Euripides, "Ion": Edition and Commentary [Annotated] 3110522551, 9783110522556

Table of contents :
Preface
Table of Contents
Introduction
Critical Edition
Commentary
Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography
General Index

Citation preview

Gunther Martin Euripides, Ion

TEXTE UND KOMMENTARE Eine altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe

Herausgegeben von

Michael Dewar, Adolf Köhnken†, Karla Pollmann, Ruth Scodel Band 58

De Gruyter

Euripides, Ion Edition and Commentary

by

Gunther Martin

De Gruyter

ISBN 978-3-11-052255-6 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-052359-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-052341-6 ISSN 0563-3087 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar.

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Druck und Bindung: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ♾ Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Preface ‘Things do not look the same when distant and when seen from close up.’ Ion’s words (585–6) capture in different ways the experience of this commentator. At the outset, the task seemed straightforward: to answer every question that might be asked. It soon turned out to be unfeasible, and even presumptuous. Interpretations of the text that originally seemed compelling came to seem evasive, as the details of the text pushed themselves to the fore. Initially I had believed that the constitution of the text was a job practically finished by earlier generations and that its discussion would not be of great profit to either myself or the reader; and even though my approach to textual matters has remained a conservative one (or so at least do I see it), a closer look revealed that a certain revisiting of textual questions was warranted. Ion has inspired important readings from scholars with a great variety of approaches, most notably using structuralist ideas,1 but also feminism, psychoanalysis, deconstruction, and cultural studies.2 These treatments make interesting points, which in some cases shape the modern understanding of the play. As such they will provide conspicuous leads in the commentary and underlie the discussion offered. But the primary focus of attention of this book, partly complementary to that discussion, will be different. It returns to the details and often challenges foundations of modern readings. This is an undertaking to provide the reader with a new edition of the Ion and a commentary that elucidates the play as a self-contained text and sophisticated and dramaturgically effective work. It aims – on the basis of a critical recension – to help the reader understand what the Greek text means on the literal level and how the poet has arranged the characters’ words and deeds in a way so that they form a coherent and cogent dramatic structure. I shall undertake to trace the intratextual links and the indications the author gives about the motivations and ‘feelings’ of his characters,3 but most of all the 1

2

3

Zeitlin (1989) focuses on the character of Ion: a description of the multiple mirrors and foils that illustrate Ion’s quest to find out about his identity; Zacharia (2003) offers a multi-faceted reading of the entire play; Westra (2006) focuses on the relationship between autochthony and filiation. The interpretations positing a development of Ion partly follow a structuralist approach. For feminist readings cf. e.g. Rabinowitz (1993); psychoanalysis: Bowlby (2007) 191–215, Pedrick (2007), N. Weiss (2008); deconstruction: Meltzer (2006) 146–87, Kindt (2007); cultural studies: Ebbott (2003) 77–83, Lape (2010) 95–136, Gödde (2011) 235–64. An existentialist reading is Albini (1980). Regrettably many interpretations – even textual discussions (cf. 992–7n) – base arguments on psychological processes for which the text offers no positive evidence and thus seem to treat dramatic characters as if they had a life outside the text. Here, any statements about the emotional states of characters are to be

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110523591-202

vi

Preface

dynamic of the text, the artfulness of composition, and the dramatic effect it produces. In this way will it be possible to appreciate a vital part of the enjoyment the play can bring to its audience. This commentary has been long in the making. During this period, I have accumulated personal and scholarly debts to a great number of people. I have profited from and made the best I could of much advice and (mostly fair and constructive) criticism. Sections were read by Chris Collard, James Diggle, Patrick Finglass, Gregory Hutchinson, Tobias Reinhardt, Katharina Roettig (KR in the commentary), Alan Sommerstein (AS), and Walter Stockert (WS). David Kovacs in addition offered excellent general advice and let me see parts of his forthcoming commentary on Troades. Help on specific problems was offered by Herbert Bannert, Esther Eidinow, Solmeng Hirschi, Maxim Polyakov, Stefan Rebenich, Scott Scullion, and Nick Stylianou. For permission to cite the theses by John Waś and the late James Irvine I thank the author and Allan Irvine respectively. My most profound and very special thanks go to Arnd Kerkhecker (AK), who read and commented on the entire first draft with his usual good sense and superb feel for texts. He also generously supported its acceptance by the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Bern as my Habilitationsschrift in October 2013. He was seconded by Gerlinde Huber-Rebenich, Richard King, Thomas Späth, and Martin Hose, who also offered rich comments on the entire draft. I am grateful to the editors of Texte und Kommentare – in particular to Ruth Scodel – for accepting this book into the series, to Emanuele Rovati for his help in preparing the manuscript and the index, to David van Schoor for polishing the English, and to Katharina Legutke for seeing the volume through the press. The Fondation Hardt at Vandœuvres and the departments at Nottingham, Bern, and Zürich have hosted me very kindly during various fellowships, and without the generous support of the Swiss National Science Foundation I would very likely have been unable to bring this project to fruition. The first inspiration to this book, much good advice, encouragement when dearly needed, and not least a μέγας θησαυρός of happy memories came from the ‘British’ branch of my family. The motivation to keep going and the ability to do so was given me by the Swiss side. Weingarten, Männedorf January 2017

read as interpretations of indications of feelings given in the utterances of fictional characters.

Table of Contents Preface...................................................................................................... v

Introduction ............................................................................... 1 1) Structure .............................................................................................. 3 2) Problems of Interpretation .................................................................. 6 3) Myth ................................................................................................... 13 A) Ion’s Genealogy ................................................................................ 13 B) Ion and the Erichthonius Myth .......................................................... 20 C) Ideological Implications .................................................................... 22 4) Date ..................................................................................................... 24 A) Metrical Criteria ................................................................................ 24 B) Structural Criteria .............................................................................. 27 C) External Criteria ................................................................................ 28 5) Set, Entrances and Exits, Actor Distribution ...................................... 33 6) The Text .............................................................................................. 36 A) Transmission ..................................................................................... 36 B) Interpolations..................................................................................... 36 C) The Edition......................................................................................... 44

Critical Edition .......................................................................... 45 Commentary .............................................................................. 117 Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography ............................................. 548 Indices ..................................................................................................... 605

Introduction

1) Structure Greek tragedies follow a relatively strict and simple sequence of building blocks, but this formal structure often does not converge with the dynamic of a play. In Ion, too, turning points can be located in the middle of epeisodia, or acts. Hence the following table maps the formal description against the pyramidal model of dramatic action,1 which by and large captures the course of events even of a play so rich in turns. 1–183 Prologue 1–81 Prologue speech 82–183 Ion’s monody 184–236bis Parodos 237–451 1st Epeisodion 452–509 1st Stasimon 510–675 2nd Epeisodion 676–724 2nd Stasimon 725–1047 3rd Epeisodion 763–99 Amoibaion 859–922 Creusa’s monody 1048–1105 3rd Stasimon 1106–1228 4th Epeisodion (messenger scene) 1229–49 Choral ode 1250–[1622] Exodos 1441–1509 Reunion duet 1553–1605 deus ex machina-speech

1–509 Exposition

510–969 Rising plot 970–1047 Peripeteia 1048–1319 Falling plot 1320–[1622] Lysis

Exposition: The length of the expository section (as opposed to the Prologue as formal part of the play) is striking, amounting to almost one third of the play. The pre-history seems neatly covered by Hermes’ prologue speech, but then Euripides introduces the characters at great length: Ion’s song shows him as the dedicated, humble, and pure temple slave in perfect harmony with his duties and his environment, but also reveals how he is vexed by the opprobrium of his low social standing and not knowing his mother. The chorus enter (Parodos) and make clear from the very first lines their ‘Athenianness’. The 1st Epeisodion has still not set in motion the action but introduces Creusa. She engages in a long conversation with Ion (237–400), 1 The locus classicus is Freytag (1894) 114–140, used here freely (e.g. with peripeteia instead of climax/tragic moment). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110523591-001

4

Introduction

through which the audience are prepared for some of her later conduct: she too suffers, as she has not overcome the loss of her son. Then Xuthus arrives, bringing the oracular response from Trophonius that he and Creusa would not leave Delphi without a child. At the end of the exposition we have two very different addresses to gods: Ion reproaches Apollo for the amorous antics he has just learned about, while the chorus in the 1st Stasimon pray to Athena for intercession with Apollo when he gives his response to Xuthus. Rising Action: The play’s conflict is set up by the oracle that declares Ion to be Xuthus’ son. Ion reluctantly accepts that announcement and Xuthus’ emotional embrace but has reservations about leaving for Athens. These, however, are quickly brushed aside by Xuthus. He names his (hitherto nameless) son and instructs him to arrange a party both to secretly celebrate their reunion – for Ion will be declared a companion, their supposed relationship concealed – and to take farewell of the people of Delphi. The chorus are startled by the development, compassionate with their mistress, and outraged by Xuthus’ unsolidary behaviour and the prospect of some nobody from outside coming to their city (2nd Stasimon). They harbour doubts about the oracle as reported, but these are not pursued in the subsequent course of events. Creusa returns (3rd Epeisodion), eager to learn about the response, with her father’s slightly absurd old tutor. The atmosphere swiftly changes when the chorus give a pointed paraphrase of the oracle, telling her that Xuthus has been given a son but that she is to remain childless. The Old Man reconstructs a scenario that makes Xuthus pursue a plan to plant his illegitimate son in Creusa’s house. Creusa, fixated on her private grief, her future loneliness, and Apollo’s unfair lack of grace, launches into a passionate (sung) accusation against the god – the emotional climax of the play. The low point of utter despair is reached when Creusa tells the Old Man about her lost son. Peripeteia and Falling Action: The peripeteia takes place when the Old Man suddenly commands an end to self-pity (970) and spurs Creusa into action. Together they plan an attempt on Ion’s life. They part, the Old Man leaves for the place of Ion’s celebration in order to execute the plot, and Creusa for her lodgings to await the outcome. The chorus are left praying for success again (3rd Stasimon), this time to the underworld goddess Einodia/Hecate to see to Ion’s demise. Their song is grim and full of anxiety, xenophobia, and resentment. They also complain about the unfair depiction of women’s morality in poetry. The ensuing messenger scene (4th Epeisodion) confirms their worst fears. At the same time it becomes clear that a god had a hand in preserving Ion from Creusa’s plotting. The way in which the plot is uncovered is as miracu-



1) Structure

5

lous as the setting in which it took place. The chorus sink into hopelessness, as they dismiss the feasibility of any kind of escape plan (Choral Ode). Creusa enters in full flight (Exodos), and soon Ion appears with his henchmen to detain her. She takes refuge at an altar, and Ion, indignant at his powerlessness, complains about the sacrosanctity of suppliants. Lysis: His offensive speech against the sacred institution is interrupted by the Pythia, who distracts him from Creusa by giving him the basket he was exposed in, his first clue as to his origins. As Creusa recognises the basket, she surrenders herself. By correctly listing the tokens hidden in the basket she can prove that she is Ion’s mother, but he now believes he is the son of her and Xuthus. A second level of revelation is added: Ion remains sceptical of the story of Apollo but is willing outwardly to accept it for the sake of improving his standing. When he wants to ask Apollo in his temple whether his oracle to Xuthus was really false, he is stopped from confronting the god by Athena, who appears as dea ex machina. She delivers Apollo’s response and a prediction about the coming fame of Creusa’s descendants, both Ion and her future sons with Xuthus. In her own name she orders Ion to go to Athens with his mother and to accede to the throne, taking his place as rightful heir to Erichthonius. This linear plot description barely hints at the devices that bind the different sections together.2 Ion shows a particularly high degree of coherence by use of leitmotifs (or more generally recurrent ideas), intratextual references, and mirror scenes, which will be discussed in the commentary.3 Some of these structure the play: the two divine speeches, for example, have multiple points of contact and together form a frame; Hermes’ speech also presents the recognition tokens and thus prepares the recognition. Ion’s and Creusa’s monodies complement each other, showing different perspectives on Apollo, and likewise frame the first half of the play.

2 3

For example, Imhof (1966) proposes a detailed structural analysis, only to be harshly criticised for it by Fabrini (1970). For the mirror scenes cf. Taplin (1978) 136–8.

6

Introduction

2) Problems of Interpretation As the structure shows, Ion is one of Euripides’ ‘plays of mixed reversal’4, an emotional rollercoaster, where everything seems lost before a happy ending is brought about by some wonderful turn of fortune (or rather: by a god’s decisive actions). The stakes in this play, and the emotional investment on the part of the audience, are high: the beginning is serene and light-hearted, and Apollo seems to have a plan to make everybody happy; then catastrophe looms, the menace first of filicide, later of matricide (even of matricide at an altar). Above all, it is the ending that is prominent by being so uniquely happy in its tone that it may be said to distinguish itself from any other extant tragedy. From the moment the recognition first begins to dawn (1395) the action runs from one piece of good news to the next, ending in universal joy. It tells of the unexpected continuation of the earth-born royal line of Athens, when what seems like the last descendant of the house of Erechtheus finds her long-lost son. The recognition of Ion and the revelation that Creusa’s and Apollo’s son is alive dissolves three issues at once: Creusa’s personal trauma caused by the loss of her child; the prospective extinction of her family; and the absence of a native heir to the Athenian throne. But the positive news goes much further, the resulting situation is even better than anyone had hoped for: Creusa expected to have a son with Xuthus, but now Xuthus is written out of the Athenian family tree and her lost son with Apollo is back; Ion had dreamt of being free and Athenian (556, 670–2), but now, being the son of a god, he enjoys much higher prestige and does not inject any foreign blood into the lineage. The family of Erechtheus and the rulers of Athens thus remain fully Athenian – Athenian autochthony is not compromised. On the extra-dramatic level, the genealogy of the Greek tribes and of the Ionians in particular is rearranged in ways that favour Athens (s. ch. 3C). Everyone’s hopes are exceeded. The Athenian backdrop may be an important reason for the exceptionally optimistic finale.5 There is not even a villain who gets his deserts or suffers a loss – think of Clytemestra and Aegisthus (El.), Thoas (IT), and Theoclymenus (Hel.) – nor does any of the characters have to give up any of his claims or hopes.6 4 5

6

The sub-title of Burnett (1971). The happy ending and the resolution of conflicts alone would not be without parallel: compare, for example, Aeschylus’ Eumenides and Euripides’ own recognition plays, of which he produced several around the time of Ion: El., IT, Hel., as well as the fragmentary Alex., possibly Hyps., Auge. For example, the Erinyes of Eumenides have to relinquish any claim on Orestes; their honorary place is a compensation for their defeat in the trial (881–4). In Ion even Xuthus leaves a happy man: he believes that Ion is his son, and two more sons



2) Problems of Interpretation

7

It is, however, not necessary to adopt the excessive optimism at the end of Ion without some important qualifications. The happy exodos may distract from, but does not in all aspects resolve the darker aspects of the play. The spectator may choose not to agree with Athena’s apodeictic καλῶς δ’ Ἀπόλλων πάντ’ ἔπραξε (1595), and some of the provocative questions raised in the course of the play have not been put to rest by her partial defence of Apollo: to begin with, she concedes that Apollo had lost control of events (1563); she also avoids a direct answer to Ion’s question whether the oracle given to Xuthus was wrong (1537–8); Ion himself had initially refused to accept an answer based solely on expediency (1546), but that is what Athena offers. Likewise, the spectators are not obliged to accept that the recognition and Athena’s comments can obliterate the detailed and psychologically subtle depiction of Creusa’s woes throughout the play. A sour aftertaste may linger; the very abruptness of Creusa’s change of judgment and the surprising degree of general happiness should make us wary of this unequivocal ending. The same applies to the political and ideological elements of the dea ex machina speech (cf. 1569–94n): the unbridled exaltation of Athens’ standing among Greeks draws attention to the heavy modification of the mythological standard account. In short, Athena’s message is so exaggeratedly positive that its credibility is undermined.7 So a good deal of ambivalence remains, and the tragedian has withheld an important key for unlocking the interpretation: depending on their predisposition or sensitivity, spectators may read the play as, on the one hand, a strong affirmation of Athenian superiority (as underwritten by an autochthonous identity, divinely favoured, etc.) and Apollo’s power and care or, on the other, as criticism of the god who lies and fails to predict human behaviour and a subversively implausible idealisation of the city. A third possibility is to appreciate Euripides’ art of provocation and titillation: the author confronts his spectators with a story the elements of which bear the potential to spark scandal and controversy. The play artfully combines and interlinks different topical and general issues in a way that does not ultimately privilege one aspect: questions about the morality of gods, the limits of human knowledge and understanding, the construction of identity on the pan-Hellenic, Ionian, and Athenian level, and more are raised in an often provocative but teasingly elusive way. No definite solution to any of them is given. Rather, it is the tension between the possible interpretations and the

7

will be born to him by Creusa (1589–94, 1602). The only victim is the Old Man, who is, however, a nameless slave and over whose fate a veil of silence is cast. Critics have often stressed the degree of uncertainty and deception in the play, a trait it shares with other plays of the same period (esp. IT, Hel.): cf. esp. Forehand (1979), Meltzer (2006) 146 (‘the fullest and and most direct examination of the problem of the lost voice of truth in Euripidean drama’), Kindt (2007).

8

Introduction

fact that the questions are thrown open that makes the play interesting. The author offers different ways of understanding the text and in this way leaves it to the individual spectator in the theatre to make his interpretation and thus his emotional and intellectual response to the play. The elusiveness and ambiguity of the text affects some of the key issues that have been important in the scholarship on Ion. Analysis of the dramatic structure suggests that discussions of Ion that seek to identify one specific issue as the key to the play and to extract a particular message are misled. They approach the play with various, specific suppositions, while the play is not written to argue a specific point. The openness of the reading is, of course, in itself a dramatic effect, which can be both confusing and appealing.8 The first issue to be mentioned here is the role of Apollo. The discussion was opened by Verrall, who posited that the Apollo of Ion was immoral and irresponsible:9 firstly, he violates Creusa; secondly, his prescience proves to be limited because he does not foresee that the chorus will reveal his oracular response to Creusa; thirdly, that response is inaccurate. Behind the unflattering portrayal of the god Verrall suspected collusion between Euripides and the atheist Athenian élite. The play disguised an alternative plot on a purely human level: Ion was the Pythia’s child, foisted in a complex plot on Creusa, who had once been impregnated by a mortal lover and abandoned the baby. The flaws of such a reading, which ignores the principle of the willing suspension of disbelief,10 are obvious: it completely discounts the speeches of Hermes and Athena as ironic irrelevancies and creates a parallel plot that (like modern conspiracy theories) is confirmed by the lack of obvious evidence. The reaction, made popular by Wassermann and Burnett, aims to vindicate Apollo and defends the god against all three charges:11 the fault rests with the humans, who precipitously accuse Apollo of neglect. According to this reading it is rather the characters’ lack of insight and human nature’s susceptibility to violence that are portrayed as responsible for the near-catastrophe.12 The general argument hinges on the idea that Apollo’s 8

In giving priority to the dramatic effect and reading Ion as a play that entertains and stimulates the spectator I follow in the footsteps of earlier interpreters, starting from Kitto (1961) 313–29 and Conacher (1959). For the openness of the reading cf. A.T. Cole (1997) 94. 9 Still e.g. Rosenmeyer (1963) 150, Leimbach (1971) 131–2. 10 Cf. e.g. Willetts (1973) 202–3 and the analogy drawn by Troiano (1985) 46: ‘it would be ludicruous to argue about Sartre’s belief in the existence of Jupiter; yet to analyze Les Mouches, we must consider Jupiter to be as real a character as Electra.’ 11 Wassermann (1940), Burnett (1962); cf. e.g. Gavrilov (2002) 44. 12 Some of the specific points will be dealt with in their proper place: e.g. 10–11n, 68n, 69–73n, 355n, 859–922n, 1532–48n, 1553–1605n.



2) Problems of Interpretation

9

actions are justified by the outcome: he is well-intentioned, and he manages to reunite Creusa and Ion under conditions that enable Ion to return to Athens, continue his line, and become king.13 But this reading ignores some loose ends. The interpreters are forced to postulate that the god’s good intentions vindicate the questionable means he employs and that the triumphant end outweighs the suffering we hear about in the course of the play. The opposing sides have analysed the problems of either reading, but neither side can claim a decisive victory.14 The discussion has rather shown how elusive Euripides’ Apollo is. Above all, the reading as either an attack on the god or an apologia comes to nothing, since it is the poet himself who designed this version of the myth (or chose this one over the common version); so the Apollo he is alleged to attack or defend is not the one of ‘traditional’ religion but his own convenient construction. The problem of deciding on Apollo’s righteousness of action has, to some extent, been sidestepped by those who read Ion as a τύχη play: humankind is subjected to the blind machinations of fate (and coincidence) and condemned to watching as events unfold; the play’s many twists and near-catastrophes represent this human condition in a condensed and extreme way.15 This route is not open, as the play in fact diminishes the role of an independent, blind τύχη.16 On the contrary, the divine speakers, and not only they, stress that the course of events has been directed by Apollo (e.g. 68, 1118, 1565, 1595, 1609–10; cf. 237–400n, 1250–1620n). If catastrophe (Ion drinking the poison; Creusa being executed) has been avoided very narrowly, it is because Apollo let things run and stepped in only at the very last second. The only event that has demonstrably not been controlled by him is the chorus’ breach of the Schweigegebot, but this can hardly be called an act of τύχη. The human characters sometimes ascribe events to fate or coincidence, but in these instances the audience have regularly been informed that Apollo has been behind it.17 So it is human blindess, the inability to see the true causes behind events, that leads the characters to refer to τύχη. The 13 Wassermann (1940), Burnett, esp. (1962), G. Müller (1983); along the same lines most recently Lefkowitz (2016) 102–9. In an extreme position, even the changes to Apollo’s plan are explained as an improvement to its original version: Ion no longer has to go to Athens against his will (cf. Lloyd (1986) 35). 14 There have been attempts to move away from earlier black-and-white criticism: Whitman (1974) 60–103, Erbse (1975), and Guardì (1976), for example, insist that the picture drawn of Apollo is ambivalent; Strohm (1976) argues that divine and mortal time have temporarily been thrown ‘out of sync’ concerning the expectations of divine actions, as indicated in 1615, and are harmonised again at the end of the play. 15 E.g. Jaeger (1934–1947) I.445, Solmsen (1934) 400, Pagani (1962), Erbse (1975), Giannopoulou (1999–2000), Hose (2008) 169. 16 Cf. in particular Bartosiewiczová (1979). 17 E.g. 359, 368, 539, 554, 661, 1422; cf. Gauger (1977) 105–14.

10

Introduction

audience instead recognises that the gods are far more active than those involved in the story realise. However, we end up with the same conundrum concerning the judgment on Apollo as before: Ion presents a scenario which Euripides has drafted; it ought not to be read as an illustration of the true workings of the world. If we turn to those aspects of the play that project an Athenian identity and touch on the city’s relationship with the outside, we are on no firmer ground on which to base an interpretation. Autochthony is a cornerstone of the Athenians’ conception of themselves, and Ion reaffirms the Athenian ideologemes. The play asserts the continuity of the autochthonous lineage of the royal house and even removes the foreign element by writing Xuthus out of its genealogy and inserting Apollo. Ion, who in many respects features as a reincarnation of the original earth-born Erichthonius, encapsulates the idea of Athenian ‘racial purity’. Against this affirmative reading18 post-war scholarship has tended to emphasise how the play subverts the eulogistic trope. As early as 1959, Desmond Conacher raised the question of how making Apollo the ancestor of the Athenians for ideological purposes squares with the god’s unheroic portrayal. His answer was to interpret the political grandeur as part of the play’s ironic effect. Others have regarded the presentation of autochthony even less kindly, pointing out how the pride in their autochthony makes the representatives of Athens in the play appear xenophobic and even prone to violence in protecting their community.19 Apart from the stress on purity, it is also by the genealogy it promulgates that Ion attributes to the Athenians a privileged place in the family of the Greeks. Firstly, Ion’s descendants are said to colonise Ionia and thus the Athenians become ancestors of the Ionians (which implies the obligation of loyalty and subordination to the metropolis), whereas in older versions the two groups had been related in ways that gave them an equal standing. Thus Ion offers a way to reconcile Athenian autochthony with the old claim of relationship with the Ionians.20 Zacharia dedicates an extended section of her book-length study to how ‘Euripides exposes the limitations of widespread Athenian ideas about the autochthony and purity of their race and explores the tensions between Ionianism and autochthony.’21 A clear-cut optimistic reading favouring Athens22 would be simplistic. To begin with, the treatment of each of these aspects is ambivalent and the formulations in which they are described partly ambiguous: even if the Ionians are no longer on an equal 18 Cf. Lee 34. For a recent attempt to blend ritual and racial purity and to equate ‘pure’ to ‘clarified’ identity cf. Meinel (2015) 212–43. 19 Walsh (1978), Saxonhouse (1986) 256–7, Borowska (1989) 119–27, Farrington (1991) 130–1. 20 Zacharia (2003) 45, preceded by J. Hall (1997) 56. 21 Zacharia (2003) 183. 22 Still e.g. Matthiessen (2002) 177.



2) Problems of Interpretation

11

footing with the Athenians, what Athena says about them (1584–5 ὃ σθένος τἠμῆι χθονὶ δίδωσιν) can be read as Athenian dependence on them. Secondly, the Athenians are made the more noble relatives of Dorians and Achaeans (who descend from Creusa and Xuthus, not from Apollo). The other Greeks, while assigned to the less noble branch of Creusa’s family, are at the same time brought into closer relationship with the Athenians and given a share in autochthony.23 Moreover, the genealogy that is so convenient to the Athenians represents a departure from the standard accounts and is in all likelihood Euripides’ own fabrication. Hence its credibility and its value for Athenian self-assertion and her claims for supremacy is severely diminished. The dramaturgical purpose of the modifications seems to be the construction of the happiest possible ending. It is easy to mistrust the radical rewriting of a well-established mythical narrative, especially as Euripides rarely disguises how bluntly he changes the stories he uses for his tragedies.24 So it is up to the Athenians to accept the new version and its positive impact on Athenian self-perception or to view them as convenient idealisation and tongue-in-cheek. A final strand of the modern discussion about Ion concerns the play’s overall character in relation to what might be regarded as pure or proper Classical tragedies. Ion does not lack in grand emotions, but there is a remarkable absence of catastrophe: a poisoned pigeon remains the only fatality, and the ending is more than just happy. In addition, the first half of the play is particularly lighthearted, sometimes even funny, and full of serene dramatic irony.25 To name only a few instances, Hermes as prologue speaker not only magnifies his and Ion’s servant status but undermines his brother’s authority (1–81n); Ion speaks of Apollo as his father in a metaphorical sense (136–40) or uses a formulation that could be understood as denoting fatherhood while meaning to denote ownership (311) – unconsciously hinting at his real relationship with the god; the chorus wander around Delphi like (or as) naïve tourists; finally, Ion misinterprets Xuthus’ enthusiastic greeting as an erotic advance. Due to these distractions from the supposedly appropiate seriousness of the genre there has been a tendency (as in the case of other Euripidean plays, such as Alcestis and, from the same period, IT and Helen) to deny Ion the straightforward label of tragedy, and it has been named a tragicomedy in-

23 On the relationship of Ionians, Dorians, and Achaeans cf. ch. 3A, C, 1569–94n. 24 Cf. Dunn (2000) 4, 23–7. 25 Seidensticker (1982) 211–41 offers the most detailed treatment; cf. also e.g. Knox (1971) 77–91, Zacharia (1995).

12

Introduction

stead. This concept is anachronistic (as are ‘romance’ or ‘melodrama’)27. But more pertinently, perhaps, the term suggests equal importance of comic and tragic elements. In Ion, however, one may find that the comic elements are subordinate and serve to enhance the pathos and emotional depth of the rest: Matthiessen, who even uses the term ‘Komödie’ in the title of his essay but then prefers the label ironic drama, admits that such characterisations could only apply to the first half of the play, before the crisis breaks out with the chorus’ revelation of the oracle.28 When similar irony does occur again later in the play, it has an entirely different, rather frightening, effect (compare 311 with 1286). The lightheartedness and the serenity of the first scenes are thus set up as the foil to subsequent events. It is through these scenes that the crisis gains an extra dimension: the seriousness of the escalation and the danger for Ion’s and Creusa’s lives are enhanced by the contrast; their blindness of the truth, the same phenomenon that could amuse the spectator with his superior knowledge at the start, now increases the anxiety and suspense, as mother and son want to kill each other or show their hostility in the altercation of the exodos (esp. 1307/2). There is, therefore, not even reason to consider Ion anything other than a full-fledged tragedy,29 and the comic elements do not undermine but enhance the emotions typical of that genre. Significantly, they do not return when the happy outcome is secured and the anxiety gives way to relief. The ending is not farcical – if it is undercut, as described above, then that is so on a different level: dramatic irony is replaced by an incongruity (which the spectator may or may not notice), between the issues raised in the play and the traditional myths on the one hand and Athena’s message and prediction on the other. 26

26 E.g. Kitto (1961) 311–29, Seidensticker (1982) 241, Gellie (1984), Troiano (1985) 51. Cf. the discussion on the relabeling of Euripidean tragedies in Wright (2005) 6–43. 27 Romance: Cataudella (1962) 30, Wolff (1965) 169; tragédie romanesque: Patin (1883) II 75; melodrama: Cilento (1953) 242, Meltzer (2006) 148. Groh (1936) labels Ion pro-satyric, but that concept is a somewhat helpless modern attempt at coming to terms with Alcestis being the fourth play of its tetralogy but not a satyrplay. There is, after all, no evidence to believe that Ion was also a fourth play. 28 Matthiessen (1989) 286. 29 There is, of course, no lack of scholars insisting on Ion’s status as a regular tragedy: e.g. Zacharia (1995) 62, Basta Donzelli (2000) 64. Gould in a short paper (1987) may be closest to the truth when he interprets the shifts of mood, of dramatic form, and in the plot development as means of creating a ‘world of precarious interpretability’ (p. 172).



3) Myth

13

3) Myth Mythology is made an issue in the play, and attention is drawn to stories of the past in various ways: the chorus, for example, marvel at depictions of mythical scenes (190–218) and speak of the myths told at the loom (507–9) – that passage also shows how difficult it is to read and interpret myth, in that the chorus make a sweeping statement about the misfortune of the gods’ mortal children, only to be refuted in the further course of the play –30; Xuthus rejects a key element of Athenian ideology by claiming (with a good deal of common sense, it seems) that people cannot be born from the earth (542). The elusiveness and unreliability of myths is thus a problem that Euripides appears to highlight as we approach the story of Ion. Euripides himself is likely to have practised extensive ‘myth-making’ in shaping the plot: in details, this concerns the war against Euboea (59n) and the killing of the Gorgo in the gigantomachy (989n), but it comprises even the essential shape of Ion’s story. The tragedian’s known practice of modifying traditional stories in other plays increases the likelihood that the interference with Ion’s genealogy also ought to be ascribed to him.31 The structure of the story shows extensive parallels with other exposure plays:32 divine parentage, secret exposure, recognition. Euripides may have chosen yet another tale that conformed to this story pattern; more likely, however, he transformed a traditional myth that had no relation to the pattern and moulded it into the already tested structures of the exposure-cum-recognition story.

A) Ion’s Genealogy Everything points to Euripides himself as the source of the rearrangement of Ion’s family tree. Three separate, previously unattested changes to the myth are presented in this play: the rearrangement of Xuthus’ ancestry (Aeolus is substituted for Hellen as father; Zeus becomes his grandfather: 292), Dorus’ position as Xuthus’ son from Creusa, and Ion’s own descent from Apollo. The three together give Greek and in particular Athenian genealogy a com30 Cf. Martin (2015). 31 E.g. Stephanopoulos (1980) esp. 29–41, Allan (2000) 4–39. One repeated trend is that the new version can be read as an elevation of Athens, as is the case in Ion: cf. E. Hall (1997) 101–3. 32 Cf. in general Huys (1995) 62–84 on the exposure(-cum-recognition) plays (Alex., Antiope, Auge, the two Melanippai, etc.). Huys goes into yet greater detail, concerning, e.g. the container in which the child is exposed or the recognition tokens. The recognition-cum-escape plays (El., IT, Hel.) also show many similar traits, but on the dramaturgical level rather than in the structure of the myth.

14

Introduction

pletely new dynamic and flatter Athens immensly: Ion becomes a figure of the highest nobility (and the Athenians with him), with his mother being an autochthonous Athenian and his father now an Olympian god; by contrast, the Dorians and Achaeans are related to him but are clearly subordinate as younger half-brothers not sharing the ancestry of Apollo.33 This version is the end point of a development. Ion seems to be a latecomer in the mythical tradition: in conventional genealogy (below) he and his full brother Achaeus are a generation younger than Xuthus, Dorus, and Aeolus, the sons of Hellen. This structure suggests that the ancestral hero of the Ionians was added as son of Xuthus to make the family of Hellen consist of the ancestors of the Hellenic tribes: Dorians, Achaeans, Aeolians, and Ionians.34 In the play Euripides acknowledges the traditional myth (and lends it deceptive authority) through Apollo’s oracle, which declares that Ion is Xuthus’ son. The order of silence at the end (1601–2) is an exceptional device to reconcile the two contradictory versions of the story: the one that is generally known is described as false, while the ‘true’ story, the one revealed in the play, needs to be kept secret at Apollo’s and Athena’s behest. Euripides in this way confirms that the version of the play is unheard of and explains why this is so.35 a) The Genealogy before Ion The tradition before Euripides’ play, as far as we know it,36 uniformly makes Ion the son of Xuthus (and the nephew of Dorus): the oldest source is Hes-

33 For a broader argumentation cf. A.T. Cole (1997) 89–90. 34 Prinz (1979) 362–3. 35 He even intimates why the false version is necessary (73). For further possible hints at innovation, which do not concern Ion’s descent, cf. S. Cole (2008). 36 For a comprehensive account (and discussion) cf. Ermatinger (1897) 112–27. One odd reference, which is difficult to explain, is Hecataeus FGrH 1 F 16 Ἴων δὲ πρεσβύτερος Λοκροῦ ἦν, Φύσκου παῖς (‘Ion, the son of Physcus, was older than Locrus.’).



3) Myth

15

iod’s Catalogue of Women,37 followed probably by Hecataeus38 and Herodotus (7.94, 8.44.2). Euripides himself draws on this standard account in Mel.Soph., which was written before Ion: fr. 481.7–11 ἓν μὲν τόδ’ ἐξέβλαστεν Ἕλληνος γένος. πτόρθον δ’ ἀφῆκεν ἄλλον εἰς ἄλλην πόλιν κλεινάς Ἀθήνας Ξοῦθον, ὧι νύμφη ποτὲ θυγάτηρ Ἐρεχθέως Κεκροπίας ἐπ’ αὐχένι Ἴων’ ἔτικτεν (‘This is one family that descended from Hellen, and it sent forth another scion to each city: to Athens it sent off Xuthus, to whom his bride, the daughter of Erechtheus, bore Ion on the ridge of the Acropolis.’). Pre-Euripidean pictorial evidence of Ion does not exist. An isolated attempt to identify him on a group of Athenian vases with a group of gods and an unnamed a boy does not convince.39 b) Post-Euripidean Mentions of Apollo as Ion’s Father The sources that agree with the central element of Euripides’ version postdate Ion and are far fewer than those calling Ion the son of Xuthus. They 37 Hes. fr. 9 Ἕλληνος δ’ ἐγένοντο φιλοπτολέμου βασιλῆος Δῶρός τε Ξοῦθός τε καὶ Αἴολος ἱππιοχάρμης (‘of the war-loving king Hellen were born Dorus and Xuthus and Aeolus, fighting from the chariot’) in combination with the plausible restoration of fr. 10a.20–4 Ξοῦθος δὲ Κ[ρείουσαν ἐπή]ρατον εἶδος ἔ̣χ̣[ουσαν] κούρην καλλ[ιπάρηον Ἐρε]χθῆο̣ς θείοιο̣ [ἀθανά]των ἰ[ότητι φίλην ποι]ήσατ’ ἄκ̣[οι]τ̣ι̣ν̣, [ἥ οἱ Ἀ]χα̣ιὸν ἐγ̣[είνατ’ Ἰάονά τε κλυ]τ̣ό̣π̣ω̣λ[ο]ν μιχθ]εῖσ’ ἐν̣ [φιλότητι καὶ εὐε]ι̣δέα Διομήδην (‘Xuthus made Creusa of a lovely appearance, a maiden with beautiful cheeks, daughter of great Erechtheus, his dear wife by the will of the gods. She bore him Achaeus and Ion of the famous foals and handsome Diomedes, having united with him in love.’). 38 Sonnino on Erechth. p. 51–2 argues that Strabo 8.7.1 and Conon FGrH 26 F 1 draw on Hecataeus and that the common elements of these accounts must be attributed to him. 39 Shapiro (2009) points to the Athenian vases Vatican 17851 (c. 460), Cambridge Fitzwilliam Mus. GR P 13 (c. 450), Syracuse, Mus.Reg. 45911 (440–30). These show the Delian triad of Apollo, Leto, and Artemis, partly with Hermes, Dionysus, and other divine and mortal figures. Nothing in the iconography is specific to Ion, but the identification rests on loose association of some elements with Euripides’ play. On two vases the boy is holding an oinochoe, on one in addition a hoop and stick, allegedly marking him as a temple servant and a child respectively. This contradicts Hermes’ words (53–5) that Ion was given offices in the temple only when he had left boyhood. It is hard to believe that if the iconography had been familiar, Euripides could have ignored it. Moreover, the relevance of Leto and Artemis remains a mystery, if the vase is supposed to show Ion as Apollo’s son. If the message of the vases was political, even propagandistic, promoting Athenian leadership in the Delian League (Shapiro p. 271–2), one might expect clearer hints, for example the presence of Athena. On the erroneous identification of a figure on the West pediment of the Parthenon (LIMC Ion 1) as Ion cf. now Simon (2009).

16

Introduction

cannot be used as evidence of a pre-Euripidean narrative that has Apollo as Ion’s father. The earliest reference implying that Apollo fathered Ion is in a deeply ironic passage in Plato’s Euthydemus.40 Dionysodorus is challenging ‘Socrates’’ status as an Athenian on the grounds that he does not have an ‘ancestral’ (πατρῶιος) Zeus, i.e. an old family cult of Zeus.41 Socrates fools and outwits his interlocutor by playing with the meaning of πατρῶιος.42 Plato’s Socrates explains the epithet of Apollo Patroos, the ‘ancestral’ Apollo, on the basis that Apollo is the ancestor of the Athenians through Ion. But it is impossible to infer anything from the text other than Plato’s familiarity with the genealogy presented in Euripides’ play. It certainly does not mean that Plato accepts that version. Instead, his reinterpretation of πατρῶιος (‘worshipped by the ancestors’) as ‘being an ancestor’ is against common parlance. Socrates is ironical throughout the dialogue and admits just before our passage that his arguments are twisted: 302B ἄπορόν τινα στροφὴν ἔφευγόν τε καὶ ἐστρεφόμην ἤδη ὥσπερ ἐν δικτύωι εἰλημμένος (‘I tried to escape in an impossible turn and was already wriggling as if caught in a net.’).43 Plato’s habit of punning and the irony pervading Euthydemus undermine the seriousness of the claim and may rather be similar to the irony in Euripides’ play.44 Other sources are likely to depend on either Plato or Euripides. 40 Cf. Hawtrey (1981) 3–11 for a debate of Euthydemus’ place in the relative chronology of Plato’s works and a very cautious dating in the period 387–80. So the dialogue is (with all due caution) more than twenty years younger than Ion. 41 302B–C ταλαίπωρος ἄρα τις σύ γε ἄνθρωπος εἶ καὶ οὐδὲ Ἀθηναῖος, ὧι μήτε θεοὶ πατρῶιοί εἰσιν μήτε ἱερὰ μήτε ἄλλο μηδὲν καλὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν (‘So you are a miserable man and not even an Athenian, since you have neither ancestral gods nor temples nor any other sign of nobility.’). For the meaning ‘ancestral’ of the word πατρῶιος cf. Lycurg. 25 τὰ ἱερὰ τὰ πατρῶια, ἃ τοῖς ὑμετέροις νομίμοις καὶ πατρίοις ἔθεσιν οἱ πρόγονοι παρέδοσαν αὐτῶι ἱδρυσάμενοι (‘the ancestral sacred images which his forefathers had set up and passed on to him by your laws and inherited customs’), R. Parker (2005) 22–3 and Cromey (2006) 43–4, who dates the cult to the 4th cent. 42 302D εἶτα τοῖς ἄλλοις, ἔφη, Ἀθηναίοις οὐκ ἔστιν Ζεὺς ὁ πατρῶιος; – οὐκ ἔστιν, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, αὕτη ἡ ἐπωνυμία Ἰώνων οὐδενί, οὔθ’ ὅσοι ἐκ τῆσδε τῆς πόλεως ἀπωικισμένοι εἰσὶν οὔθ’ ἡμῖν, ἀλλὰ Ἀπόλλων πατρῶιος διὰ τὴν τοῦ Ἴωνος γένεσιν (‘He said: “Then do the other Athenians not have an ancestral Zeus?” – And I said: “None of the Ionians give him that title, neither those who left the city to settle in a colony nor we, but Apollo is ancestral because of Ion’s descent.”’). 43 The significance (even the potential significance) of this statement for the seriousness of the etymology is not realized or acknowledged in discussions of the meaning of πατρῶιος: cf. e.g. De Schutter (1987) 124. 44 On such word play in Plato cf. Tarrant (1946) 116–17. On the irony pervading the entire section 301E–303A cf. Chance (1992). Dougherty (1996) 261 argues that ‘Euripides literalizes the metaphor built into this cult title when he makes Apollo Ion’s father’. If so, Plato would then be the one to make explicit Euripides’ ruse. Apollo Patroos seems to have been predominantly a god of kinship groups and thus the cult inherited from the ancestors: cf. R. Parker (2005) 17. There is no trace of



3) Myth

17

• A relevant snippet of Aristotle’s(?) Athenaion Politeia (fr. 1) has survived in two texts.45 Aristotle, it seems, has been taken in by Plato’s use of πατρῶιος: Harpocr. s.v. Ἀπόλλων πατρῶιος] ὁ Πύθιος προσηγορία τίς ἐστι τοῦ θεοῦ πολλῶν καὶ ἄλλων οὐσῶν. τὸν δὲ Ἀπόλλωνα κοινῶς πατρῶιον τιμῶσιν Ἀθηναῖοι ἀπὸ Ἴωνος· τούτου γὰρ οἰκίσαντος τὴν Ἀττικήν, ὡς Ἀριστοτέλης φησί, τοὺς Ἀθηναίους Ἴωνας κληθῆναι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνα πατρῶιον αὐτοῖς ὀνομασθῆναι. (‘“Pythios” is one of many epithets of the god. The Athenians and the Ionians honour Apollo jointly as ‘ancestral’ because of Ion: For, according to Aristotle, when he settled in Attica, the Athenians came to be called Ionians and Apollo was called ancestral to them.’) Schol. Ar. Av. 1527 πατρῶιον δὲ τιμῶσιν Ἀπόλλωνα Ἀθηναῖοι, ἐπεὶ Ἴων ὁ πολέμαρχος Ἀθηναίων ἐξ Ἀπόλλωνος καὶ Κρεούσης τῆς Ξούθου ἐγένετο. (‘The Athenians honour Apollo as “ancestral”, for Ion, the military leader of the Athenians, was the son of Apollo and Creusa, Xuthus’ wife.’) • Arr. Anab. 7.29.3 ὅτι δὲ ἐς θεὸν τὴν γένεσιν τὴν αὑτοῦ ἀνέφερεν, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ μέγα εἶναι αὐτῶι τὸ πλημμέλημα, εἰ μὴ καὶ σόφισμα ἦν τυχὸν ἐς τοὺς ὑπηκόους τοῦ σεμνοῦ ἕνεκα. οὔκουν δοκεῖ ἔμοιγε ἢ Μίνωος γενέσθαι βασιλεὺς ἀφανέστερος ἢ Αἰακοῦ ἢ Ῥαδαμάνθυος, οἷς δὴ ἐς Δία ἀνενεχθεῖσα ἡ γένεσις πρὸς τῶν πάλαι ἀνθρώπων οὐδεμιᾶι αὐτῶν ὕβρει προστίθεται, οὐδὲ Θησέως τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος οὐδὲ Ἴωνος τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος. (‘It does not even seem a great fault to me that he referred his origin back to a god – if it was not even just a trick played to his subjects, to make himself stand out more. He does not seem to me any less apparently a king than Minos, Aeacus, or Rhadamanthys, whose descent was referred to Zeus by the people of old and did not lead to accusations of haughtiness against them, nor less than Theseus, the son of Poseidon, or Ion, the son of Apollo.’) The divine ancestry of the netherworld judges and Theseus is uncontroversial (in the standard accounts). But it would serve Arrian’s ends to finish with a phoney example. He certainly does not support the claim. • Paus. 1.28.4 πηγή τε ὕδατός ἐστι καὶ πλησίον Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερὸν ἐν σπηλαίωι· Κρεούσηι δὲ θυγατρὶ Ἐρεχθέως Ἀπόλλωνα ἐνταῦθα a cult of Apollo Patroos in Ionia, which is additional evidence that the meaning ‘ancestor’ is a reinterpretation (cf. A.T. Cole (1997) 90). 45 Possibly the same use of πατρῶιος is found in Diod.Sic. 16.57.4 Ἀθηναῖοι ... εὐχόμενοι τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα πατρῶιον αὐτῶν εἶναι καὶ πρόγονον (‘The Athenians ... boast that Apollo is ancestral to them and a forefather’). The description of Ion as πολέμαρχος refers to the tradition in which Ion arrives from outside Athens as foreign liberator, which presupposes that he is Xuthus’ son: Hdt. 8.44.2 and Strabo 8.7.1 above; also Ath.Pol. 3.2.

