Euripides: Iphigenia in Tauris 0199550093, 9780199550098, 2015936015, 9780199550104

Citation preview

Euripides Iphigenia in Tauris

\

Edited with Introduction and Commentary

by L. P. Ε. PARKER

OXFORD UNIVERSITY

PRESS

OXTORD

UNIVERSITY PRESS

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, United Kingdom

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.

It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,

and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © L. P.E, Parker 2016

The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2016 Impression: 2

All rights reserved, No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics

rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the

address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2015936015

Ν

ISBN 978-0-19-955009-8 (hbk) ISBN 978-0-19-955010-4 (pbk) d Britain by in Great Printe

CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CRO 4YY

In Memory of

Alison Grant, Teacher and Traveller

Preface In spite of Aristotle’s evident, if typically dry and formal, approbation, IT

has,

since the sixteenth cantury at least, attracted rather less interest than Buripides’

more lurid and unambiguously ‘tragic’ dramas. Not only, however, is it most elegantly and neatly constructed, it is also one of Euripides’ most humane and moving plays, in which he employs his great dramaturgical skill in interweaving

the story of the healing of the house of Pelops with the foundation of cults in

his native Attica.

Plays about the Pelopids in particular require attentive reading. Each tragedian has his own version of the legends. It will not do to read one version into another. Perusal of much critical and interpretative literature suggests that IT suffers perhaps more than most from what may be called the ‘classical dictionary syndrome. We think, for example, that we know ‘the story of Iphigenia, of how ‘Artemis demanded’ that she be sacrificed at Aulis. Yet even Aeschylus does not say that in so many words and Euripides does not say it at all. Euripides gives us the premisses on which he means us to interpret his plays. Hence his prologues. The members of an Athenian audience did not learn their mythological stories in our way. They got them bit by bit, and in different and sometimes incompatible versions. In this edition, I have tried to pay particular attention to the needs of adult readers who have studied Greek for a relatively short time—surely now a high proportion of undergraduate and graduate students. I hope to enable them to read closely and accurately, and at a reasonable speed. That is why I have provided help with syntax and vocabulary which will seem elementary to experienced readers. I also provide highly literal translations of more difficult passages, meant solely to aid understanding. There is no shortage of good, idiomatic translations available for those who, even after understanding the Greek, feel unable to provide their own. I do not try to discuss every point in depth. That would require an edition on a different scale. But I aim to supply references for readers who want to go further. More advanced material, in particular textual discussion, is confined to square brackets at the end of the note. Readers may skip what they do not want or need. I do, however, remember the new understanding and feeling of closeness to the text which I myself experienced on first encountering textual discussion as an undergraduate. Over all, I have tried to make this edition easy to use by removing minor stumbling-blocks. I still use ‘p. and ‘pp. for page references, because classical references are too full of numbers. References to books and articles are given

in forms which will allow the reader to go straight to the library shelf or catalogue, without turning to the Bibliography. The ‘Harvard System’ is

Preface

viii

admirably suited to scientific work, where the reader needs to know who had the idea and when. But literary studies need context. For Greek names, I use the Latin forms traditional in English. Other countries with strong classical

literary traditions have their own forms, embedded in their vernacular

literatures, and keep to them, The Latin forms are both ours and international. I do, however, use the less familiar Latin form ‘Clytaemestra, because ‘Clytemnestra’ suggests a false etymology (see below on 208). References on linguistic points are given, as far as possible, to Weir Smyth and Goodwin, rather than to the big German grammars. I have followed Diggle in treating L as the one essential source for the text, reporting other sources (including P)

only whete they differ significantly from L.T have used the facsimiles of L and P, but have relied on the editions of Diggle and Sansone for the readings of the two Paris MSS. Emendations not adopted in the text are cited in the apparatus

only if they seem to me highly plausible. More are mentioned in the textual discussions.

“

My thanks are due to Hilary O'Shea of the Oxford University Press for her

generous encouragement and patience, as well as to her successor, Charlotte

Loveridge, for her help throughout the process of production, and also to

Rachel Chapman for her work on the first third of the Commentary. Dr A. Fries very kindly helped with access to the digitized version of L,and Mr N. G.

‘Wilson elucidated some palaeographical -difficulties. I owe an incalculable

debt to two leading authorities on Euripides, Professors James Diggle and Christopher Collard, both of whom found time to read the Commentary

and to make many valuable suggestions and corrections. For surviving

errors and idiosyncrasies, I alone am to blame. Finally I must thank the librarians.of the Lower Reading Room of the Bodleian Library for their unfailing help and kindness in a time of upheaval.

L.P.E.P.

Oxford

April 2014

Contents Abbreviations

INTRODUCTION Iphigenia in Cult - Iphigenia before Euripides Euripides and Iphigenia Iphigenia after Euripides Iphigenia and the Critics 'The Date of IT The Metres of IT Transmission of the Text Manuscripts and Sigla

Papyri

Metrical Symbols 'The Hypothesis The Characters TEXT COMMENTARY Editions: A Select List Select Bibliography Indexes to the Commentary I. Greek I1. English

% P A

e

we

e

G,

.

I

¢ & CEEEE——

S

.

τ

el im e e P 1° T WR®

Sy

e S W

e

ede e s

05

Abbreviations Breitenbach, Untersuchungen Burkert tr. Raffan Casabona

Chadwick Chantraine

Collard, ‘Colloquial Language’ Dale, LM? Dale, Matrical Analyses

W. Breitenbach, Untersuchungen zur Sprache der euripideischen Lyrik, Tiibing. Beitr. zur Altertumswiss. 20 (Stuttgart, 1934; repr. 1967) W. Burkert, tr. J. Raffan, Greek Religion (Oxford, 1985; repr. 1987) J. Casabona, Recherches sur le vocabulaire des

sacrifices en grec: des origines ἃ la fin de Iépoque classique (Gap, 1966) J. Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the Lexicography of Ancient Greek (Oxford, 1996)

P. la C. A

Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de langue grecque, with suppl. (Paris, 1999) Collard, ‘Colloquial Language in Tragedy: Supplement to the Work of Ρ Τ. Stevens,

CQ 55 (2005), pp. 350-86

A. M. Dale, The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama (Cambridge, 21968) A. M. Dale, Metrical Analyses of Tragic Choruses, BICS Suppl. 21, 1-3 (London,

Denniston

1971--83) J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles (Oxford,

Diggle, Euripidea Diggle, Studies

J. Diggle, Euripidea (Oxford, 1994) J. Diggle, Studies on the Text of Euripides

Fehling, Wiederholungsfiguren FGrH

GMT

IG Jouan and van Looy

21954; rev. K. J. Dover, repr. 1996)

(Oxford, 1981)

- D, Fehling, Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias (Berlin, 1969)

E Jacoby (ed.), Die Fragmente der griechischen

Historiker (Leiden, 1926-99)

- W. W. Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (London and New York, *1889; repr. London, 1998) Inscriptiones Graecae

E, Jouan and H. van Looy (edd.), Euripide VIII, Parts 1-4 (Paris, 1998-2003)

Abbreviations

xii

Kiefner, Versparung

G. Kiefner, Die Versparung: Untersuchungen zu einer Stilfiguren der dichterischen Rhetorik am Beispiel der griechischen Tragddie

Kovacs, Euripidea

D. Kovacs, Euripidea, Mnemosyne Suppl. 132

Kovacs, Euripidea Altera

D. Kovacs, Euripidea Altera, Mnemosyne

Kovacs, Euripidea Tertia

D. Kovacs, Euripidea Tertia, Mnemosyne Suppl. 240 (Leiden, etc., 2003) R. Kiihner, rev. Ε Blass, Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache 1

(Tiibingen, 1964)

Kithner-Blass

(Leiden, etc., 1994)

Suppl. 161 (Leiden, etc., 1996)

(Hannover, 31890)

Kiithner-Gerth

Kyriakou, Commentary

R. Kiithner, rev. Β. Gerth, Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache Ἱ (Hannover and Leipzig, >1904) P. Kyriakou, A Commentary on Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris (Berlin, 2006) H. C. Ackermann, J.-R. Gisler, and L. Kahil

LIMC

(edd.), Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae

Classicae (Ziirich and Diisseldorf, 1981-) . H. G.Liddell and Ε. Scott, rev. H. Stuart Jones,

LS)

A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford, with rev. Suppl. (Oxford, 1996) R. Merkelbach and M. L. West Fragmenta Hesiodea (Oxford, 1967)

Merkelbach—West Parker, Miasma

.

1940),

(edd.),

R. Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in early Greek Religion (Oxford, 1983; repr. 1996)

'

L. Β E. Parker, The Songs of Aristophanes (Oxford, 1997) ᾽

Parker, Songs

R. Kassel and C. Austin (edd.), Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin and New York, 1983-95) E. Lobel and D. L. Page (edd.), Poetarum

PCG PLF

Lesbiorum Fragmenta (Oxford, 1955; corr. repr. 1963)

PMG τ

o —DMGR ο

΄

Ritchie, Authenticity

D. L. Page (ed.), Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford, 1962)

~M.~"Davies—(ed:), Poetarum Melicorum

Graecorum Fragmenta (Oxford, 1991) W. Ritchie, The Authenticity of the Rhesus of Euripides (Cambridge, 1964)

Abbreviations Schwartz

SFP

Smereka Stevens

SVF

Taplin, Stagecraft Threatte

TrGF

Taryn

Voigt West, GEF

West, GM West, IEG?

xiii

Β, Schwartz (ed.), Scholia in Euripidem 1 and

Π (Berlin, 1887-91)

C. Collard, M. J. Cropp, K. H. Lee, and ]. Gilbert (edd.), Euripides. Selected Fragmentary Plays I and 11 (Warminster and Oxford, 1995)

J. Smereka, Studia Euripidea (Lvov, 1936) P. T. Stevens, Colloguial Expressions in Euripides, = Hermes Einzelschrift 38

(Wiesbaden, 1976) H. von Arnim (ed.), Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1903-24; repr. Munich

and Leipzig, 2004) O. Taplin, The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford, 1977; corr. repr. 1989) L.Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, I: Phonology; 11: Morphology (Berlin and New

York, 1980 and 1996) Β, Snell, S. Radt, and R. Kannicht (edd.),

Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Géttingen, 1986-2004) A.Turyn, The Byzantine Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Euripides (Urbana, 1957). Review: H. Lloyd-Jones, Gnomon 30 (1958), pp. 503-10

E.-M. Voigt (ed.), Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta (Amsterdam, 1971) M. L. West (ed. and trans.), Greek Epic Fragments (Cambridge, Mass. and London,

2003) M. L. West, Greek Metre (Oxford, 1982) M. L. West (ed.), Iambi et Elegi Graeci (Oxford, 121989, 1121992)

Zuntz, Inquiry

M. L. West (ed.), Theognidis et Phocylidis Fragmenta (Berlin and New York, 1978) H. Weir Smyth, rev. G. M. Messing, Greek " Grammar (Cambridge, Mass., 1956; repr. 1984) G. Zuntz, An Inquiry into the Transmission of

Zuntz, Political Plays

G. Zuntz, The Political Plays of Euripides

West, TPF

WS

the Plays of Euripides (Cambridge, 1965)

(Manchester, 1955; corr. repr. 1963)

Xiv

Abbreviations

Reference to a particular edition is made by editor’s surname plus abbreviated

title. So ‘Barrett, Hipp. stands for W. S. Barrett’s edition of Hippolytus. Journal titles are generally abbreviated according to L'Année Philologique, but in a few

cases I use a simpler, but common, abbreviation, as, for example, CA, rather then ClAnt, for Classical Antiquity.

Introduction IPHIGENIA IN CULT Iphigenia’s name suggests a remote origin as a goddess mighty to aid in childbirth. But this function was taken over by the Olympian goddess, Artemis, in whose orbit she maintained a marginal existence in the cults of classical and

later Greece.! At Hermione, at the south-eastern end of the Argolid peninsular,

the old and the new goddesses were one. Pausanias, travelling about Greece in the second half of the second century Ap, found there a temple of Artemis Iphigenia’ (2.35. 1). At Megara, he was told that there was a hero-shrine (ἡρῷον) of Iphigenia because she had died there (1. 43. 1). This, he says, he does not

believe, because of other stories about her fate. The Argives, in recounting the

history of their shrine to Eileithyia, another ancient goddess of childbirth whose

personality tended to be absorbed by Artemis,? offered Pausanias a distinctive

account of Iphigenia’s parentage (2.22. 6-7). Helen, as a young girl, was carried off and raped by Theseus, who left her at Aphidna in northern Attica. The Dioscuri rescued her, but, on her way back to Sparta, she gave birth at Argos to Iphigenia, and dedicated the shrine to Eilejthyia. The child she gave to her sister, Clytaemestra, who was already married to Agamemnon. Pausanias adds that he knows this story already from Stesichorus, as well as from the Hellenistic poets,

Euphorion of Chalcis and Alexander Aetolus.?

! This explanation has not been universally accepted. It was rejected by, for example, L. R. Farnell (Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality, Oxford, 1921), who was commiitted to the idea that there was ἃ ‘rich’ deposit of ‘real human history buried beneath the tangled overgrowth of mythology’ (p. 53). He suggests (p. 56) that ‘Iphigenia’ may have been an ‘ppellative’ of Artemis at Aulis and Brauron, and that ‘independently’ it may have been a traditional name for a princess in the ‘Pelopid saga. In addition, ‘there was a strong tradition that the royal leader of the expedition against Troy sacrificed his daughter to the goddess. This theory lacks economy. The admission that ‘Iphigenig’ may have been a cult-title of Artemis makes the Pelopid princess redundant. It could still be argued that ‘Tphigenia’ originated as an epithet for Artemis and later acquired a separate existence, but it is hard to see why one particular title should have evolved into a human being. 2 See B. C. Dietrich, The Origins of Greek Religion (Berlin and New York, 1974; repr. Bristol,

2004), pp. 178-9.

-

? On Stesichorus, see below; p. xx and on the Hellenistic poets, pp. xliv-xlv. The daughter of Helen and Theseus makes a late reappearance as ‘the other Iphigenisa, otherwise ‘Eriphil€, in Racine’s Iphigénie. Racine got her from Pausanias.

xvi

Introduction

At Aegira, on the southern coast of the gulf of Corinth, Pausanias (7. 26. 5) saw a temple of Artemis with an image of the goddess of modern workmanship, but there was also an ‘ancient image’ (ἄγαλμα ἀρχαῖον) of Iphigenia

‘daughter of Agamemnon, which led him to believe that the temple had

originally been dedicated to her. Although he does not use the word at this

point, the ancient image could well have been a xoanon (ξόανον, see IT

1359), a small, crude, wooden figure, sometimes, perhaps, an objet trouvé, as such figures were sometimes reputed to have fallen from heaven, as at

IT 1384-5.

By the second century AD the story of Iphigenia as we know it from Euripides was, of course, well established, and the popularity of his play no doubt gave a fillip to some obscure cults. That too may explain why, in spite of a general tolerance of alternative versions, Pausanias shows an anxiety to locate the ‘genuine’ image of Artemis that Iphigenia had brought from Taurica reminiscent of Julian Barnes’s quest for Flaubert’s stuffed parrot. In Attica, he was shown a xoanon, not at Halae, as IT 1453 would lead us to expect, but at Brauron (1. 33. 1), but did not consider it to be the true one.

That he thought he had found in Sparta, in the temple of Artemis Orthia. The

shrine of Eileithyia was, he says, ‘not far from that of Orthia’ (3. 17, 1), and

archaeology has confirmed him.? The shrine was celebrated, however, for the gory ritual of the Diamastigosis. Boys were flogged until their blood ran over the altar, while a priestess held up the xoanon, for the ancient image had not

lost its taste for human blood.’

At Brauron, on the east coast of Attica, a settlement is known to have existed as early as the thirteenth century Bc, and, in the post-Mycenaean period, there is evidence of religious activity there from about 700, and even, perhaps, as early 45 the tenth century. In the sixth century, Pisistratus held his estate at Brauron, and it is highly plausible that he and his family were associated both

with the construction of a temple of Artemis there and with the extension

of the local cult to Athens, with a sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia on the 4 One is reminded of the various ‘Black Virgins’ found in churches in western Europe, especially in France. See Ε. C. M. Begg, The Cult of the Black Virgin (London, *1989), who provides a list and gazetteer.

5 See R. M. Dawkins, Artemis Orthia (London, 1929), pp. 50-1. For literary testimony for the cult of Artemis Orthia, see S. Wide, Lakonische Kulte (Leipzig, 1893), pp. 97-100. Other xoana of Artemis are said to have existed in Cappadocia, Lydia, Laodicea (all Pausanias 3. 16. 8) and, indeed, in the Tauric Chersonese (Strabo 7. 4.2). A coin of the city of Philadelphia in Lydia of the mid-third century Ap shows on its reverse a woman carrying a xoanon, accompanied by two __men. Β. Burrell (‘Iphigeneia in Philadelphia, CA 24 (2005),pp. 223-56) identifies the figures as Iphigenia with Orestes and Pylades. If correct, this would suggest the influence of Euripides. For the legend of a visit of the xoanon to Aricia, see Servius on Aen. 2. 116, 8 See Pausanias 3.16.10-11. Plutarch (Instituta Laconica 239d) says that often boys proudly and cheerfully endured being flogged to the point of death in the competition of endurance. For other references to the rite, see Ε. C. Babbitt’s note on the above passage in-his Loeb edition of the Moralia iii, p. 444.

Introduction

Xvii

Acropolis.” The cult of Artemis at Brauron is best known for the infinitely controversial Arcteia,’ a rite of passage for young girls which involved enacting the

role of a bear. Scholiasts’ notes on Lys. 645a-e record-d version of the story of

Iphigenia according to which she was sacrificed at Brauron, not at Aulis, and a bear, not a hind, was substituted for her. This sounds like an aetiological improvisation, and may be comparatively late in origin.? Euripides is alone in mentioning the practice of offering to Iphigenia the clothes of women who

had died in childbirth (IT 1464-7). Full reports on the excavations at Brauron have yet to be published, but a small temple, the second on the site, has been dated to 475 to 450 Bc. There are

much more extensive remains from the fourth century.'® Given that the last

years of the Peloponnesian War can hardly have been propitious for public building on a large scale, we are left to wonder whether the expansion of Brauron could have been a belated response to the publicity given to the rites by Euripides, or whether the play and (still belatedly) the buildings reflect a surge in the prestige and importance of the cult for other and unknown reasons.'' Euripides himself (IT 1452-6) is our only source for a curious ritual at the Tauropolia, the festival of Artemis Tauropolos at Halae Araphenides, a few miles north of Brauron. A sword was applied to a man’s throat, just to the point of drawing blood. For the title “Tauropolos, most probably associated with Artemis’ function as queen of beasts (πότνια θηρῶν Il 21. 470), Euripides concocts an ‘etymology’ to produce a connection with the Taurians.!? The remains of a temple of uncertain date have been found at Halae, but excavation of the site has not been completed.’® In an article which provides a wealth of 7 On Brauron, see R. Parker, Athenian Religion. A History (Oxford, 1996), pp. 11-12,18, 74 (with

n. 27), and 97. On Pisistratus’ estate and cult associations, see ], K. Davies, Athenian Propertied

Families (Oxford, 1971), pp. 452-5. On the temple of Artemis Brauronia at Athens, see J. Travlos, Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Athen (Tabingen, 1971), pp. 124-5. For ξόανα of Artemis, see LIMC i.], pp. 634-5 and for the cult statues of Brauron and Halae, ii.1, p. 743. ® See esp. Ε, Kearns, The Heroes of Attica (London, 1989), pp. 27-33 and 174. For references to

works on the Arcteia, see Kearns's note 110 (p. 32), to which add C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Studies in Girls’ Transitions (Athens, 1988). .

ἤ See Scholia in Aristophanem 11, iv Scholia in Aristophanis Lysistratam, ed. ]. Hangard (Groningen, 1996), pp. 33-4. On legends concerning Brauron and Iphigenia see W, Sale, “The Temple Legends of the Arkteia, RhM 118 (1975), pp. 265-84. The fourth-century historian, Ὁ Phanodamus (FGrH 325.F14) apparently reported the substitution of the bear, but without, as far as we know, transferring the sacrifice to Brauron. See also below, p. xliv on Euphorion. ' See M. Β. Hollinshead, ‘Against Iphigeneia’s Adyton in Three Mainland Temples, AJA 89 (1985), pp. 432-5 (with plan of the site on p. 433) and S. Price, Religions of the Ancient Greeks (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 90-1 (also with plan), . ! Lys., in which the women of the chorus boast (645): Ἱ was a bear at the Brauronia, was produced in 411, not very long after IT (see below, pp. Ιχχν]--ἰχχχ). Men going to the festival at Brauron are mentioned a decade earlier, see Peace 873--4 12 See below on 1453-7. 13 See further Hollinshead, op. cit. n. 10, above.

Xviii

Introduction

comparative material, H. Lloyd-Jones has suggested that ‘at least in the earlier

stages of its history, the cult of the Tauropolos was concerned with the initiation of males, and was closely related to that of the Brauronia, which

was concerned with that of females.'* Attractive as this idea is, it remains con-

jecture. Certainly, women as well as men came to take part in the Tauropolia.

In Menander’s Epitrepontes, Charisius has raped his future wife, Pamphile, after straying into an all-night celebration (παννύχις) conducted by young

irls.*® gu'Euripides explains the mock-sacrifice ritual at Halae as commemorating real human sacrifice in the remote past and in a barbarous and distant country,

but it is natural to wonder whether the original rite took place much nearer home. To Greeks of the classical period and later, human sacrifice was distinc-

tively non-Greek, an uncivilized practice of barbarous peoples.’® Yet it was generally believed that in earlier times Greeks had practised it. Thus Pausanias (3. 16. 10) tells us that at Sparta men were sacrificed to Artemis Orthia, until Lycurgus substituted the somewhat more humane Diamastigosis. There seems,

however, to be no archaeological evidence for human sacrifice in Greece later than the Bronze Age, and what there is even then is minimal and ambiguous.?’

It is probably nearer the truth to see Greek myths of human sacrifice as spring-

ing from the dark fantasies and fears of people accustomed to sacrifice ani-

mals. The startlingly erotic account of the sacrifice of Polyxena at Hec. 557-70 invites suspicion of a sado-sexual ingredient, but this may be to put too much weight on Euripides’ peculiar way of, from time to time, depicting

human behaviour in ways which seem to anticipate modern psychological

theories.’® The young of both sexes are the most precious thing a traditional

society possesses, and, in the last resort, women are more important for its survival than men.

L] .’-’

14 ‘Artemis and Iphigeneis, JHS 103 (1983), pp. 96-7. 15 Epitrepontes 451-3 and 472-8.

1 For a full treatment of the evidence on attitudes, seeP. Bonnechere, Le sacrifice humain en

Gréce ancienne (Athens and Lidge, 1994), pp. 229-77, and see e.g. IT 465-6.

17 For the evidence, see A. Henrichs, ‘Human Sacrifice in Greek Religion: Three Case Studies’

in Le Sacrifice dans PAntiquité, Entr. Hardt 27 (Geneva, 1981), pp. 195-242. See also Bonnechzre,

op. cit. n. 16 above and D. D. Hughes, Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece (London and New York,

1991). Walter Burkert’s famous and richly documented Homo Necans is a psycho-sociological

study of a kind vulnerable in' some respectsto intellectual fashion. The second edition (Berlin and " New York, 1997) adds a Nachwort. ) S 13 In her detailed and careful analysis of the sacrifice of Polyxena, J. Mossman (Wild Justice (Oxford, 1995; repr. Bristol, 1999), pp. 142-63) argues that the effect aimed at by the poet and

perceived by the audience was pathetic, rather than erotic. Pathos, however, does not exclude eroticism, and questions of the conscious and subconscious in artistic creation and reception are profoundly problematic.

Introduction

Xix

IPHIGENIA BEFORE EURIPIDES (i) For Euripides and his audience there was one Iphigenia: a quasi-historical princess who had attained divine or semi-divine status in association with Artemis, with cults in Attica and in other Greek states. For us, there are two Iphigenias: ἃ faded, pre-Olympian goddess and a mythological and literary figure, and we have no means of knowing how the two became fused, or how one

evolved into the other. At I1. 2. 301-30, Odysseus recalls the gathering of the Greeks at Aulis: how they sacrificed hecatombs there, how a portent appeared and how Calchas inter-

preted it as meaning that Troy would fall in the tenth year. But there is no word

of the sacrifice of Iphigenia."” Agamemnon's children appear only in Book 9.

There, as always, his only son is Orestes (142), but Achilles is to be invited to

marry any one of three daughters: Chrysothemis, Laodice, and Iphianassa. Both the number three and the names, so suitable for a king’s daughters, suggest impromptu invention. Sophocles (El. 157) resurrects Chrysothemis and (by name only) Iphianassa, because he needs other daughters of Agamemnon to act as foils for his intransigent heroine. In the Odyssey, the story of the return of Agamemnon, of his death, and of Orestes’ vengeance, acts as a leitmotiv; in contrast with the return of Odysseus, but still there is no mention of Iphigenia and

the sacrifice at Aulis.?

The dating of poems in the epic tradition is highly controversial, but at any rate the tale of the sacrifice does not seem traceable to earlier than about 700

BC. The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women*

attributes two daughters to

Agamemnon and Clytaemestra: Electra and Iphimede (Merkelbach-West fr.23(a) =Hirschberger, fr.15). Iphimede the well-greaved Achaeans slaughtered on the altar of Artemis ... on the day when they sailed to Troy in their ships’ (17-19).** The poet adds, as if it were an afterthought, that her εἴδωλον

19 The attempt has been made to see a reference to the sacrifice of Iphigenia in Agamemnon's reproach to Calchas at I1. 1. 106-8, but this is very tenuous. A simple burst of anger is enough to

explain the lines.

29 For the fate of Agamemnon, see Od. 1. 35, 298 f, 3. 193 , 232, 256 ff,, 4. 916, 514 fF,, 11. 405fF., 24. 21ff, 96 ff. On Clytaemestra’s role in the murder, see below, pp. xxiv with n. 41. ! R. Janko (Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 85--7 and 200) dates the Catalogue to the early seventh century on linguistic grounds, while M. L. West (The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women (Oxford, 1985), pp. 130-7) puts the terminus ante quem as late as 520, A full review of theories about the date and composition of the poem is provided by M. Hirschberger, Gynaikon Katalogos und Megalai Ehoiai (Munich and Leipzig, 2004), pp. 42-51. On the sacrifice of Iphimede, see her notes on fr. 15.13-26 (pp. 209-14). 22 Another Iphimedeia figures in Od. 11.305-8 as the mother of Otus and Ephialtes. A tablet from Pylos records an offering of a golden bowl to ‘Ipemedeja’ See M. Ventris and J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Cambridge, 21973), pp. 286-8 and G. Neumann, ‘i-pe-me-de-ja,

eine mykenische Gdttin, MSS 46 (1985), pp. 165-71.

-

ΧΧ

Introduction

was sacrificed, but the girl herself was saved by Artemis and made immortal,*

‘and on earth the tribes of men now call her “Artemis Einodia”, attendant of the

glorious one, the shooter of arrows. The fragments of Stesichorus’ Helen (PMG =PMGEF frr. 187-91) are exigu-

ous, and tell us nothing about Iphigenia. It is only from Pausanias (2. 22. 6. See

above, p.xv) that we learn that Stesichorus made her the daughter of Helen and

Theseus. This variant version of her parentage did not commend itself widely.?®

The killing of Helen’s child to facilitate the expedition against Troy is not without a certain irony, but it has none of the emotive power of the killing of a girl by her own father. Moreover, the story is discreditable to Theseus, so not calculated to appeal to anyone with Athenian sympathies. Plutarch (Theseus 31) and Diodorus Siculus (4. 63. 2-5) assure us that Theseus intended to marry Helen, but that when he carried her off she was still a child, too young for marriage, so he left her in the care of his mother. Diodorus adds explicitely that she was still

a virgin when rescued by the Dioscuri. A fragmentary commentary on lyric

poetry (P.Oxy. 2506, fr. 26 col. ii=PMG=PMGF, fr. 217) seems to say that Euripides took from Stesichorus the story that Iphigenia went to Aulis under

the pretext of marriage to Achilles.?® Unfortunately, the little we know of Stesichorus’ Oresteia leaves us with one crucial question. According to a frag-

ment of Philodemus, the Epicurean philosopher roughly contemporary with

Cicero, Stesichorus followed Hesiod in making ‘Iphigenia daughter of Agamemnon, into Hecate’' (PMG=PMGF, fr. 215 and see n. 24 above). It has 23 Compare the way in which εἴδωλον is tacked on at Od. 11. 602, after Odysseus has said Ἱ saw Heracles. In the Hesiodic passage (as in Od. 1) this has given rise to suspicions of contaminationor

‘interpolation Ε Solmsen (‘The Sacrifice of Agamemnon’s Daughter in Hesiod's Ehoiaf, AJP 102 (1981), pp. 353-8) sees this as accounting for the ‘two versions’ of the story of Iphigenia which he distinguishes in Attic tragedy. | 24 According to Pausanias (1. 43.1), Hesiod in his Catalogue of Women says that Iphigenia ‘did not die, but by the will of Artemis 15 Hecate! Philodemus (see below, p. xxi) attributes the same story to Heslod,We are left with the suspicion that the two writers relied, not on Hesiod’s text, but on a secondary source, which had normalized Iphimede’ into Iphigenia and ‘Einodia’ into Hecate, once another chthonic goddess associated with Artemis, road-junctions and childbirth, but by

the fifth century identical. For ‘Einodia’ as a title of Hecate, see Sophocles, Rhizotomi, TrGF 4, fr.

535.2 and Hel. 569-70 (with Kannicht’s note on the passage). 25 For other mentions of the abduction of Helen by Theseus, see Duris, FGrH 76 F 92, Hellenicus, FGrH 4Ὲ 134, Herodotus 9.73, Alcman, PMG=PMGF 21, Strabo 9.L17, Diodorus Siculus 4. 63. 25, Hyginus, Fab. 79, Apollodorus 3.10.7 and Epitome 1. 23, Of these, only Duris mentions the birth of Iphigenia. On the Hellenistic poets, Alexander, Euphorion and Nicander, see below, pp. xliv~xlv. 26 The POxy.commentary also attributes to Stesichorus the recognition by the lock of hair in Cho. and Apollos gift of a bow to Orestes (Or. 268, with X Schwartz I, p. 126). The earliest undoubted representation on a pot of the sacrifice of Iphigenia is on a white-ground lecythus by Durisof ¢.490-480 ΒΟ. It shows her dressed as a bride, with her name inscribed before her face. See A.]. N. W, Prag, The Oresteia (Warminster and Chicago, 1985), p. 61, with ΡΙ, 39. A protoattic crater of 650-630 ΒΟ has been conjecturally identified as depicting the death of Iphigenia. See

Prag, p. 63, with P1. 38. R. Janko (ZPE 49 (1982), pp. 25-9) suggests that POxy. 2513 may belong to an account of the sacrifice, and A. Debiasi (ZPE 184 (2013), pp. 21-36) would attribute it to the

enigmatic Eumelus of Corinth, on whom see M. L. West, JHS 22 (2002), pp. 109-33.

Introduction

XXi

already been noted that the Catalogue names the girl and the goddess ‘Iphimede’ and ‘Einodia) not ‘Iphigenia’ and “Hecate) so Philodemus is not to be trusted in matters of detail. Did Stesichorus, then, really admit different versions of Iphigenia’s parentage in different poems? Or did Philodemus simply slip ‘daughter of Agamemnon’ in carelessly? The answer, if only we knew it, would make a significant difference to our estimate of Stesichorus’ importance as a source for the Attic tragedians (see below, p. xxiv). The story of the sacrifice of Iphigenia as we know it from Attic drama seems, with much less doubt, to have been transmitted through the rambling epic known as the Cypria,®” which was designed to cover all the events lead-

ing up to the outbreak of the Trojan War. Aristotle (Poetics 1459b, 2-4) remarks that the Iliad and the Odyssey provide material for a single tragedy

each, or two at most, but the Cypria could provide it for many, as indeed it seems to have done. Its (unknown) author managed to include not only the

judgment of Paris and his elopement with Helen (in more than one version),

the wounding of Telephus and the abandoning of Philoctetes on Lemnos, but

even the misfortunes of Oedipus and the madness of Heracles. Essentially on linguistic grounds, the poem has been dated to the late sixth century Bc,® but it undoubtedly incorporates stories which had been in circulation earlier.

Moreover, in his quest for comprehensiveness, the author produces doublets

by including alternative versions. Thus, he attributes to Agamemnon daughters called both Iphigenia and Iphianassa,? in which he is followed, for his own reasons, by Sophocles (see above, p. xix). He also makes the expedition against Troy start out twice, and sacrifice twice at Aulis. Fewer than fifty lines of the poem have survived through quotation. Much more of its content is

known through a prose summary in the Chrestomathy, a literary handbook

by one Proclus. One manuscript (Ottobonianus G) calls him ‘the Platonist’ that 15 the Neoplatonist philosopher of the fifth cantury ap. A rival candidate, however, is an earlier, and more shadowy, Proclus, a grammarian

of the second century Ap.* In any case, it is deemed unlikely that the author

of the Chrestorathy knew the Cypria at first hand.** Rather, he was already * Ο the Epic Cycle, including the Cypria, see M. Davies, The Greek Epic Cycle (London, *2001) and West, GEF. On the Gypria in particular, see Ε Jouan, Euripide et les légendes des chants cypriens. For the text, see M. Davies (ed.), Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Gdttingen, 1988) and A. Bernabé (ed.), Poetae Epici Graeci: Testimonia et Fragmenta, Pars i (Stuttgart and Leipzig, . 21996) and West, GEF. '

** On the evidence for dating the Cypria, see M. Davies, “The Date of the Epic Cydle, Glotta 67,

(1989), pp. 89-100, with further references there. ' 2% See X on S. Εἰ 157 (Davies, fr. 17 = Bernabé, fr. 24 =West, ft. 20). . *® A.Severyns dedicated half a lifetime to research on the Chrestomathy. His work is published in four volumes (see Bibliography). In favour of the earlier Proclus, see in particular M. Hillgruber, ‘Zur Zeitbestimmung der Chrestomathie des Proklos, RhM 133 (1990), pp. 397-404. *" Athenaeus, however, who lived in the second century ap, and was thus a contemporary, more or less, of the earlier Proclus, did know the text of the Cypria: we owe several of the surviving

quotations to him.

xxii

Introduction

relying on a prose summary from the Hellenistic period. His account is as follows: When the expedition had once again gathered at Aulis, Agamemnon went hunting, and, having killed a stag, claimed to have outdone Artemis. In anger, the goddess impeded their voyage by sending storms. Then Calchas told them of the

goddess’s anger, and said that they must sacrifice Iphigenia to Artemis. They sent for her on the pretext of marriage to Achilles, and set about the sacrifice. But Artemis snatched her up, conveyed her to the Taurians, and made her immortal.

Instead of the girl, she placed a deer at the altar’

A somewhat similar account 15 preserved in the Epifome, which is all that

remains to us of the late books of the mythographer Apollodorus.*? Similarities of phraseology suggest that Apollodorus used the same prose summary of the Cypria as Proclus, but his aim was not to report the contents of a single work,

but to produce a compendium of mythology. So he adds supplementary information, some of which 15 likely to have been drawn from Attic tragedy.*® Thus,

Agamemnon is told by Calchas to sacrifice the most beautiful of his daughters (see below on IT 23). To the story about the stag, Apollodorus adds another cause for Artemis’ anger: the failure of Atreus to sacrifice to the goddess the golden lamb which he had promised her.* There is mention in his account of Clytaemestra,which suggests a tragic source, perhaps Euripides. Euripides,

again, may well have provided Apollodorus’ rationalized ending to the story, according to which Iphigenia becomes, not a goddess, but the priestess of Artemis among the Taurians. The story of Iphigenia follows a folk-tale pattern the sacrifice of that which is dearest. Either to save himself from mortal danger, or to realize some supremely difficult project, a man 15 forced to sacrifice the person he loves best. An example from the Old Testament is the tale of Jephthah and his daughter (Judges 11: 30-40). In order to secure his return from Troy, Idomeneus finds

himself forced to sacrifice his son.* Both these stories include a motif which

Euripides also adopts: the rash promise (see below.on 20-1), but not all ver-

sions include it. In a famous (and gruesome) modern Greek ballad, the master-

mason of the Bridge of Arta cannot make his structure stand up until he has

buried his wife under the foundations.*® The story of Abraham and Isaac 32 See J. G. Frazer, ed., Apollodorus II (London and New York, 1921), Epitome iii, 21-2.

pPp. 190-2. 3 West, GEF adds to his text of Proclus some (not-all) of the supplementary matter from

__Apollodorus, in pointed brackets.

3% For the golden lamb, see below on 20-1 and 196, 33 Servius on Aen. 3, 121: Idomeneus... cum post eversam Troiam reverteretur, in tempestate

devovit sacrificaturum se de re quae primum occurrisset. contigit ut filius eius primus occurreret.

See also Servius on 11. 264. 3 See N. G. Politis, Eklogaf apo ta Tragoudia tou Hellenikou Laou (Athens, 1932), pp. 131-3

(and other collections). For a translation and discussion, see J. C. Lawson, Modern Greek Folklore

Introduction

Xxiii

(Genesis 22: 1-13) begins from a different pattern, but features the substitute

animal,

'

Travellers’ tales contribute another element to the story of Iphigenia. According to the Cypria, Artemis did not simply make her immortal, but took her ο the land of the Taurians. That 15 the Crimean Peninsular, which juts out from the northern shore of the Black Sea. According to Herodotus (4. 103), the

Taurians had the custom of sacrificing to ‘the Virgin’ (τῇ Παρθένῳ) any ship-

wrecked men and any Greeks they managed to capture on raids. And this goddess to whom they sacrifice the Taurians themselves say is Iphigenia, daughter of Agamemnon. Herodotus goes on to say that ‘having carried out the prelimi-

nary rites’ (καταρξάμενοι), the Taurians kill the victim by hitting him on the

head with a club, and either throw the body over a cliff; or, according to other authorities, bury it. The head they would stick on a pole. They would also cut off the heads of enemies killed in fighting, take them home, and set them up on poles above their houses as protection. | Greeks had been navigating the Black Sea for a couple of centuries at least

before Herodotus’ time, and the Greek colonies of QOlbia (to the west of the peninsula) and Panticapaeum (to the east) had been founded by the end of the

seventh century.®” But Herodotus’ report shows the nervousness that, even in the fifth century, the people of the Tauric Chersonese inspired in Greeks. Their neighbours included the sinister-sounding ‘Maneaters’ (4v8po¢dyot), and they themselves lived ‘by plundér and war'. It takes no great leap of the imagination

to see travellers’ tales from the Black Sea behind the account in the Cypria of the princess whom Greeks tried to sacrifice, but who was snatched away to become the bloodthirsty and vengeful goddess to whom Greeks were sacrificed.

(ii) In Pythian 11, Pindar uses the excuse that the games are celebrated in the onetime domain of Pylades to introduce the story of the murder of Agamemnon. Clytaemestra, ‘hard-hearted woman; sent Cassandra to the shore of Acheron, together with Agamemnon (19-22). Then the poet asks why she did it: πότερόν νιν ἄρ' Ἰφιγένει'᾽ én’ Εὐρίπῳ

σφαχθεῖσα τῆλε πάτρας ἔκνισεν βαρυπάλαμον ὄρσαι χόλον: 7 ἑτέρῳ λέχεϊ δαμαζομέναν ἔννυχοι πάραγον κοῖῦται;

and Ancient Greek Religion (Cambridge, 1910), pp. 262-5. When Lawson travelled in rural Greece, the superstitions which had inspired the story were still current. % On the Greeks in the region of the Black Sea, see A. J. Graham, “The Date of the Greek Penetration of the Black Sea, BICS 5 (1958), pp. 25-39, J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas (London,

χχὶν

Introduction

Was it Iphigenia, slaughtered by the Euripus far from home, that stung her to raise heavy-handed wrath, or did love-making at night lead her astray, in thrall to the bed of another man? The date of Pyth. 11 is highly controversial, thanks to two conflicting and confused scholia. The alternatives are 474 and 454 Bc. C. M. Bowra (Pindar

(Oxford, 1964), Appendix 1 and ‘Pindar, Pythian XT, CQ 30 (1936), pp. 12941) argues powerfully in favour of the later date. P.]. Finglass (Pindar: Pythian

Eleven (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 5-19), after a detailed examination of the

scholia and discussion of arguments for the later date, in particular those of

C. ]. Herington, decides in favour of 474.>° The later date would place the

poem four years after the production of Aeschylus’ Oresteia, and the presentation of Clytaemestra in Ag. could well have inspired Pindar’s question. The earlier date would point to Stesichorus as the most likely source (see Finglass, p. 16). Pindar is certainly at one with Stesichorus in giving his narrative an emphatically Spartan bias: Orestes is ‘Laconian’ (16) and Agamemnon is

killed at Amyclae (32).%° But a problem remains. If Stesichorus was consistent in treating Iphigenia as the daughter of Helen (see above, p. xxi), it 15 not easy to 566 how he could have traced Clytaemestra’s animus against her hus-

band to the sacrifice.*’

ι

.

. For Homer, of course, Iphigenia does not exist (see above, p. xix). When the story of the murder is alluded to in the Odyssey, Aegisthus is usually the princi-

pal, and sometimes the only, culprit. He is said to have seduced Clytaemestra with some difficulty (Od. 3. 263-72), and, in the fullest account, in Od. 11, Clytaemestra herself kills Cassandra (as in Pyth. 11), ‘but; says the ghost of

Agamemnon, ‘it was Aegisthus who contrived death and doom for me, and

killed me, with my accursed wife, after inviting me to his house’ (11, 409~10).! ι

41999), pp. 238-66, 5. West, “The Most Marvellous of All Seas. The Greek Encounter with the Euxine} G&R 50 (2003), pp. 151~67, this last being not only informative, but evocative and highly readable, ' 3% C.].Herington, Pindar’s Eleventh Pythian Ode and Aeschylus’ Agamemnon; in D, Ε. Gerber (ed.), Greek Poetry and Philosophy. Studies in Honour of Leonard Woodbury (Chico, Calif,, 1984). % ‘There seems to have been an alternative version of the story of the Pelopids which placed them in Laconia. Σ Or. 46 (=Stesichorus, PMG=PMGF, fr. 216) says that Homer placed Agamemnon’s kingdom at Mycenae, Aeschylus at Argos, but Stesichorus and Simonides in Lacedaemon. There was a famous temple of Apollo at Amyclae, and, according to Pausanias (3.19. 5), also statues of Cassandra and Clytaemestra and the tomb of Agamemnon, 10 Supporters of the earlier date include: Wilamowitz (Pindaros (Berlin, 1922), pp. 259-63) and

G. Norwood (Pindar (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1945), pp. 245-7); of the later, in addition to

Bowra and Herington: L. R. Farnell and B, L. Gildersleeve in their editions and J. H. Finley (Pindar and Aeschylus (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), p. 160, with reference to Bowra, n. 97). For further

references, in addition to Finglass, see Herington, op. cit. n. 38, pp.137-8,n. 2.

41 For mentions in the Od. of the killing of Agamemnon, see n. 20 above, Clytaemestra is mentioned at 3, 235, 263-72, 4. 92 (where, exceptionally, she is mentioned as the chief culprit),

11. 410, 422-6, 452-3,24.97.

Introduction

XXV

In Ag., however, the narrative of the sacrifice of Iphigenia, with its prelude in the portent of the hare and the eagles and Calchas’ interpretation, constitutes the massive first choral song. Contemplating this event in all its fearsome complexity prepares the audience for the moment when Clytaemestra will claim to have killed Agamemnon with her own hand (1384-7, 1405), in vengeance for her daughter, Iphigenia (1412-21, 1525-9, 1555-9). To a modern sensibility, Aeschylus enriches his drama in human terms by introducing a moral ambiguity into the character of Clytaemestra. But for the poet himself, one may suspect, making her the avenger of her child incorporates her act into the pattern of vengeance for child-killing that dogs the house of Atreus. At 1545, the ‘treacherous housekeeper, unforgetful Wrath, avenger of children’ evokes first of all the fate of the children of Thyestes. But as the drama progresses the ‘treacherous housekeeper’ takes on another form, until at last Clytaemestra claims herself to be ‘the ancient, fierce Avenger’ (1501). In their confrontation with Clytaemestra, near the end of the play, the chorus seem set on ignoring her claim to be exacting just vengeance for Iphigenia. At last, at 1560, they begin to recognize a conflict of rights, or at least of claims, but return at the end of the stanza to the doom on the house, which is ‘glued to disaster’ (1566). Then, almost at once,

Aegisthus appears, recalling the children of Thyestes, and claiming to have been the planner of Agamemnon’s death (1577-1611). Surprisingly, to us at least, after Ag., we hear no more of Iphigenia in the trilogy, except for a passing reference at Cho. 242, where Electra says that for her Orestes takes the place of her father, mother, and ‘cruelly sacrificed sister" Clytaemestra, seeking to justify herself to Orestes, mentions only Agamemnon’s “follies’ (μάτας 918), presumably meaning his infidelities. She 15 hardly concerned to defend what she has done. Her essential plea is that she is Orestes’ mother. Aeschylus’ focus is now not on justification, but on the act of matricide. Sophocles and Euripides follow Aeschylus in making Clytaemestra offer the sacrifice of Iphigenia as a cause of her grievance against her husband, but it is never presented, be it noted, as an acceptable excuse for her deed.*? Sophocles, at El. 516-94, treats the matter with careful logic. Clytaemestra offers vengeance for Iphigenia as her sole motivation (525-46): if someone’s child had to be sacrificed, why not Menelaus’? Electra begins by asserting that her mother’s 42 To a modern sensibility, Clytaemestra’s wish to avenge her daughter seems so natural that some recent critics treat it, without questioning, as the reason. Thus, in an essay which makes a number of interesting points (‘Redeeming Matricide? Euripides re-reads the Oresteia) in V. Pedrick and S. M. Oberhelman (edd.), The Soul of Tragedy, pp. 199-225), Froma Zeitlin writes (p- 202) that ‘it was Artemis’ demand for Agamemnon's sacrifice of Iphigenia that instigated Clytaemestra to exact vengeance for her daughter’s death (the latter fact [my italics] the play [IT] significantly refuses to acknowledge). We are not, of course, in the realm of fact here at all, but of different versions of a legend. Here too the reference to ‘Artemis’ demand’ is a manifestation of the classical-dictionary syndrome; on which see the Preface, p. vii. Zeitlin’s ocbservation on IT is correct and important. It is her interpretative method that is at fault.

χχνὶ

Introduction

killing of Agamemnon is ‘ugly;, whether the deed was done ‘justly or unjustly’

(εἴτ᾽ οὖν δικαίως εἴτε u).*® But, she adds, it was not in fact done with justice, but by the persuasion of Aegisthus (558-62). She continues with a systematic

account of events designed to show that Clytaemestra’s resentment against Agamemnon was not justified. Hunting in a grove of Artemis, Agamemnon killed a stag, and ‘boasting over the killing, happened to let slip a certain utterance’ (ἔπος Tt τυγχάνει βαλών). This follows the Cypria, but Sophocles’ calculated vagueness makes Agamemnon sound less silly. But since the offence was his, it could only be his child, not that of Menelaus, who had to be sacrificed.

Moreover, Artemis detained the fleet at Aulis, so that the Greeks could neither

go to Troy, nor go home (573--4). Aeschylus had left Agamemnon with the option of abandoning the expedition against Troy; Sophocles leaves him with

no option at all. So, ‘under compulsion and with extreme reluctance’ (βιασθεὶς πολλά 7 ἀντιβὰς μόλις), he killed his daughter. Electra adds that the law of vengeance means that Clytaemestra herself must die, and, once again, that her excuses are invalidated by her liaison with Aegisthus. Euripides’ debate between Electra and Clytaemestra is, at least as we have it, curiously illogical, almost incoherent.** Clytaemestra begins with the sacrifice of Iphigenia (1018-29), but goes on to say that she would not have killed her husband on that account. But there was an additional offence: he brought his mistress, Cassandra, into their house. Women commit adultery in imitation of men, and women get the blame (1030-40). Then she returns abruptly to Iphigenia, Suppose that Menelaus had been abducted, and I, Clytaemestra, had killed Orestes in order to rescue my sister's husband, how would Agamemnon have tolerated that? Then she asks who, other than her husband’s enemies, would have helped her to take vengeance on him? Electra does not bother with argument or point-to-point refutation. She &

> In English this sounds more paradoxical than in Greek, because of the standard translation of δίκη as justice’ and our habitual association of ‘justice’ with ‘right’ But in Greek that is not a

necessary association. δίκη has a wide range of meanings, and a particularly strong connection

with ideas of reciprocity and retaliation. For an interesting discussion of this aspect of δίκη, see M. Gagarin, Aeschylean Drama (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1976), pp. 12-14, 25~6, and 66~79. For exhaustive investigation of the concept of δίκη, 566 Ε, Wolf, Griechisches Rechtsdenken (Frankfurt am Main, I 1950, II 1952). On Εἰ, 558-60 in particular, see K. J. Dover, ‘The Portrayal of

Moral Evaluation in Greek Poetry, JHS 103 (1983), p. 41 4 See esp. Denniston on El. 1030-48 and Kovacs, Euripidea Altera, pp. 120-3, Clytaemestrd's

speech can be made more coherent by excising 1030-40 (Vitelli), but, as Denniston says, the lines do not seem in themselves un-Euripidean, and it is hard to see what motive an interpolator could have had. Kovacs follows Wilamowitz in cutting out 1041~5. The idea of the kidnap of Menelaus seems rather bizarre, but, again, why interpolate it? For a very interesting analysis of this debate,

see M. Lloyd, The Agon in Euripides, pp. 55-70. Lloyd compares the episode both with earlier -..--..

-

....

-«---

«----..........

-

o=

Buripidean debates and with the ways in which Sophocles and Aeschylus treat the question of

Clytaemestra’s guilt. He sees both speeches as displays of rhetorical skill, with Clytaemestra deliberately presenting a ‘moving target. A weakness of his treatment, however, is his neglect of

ethopoiia. Indeed, he explicitly denies 115 role in the debate (p. 55). This seems to me to be wrong, as does also his conclusion that it is impossible to decide which character is in the right (p. 70).

Introduction

xXxvii

relies on direct attack and observation of behaviour. She begins by comparing her mother to Helen: both beautiful, bad women. ‘You destroyed the best man of Greece, offering the excuse that you were killing your husband for the sake of

your child’ (1060-8). That was not exactly what Clytaemestra said, nor does

Electra directly answer the allegation that it was Agamemnon’s adultery that provoked his wife’s. She does, however, effectively demolish both Clytaemestra’s arguments by describing her mother’s behaviour during Agamemnon’s absence. Immediately on his departure, before the death of Iphigenia (and, of course, long before the arrival of Cassandra), Clytaemestra was preening in front of her mirror, thereby advertising her readiness to take a lover. And she was always pleased at news of Trojan successes and scowling if the Greeks did well. There is a significant shift of emphasis here. Sophocles’ Electra argues, precisely and objectively, that Clytaemestra’s resentment was unjustified. As evidence that it was bogus, she relies on her initial assertion that her mother was motivated by love for Aegisthus, since she eventually married him. Euripides makes his Electra short-circuit these arguments by describing what she has seen. We believe her, because the dramatist gives us no reason not to.** It is often said that, if IT is left out of account, the Attic tragedians represent Iphigenia as having ‘really’ died at Aulis.*® This 15 misleading in that it suggests an independent alternative version of the myth, whereas it was Aeschylus’ (or Stesichorus’) choice in making Clytaemestra offer the death of Iphigenia as her excuse, and that of the other tragedians in following, that absolutely requires that everyone in the plays must believe that she is dead. Euripides is careful to make that point at the very beginning of his play (8). Athenian. audiences who knew of Iphigenia’s shrine at Brauron, of the Hesiodic Catalogue and, probably, of the Cypria and Stesichorus, need not have felt any awkwardness. The rescue of Iphigenia was magic; everyone thought that she was dead. Gods can do such things. 3 Lo The evidence that any Attic tragedian before Euripides actually presented Iphigenia as having survived the sacrifice as 4 mortal is minimal and dubious. Of other tragedies about her, apart from IA, we know next to nothing. The Medicean MS of Aeschylus (Laurentianus 32.9) includes an Iphigenia in a list ** 1 am not implying anything here about the relative dates of the two plays. It is a matter of the difference of approach between the two dramatists. For a striking example of Euripides’ interest in details of behaviour, see the messenger’s speech at Med. 1136-1230: the different expressions on the princess’s face (1144-9), her avid acceptance of the presents (1156-9), the way in which she poses before the mirror and looks round to see whether the dress hangs properly at the back (160-6). 46 For IA, we do not know how Euripides would have chosen to end the play. The messenger’s account to Clytaemestra of the substitution of the hind at 1581-9 can with certainty be regarded as spurious. The whole of 1578-1627 is the work of someone who did not know how to compose " tragic trimeters. For extended discussions, see D. L. Page, Actors’ Interpolations in Greek Tragedy, ΡΡ. 191-204 and D. Kovacs, ‘Toward a Reconstruction of Iphigeneia Aulidensis, JHS 123 (2003), pp. 77-103, ΄

xxviii

Introduction

of his plays, and a scholiast’s note on Aj. 722 (see also the Suda, Adler 2603%)

attributes to it a single line of uncertain metre (7TrGF 3, fr. 94). Scholia on Frogs

1269 (X Chantry 1269 a and )5 record that Asclepiades’ attributed that line to

Aeschylus’ Iphigenia and ‘Timachedas’ to his Telephus, while Aristarchus and

Apollonius could not place it at all. See TrGF 3, fr. 238. It sounds as if Aeschylus’ Iphigenia, if it ever existed, did not survive into the Hellenistic age. Fragments attributed to an Iphigenia by Sophocles are only slightly more informative. Two (TrGF 4, frr. 306 and 308) are pieces of moralizing, Fr. 306 is addressed to a woman who is acquiring a great son-in-law, or perhaps a son-

in-law with great parents. According to the Suda (Adler, = 963 s. πενθερά),

Odysseus is speaking to Clytaemestra about Achilles. In fr. 307, someone is advising a woman (presumably Clytaemestra again) to camouflage her thoughts, like a polyp on a rock, when dealing with her husband. All this indicates that the play dramatized the sacrifice, like Buripides’ I4, and that, possibly, it was a source for Hyginus' account (Fab. 98) of how Odysseus first persuaded Agamemnon to sacrifice his daughter, then invented the ruse of marriage to Achilles so as to deceive Clytaemestra. Iphigenia figures in two other stories narrated by Hyginus for which, it has been conjectured, Sophocles may have been the source. Fab. 122 recounts how Orestes, wrongly believed to have been sacrificed in Taurica, returns with Iphigenia, joins forces with Electra at Delphi, and kills Aleites, son of Aegisthus and Clytaemestra. Aleites’ sister, Erigone, is carried off by Artemis to be a priestess in Attica. This sounds very much like an attempt at a sequel to IT, with an element of pastiche. Only Stobaeus attributes a play called Aleites to Sophocles, and we owe all our fragments to him. The lines quoted are, without exception, extremely flat and dull, and it seems in the last degree improbable that they could be the work of Sophocles. Snell (TrGF 2, p. 4) suggests very plausibly that the play may have been the work of the younger Sophocles, grandson of the great tragedian.*® A play by Sophocles called Chryses is only shghtly better attested,*’ and the’ surviving fragments give no hint of its subject, but Hyginus, Fab. 121 has by some been thought to be derived from Sophocles’ play. Hyginus recounts that Chryseis had a son, Chryses, by Agamemnon, but claimed that the father of the

child was Apollo. Iphigenia and Orestes, in flight from Taurica, put in at Sminthe, home of Chryseis, her son, and her father, the elder Chryses. The

younger Chryses initially intended to hand the fugitives over to Thoas, but

changed his mind on discovering that he too was a child of Agamemnon, and

instead killed Thoas. This sounds even more like an intended sequel to IT.

Birds-1240-4¢0s μακέλλῃ πᾶν ἀναστρέψει Δίκηἰ5 alleged in a'scholiast’s note 47 See TrGF 3, fr. 238 and M. Chantry (ed.), Scholia in Aristophanem iii, 1a, p. 143

45 For the fragments, see TrGF2, adesp. fr. 1b (a)-(g). 4 See TYGF 4, frr. 726-30.

Introduction

xxix

to be derived from Sophocles’ Chryses (TrGF 4, fr. 727). If this is true, it would mean that the play was produced before 414, the date of Birds, and so, most

probably, before the production of IT.*® But scholia are not infallible. “The mat-

tock of Zeus, bringer of justice’ appears at Ag. 525, and Aristophanes could have taken his piece of rodomantade from there. Nor is it necessarily the plot of Sophocles’ Chryses that Hyginus 15 recounting in Fab. 121. Wilamowitz®! proposed a different subject for the play, derived from the geographer of the second century Ap, Dionysius of Byzantium.*? Some people trace the name of Chrysopolis, near the western entry of the Propontis, to Chryses, son of Agamemnon and Chryseis, who died there when fleeing from Clytaemestra and Aegisthus to take refuge with his sister, Iphigenia. Other and bolder conjectures would make the play disappear altogether. Scholl suggested that it might be identical with the (rather better attested) Aichmalotides,and Tyrwhitt

even proposed emending χρύσῃ in the testimonia to Κρίσει, thus transferring the fragments to the satyr-play, Krisis (see TrGF 4, pp. 128, 324, and 494). At any rate, the evidence that Sophocles preceded Euripides in producing a play in which Iphigenia survived as a mortal is tenuous in the extreme, and there is not a shred of evidence of any kind that he connected her with the cult at Brauron.>* Of any local legends that may have circulated at Brauron or Halae we can know nothing, Half a millennium after Euripides’ time, the Megarians told 50 For the date of IT, see below, pp. bavi-hoxx.

31 ‘Die beiden Elektren, Hermes 18 (1883), pp. 214-63=Kleine Schriften vi (Berlin and Amsterdam, 1972), pp. 161-208, This wide-ranging study remains valuable to anyone interested in the literary treatment of the children of Agamemnon. . %2 See Dionysii Byzantii Anaplus Bospori, ed. R. Glingerich (Berin, 1927), p. 33. The Etymologicum Magnum (s. χρυσόπολις) makes Iphigenia, as well as Chryses, the child of Agamemnon and Chryseis, which is self-evidently incompatible with the familiar tale of the sacrifice at Aulis, and could hardly have featured in a play of Sophocles. % 1t is just worth mentioning that Hyginus (Fab. 120) identifies the Taurian Thoas with the Lemnian father of Hypsipyle, whom she saved from death, and.(again according to Hyginus, Fab.15) sent in a boat to Taurica. This identification was seized upon by K. O. Miiller (Geschichten hellenischen Stdmme und Stddte, Breslau, 1820: 2nd ed. rev. Schneidewin, 1844) to argue that the

entire legend belonged to Lemnos, not to Taurica at all. Miiller was completely indifferent to chronology and believed everything that he found in writers of later antiquity. The Lemnian Thoas belongs to Argonautic legend, a generation at least before the Trojan War. Nor is it credible that Euripides, even had he chosen to ride roughshod over traditional chronology, would not, with his fondness for genealogy, have mentioned that his Thoas was the son of Dionysus and father of his own heroine, Hypsipyle. Nevertheless, Moller’s idea has been resuscitated by A. L. Ivantchik (Vorabend der Kolonisation=Pontus Septentrionalis iii (Moscow and Berlin, 2005), pp.

85-98). Ivantchik is generous in citing much literature which in no way supports his thesis. On Lemnian fire (which he connects with IT 626), see W, Burkert, Jason, Hypsipyle and New Fire at Lemnos. A Study in Myth and Ritual} CQ 20 (1970), pp. 1-16. I am grateful to Dr S. Ε. West for lending me Ivantchik's book. For a judicious investigation of the extent to which Hyginus can be trusted as a source of information about Euripides’ plots, see M. Huys, ‘Euripides and the “Tales from Euripides”. Sources of the Fabulae of Ps.-Hyginus, i, APF 42 (1996), pp. 168-78, ii, APF 43 (1997), pp. 11-30. On Hyginus’ version of the story of the escape of Iphigenia, see i, pp. 177-8.

XXX

Introduction

Pausanias of how Iphigenia had come back to Greece and died and been

buried in their land (see above, p. xv). But that story need not have beén very

ancient. It was the Megarians who, in the late fifth century, founded the colony of Chersonesus, near the tip of the Crimean Peninsular. Some ingenious Megarian could well have been inspired by Euripides’ play to invent a rival legend of a mortal Iphigenia who returned, not to Attica, but to Megara. Annexing other cities’ heroes was an Athenian practice at which Euripides was particularly adept. But others could surely play the same game, and the luckless Megarians had much to avenge. With not only local legends but the great bulk of Athenian poetry lost to us, it cannot be claimed that Euripides invented the story of the return of Iphigenia. It is only possible to suggest that he may well have done so.

EURIPIDES AND IPHIGENIA Edward Dowden was, it seems, the first to class a group of Shakespeare’s latest

plays, Pericles, Cymbeline, The Winter’s Tale, and The Tempest, as ‘romances’>*

In these plays, while there are affinities with the comedies, ‘grievous errors

of the heart are shown to us and wrongs of man to man as cruel as those of

the great tragedies, but ‘at the end there is a resolution of dissonance, a reconciliation’. And these ‘resolutions, with the avoidance of yet further wrongs, are brought about through recognition. The term ‘romance’ looks backward in literary history from Shakespeare to the Greek novel of later antiquity, and the plot of Pericles, indeed, is derived from a Latin romance generally believed to go back to a Greek original. Further

back still, the tradition is traceable to three surviving plays of Euripides, IT,

Ion, and Hel. There are other characteristic ingredients of romance: a quest,

adventure and escape, and sexual love.>® This last is absent from Euripides’ surviving plays, except from Hel., and there it is a husband who triumphs, not a lover. But see below, p. ΧΙ. For one who finds Aristotle’s definition of ‘tragedy’ inadequate for these

plays,*® a term appropnate from, at least, the perspective of literary history

might be ‘pre-romance. In three of his four ‘romances, Shakespeare shows on stage the ‘wrongs of

man to man. In Pericles and The Winters Tale this poses a dramaturgical .

34" ShiaKespeare: A Critical Study of His Miid Gid AT, 1876, followed by at least twenty reprints

continuing into the second half of the twentieth century. 5% For an extremely interesting brief study, see G. Beer, The Romance (London, 1971). Beer

allows that ‘in some romances, adventure, which commonly goes alongside love, may take over

entirely’ For the place of Euripides in the tradition of romance, see below, pp. xl-xliv. 56 Poetics 1449b24-1450al0.

Introduction

χχχί

problem, solved, more or less satisfactorily, by the narrator, Gower, in Pericles and in The Tale by the appearance of Time between acts 3 and 4 to explain that

sixteen years have elapsed since the last scene.’” Only in The Tempest does

Shakespeare adopt the classical unities of time and place, and evoke the past through memory. In IT, the past both stretches back much further and is insistently present, and that past 15 the terrible story of Tantalus and his descendants. In the first line, Pelops is the son of Tantalus. The anger of the gods and punishment pur-

sue the descendants of Tantalus (199-202, 987-8). But, above all, there is

Iphigenia’s reference (386-8) to Tantalus’ feast for the gods, at which he served up his own son, the first outrage in the family against the ties of kinship.*® Then, Pelops won his bride by killing her father (1-2, 8235, possibly 193). The quarrel between Pelops’ sons, Atreus and Thyestes, which led to more childkilling and, eventually, to the murder of Agamemnon, is touched on allusively at 194-200. From this point the past of IT 15 the Oresteia. For Orestes, the past is visibly present in the form of the Furies. Of the reason why he killed his mother (apart from Apollo’s command) he will not speak:

τὰ μητρὸς ταῦθ᾽ ἃ σιγῶμεν κακά (940). However, his brief account of the

trial at Athens is, with some ritual embellishment and minor adaptation, based on Eum. The effect for a hearer or reader with a memory of Aeschylus’ play, is to give a sense of a real past, of something of which we have an independent memory. | As Orestes’ youth and life have been destroyed by his matricide, so have Iphigenia’s by that terrible wedding-day when she found herself about to be killed by her own father, whom she loved, who, above all, should have been her protector. She remembers her departure from Argos (370-7), how shy she felt before her younger sister and baby brother, promising herself that she would hug and kiss them when she came back. She remembers her arrival at Aulis by chariot (214-17,370-1) and how she was led to the altar (856-61). Then, at

last, there was the sacrifice itself, when she was lifted up above the altar ‘like a calf’, while she pleaded with her father (24-7, 359-71). She remembers him

holding the knife to her throat (853-4). She hates Calchas, 85 well she might: it was he who nominated her for sacrifice (16-24, 531-3). She hates Helen and

Menelaus, who had caused the war (8, 14, 354~7). She hates Odysseus, who had acted as her father’s agent (24-5, 533-5). But she feels no anger against her father (992-3), although she mentions him, as she must, again and again (8, -

211,360, 784, 854, 920, 1083). Rather, she feels pity for him, even thinks of him

as a victim like herself (565). To us, this seems touching and psychologically %7 Time’s very flat thyming verse has aroused suspicions of interpolation by someone who thought that the andience might otherwise find the lapse of time hard to grasp. *® Iphigenia says that she considers the tale ἄπιστα, but the point at issue 15 not whether the child was served up, but whether the gods ate it.

χχχὶϊ

Introduction

,

right: she loved her father, she was sure that he loved her. It was others who

made him try to kill her. To an Athenian audience the message may have been

slightly different. Iphigenia is to be seen as a good person, unshaken in love

and loyalty to her family, a character with whom they can sympathize wholeheartedly. Her counterpart is Orestes, who will not save his own life at his sister’s expense (1007-11). The action of the play itself threatens final catastrophe for the house of Pelops: the death of the last heir at the hands of his own sister. Then comes recognition, Orestes is finally cleansed by that very sister. Yet still the past threatens. Poseidon seizes the opportunity for vengeance on the children of the sacker of Troy. But now; at last, powerful gods are on the side of the last Pelopids. There have been indications of that already. Apollo has sent Orestes to the far country where he will find alive the sister long thought dead. 'The stones thrown by the Taurian peasants never touch him and Pylades. Now; at the Jast moment, Athena, who has saved Orestes before, intervenes, With divine

support, the courage and natural affection, φιλία, of sister, brother, and cousin (so unlike the wicked cousin, Aegisthus) heal the sick house, . More than one critic has seen the play as proceeding in two ‘movements)

intimately and causally connected: the first leading up to the recognition, the second depicting the escape.>® Once the escape-plot is under way, from 1017, it is possible to sense a lightening of tone. In particular, the two principals, espe-

cially Iphigenia, cease to dwell on the past. They have, of course, something

much more urgent to think about, and at last they have hope. Only the chorus looks back (1089-1152). For them, 85 far as they know; there is still no escape. Whether by the choice of the dramatist or by an accident of preservation, the . choruses of 811 Euripides’ plays datable from 415 onwards are female.%® But the characters of individual choruses, the roles they play in the drama, and their relations to the leading figures remain highly diverse. The chorus of IT mirrors

the heroine. They too are captives far from home whose youth and hopes have been suddenly and brutally destroyed. Their own misfortune and their memories, their longing for home, are insistently present in their songs: 130-7, 447~ 55, 10891122, 1138-52. Only when the divine plan is beginning to become clear do they turn from their own fortunes and those of their mistress to sing in praise of Apollo as prophet. Their role has much in common with that of the choruses of two plays about the fate of the women of Troy: Hec. and Tro. In addition to the Pelopids, the chorus, and the gods, there is one more presence in the play: the Taurians. They are coherently imaginéd in a way that gives Ἕ,

τ " ~Cropp in his edition, p- 33 and (ποΓ8 explicitly) C. Questa; Π ratto dal sérmglio, p. 19.

%0 Her. presents problems of dating, but must be close to 7ro. on metrical grounds, which

makes it the latest surviving play with a male chorus. So for plays up to and including Her. (omitting Rhes.), the female dominance is 6:3. For Aeschylus (including PV), it is 5 female to 2 male, Only in the surviving plays of Sophocles do male choruses predominate, with 5 male to 2 female,

'

--

᾿

Introduction

χχΧχ!

them a degree of solid reality. They have one abominable and thoroughly barbarian practice: they sacrifice strangers to their sacred image. In addition, Iphigenia characterizes them as ‘man-slayers’ (389) and Thoas proposes to impale the temple-robbers, a distinctively barbarian form of execution (1430). But otherwise they seem much like Greeks. Like the Trojans from Homer onwards, they worship Greek gods. They have a king, like Greeks of the heroic age. They live in a city and are citizens’ (464, 595, 1209, 1214, 1226, 1417). Their cult image is housed in a splendid Doric temple. Euripides is not interested in

ethnological particularities.®* It is more important, however, that according to

long-standing and widespread theatrical convention foreignness is comic. Aristophanes is our guarantee that this was so for Euripides’ audience, just as it was for the audiences of Shakespeare, Farquhar, and Sheridan.®? The Taurians cannot seem overtly foreign.

Euripides takes care in depicting the attitude of his Taurians to Iphigenia. He prepares the ground for the ruse by showing them as trusting her com-

pletely. The herdsman is sure that she hates Greeks (336-9). Later, the escort who accompany her and the prisoners have no suspicion that she is involved

in the escape-plot. First, they fear that the Greeks may kill her (1340-1), then that they plan to kidnap her and sell her into slavery (1360). In this context, there seems nothing exceptional in Thoas’ credulity. But Euripides goes beyond the demands of the plot when, with a pleasing irony, he makes this devotee of a horrible cult a man of impeccable piety and religious correctitude, in his way. There 15 also something for the audience to savour in the Taurians’ interpretations of what they see. Usually, we are in a position to understand better than they do. The pious peasants (267-74) take Orestes and Pylades for divine beings. We know that that is not so, but we also know that the two are on a divinely-inspired mission. The peasants conclude that the pair are under divine protection from the volley of stones (328-9). They are, but not, as we know, for the reason that the Taurians suppose. With hindsight, the messenger (1336-8) thinks that Iphigenia’s ritual of purification was a fraud. But we know better: Orestes really did need cleansing from his guilt. Once, however, a Taurian tells us something that we might not otherwise have guessed. The messenger has seen the Greek ship in a seemingly hopeless situation and concludes that “1 On the depiction of barbarians in tragedy generally, Ε. M. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian is indispensable. H. Bacon, Barbarians in Greek Tragedy remains worth consulting (with caution), For another view, 566 8. Said,‘Grecs et barbares dansles tragédies d'Euripide: la fin des différences?’ Ktema 9 (1984), pp. 27-53. For IT, ] have confined myself to what can be deduced from the play. %2 Shakespeare's Henry V providesa particularly interesting illustration. Where the drama is serious, the French speak like the English, while in the generically comic scenes between the princess and her maid, they speak French. Within the final scene of the play, Shakespeare makes a remarkably bold change of genre. During the negotiations, the English and French kings and the Duke of Burgundy speak in the identical English poetic idiom. Only when Henry is left to woo the princess does difficulty of communication suddenly appear. The princess and her maid speak French or broken English, while Henry struggles with schoolboy French.

χχχὶν

Introduction

Poseidon, guardian of Troy, is delivering the son of Agamemnon into Thoas’ hands (1406-19). Of course he knows about the destruction of Troy: everyone

does (517-19). Surely he 15 right. Whén a character in a play tells us that something is so, we must believe him, unless the author gives us clear reason not to. Here, on the contrary, Athena will provide confirmation at 1444-5. But when our Taurian goes on to tell us that Iphigenia has been caught betraying Artemis, we have good reason to disbelieve him. We know that Artemis’ brother, Apollo,

has sent Orestes to fetch the image. Besides, we are Athenians; we have no

doubt that Artemis must prefer her image to come to our land, just as Iphigenia has suggested that she should (1086-8, 1398-1400). Finally, Euripides chooses to be kind to his Taurians. He could have had them massacred, like the unfortunate Egyptians of Hel. There could have been arms on the Greek ship for the crew to use against them, Instead, they are allowed to get away with some thumps and bumps—enough to show the superiority of Greek gentlemen in bare-knuckle fighting and kick-boxing. The Taurians are not alone in their difficulty in interpreting events. The Greeks too doubt and fumble. Orestes has received explicit instructions from the oracle of Apollo, but what are the god’s motives? He killed his mother in

obedience to Delphi, and the result has been catastrophic. Is he now being led

into a trap (77)? In sending him to a far country, has the god lied in order to cover up his own mistake (711-15)? Iphigenia misunderstands her dream (44-58). In retrospect, the meaning is clear enough: the house of Atreus has suffered disaster, only Orestes survives, and there is imminent danger that he will fall victim to his own sister. But she does not see that, because she can have no idea that Orestes could be about to appear in Taurica. When she sees the two unknown young men before her, she is suddenly overcome by a sense of the strangeness of fortune, which leads men out of their way towards mysteri-

ous ends (476--8). 5 Even after the recognition and the decision on the escapeplot, Iphigenia still feels a lingering anxiety about Artemis’ wishes (1084-5,

1398-1402). Might she, after all, prefer her image to stay in Taurica? Might she even be prepared to make her brother’s oracle void? Iphigenia does not know what we, the audience, know about the shrine at Brauron. Yet again, a sense of real life is reinforced by these uncertainties and divergent interpretations by different characters in the drama. Several editors and critics, notably Platnauer and Parmentier and Grégoire, have been much struck by the similarities that they see between IT and Hel. In 3 Some see Euripides in IT as anticipating later ideas in assigning a significant independent rolé to τύχη. The text does not bear that out. (a) In three passages,79 X7 is more or less explicitly

identified with the will of the gods, or of a god: 475-8, 867, 909-11. (b) The word means ‘luck’ or ‘chance, very much in our sense: 89 and 875, Note especially that in the latter passage Iphigenia

says, not ‘Will τύχη come together with me?’ but ‘What τύχη will ...?’ (c) Events as they are turning out, or have turned out: 501, 511, 647,1209, 1410, (d) That leaves only 489 where τύχη could

be taken 85 a separate power, but need not be,

‘

Introduction

XXXV

fact, one might rather see the two plays as a demonstration of Euripides’ virtu-

osity in using basically the same plot to completely different effect.®* Hel. is

witty and entertaining and goes exceedingly wellon stage. But, while I'T"is concentrated and tightly coherent, Hel. is much more diffuse, with what can seem a curious lack of connection between themes and motifs. In IT, the appearance of Orestes immediately -after Iphigenia has left the stage to pour libations to him ἀποῦσ᾽ ἀπόντι seems both natural and highly effective. When the dirge follows, in alternation, the audience hears it with a fresh understanding of the story of the house of Atreus. Hel. begins by following the same pattern. Helen explains her presence in Egypt and laments her hard fate. Teucer performs the function of Iphigenia’s dream in bringing the false news of Menelaus’ death. The chorus enters and the dirge follows. But now, in order to accommodate Menelaus’ second prologue and the semi-comic scene with the portress, the chorus must leave. The two following scenes make excellent theatre and are important in establishing Menelaus as a character, but the exit of the chorus is very weakly motivated, and apparently takes some

time, since Helen needs to sing a solo dirge (with just two lines from the

chorus-leader) while they make their way into the house. Surprisingly, it may seem, Euripides removes what could have been an impediment to the recognition by allowing Helen to learn from Theonoe that

Menelaus is not, after all, dead. But the episode serves to introduce Theonoe,

with an immediate demonstration of her powers, and there is, in any drama or tension to be extracted from the recognition. The pair are couple. Even after a seventeen-year separation, they cannot fail to each other without much difficulty. Indeed, Menelaus recognizes once, It 18 only the presence of the phantom Helen that prevents

case, little a married recognize Helen at him from

believing his own eyes. The recognition is even given a comic tinge, with the

characters dodging about as Helen tries to reach the altar. Finally, Euripides teases his audience with the suggestion that the recognition may fail. A structural similarity between the two plays is the long central episode, without, or very nearly without, punctuation by choral songs: IT 466-826 (with a short choral interlude at 644-56) and Hel, 698-1106. But, while the

long episode in IT is taken up by the emotionally intense process of recognition, that in Hel. is occupied, first, by the scene with the old soldier, then with the winning-over of Theonoe. Thus, in' Hel., the escape plot takes very clear precedence over the recognition. The barbarian king, Theoclymenus, is a more conventional figure than Thoas. He is marked as ‘bad’ by his personal violation of the laws of hospitality and his attempt, when frustrated, to kill his own sister. Note that, while Iphigenia will not hear of killing Thoas (1021-3), Helen has no such scruples * B.Seidensticker (Palintonos Harmonia, pp.199-211) deals perceptively with the difference in tone between IT and Hel. See below, p. Ixxiv.

χχχνὶ

Introduction

about killing Theoclymenus (809). For her it 5 merely a question of possibility.

'The deception-scene in Hel, (1193-1300) is long drawn out, and a second such scene is added (1390-1440), making in total more than twice the length of the

deception in IT. Euripides has clearly decided to make more theatrical capital

out of the situation, and the audience may be assumed to have relished for its own sake the sight of the barbarian king being fooled. As a last disconnection in the plot, Theoclymenus’ final threat, which precipitates the divine intervention, is not to the principals, Helen and Menelaus, but to Theonoe. On the face of it, the chorus of Hel. could play the same role vis-3-vis the heroine as the chorus of IT. But Euripides has chosen decisively that they

should not.*® At 191-2, Helen perfunctorily indicates who they are and how

they come to be in Egypt, when she addresses them as ‘Greek girls, prey of a

barbarian oar! That is all that we shall ever hear of their personal history. In

their early songs, they join with Helen as she laments her own misfortune. They take one important initiative when they advise Helen to consult Theonoe, but that is a necessary part of the dramatist’s stategy for clearing the scene. After the long central episode, their first song (1107-64) is a lament for the Trojan War, with reflection on the futility of war in general. At 1301-68 comes the hymn to Demeter, the relevance of which remains controversial. Finally, at 1451-1511, they sing the propemptikon for Helen. There, briefly, they wish that they could fly, but only to join the flocks of cranes heralding the home-

coming of Helen. Contrast IT 1138-52. In fact, the chorus is almost imper-

sonal, and that is confirmed at the end of the play, where, instead of a promised

return home, their future is passed over in complete silence.

As is often observed, both plays have a dark background. In IT, that dark-

ness is integral: it is the past lives of Iphigenia and Orestes, and, before that, the calamitous history of their family. In Hel,, the background is the war and the

destruction of Troy. When hearing Helen lament her misfortunes, one must, of

course, allow for the value that Greeks set upon reputation, and few characters in Greek mythology had a worse reputation than Helen. Then, too, Euripides invents extra causes of distress for his heroine: the suicide of Leda from shame and the suggestion that she has been to blame for the disappearance of her

brothers (134-42). But still the true darkness of Hel. is the war, the deaths and

sufferings of Greeks and Trojans. These are disasters out of all proportion with the personal sufferings of Helen and Menelaus, Here is a massive dislocation in place of concentration. % H. P. Foley (‘Choral Identity in Greek Tragedy, CP 98 (2003), pp. 1-30) finds that ‘if one looks simply at what choruses say, choral identity does not define choral role in the action and

thoughtο Greek tidgedy asiiuch as one ‘might éxpect. In IT and Hel,, choral identity is clearly

reflected to some extent in what the chorus say, but has very little influence on the roles they play

in the drama, which are quite distinct. % The identity of Theoclymenus’ interlocutor at 1621-41 does not change that. Even if it is the

chorus-leader (which I very much doubt), she would, as Burian says, Ὅ6 acting as an individual,

quite independently of the Chorus' For a helpful discussion of the problem, see Burian ad loc.

Introduction

XxXxvii

An essential irony of Hel. is that the disaster was unnecessary: Helen never went to Troy. How far Hel. is an anti-war play is controversial, but there is no missing the old soldier’s νεφέλης ἄρ᾽ ἄλλως εἴχομεν πόνους πέρι; (‘So did we struggle pointlessly because of a cloud?’). A similar irony was open to Euripides in IT, had he been prepared to accept that Clytaemestra, as she claims in Ag., killed her husband in vengeance for the death of Iphigenia. Then, both that murder and the matricide of Orestes could have been presented as unnecessary. But the poet does not choose that route. | Finally, just as we do not find in Hel. the coherence of IT, so too we do not find anything resembling the symmetrical patterns of the earlier play. There, the ruling and protecting gods of the human brother and sister are a divine brother and sister. Also, the experiences of Iphigenia and Orestes are in some

degree parallel in that both are threatened with sacrifice to Artemis.*’

In contrast, there is a real affinity of mood, in spite of very little formal resemblance, between IT and another play close to it in date, Jon. That play too depends on recognition between two people who have no personal memory of each other. There too Euripides displays his inventiveness. The audience is teased, as in IT, with the prospect of recognition long before it happens, with,

in addition, a sort of parody-recognition before the long-delayed real one. But

the closest affinity is between the two heroines. By the sort of comic distortion which Aristophanes uses to present Euripides

as an atheist,”® he also presents the poet as a misogynist. There is certainly no

shortage of women in the plays who plan, or actually carry out, terrible deeds: Phaedra, Hermione (in Andr.), Hecuba (in Hec.), Electra, Creusa, and, above

all, Medea. But Aristophanes makes no mention of any of these, except Phaedra, with, from a lost play, Sthenebcea. These two he characterizes as πόρναι

(‘whores’).*” The undoubted fact, however, is that Euripides shows himself deeply

interested in women. His interest is not in their psychology. Indeed it is doubtful whether Euripides is interested in psychology at all, as we understand it. Rather, % On symmetries and parallelisms in IT, see D. Sansone, “The Sacrifice-Motif in Buripides’

Iphigeneia in Tauris, TAPhA 105 (1975), pp. 283-95. Some valid points are also made by A. Ρ Burnett, Catastrophe Survived, pp. 47-72.

8 For a particularly effective demolition of Euripides’ supposed atheism, see C. Sourvinou-

Inwood, Tragedy and Athenian Religion, pp. 291-300. See also M. Lefkovitz, ‘Was Euripides an

Atheist?” SIFC 5 (1987), pp. 149-66 and ““Impiety” and “Atheism” in Euripides’ Dramas, CQ 39 (1989), pp. 70-82. | -

5 ‘The'Medea’ mentioned at Peace1012 is not Buripides. Por Phaedra and Sthenebcea, see Frogs 1043-52. 1t is not necessary to conclude that Aristophanes’ ‘Phaedra’ must be the heroine of the first play about Hippolytus. In the surviving Hipp., Buripides certainly invites his audience to reflect on the ambiguities in Phaedra’s behaviour. But to an Athenian audience a woman who falls in Jove with her stepson would probably still have been felt to deserve the appellation πόρνη. In Sthenebaea, we know that a nurse played the role of go-between (TrGF 5.1, fr. 661. 11-14), but not the extent of her moral responsibility. The heroines mentioned at Frogs 1080-2 confirm Aristophanes’ lack of seriousness. To seem outrageous, the behaviour of Auge and Canace has, like that of Phaedra, to be seen out of context, and, finally, declaring that life is not life is not outrageous under any circumstances.

χχχνυϊϊὶ

Introduction

he depicts human behaviour, sometimes with such precision and detail as fco

impel us to construct an underlying psychological mechanism according to our ideas. Where women are concerned, what engages him throughout his career is, rather, their experience: what the world, gods, men inflict on them. What is it to

be a woman taken to a foreign country, then abandoned for another woman by

the man who brought her there? What is it to be a young girl who has been raped, or who has been, in intention, sacrificed by her father for the sake of his political ambition on what she had thought was her wedding-day? For the Greeks, as for many traditional cultures, points of transition in life were strongly felt and clearly marked by ritual. For a woman, no transition was more important than marriage, with the accompanying. loss of virginity. For both Iphigenia and Creusa, a failed, corrupt transition has brought lasting sorrow. For Creusa, the rape has meant years of grief, a sense of guilt and childlessness, while the nearmarriage to Hades leaves Iphigenia without marriage and children for ever. For

both, Euripides contrives compensation at last. Creusa has her son returned to her, with the promise of other children; Iphigenia is given an honourable place in

society as a priestess, equivalent at least to that of a married woman. Finally, IT, like Jor and unlike Hel., is an ‘Athenian’ play. Whatever Euripides’

religious beliefs, there can be no doubt of his profound interest in the mythical

Ν

history of his native land and its local cults. Whether there was any preexisting cause to connect the cults of Brauron and Halae with legends of Iphigenia in the region of the Black Sea we cannot tell (see above, pp. xvii and xxix). It seems most likely that Euripides was inspired by the Cypria and

Herodotus (see above pp. xxi and xxiii) to invent an aetiology for those cults,

just as he invents one for the Choes. Recently, attempts have been made to argue that not only the aetiologies but the cults themselves were figmentsof the poet’s imagination.”® But that will not do. Cults were a vital part of Athenian life, both locally and nationally. It is unimaginable that a poet could have represented a rite as being performed when nothing of the kind was actually happening. Aetiologies, however, were a different matter, as is abundantly clear from Attic tragedy. The foundation of a cult might possibly be celebrated (Sophocles’ OC?), or some important development in its celebration, but

whether anything of the kind lies behind IT we have no way of knowing (see above, p. xvii). The fact that the play is working towards the establishment of two Attic cults probably accounts in large measure for the general (and exceptional) benignity Π

"7 S.Scullion, Tradition and Invention in uripidean Aitiology’ (ICS 24-25 (2000), pp. 217-33)

ἀπᾶ G. Ekroth, ‘Inventing Iphigenia? On Euripides and the Cultic Construction of Brauron’ (Kernos 16 (2003), pp. 59-118) both argue against the reality of the cults of Iphigenia. For a highly effective answer to Scullion, see R. Seaford, Aitiologies of Cult in Euripides: A Response to S.

Scullion, in J. R. C. Cousland and J. R. Hume (edd.), The Play of Texts and Fragments, Mnemosyne

Suppl. 314, pp. 221-34. Seaford also argues that Euripides may not have invented Orestes’ aetiological role in the Choes.

Introduction

ΧΧΧΙΧ

of the gods in IT.”* Neither here nor elsewhere does Euripides exonerate Apollo for the matricide to which he incited Orestes.” Now, however, the god

is seen to be acting truly in Orestes’ interest. Artemis, despite the doubts of Iphigenia and the beliefs of the Taurians, is consistently displayed as beneficent. Even Aeschylus avoids absolute certainty as to whether Artemis really did demand the sacrifice of Iphigenia (see below on 17). The minds of the gods are ultimately inscrutable—unless, as sometimes, especially in Euripides, they appear on stage to explain themselves. In IT there is no suggestion whatever that Artemis demanded the sacrifice. This is a vital point which passes unno-

ticed in interpreations of the play which identify a Euripidean ‘irony’ in the

(supposed) demand combined with the rescue. But if such an ‘irony’ had been

in Euripides’ mind, we can be quite sure that it would have been made explicit.

At 35-6, Iphigenia speaks of Artemis as ‘delighting in’ the rites of ‘a festival of which only the name 15 fair’ But at 380-91, she grapples with the apparent problem of divine behaviour and ends by exculpating the goddess. There the matter is left, and there the audience too can leave it. At Halae, a knife is to be touched to a man’s throat 80 as just to draw blood (1458-67), but that is pre-

sumably an existing ritual of which Euripides needs to take account. ‘ Lastly, it is Athena who appears 85 dea ex machina, just as she appears at the end of Ion. Here is a striking divergence between ancient and modern perceptions. To a modern audience, or reader, the logic of the play would seem to lead

to an appearance by Artemis, or even Apollo. But the image, as we have known

since 87-91, 15 to go to the land of the Athenians, For the Athenians of the original audience that is of at least as much concern as the fate of the descendants of Atreus, or rather the two concerns are one. The mighty wave which sweeps the Argive ship back to land (1396-7) produces a final moment of suspense. It also motivates the arrival of Athena, and so brings about the rescue of the chorus. But above all it introduces Poseidon. He is hostile to the son of Agamemnon, but he is also, like Athena, a divine patron of Athens. She will win him over, and a fourth god will join in the task of bringing the sacred image safe to Attica. To the Athenian audience, the transfer of the image will have mattered profoundly; to a modern audience it hardly matters at all. But a great play can long outlive topical interest. How many members of the audience at Macbeth remind themselves that King James I claimed descent from Banquo? 71 For theimportance of ritual in I'T, see C. Sourvinou-Inwood, ‘Tragedy and Ritual: Constructs and Readings, in C. Pelling (ed.), Greek Tragedy and the Historian, pp. 161-86, and op. cit. n. 68

above, pp. 301-8.

725 Sourvinou-Inwood, op. cit. n. 68 above, p. 348, argues that we need not accept Castor's judgment at El, 1246, because the speaker is a god of low status, a former mortal and brother of Clytaemestra. 50 his criticism of a major god has little or no more force than that of human beings in Euripidean tragedy reacting to their own situation. I do not think that this can be accepted. As a deus ex machina, Castor is in a different position from an ordinary, human character. He is, as it were, speaking ex cathedra.

χὶ

Introduction

IPHIGENIA AFTER EURIPIDES™

|

The story of Alcestis, of the wife who dies to save her husband, crosses time

and cultures. The story of Iphigenia, the young girl whom her father tried to

sacrifice, who was carried away to become the priestess of a sinister cult in a far country, and who was at last rescued by her brother, has no such wide appeal. The foundation of an Attic cult is self-evidently only of interest in a certain time and place. The healing of the sick house’ of Pelops can pass almost unnoticed by readers who do not share the intense preoccupation of classical Greeks with the family as the microcosm of human morality and civilized values. The series of monstrous failures in family relations among the Pelopids seems to verge on the grotesque. People of later times do not shudder at the idea of pollution. Then, too, the idea of killing strangers, ξένοι, who are under the special protection of Zeus, does not shock us in the same way. Yet its dramatic qualities have given Euripides’ play a rich, continuing life, even though that reflects quite different preoccupations and interests. Moreover, the influence of Euripides extends by two routes: directly, through re-tellings of the rescueof Iphigenia, indirectly, through the ‘escape-plot’ To create the ‘escape-plot, IT combines with other plays of Euripides, above all,

Hel. A beautiful heroine is rescued from a far country by the hero, who may have a faithful helper. The heroine is typically brave and clever, as well as beautiful, and mdy devise the escape ruse. She may be in the power of a foreign ruler, whose amorous advances she resists. She may be falsely accused of unchastity. There may be capture by bandits, or pirates (IT 1360). There will often be.recognition. All these motifs could be derived from IT and Hel. alone. But there may also be

lost infants, like Ion, and young love leading to marriage, For that last motif,

which becomes almost essential, we have to look to a lost play, Andromeda, produced with Hel. in 412. That that play made a remarkable impact 15 clear from the extended parody at Thesm. 1010-1118. Then, Dionysus in Frogs (405 BC) was

reading it when he was struck with longing for Buripides. Alexander the Great is

said to have recited a whole scene at a dinner party (Athenaeus 12. 537p). . Love and marriage by no means go necessarily together in Attic tragedy, but Perseus in Euripides’ play certainly falls in love with Andromeda, whom at first he mistakes for a statue (TrGF 5.1, frr. 125, 129, 136). Andromeda anticipates Shakespeare’s Miranda: Tam your wife if you will marry me, if not I'll die your maid’ (compare TrGF 5.1, fr. 129a), and, according to Hyginus and others, she chose, once freed, to go with Perseus to Argos, rather than return to her parents.”* But love at first sight and the physical anguish it may cause feature -

e

> ——

————

- - e ——

—

73 'The following section of the Introduction is a fuller version of a paper delivered to the Polish Academy of Arts and Letters in Cracow in April, 2009. I am grateful for observations made then, 74 See TrGF 5.1, Testimonia for Andromeda iiia (), (b), and (c).

Introduction

xli

in an earlier play, Hipp. That is the corrupt love of a married woman for a virtuous young man, and such love may also cause complications in versions of the

escape-plot.

ὶ

Not a few of these plot-motifs can be traced to folktale: the quest, adventure in distant lands, the rescue of a heroine by brother or lover, escape-ruse, recog-

nition, and the reunion of long-separated kin. Of the three great tragedians, it is Euripides who shows by far the closest imaginative contact with folktale, and

it is in a significant degree through him that folktale motifs find their way into

literary narrative.”®

In later antiquity, Euripides was already credited with major influence on New Comedy, especially Menander.”® There, however, evidence for the use of motifs belonging to the escape-plot is scarce. Aspis features a false report of a death and a reunion of kin. In Misoumenos, there are two reunions and the captive heroine resists her amorous captor. At 615 (Arnott) in the same play, Demeas, suddenly re-united with his daughter, cries ἔχω σε, like Iphigenia at IT 828, though that is formulaic in recognitions (see below on 827-30).”7 Roman comedy provides a little more material. Plautus’ Captivi exploits the lost-child motif, while the devotion of the supposed slave, Tyndarus, to his master, Philocrates, with whom he changes clothes, has been connected with Orestes and Pylades. Nothing is known of any Greek original. After Euripides, our earliest surviving example of an escape-plot is Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus, based, so the text tells us (86-7), on a Greek comedy, AAalwv. Plautus’ far country is no further away than Ephesus. The heroine, the hetaera, Philocomasium, is said to possess, in rather vulgar form, the qualities which distinguish Iphigenia and Helen: ‘She has effrontery, a ready tongue, trickery, artfulness and audacity, self-confidence, strength of purpose, deceitfulness’ 7% See S, Trenkner, The Greek Novella in the Classical Period, pp. 31-78, with her references to

Stith Thompson, Motif Index of Folk Literature (Copenhagen, 21953-8). D. Ε Sutton (‘Satyric Qualities in Euripides’ Iphigenia at Tauris and Helen, RSC 20 (1972), pp. 321-30) seeks affinities between the tragic escape-plot and tales of rescue in satyr-plays, of which the surviving complete example is Cyc. He makes some valid points, but does not notice that he is trying to attach the two tragedies to a different complex of folktales from Trenkner, to that to which the Cyclops-story belongs (see especially D. L. Page, The Homeric Odyssey (Oxford, 1955), pp. 1-20) This produces gross distortion of the tragedies. In particular, Thoas and Theoclymenus have to be represented as monsters: ‘barbaric’ (quite different from Greek ‘barbarian’), ‘evil} ‘villainous), which is serious

exaggeration, even for Theoclymenus. But Sutton goes even further in suggesting that IT and Hel. ’ could have taken the place of satyr-plays. To begin with, he does not consider the length of the plays. Both are more than twice as long as Cyc. 7 See Satyrus, Life of Euripides, P.Oxy. 1176, fr. 39, col. vii (edition by S. Schorn, Satyros aus Kallatis: Sammlung der Fragmente mit Kommentar (Basel, 2004), and Quintilian, 10. 1. 69: ‘admiratus maxime est ... et secutus Menander’ For a more reserved position, see N. Zagagi, Tradition and Originality in Plautus (Gottingen, 1980), pp. 41-2, with nn. 89 and 90. 77 For Aspis, see W, G, Arnott, Menander 1, pp. 2--95, and for Misoumenos, Arnott II, pp. 246~ 363, with A.W. Gomme and Ε H. Sandbach, Menander. A Commentary (Oxford, 1973), pp. 61-104 and 436-64.

xlii

Introduction

(188-9). Yet very little use is made of her talents. The deviser of the escape-ruse

is that essentially comic character, the crafty slave, who tends to take the place

as the hero’s coadjutor of the faithful friend. A much closer match with IT is a vulgar Greek farce, probably from about the end of the first century ΑΡ, POxy. 413.7° The scene is before the temple of Selene in a far country, where the heroine, Charition, 15 held captive by ‘Indians’

She may be the priestess of Selene, as she apparently refers to herself as the

goddess’s πρόσπολον. The ‘Indians’ speak gibberish, their king a little Greek. The rescuer is the heroine’s brother, aided by his slave, a virtuoso ‘fartiste} an

accomplishment by which he terrifies the ‘Indians.”® The escape-ruse is taken

over from Cyc. (or, indeed, Homer): the ‘Indians’ are made drunk with unmixed wine, The slave wants to make off with some of the offerings from the temple, but is prevented by Charition, who, like Iphigenia, prays to the goddess at the moment of escape. For us, Charition is a dead end. The main conduit through which the escape-

plot reaches renaissance and post-renaissance Europe is the Greek novel. The

earliest (probably) that has come down to us, Chaereas and Callirhoé, by one,

Chariton of Aphrodisias, may be of similar date to the mime, or even earlier.* Hero and heroine fall in love at first sight, and are, like Phaedra, prostrated. The heroine is falsely suspected of unchastity. At different times, both hero and heroine are believed by each other to be dead. Callirhoé is taken captive and

loved by not one, but a whole sequence of powerful captors, up to the king of

Persia himself. So far, the plot could be derived from Hel. alone, but the hero has a faithful friend, Polycharmus, to encourage and support him. The novel did not appear in print until 1750, but the MS which preserves it was known

to scholars in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,®! and was very probably

read by Matteo Bandello (1485-1561), much-travelled scholar and writer

and translator of Hec. (1539). At least, his novel, Timbreo and Fenicia (1554), 78 B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt (edd.), ROxy. Π (1903), no. 413, with addenda in V (1908).

Editions by D. L Page, Greek Litarery Papyri (London and Cambridge, Mass., 1950), pp. 337-40,

S. Santelia, Charition Liberata (Bari, 1991), M. Andreassi, Mimi geci in Egitto (Naples, 2001), 1. C. Cunningham, Herodas. Mimiambi (Munich and Leipzig, 2004). | 79" Not a new joke. See Homeric Hymn 4.294-8, Wasps 1177, Crates, PCG v, fr. 20. According to the sausage-seller (Knights 898), Paphlagon’s method would have been less direct. On ‘fartistes’ in more recent times, see J. Major, My Old Man (London, 2012), pp. 223--4.

8 ς Tilg (Chariton of Aphrodisias and the Invention of the Greek Love Novel, Oxford, 2010) seems almost obsessive in his determination to exclude Euripides from any role in the creation of the genre. Instead, he wishes to see the inspiration for the love-story with happy ending in Aristotle’s Poetics (see pp. 131-7 and 170 n..9). This is bizarre. Tilg makes a good case for the

probability that Charifon knew the Poéfics, but it is literature, not literary criticism, that inspires literature, Even Aristotle’s conception of the ‘happy ending’ depends on tragedy. 81 Laur. conv. soppr. 627, which also contains part of Achilles Tatius, and is the sole source not only for Chaereas and Callirhoé, but for the complete text of Longus, and for Xenophon of Ephesus. It was known to Politian (1489) and to Henricus Stephanus (1561). See Β. Ε. Perry, The Ancient Romances (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967), pp. 344-5.

Introduction

xliii

generally acknowledged as an important source for Shakespeare’s Much Ado about Nothing, has clear affinities with it.%2

Another novel, this time of enormous and unquestionable influence, is

Heliodorus’ Aethiopica (dated variously to the second to fourth centuries Ap).

The author combines an exuberant imagination and some sophistication as a narrator with, evidently, extensive reading in earlier Greek literature, especially Homer and Attic tragedy. Structurally, the narrative mode of the Aethiopica (as of other Greek novels) is derived (as is frequently pointed out) from epic, especially the Odyssey. It is rambling and episodic and as far removed as possible from the spareness and concentration of Attic drama. For individual motifs and events, however, there is a strong and avowed affinity with tragedy. There is much direct speech, including long and carefully constructed individual speeches. A character utters a ‘tragic wail’ (τραγικόν τι), or runs away as if ‘from ghosts on stage’ (ἐπὶ σκηνῆς), or appears suddenly, ‘as if from the

machine’ (éx μηχανῆς), while spectators watch events ὥσπερ ἐκ θεάτρου.

Many typical motifs of the escape-plot are present, some several times over. The heroine, Chariclea, has the courage and ingenuity typical of the Greek romantic heroine, and Heliodorus ensures that her tactical choices shall be right, however idiosyncratic they may seem to the reader. Particular points of affinity with IT are the facts that the heroine is priestess of Artemis and the ultimate danger faced by both hero and heroine is that of being sacrificed, which, for Chariclea, would mean death at the hands of her own father.®* Heliodorus’ tale was first printed in Basel in 1534. A French translation by the great Jacques Amyot was published in 1547 and reprinted more than twenty times by the end of the century. Stanistaw Warszewicki’s Latin translation came out in 1551, and was several times reprinted. An abridged version in English by James Sanford came outin 1567,and a translation from Warszewicki’s Latin by Thomas Underdown in 1569. Translations were also published in German, Spanish, and Italian.®* Shakespeare knew the Aethiopica: he alludes to

it in Twelfth Night (5. 1. 116-18). So did Shakespeare’s contemporary, Robert

*2 For a translation of Timbreo and Fenicia, see G. Bullough, Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare 11 (London and New York, 1968), pp. 112-34. Bullough notes that the earliest known version of the Hero-Claudio story is Chaereas and Callirhoé, Fenicla’s father is ‘Leonato de’ Leonati. Shakespeare gives the name ‘Leonatus’ to the hero of Gymbeline, another storyof a woman falsely accused, and one of Dowden’s ‘romances’ 5 Ῥ Neimke (Quaestiones Heliodoreae, Halle, 1889), finds sixty-five verbal echoes.He finds none from IT or Hel., but he does not consider plot-motifs (except for the episode of Cnemon

and his amorous stepmother). For a study of themes, see E. Feuillitre, Btudes sur les Ethiopiques

d Héliodore (Paris, 1966), pp. 116-21. From the abundant literature, see esp. Β. Ρ Reardon, The Form of Greek Romance (Princeton, 1991) and F, Létoublon, Les Lieux communs du-Roman (Leiden, etc., 1993), the latter particularly on the influence of the Greek romances in France. See also G. Beer, n.55 above, Ν # For translations and works derived from Heliodorus, see C. Gesner, Shakespeare and the Greek Romance (Lexington, 1970), pp. 158-60. 3

xliv

Introduction

Greene, whose novel, Pandosto, provided the main source for The Winter’s Tale.

In that play, Shakespeare brings together Helen and Iphigenia, the wife fa.lsély

accused and the princess lost through her father’s fault and found again,®

Towards the end of the seventeenth century, the romantic escape-plot returns in a manner to its source by influencing re-tellings of the story of Iphigenia. But it also continues in its own right. Perhaps its most famous late appearance is in Mozart’s Die Entfiihrung aus dem Serail, with libretto by C.E

Bretzner, reworked by G. Stephanie, which was first put on in Vienna in 1782. There, the ruse (the old Cyclops-ruse) is played on the additional character,

Osmin, while the happy ending is owed to the magnanimity of the Pasha, distant descendant of the far-from-magnanimous Theoclymenus.®¢ The direct line of descent from IT proves initially hard to follow. Mythological titles are not uncommon among plays of Middle Comedy; and some thirty-five share titles with plays of Euripides, but might perfectly well relate to works by other dramatists. There is, in any case, no Iphigenia on record. One line from

Eubulus’ Antiope (PCGYV, fr. 9.1=Hunter 10) suggests IT 972 ἐς ἁγνὸν ἦλθον αὖ Φοίβου médov, but also OC 415 és Θήβης πέδον. The audience would have recognized tragic phraseology, without necessarily identifying particular plays.%’

. Hellenistic treatments of the story ᾿ tic interest in aetiology and predilection ological tales, even a deliberate turning poets known to us, Alexander Aetolus,

of Iphigenia show the characterisfor more recherché versions of mythaway from tragedy. In particular, the Euphorion, Lycophron, and Nicander,

seem to have been unanimous in making Iphigenia the daughter of Helen

and Theseus (see above, p. xv) For Euphorion, we have one line, quoted in a scholium on Lys. 645 (=van Groningen, fr. 95): ἀγχίαλον Βραυρῶνα, κενήριον Idiyeveins The scholiast adds that according to Euphorion, Iphigenia was sacrificed at Brauron, not Aulis, and that a bear, not a deer, was substituted for her. Hence the festival of the Arcteia (see above, p. xvii). Lycophron has a characteristically

85 Shakespeare seems to have intended the Tale to be a ‘classical play. He changes the names of

Greene’s characters, mostly to Greek names taken from Plutarch, with a few Latin and one Italian,

As everywhere in Shakespeare, there are biblical echoes, but no explicit Christian reference. For a

summary of sources and the biblical echoes, see N. Shaheen, Biblical References in Shakespeare’s Plays (Newark and London, 22002), pp. 717-33 and on the sources at greater length Bullough, op. cit. n. 82 above, VIII, pp. 116-233, _

. % For a brief treatment of the escape-plot, followed by an extended study of the libretto of

Entfithrung, see C. Questa, Il ratto dal seraglio (Urbino, 1997). Questa, in collaboration with Β. " Rafaelli, adds an appendix, ‘Mutazioni di Ifigenia} treating some later versions of the plot of IT. % On Euripides and Middle Comedy, see Β, L. Hunter, Eubulus. The Fragments (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 28-30 and W. G. Arnott, Alexis: The Fragments. A Commentary (Cambridge, 1996), p. 63, and, for a brief treatment, ‘From Aristophanes to Menander, G&R 19 (1972), pp. 65-80 (esp. 72-5), and, finally, H. G. Nesselrath, Die attische Mittlere Komédie (Berlin and New York, 1990), index

under ‘Euripides.

:

Introduction

xlv

obscure and eccentric version, At 183-201 he recounts the sacrifice and the substitution of the deer, while making Iphigenia the mother of Neoptolemus.

Transferred to Taurica, she not only kills Greeks, but cooks them (a detail

which reappears in Nonnus, Dion. 13.116-18), while Achilles wanders, posthumously, in search of his lost bride. Hence the association of the hero with the

string of islets known as the running-track of Achilles (see below on 435-9).

For Nicander, we have to rely on the testimony of Antoninus Liberalis, whose version, according to a superscription in one surviving MS, comes from the fourth book of the Heteroeumena. Nicander differs from other Hellenistic

poets in making the substitute animal a bull-calf, whence the name “Taurian’ for the people of Thoas. Eventually, Artemis transfers Iphigenia to the island of Leuce, where she becomes an ageless and deathless δαίμων called ‘Orsilochia) and the consort of Achilles.®® | In republican Rome, Iphigenia seems to have figured in the works of four tra-

gedians.® The fragments of Ennius’ Iphigenia make clear that his play was a ver-

sion of IA. One line survives which is attributed to an Iphigenia by Cn. Naevius (late third century Bc). This has been variously emended to approximate to IT 1487. E. H. Warmington adds another three lines to the play on the basis of their

supposed resemblance to other lines in IT. The fragments of an Agamemnonidae

by Accius (b. 170 Bc) tell us virtually nothing about its subject.*

One Roman tragedy has, however, exerted an extraordinary influence on later versions of the story of Iphigenia, in spite of being almost completely lost. In De amicitia 7. 24 (dramatic date: 129 Bc), Cicero makes Laelius recall a performance of ‘the new play by my guest and friend, M. Pacuvius’ There were, he says, shouts of approbation from the audience, when ‘the king not knowing which of the two was Orestes, Pylades claimed to be Orestes, so as to be killed

on his behalf, while Orestes insisted that he was Orestes (as he really was)’ In De finibus 5.63 (compare 2.79), Cicero describes the same reaction from audi-

ences in his own time, and quotes the actual words:

" On Euphorion, see J. Hangard (ed.), Scholia in Aristophanem ILiv, Scholia in Aristophanis

Lysistratam (Groningen, 1996) and J. L. Lightfoot (ed.), Hellenistic Collection (Cambridge, Mass.

and London, 2009) p. 85; for Alexander, fr. 11. Ibid. Parthenius, fr. 41, (ibid. pp. 530-1) is wholly

obscure. For Nicander, see A. S. Ε Gow and A. Ε Scholfield (edd.), Nicander. The Poems and

Poetical Fragments (Cambridge, 1953; repr. London, 1997), pp. 205-6 and M. Papathomopoulos

(ed.), Antoninus Liberalis. Les Métamorphoses (Paris, 1968}, p. 47, with, on the superscriptions |

(‘manchettes’), pp. χί--χίχ. 8 Collections of fragments of Roman drama referred to are: O. Ribbeck, Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta. I Tragicorum Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1897, repr. Hildesheim, 1962). ͵ Α. Klotz, Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta. I Tragicorum Fragmenta (Munich, 1953). E. H. Warmington, Remains of Old Latin Π (London and Cambridge, Mass., 1936; repr. 1956-9). * For the one line of Naevius, see Ribbeck, p. 10, Klotz, p. 35, and Warmington, p. 120. For the fragments added to Naevius’ Iphigenia by Warmington, see, for 20, Ribbeck, p. 17 and Klotz, p. 43; for 22, Ribbeck, p. 15 and Klotz, p. 42; for 23, Ribbeck, p. 17 and Klotz, p. 43. For Accius’

Agamemnonidae, see Ribbeck, p. 163, Klotz, pp. 197-8 and Warmington, p. 330.

xlvi

Introduction Ego sum Orestes... Immo enimvero ego sum, inquam, Orestes. .«.ambo ergo una necarier

i |

precamur®!

Unhelpfully, Cicero never tells us the name of the play, but Nonius Marcellus

(fourth century Ap) quotes a line as from ‘Pacuvius’ Chryses, which must surely

belong to the same episode:

Inveni, opino, Orestes uter esset tamen

Still, I have found out, I think, which of the two is Orestes.

The story of Chryses, as we know it from Hyginus, Fab. 121 (see above, p. xxviii) would seem to have been designed as a sequel to IT. To accommodate the fragment of Pacuvius, it would have to be assumed that Thoas not only pursued the fugitives from Taurica, but actually had them, at some stage, in his power. It is, however, still possible, in spite of Nonius, to question whether the

contest of friendship between Orestes and Pylades really must be attributed to a play about Chryses. Hyginus, Fab. 120 follows IT fairly closely, and recounts that the two young men, ‘having been captured by shepherds, were led before

Thoas’ (compare IT 333-4). That episode, extended and brought on stage, could well have been made to accommodate the contest. In IT, the name of just one of the pair, Pylades, is revealed at the time of capture. But that could have

inspired a version in which only the name of Orestes is revealed. At any rate, Hyginus’ story suggests the existence of another Greek play treating the same episode as IT. Of Timesitheus’ Orestes and Pylades, for example, we know absolutely nothing, except the title.’® But here is a reminder of the quantity of Greek drama available to Roman writers, but lost to us. Whatever its source, however, it seems clear that Pacuvius’ play placed a stronger and more sentimental and

melodramatic emphasis than does Euripides’ on the relationship between Orestes and Pylades, in a way which accorded with the Roman idealization of

male friendship, an idealization which would live on in the Renaissance.”®

In Roman non-dramatic poetry, Lucretius (1. 80-101) aptly uses the sacrifice of Iphigenia as his prime example of the pernicious influence of religio. At

1.94 there 15 a reference to IA 1220: πρώτη ¢’ ἐκάλεσα πατέρα καὶ σὺ παῖδ᾽ ἐμέ (patrio princeps donarat nomine regem). But the powerfully visualized ! ‘necarier’ is Madvig's emendatnon of the gibberish ‘sunanigranum’ For Pacuvius, see G.

D’Anna,M Pacuvii Fragmenta (Rome, 1967), pp. 71-83 and P. Schierl, Die Tragbdien des Pacuvius

(Berlinand New York, 2006), pp. 192-239. 2 Por Timesitheus, see TrGF 1, 214, pp. 324-5.

+ %3 For a useful summary, with references, on friendship in the ancient philosophical tradition, see J. G. E Powell’s edition of Cicero, On Friendship and the Dream of Scipio (Warminster, 1990), pp. 2-5. D. Meban, “The Nisus and Buryalus Episode and Roman Friendship, Phoenix 63 (2009), pp. 239-59, assembles references and stories illustrating the importance of friendship in the late republic.

Introduction

xlvii

account of the sacrifice itself is clearly reminiscent of IT, as well as of Ag Iphigenia is brought trembling to the altar and lifted up above it by men’s hands. There is no escort to sing the marriage hymn. Instead, she is foully slaughtered by the hand of her own father at the very moment of her marriage. Horace€’s Stoic sage, Stertinius (Sat. 2. 3. 199-223), also sees the sacrifice as a

monstrosity. Agamemnon, driven by ambition to kill his ‘sweet daughter} was just as mad as Ajax: neither could tell the difference between a human being and a sheep.

In contrast, Ovid's presentation of the story is distinctively Roman (Met. 12. 24-38). He takes up the theme of patriotism introduced at IA 1374-1401, but his focus is on the father, on Agamemnon, whose act is one of wholly admir-

able public spirit:

... pietatem publica causa rexque patrem vicit

The public good overcame family feeling and the king the father.

Calchas knows the truth; the virgin goddess demands a virgin’s blood. There is

only the faintest hint of disapproval, when the killing of the substitute deer is called ‘fitting’ (qua decuit. .. caede). Exile at Tomi apparently opened up for Ovid a new perspective on the story. He twice recounts the rescue of Iphigenia: in Tristia 4. 4. 61-82 and, at greater

length, Ex Ponto 3.2.45-94. In the first version, Iphigenia in person is about to

slaughter the two young men, when she recognizes her brother ‘by his speech’ (vice sermonis fratrem cognovit). The allusive treatment of the episode sug-

gests that it could have been derived from some well-known Roman dramatic version, very possibly Pacuvius. At any rate, this melodramatic, last-minute recognition becomes a lasting legacy. The version in Ex Ponto has more in common with IT, in that it includes the recognition by the letter, but this still comes at the last moment. While Iphigenia

writes her letter, Orestes and Pylades argue about which is to die, and the story

ends with a tribute to the pair: ‘mirus amor iuvenum’ Ovid puts the narrative in the mouth of an old man, a native of the region, who is seeking to demonstrate that his compatriots too know the name of friendship) and the whole passage is set in the context of a tribute to the steadfast friendship of Ovids addressee, M. Aurelius Cotta. In this way, the relationship of Orestes and Pylades is made the emotional centre of the story, while Iphigenia is relegated to a secondary role.

For medieval readers, Ovid was the chief source for the story of Iphigenia.”*

¢ Another possible source for some medieval readers would have been the account of the Trojan War by ‘Dictys the Cretan. This Latin translation made, most probably, in the fourth century AD, of a somewhat earlier Greek original, claimed to be an eye-witness account by a

xlviii

Introduction

John Lydgate, in his Troy Book (1420), draws on him explicitly for his account of the sacrifice at Aulis: ..and some bokis make mencioun

Touching this thing, that Agamenoun,

As Ovide reherseth in his boke— How this king his owne doughter toke, Effigenya, benigne of face and chere...

Then follows the story of the spiriting away of Iphigenia and the substitution

of the deer, and that, for Lydgate, is the end of the story.*®

A curious development from Ovid’s account of the sacrifice appears in the various ‘Ovide moralisé, which were produced from the later middle ages through the sixteenth century. There, the idealization of Agamemnon’s patriotism even suggests an assimilation of the king to God and of Iphigenia to Christ.”® It is to the appropriation of the story to the theme of male friendship that IT owes the distinction of being, apparently, the first Attic tragedy to be translated into a European vernacular. Alessandro Pazzi de’ Medici, nephew of Lorenzo the Magnificent, says, in the preface to his translation of the play into the Tuscan dialect, that he has chosen it 85 a rare example of friendship between Orestes and Pylades} and because of the happy ending. This, he says, ‘provokes

the profitable and salutary reflection that , just as the sincere and sacred love of

friendship most often produces a happy outcome, so disorderly and illicit love leads to woeful and wretched destruction’ The translation, together with Pazzi’s

own tragedy, Dido (for moral contrast), was presented to Clement VII, the

Medici pope, in 1524. Pazzi was a serious scholar, whose edition of Aristotle’s

Poetics, with Latin translation was published posthumously in 1536 and several times reprinted in the course of the sixteenth century. The translation

of IT has remained in manuscript, except for, short extracts, To judge from these, 6 work 15 a genuine, if free, translation, not an adaptation, One passage

follower of Idomeneus. Dictys’ treats the sacrifice at Aulis at some length (1.19-22). In his version, Achilles rescues Iphigenia and hands her over for safe-keeping to ‘the king of the Scythians, who

was there at the time’, There, for Dictys, her story ends. For the Latin text, see Dictys Cretensis, ed.

W. Eisenhut (Leipzig, 1973) and, for an English translation, R. M. Frazer jr., The Trojan War (Bloomington and London, 1966), pp- 33-6.

* See Troy Book ii, 6215-36. J. M. Gliksohn (Iphigénie de la Gréce antique d lépoque des

Tumidres, Ρ.57) mentions two other medieval works which draw on Ovid for their accounts of the

sacrifice: the Trojanische Krieg of Konrad von Wirzburg (d.1287) Trayes of Raoul Le Févre (d. 1467?). The latter work appeared in The relevant extract from Konrad (together with extracts from a treat the story) is to be found in S. Matuschek, Mythos Iphigenie. Braun.

and the Recueil des histoires de an English translation in 1491 number of other works which Texte von Aischylos bis Volker

% On the ‘Ovide moralisé, see Gliksohn, op. cit. n. 95 above, pp. 57~60.

Introduction

xlix

published, 186-231, includes some serious corruption, with which Pazzi copes by intelligent guesswork.” . As a celebration of male friendship, Euripides’ play evidently leaves something to be desired. Another nephew of Il Magnifico, Giovanni Ruc(c)ellai,

apparently thought that he could do better. He produced his own version

under the title Oreste. Ruccellai was some eight years older than his cousin,

Pazzi, had received the same education, and moved in humanist circles.. His

best-known work, Le Api (Bees), a didactic poem based on Virgil’s fourth Georgic, closes with an announcement of his intention to ‘return to sad Orestes, with more sublime and tearful verse, as becomes the tragic buskin’ He seems

to have been working on his play in the 1520s, at much the same time as Pazzi

was producing his translation.”

|

Ruccellai’s Oreste (the change of title 15 significant) is full of literary refer-

ences and prodigiously verbose. It runs to 2,410 lines, and the reader is treated to interminable protestations of friendship. The order of entrance of the characters is reversed. The opening monologue is eliminated, and the play begins instead with a dialogue between Oreste and Pilade, newly arrived in Taurica. Iphigenia enters accompanied by a chorus of virgins whose fathers have been

sacrificed, but she also has a confidant, Olimpia. Ruccellai makes rather more of the character of Thoas, and here he shows his lack of sureness of touch as a tragedian. His Toante is a fairy-tale ogre. He is made personally responsible

for the sacrifices, and in his first speech he wishes that he could drink the

prisoners’blood. He spends much of the play off-stage watching a fight between a lion and a tiger. Returning in time for the sacrifice, he wishes that a fight could be organized between the young Greeks and tigers, so that he might enjoy the sight of human entrails, live, warm and palpitating’ And would it not be nice if the men’s fathers, mothers, and sisters could be invited to view the

spectacle? The play was performed in Rome as late as 1726.

Ruccellai evidently meant to produce a play on the Greek model: he uses non-rhyming verse for the dialogue, with lyric for the chorus, and some lyric interludes for Ifigenia, Oreste, and Pilade. But he also makes significant departures from the form. Two very long narratives are attributed to the chorus, and they come and go in the course of the play. At least once, he allows four ὅ7 For Pazzi's versions of 186-231 and 1493-9, see A, Solerti, le tragedie metriche di Alessandro

Pazzi de’Medici (Bologna, 1887), pp. 34-6. Solerti also prints the full text of Dido in Cartagine and of Pazzi’s translation of Cyc., extracts from his translation of OT and the preface to IT and Dido. This last is an extremely interesting document for students of Renaissance thinking on ancient tragedy. One major concern was choosing, or devising, metres suitable for translation. The reader should be aware that Solerti seems slightly accident-prone: for the first passage his line numbers are incorrect and the second is attributed to ‘Oedipus. A, Pertusi (‘11 ritorno alle fonti del teatro greco classico, Byzantion 33 (1963), p. 417) prints only the translation of 186-202. 55 For the text, see Le opere di Giovanni Ruccellai, ed. G. Mazzoni (Bologna, 1881). This work

includes 4 substantial introduction on Ruccellai’s life and works. The play was first printed in

Verona in 1723, and reprinted in Teatro italiano antico (London, 1786),

Ι.

Introduction

speaking characters on stage together. But it is most striking that in this first early-modern adaptation there are departures from Euripides which recur in

versions by authors who are most unlikely to have known either his work οἱ, in

many cases, each other’s. Above all, the delicate balance and architecture of

Euripides’ play hiave been changed. For Euripides, Iphigenia is the leading fig-

ure. She is the first character to appear and the last of the Greeks whom we see,

through the eyes of the Taurian messenger. It is the relationship between

brother and sister that is of prime importance. The contest of friendship passes comparatively rapidly, and Pylades becomes a mute character after 908. Thoas

is little more than a necessary part of the dramatic machinery, with just enough individuality to seem real, but not enough to engage our emotions. He might

have felt betrayed by Iphigenia’s defection; instead, he is merely astonished,

then angry. Astonishment and anger do not attract sympathy. Ruccellai and his successors tend to see the emotional centre of the play in the relationship

between Orestes and Pylades. They also feel that Thoas should, for good or ill, matter more, be more closely integrated into the plot. The effect is, more or less,

to margmallze Iphigenia and to draw the audience’s interest towards the male characters.” In spite of Pazm and Ruccellai, sixteenth-century interest was focused rather on IA.!°® When interest in Iphigenia’s escape returns in the second half of the seventeenth century, the two routes of influence come together to produce the Iphigenia of romance. In this version, there is no place for a virgin priestess over 30. Instead, the chronology of the Trojan War is ignored, and the lost princess becomes the young and beautiful heroine. Racine, at least in his teens, loved Heliodorus' tale. His son, Louis Racine, recounts how his father, when a pupil at Port-Royal, after his text had been confiscated twice, learned the whole work by heart. Louis Racine also published his father’s sketch, in prose, for the

first act of an Iphigénie en Tauride.'? The preliminary information is conveyed

through a conversation between Iphigénie arid a captive Greek girl. A great religious ceremony is impending, but there are no Greeks available for sacrifice. That pleases Iphigénie, but she has had a terrible dream. She was in her old home, her father and mother were ‘swimming in blood; and she herself was holding a dagger, ready to cut the throat of her brother. She loves him best of % Something of the same movement can be observed in post-Euripidean versions of the story of Alcestis, in which Heracles is drawn into the plot and given emotional significance as, for example, a rejected suitor of Alcestis. See my edition of Alc., pp. xxv-xxx.

190 Translations of IA: Erasmus, into Latin (1506), ]. Sébillet and 1, Amyot, both into French (1549), Jane, Lady Lum]ey, into English (1550, but not published until 1909), Ludovico Dolce, into

Italian (1551). Hans Sachs, the shoemaker-poet of Nuremberg, produced his Mord Opfer der Géttin Diane mit der Jungkfrau Ephigenia in 1555. On the comparative popularity of Hec. in the same period, see below, p. Ixv with n. 132, 19 For Louis Racine’s memoir of his father, see Racine, Oeuvres complétes 1, ed. G. Forestier (Pléiade, Paris, 1999), pp. 1114-1205. For Racine’s love of Heliodorus, see pp. 1120 and 1124. For the text of his planned first act, see pp. 765-7 and for the date, pp. 1599-1600.

Introduction

li

all her family, since he was only 10 at the time of the sacrifice at Aulis, and in no way to blame. She herself escaped death by being carried off by pirates— those useful facilitators of Greek romance plots. The Taurians do not know who she is, but they do know about the intended sacrifice. They assume that she is a slave, for who but a slave could possibly be chosen for sacrifice? Now

enter an entirely new character, Thoas’ son. He is distraught. Two young Greeks have been captured. He has tried to save them, but failed. Moreover, he is in love with Iphigénie. Now Iphigénie is sent to prepare for the sacrifice, and Thoas enters. The son pleads for the Greeks, but is accused by his father of

being under the influence of the Greek slave-woman. Once alone with a confi-

dant, Thoas reveals how it pains him to be harsh to his son. He will pray to the goddess to inspire in the young man feelings worthy of himself. There the sketch ends. Racine’s departures from Euripides-are significant and -mterestmg 'The opening monologue and the supernatural are eliminated. The dream is surprisingly crude and explicit. The gap in age between brother and sister has been carefully reduced so as to allow her to be in her twenties. The early introduction of Thoas and his inner conflict suggest that he was designed to be a significant and not wholly unsympathetic figure. On the other hand, the absence of Orestes and Pylades from the first act, together with the introduction of Thoas’ son and his love for Iphigénie, indicates that the heroine would have remained, as in Euripides’ play, the central figure, and the friendship of the two young men would have remained of secondary interest. There would surely have been an account of the sacrifice at Aulis,and who could have given that but Iphigénie herself? In 1677, three years after Racine produced his version of IA Charles Davenant, in London, put on his Circe. A Tragedy at the Duke of York’s Theatre, in which he held a controlling share.'*? The author was son of the poet and playwright, Sir William Davenant, and his only play is an extravaganza hardly

to be expected from ‘a writer on economics, public finance and politics''°® The

play was provided with a prologue by Dryden and an epilogue by the Earl of Rochester, Davenant’s Circe is married to Thoas, King of Scythia, who is, however, now in love with Iphigenia. Also in love with Iphigenia is Ithacus, son of

Circe by Ulysses, while Osmida, daughter of Thoas by an earlier wife, loves Ithacus. Orestes and Pylades arrive, whereupon Iphigenia and Pylades fall in love with each other and Circe with Orestes, who is won by Circe’s spells to return her love. Eventually, Ithacus is killed fighting on the side of the Greeks, Osmida drops dead on his body, Orestes kills Circe, Thoas and himself. There is no final stage-direction-to-show whether Iphigenia and Pylades survive, or 192 The credit must go to P, L. Lucas (Euripides and his Influence, p. 133) for discovering that Davenant’s Circe is a re-telling of the story of Iphigenia in Taurica.

1053 Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

lii

Introduction

are incinerated in a general conflagration caused by the spells of the dying

Circe. The piece 15 entirely in rhyming verse, and Circe’s magic powers enable

the author to introduce interludes of song and dance, storms, thunder, lighten-

ing, fire, and ‘horrid Musicke. Two dragons rise from the ground to rescue

Orestes from sacrifice and Circe makes one of her entrances in a dragon chariot. The play enjoyed lasting popularity and the stage-machmery of the Duke of York’s was most effectively advertised. In 1697, at the Comédie Franqaise, the poetical musketeer and protégé of Racine, Francois-Joseph de Lagrange-Chancel, put on his Oreste et Pilade.

Lagrange-Chancel was an elegant versifier with a talent for complex plot-

construction.’® In his preface, he tells us that Racine had long hesitated

whether to dramatize the sacrifice or the escape. But while Racine keeps, as it were, Euripides in sight, Lagrange-Chancel, like Davenant, moves sharply

away, multiplying characters so as to facilitate amorous entanglements. His Thoas is to marry Thomiris, daughter of the last king of the “Tauro-Scythians,

but is in love with the priestess, Iphigénie. He has, however, received an oracle

warning him that ‘Oreste’ will kill him. Hence his decision to kill every Greek

who comes to the land, as well as his need to identify ‘Oreste. Thus, LagrangeChancel not only makes Thoas personally responsible for the killing of strangers, but contrives to introduce his own version of Pacuvius’ scene in

which both men claim to be Orestes. Iphigénie and Pilade fall in love. Thomiris

helps the Greeks to flee with the sacred image. Thoas pursues and is killed by Oreste. Thomiris remains as rightful queen. To a reader of Euripides, a particularly odd feature of the play is the way in which Lagrange-Chancel throws

away the dramatic effect of the recognition between brother and sister. The

episode almost gets lost among the convolutions of the plot. Instead, there

is a great, emotional recognition between Oreste and Pilade, who have been

separated on their way by a storm at sea. Following the fortunes of Iphigenia through the eighteenth century provides glimpses of 2 European culture of the theatre. Lagrange-Chancel’s play proved popular outside France. In London, John Dennis (1658~1743), critic, minor poet, and literary man, knew it and thought that he could do better. In the preface to his Iphigenia (1699), he cites De amicitia, and states his intention

‘to enflame the Minds of an Audience with the Love of so noble a Virtue as Friendship. This results, as in Ruccellai’s version, in repeated, tedious dialogues in which the pair protest their devotion to each other, and each insists that he must be the one to die. Dennis innovates by turning Thoas into a Scythian

+queen who falls in love with Orestes, while both Orestes and Pylades fall in --——|ove-with-Iphigenia; so-introducing -a-lit le titillation:-Iphigenia is about to be

forced to sacrifice her unrecognized brother with her own hand, when Pylades

arrives with the news that all the Greeks are to be saved, provided that they 1%¢ On Lagrange-Chancel’s version of Alcestis, see my edition of Buripides’ play, pp. χχίχ-- χχχ.

Introduction

liii

marry Scythians—the Jolanthe solution, although it seems unlikely that W. S. Gilbert knew anything of Dennis. All is revealed in the last hundred lines. Orestes immediately transfers his affections to the Scythian queen, Iphigenia bestows hers on Pylades, and all ends happily. :

Lewis Theobalds Orestes (London, 1731) is a more sober reworking of Davenant’s Circe, designed to provide a starring role for Garrick’s rival, James

Quin, a heavily-built man unsuited to jeune-premier roles, who had distinguished himselfas Othello. Theobald sharply cuts down the musical and spectacular elements. His Thoas truly loves Circe, and is tormented by jealousy when he begins to suspect her partiality for Orestes. Meanwhile, Iphigenia and Pylades, as 80 often, fall in love. Hermione comes to Taurica to join her fiancé,

Orestes, and the two Greek couples escape. Circe stabs herself, and Thoas is left

to deliver a moralizing closing speech. The epilogue was written by Henry Fielding. Very little is left of Euripides. The earliest known German version seems to be that of the Viennese, Joseph Anton Stranitzky (1676~1726).'% Stranitzky, the son of a footman and a junkdealer, is unlikely to have received an extensive classical education. He divided his energies between dentistry and the theatre, and his stock-in-trade was popular Viennese comedy, featuring a character of his own creation, ‘Hanswurst His Der Tempel Dianae oder der Spiegel wahrer und treuer Freundschaft is a comedy; and concentrates, as usual and as the title indicates, on the relationship between Orestes and Pylades. It includes various amorous entanglements, but most interesting is the fact that Stranitzky’s Thoas, like Davenant’s and Theobald’s, is married to Circe. Stranitzky is not known to have travelled nearer to England than Augsburg, so the Davenant-Theobald version, like that of Lagrange-Chancel, seems to have become known beyond its authors’ native country.'% In contrast to Stranitzky, Christian Friedrich von Derschau (1714-99), Prussian nobleman, soldier, and statesman, received a classical education, like Wilamowitz more than a century later, at Schulpforta. He published his Pylades und Orestes, oder Denkmaal der Freundschaft in 1747. He departs from the ‘romantic’ tradition in one respect by not involving Iphigenia herself in any erotic entanglement. But he follows romantic practice in playing fast and loose with traditional mythology and shows himself heavily influenced by LagrangeChancel. Thomiris reappears as, ostensibly, the daughter of Thoas. Pylades 195 On Stranitzky (and on other German versions), see C. Meid, Die griechische Tragbdie im

Drama der Aufkldrung (Tibingen, 2008), with valuable bibliography, and also Β. Β. Heitner, “The Iphigenia in Tauris Theme in Drama of the Eighteenth Century, Comparative Literature 16 (1964),

ῬΡ. 289-309. The exact date of Stranitzy’s play is unknown. It was first published in R. Payer von Thurn, Wiener Haupt- und Staatsaktionen I, Schriften des Literarischen Vereins in Wien XIII (Vienna, 1910).

1% An intermediary could have been a ‘ballet’ performed at Schénbrunn in 1678 called Π templo di Diana in Tauride, with libretto by Niccold Minato, although Stranitzky could only have come across it somewhat later. See Gliksohn, op. cit. n. 95 above, p. xlviti.

liv

Introduction

arrives in Taurica so far in advance of Orestes that he and Thomiris have ti:fne

to fall in love and become engaged with Thoas’ approval. Thoas’ hostility: to

Orestes springs from the fact that he is the brother of Aegisthus. The emotional high point is, as usual, the contest of friendship, here complicated by Pylades’ love for Thomiris. In the end, Thomiris turns out ο be not Thoas’ daughter, but, as in Lagrange-Chancel’s play, the true heiress to the throne of Taurica. Orestes kills the usurper, Thoas, and returns to Greece with Iphigenia, while Thomiris and Pylades are left to rule over Taurica. In this version, not only Iphigenia, but even, in some degree, Orestes sink into secondary roles, and for once 1t is Pylades who occupies centre stage. : The first signs of a change in taste away from the romantic-erotic appéar quite early in the eighteenth century, to be precise, on 5 August 1713 at Sceaux, in the house of the Duc du Maine, illegitimate son of Louis XIV and Madame de Montespan (see also below, Ῥ. Ixvi). On that day, the Duke’s wife, AnneLouise Bénédicte de Bourbon-Condé, played the title role in a version (‘imité

et presque traduit’) of IT. The translator, Nicolas de Malézieu, once tutor to the Duke, had remained in the household as organizer of ‘distractions. The translation is said to have been made at the request of the Duchess herself, ἃ woman

of literary and intellectual tastes. However that may be, the choice of play was ingenious, given the need for a beautiful female lead appropriate for a woman of 37, not a young girl, but retaining a certain youthful glamour.'%? Malézieu makes some concessions to the taste of the time. He retains a chorus (of priests and priestesses), but their songs are abridged. To provide an audience for Iphigénie’s opening speech, a confidant is introduced, who, however, proves something of a dramatic embarrassment later, as there is no role for her. Iphigénie is represented as about to kill the prisoners with her own hand (Ovid has passed this way). Most startling, however, is the finale, composed by Malézieu, in which a ‘Scythian’ chorus looks forward to a peaceful future for their country, in which arts, sciences, and polite manners will flourish, and the steel, used for so long to shed the blood of men, will serve instead to cultivate the soil that nourishes them.'? Apart from the text, what we know of the production comes from a member

of the audience, the then 19-year-old Voltaire, who recalls it long after, when

dedicating his own play, Oreste, to the Duchess.'*? At that time, he says, it had never entered his head that anyone would introduce love-interest (‘la

galanterie’) into tragedy. Tadmirais Pantique dans toute sa noble simplicité __'7

On the Duches¢’s literary interests, see H. C. Lancaster, Sunset, A History of Parisian Drama

in the last Years of Louis XIV (Baltimore, Oxford, Paris, 1945), pp. 7-8.

198 For Malézieu's text, see Revue dhistoire littéraire de ἰά France 17 (1910), pp. 481-611. The

editor, Paul Bonnefour, seems to have modernized the spelling and punctuation. 109 Oreste, published in Paris in 1750, is based on Sophocles’ Electra, but in the final scene, Voltaire makes Oreste, in an address to the gods, look forward to his future adventures: ‘Parlez ... vous prononcez le nom de la Tauride./ ]’ y cours, j’ y vais trouver la prétresse homicide.

Introduction

v

‘Noble simplicité belongs to the critical vocabulary of the Ancients’ (see below, pp. Ixv-Ixvi). Voltaire was by no means a committed ‘Ancient; but he is writing as a courtier, reflecting the tastes of his patroness. Much of the rest of his pref-

ace is given over to a vigorous attack on the fashion for love-interest in tragedy, unfortunately exemplified even in the work of a certain great poet. He does not

name Racine.

Reaction against the romantic taste is apparent in Johann Elias Schlegel’s Die Geschwister in Taurien, which was performed at Meissen in January, 1739,

when the author was just 20. Johann Elias (1719-49), uncle of the critics

Friedrich and August Wilhelm Schlegel (see below, pp. Ixvii-Ixix), belonged to a family of theologians and jurists, and, like von Derschau, studied at Schulpforta. He played a significant part in promoting interest in Shakespeare in Germany.''? Schlegel re-worked his play between 1737 and 1742 under the title Orest und Pylades, but it was not published until 1762. He makes no attempt to reproduce the form of Attic tragedy. There is no chorus, no mono-

Jogues, no supernatural intervention. Iphigenia has a confidant and the whole

work 15 composed in 12-syllable rhyming lines. But there is also.no love-interest, and the essential dramatic episodes of Euripides’ play are reproduced, although in curiously diminished form. Initially, Schlegel eliminates much of the element of discovery by making Iphigenia aware from the beginning of the fate of her father and mother. Also, ἃ Thracian’ has told her that Orest has killed himself. Hence the highly dramatic line with which she enters: Ja, mein Orest ist todt, mein bruder ist dahin

After Iphigenia and her confidant, Eutrophe, the next characters to appear are Orest and Pylades. Thoas does not enter until Act 2, scene 5, and his role is hardly more significant than in IT. The revelation of Iphigenia’s identity is made through a letter (to Electra), but it is made to Pylades alone, who passes it on to Orest. Thoas is deceived, as in IT, but the process takes ἃ mere dozen lines. He accompanies the party to the sea-shore, where Orest, freed from his bonds, strikes him down, shouting out ‘Orest’ as he does so. The Greeks are

captured and brought back to the temple, with the dying Thoas bent on vengeance. Now follows Pacuvius’ scene, where both men claim to be ‘Orest,

Iphigenia, asked to identify Orest, offers her own life, Thoas decides that all three shall die. But now a sort of human deus ex machina appears in the form of the high priest, Hierarchus, with news of an ancient divine utterance in a ΄ sacred book. The goddess intends one day to go to a better place and to receive no more human sacrifices. Hierarchus takes control, and sends the Greeks on their way, with the sacred image. There is more than one contest of friendship between Orest and Pylades, but in spite of that and of the change of title, Iphigenia maintains her position as a leading figure in the drama. 10 His Vergleichung Shakespears und Andreas Gryphs was published in 1741,

ἵνὶ

Introduction

The Iphigenia of the Enlightenment was the creation of Claude Guimond de

La Touche (1723-60). La Touche had taught history and philosophy at the Jesuit college in Rouen, but left both the college and the Society under a cloud to set up in Paris as a literary man. Significantly, his first work was Epitre ἃ Tamitié and his last a verse-epistle, Les soupirs du cloitre, ou le triomphe du

fanatisme. Iphigénie en Tauride,''* his only play, was produced, with success,

at the Comédie Frangaise in 1757. In many respects, La Touche: follows eighteenth-century norms. Iphigénie has a confidant, and there are the usual passionate protestations of friendship between Oreste and Pylade. In the contest, however, Pylade only pretends to give way, so that he may come back with a rescue-party. Here, La Touche adopts Pierre Brumoy’s interpretation of Euripides (see below, p. Ixvii). The recognition between brother and sister is postponed until Act 4, and disposed of (with much weeping and fainting) in some twenty lines. But there is no love-interest, and religious questioning runs through the play. Euripides provides the precedent for this, and one may guess that that was one major reason at least why La Touche chose to re-work IT. Thoas is an excellent example of the evils which follow from fanaticism.

Iphigénie sees no hope of influencing him:

Que peut-on sur un coeur en proie ἃ 'imposture, Que 88 religion et sa crédulité Remplissent dépouvante et de férocité?

Oreste, like his Euripidean prototype, questions the ‘dieux bizarres’ who have caused him to kill his mother. There is no even partial resolution in terms of traditional plety But Iphigénie, though tormented by doubt, ghmpses a solution: La Nature me parle, et ne peut C'est la premiére loi.. . clest la Clest la seule, du moins, qui se Qui soit de tous les temps, qui

me tromper. seule peut-étre.. fasse connaitre, soit de tous les lieux,

Et qui régle ἃ la fois 165 hommes et les dieux.

‘The eventual rescue by Pylade confirms her hope. Iphigénie’s reflections on religion and fanaticism do much to restore her to the central position in the drama. The elghteenth-century interest in the escape of Iphigenia also manifests itself in at least a dozen operas, with music by, among others, Domenico Scarlatti (Rome, 1713) and Baldassare Galuppi (St Petersburg, 1768).'** * 11 Eor the text, see ΕΝ. Pascal (ed.), L autreIphtgér_:_:e (Perpignan, 1997). Pascal provides.a useful account of the development of ‘Enlightenment’ tragedy, together with the texts not only of La Touche, but of N.-E Guillard’s libretto for Gluck’s opera (see below) aud La petite Iphigénie, a burlesque of La Touches play by C.-S. Favart. On Guillards debt to La Touche, see Pascal’s introduction. 112 On the history of opera in relation to Attic tragedy, see Ρ Brown and S. Ograjensek, Ancient Drama in Music for the Modern Stage (Oxford, 2010), with further references there. -

T

e

o p—

gtcgn

Introduction

lvii

Benedetto Pasqualigo, librettist for G. M. Orlandini’s Ifigenia in Tauride (Venice, 1719), gives Thoas a daughter called “Theonoe, who eventually mar-

ries Pylades. The one work still in the repertoire, GlucK’s Iphigénie en Tauride, was first produced in Paris in 1779. The librettist, Nicolas-Francois Guillard, clearly owes a considerable debt to La Touche, although the operatic form does not lend itself to prolonged reflection. He exploits the idea, absent in Euripides,

of a special attraction felt by Iphigénie for Oreste:

Mon coeur se réunit ἃ lui par des rapports secrets ... For La Touches abridged Euripidean recognition, Guillard substitutes Ovid’s

instant melodrama. Iphigénie has the sword in her hand when Oreste cries out: Iphigénie, 6 ma soeur, Ainsi tu fus jadis immolée en Aulidel

The first version of Goethe’s Iphigenie auf Tauris was in prose, and received its first performance at Weimar in April 1779, to celebrate Duchess Luise’s birthday. The part of Iphigenie was played by a professional actress and singer, that of Orestes by Goethe himself. Goethe produced in total four versions. The

final one, in verse, was published in 1787.115 Goethe moves decisively away

from the eighteenth-century model and towards the Attic. Instead of Schlegel’s alexandrines, the dialogue is in unrhymed verse. There is no chorus, but Iphigenie herself delivers lyrical soliloquies. Monologues are permitted freely, and Goethe makes an interesting, strategic use of stichomythia. There is no melodramatic recognition in Ovidian style. Instead, the process of recognition, though different from Euripides, is long-drawn-out (Act 2, scene 2 to Act 3, scene 3, or nearly 500 lines). Just one extra character is added to Euripides’ cast: Arkas, 4 Taurian, who can speak of the state of feeling in “Tauris) and act, on occasion, as confidant to both Iphigenie and Thoas. Goethe may possibly have known Lagrange-Chancel’s play.’'* At least, the identity of his Iphigenie is unknown when the play begins, and Thoas wants to marry her. He is not, however, motivated by passion, but by deep affection and esteem, and by the fact that he has lost his only son, and fears for the future of his country if he dies without an heir, κ For the text of all four versions, see J. Baechtold (ed.), Goethes Iphigenie auf Tauris in vierfacher Gestalt (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1883). For some relatively recent discussions of Goethe's play in relation to Euripides;, see K. Matthiessen, ‘Die Taurische Iphigenie bei Eurlpides und anderswa, in S. Godde and Τ. Heinze (edd.), Skenika. Beitrage zum antiken Theater und seiner Rezeption. Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Horst-Dieter Blume (Darmstadt, 2000), pp. 363-80, O.]. Brendel, ‘Iphigenie auf Tauris—Euripides und Goethe, Ad-A 27 (1981), pp. 52-96, L. Goessler, “Zu Goethes Iphigenie, ΑΘΆ 18 (1973), pp. 16172 (on the connection with S. Phil.). Unfortunately, I have not been able to see Β, Zimmermann, ‘Euripides’ und Goethes Iphigenie, in O. Hilderbrand and Th. Pittrof (edd.),

Antike Rezeption in der deutschen Literatur. Festschrift fiir Jochen Schmidt (Freiburg, 2004).

"1 1t has also been suggested that he knew those of La Touche and Schlegel, but there is nothing to prove that. ."

lviii

Introduction

Goethe’s Orest is more resolutely suicidal than Euripides’ (that is, untll

his sudden recovery at 3. 3. 1341), and the exchanges between him and Pylades

are infused with an emotion alien to Euripides. There is, however, no contest

of friendship, and the centre of interest is decidedly Iphigenie. In her opening monologue, she expresses her desperate longing for home, and then Jaments the impotence of women. The topic comes as something of a surprise at

this point, but the question of what a woman can achieve will prove thematic

in the play. In the next scene, Arkas will, indeed, describe Iphigenie’s achievements. She has managed from year to year to prevent human sacrifices. Thoas is a ‘noble man’; he has long ruled with courage and wisdom, but from her

he has learned gentleness. All the Taurians love her and want her for their queen. We also learn, however, that Thoas remains a disturbing figure, prone to

dark moods, and, indeed, when Iphigenie rejects his offer of marriage, he

bursts into a misogynistic tirade and announces that human sacrifice shall. recommence.

For his Greek sources, Goethe used not only I7, but both S. El. and Β. El. and, probably, the Oresteia. He never learned to read Greek tragedy with ease, but had the help of Brumoy’s French translation (see below, pp. Ixvi-lxvii). As Clytaemestra’s reason, he accepts (as Sophocles and Euripides do not) vengeance for the sacrifice at Aulis (906 ff.). For the killing of Clytaemestra by Orestes, he - takes- the ‘motif of -the false ashes from Sophocles; but -his Electra, like

Euripides’ (El. 966-87), urges on a reluctant Orestes to kill his mother (1022 ).

From Euripides too (EL 318-19) comes, in more literal form, the idea of the

bloodstains on the palace floor (1027 ) and the scar on Orestes’ forehead (EL

573-4 and Goethe, 2086 ff.). But he owes a more significant debt to Or. In IT,

Euripides distinguishes the steady, sanguine, pious Pylades from the tormented Orestes, prone to doubt and despair. The character of Pylades is further

developed in Or. where the Phrygian sings of ‘the son of Strophius, evil-minded man (κακόμητις ἀνήρ), like Odysseus, crafty in silence, trusty to his friend’ (1404-6). Goethe’s Pylades is ἃ thoroughly sympathetic character, far from a

‘murderous serpent’ (that is, of course, the Phrygian’s point of view), but he

stands for an Odyssean conception of heroism. Orestes reproaches him with ‘1 hear Ulysses speak!’ (762). But Pylades accepts the identification: ‘Each man must choose his own hero as a model on his upward way to Olympus. Let me confess: it seems to me that guile and intelligence (List und Klugheit) do not disgrace a man who devotes himself to brave deeds. It will be Pylades, not Iphigenie, who devises the escape-plot. And here another major influence

emerges, that of Sophocles’ Philoctetes,''® with the triangular pattern in which

Pylades-plays-the role of -an~eminently~decent and-benevolent version of 115 Sophocles’ play had, of course, gained celebrity through the famous aesthetic controversy

between Winckelmann and Lessing. For a summary in English, see Jebb's edition of Phil, pp.

.

Introduction

lix

Odysseus, Iphigenie that of Neoptolemus and Thoas that of Philoctetes. With painful reluctance, Goethe’s Iphigenie agrees to deceive the man who has been 4 second father to her, but comes at last, with profound anxiety and hesitation,

to tell Thoas the truth. The escape of the Greeks is eventually secured by Orestes’

realization that he has been misinterpreting Apollo’s oracle: it was not the god’s sister that he was to rescue from “Tauris, but his own. Iphigenie pleads with Thoas to remember his promise to let her go if rescue ever came from Greece. Thoas responds with Ὅο then!’ She pleads with him again to take her hand and let them part as friends. The last words of the play are his: ‘Lebt wohl!’ Goethe does not, as Buripides does, engage emotionally with the experience of a woman who has found herself about to be killed by her own father on her wedding-day. His Iphigenie is not haunted by that memory. She refers to Aulis just twice. Her first account of the sacrifice is brief and dispassionate (419-29). Her second (1843-51) is inspired by her sympathy with the future victims. There is more emotion here, as she remembers herself trembling at the altar. But she never, here or elsewhere, specifies that it was her father who tried to kill

her. It was‘they’ (424-5). There is not even any hint of resentment against anyone. Goethe’s focus is elsewhere. By not only increasing Thoas’ stage presence, but also drawing our interest and sympathy powerfully towards him, and by making Iphigenie’s relationship with him at least as important dramatically as that with her own brother, he has, as it were, opened up the plot. A significant emotional relationship can exist, for good or ill, outside the family. In Germany at least, Goethe has taken possession of Iphigenia. The celebrity of his play has continued to attract writers in the German language to her story, who have, at the same time, been chary of the part of it that Goethe made his own. He had once contemplated a sequel based on Hyginus, Fab. 22, in which Iphigenia and Orestes, after their escape, encounter Electra in Delphi.*!® It is that episode, as well as the sacrifice, which has tended to attract later

writers. Thus, Friedrich Halm produced an Iphigenie in Delphi in Vienna in 1864 and Siegfried Anger another in 1898. In the twentieth century, Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s exercise in ‘antitheatre, Iphigenie auf Tauris von Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1986) connects only tangentially with Goethe and not at all with Euripides. The poet, dramatist, traveller, and pacifist, Ilse Langner, began work on her play Klytimnestra in 1934, but did not finish it until 1947. Betweenwhiles, in 1938, she produced her Iphigenie kehrt heim, in which Iphigenia, Orestes, Pylades, and Electra seek -

xxxiii-xxxv. Lessing’s Laokoon was published in 1766. In 1772, Goethe writes to Herder: ‘Thr wiisst nun wie’s mit mir aussieht, und was mir Buer Brief in diesem Philoktetischen Zustande worden ist. See Ε, Grumach, Goethe und die Antike (Berlin, 1949), p. 254.

