside the mark. For sleep as a ft 5 ' a v eK TrapaXXifiXov.. .TSfild 8 " T ' dbd fiev iK rod d Opto-Tov O (ii\) () ' «j 0£Xoi' vwvov soother of pain cf. Phil. &2"]"Xirv 6ovas >t> vbtrov,' 2iOipoKX4ovs de dSn-^s, "Tirve 8' dXy^oiv. O r p h . h. 8 5 . 5 ' fareXW eKelvrjS fnrvov A b e l XvcrifMepifu/e, Kbiriov r/Setac fyiav tK TJJS dydiravaiv, | Kal irdo'Tjs X^TTTJS lepbv irapayp ixidiov (pdiov (al. ipirwv). Wilamowitz The text is corrupt, but it is not easy to decide between Valckenaer's dweKd' ' (Eur. Her? I p. 138) plausibly infers that the reference is to Alcmaeon asleep on iKfivijs iiirvos larpbt vbvov, a n d N a u c k ' s the stage, and that here, as in the Orestes a7re\#e' Kivtis Oirvov larpbv v6
198 KCU yap 'Apyeiovs bpa> 1 9 8 Prov. cod. Athoi in Miller, Melanges de lilt. gr. p . 363 (11 46) KOX yap 'Apyelovs bpu>' KOX aim) 2ocf>OK\elov iarlv la/xfieiov fi^pos' TreTroirjTaL yap 4K€?'Epi0ii\?7 (wepKpvXT) cod.) 7rpos 'AXK/j.aLwva Xeyoucra * Kai yap 'Apyeiovs opCj.' ju^pijrat Tai/Trjs AXeJis iv i&vXaffpcji (fr. 153, II 353 K . ) . Proverb. Append. 3. 35 (Paroem. I 423) Kal ->dp 'Apyeiovs o/oys' aSrri 2OI/)6KXCIOS. Te7rocT}Tai yap 'EpupvXr} irpbs 'AXK/xafwya Xiyowa ' Kal...bpw.' elprjrai de M T&V iKTevQs irpbs hnovv fiXeirbvTwv /cat KaraTTX7]KTIK6^ TI boKotivTwv bpav. ot de ewl T&V els KX01TT)V

VTTOVOOVfxivOiV '

KOlpqidoVVTaL

yap 'Apye'101 £irl KXOTTTI, wtrirep Kal ^ofioKXTJS (a manifest error for "AXe£is, according to Crusius) expriaaro. Hesych. 1 p. 272 'Apyeiovs bpw' Trapoi/j.tG>5es. Suid. s.v. 'Apyeiovs bpq.s. irapoifxla eirl T&V drevGis Kal KaTaTrXi)KTiK&s bpwvrwv.

Crusius (Analecta Critica, p . 151) explains that the comic poet quoted the words of Sophocles with the addition Tapa irpoaSoKlav of robs tpwpas or something of the kind, so that ipyetos bears the meaning of (pavepos (cf. dpy6s). He points out that Aristophanes had also spoken of 'Argive thieves' with the same intention : Suid. s.v. 'Apyeioi <j>Gipes • iirl rCjv irpobi}Xojs iropijpwv ot 'Apyeioi tiri /cXo7r?7 KUfj-LofioOvraL. 'Apto~ro(pdv7js :Avayipiji (fr. 57, I 406 K . ) . T h e verbal play is of the same kind as/3ous Kvirpios (Kbirpios), KaKuv 'IXtds (i'Xr/), 5a.iiJ.uv Alveios {alvds), and a number of others: Hid. p. 55. That this use of dpybs was possible is shown by one of the derivations given to 'Apyei.
EniroNoi—EPIZ (eiptyrai Se...ot Si...) are adapted respectively to the quotations from Sophocles and Alexis. The same critic {Philol. XLVI 616) refers to this passage Aristophon fr. 4, II 277 K. TvaXttimty vbiuaov 'ApyeUv /J.'opaf. Blaydes compares .Ar. Ran. 653 hnrta.i opu, put forward to explain a cry of pain. The words were spoken by Eriphyle to Alcmaeon, and were famous as having occurred at the culminating point of a scene marked by the most intense form of

139

tragic emotion. Eriphyle was conscious of having betrayed the expedition of Adrastus, and the appearance—real or imagined—of the Argives was calculated to fill her with terror. Ribbeck, p. 494, thought that Eriphyle implored Alcmaeon to stay his hand, declaring that she could see an Argive army hurrying forward to intervene in her favour ; but this interpretation is excluded by the words TCW KarairX^KTiKdv n ioKoivTUv bpS.v.

EPI2 The reading *Ipt? in Athen. 646 D, preferred by Casaubon, Brunck, and Boeckh as the title of this play, is now exploded. Welcker (Nachir. p. 313), quoting Plat. rep. 379 E 6ea>v epiv Te KOI Kpicriv Bid ©e'/iiTo? Te ical Ato?, conjectured that the subject was the contention between Zeus and Poseidon for the hand of Themis. This strange blunder is reproduced by Dindorf without any intimation that Welcker had confused Themis and Thetis : cf. P i n d . Isth. 8. 27 UoaeiSav ydf/,q>.

Zeds

or

dfj,l ©eVto? dyX,a\6<; r

epiaav

I would rather suppose that the "Epm was a companionplay to the Kptcrt?, and that its subject was the strife between the three goddesses at the marriage of Peleus and Thetis. See Proclus's abstract of the Cypria {EGF p. 17) : Trapayevofievr] Se " E p f ? evw^ov^evcov TGOV ffeoiv iv TOIS Ilr/Xeco? yd/j,OLS vel/cos irepl tedWow; evicrT7]poBl,Tr], al Trpo 'Fjpfj,ov Trpot

rfjv Kpiaiv ayovrac /ere. The golden apple which Eris dropped on the table with its inscription ' A gift to the fairest' is mentioned by a number of the later authorities (collected by Waser in Pauly-Wissowa VI 465), and several critics have inferred that it was an addition to the original story. Though omitted by Proclus, the apple appears in the very much abbreviated account in Apollod. epit. 3. 2, and there is nothing to prove that it could not have been mentioned in a satyr-play of Sophocles. It is obvious that the marriage of Peleus and Thetis was an occasion on which a chorus of satyrs might very well have been present, and the fragments, so far as they go, support the idea of a banquet. Two considerations which make in favour of this conjecture deserve to be stated: (1) the frequency with which 'ipis, especially in conjunction with i 1

See Gruppe, p. 665.

ZO0OKAEOYZ appears as a fixed term for the quarrel of the three goddesses, as in the Argument to Colluthus, npirayr) 'E\ez/i?9: TTJV TJ)? "E/HSO? crvyxvcriv KOL epwirepl TOV fjrjXov. Cf. Eur. ffec. 644 supidr] o epi$ av ev 'I So. /cpivei rpiacras /xa/cdpcov \ "iraihas avrjp /3ovra<;. Andr. 276 rpLiraiXov apfia Zaifiovcov j ayasv (sc. Hermes) TO icaXki,%vyes, \epi81 arvyepa icetcopvO^evov evfiopt,a<;. Hel. 708 dewv rptcrcrSiV I.A. 183 "Hpa VlaWdSi r epiv epiv \ /xop^df a K w p t ? ^ ib. 1307 Kpiaiv iwl arxr/vav epiv re /caWovas. Isocr. IO. 4 1 ev Oeols irepl KOKXOV^ eptSos, 179 'A\e^avSpo<; 6 Tlpictfj-ov

) ptTjfc- There is very little doubt that to this list should be added the passage of Plato quoted by Welcker, seeing that Themis is mentioned in the abstract of Proclus as taking counsel with Zeus : see Adam's note. (2) If "Epi? is to be taken as a personification, the incident in question is much the most famous affair in which she was engaged1. 199 eyai oe ireivaxr av Trpos vrpia. pkenw. 199

weivoxrayav A : corr. Musurus

1 9 9 Athen. 646 D trpiov Tre/x/j.&Tcov \einbv Sea ffTjad/iwv Kctl [U\LTOS yivbiievov. /j.v7)/j.ove\iet ai5To0...2o^>o/cX^s"B/)i5i 'iyu... ISWTTW.' irpos iTpia pXt'irio, 'cast a longing eye on the cakes,' is a less contemptuous form of the Aristophanic irpbs raOra Kexv&s (Nub. 997). Cf. Plat. symp. 181 B Trpbs rb Sia-TTpd^aadai fibvov fiXtirovTes. Blaydes on Ar. Lys. 427 quotes Eur. fr. 162 difdpbs 5' bpuvros eis K.6irpi.v veavlov, Theocr. 13. 12 088' OIT6K' dprdXixm [uvvpoi

ITOTI KO'ITOV op^ev. S o perhaps Ant. 30 eitfopuiffi Trpbs 'X&Pt-v j3o/>tts. F o r irpia cf. Anacreon fr. 17 i\pi<STi)Ga, fiev irplov XCTTTOV fUKpbv airoK\ds.—Kaibel questions whether the generally accepted correction of Musurus (see cr. n.) is sound. It is certainly not convincing, but nothing better has been suggested.—Ahrens thought that Aphrodite was the speaker, and that she was bored with Athena's sage counsel.

200

evcopos yd/xov 2OO

7ct,uos cod.: corr. Nauck

2 0 0 Hesych. II p . -237 eiiupos y&.jAo's. Euphor. fr. 102 oidi TOI eSapoi dviuv. 2OC/>OK\9JS "EpiSt. ifroi oipios (iipatos Hesych. also mentions etiapos as an Nauck) ?) dXLyaipos. oVrbi yap \4yovs 6 airbs ev Sfcupi'ais For the genitive depending on the adj. (fr. 561) XPI™ TV evupi&fav. cf. E u r . Hel. 12 iirel 5' 7s Tj^r/v TJXdev Nauck pointed out that the interpretauipalav yaixwv (n.), and for further illustion 6\lywpos, although wrong in itself, trations of similar genitives Kuehnershows that 70^01; and not yd/j.os is the Gerth I 371. Pierson on Moeris p. 426. correct reading. An example of evwpos For KUT' avricppaaw see on fr. 116. in the sense of 'neglectful' is quoted from 1 When the above was written, I was unaware that the same view of the contents of the "Epis had been advocated by Bergk (de frag. Soph. p. 10), as well as by Ahrens, who threw out the suggestion that possibly "Epis was an alternative title to the play known as Kpdris. 'The latter identification, for which there is little to be said, was also approved by Wagner.

EPII-—EPMIONH

141

201 [JbLGLV 2 O 1 Antiatt. (Bekk. anecd.) p. 108, ijei <™<£(/>os, and see Phot. lex. p. 244, 21. 9 jiXav ixiav • OLVTI TOV Kara filav. So0oAr. Nub. 1288 ifkiov ir\iov ripyiipiov ael K\TJS "EpiSi. yiyverai. Antiph. fr. 10, II 15 K. fie'i^ov It must be assumed that this was a /iet£ov. C3XvX\.(>^.i']$magismagisincrecolloquialism for 'one by one,' or 'one brescunt. Examples from modern Greek and then another.' Brunck compares are adduced in the authorities quoted by Ar. Vesp. 213 rl O$K direKoi/j.-/i8r)/iev b'aov Thumb, die gr. Spr. in Zeitalter d. Helb'aov aTiKriv; So /laWov fiaWov in Eur. lenismus, p. 128. / . T. 1406 fj-ciWov de fiaXKov Tpbs ir^

EPMIONH The plot of this play proceeds on parallel lines to that of Euripides' Andromache. Our authorities for the contents are as follows : E u s t a t h . Od. p. I479> I ° %o(f>o/c\r}<; Be, a KCITCL TTJV iv Vpoca virocr^ediv avTou Se YlvBol dvaipedevTO<> viro Ma^atp€&)?, oVe TOV 'ATTOWW rivv/xevof TOV TOV -iraTpos i^eSiKei <povov, d-rroKaTacrTrjvai avdis avTr\v TW 'OpecrT-y i% eXr]0evTa irapa TT)V fieTa fievovs Tiaiv, iirel 6 traTrfp 'Opecrr?;? iTbaaro TOV<; (frovefc TOV

'Ayafiefxvovo^. The schol. on 8 4 is identical in substance, though the language is somewhat different, and the clause 6re...(j)6vov and all that follows Tiaafievov are omitted. But viro Tvv8dpea> is given in the MSS in place of VTTO Ma^atpew?, which is restored by Dindorf. The only other allusion to Sophocles in relation to this subject occurs in schol. Eur. Or. 1655 which, after some remarks concerning Euripides alone, proceeds as follows: ^Pepeicv8r]<; 7]al {FHG I 94) irepl iraihwv )^p7](r/u,ov alrovvra TOV NeoTTToXe/J-ov dvaipedrjvaf iirel Neo7rToXe//-O9 'Kp/j,i6vrjv yafiei Trjv ~M.epe\dov, ical ep^eTai elf AeX^>ou? irepl iralhiov ^pi]o-6jj,evoov<;, dcpaipeiTtzi r a Kpea avTovs, kavTOv he KTelvei jxayalpa. 6 Se TOVTGSV iepevs (auTov Se KTeivei Ma^atpe?)? 6 TOVTWV lepevs KCLI conj. Leopardi) /caTopvcrcrei avTov VTTO TOV ovhov TOV ved). TavTa yeveaXoyel ical 2O<^>OK\^?. I t is n o t

at all clear what meaning should be given to the cryptic utterance in the last sentence; but I cannot agree with Welcker (p. 220 ff.) that we are entitled to assume that Sophocles followed the account of Pherecydes in respect either (1) to the

142

I04>0KAE0YZ

motive of Neoptolemus in visiting Delphi1, or (2) to the origin of the brawl with the priests. Welcker makes several other assumptions which cannot be justified : that Orestes plotted against the life of Neoptolemus, as in Euripides ; that the scene of the play was laid at Delphi; that Hermione was forcibly carried off by Neoptolemus, and sighed for her former lover Orestes, as in Ovid (Her. 8); that Pylades assisted Orestes in attacking Neoptolemus ; and that Neoptolemus in a dying speech directed that Andromache should be sent to Helenus. There is not a scrap of evidence to support these inferences ; and it is far better to adhere strictly to the statement of Eustathius, who is our only explicit authority. A tragedy upon this subject was also written by Philocles2, who is known to us from several allusions in Aristophanes : see schol. on Eur. Andr. 32. The title Hermione is also found among the works of Livius Andronicus and Pacuvius ; and several fragments of the latter's play are preserved, and are used by Welcker for the purpose of reconstructing the play of Sophocles3. The objections to this method have been pointed out in several other cases. The principal facts which emerge from the statement of Eustathius are : (1) the betrothal of Hermione by Tyndareus, during the absence of Menelaus at Troy. For this cf. Serv. on Verg. Aen. 3. 328 hanc Hermionam quidam dicunt, cum Oresti esset desponsata, post a Menelao apud Troiam admirante virtutem Pyrrhi esse promissam : alii dicunt a Menelao quidem apud Ilium Pyrrho desponsatam ; sed a Tyndareo Oresti morante apud Troiam Pyrrho, ut quidam promissam, ut quidam coniunctam tradunt. Ov. Her. 8. 31 me tibi Tyndareus, vita gravis auctor et annis \ tradidit: arbitrium neptis habebat avus; | at pater Aeacidae promiserat inscius acti, etc. To the same effect Hygin. fab. 123. (2) Neoptolemus was slain by Machaereus at Delphi. This is related by several authorities, from whom we learn that Machaereus was one of the priests of Apollo: cf. Strabo 421 Ma%cMpea>? AeXov dvSpos dvs\6vro? fiev 6 (ivOos, Si/cas airovvTa TOV Oeov rod irarpaov ? Be TO et/co?, eiriOefxevov 1 Ribbeck, Rom. Trag. p. 262, agrees with Welcker, and actually attributes the introduction of the words ravra (or TairlC) yeveaKoyel to the operation of this motive. More to the point is his reference to Diog. L. 1. 119, where Pherecydes himself is called 7ei'eaX67os. Wagner (Epit. Vat. p. 2762) was perhaps right in referring the words to the genealogy of Tisamenus, as related at the end of the play. 2 See TGF p. 760, where it is hinted that the name of Philocles may have been substituted in error for that of Sophocles. 3 Wagner and Ribbeck make much of Pacuv. fr. I quo tandem ipsa orbitas \ grandaevitasque Pelei penuriam \ stirpis subauxit, as confirming the view of Welcker that in Sophocles Neoptolemus went to Delphi to enquire how he might become a father. It is manifest that the words quoted do not warrant the inference that has been drawn from them.

EPMIONH

143

ru> lepm. Pausan. 10. 24. 4 NeoirroXefiov.. .6 lepeu? cirre/crewe rov 'A7T6XX&)I/O?. T r y p h i o d . 642 ^adeov BrfKtj/j,ova vrjov \ Ae\6<; dvr/p eXdaas lepfj KartTrecpve fia%ai'prj. It is i m p o r t a n t to observe

that the schol. on Pind. Nevi. 7. 62, quotes Asclepiades' rpaya>Bov/xeva (FUG III 303) in support of his remark that all the poets agree in naming Machaereus as responsible for the death of Neoptolemus. Pindar, in his Paean to the Delphians (6. 118, Oxyrh. Pap. V 47), had given offence to the Aeginetans b y t h e words dficpnroXois Be | /xoipiav irepl ri/xav | B-rjpia^o/Atvov KTavev I ev refievei (piXtp yu<; | Trap' 6/J,(j>a\6v evpvv, which seemed

to them to suggest that Neoptolemus was guilty of sacrilege. The cause of the quarrel was clearly not so well-known as to leave Pindar's expression free from doubt; and the newly discovered scholia give various explanations: rjroi, r&v icpecov rj 8iapTra£6vTO)v crvvi]6a)<; rwv aWcav eSva^epave Kal e/ccokve Sto Kal dvr)pt)rai rj rwv XPVH1™70>v a Biapird^cov els eKhiKbav rov irarpbf;

dvypiOr). In Nem. J. 42 Pindar explains that he meant the first,— (va Kpewv viv vrrep /Ma^a1; | ekaaev dvrcrv^ovr dvrjp fia-^aipa: but the account of Eustathius, so far as it goes, suggests that in Sophocles Neoptolemus was the aggressor. (3) The subsequent birth of Tisamenus to Hermione and Orestes, and the derivation of his name. It is impossible to feel sure that these come from Sophocles: in any case, they can only have been mentioned incidentally. For the fact cf. Pausan. 2. 18. 6. Wagner (Epit. Vat. p. 274 ff.) throws doubt on the account of Eustathius for quite inadequate reasons, and prefers to follow the guesses of Welcker and Ribbeck to the plain statement of our t> only direct authority. H e treats Sophocles as the source of Apollod. epit. 6. 14, and would accordingly restore 11770 'Opearov rather than vrro M.axaipeco<; for the corrupt inro Tvvhdpeoo in schol. Horn. S4. Schwartz, on the other hand, rightly considers 1 that the epitome is drawn in the main from Euripides, but contains a single motive taken from the Hermione of Sophocles. Vater suggested that, if fr. 872 belongs to this play, the plot may have been similar to the conclusion of Euripides' Orestes. But, in view of the evidence already discussed, it is clear that fr. 872 belongs elsewhere. 1

Pauly-Wissowa 1 2879.

144

I04>0KAE0YI 202

w TTaTpa>a<; yrjs dyviaiov

eSov ire

irtdov. But no rigid rule can be laid down: cf. Ai. 135 TTJS dfupiptiTov SaXatuvos '4xuv paOpov dy%i-d\ov, where Bothe's dy%ia\ov has not won acceptance. See also Elmsley on Eur. Hdid. 750.— L. and S. strangely connect this adjective Meineke conjectured dyviaiov, which with Apollo 'Ayvieis. There is no reason would be in accordance with Ai. 859 i2 to doubt that it simply means 'provided 717s Upbv okeios iriiov Xa\afuvos and Eur. fr. 558 CJ yijs 7rarp0as X°^Pe
Steph. Byz. p. 22, 4 ayvid' T&ITOS

SifKGiv T^]V ev rrj ir6\ei iropevrty 6S6v... TO TOTTIKOV dyviaios. 2o
203 2 O 3 Antiatt. (Bekk. anecd.) p. 87, 25 dVTl TOV yV&plflOS. '2iO
Nauck contends that yvuiTbs ought to be written as in fr. 282; but see Jebb on 0. T. 361 and the Appendix. He also retains /cXawrd in O.C. 1360. The question of the origin of this intrusive
discussed at length by Curtius, Greek Verb, pp. 519—526, but his conclusions are now out of date. The form in -oros, where not phonetically justified, must be attributed to the working of analogy; yvwOT6S is thus necessarily later than yvwTds, although the contrary view was formerly held (Blomfield on Aesch. Pers. 403).

EYMHAOI Eumelus, as Welcker remarks (p. 66), is not a tragic hero; and nothing is known of any person bearing this name which appears suitable for the subject of a tragedy1. Moreover, it is only in Harpocration that the title appears ; for in fr. 204 'EvfirjXu) is an emendation for afirjXm. The best-known Eumelus is the son of Admetus and Alcestis, who actually appears in the Alcestis of Euripides. He commanded a contingent in the Trojan war (B 711 ff.) ; was famous for his horses (ib. 763 ff.); appeared as a competitor in the chariot race at the funeral games of Patroclus (M* 288 ff.), when he received something in the nature of a ' consolation' prize; and won the first prize at the games held for Achilles (Apollod. epit. 5. 5). Later he was one of the heroes in the wooden horse (Quint. 12. 324). Hence Meineke, concluding that he probably survived the war, referred fr. 911 to this play. Blomfield's conjecture 'AK for EvfMJ\(p is improbable. 1 Wagner's extraordinary identification of the hero of this tragedy with the Eumelus of Anton. Lib. 18, Ov. Met. 7. 390, requires no refutation.

EYMHAOZ—EYPYAAOI

145

204 2 O 4 Hesych. I p. 79 i apijas' alfidTos Kopiaat. TO 56pv. ^ afytcm fioXvvai Kal xpwtrai avrb- ao-r) yap ij pvirapla. S$ev Kal dad/ieOa, iv % TTJV aar]v fir/viBovTe iveopeT. 2O<J>OKXT)S d/xiJXif). Eu,i«}X<[> was restored by Musurus ; and the corruption of ev to a is frequent in Hesychius. Blomfield conjectured 'A/t,vKifi, and Blaydes approved. The gloss has been further restored so as to read aifiaTos curai *Apr)a...b'6ev Kal atrdfiiv60s, iv -g rty ao-qv...p.ivi9ovTt$ eXoiovro. For that is the form in which the lemma and gloss occur in Suid. s.v., and Bekk. anecd. p. 358, 31, with the addition of the words S e<m TT)V pxnrapiav iiciovvres after iXoiovro. Suid. omits rb S6pv after Kopi£{ai. Consequently, M. Schmidt conjectured that the words following iu\vbBovTe belonged properly to this gloss, and should be emended to kvapeiv 2 . E. This conjecture is supported by fr. 987. On the other hand, Schmidt is obliged to assume not merely that the words in question have been accidentally shifted, but also that

they have driven out the conclusion of the clause iv y KT£., leaving a gap. It might be possible to account for freopei by reading iixlvvOov ol apxcuoi, or even /uvidetv ivtXibpa. So R. Ellis conjectured fuvv0uv TIS dpcupet. But, for reasons already given, it can hardly be doubted that the gloss of Hesychius has been mutilated, and that it was originally identical with that of Suidas. See also Suid. s.v. &
205 2 O 5 Harpocr. p. 104, 18 dvrl TOG dveXujv ij airoKTeivas. xP Si ovTd) T<ji bvb\j.an Kal SXAoi, (is Xr-qaixopos iv 'IXLov 7r^cri5i (fr. 23) Kal 2o<poKXf)S iv ^iixijXw. Phot. lex. p. 122, 1 KaBeXdbv ki)p.oa6tv-qs (23. 53) dcri TOU dveXwv ijroi dwoKTelvas, Kal 'Zrrjaixopos Kal 2o(p~OKXrjs. The passage quoted from Demosthenes is actually from the text of a law: idv

TIS dwoKTelvri iv aOXois HKWV TJ iv 6810 xadeXdv, and no inference should be drawn from it for the usage of Attic prose. In the wider sense of to overthrcnv the examples are more numerous: v. Iexx. For Sophocles cf. Track. 1063 ix.bvt] /xe Si] KadeTXe tfraoydvov Sixa, Ai. 517 {jxaipa) KadeiXev "Atdov davaaifiovs oiKijTopas, O.C. 1689 Kara ^e vdavuv yepaitp.

EYPYAAOS

The play of Sophocles is cited by Eustath. Od. p. 1796, 52 Kara 8e Kval^ayov (eV NocrTot?) v!o<; avrw el; HviTnrr)? ®eTi$o<; AeovTOv, ov aXX.01 AopvicXov 4>a
is told by Parthenius, narrat. am. 3. After the slaying of the p.

10

146

IO*OKAEOYI

suitors, Odysseus crossed over to Epirus on account of an oracular command; and, while hospitably entertained by Tyrimmas, became intimate with his daughter Euippe, and by her the father of a son Euryalus. When the latter had arrived at full age, his mother sent him to Ithaca, with certain tokens proving his identity. Odysseus happened to be away from home when he arrived ; and Penelope, who had previously learnt something of her husband's passion for Euippe, found an opportunity to satisfy herself of the whole truth. Accordingly, when Odysseus returned, without informing him of the real position, she persuaded him that Euryalus was plotting against his life, and should be put to death. Odysseus was thus induced to slay his own child, not very long before he was himself killed by Telegonus. It will be observed that Eustathius speaks of Telemachus and not of Odysseus himself as the actual slayer. In the concluding words of Parthenius Meineke found a senarius Tpa>8el<; dicdvdr) rpvyovos

dakacr<Ti.a<;, for which see

the Introductory Note to the 'OSvcrcrev<; dicavdoirXri^. Wilamowitz, Horn. [Inters, p. 191, holds that Parthenius is an entirely untrustworthy source for the reconstruction of Sophocles' play, and that we must not accept his authority for the line recovered by Meineke, or believe that Tyrimmas was the name given by Sophocles to Euippe's father. But his scepticism has not found favour with subsequent critics: see the authorities cited by Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. 62S10. Gruppe himself holds that the story belongs to a stratum of Thesprotian and Epirote legend which was older than the Ionian epos. Recently, Viirtheim (Mnem. XXIX 57) has given reasons for preferring the statement of Parthenius that Odysseus rather than Telemachus was the slayer of Euryalus: he urges that the homicide was used by Sophocles as preparatory for the Niptra, in order to vindicate the poetic justice of the sequel, and that Penelope's vengeance would have been incompletely executed unless the father had been induced to become the slayer of his son. EYPYTTYAOI

The story of Eurypylus,—of his alliance with the Trojans, and his death in battle,—fell within the period covered by the Little Iliad. He was the son and successor of the Mysian Telephus, and his mother was Astyoche, the sister of Priam. Homer (X 519 ff.), in referring to the exploits of Neoptolemus, selects as the greatest of his achievements his victory over the hero Eurypylus, the son of Telephus, who was slain, together with many of his Cetean followers, ' by reason of the gifts sent

EYPYAAOZ—EYPYTTYAOI

147

to a woman.' The allusion implies a further knowledge of the history of Eurypylus, and is variously elucidated in the scholia. For the present purpose it is sufficient to take account of the explanation attributed to Acusilaus (FHG I 103). According to this, Priam, hearing of the power of Eurypylus, sent a message to him asking for his assistance. Eurypylus replied that his mother would not permit him to render it; whereupon Priam sent as a gift to Astyoche the golden vine which Zeus had given to Laomedon (or Tros1) as compensation for the seizure of Ganymede, and which he himself had received as an heirloom. That this version was ultimately derived from the Little Iliad is made almost a certainty by the mention in one of the fragments (fr. 6 K.) of the golden vine as the gift of Hephaestus to Zeus, and as subsequently passing to Laomedon as the price of Ganymede. Proclus2 merely states that Eurypylus came to the assistance of the Trojans, and, after heroically serving their cause, was slain by Neoptolemus. Pausanias (3. 26. 9) gives the Little Iliad (fr. 7 K.) as his authority for the statement that Machaon was one of the Greeks who were killed by Eurypylus. Another notable victim who fell by his sword was Nireus (Hygin. fab. 113, Quint. 6. 372). The arrival of Eurypylus, his entertainment by the Trojans, his departure for the field of battle, and his immediate successes are the principal subjects of the sixth book of Quintus; and these events are related in such a spirit as leaves upon the reader the impression that the fame of Eurypylus as the last hope of a losing cause (Soph. fr. 210, 76 f.) must have been widely celebrated by earlier poets whose works are now lost. It should be added that Quintus, although he mentions Astyoche (6. 136) as sister of Priam and mother of Telephus, says nothing whatever about the gift to her of the golden vine. On the other hand, it is remarkable that Strabo (615 f.) dismisses the story of Eurypylus and his Ceteans, and the allusion in the words yvvaicov eive/ca B(opo)i>, as riddles in the text of Homer the solution of which is past discovery. Nevertheless, he adds, the grammarians give a supply of tales in their commentaries which are tedious rather than convincing. Among the writings which Quintus may have utilized was the tragedy entitled Eurypylus, known until recently only from the catalogue given by Aristotle {poet. 23. I459b 6), of plays 1 In Horn. B 265 Tros is the father of Ganymede and receives the immortal horses in payment. Schol. A 521 accordingly names Tros as recipient of the golden vine. Acusilaus is not cited for these details, but there is no doubt that Laomedon was mentioned in this connexion by the author of the Little Iliad (supr.). The bribe of the golden vine is in Serv. Verg. Aen. 1. 489 transferred to Tithonus, the father of 2 Memnon. EGF p. 37. Apollod. efit. 5. 12 adds nothing of importance.

148

IOOKAEOYI

drawn from the Little Iliad, and classed by Nauck (p.. 838) among those of uncertain authorship. The fact that Aristotle does not name the author is no reason for refusing to attribute it to one of the great tragedians, since the AaKaivai of Sophocles and the"On-\
EYPYTTYAOS

149

words at the very point where we should have expected to find Plutarch's quotation, is a coincidence too remarkable to be ignored. The position of the remaining fragments is quite uncertain, and none of them yields any consecutive sense without the addition of hazardous restorations1. A few conjectures concerning their order and contents will be mentioned below, and need not be repeated here. It should, however, be stated that on the Tabula Iliaca, immediately before the representation of the death of Eurypylus, there is an unidentified scene in which two men stand before an altar; and it has been conjectured by Wilamowitz3 that one of them is Eurypylus, who is promising deliverance to the Trojans. Even if he is right, it does not follow that a similar scene occurred in Sophocles, but it is highly probable that the earlier part of the play was occupied with the arrival of Eurypylus and his welcome by Priam. The younger Philostratus {imag. n ) describes a painting which represented the duel of Eurypylus and Neoptolemus. The greater part of his sketch is taken up with an elaborate account of the shield of Neoptolemus, based upon the famous description in the eighteenth Iliad; and there is scarcely anything which can be supposed to illustrate Sophocles, unless it be the opening words (TO, RipvirvkoV KCU NeO7rToA,€jaOU TTOlrjTCOV Vfivel X°P°'! TarP%eiv re ai/rovs a/Mpto ical rr^v j(elpa evBoKifxov; tear' l
The new papyrus, as well as that of the Ichneutae, is dated as belonging to the latter part of the second century. 206

A.

at[ ipa>[

[ [ aurds cr[e 206. 1

5

6 post eh (quod ut ei[p]y quoque legi potest) litterae we in pap. deletae sunt

In the editio princeps of the papyrus as many as 107 fragments were published. Most of these consist of isolated letters and parts of words belonging to three or four or occasionally more successive lines, so that, even where the restoration of a particular word is reasonably certain, it remains entirely insignificant. In such cases, and also where a complete word is legible, but that word is so common that its attribution to Sophocles has no feature of interest, I have not thought it necessary to reprint the existing vestiges. It is possible, though not, it would seem, very probable, that some of these fragments by combination with other parts of the papyrus may ultimately acquire significance ; but that result would not be promoted by their reappearance 2 in this volume. Isyllos, p. 48s-

ISO

IO*OKAEOYI B.

Troia Se [ %Kvpov T [

A.

TOCTOJ,[ IO

7T0\[

B.

d\X[ ifia[

A. T[pM B. . [ . ] y A.

A.e«re[i

B.

e\0oW[

A.

fJLQVOV [

B.

\dyo is jn[

1 4 — 1 8 a prioribus discissa coniectura satis probabili hue relata 2 O 6 Wilamowitz conjectured that this and the two following fragments belonged to a dialogue between Eurypylus and Neoptolemus, which, in accordance with the usage of epic poetry, preceded their encounter. The reference to Scyros in v. 8 is thought to favour this view, but

might have been made by another speaker as well as by Neoptolemus. On the other hand, there are obvious difficulties involved in the supposition that the two heroes met on the stage, since it is abundantly clear that Troy was represented as the scene of the action.

207

(f>ov 8a.Kve\_L T

OTTOV KCLK.O\_

P-

TL

TOVTO;

pa 207.

4 TOVTL supra scr. pap. 2

2O7 It is uncertain whether this fragment does not rather belong to the Ickneutae. The variant rovri (cr. n.) enhances

the doubt. In v. 2 <pov may be 0eu, and in any case T?;\^0ou is not certain.

EYPYTTYAOI 208

AS.

<x//,e[

f ET. AS. ET. AS.

p apurros, <2 6 rt 8' ow 6 crais S[ ipyov TI SeiXo . [ a[X]\' ou TI /JLT) crtA[

[^rjX

d§[^]

2 O 8 Murray's view, that the speakers are Eurypylus and Astyoche, is probably correct, and his restorations in vv. 3—6 are attractive: Eiip. iSe^6./xr)v TO pr/Biv

[

the raven, but his croak was not necessarily inauspicious. Cf. Aelian nat. an.

T. 48 TauTd TOL Kal [lavTitcois ffv/j-^6\ois dyaddv ofxoXoyouffi rbv (riirbv [sc. KOpaKa), u>s apurros top «6pa£ £irq.dei /JLCWTLS...'A.
Eurypylus protests against the arguments used to dissuade him from entering into the contest may be gathered from £8e£a-

Kara Se^iiv—eiraSa, accinit. Here apparently of an encouraging or victorious strain, as in Eur. El. 864. p.7\v rb pydiv, Zpyov 5etX6c, Kdpai; e?r^5et 5 f. In the conjunction of /c6pa| with on the one hand, and 0i?/«7, Kpafci, TJ|».T1 • a prophetic voice. This filch the offerings from the altar. Cf. Aesch. Suppl. 759, schol. Ar. Nub. 52 meaning is illustrated by Blaydes on Ar. Av. 720. Sometimes (p^iixri in the nar- "IOJVOS dvovros KopaKa apiraaai KU>\T}V. See rower sense of an oracular utterance seems however Murray's restoration quoted to be distinguished from KXT;5UC, — a casual above. speech to which a warning significance is 9 oi TI (iij: 0. C. 450, Track. 621. attached (Eur. Hel. 820 n.). 1 0 &KT]STJS is an addition to the tragic 3 e8c|d)i.T|v: El. 668. vocabulary, but aKijdeiv occurs in Ant. 4 Kopa|. Peculiar importance was 414, Aesch. Prom. 524. attached by diviners to the utterances of

209

[ [ ycua

IO<1>OKAEOYI

152

10

2O9.

11 T supra 8 scr. pap. 2

2O9 Hunt conjectured from v. 11 f. that this fragment dealt with the prelimi-

naries of the contest,

210

Col. i.

210.

AITEAOS

1 Ti;]\ec/>o(

) adscr. pap. 2 et infra ]s

5 T~\rr]va,i in marg. adscr. pap. 2

et infra 6}ripa
210. 8f. Seecr. nn. Plut. decohib. ir. 10 p- 458 E KOX rhv TSeoTT&kejxov 0 liQ^OKkris KOX TOP Ei/puiruXoj' OTrXttras ' (Kbfiirour' d\oi86pr}Ta,' <j>7]
\iav.' The verses are quoted by Plutarch as an instance of angry men refraining from the idle fury of words. It is not obvious at first sight how the words taken from Plutarch can be satisfactorily combined with the vestiges of this column, although Wilamowitz identified x]aXK^wK tiirXwv with the conclusion of Plutarch's citation. Hunt placed

aKOfiw' d\oLS6prjTa

re

after

oirXcav, but

admitted the difficulty of joining it with the remaining traces of v. 10. Hence I was originally inclined to keep the old fragment separate from the new papyrus, relying on the fact that X<*^KS oir\a is not rare in tragedy (Eur. Suppl. 1152, Tro. 573, Phoen. 1359, I.A. 1260, Hypsip. fr. 1 col. ii 30). But this solution is excluded, when we consider that Plutarch's quotation must have come from the messenger's speech describing the duel; for that is clearly just the part of the play to which

EYPYFTYAOS es /cu/cXa

J

OTTXCDV

cr . [.

10

153 d^arepov

10

ex Plut. 1. 1. (Soph. fr. 768 N.2) hue referenda intellexit Wilamowitz (is Weil, fort, h aKvXa.) this column of the papyrus belonged. Under KIJKXOS they explain K. %. S. as Accordingly, since re is not an essential = "circles of armed men"].' (J.) The part of Badham's restoration (for the asyn- intransitive use of pfyvvfu, although in deton cf. E u r . Ale. 173 a.K\avoi, understanding: 973, Eur. Hel. 1325 n.), is not well attested, ' whose enmity is declared without vaunt and the best parallel is perhaps Ai. 775 or chiding.' 5ia/3dXXw, which is very un- Kad' T)f/.d$ O&TTOT' iKpif}^€L P-dxy* w h i c h satisfactorily treated in the lexicons, is Dobree was the first to explain. But it exactly our to set by the ears. The word seems doubtful whether prjUcu h can does not occur in Horn. Aesch. Pind. or signify dash at: it should rather mean Bacchyl., and Herodotus is the first writer burst into or rushed forth to, and neither who uses it freely. In the following of these meanings will fit KUKKO. %• S. On instances, which are confined to the the other hand, the circumstances seem passive, there is no question (I think) to shew that the vv. describe the opening that SiapdWetrffai is simply invisum or of the duel, and that KiinXa SirXau cannot inhnicum fieri: Eur. Hec. 863, Hclid. mean 'groups of armed men.' KIJKXO., 422 (n.), Hdt. 1. 118, 5. 35, 97, 6. 64, which occurs nowhere in tragedy, if not Thuc. 8. 81, 83. The original meaning here, is applied in Homer to a set of must have been to be placed opposite to wheels (Monro, H.G. § 99*); and it is (apart from), although our evidence only unlikely that Sophocles would have applies to an opposition which has passed employed it in a non-Homeric sense. into hostility. The dative, of the person I am forced to the conclusion that KUKKO. with whom the hostility has been con- at any rate is corrupt. So far as the tracted, is usually expressed; but, if dXXri- sense goes, Weil's Kpifia. is unexceptionXois was absent from the present passage, able, but xpi
epprj£dTTjv is

ITI viroXel-rrerai 8np &v /j.01 diKaiois 5ia/3e-

fl\rjtT0e, ' there is no reason left entitling you to harbour resentment against me.' Wyttenbach's note on Plut. mor. 37 B still deserves attention. So far as Plutarch's quotation is concerned, Badham's emendation brought light into darkness, but has not solved the whole riddle. ' ^ppt]£ai-r|v must be intransitive : ' 'dashed at the orbs of (each other's) bronze shields." [L. and S. render "broke through," comparing pi^ai <4dXa77a &c.: but this will not serve.

meaning of KvkXa xaXK&iw HirXtav is " r o u n d shields," as dawiSos KVKXOS, Kii/cXa Tpo(rti)Trov, KijuXa Trapeiijs [Nonnus]. There-

fore I think we are reduced to two interpretations : (1) they broke the boasts (e.g. 4KKOfj.Tra
would be a play upon the phrase p'ij£cu or dcapp^fai , blows and wounds, not vaunts, were all they uttered: in N. 8. 28 Pindar, contrasting Ajax, the man of acts

IO*OKAEOYZ

154

] dvev Sophs TT a

% TTOOS ovpav[ov]

8 e >

15

J

6 pydvfav crrevei aXXei XX cf>vycov

7T

]\

20

] . trai Trpoaw ~ \ - a s

K

do<; 2O

v.l. ex alia editione depromptum adscr. pap. s

(dyXwaaov fj.ii/ rfTop 5' aX/a/to**), with the lead in fighting against one another; Odysseus, the man of words, says of them thus winning the congratulations of their 0 sides, Neoptolemus as another 7) /xav dvofioLd ye 8qxn<7iv ev Oepfiy XPseveral ^ l\Kea prj^av. To do that you have Achilles, Eurypylus as another Hector. to break down the defence, Si' ao-xlSos In viii they meet, Eurypylus challenging, 138: Belvuv Eur. Heracl. 685, 737, fr. 282, TU irbdtv eiXijXouSas ivavTiov apL/xc 20: Theocr. 22. 193 noKka, jxkv is CAKOS eipi zeal lirvbKOfiov rpvcpaKeiav | Kaaroip, /x; TroXKa 8' Ipv^ev d/cpi/37)S &ixnaar' a.Kpd-son. Cf. infr. fr. 211, 10—12. avjov ieis liros, and these two then take

EYPYfTYAOI 25

]ous 8' icofievyj T vnXetpov Xeyco *

155 25

J[i]acraT[oJ]/f . VOWS Ta^US

Col. ii. icadelX' ecrco TO. [ir\]euyoa[ AS. oloiol.

3°

XO.

5

10

7raTOo[|s ] pav €77-[ II/3ia]/u,os iSe reicvtov. AS. TpiT7)v 8' eV e/i[e ] XO. K[al] yap ovv 7773oo~vp8av. AS. hricntdcTei 81/ca fie. 4°

2 9 o pap. 1 : e supra o et e supra 17 add. pap. 2 3 2 sq. ixotpav vel avn<popav coni. Hunt 3 4 TpLyqv pap. | deest paragraphus 3 5 i&Sii'' coni. Hunt, (55' iV vel U...STTOI; Wilamowitz ] 5]aKpie[_is et infra <7i> yap avr[ in niarg. adscr. 2 pap. 3 9 <j>ipSav ex vprav factum pap. tpiprav v.l. ex alia editione rettulit in marg. pap.2

3 2 iraTpoS: 'i.e. Telephus' (Hunt). 3 4 TpCrqv apparently relates to StirXoOs, but it is not clear whether Astyoche speaks of herself as successor in misfortune to Telephus and Eurypylus.—The line must be divided between the two speakers, although there is no paragraphus in the papyrus. The scribe usually allots a fresh line to a new speaker, but yap ot)i> must be joined to 35 f. 3 5 See cr. n. With Hunt's &Siv\ we might continue rjvTep e5 diaiveu. It is worthy of note that on Aesch. Pers. 1039 Siaive iryjua schol. M comments Sdupve rb

metaphor is enforced by the use of words expressing local separation, when mental perturbation is described: so (ppcvwv exv rrjnifievos, T r . fr. adesp. 175 TU>V ^p(av. to the golden vine. We should rather compare (ppevas {vovv) KeKrijtrdai in Eur. 4O €7rtO"7rdo"€t...|X€: 'will catch me.' The metaphor is from a fisherman hauling Hipp. 701, Or. 1204, fr. 909. So too eiin his line: see on fr. 141. f}ov\ia and av6a$ia are called KT^fiara in Ant. 1050, O. T. 549. Observe how the

156

XO.

At. 15

Si'/ca vat. dXX' a)?

XO. At.

apiara.

eeTIS

XO.

TI (ftijcrofiev, ri j oi)(l Tovfiov h> SLKY) jSaXei Kapa; eKeipev . ov Si/ca ere

45

At. 20 AI\

OUK

e ? TOCTOUTOI' rjXdov

UKTT

y

^

[

eire! irakaicrfJLa KOLI^O^V r)y(i)vi,[(r~]fL€v\jy\L e;cew(V]o veKpol T\^T~\6OV [dJXA.17X.wv fV

5°

4 1 Si/cai pap. 4 2 »; \.ari\ apiary in marg. adscr. pap. 2 4 6 dtKai pap., 5tK$ Hunt 4 7 /cd^e^ f. scripsi: nal fie/miai pap. 4 8 aSpdv scripsi, airdv Wilamowitz S I sq. 5dK)j :ij roa' TOO sscripsi, SoKrjrds Hunt | cetera supplevi, nisi quod os in fine v. J2 coniecerat Hunt 4 2 ^ raxlaT-q apiarr) (cr. n.) was evi- the position of 'A/>-y«oi, recurring to the verb, justifies that of /3i$t.—The order of dently proverbial, 'the sooner the better.' the words is against the connexion of air6v 4 6 SCKO.: see cr. n. Wilamowitz assumed the existence of a present SLKHV, with TOP veKpbv, and it must therefore be rejected. Mekler suggests d/j.6v, but I so that the meaning would be 'Fortune prefer aSpiv, for which cf. Antiphan. fr. judges thee not.' But the antithesis so 144 (11 70 K.) aSpbv ye\a after but, since SUa is there 'punishment,' the the pattern of O.C. 223 S^os t inconsistency is at most a verbal one. So-' aiBCb (Jebb's n.) or Eur. Or. 1069 %v The rhetorical repetition of Sal/xwv is fioixtpav £xw- Observe that we must not Sophoclean: cf. fr. 753 (n.). make vexpoy the direct object of Ixovres 4 7 f. See cr. nn. The messenger's with yiXwra as predicate : for (1) there is reply shows that the purpose of Astyoche's no evidence that yiSwr' £xeu> ru/a could question was not to enquire whether the be used for 7AWT0 vomaBal (or rlStaSai) Argives had departed. But the chief nva — lto make a mock of another'; reason for doubting the integrity of /3e/3offi (2) J4\OIT' %xCiV should follow the analogy is the difficulty of combining pta either of aXax^^v exeiv, OXKTOV ?xeif, ipyty with it or with Y«^<"T" ?X OVT «S. The latter (lv an d many other Sophoclean exalternative would suggest ayi\a, insult 4lJ.(ief}a rocs JUT; ra\ois 344(Ai. 1348 f.). The proverbial f7r«/
EYPYllYAOS o fiev S[a]/ci7 25

>

\\y>fx,r)v

TOO-', O

157

Se [rb^ irav \a](r\j(jqii6v]o)
A ^ a t [ w i ' Sis T]O'(DJ[J'

&>S 8 ' e / f T e 7 r \ ^ [ y & ) i / / c a ] i

^

'

J

K6\JTCI)V

55

Col. iii.