18

Introduction

συγγενέσθαι νομίζουσι. (‘There is a well of water and also nearby a sanctuary of Apollo in a cave: it is believed that in there Apollo united with Creusa, the daughter of Erechtheus.’) More is mentioned here than just Ion’s alleged divine ancestry, so the reference is not to Plato. The details given correspond so well with Euripides that dependence on Ion is likely. The plural νομίζουσι is phraseological and should not be taken as an indication of a plurality of sources. c) Sophocles’ Creusa For a pre-Euripidean account presenting Apollo as Ion’s father scholars have often pointed to Sophocles’ Creusa (fr. 350–9). The modern reconstruction of this play supposes a story similar to Ion, the one major difference being that the recognition takes place in Athens, in accordance with Apollo’s plan as reported by Hermes and Athena.46 The mentions of the plan in Ion (72, 1567–8) are read as allusions to Sophocles’ play; the Old Man’s rejection of Creusa’s suggestion to kill Ion after his arrival in Athens (1020–5) is interpreted as an announcement of a departure from Sophocles’ plot (comparable to El. 520–44 and Aeschylus’ Choephori). The association of Euripides’ Ion and Sophocles’ Creusa arises out of scholarly convenience:47 it becomes possible to reconstruct a play of which only a few unconnected fragments and no indication about the plot have survived. There is, however, no positive evidence in the fragments that the plot of Creusa is in any way covering the same ground as Ion (on possible pictorial evidence cf. below), nor is there any indication that secures chronological priority of Sophocles’ play or even suggests that his Creusa is indeed the Athenian queen.48

46 Cf. esp. Dalmeyda (1915) and Colardeau (1916); Grégoire p. 161–3 and Burnett (1971) 103 essentially repeat the arguments. 47 Fragments from an even worse preserved Ion (frr. 319–20, possibly 321–2, 732) have been attributed to the Creusa since Welcker (1839) I 391–3 and Schöll (1839) 313. This is another sign of how casually some interpreters have manipulated their evidence. Other scholars have made the no less plausible assumption that the tragedy deals with the Eleusinian War, in which Ion is sometimes said to have participated as a foreign army leader (much like Xuthus in our play): Wilamowitz p. 11 n.1, D. Sutton (1984) 64. The only interesting feature is the formulation ἐν Διὸς κήποις (fr. 320), reminiscent of 922 but unlikely to be more than coincidence. Otherwise the fragments are nondescript. The attribution to Ion of the picture of a young man running towards a woman on an altar on an oinochoe (Kassel T 43 C = ARV2 1206; cf. Webster (1967) 149) must be highly uncertain. 48 Grégoire’s argumentation exemplifies scholars’ will to associate the two plays (p. 161): ‘Ecartons cependant des doutes excessifs. Il ne faut pas exagérer le scepticisme



3) Myth

19

The plot that has been reconstructed is implausible. It is worth asking what kind of play Sophocles could have written: a play partly set in Delphi, partly in Athens would not be unique but without parallel in the second half of the 5th century. Even if the entire tragedy was set in Athens, with the Delphic part being mentioned only in the exposition, all that seems left is a recognition plot with little ‘tragic’ momentum;49 if Apollo’s plan was carried out smoothly, Euripides’ intrigue was without any counterpart. If, by contrast, it did entail an intrigue by Creusa, there is little significant difference to Ion, except that the most intriguing parts of Euripides’ composition (most notably Apollo’s role as director of the plot in his own sanctuary) is lost. Sutton50 dispenses with the idea that the recognition took place in Athens and assumes a plot more or less identical with Euripides’. The known cases in which Euripides adapts material covered by others,51 however, do not suggest that he would stop at merely marginal modifications.52 One preoccupation of the Sophoclean fragments is with the permissibility of lies, possibly the subject of an agon (fr. 351–2). In the context of Ion this would best fit the question of the oracle’s veracity, but the Sophoclean passage clearly deals with human emergency lies (fr. 352.2–3 ὅτωι δ’ ὄλεθρον δεινὸν ἁλήθει’ ἄγει, συγγνωστὸν εἰπεῖν ἐστι καὶ τὸ μὴ καλόν: ‘To whom the truth brings awful ruin, he may be forgiven for saying what is not honourable.’). A second theme in the fragments is the power of wealth. The chorus do not desire excessive wealth to avoid envy (fr. 353),53 and a person of low rank defends his (or her) clinging to his gains before his (or her) master (fr. 354): καὶ μή τι θαυμάσηις με τοῦ κέρδους, ἄναξ, ὧδ’ ἀντέχεσθαι (‘And do not wonder, lord, if I hold on to my profit.’). The relevance of this topic54 to a play about Creusa, Ion, and Xuthus is not prefigured in Euripides and must

49 50 51 52

53 54

[...]. Créuse, fille d’Érechthée, est la seule héroïne de ce nom qui ait pu intéresser un poète attique.’ For the lack of potential for any dramatic conflict cf. Conacher (1967) 280. (1984) 33–5. Cf. El., Oedipus, Philoctetes (departing from Aeschylus’ version; Sophocles’ is later). Sutton has succumbed to the fallacy of preconceiving the content and mapping the fragments onto it. He may (with some effort) show that the fragments are not irreconcilable with the alleged plot, but he has no evidence for the shape of that plot. His introductory statement ‘Although strictly speaking the subject of the Creusa is not known, nothing in the fragments contradicts the common understanding that in this play Sophocles dealt with the same story handled by Euripides in the Ion’ (p. 33), illustrates the topsy-turvy logic. Whatever ‘strictly speaking’ is supposed to mean, there is no positive indication of the play’s plot. For another reconstruction cf. Zielinski (1925) 120–1. Welcker (1839) 391 compares 485–7, but there richness is not declined per se but described as less desirable than children. Possibly also fr. 356, below n. 61, not spoken by the same person as fr. 354.

20

Introduction

be imported with some inventiveness. So none of the fragments treats issues central to the fable of Ion. As to pictorial evidence, two vases have been interpreted as illustrations of Sophocles’ tragedy (LIMC Kreousa I 7 and 8, Apulia c. 340 and c. 330).55 Both show a woman standing on or at an altar holding a laurel branch and talking to a bearded king with a bird sceptre; a snake appears at each side of the altar, and a panther is on each side of (no. 7) or in central position before the altar (no. 8). No. 8, which has the more detailed design, has an upper row of figures, including Apollo and Eros; one woman could be the same as the one on the altar, this time with a travel bag.56 The altar bears the inscription ΚΡΕΟΥΣΑ, assumed to be the title of the play,57 and Sophocles’ is the only play of that title that is attested. The plot, however, cannot be inferred from the depiction, and it must differ from the reconstructions mentioned above: Creusa’s posture is that of a suppliant, but the supplicandus is apparently the king (i.e. Xuthus). In addition, the iconography (a laurel garland with ‘bakchos rings’ around the altar, the panther, a woman holding a thymiaterion, Apollo in central position in the upper row) strongly suggests that the setting is Delphi:58 a supplication scene set in Delphi virtually precludes that the plot and the recognition took place in Athens. If the vases show a tragedy, and if it is Sophocles’,59 the plot seems to be very different from what anyone is assuming. It may be just as likely that the vase is actually meant to show our play, with considerable artistic licence (or inaccuracy).

B) Ion and the Erichthonius Myth Several times in the play the circumstances of Ion’s birth and exposure are narrated in detail. They are designed so as to correspond to the story of Erichthonius’ birth60 and thus to cast Ion as a mirror image of his ancestor. The central elements of that story – Erichthonius, his birth from the earth, and the 55 56 57 58

Erika Simon in Schauenburg (1988) 647 n.81, Berger-Doer (1992) 119. Cf. Berger-Doer (1992) 119. Taplin (2007) 102. One of the fragments of Sophocles’ Creusa is a trimeter version of an epigram on Apollo’s temple: fr. 356 κάλλιστόν ἐστι τοὔνδικον πεφυκέναι, λῶιστον δὲ τὸ ζῆν ἄνοσον, ἥδιστον δ’ ὅτωι πάρεστι λῆψις ὧν ἐρᾶι καθ’ ἡμέραν (‘The most honourable thing is to be just; the best thing is a life without illness; the sweetest thing is when someone can take hold of what he loves every day.’) ~ Theogn. 255–6; the thought is, however, common in Greece, and the trimeters may be said anywhere. 59 A ‘big “if”’ for Taplin (2007) 104. If Sophocles’ Creusa and Ion were in fact the same play, it is conceivable that Euripides’ play could also be called Creusa – especially since Creusa’s is the biggest part and presumably acted by the protagonist. 60 Cf. Zacharia (2003) 67–9.



3) Myth

21

story of how Athena handed him to the daughters of Cecrops, who illicitly opened the basket he was in (cf. 265–74n) – are mentioned repeatedly in the play, and the parallels and their character as imitations are highlighted as such: the bracelet in the form of two snakes that Creusa puts into the basket is linked to the snakes in Erichthonius’ basket in Hermes’ aetiological digression (20–6; cf. also 1429);61 Ion is metaphorically described by his mother as a new Erechtheus (1465),62 and the repeated references to the past generations (267–82, 469–70, 589–90, 721–4(?), 725, 999–1000, 1056–60, 1163–5–1293) gives them presence and relevance for the events described. Through this parallelism Euripides can stress the continuity of the line and Ion’s claim to true autochthony. The exposure story re-enacts Erichthonius’ birth, so Ion becomes the new Erichthonius (and earthborn) himself. Creusa is thus, on a symbolic level, bypassed, and a direct male line is created – albeit not in a strictly biological sense. Ion breaks the pattern of Athenian royal families dying out after one or two generations, as neither Cecrops nor Erichthonius/Erechtheus had founded sustained male lines in the traditional myth.63 The events surrounding Erichthonius’ birth and the actions of the Aglaurids/Agraulids were ritually re-enacted at the Arrhephoria: every year two Athenian girls lived on the acropolis and led the production of Athena’s peplos; at the end of that period, at the Arrhephoria, they carried a closed basket with unknown objects. Their destination was, in the traditional (but now doubtful) interpretation of Paus. 1.27.3, a cave at the north slope of the acropolis, about 60m from the cave of Pan. They deposited the basket and took another basket, again closed, with them.64 Several interpreters see echoes of the rite in Ion: for Loraux65 the swaddling bands that serve as recognition token evoke the peplos which the arrhephoroi prepared. The imperfections of Creusa’s piece of weaving (1419), however, and her inability to stay a virgin mark her as a failed arrhephoros. Zacharia reads the dark setting of the rape in the cave, the hidden exposure 61 In a more general way, Ion’s exposure in a basket and his being picked up from the cave by a deity may be seen as imitating Erichthonius’ birth from the earth and acceptance by Athena: Zeitlin (1989) 151–3, Loraux (1990) 203–5, Zacharia (2003) 67–9, Westra (2006) 275–6. 62 Erechtheus and Erichthonius are not distinguished in early Athenian mythology (Parker (1987) 200–1, Kron (1976) 37–9). ‘The Erechtheids’ (rather than Erichthoniads) is a standard expression in Athenian discourse (e.g. 24). So the mention here of Erechtheus rather than the direct model of Ion need not confuse us. 63 Cf. 1575–88n. Pandion, in some accounts king between Erichthonius and Erechtheus, is a shadowy and malleable figure in the hands of the mythographers: cf. Kron (1976) 104–6, Harding (2008) 42. 64 Cf. R. Parker (2005) 219–23; different interpretations in Burkert (1983) 150–4, Baudy (1992). 65 (1990) 199–200.

22

Introduction

of Ion in a basket in that cave, and the revelation of the rape in the monody, as parallel to the rite: the nocturnal setting, the deposition of the basket, and its opening. She, too, insinuates that a moral judgment can be inferred from these assumed parallels.66 It should be clear that the parallels rest mainly on the connection that both Ion and the Arrhephoria rites have with the story of Erichthonius. The associations that do not go back to that narrative are, for the most part, either flimsy or insignificant.67 Interpretations based on them must be approached with utmost caution. Only once may the arrhephoroi be evoked, but only as impersonation of the Aglaurids/Aglaurids, and in a highly elusive passage (as dancers below the acropolis 495–7).

C) Ideological Implications Euripides’ interferences with the earlier versions of the myth have some implications for the construction of Athenian identity and the relationship to the other Greeks. Ion brings together different strands of Athenian ideology that are based on mythical genealogies, and to most of them the play gives a glorifying twist. 1) The idea of the purity and autochthony of the Athenians (symbolized in their royal house)68 is affirmed; Xuthus is excluded from Athenian genealogy. Ion, who was formerly only half Athenian is turned into a ‘pure’ citizen. The parallels with Erichthonius guarantee a link to the earthborn generation, although biologically it rests on the female line, and the non-Attic inheritance is replaced by divine blood. The resulting combination of autochthonous and divine origins surpasses even the previous distinction of Athenian autochthony, and the elevation of status also affects Ion’s descendants: his sons – and thus the four Athenian/Ionian tribes (1575–81an) – remain uncontaminated by external influences; the community of the Athenians can assert autochthonous status. 2) The relationship to the other Greeks is affected by those alterations that Euripides makes in the deus ex machina speech. Most importantly, Euripides reconciles the two ideas of the Athenians’ autochthony and their relationship with the Ionians by making the latter their descendants.69 66 E.g. Zacharia (2003) 87: ‘Euripides foregrounds the myth of the Kekropids. Kreousa seems to be repeating inherited patterns of action [i.e. the exposure, the snakes etc.] and if one repeats a crime, one would expect to be punished for it.’ 67 E.g. Creusa’s revelations in the monody are hardly comparable to the Aglaurids’ opening of the basket – which is not even part of the Arrhephoria rites. Nothing in the mention of the swaddling bands suggests that the πέπλος must be that of Athena; the iconography does not match. 68 On the ambiguity in the concept of autochthony cf. 29n. 69 Cf. Dougherty (1996) 257–62, J. Hall (1997) 55–6



3) Myth

23

Ionian colonisation becomes a purely Athenian matter.70 Earlier versions of the colonisation myth only made the city the geographic starting point of the Ionian settlement and the Athenians the instigators but not the sole ethnic component of the expedition;71 through his descent from Xuthus Ion also had a pan-Hellenic heritage which diminished the Athenian share in the colonisation. Euripides eliminates these other affiliations; Athens becomes Ionia’s ‘metro-polis’ in the higher sense of biological origin. The genealogy of Ion may thus be read as giving the Athenians a higher authority over the Ionians than the traditional version – a significant move at the time of the play’s composition (ch. 4C). 3) The relationship of the Greek tribes changes, both in terms of kinship and prestige, with the shift in the genealogical constellation of their mythical ancestors. Hellen is replaced by Erechtheus and Creusa as common ancestor of the Hellenes and disappears altogether from the myth. Dorus’ position becomes inferior to Ion’s, on one level with Achaeus, who is ‘demoted’ from Ion’s full brother to his half-brother. The two are now less noble: Zeus is their great-grandfather, i.e. one generation further removed; they do not have a divine father or grandfather, and they are younger than Ion. Traditionally, Dorus had a higher status than Xuthus and Ion: Xuthus was the outcast of the family, whereas Dorus had remained in his position as Hellen’s son. On the other hand, the Dorians now share the autochthonous origin by their descent from Erechtheus, and even if they stem from the ‘impure’ union between Creusa and the non-autochthonous Xuthus, antagonism and enmity between them become more problematic and in some ways an inner-Athenian conflict (cf. 1569–94n).

70 Similar tendencies may be noticed earlier: the Athenians put up a boundary-marker on Samos, inscribed [ὅρ]ος [τε]μένος Ἴονος Ἀθένεθεν. But the inscription does not mean that Ion was considered an Athenian (but that the cult was located at Athens); nor is it a means of propagating unity of Athenians and Ionians: cf. R. Parker (1996) 145. 71 Prinz (1979) 337–40.

24

Introduction

4) Date Ion is not one of the plays for which the sources give the year of staging. Internal and external evidence can only give approximate clues. The date of the play is accordingly still controversial. The only modern consensus is that it belongs to the 410s.72 In what follows, the key evidence is reviewed and updated in accordance with the text as given in this edition. Some contradictory evidence prevents a conclusive result, but the most important indicators concerning metre and content converge and point to a date after Hel. 412.

A) Metrical Criteria ‘Most scholars will agree that the most potent stylistic criterion of date in the tragedies of Eurpides is the incidence of resolution in the iambic trimeters of his dialogue scenes.’73 The confidence that is recognisable in these words is not inappropriate, but while there may be no single method with greater potency, a statistical method does not give exact results. Even if the variance covers only a few years,74 the increase of resolutions in Euripides’ works is not entirely linear; a margin of statistical error remains.75 A number of studies on the ratio of resolutions, all based on the predecessors of Diggle’s OCT,76 have reached similar conclusions: they put Ion between IT and Hel., possibly nearer the latter. Ceadel provides the following ratios of resolved feet to total of trimeters (with proper names excluded):77 IT 23.4%

Ion 25.8%

Hel. 27.5%

Phoen. 25.8%

72 Earlier outliers (e.g. Hermann p. XXXII: not after the 89. Olympiad = 424) are no longer seriously pursued. 73 Cropp/Fick (1985) 1. 74 E.g. Hipp. (428) has relatively fewer resolutions than Med. (431), and Phoen. has a lower rate than Hel. (the assumption of extended interpolation in Phoen. may alter the picture to some extent). 75 Devine/Stephens (1981) 44 give the statistical standard variation, within which all the aberrations from the assumed order of the play fall. To Ion they assign a statistical date based on trimeter resolutions of 412.2, with a margin of error of ±3.2 years (p. 48). 76 Zielinski (1925), Descroix (1931), Ceadel (1941), Devine/Stephens (1981), Cropp/ Fick (1985). 77 Ceadel (1941) 70. He is the most recent writer to give calculations discounting proper names, which is the more reliable figure given the number of important characters with names involving resolutions in IT, Hel., and Phoen., in comparison with Ion.



4) Date

25

The changes to the text in this edition (in particular the deletions) do not change the order of the plays. With a ratio of 26.36%,78 Ion moves a bit closer to Hel.; however, Hel. is a statistical outlier, producing results according to which it should be younger than Phoen., and the relative closeness of Ion and Phoen. (probably 410/09) certainly deserves attention. The result is confirmed by the method developed by Cropp and Fick.79 They move away from the mere frequency of resolutions to word shapes therein. They state a growing variety, especially from El. onwards.80 That play has four or five types not previously used, Tro. five and Herc. eight. Of the important group of plays, Ion has 14 new types (54 overall)81, IT 12 (52), Hel. 17 (60 or 61, depending on the spuriousness or not of one instance), and Phoen. 12–14 (5582). Cropp and Fick conclude that Hel. must be later than Ion. At the same time, however, the data again shows similarity in the figures for Ion and Phoen. Other metrical criteria point in the same direction: Kanz83 maps his analysis of the trochaic tetrameter onto the order of the plays. He finds a steady increase of resolutions in the tetrameter, analogous to that in trimeters. The proportion of resolutions in Ion is identical with that of Hel. While the comparatively small sample increases the statistical uncertainty, the fundamental agreement of this development with that of the trimeters is conspicuous. Another, much cruder, trend in the employment of the tetrameter is the absolute number of tetrameters and tetrameter scenes.84 From the first use of the metre in Euripides (Herc./Tro.) a similar pattern shows, but one that rather suggests that Ion belongs to a new step in the development of Euripidean tetrameters after Hel.: Herc., Tro., IT, and Hel. have only one tetrameter passage per play, of between 18 (Tro.) and 31 lines (IT). Ion has 82 genuine lines,85 Phoen. 52, and Or. 109 in three scenes each.86 Ba., as in many ways, 78 A total of 808 trimeters contain 194 lines with one resolution (of which six occur in proper names), 12 with two (two proper names), and one with three. Lines that contain corrupt text are excluded. The figures including proper names are: IT 29.4%, Ion 27.35% (27.7% Ceadel), Hel. 35.6%, Phoen. 34.9% 79 (1985) 27–65. Their analysis is the most thorough, but their principles of investigation go back to Zielinski (1925) 142–213; cf. also Dale on Hel. p. xxiv–xxviii. 80 A summary table of the detailed analysis in Cropp/Fick (1985) 61. 81 Cropp/Fick’s figure is not affected by the deletions, and 60, which they count as possibly spurious, must be accepted. 82 Four more occur in the spurious sections and are discounted. 83 His data is used again by Devine/Stephens (1981). 84 Krieg (1936) 43–4. 85 [1621–2] discounted. 86 In the edition of Diggle, who deletes Phoen. 630, 1308–9, 1338–9, 1758–63, Or. 731, 1533–6.

26

Introduction

bucks the trend with 38 lines in one scene; in IA caution is called for, but most of the total of 210 tetrameters in three long runs have a good chance of being genuine. So the general handling of the tetrameter seems to show a development, in which Ion is closer to the plays after Hel., especially in its extensive use and in the flexibility with which speaker changes are placed in tetrametric antilabe.87 The choice of tetrameter scenes, however, is in all likelihood a more conscious decision by the author than the frequency of resolutions; hence other (artistic) factors can influence the development and make the tetrameter a more delicate criterion for dating. Returning to the statistics on metrical features, Devine/Stephens (1981) also consider the frequency of appositives (such as articles, particles, proclitics and enclitics) at Porson’s Bridge, showing an increase over time. In the resulting tables Ion is placed even after Phoen., with a statistical date of 408.9 (with a margin of error of ±3.4 years).88 Parallels with other plays concerning particular metrical features provide a more inconsistent picture and are of doubtful significance, for example: • The free responsion of dochmiacs (cf. 689~707 n Metre) appears to be a late phenomenon, paralleled only in Or. • The treatment of the first half of the wilamowitzianus shows less variation than Hel. and later plays, which would suggest that Ion belonged into the same group as IT.89 • Some metrical patterns resemble what we find in Hel.;90 but the dactylic run 507–9 has its closest parallel in Hyps., dated after Hel. (cf. n Metre). So according to the metrical criteria, a date after 415 and after IT is most likely. The relative chronology, in particular the relationship to Hel.,91 is far more difficult to determine. It would be necessary to reconsider to what extent the particularly ‘progressive’ metrical features of Hel. distort the statistical order.92

87 88 89 90 91

Krieg (1936) esp. 47–8. Devine/Stephens (1981) 44, 48. Itsumi (1982) 69. Dale on Hel. 642–5, 664, 686–7. Webster (1966) attempts a chronology of all Euripidean tragedies, based on different metrical criteria. He concludes from the closeness of the plays and the need to fill the open slots of trilogies in his compilation that Hel. and Ion are from the same year; but too many uncertainties make such a combination of metre and practicalities unreliable. 92 The opposite effect, the ‘conservatism’ of Ba., is generally accepted and explained by the content of that play.



4) Date

27

B) Structural Criteria The development of Euripides’ literary and dramaturgical technique is much harder to map onto the list of dated plays, so their significance must remain questionable, and the results are contradictory. • The increasing use of tetrameters and the introduction of antilabe suggest a date after Hel. (cf. above). • The dialogue between three actors is rare (essentially only 1606–18) and corresponds to a relatively early stage of the development, around 418.93 We must not, however, forget 771–805, where Creusa does not participate in but reacts to the dialogue between the Old Man and the chorus. • On the level of the construction of the plot, Solmsen argued that Ion, where the intrigue occurs before the recognition, showed a more advanced dramatic technique and was hence later than El., IT, and Hel., where the order is reversed: the arrangement of Ion is said to produce greater unity.94 The argument collapsed with the discovery of the hypothesis of Alex. (of 415): the play shows the same arrangement as Ion but predates Hel. and most likely IT. A difference that may point to Ion being later than Alex. is the change of roles in Ion between intrigue and the following supplication: Creusa first conspires and is then chased, while Ion is first victim and then pursuer; in Alex. the supplication of Paris is only the prolongation of the attempt on his life (1250–1620n). • I shall argue (517–62n) that the frigidness of the false recognition between Xuthus and Ion works best if we assume that the recognition duet was already an established element of recognition plays. El. does not have such a song, but IT, Hel., Hyps., and possibly Alex. (1441n) do. Yet that still does not mean that Ion must be younger than the youngest of these plays. • A special feature that may concern the staging is the ecphrasis of the temple pediment (205–18); Hyps. fr. 752c (after 412, most likely 410–407) seems to introduce a similar description (184–218n). If the two plays were part of the same production, a one-off pediment structure on top of the stage building could explain the two exceptional references to this architectural feature. It is, however, not guaranteed that a pediment was visible rather than just described. The number and the contradictoriness of criteria demonstrate their weakness.95 The case of Alex. must serve as a warning that our information does 93 Listmann (1910) 58. 94 Solmsen (1934) 400–2. 95 Others are even vaguer: Ferguson (1969) links Ion and Herc. on account of the common theme of uncertain parentage and dates them by a highhanded process of

28

Introduction

not suffice to reconstruct a development of dramatic technique with sufficient certainty.

C) External Criteria Ion has been linked with other texts: • Theiler finds it worth mentioning that Aristophanes does not make any allusion to Ion when the cave of Pan is mentioned in Lys. 2.96 The ar­ gumentum ex silentio postulates too confidently that such a (paratragic) reference would have to be expected. • The parallels with – or supposed imitations of – Antiphon (642–4, 1247– 9) can only be relevant if his On Truth can be dated to 413–11.97 But caution is advisable about the possibility of dating it, as Hoffmann (1997) 267–72 shows. • The epithet χρυσόλογχος in 9 and in Ar. Thesm. 318 (from 411) is conspicuous, as these are the only two occurrences of the word. It may indicate temporal proximity of the texts and a reference to a striking new feature of Athena’s statue on the Acropolis. Any more concrete assumption is beyond the scope of our knowledge.98 In addition, reflections of the historical background have been assumed to be detectable in the play; the dates thus established vary by around ten years. Allusions to specific events must be regarded sceptically:99 if the mention of Rhion (1592) were a reference to Alcibiades’ operations in the area,100 the date would be soon after 419; but it would be just as plausible to see an alluelimination to 414. Matthiessen (1964) 90–1, 142–3 assigns to Ion a place closer to IT than Hel. on the basis that the dea ex machina speech has the same function of wrapping up the strands of the play and the reunion song deals with the surprising turns of fortune. By contrast, Hose (1995) 69–70 takes the general similarities of the three plays as an indicator of performance in the same year. H. Schmidt (1971) 42 links Ion with the late plays after Hel. on account of the character exposition in a monody and the use of a genre picture in the opening scene. However, Euripides is not consistent in his use of these techniques, allowing exceptions: Or. concerning the chorus’ arrival and Phoen. and Ba. concerning the monodies. For more extended parallels in the plot of Ion and Ba. cf. Diller (1955) 18–19. 96 (1966) 109–10, cautiously inferring a date of 411. 97 So Scholten (2003) 225. 98 I shall not mention but in passing Vickers’ recent claim (2014) that Ion was a proAlcibiadean rejoinder to Sophocles’ Aias (allegedly of 410!) and that Euripides ‘puts a positive, pro-Alcibiadean spin on every detail’. It is the latest manifestation of the author’s obsession to see Alcibiades behind virtually all of Greek tragedy. 99 Cf. Zuntz (1955), a seminal study; on Ion in particular p. 64. 100 Grégoire p. 167, Delebecque (1951) 225, Goossens (1962) 490.



4) Date

29

sion to the Euboean defection in 411 in the reference to Xuthus’ (otherwise unattested) Euboean War (59–60). The chances of finding significant evidence may be higher if we do not look for references to specific events but reflections of particular issues, institutions, or situations that may have preoccupied the author and his audience. • A reference to ostracism (and thus a date before the end of that institution in c. 416) has been seen by Owen in 603–4 (ad loc.). But the reference is to any kind of vote, and the assembly and the courts are just as suitable as venues for the political fight; in addition, the text is probably spurious and even later than the rest of the play. • Owen also believes that the description of the Eleusinian revels could not have been written while the Spartans occupied Deceleia preventing the procession to Eleusis (xl–xli). Wilamowitz (p. 24) takes the opposite view, interpreting ‘die ziemlich gewaltsame Heranziehung der Eleusinien’ as an indication of a date after 413. Neither argument is compelling: it is only the procession by land preceding the nightly revel that the Spartans made impossible; initiates could still come to Eleusis by sea (Xen. Hell. 1.4.20, Plut. Alc. 34.3–7); the celebration depicted in Ion may still have taken place. • Zacharia101 takes 411 as terminus ante quem, because of the revisionist reorganisation of Attica during the oligarchic regime: the establishment by the oligarchy of four tribes (after the Solonian model) in order to distribute the eligible population would have been seen as contaminating them and ‘would have carried with it undesirable associations’ for the ‘Ionian’ tribes.102 But this assumption, which alone is adduced to support the argument, is unverifiable, implausible, and based on a weak conjecture: the oligarchs installed four βουλαί, not φῦλαι (Arist. Ath.Pol. 30.3)103 nor did they suppress the ten Cleisthenic tribes as units of organisation (e.g. Arist. Ath.Pol. 31.1). Likewise, the reinstalled democracy left the four ‘Ionian’ tribes untouched, so the view that that old division would have been seen as tainted by the oligarchic regime is unsubstantiated. In any case, they were probably not an institution with an obvious political purpose but archaic religious groups with few practical functions: the φυλοβασιλεῖς dealt with sacrifices and judged trials against unknown murderers (cf. 1575–81an). Even if the ‘Ionian’ tribes had been part of a ‘revisionist’ agenda, it is not clear why the reference should not have been possible during the oligarchic regime. 101 (2003) 4–5. 102 Zacharia (2003) 4–5 (quote p. 5) concerning the tribes named after Ion’s sons (1576–81). 103 The conjecture φυλάς for βουλάς by E. Harris (1990a) has been rebutted by David (1996).

30

Introduction

• Of uncertain reliability but, if accepted, indicative of a date after the defeat in Sicily are the criteria for citizenship as presuposed in 592 and 671–2. In both passages it does not seem to matter for Ion’s rights (but only his reputation) whether his mother is Athenian. That means the strict criteria of Pericles’ citizenship law are not considered (670b–5n).104 If we assume that the definition of citizenship underlying Ion’s Athens is that of the real city, Pericles’ law would have to be not in force. This was apparently the case after the substantial losses in manpower incurred through the Sicilian expedition.105 • I have suggested elsewhere106 that the allusion to the Herms (30) makes a date in the first years after their mutilation in 415 unlikely. The nod to Hermes’ omnipresence in Athens makes little sense at a time when the pillars were destroyed. In addition, Apollo means to win his brother’s favour by the remark, which becomes very bitter if the impiety committed against Hermes is a matter of the recent past. From the winter of 412/11 the Athenian apprehensions concerning the events of 415 seem to fade: the city initiates the rapprochement with Alcibiades (Thuc. 8.47), who had been found guilty of the profanation of the mysteries, a charge seemingly related to that of mutilating the Herms. • The key point concerning the politics of the play will be the treatment of the Ionians. The fast-changing political and military environment of the 410s must have a profound effect on the reception of Athena’s predictions (1581b–8). The mention of Ionian colonisation suggests an Athenian claim to leadership over the Ionians; but the play’s story is designed to touch on the Athenian-Ionian relationship on a more fundamental level: Euripides makes Apollo the ancestor of the Athenian royal house – the same god who was the patron and protector of the Ionians and had been the god of the Delian League before its treasures were moved to Athens in 454.107 So the author who remodelled the myth strengthened the ties between Athenians and Ionians by making Ion the coloniser and appropriating the Ionian god for the Athenians. However, mutually exclusive conclusions have been drawn from Athena’s aetiology: ‘imperialist’ notions in the speech have led scholars to assume a date around 418, a period of ambitions to extend the ἀρχή in the context of the campaigns on the Peloponnese.108 But that period does not obviously provoke comments on the allies on the coast of Asia Minor, and the speech may not be all that optimistic. More pertinent is the assumption that after the defections of several allies in 412 104 Pace e.g. Walsh (1978) 307, Lape (2010) 104. 105 Carawan (2008); cf. Dem. 57.30. 106 Martin (2010a). 107 Smarczyk (1990) 47. 108 Goossens (1962) 490; cf. Delebecque (1951) 229–32.



4) Date

31

a prediction such as that of Athena would no longer have been palatable to the Athenians.109 However, this is the point at which the Athenian focus shifts to the East and the situation of their allies in the Aegean takes on acute importance.110 The idea that a reference to the ἀρχή would be offensive presupposes a rather schematic view of the time after 412, according to which the Athenian empire was unravelling since the defeat in Sicily. There is, in fact, a period of optimism after several military successes (especially at Cynossema in 411 and at Cyzicus early in 410). The climax of Athenian optimism probably falls into the time of Alcibiades’ presence in Athens in 408. Soon afterwards the fortunes of war turned again, and by 407 Alcibiades was already being recalled in the wake of the defeat at Cyme. Irrespective of events in Athens at the time (esp. in 411/10), the war in the Aegean was sufficient to reignite hopes of returning the empire to its former greatness.111 If a date in e.g. 410 is accepted, even the absence of Euboea in the list of Ionian settlements (1581b–8n) makes sense, as the mention of that defecting island might have left a bitter taste in the audience. Moreover, the phrase ὃ σθένος τἠμῆι χθονὶ δίδωσιν (1584–5) will assume an extra layer of meaning compared to the dating before 412: it draws awareness to Athens’ precarious situation. The metropolis does not just exploit her colonies, but is also dependent on them, and she has to fight to retain or regain her power – an accurate description of the time after the defection of important allies. In this context it may be worth pointing out that the section on the Ionian colonisation is a short passage without an integral connection to the rest of the text. Hence could it have been composed in reaction to recent events and inserted into the text at short notice. • A date after 412 also gives extra significance to Euripides’ rearrangement of the genealogy of the Greek tribes. Gibert112 argues that until 412, when in the summer the Spartans concluded a peace treaty with Persia, the barbarians in Euripides’ plays are portrayed in a differentiated way, with elements of both nobleness and savageness, while afterwards stereotypical negative traits take over. Ion does not present barbarians, but the flipside of a binary model of Greeks vs barbarians: greater unity among the Greeks. While the Athenians/Ionians are given a privileged status as 109 Delebecque (1951) 244. 110 Cf. the importance attached to Athens’ relationship with her allies in Ar. Lys.: Smarczyk (1990) 612–14. 111 Cf. Diod.Sic. 13.52.1, Bleckmann (1998) 405. 112 (2011) 385–6. Sommerstein (1977) 120 concludes, in a more differentiated argument, that even at the time of the Great Dionysia of 411 the Athenians may have hoped for Persian help. But while that may make a date after 411 slightly more likely, it does not mean that Euripides could not have reacted to the appearance of the Persians on the scene in the way described.

32

Introduction

descendants of Apollo, the Dorians have profited from being integrated into the Athenian family: the descent from Creusa ennobles them by letting them originate from the earthborn Erechtheids; what is more, they are part of the autochthonous Athenian bloodline (cf. 1569–94n). In this way the tribes move closer together, almost forging a pan-Hellenic identity (together with the Achaeans) that reaches back to the common ancestor Erechtheus. By this relationship the battle lines oppose not just the Greek tribes but close relatives. While no certainty can be had from any of these pieces of evidence, it appears that the approximate date 413 given by Diggle (and followed by many) is by no means the only, maybe not even the best, guess. The metrical criteria do not give an exact date, but the strictest criteria associate Ion with Phoen.; structural considerations are flexible and often influenced by constraints of dramaturgy and myths. The evidence from the historical context, finally, can often be read either way, but the most interesting and nuanced reading probably points to a date after the desertion of allies in 412:113 a time when the importance of the Ionian and Hellenic ties became particularly important. This case does not rest on allusions to specific events but rather explains the motifs against the general background, mood, and problems of the time.114

113 The date of 410 has also been suggested by Klimek-Winter (1996) as a conclusion from two premises: firstly, that the tragedians did not stage tragedies in consecutive years; secondly, that both Andromeda (from 412) and Ion must have been the first play of the trilogy, because they start early in the day (cf. 82–8). Neither premise ought to be considered valid. 114 Cf. Zuntz (1955) 79–80, Meier (1988) 52–3, Hose (1995) 9–13.



5) Set, Entrances and Exits, Actor Distribution

33

5) Set, Entrances and Exits, Actor Distribution The skene represents the temple of Apollo at Delphi. It appears to have a second door at the side in addition to the central gate (78n). Some special decoration is mentioned, but it is unclear whether it was visible or had to be imagined: a gigantomachy in the pediment (205–7), two groups of statues – depicting Heracles and Iolaus killing the Lernaean Hydra and Bellerophon on Pegasus slaying the Chimaera – next to the central skene entrance (190–204n). In the orchestra the stage altar represents the altar of the temple (in historic times the Chian Altar).115 Its shape is the same as in plays where it serves as the house altar of Apollo Agyieus: hence it can be called θεραπεία ἀγυιατίς (186–bisn) and the pillar is suitably described as ξόανα (1403, poetic plural). The characters enter from or leave to the following extra-scenic places: 1 the Castalian spring (95) 2 altars in the sanctuary (422) 3 lustral vessels (435) 4 the proxenos’ house (1039, 1253) 5 the town (1107) 6 the Phaedriades/Parnassus (1126–7) 7 the tent (1129) 8 In addition, Hermes, the chorus, Creusa, Xuthus, and the Old Man seem to arrive from outside Delphi (Hermes from an unnamed place; the rest from Athens); Creusa, Ion, Athena, and the chorus leave together for Athens. Athena arrives from Mount Olympus (?, 1556), but she flies in on a chariot (the μηχανή), not using an entrance like the others. The assignment of an eisodos to each of these places poses problems: consistency demands that characters re-enter from the same eisodos through which they left and that the same place always be reached via the same eisodos. In 725 Creusa returns (from 2) with the Old Man, so 2 and 8 are on the same side. 6 and 7 are also reached via the same eisodos (Xuthus and Ion leave together in 675): the messenger is among their entourage and present at the meal. The same eisodos must also lead to 5, since he says he searched the town for Creusa (1107, recognisable despite the lacuna). 115 Cf. Ley (2007) 62–3. Winnington-Ingram (1976) 491–500 proposes that the references are to different altars and that Creusa supplicates within the temple (so still Wiles (1997) 80–1).

34

Introduction

The proxenos’ house might be expected to be in town, but other considerations speak against that: the Old Man’s demand that Creusa go there (1039) becomes awkward if he leaves together with her – or at most a few lines later (1047) – through the same eisodos. A position behind the other eisodos also explains why the messenger has not found her in town (1107–8). He does not go back to where he came from but leaves through the opposite eisodos and can be imagined as informing Creusa, who then steals away from the house and flees to the temple. If the proxenos lives on the way to Athens, the chorus (184) and Creusa (236bis) can also approach from their lodging. For dramatic effect it is desirable that 2 and 3 lie in opposite directions, so that the three actors leave the stage by three different exits in 424, 428, and 451. To arrange it in this way, the lustral vessels must be imagined at the entrance to the sanctuary from the city rather than from ‘abroad’. 1 could be on either side; it is, however, preferable that the Castalian spring is situated deeper into the sanctuary.116 Consequently, eisodos A leads away from Delphi, to the altars and to the proxenos’ house (2, 4, 8). All other places are reached via eisodos B. It is impossible to determine which eisodos is on which side.117 The entrances and exits in the play then occur as follows:118 1 Hermes enters from eisodos A (?). 76 Ion and a group of silent Delphic dignitaries enter from a second door in the skene. 81 Hermes leaves via the main door of the skene. 101 Ion stays, while the men leave via eisodos B. 184 The chorus enter from eisodos A. 236bis Creusa enters from eisodos A. 392 Xuthus enters from eisodos A. 424 Xuthus leaves into the skene. 428 Creusa leaves via eisodos A. 451 Ion leaves via eisodos B. 510 Ion enters from eisodos B. 116 Historically, too, that eisodos would be correct, as the spring was situated in the town (95n). But the entire topography does not aim at accuracy. 117 In comedy, at least, one entrance (right as seen from the stage) leads away to the countryside (and away from the land) and the other deeper into the city and to the harbour (Prolegomena Xa; but cf. Poll. 4.126–7). The latter would be our B. But cf. Rees (1911), Hourmouziades (1965) 128–36. 118 The only earlier (and partly differing) compilation can be found in Bodensteiner (1893) 783–4. Kovacs in the stage directions of his translation assigns most of the extra-scenic places to the same eisodoi as this commentary; in his view Castalia and Creusa’s altars (428/725) are in the direction of B, while Ion in 451 leaves via eisodos A to fetch water. That, however, means that in 675 Xuthus and Ion leave in the direction from which Creusa will re-enter.



5) Set, Entrances and Exits, Actor Distribution

35

516 675 725 1040 1047 1106 1228 1250 1261 1320 1363 1549 1618

Xuthus enters from the skene. Xuthus and Ion leave via eisodos B. Creusa and the Old Man enter via eisodos A. Creusa leaves via eisodos A. The Old Man leaves via eisodos B. The messenger enters via eisodos B. The messenger leaves via eisodos A. Creusa enters via eisodos A. Ion enters via eisodos B. The Pythia enters from the skene. The Pythia leaves into the skene. Athena enters on the machine. Creusa and Ion leave via eisodos A; Athena accompanies them on the machine. 1620 The chorus leave via eisodos A. The distribution of the roles between the three actors also relies on considerations of plausibility.119 The protagonist (I) and the deuteragonist (II) both have demanding parts to play with Creusa (the biggest single role) and Ion, and it is likely that the tritagonist (III) played all other parts. Since they are on stage simultaneously with Ion and Creusa, the tritagonist (III) must act the roles of Xuthus, the Pythia, and Athena. Hermes cannot be played by II, the Old Man not by I. The messenger could be played by any actor, but I and II would be pressed for time: Creusa enters at 1250, with 21 lines intervening since the messenger has left the stage; Ion enters ten lines later. This would presumably leave enough time for a change of dress;120 but II would also have to move to the opposite eisodos. In addition, the choral song consists of relatively short cola, so the interval of 21 lines is probably considerably shorter than with the same number of trimeters. A lightning change is easily avoided if III is the messenger. The total number of lines pronounced by minor characters (391.5 with few lacunae, roughly a quarter of the play) likewise suggests that I and II did not take over more than their already quite substantial roles. III then seems to have been a part for a specialist in rheseis: the three longest speeches in the play (over 230 lines) are spoken by him; the only other substantive rhesis is that of Ion (595–647, 29 lines in our text). In contrast to the other two actors III never sings.

119 Cf. Pickard-Cambridge (1968) 146, Di Benedetto/Medda (1997) 227–8. 120 Cf. Or. 1352–66, 1536–49; Soph. Trach. 946–71.

36

Introduction

6) The Text A) Transmission Ion has stood in the shadow of other, more prominent, Euripidean plays throughout its transmission and reception.121 While it has had its fair share of modern editions, it is among those tragedies with the slimmest basis of evidence for the constitution of the text. No contemporary citations or even allusions are attested: not a single paratragic reference to or quotation from Ion can be identified in the remains of Old Comedy;122 Aristotle never cites it in the Poetics. The 4th century is, however, probably a period of quite intensive reception: the version of the myth is ironically adopted by Plato (Euthyd. 302D: ch. 3Ab), but more importantly the writers of New Comedy draw on Ion for their plots.123 The direct influence of the play on the motifs of exposure, on the recognition by tokens, and on the general plot structure of later Greek drama124 must remain elusive, for other potential models are lost and the parallels remain mostly unspecific. In one case, however, Plautus’ Rudens (1134–75), an adaptation of a comedy by Diphilus, direct dependence may be regarded as very likely because of structural similarities and verbal echoes.125 In other genres it is difficult to distinguish direct imitation from coincidental similarity or the in121 I shall not deal here with the modern reception which is too manifold to be covered in a study devoted to the text itself, even though the number of adaptations and performances is only a fraction of that of Hippolytus or Agamemnon. For different approaches cf. Schlichtmann (2007) on Schlegel, E. Hall/Macintosh (2005) 128–51 on the British theatrical tradition, and Padel (1996) on a contemporary performance. A possible case unstudied so far may be the parallel between the Pythia and the Abbess in Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors. 122 Some have seen the oracle of Aristophanes’ Plutus as a parody on that of Ion, but cf. 534n. Arnoldt’s (1885) supposed allusions in Birds can scarcely even be termed tenuous. 123 Hunter (2011) 26–33. Prosser (1981) tries to restore the text of Men. Epitr. 719 by reference to [836–8], but even if his restoration were right and the text of Ion genuine, analogy would be more likely than direct influence. Ed. Fraenkel (1912) 14–26 sees influences of the symposion scene in Middle Comedy. Performances are virtually guaranteed by the depiction of scenes on vases: cf. e.g. M. Schmidt (1979), Taplin (2007) 146–8. 124 Schaaf (2002); Quijada Sagrado (2003) also posits that Ion anticipated (or influenced?) the treatment of the narrative in 4th-cent. tragedy. 125 Cf. Telò (1998); less strict are the parallels between the ‘false’ recognitions in 517– 62 and Men. Mis. 210–15, detected by Zacharia (1995) 53–4: the similar phrasing draws on the common stock, the recognition in Menander does not involve an error on the part of father and daughter but is misinterpreted by an outsider as an erotic encounter.



6) The Text

37

fluence of a common model. Convincing examples of the former type can be found in the spurious sections of IA (83n) and Aristonous’ Hymn to Hestia (461–2n).126 As to the history of the text of Ion, we can only draw on our knowledge about the Corpus Euripideum in general: the plays circulated on the book market and were staged in the programme of re-performances of ‘classical’ plays after 386. Around 330 Lycurgus ordered that a state copy of the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides be produced; both the aim of this measure and the quality of the resulting text are disputed.127 This text is generally assumed to have reached the library of Alexandria,128 where it was edited by Alexander of Aetolia; further critical work, most notably the colometry of the lyric sections,129 was undertaken by Aristophanes of Byzantium. The entire later tradition seems to have emanated from this text.130 No scraps of a papyrus copy of Ion have been found, and only one line is preserved in a papyrus anthology;131 two passages are paraphrased or quoted in Philodemus’ De Pietate (1, 237–40). Anthologies surviving in medieval manuscripts are a richer source of extracts, with Stobaeus offering the largest number. The lexica, most notably Hesychius, cite individual words or locutions. The fact that often the same or similar quotations are cited in a number of sources (e.g. 186–bis, 294, 301, 391, 433–52, 453, 653) suggests that they are taken from scholarly (or reference) works or collections of sayings. The extant lexica and their references to Ion cannot, therefore, be used to assess how well the play was known at their time. The same is true for the one quotation found in literary works, taken probably from an anthology (732). The testimonia indicate the unreliable state of the direct transmission (cf. in particular the quotation of 433–52 in ps.-Iustinus Martyr). In some instances they can help establish the correct text of the mss (186bis, 239, 382–3, 624–5, 732), but the larger part of the variant readings is inferior, partly because of editorial changes, but mainly because of corruption. Direct knowledge of the text of Ion is likely in Aelian (1198) and the essay on style 126 Suggestions of imitation or intertextual allusion in Vergil and Heliodorus (Fernandelli (2002), Clavo (2003)) are not compelling. 127 Cf. Scodel (2007). 128 The story in Galen about the illegal appropriation of ‘the’ copies of the tragedians by the Alexandrinians (In Epid. III 2.4, XVII/1.607.4–14) may refer to the Lycurgan state exemplar, another official copy, or be altogether apocryphal. But some link between the two texts is likely: cf. Prauscello (2006) 74–8. 129 Zuntz (1965) 35, but cf. the cautious remarks by Kovacs (2005) 385. 130 On the history of the tragic texts cf. e.g. Pertusi (1956), (1957), several papers in Battezzato (2003); a summary in Kovacs (2005). Nothing is to be gained about Ion in particular from the information we have. 131 732; only Hcld. and Suppl. share a similar fate: cf. the compilation of ancient copies and testimonies in Carrara (2009) esp. 586.

38

Introduction

by ps.-Demetrius from the 1 century BC/AD (144–83n); it can be presumed for Pausanias (ch. 3Ab). An inscription from the 2nd cent. AD (CIL V.2 5889) honouring a pantomime, highlighting his performance of Ion and Tro. attests some kind of acquaintance outside élite circles and the studies of the literati. However, the fact that not the dramatic text but the dance (probably Ion’s and Cassandra’s monodies) receives the attention and the inscription is in Latin leaves some doubt of a full performance and the prominence of the Greek text. Knowledge of Ion in later periods is not attested: it did not form part of the canonical selection of ten plays; hence it was not widely copied. In Byzantine times Ion seems to have been almost lost: Eustathius is the only person in the high Middle Ages demonstrably to show acquaintance through several quotations in his commentaries. st

The text survived, against the odds, together with eight other plays (Hel., El., Herc., Hcld., Suppl., IA, IT, Cycl.), only as part of an edition that assembled plays by Euripides in alphabetic order. Preserved are plays beginning with the (Greek) letters E to Κ.132 An old copy (probably written in majuscule letters)133 of the nine plays seems to have been discovered some time before 1175, after a period of oblivion of uncertain duration. It is this copy (or an apograph of it) that was read by Eustathius. Kannicht refers to the comparatively high number of errors specific to majuscules:134 this points to a late date of transcription into minuscule letters, i.e. at the time of Eustathius rather than before. A copy using early minuscule,135 possibly Eustathius’ own exemplar, became the ancestor of the extant mss. In addition, while many of the marginal notes are of deplorable quality (e.g. 87 πραεῖαν), some show a scholarly spirit that may be ascribed to Eustathius.136 The existence of an intermediary manuscript between Eustathius and the mss composed in the scriptorium of Triclinius is possible but not necessary.137 132 Snell (1935) convincingly argues that the plays were stored in alphabetical order in containers of five rolls; the transcriptions of two containers (Hel. to Hcld., Cycl. to IA) survived and were copied. 133 On the traces of a majuscule ancestor cf. Browning (1960) 15, Zuntz (1965) 184. Evidence about the history between Aristophanes of Byzantium and L is sparse. For a possible glimpse of the fate of the carriers of transmission cf. West (1981) 75–6. 134 I 95. In Ion e.g. 15 ὄγκον ~ οἶκον, 162 κύκνος ~ κύκλος, 166 πάραγε ~ παρά τε, 434 γ᾿ οὐδέν ~ τοὖδας, 565 οὐδ’ ὄναρ ~ οὐδὲν ἄρ, 1009 αὔτ’ ἐγὼ ~ αὐτὸ ᾿γώ, 1028 λαθεῖν ~ λαβεῖν, 1063 ἐλπὶς φέρετ’, 1246 μένει ~ μέλει, 1396 πῆμα ~ πολλά, 1435 οὔποτ᾿ ~ οὔπερ. 135 Zuntz (1965) 90, 180–92. For mistakes that go back to a minuscule ms older than Λ cf. 704 ἴσωσεν/ἔσωσε, 790 ἔλακεν ~ ἔλαβεν, possibly 1253 οἴκων ~ ἄκων. 136 The marginalia go back beyond Λ, as is shown by correct explanations of false text (e.g. 1294 δαλοῖς): cf. Zuntz (1965) 184. 137 Zuntz (1965) 188–9.