15 On' Goethe's projected Iphigenie auf Delphos, see H. Trevelyan, Goethe and the Greeks

(Cambridge, 1941; repr., with foreword by H. Lloyd-Jones, 1981), pp. 135-8.

Ϊχ

Introduction

to rebuild their lives. The play begins on board Orestes’ ship sailing towa@s

Greece, and ends with a double wedding, Electra to Pylades and Orestes to the

‘Stiermidchen), while Iphigenia dedicates herself to the service of Artemis.

Langner eventually treated the episode of the escape in 1948 in a short, antirealistic, prose drama, Iphigenie und Orest. Gerhart Hauptmann was nearing the end of his life when, in 1941, he pro-

duced his Iphigenie in Delphi. Hauptmann had been recognized as a major

writer since the early years of the century. He had been awarded honorary doctorates by several universities, including Oxford (1905), and in 1912 he had

won the Nobel Prize. His Iphigenie is as far removed as could be from the

humane heroines of Euripides and Goethe. She has left “Tauris’ (German writers follow Goethe in treating this as a place-name) against her will. There, shé was

priestess, not of Artemis, but of Hekate. Elektra sees her as ‘walking Sorrow; but to herself she is ‘walking Death’ The play ends with her self-immolation, by which she releases her family from its cycle of murder. In 1943, Hauptmann went back to the beginning of the story, with Iphigenie in Aulis, if anything, darker in tone. “The earth has trembled. The cities of men begin to quake and fear their fall. What seemed built for eternity crumbles, cracks and totters, shak-

ing to its foundations’ (Act 2, scene 6). When the play opens, the black ship of Hekate lies at anchor in the bay of Aulis. The characters seem driven by some irresistable power. Iphigenie is not merely a willing but an eager victim. The sacrifice is accompanied by shouts of ‘Heil, Konig, heil, heil?’ Afterwards she is neither dead nor alive, and the black ship carries her away.

Now, it seems hard to miss a sombre message for National Socialist Germany,

but the Nazi leadership apparently did miss it. At the first night, in the Burgtheater in Vienna, Hauptmann was seated in the box of Baldur von Schirach, founder of the Hitler Youth and kindred organizations.'’” Hauptmann also left two short

plays, Agamemnons Tod and Elektra, which appeared in 1948, two years after the author’s death. These, with the two Iphigenia-plays, make up his AtridenTetralogie. Hauptmann never intruded into Goethe’s territory.

IPHIGENIA AND THE CRITICS Critical interest in I T has been sporadic. The play may disappear from readers’ attention for long periods and re-surface in a completely different literary climate, when mterest in Euripides has acqun'eda new focus At the same time, --...-

o w——— ———

-

R RNt

e mma

n Em e

m e e

.-....-.---

0! M

.

.

T .-

τ

ο

A

-

-

.........

17 See Ρ Sprengel, Gerhart Hauptmann: Bilrgerlichkeit und grosser Traum. Eine Biographie (Munich, 2012), p. 694. On the Atriden- Tetralogie see also D, Santi, Gerhart Hauptmann zwischen Modernitdt und Tradition (Berlin, 1998).

Introduction

Ixi

past judgments and views of poet and plays linger on and can be recognized in the work of critics who may hot even know where they originated. It may be that Aristotle gave the play, proportionately, more attention than it has ever received since. In the Poetics, it seems to emerge, together with OT, as one of his favourites, a play which offered in the highest degree the emotional experience that he required from tragedy. Among his references to IT, only one is pejorative. At 1454b, he disapproves of the way in which Orestes makes himself known to Iphigenia, because ‘he himself says what the poet wants, not what the plot wants. In contrast, the recognition -of Iphigenia by Orestes (1455a) he classes, with that in OT, as ‘the best type of all, for ‘the amazement

comes about from the events themselves, through the probable, ... for it is

likely (εἰκός) that she would want to send a letter. At 1455b, Aristotle uses the

story of Iphigenia to illustrate his point that the poet should see his story first in terms of universals, before extending it by episodes and introducing the particular. At 1452b, IT is again an example, that of a situation where two characters need to recognize each other. " It 18 surely the importance that Aristotle attaches to recognition (anagnorisis), accompanied by change of fortune (peripeteia) in arousing the emo-

tional response proper to tragedy'*® that causes him to single out these two plays. But when it comes to assessing the effect of different patterns of recog-

nition, there is for us a major problem. Aristotle dismisses a deliberate, but unsuccessful, attempt to do something terrible as ineffective, because of the

absence of suffering (ἀπαθές). A deliberate and successful act is only slightly

better. It is distinctly better when a character does a terrible deed in ignorance and recognizes afterwards. There, the recognition is sensational (ἐκπληκτικόν). But the most powerful (Κράτιστον) configuration of all is when a character is about to do a terrible deed in ignorance, but recognizes the truth in time and does not do it, just as Iphigenia does not kill her own brother. So here Aristotle seems to prefer the ‘happy’ ending to the sad. Yet only a page or two earlier (1453a) he had defended Euripides from the cen-

sure of those who complain that many of his tragedies end in misfortune. On the contrary, that, Aristotle says, is right, ‘for on stage and in performance such plays are seen to be the most genuinely tragic (τραγικώταται)... 'πά Euripides, even if he does not manage other things well, is seen to be the most tragic of the poets. Whether Aristotle was undecided, or in process of

changing his mind, or whether some other explanation is possible, it would -

seem that, whatever we may think, he sees the degree of pity and fear aroused

1181450433.--5 τὰ μέγιστα ols ψυχαγωγεῖ ἡ τραγῳδία.. .αἵτεπεριπέτειαι καὶ ἀναγνωρίσεις. The best sort of anagnorisis is accompanied by peripeteia (1452432--7.-145201). ‘Such an anagnorisis will have either pity or fear, matters of which tragedy is assumed to be the imitation. '

Ixii

Introduction

in the audience by a play like IT as closely comparable with that produced

by Ο Τ.

-

-

|

yAristotle’s estimate of Euripides as ‘the most tragic of the poets] that is the most successful in arousing the emotions proper to tragedy, is very high praise indeed, but the qualification—'even if he does not manage other things well'—has cast a long shadow over Euripidean criticism in later antiquity and beyond. Aristotelian

terminology is identifiable in the sporadic derogatory grumblings traceable through the Euripidean scholia.'* So, for example, this or that is said to be ἀπίθανον or done ἀπιθανῶς (Med. 972, Hipp. 125, Hec. 241, Or. 176, Phoen. 28).

Aristophanes’ satire also provides weapons for the hostile critic. Thus, to the

scholiast on Phoen. 1539, Euripides 15 ‘beggar-maker’ (πτωχοποιός). Compare

Frogs 842 and Ach. 412-35. There is a misunderstanding here of the nature of

satire, The satirist identifies typical motifs and mannerisms of his subject and exaggerates them to the point of absurdity. Aristophanes’ concern with Euripides is essentially complimentary: a satirist does not waste time and effort on the unpopular and unsuccessful. IT is not, however, a play which attracted

the comedian’s attention.. The first line appears, with several other first lines of

similar syntactic structure, at Frogs 1205~46 in a joke which cannot possibly be

interpreted as significant dramatic criticism.'?* Aristophanes’ other allusion to

IT is in the lost play, Women of Lemnos (Λήμνιαι PCG 111 2, fr. 373), where he pokes fun at etymologies-(see below on 32-3). Euripides certainly likes to offer

etymologies for names, but he is not the only dramatist to do 50.722 Nonetheless,

319 Por interesting treatments of the apparent contradiction, 566 S. Halliwell, Aristotle’s Poetics (Chapel Hill, NC, 1986), pp. 216-37 and S. A. White, Aristotle’s Favourite Tragedies) in A. O. Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotles Poetics (Princeton, 1992), pp. 221-40. In the same collection, Ε, S. Belfiore, ‘Aristotle and Iphigenia, pp. 359-77, also touches on the question. 120 See Schwartz II, Index Analyticus under ‘Euripides’ and W, Elsperger, Reste and Spuren antiker Kritik gegen Euripides, Philologus, Suppl. 11, 1907-10. Not all the comments collected by Elsperger may be intended as derogatory. R. Meijering, Literary and Rhetorical Theories in Greek

Scholia (Groningen, 1987) organizes his study by terms. N. G. Wilson, ‘Scoliasti e commentatori’ (SCO 33 (1982), pp. 83-112) provides an excellent introduction to the interpretation of scholia, tracing the stages in the process of accretion and selection which lie behind the scholia as they have been transmitted to us. 866 Ρ Ε. Easterling, ‘Notes on Notes: The Anclent Scholia on

Sophocles, in S. Eklund (ed.), Συγχάρματα. Studies in Honour of Jan Frederik Kindstrand

(Uppsala, 2006), pp. 31-5, for a clear and helpful discussion of some critical terms and for further

references.

121 On the various possibilities for interpreting the joke, see Dover on Frogs 1200,

122 See Ρ Rau, Paratragodia (Munich, 1967), pp. 210-11, on Antiope, TrGF 5.1, fr. 181,182, for a

list of name-etymologies in tragedy. . Two attempts have been made relatively recently to find other references to IT in Aristophanes. .E. Bobrick (Iphigenia revisited: Thesmophoriazusae 1160-1225, Arethusa 24 (1991), pp. 67-76)

‘seeks an allusion in Thesm. For her the name of the procuress, ‘Artemisia, is meant to suggest "Artemis, which, with the name of the prostitute, ‘Elaphion’ (*Little Deer’), ‘indicates a burlesque of the miraculous intervention of Artemis in the sacrifice of Iphigenia’ But this is not how parody

works. Bobrick imagines the audience picking up clues and following trails, but, no, they must see the joke instantaneously. In a more interesting paper (“The Archer Scene in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae, Philologus 133 (1989), pp. 38-54), Ε. M. Hall suggests an affinity between the

tricking of the archer and that of Thoas. But, apart from the mere fact of the deceit of a ‘barbarian’

Introduction

Ixiii

both the terminology of ancient criticism and ideas of what poetry does owe

much to Aristophanes.!??

.

Among ancient critics, Aristotle is exceptional in his sense of the live theatre. A change of direction away from structure and dramatic effect and towards 16 and rhetoric becomes apparent in the context of ‘Longinus’’ quotation of

11 291, together with Or. 255-7 (On the Sublime, 15. 2). The subject here 15

‘visualization’ (pavracia)'** and the author is making a distinction between

rhetorical and poetic visualization. In poetry the aim is astonishment (ἔκπλη¢i5), in oratory it 15 clarity (év Adyois ἐνάργεια). Both, however, seek emotion and excitement. After his two quotations from Euripides, ‘Longinus’ adds: ‘the

poet himself saw the Erinyes, and has as good as made his audience see what

he has imagined. Euripides is ‘supremely successful’ in producing tragic emo-

tion when he treats madness and love. He does, however, attempt other types

of visualization: ‘though not formed by nature for grandeur (μεγαλοφυής), he often forces himself to be tragic, lashing. himself on (μαστίεται), says

‘Longinus, like the Homeric lion of I1. 20. 170. It is worth noting here in passing that for ‘Longinus’ Sophocles is not the flawless tragedian that he becomes for some later critics, particularly in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,

but, like Pindar, a great, but uneven, poet (33. 5).

Euripides’ supposed lack of natural grandeur receives more extended treat-

ment from Dionysius of Halicarnassus (On Imitation, 9.2, 11-12).}%° Especially

in the matter.of characterization, Sophocles is much more successful in depicting the nobility and natural grandeur (τὰ γεννικὰ καὶ μεγαλοφυὴ) of his personages, while Euripides depicts reality, including the undignified, unmanly, and low (ἄσεμνον καὶ ἄνανδρον καὶ ταπεινόν). He also ‘abounds in rhetorical

presentations’ (πολὺς év ταῖς ῥητορικαῖς εἰσαγωγαῖς). Dio Chrysostom!2® is

somewhat more generous. He draws attention not only to Euripides’ ‘precision,

shrewdness and civic sense’ (70 ἀκριβὲς καὶ δριμὺ καὶ πολιτικόν), but to ‘a certain dignity and grandeur in his poetry’ (σεμνὴν δέ τινα καὶ μεγαλπρεπῆ

ποίησιν).

For Quintilian (10. 1. 67-8), Euripides 15 the most instructive of the tragedi-

ans for the student of rhetoric. Whether Sophocles or Euripides is the better poet is a controversy in which Quintilian does not wish to become involved, but for those preparing themselves to plead in court, Euripides will be far and by a Greek, there is a complete lack of contact between the episodes. Again, that is not how Aristophanic burlesque works, as the burlesques of Hel. and Andromeda in the same play show. For a sensible critique of this part of Hall’s paper, see D. M. MacDowell, Aristophanes and Athens (Oxford, 1995), pp. 272-3. 12 For a brief, but valuable, account of Aristophanes’ influence, see D. A. Russell, Criticism in Anti?uity (London, 1995), pp 20-2. : . 124 Translations are from D. A. Russell, ‘Longinus’ on Sublimity (Oxford, 1965).

125 See Denys d'Halicarnasse. Opuscules rhétoriques V, ed. G. Aujac (Paris, 1992), p. 34 and Dionysii Halicarnasei Opuscula, Π edd. H. Usener and L. Radermacher (Leipzig, 1904), p. 206.

126 Or.52 (Loeb IV; ed. H. L. Crosby, pp. 336-53).

Ixiv

Introduction

away the more useful’ (utiliorem longe fore Euripiden). His language is closer

to the style of oratory, he is full of ideas succinctly expressed (sententiae) and

in debate he is the equal of any of the great advocates. Moreover, he is incom-

parable in arousing pity. There, transferred to the law-court, is a return to Aristotle’s τραγικώτατος. For writers of the pre-Renaissance and early Renaissance, including those who did not know Greek and so had not read him, Euripides is ranked second

only to Homer among Greek poets.*” Dante (Purgatorio 22. 106-8) makes

Virgil list the pagan ‘poets’ in limbo. First of the Greeks is Homer, then

‘Euripides is there with us, and Antiphon, Simonides, Agathon, and many other

Greeks who once wreathed their brows with bay’ Some hfty yearslater, Petrarch too places Euripides second to Homer: ‘alterum ab Homero poetice Graie

lumen’ (De remediis utriusque fortunae i, dial. 121). In his Trionfo della fama (3. 58.9), he pairs Eurpides and Sophocles, ‘due nobili tragedi’

|

In addition to Quintilian and, eventually, Aristotle, a key text for Renaissance critics was Horace's Ars Poetica, where they found, in particular, the ideal of

poetry as both delightful and helpful in life."*® For Pazzi de’ Medici, IT

was helpful for life as an example of ideal male friendship (see above, pp- xlviii-xlix). But Euripides was more commonly seen as Quintilian saw him,

as helpful to the public man. So Francesco Patrizi, Bishop of Gaeta (1413-92), who had madé an epitome of Quintilian, recommends prospective rulers to read the tragedians, ‘because they have dignity and brilliance of language and

power of ideas, especially Euripides’!* Franciscus Portus (1511-81), father of

Aemilius Portus and professor of Greek at Modena and, later, Geneva, presumably had first-hand knowledge of Euripides. But, comparing Euripides with

Sophocles,*® he still uses the same terms as Quintilian, Euripides’ languag e is

less high-flown, closer to the style of the orator, so more useful to those planning to enter public life, He is extremely effective on both sides in debates, and,

above all, he is best suited to-arouse emotion’ Hence Aristotle’s judgme nt of

him as τραγικώτατος. But for Aristotle the tragic effect is a function of plot

and action,’ while for Portus (as for Quintilian) it is a product of rhetoric . Moreover, Quintilian, in writing of style, is aware that he is assessing only one '3 On Italian Renaissance criticism in general, see B.Weinberg, A History of Literary Criticism in the Italian Renaissance, 2 vols. (Chicago, 1961). Weinberg draws not only on publishe d sources, but on some which have remained in manuscript. . 128 See esp.AP 333-4, with C. O. Brink, Horace on Poetry. II The Ars Poetica’ (Cambrid ge, 1971),

pp. 352-3.

* 1 Patrizi’s treatise, De regno et regis institutione, was reprinted several times in the course of the'sixteenth centiiry, ὍΝ Patrizi in general and his epitome in particular, see D, Bassi, ‘L epitome di Quintiliano di Francesco Patrizi senese, RFIC 22 (1894), pp. 385--470. '3% Francisci Porti Cretensis in omnes Sophaclis tragoedias ut vulgo vocantur (Morges, 1584), ΡΡ. 13-14. Portus had apparently intended to edit Sophocles. His prefaces to.the plays were published posthumously by his son.

131 Poetics 1450a33-5 . See n. 118 above.

Introduction

Ixv

aspect of Euripides’ achievement. Renaissance critics seem concerned with

. little else. Given these priorities, it is not surprising that there are clear signs of

ἐ predilection for Hec., a play of the Byzantine triad (see below; p. c), morally ' ¢hallenging and with a strong forensic element.’* It remains, however, to be

" noted that seeing Euripides as a master of rhetoric was not to marginalize him, - but, on the contrary, to give him a central place in the educational concerns of the time.

While he uses familiar terms, there is nothing routine or ambiguous in

Racine’s admiration for Euripides. Four of his twelve plays are based on plays of Euripides, and he began work on another based on IT (see above, pp. 1-1i). In 1674, in the preface to his Iphigénie (based on IA), he first details the points

in which he diverges from Euripides, citing the ancient authorities for doing so. Then he continues: ‘Pour ce qui regarde les Passions, je me suis attaché 2 le suivre plus exactement. A fair number of passages in his plays which have been most admired he owes to Euripides. His imitations of Homer and Euripides have always been gratifyingly well received. ‘Mes spectateurs ont été émus des

mémes choses qui ont mis autrefois en larmes le plus savant peuple de la Gréce, et qui ont fait dire, quentre les Poétes, Euripide était extrémement tragique,

τραγικώτατος, Cest

dire qu’ il savait merveilleusement exciter la compas-

sion et la terreur, qui sont les véritables effets de 14 Tragédie. This praise of Euripides was not gratuitous. Racine was engaging in the major literary

polemic of his time, the Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns.**> He had

been provoked by Charles Perrault’s defence of Quinault’s libretto for Lully’s 3 On those qualities, see M. Lloyd, The Agon in Euripides, pp. 94-9 and C. Collard’s introduction to the play, pp. 21-32. A pioneering effort in rendering Euripides into Latin was that

of Leonzio Pilato (d.1364), who wrote an extremely literal translation of Hec, 1466 between the

lines in 6 MS Laur. 3.10. See A. Pertusi, ‘La scoperta di Euripide nel primo umanesimo, IMU 3 (1960), pp. 126-31. Before 1457, Pietro da Montagnana is said to have translated the whole play. Matteo Bandello’s translation of Hec. into the Tuscan dialect, dated 1539, was eventually published

in Rome in 1813 (G. Manzi, Ecuba tragedia di Euripide tradotta in verso toscano da Matteo

Bandello). Prancesco Filelfo published a Latin translation of the prologue in 1475, See A. Pertusi, ἽΙ ritorno alle fonti del teatro greco classico: Euripide nel umanesimo e nel rinascimento, Byzantion 33 (1963), pp. 391-426, and also N. G, Wilson, From Byzantium ο Italy (London, 1992), especially on the linguistic attainments of Renaissance scholars: on Pilato, pp. 2-7, Filelfo, pp. 48-53 and Montagnana, p.115. In 1506, two Latin translations of Hec. were published, one in Paris by Erasmus, the other in Parma by Giorgio Anselmi. A revised version of Erasmus’ translation appeared in Venice in 1507. Melancthon lectured on Hec. in Wittenberg in 1525-6. In A Defence of Poetry, Sir Philip Sidney cites Hec. as his example of how to compose a tragedy based on‘a story which containeth both many places and many times’ (Miscellaneous Prose, edd. K. Duncan Jones and J. van Dorsten (Oxford, 1973), p. 114). For critical views of Hec. over time, see M. Heath, ‘lure

principem locum tenet: Euripides’ Hecuba) in J. Mossman (ed.), Euripides (Oxford, 2003), ΡΡ. 218-60.

** On the Quarrel, see esp. M. Fumaroli, J.-R. Armogathe, and A.-M. Lecoq, La Querelle des

Anciens et des Modernes (Paris, 2001), a collection of key texts, with a highly informative introduction by Fumaroli. Ἐ. Behler, A.W. Schlegel and the Nineteenth-Century Damnatio of Euripides’ (GRBS 27 (1986), pp. 335-6) rather stresses the views of the Moderns. See also my Introduction to Alc., pp. χχχνί--χχχνηηι,

Ixvi

Introduction

opera, Alceste ou le triomphe d’Hercule. The praise of Euripides is the prelude to

a vigorous rebuttle of Perrault’s criticisms of the poet. Attacking Perrault at a

time when literary success depended on the favour of the Court was an act of courage, In addition to being the author of The Tales of Mother Goose, Perraul t was a high-ranking official and protégé of Colbert, the most powerful man in Erance after Louis XIV himself, We know, however, of a quaint piece of evidence that the Ancients won that

round. In January 1675, the young Duc du Maine, eldest child of the King and Madame de Montespan, received a present from his aunt, Madame de Thiange s: a toy theatre." ΟἹ stage were model figures representing members of the Court. The boy himself was centre-stage, costumed as Apollo (in modern dress). In the background were the two leading Ancients, Racine and Boileau , repelling ‘bad poets’ and welcoming La Fontaine. The Duke grew up to be'a firm supporter of the Ancients, and it was in his house, with his wife in the title-role, that Nicolas de Malézieu staged his French translation of IT (see above, p. liv). . In fact, the Quarrel had littleto do with literary quality as now understood.

The Moderns were prepared even to point to recent scientific discove ries—

the telescope, the microscope, the circulation of the blood—as proof that Modern must be better than Ancient. But their main contention was that the

manners- and

characters

represented

in ancient literature

were ‘coarse,

uncivilized, unseemly. The two poets most admired by the critics of the Renaissance, Homer and Euripides, were found particularly objectionable. Their representations of life and of human behaviour were too challenging, too disconcerting, in fact, too realistic. The Moderns in effect demanded an anodyne, vapid decorum, with ‘noble’ behaviour the rule. The Quarre] rolled on into the eighteenth century, spreading well beyond the borders of Prance. But, at a time when French was the common languag e of educated people, women as well as men, a truly major service to the appreciation of Attic drama was rendered by the Jesuit, Pierre Brumoy. In 1730, he published Le Thédtre des Grecs, French translations of a selection of tragedies, including IT and IA, prefaced by a substantial ‘Discours sur le Théitre des Grecs” and with ‘Réflexions’ following each play. Translations of more plays were added in successive editions, until, by the time the last edition was printed

in 1825, the work had grown to sixteen volumes and provided translations of

all the surviving plays, including those of Aristophanes. To Voltaire, the work was ‘un des meilleurs et des plus utiles que nous ayons. In 1769, an English translation was published by Charlotte Lennox, an industrious professional writer and- frie of Dr nd Johnson; Jolifison himself translated Brumoy’s introductory essay on comedy. Now, it may seem odd that an English translation of 3 Fumaroli et al., op. cit. n.133 above, Ῥ. 174.

Introduction

- Ixvii

Attic drama should have been made from a French translation, rather than

from the Greek. But there was nothing new in that. Brumoy’s major contention was that Greek plays should be read in the light of the ideas and tastes of their time,'*® and he applies that principle sensibly to IT. He begins his ‘Réflexons’on the play with the last scene. The object of bringing in Athena there is to please the Athenians by celebrating their ancient ceremonies and rites. The problem is that this means nothing to us. We are prejudiced against the poet because ‘he speaks a language strange to our ways. Returning to the beginning of the play, Brumoy concedes that the proJogue may be perceived as boring. This, he says, is the fault of Euripides’ pas-

sion for clarity. Sophocles managed such things better. He is, however, full of

admiration for the recognition, of which he gives a perceptive account. Predictably, he also admires the combat d’amitié between Orestes and Pylades. We may, he says, feel that Pylades gives way a little too easily, but he gives way

only in appearance. He is certainly counting on some happy event, ‘or rather on

his own courage. This is a slight distortion of 721-2. The deceit of Thoas is ‘natural and beautiful, if not to our taste. Finally, one notes through the whole play ‘un air de verité particulier au gott grec. The spectator feels that events really happened as he sees them and could not have happened otherwise. The recurrence of references to truth and nature in Brumoy’s criticism is significant. These were key terms for the Ancients, which, with a certain irony, point

forward to pre-Romanticism. It was the Moderns’ concern with decorum

which dated. Generally, Brumoy is a careful and scholarly translator by the

standards of his time, drawing attention in his footnotes to the text that he is

using (that of Barnes) and to departures from the literal. However even he succumbs to eighteenth-century ideas of decorum when it comes to the fight at 1365-78.In his version, references to chins, fists, livers, kicking all disappear. Such detail ‘ne convient pas & nos moeurs. But, says Brumoy apologeticaily, it is only a matter of a few words' Even if his efforts can seem naive and elementary, Brumoy was a pioneer in attempting to understand the plays in the context of their time. The Moderns, although they singled out Euripides for some special opprobrium, directed their hostility at ancient authors in general. A virulent attack on Euripides alone was launched by August Wilhelm Schlegel (1767-1845). His lectures Uber dramatische Kunst und Litteratur were delivered in Vienna in 1808 and published in three volumes in 1809-11.'%¢ The work bears witness to an extraordinary range of reading and linguistic skills. Schlegel covers princi-

Ples of criticism, with accounts of the theatres of Greece and Rome, Italy, Spain,

England, France, and Germany. He took over from his brother, Friedrich, 3% Brumoy could be over-enthusiastic. On his interpretation of Alc., see my edition, p. xxxix.

19 1 quote from the translation by J. Black, revised by A. J. W. Morrison: A Course of Lectures

on Dramatic Art and Literature (London, 1846).

Ixviii

Introduction

Aristotle’s biological model of the grow th, maturity, and decline of genres, and applied it in an extreme form to Atti c tragedy. Perfection in poetry may be compared to ‘the summit of a steep mountain’ A load, once rolled up, can not long maintain its position, but rolls precipitately down. Sophocles stan ds at the summit. Tt seems that a beneficent Providence wished in thijs individu al to

-

ings of Heracles are portrayed with suitab]e dignity’ In OC, ‘there prevails a mild and gentle emotion, and over the piece is diffused the sweetest grac efulness. Schlegel had entered Géttingen to study theology, before he came und er the influence of Heyne, but he contin ued to see religion as ‘the centre of hum an existence, and of Christianity he says ‘this regenerated the ancient world from its statsublime and beneficent religion has e of exhaustion and debasement, | Sophocles (lucky man) ‘of all the Gre cjan poets is ... the one whose feel ings | bear the strongest affinity to the spirit of our religion. With Euripides, Schlegel ’s | technique of denigration is first to allow him (as it seems) generous cred it, then to proceed to demolition. So, ‘he was a man of boundless ingenuit y and

which the austerity of moral principl es, and the sanctity of religious feel ings, were held in the highest honour’ Further, ‘his constant aim is to plea se, he cares not by what means. Schiegel takes particular exception to what he sees as Euripides’ religious position: he ‘thi nks jt too vulgar a thing to believe in the

|

to express the spirit of

Ancient Tragedy, according to his con ception of it, with regard especially to repose, perspi cuity,and ideality’

'

Introduction

Ixix

Schlegel was, it should be said, a pioneer in appreciating Ba., and his treatment of that play shows an unaccustomed sense of the theatre, For Nietzsche

(Die Geburt der Tragddie aus dem Geist der Musik, 1872), Ba.is, of course, inti-

mately connected with his concept of the Dionysiac. It is, apart from Alc. (§8),

the only play of Euripides that he mentions,'® and he sees it as the poet’s recantation in old age (§12). His denigration of Euripides, while heavily dependent on Schlegel, takes a more extreme and abstract form. His Euripides

is 2 disciple of Socrates and the deliberate destroyer of the true tragedy of

Aeschylus and Sophocles. In 1872-3, Wilamowitz launched a ferocious attack on Nietzsche in a twopart pamphlet entitled Zukunftsphilologie."*® In order to deride Nietzsche’s association of Apollo with dream, Wilamowitz quotes IT 1261-80. There could hardly be a clearer illustration of the lack of intellectual contact between the two critics. Nietzsche's Apollo is a creation of the imagination. For Wilamowitz, a conception of Apollo would require the synthesis of a comprehensive range

of texts and other evidence. However, Nietzsche’s abstraction and lack of attention to individual texts made him, on the evidence, less dangerous to Euripides’ reputation than Schlegel, Ε | Robert Browning published Balaustion's Adventure, including a translation of Alc., in 1871, and followed it in 1875 with Aristophanes’ Apology, which includes a translation of Her. Browning perceived two major weaknesses in Schlegels criticism. One was the immobilism of the biological model, which made it. impossible to appreciate Euripides as innovator. Browning’s Aristophanes is made to say (1687-90): 1, Aristophanes, Who boast me much inventive in my art, Against Euripides thus volleyed muck Because in art he too extended bounds.

The other weakness is the curious assumption that lack of brtfiodoxy is per se reprehensible, irrespective of the religion concerned. Might not the unorthodox thinker be moving towards a better and nobler form of religion? In " In fact, Nietzsche mentions very few plays: for Aeschylus, only PV, for Sophocles, only OT and OC (which he treats as if they had been conceived as a single work). | 13 Ὅ kommt aber der bse Euripides, angestachelt vom basen Sokrates, der bringt die TragSdie um.’ On Nietzsche, see M. S. Silk and J. P. Stern, Nietzsche on Tragedy (Cambridge, 1981)

and, briefly, A. Henricks, ‘The Last of the Detractors: Friedrich Nietzsche's Condemnation of

Euripides, GRBS 27 (1986), pp. 369-97. For 4 collection of texts from the controversy over

Nietzsche’s work, see K. Griinder

(ed.), Der Streit ums Nietzsches “Geburt der Tragddie”

(Hildersheim, 1969). On Wilamowitz as champion of Euripides, see W. M. Calder ΠΙ, ‘Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Sospitator Euripidis, GRBS 27 (1986), pp. 409~30. Not every reader will be persuaded by Calder’s insistence on connecting Wilamowitz's views to his personal life and feelings (interesting as these may be), but his collection of data and his quotations from Wilamowitz’s writings are impressive and highly informative. ' '

Ιχχ

Introduction

The Ring and the Book x, the “Third Poet’ (Euripides) speaks to Pope Innocent |

as a precursor of Christianity:

Five hundred years ere Paul spoke, Felix heard— How much of temperance and righteousness, Judgment to come, did I find reason for,

Corroborate with my strong style that spared No sin, nor swerved the more from branding brow Because the sinner was called Zeus and God? How nearly did I guess at that Paul knew? How closely come, in what I represent As duty, to his doctrine yet a blank? κ (1712-1720)**

From a different starting-point, A. W. Verrall seized with enthusiasm on

Schlegel’s suggestion that Euripides ‘gives his readers to understand’ that his belief in the traditional gods was ‘very problematical. That, in Verrall's view,15 entirely to the poet’s credit. In his Euripides the Rationalist, he seeks to present

Buripides simply as an atheist constantly seeking to convey his view of traditional religion in coded form to a select minority of his audience. Nearly half of Verrall’s book is devoted to Alc., some forty pages to Ion, rather more to IT, with, finally, a brief treatment of Phoen. In the first place, Verrall feels entitled to exclude from consideration the prologue and epilogue, since they, ‘with

manifest irony, assert pro forma the miraculous explanation which the facts tend visibly to invalidate and deny’ A critic who arbitrarily excludes from consideration substantial parts of a work which are in conflict with his theory should be immediately. suspect. Brumoy did better. But the idea that the prologues and epilogues are unsatisfactory, or even irrelevant, was already a commonplace in criticism of Euripides. On Alc., Verrall makes some shrewd and interesting observations unrelated to his peculiar interpretation. IT he characterizes only as ‘an excellent piece which for its symmetry, vigour and artistic construction has drawn praise from the most unfavourable judges’ His interpretation is, briefly, that the Delphic oracle (not Apollo, in whom Euripides did not believe) told Orestes to kill his

mother. This has not worked out well, so the oracle then tells him to go to Taurica in order to get rid of him, as Orestes himself suspects (77, 711-13). It does not tell him that his sister is there. Orestes 15 mad; the Furies are figments of his imagination. So is the trial at Athens. The Choes happened to be being

delebrated when he was there, so he deduced that he himself was the cause. But

*how, we may ask, did.Iphigenia get to Taurica? Since that is part of the pro‘logue, we need not trouble ourselves about the question. We can, however,

139 Browning's Euripides has spent some of his time in Limbo studying The Acts of the Apostles. For Paul and Felix, see chs. 23-4.

Introduction

bexi

imagine that she was smuggled aboard a Taurian pirate-ship called the Artemis’

That is not what she says, but she 18 Orestes’ sister, so equally prone to halluci-

nations. Verrall lays great stress on the failure of the oracle to tell Orestes that

his sister is in Taurica. Not being divine at all, of course it did not know. So completely had Verrall lost touch with literature and drama that he did not see the effect that such a revelation would have had on the process of recognition, which 15 so crucial to the impact of the play. An Athenian audience would have been familiar with the way in which oracles so often reveal only part of the truth, and Verrall, as a scholar well-read in Greek, ought to have been familiar with it too. Verrall admired Euripides and meant to defend the poet against Schlegel, while in fact his interpretations disintegrate the plays and leave them devoid of artistic integrity. There is undoubtedly something engaging in the wit and panache of Verrall’s style and the sheer relish and delight in his own ingenuity with which he develops his thesis, but it is difficult to see how it could convince any reader with a sense of drama and of the ridiculous.*° In Euripides and His Age (first published in 1913), Gilbert Murray pays generous tribute to Verrall, although his own work shows that sense of drama and

poetry which Verrall's so strikingly lacks. For Murray, IT is ‘one of the most beautiful of extant plays ... It begins in gloom and rises to a sense of peril, to swift and dangerous adventure, to joyful escape. So far it is like romance. But it is tragic in the sincerity of the character-drawing’ Murray’s stress on character belongs to his time, A. C. Bradley (Murray’s friend) had published his immensely influential Shakespearian Tragedy in 1904. In Iphigenia, Murray sees a truly tragic conflict of feeling: ‘mixed longings for revenge and for affection, her hatred of the Greece that wronged her and her love of Greece that is her only home One recognizes here Murray'’s effort to promote a play which he admired and found moving to a higher position in the dramatic hierarchy as perceived in his time by showing it to be truly ‘tragic. Unfortunately, this entailed, in some degree, writing his own play. In order to produce these ‘mixed feelings’ he adopts Mekler’s ill-judged emendation at 336 and takes at facevalue Iphigenia’s claim at 1187 that she ‘hates all Greece, which is, of course, part of her deceit of Thoas. Then, no Greek has ever yet come to Taurica, but when one does Iphigenia will have to prepare him for sacrifice: ‘she lives with that terror hanging over her Hence, Murray deletes 38-9,"* and produces an ᾽ Writing in 2005, I assumed that Verrall's book had almost disappeared into oblivion. I was

wrong.A reprint appeared in that same year, with introduction by Ρ Burian. . E. Ford’s Rationalist Criticism of Greek Tragedy (Lanham, etc.,2005) provides an interesting study ofVerrall’s influence. I suspect, however, that he a little overestimates the importance of Verrall and underestimates that of Schlegel. ]. T. Sheppard recounted that he had once asked Verrall’s permission to introduce ‘a young friend’ who found the thesis of Euripides the Rationalist most persuasive. At this, Verrall’s wife burst out laughing, with ‘If he believes that, he'll believe anything’ Sheppard said that he did not dare to look at Verrall, . : 14! There is an independent case for that. See below on the lines.

Ixxii

Introduction

outrageously ingenious mistranslation of 346-7. The prisoner who wrote

Iphigenids letter is simply ignored. Murray is also determined that she feels some special attraction to Orestes.-So the letter is a ruse designed to save the

young man to whom she feels so powerfully drawn. He does not allow for the

possibility that Iphigenia simply wants to make contact with her brother so

that he may take her home. The conclusion seems inescapable that Murray set out to ‘improve’ the play, whether or not he believed himself to.be expressing Euripides’ real intentions. Yet no critic shows a more sensitive feeling for the lyrical qualities of Euripides’ plays and the role of the Euripidean chorus than

Murray, although his style is of his time. For him, IT is ‘haunted; not ‘by the shadow of death, but rather by the shadow of homesickness. The characters are Greeks in a far barbarian land, longing for home, or even for the Greek sea

With H. D. E Kitto,'*? there is a return to the Schlegelian mode. His treatment

of Sophocles is constantly informed by the will to understand and appreciate. Sophocles, as Kitto sees him, is impelled by some lofty purpose.But with Euripides tragedy ‘ceases to be informed, and therefore controlled, by some dominant tragic conception. For Kitto, this ‘tragic conception’ takes the place of Schlegel’s moral and religious principles. He allows that Euripides produced some ‘real’ tragedies, but his ‘tragic conceptions led him further and further from academic standards of dramatic form. When it comes to Ion and IT, ‘the first purpose of the dramatist

... was to create an effective stagepiece; to exploit the resources of his art for its

own sake, not for the sake of something bigger. Euripides is‘now unhampered by any tragic conception working its imperious will on the play. Kitto allows that the plot-construction of the two plays is ‘deft and elegant to a remarkable degree, and that the character-drawing is ‘neat-and entirely unembarrassed’ (what, one may wonder, is ‘embarrassed’ character-drawing?). But this very excellence of workmanship can be turned against Euripides: ‘it is when the poet has nothing in particular to say that he must be most elegant and attractive. Sophocles, in short, has some nebulous, but infinitely important ‘message’ ἴο deliver; Eunpldes has none. Echoes of Schlegel are everywhere. D. ]. Conacher'*® must be assumed to admire Euripides, but he does not admire IT. He discusses it, in defiance of chronological order, after Hel., which he does admire, and his programme seems to be to force IT into the same

mould, and then to complain that it does not fit. It is ‘another of Euripides’

romantic tragicomedies, based like the Helena on the ironic interplay of illusion and reality. It is, however, neither as witty nor as subtle as Helena’. Belittling

expressions are constantly slipped in: “Treasure Island pantomime, ‘speculates

qpretnly somewhat jaded ant1thes1s between seemmg and reahty Here it may 142 Greek T}'agedy (London, %1961).

1 Buripidean Drama (Toronto and London, 1967). Conacher, like Goethe, believes in a place called ‘Tauris’ For a courteous and perceptlve review, see Β. M. W. Knox, Word and Action, pp- 323-8.

Introduction

bexdid

be observed that Conacher has exploited at length the idea of antitheses between ‘seeming and reality'when discussing Hel,, the later play, without,

apparently, finding them ‘jaded. The debate between Orestes and Pylades ‘provides one of those facile emotional effects which melodrama tends to exploit’ For Conacher, Iphigenia herself seems not to exist. Kitto and Conacher proceed by pure assertion. There is no attempt to engage with the text, or to analyse it. A. Ρ Burnett'4 sees IT as ‘the most humane and good-tempered of the classical tragedies, and goes on to analyse the play in her way, making a number of valid observations, which, however, she tends to push beyond their pointof validity. Thus, she rightly notes the symmetry with which the brother-god protects (rather directs’) the human brother and the sistergoddess protects the human sister. But then ‘the mortal sister is preparing to kill her rescuing brother, while the divine sister is demanding [my italics] the

blood of the man her Delphic brother has sent for her salvation’ No. It is the

Taurians and their customs who are demanding the blood of Orestes (and

Pylades). Again, ‘the cult statue saves them, even as they rescue 1 No. Burnett

forgets the Athenian dimension. In fact, Euripides avoids the crude, obvious ‘symmetries’ that appeal to Burnett. Then, Burnett makes the common mistake of failing to notice that Iphigenia never expresses any wish for vengeance on Agamemnon. What, in any case, 15 meant by her ‘trumped-up desire for vengeance’? And where in the text does Burnett find evidence that Iphigenia is ‘incapable of hatred’? So far, Burnett merely distorts the text, but things get worse.

She is not wrong in pointing out that the idea of rescue is recurrent in the play

(p- 47). But then she tells us that Thoas ‘is rescued from his barbarity and decides to play the saviour himself ... he first arranges for the rescue of the chorus... whom the heroine had had to abandon, and then by abrogating the bloody Taurjan cult he works the salvation of all the future Greeks who may visit the Taurian shores’ What play has Burnett been reading? : . H. P. Foley'® observes well that ‘through ritual [Euripides] can bridge the gap between public and private, past and present, and between myth and contemporary democracy. Here, Foley’s thinking has much in common

with Sourvinou-Inwood's concept of zooming’!*¢ She also offers a thought-

provoking summary of how Euripides’involvement with ritual’ presents itself to a modern sensibility. He seems ‘simultaneously ironic, theologically iconoclastic and intensely religious She is, however, on less firm ground in suggest-

ing (p. 100) that ‘the civilizing ritual substitution of animal for human sacrifice ΄

in the cult of Artemis is accomplished through the willingness of Iphigenia, Pylades and Orestes to forget vengeance and to sacrifice themselves through 4 Catastrophe Survived (Oxford, 1971).

48 Ritual Irony: Poetry and Sacrifice in Euripides (Ithaca and London, 1985).

*** On‘zooming’ as applied to IT, see C. Sourvinou-Inwood, “Tragedy and Religion: Constructs and Readings; in C. Pelling (ed.), Greek Tragedy and the Historian (Oxford, 1997).

Ιχχὶν

Introduction

love, What does this mean? By the time that self-sacrifice becomes an issue,

Orestes has had his vengeance, while Pylades is only his assistant. As for

Iphigenia, Calchas is dead, and if she ceases to think about Helen and Menelaus

we can see that she has something much more urgent to think about: escape. There is no evidence in the text of any positive abandonment of thoughts of vengeance. Uncomfortably; one senses a drift towards quasi-Christian thinking. To a Greek, vengeance was natural and right. No merit would have been seen in willingness to forget it. Β. S Belfiore, in Murder among Friends: Violations of Philia in Greek Tragedy, explores a topic evidently of crucial importance in IT. Starfing from Aristotle, she demonstrates the intimate connection between philia and recognition in plot-structure and the huge importance of violations of philia in Attic tragedy.

She adds power to her argument by telling contrasts with epic. Following the

introductory discussion, her first chapter (pp. 21-38) is on IT, and here thé

reader needs to be more wary. Belfiore overstresses Iphigenia’s short-lived sensation (344-50) of having no more pity for Greek victims. More seriously for her general argument, τοὺς & ἐνθάδ᾽ at 389 cannot possibly mean ‘people here on earth’ It can only mean ‘the people here in Taurica, as the context, especially

τὴν θεόν in 390, shows.'”” It might be open to a hearer to generalize, but the poet has not done it for him, . B. Seidensticker begins his excellent study of comic elements in Greek

tragedy'*®, with an exploration of the concepts of tragedy, comedy, and tragi-

comedy, and goes on to'examine some passages of Homer. This preliminary investigation, together with the author’s own literary sensitivity, gives a welcome solidity and power to his analyses. On IT (pp. 199-211), he deals especially well with the presence of the past in the play and the differences in tone and emphasis from Hel. In particular, he notes the much greater attention

given to the recognition in IT, as compared with the escape-plot, with the result that the darker elements, ‘loneliness, tormenting fears, anguish and danger’, set the tone of the play for much longer. M. Wright (Euripides’ Escape. Tragedies) considers together IT, Hel., and

Andromeda. Wright is a lively controversialist, and covers a huge amount of ground, perhaps too much. Nor is he always completely to be relied on. On the whole, one feels much sympathy with his judgments. His two main theses,

however, carry less conviction. According to the first, IT was staged in 412,in a ‘trilogy’ with Hel. and Andromeda, with Cyc. as satyr-play. Apart from the ques-

tion of whether it would have been tolerable to see Hel. and IT immediately

—

-

emer mm e cm¢

.4

οο

πα.-β.ῳ--..........................

s mree

e eseee ο s mers me rre m—

147 2,048 can mean there on earth’ where there is an explicit contrast with the underworld, as at Pindar, Ol 2.57 and Plato, Gorg. 525b, Otherwise, ο ἐνθάδε means ‘the people of this (particular) place, as at ΟΟ 42 and 78,

18 palintonos Harmonia. Studien zu komischen Elementen in der griechischen 'D-agddie (Géttingen, 1982).

Introduction

Ixxv

one after the other, Wright’s treatment of the metrical evidence is both seriously inadequate and inaccurate.'* Even if the two plays were staged together, they were certainly not written together. Moreover, the idea of the trilogy is not

new: it was floated by Wilamowitz in 1875 (half a century before the publica-

tion of Zielinskis metrical researches),"** and was resuscitated by Β. Goossens

in 1962."*" Wright’s originality consists in adding Cyc."** His other major contention is strange, coming from him. He repeatedly calls the versions of myth in Hel. and IT ‘counterfactual, and his conclusion that these plays are particularly dark and tragic depends on the idea that ‘Euripides fatally undermines human knowledge of reality (or even reality itself). But Wright has shown himself well aware that Greek myths were transmitted in many versions, some contradictory. He also contends that in Hel. and IT Euripides invented nothing, but merely re-arranged existing versions. So why should the plays have produced such an epistemological cataclysm? Like Murray before him, Wright seeks to defend IT (and, less plausibly, Hel.) by finding a way of demonstrating that the play is ‘truly tragic’ The ghostly opponent is still Schlegel. Nonetheless, Wright's book offers much of interest to readers of IT and Hel. Just as critical judgments of Euripides himelf have been polarized, so too have evaluations of IT. Renaissance critics who admired the play were moved by the depiction of the friendship between Orestes and Pylades. They show no interest in Iphigenia.To those who, like Kitto and Conacher, see nothing but a neatly-constructed, superficial melodrama, the heroine seems to be invisible, even non-existent. In contrast, Ε. Hall,'** like Murray, sees her as central: ‘the greatest strength of the play undoubtedly lies in its articulate, expressive, brave and intelligent heroine. Euripides ‘makes it easy for his [Athenian] audience to

relate powerfully to the emotional plight of a childless, lonely; exiled woman in at least early middle age, who has never married and (unlike her sister Electra

in other plays) certainly never will’!*4

Finally, there are two works which must be mentioned, although both belong to cultural history, rather then to literary criticism or analysis. . M. Gliksohn’s interesting study, Iphigénie de la Gréce antique & IEurope des Lumiéres (Paris, 49 See below, The Date of IT, pp. ἰχκνὶ - ᾿ἰχχχ with n. 164. 1% Analecta Euripidea, p.153. |

151 Euripide et Athénes (Brussels, 1962).

|

1% See further his article,‘Cyclops and the Euripidean tetralogy} PCPS 52 (2006), pp. 23-48. '3 Greek Tragedy: Suffering under the Sun (Oxford, 2010), p. 276. ' ** Here,a touch of caution is appropriate. Hall might seem to suggest a degree of realism alien to the Attic stage. The audience, whether 411 male or not, would, no doubt, have felt sympathy (more sympathy probably than men of today) for Iphigenia’s plight: ἄγαμος and ἄτεκνος are emotive terms in tragedy, and not confined to Euripides. They will also have been aware that for her the time for marriage is past (Lys. 596~7). But they did not see before them a middle-aged woman. Iphigenia is referred to in the text as νεᾶνις (336, 619, 660, 1313, and see below on 336-7), and what the audience saw would have been a male actor masked and costumed as a young woman.

Ιχχνυὶ

Introduction

1985), traces different presentations of the story of Iphigenia from Greek epic

to Goethe. In treating Attic tragedy, it has to be said that Gliksohn tends to oversimplify. It is not quite true, for example, that ‘toutes 165 versions s’'accordent sur la nécessité du sacrifice’ (see above, p. xxvi). Then, he concentrates, under-

standably, on the patriotic colour given to the sacrifice in IA, as Euripides’ major contribution in the light of future versions. But readers of Euripides need to be aware that IT presupposes a radlcally different version from that

presented in IA. E. Hall’s Adventures with Iphigenia in Tauris (Oxford, 2013) is aptly named. Hall uses the play as the starting point for excursions into a truly extraordinary range of cultural phenomena. Some of the most surprising and intriguing material 15 to be found in her exploration of the history of the Crimean region and in her last three chapters: ‘Rites of Modernism), ‘Women’s Adventures with Iphigenia) and ‘Decolonizing Thoas. Could one ask for a more enjoyably eccentric illustration of the continuing hold of Greece on the imagination than Vladimir Putins diving excursion in the Black Sea, with his retrieval of a couple of amphorae? As D.J. Mastronarde says in his judicious and informative general work, The Art of Euripides (Cambridge, 2010), ‘a thorough treatment of the reception of Euripides would require a whole volume to itself. Mastronarde himself provides an interesting brief treatment in his first chapter (pp. 1-25). J. C. Kamerbeek, in his introductory essay to the Entretiens Hardt volume on . Buripides,'** offers a very good (and, again, brief) conspectus of differing views of and approaches to Euripides from the late nineteenth century to the date at which he was writing.

THE DATE OFIT

~

An extensive and meticulous stylistic study has led K. Matthiessen!®S to 414 as the probable date for the production of IT, with Ion following a year later. This result coincides remarkably with the approximate date indicated by developments in Euripides’ metrical techniques. Metrical criteria work satisfactorily for Euripides, because we have enough plays, and, crucially, enough plays

securely dated by other means and distributed through his career. From the securely-dated plays, it is already clear that as time went on the poet introsduced various modifications to his technique, in partxcular mcreasmg the fre-

——==--—quency of resolution inhis-iambic trimeters. -~~~ - -~

152 ‘Mythe et réalité dans I'oeuvre d’Euripide] in J. C. Kamerbeek (ed.), Euripide: Sept exposés et discussions, Entretiens Hardt (Geneva, 1960), pp. 3-25. 186 Elektra, Taurische Iphigenie und Helena. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und zur dramatischen Form im Spétwerk des Euripides, Hypomnemata 4 (Gottingen, 1964).

Introduction

N

Ixxvii

The first full, and still the most wide-ranging and detailed, study of the met-

rical evidence for the chronology of Euripides’ plays 15 that of Τ. Zieliriski.**” Ε. Β. Ceadel'*® produced a re-count of resolutions, omitting those resulting

from proper names. This is not, however, the self-evident improvement that Ceadel supposed it to be. Firstly, by no means all proper names are difficult to

fit into iambic trimeters. Secondly, poets do not compose one line at a time. It

can be assumed that if Euripides chose to introduce a proper name, he would,

more or less unconsciously, have adjusted the rhythm of adjacent lines so as to make the sequence sound ‘right. Nor should it be casually assumed that the poet had to introduce proper names. In Hipp., ‘Hippolytus’ produces eleven resolutions, whereas in Hel. ‘Menelaus’ produces thirty-two. This is surely not because Euripides needed to mention Menelaus nearly three times as often as

Hippolytus, but because between 428 and 412 his ear had become more toler-

ant of resolution. More recently, M. Cropp and G. Pick have done another recount, including both proper names and substitutions (double short in place

of anceps or short).'*® They also provide a useful discussion of methodology

" ‘De trimetri Euripidei evolutione, Tragodumenon Libri Tres (Cracow, 1925), pp. 133240, Zielinski’s classification of the plays is strange, given his own figures. I have followed the figures, not his classification. I have not cited the data provided by J. M. Descroix, Le trimétre iambique des iambographes & la comédie nouvelle (Macon, 1931), because in the past I have not found him reliable. A. M. Devine and L. D. Stevens (‘Rules for Resolution: The Zieliriskian Canon, TAPhA 110 (1980), pp. 63-79) seek to invalidate a number of Zieliriski’s ‘laws’ by statistical methods. Thus, they attack his first law, the ‘law of multiple resolution; according to which, in the earlier plays, two or more resolutions in the same line are avoided. Given the number of resolutions and the average number of resolutions per line, they find that the observed frequency of double resolution as well as the non-occurrence of triple resolution are consistent with the hypothesis that the distribution in the text is completely random (that is to say that it is a ‘Poisson’ distribution). After some further discussion on the same principles of multiple resolution in the later plays, they conclude that‘we must reject the 1st. law’ This depends on an idiosyncratic definition of a metrical law’. Metrical laws, like the laws’ of nature, are factual and descriptive. If Professors Devine and Stevens and I were to set out to compose jambic trimeters in the style of earlier Euripides, we should need to know Zielifiski's law (among others). We could not trust to probability. And the law would then be prescriptive, In fact, Devine and Stephens are rejecting, not the law itself, but Zielifiski’s assumption that its observance depended on the poet’s aesthetic choice. Indeed, their general concern is to attack what they call ‘one of the prime fallacies in Greek metrics, the automatic assumption that what is more frequent must be actively preferred by the poet’ There is room for argument here, but in any case it is laws’ that give us the means to say what does and does not happen. **% ‘Resolved Feet in the Trimeters of Euripides and the Chronology of the Plays, CQ 35 (1941), _ Pp. 66-89, Ceadel provides a useful conspectus of studies of the subject going back to Hermann, who was the first to suggest that a chronology of Euripides’ plays might be established through the study of resolution. " Resolution and Chronology in Euripides. The Fragmentary Tragedies, BICS Suppl. 43 (London, 1985). On the mathematical basis of their work, see E. M. Craik, CR 39 (1989), pp.183-4. Aelian (Varia Historia 2.8) places Tro, in the year of the ninety-first Olympiad; or 41615, See

N. G. Wilson’s Loeb edition (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1997), Ρ. 73. At Thesm. 850,

Aristophanes mentions Euripides™new Helen; and scholia on Thesm. 1012 and Frogs 53 lead to the date of 412 for Hel. On the date of Hel, see further Kannicht 1, pp. 78--9 and Burian, pp-40-1.On the date of Thesm., see Austin and Olsen, pp. xxxiii-xocvi.

Ixxviii

Introduction

and a conspectus of other counts. All counts show

Τ᾿ as belonging' ὗο a

relatively ‘free’ period of Euripides’ career, but not the freest. Fixed points

for dating in this period are Tro., 415 BC and Hel., 412. The table below gives the number of resolutions 88 a percentage of the number of timeters per

play.'®

Zieliriski Tro. IT

214 22.5

Hel.

294

Ion

Phoen.

Or. Ba.

24.4 29.4

38.6 359

.

Ceadel

Cropp and Fick

21.2 234

268 29.3

27.5

35.5

25.8

25.8

39.4 37.6

27.9 348

49.3 43.8

Compared with Zielifiski’s and Ceadel’s figures, those of Cropp and Fick show two distinct ‘spikes IT and Or. But the divergences between Zielifiski (with proper names) and Ceadel (without) are less striking (except for Phoen.), This suggests that including substitution, although an interesting experiment, was methodologically dubious. Resolution is a standard variation or common licence in several types of metre, whereas substitution is an exceptional licence, excluded from sung verse (where rhythm'is strict). One result is that the association between proper names and subsitution is very much closer than that between proper names and resolution, and once proper names come to be involved, the subject of the play makes an important difference. Neither ‘Hippolytus’ nor ‘Theseus’ nor ‘Phaedra’ requires substitution, and only ‘Hippolytus’ needs resolution. In contrast, the house of Atreus 15 rich in names suited to dactylic metre which in iambic trimeters make substitution hard to avoid (Agamemnon, ‘Menelaus, Tphigenia’), or at least convenient (‘Helen,

‘Pylades’). In IT, Iphigenia is mentioned seven times in trimeters, producing a corresponding number of substitutions. That'is more even than in IA (three

times). Then, out of forty-nine initial substitutions, twenty-eight are with proper names (Agamemnon ten, Menelaus three, Pylades nine, Helen and

others five).'s! There is certainly evidence that Euripides became readier over time to admit initial substitution: in the later plays it is increasingly found with

Ἔ

1% Note that I give Ceadel’s percentages omitting proper names. Cropp and Fick glve them "“including proper names, which for IT is 29.4%,so much closer to'theirs.

161 ΕἸ (Zieliiski 17, Ceadel 16.9, Cropp and Fick 21.5) does not produce a comparable ‘spike,

because, while ‘Agamemnon’ scores nine, ‘Pylades’ (five) is much less significant. Or. stands out among all the plays for its high percentage of substitutions, but even there half the initial

substitutions (47 out of 94) involve proper names, of which ‘Pylades’ accounts for nine, ‘Agamemnon’ for six, Helen for fourteen, and ‘Menelaus’ for sixteen.

Introduction

bexix

words which can be fitted into trimeters without it.'°> But the strong influence of proper names still makes substitution much 1685 reliable than resolution as an indicator of date.

,

.

It emerges, then, that in the incidence of resolution, IT shows a modest increase on Tro.in percentage points: 1.1 for Zieliriski, 2.2 for Ceadel, and, even

with the ‘spike; only 2.5 for Cropp and Fick. This is not enough to guarantee

that IT is later than Tro. (note the figures for Or. and Ba.), but makes that a

reasonable working hypothesis. In contrast, the gap between IT and Hel. is significantly wider: 6.9 Zieliniski, 4.1 Ceadel, 6.2 Cropp and Fick. On this ground alone it seems beyond doubt that IT is earlier than Hel. Another highly significant criterion is the appearance in trimeters of resolved fifth long, The earliest dated play to admit it 15 Tro. (996 with a proper name, and 1170). In IT also there are two examples: 23 and, with a proper

name, 985. In Jon there are three, while in Hel. the number jumps to eight (once

with a proper name), dropping back again to three in Phoen.

Two other features of metrical style place IT among the later plays: the pres-

ence of trochaic tetrameters (see on 1203-33) and the iambo-dochmiac duet at 827-99 (see on those lines). One further metrical observation Ieads to 8

more precise result. K. Itsumi, in his study of the polyschematist,'®* finds ‘that

a line can be drawn between IT (or Jon) and Hel. Till IT Euripides uses such standard types of chor. dim. as are found in Corinna and “eupolidean” . . . while his new device is found especially from Hel. onwards’ Here, again, is confirmation of the distinct shift in metrical technique between IT and Hel.*** The various metrical crtieria come together rather satisfactorily to confirm Matthiessen’s proposed dating of IT between Tro. and Hel.'** C. W. Marshall, however, seeks to show that on the metrical evidence IT could have been composed at any time between 419 and 413, with a distinct preference for the earlier

date.'® But his treatment of resolution in the iambic trimeter is seriously

152 Por a strikingly expressive use of initial substitution, see the three lines, Or. 646-8, which be?n ἀδικῶ, ἀδικόν, adikws. : % “The“Choriambic Dimeter” of Euripides, CQ 32 (1982), pp.59-74. For Itsumi’s chronological deduction, see p. 69, 8. | ' M. Wiight (Euripides’Escape Tragedies and ‘Cyclops and the Buripidean Tetralogy’ argues that IT was produced with Hel. and Andromeda in 412. See above, pp. ἰχχίν--ἰχχν, Wright invests much in this dating, as well as adding Cyr. to the group. But, whenever IT was first produced on stage, the metrical evidence shows that it cannot have been composed simultaneously with Hel.,a fact which Wright does not take into account. His treatment of the metrical evidence (p. 45) is seriously inadequate, 1> Some other types of development in the Euripidean trimeter, notably the occurrence of prepositives and postpositives at Porson's Bridge, are investigated by L. D. Stephens and A. M. Devine (A New Aspect of the Evolution of the Trimeter in Euripides, TAPhA 111 (1981), pp. 4364). Following the chronologyas established by resolution, they find that appositives at Porson's Bridge are ‘strongly avoided' in the earliest plays and that ‘the constraint is progressively relaxed in the later plays. They also examine a further εἰχ ‘minor resolution criteria’

' ‘Sophocles’ Chryses and the Date of Iphigenia in Tauris,in J. R. C. Cousland and J. R. Hume

(edd.), The Play of Texts and Fragments, Mnemosyne, Suppl. 314 (Leiden and Boston, 2009),

Pp. 141-56.

:

ΙΧχχ

Introduction

inadequate. In the first place, he does not give the figures on which his argument is based. That is, to say the least, unhelpful to the reader. Then, he apparently

accepts without question the figures of Cropp and Fick, while in fact their figure for IT points very much in the wrong direction for his desired conclusion. He notes that the figure for Or. is aberrant, but fails to recognize the methodological

choice which produces that result (see above). His attempt to push the date of IT

back to 419, in quite close proximity to the latest conjectural date for Supp. (see Collard I, pp. 8-14) would look highly unconvincing if he had given the respective figures for resolution. In fact, the percentage gaps between Supp. and IT are: Zieliniski 8.3, Caedel 9.7, Cropp and Fick 9.5. These gaps are far wider than those

between IT and Hel., and should be sufficient to show that IT cannot have been

composed ‘as eatly as 419’ (Marshall, p. 149). Then, too, Marshall fails entirely to take into account the presence in IT of resolved fifth long (see above). When it comes to ‘Sophocles’ Chryses’ (on which see above, p. xxviii), Marshall takes it for

granted that Hyginus, Fab. 121 is derived from a play of that name by Sophocles. But this has no bearing on the date of IT, since he wishes to place Chryses very late in Sophocles’ career, after 413. It would need a much more comprehensive

and rigorous study to shift IT from a date between Tro. and Hel,'*’

THE METRES OF IT

General Concepts and Terminology In an abstract metrical scheme, U represents a short position (or simply short), a temporal space which can only be filled by a short syllable; — is a long position, which may be filled by a long syllable, or, in some types of metre, by two short syllables. This may be a regular equivalence, or a licence. In the latter case, the long is said to be resolved and the two shorts should not be split by word-end. x is an anceps position, which may be filled by a short or a long

syllable. x is used only in abstract schemes. In an actual scansion, — or U is used,

depending on the length of the occupying syllable. In spoken verse, χ may, under certain conditions, accommodate two short syllables. This is an excep-

tional licence, and 15 termed substitution.’®

187 Max Pohlenz (Die griechische Tragddie (Géttingen, 21954), pp. 162-4) argues in favour of dating . IT to 411-9, but takes no account whateverof the metrical criteria. E. M. Hall (Adventures with " Iphigenia in Tauris, pp. ot-xxxi) discounts the metrical evidence, referring to her own perfunctory statementof scepticism in Greek Tragedy: Suffering under the Sun, pp. 232-3, There is no sign that Hall has ever considered the matter seriously. Nor does she mention Matthiessen’s work.

168 “Position, M. L. West's term best suits the concept. Before West, the most commonly used term was ‘element’ In place of long’ and ‘short’ for syllables, W. S. Allen introduced the terms

‘heavy’ and ‘light’ from Indian metric. But the traditional long and ‘short’ suit Greek metre, which is time-based and essentially sung, whereas light’ and ‘heavy’ come close to suggesting stress.

Introduction

booxi

A syllable 15 long: 1. if its vowel-sound is a long vowel or a diphthong, 2. if it

is closed; meaning that it ends with a consonant. If there is only one consonant

between vowels, it normally adheres to the second, leaving the preceding vowel open (ζ- γώλ. If there are two or more consonants, the syllables divide between them, making the first closed, so long, (τέμ-νω). £, £, 4 are double consonants, so always close the preceding syllable. However, combinations of mute, or plosive (7, 7, 1, B, 0,7, φ, θ, x), and liquid (A, p), or nasal (μ, v) may cohere, leaving the preceding syllable open, or short (7&-7pds). This was a feature of ordinary Attic speech, and 15 common in tragedy, especially in spoken verse.!®° There were three modes of delivery of Greek verse: singing, speech, and

chanting or recitative (παρακαταλογή). Recitative as we know it is the inven-

tion of Italian composers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, who devised opera as a re-creation of ancient drama. Singing and chanting had

musical accompaniment.

Typically, tragic lyric is composed in pairs of corresponding stanzas, strophe and antistrophe, which share the same metrical pattern, except for certain permitted variations, according to the type of metre. The same metrical pattern is never re-used. Occasionally, a third stanza, an epode,15 added, but there is no example in this play, although 643-56 suggests that structure. Songs in corresponding stanzas are: 392-455, 1089-1152, 1234-82. Especially where a solo singer is involved, songs may be astrophic, without correspondence. There are astropha in IT at 123-235 and 827-99.

Spoken poetry is composed in metrically uniform, repeating verses (στίχοι,

French vers, German Vers). It is stichic, printed in lines, and in English commonly referred to as such. Each verse (or line) is metrically independent. That means that full word-end at the end of the line is the rule, and a final long position may be filled by a short syllable: (syllaba) brevis in (elemento) longo (b. in L). Also, a final vowel stands unmodified before a vowel beginning the next

verse (hiatus). This type of articulation is called (metrical) pause, or verse-

end. In a metrical scheme, verse-end is marked by ||. Hiatus is shown by ||H, b.in 1. by —||. Lyric verse is articulated in the same way, but because in tragedy

a stanza-form is repeated once at most, it is not always possible to identify verse-end with certainty, since neither of the reliable indicators (hiatus and b. in L) may happen to occur. In the scansions in the commentary, verse-end is marked only where one (or both) of the reliable indicators 15 present, Hiatus in

the strophe is shown by ||, in the antistrophe by ||,,, b. in L in the strophe by =||, in the antistrophe by =||. In general, where two quantities are marked one

above the other in a scansion, the upper is that in the strophe, the lower that in

the antistrophe. Word-end which corresponds in strophe and antistrophe is '** For more detail on syllabic length (prosody), see M. L. West, Introduction to Greek Metre,

ΡΡ.10--18 and also the ‘Introduction to Prosody and Metre' in D. J. Mastronarde’s edition of Medea

(Cambridge, 2002), pp. 97-100.

Ἰχχχὶϊ

Introduction

shown by |. In stichic verse, there is generally a regular thythmic break shown

by word-end at or near the middle of the verse. If the break falls within a met-

rical phrase, it is termed caesura, if between phrases, it is termed diaeresis. A

bridge is a junction between positions where word-end is avoided. Metrical continuity is called synapheia. Where there is synapheia, hiatus is not permitted, there may be elision of final vowel before initial vowel, or much more rarely, prodelision of initial vowel. Occasionally, in metres which feature the sequence...~UU-..., 8 long final vowel-sound may be shortened before an initial vowel, according to epic practice. Hence the term épic correption.

The combination of two vowel-sounds is called synecphonesis, or synizesis

(e.g. μὴ od=one long). Continuity may be even more strongly marked by synartesis, where a word bridges the junction between metrical phrases.

Elision is common at caesurae and diaereses. Appositives are short unemphatic words which adhere either to the following word (prepositives), or to the preceding word (postpositives). Prepositives

are, for example, the article, the relative ὅς, prepositions, interrogatives, such as

τίς, ποῦ, ποῖ, conjunctions, such as καί, 671, etc. Among postpositives are the

unemphatic personal pronouns με, μοὶ, etc., indefinite 7¢s, many particles,

such as 8¢, ydp, uév, odv, and the enclitic parts of εἰμέαπά φημί.

. Syncopation means the suppression of an anceps or short position, so that,

for example, in lyric iambic χ-- - may become -u- or x~-. See further

below under Lyric Iambic. Catalexis means that the last two positions of a verse or colon are either fused into or replaced by a single position, so as to produce a cadence contrasting with the normal movement of the type of metre in question. Thus, iambic 15 naturally a blunt rhythm (. ..U -), but by syn¢opa-

tion an iambic metron can become U -, so pendent. Conversely, a naturally

pendent rhythm, such as trochaic (. ..

y~x) becomes blunt (.. .

- The essen-

tial function of catalexis is to produce an effect of rounding-off, a clausular rhythm. A sort of analogous effect, through‘ the medium of stress, can be produced in English: Hére wé g6 réund thé muilbérry bish (blunt)

On ἅ c61d afid frésty mérnifig. (pendent)*?®

Spoken Verse: The lambic Trimeter X

.

=

) -

1112

-΄---,.-- τ =t

Ty == =

X

-

U

2324

-

X

—

U

3536

-

-

-———

170 For a further exploration of the concept of catalexis, see Parker, ‘Catalexis, CQ 26 (1976)

pp. 14-28.

-

Introduction

booxdii

Caesura may Ὅ6 after the second anceps, or after the second short, or,

more rarely, after the third 'long (‘median caesura, in the middle of the

verse). It is generally held that Euripides only allows median caesura w1th elision, as at 704:

ἄγγελλε &8 ὡς SAwA’| ὑπ᾽ Apyelas τινὸς There are, however, problematic lines where there is a choice between median caesura (without elision) and caesura before a postpositive, as in 955:

κἀγὼ ᾽ ξελέγξαι | μὲν] Eévous οὐκ ἠξίουν 'There is a related problem with lines where there can only be caesura before or after an appositive, or no caesura at all, e.g. 96:

τί δρῶμεν; ἀμφίβληστρα | γὰρ τοίχων ὁρᾷς or 1174:

Ἄπολλον, 008’ év | BapBdpois ἔτλη Tis ἄν There is no doubt of the appositive status of μέν, ydp, and év: év never ends a verse and μέν and ydp never begin one. Such passages leave us with a question that we cannot answer: how did an Athenian actor deliver them? Did he run

the postpositive together with the preceding word, in the manner, as we sup-

pose, of ordinary speech? Or did he give some audible hint. of caesura? Unfortunately, the source usually cited for data on this and similar topics, J. Descroix’s Le trimétre iambique (Méacon, 1931), is highly unreliable. Τ. D. Goodell, ‘Bisected Trimeters in Attic Tragedy, CP 1 (1906), pp. 145-66, still offers an acute and sensitive exploration of the problem and an excellent collection of data. For a recent treatment (with bibliography), see N. Baechle, Metrical Constraint and Interpretation of Style in the Tragic Trimeter (Lanham,

etc., 2007), pp. 214-25.

Any long except the last may be resolved into two shorts. Much the most commonly resolved long everywhere in tragedy is the third. It-accounts for 58% of resolutions in IT.'”* In this, IT does not differ from Euripides’ earlier plays. It does, however, differ in that more than one resolution may occurin a single verse.'”* There are six verses in IT of the form: xUUU-

xUUU-~

U-U-

four of the form:

"1 Figure from T. Zielitiski, Tragodumenon Libri Tres, p. 166.

172 Ο the incidence of resolution in particular, see also above, pp. bxvi-bxxix on the date of IT.

Ιχχχίν

Introduction

another four of the form:

x=U-

xUUUUU

x-=y-

Only 1452 is of the form

υύυυ-

U|-ullU

--u-

Ju-ulu

υ-υἱύ

--u-

and only 545 of the form

,

The prevalence of caesura after the second anceps in these verses may or may

not be fortuitous.'”* There are two verses with three resolutions: 918 (with a proper name):

U-UUU -ἰὐυὐυύὺ υ-υ0 8’ ἐστίγ᾽ Arpéws θυγατρός, ὁμογενὴς ἐμός; and 1392:

υύυυ-

=-|UUUUU

u=-u—

λιμένος ἐχώρει: στόμια διαπερῶσα δὲ Resolution of the fifth long is, like multiple resolution, a mark of Buripides’ later style (see above, p. Ixxix). There are two such verses in IT, 23 and 985. When the fifth longis resolved, it always belongs to the same word as the following U - and the preceding anceps is always short. The increasing incidence of resolution is linked with extension and refinement of Euripides’ vocabulary by, for example, admitting more compound words. See K.H. Le€’s pioneering study, Influence of Metre on Tragic Vocabulary’ (Glotta 46 (1968), pp. 54-6) Double short may be substituted for the first anceps, as in 545 above. In this

play, for example, it occurs with certain words which can be seen as thematic;

μανία (83, 284, 981), avadeAdos (475, 613), θυσία (491, 1081). This licence is also useful for accommodating proper names, such as ‘Menelaus’ (e.g. 4), and ‘Agamemnon’ (e.g. 18). When Pylades 15 addressed, his name stands first in the

line (UU -, as at 95, 285 etc.). Substitution in positions other than the first is found only with proper names. Thus ‘Iphigenia’ (- UuU - ) cannot be fitted into an

ijambic trimeter

in any other way. See

771

(first short),

1160,

1420

(second anceps), 19, 1314, 1462 (second short) and 5 (third anceps). See also above, p. bxviii.

155 It |ς difficult to decide on comparative figures for caesura, because it is not always clear

where the caesura is in a given verse. But according to West (GM, p. 82), about one in seven lines

in Euripides has caesura after the second short. In the lines in IT with double resolution, the proportion is only one out of seventeen. But it would require figures for more than one play to show whether this might be statistically significant,

Introduction

Ιχχχν

Substitution for the third short is not permitted. For a striking illustration of

the effect of epic names, see 4-5. Double short produced by resolution or sub-

stitution is still felt to be a unity, so both syllables must belong to the same word. This rule applies universally in iambic and trochaic. In the trimeter, the following syllable must also belong to the same word. It is clear from the incidence of resolution and substitution that, as usual, the rhythm of the verse becomes stricter towards the end. Another rule which

illustrates that is ‘Porson’s Law’ (‘Porson’s Bridge, ‘Law of the Final Cretic’),

according to which, if the third (and last) anceps is long, it may not be the final syllable of a word of more than one syllable. Porson’s Law is in fact a particular manifestation of a more general tendency to avoid word-end after long anceps in serious poetry. Aristophanes keeps the law in his trimeters only when parodying tragedy. This point is nicely illustrated by Peace 180-1, where Hermes, speaking in tragic style, as a god should, suddenly catches sight of

Trygaeus’ monstrous dung-beetle and is startled into an expletive, ordinary,

colloquial Attic—and a violation of Porson’s Law.'7*

On Euripides’ iambic trimeters, 566 also above, pp. Ixxvi-Ixxix The Date of IT.

Recitative Verse :Α. The Catalectic Trochaic Tetrameter

~U=x =U=x| =U=x -ULike other tetrameters (iambic, anapaestic, etc.), the trochaic tetrameter is a

compound of dimeter and catalectic dimeter, with regular diaeresis at.the

point of juncture. Trochaic, the ‘running rhythm’ (τροχερὸς ῥυθμός Aristotle, Poetics 1409a) was perceived as fast-moving, and the mode of delivery, with

musical accompaniment, would have tended to strengthen that impression. It

is sometimes used in tragedy by characters who enter running, or at least in a hurry: Theseus at OC 890, Creusa at Jon 1250, Pylades at Or. 729. According to

Aristotle (Poetics 1449a21) the trochaic tetrameter was the original metre of

tragedy, the iambic trimeter taking over as the form gained in dignity and speech became more important. It is certainly true that trochaic tetrameters

are recurrent in Pers. (155~75, 215-48, 697-9, 703~58), while in the (later) Ag. their use is restricted and strategic (1344, 1346-7, 1649-73). After Aeschylus,

trochaic tetrameters reappear in the emotionally fraught dialogue between Oedipus and Creon near the end of OT (1515-23), together with the closing

1% See W, R. Hardie, Res Metrica (Oxford, 1920), p. 77.

Ιχχχνὶ

Introduction

lines of the chorus.'”* In his two latest surviving plays, Sophocles admits ὀπΙγ

brief passsages in the metre: Phil. 1402--8 (dialogue) and OC 887-90. In Euripides, the earliest appearance of trochaic tetrameters is at Her. 855-73, and

they feature in every play thereafter. On Euripides’ tetrameters, see further below, on 1203--33. As in iambic, longs may be resolved, and the shorts so produced must not be divided by word-end. Most commonly, it is the first long that is resolved (in this play; 1211, 1215, 1224), or the fifth, immediately after the diaeresis (1205, 1216, 1231). The only exception in the tetrameters of ITis 1232, where the

fourth long is resolved (ἐσόμεθα UUUU). As usual, rhythm is stricter towards

the end of the verse, so the final long is never resolved and the penultimate only very rarely (for an example, see Tor1 1254). Substitution of double short for anceps or short is admitted to accommodate proper names, but there is no example in IT. In IT, as in Her., Tro., and Hel., there is never more than one resolution per line.'”® Word-end after long anceps is avoided, except at the

diaeresis (Porson’s Law again).

B. Anapaestic The basic anapaestic, metron is UU-UuU -- In the earliest surviving anapaests, double short may be contracted to single long: uu-uUu -. But in Attic poetry not only may double short be contracted to long, but long may be resolved into double short. Only, consecutive double shorts are not permitted. So an anapaestic metron may even take the form -y u~uu, like two dactyls. The rhythm

is strongly marked by word-end (diaeresis) between metra. Occasionally, there

is elision between metra, and, very occasionally, diaeresis 15 overlapped by one short syllable (19 times in Aeschylus, 8 in Sophocles, 2 at most in Euripides). But as a rule there is no overlap or elision betvween more than two consecutive metra.'”” Thus, the traditional lay-out in dimeters is justifiable. Anapaests are

composed in ‘systems’ articulated into verse-paragraphs by catalexis. Since

175 The case for regarding OT'1515~23 as genuine has most recently been put very persuasively by A. H. Sommerstein, ‘Once more the end of Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus, JHS 131 (2011),

ΡΡ. 85-93, See also Β. J. Finglass, ‘The end of Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, Philologus 153 (2009), pp. 42-62. For the controversy over 1524-30 in particular, see H. Lloyd-Jones and N. G. Wilson,

Sophoclea (Oxford, 1990), pp. 113-14. On the bearing of the presence of trochaic tetrameters on . . ε : . the date of OT, see Sommerstein, op. cit. above, p. 88.

" 17 For further detail on the incidence of resolution, see W, Krieg, ‘Der trochaische Tetrameter bei Euripides, Philologus 91 (1936), pp. 42-5L The aim of Krieg’s study is to help to establish

dating. But the sample is probably too small to give reliable results, He relies, incidentally, on Max Pohlenz's dating of IT to 411-9 (Die griechische Tragddie. Erlduterungen (Géttingen, 21954), pp. 162-4). But Pohlenz takes no account of metrical criteria. See also above, n. 167.

177 In Aeschylus there are four passages where three metra are linked together by elision and/ or overlap: Supp. 34-5,Ag. 64-5, 152¢-5, 1571-2. 1 find no example in Sophocles and only one in

Introduction

Ιχχχνὶϊ

ι anapaestic 18 essentially a blunt rhythm (... Uu-), the catalectic thythm is

“regularized as pendent: ὐ -- --, or, sometimes, -- ----, Diaeresis is often missing

in catalectic dimeters. Within the verse-paragraph there 15 synapheia. The earliest anapaestic poems known to us are Spartan marching-songs (PMG 856, 857), and in tragedy the metre 15 sometimes used by the chorus for entrances and exits. Hence the term ‘marching anapaests’ (Marschanapiste), which 15 sometimes used as alternative to ‘recitative anapaests. Another common use for anapaests is to announce the entrance of characters. There are some long passages in anapaests in Euripides’ earlier plays (e.g. Hipp. 176-266), but he makes less use of the metre in his later works. In IT, recitative anapaests are used only at 456-66, to announce the entrance of Orestes and Pylades as prisoners, and for the exit lines at 1490-9.

Lyfic Verse The lyric of Greek drama is a comparatively late development. The poets of Athens adopted and synthesized rhythms which had originated and developed in different parts of the Greek world. They combined different types of metre

in the same stanza, sometimes introducing into one metre methods of variation belonging to another. Not surprisingly, dramatic lyric presents recurrent

problems of identification and nomenclature: the same configuration of syllables can belong to different types of metre, depending on context. Ag. 61 Zevs πολυάνορος ἀμφὶ γυναικός (-UU —-UU - -UU —-) looks like a dactylic tetrameter, but is securely identified as anapaestic by its context, a recitative anapaestic system. Matters are much less clear in a polymetric stanza, The practice of naming cola purely according to the configuration of syllables, without regard for context, can make dramatic stanzas look far more rhythmically heterogeneous, not to say incoherent, than they in fact are. It is also, however, possible to try to expand permitted variation to a point where all sense of the individual characteristics of the type is lost and it begins to seem that anything can be anything, A play of Euripides is a metrical (that is to say a musical) whole. Certain thythms are associated with particular types of song and emotional state: anapaests for laments (123-235), dochmiacs for passionate emotion (643-57, 827-99). But most types of metre are neutral or widely adaptable, and, where

there is no particularly appropriate metre for the type of song, the poet can be

Euripides (Med.102-3).In addition, in two passages, one metron is linked by elision to a catalectic dimeter without diaeresis, producing in effect a catalectic trimeter: Sept. 869~70 (possibly spurious) and Ag. 1466-7. Alc. 745-6 should also probably be seen as such a trimeter. The alternative would be to treat παρεδρεύοις as a catalectic monometer, which would be unparalleled, as far as we can judge.

Ιχχχυ ι

Introduction

seen to choose a thematic rhythm for his play, which is also seen to evolve from

one song to another. The thematic rhythm of IT is aeolo-choriambic, almost

pure in 392-455, absolutely pure in 10891152, In the last song, 1234-83, aeolochoriambic is still present, but diluted with dactylic and dactylo-epitrite. For a comprehensive study of Euripides’ lyric, see E Lourengo, The Lyric Metres of Euripidean Drama (Coimbra, 2010).

A. Lyric Iambic In lyric, as in spoken verse, the iambic metron, x-uU-, may be modified by

resolution of one or both longs, so as to produce xUuu-, x-UUU, or

x UUUUU. Anceps in association with resolution tends to be short, and, as in

spoken iambic, split resolution is avoided. A typical way of achieving that is to compose in trisyllabic words, as at 213 (ἔτεκεν érpedev) and 220 (ἄγαμος

drexvos ἄπολις ἄφιλος). There is, however, a split resolution (though probably an unobtrusive one) at 1250: ἔτι νιν, ἔτι, βρέφος, ἔτι φίλας

uUuudu

υὐῦυ--.

'

|

ΊᾺ lyric only, the metron may be modified by syncopation: that 15 suppression of anceps to produce —u -- (cretic), or of short, to produce u—- (bacchiac), or, more rarely, -- -~ (molossus), or, very rarely, both anceps and short, to produce —— (spondee). How syncopation was realized in performance we do not know, but in a fragment with musical notation from the second century

AD, the ‘Seikilos’ fragment,'”® bacchiacs are rhythmized as

U-— ())J) and a

spondee as — --- (J. ). So there at least the time-value of the suppressed anceps or short was added to a following long,

Since iambic is a blunt thythm (... U-|), the (pendent) bacchiac produces

catalexis. There are a few examples of bacchiacs in sequence, but otherwise a

bacchiac is either preceded or followed by word-end: it signals a beginning or an end.- A common clausular colon is the ‘ithyphalli’ ~u- uU-- (see 1137=1152), Another common short syncopated colon (which can be interpreted as iambic or trochaic according to context) is the lecythion’ -y ~x—u(865 and 867).

Iambic may be regarded as the ‘default’ rhythm in Greek lyric, and it mixes easily with other metres. In lyric dialogues, such as IT 827-99, one character may sing, while the other speaks in iambic trimeters. But where trimeters

appear embedded in lyric, as, for example, at 399 and 843, it can be assumed

+that they were sung.

178 Gee E. PShimann and M. L. West, Documents in Ancient Greek Music (Oxfofd, 2001), No. 23,

pp. 88-91,

Introduction

boxxix

Β. Lyric Anapaestic Sung anapaests differ from recitative anapaests in the following ways:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The rhythm tends to be heavily spondaic (-------Ὁ). Catalectic dimeters may appear in sequence. Sequences of four or more shorts are permitted. Diaeresis between metra is not regularly observed. Doric a for ἢ appears, as usual in lyric,

This last is not, however, a reliable criterion for identifying sung anapaests,

because manuscripts are highly unreliable in the matter. At IT 123-235, lyric anapaests are used, characteristically, for mourning (Klaganapiste). This use of the metre goes back to the beginning of tragedy as we know it, to Aeschylus, Pers., to the scene of lamentation between Xerxes and the chorus at 907-1001. One example of the genre survives from Sophocles, Εἰ. 86--250, while Euripides uses ‘mourning anapaests) in different metrical structures, at Med. 96-167, Hec. 59-210 and Tro. 98-229. It will be observed that all

these songs occur early in the play. Creusa's monody at Ion 859-922, which appears further on in the action, could also be classified as mourning, A problematic colon which does not seem to fit into any normal conception of anapaestic structure is the tripody, that is the equivalent of UU-UU-UU-,

or one and 4 half metra. There may be two examples in IT: 182 (------ ------ )

and, at the opposite extreme, 232 (UUUUjuuUU|uUUU). For -------τ- )

compare- Tro. 144, 148 and Ion 904; for 328 =344, with Parker, Songs, pp. 304-6.

UUUU

'

UUUU

UUUU, see Birds :

C. Dactylic

Dactylic (metron: —yy) is a common metre in dramatic lyric, though not in this play. The most common lengths are the hexameter (as in epic) and the tetrameter, ending either with a spondaic metron (—-), or with —U u. Long, uninterrupted runs of dactyls are, however, found. The longest such run in surviving tragedy is of twenty-six metra at OC 229-35. The normal clausular rhythm is the spondee, but there are a few examples of what appear to be catalectic cola, ending ... UU-. The run of eight metra at IT 1135-6=1150~1 ends in that way. There is evidence, too, for the possibility of acephalous (headless) cola, beginningUU ...In the dialogue at OC 207-53, the colon U U~UU-UU—- recurs at 217, 219, 221, 223,225 and 227. A catalectic anapaestic dimeter seems out of place in this predominantly dactylic context, so the alternative would be an acephalous dactylic tetrameter—unless one tries to evade the difficulty by call-

ing the colon ‘paroemiac, or ‘enoplian’ (see below). At IT 1240=1265,

UU-UU-UU- follows a pair of dactylic tetrameters. It is hard to believe that

χεο

Introduction

in that position the colon would have been heard as anything but dactyhc, 80 an acephalous and catalectic tetrameter. Then, a longer colon of the same type appears at 1256=1281, an acephalous and catalectic pentameter. All the dactylic in IT is found in stanzas which are either otherwise wholly, or at least partly; aeolo-choriambic (see below), a metre with which dactylic combines easily. D. Dochmiac

Ἂ

Most types of lyric metre are connected with particular regions and poetic traditions, but not with particular subjects or states of mind. Dochmiac is peculiar not only to Attic drama, but to the expression of passionate emotion.’”® Such passages in IT are 643-57 and 827~99. The basic metron is x ——x—, All the longs may be resolved. The most common form is UUU-U~ (about 650 in total), and the second most common U - -u - (about 500). These

two forms together account for more than half the dochmiacs in Attic drama. In IT, there are 19 examples of

UUU~U~-t0 9 οἔυ - -τῷῦ - In Euripides, resolu-

tion in general is often associated with passionate emotion (see below on 123235), and he favours some highly resolved forms of dochmiac. See especially

832, where UUUUUUUU is immediately followed by udUUUU -, making a run of fourteen short syllables. UUUUUUUU occurs again at 871, with

—-JUUJUUUU preceding it at 870. There are in theory 32 possible forms of dochmiac, but some 10 or 11 are never found. Least favoured are forms where long second anceps is followed by resolved final long. For some reason, υ-ὐὺ -- -- is hardly ever found. The only two (possible) examples are in IT at

894 and 896, while —~ ὐ - - is never found at all. It may be significant that

x-

U —-isidentical, as far as we can tell, with the aeolo-choriambic ‘reizianum’

(see below on Aeolo-Choriambic), and dochmiac and aeolo-choriambic are

hardly ever found in close association. A form occasionally found among'dochmiacs; even corresponding with

ordinary metra, is —U - U -, the hypodochmiac. There is one example in IT, at 647. . .

- .Dochmiacs differ from iambic and trochaic in that split resolution is not

uncommon.

There

is no

syncopation,

Dochmiacs just stop, as at 657 and 899.

80 no

special clausular rhythm.,

" 119 There is one surviving dochmiac ; composition from the Hellennistic age, the Fragmentum Grenfellianum. (J. U. Powell, Collectanea Alexandrina, pp.177-80), a solo by a woman in distress. Dochmiac-shaped metrical phrases occur in Pindar, but they do not show typical dochmiac varations or correspondence, and are always isolated, never in sequence. Most are found at the beginning of the verse, and are to be taken as acephalous cretic + cretic (ae ε, aU—=U=). See especially Ol. 2 (with my analysis, Songs, p 41) and K. Itsumi, Pindaric Metre: The ‘Other Half,pp. 17 (with n. 30) and 46-8.

-

Introduction

xci

Normally, dochmiacs occur only in songs where the rthythm is dominant, as in 11 643-57 and 827~99. There are, however, examples of two or three isolated dochmiacs in other metrical contexts, especially among anapaests. The two - dochmiacs of the form ------- - at 126-7 blend very easily into the surrounding, heavily spondaic, anapaests. Rhythms which blend with dochmiac are iambic, the enigmatic enoplian (see below), and cretic (again see below).

There are no corresponding dochmiacs in IT, but dochmiacs are often found

in correspondence, especially in Sophocles. For the rules of correspondence, see Parker, Songs, p. 66. For a thorough study, with figures, of the different forms of dochmiac, see N. C. Conomis, “The Dochmiacs of Greek Drama Hermes 92 (1964), pp. 23-50. There 15 disagreement about the rarer forms, especially where textual problems are involved, but independent counts pro-

duce similar results for the more common. Ε. Cretic

The cretic (- U -), produced by syncopation, appears as a component of iambic

and trochaic metre ((x) —U - and —uU-(x)). Again, the cretic is one of the basic components of dactylo-epitrite (see below). But there was also an independent

cretic rhythm in which the metron was equivalent to five shorts and of which the name goes back at least to the second half of the fifth century. See Cratinus, PCG IV, fr. 237, where the poet calls upon the muse to ‘wake a cretic song’ and continues in that metre. Cretic is much used by Aristophanes in his earlier plays, but long runs of

cretics are very rare in tragedy. There is one predominantly cretic song in

Aeschylus (Supp. 418-37), and cretics are well represented in the ephymnia at

Eum. 321-96. In Euripides, there is a run of twelve cretics at Or. 1419-24. But

commonly in tragedy cretics are found interspersed among other metres, especially dochmiacs, as they are indeed found in IT 827-99. One or both longs may be resolved (there is a completely resolved cretic at IT 834), but

UUU - may not correspond with --Οὐὐὐ.

In many contexts, it is difficult (if not impossible) to distinguish ‘true’ cretics

from apparent cretics produced by syncopation. Thus, I have analysed 865 and

867 as cr ia in order to show their affinities within the context. But these cola ΄᾿ are identical with the ‘lecythion; a common colon which can be taken as iam-

bic ((x) =u=x-uU-) or trochaic (-U-x-uU=-(x)),according to the context. On the problem of distinguishing true from apparent cretics, see further Parker, Songs, pp. 41-4.

The metres treated so far are composed in repeating metra. There remain three types of rhythm constructed in ways less readily comprehensible to us.

xcii

Introduction

Ε Aeolo-Choriambic and associated metres

|

ἱ

Aecolo-choriambic can be seen as the thematic rhythm of IT. It is the sole, or

almost the sole, metre used in two songs, 392~-455 and 1089-1 152, and has a

significant presence in 1234-83, That accounts for all the songs not in some specially appropriate rhythm: anapaests for the lament at 123-238, dochmiacs for powerful emotion in 643-57 and 827-99, Aeolo-choriambic is the distinctive rhythm of the eastern Aegean , of the Lesbian poets and, later, Anacreon. It is based on thephrase — U U — | — (dodrans A) and the smallest unit of analysis is the colon. The basic and most common aeolo-choriambic colon, the glyconic, precedes the signature-phrase by two ancipitia, the ‘aeolic base] producing xx~UU—-U—. The base in Sappho 's poems is found taking the forms --ἰ,0 --, -- -- αηά, occasionally, Uu (PLF frr. 94.22 and 98.8). Nowhere else in Greek metre does anceps stand beside anceps without intervening pause, and when Anacreon and the Attic dramatists adopt aeolochoriambic, base in the form Uy disappears. Resolution is alien to aeolo-

choriambic, but Sophocles and Euripides introduce it into the base, to produce

UUU and, very occasionally, -Uu (see below), in addition to --, -, --180

Sometimes even other longs are resolved, as in 1106 —— - υ-υὐὺ .

.

The signature-phrase, - τ -- ends blunt, so its catalectic form is penἀεηΐ,-υυ -- - Thecatalectic form of the glyconic, the pherecratean,%x-yy-, makes a very common clausula in aeolo-choriambic. See, Σ exampl e, 406 =421

and 1105=1122, both ending stanzas. Anacreon (and, in Latin, Catullus) com-

posed simple stanzas of two or more glyconics with Pherecratean as clausula, and it is not unusual to find such a miniature ‘stanza’ embedded in a much larger and more complex unit in Attic drama. See, for example, the first three cola of 1089 ff.=1106ff. Aeolo-choriambic admits much variation, which has produced a plethora of

names for the various cola, Variations on the glycohic found in IT are the followi ng: Base reduced to one position (which may be resolved): Uu-uu-u-

telesillean

With catalectic form: | Ju- υυ--

reizianum

* 1% ΤῈ Attic version of aeolic base creates a problem of notation, The nearest approximation is long ™+ anicepsin ifideterminate order. That would accommodate — = =U, U~, and vy, but also -οὐ and "υ

-- But —yu is at best exceedingly rare (see above) and LU - never occurs, unless Frogs 1322 περίβαλλ; & τέκνον, ὠλένας is a solitary example. On that problem, see Parker, Songs, pp. 507-8. It would not be surprising if - were just permissi ble, but yy - taboo. y- ἰς rarer than - U, and it may

awkward.

well be that the reversal of rhythm in U-- yU-{)~ sounded relatively ὐ -- would have been open'to the same objection, but much more acutely .

Introduction

Xciii

No base at 4}}: ἜΠ

υυτυ-

dodrans A

(With catalectic form, not in IT:

U=

adonean)

isxtended by adding one position at the end:

hipponactean

xX=UU-U--— Base reduced to one position:

hagesichorean

χαυυτυ-(No base at all, not in IT: -υυτυ--

aristophanean)

A couple of times in Sappho (PLF frr. 95.9, 96.7), a colon consisting of aeolic base and a reversed form of dodrans, ~ U ~UuU - (dodrans B) is found corresponding with a standard glyconic. The same colon appears in Anacreon, PMG, fr. 349, paired with a glyconic. When it occurs in later Attic tragedy (Sophocles and Euripides), the second position of the dodrans is treated as anceps: —x-yUuyU-.

Again, variation is possible: The basic colon, equivalent to a glyconic: XX=x—UU—

polyschematist (or wflamowitzianurfi)

Base reducedto one position:

X=%=UU=

aeolo-cho. heptasyllable

No base at all: —-_X—-Jyy-

dOdrans

B

The structure of the polyschematist was correctly identified only fairly recently, by K. Itsumi (“The “Choriambic Dimeter” of Euripides, CQ 32 (1982), pp. 59-74). Earlier metricians failed to distinguish it from the iambo-choriambic

dimeter (x—U—-uUu-), with which it never corresponds.

Base in the form UUU as a rule corresponds only with itself and —U

hardly ever corresponds with U —. Once in IT ~UU-UU-U- is found corresponding with glyconic (1129 = 1144), once with polyschematist (1092=1109). In a different context, the colon would be classed as ‘ibycean’ (PMG, Ibycus, Ε, 286, 1-3). But the correspondence here indicates a rare type of glyconic in which the base takes the form —uu (long anceps + resolved long). See above and n. 180. below. A few other aeolo-choriambic cola are found in IT:

Xciv

Introduction

1. -πουπυυπυ--- 392=407. The alcaic decasyllable, which is most familiar

as the last colon of the alcaic stanza (‘verba loquor socianda chordis’), It is

probably best understood as dodrans A extended and made pendent.

2. U-U-UU-U=- 1241=1266. In synartesis in both strophe and antistrophe with a following polyschematist. This unusual colon seems to start as a heptasyllable (x—uU—-uuU-=-), then add the glyconic coda, u-. Another example in Euripides is Hipp. 525=>535. -

3.UUU-UU-U--~1093=1110. This colon couldbe explained as a glyconic with a doubly-syncopated iambic metron, a ‘spondee; appended. Otherwise, it

might be an example of an occasional phenomenon in aeolo-choriambic

which AM. Dale called ‘drag} where the cadence ... U~ becomes —-. This would then be a ‘dragged’ version of UUU-VU-~U~-U-.

Finally, IT 392-455 includes two verses which, while they originate from the islands of the Aegean, are distinct from aeolo-choriambic. 1. x~UU-UU-U-U=U=-=- 401=416. Archilochean dicolon. Archilochus of Paros used various compounds of double-short and single-short rhythm in his epodes. See West I, frr. 16871 (as here), 182-93, 196, 199. He used this verse in sequence (κατὰ στίχον) for whole poems, It is typical of Attic eclecticism that Euripides here incorporates into his stanza a verse from a completely different style of composition. 2.

U-U=

τυῦ-

U-- 426=443. Catalectic iambo-choriambic trimeter.

Iambo-choriambic, 2 thythm unique in combining two different types of met-

ron, is best known to us from the fragments of Anacreon. PMG fr. 384 is a cata-

lectic trimeter identical with the IT verse. The same trimeter is found in all three tragedians, e.g. Ag. 141, Ant. 806 =823, Med. 431 =439, etc. On aeolo-choriambic, in addition to the article by K. Itsumi cited above, see the same author’s “The Glyconic in Tragedy, CQ 34 (1984), pp. 66-82. On

iambo-choriambic, see Parker, Songs, pp. 78--82.

G. Dactylo-epitrite (DE)

Dactylo-epitrite is a rhythm of western Greece, and its earliest association is with Dorian lyric and with composition in triads. Fragments of Stesichorus of Himera which-have come to light within thelast-forty years have made it possible to trace the development of the metre, Fully-developed DE, as we know it from Pindar, Bacchylides and Attic drama, is most commonly made up of the phrases -y uU-uUU - (hemiepes=D), --ὦ-- (cretic=e) and, more rarely,-uu-

(choriamb=d), which are usually linked together by anceps, most often

Introduction

ΧΟΥ

ΞΙΟΠΒ."Ι Occasionally, spondee (—-) is found at the beginning of a verse.

‘gometimes ‘link’ anceps is missing and two phrases are simply juxtaposed.

‘Resolution is rare.

"

In Med., DE is the thematic rhythm. In IT, by contrast, there are only a few

DE verses. There are two in 827-99:

875 -ὐ-- - =-U- -

e—e~

This could be a trochaic dimeter, but there are no other trochees in the context, or, indeed, in the play. Besides, the long ancipitia are characteristic of DE. 889

-vUu-vU-

-

-UU-UU-

-

Ὠ- -

This could be a dactyli_c.; hexameter, but, again, there are no other dactyls in the context, and the central long, marking off two hemiepe, gives the verse a very DE ‘look’ Compare Phoen. 152. The DE presgfice is more marked in the last song, 1234-83: 1235=1260

-uu-UU-

-UU-UU-

DD

Two hemiepe juxtaposed, without link anceps. Identical with the second verse of the elegiac couplet.

1272 -U-

U -UU-UU-

- -U-

ευ -

As emended by Wilamowitz, a’ very ordinary DE verse. The strophe defies emendation.

1253=1276 UUU~

-U-

-

=-UU-UU-

ee-D

A little more exotic: two cretics juxtaposed, with the first long resolved.

1254=1277 JUU-UU-

-

πτὸ-

-

=-U-

dodB-e-e

A little rhythmic surprise: dodrans B (see under Aeolo-choriambic above) is substituted for the normal ~-uu-vu-. 1255=1280

--

-u-

-U-U-

speE

E (-u-u-) stands in the same relation to e (~U-) as D (-uu-uu~-) does to d (-Uu-). It is not, however, found in standard DE. But it is a common con-

stituent of the type of free (or ‘freer’) DE used by Pindar in a number of '8! The DE notation, of which I use a simplified version, was invented by Paul Maas (Griechische

Metrik, Leipzig, 1923). It obviates the problem of trying to decide in every case whether link anceps ‘belongs’ to the preceding or the following phrase, decisions which we are not in a position to take, "

xXcvi

Introduction

poems.’®® This verse could in theory be analy sed as doch hyI':)Odoc] (~--U- ~U-uU-),but, yet again, the context tells against that, ͵ : Η. Enoplian

|

At Clouds 651, Socrates; trying to impart social polis h to Strepsiades, tells him that he needs to know something about types of rhythm: which is κατ' ἐνόπλ ιον and which κατὰ δάκτυλον. Plato (Rep. 400b) , anxious

to distance his Socrates from anything of the kind, makes him say that he has heard one, Damon, expounding different types of thythm, callin g one ἐνόπλιος σύνθετος

and another δάκτυλος, but these matters can be left to Damo n. What ‘enoplian’ meant in the fifth-to-fourth centuries we do not know. By modern metricians

the term has been variously used, but there is some degree of consensus in applying it to 2 type of metre which combines the uniform sequence (-)uu-uu-...with uniform (U)-uU-..., although both sequences are not. always present in the same colon. Anceps is excluded, except sometimes at the beginning of a colon, and U is not contracted to -- 1837 Euripides at least, the

metre tends to appear in company with dochmiac and dactylo-epitrite, as in IT 827-99,

A decisive role in the creation may have been played by Ibycus, a poet who moved from the west of the Greek world, the original home of dactylo-epitrite,

to the east, that of aeolo-choriambic. Like aeolo -choriambic, and un]ike DE, Ξ enoplian admit

s the caden

ce ... uu~yu-(-), but, although cola may begin : with single anceps, it does not admit the disyllabic base. Ibycus’ eponymous | colon, the ibycean (~uu-uu~uU~ PMG frr. 286. 1-3, 318(a )), may be ambiguous

with one version of the

glyconic (see above, p. xciii), and he also uses 4 . colon identical, to us at least, with the alcaic decasyllab le (-uu-~uyu-u--), 1 But it now seems

beyond dispute that enoplian is distinct from aeolo -choriam- ] bic, and that its affinities are rather with DE, 1% Ἱ

The cola in IT classifiable as enoplian are all to be found in 827-99; ᾿ UU-UU-UUUU-~ 848, 876, 880, and (although corruption is present) 895, !

'*2 On free (‘freer’) DE, see K. Itsumi, Pindaric Metre: The ‘Other Half, Itsumi uses €2 not E,for | —U~U~. This suits the longer sequences of alterna On Stesichorus, see M. W. Haslam, ‘Stesichorean ting long and short found in Pindar, | Metre, 17 (1974), 7-57 and “The Versification of the New Stesichorus (P, Lille 75 a b c), GRBS 19QUCC (1978), pp. 29-57, and M. L. West, | τ ‘Stesichorus Redivivus, ZPE 4 (1969), Pp- 135-49, ‘Stesichorus at Lille, ZPE 29 (1978), pp.1~4,and ΄ _GM, pp. 49-52, ποτ e e ¢ ΄ΤΡ

*** On various applications of the term ‘enoplian see West,

Glossary-Index. For recent systematic accounts of enoplian, using different approaches, see GM, K. Itsumi, ‘Enoplian in Tragedy, BICS 38 (1991-3), pp. 243-61 and Ε Lourengo, The Metres of Euripidean Drama, pp. 719,

*** A. M. Dale (LM?, pp. 157-77) classified what she choriambic. Itsumi (op. cit. n. 183 above) demonstrates called ‘prosodiac-enoplian’ with aeolothat that will hardly do,

᾿ !

'

|

:

Introduction

Xcvii

ompare Ibycus, PMG fr. 303.2. For longer sequences in the same rhythm, see

fr. 287. At first sight, the colon looks like an anapaestic dimeter, but the per-

fectly regular alternation of double short and single long is characteristic of

enopllan Lyric anapaests tend to be spondaic, but where double-short rhythm

appears it usually brings with it diaeresis between metra, as in recitative. iDiaeresis 15 absent here. The same colon, with the coda -- --, appears at Her.

$1205, Jon 1442, Hel. 687, and Phoen. 184; with U——, at Andr. 864 and Her. 1197;

ἐ U—U

U

- , at Ion 1466. At Hel, 692--3, this same colon is linked in DE style by

to-UU-UU~

\u'u UU~-UU~-UU~— 886. A pendent version of the same sequence. u; υ-πυυπυυ-- 897.A shorter version. The same colon appears at 1240 = 1265, but there it follows immediately on dactyls, which suggests that it too should ‘be taken as dactylic. See above, p. ἰχχχίχ, Uu-UU-U-U--

τύὐύυτυυ-πυ-

884.

This

colon

could

be

analysed

as

tel

ba

U--),asat 1251=1275, but there aeolo-choriambic is present

in the context and 1251 = 1275 is clearly the catalectic version of 1245-6=12701, UU=UU-U~- U-U~-, where the internal anceps, long three times out of four, interrupts the regular ... U-uU-... and points to iambic.

TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT Writing probably a little after the middle of the fifth century, the author of PV makes Prometheus the inventor of writing, ‘worker, mother of the Muses’ (μουσομήτορ᾽ ἐργάνην)..55 At Frogs 52-3 (produced in 405 Bc), ‘Dionysus’ speaks of himself ‘reading [Eunpldes | Andromeda to myself’ (ἀναγιγνώσκοντί μοι! τὴν Ἀνδρομέδαν πρὸς ἐμαυτόν). At 943 in the same play, ‘Euripides’

claims to have slimmed the tragic Muse on a diet of ‘book-juice’ (χυλὸν διδοὺς στωμυλμάτων ἀπὸ βιβλίων). Then, at 1114, the chorus pays tribute to the

literary sophistication of the audlence everyone has a book or two and understands clever stuff’ (βιβλίον 7° ἔχων ἕκαστος μανθάνει τὰ Sefid).*® The word βιβλιοπώλης (‘bookseller’) is first recorded in Aristomenes, a comic poet roughly contemporary with Aristophanes (PCG 1J, fr. 9). Eupolis, again a contemporary of Aristophanes, mentions ‘the place where books are bought’

185 PV 461 On the controversy about the authorship and probable date of PV, see the summary on p. 433 of A. Sommerstein’s edition of Aeschylus, Loeb, vol. I (Cambridge, Mass. and London,

2008).

"% On the interpretation of this passage, see Sommerstein, ad loc, At Frogs 1407-10, the books’

referred to could be Euripides’ library, but might be his own writings.

xcviii

Introduction

(PCG YV, fr. 327). All this suggests a book-trade tolerably well established by the

last quarter of the fifth century. ἘΝ Two questions remain which we cannot answer. First, whence did the book: sellers get their texts? Isocrates, late in life, recalls that at the start of his career (so near the turn of the century), he ‘wrote and distributed a discourse’ (λόγον διέδωκα γράψας)..57 That suggests hiring scribes to make a number of copies. Did dramatists do that? It would have been in their interest to ensure that

copies of their work available to readers were authentic. Were there pirated copies, derived, perhaps, from the memories of ators? Then, what proportion

of the Athenian public read literary texts? Fewer, no doubt, than those whe

were literate for practical purposes. But Athens was no ordinary Greek city.

The great dramatic festivals could have inspired the wish to read.1*®

Actors at-any rate must have become significant buyers of dramatic texts; From a later period (first century Bc to first century Ap), a papyrus fragment of Alc. 344-82 (P.Oxy. 4546) casts an interesting light on actors’ practice. The passage is written in a hand difficult to characterise as anything but a book-hand’

although ‘unorthodox” and featuring ‘erratic orthography and unique variants’

Most significant, however, is the fact that only Admetus’ lines are copied. Such a text could hardly be of use to anyone other than an actor playing Admetus,'®® The lack of cues might seem inconvenient, but professionals would have learned to manage with such a text in order to save the labour of copying. An unfortunate, but unsurprising, practice of actors (or perhaps we should

say directors’) seems to have been to alter the text. Lines were, no doubt, omitted

and others certainly added. In the fourth century and later Euripides’ plays were overwhelmingly the most popular on stage, so most open to alteration.’*° It is, again, not surprising that while interpolated, or possibly interpolated, lines may

be flat or inappropriate, they are generally the work of people with a reasonable command of tragic diction and metre, so likely to have entered the text early, roughly between 400 and 200 5c.*® The Atherian politician, Lycurgus, is said to have passed alaw in about 330 5¢ requiring that the plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles,

and Euripides, ‘having been written out, should be kept in the public store, and that the clerk of the city should read the plays through to the actors who were 187 Antidosis 193,

-

1% For a cautious examination of the evidence for literacy in classical Greece and Athens in particular,

see M. V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, Mass., 1989), pp. 65-115 For a more optimistic view, see Ε, G. Turner, Athenian Books in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries (London, 1952).

τ

*

See also below on 584-7, 1% The editor (D. Obbink) suggests as an alternative ‘an anthology of excerpts. But who would

ΔΗ suchan ‘excerpt’ other than an actor? The eccentricities of the script would suit an actor, someone accustomed to writing, but not a professsional scribe,

' On this whole subject, see D. L. Page, Actors’ Interpolations in Greek Tragedy. For general considerations, see pp. 15-20. For another extended discussion, see D. J. Mastronarde’s introduction to his edition of Phoen., pp, 39-49, . | ! One striking exception is the final section of IA, 1578-1629, clearly much later work.

'

Introduction

XCix

Yoing ἴο perform them [to check their texts, presumably], and that it should not

bé permitted to depart from the text when acting’*? This was not, of course,a aw which could have been enforced anywhere but in Athens. . The texts available to readers in the fifth and fourth centuries and well into

the third were little more than aides mémoire: words were not divided from »ach other, there were no accents, change of speaker was indicated by a dash

(paragraphus) and lyric was written like prose, with no indication of metrical structure. One papyrus fragment of IT (PHibeh 1.24- Π

174-91) dated to

280-240 BC may have been laid out in that way. An event of incalculable rimportance for the preservation and diffusion of Greek literature was the k’foundatlon by the first Ptolemies of the library and Museum at Alexandria.

According to Galen,'® ‘Ptolemy’ borrowed the Athenian state copies of the

three great tragedians for the library, putting down a large deposit, which he sacrificed in order to keep the texts. Be that as it may, considerable advances in ‘readability are attributed to scholars working in Alexandria, in particular to Aristophanes of Byzantium (¢.257-180 Bc): the invention of a system of accen-

tuation and the division of lyric into lines. Division of words came much later,

becoming general only in the tenth-to-eleventh centuries Ap.*** Accentuation

would, however, have been an immense help in dividing words correctly, as

well 5 in distinguishing words with the same spelling. Dividing lyric into ‘cola’ would, above all, have helped to identify corruption and interpolation in corresponding texts. It could also have been of some help in understanding metrical structure. The art of composing complex, polymetric stanzas in the style of the Attic tragedians had, however, been lost by Aristophanes’ time, and it is not even clear that metrical considerations were uppermost in the minds of the Alexandrian scholars who made the division.!®* Through later antiquity and the earlier Byzantine period, in splte of a critical tradition inherited ftom Aristotle which tended to denigrate him, Euripides held his place as one of the handful of authors essential to a literary education.’®® From Hellenistic times until the sixth century.AD we have substantial papyrus fragments of Euripides, but a marked preference for certain 192 pseudo-Plutarch, Moralia 8515 = Lives of the Ten Orators. 1% Commentary on Hippocrates, Epidem. I, Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V, 10.2.1, ed. Ε, Wenkebach (Leipzig and Berlin, 1936), pp. 79-80. 14 See Ρ Parsons, City of the Sharp-Nosed Fish (London, 2007), p. 45 and, for an extended study, . Saenger, Space Between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading (Stanford, 1997). 155 For a study of Alexandrian colon-division, see L. P. Β. Parker, * Consilium et Ratio? CQ 51 (2001), pp. 23-52. Alexandrian colistae liked to divide lyric into more or less equal lengths and to change lines at word-end. In medieval MSS it is also necessary to reckon with the tendency of scribes to drift towards word-end before changing lines. 1 Ὅῃ the critical tradition, see above, pp. Ixii-Ixiv. On the school curriculum from the Hellenistic period onwards, see N. G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium, pp.18-27 and H.-1. Marrou, Histoire de léducation dans lantiquité 1 (Parls, 1948, repr. 1981), ch. 7. On the reading of texts outside the syllabus, see L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars, pp. 53-4.

ς

Introduction

plays becomes manifest.'"”” Of Or. and Phoen., over twenty fragmentfs eac]

have been found and twelve to fifteen each of Med., Andr., and Hec. Most prob ably by a gradually developing process, ten plays (Alc., Med., Hipp., Andr., Hec

Tro., Phoen., Or., Ba., and the spurious Rhes.) were select ed for study. Thes,

were provided with commentaries. The rest tended to disapp ear, although w have papyrus fragments from plays outside the selection writte n as late as thy

fourth or fifth centuries Ap."*® Even as late as the eleventh centur y, the poly: math,

Michael Psellus, quotes IT 569.'%° We owe the texts of plays other thay the chosen ten to the chance survival of one vélume from a complete editioy;

of Euripides in alphabetical order. Hence the appellation ‘alphab etic’ plays. Thij was deduced by Wilamowitz from an -inscription advertising an edition of Euripides’ plays.2°° Between the second and fourth centuries Ap, the Ppapyrus roll gave way to

the codex (the

book as we know it), and paper reached the West from in the eighth century. The ninth century saw a considerable revival China of learning in

Byzantium which led to the re-copying of many ancient ‘uncial’ script into ‘minuscule’ Many uncial manuscripts (thoug texts from h not all) will have been

destroyed after copying.?®® Different scripts produced different. possibilities of misreading and confusion between letters 202 Another' development was a yet further reduction in the number of plays generally: studied to just three: Hec., Phoen., and Or., the so-called ‘Byzantine triad’ These plays survive in more manuscripts than the other selected plays and

were provided with much more ample scholia, including detail ed metrical’ scholia

.*** For the selected plays we have manuscripts databl e as far back:

1% See O. Bouquiaux-Simon and P. Mertens in M. Capasso, Papyrologia Lupiensia 1 (Lecce, 1992), pp. 95-107 and The Oxyrhyed., Papiri letterari greci e latini, nchus Papyri LXVII (London,

2001), pp. 1-16..

.

**® Phaethon (See ]. Diggle, Euripides: Phaethon (Cambridge, 1970), p. 33) and Melanippe Desmotis (P. Berol. 5514 = TrGF 5.1, fr. 495). > On Psellus, see Wilson, op. cit. n. 196 above, ΡΡ. 156-79; on the quotation of IT 569, see P.177:Since the line exploited by Psellus does not appear to have been well known as a quotation, there is reason to think that his acquaintance with the play may have *® See Analecta Euripidea, ρρ. 137-43. For a very clear exposit been direct’ ion of the argument, see Page, Op- cit. n. 190 above, pp. 3-5. For lists of the plays in (more or less) alphabetical order, see TrGF 5.1, Testimonia B, 6-7a and b. It was 7a that provided the basis play volumes. The alphabetic volume that survived contained for Wilamowitz’s theory of eightnine plays, two of which, Cyc. and Held., are exceptionally short, . 21 On the change from uncial to minuscule, see Reynolds and Wilson, op. cit. n. 196 above, Pp59-63. On the survival of uncial

manuscripts, see R. Browning, ‘Recentiores non deteriores, BICS * 7 (1960), pp. 11-21=Studies in Byzantine History, Literat ure and Education (London, 1977), xii.

2%2-For lists of standard types of error (including Confusions betwee

n uncial and minuscule), see M. L, West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technigue, p. 25, with further references, and also Reynolds and Wilson, op. cit. n. 196 above, pp. 222-33, 205 The scholia on the Byzantine triad occupy the whole of the first volume of Ε. Schwartz, Scholia in Euripidem (Berlin, 1887). The metrical scholia have been published separately by O. L. Smith, Scholia metrica

.

͵᾽ : ; ° |

| :

' ͵ | ;

"

anonyma in Euripidis Hecubam, Orestem, Phoenissas (Copenhagen, 1977). 1

Introduction

ci

B the beginning of the eleventh century, or even the end of the tenth.2* But for the alphabetic plays we depend on just one manuscript and its

Hescendants.

b That sole source is L (Laur. 32.2), written in the early fourteenth century in

F:scriptorium in Thessalonica. It contains all the surviving plays of Euripides, f-xcept for Tro. and the latter part of Ba. (beyond 755). Later in the century; the bmanuscript came into the possession of Simon Atumanus, who was conse¥-rated bishop of Gerace (Calabria) in 1348, and who, after a periodas arch-

bishop of Thebes, died in Rome in the 1380s. L eventually found its way to EFlorence, where it was accessible to scholars of the Renaissance.?®® The

;‘:fiuripidean portion of the-MS carries numerous annotations in the hand of E‘Demetrius Triclinius, who ‘was active in Thessalonica between about 1305

‘and 1320.*°° Moreover, four plays, including IT, were written by one,

‘Nicolaus Triclines, without doubt closely related to Triclinius (who chose to ‘change the form of the family name). Interestingly, Triclines also shared in copying the MS of metrical works, Ven. 483, which was in part corrected by . Triclinius."”

ς Triclinius was the first Byzantine scholar to use such understanding of metre as could be gained from writers of late antiquity, Hephaestion and his commen-

tators.”” His ability to recognize iambic trimeters, anapaests, and lyric enabled

him to cast important light on the structure of Attic drama. He understood too,

in some used his miss. In syllable,

degree, the phenomenon of strophic correspondence. He also, however, metrical knowledge to emend extensively, and here his work is hit-andiambic trimeters he apparently knew which positions required a long and he also knew that ephelcystic ν is sometimes needed to ‘make posi-

tion’ before a consonant.® He was, however, much less clear about where

*™ Paris. gr. 2713, which contains Hec., Or., Phoen., Hipp., Med., Alc.,and Andr. goes back to the early eleventh century, or possibly the end of the tenth (Hec. 1-522 is a later replacement). ΄. *% For a full description of L, see A. Turyn, The Byzantine Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Euripides, pp. 222-58 and G. Zuntz,An Inquiry into the Transmission of the Plays of Euripides,

pp. 126-35.

** On Triclinius, see Reynolds and Wilson, op. cit. n. 196 above, pp. 76-8 and Wilson, op. cit. n. 196, pp. 249-56, and also Turyn, op. cit. n. 205 above. On his work on IT, see Zuntz, op. cit. n. 205 above, pp. 92-6. ?7 See the introduction to Hephaestionis Encheiridion, ed. M. Consbruch (Leipzig, 1906; repr. 1971) and Turyn, op. cit. n. 205 above, p. 231 with n. 213. On other works copied by Triclines, see O. L. Smith, ‘“Tricliniana II, Ο Μ 43 (1992), pp. 188-9. *% Triclinius was not the first Byzantine scholar to take an interest in metre. Shortly before 1138, Isaac Tzetzes composed a treatise (in politic verse) on the metres of Pindar. But he and his younger brother, John, confined their interest to the text of the metrical scholia. See J. Irigoin, Les scholies métriques de Pindare (Paris, 1958), pp. 57-92. % Ephelcystic v added correctly: 30 ᾧκισεν, 520 ἔστιν, 778 δώμασιν, 930 ὕβρισεν, 979 ὥρισεν, 1403 εὐχαῖσιν. Other corrections which may be at least in part metrical in origin: 333 καθεῖσαν for καθεῖσα, 538 8¢ deleted after ἄλλως 568 ἔστ᾽ for ἔστιν, 1173 κατειργάσαντο for -00:70,1285 γῆς τῆσδε for τῆσδε γῆς, 1334 χεροί, for χεροῖν, 1397 παλίρρους for παλλίρους.

οἷϊ

Introduction

double short is permissible in the tragic trimeter. Hence his change of δοἑοῦσ’

to δοκοῦσαν at 349 (U~-U|U-) and his attempt at 1404 to fill a lacuna requiring U~ with βαλόντες, producing a third metron of the form U|u—u-, with, for good measure, split substitution in both places (see above p. ἰχχχν). Occasionally,

he makes a successful correction purely on grounds of sense: 553 θανών for κτανών, 1406 ἤει for ein. When it comes to lyric, it is clear that Tricliniug’ discovery of a new tool for emendation went, understandably, somewhat to his head. When trying, however, to restore correspondence, he was handicapped by a lack of the metrical understanding needed to decide which of the two corre. sponding stanzas before him was at fault. Nor did he confine himself to trying to correct failures of correspondence. In general his understanding of metre was erratic and lacunary. It can never be assumed that because he understood B he must necessarily have understood A. An interesting feature of Ls text of IT 15 a number of variants written above the line in the hand of the original scribe. These are not evenly distributed through the text: out of a total of fifteen, six occur within 102 lines, between 590 and 692. There are another three at 295, 318, and 374, which Diggle

attributes to the original scribe, while Sansone thinks that 318 and 374 may be

Triclinian.*’® Two come close together: ὁμόσας at 789 and ἠλέκτρας at 811, which, again, Sansone thinks may be Triclinian. Then there is another small cluster at 1011, 1092-and 1098. Of these, the last, δήλιον above κύνθιον, could

well be an explanatory gloss, rather than a variant. Leaving 1098 aside, out

of the remaining thirteen, eleven are either correct or very probably so. In particular, out of the cluster of six between 590 and 692, all are certainly or ᾽

probably correct.?!!

-

Ion was also copied by Triclines, but the supralinear variants there show an interesting contrast. Firstly, there are more of them: twenty-five. Secondly, they are spread evenly throughout the play. Thirdly, most (seventeen) are manifestly wrong. Of the rest, six are right, two are better than the main text, without

being quite right.*'* In view of the striking difference between the two plays,

the supralinear variants in IT can hardly be the result of Triclines’ own bright

ideas. Both the quality and the clustering together tempt one to wonder whether the scribe did not have access to a few pages from another, and possibly better, text, at least for the hundred or so lines from 590 to 692.

*1 At 295 θανούμενοι, μβ is written above v, making θαμβούμενοι. That would improve the sense, but s post-classical. At 318, πέτρους is corrected to πέτροις, 374 κασιγνήτῃ is changed to

“κασιγνήτῳ, which is wrong, but not stupid: Iphigenia was speaking of Orestes (ἀδελφὸν) in the preceding line. ——— .... ..

AW= -

[P R

B

11 Correct: 590 τινί, 610 ὀρθῶς, 622 χερνίψομαι, 655 μέμονε, 673 μάθοις. At 692, where L writes λήσειν, the supralinear variant is Ayew. I agree with Sansone in believing that to be, most Ὸ probably, correct. | 1 Correct: 153 7}, 528 ἐμοί, 968 εἰσορῶν, 1290 εὐσεβεῖς γε, 1295 λαβών, 1296 ye. Better: 11 προσβόρους mérpas (-βόρρους Barnes), 452 λοχίαν (-ἰᾶν Hemsterhuys).

Introduction

ciii

. One other early-fourteenth-century MS preserves all ten alphabetic plays, ;ndeed all the plays of Euripides that we possess, including Tro. and the rest of Ba., beyond 755. Some time early in its history this MS was divided. The part containing IT (with Andr., Med., Supp., Rhes., Ion, IA, Hipp., Alc., Tro., Ba., Cyc., and Hcld. 1-1002) is now Palatinus gr. 287 (P), while the rest is Laurentianus

conv. soppr. 172.2'* While L is evidently a scholar’s working copy, written on

- coarse paper, P is a de luxe edition. It is written on parchment by a scribe with ἐ an elegant hand, who, however, made many mistakes and corrected few, The relatonship between L and P was long a matter of debate, but G. Zuntz has . shown to the satisfaction of most that for the alphabetic plays P is a copy of

- L2 P’s independent contribution to the text of IT is tiny. In a very few places the scribe has corrected obvious mistakes, sometimes, perhaps, by accident.?*®

However, P has a certain value for a reason unconnected with the competence of its scribe. Triclinius worked through L making corrections more than once.

The corrections of the earliest round are copied into the text of P, those of later

rounds are not. As a result, P preserves for us in those places the original text

of L, which Triclinius tended to obliterate by writing on top.2® Further, a cor-

rector of P (p) not only copied in some of Triclinius’ later corrections, but

added more, of which some suggest metrical knowledge.?'’

A very few useful readings are to be found in two MSS in Paris, Paris.

gr. 2817 (early sixteenth century) and 2887 (end fifteenth to early sixteenth

century), both copied from L and complete with Triclinius’ emendations,?!® 2887 once belonged to Janus Lascaris, who produced in Florence in 1495 the first printed edition of four plays of Euripides (Alc., Med., Hipp., and Andr.)

13 Por a full description, se¢ Turyn, op. cit. n. 205 above, pp. 258-64, also Zuntz, op. cit. n.205, ΡΡ. 135-40. For some important supplementary material, see O. L. Smith, Ὅη the Scribal Hands Ὁ᾿ in the MS P of Euripides;, Mnemosyne 4.34 (1982), pp. 326-31. 214 See Zuntz, op. cit. n. 205 above, pp. 1-15, and, for some additional evidence, D, Sansone in the preface to his edition of IT, pp. v-vi. 215 Clear improvements are; 51 δόμων (for s δώμων), 209 θάλος (for θάλλος), 839 ψυχὰ

(ψυχάλ) for ψυχᾶ, 1006 γυναικὸς (for γυναικῶν). *1¢ Zuntz (op. cit. n. 205 above, pp. 21~7 and 57-62), suggests, with a degree of caution (see especially pp. 57-62), that three rounds of correction by Triclinius ¢an be distinguished by the colour of the inks. This is questioned by D. Sansone (GGA 230 (1978), pp. 238--40, reviewing Ο. Collard, Supplices). This is his only point of disagreement with Zuntz. Diggle in his apparatus seeks to distinguish three stages. I distinguish only between corrections which appear in P (Tep) and those which do not (Tk). 17 See 14,132, 291, 368, 786, 990, 1358, and, notably, 1404, where p proposes χερῶν instead of Triclinius’ βαλόντες. That does not make sense, but at least it scans. His study of P led O. L. Smith to conclude that both the metrical scholia on Supp., IT, and IA in that MS and the corrections of p represent work by Triclinius later than the latest corrections in L, and that the MS remained in his scriptorium for up to ten years after copying. It seems, however, hard to believe that a MS both 80 elegant and so inaccurate could have been intended as a master copy. See Smith, op. cit, nn, 207 and 213 above. *1% For full descriptions, see Turyn, op. cit. n. 205 above, p. 369 (for 2817) and ΡΡ 370-1 (for 2887). . .

civ

Introduction

and played an important part in collecting manuscripts for Lorenzc:a de

Medici.?*?

'

.

'

The first printed edition of all the surviving plays of Euripides (other than El) was produced by Aldus Manutius in Venice in 1503. It was long believed,

following Adolf Kirchhoff,**° that the editor was the Cretan scholar, Marcus

Musurus, and that the text was based on P, Both beliefs have been shown to be

untrue.”! Rather, the Aldine is seen as derived from another copy of L, now

lost. In a few places, the Aldine editor offers emendations which, though not necessarily metrical in origin, suggest that he was, in some respects, a better metrician than Triclinius.*** In general, the text of the Aldine is not a good one, but it long enjoyed enormous prestige. Even Hetmann, hardly a timid critic,

hesitated to depart from it.

.

Among early editors, Wilhelm Canter is notable for his explicit interest in editorial technique. His edition of Euripides with Latin translation was published in Antwerp in 1571. A second edition, with the translation revised

by Aemilius Portus, came out in Heidelberg in 1597. The greater part of his

preface is devoted to a description of the various types of Greek poetic structure (κατὰ oriyov, monostrophic, antistrophic, etc.), chiefly dependent on Hephaestion.?*® Canter had also published in 1566 a classified list of different types of scribal error, appended to his Latin translation of Aelius Aristides. The list was reprinted as late as 1826.2%*

Jeremiah Markland (1693-1776) made a contribution second to none to

improving the text of IT.*** His edition of the play (with IA and Latin transla-

tions) was published in 1771. Musgrave provided him with collations of the two Paris MSS (see above, p. ciii), but the serious use of manuscripts comes almost a century after his time. His distinction lies in his knowledge of and feeling for the Greek language and his exceptional acuteness in discerning problems in the text. When the Greek makes no sense to him, he says so, and he is right. :

%

1% On Lascaris, see Reynolds and Wilson, op. cit. n. 196 above, pp. 150, 172, and 289. 229 A, Kirchhoff, Euripidis Tragoediae I (Berlin, 1855), p. xi. 3! See M. Sicherl, ‘Die Editio Princeps Aldina des Euripides und ihre Vorlagen, RhM 118 (1975), pp. 205-25. . 222 He seems to have understood better than Triclinius where short syllables are required in the jambic trimeter: 94 ἄξενον (for ἄξεινον), 237 σημανῶν (for σημαίνων), 361 τότ᾽ (for τοῦδ᾽. He corrects correspondence at 414 with ἐλπὶς ἐγένετ᾽ (for ἐλπὲς yéver’) and, more satisfactorily, at 436 with Ἀχιλῆος (for Ἀχιλλῆος). Other corrections are: 435 πολυόρνιθον (for πολιόρνιθον), 950 στέγει (for 'rZyec), 1485 θεά (for θεᾷ), and 1491 εὐδαίμονες (for εὐδαίμονος). *»"In'IT he was defeated, like all editors before Musgrave, by 1234-83, which he took to be ‘monostrophic’ (that is astrophic). 24 De ratione emendandi graecos auctores syntagma, appended to Ε W, Sturz, Hellanici Lesbii Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1826). ----.--

22% See C. Collard, Teremiah Markland

(1693-1776), PCPS 22 (1976), pp. 1-13 = Tragedy,

Buripides and Euripideans (Bristol, 2007), pp. 213-28.

4

Introduction

ΟΥ

F J.E A. Seidler, whose edition of IT was published in 1813, considered that his ' own most important contribution to the improvement of the text came from his careful study of the early printed editions and his superior knowledge of

lyric metre. He was, indeed, the first scholar fully to elucidate the structure of

" the dochmiac, which enabled him in particular to introduce some valuable

emendations at 827-99, in spite of an attempt (misguided, as his master, ' Hermann, was laterto observe) to introduce correspondence.

Hermann published his own edition of IT in 1833. Like Seidler, he relied

essentially on Paris. gr. 2887 and 2817 and the Aldine, although for 2887 he seems to have had access to a new collation by Boissonade, more accurate than that of Musgrave. He also identified in the text of Euripides the intervention of ‘some grammarian, who, he suspected, might be Triclinius. A notable part of

Hermann’s edition 15 his introduction, in fact the first ‘modern’ introduction.

The play, he says, deserves study, not only because it is one of Euripides’ best,

but because Goethe, ‘summus poeta; has produced a version of the story. Then

follows a comparative synopsis of the two plays. Hermann prefers the opening of Goethe’s play to Euripides’ prologue, but as the synopsis proceeds, a preference for Euripides becomes apparent. He particularly dislikes Goethe’s ending,

finding it too emotionally taxing for the audience: ‘Finem enim poematis talem

esse convenit. praesertim in tragoedias, ut composito motu requiescat animus? Hermann(s literary criticism now seems dated, sometimes quaint, but he was a

pioneer in attempting any sort of detailed literary analysis, and his approach is noteworthy in its constant preoccupation with the reactions of a hypothetical audience. The introduction ends with an excellent collection of testimony on the myth of Iphigenia and the cult at Brauron. Neither Seidler nor Hermann took any particular interest in MSS. The first

editor to take some sort of cognizance of L seems to have been A. H, Matthiae for his ten-volume edition of Euripides (Leipzig, 1813~37). He was able to use

‘hasty and wholly unsatisfactory’ collations of MSS in the Laurentian Library by its chief librarian, Francesco de Furia.??

Peter Elmsley (1773-1825) did pioneering work on the sources of the text of

Euripides in preparing his edition of Ba. (Oxford, 1821). He examined five MSS: P (necessarily his chief source), L (which he calls ‘Laur. C’), Laur. 31.1,** and the two Paris MSS, and concluded, rightly, that the last three were all copies of L. He deplored the absence from L of Ba. beyond 755, noting that for the preserved part it offered a much better text than Ρ Adolf Kirchhoff observed in the preface to his edition of Euripides (Berlin, 1855) that Paris. gr. 2887 and 2888 were two parts of a complete copy of L, and could be used to restore the text of L in places where it had been obliterated by corrections. 26 gae V. di Benedetto, La tradizione manoscritta euripidea (Padua, 1965), p. 1L

*¥7 Por a description, see Turyn, op. cit. n. 205, pp. 364-5, For Elmsley’s work on the MSS, di Benedetto (op. cit.n. 226 above) cites only his edition of Med., not that of Ba.

cvi

Introduction

Rudolf Prinz, in the preface to his edition of Med. (Leipzig, 1878), identified two layers of correction in L, and attributed to the corrections the failure, as he saw it, to appreciate the true value of this liber praestantissimus’ Nikolaus :

Wecklein, who completed Prinz’s edition of Euripides, concluded that P had

been copied from L, on the basis of a number of passages where obvious mistakes in P would seem to have arisen from misreading Us script. Alexande rTuryn identified the corrector’s hand in L as that of Triclinius, while the final proof that P is a copy of L is owed to Giinther Zuntz (see above, p. ciii,

with n. 214).

ς

-

Wecklein’s edition (IT 1898) remains a useful source for earlier conjectures,

Henri Weils slim edition of 1907 offers many acute and sensitive observations,

Maurice Platnauer’s ‘Oxford red’ edition of 1938 is valuable in particul ar on linguistic and textual matters. Parallel translations are provided by David Kovacs’s excellent Loeb (IV, 1999) and Martin Cropp's useful students ’ edition

(2000).*** Penelope Kyriakou’s commentary (Berlin and New York, 2006) shows good literary sense, but it may be felt as a disadvantage that the absence of a text dispenses her from having to make up her mind. From 1981 we have

two editions of reference: James Diggle’s OCT, vol. Π and David Sansone’s

Teubner text. The Teubner format admits a bibliography, and Sansone’ s is outstanding,

= Ll τ

τ

Ot

Manuscripts and Sigla Laurentianus 32.2. Early -14th century. Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana. Facsimile: ]. A. Spranger (Florence, 1920) Palatinus graecus 287. Early 14th century. Vatican City,

Paris. gr. 2817

Paris. gr. 2887

Ald

Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Facsimile: J. A. Spranger (Florence, 1936-46) ¢.1500. Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale. ¢.1500. Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale,

First printed edition. Aldus Manutius, Venice, 1503 Reading of L obliterated by correction, deduced from P Variant in L written above the line by the original scribe (see above, p. cii)

Correction in L by Triclinius reproduced in P (see above,

p. ciii with n. 216)

Correction in L by Triclinius not reproduced in P Reading of L before correction by original scribe Reading of L after correction

Correction in P (see above, p. ciii with n. 217) Iliegible letter

Papyri Π' Π

IP Π’' [Ρ̓

Ῥ Hamb. 118, col. 1. 3rd-2nd cent. ΒΟ 53-66, Fragments too small to be quoted. See C. Austin, Nova Fragmenta Eurip ideq

in Papyris Reperta (Berlin, 1968), p.13,n.2 P. Hibeh 1, fr. 24. 3rd cent. BC 174-7,179-91, 245-5 5, 272-86,

584-95, 600-29 (628 missing)

Β Kéln V. 211 + VIL 303. 3rd-4th cent AD 350—6, See W. Luppe, APF 37 (1991),p.79 Β Berol. inv, 21133. 1st-2nd, cent. ΑὉ 946~55 and perha ps 986. See G.loannidou, Catalogue of Greek and Latin Literary

Papyri in Berlin (Mainz, 1996), Ρ. 43

P. Oxy. 4565. 2nd cent. oD 1340-52, 1367-78. See G. Mencj,

ZPE 83 (2012), pp.27-9

On the papyri, see R. A. Coles ef al,, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LXVII (London, 2001)

, pp. 1-62 and Ρ Carrara, Il testo di Euripide nell’ antichitd. Ricerche sulla tradizione testuale euripidea antica (sec. IV a. C-sec. VIII d C) (Florence, 2009).

Metrical Symbols long syllable (in a scansion), long position (in a metrical scheme)

short syllable (in a scansion), short position (in a metrical scheme)

short syllable in a long position at verse-end (syllaba) brevis in (elemento) longo position in a metrical scheme which may be occupied by either a long or a short syllable where two quantities are marked one above the other in a scansion, the upper is that of the strophe, the lower that of the antistrophe

double short produced by resolution of a long word-end corresponding in strophe and antistrophe, or, where

there is no correspondence, at a significant point verse-end (metrical pause, discontinuity). Metrical discontinu-

ity can be indicated by brevis in longo (~, see above), by hiatus,

by anceps beside anceps, or by anceps beside short. There are

also places where it may well be present, although not marked

by any of those indications. In that case, I do not mark it. [|* indicates hiatus in the strophe, ||, in the antistrophe, Η in both stanza-end

Cola in synartesis (i. e. not divided by word-end from the preceding colon) are recessed, and described thus: glyc. + pher. + is also used to mark off sections of verses which may be felt as distinct cola, even if they are not clearly defined

as such.

ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙ͂Σ

|

YIIOGEZIZ IGITENEIAZ ΤΗΣ ΕΝ TAYPOLE

᾽ Ὀρέστης κατα χρησμον ἐλθὼν εἰεἰς Tavpovs τῆς Σκυθίας μετὰ Πυλάδου πσ,ρσ.γενηθεις τὸ παρ᾽ Eπροῃρειτο προελθὼν

αυτοις τιμωμενον τῆς Αρτεμιὃος ξόανον υφελεσθαι. δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς νεως και μανεις, ὑπὸ τῶν ἐντοπίων

"αμα τῷ φίλῳ συλληφθεὶς ἀνήχθη κατα τὸν πσ.ρ αυτοις ἐθισμόν, ὅπως

τοῦ τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος ἱεροῦ σφάγιον γένωνται. τοὺς γὰρ καταπλεύσαντας ξενους απεσᾠαττον

ἡ μ,εν σκηνη τοῦ δράματος ὑπόκειται ἐν Ταύροις τῆς Σκυθίας: & 8¢ χορὸς συνέστηκεν ἐξ Ἑλληνίδων γυναικῶν, θεραπαινίδων τῆς Ἰφιγενείας"

ρολογιζει δὲ Ἰφιγένεια. τὰ τοῦ δράματος πρόσωπα' Ἰφιγένεια, Ὀρέστης, Πυλάδης, χορός, βουκόλος, Θόας, ἄγγελος, Ἀθηνᾶ [Ἀπόλλων].

ἐλθὼν P: del. Tr παραγενηθεὶς (L) Ῥ: παραγενομενος μανείς Wilamowitz: φανείς L évromiwv (L) P: ἐγχωρίων Tr

spat. vac. v vel vi linearum in L.

Ἀπόλλων del, Ald

Tr: παρακινηθεὶς p post ἀπέσφαττον

%

THE CHARACTERS

[phigenia Orestes

Pylades

":I‘aurian Herdsman (First Messenger)

Thoas, King of Taurica

Taurian (Second Messenger) EAthena

Chorus of captive Greek girls attendant on Iphigenia Scene: Taurica, before the temple of Artemis

ἸΦΙΓΕΝΕΙ͂Α Η ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙ͂Σ ΙΦΙΓΈΝΕΙΑ Πέλοψ ὁ Ταντάλειος ἐς Πῖσαν μολὼν

θοαῖσιν ἕπποις Οἰνομάου γαμεῖ κόρην, ἐξ ἧς Ἀτρεὺς ἔβλαστεν' Ἀτρέως δ᾽ ἄπο

Μενέλαος Ἀγαμέμνων τε" τοῦ δ᾽ ἔφυν ἐγώ,

τῆς Τυνδαρείας θυγατρὸς Ἰφιγένεια παῖς,

5

ἣν ἀμφὶ δίναις ἃς θάμ.’ Εὔριπος πυκναῖς αὔραις ἑλίσσων κυανεαν ἅλα στρέφει, ἔσφαξεν Ἑλένης ουνεχ » ὡς δοκεῖ, πατὴρ

Ἀρτέμιδι κλειναιςἐν πτυχαισιν Αὐλίδος.

ἐνταῦθα γὰρ δὴ χιλίων νεῶν στόλον

᾿Ἑλληνικὸν συνήγαγ᾽ Ἀγαμέμνων ἄναξ,

10

τὸν καλλίνικον στέᾧανον Ἰλίου θέλων

λαβεῖν Ἀχαιοῖς τούς θ᾽ υβρισθεντας γάμους Ἑλένης μετελθεῖν, Μενελεω χαριν ᾠερων ὃεινῃ δ᾽ απλοιᾳ πνευμσ,των 7° 00 τυγχάνων,.. ἐς ἔμπυρ᾽ ἦλθε, καὶ λέγει Κάλχας τάδε'

15

Ὦ τῆσδ᾽ ἀνάσσων Ἑλλάδος στρατηγίας,

Αγαμεμνον, οὐ μη ναῦς ἀφορμίσῃς χθονὸς πρὶν ἂν κόρην σην Ἱκῤιγενεισ.ν Αρτεμις λάβῃ σφαγεῖσαν' ὅτι γὰρ ἐνιαυτὸς τέκοι κάλλιστον ηυξω ᾧωσφορω θύσειν θεᾷ.

20

παῖδ᾽ οὖν ἐν οἴκοις σὴ Κλυταιμηστρα δάμαρ

τίκτει---τὸ καλλιστεῖον εἰς ἔμ αναφερωνἣν χρή o€ θῦσαι. καί μ᾽ Ὀδυσσέως τέχναις

μητρὸς παρείλοντ᾽ ἐπὶ γάμοις Ἀχιλλέως.

25

1 Πῖσαν Dindorf: πίσσαν] L 3 &’ ἅπο Badham: 8¢ παῖς L 4 τοῦ δ᾽ Schaefer: τοῦδ᾽ Ἶ, 8 éodafered.Brubach.:-af’L 10 νεῶν Nauck:vadvL 13 Ὠχαιοῖς

Lenting: -ous L ἀπλοίας1, ~otL

14 ελἐνης Ῥ -ἡ1,

&’Barnes: ΤἾΙ,

15 δεινῇ.. απλοιᾳ Rauchenstein: δεινῆς .

18 ἀφορμίσῃς Kirchhoff «ἰσηὶ,

20 λάβῃ Matthige:

8

ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ ἐλθοῦσα δ᾽ Αὐλίδ᾽

ἡ τάλαιν᾽ ὑπὲρ πυρᾶς

μεταρσία ληφθεῖσ᾽ ἑκαινόμην ξίφει.

᾽ ἐξέκλεψεν ἔλαφον ἀντιδοῦσά) μου Ἄρτεμις Ἀχαιοῖς, διὰ δὲ λαμπρὸν αἰθέρα πέμψασά μ᾽ ἐς τήνδ᾽ ᾧκισεν Ταύρων χθόνα, οὗ γῆς ἀνάσσει βαρβάροισι βάρβαρος

30

Θόας, ὃς ὠκὺν πόδα τιθεὶς ἔσον πτεροῖς ἐς τοὔνομ᾽ ἦλθε τόδε ποδωκείας χάριν. ναοῖσι δ᾽ ἐν τοῖσδ᾽ ἱερέαν τίθησί ue ὅθεν νόμοισιν οἷσιν ἥδεται θεὰ

35

Ἄρτεμις ἑορτῆς τοὔνομ᾽ ἧς καλὸν μόνον

[θύω γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ νόμου καὶ πρὲν πόλει

38

κατάρχομαι μέν, σφάγια-6’ ἄλλοισιν μέλει.

40

τὰ 8’ ἄλλα σιγῶ, τὴν θεὸν φοβουμένη. ἃ καινὰ δ᾽ ἥκει νὺξ φέρουσα φάσματα λέξω πρὸς αἰθέρ᾽, εἴ τι δὴ τόδ᾽ ἔστ᾽ ἄκος. ἔδοξ᾽ ἐν ὕπνῳ τῆσδ᾽ ἀπαλλαχθεῖσα γῆς

37

ὃς av κατέλθῃ τήνδε γῆν Ἕλλην ἀνήρ.]

39

[ἄρρητ᾽ ἔσωθεν τῶνδ᾽ ἀνακτόρων θεᾶς]

οἰκεῖν ἐν Ἄργει, παρθενῶσι δ᾽ ἐν μέσοις

45

εὕδειν, χθονὸς δὲ νῶτα σεισθῆναι σάλῳ, φεύγειν δὲ κἄξω στᾶσα θριγκὸν εἰσιδεῖν

δόμων πίτνοντα, πᾶν δ᾽ ἐρείψιμον στέγος

βεβλημένον πρὸς οὖδας ἐξ ἄκρων σταθμῶν. μόνος δ᾽ ἐλείφθη στῦλος, ὡς ἔδοξέ μοι, δόμων πατρῴων, ἐκ δ᾽ ἐπικράνων κόμας

50

ξανθὰς καθεῖναι, φθέγμα δ᾽ ἀνθρώπου λαβεῖν, κἀγὼ τέχνην τήνδ᾽ ἣν ἔχω ξενοκτόνον

τιμῶσ᾽ ὖδρσ.ίνειν αὐτὸν ὡς θανούμενον,

κλαίουσα. τοὔναρ τέθνηκ᾽ Ὁρεστης, στυλοι γὰρ οἴκων θνήσκουσι 8’ οὗς [οὐδ᾽ αὖ συνάψαι Στροφίῳ γὰρ οὐκ

δ᾽ ὧδε συμβαλλω τόδε' οὗ κα.τηρξαμην ἐγώ. παιὃες εἶσιν ἄρσενες" ἂν χέρνιβες βάλωσ᾽ ἐμαί. τοὔναρ ἐς φίλους ἔχω: ἦν παῖς, ὅτ᾽ ὠλλύμην ἐγώ.]

28 ἐξἐκλεψενΙ.: ἐξέκλεψέ μ᾽ Reiske

ἑέρειαν (L): -lav Tr Tr

30 ᾧκισεν ἸΓΡ: --σεῖ,

55

60 34 zepeavWecklein

35 νόμοισιν olow Herwerden: νόμοισι τοῖσιδ᾽ (L): -σι τοῖσιν

37 post 41 trai.

Markland

ὀ 38-9 del.

Murray

4] del.

Monk

44 ἔδοξ᾽ ἐν Paris.gr.2817: ESofev L 45 παρθενῶοι... .«μέσοις Markland: παρθένοισι.... μέσαις L 47 θριγκον Trp: θριγγὸν L 50 ἓλειᾧθη Paris. gr. 2887: ἓλἠᾠθη Ι, 51 δόμων P: δώμ-L 52 καθεῖναι Brodaeus: καθεῖμαε L 54 ὑδραίνειν Musgrave: -vov L

57 maidés elow Artemid. 2.10 et Stob. 4.24. 36 et Men. Mon. 720

Jikel: εἰσὶ maides L et Suda ii468 Adler Canter: βάλωσίμεὶ,

59-60 del. Monk

58 οὖς Scaliger: ὡς L βάλωσ᾽ éual

9

Ρ

ἸΦΙΈΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙ͂Σ ~)

BARMEENE

S

Ἂ

νῦν οὖν ἀδελφῷ βούλομαι δοῦναι χοὰς ἀποῦσ᾽ ἀπόντι---ταῦτα γὰρ δυναίμεθ᾽ ἄν--\

’

o

¥

9

¢

A

w

σὺν προσπόλοισιν, ἃς ἔδωχ᾽ ἡμῖν ἄναξ Ἑλληνίδας γυναῖκας. ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ αἰτίας

;

οὔπω τινὸς πάρεισιν" εἶμ᾽ ἔσω δόμων Ν

¥

A

4

9

Ν

/

év οἷσι vaiw τῶνδ᾽ ἀνακτόρων θεᾶς.

65

OPEXTHX

ὅρα, φυλάσσου μή τις ἐν στίβῳ βροτῶν.

IIYAAAHX

ὁρῶ, σκοποῦμαι δ᾽ ὄμμα πανταχῇ στρέφων.

Ορ.

Πυλάδη, δοκεῖ σοι μέλαθρα ταῦτ᾽ εἶναι θεᾶς,

Πυ.

ἔμοιγ᾽, Ὀρέστα: ool δὲ συνδοκεῖν χρεών.

Op.

θριγκοῖς 8’ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῖς σκῦλ᾽ ὁρᾷς ἠρτημένα;

ἔνθ᾽ Ἀργόθεν ναῦν ποντίαν ἐστείλαμεν;

καὶ βωμός, Ἕλλην οὗ καταστάζει φόνος; ἐξ αἱμάτων γοῦν ξάνθ᾽ ἔχει τριχώματα..

Ορ. Πυ. Πυ. Op.

70

τῶν κατθανόντων v’ ἀκροθίνια ξένων.