24 litterae a

]s IScoi

)>

26 25 26 24

6o

22

y j p

[• •> • [

] • erf- • •

10 T)

Se

5 4 sqq. supplevit Wilamowitz ex avSwv factum pap.

e~\pp-qljev VOTOS.

65

e/)p[d]# a 8' 'I 6 6 \vyp6v supplevit Wilamowitz

67

5 2 Neither 5OKTJT6S nor 8IKIIT6S has pylus lived, our city was like a ship any probability: certainly it is difficult to securely moored; but now a fierce gale see how ce/c/aos doKTjros could mean ' a has broken the cable.' Cf. Tr. fr. adesp. dead man who seemed to be still alive.' 379, 380.—\vypov. Hunt suggests iriKpiv Hunt concluded that the two corpses as an alternative: he points out that OIKwere those of Eurypylus and one of his Tpbv would be too long for the gap. victims, perhaps Nireus or Machaon: 67 ff. It was usual to wrap the corpse and that is the only inference open to us of a chieftain in fine linen. Cf. Horn. S in the circumstances. But in that case it 352 (of Patroclus) iv Xe^effffi Si BtvTes should be observed that & /tin must be ihe iavtg XLTL Kd\v\pav j ^s T68CLS iK KecpaXrjs, Greek, and S 5^ Eurypylus, although KaOvirepde 5e <papei'-\evic(p. fi 580 KaS 8' Hunt seems to be of the contrary opinion. IXiirov diio (pdpe' iivvr\Tbv re xiT^"/a< I —For daicos cf. Pind. Pyth. 1. 53 <j>vyeZv 6S.pos as there the metaphor may be taken from a Aaiprrfripijii Tatp-qiov. Changes of clothing sting or a bite. It is, however, a fair were frequently provided, either at the inference from Aesch. Theb. 386 XAi^oi Si fuueral or subsequently: Eur. Or. 1436, K(b5wv T' OV dcLKvove' Hvev 5o/)6s, and Cho. Rhes. 960, Thuc. 3. 58, Tac. ann. 3. 2. 842 T(f) Tpocrdev eXuaLvovrt Kal deSrjyfi^fip For the use of linen see Studniczka, that daKos could be used for a spearBeitrdge, p. 8 3 ; Hermann-Bluemner, wound.—The deictic use of TO
I04>OKAE0YI

153

vr)

15

veKpq> [ ] f [ ] i p o S' dfJL(f)l irXevpaus Kal crayaLo~i [^Jet/tews, 7° TTO.T\J)P~\ fj.€v ov, irarpwa S' efat/S[&)]i> eir IIpt[ajnos] e/cAcue TOV reKvaiv 6[i[aC\fL0va, [VJalSa Kal yipovra Kal veav[£a~\i>,

oure M u o w OWTC Ty)\e(j>ov c!)5 (^ureucras avros 20

T4KVOV,

[ J

75

vpovScoKoi

iiey[o-T7]v tjevadels ov /xaKpbv 7r[oX]A.a>i' Post v. 68 lacunam notavi Wilamowitz | T addidi

7 6 irfotiSwuas Wilaraowitz 7 7 /MeyUruf coni. 7 8 Ka\u>v supplevi:, irCiv et postea 5' irdv Wilamowitz

the intention of substituting 'ZivSiiiv (SiV7O ff. o S'...IIpLa(i.os: Eur. Hel. 1025, Soi was the name of a Pontic tribe) for Phoen. 1128.—TrXeupais Kal o-^a^aio-L, aivStlsv. But TTOXXIJ shows that aivb&v is 'his wounded side,' is a fair instance of right.—The text can hardly be defended as hendiadys, for which see Lobeck on At. it stands, although Hunt supports avdpbs 145. Cf. Aesch. Eum. 247 TrpiSs alfia eppiiTTafeTo in the sense of ' were cast xai ffToKay/j.dv eK/jtaffrevo/xev. F o r a.yais \ paWei fie.—TraTpcia...8irn reBut the genitive suggests an indignity, as sembles Tra.Tptpwv bpKitav in Track. 1223. if the wrappings were hurled at Eurypylus, 7 3 would probably have been less and the harshness of this particular obscure, if we had recovered the earlier anacoluthon is due to the fact that the part of the play. Since iraida, in contrast logical subject with which BiSovres ought with yipovra and veavlav, must, as Hunt to agree is not expressed or even indicated has observed, mean 'boy' rather than in the two preceding lines: contrast the 'son,' we may guess that Eurypylus was examples in Kuehner-Gerth § 493. Ant. represented as /3<w7r<us, avriirais—like 1. c., as a case of distributive apposition, is Achilles in fr. 564—or avSpoirais—like much easier. Wilamowitz regards 69 as Troilus in fr. 619, and Parthenopaeus in an interpolation; but, as this only in part Aesch. Theb. 520. Thus, the meaning removes the difficulty, I should prefer would be : ' one who, while a boy in years, to suppose that a line has been lost after was both counsellor and warrior.' Cf. ippurTa.$eTO such as yipas davbvros, ota Eur. fr. 508, Paroem. 1 436. The topic Trpoaefepov (Eur. Bel. 1262) $piyes. of the virtues characteristic of the various This is better than to read SISWTOS and ages has recently been handled by understand dvSpbs of Priam, as I formerly F. M. Cornford in Class. Q. VI 252 ff., suggested, although the apparent contrast and it is of course possible that irate of yvvaiK&v with avSpos is somewhat covers an allusion to aoKfipoaivr]. For artificial.—The thought that the dead vtaviai=iuvenis Wilamowitz quotes Hdt. receive no benefit from funeral offer- 7. 99. Cf.fr. 314, 357 n. ings is a commonplace. Cf. Aesch. fr. 7 5 eKKaXovfievos seems to mean 'in266. Eur. Hel. I421 ra T&V fiavovriov voking,' as contrasted with Kah&v in the oidkv, 6XK' oiXXws 7ro'pos. Tro. 1248 doKU previous line. The meaning is the same Si TOIS Bavovoi Smiptpetv {Spax^, | «' TXOUin Track. 1206, where a subordinate inaluv TLS Tfit^erai KTepur/i&TUii'. fr. 640 finitive is added : ofct /j.' eKicaXei, irarep, \ avdptimmv Si fxaivovTat (ppfres, \ Sairavas(f>ovea yeviaBai Kal Ta\afj.PaTov aiBev. &Ta.vffavovaiTeixnwcnv Kevas. Verg. Aen. 76 ff. See cr. n. In his smaller 6. 213 cineri ingrato suprema ferebant. edition Hunt adopted Wilamowitz's trpoi-

EYPYTTYAOI

25

159

fivyjfx,y]v irapetjeus rots X[e\ei/>tju,eV]ois "A[/)e&)S, ocr ovre Me/JLv^cajv ovre ~Za[pTrr)8a>v Trore 7r[eV]0->7 7r[o7?cr]a[s /c]cuVe/> at^[jaijTc5v aKpot

X'

j

]

80

[ 85

7 9 XeXeijU/teVou supplevit Wilamowitz, "Apews Hunt

SO sq. supplevit Wilamowitz

SWKOS, which requires that the full stop TrpovSwud. Tr\p(av (TinT-qplav are somewhat more suitable to is exactly like e\wiSoiv apuyai, which is Priam than to Eurypylus, and the clause applied to Orestes in El. 858. Since re Xpbvov...ti.a.Kp6v should certainly qualify easily drops out—an error which may be fxvrnj.r\v Trap^ets, whereas in the revised illustrated from the same passage—we text it must be attached to TrpovSuKas... should probably read ixeyiaTTjv T' here.— vwTTjplav, with which it has no logical Ka\«v is supported by frs. 81, 102, 592, connexion. For these reasons I retain 938.

211

AS.

-//.tSas Kal TO[V 'S /SacrLk[rja TTacra p[ eireicrev d/3ov[Xia

e[pyo~]v

g

[

XO. AS.

ift) Sopv Tr)\[e TraiSi crvvKv[pcrav (h \6yya
[ 211 The divisions between the speakers, marked by the coronis in the papyrus, are given according to Hunt's text. Wilamowitz, however, attributes the whole fragment to the chorus. 1 -p.(Sas is doubtless, as Wilamowitz suggested, the end of Upiapidas.

Jt 4 Perhaps Karaparov. Astyoche reproaches herself for yielding to the bribe of the golden vine. 7 ff. Hunt well suggests that these lines contained a thought similar to that of fr. 210, 78 f. Cf. fr. 212, 4. 12 o-uTeipa: cf. fr. 210, 24.

ZOOKAEOYZ

i6o

212

ov crat Aios TTO.

^]f p KoivodaKa Xa^ba \eov ^vvovcriav

TO

]i T&iSe, fir) S'

]rt TiKTOvcrrj T Ti]d\ri\<Tiv o[y rr]a;

10

XO.

2 1 2 . 6 KoivoOaica is a new compound, and Xa£6os was hitherto known only in the active sense (Timon fr. 25 Diels). 'The allusion seems to be to the tomb of Eurypylus' (Hunt). We may perhaps further infer that the body of Eurypylus was to be buried in an ancestral

rock-tomb, where Telephus already lay. 1 3 Spoirov is probably the remnant of a passive compound such as veoSpoirov. The words seem to have described a chaplet of flowers: cf. Eur. El. 778 fiptiruv l

i

napq, TT\6KOVS.

213

At.

.[ eVo[ ecrof £
awa

XO.

[ iv aXXo[is y f TT\_ ecus av ev Kpv\j/rj[re e/o£w TO 7ra[

2 1 3 Iacinias columnae prioris omisi 2 1 3 . 8 The iota is written in the error, Kpi\j/r\Te was not the original, papyrus, so that, unless there was an

EYPYnYAOZ

161

214

]<w . a /cat r/)trou[ d^Joifa? SecnroTai? [ ei]re vev0o l

e[

OXX',

M 214.

5 etTO pap.: e supra 0 add. pap.-

9 I supra I. add. pap."

215

] nacrav ev(f>p[op ] vvv 8' 6 /x.«/ [ e^ou KO.pa X[ i/ocr yXevcras e/u,e [

yfevos /3o[[ eXos T' e[ ye 7ra^[

215.

5 ixxnjAewras supplevit Wilamowitz

2l6

]y[ jar[. . .]crovo[ j ^ [ ] 216. P.

5 f3i<ji supra scr. pap. 2 II

IOOKAEOYI

162

] Oavcov a/rrav [

]
]

p ^ f X 7raX[

IO

[ 7 nvvS.i ex /ivaas corr. pap. !

217

TO

\yovcr\_ ]o-aicre[ 2 1 7.

S avvakyeiv occurs in At. 253, 283.

2l8

TTOT/AOS*

[ 2 1 8 After this fragment several small pieces of papyrus, containing here and there a complete word in addition to other vestiges, but for the most part only portions of words, are transcribed in Ox. Pap. IX 101—114, and numbered frs. 16—46, 48—82, 84—90, 92, 93, 95 —

107. Those who desire to examine them will naturally consult the editio princeps. Inasmuch as they contribute nothing to our knowledge of the play, and the words which are legible are of slight interest as illustrating the vocabulary of Sophocles, it has been thought better to omit them.

EYPYTTYAOI

163

219

JIT a

]] Vpat;iv eyu,[ ] . as t w dva . [ Ji -rrpagis i^de . [ ]i Ztu? ya/5 6[ jV dXXa, /ecu [ > ] ••[ 2 1 9 2 auxecos or oiix e^os? 3 avrlav, perhaps of foes, though not

elsewhere so used by Soph.

220

X. $;4voi 22O

SwriiKoa, probably in the same

sense as avfjKovaTa in El. 1407, 'terrible

to hear.' The passive meaning is vouched by Pollux 1. 117 uvT}v...SviT-qKoov.

221 vv av\_

]

/[[

]TOS yap acr[

aAjA ei eTretye* \_

] 2 2 1 The earlier lines seem to be iambics, and, if that is so, the trochaics in v. 21 f. must have been placed nearer to the left margin. No certain inference can be drawn as to the situation. In v. 12 Astyoche seems to be addressed. Wilamovvitz suggested that Agamemnon

[ was waiting in the distance (v. 2-2) for the return of a spy who had just departed from Troy (v. 13). 4 i-im-ye. For the intransitive use of the active imperative see on Eur. Hclid. 732, Phoen. 1280. Cf. Soph. El. 1435. Hesych. II p. I39?7rei7ei n-opeiJou, o-7reS5e. II

2

i<54

ZO<J>OKAEOYS

(B)

hp]d(TO) Ta8' a>[

(Xo.)

]va KLvelcrdai T[

]as /xeXadpa v\_ o 77y3o[

8 di>S

XayerTa] O

] . /A' 'A^atou 1 . 17 reVpaTTTat TOU[ \lfi>v VTT arr) ', j a /AT; O-W KaKco ewes a n [ ipa irovw 6ava>v a exot/A; . croi

20

TTJXOV

Jao- . . [. 221.

8 neiveiodai. pap.

2 2 d» supplevit Wilamowitz

fiovoirK-q^, for which cf. dai/xovos ii

2O a^erai is more likely than iSferai in a tragic text, although Hunt thinks that the latter might have been applied to a corpse exposed to the sun. [By an oversight the words are inverted in the ed. /»:] 2 3 SoKaijti, a rare word, explained by Hesych. I p. 526 as equivalent to fitvei,

(fr. 961 n.), Aesch. Ag. 1660 5a/

imrripeT, SoKeT, TrpocSoKq., is quoted

1 8 The ed. fir. gave -oe ^TXTJ^-, but e

is said to be unsatisfactory, and the neighbourhood of eSfis does not favour the verb. A compound with -TTXIJI would be preferable, but, since o is certain before v, I can suggest nothing better than dai-

from

Sophron fr. 52 K. ir\6ov 8oK&fav.

' ; TreirXriyiiivoi.

222

.]r a Spc ] dXXd TO.VT TO.VT iya) . [ ] evpov ouSe77W77or[e j r a v 7raCXa KGU KO.KU>V [ 2 2 2 appears to contain reflections on pp the instability of human fortune. Wila mowitz restored ravr' iyu ir[dXcu | ra ffinf/r' adfrqaas] eSpov ybroCtf

hv irad\a

oiSeiriiirore

\ [ii/iiv

KCLI KCLKUJV [XOITIS \ T&V

yap /jeJyforwK T) rixn l^6la\jaTai ] [ \ \ ptppovy)p ) Ha.Tu]v Tax'<"-a TOV X670U [5^ TCLI> | TO •WUJTOV e]i deirifiev, el Bpaavv r[iva. I n v. 5 Hunt thinks TrXei'arwx more suitable than to the traces in the papyrus.

EYPYTTYAOI— E Y P Y I A K H S

165

r) TVX*1 fiediafrarai v Ta^tcrra" TOV \6yov [

5

8' ei7)fA€v el Opacrvv T[

]

d[

7 E£T||JLEV (or eiSeirifiev) is clearly indinot been convincingly emended, and doicated, although the shorter forms are •qaav seems certain in Damoxenus fr. 2, 67 normal in Attic, as metre shows. But (Athen. 103 B). Rutherford's rigid ostracism (New Phryn. 8 TTJS Tii\T)S was perhaps governed by p. 455) of the longer forms in the plural avasTarov (?). Cf. Tr. fr. adesp. 394 is not justified by the evidence. The three irTu>xt><> yevecrBat nal S6/J.UV dvaararov.

instances in Euripides (Cycl. 132 SpifiT/fiev, 'Cast from his high estate.' Hel. 1010 aSiKoirnxev, Ion 943 0cu'?;/uej') have

EYPYIAKHI Welcker (p. 197 ff.) proposed to reconstruct the plot of the Eurysaces from Justin 44. 3 Gallaeci Graecam sibi originem asserunt: siquidem post finem Troiani belli Tencrum morte Aiacis fratris invisum patri Telamoni cum non reciperetur, in regnum Cyprum concessisse atque ibi urbem nomine antiquae patriae Salaminam condidisse. hide, accepta opinione paternae mortis, patriam repetisse. sed, cum ab Eurysace Aiacis filio accessu prohiberetur, Hispaniae littoribus appulsum loca ubi nunc est Carthago nova occupasse; inde Gallaeciam transisse et positis sedibus genti nomen dedisse. It is of course unlikely that

Sophocles knew of Teucer's settlement in Spain, for which Strabo (p. 157) is our earliest authority; but Welcker uses the fragments of Accius' Eurysaces, which was probably adapted from Sophocles, in order to fill the gaps in Justin's account. He is not however successful in establishing that the story was capable of such dramatic development as his theory requires. No answer is given to the question : why did Eurysaces refuse to receive Teucer, who rather deserved his gratitude1 ? The fragments of Accius are in themselves so inconclusive that Ribbeck {Rom. Trag. 419 ff.) is able to give them quite a different application. According to him, Telamon in his old age had been driven out of Salamis, and was discovered by Teucer and Eurysaces living miserably in Aegina. By their help and that of the citizens he was restored to his rights. 1 Ahrens, who accepts Welcker's view, thinks that the to in Pausan. i. 28. 12 may have been delivered on this return from Troy. He also quotes Varro ling. Lat. 7. xv a suis qui sit ignoratus, but admits that we cannot Sophocles.

diroXoyia of Teucer referred occasion rather than at his 3 Teucer Livii post annos connect the statement with

166

IO*OKAEOYZ

Ribbeck's reconstruction of Accius rests upon an extremely fanciful and improbable interpretation of the famous passage in Cic.pro Sest. 120—123. The difficulties involved are well-known, and we do not possess the material necessary for their complete solution ; but Madvig's admirable note, reproduced in Halm's edition (1845), shows the true way of escaping from the chief of them,—the apparent inconsistency of the words in eadem fabnla (121) with the statement of the schol. Bob. that Aesopus imported a reference to contemporary politics into his performance in the Eurysaces of Accius. For it is certain that the quotations 0 pater and haec otnnia vidi inflammari belong to the A ndromache of Ennius. In view of the currency which Ribbeck's views have obtained, the following remarks may be added : (1) It is a desperate expedient to suggest that Aesopus interpolated into the Eurysaces a canticum from the Andromache in order to do honour to Cicero. (2) The reference to poetae in 123 and the quotation from the Brutus show that Cicero intended to recall more than one representation. (3) Since 0 pater in 121 is taken from a lament for Eetion, who was killed, it is plain that patrem pulsum in the following sentence applies only to the circumstances of Cicero, and not to the fate of his prototype. There is no ground therefore for inferring that the Eurysaces mentioned the exile of a father, and the reference to Tusc. 3. 39, which concerns the banishment of Telamon after the death of Phocus, is beside the mark. (4) The two quotations in 122 must be assigned to the Eurysaces, but there is nothing to prevent us from supposing that Teucer was the exile there mentioned towards whom the Greeks are charged with ingratitude. (5) There is no serious objection to Madvig's conclusion that the quotations in 120 and the beginning of 121 are taken from the Andromache, and refer to a Greek hero whose identity cannot be ascertained. Pseudo-Serv. on Verg. Aen. 1. 619 points in another direction: according to him, Teucer and Eurysaces returned from Troy in different ships; and, as Teucer arrived first without Eurysaces, Telamon, believing that his grandson was lost, refused to receive Teucer. It is at least in favour of Welcker's view that the events which he introduces were subsequent to the withdrawal of Teucer to Cyprus. It does not seem probable that in this play Sophocles gave a different account of the home-coming of Teucer, with or without Eurysaces, from that which he made famous in the Teucer.

E Y P Y I A K H I — HPAKAHI

167

223

223

Hesych. I p. 47 dSS^aarov « d^XTRoroi/. 2o<poit\7js EvpvaaKeL (eipvad cod.). To the same effect Phot. ed. Reitz. p. 23, 8 = Bekk. anecd. p. 344, 28, where the name of the play is omitted ( = Phryn. fr. 80 de B.).

Cf. a5o|a fr. 71 (n.). Later d5<5£aoros became a philosophical word, being employed to express the certainty of knowledge as contrasted with the untrustworthiness of opinion : in this sense the Stoic wise man was dSifaoros (Diog. L. 7. 162).

HPAKAHS E17I TAINAPQI I A T Y P O I HPAKAEIIKOZ

Of the eleven fragments collected under these titles three are cited from 'HpaicXrjt; (with or without aaTvpi/cos), two from 'QiriTaivdpioi, -three from iirl Taivapw (alone or with traTvpi/cos or craTvpoi), and two from 'Hpa/c\etaKo<s. I have added the solitary reference to the Cerberus, which, in view of the subject of the Heracles at Taenamnn, can hardly belong to any other play. Now, Heracles was a very common character in satyr-plays, as Welcker (p. 319) showed, although it is generally believed that the Heracles of Euripides was the1 earliest treatment of his story as a subject for the tragic stage . It is quite possible, therefore, that Sophocles wrote more than one satyr-play of which Heracles was the hero ; and, since the proper reference of 'Hpa/cKeta/cos is to the infant Heracles (see on AiovvalaKos, p. 117), I agree with Wilamowitz2 in thinking that the play known by that title did not contain the descent at Taenarum, but more probably the legend related in the twenty-fourth idyll of Theocritus and the first Nimean ode of Pindar. On the other hand, the prevalent opinion that the Heracles is to be identified with iirl Taivapw aarvpoi—for that is the most correct of the variants—may very well be right. It is, however, more in accordance with analogy to regard 'HpaK\rj<; r) eirl Taivdpm 1

See Wilamowitz, Eur. Herakles, I p. 98. Anal. Eur. p. 59 f. So also Decharme in Rev. Et. gr. XII 29^2- F. W. Schneidewin, who first published the Anthology of Orion, held that the two plays were distinct. Arguing against this conclusion, Wagner {Rh. A/us, v n 149) suggested that 'Hpa/cXeiV/cijj was an error for 'Hpa/cAet VKWI (i.t\ vaTvpiKif). For the form 'Hpa/cXeiff/cos: 'Hpa/c\i
168

IO*OKAEOYI

araTvpoi as alternative titles adopted by the grammarians, than (with Nauck) to speak o f Hpa/cXr}? iirl Taivdpm aarvpiKOi;. Taenarum was situated at the southern point of the promontory which lay to the west of the gulf of Laconia; and a cavern close to the sea-shore was the legendary scene of the final labour of Heracles, his descent into Hades to carry off Cerberus from the under-world. This famous story was known to Homer (® 367, X 623), who, however, does not mention the name Cerberus ; but whether it was in the execution of this task that Heracles is said to have fought with Hades at Pylos (E 395) is by no means certain. Taenarum is mentioned as the entrance to the under-world through which Heracles descended by Eur. Her. 23 and Apollod. 2. 123. The incidents of the adventure are most fully described by the latter (122—126), but we have no means of connecting Sophocles with any of the particulars. It should, however, be noticed that Heracles is said to have returned by way of Troezen (Apollod. 126, Pausan. 2. 31. 2: cf. Eur. Her. 615)—probably in consequence of the rescue of Theseus having been effected on the same occasion. But the conditions of the satyr-play seem to require that the successful issue of the labour should be declared by the reappearance of Heracles with Cerberus1; and it is therefore satisfactory to find evidence of a tradition which brought him back to Taenarum (Pausan. 3. 25. 5). From Eustath. //. p. 297, 37 iv yovv Tot
HPAKAHI

169

224 dXX

ol 6avovTe<; 224

xjjv^aycoyovfTai

dirXoi codd.: corr. Rabe

2 2 4 Schol. 7r in Aphthon. ed. Rabe is not the title of a play hitherto unknown, (R/i. Mus. LXII 570) iv KepfHptp Be but merely an alternative name for the 2O0OK\?JS ISXXUIS TTJ X^£« (sc. xpvxayoiytTv) Heracles at Taenarum, in which we know ^XP^fiTo'
225 . . crweXeyov ra fi.rj fioi

jjberagi 225.

1 CKKaOnara Pollux io- 110

2 2 5 Pollux 10. n o TrpoadtTiov Si Cf. Phil. 291 S. etr' ZSa...&\oi> TL rui fj.ay€ip(p Kai £i5Xa Kauo*t/ta Kai K\7jfi.ari5as 6pa0aai. eKKaUiv TO. lrvpa occurs in Hdt. Kai iKKavfJLaTa, eiiropros 2o<poK*\^ovs ev 4. 134, 135Euripides uses ^KKavfia 'Hpa/cXei aarvpiKif ' avvi\eyov...irpoametaphorically (cf. inreKKavpa) : fr. 1031 derjaeicv.' i d . 7. i i o (ptTpods 5£ TOOTOVS $KKavfxa TO\/J.T]S iKav6v e&TL Kai Bpaaovs.— \4yeL 7] TrotriTiKTi X', OJS eKKavfj-aToiv fir] /±oi first line with - ^weXeyov.

226 Tpeo t)OVO~i 226

2 2 6 Steph. Byz. p. 699, 12 xwpd... b'dtv TO x«p«'')J...2;o0o/cX-i}s Kiyu...Kai ev 'HpaKXei i and cf. xulP'-T7]s dpaKoiv Aesch. fr. 123.—

A serpent guarded the fountain of Ares at Thebes (Pausan. 9. 10. 5) : for the popular belief connecting serpents with springs see on fr. 362. We may conjecture that this fountain should be identified with the magic spring at Taenarum referred to by Pausan. 3. 25- 8.

227 Hesych. 11 p. 550 K-UK\OVS Kai So we might speak of the 'circuit of Tpoxotis' Ta TeixV- Tpoxbv 5e r6 Teixos, the walls' : cf. Shaksp. King John ii. 1. us SO0OKX^S 'KpaK\e7 (i]paK\4a cod.) 259 ' t h e roundure of your old-faced ' KVK\UITIOV Tpoxbv.' walls.' No similar instance of rpoxos is

IO*OKAEOYZ

I7O

quoted from literature and TO?X<" is now read for rpoxoi in schol. Plat, fegg. 68 [ A. Cf. Hesych. IV p. T8I Tpoxos • irepif}6\cu<»>, i-ei^os. I " Etym. M. p . 455, 52 Bpiyni} is explained T<J! Tpox&/MTi, i.'6 TepiTpexw KVK\68€V olov o'T^ai'OS.—

Jebb on Bacchyl. 10. 77 points out that the legend of the Cyclopes as builders is post-Homeric. So far as I have observed,

only the walls of Mycenae and Tiryns are mentioned as having been erected by them, although Argos as the" name of the district is sometimes introduced (Eur. /. A. J34). See Wilamowitz on Eur. Her. 15, 945. Here it may be assumed that Mycenae is referred to, as the home of Eurystheus : cf Pind. fr. 169.

228

Kpelcrcrov deols yap 228

rj /SpoTOis yapiv epew.

Orion Jlor. 5. 9 p. 47, 24 4K

^p

x^-Piv y&P tGTtv

^ TLKTOIHT' del, E u r .

Hel. 1234. And the gods may be trusted ^ke was a corruption of TIpaKKiovs aarvpiKov. X&Plv ^Xeiv> i s ambiguous i:i itself, and The same line without the mention of may mean to get a boon, as in 0. T. 764. author or play is quoted in Jlor. Monac. Hence there must be some doubt as to 102, with 0ei} for deoh. the exact force of O. C. 779 &T' OVUV TJ Xapis, a favour once conferred, becomes a debt due from the recipient: Ai. 522

TOV 'H/ja/cXeiV/cov ff
Kpeluffov...

229

TOV SpcovTa yap 229 229

TL Kal naOeiv b

rifj bp&vTi coni. Blaydes | yap Orion: iroi schol. Pind.

Orion Jlor. 6. 6 p. 49, 13 £K TOV

'Hpa/cXetV/cou IZocpoK'ke'ovs. 'rbv SpQvra... 6(pei\erai.' Schol. Pind. Nem. 4. 51 irapa TOUTO 6 rpayiK6s ' TOK SpuivTo. iroti n Kal iraBuv dfeiXerat.' Arrian anab. 6. 13. 5 Kal TL Kal lafiPeiov iireureiv • TOV di vovv elvat TOV Iafj.j3elov, 6TI TQ TI dpwvTi Kal iraBelv £O~TW 6
cited above add Aesch. Ag. 1562 /il/ja>a de /lifjUiovTos li> dpovif Aios | iraBeiv T6V 'ip^avTa, Soph. Ant. 927 )iA\ irXeiw Ka\tb. \ ir6.6oi.ev f) Kal Sp&aiv iKdlKox (pi, A n t i p h .

fr. 58 Diels oorts 5e bpaveiv [lev oteTat TOI>S 7r^Xas KaKws, veltreaBiu

8' oil, ov

cujtppovet. See also fr. 962. Blaydes has good cause for proposing similar line is attributed to Aeschylus TI} SpuvTi, for which he quotes Eur. fr. (fr. 456) by Stob. ed. 1. 3. 24 p. 56, 22 W. 10, besides Aesch. fr. 456. He might have made his case much stronger, for and Theoph. ad Autol. 2. 37 : SpaaavTi yap TOi Kal jrade'iv 6<j>el\eTai. It is notthe usage appears to be invariable: see Phil. 1421, El. 1173, Eur. Ale. 419, 782, unlikely that the ascription to Aeschylus is due to recollection of and confusion with Andr. 1271 f., Or. 1245, Lys. 25. 11. In Cho. 312 SpdcavTi Tradeiv, Tpiyipwv fj.vdos other words, oipelXerai does not seem to T&Se t/xjfel. have become impersonal, like irpiira, irpouTJ/cei, and the rest. For the shifting The oldest statement of the primitive usage of these verbs see Kuehner-Gerth lex talionis in Greek appears to be the II 27, and it is of course arguable that line (sometimes ascribed to Hesiod) which b <50e£XeTcu here may have suffered extension Arist. eth. N. 5. 5. H32 25 calls TO 1 after their analogy. ' dltcaiov : el Ke irddoi TCL T' j K Wfia ytvono. To the passages

HPAKAHI

171

230 Tovyap Lathy) v\d£a.L yoipov 23O 23O

wcrre Secr/xCav

ov

xwp ---d£
Athen. 375 D xo'poc 5' oi "Iowes

KOKOV&L TIJV drjXetav,

XO
tus

'lirirQ)va^...Kai

'roiyap...

Se-

This fragment has not yet been successfully restored, but Casaubon's xoipov uifl-re Seap.lav is made all but certain by the schol. on Ar. Lys. 1073, which H e a d l a m cited : TO hi %01.poKaiJ.eiov ioiKe Tr\eKTov ayyeiov eivai, e'v y rods viovs %Tpe<pov xo/pous trepi.8T)
in the note iudicated by Rutherford does not affect the present question.] Further, most scholars have attempted to extract Set from the opening words in order to provide a support for
Dindorf gave roiyap 'lib Sel,—an easy remedy, if it were possible to see any ground for connecting Io with this play. It is much more likely that Bergk was right in making Cerberus the object of 0i;\d£cu, but his reading rbv yap iiiStj (venomous) is not altogether convincing, although the epithet might be supporied by H o r . Carm. 3. I I . 19 saniesque

manei

j ore trilingui, and more particularly by the rationalized version of Hecataeus {FHG I 27) in Pausan. 3. 25. 4 dX\& 'E/caTaioj fxiv 6 MtX?;<no$ \byov

eupev

Seivbv,

K\rj8rjvat Si"Ai8ov Kvva, on £8ei TOV r a Tedv&vai irapavriKa inrb TOV tov' TOUTOV f-
wap' Evpvadea. H. conj. ry del 0uXdfcu, ignoring Toiydp, which he regarded as a marginal gloss. Herwerden preferred TI yap; | 6v Set (pv\d£ai, and Blaydes Toiydp avr-rfv Set.

231

ayavov 2 3 1 Phot. ed. Reitz. p. 12, 12 dyavbv ' Ka\6v, T)SU. 'Api
Hesych. I p . 14 ayavov TO KaTeaybs dirb dWov. Suid. s.v. ayavov. irpo7rapo£uT6PO)S TO KaTeaybs £ij\ov, 7/ TO (ppvyavwSes Kai eToifiov irpbs TO KaTeayT}vai. oi di TO aire\eKf]Tov.

We infer that ayavov was particularly employed to describe /ire-wood, and was perhaps used substantially like piyavov. Indeed, it is not quite clear whether %v\ov is quoted from Sophocles or is part of the explanation. The limitation of meaning distinguishes dy-avos from e56Vt %0-TI Kai ayavov irpoTrapo^vTbvws Kai 897X01 TO Kareaybs' TpayiK&Tepov Si,
172

IOOKAEOYI 232

dXaXayd?), explained as wovijpia < r a i > 2 3 2 Hesych. I p. 113 dXaXtav dXaX?j was a irovqpiav, ara^iav. XotpoKXys 'Ktrtratya- aral-La -STOO XaXetv>. pioLS {ewl iraievdpois cod.: corr. Casaubon). wild tumultuous cry: cf. Pind. fr. 208 fiaviai T' dXaXaf r ' opivo^vojv pt\f/a'Lix€i/t Dindorf infers that this play was called avv K\6V<J!, Eur. Phoen. 335. Now see 'EmTcuvdpioi by the grammarians, who Etym. M. p . 55, 48 dXaXij, 6 Bopvpos nal assumed that such was the name of the i] dvapffpos (pwvq...Kal dXaXrp-bs, 6 66pvfios, satyrs. Nauck quotes Cramer, anecd. Oxon. I p . 59, 8 eiri Tcuvdpip ' EiriTCUvdptos.

L.and S. prudently omit this mysterious word, and Ellendt's remark ' dictum quasi KcucoXaXia' is not very helpful. One might guess that there is some confusion with dXaXd (or d\a\al,

irapa TT)V dXaX?)j>, rj Kara ffT&prqaiv TOO XoXetK (i.e. inarticulate), rj nar' iirlrainv,

olov 0 troXtiXaXos 6'x^os. On the other hand, aXoXos seems to mean tumultuous rather than dumb in Plut. def. or. 51 p. 438 B.

233 233

Hesych. I p. 272 apyifiuiv TCIV

&vdpuiros

iTrdpyefios.

It

seems

that

cipyejuos was the name of the disease, and apyepov of the part affected; and, as Ellendt remarks, a doubt was raised to which of the two the word in Sophocles should be referred. The view taken by Didymus is to be preferred. Pollux 2. p. 47, 10. Eustath. Od. p. 1430, 60 146 says that the upper part of the nails attributes the explanation of the word to was called &pyc/j.oi. In Latin argema is Didymus. Pollux 1. 65 has the form used as a neut. sing. : see Thesaurus s.v. apye/ws (cf. Etym. Gud. p . 73, 6 ) : dpye/j.os Albugo and Leucoma are still technical To KaXo()p.evop Xe^Kto/ia, naX 6 TOUT' i-~xtov terms in modern medicine.

iv rot's d
234 OV H 2 3 4 Phot. lex. p . 359, 25 oiK w0i{ei' • oi fiXd-n-Tei. 2o0o/cXi;s iv eiri Tatvdpy (Tepdpui cod.) aaripois. T h e right reading was recovered from Hesych. Ill p . 237 oi /coupe?' oi /3Xd7TT«, oi irTipot. Cf. II p . 566 KUHpel' KciKovpyei, fiXaTTet., /coXoi/et (KoXiei cod.), irijpoi, with KU(pT]Te'os •

The original meaning of Kwcpos was probably ' blunt, dull,' as in Horn. A 390 KW
tirri. The common use for ' d e a f or ' dumb' was a special application, but the ancient grammarians, and even Porson on Eur. Or. 1279, reversed the history of the word. For the wider meaning of the verb cf. Anacr. fr. 81 al dt (lev ipphes

Wagner and M. Schmidt suggested that the error of Photius might be explained iKKtKW 06
H P A K A H I — HPITONH

173

HPITONH

Besides that of Sophocles, we have a record of plays composed with this title by Phrynichus1, Philocles, and Cleophon. Accius also wrote an Erigona, as we shall see. There is nothing in the three references to it in his brother's correspondence to show the character of the Erigona composed or translated by Q. Cicero (Cic. Q.fr. 3. i, 6, 9). Welcker (p. 215) identified this play with the Aletes^ (see p. 62), on the ground that, inasmuch as Aletes and Erigone were brother and sister, the son and daughter of Aegisthus and Clytaemnestra, and Orestes was the opponent of both, a divided action is not to be thought of. There is nothing in the fragments ascribed to either title which assists or hinders the identification; but, though Welcker is probably right in his view of the Aletes, it by no means follows that the Erigone refers to the same series of events. The name of Erigone was familiar to the Athenians in connexion with the curious festival known as alcopa (for which see the commentators on Verg. Georg. 2. 389), at which was sung the song known as aXr/ris. Several aetiological legends arose to account for the obsolete and unintelligible titles, of which we need only refer to two. (1) In the first of these Erigone is still the daughter of Aegisthus, but she is brought to Athens as the accuser of Orestes before the Areopagus. The most explicit account is preserved in Etytn. M. p. 42, 3 Xeyerat, yap 'Hpiyovrjv TI)V Alyladov icai K.\vTai/u,vrjcrTpa<; dvyarepa, avv TvvSdpeq) T&> tra-n-Kbo e\0elv 'AOtjva^e, Karqyoprjaovaav 'Opecr-rou • d-jro\v6evTa (? -09) he, avaprijaacrav eavrr/v •npornpoiraiov Tot? 'AOiqvaiob'i yevecr6ai. Kara ^prja/u,6v he eV avrfi avvreKelaOai, rrjv eopiiqv. To the same

effect is Marm. Par. FHG I 546, where Orestes is said to have been tried for the death of Aegisthus, and this no doubt accounts for the appearance of Erigone, his nearest surviving relative, as accuser. Cf. Dictys bell. Troi. 6. 4. In Apollod. epit. 6. 25 Orestes is said, according to different accounts, to have been brought to trial either by the Erinyes or by Tyndareus or by Erigone. Tyndareus doubtless appears in two of these passages as claiming retribution for the death of his daughter 1

Probably not the pupil of Thespis : see Haigh, Tragic Drama, p. 427. He assumed a double title'AX^TTJS KOX 'Kpiybv-i) (p. 69), but the parallels which he adduces are quite uncertain. 2

174

IO0OKAEOYZ

Clytaemnestra1. According to others, Orestes married Erigone (Tzetz. Lycophr. 1374), and Cinaethon (fr. 4, EGF p. 197) mentioned Penthilus, their son. (2) Another legend made Erigone the daughter of Icarius, by whom Dionysus was hospitably entertained, and to whom he gave a wine-skin, with instructions to spread abroad the knowledge of the newly bestowed blessing. Icarius, with his daughter Erigone and his dog Maera, came to Attica in the course of his mission, and freely bestowed his wine upon the rustics. The intoxicating results which followed convinced the shepherds that they had been poisoned, and they straightway cudgelled Icarius to death. The dog Maera by her howls guided Erigone to her father's unburied body; and Erigone, distraught with sorrow, hanged herself on a neighbouring tree. The punishment of heaven fell upon the guilty Athenians, who at length appeased the divine resentment by the institution of a festival (alcopa, oscilla) in honour of Erigone. See Hygin. fab. 130, Ov. Ibis 611 ff., Aelian nat. an. 7. 28, Nonn. Dionys. 47. 34—264. The literary sources of this story have not been traced to any earlier writer than Eratosthenes, who wrote an elegy entitled Erigone (E. Maass, Anal. Eratosth. p. 132). Ribbeck {Rom. Tj-ag. p. 621) develops the view that the Erigone of Sophocles was the daughter of Icarius, correcting ev a/j-Tjpijovr) or a/nvpiyovrj the reading of the MSS in Erotian (fr. 236) to iv aarvpucfi 'Hpiyovy. He points out that the reception of Dionysus with his chorus of satyrs by the Attic peasants offered suitable opportunities for comic episodes. On the whole, though the evidence is insufficient to determine the contents of the Erigone, the balance of probability is against Welcker's identification. Against Ribbeck's view must be set the fact that the fragments of Accius' play undoubtedly relate to the story of Orestes, and he himself inclines to the identification of the Erigona with the Agamemnonidae. The frequent occurrence of the title suggests that it was suitable to a tragedy rather than to a satyr-play. Maass {pp. cit. p. I33u5) adds that before Ribbeck's conjecture is approved we must satisfy ourselves that the Icarian Erigone was known as early as Sophocles2. 1 Wagner suggested that Tyndareus appeared in the character of the legal representative of Erigone, who could not have conducted the accusation in person owing to her juristic incapacity. On the other hand, if Aletes was adult, there was no reason for the introduction of Tyndareus into the Aletes, and consequently fr. 646 belonged rather to the Erigone. 2 The same remark applies to Haigh's classification of the plays of Phrynichus, Philocles, and Cleophon (p. 477 ff.).

HPITONH

175

235 a be

ravr Iheiv 2 3 5 Phot. lex. p. 593, 9 Toirdfeu** otovffTox<*-fc
Aesch. ^£\ 1368 T6 yap Toir&fav rod > Similarly Soph. Track. 425 ravrd 5' otf^t -yf 71^701, | ddicrjffiv eiTretv Ka^aKptfiibaai \6yov.

236 vvv 8' etpr) viratypos aira>\ecrev re /cauros

avrcjv ea>s

2 3 6 . 1 u7ropoi codd. 2 3 6 Erotian. gloss. Hippocr. p. 128, TIKOS, 6 f/.aviKbs. The passage in Eur. 16 viropov Hippocr.) Kal %x inov Hesychius : vypaalav %xov c/j.aios, and there and of Euripides and his scholia is so is nothing against it except that "we do strong in favour of the form iiraippos that not know the history of the word. we can only consider viropos existed with $7T' dfbpOV VTJYOUCVOJVf T] TUsV V(pO.\<j}V the meaning ' secret." Headlam tentaTTtrpiiv, ats tiravdei &
176

IOOKAEOYI

tively suggested Ipis ciis...e| avy&v (C. R. x i n 3). Blaydes: vvv S' (-pis liiraippat •cty TIS or iyiveTl-> i% KT€. 2 Headlam on Aesch. Ag. 352 06 T&V eXdvres aSSts dvffaXoiep &v quotes many similar phrases for 'the biter bit.' So fr.

774. Nauck, comparing Eur. Hel. [06, I. T. 715, was inclined to substitute AVTairtb\ero foi• i%airib\eTO. ^ojruXero, however, illustrates the Sophoclean tendency to use compounds with 0-, for which see on fr. 524, 4.

GAMYPAZ The scene of the play was the neighbourhood of Mt Athos, as appears from fr. 237. For the connexion of Thamyras with this district cf. Eustath. //. p. 299, 5 Kal OTL IV rrj 'AKT^ TT} -rrepl TOP "Adcov ®dfj.vpL<; 6 ®pa.!j efSaaiKevae. Conon 7 ets TTJV ' A/eTrjv irapay€vo/j,iv7j Tiictei (sc. vu/xr)) Kovpov ^afivpiv o? rj/3ijcrali eVt roaovrov rjice K 16apq>8Las, ws ical f3acri\ea acjioov Kaiirep eTTTfKvTrjv ovra ^KvOaf

Troitfo-aadai. The object of such stories was to account for the prevalence of the legend of Thamyras in various parts of the country. Strabo fr. 35 p. 331 iv Se rfj aKrfj Tavrr] (z.e. the coast at the foot of Mt Athos) %dfj.vpis 6 ®pa^ e/3a.
In Homer, as Leaf has pointed out, Thamyras is a travelling rhapsode, and, whether by Oechalia is meant the Thessalian or the Messenian town—a point about which even the Alexandrian critics were divided (Waser in Pauly-Wissowa VI 1360)— the scene of his punishment is Dorium in Messene3 (Strabo 350, Pausan. 4. 33. 7). See B 594—600 Acopiov, evOa re dvTOfievai ®a/j,vpiv TOP ©prjiKa iravaav Ol^aXiTjdev iovra Trap' HvpvTov Ot^aXwJo?" o-Tguro yap ev^o/j-evos viK7)cre/j,ev, elirep av avral y\.ovcrat deihoiev, Kovpai Ato? alyio^oio' al Se ^oXcoadfievat irr)pov Oecrav, avrctp doihiqv O i de\,ovTo icai e/c\e\adov Kidapiarvv.

The critics are not agreed whether irrjpov means ' blind,' or is to be explained by the loss of the power of minstrelsy. It will also be observed that Homer does not speak of a formal contest between Thamyras and the Muses ; and his account might be taken to imply nothing more than that Thamyras was 1 Riese in Jahrb. f. Philol. x x i n 233 thinks the inference as to the scene of Sophocles' play doubtful. 2 Statius follows Homer: Theb. 4. 181 Getico...Jlebile vati \ Dorian; hie fretus doctas anteire canendo \ Aonidas mutos Thamyris damnatus in annos \ ore simul citharaque (quis obvia munina lemnal?) | conticuit praeceps.

OAMYPAZ

177

punished for his insolent boast1. In [Eur.] Rhes. 916—925 the Muses, coming (I suppose) from Parnassus or Pieria, have to cross the Strymon to meet the Thracian Thamyras in the neighbourhood of Mt Pangaeum : <

t>iXdfj,fiovo<; wal, rrjs efirj'i wtya) (j)pev6<; • y/3/319 ydp, V °"' ea(p7]Xe, xal Movcraiv ept? T€K€iv jj,' eOrj/ce rovSe Svarrjvov yavov. irepoScra ydp St) Trorafitous Sid pods Xe/crpois eTrXaOtjv ST/SU/ZOI'O? Sba<;

f

p

®d/j,vpiv, 0? rjficbv iroW'

^ ehevvaaev

Euripides mentions a regular contest, and the punishment of blindness, but does not state that Thamyras was also deprived of his musical skill. There can hardly be any doubt that both punishments belonged to the Sophoclean story (cf. frs. 241, 244), as we shall see. Both are recorded by Apollod. 1. 17, who gives further particulars of the conditions of the contest : it was agreed, he says, that if Thamyras was successful, the Muses would accept him as a suitor; but that if he failed, he should lose whatever they chose. To the same effect is schol. Horn. B 595 ©paf

icTTi <£>L\a/J.novos ut'6?1 eavTW 8e wpiue. Tfjs fiev IJTTTJS TTJV iT'qpwaiv 7rp6ffTifj,ov, T?7? Se VLKT}^ ydjxov fiias

TOIV M.ova<3v.