6) The Text

39

The state of transmission of the ‘alphabetic’ plays is essentially that of a co­ dex unicus. All other mss go back to L. Only one of them (P) has some value for the reconstruction of earlier readings:138 L Laur. plut. 32.2 Written at the beginning of the 14th cent., L unites Euripides’ works (except Tro. and Ba. 756–end) with the trias of Aeschylus, Sophocles’ tragedies except OC, and Hesiod’s Works and Days. The text of Ion was copied by Nicolaos Triclines139 from a lost manuscript with a similar hand (Zuntz’ Λ). The dependence on a contemporary ms can be inferred from a confusion of ν and υ (300).140 Λ may have been intended as a working copy for Demetrius Triclinius. The ms was corrected three times by Triclinius (Tr). The ink is different in each revision; the difference, however, is not always big enough to attribute every change with certainty,141 and Zuntz and Diggle may have gone as far as is possible with the naked eye. The first round of corrections seems to have been mostly dedicated to collation with Λ, the other two were of critical or editorial nature. P Pal. gr. 287 P, which contains all extant plays of Sophocles and Euripides and the trias of Aeschylus, was copied directly from L after Tr1 and before Tr2. The volume was divided within about the first hundred years of its existence:142 the part containing Ion reached the Vatican Library, the other part remained in Florence (Laur. conv. soppr. 172). Since it is an apograph it has no independent value for the transmission, but it can be of assistance where the original writing in L has been rendered illegible by Triclinius. Later the manuscript was collated with L again by Ioannes Catrares (called ‘the rubricator’ before his identification because of the red ink; hence Prubr).143 138 For detailed observations on these mss cf. Turyn (1957) 222–64, Zuntz (1965) 126– 40, Tuilier (1968) 188–95, Kannicht on Hel. I p. 97–108. 139 Turyn (1957) 229; possibly the brother of Demetrius Triclinius. 140 Other typical mistakes are δ resembling σ or γ (esp. δω/σω), α resembling αυ or ου; cf. Zuntz (1965) 181–2. The folio which Triclines initially left out and added subsequently after two pages of IT (lines 1424–1582, missing after 133v, inserted on 136r–v) gives additional evidence for its being written in the same scriptorium: the page layout is the same as elsewhere, so the model must have had the same number of lines per page (two columns of 38 lines each). 141 Characterisations differ. Zuntz (1965) 90–1: Tr1 dark brown ink, Tr3 black with reddish-yellow glow; Kannicht on Hel. I p. 99: Tr1 black ink, Tr2 greyish brown Tr3 reddish brown. Sansone (1984) 336 rightly urges caution concerning the reliability of the hues. 142 Turyn (1957) 260–1. 143 Turyn (1964) 127–8; Diggle (1994) 511.

40

Introduction

A number of further apographs and descendants that contain Ion exists,144 but their only worth lies in the few instances where later conjectures are anticipated: Laur. plut. 31.1 (15th cent.) Par. gr. 2817 (c.1500; not later than 1503) Par. gr. 2887 (16th cent.) Monac. gr. 168 (16th cent.) [lines 1298–1622], by Pietro Vettori and others, based probably on Hervag. Ricc. 32 (16th cent.) [lines 1–968], based on Hervag. 1544, with marginal notes by Vettori’s pupils145 Toledo 102–33 (16th cent.), transcript of the Aldina Par. suppl. gr. 376 (18th cent.) Ion was first printed in the near-complete edition (lacking El.) at the press of Aldus Manutius in Venice 1504 (dated February 1503).146 The traditional ascription of this editio princeps to Marcus Musurus has been proved wrong.147 This edition was based on a lost descendant of L, possibly a copy of Par. gr. 2817.148 The Aldina is the direct or indirect source of all editions (and the basis of the textual criticism) before Musgrave. The number of outstanding scholars working on and improving the text is too great to mention here, and their work will be acknowledged in the apparatus and commentary. For the role of the manuscripts in the editions the most important steps will be briefly sketched. In 1778 Musgrave published the first text since the Aldina that was based on manuscript autopsy. However, neither L nor P appears on the list of mss that he examined, and Musgrave draws on Par. gr. 2817 and 2887, and the Aldina – L is mentioned first in Beck’s edition of earlier editors’ notes in the 144 The list is based on Spranger (1939) and Turyn (1957) 377–83. 145 Cf. Vitelli (1894) 493–4, Turyn (1957) 378. 146 The following remarks on the editorial history of Euripides’ plays draw heavily on Kannicht on Hel. I p. 111–29, with some additions specific to Ion. 147 Sicherl (1975) 210–11. 148 Pace Kannicht on Hel. I p. 110 (following Kirchhoff), numerous errors separate P from the Aldina: e.g. 37 κύτος P, σκύτος L Aldina; 116 κήπων L Aldina, κόμπων P; on the other hand 803 ὁποίας LP, δὲ ποίας Par. gr. 2817 Aldina. Cf. Sicherl (1975) 210–11, Magnani (2000) 207–33, esp. 230. An isolated later citation by Aristobulus Apostolis (=Arsenius Monembasius) may go back to the same ms: Aristobulus edited the paroemiographical work of his father Michael Apostolius and replenished it with many citations from the poets, from Stobaeus, and elsewhere. What makes the man interesting is that he worked for Aldus Manutius. He thus probably had access to the ms on which the Aldina was based. He quotes 300 σηκοῖς ἐνστρέφῃ Τροφωνίου where L has εὖ στρέφει. If this is not a conjecture (or lucky misreading), it means that the marginal note (ἐνστρέφεται) may have been copied from L into the lost ms.



6) The Text

41

third volume of Musgrave’s edition from 1788; of the Vatican mss nothing is known to him beyond their mere existence. For the recension of the text a methodical step forward was Lachmann’s method in the evaluation of the mss, first applied to the alphabetic plays by Kirchhoff (editio maior 1855): he establishes L and P as the only significant carriers of transmission and dismisses for good all other mss. The relationship of L and P, however, remains undiscussed. Of the leading editions, Nauck estimates P more highly than L;149 Wecklein150 does not distinguish L and Lp.c. from Tr1 and only separates it from interferences of a later hand (l = Tr2). He gives equal weight to L and P, even though his apparatus shows that the two mss are closely connected before the interference of l; Grégoire in the Budé series (1923) recognises the differences between Lp.c. and Tr1 (p. I) and the dependence of P on L before the corrections of l. This corresponds largely to Zuntz’ more detailed account,151 which has become the standard. While Biehl in his Teubner edition from 1978 mistrusts Zuntz’s reconstruction of the relationship between L and P and considers P as depending directly on Λ (p. XVI–XVII), Diggle’s magisterial edition (OCT, Ion in vol. II, 1981), has been the first to be produced strictly on the basis of the dependence of P on L/Tr1.

B) Interpolations An aspect of the transmission instructive about Ion’s Nachleben is the number and nature of interpolations in the play. The battle over whether to assume extensive interpolation in our texts is an old one, and neither side has taken any captives, refusing any compromise. In Ion, the prologue in particular has been the object of many an unnecessary attempt at purgation.152 At the other end of the scale, Biehl approaches the text with great conservatism. However, his defence of the text against almost any deletions seems to be founded on his desire to preserve symmetries that he finds in the numbers of trimeters and

149 This has, however, little practical impact on Ion (cf. 467 τοῦ is printed, though doubted). In his judgment Nauck relies on the flawed collations already used by Matthiae and Kirchhoff (in 679 L allegedly has ἴδηι). 150 He bases his edition on the collations of Prinz, who follows Girolamo Vitelli in this practice. 151 Cf. n. 141. 152 Schmid’s (1869) deletion of the entire prologue is only the most radical of many proposals (duly opposed by e.g. Eysert (1880), Klinkenberg (1881) 39–46, but partly still with assumption of substantial interpolations). Schmid (1884) 30–48 also suggests that the last part of the play (from 1558) has been heavily edited, including several interpolations.

42

Introduction

tetrameters per scene throughout the play.153 His reasons for retaining lines are rarely of sound philological quality and do not deal with the objections of critics; instead, they commonly rest upon the alleged consistency of characterisation and an obscure dramatic value in the lines, which often presupposes that we imagine dumb show or supplement thoughts not indicated in the text.154 Reeve in his three-part disquisition on modern textual conservatism concerning interpolation had already debunked such attempts at defending the indefensible and renewed Page’s systematic criticism of histrionic interpolations.155 Reeve (1972b) in particular, dealing with Erbse (1966), shows how such attempts at defence construct dramatic effects and necessities and invent stage action or argumentative connections which have no (explicit) indication in the text. What the explanations in defence of spurious passages show is that, were the text to be genuine, it could somehow be interpreted and that the interpolator did not write something completely incoherent; they too often do not tackle the real issues with these passages and do not demonstrate that the passages in question are indispensable. Ion has received relatively little attention in this respect in the relevant literature. Murray in his edition, however, suspected several substantial bits of interpolation, and Diggle followed him in many instances. This edition will present a text in which additional passages are suspected.156 Four types may be distinguished: 1) The existence of explanatory additions is largely uncontested. Interpolators often write out brachylogic constructions, either because they do not understand the text (because it is too condensed) or because they want to make it easier for the reader or spectator to follow the line of thought. In Ion the relevant lines are: 248, 647, 726 (disambiguating), 737, 937, 1035, 1117, 1124, and 1515. 51 may have arisen out of a misunderstanding about the subject: if the Pythia is taken as the subject of 49–50, then it is desirable to add a corresponding clause on Ion as the more relevant person. The interpolator has thus filled in information he felt lacking.

153 Cf. p. 132–47 of the edition, (1977), and (1996) passim. 154 E.g. on 843–57, 992–3, 1356–62. 155 Reeve (1972a), (1972b), (1973); Page (1934). Most of the extended interpolations are likely to originate from the early histrionic practice, probably before the text reached Alexandria; but cf. 602 λογίων with n. 156 A number of lines are not deleted in this edition but must count as suspect and be treated with caution: 239–40 (from another play?) and 1027–8, 1035–8, 1043–7 (of the histrionic type), 1188, 1269–70, 1273–4.



6) The Text

43

2) A larger group is that of dramatic extensions, which could be of histrionic origin.157 Most of them serve as augmentation: they prolong the topic of conversation and intensify the emotions conveyed in the passages (or evoke further ones). These interpolations are concentrated in the 3rd epeisodion and the exodos. 374–80 (explicating the outrageousness of Creusa’s request) 612–20 (making the confrontation between Ion and Creusa more graphic) 839–58 (the Old Man stirring up Creusa’s hatred) 981–2 (initiating an additional movement, interrupted soon after) 1010–17 (a more graphic and expressive exposition of the power of the poison) 1266–8 (making the acting more rapid and dramatic) 1271–2, 1277–8 (extra dramatic irony; the first passage is also explanatory) 1315–17 (explanatory and more graphic) 1356–62, 1364–8 (extra dramatic irony, a diversion from the imminent recognition) 1374–9 (melodramatic, adding a commonplace) 1398–1400 (explanatory, but also extending Creusa’s excitement) 1621–2 (an extension of the gnomê) 3) Some interpolations have been added to provide a connection to other parts of the plot. They are mainly anticipatory: the effect of the later passages, where a novelty is introduced as it becomes relevant (the tent, the plot against Ion), is diminished for the sake of suspense earlier on: 74–5 (anticipating 1581–6) 578–81 (anticipating 660, possibly interpolated after 621–32) 806–7 (the tent and feast) 830–1 (Ion’s name) To this group also belong the mainly augmentative histrionic interpolations 616–17 (possibly an interpolation of second order, i.e. within another interpolation), 839–58, and 982. 4) In Ion’s speech we find two ‘political’ arguments, explaining his preference for Delphi. Neither of them, however, is specific, and they remain on the level of declamatory invective. 595–606 (against politics in a democracy) 621–32 (against the status of a monarch)

157 Cf. the classifications of Page (1934) 116–20 (a fairly wide scope attributed to actors) and Kovacs (2005) 382.

44

Introduction

C) The Edition Sigla: L Tr1 Tr2

Laur. plut. 32.2 illegible text in L First round of revisions by Triclinius Second and third rounds of revisions by Triclinius

P Prubr p

Pal. gr. 287 Corrections by Ioannes Catrares Corrections by an Italian scribe (15th cent.)

Ricc. 32 Par. 2817 Par. 2887 Digital reproductions of L and the Parisian manuscripts are provided online by the libraries. P is available as facsimile (Spranger (1939–1946)). The director of the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Dott.ssa Giovanna Rao, kindly granted access to L for the verification (also by an UV lamp) of details not recognisable otherwise. In addition, Diggle’s edition and Zuntz (1965) have been indispensable in preparing the apparatus. The apparatus aims to give an idea of conjectures worth considering or different paths of interpretation; in places it helps trace the history of the restoration of the text. It neither claims comprehensiveness (which not even Wecklein achieved) nor is it reduced to focus on the text as given (as is often the case in the OCT and commentaries emulating that model). Some more recent conjectures are mentioned for the sake of orientation about the state of criticism, but many others make that state seem all too deplorable.158 Ubiquitous mistakes, for example in connection with moveable ν, assimilation before rough breathings, and iota subscript, are not reported consistently,159 nor are impossible readings and false corrections of P and Tr. Variants in punctuation are mentioned selectively. Conjectures misattributed by earlier editors have been silently restored to their earliest source.160

158 Esp. Curnis (2008); the arguments of White (2000) are mostly untenable, but they do not lead to new conjectures, as they obstinately defend the paradosis. 159 On the difficulty of deciding between εἰς and ἐς cf. 17n. 160 The place of first publication of conjectures adopted in the text is given in the commentary, except for editions, commentaries, and the following conjectures that I have not been able to find: 61 Benndorf, 928 Bellios, 962 Bruhn, 1271–2 H. Jordan, 1434 Scaliger, and 1569 Scaliger.

Critical Edition



1–183 Prologue

47

ΕΡΜΗΣ Ἄτλας ὁ νώτοις χαλκέοισιν οὐρανὸν θεῶν παλαιὸν οἶκον †ἐκτρίβων θεῶν μιᾶς† ἔφυσε Μαῖαν ἥ μ’ ἐγείνατο, Ἑρμῆν, μεγίστωι Ζηνὶ δαιμόνων λάτριν. 5 ἥκω δὲ Δελφῶν τήνδε γῆν, ἵν’ ὀμφαλὸν μέσον καθίζων Φοῖβος ὑμνωιδεῖ βροτοῖς τά τ’ ὄντα καὶ μέλλοντα θεσπίζων ἀεί. ἔστιν γὰρ οὐκ ἄσημος Ἑλλήνων πόλις τῆς χρυσολόγχου Παλλάδος κεκλημένη, 10 οὗ παῖδ’ Ἐρεχθέως Φοῖβος ἔζευξεν γάμοις βίαι Κρέουσαν, ἔνθα προσβόρρους πέτρας Παλλάδος ὑπ’ ὄχθωι τῆς Ἀθηναίων χθονὸς Μακρὰς καλοῦσι γῆς ἄνακτες Ἀτθίδος. ἀγνὼς δὲ πατρί (τῶι θεῶι γὰρ ἦν φίλον) 15 γαστρὸς διήνεγκ’ ὄγκον. ὡς δ’ ἦλθεν χρόνος, τεκοῦσ’ ἐν οἴκοις παῖδ’ ἀπήνεγκεν βρέφος ἐς ταὐτὸν ἄντρον οὗπερ ηὐνάσθη θεῶι Κρέουσα, κἀκτίθησιν ὡς θανούμενον κοίλης ἐν ἀντίπηγος εὐτρόχωι κύκλωι, 20 προγόνων νόμον σώιζουσα τοῦ τε γηγενοῦς Ἐριχθονίου. κείνωι γὰρ ἡ Διὸς κόρη φρουρὼ παραζεύξασα φύλακε σώματος δισσὼ δράκοντε, παρθένοις Ἀγραυλίσιν δίδωσι σώιζειν· ὅθεν Ἐρεχθείδαις ἐκεῖ

1 Philodemus De Piet. p. 37 Gomperz (P.Hercul. 1088II col. 1.21–5) 5–6 Eust. in Dionys. v. 1181 19 Hesych. α5456 (cf. 1338) 1 ὁ χαλκέοισιν οὐρανὸν νώτοις Ἄτλας Page post Philodemum  νώτοις χαλκέοισιν Elmsley: χαλκέοισι νώτοις L: χαλκέοισι νώτοισ᾿ Meineke  3 ἣ ᾿μ᾿ L. Dindorf  7 καὶ semel P: bis L  9 χρυσολόγχου p: χρυσολόχου L  10 ἐξ Ἐρεχθέως P  11 προσβόρρους πέτρας Livineius: προσβόρους πέτρας Ls.l.: προσβόροις πέτραις L  Παλλάδος ὑπ’ ὄχθοις ἔνθα προσβόρρους πέτρας Wecklein (pro 11–12)  14 ἀγνὼς voluit p (ἁγνὼς), dedit Stephanus: ἁγνῶς L  πατρί] πᾶσι Schömann: πατρός Nauck  15 ὄγκον Hervag.: οἶκον L  18 et 20–7 del. Klinkenberg, 18–26 del. Enthoven  20 ante hunc v. lac. pos. Schliack: Wilamowitz  22 φύλακε Porson: φυλακὰς L  23 Ἀγραυλίσιν Ls.l.: Ἀγλαυρίσι La.c. P  24 Ἐρεχθείδαισι καὶ Bothe  ἐκεῖ] ἔτι Barnes: ἀεὶ Elmsley https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110523591-002

48



Critical Edition

25 νόμος τις ἔστιν ὄφεσιν ἐν χρυσηλάτοις τρέφειν τέκν’. ἀλλ’ ἣν εἶχε παρθένος χλιδὴν τέκνωι προσάψασ’ ἔλιπεν ὡς θανουμένωι. κἄμ’ ὢν ἀδελφὸς Φοῖβος αἰτεῖται τάδε· Ὦ σύγγον’, ἐλθὼν λαὸν εἰς αὐτόχθονα 30 κλεινῶν Ἀθηνῶν (οἶσθα γὰρ θεᾶς πόλιν) λαβὼν βρέφος νεογνὸν ἐκ κοίλης πέτρας αὐτῶι σὺν ἄγγει σπαργάνοισί θ’ οἷς ἔχει ἔνεγκε Δελφοὺς τἀμὰ πρὸς χρηστήρια καὶ θὲς πρὸς αὐταῖς εἰσόδοις δόμων ἐμῶν. 35 τὰ δ’ ἄλλ’ (ἐμὸς γάρ ἐστιν, ὡς εἰδῆις, ὁ παῖς) ἡμῖν μελήσει. Λοξίαι δ’ ἐγὼ χάριν πράσσων ἀδελφῶι πλεκτὸν ἐξάρας κύτος ἤνεγκα καὶ τὸν παῖδα κρηπίδων ἔπι τίθημι ναοῦ τοῦδ’, ἀναπτύξας κύτος 40 εἱλικτὸν ἀντίπηγος, ὡς ὁρῶιθ’ ὁ παῖς. κυρεῖ δ’ ἅμ’ ἱππεύοντος ἡλίου κύκλωι προφῆτις ἐσβαίνουσα μαντεῖον θεοῦ· ὄψιν δὲ προσβαλοῦσα παιδὶ νηπίωι ἐθαύμασ’ εἴ τις Δελφίδων τλαίη κόρη 45 λαθραῖον ὠδῖν’ ἐς θεοῦ ῥῖψαι δόμον, ὑπέρ τε θυμέλας διορίσαι πρόθυμος ἦν· οἴκτωι δ’ ἀφῆκεν ὠμότητα (καὶ θεὸς συνεργὸς ἦν τῶι παιδὶ μὴ ’κπεσεῖν δόμων). τρέφει δέ νιν λαβοῦσα. τὸν σπείραντα δὲ 50 οὐκ οἶδε Φοῖβον οὐδὲ μητέρ’ ἧς ἔφυ [ὁ παῖς τε τοὺς τεκόντας οὐκ ἐπίσταται]. νέος μὲν οὖν ὢν ἀμφὶ βωμίους τροφὰς ἠλᾶτ’ ἀθύρων· ὡς δ’ ἀπηνδρώθη δέμας, Δελφοί σφ’ ἔθεντο χρυσοφύλακα τοῦ θεοῦ

28 κἄμ’ Schömann: καί μ’ L  ὄντ᾿ ἀδελφὸν Schömann  30 πόλιν Bothe: πτόλιν L  32 ὡς ἔχει sive οἷς ἔνι F.W. Schmidt  33 ἔνεγκε Δελφοὺς Jacobs: ἔνεγκ᾿ ἀδελφῶι L: ἔνεγκ᾿ ἄδελφε G. Schmid: ἔνεγκε Δελφῶν Valckenaer  37 κύτος P: σκύτος L  39 κύτος Stephanus: σκύτος L  40 ἑλικτὸν Hermann  ὁρῶιθ’ Canter: ὁρᾶθ᾿ L: ὁρᾶσθ᾿ Aldina  41 ἅμ’ ἱππεύοντος Musgrave: ἀνιππεύοντος L: ἐνιππ- P  κύκλου Kirchhoff  46 τε Kirchhoff: δὲ L  θυμέλης Biehl  51 del. Herwerden (51–6 tum Klinkenberg)  52 ἀμφὶ βωμίους P: ἀμφιβωμίους L





1–183 Prologue

49

55 ταμίαν τε πάντων πιστόν, ἐν δ’ ἀνακτόροις θεοῦ καταζῆι δεῦρ’ ἀεὶ σεμνὸν βίον. Κρέουσα δ’ ἡ τεκοῦσα τὸν νεανίαν Ξούθωι γαμεῖται συμφορᾶς τοιᾶσδ’ ὕπο· ἦν ταῖς Ἀθήναις τοῖς τε Χαλκωδοντίδαις, 60 οἳ γῆν ἔχουσ’ Εὐβοῖδα, πολέμιος κλύδων· ὃν συμπονήσας καὶ συνεξελὼν δορὶ γάμων Κρεούσης ἀξίωμ’ ἐδέξατο, οὐκ ἐγγενὴς ὤν, Αἰόλου δὲ τοῦ Διὸς γεγὼς Ἀχαιός. χρόνια δὲ σπείρας λέχη 65 ἄτεκνός ἐστι καὶ Κρέουσ’· ὧν οὕνεκα ἥκουσι πρὸς μαντεῖ’ Ἀπόλλωνος τάδε ἔρωτι παίδων. Λοξίας δὲ τὴν τύχην ἐς τοῦτ’ ἐλαύνει – κοὐ λέληθεν, ὡς δοκεῖ· δώσει γὰρ εἰσελθόντι μαντεῖον τόδε 70 Ξούθωι τὸν αὑτοῦ παῖδα καὶ πεφυκέναι κείνου σφε φήσει, μητρὸς ὡς ἐλθὼν δόμους γνωσθῆι Κρεούσηι καὶ γάμοι τε Λοξίου κρυπτοὶ γένωνται παῖς τ’ ἔχηι τὰ πρόσφορα. [Ἴωνα δ’ αὐτόν, κτίστορ’ Ἀσιάδος χθονός, 75 ὄνομα κεκλῆσθαι θήσεται καθ’ Ἑλλάδα.] ἀλλ’ ἐς δαφνώδη γύαλα βήσομαι τάδε, τὸ κρανθὲν ὡς ἂν ἐκμάθω παιδὸς πέρι. ὁρῶ γὰρ ἐκβαίνοντα Λοξίου γόνον τόνδ’, ὡς πρὸ ναοῦ λαμπρὰ θῆι πυλώματα 80 δάφνης κλάδοισιν. ὄνομα δ’ οὗ μέλλει τυχεῖν Ἴων’ ἐγώ πρῶτος ὀνομάζω θεῶν.

59–60 Eust. in Il. 281.46–7 (I 434.1–2 v.d.Valk) 74 Eust. in Dionys. v. 820

59 Χαλκωδοντίδαις Tr2: Χαλκοδοντίδαις L: Χαλκωδοντιάδαις Eust.  60 Εὐβοῖδα Matthiae, Eust.: Εὐβοΐδα L  61 post hunc v. lac. pos. Benndorf  68 κοὐ λέληθέ μ᾿ Schömann: καὶ λέληθεν Page: κοὐ λέληγεν Dawe: κεἰ λέληθεν Musso  70 αὑτοῦ Barnes: αὐτοῦ L  74–5 del. Hartung  79 προνάου Wakefield  81 ἐγώ Scaliger (lac. pos. et suppl. Canter): ἔγωγε Tr: ἐγώ L. Dindorf

50

Critical Edition

ΙΩΝ ἅρματα μὲν τάδε λαμπρὰ τεθρίππων· Ἥλιος ἤδη λάμπει κατὰ γῆν, ἄστρα δὲ φεύγει πυρὶ τῶιδ’ αἰθέρος ἐς νύχθ’ ἱεράν· 85 Παρνασσιάδες δ’ ἄβατοι κορυφαὶ καταλαμπόμεναι τὴν ἡμερινὴν ἁψῖδα βροτοῖσι δέχονται. σμύρνης δ’ ἀνύδρου καπνὸς εἰς ὀρόφους Φοίβου πέτεται. 90 θάσσει δὲ γυνὴ τρίποδα ζάθεον Δελφίς, ἀείδουσ’ Ἕλλησι βοάς, ἃς ἂν Ἀπόλλων κελαδήσηι. ἀλλ’, ὦ Φοίβου Δελφοὶ θέραπες, τὰς Κασταλίας ἀργυροειδεῖς 95 βαίνετε δίνας, καθαραῖς δὲ δρόσοις ἀφυδρανάμενοι στείχετε ναούς· στόμα τ’ εὔφημον φρουρεῖτ’ ἀγαθόν, φήμας [τ᾿] ἀγαθὰς τοῖς ἐθέλουσιν μαντεύεσθαι 100 γλώσσης ἰδίας ἄπο φαίνειν. ἡμεῖς δέ, πόνους οὓς ἐκ παιδὸς μοχθοῦμεν ἀεί, πτόρθοισι δάφνης στέφεσίν θ’ ἱεροῖς ἐσόδους Φοίβου καθαρὰς θήσομεν ὑγραῖς τε πέδον 105

97 Hesych. α8780

82 post τεθρίππων distinxit L. Dindorf   83 κάμπτει Matthiae et Wakefield  84 φλέγει Ls.l.  πυρὶ τῶδ’ Pa.c. (‘ut uid.’ Diggle): π. τόδ᾿ L: πῦρ τόδ᾿ Pp.c.  86 Παρνασσιάδες Martin post Mastronarde (Παρνασιάδες Herwerden): Παρνησιάδες L  87 ἡμερινὴν Blaydes: ἡμέραν L  (τὴν πραεῖαν in marg.): ἡμερίαν Canter: αἰθερίαν Carmeli  90 πέτεται sive τέταται Musgrave: πέταται L  98 δ᾿ Kirchhoff εὔφημοι Wakefield  φρουρεῖν L. Dindorf  ἀγαθοί Levinson: ἀγανοί Musgrave: ἀγαθῶν Bothe  99 φήμας Hermann: φήμας τ᾿ L  101 ἄπο φαίνειν Klinkenberg: ἀποφαίνειν L



1–183 Prologue

51



ῥανίσιν νοτερόν· πτηνῶν τ’ ἀγέλας, αἳ βλάπτουσιν σέμν’ ἀναθήματα, τόξοισιν ἐμοῖς φυγάδας θήσομεν· ὡς γὰρ ἀμήτωρ ἀπάτωρ τε γεγὼς 110 τοὺς θρέψαντας Φοίβου ναοὺς θεραπεύω.



ἄγ’, ὦ νεηθαλὲς ὦ καλλίστας προπόλευμα δάφνας, ἃ τὰν Φοίβου θυμέλαν 115 σαίρεις ὑπὸ ναοῖς, κάπων ἐξ ἀθανάτων, ἵνα δρόσοι τέγγουσ’ ἱεραί ἀέναον παγὰν ἐκπροϊεῖσαι 120 μυρσίνας ἱερὰν φόβαν, 121 ἇι σαίρω δάπεδον θεοῦ 123 παναμέριος ἅμ’ ἁλίου πτέρυγι θοᾶι λατρεύων τὸ κατ’ ἦμαρ. 125 ὦ Παιὰν ὦ Παιάν, εὐαίων εὐαίων εἴης, ὦ Λατοῦς παῖ.

str.

καλόν γε τὸν πόνον, ὦ Φοῖβε, σοὶ πρὸ δόμων λατρεύ130 ω τιμῶν [τὴν] μαντεῖον ἕδραν·

ant.

112 νεηθαλὲς Lp.c. aut Tr: νεοθαλὲς La.c.  115 σαίρει Aldina  116 κάπων Badham: κήπων L: κόμπων P  117 ἵνα δρόσω P: ἃν δρόσοι Paley: οὓς ἕρσαι Herwerden  118 τὰν Tr1: : τὰν Hermann: τὰν Page: τὰν Fix: Diggle: Paley  ἀέναον Hermann: ἀένναον L (fort. Tr1 scripsisse, ἀέ*ναον L putavit Diggle)  119 παγὰν Tr1:   120 μυρσίνας Hermann  121 ψαίρω Hübner  123 ἁλίου Hermann: ἠελίου L: ἀελίου W. Dindorf  θοᾶι Hermann: θοῆ L  127 (+143) εἴην Wecklein  130 μαντεῖον Tr2: τὴν μαντεῖον P

52

Critical Edition



κλεινὸς δ’ ὁ πόνος μοι θεοῖσιν δούλαν χέρ’ ἔχειν, οὐ θνατοῖς ἀλλ’ ἀθανάτοις· εὐφάμους δὲ πόνους 135 μοχθεῖν οὐκ ἀποκάμνω. Φοῖβός μοι γενέτωρ πατήρ· 137 τὸν βόσκοντα γὰρ εὐλογῶ, 139 τὸν δ’ ὠφέλιμον ἐμοὶ πατέρος ὄνομα λέγω, 140 Φοῖβον τὸν κατὰ ναόν. ὦ Παιὰν ὦ Παιάν, εὐαίων εὐαίων εἴης, ὦ Λατοῦς παῖ.



ἀλλ’ ἐκπαύσω γὰρ μόχθους 145 δάφνας ὁλκοῖς, χρυσέων δ’ ἐκ τευχέων ῥίψω γαίας παγάν, ἃν ἀποχεύονται Κασταλίας δῖναι, 150 νοτερὸν ὕδωρ βάλλων, 150bis ὅσιος ἀπ’ εὐνᾶς ὤν. εἴθ’ οὕτως αἰεὶ Φοίβωι λατρεύων μὴ παυσαίμαν, ἢ παυσαίμαν ἀγαθᾶι μοίραι. ἔα ἔα· φοιτῶσ’ ἤδη λείπουσίν τε 155 πτανοὶ Παρνασσοῦ κοίτας. αὐδῶ μὴ χρίμπτειν θριγκοῖς μηδ’ ἐς χρυσήρεις οἴκους. μάρψω σ’ αὖ τόξοις, ὦ Ζηνὸς κῆρυξ, ὀρνίθων γαμφηλαῖς 160 ἰσχὺν νικῶν.

134 εὐφάμους δὲ πόνους Porson: εὐφάμοις δὲ πόνοις L  135 μοχθῶν Wakefield  139 τόδ᾿ Ricc. 32γρ: τὸ δ᾿ Musgrave  πατέρος Tr2: πρσ L  140 Φοῖβον τὸν Heath: Φοίβου τοῦ L  152 παυσαίμαν Barnes: παυσαίμην L  153 ἢ Ls.l.: εἰ L  156 χρίμπτειν θριγκοῖς Aldina: χρίπτειν θριγγοῖς L: χρίμπτειν θριγκοὺς Wilamowitz



1–183 Prologue



ὅδε πρὸς θυμέλας ἄλλος ἐρέσσει κύκνος· οὐκ ἄλλαι φοινικοφαῆ πόδα κινήσεις; οὐδέν σ’ ἁ φόρμιγξ ἁ Φοίβου 165 σύμμολπος τόξων ῥύσαιτ’ ἄν. πάραγε πτέρυγας· λίμνας ἐπίβα τᾶς Δηλιάδος. αἰάξεις, εἰ μὴ πείσηι, τὰς καλλιφθόγγους ὠιδάς.



ἔα ἔα· 170 τίς ὅδ’ ὀρνίθων καινὸς προσέβα; μῶν ὑπὸ θριγκοὺς εὐναίας καρφηρὰς θήσων τέκνοις; ψαλμοί σ’ εἴρξουσιν τόξων. οὐ πείσηι; χωρῶν δίνας 175 τὰς Ἀλφειοῦ παιδούργει ἢ νάπος Ἴσθμιον, ὡς ἀναθήματα μὴ βλάπτηται ναοί θ’ οἱ Φοίβου . κτείνειν δ’ ὑμᾶς αἰδοῦμαι 180 τοὺς θεῶν ἀγγέλλοντας φήμας θνατοῖς· οἷς δ’ ἔγκειμαι μόχθοις Φοίβωι δουλεύσω κοὐ λήξω τοὺς βόσκοντας θεραπεύων.

53

171 Eust. in Il. 131.41 (I 202.9 v.d.Valk) 172 Hesych. κ941

161 πρὸς Canter: πρὸ L  162 κύκνος Victorius et Brodaeus: κύκλος L  φοινικοβαφῆ Nauck  165 ῥύσαιτ’ Tr1: ῥύσετ’ L  166 πάραγε Scaliger: παρά τε L  168 αἰάξεις Nauck: αἱμάξεις L: φοινίξεις Βadham  fort. v. post 169 ponendum esse censuit Diggle  172 καρφυρὰς d’Arnaud post Hesych. (καρφυραί): καρφήρεις Paley  174–5 χώρει … παιδουργήσων Hense: χωρῶν … παιδουργήσεις Kayser  δίνας τὰς Badham: δίναις ταῖς L: ἐν δίναις ταῖς Tr  178 ναοῖς τοῖς Φοίβου Wecklein: ναοῖς Φοίβου Wilamowitz: lac. pos. W. Dindorf, in qua suppl. ν. τ᾿ οι Φ-ου Diggle: ν. θ’ οἱ Φ. Hartung: ν. θ’ οἱ Φ. Hense

54

Critical Edition

ΧΟΡΟΣ α  οὐκ ἐν ταῖς ζαθέαις Ἀθά- ναις εὐκίονες ἦσαν αὐ- λαὶ θεῶν μόνον οὐδ’ ἀγυι άτιδες θεραπεῖαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρὰ Λοξίαι τῶι Λατοῦς δίδυμον προσώ πων καλλιβλεφάρων φῶς. β ἰδού, τᾶιδ’ ἄθρησον· Λερναῖον ὕδραν ἐναίρει χρυσέαις ἅρπαις ὁ Διὸς παῖς· φίλα, πρόσιδ’ ὄσσοις. α β

ὁρῶ. καὶ πέλας ἄλλος αὐ- τοῦ πανὸν πυρίφλεκτον αἴ- ρει τις· ἆρ’ ὃς ἐμαῖσι μυ- θεύεται παρὰ πήναις, ἀσπιστὰς Ἰόλαος, ὃς κοινοὺς αἰρόμενος πόνους Δίωι παιδὶ συναντλεῖ; καὶ μὰν τόνδ’ ἄθρησον πτεροῦντος ἔφεδρον ἵππου·

str. 1 185 186bis

190

ant. 1 195

200

186–bis Hdn. 3,1 105.16 et 3,2 889.31 Lentz, Hesych. α855, Phot. Lex. α278, Synagoge B α309 Cunningham, Etym.Sym. α c 94, Ael.Dion. α28 Erbse, Eust. 166.25, I 256.29 v.d. Valk 195 Athen. 700E (cf. 1294)

184–9, 194 ὁρῶ, 196 τίς ἄρ᾿–197, 205–6 διώκω, 208, 211, 214–220bis choro, reliqua Ioni trib. L: 190–218 choro diviso trib. Musgrave (216–18 choro universo trib. Martin): rell. divisiones restit. Hervag., Musgrave, Hermann, L. Dindorf  186bis ἀγυιάτιδες testim.: ἀγυάτιδες L  186bis–7 θεραπεῖαι ἀλλὰ Barnes: θεραπεῖ᾿ ἀλλά γε Tr1:   188 δίδυμον Martin: διδύμων Tr2 (nisi L): διδύμων τε L?, P  189 καλλιβλεφάρων Martin: καλλίφαρον L: καλλιβλέφαρον Brodaeus  190 τᾶιδ᾿ Wakefield: τάνδ᾿ L: τόνδ᾿ Milton  193 ὄσσοις Musgrave: ὄσσοισιν L  195 πανὸν Pierson post Athen.: πτανὸν L  195–6 αἴρει τις· ἆρ’ ὃς Hermann: αἴρει. Χο· τίς ἄρ’ ὃς L: αἴρει. Χο· τίς αρ’ [sic]; ὃς Heath: αἴρει. Χο· τίς; ἆρ’ ὃς Matthiae cum Boeckh  196–7 ἐμαῖσι ... πήναις Musgrave: ἐμαῖς ... πήναισιν L



55

184–236bis Parodos



τὰν πῦρ πνέουσαν ἐναίρει τρισώματον ἀλκάν.

α β α β α β Χο

πάνται τοι βλέφαρον διώ- κω. σκέψαι κλόνον ἐν τείχεσσι λαΐνοισι Γιγάντων. †ὧδε δερκόμεσθ’, ὦ φίλαι.† λεύσσεις οὖν ἐπ’ Ἐγκελάδωι γοργωπὸν πάλλουσαν ἴτυν ... λεύσσω Παλλάδ’, ἐμὰν θεόν. τί γάρ; κεραυνὸν ἀμφίπυρον ὄβριμον ἐν Διὸς ἑκηβόλοισι χερσίν; ὁρῶ· τὸν δάιον Μίμαντα πυρὶ καταιθαλοῖ. καὶ Βρόμιος ἄλλον ἀπολέμοισι κισσίνοισι βάκτροις ἐναίρει Γᾶς τέκνων ὁ Βακχεύς.

Χο σέ τοι τὸν παρὰ ναὸν αὐ- δῶ· θέμις γυάλων ὑπερ- βῆναι λευκῶι ποδί γ’ ;

205

str. 2

210 211bis

215

220 220bis

ant. 2

203 πῦρ πνέουσαν Reiske: πυρὶ π. L: πυρπνέουσαν Hermann  205 πάντα (i.e. πάνται) L: παντᾶι Musgrave  206–7 τείχεσσι λαΐνοισι Murray: τείχεσι λαΐνοισι L: τύκαισι λαΐνοισι Hermann: τύποισιν λαΐνοισι anon. apud W. Dindorf  208 ὦ γυναῖκες Wecklein: ὦ φίλαι Hermann: ὦ σύνδουλοι Diggle: φίλαι Dobree (nisi δερκόμεθ᾿ ὦ φίλαι scribendum)  δερκόμεσθα, φίλαι, μένος θεῶν Lee: ὦ φίλαι, ὧδε δερκόμεσθα Murray  210 γοργῶπιν Nauck  212 ὄβριμον p: ὄμβριμον L  213 ἑκηβόλοισι p: ἑκηβόλης L  216–7 ἀπολέμοισι κισσίνοισι Musgrave: ἀπολέμοις κισσίνοις L  218 τέκνων Elmsley: τέκνον L  220bis Lindau: Biehl: Hense

56

Critical Edition

Ιων οὐ θέμις, ὦ ξέναι. Χο †οὐδ’ ἂν ἐκ σέθεν ἂν πυθοίμαν αὐδάν; Ιων τίνα δὲ θέλεις;† Χο ἆρ’ ὄντως μέσον ὀμφαλὸν γᾶς Φοίβου κατέχει δόμος; Ιων στέμμασί γ’ ἐνδυτόν, ἀμφὶ δὲ Γοργόνες. Χο οὕτω καὶ φάτις αὐδᾶι. Ιων εἰ μὲν ἐθύσατε πελανὸν πρὸ δόμων καί τι πυθέσθαι χρήιζετε Φοίβου, πάριτ’ ἐς θυμέλας, ἐπὶ δ’ ἀσφάκτοις μήλοισι δόμων μὴ πάριτ’ ἐς μυχόν. Χο ἔχω μαθοῦσα· θεοῦ δὲ νόμον οὐ παραβαίνομεν, ἃ δ’ ἐκτὸς ὄμμα τέρψει. Ιων πάντα θεᾶσθ’, ὅτι καὶ θέμις, ὄμμασι. Χο μεθεῖσαν δεσπόται με θεοῦ γύαλα τάδ’ εἰσιδεῖν. Ιων δμωαὶ δὲ τίνων κλήιζεσθε δόμων; Χο Παλλάδι σύνοικα τρόφιμα μέλα θρα τῶν ἐμῶν τυράννων· παρούσας δ’ ἀμφὶ τᾶσδ’ ἐρωτᾶις.

221bis

223bis 225

230 230bis

233bis 235 236bis

221 ξέναι Tr2: ξένοι L  221bis οὐδ’ ἂν del. L. Dindorf  αὐδάν ἐκ σέθεν ἂν πυθοίμαν Kovacs  σέθεν αἰσθοίμαν O. Schröder   222 τίνα δε θέλεις Musgrave: τίνα δῆτα θ. sive αὔδα· τί θ. Hermann   224 ἐνδυτὸν Musgrave: ἐνδυτὸς L  Γοργάδες Irvine: γόργω Studnicka: γνώμονες Roscher  226 ἐθύσατε Stephanus: ἐδύσατε L: ἐλύσατε Ls.l.  233bis με θεοῦ Hermann: θεοῦ με L  με γύαλα τάδ’ εἰσιδεῖν θεοῦ Wilamowitz  235 Παλλάδι σύνοικα Badham: Παλλάδος ἔνοικα L: Παλλάδος ἐνοικῶ Wakefield  236bis τᾶσδ᾿ Victorius: τάσδ᾿ La.c. et s.l. (aut Tr1): τάδ᾿ Lp.c.



57

237–451 1st Epeisodion

Ιων

γενναιότητος [σοι] καὶ τρόπων τεκμήριον τὸ σχῆμ’ ἔχεις τόδ’, ἥτις εἶ ποτ’, ὦ γύναι. γνοίη δ’ ἂν ὡς τὰ πόλλ᾿ ἂν ἀνθρώπου πέρι τὸ σχῆμ’ ἰδών τις εἰ πέφυκεν εὐγενής. 240 ἔα· ἀλλ’ ἐξέπληξάς μ’ ὄμμα συγκλήισασα σὸν δακρύοις θ’ ὑγράνασ’ εὐγενῆ παρηίδα ὡς εἶδες ἁγνὰ Λοξίου χρηστήρια. τί ποτε μερίμνης ἐς τόδ’ ἦλθες, ὦ γύναι; 245 οὗ πάντες ἄλλοι γύαλα λεύσσοντες θεοῦ χαίρουσιν, ἐνταῦθ’ ὄμμα σὸν δακρυρροεῖ;

ΚΡΕΟΥΣΑ ὦ ξένε, τὸ μὲν σὸν οὐκ ἀπαιδεύτως ἔχει [ἐς θαύματ’ ἐλθεῖν δακρύων ἐμῶν πέρι]· ἐγὼ δ’ ἰδοῦσα τούσδ’ Ἀπόλλωνος δόμους μνήμην παλαιὰν ἀνεμετρησάμην τινά· ἐκεῖσε τὸν νοῦν ἔσχον ἐνθάδ’ οὖσά περ. ὦ τλήμονες γυναῖκες· ὦ τολμήματα θεῶν. τί δῆτα; ποῖ δίκην ἀνοίσομεν εἰ τῶν κρατούντων ἀδικίαις ὀλούμεθα; Ιων τί χρῆμ’ ἀνερμήνευτα δυσθυμῆι, γύναι; Κρ. οὐδέν· μεθῆκα τόξα· τἀπὶ τῶιδε δὲ ἐγώ τε σιγῶ καὶ σὺ μὴ φρόντιζ’ ἔτι. Ιων τίς δ’ εἶ; πόθεν γῆς ἦλθες; ἐκ ποίου πατρὸς πέφυκας; ὄνομα τί σε καλεῖν ἡμᾶς χρεών; Κρ. Κρέουσα μέν μοι τοὔνομ’, ἐκ δ’ Ἐρεχθέως πέφυκα, πατρὶς γῆ δ’ Ἀθηναίων πόλις. Ιων ὦ κλεινὸν οἰκοῦσ’ ἄστυ γενναίων τ’ ἄπο τραφεῖσα πατέρων, ὥς σε θαυμάζω, γύναι. Κρ. τοσαῦτα κεὐτυχοῦμεν, ὦ ξέν’, οὐ πέρα. Ιων πρὸς θεῶν, ἀληθῶς, ὡς μεμύθευται βροτοῖς,

250

255

260

265

237–40 Philodemus De Poem. 89.24–90.5 237 ante hunc v. lac. indic. Lloyd-Jones  γενναιότητος καὶ Wakefield: γενναιότης σοι καὶ L: γενναιότητος τῶν Badham (σῶν Paley)  239–40 del. Kraus  239 πολλ᾿ ἂν Philodemus: πολλά γ᾿ L  245 οὗ Valckenaer: ὃ L  γύαλον εἰσιδεῖν Musgrave  248 del. Cropp  251 ἐκεῖσε Owen (noluit Herwerden, ἐκεῖ δὲ iam Burges): οἴκοι δὲ L  ἔσχον Stephanus: ἔσχομεν L: ἔχομεν Biehl  περ Dobree et Hermann: που L  253 ἀνοίσομεν Musgrave: ἀνήσομεν L  254 ὀλούμεθα Hülsemann: ὀλοίμεθα L  255 ἀνερμήνευτα Wakefield: ἀνερεύνητα L: ἀδιερεύνητα Iakov  257 φρόντιζ᾿ ἔτι Barnes: φρόντιζέ τι L  258 ποίου πατρὸς L. Dindorf: ποίας πάτρας L  264 τοσαῦτά γ᾿ εὐ. Musgrave  265 ἀληθὲς Scaliger (‘ut vid.’ Collard)

58

Critical Edition

Κρ. τί χρῆμ’ ἐρωτᾶις, ὦ ξέν’, ἐκμαθεῖν θέλων; Ιων ἐκ γῆς πατρός σου πρόγονος ἔβλαστεν πατήρ; Κρ. Ἐριχθόνιός γε· τὸ δὲ γένος μ’ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ. Ιων ἦ καί σφ’ Ἀθάνα γῆθεν ἐξανείλετο; Κρ. ἐς παρθένους γε χεῖρας, οὐ τεκοῦσά νιν. Ιων δίδωσι δ’, ὥσπερ ἐν γραφῆι νομίζεται, Κρ. Κέκροπός γε σώιζειν παισὶν οὐχ ὁρώμενον. Ιων ἤκουσα λῦσαι παρθένους τεῦχος θεᾶς. Κρ. τοιγὰρ θανοῦσαι σκόπελον ἥιμαξαν πέτρας. Ιων εἶἑν· τί δαὶ τόδ’; ἆρ’ ἀληθές, ἢ μάτην λόγος; Κρ. τί χρῆμ’ ἐρωτᾶις; καὶ γὰρ οὐ κάμνω σχολῆι. Ιων πατὴρ Ἐρεχθεὺς σὰς ἔθυσε συγγόνους; Κρ. ἔτλη πρὸ γαίας σφάγια παρθένους κτανεῖν. Ιων σὺ δ’ ἐξεσώθης πῶς κασιγνήτων μόνη; Κρ. βρέφος νεογνὸν μητρὸς ἦν ἐν ἀγκάλαις. Ιων πατέρα δ’ ἀληθῶς χάσμα σὸν κρύπτει χθονός; Κρ. πληγαὶ τριαίνης ποντίου σφ’ ἀπώλεσαν. Ιων Μακραὶ δὲ χῶρος ἔστ’ ἐκεῖ κεκλημένος; Κρ. τί δ’ ἱστορεῖς τόδ’; ὥς μ’ ἀνέμνησάς τινος. Ιων τιμᾶι σφ᾿ Ἀπόλλων ἀστραπαί τε Πύθιαι. Κρ. τιμᾶι †τιμᾶ ὡς† μήποτ’ ὤφελόν σφ’ ἰδεῖν. Ιων τί δὲ στυγεῖς σὺ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ φίλτατα; Κρ. οὐδέν· ξύνοιδ’ ἄντροισιν αἰσχύνην τινά. Ιων πόσις δὲ τίς σ’ ἔγημ’ Ἀθηναίων, γύναι;

270

275

280

285

266 θέλων Badham: θέλω L  274 θανοῦσαι] μανεῖσαι Italie  275 εἶεν τί δ᾿; ἆρ’ Nauck  λόγος del. Badham   276 oὐ] αὖ Musso  280 ἐν ἀγκάλαις νεογνὸν ἦ μητρὸς βρέφος Jackson  281 συγκρύπτει Nauck  282 τριαίνης p: τριαίνεις L  285 σφ᾿ Ἀπόλλων Blaydes: σφε Πύθιος L: σφε Φοῖβος Matthiae: σφε Πυθὼν Badham   286 τιμᾶι γ᾿ ἄτιμ᾿· ὡς Bothe: τιμᾶι; τί τιμᾶι; Hermann: τιμᾶι , τιμᾶι Jacobs  σφ᾿ Scaliger: σ᾿ L  287 τί δέ; distinxit Hermann  288 ξύνοιδ’ Tyrwhitt: ξέν᾿ οἶδ᾿ L



59

237–451 1st Epeisodion

Κρ. οὐκ ἀστὸς ἀλλ’ ἐπακτὸς ἐξ ἄλλης χθονός. Ιων τίς; εὐγενῆ νιν δεῖ πεφυκέναι τινά. Κρ. Ξοῦθος, πεφυκὼς Αἰόλου Διός τ’ ἄπο. Ιων καὶ πῶς ξένος σ’ ὢν ἔσχεν οὖσαν ἐγγενῆ; Κρ. Εὔβοι’ Ἀθήναις ἔστι τις γείτων πόλις. Ιων ὅροις ὑγροῖσιν, ὡς λέγουσ’, ὡρισμένη. Κρ. ταύτην ἔπερσε Κεκροπίδαις κοινῶι δορί. Ιων ἐπίκουρος ἐλθών; κἆιτα σὸν γαμεῖ λέχος; Κρ. φερνάς γε πολέμου καὶ δορὸς λαβὼν γέρας. Ιων σὺν ἀνδρὶ δ’ ἥκεις ἢ μόνη χρηστήρια; Κρ. σὺν ἀνδρί· σηκοὺς δ’ †εὖ στρέφει† Τροφωνίου. Ιων πότερα θεατὴς ἢ χάριν μαντευμάτων; Κρ. κείνου τε Φοίβου θ’ ἓν θέλων μαθεῖν ἔπος. Ιων καρποῦ δ’ ὕπερ γῆς ἥκετ’ ἢ παίδων πέρι; Κρ. ἄπαιδές ἐσμεν, χρόνι’ ἔχοντ’ εὐνήματα. Ιων οὐδ’ ἔτεκες οὐδὲν πώποτ’ ἀλλ’ ἄτεκνος εἶ; Κρ. ὁ Φοῖβος οἶδε τὴν ἐμὴν ἀπαιδίαν. Ιων ὦ τλῆμον, ὡς τἄλλ’ εὐτυχοῦσ’ οὐκ εὐτυχεῖς. Κρ. σὺ δ’ εἶ τίς; ὥς σου τὴν τεκοῦσαν ὤλβισα. Ιων τοῦ θεοῦ καλοῦμαι δοῦλος, εἰμί τ’, ὦ γύναι. Κρ. ἀνάθημα πόλεως ἤ τινος πραθεὶς ὕπο; Ιων οὐκ οἶδα πλὴν ἕν· Λοξίου κεκλήμεθα. Κρ. ἡμεῖς σ’ ἄρ’ αὖθις, ὦ ξέν’, ἀντοικτίρομεν.