ἀλλ᾽ ἐγκυκλοῦντ᾽ ὀφθαλμὸν εὖ σκοπεῖν χρεών. -

75

@ Φοῖβε, ποῖ μ᾽ αὖ τήνδ᾽ ἐς ἄρκυν ἤγαγες

χρήσας, ἐπειδὴ πατρὸς αἷμ᾽ ἐτεισάμην μητέρα κατακτάς, διαδοχαῖς δ᾽ Ἐρινύων ἠλαυνόμεσθα φυγάδες ἔξεδροι χθονὸς δρόμους τε πολλοὺς ἐξέπλησα καμπίμους" ἐλθὼν δέ σ᾽ ἠρώτησα πῶς τροχηλάτου

μανίας ἄν ἔλθοιμ᾽ ἐς τέλος πόνων T’ ἐμῶν. [οὗς ἐξεμόχθουν περιπολῶν καθ᾽ Ἑλλάδα)]

σὺ δ᾽ εἶπας ἐλθεῖν Ταυρικῆς μ᾽ ὅρους χθονός, ἔνθ᾽ Aprepis σοι σύγγονος βωμοὺς ἔχει, λαβεῖν 7° ἄγαλμα θεᾶς, ὅ φασιν ἐνθάδε ἐς τούσδε ναοὺς οὐρανοῦ πεσεῖν ἄπο'

λαβόντα δ᾽ ἢ τέχναισιν ἢ τύχῃ τινί, κίνδυνον ἐκπλήσαντ᾽, Ἀθηναίων χθονὶ δοῦναι" τὸ δ᾽ ἐνθένδ᾽ οὐδὲν ἐρρήθη πέρα

80

85

90

7 ταῦτα δράσαντ᾽ ἀμπνοὰς ἕξειν πόνων.

ἥκω δὲ πεισθεὶς σοῖς λόγοισιν ἐνθάδε

ἄγνωστον ἐς γῆν ἄξενον. σὲ 8’ ἱστορῶ,

62 ἀποῦσ᾽ ἀπόντι Badham: παροῦσα παντὲ]], 65 εἶμ᾽ Hermann: εἴς μ᾽ (L): & ἐμ᾽ Tr 68 πανταχῇ Monk: -χοῦ L 75 γ᾽ ἀκροθίνια Hermann: τ΄ ἀκρ- L 76 Pyl. contin. Reiske: Or. trib. L 79 διαδοχαῖς L: διαδρομαῖς Monk 84 del.

Markland

Tournier: καὲ!,

86 σοι Kirchhoft σὺ L: σὴ Ρ

94 ἄξενον Ald: ἄξεινον],

91 πέρα Brodaeus: -av L

92 ἣ

10

EYPIIIIAQY Πυλάδη---σὺ ydp μοι τοῦδε συλλήπτωρ πόνου---

τί δρῶμεν; ἀμφίβληστρα γὰρ Toixwv ὁρᾷς

95

ὑψηλά: πότερα κλιμάκων προσαμβάσεις

ἐμβησόμεσθα; πῶς ἂν οὖν λάθοιμεν av; ἢ χαλκότευκτα κλῇθρα λύσαντες μοχλοῖς

Πυ.

+dv οὐδὲν louevt; ἣν δ᾽ ἀνοίγοντες πύλας

100

τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ δὲ χρησμὸν οὐκ ἀτιστέον'

105

ληφθῶμεν ἐσβάσεις τε μηχανώμενοι, θανούμεθ᾽. ἀλλὰ πρὶν θανεῖν, νεὼς ἔπι φεύγωμεν, ἧπερ δεῦρ᾽ ἐναυστολήσαμεν. φεύγειν μὲν οὐκ ἀνεκτὸν οὐδ᾽ εἰώθαμεν,

ναοῦ δ᾽ ἀπαλλαχθέντε κρύψωμεν δέμας κατ᾽ ἄντρ᾽ ἃ πόντος νοτίδι διακλύζει μέλας νεὼς ἄπωθεν, μή τις εἰσιδὼν σκάφος

βασιλεῦσιν εἴπῃ κᾷτα ληφθῶμεν βίᾳ. ὅταν 8¢ νυκτὸς ὄμμα Avyaias μόλῃ,

τολμητέον τοι ξεστὸν ἐκ ναοῦ λαβεῖν ἄγαλμα πάσας προσφέροντε μηχανάς.

ἐδρα δέ γ᾽ εἴσω τριγλύφων ὅποι kevovt δέμας καθεῖναι' τοὺς πόνους γὰρ ἁγαθοὶ

τολμῶσι, δειλοὶ 8’ εἰσὶν οὐδὲν οὐδαμοῦ.. οὕτοι μακρὸν μὲν ἤλθομεν κώπῃ πόρον, Op.

110

115

ἐκ τερμάτων δὲ νόστον ἀροῦμεν πάλιν.

ἀλλ᾽, εὖ γὰρ εἶπας, πειστέον' χωρεῖν χρεὼν ὅποι χθονὸς κρύψαντε λήσομεν δέμας.

οὐ γὰρ τὸ τοῦδέ γ᾽ αἴτιον γενήσεται πεσεῖν ἄχρηστον θέσφατον" τολμητέον, μόχθος γὰρ οὐδεὶς τοῖς νέοις σκῆψιν φέρει.

120

ΧΟΡΟΣ εὐφαμεῖτ᾽ ὦ πόντου δισσὰς 5

«οΟΡ

3

4

7

συγχωρούσας

Α

πέτρας ἀξεΐνου vaiovTes. & παῖ τᾶς Λατοῦς, Δίκτυνν᾽ οὐρεία, /

3

έ

I 4

125

πρὸς σὰν αὐλάν, εὐστύλων -4

97 κλιμάκων Kayser: δωμάτων 1, προσαμβάσεις Barnes: πρὸς duL 98 ἐμβησόμεσθα Blomfield: ἐκβησόμεσθα Trp: *+Bno- L ἂν add. p: dv add. Tr: om. L λάθοιμεν Sallier: μάθ-1, 105 οὐκ ἀτιστέον Valckenaer: οὐ κακιστέον L 111 τοι (L): 70Tt 116-17 Pyl. contin, Hardion: Or. trib.L 118 χωρεῖν χρεὼν Scaliger: χώρει νεκρῶν L 120 τοῦδέ Weil: τοῦ θεοῦ L .123--36 chor. trib. Tyrwhitt: Iph. trib. L 125 ἀξείνου Markland: edé- L '

ἸΦΙΤΈΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙΣ

ναῶν χρυσήρεις θριγκούς,

ὁσίας ὅσιον πόδα κλῃδούχου δούλα Ῥλλάδος edimmov 4 ᾽ καὶ τείχη χόρτων

παρθένιον πέμπω, πύργους 9 90. ) T’ εὐδένδρων

130

ἐξαλλάξασ᾽ Εὐρώπαν,

πατρῴων οἴκων ἕδρας.

135

ἔμολον'" τί νέον; τίνα φροντίδ᾽ ἔχεις; τί με πρὸς ναοὺς ἄγαγες ἄγαγες, ὦ παῖ τοῦ τᾶς Τροίας πύργους ἐλθόντος κλεινᾷ σὺν κώπᾳ χιλιοναύτᾳ μυριοτευχεῖ, ᾽ὔ . ~ ο (γένος) Ἀτρειδᾶν τῶν κλεινῶν; Μ

΄

9

I

,

Ν

,

~

Ny

4

Ν

140

Ὰ

ἰὼ ὃμωαΐ, δυσθρηνήτοις ὡς θρήνοις

ἔγκειμαι, τᾶς οὐκ εὐμούσου

145

μολπᾶς ἀλύροις ἐλέγοις, aiai, ἐν κηδείοις οἴκτοισιν. 4 ,ὔ / > 4 drai μοι συμβαίνουσ᾽ drac σύγγονον ἁμὸν κατακλαιομένᾳ τοΐαν ἰδόμαν ὄψιν ὀνείρων νυκτὸς τᾶς ἐξῆλθ᾽ ὄρφνα. ὀλόμαν ὁλόμαν' οὐκ εἴσ᾽ οἶκοι πατρῷοι. A

9

’

3\

3

/

2y

2

%

11

κ

150

᾽

οἴμοι {μοι) φροῦδος γέννα. Ν

A

/

155

φεῦ φεῦ τῶν Ἄργει μόχθων. ἰὼ δαῖμον, μόνον ὅς με κασίγνητον συλᾷς Ἀΐδᾳ πέμψας, & τἄσδε χοὰς ͵ an 9 L 7 μέλλω κρατῆρά τε Tov φθιμένων ὑγραίνειν γαΐας ἐν νώτοις

160

παγάς τ᾽ οὐρειᾶν éx μόσχων Βάκχου τ᾽ οἰνηρὰς λοιβὰς ξουθᾶν τε πόνημα μελισσᾶν

165

130 ὁσίας ὅσιον πόδα παρθένιον Seidler: πόδα π- ὅσιον δοίας L 132 εὐΐππου Ὁ: τὰς εὖ- L (τῆς P) 137 chor. notam praefig. L 138 dyayes dyayes Tr p: dyes dyes L 141 χιλιοναύτᾳ Ald: -τα 1, μυριοτευχεῖ Barnes: -yois L 142 (yévos) Dindorf 143 ἰὼ Seidler: &L 146 μολπᾶς Bothe: μολπᾶς Bodv (Bodv Tr) L aitat Nauck: € € L 148 dral μοι Diggle: ai μοι L 149 κατακλαιομένᾳ Barnes: -να L 150 τοίΐαν Elmsley: ζωᾶς oiav L ἰδόμαν Tr: εἰδ- (L) 153 ὁλόμαν ὀλόμαν 9

Heath: ὠλόμαν wAduav L

L

m™)-L

159 ¢ ed.Hervagz dL οὐρειᾶν Paley: -eiwy L

155 (μοὺ) Hermann

158 μόνον ὅς Bothe: ὅς τὸν μόνον

161 ὑγραίνειν Blaydes: ύδρ-1,

»

162 παγάς Monk:

12

ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ͂

ἃ νεκροῖς θελκτήρια κεῖται.

ῤ

τεῦχος καὶ λοιβὰν Aida.

)

|

τηλόσε γὰρ δὴ σᾶς ἀπενάσθην

᾿.

ἀλλ᾽ ἔνδος μοι πάγχρυσον

i

ὦ κατὰ γαΐας Ἀγαμεμνόνιον θάλος, ὡς φθιμένῳ τἄδε σοι πέμπω. δέξαι 8 οὐ γὰρ πρὸς τύμβον σοι. ξανθὰν χαΐταν, οὐ δάκρυ᾽ οἴσω.

πατρίδος καὶ ἐμᾶς, ἔνθα δοκήμασι κεῖμαι σφαχθεῖσ᾽ ἃ τλάμων. Χο.

175

ἀντιψάλμους

wdds ὕμνων τ᾽ Ἀσιητᾶν oot

180

βάρβαρον ἀχάν, déomow’, ἐξαυδάσω,

τὰν ἐν θρήνοισιν μοῦσαν

νέκυσιν μέλεον, τὰν ἐν μολπαῖς Ἀΐδας ὑμνεῖ δίχα παιάνων.

185

οἴμοι τῶν Ἀτρειδᾶν οἴκων ἔρρει φῶς σκήπτρων, (ἔρρει)" οἴμοι πατρῴων οἴκων.

ἦν ἐκ τῶν εὐόλβων Ἄργει βασιλέων (τᾶς νῦν ἆτας) ἀρχά.

190

μ.ὄχθος δ᾽ ἐκ μοχθων ἄσσει




5

ν

’

\

,

΄

A

>

,

/

310

πέπλων τε προυκάλυπτεν εὐπήνους ὑφάς, καραδοκῶν μὲν τἀπιόντα τραύματα,

φίλον δὲ θεραπείαισιν ἄνδρ᾽ εὐεργετῶν. ἔμφρων 8’ ἀνάξας 6 ξένος πεσήματος Ν

9

¢

ξ

/

315

’

ἔγνω κλύδωνα πολεμίων προσκείμενον

καὶ τὴν παροῦσαν συμφορὰν αὑτοῖν πέλας,

ᾧμωξέ 0™ ἡμεῖς δ᾽ οὐκ ἀνίεμεν πέτροις βάλλοντες, ἄλλος ἄλλοθεν προσκείμενοι. οὗ δὴ τὸ δεινὸν παρακέλευμ᾽ ἠκούσαμεν." Μ

,

9

€

A

3

9

>

7

4

Πυλάδη, θανούμεθ᾽, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως θανούμεθα κάλλισθ᾽: ἕπου μοι, φάσγανον σπάσας χερί.

320

ὡς 8’ εἴδομεν δίταλτα πολεμίων ξίφη,

φυγῇ Aemaias ἐξεπίμπλαμεν νάπας.

ἀλλ᾽, εἰ φύγοι τις, ἅτεροι προσκείμενοι

325

ἔβαλλον αὐτούς" εἰ δὲ τούσδ᾽ WodiaTo, αὖθις τὸ νῦν ὑπεῖκον ἤρασσον πέτροις. »

9

΄

9

4

’

>

9

.4

ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ἄπιστον" μυρίων γὰρ €k χερῶν οὐδεὶς τὰ τῆς θεοῦ θύματ᾽ ηὐτύχει βαλών.

έ ξ 4 μόλις δέ / νιν τόλμῃ μὲν4 οὐ ϑ χειρούμεθα, κύκλῳ δὲ περιβαλόντες ἐξεκόψαμεν 7 2 3 5 πέτροισι χειρῶν- φάσγαν᾽, és δὲ \ γὴνA γόνυ

330

ἐς χέρνιβάς τε καὶ σφαγεῖ᾽ ἔπεμπέ σοι. » \ /7% 4 A 1 ΄ εὔχου δὲ τοιάδ᾽, ὦ νεᾶνι, σοὶ ξένων σφάγια παρεῖναι' κἂν ἀναλίσκῃς ξένους

335

καμάτῳ καθεῖσαν. πρὸς δ᾽ ἄνακτα τῆσδε γῆς κομίζομέν νιν. 6 8’ ἐσιδὼν ὅσον τάχος 9

᾽

΄

4

“4ᾷ

¥

4

306 οὐ μακρῷ Nauck: ἐν μακρῷ (μικρῷ Tr) L 309 εἶχεν Heiland: ἔσχεν L 311 ἀπέψη Elmsley: -ψα L et ps.-Lucian, Am. 47 et Hesych., s.v. 312 πέπλων L: -Aov ps.-Lucian εὐπήνους ὑφάς L: εὐπήκτους ὑφάς et -ois -αἷς codd. ps.-Lucian 315 ἀνάξας Schaefer: dvaifas L 316 €yvw Scaliger: -ωκεῖ, 317 adroiv England: avroiv 1P avrois L* 318 πέτροις L*%: -ους L. 320 παρακέλευμ᾽ Sansone: -κελευσμ᾽ϊ, 327 αὖθις Schaefer: adris Tr: οὗτις (L) 329 ηὐτύχει Mastronarde:

εὐτύχει L

331 περιβαλόντες Reiske: περιβάλλ- L

ιᾧ 333 καθεῖσαν Tt p: -σα (L) σφάγιἼ,

ἐξεκόψαμεν Bothe: ἐξεκλέψ-

335 ἐς Valckenaer: 7¢ L

σφαγεῖ᾽ Musgrave: :

.

IQITENEIA Η ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙ͂Σ

17

τοιούσδε, τὸν σὸν Ἑλλὰς ἀποτείσει φόνον δίκας τίνουσα τῆς ἐν Αὐλίδι σφαγῆς.

340

θαυμάστ᾽ ἔλεξας τὸν μανένθ', ὅστις ποτὲ

Ἕλληνος ἐκ γῆς πόντον ἦλθεν ἄξενον.

εἶέν: σὺ μὲν κόμιζε τοὺς ξένους μολών,

Ὶ

.

τὰ δ᾽ ἐνθάδ᾽ ἡμεῖς ὅσια φροντιούμεθα.

& καρδία τάλαινα, πρὶν μὲν ἐς ξένους γαληνὸς ἦσθα καὶ φιλοικτίρμων ἀεί, ἐς θοὐμόφυλον ἀναμετρουμένη δάκρυ,

345

Ἕλληνας ἄνδρας ἡνίκ᾽ ἐς χέρας λάβοις.

-

νῦν δ᾽ ἐξ ὀνείρων οἷσιν ἠγριώμεθα, ἰ[δοκοῦσ᾽ Ὀρέστην μηκέθ᾽ ἥλιον βλέπειν,]

δυσνουν με λήψεσθ’ οἵτινές ποθ᾽ ἥκετε.

350

αὐτοὶ κακῶς πράξαντες οὐ φρονοῦσιν εὖ. ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε πνεῦμα Διόθεν ἦλθε πώποτε, οὐ πορθμίς, ἥτις διὰ πέτρας Συμπληγάδας

355

καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἄρ ἧν αληθες, ἤσθημαι, φίλαι: ot δυστυχεις γὰρ τοῖσι δυστυχεστεροις

ε΄

Ἑλένην ἐπήγαγ᾽ ἐνθάδ᾽, 7 μ᾽ ἀπώλεσεν, Μενέλεών 0, &’ αὐτοὺς ἀντετιμωρησάμην,

τὴν ἐνθάδ᾽ Αὖλιν ἀντιθεῖσα τῆς ἐκεῖ,

ι

οὗ μ᾽ ὥστε μόσχον Δαναῖδαι χειρούμενοι

ἔσφαζον, ἱερεὺς 8’ ἦν 6 γεννήσας πατήρ.

360

οἴμοι---κακῶν γὰρ τῶν τότ᾽ οὐκ ἀμνημονῶ-ὅσας γενείου χεῖρας ἐξηκόντισα γονάτων τε τοῦ τεκόντος ἱέξαρτωμένηϊ λέγουσα τοιάδ᾽. Ὦ πάτερ, νυμφεύομαι νυμφεύματ᾽ αἰσχρὰ πρὸς σέθεν- μήτηρ δ᾽ ἐμὲ σέθεν κατακτείνοντος Ἀργεῖαΐ τε νῦν ὑμνοῦσιν ὑμεναίοισιν, αὐλεῖται δὲ πᾶν μέλαθρον' ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ὀλλύμεσθα πρὸς σέθεν.

365

Ἄιδης Ἀχιλλεὺς ἦν dp’, οὐχ ὁ Πηλέως,

ὅν μοι προτείνας πόσιν ἐν ἁρμάτων ὄχοις ἐς αἱματηρὸν γάμον ἐπόρθμευσας δόλῳ. ἐγὼ δὲ λεπτῶν ὄμμα διὰ καλυμμάτων ἔχουσ᾽ ἀδελῴφόν οὔτ᾽ ἀνειλόμην χεροῖν,

340 μανένθ᾽ Kaehler et Lakon: φαν- L 343 ὅσια Reiske: οἷα Barnes: τὸ ὁμό- L 349 del. Nauck 351 ἤσθημαι 352 τοῖσι δυστυχεστέροις Wecklein: τοῖσιν εὐτυχ- L ἀπL 357 Μενέλεών Barnes: -λαόν L 359 361 τότ᾽ Ald: τοῦδ᾽ L 365 ἐμὲ Reiske: ἐμὴ L 366 vw L 368 ὀλλύμεσθα p: -pefa L 370 wporeivas 373 οὔτ᾽ ἀνειλόμην Tyrwhitt: τοῦτον etd- L

370

L

346 θοὐμόφυλον Platnaver: ἠχθόμην L 356 ἐπήγαγ᾽ Haupt: οὗ Pierson: of L νῦν Heath et Tyrwhitt: Badham: προσεῖπας L

18

ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ͂

ὃς νῦν ὄλωλεν, οὐ κασιγνήτῃ στόμα συνῆψ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αἰδοῦς, ws ἰοῦσ᾽ ἐς Πηλέως

375

’ 93 ΄ 3 ᾽ μέλαθρα' πολλὰ v δ᾽ o3 ἀπεθέμην ἀσπάσματα εὰ μ 3 Ν ΄ ἐς3 αὖθις, ὡς¢ ἥξουσ᾽ ἐς Apyos αὖ4 πάλιν. Ὶ

.

.

2

)

o

Ν

.

& τλῆμον, €l τέθνηκας, €€ οἵων καλῶν ἔρρεις, Ὀρέστα, καὶ πατρὸς ζηλωμάτων.

4 ᾽ τὰ ᾿ τῆς“ θεοῦ ι δὲ 4 μέμφομαι σοφίσματα, o \ ¥ o ἥτις βροτῶν μὲν ἤν τις ἅψηται φόνου,

i 380

ς

|

ζ:

.

ἢ καὶ λοχείας ἢ νεκροῦ θίγῃ χεροῖν,

βωμῶν ἀπείργει, μυσαρὸν ὡς ἡγουμένη,. ;

o

, 5 v αὐτὴ 8¢ Qo θυσίαις ἤδεται βροτοκτόνοις.

οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ ὅπως ἔτικτεν ἡ Διὸς δάμαρ

385

Δητὼ τοσαύτην ἀμαθίαν. ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν

τὰ Ταντάλου θεοῖσιν ἐστιἅματα ἄπιστα κρίνω, παιδὸς ἡσθῆναι βορᾷ,

τοὺς δ᾽ ἐνθάδ᾽, αὐτοὺς ὄντας ἀνθρωποκτόνους, és τὴν θεὸν τὸ φαῦλον ἀναφέρειν δοκῶ" οὐδένα γὰρ οἶμαι δαιμόνων εἶναι κακόν. \)

Χο.

9.

|

Ῥ ῶ 9

3

\)

Ν

9

,

390

κυάνεαι

κυάνεαι σύνοδοι θαλάσσας

στρ. @

&’ οἶστρος 6 ποτ᾽ ὄρμενος Ἀργόθεν ®

93

4

>

Ν

|

4,

7

ἄξενον én’ oldua διεπέρασε {(πόντου).

395

Ἀσιήτιδα γαῖαν Εὐρώπας διαμείψας. ᾽ > ¥ 4 Ν ᾽ τίνες mor’ ἄρα τὸν εὔυδρον δονακόχλοον Avrévres Εὐρώταν ἢ ῥεύματα σεμνὰ Δίρκας

400

éBacav ἔβασαν ἄμεικτον alav, ἔνθα κούρᾳ Μ

»

Μ

N

dig τέγγει A\ Α ΄ βωμοὺς καὶ περικίονας

:

/

405

’

ναοὺς αἷμα βρότειον; ς

/4

7 ῥοθίοις

9

[avr. o

εἰλατίνας δικρότοισι κώπας 3

/

4

΄

374 κασιγνήτῃ L: -τω L* (Ti?) 378 καλῶν Relske: κακῶν] L 384 αὐτὴ Portus: . αὕτη L 385 ἔτικτεν Porson: érexev av L 390 τὴν Marklandi amicus: τὸν T

"L

391 οὐδένα

L: οὐδὲν

Nauck

394 ἵν᾽ Hermann:

ἣν L

ποτ᾽ Spuevos

Willink: ποτώμενος Τ: πετόμενος 11 395 déevov Markland: εὔξενον Tr: evfewor (L) διεπέρασε {(wovrov) Schoene: διεπέρασεν L: -σέν ποτε Τ 399 δονακόχλοον Elmsley: -yAox L: -yAoa Trp 402 ἄμεικτον Μι:ιπεγ: ἄμικτον], 403-4 κούρᾳ Δίᾳ τέγγει Elmsley: κούρα διατέγγειϊ, 405-6 περικίονας ναοὺς Elmsley: περὲ κίονας ναοῦ (ναῶν Tr) (L) 407 7} Barnes: 7 L 407-8 εἰλατίνας ... κώπας Reiske: ἐλατίνοις (eiA-Tr) ... κώπαις L

.

.

ἸΦΙΈΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙ͂Σ

19

ἔστειλαν ἐπὶ πόντια κύματα. νάϊον ὄχημα λινοπόροις (σὺν) αὖραις, φιλόπλουτον ἅμιλλαν

410

αὔξοντες μελάθροισν;

φίλα γὰρ ἐλπὶς tyéver’ ἐπὶ πήμασι βροτῶνϊ ἄπληστος ἀνθρώποις,

ὄλβου βάρος ol φέρονται

πλάνητες ἐπ᾽ οἶδμα πόλεις τε βαρβάρους περῶντες κοινᾷ δόξᾳ'

415

γνώμα δ᾽ οἷς μὲν ἄκαιρος SAβου, τοῖς δ᾽ ἐς μέτρον ἥκει.

420

4 ΄ πῶς~ τὰςA συνδρομάδας πέτρας,

[στρ. B

πῶς Φινεῖδᾶν ἀύ-

πνους ἀκτὰς ἐπέρασαν παρ᾽ ἅλιον αἰγιαλὸν

425

én’ Apdirpiras ῥοθίῳ δραμόντες, ὅπου πεντήκοντα κορᾶν

Νηρήδων (dBpa) χοροὶ μέλπουσιν ἐγκύκλιοι,

πλησιστίοισι πνοαῖς,

430

συριζόντων κατὰ πρύμναν εὐναίων πηδαλίων,

αὔραισιν νοτίαις

7 πνεύμασι Ζεφύρου,

τὰν πολυόρνιθον ἐπ᾽ alαν, λευκὰν ἀκτάν, Ἀχιλῆος δρόμους καλλισταδίους, ἄξεινον κατὰ πόντον; ,

᾽

9

A

>

9

᾽

9

435

-~

εἶθ᾽ εὐχαῖσιν δεσποσύνοις Δήδας Ἑλένα φίλα

[ἀντ. B 440

παῖς ἐλθοῦσα τύχοι Τρωϊάδα λιποῦσα πόλιν,

409 ἔστειλαν

L: éyéver’ Ald.

Rauchenstein:

ἔπλευσαν

πήμασι L: -σιν P

L

410 (σὺν) Wecklein

417 πόλεις τε Tr: πόλεις L

414 yéver’

419 κοινᾷ

δόξᾳ Bergk: κοιναὶ δόξαι (e super o scr. Tr) L 421 pérpov Tucker: pédoov L 423 Φινεῖδᾶν Rauchenstein: φινεΐδας Tr: -nidas L 425 map’ ἅλιον Seidler: παράλιον L 428 νηρήδων (τῶν νη- Tr) Tr: νηρηΐδων 1, (dBpc) West 429 ἐγκύκλιοι Heath: -οις L 430 πλησιστίοισι L: καὶ πλησ- Tr 433 αὔραισιν Heath: αὔραις

L -pais & 'Ir L L

435 πολυόρνιθον Ald.: πολι- L

438 afewov (L): εὐξ- ΤἸΤ . 439 edyaiow Heath:-oi L 442 Tpwidda Page: τὰν T- (L) τὰν Τρωάδα Tr

436 Ἀχιλῆος Ald: ἀχιλλῆος

δεσποσύνοις Markland: -vag

20

ΕὙΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ͂ i’ ἀμφὶ xairav δρόσον αἱματηρὰν ἑλιχθεῖσα λαιμοτόμῳ .

|

ὶ

δεσποίνας χειρὲ θάνῃ

ποινὰς δοῦσ᾽ ἀντιπάλους. ἤδιστ᾽ av δ᾽ ἀγγελίαν δεξαίμεσθ᾽, Ἑλλάδος ἐκ

γᾶς πλωτήρων εἴ τις ἔβα

δουλείας ἐμέθεν δειλαίας mavoimovos:

4 45¢

{κἀν) γὰρ ὀνείροισι ouvelἣν δόμοις πόλει τε πατρῴᾳ, τερπνῶν ὕπνων ἀπόλαυow, κοινὰν χάριν ὄλβου.

|

455

ἀλλ᾽ οἷδε χέρας δεσμοῖς δίδυμοι συνερεισθέντες χωροῦσι, νέον

πρόσφαγμα θεᾷ: σιγᾶτε, φίλαι. ’ὔ

A

A

’

τὰ γὰρ Ἑλλήνων ἀκροθίνια δὴ

ναοῖσι πέλας τάδε βαΐνει"

460

οὐδ᾽ ἀγγελίας ψευδεῖς ἔλακεν βουφορβὸς ἀνήρ.

@ πότνι᾽, εἴ oot τάδ᾽ ἀρεσκόντως Q0%

Μ

ϑ

,

L

΄

9

πόλις ἤδε τελεῖ, δέξαι θυσίας, ἃς o παρ᾽ ἡμῖν 9

[ 4

ι

~

ἐ

465

νόμος οὐχ ὁσίας [Ἕλλησι διδοὺς] ἀναφαίνει.

Ip.

Ἷ

: 3

|

εἶέν' τὰ τῆς θεοῦ μὲν πρῶτον ὡς καλῶς ἔχῃ

φροντιστέον μοι. μέθετε τῶν ξένων χέρας, ws ὄντες ἱεροὶ μηκέτ᾽ ὧσι δέσμιοι. A

QY

¥ , 9 , " ναοῦ δ᾽ ἔσω στεΐχοντες εὐτρεπίζετε

;

470:

μ

κ

2 o

, ‘ans

κ

a χρὴ ᾿πὶ τοῖς παροῦσι καὶ νομίζεται. φεῦ' τίς dpa μήτηρ 1 τεκοῦσ᾽ ὑμᾶς ποτε

|

2

3

443 χαίταν

~

Ἔ xepl L 4523

-τα

&

L

Hermann:

444 ἑλιχθεῖσα

dv τήνδ᾽ L

(ikdv) “Heiwé ((καδ΄ rde iamn:ΤῸ

συμβαίην

Tr

Ald:

447 dv

L

454 ὕπνων

455 ὄλβου Dupuy:

Iph., 463--6 chor. trib. L L 461 ἔλακεν Tr:-xeL

Trp: éxet L

Hermann:

ὕμνων

ὄλβα L: ὄλβω Tr

Τι:

ὀνείροισι

L

εἷλ-

L

445 χειρὶ

448 δεξαίμεσθ' συνείην

Tr:

Fritzsche:

454-5 ἀπόλαυσιν

Monk:;

-ped’ 1!

ὀνείρασι:

(L) -αὔειν :

456-66 chor. contin. Bothe: 456-62";

456 δίδυμοι Markland: διδύμοις L 458 θεᾷ Toup: -ds : 466 Ἕλλησι διδοὺς post ὁσίας del. Bergk 467 ἔχη᾽

470 ναοῦ Valckenaer:-ousL

Ἐ

472 dpa Tr: dpalL

εἰ

ἸΦΠΈΝΕΙΑ Η EN TAYPOIZ

πατήρ T3 ἀδελφή δ᾽, εἰ γεγῶσα τυγχάνει, οἵων στερεῖσα διπτύχων νεανιῶν ᾽

’.

’8

λ

2

δ’

9

A

21

᾽

ἀνάδελφος ἔσται. τὰς τύχας τίς old’ ὅτῳ

τοιαΐδ᾽ ἔσονται; πᾶντα γὰρ τὰ τῶν θεῶν

475

ἐς ἀφανὲς ἕρπει, κοὐδὲν old’ οὐδεὶς τέλος"

ἡ γὰρ τύχη παρήγαγ᾽ ἐς τὸ δυσμαθές.

πόθεν ποθ᾽ ἤκετ᾽, @ ταλαΐπωροι ἕένοι; ὡς διὰ μακροῦ μὲν τήνδ᾽ ἐπλεύσατε χθόνα, μακρὸν δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ οἴκων χρόνον ἔσεσθε δὴ κάτω. τί ταῦτ᾽ ὀδύρῃ, κἀπὶ τοῖς μέλουσι νῷν κακοῖς o€ λυπεῖς, ἥτις € ποτ᾽, ὦ γύναι; Ν ᾽ ΄ Θ μ ’ " οὔτοι νομίζω σοφόν, ὃς ἂν μέλλων .κτενεῖν

οἴκτῳ τὸ δεῖμα τοὐλέθρου νικᾶν θέλη, Ν

4

~

Y

/

A

74

@& ω, 5 1 Ν ϑ 9 ΄ οὐδ᾽5023 ὅστις Ἄιδην ἐγγὺς ὄντ᾽ οἰκτίζεται

σωτηρίας aveAmis: ws δύ᾽ ἐξ évos κακὼ συνάπτει, pwpiav τ᾽ ὀφλισκάνει θνήσκει θ᾽ ὁμοίως" τὴν τύχην 8’ ἐᾶν χρεών. 2

,

¢

7%

€

Ορ. Jb. 3

Πυλάδης κέκληται; τόδε μαθεῖν πρῶτον θέλω. 68’ εἴ τι δή σοι τοῦτ᾽ ἐν ἡδονῇ μαθεῖν. ποίας πολίτης πατρίδος Ἕλληνος yeyds;

τί 8’ ἂν μαθοῦσα τόδε πλέον λάβοις, γύναι; πότερον ἀδελφὼ μητρός ἐστον ἐκ μιᾶς; Y 4

4

N

~

έ

᾽

7’

ζ

0p. I$. Ὅρ. ΙφΦ.

φιλότητί ¥™ ἐσμὲν &’ οὐ κασιγνήτω, γύναι. oot δ᾽ ὄνομα ποῖον ἔθεθ᾽ 6 γεννήσας πατήρ; τὸ μὲν δίκαιον Δυστυχὴς καλοίμεθ᾽ ἄν. οὐ τοῦτ᾽ ἐρωτῶ" τοῦτο μὲν 85 τῇ τύχῃ.

ἰφ.

χάριν 8¢ δοῦναι τήνδε κωλύει τί σε;

Op. Ιφ. Ορ. Ἰφ. Ορ.

τὸ σῶμα θύσεις τοὐμόν, οὐχὶ τοὔνομα. τί 8¢ φθονεῖς τοῦτ᾽; 7 φρονεῖς οὕτω μέγα; ἀνώνυμοι θανόντες οὐ γελῴμεθ᾽ ἄν. οὐδ᾽ ἂν πόλιν φράσειας ἥτις ἐστί σοι; ζητεῖς γὰρ οὐδὲν κέρδος, ws θανουμένῳ.

473 πατήρ 7} ἀδελφὴ δ᾽ Markland: πατήρ τ᾽ ἀδελφή 77 L

οστερηθεῖσα L 477 τέλος Weil: κακόν L L 482 μέλουσι Kvitala: μέλλ- L

485

4

¢ ᾽ 3 4 ἡμᾶς δὲ A μὴ } θρήνει σύ'’ τὰςΑ γὰρA ἐνθάδε θυσίας ἐπιστάμεσθα καὶ γιγνώσκομεν. πότερος ἄρ᾽ ὑμῶν Ἰένθάδ᾽ ὠνομασμένοςϊ

Ὅρ. Wlp.

480

490

495

500 504 503 502 505

474 στερεῖσα Scaliger:

481 ἔσεσθε δὴ Dobree: ἔσεσθ᾽ ἀεὶ 483 κακοῖς σὲ Housman: κακοῖσι

L 484 κτενεῖν (vel κτανεῖν) Seidler: θανεῖν L 486 οὐδ᾽ Hermann: ooy L 487 ἄνελπις Brodaeus: ἂν ἐλπὶς L 494 εἴ τι Tx: ἔστι (L) 498 γύναι L: γένει Kochly 500 δΔυνστυχὴς Barthold: δυστυχεῖς L 502 et 504 inter se tral Barthold 503 7} Hermann: 1} L 502 γελῴμεθ᾽ Portus: -chued’ L

22

ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ

Ορ. Ιφ. Ορ.

1φ.

Ορ.

i

70 κλεινὸν Apyos πατρίδ᾽ ἐμὴν ἐπεύχομαι. πρὸς θεῶν, ἀληθῶς, & ξέν᾽, el κεῖθεν γεγώς; ἐκ τῶν Μυκηνῶν (γ᾽) αἴ ποτ᾽ ἦσαν ὅᾧβιαι.

510

οὕὔκουν εμ,αυτὢ y™ εἰ δὲ σοί, σὺ τουθ’ ὅρα

516

καἓ μὴν ποθεινός γ’ ἦλθες ἕξ Ἄργους μολών.

Ιφ. Op.

φυγὰς (ὃ ) ἀπῆρας πατριδος,7 ποιᾳ τυχη, ᾧευγω τροπον γε δή T’ ουχ ἑκὼν ἑκών.

Ορ.

ὧὡς μήποτ᾽ ὥφελόν γε und’ ἰδὼν ὄναρ.

Ιφ. Ορ. Ιφ. Ιφ.

Ορ.

ἄρ᾽ ἄν τί μοι φράσειας ὧν ἐγὼ θέλωξ ὡς ἐν παρέργῳ τῆς ἐμῆς δυσπραξίας. Tpoiav ἴσως οἶσθ᾽, ἧς ἁπανταχοῦ λόγος.

; 517

φασίν νιν οὐκέτ᾽ οὖσαν οἴχεσθαι δορί.

ἔστιν γὰρ οὕτως οὐδ᾽ ἄκραντ᾽ ἠκούσατε.

Ἑλένη δ᾽ ἀφῖκται δῶμα ΜΜενέλεω πάλιν; ἥκει, κακῶς γ᾽ ἐλθοῦσα τῶν ἐμῶν τινι. καὶ ποῦ ᾽στι; κἀμοὶ γάρ τι προυφείλει κακόν.

Ιφ.

@& μῖσος εἰς Ἕλληνας, οὐκ ἐμοὶ μόνῃ.

Ορ.

Ιφ.

πρὶν γὰρ θανεῖν σε, τοῦδ᾽ ἐπαυρέσθαι θέλω.

ws πάνθ᾽ ἅπαξ με συλλαβοῦσ᾽ ἀνιστορεῖς.

¥

ἔλεγχ᾽, ἐπειδὴ τοῦδ᾽ ἐρᾷς" λέξω 8’ ἐγώ. Κάλχας τις ἦλθε μάντις ἐκ Τροίας πάλιν;

530

Ιφ.

& πότνι᾽, ὡς εὖ. τί γὰρ 6 Λαέρτου γόνος;

v

1φ. Ορ. Ιφ.

ὄλοιτο, νόστου μήποτ᾽ ἐς πάτραν τυχών. μηδὲν κατεύχον" πάντα τἀκείνου νοὸσεῖ. Θέτιδος δ᾽ ὁ τῆς Νηρῇδος ἔστι παῖς ἔτι;

Ιφ. Ορ. Ιφ.

δόλια γάρ, ὡς ἴσασιν οὗ πεπονθότες. τίς €l ποθ᾽; ὡς εὖ πυνθάνῃ τἀφ᾽ Ἑλλάδος. ἐκεῖθέν εἶμι' παῖς ἔτ᾽ οὖσ᾽ ἀπωλόμην.

Ιφ. Ορ.

τί δ᾽ ὁ στρατηγός, ὃν λέγουσ᾽ εὐδαίμονα; τίς; οὐ γὰρ ὅν γ᾽ ἐγῷδα τῶν εὐδαιμόνων.

Ορ.

Op.

Ορ.

Op.

ὄλωλεν, ws ἦν év Μυκηναίοις Adyos.

L

ἰ

οὔπω νενόστηκ᾽ οἶκον, ἔστι 8, ὡς Adyos.

535

οὐκ ἔστιν: ἄλλως λέκτρ᾽ ἔγημ᾽ ἐν Αὐλίδι.

540 Ν

ὀρθῶς ποθεῖς ἄρ᾽ εἰδέναι τἀκεῖ, γύναι.

.

L

'

525

ἀπέλαυσα κἀγὼ δή τι τῶν κείνης γάμων.

νόστος δ᾽ Ἀχαιῶν éyéved’, ὡς κηρύσσεται;

Op. Ιφ.

520

Σπάρτῃ ξυνοικεῖ τῷ πάρος ξυνευνέτῃ.

Ιφ.

Ορ.

515 511

Ιφ. Op. Ιῴφ.

Ορ.

,

510 (") Mook

@

ὀ 5|5-16 ροὶ 510 trai Platnaer

511 (δ’) Scaliger

520 ἔστιν Trp: ἔστι L

537 δ᾽ ὁτῆς1 δὲ τῆς Elmsley

ὀ 5Ι6 τοῦθ᾽ὅρα Jacobs: τοῦτ᾽ ερσ. 533 εὖ. τί Musgrave

538 ἄλλως Tr: ἄλλως δὲ )

ἔγημενῚ, 539 ὡς ἴσασιν Nauck: ὡς φασὲν 1: ὥς γε φασὶν Tr Markland: εὐδαιμονεῖνL

ἔστὶ

ἔγημ᾽ ἐν Dupuy:

543 εὐδαίμονᾳ | ἰ

IQITENEIA Η ΕΝ TAYPOIZ

Arpéws ἐλέγετο δή Tis Ayauéuvwy ἄναξ. 9

,

Γ

Ay

,

’

οὐκ old™ ἄπελθε τοῦ λόγου τούτου, γύναι.

23 545

μὴ πρὸς θεῶν, ἀλλ᾽ εἴφ᾽, ἵν᾿ εὐφρανθῶ, ξένε..

τέθνηχ᾽ 0 τλήμων, πρὸς 8’ ἀπώλεσέν τινα. τέθνηκε; moig συμφορᾷ; τάλαιν᾽ ἐγώ.

τί δ᾽ ἐστέναξας τοῦτο; μῶν προσῆκέ σοι;

550

ὦ πανδάκρυτος ἡ κτανοῦσα χὼ θανών. παῦσαΐ νυν ἤδη und’ ἐρωτήσῃς πέρα. τοσόνδε γ᾽, εἰ ζῇ τοῦ ταλαιπώρου δάμαρ.

355

\

Ν

᾽

PO

ν»

,

s

3

΄

τὸν ὄλβον αὐτοῦ τὸν πάροιθ᾽ ἀναστένω. δεινῶς γὰρ ἐκ γυναικὸς οἴχεται σφαγείς.

οὐκ ἔστι' παῖς νιν ὃν ἔτεχ᾽, οὗτος ὦλεσεν. ὦ συνταραχθεὶς οἶκος. ὡς τί δὴ θέλων; Φ

θ

Α

f

¢

4

8

A

θ

,

πατρὸς θανόντος τήνδε τιμωρούμενος. φεῦ'

ὡς εὖ κακὸν δίκαιον ἐξεπράξατο.

9 3 3 A Q/ L ἀλλ᾽ οὐ 9 τὰ\ πρὸς4 θεῶν~ εὐτυχεῖ δίκαιος ὦν.

λείπει δ᾽ ἐν οἴκοις ἄλλον Ἀγαμέμνων γόνον; ,

>

9

L 4

o

3

ἤ

᾽

λέλουπεν Ἠλέκτραν γε παρθένον μίαν. , ᾽ , , " τί δέ; σφαγείσης θυγατρὸς. ἔστι τις λόγος; οὐδείς γε, πλὴν θανοῦσαν οὐχ ὁρᾶν φάος.

τάλαιν᾽ ἐκείνη χὠ κτανὼν αὐτὴν πατήρ. κακῆς γυναικὸς χάριν ἄχαριν ἀπώλετο.

560

565

6 τοῦ θανόντος δ᾽ ἔστι παῖς Ἄργει πατρός;

ἔστ᾽, ἄθλιός γε, κοὐδαμοῦ καὶ πανταχοῦ.

ψευδεῖς ὄνειροι, xaiper™ οὐδὲν ἦτ᾽ dpa. I4 " 9 οὐδ᾽90.» ot ¢ σοφοΐί 4 γε δαίμονες κεκλημένοι πτηνῶν ὀνείρων εἰσὶν ἀψευδέστεροι. πολὺς ταραγμὸς €v τε τοῖς θείοις ἔνι κἄἀν τοῖς βροτείοις" Τἕν δὲ λυπεῖται μόνον,ἢ ~

¥

᾽

ϑ

20\

9

¥

ὅτ᾽ οὐκ ἄῤφρων ὧν μάντεων πεισθεὶς λόγοις g

>

»

.

μ

(Ὦ

7

\

΄

ὄλωλεν ws ὄλωλε τοῖσιν εἰδόσιν. ~ ~ 7.Q9 ¢ A ν 2 ) \ [4 φεῦ φεῦ' τί δ᾽ ἡμεῖς οἵ T’ éuol γεννήτορες; dp’ εἰσίν; dp’ οὐκ εἰσί; τίς φράσειεν ἄν; ἀκούσατ᾽" ἐς γὰρ δή τιν᾽ ἥκομεν λόγον, Ν

2

ς

4

9

»

Φ

~

Ἁ

4

ϑῷ

8

4

570

575

o

ὑμῖν 7’ ὄνησιν, ὦ ξένοι, σπεύδουσ᾽ ἅμα

549 συμφορᾶ p Paris. gr. 2817: -d L . 553 θανών Tr: κτανών (L) 554 ἐρωτήσῃς 559 ἐξεπράξατο Elmsley: elo- L 568 ἔστ᾽ Tr: ἔστιν Heath: Iph. contin. L -570 οὐδ᾽ Hermann: οὔθ᾽ L 572-5 Or. trib. Tr 572 θείοις Scaliger: θεοῖς L 573 λυπεῖται LP (λύ- primitus, ut vid,, P): λείπεται Tr 579 σπεύδουσο᾽ Musgrave: σπουδῆς (-ais Tr) L ἷ Paris. gr. 2887: -σεις L L) 570-5 Or. trib.

24

ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ͂ κἀμοί. τὸ δ᾽ εὖ μάλιστά γ᾽ ὧδε γίγνεται,

580

εἰ πᾶσι ταὐτὸν πρᾶγμ᾽ ἀρεσκόντως ἔχει.

,

θέλοις ἄν, εἰ σώσαιμί o, ἀγγεῖλαί 7 ot Ν 3 Α 9 ΄ 3 A , πρὸςb Ἄργος ἐλθὼν τοῖς~ ἐμοῖς ἐκεῖ φίλοις,

δέλτον 7’ ἐνεγκεῖν, ἣν τις οἰκτίρας ἐμὲ -

585.

ἔγραψεν αἰχμάλωτος, οὐχὶ τὴν ἐμὴν φονέα νομίζων χεῖρα, τοῦ νόμου 8’ ὕπο Μ

3

/

3

κ

A

9

θνήσκειν tye τῆς θεοῦ, ταῦτα δίκαιϊ ἡγουμένηςϊ;

οὐδένα γὰρ εἶχον ὅστις ἀγγείλαι μολὼν

és Apyos αὖθις, τάς (7°) éuds ἐπιστολὰς 393.

Ορ.

ν

κ

΄

N

2

"κΑ

2

;

\

πέμψειε σωθεὶς τῶν ἐμῶν φίλων τινί, σὺ 8 —el ydp, ὡς éotkas, οὔτι δυσγενὴς Ὶ ᾿ ΄ N > 4 ~ xatl τὰς Μυκήνας olofa yoUs ἐγὼ φιλῶ σώθητι κεῖσε μισθὸν οὐκ αἰσχρὸν. λαβών---, κούφων ἕκατι γραμμάτων σωτηρίαν. οὗτος δ᾽, ἐπείπερ πόλις ἀναγκάζει τάδε,

590

505

οὗτος δὲ συμπλεῖ τῶν ἐμῶν μόχθων xdpw.

600

θεᾷ γενέσθω θῦμα χωρισθεὶς σέθεν. καλῶς ἔλεξας τἄλλα πλὴν ἕν, & ξένη' τὸ γὰρ σφαγῆναι τόνδ᾽ ἐμοὲ βάρος μέγα. ὁ ναυστολῶν γάρ εἰμ᾽ ἐγὼ τὰς συμφοράς,

οὕκουν δίκαιον ἐπ᾽ ὀλέθρῳ τῷ τοῦδ᾽ ἐμὲ χάριν τίθεσθαι καὐτὸν ἐκδῦναι κακῶν. Ν

/

>

9

3V

2

-~

«Ὁ

)

9

"

ἀλλ᾽ ὡς γενέσθω: τῷδε μὲν δέλτον δίδου'

πέμψει γὰρ Ἄργος, ὦστε σοι καλῶς ἔχειν' ἡμᾶς δ᾽ 0 χρήζξων κτεινέτω. τὰ τῶν φίλων αἴσχιστον ὅστις καταβαλὼν és ξυμφορὰς 4

ν

)

3

605

A

αὐτὸς σέσωται. τυγχάνει δ᾽ δδ᾽ ὧν φίλος,

Ιφ.

:

ὃν οὐδὲν ἧσσον 7 ᾿μὲ φῶς ὁρᾶν θέλω.

& M’ ἄριστον, ὡς ἀπ᾽ εὐγενοῦς τινος ῥίζης πέφυκας τοῖς φίλοις 7’ ὀρθῶς φίλος. τοιοῦτος εἴη τῶν ἐμῶν ὁμοσπόρων o 4 A A 8 D / Y 4 ὅσπερ λέλειπται. καὶ γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἐγώ, ξένοι,

580 τὸ 5'Markland: τόδ᾽ Ὶ, 587 γε

τῆς

L:

γ᾽ ὧδε Porson: γ᾽ οὕτωῚ,

Jar[]Jv

(τὰ

τοῦ)

[8:

τὰ

τῆς

610

582 θέλοις Portus: -εἰς L: Jis (et

ἡγούμενος)

Hermann

588 ἀγγείλαι 1; ἀγγεῖλαι Trp (ὥστε super ἀγγεῖλαι Tr) 589 16is IP: αὖτις L (') Bothe: om. L et Π 590 τινί 1 -vgs L 591 οὔτι Campbell: οὔτε L: οὐἰΠῈ οὐχὲ Diggle δυσγενὴς L: -μενὴς P 592 ἐγὼ Markland: κἀγὼ L φιλῶ Musgrave: fédw L 593 κεῖσε Heimsoeth: καὶ σὺ L: ka[IP 596 θεᾷ Tr p: θεὰ (L) 598 τόνδ᾽ ἐμοὲ ps.-Lucian, Am. 47: τόνδε μοι L 599 εἴμ᾽ Tr: εἶμ᾽ L

601 οὔκουν (L) οὐκοῦν Tr ξυμφορὰς L: les συμί IP ué Porson: 7 ue L

604 πέμψει L: -ψω ps.-Lucian 607 σέσωται Wecklein: σέσωσται L

610 ὀρθῶςΤ: 0pfosL -

606 εἰς 608 %

|

ὐ ὐ

πόννεν ο

IQITENEIA Η ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙΣ

3

ἀνάδελφός εἶμι, πλὴν ὅσ᾽ οὐχ ὁρῶσά νιν.

%

δέλτον φέροντα, σὺ δὲ θανῇ" πολλὴ δέ τις

Ὅρ.

25

ἐπεὶ 8¢ βούλῃ ταῦτα, τόνδε πέμψομεν

615

προθυμία σε τοῦδ᾽ ἔχουσα τυγχάνει.

θύσει δὲ τίς με καὶ τὰ δεινὰ τλήσεται;

1φ.

ἐγώ: θεᾶς γὰρ τήνδε συμφορὰν ἔχω.

φΦ.

ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἀνάγκην κείμεθ', ἣν φυλακτέον.

620

ἔσω δόμων τῶνδ᾽ εἰσὶν οἷς μέλει τάδε. τάφος 8¢ ποῖος δέξεταί μ', ὅταν θάνω;

625

Ορ.

Ὅρ. Ιφ. Op.

Ιφ. Op.

{φ.

Ορ.

I$.

ἄζηλον, ὦ νεᾶνι, κοὐκ εὐδαίμονα.

αὐτὴ ξίφει κτείνουσα θῆλυς ἄρσενας; οὔκ, ἀλλὰ χαίτην ἀμφὶ σὴν χερνίψομαι. ὁ δὲ σφαγεὺς τίς; εἰ τόδ᾽ ἱστορεῖν με χρή. πῦρ ἱερὸν ἔνδον χάσμα T’ εὐρωπὸν πέτρας.

φεῦ:

πῶς Qv μ᾽ ἀδελφῆς χεὶρ περιστείλειεν ἄν; 4 3 2 » / o 3 μάταιον εὐχήν, & τάλας, ὅστις ποτ᾽ €l ηὔξω: μακρὰν γὰρ βαρβάρου ναΐίει χθονός. οὐ μήν, ἐπειδὴ τυγχάνεις Ἀργεῖος ὦν, ἀλλ᾽ ὧν γε δυνατὸν οὐδ᾽ ἐγὼ ᾿'λλείψω χάριν. πολύν τε γάρ σοι κόσμον ἐνθήσω τάφῳ, ξανθῷ T’ ἐλαίῳ. σῶμα σὸν ἱκατασβέσωϊ καὶ τῆς ὀρείας ἀνθεμόρρυτον γάνος -~ /4 9 4 ο ὔ ξουθῆς μελίσσης ἐς πυρὰν βαλῶ σέθεν. ἀλλ᾽ εἶμι δέλτον T° ἐκ θεᾶς ἀνακτόρων οἴσω" τὸ μέντοι δυσμενὲς μὴ μοὐγκαλῇς. φυλάσσετ᾽ αὐτούς, πρόσπολοι, δεσμῶν ἄτερ. ~

N

3

>

Ψ

A

A

Ὶ

,ὔ

A\

4

4

ἴσως ἄελπτα τῶν ἐμῶν φίλων τινὶ

4

-

630

635

πέμψω πρὸς Apyos, ov μάλιστ᾽ ἐγὼ φιλῶ, καὶ δέλτος αὐτῷ ζῶντας οὗς δοκεῖ θανεῖν λέγουσ᾽ ἀπίστους ἡδονὰς ἀπαγγελεῖ. ,

Χο. Op.

ΑῚ

Ν

εὶ

͵

b

"

\

κατολοφύρομαι σὲ τὸν χερνίβων

ῥανίσι μελόμενον (μέλεον) αἱμακταῖς.

645

@A), οὐ γὰρ οἶκτος ταῦτα, χαίρετ᾽, ὦ ξέναι.

614 βούλῃ Murray: βούλει L ᾽ 615 θανῇ L: Bave[ IP Bothe): τῆσδε 1, συμί. .Jpav εἰ IP: προστροπὴν L L

640

~

621 κτεινουσα Π

θύουσα L

L χερνίψομαι L*: -νίσομαι.1, Ἱματα evow( 15 628 om. Π' βαλῶ Canter: πῦρ ἐμβάλων L

618 τήνδε IT* (sicut conj. 619 ἄζηλον Bothe: ἄζηλά o’

622 οὔκ Tr (οὐκ spatio convenit Π2: οὔκουν

623 τόδ᾽ Diggle: 7dd’L 626 ydopa τ᾽ evpw- L: 631 ᾿λλείψω Markland: λείψω L 635 πυρὰν 636 τ᾽ ἐκ Tr:7e L 637 μοὐγκαλῇς Jackson: (μοι

γκαλῇς iam Kirchhoff): μου λάβης L

639 ἴσως L: ἔσως 8’ Diggle

ἀπίστους Portus: λέγουσα πιοτὰς L 645 (μέλεον) Monk δικτος ταῦτα Weil: οἶκτος γὰρ οὗ ταῦτ᾽, ἀλλὰ,

642 λέγουσ᾽

646 ἀλλ᾽,

οὐ γὰρ

- LA ΒΑΡΙΕΝΟ AVERGITA DI ROMA EC AE LATES GH ἱἷἶπἵἷἷἷξιιοιοειυι A TEC BIBLIO '

26 Xo.

Πυ. Χο.

EYPIIIIAQY σὲ δὲ τὐχας μάκαρος, ὦ νεανία,

σεβόμεθ᾽, ἐς πάτραν ὅτι πόδ᾽ εμβσ.ση αζηλα τοι φίλοισι, θνησκὄντων ᾧιλων & σχέτλιοι πομπαΐ

--φεῦ φεῦ--

(δύο) διολλῦσαι"

αἰαϊ. Ὥ t πότερος o0 μέλλων t ἔτι γὰρ ἀμφίλογα δίδυμα uéuove φρήν,

o€ πάρος ἢ o’ ἀναστενάξω γόοις.

Ορ. Πυ. Ορ.

“Πυλάδη, πέπονθας ταὐτὸ πρὸς θεῶν ἐμοί, οὐκ old™ ἐρωτᾷς οὐ λέγειν ἔχοντά με. τίς ἐστὶν ἡ νεᾶνις; ὡς Ἑλληνικῶς ἆνήρεθ’ ἡμᾶς τούς T’ ἐν ’Ιλι’ω πόνους νόστον 7> Ἀχαιῶν τόν τ ἐν οιωνοις σοφον Κάλχαντ᾽ Αχιλλεως 7’ ονομ.α, καὶ τὸν ἄθλιον Ἀγαμέμνον᾽ ws ᾧκτιρ᾽ ἀνηρώτα τέ με

Πυ.

Ορ. ITv.

655:

660

γυναῖκα παῖδάς τ΄. ἔστιν ἡ ξένη γένος

665

πλὴν & τὰ γάρ τοι βασιλέων παθήματα ἴσασι πάντες, ὧν ἐπιστροφή τις 7).

670᾽

ἐκεῖθεν Ἀργεία τις" οὐ γὰρ ἄν ποτε δέλτον 1’ ἔπεμπε καὶ τάδ᾽ ἐξεμάνθανεν,. ὡς κοινὰ πράσσουσ'᾽, Apyos εἰ πράσσει καλῶς. ἔφθης με μικρόν' ταὐτὰ δὲ φθάσας λέγεις,

ἀτὰρ διῆλθον χἄτερον λόγον τινά.

τίνϊ; ἐς τὸ κοινὸν δοὺς ἄμεινον ἂν μάθοις. αἰσχρὸν θανόντος σοῦ βλέπειν ἡμᾶς φάος" κοινῇ δὲ πλεύσας δεῖ με καὶ κοινῇ θανεῖν. καὶ δειλίαν γὰρ καὶ κάκην κεκτήσομαι Ἄργει τε Φωκέων 7’ ἐν πολυπτύχῳ χθονί, δόξω δὲ τοῖς πολλοῖσι---πολλοὲ γὰρ κακοί--προδοὺς σεσῶσθαί σ᾽ αὐτὸς εἰς οἴκους μόνος

675:

ἢ καὶ φονεῦσαί o’ ἐπὶ νοσοῦσι δώμασι

ῥάψας μόρον σοι σῆς τυραννίδος χάριν,

.

649 πόδ᾽ Elmsley: mor’ , ἐμβάσῃ Seidler: ἐπεμβάσῃ L 650 ἄζηλά τοι Burges: ᾿ἄζηλα τοῖς L .651-2 ὦ σχέτλιοι ... διολλῦσαι chor. trib. Trp: Pyl contin, (L)

652 (δύο) Bothe alai Hartung: al” αἷ al αι Ι, 655 ἀμφίλογα ed Brubach.: ἀμφίφλογα L μ.εμονε e μ.εμηνε Ι, 664 ωκτιρ > Heath: ωκτειρεν L τέμε Schaefer: TéueL 669 ταὐτὰ ρ:ταῦτα], 670 γάρ τοι Hermann: yap τῶν], 671 ἢ Hartung: ἦν L 672 δι.ηλθον Porson: διῆλθε L 673 μάθοις L%: -ηςῚ, 674 σοῦ Porson:. oov L 675 δὲ πλεύσας Elmsley 7’ ἔπλευσα L 679 σεσῶσθαί σ᾽ Elmsley: oe σὠζεσθ᾽Ὶ, 680-1 φονεῦσαίο᾽... ῥάψας Bergk: φονεύσας... ῥάψαιϊ,

IQITENEIA Η ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙΣ

27

ἔγκληρον ὡς δὴ σὴν κασιγνήτην γαμῶν.. ταῦτ᾽ οὖν φοβοῦμαι καὶ 8’ αἰσχύνης ἔχω, κοὐκ ἔσθ᾽ ὅπως οὐ χρὴ συνεκπνεῦσαί μέ σοι

᾿Ορ. Ὰ

;_

καὶ συσφαγῆναι καὶ πυρωθῆναι δέμας, φίλον γεγῶτα καὶ φοβούμενον ψόγον. ᾽ 4 9 A} A 4 ᾽ εὔφημα φώνει' τἀμὰ δεῖ φέρειν κακά, ς

-

Ay

2

54

2

3

o

685

-

ἁπλᾶς δὲ λύπας ἐξόν, οὐκ οἴσω διπλᾶς.

ὃ γὰρ σὺ λυπρὸν κἀπονείδιστον λέγεις, ταῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ἡμῖν, εἴ σε συμμοχθοῦντ᾽ ἐμοὶ

κτενῶ" τὸ μὲν γὰρ εἰς ἔμ᾽ οὐ κακῶς ἔχει, ᾽ 81 ’ A ’ , πράσσονθ᾽ ἃ πράσσω πρὸς\ θεῶν, λήγειν βίου. ov δ᾽ ὀλβιός T’ εἷ, καθαρά 7, οὐ νοσοῦντ᾽, ἔχεις 4Ἁ

9

Μ

4

3

/

9

9

~

>

¥

μέλαθρ᾽, ἐγὼ δὲ δυσσεβῆ καὶ δυστυχῆ. σωθεὶς δέ, παῖδας ἐξ ἐμῆς ὁμοσπόρου

κτησάμενος, ἣν ἔδωκά σοι δάμαρτ᾽ ἔχειν,

ὄνομά T ἐμοῦ γένοιτ᾽ av, οὐδ᾽ ἄπαις δόμος ¢ \ 9 / ¥ πατρῷος οὑμὸς ἐξαλειφθείη ποτ᾽ * ἄν. ) 2 @ \ ~ ) 4 o ἀλλ᾽ ἕρπε καὶ ζῆ καὶ δόμους οἴκει πατρός. o

᾽

9.

|

~

φ

»

¥

99

Ν

690

695

’

ὅταν 8’ ἐς Ἑλλάδ᾽ ἵππιόν τ᾽ Ἄργος μόλῃς,

πρὸς δεξιᾶς o€ τῆσδ᾽ ἐπισκήπτω τάδε' τύμβον τε χῶσον κἀπίθες μνημεῖά μοι,

700

καὶ δάκρυ᾽ ἀδελφὴ καὶ κόμας δότω τάφῳ.

ἄγγελλε 8’ ὡς ὅλωλ᾽ ὑπ᾽ Ἀργείας τινὸς

γυναικὸς ἀμφὶ βωμὸν ἁγνισθεὶς φόνῳ. καὶ μὴ προδῷς μου τὴν κασιγνήτην ποτέ,

705

ἔρημα κήδη καὶ δόμους ὁρῶν πατρός.

καὶ xaip™ ἐμῶν γὰρ φίλτατόν o’ ηὗρον φίλων, ὦ συγκυναγὲ καὶ συνεκτραφεὶς ἐμοί,

4 3 2 3 ΄ 2 ~ @» πόλλ᾽ ἐνεγκὼν\ τῶν~ ἐμῶν ἄχθη κακῶν. φ A ~ 4 2 / ἡμᾶς δ᾽ 3 ὁ¢ Φοῖβος udvris ὧν4 ἐψεύσατο" τέχνην δὲ θέμενος ws προσώταθ᾽ Ἑλλάδος ἀπήλασ᾽, αἰδοῖ τῶν πάρος μαντευμάτων. Φ 4 . 8 A \ 9 , Ὶ \ @ πάντ᾽ ἐγὼ dovs τἀμὰ καὶ πεισθεὶς Adyous,

Πυ.

μητέρα κατακτὰς αὐτὸς ἀνταπόλλυμαι. ἔσται Tddos σοι, καὶ κασιγνήτης λέχος

710

715

οὐκ ἂν προδοίην, & τάλας, ἐπεί o ἐγὼ

θανόντα μᾶλλον 7 βλέπονθ᾽ ἕξω φίλον.

ἀτὰρ τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ o’ οὐ διέφθορέν γέ πω μάντευμα: καΐτοι κἀγγὺς ἔστηκας φόνον. 689 κἀπονείδιστον Tr: κεπ- (L) 692 λήγειν Τ: λήσειν L: λύσειν Ρ

πατρώιος L

690 ταὔτ᾽ ἔστιν L. Dindorf: ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν L Blov Markland: βίον L 698 πατρῷος Tr:

713 amjAeo’Heath: -σεν],

(γ᾽... σε iam Reiske): y°... ue L

720

714 ᾧ ττ: ὧΙ,

720 κἀγγὺς Erfurdt: γ᾽ ἐγγὺς L

719 σ᾽...γέ Ναυοκ

28

EYPIIIIAOY ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν, ἔστιν, ἡ λίαν δυσπραξία

Op. Ιφ.

λίαν διδοῦσα μεταβολάς, ὅταν τύχῃ

σι.γα. τὰ Φοίβου 8’ οὐδὲν ὠφελεῖ μ᾽ ἔπη᾽

Ἰ

γυνὴ γὰρ ηὃε δωμσ.των ἔξω περᾷ.

725

ἀπέλθεθ᾽ ὑμεῖς καὶ παρευτρεπίζετε

τἄνδον μολόντες τοῖς ἐφεστῶσι σφαγῇ. δέλτου μὲν aide πολύθυροι διαπτυχαΐί, ξένοι, πάρεισιν' G 8’ ἐπὶ τοῖσδε βούλομαι, ͵ ἀκούσατ᾽. οὐδεὶς αὑτὸς ἐν πόνοις (τ᾽) ἀνὴρ

ὅταν τε πρὸς τὸ θάρσος ἐκ φόβου πέσῃ. ἐγὼ 8¢ ταρβῶ μὴ ἀπονοστήσας χθονὸς θῆται παρ᾽ οὐδὲν τὰς ἐμὰς ἐπιστολὰς ὁ τήνδε μέλλων δέλτον εἰς Apyos φέρειν.

730

ὅρκον δότω μοι τάσδε πορθμεύσειν ypadas πρὸς Ἄργος, οἷσι βούλομαι πέμψαι φίλων.

735

Op.

τί δῆτα βούλῃ; τίνος ἀμηχανεῖς πέρι;

Ορ.

7 κἀντιδώσεις τῷδε τοὺς αὐτοὺς λόγους;

Ιῴφ. ἰφ.

Ορ. Ιφ.

Ορ.

Ιφ.

Ορ.

Ιφ.

ITuv.

Ιφ.

v,

τί χρῆμα δράσειν 7 τί μὴ δράσειν; Aéye. ἐκ γῆς ἀφήσειν μὴ θανόντα βαῤβάρου. δίκαιον εἶπας" πῶς γὰρ ἀγγείλειεν ἄν;

ναί.

πείσω σφε, καὐτὴ ναὸς εἰσβήσω σκάφος. ὄμνυ' σὺ δ᾽ ἔξαρχ᾽ ὅρκον ὅστις εὐσεβής.

δώσω, λέγειν χρή, τήνδε τοῖσι σοῖς φίλοις.

τοῖς σοῖς φίλοισι γράμματ᾽ ἀποδώσω τάδε.

κἀγὼ o€ σώσω κυανέας ἔξω πέτρας.

Ἄρτεμιν, ἐν ἧσπερ δώμασιν τιμὰς ἔχω.

Ιφ. ITv.

εἰ 8’ ἐκλιπὼν τὸν ὅρκον ἀδικοίης ἐμέ; ἄνοστος εἴην᾽' τί δὲ σύ, μὴ σώσασά με;

ἐγὼ &’ ἄνακτά γ᾽ οὐρανοῦ, σεμνὸν dia.

750

Ιῴφ.

μήποτε κατ᾽ Ἄργος ζῶσ᾽ ἴχνος θεΐην ποδός.

Ιφ. M.

ἀλλ᾽ εὐθὺς ἔστω κοινός, ἣν καλῶς ἔχῃ. ε’ξαίρετὄν μοι δὸς τόδ᾽, ἤν τι ναῦς πάθῃ,

Πυ.

:

ἄκουε δή νυν ὃν παρήλθομεν λόγον.

L

755

X7 ὃἐλτος ἐν κλύδωνι χρημάτων μ.ε’τα

αᾠανης γενηται, σῶμα δ᾽ ἐκσώσω μονον,

727 πολὕθυρσι Arist. Rhet. πι. 1407b. 6: πολύθρηνοι L (L)

745

τίν᾽ οὖν ἐπόμνυς τοισίδ᾽ ὄρκιον θεῶν;

Ιφ.

Πυ.

740

7 καὶ τύραννος ταῦτα συγχωρήσεται;

729 αὑτὸς Valckenaer: αὐτὸς L

744 τοῖσι

σοῖς

Seager:

τοῖς

752 ποδός LF* (vel Trp): more L*?

κοινός Markland: καινὸς L

(τ) Kochly

ἐμοῖς

L

728 ξένοι Pierson: -οις

742 vai extra v. Tr: intra v.

747 τοισίδ᾽ Markland:

754 ev0dsEnger:adrisl.

τοῖσιν

ἔστω Fix: ἔσται

ἸΦΙΓΕΝΕΙ͂Α

Η ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙ͂Σ

29

τὸν ὅρκον εἶναι τόνδε μηκέτ᾽ ἔμπεδον. ἀλλ᾽ οἷσθ᾽ ὃ δράσω; ---πολλὰ γὰρ πολλῶν κυρεῖ--τἀνόντα κἀγγεγραμμέν᾽ ἐν δέλτου πτυχαῖς

760

λόγῳ φράσω σοι πάᾶντ᾽ ἀναγγεῖλαι φίλοις. ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ γάρ' ἣν μὲν ἐκσώσῃς γραφήν, αὐτὴ φράσει σιγῶσα τἀγγεγραμμένα'

'

ἣν δ᾽ ἐν θαλάσσῃ γράμματ᾽ ἀφανισθῇ τάδε,

|

[Ty, |

[φ.

τὸ σῶμα σώσας τοὺς λόγους σώσεις éuoi.

765

σήμαινε δ᾽ ᾧ χρὴ τάσδ᾽ ἐπιστολὰς φέρειν πρὸς Apyos ὅτι τε χρὴ κλυόντα σοῦ λέγειν. ἄγγελλ᾽ Opéory, παιδὶ τἀγαμέμνονος . . .

769

καλῶς ἔλεξας τῶν τε σῶν ἐμοῦ θ᾽ ὕπερ.

Πυ. 1φ.

ὦ θεοί.

I

Ὀρέσθ᾽, — v’ αὖθις ὄνομα 8is κλύων μάθῃς —

ITv.

Op.

Ιφ.

᾿ Ορ. Ιφ.

780

τί τοὺς θεοὺς ἀνακαλεῖς ἐν τοῖς ἐμοῖς;

οὐδέν’ πέραινε 8™ ἐξέβην γὰρ ἄλλοσε.

781

ἡ v Αὐλίδι σφαγεῖσ᾽ ἐπιστέλλει τάδε A , 2 A aA 9 ¥ ζῶσ᾽ Ἰφιγένεια, ToisA ἐκεῖ δ᾽ QY οὐ 3 ζῶσ᾽ ἔτι: ~ > ¥ 9 / ~n > ¢ 4 ποῦ δ᾽ ἔστ᾽ éxeivy; κατθανοῦσ᾽ ἥκει πάλιν;

770

ἥδ᾽ ἣν ὁρᾶς σύ' μὴ λόγων ἔκπλησσέ με. Q9

o\

¢

=~

͵

)

V4

»

779

᾽

κόμισαί μ᾽ ἐς Ἄργος, & σύναιμε, πρὲν θανεῖν, ἐκ βαρβάρου γῆς καὶ μετάστησον θεᾶς σφαγίων, ἐφ᾽ οἷσι ξενοφόνους τιμὰς ἔχω, ἢ σοῖς ἀραία δώμασιν γενήσομαι. Πυλάδη. τί λέξω; ποῦ ποτ᾽ ὄνθ᾽ ηὐρήμεθα; τάχ᾽ οὖν ἐρωτῶν o’ €ls ἄπιστ᾽ ἀφίξεται" λέγ᾽ οὕνεκ᾽ ἔλαφον ἀντιδοῦσά μου θεὰ 9

/

4

Ἄ

775 778 777 782

Ἄρτεμις ἔσωσέ μ᾽, ἣν ἔθυσ᾽ ἐμὸς πατήρ

δόκῶν ἐς ἡμᾶς ὀξὺ φάσγανον βαλεῖν, és τήνδε δ᾽ ᾧκισ᾽ alov. αἷδ᾽ ἐπιστολαΐ, 748’ ἐστὶ τὰάν δέλτοισιν ἐγγεγραμμένα. & ῥᾳδίοις ὅρκοισι περιβαλοῦσά με, κάλλιστα δ᾽ ὁμόσας οὐ πολὺν σχήσω χρόνον. 0 4 9.3 ᾿ 4 τὸνA δ᾽ 4 ὅρκον OV) κατώμοσ᾽ ἐμπεδώσομεν. ἰδού, φέρω σοι δέλτον ἀποδίδωμί τε, 3

2

70%

ITv.

.

5

A

4

9

Ν

9

2

4

᾽

9

9

᾽

)

3

9

᾽

3

7

763 αὐτὴ ed. Hervag: αὕτη L

,

,

39

᾽

,

᾽

790

᾽

766 τε odv Haupt: θεῶν L

West: κλύοντα L 769 τἀγαμέμνονος Ald.: τῶ Ὑ- L 780, post 769 trai. Jackson 780 & θεοί Pyl. trib. Trp (nota Pyl. ante 779 trib. L: Pyl. trib. Jackson 773 λόγων Seidler: -0 L 777 778 δώμασιν Tr p: -σι L 782 Iph. trib. Markland: Pyl contin. -opat L 786 ὥκισ᾽Ρ: wxno’L 787 7dd’L: ταῦτ᾽ Plutarch, Plutarch: ἐστιν év L

785

/

789 ὁμόσας LH (vel Tr): dudoac’L

768 κλυόντα

781, 779 (hoc ordine) erasa) 772 Or. post 778 trai. Parker . ἀφίξεται Burges: Mor.182¢ ἐστὶ Tdv '

30

Ορ.

Ip.

Op. Ιφ. Ορ. Ιφ. Op. Ιφ.

Ορ. Ιφ.

EYPITIIAQY

Ὀρέστα, τῆσδε σῆς κασιγνήτης πάρα. δέχομαι: παρεὶς δὲ γραμμάτων διαπτυχὰς v ἡδονὴν πρῶτ᾽ οὐ λόγοις αἱρήσομαι.) ὦ φιλτάτη μοι σύγγον᾽, ἐκπεπληγμένος ὅμως o ἀπίστῳ περιβαλὼν βραχίονι ἐς τέρψιν εἶμι, πυθόμενος θαυμάστ᾽ ἐμοί. ξέν᾽, οὐ δικαίως τῆς θεοῦ τὴν πρόσπολον

χραίνεις ἀθίκτοις περιβαλὼν πέπλοις χέρας. & συγκασιγνήτη τε κἀκ ταὐτοῦ πατρὸς " "Ayauéuvovos γεγῶσα, μή μ᾽ ἀποστρέφου, ἔχουσ᾽ ἀδελφόν, οὐ δοκοῦσ᾽ ἕξειν ποτέ. ἐγώ o’ ἀδελφὸν τὸν ἐμόν; οὐ παύσῃ λέγων; τὸ 7’ Apyos αὐτοῦ μεστὸν ἥ τε Ναυπλία. οὐκ ἔστ᾽ ἐκεῖ σός, ὦ τάλαινα, σύγγονος. ἀλλ᾽ ἡ Λάκαινα Τυνδαρίς o’ ἐγείνατο; Πέλοπός γε παιδὲ παιδός, οὗ ᾿κπέφυκ᾽ ἐγώ. τί φής; ἔχεις τι τῶνδέ μοι τεκμήριον; λέγοιμ᾽ ἄν ἀκοῇ πρῶτον Ἠλέκτρας τάδε'

Ιφ. Ορ. Ιφ. Ορ. Ιφ. Ορ.

ἤκονσα' χρυσῆς apvos ἦν νείκη πέρι. ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ὑφήνασ᾽ οἶσθ᾽ ἐν εὐπήνοις ὑφαΐῖς; & φίλτατ᾽, ἐγγὺς τῶν ἐμῶν χρίμπτῃ φρενῶν. εἰκώ τ᾽ ἐν ἱστοῖς ἡλίου μετάστασιν; ὕφηνα καὶ τόδ᾽ εἶδος εὐμίτοις πλοκαῖς. καὶ λούτρ᾽ ἐς Αὖλιν μητρὸς ἁδέξω πάρα;

Ιφ. Ορ.

800

805

ἔχω: πατρῴων ἐκ δόμων τι πυνθάνου. οὐκοῦν λέγειν μὲν χρὴ σέ, μανθάνειν 8’ ἐμέ.

Ορ.

Ιφ. Ορ.

795

810

᾿Ατρέως Θυέστου 7’ οἶσθα γενομένην ἔριν;

815

old™ οὐ γὰρ ὁ γάμος ἐσθλὸς ὦν μ᾽ ἀφείλετο. τί γάρ; κόμας σὰς μητρὶ δοῦσα σῇ φέρειν;

820

μνημεῖά v’ ἀντὶ σώματος τοὐμοῦ τάφῳ. ἃ δ᾽ εἶδον αὐτός, τάδε φράσω τεκμήρια"

Πέλοπος παλαιὰν ἐν δόμοις λόγχην marpds,

ἣν χερσὶ πάλλων παρθένον Πισάτιδα

ἐκτήσαθ᾽ Ἱπποδάμειαν, Οἰνόμαον κτανών,

825

ἐν παρθενῶσι τοῖσι σοῖς κεκρυμμένην. . 796 o’ ἀπίστῳ Markland: ἀπιστῶ L

_ . Elmsley: fed’L

κασ- L 804

798 Iph. trib, Markland: chor. trib. L.

799 yépas Herwerden: yépaL τ᾽ Bothe: δ᾽ L

&’

800 συγκασιγνήτη L¥ (vel Trp):

807 ye Elmsley: 7¢ L

οὗ ᾿κπέφυκ᾽ Elmsley (οὗ

πέφυκ᾽ iam Seidler): ἐκπέφυκ᾽Ἱ, 808 τι τῶνδέ μοι Ald.: τί τῶνδ᾽ éuot L 809 τι Ald: τί L 811 ἀκοῇ Reiske: ἄκουε L ἡλέκτρας L% -rpg L 812 olofa ed. Brubach: olda L 813 ἦν νείκη Mekler et Radermacher: ἡνώκ᾽ ἣν L 815 χρίμ' Weckleln: κάμπτῃ L 818 dééfw Kirchhoff ἀνεδέξω L 824 Πισάτιδα

Barnes: mioo-L

IQITENEIA Η ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙ͂Σ

φ.

& φίλτατ᾽, οὐδὲν ἄλλο, φίλτατος yap εἶ,

ἔχω σ᾽; Ὀρέστα, τηλὔγετον ἀπὸ πατρίδος

ί

Ἀργὄθεν,

'

70 σὸν νοτίζει BAédapov, ὡσαύτως δ᾽ éudv.

Ὅρ. I¢.

ὦ

ᾧίλος.

κἀγὼ σέ, τὴν θανοῦσαν, ὡς δοξάζεται. κατὰ δὲ δάκρυα, κατὰ δὲ γόος ἅμα χαρᾷ σὲ δ᾽ ἔτι βρέφος

ἔλιπον ἀγκάλαισι νεαρὸν τροφοῦ veapov ἐν δόμοις.

i

31

830

835

& κρεῖσσον ἢ λόγοισιν εὐτυχοῦσ᾽ ἐμὰ

Op. Ιφ.

ψυχά, τί φῶ; θαυμάτων πέρα καὶ λόγου πρόσω τἄδ᾽ ἀπέβα. τὸ λοιπὸν εὐτυχοῖμεν ἀλλήλων μέτα. ἄτοπον ἡδονὰν ἔλαβον, & φίλαι:

δέδοικα 8’ ἐκ χερῶν με μὴ πρὸς αἰθέρα ἀμπταμένα φύγῃ. ἰὼ Κυκλωπὶς ἑστία,

ἰὼ παπρίς, Μυκήνα φίλα,

Ορ. Ιφ.

|

Ορ. Ιφ.

Op.

Ιφ.

χάριν ἔχω ζόας, χάριν ἔχω τροφᾶς, ὅτι μοι συνομαίμονα τόνδε δόμοις ἐξεθρέψω φάος.

γένει μὲν εὐτυχοῦμεν, ἐς δὲ συμφοράς, @& σύγγον", ἡμῶν δυστυχὴς ἔφυ βίος. ἐγῷῴδ᾽ a μέλεος, old’ ὅτε φάσγανον

δέρᾳ ᾿φῆκέ μοι μελεόφρων πατήρ.

οἴμοι: δοκῶ γὰρ οὐ παρών o’ ὁρᾶν ἐκεῖ. ἀνυμέναιος, (@) σύγγον᾽, Ἀχιλλέως

és κλισίαν λέκτρων δόλιον ἀγόμανπαρὰ δὲ βωμὸν ἣν δάκρυα καὶ γόοι. φεῦ φεῦ χερνίβων ἐκείζνων" οἴμοι.

840

845

850

855

860

ᾧμωξα κἀγὼ τόλμαν ἣν ἔτλη πατήρ.

ἀπάτορ᾽ ἀπάτορα πότμον ἔλαχον' ἄλλα δ᾽ €€ ἄλλων κυρεῖ δαίμονος τύχᾳ τινός.

865 867

829 γχθονὸς post τηλύγετον del. Murray 832-3 κατὰ O¢ ... ἐμόν Iph. trib. Bauer: Or. contin, L 832 δάκρυα Bothe: δάκρυ L 834 σὲ δ᾽ ἔτι Collard: 76 8¢ τι ᾽ L 837 edrvuyotio’éuaMarkland (ἐμὰ iam Reiske): εὐτυχὼν (-Gvp) ἐμοῦὶ, 839 ψυχὰ P: -«χᾷ L 840 ἀπέβα Reiske: ἐπέβα L 844 ἀμπταμένα Seidler: ἀμπτάμενος L 845-6 ἰὼ ... ἰὼ . ὦ ... ὦ Trp Κυκλωπὶς ἑστία Hermann: κυκλωπίδες ἑστίαι L 847 ζόας Blomfield: {wds L 852 eyd’ a Bruhn (éyw δ᾽ d iam Seidler): ἐγὼ L 854 φῆκέ Elmsley: θῆκε L μοιὶ Tip: μ L 855 mapdv 1P παρώ L 856 (@) σύγγον᾽ Bothe: κ5 σύγγον᾽ L 858 λέκτρων Tr: λέκων (L) 859 δόλιον Dindorf δολίαν ὅτ᾽ L 861-9 861 φεῦ ... ἐκεῖ Or, 8624 ὥμωξα ... EAayov Iph, 865-9 ἄλλα ... τόλμας Or. trib. L: corr. Tyrwhitt, Seidler et Monk 861 éxel{vwr οἴμοι) Jackson: éxel L 867 ante 866 trai. Monk

32

EYPIIIIAOQY

Op.

Ip.

εἰ σόν γ᾽ ἀδελφόν, & τάλαιν᾽, ἀπώλεσας. ᾽

866

ὦμοι, δείν᾽ ἔτλαν, σὐγγονε, παρἁ 8’ ὀλίψον ἀπέφυγες ὄλεθρονaανοσιον ἐξ ἐμᾶν δαϊχθεὶς χερῶν.

870

τίς τύχα μοι συγκυρήσει;

875

& μελέα Sewds τόλμας" deiv’ ἔτλαν,

᾽|'σ͵ 8’ én’ αὐτοῖσιϊ πς τελευτά;

τίνα σοι (τίνα σοι) πόρον εὑρομένα

πάλιν ἀπὸ ξένας, ἀπὸ φόνου πέμψω

πατρίδ᾽ ἐς Ἀργείαν,

πρὶν ἐπὶ ξίφος αἵματι σῷ πελάσαι;

880

ἀλλὰ ποδῶν ῥιπᾷ;

885

τόδε τόδε σόν, ὦ μελέα ψυχά, χρέος ἀνευρίσκειν. πότερον κατὰ χέρσον, οὐχὶὲ ναΐ,

θανάτῳ πελάσεις ἄρα βσ’.ρβαρα φῦλα καὶ δι᾽ 60ovs a.voSovs στείχων: διὰ κυανέας μὰν στενοπόρου πετρας

890

μακρὰ κέλευθα ναΐοισιν δρασμοῖς. τάλαινα τάλαινα.

ἐτίς ἂν οὖν τάδ᾽ av 7 θεὸς 7 βροτὸς 7

895

τί τῶν ἀδοκήτων t

ἀπόρων πόρον ἐξανύσας Χο.

Πυ.

δυοῖν τοῖν μόνοιν Ἀτρείδαιν φανεῖ κακῶν ἔκλυσιν; ἐν τοῖσι θαυμαστοῖσι καὶ μύθων πέρα τάδ᾽ εἶδον αὐτὴ κοὐ κλυοῦσ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ἀγγέλων.

900

τὸ μὲν φίλους ἐλθόντας εἰς ὄψιν φίλων,

’

Ὀρέστα, χειρῶν περιβολὰς εἰκὸς λαβεῖν'

λήξαντα 8’ οἴκτων κἀπ᾽ ἐκεῖν᾽ ἐλθεῖν χρεών, ὅπως τὸ κλεινὸν ὄμμα τῆς σωτηρίας . λαβόντες ἐκ γῆς βησόμεσθα βαρβάρου.

905

870 ὦμοι δείν᾽ ἔτλαν Willink: δείν᾽ ἔτλαν ὦμοι L

871 ἀπέφυγες Musgrave

σοφῶν γὰρ ἀνδρῶν τοῦτο, μὴ ᾿κβάντας τύχης, καιρὸν λαβόντας, ἡδονὰς ἄλλας λαβεῖν.

᾽ιι’.ξι.ᾧιἔκῥυγες Diggle

L

L 875 συγκυρήσει Bothe συγχωρήσει L 876 (τίνα σοι) 877 ἀπὸ ξένας Kochly: ἀπὸ πολεως L 888 8.” ὁδοὺς Barnes: διόδους

888 μὰν Dlggle J7. 2"

Markland

Y ναιοισιν Seidlér' -otL

897 απορων πορον Hermann: 1ropov amopovL

895 rlsdvLitis dp

898 φανεῖ ante κακῶν

add. Tr 901 κοὐ Bothe: καὶ , κλυοῦσ᾽ West: κλύουσ᾽Ἱ, ἀπ α.γγέλων Hermann: απαγγελω Ι, 902--8 Pyl trib. Heath et Musgrave: chor. contin. . 905 ὄμμα Paris. . 8. 2887: ὄνομα

L

L

906 λαβόντες

L: BAémovres

908 λαβόνταςL: λαχόντας Weil

Page

907 τοῦτο

Barrett: ταῦτα

.

3

ἰΦΙΓΕΝΕΙ͂Α

bp-

|

᾽

ΞΙφ

Η ΕΝ TAYPOIX

καλῶς ἔλεξας" τῇ τύχῃ 6 οἶμαι μέλειν

τοῦδε ξὺν ἡμῖν' ἣν 8¢ τις πρόθυμος ἣ, σθένειν 76 θεῖον μᾶλλον εἰκότως ἔχει.

Ε{;Ὃρ. "φ. ορ. φ. ‘Op.

οὐ μή μ᾽ ἐπίσχῃς οὐδ᾽ ἀποστήσεις λόγου, πρῶτον πυθέσθαι τίνα ποτ᾽ Ἡλέκτρα πότμον εἴληχε βιότου" φίλα γάρ ἐστι ταῦτ᾽ ἐμοί. τῷδε ξυνοικεῖ βίον ἔχουσ᾽ εὐδαίμονα. οὗτος δὲ ποδαπὸς καὶ τίνος πέφυκε παῖς; Στρόφιος ὁ Φωκεὺς τοῦδε κλήζεται πατήρ. ὁ δ᾽ ἐστί γ᾽ Ἀτρέως θυγατρός, ὁμογενὴς ἐμός; ἀνεψιός γε, μόνος ἐμοὶ σαφὴς φίλος.

Op. Ιφ.

οὐκ ἦν' χρόνον γὰρ Στρόφιος ἦν ἄπαις τινά. χαῖρ᾽ ὦ πόσις μοι τῆς ἐμῆς ὁμοσπόρου.

I

Ὅρ. Ιφ.

Ορ.

οὐκ ἦν τόθ᾽ οὗτος ὅτε πατὴρ ἔκτεινέ με.

κἀμός γε σωτήρ, οὐχὶ συγγενὴς μόνον. τὰ δεινὰ O ἔργα πῶς ἔτλης μητρὸς πέρι; σιγῶμεν αὐτά: πατρὶ τιμωρῶν ἐμῷ.

1φ.

ἡ 8 αἰτία τίς ἀνθ᾽ ὅτου κτεΐνει πόσιν;

1φ. Ὅρ.

σιγῶ: τὸ 8’ Ἄργος πρὸς o€ νῦν ἀποβλέπει;. Μενέλαος ἄρχει' φυγάδες ἐσμὲν ἐκ πάτρας.

Ορ.

οὔκ, ἀλλ᾽ Ἐρινύων δεῖμά μ᾽ ἐκβάλλει χθονός.

Ὅρ. Ιφ.

[φ. Op. Ιφ. Op. Ιφ. Ορ.

Ip.

Ορ.

33

910

915

920

925

ἔα τὰ μητρός" οὐδὲ σοὶ κλύειν καλόν.

οὔ που voooivras θεῖος ὕβρισεν δόμους;

ταῦτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ém’ ἀκταῖς κἀνθάδ᾽ ἠγγέλθης μανείς; ὥὦφθημεν οὐ νῦν πρῶτον ὄντες ἄθλιοι. ἔγνωκα'" μητρός (0°) οὕνεκ᾽ ἠλάστρουν θεαΐί. wol’ αἱματηρὰ στόμι᾽ ἐπεμβαλεῖν ἐμοί, τί γάρ ποτ᾽ ἐς γῆν τήνδ᾽ ἐπόρθμευσας πόδα; Φοίβου κελευσθεὶς θεσφάτοις ἀφικόμην.

930

935

τί χρῆμα δρᾶσαι; ῥητὸν 7 σιγώμενον;

λέγοιμ᾽ ἄν: ἀρχαὶ 8’ aide μοι πολλῶν πόνων. ἐπεὶ τὰ μητρὸς ταῦθ᾽ ἃ σιγῶμεν κακὰ ἐς χεῖρας ἦλθε, μεταδρομαῖς Ἐρινύων ἠλαυνόμεσθα φυγάδες" ἔνθεν μοι πόδα ἐς τὰς Abnvas 189 γἾ ἔπεμψε Λοξίας,

940

δίκην παρασχεῖν ταῖς ἀνωνύμοις θεαῖς.

909 μέλειν Trp: μέλλ- L 910 ξὺν Tr: σὺν L 912οὐ μή Elmsley: οὐδέν L ἐπίσχῃς ... ἀποστήσεις Monk: ἐπίσχη γ᾽... ἀποστήση (-σει P) L: 914 ἐστι ταῦτ᾽ Markland: ἔσται πάντ᾽ L 918 6 &’ L. Dindorf: δδ᾽ L 927 ooi Hermann: σοι L 930 οὔ mov L: οὔ πω. Τ: .ἣἢ mov Ρ ὕβρισεν Tt p: -σεῚ, 932 dp’ Tr: ἄρ᾽ L ἠγγέλθης Porson: ἠγγέλης L 934 (¢’) Markland 938 δρᾶσαι Elmsley:

Opdoew L

942 ἠλαυνόμεσθα Trp: -pefaL

34

ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ͂ ἔστιν γὰρ ὁσία ψῆφος, ἣν Ἄρει ποτὲ Ζεὺς εἴσατ᾽ ἔκ του δὴ χερῶν μιάσματος. ἐλθὼν 8’ ἐκεῖσε πρῶτα μέν (μ᾽ οὐδεὶς ξένων ἑκὼν ἐδέξαθ᾽, ws θεοῖς στυγοὕύμενον'" oi 8’ ἔσχον αἰδῶ, ξένια μονοτράπεζά μοι παρέσχον, οἴκων ὄντες ἐν ταὐτῷ στέγει, -~ 3 2 7 2 5 ΄ 2 @ σιγῇ δ᾽ ἐτεκτήναντ᾽ ἀπρόσφθεγκτόν μ᾽, ὅπως 9

Α

εὶ

2

9

9

A

¥

~

I

κ

4

3

έ

3

,

A

.

΄

4

950

δαιτός τ᾽ ὀναίμην πώματός T’ αὐτῶν δίχα, és 8’ ἄγγος ἴδιον toov ἅπασι Bakyiov 3

9

¥

Ν

σ

/7

μέτρημα πληρώσαντες elyov ἡδονήν. 3

κἀγὼ

A TR .

᾽

)

᾽

3

955,

247

᾿ξελέγξαι μὲν Eévous οὐκ ἠξίουν,

ἤλγουν δὲ σιγῇ κἀδόκουν οὐκ εἰδέναι. Ν

1

~

3

᾽

3

I/

[μέγα orevalwy ovvex’ ἦ μητρὸς φονεύς] κλύω 8’ Ἀθηναΐοισι τἀμὰ δυστυχῆ᾽ τελετὴν γενέσθαι, κἄτι τὸν νόμον μένειν, φ

΄

΄

3

φ

2

9

,

3

]

4

4

A

χοῆρες ἄγγος Παλλάδος τιμᾶν λεῶν. ὡς δ᾽ εἰς Ἄρειον ὄχθον ἧκον, ἐς δίκην. » 9 A ) ΄ A ΄ ἔστην, ἐγὼ μὲν θάτερον λαβὼν βάθρον, 76 8’ ἄλλο πρέσβειρ᾽ ἥπερ ἦν Ἐρινύων. 9 A 3 ,ὔ 4 , εἰπὼν (δ᾽)3 ἀκούσας θ᾽ 9 αἵματος μητρὸς4 πέρι, Φοῖβός μ᾽ ἔσωσς μαρτυρῶν, ἴσας δέ μοι ~

»

!δ

~

λ

4

ψήφους διηρίθμησε Παλλὰς ὠλένῃ: νικῶν δ᾽ ἀπῆρα φόνια πειρατήρια, ὅσαι μὲν οὖν ἔζοντο πεισθεῖσαι δίκῃ, ψῆφον παρ᾽ αὐτὴν ἱερὸν ὡρίσαντ᾽ ἔχειν' ὅσαι δ᾽ Ἐρινύων οὐκ ἐπείσθησαν νόμῳ, ο

3

΄

φ

3

᾽

060

965

᾽

δρόμοις ἀνιδρύτοισιν ἠλάστρουν μ᾽ ἀεΐ, ἕως ἐς ἁγνὸν ἦλθον αὖ Φοίβου πέδον,

καὶ πρόσθεν ἀδύτων ἐκταθείς, νῆστιξ βορᾶς, ἐπώμοσ᾽ αὐτοῦ βίον ἁπορρήξειν θανών, ᾽ A 3 ΄ ' εἰ 3 μή ’ με σώσει Φοῖβος, ὅςν μ᾽ > ἀπώλεσεν. ἐντεῦθεν αὐδὴν τρίποδος ἐκ χρυσοῦ λακὼν Φοῖβός μ᾽ ἔπεμψε δεῦρο, διοπετὲς λαβεῖν ἄγαλμ᾽ Ἀθηνῶν τ᾽ ἐγκαθιδρῦσαι χθονί. o

J

)

2

)

~

975

᾽

ἀλλ᾽ ἧνπερ ἡμῖν ὥρισεν σωτηρίαν, σύμπραξον" Ny γὰρ θεᾶς κατάσχωμεν βρέτας,

980

947 super ἐλθὼν superscr. ὄντα Tr

pevpoude[ Π' (μὲν μ᾽

¥ 945 ἔστιν Trp: ἔστι L

" οὖ- sicut comi. Scaliger): μὲν οὐ 1 950 στέγει Ald. et forte P: τέγει L 951 ἀπρόσφθεγκτόν Hermann: ἀπόφθεγκτόν L 952 7’ ὀναίμην Housman: yevoiuny L τ᾽ αὐτῶν Scaliger: 7’ αὐτοῦ L: ]yav[ Π' 955 κἀγὼ ᾿ξελέγξαι Markland: κἀγὼ v’

ἐλέγξαιὶ, ἔστην, -σεὶ,

957 v.del. Herwerden 9612 δίκην [ ἔστην Bothe et Elmsley: δίκην | 7° 964 (δ᾽} Elmsley 976 λακὼν Scaliger; λαβὼν L 979 ὥρισεν Tt

980 ἣν Seidler: dv L

ἸΦΙΈΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙ͂Σ

39

“ ς μανιῶν τε λήξω και σὲ πολυκώπῳ σκάφει | στειλας Μυκήναις εγκσ.ταστησω πάλιν. ἀλλ᾽, ὦ φιληθεῖσ᾽, ὦ κασίγνητον κάρα,. σῶσον πατρῷον οἶκον, ἔκσωσον 8 ἐμέ' ¢

᾽

4

”λ

λ

/

4

3

λ

δ

~

ὡς τἄμ᾽ OAwAe πάντα καὶ τὰ Πελοπιδῶν,

;

Χο. Ιφ.

985

4 ᾽ ᾽ οὐράνιον εἰ 3 μὴ \ ληψόμεθα θεᾶς- βρέτας.

δεινή τις ὀργὴ δαιμόνων ἐπέζεσεν 2

3

.

4

πρὸς Ταντάλειον σπέρμα διὰ πόνων τ᾽ ἄγει. \ \ /4 ᾽ " 3 3 “ » τὸ μὲν πρόθυμον, πρίν σε δεῦρ᾽ ἐλθεῖν, ἔχω Ἄργει γενέσθαι καὶ σέ, σύγγον᾽, εἰσιδεῖν. θέλω δ᾽ ἅπερ σύ, σέ τε μεταστῆσαι πόνων νοσοῦντά τ᾽ οἶκον, οὐχὶ τῷ κτανόντι με

990

θυμουμένη, πατρῷον ὀρθῶσαι πάλιν'

σφαγῆς τε γὰρ σῆς χεῖρ᾽ ἀπαλλάξαιμεν ἂν

σώσαιμί τ᾽ οἴκους. τὴν θεὸν δ᾽ ὅπως λάθω δέδοικα καὶ τύραννον. ἡνίκ᾽ dv κενὰς ¥

:

4

9

Ν

b

Ά

29

995

᾽

A e o ? 2 κρηπῖδας εὕρῃ Aaivas ἀγάλματος, πῶς οὐ θανοῦμαι; τίς δ᾽ ἔνεστί μοι Adyos; ἀλλ᾽, εἰ μὲν tév τι τοῦθ᾽ ὁμοῦ γενήσεταιϊ ἄγαλμά 7’ οἴσεις κἄμ᾽ ém’ εὐπρύμνου νεὼς ἄξεις, τὸ κινδύνευμα γίγνεται καλόν' τούτου δὲ χωρισθεῖσ᾽ ἐγὼ μὲν ὄλλυμαι, σὺ δ᾽ ἂν τὸ σαυτοῦ θέμενος εὖ νόστου τύχοις. U4 δῶ 2 -\ οὐ 9 μήν4 τι φεύγω γ᾽,? οὐδέ o’ 9 el 9 θανεῖν. χρεὼν σώσασαν' οὐ yap ἀλλ᾽ ἀνὴρ μὲν éx δόμων 4

Ορ.

3

A}

φ9

9

9

Ἀ

Ὶ

39

1000

1005

/

θανὼν ποθεινός, τὰ δὲ γυναικὸς ἀσθενῆ.

οὐκ ἂν γενοίμην σοῦ τε καὶ μητρὸς φονεύς" ἅλις τὸ κείνης αἷμα' κοινόφρων δὲ ool καὶ ζῆν θέλοιμ᾽ ἂν καὶ θανὼν λαχεῖν ἔσον. ἄξω δέ σ᾽, ἥνπερ καὐτὸς ἐντεῦθεν περῶ, πρὸς οἶκον, 7 σοῦ κατθανὼν μενῶ μέτα. ’ ν 3 ἤ γνώμης δ᾽ ἄκουσον" εἰ πρόσαντες ἦν τόδε

'

1010

Ἀρτέμιὃι, ’πὢς ἂν Λοξίας ἐθέσπισεν

κομίσαι μ᾽ ἄγαλμα θεας πολίσμ᾽ ἐς Πσ.λλα.δος

Ν

984 ὃ’ ἐμέ

Ε

Seldler:

988 πρὸς Page: τὰ],

8¢

Ν

με

L

ἄγει Canter: del L

986 ληψόμεθα

L:

-μεσθα

990 εἰσιδεῖν p: éo- L

p et fortasse

IP

991 oé Canter:

σοί L πόνων Paris. gr. 2887; -vov L 992 κτανόντι Heath: κτανοῦντί L 993 πάλιν Markland: θέλω L 995 σὤσαιμί v’ Markland: σώσαιμι 8’ L 998 πῶς Bothe: πως δ’ L 1004-5 o’ ... σωσασαν Kirchhoft μ᾽ ... σῶσαι τὰ o idem Kirchhofk: μ᾽... σώσασά o’ L 1006 γυναικος P: -«κῶν], 1010 ἄξω δέ o’ Canter: 1w δέγ᾽ , ἐντεῦθεν περῶ Seidler: ἐνταυθοῖ πέσω L 101 ἤ1: elL σοῦ Paris. gr. 2887: oov L. 1014 post hunc v. Jac. stat. K6chly

36

ΕΥΡΙΠΙΊΔΟΥ͂

Ορ. Ιφ.

καὶ σὸν πρόσωπον εἰσιδεῖν; ἅπαντα γὰρ συνθεὶς τάδ᾽ εἰς ἕν νόστον ἐλπίζω λαβεῖν. πῶς οὖν γένοιτ᾽ av ὥστε μήθ᾽ ἡμᾶς θανεῖν, λαβεῖν θ᾽ ἃ βουλόμεσθα; τῇδε γὰρ νοσεῖ νόστος πρὸς οἴκους" ἦδε βούλευσις πάρα. dp’ ἂν τύραννον διολέσαι δυναίμεθ᾽ ἄν; δεινὸν τόδ᾽ εἶπας, Eevodoveiv ἐπήλυδας.

[1φ.

s δὴ σκότον λαβόντες ἐκσωθεῖμεν dv;

Ιφ.

Ορ. 1φ. Ορ. Ορ.

Ιφ.

Ορ.

Ip.

ἀλλ᾽, εἰ σὲ σώσει κἀμέ, κινδυνευτέον. οὐκ ἂν δυναίμην' τὸ δὲ πρόθυμον ἤνεσα. τί δ᾽ εἴ με ναῷ τῷδε κρύψειας λάθρᾳ;

κλεπτῶν γὰρ ἡ νύξ, τῆς δ᾽ ἀληθείας τὸ φῶς.]

ἔχειν δοκῶ μοι καινὸν ἐξεύρημά τι.

Ip.

φονέα σε φήσω unTpos ἐξ Apyovs μολεῖν.]

ταῖς σαῖς ἀνίαις χρήσομαι σοφίσματι. δειναὶ yap αἱ yvvaikes evpiokew Téxvas.

᾽

ἔτ᾽ ἐν δόμοισι βρέτας, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πεπλεύκαμεν.

1040᾽

Ip. Ορ.

καἀκεῖνο νίψειν, σοῦ θιγόντος ὥς, ἐρῶ. ποῖ δῆτα πόντου νοτερὸν €l παρ᾽ ἔκβολον;

οὗ ναῦς χαλινοῖς λινοὃέτοιε ὄρμεἳ σέθεν. σὺ δ᾽ ἢ τις σ,λλοςἐν χεροιν οἴσει βρετα.ς, ἐγώ' θιγεῖν γὰρ ὅσιόν ἐστ᾽ éuot μόνῃ. Πυλάδης δ᾽ δὅδ᾽ ἡμῖν ποῦ τετάξεται πόνου; ταὐτὸν χεροῖν σοὶ λέξεται μίασμ᾽ ἔχων. λάθρᾳ 8’ ἄνακτος 7 εἰδότος δράσεις τάδε; πείσασα μύθοις" οὗ γὰρ av λάθοιμί γε. σοὶ δὴ μέλειν χρὴ τἄλλ᾽ ὅπως ἕξει καλῶς.

: | .:

1035.

οὐ καθαρὸν ὄντα' τὸ δ᾽ ὅσιον δώσω φόνῳ. τί δῆτα μᾶλλον θεᾶς ἄγαλμ᾽ ἁλίσκεται; πόντου σε πηγαῖς ἁγνίσαι βουλήσομαι.

1φ. Op. Ιφ. Ορ. Ιφ. Ορ. Ιφ.

1030

χρῆσαι κακοῖσι τοῖς ἐμοῖς, εἰ kepdaveis. dis οὐ θέμις σε λέξομεν θύειν θεᾷ--τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ἔχουσ; ὑποπτεύω τι γάρ.

Ιῴφ. Ορ. Ιῴφ.

Ορ.

1

1025:

οἴμοι, διεφθάρμεσθα' πῶς σωθεῖμεν ἄν;

ποῖόν τι; δόξης perados, ws κἀγὼ μάθω.

Ορ. Ip. Ορ.

1020

εἴσ᾽ ἔνδον ἱεροῦ φύλακες, ols οὐ λήσομεν.

Op.

1φ. [Op.

1015.

1045

1051

. 1018 νοσεῖ Markland: νόει L 1019 ἥδε βούλευσις Markland: ἡ δὲ βούλησις L 1022 εἰ o€ Seidler: εἴ σε L . 1025~6 del. Markland 1025 oxdrov Dindorf: " Πσκότοςῖ, 1027 ἱεροῦ Dobree: 'cép'th τ (1) σοᾧισμο,τι West: -μασιῖ, 1032-3 suspectos habet Diggle 1032 γὰρ L Menander, Mon. 194: μεν Stobaeus 4.22.185 1035 σε Reiske: ye L 1037 φόνῳ Ald.: φόβῳ L 1040 ér’évL: εστ evP 1041 νιψειν Madvig: νίψαι L 1042 εἶ map’ Reiske: εἶπας L 1044 σὺ &’ 7 τις Jacobs: oot δὴ τίς L 1046 πόνον Brodaeus: φόνου L 1050-1 inter se trai. K&chly 1051 μέλειν Trp vel Tr: μέλκχειν L: μέκλειν P

ἸΦΙΓΕΝΕΙ͂Α Η ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙ͂Σ “ 3 9 4 καὶ 4 μὴν\ vews΄ ye πίτυλος εὐήρης πάρα. ἑνὸς μόνου δεῖ, τάσδε᾽ συγκρύψαι τάδε.

37

1050

ἀλλ᾽ ἀντίαζε καὶ λόγους πειστηρίους

: φ. Ε

εὕρισκ᾽" ἔχει τοι δύναμιν τὰ 8’ ἄλλ᾽ lows ἂν πάντα & φίλταται γυναῖκες, εἰς καὶ τἄμ᾽ ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν 7

}

φίλου 7’ ἀδελφοῦ φιλτάτης τε συγγόνου.

ς

᾽

εἰς οἶκτον γυνή. συμβαίη καλῶς. ὑμᾶς βλέπω, καλῶς ἔχειν

ἢ μηδὲν εἶναι καὶ στερηθῆναι πάτρας \

-

,

A

,

93

2

’

καὶ πρῶτα μέν μοι τοῦ Adyov τάδ᾽ ἀρχέτω:

2 3 ᾽ 3 ’ Φ γυναῖκές ἐσμεν, φιλόφρον ἀλλήλαις γένος σῴζειν τε κοινὰ πράγματ᾽ ἀσφαλέσταται.

σιγήσαθ᾽ ἡμῖν καὶ συνεκπονήσατε φυγάς. καλόν τοι γλῶσσ᾽ ὅτῳ πιστὴ παρῇ.

1065

γονάτων τε καὶ τῶν ἐν δόμοισι φιλτάτων. [μητρὸς πατρός τε καὶ τέκνων ὅτῳ κυρεῖ.} L4 7 τί ᾽ φατέ,’ τίς2 ὑμῶν φησιν ἡb τίς/ οὐ 3 θέλειν--φθέγξασθε---ταῦτα; μὴ γὰρ αἰνουσῶν λόγους ὄλωλα κἀγὼ καὶ κασίγνητος TdAas. θάρσει, φίλη δέσποινα, καὶ σῴζου μόνον"

1070

y» 72 > @ A ᾽ ὡς¢ αὐτίχ᾽ ἥξει τῆσδε κοίρανος χθονός,᾽

1080

A

>

¢t

)

,

,

A\

᾽

σωθεῖσα 8, ὡς ἂν καὶ σὺ κοινωνῆς τύχης, σώσω σ᾽ ἐς Ἑλλάδ᾽. ἀλλὰ πρός σε δεξιᾶς o€ καὶ σ᾽ ἱκνοῦμαι, o€ δὲ φίλης παρηΐδος,

Μ

Ιφ.

1060

ὁρᾶτε δ᾽ ὡς τρεῖς μία τύχη τοὺς φιλτάτους, 7 γῆς πατρῴας νόστος ἢ θανεῖν ἔχει. ¢

Χο.

1055

3

,

\

΄

4

ὡς €k γ᾽ ἐμοῦ σοι πάντα σιγηθήσεται--loTw μέγας Ζεύς---ὧν ἐπισκήπτεις πέρι. ὄναισθε μύθων καὶ γένοισθ᾽ εὐδαίμονες. σὸν ἔργον ἤδη καὶ σὸν ἐσβαίνειν δόμους" θυσίαν ἐλέγξων εἰ κατείργασται ἕξένων.

1075

᾽ > = 3\ /2 ὦ1 πότνι᾽, ἥπερ μ᾽ 9 Αὐλίδος κατὰ Α πτυχὰς]

δεινῆς ἔσωσας ἐκ τεκνοκτόνου χερός,

σῶσόν με καὶ νῦν τούσδε 7+ 7 τὸ Λοξίου ~

΄

A}

-

U4

9

μ

ι

’’

οὐκέτι βροτοισι διὰ o’ ἐτήτυμον στόμα. 9

7

~

A}

>

%

9

΄

ἀλλ᾽ ευμ.ενης εκβηθι βσ.ρβαρου χθονος ἐς τας Αθηνας καὶ γὰρ ἐνθάδ᾽ οὐ πρέπει ναΐειν, παρόν σοι πόλιν ἔχειν εὐδαίμονα.

1055 ἂν πάντα Markland: ἅπαντα L

1056 eis Hermann: ὡς L

1085

1059 φιλτάτης

Bothe: -του L 1064 πιστὴ Bothe: πίστις L 1066 νόστος Valckenaer: νόστον L 1071 del. Dindorf 1072 θέλειν Musgrave: -λειῖ, 1081 ἐλέγξων Markland: ἐλέγχων L 1082 πτυχὰς Elmsley: πτύχας L . 1083 τεκνοκτόνου Herwerden: πατροκτόνου,

38

ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟῪ

Xo.

ὄρνις @ παρὰ πετρίνας πόντου δειράδας ἀλκυὼν ἔλεγον οἰκτρὸν ἀείδεις, L W oA ~ ΄ εὐξύνετον ξυνετοῖς βοάν, . o ’ ~ 2 ἃ -~ ὅτι πόσιν κελαδεῖς del μολπαῖς, } , ᾽ €yw σοι παραβάλλομαι θρήνους, ἄπτερος ὄρνις, ποθοῦσ᾽ Ἑλλάνων ἀγόρους, ποθοῦσ᾽ Ἄρτεμιν λοχίαν, ἃ παρὰ Κύνθιον ὄχθον οἷ4

4

Μ

]

3

Ὶ

y

ι

Ὦ

-

¥

κεῖ φοίνικά θ᾽ ἁβροκόμαν

4

δάφναν τ᾽ evepvéa καὶ

1100

γλαυκᾶς θαλλὸν ἱερὸν ἐλαί. ας Aarods ὠδῖνι φίλον,

ξ

λίμναν θ᾽ εἱλίσσουσαν ὕδωρ κύκλιον, ἔνθα κύκνος μελῳU4

o

4

δὸς Μούσας θεραπεύει.

@& πολλαὲ δακρύων λιβάδες, ai mapnidas εἰς ἐμὰς ἔπεσον ἁνίκα πύργων 3 (4 9 A o ὀλομένων év ναυσὶν ἔβαν

πολεμίων ἐρετμοῖσι καὶ λόγχαις" ζαχρύσου δὲ δι᾽ ἐμπολᾶς νόστον βάρβαρον ἦλθον, μ ~ 3 ΄ ἔνθα τᾶς ἐλαφοκτόνου

,

θεᾶς ἀμφίπολον κόραν

παῖδ᾽ Ἀγαμεμνονίαν λατρεύ/ w βωμούς/ τ᾽ 9 οὐ 3 μηλοθύτας.

ζηλοῦσα τὸν διὰ παν705 δυσδαίμον᾽ \

4

>

€v yap dvdy»

.

9

1115:

ι

Ξ

tueraBardect δυσδαιμονίᾳ" 70 δὲ μετ᾽ εὐτυχίαν κακοῦσθαι θνατοῖς βαρὺς αἰών. 1091 οἰκτρὸν Barnes: οἶτον L

1095

' ' ' 'L

Tr: &

κούραν

L

L

1120

1101" θαλλὸν ἐά. Brubach: θάλλος 1 φίλον Markland: -av L

μὰς Lp

Tr

M7

Tov

Greverus:

1120 δυσδαιμονίᾳ Bothe: -ία L

; '

1097 Aoxiav Musgrave: -efav :

ἱερὸν L: ἱρὸν Tr

1104 κύκλιον Seidler: κύκνειον L

1109 ὀλομένων L: οὐλομένων Tr

115 dyapepvoviav

ζηλοῦσα

;

1092 edfdverov L% ἀξ- L ξυνετοῖς L: -τοῖσι Tr:

θρήνους L: θρηνοῦσ᾽ Reiske: θρήνοις Stephanus

-va 1,

'

]K

¢

καὶς οὗ κάμνει σύντροφος ὧν

.

"

L:

-elav

ζηλοῦο᾽

Tr

&rav

& L: ἐνὶ Tr

L

1116 τ

121 de(L):yapTr

οὗὐ

102 ὠδῖνι Portus:

1107 εἰς ἕμἁςν.ξ

1114 κόραν L::

Musgrave:

119 κάμνει

Milton:

τοὺς:

-εἰς!

εὐτυχίαν Scaliger: -lasL - i

ἸΙΦΙΈΝΕΙΑ H EN ΤΑΥΡΟΙΣ

39

καὶ σὲ μέν, πότνι᾽, Ἀργεία

[στρ. β

πεντηκόντερος οἶκον ἄξει: συρίζων θ᾽ ὃ κηρόδετος

1125

Πανὸς οὐρείον κάλαμος

κώπαις ἐπιθωύΐξει,

ὁ Φοῖβός θ᾽ ὁ μάντις ἔχων / ¢ ΄ ᾽ κέλαδον ἑπτατόνου λύρας ἀείδων ἄξει λιπαρὰν εὖ o’ Ἀθηναίων ἐπὶ γᾶν, 4

9

>

4

3

Ἀ

1130

~

téue δ᾽ αὐτοῦ λιποῦσαϊ

βάσῃ ῥοθίοις πλάταις" ἱστία δ᾽ ἐς προτόνους κατὰ πρῷραν ὕπὲρ στόλον ἐκπετάσουσι πόδες ναὸς ὠκυπόμπου.

1135

λαμπροὺς ἱπποδρόμους βαίην,

[ἀντ. β

ἔνθ᾽ εὐάλιον ἔρχεται πῦρ' οἰκείων δ᾽ ὑπὲρ θαλάμων

1140

ἐν νώτοις ἁμοῖς πτέρυγας

λήξαιμι θοάζουσα: | ᾽ ν χοροῖς~ δ᾽ 9 ἐνσταίην, ὅθι καὶ Ἁ παρθένος εὐδοκίμων δόμων ᾽

9

I 4

᾽

Ἱπαρὰ πόδ᾽ εἱλίσσουσα φίλας

1145

ματέρος ἡλίκων θιάσους ἐς ἁμίλλας χαρίτων

ἁβροπλούτοιο χαΐτας εἰς ἔριν ὀρνυμένα πολυποίκιλα φάρεα

1150

καὶ πλοκάμους περιβαλλομέναϊ yévvas ἐσκίαζον. \

ΘΟΑΣ

’

?

ποῦ 08’ ἡ πυλωρὸς τῶνδε δωμάτων γυνὴ

Ἑλληνίς; ἤδη τῶν ξένων κατήρξατο; [ἀδύτοις ἐν ἁγνοῖς σῶμα λάμπονται πυρᾷ]

1155

1124 πεντηκόντερος Kannicht: -τορος L 1125 & Elmsley: δ᾽1, «δέτας L 1126 Πανὸς οὐρείου κάλαμος Diggle: κ- od- π- L .

κέλλαδον

Tr

1131 εὖ o’ Bothe: ἐς L: εἰς Tr

1133 βάσῃ

κηρόδετος Porson: 1129 κέλαδον 1,

Diggle: βήσῃ

L

1135 ἱστίᾳ δ᾽ ἐς προτόνους Platnauer: ἀέρι. δ᾽ ἱστία πρότονοι L 1136 ἐκπετάσουσι Tr: -σιν 1, πόδες Seidler: πόδα L 138 λαμπροὺς ἱπποδρόμους L: -ρὸν -pov Tr 1141 é& νώτοις ἁμοῖς πτέρυγας Frizsche: π- & ν- d- L 1143 δ᾽ ἐνσταίην Platnaver: 8¢ σταίην L 1144 δόμων Kochly: γάμων L 1146 parépos L: ματρὸς Tr 1148 ἁβροπλούτοιο χαίτας L: ἁβροπλούτου τε χλιδᾶς (χλιδᾶς iam Markland) England 1152 γένυας Markland: γένυσιν L 153 08’ Trp: éof’ L 1154 ἤδη Reiske: % δὴ L 1155 del. Page

EYPITIIAQY

ἥὃ’ ἐστίν, ἤ σοι πᾶντ᾽, ἄναξ, ἐρεῖ σαφῶς. ἔα' τί τόδε μεταιρεις ἐξ ἀκινήτων-βάθρων, Αγαμεμνονος παῖ, θεᾶς σ.γσ.λμ’ι᾿ν ὠλέναις; ο.

Ιᾧ

ἄναξ, ἔχ᾽ αὐτοῦ πόδα σὸν ἐν παραστάσιν.

τί δ᾽ ἔστιν, Ἰφιγένεια, καινὸν ἐν δόμοις;

ἀπέπτυσ᾽ Ὁσίᾳ γὰρ δίδωμ᾽ ἔπος τόδε.

o. Ιᾧ ο.

τί φροιμιάζῃ νεοχμόν; ἐξαύδα σαφῶς. οὐ καθαρά μοι τὰ θύματ᾽ ἠγρεύσασθ᾽, ἄναξ. τί τοὐκδιδάξαν τοῦτό o3 1 δόξαν λέγεις;

Θο.

1) 8’ αἰτία τίς; ἦ τὸ τῶν ἕένων μύσος;

Ιφ Θο.Ιφ. Ιᾠ ο.

Ιᾧ

βρέτας τὸ τῆς θεοῦ πάλιν ἕδρας ἀπεστράφη. αὐτόματον, 9 νιν σεισμὸς ἔστρεψε χθονός; αὐτόματον': ὄψιν δ᾽ ὀμμάτων ξυνήρμοσεν. 70 οὐδὲν ἄλλο" δεινὰ γὰρ δεδράκατον. ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τιν᾽ ἔκανον βαρβάρων ἀκτῆς ἔπι:

οἰκεῖον ἦλθον τὸν φόνον κεκτημένοι.

1160

1165

1170

Θο.

T’ εἰς ἔρον γὰρ τοῦ μαθεῖν πεπτώκαμεν.

Θο. ἶᾧ ο.

Ἄπολλον, οὐδ᾽ ἐν βαρβάροις ἔτλη τις ἄν. πάσης διωγμοῖς ἠλάθησαν Ἑλλάδος. 1) τῶνδ᾽ ἕκατι δῆτ᾽ ἄγαλμ᾽ ἔξω φέρεις;

1175

Θο.

σοφήν o’ ἔθρεψεν Ἑλλάς, ὡς ἤσθου καλῶς.

1180

Ιφ.

Ιᾧ Θο. Ιφ. Ιφ

ο.

Ιᾧ ο. Ιφ

Θο. Ιᾠ ο. Ιᾧ ο.

Ιᾧ

:

μητέρα κατειργάσαντο κοινωνῷ ξίφει.

σεμνόν γ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αἰθέρ᾽, ws μεταστήσω φόνου. μίασμα δ᾽ ἔγνως τοῖν ξένοιν ποίῳ τρόπῳ; ἤλεγχον, ws θεᾶς βρέτας ἀπεστράφη πάλιν. καὶ μὴν καθεῖσαν δέλεαρ ἡδύ μοι φρενῶν.

τῶν Ἀργόθεν τι φίλτρον ἀγγέλλοντέ σοι;

τὸν μόνον Ὀρέστην ἐμὸν ἀδελφὸν εὐτυχεῖν. ws δή σφε σώσαις ἡδοναῖς ἀγγελμάτων. καὶ πατέρα γε ζῆν καὶ καλῶς πράσσειν ἐμόν.

σὺ 8’ ἐς τὸ τῆς θεοῦ γ᾽ ἐξένευσας εἰκότως. πᾶσάν γε μισοῦσ᾽ Ἑλλάδ᾽, 7 μ᾽ ἀπώλεσεν. τί δῆτα δρῶμεν, φράζε, τοῖν ἕένοιν πέρι; τὸν νόμον ἀνάγκη τὸν προκείμενον σέβειν. οὔκουν ἐν ἔργῳ χέρνιβες ξίφος τε σόν;

ἁγνοῖς καθαρμοῖς πρῶτά νιν νίψαι θέλω.

1185

1190

πηγαῖσιν ὑδάτων 1) θαλασσίᾳ δρόσῳ;

Ιᾧ;" --θβάλασσα κλύζειπάντα- τἀνθρώπων κακά.. 1168 ἤ Τ: 9 L 1173 κατειργάσαντο Tr: -σατοὶ, 1174 ἔτλη Gaisford: τόδ᾽ ἔτλη 1182 τι Matthiae: τί 1181 μὴν Monk: νῦν L καθεῖσαν Tr p: καθῆσαν L 1190 οὕκουν Markland: otxoivL

Ι, L

IQITENEIA Η ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙ͂Σ

41

ὁσιώτεροι γοῦν τῇ θεῷ πέσοιεν ἄν. καὶ τάμά γ᾽ οὕτω μᾶλλον ἂν καλῶς ἔχοι.

1195

οὔκουν πρὸς αὐτὸν ναὸν ἐκπίπτει κλύδων;

ἐρημίας δεῖ: καὶ γὰρ ἄλλα δράσομεν.

ἄγ᾽ ἔνθα χρήζεις" οὐ φιλῶ τἄρρηθ᾽ ὁρᾶν. ἁγνιστέον μοι καὶ τὸ τῆς θεοῦ βρέτας.

.

εἴπερ γε κηλὶς ἔβαλέ νιν μητροκτόνος.

1200

οὐ γάρ mor’ ἄν νιν ἠράμην βάθρων ἄπο.

δίκαιος ηὐσέβεια καὶ προμηθία. οἶσθά νυν ἅ μοι γενέσθω; Θο. σὸν 10 σημαίψειν τόδε.

δεσμὰ τοῖς ξένοισι πρόσθες.

πιστὸν Ἑλλὰς οἶδεν οὐδέν.

Θο. ποῖ δέ σ᾽ ἐκφύγοιεν dv;

Θο. ἔτ᾽ ἐπὲ δεσμά, πρόσπολοι.

κἀκκομιζόντων γε δεῦρο τοὺς ξένους...

Θο. ἔσται τάδε.

1205

κρᾶτα κρύψαντες πέπλοισιν. (Θο.) ἡλίου πρόσθεν φλογός. σῶν 7€ μοι σύμπεμπ᾽ ὀπαδῶν. Θο. οἵδ᾽ ὁμαρτήσουσί σοι.

_ .1φ.

καὶ πόλει πέμψον Tw’ ὅστις σημανεῖ... - Θο. ποίας τύχας; év δόμοις μίμνειν dmavras. Θο. μὴ συναντῶσιν φόνῳ; 1210 μυσαρὰ γὰρ τὰ τοιάδ᾽ ἐστί. Θο. στεῖχε καὶ σήμαινε ob . . .

{|φ.

..... )

Ἰφ. Ιφ. Ιφ. Ιφ.

ἄἅγνισον πυρσῷ μέλαθρον. Θο. καθαρὸν ὡς μόλῃς πάλιν.. ἡνίκ᾽ ἂν δ᾽ ἔξω περῶσιν οἱ ξένοι... Θο. τί χρή με δρᾶν; πέπλον ὀμμάτων προθέσθαι. Θο. μὴ παλαμναίους βλέπω. ἣν δ᾽ ἄγαν δοκῶ χρονίζειν... Θο. τοῦδ᾽ ὄρος τίς ἐστί μοι;

(1φ.) μηδέν᾽ εἰς ὄψιν πελάζειν. Θο. εὖ ye κηδεύεις πόλιν. (1φ.)) καὶ φίλων γ᾽ οὗς δεῖ μάλιστα. Θο. τοῦτ᾽ ἔλεξας εἰς éué. Ip.

Ιῴφ. Ιφ. Ip.

(Θο.) ws εἰκότως σε πᾶσα θαυμάζει πόλις.

σὺ δὲ μένων αὐτοῦ πρὸ ναῶν τῇ θεῷ...

Θο. τί χρῆμα δρῶ; 1215

θαυμάσῃς μηδέν. Θο. τὰ τῆς θεοῦ πρᾶσσ᾽ ἐπὶ. σχολῆς καλῶς. εἰ γὰρ ὡς θέλω καθαρμὸς ὅδε. πέσοι. Θο. συνεύχομαι. 1221 τούσδ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐκβαίνοντας ἤδη δωμάτων ὁρῶ ξένους καὶ θεᾶς κόσμους νεογνούς 7’ ἄρνας, ws φόνῳ φόνον

μυσαρὸν ἐκνίψω, σέλας τε λαμπάδων τά τ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ ὅσα προυθέμην ἐγὼ ξένοισι καὶ θεᾷ καθάρσια.

1225

1194 ὁσιώτεροι Tournier: -povL 1196 οὔκουν Markland: od«oivL 1201 ἠράμην Musgrave: ἀνῃράμην L 1206 ye Elmsley: 8¢ L 1207 κρᾶτα κρύψαντες Musgrave:

κατακρύψαντες

L

1207-8 κατακρύψαντες

...

oddels

L

ὁπαδῶν

Iph.

trib.

L:

corr

Markland 1210 συναντῶσιν Elmsley: -dev L 1212-14 paragraphos ante μηδέν᾽ (1212), xat φίλων et τοῦτ᾽ (1213), ὡς (1214) om. L: paragraphum ante τοῦτ᾽ add. L vel Tr: corr.

Markland

1213 ods

δεῖ

Badham:

1214 lac.

indic.

1218 medapvaiovs . βλέπω Bauer: 1216 πυρσῷ Reiske: xpvo@® L λάβω L 1220 πρᾶσσ᾽ p: πράσσ᾽ 1, σχολῆς Schaefer: σχολῆῇ L Pierson: ἄρσενας L

Hermann

παλαμναῖον 1223 ἄρνας

2 N 1

ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΙΔΟῪΥ

τ

42

“σ.π

ἐκποδὼν δ᾽ αὐδῶ πολίταις τοῦδ᾽ éxew μιάσματος,

εἴ τις 7 ναῶν πυλωρὸς χεῖρας ἁγνεύει θεοῖς 7 γάμον στείχει συνάψων 7 τόκοις βαρύνεται'

φεύγετ᾽, ἐξίστασθε, μή τῷ προσπέσῃ, μύσος τόδε. ὦ Διὸς Δητοῦς 7’ ἄνασσα παρθέν᾽, ἣν νύψω φόνον

. 1230.

τῶνδε καὶ θύσωμεν οὗ χρή. καθαρὸν οἰκήσεις δόμον, εὐτυχεῖς δ᾽ ἡμεῖς ἐσόμεθα. τἄλλα δ᾽ οὐ λέγουσ᾽, ὅμως

Ἔ

β

τοῖς τὰ πλείον᾽ εἰδόσιν θεοῖς ool τε σημαίνω, θεά.

Χο.

εὕπαις ὁ Λατοῦς γόνος, ὅν ποτε Δηλιάσιν καρποφόροις γυάλοις (ἔτικτε), χρυσοκόμαν

[orp. 1235:

/ φ 95 ᾽ ἐν9 κιθάρᾳ σοφόν,4 δστ᾽ ἐπὶ κΑ τόξων

εὐστοχίᾳ ydvvrar φέρε (δ᾽ 3

,

,

2

ἵνιν

9

ἀπὸ dewpddos εἰναλίας

"

1240:

λοχεῖα κλεινὰ λιποῦσα τὰν ματέρ᾽ ἁἀστάκτων ὑδάτων (συμ)βακχεύουσαν Διονύ-

> Ἶ

σῳ Παρνάσιον κορυφάν,

΄

\

ὅθι ποικιλόνωτος οἰνωπὸς δράκων 2

9

᾽

1245-

σκιερᾷ κάτεχ᾽ ἄλσος εὔφυλλον δάφνᾳ..

γᾶς πελώριον τέρας, Τἀμφέπει μαντεῖον χθόνιονΐ. ἔτι viv ἔτι Bpédos, ἔτι φίλας o

’

39

2

4

.

1250.

.

ἐπὶ ματέρος ἀγκάλαισι θρῴσκων

ἔκανες, @ Φοῖβε, μαντείων δ᾽ ἐπέβας ζαθέων τρίποδί T’ ἐν χρυσέῳ θάσσεις ἐν ἀψευδεῖ θρόνῳ ᾽ ΄ , μαντείας βροτοῖς~ θεσφάτων νέμων.

ἀδύτων ὕπο, Κασταλίας ῥεέθρων

γείτων, μέσον γᾶς ἔχων μέλαθρον.

᾿"

Θέμιν δ᾽ ἐπεὶ Γαΐαν

᾽

1255

[ἀντ.

παῖδ᾽ ἀπενάσσαθ᾽ ὁ (Λατῷος) ἀπὸ ζαθέων

1260

χρηστηρίων, νύχια

1232 ἐσόμεθα

1,

-μεσθα

Ἔ

1233 εἰδόσιν

Bothe:

-σι

1

θεά

:

θεᾶ

Ι, 1235 Δηλιάσιν Burges: Δηλιὰς ἐν L 1236 (ἔτικτε) Paley φοῖβον post χρυσοκόμαν del. Musgrave 1237 ὅστ᾽ Burges: ἅ 7’ L 1239 γάνυται Barnes: yaw- L - φέρς (δ᾽) ἵνιν (φέρεν ἶνιν iam Burges) Kirchhoff: φέρει νιν L 1240 εἰναλίαξ᾽ Tr;ἐν- L 1241-2 τὰν parép’ ἀστάκτων ὑδάτων (natép’iam Jacobs, ἀστάκτων ὑδάτων᾽

iam Murray) Sansone: ἀστάκτων μάτηρ ὑδάτων τὰν 1 1243 (ουμ)βακχεύουσαν Diggle 1246 κάτεχ᾽ dAoos εὔφυλλον Burges: κατάχαλκος εὐφύλλω L 1250 v

Seidler: μιν L

L

L

Nauck

1255 ἀναφαίΐίνων post Bporois del Seidler

1256 ὕπο Seidler: ὕπερ L

1259 ἐπεὶ Canter: éné L

νέμων Musgrave: ἐμῶν

Γαΐαν Bruhn: yds ἰὼν

1260 ἀπενάσσαθ᾽ ὁ (ἀπένασσεν & iam Nauck) Mekler: ἀπενάσατο 1, :

{Aardos):

:

.

.

P

-

ἸΦΙΈΝΕΙΑ H ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙΣ

43

T

Χθὼν ἐτεκνώσατο φάσματ᾽ ὀ(νείρων),

Ve

T

οὗ πόλεσιν μερόπων τά τε πρῶτα. τά T ἔπειθ᾽ @ T’ ἔμελλε τυχεῖν, ὕπνῳ κατὰ δνοφερὰς χαμεύ-

μ |

1265

νας ἔφραζον' [αῖα δὲ τὰν μαντείων ἀφείλετο τι-

μὰν Φοῖβον φθόνῳ θυγατρός. ταχύπους &’ ἐς Ὄλυμπον ὁρμαθεὶς ἄναξ

1270

χέρα παιδνὸν ἔλιξεν ἐκ Διὸς θρόνων, ᾽

A

9

4

΄᾿

Πυθίων δόμων χθονίαν ἀφελεῖν μῆνιν θεᾶς. 4 > @ ! » Ν γέλασε δ᾽ ὅτι τέκος ἄφαρ ἔβα πολύχρυσα θέλων λατρεύματα oyeiv: ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἔσεισεν κόμαν παῦσαι νυχίους ἐνοπάς, ὑπὸ δ᾽ ἀλαθοσύναν νυκτωπὸν ἐξεῖλεν βροτῶν,

1275

καὶ τιμὰς πάλιν θῆκε Λοξίᾳ Α

A}

4

~

1280

,

πολυάνορί 1’ ἐν ξενόεντι θρόνῳ

θάρση βροτοῖς θεσφάτων ἀοιδαῖς.

AI'TEAOZX ὦ ναοφύλακες βώμιοί 7° ἐπιστάται, Θόὅας ἄναξ γῆς τῆσδε ποῦ κυρεῖ βεβώς:

1285

καλεῖτ᾽ ἀναπτύξαντες εὐγόμφους πύλας

Χο. Αγ.

Χο. Ay. Χο.

(L)

ἔξω μελάθρων τῶνδε κοίρανον χθονός. τί δ᾽ ἔστιν, εἰ χρὴ μὴ κελευσθεῖσαν λέγειν; βεβᾶσι φροῦδοι δίπτυχοι νεανίαι '

Ἀγαμεμνονείας παιδὸς ἐκ βουλευμάτων

ι

φεύγοντες ἐκ γῆς τῆσδε καὶ σεμνὸν βρέτας λαβόντες ἐν κόλποισιν Ἑλλάδος νεώς. ἄπιστον εἶπας μῦθον'" ὃν 8’ ἰδεῖν θέλεις ἄνακτα χώρας, φροῦδος ἐκ ναοῦ συθείς. ποῖ; δεῖ γὰρ αὐτὸν εἰδέναι τὰ δρώμενα. οὐκ ἴσμεν' ἀλλὰ στεῖχε καὶ δίωκέ νιν ὅπου κυρήσας τούσδ᾽ ἀπαγγελεῖς λόγους.

1263 φάσματ᾽ ὀνείρων Tr: φάσματ᾽ é L: φάσματα p

1265 ¢ 7’ Seidler: ὅσα 7’ L

1290

1295

1264 πόλεσιν Tr: πολέσι ΄

1266 ὕπνῳ Markland: -νου 1,

δνοφερὰς

Musgrave: -4s L χαμεύνας Linder: γᾶς εὐνὰς L 1267 τὰν Seidler: τὴν L (om. P) 1268 μαντείων Seidler: pavreiov L 1271 παιδνὸν L: ψαιδνὸν Tr p: ψεδνὸν Paris gr.2817 et 2887 ἐἔλιξεν Seidler: €Avxx L: ἔλιξ᾽ Trp 1272 μῆνιν θεᾶς Wilamowitz: θ- μL νυχίους 7’ ἐνοπὰς post μῆνιν habet L, del. Seidler 1276-7 ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἔσεισεν.... παῦσαι

Badham: ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἔσεισε ... παῦσε L

ὀνείρους

Ι, 1

L

1278 ὑπὸ

Wecklein:

1279 ἔξειλεν Burges: -λε L 1285 γῆς τῆσδε Tr: τ- y- L

1277 νυχίους ἐνοπάς Burges, εχ 1272: νυχίους

ἀπὸ

L

δ᾽

ἀλαθοσύναν

1281 τ᾽ Bergk: 8’ L

Ναυςκ:

δὲ

λαθ-

1282 θάρση Trp: -σει

44

ΕὙΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ͂

Αγ. Χο. Ay.

Θο. Αγ..-

Θο. Ay.

ὁρᾶτ', ἄπιστον ws γυναικεῖον γένος"

μέτεστι χὐμῖν τῶν πεπραγμένων μέρος.

μαΐνῃ' τί δ᾽ ἡμῖν τῶν ξένων δρασμοῦ μέτα; οὐκ €l κρατούντων πρὸς πύλας ὅσον τάχος; οὔ, πρίν γ᾽ ἂν εἴπῃ τοὔπος ἑρμηνεὺς τόδε,

Μ 3 Ὶ εἴγ᾽Ν 3Nἔνδον εἴτ᾽¥ 5 ol3 ἔνδον ἀρχηγὸς χθονός.᾽ 3 2 Ἅ ~ ~ Μ ) ὠή, χαλᾶτε κλῇθρα, τοῖς ἐνδον λέγω, ΄ 9 Ψ 99 ᾽ καὶ Ἁ δεσπότῃ σημήναθ᾽ οὕνεκ᾽ ἐν πύλαις πάρειμι, καινῶν φόρτον ἀγγέλλων κακῶν:

1305

τίς ἀμφὶ δῶμα θεᾶς τόδ᾽ ἵστησιν βοήν,. πύλας ἀράξας καὶ ψόφον πέμψας ἔσω;

ψευδῶς λέγουσαί μ᾽ ald’ ἀπήλαυνον δόμων,

ὡς ἐκτὸς εἴης" σὺ δὲ κατ᾽ olkov ἦσθ᾽ dpa. τί προσδοκῶσαι κέρδος 7. θηρώμεναι; αὖθις τὰ τῶνδε σημανῶ' τὰ δ᾽ ἐν ποσὶν παρόντ᾽ ἄκουσον. ἡ νεᾶνις ἣ νθάδε βωμοῖς παρίστατ᾽, Ἰφιγένει᾽, ἔξω χθονὸς ¢

9

)\

Ν

A

4

[4

A

>

9

9

᾽

»

'

¥

¥

σὺν τοῖς ξένοισιν οἴχεται, σεμνὸν θεᾶς

Θο.

Θο.

τὸν ποῖον; ἄρ᾽ ὃν Τυνδαρὶς τίκτει κόρη;

Θο.

& θαῦμα:' πῶς σε μεῖζον ὀνομάσας τύχω;

Ay. Ay.

Θο. Ay.

1310

A}

ἄγαλμ᾽ ἔχουσα: δόλια 8’ ἣν καθάρματα. πῶς φής;: τί πνεῦμα συμφορᾶς κεκτημένη;

Αγ..

1300

1315

σῴζουσ᾽ Ὀρέστην' τοῦτο γὰρ σὺ θαυμάσῃ.

ὃν τοῖσδε βωμοῖς θεὰ καθωσιώσατο.

1320

μὴ νταῦθα τρέψῃς σὴν φρέν᾽, ἀλλ᾽ ἄκουέ μου'

σαφῶς 8’ ἀθρήσας καὶ κλυὼν ἐκφρόντισον᾽ διωγμὸν ὅστις τοὺς ξένους θηράσεται.. Aéy™ εὖ γὰρ εἶπας" οὐ γὰρ ἀγχίπλουν πόρον φεύγουσιν, ὥστε διαφυγεῖν τοὐμὸν δόρυ. ᾽ ἐπεὶ πρὸς ἀκτὰς ἤλθομεν θαλασσίας,

1325

éyovras, ἐξένευσ᾽

1330

οὗ ναῦς Ὀρέστου κρύφιος ἣν. ὡρμισμένη, ἡμᾶς μέν, οὗς σὺ δεσμὰ συμπέμπεις ξένων Ν

4

.

ἀποστῆναι πρόσω. 9

~

7

Ayapéuvovos παῖς, ws ἁπόρρητον φλόγα θύουσα καὶ καθαρμὸν ὃν μετῴχετο, ?2 Ἀ » Ν [4 » o ~ ΄ αὐτὴ δ᾽ ὄπισθε δέσμ᾽ ἔχουσα τοῖν ξένοιν

ἔστειχε χερσί. καὶ τάδ᾽ ἦν ὕποπτα μέν,

. . .-περ---...-.- ...-...... ..-.-.--ὄ-......-----.-

..-ὄ-...-.-΄ἰ..... ......

e

e

e e

e

τ

τ ππρ' κπο᾿κέκειν τσε τασο κ ο -

1299 χὐμῖν Markland: 8’ ὑμῖν!,

cme

m@

s -..

-y

1301 nuntio, 1302-3 chor. trib. L: corr. Heath, Musgrave

et Tyrwhitt 1302 εἴπῃ L*? Porson: -ποὶ L™ et P 1309 λέγουσαί μ᾽ aid’ Plerson: ἔλεγον αἷδε xal p' L 1312 αὖθις Schaefer: adris L 1324 διωγμὸν Hermann: -osL

1319 κόρη Trp: xdpo. L 1329 ods Trp: oS L

1307 ἕστησιν Tr: -σι L 1310 εἴης Canter: ἧς L

1323 κλυὼν Schulze: κλύων!, 1334 yepol Tr p: xepoiv (L)

ΙΦΠΈΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ TAYPOIX

Ρ

,

b

ἤρεσκε μῶντοι σοῖσι προσπόλοις, ἄναξ.

1335

χρόνῳ 8 W’ ἡμῖν δρᾶν τι δὴ δοκοῖ πλέον, 2 ᾽ \ ᾽ ἀνωλόλυξε καὶ κατῇδε βάρβαρα ᾽ / 9 4 ΄ μέλη μαγεύουσ᾽, ὡς¢ φόνον νίζουσα δή.᾽ ἐπεὶ δὲ δαρὸν ἦμεν ἥμενοι χρόνον, ἐσῆλθεν ἡμᾶς μὴ λυθέντες οἱ ξένοι κτάνοιεν αὐτὴν δραπέται τ᾽ οἰχοίατο. φόβῳ 8’ G μὴ xpiv eloopdv καθήμεθα

Y

. " ἰ ἶ

/

'

|

45

9

q

b

~

9

~

1340

2

σιγῇ" τέλος δὲ πᾶσιν ἣν αὑτὸς λόγος

στείχειν W’ ἦσαν, kaimep οὐκ ἐωμένοις.

i

κἀνταῦθ᾽ ὁρῶμεν Ἑλλάδος vews σκάφος ͵

2

ναύτας τε MEVTNKOVT

3 3

α

1345

’

ἐπὶ σκαλμῶν πλάτας

1347

ἔχοντας, ἐκ δεσμῶν δὲ τοὺς νεανίας ἐλευθέρους (-

.

.

) πρύμνηθεν ἑστῶτες vews σπεύδοντες ἦγον διὰ χερῶν πρυμνήσια,

1349 1352

πόντῳ διδόντες τοῖν ξένοιν καθίεσαν. ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ἀφειδήσαντες, ὡς ἐσείδομεν

1353

κοντοῖς δὲ πρῷραν εἶχον, οἱ δ᾽ ἐπωτίδων. ἄγκυραν ἐξανῆπτον, ot δὲ κλίμακας

1350 1351

δόλια τεχνήματ᾽, εἰχόμεσθα τῆς ἕένης

1355

πρυμνησίων τε, καὶ δι᾽ εὐθυντηρίας

οἴακας ἐξῃροῦμεν εὐπρύμνου νεώς. λόγοι δ᾽ éxawpovr Τίνι λόγῳ πορθμεύετε

κλέπτοντες ἐκ γῆς ξόανα καὶ θνηπόλους; τίνος τίς ὧν (σὺ) τήνδ᾽ ἀπεμπολᾷς χθονός;

ὁ 8’ εἶπ᾽ Ὀρέστης, τῆσδ᾽ ὅμαιμος, ὡς μάθης, Ayauéuvovos παῖς, τὴν δ᾽ ἐμὴν. κομίζομαι

λαβὼν ἀδελφήν, ἣν ἀπώλεσ᾽ ἐκ δόμων. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ἦἧσσον εἰχόμεσθα τῆς ξένης

καὶ πρὸς o’ ἕπεσθαι διεβιαζόμεσθά νιν' ὅθεν τὰ δεινὰ πλήγματ᾽ ἦἣν γενειάδων' keivol τε γὰρ σίδηρον οὐκ εἶχον χεροῖν ἡμεῖς 7€ πυγμαὶ 0 ἦσαν ἐγκροτούμεναι,.

1360

1365

καὶ k@A’ ἀπ᾽ ἀμφοῖν τοῖν νεανίαιν ἅμα

1336 δοκοῖ Matthiae: dox+ L: δοκῇ 16 vel Trp 1338 μαγεύουσ᾽ Reiske: ματεύουσ᾽ L 1343 αὑτὸς Valckenaer: αὐτὸς L 1346 post 1394 trai. Hermann: delere paene malit Diggle 1349 lac. inter ἐλευθέρους et πρύμνηθεν stat. Kochly éordires Kochly: -ras 1, vews Ald.: νεῶν L 1352 post 1349 trai. Kéchly 1351 ἄγκυραν Scaliger:

ἀγκύρας L

τὴν Eévow P

Ι,

1353 διδόντες Kirchhoff: 8¢ δόντες 1,

1358 πορθμεύετε p: πορθεύετε L

θυηπόλους Musgrave: θυηπόλον L

τήνδ᾽ Ῥ

1368 δ᾽ ΑἸά.: 7’L

7oiv £évow Seidler: τὴν ξένην L 1359 ξόανα Reiske: £davov

1360 (σὺ) Markland

1362 τὴν δ᾽ 1Σ

ΕΥ̓ΡΙΠΊΔΟΥ

46

ἐς πλευρὰ καὶ πρὸς ἧπαρ ἠκοντίζετο,

ὥστε ξυναλγεῖν καὶ συναποκαμεῖν μέλη. δεινοῖς 8¢ σημάντροισιν ἐσφραγισμένοι

1370 T\

ἐφεύγομεν πρὸς κρημνόν, OL μὲν €V κάρᾳ κάθαιμ᾽ ἔχοντες τραύμαθ᾽, οἱ &’ ἐν ὄμμασιν". ὄχθοις δ᾽ ἐπισταθέντες εὐλαβεστέρως ἐμαρνάμεσθα καὶ πέτροις ἐβάλλομεν.

1375

πρὸς γῆν, φόβος 8’ ἣν (παρθένῳ) τέγξαι méda—

1380

ἀλλ᾽ εἶργον ἡμᾶς τοξόται πρύμνης ἔπι σταθέντες ἰοῖς, ὥστ᾽ ἀναστεῖλαι πρόσω. κἂἀν τῷδε---δεινὸς γὰρ κλύδων ὦκειλε ναῦν

λαβὼν Ὀρέστης dpov eis ἀριστερόν,

βὰς ἐς θάλασσαν κἀπὶ κλίμακος θορών,

ἔθηκ᾽ ἀδελφήν (1°) ἐντὸς εὐσέλμου νεὼς

τό 7’ οὐρανοῦ πέσημα, τῆς Διὸς κόρης ἄγαλμα. ναὸς δ᾽ ἐκ μέσης ἐφθέγξατο

1385

βοή τις' Ὦ γῆς Ἑλλάδος ναύτης λεώς, λάβεσθε κώπης ῥόθιά τ᾽ ἐκλευκαίνετε:'

ἔχομεν γὰρ ὦνπερ οὕνεκ᾽ ἄξενον πόρον Συμπληγάδων ἔσωθεν εἰσεπλεύσαμεν.

οἱ δὲ στεναγμὸν ἡδὺν ἐκβρυχώμενοι ἔπαισαν ἅλμην. ναῦς δ᾽, ἕως μὲν ἐντὸς ἦν λιμένος, ἐχώρει' στόμια διαπερῶσα δὲ λάβρῳ κλύδωνι συμπεσοῦσ᾽ ἠπείγετο: δεινὸς γὰρ ἐλθὼν ἄνεμος ἐξαίφνης νεὼς

1390

)

ταρσῷ κατήρει πίτυλον ἐπτερωμένον

ὠθεϊ παλιμπρυμνηδόν' οἱ δ᾽ ἐκαρτέρουν πρὸς κῦμα λακτίζοντες" ἐς δὲ γῆν πάλιν κλύδων παλίρρους ἦγε ναῦν. σταθεῖσα δὲ 8

΄

᾽

9

A

~

1394

1346

1395

’

Ἀγαμέμνονος παῖς ηὔξατ᾽. Ὦ Λητοῦς κόρη., σῶσόν με τὴν σὴν ἱερέαν πρὸς Ἑλλάδα ~

V4

4

M




¥4

πόντου τἴίθησι νῶτα πορθμεύειν πλάτην. ᾽

2,

A

(4

1445

᾽

μαθὼν δ᾽, Ὀρέστα, τὰς éuas ἐπιστολάς--4

>y,

΄

\

.

κ

2

7

κλύεις γὰρ αὐδὴν καίπερ οὐ παρὼν θεᾶς---

χώρει λαβὼν ἄγαλμα σύγγονόν τε σήν.