(pacrl Se avrov

rwv 60a\n-d)v rov fiev ykavicdv e%eiv, TOP Se fiekava. Tore Se reXetco? rov erepov airdiXeaev. The scholiast means that

Thamyras lost the black eye. Although guilty of a ludicrous confusion, the writer of this scholium derived his information from the histrionic tradition. If, therefore, the sources which he used dealt with the dramatic aspect of the story, or, in other words, with the play of Sophocles, it is perhaps legitimate to infer that the conditions which he mentions go back to the same original. The allusion of the scholiast is explained by the description of the mask of Thamyras in Pollux 4. 141 as having one grey and one black eye : cf. the use of yXav/ccofia, yXavKorr]^, and yXav/ccoais in medical writers. Lessing explained the arrangement as a conventional method of depicting blindness, which was made effective by the actor turning one side or the other to the spectators as occasion required : that is to say, after 1 Diod. 3. 67 and Pausan. 4. 33. 7 follow the Homeric account, and it is clear that both understood ir-qp6v as = 'blind.' For other cases of blinding as the punishment of vppi.s see Gruppe, p. 10023. Hence, according to Plut. tie mus. 3 p. 1132 B, Thamyras is said to have composed a poem on the war of the Titans against the gods.

P.

12

178

SOOKAEOYS

the blinding of Thamyras, the actor, whose mask could not be changed, took care to present to the audience the grey eye only. He quoted Quintil. u . 3. 74 in comoediis...pater Me, cuius fraecipuae partes sunt, quia interim concitatus interim lenis est, altero erecto altero composite est supercilio: atque id ostendere maxime latus actoribus moris est, quod cum Us quas agunt partibus congruat. We have no indication of the manner in which the plot was developed. This only is certain, that Thamyras passed from supreme good fortune to utter misery as the result of {J/3/H9. One scene seems to have attained universal celebrity— that in which the wretched hero, blind and—what was even worse—deprived in his blindness of the art which might have been his solace, in anger snaps the strings of his lyre and shatters the frame; then, desolate and inconsolable, sits surrounded by the broken fragments. Such at least is a fair inference from the works of art described by Pausanias 9. 30. 2 and especially IO. 30. 8 : ©afivpiSt. Be £771)9 /ca6e£of/,eva) TOV YleXta 8i,e8apfj,evai al Styea ical raireivov e? cnrav a")(rifid ioTi, ical rj KO/MTJ TTOXXTJ j/,ev eirl T?J9 Kea\.r]<;, TTOXXTJ Be avrw ical ev TOIS yevelow \vpa Be eppnrTai 7TjOO? TO(9 iroai, /caTeayoTes avrr)^ ol 7TJ?%et9 ical al xopBai Kareppcoyvlai.

A circumstance in the Homeric account of Thamyras which has hardly received any attention is his connexion with Eurytus, from whose home at Oechalia Thamyras is said to have started on his way to Dorium. Now, Eurytus is the counterpart of Thamyras in another sphere: taught the use of the bow by Apollo, he challenged his master and was slain in punishment (Horn. 6 224 ff.). These kindred spirits are coupled by Lucian piscat. 6 eaff oaris ovv ravra ev 7reirov6a><; Trap' vftuiv /ca/cax; av el-rrelv eitiyeipriaeiev evepyerav avBpas, d9 r a t 9 MovtraK dvTahew, irap mv e't/vr}cf>e rrjv wBrjv, rj TG3 'ATTOWWVI epiBalvetv, ivavria ro^evcov, ical Tavra Borfjpi, ovn Trjs ro^iKrj<;.

This is probably an instance where the heroes of two similar stories have been brought into association with each other, just as Heracles and Eurytus, the rival bowmen, are for different reasons variously connected. In Athen. 20 K and vit. Soph. 4 (p. 1 Blaydes) it is said that Sophocles himself played the harp at the representation of the play. It is unnecessary to adopt Welcker's view that Sophocles appeared in the character of Thamyras: in fact, the writer of the Life negatives this assumption by stating that Sophocles differed from the older tragedians in that he relinquished the position of an actor owing to his

OAMYPAI

179

For the votive tablet supposed to have been painted by Polygnotus for Sophocles after the production of this play see Hauser in 0. Jh. 8. 35 ff. There is no literary evidence of its existence. The name Thamyras belongs properly to the eponymous hero of festal gatherings (Hesych. II p. 300). In regard to its form, %a\xvpa^ is said to be the Attic for ®d[ivpi<; (Cyrill. lex. ap. Cramer, anecd. Par. IV p. 183, 14), and is attested for Sophocles by the majority of our authorities. See also Adam on Plat. rep. 620 A. The proverb ®d/j,vpi<; (or "A^upt?) fiaiverai applied to those whose conduct bears the aspect of folly, but is really prompted by far-seeing wisdom, has nothing to do with the minstrel (Pausan. fr. 201 Schw.). 237 ®pf}crcrav (TKOinav Zrjvbs 'AOcfov 237 Eustath. / / . p. 358, 40 STI 8e 6pq.KiKos /cat 6 "A0ws, ov [xveia irapct. Tip TronjTri ( 2 229), 5i)\oi, <pae tTKOiriav 7irjvbs 'Adi^ov.

(Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. 1104^, was honoured as a sanctuary of Zeus : Aesch.

In the passage of the Iliad which is referred to, Hera leaves Olympus, and speeds across the snowy mountain-tops of Thrace without touching the lower

eirX Tov"A8tij rod opovs idpv^vos

Ag.

297 'AOifof afros

1i-qvb%. Hesych. I

p. 66, possibly, as Nauck thinks, with reference to this passage, has 'A0c?os' 6 avdpias, 6

Zetfs. Mela (1. 31) speaks of the summit of Athos as always rising far above the clouds, so that the altar of Zeus remained untouched hy rain. For the connexion earth, ii; 'A86(*i 5' iwl irbvrov Eftr/aero of Thamyras with this district see IntroKvixaivovra. Athos is one of the Thracian heights : Horn. h. Apoll. 35 Qp-qUibs T' ductory Note. 'Adouis. Athos, like other high places

238 Se kvpat Kal TO. T iv 'Ek\r}crLi> t;6oiv case of a foreign word it might have been occasionally lengthened, than that Meineke was right in reading Ma-yaSrSes. It should, however, be noticed that though the last syllable of the ace. sing. Jud7a5«' ridv/j.e\ij.' Photius lex. p. 239, 15 is short in Diogenes fr. 1, 10 (Nauck, p. pM-yadis' ^jaXrttibv opyavov. OUTO: Xoipo777), it appears to be long in Anacreon ir. lH (/j/.a-ydd-qv Bergk). The material avail1 irriKTal Xvpai is a periphrasis for able is insufficient for the purpose of disTn/KTiSes, for which see on frs. 241 and tinguishing between TTT/KTIS and /j.dya8is; 412.—(icrydSiSes: the first syllable of this but both belong to the class of foreign, word is elsewhere short; but it appears i.e. oriental, stringed instruments, as on the whole more likely that in the 238

Athen. 637 A, quoting Apollo-

dorus ev rrj irpos r-qv 'ApL
12—2

IOOKAEOYZ

i8o

contrasted with the lyre (or bpfuy£) and the later KiBdpa. Both m/Krls and lidyadis were Lydian : see Pind. fr. 125, Telestes fr. 5. 4, Diogenes fr. 1. 6, Athen. 634 F. As such they are opposed to the native Greek instruments mentioned in the next line. They were alike also in being played by the hand without the plectrum ( x ^ i s ir\7]KTpov 5ia ^aXfiov Aristox. ap. Athen. 635 B). Hence Hesych. HI p. 61 fiayaSLSes' b'pyava ipaXriKa, and Phot. supr. 2 gdava is not elsewhere applied to musical instruments, but it seems to be the intention to give a generic description of stringed instruments, which would

cover both the \ipa and the KiOdpa. Ellendt refers to Hesych. Ill p. 171 Ijbava- ...Kvpias

5e TO eK £ii\u>v e£eo>4eW

•j \L8wv. The lyre was the oldest stringed instrument and was in general use, whereas the cithara was for the most part employed by professional musicians. See Guhl and Koner, p. 201 ff. ; Susemihl-Hicks on Arist. pol. p. 601. There was also a difference of material: the sounding-box of the lyre was made of tortoise shell, and that of the cithara with wood or metal. But it would be wrong to restrict the meaning of £bava so as to make it apply solely to the wood-work of the cithara.

239 2 3 9 Athen. 183 E /ivnipuweiet Si TOV rptydivov ToiiTov Kal 2o0o/cX?}s iv p.iv

Mvaots (fr. 412) ...Kai iv Q the rpiyinvos see on fr. 412.

For

240 irporroha fieXea raS' ocra

6

S

TrdSecri

24O. 1 Tpoawda AnTbr. j rddi ere Ambr. K\iofj.Ev Herwerden: KMofiev Choer., KXCUOJUCU Ambr. 2 x^P0'' irl>8e
vel

iroBas e'xopres. Nauck suggested irpbaoSa from the reading of the cod. Ambr., so that irpbaoSa /i4\ea should = irpoabSia ; but there is no evidence for an adj. irpoffodos, and there are other objections. —KXe'ojjLev (see cr. n.) seems to provide the required sense, and xXiiovirai is TU)V 'Yop&V X^jO€?OS TTCtpCt'VW^'UJS. 0 yow given for K~Kt-ovOKX^S TCV/ . A. 1046. The conjecture, which 6d.fj.vpa cod.) c^^crt k3rp6cu?5a...7r65ecrcrtj'.' occurred to me independently, has been 1 irpoiro8a has not been explained; anticipated by Herwerden, Headlam and but Campbell, who compares wpoiro5ifci.v, Tucker. Herw. wrote Trp6iro\e /xeyd\e, not unreasonably suggests that it may ra5e ire Kkionev. But the break in the mean ' "giving forwardness to the feet," synaphea is objectionable: can raSe i.e. "inciting to motion."' That is to aXeo/ieva be right? Headlam (C. R. say, the strict sense is 'moving forward.' x n i 3) formerly proposed Tavvai.Kva.fi.ova, Schneidewin (Rh. Mus. II 297) supposed thinking that the corruption was caused that the chorus, followers of Thamyras, by the compound epithet,—a tendency are contrasting the slow processional illustrated in C. R. xv 17 and in his nn. chant of the Muses (irpbitoia) with the on Aesch. Ag. 50, 1480. But the passage vigorous and passionate strains which of Arctinus on which he relies (p. 51 K.) they have heard (TCV 8' o<xa KKiofiev) from describes the attitude to be adopted in their master. No help is given by the hurling a spear, and is not relevant; nor gloss in Phot. Suid. irpinrodes- /xeydXovs is the metre satisfactory. Subsequently

0AMYPAI he seems to have changed his mind ; for if sound, but are related to x^pw1 (Hes. in C. R. XVI 434 n. he proposed ™ 8' oaa. Theog. 519) and wdSartn as xeipeiri to KKeop-ev or K\£v/i.ei>, or as an alternative, Xd-peaai. So the ordinary forms p.t\eai, K\l'fX€fa.

(ireui are reduced from /J.e\e
2 ' With rapid movement of arms and legs.' The reference is to the rhythmical movements of the dance, in which the arms were as important as the legs. Cf. Xen. symp. i. 16 ouStv dpybv TOU trw^aros

see Monro, H. G.- § 102. Nauck at one time proposed to substitute xept Te ^oll re, but the traditional forms are perhaps defensible. The metre consists of resolved trochaic tetrapodies, such as are occasionally found in Euripides [PAoen.1030, Hel. 348) and Aristophanes (Lys. 1279) ; but not, I believe, elsewhere in Sophocles.

kv T7j opx^irei yjv, dXY d/xa /cat rpa^T/Xoy Kal GKCKT] /cat x e ^P es ^yvfiva^ovro, and see

Becker's Charicles, E. tr. p. IO2,3.— The forms x^Peat a n ( i irbSe^L are unique,

24I y a p KpoTtyra. TT7)KTt,8a)V {JLOVOLVXOLS re

vaos 241.

1

Herwerden : ot^tu/ce codd.

2 4 1 Athen. 175 F TOV 5e /j.ovav\ov livT)ixovc6ei 2o$o/c\i)s p.tv iv Qap.vpq, odrws' ' oi'xw/ce ... Kup.a.(ratn]S.' Pollux 4. 75 lUorauXos eiipiiixa fxev ianv Aiyvirriuii/, fiefj.vr)rai. de avTov ^o<poK\i}s iv Qafj.upioi.

Welcker thought that the fragment was intended to describe the supersession of the various barbaric instruments mentioned in i t ; but it is much more likely, as J. supposed, that it formed part of the lament of Thamyras. 1 U\UKC : for the form see Jebb on Ai. 896.—KponjTo: ' songs resounding from the harp as it is struck.' (J.) (cpon/ra (i.i\r\ may be taken to imply the existence of KpoTcin ,uAos in the sense of to beat music, i.e. to produce a melody by striking (the harp), with fitXos as ace. of result, not unlike Eur. Ion 168 ai/idfeis ipSds. Nevertheless the phrase, though correct in itself, is made easier by the attachment of wijKTlduiv, to which KpoTTjruv might

yKporeladaL

p:r]8e
See also on fr. 463.—The irt|KTCs was a Lydian species of harp, which is associated with the rpiyuvov (or -os), a Phrygian triangular harp (Diet. Ant. 11 106 b). Cf. fr. 412. (J.) Telestes fr. 5, 4 roi 5' o^vfpthvois Trr}KTlbu)v t//a\/j,ois KpiKov I Aiidtop vjj.vov. It was

played without the plectrum : see note on fr. 238. 2

|iovav\ois : the trdpiy^ /Aoco/cdXojLtoy,

or flute, as distinguished from the evptyl; iro\vKa\a.fj.os, or Pan's pipe (Diet. Ant. II 840 a). See also Susemihl-Hicks on Arist. pol. 5. 6. 1341s 18. The words which follow are hopelessly corrupt : ' nihil dispicio' is Kaibel's verdict. The following conjectures may be recorded: (1) Nauck: \upa /xirauXoi 6' ofs exaipo/xei' Tews. Campbell adds for v. 3 aript)^

avias

> Koip.T\al% r '

have been accommodated (hypallage).

d
Cf. e.g. Scymnus 260 (TiSripeSs re paior-qpuv KTVTTOS (cited by H . in C. Ji. XVI

B oUs TOxit xetyuwp oirws \ vabs r£pef/.va, KW/idtrao'' avrjpiratrev; but, as J. points

I n El. 7 1 4 KTTJTTOV KpOTt]T&V out, neither ripe/xva nor Ku/xdaaa' is apfiariiiv is the noise of the bumping cars, satisfactory. (3) Jebb, accepting Xt/pa libvavkol 6', says: ' I had thought of as they strike against the earth. Schweighauser on Athen. I.e. explains KpoT-qTo. as (1) <7}v yap e l > x ' otfj.-qv T£WS, | irvojjs ZprtfAOv Koipivatj' < a r ? ; > . . . or (2) ov harinonice pulsation, bene modulatwn, comparing id. 164 F fii\r) Trdpav'Xa. KareffX OLfx-qv deds I 7^0775 Zpy/wv Koifiiaas...' KaKpoTTjTa KvpPaXa. (Tr. fr. adesp. 93), (4) Blaydes thought that raos concealed i.e. cymbala sonos edentia dissonos atijue yd/3Xa : cf. fr. 849. So also Papabasileios, with Xijpas fj.ovav\ov KaXvfj.oii' av\6jv rbvoi adt'o immodulatos; Hesych. 1 p. 107 in v. 2. (5) Jacobs (ap. Schweighauser) aKporijTo. • ii-oXuKpoTrjTa ytv6p.eva. wirre 435).

100KAE0YI

182

Conington, finding fj.ivavXds Te.../javriwt conjectured xapnovuv T\4WS, and for vaos OTtprifw. something like Sovanos ritcvov or in v. 2, proceeds oivwixivois (sic) aripriiia
242 KOLXOV * 242

Schol. Soph. O. C. 378

T x

unsuitable to that play, whereas it fits

TO "Apyos Koikbv <pa, TroXiav Kreavuv alvtv out of the text. Nauck lakes exception "Apye'i KolXtf) *' "Ofj.7]pos (51) ' ol 5' T$-ov KOIXTJVto the contracted KOIXOS in a cyclic poem, Aa.KedatfJ.ova.' but he should at least have referred to

Horn, x 385. We are not concerned with No modern critic (with the exception the hexameters, but it should be menof Hartung and Immisch, who thought tioned that Wilamowitz conjectured 4K that the verses formed part of the poetic fiiv dpa x^oviov to make them agree with display) has credited the statement that the tradition that Autolycus was the son the two hexameter lines really belonged of Hermes (^if ipiowiov fj, Weil). Others to the Thamyras. To avoid the difficulty prefer to suppose that Erichthonius had Kirchhoff suggested the transposition of the words 'ETn.y6voi.s and Oa/itipa, holding a son of this name (Diimmler in PaulyWissowa 11 2601). O. Immisch vajahrb. that by the Epigoni was meant the cyclic poem bearing that title ; and his solution f. Philol. Suppl. x v n 155 holds that the hexameters are correctly quoted from was accepted by Nauck in his first the play, and that they were part of the edition, by Dindorf, by Jebb (on 0. C. agon which must have been represented 378), and by Papageorgius in his edition somehow or other in the course of the of the scholia. But it has been completely action. He points out that Philonis, refuted by Bergk for the following reasons. (1) The words iv 'Ynri.ybvot.s in this context who is the subject to &rxe#e was mother of Philammon, the father of Thamyras, ought prima facie to refer to the play of as well as of Autolycus, and that this Sophocles, and it is highly improbable genealogy appeared as early as Hesiod that, if the scholiast had intended to (see fr. i n Rz. r) rticev AVT6XVK6V TC quote the epic, he would have introduced $iXd/u.^ocd re KXvrbv aidrfv). For KolXov it in this way. (2) The line which Kirchhoff would attribute to the Thamyras "Apyos see on fr. 190. (fr. 190) is, so far as we can tell, entirely

243 243

Antiatt. (Bekk. anecd.) p. 105,

27 Kdvvaj3cs. 'ZotpoKXrjs Qa.fj.tipa, 'H.p6Soros

TerdpTtfi. The allusion to hemp,—probably to hempen garments,—fits the Thracian atmosphere of the play: cf.

Hdt. 4. 74 £% aiTijs QpijiKes fj.iv Kal etfMra iroievvTai Toiai Xivioiaiv dpowraTa, Hesych. 11 p. 406. Bluemner, Technologie, 1 p. 293.

OAMYPAI

183

244 py ^p p prjyvvs apfioviav -^ophorovov \vpa<; 244

Plut. de cohib. ira 5 p. 455 D

62 : see on fr. 36. Cicero also (n.d. 2.

ipyi^o/xeda Kai woXefilois ml s 6 Qdpivpis itself were made of horn, unless cornu

'priyri>s...\vpas.' Brunck was the first is to be taken to refer to the Trijxeis. who assigned the passage to Sophocles. Hesych. 11 p. 258 equates %vyd with Tnfoeis, but this, if correct at all, cannot Pausan. 9. 30. 2 mentions among statues dedicated on Mt Helicon QA.fi.vpiv p.ev refer to the lyre. avrbv re r/Sij rv Xoxia*', fr. 839, 4 TIKTU Tucker on Aesch. Theb. 43. Cf. Tibull. 6I>T]TO6S, I riKreL fioT6yr\v tpv\a re dTipuv, 3. 4. 37 (of Apollo) artis opus rarae, fulgens teslndinc et auro \ pendebat laeva Bacchyl. 3. 15 (Uptiei p\kv lepa (3OV0IJTOIS eoprcus, I pp6ov<Ti (piko^evtais dyuiai. F o r garrula parte lyra.—Kt'pas. The statethe stringing of the lyre cf. Dio Chrys. 8. 4 ments of ancient authorities relating to evloTe p£v ovv iir^reivev CLVTSV, eviore 5£ the structure of the lyre are very coneTveipa.ro dvUvai, utnrep ol %ophourpocpoi fusing ; but anyone who will refer to the rd vevpa Teivovff t, irpotr^xovres [/.i] payrj. illustrations figured in Guhl and Koner Hence ejrraroyos Eur. /. T. 1129 etc. at p. 202 will not hesitate to understand Kepas as referring to the 7TIJX«S or arms of The metre is logaoedic (aeolic), v. 1 being a glyconic, and v. 2 an asclepiad the lyre, which were fixed to the soundingtrimeter board and connected by the £vy6v. L. and S. however translate ' the bridge of the lyre,'making Kepas = p,ayddiov, a view See J. W. White in C. Q. m 293, which rests on the authority of Pollux 4. Schroeder, Soph. cant. p. 83.

245 (Aovcro/JLavel S' iXd/JLcfcdrjv 8'

av

KOX TO TTOTI

Se pdv,

8' ex re \vpas e/c re jp TrepiaXXa fjiovcroTroiel. 245. 1 i\a(pe-qv cod. Pal., e8d\ coni. Brunck, ep.dp
fjiovaoiroiel'—Kai vi) A£' 'Apitrrapxos Kai 'Apxip-ydv?-

EUSO^OJ Kai

H., accepting SaKtzTu and reading 'e'xop-ai ('Fort. i' in the ovdevbs ruiif ayuyip.oji' diroSeovtriv, e\Kov
IO0OKAEOYI

184

Thamyras but Eudoxus and Aristarchus and Archimedes:—who, as Plutarch goes on to illustrate with well-known stories, were themselves possessed with ecstasy inspired by their discoveries in science : Archimedes, for example (1094 c), £vVOT]ffa.S TT)V TOV
^Xerat

yap.

£K 8k TO&TOJV TWV

8aKTv\iwv, T&V iroLrjTuiv, aXXoi ef aXXou av 7)pTi][jt.froL etVt Kal eydova'ta^ovinv, 01 /lev £% 'Op£ias, oi 8e e'K Movaaiov • ol Si Te Ka 7roXXoi ij- 'O/i-ripov KaT^x°"Ta^ ' £x<"'Tai" &' "'''> to'Iuv, efs el Kal Karexei

i£ '0/j.ripov.' ^%0/iai is probably correct, and completes the restoration initiated by Porson (on Med. 284) of the latter part ^^ev. The melodies of Thamyras of the fragment. But the first line is have had an effect upon the speaker such desperately corrupt; and I cannot feel as those of the musician Alexander had satisfied that Brunck's SaKirif, though upon the Romans: he created such a fiirore, says Athenaeus (183 E), OSTOIS diplomatically excellent, is suitable to the £iroiri=^ Kpoiff/j-ara.. Whatever the verb was, towards the throat, as in Aesch. Ag. 340 TTOTI Scipav is to be constructed with it, ovKe'T1 e£ i\ev64pov | dtpys awoif/.u)fov(n "/was stricken at the throat" (the part (piXran-uv /j.6pop. The sense of the interwhich is the instrument of singing), as in Aesch. Mum. 595, where Orestes says vening words, which must then contain €L the subject, might be given by reading / slew my mother ^upovkKty X pl ^P^s in.ovaoixave't 8' ava<j>6ev (or possibly even depyv reu-iiv. The critics, except Bernardakis, who accepts e(!xo/j.cu and supplies S£ 'Ka/j,d8a ^pxo/xai: C a m p - linking together two quotations deserves passing mention. Mekler conjectured bell too translates " and make my way to after SaKirw, TTOTI 8' ipav ipxo)J.ai Sair' IK the ridge" but doubts, conjecturing worl Kri.t i.e. to the banquet of the Muses. 8' e'lpav £pxo/J.eu "and I go to the public place." ^x.O|xaL is used for /caWx°Mai* as The metre is of the Ionic (choriambic) e.g. (%u appears for npouix01 m Phil. 305. type, but for obvious reasons the analysis T h e usual phrases were ov yap 4K M.OV
£% IXXXTJS itfiprrqraj..

ovofiafafiev

5i

avrb

OHIEYI Welcker (p. 402) holds that the solitary reference to this play is an error, and that the Phaedra was the play intended. There is no reason why Sophocles should not have written a play entitled Theseus, just as Euripides did, who dramatized the Cretan adventure under that title. The evidence in its favour is very slender, and may be untrustworthy ; but we ought not to refuse to credit it without some stronger reason than Welcker is able to adduce. The subject must in any case be uncertain : Welcker

0AMYPA2—0YESTHZ

i8s

records a baseless guess by Gruppe that it comprised the death of Theseus in Scyros (Plut. Cim. 8 etc.). If the title is an error, the most probable solution is to ascribe the quotation to the Aegens (p. 15). 246 O/XTTUtOV V€(f)OV<; 246 Phot. lex. p. 342, 11 and Suid. s.i\ oixirviov (&irvtov Phot.) vi<pos • fxiya, iroAtf, rjv^ijfi&ov. 2o0o/c\i)S ©Tjo-e?. Suid. adds : rat O/JLTTVLOS xeIP> V TTXOW/O, a gloss which precedes 6/J.TTPLOP viipos in Phot. Cf. Phot. lex. p. 33,s, 9 o/nrviou vtrfiovslieyioTov. H e s y c h . I l l p . 206 dixirvelov ve<povs • f/.eyd\ov, iroXXou, T}i^Tjfj.4fov. Diogen. 6. 97 Sfitrviai x«'p, T] vXovcria. SfirvLov ve(pos, fitya, xoXiS, rji^Tj^vov. The title Demeter 6/j.irvia (schol. Nic, Al. 7, CIA ill 26, 2. 3) shows the

original force of the adjective (cf. alma Ceres) ; and there does not seem to be any close parallel to the Sophoclean phrase, which was preserved as a curiosity at a time when the word had become obsolete, ofnrvios xefp, 'a lavish hand,' is much nearer to the original. Sfnrvioi' t-pyov in Callim. fr. 183 is interpreted as agriculture. May it not be that the epithet was attached to ve<poi, because the rain-cloud fertilizes the parched earth?

OYEITHI EN IIKYQNI For the possible connexion of the title Thyestes with the Atreus see p. 91. We have there pointed out that, while it is maintainable that Sophocles wrote two plays entitled Thyestes as well as the Atreus, all we can affirm with certainty is that two plays of Sophocles dealt with the banquet-story and the later history of Thyestes respectively, and that to the latter was given the title Thyestes at Sicyon. The chief authority now extant for the later history of the two brothers is Hygin.jfo^. 88, which by general consent is admitted to have been derived from the play of Sophocles. The confused narrative of Hyginus divides into three parts, after a reference to the turning back of the Sun's chariot in horror at the impious banquet. In the first part Thyestes is said to have fled to King Thesprotus, whose country was near lake Avernus, and thence to Sicyon where his daughter Pelopia had been placed in security. He found her sacrificing to Athena, and, fearing to pollute the sanctity of the site by his presence, hid himself in the neighbouring grove. Pelopia slipped while dancing, stained her robe with the victim's blood, and withdrew to wash it in the river. Thyestes, covering his head, rushed from the grove and violated her. Pelopia drew his sword from its scabbard, and returning to the temple hid it beneath the pedestal of the statue of the goddess. On the next day Thyestes asked the king to restore him to Lydia, his native land. There is no mention here of the oracle given to Thyestes that the

186

IO«J>OKAEOYI

son born to him by his daughter Pelopia was destined to be the avenger of his brother's crime. This essential part of the legend appears, however, in the brief and mutilated chapter which precedes {fab. 87), as well as in the imperfect account of Apollodorus {epit. 2. 14). Cf. Lactant. on Stat. Theb. 1. 694 cum responsum accepisset Thyestes aliter malorum reinedium inveniri non posse, nisi cum Pelopea filia concubnisset', paruissetque responsis, etc. The last quotation should not lead us to suppose that in the original form of the story Thyestes recognized his daughter, although the account of Hyginus is far from explicit on this point. Anyhow, so far as Sophocles is concerned, it is hardly necessary to appeal to the testimony of Aristotle {poet. 13. 1453a 9—11), in order to refute such an inference being drawn concerning his version. The confusion in Hyginus between Thesprotus and the king of Sicyon becomes still more puzzling in the second division of the chapter: in consequence of a drought at Mycenae, Atreus was ordered by the oracle to bring back Thyestes. He accordingly journeyed to the court of Thesprotus, thinking that Thyestes was there, saw Pelopia, whom he believed to be the daughter of Thesprotus, and asked for her hand in marriage. Thesprotus, ' to avoid any suspicion,'—a mysterious comment—consented. But Pelopia was already pregnant by Thyestes, and exposed the child when born. The shepherds, however, gave him to a she-goat to suckle {Aegisthus), and Atreus had a search made for him, and brought him up as his own son. The concluding section in Hyginus is so closely compressed that it may as well be given in his own words: interim Atreus miltit Agamemnonem et Menelaum filios ad quaerendum Thyestem: qui Delphos petierunt sciscitatmn. casu Thyestes eo venerat ad sortes tollendas de idtione fratris. comprehensus ab eis ad Atreum perducitur. quern Atreus in custodiam coniici iussit Aegisthunique vocat, existiniaiis suum filium esse, et mittit eum ad Thyestem interficiendum. Thyestes cum vidisset Aegisthum et gladium quern Aegisthus gerebat et cognovisset quern in compressione perdiderat, interrogat Aegisthum, unde ilium haberet. ilk respondit niatrem sibi Pelopiam dedisse : quain iubet accersiri. cui respondit se in cotnpressioue nocturna nescio cui eduxisse et ex ea compressione Aegisthum concepisse. tune Pelopia gladium arripuit simiilaus se agnoscere (?) et in pectus sibi detrusit: qiiein Aegisthus e pectore matris cruentum tenens ad Atreum attulit. ille existimans Thyestem interfectum laetabatur: quern Aegisthus in littore sacrificantem occidit et cum patre Thyeste in regnum avitum redit. Brunck inferred that the material for two plays was to be found in the chapter of Hyginus, and that the scene of the

OYEITHI

187

earlier was to be placed at Sicyon, that of the later at Mycenae. Curtailed and abbreviated as the text of Hyginus obviously is, we can scarcely fail to recognize the influence of a tragedian in the concluding portion, more particularly in the avayvcopia^ and the suicide of Pelopia. But the earlier events are inconclusive, and not well suited, so far as we can judge, to dramatic representation. Agreeing, therefore, with Brunck that Sophocles' play ©I>6
247 crob<; yo.p ovoei? TT\TJV bv av TL/XO. #eos. dXX. eis deovs < cr' > opcovTa, KOLV e£io St/075 ttv Ktkevrj, Kelcr' ohonropeiv xpecov' b yap ovSev £>v vr)yovPTai 0€OL. 247.

2
2 4 7 Orion fior. 5. 10 (Schneidewin coni. crit. p. 47) ^K TOV a' Qvearov. ffo
1 Beynen conjectured Ss hv ri/j.f Oeovs, and Nauck, while condemning this as perverse, followed Meinekein the view that the line ought to be separated from the rest of the fragment, and was inclined

IO*OKAEOYZ

188

to think that v. 4 had no connexion with vv. 2, 3. Similarly F. W. Schmidt (Krit. Stud. I 254), who rewrites the passage in order to avoid the supposed incompatibility of £{u SUTJS with alaxpbv obSiv. But all the lines appear to be part of an answer to an objection (of Thyestes?) that, if the oracle pointed to incest, its injunction must be disregarded: see Introductory Note. The reply is that such considerations cannot be allowed, since human wisdom is of no avail unless it is blessed by heaven. The attitude towards ao
del 0iXwv.

F. W.

Schmidt adds Hes. Theog. 81, Theogn. 169. 2 ff. These lines have been cleared up by Wecklein's proposal to insert
however, inclined to els 8eov
Beoi, and the contrast is significant of the

attitude of the two poets towards morality and religion. Sophocles is serenely confident that no reconciliation of their claims is necessary; if morality seems to conflict with the will of the gods, so much the worse for it. But for Euripides, if the gods seem to enjoin an immoral action, they become untrue lo their nature and are no longer trustworthy. See Nestle's article on Sophokles und die Sophislik in Class. Philol. v 129 ff. The present lines would accurately describe the position of Orestes in the Electra, who has no hesitation in obeying the command of Apollo, even though it involves matricide: see v. 1424 rav dbfionn fi^v I KaXQs, 'ATTOXXWP ei Ka\u>s

iBiairiaev, and Jebb's Introd. p. xli.— oSoiiropEtv is used 10 times by Sophocles, but not at all by Aeschylus or Euripides. For \\v> 8IKT|S cf. Eur. Andr. 786, Bacch. 1010

T& B' ££w voiu/ia I SiKas CKJBa\6vTa

Ti/iSc deotis. The context here limits Slier] to the sphere of established or conventional morality. The conception of SUri as a human institution was as old as Hesiod (Op. 279): cf. Plat. Prot. 322 C. The word is so applied in accordance with its original meaning of custom or order, for which see F . M. Cornford, From Religion

to Philosophy,

p. 172 ff.—For

the ace. after l)<priyet
given by Heracles.

248 a.Troir\rji
Hesych. 1 p. 254 <

TTOSL ' fjiayididet.

^lo<poK\rjS Q

St-

KVWVLlg.

For the word cf. Phil. 731 TI SJJ...

airbir\7}KT0s eyib. 34. 16 oiirojs airbirX'qKTov /cat Trai>Te\G)S fiaLvbiLevov. T h e r e is a

similar transference _of the adjective in 0. T. tfg /teX6jj iroSl, ibid.\-j-, irodl

:TroTr\-f)
K&

21 .

143 ovx

oiirws

el/A acppuiv ov8'

Aesch. ,£«/«. 545 d&fy ?ro5i, Tr. fr.'adesp'.

227 Xcuff&pyip irodi.

See also on fr. 790.

249 249

Hesych. 1 p. 151 atwpipu>Tov

0.5ia,TVWWT0J'.

^0(pOK\7}S

d|jidp<|>(i>Tos, formless, reappears as an

Qu€"(TTV] T(t) €V epithet of vk-q in the pseudo-Pythagorean

"S/IKVCJVL. Cf. Phot. ed. Reitz. p. 94, 15 aubpipoiTos ' dSibpdojTOS, dirXaaros, /l&TtaTOS.

treatise published under the name of Timaeus Locrus, 94 A (vulg. apopfyov). It is not a genuine verbal,—for we

0YEITHZ may leave out of account the scholiastic dfiop
189

KaWtTTupyojros Bacch. 19 beside «aX\cirvpyos, a/iapTijpi)Tos Her. 290 beside d/idprvpos, d0i)XXuTOS fr. 299 beside aipvWos. See the excellent note of Wilamowitz on Eur. Her. I.e., and further on fr. 1014.

KOWTJTOS Eur. Phoen. 1 beside xpucroVoXXos,

250 25O avrd/iotpos Casaubon : aiV6/iapos cod. Hesych. I p. 327 avrbnoipos to a person means 'having a single share.; (avTo/Aapos cod.) • fiov6fi.oipos. 2,0(p0K\ijs 'Sharing alone' is an illogical but emQvearr} 2i/cucoW<£j (Qv^ffrrj cLKvajvia cod. : phatic term to express sole possession corr. Musurus). The traditional inter(oxymoron) : cf. the use of novofiepr/s. pretation, followed by Liddell and Scott, avTOTrd/j.wv, if that word is really the with special destiny, is almost nonsense. source of the Hesychian avrdirofia • Following the analogy of Bifioipos, we iwiKXtjpov, would be the nearest parallel. should conclude that /j.op6p.oipos as applied 25O

251 aVTO(j)OpTOL 251

Hesych. I p. 329 aird^opTof

the other with the merchant who ventured his goods in another's bottom. In Aesch. Cho. 671 (rreixovra 5' avrtxpoprov (SV£
avTodidfcovoi, Kupiws 8£ ol zv rots idiots irXoiots. —O$OK\?)S QuetrrT] StKi/wi'ty

252 252

Hesych. II p. 132 iiraivovs" ras

Sparta adhered to the procedure of the heroic age : cf. Horn. T 461 uir ifyar' Arpe'tSTjS, iirl 5' TJVZOV #A\oi 'A^atot', Eur. Hclid. 811 trrparbs 6' e irrivt<j(ei/), IIKVUVIU. Kal d\nioi rals i-Kawf)Ta,«tiv Or. 901 iireppbdriaav 5' of /iiv us raAws \£yoi, I oi 5' OVK eirrjvovv. The conclud(ita cod.). ing words were no doubt rightly referred The explanatory words 'decisions, reto Alcaeus (fr. 128) by Maussac and commendations, and elections {i.e. support Voss. Nauck substitutes rots for rats of a particular individual)' may be taken without comment, and it certainly seems to refer to the approval of an assembly probable that Alcaeus used iiraivtrris of a which voted and elected its officers by political supporter, rather than that rah acclamation. Such was the Spartan ^•jraLV^Taiffif is correct. Bergk's alternaaireWa: Thuc. 1. 87 npivovai. yap /3oij tive suggestions that Sophocles wrote 8s Kai 06 f-qipif. See fuither Greenidge, Handbook of Greek constitutional antiqui- d\/cd(?ot rots eTraiv^Taitriv or rocs eiraiveraimv alone are very unlikely. ties, p. 100. In this respect no doubt Kpiaeis Kal rds
IOOKAEOYI

190

253 253

Hesych. I p. 338 d(po<no>ti.&ai •a ipapfiaKos would properly be described

as aipuiGLuixivos. Cf. Hipponax fr. 11 avoffiai, Airodev TOU btriov yeyevrifi^vcu. ws ol pkv dyec BouxdXy KaTTjpQpTo. I n 'SotjioKKijs QV£OTT) |3'. Cf. ibid. p . 341 ae' S.To8ev TOV btriov dtpupianive. this sense d<po<novv is equivalent to

The important word d^oo'ioOc, more common in the middle, cannot be fully treated here. The meaning attested by Hesych. arises from the double sense of dedication, seen in such words as devotus, sacer, cfyos, which has been well compared by Miss Harrison (Prolegomena, pp. 59, 108) with the condition of the savage tabu. Thus dfyoaiovv, to separate from the 6Via, is to make an 1170s or tabu ; and

ivaylfav, and is contrasted with dipayvlfeif, to remove from the tabu or to disenchant, for which cf. Eur. Ale. 1144, and dtpiepovv, which has the same meaning in Aesch. Eum. 454 (of Orestes, as d<j>ayvlfctv in Pausan. 2. 31. 8). Hence d(poo~iov
commonly = to

abominate

(aversari) : see Holden on Plut. Sull. 22. 4, and Wyttenbach's list of examples in his n. on mor. 63 B.

254 254 5I^7OP.

Hesych.

II

p.

264

2O(/>O/C\TJS QvitxT-q StvTipif.

The

same interpretation was traditionally given to 0. T. 775 ifybfa)v 5' dvrip | dar&v ^yiffTOS TWV £KCL, wplv fioc TVXV I Totdb7 iirivT-q : see the schol. {Tpe
Xaiw, and Suid. s.v. riybtir)v. Modern editors all prefer the rendering ' I was considered' ; but there is no gain to the sense in its adoption, and, if the editors are right, the present gloss of Hesychius

does not deserve credit. Yet i\ybii.i\v, ' I lived,' seems to be justified by the corresponding use of the active in Dem. 9. 36 7}v TL TOTe.,.6 iXevd^pav r)ye TTjv'EXXdda :

see also on Eur. Hclid. 788. Cf. El. 782, where Musgrave quoted Philostr. vit. Apoll. 5. 42. /ieXtTToirats

Bti/iyeTO Kai

aprois Kre. Several other examples from Philostratus are quoted by W. Schmid, Atticismus, IV p. 346.

255 ecm ya/D TIS ivaXCa Eu/Sou? ata* rijSe S 2 5 5 . 2 Ew/3ods ala L. Dindorf: e6{3orj
The miraculous growth of the vine is one of the portents which attest the piesence of Dionysus (Horn. h. 7. 35 ff.); and this accounts for its appearance at Delphi and at Nysa. For the facts cf. schol. Soph. Ant. 1133 1; TO iv Ei),8o
Trepl TT]V eairipav. Steph. Byz. p . 479 Hid<Tiu...SeKdTri iv Eiy/3o£ct, £vQa 5ta ,uias 7]/j.4pas TTJV afxive\6v tpaaiv dvdelv Kai rov fibrpvv TreTraiv&rOai. Schol.

Townl. Horn. N 21 » AlyaU TTJS Eu^oias

7rapd5o£a TTOWOL ylverai. Kara yap rets eTTjaiovs TOV ALOVU<XOV reXeras dpyiafovffwv TCIV [AvoTldujv yvvaiK&v (3\a.aTdvov<Tiv al KaXoij/xevaL e<pr)fj.epoi &fj.ire\oL, alrives ^wdtv tpytrlv a\(Tos rj TO iv YlapvaaQ' iv &fj.(poTt- /xev rds TCIV Kapir&v eKfioXas Ttoiouvrai, pou yap Tb-jrois rj afn.irt\os rj KO.6' eK&trT-qv EIT' av irdXiv ^irpuas ^apurdrovs, Kai irepi fxh IT)V 'iiii fibrpvas (pipsi., irc/31 TOVTOVS irpb ixe
0YEITHZ e?r' rj/jiap epvet,.

jp

191

npwTa fiev XafLTrpas eco

yp

f

]

eir' rffiap av£ei /xecrcrov o/j,<jiaKOS TVTTOV, KOLL Kkiveral re KaiTOTrepKovTai. fi 3 Xa/j.irpas £u>i B, Xaflpaaeu A. \af3pas H, Xappade'w MT, Xtfipas (a M. Schmidt 4 %\upbv Bergk: X"P01' AMT, x">P0S BI | oirnvBr/s Barnes: craves I, evai>8i]S B, eikn^s AMT 5 y/iap a#£« Palat. 343, •q/j.ap &£et T A B , yixapti%ei M | jxtaov Kal KXiverai re B : KX'tverai ye vulgo codd. meliores Si rr\v eo-wipav dpeiro/xevat aKparov x°pvyoutrt daij/tXr} ra?s dirb rod x°P°v irapBe'i' Eustnth. / / . p 882, 38 A17&S r) ras ev Eu/Soip Xtyet, ivBa jjtvBeierat TO Kara at, (pafflv, £to fiorpvas, Gffir^pas d£ &Kp 8ai//i.\TJ rif %opif rwv f Aiovutrip Kre. From such evidence it has been inferred with reason that Nysa was in the immediate neighbourhood of Aegae, a town on the west coast of Euboea. From Strab. 405 we learn that Aegae was opposite to Anthedon at a distance of 120 stades across the Euripus. The similar vine on Mt Parnassus is described in Eur. Phoen. 229 oiW 6\ a Ka$ajLtepto^ ard^eis TOV iroktiKapwov | oivdvBas leiaa (36rpuv. For Nysa see on fr. 9592 pa.Kx.rios: see cr. n. Our MSS are useless in distinguishing between fianxios and jSah'xet'os, as is shown by Ani. 154, Track. 219, pio, 704, in all of which places they give forms of /3a/cx«os against the metre. The only certain instance of /3a/cxe?os in Sophocles is 0. T. 1105. In Euripides j8aK%e?os is certain in Hec. 686, Ion 1126, Bacch. 1057; and Elmsley on Bacch. 308 held that Euripides avoided /3d/cx'os> except as the name of the god. These facts are hardly sufficient to warrant the adoption of fSdnx'os, although it may very well be right. For the accentuation [laKxeios rather than /3dKX«°s see Chandler, § 381. 3 €TT' iflJ-ap ^piret, grows for a day— and no more. We should not render every day (/ca#' r)fj.epav) : there is a distinction between 0. C. 1364 aWovs eirairCo TQV KaS' rjptpav (iiov—' my daily bread'—and Eur. EL 429 TT)S 5' i
M. Schmidt's Xtfipas (cr. n.) is based on Xtfipbv (riXas (Tr. fr. adesp. 232). 4 K€KXT)fidTa>TaL: ' the green vineshoot puts forth its tendril.' The early growth of the vine is described distributively in respect of each twig. The proper meaning of o'tvdvBt\ is given by schol. Ar. Av. 588 as i) Tpdirtj ZK^VGIS TTJS ara
5 |Uo-a£ p.ev inciv ye Kap.(f>ayelv TOVA/3iciTfp3s dan, Eur. Phoen. 401 ofj,<paKa Trotet. For this sense of •wore fief 4ir' ri^o.p eix°"i e ' T ' °^K " X 0 " &"•—

SO*OKAEOYZ

192

oirwpa /caXws KavaxlpvaTai vix sanum

TTOTOV.

8 raXfis dwupa, Barnes-1 Ka.KKi.pvS.Tai A

f$\a. is the juice of the grape, KhaGTOv xept ( ' KKauTOVfiiv-q would b e and we should expect to find some better' H. [cf. C. JZ. x v m 243]: alteror veL allusion not merely to the gathering of natives are rex"V ^ t 'he latter the vintage, but to the pouring of the suggested but not approved by Herfruit into the vat or its treading by the werden), which he subsequently gave up in favour of /3XaffToO 701*^7 dirupoKXdarT] vintagers. The first requirement would Kg.ro., is put out of court by the considera- be satisfied by rpvyu/jiAvi}, the second by tion that an allusion to the vine-dresser's rpa.-wovsi.ivi] or irarovixiv-q—or even by Parov/j.4vri (cf. \TivofSari)s), the last a word art is irrelevant: not trimming the leaves which might possibly have given place to to let the fruit ripen, but gathering it (3\a
(TTa.Qvk'fi cf. A. P. 5. 303 iirivewas ' or' ^s trrcupvXTi,

p

256 TT/DOS TTJV 256

avdyKrjv

ovS" "Apr)<s

Stob. eel. I 4. 5, p. 71, 20 W.