290

295

300

305

310

294 schol. Ar. Pax 251a, Strabo 8.3.31; Poll. 9.27 ut ex Ixione 300 Arsenius (ParoemGr II) 15.43a 301 Ammon. De Diff.Lex. 68.16, Herenn.Philo Verb.Sign. 89

298 γε] με Kuiper  300 σηκοῖς  ἐνστρέφηι Τροφωνίου Arsen.: ἐνστρέφεται τῶ τοῦ Τροφωνίου σηκῶ L in marg.  δ᾿ ὑστερεῖ Badham: δ᾿ ἐστράφη Wakefield: δὲ στρέφει Kerkhecker: δ᾿ ἐστάλη Lee  301 πότερον Ammon., Herenn.Philo  302 θέλει Irvine  303 ποίων Diggle  304 ἄπαιδ᾿ ἔτ᾿ Naber: ἄπαιδε γ᾿ Diggle  305 οὐδεπώποτ’ Irvine  312 αὖθις Aldina: αὖτις L

60

Critical Edition

Ιων ὡς μὴ εἰδόθ’ ἥτις μ’ ἔτεκεν ἐξ ὅτου τ’ ἔφυν. Κρ. παῖς δ’ ὢν ἀφίκου ναὸν ἢ νεανίας; Ιων βρέφος λέγουσιν οἱ δοκοῦντες εἰδέναι. Κρ. καὶ τίς γάλακτί σ’ ἐξέθρεψε Δελφίδων; Ιων οὐπώποτ’ ἔγνων μαστόν, ἣ δ’ ἔθρεψέ με Κρ. τίς, ὦ ταλαίπωρ’; ὡς νοσοῦσ’ ηὗρον νόσους. Ιων Φοίβου προφῆτις, μητέρ’ ὣς νομίζομεν. Κρ. ἐς δ’ ἄνδρ’ ἀφίκου τίνα τροφὴν κεκτημένος; Ιων βωμοί μ’ ἔφερβον οὑπιών τ’ ἀεὶ ξένος. Κρ. ναοῖσι δ’ οἰκεῖς τοισίδ’ ἢ κατὰ στέγας; Ιων ἅπαν θεοῦ μοι δῶμ’, ἵν’ ἂν λάβηι μ’ ὕπνος. Κρ. ἔχεις δὲ βίοτον· εὖ γὰρ ἤσκησαι πέπλοις. Ιων τοῖς τοῦ θεοῦ κοσμούμεθ’ ὧι δουλεύομεν. Κρ. οὐδ’ ἦιξας εἰς ἔρευναν ἐξευρεῖν γονάς; Ιων ἔχω γὰρ οὐδέν, ὦ γύναι, τεκμήριον. Κρ. τάλαινά σ’ ἡ τεκοῦσ’ ἄρ’, ἥτις ἦν ποτε. Ιων ἀδίκημά του γυναικὸς ἐγενόμην ἴσως. Κρ. φεῦ· πέπονθέ τις σῆι μητρὶ ταὔτ’ ἄλλη γυνή. Ιων τίς; εἶπον· εἰ γὰρ ξυμβάλοι, χαίροιμεν ἄν. Κρ. ἧς οὕνεκ’ ἦλθον δεῦρο πρὶν πόσιν μολεῖν. Ιων ποῖόν τι χρήιζουσ’; ὡς ὑπουργήσω, γύναι. Κρ. μάντευμα κρυπτὸν δεομένη Φοίβου μαθεῖν. Ιων λέγοις ἄν· ἡμεῖς τἄλλα προξενήσομεν. Κρ. ἄκουε δὴ τὸν μῦθον – ἀλλ’ αἰδούμεθα. Ιων οὔ τἄρα πράξεις οὐδέν· ἀργὸς ἡ θεός. Κρ. Φοίβωι μιγῆναί φησί τις φίλων ἐμῶν. Ιων Φοίβωι γυνὴ γεγῶσα; μὴ λέγ’, ὦ ξένη.

313 316

320

323 314 315 326

329 324 325 330

335

319 ἣ δ᾿ Musgrave: ἥδ᾿ L  321 προφῆτιν Reiske  314–15 post 323 trai. Martin, inter 327 et 324 Herwerden (cf. Wecklein ad 324–5)  314 τοισίδ᾿ Wakefield: τοῖσδέ γ᾿ L: τοῖσδε P   315 ἁπανταχοῦ Musgrave: ἅπαν τὸ θεοῦ Seidler  324–5 post 329 trai. C. Jacoby, post 327 Wecklein, post 321 Holzner  324 τάλαινά σ’ ἡ τεκοῦσ’ ἄρ’, ἥτις ἦν ποτε Porson: τάλαινά σ’ ἡ τεκοῦσ’ ἥτις ποτ᾿ ἦν ἄρα L: τάλαινά σ’ ἡ τεκοῦσα· τίς ποτ᾿ ἦν ἄρα Jodrell (non distinxit W. Dindorf)   325 ἀδίκημά του Stephanus: ἀδίκημα τοῦ L: ἀ. γοῦν Reiske   330 ταὔτ᾿ Hülsemann: ταῦτ᾿ L  331 εἶπον· εἰ γὰρ ξυμβάλοι Martin: εἶπον. εἴ μοι ξυλλάβη L: εἰ πόνου μοι ξυλλάβοι Yxem  335 τἄλλα Brodaeus: τ᾿ (δ᾿ s.l.) ἄλλα L  337 ἡ θεός] ἡ αἰδώς Ls.l.



61

237–451 1st Epeisodion

Κρ. καὶ παῖδά γ’ ἔτεκε τῶι θεῶι λάθραι πατρός. Ιων οὐκ ἔστιν· ἀνδρὸς ἀδικίαν αἰσχύνεται. Κρ. οὔ φησιν αὐτή· καὶ πέπονθεν ἄθλια. Ιων τί χρῆμα δράσασ’, εἰ θεῶι συνεζύγη; Κρ. τὸν παῖδ’ ὃν ἔτεκεν ἐξέθηκε δωμάτων. Ιων ὁ δ’ ἐκτεθεὶς παῖς ποῦ ’στιν; εἰσορᾶι φάος; Κρ. οὐκ οἶδεν οὐδείς· ταῦτα καὶ μαντεύομαι. Ιων εἰ δ’ οὐκέτ’ ἔστι, τίνι τρόπωι διεφθάρη; Κρ. θῆράς σφε τὸν δύστηνον ἐλπίζει κτανεῖν. Ιων ποίωι τόδ’ ἔγνω χρωμένη τεκμηρίωι; Κρ. ἐλθοῦσ’ ἵν’ αὐτὸν ἐξέθηκ’ οὐχ ηὗρ’ ἔτι. Ιων ἦν δὲ σταλαγμὸς ἐν στίβωι τις αἵματος; Κρ. οὔ φησι· καίτοι πόλλ’ ἐπεστράφη πέδον. Ιων τί δ’ εἰ λάθραι νιν Φοῖβος ἐκτρέφει λαβών; Κρ. τὰ κοινὰ χαίρων οὐ δίκαια δρᾶι μόνος. Ιων ἀδικεῖ νυν ὁ θεός, ἡ τεκοῦσα δ’ ἀθλία. Κρ. οὔκουν ἔτ’ ἄλλον ὕστερον τίκτει γόνον. Ιων χρόνος δὲ τίς τῶι παιδὶ διαπεπραγμένωι; Κρ. σοὶ ταὐτὸν ἥβης, εἴπερ ἦν, εἶχ’ ἂν μέτρον. Ιων οἴμοι· προσωιδὸς ἡ τύχη τὠμῶι πάθει. Κρ. καὶ σ’, ὦ ξέν’, οἶμαι μητέρ’ ἀθλίαν ποθεῖν. Ιων ἆ μή μ’ ἐπ’ οἶκτον ἔξαγ’ οὗ λελήσμεθα. Κρ. σιγῶ·  πέραινε δ’ ὧν σ’ ἀνιστορῶ πέρι. Ιων οἶσθ’ οὖν ὃ κάμνει τοῦ λόγου μάλιστά σοι; Κρ. τί δ’ οὐκ ἐκείνηι τῆι ταλαιπώρωι νοσεῖ;

340

345

350 352 357 358 355 356 353 354 359 360

340 πατρός Stephanus: πάρος L  342 οὔ Seager: ὃ L  ἄθλια Musgrave: ἀθλία L  345 ποῦ ᾿στιν add. Lp.c. aut Tr1  349 ἔγνω Brodaeus: ἔγνως L  352, 357–8, 355– 6, 353 hoc ordine Martin: 355–6 post 358 iam trai. Diggle, 353–4 post 356 Lee  358 κοινὰ χαίρων μοῦνος οὐ δίκαια δρᾶι Nauck: κοίν᾿ ἀναιρῶν οὐ δίκαια δρᾶι γόνους Broadhead  355 νυν Page: νιν L  356 Badham  354 τἄυτ᾿ ἂν ... εἶχεν μέτρα Elmsley  361 ἆ μή (μὴ μή Boissonade) μ’ ἐπ’ οἶκτον Nauck: καὶ μή γ᾿ ἐπ᾿ οἶκτον μ᾿ L: σὺ μή γ᾿ sive μὴ σύ γέ μ᾿ ἐπ’ οἶκτον Fix  ᾿λελήσμεθα Dobree   362 post σιγῶ lac. pos. Martin  ὧν ἀνιστορεῖς Wecklein

62

Critical Edition

Ιων πῶς ὁ θεὸς ὃ λαθεῖν βούλεται μαντεύσεται; Κρ. εἴπερ καθίζει τρίποδα κοινὸν Ἑλλάδος. Ιων αἰσχύνεται τὸ πρᾶγμα· μὴ ’ξέλεγχέ νιν. Κρ. ἀλγύνεται δέ γ’ ἡ παθοῦσα τῆι τύχηι. Ιων οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις σοι προφητεύσει τάδε. ἐν τοῖς γὰρ αὑτοῦ δώμασιν κακὸς φανεὶς Φοῖβος δικαίως τὸν θεμιστεύοντά σοι δράσειεν ἄν τι πῆμ’· ἀπαλλάσσου, γύναι· τῶι γὰρ θεῶι τἀναντί’ οὐ μαντευτέον. [ἐς γὰρ τοσοῦτον ἀμαθίας ἔλθοιμεν ἄν, εἰ τοὺς θεοὺς ἄκοντας ἐκπονήσομεν φράζειν ἃ μὴ θέλουσιν, ἢ προβωμίοις σφαγαῖσι μήλων ἢ δι’ οἰωνῶν πτεροῖς. ἃν γὰρ βίαι σπεύδωμεν ἀκόντων θεῶν, ἀνόνητα κεκτήμεσθα τἀγάθ’, ὦ γύναι· ἃ δ’ ἂν διδῶσ’ ἑκόντες, ὠφελούμεθα.] Χο. πολλαί γε πολλοῖς εἰσι συμφοραὶ βροτῶν, μορφαὶ δὲ διαφέρουσιν· ἕνα δ’ ἂν εὐτυχῆ μόλις ποτ’ ἐξεύροι τις ἀνθρώπων βίον. Κρ. ὦ Φοῖβε, κἀκεῖ κἀνθάδ’ οὐ δίκαιος εἶ ἐς τὴν ἀποῦσαν, ἧς πάρεισιν οἱ λόγοι, ὅς γ’ οὔτ’ ἔσωσας τὸν σὸν ὃν σῶσαί σ’ ἐχρῆν οὔθ’ ἱστορούσηι μητρὶ μάντις ὢν ἐρεῖς,

365

370

375

380

385

381–3 Stob. 4.34.43a

370 paragraphus in L: Ioni dat Hervag.  374–80 del. Martin (376–7 iam Badham, 374–7 Holthöfer)  374–5 οὐκ εἰς τοσοῦτον ... ἄν. ἢ τοὺς; Kvíčala   374 εἰς τοὔσχατον γὰρ Badham  375 ἄκοντας Brodaeus: ἑκόντας L: ἑκόντες Ricc. 32γρ: ἐλῶντες Musso  377 δι’  οἰωνῶν] δι᾿ ἀέρων sive αἰθέρων Hudson-Williams: σκοπουμένοις Lee  πτέροιν Heath: πτερῶν Kvíčala: πόρου Herwerden: πόρους Wecklein  378 ἃν Stephanus: ἄν L: ἤν Wilamowitz  379 ἀνόνητα Stephanus: ἄκοντα L: ἄκραντα Grégoire: κάκ᾿ ὄντα Döderlein  381–3 del. Irvine  381 βροτoῖς Stob.  382 ἕνα δ᾿ ἂν εὐτυχῆ Heath: ἓν δ᾿ ἂν εὐτυχὲς L: εν δ᾿ αν ευτυχαις et sim. codd. Stob.  383 ἀνθρώπoυ Stob.  βίω Ls.l.: fort. ᾿ν βίωι  385 del. F.W. Schmidt  386 ὅς γ᾿ οὔτ᾿ sive εἴγ᾿ οὔτ᾿ Dobree: σ*γ᾿ οὐκ Lp.c.: *γ᾿ οὐκ La.c.: σύ γ᾿ οὐκ Tr1





63

237–451 1st Epeisodion

ὡς, εἰ μὲν οὐκέτ’ ἔστιν, ὀγκωθῆι τάφωι, εἰ δ’ ἔστιν, ἔλθηι μητρὸς εἰς ὄψιν ποτέ. ἀλλ’ · ἐᾶν χρὴ τάδ’, εἰ πρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ κωλυόμεσθα μὴ μαθεῖν ἃ βούλομαι. ἀλλ’, ὦ ξέν’, εἰσορῶ γὰρ εὐγενῆ πόσιν Ξοῦθον πέλας δὴ τόνδε, τὰς Τροφωνίου λιπόντα θαλάμας, τοὺς λελεγμένους λόγους σίγα πρὸς ἄνδρα, μή τιν’ αἰσχύνην λάβω διακονοῦσα κρυπτά καὶ προβῆι λόγος οὐχ ἧιπερ ἡμεῖς αὐτὸν ἐξειλίσσομεν. τὰ γὰρ γυναικῶν δυσχερῆ πρὸς ἄρσενας, κἀν ταῖς κακαῖσιν ἁγαθαὶ μεμειγμέναι μισούμεθ’· οὕτω δυστυχεῖς πεφύκαμεν.

390

395

400

ΞΟΥΘΟΣ

πρῶτον μὲν  θεὸς τῶν ἐμῶν προσφθεγμάτων λαβὼν ἀπαρχὰς χαιρέτω, σύ τ’, ὦ γύναι. μῶν χρόνιος ἐλθών σ’ ἐξέπληξ’ ὀρρωδίαι; Κρ. οὐδέν γ’· ἀφίγμην δ’ ἐς μέριμναν. ἀλλά μοι λέξον· τί θέσπισμ’ ἐκ Τροφωνίου φέρεις, παίδων ὅπως νῶιν σπέρμα συγκραθήσεται; Ξο.  οὐκ ἠξίωσε τοῦ θεοῦ προλαμβάνειν  μαντεύμαθ’· ἓν δ’ οὖν εἶπεν· οὐκ ἄπαιδά με πρὸς οἶκον ἥξειν οὐδὲ σ’ ἐκ χρηστηρίων.

405

391 Herod. De Fig. 88.6, schol. Hom. Il. 13.257b 395–400 Stob. 4.23.29a ut ex IA

389 ἔλθηι … ποτέ del. Sander  390 ἀλλ’ · ἐᾶν χρὴ τάδ᾿ Martin: ἀλλ᾿ ἐᾶν χρὴ τάδ᾿ Wakefield: ἀλλ᾿ ἐᾶν χρὴ τάδ᾿ Collard  398–400 del. Irvine  401 Brubach.  404 ἀφίγμην Badham: ἀφίκου L  406 συγκραθήσεται Wakefield: συγκαθήσεται L  408 μαντεύμαθ᾿ Barnes, voluit Livineius (μαντεύματ᾿): μάντευμ᾿ L: μάντευμά μ᾿ Scaliger  δ᾿ οὖν Seager: γοῦν L

64

Critical Edition

Κρ. ὦ πότνια Φοίβου μῆτερ, εἰ γὰρ αἰσίως ἔλθοιμεν, ἅ τε νῶιν συμβόλαια πρόσθεν ἦν ἐς παῖδα τὸν σὸν μεταπέσοι βελτίονα. Ξο.  ἔσται τάδ’· ἀλλὰ τίς προφητεύει θεοῦ; Ιων ἡμῖν τά γ’ ἔξω, τῶν ἔσω δ’ ἄλλοις μέλει, οἳ πλησίον θάσσουσι τρίποδος,  ξένε, Δελφῶν ἀριστῆς, οὓς ἐκλήρωσεν πάλος. Ξο.  καλῶς· ἔχω δὴ πάνθ’ ὅσων ἐχρήιζομεν. στείχοιμ’ ἂν εἴσω· καὶ γάρ, ὡς ἐγὼ κλύω, χρηστήριον πέπτωκε τοῖς ἐπήλυσιν κοινὸν πρὸ ναοῦ· βούλομαι δ’ ἐν ἡμέραι τῆιδ’ (αἰσία γάρ) θεοῦ λαβεῖν μαντεύματα. σὺ δ’ ἀμφὶ βωμούς, ὦ γύναι, δαφνηφόρους λαβοῦσα κλῶνας, εὐτέκνους εὔχου θεοῖς χρησμούς μ’ ἐνεγκεῖν ἐξ Ἀπόλλωνος δόμων. Κρ. ἔσται τάδ’, ἔσται. Λοξίας δ’, ἐὰν θέληι νῦν ἀλλὰ τὰς πρὶν ἀναλαβεῖν ἁμαρτίας, ἅπας μὲν οὐ γένοιτ’ ἂν εἰς ἡμᾶς φίλος, ὅσον δὲ χρήιζει (θεὸς γάρ ἐστι) δέξομαι. Ιων τί ποτε λόγοισιν ἡ ξένη πρὸς τὸν θεὸν κρυπτοῖσιν αἰεὶ λοιδοροῦσ’ αἰνίσσεται; ἤτοι φιλοῦσά γ’ ἧς ὕπερ μαντεύεται, ἢ καί τι σιγῶσ’ ὧν σιωπᾶσθαι χρεών; ἀτὰρ θυγατρὸς τῆς Ἐρεχθέως τί μοι μέλει; προσήκει γ’ οὐδέν. ἀλλὰ χρυσέαις

410

415

420

425

430

433–52 ps.-Iustinus Martyr De Mon. 5.5

413 ἔστω Murray  414 ἡμῖν Herwerden: ἡμεῖς L  415 Scaliger  416 ἀριστῆς W. Dindorf: ἀριστεῖς L  πάλος Tr2: πάρος L  417 ἔχων Badham   428 χρήσει sive χρήσηι G. Schmid  431 γ᾿ ἧς ὕπερ μαντεύεται Victorius: γῆς ὑπερμαντεύεται L: τῆς ὕπερ μ. Wakefield   434 προσήκει γ᾿ οὐδέν Reiske: π. τοὖδας L: προσῆκε μ’ οὐθέν ps.-Iust.: προσῆκεν οὐδὲν Wakefield





65

237–451 1st Epeisodion

πρόχοισιν ἐλθὼν εἰς ἀπορραντήρια δρόσον καθήσω. νουθετητέος δέ μοι Φοῖβος· τί πάσχει; παρθένους βίαι γαμῶν προδίδωσι; παῖδας ἐκτεκνούμενος λάθραι θνήισκοντας ἀμελεῖ; μὴ σύ γ’· ἀλλ’, ἐπεὶ κρατεῖς, ἀρετὰς δίωκε. καὶ γὰρ ὅστις ἂν βροτῶν κακὸς πεφύκηι, ζημιοῦσιν οἱ θεοί. πῶς οὖν δίκαιον τοὺς νόμους ὑμᾶς βροτοῖς γράψαντας αὐτοὺς ἀνομίαν ὀφλισκάνειν; εἰ δ’ (οὐ γὰρ ἔσται, τῶι λόγωι δὲ χρήσομαι) δίκας βιαίων δώσετ’ ἀνθρώποις γάμων σὺ καὶ Ποσειδῶν Ζεύς θ’ ὃς οὐρανοῦ κρατεῖ, ναοὺς τίνοντες ἀδικίας κενώσετε. τὰς ἡδονὰς γὰρ τῆς προμηθίας πέρα σπεύδοντες ἀδικεῖτ’· οὐκέτ’ ἀνθρώπους κακοὺς λέγειν δίκαιον, εἰ τὰ τῶν θεῶν κακὰ μιμούμεθ’, ἀλλὰ τοὺς διδάσκοντας τάδε.

435

440

445

450

440–1 Stob. 1.3.5 442–7 Clem.Alex. Protr. 7.76.6 450 Lact. Div.Inst. 5.15.11 (incertum)

435 πρόχοισιν p, ps.-Iust.: πρόχουσιν L: προχόοισιν Barnes  437 πάσχων Canter: παρέχει ps.-Iust.  438 παῖδας ἐκτεκνούμενος ps.-Iust.: π. τεκνoύμενος L: παῖδάς ἐ. Musgrave: παῖδας τεκνoύμενος Stephanus   439 ἀμελεῖ Barnes (noluit Stephanus): ἀμέλει L  440 ἂν ps.-Iust., Stob.: ὢν L  441 πεφύκηι ps.-Iust.: πεφύκει L: πέφυκε Stob.  444 λόγωι ps.-Iust., Clem.Alex.: λοιπῶ L  447 τίνοντες ps.-Iust., Clem.Alex.: τίνοντες δ᾿ L  448 πέρα Conington: πέρας ps.-Iust.: πάρος L  449 κακοὺς ps.-Iust.: κακῶς L  450 κακὰ Stephanus: καλὰ L, ps.-Iust., Lact. (bona)

66

Critical Edition

Χο

σὲ τὰν ὠδίνων λοχιᾶν ἀνειλείθυιαν, ἐμὰν Ἀθάναν, ἱκετεύω, Προμηθεῖ Τιτᾶνι λοχευ- θεῖσαν κατ’ ἀκροτάτας κορυφᾶς Διός, ὦ †μάκαιρα Νίκα, μόλε Πύθιον οἶκον Οὐ- λύμπου χρυσέων θαλάμων πταμένα πρὸς ἀγυιάς Φοιβήιος ἔνθα γᾶς μεσόμφαλος ἑστία παρὰ χορευομένωι τρίποδι μαντεύματα κραίνει, σὺ [τε] καὶ παῖς ἁ Λατογενής, δύο θεαὶ δύο παρθένοι, κασίγνηται †σεμναὶ Φοίβου†. ἱκετεύσατε δ’, ὦ κόραι, τὸ παλαιὸν Ἐρεχθέως γένος εὐτεκνίας χρονίου καθαροῖς μαντεύμασι κῦρσαι.



ὑπερβαλλούσας γὰρ ἔχει θνατοῖς εὐδαιμονίας ἀκίνητον ἀφορμάν, τέκνων οἷς ἂν καρποφόρων

str.

455

460

465

470 ant.

475

453 Eust. in Od. 1861.43–4 (II 198.26–7 Stallbaum), Hesych. α4825, Synagoge B α1261 Cunningham, Photios α1810, Suda α2373, EM 298.42–3, Poll. 3.15

452 λοχιᾶν Hemsterhuys: λοχίαν Ls.l.: λοχείαν L  453 ἀνειλείθυιαν Heinsius e testim. (ἀνειλείθυια): εἰλείθυιαν L  456–7 ἀκροτάτας κορυφᾶς Matthiae: ἀ. κορυφὰς L: ἀκροτάταν κορυφὰν Irvine  457 μάκαιρα] πότνα Tr2: ὄλβιε Willink: μόλε Diggle et Page: μάκαρ Wecklein  458 μόλε Canter: μόλει L: μόλοι P  458–9 Οὐλύμπου Wakefield: Ὀλύμπου L  459 χρυσέων Dobree  460–1 ἀγυιᾶ φοιβήιον G. Müller  461 γᾶς Reiske: γᾶ L  463 παρὰ χορευομένωι Scaliger: παραχορευομένωι L  465 σὺ Tr2: σύ τε L  467 σεμνόταται Fritzsche  τοῦ Φ. Tr: θεοῦ Φ. Hermann: Φοίβου del. Nauck  472 ὑπερβαλλούσης Ls.l.  475 καρποφόρων Martin: καρποτρόφοι L: καρποφόροις sive κουροτρόφοις Dobree: καρποφόροι Diggle



67

452–509 1st Stasimon



λάμπωσιν ἐν θαλάμοις πατρίοισι νεάνιδες ἧβαι, διαδέκτορα πλοῦτον ὡς ἕξοντες ἐκ πατέρων ἑτέροις ἐπὶ τέκνοις. †ἀλκά τε γὰρ ἐν κακοῖς σύν τ’ εὐτυχίαις φίλον δορί τε γᾶι πατρίαι φέρει σωτήριον ἀλκάν. ἐμοὶ μὲν πλούτου τε πάρος βασιλικῶν τ’ εἶεν θαλάμων τροφαὶ †κήδειοι κεδνῶν γε τέκνων†. τὸν ἄπαιδα δ’ ἀποστυγῶ βίον, ὧι τε δοκεῖ ψέγω· μετὰ δὲ κτεάνων μετρίων βιοτᾶς εὔπαιδος ἐχοίμαν.



ὦ Πανὸς θακήματα καὶ παραυλίζουσα πέτρα μυχώδεσι Μακραῖς, ἵνα χοροῖς στείβουσι ποδοῖν Ἀγραύλου κόραι τρίγονοι στάδια χλοερὰ πρὸ Παλλάδος ναῶν συρίγγων ὑπ’ αἰόλας ἰαχᾶς †ὕμνων ὅταν αὐλίοις

480

485

490 ep.

495

500

479 ἕξοντες Tr  481 αἴγλα F.W. Schmidt: ἄλκαρ Dawe et Willink  484 αἴγλαν Herwerden: αἰχμάν Wilamowitz: αὐγάν Grégoire: ἀκμάν Verrall  486 θαλάμων τ᾿ εἶεν Tr  487 κεδνῶν κήδειοι τέκνων vel κεδνῶν τ. κ. Hermann: κήδειοι (sive κηδείων) τεκέων κεδνῶν Fritzsche  κήδειοι] κεδνοὶ Murray  κεδνῶν τέκνων Tr2  494 μυχώδεσι Tyrwhitt: μυχοὶ δαισὶ L  495 χοροῖς Reiske: χοροὺς L  496 Ἀγλαύρου Nauck: ἄγραυλοι Milton  498 συρίγγων Page  499 αἰόλας Wakefield  500 ὕμνον Stephanus: ὑμνῶν Badham: ὑμνοῦσ᾿ Page: ὕμνους Biehl: σύμφων᾿ Wilamowitz  500–1 ὅτ’ ἀναλίοις  συρίζεις Herwerden: ὅταν αὐλείοις συρίζηις Scaliger: ὅτ’ ἐναυλίους συρίζεις Biehl

68



Critical Edition

συρίζηις†, ὦ Πάν, τοῖσι σοῖς ἐν ἄντροις, ἵνα τεκοῦσά τις παρθένος [ὦ] μελέα βρέφος Φοίβωι πτανοῖς ἐξόρισεν θοίναν θηρσί τε φοινίαν δαῖτα, πικρῶν γάμων ὕβριν. οὔτ’ ἐπὶ κερκίσιν οὔτε †λόγοις φάτιν ἄιον εὐτυχίας μετέχειν θεόθεν τέκνα θνατοῖς.

503bis 505

502 τοῖσι σοῖς Tr1: : τοῖς σοῖσιν Hartung: τοῖσι σοῖσιν Fritzsche  503bis παρθένος Badham: παρθένος ὦ L  504 ἐξόρισεν Murray: ἐξώρισε L: ἐξώρισεν Tr: ἐξορίζει Herwerden  505 φοινίαν Burges: φονίαν L  507 οὔτε λόγων Badham: οὔ. χοροῖς Reiske: οὔ. πλύνοις Naber: οὔτ᾿ ἐλέγοις Musgrave



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

Ιων πρόσπολοι γυναῖκες, αἳ τῶνδ’ ἀμφὶ κρηπῖδας δόμων θυοδόκων φρούρημ’ ἔχουσαι δεσπότιν φυλάσσετε, ἐκλέλοιπ’ ἤδη τὸν ἱερὸν τρίποδα καὶ χρηστήριον Ξοῦθος ἢ μίμνει κατ’ οἶκον ἱστορῶν ἀπαιδίαν; Χο. ἐν δόμοις ἔστ’, ὦ ξέν’· οὔπω δῶμ’ ὑπερβαίνει τόδε. ὡς δ’ ἐπ’ ἐξόδοισιν ὄντος τῶνδ’ ἀκούομεν πυλῶν δοῦπον, ἐξιόντα τ’ ἤδη δεσπότην ὁρᾶν πάρα. Ξο. ὦ τέκνον, χαῖρ’· ἡ γὰρ ἀρχὴ τοῦ λόγου πρέπουσά μοι. Ιων χαίρομεν· σὺ δ’ εὖ φρόνει γε, καὶ δύ’ ὄντ’ εὖ πράξομεν. Ξο. δὸς χερὸς φίλημά μοι σῆς σώματός τ’ ἀμφιπτυχάς. Ιων σωφρονεῖς μέν; ἤ σ’ ἔμηνε θεοῦ τις, ὦ ξένε, βλάβη; Ξο. σωφρονῶ, τὰ φίλταθ’ εὑρὼν εἰ φιλεῖν ἐφίεμαι. Ιων παῦε, μὴ ψαύσας τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ στέμματα ῥήξηις χερί. Ξο. ἅψομαι· κοὐ ῥυσιάζω, τἀμὰ δ’ εὑρίσκω φίλα. Ιων οὐκ ἀπαλλάξηι, πρὶν εἴσω τόξα πλευμόνων λαβεῖν; Ξο. ὡς τί δή; φεύγεις με; σαυτοῦ γνωρίσας τὰ φίλτατα Ιων οὐ φιλῶ φρενοῦν ἀμούσους καὶ μεμηνότας ξένους. Ξο. κτεῖνε καὶ πίμπρη· πατρὸς γάρ, ἢν κτάνηις, ἔσηι φονεύς. Ιων ποῦ δέ μοι πατὴρ σύ; ταῦτ’ οὖν οὐ γέλως κλυεῖν ἐμοί; Ξο. οὔ· τρέχων ὁ μῦθος ἄν σοι τἀμὰ σημήνειεν ἄν. Ιων καὶ τί μοι λέξεις; Ξο. πατὴρ σός εἰμι καὶ σὺ παῖς ἐμός. Ιων τίς λέγει τάδ’; Ξο. ὅς σ’ ἔθρεψεν ὄντα Λοξίας ἐμόν. Ιων μαρτυρεῖς σαυτῶι. Ξο. τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκμαθὼν χρηστήρια. Ιων ἐσφάλης αἴνιγμ’ ἀκούσας. Ξο. οὐκ ἄρ’ ὄρθ’ ἀκούομεν. Ιων ὁ δὲ λόγος τίς ἐστι Φοίβου; Ξο. τὸν συναντήσαντά μοι Ιων τίνα συνάντησιν; Ξο. δόμων τῶνδ’ ἐξιόντι τοῦ θεοῦ Ιων συμφορᾶς τίνος κυρῆσαι; Ξο. παῖδ’ ἐμὸν πεφυκέναι. Ιων σὸν γεγῶτ’ ἢ δῶρον ἄλλως; Ξο. δῶρον, ὄντα δ’ ἐξ ἐμοῦ.

69 510

515

520

525

530

535

511 ἔχουσαι Stephanus: ἔχοντα L  δεσπότιν Richards: δεσπότην L  514 ἔστ’] ἔτ᾿ Cobet  520 σωφρονεῖς Martin: εὖ φρονεῖς L: οὐ φρονεῖς Scaliger  ἔμηνεν Diggle  521 οὐ φρονῶ Jacobs  φιλεῖν Tr2: φυγεῖν L  522 ῥήξηις Barnes: ῥήξεις L  524–6 ordinem invertit Kock: 525–6 ante 523 trai. G. Schmid, ante 521 Wecklein  524 πλευμόνων Nauck: πνευμόνων L  525 distinxit post με Hermann, post δή Martin  με Livineius: ἐμέ L  γνωρίσαι Page: γνώρισον Hermann  526 οὐ φιλῶ Scaliger: ὀφείλω L  528 κλυεῖν Martin post West: κλύειν L  ἐμοί Ls.l.: ἐμοῦ L  529 post οὔ distinxit Reiske  532 Tr1  534 συναντήσοντά West  537 ἄλλων Seager  δ᾿ Musgrave: σ᾿ Lp.c.: τ᾿ La.c. (‘ut uid.’ Diggle), Wakefield

70

Critical Edition

Ιων πρῶτα δῆτ’ ἐμοὶ ξυνάπτεις πόδα σόν; Ξο. οὐκ ἄλλωι, τέκνον. Ιων ἡ τύχη πόθεν ποθ’ ἥκει; Ξο. δύο μίαν θαυμάζομεν. Ιων ἐκ τίνος δέ σοι πέφυκα μητρός; Ξο. οὐκ ἔχω φράσαι. Ιων οὐδὲ Φοῖβος εἶπε; Ξο. τερφθεὶς τοῦτο κεῖν’ οὐκ ἠρόμην. Ιων γῆς ἄρ’ ἐκπέφυκα μητρός; Ξο. οὐ πέδον τίκτει τέκνα. Ιων πῶς ἂν οὖν εἴην σός; Ξο. οὐκ οἶδ’, ἀναφέρω δ’ ἐς τὸν θεόν. Ιων φέρε λόγων ἁψώμεθ’ ἄλλων. Ξο. τοῦτ’ ἄμεινον, ὦ τέκνον. Ιων ἦλθες ἐς νόθον τι λέκτρον; Ξο. μωρίαι γε τοῦ νέου. Ιων πρὶν κόρην λαβεῖν Ἐρεχθέως; Ξο. οὐ γὰρ ὕστερόν γέ πω. Ιων κἆιτα πῶς ἀφικόμεσθα δεῦρο; Ξο. τοῦτ’ ἀμηχανῶ. Ιων διὰ μακρᾶς ἐλθὼν κελεύθου; Ξο. τοῦτο κἄμ’ ἀπαιολᾶι. Ιων Πυθίαν δ’ ἦλθες πέτραν πρίν; Ξο. ἐς φανάς γε Βακχίου. Ιων προξένων δ’ ἔν του κατέσχες; Ξο. ὅς με Δελφίσιν κόραις Ιων ἐθιάσευσ’ – ἢ πῶς τάδ’ αὐδᾶις; Ξο. Μαινάσιν γε Βακχίου. Ιων ἔμφρον’ ἢ κάτοινον ὄντα; Ξο. Βακχίου πρὸς ἡδοναῖς. Ιων ἆρα δῆτ’ ἐκεῖ μ’ ἔφυσας; Ξο. τῶι χρόνωι γε συντρέχει. Ιων τοῦτ’ ἐκεῖν’ ἵν’ ἐσπάρημεν. Ξο. ὁ πότμος [σ᾿] ἐξηῦρεν, τέκνον. Ιων πῶς δ’ ἀφικόμεσθα ναούς; Ξο. ἔκβολον κόρης ἴσως. Ιων ἐκπεφεύγαμεν τὸ δοῦλον. Ξο. πατέρα νυν δέχου, τέκνον. Ιων τῶι θεῶι γοῦν οὐκ ἀπιστεῖν εἰκός. Ξο. εὖ φρονεῖς ἄρα. Ιων καὶ τί βουλόμεσθά γ’ ἄλλο Ξο. νῦν ὁρᾶις ἃ χρή σ’ ὁρᾶν. Ιων ἢ Διὸς παιδὸς γενέσθαι παῖς; Ξο. ὃ σοί γε γίγνεται. Ιων ἦ θίγω δῆθ’ οἵ μ’ ἔφυσαν; Ξο. πιθόμενός γε τῶι θεῶι. Ιων χαῖρέ μοι, πάτερ, Ξο. φίλον γε φθέγμ’ ἐδεξάμην τόδε. Ιων ἡμέρα θ’ ἡ νῦν παροῦσα. Ξο. μακάριόν γ’ ἔθηκέ με. Ιων ὦ φίλη μῆτερ, πότ’ ἆρα καὶ σὸν ὄψομαι δέμας; νῦν ποθῶ σε μᾶλλον ἢ πρίν, ἥτις εἶ ποτ’, εἰσιδεῖν. ἀλλ’ ἴσως τέθνηκας, ἡμεῖς δ’ οὐδ’ ὄναρ δυναίμεθ’ ἄν. Χο. κοιναὶ μὲν ἡμῖν δωμάτων εὐπραξίαι· ὅμως δὲ καὶ δέσποιναν ἐς τέκν’ εὐτυχεῖν ἐβουλόμην ἂν τούς τ’ Ἐρεχθέως δόμους. 

540

545 546 548 550

553 547 554 555

560

565

540 ἐκ Bothe: ἔα L πέφυκα μητρός Canter: μ. π. L  541 τοῦτο Par. gr. 2887: τούτω L  544 τοῦτ᾿ Herwerden: ταῦτ᾿ L  548 τοῦτ᾿ Hermann: ταῦτ᾿ L  549 ἀπαιολᾶι Musgrave: ἀπαιολεῖ L  551 ἔν του Badham: ἐν τῶ L: ἔν τωι L. Dindorf: ἐν τοῦ Madvig: εἴσω Irvine  552 ἐθιάσευσ᾿ Musgrave: ἐθίασέ σ᾿ L  γε Musgrave: τε L  553 κάτοινον Hervag.: κάτοικον L  547 post 553 trai. Martin  554 ἐκεῖν’ ἵν’ Elmsley: ἐκεῖ νῦν L  ἐσπάρην μέν Willink  πότμος Scaliger: πότμος σ᾿ L  557 post 559 trai. Wilson  558 βουλώμεσθά La.c.  559 ἢ La.c.: ἦ Lp.c.  παίδων Kraus  ὃ Scaliger: ἧ L  560 ὅς μ᾿ ἔφυσας Bothe  πιθόμενος Heath: πειθόμενος L  561 γε add. Lp.c. aut Tr1  562 totum versum Xutho trib. et τέθηκέ scr. Wilamowitz  565 οὐδ’ ὄναρ δυναίμεθ᾿ ἄν Parmentier (δ. ἄ. iam Musgrave): οὐδὲν ἂρ δυναίμεθα L: οὐδὲν ἆρ᾿ ὀναίμεθ᾿ ἄν Matthiae



71

510–675 2nd Epeisodion

Ξο. ὦ τέκνον, ἐς μὲν σὴν ἀνεύρεσιν θεὸς ὀρθῶς ἔκρανε καὶ συνῆψ’ ἐμοί τε σέ, σύ τ’ αὖ τὰ φίλταθ’ ηὗρες οὐκ εἰδὼς πάρος. οἷ δ’ ἦιξας ὀρθῶς, τοῦτο κἄμ’ ἔχει πόθος, ὅπως σύ τ’, ὦ παῖ, μητέρ’ εὑρήσεις σέθεν ἐγώ θ’ ὁποίας μοι γυναικὸς ἐξέφυς· χρόνωι δὲ δόντες ταῦτ’ ἴσως εὕροιμεν ἄν. ἀλλ’ ἐκλιπὼν θεοῦ δάπεδ’ ἀλητείαν τε σὴν ἐς τὰς Ἀθήνας στεῖχε κοινόφρων πατρί [οὗ σ’ ὄλβιον μὲν σκῆπτρον ἀναμένει πατρός, πολὺς δὲ πλοῦτος· οὐδὲ θάτερον νοσῶν δυοῖν κεκλήσηι δυσγενὴς πένης θ’ ἅμα, ἀλλ’ εὐγενής τε καὶ πολυκτήμων βίου]. σιγᾶις; τί πρὸς γῆν ὄμμα σὸν βαλὼν ἔχεις ἐς φροντίδας τ’ ἀπῆλθες, ἐκ δὲ χαρμονῆς πάλιν μεταστὰς δεῖμα προσβάλλεις πατρί; Ιων οὐ ταὐτὸν εἶδος φαίνεται τῶν πραγμάτων πρόσωθεν ὄντων ἐγγύθεν θ’ ὁρωμένων. ἐγὼ δὲ τὴν μὲν συμφορὰν ἀσπάζομαι, πατέρα σ’ ἀνευρών· ὧν δὲ γιγνώσκω, πάτερ, ἄκουσον. εἶναί φασι †τὰς αὐτόχθονας κλεινὰς Ἀθήνας οὐκ ἐπείσακτον γένος, ἵν’ ἐσπεσοῦμαι δύο νόσω κεκτημένος, πατρός τ’ ἐπακτοῦ καὐτὸς ὢν νοθαγενής. καὶ τοῦτ’ ἔχων τοὔνειδος ἀσθενὴς μὲν ὢν μηδὲν κοὐδένων κεκλήσομαι;

570

575

580

585

590

571 ηὗρες W. Dindorf: εὗρες L  572 οἷ  Herwerden: ὃ L  τοῦδε Valckenaer  578– 81 del. Diggle (581 iam Herwerden et Wilamowitz), suspectos hab. Murray  580 δυοῖν] οὔκουν Musso  583 τ᾿ W. Dindorf: δ᾿ L  585 ταὐτὸν εἶδος Scaliger: ταὔτ᾿ ὄνειδος L (τὸ αὐτὸ s.l.)   587 ἔγωγε Musso  588 πάτερ Dobree: πέρι L   589 φησι πᾶς Wakefield: φασι σὰς Hermann: fort. φασι γῆς  593 μένων Musgrave: μὲν οὖν Valckenaer  594 Martin (τὸ iam Scaliger): vel Hermann: Wilamowitz  κοὐδένων Hermann (καὶ οὐδένων iam Scaliger): καὶ οὐδὲν ὢν L

72



Critical Edition

[ἢν δ’ ἐς τὸ πρῶτον πόλεος ὁρμηθεὶς ζυγὸν ζητῶ τις εἶναι, τῶν μὲν ἀδυνάτων ὕπο μισησόμεσθα· λυπρὰ γὰρ τὰ κρείσσονα. ὅσοι δέ, χρηστοὶ δυνάμενοί τ’ εἶναι σοφοί, σιγῶσι κοὐ σπεύδουσιν ἐς τὰ πράγματα, γέλωτ’ ἐν αὐτοῖς μωρίαν τε λήψομαι οὐχ ἡσυχάζων ἐν πόλει φόβου πλέαι. τῶν δ’ αὖ λογίων τε χρωμένων τε τῆι πόλει ἐς ἀξίωμα βὰς πλέον φρουρήσομαι ψήφοισιν. οὕτω γὰρ τάδ’, ὦ πάτερ, φιλεῖ· οἳ τὰς πόλεις ἔχουσι κἀξιώματα τοῖς ἀνθαμίλλοις εἰσὶ πολεμιώτατοι.] ἐλθὼν δ’ ἐς οἶκον ἀλλότριον ἔπηλυς ὢν γυναῖκά θ’ ὡς ἄτεκνον, ἣ κοινουμένη τὰς συμφοράς σοι πρόσθεν ἀπολαχοῦσα νῦν αὐτὴ καθ’ αὑτὴν τὴν τύχην οἴσει πικρῶς, πῶς [δ᾿] οὐχ ὑπ’ αὐτῆς εἰκότως μισήσομαι; [ὅταν παραστῶ σοὶ μὲν ἐγγύθεν ποδός, ἡ δ’ οὖσ’ ἄτεκνος τὰ σὰ φίλ’ εἰσορᾶι πικρῶς, κἆιτ’ ἢ προδοὺς σύ μ’ ἐς δάμαρτα σὴν βλέπηις

595

600

605

610

605–6 Stob. 4.4.4 ut ex Glauco

595–606 del. Kovacs (602–4 iam L. Dindorf)  595 πόλεος Musgrave: πόλεως L  598 τ᾿ ὄντες σοφοί Herwerden: τε καὶ σοφοί Holzhausen: τ᾿ εἰπεῖν σοφά Musgrave  600 τε λήψομαι] τ᾿ ὀφλήσομεν Nauck  601 ψόφου Stephanus: ψόγου vel σοβοῦ Musgrave  602 δ᾿ αὖ τε λογίων Heath: δ᾿ ἐν λόγωι τε Matthiae: δὲ λογίμων τε Madvig: δ᾿ αὖ λογιστῶν Musso  605 ἔχοντες ἀξίωμά τε Stob.  609 τῆς συμφορᾶς Diggle  610 αὐτὴ Aldina: αὐτὴν L  611 πῶς Canter: πῶς δ᾿ L  612–20 del. Martin (612–13 iam suspectos hab. et 614–15, 620 del. Nauck; 616–17 del. W. Dindorf)





73

510–675 2nd Epeisodion

ἢ τἀμὰ τιμῶν δῶμα συγχέας ἔχηις; ὅσας σφαγὰς δὴ φαρμάκων θανασίμων γυναῖκες ηὗρον ἀνδράσιν διαφθοράς. ἄλλως τε τὴν σὴν ἄλοχον οἰκτίρω, πάτερ, ἄπαιδα γηράσκουσαν· οὐ γὰρ ἀξία πατέρων ἀπ’ ἐσθλῶν οὖσ’ ἀπαιδίαι νοσεῖν. τυραννίδος δὲ τῆς μάτην αἰνουμένης τὸ μὲν πρόσωπον ἡδύ, τἀν δόμοισι δὲ λυπηρά· τίς γὰρ μακάριος, τίς εὐτυχής, ὅστις δεδοικὼς καὶ περιβλέπων βίαν αἰῶνα τείνει; δημότης ἂν εὐτυχὴς ζῆν ἂν θέλοιμι μᾶλλον ἢ τύραννος ὤν, ὧι τοὺς πονηροὺς ἡδονὴ φίλους ἔχειν, ἐσθλοὺς δὲ μισεῖ κατθανεῖν φοβούμενος. εἴποις ἂν ὡς ὁ χρυσὸς ἐκνικᾶι τάδε πλουτεῖν τε τερπνόν· οὐ φιλῶ ψόφους κλυεῖν ἐν χερσὶ σώιζων ὄλβον οὐδ’ ἔχειν πόνους· εἴη γ’ ἐμοὶ μέτρια μὴ λυπουμένωι.] ἃ δ’ ἐνθάδ’ εἶχον ἀγάθ’ ἄκουσόν μου, πάτερ· τὴν φιλτάτην μὲν πρῶτον ἀνθρώποις σχολὴν ὄχλον τε μέτριον, οὐ δέ μ’ ἐξέπληξ’ ὁδοῦ πονηρὸς οὐδείς· κεῖνο δ’ οὐκ ἀνασχετόν, εἴκειν ὁδοῦ χαλῶντα τοῖς κακίοσιν. θεῶν δ’ ἐν εὐχαῖς ἢ λόγοισιν ἦ βροτῶν ὑπηρετῶν χαίρουσιν, οὐ γοωμένοις.