ὅταν δ᾽ Ἀθήνας τὰς θεοδμήτους μόλῃς, χῶρός τις ἔστιν Ἀτθίδος πρὸς ἐσχάτοις

1450

οὗς ἐξεμόχθεις περιπολῶν καθ᾽ Ἑλλάδα .

1455

ὅροισι, γείτων δειράδος Καρυστίας, ἱερός, Ἁλάς νιν οὑμὸς ὀνομάζει λεώς". ἐνταῦθα τεύξας ναὸν ἵδρυσαι Bpéras, ἐπώνυμον γῆς Ταυρικῆς πόνων τε odv,

οἴστροις Ἐρινύων. Ἄρτεμιν δέ νιν βροτοὶ τὸ λοιπὸν ὑμνήσουσι Ταυροπόλον θεάν. ᾽ ’ 9 ν ¢ 4 ! vouov τε θὲς τόνδ᾽. ὅταν ἑορτάζῃ Aeds, -

τῆς σῆς σφαγῆς ἄποιν᾽ ἐπισχέτω ξίφος

δέρῃ πρὸς avdpos αἷμά 7’ ἐξανιέτω,

ὁσίας ἕκατι θεά θ᾽ ὅπως τιμὰς ἔχῃ. ᾿ἕ o€ 8’ ἀμφὶ σεμνάς, Ἰφιγένεια, λείμακας

͵

Βραυρωνίας δεῖ τῇδε κλῃδουχεῖν θεᾷ" ᾿ οὗ καὶ τεθάψη κατθανοῦσα, καὶ πέπλων ἄγαλμά σοι θήσουσιν εὐπήνους ὑφάς, ἃς ἂν γυναῖκες ἐν τόκοις ψυχορραγεῖς λέπωσ᾽ ἐν οἴκοις. τάσδε δ᾽ ἐκπέμπειν χθονὸς Ἦ

4

4

9

»

€

1465

΄

1438 πεπρωμένος Hermann: -vois L 1441b v. habet L: om. vett. 1445 πορθμεύειν Tyrwhitt: -εὔων L πλάτην Musgrave: - L

Portus:

ἀλάς

s L ἀνυέτω L ἵλι’μακαςι εἰπωσ᾽,

L

1453 τεύξας

Pierson:

τάξας

L .

1460

1454 γῆς

P

Ald. edd. 1452 Ἁλάς

Hermann:

1458 fés Bothe et Porson: θέσθε L 1460 éfaviérw Heath: ἐξ 1461 fed & Markland: θεᾶς L 1462 λείμακας Piersom: 1463 τῇδε... θεᾷ Markland: τῇσδε... θεᾶςῚ, 1467 λίπωσ᾽ Tournier:

ἸΦΙΓΈΝΕΙΑ Η ΕΝ ΤΑΥΡΟΙ͂Σ

Ἑλληνίδας γυναῖκας ἐξεφίεμαι γνώμης δικαίας οὕνεκ᾽. ἐξέσωσα δὲ ᾽

4

o

* 9

3

2

καὶ πρίν o’ Ἀρείοις ἐν πάγοις ψήφους ἴσας κρίνασ᾽, Ὀρέστα' καὶ νόμισμ᾽ ἔσται τόὄδε, νικᾶν ἰσήρεις ὅστις ἂν ψήφους λάβῃ.

1470

ἄνασσ᾽ Abdva, τοῖσι τῶν θεῶν λόγοις

1475

ἀλλ᾽ ἐκκομίζου σὴν κασιγνήτην χθονός, Ἀγαμέμνονος παῖ' καὶ σὺ μὴ θυμοῦ, Θόας. Θο.

49

ὅστις κλύων ἄπιστος, οὐκ ὀρθῶς φρονεῖ. ἐγὼ δ᾽ Ὀρέστῃ 7, €l φέρων βρέτας θεᾶς

βέβηκ᾽, ἀδελφῇ 7° οὐχὶ θυμοῦμαι:" τί yap; /

9

353

~

3

9

A

’

7

πρὸς τοὺς σθένοντας Beovs ἁμιλλᾶσθαι καλόν; Y

\

᾽

,

¢

~

ἔτωσαν ἐς σὴν σὺν θεᾶς ἀγάλματι

γαῖαν, καθιδρύσαιντό 7’ εὐτυχῶς βρέτας.

1480

πέμψω 8¢ καὶ τάσδ᾽ Ἑλλάδ᾽ εἰς εὐδαίμονα γυναῖκας, ὥσπερ σὸν κέλευμ᾽ ἐφίεται. Αθ.

Χο.

᾽ 7 9 έ έ παύσω δὲ A λόγχην ἣνA\ ἐπαίρομαι ξένοις νεῶν τ᾽ ἐρετμά, ool τἄδ᾽ ὡς δοκεῖ, θεά.

αἰνῶ: τὸ γὰρ χρεὼν σοῦ τε καὶ θεῶν κρατεῖ.

1485

ἴτ᾽, @ πνοαΐ, ναυσθλοῦτε τὸν Ἀγαμέμνονος παῖδ᾽ εἰς Ἀθήνας" συμπορεύσομαι δ᾽ ἐγὼ ’ 2 2 -~ 2 A ῆ ΄ σῴζουσ᾽ ἀδελφῆς τῆς ἐμῆς σεμνὸν βρέτας.

i1’ ἐπ᾽ εὐτυχίᾳ τῆς σῳζομένης poipas εὐδαίΐμονες ὄντες.

1490

ἀλλ᾽, & σεμνὴ παρά 7’ ἀθανάτοις

καὶ παρὰ θνητοῖς, Παλλὰς Ἀθάνα, δράσομεν οὕτως ὡς σὺ κελεύεις. μάλα γὰρ τερπνὴν κἀνέλπιστον φήμην ἀκοαῖσι δέδεγμαι. ὦ μέγα σεμνὴ Νίκη, τὸν ἐμὸν βίοτον κατέχοις

1495

καὶ μὴ λήγοις στεφανοῦσα.

1469-70 ἐξέσωσα δὲ... σ᾽ Σ vet. Ran. 685 pars codd. (ita RV, nisi quod xaiom.V): ἐκσώσασά σε...Υ, et X Ran. pars codd. 1471 ἔσται τόδε (ἔσται vel ἔστω iam Dupuy) Markland: εἰς ταυτό ye L 1473 κασιγνήτην Elmsley: κασίγνητον L 1478 interrogationis notam post 7{ ydp add. Reiske 1483 κέλευμ᾽ ῬΡατί5, gr. 2887: kéAevap’L 1485 νεῶν Boissonade: νηῶν L θεά Ald.: θεᾶ L 1486 AO. habent Paris. gr. 2817 et 2887: om. Ὶ, xpewvp: xpedv L 1487-9 Apollini trib. L: Ath, Ald. 1487 ναυσθλοῦτε Canter: ναυσθλοῦσθε L 1488 εἰς Ald: é L 1490-1 chor. trib. Seidler: Ath. L 1491 εὐδαίμονες Ald.: -vos L ὄντες Trp: ὄντος L 1492-9 chor. trib. L vel Trp 1495 τερπνὴν L.Dindorf -vov L κἀνέλπιστον Ἰζρ: κπάἀνέλπιστον

L

1497 σεμνὴ L et νέκη Tr: νίκα (L) (σεμνὰ Νίκα codd. nonnulli Luciani Pisc, 39)

Commentary THE HYPOTHESIS The ‘hypotheses’ prefixed in MSS to the plays of Euripides (and other tragedies) are traceable to two distinct sources. The ‘narrative’ hypotheses are simple summaries of the plot, with finite verbs in past tenses. They are generally taken to have come from a compilation of mythological stories drawn from Euripides’ plays, for which Zuntz coined the title “Tales from Euripides; on the model of the Lambs’ Tales from Shakespeare. Such a work would not have been intended for students of the plays, but rather for readers who wanted a short cut to their mythological content. This hypothetical compilation has been variously attributed to Aristotle’s pupil, Dicaearchus (late fourth century), and to an unknown author of the late first century ΒΟ to the first century Ap. By contrast, the ‘learned’ hypotheses were true introductions to the plays. They included information derived from the material on the history of Attic tragedy collected by Aristotle, and would also include: (1) A brief synopsis of the plot, with finite verbs in the present (except for events preceding the start of the action). (2) Information about other poets who had treated the story. (3) The date of the play. (4) Titles of the other plays presented with it. (5) The

other poets competing on the same occasion, with the titles of their plays. (6) The result of the competition. (7) Some rudimentary critical judgments.

(8) The place of the action. (9) A list of characters in order of appearance, with identification of the chorus. (10) The speaker of 6 prologue. The learned hypotheses are assumed to go back to the work of Aristophanes of Byzantium (see above, p. xcix), and a number of MSS offer explicit attributions to him.

Here, however, caution is required. It is most unlikely that the summary of the plot of OT in very flat iambic trimeters is his, any more than seven summaries of plots of Aristophanes’ comedies and that of Menander, Dysc. (P. Bodmer 4), all in trimeters of more or less comic type. Again, the hypothesis of Eum., which is attributed to Aristophanes, provides less Aristophanic material than the unattributed hypothesis of Ag. That hypothesis, however, includes a synopsis, which, while clearly intended as an introduction to the play, 15 long and not wholly accurate, while Aristophanes’ hypotheses seem to have been highly

52

Commentary on lines 1-66

ς succinct. Thus, matters are complicated by the condition in which the hypotheses have been transmitted. Excerpts from narrative and learned hypotheses have evidently been spliced together, and additional matter has been interpolated in the Byzantine period, 'The hypothesis of IT begins with an extract from a narrative hypothesis, This starts from the entrance of Orestes, and only reaches the point where he and Pylades are captured. There is no mention of the recognition, the deceit of Thoas, the escape, or, indeed, of Iphigenia. A remnant of a learned hypothesis follows, providing the scene of the action, the constitution of the chorus, the

speaker of the prologue and the characters in order of appearance. The scribe of L is unlikely to have distinguished two sources for what he was copying, but he did evidently realize that much of the plot was missing from the summary, so left a gap sufficient for five or six lines between the narrative and learned sections, in the hope, no doubt, that the deficiency might one day be made good from another source. The hypothesis in L was corrected by Triclinius after it had been copied by the scribe of P. P’s παραγενηθεὶς, copied before

correction from L, was changed to παρακινηθεὶς by p.

- On-the hypotheses in. general, see Zuntz, Political Plays, pp. 129-46, with

some corrections and refinements in Inquiry, pp. 140-4. On the narrative

hypotheses, see M. van Rossum-Steenbeek, Greek Readers’ Digests? Studies in a Selection of Subliterary Papyri (Mnemosyne Suppl. 175, Leiden, etc., 1998),

J. Rusten, ‘Dicaearchus- and the Tales from Euripides’, GRBS 23 (1982), pp. 357-67, ]. Diggle, ‘Rhythmical Prose in the Euripidean Hypotheses’ in G. Bastianini and A. Casanova (edd.), Euripide e i papiri (Studi e Testi di Papirologia, Ns 7, Florence, 2005), pp. 27-67, in which 4 study of clausulae points to the conclusion that the compilation may have been produced ‘at any date between the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD’ On the learned hypotheses, see D. L. Page’s edition of Med., pp. liii-lv and W. S. Barrett’s of Hipp., pp. 153-4 and A. L. Brown, ‘The Dramatic Hypotheses Attributed to Aristophanes of Byzantium’ (CQ 37 (1987), pp. 427-31), a study which, however, suffers somewhat from the lack of any clear and systematic statement of

the criteria being used to identify learned hypotheses.

PROLOGUE, 1-66

',

O Cymbeline, heaven and my conscience knows

“Thou-did’st unjustly banish-me; whereon; -——-— == ------At three and two years old, I stole these babes,.

Thinking to bar thee of succession as 'Thou reft'st me of my lands. Euriphile, ‘Thou wast their nurse; they took thee for their mother,

Ι

Commentary on lines 1-66

53

And every day do honour to thy grave. Myself, Belarius, that am Morgan called, They take for natural father. Shakespeare, Cymbeline 3. 3.99-107. ' Faced with the need to convey to the audience a quantity of background ‘information,

Shakespeare

resorts to the perfunctory

device

of making

Belarius, alone on stage, address one character who is absent and another who

ἰς dead. ‘Very inartificial' (inartistic) was Dr Johnson’s judgment. Here, Euripides is even more perfunctory. Iphigenia enters from the stage building,

which, as we shall learn at 65-6, represents the temple of Artemis, and tells

the audience, in straightforward narrative, all that they need to know. Even at 43, where we begin to have some sense of an action taking place at a certain point in dramatic time, she still speaks to us, the audience: Ἱ shall tell to the sky..." Greek myths circulated in many versions. There were two versions even of Iphigenia’s parentage (Introduction, p. xv). The audience needed to know the premisses on which the play would be based. ‘Informative’ opening monologues do not begin with Euripides. Indeed, they probably go back to the

beginnings of drama. There are two in the Oresteia: the watchman’s at Ag.

1-39 and the Pythia’s at Eum. 1-63. Both begin with a section in the form of a prayer, into which is inserted background information. Then there is an interrupting event which produces an explosion of emotion: joy in the watchman, terror in the Pythia. For the latter part of the speeches, it is not too hard to accept that the characters speak aloud under the pressure of violent emotion. Of Sophocles’ surviving plays, only Trach. begins with a long monologue, and even there the nurse is present as nominal addressee. Deianeira first enun-

ciates a general reflection on human life (“There is an old saying that . ..) then goes through the events of her own life, which, she feels, contradict it. We can accept her words as representing, in highly organized form, the thoughts that would be running in her head. For Euripides, it is not difficult to see the justification for prologues delivered by gods (Apollo in Alc., Aphrodite in Hipp., Poseidon in Tro., Hermes in

Ion, Dionysus in Ba.), because gods have knowledge that no human character

has. By sharing that knowledge with us, they -change the perspective from which we view events. Besides, a god who takes no further part in the action of the play (that is all gods except for Dionysus in Ba.) we can assimilate to such figures as the chorus in-Shakespeare’s Henry V, or Gower in Pericles. But fully integrated characters, like the farmer in EL or Iphigenia here, who deliver these long factual recitals without apparent dramatic motivation, are peculiarly challenging to our common conception of ‘dramatic illusion’ There is no question of technical naivety on Euripides’ part. He himself draws attention to the

54

Commentary on lines 1-2

ς

quaintness of the device at Med., 49.-52. There, after the nurse’s monologue, the

tutor enters with: ‘Aged possession of my mistress’s house, why are you standing all alone at the gates, lamenting aloud to yourself?’ It may be well to remind oneself that-tragedy in Euripides’ time was still a new form: in the shape in which we know it, less than fifty years old, still very much open to experiment. Can it be that prologues such as Iphigenia’s are designed to draw the audience into the drama, like such modern directors’ devices as the thrust stage, or causing characters to enter by way of the auditorium, or pop up from among the audience? This heroine of myth is here among us, speaking to us. Only gradually does she retreat into the distant past of dramatic time. 1-2. Πέλοψ . . . κόρην: ‘having come with swift mares’ is enough to remind the audience of the chariot race by which Pelops won Hippodamia from her

father, Oenomaus, king of Pisa (Olympia). That event could be presented as

the beginning of misfortune for the Pelopids (as, for example, at S. El. 504-

15 and Or. 985-97), but here Iphigenia’s tone 15 simply factual. Euripides

produced a play called Oenomaus, but 115 date and content are unknown.

See further below; on 823-6. Other surviving plays which open with gene-

alogies are: Hec., Her., Phoen., Or. (after slight delay), Ba., and (briefly) Jon. . At Hel. 386-92, Menelaus, alone on stage, introduces himelf with a similar

genealogy to Iphigenia’s, but expressed in more emotional terms. Some dozen years making fun 1198-1247, tence of the

before IT was produced, Aristophanes may already have been of Euripides’ taste for genealogies at Ach. 47-50. Later, at Frogs he cites this prologue among others which begin with a senform ‘x did such and such; where what χ did occupies the part

of a trimeter following the caesura. Thus, the same absurdity can always be substituted. So ληκύθιον ἀπώλεσεν (‘lost his pocket oil-flask’) can replace

Οἰνομάου yauei κόρην. The joke, together with various (probably unnecessary) attempts to spice it up, is excellently dealt with by Dover on Frogs 1200. TavrdAeios: the adjectival form in place of the genitive (like Tuvdapeias at 5 below), and the poetic adjective, θοαῖσιν (Homer, Pindar

and tragedy) give an elevated tone. On the gender of θοαῖσιν, see below.

ἕπποις: ‘comitative’ dative with μολών, as in military contexts (WS §1526). μολών: ἔμολον serves as the aorist of βλώσκω, but, while βλώσκω is not

found in tragedy, parts of the metrically-convenient ἔμολον are common. The unaugmented forms in particular neatly fill the last two positions of a

J{rimeter. See 342, 515; 588 (μολών), 110 (μόλῃ), 700, 1449 (μόλῃς), 1033 —-—(poleiv)-Olvopdov,— U y—-produces-u y-in-the-short-position -of the second metron. Compare 825 below and Hel. 386 and see Introduction, ΡΡ. boxviii-Ixxix. γαμεῖ: historic present, with ‘highlighting’ function in a

narrative otherwise in past tenses. See further A. Rijksbaron, Grammatical Observations on Euripides’ Bacchae, pp. 1-4.

Commentary on lines 3-7

55

[Barrett (on Hipp. 231) notes that in tragedy the feminine is always used of horses in teams. In Pindat, the same is true of Poseidon’s golden horses (Ol.1.41 and 8.51) and of the teams of Arcesilas of Cyrene (Pyth.4.17) and of Chromius of Etna (Nem. 9.52). Consistency is not complete, because, while Orestes’ imaginary team at S, EL. 698 ff. 15 referred to as feminine in the plural, the masculine is twice used of individual horses (722, 744). But the prevalhng feminine most probably reflects real practice. Mares would have

been easier to control, given the rarity of mentions of gelding in Greek. See J. K. Anderson, Ancient Greek Horsemanship (Berkeley, Calif,, 1961), p. 38 and M. Griffith, ‘Horsepower and Donkeywork: Equids and the Ancient Greek Imagmatlon, CP 101 (2006), pp. 185--246, especially p. 197.] 3--5. ἐξ ἧς . . . παῖς: Menelaus, Agamemnon, Iphigenia: 811 epic names hard to

fit into jambic trimeters (Introduction, p. xxviii). Note Arpeds, but Arpéws.

τοῦ &: ‘and from him ...’ The definite article as pronoun, with 8¢ marking the next step.

[Ἀτρέως & ἄπο is Badham's conjecture for the MS Arpéws δὲ παῖς, where

ἣν or ἔφυ would be understood (instead of a plural verb): ‘Of Atreus there

was a son, Menelaus—and Agamemnon’ A singular verb followed by more than one subject is certainly permissible (WS § 966b), soisa singular predicate in the order subject, predicate, other subjects: alel ydp τοι ἔρις τε φίλη πόλεμοί τε μάχαι e (Il 1. 177). A verb can also agree wfih a first sub)ect, with other sub]ects added in parenthesis: πρόρριζος αὐτός--- γυνή, τὰ παιδία---ἰ[ἰ[κάκιστ' ἀπολοίμην (Frogs 587-8). But the MS reading here seems much harsher. It could only be acceptable on the assumption that Iphigenia adds her own father as a sort of afterthought (compare the passages cited by Diggle, Studies, p. 75), but that would seem very strange in the context. παῖς could easily have entered the text by a slip of the scribe’s eye to the last word of 5. τοῦ 8% Schaefer’s correction of I's 7046’ from this man here’]

6-7. ἣν. ... στρέφει: ‘whom, by the eddies which the Euripus swirls, constantly

twisting round (θάμ᾽ . .. ἑλίσσων) the dark sea with frequent breezes ..."

Markland was the first of many editors to compare Livy 28.6.9-10: It would be hard to find a more inhospitable station for ships. For not only do the winds rush down in tempest from the lofty mountains on either side, but

they change the direction of the waters of the strait of Euripus itself, not, as

is said, seven times a day at fixed hours, but at random. Like a wind, the sea . is turned now this way now that, and is swept along like a torrent pouring down from a mountain. ᾶμ.φἰ δίναις: ‘local’ dative with ἀμφί (not used in Attic prose); κυανέαν:-κυάνεος always has the sense ‘gleaming’ In Homer, it also has the sense ‘dark, or ‘black, later ‘dark blue. 866 Ε, Irwin, Colour Terms in Greek Poetry, pp.79-110.

[αμᾧι δίναις: Monk proposed δι’να.ς, citing as evidence for the acc. meamng

‘at, or ‘by’ Hec. 651 dudi τὸν elpoov Εὐρώταν, Or. 1310 ἀμφὶ τὰς

Commentary on lines 8~11

56

Σκαμάνδρου δίνας, and IA 1294 ἀμφὶ τὸ λευκὸν ὕδωρ. But in all these cases ἀμφί may carry the implication of ‘round about; Ὅη both sides of . The

Spartan girl of Hec. 651 represents many Spartan girls. There is fighting

around the Scamander and actually in it gu¢¢ with acc. can certainly mean ‘round’, See, for example, Hel. 421 ἀμφὲ χρῶτ᾽ ‘round my body), EL 477 ἀμφὶ

νῶθ᾽ ‘round their backs’ and 442 below. Again, for au¢i with the dative, there are certainly passsages where ‘at; ‘near} ‘beside’ would be more appropriate than ‘round’, Thus, at Hel. 1009 ἀμφὲ τύμβῳ τῷδ᾽ ‘reproaches uttered at this

tomb’ is more natural than ‘round this tomb, and at Andr. 511 μαστοῖς

ματέρος ἀμφὶ ads ‘at) or ὋΥ the breasts of your mother, rather than ‘round the breasts . ..’ 1 am not convinced that we understand the shades of meaning conveyed by du¢¢ well enough to try to regularize Euripides’ practice. It

may also be just worth observing that δίναις ἃς suggests careful copying: a careless scribe would be nore likely to write divas ds (see, for example, Ἀχαιοὺς τοὺς for Ἀχαιοῖς Tods at 13 below). On the meaning of ἀμφί, see

. Diggle, Studies, p. 80 and Mastronarde on Phoen. 1516.] 8-9. ἔσφαξεν ... Αὐλίδος: ‘Whom ... [my] father, as is thought, slaughtered

for Artemis, because of Helen, in the famous glens of Aulis.’ Iphigenia will

- return to the sacrifice again and again in the course of the play. After this speech, see 176-8, 210-17, 358-71, 563-6, 770-1, 783-7, 852-60, 1082-3. The object of ἔσφαξεν; ἣν (6), is separated from the verb by the relative

clause, ds .. . στρέφει. Note how the words ἔσφαξεν ... πατήρ frame 8. The

association is startling, for σφάζειν is a brutal word. In Homer, it is used only for ‘to cut the throat’ of an animal (whether for sacrifice, or simply for food). In tragedy, it is also used for brutal killing by any method, e.g.: Andr. 260 (Lloyd: ‘Butcher me!’) and 552 below; of the killing of Agamemnon. See J. Casabona, Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en grec, p. 156. Ἑλένης οὕνεχ᾽: To Iphigenia, Helen is the first cause of her misfortune.

Compare 356 below. ὡς δοκεῖ: She is generally thought to be dead. The

point is made promptly and repeated at 176 and 831. κλειναῖς . . . AvAidos: Iphigenia could be justified in calling the folds of the hills of Aulis ‘famous, because of the unprecedented size of the fleet that gathered there (10-11 below). But in tragedy, the people, places and events of mythology, especially of the Trojan War, are habitually called ‘famous, as if

they rather belonged to the past than to the contemporary reality of the speakers. See below 140, 508. In the Odyssey, the Trojan War is represented within ten years of its end as the subject of song far and wide (1. 325-7, 8.72-82).

'

~[otvey’s The Attic form. Sée Bartétt on

Hipr453=6.] - - -----᾿

10-11. ἐνταῦθα... ἄναξ: a thousand ships is the canonical number in Attic tragedy and a fair approximation to the 1,186 of the Iliadic catalogue. See further Fraenkel on Ag. 45. ὰρ δὴ: δή stressing γάρ is common in Greek of

the classical age (Denniston, p. 243).

Commentary on lines 12-15

57

[νεῶν: The Attic form (Nauck), in place of the Doric ναῶν (—-). The only

example of the Doric form transmitted in the rhythmically-sensitive third metron. See G. Bjorck, Das Alpha Impurum, p. 102, and compare 270 and 1345 below.] 12-13. τὸν καλλίνικον ... Ἀχαιοῖς: ‘wishing to take for the Achaeans the crown of victory over Ilium’ Agamemnon is represented as having had two objectives: military glory, as well as vengeance on behalf of Menelaus.

Victory in war is here assimilated to a victory in the games. Compare the

traditional victory-song attributed to Archilochus: τήνελλα καλλίνικε ... (West, IEG 12, 324, Pindar, O1. 9. 1-2, Ach. 1227, etc.)

[Ἀχαιοῖς: the correction of Lenting, who compares Supp. 315 πόλει παρόν oot στέφανον εὐκλείας λαβεῖν. Ls accusative ( χαιούς) and infinitive is

not impossible in itself: ‘wishing the Achaeans to take ... . Compare Π 19,

273-4 Zeus wished death to come about . ... But here χάριν φέρων suggests

powerfully that Agamemnon himself must be the subject of μετελθεῖν ‘Wishing the Achaeans to take ... and [himself] to pursue ... would be impossibly awkward.] ' 13-14. τούς & ... φέρων: ‘and to seek revenge for the outraged marriage of Helen, doing a favour to Menelaus. In 12-14, Iphigenia gives her version of the cause of the Trojan War, and so of her own misfortunes. Euripidean characters who see the war as bad, foolish and unnecessary are accustomed to stress the culpability of Helen and Menelaus and play down the role of

Paris. Iphigenia acknowledges it obliquely with ὑβρισθέντας γάμους.

Clytaemestra ignores it completely at EL 1027-9: .. Because Helen was crazy with lust and the man who had married her did not know how to punish his traitorous wife. Peleus, addressing Menelaus, states the case at length at Andr. 590-631. Compare IA 381-90. Aeschylus in Ag., while stressing . repeatedly Paris’ outrage against Zeus Sévios and the workings of divine justice, still admits the other view. The bereaved mutter that those they have

lost have died ἀλλοτρίας διαὶ γυναικός (Ag. 448). μετελθεῖν: the orators

occasionally use μετέρχομαι as equivalent to διώκω, ‘to prosecute’ Euripides applies it to the crime, as well as to the criminal: μετῆλθόν o’ αἷμα μητέρος θεαΐ (Or. 423) “The goddesses pursued you for your mother's blood’ (compare Cyc. 280). Aeschylus makes it govern the punishment:

ὙΠ justice I pursued this death, my mother’s’ (μετῆλθον ... φόνον Cho.

988-9). xapw φέρων Homeric. See Π 5. 211, 874, 9. 613, 21. 458, and also 0Od. 5. 307. ' 15. δεινῇ . . . τυγχάνων: ‘But through terrible impossibility of sailing, and not encountering winds..% The tragedians differ as to whether there was no wind at all at Aulis, or a contrary wind which would have allowed the fleet to disband and go home (Introduction, p. xxvi). The difference can be sig-

nificant, but nothing is made of it here. δεινῇ 8 ἀπλοίᾳ: instrumental dative. Por the dislocated construction, compare, for example, Held., 6: αἰδοῖ καὶ 76

58

Commentary on lines 16-18

ovyyevés σέβων, from a sense of shame and respecting kinship’ Diggle

(Euripidea, p. 53) gives a list of such combinations from Euripides.

[15 δεινῆς 7" ἀπλοίας, which pairs the phrase with πνευμάτων 7, makes

nonsense: ‘not encountering terrible impossibility of sailing and winds’ Barnes’s 8’ for the first 7’ separates the genitives-and provides a much-needed adversative following the previous sentence, but δεινῆς ἀπλοίας has then to be taken as genitive absolute: ‘there being terrible impossibility of sailing} which is exceedingly awkward with the differently-constructed genitive

following. Hence Rauchenstein’s instrumental dative.} 16. és ἔμπυρ᾽ ἦλθε: ‘He resorted to burnt offerings’ The seer would observe

(technical term: vwudw) the fire on which the parts of the sacrificial victim

were being burnt, and interpret the behaviour of the flames. The process is described at Phoen. 1255-8. At Ant. 1005-11, Tiresias recounts how he has attempted a burnt sacrifice (ἐμπύρων ἐγευόμην) which has failed, with disgusting consequences. Jebbs notes on the passage are excellent. λέγει

Κάλχας τάδε: the change of tense to the historic present and the following

quotation in direct speech mark an emotional climax in the narrative. After Helen and Menelaus, Iphigenia holds Calchas to blame (see 531~3 below),

with the implication that she takes a sceptical view of his pronouncement at Aulis, Even Aeschylus leaves open a slender possibility that Calchas was wrong, even though the facts that the fleet sailed and that Troy fell create a strong presumption that he was right. In reporting Calchas’ words at Ag. 201-2, the poet uses the phrase προφέρων Ἄρτεμιν bringing forward Artemis’ προφέρειν may, as Fraenkel (ad loc.) argues, be a technical term for ‘to make known’ an oracle, but the oracle still does not have to be authentic. Herodotus (5. 63. 1) uses the word in connection with corrupt oracles. [K. J. Dover, in an important and challenging article (‘Some neglected Aspects of Agamemnon’s Dilemma, JHS 93 (1973), pp. 58-69), argues that ‘the chorus [of Ag.] do not at any point commit‘themselves’ to the assertion ‘that Artemis demanded the sacrifice of Iphigenia’ (p. 61). While Dover’s statement of his case may seem over-positive, he is certainly right to draw attention to the touch of evasiveness in Aeschylus’account.] 18. οὐ μὴ ... χθονὸς: οὐ μή with the subjunctive (usually aorist) is a more

assertive equivalent to οὐ with the future indicative: ‘you certainly won't..."

" (GMT §295, WS §1804). adopuilew ο sail (ships) out of harbour’ See further below. [ἀφορμίσῃς active: ‘make to sail out’ (Kirchhoff’s emendation) 15 needed to govern ναῦς. Us ἀφορμίση points to the middle, but, on the analogy of

——~é€oputlew-and-the-uncompounded-épuifw; the middle-of-these- verbs is

intransitive: éopuilouar="1 sail out. Poppo’s emendation at Thuc. 2. 83. 3, . ἀφορμισάμενοι, -is also intransitive: ‘having sailed out. The Revised

Supplement to LS] is unhelpful here. ἀφορμίζομαι with active sense is not established,]

¢

Commentary on lines 19-25

59

19-20. πρὶν ἂν ... σφαγεῖσαν: “.. until Artemis receives your daughter,

Iphigenia; slaughtered. πρὶν ἄν with the subjunctive, following a main verb with negative referring to the future (GMT § 642, WS $2444).

[λάβῃ, Matthiae’s correction for Ls λάβοι, is necessary. πρὶν dv with the optative 5 rare and generally suspect. See WS 565 2421 and 2452. For πρίν

with optative without av, see GMT §§ 643-4 and WS §§2448-50. For a medieval scribe, the confusion between λάβῃ and λάβοι was easy. As in

modern Greek, they were pronounced alike.

20-1. ὅτι γὰρ.... θεᾷ: literally, ‘Whatever most beautiful thing the year should bring forth. The tradition of the fact of the sacrifice seems to have predated

the reason for it. At any rate, Attic dramatists apparently felt free to choose or

invent reasons. This version attenuates Agamemnon’s guilt, and, whether Euripides invented it or not, introduces a characteristically Euripidean pathos with the idea of the wonderfully beautiful girl so cruelly deprived of the marriage that was her due. Cicero (De off 3.25. 94) adopts the Buripidean -version, with the corollary that Agamemnon should have broken his promise: ‘promissum potius non faciendum quam tam taetrum facinus admitten-

dum (

τέκοι: optative, taking the place of subjunctive with ἄν in a

conditional clause dependent on a verb in a historic tense (WS §2619b).

φωσφόρῳ: there was an Attic cult of Artemis Φωσφόρος at Munychia, and the goddess had various cult-titles associated with fire (Σελα σφόρος,

Σελασία, Αἰθοπία) in Attica and elsewhere. The origin of her connection with fire and torches is obscure. For references, see Farnell, Cults of the Greek States ii, pp. 573-4 (nn. 57-8). For representations of Artemis with either one or two torches, see LIMC ii.1, p. 744 (text) and ii.2, pp. 479 Β᾿ (illustrations). [ηὔὕξω: L habitually omits the temporal augment in verbs beginning εὐὖ-, 50

here writes εὔξω. O. Lautensach (Augment und Reduplikation, Hannover and Leipzig, 1899) argued that in Attic verbs with stems in εὐ- (like εὔχο-

pat) should be augmented in ηὐ-, but that compounds with εὖ (like εὐτυχέω

at 329 below) should be left unaugmented. D. J. Mastronarde has, however, pointed out that neither inscriptions nor linguistic considerations provide adequate evidence for making such 4 distinction. See ‘Lautensach’s Law and the Augment of Compound Verbs in EY-" Glotta 67 (1989), pp. 101-5. I follow Murray and Diggle in not recording corrections of εὐ- to ηὖ-.] 22-3. τίκτει: the historic present gives a touch of drama to the sequence of events: ‘You vowed . . . and then what happens!’ For οὖν marking a new stage in a narrative, see Denniston, pp. 425-6.

23. 70 ... ἀναφέρων: Attributing the prize for beauty to me? Her formulation is modest, but at-the same time makes the point that it was Calchas who identified her for sacrifice. There is bitter irony here. The prize for winning | this beauty-competition was death. 24-5. kai g’ . .. Ἀχιλλέως: By the wiles of Odysseus, they took me from my mother. There 15 no need to take this as an allusion to any precise version of

Commentary on lines 26--9

60

the story. This 15 just the sort of dirty job that the Euripidean Odysseus would undertake. He is an ambitious public man, dedicated to the common

enterprise and without scruple in forwarding it. He plays an important rode in Hec., first by persuading the Greeks to sacrifice Polyxena (131-43), then

- by coming himself to take her from her mother (216~437). Elsewhere, he

plays sinister parts off stage. In Tro. (721-3), it is he, according to Talthybius, who has urged that Astyanax must be killed. In IA, when Agamemnon and Menelaus are considering how they may save Iphigenia, Agamemnon expresses his fears that Calchas and Odysseus will alert the army (513-27). At 1361-5, Achilles expects Odysseus to lead the army to drag Iphigenia away by force. In IA, too, it is Clytaemestra herself who escorts Iphigenia to Aulis, for obvious dramatic reasons. ἐπὶ γάμοις: purpose, as at Herodotus

9.37.1 ἔδησαν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ ‘they bound him for execution’

[réxvais: with this, the readingof L, a subject for παρείλοντ(ο), ‘the - Achaeans, or the like, has to be understood. Regarding this as too difficult, Lenting proposed τέχναι, But “The wiles of Odysseus took me ...’ seems . unsuitably poetic for the style of this passage.]

26 Αὐλίδ᾽: terminal accusative: ‘to Aulis, Poetic. On the omission of the preposition, see Stevens on Andr. 3.

26-7. ὑπὲρ mupds . . . ξίφει: ‘When I had been lifted up on high above the pyre,

the attempt was made to kill me with the sword.’ So, too, in Aeschylus (Ag. - 231-5), Agamemnon orders the. attendants to lift Iphigenia up above the

altar ‘like a she-goat’: δίκαν χιμαίρας ὕπερθε βωμοῦι... λαβεῖν ἀέρδην.

For a very clear depiction of Polyxena see Β Maas ‘Aeschylus, Agam.. 231 ἐκαινόμην: ‘conative’ imperfect (WS father tried to kill me. It is sometimes

held up in this way as she is sacrificed, , illustrated, CQ 45. (1951), p. 94. § 1895). Compare ἔκτεινε at 920: ‘My asserted (by writers. who fail to distin-

- guish the imperfect from the aorist) that Iphigenia speaks of herself as hav- ing actually been killed. This is not so. Compare-360 as well as 920 below.

[ἐκαινόμην: A. Rijksbaron (The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek, p. 17) regards this as an ‘imperfect of likelihood', which ‘signifies that

the state of affairs concerned was likely to come about . .. but did not really

occur’ I do not see the case for this. The IT passage is different from Med.

592: πρὁς γῆρας οὐκ εὔδοξον ἐξέβαινε ‘it was likely to end in an inglorious

-old age. In our passage, Agamemnon infended to kill Iphigenia. There is no

question of intention in the Med, passage. The imperfect there is equivalent to ἔμελλε (WS §1895a).]

28-9 ἀλλ᾽... Ἀχαιοῖς: But Artemis stole [me] away, giving to the Achaeans a -deer-instead-of-me:-Artemis;-goddess-of-the wild; provides-a-wild animal, not, as normal, ἃ domestic animal, for sacrifice.

[Reiske's ἐξέκλεψέ μ᾽ is unnecessary. με can easily be understood from μου. Nauck's Ayatods for Ἀχαιοῖς, to be taken with ἐξέκλεψεν stole me from -the Achaeans’ is worse than unnecessary. It 15 natural to take 4yatois with

Commentary on lines 31-41

61

ἀντιδοῦσα, and ἐκκλέπτω ‘to steal away something from somebody’ takes, as one would expect, acc. and gen.: e.g. El 286 αὐτὸν ἐκκλέψαι φόνου. The

construction of uncompounded κλέπτειν with double acc. is irrelevant, and

the argument that Artemis did not exactly give the deer to the Achaeansis a quibble.] : 31-3. οὗ ... χάριν: ‘Where Thoas rules the land, a barbarian for barbarians, who, by setting down a swift foot equal to wings, came to this name on account of speed of foot. Just as Euripides’ Taurians worship Greek gods, their king has a Greek name. In the Πή (14. 230 and 23. 746), “Thoas’ is the

name of the king of Lemnos. In Euripides’ play, Hypsipyle, it is also the name of one of the heroine’s sons-by Jason. Cropp and Fick (BICS Suppl. 43, 1985, p- 22) date Hypsipyle to within two years, one way or the other, of 409, so a little later than IT, See also SFP 11 p. 183. Thoas’ speed as a runner, suggested by his name, simply serves to fill out his personality a little, Aristophanes may have been making fun of this etymology in his lost Lemnian Women. There (PCGIIL.2,fr. 373), there is a reference to ‘Hypsipyle’s father, Thoas’ βραδύτατος τῶν év ἀνθρώποις δραμεῖν. βαρβάροισι βάρβαρος: ‘Polyptoton) a common figure in tragedy; often used, as here, to mark affinity. [E. Tsitsibakou-Vasalos (Ancient Poetic Etymology. The Pelopids: Fathers and Sons, Stuttgart, 2007) offers an interesting general discussion of the subject in her first chapter, although the detailed applications of her ideas tend to seem rather fanciful. She discusses passages from IT in connection with the name ‘Pelops’ on pp. 169-70 and 221. For examples of name-etymologies, Euripidean and other, see P. Rau, Paratragodia, pp. 210-11. On polyptoton, see B. Gygli-Wyss, Das nominale Polyptoton im dilteren Griechisch.] 34, τίθησί: in effect: ‘she has placed me} but present, because the effect of the past action continues into the present, as at Aj. 1128 feos... ἐκσῴζει με ἃ

god saved me [and I am still alive]’ Poetic, see ΟΜΤ 9 27 and Kithner-Gerth i, p. 137.

[ἑερέαν: Wecklein. L wrote, as usual, ἑἱέρειαν which Triclinius saw to be unmetrical, trying ἱερίαν. On the Attic form ἑερέα (UUU-), see Handley on

Menander, Dyskolos, 496 and compare 1399 below.] 35-41, 37. ὅθεν. .. φοβουμένη: ‘For which reason (ὅθεν), by the customs, in which Artemis delights, of the festival of which only the name is fair, I perform the initial rites, but the slaughters are the concern of others. I keep silent about the rest for fear of the goddess. The audience needs to have some idea of what Iphigenia does as priestess in Taurica in order to grasp the significance of the dream and of Orestes’ and Pylades’ observations at 72-5. Here they learn ‘that ‘slaughter is involved, and at 53 that her ‘craft’ is stranger-slaying. It would not be safe to assume that everyone in the

audience knew of the Taurian sacrifices, but some would have read Herodotus and others might have heard the same sailors’ tales as he had. For the separation of νόμοισιν from its genitive, ἑορτῆς, by the relative clause

62

Commentary on lines 41-41 (‘hyperbaton’), compare the separation of ἔννοιαν from its genitive, σωτηρίας, at Hel. 1026-7. κατάρχομαι is the technical word for carrying

out the preliminary rites for a sacrifice: cutting off a little hair from the vic-

tim and sprinkling water. That was the j,o{) of the priest or priestess. The

actual killing was left to the σφαγεύς, the slaughterman (see below on 621),

κατάρχομαι can govern a genitive (‘begin on’), but here it is intransitive, as

at Alc.74 ὡς κατάρξωμαι ξίφει᾽8ο that I may begin the rites with the sword

or Herodotus 4. 103. τὰ & ἄλλα σιγῶ: Iphigenia echoes the words of the watchman at Ag. 36, but what is it that she fears to say? A modern reader is likely to assume that she is afraid to criticize the goddess and her rites, but Greek gods are remarkably tolerant of criticism. They are, however, extremely

sensitive to having such details of their rites divulged as they choose to keep secret. If Euripides is introducing that idea here, it may be because he prefers to treat the Taurian cult with sinister vagueness in a way which allows his heroine to move quickly on to a new topic. [This is one of the most problematic and contentious passages in the play. In

deleting 38-9, I follow Murray, in deleting 41, Monk, and in transferring 37

to follow 40, Markland. I am far from convinced that this is what Euripides

wrote, and other solutions are possible. But the one I have chosen seems to me to give the most satisfactory sense and syntax, given the text as transmitted. It may be that the passage was badly mutilated at an early period, and

that we have inherited the results of more than one attempt to patch it up. The chief difficulties about the text as transmitted are as follows:

(a) Iphigenia can hardly say that she is going to ‘keep silent about the rest, then immediately blurt out the most offensive feature of ‘the rest’ with extreme explicitness. (b) The syntax is severely disrupted. ofev . .. μόνον has no main verb. θύω

cannot perform that function because of ydp, and κατάρχομαι is too

far removed by the three-line interruption. Then, there 15 a harsh asyndeton between 39 and 40. . (¢) Itis not specifically Greeks that Iphigenia sacrifices, but all strangers. At 72 below, it is natural for Orestes to think of Greek blood, but there is no

reason for Iphigenia to mis-state the practice here.

Diggle’s solution (Euripidea, pp. 28-33) is, with Murray, to delete 38-9, and

also 41, but to take κατάρχομαι in its non-technical sense and to make it

govern ἑορτῆς Ἱ initiate the festival’ This is ingenious, but not, it seems to

me, convincing, A Greek hearing κατάρχομαι pev, σφάγια 8(é) ... could —hardly take-kardpyopacin-any butitstechnical sense; and-in that sense it is precisely what Iphigenia does. Then, too, the audience needs to understand it so, if it is to foreshadow 56. It may be mentioned here that several commentators who have not, apparently, consulted Murray’s translation have

assumed his and Diggle’s solutions to be the same.

Commentary on lines 41-41

63

Kovacs (Euripidea Tertia, pp. 1-3) follows Kochly in deleting 38 (and also

41). He takes κατάρχομαι as the main verb, and renders 39-40°I consecrate

as victim any Greek who comes to this land: So ‘any Greek;, the object of ‘I consecrate, has been incorporated into the relative clause in the nominative,

in apposition to ὅς. This may be possible in theory, but is very difficult with-

out at least a resumptive τούτου, and Iphigenia 18 left claiming that she specifically sacrifices Greeks. Cropp follows H. Stedefeldt in excising only 40-1. This solution is vigorously endorsed by W. S. Barrett in a paper which he left unpublished (see Greek Lyric, Tragedy and Textual Criticism, pp. 474-9). He argues that it is crucial to the plot that the audience should know that Iphigenia sacrifices Greeks, and ‘when a fact 15 thus crucial, it is Euripides’ practice to set it straightforwardly before the audience in the prologue speech’ For Barrett, this consideration outweighs every other. σιγῶ he explains as ‘a suppression not of facts ... but of her judgment on them’ The parallel he adduces is El. 1245-6. But that passage is unproblematic, Castor was about to voice strong condemnation of Apollos command to Orestes, but tempers it to ‘though wise himself, the oracle he gave was not wise’ The nature of what is being suppressed 15 perfectly clear. Here (without Barrett’s explanation) it is not. With 40-1 gone, the text runs: ‘For which reason, by the laws of the festival in which Artemis delights—1I keep silence about the rest for fear of the goddess—for I sacrifice—that being the law for the city before too—whatever Greek man comes to this land. But I am going to tell ...’ But this is com-

pletely incoherent. There is still no main verb for 35-6, and γάρ in 38 has no

function. But even worse 15 the abrupt transition from Iphigenia’s electrifying announcement that she sacrifices Greek men to recounting her last night’s dream. Barrett claims to like the ‘climax} but nothing could be less Euripidean. Euripides likes to wind down gently. 38—9 were most probably added by someone who, like Barrett, wanted explicitness. It is true that Euripides is often explicit, but he certainly had a different model in mind when composing this prologue: that of Ag.

It is hard to make any sense of 41. The natural meaning of the words would be: ‘slaughters ... not to be spoken of inside the temple here of the goddess, which makes no sense. Diggle, who eventually excises the line, had earlier (Euripidea, p. 31) thought of saving it by understanding ‘the infamous sacrifices are the care of others inside the temple. But, apart from the awkward word-order, this at least implies that the sacrifices are carried out inside the temple, which is certainly not so: the altar is outside (72 below). The line has-surely been put together by someone who thought

σφάγια & ἄλλοισιν μέλει too bald on its own. At 624, Iphigenia says

that ‘there are people inside the temple here whose business it is’ to do the

actual killing. But there, as Diggle points out, she means that the killers are

inside the temple at the time when she is speaking. 41 locates them there

64

Commentary on lines 42-55

permanently. τῶνδ᾽ ἀνακτόρων θεᾶς reappears at 66, a mere twenty-three

lines later. Euripides does occasionally repeat parts of lines in different plays,

and even in the same play. In IT, εὐπήνους ὑφάς appears at 312 and 1465,

and εὐπήνοις ὑφαῖς at 814. But 41 and 66 are too close together for the

repetition of a striking expression. I adopt Markland's transposition of 37. The line makes much better sense after Iphigenia has said what she is prepared to say, and provides a good

closure to this section of her speech. See also T. C. W. Stinton, Collected

- Papers on Greek Tragedy, pp. 304-7.

There remains one minor point. In 35, Triclinius corrected Us νόμοισι

τοῖσιδ᾽ (presumably by infection from τοῖσδ᾽ above) ο νόμοισι τοῖσιν. But the article appears acting as relative in iambic trimeters only where metre demands it. Markland thought of νόμοισιν οἷσιν, but rejected it on grounds

of euphony. But see Diggle, Euripidea, p. 32. On the article as relative, see also below, on 150-1.]

42-3. & ... ἄκος: ‘But the new visions that the night has come bringing I will tell to the sky, if indeed this is any cure. By its position, the emphasis is on

. kawd. Iphigenia turns from- her past life to what has just happened. The

practice of telling bad dreams to the morning sky in the hope of averting the

threatened misfortune is dramatically convenient. Thus, at S. El. 424-5,

Chrysothemis is able to recount Clytaemestra’s dream to Electra, because

someone overheard the queen telling it to the sun. However, the nurse at

Med. 56-8 seems to have been telling her troubles to earth and sky simply as ἃ way of relieving her feelings. The following account of a fictional dream

attracted the attention of Artemidorus, the writer on dreams of the second century AD (see on 57 below). et ... δὴ: this combination usually implies scepticism, and it is indeed clear from what follows that Iphigenia has no

confidence in the effectiveness of the remedy See Jebb on Trach. 27 and Denniston, p. 223, n. 1.

44-55, Iphigenia’s dream is loaded wnth the symbohsm of the famlly and its survival, together with the survival of its wealth and status, that intense preoccupation of the people of the ancient Mediterranean. Iphigenia’s love for

her brother is no mere personal feeling: it is the transcendant devotion of a

woman to her blood-relations and the family of her birth which makes Intaphrenes’ wife save her brotherss life, rather than that of husband or son (Herodotus 3.119). The dream is strictly accurate: the house of Atreus has indeed suffered disaster, leaving Orestes as the sole survivor of the male line,

- and his sister will really come close to offering him up for sacrifice. It is

~-——--——TJphigenia’s interpretation-that-is-too-pessimistic; but- this: pessimism has a function in the plot. The fact that she now believes that Orestes is dead, just as he has long assumed that she was dead, serves to make the recognition more difficult and dramatic (contrast Helen, Introduction, p. xxxv). The

warning, misinterpreted, might even make a catastrophic outcome more

ς

Commentary on lines 44-6

65

probable. For a detailed discussion of the dream, with references to earlier treatments, see C. P. Trieschnigg, Tphigenia’s dream in Euripides’ Iphigenia Taurica, CQ 58 (2008), pp. 461-78. Trieschnigg rightly stresses the thematic

importance in the play of human difficulty in interpreting divine intentions.

Iphigenia’s pessimism 15 mirrored by Orestes’ tendency to expect the worst from divine guidance (see, for example, 77 ff.). For both that has been their experience so far. 44-9. The construction of ἔδοξ(α) shifts slightly in these lines between ἔδοξα with infinitive, meaning ‘T thought that I was doing x’ (oixeiv, εὕδειν,

φεύγειν, εἰσιδεῖν) and with accusative and infinitive, meaning ‘I thought

that x was happening’ (νῶτα σεισθῆναι). This seems to me easier than the

explanation proposed by some editors, which is to take νῶτα 48 nominative,

and assume ἔδοξε to be understood from édofa. 44-6. €dof’ ... evdew: T thought, in sleep, that, freed from this land, I was living in Argos, and sleeping in the midmost part of the maidens’ quarters’ Dreaming that she is back in her old home, Iphigenia returns to her happy, protected gitlhood. In tragedy, Argos and Mycenae are treated as more or less interchangeable.See 508-10below. In the Catalogue and in the Iliad generally,Agamemnon is king of Mycenae (2. 569-80), while the Argives are led by Diomedes (2. 559-68). But even in Homer there is a certain vagueness. Thus, Agamemnon asserts (1. 1. 30) that Chryseis 15 to grow old ‘in our house in Argos’ In reality, Mycenae had ceased to be a place of any significance after about 1100 BC, and round about 468 the Argives wiped it off the map. There are 26 mentions of Argos in this play, against 5 of Mycenae. παρθενῶσι & év μέσοις: ie. in the safest part. The young daughter of a rich and noble house is a treasure to be protected. For Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, Iphigenia is δόμων ἄγαλμα the glory and delight’ of his house (see 208, with Fraenkel ad loc. and Chantraine on

ἀγάλλομαι). At Phoen. 88 ff., Antigone is allowed by her mother to leave the

παρθενῶνες, escorted by an old servant, so as to climb to the top of the house and view the Argive army. Later, at 193-201, the old man tells the girl to go back and stay in the maidens’ quarters, because he sees a group of women approaching, and, if she is seen, they may ‘talk’ [Ls παρθένοισι is an easy mistake: a scribe wrote a common word instead of a rare one. Then, either he, or a later scribe, ‘corrected’ μέσοις to μέσαις to make it agree.] 46. xfovos. .. σάλῳ: ‘and that the flat space of the eartl'l had been stirred by a rolling swell’ A metaphor from the sea is lurking here. νῶτον, νῶτα (‘back’) is used of the wide spaces of the sea in Homer (εὐρέα νῶτα θαλάσσης II. 2. 159, 8. 511; etc.). But in Pindar, Pyth. 4. 25-7, the Argonauts find themselves having to carry their ° sea-gomg timber’ (the Argo) over ‘desolate spaces of

land’ (νώτων ὕπερ yaias ἐρήμων). σάλος is properly the ‘tossing’ or ‘rolling’ of the sea. See ποντίῳ σάλῳ at 1443 below and Phil. 271 ἐκ πολλοῦ σάλου ‘after much tossing on the sea’

66

Commentary on lines 47-52

ς

47-8. φεύγειν . πίτνοντα: ‘and that I proceeded to flee, and, standing out-

side, I saw the coping of the house falling/ The,upper courses of the walls, just below the roof, give way first. φεύγειν and εἰσιδεῖν still depend on εδοξ(α,) at 44 above. κάξω- καὶ ἔξω 48-.9. πᾶν & . .. σταθμῶν': ‘and the whole house thrown to the ground in ruins from its topmost structures. All dependent on εἰσιδεῖν. ἐρείψιμον (from ἐρείπω ‘to throw down’) completes the meaning of βεβλημένον. σταθμῶν: σταθμός has a variety of meanings, but in an architectural context it indicates something that stands upright: a doorpost (Homer), or a column. See Chadwick, LG, p. 257.

50. ἐλείφθη: Iphigenia slips naturally into the past indicative.

[Ls ἐλήφθη (as if from λαμβάνω) is a simple spelling mistake, corrected by the scribe of Parisinus Gr. 2887, a late 15th- or early 16th-century copy of L.

There have been various attempts to make the syntax of this and the follow-

ing two lines strictly coherent. Porson’s μόνος λελεῖφθαι στῦλος els ἔδοξέ μοι, by removing the connecting δέ in 50, produces a harsh asyndeton (see Denniston, p. xlvi). Weil rewrites extensively, adopting μόνος 8¢ λειφθεὶς

στῦλος εἷς ἔδοξέ μοι from Camper, making καθεῖναι (52) the main verb of the clause dependent on édofe. But éx 8(é) ..., indicating another clause,

cannot then stand. Weil writes éx μὲν. On this, see further on 51-2 below. There is, however, already evidence of a certain informality of syntax in Iphigenia’s account of her dream (see above on 44-9). The incoherences here, one suspects, would hardly be noticed by hearers in the theatre.]

51-—2 éx & ... λαβεῖν: From the capital, [it seemed] to let down tawny hair, and to

acquire the voice of a man’ ἐπίκρανον (here poetic plural) can mean ‘headdress’ (Hipp. 201), as well as being an ordinary, architectural term for the capital of a column (as in IG 13, 386. 89). To ἃ Greek hearer, the stem κραν- would at once make clear the metaphor on which Iphigenia’s dream is based. ξανθάς: not ‘blond, or ‘yellow) but a golden-brown, like a chestnut horse (II. 11. 680 and Achilles’ horse, Xanthus), or dark honey (Simonides, PMG

593). Again,

Iphigenia’s syntax is rather casual, in the manner of ordinary speech. She uses the infinitives καθεῖναι and λαβεῖν, 85 if she had said ἔδοξε, instead of the parenthetic ὡς ἔδοξέ μοι. Between 45 and 51, Euripides has used 8¢ seven times. On Greek lack of concern about repeating particles, see Denniston, p. Lxii. [Us καθεῖμαι is an obvious slip. ἐπεκράνων has caused concern on metrical grounds since Hermann. . here must be scanned long, which, according to

the rules as we learn them, requires it to be the vowel of a closed syllable. But

the syllabic division ἐπικ᾽-ράνων seems unnatural, In practice, however, the tragedians-do-occasionally-allow such-lengthenings;-especially in lyric, but even occasionally in iambic trimeters. Compare, for example, ἐπέκ᾽ -λωσεν at Or. 12. See further Barrett on Hipp. 760 (ἔπτατο kAewds), with adden-

. dum, p.435, and my notes on Alc. 98-104 and 542, Attempts to emend spofl the sense. Hermann added a redundant ye (éx δέ γ᾽ ἐπι-). Weil's μὲν

Commentary on lines 53-62

67

(required by his treatment of 51; see above on that line) introduces the idea

of an antithesis, which, however weak, is not wanted. Growing hair and

speaking are two stages in the development of human characteristics by the

column, so 8¢ ... δὲ 15 appropriate.] 53-5. κἀγὼ ... kAaiovoa: And I, respecting this stranger-slaying craft that I have, [thought that I] sprinkled it (him), as if it were about to die, weeping

[as I did it]. Now we have to understand ἔδοξα. ζενοκτόνον: Another dark hint, in case we do not know, of the nature of the cult of which she is priest-

ess, The word is calculated to shock Greek sensibilities profoundly from the intimate association of the word ξένος with hospitality and friendship. The

word for ‘stranger’ in the strict sense of ‘alien’ is the (much rarer) ἔπηλυς.

[ὑδραίνειν: Ls ὕδραινον Ἱ proceeded to sprinkle’ will not scan. The imperfect ὕδραινον begins with long v, because of the augment.]

55-6. Tovvap ... ἐγώ: ‘Orestes 15 dead. This conviction comes as a shattering

blow to Iphigenia. This was the adored baby brother, the late-born only son on whom the future of her family depended, her own sole, faint hope of rescue and return home. For the audience, the thought of Orestes is introduced almost at the very beginning of the play. συμβάλλω: Ἱ interpret. The idea is of putting two and two together. At Med. 675, Aegeus says that Apollo’s words were ‘too clever for a man to interpret’ (σοφώτερ᾽ ἢ κατ᾽ ἄνδρα συμBaAeiv). τοὔναρ- τὸ ὄναρ. 57. στῦλοι.... ἄρσενες: naturally: daughters marry and transfer themselves to other houses. Some members of the audience would here remember how, at

Ag. 896-8, Clytaemestra likened Agamemnon to τῶν σταθμῶν κύνα ... ὑψηλῆς στέγης στῦλον modijpy, povoyevés τέκνον πατρί ‘watchdog of the halls, . . . base-fixed column of the lofty roof, sole-born child to a father’ IT 57 is much quoted by later writers, including the interpreter of dreams,

Artemidorus (Oneirocritica 2. 10). See above on 42-3. [Artemidorus, Stobaeus (4. 24(3). 36, Wachsmuth-Hense IV, p. 613) and the Menandri Sententiae (ed. Jaekel, p. 74) all reproduce the word-order adopted

in the text. L and the Suda (Adler Π, p. 468) offer the flat and unemphatic εἰσὶ maides ἄρσενες.]

59-60. A silly interpolation, perhaps inspired by 921 below. But the sole sur-

viving column of Iphigenia’s father’s house could only be. Orestes, not the son of Agamemnon’s sister. 62. ἀποῦο᾽... ἄν: Absent myself for my absent brother. Polyptoton, here with participles, but still, as often, expressing mutuality (see on 31 above).

Compare, for example, Andr. 738 παρὼν δὲ πρὸς wapdvras. radra ... ἄν: ‘For that I can do. She thinksof the other acts of mourning that she cannot

perform, such as weeping at his grave and offering a lock of her hair (see

172-4 below). δυναίμεθ᾽ ἄν: Potential optative, almost equivalent to a future.

[ἀποῦσ᾽ ἀπόντι: Badham’s compelling emendation of 15 παροῦσα παντὶ.

Canter had shown the way with παροῦσ᾽ ἀπόντι.]

68

Commentary on lines 63-122

63-5. Iphigenia explains to the audience who the chorus will be, and accounts for their absence (‘for some reason they are not\here yet’). ἀλλ᾽ς ‘breaking-

off’ ἀλλά, introducing a new observation, followed, in asyndeton, by the

statement of an intention consequent on that observation. The train of thought is: ‘(I was expecting them], but they are not here yet, [so] I will go in’ This use of ἀλλά is well explained by Mastronarde on Phoen. 99.

65-6. εἶμ’... θεᾶς: ‘1 will go inside the dwelling here in which I live, the temple

of the goddess. All very clear and helpful to the audience. δόμων ...

ἀνακτόρων: dignified, poetic plurals (WS § 1006). ἀνάκτορον is generally an uncommon word, not found in Aeschylus or Sophocles. Euripides, however, is quite fond of it. For this same phrase, see Andr. 380, and compare

θεᾶς ἀνακτόρων at 636 below.

[LP offer, more or less, οὔπω πάρεισιν els μ᾽ elow δόμων. But, as Hermann

pointed out, no rendering on the lines of ‘present to me inside the dwelling’

will do, since Iphigenia is outside. It is also normal for a character who is

about to leave the stage empty to indicate that he or she is going away. See,

for example, Alc. 74, Hipp. 53, Hec. 52. εἶμ᾽ ἔσω δόμων also appears at Her.

606. ἀνακτόρων: Ellendt cites ἀνακτόρων from Sophocles, TrGF 4, fr. 757, but this could be from ἀνάκτωρ (see 1414 below and Cho. 357).] 67-122. Iphigenia enters the stage-house by the central door, leaving the

performance-space empty. Then, Orestes and Pylades enter from the side.

Already in the Iliad, Orestes is the only son of Agamemnon, but when Pylades, son of Agamemnonss sister, Anaxibia, and Strophius, king of Phocis, entered the story is uncertain. According to Proclus (Introduction, p. xxi), the killing of Aegisthus and Clytaemestra by Orestes and Pylades was included in the Nosti, the poem of the Epic Cycle which treated the returns of various Greek heroes from Troy (Davies, p. 67=Bernabé I, p. 95=West,

p. 156). He may have figured in Stesichorus’ Oresteia, but there is no mention of him in the fragments we have. He may owe his one mention in Pindar (Pyth. 11) to Aeschylus’ Oresteia (Introduction, p. xxiv). In surviving tragedies earlier than IT, he is a mute personage.In Cho., however, he is nonethe-

less allowed to utter three lines in answer to Orestes’ anguished appeal (899): ‘Pylades, what shall I do? Shall I forbear through respect to kill my mother?’ Pylades’ answer prepares us for the depiction of his character in this play:

.

ποῦ dal 70 λοιπὸν Λοξίου μαντεύματα 10 πυθόχρηστα; πιστά τ' εὐορκώματα;. ἅπαντας ἐχθροὺς τῶν θεῶν ἡγοῦ πλέον..

‘Where, then, are the oracles of Loxias, delivered at Pytho, and his firm pledges? Think all men enemies rather than the gods. Pylades is practical and optimistic, firm.in his faith in the gods and steady in encouraging Orestes in moments of doubt and discouragement.

Commentary on lines 67--70 In their short, initial tures of the scene before later plays. In Hypsipyle, invites Euneus to look

69

conversation, the two men pick out significant featheim. This is a recurrent dramatic motif in Euripides’ where, as here, two young men enter together, Thoas at the painted reliefs on the pediment of the stage-

house (TrGF 5.2, fr. 752ς, see Cockle, p. 55). At Hel. 68-70, Teucer, on enter-

ing, admires the grandeur of Proteus’ residence, while at Jon 184-218, the

chorus devote one strophic pair and a further strophe to pointing out to each other the scenes represented on the buildings at Delphi, which were real, surviving, and doubtless known to some members of the audience.

67.opa . . . βροτῶν: ‘Watch out! Look out for yourself, in case anyone of mor-

tals [is] in [our] path!’ With μή, understand ἐστί. Orestes cautions Pylades about something that may actually be happening, so present indicative. See GMT 9 369.1 and WS § 2233,

68. ὁρῶ ... στρέφων: T am watching, turning my eye in every direction’

Compare Polynices’ words at Phoen. 265-6 ὄμμα πανταχῇ διοιστέον! κἀκεῖσε καὶ 70 δεῦρο ‘[My] eye must be turned in every direction, this way

and that’. [πανταχῇ

Monk:

πανταχοῦ

L. Scribes

show

a tendency

to write

πανταχοῦ (‘everywhere) in placeof πανταχῇ (‘in every direction’). See, for

example, Phoen. 265 and Or. 760.] 70. &8 . . . ἐστείλαμεν: ‘Whither we set our sea-going ship on its course from

Argos. The line is markedly poetic in style. ἔνθ᾽: ἔνθα with the sense of

ἐκεῖσε ὅποι belongs to tragic usage. Compare S. El. 1099 and Phil. 1466. ποντίαν: the epithet (‘marine’) 15 purely ornamental, with no distinguishing function: the speaker has no other sort of ship in mind. This use of epithets

is typical of lyric. Compare πόντιον σκάφος in lyric at Tro. 1085. By

contrast, at 1443. below, ποντίῳ completes the sense of odAw ‘sea-surge’

ἐστείλαμεν: compare o€ ... στείλας at 981-2 below. The same verb governs πλοῦν at Aj. 1045 and Phil. 911,

[Aristotle distinguishes the ornamental use of epithets as poetic at Rhet. 3. 3. 1406a, where he says that ‘white milk’ (γάλα λευκόν) is appropriate for poetry, but would be ‘frigid’ in prose. This line aroused the suspicion of Badham, because it breaks the pattern of stichomythia which seems to have been established by 67-8. Denniston (on El. 651-2) offers a set of ‘rules’ for Euripides’ practice in breaking stichomythia. It is, he says, often broken near the beginning of a series, and lists this passage among his examples. Exact parallels from his list are: Her. 1111-12 and Ion 936-7.1 have not been able to find any others. It is not impossible that 70 could have been added by someone who thought that the audience needed to know where these characters had come from. But, if so, the interpolator did his work early in the process of transmission and had a very good command of tragic diction. On

Ion 936-7 and on other two-line interpolations in stichomythia, see Diggle,

Studies, pp. 109-11. 735-6 below also incurred Badham'’s suspicion.]

70

Commentary on lines 71-4

71. ἔμοιγ᾽. . . χρεών: ‘[This certainly seems tokbe the temple of the goddess] to

ς:

me, Orestes, and ought to seem 80 to you as well’ Pylades rejects the hint of doubt implied by Orestes’ question. χρεών: Understand éori. A metrically convenient equivalent to χρή. Like μολών (see on 1 above), and other words of jambic form, χρεών fits conveniently at the end of a trimeter, following neatly, in particular, on its dependent infinitive. See 76, 118, 489, 904, 1004,

72. kai . .. φόνος: And [does this seem to you to be] the altar down on which

Greek blood drips?’ Obviously, the idea of Greek blood is particularly dis-

turbing to Orestes (see above on 35-41). Buripides’ Taurians sacrifice in the

Greek style, by cutting the victim’s throat, so that the blood runs down over the altar. Herodotus’ Taurians hit their victims on the heéad with a club (4: 103). Ἕλλην stands in emphatic position, outside the clause to which it : belongs. οὗ: Relative. Its antecedent is βωμός. As Platnauer puts it (ad loc.), ᾿καταστάζειν takes acc. of thing dropped and gen. of that dropped upon’ :

He compares Hec. 760 νεκρὸν τόνδ᾽ οὗ καταστάζω δάκρυ.

73-4.é¢ ... ἠρτημένα: Pyl.‘Well, it certainly has tawny, hair-like strands from blood:’ Or.And do you see the spoils fixed under the copings themselves?’ Pylades seeks to lower the emotional temperature. He agrees that there are blood stains, but not that the blood is necessarily Greek. γοῦν expresses

qualified assent. See Denniston, pp. 451-2. τριχώματα: τρίχωμα, meaning

‘hair’, or ‘growth of hair} is not a common word. Aeschylus uses it once, at

Sept. 666. The altar is somewhat like a short, thick column, and Pylades’

metaphor for the brownish streaks of dried blood recalls for us Iphigenia’s

dream of the speaking column, with its tawny locks. For further evidence of the sacrifices, Orestes observes the ‘spoils’ displayed on the facade of the temple. The practice of displaying spoils on the fagades of temples is mentioned once in Homer (Il. 7. 81-3) and more than once in tragedy:

Ag. 577-9, El. 6-7 and 1000-1. At Ba. 1212-15, Agave calls for her son to fetch a ladder 80 as to nail ‘to the triglyphs’ her hunter’s trophy, the head of the lion she has killed. θριγκοῖς & ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῖς: Why the emphasis? Either Orestes now turns to the temple itself, or he stresses the height at which the spoils are displayed: right up under the copings. What are the oxiiAa? Editors generally assume that they are heads, or skulls. Herodotus (4. 103) says that, having killed their victims, the Taurians stuck their heads on poles. What they then did with them, he does not say. When a Taurian has killed an enemy in war, he adds, he cuts off the head, takes it home and erects it on along pole high above the roof of his house (Introduction, p. xxiii). Euripides seems to be describing something more akin to Greek practice. Greeks did ‘—not;as far-as we-know, display human heads; but the passage from-Ba. shows

that animal heads were a different matter. The Taurians have already treated human beings as animals by sacrificing them.

[τριχώματα: the word is retained by Murray and Sansone, and accepted by

N. C. Hourmouziades (Production and Imagination in Euripides, pp. 52-3),

-

Commentary on lines 75-6

71

but most editors have preferred Ruhnken’s θριγκώματα. The objections to τριχώματα are not 50 much a matter of the meaning of the word as of Orestes’ abrupt change of focus to the temple fagade and of the function of αὐτοῖς. 1 have suggested above that the two may be connected. But if the

copings have already been mentioned, αὐτοῖς is redundant. ὑπὸ 8¢ θριγκοῖς would be enough. In any case, the objections to θριγκώματα are very

serious. First, how likely is it that a scribe would have written the rare word

τριχώματα instead of θριγκώματα, with θριγκοῖς as the next word to

remind him? One would rather have expected the opposite mistake. A more important objection, however, 15 that θριγκοῖς then has to refer to the copings of the altar, and it is under them that the spoils must be fixed. But tucked away under the projecting top of an altar is no place to display spoils. The victor’s object is partly to thank his gods and advertise their glory, partly to

publicize his own success. So spoils must be displayed conspicuously and

high up, and that is how Greeks were accustomed to display them (see above). Finally, we have two pieces of testimony from later periods which may possibly show how this passage was interpreted. One is a Campanian neck-amphora from about 330-320 BC, now in St. Petersburg (inv. 2080; see A. D. Trendall and T. Β. L Webster, lllustrations of Greek Drama, ΠῚ, 3.32),

which shows Orestes, Pylades, and Iphigenia running out of the temple.

Projecting almost horizontally from just under the metopes is a pole with a severed head stuck on the end. This looks like an attempt to reconcile Euripides and Herodotus. The other is a statement by Ammianus Marcellinus (22. 8. 34), some seven centuries later still, that the Taurians used to attach

the heads of their sacrificed victims to the temple walls: caesorum capita fani parietibus praefigebant, velut fortium perpetua monumenta facinorum’ Perhaps we should envisage the possibility that a couple of lines have been lost in which the pair turned their attention to the fagade of the temple.

Finally, I. Torrance (‘Euripides’ IT 72~5 and a Skene of slaughter, Hermes 137 (2009), pp. 21-7) makes out a powerful, detailed case against Ruhnken’s

emendation. She points out that in medical terminology θρίξ can mean

‘vein, and hence, she suggests, τριχώματα could mean ‘veins of blood’ This is more dubious. τρίχωμα is not synonymous with θρίξ. It is, rather, a collective term, ‘growth of hair’] 75-6. τῶν ... χρεών: “Yes. Trophies of strangers who have died. But [we/I] need to look well, turning the eye around. Pylades assents briskly, then turns to practical considerations. γ᾽ ‘assenting. Common in stichomythia. See below 498,510, 821,919, 923. Agreement may be complete, as here, or partial (compare γοῦν at 73-above; and see Denniston, p. 130). ἀλλ᾽: Pylades breaks off in order to announce the next action. Compare 636 below. ἐγκυκλοῦντ᾽: from ἐγκυκλέω (‘to rotate’), rather than (as LSJ says) from ἐγκυκλόω (‘to surround’). ἐγκυκλέω is used in the Hippocratic writings of a joint rotating in its socket (de Arte 10; see the Loeb edition, II, p. 208). Pylades uses the

72

Commentary on lines 77-80

verb transitively in the active. Understand either the dual (ἐγκυκλοῦντε

[νώ])., or possibly the singular (ἐγκυκλοῦντα [με]) We do not know what

exactly is going on on stage, but Pylades cannot know that Orestes is about to launch into a long address to Apollo, 80 his exhortation is most probably addressed to both. [L attributes 76 to Orestes. Reiske saw that the burst of emotion. at 77 must

begin Orestes’ speech. A couplet ending a short section of stichomythia is unusual, but not unparalleled, at least in the earlier plays. See, for example, Alc.150~1, Held. 797-8, Hipp. 282-3.) 77-9. & ... κατακτάς: ‘O Phoebus, whither have you brought me again into this snare by prophesying, since I avenged my father’s blood by killing my mother?’ τηνὃ’ ἐς ἄρκυν does not answer the question asked by ποῖ, since the snare is not the real end, but rather the means. ἄρκυς (‘purse-net’) wasa specialized hunting-net in. the form of a large bag set up on stakes in wood-

land, into which hounds could drive the quarry. Xenophon (Cyn. 2. 4 ff. and 6.5 f£.) describesits construction and use in hunting hares. ἀρκύστατα (7d) means an area set with such nets. The purse-net is a recurrent image in the

Oresteia. For Cassandra, at Ag. 1116, Clytaemestra is the ἄρκυς. At 1375,

Clytaemestra herself speaks of raising the ‘nets of destruction’ too high to be - averleapt (a possibility mentioned by Xenophon). At Cho. 1000, Orestes, dis-

. playing the robe in-which Agamemnon was entangled, says ἄρκυν 7° dv

εἴποις. But at Eum. 111 and 147, Orestes is the beast who has escaped out of

the net, and the hounds that hunt him are his mother’s Furies (Cho. 1054

μὴτρὸς ἔγκοτοι κύνες, and compare Eum. 131-2). Here, Orestes may well feel that he is being ensnared again. χρήσας is emphasized by its position

both at the end of its clause and at the beginning of the line. Both χρήσας

and κατακτάς are ‘coincident’ aorists (‘by prophesying, ‘by killing’). See WS '§ 1872¢ 2 and (for a fuller account) Barrett on Hipp. 289-92, ᾿ [Kovacs (Euripidea Tertia, p. 3) is worried by the combination of ποῖ and τήνδ᾽ és ἄρκυν in 77, but see above. Euripides’ expression is not strictly logical, but his meaning is clear enough. Markland sought to neaten the rather rambling succession of clauses by placing the interrogation after χρήσας,

beginning a neéw sentence with ἐπεὶ γὰρ (for ἐπειδή) and substituting γ᾽ for &’ after διαδοχαῖς. But, as Weil points out, while Orestes does not actually

say that Apollo’s oracle told him to kill his mother, there 15 an intimate con-

nection of ideas between χρήσας and ἐπειδὴ.... κατακτάς which is broken

by Markland’s redivision of the sentences.]

|

79:80. διαδοχαῖς... χθονός: ‘By successive attacks of Furies, I was being —driven;an-exile; out-of myη " διαδοχαῖς normally implies succession,as with the annual changes of Athenian magistrates (Supp. 406), but Orestes can hardly mean that new Furies keep taking over from their predecessors.

. ἠλαυνόμεσθα φυγάδες: plurals used by characters in tragedy speaking of

themselves are supposed to denote modesty (WS § 1008), but in reality they

Commentary on lines 81-8

73

are often found in contexts where modesty seems irrelevant. -μεσθα is a

metrically convenient poetic alternative for -μεθα. ἔξεδροι: Not merely ἔξω

‘out of , but ‘out of one’s proper place’ (ἕδρα). [διαδοχαῖς: MonKs suggestion, διαδρομαῖς (‘runnings through) ‘runnings about, Sept. 351), is at least very interesting. The wording here is strikingly similar to 941-2 μεταδρομαῖς Ἐρινύων ἠλαυνόμεσθα φυγάδες.] 81. δρόμους.... καμπίμους: And I completed many turning courses. The met-

aphor has changed, and Orestes has turned from a hare'into a horse which has been driven round and round a race-course with a turn (καμπή) at each end. ἐξέπλησα: from ἐκπίμπλημι. Compare 90 below. 82-3.éA0aw . . . ἐμῶν: Having come [to your shrine], I asked you howI should

come to the end of my wheel-borne madness and my toils. The chariotracing metaphor continues. μανία is the chariot that follows the horse, with the din of its wheels. τροχήλατος means ‘running on wheels, like Xerxes’ . carriage (Pers. 1001), or the racing chariot from which Orestes will be said to have been thrown at S. El. 49. More boldly, at Andr. 399, Hector’s death is called ‘wheel-drawn slaughter. Here, the chariot-metaphor reappears at 934-5, where it is the Furies who drive Orestes. At El. 1253, Castor foretells

that the κῆρες will drive him in frenzied wanderings (τροχηλατήσουσ᾽ ἐμμανῇ πλανώμενον). At Or. 36-7, it is his mother’s blood that drives him

with frenzies: 70 μητρὸς & alud νιν τροχηλατεῖ! μανίαισιν. πῶς: introducing an indirect question, as at Eum. 677 and Trach. 991. See also on 256 below. 84. [οὗς ... Ἑλλάδα]: the line reappears at 1455, following πόνων τε σῶν. There it is necessary. It probably found its way into the text here after being written in the margin as a gloss for comparison. 85. εἶπας: Ὕου told me to ... The verb introduces a series of commands: éAfeiv ... AaPeiv ... δοῦναι. εἶπας from εἶπα (instead of εἶπες from εἶπον) is common in Attic poetry and also found in Attic prose (Plato, however, uses elmes). The fact that there are ten occurrences in Aristophanes, of which only one is in a paratragic context (Thesm. 902), indicates that the form was used in common Attic speech. ὅρους: terminal accusative (poetic. WS § 1588).

86. σοι: dative, by the influence of συν- in σύγγονος ‘born with you’ (WS $ 1529).

.

ἰσοι is Kirchhoff's corréction for Is σὺ, a simple slip, which p sought to correct with o7).]

87-8.Aafeiv . . . amo: And to take the image of the goddess which, they say; fell from the sky here into this-temple! On ξόανα which fall from the sky, see

Introduction, p. xvi. ἐνθάδε is strictly unnecessary with els τούσδε ναούς, but the emphasis on here (in this distant and dangerous place) is appropriate. Compare 93-4 below. θεᾶς: Scanned as one syllable (synecphonesis). For the same word, with the same scansion, in the same position in the line,

Commentary on lines 89-92

74

see 1014 (ἄγαλμα θεᾶς again), 1307 (δῶμα θεᾶς), and (with fea) 1461. Composition in the rigid metres of Greek preserves a certain formulaic character.

ς

[ἐνθάδε: Markland proposed to eliminate the redundancy by reading οἱ

νθάδε, correctedby Hermann to ovvfdde (ot évfdde): “The people here say ... . But that is not an improvement. Introducing the idea that it is the Taunans who say it produces a hint of uncertainty. But this image is to go to Attica and become the centre of a cult for the poet and his fellow-

citizens. There can be no doubt of its divine provenance. Unspecific φασί

is not only normal in itself, but is often used of undoubted truths. feds:

Diggle (Euripidea, p.131) collects the exact metrical parallels for the position of the word here. He is examining Buecheler’s contention that Euripides avoids synecphonesis in cases of θεός following:short, as here (ἄγαλμᾶ θεᾶς). However, L. Battezzato (‘Synizesis in Euripides and the Structure of the Iambic Trimeter, the Case of θεός, BICS 44 (2000), pp. 41-80) shows that

there is no statistical case for concluding that the poet positively avoided

this collocation. The rarity of a phenomenon in metre may be merely a

by-product of various factors, linguistic and metrical. In this case, it 18 necessary to-take into account the treatment of other monosyllables and the relative frequency of short and long anceps.]

89. τύχῃ τινί: at Cho. 138, Electra prays to her dead father that Orestes may

come σὺν τύχῃ Twi.Garvie comments: ‘ryn here, as often in Aeschylus, is something not haphazard but divinely inspired. Elsewhere too, as-in this

. play, τύχη is not to be thought of as distinct from a divine plan, which we,

the audience, in fact know to be working itself out. See further on 864-7 below and Bond on Her. 1393. 90-1. kivduvvov ἐκπλήσαντ᾽: ‘Having passed completely through danger; like ἐξέπλησα at 81 above. An interesting moment for the Athenian audience: now they learn that their own city is involved. ' 91-2. 76 & ... πόνων: ‘Of what was to follow nothing further was said than

that I should have relief from [my] toils. For wépa 7 compare OC 651

οὔκουν πέρα γ᾽ ἂν οὐδὲν 1) Adyw φέροις᾽ [By an oath] you would gain noth-

ing further than by [my] word’ ἐρρήθη: aorist passive from εἴρω (like the

future ἐρῶ etc.). &mrvoo‘r.s:'a metrically convenient form of ἀναπνοάς. Not ‘breathing space’ (which would be temporary), but the chance to breathe freely for the future. In a play of Sophocles, such a promise could be heavy

with menace (see, for example, Trach. 1164-73), but Eunpldean oracles

carry no such charge.

= πέραἣς Tournier-Lhas wépa kai-But with καὶ; 76-0* - mépa has to be taken as a parenthesis (nothing further was said about what was to happen in Attica),

which seems otiose here. Then, if efras (in 85) is to govern éfew, it must be

understood as changing its meaning from ‘command’ to ‘say’ But, apart from the difficulty of understanding the change, λέγω in the active meaning ‘say

Commentary on lines 94-8

75

normally takes the ὅτι construction (se¢ WS § 2017b. and c.). But with

Tournier’s ἢ the parenthesis disappears, and ἕξειν becomes dependent on

the passive ἐρρήθη ‘it was said. About his own future, Orestes is told just one (crucial) thing. enough to induce him to undertake the perilous mission.)

94, ayvworov ... ἄξενον: Greeks of Euripides’ time did, of course, know the Tauric Chersonese. But here we are in a far-away world of the poet’s imagi-

nation. ἄξενος is a thematic word in the play, although elsewhere applied to the Black Sea. [ἄγνωστον: Gaisford’s ἄγνωστος (of Orestes) is not-an improvement. All

that matters to the Taurians is that Orestes 15 a foreigner. d€evov: I's ἄξεινον

went unnoticed by Triclinius. The editor of the Aldine seems to have seen that it would not scan. Compare σημανῶν at 237 below.] 94-7. σὲ 8. . . ὑψηλά: these lines offer an interesting distribution of divisions of sense in relation to metre. 96, in particular, is unusual in its rhythm, with a strong break in the first metron (U—u/ - ), then no genuine caesura, since γάρ adheres to the preceding word. A. Supp. 467 is identical in rhythm: ξυνῆκας"

ὠμμάτωσα yap σαφέστερον. Cho. 1023 is very similar: ἐξωτέρω" φέρουσι

γὰρνικώμενον. See also 696 and 1379 below. γάρ in both 95 and 96 marks, as often, a parenthesis. συλλήπτωρ: ‘collaborator’ See Ag. 1507. There is one

other occurrence in the text of Euripides, at Or. 1230. There, again, Orestes 18

speaking, but to his dead father. That passage, however, is not above suspicion. See Willink ad loc. ἀμφίβληστρα: encirclements of walls: ἀμφίβληστρον is something thrown around (ἀμφιβάλλω), typically, a casting-net for fish. At

Ag. 1382, Clytaemestra speaks of casting an ἄπειρον ἀμφίβληστρον ὥσπερ

ἰχθύων over Agamemnon, and Electra takes up the metaphor at Cho. 492. There can hardly be a deliberate reminiscence here, but these passages from Aeschylus will have been floating in Euripides’ mind. See on ἄρκυν at 77 above. ὑψηλά: stressed by separation from its noun and by position at the beginning of the line. The height of the walls is what matters. [Elmsley observed the highly unusual position of γάρ after the caesurapoint. It is not, however, absolutely unparalleled (as he thought it might be), . as the examples quoted above show. In addition, there are a few lines in Euripides where we have to choose between caesura before a postpositive and caesura after the third long (‘median’ caesura), which the poet 8 deemed

not to admit without elision. With γάρ, see Her. 1126 (ἀρκεῖ σιωπὴ γὰρ μαθεῖν 0 βούλομαι) and 1396 (kai Tods σθένοντας γὰρ καθαιροῦσιν -

τύχα!ι) and also 1379 below. See further Introduction, p. bocxiii. 97-8. πότερα . .. ἐμβησόμεσθα: ‘Shall we embark upon- ascents of ladders?’ κλιμάκων προσαμβάσεις (προσαναβάσεις), meaning, in effect, ladders, recurs at Phoen. 489 and 1173 (κλίμακος) and Ba. 1213. Aeschylus has

κλίμακος προσαμβάσεις at Sept. 466.

[The text here combines emendations by Kayser, Barnes and Blomfield for LP’s δωμάτων mpos ἀμβάσεις | ἐκβησόμεσθα (the last word being a

76

Commentary on lines 98--100

correction in L). England and Weil seel(p%) defend ἐκβησόμεσθα 85 denoting completion. They cite κλίμακ᾽ ἐκπέρα modi at Phoen. 100, meaning ‘traverse

the whole extent of’ (Mastronarde). But there the verb περάω contributes to

the meaning, as does πίμπλημι to that of ἐκπλήσαντ᾽ at 90 above. There does not seem to be any parallel for such a use of ἐκβαίνω. Nor is there any strong reason to regard éx- as authentic. δωμάτων προσαμβάσεις would make Orestes suggest going straight up the steps—a very bad idea.]

98. πῶς dv: ἄν tends to gravitate towards interrogatives and to be repeated

later in the sentence. See WS §§ 1764 and 1765, also Barrett on Hipp. 270. [The first &v is Triclinius’ correction in L. av also appears as a correction above the line in a later hand in P, indicating that the main text of P was copied before Triclinius made his correction, in contrast with éx- in 98. See Introduction, p. ciii with n. 216. Sallier’s λάθοιμεν for Us μάθοιμεν makes good sense. Men climbing ladders would be highly conspicuous.]

99-100. 7 .. . ἔσμεντ: ‘Or freeing the bronze-made bolts with crowbars, [shall we break into the temple]?” Unfortunately, the main sentence has been

turned into ‘of which we know nothing), which is nonsense in the context. Something like ὧδ᾽ ἑερὸν (or ἄδυτον, or οἶκον) ἔσιμεν ‘shall we in that way

enter the temple?’ would make sense. ὧδε would be resumptive: ‘Having

done x, in that way we shall do y. Compare PV 513 πημοναῖς | δύαις τε . κναφθεὶς ὧδε δεσμὰ φυγγάνω. [Commentators have struggled much W1th this passage. There are, essentially, two approaches to a solution. The one proposed above (favoured by Weil, Diggle, Kovacs, and Cropp, among others) rests on the assumption

that a scribe at some stage in the transmission saw before him something nonsensical or illegible which he made into ὧν οὐδὲν ἔσμεν (which 18 at least Greek), without much regard for whether it made sense in the context.

Badham showed the way to what could have been the lost words with ὧδ᾽ οὐδὸν ἔσιμεν. Dindorf, however, pointed outthat οὐδός is an epic form, alien to tragedy (the Attic form, οὃος, would not scan here). Secondly, that the appropriate verb would be not εἰσιέναι, but ὑπερβαίνειν: one does not ‘enter’ a threshold; one ‘crosses’ it. Other nouns have been suggested (see above), but none looks much like οὐδέν. The alternative approach involves retaining μάθοιμεν at 98, so that the idea of ‘learning’ prepares the way for ἔσμεν in 100. This route, however, leads to serious difficulties of construction, as well as to the problem of what it is that Orestes and Pylades do not know. The simplest proposal of this kind is that of Monk, who, following

Seidler, reverses the order of 98 and 99:

πότερα δωμάτων wpos ἀμβάσεις

ἢ χαλκότευκτα κλῇθρα λύσαντες μοχλοῖς φὶ

᾽

~

᾽

εἰσβησόμεσθα; πῶς av οὖν μάθοιμεν av ὧν οὐδὲν ἔσμεν;

:

A

Commentary on lines 100--5

77

But this will not do as it stands. Unemended, 97 does not suggest climbing a ladder, as Monk wished it to. Then, what does Orestes mean by ‘How then could we find out things of which we know nothing? Monks (and Hermann’s) answer is: the whereabouts of the image inside the temple. This is silly, if a little less so than the alternative suggestion: ‘we do not understand the design of the bolts. Other efforts in this direction require a lacuna. And why should Orestes not say what he means? The only reasonable certainty about this passage is that Orestes thinks of two ways to get into the temple, and rejects both. ] . 100-2. ἣν & ... θανούμεθ᾽: ἦν (ἐάν) with the subjunctive in the protasis of an ‘open’ future condition, with future indicative in the apodosis. Ἱ we are caught, we shall die’ Orestes does not regard capture as improbable. re: Single, connective τε is common in poetry. See Denniston, p. 497.

102-3. ἀλλὰ ... φεύγωμεν: ‘But, before we die, let’s flee on board [our] ship!

πρίν here is equivalent to ‘rather than’ (as ‘before’ can be in English). Orestes’ sudden failure of nerve has disconcerted some commentators. Markland sought to soften the effect by taking φεύγωμεν as a deliberative subjunctive (‘Shall we flee?’). But Euripides, like Homer, is a realist who does not attribute unwavering, romantic heroism to his characters. Here he is depicting a man under severe psychological stress. See further on 281-300 below. 104-5. φεύγειν ... ἀτιστέον: ‘To flee (μέν) is not tolerable, nor are we accustomed [to flee]. Moreover (8¢), it is necessary not to brush aside the oracle

of the god. Pylades’ reaction 15 exactly what we should expect from him. φεύγειν: The infinitive (without the article) as subject.in an impersonal expression (WS §§1984-5). Then we have to understand ¢edyew again, this time depending on εἰώθαμεν. ἀτιστέον: verbal adjective from ἀτίζω (‘to make light of’ ‘to treat with disrespect’), in the neuter, functioning as an impersonal verb expressing obligation and governing τὸν χρησμόν. [Valckenaer’s οὐκ ἀτιστέον is a compelling (and very minor) change from Ls οὐ κακιστέον. κακίζω has two distinct meanings. In prose it means ‘to reproach; or ‘to abuse’ In Homer, it occurs once, in the passive, meaning ‘to behave like a coward. Hecuba says that Hector was ‘not playing the coward’ when Achilles killed him οὔ ἑ κακιζόμενόν ye κατέκτα). Euripides revives this use of the word, always in the passive (Med. 1246, Εἰ. 982, Ion 984), except, possibly, at IA 1435, where, however, the text is in doubt. To try to take κακιστέον here in its normal Euripidean sense requires impossible linguistic contortions (see England and Weil ad loc.) Murray takes it as an example, unique in Euripides, of the prose meaning. But κακέζειν is an exaggeration of anything Orestes has said, and, in any case, the point at issue is not what he has said, but whether he is going to treat the oracle with dis-

. respect by not carrying out its command.

Other editors who

accept

κακιστέον are forced to distort the meaning of κακίζω. Monk, indeed, renders it ‘make light of;, as if it where ἀτίζω. Elmsley wished to read re

78

΄“ς.

Commentary on lines 106-14

(single, connective, as above at 101) instead of &€ in 105. In that way, 8¢

. in 106 would answer μέν in 104, setting the proposed action against the statement of principle. This is interesting, but no more. The antithesis . between what we owe to ourselves (104) and what we owe to the god (105) works well.] |

106-9.vaoi & . .. Big: ‘But having got away from the temple, let us hide [our] bodies in caves which the dark sea washes with spray, away from the ship, lest someone, having seen the craft, should tell the lords [of this country], and [lest] then we should be captured by force’ ἀπαλλαχθέντε κρύψωμων: dual participle agreeing with (unexpressed) subject with plural verb. See WS §955 and Kiithner-Gerth i, pp. 70-1. δέμας: a defective noun, with no other

case-endings, used in epic language, usually as an acc. of respect, e.g. μικρὸς

... δέμας ‘small in body’ (7. 5. 801). Frequent in tragedy as nom. as well as

acc. See Kiihner-Blass

i, p. 280 and below:

114, 119, 685, 1430, 1440,

Sometimes it takes the place of a reflexive pronoun (as here and at 114 and 119). βασιλεῦσιν: ‘indefinite’ plural (WS 5 1000b). In prose he might have said τοῖς év τέλει (‘the authorities’). kdra= καὶ efra. 110-12. ὅταν ... μηχανάς: But when the eye of gloomy night comes, [we] must dare to take the polished image from the temple, applying every device

[to the task]. The ‘eye of night’ can be the moon, the λαμπρὰ 8¢ πανσέληνος

... νυκτὸς ὀφθαλμός (Sept. 389-90). But Avyalas suggests that here, as in some other passages, it means just ‘night. Compare Pers. 428 κελαινὸν

νυκτὸς ὄμμα and Phoen. 543 νυκτός T ἀφεγγὲς BAédapov. τολμητέον: neuter verbal adjective, constructed like δεῖ, governing the infinitive λαβ-

eiv. See on ἀτιστέον at 105 above. rou: typically used in dialogue and designed to grip the attention of the person addressed : ‘you know ..., ‘note this. ... Its position here, after the temporal clause, is unusual. See Denniston, p. 547. ξεστόν: ‘planed, ‘smoothed, can apply to either wood or stone. wdoas ... μηχανάς: in Or., Pylades emerges as the planner and plotter (see 1098-1152 and 1403~8, and, even more, in Goethe's Iphigenie. Introduction, p. lviii). Here he is just beginning to show his potential.

113-14.6pa. .. καθεῖναι: ‘But see, inside the triglyphs, whither empty . .to let down the body’ The text here is mutilated beyond emendation. Pylades must be suggesting a more ingenious method of entry than the two obvious

ones adumbrated and immediately rejected by Orestes (97-101), but we

have no idea what it may have been. The temple is of Greek design, indeed Doric, since it has triglyphs. Other mentions of triglyphs in late Euripides (Or. 1372, Ba. 1214) suggest that the facade of the stage house in the late fifth —century may havebeen in'the Doric order-On-the entablature of Doric temples, see W. B. Dinsmoore, The Architecture of Ancient Greece, pp. 55-7, with Fig. 20 and Chap. 11, with Plates ΧΥῚ and xx-xxv1. The Taurians’

temple is also rather grand: it has fine columns (εὐστύλων 128), gilded

copings’ (χρυσήρεις θριγκούς 129), and ‘neatly dowelled doors’ (εὐγόμφους

Commentary on lines 114-15

79

πύλας 1286). déuas καθεῖναι: ‘to let ourselves down. On δέμας, see on 106-9 above. ᾽

[Two objections to the text as transmitted are that καθεῖναι has no con-

struction, and that δέ ye is a combination which belongs typically to dialogue (see below, 749). In continuous speech, it is normally ‘strongly

adversative, but no such sense is appropriate here. See Denniston, p. 155.

Weil made a serious and honest atternpt to solve the linguistic difficulties of

the passage by accepting Bothe's ὅπου for ὅποι and writing ὅρα-8 ἔνεστι, τριγλύφων ὅπου κενόν, δέμας καθεῖναι. Sansone, in his edition, follows Weil’s lead, but rather spoils his idea by reinstating 8¢ γ᾽ and ὅποι. A third problem which Weil was seeking to address is εἴσω τριγλύφων. Since the

eighteenth century, commentators, including even Platnauer, have based their interpretation of this passage on the idea that Euripides has in mind some primitive form of Doric temple, with open spaces, instead of metopes, ‘between the triglyphs. But εἴσω does not mean ‘between’. Hence Weil’s curious expression: ‘where [there is] emptiness of triglyphs. There is, however, no

evidence

that Doric

temples

without metopes

ever existed

anywhere, except in the imagination of commentators on this play.

Moreover, temples contain valuable objects. It is hard to imagine that one could be so designed as to be easily penetrable by anyone with a long enough

" ladder. It seems highly likely that there is a lacuna in the text. England pro-

posed one between καθεῖναι and τοὺς πόνους. Platnauer placed it after 113, Kovacs (Euripidea Tertia, pp. 4~6) provides a useful discussion, pointing out weaknesses in some recent attempts to find a solution. He himself accepts -the idea of a lacuna, and suggests that Pylades proposes to remove some - roof-tiles in order to let himself down inside.the building. Unhelpfully, Kovacs renders εἴσω as ‘beyond, but perhaps men letting themselves down through a hole in the roof could just be described as ‘inside the triglyphs’ as a sort of pars pro toto, meaning ‘inside the walls. Kovacs’s experimental reconstruction is to be found in a footnote to the passage in his Loeb edition. One can only conclude that Pylades’ plan did not need to be very detailed, as it was not going to be carried out, but that it needed to seem

more or less plausible to people who knew how a Doric temple was constructed.]

o

|

114-15. τοὺς ... οὐδαμοῦ: the first clause is hard to translate satisfactorily

because its meaning depends on terms which belong distinctively to the aristocratic Greek ethical vocabulary and have no satisfactory equivalent in

English. ἀγαθοΐ are men endowed with the proper manly qualities, espe-

cially courage and strength.ardvo;like the labours’ of Heracles, involve both effort and danger. Very close to this sentiment is a passage from Archelaus (TrGF 5. 1, fr. 237) veaviav γὰρ ἄνδρα χρὴ τολμᾶν ἀεί" | οὐδεὶς γὰρ ὧν

ῥᾷάθυμος εὐκλεὴς avmip/ ἀλλ᾽ οἱ πόνοι τίκτουσι τὴν εὐδοξίαν. Compare

also TrGF 5. 1, fr. 474. For Pindar’s aristocratic athletes, training is the

80

N

Commentary on lines 116-18

substitute for heroic πόνος. See Nem. 6. 245, 7. 74, 9. 44-5, Isthm. 1. 41-5,

etc. οὐδὲν οὐδαμοῦ: ‘Cowards don't count at all, [they are] nowhere

Compare TrGF 5. 2, fr. 618. This is a more emphatic version of such expres-

sions of contempt as τοῦτον οὐδαμοῦ Aéyw

(Ant. 183) Ἱ reckon him

nowhere} τὴν ... Σκῦρον οὐδαμοῦ τίθης (Andr. 210) ‘You place Scyros nowhere’ 866 also Her. 841. ayafoi=ot ayafoi

11 6-17. οὔτοι.. .. πάλιν: It is certainly not the case that we have come on a

long journey by the oar, but that we shall set out again on our return, away from the finishing-line’ In ordinary English: “‘We have not come here just in order to go back again. Pylades moves from the statement of principle (114~ 15) to its practical application to the present case, οὕτοι negatives both . clauses. See Denniston, p. 371 and Weil ad loc. πόρον: internal acc: with

ἤλθομεν, like ‘to go a journey. Compare νόστον ἦλθον at 1112 below. ἀροῦμεν: future of aipw (ἀείρω). Note initial long α. Euripides seems here

. to conflate two uses of the verb. For the meaning ‘to embark upon, the middle is normal, as for example at Pers. 481 αἴρονται φυγήν. The active is

used in nautical contexts for ‘to make to set sail’ (στόλον Pers. 795, Ag. 46,

ναῦς Thucydides 1. 52.2). [L. makes these lines begin Orestes’ speech, which clearly they cannot. He cannot have ended his last speech with ‘let us flee’ (or even ‘shall we flee?’) - and begin his next with ‘we have not come all this way only to go back’ Moreéover, ἀλλ᾽ must begin his speech (see below). The necessity of attributing 116-17 to Pylades was first noted by Jacques Hardion, tutor to the . daughters of Louis XV, and, later, but independently, by Markland. Readers who consult other texts may find these lines marked for deletion (Cropp, following Dindorf), or transferred to follow.105 (England and Wecklein,

following P. Camper on El. 111). Other transfers have been suggested. But

this is a case of the type of infection that sometimes runs through textual critics. The lines are effective in themselves, and, in the mouth of Pylades, very much to the point here (see above). It is true that Euripides sometimes ends speeches with a generalizing moral observatlon (see 122 below), but he need not be made to do 50 on every occasion. οὕτοι may seem ‘rather abrupt’ (Diggle), but the emphatic negative is appropriate, and should not be

watered down by οὐ ydp (Page). For a full discussion, see Diggle, Studies, pp. 76-7.]

11 8.3AX . . . πειστέον: ‘Well, you have spoken well, [so we] must do as you say.

‘Denniston (p. 16, § 6) describes the use of ‘assentient’ ἀλλά: ‘Agreement is

presented not as self-evident, but as wrung from the speaker malgré lui. “T@AXd then points the contrast between the assent given-and the considerations which have militated against the giving of it. πειστέον: verbal noun

from πείθω, ‘(one) must obey. Compare Phil. 994, There, as here, the force ; of obligation is presented 85 very strong: there is' no other way See WS $ 2152. '

Commentary on lines 118-22

81

118-19. xewpeiv . . . δέμας: ‘We need to go to a place in the land where, having hidden ourselves, we shall escape notice! On ὅποι χθονός, see WS 5 1439, and on déuas as a reflexive, on 106-9 above. [Scaliger’s χωρεῖν χρεὼν is the inevitable correction for Ls nonsensical . χώρει νεκρῶν. ὅποι15 required here by the idea of movement. See Barrett on Hipp. 1248.] 120-1. οὐ yap . . . τολμητέον: ‘For the part I play will not be to blame for the oracle falling useless. [We] must dare. Orestes issues a challenge to Apollo: ‘it is not going to be my fault if your oracle fails to come true. τὸ τοῦδε: not simply a periphrasis for ὅδε meaning ‘T, but something like ‘my involvement. So, at Alc. 785, 76 τῆς τύχης means ‘the element of chance) ‘the role played by chance. 9’ adds emphasis, with perhaps a degree of restriction: ‘I, at any rate...’ αἴτιον: for αἴτιος introducing an acc.

and inf., compare Antiphon 5. 23 éyw αἴτιος ἦν πεμφθῆναι ἄγγελον ‘1

was responsible for a messenger being sent. τολμητέον echoes Pylades at - 111 above. [τὸ τοῦδέ γ᾽:1, offers o0 yap 76 τοῦ θεοῦ γ᾽ αἴτιον γενήσεται.... For the divine element will not be to blame for the oracle falling 01561658. This apparent declaration of faith is surprising coming from Orestes, and does not fit well into his train of thought, where the important question is how he and Pylades are going.to behave. Heath proposed αἔτιος γενήσομαι ‘For I shall not be responsible for the oracle of the god (16 τοῦ θεοῦ ye θέσφατον) falling useless. In that case, Ls text could be the result of corruption in two stages: the first scribe would have written αἴτιον for αἴτιος by

mistake, and the second would have ‘cofrected’ γενήσομαι to γενήσεται.

This is an ingenious solution which has been adopted by Diggle and Kovacs. 118 weaknessis the stress imparted by ye to 76 τοῦ θεοῦ. Weil's proposal, which I print, has exactly the meaning required, with the stress where it needs to be, although- the corruption is less easy to account for. Stevens (p. 20) is over-emphatic in asserting that 76 + gen. ‘adds practically nothing to the force of the noun. Nor can the construction strictly be called ‘colloquial. It is shared by Euripides with Thucydides and Plato, with one passage cited from Menander. But Stevens finds no example in Aristophanes.] Ν 122. μόχθος . . . φέρει: For no [degree of] toil and pain provides an excuse for a young man [for not carrying out his appointed task]. Orestes echoes the piece of conventional wisdom produced by Pylades at 114-15. Compare

Cressae, TrGF 5. 1, fr. 461 οὐκ ἂν δύναιο μὴ καμὼν εὐδαιμονεῖν, / αἰσχρόν τε μοχθεῖν μὴ θέλειν veaviav. The idea of distress is dominant in μόχθος

(see below 156 and 191). Effort may or may not be involved. At Trach. 1101, Heracles refers to his labours as μόχθοι when he is reviewing the hardships of his life. At Andr. 134, the chorus’s question-7{ μόχθον ... μοχθεῖς means something like ‘Why do you keep up your miserable struggle?’ But at Phil.

82

-

Commentary on lines 123-235

ς

480, the μόχθος involved in taking Philoctetes home is not a matter of effort,

but of his repulsiveness as a travelling companion. 123-235. Just before her exit into the temple, (61-5), Iphigenia told us that she

was expecting the Greek women whom Thoas had given her as attendants,

Now, as Orestes and Pylades slip away in the direction by which they came, the women enter from the opposite side of the performing area. As they enter, the audience hear a familiar sound: the call to passers-by to keep reverent silence as a procession of worshippers goes on its way (see Eum. 1035-9),

The chorus deploy themselves in the orchestra, while also introducing themselves and singing to Artemis. At 137 they begin to address Iphigenia, who has appeared through the doors of the temple while they were singing.

Like the members of most tragic choruses, these women are aristocratic (1144), and they do not lose their social status by the misfortune of having been sold as slaves to barbarians (1106-12). The only chorus of true slaves in

the thirty-two surviving tragedies is that of Jon. The women of our chorus are

maidens and, presumably, young, since there 15 nothing to suggest otherwise, The parodos of IT takes the form of a cantata shared between soloist and chorus. PV has such a parodos, as do Sophocles’ Electra and, in rudimentary form, Rhesus. Of Euripides’ surviving plays, no fewer than six, in addition to

IT, feature such a cantata: Med. 96-212, Hec. 59-215, Tro.98-229, Ion 82-237, Hel. 164-251, and Or. 140-207.In all, with the exception of Ion, the soloist, as

in S. EL, is the distressed heroine. There is much variation in the form of these cantatas. They may include anapaestic recitative, astrophic song, and cor. responding stanzas. Twice, a second soloist 15 involved. In Med., the nurse delivers passages in recitative; in Hec.,, Polyxena sings an antistrophe to Hecuba's strophe. Sung anapaests are often present in the soloist’s laments " (see Introduction, p. Ixxix). The parodos of IT 15 almost exclusively in that metre. In addition, it is exceptional in including neither recitative nor corresponding stanzas. Such a cantata was doubtless to be enjoyed by the audience as a musical tour de force. [Diggle, perhaps rather surprisingly, takes up a

tentative suggestion of O. Taplin (The Stagecraft of Aeschylus, p.194, 1. 3) that

Iphigenia sings 123-5. 123-36 to Iphigenia 15 it impossible), but his sons, in particular: (1)

Taplin acknowledges, rightly, that Ls attribution of of no significance (indeed, κλῃδούχου δούλα makes own proposal is unsatisfactory for a number of reaHe seems to suggest that Iphigenia is addressing the

chorus, but ναέοντες shows that the addressees are male. Moreover, the whole

address is appropriate to native Taurians, hardly to the chorus. (2) Of his two suggested parallels, Hippolytus at Hipp. 58-60 genuinely addresses the ~~chorus; but it is highly unlikely that Or. 140-2 should be attributed to Electra, not least because change of speaker in strophe and antistrophe should correspond. (3) The attribution creates problems of staging. Iphigenia must enter from the ‘temple, because that is where she went at 65-6. If the chorus enter from the side, there must be an awkward silence while they deploy

Commentary on lines 123-235

83

themselves, and Iphigenia, when she sings, ignores them and addresses some

imaginary Taurians (see 1. above). Then she has to wait in silence until they

address her. Do they, then, enter with her from the ‘temple’? This would be unparalieled, but the chorus of Hel. go into the stage-house and then emerge from it, so we cannot dismiss the idea as impossible. But they can hardly ask ‘Why have you brought me to the temple?’ (138), if they have already spent

some time inside it with her.]

METRE 123-235 an dim an an dim doch doch an dim cat

an dim cat

an dim

an dim cat

125

130

135 ot

eump

m—

Ὁ»

-—

s

e—

Uu-uUu-| uu-uuUU——=| =uu-uu -᾽αυ--

(υυ)----ἰ _.___]

-ου----

---|!

———

—-uU-|

υυ---- κ

-υὐ--ἰ - πτοὺυ-

υυτυῦυ-υὖὐ--

- - ---

υυ-υυ-

-

140

==K

-}

145

150

O

84

Commentary on lines 123-235

mm———

UU-UU-

π-πυυ-

υυ--

an dim

160

ειπὀξι'πεετ

165

-υυ---ἰ

υυ-υυ-

an dim

170

—UU--|

-uu--

an dim

175

an dim

180

an

dim

185

an dim

190

--π--

υυ“-.--

UU"'—-I

UU=

Uu=(-=|

(«

.

~yUuU-uuyu

----

....

==

--ἡ--

)----σὔυι--

—=Uu-

? an dim

195

an dim

200

Commentary on lines 123.-235

85

an dim cat

an dim? an dim

205

an dim cat an dim

207 209

an dim cat

υὐυ

.0]----

υυῦ!

υυ---ουὐὐἱ

--- -

210

cat cat cat

215

an dim an dim ia mol an dim an dim an dim an dim

cat cat

——-]=H

υὐυμυυὺῦ!

-UU-UU

()=~

υυ--

-an dim cat

υυὐὐυμυύὺ

220 208 221

-υυ-225

—_————

..«ὐ’--

-ουουυυυυ! uu-uu—| uuuu|uuuu| uuuu

---υὐ--}

230 an dim

-

+andimcat

235

This duet between the chorus and Iphigenia is in almost pure lyric anapaests, mostly heavily spondaic, with catalectic dimeters in sequence, in fact typical

‘mourning anapaests’ (see Introduction, p. Ixxix). There are, however, cola

which approximate in rhythm to recitative anapaests, with double short and metron-diaeresis (for example, 130, 137-8, 141-2, etc.), and there is an observable tendency for the two phenomena, double short and metron-diaeresis, to

%

86

Commentary on lines 123-235 ς.

occur together. 126-7, though purely spondaic, and 50 harmonious with thejy surroundings, are not of a possible anapaestic length. They are, however, iden. tifiable as dochmiacs. The alien rhythm must give powerful emphasis to the address to the goddess. These ‘heavy’ dochmiacs would have been almost ag

striking as, though rather different from, the three dochmiacs with more reso‘lution among anapaests at Ion 894-6, where Creusa recalls the moment of her

rape by Apollo. In Iphigenias final section (203-35), there is rhythmic evidence of heightened emotion in the sequences of short syllables (213, 220,

' 231, 232). Her distress rises to a climax as she recalls her brother, the future - king of Argos, a babe in arms, as she remembers him (231-2). The expressive

effect of these cola is clear enough, but they pose a theoretical problem. 231-2 are marked off very clearly by word-end as anapaestic, but 220 and 213 equally

clearly as iambic. Yet, if word-end is disregarded, 213 and 220 could both be

regarded as anapaestic tripodies, like 232. This is an intriguing case of metri-

cal ambiguity, but the phrasing produced by word-end seems too clear to be

ignored. As it happens, there is metrical pause (verse-end) before all the heav-

ily resolved cola (213, 220, 232) which begin with short. There is elision, not

full word-end, between 234 and 235. So the clausula of the song is in fact a

catalectic tetrameter, and it looks very much as if the same was originally true of the previous section, which ends at 201-2.

[In this passage, problems and proposed solutions almost 411 fall into two

classes.

1. Runs of short syllables. There are very well-attested runs in Iphigenia’s final section (see above). Given the association of such runs with extreme

emotion, it is reasonable to work on the principle that they should not be introduced by emendation elsewhere in the song and that, if they occur

in MS readings, they should be viewed with suspicion, and emended, if that can be done easily. ὀ (4) 130: 15 πόδα παρθένιον ὅσιον ὁσίας (UU-UUUUUUUU-) is quite easily emended by Seidler’s transposition, as printed in the text. (b) 181: Even if it were possible to scan Ls ἰαχὰν as Uu—, the resulting -Ἣὑυυυ-- (BapBapov ἰαχὰν) would be inappropriate here. Nauck’s

ἀχὰν solves the problem. See also below on 179-81.

(¢) 184: Markland’s νέκυσι μελομέναν would introduce υ a section sung by the chorus, and should not be accepted. "

U into

2. Exceptional lengths. The two dochmiacs at 126-7 are rhetorically effec__tive, and there is no reasonto suspect them. The anapaestic tripody at 232 must be accepted (see above). There is no good case for accepting such lengths elsewhere in the song, if they can be easily emended.

(a) 187-8: Either ἔρρει φῶς σκήπτρων or πατρῴων οἴκων produces a dochmiac (————- ).But the supplementary second ἔρρει (England,

Commentary on lines 123-31

87

following Elmsley), solves the problem, while also allowing οἴμοι to

begin 188, which follows well on οἴμοι beginning 186. (b) 142: Leaving metre aside, Is tripody Ἀτρειδᾶν τῶν (

) needs emendation in order to make sense.

(c) 155:Ls οἴμοι φροῦδος yévva ( οἴμοι (μοὺ.

(d) 181: δέσποιν; ἐξαυδάσω (

κλεινῶν

) is easily cured by Hermann’s

) by the emender of P (p) makes

sense and 15 not altogether easy to supplement. Transferring τὰν év

from the beginning of the following colon (Diggle) is not a happy solution, producing, as it does, a ‘dimeter’ not marked off by word-end (év is prepositive, 80 adheres to the following θρήνοις).

Willink’s ἐξαυδάσω ( γώλ), making a catalectic dimeter is possible,

but is the emphatic T’ really wanted? I allow p’s emendation to stand provisionally, but doubt very much that it is what Euripides wrote. Finally, at 202, a single anapaestic metron as clausula is impossible. A cata-

lectic dimeter is necessary, but no supplement so far suggested seems

entirely satisfactory. See below on 201-2.]

123--5. & . . . vaiovres: ‘O inhabitants of the pair of rocks that come together,

[rocks] of the unfriendly sea. The Symplegades, the ‘clashing’ rocks at the easern end of the Bosphorus, are of profound symbolic significance in 1Τ.

The poet mentions them repeatedly: 241, 260, 355, 422, 746, 889-90, 1389.

“The rocks are the mental, as well as the physical barrier between darkness and light, the unknown and the known, barbarism and civilization’ (E. M. Hall, ‘The Geography of Euripides’ Iphigeneia among the Taurians, AJP 108 (1987), p. 429). That is why, here and elsewhere (260-1, 746), Euripides seems to imply that the Taurians live close to the Symplegades, instead of several hundred miles away. Mentioning the boundary makes the point that these people live outside it. On the Black Sea in general and on the difficulty of the passage through the Symplegades in particular, see S. West, “The most Marvellous of All Seas: The Greek Encounter with the Euxine, ΟῈ 50 (2003), pp. 151-67. δίσσάς: not precisely ‘twin, but forming a natural pair, like the Symplegades, or the sons of Atreus. See also on 241-2 below.

[In several passages, as here, L offers the euphemistic Εὔξεινος where ἄξει-

vos (or ξενος) seems more appropriate. See below on 253.] 127. Δίκτυνν᾽ οὐρεία: Dictynna seems (as her name implies) to have originated as the Minoan version of the Bronze-Age goddess of the wild, the

πότνια θηρῶν of modern scholars, who was adopted into the Olympian

family as Artemis. At Hipp. 146 she is called πολύθηρος. Like Pan (1126

below), she haunts the mountains.

128-31. πρὸς. . . πέμπω: ο your court, to the gilded copings of your wellcolumned temple, I, a servant of your holy key-holder, send a holy, virgin οο On the grand and thoroughly Greek character of the Taurian temple,

% 88

Commentary on lines 132-7 see above on 113-14. κλῃδούχου: possession of the temple key is essentia] to Iphigenia’s office as priestess and custodian of the temple and image of

Artemis. See A. Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion,

pp. 80-3, and }. Β. Connelly, Portrait of 4 Priestess, pp. 92~104. ὁσίας ὅσιον: Polyptoton. Especially typical of lyric style. πόδα ... πέμπω: one of numerous tragic periphrases for ‘to go’ with πόδα as internal accusative,

as in Housmans parody: ‘Go, chase into the house ἃ lucky foot' (see Eum. 403). See further Parker on Alc. 869 and 1153. On the text, see above on Metre.

132-7. Ἑλλάδος . .. ἔμολον: ‘Giving in exchange the towers and walls of wellhorsed Greece and Europe of well-treed pastures, the place of my paternal home, I have come. We are reminded of Mardonius’ secondary reason for an

expedition against Greece (Herodotus 7. 5): ὡς ἡ Εὐρώπη περικαλλὴς εἴη

χώρη καὶ 8évdpea παντοῖα φέρει τὰ ἥμερα ‘[He said that] Europe was a most beautiful land and produced all sorts of cultivated trees. Horses need

places where they can feed (χόρτοι), not deserts and barren rocks. Euripides does not, of course, care in the least what the Taurian land might actually have been like, His concern is to contrast a pleasant place, the home the women have left, with the thoroughly unpleasant place where they now are. Εὐρώπαν: geographers of Euripides’ time placed the eastern boundary of Europe at the river Tanais and Lake Maeotis (the Don and the Sea of Azov), or even at the Phasis in Colchis, at the eastern end of the Black Sea (see Herodotus 4.45 and

the Hippocratic Airs, Waters, Places 13). For Hecataeus, the Scythians who

inhabited the northern coast of the Black Sea were Europeans (FGrH. F 184~

90). So the land of the Taurians was, strictly, in Europe. But ‘Burope’ had other meanings and resonances. The earliest occurrence of the word is in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (250-1 and 290-1), where it means mainland

Greece, as distinct from the Peloponnese. In the fifth and fourth centuries,

there co-existed with the Europe of the geographers an ideological ‘Europe, meaning, essentially, Greece. That is how Herodotus makes Mardonius use the word in the passage quoted above. It is so used by Lysias (2.47), in the context of the Persian Wars, and by Isocrates. The familiar dichotomy was always between ‘Europe’ (ourselves) and ‘Asia’ (the other). The inhabitants of the

northern coast of the Black Sea have no place here. But it is hard to believe that

any Greek of Eunpldes time would have identified them with ‘us; or thought

of their country as ‘ours. See further D. Hay, Europe. The Emergence of an Idea,

A. Momigliano, CEuropa come concetto politico presso Isocratee gli Isocratei, RFIC 61 (1933)= Terzo ContributoΤ, pp. 489- 97, andJ. Ziolkowski, ‘National ~—and other Contrasts in the Athenian Funeral Orations, in"H. A. Khan (ed.),

The Birth of the European Identity. This last, however, should be used with cau-

tlon, as not all the passages cited by the author seem to support his thesis. xéprow τ᾽ εὐδένδρων: ‘Descriptive’ genitive, like ἱερῶν ποταμῶν... πόλις (Med. 846-7). See Diggle, Euripidea,p. 418.

Commentary on lines 138-42

89

[Joshua Barnes tried to save Euripides’ reputation 85 a geographer by proposing Εὐρώταν for Εὐρώπαν in 135, and his conjecture has been cham-

pioned by Β. M. Hall (op. cit. on 123-5 above, pp. 430-33). It is true that the

words are easily confused, but Εὐρώταν will not do. A Greek city was iden-

tified by its spring or river. The Eurotas meant Sparta. But these women come from a city that has been sacked. That cannot be Sparta. C. Willink (‘Buripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris 123-36, CQ (2007), pp. 746-9) discusses this passage, making a number of good points. For Εὐρώπαν, he proposes

εὔροιαν (or evpoiav). Εὔροια, ‘good flow; 15 used literally, of course, of li-

quids. Figuratively, one can speak of a ‘good flow’ of words (Plato, Phaedrus 238c¢), of offspring (Laws 784b), of events (Polybius 2. 44. 2). For the Stoics, Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus, eUpoia Biov, a- good course of life) is equivalent to εὐδαιμονία (SVF 1, p. 46, fr. 184). But the metaphor is always live. I do not see how one could speak of ἃ good flow of well-treed pastures’ In any case, I am far from convinced of the need to emend. The vital point is not what members of an audience know, but what matters to them. In The Winter'’s Tale, Shakespeare gave Bohemia a sea-coast, and Ben Jonson made

fun of him for it. But the audience does not care.]

138. ayayes dyayes: the sort of repetition (anadiplosis) in Euripidean lyric of

which Aristophanes makes fun in his Euripidean monody in Frogs (φόνια

φόνια 1336, ἀνέπτατ᾽ ἀνέπτατ᾽ 1352, δάκρνα δάκρυα 1354, ἔβαλον ἔβαλον 1355). In this play, see 152, 402, 864, 881, 894. [Triclinius had some understanding of anapaests, as he shows by his emendation of Ls ἄγες ἄγες. On Triclinius and anapaests, see Parker, Songs, pp. 109-10.]

.

139-42. @ ... κλεινῶν: ‘O child of him who came to the towers of Troy with

glorious oarage, thousand-shipped, myriad-armed, kin of the glorious Atreidae. κώπᾳ: Concrete, means ‘handle) ‘oar’; abstract, as here and at 116 above, ‘rowing, ‘oarage’ χιλιοναύτᾳ μυριοτευχεῖ: The parallelism is

emphasized by the rhythm: —uu—~| -ὐυ ---- χιλιοναύτης is applied to

Agamemnonss fleet at Ag. 45. The other Aeschylean-sounding compound, μυριοτευχής, made up of μυρίος in the sense ‘innumerable’ and τεῦχος ‘military equipment’ (most familiar from the Homeric τεύχεα), does not seem to occur elsewhere. The chorus again address Iphigenia. [χιλιοναύτᾳ μυριοτευχεῖ: L has χιλιοναύτα μυριοτεύχοις. The second word is patently impossible. The subscript is added to the first word in the Aldine, and Barnes corrected the second to the dative singular to match. The alternative, preferred by Diggle and Kovacs, is to retain χιλιοναύτα as a Doric genitive and adopt Seidler’s μυριοτευχοῦς, both agreeing with τοῦ ἐλθόντος. At Pers. 83, Xerxes is πολύχειρ καὶ πολυναύτας, but he is being presented there as a sort of monster. The adjectives in the present passage suit a fleet rather than a man. Solutions which require the two adjectives to be in different cases, destroying the parallelism, are unacceptable (for an

90

Commentary on lines 144-7 ¢

example, see below). The last colon, as transmitted by L, 15 metrically highly

dubious (see under Metre, above), and has come under suspicion because of

κλεινῶν 80 soon after κλεινᾷ in 140, But we have to distrust our sense of

style here. It would be wrong to suggest that Greeks were insensitive to ver-

bal repetition: there is far too much play on repetition in tragedy to allow that conclusion. But they certainly tolerated repetitions which to us seem maladroit. See, for example, 337-9 below (σφάγια.... σφαγῆς, dmoreioe:. .. τίνουσα). See Ῥ Ἐ, Pickering, ‘Verbal Repetition in Prometheus and Greek

Tragedy generally, BICS 44 (2000), pp. 81-101 and ‘Did the Greek Ear detect “careless” verbal Repetition?’ CQ 53 (2003), pp. 490-9. Dindorf’s y€vos produces tolerable sense and metre. For yévos of a single person, see Sept, 654 and Ant. 1117. The corrector of P sought ο plug the metre with another τῶν

before Ἀτρειδᾶν, which was incorporated by Hermann into his solution. He

thought that there might be a larger lacuna, and suggested, exempli gratia, χιλιοναύτᾳ μυριοτευχοῦς ἰ(στρατιᾶς Tayod τοῦ πρεσβυγενοῦς ! τῶν

Ἀτρειδᾶν τῶν κλεινῶν. Kovacs prints this in his text. What Euripides may

have written here we have no idea.]

144-5. δυσθρηνήτοις . . . ἔγκειμαι: ὡς exclamatory: How ... I δυσθρηνήτοις .+« θρήνοις: a type of word-play typical of Greek, with its facility in making compounds, but sometimes impossible to render in English. Compare below - δυσδαίμων δαίμων (203) and νύμφαν δύσνυμφον (216). Here, the compound adjective serves to intensify, but the figure can have different functions. See below on 203 and 216, and D. Fehling, Νυκτὸς maides ἄπαιδες Aesch. Eum. 1034 und das sogennante Oxymoron in der Tragddie, Hermes 96 (1968), p. 150. ἔγκειμαι conveys a sense of being helplessly entangled in something. For Iphigenia, it is laments, for Archilochus (West IEG?, fr. 193),

it is desire, for Andromache (Andr. 91-2), lamentations, wailings, and tears.

For further examples, see Diggle, Euripidea, p. 212-

145-7,7@s . . . οἴκτοισιν: (How am I entangled in) . . . lyreless laments of unmu-

. sical song, alas, in the midst of funereal wailings. ἀλύροις ἐλέγοις is in apposi-

tion to δυσθρηνήτοις θρήνοις. For év κηδείοις οἴκτοισιν, Diggle compares év

θρήνοισιν (ΟΥ. 985) and év ... Boais ἐνοπαῖσί τε (Ba. 159). See Dodds on Ba. 157-9. ἐλέγοις: The word ἔλεγος first appears in an inscription preserved by Pausanias (10. 7. 4-6) recording the victory in the Pythian Festival of 586 BC of an Arcadian, Echembrotus, in singing to the pipe: ἀείδων μέλεα καὶ ἐλέγους. It reappears in the later plays of Euripides (see 1091 below) and, once, in Aristophanes (Birds 217). It seems to mean simply lament, with no

o

mmetrical implication. For a thorough exploration of the terms ἔλεγος,

ἐλεγεῖον; and ἐλεγεία, see” ML West; "Studies in Greek Elegy dnd ῬΡ. 2-9. ἄλυρον éAeyov also appears at Hel. 185. In both passages, has no technical sense. It means simply ‘unmusical, in fact . ‘anconvivial' For the chorus of OC, death 15 dAvpos ἄχορος (1223). on 225-6 below.

Tambus, ἄλυρος oyless, See also

Commentary on lines 148-53

91

[L offers μολπᾶς Boav (βοᾶν Triclinius). But βοὰν (U-) will not fit into

the anapaests here, and a verb is needed to govern the accusative. Kvi¢ala proposed τὰν οὐκ εὔμουσον! μέλπουσα βοὰν. The alternative, which involves fewer modifications to the transmitted text, 15 Burges's deletion of βοάν. Markland had already remarked on the word: ‘unde hoc venerit, aut

quid vult, ignoro. αἰαξ! L. writes € €, but € and ai came to be pronounced

alike, as in modern Greek, and MSS vary much in how they write the interjections (see Barrett on Hipp. 208-9 and 591-5), but aiai (scanned — ) suits

the metre here. On the scansion of azai and € ¢, see; again, Barrett on Hipp.

565-600. There is no case for deleting év (Jacobs, Elmsley, Murray). év is in place in this type of expression (see above), it fits well with ἔγκειμαι and

gives definition to the construction.] 148-9. drai ... κατακλαιομένᾳ: ‘Disasters fall to me, disasters, as I weep for my brother! ἁμὸν: ἁμός (or ἀμός) is a Homeric equivalent for éuds. In trag-

‘edy, it is used, where metrically convenient, for both éuds and ἡμέτερος. [ἀταί (Diggle) is an attractive emendation for ai. Some earlier editors

(Monk, Schéne-Kéchly) followed Elmsley in explaining s text as equivalent to οἴκτοις τῶν ἀτῶν αἵμοι συμβαίνουσι, citing in support Tro. 879, as

transmitted by P: ποινὰς ὅσοι τεθνᾶσ᾽ év TAlw φίλοι, But there, ὅσων (V) is

surely right. Other suggestions are οἷαΐ (Badham) exclamatory, like Hipp. 845: οἷον εἶδον ἄλγος. and Nauck’s (rather flat) Sewal.]

150-1. Toiaw . .. ὄρφνα: ‘Such a sight of dreams did I 566 in the night of which the darkness has gone by’ τοΐαν is exclamatory. Compare Med. 986 τοῖον εἰς

ἔρκος πεσεῖται ‘into such a snare will she fall’ and Alc. 870 (see below on

158-9). The phraseology and idea in these lines recall Aristophanes’ parody of a Euripidean monody at Frogs 1331-3: & νυκτὸς κελαινοφαὴς Spdva,/ τίνα μοι δύστανον ὄνειρον | πέμπεις; νυκτὸς: genitive of time within which., τᾶς: the article as relative (as in Homer) 15 admitted in lyric, but avoided in jambic trimeters. See on 35-41 above and Diggle, Euripidea, pp. 32-3 and 466-7 and Barrett on Hipp. 525~6. ἰδόμαν: Doric version of the Homeric

ἰδόμην, unaugmented aorist middle, equivalent to εἶδον.

[In order to retain Ls ζωᾶς, Schone suggested adding ἀπλακόνθ᾽ (agreeing with σύγγονον). But the form used in tragedy is ζόη, although scribes tend to introduce cases of ζωή, even blatantly contra metrum, as at Hec. 1108. ζόη

(U-), however, cannot be accommodated in anapaests, because any short

syllable introduced before it to produce U U would be closed by the initial £.

Elmsley’s deletion of {wds and change of oiav to τοίαν makes sense and

metre, although it leaves the intrusion of ζωᾶς into the text unexplained. Triclinius again shows some sense of anapaests by the correction of εἰδόμαν to ἰδόμαν.] 153 ὀλόμαν: unaugmented and Doric for ὠλόμην. For omission of the temporal augment by Euripides, see Diggle, Studies, pp. 65-6, and compare ἰδόμαν above, On the anadiplosis (repetition), see on 138 above.

92

Commentary on lines 155-66

155. φροῦδος yévva: 5o, too, the chorus laments at Or. 971-2 βέβακε ydp, BéBaxev, οἴχεται τέκνων πρόπασα γέννα Πέλοπος. Menelaus does not count.

156. Ppeb . . . μόχθων: Alas, alas for the troubles in Argos. rév ... μόχθων: on the meaning of udyfos, see above on 122. On the genitive of cause in an exclamation, see WS § 1407. Ἄργει: dative of place ‘where’ without a prepo-

sition, Poetic. Compare Held. 360-1 ὅ 7" Ἄργει Σθενέλου τύραννος, with Wilkins ad loc., Diggle, Studies, p. 47 and WS §§1531 and 1534, 157. δαῖμον: “The ordinary man sees only what happens to him, unpredictable

and not of his own enacting, and he calls the driving power daimon, some-

thing like fate, but without any person who plans or ordains being visible’

Burkert, tr. Raffan, Greek Religion, pp. 180-1. On the concept of the daimon,

866 pp. 179-81). 866 also below; 202--4 and 867. δαίμων can, of course, also be used to mean ‘supernatural being’ generally, as at 267 below.

158-9. udvov ... πέμψας: for the idea of ‘plundering’ the bereaved person by

handing over the beloved one to death, compare Alc. 870-1: τοῖον ὅμηρόν

@ ἀποσυλήσας | Ἅιδῃ θάνατος παρέδωκεν. πέμψας: by sending, ‘coinci-

dent’aorist participle. See Barrett on Hipp.289-92 and, briefly, WS § 1872.3.c.

[μόνον ὅς με: Bothe's is much the most economical restoration of Ls ὃς τὸν μόνον με, where a copyist has inadvertently turned the words into prose.] 159-66. & . .. κεῖται: ‘For whom () I am going to sprinkle (μέλλω ὑγραί. vew) on the surface of the earth (yaias év νώτοις)᾽ libations: milk, wine and

honey, ‘which are prescribed as soothing offerings for the dead. τάσδε xods

..« Κρατῆρά τε: ‘these libations and mixing-bowl for the dead. Hendiadys: ‘this bowl of libations for the dead. dypaivew: ‘to moisten’ Elsewhere, the construction is as at Hel. 673 BAédapov ὑγραίνω δάκρυσιν Ἷ moisten my

eye (acc.) with tears (dat.). But verbs meaning ‘to moisten’ are occasionally

made, illogically, to govern the liquid used. Thus, at Aj. 376, afu’ ἔδευσα (Ἱ wetted blood’) means ‘T shed blood: C. A. Lobeck collected examples in his commentaryon that line. yaias év νώτοις: compare χθονὸς ... νῶτα at 46

above. παγάς ... μόσχων: ‘streams [of milk] from mountain cows. The

mountain pastures apparently suggest purity. At Pers. 611, Atossa proposes

to offer to the shade of Darius honey and milk from ‘a pure cow’ (Bods 7’ ἀφ᾽ -, ἁγνῆς). Βάκχου . .. μελισσᾶν: ‘vinous offerings of Bacchus and labour of -tawny bees: ξουθᾶν and μελισσᾶν: Doric genitives plural. κεῦται can mean ‘laid down’ or ‘prescribed; usually by law; or custom. See Med. 494, Ion 1047,

and TrGF 5. 2. fr. 962 ἄλλ᾽. én’ ἄλλῃ φάρμακον κεῖται véow ‘one drug is prescribed for one illness, another for another. The lines-are typical of Euripidean-lyric-style: the-grammatical structure is-simple, but the sentence is spun out by the poetic periphrases. [Concerned by the absence of water from Iphigenia’s libations, Kéchly sug-

gested a lacuna after wayds. But Platnauer (on 162) adduces other passages

where one or more constituents of the usual libations are omitted. Thus, at

ς

Commentary on lines 168--74

93

Or. 115, the offering is, as here, of wine, milk and honey, while at S. El. 895

only milk is mentioned. Compare also Pers. 611 (above). sypaévew, Blaydes’s emendation of Ls ὑδραΐίνειν, is accepted by Diggle and Kovacs. Neither verb

is common, but, on the evidence, such as it is, ὑδραίνειν is used exclusively of water, with the accessory idea of cleansing. Four times in the Odyssey (4.

750 and 759, 17. 48 and 58), the formulaic ὑδρηναμένη καθαρὰ ypot εἵμαθ' ἑλοῦσα ‘having washed and put on clean clothes; appears as a preliminary to

prayer. At El. 157, Electra weeps for her father λουτρὰ πανύσταθ'᾽ ὑδρανάμεvov χροῖ, where the Homeric participle suits the dactylic metre. 54 above,

where vdpaivew is used of the ritual sprinkling of the sacrificial victim,

seems to be the only other occurrence in surviving literature. ὑγραίνειν, on the other hand, has a relatively wide range of meanings. Euripides uses it for ο wet the eye, or cheek, with tears’ (Ion 242, Hel. 673) and, of rivers, ‘to irri-

gate the surrounding country’ (Tro. 226, Hel. 3). In the fourth century, in sci-

entific or quasi-scientific prose, it is used for ‘to liquify’ (Plato, Rep. 3354, Aristotle, Mete. 382b. 28),to soften the consistency of something’ (Plato, Tim. 88d, Aristotle, HA 557b), or ‘to wet the surface’ (Xenophon, Cyn. 5. 3). The two

words can be easily confused, as is shown by Tro. 226, where PQ offer ὑδραί-

νει for ὑγραΐίνει. Here, a scribe could easily have had ὑδραίνειν in his head from 54 above. See Diggle, Euripidea, pp. 148-9 and 216-18. κεῦταις: Nauck’s χεῖται is very attractive, but in view of fr. 962 (see above) κεῖται seems

appropriate. φάρμακα and θελκτήρια are conceptually very similar.]

168-9. ἀλλ᾽... Ἄιδα: addressed to the attendant who entered with Iphigenia, carrying the materials for the rite. τεῦχος καὶ λοιβὰν 4ida: The same turn

of phrase as yods ... κρατῆρά τε τὸν φθιμένων above. τεῦχος is here a ves-

sel for pouring libations, as at Cho. 99. | 170-1. Ayapepvéviov θάλος: Agamemnonian scion’ For the (poetic) adjectival form instead of genitive, compare Ταντάλειος in 1 above. θάλος: ‘shoot, ‘scion, is, again, poetic, with, perhaps, honorific and emotional overtones. See Mastronarde on Phoen. 88. The word occurs three times in this song: at 209 it is applied to Iphigenia herself, at 216 again to Orestes. In the literal,

botanical sense, the spelling is θαλλός. 171. ὡς φθιμένῳ: ws with the participle ‘sets forth the ground of belief on which the agent acts’ (WS 5 2086). 174. ξανθὰν χαΐταν: for the colour, see above on 51-2, For other references in tragedy to the practice of cutting a lock of hair and leaving it on the grave of a relative, 566, for example, S. El. 448-52, Or. 96 and 113 and below, 703. Most notably, at Cho. 168-178, Aeschylus follows Stesichorus (PMGEF, fr. 217. 11-13) in bringing about the recognition between Electra and Orestes by the lock of hair that he has left at his father’s tomb (see also El. 514-31 and S. Εἰ. 900--4). The column representing Orestes in Iphigenia’s dream at 51-2

sprouted κόμας ξανθάς, but the similarity of hair colour between brother

and sister is of no significance here, since characters in Euripides generally

94

Commentary on lines 175--8]

ς

have ‘tawny’ hair. Phaedra has it (Hipp. 134, 220), so do Hippolytus (Hipp. 1343), Harmonia (Med. 832), Jason’s bride (Med. 980), Medea’s children

(Med. 1141), Lycus (Her. 233), Parthenopaeus (Phoen. 1159), and so on.In

fact, for Euripides, ξανθός seems to be a. conventional epithet for hair,

derived from epic. In Homer, Menelaus is, of course, ξανθός. But so are

other persons whose names scan UU-U, such as Meleager, Rhadamanthys, and (ξανθή) Agamede. The epithet also attaches itself to hair elsewhere, as at II. 1. 197, where Athene takes hold of Achilles’ ξανθῆς ... κόμης. Euripides’ Homerism in this matter is the more significant in that neither Aeschylus

nor Sophocles uses ξανθός of hair.

175-6. τηλόσς ... éuds: both τηλόσε (‘to far away’) and ἀπενάσθην (from ἀποναίω) belong to Homeric vocabulary, and neither 15 found in the other tragedians. For τηλόσε, see Il. 22. 407, where Hecuba throws her veil far from

her. Homer uses dmovaiw either in the active or in the aorist middle:

ἀπενάσσατο ( went away’). For Euripides’ use of that form, see 1260 below. For the aorist passive in the sense T have been parted from, compare

Med. 166 & πάτερ, ὦ πόλις, dv . .. ἀπενάσθην. Epic vocabulary, designed for the dactylic hexameter, is equally well adapted to other single-long-double-

short metres, such as anapaestic. Note also the epic shortening of xa..

[Π2 apparently has tiny vestiges of what seems to be τηλόθι, also a Homeric word, and rather more common than τηλόσε. But the sense of motion makes τηλόσε more appropriate here.] 176. δοκήμασι: ‘according to belief’ As at 8 above, Iphigenia stresses the fact

that people at home think that she 15 dead. Compare Tro.411 7a.. .. δοκήμαow σοφά ‘the wise by repute. Dative of respect (WS § 1516). ἰδοκήμασι: Porson’s emendation of [5 δόκιμα, which makes neither sense

nor acceptable metre, δόκημα is a distinctively Euripidean word (Smereka, p.158), whereas δόκιμος belongs to ordinarylanguage. @ τλάμων: Markland's correction of σφαχθεῖσα τλάμων. On this use'of the article, see WS § 1149, The vestiges in 2 suggest that the words were written without elision.] 179-81. ἀντιψάλμους ... éfavddow: ‘Responding songs and the barbarian cry of Asian chants, mistress, will I utter” ἀντυψάλμους (from ἀντι- and the

stem that gives us ‘psalm’) is not found elsewhere, and Hesychius (Latte I,

Ῥ. 189) cites it specifically from this play. He defines it as ἀντιστρόφους, but

there is no formal strophic correspondence here. Ἀσιητᾶν ... BapBapov ἀχάν: lamentation seems to have been thought of as an Asiatic speciality,

but I find no true parallel for Greek singers announcing that they are going to perform in ‘barbarian’ and ‘Asian’ style. The passages usually quoted ~~(Phoen:1302-3; Or.'1397) are hardly relevant; as the singers are themselves

non-Greek. Nor do anapaests, the metre in which this chorus continues to

sing, have any Asian connotations. The chorus of Cho., who, whatever their provenance, can hardly be Persian, ‘beat an Asian dirge in the strains of a Cissian mourning woman’ (423-4). In Hyps. (TrGF 5.2, fr. 752g; see SFP I,

Commentary on lines 182--ὃ

pp- 192 of Asia’ seen as [ὕμνων

95

and 234), the “Thracian lyre’ of Orpheus produces ‘a mournful elegy Ἀσιάδ᾽ ἔλεγον ἰήιον! Θρῇσσ᾽ ἐβόα κίθαρις. These epithets are best essentially decorative and emotive. 7 Ἀσιητᾶν: Bothe's emendation is decidedly more elegant than Ls

ὕμνον 7’ Ἀσιήταν, to which βάρβαρον ἀχάν would have to stand in apposition. It must be noted, however, that Π2 seems to have read ὕμνον. ἀχάν is the correction of Nauck (Euripideische Studien, p. 112) for Ls ἰαχάν. He

asserts that in tragedy ἰαχή is always scanned U——, That is hard to prove in

practice, as in lyric the scansion is far from always certain. The evidence is examined by Page on Med. 149, and is further explored by Diggle, Euripidea, pp. 387-8. Here, at least, U—— will not fit metrically, and UU - would, with the preceding βάρβαρον, produce —UUUU—, which would be out of character with the anapaests in this passage (see on Metre above). Scribal confusion between ἐαχά and ἀχά is not unparalleled. See, for example, Med. 149, 204, Phoen. 1040 (with Mastronarde ad loc.). δέσποιν᾽ ἐξαυδάσω: 80

the corrector of P.In I's δέσποινά γ᾽ ἐξαυδάσω, the ye makes no sense with the vocative. If one reads (with Markland) deomoive (in apposition to σοι in 180), ye can be explained as meaning ‘to you, as being my mistress, but it is hard to see any point in that. γ᾽ 15 probably best dismissed as an ill-informed attempt at metrical emendation. On the metrical aspects of the question, see above, under Metre.]

182-5. τὰν . . . παιάνων: the woeful music in dirges for the dead which Hades chants in [his] lays, without paeans. rdv . . . μοῦσαν is in apposition to ἀχάν ἰῃ 180. The second τὰν is the relative (&v). See above on 150-1. δίχα παιάνων: a paean was typically a call for divine aid (as at 1403-4 below), or an expression of gratitude for success. Hades would not sing a paean, Apollo would (Ion 905-6). In the Hellenistic period, at least, paeans might be sung for the dead, but with the idea of celebration, especially of heroization. On the history of the genre and the occasions on which paeans were sung, see L. Rutherford, Pindar’s Paians, pp. 3-58. On the concept in general, see L. Kippel, Paian. On pp. 31015, Kippel collects passages where the paean is mentioned in antithesis with the lament. On the use of the word ‘paean’ for shock effect, see Parker on Alc, 423-4,

[véxvow seems only very tenuously connected syntactically to the rest of

the clause. Markland sought to remedy this by his conjecture νέκυσι

μελομέναν (‘of concern to the dead’), on the model of Phoen. 1302-3 ἰαχὰν͵ ... μελομέναν νεκροῖς (and see below on 643-5). But this produces

UUU UUU, unmetrical in the context. An alternative might be to eject νέκυow as interpolated. Its removal would not damage the sense, and would leave an anapaestic dimeter: τὰν év θρήνοις μοῦσαν μελέαν.] 186-8. oijuot . . . οἴκων: Alas, the glory (salvation) of the kingship of the house of the Atridae is gone, is gone. Alas for your ancestral house. φῶς figuratively, can mean glory’ or ‘salvation’ in the abstract, or it can refer to a person. At

96

Commentary on lines 189-90 ¢,

S. El. 1354, Electra addresses Orestes as & φίλτατον φῶς, & μόνος σωτὴρ

δόμων!

Ἀγαμέμνονος, and it seems very likely that here too φῶς stands for Orestes. σκήπτρων: No crown. The σκῆπτρον which Zeus puts into the hand

of the Homeric king is the essential adjunct and symbol of his rule. [From 186 to 197 the text has been severely mutilated. Unfortunately, the scraps of Π are unhelpful. For 186-8, there are various ways to produce a text which can be translated and scanned. It seems preferable to me to treat 186--7 as a connected sentence (Hermann, England, Weil, Kovacs). But οἴμοι τῶν Ἀτρειδᾶν οἴκων could be a separate exclamation (Monk, SchoneKéchly, Diggle). In 187, Burges reduced the accumulation of genitives by pro-

posing σκῆπτρόν 7’ for σκήπτρων. This is accepted by Diggle and Kovacs, among others, Pairing φῶς and σκῆπτρον rules out any suggestion that φῶς

‘refers to Orestes: ‘saviour’ and ‘kingship’ can hardly be paired. At 188,

πατρῴων οἴκων (--------ΞὉ would make a dochmiac (like 126-7), but a dochmiac here seems harder to accept than the pair which begin the song at 126-7 (see above under Metre). Mekler proposed πατρίων οἴκων, an ana-

paestic metron (UU---), which Diggle accepts. Scribes show a strong

tendency to write cases of πατρῷος where metre requires the penultimate to be short, but correption of ῳ within the word is highly improbable. On correption within the word in general, see Kithner-Biass i, pp-312-13, The question of πατρῷος and πάτριος in tragedy is fully investigated by Page on

Med. 431. The alternative is to supplement. Hermann proposed {(τῶν σῶν) πατρῴων οἴκων, which seems rather ponderous. England’s proposal, which

I print, follows Elmsley’s ἔρρει φῶς, (ἔρρεὴ σκῆπτρον. The hiatus after . (ἔρρει), ending a catalectic dimeter and preceding the interjection οὔμοι, is perfectly acceptable. The problem of who sings the words is less intractable, L attributes 186 to the end of the song to Iphigenia. There can be no doubt that she sings from 203, nor that 202 is addressed to her by the chorus. The

chorus have announced at 179~85 that they ‘are going to sing a lament, so

they must do so. Hermann pointed out that they lament the misfortunes of the house of Atreus, while, from 203, Iphigenia laments her own.]

189-90. v ... dras: From the prosperous kings in Argos was the beginning of the present disaster. The chorus move from lamenting the fall of the house of Atreus to contemplating the origins of its misfortunes, εὐόλβων: The wealth of the kings of Argos (or πολυχρύσοιο Μυκήνης) was legendary. Clytaemestra puts it curtly : πένεσθαι & οὐκ ἐπίσταται δόμος (Ag. 962). Compare Or.

807-10 o uéyas ὄλβος d 7’ dperd. ... πάλιν ἀνῆλθ' ἐξ εὐτυχίας Ἀτρείδαις.

., 186 common τόπος of the fall from great good fortune can combine rather ----awkwardly -with-a- catalogue-of disasters, as. Aristophanés noted: Εὐ. “ἣν Οἰδίπους 76 πρῶτον εὐδαίμων ἀνήρ--" Ai. μὰ τὸν A2 οὐ δῆτ; ἀλλὰ κακοδαίμων φύσει (Frogs 1182-3). Ἄργει: See on 156 above.

[Ls τίν éx 7w ... . is nonsense. Emendators have approached the problem in

two ways:

Commentary on lines 191-202

97

(4) The singers are assumed to be continuing their lament, and ἀρχά is taken to mean ‘rule. This requires the elimination of ἐκ. So Wecklein

proposed οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτ᾽... ἀρχά, and Kéchly οὐκέτι τῶν.... dpyd. (b) ἀρχά is to be taken 85 the beginning (of misfortune). The following

words, μόχθος δ᾽ éx μόχθων ἄσσει, indicate that that is right. Several attempts have been made to produce a rhetorical question: ‘What was the beginning ...?" Heath proposed τίς y’, Hermann τίς &, Dindorf τίς δ' But the difficulty with all these proposals is ἐκ. What is needed is "What was the beginning for the kings.. ...’ not ‘from the kings’ Murray’s

ἦν involves only a minor change, and makes sense of ἐκ. He translates:

"From kings in Argos of old, from joyous kings,/The beginning came’ Diggle’s supplement adds clarity.] 191-202. The ἀρχὴ κακῶν, the event from which the whole train of misfortunes follows, is a recurrent motif in tragedies which treat the descendants of Pelops. Aeschylus goes no further back than the killing of ‘Thyestes’ children, a monstrous act, but one motivated by ordinary human passions. Sophocles and Euripides turn to events more remote, mysterious, and tinged with the supernatural, and the chain of causation is left unclear, at least to us. Sophocles is said to have produced an Atreus, an Oenomaus, and no fewer than three plays called Thyestes, Euripides an Oenomaus, a Thyestes, and a Chrysippus. No doubt other tragedians too drew on the Pelopid saga. 80 pas-

sages which seem enigmatically allusive to us will, for many members of the original audience, have evoked versions of stories that they knew. The most comprehensive account of the myths of Pelops and his

descendants is to be found in the Epifome of Apollodorus (2. 3-13). There,

an organizing intelligence has been at work on a mass of disparate tales. Comprehensive lists of references are to be found in J. G. Frazer's Loeb edition, II, pp. 156~65. Pelops was able to defeat Oenomaus in the chariot-

race (see 1 above), either because he had winged horses (Pindar, Οἱ. 1. 87

and Pausanias, 5. 17. 7, describing a carved chest which purported to date from the sixth century), or because he persuaded Myrtilus, Oenomaus’ charioteer, to sabotage his master’s chariot. The two tales could, however, be conflated, as they are, implicitly, by Sophocles (Εἰ. 505~15), when he traces the ἀρχὴ κακῶν back to Myrtilus’ curse, as Pelops threw him from the chariot into the sea.A few years later than IT, at Or.982-1012, Euripides too . identifies Myrtilus’ curse as the first cause, while telling the whole story from the flight over the sea to Thyestes’ meal. The golden lamb there puts in a brief and allusive appearance (995-1000), as does the change in the course of the

heavenly bodies (1001-6). At 811-18 in the same play, there is mention of ‘the strife of the golden lamb’ as marking the beginning of the family’s misfortunes. A few years before IT, Euripides dedicates a whole choral song in El (699-746) to the episode of the golden lamb. There, it is said to be Pan who produces the lamb in the flocks of Atreus, and, as we are led to think,

98

Commentary on lines 191-2 sovereignty belongs to its owner. Thyestes obtains the lamb by. seducing Atreus’ wi.fe and declares himself the owner in the assembly. “Then, then it was ..., sings the chorus (as if other versions were in circulation; see on

193-6 below) that Zeus reversed the courses of the heavenly bodies. They

add that they do not believe this part of the story, but that it is edifying for

mankind. A scholiast’s note on Or. 995 tells us that the story of the golden lamb is to be traced back to the Alcmaeonis, an epic of the Theban cycle (see Bernabé I, 6, p. 34, Davies 5, p.140, and West, GEF 6, p. 62). This work is dated to the sixth century, or even, perhaps, the early fifth (West, p.11). Pan as the provider of the lamb must be a relatively late introduction (perhaps Euripides’ own), since the worship of that god came to Athens only in 490 Bc, shortly after Marathon, and the Arcadian pastoral god has no place otherwise in the

Pelopid saga. X Or. 995 cites Pherecydes (the Athenian writer of the mid-fifth century) to the effect that the lamb was introduced ‘not because of the anger

of Hermes, but of that of Artemis’ (FGrH 3, F 133). The anger of Hermes could be explained by the fact that Hermes was the father of Myrtilus (Or. 997). Apollodorus (Epitome, 2. 10) tells us that Atreus had vowed to Artemis to sacrifice to her the best animal of his flock. This suggests a possible connection of ideas with the story of Iphigenia. The whole tangle of versions well illustrates the freely creative approach of the Attic tragedians to - -mythology and their inspuciance in the matter of consistency. On the ἀρχὴ κακῶν, see also Willink on Or. 988-94. For a valuable investigation of allusion in general, see T. C. W, Stinton, “The Scope and Limits of Allusion in Greek Tragedy, in M. Cropp, Ε. Fantham, and 8. Ε, Scully (edd.), Greek Tragedy and its Legacy, pp. 67-102 = Collected Papers, pp. 454--92.]