"ZO^OKXTJS Quiarrj.

t

p

irpbs...av6Lara.Tai'

iroXe/iu/xev, Ant. 1106 dvayKri

x Svatio.xvriov : see also on fr. 757, 3. (the lemma is omitted from the proper The theme is varied here by the introducplace by codd. F P of Stobaeus, but given tion of Ares, the embodiment of physical alter the conclusion of the following strength : Bacchyl. fr. 36 (20 J.) ara^irros extract). The line is also quoted but "Api/s, Homer's TreXtipios, Aesch. fr. 74, with the corruption ovdels oi8' for 068' Tr. fr. adesp. 129 iroXi/iois 8' "Apeus 'Apris, in a Paris MS. described by Wilh. Kpeiffffov' %xwv Sdva/xiv. Nauck is probMeyer Sitz. d, philol.-philos. hist. Cl. d. ably justified in thinking that this passage k. b. Akad. 1890 11 2, p. 370. is alluded to in Plat. Symp. 196 C KO.1 The sentiment follows Simon, fr. 5, 16 /i-qv el's ye avdpeiav "Epwri 0118' d

S' ovSe ffeol fidxovrai,

O. C. 191

avdiararai.

OYEITHI

193

257 ov yap ecr#'

cus vvv ra^o? cnrovhfjs oi/cat'as

ai|>erat TTOTC. rrore Valckenaer: airrcrai

257. 1 ais vvv Dindorf: iis vvv SMA Trore SMA 2 5 7 Stob. flor. 29. i (ill p. 626, 6 Hense) Z(xpoK\4ovs GtieoTi). ' US...TTOT€.' 1 <3s vw, independently suggested by Campbell, seems to be necessary, us rdxos occurs frequently in Sophocles (cf. Phil. 924, 0. T. 945, 1154, O. C. 1398, i46r, At. 578, 593), but could not be severed by vvv. On the other hand, us cannot be a final conjunction, since rdxos standing alone is not used adverbially by Sophocles. The arguments for the enclitic are similar to those which have led to its adoption in El. 428, O. C. 465, and elsewhere. 2 For SiKcuas F. W. Schmidt conjectured dufxaias; but, though at first sight attractive, this alteration really obscures the character of the allusion. The proverb here paraphrased, that hard work

brings, fame, or that idleness begets disgrace, may be seen in several fragments of Euripides : fr. 134 eSuXeiav (\a/3ov OVK &vev TTOW&V

TTSVWV, fr.

238

OVK

ianv

oans ^oYws £i]T&v fiiouv | etircXeiav elaeKTrjaar', dXXcl XFh TOVUV, fr. 237 oiSels yd.p wv pq.8ufj.os €VK\€TJS dv/jp, dAX1 oi irbvoi TLKTOV(TL TT'IV €v5o£Lav,

fr.

474

irovos

yap, tbs \{yov<Tiv, evuXelas irari^p. yp y T h d f XXd St | & Theodect. fr. 11 TroXXd Set | x IJ^OVT'

els

ttra.ivov

CUKXEUJS* | pq.dvfj.la

Cf. rbv 5e

KT€. Herw., who proposed ditcaios or diKaius, was subsequently inclined to accept the text.—CU|/€TCU: see cr. n. The future is more idiomatic than the present after otk i
258 1

^ jxev akyeiv', oiSa iretpacrdaL 8' < [
iSff^ai SeX«. But the thought of the present fragment—that trouble must be faced, and if possible a remedy discovered —is entirely different : cf. Eur. Or. 398 /XOTTTI /tdXurrd 7 ' ^ 8ia
IOOKAEOYI

194

di xP'h f ° r 8' S/*ws or Si
jectured I-KKVUIV xprt\tsri)v for XPV T ' " ' laa-iv, thinking that &cXi/
but the latter is perfectly good Greek for 'in such a case.' Cf. Track. 1109 TTJV ye dpatraaav rdde | xelP&
K

°-K rQvSe,

'even as I am.' At. 537 rl Sijr' av us il
259 yap

Tts KOX XoyoLcrLv rj

OTCLV TTOIOHTI

T£>V OVTCOV

was regarded as a formal duty, and the rules to be observed became a branch of. casuistry: see n. on Cleanth. fr. 93.— Kal Xo'yoKriv. Nauck approves Naber's 1 f. These lines refer to the consolaK&V \6youriv (0. C. 116), a correction tion of friends: cf. Aesch. Prom. 394 anticipated by Wagner ; but the text may dpyijs vaaoiai\% elalv larpoi \6yoi, Eur. well be right: cf. El. 369 cis TO« X6701S [ fr. 1079 OVK iari. \iiri]s aXXo tpdpfianov ivsmiv d/Mpoiv KepSos.—\ij0i]v : cf. Eur. jSporois I us avdpbs 4crf)\ov Kai (pl\ov Or. 213 (5 irbrvta XT}ST; TUV K0.K&V, uis el irapalveais, fr. 1065 X6701 yap i, Tr. fr. adesp. dWriv irpos y' efiov XOTTTJV X(£JST7, £1. 1498 317 \6y

260 p yipav wv dXXa TCO yyjpa OK\4OVS Quforr] (the name d/c/idfeip, Ant. 1353, infr. fr. 664, Antiph. of the play is omitted by S). 'xaiirep.. .Set.' fr. 3 {TGFp. 793), Eur. fr. 619, Phoen. Hyperides (fr. 57 K.) is said to have 529 rin.weipl.a I ?x e ' T ' X<:fcu T&V vtwn attributed to Hesiod the line %pya viwv, troipilrrepov (n.j. Hence the rebuke adjSovXai 6^ p.e"(Tti)v, evxal Se yepdvrwv. But dressed to Creon: O. C. 930 Kai , as if the participle were structutxpwri TWV yepaiT^pu>i> Kparos. Cf. Horn. rally related to the following words rather A 323. Generally, age has a riper intelthan to the preceding clause. Hense ligence and a wider experience: Diog. thinks that something like ofoc arifids icrr' L. 4. 50 (Bion) T-rj /j.ev avbpela veovs bvras av-fjp may have gone before.

OYEZTHI

195

261

261

Hesych.

i p. 97 d/c

Xpovov

yap

oi'xl

{3aibv...aic/}pvKTOs

fie'vei

ayvwarov. d<pavis Si 2o<poK\rjs the meaning is ' without having sent any Cf. Etym. Gild. p . 25, 51 dK-fipvKrov, m e s s a g e (&). T h e gloss have been applied similarly i r j to something

'unknown' fits Eur. Hclid. 89 ov yap aSifj.' dK-qpvKTov r6Se.

In

Track.

hih h d vanished i h d from f h which had human kken.

45

262 dXoya 262 Hesych. I p. 130 01X070 • app-qra. 2o0o/cX?)s GUATTJ. Phot. ed. Reitz. p . 80, i 3 = Bekk. anecd. p . 385, 16 14X070• dpprjTa. 2o0o/cX-^s. There is no other example of 0X0705 in this sense. I n Plat. Theael. 202 B, where

the aroix^a., as 0X070 and dyvacrra, are

contrasted with
pitrds, the translation inarticulate perhaps comes nearest; and throughout that passage Plato twists 0X070S to serve his purpose, but without affording a parallel to Sophocles. Cf. a
263

Whatever be the right restoration of the corrupt text of Hesychius, it seems 'Ipaxy (fr. 293). ot 5t d<pai>r)s (a<pave?scertain that in the Thyestes dXwirds appeared as an adjective with the meaning cod.) Kal (del. Blaydes) Kara TT)V irpbao^/iv (wp6uoi\//tp cod.). Cf. Etym. M. p . 75, 5 'crafty.' There is hardly any reputable authority for the word either as noun or dXui7r6y * dXw7reK"u)5^s Kal iravoupryos. ot adjective, but the accent is recorded by d£ d0eX7?s (1. dtpavT)s) Kara irpdao^tv (so Arcad. p. 67, 23. Cobet (TV. L. p. 170) Valckenaer for Kal dwp67r6s, transferred from its proper Hesych. as dXwTrd" y\ d\d}TT7}^. The alphabetical position, and finally truncunning of the fox was proverbial ever cated. This may have a bearing on fr. since Solon's Vptup 5' eh fJ-ev e/catrros 293- Musurus altered the reference to d\w7rc/cos l\veai fiaivei (fr. 11). SO0OKX^S 9I^0TI; 'Ii/dxy: for M. Schmidt's view see on fr. 419. 263

Hesych. I p. 136 d\aw6s •

dXanreKibSTis, iravovpyos.

2O0OKX?JS QV£GT-Q

SO*OKAEOYI

196

264 264

Phot. ed. Reitz. p.

dvocrrjXevTOv But for 144 9

avoaijkevTov • 2O0OKXI}S Qviar-Q. Presumably the word means'untended' rather than 'not tainted with disease.'

the fluctuating sense of voar/Xeia see Jebb on Phil. 39. For the verb cf. fr. 215.

265 avraipovcrLV 265

• Hesych I pp. 2099 avrepodaiv p

rjs QiQviaTy. aurall dvrtXiyovn. XotpoKXrjs povaai was restored by I. Voss, and its correctness is proved by the alphabetical order in Hesychius. dvralpu, which H. once proposed to read in Aesch. Ag. 543 (J. P. XX 299), does not occur in the extant remains of tragedy and is severely limited in its Attic usage. Still there is no reason to discredit the statement of

Hesychius, although y g I have been unable fid i h di i to find any instance where dvraipw is used of verbal opposition. But Suid. has avralpw. SOTIKTJ ' ^iXovei/rw, and Plut. employs the word metaphorically with considerable freedom: Cat. ma. 3 XKIJTTIUII'I irpbs TTJV iafilov Sivap.iv dvraLpovri, Pyrrh. 15 TbXjiri Kal pii/xri rijs ^vxijs dvralpavra irpbs rty dwoplav, aud. poet. 9 p. 28 D avralpziv T-Q T&X.V-

266 2 6 6 Hesych. I p. 231 dircipocos • dwetpdrovs. ^otpoKXrjs Bu^ffrT/. Ellendt strangely remarks that Hesychius 'haud dubie dvepdvTom intellexit,' and refers to fr. 526. But dirtiparos

regularly means 'inexperienced,' and dirtipwv is so used in O. T. 1088 oO TOV "OXUJUTTOC dwelpwv, u KtBaiptiv, oiiK toy are.

267 267

Hesych. I p. 246 dirdffea- a0ea,

£KTOS ffeuv. 2,otpoK\ijs Qviar-Q.

diroSta, godless deeds, was a synonym

for &dea. Cf. dirdvBpuiros, = inhuman, it. 1020, and Hesych. dir68pii-' av-qfios. adpi.%. See also on fr. 558.

268 2 6 8 Hesych. I p. 312 dre\ij' dddimva, OI)K lx<"/Ta TeXttTficiTa. Xo(f>OK\ijs QvitjTr).

Cf. Pausan. (fr. 305 Schw.) ap. Eustath. //. p. 881, 26 ( = Bekk. anecd. p. 458, 26) dreXij TO dSdwava, uis Kal TroXvTeXij ra iroXuSdirava. Suid. s. v. d.T4\T]s thus becomes the equivalent of evreX^s, by which a schol. on Phil. 842 wrongly interprets it. Cf. Amphis (fr. 29, II 244 K.) Seinvov yap dreXh oti iroiei

irapoivlav (Plut. Num. 15 deiwvov c^reXes trdvv). It should be added that evreX^s and dreX^s are sometimes confused (so Keiske restored eirreXws in Plut. ?nor. 472F), and the earlier editors of Athenaeus (421 A) gave ebreXts in the text of Amphis on inferior authority. Headlam (/. P. xxxi 9) remarked that Horace was rendering dreXris in his i mm tints aram si tetigit manus (Carm. 3. 23. 17).

0YEITHS—IBHPEZ—INAXOI

197

269 2 6 9 Antia/t. (Bekk. anecd.) p. 94, 8 tvriXKu • avri TOO ii/TiWo/j.a.1. 2OOK\J}S e Arr " tfThe active only occurs elsewhere in

Pind. XP^OS' active anixav

01. 7. 40 \i£KKov hreiXev <£iAc({0060.1. Sophocles also employs the rare forms nr/xavav (At. 1037) and (ibid. 1129).

IBHPES This title is known from an inscription published by Kaibel in Herm. XXIII 283 (from the papers of Ph. Bonnarot), which records the performance at Rhodes in the third or fourth century B.C. of four Sophoclean plays...ea Soc^o/eXeoi/s ical '0<Wa\ "Ifirjpas KOX aaTvpiKov Trf\e<(f)ov>. The fact of the performance

at that place and time is an important record : see Introduction, § 3. The legend of Geryon is the only subject suggested by the title Iberians, but seems more suitable to a satyr-play than a tragedy. For the Geryones of Nicomachus see TGF, p. 762. The Caucasian Iberia, where Heracles overcame Glaucus, the Old Man of the Sea (schol. Ap. Rhod. 2. 767), is still less likely.

INAXOI The story of Io was contained in two epics attributed to Hesiod, the Aegimius and KaraXoyoi, but the information relatthat it is impossible to reconstruct ing to them is so scanty either version in detail1. The other literary evidence anterior to Sophocles consists of the incidents recorded in the Supplices and Prometheus of Aeschylus, to which there is now to be added the dithyramb of Bacchylides (18). In Apollod. 2. 5ff.we find a version of the story which differs in several respects from Aeschylus, and appears to be founded on Hesiod. Thus we learn that Hesiod made Io the daughter of Peiren,—not of Inachus, as many tragic writers had done. Further, whereas in Aeschylus (Suppl. 303) Hera transformed Io into a cow to thwart the passion of Zeus, according to Hesiod Zeus, after his intrigue was detected, himself effected the change, and Hera, having asked for the cow as a present, set Argus to watch over it. He accordingly tethered Io to an olive-tree in the akaos at Mycenae. There was also a difference of tradition in the 1 See the authorities referred to by Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. 11309, and in Bursians Jahresb. cxxxvn 526—531.

198

I04>0KAE0YZ

accounts given of the death of Argus. In the Prometheus (707) Aeschylus speaks vaguely of his sudden and unexpected end, and in the Supplices (309) merely states that he was killed by Hermes. According to Apollodorus (2. 7), who appears to be following Hesiod (fr. 189 Rz.), Hermes was bidden by Zeus to steal the cow, and, failing to elude Argus, killed him with a stone. But Ovid's account {Met. 1 668 ff.) is different: Hermes disguised himself as a shepherd, excited the curiosity of Argus by playing on the pipe, and, when he had eventually succeeded in lulling him to sleep, slew him with the apirt). The antiquity of the latter version is proved by Bacchylides (18. 29—36), who, in refusing to pronounce definitely on the manner of Argus's death, mentions, as an alternative, that he may have been 'lulled to rest by the sweet melody of the Pierian sisters' (see Jebb in loc). The inference that the Inachus was a satyr-play was first drawn by Hemsterhuis1, and the general tone of the fragments has convinced the majority of subsequent critics that he was right, although Bergk8 and Wilamowitz3 were of a different opinion. The latter considered that the play was technically a tragedy in spite of its jovial character, and compared it to the Alcestis of Euripides. I doubt if the analogy will hold.The comic element in the Alcestis is slight enough; yet the ancient critics thought it aarvpiicaiTepov, and the general opinion is summarized by Demetr. de eloc. 169 TpayaBia Be y^dpiTai /nev irapaXafiftdvei iv 7roXAow, 0 Se yeXcos i^dpof rpayaBiaf' ovBe yap eTrivor/aeiev dv TI? TpaywBiav irai^ovaav, eVei adrvpov ypd^jret, dvrl Tpay<; ipacnaL But the more famous the play the less need was there to cite it with a title distinctive of its character; and it is common ground that the Inachus was much more popular than any of the plays of Sophocles which are definitely known as satyric4. It should be added that the death of Argus is a 1

2 On Ar. Pint. p. 248. Griech. Literaturgesch. Ill p. 441. Einleitung in d. gr. Trag. p. 8853. Decharme (Rev. des Et. gr. x n 298), arguing rightly that a chorus of satyrs was indispensable in a satyr-play, thinks that the Inachus perhaps did not belong to this category. 4 I do not feel the force of the argument that frs. 270—1 are unsuitable to a satyr-chorus. Consider, on the other hand, the cumulative force of frs. 272, 277, 279, 284, 285, 288, 291, 295. 3

INAXOI

199

favourite subject in vase-paintings, and on one of these Hermes is represented as trying to kill Argus, who is asleep on the ground, but as being held back by satyrs1. Even if this does not refer directly to the Inachus, it is sufficient to show that the subject was suitable for satyric treatment. Something may be gathered from the fragments themselves as to the scope of the play. Inachus, the river-god, was the father of Io (frs. 270, 271, 284); but there is nothing to show what part he took in the action. It may be assumed that the scene of the play was the flowery vale of Argos, rich with pasture, where Io ranged before her wanderings began: cf. El. 5 TT;? ol(TTpoTr\fj
tion of the Argive plain {iroKvhl-^nov: see generally Frazer Pausan. Ill p. 96) might well excite surprise; but Headlam has pointed out that it refers to the particular circumstances of the legend, by quoting Severus in Walz, Rhet. Gr. I p. 537 TLfiaxra ij
It

is perhaps not altogether fanciful to connect the allusion of the rhetorician with the account given in the Inachus of the blessings bestowed on the inhabitants of Argos when Zeus came to visit 10 (frs. 273, 275, 277, 286). To Inachus in particular, as the source of nourishment for all the dwellers on his banks (Aesch. fr. 168, Tucker on Aesch. Cho. 6), the increase of fertility brought enlarged honours. Hermes and Iris appeared as the agents of Zeus and Hera (fr. 272),—themselves too august personages for stage representation. The transformation of Io2 took place during the course of the action (fr. 279), but whether as a direct result of Hera's interference must be left doubtful. Wilamowitz argues from frs. 278, 284, and 286 that Hera effected a counter-stroke by reducing the land to poverty as a punishment for the complicity of its inhabitants.in the wrong done to her. Argus was introduced blowing the shepherd's pipe (fr. 281); and this reference, taken in conjunction with Aesch. Prom.z,g6 and the allusion in Bacchylides to the fatal issue of his musical tastes, favours the inference that his death was brought about somewhat in the manner related by Ovid. The play probably closed with the departure of Io on her wanderings. Wilamowitz assigns the play to the end of the Archidamian war, presumably on the strength of schol. Ar. Av. 1203. 1 Described by O. Jahn in Berichte d. sacks. Gesettsch. d. Wissensch. 1847, p. 296. See Haigh, Tragic Drama, p. 392. 2 The fragments do not show whether she was completely transformed; but, if she appeared afterwards, it must have been as flotiKeptiis 7rdp8evos (Engelmann in Roscher

11 271).

ZO*OKAEOYZ

2OO

270 varop, iral TOV pj p 'Cliceavov, /i,eya Trpecrf3eva>v Apyovs re yvais "Hpas re Trayois l Tvpcnqvo'to-L neXacryots 27O. 1 varo/) Meineke: yevv&Top A, Rhod.: TvppT)vois codd. Dion. Hal.

vaTop B

2 7 O These lines are adduced by Dionys. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1. 25 2o0o/cX«

race, with pride, as sprung from the ancient stock of the Pelasgi. Cp. Thuc. 4. 109, who traces a Pelasgic element in the Athos peninsula, descended from T&V

5' &* 'IpcfcxV dp&fidTL avdiraurTov VT6 TOV Xopov Xeyi/j.evov 7reir<Mi)7-cu wSe ' " I r a ^ e . . .

4 Tvpo-r)i>oi
neXcwyois' in support of the proposition that the name of Tyrrhenia was in former times distributed over different parts of Greece. V. 4 is quoted by schol. Ap.

OIKT)O-6.VTUV. In the fifth century the view prevailed that the Tvpo-qvoi and Pelasgi were identical. [In Hdt. 1. 57 TOIO-I VVV

R h o d . 1. 580 OTL 5£ Kal avTol ol 'ApyeioL 4Ka\o0i>TO HeXavyol 2o0<wcXi;s if 'Ivaxy
2 I l \ Gy t p ' pF ) Q K p irb\iv oiKedvTojv, Kp6rw^a, i.e. Cortona— with KpoTtoniiJTai. for Kpqo-TCiiviiJTai below

1 f. "Iva\€: for the course of the river Inachus see on fr. 271.—vdTop: in support of his correction Meineke (on Callimachus, p. 250) quotes Hesych. HI p. 137 vaiTup' pioiv, iroktippovs, and p. 141 VaTTap^OV

TTo\vppOVV {i.e.

P&TOjp' p£o)l>,

woXvppovs). Empedocles fr. 6 introduces NT/OTIS as the representative of Water in his list of the four elements. Cf. vq. fr. 5.—TOV Kpi]ve3v irarpos. Cf. Horn. * 196 'fitfeapoio, £% ovirep irdvTes iroTa.fj.oi Kal Tra.no. daKaaaa \ Kal iraffat. Kpijvat...

vdovaiv. Ar. Nub. 271. The rationalizing version is given by Apollod. 2. 1 'iiKeavov Kal lyjdtios ytveTat wats "Ipa^os, a<j> ov TroTafios iv "Apyet "Ivaxos x a \ « -

TOLL.—irpeo-pevuv (At. 1389), followed by Homeric (perhaps locative) dative (Monro, H. G.% 14.S, 7)3 "Upas T€ irctYOis : 'alluding to the Argive Heraeum, which stood on a rocky eminence under Mt Euboea, one of the heights which bound the Argive plain on the E. (El. 8 n.)' J. But, as Hera was the patron goddess of all Argos (Eur. Hclid. 349, Phoen. 1365 etc.), it is perhaps unnecessary so to restrict the plural irdyois. Poseidon sent a drought, being angry with Inachus, Sibn TTJV x&pav "Upas efiapTvpT]O~ev elvai (Apollod. 2. 13).

See also Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. 1829. 4 Tupcrtivoio-i rTeXao-yois. J writes : ' As we know from Dionysius, it is the Chorus who speak. They would be Argives, and here speak of their own

Kal

ATJIMVOV woTe Kal 'AB^vas 'ivpo-qvGiv

—should perhaps be substituted: see Stein.] Hellanicus (fr. 1, FHG I 45) says that the Pelasgi acquired the name of Tvpo'Tjvoi after their arrival in Italy. The Etruscans were believed to have come originally from Lydia (Hdt. 1. 94). Herodotus (8. 73) regards the people of Cynuria in the S. of Argolis as having been originally Pelasgic. So the inhabitants of Achaia, he says, were originally called Pelasgi, and acquired the name of Ionians only after they left it. In Arcadia the first king was Pelasgus (Pausan. 8. 1. 4).' The evidence which connects the Pelasgian name with Argos is particularly strong, and is difficult to account for as due merely to a mistaken interpretation of Homer's neXao-yi/cot"Apyos (B 681) : see nn. on Eur. Hclid. 316, Phoen. 107. Aeschylus in the Danaides (fr. 46) traces the Pelasgians to the neighbourhood of Mycenae, and in the Supplices (257 ff.) Pelasgus is the king of Argos after whom the inhabitants are named Pelasgi. See Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece, pp. 90, 94. It is impossible within the limits, of a note to summarize recent speculation concerning the Pelasgians and Tyrrhenians, and the relations of both to the Etruscans. Those who identify Pelasgi and Tyrseni explain the latter name as a descriptive epithet referring to the towers with which they protected their settlements (Murray, Rise of Greek Epic, p. 41). Ridgeway,

INAXOI on the other hand, regards Tyrrhenian Pelasgians as those Pelasgians who having lived with the Tyrrhenians (Etruscans) had been more or less influenced by them (& c. p. 146). Skutsch (in PaulyWissowa vi 730ff.) considers the identity of the Tyrseni and Etrusci to be established beyond dispute, and that the latter reached Italy from the East by sea; but he also denies that they have any connexion with the Pelasgians, holding that they were a non-Greek seafaring folk, who occupied settlements on the islands and the coasts of the mainland. See also Holm, Greek Hutory, Eng. tr. I p. 60 f.,

201

who accepts the view that the importance of the Pelasgians has been much exaggerated, and that their influence was confined to Epirus and Thessaly. J. L. Myres in JHS XXVII 215 traces the application of the name Pelasgian to Peloponnesian Argos to a misinterpretation of the U.e\a
271 pti yap an' p HCvSov AaKfjLOV T anb Heppaoficov eis 'A/x^iXd^ou? Kal ' 2 7 1 Strabo 271, after speaking of the legend which identified the Syracusan Arethusa with the Alpheus, continues:

of Argos, and then, near the NE. border of Acarnania, it flows into the Achelous, which, rising, like the Inachus, in rd ye TrpoeiprjfjL^va abivara Kal T<$ Trepi rod Lacmon, divides Acarnania on the W. t 'Iv&xov [/.tiffin •jrapair'Kritna ' pet. ..Xlivdov ' from Aetolia on the E., and flows into 4»]ov' the sea at the S W. extremity of Acarnania, Kal iiirofias ' £vdev...AvpKeiov.' fiekriwv near Oeniadae. [For Achelous, see on 8' 'E/caraios (fr. 72, FHG I 5), 6's <pr\GL rbv Tr. 9.] 4v rots 'Af/.(pikoxois "Iva^ov EK TOU Aa.Kfij.ov (2) The Argive Inachus rises in the peovra, e£ od Kal 6 At'as pet", €T€pov elvat. highlands between Argolis and Arcadia, rod 'ApyoXtKOv. one part of which was called Artemision, and another Lyrceion. It flows through T. writes: *The river Inachus in the district belonging to the town of Epeirus is here fabled to be identical with Lyrceia (about seven miles NW. of Argos), the Inachus of Argolis, being connected with it by a submarine (and subterranean) which is fittingly named in the text, as being the first place of note in Argolis channel. (1) The Epeirot Inachus rises traversed by the river.' '"from the (northern) extremity of Pindus, and Lacmos." Mt Lacmos, or Lacmon, 2 d7ro does not suffer anastrophe the great watershed of northern Greece, (Chandler, § 916). —Ileppaipwv is partitive is in the NE. of Epeirus. It is a link genitive after AaKfwv: 'and from Lacmos between the Cambynian mountains on in the Perrhaebi.' In prose the article the E., and Pindits on the S. "Lacmon," would be required with IleppaifSCiv: probably = "rifted," being akin to XCLKKOS, Kuehner-Gerth I 338. " a hollow," and \axls, " a rent" (Tozer, 3 'A|i<j>i.A.oxous. The name is traced p. 52), referring to the deep valleys which to Amphilochus, son of Amphiaraus and cleave the range. brother of Alcmaeon. Thucydides (2. 68) The Inachus rises in Lacmon ; and its refers the foundation of this Western Argos to Amphilochus after his return valley runs south, roughly parallel with from Troy ; but Ephorus (-F//G I 240) Pindus. It flows through the highland said that it was founded by Alcmaeon country of the Perrhaebi—an Epeirot branch of the tribe who gave the name of after the expedition of the Epigoni, and named after his brother, and that the Perrhaebia to a district of Hestiaeotis in N. Thessaly. It skirts the territory of river which flows through the country into the Ambracian gulf was called the Amphilochian Argos, at the E. end Inachus at the same time (Strabo 325). of the Ambracian Gulf, sending out branches, on one of which stood the town This is the branch mentioned above.

ZO*OKAEOYI

2O2

8' vSacriv rots evdev es "Apyos Sia /cCjaa •>7/cei Srjjxov TOV AvpKeiov. 6 Avpnetov Tyrwhitt: AvpuLov codd. et

271. 5 «/ftW «s ( iiiropds, made the quotation from Soph, continuous, but iwoflds clearly belongs to Strabo. 5 8id KV(ia T£|itov: for the tmesis see on fr. 799, 6. 6 AvpKcCov. The hero's name was Lyrcus, and he is described either as a son of Abas (Pausan. 2. 25. 5), or of

Lynceus (Hesych. s.v. Avptclov Sij/iov). There is another Lyrcus also connected with Argos, and mentioned in Parthen. 1, where he is called son of Phoroneus. Pausanias I.e. calls the place Lyrceia, and says that it was deserted as early as the time of the Trojan expedition ; hence J. would prefer the adjective Aipxetov here. But the name Aipxetov is supported by Hesychius and Strabo (376), both of whom state that the township and the mountain were called by the same name. No doubt AipKeiov was strictly the name of the mountain, and the site of the village having no separate name was known as STHIOS AvpKeLov or 7) Avpneia.— J. quotes Aesch. fr. 196 feis 8i)/j,av S & v . . .

TafiLovs.

272 yvvfj TI? 7]8e criAipas 'Ap/caSo? Kvurj 272

trvXipias (
(1) KVKXds may be substantival with the sense of'brim' (so Toup): ' there's a round Arcadian hat.' (2) KVKXds may be an adjective, = ' encompassed' or ' covered.' Neither supposition is quite satisfactory. Nauck printsyvv^} TI$ij'Se yv/ivds; 'ApK&dos Kvvrj from his own conjecture, which I do not understand; but there is something to be said for his remark that 'ApxdSos 'Apicadiicbs TrtXos. 2O0OK\?5S 'Iv&xcp, as Kvvrj ought rather to be 'Apuas ri KVVT\. restored by Scaliger for ipKaaxivTi' F. W. Schmidt proposed yvv^ TU ijd'; apKaSims invbs from Eustath. //. p. 302, o&x EXXds; or yvvrj TIS $8' O6X 'EXXds; 27 iv TOIS Ilavaaviov (fr. 72 Schwabe) against the evidence of the scholiast. R. (piperat. 6TL 'Apxas Kvvrj eXiyerb TLS TJTOL Ellis conjectured yvvri rls; rj KvXXrjvU etv s 'ApKadiKos TrtXos, 5td rb ^x ^ eUbs 'Ap/cdSos Kvvij; KVXXTJVU is an attractive TI 8cd<popov 7T/3OS T& bfioeidij. Hence suggestion, but no reading will be satisSoping corrected Hesych. I p. 270 factory which does not put 'A/was (or &po.<ji)vy\' irfeXos t o 'Ap/cas Kvvfi' TTTXOS. 'ApKaSos) in agreement with KVV?I (or Kvvijs). That is demanded by the gloss It is to be feared that this cryptic of Hesychius, and is an essential condition utterance cannot be restored in the of the problem. Blaydes conj. oT^apos present state of the evidence. Brunck and Dindorf accept Toup's KvitXas' ApK&Sos 'Ap/caSos Kvvijs. Further, it may be inKvvijs, which may be taken in two ways : ferred from Ar. Av. 1205 bvoim Si
Schol. Ar. Av.

1203 KVVTJ Sk on

irepLKetpa\aiav rbv iriracov cos 6 &yye\os Civ irapk 2o0o/c\ei iv 'Iv&xy ivi TTJS "IptSos (so R as reported by Rutherford, but other edd. attribute the addition of iirL to Aldus)' 'ywr/... Kvvrj,' (R is illegible after 'ApK&dos.) It is evident that this is the passage referred to by Hesych. I p. 282 'Apuas KVVT) •

INAXOS

203

i<jTi; TT\O7OV ij tcvvrj; and from the interhe goes farther, and supposes that "IpiSos pretation of the scholiast that both in was an error for 'IoOs, and that Hermes Sophocles and in Aristophanes Iris apalluded to the horns growing from Io's head : so he would introduce o-eXyvq or peared on the stage in a broad-brimmed aeXyvls, but failed to fit it to the verse. hat, similar to that worn by Ismene in 0. C. 313 Kparl 5' ij\io ad; XTJPLS 'Apxds 7} head-gear, a travelling hat for a journey, KVVT); 'who are you? An Arcadian would be appropriate to Iris in her Bacchante or a sun h a t ? ' He held that yvpjj Tts r/Se belonged to a separate line, capacity of messenger, being a variety of and that the note originally referred to the iriraaos which was worn by Hermes : vv. 1199-1203. For \rjvis he quotes see Guhl and Koner, p. 171. If we might assume that yvv-f) was no part of Suid. \t}vis, \-qvlSos. i) fidicxy irapa TOV \-r\vbv. Hesych. Ill p . 35 \rival- §aK%
273 eTretcroSos 273

TJ<5' Porson: 5' codd.

mained (Ar. fr. 488,1 51 7 K. /cat /j.i]v irbdev 2 7 3 Schol. Ar. Plut. 727 TOV ILXOVTOV HXotjTiova elire watfav' i) 6TL KOX H\ovTWva avrov inrOKopLffTiK&s iK&Xefrev (Nauck conj. ZXaxev). Whether the transference was made in view of the wealth stored beneath (K6.\OVV, but the scholiastic f/ on is simply the earth (Cic. n.d. 2. 66 terrena autem attached to UXovrava, and the subject to vis omnis atque natura Diti patri dedicata indXeirev is the speaker), us 2O0OKA^S est, qul Dives, tit apud Graecos UXOUTUV, 'Iydxy 'Il\otjT(t)j/o$ 5'eVeiVoSos''/cat TTOXLV quia et recidunt omnia in terras et oriuntur 'TOI6P5\.."xApiv ' (fr. 283). e terris. Plat. I.e. TO 5e IIXOI)TCUI'O?, TOUTO Pluton is here introduced simply as the fitv /card TT]V TOV UXOUTOU Sbatv, 6TL 4K TTJS bestower of wealth (a by-form of IIXOOTOS) , yrjs K&Tiodev avleTat 6 ITXoOros, eiruvo/Aaadi]. and the allusion is to the coming of Zeus. Lucian Tim. 21, where Plutus is speaking: For the form see (Jsener, Gotternamen, 6 UXOUTWV d7roo"r^XXet fxc Trap avrous, dre p. 16, who compares Tidy: Zeus and Tr\ovToddTT]S Kai /J.€ya\b5wpos Kai avTos oiv notretSuw : IloriSds. Zeus is thus the giver 8TJXOI youv Kai TOJ cj^o/xart), or whether it of wealth : cf. Suid. s.v. Zei>s K7-ijcrtos' Sc Kai lv TOIS Ta/j.Leiois IBpvovro tis TrXovrodo- was ironically applied to the god who, notwithstanding the extent of his power TTjc. Pluton is to be regarded rather as (Cornut. s /cat UXOVTUV Se iKX-qd-q &d rb the attendant minister of Zeus, than as a iravTOjv ' the place of the (poftoOftevoL TO 8vofj.a [sc. f'At5?;s] LlXovTbiva. majority,' is improbable. But Plutus KoXovmv airbv), and comparatively late and Pluton soon became completely (no earlier instance than Ant. 11.00 is differentiated, and the name Pluton as quoted); and even when so applied the the wealth-giver failed to survive as an consciousness of its real signification re-

Z04>0KAE0YS

204

that in the Attic mines men work so zealously, us avTrpoaSoKuvrtov abrbv &vd£eiv rbv TLXoirtiiva—to bring the 831 ot xP ^PP I oUovaiv d/jupl vau.a HXOIJTOIVOS irbpov. It is in relation to the wealth-god himself to the surface. gold-mines of Spain that Strabo 147 quotes H. quotes from the lines on the eipenu&vr) a remarkable passage of Posidonius: oi attributed toHomer (v. 3) airal dvaic\lve
VTOV

ifKovala /xbvov d \ \ a /cat bir6ir\ovTos ijv, $\ ) XP p j rbv VTOX96VIOV

T6TTOV OVX 0 "AiSijs dXV

0

HXotjrav KaToiKel. And he goes on to say

Btipaf TTXOVTOS yap i-{Tet
Blaydes would prefer 17S' £GT efaodos, comparing fr, 275.

274 2 7 4 Pollux 9. 50 pipy Si iro\ews /cal i r a v d o K e i o v i t a i %ei>6iv

KO.1 < i s i v ' I d

is noteworthy.

Cf. Aesch. Cko. 657 wpa

b" ifiir6povs iieBUvai \ dyxvpav iv 86fuu
2

These words are simply the tragic peri- ras ebgivovs difxuv. In O. C. 1 phrasis for an inn, and the anachronism = shelter.

275 \jov Atos eicrekOovTos irdvra fj-ecrra dyadcov £yiveTo.~\ 2 7 5 Schol. Ar. Plut. 807 <ji-w\rr\ T\ Prom. 7, comparing Horn. I 212), as when two longer passages are compared dpTod^Kif ravra 5e irapd TO. (wpbs TIJ [T4]V) iv 'Ivdxv "SotpoicXtovs, ore (6'rt V) rod Aids (schol. Soph. El. 95, comparing Horn. \4o8ff.). Here there is a comparison of elTos irdvra /teffra aYaSfii' iyfaero.

Ar. Plut. 806 f. are as follows : r\ /xkv the whole description in the two plays (cf. fr. 273) ; but we need not infer that (niriirj ficffrr/ 'an \evKSm dXiplrwv, | oi 5' Aristophanes was closely imitating or dfx(popr\s OLVOV fj.^\avos dvBoa^lov. parodying the language of Sophocles. The word irapd is used in scholia much Blaydes conj. IWoirov for Aios referring in the same way as a modern commentator to fr. 273, but Pluton was introduced in would say 'compare (confer).' Thus it is the course of the description of the wealth employed as well when it is desired to which followed the coming of Zeus. illustrate a single phrase (schol. Aesch.

276 (TLpOL 2 7 6 Schol. Demosth. p. 182, 17 (on

the island of Ceos : see also Sandys on

8. 45) cripo?s] TO Kardysia, QebiroiJ.Tros Kal Dem. I.e. Ammonius ap. Etym. AI. SO^OKXTJS iv 'IvdxQ ' (Ttpol Kpidaiv.' p. 714, 20 testifies that the 1 was short in

cripol, underground pits used for the storage of grain and fodder (opiiyixara, iv 61s Kareridero ra
Hence Spanish silo (through Lat. sirus) and our ensilage. Bent, Cyclades, p. 454 f. refers to the practice as still prevailing in

Attic ; and his statement is confirmed by Eur. fr. 827 Kal II.T)V dvoi^ai /xiv enpobs otic •ilii-ov, and by Anaxandrides fr. 40, 27 (II 152 K.) ictpxvuv re x^ r P t " / . I (3o\j3wy re vipbv SaSeKdmixvv, | Kal vovKvwdioiv eKa6

INAXOI

205

277 8' 'Apo8icria eVe/crvTrei Sd 277. 2 iraurlv iireKiirTci codd.: corr. Heath (irdaiv) et Nauck 1 , twiKTViret Meineke 2 7 7 Athen. 668 B r&v epxfxivo

^f

contrasted with white ; still less could the word signify a light-coloured (yellow) Koo~o~af3ovs. 5tb Kai 2o0o/c\?)s £v 'lvaxt? wine, in comparison with a darker shade. ' ArppoSuriav ei'/K/Ke TTI\V \draya' '£av$Ti... That i;aii86s in certain respects answers to 56/AOts.' our use of red may be deduced not only from Antipater of Sidon's £av6bv ipeiiderat The chief authorities for the game (A.P. 12. 97) of a handsome boy, but cottabus are Athen. 665 E—668 F, schol. Lucian Lexiph. 3, schol. Ar. Pac. 343 also from its application to horses, lions, (=Suidas s.v. KOTTafH^ew), schol. Ar. and oxen, and especially to fire (this is the point of Pindar fr. 122 a'fre rds xXwpas Pac. 1242, 1244. From these it appears ^avdd daKpva j Bv/juare, and fr. that the members of the avixirbatov were Xiftdvov 79 b aWofiiva di Sas into OiavdaXai ireti/ccus). accustomed to regard the game as a loveWhen Simonides applies it to honey oracle, and that the successful player, whether his success was measured by the (fr. 47), he is thinking rather of the brightness than of the actual colour of clearness of the sound proceeding from the liquid.—sireKTvirei: see cr. n. H . the splash of the falling wine itself, or from the clatter of the TrXatrnyZ descend- points out that a similar error o-vvKiwrut. ing upon the head of the fidvqs (fr. 537), for KTiwif occurs in Aesch. Cho. 23. by the retention of all the wine in the Meineke inferred that the passage TrKiusny^, or by the sinking of the largest formed part of a description of general number of d|ii/Sa0a, was secure in the festivity, and of the joys consequent upon affections of his ipuifiei/i}. Hence the a state of peace. His reading iirxT\nril epithet ' AtppoSurla.—XaTa£ is obviously was intended to balance §pidu in fr. 286, used of the drops of wine thrown by the which he believed to belong to the same players, not, as L. and S. appear to imply, context. He well points out that the of the game itself. Athenaeus cites in converse case—the abandonment of the the same connexion Eur. fr. 631 TTOXUS Se festive sport on an outbreak of war—is Koaaafltav dpay/xbs | KtiirpiSos irpoo-yBbv described in a fragment of Hermippus dx«| p-t\os f" 80/j.oio-iv, andCallim. fr. 102 (fr. 47, I 237 K.) : pafidov 5* 6'^ei TTJV KOTra-

VT)VTO, dcpiivres fir' avrols TOVS Xeyo.utvovs

TroXXot Kai faX^ovres 'AK6VTIOV T]KO.V l-pafe \ otvoirdrai. SixeXds £K KVXLKWV Xarayas.—

£av8ij describes the red glow of the wine, as it sparkles in the light. But the poet was not thinking of red wine, as

fiiKTjV j ev rots dxtipoi.o'i. KvXivdofifrtjv, | fj.dvy]S 5' ovdev Xardyuv diet /ere.—For the

metre of the first line see At. 399, O.C. 210.

278 evSau[jiove<; ol TOTC yeWas

d(f>0LTov 278

[ # ]

2 (Wot; del. Herwerden 278. 1 yivvas Bergk: ytveas codd T9}S eTT> I Kpovov fa daLfAoveardSchol. V Ar. Pac. 531 2o0o-

KX4OVS (LteXwc] OTL i]dta rd fx^Xt) Xo<po/cXcous' irepUpyois Sk Tivis els rd (V T<£ 'Iv&xy Trepi rod dpxaiov jUlov Kai rfjs ci)5aifiovla's- ' eiSai^oves...6elov.' T h e first line

is also quoted by Philodem. depict, p. 51G

<^TT}S o1jo~>ris, OJS eypai^odos Kai 6 T-qv <'AXK)L>eavlda 7roi} 2otpoKXrjs <ev5al)j.o >ves ol rire < y i v v a s > e'urtbv.

The allusion is to a belief in a Golden

2O6 ing that an ithyphallic occurs after an enhoplius, except at the conclusion of a system, he was in error, as appears from O.T. 196f., where the scansion is: — ' Cratin. IIXODTOI fr. 165 (1. 64 K.) ols 3^ — A ~ ~ - i . i f _ ~ _ - — . See Nauck jSaffiXeiir Kpbvoi yv TO irakaibv, \ fire TOIS Aprois 7i KTL, whence Vergil'sin Jahrb. f. Philol. cv 803 ff. The rhythm of Track. 960 f. is similar, but redeunt Saturnia regna. The chief those lines form the close of a strophe. literary authority for the fable was Hes. Tucker (C.R. XVIII 245) suggested a6CT0v does not imply immortality, but causal genitive with evSalfwes. This is freedom from pain and decay : ot ixkv tni Kpbvov riaav, 6V' oipavi} 4/j.j3a
279

us xe\a>vr)<; /cej 279

rpaxvs $ codd.: corr. Elmsley

2 7 9 Erotian. gloss. Hippocr. p. 81, 16

same suggestion (/.P. XXXI 9), quotes examples of «s from schol. Aesch. Eum. 159, Theb. 820.] K«'pxvos is any kind of hard excrescence rising from a smooth surface. Phot. s.v. explains Tpax^ TI kv TOIS ivuTlois (' qu. For xe\aivT]S M. Schmidt conjectured /terwTrois' H.). See Hesych. II p. 470 Koptbvqs, and Wecklein XCXI/CTJS ; and Her- s.vv. K.epxvCma.1 and Ktyxvu/ia: for dcrirlSuv werden recast the line as rpaxte Se cpwvr/s Kepxviifiaaiv in Eur. Pkoeti. 1386 see note Kipx>">s iiavUrai. Mekler understands : in loc. So Kepx"ioT& (Hesych.) are cups 4 a harsh croaking resounds from the lyre.' with embossed lips, cymbia...aspera signis For this sense of nipx"Oi cf. fr. 314, 128. (Verg. Aen. 5. 267), inaequales berullo But the text aptly describes the growth phialas (Juv. 5. 38). Add Hesych. n of the cow's horns on the maiden's p. 469 Kipxava fj Kepx&vea • dorta, Kal plfai. brow, and the suspicion directed against OSOVTUV ('stumps'). The horns of Io are XfXwi'ijs appears to be unwarranted. Cf. always a prominent feature in the legend : Philostr. vit. Apoll. 1. 19. The genitive Aesch. Prom. 613 ras /3oikepw vapBivov, is descriptive—rough as a tortoise : cf. Prop. 1. 3. 20 ignotis cornibus Inachidos, Ant. 114 XevKijs x^vos ifripvyi areyavbs, Ov. Met. 1. 652. R. Ellis (Hermatk. ix where the schol. is : Xeiiret 5e TO WS tV' 7} 153) also defends x^&vvs, which he ws x'°'' os - This explains the origin of understands as a reference to the roughness the MS reading : <£ was actually ws, an of the tortoise's corrugated and puckered explanatory adscript, and clis is itself found skin. But the cow's hide would not have as a correction in cod. D (Paris. 2177). been described as ictpxvos, and xeXuwijs For the confusion of and ws cf. e.g. must have suggested the shell rather than Pollux 2. 172. [Headlam, making the the skin of the tortoise : cf. Ar. Vesp. 1292. irapa TOIS *ATTIKOIS Kepxv&dv dyyeta \eyerai T& rpaxelas drw^aXias £xovrai "S ™i 2o<poK\ijs uepi TTJS 6.TroTavpovfj.4pi]5 (ptjalf 'lovs (so Elmsley for ixBvs) 'rpaxtis... e^avlcrTdTai.'