615

620

625

630

635

621–8 Stob. 4.8.2

615 συγχέας Lp.c. aut Tr1: ***χέας L  616 Heath et Tyrwhitt  620 ἀπαιδίαι L. Dindorf et Dobree: ἀπαιδίαν L  621–32 del. Kovacs (622 iam Wecklein; 632 del. Bayfield, suspectum hab. Wecklein)  624 περιβλέπων Stob.: παραβλέπων L  βίαν Stephanus: βίον L, Stob.  625 δημότης Stob.: δημότης δ᾿ L  629–47 del. L. Dindorf  630 ψόγους ut aliorum lectionem laudat Brodaeus  κλυεῖν Martin post West: κλύειν L  632 εἴη γ’ ἐμοὶ Brubach: εἴη δ’ ἔμοι Lenting post Seager (δ’) et Scaliger (ἔμοιγε): εἴη γε μοι Jackson  634 ἀνθρώποις Dobree: ἀνθρώπων L: ἀνθρώπωι Ricc. 32γρ  638 λόγοισιν Musgrave: γόοισιν L: νόοισιν Brodaeus  ἦ Musgrave: ἢ L: ἐν Matthiae

74

Critical Edition

καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἐξέπεμπον, οἱ δ’ ἧκον ξένοι, ὥσθ’ ἡδὺς αἰεὶ καινὸς ἐν καινοῖσιν ἦ. ὃ δ’ εὐκτὸν ἀνθρώποισι, κἂν ἄκουσιν ἦι, δίκαιον εἶναί μ’ ὁ νόμος ἡ φύσις θ’ ἅμα παρεῖχε τῶι θεῶι. ταῦτα συννοούμενος κρείσσω νομίζω τἀνθάδ’ ἢ τἀκεῖ, πάτερ. ἔα δέ μ’ αὐτοῦ ζῆν· ἴση γὰρ ἡ χάρις [μεγάλοισι χαίρειν σμικρά θ’ ἡδέως ἔχειν]. Χο. καλῶς ἔλεξας, εἴπερ οὓς ἐγὼ φιλῶ ἐν τοῖσι σοῖσιν εὐτυχήσουσιν λόγοις. Ξο. παῦσαι λόγων τῶνδ’, εὐτυχεῖν δ’ ἐπίστασο· θέλω γὰρ οὗπέρ σ’ ηὗρον ἄρξασθαι, τέκνον, κοινῆς τραπέζης, δαῖτα πρὸς κοινὴν πεσών, θῦσαί θ’ ἅ σου πρὶν γενέθλι’ οὐκ ἐθύσαμεν. καὶ νῦν μὲν ὡς δὴ ξένον ἄγων σ’ ἐφέστιον δείπνοισι τέρψω, τῆς δ’ Ἀθηναίων χθονὸς ἄξω θεατὴν δῆθεν, ὡς οὐκ ὄντ’ ἐμόν. καὶ γὰρ γυναῖκα τὴν ἐμὴν οὐ βούλομαι λυπεῖν ἄτεκνον οὖσαν αὐτὸς εὐτυχῶν. χρόνωι δὲ καιρὸν λαμβάνων προσάξομαι δάμαρτ’ ἐᾶν σε σκῆπτρα τἄμ’ ἔχειν χθονός. Ἴωνα [δ’ ὄνομα] δ᾿ ὀνομάζω σε τῆι τύχηι πρέπον, ὁθούνεκ’ ἀδύτων ἐξιόντι μοι θεοῦ ἴχνος συνῆψας πρῶτος. ἀλλὰ τῶν φίλων πλήρωμ’ ἀθροίσας βουθύτωι σὺν ἡδονῆι πρόσειπε, μέλλων Δελφίδ’ ἐκλιπεῖν πόλιν. ὑμῖν δὲ σιγᾶν, δμωίδες, λέγω τάδε ἢ θάνατον εἰπούσαισι πρὸς δάμαρτ’ ἐμήν.

640

645

650

655

660

665

653 Lex.Seg. Antiattic. p. 86.18–19 Bekker

641 ἐν Scaliger: ὢν L  ἦ Wecklein: ἦν L  646 δέ μ’ (iam Hermann) αὐτοῦ Badham: δ᾿ ἐμαυτῶι L  647 del. Martin  649 λόγοις Lγρ: φίλοις L  651–3 post 665 pos. Kvíčala  656 οὐχ ὡς Badham  661 Ἴωνα Tr1: Ἴωνα δ’ ὄνομα L  664 ἀθροίσας Tr1: ἀθρήσας L  666 δμωίδες Barnes: δμωίδεσσι L: δμωίσι Wakefield



75

510–675 2nd Epeisodion

Ιων στείχοιμ’ ἄν. ἓν δὲ τῆς τύχης ἄπεστί μοι· εἰ μὴ γὰρ ἥτις μ’ ἔτεκεν εὑρήσω, πάτερ, ἀβίωτον ἡμῖν. εἰ δ’ ἐπεύξασθαι χρεών, ἐκ τῶν Ἀθηνῶν μ’ ἡ τεκοῦσ’ εἴη γυνή ὥς μοι γένηται μητρόθεν παρρησία. καθαρὰν γὰρ ἤν τις ἐς πόλιν πέσηι ξένος, κἂν τοῖς λόγοισιν ἀστὸς ἦι, τό γε στόμα δοῦλον πέπαται κοὐκ ἔχει παρρησίαν.

674 τοῖς νόμοισιν Conington  676 καὶ] μὲν Tr2

670

675

76

Critical Edition

Χο. ὁρῶ δάκρυα καὶ πενθίμους < ⏑⏑⏑‒> στεναγμάτων τ’ ἐσβολὰς ὅταν ἐμὰ τύραννος εὐπαιδίαν πόσιν ἔχοντ’ ἴδηι αὐτὴ δ’ ἄπαις ἦι καὶ λελειμμένη τέκνων. τίν’, ὦ παῖ πρόμαντι Λατοῦς, ἔχρη σας ὑμνωιδίαν; πόθεν ὁ παῖς ὅδ’ ἀμφὶ ναοὺς σέθεν τρόφιμος ἐξέβα; γυναικῶν τίνος; οὐ γάρ με σαίνει θέσφατα μή τιν’ ἔχηι δόλον. δειμαίνω συμφορὰν ἐφ’ ὅτι ποτὲ βάσεται. ἄτοπος ἄτοπα γὰρ παραδίδωσί μοι τῶιδε δ᾿ εὔφημα· ἔχει δόμον τε γᾶν θ’ ὁ παῖς ἄλλων τραφεὶς ἐξ αἱμάτων. τίς οὐ τάδε ξυνοίσεται;

φίλαι, πότερ’ ἐμᾶι δεσποίναι τάδε τορῶς ἐς οὖς γεγωνήσομεν; πόσιν ἐν ὧι τὰ πάντ’ ἔχουσ’ ἐλπίδων μέτοχος ἦν, τλάμων· νῦν δ’ ἡ μὲν ἔρρει συμφοραῖς – ὁ δ’ εὐτυχεῖ – πολιὸν ἐσπεσοῦσα γῆρας, πόσις δ’ ἀτίετος φίλων. μέλεος, ὃς θυραῖος ἐλθὼν δόμους μέγαν ἐς ὄλβον οὐκ ἴσωσεν τύχας. ὄλοιτ’ ὄλοιτο πότνιαν ἐξαπαφὼν ἐμάν, καὶ θεοῖσιν μὴ τύχοι καλλίφλογα πελανὸν ἐπὶ πυρὶ καθαγνίσας· τὸ δ’ ἐμὸν εἴσεται

str.

680

685 688 690

695

ant.

700 702 704 705

676 καὶ] μὲν Tr2  677 (fort. τε a.c.) Tr2: nihil habet P: (*υς ut vid.): Hermann  στεναγμάτων Musgrave: στεναγμῶν L  τ᾿ ἐσβολὰς L?, P: εἰσβολὰς Tr2   679 ἴδηι Stephanus: ἤδη L: εἴδηι Wakefield  689 ὅτι ποτὲ Fix: ὅποτε L  ποτ᾿ ἐκβάσεται Badham  691 τῶιδε δ᾿ εὔφημα Martin: τόδε τ᾿ εὔ. L: τόδί ποτ᾿ εὔ. Tr ut vid.: τωιδί ποτ᾿ εὔ. Aldina: τῶι δήποτ᾿ εὔ. Barnes: τάδε θεοῦ φήμα Nauck: del. Bayfield   692 πλέκει Diggle  δόμον Tyrwhitt (nisi praeiit Reiske): δόλον L  τε γᾶν Martin: τύχαν L: τέχναν Schömann  693 ἐξ] ἀφ᾿ Tr  695 ποτνίαι Badham: δεσπότει Diggle  702 δόμου Musgrave  704 ἴσωσεν Wakefield: ἔσωσε L: ἔσωσεν Heath  τύχας Heath: τύχης L: τύχαν Kuiper  705 ὄλοιτ᾿ ὄλοιτ᾿ ὦ Tr: ὄ. ὄλοιτ᾿ ὁ Stephanus (inde ὄ. ὄλοιθ᾿ Canter)



77

676–724 2nd Stasimon



τυραννίδος φίλα. ἤδη πέλας δείπνων κυρεῖ παῖς καὶ πατὴρ νέος νέου.



ἰὼ δειράδες Παρνασσοῦ πέτρας ἔχουσαι σκόπελον οὐράνιόν θ’ ἕδραν, ἵνα Βάκχιος ἀμφιπύρους ἀνέχων πεύκας λαιψηρὰ πηδᾶι νυκτιπόλοις ἅμα σὺν Βάκχαις. μήποτ’ εἰς ἐμὰν πόλιν ἵκοιθ’ ὁ παῖς, νέαν δ’ ἁμέραν ἀπολιπὼν θάνοι. †στενομένα γὰρ ἂν πόλις ἔχοι σκῆψιν ξενικὸν ἐσβολάν  †ἁλίσας ὁ πάρος ἀρχαγὸς ὢν Ἐρεχθεὺς ἄναξ.

710 711 713 715

ep.

717 719 720

723 725

710 ante τυραννίδος lac. pos. Canter, post φίλα Hartung  τυραννίδος Hermann  τύραννος φίλα Badham: τύραννος ἡ φίλα Bayfield: alii aliter  711 ἤδη Heath (nisi praeiit Reiske): ἦ δὴ L  πέλας Seidler: πελάσας L  δεινῶν Diggle  713 νέου Burges: νέων L  714 ἰὼ Badham: ἵνα L  Παρνασσοῦ Martin post Mastronarde: Παρνασοῦ L  716 ἀμφιπύρους Hervag.: ἀμφιπόρους L: ἀμφὶ πόρους P  719 μή ποτ᾿ Hermann: μήποθ᾿ L: μήποθ᾿ Seidler  721 στεγομένα Grégoire: στενομέναν Scheidweiler  722 lac. pos. Badham  εἰσβολᾶν Herwerden  723 ἅλις ἅλις Heath: ἅλις δ᾿ ἅλις Jerram: ἀλεύσας Diggle  ἀρωγός ποτ᾿ ἦν Grégoire (ἦν iam Tyrwhitt)

78

Critical Edition

Κρ. ὦ πρέσβυ, παιδαγώγ’ Ἐρεχθέως πατρὸς [τοὐμοῦ ποτ’ ὄντος ἡνίκ’ ἦν ἔτ’ ἐν φάει], ἔπαιρε σαυτὸν πρὸς θεοῦ χρηστήρια ὥς μοι συνησθῆις εἴ τι Λοξίας ἄναξ θέσπισμα παίδων ἐς γονὰς ἐφθέγξατο. σὺν τοῖς φίλοις γὰρ ἡδὺ μὲν πράσσειν καλῶς· ὃ μὴ γένοιτο δ’, εἴ τι τυγχάνοι κακόν, ἐς ὄμματ’ εὔνου φωτὸς ἐμβλέψαι γλυκύ. ἐγὼ δέ σ’, ὥσπερ καὶ σὺ πατέρ’ ἐμόν ποτε, δέσποιν’ ὅμως οὖσ’ ἀντικηδεύω πατρός. ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΗΣ ὦ θύγατερ, ἄξι’ ἀξίων γεννητόρων ἤθη φυλάσσεις κοὐ καταισχύνασ’ ἔχεις [τοὺς σοὺς παλαιοὺς ἐκγόνους αὐτόχθονας]. ἕλχ’ ἕλκε πρὸς μέλαθρα καὶ κόμιζέ με· αἰπεινὰ δὴ μαντεῖα. τοῦ γήρως δέ μοι συνεκπονοῦσα κῶλον ἰατρὸς γενοῦ. Κρ. ἕπου νυν· ἴχνος δ’ ἐκφύλασσ’ ὅπου τίθης. Πρ. ἰδού· τὸ τοῦ ποδὸς μὲν βραδύ, τὸ τοῦ δὲ νοῦ ταχύ. Κρ. βάκτρωι δ’ ἐρείδου περιφερῆ στείβων χθόνα. Πρ. καὶ τοῦτο τυφλὸν ὅταν ἐγὼ βλέπω βραχύ. Κρ. ὀρθῶς ἔλεξας· ἀλλὰ μὴ παρῆι κόπωι. Πρ. οὔκουν ἑκών γε· τοῦ δ’ ἀπόντος οὐ κρατῶ. Κρ. γυναῖκες, ἱστῶν τῶν ἐμῶν καὶ κερκίδος δούλευμα πιστόν, τίνα τύχην λαβὼν πόσις βέβηκε παίδων, ὧνπερ οὕνεχ’ ἥκομεν; σημήνατ’· εἰ γὰρ ἀγαθά μοι μηνύσετε, οὐκ εἰς ἀπίστους δεσπότας βαλεῖς χαράν.

725

730

735

740

745

750

730–2 Stob. 4.48.22 732 Plut. Mor. 49F, 69A, Fronto 4.8, P.Vindob. G 12563 (Chrest.Wilck 40), schol. Pind. N. 8.43 726 del. Sander  ὢν τόθ’ ἡνίκ’ Wecklein: ὢν ὁπηνίκ᾿ Wilamowitz  731 ὃ Stephanus: ἃ L  732 ἐμβλέψαι Stob., Plut.: ἐνβλέψαι Fronto: ἐμβλέψει schol.Pind.: ἐμβλέπειν P.Vindob.: εἰσβλέψαι L  737 del. Hermann  παλαιῶν ... αὐτοχθόνων Jackson  738–9 καὶ ... μαντεῖα del. Jachmann  739 δὴ Wakefield: δέ μοι L: μοι Barnes: τοι Valckenaer: μὲν Badham  741 τίθης voluit Stephanus (τιθῆις; cf. 1525): τιθεῖς L  743 περιφερῆ στείβων χθόνα Badham (cum χθονός Herwerden): περιφερῆ στίβον χθονός L: περιφερὴς στίβος χθονός Diggle  745 παρῆι κόπωι Barthold: ᾿πάρεσκέ πω L: πάρες κόπωι Tyrwhitt: παρῆις κόπωι Paley  746 ἀπόντος Reiske: ἄκοντος L  750 μηνύσετε Barnes: μηνύσατε L  751 χάριν Elmsley



79

725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

Χο. ἰὼ δαῖμον. Κρ. τὸ φροίμιον μὲν τῶν λόγων οὐκ εὐτυχές. Χο. ἰὼ τλᾶμον. Κρ. ἀλλ’ ἦ τι θεσφάτοισι †δεσποτῶν νοσῶ; Χο. εἶἑν· τί δρῶμεν; θάνατος ὧν κεῖται πέρι Κρ. τίς ἥδε μοῦσα, χὠ φόβος τίνων πέρι; Χο. εἴπωμεν ἢ σιγῶμεν ἢ τί δράσομεν; Κρ. εἴφ’· ὡς ἔχεις γε συμφοράν τιν’ εἰς ἐμέ. Χο. εἰρήσεταί τοι, κεἰ θανεῖν μέλλω διπλῆι. οὐκ ἔστι σοι, δέσποιν’, ἐπ’ ἀγκάλαις λαβεῖν τέκν’ οὐδὲ μαστῶι σῶι προσαρμόσαι ποτέ. Κρ. ὤμοι θάνοιμι. Πρ. θύγατερ. Κρ. ὦ τάλαιν’ ἐγὼ συμφορᾶς, ἔλαβον ἔπαθον ἄχος ἀβίοτον, [ὦ] φίλαι. διοιχόμεσθα. Πρ. τέκνον. Κρ. αἰαῖ αἰαῖ· διανταῖος ἔτυπεν [ἔτυπεν] ὀδύνα με πλευ μόνων τῶνδ’ ἔσω. Πρ. μήπω στενάξηις Κρ. ἀλλὰ πάρεισι γόοι. Πρ. πρὶν ἂν μάθωμεν Κρ. ἀγγελίαν τίνα μοι; Πρ. εἰ ταὐτὰ πράσσων δεσπότης τῆς συμφορᾶς κοινωνός ἐστιν ἢ μόνη σὺ δυστυχεῖς. Χο. κείνωι μέν, ὦ γεραιέ, παῖδα Λοξίας ἔδωκεν, ἰδίαι δ’ εὐτυχεῖ ταύτης δίχα. Κρ. τόδ’ ἐπὶ τῶιδε κακὸν ἄκρον ἔλακες ἄχος ἐμοὶ στένειν. Πρ. πότερα δὲ φῦναι δεῖ γυναικὸς ἔκ τινος τὸν παῖδ’ ὃν εἶπας ἢ γεγῶτ’ ἐθέσπισεν; Χο. ἤδη πεφυκότ’ ἐκτελῆ νεανίαν δίδωσιν αὐτῶι Λοξίας· παρῆ δ’ ἐγώ. Κρ. πῶς φήις; ἄφατον ἄφραστον ἀναύδητον λόγον ἐμοὶ θροεῖς.

755

760

765

780 772

775

780 783

752–5 choro dat L: 753 et 755 Creusae trib. Canter, seni Hermann  755 ἀλλ᾿ ἦ τι Scaliger: ἀλλά τι L  δεσπόταισι θεσφάτων Radermacher  δεσποτῶν] Λοξίου Wecklein  νοσεῖς Musgrave: νοσεῖ G. Schmid   756 αἰαῖ F.W. Schmidt  post δρῶμεν notam quaestionis posuit sustulitque post πέρι Murray  759 συμφοράν τιν’ Stiblinus: συμφορὰν τίν᾿ L  762 ποτέ Jacobs: τάδε L: τὰ σά Badham  763–4 ὤμοι ... ἐγὼ seni dat, deinde 759 iterat L (quem v. del. Hervag.): inter Creusam et chorum distrib. Boissonade   763 ὦ] ὢ Willink  764 συμφορᾶς del. Wilamowitz  765 ἀβίοτον Seidler (ἀβίωτον iam Stephanus et Ricc. 32): βίοτον ὦ L: ἄβιον ὦ Hermann  767 ἔτυπεν semel Hervag.: bis L  767–8 πλευμόνων Nauck: πνευμόνων Tr1:   772 ταὐτὰ Canter et Ricc. 32: ταῦτα L  775 εὐτυχεῖ p: εὐτυχῶ L  776 ἔλακες bis Seidler  778 δὲ φῦναι δεῖ Scaliger: διαφῦναι δὴ L  780 πεφυκότ’ Tr2: παραπεφυκότ’ L  ἐντελῆ Blomfield  781 παρῆ Herwerden: παρῆν L  783 ἄφατον ἄφραστον Badham: ἄφατον ἄφατον L: ἄφατον ἄφατόν τιν᾿ Seidler: ἄφατον αὖ φάτιν Murray

80

Critical Edition

Πρ. κἄμοιγε. πῶς δ’ ὁ χρησμὸς ἐκπεραίνεται σαφέστερόν μοι φράζε χὤστις ἔσθ’ ὁ παῖς. Χο. ὅτωι ξυναντήσειεν ἐκ θεοῦ συθεὶς πρώτωι πόσις σός, παῖδ’ ἔδωκ’ αὐτῶι θεός. Κρ. ὀτοτοτοῖ· τὸν ἐμὸν ἄτεκνον [ἄτεκνον] ἔλακεν ἄρα βίον, ἐρημίαι δ’ ὀρφανοὺς δόμους οἰκήσω. Πρ. τίς οὖν ἐχρήσθη; τῶι συνῆψ’ ἴχνος ποδὸς πόσις ταλαίνης; πῶς δὲ ποῦ νιν εἰσιδών; Χο. οἶσθ’, ὦ φίλη δέσποινα, τὸν νεανίαν ὃς τόνδ’ ἔσαιρε ναόν; οὗτός ἐσθ’ ὁ παῖς. Κρ. ἀν’ ὑγρὸν ἀμπταίην αἰθέρα πόρσω γαί- ας Ἑλλανίας ἀστέρας ἑσπέρους, οἷον οἷον ἄλγος ἔπαθον, φίλαι. Πρ. ὄνομα δὲ ποῖον αὐτὸν ὀνομάζει πατήρ; οἶσθ’, ἢ σιωπῆι τοῦτ’ ἀκύρωτον μένει; Χο. Ἴων’, ἐπείπερ πρῶτος ἤντησεν πατρί· μητρὸς δ’ ὁποίας ἐστὶν οὐκ ἔχω φράσαι. φροῦδος δ’, ἵν’ εἰδῆις πάντα τἀπ’ ἐμοῦ, γέρον, παιδὸς προθύσων ξένια καὶ γενέθλια [σκηνὰς ἐς ἱερὰς τῆσδε λαθραίως πόσις, κοινὴν ξυνάψων δαῖτα παιδὶ τῶι νέωι]. Πρ. δέσποινα, προδεδόμεσθα (σὺν γὰρ σοὶ νοσῶ) τοῦ σοῦ πρὸς ἀνδρὸς καὶ μεμηχανημένως

785

790 791bis

795 797

800

805

785–6 πῶς ... παῖς Creusae dat L, seni Seidler  785 κἄμοιγ᾿ ὅπως Herwerden  790 ὀτοτοτοῖ Bothe: ὀτοτοττοτοῖ La.c.: ὀττοτοττοτοῖ Lp.c. (nisi Tr1): ὀττοτοτοῖ Wilamowitz  τὸν Badham: τὸ δ᾿ L  ἄτεκνον semel Heath: bis L: ter P  ἔλακεν Murray: ἔλαβεν L: ἔλακ’ Conomis  791 βίον Martin: βίοτον L  792–3 Creusae dat L, seni Seidler  793 ποῦ ... εἰσιδών Scaliger: που ... εἰσίδω L  797–8 αἰθέρ᾿ γαίας sive αἰθέρα γᾶς πρόσω cum ἀστέρας Willink  797 ὑγρὰν Willink  ἀμπταίην Wakefield: ἂν πταίην L  πόρσω W. Dindorf: πρόσω Tr1:   798 ἑσπέρους Seidler: ἑσπερίους L  799 φίλαι P (p teste Wecklein)  800–7 del. Klinkenberg, 800–2 Enthoven  803 totum v. choro trib. Kirchhoff: Πρ. μητρὸς δ᾿ ὁποίας ἐστίν; Κρ. οὐκ ἔχω φράσαι L  δὲ ποίας Par. gr. 2817  ἔχει Kraus  805 post 806 trai. Wilamowitz: del. G. Schmid  806–7 del. Martin (807 iam Wilamowitz)  807 κοινὴν Kirchhoff: κοινῆ L  δαῖτα Hervag.: παῖδα L  808 seni dat Tr2: notam om. L



81

725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

ὑβριζόμεσθα δωμάτων τ’ Ἐρεχθέως ἐκβαλλόμεσθα – καὶ σὸν οὐ στυγῶν πόσιν λέγω, σὲ μέντοι μᾶλλον ἢ κεῖνον φιλῶν, ὅστις σε γήμας ξένος ἐπεισελθὼν πόλιν καὶ δῶμα καὶ σὴν παραλαβὼν παγκληρίαν ἄλλης γυναικὸς παῖδας ἐκκαρπούμενος λάθραι πέφηνεν. ὡς λάθραι δ’, ἐγὼ φράσω· ἐπεί σ’ ἄτεκνον ἤισθετ’, οὐκ ἔστεργέ σοι ὅμοιος εἶναι τῆς τύχης τ’ ἴσον φέρειν, λαβὼν δὲ δοῦλα λέκτρα νυμφεύσας λάθραι τὸν παῖδ’ ἔφυσεν, ἐξενωμένον δέ τωι Δελφῶν δίδωσιν ἐκτρέφειν. ὁ δ’ ἐν θεοῦ δόμοισιν ἄφετος, ὡς λάθοι, παιδεύεται. νεανίαν δ’ ὡς ἤισθετ’ ἐκτεθραμμένον, ἐλθεῖν σ’ ἔπεισε δεῦρ’ ἀπαιδίας χάριν. κἆιθ’ ὁ θεὸς οὐκ ἐψεύσαθ’, ὅδ ἐψεύσατο πάλαι τρέφων τὸν παῖδα κἄπλεκεν πλοκὰς τοιάσδ’· †ἁλοὺς μὲν ἀνέφερ’ ἐς τὸν δαίμονα, †ἐλθὼν δὲ καὶ τὸν χρόνον ἀμύνεσθαι θέλων† τυραννίδ’ αὐτῶι περιβαλεῖν ἔμελλε γῆς. [καινὸν δὲ τοὔνομ’ ἀνὰ χρόνον πεπλασμένον, Ἴων, ἰόντι δῆθεν ὅτι συνήντετο.] Χο. οἴμοι, κακούργους ἄνδρας ὡς ἀεὶ στυγῶ, οἳ συντιθέντες τἄδικ’ εἶτα μηχαναῖς κοσμοῦσι. φαῦλον χρηστὸν ἂν λαβεῖν φίλον θέλοιμι μᾶλλον ἢ κακὸν σοφώτερον.

810

815

820

825

830

835

813 ξένος add. Lp.c. aut Tr1: vacat L   818 suspectum hab. Herwerden  825 ὅδ Canter  827 fort. τοιάς· δόλους  828 ἐλθὼν] ἑλὼν Canter: λαθὼν Musgrave  ἐλθὼν ἐκεῖσε Owen  λαβὼν δὲ καιρόν, φθόνον Jacobs   830–1 del. W. Dindorf: ante 828 trai. Kuiper  832–5 post 858 trai. Diggle  832 choro trib. Bothe: notam om. L  833–4 μηχαναῖς ... ἂν λαβεῖν Stephanus: μηχανὰς ... ἀναλαβεῖν L

82

Critical Edition

Πρ. καὶ τῶνδ’ ἁπάντων ἔσχατον πείσηι κακόν· ἀμήτορ’, ἀναρίθμητον, ἐκ δούλης τινὸς γυναικὸς ἐς σὸν δῶμα δεσπότην ἄγει. [ἁπλοῦν ἂν ἦν γὰρ τὸ κακόν, εἰ παρ’ εὐγενοῦς μητρός, πιθών σε, σὴν λέγων ἀπαιδίαν, ἐσώικισ’ οἴκους· εἰ δέ σοι τόδ’ ἦν πικρόν, τῶν Αἰόλου νιν χρῆν ὀρεχθῆναι γάμων. ἐκ τῶνδε δεῖ σε δὴ γυναικεῖόν τι δρᾶν· ἢ γὰρ ξίφος λαβοῦσαν ἢ δόλωι τινὶ ἢ φαρμάκοισι σὸν κατακτεῖναι πόσιν καὶ παῖδα, πρὶν σοὶ θάνατον ἐκ κείνων μολεῖν. εἰ γάρ γ’ ὑφήσεις τοῦδ’, ἀπαλλάξηι βίου. δυοῖν γὰρ ἐχθροῖν εἰς ἓν ἐλθόντοιν στέγος ἢ θάτερον δεῖ δυστυχεῖν ἢ θάτερον. ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν σοι καὶ συνεκπονεῖν θέλω καὶ συμφονεύειν παῖδ’ ἐπεισελθὼν δόμους οὗ δαῖθ’ ὁπλίζει καὶ τροφεῖα δεσπόταις ἀποδοὺς θανεῖν τε ζῶν τε φέγγος εἰσορᾶν. ἓν γάρ τι τοῖς δούλοισιν αἰσχύνην φέρει· τοὔνομα· τὰ δ’ ἄλλα πάντα τῶν ἐλευθέρων οὐδὲν κακίων δοῦλος ὅστις ἐσθλὸς ἦι. Χο. κἀγώ, φίλη δέσποινα, συμφορὰν θέλω κοινουμένη τήνδ’ ἢ θανεῖν ἢ ζῆν καλῶς.]

840

845

850

855

854–6 Stob. 4.19.30

836 καὶ] κἀκ Dobree: κἀν G. Schmid  838 ἄγει Hermann: ἄγειν L  839–58 del. Martin (847 iam W. Dindorf, 848–9 Badham, 843–58 suspectos hab. Murray, 844–58 del. Diggle, 843 Musso)  843 σέ Owen  847 εἴπερ γ᾿ ὑφήσεις τοῦδ’ Alt: εἰ γάρ σ᾿ ὑφήσεις τῶιδ᾿ Kirchhoff: εἰ γὰρ σὺ φείσει τοῦδ’ Badham: εἰ δ᾿ ὑστερήσεις τοῦδ’ Sansone  εἰ γὰρ add. Lp.c. aut Tr1: vacat L   851 ὑπεισελθὼν Wakefield  δόμους Hervag.: δόμοις L  856 οὐδὲν Dobree: οὐδεὶς L, Stob.



83

725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

Κρ. ὦ ψυχά, πῶς σιγάσω; πῶς δὲ σκοτίας ἀναφήνω εὐνάς, αἰδοῦς δ’ ἀπολειφθῶ;

τί γὰρ ἐμπόδιον κώλυμ’ ἔτι μοι; πρὸς τίν’ ἀγῶνας τιθέμεσθ’ ἀρετῆς; οὐ πόσις ἡμῶν προδότης γέγονεν; στέρομαι δ’ οἴκων, στέρομαι παίδων, φροῦδαι δ’ ἐλπίδες, ἃς διαθέσθαι χρήιζουσα καλῶς οὐκ ἐδυνήθην σιγῶσα γάμους, σιγῶσα τόκους πολυκλαύτους. ἀλλ’ οὐ τὸ Διὸς πολύαστρον ἕδος καὶ τὴν ἐπ’ ἐμοῖς σκοπέλοισι θεὰν λίμνης τ’ ἐνύδρου Τριτωνιάδος πότνιαν ἀκτήν, οὐκέτι κρύψω λέχος ὡς στέρνων ἀπονησαμένη ῥάιων ἔσομαι. στάζουσι κόραι δακρύοισιν ἐμαί, ψυχὴ δ’ ἀλγεῖ κακοβουληθεῖσ’ ἔκ τ’ ἀνθρώπων ἔκ τ’ ἀθανάτων, οὓς ἀποδείξω λέκτρων προδότας ἀχαρίστους.



ὦ τᾶς ἑπταφθόγγου μέλπων κιθάρας ἐνοπάν, ἅτ’ ἀγραύλων κεράεσσιν ἐν ἀψύχοις ἀχεῖ μουσᾶν ὕμνους εὐαχήτους, σοὶ μομφάν, ὦ Λατοῦς παῖ,

860

865

870

875

880

885

875 Hesych. α6500, Phot. Lex. α2593, Synagoge B α1920 Cunningham

863 ἀγῶνας Musgrave: ἀγῶνα L  867 ἐδυνήθην Elmsley: ἐδυνάσθην Lp.c.: ἐδυνάθην La.c.  869 πολυκλαύτους Tr1: πολυκλαύστους L?  873 ἀκτήν Owen: ἀκτάν L  874 ὃ Reiske  875 ἀπονησαμένη Valckenaer (et testim.): ἀπονισαμένη L  877 ψυχὴ W. Dindorf: ψυχὰ L  κακοβουληθεῖσ’ Barnes: κακοβουλευθεῖσ᾿ L  882 ἀγραύλων Martin: ἀγραύλοις L  883 κεράεσσιν Madvig: κέρασιν L

84

Critical Edition



πρὸς τάνδ’ αὐγὰν [αἰθέρος] αὐδάσω. ἦλθές μοι χρυσῶι χαίταν μαρμαίρων, εὖτ’ ἐς κόλπους κρόκεα πέταλα φάρεσιν ἔδρεπον †ἀνθίζειν χρυσανταυγῆ· λευκοῖς δ’ ἐμφὺς καρποῖσιν χειρῶν εἰς ἄντρου κοίτας κραυγὰν Ὦ μᾶτέρ μ’ αὐδῶσαν θεὸς ὁμευνέτας ἆγες ἀναιδείαι Κύπριδι χάριν πράσσων. τίκτω δ’ ἁ δύστανός σοι κοῦρον, τὸν φρίκαι ματρὸς βάλλω τὰν σὰν εἰς εὐνάν, ἵνα μ’ ἐν λέχεσιν μελέαν μελέοις ἐζεύξω τὰν δύστανον. οἴμοι μοι· καὶ νῦν ἔρρει πτανοῖς ἁρπασθεὶς θοίνα παῖς μοι [καὶ] σὸς τλάμων. σὺ δὲ κιθάραι κλάζεις παιᾶνας μέλπων.



ὠή, τὸν Λατοῦς αὐδῶ, ὅστ’ ὀμφὰν κληροῖς, πρὸς χρυσέους θάκους καὶ γαίας μεσσήρεις ἕδρας.

890

895

900

905

910

886 αὐγὰν Tr2: αὐγὰν αἰθέρος L  889 ἐδρεπόμαν Burges: del. Wilamowitz  890 ἄνθιζον Wilamowitz: ἀνθιζομένα Diggle: ἄνθεσιν Scaliger  891 ἐμφὺς Reiske: ἐμφύσας L  καρποῖσιν Dobree: καρποῖς L  894 ὁμευνετής Ls.l.  897 δύστανός W. Dindorf: δύστηνός L  898 πατρὸς Wecklein  899 βάλλω τὰν σὰν εἰς εὐνάν Bothe: εἰς εὐ. β. τ. σ. L  900 μ᾿ ἐν λέχεσιν Heath: με λέχεσι L: με λέχεσί Wilamowitz  904 μοι σὸς Bothe: μοι καὶ σὸς L: σὸς καὶ ἐμός W. Dindorf: μοι καὶ σοί Christ  904–5 τλᾶμον, σὺ δὲ Diggle  908 ὅστ᾿ Herwerden: ὃς L: ὅς γ᾿ Tr  ὀμφάν ὃς Buchholtz  909 χρυσέοις θάκοις Reiske: χρυσέους θάκους Page





85

725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

ἐς φῶς αὐδὰν καρύξω· Ἰὼ κακὸς εὐνάτωρ, ὃς τῶι μὲν ἐμῶι νυμφεύται χάριν οὐ προλαβὼν παῖδ’ εἰς οἴκους οἰκίζεις· ὁ δ’ ἐμὸς γενέτας καὶ σὸς †ἀμαθὴς οἰωνοῖς ἔρρει συλαθείς, [οἰκεῖα] σπάργανα ματέρος ἐξαλλάξας. μισεῖ σ’ ἁ Δᾶλος καὶ δάφνας ἔρνεα φοίνικα παρ’ ἁβροκόμαν, ἔνθα λοχεύματα σέμν’ ἐλοχεύσατο Λατὼ Δίοισί σε κάποις.

Χο. οἴμοι, μέγας θησαυρὸς ὡς ἀνοίγνυται κακῶν, ἐφ’ οἷσι πᾶς ἂν ἐκβάλοι δάκρυ. Πρ. θύγατερ, οἴκτου σὸν βλέπων ἐμπίμπλαμαι πρόσωπον, ἔξω δ’ ἐγενόμην γνώμης ἐμῆς. κακῶν γὰρ ἄρτι κῦμ’ ὑπεξαντλῶν φρενί, πρύμνηθεν αἴρει μ’ ἄλλο σῶν λόγων ὕπο, οὓς ἐκβαλοῦσα τῶν παρεστώτων κακῶν μετῆλθες ἄλλων πημάτων κακὰς ὁδούς. τί φήις; τίνα λόγον Λοξίου κατηγορεῖς; ποῖον τεκεῖν φὴις παῖδα; ποῦ ’κθεῖναι πόλεως θηρσὶν φίλον τύμβευμ’; ἄνελθέ μοι πάλιν. Κρ. αἰσχύνομαι μέν σ’, ὦ γέρον, λέξω δ’ ὅμως. Πρ. ὡς συστενάζειν γ’ οἶδα γενναίως φίλοις.

915

920

925

930

935

911 ἐς φῶς Wilamowitz: εἰς οὖς L: ἐσιοῦσ᾿ Musso  912 Paley  913 νυμφεύται Canter: νυμφέτα L: νυμφέται Par. gr. 2817  915 εἰς Tr2: ἐς L  916 σός γ᾿ Tr  ἀπευθὴς Kirchhoff: δμαθεὶς Jackson  917 συλαθείς Hermann: συλαθείς· οἰκεῖα L  919 μισοῖ Heath  920 φοίνικα Brodaeus: φοίνια L  922 δισσοῖσι Scaliger  κάποις Kirchhoff: καρποῖς L  925 Prubr  οἴκτου Nauck: οὔτοι L: ὄκνου G. Schmid  ἐμπίμπλαμαι Barnes: ἐμπίπλαμαι L  927 κακῶν Aldina: κακὸν L  928 αἱρεῖ Bellios  ὕπο Ls.l.: ὕπερ L   932–3 del. F.W. Schmidt  932 ᾿κθεῖναι Dobree: θεῖναι L

86

Critical Edition

Κρ. ἄκουε τοίνυν· οἶσθα Κεκροπίας πέτρας [πρόσβορρον ἄντρον, ἃς Μακρὰς κικλήσκομεν]; Πρ. οἶδ’, ἔνθα Πανὸς ἄδυτα καὶ βωμοὶ πέλας. Κρ. ἐνταῦθ’ ἀγῶνα δεινὸν ἠγωνίσμεθα. Πρ. τίν’; ὡς ἀπαντᾶι δάκρυά μοι τοῖς σοῖς λόγοις. Κρ. Φοίβωι ξυνῆψ’ ἄκουσα δύστηνον γάμον. Πρ. ὦ θύγατερ, ἆρ’ ἦν ταῦθ’ ἅ γ’ ἠισθόμην ἐγώ; Κρ. οὐκ οἶδ’· ἀληθῆ δ’ εἰ λέγεις φαίημεν ἄν. Πρ. νόσον κρυφαίαν ἡνίκ’ ἔστενες λάθραι. Κρ. ταῦτ’ ἦν ἃ νῦν σοι φανερὰ σημαίνω κακά. Πρ. κἆιτ’ ἐξέκλεψας πῶς Ἀπόλλωνος γάμους; Κρ. ἔτεκον· ἀνάσχου ταῦτ’ ἐμοῦ κλυών, γέρον. Πρ. ποῦ; τίς λοχεύει σ’; ἢ μόνη μοχθεῖς τάδε; Κρ. μόνη κατ’ ἄντρον οὗπερ ἐζεύχθην γάμοις. Πρ. ὁ παῖς δὲ ποῦ ’στιν, ἵνα σὺ μηκέτ’ ἦις ἄπαις; Κρ. τέθνηκεν, ὦ γεραιέ, θηρσὶν ἐκτεθείς. Πρ. τέθνηκ’; Ἀπόλλων δ’ ὁ κακὸς οὐδὲν ἤρκεσεν; Κρ. οὐκ ἤρκεσ’· Ἅιδου δ’ ἐν δόμοις παιδεύεται. Πρ. τίς γάρ νιν ἐξέθηκεν; οὐ γὰρ δὴ σύ γε; Κρ. ἡμεῖς, ἐν ὄρφνηι σπαργανώσαντες πέπλοις. Πρ. οὐδὲ ξυνήιδει σοί τις ἔκθεσιν τέκνου; Κρ. αἱ ξυμφοραί γε καὶ τὸ λανθάνειν μόνον. Πρ. καὶ πῶς ἐν ἄντρωι παῖδα σὸν λιπεῖν ἔτλης; Κρ. πῶς [δ᾿]; οἰκτρὰ πολλὰ στόματος ἐκβαλοῦσ’ ἔπη. Πρ. φεῦ· τλήμων σὺ τόλμης, ὁ δὲ θεὸς μᾶλλον σέθεν. Κρ. εἰ παῖδά γ’ εἶδες χεῖρας ἐκτείνοντά μοι. Πρ. μαστὸν διώκοντ’ ἢ πρὸς ἀγκάλαις πεσεῖν; Κρ. ἐνταῦθ’ ἵν’ οὐκ ὢν ἄδικ’ ἔπασχεν ἐξ ἐμοῦ. Πρ. σοὶ δ’ ἐς τί δόξ’ ἐσῆλθεν ἐκβαλεῖν τέκνον; Κρ. ὡς τὸν θεὸν σώσοντα τόν γ’ αὑτοῦ γόνον.

940

945

950

955

960

965

936 δή νυν L. Dindorf  Κεκροπίων πετρῶν Page  937 del. Burges  945 ταῦτ᾿ Kuiper: τοῦτ᾿ L: τότ᾿ L. Dindorf  947 κλυών Martin post West: κλύων P  948–9 del. Wiskemann  952 τέθνηκ᾿ Barnes: τέθνηκεν L  953 Ἅιδου Brodaeus: αἰδοῦς L  959 πῶς Matthiae: πῶς δ᾿ L  962 ἦ Bruhn  964 δόξ᾿ ἐσῆλθεν Dobree et Hermann: δόξης ἦλθεν L  965 σώσοντα Wakefield: σώζοντα L  αὑτοῦ Barnes: αὐτοῦ L



87

725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

Πρ. οἴμοι, δόμων σῶν ὄλβος ὡς χειμάζεται. Κρ. τί κρᾶτα κρύψας, ὦ γέρον, δακρυρροεῖς; Πρ. σὲ καὶ πατέρα σὸν δυστυχοῦντας εἰσορῶν. Κρ. τὰ θνητὰ τοιαῦτ’· οὐδὲν ἐν ταὐτῶι μένει. Πρ. μή νυν ἔτ’ οἴκτων, θύγατερ, ἀντεχώμεθα. Κρ. τί γάρ με χρὴ δρᾶν; ἀπορία τὸ δυστυχεῖν. Πρ. τὸν πρῶτον ἀδικήσαντά σ’ ἀποτίνου θεόν. Κρ. καὶ πῶς τὰ κρείσσω θνητὸς οὖσ’ ὑπερδράμω; Πρ. πίμπρη τὰ σεμνὰ Λοξίου χρηστήρια. Κρ. δέδοικα· καὶ νῦν πημάτων ἅδην ἔχω. Πρ. τὰ δυνατά νυν τόλμησον, ἄνδρα σὸν κτανεῖν. Κρ. αἰδούμεθ’ εὐνὰς τὰς τόθ’ ἡνίκ’ ἐσθλὸς ἦν. Πρ. νῦν δ’ ἀλλὰ παῖδα τὸν ἐπὶ σοὶ πεφηνότα. Κρ. πῶς; εἰ γὰρ εἴη δυνατόν· ὡς θέλοιμί γ’ ἄν. Πρ. ξιφηφόρους σοὺς ὁπλίσασ’ ὀπάονας. [Κρ. στείχοιμ’ ἄν· ἀλλὰ ποῦ γενήσεται τόδε; Πρ. ἱεραῖσιν ἐν σκηναῖσιν οὗ θοινᾶι φίλους.] Κρ. ἐπίσημον ὁ φόνος καὶ τὸ δοῦλον ἀσθενές. Πρ. ὤμοι, κακίζηι· φέρε, σύ νυν βούλευέ τι. Κρ. καὶ μὴν ἔχω γε δόλια καὶ δραστήρια. Πρ. ἀμφοῖν ἂν εἴην τοῖνδ’ ὑπηρέτης ἐγώ. Κρ. ἄκουε τοίνυν· οἶσθα γηγενῆ μάχην; Πρ. οἶδ’, ἣν Φλέγραι Γίγαντες ἔστησαν θεοῖς. Κρ. ἐνταῦθα Γοργόν’ ἔτεκε Γῆ, δεινὸν τέρας. Πρ. ἦ παισὶν αὑτῆς σύμμαχον, θεῶν πόνον; Κρ. ναί· καί νιν ἔκτειν’ ἡ Διὸς Παλλὰς θεά. Πρ. ποῖόν τι μορφῆς σχῆμ’ ἔχουσαν ἀγρίας; Κρ. θώρακ’ ἐχίδνης περιβόλοις ὡπλισμένον. Πρ. ἆρ’ οὗτός ἐσθ’ ὁ μῦθος ὃν κλύω πάλαι; Κρ. ταύτης Ἀθάναν δέρος ἐπὶ στέρνοις ἔχειν.

970

975

980

985

990

995

968 εἰσορῶν Ls.l.: εἰσορῶ   970 οἴκτων Lp.c.: οἰκῶν La.c.  981–2 del. Martin  981 θέλοιμ᾿ Nauck: στείλαιμ᾿ Herwerden: κτείνοιμ᾿ Diggle  987 δή νυν L. Dindorf  990 αὑτῆς Barnes: αὐτῆς L  992–7 del. Ludwig (992–3 iam Murray, qui suspectos hab. etiam 996–7)  992–3 post 997 trai. Kirchhoff  994 ὀρθός ἐσθ᾿ F.W. Schmidt   995 ταύτης Hartung  Ἀθάναν … ἔχειν Victorius et Stephanus: Ἀθάνας … ἔ. L: Ἀθάνα … ἔχει Nauck

88

Critical Edition

Πρ. ἣν αἰγίδ’ ὀνομάζουσι Παλλάδος στολήν; Κρ. τόδ’ ἔσχεν ὄνομα θεῶν ὅτ’ ἦιξεν ἐς δόρυ. Πρ. τί δῆτα, θύγατερ, τοῦτο σοῖς ἐχθροῖς βλάβος; Κρ. Ἐριχθόνιον οἶσθ’ ἢ ; τί δ’ οὐ μέλλεις, γέρον; Πρ. ὃν πρῶτον ὑμῶν πρόγονον ἐξανῆκε γῆ; Κρ. τούτωι δίδωσι Παλλὰς ὄντι νεογόνωι Πρ. τί χρῆμα; †μέλλον γάρ τι προσφέρεις ἔπος. Κρ. δισσοὺς σταλαγμοὺς αἵματος Γοργοῦς ἄπο. Πρ. ἰσχὺν ἔχοντας τίνα πρὸς ἀνθρώπου φύσιν; Κρ. τὸν μὲν θανάσιμον, τὸν δ’ ἀκεσφόρον νόσων. Πρ. ἐν τῶι καθάψασ’ ἀμφὶ παιδὶ σώματος; Κρ. χρυσέοισι δεσμοῖς· ὁ δὲ δίδωσ’ ἐμῶι πατρί. Πρ. κείνου δὲ κατθανόντος ἐς σ’ ἀφίκετο; Κρ. ναί· κἀπὶ καρπῶι γ’ αὔτ’ ἐγὼ χερὸς φέρω. [Πρ. πῶς οὖν κέκρανται δίπτυχον δῶρον θεᾶς; Κρ. κοίλης μὲν ὅστις φλεβὸς ἀπέσταξεν φόνος Πρ. τί τῶιδε χρῆσθαι; δύνασιν ἐκφέρει τίνα; Κρ. νόσους ἀπείργει καὶ τροφὰς ἔχει βίου. Πρ. ὁ δεύτερος δ’ ἀριθμὸς ὃν λέγεις τί δρᾶι; Κρ. κτείνει, δρακόντων ἰὸς ὢν τῶν Γοργόνος. Πρ. ἐς ἓν δὲ κραθέντ’ αὐτὸν ἢ χωρὶς φορεῖς; Κρ. χωρίς· κακῶι γὰρ ἐσθλὸν οὐ συμμείγνυται.] Πρ. ὦ φιλτάτη παῖ, πάντ’ ἔχεις ὅσων σε δεῖ. Κρ. τούτωι θανεῖται παῖς· σὺ δ’ ὁ κτείνων ἔσηι. Πρ. ποῦ καὶ τί δράσας; σὸν λέγειν, τολμᾶν δ’ ἐμόν. Κρ. ἐν ταῖς Ἀθήναις, δῶμ’ ὅταν τοὐμὸν μόληι. Πρ. οὐκ εὖ τόδ’ εἶπας· καὶ σὺ γὰρ τοὐμὸν ψέγεις.