191. μόχθος ... ᾷσσει: ‘One trouble rushes from others’ On μόχθος, see on

. 122 above. ΄ [ᾷσσει: The scribe of L painstakingly. wrote ἀΐσσει. But that would be unmetrical here. The tragedians use ἀΐσσω ( ----), or the contracted form aoow according to metrical convenience. The only exception is Tro. 156, where correspondence shows that ἀΐσσει must be scanned ———, as in Homer. See further Dlggle, Studies, pp. 71-2.] 192. δινευούσαις... πταναῖς: whose mares? And are they wheeling round (intransitive), or making something else wheel round, such as a chariot?

δινεύω and dwéw are used intransitively in epic language (Homer and

Apollonius Rhodius), but elsewhere in tragedy they are transitive. At Or. 837, Orestes ‘rolls fear’ (or possibly ‘bloodshed’) ‘in his eyes’. At Tro. 200, the

schorus used to ‘whirl’ their shuttles. The text here has become fragmentary. There-is-nothing-to-connect these- words with-what precedes;-and -8’ in the next line indicates the beginning of a new clause. Either δ᾽ must be deleted and something inserted to connect the horses with what follows (the chariot of the sun), or at least one line has been lost after 191, in which case the

winged horses could be those of Pelops. On the text, see below on 193-5.

Commentary on lines 193--7

99

193--5. ἀλλάξας &’. . . Ἅλιος: And the Sun, having changed [his course, moved] the sacred eye of [his] beam from [its] place. ὄμμ᾽: ὄμμα.... αἰθέρος ἀκάμα-

rov (Aristophanes, in high style, at Clouds 285), χρυσέας duépas βλέφαρον (Ant. 104). The sun ‘sees’: ὁρᾷ (Hipp. 849), δέρκεται (Hipp. 1279). But the idea may be even more familiar in English than in Greek from Shakespeare’s ‘eye of heaven’ (Sonnet 18) and Hardy’s ‘eye of day’ (The darkling Thrush). The story of the reversal of the course of the sun and the other heavenly bodies cannot be traced back earlier than Sophocles and Euripides, and the reason for it varies. Sophocles seems to have presented it as a sign of divine

outrage at Atreus’ crime in killing Thyestes’ children (TrGF 4, p. 162 and

Anth. Pal. 9. 98). But according to Plato (Politicus 269a) and the Epitome of Apollodorus (2. 12), the reversal happened at the time of the strife over the

golden lamb, and was a sign from Zeus that Atreus should be king (see above on 191-202). The reversal of the courses of the heavenly bodies seems not to be a common folk-motif. Stith Thompson (Motif-Index of Folk-Literature (Copenhagen, 1956-8), Ε 961) lists only one other such tale (from Jewish folklore).

['In addition to the problem of δινευούσαις ἕπποις πταναῖς, the following clause has no main verb. Kovacs prints a reconstruction, on the assumption that the mares of 192 belong to the Sun and that δινευούσαις is intransitive: δινευούσαις ἵπποισιν (émel)/ πταναῖς ἀλλάξας [8'] ἐξ ἕδρας ἱερὸν

(μετέβασ᾽ ὄμμ᾽ αὐγᾶς. ἐπεί here is Wecklein’s supplement and [δ᾽

Musgrave's deletion. μετέβασ᾽; proposed by Paley, is the weak aorist of μεταβαίνω (μετέβησε), which is used with transitive sense by Pindar, Ol. 1. 42, where, as it happens, Poseidon ‘transfers’ the young Pelops to the house of Zeus. Musgrave proposed μετέβασ᾽ at EL 727, where, as here, the subject is the reversal of the heavenly bodies. That emendation at least seems compelling.] 195-6. ἄλλοτε... ὀδύνα: At one time one pain, at another another, has arrived for the house from the golden lamb! ypvoéas apvos: Genitive of origin (WS § 1298). χρυσέας is scanned —— by synecphonesis of ea. μελάθροις: Dative of disadvantage (WS 5 1481).

[Ls ἄλλοις, which would have to go with μελάθροις (‘one pain for one house, others for others’) will not do. Jacobs’s ἄλλοτε is not particularly easy palaeographically, but it makes sense. Seidler’s ἄλλαις has commended itself to several editors, but it is hard to see any possible construction. ‘One pain

has followed upon others for the house’ would make sense, but προσβαίνω

means ‘to approach

Ο come to, and is constructed with a terminal accusa-

tive, or, occasionally; a preposition of ‘motion towards’]

197. [φόνος ... axeow]: The words sound vaguely Euripidean, For ἐπὶ φόνῳ ... φόνον, see Or. 1579 and 1587, for φόνον ... éni φόνῳ, Her. 1085, for dyed τ' ἄχεσι, Hel. 366 (which is not, however, above suspicion). But the line does not scan (there is hiatus after both φόνῳ and ἄχεα), and the

100

Commentary on lines 199-205

high proportion of short syllables makes it extremely difficult to reconstitute by emendation (as distinct from re-writing) anything that suits the metrical context. Above all, from the point of view of sense the line is intrusive. It is probably best regarded as having originated from the jottings of a

- .commentator.

199-201. &fev .. . οἴκους: “Thence [from the golden lamb] comes forth to the house punishment from the Tantalids subdued in the past. Atreus and

Thyestes, grandsons of Tantalus, are dead. For ἔνθεν meaning ‘from that cause, see Tro. 951 and 942 below. [L writes Τανταλιδᾶν ἐκβαΐνει ποινά v’ Elmsley saw that γ᾽ was meaning-

less, and proposed 7, reading, in consequence, σπεύδει . But this requires

an extraordinarily long postponement of the first τε. Monk saw the root of

the problem in an accidental change of word-order. This could have led to

the insertion of 4’ in an inept attempt to remove the hiatus (ποινὰ εἰς). Hence his re-arrangement, as printed.]

201-2. σπεύδει

. . . δαίμων: And against you fortune hastens on what-should-

not-be-hastened-on. There is an implied contrast as the chorus turns from the . dead Tantalids to the living Iphigenia. The δαίμων 15 hers, as well as being

. that of the house. σπεύδει & ἀσπούδαστ᾽: etymological word-play. See

Chantraine under σπεύδω. Euripides uses the expression again at Ba. 913,

where it is Pentheus who is hastening on.what should not be hastened on.

[ὀπὶ σοὶ δαίμων: it is hard to believe that the anapaestic system should stop

dead with Uu———. But the fact that the sense 15 complete has discouraged

attempts to emend. Kovacs prints Mekler’s, δαίμων (δυσδαίμων) to make up the catalectic dimeter we expect. But δαίμων δυσδαίμων is a striking

phrase, which should not be repeated and which should be kept for Iphigenia. Hermann thought of adding é¢ apyds, which could easily have dropped out, since Iphigenia immediately begins ἐξ dpyds. The repetition is less . unpleasing stylistically than that of δυσδαίμων, but it 15 still unconvincing, and Hermann did not print it in his edition.]

203-35. The whole passage bristles with textual difficulties. Kovacs rewrites extensively. '

203-4, ἐξ ἀρχᾶς ... δαίμων: ‘From the beginning, [my] fortune [has been] _unfortunate for me. This is, in rhetorical terms, the πρόθεσις, the statement

that the speaker will go on to prove. For the expression, compare Sophocles,

TrGF 4, fr. 210. 37 (from Eurypylus) & δαῖμον, & δύσδαιμον Here, as in δυσχόρτους at 219 below, δυσ- defines the nature of the δαίμων.

«[That Iphigenia must be singing at 203 15 not in doubt. Past doubts have

been-about the point-at which-she-takes-over from-the chorus: Bothe, then

Elmsley and Hermann, place the change of speaker after 202, which is undoubtedly correct. See above on 186-8.] 204-5. Tds . . . κείνας: part of the sentence is lost, but clearly Iphigenia is saying that she has been unfortunate from her mother’s womb and the night of

Commentary on lines 205-13

101

her conception. A child 15 carried under 115 mother’s girdle (see Cho. 992,

Eum. 607-8, Hec.762). Or it may be that there is a reference here to the sym-

bolic untying of the bride’s girdle (Od. 11. 245). In that case, νυκτὸς keivas would be the wedding night, and the assumption would be that, as the eldest child, Iphigenia was conceived then. [Without the lacuna proposed by Diggle, it is extremely hard to 566 any possible construction for the genitives ζώνας and νυκτός. Barlier editors took them as possessive with δαίμων. Weil translates ‘Le Génie qui présidait 3 Ihymen de ma mére et 4 la nuit ο sS'accomplit cet hymen’ But he offers no evidence that δαίμων with a possessive genitive could be used in that way.

- One can speak of the δαίμων of a family (γέννης τῆσδε Ag. 1477), or, more

often, of an individual (γυναικὸς δαιμόν᾽ εὐτυχέστερον τοὐμοῦ νομίζω Αἷς, 935-6). In the same way, δαίμων can be combined with a possessive

adjective (τὸν éuov δαίμονα Med. 1347). But the sense is always the same:

one’s fate, what happens to one. Such expressions are not comparable with ‘the fate of my mother’s girdle and of that night. Moreover, é¢ dpyas. .. δαί-

μων, as the πρόθεσις (see above on 203-4), should stand alone. Murray takes the genitives as exclamatory. One can say τῆς δυσσεβείας (‘What

impiety!’Ba. 263), but hardly ‘My mother’s girdle and that night!’ without so much as an introductory φεῦ. In his translation, Murray adds Alas for ...’ Better is Willink's proposal, which is printed by Kovacs: (ἐκὴ τᾶς ματρὸς

ζώνας !/ {Maews) καὶ νυκτὸς κείνας. This, however, produces a rather harsh asyndeton after δαίμων. '

205-7. ἐξ ἀρχᾶς ... θεαί: ‘From the beginning, the Fates, goddesses of birth, drew out ἃ hard up-bringing [for me]. συντείνουσιν: because the effect of

the past action continues into the present, as with τίθησι at 34. See further

on that line. The construction is most common with verbs of birth and death, and here the idea is akin to birth. στερρὰν: ‘tough, ‘hard; so ‘harshk’ At Andr. 98, Andromache speaks of her areppdv ... δαίμονα. The idea of ‘drawing out’(ourreivw) is evidently relevant to spinning,and the Fates, of course, spin, but 15 there a real, metaphorical significance in a ‘hard’ thread? θεαί is scanned as one long syllable (synecphonesis). ἰλόχιαι: Hermann'’s correction of s λοχείαν ‘childbirth’ (see 382 below),

which may have come from a sort of copyist's confusion by similarity of

sound with παιδείαν. Hermann also added the metrically-necessary ephelcystic v to Ls συντείνουσι. Ephelcystic v before a word beginning with a

consonant is easily dropped by a scribe ignorant of metre who does not real-

ize that it may be necessary there for metrical reasons, as well as before a word beginning with a vowel. Triclinius understood this, and made a number of necessary corrections.]

209-13. av ... εὐκταίαν: ‘[for me,] whom, a first-born scion in the halls, the

unhappy daughter of Leda bore and reared as a sacrifice for a father’s ill-use and a joyless offering in payment of a vow.'The antecendent to &v is'pot in

102

Commentary on lines 214-19

203 (unless it has been lost in the lacuna at 204). θάλος: see above, 171, and

-below, 232. τλάμων: Clytaemestra suffers because of the loss of her daughter. τλάω means ‘to suffer’ ο endure, so- τλάμων can mean either ‘suffering bravely, or simply, as here, ‘suffering. σφάγιον: a blood-sacrifice which is not eaten. See Casabona, pp. 180-9. εὐκταίαν: 5 a votive offering) as at Trach. 239 (see 21 above), has to be taken with ἄν, which is a little awkward, But the idea that Iphigenia's mother bore and reared her when she

was already condemned by her fathers vow is appropriate. On 208, see below on 220. [The above interpretation of εὐκταῖα at Trach. 239 is that of Jebb and Easterling. Davies disagrees. See also εὐκταίαν χάριν at Ag. 1387 and εὐκταίαν λίβα TrGF 3, fr. 55.4 (from Aeschylus’ Epigoni), with Fraenkel and Denniston and Page on the Ag. passage. The point of contention is whether ‘vows’ or ‘prayers’ are involved.]

214-17. ἱππείοις ... aiai: ‘In a horse-drawn chariot they took {me] to the

, sands of Aulis, 4 bride, alas, an ill-wed bride for the son of Nereus’ daughter, alas’ ἐπέβασαν: weak aorist (transitive) of ἐπιβαίνω, with genitive, mean-

ing ‘to take someone somewhere and put them down there, as at Od. 7, 223

ὥς 1 ἐμὲ Tov δύστηνον ἐμῆς ἐπιβήσετε πάτρης. The subject is unspecific ‘they’. νύμφαν . .. δύσνυμφον: here, the prefix Svo- contradicts the normally

pleasant connotations of the word ‘bnde Compare Telemachus address to his mother at Od. 23. 97 μῆτερ ἐμή, δύσμητερ, ἀπηνεά θυμὸν ἔχουσα.

Much more often in Homer, δυσ- 15 attached to words which are either neu-

" tral or unpleasant in their connotations.

[Heath's (δ᾽) of continuation (Denniston, p. 162,1.A.) prov1des a connection with the preceding sentence. Kirchhoff’s (ἂν) ἑππείοις . ., repeating the

relative from 209 and filling out 214 to a full dimeter, provides another type of connection, at the price of lengthening an already long sentence. Ls νυμφαῖον (‘belonging to nymphs’) 15 clearly wrong, and Scaliger’s νύμφαν exactly what is required. In these self-contradictory expressions, the noun should be as close as possible in form to the compound adjective: αἰὼν δυσαίων (Hel 213), γσ,μους δυσγάμους (Phoen. 1048), πάτερ αἰνόπατερ (Cho. 315), ἄγαμον γάμον (OT 1214) ψυχὰν ἄψυχον (Frogs 1334, in parody). Weil’s alternative suggestion, viudeup, is thus less satisfactory.] 218--19. νῦν &’ ... vaiw: And now, a straniger (guest), I inhabit a barren dwell-

ing of the inhospitable sea. ἀξείνου: See above on 94. δυσχόρτους: Euripides

does not care what the pastureland of Taurica may be like in reality. It must «be seen as an unpleasant place, in contrast with the χόρτοι ευδενὃροι of ~—-Europe (134 above): ἰδυσχόρτους is suspected by criticswho take the word literally. Thus, Kovacs (Euripidea Tertia, p. 6) comments: ‘It is hard to see why the house Iphigenia lives in should be called “ill-provided with food or provender”. Nowhere else in the play is it implied that the land of the Taurians is poorer in grain than

Commentary on lines 220, 208

103

Greece. Kovacs prefers Kéchly’s ovyydprous ‘bordering on’ (as at Andr. 16-17 and Her. 371), taken with ἀξείνου πόντου. But not only 15 this based on too literal and specific an interpretation of δυσχόρτους and a narrow definition of οἴκους, but it involves replacing an emotive expression by a

colourless one.]

220, 208. ἄγαμος . . . Ἑλλάνων;: ‘marriageless, childless, cityless, friendless, [I] who was wooed by Greeks. Iphigenia lacks everything that gives purpose and fulfilment to a woman’s life. ἄγαμος: Lysistrata’s description of the plight of women unable to find husbands because of the war is well known (Lys. 593~7). At OT 1492-1502, Oedipus laments the lot of his daughters, whom no-one will marry. Antigone (Ant. 808—-16) laments her own deprivation of marriage. ἄτεκνος: Sophocles’ unmarried Electra laments her childlessness (S. Εἰ. 164). In real life, one Menecles is said to have persuaded his wife to a divorce, because ‘it was not right that she should be rewarded for her virtues by having to grow old childless with him’ (Isaeus 2.7). ἄπολις:

μόχθων &’ οὐκ ἄλλος ὕπερθεν ἢ γᾶς πατρίας στέρεσθαι (‘Of pains there is

none worse than to be deprived of one’s native land’), sings the chorus of Med. (652-3). Loss of one’s city means, in a profound sense, loss of identity, for a woman as much as for a man. In classical Athens, women were as important as men in the transmission of citizenship: a man’s mother, as well as his father, needed to be a free-born Athenian, if he was to be accepted as a citizen. Then, too, women occupied an essential place in the religious life of the city. It is on the parts they have played in the cults of the city that the

chorus of Lys..(640-7), as well as on their contribution as mothers (καὶ ydp avdpas εἰσφέρω 651), claim the right to be heard. See Ε. Just, Women in

Athenian Law and Life, pp. 23~5 and, in general, ]. Β. Connelly, Portrait of a

Priestess. ἄφιλος: φίλοι are not so much ‘friends’ in the modern sense as

those naturally near and dear to one: the extended family. & μναστευθεῖσ᾽ ἐξ Ἑλλάνων: here, where it was placed by Scaliger (see further below), the line makes a powerful contrast between what Iphigenia would have hoped for and her present forlorn state. There is no legend about the wooing of Iphigenia, but we can assume that as the daughter of a great king and an

‘exceptionally beautiful girl (22 above) she would have had numerous suit-

- ors. ἐξ with genitive of the agent as the origin of the action. See LS}, éx IIL.4. [a μναστευθεῖσ᾽ ἐξ Ἑλλάνων: where L places the line, after 207, the nominative has no construction. Kovacs prints a supplement by Willink which

both gives it one and makes it the antecedent to dv (see above on 207-13).

Another method of keeping the line in the position transmitted is to put the words into the dative: τᾷ μναστευθείσᾳ ᾿ξ Ἑλλάνων, in apposition to μοι (Elmsley, accepted by Murray; Bothe, without τᾷ). Badham transferred the line to follow 209, so that it would be in apposition to “ήδας & τλάμων

xovpo.and refer ο Clytaemestra. He assumed word-play on Κλυταιμνήστρα and μνηστεύω. But the tragic form of the name is Κλυταιμήστρα, which

104

Commentary on lines 221-6

etymologists later connected with μήδομαι. See Etym. Magn. 521. 16-20: ἡ

ἔνδοξα φροντίζουσα, and Chantraine under μήδομαι 3. The v did not intrude itself until well after Euripides’ time. See Fraenkel on Ag. 84, although the Oxford Latin Dictionary does not endorse Fraenkel's view that the 5 is absent in Latin. Monk preferred to place 208 after 219 (that 15 before

dyauos, κτλ. rather than after it). This is possible, although the four

, adjectives listing all that Iphigenia lacks belong logically with 218-19, which suggests that there should be no interruption between 219 and 220.] 221-4. 09 . . . ποικίλλουσ᾽ : ‘not singing of Hera in Argos, nor intricately representing at the sweet-voiced loom, with the shuttle, the image of Attic Pallas and the Titans. In contrast with her present life, Iphigenia pictures the way in which, as a noble Greek lady, she would have spent her time at home participating in the cults of her city. As an Argive, she naturally sings hymns to Hera, the patron goddess of Argos. But her other occupation 15 much less appropriate. Athena defeating the Titans was a scene represented on the peplos woven by noble Athenian women and presented annually to the .image of Athena Polias at the Panathenaea. Euripides anticipates Iphigenia’s

future in Attica, and encourages the audience to think of her as theirs.

ποικίλλουσ᾽ 15 used in a choral passage on the Panathenaic peplos at Hec. . 466-74. On the peplos and on the Greek technique of weaving pictures in

cloth (not embroidering), see E. J. W. Barber, “The Peplos of ‘Athena, in J.

Neils, Goddess and Polis, pp. 103-17. καλλιφθόγγοις: Greeks seem to have regarded the sound of the shuttle as musical. Aristophanes, parodying Euripides (Frogs 1316), refers to the singer-shuttle’ (κερκίδος ἀοιδοῦ). See

also Sophocles, TrGF 4, fr. 890 for the hymns of the shuttle’ (κερκίδος Juvous).

224-6 ἀλλ᾽... βωμοὺς: but soaking altars with the blood-sprinkled, woeful destruction of guests ...\ αἱμορράντῳ: αἷμα and ῥαίνω. δυσφόρμιγγι: Literally, something like ‘hostile to the lyre. For Greeks, in spite of sung laments, there was a strong association between music and rejoicing, so that

to dissociate something from music implied sorrow. Compare ἀλύροις at

146 above. τέγγουσ᾽: Monk's emendation (see below). A hyperbolical way of saying ‘to wet. τέγγω, like Latin tingo, implies that the liquid actually permeates. Euripides uses 7éyyw, in particular, in the context of ‘soaking’ eyes with tears. For soaking altars with blood, see below at 404-5. [Ls αἱμορράντων δυσφὀρμιγγα! ξείνων αἱμάσσουσ' ἄταν βωμοὺς poses several problems. (1) 226 is at least one long syllable too long. (2) arav

% and βωμοὺς can hardly be in apposition: βωμοὺς is an appropriate object

for αἱκάσσουσ᾽, ‘making bloody, drav-is-hardly 5ο.ἄταν ξείνων, ‘destruction of guests’ is possible (ἄτην παιδός, destruction of your child, Hec. 688),

but βωμοὺς ξείνων makes no sense here, (3) ‘blood-sprinkled’ suits altars, or, by a poetic extension of application, ‘destruction; better than it suits

‘guests’ Simply deleting either βωμοὺς or ἄταν, 80 as to turn 226 into a

Commentary on lines 227.-35

105

catalectic dimeter, leaves either ‘bloodying destruction’ (so Weil), or ‘altars

of guests. Tyrwhitts ἄτᾳ, by destruction of guests, solves the problem of

ξείνων. Monk saw a way to shorten 226 by substituting another verb which could have been glossed by αἱμάσσουσ' He derived τέγγουσ᾽ from 404 below. Maehly suggested paivouo), which, to our taste at least, seems inelegant so close to αἱμορράντ- in 225 (but see above on 141-3). For the two adjectives in 225, various permutations are possible: αἱμορράντῳ with ἄτᾳ (Madvig), or.-rovs with Bwuods (Lacon); δυσφόρμιγγι with dre (Tyrwhitt), or -as with Bwuods (Madvig). Both adjectives need not qualify the same noun. The accumulation‘of adjectives in the same case 866 Π18, however, to go with the Aeschylean character of the phraseology,

and drqg seems better suited to attract such an accumulation than

| βωμοὺς.] 227-8. οἰκτράν.... δάκρυον: ‘[of guests] wailing a piteous sound, shedding a piteous tear’ οἰκτράν τ᾽. .. οἰκτρόν τ᾽: anaphora, the repetition (in the same or a different form) in positions which are syntactically and/ or metrically parallel, is a figure with a long history in Greek, both in verse and in prose. . . 568 Fehling, Wiederholungsfiguren, pp. 203-6. [In L, both colometry and text are highly disturbed. βωμοὺς ... αἰαζόντων is written as one line, followed by 008’ ἄνοικτρόν 7’ ἐκβαλλόντων δάκρυον as the next. Tyrwhitts emendation requires the change of just one letter (α for o) and a change of word-division: ‘One of the neatest emendations in the text of this play’—Monk.] 229-31. καὶ νῦν . . . σύγγονον: ‘Of those things now I have forgetfulness, but I weep aloud for the one dead in Argos, [my] brother! dyxAaiw = ἀνακλαίω. At Phil. 939, Philoctetes uses the middle for ‘I lament for myself’ [Is

δμαθέντα κλαΐω requires the implausible syllabic division -τακ-λαέω to

make the final syllable of δμαθέντα closed (long). Hence Weil's emendation. ἀνακλαίω is not otherwise found in Euripides. Herodotus uses the active governing acc. meaning ‘weep for’ at 3. 14, Barrett on Hipp. 760 defends -0 κ-λ- on historic grounds. It remains exceptional, however.

231-5. ὃν ... Ὀρέσταν: ‘whom 1 left at the breast, still a babe, still a young

scion, in the arms of his mother-and at her breast, the sceptre-bearer in

Argos, Orestes. As she mentions her brother, Iphigenia breaks into a rush of short syllables, a sign of overpowering emotion (see on Metre above). England (on 229-35) notes perceptively how the ‘horrors’ of human sacri- fice which Iphigenia dismisses from her mind at 229 will be seen in a moment to threaten the brother for whom she is lamenting, and how σκηπτοῦχον points forwardto his-final rescue and reinstatement. The name ‘Orestes’ ends the song almost like an announcement of his return to the story. On the. significance of the sceptre, see on 187 above. ἔτι νέον, ἔτι

θάλος: take véov θάλος together. The intervening ἔτι is present only for the

sake of euphony. θάλος alone means simply a shoot from the family stock.

106

- Commentary on lines 236-7

One does not grow out of being one (Iphigenia is still a θάλος, 171), 30 ἔτι θάλος alone will not do. [On the metre of 232, see above on Metre. Seidler and Hermann saw the dif-

ficulty of ἔτι θάλος: 'ἱθάλος non potest solum per se puerum infantem sig-

nificare’ (Hermann). But the various clumsy emendations proposed are no improvement. The solution I adopt 15 essentially Seidler.] 236-391. In alternating scenes, we have seen Iphigenia, Orestes and, again, Iphigenia. This scene begins the process of bringing them together. The messenger’s speech describing the capture of Orestes and Pylades is of obvious importance to the plot, but the monologue of Iphigenia that follows is of profound significance for the interpretation of the play as a whole. The messenger 15 far from being a mere characterless purveyor of information. His personality is distinct, if lightly sketched in, and he has his own

-perspective on the events that he is narrating, This herdsman is a loyal and

god-fearing Taurian who gains considerable satisfaction from the major contribution that he and his companions are making to the worship of their goddess. Greeks would choose a fine and faultless animal for sacrifice. The Taurian, rather gruesomely, regards human beings in the same light. . Heis also, as far as his understanding will take him, sympathetlc to Iphlgema (336-9).

- For a useful, general survey of messengers’ speeches, see 1. ]. Ε de Jong,

Narrative in Drama, Mnemos;me suppl. 116. For a valuable brief treatment of Euripidean messengers’ speeches, with further references, see Collard on Supp. 634-77.

236-7. καὶ μὴν . . . véov: the messenger enters from the side by whxch Orestes and Pylades left. The chorus tell us that he is a cowherd. We do not know how they know, but their knowledge saves time. We know that he has come from the direction of the seashore, because, again, the chorus tell us so. Older works on Attic drama state that by fixed convention characters entering from the right of the orchestra come from the country, or the seashore, those entering from the left from the city. This is based on a passage of Pollux (4. 126-7), which is itself ambiguous and confused. Since performances took place out of doors and by day, it can be assumed that the poets needed to have some regard for real compass directions and, for plays located in Athens, real topography. But the evidence, carefully collected and

assessed by K. Rees (“The Significance of the Parodoi in the Greek Theater, AJP 32 (1911), pp. 377-402) provides no support for the idea of a general

sconvention, Indeed, helpful remarks, like that of the chorus here, suggest the opposite- Taplin-(Stagecraft; pp:-450-1)-puts-the-matter succinctly: ‘In each

particular play the dramatist may set up two separate areas of interest offstage (besides the building), and so may establish two different and precise directions for the eisodoi. Their particular topographical significance is thus

confined to one play! For a discussion of the side-entrances in Euripides, 866

Commentary on lines 238-40

107

N. Hourmouziadis, Production and Imagination in Euripides, pp. 128-36. καὶ μὴν: a common introduction for the announcement of an entrance in Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes (Denniston, p. 356). For a general

investigation of announced and unannounced entrances, see R. Hamilton,

‘Announced Entrances in Greek Tragedy, HSCP 82 (1978), pp. 63-82, with,

again, Hourmouziadis, pp. 137-45 and Ε. Halleran, Stagecraft in Euripides, pp. 5-32. Here, at least, there is good reason, independent of other factors, for the audience to have this nondescript personage identified for them. The fact that he is a cowherd will prove to be of some significance. σημανῶν: future participle expressing purpose: ‘he has come to tell... . See WS 5 2065. θαλασσίους: with ἀκτὰς.In contrast, see ἀκτὰς ... θαλασσίας at 1327 below and Hec. 698. All three. tragedians, but especially Euripides, sometimes treat adjectives of three terminations as of two terminations. Compare

a μέλεος at 852 below. For lists of such adjectives, see Kiihner-Blass i,

ΡΡ. 535-7 and, for further references, Diggle, Euripidea, p. 167. ἰσημανῶν: Ls present participle, σημαίνων, might just be possible linguisti-

cally (see WS as above and GMT § 840), but does not scan. Here, as at 94 above, the editor of the Aldine shows a better understanding of the jambic trimeter than Triclinius.]

238-9. Ἀγαμέμνονός . . . réxvov: all very formal, not to say stilted. The herds-

man has an overwhelming sense of the importance of his message, of the

person he is addressing and of himself as messenger (é¢ ἐμοῦ). There is

nothing comic about the substance of this scene, nor is there about Ant, 223-331, but there too the messenger is presented as a mildly comic figure, especially in the prelude to his announcement (223-43). [Ἀγαμέμνονός re: Reiske's emendation of Ayauéuvovos παῖ is generally, and rightly, accepted. In support of the MS, Monk cites Hipp. 10 (6 ...

Θησέως mais, Ἀμαζόνος Téxos) and IA 896 (ὦ τέκνον Νηρῇδος, & παῖ

Πηλέως, κλύεις τάδε;). But neither passage is syntactically parallel to IT 238, and, more significant still, by giving the two parents separate emphasis, the speakers in Hipp. and IA are making important points. παῖ could

easily have come from a confusion of the eye with καί, Orestes introduces

himself in almost identical terms at Andr. 884 as Ἀγαμέμνονός τε καὶ

Κλυταιμήστρας τόκος.]

.

240. τί & ... λόγου: Iphigenia’s response is a trifle deflating: “What 15 [so] astonishing about your present message?’ This, which seems the natural interpretation of the words as they stand, is preférred by Portus, Monk, Paley, England, Platnauer, and Kovacs. The alternative is ‘What is interrupting [knocking me-off my]-present speech?” (Seidler, Schéne-Kdchly, Weil, ‘and Cropp). Editors who prefer the latter cite 773 below (μὴ λόγων

ἐκπλησσέ με) and Or. 549 (6 μ ἐκπλήσσει Adyov). But in both these pas-

sages με is expressed, and the speaker is genuinely being interrupted. Here, in contrast, 235 conveys a strong sense that Iphigenia has finished her song,

108

-Commentary on lines 241--4 [Markland translates the transmitted text as ‘Quid vero terroris est in prae-

senti nuncio?’ But he wished to emend: τί &’ ἐστὲ 76 pe mapdvros . . ., meaning ‘Quid vero est quod me deturbat ex praesenti sermone?’ Another, and more satisfactory, way to introduce the meaning ‘interrupt’ is, with Lenting, to emend Adyov to γόου: ‘What is interrupting the present lamentation?’ It could then be supposed that, although Iphigenia’s sung lament is over, the rites of mourning were set to continue. But the fact remains that the text as transmitted makes good sense in the context.]

2412, ἥκουσιν ... νεανίαι: we do not need to wait for the name ‘Pylades’ at

249 to know that Orestes and his friend have been captured. It is not at all

unusual for a tragic messenger to come out at once with the gist of his news, -before the extended recital of how it happened. Thus, the messenger in Med.

- enters with 1122, and announces that the princess and Creon are dead at 1125-6.In Ba., the messenger, who has entered at 1024, announces the death

of Pentheus at 1030. Other patterns are, however, found. The messenger at . Phoen. 1067 ff. starts by saying that Eteocles is alive (1077). This is technically correct, but nonetheless misleading for Jocasta and intriguing for the

audience. The true danger of the situation is allowed to emerge only much

later, in the messenger’s second speech at 1217 ff. But that is a familiar story. ‘'There is no need of any such device to hold the audience’s attention here. κυανέας Συμπληγάδας: for the messenger, access to Taurica must be through the Symplegades. On the importance of the rocks in this play, see above on 123-5. On xvavéas, see on 6-7 above (the colour) and 392-3

below. πλάτῃ:by the oar. Common in Euripides. Never in Aeschylus; twice

in Sophocles. δίσετυχοι: 866 also 474 and 1289. Properly ‘twofold’ (πτύσσω), but in tragedy little more than a colourful way of saying ‘two' See δισσσ,ς at 124 above, δισσούς at 264 below and δίπαλτα at 323. [kvavéas Συμπληγάδας: Bentley’s correction (Epistola ad Ioarmem Millium, ed. G. Ρ Goold (Toronto, 1962), pp. 194-5) of the Aldine’s κυανεᾶν

Συμπληγάδων. L offers κυανέαν Συμπληγάδα, But the Symplegades

are always, naturally, plural. L again offers ποντίαν Ξυμπληγάδα at Andr. 794, where the accusative singular hardly makes sense, and Hermann corrected to genitive plural: ποντιᾶν Ξυμπλὴγάδων. The correction is similar to that attempted by the editor of the Aldine in our passage, but Andr. 794 is lyric, so that the Doric genitive ποντιᾶν 15 acceptable, unlike κυανεᾶν here.]

243-4, θεᾷ... Ἀρτέμιδι: the two words in apposition, ‘goddess’ and ‘Artemis, frame the phrase. πρόσφαγμα καὲ θυτήριον: in apposition to νεανίαι.

~---For the whole-expression; compare-and-contrast Hec-40-1 airet 8’ ἀδελφὴν

τὴν ἐμὴν ... τύμβῳ φίλον πρόσφαγμα καὶ yépas λαβεῖν ‘He asks to take my sister ... as a pleasing (φίλον) sacrifice and prize for his tomb’ (see Collard ad loc.). πρόσφαγρα and yépas are not synonyms, but here the - herdsman uses two words where one would. have done, and the second is

Commentary on lines 244-7

109

decidedly recherché. πρόσφαγμα is used again of Orestes and Pylades at 458 below. ' ᾽ .

[Fraenkel (on Ag. 1278) adopts from Rohde the explanation of πρόσφαγμα

as originally ‘the blood-offering made to the dead before the funeral proper’ In other passages in Euripides (Alc. 845, Hec. 265, Tro. 628), the word is always used of sacrifices at a tomb, but here and at 458 below there is no tomb and no impending funeral (apart from those of the victims). It has been supposed ‘(by England among others) that in these two passages προ- refers to space, not to time. H. L. Lorimer (“Two Notes on the Agamemnon, CR 45 (1931), pp. 211-12) argues that, again in these two passages, wpo- has lostits force and the word means simply ‘victim’ For an extended discussion, see Casabona, pp. 171-4. On the form, see further W. S. Barrett,’A Detail of Tragic Usage: The Application to Persons of Nouns

in -μα, in Greek Lyric, Tragedy, and Textual Criticism, pp. 351-67. θυτήριον must in this passage mean θῦμα (sacrifice). Otherwise, the word is found

only in Aratus (403) and the epic poet of the third century Ap, Quintus Smyrnaeus (4. 554), where it means the constellation, Ara (the Altar).]:

244-5. χέρνιβας . . . ποιουμένῃ: ‘You cannot be too quick in making purifications and seemly preliminary rites. χέρνιβας: on the lustral water and the sprinkling of the participants in the sacrifice, see Her. 928-9 and J. N. Bremmer,

‘Greek

Normative

Animal

Sacrifice}

in

D.

Ogden

(ed.), A

Companion to Greek Religion, pp. 135-6, and also 622 below. κατάργματα, from κατάρχομαι (see 40 above), like θυτήριον, a recherché word, otherwise cited only from Plutarch, Theseus 22. 5. The herdsman seems to have a penchant for such formations (κηρυγμάτων, πρόσφαγμα). One might recall that Aristophanes makes his ‘Buripides’ use πεπλώματα (otherwise

only in tragedy) and ῥακώματα (not found elsewhere) in close proximity at

Ach. 426 and 432. οὗις ἂν φθάνοις ἂν: this sounds like bathos. οὐκ ἂν φθάνοις belongs to popular speech: ‘You'd better hurry up and.. ..’ Compare

Admetus’ nasty taunt to his old father at Alc. 662 φυτεύων παῖδας οὐκέτ᾽ dv

φθάνοις “Youd better hurry up and get some more children’ See Stevens, ΡΡ. 24-5. On the repeated ἄν highlighting φθάνοις, see WS 5 1765b. 246-7.wodamoi . . . περαιτέρω: Iphigenia’s second question gives a hint as to - how her first can be answered. σχῆμα (from ἔχω) ‘outfit, ‘style) is a vague and general word. Were the Greeks and Taurians differently constumed in the original performance of this play? Perhaps, but not necessarily. The herdsman needs to recognize the two men as Greeks. The audience will not

care whether the costumes are really differentiated, or not. Evidence for how foreigners were represented on the Attic stage in the fifth century is minimal. The spirit of Darius at Pers. 660-1 is wearing ‘saffron-dyed slippers’ (κροκόβαπτον ... εὔμαριν) and a king’s ‘tiara’ (see Hall on Pers; 660~2). At A. Supp. 234-7, the king remarks on the ‘un-Greek outfit' and ‘barbarian robes’ of the Danaids. The Phrygian at Or. 1370 mentions his own ‘barbarian

110

Commentary on line 248

slippers’ (βαρβάροις év εὐμάρισιν). The archaeological evidence is scarce and unreliable. The comparatively few Attic pots of the fifth century inspired by tragic performances do not show the actors as they can really have appeared on stage. Women are made to look like women in a way that male actors could never have done, and young men are shown naked, following the convention of pottery-painting, A. D Trendall and T. Β. L. Webster . (Illustrations of Greek Drama) regard three Attic pots from the mid-fifth century as ‘probably’ inspired by Sophocles’ (lost) Andromeda. The heroine is there depicted in ‘oriental dress’ (headdress, short chiton, and trousers). See Trendall and Webster, pp. 63-5. In contrast, an Attic kalyx-krater dated to ‘soon after 400 BC’ shows Andromeda in normal tragic costume, apart from an oriental headdress. For IT, there is a well-known representation on an Attic kalyx-krater, now in Ferrara, of Iphigenia (depicted twice) handing over her letter to Pylades. This is dated to the first quarter of the fourth century, so just within living memory of the original production. It shows Orestes and Pylades naked (as usual), with Thoas (who has, of course, no

business to be there) sitting on the right-hand side. Thoas wears oriental costume, with Phrygian cap, as does a Taurian attendant standing behind

him with a large fan (on oriental fanning, see Or. 1426~30). For illustrations,

866 Trendall and Webster, p. 92 and (clearer) The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy, p. 77. This scene is informative not so much about how Euripides’ production really looked, as about the popular dichotomy between Greek and oriental barbarian, into which the real inhabitants of the Tauric Chersonese did not fit. See above on 132-7. , ἰσχῆμ᾽: Monk's emendation gives excellent sense. John Malalas (sixth century AD) saw two questions here. He paraphrases: ποδαποί; τίνος γῆς; τί τοὔνομα ἔχουσιν οἱ ξένοι; See Ioannis Malalae Chronographica, ed. ]. Thurn (Berlin and New York, 2000), p. 105 (= Dindorf 137).A. W, Verrall wished to

adopt this punctuation. But that leaves an intractable residue: ὄνομ᾽ éyovow

οἱ ξένοι; ‘Do the strangers have a name?’ is a strange way to ask ‘Do

you know. their names?’ Moreover, the question makes an awkward interruption before the herdsman’s answer ‘Greeks, and is an unwanted anticipation of 248.]

248. 0vd’ ... φράσαι: ‘And do you not know the name of the strangers [in order] to tell, having heard [it]?’ φράσαι: infinitive of purpose (WS 5 2008, GMT §77 [τῶν ξένων: In L, as Diggle records in his apparatus, Orestes and Pylades are also referred to by the plural, ξένων, at 468, 1081, 1154, 1168, 1300, and 1329.

τ “The dual, §évow, is usedat 310,1178; 1188, and 1333, Hesitantly; he proposes

the dual here, at 468 and 1081. Elmsley wanted it at 1154 and Wecldein at

1168, 1300, and 1329. Certainly, scribes might be expected to substitute the plural for the (relatively unfamiliar) dual, but it is doubtful whether we can be sure enough of Greek practice or of scribal inattention to emend through-

Commentary on lines 249.-55

111

out. On Byzantine knowledge of the dual, see N. G. Wilson, Aristophanea p. 172 (on Frogs 786).]

249. Πυλάδης ... θατέρου: Pylades’ name means nothing to Iphigenia. She

will not find out who this man 15 until 916-19. The herdsman has heard the name twice. See 285 and 321. πρὸς, with the genitive, of the source: the appellation came from’ Orestes. ἅτερος- ὅ. érepos, θατέρου-τοῦ

ἑτέρου (on crasis of the article with ἕτερος, see Kithner-Blass i, § 51, Anmerk. 2, p. 223).

250. τῷ ξυζύγῳ ... ἦν: ‘And what was the nameof the companion (yoke-

mate) of the stranger?’ The poet teases his audience by bringing Iphigenia to the brink of discovery. [τῷ ξυζύγῳ: Ls τοῦ ξυζύγου requires τοῦ ξένου to be taken as adjectival. It is, however, much more likely that an original τῷ ξυζύγῳ slipped into the genitive by assimilation. Unfortunately, the reading of I7? is unclear.] 252. ποῦ.... εἴλετε: “‘Where did you see them and, having come upon [them), capture [them]?’ For ἐντυγχάνω, compare Hel. 1217 ναῦταί σφ᾽ ἀνείλοντ᾽ ἐντυχόντες ‘sailors came upon them and picked them up’ ἱποῦ, conjectured by Musgrave is necessary. L has πῶς, but the herdsman answers the question “Where?’ not ‘How?’ See also on 256 below. L offers καὶ τυχόντες, but ἐντυγχάνω ‘to come upon; ‘to fall in with) is the mot juste. Reiske supplied it and 172 proves him right.]

253, ἄκραις ... πόρου: At the very edge of the surf of the unfriendly sea’ πόρος often means ‘strait, but can mean simply ‘sez} as a means of crossing

from land to land. See, for example, Hel. 130 Αἰγαίου πόρου.

[ἄκραις is derived from a quotation of the line by Plutarch (Moralia 6024). Ls ἀκταῖσιν probably originated as a gloss on ῥηγμῖσιν. The MSS of Plutarch end, contra metrum, with εὐξείνου πόντου, and εὐξείνου is also the reading of I The text printed is that of L. For the general

tendency to substitute the geographical name for ἀξένου, compare 125 above.]

:

254. καὶ τίς ... κοινωνία: introducing a question, καί can express surprise (Denniston, p. 310), almost: ‘What on earth do herdsmen have to do with the sea?’ A good question, but why does Iphigenia ask it? Information on animal husbandry in classical Greece is very scarce. One can imagine ‘purifying’ a single animal for sacrifice (see below on 1192-3), but driving a whole herd into the sea seems incredible. Euripides has in mind the episode of Orestes’ madness. He needs the cattle, and he needs them near the sea. Surely, Iphigenia’s question is an authorial wink: she asks it to prevent the audience from asking it. M. Wright includes mention of this line in his interesting exploration of the significance of the sea in the ‘escape tragedies. See Euripides’ Escape Tragedies, p. 212. 255. vipovres: “in order to wash’ Future participle expressing purpose, like σημανῶν at 237 above.

112

Commentary on lines. 256-9

256-7. éxeioe . . . θέλω: Ὅο back to that point, how you captured them and by what means. For that [is what] I want to know. After her momentary sur-

prise, Iphigenia loses interest in washing cows. She urgently wants the herds-

man to pick up the thread of his narrative from 253. 87 emphasizes the local

adverb ἐκεῖσε (Denniston, p. 207). She stresses her interest in the manner of

. the capture with both πῶς and ὁποίῳ τρόπῳ. At Hipp. 1171-2, Theseus -shows a similarly passionate interest in the manner of Hippolytus’ death:

πῶς καὶ διώλετ᾽; eimé, τῷ τρόπῳ Δίκης ἔπαισεν αὐτὸν ῥόπτρον; “Then

ο how did he die? Tell me. In what way did the club of Justice smite him?’ .. Compare also Hel. 1266. Throughout the exchange, we sense Iphigenia’s excitement that some Greeks have been captured.

[πῶς: Bothe proposed ποῦ, to remove the pleonasm, but the herdsman has already answered that at 253. Platnauer (on 252) thought that reading ποῦ there would entail reading it here, because Iphigenia wants the herdsman to return to the point where he left off. But she cannot want him to answer the same question twice, Weil, Murray, and (on balance) Platnauer want to retain πῶς in both places, on the assumption that 235 is the beginning of the herdsman’s answer to πῶς, but that Iphigenia interrupts him. This is an unnecessary complication. ]

258-9. [χρόνιοι ... poais]: “They have come after a long time. Never yet has

the altar of the goddess been reddened by Greek streams (of blood). This statement 15 contradicted elsewhere in the play. 38-9 can be dismissed as problematic, and at 72 Orestes speaks from a special perspective, but at 344-7 Iphigenia will say that she has always wept when Greeks came into her hands for sacrifice. Then, there was the prisoner who wrote the letter to

Orestes for her (584-5). Most probably, 258-9 were interpolated by some. one who thought that he was making the situation more dramatic, without regard for consistency (the idea appealed greatly to Murray; see above, Ῥ. Ixxi). The alternative to excision is to emend 258 to mean ‘they have come after a long time since ...’ οἶδ᾽ ἐπεὶ was proposed by Seidler.

[Heath suggested ἐξ ὅτου and Dobree. 0:8’ ἀφ᾽ οὗ both palaeographically

less likely than οἵδ᾽ ἐπεὶ, In his edition, Cropp seems to retreat from the solution he had suggested in Hermes 107 (1979); pp. 249-52, which requires a very unobvious way to interpret the Greek and makes Iphigenia implausibly eager to get on with the sacrifice. D. Sansone (‘A Problem in Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris, RhM 121 (1978), pp. 35—-47) wants to retain the lines as they stand in L on the ground that Euripides has sacrificed consistency to various dramatic effects. He sees it, in fact, as an example of what is some—times-called-episodic-intensification:"The-idea is-worth-exploring, Tt immediately raises two questions: how much in the way of such contradictions can an audience be expected to swallow, and 15 such ‘episodic intensification’ a feature of Euripides’ technique? The classic example is at Macbeth 1. 7. 54-5, where Lady Macbeth says T have given suck, and know how tender Ἐ

Commentary on lines 260-3

113

to love the babe that milks me’ Yet nowhere else in the play is there any sug-

gestion that Macbeth has any children, and, indeed, at 4.3. 216, there is, most

probably, an assertion that he has none. Goethe identified Lady Macbeth’s words precisely as ‘episodic intensification’ “‘Whether this be true or not does not appear; but the lady says it, and she must say it, in order to give emphasis to her speech. L. C.Knights, in his classic study, How many Children had Lady Macbeth?, places the speech in the context of the unnatural evil which he sees as permeating the play. But there is still an escape-route for the literal-minded. As Dover Wilson neatly put it, Lady Macbeth ‘could have had as many children as Queen Anne’ But in IT the audience have to accept a significant and flatly contradictory statement less than a hundred lines later. It is as if Lady Macbeth were to say after a similar interval, T have never had any children’ Then, the letter written by the prisoner 15 vital to the plot. Where Euripides’ technique is concerned, this is not the place for an extended study. There is, however, ἃ minor contradiction between 1440 and 1462, where Athena says first that Orestes came to take his sister to Argos, then, speaking directly to Iphigenia, that she is to spend the rest of her life in

Brauron. But, if one insists, there is an escape-route: Iphigenia was to go home, but Athena has had another idea.] 260-1. émet ... εἰσεβάλλομεν: The herdsmen drive their cattle into the sea ‘that flows out through the Symplegades’ As at 124-5, it sounds as if the

Taurians live close beside the rocks. ὑλοφορβοὺς: ‘woodland-feeding’

Hesiod uses ὑλοφάγος as an epithet for βοῦς (WerD 591, and see Plato,

Critias 111c), and here there 15 evidence of ancient practice, at least in

Italy. Varro (De re rustica 2. 5. 11) says that ‘the best pasturage for herds is in the woods.

[éxpéovra: L writes εἰσρέοντα, making the water flow from the Sea of

Marmara into the Black Sea, instead of the other way. In uncials, ἐσ (IC)

looks very like K. On the currents in the straits, see S. West, “The Most Marvellous of All Seas, Gé~R 50 (2003), pp. 152-3.]

262-3. ἦν τις ... στέγαι: “There was a hollow-to-see (κοιλωπός) opening,

broken apart by much flow of waves, a shelter for murex-fishers. In fact, a cave. Very clotted verbally, and still recherché. διαρρὼξ: adjective from

διαρρήγνυμι. ἀγμός: (from ἄγνυμι) is a medical term for a fracture.

émei (260) is a common beginning for the main narrativein Euripidean messenger-scenes (see, for example, 1327 below). Initial scene-setting is a narrative technique as old as Homer: ἔστι πόλις Ἐφύρη μυχῷ Apyeos ἱπποβότοιο ... (II. 6. 152). Here, the two are combined, producing a dislocation in the syntax.The herdsman says: ‘When we were driving . .. there was a cave, instead of ‘we came to a cave. Compare Hipp. 1198-9 ἐπεὶ & ἔρημον

χῶρον εἰσεβάλλομεν, ἀκτή Tis ἔστι ... ‘'When we reached a desert place,

there is a headland ...’ See Halleran ad loc. πορφυρευτικαὶ στέγαι: A murex-fisher (πορφυρεύς) appears as a messenger in Stheneboea (TrGF 5.2, L

114

Commentary on lines 264--80

fr. 670, see SFP I, p. 91, with

Collard φά loc.). On the scene here, see

De Jong, op. cit. on 236-391 above, p. 155, and on scene-setting in general, pp. 148-60.

264. δισσούς: ἃ pair’. See on 241-2 above. On the position of 7¢s and the “inter-

laced’ word-order, see ]. Diggle, ‘Buripides, Bacchae 1063-1069), Eikasmos 9

(1998), pp. 43--4.

265-6. κἀνεχώρησεν.... ixvos: ‘and came back again, ferrying his step on tiptoe. δακτύλοισι: ‘toes’ (doigts de pied). The meaning of δάκτυλος has to be deduced from the context. Compared with fingers, toes get very little atten-

: tion in Greek literature. See Knights 874 and Xenophon, An. 4. 5. 12, πορ-θμεύων: nautical metaphors are to be expected in Attic poetry-(%sailing on - horseback, or with feet for oars'—Housman), but Euripides shows a peculiar fondness for πορθμεύω in this play: out of eleven occurrences of the word in his plays (plus one in Rhesus), seven, metaphorical or literal, are in IT. See also 371, 735, 936, 1358, 1435, 1445,

[κἀνεχώρησεν is Blomfield's correction of Ls κἀπέχωρησεν (‘he went

away’). ‘He came back’ is needed here, and dvaywpéw is the word. The change is trivial.]

267-80. At Ant.259-73, the guard describes to Creon the reaction of his mates

to the discovery that Polynices has been buried, and how they decided

between them that the matter had to be reported. But Sophocles makes no

attempt to characterize the individual guards. At Ba. 714-22, the messenger

recounts how the herdsmen and shepherds who have seen the bacchants

argued about what to do. Then, one who ‘had been about in the city and was

an experienced speaker’ (τις πλάνης kar’ ἄστυ καὶ τρίβων λόγων) proposed that they should try to capture Agave. This distinctively Euripidean technique is seen most strikingly in Or. 866-951, where the event that the ‘messenger is reporting is in fact a debate. There, all the speakers are characterized, with those who advocate opposite extremes described at some length. The loud-mouthed, urban rabble-rouser (902-5; see West on 903)

- wants Electra and Orestes stoned to death. On the other side, the manly

farmer who rarely comes to town, one of ‘those who keep the land safe} says that Orestes deserves a crown for killing a wicked woman. The opposition between the town demagogue and the decent countryman is familiar from Aristophanes. The tragedian and the comedian are at one. But should we deduce that Buripides is directly and simply guiding our judgment, that the speaker portrayed so positively must be wholly right? The course advocated by the glib townsman of Ba. does indeed lead to trouble. In Or., we do not —want-Orestes-and-Electra-stoned;-but-the-whole-tendency -of the way in which Euripides presents the killing of Clytaemestra makes it hard, if not impossible, for us to accept the honest farmer’s unambiguous endorsement of matricide. Here, in IT, there seems a touch of caricature in the characterizations. The pious man, θεοσεβής τις, seems naive and credulous, while his

-Commentary on lines 267--78

115

recklessly lawless opponent is described in extreme terms. Neither is, how-

ever, wholly wrong. Orestes and Pylades are not gods, but they are bound on a divinely-inspired mission.

267-9. ἔλεξε &’ ... εἰσιδών: with hindsight, the messenger said (264) that a

fellow-herdsman had seen two young men. But the man himself had reported that ‘some divine beings are sitting here’ οἵδε suggests that they are male, but the party might be mixed. The pious man reacts instantly by calling at random on all the marine deities that come into his head, male and female. A touch of comedy. [Markland suggested the dual xeipe. On Ba. 615, Dodds comments: ‘tragedy appears to avoid the nom. and acc. dual of yeip. περὲ yeipe βαλοῦσα at Andr. 115 echoes epic phraseology. At Ag. 1559, the transmitted text 15 περὶ yeipa βαλοῦσα, but Porson suggested yeipe. The question is whether the tragedians themselves avoided the nom. and acc. dual, or whether it has disappeared as a result of a scribal tendency to eliminate duals. See above on 248 and Diggle, Euripidea, pp. 4645, with n. 106.] 270~1. Leucothea and Palaemon were the names acquired when they achieved divinity by Ino and her son, Melicertes. Euripides dramatized their story in Ino, a play produced earlier than 425, since Aristophanes mentions it at Ach.

434.See TrGF 5. 1, pp. 442-55 and Loeb VII, pp. 438-59.

272. €i7’ . . . Διοσκόρω: the Dioscuri, Castor and Polydeuces, are celebrated as saviours on the sea by Alcaeus (PLF 34=Voigt A. 34) and, at length, in Homeric Hymn 33. See 4150 El. 1347-56. Whether it is the Dioscuri who are sitting on the shore, or some Nereids, is a matter of indifference. On εἴτ᾽ οὖν,

see Denniston, p. 418, who, however, quotes this line without noting that 9

here takes the place of the (usual) second ei7e. 273-4.% ... xopov: or the treasures of Nereus, who begot the noble dancmg—

troup of fifty Nereids.

ἀγάλμαθ᾽: Daughters are the joy and pride (ἀγάλλο-

μαι) of a father. Seeon 44-6 above, ἔτικτε is used of the father, as well as of the mother. See, for example, τοῦ rexdvros at 363 below and Ba. 467 Zevs

.. ὃς νέους τίκτει θεούς. χορόν: both ‘choir’ and ‘ballet’

[There is no need to suppose that the pious man has in mind two grandsons of Nereus, as has sometimes been suggested. He has not yet seen Orestes and Pylades. He has only heard that δαίμονές τινες are present. See above on 267-9.] X

275-8. ἄλλος ... ξένους: the speaker is characterized as Ssilly (emptyheaded), bold in lawlessness. See Chantraine on μάτη. This man is a shallow sceptic, just as the θεοσεβής was naively credulous. vavridovs ... ἔφασκε: ‘He kept asserting that [these were] wrecked sailors [who] were

sitting in the cave ...’ The mere fact that he is cocksure and assertive helps him to get his way. Any thinking Athenian would have had abundant opportunities for studying the dynamics of meetings. vavridovs: poetic.

dapayy(a): accusative, a little oddly, for ‘in the cave’ Elsewhere (Andr.

116

Commentary on lines 279-300

117, Ion 91), θάσσειν with the acc. means ‘to sit on’. κλυόντας ὡς θύοιμεν:

‘having heard that we sacrifice ...’ ἔκλυον, the participle κλυών, etc. are

regularly used in tragedy as aorist. Compare 768, 779, 901, 1323, 1476 below, and see M. L. West, “Tragica VII, BICS 31 (1984), pp. 172-80, who, however, regards the present example as possibly present (‘knowing by

hearsay’). The optative θύοιμεν, as dependent on a historic tense, stands for the present (WS § 2615a).

,

279-80. ἔδοξε &’ ... τἀπιχώρια: ‘He seemed to the majority of us to speak

well, and it seemed right to hunt for the goddess the victims customary in our country’ (ἐπιχώρια). ἔδοξε is used in two senses: ‘he seemed; with

Aéyew, and ‘it seemed good;, with θηρᾶν.

281-300. For a valuable treatment of the symptoms of madness in Euripides, see G.W, Bond on Her.930-1009, and on Greek and tragic ideas of madness in general, Ε. Padel’s rich, pioneering study, Whom Gods Destroy. In order to appreciate the account here of Orestes’ seizure, we have to reckon with an amalgam of tragic convention, popular belief, and the modern scientific thinking of the time. To begin with, the Greek definition of madness was highly restrictive. Its essential feature was disordered perception: Ajax-sees sheep and cattle as the Greek leaders, Agave 8668 her son as a lion. Then, it is of brief duration, and generally presented as imposed from outside. We know that Athena has caused Ajax’s madness and Dionysus Agave's, In Her., Lyssa actually appears on stage. But there 15 another type of ‘deranged’ perception, that of the seer. What he, or she, sees is really there, although others cannot see it. The chorus of Ag. (1140) begin by describing Cassandra as ‘mad’: φρενομανής 7is el. But their next word, θεοφόρητος, ‘carried away by a god, is ambiguous, and they will come to understand her vision: 7{ τόδε Topov ayav émos ἐφημίσω; ‘What is this all-too-clear word that you have uttered?’ At moments, ordinary people may receive the gift of the seer. The dying Alcestis ‘sees’ Death, and we' know that she does, because we have seen him ourselves in the prologue. At the end of Cho., Orestes ‘sees’

the Furies, and we shall learn in the next play that they really were there,

because everybody sees them, even the audience. After Eum., the Furies never appear on stage in any surviving play. But here and in Or. (253-71), Orestes apparently combines the phenomena of second sight and disordered perception. At Or. 264-5, he describes his mother’s ghost and the

Furies, then, momentarily, takes Electra for one of them. Here, he first of all - sees Furies, one at least flying, then the lowing of the cattle draws his atten-

tion to them, and he sees them as Furies. In both passages, Euripides leaves -—open the-question-of whether-or not-supernatural-beings are really present whom Orestes can see, but others cannot.

Recurrent references to certain physical symptoms of disorder are evidence that Euripides was interested in the scientific thinking of his time. First,

Orestes stands fixed (ἔστη 282). With Heracles, too, that 15 the first symptom

Commentary on lines 281--300

117

of his fit of madness (ἔστη σιωπῇ Her. 930). Orestes shakes his head up and down (282).At Her. 867, Lyssa says that Heracles is shaking his head (τινάσσει κρᾶτα). Heracles ‘bellows terribly’ dewa μυκᾶται (Her. 870); Orestes shouts

(284). As he collapses, he froths at the mouth (308). Heracles froths at the mouth at the beginning of his seizure (Her. 934), Agave as she attacks Pentheus (Ba. 1122). At Or. 219-20, Orestes begs Electra to wipe the froth from his mouth and eyes. Bond points out that standing silent and frothing at the mouth are initial symptoms of an epileptic seizure, as described in the

Hippocratic treatise, On the Sacred Disease: ἄφωνος yiverar ... καὶ ddpos ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ἐκρεῖ (Morb. Sacr. 10=Jouanna 7). The Hippocratic author

also mentions éye-rolling, a symptom which Euripides associates with mad fits in other passages (Her. 932, Or. 253, Ba. 1122-3), though not in IT. Earlier (Morb. Sacr. 4=Jouanna 1), there is mention of some patients who ‘roar’ (βρυχῶντα!), like Heracles and Orestes. ~ One point on which Padel insists 15 that for Greeks of the classical age

madness was commonly seen as an infliction from outside, not as a latent

disorder which suddenly breaks out. There are, however, signs in the later fifth century of other ways of thinking. Herodotus (3. 33) reports that one possible cause of Cambyses’ homicidal mania may have been the ‘sacred disease, from which he had suffered all his life. For ‘it is not unlikely that when the body suffers from a serious disease, the mind is not healthy either’ (τοῦ σώματος νοῦσον μεγάλην νοσέοντος undé τὰς Ppévas ὑγιαίνειν). The author of On the Sacred Disease insists that the complaint 15 purely physical in origin: an affection of the brain. This is not to suggest that Euripides held those views, still less that he is presenting Orestes as epileptic. But he certainly seems to have been conversant with some of the scientific thinking known to us from Hippocratic sources. Then, does Euripides depict premonitory symptoms? Can Orestes’ pessimism and failureof nerve at 77-103 be read in that sense? The basic premise for a Greek of the classical period was that a person not actually suffering from disordered perception is normal. But that need not mean that a dramatist could not, by observation and imagination, see beyond standard formulations. Moreover, would not those who had witnessed sudden and violent psychological disorder ask themselves whether there had been any signs which could have warned them in advance? The case of Pentheus is famous and much discussed. Wilamowitz (on -Her. 566) suggests that Heracles’ threats of violence against Lycus and other Thebans are so excessive as to. portend madness. Against this, Bond argues that what Heracles threatens does notgo beyond what Greeks in wartime in fact perpetrated. But the standard to judge by is what is said in tragedy, and, by that standard, Heracles’ threats are surely extreme. Again, the case is open. [On the date and authorship of On the Sacred Disease, see E. Jouanna’s introduction to the Budé text (Paris, 2003).]

118

Commentary on lines 281-4

281-3. κἀν τῷδε.... ἄκρας: on ἔστῃ and on Orestes’ head-shaking, 566 above

on 281-300. ἄνω κάτω: ‘up and down, suggesting disorderly movement, At

El. 842, Aegisthus’ whole body is convulsed ἄνω κάτω as he dies. The expres.

-sion may be colloquial. According to Stevens (p. 11), it is ‘fairly common’ in " Euripides, comedy, and Plato. It does not occur in Sophocles, but 15 found in Aeschylus, TrGF 3,1r.311.3: τρέπουσα τύρβ᾽ dvw κάτω ‘turning everything upside down in confusion. The subject there is a pig, and the fragment must come from a satyr-play. At Eum. 650, dvw Te καὶ κάτω is used of

orderly movement. See Collard, ‘Colloquial Language, p. 360. ὠλένας

τρέμων axpas: ‘trembling with respect to (acc,) the tips of his forearms,

i.e. with trembling hands. A peculiar expression. Euripides seems sometimes to use ὠλένη for the forearm including the hand. See further below on 966.

[Ls ξένην for ξένοιν (Brodaeus) is a simple mistake from likeness of sound (see below on 1353). κἀνεστέναξεν: MonK's correction of I's κἀπεστέγνα.-

Eev. As he says, ᾿ἀναστένω and ἀναστενάζω occur frequently; ἐπιστένω

and ἐπιστενάζω require a case dependent on éx{’ He cites Med. 929 τοῖσδ᾽ ἐπιστένεις τέκνοις ‘you lament over these children’ For ἐπιστενάζω, see

Pers. 727.}

284. μανίαις ἀλαίνων: his madness has already made Orestes a wanderer over

the earth (see Eum.75-7), and he wanders in mind as well as in body. On the significance of wandering for Greek ideas of madness, see Padel, op. cit. on 281-300, chap. 12, with index under ‘wandering’. For the phrase μανίαις ἀλαΐνων, 566 also ΟΥ 532, 284, βοᾷ, κυναγὸς @s: ‘he shouts, like a huntsman’ At 77, Orestes thought -of himself as a hunted animal, at 80-1, as a race-horse. How he thinks of himself now does not matter. Here, it is a question of the reaction of the watching Taurians. Especially in its more exciting moments, hunting entails a lot of shouting. In Ichneutae (TrGF 4, fr. 314. 230-2), the confused

yelling of the satyrs sounds to Cyllene like ‘the command of hunters’

(κέλευμα ... κυνηγετῶν) as they approach the lair of a beast. Xenophon

(Cyn. 6. 10-20) provides detailed instructions on shouting. The netman

(see on 77-9 above) must shout to the huntsman, if he sees the hare

approaching the snare. Equally, the huntsman must shout to the netman.

Then, the huntsman must shout constantly to his hounds: εὖ ye, εὖ ye, &

κύνες, εὗα κύνες, εὖα @ κὔνες, and the like. If he contrives to lose his

hounds, he must shoutὠή to the first passer-by. βοᾷ: historic present. . Orestes’ loud ‘halloo’ transfixes the Taurian herdsmen. For Orestes as hunts-

--—-——man;see709 below.

-

[κυναγὸς ὡς has troubled some editors. Orestes is being. hunted by the Furies, so why does he shout ‘like a huntsman'? This is too rigid. As

Monk says: ‘Orestes, being accustomed to hunting, shouts to his companion

like a hunter, on the appearance of some wild beast. The comparison is

Commentary on lines 285-9

119

apt. For some much more confused imagery, see Hec. 1172-5, with Collard

ad loc.]

285-7. For an excellent summary of the history of the Furies in Greek reli-

gious thought and literature, see the introduction to A. H. Sommerstein’s edition of Eum., pp.6-12. .

285-6. δέδορκας . . . kraveiv: ‘Do you see this one? Do you see this she-dragon of Hades, how she wants to kill me?’ At Eum. 128, the ghost of Clytaemestra

calls the leading Fury ‘terrible she-dragon’ τήνδε ... κτανεῖν: by anticipa-

tion (prolepsis) the subject of the subordinate clause is made the object of the main sentence: not ‘do you see how she wants .. .2’ but ‘do you see her, how she wants ...’ The effect is to focus attention more sharply on the sub-

]ect See WS § 2182 Note the chiastic word-order: δέδορκας τήνδε; τήνδε &

οὐχ ὁρᾷς... agam makmg τήνδε stand out sharply. 287. δειναῖς. .. ἐστομωμένη: this suggests that the creature may have snakehair, like a Gorgon. At Cho. 1048-50, Orestes describes the Furies as ‘like Gorgons’ (Γοργονων δίκην), ‘entwined with swarming snakes’ (πεπλεκτανημέναι πυκνοῖς δράκουσιν). At Eum. 48-9, the Pythia describes the creatures. she has seen as Gorgons, but not quite like Gorgons. At Εἰ. 1345, however, Euripides makes them ‘snake-handed’ (χειροδράκοντες). éoroμωμένη: perfect passive participle of στομόω. Difficult. Most editors look to the use of στόμα to mean the cutting edge of a weapon, and cite (from several centuries after Euripides) Plutarch’s Life of Anton)t, 42. 1. There, Antony, withdrawing from Parthia, gives his force a ‘cutting edge’ (oropwaoas) all round, by drawing up javelin-throwers and slingers on the flanks and in the rear. So here we should understand ‘equipped towards me . with a cutting edge of terrible vipers. It is, however, worth considering Paley’s idea that ἐστομωμένη means simply ‘mouthed; so that we should imagine a mass of snakes open mouthed, with forked tongues protruding,in fact, the familiar Gorgon-mask. It is true that the only other occurrence of στομόω in Buripides 15 in the fragmentary Cretes (TrGF 5. 1. fr. 472e. 44), where the meaning is ‘sharpened. But there the metaphor is the familiar one of speech, the tongue. See Collard, SFP], p. 77. 288-9. 7118’. .. ἐρέσσει: “This one here, breathing fire and slaughter, rows with wings. Another nautical metaphor. See above on 265-6. At Eum. 51, the Pythia describes the Puries as wingless (which distinguishes them from Harpies). Euripides, who 15 not constrained by presenting the Furies on stage, can describe them as the fancy takes him. They have wings also at Or. ..317. ték xvrdvwvt: whatever this Fury is breathing fire from, it cannot be dresses’ or ‘shirts. See further below.

[Wecklein records no fewer than seventeen conjectures for ἐκ χιτώνων,

including his own proposal to retain the words and assume a lacuna before

πῦρ. The most attractive suggestion is Markland’s éεχιὃνων ‘breathing fire

from [her] serpents. But it is not easy to see how χιτώνων could have found

120

Commentary on lines 289--90

its way into the text in place of ἐχιδνῶν, with ἐχίδναις in the line above (see above on 73-4). Diggle and Kovacs both print Jackson’s 7 ᾽κ γειτόνων (Marginalia Scaenica, p. 46), which Kovacs translates as ‘and next to her

another ...’ But éx (τῶν) γειτόνων and év (τῶν) γειτόνων do not belong to

tragic language, but to everyday speech. C. Austin, on Menander, Aspis 122

(Menandri Aspis et Samia ὶ (Berlin, 1970), p. 14) collects the examples of the phrases. All occur in comedy (Aristophanes and New Comedy), or the orators, except for one example from Plato (Rep. 531a), and in all the mean-

-ing is ‘at’ or ‘from the neighbours’ place; otherwise ‘next door’ At Rep. 531a, musicians are said to listen ‘as if trying to pick up a voice from next door (olov ἐκ γειτόνων φωνὴν θηρευόμενοι). At Aspis 122, éx γειτόνων! ἀδελφὸς

οἰκεῖ τοῦδε means ‘a brother of this man lives next door’ In Lysias 1 (On

the murder of Eratosthenes) 14, the wife says that the childs nightlight went out, 80 she went to get a light from next door (éx τῶν γειτόνων),

-and so on. So ἡ 'k γειτόνων means the Fury from next door, from the next

house, or the next farm, not just ‘from beside. Cropp too rejects. Jackson's - suggestion. ] .

289-90. μητέρ᾽... ἐπεμβάλῃ: ‘having my mother in her arms, a stony mass, so

that she may throw it on [me]. The idea of the Fury holding a stone effigy of Clytaemestra which she is ready to drop on Orestes is curious. There may be - a connection with Orestes’ earliest ancestor, Tantalus. In.the Odyssey (11. 582-92), Tantalus is tormented-in the underworld by perpetual thirst, while standing with water up to.his chin and fruit hanging just above his head. But there was another story, according to which 6 was kept in constant fear of a huge stone suspended above him, and 6 Ταντάλου Alfos seems to have become proverbial. There is a mention of it by Archilochus (West, IEG3 I ft. .91.14). Pindar alludes to it at Ol 1. 57-8 and Isthm. 8. 10-11, and, according

᾿ἴο a scholium on Οἱ, 1, Tantalus’ stone was also mentioned by Alcman and Alcaeus (see PMG and PMGF, Alcman, fr. 79 and PLF and Voigt, Alcaeus, fr. 365). Here, Tantalus will be mentioned at 387, 80 some association of ideas

.is not impossible. [M. J. O’Brien (“Tantalus in Euripides’ Orestes’, RhM 131 (1988), pp. 30-45)

sees the two mentions of Tantalus’ punishment at Or. 6-7 and 982-8 as

highly significant. An oddity there is that Tantalus himself is described as suspended in mid-air. Kovacs provides a helpful, brief note on Or. 984, ὄγκον: 288-90 are quoted by Plutarch (Adversus Colotem= Moralia-11238), but, unfortunatel)', both the problematic parts of the lines are omitted. Here, L offers πέτρινον ὄχθον. Hermann took this as a terminal accusative: ‘to the rocky bank’-But the phraseis very- awkwardly placed -as the-destination of ἐρέσσει, and what is the ‘bank’? περὶ τὸν ὄχθον (Hirzel) eases the construction, without solving the problem of the meaning of ὄχθον. Then, it would

have to be Clytaemestra’s corpse that the Fury threatens to drop on Orestes,

an idea which verges on the ridiculous. ὄγκον (Heimsoeth) and ἄχθος

Commentary on lines 291-4

121

(Bothe) both give possible sense, but the former, on balance, makes the cor-

ruption easier to account for,]

291. οἴμοι ... φύγω: Longinus (On the Sublime 15.2) quotes these words, together with Or. 255-7, in his discussion of φαντασία, the capacity of the poet, or orator, to imagine what he 15 describing and to bring it before the eyes of his hearers. He goes on to praise Euripides’ power to depict love and madness (see above, p. Ixiii) φύγω: aorist subjunctive (deliberative). See WS § 1805. [κτενεῖ: the future of κτείνω, which we owe to the corrector of P. L has the

present κτείνει contra metrum. Longinus has kravei. κτανέω (as well as

κτενέω) is used in epic as a future of κτείνω (see Chantraine, Grammaire Homérique 1, pp. 449~50), but is not attested in Attic. This passage pro-

vides a good example of the recurrent confusion between κτεν-, κταν- and

κτειν- in the MSS of Buripides. See further below on 484 and 992.] 291--2. παρὴν & . .. σχήματ᾽: ‘But it was not possible to see these appearances of

form, i.e. ‘We could not see any such forms’ For μορφῆς σχήματα, compare

Tor 992. 80 far so good. This is what we should expect the herdsman to say.

[ταῦτα: L offers ταυτὰ, presumably ταὐτὰ (τὰ αὐτὰ). ‘Not the same’ might

be connected with ἠλλάσσετο ‘he was changing for himself> But in that case we have no idea what the text and the meaning of the passage may have

been.]

᾿

292--3. ἀλλ᾽. . . ὑλάγματα: we can recognize ‘the voices of calves and the yelp-

ing of dogs, and we can deduce that Orestes is taking these for sounds emitted by the Furies. Beyond that, all is conjecture. Orestes’attack on the Taurian cattle may have been suggested to Euripides by the delusion of Ajax, as presented in Sophocles’ play (undated, but in all probability earlier than IT). [Murray wished to take ἠλλάσσετο as Ὧδ was changing for himselfin imag-

ination. Cropp translates ‘he was getting in return) meaning he was answered

by. But both require unparalleled extensions of the meaning of ἀλλάσσω.

Diggle suggests possibilities for 292-4 which involve substantial rewriting:

ἀλλ' εἱλίσσετο (‘he was encircled; as at Or. 358 and 444)/ φθογγαῖς τε

μόσχων καὶ κυνῶν ὑλάγμασιν (Bothe),/ddarwy Ἐρινῦς (acc. plural)

ἱέναι μυκήματα (Matthiae). Kovacs marks ἠλλάσσετο 85 corrupt. On his

treatment of 294, see below on that line. For some observations on the passage, see also M. L. West, “Tragica, BICS 28 (1981), . 62.] 294. ἃς φᾶο᾽ ... μιμήματα: the words that have come down to us make no ° sense. There is no antecedent for ds and no subject for φᾶσ(ι), unless we take it to be people in general (‘they say ..."). And what are we to make of μιμήματα (‘imitations’)? [Murray allowed μιμήματα to stand in his text, translating ‘some visionary

sounds of Furies But that, whatever it may mean, can hardly be extracted

from the Greek. The idea that Furies would imitate the sounds of cattle and dogs is highly implausible. Kovacs also retains μιμήματα, accepts Badham’s

122

Commentary on lines 295-6

adack’ (G ἔφασκε), writes Ἐρινύων (scanned U—-) and translates ‘noises

he claimed were uttered by what seemed like Erinyes’ But μιμήματα does not mean ‘what seems like, but ‘imitations, ‘counterfeits; and, in any case,

‘Orestes is absolutely sure that he is seeing and hearing Furies, not some-

thing that sounds like them. Most editors take μιμήματα to be a corruption

of some word meaning ‘roaring; or ‘bellowing’ For Diggle’s suggestions for

the whole passage, see on 292-3 above. It 15 also possible that ds φᾶσ᾽ is misleading, and that the whole idea of someone saying something should be

abandoned. Markland thought of δοκῶν (Murray: ddéas): ‘thinking that the

Furies were emitting bellowings. Wilamowitz, followed by Cropp, would delete the line, as an interpolated explanation, but interpolators do not write complete nonsense. See also on 299 below.] 295-6. ἡμεῖς O¢ . . . καθήμεθ᾽: ‘But we, huddled together, sat down as spectators. συσταλέντες: aorist passive participle of συστέλλω Ἴο contract, ‘to draw together! Euripides usually uses the word figuratively to mean ‘to humble’ See Bond on Her. 1417, and compare Tro. 108. But a literal sense seems more appropriate here, and Euripides does use the word literally: at Tro. 378 it means ‘to wrap. We can still deduce that the herdsmen’s behaviour sug-

gests a degree of nervousness. ws: The idea of looking on, like the audience

in a theatre. (οὗ θεώμενοι), was in their minds (WS § 2086, GMT 5 864).

What happens next will change their ideas, fast. καθήμεθ᾽: ‘inchoative imperfect, denoting the beginning of an action (WS § 1900). Forms aug-

mented before the preposition (ἐκαθ-) are not found in tragedy. καθήμεθα

could also be present, but this is hardly an action or situation where a historic present would be appropriate. [θεώμενοι: L offers θανούμενοι, with μβ written above in the hand of the original scribe. This presumably represents θαμβούμενοι; the passive of θαμβέω, meaning ‘being astounded;, but that is post-classical usage. θανούμενοι, ‘thinking that we were going to die) will not do. In the first place, Orestes is not threatening them (or, at this stage, anything else).

Secondly, when their cattle are under attack, they take instant and resolute

action. We cannot imagine them passively sitting down to accept their fate if they believed themselves in mortal danger. Wilamowitz proposed θανουμένου (‘assuming him to be about to die} genitive absolute without expressed subject, WS § 2072). This is clever, but not entirely satisfactory. Firstly, Orestes’ symptoms so far do not suggest in the least that he is going to die. Secondly, there is a lack of any clear, causal connection between what -the herdsmen think and what they do. Heimsoeth’s θεώμενοι supplies ———exactly-that-connection: theysit-down-together in-silence; because they think of themselves as spectators.]

296. xept σπάσας: ‘having-drawn [his] sword with [his] hand’ Pierson’s cor-

rection is necessary. Ls περισπάσας is obvious nonsense in the context, περισπάω means ‘to strip off” (clothes). Compare 322 below.

Commentary on lines 297-300

123

297. λέων ὅπως: a standard epic simile, but the lion is also the beast of a herds-

man’s worst nightmares. According to Herodotus (7. 126), there were still, in his own time, plenty of lions in the area bounded by the rivers Achelous to the west and Nestus to the east. To Greeks of the classical age, then, the lion

was not merely a symbolical beast. 298-307. waiet ... 6pd . . . πίπτει: these key verbs are, like βοᾷ at 284 above, in the historic present. Other, less emotive and attention-catching actions

are, however, recounted in the past: ἐξωπλίζετο, ἡγούμεθα, ἐπληρώθημεν.

‘The observation of A. Rijksbaron that ‘often the. historic present marks a turning-point in a series of events’ fits well here (see Grammatical Observations on Euripides’ Bacchae, p. 1). De Jong (op. cit. on 236-391 above, pp. 38-45) seeks to refine the concept, and provides a list of historic presents in her Appendix C, pp. 185-7.

298. παΐίει .. . ἱείς: ‘He strikes with the steel, thrusting [it] into [their] flanks and ribs. λαγών is the hollow just to the rear of the ribs (wAevpad). ἐς is to

be taken with both λαγόνας and πλευράς (ἀπὸ κοινοῦ). Poetic. Compare

ΟἹ 733-4 ὁδὸς ... Δελφῶν κἀπὸ davAias ἄγει ‘a road leads from Delphi

and from Daulia; and see WS § 1667c.

[(0᾽) is Reiske's supplement. Without it, the words could be translated: ‘He

strikes their flanks with the steel, thrusting it into their ribs. This is possible 'linguistically, but awkward anatomically. For other examples of prepositions

ἀπὸ κοινοῦ, see Kiefner, Versparung, pp: 27-8 and 43.] 299, δοκῶν ... rade: ‘Thinking that thus he was warding off the Fury-

goddesses. rade is internal accusative with ἀμύνεσθαι, like ‘blow’ in ‘to strike a blow’. As at 294, the narrator explains Orestes’ behaviour by his delusion.

|

[Like 294, this line has attracted suspicion, this time from West (Tragica V,

BICS 28 (1981), p. 62), who endorses the deletion of 294 proposed by

Wilamowitz, observing ‘it is not for the simple herdsman to give the reason for the stranger’s extraordinary behaviour, which he has no means of knowing, but merely to report what he has seen and heard. But if a dramatist wants something said, then a character will say it, whether it is that character’s business, or not, and Attic dramatists in particular are very little inhibited by consideration of what a character might, or might not, say in real life. Euripides’ over-riding concern here 15 likely to have been that the audience - should understand the reason why Orestes behaves as he does.]

300. wof ... ἁλός: ‘so that the stretches of the sea bloomed blood-red’ Foam

-as the flower of the 568 15 an old metaphor. Alcman (PMG=PMGF 26. 3) has

κύματος ἄνθος. Euripides may have in mind here the gruesome twist that

Aeschylus gives to the idea at Ag. 659, where he makes the Aegean ‘bloom with corpses”: ὁρῶμεν ἀνθοῦν πέλαγος Alyaiov νεκροῖς. For an interesting , treatment of the metaphorical uses of ἄνθος, see W. Β. Stanford, Greek Metaphor, pp. 111-14. See also Ε, K. Borthwick, “The “Flower of the Argives”

124

Commentary on lines 303-5

and a neglected meaning of ΑΝΘΟΣ, JHS 96 (1976), pp. 1~7, with a tabular

summary, p. 6 and, on Ag. 659, M. S, Silk, Interaction in Poetic Imagery,

ΡΡ. 162-3, with n. 8. πέλαγος ... ἁλός: Seemingly pleonastic combinations

with πέλαγος are not uncommon. Compare Tro. 88 πέλαγος Alyalas dAds,

Od. 5.335 ἁλὸς év πελάγεσσι. πέλαγος seems to suggest wide, open spaces. αἱματηρὸν: Predicative. See WS 5 913. [ὥσθ᾽ : Markland’s correction of Ls ὡς. On the absence of ὡς for ὥστε in Euripides, see Diggle, Studies, p. 8. For πέλαγος, P writes πέλανον (i.e. πελανόν), a noun often, though not invariably, used to mean ‘clotted blood’ But ‘gory blood of the sea blooms’ hardly makes sense, and the word has most probably appeared by infection from αἱματηρὸν πελανόν (as at Alc. 851). P’s reading passed to the Aldine, and continued to appear in texts even

of editors who, like Seidler, Hermann, and Monk, knew the reading πέλα-

yos. See Introduction, p. civ]- | 303. κόχλους: conches as rustic substitutes for trumpets reappear in the pastoral poetry of the Hellenistic age (Theocritus 22. 75 and 77, pseudo᾿ Theocritus 9. 27). More obviously, Tritons perform on them at Moschus 2. 124, as does the picturesque Triton of Ovid, Met. 1. 332-8, with his

‘wreathed horn. See also Virgil, Aen. 6. 171 and 10. 209. According to Hesychius (Latte ii, p. 522), conches were used ‘before the invention of trum. pets.. But this may Ὅ6 no more than a deduction from poetic texts. The instrument does not appear to have had any ‘barbarian’ associations. The herdsman says ‘blowing . .»-and gathering together, meaning ‘blowing . . so - as to gather together. ‘ Ἐ

304-5. πρὸς ... ἡγούμεθα: For we thought that herdsmen [liké ourselves)

were inadequate to fight with well-reared, young strangers. εὐτραφεῖς: the herdsmen can see that Orestes and Pylades are very strong (as heroes must - be), that they have serious weapons (323), and know how to use them. They see themselves as common folk φαύλους) matched against fit, young noblemen, trained to fight. That Orestes and Pylades are to be imagined as of splendid appearance emerges again from Iphigenia’s reaction when she sees them (474-5). There is no suggestion here of the inferiority of ‘barbarians’ to Greeks. Contrast the fight recounted at Or. 1474-89, where the point is made explicitly that the Phrygians are no match for the Greeks, Orestes and

Pylades (especially at 1483-5). The same idea emerges, though less clearly; from Hel, 1593-1610, where Menelaus and his men face Egyptians (see + 1603-4). A more revealing comparison for our passage is with Andr. 1118-

60, the account of the fight between the mob of Delphians and Neoptolemus.

-—The-circumstances-of-the-two-fights-are-different; and- they-take-different courses, but there is the same contrast between the determination and dauntless courage of the hero and the circumspection (not to say timidity)

of the common men, their reliance on numbers and their ruthlessness in

taking advantage of the hero’s fall. veavias: adjectival. Compare Alc. 679.

‘Commentary on lines 306-9

125

μάχεσθαι, dependent on φαύλους, indicates the purpose for which the herdsmen feel inadequate. See WS § 2002. 306. πολλοὲ... χρόνῳ: And many [of us] poured in in a short [not long] time? This use of the passive of πληρόω (‘many were filled up’) is curious, but may

possibly be paralleled by Andr. 1097, where those in authority (dpyaf) pour into the council chamber. There, Murray and Diggle emend, but Kovacs

retains the MS text. See Euripidea Altera, pp. 51-2. The idea of filling up a number might lie behind the expression. . [οὐ μακρῷ χρόνῳ: 50 Nauck. L has év μακρῷ, but it would be absurd to say ‘a Jarge number arrived in a long time! Orestes cannot be left slaughtering cattle for ὰ long time, and we need the antithesis between the many who gathered and the short time it took them. Triclinius saw this and proposed μικρῷ, which Monk corrected to σμικρῷ (on the tragic preference for σμικρός, see Diggle, Euripidea, pp. 145-6 and Studies, p. 50 for a couple of

minor corrections). But ‘not long’ sharpens the antithesis. For οὐ μακρῷ

χρόνῳ, compare Phil. 360.] 307. πίπτει..... μεθείς: ‘But the stranger falls, having let go the sudden onslaught of madness. The historic present πέπτει marks the last significant stage in the narration of Orestes’ mad fit. See above on 298-307. πέτυλον: Heracles, too, is ‘swept astray by an onslaught of madness’ (μαινομένῳ πιτύλῳ πλαγχθεῖς Her. 1187). Euripides has a distinct fondness for πίτυλος. Since Wilamowitz's note on Her. 816, the idea has become ingrained

that πέτυλος essentially implies repeated movement, and commentators

resort to desperate contortions to find the idea of repetition in every occurrence. That applies even to Barrett’s highly informative note on Hipp. 1464, where he, rightly, finds “‘Wilamowitzs remarks . . . about a mental “rhythm of disharmony” quite obscure’ πίτυλος means an impetus, a rush, an assault of some kind, which may sometimes be understood as repeated, as when it refers to the impetus of oars (as at 1346 below). See also my note on

Alc. 796-8. 308. στάζων ἀφρῷ yéveiov: see above on 281-300. γένειον: accusative of part affected..

309. προύργου: an abbreviation of πρὸ᾿ épyov, meaning ‘conveniently, or ‘opportunely. This, of course, is from the herdsmen’s point of view. Note the alliteration with r, particularly striking in this verse, but recurrent throughout 304-9. The collection of passages by C. Riedel (Alliteration bei den drei

grossen Tragikern) shows that π 15 the most common sound producing allit-

eration in all the three dramatists. In this play initial 7 occurs six times in two verses at 823-4 and four times in a single verse, as here, in'913. See also 495 and 1135-6. This 15 probably, in part at least, a consequence of the large number of common words in Greek which begin with 7. While generally contributing to aural structure, alliteration sometimes seems to have expressive significance. Thus, Dodds hears ὃ as ‘explosive’ at Ba. 487-9 δίκην σε

126

Commentary on lines 309.-14

δοῦναι δεῖ, and compares Med. 1298 δώμασιν δώσει δίκην. But, of course,

the formula δίκην διδόναι provides a ready-made alliteration. T occurring nine times in OT 371 might seem to suggest anger and contempt, but it is the context that 15 decisive. At Aj. 687-8, T occurs eight times, without any obvious expressive function. See also below on 823-6. 309-10. s . . . ἀράσσων: with one of their enemies fallen, the Taurians seize their chance, just as, at Andr. 1152 ff., the Delphians seize theirs against Neoptolemus. See above on 304-5. βάλλων ἀράσσων: Euripides uses the

same phrase elsewhere of savage, disorderly onslaughts. See Andr. 1154 and - Hec. 1175, of the blinded Polymestor, wildly (θὴρ ds) trying to attack the - Trojan women.

[εἶχεν: The imperfect (Helland) is the appropriate tense for contmumg effort, rather than the aorist, ἔσχεν (L). Compare Hec. 572 οὐδεὶς τὸν αὐτὸν elyev Αργειων πόνον.] 310-11. ἅτερος .. . ἐτημέλει: ‘But the other of the two strangers proceeded to wipe away the foam and to take care of [his] body. Elsewhere, τημελέω governs the accusative, except, perhaps, at Plato, Laws 953a, where τημελεῖν

is paired with ἐπιμελεῖσθαι, which regularly governs the genitive. Metrical

convenience may be relevant here.

[311-12 are quoted by Lucian (Amores 47). The MSS of Lucian, like L and Hesychius (Latte i, p.208), offer ἀπέψα for ἀπέψη. But ψάω contracts in η.}

312. πέπλων.. . ὑφάς: ‘He was spreading as a cover [for him] the well-woven

[πήνηΞ ΜΟΟΙ] web of [his own] clothes. Pylades shows his devotion and

courage at this perilous moment. At Π. 17. 132, Ajax stands holdmg his shield

over the body of Patroclus: Alas 8’ ἀμφὶ Μενοιτιάδῃ σάκος εὐρὺ καλύψας ! ἑστήκει. Pylades has no shield, so does the best he can with his cloak, as, at

Il. 5. 315, Aphrodite protects Aeneas with her divine robe: πρόσθε 8¢ of πέπλοιο φαεινοῦ πτύγμ᾽ ἐκάλυψεν. Euripides reproduces not only the Homeric action, but the syntax. Normally, with Ἱπρο)καλύπτω, one covers something (acc.) with a covering material (instrumental dat.). Here, as in

the two Homeric passages, the covering material is made the direct object. εὐπήνους ὑφάς reappears at 1465, with ευπηνοις ὑφαῖς αἱ 814. The poet seers to have been rather taken with the expression in this play. It 15 ποὶ found elsewhere. [εὐπήνους ὑφάς is the reading of LP (with, in B, 7 written above in a later

hand), but the MSS of Lucmn,Amores (seeabove on 310-11) offer εὐπήκτοις ὑφαῖς (or the acc., -ovs -as). εὔπηκτος, meaning we]l-fitted-together, suits

buildings, not textiles. But the editor of the Aldine adopted εὐπήκτοις

—-ugaisywhich-became embedded-in-the printed-vulgate,]- ---- -- 313-14. καραδοκῶν: ‘awaiting. Pylades behaves - watching where. the projectiles are coming cloak accordingly. μὲν ... 8¢ mark the change Pylades is warding off the external threat, on

like a sort of goal-keeper, from, and deploying his of focus. On the one hand, the other, he is tending his

Commentary on lines 316--20

127

friends physical distress. τἀπιόντα - τὰ ἐπιόντα, ‘the wounds coming against [him]. 316-18. κλύδωνα: an overwhelming wave, A common and adaptable marine

metaphor. πολέμιος κλύδων at Jon 60 is a minor variation. It combines naturally with the metaphor of the ship of state (see Collard on Supp. 267-9a

and 473-5). It also lends itself to the metaphor of a ‘sea of troubles’ (Pers. 599, OT 1527). kai ... πέλας: ‘and that the present misfortune was close to them, that is, that they were going to be taken prisoner, as they now have

been. ᾧμωξέ 6’: What Euripides wants us to know here takes precedence

over realism. In the circumstances, it seems unlikely that the Taurians could have heard Orestes groan. Compare 299 above.

[ἔγνω: Scaliger’s correction of the perfect ἔγνωκε, which does not scan.

avroiv: the reflexive, proposed by England, in place of I's adroiv. kat ...

πέλας: Bothe wished to expel the line, and is followed by Cropp and

Kovacs. But there is no compelling reason to condemn it, even if excision might make for a tauter narrative. Moreover, expelling it would bring προσκείμενον and προσκείμενοι at line-end still closer together. See on 319 below. England is wrong in seeing ‘some tautology in παροῦσαν and πέλας. παροῦσαν does not mean ‘threatening) as he translates, but ‘présent’.] 318-19. ημ.εις δ᾽... βάλλοντες: ‘But we did not slacken in pelting them w1th stones. ἀνέεμεν: Imperfect of ανιημι, g here intransitive, ἱπέτροις: The scribe of L wrote πέτρους and put in the correction above. With βάλλειν one does not throw the projectile (acc.); one pelts the target (acc.) with the projectile (dat.). See, for example, Andr. 1128 and Or. 914-15.]

319. προσκείμενοι: ‘pressing hard [on them]’ The closeness of the word to

προσκείμενον at the end of 316 is striking. Yet another προσκείμενοι ends

325. Common words (usually disyllabic) are quite often found ending lines in close proximity. See, for example, γύναι at 496 and 498, Adyos at 532 and 534, φίλος at 607 and 610, ἔχει at 691, ἔχεις at 693 and ἔχειν at 696. But the repetition, or near repetition, of a long and comparatively uncommon word is unusual. εὐδαίμονα and εὐδαιμόνων ending consecutive lines at 5434 is

pointed. See further there.

320. οὗ δὴ . .. ἠκούσαμεν: It was at that point that we heard that fearsome

exhortation. Now, for the first time, Orestes takes the lead, and the sound of

his voice strikes terror into the Taurian peasants. The use of direct speech signals a high point of drama and emotion. While this is not strictly a battle, it shows some of the features of one. Compare the battle-cry of the Greeks

at Salamis reported by the Persian messenger at Pers. 402-5 Ὦ παῖδες ἙῬλλήνων, ite ... viv ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀγών, ‘the only direct speech by

any Greeks to be heard in the entire play’ (Hall, ad loc.). Then, there is the shout of Theseus at Supp. 711-12, which echoes over the land and rouses the

128

Commentary on lines 321--9.

courage of the Athenians, so that they put the Thebans to flight. On reporting of the combatants’ words and cries in battle-scenes, both historical and tragic, see Collard’s note on Supp. 650-730, with further references given

there. 70 . . .παρακέλευμ᾽: on the force of 74, see below on 1366. οὗ of sity-

ation, not of place (LSJ ὅς, 7, 6 A b L. 1). δηὴς emphatic. See Denniston,

pp. 219-20.

"

321-2. Πυλάδη ... χερί: for ἃ second time (see 285 above), at a moment of

crisis, the herdsman hears the name ‘Pylades; so, not surprisingly, he remem-

bers it (249). ἀλλ᾽... κάλλισθ᾽: ‘Dut see that we die most nobly’ ὅπως with

the future indicative in an exhortation, most often in the second person (‘mind that you do it’), belongs to ordinary speech. See Stevens, pp. 29-30 and WS § 2213. Compare Orestes’ exhortation to Electra at Or. 1060~-1: ἀλλ᾽ el’ ὅπως ... Ἀγαμέμνονος δράσαντε κατθανούμεθ᾽ ἀξιώτατα But come, 866 that we die having done deeds most worthy of Agamemnon. 323-4. ὡς &’. . . vamas: ‘But when we saw the double brandished swords of the enemies, we started to fill the rocky glens in flight’ δίγαλτα: a compendious way of saying ‘two swords being brandished’ (πάλλω). ἐξεπίμπλαμεν: The . imperfect shows that this was the herdsmen’s initial reaction to seeing the weapons (see above on 304--5). On the ‘inchoative’ imperfect, see WS § 1900,

325-7.aAX ... πέτροις: ‘But if anyone fled, the others, pressing on, kept pelting them, and if they drove these back, the [group] just now giving way proceeded to strike [them] with stones. The peasants are not individually

heroic, but collectively they are pertinacious. βάλλω and ἀράσσω are com-

bined again, as at 310 above. φύγοι.... ὠσαίατο: ‘iterative’ optatives; a par-

ticular use of the past general conditional construction. Compare Alc. 755,

the butler’s complaint of Heracles’ behaviour at dinner: ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τὶ μὴ φέροι-

μεν, ὥτρυνεν φέρειν ‘But if there was anything that we did not bring, he kept telling us to bring ἴὮ See WS § 2340a. ὠσαίατο: epic form of the third

person plural, occasionally found in tragedy. See also olyolaro at 1341,

where, again, U- is needed to end the line. 70 νῦν ὑπεῖκον: an abstract expression for the group who were giving way. Here, uépos could be understood. νῦν of the immediate past, as at Hec. 1144 év ᾧπερ νῦν ... . ἐκάμνομεν

‘with which we were troubled just now’ ἥρασσον: plural verb with a singular collective meaning people. See WS § 950, and compare Ag. 577-9 Τροίαν

ἑλόντες .. . Apyeiwv στόλος .. . ἐπασσάλευσαν.

[αὖθις: Schaefer’s correction of Triclinius’ αὖτις (epic), itselfa correction of

"-Ls οὔτις. P had copied οὔτις before Triclinius made his correction, and it

passed to the Aldine. ἤρασσον: the Aldine editor emended to the singular, ~-fpaccev;-but-he-(whatever -he-may-have-thought-the-sentence - meant) believed the subject to be οὔτις, which would have made the singular verb necessary.]

328-9. GAX ἦν ... βαλών: ‘But it was unbelievable, for, from myriad hands— no one had good luck by throwing at the sacrificial victims of the goddess.

Commentary on lines 330-3

129

To the herdsman, the explanation of this remarkable fact is that Artemis wants her sacrificial victims in perfect condition, not all battered and bloody. The audience will, however, guess at quite a different reason. In messengers’ speeches, of course, as so often elsewhere in Attic tragedy, there is dramatic play between the knowledge of the audience and the comparative ignorance of the characters. The construction is disjointed. Euripides begins as if to say something like ‘of stones thrown from myriad hands, not one hit them’ But, having said from myriad hands;, he changes the construction completely to ‘nobody managed to hit them: The object may be to stress in the first place the number of throwers. γὰρ introduces the explanation of why the speaker has said ἄπιστον. ηὐτύχει: imperfect: the throwing (and missing) went on for some time. βαλών: ‘by throwing, ‘coincident’ aorist participle, completing the meaning of the main verb, not preceding it. See above on 77-9. [ηὐτύχει: for the augment, see on ηὔξω at 21 above.] 330-3. μόλις 8¢ . .. καθεῖσαν: ‘We barely got the better of them (χειρούμεθα: historic present; see above on 298-307), not by daring (τόλμῃ μὲν οὐ), but,

having surrounded them on all sides (κύκλῳ δὲ περιβαλόντες), we knocked

the swords out of their hands with stones, and they let their knees down to the ground from exhaustion. The hetdsman makes explicit what is already apparent from his narrative, that the peasants win by sheer force of numbers and a certain doggedness. The end of the fight seems perfunctory and unconvincing. Contrast the account of the chariot-race at S. El. 680-756, which is fictional even within the dramatic action. But Euripides’ interest here is sociological and psychological: it is in the behaviour of the two parties, not in the technicalities ‘of the fight. νιν: third person pronoun in epic and classical poetry, usually singular (αὐτόν, etc.), sometimes, as here, plural (αὐτούς). κύκλῳ . .. περιβαλόντες: ‘having surrounded them with a circle, περιβάλλω is one of the compound verbs, generally common in Greek, which Euripides’ increasing readiness to admit resolution allowed him to use frequently in his later plays. There are just three examples of parts. of περιβάλλω in the trimeters of Aeschylus, none in Sophocles, but some twenty-seven in Euripides. See K. H. Lee, ‘BAAAR Compounds in the ‘Tragedians, AJP 92 (1971), pp. 313-15, and Introduction, pp. boxvi-Ixxix.

καθεῖσαν: aorist of καθίημι.

ἱπεριβαλόντες: Reiske’s emendation 15 a clear improvement on Us present, περιβάλλοντες, while surrounding. . ᾽ ἐξεκόψαμεν: Bothe's emendation is surely right. L offers ἐξεκλέψαμεν, ‘we stole them away’. Attempts have been made to see the idea of ‘stealthy’ action, as opposed to τόλμῃ, but there is

nothing particularly stealthy about a shower of stones. ἐκκόπτω is found in

comedy, not elsewhere in tragedy. But that is surely because the action is more at home in the rough and tumble of comedy. Compare Clouds 24 i’

ἐξεκόπην πρότερον Tov ὀφθαλμὸν λίθῳ ‘Would that I had had. my eye

knocked out by a stone first.]

130

Commentary on lines 334--7

334. κομίζομεν: another historic present marks a significant step in the narrative, 334-5.0 &’. .. oou: ‘But he, having seen them, sent them to you as quickly as possible for sprinklings and sacrificial blood-bowls. és has the sense of pur-

pose, 88 at Thesm. 1137 Παλλάδα.... δεῦρο καλεῖν νὄμος εἰς χορόν ἿῈ is the

custom to invite Pallas here for the dance’ See LSJ εἰς V 2. χέρνιβας: the ritual spn.nklmgs which it is part of the priestess’s duties to carry out. See above on κατάρχομαι at 35-41. σφαγεῖ": odayeiov strictly means the bowl for catching the victim's blood, but here it stands, in effect, for the slaughter [ἐς: the old Attic form. On és and eis, see Kannicht, Hel. I, p. 108, with, for a re-examination, P. ] Finglass ‘Orthographica Sophoclea, Philologus 153 (2009), pp. 209-23. ἐς is Valckenaer’s emendation (on Phoen. 1409).L has τε (imposssible) and early editionsws (inappropriate with an inanimate noun),

σᾧαγει 15 Musgraves correction of the unmetrical σφάγι!).

336-7. εὔχου . . παρεῖναι: Pray, young lady, that [other] such sacrifices of strangers be available for you. This common man does not understand Iphigenia. In her position, he would want to kill any Greek he could get his hands on. She, we shall learn, would happily sacrifice Helen, or Menelaus,

if they should come her way (355-8), but otherwise she has always been sorry for her victims, at least up till now (227-8, 344-7). She has no appetite for indiscriminate vengeance. The perception of how characters mis-

read each other and react differently to the same circumstances is a

significant feature of Euripidean ‘psychology; In Med., to take a striking example, the tragedy depends to a great extent on the failure of everyone,

except the nurse, to read Medea’s character con'ectly 10120’.. .. ξένων

σφάγια stands for ‘sacrifices of such strangers’ Again, as at 304-5, our attention 15 drawn to the splendid appearance of the young men. ‘Other’ is

to be understood with τοιάδ(ε), as it can be in Greek in some contexts

where English would demand that it be expressed. See N. V. Dunbar, “Three Notes on Aristophanes, CR 20 (1970), pp. 269-73. & νεᾶνι: Iphigenia is referred to again 8 νεᾶνις at 619, 660, and 1313. Normally in tragedy the term is reserved for young girls. The only other exception I have found is Menelaus’ address to Helen as νεᾶνι at Hel. 1288. In real life, Helen, like Iphigenia, would be in her thirties, but on stage, both, no doubt, wore the

masks of beautiful young women. εὔχου ... παρεῖναι: the present infini-

tive indicates continuance. Compare Orestes’ words to Electra at Cho.

212-13: εὔχου τὰ λοιπά ... Tvyxdvew καλῶς, Pray for continuing

Ξ ΕΞ success for the future’ [εὔχου: Mekler's ηὔχου creates problems, rather than solving them. The —herdsman can say-‘pray* without knowing anything of Iphigeniad’s feelings. If he says ‘you used to pray;, he must be speaking from knowledge. But an

Iphigenia who has been constantly and publicly praying for the chance to

slaughter Greeks—any Greeks—is wholly inconsistent with the character as

portrayed elsewhere in the play. See further the discussions of the passage

Commentary on lines 337-50

131

by J. C. G. Strachan, ‘Iphigenia and Human Sacrifice in Euripides’ Iphigenia

Taurica’ CP 71 (1976), pp. 131-40 and M. Cropp, ‘Notes on Euripides,

Iphigenia in Tauris; ICS 22 (1997), pp. 27-9.]

337-9. κἂν ... σφαγῆς: ‘And if you keep killing strangers of such quality,

Greece will pay off [your] murder by paying the penalty for the slaughter at Aulis! κἂν- καὶ éav, with the present subjunctive in an ‘open’ future condition, shows that the action is continuing. See WS § 2325. ἀναλίσκω suggests

‘using up, ‘exhausting. ἀποτείσει ... rivovoa: for the repetition in close

proximity, see ]. Jackson, Marginalia Scaenica, pp. 220-2, Diggle, Studies, pp.

66-7 and P. Ε, Pickering, ‘Verbal Repetition in Prometheus and Greek Tragedy generally} BICS 44 (2000), pp. 81-101. [ἀναλίσκῃς: Mekler, continuing to misunderstand the passage, proposed the aorist, ἀναλώσῃς ξ you sacrifice such strangers [this once] ... The

present of ἀναλίσκω is not found elsewhere in tragedy, but that is not

sufficient reason to emend it away here, where the present is needed.] 340-1. θαύμαστν᾽ ... ἄξενον: “You have said amazing things about the madman, whoever [he is, who] has come from the Greek land to the inhospitable

sea. For θαυμάστ᾽ ἔλεξας, with acc., compare the ordinary κακὰ or ἀγαθὰ Aéyew τινά, and, for something more unusual, Phoen. 200-1 ἡδονὴ δέτις / γυναιξὶ μηδὲν ὑγιὲς ἀλλήλας λέγειν ‘there is a certain pleasure for women in saying nothing nice about each other’. μανένθ᾽, like τοῦ pavévros at Aj.

726, the man who went mad. Ἕλληνος: Ἕλλην (adjectival), though strictly

the masculine form, sometimes qualifies feminine substantives. Compare

πατρίδος Ἕλληνος at 495 below. [μανένθ᾽: the transmitted τὸν φανένθ᾽ is difficult, because two men have

‘appeared. It could perhaps be argued that Orestes’ behaviour has been 80

extraordinary that the chorus focus exclusively on him, but μανένθ᾽ (a very

small change) makes clear why they do so. Cropp (ICS 22 (1997), pp. 29-30) defends φανένθ' as suggesting a ‘heroic epiphany) but that does not satisfactorily explain the singular: both Orestes and Pylades have been seen to be under divine protection.]342-3. elév . . . φροντιούμεθα: ‘Very well. You come and bring the strangers. We will plan the sacred rites here. Iphigenia speaks as the business-like priestess. elév 15 a conversational interjection (see Stevens, p. 34) which signals the end of one subject and a new stage in the discussion. On μολών at line-end, see above on 1. Strictly, & belongs with ἡμεῖς, but the slight slippage is easy between ‘you [there]’ and ‘we here. φροντιούμεθα: The future middle of φροντίζω is not found elsewhere, but, as with ἀναλίσκῃς at 238 above, that is most probably accidental. [Reiske’s ὅσια makes sense. Ls οἷα cannot stand for ofa ἔσται (‘how tlnngs will be’). Removing φροντιούμεθα requires major re-writing,] 344-50. The herdsman once dismissed, Iphigenia abandons her matter-of-fact tone, and speaks to her own heart. -

132

Commentary on lines 344--7

At moments of extreme surprise or hesitation, the Iliadic hero speaks πρὸς

ὃν μεγαλήτορα θυμόν. One such moment in particular is when he finds him.

self faced by overwhelming odds and has to decide whether to stand firm of

withdraw (11.403-10, 17.90-105, 21. 552-70, 22. 98-130). Three times in Od.

5, Odysseus addresses his own θυμός: first in dismay when the storm blows

up (298-312), then when debating with himself whether to abandon his raft

(355-64), again when wondering how to get ashore (407-23).At 20, 18- 21,he speaks to his own heart: τέτλαθι 8%, κραδίη ... Odysseus’ τέτλαθι is echoed

in the Theognidea (West IEG* I, 695-6), Theognis himself, perhaps, addresses

his θυμός (West IEG? I, 213). Archilochus gives the Homeric motif a more personal and emotional tone (West IEG? , fr. 128). For Euripides, the address to one's own heart, or spirit, becomes a means

to express indecision and inner turmoil. Two notable surviving examples

are in Med.: 1056~80 (on which see Mastronarde, Appendix A) and 1244-50 (where the addressee is, ostensibly, her hand). In 425 B, Aristophanes already parodies the motif at Ach. 480-8, in Dicaeopolis’ self-exhortation, with the absurd punch-line, ἄγαμαι καρδίας ‘Congratulations, heart’ The comedian exaggerates in particular the Euripidean tendency to address the heart as if it really were another person. Iphigenia’s self-address here can be seen as 8 development from the

passage in Od. 20. With surprise, Iphigenia recognizes in her own heart an emotional self, which seems alien and hard for her rational self to

explain. Compare, especially, Med. 1079 θυμὸς 8¢ κρείσσων τῶν ἐμῶν βουλευμάτων. Iphigenia will address her own ψυχή later, at 881, in a ΄ moment of crisis. The Homeric and Euripidean self-address has given rise to an extensive literature, branching out into exploration of the Greek concept of the self. Some notable contributions are: Ε Leo, Der Monolog.im Drama, W. Schadewaldt, Monolog and Selbstgesprich, ].'de Romilly, ‘Patience, mon coeur, L. Battezzato, Il monologo nel teatro di Euripide, and (particularly on Medea and from a philosophical and psychological perspective) C. Gill, Personality in Greek Epic, Tragedy, and Philosophy. 344-7.6 καρδία....λάβοις: ‘O long-suffering heart, in the past (μὲν) you were always gentle to strangers and disposed to pity, giving a measure of tears to kinship of race whenever you received Greek men into your hands’ This comes as no surprise, especially after 224-8 above. & καρδίὰ τάλαινα:

hearts are also addressed as ‘long-suffering} ‘enduring’at Or. 466 and Al.

᾿837. Aristophanes, Ach. 485, indicates that this was a recognizably Euripidean

—-turn-of-phrase--The-idea-may-have come from-Qdysseusrériafat Od. 20. 18 (see above on 344-50). γαληνὸς: adjective of two terminations, from

γαλήνη, ‘calm’ on the sea. Applying the word directly to people, or their acts (Hec. 1160), with the meaning ‘gentle, may be a Euripidean innovation. θούμόφυλον (=70 ὁμόφυλον) probably stands for an abstract (ἡ

Commentary on lines 348-33

133

ὁμοφυλία), rather than for a group of people, like 76 νῦν ὑπεῖκον at 327 above. ἡνίκ᾽ ... λάβοις: optative in a temporal clause denoting indefinite

frequency in the past. See WS § 2414. For the construction with ἡνίκα, compare Phil. 701-5 elpme ... ἁνίκ᾽ ἐξανείη δακέθυμος ἄτα ‘He used to make

his way ... at times when the mind-devouring plague abated. H. Jacobson (‘Homeric Iphigenia, CQ 50 (2000), 296-7) sees here a reminiscence of Achilles’ description of his change of feeling at I1. 21. 100 ff. Iphigenia’s logic is, however, different, and more obscure.,

348-50. νῦν &’ ... ἥκετε: ‘But now, as a result of the dreams by which I have been made savage, you will find me hostile, whoever [you are] who have

come. ἠγριώμεθα: ἀγριόω enters Euripides’ ethical vocabulary late in his

career, in connection with people who commit unnatural crimes. At El, 1031, Clytaemestra says that, but for the bringing of Cassandra, οὐκ

ἠγριώμην, 000 av ἔκτανον πόσιν Ἱ would not have turned savage, nor

killed my husband. Twice in Or. (226 and 387), the word is applied to Orestes’ hair, but Willink (on 226) points to ‘the subtle suggestion that himself, not his head/hair, has become dypios’ At 616, Tyndareus says that Electra is more guilty than Orestes, for she ‘made you savage against your mother’ (77} τεκούσῃ o ἠγρίωσί(ε)). In Sophocles’ most Euripidean play,

Phil., there is one—very telling—use of the word, when, at 1321, Neoptolemus says to Philoctetes σὺ δ᾽ ἠγρίωσαι. The germ of the idea 15 in Homer. At 1. 9. 629, Ajax urges Odysseus to give up the attempt to persuade Achilles:

dypiov év στήθεσσι θέτο μεγαλήτορα θυμόν. At 24. 41, Apollo expresses his horror at Achilles’ treatment of Hector’s body: λέων & ds dypia ofdev.

Already in Med. (104), the nurse speaks of Medea’s ἄγριον ἦθος. Compare Macbeth’s T dare do all that may become a man;/Who dares do more, is none. The sense is of a boundary crossed: man may become non-human. Here, Iphigenia is on the verge of committing an unnatural crime by killing her own brother. There is irony, too, in her declaration that the new arrivals

will find her an enemy whoever they may be. But she misjudges herself: her natural humanity will return when she sees the two young men. ἰδοκοῦσ᾽... BAémew: Nauck was surely right to condemn this line. It has the appearance of a flat-footed interpolation by someone who thought that the allusion to Iphigenia’s dream needed to be made more explicit. See Kovacs, Euripidea Tertia, p. 51 on this and other one-line interpolations,

- and also on 1155 below. Grammatically, we should expect οὐκέθ, not μηκέθ'.

On conditions under which μή may replace an expected οὐ, see WS 5 2737. The present passage does not fulfil any of these.]

351-3. καὶ τοῦτ᾽.

: . εὖ: ‘And so this has been true all along, I see it [now]: the

unfortunate, having themselves fared ill, are not kindly disposed to the more unfortunate’ The text as transmitted is manifestly corrupt (see below), but in the form printed makes tolerable sense. It is not obvious that one’s own mis-

fortunes would dry up one’s sympathy for people even more unfortunate,

134

Commentary on lines 351-3

but it might be so. It is not uncommon for a Euripidean character to remarj

that he or she has just recognized some long-standing truth. Thus, at Hipp,

359-60, the nurse, appalled, says: Κύπρις οὐκ ἄρ᾽ ἣν θεός, / ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τι μεῖζον.

ἄλλο γίγνεται θεοῦ δο the Cyprian was not after all a god, but something

greater than a god, if that exists. Later in the same play (1169), when hjs

-prayer to Poseidon has been granted, Theseus exclaims: ‘So you re

were my father all along!’ ws ἄρ᾽ ἦσθ' ἐμὸς πατὴρ! ὀρθῶς. The idea is expressed by dpa with the imperfect, a construction identified by Stevens ag

colloquial (p. 62). He provides a list of occurrences in Euripides (to which add Alc. 636). [ἰτοῖσι δυστυχεστέροις is Wecklein’s emendation of 15 τοῖσιν edruχεστέροις ‘the more fortunate, which is patently absurd. Orestes and Pylades “cannot be regarded as ‘more fortunate’ than Iphigenia (although some commentators have been prepared to maintain that). That the dead (or, here, shortly to be dead) are more fortunate than the living 15 a paradox that needs to be argued (as Admetus argues it at Alc. 935-40, or Cassandra at Tro. 38690). It cannot just be assumed. And why should it ever enter anyone’s head that the unfortunate might pity the more fortunate? ἤσθημαι: Ls ἠχθόμην Tam grieved, or ‘annoyed, would have to be taken as a (very awkward and inappropriate) parenthesis. J. Seager (Classical Journal, 1819) proposed : ἠσθόμην, which would have to be interpreted as an aorist of ‘understanding) like, for example, συνῆκα (συνίημι) ‘now I understand’ But such aorists

belong in dialogue, nor is αἰσθάνομαι ever found in that sense.

ἤσθημαι is

᾿ Platnauer’s suggestion, based on Hipp. 1403 τρεῖς dvras ἡμᾶς dAed) ἤσθη-

μαι, μία ‘We were three, and, I see it, one deity has destroyed us’ It must be acknowledged, however, that ἤσθημαι is not easy palacographically. αὐτοὶ

κακῶς wpagavres with οἱ δυστυχεῖς comes close to tautology, but may just

pass on the ground that the speaker wants to stress that it is precisely these people’s misfortunes that influence their feelings. Even so, one might have

expected the present, πράσσοντες. To account for the aorist, Dindorf (wdat

καλῶς 7.) and Rauchenstein (αὐτοί ποτ᾽ εὖ 7.) proposed emendations in the sense ‘having themselves been fortunate’ But that adds an unwanted

accessory idea. That the miserable do not feel sorry for the more miserable is enough. Diggle and Kovacs follow Ε W, Schmidt in condemning the lines as spurious. But the fact that the text of L is nonsense does not prove that. One expects some sort of feeble sense from an interpolator, (as with 349),

not downright nonsense. Besides, this type of explanation of one’s feelings is

{ypically Euripidean. Monk (who did not, apparently, understand the ἄρα

--construction) objected-tothe address tothe chorus in'what he saw as a soliloquy. But if one imagines the play staged, it seems natural enough that Iphigenia, having established the state of her feelings by the address to her own heart, should seek to explain it to her friends, who have asserted their presence in the action. IP is, unfortunately, very fragmentary here, but

Commentary on lines 354-71

135

coincides, as far as it goes, with L. On ἠσθόμην and ἤσθημαι, see Diggle,

Euripidea, pp. 462-3, on the aorist of ‘understanding} M. Lloyd, “The Tragic

Aorist, CQ 49 (1999), pp. 43-4.]

354-8. Some Greeks have arrived,and been captured for sacrifice, but Iphigenia

finds, to her surprise, that she does not feel sorry for them, ‘whoever they may be’ She has explained her feelings to herself and to the chorus, and now

her thoughts turn to some Greeks whom she would be only too happy to sacrifice, but who have never come her way: Helen and Menelaus. That she holds Helen, above all, and Menelaus responsible for the attempt to sacrifice her has been made clear from the beginning of the play (8 and 14). The chorus will enjoy the idea of Helen as sacrificial victim at 439-46, and Iphigenia will curse her at 525. In other plays, Menelaus is blamed for the sacrifice at Andr. 624-5 and Or. 658-9, both Helen and Menelaus at Εἰ. 1027-9 and Tro. 370-2. Later, in IA, Euripides will bring Menelaus on stage demanding the sacrifice from a hesitant and tormented Agamemnon. See

also on 13-14 above. διὰ πέτρας Συμπληγάδας: the crucial boundary. See above on 123-5. οὔτε ... ov: poetic and emotional. The speaker begins a

co-ordinated expression, but breaks off, and, as it were, begins again, as, for example, at Med. 1348 See Denniston, p. 510 and Kiithner-Gerth ii, p. 289.

Ἑλένην ... Μενέλεων: consecutive lines begin with uu for x in order to

accommodate epic names. See above on 3-5 and Introduction, p. bocviii.

Moreover, Mevélewy is scanned υ -- by synecphonesis of -ewv. On the . scansion of MevéAews in Buripides, see Kovacs, Euripidea Tertia, p. 28. ἥτις .+ « émijyay’: ‘any ship which might have brought ... The aorist, ἐπήγαγίε),

follows the earlier ἦλθε by assimilation (GMT 5 559). ἀντετιμωρησάμην:

the aorist indicative is used in a final clause depending on a main clause which is unreal, so that the subject cannot achieve his or her purpose. Thus, Io, at PV 747-50, asks why she has not thrown herself from ‘this rugged rock’

80 as to be freed from all her sufferings. τί 877 ... otk ... ἔρριψ᾽ ἐμαυτὴν τῇσδ᾽ ἀπὸ στύφλου mérpas,/ ὅπως ... τῶν πάντων πόνων ἀπηλλάγην. See WS § 2185 and ΟΜΤ 9 333. τὴν ... ἐκεῖ: ‘Giving in exchange the Aulis here for the one there. By ‘Aulis’ she means, of course, ‘sacrifice’. For dvreriθημι meaning ‘to give in exchange) compare Hipp. 620.

[ἐπήγαγ᾽ (Haupt) is an easy correction of L's ἀπήγαγ᾽ Matthiaé’s dv ἤγαγὶ,

approved by Platnauer, is at least unnecessary, and may, as Hermann thought, be wrong, We want ‘a ship such as to bring her ..., not a ship such as would have brought her’ (had nothing else prevented it). Barnes’s. Μενέλεων

(Uu-) for 15 MeveAa.6v (υυ ----} is metrically necessary.]

359-71. For a list of passages in the play in which Iphigenia alludes to the sacrifice, see above on 8-9 and Introduction, p. xxxi. She is deeply traumatized—Euripides” depiction of her justifies the modern concept— and the scene at Aulis comes back to her with terrible vividness (compare 852-3 below). Other Euripidean victims go to their deaths willingly: the

136

Commentary on lines 359-63

motif of sacrifice provides the opportunity for a display of courage ang altruism. In IA, Iphigenia eventually conforms to that pattern. But Aeschylus’ Iphigenia was unwilling, and that version is, for strong dramatic reasons, adopted here. [On the theory that sacrificial animals were induced to ‘nod’ to signify willingness to be sacrificed, see Ε S. Naiden, “The Fallacy of the Willing Victiny JHS 127 (2007), pp. 61-73. Perhaps we should see a distinction between ‘human and animal victim, rather than a similarity.] 359-60. οὗ ... πατήρ: Aeschylus’ Iphigenia is lifted up over the altar. like a she-goat’ (δίκαν χιμαΐίρας -Ag: 232), but Euripides’ χειρούμενοι (see Chantraine s. yeip) adds a touch of graphic brutality, with the image of this hitherto tenderly protected girl being subdued like a struggling animal, a calf (ὥστε μόσχον). Marriage can be associated with violation, as well as with fertility and rejoicing. A bride is like a beautiful, ripe fruit out of the pickers’ reach (Sappho, PLF=Voigt 105), or a flower in a rich man’s garden

(Catullus, 61. 91-3), but she 15 to be delivered ‘into the hands of a rough

. .youth’ (G. Lee, translating Catullus, 61. 56, fero iuveni in manus). But much rougher hands than a bridegroom’s seized Iphigenia. ἔσφαζον: again the conative imperfect. See on 26-7 above, and on σφάζω on 8-9. 6 γεννήσας

πατήρ: the phrase neatly fills the section of a trimeter after the caesura, and

may seem to carry no particular significance (as at 499 below). But here it is

heavy with meaning: the father who gave her life presides over the attempt

, to take it away. For the same idea, compare IA 1177 (where Clytaemestra

- speaks) ἀπώλεσέν o) ὦ τέκνον, 9) φυτεύσας πσ.τηρ

[οὗ Pierson’s emendation must bé right. L offersof*wh, but there is no possible antecedent.]

361-3. οἴμοι . . . τεκόντος: momentarily, words fail Iphlgema, and she gives an inarticulate cry of distress. Then she explains: for I do not [cannot]

. forget... ὅσας . . .γονάτων re:'How many times did I shoot out my hands towards my father’s chin and knees!’ éfaxovri{w comes from ἄκων, ‘javelin’. She tries desperately to touch her father as a suppliant, but cannot

reach him. See ]. Gould, ‘Hiketeia, JHS 93 (1973), pp. 74-103 (= Myth,

Ritual, Memory, and Exchange, pp. 22—-71), with, on the act in particular, pp.

74-7. ὅσας how many), instead of ὁσάκις ‘how often’ The adjective is used

adverbially. There is no close parallel from Euripides’ time, or earlier. Od. 2.

151 τιναξάσθην πτερὰ πυκνά, ‘[two eagles] beat their wings rapidly’

(compare Sappho, PLF=Voigt 1. 11) comes nearest. Callimachus may have had this passage from IT in mind when he describes the infant Artemis

—tryingto touch-the-chin-of her father; Zeus: πολλὰς 8¢ μάτην ἐτανύσσατο - χεἳρας (Hymn to Diana, 27) ‘many times she stretched out her hands in

vain’ Tragic pathos becomes whimsy. yeveiov . . γονάτων τε: genitives of the thing aimed at (WS § 1349). For single connective e, see Denmston, p. 497. τοῦ τεκόντος: ‘my father. See on 274-5 above,

Commentary on lines 364--8

137

[τότ᾽: Again (see above on 94), the Aldine editor shows that he knows how

to scan iambic trimeters. Nor does 155 7009’ make sense. ἱέξαρτωμένηϊ

would mean clinging to’ (hanging from’), as the nurse clings to Phaedra’s hand at Hipp. 325. But the idea of ‘clinging to’ is incompatible with ἐξηκόντισα, which shows that she could not reach. Murray and Diggle enclose the word with commas, as a sort of parenthesis, so as to separate it from γονάτων. But that depends on modern punctuation, and, in any case, to what is she clinging? Platnauer would take the participle ‘with yovdrwy only; 50 that Iphigenia would be reaching for her father’s chin while clinging to his knees, But then τε, which joins γενείου to γονάτων, is unwanted. Moreover, if she is clinging to any part of her father, we must have moved back in time fron the moment when she was seized and lifted up (359), and we lose the picture of the girl struggling and reaching out in vain, and have to substitute one which borders on the ridiculous. West, followed by Kovacs and Cropp, condemns the whole line. But τοῦ τεκόντος is not ‘redundant

after 360’ (Cropp). My own suspicion is that ἐξαρτωμένη is an early emen-

dator’s (superficially attractive) replacement for some word, or words, which had been lost, or become illegible.] 364. λέγουσα τοίαδ᾽: ‘saying this sort of thing ...’ Iphigenia reconstructs in coherent form what she said (or thought) at the time. Euripides wants his

audience to comprehend fully Iphigenia’s pitiful fate, so he fills out Aeschylus’ reticent, but powerful, λιτὰς δὲ καὶ κληδόνας πατρῴους ‘her prayers, her cries of “father”. .. (Ag. 228). The gagging of the victim (Ag. 234-7) is omitted: it could not be easily accommodated here. Nor can we imagine this Iphigenia cursing her father’s house. 364-5. νυμφεύομαι νυμφεύματ᾽: etymological word-play (‘figura etymologica’). Cropp’s translation of αἰσχρά here as ‘ugly, rather than ‘shameful, is good. αἰσχρός is the opposite of καλός, both terms of traditional, aristocratic morality. See further below.on 385-6. vuudeduar’: internal accusative like ‘run a race’ πρὸς, with genitive, ‘from someone, ‘at someone’s hands’

See LS] πρός IL1. σέθεν-- σοῦ (lyric and tragedy). ΄ 365-8. μήτηρ & . .. σέθεν: ‘But [my] mother—while you are killing me—and

the Argive women are now celebrating [me] with marriage hymns, and the whole house is full of pipe-music. But I am dying at your hands. No need to explain why in this play Euripides chooses that Clytaemestra should stay at home, not accompany her daughter to Aulis. ‘You are killing me’: the repetition seems incredulous. The whole situation is bizarre: while her father is killing her, her mother is singing her wedding-hymn. ὑμεναίοισιν: dative of accompanying circumstances. See WS § 1527. With ὑμνοῦσιν, the play is purely on sound, not on etymology. But the distinction would not have its modern significance to a Greek poet, who did not think in terms of scientific etymology. αὐλεῖται: the passive of an intransitive verb. “The construction is often found in poetry with verbs of singing, dancing and shouting’

138

Commentary on lines 369--7]

—Wilkins on Hcld. 401, where he quotes examples, including the present

passage. Compare, for example, El. 691 ὀλολύξεται πᾶν δῶμα ‘the whole

house will be full of shouts of triumph:

[ἐμὲ: Reiske. L. writes ἐμὴ, naturally enough after μήτηρ, but the. object needs to be expressed both for κατακτείνοντος and ὑμνοῦσιν. νῦν (Heath)

is an obvious correction of Ls νιν (‘him, ‘her, ᾿ them’). The point is being made that the actions are contemporaneous. ὀλλύμεσθα: p's metrical correction of LP’s ὀλλύμεθα.]

369-71, Aidys . .. δόλῳ: ‘So, after all, Hades was the Achilles, not the son of Peleus, whom you offered me as husband, to bring [me] by the conveyance

of a carriage to a bloody wedding by deceit. At IA 460, Agamemnon says τὴν

δ᾽ αὖ τάλαιναν παρθένον---τί wapbévov;/ Ἄιδης vw, dis ἔοικε, νυμφεύσει τάχα Ἂξ for the poor maiden—why say “maiden”? Hades, as it seems, will

soon make her his bride. In the Greek imagination there has been a longstanding connection between marriage and death. For Artemidorus, the interpreter of dreams, one portends the other; τέλη μὲν γὰρ ἀμφότερα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εἶναι νενόμισται καὶ 6 yduos καὶ 6 θάνατος (Oneirocritica 49, and cf. 65). For an unmarried girl, death 18 a sort of wedding, so Antigone sees the cave where she is to be immured as both tomb and bridal chamber (Ant. 891). She will marry the lord of Acheron (Ant. 816). In the Palatine

.Anthology, death. comes in place of a wedding for many young girls (probably mostly fictional). See 7. 182, 186, 188, 486-90, 568, 711, 712, and 566 the important article by R. Seaford, “The Tragic Wedding’ JHS 107 (1987), pp. 106-30 and, for an extended treatment of the motif in certain tragedies, R. Rehm, Marriage to Death. ἁρμάτων ὄχοις: the mention of the vehicle is significant (compare 213-16 above). After the marriage-feast at her parents’ house, an Athenian bride was fetched by the bridegroom to be driven to her new home. The drive was part of the marriage ritual. Representations show the vehicle as anything from a modest pony-trap to a four-horse chariot. See ' J.H., Oakley and R. H. Sinos, The Wedding in Ancient Athens, figs. 62-81 and 99, with text, pp. 26~34. The expression here is grandiosely redundant. Both

ἅρμα and ὄχος mean ‘carriage. For the same combination, compare Hipp. 1166. 7jv ἄῤ: The same construction as at 351: ‘it was true all along; I see it

now. προτείνας: Coincident aorist participle: ‘by holding out whom (like a bait) you brought .... ἐπόρθμευσας: strictly, Ο convey over water’ as Sophocles uses it at Trach. 802, but extending to conveyance from one terri-

tory to another, as at Cho. 685. On πορθμεύω in this play, see on 265-6.

[Ἀχιλλεὺς: M, Haslam (‘Iphigenia’s Putative Last Words, AJP 98 (1977),

~—p-246) proposes éxeivosyobserving Ἀχιλλεύς is-surely an intrusive gloss. No.

. Iphigenia uses ‘Achilles’ for ‘bridegroom, just as she uses ‘Aulis’ for ‘sacrifice’ at 358, wporeivas: L offers προσεῦπας, interpreted by editors in the past who accepted it-as ‘whom you addressed as my husband’ But, apart from the mean-

ing, a finite verb here causes difficulty with the following clause, év ... δόλῳ.

Commentary on lines 372--7

139

The Aldine editor removed the asyndeton by adding &’ after dpudrwy, but then με or éué is needed to show that the object of ἐπόρθμευσας is not ὅν (Achilles). Bothe proposed the participle προσεΐίσας, with μ’ in place of the Aldine’s δ' But, with the first verb turned into a participle, μ᾽ 18 unnecessary: ‘me can be understood from pot. mpo σείσας appealed to Murray and Platnauer. Eunpldes uses προσείω (Ὧο wave before’) literally at Her. 1218 and

Ba. 930. But ‘waving Achilles in front of me’ is not a happy image. Badham's προτεΐνας (preferred by most editors) is convincing. Compare Hel. 28 τοὐμὸν δὲ κάλλος ... Kimpis mporeivac(a) ... νικᾷ ‘But, by offering as bait my beauty, the Cyprian won’ For a detailed defence of Ἀχιλλεὺς,566 G. Tsopanakis ‘On Euripides’ Iph. Taur. 369 Π Hellenika 34 (1982-3), pp. 203-7.] 372-6. ἐγὼ . . . μέλαθρα: Iphigenia’s mind goes back before the scene at Aulis to the moment when she left home. ἐγὼ 8¢: the contrast is with Agamemnon,

the subject of the relative clause which occupies the two preceding lines. λεπτῶν ... ἔχουσ): she both keeps (ἔχουσα) her eye (face) behind her veil and looks through it (διά). Cassandra, at Ag. 1178, speaks of her prophecy as ‘no longer looking out like a newly-married bride from (through) her veil’ οὐκέτ᾽ ἐκ καλυμμάτωνί.... δεδορκὼς veoyduov νύμφης δίκην. οὔτ᾽

ἀνειλόμην χεροῖν: I did not pick him up in my arms’ Orestes was still a baby (231-3). οὐ συνῆψ᾽: Ἱ did not join my mouth to my sister; i.e. to her mouth.

ὑπ᾽ αἰδοῦς: the thought of the sexual initiation awaiting her makes her too

shy to lift her veil. She is about to become ἃ woman, no longer a child with her brother and sister. οὔτ’ . . .ot 566 above on 354--8,. ὡς ἰοῦσ᾽: ‘with the thought that I was going.... ὡς means that it was in her mind. See on 171 above. [οὔτ᾽ ἀνειλόμην: Tyrwhltts correction of Ls 'rom'ov εἱλόμην. Hermann adopted ἀνειλόμην, but preferred τ᾽ οὐκ to οὔτ᾽᾿ which, before Diggle’s edition, was almost universally adopted, although Monk and Jerram print οὔτ᾽ and Platnauer sounds a note of caution. In fact, there does not seem to be any case for treating re οὐ as alternative to οὔτε. Hermann himself cites 1367 and 1477 below as comparable, but there the second re makes

all the difference. See further on 1367. By contrast, οὔτ᾽ ... od-is well

attested. κασιγνήτῃ: L (or possibly Triclinius) writes κασιγνήτω (dat.) above the line. But Iphigenia has dealt with her brother. Now she turns to

her sister.]

376--7. πολλὰ δ᾽... πάλιν: ‘But I put off many embraces to a later time, assuming that I should come back again to Argos. πολλὰ is emphatic by its posi- -

tion. ἀπεθέμην . . . ἐς αὖθις: compare Plato, Gorgias 449b dp’ οὖν ἐθελήσαις

Qv ...T0 ... μῆκος τῶν λόγων ... εἰς αὖθις ἀποθέσθαι; ‘So would you like to defer to a later occasion the extended style of speech?’ αὖθις means ‘at a

later time] at 1312 and 1432 below. eis αὖθις (εἰσαῦθις) ‘until later’ appears in Aristophanes (Ecc. 983) and in fourth-century prose. ἀποτίθεμαι can carry the implication of saving up something nice for oneself: Soov 76

χρῆμα τοῦ πλακοῦντος ἀπέθετο ‘What a monster of a flat-cake he put

14 0

Commentary on lines 378-91

away for himself’ (Sommerstein, translating Knights 1219). That would be appropriate here. Iphigenia uses conversational idiom. 378-9. é€ olww . . . {nAwudrwy: From what fine things and objects of envy of your father’s you have .gone ...\ πατρὸς goes with both καλῶν and ζηλωμάτων ‘what a noble and ehviable heritage! [καλῶν is Reiske’s necessary correction of Us κακῶν.]

380-91. An address to a god makes a characteristic ending for a scene in

tragedy. See, for example, 1082-8 and 1230-3 below. These lines can be seen

as a variation: Iphigenia meditates on the goddess’s nature and behaviour,

without addressing her directly. Ion, also ending a scene (Ion 436-51),

addresses his accusations of moral inconsistency and hypocrisy directly to the gods, who prescribe moral laws for men, but break them themselves. ‘Tt is no longer just to call us men bad ἰἔ we imitate what seems fair to the gods, Blame our teachers!’ οὐκέτ᾽ ἀνθρώπους κακοὺς | Aéyew δίκαιον, εἰ τὰ τῶν θεῶν καλὰ } μιμούμεθ' ἀλλὰ τοὺς διδάσκοντας τάδε. And there Ion leaves

the matter for the audience to grapple with, in the light of what they already know (much more than he does) and of the ensuing action. |

Iphigenia begins with a similar accusation of hypocrisy. Artemis treats human beings who have had contact with blood as polluted, while she herself enjoys (ἥδεται 384) human sacrifices. But, unlike Ion, Iphigenia goes on to reject the accusation. The goddess cannot be like that. Then she returns momentarily to an episode in her own family history: the feast at which Tantalus served up his own son to the gods. That too is incredible: the gods

could not enjoy eating a child. Then comes her explanation of the cult for

- which she officiates: the Taurians are blood-thirsty people who foist their

own taste on the gods. She does not believe that any god is bad.

One point of vital importance for the interpretation of this passage is that nowhere in this play 15 it ever suggested that Artemis demanded the sacrifice ᾿ of Iphigenia. On the contrary, it was Artemis who saved her (28-30). Even Aeschylus shied away from saying in so many words that Artemis demanded a sacrifice that he calls ἄνομος. For him, it was Calchas who called for it,

προφέρων Ἄρτεμιν (see on 17 above). Euripides makes Iphigenia go further.

Agamemnon had vowed to sacrifice the most beautiful thing that the year had produced, but it was Calchas who ‘awarded the prize for beauty’ to Iphigenia (20-4). He it is whom she blames, and she will rejoice at the news of his death (533). | The exoneration of Artemis, then, presents no problem, and it comes at an opportune moment for the audience, as well as for the plot of the play. The --cultimage now on-their soil has-been the-object of a-horrible-and barbarous cult. Could Artemis, a goddess whom they worship, really have approved of this? Now the disturbing question 15 answered, but the answer that Iphigenia chooses might still prove disquieting for the more lively-minded spectators.

If it is their thirst for blood that the uncivilized Taurians satisfy through

Commentary on.lines 380-6

141

their cult, what are we to think of the civilized Greeks who tried to sacrifice Iphigenia? Modern commentators see these lines in a historical context, but on some

readers in the past—Goethe, Guimond de la Touche—they made a direct and powerful impact (Introduction, pp. lvi-lvii). 380-4. τὰ τῆς θεοῦ .. . βροτοκτόνοις: ‘But I blame the ingenuity of the god-

dess, in that for mortals (μέν), if one of them has contact with bloodshed, or

again (7 καὶ) touches with his hand childbirth or a corpse, she keeps [him]

from [her] altars, as considering him polluted. But she herself (8¢) enjoys

man-slaying sacrifices. The juxtaposition ἤδεται βροτοκτόνοις is calculatedly shocking. Compare 35 above and 388 below. On the ritual pollution associated with birth and death, see Parker, Miasma, pp. 32~73. For Euripides, ‘'see Alc. 22-3, 98-100, Hipp. 1437-9, Auge, TrGF 5. 1, fr. 266. σοφίσματα: of itself, the word is neutral. ἥτες: ‘in that she .... Compare OT 1184 ὅστις

πέφασμαι φύς 7’ ad’ ὧν οὐ χρὴῆν ‘in that I have been revealed both as

born from those from whom I should not have been born ... On ὅστις with a definite antecedent, see A. C. Moorhouse, The Syntax of Sophocles,

Mnemosyne Suppl. 75, p. 265. ἣν = édv. On 1) καὲὶ, see Denniston, p. 306 (iii).

- For the separation of τὰ from σοφίσματα (Chyperbaton’), compare τὰ ... ἐστιάματα at 387 below. In both lines, an extra word has been added to the ‘filhng of the normal ‘genitive sandwich’

385--6. οὐκ ἔσθ᾽... ἀμαθίαν: Tt is not possible that Zeus’ consort, Leto, gave birth to such great (moral) obtuseness. Already in the Iliad (13. 631-3), Menelaus

complains of Zeus' surprising lack of sense in favouring violent and insolent men. ἀμαθία (with the adjective ἀμαθής), denoting Jack of learning’ (ignorance), or ‘inability to learn’ (stupidity), comes into circulation in the later fifth century. It is found in Herodotus, Thucydides, and Aristophanes, as well as in Euripides, but it is Euripides who gives it particular moral overtones.

In the one occurrence in Sophocles (TrGF 4, fr. 924), ἀμαθία is characterized

as a δυσπάλαιστον κακόν ‘a bad thing hard to struggle with; but there is no context to show exactly what he meant by the word. See, however, Pearson’s

interesting note (The Fragments of Sophocles ΠῚ (Cambridge, 1917), p. 97). At

Her.347, Amphltryon, citing Zeus’ neglect of his own son and grandsons, says ἀμαθῆής τις el θεός, ἢ δίκαιος οὐκ ἔφυς ‘You are either a morally obtuse sort

of god, or bad by nature. Wilamowitz remarks on that passage that ἀμαθία is

not merely ‘ignorance, which can be remedied by learning. Thucydides (6. 39. -

2) makes a similar distinction to Ampbhitryon's: εἰ μὴ μανθάνετε κακὰ σπεύδοντες, 7 ἀμαθέστατοί ἐστε ... ἢ ἀδικώτατοι, εἰ εἰδότες. τολμᾶτε.

Ὕου are either extremely stupid, if you do not realize that you are pursuing

bad objectives, or wicked, if you dare to.do it knowingly’ (compare IA 394 οὐ γὰρ ἀσύνετον 70 θεῖον). At El. 294, Orestes declares that there is no compas-

sion in ἀμαθία. That is found in wise men (σοφοῖσι). In the next century Plato uses ἀμαθία regularly with moral overtones. He links it to κακέα and

142

Commentary on lines 386-8

ἀδικία, and opposes it to σοφία, δικαιοσύνη, and ἀρετή, as, for example, at

Rep. 3504 διωμολογησάμεθα τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἀρετὴν εἶναι καὶ σοφίαν, τὴν8¢ ἀδικίαν κακίαν τε καὶ ἀμαθίαν. See also the preceding argument at 350b—c and Theaetetus 170c and 176c. Aristophanes uses ἀμαθία once (at Frogs 1109) and ἀμαθής a number of times, always in its ordinary sense of ‘ignorant’ or ‘stupid’ But the three occurrences in Clouds deserve attention. First, at 135, Socrates’ student calls Strepsiades ἀμαθῆς; then, at 492, Socrates calls him ἀμαθὴς καὶ BdpBapos. Finally, at 842, Strepsiades, after his ‘conversion;, assures his son that he will

realize ws ἀμαθὴς el καὶ παχύς how ignorant and thick you are’ So ἀμαθής

is used by Socrates himself, or by those who have come under his influence. It is tempting to wonder whether the real Socrates favoured the word, and

used it, not in the ordinary sense in which Aristophanes uses it, but with the - moral connotations that it acquires in Euripides and Plato.

On El 294, Denniston observes well: “To a Greek morals were more

intimately connected on the one side with aesthetics (cf. καλόν, aloypdv), on

the other, with intellect, than to us. It might be added that, while the aesthetic connection is very old and deeply rooted, the intellectual one, though not new, comes into its own in Euripides’ time. Bond on Her. 347, while generally

accepting Euripides ‘moral’ sense of ἀμαθία, wants to take it in that particular

passage in its ordinary sense of ‘'stupid. He is influenced by the previous line:

σῴζειν 8€ τοὺς σοὺς οὐκ ἐπίστασαι φίλους. But there is surely irony there.

- Otherwise, ‘You are too stupid to find a way out’ would be dismally flat.

- [ἔτικτεν is Porson’s emendation of Ls ἔτεκεν ἄν. The aorist with.dy, the past potential (WS § 1784), meaning ‘might have, ‘would have, does not combine

naturally with οὐκ éorw ὅπως (It is not possible that ...”), and I find no

parallel quoted. ἔτικτεν is commended by Kitihner-Gerth (i, p. 213). Since Buripides seems to use érexov and the imperfect, ἔτικτον, indifferently,

probably for metrical convenience, a scribe could have slipped into writing one for the other. av could have appeared as a metrical plug, or through d1ttography of -εν] 386-8. éyw ... βορᾷ: ‘But no. I regard as unbelievable the feasting of Tantalus for the gods, that [the gods] enjoyed feeding on a child! On ἥδομαι, see above on 380-4. It is from Pindar (Ol 1.36-51) that we first hearof a preexisting story that Tantalus killed and cooked his little son and served him to the gods at dinner. It seems that some god, or gods, ate part of the boy’s shoulder, so that, when the child was resuscitated, the missing piece had to be replaced with ivory. Like Euripides Iphigenia, Pindar rejects the story. It —arose;he-says-from-the-neighbours-malicious-gossip;-but-he-will tell a tale different from that of his predecessors. He prefaces his version by declaring that it is best to tell honourable tales about the gods, and ends it with ‘I can-

not possibly call any god a glutton’ (ψαστρίμαργον). Pindar does not claim, as one might have expected, to be telling the truth, but to be telling the sort

Commentaryon lines 389-91

143

of story that ought to be told. In the Hellenistic period, Lycophron (152-5) claims that it was Demeter who ate the piece of shoulder, and a scholium on the passage says that Tantalus dished up his own son as an extreme demonstration of hospitality, and that Demeter was distracted by the loss of her daughter. According to Servius (on Georg. 3. 7), Tantalus was trying to test the gods’ perspicacity. In fact, we do not know exactly what version, or versions, of the story was known to Euripides, but he and members of his audi-

ence would certainly have known at least Ol 1. Hence the abruptness and brevity of the allusion. The one feature that Iphigenia is concerned to deny is the one highlighted by Pindar: No god ate the child-meat. For the sources for our knowledge of the story, see C. Robert, Die griechische Heldensage,

pp- 288-92. μὲν οὖν: the combination is common in dialogue when one

speaker corrects another, but it is also found in continuous speech, where the speaker, as here, corrects herself. See Denniston, p. 478-9. ἡσθῆναι: the subject, τοὺς θεούς, has to be supplied, ἄπιστα κρίνω is made to govern

both a direct object (ἐστιάματα) and a clause in indirect speech.

389--9]. τοὺς &’. . . κακόν: ‘But the people here, being themselves man-slayers,

I believe foisted the nasty thing on to the goddess. For I do not think that

any god is bad. For assertions that gods never do bad things, see Her. 1341-6 and the famous fragment from Bellerophon, TrGF 5. 1, fr. 286b. 7 εἰ θεοί τι

δρῶσι φαῦλον, οὐκ εἰσὶν θεοί (where Kannicht prefers φαῦλον from

Plutarch to the more familiar αἰσχρὸν from Stobaeus and Plutarch elswhere). But neither passage is strictly parallel to Τ, and that in Her. is highly problematic in the context of the play. φαῦλον suggests contempt, as well as condemnation, as does κακόν. Here, Iphigenia’s thought has evolved from criticism of the goddess’s inconsistency through disbelief that a god could behave like that to the explanation that the fault in fact lies in the Taurians, who attribute their own savagery to the goddess. Euripides gives us no reason to suppose that Iphigenia is wrong, Artemis has already saved her from sacrifice, and in the course of the play it will indeed become clear that she is right, for the goddess will acquiesce in the transfer of her image from the barbarian land to Greece, where the savage rite will survive only in symboli-

cal form, Contrast the old man’s poignant appeal to Aphrodite at Hipp. 118-

20: ‘If a man, his heart vehement through youth, says foolish things, seem not to hear. For gods should be wiser than men. There, we know already what Aphrodite is like, how terrible she is in her anger and malice, how pathetically the old man is misjudging the divine character.

[τὴν θεὸν: Ls τὸν θεὸν 15 an easy mistake of assimilation. Markland honout-

ably attributes τὴν to a friend, whose name, however, he does not reveal,

ovdéva: Nauck conjectured οὐδὲν, which could be right. The neuter (‘noth-

ing of gods, ‘no element of gods’) would be stronger. At OT 1195-6, the MSS

transmit βροτῶν οὐδένα μακαρίζω, but metrical correspondence with 1203 shows that Hermann's οὐδὲν 15 right. In both passages, the corruption

144

Commentary on lines 391-455

would have arisen through a scribe who, deliberately or accidentally, simpli-

fied the syntax.] 391. There is nothing here to indicate that Iphigenia leaves the stage, nor any. thing after 455 to suggest that she re-enters. For a character in tragedy to remain on stage during a strophic choral song is by no means unusual. The phenomenon is discussed by Ritchie, Authenticity, pp. 115-16 and Taplin, Stagecraft, pp. 53~4 and 109-13, both of whom give further references, Sometimes the presence of the character may be dramatically motivated. ᾿ Thus, Iolaus at Held. 353-80 and Andromache at Andr. 11746 are suppliants - at the altar. But there may be no particular motive, as with Alcmene at Held. 748-83, or Hecuba in Tro., who remains on stage throughout the play, There is no need to try to imagine what the actor playing Iphigenia might be doing

during the song. All he needs to do is to keep still. The chorus are moving as

well as singing, and the attention of the audience is drawn to them. 392-455. The song begins by invoking the Symplegades, the ‘dark blue’ rocks constantly present in this play as the point of transit between unfriendly, barbarian lands and home. Thinking of Greeks who have crossed that boundary, the chorus first choose a heroine from the past, Io. Then they make an abrupt transition to their present, asking who' are these latest arrivals. How and why did they make this perilous journey? Their suggested answer is anachronistic, as is their reference to the running-track of Achilles (436). In their dramatic character, they do not know that Achilles is dead.