INAXOS

207

280 sou 2 8 O Antiatt. (Bekk. anecd.) p. 84, 18 /3ou- dvrl TO\> JSOOS. Socpo/cXiJs ' I ^ d ^ u . Choerob. ;'« Theod. p . 237, 8 [ = 134, 36 Hilgard] eitpidii rod /3o0s ^ 7ept«:7; 01) fj.bvov /3o6s, dXXci /cal TOO /3O5 Trapa 2o0o(fXci c-j< ' I r a x v /cai irapa T<$ AUrxfihtf (fr. 421). T h e same extract occurs in Herodian II 7°4. 39-

Pou is formed directly on the analogy of vov, for fiovs and cous (from J»6OS) were pronounced with the same vowel sound («) in the fifth century. See Brugmann, Gr. Gramm.3 p. 52 ; G. Meyer, Gr. Gramm? § 322; Lobeck, Paralip. P- 173-

28l 2 8 1 Schol. A r . Eccl. 80 TOC iraj>6?rToii]

appeared to attend Io in the Inackus. In Aesch. Prom. 596 Io fancies she still hears b'vTos avTov {sc. rod Aa/xiov) 5ecr/io0t5Xa/cos' the pipe of Argus : virb 8i KTipdirXaaro; £ TOVTOV C7Tt TOr Tape!. 0T0/3e? 56va% | d^fTas virvoSdrav v6fjiov, a n d the schol. r e m a r k s : 2O0OKXT)S ee 'Ivdxw ^v ' I v a x v "Apyov. T h e lines of Aristophanes are : P77 TOP Aia rbv crwTTJp ^Trt- KO.1 pSoPTa airbv eia&yti' dirthv Si airbv 'fiovTav' {v. 590) ivt^eive rrj TpoirTJ' avXouac T^Seioyy di'^i' | TT)V TOV iravdirrou 5i
€K

CuVfTTeTCU (iC; dlS

Koipra

282 , axnrep 77 yvwros ai^ yivoir

2 8 2 Stob. flor. 46. 13 (iv p. 199, 6 Hense) So0o/cXeous kv ' I c d ^ y ' ewpvecr'... dv^p.' The extract is given by S, but omitted by MA. The second line is quoted by Apostol. 6. 88a without the author's name. We cannot discover the form in which the proverb was current, but its general character is reflected by such passages as Aesch. Cho. 261 dirb iTfjUKpou 5 ' b.v dpeias fiAyav I Sbpov, or Ar. Av. 799 eZr' e£ ow5evbs I fj.eyd\a irpdrrei.. T h e following proverbs are applied to the parvenu : Diogen. I. 94 d7rd j3paSvaKe\Qy bfwp 17T7TOS wpovffev : 4TI TQIV dirb eireKu>v fj.fr, tvbb^oiv Si yevofj.€vw eKeivwv (cp. Zenob. 2. 5), Diogen. 1. 98 dTro KW-wqs etvl {irjixa: im TUSV dirb xuP<>vwv e l s Kpehrova, combined with dfiiTTois Troal by Syrian, ad Hermog. IV p. 40 Walz olos r\v 6 r e d7ro rijs Kii7r7;s dviirrois voai Kara TT]V Trapoi/xiav iirl TO fSij/xa TrrjSrjcras A7)/xd5t]$. Cf. Isocr. 5. 89 avvttreaev ii, dSb&v fi.kv yeviuBai

dvrjp.

\a/j.Trpo?s etc ire vCiv Si TTOXXTJS

Dem. ir\ovdios

xP

18. 131 tXetiffepos 4K SotiXov KO.1 etc TTTWXOU 5id TOVTOUCFI yeyovuis.

On the strength of such analogies Blaydes (on 0. T. 454) proposed /3tuoO in place of fiatCjp, and by his n. on ibid. 750 suggested that fiatCiv was masc. But there can be no doubt that it is neuter ('from small beginnings') : cf. Phil. 720 evSalfioiv dvitret /ecu /teyas 4K Ktivuv.—H(r8i is followed by an independent clause without on. Cf. Plat. apol. 20 D ev JIAVTOI tare, Trairav vfj.iv TTJV aK-qdeiav cpw. A collection of similar examples is given by Jacobs, Animadv. in Athen. [supplement to Schweighauser's e d . ] 1809, p. 2 7 1 . — So-rrtp x\ irapoi.)jLia occurs in Aesch. Ag. 276, Eur. fr. 668.—xapTa: qualifying the adj., as in Track. 1218 ei /cat /xaKpa Kapr' early, ipyaaBrjo-erai, b u t not so clearly in the other examples given by Ellendt s.v.—yvniros: fr. 203.

IOOKAEOYz

2O8

283 TOLOVS'

ifJibv

UXOVTCOV 283

a

)(dpiv

ajj.e/j.
a word would (like A/j.aSia, etirvxia, or TpofiijBla) follow the -0-stems. That the forms in -to. are due to Ionic influence is an error: see Weir Smyth, Ionic Dialect, §§ 145, 215.— d|M|Mf>c£as \dp\.v may be rendered provisionally as 'meed of praise,' although it is equally possible that x&Plv is a preposition. The use of apefitpeias, where a word of positive import might TOMi/d' i/j.ol HXOIJTUV—the last to the have been expected, is characteristically detriment of the caesura. But with such an addition as ye-yS>r avaiTttv the tra- Greek. Thus Menelaus, transported with joy at the recovery of Helen (Eur. Hel. ditional words might stand. I have, however, restored ape/updas for d/*e/i0/as, 636): 5 (plXTaTTf!rpb or both. Thus Hemsterhuis conjectured romvS' 4/iol, Fritzsche roidvS' ix<"> a n ( i Bergk

284 jp Se Trora/xo? " TOV dvTLTrXaCTTOV VOfJLOV 284.

2

vbjxov cod.: corr. Porson, vo/ibv g^ei Ellendt

2 8 4 Hesych. I p. 214 avTlir\a
sequence of Hera's wrath (' Inachos selbst ward fast zu einer trocknen Mumie'): see Introductory Note. Tucker (C.R. x v u 190) proposed to read T6S' avTiirXaaTov &vo/i £'x«, i.e. 'has this name (peculiarly) constructed to signify weariness'—as if the name were derived from &ts and a'xos. dvTiirXaarov [TCIP) K€Kfit}K6rtj}v = rod TQIV In reference to this conjecture it should be KCK/J.. (like o/ioios with gen.). This might observed that Inachus was traditionally refer to the passage of Inachus under the connected with the proverbial 'Ivovs axv, earth from Acarnania to Argolis (fr. 271). a view which is favoured by some modern (2) With v6p.op we might explain : "Ina- authorities (Gruppe, Gr, Myth. p. 134712). chus has a customary tribute like that Fick connected the word with the Hesypaid to the dead": cp. Aesch. Cho. 6 chian gloss ivdaai • Karaxia.1, and xta, ir\6Kafj.ov 'Ipdxy SpeTTT^ipiov, \rbv devTepoy and others have thought that it contained Se T6V5C Trtv&-t\TT)pi.ov—where the same the root of aqua (cf. Achelous, Acheron): comparison between the mourning lock so Waser in Pauly-Wissowa VI 2791. and the nurture lock is involved, as also avrfirXaoros resembles in its formation in //. * 141 f.;] and for offerings of avTlypa<pos, avra/xot^ds, and avTlfu/xos hair to the dead, see on Ai. 1173 ff.' (explained as = 8/J.OI.OS by the schol. on Wilamowitz understands a reference to Ar. Thesm. 17). the parched condition of Inachus in con-

INAXOI

209

285 y(VTpivo)v 285'

vTpvvuiv cod.: corr. Lehrs (capds) et Stadtmueller

2 8 5 Herodian irepl /xov. Xe|. p. 35, 9 The term XUTPIPOI was applied sometimes (n p. 940 Lentz) ra yap els p~os StcrtfXXa.Sct, to pot-like cavities in which springs rise, T<j> a TTa.paXriy6fi.epa, 6^vvbfj.(va fiev e'xei or pot-like holes in rivers ; see Hesych. e'Kretvbfievov rb a, ipap&s, Xap6s' &>0eps. vv. xvTplvoi and Xiduv xocu, Antig. mirab. KaL ^Au/cdv 7rapa 2o<£o/cAet iv 'lvdxw' 176, Arrian 1 p. 291 Mueller, which are aaaxvTptiviav (so Egenolff reports: the all quoted at full length in the Thesaurus. VT vtj3v edd. give aa(TX P^ ) ^dpos etirar' ^iri But we cannot read KOX eras xVTP'lvu"' KOjita iK pods eirti/^otra Xopos di^p. 'ivBev exports iwibfuxra, because it does not illusrb ovd4repov, ' Xapbv rerVKoifj.eda Soprrov' trate Herodian's point. There was, how(/A 283). fiapvvbp.eva 5e, et «at dpaeviKa ever, this word, as well as the adjective inrdpxoi rj 0i;Xwcd, avareXXeiv diXei rb a, xirpivos, to account for a scribe writing 'Xdpcp Spjufli eoi/ccis' (e^l). Xvrpivoiv by error ; and the error would The puzzle is to extract from this the be easy if, as I suggest, he found words of Sophocles. Dindorf conjectured XYTPAINOON or XYTPYNCON, that Kal aaaxvTplvuii was a corruption of i.e. x vypalvoiv or x vypOvoji*, My ffarvpiKi}, and this was accepted by Lehrs, suggestion is that we have here two fragwho altering Xapos after i^ap6s to vapbs ments,-one, KAICAPXYTPA I NOON, held that \ap6s was not introduced until that is, Kal crdpx' vypaivoiv \apbv (cf. Eur. the words Adpos di^p, and converted the fr. 367), which just meets the case, giving latter to Xapos a/«;s. The intervening both the long d and the feminine,—and words Xdpos...eVaj/ioiptirri Xapbv rervKot/xeda Bbpirov ; 5). The suggestion that eiirar' iirl Kv/xa whereas the complete line in the other is an interpolation deserves acceptance case is aetiar' firetT' irrl KVfia Xdptp 8pvt8i and with it might go Xdpos (before eSrar'). ioiKibs. Now, it appears to me that the Xapbs dv-i\p (after irr&ixoaa) probably has latter part of Xapoffeurar' e7ri KVfia is nothing to do with Sophocles. If, then, merely a corruption of ffe^iar' t'lreir' iirl following Lehrs, we assume that vapbs has Kvpa, jotted down by some reader in the dropped out before Sv6ev 6TJXVK6V and margin and afterwards transcribed in the substitute popds for Kal aaa..., the result wrong place. Supposing this to be so, is the text, which, however doubtful, we are left with irapd 2O<£OKX« eV 'L>dx<}> yields an appropriate sense. K01 aaaxnTpivuv Xapo.. eKpoat iw&ntxra.

P.

210

Z00KAE0YI 286 TT0.VT0. 8' epWcav

dpa-xyav

Prop. 3. 6. 33 putris et in vacuo texetur aranea lecto. Indeed, if we connect the line with frs. 273, 275, 276, the words are entirely in point as describing the emptiness of the storehouses, which the sudden advent of Wealth will fill again: so Hes. Op. 475 £K 5' dyy^ux i\&
2 8 6 Suid. s.v. dpdxvt] (Bekk. anecd. p. 442, $)...etpr]Ta.i di dpdxwis K a ' vaP 'H
eIS T W )JM fxirov I &/j.
Verse, p. 276. Meineke, accordingly, substituted tri\ra for iravra, and is followed by Nauck. But this is surely hazardous; for even granting that the reference is to warlike instruments, ir&vTa. may have been explained by the preceding words. And the presence of the spiders' webs may equally well be a sign of decay in general. Cf. Horn, IT 34 'OSvffffijos

Se TOV euvT] xtiT€t evevvaloiv Ketrai ^xova'a< imitated by

same passage is an imitation of Sophocles

(§3): cu 5' ipidoi. Si airuv j3adlfov
Blaydes calls attention to the fact that ppiffw is usually accompanied by the dative. But he should not have conjectured fipiei: for Homer's authority (1 219, etc.) is sufficient justification, apart from the analogy of the verbs with similar meaning.

287 o<; 'ApyeCas 287 lX

Hesych. II p. 158 iirtKpov/j.a17 imx&pa-yi'-"" Sid TO Trapwvo' iirticpovfi.a...'Apyelas.'

that iirUpov/jui is a new formation from iiriKpoiu, intended to express the action of striking. The words of S. mean therefore ' the beating of Argive earth' or p / f means 'to form a new possibly ' the solid ground that is struck.' word from one already existing.' This Cf. Aesch. Ag. 202 x0°"a fldKTpois eiriappears clearly from Dem. de eloc. 97 Kpoiaavras 'ArpelSas. This is substantially irapcl TO Keiu-eva irapovofidipvTa air6v, the same as Ellendt's view, who thinks alov ws Toy aK0\
INAX01

211

He accepted ToupVAp-ycjj for ipyy (also approved by M. Schmidt) and supposed that the words Sia rt>.. "kpyq originally followed the quotation as an explanation of 'Apyelas. In view of Eur. El. 180 iXiKrbv

120 Aarc6 re Kpo6[mrd r' 'AcridSos irodl rapdpv$fi' eipvdfia Qpvyitov | divei/tara Xaplrwv is correct. If Kpoi/iara are the beats of the foot in dancing, 'A TT65' ^u6e, I. A. 1042 xp & ~ might have been due to Kidapiv in the response of the chorus, which however SaXov tx"os iv yg. Kpoiovffcu, and perhaps was the usual accompaniment of the of Her. 1304, it is open to doubt whether dancers. Cf. Pollux 7. 88. the traditional explanation of Ar. Thesm.

288 288

Kvafj.oj36\ojs

cod.:

corr.

Musurus,

Kvafj.6j3oXov (pro

tcvap.of36\ov)

Brunck 2 8 8 Hesych. II p. 544 Kvdp.u> TraTpiy to have been the case with the Kkypwral 2O0OK\?JS MeXedypy (fr. 404), UJS KCLL T&V apxa-i (Gilbert, Staatsalt." I p. 2423). AiraXdv rks dpx&s Kvafievdvruv. dienX'/jpovv In order to check the increasing evil of d£ ai)r&s Kvd/xq) ttai 6 rbv {orav cod.) \evKov bribery, the method of appointment was Xajitjii' i\dyxo.P€f. dvdyei 5^ TOI)J \pbvovs, changed from time to time, and we know us Kai iv 'Ivdxq ' Ki/a,uo/36\ws hiKiarqv ' little or nothing about the system in vogue (Kva/j.o@6\<ji 5iKaorJ7 Schow, KvafiofioXiZ during ere the middle of the fifth century; BiKacrrriv, conj. Nauck). thus the evidence of Ar. Plut. 177 as to balloting for a particular court only affects The meaning of the . words is not the period subsequent to Euclides. Arist. entirely free from doubt owing to the Ath. pol. 27. 4 seems to show that a scantiness of our information respecting yearly ballot was held for admission to the the method of appointing dicasts in the heliastic list of 6000, but by what method fifth century. It seems certain, however, that Kva/ioft6\os cannot refer to the voting those who succeeded were afterwards subdivided into separate panels cannot be of the dicasts, as there is nothing, except determined (Gilbert, p. 44if. ; Lipsius, the very questionable statement in the p. 136; Thalheim in Pauly-Wissowa scholia to Eq. 41, to indicate that they v 567)- Ar. Eq. 41 Kva/xorpai^ AijfjLos ever recorded their votes by using alludes to the use of beans in election to beans; and the positive information office, but its point is said to have been touching X
289 criiv 2 8 9 'Harpocr. p. 143, 9 i $ 4v \ v d x < ' xei^ 4TKL({}} dvrl TOV fo
The example is quoted by the lexico-

graphers in order to show that irdXtn in composition is sometimes employed with intensive force (Hesych. 111 p. 261 iraXivGKLOS' ffi/c/cio?, (TKoreivds, fo
as parallel; but there the idea of repetition is prominent, as also in TraX Naber needlessly conjectured 14—2

212

IO*OKAEOYI 290

Trj

Oeav

2 9 O Philodem. de piet. p. 23 Kal Sop XV \ yv M V P TQV 8eSiv.tf>ri<:, Iv TpiirToX^t< if Sk>

Kal'Earlav (fr. 615) eZi><. According to the Hesiodic Theogony (v. 45) Gaia and Uranus are the parents of the gods, and this tradition is carried on in Horn. h. 30. 17 xa?Pe> 9eSv p^r-tip, &\ox Otipavov acTepowTos, Solon fr. 36. 2 lirynip ji.eyl<sri\ Saifibvuv 'OXv/jtirltav. Cf. Orph. h. 16. 1 Tata 8ed, fiarep ixanapwv, 6VTJTWV T' dvdpiinrujv. In spite of some development of her cult at Athens, Ge never became a divine personality so distinct as to sway the hearts or imaginations of the Greeks : see Eitrem in Pauly-Wissowa v n 478. In Phil. 391 bptaripa TrafxfiCjTi Ta, /xarcp avrov At6?, her identification with Rhea, who in Hes. Theog. 470 is her daughter, is implied. Cf. Chrysipp. II 1084, 1085 Arn. The introduction into Greece of the Phrygian cult of Rhea-Cybele, Mother of the Gods,

is assigned to the fifth century : cf. Strabo 469'P^aj' iiiv Kal oiiroi rifiion Kal ipyidfovai TaijTT], fj.7jT^pa KaXoOvres de&v. In Eur. Hel. 1302 Demeter is called the mother of the gods, and is clearly, as the sequel shows, identified with Cybele. On the other hand, Demeter has many affinities with Ge: for the evidence see Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. 1166. It should be added that, although the identification of the Mother of the Gods with Rhea-Cybele is extremely common, there is reason to believe that there was also an indigenous Greek cult, recognized in the title given to the Metroon at Athens, of a goddess known simply as /iriTVP W ' (Horn. h. 14). But there is nothing to connect her directly with Ge. Whether Sophocles here followed the Hesiodic tradition, or, as in the Philoctttes, meant to describe Rhea-Cybele, it is impossible to determine.

avat8eia<; dpos 2 9 1 Hesych. I p. 173 avaiSetas tpapos Sophocles see on fr. 360. The mysterious word iriuiii has not been elucidated: •n-iuv 2O(J>OK\TJS Traxv' Trapa TO (Horn. J Junius B 262) xXctii'o? T rfii x'-T&va, TO, T aiSio conj. coni.xlTyiTwv, Salmasiusirotbv irotbv(to (tobe betaken taken u>vi Salmasius with ipapos), M. Schmidt irai'c~wv or vapa <|>apos may signify any covering, as in "Iwvi. One might suppose that the dvalTrack. 916, where it is applied to bedSeia which required a cloak was that of wrappings. For the shortening of the a in the satyrs (cf. fr. 360).

292 2 9 2 Hesych. I p. 54 deXkb$pi£- TTUKI- Hesych. tOTaprjbpovs (Palmerius and Toup) Kal < o i > crwexeis, 'straggling and not T&S Tptxas, Trapd TTJV fleWac. ZO0OK\?)S closely braided': cf. Plut. qu. conv. 4. 2. 4 p. 6 6 6 A evrovov y4yove Kal ffvce^^s It is not possible to believe that de\\6ourifi Kal irvKvbv rb fipov. [I have since Bpii, meant ' with hair floating in the found that this suggestion has been anwind,' as in O.C. 1261 Kb/ii; Si aSpas ticipated by Herwerden in Milanges Weil, aKrivuTTOS foaerai. I should rather p. 182, who rightly prefers the form suppose that it affords an instance of irape
INAXOZ—IHIQN

213

293 2 9 3 See on fr. 263. As the text of undoubtedly disappeared, was taken from Hesychius stands, it would seem that the Inachus, and that the words a\aonr6 aXiiiwos occurred both in the Tkyestes and 2o0o/c\?js have been omitted after QviaT in the Inachus. It is, however, not unSee also on fr. 419. likely that the lemma d\aonr6s, which has

294 2 9 4 Hesych. I p. 178 dvavra' avufaprj, ir^rjKa. TWS oi TO fj.ii peppey/iiva. So0o-

there: cf. Eustath. //. p. 1191, 45. The rare verb a'iveiv is known principally as occurring in the proverb fioXybv cod. : corr. Salmasius). irapa TO a'ivew a'lvuv, of an impossibility. The reference (alvelv cod.), 6 iari KaraKbTrTovra wris/reiv here is perhaps to grain which did not re(wriaiv cod.). Phot. ed. Reitz. p. 116, quire winnowing: cf. frs. 273, 275. In 18 has the same gloss with the addition of place of Salmasius's KeKofJ.fj.iva Tucker Svaxepv after v^ijXa, and with eKKeKOfj.fj.hawould prefer iaKo\vfj.fj.iva, comparing for KeKofj.fj.4va. The lemma of course re- fr. 423. But the text is clearly right : lated primarily to Horn. * 116, and cf. Hesych. I p. 335 atpijva' fKofa, II Photius adds that Aristarchus read dvara p. 281 rjvai' HKO\pas. KXT/S de'lpaxTa

fj.7} KeKOfJ.fJ.4va (KeKhiS.Vfj.e'va

295 2 9 5 Schol. Ar. Eq. 1150 /o/Atos 6 eirl

vrj/i4vov (Arist. Ath. pol. col. 36, 8). There is some doubt whether the shape of the KTftxbs was intended to secure secrecy, since in the fifth century the voting may have been open : see Starkie on Vesp. 987, and on the other side ' This surely implies that Sophocles deGilbert, Staatsalt? I 461. But, apart scribed the K7/UOS as funnel-shaped. Cf. from this, there were obvious advantages Pollux 8. 123 Kadov, 1} KTifxis eireKeiro, Si in the bottle-necked opening. The word ov KadieTO 7} i^^0os. In the later days of occurs in another sense in fr. 504. The the Ktiptos and awpos dfj.rpopeis, the corre- allusion to the ballot-box no doubt ocsponding part was called e'wid'qfj.a Sieppi- curred in the neighbourhood of fr. 288.

Tou KadlaKov, ei's dv r&s i//rf(povs Kadtetrav Tofc diKao~TT]piois. 'K.par'ivos de avTov ev No^ois (fr. 132, I 5 4 K . ) lo~x°'Lvivov T]9fJ.6v' KaXet' TOLOVTOS yap eylvero /cat ifv irapdfioios Xuvy, us /cat 2o(poK\rjs ev 'Ix*axy.

IEIQN The only evidence of the existence of this play is the quotation of a single word from it by two scholiasts not ultimately independent of each other. As Aeschylus undoubtedly wrote under this title, Welcker (p. 402) suggests not unreasonably that the reference to Sophocles may be an error (see Introduction, § 1). The subject, however, was a favourite one; and plays bearing the name Ixion were composed also by Euripides, Callistratus {CIA II 972, 15), and Timesitheus (Suid. s.v.).

214

SOOKAEOYI 296 Sixjtiov

2 9 6 Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 4. 14 napa. be a suitable gloss for it. Thus in Aesch. rb tipcu 2o0o/cX7js iv 'I^lovi Slfiov cjn)i)IM. Etym. Gud. p . 148, 25. pXa/ifiivov, i.e. 'checked,' appeared to

IOBATHI The famous story of Bellerophon appears first in Horn. Z 155—2O2, where, however, Iobates is not mentioned by name. Welcker (pp. 416—418) identified the plot with part of the narrative extracted from Asclepiades (FHG in 303) by the schol. on Horn. Z 155 o Be UpoiTOs avro^eip /xev OVK iftovXrfdr) TOV He\Xepo6vTrjv cunoKreivai, Trefiirei Be avrov eh Avtclav 7rpo? TOP irevdepbv 'loftaTrjv, dBoKiJT(o<; /cad' eavrov KOfJLifrvTa ypafifiara. b Be 7ro\Xoi5 avTov eyyvfivdaa'i aO\oK, ea? OVK ecopa (f>0eip6fievov, inreTOTnjcre rr)v icar avrov arpaTrjyridelcrav BeivrjV KaTaf3ov\.rjv • TOCTOVTOV yap tea/cap 6'yXov TTJ Bvvdfiei KarTjjcoviaaTO. eSco/ce Be avrw 7T/30? yd/xov rr/v IBiav Ovyarepa KaaavBpav Kal Trj<; ftaaiXeias

jMolpav riva. This is a plausible enough guess, but has no other foundation than the presumption afforded by the title that the action of the drama took place in Lycia. When Welcker proceeds to assume that the play opened with the return of Bellerophon from the last of his trials, i.e. the \6xos of Z 189, he is on very insecure ground. Euripides wrote two plays on the subject, the Stheneboea (TGF p. 567) and the Bellerophon (ib. p. 443). The scene of the former must have been Tiryns, and in the latter the attempt to ascend to Olympus and the subsequent misfortunes of the hero were described. The adventures in Lycia are related without any variation of substance by Apollod. 2. 30—33, Hygin. fab. 57, and several

IZIQN—IOBATHI

215

other authorities; but it is worthy of mention that Hyginus makes the betrothal of Bellerophon to the daughter of Iobates subsequent to the fall from Pegasus. We are certainly not compelled to assume that the treatment of Sophocles was so distinct from that of Euripides as to ignore the vfipis of Bellerophon, which Pindar discreetly veiled in 01. 13. 91, but condemned unhesitatingly in 1stA. 7. 44 ff.: TO Be Trap Slicav yXvKV iriKpordra fievet, reXevrd.

297 KCU v5>v TL * K c " ™ <J-0I3U'...2O0OK\?JS 'Io/3dT7j (1'0/c. arij cod., as deciphered by Rabe. A tragedy by Sophocles entitled locasta is of course

/Siov

incredible). ' Ka VWLV ...j3iou.' Nauck doubts if the text is sound, and the meaning is not clear. Blaydes well conjectures
298 rov 'AtSav

yap ovSe yrjpas oTSe i\eiv.

2 9 8 Stob. flor. 119. 6 (iv p. 1076, /ere., but the change is much too violent, 1 Hense) 1 2o0oic\eous 'Io/3drou. 'rbv... even if it is necessary to alter the text at CKea>.' The extract appears in A only all. of Hense's MSS, being omitted by SM. The thought that the old cling to life H . thought that yap was due to an more than the young is a commonplace : attempt to make an iambic line out of see fr. 66. Ear. Ale. 669 ixaT-qv dp' oi an apparently unmetrical quotation: see yepovrcs eilxovrou Baveiv, \ yfjpas \peyovres On editing Aeschylus, p. 121. Hence he Kai fiaKpov xpbvov fiiov \ TJV 5' iyyvs £\6y suggested TOT < § ' > 'MSav \ oude yrjpas ddvaros, oiSds ftovXerai | dvriaKeiv, TO yrjolSe (piktlv, with glyconic rhythm [cf. J . W . pas 5' oiiKir' iar' airois fiapv. Alexis White in C. Q. Ill 293] ; or else that somefr. 235, II 383 K. TOT yap iiararov \ rpething has been lost after rbv 'MSav yap xa" Siav\onTov fiiov, ^rjv j3ov\ofiai. Aesop's •—. F. W. Schmidt defends his TOT fable of the old man and the bundle of 'Atdrji' yap oid1 6 yripatos ipiKet by quoting faggots is to the same effect (Aesop, fab. Eur. fr. 936, but Sophocles has no other 90 Halm). Arist. rhet. 2. 13. i389 b 37 (cat example of 'AtStjs in iambics. Hence
299 <x.cj>vh\(OTov verpav 299 Hesych. I p. 341 afitiWuTov trirpav • airopov (acpopov Toup, aairopov M. Schmidt), adepSpov, olov XeuiirerptaP. SO0OKX^S 'loj3&T7i. A bare rock without any sign of vegetation may be either a sheer precipice or

a peak rising above the snow-line: cf. Aesch. Suppl. 802 ») \ujaas aly'CKi^i awpbu-1 fitiKros olorppwv Kpepias j Yuinas ir^rpa. Contrast Eur. Her. 790 IIu(?£ou SevSpuTL irirpa,—of the pine-woods on Parnassus, For acptiWuTos see on fr. 249.

216

Z04>0KAE0YI innONOYZ

Hipponous, King of Olenus in Achaia1, finding his daughter Periboea to be with child, sent her across the straits to Oeneus at Calydon in Aetolia, bearing a secret message that she is to be made away with. Such was the account of Hesiod (fr. 97 Rz), who makes her ravisher Hippostratus son of Amarynceus. It will be noticed that here Oeneus—apparently as dwelling in a remote and uncivilized corner of Greece—takes the place assigned to Nauplius in the stories of Aerope and Auge. According to others, Oeneus himself was the father of the child to whom Periboea afterwards gave birth, and Hipponous was aware of this when he sent his daughter to Calydon (Apollod. 1. 75). The Thebais (fr. 6 K.) simply related that Oeneus sacked Olenus and took away Periboea as his yepas. But in Diodorus (4. 35) Periboea alleges that she is with child by Ares ; and her father sent her to Oeneus to be destroyed. Oeneus, who had recently lost his wife Althaea and his son Meleager, had not the heart to kill Periboea, but married her and so became the father of Tydeus. Yet another variant is indicated by the proverb TvBevs £K avcf)op/3iov (Plut.prov. I. 5 \Paroem. I 322]), which is

explained by the story that Hipponous handed over his daughter Periboea, together with her infant child Tydeus, to the custody of swineherds. It is hardly possible to pick out the version of Sophocles from this medley; but Welcker was perhaps right (p. 428) in conjecturing that Oeneus himself was the father of the child, and that a recognition occurred in the course of the play. There is an important reference to the play in Pollux 4. 111 rpayucdv 8' OVK eariv (sc. rj 7rapdf3aai,<;) • d\X' Ei}p«rt'S?7? avrb 7reTToLr)Ktv iv 7roXXot? Spdfiaaiv. iv jxkv ye rf} Aavdrj rov ^opov TO? yvvalicas virep avrov ri 7roi,i^aa? dvBpa<s Xeyeiv eirobrjae TCO a-^ijfiari rfj<; A,e^eo)? T « 9 yvvacKw;. ical %o<$>oic\fi<s S' avro i/c T179 77/309 eKetvov d/juiXKr]^ iroiel cnravidici<;,

&<7Trep iv 'Imrova). Nauck and others have drawn from this passage the inference that the chorus in the Hipponous consisted of women, who in a particular passage spoke of themselves in the masculine gender. But an examination of the context makes it clear that avro Trotet refers back to the opening of the section, defining Trapdftaais as the occasion when the chorus expressed the real opinions of the poet. Pacuvius wrote a play entitled Periboea, but there is no particular indication that he followed Sophocles. 1

See n. on fr. 300, from which I infer that Calydon was the scene of the play.

ITTTTONOYZ

217

300

'O,\evov 3OO

Steph. Byz. p. 707, 14 "(l\evos

vour of Achaea are much stronger.

Not

7r6Xts 'A^cuas /cat AtVwXias dr/XvK&s Xe-yo- only did Hesiod (fr. 97 Rz.) mention Hipponous the father of Periboea as sending ixh-q..,2OI£OKXT;S £i> 'Xirirbvip (so Meursius for Ivbvif or iirvvtp or i-n-ir&vL of the codd.) her to Oeneus from his home at Olenus

I suppose these to have been the words of Periboea on her arrival at Calydon from her native Olenus. The Aetolian Olenus is mentioned by Homer (B 639) together with other Aetolian towns. It was under Mt Aracynthus in the neighbourhood of Pleuron, and was destroyed by the Aeolians (Strabo 451, 460). On the other hand Homer did not mention the Achaean Olenus (Strabo 386). It might be thought that Sophocles would follow the Homeric geography, and in the Thebais (fr. 6 Kinkel), where Oeneus won Periboea as a prize at the sack of Olenus, the Aetolian town was probably intended. But the considerations in fa-

in Achaea, but Diodorus (4. 35), who tells the story in a form which may well have been that of Sophocles, also implies that Olenus was in Achaea. It should be added that the Achaean Olenus was also the scene of an adventure of Heracles, in which he avenged an insult offered to the daughter of Dexamenus by the centaur Eurytion (Pausan. 5. 3. 3, 7. 18. 1, Apollod. 2. 5. 5). Bacchylides, however, placed the incident in Elis (fr. 48 J.), from which the existence of a third Olenus has been inferred.—YT}S <|>op|3aSos is 'the land that nourished me' like rfj re jioaKoia-Q xSovl | Kai rrj Tpetpotiirri E u r . Hclid. 826. I n Phil. 700 yaias dd

is rather ' the bounteous earth.'

301 irpbs TavTa KpvnTe jjur)8ev, w? 6 TravO' opav Kal

TTO.VT OLKOXXav TTO.VT

dvaVTV
3O1. 1 6 TravB Clem., Stobaei F : airapff' Gellius, Stobaei P cod. L dementis 3 0 1 Clem. Alex, strom. 6 p. 742 p o u s de e£ ltrirbvov 'Tpbs...xpofo$.}

The lines are also quoted by Stob. eel. 1. 8. 17, p. 96, 8 W., with the lemma iro0o/cX' placed in F in the margin opposite to the second v. of the quotation, and in P opposite to the first v. of the next quotation. Wachsmuth, no doubt rightly, inferred that the lemma belonged to this extract; and it follows that the lines formerly attributed to Sophocles as fr. 833 N1. [ = 6j8D.]areshown to be of uncertain authorship (Tr. fr. adesp. 509 N'%). Gellius Noct. Alt. 12. 11. 6p-opterea versus istos Sop/iocli, prudenlissimi poetarum, in ore esse habendos dicebat: irpbs...xpbvos.

irpos TauTa is regularly combined with the imperative or its equivalent: seejebb on At. 971, Neil on Ar. Eq. 622, Eur. Hclid. 978 n.—6 TravO' 6pwv...xpovos : cf. 0. T. 1213 iipevpt /3A^TTCI yap 6 xpb"0*' Ss TO. Tra.vff' bp$. T i m e is the

discoverer or revealer who brings the truth to light: fr. 918, Pind. 01. 10. 53 8 r e£e\e7X"»' /"ii'os | dXr/detav iT-qTu/xov | XpbvoSy Eur. Hipp, 1051 oijZk fj.7juvT7}p xpovov Si^ri Kad' riixuiv ; fr. 441 XP°POS Stepwav

irdfr' &\ri$ttietv (piXiT.—Wecklein would read wav avaTriaaei, which is attractive but hardly necessary. Cf. El. 639.

ZOOKAEOYS

218

302 yap (fxtpfiaic ovyl TrdpeaTiv, iv Se rf/ 302

Orion flor. 4. 2, p. 46, 10 iK roD

'lirirbvov SO^OKWOUS.

'(Tarijptat...Tfi

irpo-

It seems probable (though the assumption is not necessary) that the sentence is incomplete, and that something like Kipdos piyiffTov followed the words quoted. There is moreover clearly some dislocation in the text of Orion, as Schneidewin pointed out. For the profit to be earned from foresight is often mentioned: fr. 950.

irpoixtjdla. (' discretion is the better part of valour'). ' A saving remedy is not to be had for the asking': for the genitive of description crwnjpCas ap|iaKa cf. Eur. Hel. 1055 aoiTi)piai Si TOVT' e x « T ' "V" &KOS ; Phoen. 893 cpi.pjxa.Kav av>rr\plas.

Cobet (V. L. p. 60), commenting on in Alciphron, r e m a r k s :

'usitatius ipap/iaKov dicitur id quo quid efficitur quam contra.'—p\l\|icu, to catch sight of, is suspected by Blaydes, who 3, Eur. Andr. 690 ip.01 5t icipSos 7) Tpo/x-r;- requires eipeiv or bpav. See also on fr. 583, 2. dia, Suppl. 510 KOX rovrb TOI TavSpetov, i]

303 3O3

Hesych. I p. 225 aira\e£a&Oat•

airoipvX&l-curffat. 2o0o/c\^s 'lTnr6i>tf. T h e

same form occurs in At. 165 x ^ e i s oiStv affivonev irpbs ravr' | airaKe^aaSai. aov X«/3''s, &va%. Similar forms, requiring a

present O,\£KO> rather than dX^fw, appear in Horn. Hdt. Hippocr. Xen., as well as in Aesch. Suppl. 106.5 ° /t^yas Zeus airaX^fai KTC. See also Jebb on 0. T. 539.

304 304 Hesych. I p . 227 txirapdevevTOSaKipaios, Ka.8a.pa. So^o/cX^s' linrbvip. Cf. Bekk. anecd. p . 418, 11 airapS&evTos' d ' pepaios, a i o s , Ka.6a.p6s Ka.6ap6s (xaffapd (xaffapdconj. conj. Blaydes). Blaydes). in Eur. E Ph d i r a6p 6 v e s in /. A Phoen. dirap6«veuTos A. 993, Phoen.

1739, unmaidenly, but in cartn cartn. 39 means unmaidenly pop. 8 (PLG III 657) aoi, Bdicxe, rdvSe /xouaav &y\at£o[xev | ...KO.IV6.V, dwapS^vev-

TOT, oiin rais Trdpos | Kexprifiivav tpScunv, dXX' aKr/paTov | Ka.Ta.pxo/xev rbv iiixvov

Smyth is undoubtedly right in rendering g 'virgin.' virgin. Wecklein Weckleinrefers referstotothetheuse useof ofof Kopeiietv (usually diaxopeieiv) for devirginan, but nothing similar is recorded g d off

I*ITENEIA

The character of the plot is indicated by two of the fragments. The authorities who quote fr. 305 refer to the betrothal of Iphigenia to Achilles, making it plain that the progress of the action was similar to that of the Iphigenia at Aulis of Euripides. It is also known that Clytaemnestra accompanied her daughter to Aulis, and that Odysseus was one of those who were privy to

irrnoNOYi—KHTENEIA

219

the plot. The latter circumstance probably shows, as we shall see, that Sophocles followed the version of the Cypria more closely than Euripides. Welcker (p. 107 ff.) suggests that the relations between Odysseus and Achilles were of the same kind as the dealings of the former with Neoptolemus in the Philoctetes. This evidence is confirmed by fr. 308, which may reasonably be referred to the delay of the expedition at Aulis. The version of the Cypria, according to the epitome of Proclus (EGFp. 19), was as follows : Kal TO Beinepov -r/Opoio-fievov TOV aro\ov iv AvXiBi 'Ayafiefivwv eirl Orjpas /3a\a>v e\a<j)ov inrepftdWeiv e<$>r)Ge Kal Trjv"Aprefiiv1 • firfviaaaa Be r) Oeo^i avTOVS TOV TTXOV %ei/xa)va<; eTViirep/irovaa • K a \ ^ a z > T 0 9 Be 'rr)v T»;5 67TI ydfiov avTrjv 'A%iWel /j,eTa7r€fiilrdfj,€voi dveiv i i ^ p "ApTe/M<; Be avTrjv e^apirdaaaa elsTavpow; fieTaKOfii^eu Kal dddvaTov iroiel, e\a<j>ov Be dvTi T ^ ? Kopr)<; irapiaTrjcri, TO> /3OO/J,O). Apollod.

epit. 3. 21, 22 reproduces this with hardly any addition, except the statement that Odysseus and Talthybius were sent to negotiate with Clytaemnestra, with the plea that Iphigenia should be given in marriage to Achilles as the price for obtaining his participation in the war. Hygin. fab. 98, which Nauck and others suggest to have been derived from Sophocles, is exactly similar, except that Diomedes takes the place of Talthybius. We shall hardly go wrong in inferring that these extracts give us a rough outline of the Sophoclean play. Of the Iphigenia of Aeschylus ( TGF p. 31) hardly anything is known. Ennius, in his play bearing this title, is believed to have followed Euripides (Ribbeck, p. 94 f.); but from a considerable fragment quoted by Gellius (N.A. 19. ]O. 12) it appears that the chorus consisted of Argive warriors. Hence Bergk, followed by Welcker, conjectured that this feature was borrowed by Ennius from Sophocles. It should be added that the substance of the fragment (fr. Ill otio qtd nescit uti plus negoti habet \ quam si cuist negotiosus animus in negotio) resembles the thought of fr. 308; but the coincidence hardly establishes Bergk's inference. Welcker conjectured that the title Clytaemnestra, known to us from a single quotation (fr. 334), was a careless allusion to the present play. That is possible ; but it is perhaps more natural to refer the notice to the Aegisthus, if such a play existed (p. 21). The Agamemnon of Aeschylus seems to have been regarded as an unapproachable model, and, if Sophocles treated the subject at all, he probably reverted to the Homeric standpoint. 1

Observe the close resemblance to El. 569 (Jebb's n.).

22O

I04>0KAE0YI 305 ai> 8' co /jLeyi
itf.vBi.poiv

loosely for marriage-connexions. In Eur. 3 0 5 Phot. lex. p. 410, 13 (Suid. s.v.) irevdepd' rQ uvp.(f>kf i] TTJS Kdprjs fiijTiip.El. 1286 TW \67if)
306 ayyo? ov fJueXiacrovcrdat irpdire.1. 3O6

/Ae\iTTov
3 O 6 Proverb, append. 4. 27 (Paroem. I 440) o^rjpbv...irptirti. eW rod ava^iov. 0 f y q The significance of the proverb is similar to Matth. evang. 9. 17 ovSk

fieXiTovcrScu appears elsewhere with this meaning: Plut. qu. cotiv. 1. 10. 2, p. 628 D, Democritus enquired the reason why a cucumber tasted sweet, and the waiting-woman replied, ^701 7ap ayvoi]ed^fujv (36.\\ov oTvov vebv els dvpoda8at.); and the -ou Aesch. Ag. 334 f. ofos r' ciAe(0a T' eyxiat suffix became enormously productive with ravrif K!/T« I dixocraTovvr' &v oi
307 voeu irpos dvhpl -^pco/xa TTOVXVTTOV; irerpa rpa/iricrdai yvrjaiov

OTTWS

3O7. 1 vbei codd.: vovv Set Porson | Trap' avSpi Reiske, irpbs &v8pa Gomperz Reiske: aQ/ia codd. 2 irirpav Gomperz | yvrialov £K (ppovfjiiaros C. Keil 3O7

Athen. 513 D bp.olus OKX9IS

l*irENEIA

221

Arist. thought is what the iroXtiTpOTros desires to h.a. 9. 37. 6i2 a 8, adding TO 5' avro TOVTO conceal from his fellow men.—irpos dv8p£ iroiei /cat tpofi-qdels, Plin. n. h. 9. 29. 87 means 'as you approach another,' 'when colorem miitat ad similitudinem loci et close to him'; for which cf. Trpbs TOU maxitne in metit, [Arist.] mir. anscult. 7roXe/uots etpat Thuc. 3. 22, 77, and Trpbs 29, Lucian dial. mar. 4. 3 oiroiq. &v aiTLp y' el/u rif Seivy \eyetv 0. T. 1169. ir^Tpy irpoaeXdixiv dpfibtrrj ras /coTi/Xas...J., whose view is somewhat different, iKelvrj bfAOiov airepya£eTa.L eavrbv, /cat fxecompares Ai. 95 'i^a.-^a.s lyx°s «8 ny>6s Ta/3dXXet TT)V xpoav> iJ.Lfj.ovfj.evos TTJV 'Apyduv arparf.—irovXiirovs : for the irtrpav, UJS av \d6rj TOVS dXi^as /ere. , Ionism see Smyth, Ionic Dialect, § 254, A. P. 9. 10. 3 oflirw 0' T)V irtTpri i'/ceXos and Jebb on Ant. 86.—irerpa might be a Xpoa- {sc. TrovXvrcos). In this connexion locative dative {Phil. 144), but it is more there is a constant appearance of the likely that we should carry on the influwords fieTafioXai, rporral, and the cor- ence of irpb% from the main clause. responding verbs: Plut. ael. phys. 19 Cobet, Var. Led. p. 163 ff., laid down p. 916 B, c, de sollert. anim. 27 p. 978 E, the important distinction that, when the quomodo adul. ab am. intern. 8 p. 52 F, clause of comparison precedes, no prede am. mult. 9 p. 96 F. Hence the position accompanies the noun of the transformations of the polypus passed main sentence (e.g. Plat. rep. 414 E del into a proverb (Diogen. 1. 23 7roXi)iro5os UJS Tepl fxyrpos /cat rpo<pov TT}S x^Pa^ iro\vxp6ov vbov i'axe, Zenob. 1. 24 dfi.vveiv); but that, when the comparison [Paroern. 1 pp.8, 184]), and were applied follows, the preposition must appear in to the wily man's adaptability to his sur- the second clause. He consequently roundings (TO TroMrpoTrov), either with emended the fragment of Antiphanes: Trpos commendation as here and in Theogn. yhp TO yr/pas wtsirtp ipya.nri]piov \ diravra 215 f. 7TOI/XI57TOI; opyrjv itrxe 7roXv7rX6/cou, T&vdpwireia 7rpoo"0otTct /ca/cci by writing a>s ds Trorl TrtrpT}, \ rij Trpoaofu\r)o'T}, rows Trpbs epyaarTjpwv. No doubt the disISeiv iipavTi, Pind. fr. 43 £ riicvov, \ irov- tinction is generally observed, but Kock TLOV dtjpbs irerpaiov | xpwTt fj.d\taTa vbov (n \ 116) and Gomperz (Nachl. p. 7) seem irpoaijiipwv Traocus ir6\Ua<xu> 6/xiXei- | rt} right in denying its universality.—There irapebvri 5' eTrawqaais i/cuy I &\\OT' dXXoia is no need for violent alterations like cppbvei.. Anon. ap. Clearch. {FHG II Blaydes's povr][/.a.TOS. Por9) 'AiX' I son's vouv Set makes the structure more vbov, 'AfupiXox' p , I pp symmetrical -by providing an accusative TUIV KCV drj/xov iKyai,—or the re- to balance xpwfa, but introduces the fresh verse, as in Ion fr. 36 /cat rbv irerpouov awkwardness of leaving xp&/j'a to repreirXeKTavais avaifioffiv | o~rvyw fieTaWatc-sent both vouv and (ppovjifiaros, which are TTJpa. irovXvwouv xpo6s, and in Plutarch.apparently distinguished. Since TpeveadaL These passages offer abundant evidence is used in the required sense as well abin support of Reiske's xP&M<*> if they do solutely as with a limiting accusative, it not also, as J. thinks, completely justify may be doubted whether any change is ?rpos avSpi. Further, I infer that rpa- necessary. Bergk's t n f n (for ffii/ia) ireaBai. means ' to change,' being followed would avoid this particular difficulty.—J. by tppovrmaTos as an abl. gen. of separa- thinks that the words were spoken by tion: see Theogn. 218 Kp£o~awv TOL ao<$>iy\ Odysseus, who was the agent of Agamemyiverai arpoTrlris. J. however renders: non's fraud. Bergk, who understood 'Be mindful to adapt the hue of your dvdpi as ' husband,' thought that Clyreal thought to your man, as the polypus taemnestra was addressing her daughter. adapts it to the rock'—but surely his real

8T€p odv /cat ire
308 Tt/crei yo.p ovSkv icrdXbv et/caia
SOOKAEOYI

222

564). See also on fr. 479, 4, Tepwbv apyias Nub. 44/3£os...ei/ci7 Keifievos. Hense how&KOS. F.W.Schmidt had no justification for ever thinks that dxala is probably due to some philosopher (as Chrysippus) who proposing TiKTtiv...eiKala tpikei \ avovSi), which recalls Seyffert's airovbrj fipaovs only approved leisure as the result of deliberate choice. He quotes Sen. de in Ant. 231. Nauck fell foul of eUaia, and conjectured T\ \iav
309 mis. It is unnecessary to suppose that there was any allusion to the daughters of Proetus in the text of Sophocles. The story of their madness and its healing is most fully given in Apollod. 2. 24—29. In the account of Bacchylides (10. 40— From this obscure but interesting pas112) there is no reference to Melampus. sage we are justified in inferring that Hesych. is the only authority who menSophocles used the word aicpovxei for tions the mountain Acrum in connexion dwells on the heights, and probably that with this story; the scene of their healing Artemis was the subject to the verb. Her connexion with the plot needs no is given either as Sicyon (Apollod., Pauremark, and there is sufficient evidence san. 2. 7. 8), the river Anigrus in Elis (Pausan. 5. 5. 10, Strabo 346), or Lusi to prove that her cult was often established in Arcadia (Bacchyl., Pausan. 8. 18. 8 on the summit of a mountain. Hence Eur. / . T. 126 <5 TOX TS.% Aarous | AIKTVUD' etc.). The last-mentioned alternative inoipeia, and the similar epithets dpeifidris, duced Jacobs (on A. P. {append. 420] XI dpealipoiros, 6pe Zx°v' 6X& of the word a.Kpovx& as applied to Arte3O9

Hesych. I p. 107

aKpx

aicpov 'ixel- "Aicpov Si b'pos (opovs cod.) rrys 'Apyetas, £$ o5 'A/jr^/XiSos lepbv idpjjGCLTO M.e\d/j.Tovs Kad&pas rets Hpoirldas, ijyovv Tah Xdpunv. 2o<poic\i)s 'I
lITENEIA

223

310

3 1 0 Hesych. I p. 362 fino\eia (/3a
lect, § 177, refers to Herodian I 275, 3 Lentz. Cf. iepea on Attic inscriptions (Meisterhans3, p. 40). It is worth mentioning that paaLXeia was a title of Artemis in Thrace (Hdt. 4. 32); but of course there is nothing to show that Sophocles used §aai\yj as a divine title. For the p. 13, 1 'Ayd/xfieca • Xe^erai 8£ KCLL 'Ayd[if/.T], form see also Usener, Gb'tternamen, p. 222 1 2 . us irptcrfieia irpiafir), /cat rb fiaalXeia Kara <7vva\oi
irvvhal; 311 Hesych. I p . 267 d-rrupSaKdros' Similarly irv6/j.rjv may be used for the aTv$/J.evos. 2oOK\ijsVpnrTo\4/j,ij> (fr.554). stem or trunk of a tree, considered apart iv de 'ltpiyevelq. TrvvSaKa (wtvd&Ka cod.) from the foliage: so Aesch. Suppl. 111 TOV f(0ous TTJV \af}r}v ty. Eustath. / / . oi'a ved'^eL TrvB^Tjv | 5i' d/xoc yd^iott TedcLp . 8 7 O , 2 8 2 O 0 O K \ ? ) S 5^ KCLL TT}V Xaj37]V TOV £L(povs TrOvdaKd etpTjKeif, u>s (pyjal I l a i i -

\ t b s ( 5vo~TTLipa{3ov\oLo'L (frpeffiv, Cho. 2 0 3 (TfXLKpov yePOLT' ap
traftas (fr. 289 Schw.).