1000

1005

1010

1015

1020

997 τόδ᾿] τότ᾿ Bayfield  ἦιξεν anon. apud Paley: ἦλθεν L  999 οἶσθ᾿ ἢ Badham: οἶσθ᾿; ἢ L: οἶσθας W. Dindorf  τί γ᾿ οὐ Ls.l.  1004–5 del. Ludwig, suspectos hab. Wecklein  1004 ἔχοντας Reiske: ἔχοι γ᾿ ἂν Lp.c. aut Tr1: ἔχο** ἂν La.c. (fort. ἔχοιο ἂν): ἔχοιντ᾿ ἂν Stephanus  1007 ante hunc v. lac. duorum vv. pos. Wecklein  χρυσέοισι Fix: χρυσοῖσι L  1009 αὔτ’ ἐγὼ Hermann: αὐτὸ ᾿γὼ L  1010–17 del. Enthoven (1016–17 iam Prevost)  1010 δῶρον Stephanus: δέρος L  1011 φόνος Canter: φόνω L: φόνου Ls.l.  1012 χρῆσθαι L. Dindorf et Dobree: χρῆσθε L  δύναμιν Calder  1014 ἀριθμὸν (iam Carmeli) ὧν Nauck: ἀριθμὸς ὧν Diggle  1015 Γοργόνος Bothe: γοργόνων L  1016 κραθέντ᾿ αὐτὸν Canter: κρανθὲν ταὐτὸν L  ἢ χωρὶς φορεῖς Snape: ἰχῶρ᾿ εἰσφορεῖς L



89

725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

Κρ. πῶς; ἆρ’ ὑπείδου τοῦθ’ ὃ κἄμ’ ἐσέρχεται; Πρ. σὺ παῖδα δόξεις διολέσαι, κεἰ μὴ κτενεῖς. Κρ. ὀρθῶς· φθονεῖν γάρ φασι μητρυιὰς τέκνοις. Πρ. αὐτοῦ νυν αὐτὸν κτεῖν’, ἵν’ ἀρνήσηι φόνους. Κρ. προλάζυμαι γοῦν τῶι χρόνωι τῆς ἡδονῆς. Πρ. καὶ σόν γε λήσεις πόσιν ἅ σε σπεύδει λαθεῖν. Κρ. οἶσθ’ οὖν ὃ δρᾶσον· χειρὸς ἐξ ἐμῆς λαβὼν χρύσωμ’ Ἀθάνας τόδε, παλαιὸν ὄργανον, ἐλθὼν ἵν’ ἡμῶν βουθυτεῖ λάθραι πόσις, δείπνων ὅταν λήγωσι καὶ σπονδὰς θεοῖς μέλλωσι λείβειν, ἐν πέπλοις ἔχων τόδε κάθες βαλὼν ἐς πῶμα τῶι νεανίαι [ἰδίαι δέ, μή πᾶσι χωρίσας ποτόν,] τῶι τῶν ἐμῶν μέλλοντι δεσπόζειν δόμων. κἄνπερ διέλθηι λαιμόν, οὔποθ’ ἵξεται κλεινὰς Ἀθήνας, κατθανὼν δ’ αὐτοῦ μενεῖ. Πρ. σὺ μέν νυν εἴσω προξένων μέθες πόδα· ἡμεῖς δ’ ἐφ’ ὧι τετάγμεθ’ ἐκπονήσομεν. ἄγ’, ὦ γεραιὲ πούς, νεανίας γενοῦ ἔργοισι, κεἰ μὴ τῶι χρόνωι πάρεστί σοι. ἐχθρὸν δ’ ἐπ’ ἄνδρα στεῖχε δεσποτῶν μέτα καὶ συμφόνευε καὶ συνεξαίρει δόμων. τὴν δ’ εὐσέβειαν εὐτυχοῦσι μὲν καλὸν τιμᾶν· ὅταν δὲ πολεμίους δρᾶσαι κακῶς θέληι τις, οὐδεὶς ἐμποδὼν κεῖται νόμος.

1025

1030

1035

1040

1045

1045–7 Stob. 4.13.23

1026 κτεῖν᾿ Barnes: κτεῖνον L  1027–8, 1035–8, 1043–7 suspecti  1028 γνοῦσ᾿ ὅσα σπεύδει πόσιν Kovacs  ἃ σὺ σπεύδεις Wakefield  λαθεῖν Stephanus: λαβεῖν L   1029 χειρὸς Barnes: χερὸς L   1031 ἡμῶν Battezzato: ἡμῖν L  1034 λαθὼν West  1035 del. Paley  ἰδίαι δὲ μὴ ᾿ν ἅπασιν p: ἰ. δ. μή πᾶσι Wakefield: ἰ. γε μη π. Seager: ἰδίαι δέπασιν West  1036 δεσπόσειν W. Dindorf  1038 Ἀθήνας Aldina: Ἀθάνας L  1045 εὐτυχοῦσι] ἔν γ᾿ ἔταισι Kovacs

90



Critical Edition

Χο. Εἰνοδία θύγατερ Δάματρος, ἃ τῶν νυκτιπόλων ἐφόδων ἀνάσσεις, καὶ μεθαμερίων ὅδωσον δυσθανάτων κρατήρων πληρώματ’ ἐφ’ οἷσι πέμπει πότνια πότνι’ ἐμὰ χθονίας Γοργοῦς λαιμοτόμων ἀπὸ σταλαγμῶν τῶι τῶν Ἐρεχθεϊδᾶν δόμων ἐφαπτομένωι· μηδέ ποτ’ ἄλλος [ἄλλων ἀπ᾿] οἶκος πόλεως ἀνάσσοι πλὴν τῶν εὐγενετᾶν Ἐρεχθειδᾶν. εἰ δ’ ἀτελὴς θάνατος σπουδαί τε δεσποί- νας ὅ τε καιρὸς ἄπεισι τόλμας, ὧι νῦν ἐλπὶς ἐσεφέρετ’, ἢ θηκτὸν ξίφος ἢ λαιμῶν ἐξάψει βροχὸν ἀμφὶ δειράν, πάθεσι πάθεα δ’ ἐξανύτουσ’ εἰς ἄλλας βιότου κάτεισι μορφάς. οὐ γὰρ δόμων γ’ ἑτέρους ἄρχοντας ἀλλοδαποὺς ζῶσά ποτ’ [ὄμμασι] φαενναῖς ἀνέχοιτ’ ἂν αὐγαῖς, ἁ τῶν εὐπατριδᾶν γεγῶσ’ οἴκων.

str. 1 1050

1055

1060 ant. 1

1065 1066 1068 1070

1048 εἰνοδία Tr2: ἐνοδία P  1053 πότνι᾿] πότμον A. Schmidt  1058–9 ἄλλος οἶκος Murray: ἄλλος ἄλλων ἀπ᾿ οἴκων L: ἄλλος ἥκων Diggle   1059 πόλεως Tr2: πόλεος L  1060 Ἐρεχθειδᾶν Aldina: Ἐρεχθειδῶν L  1063 ὧ (i.e. ὧι) L?: ὢ P: ἄ̃ τε Tr2: ἇι τε Scaliger: ἇι γε Musgrave: ἇς Wilamowitz  1063–4 ἐσέφερετ᾿ Martin: φέρετ᾿ L: ἐφαίνετ᾿ Badham: ἐφέρβετ᾿ Headlam  1064–5 ἢ λαιμῶν Scaliger: ὁ (ἡ P) δαίμων L  1065 ἐξάψει Reiske: ἐξάψειν L  δειράν Blaydes (noluit Hermann; δειρήν  iam Heath): δέρην L  1068 κάτεισι μορφάς Hermann: μορφὰς κ. L  1069 γ᾿ ἑτέρους] πατρίων Nauck: ἐφορῶσ᾿ Herwerden   1071 ποτ’ Badham: ποτ’ ὄμμασι P: ποτ’ ὀμμάτων Tr2: ποτ’ ὄμμασιν Willink



1048–1105 3rd Stasimon



αἰσχύνομαι τὸν πολύυ- μνον θεόν, εἰ παρὰ Καλλιχόροισι παγαῖς λαμπάδα θεωρὸς εἰκάδων ἐννύχιον ἄυπνος [ὢν] ὄψεται, ὅτε καὶ Διὸς ἀστερωπὸς ἀνεχόρευσεν αἰθήρ, χορεύει δὲ σελάνα καὶ πεντήκοντα κόραι Νηρέος αἱ κατὰ πόντον †ἀεναῶν τε ποταμῶν† δίνας χορευόμεναι τὰν χρυσοστέφανον κόραν καὶ ματέρα σεμνάν, ἵν’ ἐλπίζει βασιλεύσειν ἄλλων πόνον [τ᾿] ἐσπεσὼν Φοίβειος ἀλάτας.



ὁρᾶθ’, ὅσοι δυσκελάδοι- σιν κατὰ μοῦσαν ἰόντες ἀείδεθ’ ὕμνοις ἁμέτερα λέχεα καὶ γάμους Κύπριδος ἀθέμιτος ἀνοσίους, ὅσον εὐσεβίαι κρατοῦμεν ἄδικον ἄροτον ἀνδρῶν. παλίμφαμος ἀοιδὰ καὶ μοῦσ’ εἰς ἄνδρας ἴτω

91 1075

str. 2

1080

1085

1090

ant. 2

1095

1076 θεωρὸς Musgrave: θεωρὸν L  1077 ἐννύχιον (iam Musgrave) ἄυπνος ὄψεται Hartung: ὄψεται ἐννύχιος ἄυπνος ὢν L (ἐννύχιος P: ἐνύχιος Tr2 ‘ut uid.’ Diggle)  1083 ἀενάων ποταμῶν τε Wilamowitz: ἀενάων ποταμῶν Kerkhecker  1084 κορευόμεναι Musgrave: πορευόμεναι Badham   1085 χρυσοστέφανον Matthiae: χρυσεοστέφανον L  1088 ἄλλων Hervag.: ἄλλον L  πόνον W. Dindorf: πόνον τ᾿ L  ἐσπεσὼν W. Dindorf post Heath (εἰσ-): εἰσπεσεῖν L  1089 Tr2  1090–1 δυσκελάδοισιν ... ὕμνοις Tr1: δυσκελάδοις ... ὕμνοισιν L: δυσκελάδοις ... ὕμνοις Badham  1093 κύπριδος Tr2: κύπριδας L  ἀθέμιτος Bayfield: ἀθέμιτας L: ἀθεμίτους L ut vid., P  1094 εὐσεβίαι Reiske: εὐσεβεία L  1095 ἄροτον Scaliger: ἄροτρον L  1096 παλίμφαμος Brodaeus: παλίμφαος Lp.c.: παλιμφας La.c.  1097 μοῦσ᾿ εἰς Canter: μούσιος L  ἴτω Duport: ἴστω L

92



Critical Edition

δυσκέλαδος περὶ λέκτρων. †δείκνυσι γὰρ ὁ Διὸς ἐκ παίδων† ἀμνημοσύναν, οὐ κοινὰν τεκέων τύχαν οἴκοισι φυτεύσας δεσποίναι· πρὸς δ’ Ἀφροδίταν ἄλλαν θέμενος χάριν νόθου παιδὸς ἔκυρσεν.

1100

1105

1098 περὶ Heath: ἀμφὶ L  1099 δείκνυσι γὰρ ὅδε Διὸς οὑκ Hartung (sine ὅδε Kerkhecker)  1105 νόθου παιδὸς Tr2: νόθων παιδῶν L



93

1106–1228 4th Epeisodion

ΘΕΡΑΠΩΝ

†κλειναὶ γυναῖκες, ποῦ κόρην Ἐρεχθέως δέσποιναν εὕρω; πανταχῆι γὰρ ἄστεως ζητῶν νιν < > ἐξέπλησα κοὐκ ἔχω λαβεῖν. Χο. τί δ’ ἔστιν, ὦ ξύνδουλε; τίς προθυμία ποδῶν ἔχει σε καὶ λόγους τίνας φέρεις; Θε. θηρώμεθ’· ἀρχαὶ δ’ ἁπιχώριοι χθονὸς ζητοῦσιν αὐτὴν ὡς θάνηι πετρουμένη. Χο. οἴμοι, τί λέξεις; οὔ τί που λελήμμεθα κρυφαῖον ἐς παῖδ’ ἐκπορίζουσαι φόνον; Θε. ἔγνως· μεθέξεις δ’ οὐκ ἐν ὑστάτοις κακοῦ. Χο. ὤφθη δὲ πῶς τὰ κρυπτὰ μηχανήματα; Θε. [τὸ μὴ δίκαιον τῆς δίκης ἡσσώμενον] ἐξηῦρεν ὁ θεὸς οὐ μιανθῆναι θέλων. Χο. πῶς; ἀντιάζω σ’ ἱκέτις ἐξειπεῖν τάδε. πεπυσμέναι γάρ, εἰ θανεῖν ἡμᾶς χρεών, ἥδιον ἂν θάνοιμεν, εἴθ’ ὁρᾶν φάος. Θε. ἐπεὶ θεοῦ μαντεῖον ὤιχετ’ ἐκλιπὼν πόσις Κρεούσης παῖδα τὸν καινὸν λαβὼν [πρὸς δεῖπνα θυσίας θ’ ἃς θεοῖς ὡπλίζετο], Ξοῦθος μὲν ὤιχετ’ ἔνθα πῦρ πηδᾶι θεοῦ βακχεῖον, ὡς σφαγαῖσι Διονύσου πέτρας δεύσειε δισσὰς παιδὸς ἀντ’ ὀπτηρίων, λέξας· Σὺ μέν νυν, τέκνον, ἀμφήρεις μένων σκηνὰς ἀνίστη τεκτόνων μοχθήμασιν. θύσας δὲ γενέταις θεοῖσιν ἢν μακρὸν χρόνον μείνω, παροῦσι δαῖτες ἔστωσαν φίλοις. λαβὼν δὲ μόσχους ὤιχεθ’· ὁ δὲ νεανίας σεμνῶς ἀτοίχους περιβολὰς σκηνωμάτων ὀρθοστάταις ἱδρύεθ’ – ἡλίου βολὰς καλῶς φυλάξας – οὔτε πρὸς μέσας φλογὸς

1110

1115

1120

1125

1130

1135

1106 κλεινὴν voluit Reiske (κλεινὰν): ξέναι Dobree: φίλαι Elmsley  1108 post νιν lac. pos. Martin, ante ζητῶν Badham  1111 ἁπιχώριοι Elmsley: αἵδ᾿ ἐπιχώριοι L: αἱ ᾿πιχώριοι Scaliger  1113 οὔ τί Hermann: οὔτι L   1115 ἔγνως· μεθέξεις δ᾿ οὐκ ἐν ὑστάτοις κακοῦ Porson: ἐγνώσμεθ᾿ ἐξ ἴσου· κἐν ὑστάτοις κακοῖς L  1116 ὤφθη Stephanus: ἔφθη L  1117 del. Kvíčala  1118 ἐξηῦρεν W. Dindorf: ἐξεῦρεν L: ἐξέφερεν Wecklein  1120–1 del. F.W.Schmidt  1120 ἡμᾶς Stephanus: ὑμᾶς L  1124 del. Rassow  1125 μὲν ὤιχετ’] μετήρχετ᾿ Wecklein  1128 ἀμφήρεις Brodaeus: ἀμφήρης L  1130 θύων Wecklein  1131 μείνω Diggle: μένω L  δαῖτας σὺ σπεῦσον sive δαῖτας πόρσυνον Herwerden  1134–5 βολὰς … φλογὸς A. Schmidt: φλογὸς … βολὰς L: φλόγα … βολὰς Bothe

94



Critical Edition

ἀκτῖνας οὔτ’ αὖ πρὸς τελευτώσας βίον, πλέθρου σταθμήσας μῆκος εἰς εὐγωνίαν μέτρημ’ ἔχουσαν τοὐν μέσωι γε μυρίων ποδῶν ἀριθμόν, ὡς λέγουσιν οἱ σοφοί, ὡς πάντα Δελφῶν λαὸν ἐς θοίνην καλῶν. λαβὼν δ’ ὑφάσμαθ’ ἱερὰ θησαυρῶν πάρα κατεσκίαζε, θαύματ’ ἀνθρώποις ὁρᾶν. πρῶτον μὲν ὀρόφωι πτέρυγα περιβάλλει πέπλων, ἀνάθημα Δίου παιδός, οὓς Ἡρακλέης Ἀμαζόνων σκυλεύματ’ ἤνεγκεν θεῶι. ἐνῆν δ’ ὑφανταὶ γράμμασιν τοιαίδ’ ὑφαί· Οὐρανὸς ἀθροίζων ἄστρ’ ἐν αἰθέρος κύκλωι· ἵππους μὲν ἤλαυν’ ἐς τελευταίαν φλόγα Ἥλιος, ἐφέλκων λαμπρὸν Ἑσπέρου φάος· μελάμπεπλος δὲ Νὺξ ἀσείρωτον ζυγοῖς ὄχημ’ ἔπαλλεν, ἄστρα δ’ ὡμάρτει θεᾶι· Πλειὰς μὲν ἤιει μεσοπόρου δι’ αἰθέρος ὅ τε ξιφήρης Ὠρίων, ὕπερθε δὲ Ἄρκτος στρέφουσ’ οὐραῖα χρυσήρη πόλωι· κύκλος δὲ πανσέληνος ἠκόντιζ’ ἄνω μηνὸς διχήρης, Ὑάδες τε, ναυτίλοις σαφέστατον σημεῖον, ἥ τε φωσφόρος Ἕως διώκουσ’ ἄστρα. τοίχοισιν δ’ ἔπι ἤμπισχεν ἄλλα βαρβάρων ὑφάσματα· εὐηρέτμους ναῦς ἀντίας Ἑλληνίσιν καὶ μιξόθηρας φῶτας ἱππείας τ’ ἄγρας ἐλάφων λεόντων τ’ ἀγρίων θηράματα. κατ’ εἰσόδους δὲ Κέκροπα θυγατέρων πέλας σπείρας συνειλίσσοντ’, Ἀθηναίων τινὸς ἀνάθημα, χρυσέους τ’ ἐν μέσωι συσσιτίωι κρατῆρας ἔστησ’. ἐν δ’ ἄκροισι βὰς ποσὶν κῆρυξ ἀνεῖπε τὸν θέλοντ’ ἐγχωρίων ἐς δαῖτα χωρεῖν. ὡς δ’ ἐπληρώθη στέγη, στεφάνοισι κοσμηθέντες εὐόχθου βορᾶς ψυχὴν ἐπλήρουν. ὡς δ’ ἀνεῖσαν ἡδονὴν

1140

1145

1150

1155

1160

1165

1170

1136 ἀκτῖνος Milton  βίον] βίαν Wasse: θεοῦ Hermann: λίαν Madvig  1137 εὐγωνίαν Elmsley: εὐγώνιον L  1138–9 del. Paley  1138 ἔχουσας Wakefield  τοὐν μέσοισιν Page  1146 τοιοῖσδ᾿ Dobree  1154 χρυσήρει Stephanus, fort. voluit Aldina (χρυσήρηι) πόλωι Hervag.: πώλω L: πόλον Dobree  1164 σπείρας συνειλίσσοντ᾿ Stephanus: σπείραις συνειλίσσοντ᾿ L: σπείραισιν εἱλίσσοντ᾿ Hermann  1166 κρατῆρας Matthiae: κρητῆρας L  1167 ἐγχωρίων Lobeck: ἐγχώριον L  1170 ἀνεῖσαν Musgrave: ἀνῆσαν L



95

1106–1228 4th Epeisodion





παρελθὼν πρέσβυς ἐς μέσον πέδον ἔστη, γέλων δ’ ἔθηκε συνδείπνοις πολὺν πρόθυμα πράσσων· ἔκ τε γὰρ κρωσσῶν ὕδωρ χεροῖν ἔπεμπε νίπτρα κἀξεθυμία σμύρνης ἱδρῶτα χρυσέων τ’ ἐκπωμάτων ἦρχ’, αὐτὸς αὑτῶι τόνδε προστάξας πόνον. ἐπεὶ δ’ ἐς αὐλοὺς ἧκον ἐς κρατῆρά τε κοινὸν γέρων ἔλεξ’· Ἀφαρπάζειν χρεὼν οἰνηρὰ τεύχη σμικρά, μεγάλα δ’ ἐσφέρειν, ὡς θᾶσσον ἔλθωσ’ οἵδ’ ἐς ἡδονὰς φρενῶν. ἦν δὴ φερόντων μόχθος ἀργυρηλάτους χρυσέας τε φιάλας· ὁ δὲ λαβὼν ἐξαίρετον, ὡς τῶι νέωι δὴ δεσπότηι χάριν φέρων, ἔδωκε πλῆρες τεῦχος, εἰς οἶνον βαλὼν ὅ φασι δοῦναι φάρμακον δραστήριον δέσποιναν ὡς παῖς ὁ νέος ἐκλίποι φάος. κοὐδεὶς τάδ’ ἤιδειν. ἐν χεροῖν ἔχοντι δὲ σπονδὰς μετ’ ἄλλων παιδὶ τῶι πεφηνότι βλασφημίαν τις οἰκετῶν ἐφθέγξατο. ὁ δ’, ὡς ἐν ἱερῶι μάντεσίν τ’ ἐσθλοῖς τραφείς, οἰωνὸν ἔθετο κἀκέλευσ’ ἄλλον νέον κρατῆρα πληροῦν· τὰς δὲ πρὶν σπονδὰς θεοῦ δίδωσι γαίαι πᾶσί τ’ ἐκσπένδειν λέγει. σιγὴ δ’ ὑπῆλθεν· ἐκ δ’ ἐπίμπλαμεν δρόσου κρατῆρας ἱεροὺς Βιβλίνου τε πώματος. κἀν τῶιδε μόχθωι πτηνὸς ἐσπίπτει δόμους κῶμος πελειῶν (Λοξίου γὰρ ἐν δόμοις

1175

1180

1185

1190

1195

1171 ante hunc v. lac. maiorem pos. Owen  Milton: Barnes: Reiske: Dobree: Fix: Diggle  1173 κρωσσῶν Aldina: κρωσῶν L  1177 ἧκον Dobree: ἧκεν L  1178 κοινὸν Valckenaer: καινὸν L  ἔλεξ᾿ Βarnes: ἔλεξεν L  1179 τεύχη Wakefield: σκεύη L  1181 μόχθος Hervag., fort. p: μόχθους L  1185 φησι G. Schmid  1187 ἤιδειν Scaliger: ἤιδει Lp.c.:   χεροῖν Canter: χερσὶν L  1188 del. Paley  1190 ἐσθλὸς Naber  1191 ἄλλωι Wakefield  νέους Wilamowitz  1194 σιγὴ Aldina: σιγῆ L  1195 Βυβλίνου Musgrave  1196 δόμους Valckenaer: δόμοις L: στέγηι Ritschl: δοκοῖς Musso

96



Critical Edition

ἄτρεστα ναίουσ’), ὡς δ’ †ἀπέσπεισαν μέθυ ἐς αὐτὸ χείλη πώματος κεχρημέναι καθῆκαν, εἷλκον δ’ εὐπτέρους ἐς αὐχένας. καὶ ταῖς μὲν ἄλλαις ἄνοσος ἦν λοιβὴ θεοῦ· ἣ δ’ ἕζετ’ ἔνθ’ ὁ καινὸς ἔσπεισεν γόνος ποτοῦ τ’ ἐγεύσατ’, εὐθὺς εὔπτερον δέμας ἔσεισε κἀβάκχευσεν, ἐκ δ’ ἔκλαγξ’ ὄπα ἀξύνετον αἰάζουσ’ (ἐθάμβησεν δὲ πᾶς θοινατόρων ὅμιλος ὄρνιθος πόνους). θνήισκει δ’ ἀπασπαίρουσα, φοινικοσκελεῖς χηλὰς παρεῖσα. γυμνὰ δ’ ἐκ πέπλων μέλη ὑπὲρ τραπέζης ἧχ’ ὁ μαντευτὸς γόνος, βοᾶι δέ· Τίς μ’ ἔμελλεν ἀνθρώπων κτανεῖν; σήμαινε, πρέσβυ· σὴ γὰρ ἡ προθυμία καὶ πῶμα χειρὸς σῆς ἐδεξάμην πάρα. εὐθὺς δ’ ἐρευνᾶι γραῖαν ὠλένην λαβών, ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρωι πρέσβυν ὡς ἔχονθ’ ἕλοι . ὤφθη δὲ καὶ κατεῖπ’ ἀναγκασθεὶς μόλις τόλμας Κρεούσης πώματός τε μηχανάς. θεῖ δ’ εὐθὺς ἔξω συλλαβὼν θοινάτορας ὁ πυθόχρηστος Λοξίου νεανίας, κἀν κοιράνοισι Πυθικοῖς σταθεὶς λέγει· Ὦ γαῖα σεμνή, τῆς Ἐρεχθέως ὕπο ξένης γυναικός φαρμάκοισι θνήισκομεν. Δελφῶν δ’ ἄνακτες ὥρισαν πετρορριφῆ θανεῖν ἐμὴν δέσποιναν οὐ ψήφωι μιᾶι, τὸν ἱερὸν ὡς κτείνουσαν ἔν τ’ ἀνακτόροις φόνον τιθεῖσαν. πᾶσα δὲ ζητεῖ πόλις τὴν ἀθλίως σπεύσασαν ἀθλίαν ὁδόν· παίδων γὰρ ἐλθοῦσ’ εἰς ἔρον Φοίβου πάρα τὸ σῶμα κοινῆι τοῖς τέκνοις ἀπώλεσεν.

1200

1205

1210

1215

1220

1225

1198 Aelian. NA 3.15 1198–9 ὡς δ᾿ ... κεἰς αὐτὰ Tr: οὗ δ᾿ ... ἐνταῦθα G. Schmid  1198 ἀπέσπασαν Scaliger: ἀπεσπείσθη Nauck: ἀπέστιλβεν Kerkhecker: fort. ἀπέβλεψαν lac. post hunc v. pos. Reiske  1200 δ᾿] τ᾿ Wakefield: del. Scaliger  1205 ὀξύτονον Herwerden: εὐξύνετον G. Schmid  αἰάζουσ᾿· ἐθάμβησεν Heath: αἰάζουσα θάμβησεν L  1209 ἧχ᾿ Barnes: ἧκεν L  1210 κτενεῖν W. Dindorf  1214 post hunc v. lac. pos. Herwerden  πρέσβυν] φάρμαχ᾿ Musgrave  ἑλὼν ἔχοι Wecklein: ἁλόντ᾿ ἔχοι sive ἑλὼν θένοι Reiske  1215 ἔφθη Stephanus  μόλις W. Dindorf: μόγις L  1221 φαρμάκοις ἐθνήισκομεν Hartung   1223 ἐν ψήφωι Reiske  1227–8 del. Herwerden  1227 Φοίβου Matthiae: Φοῖβον L



Χο. οὐκ ἔστ’ οὐκ ἔστιν θανάτου παρατροπὰ μελέαι μοι· φανερὰ γὰρ φανερὰ τάδε δὴ σπονδᾶς ἐκ Διονύσου βοτρύων θοᾶς ἐχίδνας σταγόσι μειγνυμένας †φόνωι. φανερὰ θύματα νερτέρων, συμφοραὶ μὲν ἐμῶι βίωι, λεύσιμοι δὲ καταφθοραὶ δεσποίναι. τίνα φυγὰν πτερόεσσαν ἢ χθονὸς ὑπὸ σκοτίους μυχοὺς πορευθῶ, θανάτου λεύσιμον ἄταν ἀποφεύγουσα, τεθρίππων ὠκιστᾶν χαλᾶν ἐπιβᾶσ’ ἢ πρύμνας ἔπι ναῶν;

97

1229–49 Choral Ode

οὐκ ἔστι λαθεῖν ὅτε μὴ χρήιζων θεὸς ἐκκλέπτει. τί ποτ’, ὦ μελέα δέσποινα, μένει ψυχῆι σε παθεῖν; ἆρα θέλουσαι δρᾶσαί τι κακὸν τοὺς πέλας αὐταὶ πεισόμεθ’ ὥσπερ τὸ δίκαιον;

1230

1235

1240

1245

1231 φανερὰ γὰρ φανερὰ τάδε δή Buijs: φ. γ. φ. τάδ᾿ ἤδη L: φ. φ. τάδ᾿ ἤδη W. Dindorf: φ. φ. γ. ἤδη Kuiper  1232–4 σπονδᾶς … μειγνυμένας Bothe: σπονδὰς … μ. L: σπονδαί γ᾿ ... μειγνύμεναι Page  1233 θοὰ̃ς L: τ᾿ὀλοᾶς Nauck  1234 σταγόσιν Stockert  φόνου Heath: χοάς Stephanus: φονίοις Jacobs: del. Stockert  1237 δεσποίναι Wakefield: δέσποινα L  1239 σκοτίους μυχοὺς Hartung: σκοτίων μυχῶν L: σκότιον μυχὸν Madvig  1242 ὠκιστᾶν χαλᾶν Paley: ὠκίσταν χαλὰν L  1244–9 del. Kranz  1244 λαθεῖν Stephanus: λαβεῖν L  1246 δέσποινα μένει Portus: δ. μέλει L: δέσποιν᾿ ἀμελεῖ Neitzel   1247 ἦ ῥα F.W. Schmidt

98

Critical Edition

Κρ. πρόσπολοι, διωκόμεσθα θανασίμους ἐπὶ σφαγὰς Πυθίαι ψήφωι κρατηθεῖσ’, ἔκδοτος δὲ γίγνομαι. Χο. ἴσμεν, ὦ τάλαινα, τὰς σὰς συμφοράς, ἵν’ εἶ τύχης. Κρ. ποῖ φύγω δῆτ’; ἐκ γὰρ οἴκων προύβαλον μόλις πόδα μὴ θανεῖν, κλοπῆι δ’ ἀφῖγμαι διαφυγοῦσα πολεμίους. Χο. ποῖ δ’ ἂν ἄλλοσ’ ἢ ’πὶ βωμόν; Κρ. καὶ τί μοι πλέον τόδε; Χο. ἱκέτιν οὐ θέμις φονεύειν. Κρ. τῶι νόμωι δέ γ’ ὄλλυμαι. Χο. χειρία γ’ ἁλοῦσα. Κρ. καὶ μὴν οἵδ’ ἀγωνισταὶ πικροὶ δεῦρ’ ἐπείγονται ξιφήρεις. Χο. ἵζε νυν πυρᾶς ἔπι. κἂν θάνηις γὰρ ἐνθάδ’ οὖσα, τοῖς ἀποκτείνασί σε προστρόπαιον αἷμα θήσεις· οἰστέον δὲ τὴν τύχην. Ιων [ὦ ταυρόμορφον ὄμμα Κηφισοῦ πατρός, οἵαν ἔχιδναν τήνδ’ ἔφυσας ἢ πυρὸς δράκοντ’ ἀναβλέποντα φοινίαν φλόγα, ἧι τόλμα πᾶσ’ ἔνεστιν οὐδ’ ἥσσων ἔφυ Γοργοῦς σταλαγμῶν, οἷς ἔμελλέ με κτανεῖν. λάζυσθ’, ἵν’ αὐτῆς τοὺς ἀκηράτους πλόκους κόμης καταξήνωσι Παρνασσοῦ πλάκες, ὅθεν πετραῖον ἅλμα δισκηθήσεται.] ἴδεσθε τὴν πανοῦργον, ἐκ τέχνης τέχνην οἵαν ἔπλεξε· βωμὸν ἔπτηξεν θεοῦ ὡς οὐ δίκην δώσουσα τῶν εἰργασμένων. ἐσθλοῦ δ’ ἔκυρσα δαίμονος, πρὶν ἐς πόλιν

1250

1255

1260

1265

1268 1279 1280 1281 1269

1251 Πυθίαι Stephanus: Πυθίω L: Πυθίων Bayfield: fort. Πυθικᾶι  1252 εἶ τύχης Scaliger: εὐτυχεῖς L  1253 οἴκων Victorius: ἄκων L: κακῶν Stephanus  προύβαλον G. Schmid: προύλαβον L  μόλις W. Dindorf: μόγις L  1261–81 ita Martin: 1261– 74, 1279–81, 1275–8 Musgrave: 1279–81, 1261–5, 1269–74 Bain: 1261–5, 1269–74, 1266–8, 1279–81, 1275–8 Kovacs  1261–8 del. Martin (1266–8 iam Bain): fort. delendum usque ad 1274 (Roettig)  1265 κτενεῖν W. Dindorf  1267 Παρνασσοῦ Martin post Mastronarde (Παρνασοῦ W. Dindorf): Παρνησοῦ L  1268 δισκευθήσεται Ls.l.  1280 ἔπλεξε Elmsley: ἔπλεξ᾿ οὐ L: ἔπλεξ᾿ ἣ Scaliger: ἔπλεξ᾿ εἰς Badham



99

1250–[1622] Exodos

μολεῖν Ἀθηνῶν χὐπὸ μητρυιὰν πεσεῖν. [ἐν συμμάχοις γὰρ ἀνεμετρησάμην φρένας τὰς σάς, ὅσον μοι πῆμα δυσμενής τ’ ἔφυς·] ἔσω γὰρ ἄν με περιβαλοῦσα δωμάτων ἄρδην ἂν ἐξέπεμψας εἰς Ἅιδου δόμους. ἀλλ’ οὔτε βωμὸς οὔτ’ Ἀπόλλωνος δόμος σώσει σ’· ὁ δ’ †οἶκτος ὁ σὸς† ἐμοὶ κρείσσων πάρα [καὶ μητρὶ τἠμῆι· καὶ γὰρ εἰ τὸ σῶμά μοι ἄπεστιν αὐτῆς, τοὔνομ’ οὐκ ἄπεστί πω]. Κρ. ἀπεννέπω σε μὴ κατακτείνειν ἐμὲ – ὑπέρ τ’ ἐμαυτῆς τοῦ θεοῦ θ’ – ἵν’ ἕσταμεν. Ιων τί δ’ ἐστὶ Φοίβωι σοί τε κοινὸν ἐν μέσωι; Κρ. ἱερὸν τὸ σῶμα τῶι θεῶι δίδωμ’ ἔχειν. Ιων κἄπειτ’ ἔκαινες φαρμάκοις τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ; Κρ. ἀλλ’ οὐκέτ’ ἦσθα Λοξίου, πατρὸς δὲ σοῦ. Ιων ἀλλ’ ἐγενόμεσθα [πατρὸς δ’ οὐσίαν λέγω]. Κρ. οὐκοῦν τότ’ ἦσθα, νῦν δ’ ἐγώ, σὺ δ’ οὐκέτι. Ιων οὐκ εὐσεβεῖς δέ· τἀμὰ δ’ εὐσεβῆ τότ’ ἦν. Κρ. ἔκτεινά σ’ ὄντα πολέμιον δόμοις ἐμοῖς. Ιων οὔτοι σὺν ὅπλοις ἦλθον ἐς τὴν σὴν χθόνα. Κρ. μάλιστα· κἀπίμπρης γ’ Ἐρεχθέως δόμους. Ιων ποίοισι πανοῖς ἢ πυρὸς ποίαι φλογί;

1270

1275

1278 1282

1285

1290

1294 cf. 195.

1271–2 del. Jordan   1273–4 del. Herwerden  1273 δωμάτων] δικτύων Dobree  1275–8 del. Diggle  1275 νόμος Wakefield  1276 oἶτος Carter: fort. οἶκος  ὅσος Scaliger  1283 ἵν’ ἕσταμεν] ὁμιλίας Taplin: ἱκετεύομεν (distinxit in fine v. 1282) Musso  1286 ἔκαινες Duport: ἔκτανες L: ἀπέκτας Wilamowitz  1288 πατρὸς δ’ οὐσίαν λέγω del. Martin: π. οὐ. λ. Canter: π. ἀπουσίαν λ. Seidler: π. ἀπουσίαι λόγωι Kirchhoff (ἔργωι G. Müller)  πατρὸς δ’] τὸ πάρος Heath  1289 οὐκέτι Dobree: οὐκέτ᾿ εἶ L  1290 εὐσεβεῖς δέ sive εὐσεβὴς εἶ West: εὐσεβεῖς γε Ls.l.: εὐσεβῆ γε L: εὐσεβής γε L. Dindorf et Dobree  1291 σ᾿ (vel δόμοις ) Wakefield: δ᾿ L  1292 ὅπλοις Barnes: ὅπλοισιν L  1293 κἀπίμπρης sive κἀμπιπράς G. Schmid: κἀπίμπρας L  1294 πανοῖς Musgrave: πτανοῖς L: δαλοῖς Lγρ

100

Critical Edition

Κρ. ἔμελλες οἰκεῖν τἄμ’, ἐμοῦ βίαι λαβών. Ιων κἄπειτα τοῦ μέλλειν μ’ ἀπέκτεινες φόβωι; Κρ. ὡς μὴ θάνοιμί γ’, εἰ σὺ μὴ μέλλων τύχοις. Ιων πατρός γε γῆν διδόντος ἣν ἐκτήσατο; Κρ. τοῖς Αἰόλου δὲ πῶς μετῆν τῆς Παλλάδος; Ιων ὅπλοισιν αὐτὴν οὐ λόγοις ἐρρύσατο. Κρ. ἐπίκουρος οἰκήτωρ γ’ ἂν οὐκ εἴη χθονός. Ιων †ἡμῖν δέ γ’ ἀλλὰ πατρὶ† γῆς οὐκ ἦν μέρος; Κρ. ὅσ’ ἀσπὶς ἔγχος θ’, ἥδε σοι παμπησία. Ιων ἔκλειπε βωμὸν καὶ θεηλάτους ἕδρας. Κρ. τὴν σὴν ὅπου σοι μητέρ’ ἐστὶ νουθέτει. Ιων φθονεῖς ἄπαις οὖσ’ εἰ πατὴρ ἐξηῦρέ με. Κρ. σὺ τῶν ἀτέκνων δῆτ’ ἀναρπάσεις δόμους; Ιων σὺ δ’ οὐχ ὑφέξεις ζημίαν κτείνουσ’ ἐμέ; Κρ. ἤν γ’ ἐντὸς ἀδύτων τῶνδέ με σφάξαι θέληις. Ιων τίς ἡδονή σοι θεοῦ θανεῖν ἐν στέμμασιν; Κρ. λυπήσομέν τιν’ ὧν λελυπήμεσθ’ ὕπο. Ιων φεῦ· δεινόν γε θνητοῖς τοὺς νόμους ὡς οὐ καλῶς ἔθηκεν ὁ θεὸς οὐδ’ ἀπὸ γνώμης σοφῆς· τοὺς μὲν γὰρ ἀδίκους βωμὸν οὐχ ἵζειν ἐχρῆν [ἀλλ’ ἐξελαύνειν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ψαύειν καλὸν θεῶν πονηρὰν χεῖρα, τοῖσι δ’ ἐνδίκοις· ἱερὰ καθίζειν ὅστις ἠδικεῖτ’ ἐχρῆν,] καὶ μὴ ’πὶ ταὐτὸ τοῦτ’ ἰόντ’ ἔχειν ἴσον τόν τ’ ἐσθλὸν ὄντα τόν τε μὴ θεῶν πάρα.

1295 1300 1301 1296

1299 1304 1305 1307 1302 1303 1308 1310

1315

1295 λαβών Ls.l.: λαχών L  1300–1 post 1295 trai. Martin (1300–3 iam Nauck)  1296 γε Ls.l.: τε L  1297 τῆς Aldina: τῶν L  1304 γ’ ἀλλὰ πατρικῆς Aldina: γ’ ἀ. πατρικῶν Wilamowitz: χἄμα πατρὶ γῆς Diggle (γ’ ἅμα iam Page)  1306 ἔκλειπε p: ἔκλιπε L  1302–3 post 1307 trai. Martin  1311 λελυπήμεσθ᾿ Brubach.: λελυπήμεθ᾿ L  1314 ἵζειν Ls.l.: ἕζειν L  1315–17 del. Martin (1316–17 iam Diggle)  1316 τοὺς δέ γ᾿ ἐνδίκους Dobree  1317 ἱερὰ Barnes: ἱρὰ L  καθίζειν Owen



101

1250–[1622] Exodos

ΠΡΟΦΗΤΙΣ

ἐπίσχες, ὦ παῖ· τρίποδα γὰρ χρηστήριον λιποῦσα θριγκοὺς τούσδ’ ὑπερβάλλω ποδὶ Φοίβου προφῆτις, τρίποδος ἀρχαῖον νόμον σώιζουσα πασῶν Δελφίδων ἐξαίρετος. Ιων χαῖρ’, ὦ φίλη μοι μῆτερ, οὐ τεκοῦσά περ. Πρ. ἀλλ’ οὖν λεγόμεθά γ’· ἡ φάτις δ’ οὔ μοι πικρά. Ιων ἤκουσας ὥς μ’ ἔκτεινεν ἥδε μηχαναῖς; Πρ. ἤκουσα· καὶ σὺ δ’ ὠμὸς ὢν ἁμαρτάνεις. Ιων οὐ χρή με τοὺς κτείνοντας ἀνταπολλύναι; Πρ. προγόνοις δάμαρτες δυσμενεῖς ἀεί ποτε. Ιων ἡμεῖς δὲ μητρυιαῖς γε πάσχοντες κακῶς. Πρ. μὴ ταῦτα· λείπων ἱερὰ καὶ στείχων πάτραν Ιων τί δή με δρᾶσαι νουθετούμενον χρεών; Πρ. καθαρὸς Ἀθήνας ἔλθ’ ὑπ’ οἰωνῶν καλῶν. Ιων καθαρὸς ἅπας τοι πολεμίους ὃς ἂν κτάνηι. Πρ. μὴ σύ γε· παρ’ ἡμῶν δ’ ἔκλαβ’ οὓς ἔχω λόγους. Ιων λέγοις ἄν· εὔνους δ’ οὖσ’ ἐρεῖς ὅσ’ ἂν λέγηις. Πρ. ὁρᾶις τόδ’ ἄγγος χερὸς ὑπ’ ἀγκάλαις ἐμαῖς; Ιων ὁρῶ παλαιὰν ἀντίπηγ’ ἐν στέμμασιν. Πρ. ἐν τῆιδέ σ’ ἔλαβον νεόγονον βρέφος ποτέ. Ιων τί φήις; ὁ μῦθος εἰσενήνεκται νέος.

1320

1325

1330

1335

1340

1338 Hesych. α5457

1320 πυθία ἢ προφῆτις praescr. p: πυθία L   1321 θριγκοὺς τούσδ᾿ Dobree: θριγκοῦ τοῦδ᾿ L  1322–3 τρίποδος ̣… πασῶν del. G. Schmid  1325 λεγόμεθά γ᾿ Elmsley: λεγόμεσθ᾿ L: λεγώμεθ᾿ Murray: ἐλεγόμεθ᾿ Badham   1326 ὡς] αἷς Dobree  1327 δ᾿ Hermann: γ᾿ L  1333 καθαρὸς Porson: καθαρῶς L  1337 ἄγγος Aldina: ἄγκος L

102

Critical Edition

Πρ. σιγῆι γὰρ εἶχον αὐτά· νῦν δὲ δείκνυμεν. Ιων πῶς οὖν ἔκρυπτες τότε λαβοῦσ’ ἡμᾶς πάλαι; Πρ. ὁ θεός σ’ ἐβούλετ’ ἐν δόμοις ἔχειν λάτριν. Ιων νῦν δ’ οὐχὶ χρήιζει; τῶι τόδε γνῶναί με χρή; Πρ. πατέρα κατειπὼν τῆσδέ σ’ ἐκπέμπει χθονός. Ιων σὺ δ’ ἐκ κελευσμῶν ἢ πόθεν σώιζεις τάδε; Πρ. ἐνθύμιόν μοι τότε τίθησι Λοξίας. Ιων τί χρῆμα δρᾶσαι; λέγε, πέραινε σοὺς λόγους. Πρ. σῶσαι τόδ’ εὕρημ’ ἐς τὸν ὄντα νῦν χρόνον. Ιων ἔχει δέ μοι τί κέρδος ἢ τίνα βλάβην; Πρ. ἐνθάδε κέκρυπται σπάργαν’ οἷς ἐνῆσθα σύ. Ιων μητρὸς τάδ’ ἡμῖν ἐκφέρεις ζητήματα; Πρ. ἐπεί γ’ ὁ δαίμων βούλεται, πάροιθε δ’ οὔ. Ιων ὦ μακαρία μοι φασμάτων ἥδ’ ἡμέρα. Πρ. λαβών νυν αὐτὰ τὴν τεκοῦσαν ἐκπόνει [Ιων πᾶσάν γ’ ἐπελθὼν Ἀσιάδ’ Εὐρώπης θ’ ὅρους. Πρ. γνώσηι τάδ’ αὐτός. τοῦ θεοῦ δ’ ἕκατί σε ἔθρεψά τ’, ὦ παῖ, καὶ τάδ’ ἀποδίδωμί σοι, ἃ κεῖνος ἀκέλευστόν μ’ ἐβουλήθη λαβεῖν σῶσαί θ’· ὅτου δ’ ἐβούλεθ’ οὕνεκ’ οὐκ ἔχω λέγειν. ἤιδει δὲ θνητῶν οὔτις ἀνθρώπων τάδε ἔχοντας ἡμᾶς οὐδ’ ἵν’ ἦν κεκρυμμένα.] καὶ χαῖρ’· ἴσον γάρ σ’ ὡς τεκοῦσ’ ἀσπάζομαι. [ἄρξαι δ’ ὅθεν σὴν μητέρα ζητεῖν σε χρή·

1345

1350

1355

1360

1342 τί οὖν Wecklein  τότε Hermann: τόδε L: τάδε Fix  1343 θεὸς ἐβούλετ᾿ ἐν δόμοις P (et Badham): θ. ἐβ. ἐν δ. σ᾿ Nauck  1344 γνῶναι Lp.c.: γνῶμαι L  1347 τόδε Ls.l.: τόδε τε P  1348 δρᾶσαι Musgrave: δράσειν L  1351 σπάργαν᾿ οἷς ἐνῆσθα σύ Reiske: σπαργάνοισιν οἶσθα σύ L  1354 μακαρία Hermann: μακαρίων L  ἥδ’] τῶνδ᾿ Wecklein  1356–62 del. Martin (1357–62 suspectos hab. Diggle)   1356 Ioni trib. Kirchhoff, Pythiae L  γ᾿ Kirchhoff: δ᾿ L  Ἀσιάδ᾿ Scaliger: Ἀσίαν L  1360 nisi interpolator falsus est, delendus est pes: σῶσαί θ’ del. Diggle, ἐβούλεθ᾿ Badham (scribens δέ γ᾿ οὕνεκ᾿), οὕνεκ᾿ Milton, λέγειν Wilamowitz  1364–8 del. Hirzel  1364 ζητεῖν σε Tr2: ζητεῖσθαι L



103

1250–[1622] Exodos

Ιων

πρῶτον μὲν εἴ τις Δελφίδων τεκοῦσά σε ἐς τούσδε ναοὺς ἐξέθηκε παρθένος, ἔπειτα δ’ εἴ τις Ἑλλάς. ἐξ ἡμῶν δ’ ἔχεις ἅπαντα Φοίβου θ’, ὃς μετέσχε τῆς τύχης.] φεῦ φεῦ· κατ’ ὄσσων ὡς ὑγρὸν βάλλω δάκρυ, ἐκεῖσε τὸν νοῦν δοὺς ὅθ’ ἡ τεκοῦσά με κρυφαῖα νυμφευθεῖσ’ ἀπημπόλα λάθραι καὶ μαστὸν οὐκ ἐπέσχεν, ἀλλ’ ἀνώνυμος ἐν θεοῦ μελάθροις εἶχον οἰκέτην βίον. [τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ μὲν χρηστά, τοῦ δὲ δαίμονος βαρέα· χρόνον γὰρ ὅν μ’ ἐχρῆν ἐν ἀγκάλαις μητρὸς τρυφῆσαι καί τι τερφθῆναι βίου ἀπεστερήθην φιλτάτης μητρὸς τροφῆς. τλήμων δὲ χἠ τεκοῦσά μ’· ὡς ταὐτὸν πάθος πέπονθε, παιδὸς ἀπολέσασα χαρμονάς.] καὶ νῦν λαβὼν τήνδ’ ἀντίπηγ’ οἴσω θεῶι ἀνάθημ’, ἵν’ εὕρω μηδὲν ὧν οὐ βούλομαι. εἰ γάρ με δούλη τυγχάνει τεκοῦσά τις, εὑρεῖν κάκιον μητέρ’ ἢ σιγῶντ’ ἐᾶν. ὦ Φοῖβε, ναοῖς ἀνατίθημι τήνδε σοῖς. καίτοι τί πάσχω; τοῦ θεοῦ προθυμίαι πολεμῶ, τὰ μητρὸς σύμβολ’ ὅς ἔσωσέ μοι; ἀνοικτέον τάδ’ ἐστὶ καὶ τολμητέον· τὰ γὰρ πεπρωμέν’ οὐχ ὑπερβαίην ποτ’ ἄν. ὦ στέμμαθ’ ἱερά, τί ποτέ μοι κεκεύθατε, καὶ σύνδεθ’ οἷσι τἄμ’ ἐφρουρήθη φίλα;

1365

1370

1375

1380

1385

1390

1372 oὐκ ἐπέσχεν Dobree: οὐχ ὑπέσχεν L  1374–9 del. G. Müller   1378 χἠ Schaefer: θ᾿ ἡ L  1380 οἴσω Brodaeus: οἶσον L  θεος vel θεοῖ La.c. ut vid.  1386 ὅς Stephanus: ὡς Duport  ὃς σέσωκέ Dobree  1388 οὐχ Nauck: οὐδ᾿ L  ὑπερβαίην ποτ᾿ Scaliger: ὑπερβαίη ποτ᾿ L: ὑπερβαίη τις Wakefield: ὑπερβαίης ποτ᾿ Barnes  1390 σύνδεθ’ Hervag.: σύνδετ’ L

104

Critical Edition

ἰδοὺ περίπτυγμ’ ἀντίπηγος εὐκύκλου ὡς οὐ γεγήρακ’ ἔκ τινος θεηλάτου, εὐρώς τ’ ἄπεστι πλεγμάτων· ὁ δ’ ἐν μέσωι χρόνος πολὺς δὴ τοῖσδε θησαυρίσμασιν. Κρ. τί δῆτα φάσμα τῶν ἀνελπίστων ὁρῶ; Ιων σίγα σύ· πῆμα καὶ πάροιθεν ἦσθά μοι. Κρ. οὐκ ἐν σιωπῆι τἀμά· μή με νουθέτει. [ὁρῶ γὰρ ἄγγος οὑξέθηκ’ ἐγώ ποτε σέ γ’, ὦ τέκνον μοι, βρέφος ἔτ’ ὄντα νήπιον, Κέκροπος ἐς ἄντρα καὶ Μακρὰς πετρηρεφεῖς.] λείψω δὲ βωμὸν τόνδε, κεἰ θανεῖν με χρή. Ιων λάζυσθε τήνδε· θεομανὴς γὰρ ἥλατο βωμοῦ λιποῦσα ξόανα· δεῖτε δ’ ὠλένας. Κρ. σφάζοντες οὐ λήγοιτ’ ἄν; ὡς ἀνθέξομαι καὶ τῆσδε καὶ σοῦ τῶν τε σῶν κεκρυμμένων. Ιων τάδ’ οὐχὶ δεινά; ῥυσιάζομαι λόγωι. Κρ. οὔκ, ἀλλὰ σοῖς φίλοισιν εὑρίσκηι φίλος. Ιων ἐγὼ φίλος σός; κἆιτά μ’ ἔκτεινες λάθραι; Κρ. παῖς γ’, εἰ τόδ’ ἐστὶ τοῖς τεκοῦσι φίλτατον. Ιων παῦσαι πλέκουσα – λήψομαί σ’ ἐγώ – πλοκάς. Κρ. ἐς τοῦθ’ ἱκοίμην, τοῦδε τοξεύω, τέκνον. Ιων κενὸν τόδ’ ἄγγος ἢ στέγει πλήρωμά τι; Κρ. σά γ’ ἐνδύθ’, οἷσί σ’ ἐξέθηκ’ ἐγώ ποτε. Ιων καὶ τοὔνομ’ αὐτῶν ἐξερεῖς πρὶν εἰσιδεῖν; Κρ. κἂν μὴ φράσω γε, κατθανεῖν ὑφίσταμαι.