The song seems to have moved out of its imagined time, The last stanza comes 85 a surprise, as they return graphicaily to their own present, with the brutal vision of Helen having her throat cut, as the libation is sprinkled round her head. Then, in mid-stanza, there is another abrupt change to their ᾽ own painful longing for a rescuer to come. They do not know, but we, the audience, can guess, that the rescuer has come,

METRE 392-455 I

392-406 = 407-21

1

-υυ--

2

-ουαὐ-ἰυυ-υ----

3 Uu-UlUU

4 -UU|u-

-uul-u—|

υἱύυυ-

._._S_Ufiu_uu._.ull

6 7

- -οἶὧυ . --U-UUU ‘U-U-

9

--υὐ-ῦυ--

8

U—UI—

cho alc dec

-

᾿

.

u—-|H

υὔῦυ--

iadod A

-

ia trim cat

ἐσποσ χρῖχ

-

pher ia trim ia sp

hag

Commentary on lines 392-455

145

10 u-Uju-u|u-u|-u-u--

archiloch

12 ——-UU-U-

glyc

11

13

I

--

--

---οσκτυὐ--|!}

2sp

+ pher

422-38 = 439-55

1 _____ ———UU-UUU-}_

glyc=pol

2 ——uu-|u-

tel

3

—I——U υ--᾿

4 -οηδυυ-υυ--} 5 U-=U- —UU- U-—=] 6 υ--ῦ-υυ-

7 - - .-[-υυ-

8 ---τυϊτυυ9 ——yl|-uu10 ———-vu11 υυ--

12 -πττυῦυ13

—-y-vu-

14 —-uu-

15

16

17

-u|u-

-ἰσυ -ἰστυυ.--

-U---UU-

---υὐ---}

ι

+ dod B

+ pol ia~cho trim cat Ν

heptasyll heptasyll heptasyll heptasyll + pol

dod B

heptasyll

2cho

+ pol

+ pol

+ pher

The first of these two stanzas combines aeolo-choriambic with iambic. The second 18 almost pure aeolo-choriambic of a type.found especially in Euripides’ later pldys. In both stanzas, word-end quite often corresponds in strophe and antistrophe. Both stanzas end with the most common aeolochoriambic clausula, a pherecratean. In the first stanza, in both strophe and antistrophe, there is a clear break in the sense after an earlier pherecratean,

at 6 (398=412). The combination of rhetorical pause with the clausular

rhythm empbhasizes the division of the stanza into two sections The first two cola, 392 =407, are normally printed as one, but that produces a most peculiar pattern. ~UU— can certainly be followed by

—UU —U—(-), as in asclepiadic metres. It is the prolongation —uu—uuU ...

which seems to make the difference.I can find only one parallel in Euripides,

Ion 1074=1090:

U-u-|-uu. -ἰυυ-υυτυυ-ὖ-That is unmistakably two cola, although the poet chooses to soften the rhythmic discontinuity by synartesis. Here, in contrast, he marks the break by word-end. Then the ear is momentarily cheated by word-end into

146

Commentary on lines 392-455

hearing another choriamb opening the following colon: -uuU-|UU-U--,

There is metrical pause at the end of 3, 4, and 5. 5 could, in isolation, be an ionic dimeter, but ionic does not ‘mix’ easily and there is no other ionic in

the context, so here the colon is to be identified as a reizianum with half-base (see Introduction, p. xcii).

ὐ for

Iambic trimeters in lyric contexts usually feature the caesurae familiar from spoken trimeters, and that is true here of the catalectic trimeters at 4 (395=410). But 398-9(7) in the strophe is divided κατὰ perpor:

U-UUJU|u-U-|

υὐῦυω-.

The doubly syncopated iambic metron

(spondee) following a full metron at 8 is unusual, but for the same colon

(with resolution), see Aj. 403 =420

UJUU— —~.The spondee here prepares

the way for the pair of spondees at 11, for which compare Ba. 599. The archilochean dicolon at 10 has the caesura found in the few surviving

verses of the kind from Archilochus himself (see West, IEG?, 168-70). The

verse does not belong to the aeolo-choriambic context, but does belong to

the Aegean islands. Particularly striking here is the sequence, in both strophe

and antistrophe, of words of the form U—u. Generally, Greek poets tend to avoid the division of consecutive double shorts which words of this form

produce (-u|u-U|u-Ulu...). See L. P. Ε, Parker, ‘Dionysius’ Ear’ in P, ], Finglass, C. Collard, N. J. Richardson (edd.), Hesperos, pp. 297-305. There is some very special rhythmic effect here.

In the second stanza, 422-38=439-55, the ‘signature’ colon is the poly-

schematist (or ‘wilamowitzianum’): xx—U—-Uu— (see Introduction, p. xciii).

Shorter variants are the heptasyllable, with half-base (x—U-uu-) and dodrans B, with no base at all (----οὐ --Ξὸ At 1, glyconic corresponds with

polyschematist, a correspondence which goes back to Sappho (see Diggle, Euripidea, p. 195 and Introduction, p. xciii). At 2, a telesillean introduces a dodrans B and a polyschematist in synartesis. The polyschematist (4) is exceptional in the resolution of the first long of - U—uuU- (see Introduction, p-xcii). 5,a catalecticiambo-choriambic trimeter, belongs, like the archilochean - verse in the first stanza, to the metres of the Aegean region (Anacreon), but not to aeolo-choriambic. The choriambic dimeter (14) which, like the

telesillean at 2, introduces a sequence of cola in synartesis, is compatible with aeolo-choriambic, but 15 more akin to iambo-choriambic. For the same colon, compare Or. 839 and, for a sequence of four choriambs, Phoen. 1509-10. - [In394, L offers (6 πετ)όμενος Ἀργόθεν UUU—~U—, corresponding with

409 πόντια kduara —UU—U . That would be acceptable as a dochmiac, but a.solitary dochmiac in this context would be surprising. For the same reason, —BergKs-véria -κύματα; Ῥτοάυοὶπρ -an-unambiguous-dochmiac in both strophe and antistrophe, has nothing to recommendit. Triclinius' ποτώμενος ‘the one flying from [the direction of] Argos, crossed ...’ is possible; but Willink's ποτ᾽ ὄρμενος ‘the one who had rushed out once from Argos crossed . ..” makes better sense with Ἀ ργόθεν. It must, however, be observed

Commentary on lines 392-455

147

(as Willink notes) that Euripides does not elsewhere use ὄρμενος, but ὀρομένα (Phoen. 1569, IA 186). Sophocles uses ὄρμενον, at ΟἹ 177 (see

below on 394-8). Aeschylus uses ὀρόμενον at Sept. 87 and 115, but ὄρμενος at TrGF 3, fr. 74. 1 (if that can be trusted) and συνορμένοισι Ag. 429. At Αρ. 1408, Canter emended ὀρώμενον (or ὁρώ-)} to ὀρόμενον, but Abresch’s ὄρμενον would perfect correspondence. Similarly, Pauw proposed ὀρμέναν for dpouévav to perfect correspondence at A. Supp. 422. Perfect correspondence is not absolutely necessary in either place. Nevertheless, the fact that it can be produced so easily invites attention. For Willink’s discussion of this song, see ‘Buripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris 392-455, CQ 56 (2006), pp. 404-13.1t must be said that he proposes some dubious metre and unnecessary, 1 thought-provoking, emendation. 4 (395=410) is problematic in both strophe and antistrophe. As it stands in L, 395 scans —-uUU-UUUU-U (ia ia U) and 410 -οσὐὐυ--οαυυυ----(ia ia —-). The best solution is to supplement both lines, so as to produce catalectic iambic trimeters, as in the text printed. On WillinK’s. proposal to delete αὔραις see below on 407-12. It need only be added that that requires διεπέρασ᾽ in synartesis with Ἀ σιήτιδα yaiav, which is highly suspect. According to K. Itsumi (*The Glyconic in Tragedy, CQ 34 (1984), p. 70) glyconics with base in the form υ are hardly ever found in synartesis

with the preceding colon. It is very likely that the same would apply to cola with resolved half-base (UU). At 7, the strophe (399) is an .iambic trimeter, but the antistrophe (414) as transmitted by L and printed in the text here is

unmetrical:

U-U--UUUU-UUU-. P’s πήμασιν produces the semblance

of a final iambic metron (-aow βροτῶν), but leaves -

UUUU - in the space

of the second metron. The Aldine editor printed φίλα γὰρ ἔλπις éyéver’ ἐπὶ πήμασι Bpordv (U—U-UUUU UU-UJUU-), which has satisfied a number

of editors. But this is a metrical pons asinorum. Such a trimeter breaks Zieliriskis law. of the fifth long’ (on Zielifiski, see Introduction, p. Ixxvii): that the resolved fifth long must belong to the same word as the following U and must not be preceded by long anceps. It would be possible to argue that an isolated trimeter in a lyric context might not be comparable with a spoken trimeter in a sequence of lines, but the strange rhythm should at least be noticed. Murray produced an acceptable trimeter: φίλα yap ἐλπίς v, ἐπΐ τε πήμασιν βροτῶν (‘For hope is dear, and, to the harm of mortals, insatiable for men’). Grégoire left out the unnecessary 3. But the crucial objection is still the superfluous βροτῶν. Bergk proposed deleting βροτῶν and reading φίλα γὰρ ἔλπις éyéver’ ἐπί ye πήμασιν. But ye is metrical padding.re (Murray and Grégoire), rather than ye, mightbe worth considering, At the opening of the second strophic pair, Musgrave produced a polyschematist at 421, with πῶς πέτρας τὰς συνδρομάδας for the sake of exact correspondence with 439. That is possible, but unnecessary (see Introduction,

p. xciii). At 7 (428 =445), both strophe and antistrophe are difficient, but the

148

Commentary on lines 392-8

antistrophe 15 easily corrected with Monk’s χειρὶ for L's χερὲ, This produces a

heptasyllable, suitable to the metrical context and surely right. The

corresponding colon, 428, is more problematic. For L's Νηρηίδων, Triclinius

proposed rv Νηρήδων (the Atticform),and the Aldine editor independently

printed Νηρήδων, which leaves the colon requiring a supplement of the form -u(—-—(-U)u-). Wilamowitzs ποσσὶ, would agree with I ἐγκυκλίοις. But that adjective (‘round; ‘in a circle’) goes better with χοροὶ,

whence Heath's ἐγκύκλιοι, Moreover, the form ποσσί belongs to epic and

lyric. ποσσίν at Cratinus, PCG 4, fr. 107 is deliberately Homeric. West (‘Tragica, BICS 28 (1981), p. 63) suggests adverbial ἁβρὰ ‘daintily, as in Tro, 821 ἁβρὰ βαίνων. Willink’s objection that dBpd ‘does not suit the context of perilous inshore surf’ is invalid. Nereids can dance daintily anywhere. Some critics (notably Willink, op cit. above), followed by Kovacs, have felt that the opening question at 422,'How did they pass-. . . ought ο be followed

by alternatives: ‘was it by so-and-so, or so-and-so, or so-and-so?’ Accordingly,

. Willink writes (7) wap’ ἅλιον 425 and accepts Bergk’s ἢ at the beginning of 430. This 15 certainly interesting, but it means that the strophe must be supplemented to match. But supplementing both strophe and antistrophe, unless there are manifest failures of sense and/ or metre 15 risky. It is unlikely that a careless scribe who had left out a monosyllable would neatly omit a corresponding monosyllable in the antistrophe. In fact, the only problem with Ls text at 423-5=440-2 is an extra long syllable in 442. Triclinius noticed this and proposed τὰν Τρῳάδα (-—uU) for Us τὰν Tpwidda

(- -οὐὐ). But Page’s deletion of τὰν is better in that it produces exact

correspondence in the base of the polyschematist at 4.] 392-3. κυάνεαι . .. θαλάσσας: the ‘meeting ways’ of the sea (σύνοδοι) means the point where the Bosphorus meets the Black Sea. Herodotus (4. 85) speaks of Xerxes arriving at the ‘Dark Blue Rocks;, ‘which the Greeks say used in the past to be “wanderers™ (τὰς πρότερον πλαγκτὰς Ἕλληνές φασι εἶναι). The name ‘Symplegades’ appears first at Med. 2, where the nurse speaks of the κυανέας Συμπληγάδας. On the transformation of the Symplegades from a mythical hazard of the Argonautic legend into a real geographical location, see A. Heubeck on Od. 12. 55-72, with extensive references.

[WillinK’s κυάνεαι kvavéas, accepted by Kovacs, ἰ unnecessary. It is true

' that it produces ‘a disposition of epithets similar to that in the antistrophe’

(ῥοθίοις εἰλατίνας δικρότοισι κώπας). But repetition is notoriously

common in Euripidean Iyric (see, for example, 138 above and 402 below),

and here produces a striking opening for the song. Moreover, Willink (on —O0r.-999-1000),-while-observing-that-repetition-of-adjectives-is ‘much rarer’

than that of nouns and verbs, ‘it is; 85 in this case,‘always at the beginning of

a clause or other syntactical unit’] 394-8. &’ ... διαμεύψας: ‘where the gadfly that once rushed out from Argos crossed over the inhospitable swell of the sea, exchanging Europe for Asia.

Commentary on lines 399-406

149

Even without the name of Io, Euripides’ audience would have had no difficulty in recognizing the legendary journey. At PV 732-5, Prometheus

ends his recital of Io’s future wandermgs with ἔσται δὲ θνητοῖς εἰσαεὶ λόγος μέγας τῆς σῆς πορειας, Βόσπορος & ἐπώνυμος κεκλήσεται. λυποῦσα δ᾽ Εὐρώπης médov/ ἤπειρον ἥξεις Ἀσιάδ᾽ Among mortals there shall be forever a famous tale of your passage, and the Bosphorus shall be called after you. Then, leaving the soil of Europe, you will come to the Asian mainland. By popular etymology, Βὀσπορος was derived from βοῦς and πόρος, since ο had been turned into a cow. ὄρμενος: from ὄρνυμι. Compare oT 177, where the soul, of a plague victim is said to ‘speed like a winged bird’

ἅπερ εὔπτερον ὄρνιν ... ὄρμενον. dfevov: on the possible derivation of

ἄξενος (as the name of the sea) from Persian ak$aina ‘dark; see Chantraine under Evéewos (p. 386). én’ οἶδμα: for ἐπί ο extent, see LSJ ἐπί C. 5. [¢’: Hermann’s emendation, is ἃ manifest improvement on s ἣν, which would have to refer to θαλάσσας . which the gadfly crossed, over the inhospitable swell. On other textual problems in this verse, see above on Metre.] 399-402. τίνες mor ... alay: ‘Whoever [are they who] came, having left behind the fair-watered, green-reeded Eurotas or the sacred streams of Dirce, to an unfriendly land?’ Do the two Greeks come from Sparta or from Thebes? The people of a dry country know best that water is life. A Greek would -recognize a city by the name of its spring or river. At Hel. 492-3,

Menelaus could well ask: ‘Where on earth is there a Sparta, except only

where are the streams of Eurotas of the lovely reeds?’ Euripides avoids mentioning the two great cities intimately connected with his play, Argos and Athens, cho osmg instead Thebes and Sparta, both, incidentally, land-locked. τίνες ποτ᾽ ἄρα: the addition of ποτέ and dpa indicates the singers’ passion-

ate interest in their question (Denniston, p. 39). δονακόχλοον: the reeds of

the Eurotas seem to have been famous. At Hel. 349, the river is called δόνακι χλωρόν ‘green with reed. See also Hel. 493 (above) and IA 179. ἔβασαν ἔβα--

σαν: Aristophanes makes fun of Euripides’ repetitions (Frogs 1352-5), but

they are not pointless. Here, the repetition gives a sense of the length of the journey and of the persistence of the travellers: they pushed on and on. ἄμεικτον: not to be mixed with} like Centaurs (Trach. 1095) or the Cyclops (Cyc. 429). In LS], see under ἄμικτος. ἰδονακόχλοον: what L wrote originally has been obliterated by Triclinius’ ill-advised ‘correction; -oa. He- apparently took the word to be thirddeclension, like adjectives in -ypovs (from χρώς), and did not realize that here there is need of a final syllable which can be treated as closed (so long) before λιπόντες. ἄμεικτον: for the tendency of MSSto substitute tfor εἰ in this stem, see Chantraine under μείγνυμι. On the general tendency over time to turn εἰ into ¢, see Threatte I, pp. 193-9.] 402-6. évba . . . βρότειον: ‘Where mortal blood soaks the altar and colonnaded temple for the daughter of Zeus. κούρᾳ dig: A tragic use of the adjective

150

Commentary on lines 407--12

δῖος, like Δίῳ παιδί ‘son-of Zeus' at Ion 200. τέγγει implies soaking in and leaving stains, the stains that Orestes and Pylades saw at 72-3. See above on

225-6. βωμοὺς... «ναοὺς: poetic plurals, signifying dignity (‘plural of majesty,

WS 5 1006, Kithner-Gerth i, p. 18. 2). περικίονας: as we already know (see above on 113-14), the Taurian temple is grand and Greek in design. Compare περικίοσιν ... θαλάμοις from Euripides’ Erechtheus, TrGF 5.1, fr. 369. 5. [ἰκούρᾳ Aig: so Elmsley. Ls κούρα διατέγγει leaves us with an unidentified girl’ and no place in the construction for αἷμα βρότειον. Nor is there any other evidence for the existence of the verb διατέγγω. Again, I's περὶ xlovag ναοῦ ‘round the columns of the temple’ makes little sense. Here too - the correction is Elmsley’s. Both corruptions. could have resulted either from superficial simplifications by scribes or (earlier) accidental misdivision of words]

407-21. The chorus conjecture that the two Greeks are merchants, sailing for gain. The idea is natural enough in Euripides’ time, but comes as a surprise in the heroic context. Trade belongs to the world of men who work for their

living. In Homer, to suggest that a man might be a merchant is an insult (Od,

8. 159-64). Gentlemen pillage, and they do not set out avowedly for gain. The fact that men are prepared to risk their lives on the sea in pursuit of wealth becomes, for the ancients, a subject for constant wonder and moralizing. Before Euripides, the matter concerns Hesiod (We~D 684-7). Solon (West, IEG*I1, fr. 13. 43-6) reflects on the different pursuits of men: σπεύδει

δ᾽ ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος" ὁ μὲν κατὰ πόντον ἀλᾶται.... φειδωλὴν ψυχῆς οὐδεμίαν θέμενος. A number of epitaphs in the Palatine Anthology commemorate

traders, real or fictional, who have perished at sea. See, for example, AP 7. 272

(by Callimachus="Pfeiffer 18) and 254b (attributed to Simonides), with its curt final line: οὐ κατὰ τοῦτ᾽ ἐλθών, ἀλλὰ κατ' ἐμπορίαν ‘having come not

for this (i.e. death), but for trade. For references to Hellenistic and Roman

treatments, see Nisbet and Hubbard on Horace, Odes I, p. 43 (on 1. 3).

407-12. 9} ... μελάθροισιν: 18 it that they have driven [their] marine vehicle over the sea-waves by double-beating plashings of the pinewood oar, with

sail-wafting winds, increasing wealth-loving striving for [their] homes?’ A typically Euripidean proliferation of words which evoke the sounds and

movement of sailing. Cropp, on Hypsipyle 752g, 2~14 (SFP II, p. 233), com-

pares the ‘word-picture’ of the arrival of the Argo with this passage, as well 85 with 1123-37 below. ἦς Interrogative, introducing a question which constitutes a suggested answer to a previous question (Denniston, p, 283). Here,

.the sequence is: ‘Who are they?’ ‘Are they merchants?’ The earlier τίνες —--implied- ‘What - sort- of-people--are-they? -ῥοθίοις:-ῥόθιον (noun) is an onomatopoeic word, like ‘plashing. See also 1134 below. εἰλατίνας: epic form of ἐλάτινος (ἐλάτη Ξ ἢτ tree), convenient for metres in .-Οὐ--...

δικρότοισι: there are oars on both sides of the ship. λινοπόροις: the word is not cited from anywhere else. μελάθροισιν, as it stands, must mean ‘for their

Commentary on lines 413-19

151

[paternal] halls; but one would have welcomed an epithet that made that

clear. ἔστειλαν: compare 70 above: ναῦν ποντίαν ἐστείλαμεν. [ἔστειλαν: 15 ἔπλευσαν will not do, because πλέω does not take a direct object, unlike English ‘sail a ship. Rauchenstein’s ἔστειλαν (proposed in his Disputatio of 1860) gives the right meaning, and can demonstrably be constructed as required here, Further, Professor Collard has drawn my attention

to the 2 on Hec. 115 (Schwartz I, p. 23), where ἀποστέλλεσθε is glossed by ἀποπλέετε, and also X' Alc. 112 (Schwartz II, p. 222), where οὐδὲ ναυκληplav ... στείλας 15 rendered by οὐδ᾽ (ἀν) εἰ πλεύσαιμεν. So ἔπλευσαν in the

present passage could well be a gloss on ἔστειλαν which has intruded into the text replacing the correct word. Other suggestions have, however, commended themselves to editors. Wecklein adopted Stadtmiiller’s ἔκελσαν, but

κέλλω, a poetic word used in the Odyssey, means ‘to run a ship ashore.

Euripides uses it metaphorically for ‘to reach one’s journey’s end’ (see El. 139, with Denniston’s note). But that meaning 18 inappropriate here. Willink sug-

gests ἔλασσαν (éAavvw), but that is an epic form, never found in surviving tragedy. In 1864, Rauchenstein suggested ἔπεμψαν (Jahrbiicher fiir class.

Phil. 89), without reference to his earlier conjecture. Cropp records that proposal in his apparatus, but the evidence falls just short of proving that one can be said to πέμπειν a ship on which one is travelling oneself, One can

‘send’ one’s foot, and, of course, go with it (130 above), but that is a special

usage. Diggle records Jackson’s ἔλυσαν. A ship lets loose its stern-hawsers (πρυμνήσια) when it sets sail. It can even let loose 115 stern (πρύμνας Hec. 539). Also in Hec. (1020), ships are said to let loose a metaphorical foot, but there does not seem to be any example of letting loose a ship. πέμπω and

λύω leave us with the same problem. Both are very common words. If they

could be used in the way required here, why are there no parallels? ῥοθίοις . .« Κώπας: L has all the four words in the dative, by accidental assimilation, no doubt. Triclinius used, it would seem, his metrical skill and knowledge of Greek poetic forms to correct ἐλατίνοις to εἰλατίνοις. At 410, Wecklein’s σὺν 15 an easy supplement to restore correspondence with (supplemented) 395. Willink, rather than supplement 395 and 410, would delete αὔραις. But,

apart from producing some peculiar metre, this means that λινοπόροις

must be taken with μελάθροισιν ‘increasing wealth-loving striving with

sail-driven dwellings’ But the ship has been mentioned a]ready, we hardly want it repeated in an elaborate periphrasis.} 413-19. φίλα ... δόξᾳ: ‘For dear hope becomes insatiable for men, for their bane, [men] who win a weight of wealth, wandering on the deep and crossing to foreign cities, with a common expectation (?). ἐπὲ πήμασι: ἐπί with the dative, expressing the purpose, or end. See LS] ἐπί ΠΠ. 2. However, the text of 413-14, as it stands, does not correspond with 399, and βροτῶν is

superfluous with ἀνθρώποις. See further above, under Metre. ἄπληστος: ‘impossible to fill' (πίμπλημι). For Theognis

(109), κακοί have an

152

Commentary on lines 420.--.]

ἄπληστον véov. The word promises moralizing, πλάνητες: for Greeks, a merchant was a‘ wanderer’: καλοῦμεν... rods. . . πλανήτας ἐπὶ τὰς πόλεις

ἐμπόρους ‘We call the wanderers from city to city “merchants ™ Plato, Rep, 371d. See also Solon, 13. 43, quoted above on 407-21. κοινᾷ δόξᾳ: if the text is sound, this presumably means that all these wanderers expect the same thing, i.e. gain. Results, as the next sentence points out, are differe nt.

[On the text of 414, see above under Metre. κοινᾷ δόξᾳ is Bergk's emenda-

tion of Ls κοιναὶ δόξαι, a nominative which has no place in the construction, and which could easily have arisen from a misint erpretation of ἐ adscript. Triclinius (reading διατέγγει in the strophe) wrote € above o, and later commentators have hankered after some way of saying ‘empty expectation, but κενᾷ will not correspond with 404. Elmsley sugges ted κεινᾷ, but the epic form κεινός for κενός is never found in tragedy. Ls κεινόν at Trach, 495 can be discounted as metre does not require it there.]

420-1. γνώμα & .. . ἥκει: ‘But to some the thought of wealth comes inoppor-

tune, but to others to due measure’ Here is the expected moral. The chorus suspect, on the evidence of events, that the two unfortunate Greeks have been misguided in some way in their pursuit of gain. καιρός , the right point in time, place, circumstances, is intimately connected with the concept of μέτρον ‘proper measure, Hesiod (WerD 689-94), having warned against loading all one€’s possessions on board ship, winds up with uérpa φυλάσσε..

σθαι" καιρὸς& ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἄριστος ‘Observe proper measure. The right

point is best for everything. Or compare Pindar, ΟἹ, 13. 47-8 ἕπεται δ᾽ év

ἑκάστῳ ! μέτρον" νοῆσαι 8¢ καιρὸς ἄριστος ‘Proper measure attend s on all

things. The right point is the best thing to discern’ See West on WD 694,

ols uév ... τοῖς δ᾽: the use of the definite article as a demonstrative with uév and

&¢ (here τοῖς δ᾽) is familiar in Attic, that of the relative (οἷς μὲν) is much less so. Indeed, this seems to be the earliest occurrence. At Demosthenes

Against Spudias (41). 11, all the MSS except one offer the same combination

as here: ἃ μὲν... τῶν 8¢... 866 Kiihner-Gerth Ὦ, pp. 227-8.

[ἐς μέτρον: T.G. Tucker’s emendation for s & μέσον (‘Various Emendations

CR 12 (1898), pp. 23-7). Cropp and Kovacs (and before them, Platnauer)

take μέσον as ‘the mean; in fact equivalent to μέτρον. μέσον, μέσα are, indeed, occasionally used in that sense, or something like it. See, for example, Theognis, West, IEG 1, 335 πάντων uéo’ ἄριστα “The mean in all things is best, Eum. 529 παντὶ uéow 76 kpdros θεὸς ὥπασεν “To the mean in every form god grants success. In Euripides, TrGF 5.2, f. 928, reconstituted from Galen’s paraphrase, μέσον (Valckenaer) may mean ‘middling’ -Phocylides-(WestTPF;fr: 9); often-citedἐπ᾿ this context; refers, however, to people (socially) in the middle, like τὰ μέσα in Pindar, Pyth. 11. 52. But there is, it seems to me, a decisive objection to taking μέσον as ‘the mean’

here. The phrase és μέσον has ἃ common and well-established range of

meanings: ‘between’ (two people), ‘out in the middle ‘out in public. See

Commentary on lines 422-5

153

Pindar, Snell-Maehler fr. 42. 4--5, Sophocles, Aj. 1285, Trach. 514, Phil. 609, with Jebb’s note on Ant. 386. For Euripides, see Cyc. 547, Supp. 439, Tro. 54, Jon 1558, Hel. 1542. On the use of és μέσον in military contexts, see Diggle, Euripidea, p. 84. It is hard to see how Euripides’ audience could have taken γνώμα ... 0ABov ... és μέσον ἥκει as anything but ‘the thought of wealth comes into the middle; or ‘comes out in public’ Earlier editors (Hermann,

Hartung, Monk, England) took it here, by an expansion of that sense, as ‘falls in their way’ But then ὄλβος, not γνώμα, has to be understood as the subject of ἥκει, which, apart from somewhat forcing the meaning of ἐς μέσον,

15 very awkward. There is, it must be said, no exact parallel for ἐς μέτρον, but és καιρόν is not uncommon in Euripides (see Allen and Italie under καιρός), and the association of ideas between καιρός and μέτρον is very close (see

above). Also, the combination ἐς + noun with verb of motion is well attested.

See, for example, és τέρψιν εἶμι, I shall come to enjoyment, at 797 below.]

422-38. One of Euripides’ lyrical, imagined voyages. See especially Hel. 1451~ 1511, and also 1123 ff. below. The whole stanza consists of one long sentence: How did they pass (πῶς ἐπέρασαν) . . . having run where (δραμόντες

omov) ... the Nereids make music (uéAmovow), ... while the steering-oars

sing (συριζόντων... . πηδαλίων, genitive absolute), [running] before south-

erly breezes (αὔραισιν voriass), or the breath of the west wind (4} πνεύμασι

Ζεφύρου), towards the bird-thronged coast (τὰν πολυόρνιθον ἐπ᾽ ἀκτάν)

... over the inhospitable sea (ἄξεινον κατὰ πόντον) ᾽ For another singlesentence stanza, see 1089-1105.

422-5. πῶς . . . ἐπέρασαν: How did they pass the rocks that run together? How the unsleeping shores of Phineus’ sons?’ συνδρομάδας: almost a synonym for

Συμπληγάδας. Φινεϊδᾶν: Doric genitive plural, Having emerged from the

Bosphorus, the ship would run north-westerly along the coast, past Salmydessus, whose legendary king, Phineus, figures in Argonautic legend.At Ant. 966-76,

Sophocles alludes to the story of how his two sons were blinded by their stepmother. Aeschylus’ Phineus (TrGF 3, fir. 258-60) seems to have dealt with the king’s problem with the Harpies. Sophocles seems to have produced two

plays about Phineus (TrGF 4, frr. 704-17). Aristotle (Poetics 1455a, 10) mentions

a Sons of Phineus, without giving the author’s name. At any rate, Phineus and

his sons were certainly more familiar personages to Athenian theatre-goers.

than they are to us. démvous ἀκτὰς: compare Sophocles’ ἄυπνοι κρῆναι at OC 685, Shakespeare’s ‘still-vexd Bermoothes, or T. S. Eliot’s ‘unstilled Cyclades’

[Φινεϊδᾶν: so Rauchenstein. Triclinius proposed Φινεΐδας accusative plural

.of a third declension adjectival form, qualifying ἀκτὰς ‘Phinean shores, But before ἀύπνους this would scan —uuu where --Οὐ--, is required.

Kovacs retains Ls Φινηΐδας (compare xfovds Θησῇδος at Eum. 1026), but

this involves emending 440, the corresponding colon, as well as ἀύπνους. It

is highly likely that Φινεῖδᾶν could have been changed to Φινεΐδας by

assimilation to ἀκτὰς, Cropp finds a reference to Phineus’ sons ‘out of place’

154

Commentary on lines 425-38

here. But in the lyric of tragedy mention of a place can always call up a myth

connected with it. Phineus’ sons are no more ‘out of place’ here than is Io a 394--5 above. The difference is that Io 15 familiar to us from PV, whereas the tragedies that told of Phineus and his sons are lost.] 425-6. παρ᾽ dAwov ... δραμόντες: ‘having run along the briny coast over the

surge of AmphitritelAs usual, these Greek sailors hug the coast. & with the

dative and a verb of motion, expressing both motion and support. See LS) ἐπί B.1. 2.a. Ἀμφιτρίτας: by a common poetic metonymy, means ‘sea) just as Ares’ often means ‘war’ In the same way; Shakespeare regularly uses ‘Neptune’

for ‘sea.

ἱπαρ᾽ ἅλιον: Seidler’s emendation of L's παράλιον is surely right. ἅλιον αἰγιαλόν already verges on the tautologous. ‘Beside-the-sea seashore’ is worse. Moreover, παράλιον αἰγιαλόν would have to be taken as in apposition to

ἀκτάς, which is clumsy.] 427-9. omou . . . ἐγκύκλιοι: ‘where the round-dances of the fifty Nereids make

music. In the Greek way, the daughters of Nereus sing while they dance. For poets, the waves dance. Shakespeare: ‘When you do dance, I wish you/A wave o'the sea, that you might ever do/Nothing but that, Wordsworth: “The waves beside them danced ... Yeats: ‘Folk dance like a wave of the sea’ 430-4. πλησιστίοισι... Ζεφύρου: ‘with sail-filling breezes, while the embedded (?) steering-oars hiss at the stern, with south winds, or the breath of the

west wind. The πηδάλια were two extra-large oars, one on each side of

the stern, joined by a mechanism which allowed one man to manipulate both. See L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (Baltimore

and London), 1971, pp. 224-8. Why the steering-oars are here said to be

‘bedded’ (edvaios from εὐνή) has never been convincingly explained, but

that does not prove that the word is corrupt. The ship could be imagined as travelling northward (before the south wind), or north-eastward. To say that it is travelling before the west wind (Zephyr) is only approximate, unless the crew are now to be imagined striking out into the open sea, straight towards Taurica, rather than following the coast. On the text, see under

Metre above. 435-8. τὰν... «πόντον:"... towards the bird-thronged land, the white shore, the fine-coursed running-track of Achilles, over the inhospitable sea?’ Here, at last, comes the end of the question which began with πῶς ... ὀπέρασαν. Leuce (Ostrov Zmilnyj), the ‘White Land; is an islet off the Danube delta, more or less due west of Taurica. The earliest literary evidence of a cult of

Achilles in the region is Alcaeus’ mention of him as Ἀχίλλευς & τὰς

-- Σκυθέκας μέδεις Ἰοτὰ of the Scythian land’ (PLF=Voigt fr. 354). H. Hommel

(Der Gott Achilleus) explores the evidence for the cult, the relationship

between Achilles and Leuce and the hero’s (possible) pre-literary origin as King of the Dead. Pindar (Nem. 4. 49-50) regards Leuce, ‘the shining island,

as distinctively the cult-place of Achilles: év 8’ Εὐξείνῳ πελάγει φαεννὰν

Commentary on lines 439-46

155

Ἀχιλεὺς Γνᾶσον (sc. ἔχει). Achilles’ running-track’ (¢ Ἀχίλλειος Δρόμος) was a thin strip of land (now a string of islets) lying off the coast from

near the estuary of the Borysthenes (Dnieper) into the Bay of Carcinitis

(Karkinits’ ka Zatoka), north of the north coast of the Tauric peninsula,

Strabo (7. 3. 19) describes it in some detail. Pliny (NH 4.83) places it 125

(Roman) miles from ‘the island of Achilles, celebrated for that hero’s tomb. On Lycophron, 866 Introduction, p. xliv. Here yet again (see on 123-5 and 260-1 above), it is clear that, once past the Symplegades, Euripides does not care about precise locations or distances,

[πολυόρνιθον, instead of 115 πολιόρνιθον (as if from πόλις) and Ἀχιλῇος for I's ἀχιλλῆος are corrections by the Aldine editor.]

439-42. €’ . . . πόλιν: “Would that, through my mistress’s prayers, Helen, dear daughter of Leda, might happen to come, having left the city of Troy. The chorus, like the audience, heard Iphigenia’s wish that Helen might come at 356 above. The news of the fall of Troy has reached Taurica. See 519 below. ebyaiow δεσποσύνοις: instrumental. ἐλθοῦσα τύχοι: not simply ‘that she might come’ The chorus know that the event is highly unlikely. Aorist: ‘that she might happen to come (once). The aorist participle, ἐλθοῦσα, follows τύχοι. See WS § 1873, [δεσποσύνοις: Us δεσποσύνας is a simple case of attraction to Andas. On the text see further under Metre above.] 443-6. . .. ἀντιπάλους:".. . so that, encircled round [her] hair with a bloody

dew, she might die by the throat-cutting hand of my mistress, having paid a penalty equal [to her crime]. The reference in ἐλιχθεῖσα is to the circular motion of the priestess’s hand, as she sprinkles the preparatory libation

round the victim's head (see 622 below); αἱματηρὰν 15 anticipatory of

bloodshed. The initial sprinkling was of water. There could be a recollection here of Ag. 1532-34, where Clytaemestra has just declared that Agamemnon

has paid a fair price for the killing of Iphigenia (ἄξια dpdoas, ἄξια πάσχων).

The chorus then voice: their fear of ‘the beating of bloody rain, destruction

to the house’ (ὄμβρου κτύπον δομοσφαλῆ ! τὸν αἱματηρόν). λαιμοτόμῳ

χειρὶ: Simply, Ἱ wish my mistress could cut her throat. The technicalities of sacrifice are not at issue here. As Murray says in the introduction to his translation: ‘All the good women in Euripides go wild at the name of Helen. δρόσον αἱματηρὰν ἐλιχθεῖσα: in the active, the construction would be ἀμφὲ yairav ἑλίσσει δρόσον [αὐτῇ] ‘she (the priestess) circles a dew round the hair [to her]’ Here, the sentence is turned passive, but it is not the direct object, ‘dew, which is made the subject, but the (unexpressed) ‘her, while ‘dew’ remains in the accusative. For a comparable construction, see Trach.

157-8, with Easterling’s very clear explanation. See also Kiithner-Gerth i,

Ῥ. 125, 7. W. H. D. Rouse (“The Active Construction kept with Passive Verbs, CR 29 (1915), p. 140) provides several Latin examples. On the whole

passage, see Diggle, Studies, pp. 80-1.

156

Commentary on lines 447-55

[θάνῃ: Especially in poetry, the verb of a final clause dependent on an optative of wish may be attracted into the optative, as, for example, at Eum. 2978

ἔλθοι ... ὅπως γένοιτο τῶνδέ μοι λυτήριος ‘May she come, in order to

become my saviour from these things. Hence, Seidler proposed θάνοι here, But this is unnecessary: the subjunctive is often retained (see WS § 2186, N. 2, ¢). As examples of the subjunctive, Platnauer lists Trach, 1109 and Or. 982-4. Diggle (as cited above) adds further references.] 447-51. 70107’ Qv ... mavoimovos: But with most pleasure I would receive the message, if from the Greek land someone of seamen had come as ender of the pain of my wretched slavery! Naturally, the chorus would prefer freedom and return home even to seeing Helen's throat cut. Their longing for the event

is expressed by ἔβα Ἱ wish he had comeé, rather than ‘would come, But there is irony here: the rescuer has indeed come. πλωτήρων: the noun πλωτήρ 8 found just twice in Buripides: here and at Hel. 1070. δουλείας ... δειλαίας: play on

sound, as at Hec. 156-7 δειλαία δειλαίου γήρως [(καὺ δουλείας. παυσίπονος: - Aristophanes’ use of the word at Frogs 1321 in parody of Euripides might suggest that it was a Buripidean coinage. But such compounds are normal in * poetry. Thus, παυσίλυπος is shared by Sophocles (TrGF 4, fr. 425) and Euripides (Ba. 772). παυσίπονος reappears in genuine sepulchral epigrams of the

Hellenistic period. See W. Peek, Griechische Vers-Inschriften i (Berlin, 1955),

nos, 1253, 1544 (of wine), 1585. ἤδιστί(α): Adverbial, as at Trach. 330.

[ἡδιστ᾽ ἂν δ᾽: Hermann. L offers ἥδιστ᾽ ἂν τήνδ᾽ where τήνδ᾽ an Attic form

which also destroys correspondence, is an obvious intrusion. Platnauer liked the idea of ‘this news, and 50 may have some scribe in the course of transmission, but the superlative gives adequate emphasis. Badham’s ἥδιστ᾽

- dv creates a harsh asyndeton. The postponement of 8¢ is insignificant, for ἄν adheres to the preceding word. Compare 1217 below (ἡνέκ᾽ ἂν δ). ἡδίσταν €

,

3

Ὁ

δ᾽ ἂν (Seidler. Musgrave, with -τὴν) would require a supplement for the corresponding colon, 430. See also'above under Metre.]

452-5. (κἀν) ydp . .. ὄλβου: ‘For even in dreams may I be with my home and

* my paternal city, an enjoyment of pleasant sleep, a common boon of blessedness. The text here is highly problematic, The best that can be done is to put together a reconstruction that makes sense and involves as little change as possible. It 15 clear, however, that the chorus wish that, even if no rescuer comes, they may at least dream of being in their old homes. Later (1105-10),

it will emerge that their city has been sacked, so that only in dreams could they ever return to their homes as they knew them. Is'this already in the

poet’s mind? Or has he not yet troubled to consider exactly fiow these Greek

---women-come-to-be-where-they-are?-anéAavow and xapw have to-be taken

in apposition to the sentence, like, for example, μισθὸν at El. 231 εὐδαιμο-

νοίης, μισθὸν ἡδίστων λόγων ‘May you be fortunate,a reward for your

delightful news. See WS § 991b. κἀν-εκαὶ év. On καὶ ydp meaning ‘even, see Denniston, p. 108.

A

Commentary on lines 456--66

157

[κἀν γὰρ ὀνείροισι συνείην: Lhas yap ὀνείρασι ouuBainv. Language requires something before γὰρ and metre requires one syllable to produce correspondence with 435, Triclinius added καὶ (after P had been copied). κἀν is

Herwerden’s emendation. One sees things in dreams (ἐν with dative). See Cho. 531, S. El. 500, Alc. 354. ὀνείροισι (U ——U) is Fritzsche’s emendation. ὀνείρασι

(U-uv) is the more common form of the dative plural in tragedy, but ὀνείροισ(ρ) is also found, as at Αρ;, 13, S. EL 500, Hel. 1191. The more common form could easily have slipped in in place of the rarer one. συνεΐην: Ls

συμβαίην ‘May I make an agreement with, is impossible. συνείην, again

Fritzsche’s proposal, is-no more than the best of several suggestions. σύνειμι, meaning ‘to be in constant company with, can be used with people, and with

certain things, such as véow (TrGF 5. 2, fr. 1079. 3, OT 303), κακοῖς (S. El. 599-600), δίκῃ (S: El 610-11), oveipaow (Pers. 176-7). But these are all very

clearly abstract, not strictly comparable with δόμοις. ὕπνων is Hermann' s emendation of Ls ὕμνων. ἀπόλαυσιν: L; Triclinius changed to ἀπολαύειν, which passed to the Aldine, and thence to older editions. ὄλβου: L wrote ὄλβα, which is nonsense. Triclinius corrected to ὄλβω, and 6ABw has been accepted by a number of editors, who treat it as equivalent to τοῖς ὀλβίοις ‘the fortunate, But no justification is offered for taking it in that sense. ὄλβου has been

proposed by several critics, of whom the eatliest seems to have been Louis

Dupuy (1709-95), who, incidentally, provided the translations of Aj., Ant., Trach., and OC for Brumoy’s Thédtre des Grecs (see Introduction, p.-1xvi).

Compare Or. 159 ὕπνου.... ydpw ‘the boon of sleep. The ‘boon of blessedness’ provided by pleasant dreams 15 common (κοινὰν) to all men. . Kovacs adopts a different approach to this passage, which depends on accepting Triclinius’ ἀπολαύειν (the verb reappears at 526 below). For συμBainy he proposes xupoin 'v and translates: ‘Even in my dreams may I have the joy of singing gladdening hymns in the house and city of my fathers, a delight in blessedness that all may share. Markland’s ovuBain v (‘may it fall to me’) would be a more plausible cause of corruption than κυροίη v, and ‘delight in blessedness’ is a dubious translation of ydpw ὄλβου. Then, to ‘wish to dream that one is at home is natural, but to wish to dream that one is at home singing hymns seems forced: it is too specific.] 456-66. The chorus now see Orestes and Pylades, bound and under guard, approaching from the direction in which the herdsman made his exit. The -chorus-leader chants in anapaests, announcing their arrival to Iphigenia. She tells her companions to be silent, and addresses a short prayer to

Artemis. Taplin (Stagecraft, p. 73) notes the use of anapaests to announce slower entries, suchas those of funeral processions, or of people condemned to death, as here. Compare Ant. 801, Andr. 494, Her. 442, Or. 1013. On announced entrances in general, with list, see R. Hamilton, ‘Announced

Entrances in Greek Tragedy, HSCP 82 (1978), pp. 63-82 and J. P. Poe, ‘Entrance-Announcements and Entrance-Speeches in Greek Tragedy,

HSCP 94 (1992), pp. 121-56.

158

Commentary on lines 456--66

[L attributes 456-62 to Iphigenia and the rest of the anapaests to the chorus. This was probably inferred from the address φίλαι at 458 and & πότνν gt

463. The scribe of L, or a predecessor, may have taken the first as addresseq:

to the chorus by Iphigenia (rather than by the chorus-leader), and the sec-

ond as addressed fo her. But it is not the business of Iphigenia to announce.

an entrance from the parodos: the chorus are in a better position to see,

Then, too, while a human being maybe addressed as πότνια (see below op.

463-6), the addressee at 462--6 must be Artemis. Only to the goddess could: the chorus-leader say δέξαι θυσίας.

456-8. aAX’ ... θεᾷ: ‘But here comes the pair, [their] hands tied together with:

bonds, a new sacrifice for the goddess. The audience can see that the men’s’

hands are tied, but that is not enough for Euripides: he wants the fact noted.:

In Attic tragedy, ‘what calls for attention has atterition drawn to it’ (O, Taplin,’ ‘Did Greek dramatists write stage instructions?;, PCPS 203 (1977), pp. 121-ξἓ

32). χέρας: ‘bound with respect to the hands. δίδυμοι: suggests ‘twin’ (eg..

Castor and Polydeuces at Hel. 220). At Or. 1401-2, Orestes and Pylades are:

‘twin Greek lions’ πρόσφαγμα: see above on 2434, i [δίδυμοι: Markland’s correction of Ls διδύμοις, a simple case of attracnoni to δεσμοῖς. θεᾷ: Toup’s emendation of Ls feds produces more natural: : Greek. Compare θεᾷ φίλον πρόσφαγμα at 243.] ξ - 458-60. σιγᾶτε... βαίνει: 'ε silent, friends, for these truly choicest offenngs here of Greeks come close to the temple. ovydre: the approaching party has something of the character of a sacred procession (compare 123 above).: « dxpobivea: ‘the top of the heap’ (6is). Orestes and Pylades are immediately: recognized as ‘des victimes délite’ (Weil). The chorus of Phoen., Phoenician : girls sent to serve Apollo at Delphi, are also ἀκροθίνια. See Phoen. 203, with'; ;

Mastronarde ad loc. δὴ: emphatic, denotes that a thing really and truly is 80᾽: (Denniston, p. 204, also p. 214).

[Elmsley’s proposal to transfer these lines to follow 038’... ἀνήρ is xll- | advised. σιγᾶτε needs to come immediately after the initial announcement. : Moreover, the observation that the herdsman spoke the truth (461) applies | to the fact that the young men are ἀκροθίνια. Monk’s deletion. of the lines iis [

worse than ill-advised.]

461. ἔλακεν: ‘He proclaimed. λάσκω (ἴο shout aloud’) is rather a favounte word with Euripides. At Ach. 410, Aristophanes makes his ‘Euripides’ say τί λέλακας; Aeschylus too uses the word, but in contexts where it makes

a stronger point. See, for example, Cho. 35-9, where Clytaemestra’s cry of

, terror at her dream rings through the house, and the seerscry aloud the1r mterpretatlon—See also-my note- on-Alc;-345-7; =+~ —---wm o= 463-6. ὦ woTve’. . . ἀναφαΐίνει: Lady, if this city performs these rites pleasmgly; to you, accept sacnfices which the law among us [Greeks] declares unholy’ The precautionary tone is not unusual in addresses to the gods, but here it ἰ5. far from formulaic. Does Artemis really like these sacrifices? The chorus:

:

:

Commentary on lines 467-9

159

ἓ have heard Iphigenia’s view of the matter at 389-90. πόλις ἥδε: like Greeks, ι the Taurians live in a city (see also below 595, 1212, 1214) and they are citi-

g

o, zens (1226, 1417, and 566 on 1422). In one sentence they are both assimi. lated to Greeks and distinguished sharply from them. & πότνι: πότνια is - most often used of goddesses (or deified abstractions). In this play, it is . addressed to Artemis at 533 and 1082, as well as here. But it can also be used

ξ of human beings. At 1123 below it is Iphigenia, as at Tro. 293 it is Hecuba.

[

. ἄἀρεσκόντως: rare, In tragedy, only here and at 581 below. Both there and at ¢ Plato, Rep. 504b, there seems to be a touch of formality: ‘Are we all agreed?’ + A degree of formality would not be out of place here. ἀναφαίνει: ἀναφαί. vew="0 show forth in public; . [ἀναφαΐνει: Cropp translates ‘which by the law of our own land it is unholy

, to offer} seeing an allusion to a rare Hellenistic use of φαίνω. But this gives

hardly possible syntax, nor does Euripides ever use (ἀνα)φαίνω with any .- such meaning, [Ἔλλησι διδοὺς]: no plausible sense has ever been proposed for ‘shows forth giving to Greeks. The easiest solution (whether or not it is right) is, with Bergk, to delete the words. His explanation for the insertion is that Ἕλλησι first appeared as a gloss on ἡμῖν, and that, after ς word had found its way into the text, 'some grammarian’ added διδοὺς to patch up the " metre (‘Kritische Bemerkungen zu Euripides’ Iphigenia Taurica, REM 18 (1863), p. 208). It is not unusual for an anapaestic system to contain an odd number of metra. In that case, it is up to the editor to decide on the

most natural placing for the monometer. Rhetorical division not infrequently indicates, as here, that it belongs before the clausular catalectic dimeter. Compare, for example, Supp. 1121-2, Jor 11011, 868-9, 879-80.] 467-1088. A very long ‘episode, in which the recognition is completed.

Iphigenia’s prayer to Artemis at 1082-8 and the choral song (stasimon) at 1089-1152 mark the beginning of the second ‘movement’ of the plot (see

Introduction, p. xxxii). There are, however, musical interludes: the brief

lament of the chorus at 644-56 and the recognition-duet of Iphigenia and

Orestes at 827-99. The second ‘episode’ of Hel. (528-1106) is almost as long,

but its internal structure and function in the plot are quite Introduction, p. ΧΧΧΥ). 467-8. elév ... μοι: All right. First I must see to the affairs of the [everything] maybe correct. As at 3423, Iphigenia speaks as the and efficient priestess, and, as at 342, she marks the beginning of

different (see

goddess, how conscientious her statement -

with elév (see above on that verse). ὡς . . . ἔχῃ: purpose. See WS § 2193. [εἶέν can be included within the verse, as at 342, or it can be extra metrum,

as here. In order to-accommodate elév within the verse here, Milton pro-

posed to delete μὲν. This 15 of interest solely on Milton’s account. ἔχῃ:

Triclinius corrected Ls indicative, ἔχει.] 468-9. μέθετε ... δέσμιοι: Free the strangers’ hands, so-that, being sacred, they be no longer bound. There were, of course, no conventions or rules for

160

Commentary on lines 470--5

human sacrifice in classical Greece, but the inconvenience of keeping the

two actors with their hands bound is obvious. The idea that sacrificia]

victims should be ‘free’ would follow easily from the practice of letting animals for sacrifice wander free (ἄφετοι, from ἀφίημι) in the temple

precinct. See, for example, Plato, Critias 119d, Protagoras 320a, and the

‘extension of the idea at PV 666. 470-1. ναοῦ & . . . vopileras: ‘Going inside the temple, prepare what is needed and prescribed by custom for the present events. The guards who brought in Orestes and Pylades have no more business on stage, and are dismissed. See below on 638 and, for a full discussion of the possible comings and goings

of non-speaking characters between 468 and 726, D, Bain, Masters, Servants

- and Orders in Greek Tragedy, pp. 37-9. ἐπὲ τοῖς παροῦσι: ἐπί with dative, . expressing purpose (LS] ἐπί Β. IIL 2). Iphigenia avoids anything specific, such as for the sacrifice. Contrast 726 below. [ναοῦ & ἔσω: éow (εἴσω) commonly accompanies the accusative in Homer,

- but the genitive in tragedy. Hence Valckenaer’s correction of s vaots.] 72-81. At 344-50, Iphigenia said that the dream which led her to believe

Orestes dead had left her without pity for future stangers, whoever they

might be. But the sight of Orestes and Pylades produces an instant change of feeling. Indeed, the belief that she has lost her brother may cause her all ες the more sympathetically to imagine another woman somewhere who is ᾿ about to lose hers. She has heard the herdsman’s account of how devotedly Pylades protected Orestes (310-14). Her assumption that the two men are brothers is natural. 473-5. τίς dpa.. .. ἔσται: ‘Who [was] the mother who bore you once, [who) the - father? And [your] sister, if one happens to have been born for you, deprived

of what a pair of young men will she be brotherless. First, Iphigenia wants to

know who the men are, and she asks the question in the characteristic Greek

way: ‘Who were your parents?’ But, since she is ἃ woman, her sympathy goes out to the mother, 80 she starts with ‘Who was your mother?’ and adds the father like an afterthought. But then she thinks of another close relative, a pos-

sible sister, who is to become ἀνάδελφος, like herself. &pa is usedin poetry in

the same way as ἄρα, to add vividness and urgency to a question. See Denniston, pp. 39—-40 and 44-6. γεγῶσα: 2fect participle from γίγνομαι.

[ἀδελφὴ δ᾽: L has ἀδελφή 7, so that/the question runs: ‘Who was your

mother and your father and your sister, if you have one?’ Then, οἵων ... ἔσται follows as a separate sentence{But it makes no sense for Iphigenia to ask “‘Who was/ is your sister?’ For Gréeks, 2 man was identified by his parents.

τπποπστοτο - 56 6, fOr- example, the standard-question-in-the Odyssey:“‘Who are you, sprung

from what men? Where is your city and your parents?’ (see S. West on Od. 1.

170). It could, perhaps be argued that Iphigenia forgets, as it were, the purpose of her question, and drifts on to mentioning the sister, because midway that idea comes into her head. The second 7e, then, joins on, not the single

Commentary on lines 475-81

161

word ἀδελφή, but a whole clause. But Markland’s placing of the interroga-

tion after πατήρ 7’ and substitution of &’ for 7’ after ἀδελφή, giving the sister a sentence to herself, not only improves the logic, but is much more effective rhetorically. Kovacs follows Markland, while several editors in the past show unease with Ls text. England, Murray, and Parmentier move the interrogation to follow πατήρ 7, while retaining ἀδελφή 7. Schone puts a dash after πατήρ T. orepeioa: L offers στερηθεῖσα. The form is possible in tragedy, but will not scan here. Scaliger corrected to the poetic form, στερεῖσα.]

475-8. τὰς τύχας ... δυσμαθές: ‘Who knows [men’s] fortunes, to whom they

will be such? For all the [designs] of the gods move toward the obscure, and no one knows any end. For fortune misleads [men] towards the undiscover-

able’ Face to face with the two young men and the doom that awaits them, Iphigenia is suddenly overwhelmed by the thought of the sheer strangeness and incomprehensibility of life. She expresses her feelings not so much by an organized, logical statement, as by a concatenation of expressions suggesting bewilderment and doubt. It would, for example, be enough to say fortune leads men to 76 δυσμαθές; but she accentuates the effect by saying ‘misleads.

Here, τύχη is explicitly identified with the will of the gods, as at 867 and 909-

11 below. See above on 89, below on 865-7, and Introduction, p. χχχὶν n. 63. [réAos: Ls κακόν is incomprehensible. The only way to retain it would be, with Bruhn, to assume a lacuna after 477. Otherwise, it can be left obelized, or another word can be substituted, without, however, any degree of certainty that one is restoring what Euripides wrote. τέλος, suggested by Weil, gives good sense, and leads on well to the next sentence. Maas suggested

σαφές, which could be regarded as plausible, especially in view of Her. 62 ὡς

οὐδὲν ἀνθρώποισι τῶν θείων σαφές, but which here verges on the tautologous. Hirzel proposed deleting 478. But the case is not strong. The line could have found its way into the text after being added as a parallel in the margin,

but, in view of the uncertainties of 477, deletion would be rash.]

479-81. πόθεν ... κάτω: ‘Where ever have you come from, poor strangers? [I say that] seeing that you have sailed a long way to this land, and for a long time you will be below, away from your home! ταλαΐύπωροι: ‘suffering great hardship’ No single English word conveys the sense. ὡς: causal ὡς introducing an independent sentence suggests an ellipse. Equally, ὡς here could be

exclamatory, following an address, like Ant. 572 & φίλταθ᾽ Αἷμον, ds o’ ἀτιμάζει πατήρ ‘O dearest Haemon, how your father wrongs you!’ Both ideas may be present. See WS §§ 2682 and 3001. μακροῦ ... μακρὸν: she

plays on the uses of μακρός for space and time. μακρὸν ... χρόνον is, of

course, an ironic understatement. She means “for ever’ μὲν ... &: when the

same word is repeated before μέν and 8¢ the sense of contrast may practically disappear and the two particles become almost equivalent to 7¢. . . καί,

See Denniston, p. 370. ἔσεσθε δὴ: ‘pathetic’ δή with verbs is found in tragedy

and, occasionally, in Plato. Denniston (p. 214): It is peculiarly at home in the

162

Commentary on lines 482-3

great crises of drama, above all at moments when death or rum is present o;

imminent’ See, for example, Hec. 414 & μῆτερ, & τεκουσ, απειμι δὴ κάτω: [δὴ: L offers ἔσεσθ' ἀεὶ, but ἀεί 15 impossible with μακρὸν χρονον It could easily have entered the text through a scribe who had ‘she means ἀεῦ in hls head. Dobree’s δὴ is palmary. ] 482-575. We do not know whether the style of delivery of Athenian actors of Euripides’ time offered any opportunity for the expression of emotional nuances. But readers interested in acting will see a range of possibilitiesῚm

the text in this scene. There are climaxes of suppressed emotion as Iphxgema.

and Orestes unknowingly cause each other pain. Then, there is scope Σ

- presenting in different ways Orestes’ attitude to Iphigenia, and how it may be

felt to evolve in the course of the dialogue. We have heard Orestes, when’ alone with Pylades, express his despair and bitter disillusion with the guid:

ance of Apollo. But before this unknown woman he will preserve an aristo-: cratic stoicism and self-control. Pylades remains silent, This is not a matter,: of primitive dramatic technique, but of the preferencé for emotional con-;

centration and mten31ty typical of Attic tragedy.

- '{

482--3. τί ταῦτ᾽... γύναι: ‘Why do you lament like this, and distress yourself

over mlsfortunes that concern us, whoever your are, madam?' Already,g

Orestes is intrigued. radr(a): internal accusative. γύναι: The normal; polite form of address to a woman. Whatever the attitude of the speaker’

may be towards the addressee, he remains formally correct. See. Ej Dickey, Greek Forms of Address from Herodotus to Lucian, pp. 86-8. The* natural French equivalent would be ‘madame’ The difficulty of translating!

γύναι into English is that we do not habitually use such forms of address.;

The best solution is probably ‘madam, even if it sounds a little qualnt ᾿δηά dated. At least, γυναι should never be translated ' woman, although it} all too often is. xdari: with dative, causal. See LS] ἐπί 1Π. 1. νῷν, ἁε’ανεἷ dual, from ἐγώ.

b

[κἀπὶ τοῖς μ.ελουσι νῷν Ϊ κακοῖς o€ λυπεῖς: L offers κἀπὶ τοῖς μ.ελλουσι

γῷν! κακοῖσι λυπεῖς and cause [us] pain over misfortunes impending for:

us. v@v might just pass as a dative of d1sadvantage, on the ground that; Orestes wants to stress that the troubles are coming for him and Pylades, not; for Iphigenia. But an expressed object for λυπεῖς seems more desn'able,J hence Porson suggested νὼ. But Kvi¢ala's τοῖς μέλουσι νῷν ‘of concern to: J

us, makes the point more clearly, with only minimal change λυπεῖς is a;

“ more serious problem. λυπεῖν ‘to cause pain’ or ‘grief’ is a strong word, as an . examination of Euripides’ use of it shows. Thus (at Med. 1046-7) Medea,; --about-to kill her children, asks herself 7{-8¢i'ue marépa τῶνδε.. . λυποῦσαν: αὐτὴν δὶς τόσα κτᾶσθαι κακά; ‘Why must I, while causing pain to the: father of these children, myself incur suffering twice as great?’ Surely,J Iphigenia cannot inflict distress of that order on Orestes and Pylades by. . expressing pity for them? Besides, 7{ ταῦτ᾽ ὀδύρῃ shows that Orestes is;

Ἰ

Commentary on lines 484--7

163

Y

Wy

“«“αι΄Ψ.

T

talking about Iphigenia’s feelings, not his own. Hence, Markland proposed

᾽

the middle, λυπεῖ (rather, old Attic λυπῇ) ‘cause yourself pain. But Housman’s - kaxols o€ λυπεῖς (Diggle σὲ) makes an explicit contrast between ‘us’ (νῷν)

and γου (σέ). λυπεῖς then becomes an acceptable rhetorical exaggeration:

‘make yourself miserable. For the use of the simple personal pronoun in

place of the reflexive to point an antithesis, compare Hipp. 1409 στένω σὲ

(rather than σε) μᾶλλον 7) ᾽μέ and Hel. 842 σὲ κτανὼν éué κτενῶ, with . Kanmcht on the latter passage.] 484-5. οὔτοι. .. θέλῃ: Ἱ certainly do not think clever anyone who, being about ¢ to kill, wishes to conquer the fear of destruction by pity’ Given how little

Orestes knows about Iphigenia, a tone of slightly irritated puzzlement is

natural. This 15 the priestess whose job it is to sacrifice him. What is the point ; of expressing pity for her own victims? He does, however, impute to her a

kindly motive: she must be trying to reduce her victims’ fear of death. σοφον-

masculine, because he is generalizing.ὃς& ἂν θέλῃ: again, generalizing: ‘anyone who wishes.. [κτενεῖν: L and Stobaeus 3. 8. 6 offer θανειν Ἱ do not think that man wise who, being about to die, wishes to take away the fear of destruction ...’ But . here it is Iphigenia’s intentions, not his own, that concern Orestes. He will go on to himself at 486. Seidler (on 471) observes that the MSS of Euripides frequently confuse θανεῖν with κτανεῖν. At 553 in IT, Triclinius corrected

κτανών to θανών. But κτανών had already been copied by B, and survived

into early printed editions. See further Diggle, Studies, pp. 82-3. But there is a further problem. Seidler took κτανεῖν to be a future infinitive, common after μέλλω. But the normal Attic future of κτείνω, used by the other tragedians and by Thucydides, is κτενῶ. In the MSS of Euripides, however, there is recurrent confusion between κτενεῖν and κτανεῖν. At Andr. 382, where the future 15 necessary, OP write κτανῶ and the rest κτενῶ. At Held. 411, LP

offer κτανῶ, and at Or. 1039 all the MSS offer it. At Med. 394, El. 646, and IT

691, the MSS are unanimous for κτενῶ, but at Or, 1525 LP have the rest κτενεῖς. At Med. 1241, ALP have κτενοῦμεν, but VB Then, there is further confusion with κτειν-, of which 291 above excellent example. Add Med. 1249, where AVB write (correctly)

κτανεῖς and κτανοῦμεν. provides an κτενεῖς, but

LP κτείνεις, and Tro. 719, where P has κτείνουσι for κτενοῦσι. In fact, the

MSS of Euripides have no authority in this matter, and editors can be free to print forms in Κτεν- wherever a future is necessary or desirable. A double process of corruption, as in the present passage, may even justify «rev- for θαν- See also on 992 below.)

486-7. 098’ . . . ἄνελπις: ‘Nor yet [do I think clever the man] who laments over

Hades when it is close [to him]}, having no hope of rescue’ οὐδ᾽ joins one negative clause to another (WS § 2933). οἰκτίζεται: for the middle of οικτιζω meaning to lament over’ with a direct ob]ect, compare Hel. 1053

(0")ἂν οἰκτισαίμεθα ‘T might lament over γου ((σ) being Hermann’s

164

Commentary on lines 487-93

supplement). Orestes is still generalizing: ὅστις is equivalent to ὃς ἂν (48 )/ but 15 commonly followed by an indicative. /

Ε

[οὐδ᾽ is Hermann’s correction of Is οὐχ, which would produce a hats asyndeton. ἄνελπις, Brodaeus emendation of dy ἐλπὶς, is compelling, although the word is not found elsewhere until Eusebius (¢. AD 300). Reiske and

Markland regarded 486 with suspicion, because they read θανεῖν at 484, so

that Orestes seemed to be repeating himself,] 487-9. ὡς V. .. ὁμοίως: ‘Since he combines two bad things out of one: he

both incurs the charge of foolishness and dies all the same: δύ᾽... ovvdarres;

A conflation of δύο κακὰ é€ ἑνὸς ποιεῖ ς makes two bad things out of one and δύο κακὰ συνάπτει ‘He combines two bad things! ᾽

489. τὴν ... χρεών: ‘One should let fortune be’ Orestes answers 478.

490.7)uds . .. σύ: ‘Don’t you lament over us The placing of the object first and the subject last stresses both. Orestes still has in mind the inappropriateness ; of the sacrificing priestess lamenting over her victims.

e

it. Here too, Orestes insists that he and Pylades were thoroughly aware of the risk they were running in coming to Taurica. See Barrett on Hipp. 380. On

et

490-1. τὰς ydp ... γιγνώσκομεν: ‘For we know and recognize the sacrifices here The two near-synonyms are used by Phaedra at Hipp. 380 τὰ χρήστ᾽ ᾽ ἐπιστάμεσθα καὶ γιγνώσκομεν. 886 wants to stress the fact that we (herself in particular) really do know what is right, even if we do not always do -

verses recurring, or partially recurring, in different plays of Euripides, see

D. L. Page, Actors’ Interpolations in Greek Tragedy, p. 105, with modifications

,

her mind, in this case that one of the men is called ‘Pylades’ (all she knows,

.ἦ

proposed in my note on Alc. 207.-8, and also on 738 below, 492-3. mérepos ... θέλω: ‘So which of you is called Pylades? That I want to know first. ἄρ(α) shows that the question follows from something alreadyin .

except that they are Greeks). Compare I. 1. 8 τίς τ᾽ dp σφωε θεῶν ἔριδι. ξυνέηκε μάχεσθαι; We know that Agamemnion and Achilles quarrelled, so

which god made them do it? [tév0ad> ὠνομασμένος : ‘Having been named here’ does not make sense, | although some editors have argued that it does. They render the phrase as -

‘having been addressed as “Pylades” (on the shore) here’ (Platnauer). But the

parenthetic addition gives the game away. ἐνθάδε unqualified means ‘here, where we are now. At 932 below, én’ ἀκταῖς κἀνθάδ᾽.... μανείς is not com-

parable, because ἐπ᾽ ἀκταῖς is expressed and serves to define the scope of ἐνθάδε. Weil's εἴπατ᾽ for ἐνθάδ᾽ avoids extensive rewriting, but leaves the . pointlessly tautologous ὠνομασμένος κέκληται. Diggles ὄνομ᾽ ἐπωνο-

μασμένος. seems neat-and-ingenious; but hardly gives-a satisfactory mean- - ing. The expression occurs in Erectheus, TrGF 5.1, fr. κεκλήσεται.... σεμνὸς 1 Ποσειδῶν ὄνομ᾽ ἐπωνομασμένος ... Ἐρεχθεύς. But there Erectheus is to

be given an extra name. In this cult, he is to have the title ‘reverend Poseidor’. : At Her. 1329 (ἐπωνομασμένα σέθεν"), the precincts of Theseus are to have .

Commentary on lines 494--7

165

4 new name conferred on them. émovoud{w is not the word for simply addressing someone by his name,] 494-569. Iphigenia’s couplet introduces seventy-six lines of stichomythia, much the longest such sequence in the play. Nearest to it comes her exchange with Thoas at 1159-1221, Stichomythia can lead to recognition, as it (almost)

does at Hel. 553-93, or in the earlier play, Alc. (1077-1119), but that is not its

characteristic function. Here, as in the long exchange at Ion 255-368, there is a sort of flirtation with recognition, as the characters reveal their feelings and preoccupations. The critical tendency habitually to regard Euripides as inferior to Sophocles leads to praise for the (slightly) greater informality and ‘realism’ of the latter’s stichomythia. But imitating reality is not necessarily the aim of stichomythia. Rather, it is an artistically concentrated and stylized representation of an exchange designed to serve its particular dramatic purpose more effectively and economically than any quasi-realistic conversation. On Euripidean stichomythia, see, in particular; Β. Seidensticker in W. Jens (ed.), Die Bauformen der griechischen Tragidie, pp. 209-20 and, for a helpful conspectus, with bibliography, C. Collard, ‘On Stichomythia; Liverpool Class. Monthly 5.4 (1980), pp. 77-85. For an extended study of Euripides in particular, see Ε, R. Schwinge, Die Verwendung der Stichomythie in den Dramen des Euripides.

494. 09’ . .. μαθεῖν: “This man, if it is any pleasure to you to learn that. Orestes takes up μαθεῖν ... θέλω. The politely dismissive formula signals his refusal to engage with the questioner: ΤἸῈ that makes you happy ...’ ὅδ᾽: not T, as

often in tragedy, but like Π, 6.460 Ἕκτορος ἥδε γυνή. év ἡδονῇ is equivalent

to ἡδύ (sc. ἐστι), 48 év ἀσφαλεῖ 15 used for ἀσφαλές (ἐστι) at 762 below. For

parallels for this type of expression, see on 762-5, with Kannicht on Hel.

1227 and Barrett on Hipp. 785. Platnauer (ad loc.) cites év ἡδονῇ for ἡδύ

from Herodotus 7. 15. For €t 7 δή, see above on 43. [εἴ τι is a brilliant correction of ἔστι made by Triclinius after P had been copied.] ' 495. ποίας . . . γεγώς: Βογη a citizen of which Greek land?’ γεγώς agrees with ὅδ(ε) in 494. ποίας . . . maTpidos: on the alliteration with =, see above on 309

and below on 823-6. Ἕλληνος: on the masculine form, see on 340-1 above. 496. i & ... γύναι: “‘What more would you gain if you were to learn that, madam?’ Orestes parries the question. μαθοῦσα takes the place of an ifclause. For the whole sentence, compare the chorus-leader’s question to

Heracles at Alc. 490: τί &’ dv κρατήσας δεσπότην πλέον λάβοις ‘What

would you gain if you were to conquer their master?’ 497. πότερον ... μιᾶς: Are you brothers from the same mother?’ Are they brothers in the closest sense? In spite of the eccentric case made out by Aeschylus at Eum. 657-66 in order to prove that the mother is no relation to the child, Athenian law indicates that the mother was felt to be the closest

166

Commentary on lines 498-504

relation of all. A man could, apparently,

his half-sister by the same

father, but not by the same mother. The%l?@gsthenes, Agamst Eubulides (57) 20 says that his grandfather had married his own sister οὐχ

ὁμομητρίαν. See the valuable' note by Sommerstein on Eum. 657-66 and A. R. W, Harrison, The Law of Athens I, pp. 22-3. 498. φιλότητί γ᾽: the great friendships of Greek legend, between Achilles and

Patroclus as well as between Orestes and Pylades, are quasi-fraternal, in that

they are between men who have been brought up together. The blood relationship provides the model. γ᾽ singles out the word φιλότητι, 80 limiting the sense in which they can be said to be brothers.

[γύναι, so soon after 496, has aroused suspicion. Kéchly’s γένει, adopted by

Sansone and Kovacs, is, at least, very interesting,]

499. 00t . . . πατήρ: At Athens, the father would acknowledge the child as his and name it at a celebration on the tenth day after its birth. See Demosthenes, Against Boeotus 1 (39). 22, Isaeus, On the Estate of Pyrrhus (3). 30, and W. K, Lacey, The Famtly in Classical Greece, PP- 111-12. Ion 800 is very similar: ὄνομα δὲ ποῖον αὐτὸν ὀνομάζει πατήρ; But the posmon of gol glves a different emphasis here: And you, what's your name?’ 6 γεννήσας πατήρ, so significant in its context at 360 above, here seems almost formulaic, merely -adding a little more substance to πατήρ. These are the only two occurrences of the phrase inEunpldes

500. τὸ μὲν ... av: ‘With justice I might be ca]led Unfortunate Compare -Iocastas last words to Oedlpus at OT 1071~2 ἰοὺ ἰού, δύστηνε. τοῦτο γάρ o’ éxw/ μόνον προσειπεῖν. ‘Alas, alas, unfortunate! For that 15 the only way in which I can address you: The supremely unfortunate man is one who has committed a terrible crime against his closest kin, accidentally, like Oedipus, or Adrestus the Phrygian (Herodotus 1. 45), or, in Orestes’ case, at the com-

mand of a god. Markland pointed out reminiscences of this line in Latin at Plautus, Pers. 4.4.99 (647) and Horace, Epistles 1.7.92-3. μὲν: Orestes seems to be about to go on: ‘But (δέ) my father called me ...’ Instead, he stops. 76 ... δίκαιον: adverbial. ἐυστυχὴς: singular, with a ‘modest’ plural verb, like the participle δοκοῦσ(α) at 349 above and σπεύδουσ(α) at 578-9 below. Contrast θανόντες at 502 below. [L offers δυστυχεῖς, agreeing with the plural καλοίμεθ(α). But the smgular is necessary if we are to hear δΔυστυχής ds a name.] 501. τοῦτο ... τύχῃ: Attribute that to fortune’ (not to your father). Cropp observes the sound-play in Δυστυχής and δὸς τῇ τύχῃ. μὲν: Another case

+,Of μέν solitarium. Here, the pronoun τοῦτο is implicitly contrasted with an : idea-which remains-unexpressed-See Denniston; pp:380—1.-- - -

504. 70 σῶμα... . τοὔνομα: ‘You shall sacrifice my body not my name! θύσεις:. - -Itranslate‘you shall... . because the future can have the force of an impera-

tive. See WS § 1917. He means ‘Do it, if you like. The antithesis of ὄνομα and ;

σῶμα becomes thematic in Hel,, where Helen’s chaste body, her real person, :

Commentary on lines 503--7

167

remains in Egypt, while her ὄνομα, her reputation, is usurped and disgraced by the phantom. For Orestes, the priority is, in a manner, reversed: his body is insignificant; his name is the reality that matters. Ε Solmsen saw here ‘something like the germ of the motive fully developed in Hel’ See ONOMA and JIPAI'MA, in Euripides’ Helen, CR 48 (1934), pp. 119-21=Kleine Schriften 1 (Hildesheim, 1968), pp. 188-90. [Barthold's suggestion of transposing 502 and 504 (accepted by Kovacs and Cropp) certainly improves coherence. Orestes’ reason for not giving his name (502) then follows Iphigenia’s question: ‘Why are you grudging me

this?’ (503).]

s

503. τί 8¢ . . . uéya: ‘But why do you grudge this? 15 it that you are so proud?’ Yes, indeed. The chorus assumed that Orestes was a merchant, but he is a

king by right. 7 in a second question suggests an answer to the previous question. Compare, for example, OT 622 τί δῆτα χρήζεις; ἢἣ με γῆς ἔξω

βαλεῖν; ‘What then do you want? Is it to throw me out of the land?’ [ἦ: Hermann's correction is clearly right. s ἢ would make the second question alternative, instead of explanatory.] 502. ἀνώνυμοι ... av: derisive laughter is the ultimate insult to a defeated enemy, so peculiarly bitter to the victim, οὐ ydp γελᾶσθαι τλητὸν ἐξ

ἐχθρῶν (Med.797,and compare 383). Antigone sees herselfas being mocked

(Ant. 839) and Megara dreads mockery if she and her children are burnt to

death (Her. 284~6). Orestes guards against effective mockery by concealing his name. θανόντες: the participle takes the place of an if-clause: ‘If I should die ... I should not be mocked:. Is it possible that Orestes suspects a hint of mockery in Iphigenia’s sound-play at 501? [Mastronarde (on Med. 383) sees Medea's dread of being mocked as part of her ‘engagement in male categories of value and social standing] but that is very questionable. Other tragic heroines share that dread. See the examples cited above.]

505. οὐδ᾽ ἂν ... σοι: ‘And your city—would you not even tell [me] which [that] is?’ Her use of the potential optative (ἂν φράσειας)), rather than the straight indicative (ἔθεθ᾽ 499) shows that she is beginning to plead. The

prolepsis, by which πόλεν is made the object of the main sentence, instead

of the subject of the subordinate clause (‘I know thee, who thou art’), serves to highlight the word. See above on 285-6. . 506. ζητεῖς . . . θανουμένῳ: ‘[No,] for you are seeking [something which is] of ᾽ no profit [to me], as one who is going to die? Some commentators look for an explanation of this answer in the idea that there is to be no lasting relationship between the two, but that is probably too precise. Rather, Orestes is simply parrying (as at 500): ‘What is the good to me of telling you?’ 507. χάριν ... σε: ‘But what prevents you from granting me this favour?’ Iphigenia rejects the idea of profit, and appeals instead to courtesy and kind, ness. The appeal succeeds.

168

Commentary on lines 508--16

[7{ σε: Monk preferred oe τί, without arguing the case, but presumably seek.

ing to place more stress on τί We cannot, however, trust our instinct in such

matters. The question is thoroughly examined by Diggle, Studies, pp. 83-4,] 508. 70 κλεινὸν . . . ἐπεύχομαι: Ἱ declare that famous Argos is my native lang’

Typically, the Homeric hero proudly declares his antecedents: ταύτης 7o,

γενεῆς τε καὶ αἵματος εὔχομαι εἶναι (II. 6. 211). The Pythia at Eum, 58-9

reverses the idea: no land boasts (ἐπεύχεται) with impunity of rearing the

Furies. κλεινὸν: See on 8-9 above.

.

509. πρὸς θεῶν .. . γεγώς: For the gods’ sake, stranger, are you really sprung

from there?’ Naturally, the effect of Orestes’ announcement on Iphigenia is

“electrifying. mpos θεῶν expresses an urgent appeal with either a question (as: here), or a request. Ion, at Jon 265, also begins a question with πρὸς θεῶν ἀληθῶς ... There is irony in his passionate interest in the origin of the.

Athenian royal family. He does not know that he belongs to it himself, On

πρὸς θεῶν, see further Barrett on Hipp. 219.

-

.y

510. éx τῶν ... ὄλβιαι: ‘Yes indeed, from Mycenae, which was once wealthy!: Orestes speaks as if the wealth of Mycenae had been destroyed by the mis-fortunes of his family, and to Euripides’ audience its grandeur was far in the.

past (see on 44-6 above). But for a character in tragedy coming from’

Mycenae still confers a cachet. The poor farmer at El 34-8 speaks proudly:

of his descent from Mycenaean ancestors. {y’) both intensifies and limits,"

Orestes comes not merely from Argos (conceived as an area), but from the: ~great city of Mycenae itself. See Denniston, pp. 130-1. MonKk's supplement: gives the necessary force and point to Orestes’ answer.

515. καὶ μὴν ... μολών: “Truly longed-for you have come, in coming from Argos. καὶ μὴν ... ye: καὶ μήν marks an advance to the next idea. The keyword, ποθεινός, comes next, then γε to add stress to it. See Denniston, pp. 351-2. On μολών at line-end, see on 1-2 above. . [515-16 in their transmitted position, after 514, are impossibly disruptive.:

Having said that she wants to ask a question (512), Iphigenia must go on and-

ask it, not say how pleased she 15 to have a visitor from Argos. Badham trans-: posed 515-16 to follow 512, which is better, but Platnauer’s placing of 515--

16 still earlier, after 510, is better still: Iphigenia’s mention of Argos is brought -

as close as possible to Orestes’(510), and Iphigenia’s question at 511 follows; naturally on Orestes’ remark at 516.] ; 516. οὔκουν . .. ὅρα: ‘Certainly not (ποθεινός) to myself, If to you, you see to:

that’ Orestes answers with grim humour. ὅρα: ὁράω is used figuratively |

twith a range of meanings approximating to ‘pay attention to. Compare Held::

--420- ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ὅρα - σύ ‘You-see to that: Here; the chiastic order, bringing ° together oot and σύ, stresses the contrast: ‘you, as opposed to ‘me’ Compare::

991 below.

[τοῦθ᾽ ὅρα: Jacobs’s emendation is much the neatest way to deal with this' :

line. I's τοῦτ᾽ ἔρα requires τοῦτο to be taken as internal accusative, since.

Commentary on lines 511-18

169 .

ἐράω (‘to desire passionately’) governs a genitive of the thing desired. The result is very feeble: 1 my coming 15 desirable to you, have this desire’ Barnes eases the language a little with τοῦδ᾽ ἔρα, where τοῦδε has to be taken as τοῦ ἐμὲ ἐλθεῖν, but that does not improve the meaning.] 511. φυγὰς ... τύχῃ: ‘Did you sail away from your fatherland as an exile, or by what chance?’ No need to ask Orestes why he does not welcome his own presence in Taurica, but why did he ever leave his native land? ἀπῆρας: aorist of

ἀπαίρω. Intransitive, meaning to depart’ See also 967 below. (δ᾽) on connective 8¢ moving from one question to another, see Denniston, p. 173. [(8°), added by Scaliger, 15 both metrically necessary to close (and so

lengthen) the final syllable of φυγάς, and linguistically appropriate.)

512. φεύγω ... ἑκών: ‘I am indeed an exile in a way, unwilling and willing’

Orestes did not wish to leave his native land, but the pursuit of the Furies left him with little choice. At I. 4. 43, Zeus tells Hera that he will destroy Troy

ἑκὼν ἀέκοντί ye θυμῷ, of his own free choice, but against his own feelings. Anacreon (PMG 428) expresses ambiguity of feeling: ἐρέω τε δηῦτε κοὺὐκ ἐρέω! καὶ μαίνομαι kod μαίνομαι. Euripides is more strikingly epigram-

matic. οὐκ ἔνδον ἔνδον ἐστίν, the slave’s answer at Ach. 395 ff. to the question 15 Euripides in?’ shows that such paradoxical expressions were already recognizably Euripidean as early as 425. See also my note on Alc. 521. For other types of paradoxical expression in this play, see 144, 203, 566, 889. [At Or. 613, Canter’s emendation of ἑκοῦσαν οὐκ ἄκουσαν to ἑκοῦσαν οὐχ ἑκοῦσαν is not beyond dispute. With the MS reading, Tyndareus could be asserting that there shall be absolutely no ambiguity in the city’s decision to execute Orestes. See Willink ad loc., with Addendis Addenda, p. 365, and

West ad loc.]

513.4p’ Gv . . . θέλω: ‘Would you perhaps tell me something of what I want [to know]?’ Again, Iphigenia puts her question timidly, in the potential optative (compare 505 above). μοι indicates her personal interest (WS 5 1486). τι...

ὧν stands for 7¢ τούτων d. The relative is attracted into the case of the miss-

ing antecedent. See WS § 2531a. 514. ws ... δυσπραξίας: As a side issue to my misfortune. Tacitly, Orestes

agrees. Adding ‘yes' here might overstate his willingness. & παρέργῳ:

Euripides’ use of πάρεργον is examined by Pearson on Hel. 925. He defines its ‘fundamental meaning’ as ‘something incidental to the main idea, not being of the essence but accidentally connected with ἰ See also Kannicht on Hel. 924-5 and Bond on Her. 1340. 517. Tpoiav ... Adyos: the Trojan war and everything connected with it is famous (see on 9 above), but Iphigenia’s uncertainty about what has happened (519) brings home the remoteness of Taurica.

518. ὡς . . . ὄναρ: “Would that I had never [known about it] even in a dream?’

ws preceding optative or ὥφελον in wishes is a Homeric turn of phrase

which survives in poetry. See GMT §§ 726 and 737. There is an ellipse here:

170

Commentary on lines 519-24

ως ὥφελον μηπότ᾽ εἰδέναι. ὄναρ: used adverbially: ‘in a dream. See L§) : ὄναρ 1L [ἰδὼν: Scaliger’s proposal ideiv simplifies the construction: “Would that I had never even seen it in a dream!’ But that suggests that Orestes has seen Troy in reality.] 519. φασίν ... dopi: ‘They say that it 15 gone, destroyed by the spear! οὐκέγ᾽ οὖσαν οἴχεσθαι belong closely together. Platnauer compares the common

Attic οἴχεται θανών ‘He is dead and gone.

520. ἔστιν ... ἠκοὔσατε: It is 50, and you have not heard unfulfilled things’

οὐδ᾽ ἄκραντ᾽ ἠκούσατε stresses that it really 15 so. Thus, at Ba. 1231, Cadmus.

says that someone has told him that Agave is coming, 008’ ἄκραντ᾽ ἠκούσα-᾿ μεν, for he can actually see her coming,

521-45. Iphigenia asks about those whom she blames for her misfortune, one.

after another, in the order in which she holds them responsible. First comes Helen, separated from the rest by a neutral exchange of six lines. Then comes; Calchas, then Odysseus. Achilles marks a pivotal point in the interrogation;

she is naturally interested in his fate, without holding him to blame. Last

comes the man who concerns her above all: her father. : Philoctetes’ interrogation of Neoptolemus at Phil. 410-45 15 sometlmes

compared with this passage, but it is rather the contrast that 15 revealing, The

Sophoclean exchange is, typically, less formal in structure. Then, until he: reaches Thersites, Philoctetes asks about his friends, while constantly return- : ing to Odysseus, the object of his obsessive hatred.

521-3. Ἑλένη & ... κακόν: I. And has Helen come back again to Menelaus’. house?’ O.‘She has, having come evilly for one of my people! I. And where is she? For to me too she owes 8 certain grudge from the past’ κακῶς γ᾽ ἐλθοῦσα:

strictly, Helen's return has had nothing to do with the murder of Agamemnon . (τῶν ἐμῶν τινι), but to Orestes, as to Iphigenia, Helen is the ἀρχὴ xaxdv. See. 526 below. καὲὶ ποῦ 'στι: not simply redundant after her question at 521 and

Orestes’ reply, Iphigenia can still hope that punishment of some kind may have overtaken Helen, even after her return home. She clings to that idea.

προυφείλει: προοφείλω (Attic πρου-) means to ‘owe something from the

past, here something bad (κακόν), but at Held. 240-1 Demophon speaks of . the obligation from the past that the children of Heracles should do well at his

hands: 76 προυφείλειν xaAds/ mpd.ooew map’ ἡμῶν τούσδε “The obligation . from the past that these (children) be treated well by us. [The supposed redundancy of δῶμα in 521 in view of Iphigenia’s question’ at 523 has worried some editors. Schéne-K&chly obelize the word, and Weil

ῳ substitutes λέκτρα. But that makes matters worse, if anythmg, because it indicates reconciliation; destroying the point-of 524.]---—-----

524, Σπάρτῃ . . . Evvevvéry: no one could forget Helen’s appearance in Od. 4. Σπάρτῃ ‘In Sparta: The dative as locative with no preposition is found in: Homer and, less frequently, in tragedy. See 567 below and Kiihner-Gerth i, pp. 441-2.

Commentary on lines 525--33

171

525-6. & uioos . .. γάμων: 1.Ὁ hated being to the Greeks, not to me alone’ O. ‘[ too have gamed somethmg from that woman’s marriage’ uéoos: in English, we can say ‘my love] using the abstract for the person. The same apphes more w1de1y in Attic tragedy. At Ant. 760, Creon, referring to Antlgone, says ἄγετε 70 μῖσος ‘Bring the hated creature’ εἰς "Ελληνας' to’' meaning ‘in the eyes of’, as at Ba. 779 ψόγος €s Ἕλληνας μεγας ἃ discredit in the eyes of the Greeks’ (Dodds). Here, metre requires εἰς (see above on 334-5). ἀπέλαυσα: ἀπο-

λαύω (λαύω is never found) belongs to Attic and Ionic prose. It occurs

in Aristophanes, four times in Euripides, and never elsewhere in tragedy.

'The basic sense is positive (‘to enjoy, ‘to profit from’), and so it is used at

Her.1224. At Andr. 543 and Phoen. 1205, it is, as here, ironic. δή 7« he knows

very well what he has gained, but is keeping it to himself. See Denniston, pp- 212-13, and compare 545 and 578 below. 528. ὡς: exclamatory. πάνθ᾽ ἅπαξ: ‘all at one go. The words are brought together for contrast, aIthough πάνθ᾽ is governed by συλλαβοῦσί(α). 529-30. πρὶν γὰρ ... ἐγώ: I ‘[Yes,] for before you die, I want to gain this [benefit] O."Question, since this is what you want. I will answer’ Iphigenia’s πρὶν... θανεῖν σε is unusually frank. Greeks generally prefer some penphrasis for ‘di¢. ἐπαυρέσθαι seems to be ἃ more neutral word than ἀπολαύειν. There is one other occurrence in Bunpldes, at Hel 469. ἰτοῦδ᾽ ἐπαυρέσθαι: Paley proposed roir, and Wecklein, Schone—chhl)',

England, and Weil print it, while Platnauer approves it. But, while éravpéw

(-ἰσκω) is found governing an accusative in Homer (I, 11. 573, 13. 649, 15.

316), the middle seems always to govern the genitive.] 531-2. The fate of Menelaus is included in Orestes’ answer at 524, so Ipthema turns to her next two bétes noires: first Calchas, then Odysseus. See 16 and 24 above. KdAyas 7is (‘one Calchas’) suggests only a casual interest. She puts on a show of indifi'erence, which, however, she cannot maintain.

[ὡς ἦν: Lenting proposedws γ᾽ ἦν, where ye would have limiting force: as,

at least, was the report in Mycenae This is possible, but not necessary. In any case, it is to be distinguished from the Eurlpxdeanws ...γᾷε, where γε highlights an mtervemng word, as at Hipp. 651 ws καὶ o0y ... ἦλθες “That was

how you came ...’ (see Denniston, p. 143 (3)). Platnauer (ad loc.) fails to make the d.istinction.]

533. & πότνι᾽ ... yovos: ‘O goddess, how good! Then what of the son of Laertes?’ The goddess must be Artemis. ὡς εὖ: understand εὖ ἐστί or e éxet. For the ellipse, compare Supp. 778 τὰ μὲν εὖ, τὰ 8¢ δυστυχῆ ‘Some things [are] well, others unfortunate, and, on the ‘adjectival’ use of εὖ see Collard on that line. With τί, πράσσει could be understood, but that may be too specific. The same type of elhptlc expressmn recurs at 543 and 576

below. See Diggle, Euripidea, p. 428. γὰρ: ‘progressive’ The-questionet, ‘having been satisfied on one subject, wishes to learn something further'—

Denniston, p. 81.

172

Commentary on lines 534--8

[εὖ. τί: A brilliant conjecture by Musgrave for s ἔστι, €07t ... . γόνος (‘Is the ο 800 of Laertes alive?’) leaves ws redundant. Canter proposed σῶς ἐστι γὰρ .« » With γὰρ awkwardly postponed.] 534. οὔπω . .. λόγος: Ἧς has not yet returned home, but he is alive, as [is] the

report. Note the rhyme; Adyos ... ydvos ... Adyos. In this play I find seven-

teen pairs of rhyming lines, defining rhyming as the same final vowel-sound

-and consonant (if any) in words similarly accented (Aafeiv/Gaveiv, but not ᾿ἐμός | φίλος). A triple rhyme, as here, is altogether exceptional. See my note

΄ on Alc. 782-5. 535. ὄλοιτο . . . τυχών: ‘May he die, never having achieved return to his native land. A character in Diphilus’ Synoris (PCGV, fr. 74) combines this line with two others from different (and unknown) sources to make up a bogus quo-

tation from Euripides. “‘What play does that come from, for heaven’s sake?’

asks his interlocutor. ‘Never you mind’ comes the answer. μηπότ᾽: through

the influence of the wish. If ὄλουτο were negatived, the negative would be . μή. 536.η μηδὲν... «νοσεῖ: ‘Do not curse him. Everything to do with him is in trou-

ble. Orestes has nothing against his fathér’s loyal henchman. κατεύχου: κατεύχομαι, can mean to pray against, with the force of κατά with the genitive.

537. @éridos . .. ἔτι: ‘And Thetis'—the son of the Nereid; is he still alive?’ The

word-order is strange. Unless there is corruption, we have to suppose that

Iphigenia is having some difficulty in formulating a question which carries ͵ a powerful emotional charge for her.

[Elmsley (on Hcld. 793) quotes the line as Θέτιδος 8¢ τῆς Νηρῇδος ...

Removing the awkwardly placed ¢ certainly smoothes the Greek. The emendation may be accidental (Elmsley is discussing a completely different mat. ter), but it is certainly interesting.] 538. 0vk . . «Αὐλίδι: ‘He is no more. Vain was his marriage at Aulis? This remark has to be taken as inconsequential, something surprising in Greek. A con-

nection with οὐκ ἔστιν would imply -either ‘that Achilles’ marriage was

unconsummated because of his death, or that it was meant to save his life,

but failed to do so. Should we see authorial manipulation here? Euripides wants a mention of Aulis to provide a cue for Iphigenia’s reply and to tease the audience with the prospect of recognition. It is the normally tight logic and psychological plausibility of Euripidean stichomythia that makes such a manipulation stand out. Suddenly, we find ourselves unable to see into the +mind’ of the speaker. λέκτρ᾽: internal accusative: ‘wedded a marriage’ --—--———-[Weil;who saw the difficultyof the line more clearly than most, distinguished

the ἀρχὴ κακῶν motif: without the false ‘marriage’ and the sacrifice at Aulis,

the expedition could not have sailed. So the murder of Agamemnon, Orestes’ consequent misfortunes, and even Achilles’ own death, would have been

avoided. But then dAAws is much too weak. The ‘marriage’ was not merely

Commentary on lines 539-43

173

‘vain, but absolutely disastrous. Weil also sought to improve matters by read-

ing οὐκ €06 ὃς ἄλλως Ο more is he who made the vain marriage’ This is,

indeed, some improvement, since it substitutes a relative clause which identifies Achilles for the independent sentence which looks like an explanation of οὐκ ἔστιν. But in that case, ἄλλως 15 best interpeted as merely ‘unconsum-

mated. ἔγημ᾽ év Αὐλίδι: Dupuy (and Markland) for L's ἔγημεν Αὐλίδι, which

makes Αὐλίδι a locatival dative (like Σ πάρτῃ at 524 and Ἄργει at 567). The

locatival dative is very selectively used in Attic poetry (see WS § 1534), and év Αὐλίδι is otherwise universal in Buripides (IT 339, 770, 1418, IA 353).

Here, too, ἐν is in fact present hidden in ἔγημεν, as Dupuy saw.] 539. δόλια ... πεπονθότες: “Yes, a deceitful marriage indeed, as those who experienced it know. Enigmatic. In tragedy, a woman speaking of herself in the plural uses the masculine (WS § 1009), but she may combine this with a feminine singular participle, as at 348-9 above (ἠγριώμεθα.... δοκοῦσ(α)). See also 578-9 below. But here, Iphigenia keeps to the masculine plural with the participle (πεπονθότες), making it highly unlikely that it could occur to Orestes that.she means herself. yap: ‘assentient’ [γὰρ: Denniston (pp 86-7) suggests that there 15 no need to assume an

ellipse, such as “Yes, it was ἄλλως because δόλια,, Rather, assentient ydp

‘shakes itself free from its elliptical origin, and acquires an independent existence. ἔσασιν: Nauck’s emendation of Is φασὶν, which does not scan (U—u 15 needed here, not - U). Triclinius tried ὡς γε, which remained in the vulgate until Nauck. The question, however, is not what Iphigenia says, but

what she knows.]

540. 7is ... Ἑλλάδος: “Whoever are you? How well you ask questions about Greece!’ Orestes’ reserve suddenly; at least for the time being, breaks down. So far, he has had no particular reason to think that this woman was Greek. τἀφ᾽ --τὰ ἀπὸ.

541. ἐκεῖθέν ... ἀπωλόμην: ‘I am from there. I was lost while still a ρσί ᾽

ἀπωλόμην is common as a cry of distress from someone who feels that she or he has no worthwhile life left. See, for example, Alc. 391, Andr. 71,74, Hec. 440. Hermann proposed παῖς (δ᾽) ἔτ᾽ ofc’ ... That produces smoother Greek, but is that what is wanted here? The asyndeton, making the words seem to burst out without premeditation, seems more emotionally effective. 542. ὀρθῶς .. . γύναι: ο with reason you long to know about [events] there, ‘madam. Orestes’ limited curiosity about Iphigenia (compare 483 above) is now satisfied. He does not go on to ask questions which might have led to recognition.

"

543. τίδ᾽... εὐδαίμονα: ‘What of the commander whom they call “fortunate”?’ As far as Iphigenia knows, Agamemnon is still alive. She heard him called ‘fortunate’ in the past, and assumes, naturally, that he is still so called. For

Odysseus and Achilles she used simple periphrases. Now, when it comes to

Commentary on lines 544--50

i i

174

Agamemnon, she becomes so evasive that Orestes does not know whom sh

means. τί δ᾽: The same type of ellipse as τί γαρ at 533 above. στρατηγος βασιλεύς (UU-) is metrically inconvenient in iambic trimeters. Hence the: use of στρατηγός where there is any suggestion of a military context: Compare the use of the word for Creon at Ant. 8 and see also below on 74

[εὐδαίμονα: Markland, for L's εὐδαιμονεῖν ‘whom they say is fortunate’ That,

would suggest much more powerfully that she 15 still hearing it said, which,

15 certainly not so. It is true that the infinitive is the lectio difficilior:ὅτι (ὡς);

is the normal construction with active λέγω, and, indeed, the infinitive con-; struction tends later to disappear altogether. But, in the last resort, meaning:

matters more than principles of textual criticism. Moreover, the adjectweis: :

more in keeping with 544.]

544. τίς ... εὐδαιμόνων: ‘Who? For [the one] at least whom I know [is] not-? among the fortunate’ The construction is: οὐ [éxeivos]ὅν ye ἐγὼ οἶδα τωνΞ

,

εὐδαιμόνων [ἐστί]. γε: limiting: not that one. εὐδαιμόνων: Striking after"‘* εὐδαίμονα at the end of the previous line. These bulky and relatively uncom:

mon words are undoubtedly meant to catch the attention. Euripides gener-}

ally avoids ending consecutive lines with the same word, or even closely related words. When he does so end them, it is usually with words common'

at line-end, such as φίλος, κακός, πόλις, Adyos. See further my note on Alc

704-7. éydda=éyw olda. See also 852.

545. Arpéws ...avaé: Ἃ certain son of Atreus used to be called so [sc. ευὃαι-.

uwv], the lord Agamemnon. δή τις: See Denniston, p. 212: the speaker Ὁδῃ,:

and does, particularize in his own mind, but keeps the particularization to’ himself' See above on 525-6 and below on 578-80. She does, however, get

the name out at last.

546. ovk ... γύναι: T don’t know. Leave that subject, madam. Clearly, he does know, and Iphigenia sees that he does. |

547. μὴ . .. §éve: ‘No, for the gods’ sake! Speak,’so that I may be made happy; stanger Irony. εὐφραΐίνω is a strongly positive word. At Alc. 355, Admetus

tells his dying wife that she might make him happy by coming to him even

in dreams: év δ᾽ ὀνείρασιν! φοιτῶσά μ᾽ εὐφραίνοις dv. In the same play,at

788, Heracles urges the servant to ‘cheer up and drink’: ευφραινε σαυτόν,

πῖνε. On μή with no verb expressed, see LS] μή A. 8. On πρὸς θεῶν, see on 509 above.

548. τέθνηχ᾽... rwa: ‘He is dead, poor man, and in addition has destroyed someone [else] ' On adverbial πρὸς 8¢, see LS] πρός D. τινα: Orestes means

+ himself, as does Haemon at Ant. 751. 18’ odv θανειταικαὶθανουσ ὀλεῖ TVl

-

it

ὐ ...α.

e

ῶ

.-πὸ...........

550. τί δ᾽.... σοι: ‘Why this cry of distress? Is it possible that he was connected with you?’ Momentarily, Iphigenia loses control, and startles Orestes by

her outburst. τοῦτο: Internal accusative: éorévafas (orévayua). μῶν:

(=un οὖν) signals a surprising possibility that has just occurred to the .

[

Commentary on lines 551-6

175

h speaker. It is not equivalent to Latin num, and does not ‘expect a negative

- answer. 566 my note on Alc. 484 and Barrett on Hipp. 794.

551. Iphigenia parries, but not altogether convincingly. Her τάλαιν᾽ ἐγώ sug. gested personal distress, as Orestes saw. But he has to let it pass. -

552-3. δεινῶς: He has met a strange and terrible end. γὰρ: Orestes resumes . the train of thought interrupted by 549-51. éx γυναικὸς: to us, this seems ambiguous: ‘by a woman), or ‘by his wife’? Iphigenia’s concern for the killer (1} κτανοῦσα) shows that she understands Clytaemestra. But if we can understand ‘by a woman, then Orestes is threatened by the same fate as his father. On éx of the agent, see LS] éx IIL 5. σφαγείς recalls Clytaemestra’s

words at Ag. 1433 ... τὴν ... τῆς ἐμῆς παιδὸς Δίκην,! Ἄτην Epwiv 8, αἷσι τόνδ᾽ ἔσφαξ᾽ ἐγώ. She has slaughtered, or ‘sacrificed’ him to Justice for her

daughter, to Ate and to the Erinys. Aeschylus uses σφάζω just three times,

strategically, in the Oresteia. At Cho. 904, Orestes says to his mother σὲ σφάξαι θέλω, while at Eum. 305 Orestes himself is, as here, the potential

victim, πρὸς βωμῷ odayeis. See Ε Zeitlin, “The Motif of the Corrupted Sacrifice in Aeschylus’ Oresteia, TAPhA 96 (1965), pp. 463-508, and, on the word σφάζω, on 8-9 above. [θανών: Triclinius’ correction of κτανών. For the scribal propensity to con-

fuse θανών! κτανών, see above on 484-5.] 554, παῦσαί.... πέρα: ‘Stop at once, and do not question further! νυν ἤδη: Enclitic vuv is common in entreaties and ἤδη 15 ‘very common with imperatives’ (Diggle on Phaethon 221). For the two reinforcing each other, as here,

see Hipp. 952 7187 vuv αὔχει Ὅο on boasting. [ἐρωτήσῃς: L offers the future, ἐρωτήσεις. But the aorist subjunctive with μή is appropriate, while the future indicative with μή 18 impossible. This is a

simple homophonic mistake.] 555. τοσόνδε γ᾽ ... dduap: ‘[I will stop when I have asked] just this much, whether the unfortunate man’s wife 15 still alive. γ᾽: Timiting. 556. οὐκ.... ὦλεσεν: ‘She is dead. The son whom she bore - he was the man who killed her’ Orestes gives the maximum emphasis to the relationship: ὃν

ἔτεκ(ε) stresses the unnatural act in the same way as ¢ γεννήσας πατήρ at

360. οὗτος takes up, again for emphasis, the preceding παῖς. Compare Eum. 456-8 Ayapéuvor(a) ... ξὺν @ ... ἔφθιθ᾽ odros οὐ καλῶς ‘Agamemnon, with whom you ... that same man perished without honour, or OT 449-51

τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον ὃν πάλαι! ζητεῖς ... οὗτός ἐστιν ἐνθάδε “That man -

whom you have long been seeking, that man is here. See WS 51252.

[οὗτος: Markland (on IA 1139) and, later, Hartung, proposed αὐτὸς ‘he

himself killed her’ This gives a different (and certainly possible) emphasis.

For scribal confusion between οὗτος and αὐτός, see Knights 75. But there is no compelling reason to doubt οὗτος. Cropp follows England in seeing a sort of Freudian slip here, whereby ‘Orestes comes close to identifying him-

selfas the son and killer’ But οὗτος, unlike ὅδε in tragedy; is not a substitute

176

Commentary on lines 557-60

for ἐγώ. Od. 2.40 is irrelevant. There, οὗτος ἀνήρ stands, not for 1 but for

‘that man [about whom you are asking]" See S. West (and Monro) ad loc.] 557. ὦ ... θέλων: ‘O house, utterly confounded. What could have been his aim [as wanting what]?’ She does not see it as obvious that a son would kill hig

mother in order to avenge his father. The question is incredulous. On ὡς #{ &7, Denniston (p.211) remarks ‘it is characteristic of Euripides that he, alone

. of the tragedians, admits this obviously colloquial idiom: 558. πατρὸς . . «τιμωρούὔμενος: “Taking vengeance on her for [his] dead father’ Orestes continues the construction of 556, with ὦὥλεσεν 85 the main verb, τήνδε τιμωρούμενος: for the middle, τιμωροῦμαι, meaning ‘to exact ΄ vengeance [for onself] from someone [acc.] for someone [gen.]} see LS]

τιμωρέω 3. τήνδε here means, not someone on stage, but ‘the person who is our main concern now' (as distinct from Agamemnon). In the same way, Aphrodite, at Hipp. 48, uses τῆσδε of Phaedra, as distinct from Hippolytus, whom she was speaking about earlier.

[As Monk says, ἃ great outcry has been raised against the word τήνδε, but without reason. Following Platnauer’s note, the outcry has died down. See also H. Lloyd-Jones, A Problem in the Tebtunis Inachus-Fragment, CR 15 (1965), pp. 241-3 (= Greek Epic, Lyric, and Tragedy, pp. 397-400) and Diggle, Euripidea, p. 36, n.3.] 559. φεῦ.... ἐξεπράξατο: Alas! How well he exacted a bad justice!’ Iphigeniaat once recognizes the moral ambiguity of the.act. At Or. 194-5, the chorus

assert that the killing of Clytaemestra was done ‘with justice’ (δίκᾳ uév), but

Electra counters that it was (morally) ugly (καλῶς δ᾽ οὔ). Retaliation can be ‘bad, but, to add yet another layer of moral complexity, Orestes exacted it

‘well’ On δίκη, see Introduction, p. xxvi with n. 43. For an interesting, brief

discussion of retributive justice in the three tragedians, see T. C. W. Stinton, “The Scope and Limits of Allusion in Greek Tragedy’ in M. J. Cropp et al. (edd.), Greek Tragedy and its Legacy, pp. 77-8 (= Collected Papers on Greek

Tragedy, pp. 468-70). ἐξεπράξατο: for an exhaustive note on the meaning of ἐκπράσσω, see Fraenkel on Ag. 1275. κακὸν δίκαιον: of the two adjec-

tives, δίκαιον acts as a noun: ‘a just deed’ Herodotus (7. 158) uses the middle

of ἐκπράσσω governing φόνον for ἴο exact vengeance for murder’, but rendering ‘he exacted vengeance for a just bad deed’ (with κακόν 85 the noun) will not do. Iphigenia has no reason to think that there was anythmg ‘just’ about the killing of Agamemnon. [ἐξεπράξατο: Elmsley, for Ls eloempdfaro. elompdoow is a thoroughlys, prosaic word, not quoted from before the fourth century. It probably slipped ---——--into-the-text-as-the:familiar‘modern-word: At-Alc; 298; the MSS are divided between εξεπρα.ξεν (correct) and εισεπραξεν Ὅμ between ἐ€ and els, see on 260 above.]

the easy confusion

560. aAX’... ὦν: ‘But he is not fortunate in what comes ἴὸ him from the gods, [in spite of] being just. τὰ πρὸς θεῶν: accusative of respect (WS § 1601c).

Commentary on lines 561--8

177

δίκαιος ὥν: Orestes echoes δίκαιον in the previous line. For the concessive participle meaning ‘although; see WS § 2066. ͵

561. λείπει: present, because the result of the action of leaving’is thought of as

continuing, the child (yévov) being alive, 562. λέλοιπεν ... μίαν: on Agamemnons daughters, see Introduction, p. xix. Here, the poet has no use for any daughters other than Iphigenia and Electra. λέλοιπεν: perfect, like the present, for the continuing result of a past action. παρθένον: Chadwick (p. 227) describes παρθένος 85 ‘a social

and not a biological term’ But even according to his definition, the word is not strictly appropriate here, as Electra 15 married to Pylades (915 below), so

no longer part of her father’s household. We are meant, however, to thmk of

her as a young girl.

563. Ti 8é€. .. λόγος: ‘Well then, 15 there any word of the sacrificed / slaughtered daughter?’ On τί δέ as a formula of transition; see Denniston, p. 176 (c), who

calls it ‘mainly a prose use. See also Collard, ‘Colloquial Language, p. 368.On indefinite 7is before 115 noun, see ]. Diggle, ‘Eunpldes, Bacchae 1063-1069, Eikasmos 9 (1998), p. 43.

564. ovdeis γε: ‘None whatever! On ye in negative answers, see Denniston,

p. 131. θανοῦσαν ... φάος: accusative and infinitive of indirect speech: ‘(The word is that] she..."

565. Compare 553 above.A wife has killed her husband and a father his daughter, and in both cases both killer and victim are to be pitied. Iphigenia does not think of distributing blame. Indeed, she never blames her father for her own

near-death—Helen,

Menelaus,

Calchas,,

Odysseus,

but

never

Agamemnon. See 992-3 below and Ε Jouan, Euripide et les légendes des Chants Cyprzens,pp- 260-2. 566. κακῆς ... ἀπώλετο: She penshed as a favourless favour for a bad woman. yapw axaptv: at Ag. 1542-6, the chorus ask whether Clytaemestra will do a *favourless favour’ by carrying out funeral rites for the husband

she has murdered. At Cho. 42, she is indeed bent on ἀχάριτον to ward off misfortune. Orestes’ meaning here favour done to Helen (or, more accurately, to Menelaus) others. The linguistic awkwardness, from a translator’s

offering a χάριν is less direct. The was no favour to point of view, is

that χάριν is being used as a preposmon (‘for the sake of’), but is 'still

quahfied by an adjective. 567.6 ... πατρός: ‘And is the dead father’s son living in Argos?’ Note the inter-

WOven word-order, with insertions: o (A) τοῦ 8avévros (B) (ἔστι) παῖς (A) (Apyet) πατρός (B). For the postponement of 8¢, see Denniston, p. 186 (4).

Ἄργει: for the dative as locative,see on Σπάρτῃ at.524.

568. éo7’ . . . πανταχοῦ: ‘He is living, and miserable, both nowhere and everywhere. ye may occur in assenting answers where the speaker adds some-

thing to his assent, sometimes picking up a word from the previous speaker,

here ἔστι ... ἔστ'᾽, Compare Alc. 375-6 A παῖδας . .. δέχου. Ἀδ. δέχομαι,

178

Commentary on lines 569--75

ὶ

φίλον γε δὢρον Alc. ‘Receive the children Ad. ἿἹ receive them, and a degy

gift.... ῖ [ἔστ᾽: ἃ sunple metrical emendation by Triclintus for Ls ἔστιν.] & 569.evdeis. . . ἄρα: Lying dreams, farewell. So you were nothing after all ’No The dream was true (44-55). It was her interpretation that was wrong (55.. 6). On ἄρα, see above on 351 and 369 and Stevens, p. 62. 570-1. 090’. .. ἀψευδέστεροι: ‘Nor, indeed, are the gods, who are called" Wlse any more truthful than flitting dreams. Orestes takes up Iphigenia’s idea and

adapts it to his own case, At Εἰ, 1246, Castor, speaking of Apollo to Orestes i

says σοφὸς & ὧν οὐκ εχρησε oot σοφά ‘though wise, he did not give wise advice to you. πτηνῶν ὀνείρων: being insubstantial, dreams naturally fly, At1 Od. 11. 207-8, the ghost of Odysseus mother flies from him ‘like a shadow or a dream’ σκιῇ εἴκελον1) καὶ Svelpw ! ἔπτατο. Oedipus, at Phoen. 1543-5’4

describes himself as ‘a grey, misty phantom, or a'dead man from below, or 4

winged dream’ (πτανὸν ὄνειρον). On οὐδ(έ)... γε meaning ‘and not , . either’ in answers, see Denniston, p. 156. o

[L attributes 569-75 to Iphigenia. Triclinius saw that a change of speaker

was needed and added a paragraphus before 572, after P had been copled.

- Heath placed the change at 570, and Markland printed the text so, in th¢ belief that the change was so shown in his Parisian ‘Codd. A, Β. See Introduction, p. civ.]

:

572--5. πολὺς . . . εἰδόσιν: “There is much disorder, both in divine affairs and in those of men. In one thing alone he (2 man?) is grieved, when, not bemg foolish, but persuaded by the words of seers, he has been destroyed as he has been destroyed, for those who know? Difficult. We expect Orestes to produce

a summing-up of some kind at the end of the exchange, and these lines aré vaguely appropriate, but do not quite make sense. ἕν 8¢ λυπεῦται udvov.is

the chief problem. It has no identifiable subject, unless one can understand ‘a man’ from βροτείοις, and in what circumstances could it be said that being misled by seers is one’s only cause of grief? 574-5 can be interpreted 85 referring in enigmatic terms to Orestes’ own misfortune. μαντέων then

has to be taken as an ‘allusive’ plural (WS § 1007) referring to Apollo (ό

Φοῖβος μάντις 711). Does Euripides choose this imprecise phraseology: to allow us to see an allusion (unintended by the speaker) to Agamemnon, who

listened to Calchas and was killed as a result of the military expeditionhé

undertook? Commentators on this passage regularly point to disparage:

ς

ment of seers in Euripides’ later plays. See Hel. 744-5, Phoen. 772-3, IA 520;

956-8 (these Jast two passages being of doubtful authenticity). It is also cus-i

tomary-to-mention-Thucydides™ observation-(8:-1)-of ‘Athenian-anger w1t11fi seers after the failure of the Sicilian expedition. But disparagement of seers; in drama goes back much earlier. The year after the failure of the expedition;,

the old man at Hel. 749 points out that Calchas never told the Greeks that:

they were fighting for a cloud. ‘You will answer, he continues, ‘because the,.

Commentary on lines 572-5

179

L ods did not wish it. But question and answer are perfectly anticipated at ¢ Birds 963-5 (a play produced the year before the disaster). ‘Why did you not

; foretell this for me before I founded this city?’“The Divine Power prevented

- me, replies the oracle-monger. More than four decades earlier, Cassandra, at . Ag. 12734, says that she has had to tolerate being regarded 48 ἃ wandering

,. soothsayer, ἃ wretched, starving beggar’ Oedipus and Jocasta, at OT 380-98

᾿ and 707-25, turn out, within the play, to have been misguided, but they are

: surely drawing on common views that the audience would have recognized. (. One might hazard that the popular attitude to seers at Athens had some-

. thing in common with our own to weather-forecasters. ὄλωλεν ὡς ὄλωλε:

this figure (verb, relative pronoun or conjunction, verb repeated or nearly repeated) lends itself to several uses. For Archilochus (West, IEG?, 26. 6 and

. 108.2), it is a prayer-formula: ὀλλυ᾽ ὥσπερ ὀλλύεις and χαρίζεο 8old περ . χαρίζεαι. Sometimes it is a formula for closing a subject, like Andromache’s

1 ὄλωλεν ὡς ὄλωλεν (of Polyxena, at Tro. 630), or Pontius Pilate’s & γέγραφα

γέγραφα (John 19: 22). A particular use of the figure in tragedy is when, as . here, the speaker refers briefly and inexplicitly to something unpleasant. So,

- at Ag. 1288, Cassandra says that she has seen Troy faring as it fared’ (πράξα-

- oav ws ἔπραξεν), or, most tellingly, Oedipus (OC 273) pleads that ‘in com-

1 plete ignorance I came where I came’ (οὐδὲν εἰδὼς ἑκόμην &’ ἱκόμην). See

o

i also 692 below.

.i

-

[Orestes’ speech at 570-5 has given rise to much discussion. Diggle suspects all six lines. Cropp ('Notes on Buripides, Iphigenia in Tauris, ICS 22 (1997), pp- 30-1) ably defends 570-1, but declares 572-5 an interpolation, and Kovacs takes the same view. The difficulties of the passage have been treated in detail by Cropp (op. cit.) and by Platnauer (on 573-5). They are also integral to my discussion above. I am not, however, persuaded that the lines are spurious. At the simplest level of dramatic technique, there is need here not only for a passage of reflection following the stichomythia, but for an interlude of several lines to give the audience the feeling that Iphigenia has had time to think up her plan. The only really intractable problem is posedby év

δὲ λυπεῖται μόνον, where L is very hard to decipher and is variously

reported by editors. I am grateful to acknowledge here the help of Mr. N. G. Wilson. Above the v there is a tiny εἰ in compendium, and against the upper point of the rather inky compendium for the following εἰ an equally tiny ε. In fact, a corrector, presumably Triclinius, although the style looks less confident than usual, has proposed λείπεται. P writes λυπεῦται quite clearly, but there is a faint mark above the v which looks like a partially-erased acute accent.It may be that the corrections were present in L when P was copied, that the scribe mistook the tiny compendium for an accent, then recognized his mistake and tried to erase it. Not surprisingly, he did not notice the tiny e at all. There seems no reason to regard λείπεται as anything other than an emendation. It does not look in the least like the scribe’s own

180

Commentary-on lines 576-81

superscriptions (see Introduction, p. cii). ‘Only one thing is left’ does, how-

ever, sound like sense, and Sansone accepts λείπεται in his text, taking the ‘one thing’ to be death. But it is significant that he feels the need to add a note to that effect. Could an audience have understood? Other editors (Paley, Platnauer) have suggested that λείπτεται might be derived from a margina]

λείπει indicating a lacuna. A lacuna there may be, but the argument from λείπεται is far-fetched. No plausible emendation has been suggested. ὄλω.. Aev ὡς ὄλωλε: several editors have listed examples of this figure, in particu-

lar C.]. Blomfield in his edition of Ag. (Cambridge, 1818, ‘Glossariunt’ on 66),

whose extensive list 15 not confined to tragedy. H. W, Johnstone (‘Pankoinon as a thetorical figure in Greek Tragedy, Glotta 58 (1980), pp. 49-62) examines . 811 the passages.listed by Wecklein and Denniston, and distinguishes a par-

ticular version of the figure, which he calls a ‘pankoinon) which is strictly

what he terms a ‘self-identity, like ‘che sara sard. Johnstone’s is an interesting discussion, but his excessively restricted definition of a ‘figure’ leaves most of the generally accepted examples in a sort of rhetorical limbo.]

576-7. dpeb. . . φράσειεν av: Alas, alas, what of us and of my parents? Are they . alive? Are they not alive? Who would tell [me]?’A surprise. Instead of produc-

ing some more or less bland comment on what has just been said, the chorusleader suddenly and poignantly speaks for herself and her companions. Our: attention has already been drawn to the chorus and their plight at 448-55

above. Compare Tro. 292-3. τί 8" the same ellipse as at 543. &p ... ἄν: a tri-

colon. See Dion. Hal. De comp. ver. 9, Rhet. Her. 4.19.26 and L. P. Wilklnson,

Golden Latin Artistry (Ca.mbndge, 1965, repr. 1985), pp. 175-8. ; [Cropp’s stage-direction ‘interrupting’ is inappropriate. Dialogues and* speeches in tragedy are not interrupted. Orestes has clearly finished

speaking.]

578-80. ἀκούσατ᾽... kauoi: ‘Listen, for I have arrived at an idea, pursuing a

|

benefit both for you and, at the same time, for ταϑ The audience should [15:} ten too: now comes a major turning-point in the plot. For the sentlment,

compare the words of the chorus-leader at S. El. 251-2. εγω μέν, & παῖ, καὶ

τὸ σὸν σπεύδουο᾽ ἅμα! καὶ τοὐμὸν αὐτῆς ἦλθον. δή τιν᾽: see above 526' and 545, and Denniston, ΡΡ. 212-13. Iphigenia does not partlculanze yet, but she very soon will. ἥκομεν ... σπεύδουσ᾽: for the combination οὗ ‘modest’ plural verb and singular participle, see 348-9 above and on 539.

᾿ἰσπεύδουσ:

Musgrave,

for LUs

σπουδῆς. ‘Praeclara

emendatio’

sa1d
ὄνομα: most editors prefer to pass over this curious expression without

comment. Kovacs and Cropp take it to mean ‘the fame of Achilles; or famous Achilles, Cropp explains it as a specimen of a type of periphrasis common in Homer, which survives into tragedy, such as is Τηλεμάχοιο (‘the might of Telemachus, so ‘mighty Telemachus’). For a list of such expressions, see Kiihner-Gerth i, p. 280. But evidence is lacking that ὄνομα alone can mean ‘fame, like μέγα ὄνομα (see, for example, Thucydides 7. 64. 2). Another suggestion 15 that it means simply ‘Achilles, but such a usage is not attested. See further below. ἀνήρεθ᾽: Aorist, from a theoretical ἀνέρομαι, used, like aveρωτάω at 664 below, with accusative both of the subject of the question and of the person asked. [Ἀχιλλέως 7 ovoua: Bngland connects this with the fact that at 537 Iphigenia did not use the name Achilles; but ‘son of the Nereid Thetis. This seems to him to explain ‘the name of Achilles’ here. This also satisfies Platnauer, but 15 obscure to me. The question of how exactly ὄνομα can be used in tragedy is complicated by the scribal propensity to confuse ὄνομα and ὄμμα. See 905 below and Mastronarde on Phoen. 1702. That line does not in any case provide a parallel for ‘the name of Achilles’ here, The fact that it is possible to say ‘the name of Polynices is dear to me’ does not mean that one can ‘ask about the name of Polynices, meaning simply ‘Polynices. Nor does the special usage ὄνομα καταλείπειν (Thucydides 5. 16. 1, 6. 33. 5), like English ‘to leave a name, provide an analogy. See also below on 695-8.] 663-5. xat . .. παῖδάς 7°: And how she sorrowed over poor Agamemnon, and [how] she asked me about [his] wife and children!’ -

[ᾧκτιρ᾽ ἀνηρώτα: Heath. L offers the unmetrical ὥκτειρεν ἀνηρώτα, with, moreover, the late form οἰκτείρω for Attic oikripw (see Threatte IT, p. 648).

196

Commentary on lines 665--72

-ev would have appeared by dittography of -av. Markland proposed ᾧκτι.

ρεν ἠρώτα, but there seems to be ἃ difference in usage between ἐρωτάω and dvepwrdw with double accusative. ἐρωτῶ σε τοῦτο ‘I ask you thig and ἐρωτῶ σε 70 ὄνομα I ask you your name’ are possible, but Ἱ ask you about X’ with épwrdw is at least dubious. For dvepwrdw in that sense, see Wealth 499.]

665-6. ἔστιν.... τις: “The stranger is from there, some Argive by descent’ There is no need to conclude that this idea has only just occurred to Orestes (see 583 above). Tragedy moves methodically from subject to subject. Speculation about Iphigenia’s origin would have been out of place earlier, where the points at issue were, first of all, who was to carry the letter, then, how exactly Orestes was to be killed and his funeral conducted. Apyeia τις: ‘An Argive sort of person’ (τὶς with an adjective).

666-8.09 . . . kaAds: ‘She would never be sending . . .and asking. .. Imperfects with ἄν, as in the apodosis of a present ‘unreal’ condition: ‘If she were not an Argive, she would not...” (WS §§2297 and 2304). &s . . . καλῶς: ‘as sharing the fortune if Argos is fortunate’ [πράσσει: Hermann wanted πράσσοι, on the ground that this is virtual indirect speech, dependent on verbs which are technically in a past tense

(ἔτεμπε and ἐξεμάνθανεν), even though they refer to the present.

But (1) the optative is not compulsory (see WS 5 2619), and (2) it is, in any

case, not clear that ὡς ... καλῶς is part of Iphigenia’s thought, rather than

of Orestes’]

669-72. ἔφθης . .. τινά: Ὕου have anticipated me by a little. Having anticipated [me], you are saying the same things [as I would have said], except for one thing. For everyone, you know (7ot), who pays any attention knows what happens (παθήματα) to kings. But I have been going through [in my mind] a certain other idea as well. Pylades does not answer Orestes’ point about Iphigenia’s concern (ᾧκτιρε) for Agamemnon and his family. But then he is anxious to brush aside the question of who the woman is in order to raise something that seems to him much more urgent. The audience has been tantalized. ἧ: subjunctive, because ‘everyone’ is indefinite. See WS § 2567b. drdp introduces an abrupt change of subject. Compare 719 below. [τοι: Hermann's correction of τῶν, no doubt the result of assimilation to

βασιλέων. Compare 650 above. The caesura v/ βασιλέων is highly unlikely, for article and noun make one ‘word’ Well-attested examples of

such a caesura in tragedy are very few: PV 589, Aj. 71 and 1228, Trach. 725,

Hipp. 413, Or. 889. For the combination ydp τοι, see Denniston, pp. 549-50.

ἦ: Hartung's correction of Ls ἦν. ἦν would have to be interpreted as equiva-

lent to a perfect, ‘ever has been. But, again, the subjunctive in a general rela-

tive 15 more natural than the indicative. The change is trivial. διῆλθον: Porson. L offers διῆλθε, but who, as Markland asked, is the subject? The only

Commentary on lines 673-722

197

possible person is Iphigenia, but the idea, when it comes (674) is not hers, but Pylades’ own. Markland proposed δίελθε, consider; but that does not go well with 673, on which, see below. μικρόν, not σμικρόν, is required by metre here. See Diggle, Euripidea, p. 146.]

673. τίν᾽ ... μάθοις: ‘What? By sharing [it], you might understand [it] better

This time, it is Pylades who has used a ploy to fix the attention of his hearer, and Orestes gives the cue. Compare 659 above. For the idea that one can clarify ones ideas by putting them into words, Hermann quotes Plato, Phaedrus 238b λεχθὲν δὲ 7 μὴ λεχθὲν πᾶν πως σαφέστερον ‘Everything 15 somehow clearer spoken than unspoken. dovs: coincident aorist participle. ἂν μάθοις: potential optative, almost equivalent to a future. [μάθοις: the scribe of L wrote μάθης in the text, with μάθοις above. See Introduction, p. cii. The two words would sound the same in medieval Greek. Kovacs (Eurpidea Altera, p. 51) calls this a ‘one line interruption, but that is not quite right. A speaker who says ‘Do you know what I am thinking?’ is in effect asking to be ‘interrupted’: he wants a cue.} 674-722. A scene of persuasion, but uncharacteristic in certain respects. Formally, scenes of persuasion have much in common with agones (on which, see M. Lloyd, The Agon in Euripides). The essential difference is that, while in an agon, one party, normally the second speaker, ‘wins, either by convincing a third party, or at least by gaining the sympathy of the audience, he, or she, does not persuade the opponent. Indeed, the level of antagonism usually makes it clear that that is impossible: in a court of law, one party does not persuade the other. But in both an agon and a scene of persuasion speeches are often followed by a passage in stichomythia. In a famous early scene of persuasion, Ag. 905-45, Clytaemestra speaks first (905-13), then Agamemnon (914-30). Then follows a sequence in stichomythia

(931-43),

which

ends

in victory for the first speaker,

Clytaemestra. Alc. 1019-1135 follows the same pattern, at greater length.

First Heracles speaks (1019-36), then Admetus (1037-1069). Then follows

a run of stichomythia (1077-1120), and, again, the first speaker, Heracles, wins. At Hipp. 284-352, only the nurse speaks before the stichomythia (311-52), while at Ba. 802-46, the whole process of persuasion works through stichomythia. Here, the exchange follows the characteristic pattern of an agon in that the second speaker wins, but there is no stichomythia, so no increase in tension and heightening of emotional tone. That may be one reason why some critics in the past have felt that Pylades gives way too easily (see Introduction, p. xvii). But the comparatively cool and intellectual tone of the debate is surely calculated. The emotional focus of the play is not, as in some later versions, the relationship between Orestes and Pylades. So the intensity of stichomythia is kept for the scenes between Orestes and Iphigenia, one just past, another to come.

198

Commentary on lines 674--5

Ε

Finally, the exchange exemplifies strikingly a recurrent paradox of Attic tragedy: poignant touches of realistic psychology within a formally: _non-realistic framework and combined with a forensic deployment of arguments.

On debates in Euripides’ plays of this period, see K. H. Lee on Iom 585-647. The note offers the fine apergus on tragic technique which are :ΐ ἴο be expected from this editor. 674-86. Pylades offers, not to die instead of Orestes, but to die with hunj (κοινῇ θανεῖν . . . συνεκπνεῦσαι.. ... συσφαγῆναι). This is worth insist- { ing upon, since the distinction tends to escape notice. Even Cropp (on ; 644-56) speaks of Pylades’ ‘offer to die for Orestes’ But Pylades’ offeris | handsome enough as it is, for the reason that Orestes gave at 597-608. . Besides, Orestes is fulfilling a divine command.

He cannot simply hand

over his mission to Pylades. That fact would have been more obvious to an Athenian audience than to us. For them, the sacred image and the .: cult of Iphigenia were real and present. The believing Pylades too ἰς : conscious of that: Apollo could still save Orestes (719-20). ;. D. Sansone (‘Plato and Euripides, ICS 21 (1996), pp. 35-67) connects | Pylades’ speech here with Crito 44b6-c5, where Crito tries to persuadei Socrates to escape. The comparison is certainly interesting, but both Pylades' and Crito’s speeches are so firmly based on traditional Greek: morahty that specific allusion seems doubtful. ἶ 674-5. αἰσχρὸν . . . θανεῖν: (It would be] shameful, with you dead, for me | to see the light. But, having shared your voyage, I must also share your1 death! Methodically, Pylades first states what is, in principle, the wrong course, then points out the right one, with the reason why it is right.

πλεύσας δεῖ με: The construction is dislocated: Pylades starts out with . a participle in the nominative, naturally thinking of himself as the sub-

, ject. But the verb turns out to be impersonal. This is a common type of"

anacoluthon in Greek. See 695-6 and 947 below, with WS § 2148 and -

(on anacoluthon in general) §§ 3004-8. [δὲ mAedoas: L offers κοινῇ 7' ἔπλευσα. In verse, single τε can join

- words, phrases, or even sentences (see Denniston, p. 497). With sentences, however, there is often disagreement between editors. Thus, Jebb . - defends τε, the majority reading at OT 1001, while Dawe and Lloyd- . Jones and Wilson adopt ye from CH. At Hel. 924, Us τε is retained by Kannicht, while Diggle prefers Scaliger’s d¢. At Eum. 468, however, where . .the MSS offer τε, adversative δέ is clearly necessary, and the case seems similar-here. Various-emendations-have been- proposed: West (“Tragica V.

BICS 28 (1981), p. 63) proposes κοινῇ τ᾽ ἔπλευσα, δεῖ τε kal . . ., which is accepted by Cropp and Kovacs, but leaves no connection with the

preceding sentence. Collard’s dei δὲ . . . creates the same problem (see Denniston, p. 513 on ¢ . . . δέ). Elmsley’s alternative suggestion, κοινῇ

Commentary on lines 676--82

199

δ᾽ ἔπλευσα, leaves the two clauses of 675 disconnected. The same applies

to Weil's πέπλευκα.]

676-7. kai . . . χθονί; ‘For I shall acquire for myself [a reputation for] both cowardice- and worthlessness in Argos and in the many-glenned land of the Phocians. At 674, Pylades laid down the moral principle, but the aesthetic aspect of the word αἰσχρόν already opens the way for consideration of how his action will look. See on αἰσχρὰ at 365, and on 385-6

for the aesthetic quality of traditional Greek morality. πολυπτύχῳ: The

contrast is between the plain of Argos and mountainous Phocis, with the Parnassus range at its centre,

678-9. δόξω . . . μόνος: ‘And I shall seem to the many (for the worthless are many) to have got home safe myself alone, having betrayed you. It is not to be deduced that, alone on a desert island, Pylades would not 866 the ‘ugliness’ of his action, nor that noblemen, like himself, would .not see it. It is the thought of being deservedly despised by people whom he regards as his inferiors that is so peculiarly painful to a Greek. He must live out his life in a stable, close-knit community where everyone will always know of the ignominious action he once committed. See also my note on Alc. 954-60. o occurs nine times in 679. Euripides’ propensity for ‘sigmatism’ seems to have been a stock joke. A character in Plato’s Foprai (PCG VII, fr. 29) delivers thanks for having been saved τῶν

σίγμα τῶν Εὐριπίδου. See also Eubulus, PCG V, fr. 26.

[σεσῶσθαΐ o”: L offers the present infinitive, oe σώζεσθ᾽ but the infinitive ending -a: cannot be elided, and, in any case, the perfect ‘to have saved myself’ makes better sense than the present. For the position of

σε, Schdne-KbChly and Platnauer cite Ion 293 καὶ πῶς ξένος σ᾽ ὧν

éoxev οὖσαν ἐγγενῆ; And how did he, being a foreigner, marry you, who are a native?’ The emphasis could be changed slightly and the wordorder made to seem a little smoother by adopting Diggle’s suggestlon, σεσῶσθαι o’ (σέ, mstead of enclitic ce).]

680-2. ἢ xai . .. γαμῶν: . .. or that I even murdered you in enm1ty to your house [now that it 1s] in trouble, having plotted doom for you for the sake of your kingship, as being married to your sister, the heiress. At Athens, if ἃ man died leaving only an unmarried daughter, her closest surviving male relative was entitled to marry her and inherit the property. See A. Ε. W. Harrison, The Lawof Athens, 1, pp. 132-3. In this case, leaving Menelaus out of account, Pylades, the son of Agamemnon’s sister, would indeed have been Electra’s closest male relative. Such an heiress was ἐπίκληρος. But Euripides does not use the ‘modern, legal term, but rather a word which would suggest it to the audience, and serve to divert their imaginations from the heroic world to the law-courts of their own

time. The use of éyxAnpos in matters of heritage seems to be peculiar to

Euripides (see also Hipp. 1011 and Her. 468). Sophocles uses the word

200

Commentary on lines 683--8

simply to mean ‘sharing in. φονεῦσαι: a sinister word, without the rituaj connotations of σφάζω. It is used of the killing of children by their parents at Med. 855 and 998 and Her. 1014. Thucydides uses it (7. 29) of the massacre at- Mycalessus: τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐφόνευον φειδόμενοι

οὔτε πρεσβυτέρας οὔτε νεωτέρας ἡλικίας . . . καὶ maidas καὶ γυναῖκας

κτείνοντες. ῥάψας μόρον: ῥάπτω, literally to sew, suggests clandestine activity, like our ‘stitch-up. But here there may be a reminiscence of Homer. The word is used twice in Od. 16, at 379 and 421-3, with reference to-the suitors’ plot to kill Telemachus. See especially 421-3: θάνατόν

re μόρον tel ῥάπτεις. Like Orestes, Telemachus is an only son, and

there are those who covet his heritage. ὡς δὴ:ς ‘just because’ Pylades angrily. dismisses the idea that being married to Electra could constitute,

for him, an excuse for murdering her brother. ὡς 87, usually with a par--

ticiple, is used in two ways. Here and at 1184 below it implies anger at what is seen as an unworthy cause. But sometimes it can imply scepticism about the action in question, as at 1338 below: As if she were washing away the blood-guilt, indeed!’ See also Kovacs, Euripidea Altera, pp. 44-50.

[φονεῦσαί o’ . .. ῥάψας: So Bergk, for Ls φονεύσας . . . ῥάψαι, which ‘puts the ideas in the wrong order: ‘having murdered you, or ‘by murder-

- ing you, I plotted : ... Lobeck’s κἀφεδρεύσας has appealed to-some

editors (Schéne-Kdochly, England, Weil), but ‘having lain in wait for you’ is inappropriate in the circumstances.)

683. ταῦτ᾽ ... €xw: 80 that 1 fear, and am ashamed. This type of

rounding-off, or ‘ring composition, is typical of the ‘someone-will-say’τόπος. Thus, at II. 22. 106, Hector begins his construction of what people

may say with μή ποτέ τις εἴπῃσι and ends it at 108 with ὡς ἐρέουσιν. - Compare Alc..954-9 épei 8¢ ... τοιάνδε ... κληδόνα ! ἕξω and Aj.

.. 500-4 καί 7is .. . épel . . τοιαῦτ᾽ ἐρεῖ Tis. 8¢ αἰσχύνης ἔχω: For διά Twos ἔχειν meaning ‘to be in a certain state, 566 LS} διά IV. The expression suggests a feeling more acute and lasting than simple αἰσχύνομαι.: 684-6. κοὐκ . . . ψόγον: ‘It is not possible that I ought not to breathe my last with you and be slaughtered with you and have my body burnt, being [your] friend and fearing blame. Pylades sums up, condensing his ᾿ two reasons in the epigrammatic final line. There is no need for συμπυ-

ρωθῆναι. συν- can'be understood from the previous verbs, as at Ant. 537 καὶ. ξυμμετίσχω καὶ. φέρω τῆς airias. In 684, we have to choose

%

between caesura after οὐ and median caesura after χρὴ, which Euripides is "deemed-to-avoid-(Introduction; p-Ixxxiii)--Does-the- position ;of χρή,

between. two putative slight pauses, serve to highlight the word?

687-8. εὔφημα . . . διπλᾶς: ‘Be quiet. [I} must bear my own misfortunes. But, it being possible [to bear] single griefs, I will not endure double.

εὔφημα φώνει: Orestes’ choice of words suggests something impious or

Commentary on lines 689-92

201

dangerous in Pylades’ arguments. Compare the ritual εὐφαμεῦτ(ε) at 123.

τἀμὰ-- τὰ ἐμὰ. ἐξόν: accusative absolute of an impersonal verb. See WS 5 2076. A.

[κακά: Porson wished to substitute éué, taking κακά to be a gloss. But that produces the wrong emphasis: ‘I must bear my own misfortunes: But the stress is on δεῖ, as the next line shows. England paraphrases . rightly: ‘My own woes 1 must bear . . . yours 1 can help bearing, and 1 will. There is no difficulty in supplying ue.]

689-91. 6 yap . . . κτενῶ: ‘For [that] which you call painful and blame-

worthy, the same exists for me, if, when you are sharing my troubles, I kill you! Orestes does not need to elaborate on his moral position: he explained it at 598-602. The corollary is that if he were to abandon Pylades, he would be subject to the same obloquy as Pylades after aban-

doning him. xawoveidiorov= καὶ ἐπονείδιστον. ταὔτ᾽ =76 αὐτό. On the

accent, 866 WS § 174. a. ei . . . κτενῶ: εἰ with the future indicative in an ‘emotional’ furture protasis, conveying ‘a strong appeal ο the feelings,

or a threat, or warning’ (GMT 8 447, WS 5 2328). The main clause is in

the present (ἔστιν), according to the sense,

[ταὔτ᾽ €orw ἡμῖν: L offers ταῦτ᾽ éoriv ἡμῖν, which England and Platnauer wish to retain. Platnauer understands this as ‘what you call painful and blameworthy [that]) (supplying τόδε, meaning 76 σὲ κτείvew, understood from the if-clause) is those things (ταῦτα, meaning ‘painful and blameworthy’) to me. This is impossibly contorted, and,

indeed, hardly makes sense. Weil retains raiir, but reads ἔστιν, render-

ing ‘le douleur et la honte dont tu parles, elles tombent sur moi, But Orestes has not said ‘the grief and shame of which you speak) but ‘the thing which you call . . . ! ταῦτ(α) does not follow happily on the singular 6. Markland approached a solution with- τοῦτ᾽ for ταῦτ᾽, but L. Dindorf’s corrections achieve sense and coherence by changes only to the accentuation and breathing.] 691-2, 70 uev . . . βίου: ‘For, as for myself, it does not go badly, faring as I fare from the gods, to cease from life! That death brings the end of troubles is ἃ commonplace. Most poignantly, the young girl on hér way to be sacrificed at Hcld. 595-6, having rehearsed 811 the heroic reasons

for her act, turns to it as her last thought. Orestes too is going to his death voluntarily. 7o . . . εἰς ἔμ᾽: compare 70 δ᾽ εἰς ἔμ᾽ at Her. 171, also

OT 706. μὲν will be followed by σὺ 8(¢€) at 693. πράσσονθ᾽ & πράσσω:

a euphemism, like ὄλωλεν ws ὅλωλε at 575 above. On such expressions, see on 572-5: The same words are used, also by Orestes, at EL 85. πρὸς θεῶν: ‘from the gods, meaning ‘at their hands, like πρὸς σέθεν at 368.

λήγειν Biov is the subject of οὐ κακῶς ἔχει. One might expect an aorist,

like λῆξαι τοῦ Bioy at Xenophon, Apol. 8, but where aspect, rather than time, is concerned, the distinction between aorist and present can be

202

Commentary on lines 693-8

very subtle. At Hipp. 473-4, the nurse says λῆγε uév κακῶν φρενῶν! λῆξον & ὑβρίζουσ᾽ Barrett (ad loc.) explains: ‘the aorist of abandoning

a course of action, the present of its subsequent discontinuance. For Orestes, the state of not being alive is desirable.

[Mjyew Biov: L writes λήσειν Biov, with λήγειν above. Neither the

future, nor λανθάνω, ‘to escape notice, makes sense here. Markland pro-

posed -adopting λήγειν with Biov. Schenkl was inspired by P’s Adoew to conjecture λῦσαι. For uncompounded λύω meaning ‘to put an end to, compare Bacchylides 1. 153 αἰῶν᾽ ἔλυσεν, ‘he put an end to his life) also Sept. 270 (φόβον) and Phoen. 81 (ἔριν). Avo- and λησ- can be confused

(as the scribe of P confused them when he copied λήσειν as Adoew), and

so can the infinitive endings -a¢ and -ew. See 938 and 1041 below, and also Alc. 657-and Med. 748, where the MSS are divided between -αἱ and -ew. Schenkl’s conjecture is ingenious and attractive, but requires a more elaborate process of corruption than the simple mistake of βίον in place of βίου. See further Diggle, Studies, pp. 84-5 and Sansone . (reviewing Diggle), GGA 234 (1982), p. 39. On Ls supralinear variants, see Introduction, p. cii.]

693-4. ov &’ . . . δυστυχῆ: ‘But you are both fortunate [yourself], and have a clean, not sick, house. But I have [a house] impious and unfortunate’

oY νοσοῦντ᾽: νοσέω can be used for ‘tobe in trouble’ in a general sense, as at 536 and 680, but in the context of pollution it can take on a more sinister connotation: pollution can be contagious, like a disease. Adrastus made a terrible mistake in marrying his daughter to the son of Oedipus:

κοινὰς γὰρ 6 θεὸς τὰς τύχας ἡγούμενος | Tois τοῦ νοσοῦντος πήμασιν διώλεσεν τὸν οὐ νοσοῦντα κοὐδὲν ἠδικηκότα Ἕοτ the god, taking their

fortunes done no ever, a Orestes’

to be shared, has been known ἴο destroy the healthy who have wrong with the pains of the sick’ (Supp. 226-8). There is, howdegree of inconsistency in the matter. The ‘sickness’ runs in family, but Pylades is not here deemed to have contracted it by

marrying Electra. At Her. 1233, Heracles warns Theseus to flee from his ἀνόσιον μίασμα, but Theseus rejects the idea of contagion: οὐδεὶς

. ἀλάστωρ Tois φίλοις ἐκ τῶν φίλων. On the complications of Greek conceptsof contagion, see R. Parker, Miasma, pp. 218-20.

[On Supp. 222-8, which some critics (including Kovacs) have wished to delete, see Collard, ad loc., with further references.]

695-8. owleis . . . wor’ ἄν: ‘But [you] saved having got children from my «, sister, whom I gave to you to have as wife, both my name would become -~ —--—known;-nor-would-my -father’s-house-ever-be left-childless’ In a patrilineal society, continuing a family through a woman is a pis aller. See below

on 1005-6. By using the word ὁμόσπορος, Orestes makes the point that Electra has the same father as himself.. The construction here is dislocated (anacoluthon). Orestes begins, naturally enough, with Pylades as

Commentary on lines 699-701

203

the subject, but then the sentence takes an unexpected turn, and the two nominatives, σωθεὶς and κτησάμενος, are left ‘hanging. See above on 675. ὄνομα . . . γένοιτ᾽ av is a curious expression. The passage is full of Homeric, indeed Odyssean, echoes. At Od. 24. 93, the ghost of Agamemnon says ὡς σὺ μὲν ovde θανὼν ὄνομ᾽ ὥλεσας, ἀλλά τοι αἰεὶ ! πάντας ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπους κλέος ἔσσεται ἐσθλόν, Ἀχιλλεῦ. Orestes’ idea must be similar. If Pylades survives, his own name will continue to be known. But the Homeric ἔσσεται ‘will exist’ seems more natural, to us at least, than γένοιτ᾽ ἄν ‘would come about. Sansone, however, cites from Plato, Prot. 3358 a parallel for γίγνεσθαι with ὄνομα meaning ο become known': οὐδ᾽ av éyévero Πρωταγόρου ὄνομα év τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ‘Nor would Protagoras’ name have become known among the Greeks. A more serious problem is the highly unusual combination 7(e) . . . οὐδ(ε). There is an example at Plato, Pol. 2723, πολιτεῖαί τε οὐκ ἦσαν, οὐδὲ

κτήσεις γυναικῶν, where, however, the first clause is negative. See

Denniston, p. 192. ἔχειν is infinitive of purpose. See WS §§ 2008-9. The

participles σωθεὶς and κτησάμενος take the place of an if-clause. See

GMT §$ 472 and 841 and WS § 2067. In 696 there is hardly any caesura, for σοι adheres to ἔδωκα. For other well-authenticatéed examples of pro-

nouns in this position in tragedy, see Cho. 181 and 193 (μοιυ), Eum. 595

(σοι) and OT 809 (μου). Compare the position of γάρ at 96 above, and 866 Introduction, p. boxiii. [Various substitutes have been proposed for γένοιτ᾽, of which Tournier’s σέβοιτ᾽ would cause the least change to the text as transmitted. 7(e) . . .

οὐδ(ξ) leads Diggle to suspect the loss of a line containing a first τε, and

Kovacs suggests an appropriate insertion: ‘[Both you would lead a happy life] and my name . ... This, incidentally, would remove the anacoluthon. A lacuna is certainly possible.]

699-701. GAX’ . . . τάδε: ‘But go and live, and dwell in your father’s house,

and when you come to Hellas and to Argos, land of horses, by this right hand of yours I lay this charge upon you. Orestes takes hold of Pylades’ right hand, as the nurse takes hold of Phaedra’s at Hipp. 324-5 and of Hippolytus’ at 605. Both use the persuasive power felt to reside in physical contact. The nurse ratchets up the pressure by clasping Phaedra's knees. Orestes has no need to do that. épme: the original meaning of ἕρπω was ‘to move slowly, but it comes to mean simply ‘to go, so that it even becomes possible to say ἔρπεθ᾽ ὡς τάχιστα (OC 1643). δόμους

. + πατρός: the father must be Pylades. The attempt has been made to

argue that, in view of what Orestes has just said, he means ‘my father’ But the idea of living in the house of a father other than one’s own is abnormal enough to need to be made explicit. Besides, Pylades’ obligation to continue Orestes’ father’s house (in the dynastic sense) does not require him to live in it in the local sense. οἴκει implies that he will help

204

Commentary on lines 702-7

to manage the household, as a son should. és Ἑλλάδ᾽ ἕππιόν τ᾽ Apyos:

ἵππιον is the iambic equivalent of ἑππόβοτος, the Homeric epithet of

Argos, which Buripides uses in anapaests (Andr. 1229) and lyric (Supp. 365). The whole phrase recalls the Odyssean Ἑλλάδα καὶ uéoov Apyos

(1.344, 4. 726, 816 and 15.80). For the meaning of the expression in the

Odyssey, see S. West on Od. 1.344. Pylades would have been a native of

the Odyssean -‘Hellas. ἐπισκήπτω: at Trach. 1221, as here, ἐπισκήπτω

. governs two accusatives: τοσοῦτον δή o’ ἐπισκήπτω ‘So much I charge

you [to do]. Then follows an imperative. 7ade: ‘as follows.