312

3 1 2 Erotian. gloss. Hippocr. p. 129,1 attests that this word was used by So-

phocles in the Iphigenia. See on fr. 236, where the source is quoted.

313 [6

'ATTOXXWV

313

napa

TOV AIOS

Xafju/Bdvet

TOUS

Schol. Soph. 0. C. 793 doKe1 of Zeus: Horn. h. Ap. 131 XPW" 5' ap-

yap 6 'ATOWOIP

irapa TOV AIOS XafifiapeLP

TOVS xpyopods, (bs Kal iv 'I0i/cXei^ ('l
veiq. conj. Schneider). Schneider's conjecture, 'I0ireNeip for ! l0iKAeia, is probably right, as '101/cXet (Boeckh, Welcker, and Hippenstiel) is an unlikely title: see Introductory Note to the Oecles. Dindorf suggests OiVXe? as a possible alternative; but this is less likely to have been corrupted to 'ltpiKKelq.. Apollo, as a fiavTis, is the mouthpiece

dpijjTTOto'i Ai6s prjfjLepT^a fiovKrjv, Aesch. Eum. 19 Aids Trpcxp-qTTjS 5' eo-ri Ao|ias TrcLTpb'i, fr. 86 TavTa yap iraTijp | Zeus iyKadiei Ao£ia de
Hence in 0. T. 151 the oracle which has just been announced from Delphi is addressed as c5 Aios aovtwh 0 a n : cf. ibid. 498. In Pind. 01. 8. 43 Apollo interprets a portent: o)s tf/.ol 0ao*/ia Xe-yet Kpopida I ireixipdiv fiapvySotiirov Aios.

224

I04>0KAE0YI

IXNEYTAI ZATYPOI

The three fragments which before 1911 were alone associated with this title were not of such a character as to reveal the subject-matter; and the guess of Welcker that the Trackers were engaged upon the search for Europa, when she was carried off by Zeus, and that of Ahrens that they were the prophets invited by Minos to search for Glaucus remained equally unverifiable. The obscurity has now been dispelled by the discovery, among the documents which have been recovered from the dust-heaps of Oxyrhynchus, of a large portion of a papyrus roll which contained the Ichneutae. The constituent fragments of the roll were successfully fitted together by Prof. A. S. Hunt, and in the result he was able to publish in vol. IX of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (no. 1174 at p. 30ff.)the more or less complete remains of fifteen successive columns starting from the opening of the play and containing about 400 lines, some two-thirds of which are substantially intact. A number of smaller fragments which could not be located1 adds little or nothing to the sum of our knowledge. The MS, which is carefully written, is assigned to the closing decades of the second century A.D. A number of corrections, including marks of punctuation, has been added by a second hand, and various readings recorded in the margin proceed from the same source. These variants are sometimes quoted from specified authorities—particularly from the edition of Theon 2 ; besides him, Aristophanes3 and possibly Nicander4 (or Nicanor) are cited. Another notable feature is the appearance of stichometric figures, giving the numeration of each hundredth line, which however do not agree exactly with the requirements of the text. From these circumstances it may be inferred that we have a critically revised text descended from a grammarian's copy. The MS is a less elaborate example of the type which is characteristically represented by the papyrus containing the Paeans of Pindar {Ox. Pap. v, no. 841). 1

These are not included in the present edition, with the exception of fr. 317. Possibly the well-known grammarian, who lived in the age of Augustus and •worked on the text of the Alexandrian poets. See Susemihl, Al. Lit. II 215 ff. Theon is also mentioned in a scholium on Pind. Paean. 2. 37. Wilamowitz (Neue Jahrb. XXIX 450) declines to speculate on the identity of this Theon. 3 There is a possibility that some of the abbreviated references may be intended for Aristonicus or Aristarchus; see Hunt on HI 20. * By the abbreviation Ni in v. 102: the same authority is quoted on fr. 84 (Ox. Pap. IX p. 113) of the Ettrypylus. 2

IXNEYTAI

225

The subject of the play proves to be identical with that of the Homeric hymn to Hermes, although the development of the story proceeds upon somewhat different lines. The play opens with the appearance of Apollo, who relates the loss of his cattle and describes his hitherto unsuccessful attempts to discover the thief during his progress from Northern Greece to Mt Cyllene in Arcadia. He accordingly issues a proclamation to all whom it may concern, promising a definite reward to anyone who shall enable him to recover his property. Silenus enters in answer to the summons, and offers the assistance of his sons the satyrs, but stipulates that a reward of gold shall be paid over, and that he and his sons shall be released from slavery. Apollo leaves the stage, as the chorus of satyrs advances. They are ready at once to start in pursuit, and Silenus in a short speech invokes divine and human aid. Then the chorus, bending on all-fours and imitating the actions of keen-scented hounds, discover the confused tracks of cattle pointing in different directions. But, before the quarry can be run to earth, the pursuers are alarmed by a strange sound entirely unlike to any which they have hitherto known1. It seems to issue from the cave towards which the chase has brought them. Silenus upbraids them for their cowardice, and contrasts their degenerate attitude with his own distinguished bravery in the days of old. The hunt is then renewed, and Silenus undertakes to support and protect his children by accompanying them to the point of danger. The strange noise is again heard, and for a second time the ardour of the pursuit is damped. But the actual issue of the combined undertaking is not altogether clear. I have suggested that Silenus, just now so valiant, proves himself rather more of a coward than his followers, and by refusing to continue the adventure and abruptly leaving the stage, abandons the chorus to its fate. However this may be, it seems certain that subsequently the coryphaeus assumed the position previously occupied by Silenus as representative spokesman for his comrades ; but it is probable that Silenus afterwards reappeared, or, if he was present throughout, resumed the prominence which he had temporarily abandoned. After noisy but ineffectual efforts by the chorus to accomplish their task, the situation is suddenly changed by the arrival of2 Cyllene, the mountain-nymph, who comes forth from her cave' . Addressing the satyrs as ' beasts' (#?jpe?), she angrily enquires what is the purpose of their new labours, and why the silence of 1 I have assumed that polfidos (n. on 107) is identical with f6<j>ot of 138. The alarm is not so great on the first occasion, because the sound is indistinctly heard. 2 See Giuppe, Gr. Myth. p. 8273. Miss Harrison infers from 211 ff. that Cyllene occupied an underground cave-dwelling: Essays presented to W. Ridgeway, p. 136 ff.

P.

15

226

IO*OKAEOYI

the glens has been disturbed by their shouts, and the hue and cry raised for the arrest of a thief. The chorus replies in humble tones, and asks for an explanation of the marvellous sound which comes echoing from the upland hollows. Cyllene, somewhat mollified, would have preferred to know their business first; but finally, after warning them of. the serious consequences which would follow a disclosure of the secret to others, she consents to explain what has astonished them. Zeus, it appears, having secretly visited the daughter of Atlas without the knowledge of Hera, had begotten a son by her. During the mother's illness, Cyllene has been nursing the newly-born infant. But he proved to be no ordinary child ; for, though born less than a week ago, his growth has been so rapid that he has already passed from childhood to maturity. As his father's command required that he should be kept concealed within the cave, he had occupied his time with the construction from a dead beast of a mysterious toy, which produces the strange melodies now in question. In answer to further requests for an explanation of the riddle, Cyllene describes the making of the lyre from the shell of the tortoise. There are some serious gaps in the papyrus at this point, but, since the chorus immediately proceeds to denounce the divine child as the thief of whom they are in search, it is clear that Cyllene must have referred to the ox-hide which had been stretched over the shell. She waxes indignant at their audacity: to charge the son of such parents with larceny is a monstrous piece of insolence, which betrays the childish ineptitude of the accusers. Let them beware lest their foolish gibes are not exchanged for cries of pain. Nevertheless, the satyrs persist, and apparently challenge Cyllene to produce the cows, so that their identity may be established. Here unfortunately the papyrus ends, and we can only guess at the sequel. It is certain that Apollo returned, and that in consequence of the recovery of the cattle he rewarded Silenus according to his promise. The reconciliation with Hermes must have followed, and no doubt the gift of the lyre placated Apollo for the outrage which had been committed against his property. Such is the story of the play so far as we are permitted to trace it, and it is apparent that it differs in several respects from the Homeric version, (i) The theft of the cows here precedes, but in Homer follows the invention of the lyre. (2) The cows are concealed on Mt Cyllene itself and not in the neighbourhood of Triphylian Pylos. (3) Cyllene1 and not Maia has charge of the infant. (4) The informer, to whom later writers gave the name of Battus, is displaced by the satyrs,—an essential 1

For other traces of this tradition seen, on 266.

IXNEYTAI

227

modification in view of the dramatic requirements. We know little or nothing of tKe intermediate literature1, and, so far as we can tell, the only innovation for which Sophocles was responsible may have been the introduction of the satyrs. The details of the cattle-stealing are less complex than in the hymn, and the choice of Mt Cyllene as the hiding-place of the herd is at least as likely to have been a reversion to the primitive legend as a necessary outcome of the dramatic situation2. Apollodorus in the mythographical handbook (3. 112 ff.) follows generally the narrative of the hymn ; but, though he differs widely from Sophocles, he nevertheless agrees with him in making the theft of the cattle prior to the invention of the lyre, and also in connecting the two incidents together as part of the same operation. According to Apollodorus, Hermes made strings for his lyre from the guts of the slain cattle ; we cannot say whether this point was mentioned by Sophocles, but he certainly alluded to the skins of the cows having been used in the construction of some -part of the instrument (307 n., 337, 366). The latter proceeding is a reminiscence of the hymn 3 ; but the ox-hide there mentioned did not belong to Apollo's cattle, which Hermes had not yet stolen. Similarly, the hymn-writer, as contrasted with Apollodorus, mentions sheep-gut as the material out of which Hermes fashioned the strings. Although Apollodorus has much in common with the hymn, it is idle to suppose that he made it his sole source, and that his deviations from it were the fruit of his own invention4. The most striking result of the comparison of Sophocles with the hymn is the combination by the former of two distinct achievements, so that the invention of the lyre not only provides the means of appeasing the indignation of Apollo,' but also appears to have been directly prompted by the theft of the cows. The linking together of these separate threads was a dramatic advantage which Sophocles observed and appropriated, even if it originated, as may well have been the case, with one of 1 A solitary fragment is preserved from the hymn of Alcaeus (fr. 5 ) : x«-V<= Ku\Xdvas 0 /x^Sets, us ydp fiot | OS/xos ii)).vt)v rbv Kopv<j>aia' iv Hyvcus | Maia yemaro YLpovida

juyeto-a, | ira/x/3curi\?7i. Cf. Pausan. 7. 20. 4, Hor. Carat. I. 10. 2 Wilamowitz, p. 454. The same critic takes the view that the intimate connexion which had always subsisted in popular tradition between the cattle-stealing and the making of the lyre was deliberately sundered by the hymn-writer. But this is open to serious doubt, as will presently be shown. 3 vv. 47—49. 4 See Allen and Sikes, Homeric Hymns, p. 131, rejecting GemolPs view. In fact, the sources of'Apollodorus' are much more complex; from the discussion of E. Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa I 2875 ff. the following sentence is relevant: ' diese JLitteratur ist eine compilatorische, die nur'mit Uberkommenem wirtschaftet und die Uberlieferung nicht bereichert oder wissenschaftlich ordnet, sondern excerpiert und verdimnt.' See also Introduction, § 2.

228

ZO^OKAEOYI

his literary predecessors. It is more likely that this arrangement, which involved an alteration in the order of the events described in the hymn, was the deliberate invention of conscious art, than that popular tradition had always combined what the hymnwriter chose from a motive not easily discernible to separate1. Both in method and in spirit the treatment of Sophocles is far removed from the work of the hymn-writer, but the extent of the debt which the tragedian must have acknowledged cannot be accurately measured owing to the loss of the second half of the play. It would have been particularly illuminating to discover what were the Attic traits added by Sophocles to the portrait of Hermes, whose precocious trickery is so cleverly delineated in the hymn. There are enough resemblances in detail to show that Sophocles was well acquainted with the Homeric text, as may be seen from the following instances : SarpaKov h. 33 and S. 305 ; h. 38 fjv Se davys, Tore icev /j.d\a icaXbv aei8ot,<; compared with S. 292 f.;
davfiaipco and di^eadai recall S. 271 f., although the application is different (the same considerations apply to d-n-ovoa-^>L^ecy6ai and Boveiv in h. 562 f. as compared with S. 131 and 282); fitffjuiTa avria h. 345 and S. 96, 112 ; the description of Cyllene in h. 228 answers to S. 215. The other literary allusions to the story need not detain us long. Philostratus (imag. 1. 2^, entitled 'Epfiov yoval) makes Olympus the birthplace, and except in one small detail2 is entirely remote from Sophocles. Antoninus Liberalis3 (23) relates the story of Battus for the purpose of recording the punishment inflicted upon him for his treachery ; the theft of the cows was of secondary importance to him, and the only part of his narrative which concerns us is the itinerary of the cattledrive, which may be used to illustrate the mutilated lines following v. 13. Ovid {Met. 2. 676-707) confines himself even more strictly to the subject of the transformation of Battus. The anonymous scholiast on Antoninus, who drew his information from the Aei/iwv of Pamphilus, prefaces this chapter with the 1 The hymn to Hermes is considered to be the latest in date of the longer hymns but must be at least as early as the sixth century B.C. Robert (Herm. XLI 380 ff) argues that the entire incident of the invention of the lyre was a subsequent interpolation in the original form of the hymn, and that signs of the inconsistency thereby produced are still visible. See also Herwerden, Mnem. x x x v 181 ff Kuiper / /

XXXVIII 1 3

ff.

2 gee

n

He is usually assigned to the age of the Antonines.

o n

f

'

IXNEYTAI

229

citation of several authorities who had previously written on the subject. Nicander, Didymarchus, Antigonus, and Apollonius Rhodius belong to a-later age; and it is improbable that Hesiod's Eoeae (fr. 153 Rz.) had any bearing upon the subsequent treatment of Sophocles. The gift of the icr)pv>ceiov by Apollo to Hermes is indicated in the hymn (529) and expressly recorded by later authorities1. If the tradition was known to Sophocles, it seems unlikely that he would pass it over in silence. However interesting the discovery of the new fragments may be, they will scarcely enhance the reputation of the poet. The dramatic value of the play is insignificant, and the comic relief not greatly exhilarating. It is fair to admit that the more amusing scenes probably occurred in the latter part of the play, when Hermes displayed2 his cunning and his wit in tricking and conciliating his accuser . But the part which is preserved is less lively and entertaining than the Cyclops, which has hitherto been our only example of the satyric drama. Yet, although it is impossible to rate highly the importance of the play as we know it, we must beware of pronouncing a final judgment on what is actually a torso, more particularly as the recovered fragment has merits of its own which may be pleaded in mitigation of an adverse verdict. Chief among these are directness of purpose and clearness of outline, which, allied in general to a plainness of diction suitable to the simplicity of the action3, leave an impression of natural grace and exhibit in a less familiar sphere a fresh specimen of Attic versatility. By a curious accident the lyrical parts of the Ichneutae have been mutilated to an extent much exceeding the losses of the dialogue; but enough of them remains to show that they resembled the choruses of the Cyclops in being far less elaborate than the lyrics of tragedy. It seems that Sophocles, perhaps even to a greater degree than Euripides, avoided any attempt at elevation of style in compositions of this character. The lyrical metres, also, are of a simple kind, being mostly variations of the iambic type with some admixture of dochmiacs and anapaests. In general the style of writing is less colloquial than in the Cyclops. If the exclamations are left out of account, the only obvious colloquialisms are TOVTI (I 14) and val fid A/a (112)4. There is also less 1 Apollod. 3. 115, and schol. Horn. O 256 follow the hymn in this respect: see however the iir6$ecri$ to Find. Pyth. p. 1, 12 Drachm., Serv. Verg. Aen. 4. 242. 3 Perhaps he stole Apollo's bow and arrows as in Hor. Carm. 1. 10. n (no doubt after Alcaeus) viduus pharetra \ risit Apollo, schol. Horn. I.e., Philostr. imag. 1. 26. The same suggestion is made by Kurfess in Mnem. XLI 111 f. 3 Wilamowitz (p. 460) remarks that 'die harmlose Lustigkeit erfreulicher wirkt als der Witz des Euripides.' 4 See however 38, 121 ff., 127, 136, 162, 2 j j , 331, 393.

230

IOOKAEOYI

freedom in the metre of the iambics : Porson's canon is violated in 333, as against several more serious infringements in the Cyclops; and whereas eighteen instances of the licence admitting the introduction of the anapaest into other feet than the first have been counted in the Cyclops^, there is only one—and that doubtful—in the Ichneutae (122). It is rather in the nature of the thoughts expressed than in respect to vocabulary or structure that the style deviates from the normal character of Sophoclean tragedy. The appearance of fr. 294 N.2 as v. 275 f. is conclusive evidence on the question of authorship. Wilamowitz specifies as marks of Sophoclean origin the use of oKfiit^eiv in 2io, of airovocr^i^ai in 131, and of ev&eiv in 159; and to these should at least be added veaipr)<; in 150, and /JLOVVOV in 49. General impressions are less to be trusted, but I think that few will hesitate on consideration to acquiesce in the judgment of Wilamowitz, that the play reflects Sophocles' earlier manner, and that the occasional harshness and want of polish must be set down to TO TTIKPOV KOI KaraTexyov which he himself recognized as a blemish of immaturity2. Some might go further and contend that there is here and there a tendency towards bombast which shows that he has not yet shaken himself free from the influence of Aeschylean oy/co<;; and it will be readily admitted that the harmonious blend of mellowness and lucidity to which he ultimately attained is hardly perceptible in these fragments. But Wilamowitz finds unmistakable signs of an early date in certain definite peculiarities of technique; that is to say, (1) there is no occasion for the presence of three actors on the stage at the same time ; (2) no verse of the dialogue is broken between two speakers3; (3) the absence of strophic responsion from the opening chorus is comparable with similar features in the Septem and the Enmenides; (4) the alternation of lyrics with ordinary dialogue and stichomythia in the scene between Cyllene and the chorus finds its nearest parallel in the ultimately successful attempts of Athena to placate the Eumenides in the Aeschylean play4. It may be remarked in passing that the date of the Cyclops is 1 3 3

Haigh, Tragic Drama, p. 3913. Plut. de virt. prof. 7 p. 79 B. But see vv. 99, 199. * If it is rightly inferred from Pacuvius (293 n.) that Euripides imitated this play in the Antiope, that circumstance would not assist the determination of the date, since it is certain that the Antiope was one of the latest plays (perhaps 408: Dieterich in Pauly-Wissowa VI 1266). Equally inconclusive is the argument which Wilamowitz deduces from the statement that Sophocles himself played the lyre in the Tha.7nyras (p. 178), namely, that Sophocles took the part of Hermes, and that consequently the play must have belonged to his youth. Robert prefers to suppose for similar reasons that the poet represented Apollo.

IXNEYTAI

231

quite uncertain, and has been fixed by some critics earlier than 4381. If that view were correct, the date of the Ichneutae would be put still further back; for the priority of the latter play is assured, apart from general considerations pointing the same way, by the freedom exercised by Euripides both in the division of his lines between two speakers, and in the employment of three actors during the same scene. The action takes place on the barren slopes of M.t Cyllene, and the entrance to the cave of Maia was the central point2 to which the attention of the spectators was directed. Robert has suggested that, since the early part of the play seems to indicate that no hut or cave was visible amid the mountain solitudes, Cyllene must be supposed to have suddenly appeared from an underground cavern3 by means of the stage device known as Xapcomoc /c/U'/ia/ee?. The same critic holds that there was no back-scene, and that the 7rayo9 was represented in the middle of the orchestra, as is supposed to have been the case with the Supplices of Aeschylus. But the scene of satyr-plays was for obvious reasons not infrequently located in the open country, and nothing is discernible with regard to the scenery of the Ichneutae which either supports or tells against the hypothesis of an early date. From the technical point of view the discovery of a dialogue of some length composed in iambic tetrameter acatalectic metre (291 ff.) is remarkable. Nothing of the same kind is found elsewhere in Greek drama, but the iambic octonarii of Roman comedy furnish an exact parallel. In both cases the diaeresis at the end of the first dimeter is sometimes observed and sometimes neglected ; the former type is the more frequent in Plautus, the latter in Terence. It is worthy of notice that both varieties occur in the Greek lyric fragments : contrast Alcm. fr. 9 with Alcae. fr. 56. It is convenient at this point to call attention to an obscurity in the story of the play which awaits explanation. Part of the reward promised by Apollo to Silenus and the satyrs was the restoration of their freedom (57, 158), and it appears that in the sequel the promise was fulfilled 4(445). What then was the nature of their slavery ? Wilamowitz refers in this connexion to the obscure passage (218 ff.) in which Cyllene mentions their master as formerly wont to follow in the train of Dionysus, wearing the fawn-skin and wielding the thyrsus. He declines to guess at his identity, but conjectures that it was disclosed 1 :; 4

2 Kaibel in Herm. xxx 71 ff. Henn. XLVII 536 ff. See n. on v. 282, and J. E. Harrison, I.e. p. 139. P- 454-

232

Z04>0KAE0YZ

on the occasion when the slaves were liberated. Nevertheless, he candidly admits that the audience do not seem to have required any explanation to be given concerning the slavery in question. Now it is true that, as in the Cyclops of Euripides, it was not uncommon for dramatic purposes to represent the satyrs as in the thrall of some ogre or demonic being, and it was obviously a useful expedient to account for their presence at the scene of action. Examples of such bondage are mentioned in the Introductory Notes to the Amycus, the Heracles at Taenarum, the Cedalion, and the Pandora. But it is scarcely credible that this kind of durance would have been employed as an element of the plot without a single word of explanation. Apollo expects to find the satyrs among the inhabitants of the countryside (35), and their slavery is apparently assumed as a matter of course. In such circumstances the natural inference would be that the satyrs here as elsewhere (Cycl. 709) are the slaves of Dionysus. This is the inference which Robert actually adopts; and he is obliged in consequence to assume that a line has been lost after 220. The hypothesis also involves the necessity of explaining why Silenus and the satyrs desired to be released from the joyous service of Dionysus. Robert recognizes the difficulty, and meets it by suggesting that the liberation of the chorus was a constant element in the denouement of a satyr-play, and that, by an encroachment of the actual conditions of stage-management upon the story of the events enacted on the stage, the chorus were released at the end of the day's acting, i.e. after the production of the satyr-play, from their engagement to the Choregus or the Archon. That is the TTOVOS from which Silenus and the satyrs are here set free. In course of time, he thinks, the device staled, or the public became too fastidious to be satisfied with it ; but, in order to sustain the custom, a mythological servitude (as in the Cyclops) was invented for each occasion. Whether this bold guess will meet with general acceptance, time will show; but it is by no means free from objection. One might be willing not to lay stress upon the fact that, if the text of 218 ff. is sound, the SeoTroTT?? is distinguished from the god, but it is surely pertinent to enquire how Apollo could have promised to set free the bondsmen of Dionysus. He had received, so far as we know, no commission to that end, and it is idle to think of him as using his influence, unless indeed he represented Dionysus in some fuller sense than is usually recognized. But the relations of the satyrs with Apollo rather suggest that he himself is the master to whom their obedience must be rendered. Nor would it be altogether surprising that among the wooded hills of Arcadia

IXNEYTAI

233

the satyrs should temporarily transfer their allegiance from the wine-god to the huntsman's patron deity1. We need not dwell on the fact that Apollo Nomios, the protector of flocks and herds, was known in Arcadia as the son of Silenus2, except as evidence that in his rural aspect he did not disdain an association with the satyrs. That the satyrs should, at the bidding of the Hunter, assume the functions of keen-scented hounds3, is in accordance with their constant fellowship with the huntsman Pan, as well as with their own proclivities4. None the less might they be expected to welcome the prospect of release from the obligation of service, which is held out as the reward of success on the present occasion5. Lastly, it may be observed that the subjection to Apollo is not necessarily inconsistent with the devotion which they owe to Dionysus. Besides the numerous points of contact between their worship6, the gods themselves are identified by Euripides in the Licymnius (fr. 477): Seo-rroTa 4>i\6$ave Ba/c^e, iraiav "ATTOWOV evXvpe. And, if we are prepared to admit that Apollo was the Se<77roT77? of v. 218, it is not incredible that the god whom Aeschylus (fr. 341) addressed as 6 KUTG€V<; ''ATTOWIOV, 6 Ba/t^ew, o /xaim?, should wear the fawn-skin and wield the thyrsus at the head of the other members of the Bacchic rout7.

314 Col. i

AnOAAfiN

[ reX.et[v 3 1 4 . 1 ayye\oi in ct77eX\w corr. pap. 2 3 1 4 . 1 ff. Hunt supplies ira
ZO*OKAEOYZ

234

ajnoTrpodev pevl /Sojus d/u.oXya8as ]a • nopTiSav

.]ov[ .]ra[

SUO-JXO^OP

fp[ IOV[T

10

j

[^] ^ [ ejyw OUK af (oo/xrjv [our' a]i' 0e<S^ TII^' OUT' i^mr]fi\4poiv fipoT& [S/3acr]ai rdS' €py[ov wSe] TT/SOS Tokfiav [ravrj ovv iwdirep \Jfjia]dov, eKTrXayets OKVCO

5 a[ in marg. add. pap. 2 7 Sia
8 in m a r g . adscripta Xa[ " ' <<>* H u n t : fort, d

1 1 ToKfi-qv p a p .

4if. 'Something like deivbv yap £
probably right in supposing that the cattle are divided as ' milch-kine,' calves, and heifers, but the restoration of v. 6 is not easy. The conjectures of Wilamowitz re Kal viav vd/icvfia (perhaps too long) and veavievfia are condemned by their halting metre, and Mekler's re ttXhv T' ayXduT/na is not convincing. 7 ft. are restored by Wilamowitz thus:

Eur. Hel. 1619. In Lys. 31. 1 &v clearly goes with the infinitive; and 0. C. 748, Antiph. 3 7 1 , id. 5. 69, Thuc. 8. 66, Xen. mem. 3. 4. 7, Dem. 9. 68, Plat. Theaet. 144 A, as well as Eur. Her. 1355, seem to require a similar explanation. But I would again put forward the suggestion that in such cases the influence of av may extend to both verbs; and this must be so in Plat. rep. 443 E ei B4oi ij/Mas dvofj.o\oye?
unless we are prepared to admit that (j'iofxai may be followed by an aorist infinitive representing future time. 11 ToX|xav: see cr. n. The evidence of our MSS is strongly in favour of the forms r6\fia and rb\nav in tragedy, and aTravra Qpovda Kalti&TT)v... | \a6pcu' ibvTa they are confirmed by metre. On the TTJXe. Murray suggests rd'ab)J.-qv iv •way, as in E u r . El. 982 eis avavdplav yjfuv I oi!5e TcAfiijtral TOT' &V. See the ireaeiv or Or. 696 eis dpyijv irtaeiv (con-

discussion of this question in the n. on

trast Tr. fr. adesp. 80).

IXNEYTAI

235

uw, TravreXes Kyjpvy^i eyotv re fxtjhiv ayvoeiv raSe] ya/3 ifj.fiavr]<; KvvrjyeTco. ]a>v S' inf)\d[o]v [y]ka T[OV~\

15

DM

15

....]•[ ]/ao[[ [ [Se

r]a ©ecrcraXaii' Boi&mas re

] [7rd]X[ets, ]•[

Col. ii

desunt versus fere quattuor ]s Aft>p(,/co[

[

[

C

J

'

hQ\

13 f7)TU Wilamowitz : oreixw Hunt | ixareiui ex lUareuwi' coir. pap. 14 rdde : o (i.e. rode) suprascr. pap.I S efifiavis ex e^,uaceis corr. pap. 16 ]TOV in marg. 2 add. pap. 18 sqq. cum ex duobus fragmentis confecta sint, de singulorum sede minus constat 2 2 ov [i.e. o£i™s) habet in marg. pap. post v. 23 desunt fere quattuor versus 13 ijiyrw (laToiu: for the rhetorical asyndeton see on Eur. Phoen. 1193. Diehl, quoting O. C. 211, thinks that [MTetiuv (cr. n.) may be right.—iravreXIs is perhaps rather authoritative than universal: that is to say, it may be compared with Ant. 1163 \a.Biiv re x^pas jravTcXJ;

Hunt's note. The herds of the god which Hermes plundered were grazing in Pieria, according to h. Herm. 70 and Apollod. 3. 112. At any rate, Thessaly was the traditional scene, and Anton. Lib. 23 describes them as being in the same pastures as the herds of Admetus. Therefiovapxia."•—Kiipvy|i' 'tyuv = Ki)pv<SQWv: see fore it is extremely unlikely that Sophocles on fr. 210, 48. As a verb of commanding put them anywhere else. If so, there it is followed by the inf. with fir): the form does not seem to be any good reason for of the proclamation was fnjSeis ayvouru. introducing the name of Thrace or of the Cf. Ant. 192 ff. Thracians into these lines, and I hesitate to accept Wilamowitz's QpQK&v in 16 15 Wilamowitz ingeniously supplied aKoSovBia from fr. 990, as if anokovdia with d\V o0Tis in 17, or Hunt's alternawere the equivalent of 5iw|is. The use tive QpyKio- in 19 with v of the word in hunting may be inferred (pv\a TOV ir. (TTparov, ' the tribes of the from Xen. Cyneg. 10. 5, where reading whole host of Thracians,' is a clumsy and interpretation are alike doubtful. So far as the sense goes, Murray's Svairevdia one, and I should prefer to begin with is to be preferred. TroXvfivdiq. might also avSp&v (or fSpor&v) and to take TOO Karros arparov with what follows, adopting (ex. be suggested: 'distracted by varying gr.) Murray's farwv rh. For
I04>0KAE0YI

236

3° [

KvX]kirjvy)$ re x€ vcopov es o v\

r«W5 6tT€ TTOlJjMTJI' C I T ' d,yp(OO-Tlj[p(DV

T15

6p]euwi' Wfj.(f>oyevv7]\jrov yivovs io~TL, TTOI.O~LV <xyyeX[ka) TaSe, (upa TOV Ilaialro? oaris a[j/ \d/3r), TO yprjfia /jLLcrdo1; io~0' 6 Ke[('

35

drjpci) v 10

3 4 /tapiXoicavTuv suppl. Wilamowitz | ]v in marg. 3 2 ]$[ in marg. add. pap.2 add. pap.2 3 7 TOV (pwpa TWI' (TUP Wilamowitz) Hunt: fort. Tot l\upa 3 8 r
Traides de vv^tpuv,

Ba/f^ou 3' vinjp^TaL.

Silenus, the lover of the nymphs (inf. 149), is their father. Yet satyrs are sometimes themselves joined in wedlock with nymphs (Ov. Fast. 3. 409); while cf. O. C. 695 ev rg. /xeyakcL Aiopidi vd&cp the Sileni are children of the Naiads HeXoiros. The schol. on 0. T. 775 in(Xen. symf. 5. 7). In Nonn. 14. 113 terprets Awpis as Tleko-KovvqaiaKTi. the satyrs are the sons of Hermes and 3O Mekler plausibly suggests ifi> Iphthime, the daughter of Dorus. See further on 2i8ff. 3 2 f. Wilamowitz was scarcely justified in altering es to el: el 5' yXj/^dr^s 3 7 The obvious supplement rbv wpa evravffa iroi.().i\v. Unless, however, 5' is does not fit rod naiuwos, and Wilamowitz an error for ff, which the marginal comsubstituted TQIV for TOV in consequence. ment (cr. n.) by no means proves, a new But it is not satisfactory to alter the text sentence must begin here, which it is not in order to justify even so plausible a easy to adjust agreeably with the context. restoration of the lost letters. Hunt Some case or compound of SXij seems suggests TA, SQipa...&pvvTai. as an alternainevitable, but would require a qualificative, but admits that TO. SSipa scarcely tion. There does not seem to be enough fills the gap. It is perhaps possible that room in 33 for ^s 3' V\T]V IJLOX&V | TI]V8' daXtapa (written ret £\wpa) might stand dre Kri.—It is unnecessary to omit the here : cf. Horn. S 93.—Uaahy as well as <7 of aypuxTT-qpwv, although there is no Ilac&v (0. T. 154) is a familiar ^JT/KXTJIHS other example of the form. For ayptbof Apollo : for an attempt to connect it o'y«vviJTOw. For the rela3 8 T<{)5' aiTdxpypa was restored by tionship between nymphs and satyrs see Hunt, but avT6xpv)">- does not mean Hes. fr- 44 Rz. ii- &v (sc. the daughters 'forthwith,' and is not obviously approof Hekateros [?] and the daughter of priate to the context. For its special use Phoroneus) ofipeiai Ni5/H0ai deal e^eyito mark a pun (like irvnais etc.) see Neil VOVTO, I Kai yivos ovrtdavuiv Sariipaii' /cat on Ar. Eq. 78. Probably then we should avo v &HTix *py& ' Here satyrs and nymphs recognize another instance of TO XPVV-o-t are children of the same parents, but the used vaguely as in 44 and 136, and preanonymous satyr-play published in Ox. ceded by a participle such as dxiVas or Pap. v i a 63 (fr. 1, 7) agrees with the even evpiiv. present passage, describing the satyrs as

IXNEYTAI

237

2IAHNOS [ecr

ra]

crov (jxovyj/JLad' ws iirei<\vov bpdioHTi crvv Kiqpvyfia(r\j., [v, [oi/3' "ATTOXXOI', Trpoar^iki]^ [ 9£\8' inecrcrvOrfv S^o[/] a c 7TWS T O -^prjfjba TOVTO croi Kvpr)y[e^cr(o.

[/8OW]VTOS

15

20

r [ o ] y a p y e [ p a ] s ju.01 Keifievov X / ° [ l ' ] o ' o [ o ' ] T ju,a[A.i]o-T5 eV[io-ToX.]atcr[t 7r]/3ocr#eo-#[ ^p 77-a.ISas 8' e/u,[ou]s ocrcroto-t [. . . ] a u e [ . ] / 3 a [ . • ] •

[ ~ J \ J \ 3 9 <-a " ra suppl. Mekler

^ 4 5 sq. supplevi

3 9 ?a' rd. I have accepted Mekler's supplement (see cr. n.), since u ioi/Se of the ed. pr. is admittedly too long, and is not required so shortly before 42. For the unusual position of the pronoun see Kuehner-Gerth § 464, 4 anm. 1. 4 1 o-irovSTJ with its relative clause belongs to eireoavdyv, and the hyperbaton of rd.de, which of course goes with fia$Jiv, need cause no difficulty. There is a similar case in 0. T. 1251 x " ' r w s 1^" itc TUJVS' oi/Ker' old' air6\\vTai:

[]

see also

on Eur. Hel. 719. 4 4 Kwr)76
and others. Several of these are usually explained as analogical products (eicdXecra: iriXeaa): see Weir Smyth, Ionic Dialect, p. 489 ff., Brugmann, Camp. Gr. IV pp. 296, 380. Another suggestion, however, has been put forward by P. Maas {B. ph. W. 1912, 1075) on the strength of two statements by grammarians, which Lobeck (Paralip. p. 438) refused to credit. See Phryn. praep. soph. p. 84, I de B. KvrniyeTTetv (rightly, as it now seems, corrected to nvvniyfrTeiv by Buttmann)' 5icl Svoiv TT \4yovatv. Theognost. ap. Cram, anecd. Ox. II p. 143, 20 TO Sta

V

40

[••••]

4 7 oatroioi. ex offoicri corr. pap. 2

yiaaeiv as well as the newer formation nvv-qyertlv (Ai. 5), which in its turn gave way to Kwtiyiiv. 4 5 if. The sequence of thought appears to be, ' I am ready to assist; for I expect my services to be well rewarded. And my sons shall aid..., if only you will keep your promise.' The speaker's object is to bring Apollo to business. In this sense I have endeavoured to restore 45 {.; TO y&p ytpas was admitted by Hunt to be a possible reading, but was rejected as unsuitable. For the palaeographical details his note must be consulted. 47 f. are a puzzling problem : if the elision mark in 48 is rightly deciphered, an optative (e.g. crTeCKaLfi' &v) is possible.—' Above all, your behests must be enlarged by the secure reward for me of a golden crown.' K«C|MVOV : the word must be understood as in Ant. 485 el raur' dvarlTTJde KeiaeTai

Kp&rr) (Jebb's n.). The prize was fixed or secured for the winner : Pind. Isth. 1. 26 i t t ' i eKaarif epyfiart

Ketro

T{\OS,

where TAOS is equivalent to y4pas here. The text of the MS XP[-]7•[.•-iTe4>e (and the possibility that another letter follows) perhaps represents an original xPv
ZO*OKAEOYZ

238

25

All. [ ] . [.]«»• fxovvov ifnr[eSov r]aS[e. SI. TO[S /3ous anai-a) cr]oi- av 8' ifiTrdSov [Sdcrtjv. 5° All. [e£et cr<£' 6 y' ev}pwv ocrrts ecr#' • eT[ot]/u,[a] Se. [ ] [ [ ]] C 7 [ ]

An. [

>cro . [

Col. Hi Si. [

]

An. [ . . . ] • a[

55

Si. TI rouro; TTO[I \ey]ets; An. ikevOepos crv [irav re yevos carat T4K]VCOV. XOPOS SATTPI2N 5

iv aye . |_ airairaiiyal

J

60

a> at, ere r o t [

]

Hindi *CX<WTT[

10

]

virovofia «•[

]

C-

]

ya/3[w TTOJS

Tra

TO. \ddpi[a

J

65

vv^i,a

5 2 dXX]6i-pia T[ in marg. add. pap. 2 59 -rd ^ ( i f ) in marg. add. pap. 2 6 5 yijp[vv pap. 6 6 5]iavux('a) a Theone primitus scriptum in marg. add. pap. 2 4 9 o-TovSijv iiraivCi might give the and that they heard his concluding direcsense required.—Observe the Sophoclean tions : see on 102. Hovvav (fr. 852 n.). . 6 1 in / . T. 790. Some less 1578- The governing verb is omitted obvious restoration is then required ' n Ar. Av. 274. in S ! 6 3 virovofjia seems to be used meta5 l ' erotiMi, without definite reference ^oriC3\\y( = cunning). The transference (' everything is prepared '), is idiomatic. « attested by Hesych. IV p. 115 VTTOXO/W • See Thuc. 2. 3, 10, 98 etc. KKOVOX oxeroi. t _ „ , . . «, • ,• , 65 iraTpiKav -yapwv, 'our fathers 5 6 xo«u. Sapeav aXX,i- is supplied , c0,re^ ^ j voic d s 't0^ , d x ,j by Hunt («/.«.,».). Plat. soph. 242 A (the argument of Par57 For the servitude of the chorus menides).—The MS has yrjpvv here and see Introductory Note. j n 2 O O ) b u t iydpvire in 244. Several 5 8 ff. The remains of the choral ode other instances of ip where a might have are too slight to reveal the general been expected occur (237, 283, 321), and character of the metre, but dochmiacs I have followed Hunt (ed. min.) in reare clearly recognizable in 68, 69 and 72. storing the Doric form. The difficult There is a certain degree of similarity to question relating to the trustworthiness Eur. Cycl. 656 ff. Robert holds that of our MSS in this respect is. thoroughly the chorus entered <sTrop&S-t\v before the discussed by Tucker on Aesch. C/io. dialogue with Apollo was completed, pp. 246—250.

IXNEYTAI ^

nocrcrl [

239

]

et 7TW5, av TU^W, TTO . [

]

TrarpC T' iXevdepov /3[. .] . . /*«•[.] £w a//,a #eos 6 £ \

70

TTOCOV;

api£,T)\a ^pvcrov irapaSety/nara. 20 21. 0eo! T v ^ [/c]at halfxov WvvTrjpie, TV x H " ' Z*6 Trpayovs ov Spd/xr)^' eVetyerat, 6 8 post hunc v. paragraphum habet pap. 7O litteras et £w ex ixera, Diehl. 7 0 ft. Taking the text as it stands. I would interpret as follows : ' Now that our god has displayed splendid prizes of gold, let him therewithal at our side conclude our labours.' The gold is secure,—a first favour; next, let the quest be short. I write l-iv a/ta (rather than avvifxa., which belongs to the Hellenistic age) as the rough breathing of the papyrus seems to indicate, although it might, of course, be an instance of medial aspiration (fr. 582 n.). | w is then adverbial, as elsewhere in Sophocles (Ant. 85 etc.); and S,ua accompanies the participial clause, as in Xen. anab. 3. 1. 47 KCU dfjia raCr' eiiriiv O.V£GTI\ and other examples quoted by Kuehner-Gerth 11 82.—dpfl^qXa, used in the larger sense of what is not merely clear, but conspicuous or striking, dav^aary] Hyav is Hesych.'s gloss on dpit^riXrj (I p. 280), perhaps in reference to Horn. 2 319. dpifijXwTos shows that the word was influenced by f?)\os, although etymolbgically distinct from it. L. and S.'s account is defective. — irapaSeC-ynciTa, here simply things shown, exhibits. Strictly, we must distinguish the derived meanings (1) example, as in O. T. 1193, and (2) sample, as in Ar. Pac. 65. 73

Tux1! >s personified as in O. T.

o^iXoirai'e™ add. pap." 7 3 e[. .]wnjpie ap" in

5' watda TTJS II T?JS J CV Sidova-rj!. Fortune is not here invoked as blind chance contrasted with foresight, although the first beginnings of that sense are to be found in Attic poetry (0. T. 977, Ant. 1158). Rather, she is the divine power to which all human action is subservient, daughter of Prometheia, as Alcman calls her (fr. 62), mightiest of the fates according to Pindar (fr. 41). Cf. Tr. fr. adesp. 506 iraVTOjv Tvpavvos 7\ TOXV J(7Tt T&v &e&v KTC. T h u s the vague Sa.1ii.ov iffvurripie should not be understood as referring to Apollo, but as a further description of the same guiding force. Cf. Dio Chrys. 63. 7 ol 5e Trq$a.\iov ISa/cav Kpareiv (sc. rrj Tvxy). •. .TO 5e TT7]5&\IOV dyXoi b'ri Kvfiepva rbv T&V avdpunroji' @iov 7) r\iyj\. id. 64. 5. Observe also that the worship of dya0ds daifj.uiv was intimately associated at Athens with that of ayaSi) ruxv • see Griippe, Gr. Myth. p. 1088, J. E. Harrison, Themis, p. 278, and cf. Pausan. 9. 39. 5.—For the marginal variant see cr. n. I believe that Aristophanes wrote eidwriipK rather than eidwTrjpie, as restored in the cd. />>: For the constant confusion of evffvvu and idvvui and of their cognates, see Eur. Hipp. 1227, Blomfield on Aesch. Pers. 779. Recent critics (e.g. Nauck on Aesch. fr. 200) have inclined to restore the forms in ei/-. 1080

7 4 Tvxetv: for the exclamatory infinitive in prayers see Goodw. § 785, Kuehner-Gerth n 19 ft'., Tucker on Aesch. Theb. 239.—0$ : the genitive expresses the object at which an aim is directed or towards which desire moves. The connexion with e-reiyeaSai. is Homeric : a 309 €Tr£iy6n(v6$ Tep ocSoio, T 142 iirayifievos Trep'AprjOS.