1395

1400

1405

1410

1415

1396 Ioni trib. Heath, choro L  σίγα L. Dindorf: σιγᾶν L  πῆμα καὶ πάροιθεν ἦσθά μοι Broadhead post Morel (πῆμα) et Musgrave (ἦσθά): πολλὰ καὶ πάροιθεν οἶσθά μοι L: πολλὰ καὶ πάροιθ᾿ ὀχλοῦσά με Herwerden  πῆμα] πολλὴ Hartung  1398– 1400 del. Martin (1399 iam Cobet, 1400 Paley)   1398 οὑξέθηκ’ Cobet: ὃὐξέθηκ᾿ L: οὗ ᾿ξέθηκ᾿ Hülsemann: ὧι ᾿ξέθηκ᾿ Barnes  1404 οὐ] οὖν Boissonade  δήσαιτ᾿ Schömann: φθάνοιτ᾿ Madvig  notam quaestionis pos. Wecklein  1405 τῶν γε σῶν P: τῶν τ᾿ ἔσω Tyrwhitt  1406 δόλωι Jacobs   1409 ἢ οὐ τό δ᾿ Kirchhoff: εἶ· τό δ᾿ Wilamowitz  1410 σ᾿ Tyrwhitt: δ᾿ L  πλοκὰς Jacobs: καλῶς L  1411 τοξεύσαι Tr  1413 ἐνδύθ᾿ Martin: ἔνδυτ᾿ L: ἔνδύτ᾿ P: ἔνδυθ᾿ Aldina



105

1250–[1622] Exodos

Ιων λέγ’· ὡς ἔχει τι δεινὸν ἥδε τόλμα σου. Κρ. σκέψασθ’ ὃ παῖς ποτ’ οὖσ’ ὕφασμ’ ὕφην’ ἐγώ. Ιων ποῖόν τι; πολλὰ παρθένων ὑφάσματα. Κρ. οὐ τέλεον, οἷον δ’ ἐκδίδαγμα κερκίδος. Ιων μορφὴν ἔχον τίν’; ὥς με μὴ ταύτηι λάβηις. Κρ. Γοργὼ μὲν ἐν μέσοισιν ἠτρίοις πέπλων, Ιων ὦ Ζεῦ, τίς ἡμᾶς ἐκκυνηγετεῖ πότμος; Κρ. κεκρασπέδωται δ’ ὄφεσιν αἰγίδος τρόπον. Ιων ἰδού· τόδ’ ἔσθ’ ὕφασμα· θέσφαθ’ ὣς εὑρίσκομεν. Κρ. ὦ χρόνιον ἱστῶν παρθένευμα τῶν ἐμῶν. Ιων ἔστιν τι πρὸς τῶιδ’ ἢ μόνωι τῶιδ’ εὐτυχεῖς; Κρ. δράκοντες, ἀρχαίωι τι πάγχρυσον γένει δώρημ’ Ἀθάνας, οἷς τέκν’ ἐντρέφειν λέγει, Ἐριχθονίου γε τοῦ πάλαι μιμήματα. Ιων τί δρᾶν, τί χρῆσθαι – φράζε μοι – χρυσώματι; Κρ. δέραια παιδὶ νεογόνωι φέρειν, τέκνον. Ιων ἔνεισιν οἵδε· τὸ δὲ τρίτον ποθῶ μαθεῖν. Κρ. στέφανον ἐλαίας ἀμφέθηκά σοι τότε, ὅς, εἴπερ ἐστίν, οὔποτ’ ἐκλείπει χλόην, θάλλει δ’, ἐλαίας ἐξ ἀκηράτου γεγώς ἣν πρῶτ’ Ἀθάνας σκόπελος ἐξηνέγκατο,

1420

1425

1430

1433 1435 1436 1434

1416 ἥδε τόλμα L. Dindorf: ἡ τόλμα γέ L: ἥ γε τόλμα Jodrell  1421 Γοργὼ Valckenaer: Γοργὼν L: Γοργόνα Diggle  ἠτρίοις Musgrave: ἠτρίων L  1423 κεκρασπέδωται δ’ p: κἐκκρασπέδωτ᾿ L: κεκρασπέδωται τ᾿ Dobree  1424 ὣς Grégoire: ὡς L: ὥσθ᾿ Pötscher  1426 τῶιδ᾿1 L. Dindorf: τῶ γ᾿ L  μόνωι τῶιδ᾿ Tournier: μόνον τόδ᾿ Usener  1427 ἀρχαίωι τι πάγχρυσον Wilamowitz: ἀρχαῖόν τι παγχρύσω L  δράκοντε μαρμαίροντε πάγχρυσον γένυν Porson (πάγχρυσοι γένυν iam Toup)  1428 Creusae trib. Pierson, Ioni L  οἷς Page: ἣ L: ὧι Wilamowitz  τέκνον τρέφειν Scaliger  1430 δρᾶν Tr: δᾶν L  χρυσώματι sive χρυσώμασι L. Dindorf: χρυσώμια L: χρυσώματα Stephanus  1435 οὔποτ᾿ Barnes: οὔπερ L  1436 ἀγηράτου Badham   1434 post 1436 trai. Kraus  Ἀθάνα (ceteris in L lectionibus receptis) Matthiae  σκόπελος Brodaeus: σκόπελον L  ἐξηνέγκατο Scaliger: εἰσηνέγκατο L

106

Critical Edition

Ιων ὦ φιλτάτη μοι μῆτερ, ἄσμενός σ’ ἰδὼν πρὸς ἀσμένας πέπτωκα σὰς παρηίδας. Κρ. ὦ τέκνον, ὦ φῶς μητρὶ κρεῖσσον ἡλίου (συγγνώσεται γὰρ ὁ θεός), ἐν χεροῖν σ’ ἔχω, ἄελπτον εὕρημ’, ὃν κατὰ γᾶς ἐνέρων χθονίων μέτα Περσεφόνας τ’ ἐδόκουν ναίειν. Ιων ἀλλ’, ὦ φίλη μοι μῆτερ, ἐν χεροῖν σέθεν ὁ κατθανών τε κοὐ θανὼν φαντάζομαι. Κρ. ἰὼ ἰὼ λαμπρᾶς αἰθέρος ἀμπτυχαί, τίν’ αὐδὰν ἀύσω βοάσω; πόθεν μοι συνέκυρσ’ ἀδόκητος ἡδονά; πόθεν ἐλάβομεν χαράν; Ιων ἐμοὶ γενέσθαι πάντα μᾶλλον ἄν ποτε, μῆτερ, παρέστη τῶνδ’, ὅπως σός εἰμ’ ἐγώ. Κρ. ἔτι φόβωι τρέμω. Ιων μῶν οὐκ ἔχειν μ’ ἔχουσα;  Κρ. τὰς γὰρ ἐλπίδας ἀπέβαλον πρόσω. ὦ γύναι, πόθεν πόθεν ἔλαβες ἐμὸν βρέφος ἐς ἀγκάλας; τίν’ ἀνὰ χέρα δόμους ἔβα Λοξίου; Ιων θεῖον τόδ’· ἀλλὰ τἀπίλοιπα τῆς τύχης εὐδαιμονοῖμεν, ὡς τὰ πρόσθ’ ἐδυστύχει. Κρ. τέκνον, οὐκ ἀδάκρυτος ἐκλοχεύηι, γόοις δὲ ματρὸς ἐκ χερῶν ὁρίζηι. νῦν δὲ γενειάσιν πάρα σέθεν πνέω μακαριωτάτας τυχοῦσ’ ἡδονᾶς.

1437

1440

1445 1447

1450

1453 1453bis 1454 1454bis 1455

1460

1438 ἀσμένης L. Dindorf   1442 χθονίων Bothe: χθόνιον L  μέτα Heath: μετὰ L  1445 ἀμπτυχαί Matthiae: ἀναπτυχαί L  1454 ὦ Wilamowitz: ἰὼ L: ἰὼ Bothe  γύναι Wecklein  πόθεν semel Burges   1455 χέρα Hermann: χεῖρα L  1457 πρόσθ’ ἐδυστύχει Bothe: πρόσθε δυστυχῆ L  1458 τέκνον, οὐκ ἄδακρυς ἐκλοχεύει Hermann: οὐκ ἀδάκρυτος ἐκλοχεύει τ. Paley



107

1250–[1622] Exodos

Ιων τοὐμὸν λέγουσα καὶ τὸ σὸν κοινῶς λέγεις. Κρ. ἄπαιδες οὐκέτ’ ἐσμὲν οὐδ’ ἄτεκνοι· δῶμ[α δ]’ ἑστιοῦται, γᾶ δ’ ἔχει τυράννους, ἀνηβᾶι δ’ Ἐρεχθεύς, ὅ τε γηγενέτας δόμος οὐκέτι νύκτα δέρκεται, ἁλίου δ’ ἀναβλέπει λαμπάσιν. Ιων μῆτερ, παρών μοι καὶ πατὴρ μετασχέτω τῆς ἡδονῆς τῆσδ’ ἧς ἔδωχ’ ὑμῖν ἐγώ. Κρ. ὦ τέκνον, τί φήις; οἷον οἷον ἀνελέγχομαι. Ιων πῶς εἶπας;   Κρ. ἄλλοθεν γέγονας, ἄλλοθεν. Ιων ὤμοι· νόθον με παρθένευμ’ ἔτικτε σόν; Κρ. οὐχ ὑπὸ λαμπάδων οὐδὲ χορευμάτων ὑμέναιος ἐμός, τέκνον, ἔτικτε σὸν κάρα· Ιων αἰαῖ· πέφυκα δυσγενής, μῆτερ; πόθεν; Κρ. ἴστω Γοργοφόνα Ιων τί τοῦτ’ ἔλεξας; Κρ. ἃ σκοπέλοις ἐπ’ ἐμοῖς τὸν ἐλαιοφυᾶ πάγον θάσσει· Ιων λέγεις μοι σκολιὰ κοὐ σαφῆ τάδε. Κρ. παρ’ ἀηδόνιον πέτραν Φοίβωι Ιων τί Φοῖβον αὐδᾶις;  Κρ. κρυπτόμενον λέχος ηὐνάσθην, Ιων λέγ’· ὡς ἐρεῖς τι κεδνὸν εὐτυχές τέ μοι. Κρ. δεκάτωι δέ σε μηνὸς ἐν κύκλωι κρύφιον ὠδῖν’ ἔτεκον Φοίβωι. Ιων ὦ φίλτατ’ εἰποῦσ’, εἰ λέγεις ἐτήτυμα.

1465

1470

1475

1480

1484 1485

1464 δῶμ᾿ Hermann: δῶμα δ᾿ L  γᾶ δ᾿ Reiske: τάδε L  1466 νύκτα Markland: νύκτας L  1467 ἀελίου Hermann   1470–1 Creusae trib. Tyrwhitt: ὦ τέκνον, τί φήις; trib. Xutho, cetera Ioni L  1472 Ioni et Creusae trib. Tyrwhitt, Xutho primam partem dat (vacat ante secundam) L  τί φήις huc movit de 1471 (πῶς εἶπας deletis) Barrett  ἄλλοθεν γέγονας W. Dindorf: ἄλλοθεν γέγονας Heath  1473 ὤμοι Tr2: ἰώ μοι P   1474–6 Creusae dat Tr2, Xutho L  1476 ἔτικτε σὸν κάρα τέκνον Wilamowitz  1477 πόθεν Aldina: ποθέν L  1480 ἐλαιοφυᾶ W. Dindorf: ἐλαιοφυῆ L  1481 λέγεις Bothe: λέγεις Wilamowitz  σκόλια Herwerden: δόλια L

108

Critical Edition

Κρ. παρθένια δ’ †ἐμᾶς ματέρος σπάργαν’ ἀμφίβολά σοι τάδ’ ἐνῆψα, κερ- κίδος ἐμᾶς πλάνους. γάλακτι δ’ οὐκ ἐπέσχον οὐδὲ μαστῶι τροφεῖα ματρὸς οὐδὲ λουτρὰ χειροῖν, ἀνὰ δ’ ἄντρον ἔρημον οἰωνῶν γαμφηλαῖς φόνευμα θοίναμά τ’ εἰς Ἅιδαν ἐκβάλληι. Ιων ὦ δεινὰ τλᾶσα, μῆτερ.  Κρ. ἐν φόβωι, τέκνον, καταδεθεῖσα σὰν ἀπέβαλον ψυχάν. ἔκτεινά σ’ ἄκουσ’.  Ιων †ἐξ ἐμοῦ τ’ οὐχ ὅσι’ ἔθνηισκες†. Κρ. ἰὼ · δειναὶ μὲν τότε τύχαι, δεινὰ δὲ καὶ τάδ’· ἑλισσόμεσθ’ ἐκεῖθεν ἐνθάδε δυστυχίαισιν εὐτυχίαις τε πάλιν, μεθίσταται δὲ πνεύματα. μενέτω· τὰ πάροιθεν ἅλις κακά· νῦν δὲ γένοιτό τις οὖρος ἐκ κακῶν, ὦ παῖ. Χο. μηδεὶς δοκείτω μηδὲν ἀνθρώπων ποτὲ ἄελπτον εἶναι πρὸς τὰ τυγχάνοντα νῦν. Ιων ὦ μεταβαλοῦσα μυρίους ἤδη βροτῶν καὶ δυστυχῆσαι καὖθις αὖ πρᾶξαι καλῶς τύχη, παρ’ οἵαν ἤλθομεν στάθμην βίου [μητέρα φονεῦσαι καὶ παθεῖν ἀνάξια].

1490

1495

1498 1500 1502 1504 1505 1506 1508 1510

1515

1489 δ᾿ ἐμὰ Dobree: δ᾿ ἑκὰς Badham: δ᾿ ἐμᾶς Murray: δ᾿ ἐμᾶς sive Jackson  ματέρος] χερὸς Stockert  1490 ἀνῆψα W. Dindorf: ἐξῆψα Fix  1493 χειροῖν Heath: χεροῖν L: χερσίν Wilamowitz  1497 ἐν del. et lac. pos. W. Dindorf  1497–8 τέκνον, καταδεθεῖσα σὰν ἀπέβαλον ψυχάν Wilamowitz: κ. σ. ψ. ἀ. τ. L  1500 ἔκτεινά σ’ ἄκουσ’ an Ioni dandum sit dubitavit Diggle  οὐχ ὅσι’ del. Wilamowitz  οὐχ ὅσι’ ἔτλης Maas  1502 Hermann  Matthiae  1504 δεινὰ Barnes: δειλία L  1509 δὲ γένοιτό Wilamowitz: δ᾿ ἐγένετό L  1510 ἀνθρώποις Dobree  1513 αὖ Pierson: εὖ L  1514 βίαι Kuiper  1515 del. Martin, suspectum hab. Wecklein



109

1250–[1622] Exodos

φεῦ· ἆρ’ ἐν φαενναῖς ἡλίου περιπτυχαῖς ἔνεστι πάντα τάδε καθ’ ἡμέραν μαθεῖν; φίλον μὲν οὖν σ’ εὕρημα, μῆτερ, ηὕρομεν, καὶ τὸ γένος οὐδὲν μεμπτόν, ὡς ἡμῖν, τόδε, τὰ δ’ ἄλλα πρὸς σὲ βούλομαι μόνην φράσαι. δεῦρ’ ἔλθ’· ἐς οὖς γὰρ τοὺς λόγους εἰπεῖν θέλω καὶ περικαλύψαι τοῖσι πράγμασι σκότον. ὅρα σύ, μῆτερ, μὴ σφαλεῖσ’ ἃ παρθένοις ἐγγίγνεται νοσήματ’ ἐς κρυπτοὺς γάμους ἔπειτα τῶι θεῶι προστίθης τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ τοὐμὸν αἰσχρὸν ἀποφυγεῖν πειρωμένη Φοίβωι τεκεῖν με φήις, τεκοῦσ’ οὐκ ἐκ θεοῦ. Κρ. μὰ τὴν παρασπίζουσαν ἅρμασίν ποτε Νίκην Ἀθάναν Ζηνὶ γηγενεῖς ἔπι, οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδείς σοι πατὴρ θνητῶν, τέκνον, ἀλλ’ ὅσπερ ἐξέθρεψε Λοξίας ἄναξ. Ιων πῶς οὖν τὸν αὑτοῦ παῖδ’ ἔδωκ’ ἄλλωι πατρὶ Ξούθου τέ φησι παῖδά μ’ ἐκπεφυκέναι; Κρ. πεφυκέναι μὲν οὐχί, δωρεῖται δέ σε αὑτοῦ γεγῶτα· καὶ γὰρ ἂν φίλος φίλωι δοίη τὸν αὑτοῦ παῖδα δεσπότην δόμων. Ιων ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής, ἢ μάτην μαντεύεται; ἐμοῦ ταράσσει, μῆτερ, εἰκότως φρένα.

1520

1525

1530

1535

1521 schol. Phoen. 911, schol. Ar. Av. 1647

1517 κατ’ ἦμαρ ἓν παθεῖν Nauck: καθ’ ἡμέραν μίαν G. Müller  1522 τοῖσι Brubach.: τοῖς L  1523 σφαλεῖσ᾿ ἃ παρθένοις Musgrave: σφαλεῖσα παρθένος L  1525 προστίθης voluit Stephanus (προστιθῆις; cf. 741): προστιθεῖς L  1529 Ἀθάναν Matthiae: Ἀθηνᾶν L  1530 οὐδείς Diggle: ὅστις L: οὔτις Hartung   1532 et 1535 αὑτοῦ Aldina: αὐτοῦ L  1537 ὁ] εἰ Reiske  ἀληθῶς Nauck  ἢ] ἧι Wakefield: εἰ West  interrogationis notam add. Wilamowitz  1538 ταράσσων Ls.l.: ταράσσεις Blaydes

110

Critical Edition

Κρ. ἄκουε δή νυν ἅμ’ ἐσῆλθεν, ὦ τέκνον· εὐεργετῶν σε Λοξίας ἐς εὐγενῆ δόμον καθίζει· τοῦ θεοῦ δὲ λεγόμενος οὐκ ἔσχες ἄν ποτ’ οὔτε παγκλήρους δόμους οὔτ’ ὄνομα πατρός. πῶς γάρ, οὗ γ’ ἐγὼ γάμους ἔκρυπτον αὐτὴ καί σ’ ἀπέκτεινον λάθραι; ὁ δ’ ὠφελῶν σε προστίθησ’ ἄλλωι πατρί. Ιων οὐχ ὧδε φαύλως αὔτ’ ἐγὼ μετέρχομαι, ἀλλ’ ἱστορήσω Φοῖβον εἰσελθὼν δόμους εἴτ’ εἰμὶ θνητοῦ πατρὸς εἴτε Λοξίου. ἔα· τίς οἴκων θυοδόκων ὑπερτελὴς ἀντήλιον πρόσωπον ἐκφαίνει θεῶν; φεύγωμεν, ὦ τεκοῦσα, μὴ τὰ δαιμόνων ὁρῶμεν, εἰ μὴ καιρός ἐσθ’ ἡμᾶς ὁρᾶν. ΑΘΗΝΑ μὴ φεύγετ’· οὐ γὰρ πολεμίαν με φεύγετε ἀλλ’ ἔν τ’ Ἀθήναις κἀνθάδ’ οὖσαν εὐμενῆ. ἐπώνυμος δὲ σῆς ἀφικόμην χθονὸς Παλλάς, δρόμωι σπεύσασ’ Ἀπόλλωνος πάρα, ὃς ἐς μὲν ὄψιν σφῶιν μολεῖν οὐκ ἠξίου, μὴ τῶν πάροιθε μέμψις ἐς μέσον μόληι, ἡμᾶς δὲ πέμπει τοὺς λόγους ὑμῖν φράσαι· ὡς ἥδε τίκτει σ’ ἐξ Ἀπόλλωνος πατρός, ἀλλ’ ὡς κομίζηι ’ς οἶκον εὐγενέστατον δίδωσιν οἷς ἔδωκεν, οὐ φύσασί σε. ἐπεὶ δ’ ἀνεώιχθη πρᾶγμα μηνυθὲν τόδε,

1540

1545

1550

1555

1560 1562 1561 1563

1549–52 del. Taplin  1549 θυοδόκων Pierson: θεοδότων L  1558–1622 adulteratos, 1558 (iam del. W. Dindorf), 1562–8, 1595–1600 interpolatos hab. G. Schmid  1562 κομίζηι ᾿ς Wilamowitz (falso attribuens Hermann, qui immo dedit σ᾿ post Lenting): νομίζης L: νομίζηι ᾿ς iam voluit Reiske (νομίζηι εἰς)  1561 post 1562 trai. Martin  δίδωσιν Martin: δίδωσι δ᾿ L  οὐ φύσασί σε Stephanus: οὗ φασί σε L: οὐκ ἀφείς γέ σε McDiarmid  1563 ἀνεώιχθη Matthiae: ἀνώχθη L





111

1250–[1622] Exodos

θανεῖν σε δείσας μητρὸς ἐκ βουλευμάτων καὶ τήνδε πρὸς σοῦ, μηχαναῖς ἐρρύσατο. ἔμελλε δ’ αὐτὰ διασιωπήσας ἄναξ ἐν ταῖς Ἀθήναις γνωριεῖν ταύτην τε σοὶ σέ θ’ ὡς πέφυκας τῆσδε καὶ Φοίβου πατρός. ἀλλ’ ὡς περαίνω πρᾶγμα, καὶ χρησμοὺς θεοῦ ἐφ’ οἷσιν ἔζευξ’ ἅρματ’ εἰσακούσατον. λαβοῦσα τόνδε παῖδα Κεκροπίαν χθόνα χώρει, Κρέουσα, κἀς θρόνους τυραννικοὺς ἵδρυσον. ἐκ γὰρ τῶν Ἐρεχθέως γεγὼς δίκαιος ἄρχειν τῆς ἐμῆς ὅδε χθονός. ἔσται δ’ ἀν’ Ἑλλάδ’ εὐκλεής. οἱ τοῦδε γὰρ παῖδες γενόμενοι τέσσαρες ῥίζης μιᾶς ἐπώνυμοι γῆς κἀπιφυλίων χθονὸς λαῶν ἔσονται, σκόπελον οἳ ναίουσ’ ἐμόν. Γελέων μὲν ἔσται πρῶτος· εἶτα δεύτερος

Ὅπλητες Ἀργαδῆς τ’, ἐμῆς ἀπ’ αἰγίδος ἓν φῦλον ἕξουσ’ Αἰγικορῆς. οἱ τῶνδε δ’ αὖ παῖδες γενόμενοι σὺν χρόνωι πεπρωμένωι Κυκλάδας ἐποικήσουσι νησαίας πόλεις χέρσους τε παράλους, ὃ σθένος τἠμῆι χθονὶ δίδωσιν· ἀντίπορθμα δ’ ἠπείροιν δυοῖν πεδία κατοικήσουσιν, Ἀσιάδος τε γῆς Εὐρωπίας τε· τοῦδε δ’ ὀνόματος χάριν Ἴωνες ὀνομασθέντες ἕξουσιν κλέος. Ξούθωι δὲ καὶ σοὶ γίγνεται κοινὸν γένος, Δῶρος μέν, ἔνθεν Δωρὶς ὑμνηθήσεται πόλις κατ’ αἶαν Πελοπίαν [γ᾿]· ὁ δεύτερος Ἀχαιός, ὃς γῆς παραλίας Ῥίου πέλας τύραννος ἔσται, κἀπισημανθήσεται κείνου κεκλῆσθαι λαὸς ὄνομ’ ἐπώνυμον.

1565

1570

1575

1580

1585

1590

1566 αὐτοῦ F.W. Schmidt  1567 τε σοὶ Kuiper: τε σὴν L  1569 θεοῦ Scaliger: θεῶ L  1570 οἷσιν ἔζευξ᾿ Scaliger: οἷς ἐζεύξαθ᾿ L: οἷσιν ἐζεύχθ᾿ Wakefield  1572 κἀς W. Dindorf: κεἰς L  1574 τῆς Hartung: τῆσδ᾿ L: τῆς γ᾿ Ls.l.  1575 δ᾿ L. Dindorf: τ᾿ L  1577 κἀπιφυλίων Paley: κἀπιφυλίου L  1579 post hunc v. lac. pos. Badham: inde del. G. Schmid  Γελέων Canter: τελέων L  δεύτερον Canter: δεύτεροι Hartung  1580 post hunc v. lac. pos. Kirchhoff   Ὅπλητες Canter: ὃ πάντες L  Ἀργαδῆς Brubach.: Ἀργαλῆς L: Ἀργαδεῖς Canter: Ἀργολῆς Ls.l. aut Tr  ἐμῆς Canter: ἐμῆς Kirchhoff: ὄνομα Wecklein   1581 ἓν φῦλον Hermann: ἔμφυλον L: οἳ φῦλον Murray: οἳ τοὔνομ᾿ F.W. Schmidt  1591 Πελοπίαν Wilamowitz (falso imputans L): Πελοπίαν γ᾿ L: Πελοπίαν δ᾿ Scaliger  1594 ἐπώνυμον Kirchhoff: ἐπώνυμος L: ἐπωνύμου Wilamowitz

112

Critical Edition

καλῶς δ’ Ἀπόλλων πάντ’ ἔπραξε· πρῶτα μὲν ἄνοσον λοχεύει σ’, ὥστε μὴ γνῶναι φίλους· ἐπεὶ δ’ ἔτικτες τόνδε παῖδα κἀπέθου ἐν σπαργάνοισιν, ἁρπάσαντ’ ἐς ἀγκάλας Ἑρμῆν κελεύει δεῦρο πορθμεῦσαι βρέφος ἔθρεψέ τ’ οὐδ’ εἴασεν ἐκπνεῦσαι βίον. νῦν οὖν σιώπα παῖς ὅδ’ ὡς πέφυκε σός, ἵν’ ἡ δόκησις Ξοῦθον ἡδέως ἔχηι σύ τ’ αὖ τὰ σαυτῆς ἀγάθ’ ἔχουσ’ ἴηις, γύναι, καὶ χαίρετ’· ἐκ γὰρ τῆσδ’ ἀναψυχῆς πόνων εὐδαίμον’ ὑμῖν πότμον ἐξαγγέλλομαι. Ιων ὦ Διὸς Παλλὰς μεγίστου θύγατερ, οὐκ ἀπιστίαι σοὺς λόγους ἐδεξάμεσθα, πείθομαι δ’ εἶναι πατρὸς Λοξίου καὶ τῆσδε· καὶ πρὶν τοῦτο δ’ οὐκ ἄπιστον ἦν. Κρ. τἀμὰ νῦν ἄκουσον· αἰνῶ Φοῖβον οὐκ αἰνοῦσα πρίν, οὕνεχ’ οὗ ποτ’ ἠμέλησε παιδὸς ἀποδίδωσί μοι. αἵδε δ’ εὐωποὶ πύλαι μοι καὶ θεοῦ χρηστήρια, δυσμενῆ πάροιθεν ὄντα. νῦν δὲ καὶ ῥόπτρων χέρας ἡδέως ἐκκριμνάμεσθα καὶ προσεννέπω πύλας. Αθ. ἤινεσ’ οὕνεκ’ εὐλογεῖς θεὸν μεταβαλοῦσ’ †ἀεί που† χρόνια μὲν τὰ τῶν θεῶν πως, ἐς τέλος δ’ οὐκ ἀσθενῆ. Κρ. ὦ τέκνον, στείχωμεν οἴκους. Αθ. στείχεθ’, ἕψομαι δ’ ἐγώ. Ιων ἀξία γ’ ἡμῶν ὁδουρός. Κρ. καὶ φιλοῦσά γε πτόλιν. Αθ. ἐς θρόνους δ’ ἵζου παλαιούς. Ιων ἄξιον τὸ κτῆμά μοι. Χο. ὦ Διὸς Λητοῦς τ’ Ἄπολλον, χαῖρ’· ὅτωι δ’ ἐλαύνεται συμφοραῖς οἶκος, σέβοντα δαίμονας θαρσεῖν χρεών. [ἐς τέλος γὰρ οἱ μὲν ἐσθλοὶ τυγχάνουσιν ἀξίων, οἱ κακοὶ δ’, ὥσπερ πεφύκασ’, οὔποτ’ εὖ πράξειαν ἄν.]

1595

1600

1605

1610

1615

1620

1603 ἴηις Porson et Wakefield: εἴη L: εἴης Tr2: εἰδῆις Madvig  1607 ἐδεξάμεσθα Musgrave: δεξόμεσθα L: ἐνδεξόμεσθα Tr1  1608 κεἰ (iam Wakefield) πρὶν τοῦτ᾿ ἄπιστον ἦν ἐμοί Dobree   1610 οὔποτ ... παῖδ᾿ ὃς Neitzel  ἠμέλησα Heath: ἐστέρησε G. Schmid  1613 ἐκκριμνάμεσθα Nauck: ἐκκρημνάμεσθα L  πύλας Barnes: πύλαις L   1614 που Grotius (distinguens ante ἀεί; item Hermann scribens γὰρ οὖν): ποτε anon. apud Barnes  1616 στείχωμεν Barnes: στείχοιμεν L  στείχεθ᾿ Canter: στείχεσθ᾿ L  1617–18 ita trib. Hermann: paragraphum – (vacat) / Minervam – paragraphum habet L   1618 θρόνους Tr1: θρόνου L  1621–2 del. Martin

Concordance with the OCT (Diggle) Minor changes of punctuation or colometry are not reported, nor is a different representation if the constitution of the text is the same (cf. e.g. 118). 1 2–3 3 23 33 40 51 74–5 86 87 98 101 118 155 172 188 189 220bis 222 ante 237 237 239 248 258 283 285 286 287 300 321 314–15 331 353–4 361 362 378–80 390 414 437 450 458–9 475 481 487 495 496 500–1 507 520 520

Diggle ὁ χαλκέοισιν οὐρανὸν νώτοις Ἄτλας ἐκτρίβων θεῶν μιᾶς ἣ ᾿μ᾿ Ἀγλαυρίσιν Δελφῶν ἑλικτὸν Παρνασιάδες ἡμερίαν εὔφημοι ἀποφαίνειν †τὰν† Παρνασοῦ καρφυρὰς διδύμων καλλιβλέφαρον οὐδόν τίνα τήνδε θέλεις; lacuna γενναιότης σοι πολλά γ᾿ ποίας πάτρας χῶρός ἐστ’ †Πύθιος †τιμᾶ τιμᾶ†· ὡς τί δέ; σηκοῖς δ’ ὑστερεῖ προφῆτιν εἰ πόνου μοι ξυλλάβοι ᾿λελήσμεθα †ἀλλ’ ἐᾶν χρὴ τάδ’† ἡμεῖς  Φοῖβος, τί πάσχει· καλὰ Ὀλύμπου καρποφόροι ἄλκαρ †τροφαὶ κήδειοι κεδνῶν γε τέκνων† χοροὺς Ἀγλαύρου †ὕμνων ὅτ᾿ ἀναλίοις συρίζεις λόγων εὖ φρονεῖς ἔμηνεν

Martin Ἄτλας ὁ νώτοις χαλκέοισιν οὐρανὸν †ἐκτρίβων θεῶν μιᾶς† ἥ μ’ Ἀγραυλίσιν Δελφοὺς εἱλικτὸν del. del. Παρνασσιάδες ἡμερινὴν εὔφημον ἄπο φαίνειν ‒‒ Παρνασσοῦ καρφηρὰς δίδυμον καλλιβλεφάρων ‒‒ †τίνα δὲ θέλεις;† γενναιότητος πόλλ᾿ ἂν del. ποίου πατρὸς χῶρος ἔστ’ Ἀπόλλων τιμᾶι †τιμᾶ ὡς† τί δὲ σηκοὺς δ’ †εὖ στρέφει† προφῆτις post 323 εἶπον· εἰ γὰρ ξυμβάλοι post 356 λελήσμεθα lacuna del. ἀλλ’ εἷ᾿· ἐᾶν μὲν χρὴ τάδ’ ἡμῖν  Φοῖβος· τί πάσχει; κακὰ Οὐλύμπου καρποφόρων †ἀλκά τροφαὶ †κήδειοι κεδνῶν γε τέκνων† χοροῖς Ἀγραύλου †ὕμνων ὅταν αὐλίοις συρίζηις† †λόγοις σωφρονεῖς ἔμηνε

114 521 525 528 537 547 554 560 589 593 594 595–606 598 601 602 609 612–32 630 635 647 649 656 677 679 691 692 697–8 711 714 719 721 726 726 737 737 739 743 745 751 755 756 776 782/3 790–1 806–7 827 839–43 851 874 882 904 905 909 936 937 945 947 981–2

Critical Edition οὐ φρονῶ ὡς τί δὴ φεύγεις με σαυτοῦ γνωρίσαι τὰ φίλτατα; κλύειν ἄλλων τοῦτ’ ἐκεῖν’· ἵν’ ἐσπάρημεν ὅς μ’ ἔφυσας τὰς μένων †μηδὲν καὶ οὐδὲν ὢν† ὄντες ψόγου †αὖ λογίων τε† τῆς συμφορᾶς ψόγους κλύειν οὐδέ φίλοις οὐχ ὡς ἀλαλαγὰς εἰδῆι τάδε θεοῦ φήμα πλέκει δόλον τέχναν †πόσιν ... ἦν τλάμων†; δεινῶν Παρνασοῦ μή τί ποτ’ στεγομένα ὢν τόθ’ παλαιῶν ἐκγόνους αὐτοχθόνων αἰπεινά μοι ἐρείδου· περιφερὴς στίβος χθονός παρῆις χάριν δεσποτῶν νοσεῖ αἰαῖ· τί δρῶμεν θάνατος ὧν κεῖται πέρι; ἔλακες ἔλακες †ἄφατον ἄφατον† ἄτεκνον ἄτεκνον ἔλακ᾿ ἄρα βίοτον ἁλοὺς ὑπεισελθὼν ὃ ἀγραύλοις παῖς μοι καὶ σοί. τλᾶμον σὺ δὲ καὶ κιθάραι †πρὸς χρυσέους θάκους† Κεκροπίων πετρῶν τότ᾿ κλύων

σωφρονῶ ὡς τί δή; φεύγεις με; σαυτοῦ γνωρίσας τὰ φίλτατα κλυεῖν ἄλλως post 553 τοῦτ’ ἐκεῖν’ ἵν’ ἐσπάρημεν. οἵ μ’ ἔφυσαν †τὰς μὲν ὢν πῶς οὐ τὸ μηδὲν κοὐδένων del. εἶναι φόβου αὖ λογίων τε τὰς συμφορὰς del. ψόφους κλυεῖν οὐ δέ del. λόγοις ὡς οὐκ ⏑⏑⏑‒ ἴδηι τῶιδε δ᾿ εὔφημα ἔχει δόμον τε γᾶν πόσιν ... ἦν, τλάμων· δείπνων Παρνασσοῦ μήποτ’ †στενομένα del. ὄντος del. παλαιοὺς ἐκγόνους αὐτόχθονας αἰπεινὰ δὴ ἐρείδου περιφερῆ στείβων χθόνα παρῆι χαράν †δεσποτῶν νοσῶ εἶἑν· τί δρῶμεν; θάνατος ὧν κεῖται πέρι ἔλακες ἄφατον ἄφραστον ἄτεκνον ἔλακεν ἄρα βίον del. †ἁλοὺς del. ἐπεισελθὼν ὡς ἀγραύλων παῖς μοι σὸς τλάμων. σὺ δὲ κιθάραι πρὸς χρυσέους θάκους Κεκροπίας πέτρας del. ταῦτ’ κλυών del.

992–3 1010–17 1012 1014 1031 1035 1035 1058–9 1063 1063–4 1082 1098 1106 1108 1113 1124 1164 1198 1231 1232–4 1253 1261–8 1267 1279–81 1271–2 1275–6 1276 1288 1290 1296 1304 1302–3 1302 1315–17 1316 1317 1343 1356–62 1360 1374–9 1386 1398–1400 1398 1404 1405 1406 1413 1416 1421 1424 1426 1427 1434 1454 1467 1480 1489

Concordance with the OCT (Diggle) post 997 δύναμιν ὧν ἡμῖν γε, μή τι ἥκων ἇι ἐφαίνετ᾿ †Νηρέος αἱ κατὰ πόντον† †δυσκέλαδος ἀμφὶ λέκτρων† κλεινήν ζητῶν νιν ἐξέπλησα οὔτι σπείραισιν εἱλίσσοντ’ ἀπέσπεισαν φανερὰ φανερὰ τάδ᾿ ἤδη †σπονδὰς ... φόνωι† προύλαβον Παρνασοῦ del. οἶκτος ὁ σὸς †ἀλλ’ ἐγενόμεσθα, πατρὸς δ’ οὐσίαν λέγω†. γε punctum ἡμῖν †δέ γ’ ἀλλὰ πατρὶ† inter 1301 et 1296 quaestionis nota πονηρᾶι χειρί καθίζειν δ’ ἐβούλετ’ ἐν δόμοις σ᾿ †σῶσαί θ’· ὅτου δ’ ἐβούλεθ’ οὕνεκ’ οὐκ ἔχω λέγειν† ὃς σέσωκέ ὧι ᾿ξέθηκ᾿ punctum altum τ᾿ ἔσω δόλωι ἔνδυθ’ ἥ γε Γοργὼν †θέσφαθ’ ὡς εὑρίσκομεν† μόνον τόδ’ δράκοντε μαρμαίροντε πάγχρυσον γένυν ἰὼ ἰὼ γύναι, πόθεν ἔλαβες ἐμὸν ἀελίου ἐλαιοφυῆ †ἐμᾶς ματέρος†

115

del. δύνασιν ὃν ἡμῶν del. δέ, μή οἶκος ὧι ἐσεφέρετ’ Νηρέος αἱ κατὰ πόντον δυσκέλαδος περὶ λέκτρων †κλειναὶ ζητῶν νιν ἐξέπλησα οὔ τί del. σπείρας συνειλίσσοντ’ †ἀπέσπεισαν φανερὰ γὰρ φανερὰ τάδε δὴ σπονδᾶς ... †φόνωι προύβαλον del. Παρνασσοῦ ante 1269 del. †οἶκτος ὁ σὸς† ἀλλ’ ἐγενόμεσθα [πατρὸς δ’ οὐσίαν λέγω] δέ quaestionis nota †ἡμῖν δέ γ’ ἀλλὰ πατρὶ† inter 1307 et 1308 punctum del. πονηρὰν χεῖρα καθίζειν σ’ ἐβούλετ’ ἐν δόμοις del. σῶσαί θ᾿· ὅτου δ’ ἐβούλεθ’ οὕνεκ’ οὐκ ἔχω λέγειν del. ὅς γ᾿ ἔσωσέ del. οὑξέθηκ’ quaestionis nota τε σῶν λόγωι ἐνδύθ’ ἥδε Γοργὼ θέσφαθ’ ὣς εὑρίσκομεν μόνωι τῶιδ’ δράκοντες, ἀρχαίωι τι πάγχρυσον γένει post 1436 ὦ γύναι, πόθεν πόθεν ἔλαβες ἐμὸν ἁλίου ἐλαιοφυᾶ †ἐμᾶς ματέρος

116 1490 1515 1561 1561 1621–2

Critical Edition ἀνῆψα δίδωσι δ᾿

ἐνῆψα del. post 1562 δίδωσιν del.

Commentary

1–183 Prologue

1–81 Hermes’ Prologue Speech Hermes’ speech has a lucid structure: 1–7 Introduction 1–4 The speaker 5–7 The location 8–75 Exposition, pre-history 8–27 Shared history of Creusa and Ion: Ion’s conception, birth and exposure (21–6 Digression) 28–56 Ion’s rescue and upbringing 57–67a Creusa’s marriage and childlessness 67b–[75] Apollo’s role 67b–68 Past 69–[75] Future 76–81 Hermes’ present role 76–80a Observing events 80b–81 Naming Ion The expository narrative is enclosed in a frame that focuses on Hermes himself. The separation of the fates of the two main characters necessitates a bipartite account, and Hermes splits the narrative between the exposure and Creusa’s arrival in Delphi. Within each part, events are described in chronological order (except 59–61, which do not deal with Creusa). Hermes’ account of the pre-history of the play sets the tone for the mostly light-hearted first part (82–675) by suggesting a trouble-free course of events with a happy ending. He announces a recognition play: Apollo reunites the Athenian queen Creusa with their common son, whom she had exposed. The dominant motif in the speech is Apollo’s care (cf. Erbse (1984) 74), evident even before the birth of the son, when he sees to it that Creusa’s pregnancy remains unnoticed (14). He then orders Hermes to bring the boy to Delphi, where he can protect him (28–35, 47–9); he sets in motion the meeting between mother and son (67–8); and finally he has a plan to establish the boy in Creusa’s house and as successor on the Athenian throne by means of his oracle (69–73). The lightness of the speech is also a consequence of Hermes’ persona and the benevolent ironic distance with which he narrates events. Firstly, his denoting himself as ‘servant’ of the gods (4 λάτρις) characterises him as a https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110523591-003

120

Commentary

menial figure among them, closer to the mortals (cf. Wolff (1965) 170, Novo Taragna (1995) 924; see also 1–4n, 14n). The self-deprecation contrasts with the gravity of other (especially divine) prologue speeches and lends a particular colour to some of his further remarks: he follows Apollo’s request to bring the boy to Delphi (28–35) but enjoys outwitting his brother by his knowledge of the affair Apollo is trying to hide (68n); he thereby ironically subverts the hierarchy between ‘master’ and ‘servant’. He seems similarly pleased when he anticipates the act of naming Ion by mentioning his name before anyone else does (80–1). Secondly, Hermes seems detached in comparison with other prologue speakers. He alone of the προλογίζοντες will be only marginally involved in the events of the play: that he had brought the boy to Delphi does not explain his presence at the scene at the start of the play. His appearance is motivated rather by his curiosity about the boy’s fate (a servant of Apollo like himself): he wishes to watch in secret what will transpire (77) – a unique dramaturgical contrivance and a pretext much less compelling than the motives stated by other prologue gods (cf. Schadewaldt (1926) 8–9 n.4, Knox (1971) 78 = (1979) 259). In this way he introduces an additional layer between the spectators and the play, as he – a theatrical character – becomes a spectator himself. The style is described by Seidensticker (1982) 216 and Grégoire 173 (a bit exaggeratedly) as casual or loquacious, and makes for a contrast with Apollo’s more assertive tone in 29–36a. Of Hermes’ own words only the introduction (1–9), with Hermes’ genealogy, the exposition of the setting, and the emphasis on Athens’ importance, is in a consistently upper register. Where the tone is raised, it is undermined by irony: the pompousness of the genealogy contrasts with his servant status (1–4, similarly when Hermes talks about Ion as another servant: 54–6) and the heavy periphrasis ‘hidden product of labour-pang’ (45) with the miserable circumstances of the boy’s birth. Hermes’ diction displays calculated simplicity otherwise: while mostly succinct, it is not plain; parentheses, characteristic especially of the lower iambic register (Bühler (1964) 245), add vividness (14, 46–7, 68; also 30, 35). Some seemingly redundant asides and digressions (14, 21–7, 63–4) introduce leitmotifs (cf. Mastronarde (1975) 165–6 = (2003) 298–9) and will turn out to be essential for the interpretation of the entire play. Despite its general light-heartedness, the speech is not without undertones intimating the conflicts to come: the description of Apollo’s union with Creusa as aggression allows moral objections against the god’s action (10–11n); Hermes’ speech also raises doubts concerning Apollo’s veracity and control of events (cf. Rosenmeyer (1963) 115, Scodel (1999) 125): it starts with the description of Apollo as the omniscient and truthful god of the oracle (5–7) and, towards the end, shows how he uses his response to Xuthus as a means



1–183 Prologue

121

to direct the events of the play (69–73). Both points are, however, problematic: on the one hand, Hermes’ knowledge of his brother’s secret plans demonstrates the limitations of Apollo’s power, and the course of the play and Athena’s concession at the end (1563–5) confirm that his control slips away somewhat. On the other hand, the veracity of the oracle is undermined when Hermes emphasises that Apollo obfuscates the truth by giving an oracle to Xuthus that is (at the very least) misleading; its aim is to prevent the discovery of Apollo’s union with Creusa (73 with n). Beyond imparting knowledge about background, the speech has a preparatory function: by speaking about Ion living a distinguished life (54–6) Hermes raises expectations that will be disappointed when Ion appears on stage to sing his monody (82–183n). By establishing a parallel between the two servants of the gods, however, he gives Ion’s λατρεία a positive connotation (which is important for the following monody). Hermes also prepares the audience for the recognition: the basket is given a conspicuous, detailed description and an unusual name to facilitate recognition (19, 37, 39–40), just as the snake necklace is given prominence by the aetiology (21–6). Another recognition token, the swaddling bands, is also mentioned (32). The Pythia is introduced and her role is stated; in the exodos she will have the opportunity to give her version of events (1338–68), and will pick up and modify some of the narrative elements from the prologue (44~1365–7). The speech forms a frame with the other speech by a god, Athena’s address (1553–1605). Hermes announces Apollo’s plan, and Athena confirms that it has failed. The words by which Athena orders Creusa to take Ion and put him on the Athenian throne recall Apollo’s order to Hermes (1571–3, 31–4). The two deities even refer to each other, with Hermes calling Athens the city of Athena (which she picks up in 1555), and Athena reviewing Hermes’ role in the story (1598–9). The announcement of the naming is repeated by Athena, though this time it is Ion whose name is conferred on others (1588). The gist is the same in both speeches: Apollo has felt concern all along, and we finally hear in the exodos that some actions and events that may have seemed coincidental in the prologue were in fact caused by Apollo (1596, 1600). Both speeches extend the time in the play beyond the limits of the stage action: Hermes gives a detailed account of the pre-history, Athena predicts the future of the house. The expository speech of a divine πρόσωπον προτατικόν, typical for Euripides, is a convenient device in this play since only an omniscient divine speaker can give the information that guides the particular reception of the play: it enables the audience to perceive the frequent irony that arises out of Ion’s and Creusa’s failure to recognise each other and their ignorance of Apollo’s intentions.