702-3. Toufov . . . τάφῳ: Heap up a tomb and place on [it] a memorial for me, and let my sister give tears and hair to my grave! Once again there 18 an echo of the Odyssey, this time of Elpenor’s request'to Odysseus to celebrate a funeral for him at 11. 74-8 σῆμά τε μοι yedar . . . πῆξαί 7’ ἐπὶ τύμβῳ ἐρετμὸν Pile (Homer uses yéw, not χόω) ( barrow for me . . . and plant [my] oar on the tomb. For offerings of tears and hair, ‘see on 174 above. [μοι: Monk proposed μου, on the analogy of S. Εἰ. 933 μνημεῖ᾽ Ὀρέστου, but there there is no question of domg anything for Orestes. Here, μοι refers back: to 'rup.Bov χῶσον.) 704-5. ἄγγελλε . . . φόνῳ: Orestes puts the ideas in their order of impor-tance to himself: he' is to die, an Argive woman is an agent, it is to be at an altar, he is to be purified for death. English dependence on word-order forces us to clarify whether the woman is to purify him or kill him and whether he is to die at the altar or be purified at it. The priestess supervises the rites, so she can be seen as the agent (ὑπό) of his death, but her

personal function is the ritual purification. φόνῳ comes as a surprise: it is - not the word for ritual killing in a sacrifice. It means ‘violent killing, murder, ‘bloodshed; ‘slaughter’ (in the context of battle or massacre). Compare qSovevw above (see on 680--2). [H. Dik (Word Order in Greek Tragic D:alogue, Ῥ. 55, with n. 21) points

out the tendency of the verb to stand first in announcements of deaths, as here and at 56 (τέθνηκ᾽ Ὀρέστης). But a degree of caution is needed. -Or. 1296 is not a parallel. There, Helen's ὄλλυμαι κακῶς is not an : announcement, but a cry for help, and there is hardly a significant choice of word-order. φόνῳ: Monk, sensitive, 1 would seem, to the connotations of φόνος, proposed φόνου, cleansed of the murder’ of Clytaemestra.

This-would make a consoling message, suggesting a happy ending, of a

« sort. But there has been no hint hitherto that the ritual sprm.klmg before

—sacrifice-could- produce~any -such-effect:]τον πτττοτοτττττττοτο.--.

706-7 καὶ μὴ . . . πατρός: ‘And never betray my sister, seeing [your] connexions by marriage and [her] father’s house desolate! ὁρῶν: Pylades is to keep before his mind’s eye the fact that Electra has no family home

“and no protector but himself. The participle of ὁράω is used in the same

Commentary on lines 708-13

205

way at Supp. 1169-70 vuds δὲ τῶνδε χρὴ xdpw μεμνημένους | σῴζειν, opdvras ὧν ἐκύρσατ᾽ ἐξ ἐμοῦ ‘But you, remembering, should keep

gratitude for these things, seeing what you have received from me’ pov is stressed by its position: betrayal of :Electra would be betrayal of Orestes. δόμους . . . πατρός: here, although the subject of the sentence is Pylades, there can Ὅ6 no doubt that the father is Electra’s: ‘paternal home’ is a single idea. κήδη καὶ δόμους is often explained as:a hendiadys: ‘the paternal home into which you have married. But this may be

over-interpretation.

|

[ἔρημα . . . πατρός: Cropp makes ὁρῶν concessive: ‘though you see our father's house and your marriage alliance destitute) So Orestes is represented: as suspecting that Pylades may abandon Electra when he realizes that she has not brought him rich and powerful in-laws. Both taste and Euripidean usage are against this.]

708-10. καὶ xaip’ . . . κακῶν: ‘And farewell, for I have found you the tru-

est of friends, O fellow-huntsman and fellow in upbringing, O you who have borne many burdens because of my misfortunes. In his final words of farewell to Pylades, Orestes first recalls the good times that they have shared. συγκυναγὲ: hunting is the chief pleasure of rich and aristocratic young men: only horsemanship can compete with it. Hippolytus is peculiar only in his rejection of Aphrodite. συνεκτραφεὶς: on the quasifraternal relationship between friends, see on 498 above. The two lines are artfully balanced. In the first, Pylades is addressed as companion in happy times, in the second as supporter in misfortune. 711-13. ἡμᾶς & . . . μαντευμάτων: ‘But me Phoebus, although a seer, has deceived, and by managing [his] skill for his own advantage, has drawn me as far as possible from Greece, through shame over his past prophecies. Orestes’ suspicion is unjustified, as we, the audience, are in a position to guess. But in Euripides’ plays of this period,-gods do indeed behave in this way. At Hel. 884-6, Theonoe reveals that Aphrodite is trying to prevent Menelaus’ return, because she does not wish it to'come ' out that she never really delivered Helen to Paris, and so won the prize for beauty dishonestly. In Ion, Apollo is less irresponsible, but at 1553-8 Athena explains that he prefers not.to appear, because he fears blame for his past conduct, a painfully live issue in the play. αἰδοῖ: αἰδώς is properly an inhibiting feeling, as at 375 above, while αἰσχύνη is retrospective: the sensation felt after wrongdoing. But the distinction tends to fade. See

the excellent note by Barrett on Hipp. 244. μάντις &v: concessive par-

ticiple, see WS § 2066-and GMT 5 842. τέχνην . . . θέμενος: the middle of τίθημι is used in a variety of contexts for managing or arranging things for oneself. Here, one could almost say ‘manipulating his skill [For αἰδώς, see further D. L. Cairns, Aidos (Oxford,

1993), especially

pp. 165, 186-7, and 264, also C. Ἐ. von Erffa, Aidos’ und verwandte

206

Commentary on lines 714-20

Begriffe in ihrer Entwicklung von Homer bis Demokrit, Philologus, Suppl, 30.2 (Leipzig, 1937). ἀπήλασο᾽ is Heath'smetncally necessary correction of U's απηλα.σεν] 714-15. & ... ἀνταπόλλυμαι: ‘To whom I, having given my all and obeyed [his] words, having killed my mother, am being destroyed myself in return’ At Ag. 1080-2, Cassandra plays on Ἀπόλλων and ἀπόλλυμι: Ἄπολλον, Ἄπολλον, dywidr, ἀπόλλων ἐμός" ἀπώλεσας yap . . . In the next century, Plato (Cratylus 404cl and 405e) says that many people fear

the name of Apollo, 48 indicating some form of destruction’ (φθοράν

7wa). In that case, even though Euripides avoids explicit word-play by calling the god ‘Phoebus, the audience could well have picked up the reference. ἀνταπόλλυμαι 18 conspicuous as the last word of the speech. Compare 975 below, Or. 955-6 6 Πύθιος . . . ἀπώλεσεν and Phaethon 224-5, where the play is made explicitly by Clymene. On poetic etymology in Greek, see on 31-3 above and Diggle on Phaethon 225 (p. 148). Wilamowitz (Analecta Euripidea, p. 245) wanted to excise 714-15, on

the ground that the chorus ought not to know that Orestes has killed his mother before the recognition. This is a bad idea, but it raises interesting questions of dramatic technique -specific to Attic tragedy. What can a chorus be allowed to hear? And how far and under what conditions may they reveal it? Two extreme cases are Andr. 881-1008 and Ion 510-675. In the first, the chorus overhear Hermione and Orestes plan their escape and

Orestes announce his intention to kill Neoptolemus, In the second, the

chorus are present at the meeting between Ion and Xuthus, and it is their (seriously inaccurate) report that brings the plot to a crisis. But the essential point in both plays is that the chorus speak because they have been asked to do so (Andr. 1047-8 and lon 747-51). In the present passage, Iphigenia can have no interest in what the two men have been saying to each other, 80 it does not matter what the chorus may be imagined to ‘think or ‘know. They will not burst in spontaneously with their information. 716-18. €oras . . . φίλον: “There shall be a tomb for you, and I would not betray [your] sister’s bed, since I shall hold you dear in death [even]

more than in life. Significantly, Pylades does not agree in so many words to escape. Instead, he promises to perform the two services requested by

his friend which are contingent on his doing so. favévra . . . ἢ βλέπονθ᾽:

on expressions of the type ‘in life and in death’ in Euripides, see Kovacs, Eunpzdea Altera, p. 8. | 7.19—20 ἀτὰρ . . . φόνου: ‘But the prophecy of the god has not destroyed ----———=you-yet:-And- yet you-stand-close-to-slaughter’-Pylades’ feelings move to and fro in these two lines from mild optimism (‘it hasn’t happened yet’) to pessimism (‘it looks very likely to happen’). arap indicates change of

subject, as at 672 above. See Denniston, p.. 52. γέ is limitative: the

. μάντευμα

has done very unpleasant things to Orestes, but it has

Commentary on lines 721-8

207

not destroyed him yet. On arap . . . ye, see Collard, ‘Colloquial Language’ . 369.

l[)o’ . + « Y€ Ls γ᾽ οὐ διέφθορέν μέ obviously will not do. Reiske improved

matters with σέ for μέ and Nauck placed the emphasis correctly by exchanging ¢’ and ye. κἀγγὺς: L offers καίτοι γ᾽ éyyds, but although

xairot . . . γε is a common combination, there is no certain example of

καίτοι ye consecutive. Erfurdt’s καίτοι κἀγγὺς is the simplest emendation, although καΐτοι καί is, it must be said, exceedingly rare in tragedy.

It is transmitted at PV 642 καίτοι καὶ λέγουσ᾽ αἰσχύνομαι . . . (‘and yet I am ashamed even speakmg "), and at Ant. 948 Herma.nns supplement καίτοι (kal) γεννεᾷ πμιος is generally accepted. καί, it should be noted, belongs not with καέτοι but with the following word. See Dlggle,

Studies, pp. 85—6]

721-2. dAX’ . . . τύχῃ: ‘But excessive misfortune is, it is, a giver of excessive changes, when it [so] happens. After his fluctuations of mood, Pylades ends by willing himself to look on the bright side. Hence the repeated ἔστιν ἔστιν and Aiav . .. λίαν. That fortune 15 changeable is a consolatory commonplace, but Pylades offers a variation: the sheer enormity of Orestes’ misfortune might produce a correspondingly enormous reversal. ἔστιν . . . διδοῦσα: the auxiliary verb ‘to be’ in effect turns the participle ‘into an adjective. See, for example,

OT 89-90, where participle and

adjective are paired: οὔτε yap θρασὺς ! οὔτ᾽ οὖν προδείσας εἰμί Ἱ am

neither confident, nor yet apprehensive. See WS § 1857 and GMT 830.

ἡ λίαν δυσπραξία: the adverb λίαν is sometimes used with nouns which

have a verbal character, designating an action or state. Thus, ἡ λίαν δυσπραξία is equivalent to 76 λίαν Svompayeiv. arav τύχῃ: a set phrase meaning something like ‘on occasion. See also El. 1169, Hipp. 428, ΟῈ 5.2, fr. 979. 4. Barrett on Hipp. 428 cites examples from prose (Thucydides, Plato, Xenophon) 723-4. oiya . . . περᾷ: ‘Be silent. The words of Phoebus give me no help. For here comes the woman out of the building. Pylades was right—more right than he could have guessed. The turning point in their fortunes has come: Iphigenia is coming out of the temple with the letter. &’ . . yap: the first clause (δέ) gives a possible reason why Pylades should stop talk-

ing, the second (ydp) a more urgent one: ‘Sh! She’s coming!’ On δέ with

something of the force of ydp, see Denniston, p. 169. 725-6. ἀπέλθεθ᾽ . ... σφαγῇ: Ὕου, go away and go and prepare matters indoors for those who are in charge of the killing. Iphigenia gets rid of the Taurians who have been guarding the prisoners, just as she did at 470-1. poAdvres (μολὼν) with a finite verb or an imperative (‘having gone, do . . .᾽ is a common tragic equivalent for our ‘go and do . . .’

727-8. δέλτου . . . πάρεισιν: ‘Here present, friends, are the many-opening

leaves of the tablet. Recherché vocabulary. διαπτυχαί (from διαπτύσσω

208

Commentary on lines 728-34

‘to unfold’) will reappear at 793. πολύθυροι is used by later writer? (Plutarch, Lucian) to mean ‘with many doors’ or ‘holes} but here it myg

refer to the turning of the tablets tied together in a bunch. For a descrip

tion of a set of writing-tablets from 430-420 BC, dug up, with othe;

writing materials, in Attica, see Ε. P6hlmann

and M.

L. West, ‘Thé%

Oldest Greek Papyrus and Writing Tablets: Fifth-Century Document . from the “Tomb of the Musician” in Attica) ZPE 180 (2012), pp. 3-5, :

[πολύθυροι is preserved by Aristotle (Rhet. IIL. 1407b. 6), who is illuss

trating ὄγκος (grandeur by amplification). He quotes this as an example of a ‘poetic’ plural (70 ἕν πολλὰ ποιεῖν). For the controversy about what

exactly he means, see V. Bers, Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age; pp. 24-5. L offers the unmetrical πολύθρηνοι ‘of much lamentation, On this passage, it is customary to cite Pollux, Onomasticon 4. 18, according,

-to whom, while Herodotus (7. 239) says deAriov δίπτυχον, the Arrikol

say γραμματεῖον 3ifupov. Beyond ‘two, however, they speak, he says, of τρίπτυχον and πολύπτυχον. ξένοι is Pierson’s correction of L's ξένοις,

Possibly, a copyist at some point in the tradition had the idea floating in; his head that πάρεισιν called for a dative.] ; 728. ἐπὶ τοῖσδε: ‘in addition to these things. Vague, meaning the whole: arrangement for Pylades’ escape and the delivery of the letter. | 729-30. οὐδεὶς . . . πέσῃ: ‘No man is the same both in difficulties and when he changes from fear into confidence’ πέσῃ: ‘he falls, has worried - editors, since in Greek, as in English, one usually falls’ from good to

bad, not the other way. However, at Or. 1141, ἐπὶ 76 βέλτιον πεσῇ is used to mean ‘change for the better’

[αὑτὸς . . . (τ᾽: minor editorial changes have been needed: Valckenaer's

αὑτὸς for 15 adros (‘himself’) and Kochly's added τ᾽ to correspond with τε in 730.]

B

.

731-3. éyw . . . φέρειν: And I fear lest, having returned from [this] land,

he who is to carry this tablet to Argos may treat my instructions as of

no account’ We are ready at any moment for the revelation of the

addressee, but here is the first retardation—and a perfectly natural one. This 15 Iphigenia’s only chance: she must use every means to make sure that the letter arrives. For παρ᾽ οὐδέν meaning ‘of no importance,

compare Ant, 35 and 466. τὰς éuds ἐπιστολὰς means her instruc-

tions for the delivery of the letter (8éArov), from ἐπιστέλλω ‘to. com-

mand, as well as ‘to send. As at 589, the expression fills up the whole ν line after the caesura. μὴ ἀπονοστήσας: metre shows that synecphonesis is-present,"though~not writtenin:"'This happensin' drama with certain

words, such as μή, &%), 7, ἐγώ. Compare 1048 below and see KiihnerBlass, i pp. 228-9.

734. τί δῆτα . . . πέρι: naturally again, Orestes shows a touch of impa- tience, He wants Pylades to be sent on his way with no shilly-shally.

‘Commentary on lines 735--8

209

. δῆτα connects his questlon to what she has just said: “What then do you - want? τίνος . . . πέρι: Modern: ‘What's the problem?’ . [On Kovacss supplement here, see below on 738.] 35-6. ὅρκον . . . φίλων: ‘Let him give me [his] oath to convey these writ-

. ings to Argos, [to those] of my friends to whom I wish [to send them].

ἰ πορθμεύσειν: On Euripides’ fondness for the word in this play, see on

265-6. Here it can be taken literally, for Pylades will travel by sea (742). οἷσι . . . φίλων: the antecedent pronoun, which would have been

in the same case as the relative (‘to those . . . to whon), is omitted. 566

WS 5 2509. [Badham wanted to cut out πρὸς Apyos . . . φίλων, so as to regularize

the stichomythia. But, as Diggle points out (Studies, p. 110), there is no need to assume that the stichomythia has begun. There is no general rule

that a single line from one speaker may not be followed by two lines from another. See, for example, 1156-8 below. Anyway, it is absolutely necessary that Iphigenia should say explicitly and in full what she wants Pylades to swear to.] 737. ἦ . Adyovs: “Then will you also give him the same in return? Orestes shows his anxiety for his friend by negotiating on his behalf. The vagueness of Adyous is probably best conveyed in English by leaving the word out. ἦ κἀντιδώσεις: in tragic dialogue, ἦ καί introduces a question which follows from what has just been said. See, for example, the sequence at Hipp. 95-7: Old man: 15 approachability popular among people?” Hippolytus: ‘Yes . . .” Old man: “Then is it also popular among

the gods?’ (4} xav feoio: . . .)

738. τί χῤῆμα. . . . Aéye: ‘What [am I to give him my word] to do, or not to do. Say! At Med. 748, Aegeus delivers the same line. Given the vagueness of λόγους, Iphigenia’s question is justified. The line is not simply the kind of padding very occasionally found in stichomythia, of which Housman made fun: “What? For I know not yet what you will say; ‘Nor

will you ever, if you interrupt. For τί χρῆμα with parts of δρᾶν, see Stevens, pp. 21-2. [Kovacs (Euripidea Tertia, pp. 8-9) finds that the second half of 734

(τίνος ἀμηχανεῖς mépt) ‘makes no sense. Iphigenia has said plainly what she is perplexed about. But that 15 too narrow an interpetation. She has said what worries her, but not what she wants done about it. Her words have brought the process to a stop. Hence Orestes’ impatience. Kovacs,

however, proposes either a lacuna after τίνος in 734 (which he fills in his edition), or the deletion of 738. This is interesting, but not, it seems to me, compelling. 738 is in fact better motivated here than at Med. 748,

where we are given no reason to think that Medea is hesitating, Incidentally, the identity of Med. 748 and IT 738 has not ‘gone unnoticed. Monk

(on

719)

and Platnauer (ad loc.) noticed

it. It should

210

Commentary on lines 739.-42

be added to the list of lines repeated in different plays which I glve oh

Al 207—8]

3

739-40 éx γῆς ... ἄν: O. Ο send him away from [this] foreign land - alive. 1. “You say what is right and proper. For how [otherwise] could he

take the message?” A little flash of wit from Iphigenia. But the pedantry of Greek religion (in evidence throughout this episode) requires that if one party swears to his side of a bargain, the other should swear to hers, That is proper reciprocity (δίκαιον). ἐ [δίκαιον: some nineteenth-century critics thought the word inappropriate, and sought to replace it by words meaning ‘pointless’ (elxaioy Lindau, ἀχρεῖον or μάταιον Wecklein) or even (with implausible rude-

ness) ἀρχαῖον, meaning ‘silly. This last was suggested by Housman, on

the basis of TrGF, 5.2, fr. 1088, apyaiov εἴρηκας, which, however, Housman thought ‘should probably be removed from among the frag-

ments’ (The Classical Papers of A. E. Housman III, (Cambridge, 1972), p.

-1255). But these suggestions result from too narrow an interpretation of

dikatov, and a lack of a sense of the situation (see above). Iphlgema

does, of course, swear (746).]

741. ἦ καὶ . . . συγχωρήσεται: “Then will the king concede this?’ A hlghly pertinent questlon In this play, Thoas is always τύραννος (996, 1020).

On tragic equwalents for βασιλεύς, see also above on 543. Usage sug-

- gests that τύραννος is not entirely neutral. Aeschylus uses the word only of Aegisthus (Ag. 1633), or of gods (Cho. 359) In PV, it is used several

, times of Zeus. On 7 καί see on 737 above.

742. vai . . . σκάφος: ‘Yes, certainly I shall persuade him, and shall see this man on board myself’ vai comes to be.the modern Greek ‘yes; but

in classical Greek it is quite rare, and in tragedy denotes emphatic assent. See, for example, Med. 1276, where the chorus ask themselves whether they should stop the killing of the children, and a child shouts

from within: “Yes, for heaven’s sake stop {{ (vai, πρὸς θεῶν, ἀρήξατ᾽.

Or ‘compare, at Hel. 99, Helen’s answer to whether she knows of Achilles. vai can also be used, like French ‘sf, to counter an explicit negative. See Hipp. 605 and Phoen. 1665. No need to ask why Iphigenia is so certain.

The

exchange

here prepares us for 1159-1221,

where

Thoas

readily

agrees to everything that Iphigenia proposes. ἐσβήσω: future, used transitively, like the weak aorist: ‘to put (him) on board. vads . . . σκάφος: ‘hull of ship'=ship. Poetic pleonasm. See also 1345 below. σῴε: , ‘him’ In tragedy, used for accusatwe, both smgular and plural. 566 WS

————§-325;4e:

Ν

[vai: the idea that this 31gnals hesitation on Iphxgemas part originates with Hermann, apparently because he thought that she ought to be doubtful. But there is no justification for this in tragic usage. Hermann (followed by Platnauer) cites Trach. 425 as an example of doubtful assent, but

E

Commentary on lines 743-5

211

that is not so. Lichas assents readily to the fact that he said something. . He must, since a ‘large crowd’ heard him. He shuffles by trying to correct

' what exactly he said: ‘Oh yes, certainly. I said I'd heard that' (κλυεῖν γ᾽ - ξφασκον). vai extra metrum is well attested (see Stevens on Andr. 242), . although individual cases are often controversial. Thus, Trach. 425 has

- aroused suspicion. See Davies ad loc. ναΐ seems originally to have been

written on the line in L, before πείσω. But Triclinius saw that it must be

extra metrum, obliterated it, and wrote it again above the line. P, however, copied it on the line. This led Zuntz (Inquiry, p. 94) to conclude that the correction must have been one of Triclinius’ later ones, even though it is written in the black ink characteristic of his first round. But it is perfectly possible that the scribe of P saw the correction, but misunderstood its purpose and thought that vai had simply been omitted and replaced by a wrong word. καὐτὴ: bcecause of the (admittedly slightly awkward) change of object from Thoas (o¢e) to Pylades (understood), Markland

proposed καὐτὸν. But that seems cumbersome, and it would be a pity to

lose the strong assurance in αὐτή. There can be no doubt of the meaning of the text as it stands. Sansone reports καὐτὸν in a second hand in Paris. gr. 2817, one of the MSS seen by Musgrave, who reported some at least of its readings to Markland. See Introduction, p. civ.] 743. ὄμνυ.. . . εὐσεβής: (to Pylades) ‘Swear’ (to Iphigenia) ‘But you dictate

an oath such as is solemn. Orestes acts as chairman. ἔξαρχ᾽: ἐξάρχω, ‘to

take the lead in, ‘to initiate, is often used with songs (Tro. 147 ἐξάρξω .+ μολπάν), dances, ritual cries and the like. ὅστις: indefinite. The relative clause indicates the category to which the oath belongs: anything suitably εὐσεβής. See WS 5 2496. 744-65. The parties swear with all the meticulousness of Greek religious practice. For a comic oath-taking, see Lys. 181-237, where the ceremony is accompanied, 85 on more formal occasions, by a ‘sacrifice. On the importance of oaths in Greek society, see Burkert, tr. Raffan, Greek Religion, pp. 250-4.

744. ddow . . . φίλοις: “Ἵ will give” (you should say) “this [letter] to your dear ones.” ἰτοῖσι σοῖς: Seager’s necessary correction. Us τοῖς ἐμοῖς may be a misguided change introduced by a woolly-minded scribe obsessed by the fact that Iphigenia 15 the speaker. The alternative, suggested by Bothe; is

to retain τοῖς ἐμοῖς, read dwoew and incorporate Aéyew χρή into the

sentence: “You should say that you will . . .

But the direct form is more

suitable for dictating an oath.] 745. Unlike Calonice in Lys. (see above on 744-65), Pylades varies the formula dictated to him by Iphigenia so as to make a full trimeter. Undoubtedly, Euripides was a skilled enough versifier to have made him repeat the exact words, had he wished to do so. Would exact repetition

212

Commentary on lines 746-53

Ἷ

Ἷ have .sounded prosaic, or even absurd, in tragedy? αποδιὃωμι, with its sense of paying a debt, of rendering. what is due, is appropnates See 791 below. 746. κἀγὼ . . . wérpas: And I will see you safe outside the dark rocks’ Geographlcally', an impossibility. But again the Symplegades mark the symbolical barrier, and are spoken of as.if they were close by. See 123-5 and 260-1 above. 747. 7o’ . . . θεῶν: ‘So which of the gods do you swear by as guarantor of this?’ Each party chooses his, or her, own god. Greek gods are, as a rule,; only moderately interested in human affairs, but to swear by a god is to

engage his attention. τοισίδ᾽=τοισὃε, Herodotus and sometimes, for metrical convenience, in tragedy. ὅρκιον 85 at Phoen. 481 ὁρκίους τε δοὺς θεούς ‘offering gods as guarantors of his oath’ [τοισίδ᾽: Markland, for Us τοῖσιν. Barrett (on Hipp. 400-2) lists ten examples from tragedy of the corruption of the relatively unfamiliar τοισίδ(ε) to τοῖσιν or τοῖσδέ γ1}

748. Aprepw . . . ἔχω: Iphigenia’s choice 15 the obwous one, as ἧσπερ (‘the

very one in whose dwelling. . .᾽) shows. τιμὰς: officel See LS] τιμή 3. 749. ἐγὼ & ... dia: like Hlppolytus at Hipp. 1025, Pylades chooses the

most formidable of guarantors. Ὅρκιος was a title of Zeus. 8¢ . . . ye (or

δέ ye) is common in rejoinders in tragic dialogue. Compare, for example,_ Supp. 940: Adrastus: “This task may now be the concern of the servants’

Theseus: “Yes. But these.corpses shall be my concern’ (juiv 8¢ γ᾽ οἷδε)

750. εἰ & ... ἐμέ: ‘And if, having abandoned [your] vow, you were to wrong me . . .?’ Politely, Iphigenia puts her if-clause into the ‘improbable’ future (WS § 2329), and leaves ‘what punishment do you propose for

yourself?’ to 751. avooros . for yourself], a condition:

be understood. . . με: ‘May I be without return. And what do you [propose nothav1ng saved me?’ μ.η, because the participle stands for ‘If you have not saved me’ (WS § 2067).

752. μήποτε . . . ποδός: May 1 never, living, set my footprint in Argos’ ἔχνος . .« . woSos the periphrasis gives weight. The combination seems

to be peculiar to Euripides. Ritchie (Authenticity, pp. 209-10) cites seven

examples.

753. ἄκουε. . . λόγον: But listen now to a thought that we have passed by. Another retardation, but a very nnportant one for the way in which

ἴδε recognition will unfold. 84 νυν ‘expresses an increased urgency in

s, command or appeal —Denniston, p. 218. He goes on to observe that

τοσππο--ἄκουε δή-νυν 15- - ἔἀνουγίίε Euripidean-formula —-—- -

[There are eight examples in his plays, one in Sophocles, and also two in Aristophanes’ (Knights 1014 and Birds 1513). Dunbar (on the Birds passage) calls it‘a tragic introductory formula, but the evidence is at least equally compatible with a colloquial origin.]

Commentary on lines 754--9

213

754, AN . . . ἔχῃ: But let it be shared at once, if it is good: Pylades has paused: he wants a resporise from Iphigenia to show that she is paying attention. AN’ suggests a suppressed ‘Don’t hesitate, but . . ..

[εὐθὺς ἔστω κοινὸς: L offers αὖτις ἔσται καινὸς" αὖτις is an epic form,

which must be corrected to αὖθις, but that does not improve the sense.

Markland produced an intelligible text by substituting κοινὸς for καινὸς: ‘It shall be shared again’ He explained αὖθις by the oath-taking, which was shared between Iphigenia and Pylades. But Fixs εὖθυς. ἔστω,

although requiring more change, makes Iphigenia say exactly what she should say. Sansone retains αὖθις, presumably accepting Markland’s

explanation, while accepting ἔστω κοινὸς. But εὖθυς helps to explain

ἀλλ᾽ See above.] 755-8. ἐξαίρετόν . . . ἔμπεδον: ‘Grant me this exception. If anything happens'to the ship, and the tablet, with the things [on board], disappears in the waves, but I save only my body, this oath no longer stands firm. More religious pedantry, but the Athenian audience would have under-

stood. é€aiperov most often means ‘selected; ‘choice} but Sophocles uses it in the same sense 85 here at TrGF 4, fr. 746 ἐξαίρετον τίθημι τὴν ἀκουσίαν ‘I make an exception of the involuntary. ν τι ναῦς πάθῃ:

euphemism for 1 the ship sinks, like English ‘if anything happens to me’ meaning ‘if I die. See Chadwick, pp. 231-2. χρημάτων opposed to σῶμα: the objects on board, as distinct from the people: ‘everything of which the value is measured by money’ (Aristotle, ΕΝ 1119b=4.1.2). At Ag. 1007-8, Aeschylus speaks of throwing overboard part of the χρημάτων κτησίων (‘the goods in his possession’) from the metaphorical ship. Schéne-Kdchly 866 legal language here. [€umedov:

Housman

(Classical Papers

I, p. 21) wished

to substitute

ἐμποδών, on the ground that éumedos ὅρκος means η oath which has

been performed’ (see ἐμπεδώσομεν at 790 below). But éumedos is used

generally for ‘standing firm’ ἐμποδών, however, means ‘lying before

one’s feet) ‘impeding, and so Euripides uses it, as, for example, at Ion 1046-7: When one wants to do harm to one’s enemies, οὐδεὶς ἐμπτοδὼν κεῖται νόμος ὯΟ law stands in ones way. Housman was over-influenced by his own understanding of PV 13: the command of Zeus has an end

κοὐδὲν ἐμποδὼν ἔτι ‘and nothing still lies before you'] 759. @AX’ . . . κυρεῖ: ‘But do you know what I'll do?—for many things hit

many marks. Iphigenia reflects that there is more than one way to convey her message, and more methods increase the chances of success. The line has a strong colloquial flavour. olo 6 δράσω: a rhetorical question used as an introduction, like ‘You know what?’ Akin to the illogical οἶσθ᾽ o δρᾶσον (Hec. 225, etc.), which conflates “You know what you are going to do?’ and ‘Do it. See Stevens, p. 36. πολλὰ . . . κυρεῖ: the words have the vague and slightly enigmatic quality of a proverb, something like ‘many

Commentary on lines 760-5

R LU τωῶκι _, l-__a-‘ e- ἘΝ

214

methods achjeve many results!” There may be ἃ submerged metaphor fro archery, or throwing projectiles of some sort. Platnauer compares German,

'viel hilft viel. For the style, compare Supp. 577 πονοῦσα πολλὰ πόλλ᾽:

εὐδαιμονεῖ ‘Making much effort she has much good fortune} with Collard: ad loc. πολυς is common in polyptoton. See 678 above and Gygh-Wyss pp. 47-8. yap shows that πολλὰ . . . κυρεῖ forms a parenthesis. . [πολλὰ . . . κυρεῖ is best left alone. Nauck proposed πολλοῖς for πολλωμ

‘Many things happen to many people;, which is not particularly ἀρρτορτὶ-"

ate. Gygli-Wyss (p. 31) wants to extract something like ‘almost anything

can happen’ from the text as it stands. But it makes better sense for

Iphigenia to think about her own means of achieving her end, rather.

.than to produce an exceptionally flat-footed reflection on the uncertainty

.of life. The Greek taste for banal moralizing can be exaggerated. For:j

similarly cryptic utterance with a proverbial flavour, see Hcld. 919, with’ Wilkins and Allan ad loc.] | 760-1. τἀνόντα . . . φίλοις: All that is contained and inscribed in the folds: of the tablet I shall tell to you in speech [for you] to report back to my dear ones, Now the real point of the letter emerges. We, the audience,

know that as soon as Iphigenia names the addressee, the recognition will

begin in earnest. We may expect a dialogue in which the facts will emerge-

gradually. But the letter short-circuits that. Moreover, instead of a message’ in indirect speech, the recitation of the letter allows Iphigenia to speak: directly to Orestes as if he were there—and he is there. A brilliant dra-

matic stroke. The phraseology is very similar at IA 112-13, where Agamemnon reveals the content of his letter as a mark of his confidence in the old retainer: & δὲ κέκευθε δέλτος év πτυχαῖς ᾿λόγῳ φράσω oot πάντα τἀγγεγραμμένα. ἀναγγεῖλαι: infinitive of purpose, as if φράσω were equivalent to Ἷ shall entrust it to you to report . . .. See WS 5 2009.

ἀναγγέλλω ‘to report back’ 15 a rare word: The only other occurrence in

tragedy is at PV 661, where Ios father has sent messengers to Delphi and . Dodona, ‘and they came reporting back’ (ῆκον & ἀναγγέλλοντες). [ἀναγγεῖλαι: Blmsley proposed the more common ἀπαγγεῖλαι (see 642,

1297), but ἀναγγέλλω is appropriate. Pylades was not sent out specifically

to seek news of Iphigenia, but he is taking the message back to the place from which he set out. Moreover, while scribes are certainly capable of writing rare words by mistake in place of common ones, the opposite is

much more likely. Finally, it should be added that ἀπαγγέλλοντες appears

- either in the text or as a variant in a small minority of MSS of PV and =~ js-adopted-by-M:-L-West-in-his -edition of -Aeschylus:] - - 762-5. év ἀσφαλεῖ. . . éuoi: Ἕοτ [it will be] safe. If you save the writing, it will itself silently tell what is written in it. But if the writings disappear η the sea, having saved [your] body, you will save the words for me’ év

ἀσφαλεῖ-- ἀσφαλὲς ἔσται, like év ἡδονῇ at 494 above. This type of

Commentary on lines 766-81

215

xpress1on is rather favoured by Euripides. Compare, for example, Hec.

981 év ἀσφαλεῖ γὰρ ἥδ᾽ épnuia ‘lack of attendants here is safe) See also

Hipp. 785, El. 550, Hel. 1227, 1277, Phoen. 1276 (but not IA 1343, where the verb is expressed). Denniston (on El 550) explains the idea as ‘under _the category of. φράσει σιγῶσα: oxymoron. éuoi: emphatic: ‘By saving your body, you will save my words. ¢ occurs nine times in this line (on ‘sigmatism’ in Euripides, see above on 678-9). But the poet gives priority to the sound-play in σῶμα swoas . . . σώσεις.

[αὐτὴ (from the second edition of Euripides printed by Hervagius, Basel,

1544) 15 much more pointed than Ls αὕτη ‘this (γραφή) will tell . . .’

Badham’s ὁμοῦ for éuoi is not an improvement, destroying, as it does,

the idea of reciprocity, recurrent in this part of the play: Pylades’ saving of his own life benefits her. See 766 below, and compare 579-81 above.] 766-8. καλῶς . . . λέγειν: “You have spoken well, both on behalf of your concerns, and of me. But tell [me] to whom 1 should carry this letter to Argos, and what I should say, having heard [it] from you. Pylades pursues the idea of mutual benefit which was introduced by Iphigenia at

579. & . . . wpos Apyos: With the person, φέρειν governs a dative for

giving to, with the place, πρός of motion towards. τε: single connective TE, especia]ly in verse, See Denniston, p. 497. ἱτῶν τε σῶν: a brilliant conjecture by Haupt for Ls τῶν θεὢν, which

makes no sense in the context.]

769-81. This passage bristles with difficulties. The version whlch I print 19 (with

one

further

transposition)

that

of John

Jackson

(Marginalia

Scaenica, pp. 9-12), which is also adopted by Kovacs (see Euripidea . Tertia, pp. 9-11). Jackson offers a hypothetical reconstruction of how the lines could have been accidentally transposed. Sansone comes nearest to printing s text and attributions to speakers, accepting an emendation at 782 and attributing that line to Iphigenia. This version of the text is defended by E.-R. Schwinge, Die Verwendung der Stichomythie in den Dramen des Euripides, pp. 238-43. D. Bain (Acfors and Audience, p. 36, n. 1) puts the case for Jacksons transposition most effectively, but ends

by deciding against it for reasons which are much less clear. Diggle also prints a text close to that of L, but follows. Hermann in making Orestes the interlocutor throughout. If 15 order of lines 15 retained, that surely is necessary. Once Orestes is established as Iphigenias interlocutor (772, 777), it becomes stylistically wrong for tragedy for Pylades to break in at 780-1. We

should hear no more

from him

until 788

(see above on

482-575). Grégoire and Cropp differ from Diggle in allowing Orestes to continue with 782, retaining ἀφίξομαι. On my proposed transposition of 777, see below on that line.

|

An editor is faced here with the decision whether to keep as closely as possible to the text as transmitted by L (and ‘possible’ already

216

Commentary on lines 769.-73

generates problems), or to print a version that could be imagined Θῃ :

stage. The editor of a text of reference should certainly choose the first,-

as do (with slight differences) Diggle text, I see advantages in choosing the - more detail in the commentary below. out different versions. 769, 780. ayyeAX’ ... ἐμοῖς: I ‘Take

and Sansone. But for a ‘reading’ second. I give the arguments in Some readers may enjoy trying

the message to Orestes, son of.

Agamemnon—'’ P. ‘O gods!’ I. ‘Why do you call on the gods in the mid- .

dle of my [words]?’ L places & θεοί κτλ. after Opéol . . . μάθῃς (779), leaving Iphigenia to utter the words. This is evidently impossible, and Triclinius inserted the necessary change of speaker. But, as Jackson asks, ‘when by every law of human nature, should Pylades, whether on the Attic stage or in the Tauric Chersonese, have exclaimed Ὅ God’? 769 is, as Kovacs says, ἃ bombshell. τἀγαμέμνονος - ττῷ Ἀγαμέμνονος. See: WS 5 68N. feoi and θεοὺς are each scanned as one long syllable. 781. οὐδέν . . . ἄλλοσε: ‘[It was] nothing. Continue. I had gone off [men-

tally] elsewhere. οὐδέν, used in this way, belongs to colloquial language.

See Collard, ‘Colloquial Language; p. 368. This line necessarily follows . 780 to a point near the beginning of the dialogue. πέραινε confirms that, There is much less point in saying ‘go on’ when the essential message has -already been given.

779, 770-1. ’Opéol® . . . ἔτι: ‘Orestes (so that you may learn the name by hearing it twice), she who was slaughtered at Aulis sends [you] this,

Iphigenia, alive, but to those there not still alive’ The vocative Ὀρέσθ᾽

᾿ (Opéora) stands naturally at the beginning of the message, not, as L places it, near the end and trailing at the end of a sentence. The name ‘Iphigenia, with ζῶσ᾽ produces a first metron of the form -- -- υ --.- On epic names in iambic trimeters, see Introductlon, p- Ιχχχίν. κλυὼν: coincident aorist participle.

772. ποῦ &’ -. . . πάλιν: ‘But where is she? Has she come back from death?

Orestes has hitherto remained in stunned silence. His question shows that he has still not grasped the full import of Iphigenia’s words. From now on, except for 788-92, which are necessarily spoken by Pylades, he becomes the interlocutor.

[Jackson attributes 772 to Pylades, without comment. He could speak the line, but need not.]

773. 10’ . . . με: ‘She here whom you see yourself, Do not thrust me away ~from my words. Naturally, Iphigenia does not welcome the 1nterrupt10n Ο her train of thought. The audiencé remains on tentérhooks, [λόγων: Seidler, like ὅ μ᾽ ἐκπλήσσει λόγου at Or. 549. Compare also PV

360 and ἀποστήσεις λόγου at 912 below. Cleaily much better sense than

Ls λόγοις ‘drive me off, or ‘shock me by [your] words. Markland pre-

pared the way for Seidler with Adyou.]

Commentary on lines 774--7

217

774. κόμισαί @’ . . . Baveiv: ‘Take me to Argos, brother, before I die. With the word σύναιμε, she invokes the tie of blood, and all that 1t entails. Compare Orestes’ use of ὁμοσπόρου at 695 above and Orestes’ appeal to Menelaus at Or. 674 πατρὸς ὅμαιμε, θεῖε ‘uncle, of the same blood as my father . ... πρὶν θανεῖν: Understand ue as the subject of

θανεῖν from κόμισαί u. Kovacs's translation ‘before you die’ will not do.

The terminus ante quem for the rescue must be Iphigenia's death, not Orestes, but to repeat ue would be un-Greek. 775-6, 778. éx BapBapov . . . γενήσομαι: ‘. . . from a barbarian land, and take me away from the sacrifices of the goddess, over which I hold stranger-slaughtering office, or I shall become the bringer of a curse upon your house. At Ag. 235-7, Iphigenia is gagged at the moment of sacrifice, lest she utter a curse upon the house (φθόγγον dpaiov οἴκοις). Euripides imagines that scene differently (361-3), but his Iphigenia- could still bring a curse on the house of Atreus. L places Orestes’ question .to Pylades (777) as.an as1de, between Iphigenia’s appeal and her final threat. But how could the line be delivered? The two actors must not speak simultaneously, and everything said in a Greek theatre must be loud and clear. But the threat is the climax of Iphigenia’s speech: there is no place for a pause before it. The natural place for her to pause is at the end of 778 (without 779 to spoil the effect of the curse).

[D. Bain (Actors and Audience, pp. 13-66) provides a thorough and

judicious examination of passages in Euripides where ‘asides’ have been

identified. He lists IT 777 among the passages which satisfy his definition of an aside. In none of his other passages, however, does the speaker of the aside break in upon another speaker who is in full flow. Apart from this one, his ‘certain’ asides fall into three categories: 1. Speaker A finishes his speech and speaker B deliberates audibly before answering: Med. 277-80 and the striking sequence at Hec. 736-51, where Agamemnon repeatedly demands an answer from Hecuba,

while she talks to herself with her back turned to him (739). 2. A speaker interrupts his own speech in order to comment on his own

situation: Or. 671-3. There, the self-address divides Orestes’ arguments from his final, passionate appeal to kinship. 3. In stichomythia, or similar exchanges, one speaker says something (particularly a cry of distress) which the other speaker ignores: Hel. 133 (just the word ἀπωλόμεσθα), 139, 475 (od . . . Aéyos),IA 1140,

ξενοφόνους: P writes ξενοκτόνους, contrary to metre, The mistake is of illustrative. interest.]

777. Πυλάδη . . . ηὑρήμεθα: ‘Pylades, what shall I say? Where ever have

we found ourselves?’ ὄνθ᾽ Ξ- ὄντε, dual, combined, as often with plural, See WS § 955.

218

Commentary on lines 782--6

782, ray’ odv . . . ἀφίξεται: ‘But perhaps, questioning you, he will arrive at4 incredible thmgs A new thought has struck Iphigenia: perhaps Orestes will come to find the message incredible. She must add an explanation’ of how she has come to be where she is. τάχ᾽ odv is a formula for introducing a new train of thought, Thus, at Supp. 184, Theseus: opens the final section of his speech with τάχ᾽ odv dv εἴποις ‘But per-. haps you might say.. .. Ε. Fraenkel (Horace, pp. 54-5) cites this as.

the earliest of a number of examples of a rhetorical device later to become well established in Latin as well as in Greek: the hypotheti: cal objection. See further Collard on Supp. 184. This seems the

best way so far suggested to deal with a problematic line. L writes ἀφίξομαι, and assigns the line to Pylades, following 781. But that will not do. The speaker of 781, whether Pylades or Orestes (see above on 769-~82), has caught Iphigenia’s attention. He makes his excuse (‘my mind wandered’) and he must say no more. He cannot go on with ‘But perhaps by questioning you I shall arrive at incredible things: . [Among emendators who have struggled with this line, Jackson alone

pays proper attention to τάχ᾽ odv. But the meaning of ἄπιστα also needs

attention. Like English ‘unbelievable, ἄπιστος can be used in two senses. When the herdsman at 328 says ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ἄπιστον; he uses the word in a

‘weak’ sense, as a hyperbolical equivalent to ‘amazing. He certainly

-believes his own story: he saw it with his own eyes. But when Iphigenia

at 388 says that she considers the feast of Tantalus ἄπιστα, she means it literally. Here, in the treatment of the line that I print, ἄπιστα must be

taken in the literal, ‘strong’ sense: the questioner will arrive at things that he cannot believe. 115 version requires the weak sense: the questioner expects to hear something amazing. Finally, some other methods of dealing with the line should be mentioned. Markland was the first to suggest assigning the line to Iphigenia, emending ἐρωτῶν to ἐρωτῶσ' Burgess

αᾠιξεται occurred also to Kayser and Weil. Hermann proposed οὐκ ἐρωτῶσο᾽ for οὖν ἐρωτῶν, and transferred the line to follow 811. This

regularizes the stichomythia, but does little or nothing for the sense. Cropp adopts οὐκ with ἐρωτῶν, while keeping the line in its transmitted position. It is hard to see the merit of this. It destroys some good idiomatic Greek, and ‘not questioning you’ has little point. Finally, several editors (Monk, Paley, Prinz~-Wecklein, Schone-Kéchly) have regarded Ἔ. the line as interpolated. Readmg αφιξετα.ι, however, 1t prov1des a plausible mtroductlon ἰοτλέγ᾽ οὕνεκ᾽ kTA] " 783-6. λέγ᾽ . . . αἷαν: 'ϑαγ that, having given a deer in exchange for me,

the goddess saved me, (a deer) which my father sacrificed (thinking that he had struck a sharp blade into me), and settled me in this land’

ἔλαφον is in emphatic position at the beginning of the clause. This

Commentary on lines 786--90

219

emphasis prowdes the justification for taking the deer (not μ᾽) as the antecedent to ἣν.

[Paley did indeed take μ’ as the antecedent to ἣν, which caused him to

conjecture ἔθυ; imperfect: ‘ . . . me, whom my father was trying to sacrifice. See also Schéne-K&chly. That interpetation has the disadvantage

of making δοκῶν . .. βαλεῖν sound redundant. Kovacs is tempted in

that direction, even though his translation shows that he takes the deer as antecedent. To him, δοκῶν . . . βαλεῖν ‘interrupts the close connection between Artemis’ saving of Iph1genia and her settling her in the land of the Taurians. But the fact that Agamemnon thought that he was killing his daughter is an important part of the explanation.] 786-7. αἵδ᾽ . . . ἐγγεγραμμένα: “These are my instructions. These are the

things written in the tablets. For the meanings of ἐπιστολαΐί, see on 732

above. τἀν-- τὰ ἐν. [τάδ᾽ ἐστὶ rav: L offers τάδ᾽ ἐστιν ἐν ‘these things are written . .. Plutarch (Moralza 182Ε, 866 the Loeb ΠῚ, ed. E C. Babbitt, p. 72) quotes in the form ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶ Tav. Tav (* the things in') is a clear improvement. ταῦτί(α). however, might be felt to demote the contents of the letter by

comparison with the instructions. Moreover, Diggle (Studies, p. 86)

points out that when ὅδε and οὗτος are used, as here, effectively in ana-

phora, ‘the variation may always- be attributed to metrical necessity’ Plutarch may simply be mis-remembering, or he may be adapting the quotahon deliberately.]

788-90. & pgdiots. . εμπεδωσομεν' ‘O you who have bound me by an easy [to fulfil] oath! And 1, having sworn excellent things, will not hold

back for long, but will make good the oath that I have sworn! ῥᾳδίοις . περιβαλοῦσά pe: There is a suggestion of paradox here. περιβάλλω can simply describe an action, as at 796 below, but here she has ‘thrown the oath round’ him, like a noose, or snare (Ba. 619, 1021). But from

this snare it 15 easy to escape. σχήσω: for intransitive ἔχω, see LSJ éyw

Β. 1. ἐμπεδώσομεν: Pylades uses legal language. ἐμπεδόω 15 the proper

word for ‘to ratify, ‘fulfil, ‘confirm’ It features in the oath-taking cere-

mony at Lys. 211 and 233-4. For the combination of true singular, σχήσω, and plural-for-singular, ἐμπεδώσομεν, compare Jon 1250-1 ὃιωκομεσθα . γίγνομαι, and, most strikingly, Tro. 904 οὐ δικαίως,

ἣν θάνω, θανουμ.εθα

[κάλλιστα & ὀμόσας: so L above the line. Markland accepted this, treating 788 45 an exclamation, as above. Ls feminine ὀμόσασ᾽ on the line, must be attached closely to the previous line: ‘O you who have bound me by an easy oath, and sworn most excellent things [yourself]. But what is so excellent about Iphigenia’s oath? She has only sworn to rescue

Pylades (and not Orestes). This is hardly the moment for him to con-

gratulate her on that. Hermann sought to explain the transmitted text by

220

Commentary on lines 791--7

supposing that it is the condition attaching to the oath, the delivery, of the letter, that Pylades finds ‘excellent. But that is not what he says. Th

point of an oath is what one swears to-do. It is Pylades who has swory

to deliver the letter, and -he may well be pleased with that. ὀμόσας was

also accepted by Seidler and attracted Platnauer. Hermann saw an obsta:

cle in the particle 6(¢) but failed to explain why, or to say what otheé

particle would have been appropriate.]

g

791-2. ἰδού . .. πάρα: ‘Look: I bring and hand over to you, Orestes, i - letter from your sister here. Meticulous as ever, Pylades says that he is; doing (ἀποδίδωμι) exactly what he swore to do (ἀποδώσω 745), The, verb means ‘to hand over to someone what is theirs by right. This is the last that we shall hear from Pylades until 902. The long silence follows; naturally from his role as ‘the lesser member

of a pair’ (see- Taplin,-

Stagecraft, Ῥ. 334). For other long silences in Euripides, see Ritchie, Authenticity, p. 117. There is no need to look for some particular dra-' matic justification for these silences. There is a strong bias in Attic trag᾿ edy towards dialogue between two characters. We can, if we like, picture the actor stepping back a couple of paces. 793-4. δέχομαι . . . αἱρήσομαι: Ἱ accept [it]. But, passing by the folds of the letter, I shall first take the joy without words! On διαπτυχάς, see on 727-8 above. oV λόγοις suggests the familiar antithesis between word and deed: Adyw . . . épyw.

795-7. ὦ φιλτάτη . . . ἐμοί: ‘O sister, most dear to me, in amazement, but

nonetheless, having embraced you with incredulous arm, I shall come to joy, having learned things astonishing to me. Before moving to. embrace Iphigenia, Orestes announces his intention. For this type of ‘stage direc-

tion, see on 456-8 above. ἐκπεπληγμένος . . . ἀπίστῳ . . . θαυμάστ᾽:

words indicating amazement are piled on. ἀπίστῳ: the active sense of

ἄπιστος, ‘unbelieving) is very rare. See further below. For other mean-

ings of ἄπιστος, see above on 782. περιβαλὼν: Most often, with various

verbs, one throws ones arms (acc.) round someone (dat.). But for the

cases in reverse, as here, see Or. 372 δοκῶν Ὀρέστην... . φίλαισι χερσὶ περιβαλεῖν, and, for throwing round clothes, Or. 25 and Gye, 330. For

ἐς τέρψιν εἶμι, compare és μέτρον ἥκει at 421 above and εἰς ἀθυμίαν ἀφίκεσθ(ε) at Βα. 610. [σ᾽ ἀπίστῳ: Markland, for 115 ἀπιστῶ, ‘I disbelieve, a redundant verb. An alternative emendation would be Doederlein’s ἀπίστω . . . Bpayiove

* ‘throwing (two) unbelieving arms round (oo: understood)’, See Diggle,

T Euripidéd, Ῥ. 465, There are three occurrences of ἄπιστος active in the latter part of the Odyssey: 14. 150 and 23. 72 θυμὸς 8¢ τοι alév ἄπιστος, and, in a different combination,

14, 391. There is one occurrence in

Herodotus, at 1. 8, but no others in drama, unless one accepts Wilamowitz’s ἀπίστους at Ag. 412.]

|

Commentary on lines 798-826

221

798-9. £& . . . xépas: Friend, you are wrongfully polluting the servant of

. the goddess by throwing your arms (hands) round [her] robes, that are not . to be touched’ Similarly, in the false recognition scene at Ion 517 ff,, lon

(522) warns Xuthus against damaging the sacred wreaths in his attempt to . embrace his supposed son. ‘The priest is a kind of walking temple—R. Parker, on the inviolability of priests (Miasma, pp. 175-6). But who speaks these lines? Monk proposed giving them to Iphigenia, while L attributes them to the chorus

(leader). The latter rather suits our sense of the

dramatic: Orestes’ shocking act provokes an outburst from an unexpected

quarter, while Iphigenia takes quick evasive action. But our taste may be

misleading. It is very strange for the chorus-leader to intervene when a recognition scene is under way. MS attributions carry little, if any, authority, and here a scribe, or editor, may well have been misled by the fact that the speaker says, not ‘me, but ‘the servant of the goddess. But in referring to herself in that way Iphigenia is giving the reason why she should not be touched. For a somewhat similar mis-attribution, see on 456 Η above. In favour

of Iphigenia

as speaker,

see D.

]. Mastronarde,

Confact and

Discontinuity, p. 95, n. 56. For a well-argued case for the chorus-leader, see M. Telo, ‘Eur. LT. 798-9: un attribuzione problematica, RhM 146 (2003), pp- 103-7.

[xépas: Herwerden, for Ls, xépa. Diggle (Euripidea, p. 465) demonstrates that the plural is normal in such expressions. The change is trivial.]

800-2. & . . . moré ‘O my own sister and sprung from the same father,

Agamemnon, do not turn away from me, having (now. that you have) a brother, thinking (when you thought) that you would never have [one]’ συγκασιγνήτη: this unique compound, followed by ‘and from the same. father’ must mean ‘full sister, sharing the same mother. On the closeness of the relationship between mother and child, see above on 497. At Alc. 410, the young boy calls his sister σύγκασι κούρα (‘own-sister girl'). It is their mother that the two children have just lost. Again, σύγκασις occurs nowhere else. ἔχουσ᾽ ... οὐ δοκοῦο᾽ €few ποτέ: compare Admetus’ exclamation -at Alc. 1134 éyw ¢ ἀέλπτως οὔποτ᾽ ὄψεσθαι δοκῶν ‘I have you, unhoped for, when I thought that I should never see . : you again. [συγκασιγνήτη: a correction in L, who originally wrote the unmetrical

κασιγνήτη" δοκοῦσ᾽: the Aldine printer printed δοκῶν, which hung -

about in early editions, even in that of Markland, who saw that it could hardly be right. Reiske conjectured δοκοῦσ᾽ before the reading was found " in L.] 803-26. The process of recognition here has most in common with Hel. 557-624

and Ion

1395-1437.

In both, however,

it is- a woman

who

struggles to convince a sceptical man. Helen, indeed, fails. It is only the arrival of the old man with news of the disappearance of the

222

Commentary on lines 803--4

phantom Helen that convinces Menelaus. The scene in Jon passes in the atmosphere of heightened emotion of a lyric and iambic duet (see

below on 827-99). But the process of recognition is closer to that in

IT. It is achieved through question and answer, and an important part is

played by a piece of weaving done by the woman long ago (compare 814

‘below with Ion 1417). . Cropp (on 798-810) sees here ‘a narrative pattern of female scepticism

and a demand for “proofs” of the male’s identity’ going back to Penelope.

in the Odyssey (23. 85-204). This concept of a ‘pattern’ looks tempting,

but hardly stands up to closer examination. The examples adduced by Cropp are the two Electra plays. But in Sophocles’ El the recognition is almost instantaneous: it takes a mere six lines (1218-24) from Orestes’

announcement that he is alive and present to Electras greeting: ¢ φίλτατον φῶς. He produces his father’s seal in evidence with instant effect. Electra has shown no inclination to doubt him. Indeed, Sophocles’

focus is much less on the recognition than on the preceding exchange,

in which Orestes, still unrecognized, shows his compassion for Electra, In Euripides’ play, it is the old man who plays the decisive role in the

recognition (558-76). It is he who recognizes Orestes almost on sight (563), and points out the scar which convinces Electra ten lines later (573-5)..In fact, an examination of the various recognition scenes reveals,

not so much any pattern, as an immense inventiveness on the part of the

dramatists in treating a recurrent situation.

803-4. éyw . . . Ναυπλία: T . . . you my brother? Won't you stop talking?

Argos is full of him, and Nauplia! μεστὸν has never been satisfactorily

explained, apart from indicating that he is there, not here. The nearest

thing to a parallel is ἐξέπιλησα at 81 above, which governs δρόμους, and means ‘I have wandered all over. At Ion 1108, ἐξέπλησα is found in the

same sense, but the object is missing, suggesting a lacuna, At TrGF 5. 1,

fr. 62d, 28, Paris πᾶν ἄστυ πληροῖ Τρωικον γαυρουμενος ‘he fills the -whole Trojan city exulting’ But there γαυρούμενος is essential to the

meaning. Other suggestions have been that he is the most important man there, or that those places are full of his fame. But this is pure guesswork, There is no supporting evidence. [ἐγώ: Diggle suggests ἔχω, picking up éyovo(a) in the previous line: ‘I

have you as my brother?’ This 15 attractive. It could, however, be argued

:‘.

- that the transmitted text, in which Iphigenia utters only the most salient

words, leaving out the colourless ‘have, is more expressive of bewilderment.—7é 7 Apyos:"L-offers 5, but δέ serves-no particular purpose here, while 7¢ (Bothe)

is desirable to prepare for the second re. μεστὸν:

Various attempts have been made to emend, as well as to explain, but none is particularly convincing. The fact that we do not understand the word does not mean that it is necessarily corrupt.]

Commentary on lines 805-10

223

805. οὐκ . . . σύγγονος: “‘Your brother is not there, my poor lady!l’ τάλας, from τλάω, properly medns ‘enduring) whether the emphasis is on the suffering, or the steadfastness of the sufferer. So Orestes is naturally

addressed as rdAas at 628 and 717. But @ rdAawa here approximates to

the colloquial usage found in the later plays of Aristophanes for a slightly pitying reproach: ‘my poor dear!’ Thus, at Ecc. 156, Praxagora calls the first woman τάλαινα because she has sworn ‘by the two goddesses’ when pretending to be ἃ man. At Lys. 944, τάλαιν᾽ ἐγώ means something like

‘silly me!’ At Ecc. 242, & τάλαινα is even used in congratulation. See further J. R. Wilson, ‘TOAMA and the meaning of TAAAX, AJP 92

(1971), pp. 292-300.

806. dAX’ . . . éyeivaro: ‘But did the Laconian daughter of Tyndareus bear you? Applied to Clytaemestra, ἡ Adxawa Τυνδαρίς carriés no innu-

endo, but when Poseidon refers to Helen in those terms at Tro. 34, he is

denying that she is the daughter of Zeus. This is the only passage in

Euripides where Adxawa is used with no hint of hostility or anti-

Spartan feeling. Elsewhere, it is used of Helen again at Hec. 441 and Or. 1438 and of Hermione at Andr. 29 and 486. 807. Πέλοπός . . . ἐγώ: “Yes indeed, to the son of Pelops’ son, from whom I am sprung’ Understand ‘she bore me’ from 806. On γε sometimes meaning ‘yes’ in an answer, see Denniston, p. 130.

[ve: L writes τε. τε is found in answers with simple co-ordinating force, as at 816 below, where another object is added for ὑφήνασ᾽ in 814: ‘having woven that ... and the image .... Or see Ba. 928-35, where a parallel fact is added to an earlier one: ‘a lock has escaped . . . and your

girdle 15 loose. Here, by contrast, παιδὲ is in a different syntactical relationship to ἐγείνατο from ἡ Λάκαινα Tuvdapis. Hence the need for assenting ye. οὗ ᾿κπέφυκ᾽: Elmsley’s correction. éyeivaro (παιδὲὴ) is clearly still the main verb, so ἐκπέφυκε must belong to a subordinate

clause.]

808. τί φής ... τεκμήριον: ‘What are you saying? Have you any proof of these things for me?’ Iphigenia’s first reaction was dismis-

sive (803-4). But now, after Orestes’ answer at 807, realization strikes her.

τί φής; (or πῶς φῇς;) is a common expression of astonishment in Euripides.

[τι τῶνδέ μοι: The Aldine editor corrected s τί τῶνδ᾽ ἐμοὶ, where the

interrogative τί is plainly wrong and éuoi gives inappropriate emphasis

to ‘me’ In 809, the scribe of L again wrongly accented τι.] 809-10. ἔχω . . - €ué-O. ‘[ have. Ask me something from [our] paternal home. 1. ‘So ought not you to speak, but I to learn?’ Euripides has prepared us for the items of family history recalled by Orestes. On the golden lamb and the change in the course of the sun, see 194-6 above. Then he moves to memories which touch Iphigenia personally, before

Commentary on lines 811-15

-~ . “δκν &~ X3 bl

224

going back to the family history and the foundation legend with whick

the play began. οὐκοῦν: the question follows as a consequence of Orestes’ claim to have proof. See WS § 2951 and Kiithner-Gerth ii, pp. 163-5. Oy’

οὔκουν, see below on 1190.

811-12. λέγοιμ᾽ . . . ἔριν: Ἱ will tell you this first by hearsay from Electra;

You know of the strife of Atreus and Thyestes which came about?” The break in the stichomythia marks a significant step. 811 forms the intro-.

duction to the process of proof. First, Orestes tells what he knows by,

hearsay (ἀκοῇ). Finally, at 822, he will arrive at what he has seen with'

his own eyes (@ & eldov αὐτός). At El 573-4, a two-line break in sti-.

chomythia comes at the climax of the recognition. Ἠλέκτρας: genitive

of the source. g [On the break in stichomythia, see further A. Gross, Die Stichomythie, p: 26, Ε. R. Schwinge, Die Verwendung der Stichomythie in den Dramen des: Euripides, pp. 245-7, Diggle, Studies pp. 110-11. ἀκοῇ: Reiske’s correc-

tion of 15 ἄκουε, which makes neither sense nor metre. Markland had’ the same idea. olofa, not Ls οἶδα, is required by Iphigenia’s ἤκουσα,

which follows.] 813. ἤκουσα ...

πέρι:

Ἱ have

heard.

g There

was

golden lamb! [ἦν νείκη: Ls ἡνίκ᾽. ἦν is defended by Platnauer as -when there was [an €pis] about the golden lamb. Radermacher’s emendation is brilliantly simple. The very different, but would have sounded very similar to ‘eeneékeén’ and ‘eénneékee’]

; a quarrel

about

a

meaning ‘[It was] But Mekler and two readings look a medieval scribe:

814. ταῦτ᾽ . . . ὑφαῖς: ‘So you know you wove that in a fine web?’ εὐπήνοις

ὑφαῖς: Pylades’ cloak at 312 above was edmijvous ὑφάς" ὑφήνασ(α)

olob(a): on the participle with οἶδα, see WS § 2106.

815. & φίλτατ᾽ . . . φρενῶν: ‘O dearest, you approach close to my mind? ὦ φίλτατ᾽ bursts out, but then she controls herself. She wants further

proof. χρίμπτῃ: for the passive of χρίμπτω meaning ‘to come close

(with dative), see Cyc. 406, Phoen. 99 and 809. By adding ἔγγυς with genitive, Euripides in effect says ‘close’ twice. '

[ὦ φίλτατ᾽: The fact that this form of address may be used to greet ‘a

bringer of welcome news’ (Cropp) is irrelevant. ‘This man is no longer a

“4

‘bringer of welcome news. He is either Orestes, or a liar. χρίμπτῃ:

Wecklein's (highly plausible) emendation of 15 κάμπτη. κάμπτῃ ‘you bend, or ‘turn yourself” hardly makes sense. Bothe and Blomfield suggested--xdumreis; - which—would-involve- a--metaphor: - Ὑου round the turning-post close to my mind. The turning-post metaphor is used elsewhere by Euripides with reference to the end of life, because the turningpost also served to mark the finish in a race. See, for example, Hipp. 87 τέλος δὲ κάμψαιμ᾽ ... Blov, with Barrett ad loc. But the metaphor

|

Commentary on lines 816--19

225

seems pointless here. On the corruption of χ to κ, see Diggle, Euripidea, . 227.]

᾽

ειἕ. εἰκώ τ᾽ . . . μετάστασιν: ‘And [you know that you wove] ἃ picture, the change of course of the sun?’ Orestes continues with the construction

of ὑφήνασ᾽ οἶσθ᾽ from 814. Instead of ‘a picture of the change of course; εἰκώ and μετάστασιν are in apposition. Odd. Platnauer compares Phoen.

1135 ἑκατὸν ἐχίδναις ἀσπίδ᾽ ἐκπληρῶν γραφῇ ‘covering his shield with

a drawing, a hundred snakes. But there, more probably, the two datives are not truly syntactically parallel. The shield is covered by snakes (the visible pattern), by drawing (abstract: the method). 817. ὕφηνα . . . πλοκαῖς: T wove that scene too with fine-threaded twists (ie. fine-twisted threads). uiros=thread. Or possibly πλοκαῖς (poetic plural) means ‘web.

818. καὶ . .. wdpa: And [do you remember] the lustral water at Aulis

which you received from your mother?” On the wedding morning, both bride and groom took a ceremonial bath. The water would come from some special source, such as, at Athens, Callirrho€ (Thucydides 2. 15. 5). At Her. 480-2, Megara laments that fortune has given to her sons the κῆρες as brides, and for marriage bath a mother’s tears. For a mother’s duties at her children’s weddings, see also Phoen. 344-8. Here, Clytaemestra is imagined to have sent water from some special spring at Argos to (és)

Aulis. On the ritual use of water from special springs, see Burkert, tr. Raffan, Greek Religion, pp. 77-8. For marriage ceremonial, Β. Garland, The Greek Way of Life, Ῥ. 220. Orestes’ question is no longer dependent

on ὑφήναο᾽ olof, but on an unexpressed ‘do you remember?’ or ‘do you

know about?’ adéfw=a ἐδέξω.

[ἀδέξω: Kirchhoff, for Ls ἀνεδέξω, which would give ‘Did you receive

the lustral water . . .2’ That that cannot be right is clear from Iphigenia’s

answer, old(a) I know’. As Platnauer says, ‘all Orestes’ questions concern

not fact, but Iphigenia’s memory of fact’] 819. old’ . . . ἀφείλετο: Ἵ know, for my marriage, being fortunate, did not take [it] away from me. This line has been puzzling interpreters since the

writer of the small, faint τοῦτο 76 μὴ εἰδέναι (i.e. ‘it has taken away not knowing’) above ἀφείλετο in L. Most editors understand οὐ with both

ἐσθλὸς and ἀφείλετο, and understand: ‘For the marriage, not being ἐσθλός, did not take away the knowledge’ Kovacs takes ἐσθλός as ironic.

But either way, the underlying assumption is that if the marriage had been fortunate, she might have forgotten the pre-nuptial bath. Schéne-

Kochly's εἰ γὰρ᾽ (for oD γὰρ) 15 slightly easier linguistically, and might satisfy someone who is prepared to believe that a happy marriage might

make one forget the wedding ceremony. The rest of us will remain puz-

zled. Attempts have been made to find an adjective to replace ἐσθλὸς, but Diggle may be right in suspecting i’ ἀφείλετο. ἀφαιρέομαι, ‘to

226

Commentary on lines 820-6

ξ

deprive someone of something, often, as here, takes accusative of both person and thing in Attic. 820. τί yap . . . φέρειν: ‘Well then, [do you know. that] you gave your hau[to someone] to take to your mother? =i ydp; introduces a supplemen.: tary question, which may explain the previous question (hence ydp), ot

as here, may merely be akin to the previous one. Denniston (p. 83) cites. a variety of examples, not all of which are comparable. δοῦσα ., .

φέρειν: infinitive of purpose. See WS § 2008.

821. μνημεῖά γ᾽

... τάφῳ: Ὑε5 indeed, [as] a memento, instead of

my body, for [my] tomb. The tomb would be empty, as the sacrificial

victims body would be burnt on the spot. γ: On ye meaning ‘yes:: see on 807 above.

822. G & . .. τεκμήρια: ‘But what I have seen myself, these proofs I w]ll

tell you. In contrast with 811, as if he had said ἀκοῇ uév. 823-6. Πέλοπος . . . κεκρυμμένην: ‘[I have seen] the ancient spear of Pelops in [our] father’s house, wielding which in his hands, he (Pelops) won the maiden from Pisa, H1ppodam1a, by killing Oenomaus, (the -spear) hidden in your maiden’s quarters. Orestes has seen a family heirloom kept in a place where no man other than a member of the immediate family would be likely to see it. The recognition reaches its climax with the return to Pelops, with whom the play began. There were various-

stories about how Oenomaus died. In the version familiar to us, he was dragged to his death, entangled in the reins of his chariot. But Apollodorus (Epitome 2. 7) mentions a version in which Pelops killed him by a method not specified. There is, however, no need to try to identify some particular version here. The poet needs a family heirloom: he can pluck one out of the air. The fragments of Euripides’ Oenomaus (TrGF 5.2, fir.

571-7) are all gnomic and tell us nothing about how he treated the story. But the lack of resolution in the trimeters suggests that the play was earlier than IT (see Collard and Cropp, Fragments 11, p. 41). The fragments of Sophocles’ Oenomaus are hardly more informative (TrGF 4, fir. 471-7). For a list of references for the story of Oenomaus, see Jouan and

van Looy, Fragments 2, p.477, n. 1. These lines, especially 823-4, are rich in alliteration and assonance with 7 (¢), a phenomenon which the story of H1ppodam1a seems to generate. Compare Pindar, Ol 1. 70 Πισάτα παρὰ πατρὸς εὔδοξον Trmoddueiav/ σχεθέμεν. The collection of mate-

rial by C. Riedel (Alliteration bei den drei grossen griechischen Tragikern)

- shows that 7 15 by far the most common sound found in alliteration. In this-play,-in-addition-to-this-passage,~see- 309,312, 355, 495, 658, 913, 916, 1089-90, 1135-6, 1427. This probably has much to do with the number of common words in Greek which begin with π, especially prepositions, which, in compounds, generate more examples. As a device which contributes to aural structure and memorability, alliteration has its

:

Commentary on lines 827-99

227

roots in popular speech. It may sometimes acquire added significance

from the context. A famous example is the ninefold 7 at OT 371. See

also below on 1336. For a very interesting discussion of the phenomenon, 866 M. S Silk, Interaction in Poetic Imagery, Appendix4, pp. 224-8.

In 825, note also the sound-play on ἐκτήσαθ᾽ . . . κτανών. That line also

has a remarkable rhythm. In order to accommodate the two epic-type pames, double short 15 substituted for both the second and third ancipitia. Uu for the third anceps is highly unusual. See Kovacs, Euripidea Altera, p. 97 (where, however, in n. 1, IT 825 is misprinted as ‘82’). See ΄ also above, 5, and below, 1457,

827-99. The recognition-duet. As far as we can tell, the genre belongs to later tragedy: S. Εἰ. 1232-87, IT 827-99, Ion 1439-1509, Hel. 625-97, and

(incomplete) Hypsipyle, TrGF 5. 2, fr. 759a, 1579-1632. Only the Sophoclean example is in strophic responsion. There are metrically similar duets in strophic form in Euripides, but in all of these the chorus takes the singing role and no recognition is involved. See, for example, Held. 75-110 and Or. 1246-85. Uncertainties of dating mean that we cannot tell who introduced such songs. It may not even have been either of the great tragedians. There is none in Euripides’ El, but that could be a matter of the way in which the poet chose to design the recognition. The

most

salient

common

feature

of

recognition-duets

is

the

imbalance between the two performers. They provide the opportunity for a virtuoso, solo performance by the actor playing the heroine, while the male interlocutor is confined to a supporting role and, almost invariably, to iambic trimeters. The exception is Menelaus in the Hel. duet, who delivers a few snatches of lyric. The main lyric metre is the dochmiac (see further below under Metre). This is typically the rhythm of passionate distress. It is used in the song of triumph at Cho. 935-72, but is not thereafter found expressing joy until about the last quarter of the fifth century. Strepsiades’ jubilant song at Clouds 1154-67 is, unfortunately, of little help in determining dating, since we cannot tell whether it formed part of the original text of 423 BC, or was added to the revised version at an unknown date thereafter. It may even be parody of a lament. In any case, none of the tragic duets expresses unalloyed rejoicing. Even Sophocles’ Electra (1245-50) momentarily recalls past and enduring sorrow. In Ion, Hel, and Hypsipyle, the heroines have to recount their past sufferings to the man, or men. In IT, the information has already been given by means of the letter

(784-6). There is, however, a flashback to the moment when Iphigenia felt her father’s knife at her throat, with the two crucial words of deprivation: dvvuévatos, ἀπάτωρ. The song ends with a foreshadowing of the second ‘movement’ of the plot, as Iphigenia turns to the problem of escape.

228

Commentary on lines 827-99 METRE

--υ-

U-U-

-υυ-υ-

-οὐ-

827-99

U-U-

u-U-|=

ia trim

U-U-

-οΟυ-

ia trim’

U=-UUU

υὐῦὺυ--|

ia trim doch

υὐυύσυυύὺ UUuUUUυ-υ-UUU-πτὺῦJuuuUu UUU-UUUU-Uυὐῦ-υ——UU-UU-U-

--οὖὁ-

-U-

U-U-

U--U-

υὐὺ-υ--

2 doch ia trim cr 2 doch doch ia trim

ia

U-UUU-

U-U-

cr 2 doch

-ποὺυ-}}Ὲ

ia trim

uUUu-U-

2 doch

U-U=- U=U- U-U—|= -ὐὐ-υ-} } U-u- υ-ὑ-|Ἢ

ia trim doch 2 ia

UUU-u-

2 doch

υτπτῦ-

U==u-

ia doch

UUU=-U-

υυπυυ-ς-τυυ-υυ-

-υ-

U-U-

ου-

U=U-

U=-U-

--ὺ-

--ου-

υ-ὖ-|

——U~

U=U-

U-U-|n

υ--ὐῦὸ .--υ-

-σκ-υ-

-——U—

ia trim

ia trim

-τὖὖυ-ιUUU-U-

υϑδυ-υὦ

~JU=== vudu-uU-

enop

2cr

2 doch 2 doch

ia trim

-ὐ-υ-

2 doch

UUU~-Uυὐῦ-υ-

2 doch 2 doch

U-(--)|=m

——U-

2 doch

U-U-

ja trim

vUluuUu υὐυυύὺ -υπτυ-.

~U—

--υτ-

u-u—|

U=-U-=-

U-=-U-

VYt ¥ ———u—=JuUluUUU UUUUUUUU

f-U-—-Ut-U--

-

-

-

=Y~

UUU-U= =

2 ia cr ia (e —e)

cria(eue) R U—-=U-

18 trim

....2.doch... 2 doch 3 doch

?

C-—-C-

Commentary on lines 827-99

229

υυ-υυ-υυ-υυydu-UUUU-—υὐὺῦ--yu-uvu-uu-uu-ὐὐὺ---Jguuul YUU -~

enop 2 doch doch enop cr doch doch

-“υυ------

doch

885

D-=Ddoch

890

UU-UU-U-U——||H

UU-UU-UU-uU—||

-UuU-uuυὐὺ-ὖ-

υύῦυ-υ--

u-uu-—||

-

-—-UU-UU-

880

enop -

υ---

tUU-UU-UU-UUυ-υυ---

υυ-υυ-υυU--UU—--Uu——u~|||

enop

2 doch

doch? enop

+ doch?

.

895

enop 2 doch doch

Three distinct types of Euripidean duet are represented in IT. First, there is the anapaestic mourning-duet between soloist and chorus, in which both parties sing (126-235). Then, 644-56 is a miniature example of the iambo-dochmiac duet, in which the chorus sings while ἃ character speaks. Finally, there is the most metrically sophisticated form: an exchange between singer and speaker in which the chorus plays no part. The basic metre is still iambo-dochmiac, but this is diversified by DE and enoplian, a metre with DE affinities. See Introduction, p. xciv. All Euripides’ four surviving recognition-duets (IT, Ion, Hel, Hypsipyle) share this metrical combination, and all are astrophic. In contrast, Sophocles’ one surviving recognition-duet, EL 1232-87, is in correspondence and in pure iambo-dochmiac. Four other Euripidean duets between singer and speaker share the same combination of metres: Andr. 825-65 (Hermione and the nurse, as early as the mid-420s), Her. 1178-1213 (Amphitryon and Theseus), -Tro. 239-91

(Hecuba and Talthybius), and

Phoen. 103-192 (Antigone and the servant). The same metres also appear in one duet between soloist and chorus in which both sing: Her. 875908, where the soloist is Amphitryon. A particularly intéresting feature of this exchange is the way in which the metres seem to evolve to suggest rising emotion and excitement. Iphigenia begins with two iambic trimeters, of which the second leads into a run of short syllables produced by resolution of the fourth and fifth longs. There are more rushes of short syllables at 832, where she

230

Commentary on lines 827-99

describes her confusion of feelings, at 863, where she mentions h3

fatherless fate, and, above all, 870-1, where she reflects how near εμ came to killing her own brother. She delivers three more iambic ε3

meters among dochmiacs at 833, 837, and 843. At 848, a new type of lyric metre, enoplian, appears, and there are no more jambic trimeters]

except from Orestes. This and other passages where unsyncopateg iambic trimeters are embedded in Iyric raise the question of delivery;

It is hardly likely that the performer kept. moving from song to speech

and back again. Yet the steadier rhythm of the iambic trimeters among]

dochmiacs must still, one supposes, have been perceptible. Two individual points deserve attention. σὲ &’ ἔτι Bpédos at 834 could]

be treated as an iambic metron ending in b. in 1: UUUU~|. But the]

facts that it belongs in sense to what follows, that at 840 too a cretic} introduces two dochmiacs, and that another fully resolved cretic opens! 881 all tell in favour of the cretic scansion. For fully resolved cretics, see

Ag. 1142 =1153, Alc. 266, Ion 1095 (corresponding with UUU-), 1449 Secondly, at 894 and, quite possibly, 896, there is a puzzling colon, U-UU~-—. Theoretically, this is a possible form of dochmiac, but N. C;

Conomis ("The Dochmiacs of Greek Drama, Hermes 92 (1964), p. 27)

finds no other example of a dochmiac of this form. K. Itsumi (Pz'ndariéjg

Metre: The ‘Other ‘Half, Ῥ. 60) points out the possibility of a DE analysis::

-xdx, Finally, it could, of course, be a reizianum, so aeolo-choriambic. But::i;

that type of metre is otherwise absent from this song. But this is our:

problem, not Euripides. For him, the colon fitted into his general rhyth-: mic pattern. Whether metrical classification affected the way in which' the colon was performed, we cannot tell. : [829-30. The text as printed conforms with the principle stated by W. S. Barrett (Greek Lyric, Tragedy, and Textual Criticism, p. 388) that

when a character switches in mid-sentence from iambic trimeters to lyric

or vice versa, ‘as a rule the part of the sentence preceding the change makes complete sense in itself; and the part following is only an ‘inor-

ganic addition to if, or, alternatively, ‘the part preceding the change may

be an ‘inorganic prefix, such as a vocative. Barrett may have been overconcerned about this because of his belief that all iambic trimeters were spoken (on which, see above), but the observation is still worth noting.

. 'T. C. W. Stinton ("Two Rare Verse-Forms, CR 15 (1965), pp. 142-6 = Collected

Papers, pp. 11-16) retains χθονὸς and divides into two verses:

This requires

a most

unlikely b. in 1: yfovds||

ἀπὸ

πατρίδος.

Stinton promises to show that this is not remarkable, but I have not been

Commentary on lines 827-30

231

able to find that he ever did. Sansone avoids this, while still retaining

χθονὸς, by dividing after τηλύγετον and πατρίδος:

Here, as in the text as printed, the b. in L. after πατρίδος (unmarked

by Sansone) 15 much more natural, since ‘from Argos’ comes as an afterthought to from our native land. But there is non-metrical reason to suspect χθονὸς. See below on 828-30. 845. s Κυκλωπέδες ἑστίαι turns the verse into U~U~UU-U||, an aeolo-choriambic enneasyllable, as at 1241-1266. But neither the aeolo-choriambic colon nor the plural is

appropriate here, while Hermann’s iambic dimeter suits the context.

873. On the problem of the meaning, see below on 873-4. τίς τελευτά; looks sound, and —~uU~— for the end of the colon leaves open various

possibilities for' the earlier part, such as uu-UuU-u (as at 884), or a phrase in e—e rhythm (as at 875), or a dochmiac followed by υ----. In

fact, there are too many possibilities to help towards emendation. 893. Seidler’s ναΐοισιν for ναΐοισι produces a normal dochmiac, instead of the anomalous U—-U-—.

895-6. The problem here is the meaning, not the metre. UU-UU~-UU-UU- has already appeared three times since 848, and U-UU-~ repeats the colon at 891. It follows that re-writings which

involve changes to the metre, like several recorded by Prinz and Wecklein,

are better avoided. While Markland’s - τίς ἄρ᾽ οὖν is promising, Bothe’s τάλαν for τάδ᾽ dv will, unfortunately, hardly do, as Diggle

points out in his apparatus. Apart from the proximity of τάλαινα at 892, τάλαν in tragedy seems always to be preceded by &. Other minor emendations which correct the metre are mentioned in the commentary

below.]

827. & φίλτατ᾽ . .. εἶ: ‘O dearest—[I call you] nothing else; for you are [my] dearest! For a parenthesis with γάρ justifying a form of address,

compare Andr. 64 & φιλτάτη σύνδουλε---σύνδουλος γὰρ εἶ!τῇ πρόσθ᾽

ἀνάσσῃ ‘O dearest fellow-slave—for. fellow-slave you are to your former

queen. For other examples, see M. L. West, “Tragica IV, BICS 27 (1980), p. 11, .

828-30. ἔχω o’ . . . φίλος: ‘1 have you, Orestes, far away from your native

land, from Argos, O [my] dear!’ Iphigenia has to rearrange her ideas to

take in the fact that Orestes, whom she has long thought of as in Argos, is really here, in Taurica, before her eyes. éyw σ᾽: recurrent in recogni-

tions: :S. El. 1226, Alc. 1134, Menander, Misoumenos 615, and (a varia-

tion) Ion 1440. τηλύγετον: τηλύγετος is a Homeric word of unknown

l"‘"" s

Commentary on lines 831-3

derivation, an epithet for especially prec10us children. At Il 9. 143 and 285, the word is applied to Orestes, ὅς pot (οὗ τηλύγετος Tpédera,s

MW μν-

232

After Homer, IT 829 is the only occurence known to us before the; Hellenistic period. The Hellenistic poet, Sim(m)ias (J. U. Powell: 3

Collectanea Alexandrina, Ῥ. 109), derived the word from τῆλε and took ;

it to mean ‘far-away’ (τηλυγέτων. . Ὑπερβορεων) It is hlghly likely: that Euripides thought the same. Who is being reared far away’ would -

make

sense at Il 9. 143 and 285, and those passages could well have;.

suggested τηλύγετος ἴο the poet as an epithet for Orestes. He will cer-; tainly not have collected and compared all the Homeric occurrences, hke a modern scholar. & φίλος: Exclamation, not address. Hence the nominative. See WS § 1288.

R

[Murray’s deletion of χθονὸς is the simplest way to deal with this vexed: passage. Apart from metrical considerations (on which see above, under

Metre), πατρίς is used adjectivally by Pindar and the tragedians with γῆ:

or yaia (as Homer uses it with γαῖα and afa), but never elsewhere with |

χθών. Several scholars, notably Jackson (Marginalia Scaenica, p. 34) and:

‘Diggle (Euripidea, p. 184, n. 18), have taken exception to the construction of ἔχω σ(ε) τηλύγετον, and sought to introduce a participle. Diggle’s: σύμενον (Jackson συθέντ᾽) is adopted by Kovacs. But this adds an unwanted

additional idea. At Hel. 1133 (cited as a parallel for σύμενον), the storm- ᾿ wind has swept Menelaus away from his native land with a rush. But there" is no reason for Orestes to have ‘rushed’ to Taurica and still less for

Iphigenia to think that he has. If a participle were wanted, μολόντα or φανέντα (Hartung, Kéchly, with other manipulations), would be better, but

no participle is necessary. The Homeric ὅς τηλύγετος τρέφεται is the same construction, in the passive, as ἔχω σε τηλύγετον. The meaning of

᾽ τηλύγετος gets thorough treatment from Chantraine (s.v. with suppl,

p. 1433) and from N. J. Richardson, on Hom. Hymn to Demeter 164. Note,

however, that ‘Com. Adesp. 1315’ has now disappeared. τηλυγέτων ἀποι-

κιῶν was plucked from Hesychius (7 783) and turned into a comic frag-

‘ment on inadequate grounds by Kock. See also R. Renehan, Studies in Greek Texts, Ῥ. 356, who stresses the point that Euripides’ understanding of Homeric words was not necessarily the same as ours.]

831. kayw . . . δοξάζεται: ‘And I [have] you, the dead woman, as is generally supposed. δοξάζεται: δοξάζω means ‘to hold an opinion. There is

no need for Platnauer’s ‘historic present’ (in a very inappropriate place). * Everyone athome-in Greece still thinks that Iphigenia is dead.

——[¢¢ and punictiatich as proposed by C.' W, Willifik, “The Reunion Duo

in Euripides’ Helen, CQ 39 (1989), pp. 46-7 = Collected Papers on Greek

Tragedy, ed. W. Β. Henry (Leiden, 2010), pp. 133-4.] 832-3. kara . . . ἐμόν: “Tears, weeping, together with joy, bedew your eye,

just as [they do] mine. Iphigenia sees tears in the man’s eyes—more

Commentary on lines 834--40

233

proof, if proof were still needed—that he really is Orestes. Shared emotion strengthens the sense of kinship: ‘Aumerle, thou weep'st (my tender-

hearted Cousin!)’ (Richard II, 3. 3. 160), or Lear to Cordelia: ‘Be your tears wet? Yes, faith!’ (King Lear, 4. 7. 71). κατὰ . .. νοτίζει: tmesis.

karavorilw is not found elsewhere: 8¢ . . . ¢ in anaphora, as at OT 312

ῥῦσαι 8 éué, ῥῦσαι δὲ πᾶν μίασμα. See Denniston, p. 163.

[L fails to mark change of speaker after 831, but 832 is lyric, and Orestes does not otherwise sing. Bauer’s transfer of 832-3 to Iphigenia is a good and simple solution. Willink (CQ

39 (1989), p. 46) wishes to allow

Orestes one snatch of song, on the analogy of Menelaus at Hel. 625 ff. But Menelaus delivers several snatches, so establishing the fact that he sings. MS attributions, notoriously unreliable, are scarcely worth defending. Further, Willink argues on the wrong assumption that unsyncopated iambic trimeters are necessarily spoken, not sung. K. H. Lee (followed by

Cropp and Kovacs) reads τοὐμὸν for 70 oov, and assigns ὡσαύτως

&’ ἐμόν to Orestes. This is just possible metrically, since ~~~uU~ could be spoken as the end of a trimeter (see above on 643- 56), but is undesirable on grounds of sense (see above). The editor of the Aldine seems

to have tried to turn 832 into an jambic trimeter by writing κατὰ 8¢ δάκρυα δάκρυα. This leaves an impossible final metron: UUUUU-~. But

this phantom trimeter (supported by the belief that Orestes is speaking)

continued to haunt editors into the twentieth century. δάκρυα (once)

proposed by Bothe, with Ls text for the rest of the line, allows the scan-

sion UUU, more natural than Us δάκρυ (—U). Finally, Sansone (Maia 31

(1979), pp. 239-40) wishes to expel 832-3, chiefly to accommodate the relative τὸν at the beginning of 834. In that way, ΒῈ brings the relative closer to its antecedent, o} in 828. See below on 834-6. He also objects to ydos on .the ground that joy at this point should be un-alloyed. But Iphigenia has just heard of the disasters to her family. At this moment of intense emotion, the mixture of feelings is natural. See also Diggle, Studies, p. 20 and Euripidea, p. 393, n. 99.] 834-6. σὲ & ἔτι ... δόμοις: ‘And you, still a babe, I left new-born in [your] nurse’s arms, new-born in the house’ Again we are reminded that

Orestes was only a babe in arms when Iphigenia left for Aulis. See above,

232--5, 373.

|

ἘΝ

[σὲ & ἔτι: Collard’s suggestion for Ls τὸ δέ τι, which is evident non-

sense. Also possible is Diggle’s ὃν ἔτι, which, is more difficult, as, for an

antecedent, the relative has to reach back to ¢’ in 828, unless.oe¢ can be

deduced from σὸν in 833. See also above on 832-3. The epic relative τὸν

(WS sary. 837-40. [can

5 1105), proposed by Bergk and accepted by Sansone, is unnecesSee above under Metre.] @ κρεῖσσον . . . ἀπέβα: ‘O my soul, more fortunate than words express]! What shall I say? These things have turned out beyond

234

Commentary on lines 841-4

3 -

wonders and beyond words. κρεῖσσον ἢ λόγοισιν: an abbreviated Wa}

of saying κρεῖσσον η ὥστε φρασαι λόγοις. Α little less condensed ἰς

TrGF 5.2, fr.727e ἀρετὴν ἐχούσης μείζον᾽ ἢ λόγῳ φράσαι. Compare also Supp. 844 and see Collard ad loc. . [εὐτυχοῦϑο᾽ éua: L offers: εὐτυχὼν (-ὧν P) éuod. In that case, the fortu. nate person must be Orestes, and Sansone follows that route, taking ἐμοῦ ψυχά as a form of endearment. The earliest (near) parallel for thls is Theocritus, 24. 8, where Alcmena calls Heracles and Iphicles¢ἐμὰ ψυχά. But Iphigenia cannot congratulate Orestes on being in Taurica in imminent danger of his life, just because he has met her there. Willink (following Monk and adopted by Kovacs) retains the masculine by attrib-.

utmg the line to Orestes, and reading

ὦ. κρεῖσσον ἢ λόγοισιν εὐτυχῶν

authenticated utterances (841, 850-1)

are more reserved and anxlous

ἐγώ. Then Iphigenia follows with (w§ψυχά, τέ φῶ κτλ. But explosions of joy come naturally from Iphigenia, not from Orestes. His securely

| ευτυχουσ ἐμὰ ψυχά is Markland's suggestion. Wecklein proposed εὐτυχοῦσά μου ψυχά, but μου ψυχα is not found either in exclamation or self-address. Ordinarily, one’s soul, heart, etc. is addressed with a simple vocative, with or without& and with or without an epithet (see 882). So Homer, Archilochus, -Pindar, Euripides, and -Aristophanes: In two

Buripidean passages, the possessive adjective is used: Or. 466 & τάλαινα “καρδία, ψυχή 7’ εμη, and _compare Alc. 837. An acceptable alternative

would be Collards εὐτυχοῦσά μοι, ψυχά ‘soul, being fortunate for me.

Cropp (his edition and ICS 22 (1997), p.35) proposes τύχα for ψυχά,

and takes pov with λόγοισιν: ‘O fortune, more fortunate than my words

can express. But ‘my words’ will not do. See the examples quoted above. ‘One says ‘too good for words, not ‘too good for my words) as if someone else might do better. Moreover, at least one identifiable person needs to

be congratulated in 837-40, so as to prepare for ἀλλήλων in 841. Reiske’s ἀπέβα ‘have turned out; is a simple and clear 1mprovement on Ls ἐπέβα, ‘have come upon, ‘got upon.]

841. 76 λουιπὸν ... péra: For the future may we be fortunate, both together’ Orestes keeps in mind the danger of their situation. They have had good luck in finding each other, but, prudently, he hopes that good luck may continue, and for them both. 842-4. dromov . . φύγῃ: T have gained an extraordinary joy, friends. I fear lest, flying up from my hands to the sky, it may escape me’ φίλαι: w Helen, too (Hel. 648-51), calls the attention of the chorus to her good fortune:“Elsewhere chatacters”in™ Eiiripides” look back on past good for-

tune, and reflect that it has flown away. ἀμπτάμενα φροῦδα πάντ᾽

ἐκεῖνα ‘all that has gone, flown away, says Peleus at Andr. 1219, looking

back on his marriage to a goddess. Megara, at Her. 63-9, recalls the wealth and happiness of her father and her own marriage, but νῦν ἐκεῖνα

Commentary on lines 845--9

235

μὲν θανόντ᾽ ἀνέπτατο ‘now that has died and flown away. At Med.

439-40, αἰδώς is said to have flown up into the air’ (aifepia δ᾽ avénra), as Αἰδώς and Νέμεσις go up to Olympus at Hesiod, W & D 197-200.

The idea may have come from there. ἡδονὰν: on the Attic-Doric hybrid

form, see G. Bjorck, Das Alpha impurum, pp. 174, 248 (with 246) and, especially, 369. ἀμπταμένα-- ἀναπταμένα, from ἀνεπτάμην. See WS § 687.

[ἀμπταμένα: Seidler, for 15 ἀμπτάμενος. Markland saw. that it must be

Iphigenia’s joy that may fly off into the air, but, for some reason, he pro-

posed ἀμπτομένα, not the form used in tragedy (see WS, Appendix, p.

11). I’s masculine could only apply to Orestes. Hence Burges proposed to read & φίλος for & φίλαι and φύγῃς for φύγῃ. But the idea of Orestes flying off into the sky is ridiculous. It is abstracts, good fortune

and happiness, that may do that: The cock which ἀνέπτατ᾽ ἀνέπτατ᾽ ἐς αἰθέρα in Euripidean parody at Frogs 1352 is a joke. A character who is

suffering catastrophic misfortune, like Polymestor at Hec. 1099-1106, may dream of escape by flying up into the sky or plunging beneath the earth, but that 15 an entirely different line of thought. T would that we were, my beloved, / White birds on the foam of the sea’ has nothing to do with ‘I am afraid that he may fly off into the air’ See Collard on Hec. 1100-6 and Barrett on Hipp. 1290-3.]

845-9. i . . . φάος: ‘O Cyclopean hearth, O fatherland, dear Mycenae, 1 feel gratitude for the life, I feel gratitude for the nurture, because you reared my brother here for me, a light for the house. As always, Iphigenia’s love for her brother is inseparable from his role as heir to the family

(above, 50-6, 235). Χυκλωπὶς éoria: these are the Cyclopes of Hesiod

(Theogony 139-46), the giant craftsmen who make Zeus thunderbolts. Men of Euripides’ time could see the huge masonry of Mycenae and Tiryns, and attributed the building to them. See Euripides’ close contemporary, Hellanicus (FGrH 4, fr. 88) and Bacchylides, 11. 57, for whom the streets of Tiryns were ‘god-built’ (θεοδμάτους). Euripides calls Argos and Mycenae ‘Cyclopean’ elsewhere: Her. 15, 944, El. 1158, Or. 965, IA

265. φάος: ‘light’ of a person means saviour! So, at S. EL 1354-5, Electra

addresses the old tutor who saved Orestes as & φίλτατον φῶς, & μόνος σωτὴρ δόμων! Ayapéuvovos (see Finglass ad loc.). The usage goes back

to Homer. At II. 18. 102-3, Achilles reproaches himself for his failure to -

save Patroclus: οὐδέ τι Πατρόκλῳ γενόμην φάος 008 érdpoiot/ τοῖς

ἄλλοις. 866 also Hec. 841 and Her. 531. For the anaphora, χάριν ἔχω

.. χάριν ἔχω, compare'kara 3¢ . . . κατὰ δὲ at 832 above. [ἐὼ . . . ἐὼ: ill-advisedly changed to & . .. & by Triclinius. Κυκλωπὶς ἑστία: a metrical correction by Hermann for I's Κυκλωπίδες ἑστίαι. See

under Metre above. {éas: Blomfield, for 115 {was. {w- was normal in

later Greek, so tends to appear in medieval MSS, even where metre

236

Commentary on lines 850--9

requires {o-. Here, although {wds would be possible metrically, a paj; of identical dochmiacs (UUU-U-), matching the anaphora, seems more

elegant. On {o-, rather than -ζω-, see Barrett on Hipp. 811-16.] ' 850-1. γένει. . . βίος: 'ΒΥ [our] family we are fortunate, but with respect to events, O sister, our life has been unfortunate’ Iphigenia’s reference ἰὸ

the house (848) turns Orestes’ mind that way. és . . . ovudopds= συμφο-

pais and δυστυχὴς ἔφυ βίος Ξ δυστυχοῦμεν. A nice example of elegant

variation. For eis of relation, see LSJ eis IV.2. and Diggle, Euripidea,

pp. 182-3.

852-4. éyd

... πατήρ: T know miserable [that I am)], I know [the

.moment] when my miserable-minded father thrust the dagger at my

neck. Another flash-back. Orestes’ reference to his and her misfortunes - has brought back something she knows only too well. μελεόφρων: yet she still thinks of her father’s mental anguish. For old(a) ὅτε, compare

Hec. 110 οἷσθ᾽ o7e . .. ἐφάνη and 239 olof’ ἡνίκ᾽ ἦλθες. Collard (on

110) calls this construction ‘normally a device of dialogue’ ¢ μέλεος: see

on 236-7 above. | [Bruhn’s ἐγῴῷδ᾽ a μέλεος, old’, producing a complete dochmiac, is both neater metrically -and more powerful rhetorically than Is €yw - μέλεος ofd. That reading would be scannable as iambic metron

(U-uuv)

and dochmiac. ’φῆκέ: ‘Elmsley, for Ls θῆκε. For ἐφίημι

meaning to Send (something in somebody’s direction), compare Hec. 1128 μέθες p' ἐφεῖναι τῇδε μαργῶσαν χέρα εῖ me get my

.raging hand on this woman, and Hipp. 1324, where Theseus sends

curses upon his son (waidi). For τίθημι meaning ‘to put (a knife to someone’s throat), one would expect a preposition, és or πρός, with the accusative.)

855. οἶμοιε . . . éxet: ‘Alas, for I seem to see you there, [although I was] not present. Orestes feels now that he 8665 her. there, and the present participle follows from that. 856-9. avvuévaios . . . ἀγόμαν: ‘Without mar'riage-song, O brother, I was

led to a deceitful bed of Achilles! κλισίαν λέκτρων: tautologous: ‘the

. reclining-placeé of the bed. λέκτρα, plural, for ‘marriage-bed’ 15 common

in poetry. For δόλιος as an adjective of two terminations, see also Alc.

33, Tro. 530, Hel. 238, and, on Euripides’ use of adjectives normally of three terminations as with two terminations, Diggle, Euripidea, p. 167, with further references there.

..........

+[(d): one of Seidler’s metrical emendations. See also 649 above. δόλιον:

Dindorf (also Hartung=and -Monk) for Ls δολίαν 67, which produces the

unmetrical

UU-U-U-.

δολίαν ' will

have

appeared,

naturally

enough, following κλισίαν, given scribes generally ignorant of metre. - Paley suggests, plausibly, that 67’ could have resulted from a correction os (or ov) written above δολίαν. The scribe would presumably have

Commentary on lines 860--7

237

interpreted ὅτε as referring back to οἷδ᾽ ὅτε in 852. Hermann proposed

δόλι 87, presumably intending δόλια to be taken as adverbial. But neither he, nor any subsequent editor who accepts this, offers, as far as I can see, any support for the usage.]

860-1. mapa 8¢ . . . οἴμοι: And by the altar were tears and lamentations.

Alas, alas for those lustrations, ah me!’ Those lustrations were not for a wedding. Nor would those present at a wedding have been weeping and lamenting.

΄

[861 as transmitted stops short. Seidler’s τῶν ἐκεῖ produces dochmiac, cretic, which is metrically possible. But Jackson (Marginalia Scaenica, pp. 86-7) saw that Orestes’ ᾧμωξα κἀγὼ at 862 calls for a preceding οἴμοι from Iphigenia.] [861-7. Ls marking of change of speaker here collapses into chaos. 861 φεῦ . . . ἐκεῖ is-attributed to Orestes; wuwéa . . . ἔλαχον to Iphigenia. Then, 865-8 ἄλλα. . . τόλμας (with 867 following 866) is attributed to Orestes, with Iphigenia singing again at 869 δείν ᾿ἔτλαν . . . On grounds of sense, Tyrwhitt attributed 861 to Iphigenia, the iambic trimeter, 862, to Orestes and 864 dmdrop’ . . . ἔλαχον to Iphigenia again. Seidler understood the essential point, that Orestes delivers only iambic trimeters, so attributing 865 and 867 to Iphigenia, left 866 εἰ σὸν . . . ἀπώλεσας to him, Seidler cites El. 971-3 as a parallel for Orestes’ interruption at 866. But the passage in El is stichomythia and there Orestes’ utterance at 971 sounds complete. At 972, Electra asks a question, which Orestes answers at 973 by adding a clause to his earlier sentence. Here, by contrast, 866 in its transmitted position is 4 crude interruption.into a sentence which is obviously incomplete. The transposition is Monks.] 862. ὥμῳξα . .. πατήρ: T too cry “ah mel” for the deed of daring that [our] father dared’ Aeschylean phraseology. When.Agamemnon decided

to sacrifice his daughter (Ag. 218-27) .and ‘put on the yoke-strap of

necessity, 76 παντότολμον φρονεῖν peréyvw (

changed his mind to

total daring’). ‘For madness makes men bold’ (βροτοὺς θρασύνει yap : .. παρακοπάλ), 80 he dared to become the sacrificer of his daughter’ (ἔγλα & οὖν θυτὴρ γενέσθαι θυγατρός). TAdw recurs in this play characterizing the state of mind of one who is prepared to commit a terrible

act. See 617 above and 869-70, 924, and 1174 below. ὥμῳξα ‘Dramatic’

(or ‘tragic’) aorist, expressing the immediate reaction to something just ᾿ said. See WS § 1937 and M. Lloyd, “The Tragic Aorist, CQ49 (1999), pp. 28-9. οἰμώζω. is derived from: the cry οἴμοι. pp. 24-45, especially.

864-7. ἀπάτορ᾽. . . Twbs: ‘An unfatherly, unfatherly fate have I had fall to

me, and things [misfortunes] come about from other things by fortune from some ροά: ἀπάτορ᾽: Agamemnon did not treat Iphigenia as a father should, just as Clytaemestra is an ‘unmotherly mother’ to Electra

(μήτηρ ἀμήτωρ S. EL 1154). ἄλλα & ἐξ ἄλλων κυρεῖ: Hecuba (Hec.

238

Commentary on lines 866--72

690) is more explicit: érepa δ᾽ ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρων κακὰ κακῶν κυρεῖ Bvils follow from other evils. δαίμονος τύχᾳ τινός: the play 15 full of references to τύχη, and it is not difficult to understand why. Both Orestes and

Iphigenia see themselves as victims. of extraordinary accidents: that Iphigenia should be in:Taurica, that Orestes should meet her there. The audience, of course, has a very good idea that a divine plan is working itself out, and, from time to time, the two leading characters also see

themselves

as under

divine

direction.

They

are

not,

however,

by

any means sure that the divinity is well-intentioned. See Introduction,

Ῥ. XXXiv. [ἄλλα & ἐξ ἄλλων κυρεῖ: Cropp seeks to give this an optimistic twist: ‘But different things are emerging from what went before. Kovacs implies the same, without committing himself to the same degree: ‘But now new

things follow upon old by the stroke of some heavenly power. Note at once. that in the Greek there is no ‘now, no ‘new’ and no ‘old. Nor can the ἄλλος ἄλλο idiom bear the weight that Cropp seeks to put on it. It expresses diversity, but insignificant diversity. Take the grammar books’

. favourite example, from Xenophon, An. 2. 1. 15: οὗτοι uév, & Κλέαρχε, ἄλλος ἄλλα λέγει, ov & ἡμῖν eimé τί λέγεις ‘For these men, Clearchus, one says one thing another another, but you tell us what diversity of opinion between ‘these men’ does not matter.looks at first sight as if it might support Cropp: παρὰ & poipa διώκει. τὸν μὲν ἀφ᾽ ὑψηλῶν βραχὺν ᾧκισε, τὸν

you say. The Held. 611-12 ἄλλαν ἄλλα! & . .. εὐδαί-

μονα τεύχει ‘One fate follows upon another. One man it moves from

lofty places to a narrow dwelling, another it makes fortunate. But here too the diversity of fortune proves to be insignificant, The emphasis of the

- passage is on the fact that the gods are always in control. Finally, Orestes

does not understand Iphigenias words in Cropp’s way. For him, they sug-

gest yet another family catastrophe which might have happened.]

866. €l . ... ἀπωλέσας: ‘[Another misfortune would have come about] if you had killed your brother, unfortunate woman. réAaw’s here, where τόλμα, TAdw run through the passage, the word would retain for its hearers its root meaning of one who ‘dares, who steels him- or herself, whether deliberately or not. See 862 above and 869~70 below. Contrast the colloquial usage at 805. There is no even partially adequate English translation: the word belongs to an alien complex of ideas. 868-72. & μελέα ... χερῶν: ‘O miserable I for my terrible daring: I usteeled myself for terrible. things, ah me, T steeled myself for terrible —things, ™ brother.“Byalittle"youescaped sacrilegious destruction, run through by my hands. She did not steel herself in the same sense as Agamemnon (862), since she did not know that it was her brother whose death she was about to bring about. But to a Greek the distinction is far less important than it seems to us: pollution follows the act, regardless

Commentary on lines 873--80

239

of knowledge or intention, as the story of Oedipus 80 fearfully illustrates. ἐξ éudv . . . χερῶν: we know from 621-2 that this is not literally true, but emotionally it is. This passage can legitimately be seen as ‘episodic intensification’ (see above on 258-9). dewds τόλμας: genitive of cause, as at Ton 960 τλήμων σὺ τόλμης, a passage which exploits the same vocabulary. Earlier (958), the old servant has asked Creusa how she

steeled herself to abandon her child: πῶς . . . παῖδα σὸν λιπεῖν ἔτλης; [At 870, L writes δείν᾽ ἔτλαν ὥμοι producing the metrically highly dubious —U———. The transposition ὦμοι δείν᾽ ἔτλαν is Willink’s. Diggle suggests the chiastic δείν᾽ ἔτλαν ἔτλαν deiv. As a parallel for this, he cites Or. 149 πρόσιθ᾽' ἀτρέμας, ἀτρέμας ἴθι, but observes that ‘when

Buripides repeats a pair of words in lyrics he normally repeats them in the same order. See Euripidea, pp. 149-50 and 377, n. 50. ἀπέφυγες: Musgrave’s correction of 15 ἀμφέφυγες, a non-word. For the type of corruption, compare Is ἀμφίφλογα at 655 above, and 866 further on

that line.] | 873-4. ὰ & . .. τελευτά: ‘And what εηά will there be to all this?’ That,

or something like it, must be what Iphigenia 15 saying. But a & ἐπ᾽

αὐτοῖσι is hopelessly corrupt. If the definite article is to be present at

all, the order should be τίς o τελευτά. Nor 15 there anyone or anything

to which αὐτοῖσι can refer. However, the words clearly mark the end of the first section of the song. Given that τελευτά is sound, even the pendent close, the first in the song, helps to make that clear. Up to this point, after the first explosion of joy, Iphigenia and Orestes have lamented over past misfortunes and reflected with horror on what might have been the next disaster in the sequence. But the question of what the end will be turns Iphigenia’s attention to the future: to her need to find a way to save Orestes. From him, we hear no more till after the end of the song. [On the metrical dlfliculty of emending this line, see under Metre above. ]

875. τίς . . . συγκυρήσει: “‘What fortune will come to me?’ τύχη again. [συγκυρἠσει: Bothe's suggestion, which is surely right. 15 συγχωρήσει

would mean ‘make way for me, ‘assent to me, hardly things that τύχη could do. For a comparable use of συγκυρέω, compare Ion 1446-7 πόθεν μοι συνέκυρσ᾽ ἀδόκητος ἡδονά; ‘From whence did unexpected joy come to me?’] 876-80. τίνα . . ..πελάσαι: Finding what way, what way, for you, shall I send [you] back from a foreign [land], from murder to [your].Argive

native land, before the sword comes close to your blood? £évas: Understand yds. For ξένη (-a) used in this way, see Phil. 135, OC 184 and Xenophon, Lac. 14.4. σε as object of πέμψω is to be understood from σοι. ἐπὲ ... πελάσαι: Tmesis. Like κατανοτίζω

ἐπιπελάζω is not quoted from anywhere else.

(832-3 above),

Commentary on lines 881--9

[{τίνα. σοι): Diggle’s supplement, expanding this colon to match 848 ang

Pt

240

880, is likelyto be. right. 877 is more difficult. L offers πάλιν ἂπἆ πόλεως ὍδοΚ from the city’ It is true that the Taurians are elsewherg

said to live in a city (464, 595, 1209, 1212, 1214), but here ‘city’ unquali.

fied could hardly be used to mean Taurica. The associations of the word with Greece and civilization are far too strong, There is need, too, for 3 word which contrasts effectively with πατρίδ(α). Kéchly’s ξένας is the best suggestion so far. Platnauer points out (Παΐ πόλιν probably found its way contra metrum into A. Supp. 634 as a gloss on τὰν Πελασγίαν (τὰν emended to γᾶν by Bergk; see Friis Johansen and Whittle ad Joc.). Here,

πόλεως could have been a gloss on ξένας which then intruded into the

text, displacing the original word. Cropp prints his own conjecture, ἀποπόλεως, agreeing with φόνου, ‘ityless murder, See ‘Notes on Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris, ICS 22 (1997), p. 36. He argues that 4ll

other instances of ἀπόπί(τ)ολις refer to people . . . and the impersonal

uses of ἄπολις are not exactly similar to what I propose here, but a bold

extension

of the word’s usage is not unexpected in Iphigenia’s: over-:

᾿ wrought monody. It will not do for a critic to blame his own linguistic audacity on the supposed mental state of the fictional character. Kovacs. prints a suggestion of Sansone: ἀπὸ πόλεως ἀνδροφόνου from the manslaying city’ But it is a pity to lose the repeated ἀπὸ, which seems stylistically right. Kéchly also suggested adding o’ (σε) after £évas. This is

possible, but the object of πέμψω is easily understood (see above),]

881-3. τόδε. . . dvevpiokew: “This, this [it is] your need, O unhappy soul, ' to find. These lines round off the thought begun at 876, τίνα oot πόρον εὑρομένα . . ., while at the same time introducing the more practical reflection on possible routes for escape at 884-91. On the address to ones own soul, see on 344-50 above, 884-5. πότερον . . . ῥιπᾷ: ‘Over dry land, riot by ship, but by swift rush of feet?” The disjointed syntax suggests hurried, anxious thinking, We

can, if we like, understand πέμψω from 877 to introduce the question,

but that is a long way back. Rather, there is an unarticulated question

floating in her mind. Then, an alternative introduced by ἤ after πότερον

never arrives. Instead of saying ‘over dry land or by ship?’ she says ‘not by ship; and goes on to think about the dangers of travel by land. She returns to the idea of the sea-route only at 889. ὁ 886-9. θανάτῳ . . . στείχων: ‘In that case, you will come close to death, . passing through barbarian tribes and pathless paths’ Without any indica-

—-tion-until-oreiy it turnswy; out that Tphigenia is riow speaking to Orestes.

᾿ἄρα here marks a logical consequence. At Ion 789-91, Creusa reacts to the news that the oracle has given her husband a son with τὸν éudv . . . ἄτεκνον ἔλακ᾽ dpa βίοτον ‘so he declared my life childless, δε(ὰ) has to be taken with BdpBapa φῦλα, as well as with ὁδοὺς ἀνόδους. On the

6

Commentary on lines 889-99

σχῆμα ἀπὸ κοινοῦ, see G. Kiefner, 99-100, and also see above on 298. compare δυσδαίμων δαίμων at 203 [The surprising change of addressee

241

Die Versparung, on this passage, pp. For the paradoxical 6dods ἀνόδους, above, and see-on that passage. led Platnauer to take & μελέα ψυχά

as addressed to Orestes. But that will not do. Apart from the likelihood

that Iphigenia will be addressing her own soul, she has just said that she herself must find a way. to send Orestes home. She cannot now say that

it is his business to find a route. 8

ὁδοὺς: Barnes’s (and Reiske’s) re-

division of I’s διόδους (‘pathless passes’) is surely right. The preposition διὰ is needed. Otherwise, it might be possible to take διόδους as an internal accusative with στείχων (‘going passes’), but φῦλα cannot be 80

treated. Markland's alternative suggestion, ἀνὰ for ἄρα, meaning ‘throughout,, is 1655 satisfactory: ἄρα makes a valuable contribution to the sense.]

889-91. διὰ . . . dpacuois: ‘Indeed, the way [is] long through the dark

rocks of the strait by sea-borne flight’ As usual, the Symplegades stand out as the essential feature of the route. δρασμοῖς: ‘Runnings. Compare δραμοῦμαι, ἔδραμον. ΄ 893-9. ἱτίς ἂν . . . ἔκλυσιν: TWhat god, or mortal,. or what unexpected thing,+ by making a way from wayless things, will show an escape from misfortunes for the two sole descendants of Atreus?” A badly mutilated passage, but the meaning is more or less apparent. δυοῖν τοῖν μόνοιν Arpeidaw: For rhetorical effect, not only is Menelaus forgotten, but Electra as well. Commonly compared is Ant. 941, where Antigone speaks of herself as τὴν βασιλειδῶν μούνην λοιπήν, but the comparison is not perfect: Antigone has already repudiated Ismene (538-60). δυοῖν is in predicative position, as 1 it were ἄμφω. See WS § 1179 and Kithner-

Gerth i, p.634.

.

[First, τάδ(ε) in 895 has no function. Then, the double ἂν in the same

line can only be retained 1 φανεῖ (Triclinius’ addition) is emended to an

optative (¢aivor Murray). But Markland’s τίς ἄρ᾽ οὖν (‘Who then . . .})

could be right. For the use of ἄρα, as well 45 the idea, compare Sept. 93 τίς ἄρα ῥύσεται, τίς ἄρ᾽ ἐπαρκέσει θεῶν 1) θεᾶν; “Who then of gods or

goddesses will save, who then will defend?’ Then, his τάλαν ingeniously

disposes of τάδ᾽ dv. But 15 τί τῶν ἀδοκήτων really an alternative to 7is . . . Beds 7 βροτὸςϊ or should one rather. think of the familiar coda to Alc., Med., Andr., Hel., and Ba.: τῶν & ἀδοκήτων πόρον ηὗρε θεόςϊ ἀπόρων πόρον, Hermann's suggestion, makes tolerable sense of 897-9.

The genitive has to depend on ἐξ- in ἐξανύσας. L offers πόρον dmopov 4 pathless path, but was πόρον εὔπορον, ing approaches to the best that can be under Metre.]

who Wwould want that? Hermann’s other suggestion a less elegant solution. These are the most promismaking sense of the passage, which is probably done. On the metrical.aspects: of the problem, see |

242

Commentary on lines 900--3.

3

E

900-1. ἐν τοῖσι ... ἀπ᾽ ἀγγέλων: “These things beyond wonders ang

beyond words I myself have seen, and not having heard them from mes.,

sengers. Dramatic punctuation. The two other late-Euripidean recogni.

tion duets are similarly marked off by a two-line comment from the:

chorus. Compare Ion 1510-11 and Hel. 698-9. In contrast, at S. Εἰ, 1288͵-.ξ

Orestes speaks just as he has done in the course of the duet, and it

only becomes clear 85 the speech continues that the duet is over. xog

xAvodo’: emphasis by means of an antithetical negative is common in: tragedy, and this is a particular context in which it appears. For the same: distinction between ‘heard’ and ‘seen, see 811 and 822, and compare the.

messenger’s words at Pers. 266-7: καὶ μὴν παρών ye, kot λόγους ἄλλων᾽ κλυών... . φράσαιμ' av . . . And indeed, being actually present, and not

- having heard reports from others, I may δ᾽ οὐ λόγῳ μαθών and OT 6-7. For other p. 81, n. 60. κοὐ: a loose connection by were syntactically parallel. [κοὐ κλυοῦσ᾽ an’ ἀγγέλων: L offers καὶ

tell . . .’ See also Hcld, 5 ol8q examples see Diggle, Euripides; καί, as if εἶδον and κλυοῦσα

κλύουσ᾽ ἀπαγγελῶ. That εἶδον:

|

αὐτή and κλύουσ(α) are incompatible was seen by Bothe, as well as by L. Dindorf. That ἀπαγγελῶ (Ἱ shall announce’) will not do was seen by:

Hermann: whom can they possibly be going to tell? κλυοῦσ᾽: for the

- aorist, see M. L. West, “Tragica VII} BICS 31 (1984), pp. 172-80 and on - 275-8 above.] | 902-3. 70 μὲν . . . λαβεῖν: Ὅη the one hand, it [15] right that dear ones,

having come to the sight of dear ones; Orestes, should enjoy (take) embraces (throwings round of arms). Pylades is sober and practical, as ever. Compare 75-6 above. 76 μὲν: adverbial. To give stronger definition to the contrast, Euripides begins with the prosaic τὸ μέν, but in the contrasting clause uses only δ(έ). This adverbial usage (in the more common form τὰ uév . . . τὰ δέ) 15 attested only twice in tragedy: at Trach. 534 and Hel. 261. See Davies on the Trach. passage. εἰκὸς ‘likely’ shades

into ‘reasonable; ‘right. See for example, Phoen. 979 οὔκουν σὲ φράζειν

εἰκός, ἐκπονεῖν §'éué; 56 it right that you give orders, but I carry them - out? Compare also Med. 871 and Or. 539. L fails to mark change of speaker at 902, but 902-8 can only be spoken by Pylades. It is, to begin with, unlikely that the chorus-leader would address Orestes when Iphigenia is present. But, above all, the speech 15 too long and contains too much in the way of argument for a chorus-leader. For an important

+, treatment of the limitations of choral speech,

see A. M. Dale, “The

-~—-~-~—-Chorus-in-the Action-of Greek-Tragedy’"(Collected Papers, pp. 210-20). [τὸ- μὲν: the explanation offeredby editors who try to explain is that the

construction is eixds (ἐστι) τὸ λαβεῖν. But this will not do. Firstly, εἰκός

is constructed with simple infinitive, not with articular infinitive. See WS

§ 1984-5, as well as all the other occurrences of εἰκός in Euripides.

Commentary on lines 904--8

243

Secondly, the order 76 εἰκὸς λαβεῖν is not merely ‘odd’ (Platnauer), but surely impossible. 76 μὲν, if sound, must be adverbial. Markland suggested elev.]

904-6.

λήξαντα

... βαρβάρου:

‘But,

[for you]

having ceased from

lamentations, the need [is] to turn to that too: how, having taken the

glorious light of freedom, we shall escape from this foreign land. ὄμμα

can be used much like φῶς in the sense of ‘salvation, as at 849 above. For Pindar (Pyth. 5. 56), the ‘ancient wealth of Battus’ is ‘a brilliant light

for guests ὄμμα φαεννότατον £évoioi. ὄμμα is also a metaphor for

something supremely precious. At Or. 1082, Orestes addresses Pylades as ποθεινὸν ὄμμ᾽ ὁμιλίας ἐμῆς. At Trach. 203-4, Deianira calls on the women to.celebrate the ἄελπτον ὄμμ᾽ . . . φήμης . . . τῆσδε (the return of Heracles). Euripides seems to have had a particular fondness for verbal nouns in -μα applied to persons. See the list of such nouns in tragedy in W. S. Barrett, Greek Lyric, Tragedy, and Textual Criticism, p. 363. ὅπως. . . . βησόμεσθα: on ὅπως with a future indicative depending on a verb of ‘effort’ (here én’ ἐκεῖν᾽ ἐλθεῖν), see WS

ἐκεῖν᾽ = καὶ ἐπὶ éxeivo.

΄

§ 2211,

κἀπ᾽

[ὄμμα is the reading of Paris. gr. 2887, a copy of L (who offers ὄνομα). On the propensity of scribes to confuse ὄνομα and ὄμμα, see above on

660-3. However, despite its dubious credentials, ὄμμα certainly makes better sense here. An interesting suggestion: is Page’s βλεποντες for λαβόντες. At Her. 221, Amphitryon says of Heracles Θηβαε ἔθηκεν ομμ 6

ἐλεύθερον βλέπειν ‘enabled it to look with a free eyel]

907~8. σοφῶν . . . Aafeiv: for this [is] the way of wise men, not having moved out of fortune, by taking [their] opportunity, to take other joys.

If this is the right basis for an interpretation of the lines, the ‘other joys’ would be those to come in the future, if the three manage to escape. μὴ

(€)xPdvras τύχης: μὴ because the participle depends on the infinitive

λαβεῖν (see WS § 2737c¢). There seems to be a spatial metaphor in τύχη

in some other passages. See, for example, Her. 63 ἀπηλάθην τύχης ‘I was driven away from τύχη, Alc. 695 παρελθὼν τὴν πεπρωμένην

τύχην ‘having gone. past your destined τύχη; also Hel. 1445, Bellerophon, TrGF 5.1, fr. 301.4. With AaBdvres in 906, λαμβάνω seems to be rather over-worked ‘in these lines. Weil's xatpov λαχόντας ‘having had an

opportunity fall to one) is well worth considering. On καιρός, see above on 420-1. This is the last we shall hear from Pylades. He will now

remain silent on stage until he and Orestes make their exit after 1088.

He has already been silent from [It has been felt that the lines, down to us, are 80 obscure and Dindorf wished to excise them,

792 ἴο in the clumsy and is

901. See form in that they followed

above on 791-2. which they have come cannot be Euripides. L. by Diggle and Kovacs.

The chief reasons for retaining them are that the reference to τύχη and

244

Commentary on lines 909.-86

.the adoption of a moralizing tone make Orestes’ answer follow mor; naturally. An alternative interpetation is to take μὴ as belonging: tg

λαβεῖν as well as to ἐκβάντας, ‘It is the way of wise men not to move

away from fortune and not to take other’ (meaning ‘irrelevant’) ‘pleags ures. The ‘irrelevant pleasures’ would be embracing, etc. But in that case; ἄλλως ‘in vain, suggested by Scaliger, in place of ἄλλας, would be clearer

and more consistent with tragic usage. τοῦτο: L offers ταῦτα, but Barrett:

on Hipp. 462-6 points out that the pronoun when used as preparatoryé to an infinitive (here Aafeiv) is normally singular.] 909-11. καλῶς . . . ἔχει: ‘You have spoken well. I believe that fortune is; involved in this with us. If a man is eager, it is likely that the dxvme‘i

power is stronger’ Another piece of bracing moralizing from™ Orestes;! introduced, as at 118 above, by a tribute to Pylades (ἀλλ᾽ εὖ γὰρ εἶπας),;

The germ of the idea that god helps those who help themselves can be

traced back to Hesiods sermon on work at WeéD 309 épyalduevos:

πολὺ φίλτερος. ἀθανάτοισιν 2 man who works will be much dearer to; the immortals. See also Aeschylus, TrGF 3, fr..395 φιλεῖ 8¢ τῷ κάμνον.71 συσπεύδειν θεός. For Sophocles (Minos, TrGF 4, fr. 407), fortune will not be the a]ly of those who do nothing: οὐκ ἔστι Tois μὴ ὃρωσε΄ σύμμαχος τύχη. But the ghost of Darius at Pers. 742 produces a sinister reversal of the-idea: when a man hastens (to destructlon) god will help’ him on his way: ὅταν σπεύδῃ τις adrds, χὠ θεὸς συνάπτεται. :

[μέλειν: L seems to have written μέλλειν, and Triclinius obliterated the

second A. He made the same correction at 1051 below. £dv: L wrote συν,

but Triclinius saw that ¢ was needed to ‘lengthen’ the preceding εἰ: σθένειν: Kovacs adopts. Rauchenstein’s σπεύδειν. He argues (Eurtp:dea

Tertia, p. 12) that 'σθένειν is not quite right. What happens when people -exert themselves is that the gods also exert themselves. But σπεύδειν. suits a personal ‘agent, like θεός (see Aeschylus, fr 395, quoted above).: Euripides does not say ‘the gods, or οά but 76 θεῖον, an lmpersonal

force. The idea that it somehow gains strength from human resolve 1s

appropriate.] 912-86. Iphigenia has sung of the need for a plan of escape; Pylades has . called for action; Orestes has endorsed his words. But the planmng -meeting’ that we have been led to expect does not follow. Orestes’ lines ‘at 909-11 turn out to be a closing γνώμη before another of the retar- : dations that are recurrent in this play. Given that Buripides wishes at this - point-to introduce his version of the origin of the festival of the Choes: (‘Tugs’);”hecould-simply have -allowed the recognition-exchange to run-

on without interruption. Instead, he has chiosen a'presentation which is, arguably, more realistic. All three recognize that they must plan their escape, but Iphigenia’s urge to know more about the fate of her family is overmastering,

Commentary on lines 912--14

245

The Choes took place on the second day of the festival of Dionysus in the month Anthesterion, that is, about the end of February. On the evening of the first day, the casks of new wine had been formally unsealed. On the second day, everyone aged three or over, including slaves, but not, presumably, women, was provided with his own jug of mixed wine of appropriate size, and the signal to start drinking was sounded on the trumpet. There was a prize for the first drinker to finish his jug. There was, however, a dark side to this seemingly jolly festival. The participants were together, but separate. Not only did each have his own jug, but also his own separate table, and he drank in silence. Moreover, the day of the Choes was a μιαρὰ ἡμέρα, a ‘polluted day. The earliest mention in literature of the Choes is in Aristophanes, Ach. (425 BC), where the hero, Dicaeopolis, crowns his good fortune by winning the drinking competition. That play affords us quite a lot of information about the jolly side of the festival. The aetiology at 947 ff. here is the second mention, and the first to involve Orestes. It seems unlikely that Orestes was originally connected with the festival," and possible that Euripides himself invented the connection. An evident preoccupation of the three tragedians is to draw the heroes of other cities into the mythology of Athens. For what happened to Orestes after he killed his mother and Aegisthus,

866 B Jacoby, FGrH IIIb (Suppl. IL.), Nos. 323a-334, II Notes, pp. 19-29 and A. H. Sommerstein, Introduction to Eum., pp. 1-6. Briefly, for Sommerstein, the association of Orestes with the Choes was probably ‘parasitic’ on the story of the trial (which seems to me very plausible). For Jacoby, however, the trial of Orestes at Athens was the invention of Aeschylus, and his association with the foundation. of the Choes a separate and pre-existing story, mvented for explaining the custom, with nothing beyond that. For a detailed study of both the literary and archaeological evidence for the Choes, with the testimony in English and (in Appendix 1) in Greek, see R. Hamilton, Choes and Anthesteria. On the aetiology in particular, see pp. 15-26. The testimony is also collected (in less extended form) by A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (21968), pp. 1-8.- For accounts with interpretation of the festival, see Burkert, tr. Bing, Homo Necans, pp.-213-26 and tr. Raffan, Greek Religion,

pp- 237-42. For an exploration of the symbolism of the Choes in IT, see C. Wolff, ‘Euripides’ Iphigenia among the Taurians: Aetiology, Ritual and Myth, CA 11 (1992), pp. 325-9. 912-14. οὐ μή . . . ἐμοί: “You certainly won't restrain me from my idea first to ask what lot Electra has had fall to her in life. For that is dear to me! On the effect of Iphigenia’s passionate intervention, see above on 912-86. πυθέσθαι. . . βιότου stands in apposition to λόγου: the

246

Commentary on lines 915--17

mqulry is her Adyos. For infinitive in apposition, see WS 5 1987 οὐ μή with either the aorist subjunctive or the future indicative ¢4y express strong denial. See Goodwin, GMT 5 295 and Barrett on Hzpp

212-14. Here, both constructions are used, with οὐδέ joining the two clauses. Sophocles has the same construction at OC 450-2 ἀλλ᾽ οὗ , μὴ λάχωσι . .. ovde ... ἥξει. See A. C. Moorhouse, The Syntax of Sophocles, Ρ. 337.

-

[ου μή μ, ἐπίσχῃς οὐδ᾽ ἀποστήσεις: L offers οὐδέν μ' ἐπίσχη v’ οὐδὶ

᾿ἀποστήση. But, in the first place, οὐδέν is mcompatlble with the sub.§ junctives. P writes the future indicative ἀποστήσει, and the Aldine! prints ἐπίσχει. This is accepted by Sansone, but the present and future! together do not make particularly good sense: ‘Nothing is restraining me

nor will move me away . . ." Nor does γ᾽ serve any purpose but to pre-}

vent hiatus. Better results have been produced by abandoning οὐδέν ἢ

Weil's οὐ δεῖ μ᾽ ἐπίσχειν οὐδ᾽ α.ποστησεις

. (Il ne faut pas me τείε-"

nir, tu ne me détourneras pas’) is plausible palaeographlcall)', and gets] rid of y} but the impersonal and personal verbs do not combine very happily. Elmsley had the idea of the strong denial οὐ μή which he com: ‘bined with third persons, subjunctive and future, as in Ρ ‘He’ would then; be Pylades: Ἣς shall not restrain me . . . But the two second persons;’ proposed by Monk, are more natural, and like Weil's verswn, get rid of

v. ἐστι ταῦτ᾽, Markland’s suggestion makes good sense. Ls ἔσται πάντ᾽: (‘everything will be dear to me’) is clearly corrupt: ἔσται produces a, violation of Porson’ Law (see Introductlon, Ῥ. Ιχχχν), and it is hard to; make any sense of πάντ(α). πάντα and ταῦτα can be confused by’ scribes. At Hec. 1021 and Phoen. 953, the MSS are divided between the

two words. See Diggle, Euripidea, p. 494.] 915. τῷδε . . . εὐδαίμονα: ‘She is married to (lives with) this man here, having a happy life! In principle, but hardly at this moment, when her-

husband is in serious danger of being sacrificed in a far-away country. On the evidence available to us, Pylades made a late entry into the Pelopid saga (see on 67-122 above). The present passage illustrates the process by . which he became more closely integrated into it. Of the dramatists, only Euripides mentions Electra’s marriage to him (El 1249, 1340-1, Or. 1078),

but Hellanicus, active in the second half of the fifth century, also records it (FGrH 4, fr.155). The story of the marriage then, need not have originated before the mid-fifth century.

917. Στροφίος . . . πατήρ: ‘Strophius the Phocian is (is called) this man’s

father’ In-English;"is-called-would-imply doubt as to Pylades’ paternity, but in the language of Attic tragedy, κλήζεται is merely a grandilo quent way of saying ‘is. Thus, at Phoen. 10, Jocasta says éyw 8¢ παῖς μὲν

κλήζομαι Μενοικεως That is, ‘perhaps, the more natural way, but by

saying ‘his father is ...’ rather than ‘he is the son of

. .,Buripides

Commentary on lines 918-19

247

begins his line with Zrpodios 6 Φωκεὺς, just as Aeschylus begins Ag.

881 and Cho. 679. 918. 6 & . . . éuds: ‘And 15 he [the son] of Atreus’ daughter, my kinsman?’ For Aeschylus, Strophius is Agamemnon’s ‘friendly comrade in arms’

(εὐμενὴς δορύξενος Ag. 880-1), to whom Clytaemestra sent Orestes

before his father's return from Troy. This is the first we hear of his marriage ἴο Agamemnons sister. Hesiod is said to have mentioned a daugh-

ter of Atreus called Anaxibia’ (Merkelbach and West, fr. 194), but we do

not know whom she may have been said to have married. Later sources give Pylades’ mother other names. See the scholium on Or. 33 (Schwartz I, p. 101) and Hyginus, Fab. 117. 6 δ᾽: The subject changes from Strophius

to Pylades, and ye follows, as in 749 above. For 8¢ . .. ye in ‘lively rejoinders, see Denniston, p. 153. [6 &: L. Dindorf’s emendation of Ls

8. A trifling change which pro-

duces a significant improvement. 68’ (‘this man’) destroys both the logi-

cal connection with the previous line and the appropriate d¢ ... ye combination. ]

919. ἀνεψιός . . . φίλος: Yes, [your] cousin, my only manifest friend. At

Or. 1155-6, Orestes reacts to Pylades’ speech at 1131-52 with οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν κρεῖσσον ἢ φίλος σαφής, οὐ πλοῦτος, οὐ Tupawvis “There is

nothing better than a manifest friend, not wealth, not kingship. σαφὴς

φίλος is a Euripidean expression, but the underlying idea, that of the friend whose loyalty can be, in a manner, seen, is traditional. See the drinking-song, PMG 889. At Hipp. 926, Theseus wishes that there were a manifest sign (τεκμήριον σαφές) to indicate true friends. Compare Med.

516-19. Generally, σαφής is most often used in connection with speech (λόγος, μῦθος), οἵ, as in Hipp. 926 and 972, with evidence (τεκμήριον,

μάρτυς). Its use with persons is restricted. Aeschylus applies it to a metaphorical person, the cloud of dust at Sept. 82, which is an dvavdos

σαφὴς ἔτυμος ἄγγελος ‘a speechless, manifest; true messenger’ Sophocles

uses it for seers, human and divine (OT 390, 1011, OC 632). ye: Emphatic assent. See Denniston, pp. 130-1.

[σαφής: A difficult word. It slips over from meaning ‘clear, manifest’ to meaning something like ‘authentic. So it 15 possible to say, as at Med.

72-3, ¢ μέντοι μῦθος εἰ σαφὴς ὅδε! οὐκ olda ‘But whether the story is

σαφής, I do not know’. Page (ad loc.) explains well: “The story which is clear, which leaves nothing obscure or ambiguous, no room for doubt, is the true story’ But Euripides can distinguish between clarity and truth when he chooses. At Hel. 308, Helen objects: ‘But he said clearly (σαφῶς) that my husband was dead, and the chorus counters with ‘Much may be

said that is clear, but untrue’ (πόλλ᾽ av Aéyoiro καὶ διὰ ψευδῶν σαφῆ).

Barrett, on Hipp. 346, destroys the play on the idea of seeing the invisible, by translating: T am no prophet to achieve sure knowledge of the unclear.

248

Commentary on lines 920~7

He goes on to assert that σσ.φης means “that one can be sure of ™ wh1]e the meaning ‘evident, clear’ is only occasional. He then claims that Clear would be ‘absurd’ as a translation of σαφης at 926 and 972. On 926, seg above. At 972 (νεκροῦ παρόντος μάρτυρος σαφεστάτου), it would be hard to unagme a clearer, more evident witness than a ‘present corpse’ For σαφεῖς dpai (Hipp. 890 and 1315), see Page on Med. 72-3. In fact: ! the idea of perception is fundamental to σαφης and its cognates.] 920. ἔκτεινε: ‘When he tried to kill me! As usual, the imperfect of theé attempted action. See on 26-7 above. This and the following line are thefi source of the mterpo]atlon at 59-60 above.

922.

μοι τῆς ἐμῆς:

connection,

she gives the maximum

Ἡ

stress to the persona,l*1

923. κἀμός ... povov: ‘Yes, and my saviour, not only kinsman’ γε: επιΡ}ιε,πε assent agam, as at 919, as Orestes repeats the point he made, there.. κἀμός - καὶ éuds: Pylades does not answer Iphigenia’s greeting, ‘He must not disrupt the stichomythia, a train of thought developed: Ε between two characters. 924. τὰ δεινὰ & ἔργα: she avoids explicitness. See the next line. ἔτλης: see: ἥ above on 868-72. 925. σιγῶμεν.. . . ἐμῷ: ‘Let us be silent about that. Avengmg my father’ ¥ At Or. 1145, Pylades says μητέρα 7' ... ἐῶ τοῦτ᾽- ol γὰρ edmpemds.

Aéyew ‘and your mother . . . I pass that over, for it 15 not decent to say:

[it]> Orestes answers Iphlgemas question, but as briefly as possible. He' had already answered it at 558. It is not unnatural for Iphigenia to ask the question again: she sees the situation in a new light, now that she knows that she 15 talking to Orestes himself. 926. ἡ &’ . . . woow: ‘But what was the reason why she killed her-husband?’ ἀνθ᾽ ὅτου: simply ‘why?, not referring back to αἰτία (which would have required ἧστινος). κτείνει: Present of a past action of which the results contmue Clytaemestra is the killer of her husband. Compare Ion 1560 ηὃε τίκτει σ(ε) “This woman is your mother’

927. €a . . . καλόν: ‘Leave the matter of [our] mother, Nor is it decent for

you to hear οὐδὲ, as if there had been a previous negative, such as Ἱ

don't want to say it. Iphigenia is what used to be called a ‘maiden lady’ It would be ‘ugly’ for her to hear that her mother was an adulteress. In the same way, at Or. 26-7, Electra, having said that her mother killed her father, adds ὧν & ἔκατι παρθένῳ Aéyew/ot καλόν For what reason -nit is not decent (καλόν) for me, a maiden, to say. On καλόν and the aestheticaspect "of "Gireek morality, see above on” 364-5 and 385-6. On Clytaemestras reason for killing Agamemnon, see Introduction, pp.-xxiii-xxvii xAdew: present infinitive, because it would always be shameful for her to hea, just as, at Or. 26, it would always be shameful for Electra to speak (Aéyew).

Commentary on lines 928-33

249

[σοὶ: Hermann, for Is cot. The emphatic form is needed, because of the

unexpressed negative clause: ‘I don’t want.to say it, and you ought not to hear it. οὐδὲ is not, as Kovacs has it, ‘even you, as if Iphigenia were especially entitled to hear. The opposite is true. On οὐδέ linking a negative clause to an affirmative clause in Attic poetry, 866 WS § 2933N.] 928. σιγῶ . . . ἀποβλέπει: ‘1 keep silence [about that]. And does Argos now look to you?" ἀποβλέπει: Surprisingly, ἀποβλέπω regularly means ο look to, the assumption being that one looks away (awo-) from other things. 929-30. Mevélaos . . . δόμους: O. ‘Menelaus rules. I am an exile from my Jand. I. ‘Surely [our] uncle has not done violence to [our] sick house?

Iphigenia does not like Menelaus (see 357 above), and is immediately tempted to cast him in the role of ‘wicked uncle, the traditional male equivalent of the ‘wicked stepmother. See my note on Alc. 285. In a patrilineal society, if the younger brother can get rid of the elder brother’s son, 6 inherits. vooodvras . . . δόμους: for the metaphor, see 693 above and 992 below. | 931. οὔκ . . . χθονός: “Νο. But fear of the Furies drives me out of the land. Menelaus plays ugly roles in Andr. and IA and an ambiguous one at least in Or, But here Euripides does not choose to blacken his character. It may be that he does not want to suggest that Orestes may face any fur-

ther problems on returning to Argos. In Hel, of course, Menelaus becomes the hero. ἐκβάλλει: a past action, but the result continues into

the present, as with κτείνει at 926 above. ‘Epwidww: Scans U——, with -ὕων as one syllable. 932. ταῦτ᾽ . . . paveis: ‘So was that the madness that you were announced

[as suffering from] here too, on the shore?’ ταῦτ(α): internal accusative

with μανείς. For dpa of realizing the truth or drawing a conclusion in drama, see Denniston, p. 45.

[ἠγγέλθης: Porson’s correction of 115 ἠγγέλης: ἠγγέλθην is the normal

classical form, nor 15 ἠγγέλην found anywhere else in a literary text. There is just one (possible) case from the fifth century in an inscription dated to about 422 BC. See Threatte II p. 557. It seems to me more natu-

ral to treat this line as a question (with the Aldine and Cropp). It could, however, be a statement, with ἄρα substituted for apa, as quite often in poetry where the scansion —u (rather than ) is convenient. But in whichever way the line is taken, dpa means that Iphigenia now understands what she was told earlier in a new way. Denniston (p. 49) collects a number of passages which illustrate the ambiguity of postponed dpa in drama.]

-

.

933. ὥφθημεν . . . ἄθλιοι: ‘Not for the first time now I have been seen [to be] miserable An oblique answer, which serves to add the fact that he has been constantly harried.

250

Commentary on lines 934-8

934. ἔγνωκα . .. Beai: T understand. because of [our] mother’ At 80-3 presents himself metaphorically as a Furies. ἡλάστρουν: ἐλαστρέω (from

The goddesses were driving YOu’g and again at 971 below, Oreste‘s“i; chariot-horse being driven by thei the same root as ἐλαύνω) is found!

once in Homer (Il. 18. 543) and in Attic drama only here and at 971;:’3‘ below. Cropp suggests, very plausibly, that Euripides may have chosefl:‘i

this rare word because of the similarity of sound to ἀλάστωρ. At Ag_'i; 1501, Clytaemestra identifies herself with ¢ παλαιὸς δριμὺς dAdoreg; ‘the ancient, fierce avenger, that dogs the house of Atreus. On Greek

‘poetic’ etymologies, see above on 31-3.

935. ὥσθ᾽ . .. ἐμοί: * . . 50 as to thrust a bloody bit into me (my mouth)’

Orestes carries on the construction from Iphigenia’s ‘they were driving you’. [Some critics (e.g. Weil) have taken exception to στόμι(α) on the ground

that the Furies always pursue their victims and do not ‘drive’ them. But:

the driving-metaphor is firmly established at 80-3 and 971, as well as

here. In any case, Orestes’ perception of the Furies has something of the’ shifting quality of a nightmare. Monk wished to transpose 934-5 to fol-*

low immediately on 931, He regarded the improvement as so self-evident:

as not to require argument, but that is hardly true. κάνθάδ᾽, ‘here ἰοο in 932 follows naturally on Orestes’ statement in 931 that fear of the - Furies drove him out of his own land. Then, Iphigenias ἔγνωκα comes: too soon, if placed immediately after 931. Her first reaction after 931 is: to ask whether Orestes’ seizure on the shore was connected with the

Furies. His answer at 933 that the attacks are recurrent leads her to say ‘T understand’]

936. τί ydp . . . πόδα: ‘So why ever did you ferry your foot to this land?" The Taurian at 266 above came ‘ferrying his step, πορθμεύων ἴχνος. On πορθμεύω in this play, see on 265-6. ydp: she is asking about the cause of a fact already known (that is, that Orestes is in Taurica). For this use

of ydp, see Denniston, p. 82.

938, 7i . . . σιγώμενον: “To do what? [A thihg] to be spoken of, or kept in silence?’ At Med. 676, Medea asks Aegeus whether it is θέμις to hear the oracle he has received. For similar formulae used more generally as

a polite way to ask a question, see Mastronarde on that line, On ¢

χρῆμα, 866 Stevens, pp. 21-2. δρᾶσαι depends on κελευσθεὶς in the preceding line. τί χρῆμα δρᾶσαι is something of a regular phrase in Euripides. Compare Med. 693 (δράσας), Ion 1348, Hel. 826, Or. 1583.

" [δρᾶσαι:

κελεύω

governs either a present infinitive (for continuous

“~action); “or "anaorist "infinitiv (for e ἃ “single “act).

Hence

Elmsley’s

emendation here of Ls future infinitive, Spdoew. L writes τί χρῆμα δράσειν also at Jon 1348, but there Musgrave’s δρᾶσαι is confirmed by

᾿σῶσαι in 1349. The scribe of L may have been confused by the memory of 738 above, where 7{ χρῆμα Spdoew occurs in a context of swearing

Commentary on lines 939.-44

251

to do something. Compare Med. 748, where δράσειν depends on ὄμνυ. On the scribal tendency to confuse the infinitive endings -αἱ and -ew, see on 692 and also 1040-1. Elmsley’s alternative suggestion, δράσων, would be 4 future participle expressing purpose, depending on ἀφικόμην.) 939. λέγοιμ᾽ ἄν . . . πόνων: ‘I will tell. These were the beginnings for me of many troubles. aide looks forward to the events of his story. 940-2. ἐπεὶ . . . φυγάδες: “When these evils of my mother, of which I keep silence, came to my hands, I was driven a fugitive, by the pursuit of Furies. Very close to 79-80 διαδοχαῖς & Ἐρινύων! ἠλαυνόμεσθα φυγσ.δες At 1455 below, Athena will speak of Orestes’ suffering ‘wander-

ing through Greece’ (περιπολῶν xaf Ἑλλάδα), but here, naturally

enough, he abridges his narrative. μεταδρομαί (always plural) seems to be a technical term of hunting, Most of the occurrences are in Xenophon's

Cynegeticus (3 7, 6.20, 9.18, 10.21, 22). és xeipas ἦλθε suggests both the metaphorical ἐς yeipas λαβεῖν ‘to take in hand’ and the literalés χεῖρας ἐλθεῖν ‘to come to blows.

942-4. &fev . . . Oeais: ‘From that cause, Loxias sent me (sent the foot for

me) to Athens to give satisfaction to the nameless goddesses. For ἔνθεν of the cause, see 199 above, with the note on that passage. πόδα . . . ἔπεμψε: for the tragic uses of πόδα, see above on 128-31. δίκην παρασχεῖν: infinitive of purpose, depending on ἔπεμψε (see WS 6 2008).

δίκην (or dixas) παρέχειν τινί elsewhere means ‘to give someone satis-

faction) either by suffering punishment (Hipp. 49-50, Phoen. 1654), or by making reparation (Andr. 1106-7). See also Hesiod, ) } 712. Here, however, it seems that standing trial is all that is required of Orestes, though the Greek for ‘to stand trial’ is δίκην ὑπέχειν: so, at Or. 1648-50, Apollo tells Orestes to- go to Athens and ‘stand trial for your mother’s

blood for the Eumenides’ δίκην ὑπόσχες aiparos μητροκτόνον. Frangois Duport

proposed

δίκην

ὑποσχεῖν

here. That could be right. ταῖς

ἀνωνύμοις θεαῖς: significantly, these are the Athenian Σεμναὶ Θεαΐ ‘an

accepted way of referring to deities who are essentially nameless’ (A. L. Brown, ‘Bumenides in Greek Tragedy, CQ 34 (1984), pp. 260-81). Euripides also refers to them as ‘nameless’ at Melanippe Captive, TrGF 5.1, fr. 494. 18, and to Sophocles’ chorus at OC 128 they are the god-

desses ἃς τρέμομεν Aéyew. Aeschylus may have been the first to identify

the Erinyes with the Athenian Semnae (see Sommersteins edition of ᾿ Eum., p. 11 and A. Henrichs, Anonymity and Polarity: Unknown Gods and Nameless Altars at the Areopagus, ICS 19 (1994), pp.27-58). But the name Eduevides is found first in tragedy in Or. (see Willink on Or. 38). Aeschylus’ play will have got its name well after the poet’s own time. [ἔνθεν has worried some editors, but the meaning ‘from that cause’ is well authenticated (see above) and appropriate here. The word need not mean ‘from whence’ (Paley), still less ‘to the place from which' (Cropp).

τ

Commentary on lines 945--8

1z τ

252

δή γίε), however, is highly suspect. The combination 18 very rare, and i, * the best-authenticated occurrence, Held. 632, the two particles are to bef'% taken separately: δή suggests irony, while γε has a limiting functiop. ‘my presence, such as it 5 (οἷα 0% γ᾽ ἐμοῦ παρουσια) 566 Denniston,; Ρ. 247. Finally, Weil turns ἔνθεν μοι πόδα ἱπίο ἐμμανῇ πόδα and takes : it as depending on ἠλαυνόμεσθα in 942 (on the construction, 566 Weils note and WS § 1632). This version also requires some re-writing of 943,

o7’ εἰς θήνας δή μ’ ἔπεμψε Λοξιάς. This is interesting exempli gratiq,.

to illustrate the range of possibilities for corruption.] 945-6. ἔστιν . . μιάσματος: For there is a sacred [process of] voting which Zeus set up once for Ares, because of a certain pollution of [his]

hands. Euripides gives more detail at El. 1258-63, It was on the Areopagus that the gods themselves first sat in judgment on a case of murder. The

defendant was Ares, who had killed Halirrhothius, son of Poseidon, for -

raping his daughter. So in that place there is ἃ most god-fearing and steadfast institution of voting' (εὐσεβεστάτη! ψήφου βεβαία 7 ...

θέσις). Here Euripides diverges strikingly from Aeschylus. In Eum., it is -

Athena who

sets up the Council of the Areopagus expressly to try

Orestes: this is their first murder case and the precedent for their future

role in the city. The point is made repeatedly, at 483-4, 614, 683-90, and . 704-6. The poet needs to insist, for this is surely his innovation, sprung from the political exigencies of his time. But that was more than forty years ago, and it is natural enough for Euripides to return to a traditional tale. At the end of Or. (1650-2), he makes Apollo borrow an element

from the story of the trial of Ares: it is to be the gods, not the Councillors of the Areopagus, who are to be Orestes’ judges in Athens. In IT, however, he follows Aeschylus in the matter of Athena’s casting vote (966-7), which sets a precedent. See below on 970-1 and 1469-71. 947-8. ἐλθὼν . . . στυγούμενον: ‘Having come there, at first none of my foreign friends was willing to receive me, as being hateful to the gods’ In Eum., Aeschylus insists that when

he reaches Athens, Orestes is no

longer polluted: he has undergone various rites of purification and time has made the pollution fade (236-9, 276-83, 445-52, 474, 578). Yet the Furies regard him as polluted (316-17, 378), and are able to track him . by the trail of blood that he leaves behind (244-7). And, most strikingly, the Pythia at 40-43 reports that she has seen a man ‘polluted before the

gods (θεομυσῆ), in the posture of a suppliant, his hands dripping blood, v holding a freshly-drawn sword, in fact ἃ man who has just committed murder.” Thereis"a warning "here against trying "to interpet ‘Aeschylus’ essentially symbolical and metaphorical modes of thinking in terms of coherent reality. The important point for him is that Orestes is not polluted when he is received at Athens. That this is not what the audience might be expected to think 15 shown by the insistent repetitions. To

Commentary on lines 949..52

253

Aeschylus, this matters profoundly. More than forty years later, Buripides

needs an Orestes who is seen as polluted for his aetiology of the Choes.