£0*0KAE0Y2

240

75

\eiav aypav o-uX^[cr]tv iKKwrjyicrat,

[]y

[]

\r\5iv el TIS OTTTJJP i(rn[y] rj e])u,oi T \a\v [e]nj TTpocr^Xf jp <&oiy8<w T J dvaKTi iravTekrjs eue/3y[e']r»?s. ] a [ . . ] T [ . . ] S TOU X d [ ] 0 ' Col. iv jj.t]vv[rpa XO. iw o-[

25

80

[ [ 1.

85

(j)rj(Tiv Ti5, T) [ eoi/cev T^STJ K [

ay

eta or) 7ras

6[ 10

90

7 7 X[ in marg. add. pap.2 a (i.e. rdSe) suprascr. pap. 3 Hunt

T6SC 7 8 T'...o(TTeX7/$ pap., <jv

7 5 XcCav Kre. The asyndeton is no doubt intended to emphasize the climax (Kuehner-Gerth 11 341). — It may be questioned whether
<J<$
Kepavvg.

7 8 <J>pa
8O f. The purport of these lines was to promise the informer a share of the reward. 8 5 f. are well restored by H u n t : -qtjlv TIS, 7) ovdels (p-qaiv eidivai T&SC ; \ ZoiKevijdT) Kal 7rpds ^ 7 ' bpiiav /*e beiv. He quotes Eur. / . T. 1072. 8 7 017 tto supports the reading of the MSS in Ar. Ran, 394, where several editors adopt Bentley's dXX' eta, as well as V's reading in Plut. 316.—For the aspiration, which is said to be Attic, see schol. A on Horn. I 262 rijt SacreLa^'ArTIKUS Trpoffe\8o6
Cf.

168,

fr.

221,

48 9 avpas, evidently with the meaning scent. Cf. Antiph. fr. 217, 22 (11 105 K.) £ae0aicnv aiipais irQ/xa irav ay&XKerai, i.e. with the savour of roasting. SiirXovs di<Xdj;
IXNEYTAI

f

iv xp<5 . [

241

]

epevvav Kai TT[ ." . . . .] atravra ^pyjcrra /ca[l relXeii'. debs 0eos 0eo S 0eoV ea [ & • exew eotyfjuev to-^e- prj • / > [ . . . .]rei. r a u r ' £(TT' iicelva roiv y8[oa)]i> r [ a ] yS^ o-ty[a]- #eo? TIS TTJV airoi[Kia\v ayei. TI SpSi/xev, <3 T£I/; 17 ro Seov [a/)'] j TL ; TOICT^IJ Tavrrj nu>s So/cet ; OVTCJS

HMIX. 15 HMIX. HMIX. HMIX.

95

S 3 xpy. P.

r

6

ZO*OKAEOYI

242

HMIX. 8oK€L TTO.VV. 21 vO* e/cacrra (njfiaCvei TaSe. HMIX. iSou, iSov* Kal Tovwicr7)[JLOv avrb ruiv oifkcav ira\(\y\. H M I X . a.6pet fJidXa25 avT icrTL TOVTO fieTpov [e]/CjU.e[ju,a/y]/u-[e]i'Oi'.

HMIX. xC*"]/361 ^poH-V [...-}>*.[./. Col. v

KaL T a

1 • v €X0V

[

..];[••,

IOO

Io

^

,•••;• v

poC^Srjfj.' idv TL TWV [ecra> 7rpo]s ov? poTB^oc

HMIX.

eicra/couct) 7rw [TO/JCUJS TOV dXX* aura, fir/v ^x£vij r e ] x<*

OVK

1O2 emo-;,uw/t*V in marg. add. pap. 2 Hunt'

'

1 O 5 Spofi.wL

suprascr.

1O4 iKfie/iayfiivov scripsi: iiciJt.eTpoijfjt.evov pap.2:

xfjl

] • ' P a P - I Ka

™

Kal

corr

-

PaP-2

1O7 poLfidriiA eav TIS ex poifJdeiavTt corr. pap. 2 :' poifiSoi primitus pap. [ Srw irpos...ix6\ri scripsi: flow 8i'...\&f}y Hunt 1O9 <7TI/3 ex (mXjS corr. pap. 106 Perhaps &Kpo ^"T°s crujtaiviTU. 1O2 The occurrence of air6s in 100 with this meaning, but none of the subsequent critics, except Paley, has agreed and 104 favours the adoption of a«TO with him. poi|35ijins there expresses the rather than au T6. ' Here is the very imprint of their hoofs.' iirlarmov, iir'i- whistling of the herdsmen, just as pottos o-t)fua. are used of the devices stamped on is attributed to shepherds in Horn. 1315. Following the clue which these passages coins. On the other hand, it seems suggest, I have provisionally restored as hardly possible that iwiaipov, if that above. (2) The usage of tragedy inword is to be discerned in the marginal variably requires di' WTWV (&T6S) in the note, could express the rolling gait of oxen. Robert, accepting 0-tfifia.Ta in 96,proposed context: see Aesch. Cho. 54, 449. Soph. O. T. 1387, Ant. 1188, El. supposes that both lines refer to the 737- r439i &• 858. Eur. Med. 1139, mark of ownership which Apollo had Rhes. 294, 566.—poifldos is Tapeinypatp-fj, branded on the hoofs of his cattle, and that this mark had been disclosed, pro- and appears to refer to the sound of the lyre which the semi-chorus fails to recogbably in 52 f. nize. Wilamowitz thinks the word could 1O4 lK(i€|itt7(j.evov: see cr. n. The not be so applied : but see on 255. Robert tense is a serious objection to the reading iK/xeTpoij/ievov: contrast Eur. fr. 382, 3,also explains poi^dos as the bellowing of the cattle, but objects to Hunt's restorawhere the present expresses customary action ( = 8s iK/jLeTpelrai.). T r . : 'here istion on the ground that, though the wapeirtypari follows 107, the sound had a moulding of the very size.'—\Urpov already been heard and correctly interimplies that the chorus measured the preted by the first speaker. track with their eyes, and observed its correspondence: cf. Ai. 5 pjerpovfievov | 1O9 f. The construction is as follows: % ZX"y TO Keivov veo%dpaxS oirws are. aura re tx"V Kal 0 OT*/3OS [i.e. the indi-

IXNEYTAI

243

5

Ktivov evapyrj TCOVfi[o]£>vpadeiv vdpa. no HMIX. ea yxaXa. TTa\i,vcrTparj TOL val pa Aia ra yS^ara e's TovfiiraXiv SeBopKev aura S' etcriSe. Tt ecrTt TOVTC ; TLS o TpoTros TOV Tay/Aar[os ;] 10 e[s] TOVTTLCTU) TO. irpocrdev rjWaKrai, ra S' aS 115 ivavrC

2,1. TLV av

dXXiiXoicri crvju,7r[e7rXey]yaeVa.

av T7]u[o ap eqjqvpes, TIV av,

113 et's pap. et saepius | av pap., unde 845opK£i> ad' rdS' Hunt 114 TOVT'L: a (i.e. ravTi) suprascr. pap. 2 | irpdy/xaTos in marg. add. pap. 2 118 evpes paj]. vidual marks and the entire trail] Keivuv laced facing in opposite directions to T&V fiowv irapa [ =; T&petat] rdSe ivapyyj each other.' They reach a point where fiadetv. Wilamowitz at one time placed the general direction of the trail appears a colon after crW/3os, but subsequently to be reversed, so that the forward marks preferred a full stop before ixadelv. The are now turned the wrong way : besides latter alternative is the better of the two, this, many of the hoof-marks are half but there is no reason why the passage obliterated by others going in the reverse should not be continuous. direction. The language follows h. Herm. 'ii dvrla Troikas dirXds, ras Tpotrffev oirur112 f. val pa ACa occurs also in 6ev, I Tas 5' Siriffev -wpbaStv, Kara 5' £nEur. Cycl. 555, 558, 586. We may iraXiv avrbs %f$aipe {Hermes drives the render : ' nay, verily, the footprints are cows backwards, while he himself walks reversed and face in the opposite direction.' val, as Shilleto remarked (Dem. forwards). Cacus carried out the same trick differently: Verg. Aen. 8. 210 cauda de fals. leg. p. 285), serves not so much ' the purpose of affirming the preceding in spduncam tractos versisque viariwi j indiciis. Hunt supports o-u(j.ir€Tr\eYtMva position, as of ushering in the subsequent by quoting Xen. cyn. 5. 6 r i Zxvq opOd objection.' Cf. Xen. Cyrop. 1. 6. 29 oi ytyvuxTKeis 8TL Kaicovpyiai T4 eltn /cat... ...rod d' rjpos
ZO*OKAEOYI

244

15

irpocnraiov <wSe 7rpos yrj TI'S vfia>v s T[I]S i ] T[

[

20

Taura

[5] XO. 21. T[I TOUT' [ S/ ov T[I

Kvirqyereiv 6 T/OOTTOS ;

^

i

necrcov, is rwi. iv 7r[oi]w TOTTCO ;

•7r[ou] yrjs

o[v y]a.p

TOV TpOTTOV. I2

;]

5

TiV daopa.%

TWO.

; ri o-iy]a#', oi TT/3[O

TOU

Hunt, interrogatione intra v. u8terminata 1 2 2 KI)|35O 1 1 9 KeKXi/x | f 123 rpoiruii. pap.: corr. Wilamowitz 128vid.idcomm. j et/ietpei[.] j olim Hunt p2 128 p 2 2 l pap. 2 9 irtyaB' B' oi i Th pap., primum e d del. 129 Theonem legisse testatur pap. : [<jry]aT' cj pap. For the adverb ('so newly bowed to the analogy of iptaroixavris, but would now earth') cf. Nic. T/ier. 689 el Sc <sb ye prefer irbBov ii/els (Eur. Bacch. 851), as a somewhat easier change and as accounting % cun- avvydelq. \iyofx.ev. ningly conceals himself for purposes of 127 iyav is colloquial. It is exself-defence : cf. Ion Chius fr. 38, 4 arpb- plained by Kuehner-Gerth II 62 (followed j3i\os a/j.(pa.Kavffov (Salmasius for a/j.X"os' w a s adopted by of 0u/xatVaj. Wilamowitz suggested that Hunt in both his editions. In that case, awodv/i.aiveii> was used for dirodv/uav, andit would seem necessary also to accept that the latter was a synonym of awaTre'p- Ifielpa from the same critic ; for, as he Seaffai. But the double assumption is says, the chorus have not shown any unwarrantable. Hunt, in order to secure desire to investigate the sound. But we the same meaning, conjectured d7 may very well read dXX' ov ris...ipetpeis from Hesych. n pp. 350, 371 s.vv. f liaBeiv; as in the text, with rl STJTO. (Hunt) and ifffiaivei,—evidence which fails to in place of TI jjv; ri in the following line. prove that Wfiaiveiv could be used for a \ \ d is idiomatic in introducing a fresh wtpSeaBai. The associations of Kii|3Sa are question, as explained by Maetzner on different, if we may judge by Ar. Eq. 365, Lycurg. 144.—For Ke'p^vos see on fr. 279. Pac. 897, Thesm. 489 (with Blaydes'sn.): —The reading of Theon (viyad' oi) is in other words, it alludes to axyp"- &K°- very much more forcible, as marking the XCWTOC Kal erai.pi.Kbv (schol. Ar. Lys. 231).contrast with their former loquacity. Hence I formerly suggested xodofj.av^s on

IXNEYTAI 25

Col. vi

XO. 2,1. XO. Si. XO. Si. XO.

SI.

245

crftya uev ovv.l 130 TLti' ecrr e/ceifeji' a7ro^ocrL ^u,'^Sei']os (fxov^v K\VO)V ; e/AOt iridov. e/Apw] 8ift>[y|u,a y ' ouSaJjuais ovrjcreTe. 135 aKovcrov av T[O]V X/ 3 [ 7 ?/ Aa ] T [ 0 ] s xpovov TLVOL, ei»[#aS'] i$ev[ ] []y t6(j)a> rov ovSe[l]s [d] ava-yva cra>\jia]T' iKfxe^ayyiivoi, 140 6rjp5iv OVT[€<;, i]v [Tr]dcrr) cr/cta

10

dvevpa 137 >K7rXa7(^i'Tes) Aristophanem, 4n0dS' ^evia/ieda Theonem legisse testatur pap. 2 : 7r[X]a7e>'Tes - . e|[.] . yurfjLeda (i^wprylff/ieffa?) pap. 1 3 9 post ij>6<pov interpunxit pap. 14O eK^e/j.ay^va Aristophanem legisse testatur pap.2 which is placed after \j/6<po>> in the papyrus must be an error. 4 8 0 ret /j.ea\a yas a.Trovo<j.which is chosen for its compressible character, is described as icr)pt>s /ie/j.a\ayfj.4vo5 135 For the palaeographical data (Bekk. anecd. p. 278, 23 : cf. Ael. et Paus. see Hunt's note. The received supplefr. 251 a Schw.). See also Sandys on ments are not convincing, and the retort Dem. 46. 11.—Since it appears to be suggests the repetition of e/«i (e.g. ifwl 8' necessary to admit fores in 141, I have gpevvav). retained €K(j.€(ia-yfi.c'voi here (see cr. n.) 136 f. aKouo-ov KTe. ' Listen to the rather than eKfi.efiayij.4va, which is prething for a bit, and hear what a noise....' ferred by Hunt. The subordinate clause introduced by ofy takes the place of the ace. rei, which is 141 f. KoKiora is difficult, unless normally combined with the genitive of ovra K&V is read, as I formerly proposed. the personal object following a.Kotiw Hunt states, however, that there is not (audire ex aliquo aliqttid). Cf. e.g. Phil. room for this reading in the lacuna. 12 7 3 ^ov\ofio.L Se <xov Khtietv irorepa 5^- Contrast 147 KaKuyra dyplwv, and for doKTcu. For av rod Maas conjectured the grammatical principle see Kuehneravrds, but surely the article is required Gerth § 363. We can hardly carry on JM Tm with x»^l - - The latter word is used aiifiara, and must suppose that /cd/ciora colloquially, just as we say ' the thing,1 is nominalized like TO. irpuira in Ar. Ran. with a touch of contempt. Cf. 365, and 421. There is a formal parallel in Thuc. see Neil on Eq. 1219, Starkie on Vesp. 4. 76 tan de 7] Xaiptbveia ^trxarov TTJS 0.33.—6f|ev£ov <|>opei
£04>0KAE0YZ

246

8LCI,KOVOVVT€<S, [ < r ] [ / ]

[ ] [ ]

J

Ka[l y]XwevyeTe—

145

15

TOlOl)[S]e VCLTpOS, <3 KaKLCTTa 6rjpi(x)V,

20

ov TTOXX' i(f)' rjftrjs lAvrj/JiaT' avSpeias VTTO /c[e]iT(u Trap' OLKOLS vvfJL KXLVOVTOS, OV SeiA[o]uyu.eVou, ouSe \f/6(j)OL(ri TCX)V opeiTpocjxov fiorStv [77-Jr^crcroi'ros, aXX' a\ix\ixaicriv e£ei[p]yacr/u.eVoi>

144 fiivov pap.

corr. pap.

2

15°

malim 15O 8ei\ov/xivov in marg. Ni(candro) adscriptum: SovXov152 alxt*al<™> scripsi: aKfialaw Hunt | i&ipycur/iivov ex i^etpyatr/iiva

144 a^Xws iv TT6X« wecfrvKbra. I am glad to find that Robert also is dissatisfied with ad/iar', but his conjecture ofifiar' is no improvement. 146 ((xxXiJTes. Satyric choruses wore the phallus: cf. Eur. Cycl. 439, and see Haigh, Attic Theatre*, p. 294. For the comic stage see schol. Ar. Nub. 538.— «l. .Bet), at a pinch. For the subjunctive with el cf. 0. C. 1443, Ant. 710, Ar. Eq. 698. It is not easy to recover the nuance of the construction, or to understand why it was occasionally preferred to the normal uses. Neil (on Eq. I.e.) seems to think that it was paratragoedic in Aristophanes, but it may rather have been the literary survival of an almost extinct colloquialism, like our an Vplease you. For other examples see KuehnerGerth 11 474. 147 TOioCSe iraTpos is isolated. In order to show that it is a continuation of the address from <pa\TJres, I have printed €l...
iros 'ApyeHpovrys | fdiryoyT' iv
«s <|>UYIIV KXCVOVTOS, giving

way

to flight. For the use of Kkivu cf. Polyb. 1. 27. 8 TG>V irepl ra //.4ol re Kai etienco-

IXNEYTAI

247

[ a ] vvy v(j> vjAwv Xa/x[:rp' app [\j/]6(f>(j)- vecopet, /coX.a/c[t] irokf/Avtav [ r t ] Srj (frofieLadc i r a i S e s w s irplv TTXOVTOV

Se

£

]

4

v\_o\dev; S

155

f

25

Col. vii

/cat TT\V iXevdepaxTLv rjv Karyvecrev r e Ka.fji.oi; r a u r ' dt^eVres i et /ATJ vavoo-TrjcravT&i e'^t^veucre[re ra§ /3oBs 07717 f3e/3acn /cat roi' y8ou/cdA.o[f,

VJJL2V

160

153 i^ux ex rj/iQi/ corr. pap. 2 | {nroppvwalveTai. praetulit Hunt | post hunc v. lacunam indicat Wilamowitz 1SS TI supplevi: 6v Wilamowitz 159 de/^cres ex wpavres corr. pap. 2

object of i&ipyaaixivov 'having des551 ijSr) Se vi/iov is otherwise be avoided. intolerably harsh, unless supported by a participle like iKTrkayivrav. But this 155 The child's fear of the unknown is unduly to limit the sphere of the causal may be illustrated from Plat. Phaed. 77 E (instrumental) dative, which is not int'ffws <=vi. TIS Kal iv Tjfuv TaTs 6s Ta rotaura frequently applied to the influence of 0o/3e?Tai. To be afraid before you have external circumstances in the place of cause is like crying out before you are Sid c. ace. See El. 549, Track. 1127, hurt (Phil. <)\-i, Ar. Plut. 477). Ant. 691 with Jebb's nn. Eur. Hel. 156 xP UCR >4 >avTOV is a new com^9n., Hclid. 474 n. Andr. 157 trTuyov- pound. Cf. 45. juat 5' dvSpi <papfia.Koiai trots, ib. 247 1 5 7 dveSfijcrro is a formal word for luaovv ye irarplSa <sy\v 'AxiXA^ws (p6vq!. to undertake, acknowledge, become reEl. 149 x^Pa 8t Kpar' £iri Kotipipov | TtOe-sponsible for. Cf. Isae. 3. 18. Dem. 33. ueva dav&Ttp aip. I dwell upon this 11, 35. 7, 46. 7, 59. 58. the more, because the examples given by 1 5 9 eiSere : ye an idle. The appliKuehner-Gerth I 439 are not representacation to persons in the metaphorical tive of this aspect of the idiom.—xdXaici sense is Sophoclean : O.T. 65 UHTT' OVX is obscure, and, if Hunt is right in CTTCCJJ 7 ' (VSOVTA. p.' i^eyelpere. 0. C. 307 gendering it ' cheating,' one does not see Kei flpadiis | cSSet. whom shepherds are supposed to delude. 1 6 0 dvavoo-njo-avT6s, not to pursue I suggest that there is a contemptuous allu(Hunt) but to return to the path. It sion to the soothing of the shepherd's pipe: should be remembered that the simple Eur. fr. 773, 27 ffipiyyas 5' ovpi^arai \ KIverb does not primarily or chiefly mean vovaiv iroifivas, 4\&TCU. Ale. 577 fJotrKTfinacn to return.—For the minatory condition coioi (rvpifav I iroijuWras vnevaiovs. Rhes. see Goodwin, §447.

I00KAE0Y2

248

ickaiovTes avrrj SetXia ^ X O . TTdrep, i r a p w v a v r o s fie

Si.

KvvopTLKOv 10

f

j

y

Iv ev KareiSrjs el TIS etrri SeiXta. yvbxrrj yap CIUTOS av iraprjs ovSev \4ya>\y. eya> Tra\j>]a)v awros ere Trpoa^i^Si Xoyw crvptyfia

olfiov fidcriv,

dXX' eV [d,]<£i T

165 \byai>, ut videtur, pap. Hunt I ofytou pap.

165

2

168

ict in el' corr. pap. |fapitsTtascripsi:

1 6 8 tloTu was adopted by Hunt 162 Hunt's rendering 'you shall and Wilamowitz, and compared with make a noise in lamentation for your very Track. 339 TOV pe TfyS' i^Urracrai §dinv, cowardice' is not quite clear. Rather : which would then be interpreted ' why 'your very cowardice shall end in noisy dost thou approach me thus?' The whimpering.' avrtj: i.e. so far from present passage is rendered ' take your escaping from pain by your cowardice, stand at the cross-ways'; and, since the it will be the cause of your chastiserelevance of the remark to the situation ment. Wecklein's airol is unnecessary. I suppose <Jio<|nj£
£\9ecv | ira-WTaivei 8' eK&repOe, vbos 8£ oi r/ire Kv/ia \ elkeirai, /id\a, 8' 6i[/e [urjs

wpifaTo /3ouX^s. Hesych. II p. n o . Zenob. 3. 78. Suid. s.v. iv TpibSq ei/j.1 Xoyur/uov. Trapoifila. iwl TSIV adifiXwv KO.1

IXNEYTAI

249

iya> 8' iv [e]pyoi? -nap^ivoiv <x v v v, y \p, a a. Key o TL novas

170

TI \La.Tnv inrei<\aye<s VTre 15

vno [JL t o e s ; ^ iv npaiTa) TIS oSe

^

itfd

ikr}X[v6ev

el, dvdyov. Sevr', at, T I S oSe . [ . . . . ] .

6 Spa/us, 6 ypdvL<s [

]

172 vir6 fi i'5es ex inr' e^ue ides corr. pap.1 7 3 iv ex 6 corr. pap. 2 1 7 4 (bis) pap.: corr. pap. 2 1 7 6 SeCrc a in marg. pap. 2 : 5evrep
if}6\oiv TrpayiidToiv. It is evident, then, that ' to leave the cross-road ' is the same as 'to go straight on,' or, in other words, ' to hesitate no longer'; and it will be observed how well that agrees with the appearance of direv$vv£> in the following line. Here of course we have nothing but a figure of speech directed against the trembling satyrs: there was no cross-road on the stage.—It may be assumed that d^la-ra is intransitive in accordance with its usage, and that fSacriv is parallel to Ai. 42 TT/PS' ewe/nri7TT« ^tto-ic, and less closely to Eur. Hclid. 802 iKftas 7r65a (n.).—For the compound adjective with three terminations see on fr. 394. —For the aspiration of oinov Wilamowitz quotes Herodian I 546 Lentz TO otfios, oi/tw Saffwereu : cf.
e\e\v$ev

probably a glyconic. vvv: see on 125. i|/ without a vowel sound recalls the Plautine st. It is not recorded elsewhere, but is apparently a drover's cry like \[>6 fr. 521. Wilamowitz rejects the arrangement vvv\p ^aa, forms which are equally devoid of authority. 171 f. 'Why dost idly groan and gibber and look askance at me ?' u7roxpifa is used by Aelian nat. an. 6. 19 of the noise made by the locust, npifa, to squeak or creak, is used also of the sound of foreign speech (Ar. Av. 1520) and of the chirping of a bird (Horn. 6314). ujro/fXdfw does not occur elsewhere. 1 7 3 iv JirpwT: does this mean ' in the first lap (turn) ' ? So rpbiros = 'direction' in Herod., e.g. 1. 189 8id)pvx&s dyd&KovTa Kai eKarbv . . rerpa/j.[i^vas Travra Tp6irov. Robert however reads Tpbiros, referring to 120. 1 7 4 «)(€(.: you are caught. 175 dvo^ov: 'off with you!' i.e. consider yourself a prisoner, av&yuv, technically to arrest, is illustrated by Holden on Plut. Them. 23. 176 Robert restores Sevripq rls o5e rpoiros; ITT)S Kre., and is probably right in supposing that at this point Silenus addresses individual satyrs uy name: ITTJS 6 ApaKts, 6 Tpaircs, Ouplas, WLe'Swos (orMe^iiui'),2TpdT[0j,Kpo/a'as (cf. KPTj/a'as), and lastly T/)^x's> which is to be compared with Ap6[us on the Brygos vase and II6S1S (Heydemann, Satyr- u. Bakchennamen, pp. 36, 38). 177 SpaKis is an unknown word, but its correctness is rendered probable by the presence of -/pains. Wilamowitz adduces AopKLS, which is the name of a satyr on more than one inscription (Pauly-Wissowa v 1568). For 7pd7ris

S04>0KAE0YI

2:50

ovpta<; aS[

20 OTL

crrtySos

25 Col. viii

.]

/€Trov idirov [x,\_ OTTTTOTTOL- a /XLapd, y e [ rj T a ^ ' OTTorav a.Tri^[s

airekevdepos wv ok . [ 10

dXXa /A-^

\[

[] T[O]

[]/ 15

Se

[]y

OV[K e]tcra/co[i;e]is, rj o-t[ya.

, \jj6(j>ov

18O vo^tos ^6/ioK Theonem legisse testatur pap.'2 1 8 6 fie ex Se corr. pap.2 192 ij: i) supra ei scr. pap.2 193 o\/3 legi posse negat Hunt 197 /3 in marg. ducentesimo versui adscriptum see Hesych. I p . 445 ypairiv yrjpas T4TTIirapair\a.KTos. But ir\ayKT6s itself is 70s, rl o^eujy, KO.1 ru)v iicSvo/j.e'vbn'. icai sometimes written ir\aKr6s in our MSS: etSos opviov. KOX pvaabv, airb TOV ypafi/ias see Aesch. Pers. 280, Ag. 598. Ixew rcks pvTi5a.s, Sdev Kal T) ypavs iyrv 197 |i»v is used ironically: 'can it fio\6yT}Tcu. Here one suspects the meanbe that we spoke the truth after all ?' ing wrinkled, which is attested also by For examples see Kuehner-Gerth II Etym. M. p. 239, 31 yp&.inr 6 eppvnSw- 525. /xivos. Similar are Aristoph.'s dTpbov was restored by Wilamo{Nub. 450), ya.arpi.% (Av. 1604). witz. The hyperbaton is not uncommon 179 ixeBtieis, diropets, Rossbach. But in tragedy: cf. Eur. Cycl. 121 aireipovac see on 176. 5', T) T{$ £Sxn, Arffitirpos oraxw; Rhes. 1 8 2 arifios oSe vtos, Rossbach. 565 AidfiTjSes, OOK yKouaas, 7} Kerbs ip6(pos 192 The meaning is perhaps again (rrafei 81' &TW, revx^oiv TWO. KT6TTOV ; Hel. discernible: ' I expect you will soon 719.n. Hclid. 132n. Soph. fr. 764. regain your freedom.,.,' spoken with Kaibel on El. 1358. irony. However, if T&X& is not ironical 199 ff. The proper arrangement of in Horn.
IXNEYTAI XO. XO. %I.

TL

251

€(TTLV

ov

el OVK €
aWTOS CTV TCLvd' [oVr? 6ekeiS

2OO

1 9 9 ri io-Tiv; etiam Sileno, ov ixevCi choro, /x(i>' el $vv(f (quod ex v. 200 eiecto diXeis hue transtulit Wilamowitz) Sileno tribuit Hunt 2OO sqq. choro tribuit Hunt [ 8wri Siva scriptum fuisse, sed piXrcov esse' Siry BtXeis in marg. testatur pap.2 a paragraphus appears' after 210, which senarii; and in any case errors in its is unnecessary and unusual if the speech employment are frequent (cf. 68). We which follows is to be attributed to the suppose, then, that Silenus hears the coryphaeus. Hunt, however, considernoise clearly for the first time at v. 198, ing it obvious that 200—203 belong to and is so terrified that he resolves to the chorus, and 204—206 to Silenus, depart at once and does so, although the corrects the division of 199 by combining chorus apparently attempt to keep him. ri ianv with aiya as a remark of Silenus, On that assumption, the ironical tone of and continuing accordingly. Being also [isV el fleXeis, ' do please stay,' or ' won't of opinion that niv', ei Sftei! is unsuitable you stay? ' is exactly suitable to the occaas addressed by Silenus to the chorus, sion, if the chorus are now aware that and that the repetition of 0Aeis is awkSilenus is rather more frightened than the ward if Siry di\ei.s is adopted in 200— rest of them. Cf. Phil. 730 £pir\ el though the latter contention can hardly OAeis (' I pray thee, come on'), and El. be admitted—he accepts Wilamowitz's 585 el yap deXeis, SiSa^ov (where the tone proposal to transfer Svvo, from 200 to is ironical, as here : see Jebb's n.). In 199, and attributes jtt^p' elbfivq. to Silenus. 200, so far as the sense is concerned, it is By giving 211—214 to Silenus, he allows indifferent whether we read Siry OtXeis or to the paragraphus after 210 its usual 6V17 Sivq. (see cr. n.), but the former is to significance. If that view is correct, the be preferred for the reason that dtivaffOat upshot of the dialogue will be that the is a very common gloss on SiXeiv in conchorus are again alarmed by hearing the ditions similar to the present. See schol. sound, and propose to withdraw from M Aesch. Pers. 177 SiX-Q- dvrl TOV dvvijthe search altogether in favour of their rai.. Schol. Ar. Av. 581 OIJK tdeX^aer father, but that, after three lines spoken dvrl TOV ov 8vvr}o~eTOLt. Schol. A Horn. by Silenus, they forthwith resume their * 366 ^9eXe] ijSuraro. Schol. Horn. labours. I cannot help thinking that, A 353, 7 121. Apollon. lex. Horn. p. 86, if such was the purpose of Sophocles, 13. Greg. Cor. p. 135 Sch. Hesych. 11 his dramatic instinct was temporarily in pp. 21, 305. Suid. s.w. £6e\r](Tei, de'Xeiv, abeyance. As against Wilamowitz, howoi deX-qa-ei. Phot. lex. p. 82, 17. The ever, Hunt attributes 252 ff. as well as grotesque cowardice of Silenus after his the subsequent dialogue with Cyllene vapourings in 147 ff. may be illustrated to the chorus and not to Silenus; and by his similar behaviour in the Cyclops he is consequently driven to suppose (228ff.), as well as by the general dethat Silenus runs off in alarm directly scription of the satyrs in Nonnus (14. Cyllene appears. See further in this con121): iv 5i KuSoi/ttois I iravres direi.\i)TTJpes nexion on 357. del (petiyovTcs 'EPUUJ, | v6ff
evlTTToKefj.oi.sb't Xayuoi.

I have accordingly

proposed to complete 202 f. by reading cb? ifjiol SoKel I IXT] TrXeXffrov tn [ikvovra. 5ta-

rpifieiv -^pbvov, which is consistent with the indications of the papyrus. Robert's view of the character of Silenus as ' himmelweit verschieden' from the portrait given by Euripides has already been mentioned in the n. on 152. He goes so far as to claim that the speech beginning at 139 is worthy of Ajax or any other tragic hero.

Z04>0KAE0YI

252 fl

^)(ye

re

KCU 7rXov[Yei Xct)8a)i>

ras fiovs re KOL[1~\ TOV \pvaov

p)

\[

[ ]

[

] e [-J

[

] [ ]

][

]

20 XO. dXX' ov TI /if. .. .. .] .] fJi[.' S' g[dZ][] [

205

oV[. . .]] . [

]

"" 7 'J-','', 25 Col. ix

f 6 ' [ o[S' o]u epjj cov [ ] )

^

d^[]s[

]ov /A«T-]

2I

S

dXX' eya> TreSopTov iijavayKacro)

°

KpanrvoZaLKCCI p

co O"]T' etcraKo{;o"ai

TIS

2O4 sqq. Sileno tribuit Hunt 2OB c'paiv, bringing into play, 2O4 is restored by Hunt dXX' ov TI i) trot ^a' iKXnreiv etp^o/j.ac. For ov TL applying to the case. Cf. Eur. Tro. 333 M1 cf. O.C, 450 dXV oil TL fir) Xd^wcr &

S

e\itr£povaa (piXrarav fl&cnv.—ire'SopTOv is

a new word, but appears to be a suitable epithet for the sound produced by feet striking against the ground. Robert however prefers Leo's (puipuiv (for ipipuv) : i.e. tracking out the sound rising from Trpiv y' &v (ratpQs | elS&tiev OPTIV' l-vdov 7/6' the ground. But it is surely unnatural i to dissociate KTOTTOV from elaaKodaat. 2O8ff. <))6f7|i' d4>i!o-Eis is restored by Hunt from the margin, since the text is 2 1 3 irtiSijiMMriv. Cf. Vergil's salmutilated. He gives reasons against tantes Satyros (Ed. 5. 73). Cornut. 30. accepting a 0utras (Wilamowitz) and p. 59 oi"ZiKipTold7ro TOVffKtxipeiv.Robert suggests that dBiy)i.' afytitjativ, sages, that XaKTCo-puKriv refers to kicks but it may be illustrated by yK&aaav delivered against the door. iKx^o-s in fr. 929 (n.): the papyrus gives 2 1 4 »O-T' is actually redundant after
2O5 e|virt\8eiv is a hitherto unknown compound, but see on fr. 524. The following words are restored thus by Hunt (partly after Murray): TOV TT6VOV

Biciv

avrols ToiTtus

kirtlAovTo.

IXNEYTAI

255

KTAAHNH 6rjpt<s, TL [rdJi'Se ^(Xoepbv vktoSr) -rrdyov zv\JF\t)pov oipfirjdrjTe. avv iroXkrj fiofi ; rTIS i s i?Se T€)(yr) TI? jueTaoracris TTOVCJV SecnroTr) ^dpuv ous TTpocrdev 2 1 5 xup0" legisse.Aristophanem testatur pap. 2 pap. 2 2 1 8 etxes Wilamowitz: ei7res pap. 215 For the description of the scenery see Introductory Note.—Hunt's suggestion that the reading of Aristophanes (cr. n.) was not x^P0" but x^apt>" is almost certainly correct. 2 1 6 o-vv..pOTJ. For the preposition

215

217

for Dionysus (e.g. rjyetro) and the subject of evtdfeTo (i.e. Silenus). (4) It has already been suggested that the Seffirtrrris must have been Apollo, since the satyrs expected to receive their release at his hands ; and it has been shown that there is nothing surprising in the introduction cf. El. 6 4 1 fir} o~bv (j>86vi$ r e Kal Tro\vy\wos was a technical 61). That title, however, must be intimately related to, if it is not merely expression for the song and dance of the a substitute for, the better-known MOV/TI;tragic chorus is not established by the yirTjs (Pausan. 1. 2. 5, Pind. fr. 116). evidence which he cites. Further, since there is respectable au2 1 8 ff. This is the most puzzling thority (Eumel. fr. 17K.) for the statement passage in the text so far as it has been rethat Apollo was the father of the Muses, covered, chiefly owing to the difficulty of it is not extravagant to suppose that he identifying the master whose proceedings might also have been described—parare here described. The general question ticularly in a passage to which his function has been discussed in the Introductory as SvfupriytTTjs is entirely relevant—as Note, but certain points of detail which father of the Nymphs. [In C.R. xxvi arise here still require notice. (1) Hunt 310 I enumerated the difficulties involved suggested (p. 79) that Silenus might be the 8«nrdTr]s ; and, partly no doubt for in these lines, and threw out certain this reason, was induced to accept iraiSwv suggestions for their removal. But Wilamowitz (Sappho u. Simonides, p. 920) has from Wilamowitz in 222. Apart from shown that f'c-701'os does not exist, and other difficulties, a conclusive objection that tyyovos is always 'in.-yovo%. Besides, is that Silenus himself, as well as his except as a last resource, we are not children, was in servitude to some master justified in disturbing the text.] (57, 69). (2) The theory of Wilamowitz, who holds that the master's identity tfyes: seecr. n. el7res yields no intelliwas revealed in the latter part of the gible meaning, and Wilamowitz's correctplay, has been already discussed. It ion seems inevitable [eUes in ed. min. is should be added that Wilamowitz does an error].—vePpCvrj, a new word, correnot explain how his emendation of 222 sponding to iprqyivos, \divos, and many can be reconciled with his refusal to put others, where the suffix denotes material. forward any conjecture on the main SeeBrugmann, Comp. Gr.u p. 156E. tr.— question. (3) Robert thinks that the Ka6T|(j.(j.evos : the vtjjpis was fastened at service of Dionysus is meant. This is one shoulder and slung across the body no doubt the first idea that suggests so that the folds were below the other. itself; but it cannot be made to harmonize Hence Kaddimo rather than evdvu: for with the text as it stands, and Robert is that the former does not mean ' to dress' forced to conclude that a line has been or ' clothe' may be seen by consulting lost after 220, containing the verb required the examples which L. and S. quote for

254 10

15

S04>0KAE0YZ vpXv os alel ve^pivrj Kadrjf^fj,ev\W]<; Sopa -^ep^ojiv re 6vp(r\o~\v eviraXyj epcov oiTLcrdev euia£er' CI/A^I TOV debv criiv iyyovois vvfJi(f>aL(Ti KO.1 8 ^ vvv S' aryvoS* TO ^prjfia' iroi ov, KaT€K 6/xov irpiirov Kekev/xd TTOJS [ ] ^ y [ ] e y y u s fxokovTOiv drjpbs evvaC[ov^\ rpo[(f)~\fj<;, 6(JLOV 8 ' a v a u r t [ s . . ] . . a t a)p[. • • ] • • [ • • ]

220

225

2 1 9 vfieu/ pap. 2 2 1 etiidfcT' pap.: eWofes pap. 3 | t'oiTel) in marg. add. pap. 2 2 2 2 iraidav Wilamowitz 2 2 3 viov coni. Hunt, quia viuv spatium vix continet 2 2 4 post ydp interpunxit Hunt | KaT-ffKvBev legisse Theonem testatur pap. 2 may be urged that ijXvdov is not used that sense. Cf. E u r . fr. 752 vipaoiai Kal vefip&v Sopais KaBairrbs. N o n n . 11. 233 elsewhere by Sophocles in dialogue, and i\j/66ev U/J.OV I eefipida Kal ^vxpoiaif irri that the meaning of the compound is far from clear. But I fail to understand OTipvmai Ka8a$a.s. Lucian Bacch. 1 why Hunt's punctuation (cr. n.) should be yvvaiKts...vefiplSas ivrninivai, Strabo 719 considered essential to the adoption of (quoted by H u n t ) Ka8rifi.fiivovs vedpiSas KariKkvov. 17 dopKaduv Sopdi, E u r . Bacch. 24 vefipli' i£di^aj xP°fc-—eviraXr], habilem. A chief 2 2 5 irpeirov, of sound clearly heard. characteristic of the thyrsusv/as itsslenderCf. Aesch. Ag. 333 oT//.at (Boijv afj-eucTov ness : ava dipaov rt Tivaauuv Eur. Bacch. iv w6\(i irpiiruv. There is a similar 80. Cf. Lucian I.e. bbpard riva fiiKpa transference from sight to sound in 322 f. txovoau. Ov. Met. 6. 593 umero levis and in O. T. 186 wai.av 8i Xd/xiret. incubal hasta. Stat. Theb. 2. 664 iicbri2 2 6 0r]pos evvaiov rpo(|>TJs: the brood das et fragilis thyrsosportare.—€\iid£er" of a beast in its lair. For eiVtuos cf. fr. appears to be a Sophoclean middle, for 174, and for the concrete sense of rpoipri which see on fr. 941, 16. See cr. n., O.T. 1 <3 rinva, Ka.SiJ.ov roO TrdAcu via. from which it appears that some critic TptHp-t). E u r . Cycl. 189 ix-qKaSuiv apvwv thought that the verb was or ought to be rpoai. Wilamowitz, however, reading in the second person, and substituted the evvaias, thinks that den, or lair, is the singular euiafes as more appropriate. meaning required and conjectures aL, avaarpo<pal). him to add f^r.—iro8wv o^Xw, dancing 2 2 7 f. are not easy to restore. The rout (concourse of feet). Cf. Eur. sentence appears to be constructed simifr. 322 (pt\Tifj.cLTU)v 6x^tp. T h e phrase larly to A'/ies. 875 ov ya.p is fft reLverai appears to me quite suitable to a deI ykGxro' , cos (Tv Kofj.ire?s. H e n c e I w a s scription of the diaaos: cf. Eur. Bacch. inclined to read airiai <j>oip£>v K&ra | 7X160-165 i/donivad'' &pa...Kd\ov ayei raxiirovv GrfS ireLvovr' is Kkoirrjv rjvLyfj^vai (or aKLpriiixaai. Bci/cxa. Robert thinks iroSwvTerpa/xfj.ii'ai), b u t ahtai is impossible a n d impossible, and is inclined to acquiesce irelvolvr'] is is barely consistent with in iralSwv, though he would prefer Kal the traces. Hunt thought that the letter QG &^ M i W X before at was K (i.e. Kal), but could not 2 2 3 f. I have altered the punctuation: find a suitable word to precede it which a Hunt prints a comma after %PV^ t with might be the subject of irdver' He colons following iXTpi<j>ovowi.v almost certain {av' avXrjv, Murray), is aOrov T7/c Tpvxw M aKijBeh uxnv.—KOT^proved to be Attic by the new Menander KXVOV: see cr. n. Against KarijKvdev it (Epitr. 362, Sam. 281, 292). See Wila-

IXNEYTAI js eYeu>e[. e]is K\oir

S' a[. . . .]T[. . . . ] . . [ ] [ ]

20

255

c

J . ivaf

>

230

r' d^eicra crvv irohtiiv \a/c[fuT/u.acri ofjiov TToifjLvp[Tj iyeiTp[ia crTeyrj.j [/cat,] TOLVT av aXXws r/ /c\[.] JU,[. . . . [(ptuvjow aKOucracr aioe ita.panteTva.iyf\v e n Troeir' avaniav; XO. vvu
25

Col. x

TOVO , OVT€ yap

vet/cos ij[/ca)

a[oju fxa)(a<; ovo afevo[§ TTOU creuev 2 3 8 supplevit Diehl | u inseruit pap. 2 mowitz in Sitzungsb. k. Pr. Akad., 1907 p. 872. Hitherto it has been treated as Ionic by the authorities (Weir Smyth, Ionic Dialect, p. 298). L gives avns in 0. C. 234 and elsewhere, and the editors have perhaps been too hasty in rejecting it. See also fr. 599. 2 3 1 The description evidently passes to the conduct initiated at 211.—»)pT', confusedly, is the adverbial ace. commonly found with verbs of motion. See Jebb on Ai. 196. Eur. Hel. 455 (n.), Phoen. 311 (n.). 2 3 3 The meaning may be ' otherwise than in the actual circumstances' (e.g. rj [or el] Kktiova' efi&v6ca/ov). 2 3 4 irapair?iraur|Uviov, mad, foolish (from Trapairalo), which is also used absolutely = deliro). Cf. Lucian hist, conscr. 1 'fkaTTOV yap hf rouro Ta.peirat.ov. Hesych. Ill pp. 271, 275 s.vv. Trapairaiff/Aa

2 3 9 sq. supplevit Murray [ VU/JL^TJ pap.

(cretic). The ithyphallic clausula may be illustrated by Ant. 852, 976, El. 1089. The ends of the lines have been admirably restored by Diehl, Murray, Hunt, and Wilamowitz. vv(J-4>a : see on 65.—|3a8ijj;v€: the word is now generally distinguished from fSaSdKoXiros, but its original (Homeric) meaning is uncertain. Helbig, who formerly explained it as ' long-waisted' from £231, has since changed his mind and now agrees with Studniczka that the meaning is ' slender, with small waist.' (Iwan Mueller, Privatalt? p. 83.) $a.6ifavos does not occur in Eur. or elsewhere in Soph., and in Aesch. the commentators are not agreed whether it is merely an ornamental epithet applicable to any woman, or carries with it an implication of luxury and delicate nurture (see Verrall and Tucker on Theb. 850 and Cho. 168). In Pindar it is applied to Leda, Latona, the Graces, and the Muses (Gildersleeve on 01. 3. 37), and it is a fair inference that Sophocles used it as a complimentary ( pl f ) , pd 2 3 5 f. Hunt states that (pal-qv av is epithet to signify beautiful proportions more suitable to the conditions than te'pwv (cr. n.), as in O.C. alvai(Ti...pevu>v cannot both Murray's vj/cei ere TOI (cf. for the ace. fr. be read. In 236 the first five letters after 94)the gap are doubtful, and in Troeir' is 2 3 9 oi!8'. If the text is right, ovd4 hardly satisfactory. {TTTOCIT', which Hunt is intended to contrast the second clause reluctantly gives up, is said to be inconinstead of correlating it. That is to say, sistent with the remains. it would imply : 'no, nor yet....' Where 2 3 7 ff. The ode corresponds to 283 ff., this is intended, we often have oid' av, as appears from the number of the lines oiSe ye, etc. : Kuehner-Gerth II 290. and the equivalence of 244 to 290. The See also Bury on Pind. Isthm. 2. 44. In metre, which is quite simple, is iambic O.C. 1141 Jebb accepted Elmsley's oUre,

ZO*OKAEOYS

256

yX[<S]cr
T['

aft

^JXCJV

dtyoi.