His version is coherent, and would certainly have been more in accord with the audience’s expectations. ξένων: here in its specialized sense of individuals to whom one is bound by obligations of mutual hospitality. ἐλθὼν: a ‘hanging’ nominative. Orestes begins, naturally enough, as if he were to be the subject, but as the sentence develops he proves to be the object. See above on 675 and 695 and compare 964-5 below. [Parker, Miasma, discusses the case of Orestes in Eum. at pp. 386-8. He distinguishes three stages of purification, but notes that ‘the trial is, of course, an intrusive element among mythological responses to homicide, and even from a fifth-century perspective misplaced, since it would nor-

mally precede exile and not follow ἰ Taplin (Stagecraft, pp. 381-4) concludes his careful examination of the question with ‘Aeschylus seems to be deliberately complicated and unclear on the matter of purification, and ‘meant’ the different features of his presentation ἴο co-exist without close scrutiny. In 947, μ᾽ was conjectured by Scaliger before the discovery of Π'. After the hanging nominative, the object needs to be expressed.

866 675 and 965.] 949-50. ot &’ ... στέγει: ‘But [those] who felt shame, offered me sole-

table hospitality, beingin the same house.: Orestes’ ξένοι are faced with a moral dilemma. On the one hand, unlike Aeschylus’ Orestes, who

claims to be ἀβλαβής (Eum. 474), he is dangerous to be near. On the

other, the obligation to entertain one’s ξένος is almost overpowering. At Alc. 509-50, Admetus faces a somewhat similar dilemma. His wife has

just died when Heracles, his ξένος, appears. To him, the obligation of £evia takes precedence. The chorus think him a fool (552), but the event

proves that he was right, Orestes’ ξένοι here devise a compromise: he sits at a separate table on his own, but under the same roof. οἴκων ... στέγει: the pleonastic ‘covering of house’ stresses that fact. [στέγει 15 printed by the Aldine, instead of L's τέγει. τέγος is found in Aristophanes, but not in tragedy.] 951-2. σιγῇ . . . δίχα: By silence they contrived to make me unaddressed, 80 that I might enjoy food and drink apart from them. σιγῇ makes the point at once and forcibly that silence was general. The Athenians concert a plan (ἐτεκτήναντίο) from τεκταΐίνομαι ο devise), to engineer’) not to address Orestes, so that he may not pollute them by

addressing them, for the murderer must not speak: ἄἀφθογγον εἶναι Tov

παλαμναῖον νόμος (Eum. 448) “The lawis that the blood-guilty be silent. At Or. 75, Helen denies that she is polluted by Electras ‘addresses’ (προσφθέγμασιν γὰρ οὐ μιαίνομαι σέθεν), because Apollo is to blame -for the killing of Clytaemestra. See also Her. 1219. ἀπροσφθεγκτόν, an adjective coined by Hermann, derived from προσφθέγγομαι, meaning

RS

Commentary on lines 953--7.

in tragic language ‘to address. ὀναίμην: strong aorist optatlve middle of ὀνίνημι. With δαιτός, it suggests eplc phraseology: δαιτὸς ὄνησο (οἀ͵

Ἀ πὸν

254

19. 68).

[L offers ἀπόφθεγκτον, but αποᾠθεγγομαι means ‘to speak out) 80 ὼεζἷ -adjective should mean ‘spoken out. The alternative of taking ἀπο- in: ἀπόφθεγκτον as equivalent to a- privative must be ruled out, because’

ἀπο- in place of a- privative seems only to be found in adjectives: compounded from nouns, like ἀπόπολις (equivalent to ἄπολις). Badham:

᾿ coined a correct form, ἀπόφθογγον ‘voiceless, like ἄφθογγον at Eum.: 448, quoted above. But the meaning would then be enigmatic. How

could

the Athenians

‘contrive’

that Orestes be ‘voiceless’?

In contrast,

- they could very easily contrive that he be ‘unaddressed. While dwpdo-φθεγκτος is not found, the plural προσφθέγματα occurs some ten times: in Euripides, including twice in contexts where pollution is at issue. The: adjective προσφθεγκτός (‘addressed’) is used by Sophocles at Phil. 1067,

and Wilamowitz proposed to introduce it here, with highly contorted

results: ‘they contrived to make me addressed in silence, meaning ‘not addressed. 7’ ὀναίμην (Housman), with Scaliger’s αὐτῶν is an immense . improvement on Ls γενοίμην . . . αὐτοῦ, meaning, presumably, Ἱ should ° become separate from food and drink there. But Orestes did have food ~and drink. Scaliger’s αὐτῶν alone (‘that I should become separate from their food and drink’) is some improvement, but subject to the same

objection. Incidentally, it is interesting that the two editors of IT* differ

on whether they see y or = before αὖ-, This illustrates the ease with: which the two letters can be confused in uncials, a confusion which could help to explain γενοίμην for v° dvaiuny.-Finally, Schone wished to transfer 951-2 to follow 954, so that the mention of Orestes’ silence would follow the description of the general celebration. But the idea of the imposed silence follows naturally on that of the separate table, and needs to come as early as possible in the narrative, so as to establish the curious character of the celebration. ὅπως: Buripides rarely allows a subordinating conjunction to end a trimeter. This is the only example in this play. By contrast, I find some 150 in Sophocles.] 953-4, és & ... ἡδονήν: ‘Having filled an equal measure of the Bacchic [drink] for 811 into an individual vessel, they had pleasure’ That is that, as at the Choes of the poet’s own time, each person was given an equal measure in his own individual cup. πληρώσαντες: Odd. Instead of filling v the vessel with wine, they 11 wine into the vessel! Compare 306 above.

- 955-:7. κἀγὼ . Τ. φονεύς: And T did not think fit ο blame my friends, but

felt pain in silence and pretended not to know, [groaning mightily

because I was the murderer of my mother].! κἀδόκουν (= καὶ ἐδόκουν), as at Med. 67 ἤκουσά Tov λέγοντος οὐ δοκῶν κλύειν ‘I heard someone say, while pretending not to hear’ There is a very.good case for Herwerden’s

Commentary on lines 958--63

255

view that 957 is interpolated. Schone-Kéchly and (with less conviction) Grégoire agree. Etymologically, the idea of noise is essential to orévw, orevdlw

etc. (see. Chantraine,

under

orévw).

Orestes can hardly be

imagined to claim that he felt pain in silence because of his friends’ behaviour, while at the same time groaning mightily because he is the murderer of his mother. As an alternative to accepting Herwerden’s deletion of the line, Kéchly suggested λαθρᾷ στενάζων, something like ‘groaning inwardly. But even if that were possible, it is still strange that Orestes should baldly call himself μητρὸς φονεύς after so carefully avoiding explicitness at 940. It is perfectly possible that someone other

than Euripides could have been tempted to introduce a mention of Orestes’ chief cause of distress here, intrusive as it is. [Hermann wished to take οὕνεκ(α) to be understood (as sometimes in

tragedy) as ὅτι, so that οὕνεκ᾽ . . . φονεύς becomes dependent on εἰδέναι Ἱ pretended, groaning mightily, not to know that I was my mother’s

murderer. This bizarre idea appealed to Paley, England, Platnauer, but

not to Monk or Murray.]

958-60. κλύω.

.

. . λεών: And I hear that for the Athenians my misfortunes

have become a rite, and still the custom remains that the people of Pallas celebrate the jug of the Choes’ Orestes can say this within the context of the play, in order to make the point that a celebration designed expressly for a particular occasion has become a regular event. But for the audience the rite is still celebrated, and, just as in the prologue Iphigenia, the heroine of myth, spoke to them directly (see introduction to the prologue), so now Orestes seems for the moment to be identified with them. At Εἰ. 1268-9, Castor, speaking of the acquittal of Orestes, announces that for the future the custom shall be that where the votes of the jury are equal,

the defendant shall always win: καὶ Tofot λοιποῖς ὅδε νόμος τεθήσεται “νικᾶν ἴσαις ψήφοισι Tov φεύγοντ'᾽ ἀεί. From a god, this linking of past

and present is normal. It is much more striking coming from a human character within the play. χοῆρες @yyos ... λεών: The accusative and infinitive depends on τὸν νόμον uévew, just as, at El. 1268- 9, mkdv . . . τὸν φεύγοντί(α) depends on νόμος τεθήσεται. 961--3. ὡς & . . . Ἐρινύων: αϊ when I came to the hill of Ares, I stood for trial, I occupying one plinth, [she] who was the most senior of the Furies the other’ According to Pausanias (1. 28. 5), the plaintiff and defendant at the Areopagus each stood on an undressed rock. The ellipse

here is very much as in English: the senior Fury stood occupying her

plinth, with ἔστη λαβοῦσα understood from ἔστην λαβών.

[In L, 961 ends δίκην 7, 80 as to make ἔστην parallel with ἦκον: ‘when I came . . . and stood. Sophocles, who uses various methods for reducing the formality of tragic speech by linking trimeters closely together, does occasionally allow elision between lines. There are nine examples in his

256

Commentary on lines 964--7]

plays, of which seven are with &’ and one, OT 1184, with 7’ For ἃ list]

see ]. D. Denniston, ‘Pauses in the Tragic Senarius, CQ 30 (1936), Ῥ. 76!

There is no other with 7’ in Euripides. Elmsley’s deletion of 7’ ( Θ-ἦθἷἷ Bothe) and addition of δ᾽ after εὐπὼν in 964 both gets rid of the elisjoj

and divides an otherwise unwieldy sentence, which, moreover, makes

εἰπὼν and ἀκούσας agree, inappropriately, with Φοῖβος]

h

964-6. εἰπὼν (&) ... ὠλένῃ: And [I] having spoken and heard [the

speech of the accuser] about [my] mother’s blood, Phoebus saved me by,

testifying, and Pallas counted out equal votes for me (to my advantage)

with her hand’ The same incoherence of construction as at 947: Orestes begins as subject, but turns into the object as the sentence develops..

εἰπὼν . . . ἀκούσας: for the same pair, see Held, 182 εἰπεῖν drodoal 7 - év μέρει πάρεστί μοι ‘It is open to me to speak and hear in turn On that line, Pearson notes ‘the Greek tendency to coordinate by antithesis

. . . Aéyew and ἀκούειν are a pair of mutually complementary verbs, like.

δρᾶν and πάσχειν, δοῦναι and λαβεῖν,, ὠλένῃ: There is evidence to suggest that Euripides sometimes uses ὠλένη to mean ‘hand;, not arm’. Evep!

if Ba. 1125 is suspect for metrical reasons, there is no reason to reject; Her. 1381 (see Bond ad loc.). [However, A. L. Boegehold (‘A Signifying Gesture: Euripides, Iphigenia’ Taurica 965-6, AJA 93 (1989); pp. 81-3) adduces the evidence of Attic

vase-paintings of the contest for the arms of Achilles in which Athena

stretches out her arm to signal that Odysseus has won, while the voting is represented as still in progress. So he sees here a compendious expression: ‘Pallas counted out equal votes to my advantage, (and signalled so by a gesture made) with her arm’ For the compendium, he compares Hel,

244-5 Opemopévav éow πέπλων. ῥόδεα mérada ‘plucking roses (and

putting them) inside her dress)] 967. νικῶν & . . . πειρατήρια: ‘Being victorious in [my] trial for murder, I went away’ φόνια πειρατήρια is internal accusative with νικῶν. πειρατήριον is not-found again for several centuries. ᾧπῆρα (from ἀπαίρωλ): At 511 above it is possible to supply ναῦν Ὕοιι sailed your ship away. But here the word means no more than ‘went away’ 968-9. ὅσαι μὲν odv . . . ἔχειν: So as many as settled, persuaded by the

trial, marked out for themselves to possess a sacred place near [the site

of] the voting itself’ In Aeschylus, all the Furies are eventually persuaded by Athena to accept the verdict, but Euripides needs some recalcitrant + Furies for his version of the story. μὲν οὖν: ‘transitional’ See Denniston, -~ pp470-2." epioavr(o):Aorist ‘middle “from “ὁῤίξω. Eyew: infinitive of . -purpose.. 970-1. ὅσαι . . . ἀεί; ‘But as many of the Furies as were not persuaded by the law kept harrying me always with never-ending pursuits νόμῳ must mean the new ‘law’ established by Orestes’ own case, that equal votes

Commentary on lines 972--80

257

. mean acquittal. See below 1469-72, Eum. 741-53, with Sommerstein on . 711-53, Εἰ. 1268-9 (quoted on 958-60 above) and D. M. MacDowell,

. The Law in Classical Athens, p. 252, withn. 582. On ἠλάστρουν, see above on 934. ἀνιδρύτοισιν: ‘never settling’ (ἱδρύω).

972-4. ἕως ... θανών: . .. until I came again to the pure ground of Phoebus, and, stretched out before the sanctuary, starving of food, I swore to break off life by dying there! ayvov highlights the fact that Orestes will pollute the sacred ground by dying on it. At Herodotus 7. 141, the Athenian envoys to Delphi use the same threat to secure a more encouraging response from the oracle. See above 380-3 and Parker, Miasma, chap. 2, especially pp. 33-4. Bopds: Genitive of separation, used with adjectives such as xevds (‘empty of’), ἔρημος (bereft of’). See WS 5 1427 and Kiihner-Gerth i, p. 401. According to LS], βορά is properly used of food for ‘carnivorous beasts, but it is also used for food for human beings. See, for example, Jon 1169 and Hipp. 952, where Barrett points out that Bopd ‘is properly the nomen actionis from βιβρώσκω, in fact “eating” See also Ῥ ]. Finglass, “The Ending of Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, Philologus 153 (2009), p. 46.

975. εἰ μή . . . ἀπώλεσεν: ‘unless Phoebus, who had destroyed me, would

save me’ As at 714-15, by using Φοῖβος Euripides avoids making explicit the common word-play with ἀπώλεσεν, but the idea of ἤπόλλων the destroyer, was most probably familiar enough for the audience to pick up the reference. See above on 714-15, with, on ‘etymological’ word-play in general, 31-3. σώσει and ἀπώλεσεν are the tenses of direct speech. See Goodwin, GMT § 667(b).

976-8. ἐντεῦθεν . . . χθονί: “Thereupon, Phoebus, uttering aloud a voice from the golden tripod, sent me here, to take the image fallen from the sky and settle it in the land of Athens’ In historic times the responses were uttered by the priestess, the Pythia, who, apparently, sat on the tripod (see Ion 91-3). But it could well be imagined that in the world of myth the god himself spoke. See, for example, Pindar, OL ‘7. 32-3 and

compare Or. 329 τρίποδος ἄπο φάτιν dv 6 Φοῖβος ἔλακεν “The utterance that sultation, Book 1.3. Moreover,

Phoebus cried aloud from the tripod. On the process of consee H. W. Parke and D. Β. W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle 1, λακὼν: on Euripides’ fondness for λάσκω, see above on 461. prophecies are typically ‘barked out. In addition to this pas- -

sage and Or. 329, see Ant. 1094 and Wealth 39. αὐδὴν: internal accusa-

tive. διοπετὲς: fallen from the sky’=‘fallen from Zeus (διο-). [λακὼν: Scaliger’s brilliant correction of 15 λαβὼν. At Ant. 1094, where λακεῖν is clearly right, a number of MSS have Aafeiv. Here, to aid confusion, AaBeiv ends the following line.] 979-80. AN’ . . . σύμπραξον: ‘But come, join in bringing about the very

salvation that he defined for me/us. ἀλλ(ά) in an exhortation introduces

258

Commentary on lines 980-6

a transition from arguments for action to a statement of the actiop

required. Hence dAAd, in this sense, usually occurs near the end of 2 speech, as a clinching and final appeal’ (Denniston, p. 14). Hence too my,

translation ‘but come.

-

980-2 4y γὰρ . . . πάλιν: For if we get possession of the goddess’s ἱπιαρὰ both I shall cease from fits of madness and you, with my many-oareq

ship, I shall take and place again in Mycenae. For vitally important dra:;

matic reasons, Euripides has not allowed Apollo to mention Iphigenia ἰῇ his prophecy. So naturally Orestes assumes that he will take her back home to Mycenae. Only at 1462 will it emerge that her destination is to} be different. Bpéras is equivalent to ξόανον: an ancient wooden image;

There are a few occurrences of ξόανον in Euripides (see 1359 below), by Bpéras is much more accommodating metrically, and is the usual word' in tragedy. ἣν: the Ionic form of ἐάν, usual in tragedy (see above 100

381, etc.). Here Seidler introduced it as a correction of Is &v. σπι’λὰςτ:'ἓ

‘having taken, not ‘by sending’ or *having sent’ He is going with her, just: as he and Pylades went with their ship at 70 above. 983-4. dAX’ . . . ἐμέ: ‘But, O beloved, O my own sister, save [your] father's] house, and save me. ἀλλ(ά) introduces a second appeal, after 979, and.iig more emotional one. & φιληθεῖσ᾽ “The participial vocative . . . strikes: 2 solemn note’ (Collard on Hec. 1000, citing this and other examples);’ The tragic periphrasis κασίγνητον κάρα, often Vocative, as here, also; nominative and accusative, ‘has a strong emotional colouring’ (Barrett on’

Hipp. 651-2). Usually it implies affection and respect. Only Euripides.

uses it also for hatred. “The head and face are the physical expressions of personality’ (Collard on Supp. 163). σῶσον . ... ἔκσωσον &: the two verbs are not synonymous. Although no genitive is expressed with ἔκσωoov, saving Orestes involves getting him out of Taurica. For a similar combination of simple and compound whete the two verbs have different force, see Tro. 892 αἱρεῖ γὰρ ἀνδρῶν Supat, ἐξαιρεῖ πόλεις ‘For she captures the eyes of men, she destroys cities. Such combinations are distinct from those in which the compound precedes the simple. In those, the verbs are synonymous, for the force of the preposition carries over from the compound to the simple verb. For a list and bibliography, see Diggle, Euripidea, Ῥ. 84. δέ without preceding μέν is common in ana-

phora in poetry. Compare OT 312 ῥῦσαι σεαυτὸν καὶ πόλιν, ῥῦσαι &

-

ἐμέ. See Denniston, p. 163. v [δ᾽ éué L has 8¢ με. The emphatic éué (as in OT 312 quoted above) was

--—regtored by-Seidler.]

T

Π Π

τ

τ

τ "

985-6. ὡς Tap’ . . . βρέτας: ‘[Know that] all my affairs are destroyed and those of the Pelopids, if we do not take for ourselves the heaven-sent

image of the goddess. Orestes ends with the point that it is not enough to save him, nor for all three to escape. They must carry off the image.

ξ

Commentary on lines 987-8

ὶ

259

; For ὡς 1ntroduc1ng what appears to be an independent sentence, see WS . § 3001. εἰ μὴ ληψόμεθα: e with the future indicative in the protasis of an ‘emotional’ future condltxon, often, as here, embodying a threat. See WS . 5 2328. The caesura after μὴ is very weak. See Introduction, p. bociii. [ληψόμεθα θεᾶς: so L. ληψόμεσθα appears as a correction in P and, much more problematically, G. Ioannidou (see list of papyri,.p. cviii) identifies a scrap of papyrus belonging to II* and carrying the letters

Ἰσθαΐ as belonging to 986. The reading long survived in the printed vulgate. This requires feds to be scanned 85 one long syllable. But no parallel is cited for synecphonesis in the fifth long. In stichic verse, rhythm always tends to be stricter towards the end of the verse, and synecphone31s ‘does not go without a rhythmic “cost” that has to be “absorbed”™. See L. Battezzato, ‘Synizesis in Euripides, BICS 44 (2000), p. 43, n. 6 and p. 55. On the other hand, the rhythm produced by

ληψόμεθα (. . |2UUU

U2UL) can be paralleled without much diffi-

culty. See Diggle, Studies, p. 112 and Euripidea, p. 131.] 987-8. Sew) . . . ἄγεις ‘A terrible sort of anger of the gods has boiled up against the seed of Tantalus and drives it through toils. Typically,: the chorus’s two lines of reflection provide a sort of rhetorical punctuation between Orestes’ speech and Iphigenias. ἐπέζεσεν: At Sept. 708-9, the δαίμων

Sstill boils’ (ἔτι ζεῖ), for the curses of Oedipus

‘boiled over’

(ἐξέζεσεν). ἐπιζέω can suggest the pain of scalding: at Trach. 840, the stings of 6 Centaur ‘scald’ At Hec. 583, ‘some terrible misery has boiled

up against the sons of Priam’ (Πριαμίδαις ἐπέζεσεν). On the common

metaphor of ‘boiling’ anger, see J. Taillardat, Les images d'Aristophane, . 352. For mpds with accusative in a hostile sense, see LS] πρός C.1.4. [I’s version of 988 is 70 Ταντάλειον σπέρμα διὰ πόνων 7 ἀεί, This ~ presents serious difficulties. 1. ἐπέζεσεν governing an accusative is strange. It governs ἃ dative at Hec. 583

(see above). Examples are adduced of other verbs com-

pounded with ἐπί governing the accusative, 85 at Aj. 136-9 and Andr. 492-3, Ὀυΐ in both these passages the verb is well separated from its object. Here they stand side by side. πρὸς ‘against} instead of 7o, is the suggestion of D. L. Page. Stadtmueller’s és is less appropriate and Rauchenstein’s ἐπέζεσ᾽ és ending 987 15 impossible. There is no example of a monosyl]abic preposition ending a verse in Euripides and just one of a disyllable: ὑπὸ at EL 852. In Sophocles, who rather affects enjambement, there is one monosyllable: év at OC 495. 2. 'The verb ἐπέζεσεν does not make sense with διὰ πόνων. Canter’s ἄγει for ἀεί is an easy and attractive emendation. Schone-Kéchly suggest that διὰ πόνων 7 ἄγει. might influence the accusative 76 Ταντάλειον σπέρμα. But that seems unconvincing when ἐπέζεσεν immediately

precedes the accusative and ἄγει follows with διὰ πόνων intervening]

260

Commentary on lines 989-93

989-1006. Iphigenia begins her speech with the affirmation of her wish§

go home and to save her brother and their house. But that involves stah

ing the sacred image, and she works round to the idea that that 53

somehow involve leaving her behind in Taurica. It is not made obvigh

to us why that might be so, but it 15 dramatically necessary that the pe sibilities be envisaged, so that brother and sister may declare their dev

tion to each other. She will die to save him, and he will not live withoi her. There is no contradiction with her threat at 778 to become a cujs

to the house. That was in case of Orestes’ wilful indifference to "

appeal for rescue. Instead, the devotion of brother and sister, ἰορβιε

with Iphigenia’s lack of resentment against her father, exemplify the he]! ing of the ‘sick house’ Ἔ

989-90. τὸ uev ... εἰσιδεῖν: ‘I have had the longing, before you car®

here, to come to be in Argos and to see you, brother’ éxw: preser because she still wants to be in Argos. In defiance of strict logic, she ι-ιι'ῃ"ξι

together her past desire, to'see her brother and to go home, with Hér continuing desire since he arrived. 76 πρόθυμον-Ξ προθυμίαν. See alsh

1023 below. μὲν: on the tendency to begin speeches with μέν, . sée Denniston, pp. 382-4, and 866 on & below on 991.

991-3. θέλω & ... πάλιν: Ἱ want just what you [want]: to remove you

from your toils and to raise again [our] sick paternal house, feeling π'ὀἔ

anger towards my killer’ She reassures Orestes that she feels no rancou

against her family because of what she has suffered. We have known this from the beginning, from her account of her dream at 44 Εξ But Orestes;

might not be so sure. The word πατρῷον calls to mind her father, but she has never shown any resentment towards him (see above on 565),

-and now she makes that explicit with οὐχὲ . . . θυμουμένη. τῷ κτανόντι::

elsewhere, Iphigenia has used the imperfect, because her father tried to:

kill her, but there is no imperfect form of the participle. Usually, the

present is used, with an'adverb (ποτέ, τότε, or the like) to make the

‘meaning clear. The aorist participle is, however, occasionally used for ‘having tried to, ‘having meant to, where, it seems, the intention, rather than the fact that it was not realized, is felt as of transcendent impor-. tance to the speaker. Thus, at Aj. 1126, Menelaus, in his rage, refers ἴο.

Ajax as 76v0’ . . . Κτείναντά με ‘this man who meant to kill me’ (and

Teucer deliberately misunderstands). Similarly, at OC 1008, Oedipus denounces Creon as having tried to abduct him (κλέψας), an old man - and a suppliant. Here, it 15 her father’s intention that has caused Iphigenia ~deep-pain; but still 'she"is not angry.& does riot teally aniswer μὲν in 989. There is not even an implied antithesis between Iphigenias past and present feelings. Rather, she simply continues. σύ, σέ: for the emphasis

and polyptoton, see goi, σύ at 516 above. νοσοῦντά τ᾽ οἶκον: For the ‘sick house} compare 680, 693-4 and 930 above. .

‘Commentary on lines 994-8

261

[σέ: Canter’s correction of Τ (and the Aldines) ooi. κτανόντι: Heath, for Is κτανοῦντι, an epic future form thoroughly out of place here, _Elmsley proposed the present, κτείνοντι, but there is nothing in the . context to show that this is to be understood as ‘trying to kill, rather _than as a true present. See above and WS § 1872a.1. Hermann proposed the plural, τοῖς κτανοῦσι, as softening the expression. But it also intro. duces ambiguity: only one man tried to kill her. We have no reason to Π think that she has ceased to be angry with those who aided and abetted him. πάλιν: Markland’s suggestion for Ls redundant §éAw. It would be .. just possible to say: Ἱ want what you want, I want . . εἰ and Hermann - defended the double θέλω as emphatic. But it is very inelegant, and not comparable with the repeated adjectives cited by Platnauer in its defence. . For Markland’s πάλιν, compare Ant. 163, where Creon says that after the city has been tossed on rough seas, ‘the gods have set it on a straight course again’ (ὥρθωσαν wdAw). The corruption is not, it must-be said, . easy to explain. Markland suggested that θέλω could have been written above ὀρθῶσαι (presumably to show that the verb governed the infinitive), and then have displaced πάλιν.] 994-5. σφαγῆς . . . οἴκους: ‘For I should both free my hand from your slaughter and save the house. The potential optative can be used in'an independent sentence without any implied if-clause (see WS § 1824-5). Yet there does seem to be a gap in the thought here. Translators are forced to make various additions unwarranted by the Greek. So Cropp begins “That way . . .» But in what way? There is not only no ‘that way’ in the Greek, but nothing to which the phrase can refer back. Kovacs adds ‘by rescuing you, but that in effect assumes that something has been lost, and that, indeed, was what Wecklein suspected. [+’ Markland, for I's 8. A necessary correction.]

995-6. τὴν θεὸν . . . τύραννον: ‘But I am afraid.as to how I can escape the

notice of the goddess and of the king’ At this. point, Iphigenia does not see that Artemis may be ready to collaborate. Orestes will remove this concern at 1012-15 below. For the indirect question with ὅπως depending on δέδοικα, compare Phoen. 383-4 ὅπως & ἔρωμαι . . . δέδοιχ᾽ ἃ

χρήζω ‘But I am nervous about how to ask what I want [to know]. ὅπως μή ‘1 am afraid lest . . . after verbs of fearing is, of course, more common, and seems more natural. On τύραννον see on 741 above.

996-8 ἡνίκ᾽ & ... Adyos: ‘When he finds the stone base empty of the image, how shall I escape death? What account is there for me [to produce)?’ The goddesss possible reaction is mysterious and unpredictable, so Iphigenia ceases to consider it, and concentrates on Thoas.

[Most editors adhere to the punchiation of L: comma following τύραν-

νον and strong stop after ἀγάλματος, with πῶς . . . Adyos as an independent sentence. But the division offered by Kovacs seems to me to give

262

Commentary on lines 999-1005

a better connection of thought. Not Ἱ fear the goddess and the tyrani}

Dsarali,

2

hv

-when he . . .; but ‘I fear the goddess and the tyrant. When he . . . ! g . . . Adyos then becomes the main sentence to the ἡνίκ(α) clause, ang Iphigenia turns decisively from the goddess to a threat which is immedj.;

ate and specific. Ls πῶς 8’09 . . . is unwelcome, even with the traditiona]

.

punctuation, suggesting, as it does, a sequence of ideas. πῶς & οὐ is ¢ common that a scribe might easily have slipped into writing it out of habit.]

᾽

f

999-1001. ¢AX’ . . . καλόν: But'if [. . .] happens, you both carry the imagé; and take me on your well-sterned ship, the risk becomes noble’ Clearly,f she 15 saying that the best outcome would be if Orestes can-take her τ ῃ : him, as well as the image, but how exactly she is saying it remains:

obscure. yevijgerai . . . οἴσεις . . . ἄξεις: all seem to be futures in the;

if-clause of an emotional future condition (a construction often associ:

ated with threats, though not, apparently, here). & ~¢ . .. γενήσεται;: however, hardly makes sense. Then the main sentence follows in (ἢ6᾽ - present: if the enterprise succeeds in the future, it becomes (y{yveras): καλόν now. εὐπρύμνου vews: The ornamental epithet is an epic touch..

See vijes . . . εὔπρυμνοι at Il 4. 247-8.

i

[Ε W. Schmidt’s ἀλλ᾽. εἰ μὲν ἡμῖν ταῦθ' ὅμου γενήσεται if these things’ come about together for us, would make sense. But then ἐχριαπαίοσγ᾽

infinitives, making clear what is meant by ταῦθ᾽ would be more natural

than οἴσεις and ἄξεις parallel with γενήσεται. Then, are both οἴσεις.

and ἄξεις desirable? Weil proposed ἄγαλμά 7° εἰ σὺ κἄμ᾽ ... ἄξεις. ‘These ideas serve to suggest what Euripides might have written, but there . is too much uncertainty for plausible emendation.] 1002-3. τούτου . .. τύχοις: ‘But I, separafed from this (ie. from being taken on your ship), die, but you, having arranged your own affair well,

may win your return. ὄλλυμαι: the present expresses the immediacy of

the threat, as in Shakespearean English: ‘Show pity, or I die’ (Taming of - the Shrew, 3. 1. 78), ‘He dies that touches any of this fruit’ (As You Like It, 2. 7. 98). δὲ corresponds to uev in 999,

[rovrov δὲ χωρισθεῖσ᾽: The expression might be clearer if we possessed the original text of 999. Weil proposed τούτω. 8¢ χωρισθέντ(ε), ‘these two things being separated’ (the theft of the image and her rescue), as a ‘hanging’ nominative (see 675, 695, 947-8 and 964-5). Bruhn- accepted

this in his revision of Schone-Kéchly, and it is certainly attractive, paro, ticularly if it could be connected with the things that might happen ~-———together-in-999-But-it-seems-harder-to-justify the dislocated syntax than is usually the case in such constructions.]

1004-5. οὐ μήν 7 . . . σώσασαν: εῖ I in no way shrink, not even if I have to die, having saved you. At Hipp. 285, the nurse says that she has done all she can, οὐ μὴν avijow γ᾽ οὐδὲ viv προθυμίας Yet for all that

Commentary on lines 1005-8

263

not even now will I relax my zeal’ (Barrett’s translation). On οὐ μὴν . . γε see Denniston, p. 335. φεύγω is present (unlike the Nurse’s ἀνήσω), because Iphigenia is talking about her present state of mind. Amphitryon uses φεύγω in the same sense at Her. 1074 τὸ ddos éxAureiv . . . οὐ

φεύγω Ἱ do not shrink from leaving the light. σώσασαν agrees with

understood με. [0 . . . σώσασαν: Kirchhoff’s emendation of 15 οὐδέ μ᾽ εἰ θανεῖν ypeaw/ σώσασά o. Weil and England retain this, associating the participle with

φεύγω and confining u(e) to ovdé ... χρεὼν.. They take σώσασα as

conditional: T do not shrink, if I have saved you ...’ (see WS § 2069 and GMT § 472). But this calls for modern punctuation. Kirchhoff’s alternative suggestion (accepted by Sansone) 15 οὐδέ μ’ εἰ θανεῖν

χρεὼν! σῶσαι τὰ o(c) T do not shrink from saving your situation, with

σῶσαι dependent on dedyw, like ἐκλιπεῖν in Her. 1074 quoted above. The choice is very much a matter of which seems the most likely corruption.] 1005-6. ov γὰρ . .. ἀσθενῆ: But truly, a man if he dies is a loss ἰο the house, but a woman 15 without force. Fact, in a patrilineal society. Women go away and marry other men and continue their houses. Orestes, at 695-8 above, imagines that his house could be continued by his sister married to his cousin, but that is a desperate expedient. Then, too, a woman cannot

protect the family’s wealth by force. In order to persuade, Iphigenia produces a practical argument, It is almost compulsory to cite on this passage IA 1394, where Iphigenia says that one man’s life is worth those of ten thousand women. But the point there is very different. Iphigenia does not realize that the war which her sacrifice will make possible will kill ‘ten thousand’ men. οὐ γὰρ aAX: an informal, elliptical expression: ‘it cannot be but that . . .. found only in the iambographers, old comedy, Euripides, and Plato. See Denniston, p. 31. See also Stevens, p. 47 and Collard on Supp. 570, and compare οὗ μήν ... ἀλλ(ὰ) at 630-1. τὰ . . . γυναικὸς: ‘things to do with a woman, ‘all aspects of a woman. " [γυναικὸς: Ῥ for Us γυναικῶν,. which breaks Porsons Law (see Introduction, p.Ixxxv). The scribe of P was certainly not aware of Porson’s Law. No one was, between the author of the Roman tragedy Octavia and Porson himself. But the singular ἀνὴρ in 1005 points to a singular γυναικὸς in 1006. The correction could even have been accidental. See P. Maas, Textual Criticism § 27 and W. S. Barrett, Greek Lyric, Traged)z, and Textual Criticism, pp. 423-4.]

1007-8. οὐκ av . . . αἷμα: T would (will) not become both your murderer

and [my] mother’s. Her blood [is] enough. μητρὸς φονεύς: here, at last, Orestes is explicit, and to powerful effect. Iphigenia has used the dynastic argument to justify her proposed self-sacrifice. Orestes, a true brother, rejects her offer from natural affection. Here; at last, are descendants of

264

Commentary on lines 1008.-16

Pelops behaving as members of a family should behave. There is a supe; ficial parallel at Or. 1039, where Orestes refuses to kill Electra, because}

ἅλις 70 μητρὸς αἷμ᾽ ἔχω. But the effect is rather spoilt by 1040 whe Ν he tells her-to kill herself in any way she likes. 1008-9. κοινόφρων . . . ἴσον: ‘But one in mind with you I should WlSh' both to live and in death to receive an equal portion. κοινόφρων appear}

in one other passage in Euripides, Jon 577, oreiye κοινόφρων πο.-;-ρι ‘come, one in mind with your father. There, the word seems to make 3} clearer point. Ions reception of the news that Xuthus is his father ha]

been rather lukewarm, and he is about to reject the proposal that ;f;

should come to Athens. [ζῆν . . θανὼν:

there have been attempts to make the constructlon

more stnctly parallel. Musgrave proposed {@v and Dunn faveiv Aaydv§

᾽ But the variation 1s, as Platnauer says, ‘easy and natural’] 1010-11. ἄξω... μέτα: And I will take you, if I myself pass from here, to home, or, hav1ng died, stay with you! πρὸς οἶκον goes with both ἀξωὴ

-and περῶ. This is what Orestes must surely say at this point, though τ

takes several minor emendations of Ls text to make him say it. 4 [L offers ἥξω 3¢ γ᾽ ἤνπερ καὐτὸς ἐνταυθοῖ méaw/mpods οἶκον εἴ σοὺ . ‘Indeed I shall come home, if myself too 1 fall hither, if having died: A

-I stay with you. Efforts to make sense of this by taking ‘home’ to mean Ἑ Hades are wasted. That would surely not be comprehensible, and, in any-;

case, Orestes needs to pronuse to take Iphigenia home to Argos, if he:

can. Hence Canter’s d§w 8¢ o’ Then, ἢ written above εἰ in Ls own hand ; in 1011, allows sense to begin to emerge: ‘I will take you home, or stay:

here in death with you! This leaves the conditional clause introduced by

ἤνπερ, in which ἐνταυθοῖ is not found elsewhere in tragedy and πέσω -

does with here, 417,

not make sense. Both problems have been neatly solved by Seidler ἐντεῦθεν περῶ. Euripides uses ἐντεῦθεν in both the causal and, asspatial sense, and is even rather fond of περάω. In this play, see 424, 724, 1217. The changes required are all trivial, except, perhaps,

ἐντεῦθεν for ἐνταυθοῖ, and even that is hardly major. It would Ὅ6 easy

- enough for a scribe with πρὸς olkov before him to write ‘hither’ in place of ‘hence. The same mistake 18 made, with less excuse, in TrGF 5. 1, fr. 497. 1. In any case, the lines should not be excised (Dindorf, with sonie support from Page, Actors’ Interpolations in Greek Tragedy, p. 78). A positive statement from Orestes that he will take Iphigenia home is necessary,

+ and it is rash to dismiss nonsense 85 interpolated. Interpolators do not

—-write—nonsense;~They -write~silly -or-inappropriate “sense.’ For further ο points, see D1ggle, Studies, pp. 87-8.] 1012-16. γνώμης & ... λαβεῖν: ‘But listen to [my] idea. If this were . repugnant to Artemls, how could Loxias have told me to convey the

image of the goddess to the city of Pallas {(and how could the gods have

Commentary on lines 1017-19

265

protected me from death and allowed me to come to this temple) and

see your face? For having put all these things together, I hope to achieve return. At 995, Iphigenia said that she feared Artemis. But surely, Orestes now argues, Apollo would not have suggested something contrary to his sister’s wishes. Here, at last, Orestes comes round to the optimistic view of the enterprise which Pylades has been urging 811 along. But at least one line has been lost, probably more. Apollo’s prophetic command (ἐθέσπισεν) said nothing about seeing Iphigenia, and ἅπαντα . . . συνθεὶς 7ad(e) indicates several circumstances, not just two. The fact that

Apollo must have intended Orestes to meet Iphigenia is not an adequate explanation of the transmitted text. € ... ἦν ... πῶς av . . . ἐθέσπισεν: ‘Unreal’ past conditional, with ‘How could he have . . .?’ equivalent to ‘He wouldnt have . . . . θεᾶς: scanned as one long. γὰρ in 1015 refers

back to γνώμης 8’ ἄκουσον.

[πόλισμ᾽ és Παλλάδος: Med. 771 ends with the terminal accusative πόλισμα Παλλάδος, so Elmsley wished to delete és here. It is certainly true that Euripides re-uses line-ending phrases. In this play, see, for

example, εὐπήνους ὑφάς at 312 and 1465, with εὐπήνοις ὑφαῖς at 814.

Nor is it improbable that a scribe might, accidentally or deliberately, have simplified the terminal accusative by slipping in ἐς. The idea 15 certainly plausible, but not absolutely compelling.]

1017-18. πῶς . . . βουλόμεσθα: So how can it happen 80 that we both do not die and [that we] take what we want?’ On μήτε . . . τε (and οὔτε . . . 7€), see Denniston, p. 508. |

1018-19. τῇδε . . . πάρα: ‘For in this way our return home is in difficulty.

This [matter for] deliberation is before us.. The action returns to the

point it had reached at 911. νοσεῖ: metaphorical νοσέω is frequent in Euripides. In this play; apart from the ‘sick house’ of Pelops, see.536, where everything connected with Odysseus is ‘sick. βούλευσις belongs to a class of abstracts in -ous typical of fourth-century philosophy. But the first appearances of such nouns in Euripides (e.g. βούλησις. Her. 1305, δόκησις Andr. 696, Hcld. 746, Hel. 36, and elsewhere) and in parodic passages in Aristophanes are evidence that they formed a distinctive part of the vocabulary of certain intellectual circles in later fifth-century Athens. Ε. W. Handley (‘-sis Nouns in Aristophanes, Eranos 51 (1953),

pp. 129-42) analyses the incidence of different types of -sis nouns in Aristophanes with very interesting results. He finds, in particular, that Clouds, Frogs, and Thesm., ‘the intellectual plays par excellence, have more -sis nouns between them than the other eight plays together. See further below. Both νοσεῖ and ἥδε βούλευσις -are excellent emendations by Markland. Again, see further below.

[vooet: L offers νόει (imperative from voéw). The Aldine makes a sort of sense of this by printing νόστον, which has to be taken as in apposition

266

- Commentary on lines 1020-3

to &, with τῇδε γὰρ νόει (‘think in this way’) as a parenthesis. 'l'hls13 tortuous, dependent on punctuation, and, above all, eliminates the me;3

tion of the image, since ‘what we want to take’ becomes ‘our return’ 453 βούλευσις: L has ἡ δὲ βούλησις, which makes Iphigenia say in effecl ‘How do we get what we wish without being killed? That is our dlfiicu]t)’, But we have the wish. This is absurdly feeble. Cropp (ICS 22 (1997), Ν 36-7) argues in favour of Ls text. He is impressed by Sansone’s observaj

tion that 'βούλευσις is a prosaic word first found in Aristotle! He ignoreg

the fact that βούλησις is exactly the same type of word, and makes ποὶ

mention of Euripides’ taste for such abstracts. On βούλησις at Andr, 7023

Stevens remarks: ‘it is a distinctly prosaic word and belongs mainly ]

the language of philosopy. It is significant that a scholium on that linie} (Schwartz II, p. 296) is clearly based on the reading βούλευσις, evidencel

that βούλησις and βούλευσις could, not surprisingly, be confused. Cropp} translates ‘although we have the will for it\ But δέ does not meanj ‘although, and ‘will’ involves importing the idea of ‘resolution, ‘determi.

nation. Kovacs also translates βούλησις by ‘will' and disregards δὲ, Inἡ

fact, ἃ significant number of abstracts in -σιὶς make their first appearance in Euripides before becoming established as prose words, especially inj the philosophic writings of the fourth century. Such are: ἄθροισις (Ηες'΄ 314, Thucydides, Aristotle), αἴσθησις (EL 290, Plato, Aristotle), διάγνωats (Hipp. 696 926, Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle), διάλυσις (Phoeri

435, Plato), επα.ινεσις (Tro. 418, Plato), ἐπιτήδευσις (Hipp. 261:} Thucydides, Plato), οιησις (TrGF, 5.2, fr. 643, Plato, Aristotle), πρόσρη: Ἔ

ῖσις (Hel. 1166, Plato), τήρησις (TrGF, 5.1., fr. 162.2, Plato, Aristotle),

ὑπόμνησις (Or. 1032, Plato, Aristotle). It will be observed that most of; ἰ these words are found just once in Euripides, Also, several are shared ‘with Thucydides,a fact which tends to confirm the idea of a late-fifthcentury intellectual fashion. For a general list of words which appear first in Eunpldes, see Smereka I, pp. 172-236.]

1020-1. d&p’ ἂν . . . ἐπήλυδας: O. ‘Could we kill the tyrant?’ I. “This [is a]

terrible [thing that] you have said: alien people to kill a foreign host! τύραννον: see above on 741. On the distinction between (common)'= ἕένος and (uncommon) ἔπηλυς, see above on 53-5. On repeatedἄν εεε-ἱ

WS § 1765. ἄν early in a sentence warns of the construction to come. .-

1022-3. ἀλλ᾽ €t . . . gveoa: O. But if it will save both you and me, the risk_ should be taken! I I could not. But I appreciate your zeal! It is not

s, Orestes’ morality that differs from JIphigenia’s, but his situation. She has —eaten-Thoas*-bread;~she-has-been-his -‘guest’-- Orestes-is-under-no such ‘obligation. On the contrary,. Thoas’ employees intend to kill him. Euripides’ audience would have understood. There is a straight contrast here ‘between Greek morality and barbarian. At Hel. 104-6., Menelaus suggests killing Theoclymenus. Helen has no objection on moral grounds:

Commentary on lines 1024-6

267

Theoclymenus has not behaved as a host should. The problem is that the

prophetess, Theonoe, would warn her brother. ἤἥνεσα: “Tragic, or ‘dramatic;

aorist, expressing the speaker’s reaction to what has just been said. See WS § 1937. M. Lloyd, in his extended study (“The Tragic Aorist, CQ 49 (1999),

pp- 24-45) argues that ‘the function of the tragic aorist is to distance the

speaker from the full force of the present performative. ἐπήνεσα is less forceful and direct than ἐπαινῶ: On this passage, see p. 39.

1024. τί & . . . λάθρᾳ: “‘What if you were to hide me secretly in this temple

here?” ναῷ r@de: Dative of place. Poetic. See WS § 1531. τί & εἴ An elliptical expression, at home in ordinary speech. See Stevens, pp. 30-1 and Collard, ‘Colloquial Language, p. 362. There is no need to assume a noticeable clash of styles. 1025-6. [ὡς δὴ . . . φῶς]: I As if by taking darkness we could be saved!’ O. ‘[Yes,] for night [belongs to] thieves, but light to truth. There is strong reason to regard these lines as interpolated, as Markland was the first to suggest. ws δὴ expresses irony. Compare Plato, Gorgias 468e ὡς δὴ σύ

..

οὐκ ἂν δέξαιο éfeivai σοι ποιεῖν & τι δοκεῖ σοι As if you would

not accept being able to do as you choose!’ See Denniston, p. 229. But how can Iphigenia dismiss with irony a proposal that has not been made? Orestes has said nothing about darkness. At 110-12, Pylades had suggested stealing the image at night, but Iphigenia was not present then,

and for the audience it is 900 lines back, and much has happened since. Then, 1026 only half fits the situation. The idea of darkness having been introduced, Orestes could say ‘night belongs to thieves, but what is the relevance of light and truth? It is suggestive that the association between light and truth comes into its own with Plato and, much later, the Neoplatonists (see D. Tarrant, ‘Greek Metaphors of Light, CQ 10 (1960), pp. -81-7 and D. Bremer, Licht and Dunkel in der Friihgriechischen Dichtung, pp. 357-8, with n. 105). Euripides might have been credited with anticipating the idea, but only if it had fitted the situation. In contrast with 1025, 1027 is exactly the right answer to 1024. [In 1025, L reads σκότος and éfw θεῖμεν (‘we might put [it] outside’).

Brodaeus’ ἐκσωθεῖμεν is an easy correction which greatly improves the

sense. The neuter σκότος is late and not Attic, which may, again, point to interpolation, although scribes do sometimes introduce it into tragic texts. L makes the same mistake at Her. 1159. Dindorf corrected both there and here. The best defence of these two lines is that of Cropp (ICS 22 (1997), pp. 37-8). See also' Ε. R. Schwinge, Die Verwendung der Stichomythie in den-Dramen des Euripides, pp. 119-20, with n. 14. cbs &) has generally been taken as introducing a purpose or result clause, adding to Orestes’ suggestion: O. ‘Could you hide me in the temple?’ I. ‘[You mean] so that we could escape under the cover of night?’ That would

make sense, but ws with ἄν and an optative expressing purpose is at least

268

Commentary on lines 1027-31

| :Ξ

highly questionable. See ]. Wackernagel, Kleine Schriften I, pp. 49--50 ang

V. Bers, Greek Poetic Syntax, p. 123. Cropp’s proposal to take ὡς δὴ agd ironic restores’ the syntax, but destroys coherence (see above). Then;

Cropp defends the curious expression σκότον λαβόντες by citing O - 467-2 τίνα σκότον! λάβω προσώπῳ; ποῖον ἐπίπροσθεν νέφος | θῶμαι:

‘What darkness can 1 take for my face? What sort of cloud can I put

before myself?’ In that passage, however, there is the metaphor of a veil, and Orestes uses verbs (‘take, ‘put’) which belong to that metaphof.ii

Cropp sees in 1024-7 a repetition of the pattern of 1020-3, where

Orestes makes a proposal, Iphigenia faults it, he urges it, she rejects it

But in the first passage the sequence of ideas is pefectly coherent, in the’

second it is not. Finally, Cropp points out the etymological connection:

between ἀληθείας and λήσομεν. But what sense can one make out of. Tight belongs to non-evasion, ‘we shall not evade the guards’? An inters

polator might have been inspired to introduce the idea of darkness by,

-his memory of 110-12. But he would have been a reader, not ἃ member.

of an audience. ἐκσωθεῖμεν ἄν could have been derived from cwfeiuer dv in 1028. 1026 would then have been cobbled together to pro-

vide Orestes with an answer of sorts. Otherwise, an interpolator who‘-i?f'f fancied the gnomic-sounding 1026 could have composed 1025 in order; . to get it in.] 1027-8. €ic’ . . . σωθεῖμεν ἄν: I. “There are guards inside the temple whose:

notice we shall not escape’ O. ‘Alas, we are destroyed: how may we be: saved?” How far is Orestes’ abrupt collapse of confidence to be attributed

to deliberate character-depiction, consistent with his behaviour earlier in-

the play, and how far is it a side-effect of his role as interlocutor? [ἑεροῦ: Dobree, for iepoi. ‘Sacred guards’ are not, perhaps, an absolute impossibility, but the genitive following ἔνδον, giving ‘guards inside the temple, has much more point (as well as more inherent probability).

Markland conjectured ἱεροφύλακες meaning ‘temple-guards’ (like ναοφύλακες at 1284 below). The word, however, does not appear in a

literary text until near the end of the first century Bc, in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2. 73. 3, where it means something like ‘guardians of religion. Dionysius also uses it to translate pontifex.]

1029-31. ἔχειν . . . σοφίσματι: I Ἵ think I have a new and original idea’

O. 'Of what sort? Share your idea, so that I too may learn [it]? 1. ‘I shall

use your torments as 8 clever trick’ The words are, as Weil remarks, υ designed -to whet the audience’s curiosity. The play is moving into adventure-story~mode: ~xawov—is"more “than just ‘new’ In Clouds, where Aristophanes satirizes the latest in intellectual fashions, καινός is a thematic word. The Worse Argument can only win the debate by discovering original ideas: γνώμας καινὰς ἐξευρίσκων (896). Aristophanes,

not to be outdone, advertises himself: alel καινὰς ἰδέας εἰσφέρων

Cominentary on lines 1032-3

269

σοφίζομαι I am always doing clever things, introducing innovative

forms of comedy’ (547). See also Clouds 480, 938, 943, 1031, 1397, 1399,

1423. δόξης refers back to δοκῶ in 1029. σοφίσματι: At 380 above, Iphigenia disapproved of σοφίσματα. The word takes its colour from the context. χρήσομαι governs two -datives, as at Xenophon, Hiero 5.3 τούτοις χρῶνται δορυφόροις “They use these people as guards. [σοφίσματι: West, for 15 σοφίσμασι, which could well have appeared by

infection from ἀνίαις. Euripides uses the singular σόφισμα where appro-

priate. See Hec. 258, Phoen. 871, 1408.]

1032-3. [δειναὲ . . . μολεῖν]: O. ‘[Yes,] for women are clever at discovering

schemes. I. I shall say that you have come from Argos [as] the murderer

of your mother’ The idea that women are, for good or ill, particularly

gifted at plotting and deceit 15 ubiquitous in Greek literature. Penelope is the type of the woman who uses female guile for good. Of Pandora, Hesiod (WesD 67 and 78) tells us that Hermes gave her ‘a deceitful

nature’ (ἐτίκλοπον ἦθος). At Andr. 85, Andromache says to her former serving-maid πολλὰς ἂν εὕροις μηχανάς" γυνὴ ydp €l “You could find

many schemes, for you are a woman. On that line; Stevens provides a list of illustrative passages, concluding that women ‘on the Attic stage, particularly in Euripides, . . . are often represented as equal and indeed superior to men, whether more noble and self-sacrificing or more resourceful and more ruthless. 1032, an eminently quotable line, appears in a collection from later antiquity of maxims attributed to Menander (Menandri Sententiae, ed. S Jaekel, Leipzig, 1964, no. 194). But so do another ten lines from surviving plays of Euripides (including IT 57), and numerous fragments. Stobaeus, writing some nine centuries after

Euripides’ time, quotes the line as from ‘Euripides’ Iphigenia’ (4. 22(7). 185=Wachsmuth-Hense IV, p. 559). Neither quotation proves that Euripides did or did not write the line, nor, ἰἔ he did, that it originally ‘belonged here. The whole of 10314 is problematic. See below. [Cropp and Ε. R. Schwinge (Die Verwendung der Stichomythie, Ῥ. 122) would retain all the lines, but-1033 looks highly suspect. As M. L. West

says (“Tragica V, BICS 28 (1981), p. 63), the line ‘comes as a let-down if it is the first statement of Iphigenia’s brainwave., What is so clever about

announcing -that Orestes has murdered his mother? Moreover, if she has

said that, Orestes’ question at 1036 becomes

idiotic. He

should not -

merely ‘suspect’ the reason why he is unsuitable for sacrifice: it would be staring him in the face. We could well owe 1033 to the interpolator of 957, with his taste for calling Orestes μητρὸς φονεύς (see above on that line). But if 1033 goes, then either the line before or the line after must go too, and that is not quite so easy. West follows Czwalina in arguing in favour of expelling 1033-4. For him, 1032 follows ‘well enough on 1031: ‘it would: take a woman’s craft, it seems to Orestes, to turn his

270

Commentary on lines 1035~9

sufferings to advantage. Then, ‘1034 is an empty echo of certainly plausible, but Diggle’s proposal to expel 1032-3 marginally preferable. Orestes’ χρῆσαι at 1034 follows well χρήσομαι in 1031, and the commonplace of 1032 would

g 1031’ 'This 1:’ strikes me asi on Iphigena: be an easjer’

gap-filler than 1034 for an interpolator to either excogitate himself, oy:

introduce from another play. Finally, Stobaeus, in his text of 1032, wrltes μὲν instead of yap. This makes no sense in context, and is probably nomore than a careless mistake.]

-

1035-7. ws . . . φόνῳ: L Ἱ shall say that [it is] not right to sacrifice yoy

to. the goddess—’ O. ‘Having what reason? For I have some suspicion:

I. “—not being pure. But I will give to slaughter [only] that which is holy:Two lines (1035 and 1037) make up a single sentence, dependent on.

λέξομεν ws (ὅτι), but this is stichomythia, so Orestes must break in. He!

wonders what explanation she has to offer. But, on second thoughts, he

realizes that:-he can guess. As a ‘filler’ line, this is quite dexterous, For:

more blatant examples of stichomythic stuffing, see OT 559 and Ion 266

γὰρ suggests an ellipse: something like ‘Say it openly, for I already sus-

pect. Iphigenia, the professional priestess, uses the correct, technical language. θέμις is that which is right by custom, without the moral

overtones of δίκη. See Chantraine, under θέμις, 76 ὅσιον: ‘due, pleasing

to the gods. See Chadwick, pp. 223-6. 1036 ' has median caesura, with elision. See Introduction, p.lxxxiii.

- [The explanation of the syntax given above is Hermann's. Diggle (Studies,

p. 88) prefers to take ws as equivalent to ἔσθι ὡς, but that seems more difficult to me. δώσω needs to be taken as dependent on λέξομεν ὡς,

since this is a statement of intent. She is not in fact going to sacrifice 76 ὅσιον. o€ in 1035 is Reiske’s (necessary) correction of Ls ye. Reiske also wanted ἔχονθ, instead of ἔχουσ', at 1036: ‘[me] carrying what blame?

That is linguistically possible. At El 213, airiav ἔχει means ‘she carries

the blame. But it is surely a silly question for Orestes to ask. For the meaning ‘having what reason?’ compare τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ἔχων at Hec. 1203 and τίν᾽ αἰτίαν σχών at Hel. 469. Markland wanted to turn ὑποπτεύω κτλ. negative, to produce for I have no idea. That provides a. simple and obvious sense for yap, but, again, makes Orestes a complete fool. φόνῳ, the Aldine editor’s- emendation of φόβῳ, is surely right. φόνος and

φόβος can be confused. See, for example, PV 355 and Ag. 1309, where

the MSS. are divided between φόβον and φόνον. In contrast, the Aldine's

τ

“τὸν & ὅσιον, introducing UU for the second short, was a very bad idea.

Markland-restored 7o from the Μ readings available to him.] 1038-9. τί δῆτα . . . βουλήσομαι: O. ‘How then is the image of the goddess the more taken?’ ("How does that get us any nearer taking . . .?") L T shall wish to purify you in the currents of the sea’ See 1193 below: “The sea washes away all the evils of men. On the power of the sea to

Commentary on lines 1040-3

271

purify, see R. Parker, Miasma, p. 226: ‘the most prized cathartic water was that of the salt-stained sea’ πηγαῖς: of running water (or other liquids). βουλήσομαι: the future of verbs of ‘wishing’ and ‘asking’ can be used for a polite wish. Iphigenia uses it here by anticipation, as if she were already speaking to Thoas. See WS § 1913 and M. Lloyd, “The

Tragic Aorist, CQ 49 (1999), p. 34. Orestes stressed the importance of

getting the image at the end of his speech at 985-6. Here, and again at 1040, he shows his desperate anxiety lest Iphigenia has forgotten about it. For τί δῆτα meaning ‘How then ...? or ‘How, pray .. .t" see LS] under τίς 8.f and Denniston, pp. 269-70. 1040-1. & & . . . ἐρῶ: O. ‘The image for which we have sailed is still in the temple’ L Ἱ shall say that I am going to wash that too, on the ground that you have touched { Iphigenia’s answer at 1039 still did not reveal how her plan was to help them to get the image out of the temple. Now she explains. ὥς with the participle, because this is the alleged reason. Orestes has not in fact touched the image (see WS § 2086b and c). On the practice of washing sacred iamges, for various reasons, see R. Parker,

:

Miasma, pp. 27-8.

[ἐφ᾽ &: for the dative with ἐπί of the end or purpose, see LS] ἐπί B.IIL 2. Some critics have wished to emend so as to substitute ἐπί with the accusative (LSJ ἐπί C.III, 1). But that seems unnecessary. νύψειν: Madvig,

for 15 νίψαι. νίψαι . . . ἐρῶ would mean Ἱ shall say that 1 have washed . . ᾽ The aorist infinitive can only be retained by understanding βουλήσομαι from 1039. But then ἐρῶ cannot be the main verb, and ws must go with it to make it parenthetic. But ὡς (or ὥς) serves ἃ more useful pur-

pose with θιγόντος. Understanding ἐρῶ βούλεσθαι is hardly possible.

νίψαι for νίψειν would be an easy corruption: -αἱ and -ew in verb-

endings are easily confused. See above on 692 and 938, and (tellingly) Alc. 657 and Med. 748, where MSS are divided between -a: and -ew. See

further Diggle, Studies, p. 85. On ds, see P. Probert, A New Short Guide

to the Accentuation of Ancient Greek (London, 2003), § 273.] 1042-3. ποῖ . . . σέθεν: O. “Where then will you go beside the watery casting-out of the sea?” I. ‘Where your ship is moored with flax-bound cables’ πόντου νοτερὸν . . . ἔκβολον: enigmatic. Perhaps no more than ‘surf’ or ‘breakers. See Cropp, ‘Notes on Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris,

ICS 22 (1997), p. 38.

-

[The essential question raised by 1042 ing to which point on the shore she suggesting a spécific place. If the latter, question: ‘Where then? Will you go to

-

15 whether Orestes is simply askproposes to go, or whether he is then ot δῆτα must be a separate the casting out . . .. First, Reiske’s

el παρ᾽ is generally, and surely rightly, accepted. Ls εἶπας ‘Did you

say . . .2’ ‘Did you mean . . .2’ will not do. She certainly said the sea, and equally certainly, did not hint at any particular place. Another difficulty

272

Commentary on lines 1044-51

is the meaning here of ἔκβολον ‘something thrown out. The word cap mean the mouth of a river. For this passage only, LS] offers ‘a place

where the sea has broken in upon the land. But any such suggestion

takes Orestes to be proposing a particular place. At Hel. 422, Menelayg is wearing ἔκβολα, rags cast out from his wrecked ship, and at 1214 the

word-is used for the wreck itself (like ἐκβολάς, from ἐκβολή, at 1424

below). vorepov ἔκβολον, ‘wet casting-out, could, quite possibly, mean, -as Cropp suggests, ‘surf;, or indeed ‘breakers. That at least makes Orestes ask the question which Iphigenia answers.] 1044-5. σὺ &’ . . . μόνῃ: O. ‘Will you or someone else carry the image?’ J, Ἵ. For it is permissible for me alone to touch ἰ Orestes’ question is important. Is there some official ‘porter} to be either evaded, disposed of,

or involved in the plot? ὅσιόν: again, as at 1037, a matter of religious correctitude. See on that line.

ἰσὺ & ἤ: Jacobs’s emendation must be right. I's ool 8% produces ‘Will

someone else carry the image for you?’ But the emphasis is pointless, and, as Hermann observed, the answer to ‘Will someone else carry {{

is not éyw, but οὐδείς. The mistake may be connected with σοὲ δὴ at the beginning of 1051.]

1046-7. Πυλάδης . . . ἔχων: O. ‘Pylades here, what position will he hold

(will he have been appointed to) in our effort?’ I. ‘He shall be said to have the same pollution on his hands as yow’ Orestes’ concern for his friend comes second only to his concern for the image which was the object of their voyage. Future. perfect (rdoow), with a military metaphor: where will- he be ‘stationed’ (as ἃ result of what we decide

now)? On the future perfect, see WS § 1955 and GMT § 77. mob .. .

πόνου: Compare Trach. 375 ποῦ ποτ᾽ εἰμὲ πράγματος ‘Where am I in situation?” (with Davies ad loc.), or Aj. 102 ποῦ ... τύχης ἕστηκεν ‘where in fortune is he?’ meaning ‘what is' my situation?” ‘What is his fortune?’ .

[πόνου: Brodaeus, for L's φόνου. The scribe will have had ¢dvos on the

brain. Musgrave’s 66Aov would also make good sense, but the corruption would be less easy to account for. Attempts have been made to defend φόνου by taking the sentence to mean ‘What part will he be said to have

played in the murder?’ But this demands an intolerable stretching of the meaning of τετάξεται. It also makes Orestes anticipate Iphigenia’s answer.

There is no reason why he should at this stage think that Pylades’ part

=

«in the murder 15 relevant.]

—1048=9;-1051- λάθρᾳ - - καλῶς: ΟἹ “Will 'you do this in secret from the king, or with [him] knowing?’ 1. ‘By persuading with words. For I could

not escape his notice. But it should be for you to. take care of the rest, so that it shall be well- πείσασα: coincident aorist participle. ool δὴ:

strong emphasis. ὅπως ἔξει: ὅπως with future indicative depending on

Commentary on lines 1050-5

273

a verb of ‘effort’ (μέλειν). See WS § 2211, ἢ εἰδότος: synecphonesis of 7 ¢i- to make one long syllable. See on 731-3 above. On the order of the lines, see below. [L transmits 1049-52 in the following order: I. ‘By persuasion. 1 shan't be able to evade him. O. ‘Yes indeed, my ship is standing by’ I. “You have to look after the rest’ O. ‘Just one thing is needed . . . and that is your business. It is clear at once that 1051 must come before 1050, not after it. ‘My ship is standing by’ (1050) must be the answer to “The rest is your job (1051). Beyond that, there are different possibilities. Kochly, who first saw the problem, suggested that a line delivered by Orestes was missing after 1049. Then followed 1051 (Iphigenia), then 1050 (Orestes). Then Iphigenia would delivered 1052 (‘We have to persuade the chorus to keep silence’) and Orestes 1053 (‘But you must appeal to them). But the division of 1052

and 1053 between speakers seems unnatural: the person who sees that the chorus must be persuaded to keep silence should also see that Iphigenia must appeal to them, and it is clear from 1053 ff. that that person is Orestes. The stichomythia need not continue after 1049, so there is no need to posit a lacuna. The arrangement in the text is that of Diggle’s edition, attributed by Cropp to A. MacDonald. μέλειν: Triclinius’ (necessary) metrical correction of s μέλλειν. For the same correction, see 909 above.] 1050, 1052. καὲ μὴν . . . τἄδε: ‘Yes, indeed. The well-oared speed of my ship is at hand. Of one thing alone there is need: for these women here to share in concealing these things. καὶ μὴν . . . ye: καὶ μὴν introduces a new item, the ship, in the series of needs for escape, and the essential word, νεώς, is followed, as often, by ye. See Denniston, pp. 351-2. πίτυλος: ‘impetus, ‘onward rush. For this favourite word of Euripides, see on . 307 above. [συγκρύψαι here is wrongly classified by LS]. It belongs under II, ‘join’ or ‘help in concealing) although the dative ἡμῖν is not expressed.] 1053-5. ἀλλ᾽ . . . καλῶς: ‘But appeal [to them] and find persuasive words.

Indeed, a woman has power to [move to] pity. Everything else would

probably turn out well’ Here is something else that women are good at.

τὰ & GAX

... καλῶς: Here we can supply an if-clause: ‘If you could

persuade them . . .. Orestes uses the remoter future (potential optative),

because he sees that the task may not be altogether easy. The women are , being asked to take a serious risk, and even if they do agree, iows shows -

that he considers success uncertain. ἀλλ᾽: introducing an exhortation to action, as at 979 and 983 above.

[ἂν πάντα: Markland, for 15 ἅπαντα. This is a very minor change, and

self-evidently right, but some editors have struggled against it. Murray tries to retain L's text by inserting an interruption in the construction which depends wholly on modern punctuation. Monk, followed by England, ejects 1055; But it is needed (see above).]

274

Commentary on lines 1056-9

1056-74. In devising a plot requiring a secret to be kept, an Attic tragedlanl.

needed, of course, to choose his chorus and position it from the stary with that fact in view. Thus, the earliest secret-keeping chorus known to? us, that of Cho., is promptly revealed as hostile to Clytaemestra (42-6)! 1 and, almost as promptly, Aegisthus (111). They are thus natural and’ enthusiastic collaborators with Electra and Orestes. They are advised to: keep silence where needed, or to say what is appropriate (581-2), but, provided at least that the plan succeeds, they are not personally at risk and no supplication is required. Lists of requests for silence and supplica- tions to choruses (Barrett provides a comprehensive one on Hipp. 710). risk giving a wrong impression of uniformity and dramatic awkwardness, ' But in fact the tragedians are immensely inventive in dealing with the ς motif of confidentlallty

. There is, however, a genuine awkwardness of handling in Hel. In that'

play, as in IT, the chorus consists of captive Greek women, employed to:

serve the heroine. Unlike the chorus of Cho., collaboration places both at -

serious risk. They will be left at the mercy of a barbarian king. Their situ-

ations, then, are formally parallel, but Helen’s appeal to the chorus at-

1387-9 is perfunctory in the extreme: ‘Remain well disposed to us and

hold your tongues. If we escape, we will rescue you some time if we can’ This is a matter of the architecture of the play. The real moment of ten- sion, the real parallel to Iphigenias appeal to the chorus, is Helen’s sup-plication of Theonoe (894-943). Such an episode cannot be repeated. At : the end of the play too, whoever may be Theoclymenus’ interlocutor at 1627-41, it is Theonoe who is threatened with death, not the chorus. Our attention is focused on her. Nor is there any mention of sending the chorus home. The need to demote the chorus, to shift them into the background, arises from the insertion of an extra character, Theonoe, into the

escape plot. See Introduction, p. xxxv and, on the anomalies in Theonoe’s role, S. Trenkner, The Greek Novella in the Classical Period, p. 51.

1056-9. & . . . συγγόνου: ‘O dearest women, I look to you, and my fate rests with you, either to fare well, or to be nothing and to be deprived of [my] fatherland and of [my] dear brother and [my] dearest sister’ Iphigenia begins with a formal statement of the premisses on which her appeal will be based. τα.μ-τὰ ἐμά ‘my afl'a1rs, practically equivalent to ‘me. Compare τὰ γυναικός at 1006 above.ἔχειν, εἶναι and στερηθῆναι are explanatory infinitives, μηδὲν: μ.η is generally the negative of the

+ infinitive,

[eis:"Hermann’s-correction of Ls ὡς ὑμᾶς βλέπω. “To look to in the sense of ‘to depend οπ is βλέπειν ἐς (eis). See LS] βλεπω 11.2. ὡς υμας

βλέπω ‘as I see you, does not make ἃ pair with τἄμ᾽ & ὑμῖν ἐστιν.

Kochly's suggestion of ὡς for καὶ at the beginning of 1057 creates a good logical connection: T look to you, since my fate 15 in your hands’ But the

Commentary on lines 1060-6

275

simple pairing is possible, and may indeed be more effective rhetorically.

Hermann’s els remains necessary either way. φιλτάτης: Bothe, for s φιλτάτου. A very easy mistake by assimilation. Instead, Markland proposed turning φίλου 7’ ἀδελφοῦ into φίλης 7' ἀδελφῆς ‘my dear sister and my dearest brother’. This would require a much less obvious process of corruption, but has commended itself to editors who believe, like Monk, that Iphigenia ought to show more affection for her brother than for her sister.]

1060-2. καὶ speech for reliable to sition. The

.

... ἀσφαλέσταται: ‘And let these things first begin [my] me. We are women, a tribe well-disposed to each other, most preserve our common affairs.’ Still formal and logical in expoidea of female solidarity is recurrent in Buripides. γυναῖκα

γὰρ δὴ συμπονεῖν γυναικὲ χρή says the chorus-leader at Hel. 329, Or 866 TrGF 5.1, fr. 108, from Alope: γυνὴ γυναικὶ σύμμαχος πέφυκέ πως.

Medea (Med. 823), appealing to the nurse to keep silence, says γυνή 7’

ἔφυς. Indeed, female solidarity is displayed in 118 most frightening form

in Med. Critics like to stress the cleverness of Medea in winning the sympathy of the chorus. But they are on her side from the start. They readily endorse her wish to punish her husband (267); they do not object when she announces her intention to poison Jason and his bride (384-5). It is only when she turns to the idea of killing her children that they draw ‘away from her (811 ) Nor is this a purely Euripidean concern. Three of Aristophanes’ surviving plays turn on female conspiracies.

1063-4. σιγήσαθ᾽ . . . παρῇ: ‘Be silent for us and work with [us for our] escape. tongue moral παρῇ.

It is a noble thing [for that person] to whom a trustworthy belongs’ Here is the substance of her request, reinforced by a reflection. καλὸν . . . ὅτῳ: equivalent to καλόν ἐστιν εἴ τινι ... . See on 605-7 above. Masculine ὅτῳ because she 15 generalizing.

For the absence of ἄν with ὅστις in poetry, see Kithner-Gerth ii, p. 426.

7ot demands attention: Let me tell you. [πιστὴ: Bothe (and independently Hermann). With the noun πίστις, as in L, the meaning would be ‘a tongue [is] a good thing in someone who has reliability’ So Iphigenia would be expecting the chorus to speak. But no, she is asking them to Ὅ6 silent. As Weil suggests, πίστις could have originated as a gloss. P’s 7 for 7o looks like an attempt to improve Ls text: ‘a fine sort of thing . ... It could, however, be purely accidental.]

1065-6 ὁρᾶτε &’ . . . ἔχει: You see how one fate holds three, the dearest [to each other], either return to [our] native land, or death Now comes

the appeal to compassion. Tpeis uia: Pylades makes a similar play with

‘one’ and ‘three’ els ἀγών, δίκη ment, νόστος . compare II. 10.

in his appeal to Zeus at Or. 1244-5 τρισσοῖς φίλοις yap μία ‘For us three friends there is one trial and one judg. . θανεῖν: For the same pairing of noun with infinitive, 174 1} μάλα Avypos ὄλεθρος Ἀχαιοῖς ἠὲ βιῶναι ‘either

276

Commentary on lines 1067.-71

i

woeful destruction, or to live. For the genitive with νόστος πιεεπῃιἓξ ‘return to, again see Homer, Od. 5. 344-5 véarov/yains Φαιήκων and 23. 68 νόστον Ἀχαιΐδος. The epic colouring may be deliberate, although " epic phraseology comes to the Attic dramatists as biblical phraseology comes

to Shakespeare

In contrast,

at OC

1408-9,

Polynices

says eg{

δόμους [ νόστος. . -i [νόστος: Valckenaer, for Is νόστον, possibly introduced by some muzzy- . headed scribe who took the word to be the object of ἔχει, instead ofm apposition to τύχη.] τ

1067-8. σωθεῖσα & . . . Ἑλλάδ᾽: ‘And I having been saved, so that you too

may share [our] fortune, will bring you safe to Greece! The appeal to self-interest. No doubt Iphigenia means what she says. No need to ask’ how she plans to do it. The chorus will be saved, and we are being pre- : pared for that. ws av . . . κοινωνῇς: For ws ἄν introducing a purposeclause in poetry, see WS § 2201a and Kiihner-Gerth ii, pp. 385-6. ; 1068-70. ἀλλὰ . . . φιλτάτων: 'Βυΐ you, by your right hand, you and you I approach, and you by your dear cheek, by your knees and your dearest ones : at home? As the process of persuasion reaches a climax of urgency; Iphigenia :

steps forward into the orchestra and formally supplicates members of the :

chorus by touching hands, faces, and knees. The physical contact is vital. At :

362-3 above, Iphigenia- describes how she struggled to reach her fathers face and knees as she was lifted up to be held over the altar. See J. Gould, ‘Hiketeia, JHS 93 (1973), pp. 74-103, especially 75-7 (=Myth, Ritual,

Memory,

and Exchange, 2. 22-77, especially 23-7). Iphigenia seems to -

address four people, so we may suppose that the chorus has divided itself into four groups whose leaders she supplicates. Older editors (England,

Platnauer) tell us that the talk of cheeks and knees is merely formulaic, and we need not suppose that Iphigenia ‘goes down’ into the orchestra 50 as actually to touch members of the chorus. This concern arises from the old belief that the classical ‘stage’ was considerably raised above the orchestra,

as we see it in the Theatre of Dionysus today. But belief in a high stage has -long been abandoned, and it has been recognized that a number of scenes in tragedy require free movement between actors, chorus and the palace, or . temple, frontage, or.other ‘back-drop. Notable examples are Phil. 1003, ¢ where Odysseus calls on two men (presumably members of the chorus) to ‘hold Philoctetes, and Hel. 330-3, where the chorus enter the palace with Helen. See A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Theatre of Dionysus, pp. 57-9 and : Ε. Rehm, Greek Tragic Theatre, pp. 34-6. 1071+ [μητρὸς τ kupei]: someone seems to have feltan urge to gild the

lily by specifying the φίλτατοι. But the chorus cannot have children: at

130-1 they spoke of stepping on ‘holy, maiden foot. It is part of their cult function and suitability as attendants to Iphigenia as priestess that they are virgins. Dindorf was clearly right to want the line expelled.

Commentary on lines 1072-81

277

[Cropp (ICS 22 (1997), pp. 25-41) would expel 1070 as well. He argues that 1069 is an ‘ascending tricolon, of which the rhetorical effect is ‘somewhat spoiled by the continuation’ Then, ‘those who are dearest to you at home’ is inappropriate, since their city has been sacked, as we shall learn at 1106 ff. To this it may be answered that a rhetorical climax need not be limited to three members, and the full line nicely rounds off _the sequence of part-lines. The fact that the chorus’ city has been sacked does not mean that they can have no dear ones still alive in Greece. Finally, the appeal to family afféction balances τοὺς φιλτάτους at 1065.] 1072-3. 7i φατέ . . . ταῦτα: ‘What do you say? Which of you says [that she wishes] this, or who says—speak!—that she does not wish. We have to understand τίς φησι θέλειν ταῦτα ἢ Tis οὔ φησι θέλειν. Iphigenia reveals her anxiety by the desperate φθέγξασθε before she has finished her sentence. One could not ask for a stronger contrast with Hel. 1387-9, where Helen does not even expect an answer to her perfunctory appeal to the chorus for silence. [θέλειν: Musgrave. With Us θέλει we should have to understand ‘who

assents, or who does not wish . . .2’ For φημί meaning ο assent, see LS] φημί ΠΙ, Ls version is not impossible, but it seems difficult to understand φησι as ‘assent’ immediately after τί φατέ, where φημί means ‘say.

‘What do you say?’ is naturally followed by ‘Who says . . .2’} 1073-4. μὴ ydp . . . τάλας: ‘For [you] not agreeing to [my] words, both I am destroyed and [my] miserable brother’ μὴ ydp αἰνουσῶν: Supply ὑμῶν. The genitive absolute is conditional, as μὴ shows: 1Ὲ you do not agree, See WS §§ 2067 and 2070d. The perfect 6AwAa is an emphatic expression of instantaneousness. It has as good as already happened, like

the Greek waiter’s ἔφθασα.

ῖ

1075-7. θάρσει . . . πέρι: ὝαΚε heart, dear mistress, and just save yourself. [Know] that by me at least all shall be kept secret for you (let great Zeus be witness) about which you charge me. On μόνον with imperative (just do that and nothing else’), see LS] μόνος B.IL 1. For ws introducing an (apparently) independent sentence, see WS 5 3001. For ἐκ of the agent, compare éx γυναικὸς at 552 above. Like Pylades at 749, the chorus call upon Zeus, the mightiest guarantor of oaths, to be their

witness. ἔστω: Third person imperative of olda. ἐπισκήπτεις: like ἐπισκήπτω at 701 above.

1078. ὄναισθε ... εὐδαίμονες: ‘May you profit by [your] words and become fortunate!’ A strong expression of gratitude.

1079-81: σὸν. . . ξένων: ‘It is up to you and you now to go into the build-

-ing. Since the master of this land will be here at once to check: the sacrifice of strangers, whether it has been carried out. She turns to Orestes and Pylades. σὸν €pyov is, most probably, a colloquial expression. See Stevens, pp. 39-40 and Collard, ‘Colloquial Language, p. 363. σὸν ἔργον,

278

Commentary on lines 1082-4

ῳ

ὠχελῷε ‘Up to you, Achelous!’ shout the old women αἱ Lys. 381, as they

i

tip their buckets of cold water over the old men. There, the σὸν ep'yow' of common speech is combined incongruously with the poetic meton. | ymy Achelous’ for ‘water. Eunpldes avoids such a dissonance. θυσίαν: " to. check the sacrifice, whether . . .. instead of ‘to check whether the sacr.

fice . . . ᾽ Prolepsis (WS 8 2182) ἐλέγξων: Future partaple expressmg' purpose, as, for example at Hec. 141 ἥξει 8’ Ὀδυσεὺς . . . ἀφέλξων. See-

WS 5 2065. ΐ [ἐλέγξων: Markland’s correction of Ls ἐλέγχων. The present part1c1ple

may.not be impossible, but the future of purpose is clearly more appro-

priate, and the change is minimal. ξένων: Diggle suggests ξένοιν, but see’

- on 248.]

1082-8. Orestes and Pylades have gone into the temple after 1081, and Iphigenia is left alone on stage. She ends the scene with a prayer to:

Artemis, as she will again, less explicitly, at 1230 below. Like the most :

. famous (and sinister) of scene-ending prayers, Clytaemestra’s address toZeus at Ag. 9734 (see below on 1230-3), this prayer serves as dramatlc punctuation and prelude to exciting action. But, unlike other such' Euripidean prayers to which it is compared by A. M. Dale (Collected " Papers, pp. 180-4), there is no touch here of querulousness, for Iphlgema'; has nothing to complain of in the way that Artemis has treated her:: There are points of contact with her appeal to the chorus: the idea: of reliable speech (1064 and 1084--5), the appeal to self-interest (1067-8

and 1086-8). But the prayer to Artemis is less personal and emotional ὦ in tone, more formally structured. First, there is the appeal to consistency, one of the oldest and most common motifs in Greek prayers. At II. 5. 116, Diomedes prays to Athena: ‘If ever you stood beside me with friendly intent, befriend me again now’ Sappho (PLF 1= Voigt 1) pleads with Aphrodite ἹῈ you ever came to me on another occasion, come to me now. Iphigenia continues with something like 4 ‘threat: ‘Do not let your brother down. His mantic credibility depends on you! Finally,

comes the

appeal

to self-interest:

if the goddess

saves her

worshipper, she shall go to a better and more appropriate home. On

scene-closing prayers, see W. Schadewaldt, Monolog und Selbstgespréich, pp. 101-4.

1082-4. @ πότνι᾽ . . . τούσδε τ: ‘O queen, who saved me in the glens of

Aulis from the terrible, child-slaying hand, save me now too, and these smen. τούσδε τ᾽ is an addendum. Strictly, the appeal to consistency ~——applies~only-to~Iphigenia—herself.~It—has to~be “stretched’ to include - Orestes and Pylades. For an appeal to consistency, the common formula is el ποτε. . . καὶ νῦν If ever . . . now too. Iphigenia substitutes ἥπερ ‘you, the very being who . ...} 80 as to focus on the particular occasion

on which she was saved. Αὐλίδος κατὰ πτυχὰς: Compare 8-9.

Commentary on lines 1084-8

279

[τεκνοκτόνου: Herwerden. Compare (likewise at verse-end) τεκνοκτόνον

μύσος

‘child-killing pollution’ at Her. 1155. L offers πατροκτόνου.

πατροκτόνος is not found elsewhere in Euripides, but where it does occur in tragedy it always means father-killing} not ‘killing-by-a-father. Compare ξενοκτόνον ‘stranger-killing’ at 53 above. Chantraine (under κτείνω) finds some hundred examples of compounds of this type, in which the first part of the compound always designates the person/people being killed. There is a slight extension of πατροκτόνος at Cho. 974, 1015 and 1028, where Orestes uses the word of people who have killed his father, not their own,

but the father is still the object. Cropp quotes Med. 1254, where xép’ αὐτοκτόνον means not suicidal} but ‘killing with one’s own hand. That, however, is a well-established usage (Sept. 681, 805, and the adverb

αὐτοκτόνως Sept. 734, Ag. 1635) which reflects the freedom with which

αὖτο- is used in compounds.

‘Done ‘by myself to myself’ can slip into

simply ‘done by myself’ The only formation to suggest that πατροκτόνος could mean °‘killing-by-a-father’ is θηλυκτόνῳ Ἄρει ‘killing-by-women

violence’ at PV 860. But it seems much more likely that πατρο- strayed into the text here from a note (‘because she was killed by her father’) than

that Euripides used πατροκτόνος in an unprecedented sense.]

1084-5. 4 . . . στόμας ‘or the mouth of Loxias [will] no longer [be] truthful. Much depends on whether Apollo, or, under his distinctive name as

prophet, Loxias, can be trusted. See especially OT 898-910, in a play in which the veracity of Apollo is most fearsomely at stake. There, if he has not told the truth, divinity itself is finished: ἔρρει δὲ τὰ θεῖα. ἐτήτυμον: a poetic, reduplicated form of érvuos, inherited from epic.

1086-8. dAX’ . . . evdaiuova: ‘But, with kind intent, come away from a barbarian land. For indeed it does not become {you] to live here, it being

possible for you to possess a fortunate city! εὐμενὴής: precisely the state of mind in which a human worshipper wishes a god to be, as, for example, at Supp. 630, ἰὼ Zeb . . .. πόλει μοι ξύμμαχος yevod τᾷδ᾽ εὐμενής, and compare Alc. 791, Andr. 55, etc. [For Cropp, this passage ‘recalls Athena’s appeal to the Furies to adopt Athens as their new home at the end of Eum. Artemis will become kind

(εὐμενής, 1086) like the Kindly Ones (Eumenides). No. This brief exit-

prayer could hardly be more different from the long process of persuasion (of over a hundred lines) by which Athena induces the Furies to settle in Athens, and there are no verbal echoes. εὐμενής occurs just once in Aeschylus’ play, applied to Orestes (774) and Eduevides never. In fact the earliest occurrence of Εὐμενίδες is in Or., suggesting that the appellation did not become current until near the end of the fifth century. It is virtually certain that Eumenides was not the original title of the play that we know by that name. See Sommersteins edition, pp. 11-12, and above on 942-4.].

280

Commentary on lines 1089.-1152

1089-1152. Iphigenia's appeal has turned our attention to the chorys All the actors have now made their exit. The playing space is left to the

chorus, and they sing a song for themselves. Just one stanza is devoteq

to Iphigenia, for contrast: she is going home. The proportions are reverseq

at Hel.

1451-1511,

where

three

stanzas

treat, in imagination,

Helep

journey-home, and just one, again the second strophe, tells of the chorug’ wish to fly away. And even there the birds with whom the chorus wish

to fly turn out to be messengers of Menelaus’ return. This accords with -the movement of the chorus into the background in the latter part of Hel., noted above on 1056-74.

METRE 1089-1105=1106-1122

1 2 3

. 4

--του-υῦῦ -Ὀ-υυ]-ὖuuu|-uu--

1089-1152

glyc glyc pher

—~yU-UU-U--

- glyc (ibyc) =pol

ωυσ---ὧὖυ-

5 6

υυυ-υῦυ-υ--U--UU-U-

glyc ---- (aeol decasyll) glyc

8

υ----υοὐ-

pol=glyc

7 —=|-uu-= 9

-U-Uu-U-

υ--υ-υυ-

pol=glyc

U—--uu-u-

10 11 12 13

-ΟὡἧΟὐστυυ-υ—|--y-uu--ὕ-υυ-———ujuvuu-

15

————- υυ-

14

16 17

pol

υυυ-υυ-ἰυ—|-=|uu--||

*]1123-37=1138-52

5

"~ glye (ibyc) ο +pol aeol heptasyll +pol

————- υυ-

GT 2 3 4

pher

τ

T

-ππυυ-υ--᾿ —-——U-Uu—-yYy—---uu-

—uu——=|

+pol

glyc +pher T

τ εἶγο didgged hipp pol pol

tel dragged

“᾿

Commentary on lines 1089-1152 6

U--U-UU-

pol

8

UUU---UU-

pol

7 9

10 11

12

13

VUU-UU-U-υυ-υυτυ-

—-uU-——uuU-

Uu--u-U υυ--υυ--ο-υὐυτυ-υ-τ-υ- ππτουυ —-yu-UU-UU-UU ~UuU-uu-uu-

vou-u~--||

281

+glyc = glyc (ibyc) '

pol

tel 8 da cat

ithyph

1089-1105=1106-1122

A pure aeolo-choriambic stanza, with typical play on blunt and pendent cola. In the strophe, the initial address to the halcyon makes up on its own a little stanza of anacreontic type: two glyconics with clausular pherecratean

(see Introduction, p. xcii). At 5 (1093=1110), the colon running out in

three longs marks another, and more significant, rhetorical division, this

time in both corresponding stanzas. In the strophe, the singer turns to

herself at 1094, in the antistrophe, at 1111, the chorus move to a new stage in their story: after the destruction of their city, the sale into slavery. 6 (1094=1111) re-starts with a glyconic, but this time the pherecratean with verse-end follows at once. The strophe continues with two cola forming a sort of addendum in sense to 1094-5, while in the antistrophe there is a much more decisive transition to the chorus’s present state, the subject of the rest of the stanza. In the strophe, the significant transition comes at

1098, where & introduces a section devoted to Artemis, which, again,

continues to the end of the stanza. From 8 to 16 there is a run of blunt cola, which serves to throw into relief the final pher. There are some cases of unusual correspondence and resolutlon. In antistrophe 1 (1106), the eighth position of a glyconic is resolved, while

in the strophe (13=1101) the fifth position is resolved (iepov LUU).

Kannicht on Hel. 1136 argues in favour of synmecphonesis, so as to scan —U (like ἐρόν in the Aeolic and Jonic dialects). But the two passages

he quotes, Hel. 1136 and Sept. 268, are both iambic, and I see no compelling reason to reject resolution. At 4 in the strophe (1092), —UU—-UU-U- corresponds at 1109 with pol in the form VUU——-UU-, and the same colon occurs at 10 in both strophe and antistrophe. While identical with an ibycean, this colon is occasionally found in later Euripides in correspondence with glyc or pol, sometimes with base in the form UuU. See also Introduction, p. xciii. On resolution and correspondence in aeolo-choriambic, 566 further Introduction, pp. xcii-xciii.

282

Commentary on lines 1089--1105 1123-37=1138-52

i

The second strophic pair continues in aeolo-choriambic until χ

(1134=1149), after which there is a change of metre to a long dactyh'c;

run ending in catalexis, followed by a clausular ithyphallic, a much mor'éii emphatic grand finale than the priapean dicolon (glyc + pher) Whlc]lj closed the first strophic pair. 4 The stanza begins with a dragged glyconic (see Introduction, p. Xciv); followed by a catalectic colon, a hipponactean. In both strophe and ani:g strophe, these two cola announce the theme: in the strophe, the return of Iphigenia, in the antistrophe, the longing of the chorus to return home,

The next three cola again form a corresponding section, marked off by ᾷ a

dragged tel, with verse-end made explicit in the antistrophe. In the strophe, Pan pipes the ship on its way; in the antistrophe, the chorus nnaginet hovering on wings above their former home. Then textual problems set mi :

[At 1126, L offers κάλαμος οὐρείου Πανὸς and at 1141 πτέρυγας & νώτοις duois. This produces corresponding UUU————— , which would

have to be interpreted as pol with — for ὐ But no parallel is cited for such a colon. The UU contracted into -- is even odder. While respond creates a presumption in favour of not absolute proof. 1115 worth noting that in

in the penultimate position, idea of a dragged glyc with. the fact that the cola corthe text as transmitted, it is Ls version of 1126 agreeing

words have been brought together in a way which suggests corruption..

The case is less clear at 1141, but simple transpositions turn both cola ἰηΐο normal pol. At 1132, Ls ἐμὲ & αὐτοῦ λιποῦσα is unmetrical and looks like an accidental prose paraphrase. Transferring -ca to the next

line to make that into a glyc and reading χαρίτων els ἀμίλ- (Bothe) in the antistrophe still leaves metrical nonsense (Uu——U-). At 1134 (11 in

the strophe), a tel presents no metrical problem, but in the antistrophe αβροπλουτοιο χαΐτας is completely unmétrical. Markland’s χλιδᾶς for χαίτας, producing UU-—UU~. .. makes better sense, without doing much to help the metre. Sansone’s solution, adding -as from the end of 1147 to produce —-U--UU-

corresponding with glyc at 1133 (-oa

βάσῃ ῥοθίοις πλάταις) will not do. As K. Itsumi (“The “Choriambic

Dimeter” of Euripides, CQ 32 (1982), pp. 60-1) has shown conclusively,

the iambo-choriambic dimeter belongs to a different metrical genre from glyc (and pol) and the two never correspond. εἰς éow could begm the , dactylic sequence at 1150, if one is prepared to retain Is ἀέρι & ἱστία - in 1135, s0 that the sheets spread the sall ‘bya1rBut an mtractable resi~due remains.] "

Μ

1089-1105. The opening invocation (1089 93) is clearly marked off (see . above under Metre). Then the main part of the stanza is divided, though much less emphatically, into two: 1094-7 and 1098-1105. The whole .stanza consists, in typically Euripidean style, of one long, rather rambling

Commentary on lines 1089-93

283

sentence. The syntax works as follows: (address) ὄρνις @ . . . ἀείδεις . . .

ὅτι. . . κελαδεῖς . . . (main clause) éyw . . . παραβάλλομαι... . ποθοῦσ᾽ ... Ἄρτεμιν ... ἃ ... olxel ... mapa ... 6xbov ... φοίνικά & ... δάφναν 7 . . . καὶ θαλλὸν ... λίμναν & . . . évba . . . κύκνος . . . θερα-

πεύει. At Frogs 1309, Aristophanes nicely takes off the opening address: ἀλκυόνες, αἷ παρ᾽ ἀενάοις θαλάσσης κύμασι στωμύλλετε...

His song continues with a suitably rambling sentence, which is, however, interrupted by the enigmatic observation at 1323. The metre is, as here, aeolo-choriambic, but lacks the shapeliness and coherence of a true Buripidean stanza (see Parker, Songs, pp. 504-9). 1089-93. ὄρνις . . . μολπαῖς: ‘Bird, [you] who, by the rocky ridges of the sea, sing, halcyon, a piteous lament, a cry well understood by those who understand, because you sing of [your] husband always with [your] songs. An apostrophe, a more or less realistic address to a ship, a place, a bird,

one’s own tears {1106 below) makes a typical Euripidean opening for a

stanza. Compare Frogs 1309, quoted above, and see W. Kranz, Stasimon, pp. 191, 238-40, 246-7. The halcyon was identified with the kingfisher, and

ancient writers record all sorts of bizarre facts’ about its habits. But, as K. ].

Dover says (on Frogs 1309), the literary halcyon acquired a life of its own. It also, eventually, acquired an aspirate from its supposed association with the sea (ἅλς). See W. G. Arnott, Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z, pp. 12-13, with, for the ancient sources in full, D’Arcy W. Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Birds, pp. 46-51. Typically, the Greeks attributed to the halcyon a cry like human lamentation, with an explanatory myth. For ‘mourning’ cries of birds in Euripides, see EL 151-8, Her. 110-11, 1039-41, Tro. 146-7, 828-30. The first we hear of ‘Alcyone’is in a brief allusive passage at I1. 9. 561-4, where her father and mother are said to have called Meleager’s wife, Cleopatra, Alcyone, ‘because her mother wept with the fate (?) of the halcyon: Ovid (Met. 11. 410-748) narrates, at length and with luxuriant rhetorical embellishment, the story of how Alcyone found the body of her husband, Ceyx, washed ashore after a shipwreck and the gods, out of pity, turned both into birds. On éAeyov, see above on 145-7. εὐξύνετον ξυνετοῖς: For the combination of compound and simple, compare Phoen. 1506 δυσξύνετον ξυνετὸς μέλος ἔγνω, or (with noun and adjective) Ba. 66 κάματον 7’ εὐκάματον.

[οἱἰκτρὸν: Barnes, for Ls ofrov ‘fate) lot. With Ls text, ofrov, the subject of the

halcyon’s song, has to be taken as in apposition with ἔλεγον: ‘you sing a lament, your fate. But then comes yet another noun in apposition with éAeyov, Bodv. The passage quoted in support, Ag. 11912, is far 1685 awkward: ὑμνοῦσι 8 ὕμνον δώμασιν προσήμεναι! πρώταρχον ἄτην. There, ὕμνον,

internal accusative, almost coalesces with ὑμνοῦσι and ἄτην is separated

Commentary on lines 1094-1105

“π mh.h'..'-f'.'.&.l

284

from it. οὗτον here might be thought to gain some support from I, 9, 563 where Marpessa ἀλκυόνος πολυπενθέος olrov éyovoal κλαῖεν. But there too, the text is not without problems. Leaf conjectured οἶκτον (Odyssey, not : elsewhere in the Iliad), which makes better sense: ‘having the lament of the halcyon; instead of *having the fate of the halcyon’ εὐξύνετον is a good vari.. ant, written above the line in L, in the hand of the scribe himself, ἀξύὕνετον, in the text, ‘ununderstood by those who understand’ is silly.] ες ξ 1094-7. ἐγώ ... λοχίαν: Ἱ set [my] laments beside you (1.6. in competition ! with yours), I, ἃ wingless bird, longmg for the market-places of Greece, long. . ing for Artemis of childbirth. ἄπτερος: poignant. Later (1138--42), they will*

1mag1ne themselves winged and able to fly not only home, but into their lost past. ἀγόρους: not only places where people buy and sell, but where they come together (ἀγείρω). The centres of Greek civic life. The masculine form, ἄγορος, is peculiar to Euripidean lyric. λοχίαν: Not the cruel-seeming Artemis of the Taurians whom the chorus are forced to serve, but Artemis

of Delos, the kind Artemis, helper of women. In longing for her, the chorus

long for the ordinary life of women, of which they have been deprived. παραβάλλομαι: middle, used transitively. The middle is used intransitively at Andr. 289, where the goddesses came to Paris, competing with each other (ἔβαν ... παραβαλλόμεναι). 866 Stevens on Andr. 287-8.

[θρήνους: It is not difficult to emend so as to bring the use of παραβάλλο-

μαι here into conformity with the (otherwise equally unparalleled) παρα-βαλλόμεναι at Andr. 289. Stephanus proposed θρήνοις (‘I compete with laments’) and Reiske θρηνοῦσ᾽ (T compete lamenting’). λοχίαν: Musgrave's

correction is necessary metrically. L has the more common λόχείαν, possi-

bly by correction. For the same mistake, see 206.] 1098-1105. a . . . θεραπεύει: ‘[she] who dwells beside the Cynthian ridge and the dainty-tressed palm and the flourishing bay and the sacred shoot of the grey olive, dear to the birth-pain of Leto, and the pool which swirls [its] water in a circle, where the tuneful swan serves the Muses. Here are all the circumnstances attendant upon the birth of Apollo and, in consequence, that of his twin sister, Artemis. According to. the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, Leto

gave birth leaning against Mount Cynthus, in eastern Delos (26). At the

moment of birth, she flung her arms round a palm-tree (117). The palm also

features in the Theognidea (West, IEG* I, Theognidea 7, p. 174), together with a ‘wheel-like’ pool (τροχοειδὴς λίμνη), also mentioned by Herodotus (2.170). The idea that the water flows round and round (possibly an overliteral interpretation of τροχοειδής) may be Euripides’ own. He also intro~==~-—duces more greenery to the scene: the bay (Apollo’s'own tree, Hec. 458-61, Jon 919-22) and here even the sacred tree of Athens, the olive. The rotating pool reappears in Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo, 59 περιηγέος ἐγγύθι

λίμνης. κύκλιον is predicative: not ‘circular water), but water which the pool

spins round ‘in a circle. See WS § 1043. ἁβροκόμαν: Compare Ion 920, the

Commentary on lines 1106-22 |

285

only other occurrence in Euripides, and there too of the palm beside which Leto gave birth. Aeschylus shows a taste for ἅβρο- compounds (though not this one). There are none in Sophocles. ὠδῖνε: either birth-pain, or the product, i.e. child, not always very clearly distinguished. κύκνος μελῳδὸς: The stanza began with the song of the halcyon and ends with that of the swan, a commonplace in Greek (and later) poetry; whether it is to be identified with Yeats’s ‘bell-beat’ of the wings of a flying flock of Mute Swans (Cygnus olor), or, more probably, with the trumpeting of the Whooper Swan (Cygnus cygnus). Both were probably more widespread in the Aegean region in classical times than now. See the two works quoted above on 1089-93: Arnott, pp. 122-4, and Thompson, pp. 179-86. On the association in cult of Artemis with Delos, see B. Kowalzig, Singing for the Gods,

pp. 118-24.

[Not surprisingly, copyists tended to get lost in the syntax here. θαλλὸν is a late-sixteenth-century emendation of Ls θάλλος (so accented). wdive is Portus’ correction of I's ὠδῖνα, and φίλον Markland’s of 5 φίλαν. κύκλιον: L (or a predecessor), with swans on the brain, wrote κύκνειον, which makes neither sense nor metre.]

1106-1122. At Hec. 914-42, the chorus of Trojan women sing as one woman describing her personal experience of the fall of Troy. Here, the treatment is more summary, without the intimate domestic detail. Greek cities might fall victim to non-Greeks, but in warfare between Greeks the enslavement of whole populations, or of all women and children, was common practice. According to Xenophon (Hell. 2. 2. 14), the Athenians after Aegospotami fell into despair ‘because they expected to be enslaved’ wovro yap avdparro-

δισθήσεσθαι. They had, indeed, a considerable record of enslaving others.

On the enslavement of Greeks by Greeks, see W. K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War, Pt.V, pp. 223-45, especially the table, pp. 226-34. The dread of sudden calamity was thoroughly justified in the perilous world of fifth-century Greece. Destruction might come after a long struggle, as to Plataea and Melos, but equally a normal, peaceable town might suddenly be wiped out,

like Mycalessus (Thucydides 7. 29), or Iasus. The whole population of the

latter town, slave and free, was sold in 412 BC by a force of Peloponnesians to the Persian satrap, Tissaphernes, for one Daric stater per head (Thucydides 8. 28. 4). This is one occasion where it is known that Greeks were sold by Greeks to a non-Greek. There must have been others, but generally historians lack interest in the fate of these unfortunates, beyond the fact that they were sold. It is Euripides above all who gives a voice to women who suffered this fate (but see also Trach. 298-306). A certain tragic decorum is, however, observed. Trojan women expect to be forced into concubinage by their new masters (see especially Tro. 203-4), but Greek women are not represented

suffering such degradation (Iole in Trach. is a special case). Here, as in Hel,

they are represented as serving another Greek woman.

286

Commentary on lines 1106--20

1106-1110. & πολλαὲ ... Adyxais: ‘O many streams of tears which fell on to [my] cheeks, when, [the] towers [of my city] destroyed, I went on ships, by the oars and spears of foemen. The address here corresponds in length with that to the halcyon at the opening of the strophe. πύργων ὀλομένων:

laconic, but easily understood by people to whom the towers in a city wall

are the ultimate symbol of protection and safety. ἣν μέν τις ἡμῖν πύργος. ἀσφαλὴς φανῇ ... if some unfalling tower appears for me ...’ says Medea (Med. 390). For Alcestis, a son has his father as ‘a mighty tower’ πατέρ᾽ ἔχει

πύργον uéyav (Alc. 311). Compare Psalm 61. 3 ‘a strong tower for me against

the enemy’. év ναυσὲν: the sequence of towers destroyed and women driven on shipboard recalis the fall of Troy, the fall of a city which dominates the Greek poetic imagination (Tro. 1317-32, Hec. 905-13). [ὀλομένων

ἐν: On

the

correspondence

with

1092, see above

under.

Metre. Triclinius’ οὐλομένων, producing --υὐ------Ουὐ--, is not an improvement.] 1111-16. ζαχρύσου ... μηλοθύτας: And through gold-rich trading I went oh™ a foreign journey, where I wait upon a maiden daughter of Agamemnon, servant of the deer-slaying goddess, and on altars where sheep are not sacrificed. νόστον βάρβαρον: a bold short cut for véarov γῆς BapBdpov (like

γῆς πατρῴας νόστος at 1066 above). Although νόστος (from νέομαι) is

commonly used to mean ‘return; its primary meaning is simply ‘journey’ παῖδ᾽ Ἀγαμεμνονίαν: Agamemnonian child. Poetic. Compare Ταντάλειος in 1. λατρεύω normally governs a dative, and there is no reliable parallel for

this passage. See Kithner-Gerth i, p. 411, An. 6. οὐ μηλοθύτας: enigmatic and sinister.

-

ἱνόστον: There 15 one example in the Odyssey (5.344--5) of νόστος meaning ‘journey, not ‘return. See Chantraine under νέομαι and H. Lloyd-Jones

and N. G. Wilson, Sophocles: Second Thoughts (Goéttingen, 1997), p. 104 (on

Phil. 43-4). In the present passage, however, νόστον can hardly mean ‘journey to one’s desired goal. λατρεύω: At El. 131, L gives λατρεύεις governing an accusative, and Denniston (ad loc.) defends it. But there Hartung’s ἀλα-

τεύεις makes better sense. 7’ οὐ μηλοθύτας: Musgrave’s correction of Ls

τοὺς μηλοθύτας must be right. The point here is that sheep are not sacrificed at these altars, and without τίε) there is no way to fit another accusa-

tive into the sentence, since the altars must be another object of λατρεύω in addition to κόραν.] 1117-20. ζηλοῦσα ... δυσδαιμονίᾳ: ‘Envying the permanently unfortunate. For under forced pains he does not grow weary, being companion in life with misfortune. At Hel. 417-19, Menelaus makes the same point in more

prosaic language: ὅταν δ᾽ ἀνὴρ! πράξῃ κακῶς ὑψηλός, εἰς dnbiov/ πίπτει

κακίω τοῦ πάλαι δυσδαίμονος ‘When a man of high position suffers misfortune, he falls into an unaccustomed state, worse than the man who has long been unfortunate. On the fall of noble personages into slavery, see E. M.

Commentary on lines 1121-2

287

Hall, “The Sociology of Athenian Tragedy) in P. Ε. Easterling (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy, p. 111.'The chorus do not make comparison explicitly, but the phraseology suggests a comparison with born to slavery. The essence of the slave’s misfortune is that he is always

The the one and

in all respects under compulsion (ἀνάγκη) from others.

[ζηλοῦσα Tov: ]. P.E. Greverus, for Ls ζηλοῦσ' ἄταν (‘envying disaster’). The

correction, which involves a change of word-division and of just one letter, : must be right. κάμνει: Another necessary correction (for I's κάμνεις) by Milton. According to Prinz—-Wecklein, also found in some late MSS. ἐμεταβάλλειϊ: A difficult problem. L has μεταβάλλει δυσδαιμονία ‘misfortune changes. But that is an optimistic message, and, for the man about whom we have just heard, it is exactly what misfortune does not do. The same objec-

...,» tion applies to Willink’s μεταβάλῃ, which 15 accepted by Kovacs, and trans-

* lated ‘whose companion has been shifting misery. Those critics (Badham, Wecklein, Platnauer) are most probably right who suspect that μεταβάλλει τ has found its way into the text from a gloss on 1121, and may, therefore, have displaced somthing completely different. The dative δυσδαιμονίᾳ (Bothe) is an improvement. Without it, ἀνάγκαις has to be understood from év ἀνάγκαις to provide something with which the unfortunate man can be σύντροφος.Α good suggestion to replace μεταβάλλει is Wecklein's €€ ἀρχᾶς ‘companion in life from the beginning with misfortune. Cropp

adopts

Markland’s μεταβάλλει 8 εὐδαιμονία ‘good fortune changes, and argues in favour of it at ICS 22 (1997), pp. 39-40. But this does not follow well on the

previous sentence. It has not been claimed that bad fortune does not ever change, nor can it be asserted that good fortune is generally more liable to change than bad. Musgrave’s μεταβάλλειν δυσδαιμονία change is misfortune’ (accepted by Diggle) is open to two objections. In the first place, although the article is theoretically unnecessary, the words are hard to understand without it. Contrast 76 ... κακοῦσθαι ... βαρὺς aldw at 1121-2, Secondly, the sentiment 15 awkwardly placed. ‘Change spells misery’ would serve as a summing-up after 1122, but coming immediately after the mention of the permanently unfortunate man, it points to the conclusion that a change to (presumably good) fortune would make him miserable. Surely not.]

1121-2. 76 8¢ . .. αἰών: ‘But to be in misery after good fortune is a heavy life

for mortals’ See on 1117-20 above, also Her. 1291-3 (although the lines look out of place in the context. See Bond, ad loc.), Tro. 639-44 and, for a

prolonged reflexion on different combinations of good and bad fortune, TrGF 5. 1, Bellerophon, fr. 285. For the construction, compare Ba. 396-7 76 τε μὴ θνατὰ φρονεῖν βραχὺς αἰών “To think non-mortal thoughts spells short life. On βαρύς meaning ‘painful’ or ‘sad; like ‘heavy’ in Shakespeare, see on βάρος at 598 above. [I punctuate Ba. 395-9 as in Diggle’s text. Following Brodaeus in punctuating after ¢poveiv and making βραχὺς αἰών into an independent statement

288

Commentary on lines 1123--7

(‘life is short’) might seem to provide a smoother introduction to what fo].

lows, but it banalizes the sense and leaves 76 τε μὴ θνατὰ φρονεῖν hanging

unhappily on to the tail of the aphorism 76 σοφὸν δ᾽ οὐ σοφία. The parallelism of sound and construction with IT 1121-2 (noted in Diggle’s apparatus) also weighs in some degree in favour of taking τό τε μὴ ... aldv together,

The combination of sound and structure could have bobbed up, as it were,

in the poet’s memory. 8¢ in 1121, the original reading of L, was changed by Triclinius to yap, no doubt to secure correspondence with κύκνειον at 1104, Monk shrewdly remarks: “The hand of the corrector, who appears to have been ignorant of all metrical laws; and attentive only to the exact syllabic correspondence of the stanzas, is visible all through this Chorus. εὐτυχίαν: Scaliger, for Ls εὐτυχίας. Good fortune in the abstract is singular. The word

is found in the plural meaning ‘pieces of luck] ‘successes; as at Ion 482 and

Hypsipyle, TrGF 5. 2, fr. 759a. 1609 (= 89), where it 15 paired with κακά, or

Ion 1505, paired with δυστύχιαι.) 1123-37. The chorus turn to Iphigenia and her happy fate in contrast with their own. The idealized vision of the ship speeding on its way accompanied by gods almost suggests a baroque painting. Helen's return home at Hel. 14511511 15 given similarly idealized and picturesque treatment, ΟἹ a much larger scale. For an address by a chorus to an absent character, compare Cho. 827-30 and Med. 990-5, and see D. ]. Mastronarde, Contact and Discontinuity, p. 98. 1123-4. καὶ o€ ... ἄξει: And you, princess, an Argive penteconter will ¢ home. σὲ μὲν: The contrasting ἐμὲ 8(¢) will come at 1132. & πότνι:

Elsewhere in this play only Artemis is so addressed, but that does not mean that she is addressed here. For πότνια of human beings, see El. 487, Tro. 293. πεντηκόντερος: ἃ fifty-oared fighting ship, the standard ship of the line

before the fifth-century trireme, with which it continued to coexist. Exactly

the right craft for such a mission as Orestes’ ‘Very likely it [the penteconter] gained favor after experience proved it to be a particularly efficient size! See L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, pp. 58-9 and 61-3. For a representation of a single-banked penteconter, see fig. 89, with doublebanked at fig. 88 above, and for the difference in build between a fighting ship and a merchantman, figs. 81 and 82. . [πεντηκόντερος: ΟἹ the spelling, see Kannicht on Hel. 1412 and Threatte I, p.437.] . 1125-7. συρίζων ... ἐπιθωύξει: “Whistling shrill, the wax-bound reed of

mountain Pan gives the command to the oars’ The κελευστής (rowing-

ῳ master, boatswain) would set the stroke (see 1405 below) and the αὐλητής - ----—-would- pipe-to-keep-the-rowers-in time: According to Athenaeus (12. 535d), Alcibiades, returning to Athens in 408 BC, sailed into Piraeus in a trireme with purple sails, with a celebrated tragic actor giving the stroke, while a prize-

winning professional musician ‘piped the trireme tune’ (ἠύλει 76 τριηρικόν). . Orestes is set to trump that, Pan's Κάλαμος means the syrinx, or Pan-pipe. In

Commentary on lines 1128-.37

289

the earliest representation of the instrument (on the Frangois vase), it is being

played by one of the Muses, but Pan himself was the celestial wind-player par excellence. On the Pan-pipe, see ]. G. Landels, Music in Ancient Greece and Rome, pp. 69-71. The worship of Pan came to Athens early in the fifth century. Herodotus (6. 105) tells a story of its introduction.

[συρίζων θ᾽: Elmsley proposed & for L's 8} which is confusing after μὲν in

1123, while & pairs well with θ᾽ in 1128. κηρόδετος: Porson proposed substituting the normal Attic form for such compounds, in place of Ls

κηροδέτας. On the word-order in 1126, see above on Metre.]

1128-31. ὁ Φοῖβός ... γᾶν: And Phoebus the seer, holding the sound of the seven-stringed lyre, singing will guide you well to the gleaming land of the Athenians. It has been Apollo, in his role as prophetic god, who has been

guiding Orestes’ fortunes 811 along. Now, as musical god, he joins in the con-

cert. Unlike a boatswain, a seer was not a normal member of the crew of a

warship in classical times, but at Π 1. 69-72, Calchas is said to have guided

the Achaeans’ ships to Troy: νήεσσ᾽ ἡγήσατ᾽ Ἀχαιῶν Ἴλιον εἴσω ! ἣν διὰ μαντοσύνην, τήν οἱ πόρε Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων. At 1124, the ship was to take

Iphigenia ‘home, but here the destination turns out to be Athens, where the image is to go. The chorus, in lyric mode, see beyond what they ‘know’ as ordinary characters in the play. λιπαρὰν suggests both ‘rich’ and ‘beautiful’ Pindar applied the word to Athens at Nem. 4. 18-19 and, most memorably,

at Snell-Maehler, fr. 76:

΄

ὦ ταὶ λιπαραὶ καὶ ἰοστέφανοι καὶ ἀοίδιμοι, κ

4

4

\

3

3

\

>

7

Ἑλλάδος ἔρεισμα, κλειναὶ Ἀθᾶναι,

δαιμόνιον πτολίεθρον....

Evidently, the Athenians found this exceedingly gratifying. For Euripides, the word becomes a recurrent epithet for Athens. See Alc. 452 and Tro. 803. In frivolous mode, Aristophanes calls it an epithet for whitebait (Ach. 640), but also uses it seriously at Knights 1329 and Clouds 300. [εὖ σ᾽ Ἀθηναίων: L offers és Ἀθηναίων ἐπὶ γᾶν. és is manifestly redundant. εὖ σ᾽ is Bothe’s emendation. Compare εὖ &’ és πάτραν πλεύσαιμεν at Hec. 1291.]

1132-3. ἐμὲ & ... πλάταις: ‘But leaving me here, you will go with plashing

oar-blades. ῥοθίοις πλάταις: Instrumental dative: by means of”. ῥόθιος can

be both an adjective, as here, and a noun, as at 407 above. Either way, it indicates sound. For 8 list of adjectives which Euripides uses with ‘oar; see Diggle, Euripidea, p. 499, n:29; and on ῥόθιον his note on Phaethon 80. [+éué & ... Auroboat: prose. See under Metre above.] 1135-7. ἱστία & ... ὠκυπόμπου: ‘And the sheets will spread the sail against the forestays, out over the bows, beyond the prow of the swift-conveying ship. Once the ship 15 under way; the sail is hoisted. It was only during battle

290

Commentary on lines 1138-42

or in emergencies that all oars were manned. Sails were used as much 5

possible’—L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, p. 280, I,

order to speed the ship, some or all of the oars could be manned with the gaj] spread. For (apparent) representations of two-banked ships with only the upper bank manned, see Casson, fig. 88; the wicked little pirate-ships in figs, 81 and 82, who are making the best speed they can, row with sail spread.

ἱστία: a Greek ship had only one sail, but the word is commonly used in the plural, like, for example, δώματα *house’ (in poetry). πρότονοι, ‘forestays,

were lines running from the masthead to a point well forward in the ship, and their function was to hold the mast steady. στόλον: For στόλος mean.ing ‘prow, 866 Pers. 408, πόδες, ‘sheets, were the lines controlling the bottom

corners of the sail. On alliteration with 7, see above on 309.

[Ls text, ἀέρι & ἱστία πρότονοι ... ékmerdoovow πόδα is nonsense. The

forestays cannot spread the sail, and πόδα has no place in the construction. 'The reconstruction of the text that I print 15 Platnauer’s, which at least makes sense and metre. He takes ἀέρι to be an incorporated gloss (an explanation

of what it is that makes the sail belly out?). Seidler suggested πόδες.]

1138-9. λαμπροὺς ... πῦρ: ‘Would that I might travel the shining chariot-

ways, where the fine-sunned fire goes. ‘Fine-sunned fire’="fire of the fine

sun, Compare κώπᾳ χιλιοναύτᾳ, ‘thousand-shipped oar) at 141, and see Breitenbach, Untersuchungen, . 206. The wish to fly away from present troubles, like a bird, goes back to Alcman (PMG and PMGF 26), who, in old age, wishes to be ‘the sea-purple bird’ ὅς τ᾽ ἐπὶ κύματος ἄνθος ἅμ᾽ ἀλκυόνεσσι ποτήται. The idea evidently appealed to Euripides. In addition to this passage, see Hipp. 732-41, Andr. 861-2, Ion 796-9, and Hel. 1478-86. These Euripidean fantasies of escape are distinctive, and should not be bundled together with passages where choruses simply wish to be elsewhere. What ‘was in the mind of the character in Sophocles’ Oenomaus (TrGF 4. fr. 476) who wanted to be an eagle and fly over the sea‘we do not know, but the eagle

is not a bird particularly associated with escape. At OC 1044 ff,, the chorus want to be in a position to watch the battle between Theseus’ forces and the Thebans, while Ajax’s sailors at Aj. 121622 merely want to be sailing home.

[λαμπροὺς ἱπποδρόμους: Triclinius’ emendation to λαμπρὸν ἱππόδρομον

is a manifestation of that obsession with strict syllable-to-syllable correspondence observed by Monk. His knowledge of metre did not extend to an understanding of permissible variation between strophe and antistrophe. See Introduction, p. cii.}

1140-2. οἰκείων & ... θοάζουσα: ‘And may I cease rapid movement of the

~-—--wings-on-my -back-above -the-chambers-of -[my] home." A- double-impos-

sibility: they want not only to fly away, but to fly into the past, to their lost homes and girlhood. λήξαιμι and θοάζουσα go together: ‘cease hastening,

θοάζω, related to θέω ‘to run, θοός ‘swift, is used by Euripides both transi-

tively (as here) and intransitively.

Commentary on lines 1143--52

291

[On Fritzsche’s rearrangement of the word-order in 1141, see under Metre

above.]

΄

.

1143--52. χοροῖς ... ἐσκίαζον: And would that I might stand in the dances where also as a maiden ...’ The chorus speak as one woman. From this point on we have a string of words which suggest what they must be saying, but which do not hang together syntactically. Possibly at some stage in the tradition a scribe lost himself badly in the syntax (see above on 1098-1105), or the text was partially obliterated and a copyist wrote what he thought he could see. Singing and dancing in some sort of public celebration would be the greatest occasion in the life of an aristocratic young girl. The collective woman of the chorus longs to return to such an occasion in her past.In 1144, there is much to be said for Kochly’s εὐδοκίμων δόμων ‘maiden of a noble house’ (poetic plural). She was ‘whirling her foot’ (748’ εἱλίσσουσα) in the dance. Her mother was present (φίλας parépos) and festive bands of her age-

mates (ἡλίκων θιάσους). There was a ‘contest of grace’ (ἁμίλλας yapirwv).In

1149, Markland was surely right to propose χλιδᾶς for Is yaiTas (‘strife of

hair’ is hardly possible). Taking this up, England produces ἀβροπλούτου 7€

χλιδᾶς which, paired with χαρίτων, gives ‘contests of grace and luxurious

elegance, Compare PV 466 ἄγαλμα τῆς ὑπερπλούτου χλιδῆς ‘an ornament

of hugely wealthy luxury. She was ‘setting out to the contest’ (eis épw ὀρνυμένα). She has wrapped round her an ‘intricately embroidered shawl’

(πολυποίκιλα φάρεα περιβαλλομένα). But she could not, as the Greek would

have it, wrap Tocks’ (πλοκάμους) round herself as well. Rather, she ‘was shading’ her cheeks with the locks (reading yévvas (Markland) in place of the dative γένυσιν). Unlike married women, young Greek girls wore their hair loose. ἐσκίαζον is the only finite verb in the passage as it stands. The longest fragment of a ‘Maidens’ Song’ (παρθένειον) left to us is Alcman, PMG=PMGF 1 (P. Louvr. E 3320). That enigmatic and controver-

sial poem shows points of contact with this stanza, There is the same con-

cern for finery (64-9) and hair (514,70, and 566 also Alcman, fr. 3. 1.9),and

a competition of some kind is envisaged. For a comprehensive study of girls’ choruses, see C. Calame, Les choeurs de jeunes filles en Gréce archaigue. Interestingly, if archaeological evidence is to be trusted, choruses of women or girls were much more common than choruses of men. Education in music and dancing was shared by women (Calame, p. 62, citing the research of R. Crowhurst, Representations of Choral Lyric on the Greek Monuments (thesis, London, 1963)). The word ἑλέσσω (or εἱλίσσω) is used repeatedly

by Euripides in the context of dancing. The dancer may whirl her foot, as at 1145 here and Tro. 333, or herself (Her. 690, Phoen. 234-6, Ba. 567-70, IA

1055). Calame takes the word as indicating round dances. [δ᾽ ἐνσταίην: Platnauer. This accounts for the dative χοροῖς in a way that I's ¢

σταίην fails to do. Platnauer compares Supp. 896 Adxots &’ ἐνεστώς ‘standing

in the companies’ (of soldiers). δόμων: Ls γάμων is impossible. Young girls’

292

Commentary on lines 1153-1221

dances did feature at weddings, but that idea cannot be extracted from ‘maiden of noble marriages. Nor could it possibly mean ‘destined for a noble marriage! Nor can the words be taken with χοροῖς ('dances of noble weddings’), for they are in a different clause. πλοκάμους also presents an intractable problem. The girl might, as Platnauer proposes, use ‘veil and curls to shade her cheeks] byt περιβαλλομένα throwing round, ‘putting on) remains an inappropriate ver} to govern πλοκάμους. It will be seen that I agree with Diggle in regarding most of this passage as hopelessly corrupt. Platnauer provides a good discuyssion of the problems (although I do not accept his treatment of the last two lines). More optimistic views are taken by Kovacs and Sansone.]

1153-1221. Enter Thoas with a sizeable retinue, some members of which wil]

be sent off on various errands in the course of the scene. The entrance is unannounced, but hardly unexpected, and doubtless makes an arresting

spectacle. There will surely have been plenty of Athenians ready to perform as extras in this great civic festival. The stereotypical image of the ‘clever Greek’ deceiving the ‘stupid barbarian’ seriously hinders appreciation of the skill of Euripides in devising both this scene and the comparable scene of the deception of Theoclymenus in Hel. In the first place, both men are strongly predisposed to be deceived, Theoclymenus because he is besotted with Helen and overjoyed that she is to be his at last, Thoas because he trusts Iphigenia implicitly. Then, both are anxious to do the right thing. The coming scene is full of tension and irony. Thoas asks shrewd and pertinent questions (1164, 1166, 1178, 1196). He shows signs of impatience (1190, 1196). Once, following a lead from Iphigenia, he comes dangerously close to the truth (1184). The lives of her brother, her cousin, and herself depend on the courage and presence of mind of this Greek woman. But Iphigenia has thought out her plan carefully, her story is based on the truth, and she knows

Thoas. She is sure that she can persuade him (742, 1049). She knows that he

is firmly convinced that his high priestess is devoted to the interests of his

people and himself (1212-13). He is not alone in this belief, Earlier in the

play (336-9), the herdsman assumed that Iphigenia would relish sacrificing

Greeks. When she says in this scene that she hates all Greeks (1187), she is

telling Thoas what he and all the other Taurians think they know. Later, the ‘Taurians sent to escort her with the two Greeks and the image are very slow to recognize that she is involved in the escape-plot. Indeed, they do not

recognize it until Orestes tells them (1361-3). Up to that point, they had thought that the Greeks would kill her (1340-1), or kidnap her to be sold into slavery (1360). The Taurians have never been in Iphigenia's confidence, ‘as have the chorus and we, the audience. Finally, there is a nice Euripidean irony to be enjoyed. This king, the devotee of a particularly nasty and impious cult, is, in his way, a model of piety. And this too proves to be a weak point. In a judicious treatment of this scene, Kyriakou (Commentary, pp. 370-1) observes: “Thoas’ deception hinges ... on his concern with piety

Commentary on lines 1153--9

293

and ritual correctness. This deception is the culmination of a dramatic

strategy carefully devised and pursued by the poet.

On this scene, see also Β. Seidensticker, Palintonos Harmonia, pp. 208-9.

1153-5. ποῦ o8’ ... πυρί: ‘Where 15 the Greek woman, door-keeper of these halls? Has she already started on [the sacrifice of] these strangers? [Are they already glowing with respect to the body in the pure shrine?]’ Thoas speaks of Iphigenia in highly formal terms, as befits their relationship. She is the πυλωρός of the temple; at 131 she was κλῃδοῦχος, the ‘keyholder. κατήρξατο: κατάρχομαι is the technical term for the preliminary rites for a sacrifice. The priest ‘starts on’ the victim. At 56 above, Iphigenia dreamed that she was ‘starting on’ the column that represented Orestes. 1155 must be interpolated. Burning the bodies was the last stage of the sacrifice. When Thoas asks whether the initial rites have been performed, he evidently intends to be present for the main part of the ceremony. Nor does it make sense to ask ‘Has she started? Is it over?’ ᾽σθ᾽Ξ ἐστι. [Kovacs (Euripidea Tertia, p. 51) lists this line among other interpolations for which there seems no obvious explanation. Possibly the interpolator had a taste for the gruesome. The use of λάμπομαι is dubious. The word is used

figuratively of virtue, or eyes, or faces, and literally of sources of light, such 85 fire. That hardly suits 2 body on a pyre. Some editors have tried emending the verb, but excision of the whole line is the best solution.]

1157-8. éa ... ὠλέναις: Ah! Why, child of Agamemnon, are you removing in your arms this image here of the goddess from [its] immovable base?’ Thoas gives a gasp of surprise loud enough to be heard by the audience at the sight of Iphigenia emerging from the temple with the image of Artemis. The audience’s attention will be gripped too. The image in her arms must look like one

with which many of them are familiar. There is a somewhat similar moment at Hel. 1176-92, when Theoclymenus notices, first, that Helen has left Proteus’

tomb, then sees her enter from the house in full mourning, ἔα is sometimes

said to be colloquial, but there is no adequate evidence for that. Apart from a couple of occurrences in Plato, it is confined to drama: half a dozen times in Aeschylus, thrice in Sophocles, quite frequently in Euripides, eight times in Aristophanes (including three times in Thesm.). It is best regarded as dramatic: a way of representing a noise that people make in plays, borrowed by Plato for fun. See Collard,‘Colloquial Language, p. 362. ueraipets . . «ἀκινήτων is not quite an oxymoron: she has not moved the base. But ‘immovable’ con. tributes to the sense of the strangeness of what she has done. βάθρων: poetic plural, like κρηπῖδας at 997 above. See Kithner-Gerth i, p. 18. 1159. dvaf . .. παραστάσνν: King, hold back your foot there, in the porticol’ Good tactics. Iphigenia plays up the drama of the situation. It suits her to discompose Thoas. ἐν παραστάσιν: παραστάδες (παραστάς -ados) are, in architecture, ‘standers beside. Theoretically, they could be doorposts, but that is impossible here, since Thoas must still be outside the temple.

Commentary on lines 1160--7

Presumably they are the pillars of the portico. This is a Doric templ

AL Ἱ.Λ.Ἱἰι.:-ἶζἰι .

294 (above, 113)

1160-1. τί & ... τόδε: T. “What is there new and strange in the temple,;i Iphigenia?’ 1. ‘T have spat it out! For I give this utterance to Reverence She. continues to work up his anxiety and puzzlement. On καινὸν 566 above op

1029. ἀπέπτυσί(α) expresses violent disgust and rejection. See M. Lioyd,

“The Tragic Aorist, CQ 49 (1999), pp. 26-8. Here, she is rejecting what she. will claim has happened, but Thoas does not as yet know what she is ta]kmg;

about. Ὁσίᾳ: correct, respectful behaviour towards the gods (see Chadwick, pp. 221-2), here personified, as at Ba. 370 Ὁσία πότνα fedv. .. ‘Greek poets

from Homer downwards have this way of personalizing and objectifying abstractions, but Eur. has an especial fondness for it'—E. R. Dodds on Βα. 370--2. Aristophanes, at-Frogs 8923, makes ‘Eunpldes pray to his own pri:-

vate gods, Αἰθήρ, Γλώττης Στρόφιγξ and Ξύνεσις ‘Sky, “Tongue-swivel

and ‘Sagacity. i Iy [For θεαν at Ba. 370, see Diggle, MD 57 (2006), p. 104.] 1162--3. τί... ἄναξ: T.“What new, strange preface are you uttering? Speak out: clearly! I. ‘Not pure are the victims that you have caught for me, king’ ἀπέπτυσ(α) κτλ. was the mysterious ‘preface; or ‘prelude’ veoyudv: Another, ‘strong’ word for ‘new’ Thus, Pentheus bursts on to the stage at Ba. 215—16“ saying that he hears that there are ‘new and strange evil things’abroad in the

city: κλύω 8¢ νεοχμὰ τήνδ᾽ ἀνὰ πτόλιν κακά. Compare Hipp. 866:

ἠγρεύσασθ(ε): As Cropp observes, the word suits hunting wild beasts, but 1t

does not quite suit sacrificial victims, which are ordinarily domestic am-

mals. But these victims are ‘wild. 1164-5. 7{ ... ἀπεστράφη: Τ. ‘What was it that taught you this? Or do you speak of conjecture?’ I.“The image of the goddess turned round away from

- [its normal] position. Plutarch (Camzllus 6. 4) says that men of former times

tell of ‘turning away of images’ (ἀποστροφάς... ξοάνων). Platnauer cites two cases from Roman history where images were said to have turned: a statue of victory at Elis (Caesar, Bel. Civ. 3. 105), and Tacitus, in one of his

lists of portents (Hist. 1. 86), says that a statue of Julius Caesar on the island in the Tiber had allegedly turned from west to east ‘on a clear, still day’

τοὐκδιδάξαν--τὸ ἐκδιδάξαν. δόξαν: ‘Opinion, as distinct from knowledge:

πάλιν: ‘back), ‘backward, the usual sense in epic, which continues into classical Greek. é’8pag° genitive of separation with ἀπεστράφη. 3 1166-7. αὐτόματον... ξυνήρμοσεν: Τ. Of its own accord, or did an earth+ tremor turn it?’ I ὍΣ its own accord, and it closed the sight of [its] eyes:

'Thoas-asks an-important-question: the-first to-be-asked when a portent'is reported. Compare Tacitus’ mention of the turning of Caesar’s statue (above

on 1164-5). He specifies that it happened on a still day. So there was no

apparent natural cause, But this hint of scepticism is unwelcome to Iphlgema - she adds a further manifestation.

ἷ

'‘Commentary on lines 1168--4

295

1168-9. ἡ & ...dedpaxarov: T.And what [was] the cause? Was it perhaps the pollution of the strangers?’ I. “That. Nothing else. For the pair have done dreadful things. ξένων: Throughout, Thoas uses the word that, coming from

a Greek, should have assured the men safety and hospitality. Interrogative %

is common in tragedy, and a particular use is to introduce, as here, a suggested answer to a question already asked. See Denniston, pp. 282-3. [4: Triclinius, for Us 7). Simple and obviously right. Dobree’s τι for 76 (‘s it

perhaps some pollution ...?’) is not an improvement. Thoas already knows that the men are polluted (1163).] |

1170-1. ἀλλ 9} .. . κεκτημένοι: T.‘Well, did they, then, kill one of the natives on the shore?’ I. ‘Kindred [was] the blood of killing [that] they came here possessed of’ βαρβάρων: The word need not have pejorative connotations, and Thoas uses it simply to mean non-Greeks, that is ‘our people’ Non-Greeks

in tragedy habitually refer to themselves as βάρβαροι. See Pers. passim, Tro. 477,771, 1277. But the word is used elsewhere in this play in interesting ways.

See below on 1174 and 1337-8. Euripides uses ‘Taurian’ twice near the beginning of the play, so as to be specific. See 30 and 85. Athene uses it

necessarily at 1454. ἀλλ᾽ ἦ: ἀλλὰ here 15 progressive, very much like 8¢. #:

interrogative again. The introductory question 15 still ἡ δ᾽ αἰτία τίς; in 1168. oixeiovis predicative, not attributive (‘kindred blood’). κεκτημένοι: κτάομαι is used with a much wider range of objects than our ‘possess’ It can, in particular, be used with ‘disease’ See Or. 305 (literal) and Ion 591 and TrGF 5. 1, fr. 400. 2. (both figurative). Here, one could almost say ‘infected. On the infectiousness of pollution, see the excellent note by Bond on Her. 1155 ff., and on the ambiguities of attitude to pollution in the tragedians, Β. Parker’s interesting discussion, Miasma, pp. 308-21 and also on 693-4 above,

1172-4. 7. . . 7es ἄν: T.“What [¢Jvov]? For I have fallen into desire to know? I.“They killed their mother with partner sword. T.Apollo! Not even among barbarians would anyone have dared [that]! According to Herodotus

(1. 137), the Persians said that no Persian had ever killed his father or his

mother. eis ἔρον . . . πεπτώκαμεν: He is agog to know, consumed by curios-

ity. κοινωνῷ ξίφει: a bold expression. This is the only example of κοινωνός used as an adjective cited by LS]. It is not strictly correct that ‘they killed their mother} but everyone still assumes, as Iphigenia did at first, that the

two men are brothers. πολλον: there is irony in Thoas’ choice of god, since

Apollo commanded the murder. In his following comment, οὐδ(έ) is disconcerting. Not even’ makes Thoas apparently subscribe to the view that non-Greeks can be expected to behave worse than Greeks. The same prob-

lem is raised by Andromache’s cry at Tro. 764 & BdpBap’ ἐξευρόντες Ἕλληνες κακά ‘O Greeks, discoverers of barbarian atrocities!” In both pas-

sages there is irony, but in IT it is slightly easier to see it as intended by the speaker. The word ‘barbarian’ is, as it were, in quotation marks: ‘You Greeks attribute all sorts of wickedness to us, non-Greeks ...> Greek legend is, of

296

Commentary on lines 1175-82

course, full of hideous crimes. See Ε, Hall, Inventing the Barbarian, Ρ. 188 ,͵᾽

:[κατειργασαντο Triclinius’ correction of Ls sunple slip, κατειργάσατο. ἓ

κοινωνῷ ξίφει: The adjectlval use of κοινωνός has aroused suspicions.. ,ἰ

Bruhn proposed κοινουργῷ, a word not found in tragedy. Jackson} (Marginalia Scaenica,p. 187) suggested κοινωνὼ ξίφους ‘sharers [nomma-afi

tive dual] in the sword’ It seems preferable, however, to allow Euripides;;᾽

some linguistic latitude. Some scribe thought that ἔτλῃ needed an object -

. and wrote τόδ᾽ before it contra metrum. But the object can easily be sup-; ;

plied. τόδ᾽ was deleted by Gaisford. Other, more elaborate, re-writings have Ξ . been attempted.] 1175. πάσης... Ἑλλάδος: By pursuits they were dnven from the whole of ' Greece. Iphigenia slightly distorts events so 85 to make the point that Greeks ᾿ἴοο found the crime abhorrent. διωγμοῖς: The word reappears at 1324 and. 1435 below. Uncommon, but see Aeschylus, Supp. 148 and 1046. Compare

τποποῦσνν ’.

1

- τῶς

δρασμοῖς at 891 above and δρασμοῦ at 1300 below. 1176-7.4) τῶνδ᾽... φόνου: T. Then for this reason you are carrying the image outside?” I. ‘[Yes,] under the reverend sky, so that I may move it away from murder’ Again, pollution is akin to infection: it is dispelled by fresh air. So_ " trials for murder at Athens were held in the open aix, lest the jury should. ἢ

‘catch’ pollution from the accused. See Antiphon, On the Murder of Herodes: '11. To take an extreme case involving a sacred image, when a man hanged himself behind the image in the temple of the Sun at Lindus, the Lindians

were advised to take off the part of the roof above the image, and keep it offfor three days (FGrH 532 D (2)). There, water too was involved (as it will be here): the rain of Zeus would purify. σεμνόν: demanding reverence, whether

appropnately for the divine, or inappropriately, for the human.

.

1178-80. μίασμα & ... καλῶς: T.In what manner did you find out the pollu—

. tion of the two strangers?’ I. T questioned [them] when the image of the goddess turned round. Τ. ‘Greece reared you clever, since you perceived well’ Again, Thoas asks a sensible question and Iphigenia produces a good answer. She is, indeed, σοφή, as Thoas says (with a compliment to Greece in passing). Irony, of course. 1181-2. καὶ μὴν . . . σοι: 1. “Then, they dropped a sweet bait for my mind. Τ. ‘Bringing some [news] as a charm from those in Argos to you?’ Iphigenia takes the initiative. She gives herself the opportunity to assert her own

incorruptibility. καὲ μὴν introduces a new point. See Denniston, pp. 3512. καθεῖσαν (from καθίημι ἴο send down’) suits the fishing metaphor. The metaphor is less clear at Tro. 700, where Hecuba speaks of ‘giving a

~bait’ (διδοῦσὰ δέλεαρ). φρενῶνε the genitive seems less natural to υ

than a dative (as at Tro. 700), but see Andr. 264 σου δέλεαρ ‘a bait for γουAt Hel. 755, however, Biov ... δέλεαρ means ‘a temptation belonging

to life. φίλτρον:. a ‘potion, ‘charm; ‘spell. A change of metaphor. τῶν Ἀργόθεν: Compendious. Not ‘those from Argos) but ‘from those in Argos,

Commeritary on lines 1183-91

297

like Med. 506 τοῖς ... οἴκοθεν φίλοις Ο my friends at home, and see on 1409-10.

[μὴν: Monk, for I's νῦν. καθεῖσαν: Triclinius, for Ls καθῆσαν. Both minor

corrections. M. Stokes (Owls to Athens, ed. E. Craik, p. 15) wishes to accept

Is 7{ φίλτρον. But this will not do. It attributes too much knowledge to

Thoas. Iphigenia has said “They tempted me with something nice. He can ask ‘Was it news from your people in Argos?’ but not-"What news from your people in Argos?’] | : 1183--5. τὸν μόνον ... ἐμόν: L *[Yes.] That my one and only brother, Orestes, has good fortune! 7.’Ah! In order that you might save them through pleasure at [their] news?’ L.%.. and that [my] father lives and fares well’ Thoas makes

the obvious deduction. τὸν μόνον receives heavy emphasis by its position. éuov too adds emphasis, for ‘my’ need not have been expressed. δὴ with ws (or iva) in a purpose clause registers perception of a stratagem. See Denniston,

p- 232. warépa. ye: with γε, she concentrates attention on ‘father. The men-

tion of Agamemnon is calculated to remind Thoas of the sacrifice and make him receptive to 1187. As Thoas sees it, the news that the father who tried to kill her is alive and well would constitute a provocation to Iphigenia. 1186-7. σὺ δ᾽.. .ἀπώλεσεν: T. But you, naturally, turned away to the goddess’s side] I, ‘[Yes,] hating all Greece, which destroyed me. ἐξένευσας, from ἐκνεύω (intransitive), means basically ‘to turn the head aside’ Both here and

at Phoen. 1268 (suspect) it is a matter of turning aside towards something. Away from what is not specified in either passage, but here it must be the temptation offered by the prisoners. We know that Iphigenia does not hate

all Greece, but, naturally enough, the Taurians assume that she does. That was what the Taurian Herdsman assumed at 337-9 above. Now we see how 'Thoas comes to be deceived with such comparative ease.ye in 1187 signifies assent, while also highlighting πᾶσάν.

1188-9. τί δῆτα ... σέβειν: Τ. Then what should we do, say, about the stran-

gers?’ I.‘[We] must respect the law which 15 established. δῆτα: ‘A lively particle’ (Denniston, p. 269). In a question, it marks a logical connection with what precedes 1190-1. οὔκουν. .. θέλω: T.“Then are not your lustrations and sword at work?’ L ‘First I want to wash them [the prisoners] with pure cleansings. Thoas has in mind the preliminary rites of sacrifice mentioned at 53-4 and 244 above. On lustration, see on 244-5. At Alc. 28, Death enters as a sacrificing priest, with a sword to cut a lock from Alcestis’ head. In Iphigenia’s dream, the column which represented Orestes and on which she carried out the preliminary rites had hair (50-2). There is a reminder here that Thoas is dangerous to deal with: οὕκουν introduces an impatient and excited question. See WS 5 2953d and Kithner-Gerth ii, pp. 166-7. év ἔργῳ: as of the efforts to put

out the illusory fire in Pentheus’ house at Ba. 626 ἅπας &’ ἐν ἔργῳ δοῦλος ἦν ‘and every slave was at work.

298

Commentary on lines 1192--1202

[ουκουν. Markland, ἔογ Ls οὐκοῦν, in which οὖν is the dominant ἰάρα,β οὐκοῦν belongs to calm and rational discussion, such as Socratic dlalogue'z

(Plato, Xenophon) For the same emendation, see also 1196 below.] . 1192-3. πηγαῖσιν... κακά: Τ. ὙΠ spnngs of sweet water, or sea-water?’ 1 ς

“The sea washes away all the evils of men On the uses of sea-water and spnng-water for cleansmg pollution, see Parker, Miasma, pp. 226-7. 3 1194-5. ὁσιώτεροι.... ἔχοι: T.‘Certainly they would fall fitter for the goddess’ 1. ‘And thus my situation would be better. Iphigenia’s words are, of course,

ambiguous. The audience 5 in a position to understand them in a way in . which Thoas cannot. That Athenian audiences particularly relished this sen. sation is clear from the tendency of liars in Attic tragedy to indulge in ambi-:

guity. Ajax’s ‘trick speech’ (Aj. 646-92) is a prime example. Modes of utterance

-are not always to be interpreted primarily as expressions of character and: intention in the way in which we have learnt to interpret them. ὁσιώτεροι::

866 on Ὁσίᾳ above on 1161 and 1458-61 below. γοῦν indicates agreement ; with regard to a particular point in favour of following the suggested course A parucularly Euripidean usage. See Denniston, pp. 452-3.

[ὁσιώτεροι: Tournier, 15 much more pointed than Ls ὁσιώτερον, adverblal

“They would fall in a more suitable way’]i 1196-8. οὔκουν . .. ὁρᾶν: Τ. ‘Well, doesn’t the sea-wave wash up by the temple-"ffij itself?’ I.“There is need of a lonely place. And further I shall do other things?-

T.‘Go where you wish. I do not like to see what may not be spoken. οὔκουν:. another impatient question. Another dangerous moment. ἄλλα δράσομεν:᾽ ambiguity again. Thoas understands her to mean rites that may not be spo-

ken of to the uninitiated. Compare Ba. 472. That whichis too sacred to be

spoken of.should even less be seen by any unauthorized person. Luckily, '

Thoas is impeccably pious, as we shall see again later. There may be a remi‘niscence of Herodotus here. Accordmg to h1m, the Taurian temple stood on a cliff (4. 103 ἐπὲ γαρ κρημνου ἱδρυται τὸ ἱρόν). ' 1199-1201 α.γνιστεον . ἄπο: I. “The image of the goddess too must be puri᾿ fied by me! T.¢[Yes,] at least if mother-slaying stain has struck it’ I.[Yes,] for [otherwise] I should never have taken it from its base. Again, Thoas hints at doubt: is the image really polluted? ye has limiting force: only on that condition should the image be purified (see Denniston, pp. 141~ 2). Iphigenia keeps her nerve and outfaces him: ‘Of course 15 polluted. I wouldn’t have moved it -otherwise’ ov γάρ meaning ‘not otherwise’ takes the place of a suppressed ifclause. See Denniston, pp. 62-3 and Jebb on OT 219 ff. (Appendix, p. 220-1). π[ἠράμην: L wrote οὐ ydp ποτ᾽ ἄν viv ἀνηράμην, producing uu for the sec~~——ond-anceps: A corrector of P-and-the Aldine editor tried-to-improve this by omitting ἄν, which is, however, needed in the apodosis of an unreal past - condition, Musgrave saw how to correct successfully.] 1202. δίκαιος ... προμηθία: ‘Your piety and forethought are right’ In a line which closes this section of the dialogue, Thoas praises Iphigenia in terms

Commentary on lines 1203-33

299

with which the audience would agree, although on different premisses. ηὐσέβεια- ἡ εὐσέβεια, 7 meaning ‘your’ (see WS § 1121). The article belongs to both nouns. This is possible where the two words coalesce into a single idea, as, for example, at Plato, Apol. 28a 7 ... διαβολή τε καὶ φθόνος ‘the calumny and envy’ See (WS § 1143). δίκαιος ‘as feminine is very rare.

ὁδόν ... δίκαιον is found in lyric at Held. 901. In the first century ΒΟ,

Diodorus Siculus (5. 72. 1) writes δόξας δικαίους.

|

[In view of that, Elmsley proposed dixa.tov ‘a just thing is your piety ... . See

WS 5 1048, καὶ: Markland wanted to separate the two nouns with χή (καὶ

1),but the singular δίκαιος (or δίκαιον) indicates that they are to be thought of as one.]

1203-33. The dialogue gathers speed as it changes to catalectic trochaic tetrameters (seeIntroduction, p. Ixxxv), with the lines split between Iphigenia and Thoas (antilabe), until Iphigenias final instructions and concluding prayer at 1222-33. If, as we assume (and there is no reason to think otherwise), the lines were delivered in recitative with accompaniment on the pipe, the heightening of excitement would have been very marked. As far as 1202, the dialogue has been expository: Iphigenia has explained the problem and said what she intends to do. Now it is a matter of what others are to do, of how Thoas and the other Taurians are to behave: οἦσθά νυν d μοι γενέσθω; There is a new potential for difficulties, even for the collapse of the plan.

The earliest Euripidean passages in trochaic tetrameters are at Her. 855-

73 (undated, but certainly not far from IT) and Tro. 444-61 (415 BC). The singers are (in Her.) Lyssa chiefly and (in Tro.) Cassandra, and it is clear

enough why both passages are given particular emotional heightening,

The present passage is the first surviving example of a pattern recurrent

in the later plays. Dialogue begins in stichomythia (here in iambic trimeters, elsewhere in trochaic tetrameters), then moves into antilabe, and finishes

with a coda delivered by one of the interlocutors. Such passages are: Ion 510-65 (Ion and Xuthus, coda from Ion), Hel. 1621-41 (Theoclymenus and servant or chorus-leader, with coda from the latter), Phoen. 588—637,

.where there is a double coda, first from Polynices, then from Eteocles, Or. 729-806, again with a double coda, first from Pylades, then from Orestes,

Or. 1506-36 (Orestes and the Phrygian, with coda from Orestes), IA 1338-

1401, where the antilabe is between Achilles and Clytaemestra, but, exceptionally, the coda takes the form of a long speech by Iphigenia, in which she states her decision to die. Where there is a single coda, it is always delivered, as in IT, by the character who is, in some sense, dominant. In a double coda,

it is still the more significant character (Eteocles, Orestes) who is given the last word. For 8 list of the trochaic tetrameter passages in tragedy, with discussion (mostly textual) of individual passages, see M. Imhof, “Tetrameterszenen

in der Tragbdie, MH

13 (1956), pp. 125-43 (on this passage, p. 133).

ὐχο

: Η

Commentary on lines 1203-8

ree

N PP

8

300

T. Drew-Bear (“The Trochaic Tetrameter in Greek Tragedy, AJP 89 (1968),

pp. 385-405) explores the literary and dramatic use of the metre. See also A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (21968), pp. 158-9,

1203. olofé. . . τόδε: 1. 'Now do you know what should be done for me?’ T.[1¢

is] yours to indicate that οἶσθα ... ἃ ... γενέσθω: a compendious expres- . sion of a type used in drama, combmmg ‘You know what should happen? with ‘Let it happen. See WS § 1842. Enclitic (not temporal) vuw calls atten- -

tion. gov τὸ onuaivew: A colloquial way to express oneself, akin to σὸν : ἔργον (1079 above). See Collard on Supp. 98-9.

[Diggle’s suggestion that either 8 ... τόδε or & ... τάδε should be read is .

interesting. Otherwise we have to assume a degree of casualness.]

1204-5. δεσμὰ ... πρόσπολοι: 1. ‘Put bonds on the strangers. T, ‘But whither -

could they escape from you?’ I.‘Greece knows nothing trusty! Τ. Ὅο for bonds, ᾿ attendants πιστὸν.... οὐδέν: οἶδα is used here, 85 in epic, to describe charac-

ter. SO ἄγρια oldev (ΙΖ 24..41) ‘he knows savage things’ means ‘he has ἃ savage :

character. ‘Greece totally lacks trustworthiness’ 15, of course, ironic in the circumstances, but there is more than that to the remark. Iphigenia is insisting on her own complete alienation from Greece. No doubt Greeks had some idea of what others said about them. ἐπὶ of the object for which one goes. See LS] . ἐπί C.II1. 1. deopas neuter form, sometimes used as plural of δεσμός.

1206-7. κἀκκομιζόντων ... φλογός:I ‘And let them bring out the strangers hither...’ Τ. “That shall be 0. " . . having covered [their] heads with cloth-

ing’ T. .. before the flame of the sun. The speakers take the words out of . each other’s mouths in rapid dialogue. At OT 1425-6, Creon, shocked, orders

that Oedipus be taken into the house, lest he pollute ‘the all-nourishing flame of the sun’ (τὴν... πάντα βόσκουσαν φλόγα... HAlov). See also above on 1170-1. But in the matter of pollution it is vain to look for consist-

ency. In some circumstances, the sun could, it seems, be left to look after himself (see on 1176-7 above). κἀκκομιζόντων-Ξ καὶ ἐκκομιζόντων. She

links her command with Thoas’ ἔτ(ε) in 1205 γε ‘sharpens the tone of the imperative'—Denniston p. 125.

[ye: Elmsley, for Ls €. xat ... δὲ is rare in verse, and it is hard to see any

justification for δέ here. The situation is different at El. 1117, where καὶ means ‘also, ‘too, while δὲ is the connective. Here, καὶ provides the connection. See Denniston, p. 200 and on El 1117. κρᾶτα κρύψαντες: Musgrave, surely rightly. Ls κατακρύψαντες (which does not 'scan) is an easy mistake. The scribe of L (or a predecessor) here becomes confused by the con-

“yHinuation of sense between speakers, and attributes the whole of 1207 to -

--—-Iphigenia;-He then-sees-that-cv-~