240

/ca/cot?,

dXX' feulTrercii? MOI Trp[6d>avov TO vpay, «/ [TJOTTOI? ToicTLoe TIS veptre yets wo a y a OTWS iydpvo~€ dicrtnv avod[y; TCU)T' ecrr' iKeivtov vvv [rpoircav Treira'iTepa, 245 /cal roicrSe drjpatv iKirv[doio fiaXXov av d ^ J i ' S^eiX^]? [ r e TttipaTr\p'uav i y a [ p OU]K [d/oeoroi' etrr' j f iv \\\6yo\i
KT. 10

OTOV //.aXtCTTa

15

XO.

Trpdyixaros

dvacrcra Ta>v[$]e, fiev ovveK rj\6[o^v vo~Tepov

TOTT-WV OTOV

•241 /iijpap. 2 : ^?)5^ pap. 2 4 2 sq. supplevit Wilamowitz 2 4 4 in textu •omissum, in marg. superiore add. pap. 2 2 4 5 — 2 4 8 supplevemnt Murray et Hunt 2 4 7 \axaaiidrmv coni. Wilamowitz and it is not clear that ovd' is justified here.—S|evos, uncivil, as in Plat. soph. 217 E TO 5e aS ffol nfy xa.pL$eff$a.L...a%evbv Tt KO.Ta(pa.iverai fiot icai aypiov. 2 4 0 (idraios, expressing the presumption of rash folly, as (in another sphere) in Track. 565 ipavei. naraiais Xepalv. Such recklessness of speech was exhibited by Lycurgus: Ant. 961 -tyabuv TOV dtbv £i> /fejoro/u'ois y\di tract is. 2 4 1 irpo<|/aXd|T|S: see on fr. 550. Here the meaning is : ' don't assail me toe soon with taunts.' 2 4 2 evireras: readily. So Eur. Cycl. 526 8irov Tt$7J TIS, evddd' ivrlv efarer^s • (' contented'). 2 4 3 v«'p8« •yds is of course only a guess, although it suits the context very well. If the sound of the lyre was represented as coming from under the ground, it would agree with KATUI Socei (282). Robert thinks that is why the chorus went on all fours ( n o f f . ) : see also on 212. 2 4 4 OSOTTIV avSriv sounds like a travesty of Homer's Biatviv doid^v (8 498), which, by a curious coincidence, is applied by Euripides to the music of the lyre [Med. 425). 2 4 5 if. The restorations of these lines clearly satisfy the sense, even if they do not represent the actual words of the original.

247 o\KO(T(j.dT<»v might signify ' violent attacks,' since dX/rdfeic • ftdxeaBai appears in Etym. M. p. 56, 10; 66, 10. But \a.Ka<TiA&nw (cr. n.), ' howlings,' would be much more to the point. F o r the g e n . ( = ? J a\Kdcr/ji.aV ivddSe, O.C. 567 1-775 ^s atipiov I oiSiv irXiov /101 aov ixireo-Tiv iltiipas. Kuehner-Gerth 11 308. 2 4 9 op6oi|/(£XaKTOv is interpreted by Hunt as ' shrill-sounding' (as if for dpffio—). The point is obscure owing to the rarity of ^aXdirtru, but it might be suggested that the force of 6p06s is the same as in fr. 1077. Then the whole compound would mean ' violently roused'; but it must be admitted that this meaning would not suit 321, where see n. 2 5 2 This speech is given by Hunt to the coryphaeus (see on I99ff.), but by Wilamowitz and Robert to Silenus. Reasons have already been given for agreeing with the former view, and I cannot assent to Robert's argument that in that case Tjhdav should have been TflXBoiusv.—o-Bevos. For the periphrasis, which^is also Homeric, cf. Track. 507 8 fiAv T\V iroTafj.ou adtvos. 2 5 4 See cr. n. Theon's variant is clearly inferior, however we interpret the text. Hunt rendered 'tell us of this voice which resounds' ; but, if that is

IXNEYTAI TO (ftdey/jia

S' rf/xlv

257

T O I ) [ 0 ' ] oVe/3 <j>a)veZ (f>pdo~ov

Kal TIS 7TOT' avT&) 8t[a]^a/3acrcreTai fipoTatv. 255 20 KT. Ujiias //.ev auTous XPV T a " ' eioei'ai (ra<£(3s ws et ] Kpv
]u . [.] l\a<; t^

i

•

Col. xi

r

~l

\

7

/}

^

D

A

Y

*

a

^

L J ArjOrj Tijs pauvifiivov feas. /cara cnrejo? Se TraiS' iiTVo~ev /JLOVOV. Tovroj/ 8e] -^epal r a t s e/xats eyco

2 5 4 TOCTO Truis ^wrei legisse Theonem testatur pap.2, TOO0' the meaning, he was well advised in the ed. min. to accept & irepujxavei, the ingenious correction of H. Richards. The objection to this course is that tpp&fa is not used by Soph, with an accusative of the direct object in the sense of ' t o explain.' It is simpler therefore to regard Sirep <|>v€i as an object-clause : 'tell us what this sound means.' Cf. Phil. 559 S' dVep 7' £Xe|as. 0. T. 655

265

iMpavei H. Richards

is in store for you, in case you reveal....' The apodosis to et' <pa.veiTe is contained in fa/iia, and ropi^erat is unconditional. Cf. Isocr. 4. 157 dpas irotoOvTcu, et TIS €7riKrjpvKeveTat lliptraLS, quoted by Goodwin § 490. 26O

OTTWS |"i..t£eTai.

For the fu-

ture indicative with STTWS ii-q in a pure final clause see Goodwin § 324. From Sophocles is quoted Phil. 1068 fir) irpoir-

I

255 aiSru 8iaxopdo-v rQ 2 6 2 S. Hunt supplies rqvb" T/KC, K&txaptxOptp rbv 6tp$a\fJ.6f dfj.(3\vd)TT0VTa ^eirpa^ev afiovXevaaTo, after Murray. \eirTivwv Kal diaxapdrroiv. We might Rossbach preferred o-riy-qv, 'ArXavrldos render: ' who in the world is setting our I <xe/ivijs ipuTos us a7ra£ eyeicaTo, \ ?Kpv\j/ev teeth on edge with it ?' Compare the avT7)v...a.irrjXde \TJ6-Q KT{. But Terzaghi contemptuous use of catgut-scraper and is perhaps right in requiring that Maia's the like in English; for the humour of name should be mentioned here. One the situation was enhanced by the satyrs' might guess for 263 vifiifnis keV0cu Trpos lack of musical appreciation. WilamoX^/MI aireiSuv -r]
I04>0KAE0YI

258

10

/ j p y \ p ^ y e v voo-6/3os //,' OVTTO) y]ap ZKTOV rjfxap e/CTre<^acr/Aei'[o]s ru77"ou]s ipeCSei TTCUSO? et? 17/877S j ^ ] C ^

KOVK4TL

^

270

275

2 6 8 K&8e(r/J.a Bucherer: KaSeora Wilamowitz 2 7 3 cnniwrTOS supplevi: Hunt 2 7 3 yjittpas irecpaaixivos in raarg. add. pap.2 2 7 4 TI5JTOUS supplevi: 711(015 Wilamowitz 2 7 5 e7r«rxoXdfeTa. At. 206 Afas BoKepi} | KUTCUaixtvos, since no other numeral is adaptXp voai]aa.%. The metaphor, though able to it.—!Kir«j>a. but that the instrumental dative, though grammatically possible, involves an unna2 6 8 KaSeo-(ia (cr. n.), as co-ordinate tural harshness of expression. I formerly with the other substantives, is preferable conj ectu red ixirpois, but now prefer Tiiirous, to idea-rd, which Hunt accepted. which simplifies the construction by pro269 XIKVITIV. The word \IKVOV viding ipeidei with an object. With TiiTrovt comes from h. Herm. 21. 150, etc. Miss iraiSds, ' his childish mould,' cf. Eur. J. E. Harrison in J. H. S. x x i n 294 Hclid. 857 vtuivftpaxibviav..T}fii)T7]v TUTTOV. gives reproductions from art of the \IKVOV Aesch. Suppl. 288 yvvaiKdois rvirois. used as a cradle, in one of which Hermes Soph. Track. 12 (according to the MSS) is represented sitting up, and looking dvSpdip TiiTT(fi. So also Aesch. Theb. 475, at the stolen cows. ' The liknon-cradle Eur. Bacch. 1331. is a wickerwork shoe-shaped basket with two handles.' 2 7 5 f. Athen. 62 F 'ATTCKOI d' e'urlv 2 7 0 l£eu8«TiJa> is a plausible restoraol XiyovTcs opixevov rbv d-rrd rijs /cpd/i^s tion, although the compound, is new.— i^vBriKbra. 2ocf>OK\ijs 'Ixv^vrais ' Ka^opVVKTCI Kal Ka8' T||j.e'pav, night and day /ievifet KO{IK iTurxoXd^erai fiXatm/' (fr. alike. Cf. EL 259 /car' yfinp Kal rav' 294 N.'2). The same quotation occurs in ei(j>pbvriv ael, and for the absence of the Eustath. / / . p. 899, 17, but without the prep, with the first noun id. 780 oUre name of the play, and with the variant WKTot. .OST' ti; rintpas. Eur. Bacch. Kdi;opt*,evlfcu' oiK. Meineke corrected 1009 W"/3 & VVKTO. re. iin
IXNEYTAI

259

roiovhe walSa 6"qcravpb<; oreyei. [S' e r j earl TOV varpos Secret. 15 a<£[ (hldeyua ii-qwavri BpiiAov Kai, 77J_oAjA. eua\jxpei<;, avTOjs ^pepa /Ata ef VTTTias ic[ ejU,7j^]av^craT0 • 280 rotdi'Se ^ [ p o s £K da.v6vr\os f)8ovfj<s ifA/jieaTOv d [ K]OU KOLTCJ S[oi>ei]. 20 XO. dpaa[ro ] TTCUS Boa's (avrurTp.) 7rai8o[ ]ju,a£eicr[ d ^ ] • \eyet[s 285 ]cre#ou[

rdvS' d[ 25

1 [

TOJS e£e<£[. .•

j [ J e[_K uavovCol. xii TOS TTopilfiiv roidvSe yapvv. 290 KT. /AT/ v w a.7rtcrre[i]> 77ta-ra yap ere irpocryeXa #eas £77-17. 2 7 6 areyei ex r ^ f i corr., etiam rptyei. in marg. add. pap. 2 2 7 7 Kardirx^os supplevi: Sveetiperos Murray 2 7 8 (pdeyy/j. pap. 2 8 3 JSOT/S pap. 2 8 8 rws pap. 29O 77)pw pap. (feiv T6 ejacfleic, oVep oi TTOXXO! 4Kf3&XKetv on a separate fragment, should be moved \£yov(W'- opfj.eva yap /caXetrat vwb T&V a line lower down. In 278 Hunt's dipavei 'ATTIKUIV T& rdv Xaxdvbjv e^avdrjfxaTa. ol 5' 6 Treu$7j p6v for, as Hunt remarks, ' neither Klarrjs, TL yeviudai, i^opp-eviffaL. From the last KdX-jryjs (Murray), nor Kdyxys is conpassage it seems that i^opiitviieiv might vincing.' On the other hand, 8i)pos «K be used for to run to seed, but here we fiavovros and Sovci, which were proposed should render simply ' sprouts forth.' by Wilamowitz, are highly probable, and Nicostr. fr. 34 (II 228 K.) p^ropes ] Quip- the same critic's 01770s eiipe (or TJS/JC?) Kai )^VI.K6TIS, Svaxtpeis, jrctXu'ai/jeTOi.—9r|traijis an attractive conjecture.—KaTffl: i.e. in pos: i.e. the cavern, as a place securely the 8Ti
260

ZOOKAEOYI

XO. Kal 7TW9 mdcofiaL TOV Oavovros fydeypa TOIOVTOV fipepeiv; KT. TTiOov • Oavwv yap ecr^e fyoivqv, i
]p Trends TIS 17 v elSos; irp[o]fJi't]Kr)<;, ^ Vwcvpros, ^ Tro[i]Ki,kr) Soyaot KaTeppiKixf yS/oa^us xVTP^V^ &>s aleXovpos et/cacrat iri^VKev r\ TGJS TropSakis; 296 TrXeuTTOt1 jU,e[V]a£u- yoyyuXoi' y a p ecrrt /cat /fy

XO. ovS' ais iyyevTrj Trpocrfapes irtyvKev

10 KT. ou'S' au Totour[d]^ kcniv, rponov.

OVS' W
dXX' aXXoi' TIV' i^evpov

XO. dXX.' ws K6/oacTT[^]s K&vdapos Srjr itTTlv Atr^aios ^v^V; 3°° KT. vvv eyyus e y ^ w s j w /u,aXtcrra TTpocr
XO.

T[I

8' av TO] $G)V[OV\V icmv avTov, rovvrbs rj TOV£O), pd
2 9 2 y in marg. trecentesimo versui adscriptum 2 9 3 TQV 8' &vavSos pap., fiSc Si vri[vdos?] in marg. add. pap.2 2 9 5 xurpoiS^s pap., Tpoxo(5i/[s] in marg. pap. 2 0 1 a 2 9 8 ixvevul ]" P P- secundum ed. pr.: coir. Zielinski, ixvevri) in pap. iam invenit Hunt ml fie. piKvbv \ avtpap ifiMv. Hunt renders it Rhes. 55 aalvei /J.' fvvvxos (ppvKToipta (of 'curved,' but see Suid. s.v, KareppiKvafiisomething which demands notice). The vov. avveGTpa.ft.fxe'vov, Kafxirvhov yevbfievov, fact that the hearer sometimes experie'ppvTiSa/j.e'vov, where the last gloss apences pleasure is accidental: the essential plies to the present passage. Fr. 316 point is that the signs are presented in should not be taken to be a reference to a form which compels attention. this line. 2 9 6 aWXovpos. The form is estab2 9 2 TOO 0avovTOS <|>8£y|Jia: For the retention of the article—'that such a lished as Sophoclean by fr. 986.—Toishere sound can come from the dead '—see on clearly = d>s. This may also be the case fr. 870. in Aesch. Theb. 624, where the edd. 2 9 3 See cr. n. The riddle is taken strive to'construe it as thus. See also Ar. from h. Herm. 38 tp> Si ff&vys, rfrre Kev Ach. 762, where the Megarian is speaking. /j.d\a ita\bv ieLSois. Cf. Nic. Al. 560 Stahl however corrects to x&s. 2 9 8 See cr. n. The recovery of the (x^f^vrfv) av8riepTOs: arched. 2 9 5 X VT P"8TIS : pot-shaped. Cf. think (with Maas) that lxvevri\s~ Ixveifiuiv. Certainly Ppaxv
IXNEYTAI KT.

261

TO>
6

TpCLKOiV TpCLKOiV.

15 XO. KT. XO. KT.

[TTOLOVSSe Tovvofi TOV

=

X drjpa

fJL€U

7r[als

K]O)

22

litt.

23

20

24

iv]ve\jrei]s;

)(e\vv,

iropcrvvov, ei TL 7rA.[e]oi'

TO <jxovo~\vv 8' av

Xvpav 6 305

Kreavov rj
.] . TWI;

310

3 O 3 opeifTj (e postea deleto) pap. | TuarptLKpeuv pap. : avyyovovs ora 5tct pivoio x^^V^) but what we are here concerned with is d/j.(j>i Se Sip/m Tavvaae flobs irpairlSetroiv the horned beetle of the Aetnaean strain. erj6pi.vo5, and for the femininepreted Homer in this way; but Robert (P- 557) insists that the fret or bridge (cf. termination supr. 168. 6parq, the original fr. 36 n.), the yoke, and the 7r7Jxe'S were reading, which seems to have been corall denominated 56va.Kes, and that the rected, would of course be a suitable epithet of the tortoise (dpecKifOio xeXcipj/s ox-hide was especially employed ' to cover the ends of the bridge so as to keep it h. Herm. 42). For oorpaKwv cf. h. Herm. 32 irbdev roSc KO\6V ddvp/j.a [ ai6\ov otrrpa- fast and prevent displacement.' Schenkl, KOV eWo; Wilamowitz thought that the who lays stress on the interpretation of KOWOI// in Eustath. Od. p. 1915, 7, holds reading of the papyrus was a fusion of that fresh ox-hide was wrapped round the dffTpa-KWv and oarp^ojv. lower fret chiefly to prevent drying and 3 0 6 Mekler pointed out that ijcrvxos cracking, and that this process was and its oblique cases were equally undescribed in 312 f.—Sipjj.a. KO.1 trrtyos (pipa, suitable to the gap. If i) is rightly read Viljoen. Wilamowitz suggestsK&arpa.Kov it must apparently be' the disjunctive 17, and we might conjecture 7rws 5' hv y^votro to follow Sip/xa. i\repov rb Kriavov T)
S04>0KAE0YZ

262

25

[ [ [ [

24 litt. Koi]XaSos 21 ,, K6X 24 „ ; 2 5 ., desunt versus unus vel duo

Col. xiii Kal TOVTO Xv7T^[s] CoV a,K€(TTpOV KO.I K€LV(O fJLOVOV,

5 XO.

e(;a[f\pei yap avrov aio'Xicr/xa TTJS s davovri drjpl #ey/u.' i 6 < p6o > \jjd\aKTOs n s 6fjL(f)a

. 320 TOTTOV,

(arp.) 3 1 1 KoCk&Sos supplevit Mekler 3 1 3 o supra primum a add. pap. 2 3 1 8 6Xviav pap. 3 2 1 6p0oif/&\a.KTos Murray: O^UXUKTOS pap., &Tpo\f/a\aKTos Wilamowitz | di pap. ^pf trpos Al[3vi> XaKeTv | av\6f. 3 1 1 KOiXdSos was restored by Mekler, l6\ur|ia Tijs Xupas, ' the lyre's varied as the tortoise-shell sounding-board (17X"" notes' rather than ' the cunning device of OP). He cited Bekk. anecd. p. 752, 11 'Hpfjtfjs kv 'ApKabtQ o\va(FTpe
263

IXNEYTAI a <8'

10

av>

Sta TOVOV

ey-

Xp f TO npayfia 8' olnep 7ropeva> /3dSrjv, Lcrdi TOV Sa[t]/Liov' ocrrts TTO0' OS 325 ravr ^rycraT', OVK aAAos eoru> Kk[oirevs ixeivov, yvvai, crd' I Se 8v
3 2 2 TrpetTTa 5' av Hunt: irpeTTa. (sic) pap., sed irp reformavit pap. 323 iiravde/xlfcTai. legisse Theonem in marg. testatur pap.3 2 4 olirep coni. Hunt: ovwep 2 pap. sed litteram u seclusit pap. 3 2 9 e/xoi injde coni. Hunt: e/toi Se pap., Wilamowitz Eur. Hel. 1670, since ovirep would be of place which survives in the Homeric scarcely intelligible. Where the verb is Sici/ceffOai 7re5(oio. But in both cases the in the perfect tense, as in Track. 40, the preposition assists the construction : see case may be different. (2) I understand Kuehner-Gerth I 404. olirep as having a personal reference, i.e. 3 2 2 f. See cr. nn. vpeind. in agreeto rbv da.lp.ov' in the following clause. See ment with <j>aa-(j.a.Ta is supported by Hesych. Ill p . 369 TrpeirTa.' <pavrd(Tfj.ara, on fr. 191 and cf. Hdt. 9. 1 SKOV Se eK&treltcdves, which, as Wilamowitz suggests, Tore ytvoiTo, TOIJTOVS Trape\d[j.(la.ve, Phil. 456 ff., and for the relative clause put first may relate to this particular passage. Kuehner-Gerth 11 420 Anm. 1. The exHunt gives two versions : (1) 'the song traordinary circumlocutions are due to the plucks local images.' Or (2) with eiravchorus being afraid to come to the point 8e}i££€i intransitive : ' fantasies flit over (cf. 328 f.). (3) TOV 8aCp.ov' is an anticithe scene,' like a bird or bee from flower pated accusative, but instead of being reto flower. I prefer the latter alternative sumed as the subject (or object) of a suband take Theon's variant, which is ordinate clause, €K«£vou takes its place. against the metre, to be an acknowSo El. 1366. For a similar looseness of ledgment of the intransitive use of connexion see on Eur. Phoen. 101. (4) IneTra.v8ciJ.lfci. But I should prefer to stead of the subordinate clause for which render : 'visions revealed by the straining we are looking, there follows what now chords are spread around us {lyxupa., becomes the main sentence, as if 1'O-8L predicative) like a carpet of flowers.' which precedes were as much parenthetic Similarly in Aesch. Cho. 150, where as crric{>' ilo-flt which follows (O.T. 1022, iiravdl^eiv ' to make to blossom' is tran1117, fr. 282 n.). (5) SO-TIS iroB" os is sitive, there is the same comparison of sound to flowers. The variegated TTOIKMO. strangely substituted for otrrts ITOT' TJV 5S, of the lyre (319) is expressed as &vdep.a. which is itself an unusual amplification of 6'OTIS. In 0- T. 1349 oKoiff oaris yjv 8s KTC. For the T6VOS of the lyre (eirraTovos) cf. Hermann cut out rjv. O.T. 373 ovdels os Ar. Eq. 532. Stahl, who thinks that J iira.vdeii.ifci must be transitive, makes 6/j.ipa. oi>xi KTe.—aXXos...aVT CKCLVOU : for the the subject, and reads ^yxopSa for e'yxwpa.- pleonasm see on Eur. Hel. 574, Starkie on Ar. Nub. 653. 3 2 4 ff. On the assumption that the text is sound in the main, the baldness For Hermes in the character of a thief of style and clumsiness of structure are cf. Cornut. 16 p. 25, 13 Lang KXCTTTTIV quite unlike Sophocles. Wilamowitz auroe ira.pi'SwKa.v. The evidence is colgives up the first line as corrupt, and lected by Gruppe, Gr. Myth. p. 1338, holds that the sense required is TO irpdyfia and by Eitrem in Pauly-Wissowa v m 780. ( d [/.eTepxo/J.a,t. Translate rather : this is Stahl, reading oh irkpi lrpoveuo}, with the point to which I am gradually conws for os and TOUT' for TOVT\ makes TO ducting my search (TO irpay/j.a = TO Trpa.yp.0. the anticipated object of irexXpy/^a. in 223): whoever be the god who vrfffaTo, with o>s following tadi. devised this trick, the thief is none 3 2 9 See cr. n. Wilamowitz thinks other than he, lady, you may be sure.' that this and the preceding line are not (1) otirep seems indispensable here, as in part of the strophe, but form a tetrameter

264 KT. 15 XO. KT. XO. KT. XO. 20

SOOKAEOYS i Tr\d]vr) ere; T'IVO. KXOTTT^V 33° Aia cr, (o 7r/3ecr]/8ei/3a, OeXr]XiJTr}v KOX TOP 8' e/c Atos j3XacrTo]i>Ta ets ; ] av air-fj TTJ KXO \jrfj. . e]i ye Ta[X]r)6i [ Xey[co. 335

8e /Sous Trdvv ]a Ka07]p[fjL]o[(re ]X.Ol> TCfJLOJV [

J^>0 . S[o]pCL 34° desunt versus duo vel tres Col. xiv KT. [ ] dpru jxavddvcj )(p6va> iyyldcTKOvra TV 'urj aatpia o]voev, dXXd Traiotas ^dptv. 345 8' ovv TO XOLTTO\V eis efj.' cvSiav e^wv, et croi (f>ep€L ^(dpjfji r\ TI KepSauvew So/cets, OeXeis /caj^a^e Kal repnov 3 3 2 supplevit Mekler | 0IXIJT?;)» pap. 3 3 6 quatenus processerit stichomythia non liquet 3 4 O 8opa[ pap. : corr. Robert we cannot feel certain that the statement catalectic closing the preceding acatalectic series. The text is unfortunately defec- really goes back to the supposed original. For a similar error see 358 and fr. 171 tive at 369, where it might have decided (i^i\<x0# for \j/rjka<j>q.). The word was the question.—8wopi]8fjs implies 5v<rparticularly associated with Hermes from opet'" ann°y> mx, distress, —in a less severe sense than in 267 (n-). {HpetKero; 8ep/ji.bs 6 /cX^7TTi)S ] Ss TCOV ' & The use seems to have been colloquial (cf. ppi Ant. 391), and is glossed with ho-)(\eiv 3 3 3 KXOITXJ. Hunt thinks this is by Ammon. p. 146, quoting Menander iv concrete as in Eur. Hel. 1675 ( = thing 'H«I5XP (fr- 208, i n 60 K.). Cf. fr. 404, stolen), and suggests ov y' ivrvxiovXa^oLix' 6 ( i n 117K.) d\X' ev dxaMiTTiji Kal raXcuS.v. But we might as well have Kal ykp irtbpqi fllip I xellm£t>ii,ev(K tvfr' 9 7 ° SoKti \a$ew av—for all his thievery (cf. (in 248 K.). Philem. fr. 28, 10 (n 162). For the metre see p. 230. 485 K.). 3 4 4 f. The gaps are well filled by 332 Mekler's supplement is slightly Mekler with irovqpi cr' iyxdaKovra and preferable to Hunt's /two rbv Acos iralS' Spas 5' U7tes oi54v. He supposes that iwi.—(|>TI\IJTT)V : see cr. n. and fr. 933n. a new sentence begins with &pn in 343. Maas (B. ph. W. 1912, 1076) reverts to 3 4 6 els 8|i' EvSCav'4\a>v: at your ease the form ^IXIJTTJS, on the ground that it so far as I am concerned, i.e. I shan't is also supported by the wooden tablet of interfere with you. Cf. Protag. fr. 9 the Hecale, and by the papyrus of Hella(Diels, Vorsokr? p. 540, 3) ei)i5t7/s yap nicus (Ox. Pap. 1084. 3). It is certainly dxero = ' he remained undisturbed.' remarkable that the text of Hellanicus by For eh cf. O.C. 1121 rf\vhe TT\V is Tc6ff5e affirming the derivation from 0i\ete seems ti-oi I Tipfiv. Jebb on O. T. 706. to indicate that he employed 0I\^TT;S, but 3 4 8 Kd\atc: Ai. 199.

265

IXNEYTAI

10

15

TOV ncuSa 8' o]vra TOV Atos craet \6yot fjirj ySXairre KLV]£>V iv vea) viov \6yov. 35° ouros yap ovre] TT/DOS Trarpos /cXeVrTjs ev OVT iyyevrjs fJb]rJTpo}cnv 17 KXOTTT) Kparel. crii 8' aXXocr' et T ] I S ecrn, TOJ> KkiTTTqv cr/co7ret /ecu yfji' dj/caycmof rouSe 8', oS TrXava 8O/AOUS, aivjet ye'vo?, TTpoaaiTTe rrjv irovrjpiav 355 JS 8'8' oura) p o]s ] ]s OVTIV rjKef raJSe d[XX'] cuev el cru

3 5 4 5' ou trXavq. 86p.ovs scripsi: Toviravou 35O supplevi 3 5 2 sqq. initia supplevi 2 5o,uos pap., S supra T et spiritum asperu m supra ou add. pap. , S' ov irewrj S6p.os 3 5 6 5' ex T corr. pap.2 357 eun pap. Wilamowitz 355 aBpet Wilamowitz 3 5 0 |ii) p\dirT« KIVUV. I have preferred this to Hunt's /ify (TKUTTT£ TOISIV, •because to accuse a god of theft is fitly described as an injurious slander, and KIV&V is somewhat more apt (see Blaydes on Ax. Nub. 1397) than iroidv. 'Stirring up a »ew charge against a new-born child.' Note the careless repetition of X670J' in a somewhat different sense, and see Jebb on O.C. 554. For kv (= in relation to) cf. Ant. 551 iv crol ye\Q. Ai. 1092 IXT)...£V Bavovinv ippwri)! yivy. ib. 1315 iv efj.oi dpaavs. Eur. Med. 206 rbv iv X^xet irpoddrav. 3 5 1 irpos irarpos. So 7rpos a'ifj.aros El. 1125, Ai. 1305. 352 eyyeviis follows El. 1328. Wilamowitz supplied o(?r' aSris iv.— KpaT€i: prevails, i.e. maintains itself. Cf. Thuc. 1. 71 dvdyKtj dt uxnrcp T£XV7)S del rd iiriytyv6/j.eva Kpare'tv. 3 5 3 Hunt's ei drj KKoirfi ris ecm leaves the sentence incomplete. aXXocrs was suggested by El. 1474 I*.T)K4T' aXXoire (TK6TT€L.

3 5 4 Kat yrjv aKapirov: or perhaps &ypov T' &KapTrov. H u n t reads 6,-wopov &Kapirov, but &Kapwov can scarcely be epithet of a person, and the grammatical relation of the adjectives is obscure.— ToOSe KTC. : see cr. n. If the disappearance of A before A was due tohaplography, the reading given in the text is closer to the original than the conjecture of Wilamowitz, which Hunt adopts. The rough breathing (08) may, of course, have been an error, but that is less likely to have occurred in a text where smooth breathings are not recorded. Lastly, 7^05, whether preceded by affpei or by alvei, is undoubtedly clearer if combined with rovde than if isolated. On the other hand,

Philostr. imag. I 25. 1 oii TI iria ravra irevla Spwv a 8e6s may be quoted in favour of Tren/j. 355 atvei; see cr. n. I formerly suggested OKvei, but a'ivei. ' respect' is much better, and may be recommended independently of the reading adopted in the last line. Cf. Eur. fr. 395 TTJV ixiv ydp etiyiveiav alvovffiv fiporot. Theodect. fr.

15 (Nauck, p . 806)

iyu

p.ev OUTTOT'

evyivetav TJveua. Aesch. fr. 300 -yepos fj.ev alveiv iKfxadCov iiri(TTati.at \ A19IOTTL5OS yys. 3 5 6 TJK«I ( = irpoff7]Kei), comes fittingly, as in O.C. 738 oiivex' VK^ /"<" 7^cet I ret rovde irevdelv Tr^^iar' is TrXet(STOV iroXeus, where, as Ellendt has pointed out, the passages usually quoted in illustration are not really parallel. In Ar. Pint. 919 (quoted by Hunt) 17/cei = 'devolves upon.'—irp€ir«i: sc. irpocrd-wreiv rr\v •jrovfjpiav. 3 5 7 f. The connexion of thought appears to be as follows. ' But, instead of bidding you to desist, I ought to remember that this ridiculous charge is characteristic of you. You never cease your childish ways : though a full-grown theman' (so veaviav in fr. 210, 73) 'with a thick beard ' (i.e. no longer neipaKiov or dyivetos) 'you are as wanton as a goat surfeited with thistles.' Wilamowitz, reading KvqKif, understands ' you swagger with your yellow goat-beard'; but the simile is exactly on a line with fr. 848 av 5e a5afeis TTUSXOS US ev<poppia, and the comparison of wanton conduct to the skittishness of an overfed animal was evidently familiar. Cf. Ar. Vesp. 1305 dvTjXXer', iffKipra, Ve7r6p5et KayiXa uiairep Kaxpiwv oviSiov evax'rilJ.ivov. T h e o g n . 1249 Tat, (TV [lev avrojs iiriros, iwel "»;s, I aSffis

iiri

266

IO*OKAEOYI [yj

6aXk(ov <ws Tpdyos KVTJKCO

wavov TO Xeiov (j>a\a,Kpbv r/Sovrj \_O\VK 4K 6ea>v TO. fjcwpa /cat yeXoia [_X]avovra KXOLULV v&Tep,

20 XO.

25

a>s < cr' > eyw

a-Tpi(f)ov \vyitpv Te fivdois, oiroid fidijuv evpucrK' OLTTOav ov yap pe r a v r a Treicreis ^ l y TO XP TTOV Sop

s rf] Vo Tcav Ao££ov.

/ firj /AC r [o-S' e]^ 6Sov ^81/Sa^e. desunt versus fere quattuor 3 6 1 l TC H pap. 36O els Seois Wilamowitz | Xoio XPV i° r a s - PaP-2 "'' w pap., r supra prius 7 et vareptixreyia in marg. add. pap.5, vvrep ; us 7 7 Hunt, iaT^pu^, £yo> teyu Wilamowitz 3 6 2 sq. fiiiffois | dirolav pap. 3 6 3 WXeis ex $i\on corr. pap. 2 3 6 5 6'TTUS Wilamowitz et Murray: TTUS pap I xPVf-a OVTOS legisse Theonem testatur pap. 2 : xPrrlllaT0VTe
358

^XuSes ri/iertpovs. The correction «l cru and is scarcely a ponderable alteration. seems inevitable ; but Wilamowitz, who Hunt, putting a question after Scrrep', insists that Silenus is still on the stage reads us tyio \4yui, and suggests that and must be the person addressed, makes a' should be added after KkaUiv. Wilathe violent alteration of pfos to ira\ai. mowitz alters CK dcdv to ets Beotis, and Hunt has shown that the young satyrs ends the sentence with varipus, iyw \iyia are often represented as bald-headed and (coll. Eur. fr. 499). For the adverbial that the taunt may be quite well addressed ace. iio-repa. see Kuehner-Gerth 1 310. to the chorus. Cf. Eur. Cycl. 434 veavlas 3 6 2 ov, shuffle, recalls Ar. yap eT. Ach. 385 (Starkie's n.). 3 5 9 Hunt renders 'cease courting 3 6 3 f. diro'4'T|KTOv: wiped clean, and pleasure with your bald pate,' but does so, keen-scented, sharp, acute. The best not explain the peculiarity of the language. illustration of the metaphor is Hor. Sat. No satisfactory result can be deduced 1. 4. 8 emunctae naris (of Lucilius). Cf. from the interpretation of ITITVOS either L u c i a n navig. 45 KHI'TOI kvbi rod Avayncuoas spreading or strewing (Hes. Scut. 291). rdrov irpotrdeT, 6s Trepide'fj.evbv K av ytvoiTo TOO0', SITUS shows that considerable stress is laid on eyOi...ov <pavw roifiov yivos. «K 9«3v, for which see n. on fr. 326. The 3 6 5 ff. r& \pr\\ia.: cf. 136.—pivoxoXfinal clause <5s iyio -yeXw ironically repre- XT|TOV is not complementary to the verb sents the natural result of an action as (proleptic), but is employed in accordance the purpose of the agent. Cf. e.g. Horn. with the common Greek idiom, which B 359, arrriaffu 77s vq&s...'6<j>pa trpbaff' used to be known as the tertiary prediaXKdiv Si.va.Tov KO.1 Trbrjxov iirlairri. T h e cate. Translate : ' now, since the thing addition of a' improves the antithesis, that he made was of glued hides, he could

IXNEYTAI

267

Col. xv

XO. KT. XO. KT. 5 XO. KT. KT. XO. KT. 10 XO. KT. XO. KT. XO. 15 KT. XO. KT. XO. KT. 20 XO. KT.

6 Z]eus yap [ 6] Tral? K\O[TT ei] TOL Trovr)[pa 8pa, vovqpo
e]t 8' eoV Oju

\d

375

^

fJL7) TOO

K

X[

385

?•[• ve/J.ovo~i. iro[y]f VVV [ tr\\\eiovs Se y ir\\_ TIS, to irovrjp', e)(ei; T'L 6 Trats os eVSov io~Tiv [TO]V TraiSa Traucrai TOV Atos \TO~\V TraiSa Traucrai TOV ir[a]voLii [a]v [et~] TCIS Bods TIS ef

39° \eywv.

7r[a]votju,' [a]v [et] TCIS fc 7J87] fxe Trv[C\y€LS /cat o~v 2

39O Ss Wilamowitz et Murray: TOS pap., 65' pap. | ^irriy supplevit pap.2 _ 3 9 1 ov • ' . . . . — • ; supra iravaai (i.e. iraiov) add. pap..2 .| TOJ' AIDS Wilamowitz 392 quadringentesimo versui adscriptum 3 9 3 wve[ . ]yei pap. with the general rule, if it is desired not have stolen them from any other to lay the chief stress on the genitive. cattle than Apollo's. Don't try to turn But there are many examples where the me from this track.'—rj Vd. For the preattributive genitive follows the governing position accompanying the second noun noun without a repetition of its article. only cf. Eur. Hel. 863 Tpolas Sk cuBdt See Kuehner-Gerth 1 § 464, Anm. 1. /ed?ro SapSdpov ^^OP6S, and see on fr. 20. —6S0C: the metaphor of the trail is re3 9 2 Wilamowitz completed the line newed from 324. with e^cXSi' Se'Xoi, which is adopted by Hunt. But iraiioiii1 av cannot be intran3 7 5 If the sense is correctly restored, sitive (Eur. Hel. 1319 n.). We might of it may be illustrated by Eur. fr. 336 m 391), 6 /J.ev yap e as present infinitive is better avoided. TI Tr\ayia^is irdXiv (' what new trick is this ?).' 3 9 3 is an echo of Ant. 573 dyav ye XUTTCIS Kal (TV /ecu TO crov X^x°s, with the 3 9 1 See cr. n. TOV Aids, proposed comic tone indicated by the use of irci-yeis. by Wilamowitz, would be in accordance s

n

5

n

m

a

r

g

>

268

ZO<J>QKAEOYZ

XO.

desunt versus fere undeviginti Col. xvi

414

edoLS fio5>v [

desunt versus fere duodecim Col. xvii

43° 5 XO. loi) lov 7)v

T

[ e^

r TT[_

OVTOS OV <])l

Si.

(S A[ofia tw 8[ 10 XO. w Ao^ta Se[

435

TCJV

An.

[] /8o[

15

440

O7To[

[ 445 20 Si. TOP ey[ 3 9 4 diroXei ae coni. Murray 4 1 4 columna omnino periit, nisi quod verba 7r]eXe'0ois /3owi' Theonem legisse in marg. testatur pap. 2 4 3 1 post £oi> loi> litterae ir[.]7. deletae sunt 4 3 2 r ex S corr. pap. 2 For this word see Blaydes on Ar. Nub. 1036, who shows that it is commonly used in the New Comedy as well as in Lucian. L. and S.'s account is incomplete.—For the contemptuous pronoun [%aX /36es aidev) see on fr. 165. 3 9 4 Murray's d.7roXeJ
remains of Col.

XVII

appear to belong to a scene in which Apollo had returned to the stage, and

had learnt from the chorus of the success of their search. Consequently he tells them that they have earned their rewards. Probably Silenus also reappeared at this point, whereas Cyllene had retired discomfited. We might suggest that the suspicions of the chorus had been confirmed by some visual evidence, which prepared the way for their triumph. Hunt concludes that a single column has been lost between 394 and 431, and so much space at least seems to be required. 445

(\eii8epo(. S' $
Xpbvov (Rossbach), but \cnirbv should at any rate be substituted for the unmetrical irdvra.

IXNEYTAI

269

315 TpCyofx(f)a hiaropevaat ere Setrai 3 1 5 Pollux 10. 34 ntpn 5e KXlvrjs suppose that it means ' firmly-bolted,' and that rpi- has the same force as in T/HevqXara Kal ivlKkivrpov, rb jxiv ye iirlrpldovXos, rptirdXai, Tpnravovpyos, K\ii>Tpov UTTO 'ApurrtHpavovs (fr. 44, ytptov, I vev 403 K.) eiprifjifrov' 2o0o/cA?}s 5' ev '\x ' rpurddXtos and many others. (2) SiaropeOcrac is not to bore through, but to Ta?sffarOpoise" yb^fpois btaropelv tje Set, and off with the lathe, is exactly what we ivrjkaTU £vyyoiMpa Siarprqaal ere Set, with want (Horn. V 391). I suggest, therefore, that we should read something like the obscure comment ' spondas prius ad eum finem perforatas o-vyyofupuKrai.' But 0t)Xa I 4vi]\dTojy rpiyo/j-rpa dcaropveijaeois I deirai, or perhaps simply dtaropveijaerat.. none of these suggestions is satisfactory. In Aelian var. hist. 14. 7 perhaps SiaTopIvijXaTa are the four posts or bars—' bedvevdevTes would be an improvement for rails'—which, when jointed together, form the framework of the KXLVT) ; they are SiaropevOevTes (cf. diroTopveva). I find that Blaydes has suggested ivqXa.T' ovv supported by the feet, which are screwed into them. Cf. Hesych. I p. 193 ep/xiva' rplyoiKpa ropveOaai ae hei, besides alternatives ; and Herwerden e'vr\Ka.Ta. \ < KXLirdda KXIVTJS' dirb rod eveipeadai r £ evqXdrg. VGIV ~> TpiyOfMtpa Topvev<ja.i <je Phrynichus (CLV R.) states that /cpacmjpta Sei. R. Ellis conjectured dLaripevr' dirois the correct Attic term for ivr/Xara, but lOffcu at Set. It should be added that there is no material to test his authority. Robert guesses that Hermes had conThe meaning is placed beyond doubt by cealed the lyre in his mother's bed, and Artemid. oneirocr. 1. 74, quoted by Mau that we should read del rpiyop.(p' ivr/Xara in Pauly-Wissowa in 370. The interpreI Siaropedtrcu (? dtaroprjirai) a\ tation of Tp£Y<>|i.cj>a and Sia-j-opswou is Even if the facts were as supposed, the doubtful; but I think it is possible to method proposed for discovering the lost get nearer to the truth. (1) The sense instrument would be a very strange one. usually given to rplyoutpa, ' fastened with —For Schenkl's view see on fr. 314, 309. three nails,' is absurd. I should rather

3l6 piKvovadai 3 1 6 Phot. lex. p. 489, 1 = Suid. s.v. Moeris p. 208, 25 piKvovadac pLKVOVffdcu' rb bUXneadat. Kal wavTodairws x w s KWHadaL 'ATTLKOI. There 8taaTp4(peffdat. /car' elSos. Xeyerat 5e Kal was also the compound BiappiKvovadai pwvovoQcu (piyvovadat Phot.) TO Kanirvkov mentioned by Pollux 4. 99 among a list yiyveadai dffx^/^yws Kal Kara avvovaiav of dances and defined as TO TT\V oacpiv Kal opxv K&fMrrovra rty 6a(piv. So(poprtKus irepidyea'. To the same effect (poKXijs 'Ixvevrah. Cf. Hesych. Ill Etym. M. p. 270, 5, who quotes Kpdri]s p. 429 piKvovuBat.' SUXxeadai /cat Travro-(1. Kporwos) Tpotpuviij! (fr. 219, I 79 K.) : Sa7rus Sia<jTpe
I00KAE0YI IXNEYTAI

270

317 3 1 7 This scrap is taken from Ox. Pap. ix 1174 fr. 16, and is reproduced here, because fSpafieviia, an award, some

case of which presumably occurred in the Ichneutae, is a new word.

318 318

fioiiKXeij/ Dindorf: /3ooi/c\e^ A, (looKXef C Eustath., fioUXef Musurus

3 1 8 Athen. 409 c rerpiiituu okdrpi-xf', KeKXefLfiai ( C : KiKXa.fj.fjat. A) fSovKXef irapa SooxXei "Ep/i.ijs. Eustath. Od. p. 1401, 15 to the same effect, but without the last three words. Dindorf's conjecture is confirmed by Phryn. praep. soph. p. 17,

16 de B. (=Bekk. anecd. p. 11, 33). The discovery of the Ichneutae papyrus makes it all but certain that ftovKXe^ occurred in that play. The fragment was formerly numbered as incertae sedis (932 N. 2 ).

END OF VOLUME I

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J. B. PEACE, M.A., AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

The Fragments of Sophocles, Volume 3 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

The Fragments of Sophocles, Volume 2 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Adversaria, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

The Republic of Plato, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

The History of Rome, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, Volume 1: With Critical Notes, Commentary and Translation in English Prose (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Epicurea (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Aristotle: Rhetoric, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Euripides, Herakles, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Aeschyli Tragoediae, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Aristoteles und Athen, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Aeschyli Tragoediae Quae Supersunt, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Annals of Cambridge (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge) (Volume 1)

Read more

The Republic of Plato, Volume 2 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

The Cambridge Portfolio, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Cambridge)

Read more

The History of Rome, Volume 3 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Journal, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - History)

Read more

Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, Volume 6: With Critical Notes, Commentary and Translation in English Prose (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, Volume 3: With Critical Notes, Commentary and Translation in English Prose (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, Volume 5: With Critical Notes, Commentary and Translation in English Prose (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, Volume 2: With Critical Notes, Commentary and Translation in English Prose (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, Volume 4: With Critical Notes, Commentary and Translation in English Prose (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

A History of Greece, Volume 7 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

A History of Greece (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics) (Volume 2)

Read more

A History of Greece, Volume 10 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

A History of Greece (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics) (Volume 5)

Read more

A History of Greece (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics) (Volume 4)

Read more

A History of Greece, Volume 3 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

A History of Greece, Volume 8 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Read more

Recommend Documents

The Fragments of Sophocles, Volume 3 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Cambridge Library CoLLeCtion Books of enduring scholarly value Classics From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century...

The Fragments of Sophocles, Volume 2 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

CAMBRIDGE LIBRARY COLLECTION Books of enduring scholarly value Classics From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century...

Adversaria, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Cambridge Library CoLLeCtion Books of enduring scholarly value Classics From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century...

The Republic of Plato, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Cambridge Library CoLLeCtion Books of enduring scholarly value Classics From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century...

The History of Rome, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Cambridge Library CoLLeCtion Books of enduring scholarly value Classics From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century...

Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, Volume 1: With Critical Notes, Commentary and Translation in English Prose (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Cambridge Library CoLLeCtion Books of enduring scholarly value Classics From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century...

Epicurea (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Cambridge Library CoLLeCtion Books of enduring scholarly value Classics From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century...

Aristotle: Rhetoric, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Cambridge Library CoLLeCtion Books of enduring scholarly value Classics From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century...

Euripides, Herakles, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

Cambridge Library CoLLeCtion Books of enduring scholarly value Classics From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century...

Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener, Volume 1 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

CAMBRIDGE LIBRARY COLLECTION Books of enduring scholarly value Classics From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century...