122

Commentary

His aforementioned disinterestedness makes Hermes a particularly suitable choice to produce such irony: the absence of a personal agenda for him in the play (cf. Erbse (1984) 74) allows him to deliver the exposition both comprehensively and tongue-in-cheek. Apollo, by contrast, the god most intimately involved in the plot, is absent, which is emphasised in 1557 and thematically important: firstly, because he always works through others (esp. Hermes, the Pythia, the birds, finally Athena); secondly, because it leaves the evaluation of events with the spectators and obviates any unsuitable outburst by a character, a different deity narrating the previous history. Apollo’s appearance would be dramatically inappropriate: a prologue spoken by him could not give a fair impression of Creusa’s rape, and the account about how he takes care of Ion would look overtly biased. 1–4 Entering probably through the eisodos that leads away from Delphi (ch. 5), Hermes introduces himself with his lineage and his role among the Olympians. The idea of service dominates the section (cf. Novo Taragna (1995) 924): Atlas quite literally supports the gods; Maia serves Zeus by bearing him a divine minister. There is thus no reason to assume a ‘bathetic drop’ from Atlas to Hermes (as Burnett on 4 suggests). Expressly stating one’s genealogy, however, is typical for human prologue speakers (Hec., IT, Hel., Phoen., Or.); the gods dispense with it (in Ba. it is given in narrative form). No other self-introduction at the opening of a Euripidean play (Hipp., Hec., Herc., Tro., IT, Ba.) is similarly self-contained and loosely connected to the rest of the speech as this one (cf. Méridier (1911) 57–8). Hermes pushes himself and his role to the fore, as he will continue to do when stressing how he is outwitting Apollo. 1 Ἄτλας ὁ νώτοις χαλκέοισιν οὐρανὸν: Elmsley (1811) 78 eliminates the breach of Porson’s Law (χ. ν. οὐ. L) by a minute change now widely accepted (Ebert (1983), Irvine (1997), Luppe (1998), Kovacs (2003)). The order noun+adjective has plenty of parallels (39–40, 43, 250, 280 ..., and it is hardly the case that the emphasis is always on the adjective; cf. Dik (2007) 89–90). The transmitted text has been defended as metrical play: Hermann (ad loc. and (1816) 36) understands it as imitating the burden on Atlas’ shoulders; for Horna (1932) 178–9 Euripides marks the closeness of Ion to satyr plays. But such metrical hints are not paralleled, and Ion’s character as a tragedy must not be doubted. A reinterpretation of the paradosis as νώτοισ’ (first by Meineke (1863) 310) does not make it conform with Porson’s Law: elided polysyllabic words are not permissible, as the other examples (Hcld. 529, Soph. Aj. 1101 and Phil. 22) are all suspect (though cf. Lloyd-Jones/Wilson (1997) 103). Moreover, there was probably no difference in pronunciation;



1–183 Prologue

123

otherwise certain puns would not work (e.g. Athen. 616C τήνδ᾿ ἐμοῦσαν and τήνδε μοῦσαν; cf. Devine/Stephens (1994) 260). Further modifications of the text are not necessary, either. The testimony in Philodemus’ De Pietate (p. 37 Gomperz = P.Hercul. 1088II col. 1.21–5 Εὐριπίδης .... [χ]αλκέοισ[ιν οὐρανὸν] νώτοις ο[.. ... ἐν] Ἴωνι πεποί[ηκεν]) is not a verbatim quotation and cannot be used for the reconstruction of the text (Irvine (1997) 2). Hence Page’s reconstruction (ὁ χαλκέοισιν οὐρανὸν νώτοις Ἄτλας: (1961) 69; accepted by Diggle) builds on quicksand. The name in first position is common in Euripides (followed by the article: IT 1, Archel. fr. 228), and οὐρανόν must not be separated from its apposition (as argued by Sansone (1984a) 339). Ἄτλας: Atlas has been interpreted as a symbol of order and stability of the Olympian world, standing at the start of a play in which that stability is in jeopardy (Mastronarde (1975) 165 = (2003) 298–9). However, from early times Atlas’ bearing of the sky (on the iconography cf. Anghelina (2010)) is interpreted as punishment for his participation in the Titans’ uprising (Hom. Od. 1.52; explicitly in Hygin. Fab. 150). 2–3 †ἐκτρίβων θεῶν μιᾶς†: The text poses several problems which, taken together, suggest deep-seated corruption. 1) θεῶν forms a much more obtrusive frame around 2 than other repetitions (for which see Jackson (1955) 220–2). This has been defended on two grounds: Wilamowitz believed that the contraction of θεάων made the second instance sound different – which is no more than a guess. Alternatively, the repetition has been thought to carry special significance (e.g. Bayfield): cf. IA 1251–2 μαίνεται δ’ ὃς εὔχεται θανεῖν· κακῶς ζῆν κρεῖσσον ἢ καλῶς θανεῖν; such an assumption is hard to verify and in danger of a certain circularity. 2) The unusual beginning of a new syntactic unit before the last foot of the line is very rare in Euripides (Denniston (1936) 75–6), and the enjambment with a partitive genitive and its antecedent is exceptionally strong (Luppe (1983) 49; cf. 820–1). ἐκ μιᾶς commonly means ‘from the same mother’ (though εἷς can be used for τις: cf. Ba. 917 with Dodds, Rh. 393). 3) The image of the sky being worn off by Atlas would be hyperbolic or paradoxical, even if it were meant to emphasise his strength: ἐκτρίβων is used of wear and tear; the neutral sense of ‘rubbing’ is exceptional (Pl. Phd. 60B, with ἔτριψε in part of the mss). When Euripides uses the verb (Hipp. 684, possibly TrGF adesp. 8l), it is an intensivum signifying complete destruction. Other authors use βαστάζω, ἔχω, ἐρείδω, προσπαλαίω, or φέρω. 4) Transitive φύω (instead of the compound ἐκφύω) is unparalleled with prepositionless genitive in tragedy and comedy; for alternatives cf. e.g. 820, Hel. 391, Phoen. 7–8, Mel.Desm. fr. 495.19 ἔφυσα (cj. Blass). In Med. 804–5 τῆς νεοζύγου νύμφης τεκνώσει παῖδ’ we can supplement ἐξ from l. 803 (Diggle (1981a) 23–4).

124

Commentary

θεῶν μιᾶς: Maia’s mother does not have a name in Euripides’ time; Hermes gives essentially the same information as Hes. Th. 938 Ζηνὶ δ’ ἄρ’ Ἀτλαντὶς Μαίη τέκε κύδιμον Ἑρμῆν, κήρυκ’ ἀθανάτων, Hom.Hym. 4.3–4, and Verg. Aen. 8.138–40. Elsewhere Hesiod calls Maia one of the Pleiades (fr. 169). 3 ἥ μ’ ἐγείνατο: ‘who bore me (– Hermes – to Zeus as servant)’; a common tragic line end (also with σ᾿): e.g. El. 964, Aesch. Eum. 736, Soph. El. 261. Ἑρμῆν stands in apposition; λάτριν is the predicative accusative: cf. Herc. 1263–4 Ζεὺς ... πολέμιόν μ’ ἐγείνατο Ἥραι, Hom. Od. 1.223. L. Dindorf’s emphasised form of the pronoun (ἣ ’μ’) is unnecessary. 4 μεγίστωι Ζηνὶ: again in 1606, Alc. 1136, Aesch. Cho. 245, TrGF adesp. 81.1, Bacch. 6.1, 9.56, PMG 937. This is not a cult name but a direct reference to Zeus’ rank: Hermes prides himself on his close relationship with the head of Mount Olympus. λάτριν: Hermes believes in the dignity of his position: Cassandra proudly and defiantly uses the word in Herc. 450. The noun and the verb λατρεύω are used for Ion (esp. in his monody: 123, 129, 152, also 1343) and thus reaffirm the similarities between the two. 5–7 Delphi is introduced as the setting of the play. The reference to oracular activity makes clear that the scene is the temple of Apollo. But the emphasis on the veracity of the oracle’s responses hints at a critical point of the play: that this veracity is not beyond question. 5 ὀμφαλὸν: The centre of the world (Pind. Pae. fr. 54, Plut. Mor. 409E) was marked by a stone of white marble symbolising the navel (Paus. 10.16.3), which was covered by a net (the ἀγρηνόν of modern discussions; cf. J. Harrison (1900)). It is commonly located in the cella (e.g. 223–4, Aesch. Eum. 40, Strabo 9.3.6; cf. Roux against Amandry (1992) 192–3, 203). 6 μέσον: ‘central/which is (in) the middle (sc. of the earth)’: cf. Nic. Ther. 468 κατὰ μέσον ὀμφαλὸν ἵζει. καθίζων: ‘to sit upon’ (with internal accusative; LSJ II 1): cf. 366, 1317. For Apollo sitting on the omphalos cf. e.g. IT 976 αὐδὴν τρίποδος ἐκ χρυσοῦ λακών, Pl. Rep. 427C, pottery (e.g. LIMC Apollon 998, Athens 475–50) and the coins of the amphictyony (LIMC Apollon 306, Delphi 336–4). He is also imagined sitting on the tripod: 366, El. 980, Or. 955–6. ὑμνωιδεῖ: ‘sings’ (cf. Eust. in Dionys. 1181), i.e. speaks in metre: cf. 682, Med. 668 ὀμφαλὸν γῆς θεσπιωιδόν and CA adesp. 10. 7 τά τ’ ὄντα καὶ μέλλοντα: = Hel. 14, 923, Soph. El. 1498, following Hom. Il 1.70 τά τ’ ἐόντα τά τ’ ἐσσόμενα πρό τ’ ἐόντα (cf. Hes. Th. 32, 38; P.Derv.



1–183 Prologue

125

19.6). The inconspicuous, formulaic phrase conceals how important the issue is for the play. Leaving out the past from the Homeric version ominously foreshadows Apollo’s reluctance to touch on it (367, 1558). 8–13 Apollo’s stately behaviour in his own domain in 5–7 is juxtaposed with his violence in Athens. The panegyric introduction of Athens is a nod to the audience and common in Attic drama (e.g. Med. 824–45, Soph. OC 260–1). 8 γὰρ: A narrative flashback (cf. Jong (1997)) explains Hermes’ presence in Delphi. ἄσημος: ‘undistinguished’, lit. ‘bearing no mark’ (esp. precious metal, e.g. Hdt. 9.41.3; in Aesch. Ag. 818 Troy is εὔσημος by smoke), with litotes for amplification. There may be a pun in combination with χρυσόλογχος; for Athena’s spear could make a suitable σῆμα. 9 χρυσολόγχου: The only other occurrence of the word is temporally very close (Ar. Thesm. 318, from 411). The identification of the effigy is difficult, if it is a particular one that is referred at all. Owen suggests the giant statue of Athena on the Acropolis, the spear tip of which is reported to have been visible from Sounion (Paus. 1.28.2). But it is not clear that the tip was of gold, nor can we be sure about the form of the statue (cf. Lundgreen (1997)). As a landmark the so-called ‘Promachos’ is more suitable than its alternative, the Athena on the west pediment of the Parthenon (preferred by Austin/ Olson on Thesm.). Παλλάδος: Hermes playfully conceals and replaces the name ‘Athena’ for which the city is named. This change is in line with his character but not exceptional in Euripides’ work: cf. 802n. The name Pallas, reminiscent of πάλλω (‘brandish (a lance)’), may be a further pun going with χρυσολόγχου. 10–11 ἔζευξεν γάμοις βίαι Κρέουσαν: ‘He forcefully yoked Creusa in a union.’ Hermes marks the rape of Creusa as a transgressive act (βίαι at the start of the line creates a surprise effect: Rehm (1992) 134), so some degree of condemnation of Apollo’s action is noticeable. Cf. Tro. 44 γαμεῖ βιαίως σκότιον Ἀγαμέμνων λέχος (sc. with Cassandra; for γάμος with the sense ‘rape’ cf. also Hel. 190). Scholarly discussion focuses on the difference between ancient and modern conceptions of non-consensual sex and disputes the culpability of the violator: 1) in the mythological story pattern the gods’ taking advantage of mortal women is a common phenomenon; the gods sometimes even make an effort at seduction (Lefkowitz (1993)); it was an honour to be chosen by a god (Wassermann (1940) 589). 2) In the socio-historical argument the woman’s consent is declared irrelevant (Omitowoju (2002) 66, Ogden (1997) 30), so the crime is not against the woman: βία

126

Commentary

is interpreted rather as the infringement of the rights of the κύριος and the family he represents. Both lines of argument are invalidated in this case by Hermes’ words, which are confirmed by Creusa’s own narrative (887–96): he does not suggest that Apollo used seduction (cf. also 445n), nor does he deny that injustice has been done, irrespective of who is to be regarded as the victim. In addition, the sources are not unequivocal on either point: it is questionable whether the Athenians were as indifferent to a woman’s consent as the laws (cf. E. Harris (1990b), Brown (1991), Sommerstein (2006)); and in affairs between mortals and immortals sympathy for women who are first raped and then punished is not unusual: e.g. Io in Aesch. Suppl. 306–7, PV 687–95, Soph. Inach. fr. 269a 32–40. The women try to ward off their divine pursuers and may be resentful after the act: Cassandra resists Apollo’s χάρις (Aesch. Ag. 1206). βία need not entail the use of physical force but denotes the imposition of one’s will on another (Buxton (1982) 58–66). While in some examples the word seems to denote an offence against the κύριος (Hom. Od. 22.37 with Omitowoju (2002) 54–5), βία can give rise to complaints even between spouses (Med. 242, Ar. Lys. 160–3). In the case of Apollo, the rape is the act by which he is felt to do wrong and thus incur an obligation towards Creusa (859–922n), which he has failed to honour (358, 437–9, 887–906). Hermes’ casual description does nothing to dispel the sense of obligation unfulfilled. His divine status also pre-empts certain other objections, esp. that the application of human standards to the gods is impermissible (cf. 355n). 11–13 ἔνθα ... Ἀτθίδος: ‘where there are rocks ... which the masters of Athens call Makrai’: on this pregnant use of καλέω cf. LSJ II 3a, Tabachovitz (1960), Barrett on Hipp. 121–2. The caves in the north-western slope of the Acropolis accommodated sanctuaries of Apollo, Zeus Olympios, and Pan (Ar. Lys. 911–3, Luc. Bis acc. (29) 9, Paus. 1.28.4, and the votive inscriptions in 13n). That the Apollo there was Pythios (identified with Patroos: Dem. 18.141, LSCG 14.8–9 from 418/7; cf. Hedrick (1988) 200–2; contra Cromey (2006)) is likely from 283–5 and Philostr. VS 550. A connection with Delphi is clear from Strabo 9.2.11, who reports that the Pythaistae watched out for lightning ἀπὸ τῆς ἐσχάρας τοῦ ἀστραπαίου Διός· ἔστι δ’ αὕτη ἐν τῶι τείχει μεταξὺ τοῦ Πυθίου καὶ τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου. When lightning came, they launched the procession to Delphi (cf. 285 ἀστραπαί, perhaps 938 βωμοί: a fireplace has been found between the caves of Apollo and Zeus); rows of seats were cut out in a neighbouring cave close to the Panathenaic Way. Cf. Travlos (1971) 91, 417, Bousquet (1964) 361–6; against these identifications Wycherley (1978) 177 n.9. The cults of Apollo Pythios and Zeus Olympios probably predate the Pisistratids (Thuc. 2.15.4; cf. R. Parker (1996) 96, 164), but all the evidence



1–183 Prologue

127

concerning the cave sanctuaries is later than Euripides, so Ion may itself have influenced Athenian cult practice. προσβόρρους: Livineius’ προσβόρρους (against L -βόρ-; reported in Battezzato (2000a) 347)) is guaranteed by 937 and other texts. The word is not attested earlier and is used next by Plato (Criti. 112B; κατάβορρος in 118B). 12 τῆς Ἀθηναίων χθονὸς: ‘in the land of Athens’, specifying where the ‘rock of Pallas’ is; for the specification of a place with a chorographic and a possessive genitive (Παλλάδος) cf. Davies on Soph. Trach. 1191. 13 Μακρὰς: again in 283–5, 937, [1400], but not in any other literary text. A number of inscriptions starting from the mid-1st cent. AD, however, are dedicated to Apollo ὑπὸ Μακραῖς and ὑπ᾿ Ἄκραις (first in IG II2 2891, 2893) – possibly under the influence of Ion (on tragic influence on cult cf. Scullion (1999–2000) 223–5). Grégoire understands ‘the tall rocks’ rather than ‘the long rocks’ (cf. the mountains called Μάκιστος: Aesch. Ag. 289, Plin. NH 5.140). Since the Makrai seem to be only a part of the northern slope his interpretation is appropriate. 14–27 The first time that the audience hear the story of the exposure Hermes does not explicitly describe Creusa’s feelings and motives, only that she acts alone and in secret. That she is isolated and wretched but not without hope is only intimated: 18 ὡς θανούμενον shows Creusa’s desperation; 22 φύλακε σώματος (and the imitation of Athena) suggests that she hopes to protect the child. This hope will become apparent when she herself narrates the same events (338–52, 887–918, 936–65). The first hint that Apollo has been actively caring for the boy is hidden in the parenthesis in 14. Child exposure is a real-life scenario, often underestimated in the interpretation of poetry, a historical reality, not merely a literary motif: cf. e.g. Ar. Nub. 530–1, Pl. Tht. 160E–161A (and, for a collection of the most important sources, Cameron (1932)). Exposure in places where babies would be found must be distinguished from infanticide, since such children were given a chance to survive as foster children or slaves: cf. Biezunska-Malowist (1971), Boswell (1988) 41–3, 111–31. The fact that Creusa brings her child back to the place of conception is a mythical or folktale element (Rh. 926–8, Apollod. Bibl. 3.201; also the Thai tale of the Naga princess: Huys (1995) 388); here, however, it is owed to the fact that the father is divine: ‘returning’ the child is a command that it be rescued (cf. 887–906n). The second exposure, carried out by Hermes in Delphi, is more in line with the historical pattern and interpreted accordingly by the Pythia (28–40n, 44–5).

128

Commentary

14 ἀγνὼς δὲ πατρί: The male κύριος (normally the child’s father: here, since she is unmarried, Creusa’s father) is the master over the baby’s fate and as such also represents the chief danger: e.g. Alope fr. 109 and Hygin. Fab. 187.1 inscio patre, Auge test. iib, Mel.Sap. test. iia, Pind. O. 6.36, Conon FGrH 26 F 1 (XIX); cf. Huys (1995) 95–6. Creusa preserves her honour and, to the best of her ability, saves the life of her son by exposing him (cf. 336, 861, 934). There is some inconsistency, as Creusa is later said to have been an infant at the time of the war in which her sisters died – presumably the same war in which Erechtheus was smitten by Poseidon’s trident (280–2 with n, Erechth. fr. 370.59–60); it is for this reason that Schömann (1859) 14 writes πᾶσι (cf. the Old Man 942–4). But this is unnecessary: at this point of the play the inconsistency is not salient, and our passage is inconsequential enough to be forgotten by the 1st epeisodion. L’s ἁγνῶς is an example of a scribe changing the text in favour of a religious concept: cf. Dawe (1964) 85. For the dramatic build-up to Creusa’s monody it will be decisive that the birth not be known to anybody, not even the chorus and the Old Man, her closest confidants: to them Xuthus will seem to be the only one hiding a pre-marital affair, so that his unfairness towards Creusa will appear greater and their outrage more justly motivated. τῶι θεῶι γὰρ ἦν φίλον: Hermes casually confirms that Apollo is not indifferent but cares: he arranged that the pregnancy went undiscovered (the only time that this occurs in Euripides’ extant abandonment plots). Ion’s existence must remain unknown, for otherwise he could not become a supposititious royal child. τῶι θεῶι: Hermes stresses the difference in power between the god directing events and the unaware mortals. One god referring to another simply as ὁ θεός is unusual (again in 42, 45, 47), and Hermes indicates a slightly lower status (cf. 1–81n), and in other instances the focus is on the opposition of god and man (Hipp. 46, Tro. 43). 17 ἐς: The convention to avoid εἰς (εἰσ-, εἴσω) where the metre does not require it is followed here with some reservations. It has been abandoned for Aeschylus by West (who prefers εἰς) and for Sophocles by Dawe (who follows the majority of manuscripts in each instance) and Finglass (2009b) 212–15. The case for ἐς has been made by Kannicht on Hel. I p. 108, who intimates that εἰς, which is far more frequent, not just in L, tends to replace ἐς. But in places we also find ἐς where εἰς is certain (e.g. 915, Hel. 1361). The standard form of the contemporary Attic vernacular (and of comedy) was εἰς (Threatte I 178), and it is impossible know whether Euripides distinguished the two forms in writing and to assess to what degree he embraced or eschewed the poetic tone of ἐς.



1–183 Prologue

129

18 κἀκτίθησιν: On the history of the verb as a standard term for exposure cf. Germain (1984) 392–5. The historic present could here describe the action as influencing the present (K-G I 135, Rijksbaron 2–4), but the following instances (24, 39, 41, 49, 58) are not all likewise ‘perfective’, and rather mark turning-points (S-D II 271, K-G I 132, 1143n). ὡς θανούμενον: Subjective ὡς with future expresses Creusa’s expectation, not purpose (cf. K-G I 185; e.g. Alc. 191 ἠσπάζετ’ ἄλλοτ’ ἄλλον ὡς θανουμένη, Plaut. Cist. 166 dat eam puellam ... exponendam ad necem). Creusa’s inner conflict at the exposure becomes clear in the rest of the play: she hopes that the child survives and later goes to the cave to check (346–52, 965; cf. also the protecting snakes 20–6) but also accepts that he is bound to die. She acts unwillingly, out of fear (1497–9) and not without motherly feelings of misery and bad conscience (959–67); so she accuses herself for exposing him (963, 1494–6) and describes both their fates as terrible (1501–5). The emotional ambiguity is part of her characterisation, not an ‘inconsistency or contradiction typical of this motif’ (Propp (1984) 92 on exposure myths in general). The interpretation that Creusa intends to kill the boy (e.g. Burnett (1971) 125, Rosivach (1977) 289 n.6) is owed to the attempt to lay the blame on her in order to exculpate Apollo. 19 κοίλης ἐν ἀντίπηγος εὐτρόχωι κύκλωι: The heavy, poetic periphrasis, which fills the entire line and uses recherché lexis, draws attention to the object. The trimeter is one of the most exuberant in Euripides (cf. Phoen. 489, Ba. 1213). It hints at the importance of the receptacle at its first occurrence. The object, which will be visible in the exodos, is a round (19, 1391), plaited (37, 40, 1393) basket wrapped in wreaths and bands (1389–90). ἀναπτύσσω (39n) suggests a lid, as does ἀντί- in ἀντίπηξ (cf. R. Young (1941) 138). The Pythia carries it ὑπ’ ἀγκάλαις (1337; cf. LIMC Athena 252, early 4th cent.). The parallels with the omphalos (224 στέμμασί γ’ ἐνδυτόν; cf. 1389 στέμμαθ’ ἱερά, 1413 ἐνδυτά) are noteworthy, and the basket may be of a similar shape. In that case Euripides emphasises the close relationship between Ion and Apollo (also symbolised by Ion sharing Apollo’s attributes: cf. 82–183n). ἀντίπηγος: five times in this play but in no other literary text. It is repeatedly glossed as κιβώτιον and apparently not Attic (Mytilenean: Eust. in Il. 1056.46–7 (III 839.9–10 v.d.Valk), Doric: Hom. Il. schol. vet. 18.413b), but it may be coincidence that the Athenian Creusa does not use it. Bergson (1960) 18–9 believes that it is a highly technical term from carpentry (in analogy to διάπηξ, κλινoπήξ etc.) which can facilitate recognition by the audience in the exodos. εὐτρόχωι: here ‘well-rounded’ (cf. 1391 εὔκυκλος), a meaning paralleled only in τεῖχος εὔτροχον (IG XIV.1389 ii.13, from Rome, c. 2nd cent. AD).

130

Commentary

The juncture of a noun and a specifying epithet from the same semantic field (τροχός, εὔ-κυκλος) is more common in lyric sections: e.g. Med. 200–1 εὔδειπνοι δαῖτες, El. 732 φλογὶ θεοπύρωι (cf. Smereka II 41). ‘Wellwheeled’ (LSJ) makes little sense with κύκλος. 20–7 Its symbolic and dramatic importance justifies the aetiological digression: the snake necklace that Creusa puts into the basket (cf. 1427–31) evokes the snakes given by Athena to Erichthonius. Hermes makes the parallelism with that story explicit and guides the audience’s attention to the significance of the plot for the Athenian royal house: Ion is one link in the uninterrupted lineage of the autochthonous house of Erechtheus and the designated continuator of the line (a development completed in 1465). The digression continues the introduction of the recognition tokens. 20 νόμον σώιζουσα: ‘(She abandoned the boy), thereby (also) observing a custom of ...’: the participle states an attendant circumstance. The way she does it is explained by γάρ, the custom in a general form in 25–6. Wilamowitz interprets the participle as indicating the manner (following Schli­ ack (1874) 28 in assuming a lacuna before 20); but in that case the custom would consist in putting babies in baskets. 21 Ἐριχθονίου: Cf. 265–74n. Only in Euripides may proper names produce an anapaest in the second foot: cf. e.g. 268, 1429, Descroix (1931) 205–8, West (1982) 82. 22 φύλακε: Corrected by Porson on Phoen. 1419 (=1404) from φυλακάς. 23 δισσὼ δράκοντε: Contemporary archaeological evidence (e.g. LIMC Erechtheus 36) and the atthidographer Amelesagoras (FGrH 330 F 1; cf. also 1427–9) have two snakes; later versions speak of one: Call. fr. 575, Apollod. Bibl. 3.189, Ov. Met. 2.561, and some depictions from Athens may show only one (LIMC Erechtheus 32, end of 5th cent., 33 from 500/490, 37 of uncertain date). παρθένοις Ἀγραυλίσιν: Aglaurus/Agraulus, Pandrosus, and Herse are the daughters of Cecrops and Aglaurus/Agraulus (Apollod. Bibl. 3.180; cf. 271–4). Triclines has changed Ἀγλαυρίσιν to Ἀγραυλίσιν, which may suggest that the latter was in Λ (ch. 6A); Ἄγραυλος is the only reading in 496. While inscriptions uniformly present Ἄγλαυρος, the alternative form is better attested in the mss of 5th and 4th-cent. authors, in particular in the Atthidographic tradition (Hellanicus FGrH 323a F *1, Philochorus FGrH 328 F 105, Amelesagoras FGrH 330 F 1; cf. Herod. Gramm. II 467). Attempts to distinguish between the mother Agraulus and the daughter Aglaurus are not warranted by the transmission (cf. Brulé (1987) 29). Agraulus is likely to be



1–183 Prologue

131

the original form, as the Agraulids’ names are ‘merely epithets indicative of the field-piping [from ἄγρ-αυλος] and dew-drinking propensities’ of the cicada (Paley), but this observation does not help determine what Euripides wrote. 24 Ἐρεχθείδαις: The ambiguity undermines the dramatic illusion: Hermes claims that the descendants of Erechtheus imitate this custom, although Creusa is just two generations removed and the only member of the house. The audience would naturally understand the Athenians, i.e. themselves, the more common usage of the word: cf. 29n. ἐκεῖ: Hermes, being in Delphi, refers to Athens, the place of performance, as ‘there’: a reflexive clin d’oeil to the audience. The word seemed colourless to some editors, but cf. Ar. Ran. 761 νόμος τις ἐνθάδ’ ἐστι. With Barnes’ ἔτι Hermes would unambiguously skip to the time of the performance of the play and thus breach the dramatic illusion. IT 958–60 κλύω δ’ Ἀθηναίοισι τἀμὰ δυστυχῆ τελετὴν γενέσθαι, κἄτι τὸν νόμον μένειν, χοῆρες ἄγγος Παλλάδος τιμᾶν λεών is similar; but Orestes refers to his contemporaries, while the audience can also understand themselves. 25 ἔστιν: Existential ἔστι (‘there is’; cf. 283) is probably never enclitic (against e.g. Barrett on Hipp. p. 425–6, Kahn (1973) 420–4): cf. Eust. in Il. 880.22–4 (III 3119–11 v.d.Valk). The modern discussion is summarised in Probert (2003) 144–6. ὄφεσιν: Snake heads are the most popular form of finials of archaic Greek bracelets: cf. Higgins (1980) 168, Deppert-Lippitz (1985) 158–9. 26 ἀλλ’: The particle has a weak adversative force, juxtaposing Athena’s and Creusa’s action, and resumes the narrative that had been interrupted in 21 (cf. Slings (1997a) 109): παρθένος marks the return to Creusa and her story (not Owen’s ‘like other maidens’). Denniston 22 with some reservation prefers progressive use (‘besides’); in this case χλιδή would indicate a new item. However, the word fits the golden necklace far better than the swaddling bands or the laurel bough: the word denotes what is viewed by its owner as precious (Phoen. 224, Soph. El. 52), but especially valuables in the conventional sense (e.g. Andr. 2 πολυχρύσωι χλιδῆι). 27 ὡς θανουμένωι: rounding off the digression in ring composition after 18. The repetition reinforces the idea that death is inevitable. The phrase is even more striking here, after the protective function of the snakes has been explained (22). 28–40 When the boy is abandoned again – this time by Hermes – he is left in a public place. This follows the standard pattern: the baby is left in a much-fre-

132

Commentary

quented place so as to have a chance to be found and to survive; cf. Quint. Decl.min. 306.24, Festus s.v. lactaria: lactaria columna in foro olitorio dic­ ta, quod ibi infantes lacte alendos deferebant, Huys (1995) 162–3, Boswell (1988) 110–11. Hermes executes Apollo’s order exactly. At the same time he outwits his brother: Apollo is reluctant to reveal more than necessary, but Hermes has already been shown to be fully familiar with the background of Apollo’s wish (cf. 68n). 28 κἄμ’ ὢν ἀδελφὸς Φοῖβος αἰτεῖται τάδε: ‘And then Apollo – who is my brother – turns to me with the following request.’ Hermes emphasises his own role in employing a full line for the introduction. The emphasised form of the pronoun (κἄμ’ = καὶ ἐμέ) has been correctly restored by Schömann (1859) 17: the unemphatic form (καί μ’ L) seems too weak with Hermes’ sudden turn towards himself. Schömann’s alternative conjecture ὄντ᾿ ἀδελφόν is tempting at first sight: for the text then would reflect Apollo’s reasoning and point of view. The text as it stands, by contrast, has Hermes express some pride in his relationship with the great god, and this chimes better with his self-presentation as in service to him. Apollo will exploit this soft spot in his speech. 29–36a Hermes repeats the speech by which Apollo instructed him to bring his son to Delphi. The only opportunity to hear this secret protagonist of the play proves that he accepts responsibility for his son and is the cause behind his rescuing. Hermes’ kinship with Apollo and his familiarity with Athens are specific reasons for the job being entrusted to him, but he often takes the role of rescuer of the gods’ abandoned children: so with Dionysus, Arcas, Pan, and Achilles (also Helen: Hel. 44–6); cf. Hadzisteliou Price (1978) 70–1, Huys (1995) 301. Euripides gives one of the rare examples of extensive direct discourse in prologue speeches (cf. IT 17–24 and Sthen. fr. 661) to characterise Apollo through his own words. The repetition of information Hermes has already provided gives the speech an air of authenticity; and the fact that Apollo’s vocabulary differs from Hermes’ reinforces this impression: Hermes has so far not used Ἀθῆναι, ἄγγος, χρηστήρια, and εἴσοδοι, and Apollo employs a slightly more elevated or poetic register with a tendency to periphrasis. Apollo combines assertiveness and flattery, making the speech oscillate in tone between command and request: on the one hand, the first sentence is one long command; Apollo gives no explanation before the imperatives (33, 34), nor does he use an expression corresponding to ‘please’. He finishes by trying to exclude Hermes from further participation in the matter. On the other hand, he flatters Hermes by referring to their kinship and hinting at the veneration Hermes enjoys in Athens (cf. 30n). At the end of the speech he



1–183 Prologue

133

finally reveals the reason for his interest in the child (35), but seems to do so only because he cannot slight his brother completely (ὡς εἰδῆις). The indefiniteness of tone has been read as a sign of embarrassment (Irvine on 29–30). Hermes, however, seems to interpret it appreciatively as Apollo ‘speaking as brother to brother’ (Owen). Hence he carries out the order χάριν πράσσων ἀδελφῶι (and thus not as an order), though pleased that his knowledge exceeds what Apollo wants him to know (cf. 68n). 29 σύγγον’: The use of the kinship term emphasises the relationship, as siblings normally addressed each other by their names (cf. Wendel (1929) 97, Dickey (1996) 227). αὐτόχθονα: The concept of autochthony is central to the play as a key reason for the rejection of Ion as future leader of Athens (589–94, 719–24, 1087–9; also 673–5). It is introduced at a place where it has no dramaturgical significance and is another feature appealing to the interests of the Athenian audience (cf. 8–13n). Originally, the idea that the ruling house descended from an earthborn king was not part of the concept of autochthony, which meant only that the Athenians had neither immigrated nor mixed with others but were indigenous and pure (cf. Med. 825–6, Erechth. fr. 360.7–10, Thuc. 1.2.5, Isoc. 4.24). The two ideas are, however, often blurred (Lys. 2.17, probably Aesch. Eum. 13): cf. Rosivach (1987a) 295–301, Shapiro (1998) 131, Lape (2010) 16–19. 30 κλεινῶν: a regular epithet of Athens in this play (262, 590, 1038) and beyond: e.g. Hipp. 423, Aesch. Pers. 474, Ar. Av. 1277, Pind. Dith. fr. 76, Hellanicus FGrH 323a F 21c. Bergson (1956) 194–6 infers from this frequency (and an apparent joke about it in Ar. Eq. 1327–8) that the word is a standing epithet. κλεινός is, however, applied to so many other places and people (e.g. Tro. 773 Trojan plains, IA 170 Arethusa) that it is rather to be regarded as a stock panegyrical epithet. The particular frequency in tragedy is an homage to the place of staging. οἶσθα γὰρ θεᾶς πόλιν: Through a parenthesis a speaker connects with the addressee (cf. R. Müller (1997) 184–6); here Apollo alludes in a flattering way to the omnipresence of herms in Athens and the Athenians’ particular pride in them (discernible also in Hdt. 2.51.1, Thuc. 6.27.1; cf. Furley (1996) 13–19). Pillar and god are fused: cf. Ar. Pl. 1153, Rückert (1998). The presence of herms in front of many houses means that the god knows virtually every corner of the city. Such a complimentary remark makes a date of the play between 414 and 412, soon after the mutilation of the herms, unlikely; cf. Martin (2010a), ch. 4C. The ms reading πτόλιν would constitute a double exception: only once in iambics does epic πτ- not lengthen the preceding syllable (Soph. Phil. 1424

134

Commentary

πτόλισμα), and only three times does πτόλις not follow a preposition (Hcld. 1026, Hec. 767, 1209): cf. Page on Med. 641. 32 αὐτῶι σὺν ἄγγει: Apollo already prepares the recognition by securing the item that will precipitate it (from 1395). An experienced spectator may anticipate the meaning of this provision. σπαργάνοισί: Ion’s swaddling bands will serve as another recognition token: the cloth with the Medusa’s head (1413–21) described as Creusa’s own youthful handiwork (1489–91). The evidence for how common swaddling was remains inconclusive (cf. e.g. Pl. Leg. 7.789E, Soran. Gyn. 2.6a, 15, and Golden (1990) 17–18), but the bands are common recognition tokens from epic onward (PEG Oed. arg.; Alope, Men. Epitr., Peric.). The text is grammatically sound, but οἷς ἔνι (F.W. Schmidt (1886) 288) may be worth considering: cf. 1351, Aesch. Ag. 1606 τυτθὸν ὄντ’ ἐν σπαργάνοις (cf. Cho. 755). σπάργανα ἔχω seems to put the emphasis on the mere possession of clothes, and there is no parallel (in Hom.Hym. 4.268 σπάργανά τ’ ἀμφ’ ὤμοισιν ἔχειν, the meaning is different, 388; 151 σπάργανον ἀμφ’ ὤμοις εἰλυμένος). ἔνι is not attested with a personal subject in Euripides, but ἔνεστι is used in this way also just once (Suppl. 1010), so the significance of the missing parallels need not be very considerable. 33 ἔνεγκε Δελφοὺς: In this restoration (AS, anticipated by Jacobs (1790) 191) the rough geographical indication ‘Delphi’ is subsequently specified (cf. Hel. 24  Ἰδαῖον ἐς κευθμῶν’ Ἀλέξανδρον πάρα). In the transmitted version ἔνεγκ᾿ ἀδελφῶι, the dative (without e.g. causal ὄντι) sits awkwardly with ἐμά. The vocative ἀδελφέ (G. Schmid (1869) 521) might express Apollo’s emphasis on their relationship and serve to intensify the request affectively (cf. Soph. Phil. with R. Rutherford (2012) 103–9) but would be the second address in the sentence. Most editors print Valckenaer’s emendation ἔνεγκε Δελφῶν to identify the oracle; but Delphi as the oracle par excellence need not be specified: cf. Med. 667, Ba. 1336. Nor is the resulting text without problems: the chorographic genitive (cf. 12) is not as appropriate for an oracle as for a city or region. 34 πρὸς αὐταῖς εἰσόδοις: ‘immediately at/next to the entrance’: cf. Lys. 12.12 καταλαμβάνουσι πρὸς αὐταῖς ταῖς θύραις (K-G I 653(d)), so not somewhere inside the temple as Gow (1912) 228 supposed. εἴσοδοι is used in a wider sense for the entrance area – probably including the steps – in 104. Apollo is very specific in his instructions on where to place the baby, indicative of his concern and forethought: he wants the child to be found by the Pythia and to grow up in his realm. In this way he can arrange the meeting with the mother, and the Pythia can later in a moment of need be sent by him (cf. 1320, 1353). The place is selected so as to make anyone (and the prophetess in particular) find it upon entering the temple (cf. 40,



1–183 Prologue

135

41n, Winnington-Ingram (1976) 492, who unnecessarily considers a place inside the temple). 35 τὰ δ᾿ ἄλλ’: The ‘revelation’ at the end of the speech is similar to oracular responses in both its formulation and its ‘mysterious vagueness’ (Jebb on Soph. OT 377): cf. Aesch. Eum. 60–1 τἀντεῦθεν ἤδη τῶνδε δεσπότηι δόμων αὐτῶι μελέσθω Λοξίαι, Soph. loc.cit., Ael.Arist. 50.75 ἐμοὶ (sc. Apollo) μελήσει ταῦτα καὶ λευκαῖς κόραις. ἐμὸς: The possessive is predicative: ‘that child is mine’, not attributive ‘it is my child’, as can be gauged from the emphatic positions of ἐμός and παῖς framing the parenthesis. ὡς εἰδῆις: The phrase reinforces the tone of the statement, together with γάρ: ‘(The child is mine; I am telling you) so you understand (why I am interested in him.)’ It also pre-empts further inquiry or doubt. The locution stresses the importance of the information given, but the meaning potentially extends from a mere ‘I want you to know this’ to defiant insistence and even connotes a slight menace (Mastronarde on Phoen. 1656). It is colloquial (cf. Andr. 589, Ar. Vesp. 454, Pl. 112, Theoc. Id. 15.91, but not in Stevens (1976) or Collard (2005); with ἵνα e.g. in 804; in tragedy often ὡς μάθηις) and rhetorical (e.g. Dem. 21.143). 36b–40 36 Λοξίαι: This name of Apollo, sometimes derived from λοξός ‘slanting, oblique’, alluding to the ambiguousness or obscurity of oracles (Lycophr. 14, 1467, Suda λ673), is commonly used (according to Neitzel (1988) 276) where the reliability or interpretability of Apollo’s responses is at stake. 36–7 χάριν πράσσων: ‘doing a favour’; cf. 896. The ‘servant’ Hermes complies of his free will. 37 κύτος: a high register word, as opposed, e.g., to χύτραι, (vessels in which children were exposed or buried: Ar. Thesm. 505 with schol., Ran. 1190; the scepticism of Bolkestein (1922) is unjustified). Tragedy knows only metaphorical χυτρίζειν (=kill): Aesch. Laios fr. 122, Soph. Priam. fr. 532. 38 κρηπίδων ἔπι: From Apollo’s speech and 42 we must understand ‘at the top of the crepidoma’ (the three-step base: cf. Stieber (2011) 24–6) on the centre of the temple’s east front, perhaps not quite at the brink of the stairs but slightly inside the peristyle (34, 45). 39 ἀναπτύξας: The basket is hinged with a lid: cf. IT 1286 ἀναπτύξαντες εὐγόμφους πυλάς.

136

Commentary

40 εἱλικτὸν: The word describes round and twisted objects, such as woven wreaths (Phoen. 652, Chaeremon TrGF 71 F 7), coiling snakes and spiralling plants or horns (Soph. Trach. 12, Theodectas TrGF 72 F 6, Hom.Hym. 4.192; cf. 1164). The basket consists of wicker, raffia or the like, winding round a cavity (κοίλη) in spirals, hence the combined notions of ‘plaited’ (Grégoire: ‘d’osier’) and ‘round’ (Hermann, Wilamowitz). Hermann’s change to ἑλικτόν is unnecessary. To some extent, the distinction is academic, as the two forms looked identical in pre-Euclidean orthography, and a definite decision is impossible. The Ionic form is less common in tragedy, but 1164 (if sound) and El. 180 (lyr.) have the backing of the mss and the metre; in 397 the direct tradition stands against Stobaeus. ὡς ὁρῶιθ’ ὁ παῖς: This refers to both the placement and the opening of the basket and again signals that Ion enjoys divine protection. The act of opening the basket provides a significant contrast with the myth of Erichthonius, who was not to be seen (272), repeated when Ion’s identity is to be revealed (1387). 41–[51] The Pythia takes on the important double function as tool of Ion’s rescue and surrogate mother (cf. 1320–5n). As she picks up the boy, he becomes a temple servant and can be both cared for and watched over by Apollo. The god’s influence in the Pythia’s decision to take up the boy is left unspecified: the term συνεργός leaves room for self-determined action by the Pythia. Hermes’ formulations (νηπίωι, τλαίη, ὠδῖν(α)) render her empathy, focussing on the suffering and vulnerability on the mother’s and the baby’s side. 41 κυρεῖ: ‘finds unexpectedly’: κυρέω smacks of coincidence but is used in the sense ‘hit upon, find’ without stress on chance in Hec. 698 ἐπ’ ἀκταῖς νιν κυρῶ θαλασσίαις. From the Pythia’s point of view the find was unexpected, but since she is the first to arrive at the temple in the morning (cf. 91, Aesch. Eum. 32) she was destined to find the basket: exposure commonly took place before dawn (cf. Plaut. Cas. 40 primulo crepusculo, Glotz (1906) 200). In this way, not too much time would pass before the baby was found, but the streets were still empty and the identity of the child and its exposer would remain secret. ἅμ’ ἱππεύοντος ἡλίου κύκλωι: The paradosis ἀνιππεύοντος makes no sense: the verb does not mark the specific moment of dawn but the entire first half of the day. Hence Musgrave’s ἅμ’ ἱππεύοντος ἡλίου κύκλωι, which combines the phrases ἡλίου κύκλος (e.g. Alc. 208, Aesch. Pers. 504) and ἅμ᾿ ἡλίωι, is superior to Kirchhoff’s ἀνιππεύοντος ἡλίου κύκλου. The text mixes the images of the sun as charioteer and as disc; Wilamowitz found this clumsy, but cf. El. 465–6 κύκλος ἁλίοιο ἵπποις ἂμ πτεροέσσαις, 88n.



1–183 Prologue

137

42 προφῆτις: for the Pythia, as in Pl. Phdr. 244A, Plut. Mor. 431B. In reality there were, at any point in time, three Pythiai (Plut. Mor. 414B). μαντεῖον: The singular (69, 1122, Andr. 926) seems preferred with reference to entering or leaving the temple or oracular chamber, the plural with the sanctuary as a whole (66, 739, And. 887, IT 1252, Phoen. 284). 44 ἐθαύμασ’ εἴ τις: The Pythia is genuinely ignorant at this stage: in the exodos her utterances are far more ambiguous and the exact degree of her knowledge remains uncertain: 1320–[68]n. τλαίη: ‘bring oneself to do something contrary to one’s feelings’ (LSJ II). This first instance of compassion in the play presents the Pythia as realising the difficulties and pain the mother must have felt; human feeling surfaces in the god’s speech (Lee (1996) 86). Her compassion brings her close to the biological mother, as she adopts the maternal role for herself. The word could also reflect the Pythia’s shock at the mother’s effrontery (‘whether some girl had dared ...’). This would better explain her initial reaction in 46 but not match the tone of ὠδίς. 45 λαθραῖον ὠδῖν’: metonymically: ‘hidden product of labour-pang’, as in 1487; cf. Aesch. Ag. 1417–18, Pind. O. 6.31 κρύψε δὲ παρθενίαν ὠδῖνα κόλποις (perhaps IT 1102). The pathos does not match well the unheroic illegitimate birth but expresses the empathy with the mother’s pain. ῥῖψαι: The verb expresses no more than the need to get rid of the baby fast: intent to kill (Soph. OT 719, Plut. Rom. 7.7) is not implied in Mel.Desm. fr. 489. 46 ὑπέρ τε θυμέλας διορίσαι: The Pythia’s first impulse is to protect the sanctuary by removing the child from the sacred area. Death within the sanctuary would cause its defilement (R. Parker (1983) 33; cf. Paus. 2.27.1 τὸ δὲ ἱερὸν ἄλσος τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ (sc. of Epidaurus) περιέχουσιν ὅροι πανταχόθεν· οὐδὲ ἀποθνήισκουσιν οὐδὲ τίκτουσιν αἱ γυναῖκές σφισιν ἐντὸς τοῦ περιβόλου). However, putting the boy out of sight would rob him of the chance of discovery and thus consign him to certain death. θυμέλαι stands pars pro toto for the precinct as a whole (F. Robert (1939) 273) – in contrast with 161 and 228, where it denotes the temple (the singular 114–15 is shown by 121 to be the altar in front of the temple). Gow (1912) argues that in tragedy θυμέλη denotes a hearth or the part of an altar on which sacrifices are burnt rather than an altar as such. His literal reading, however, that the basket is on a hearth in the outer sanctum, is hardly tenable: 38–9 with the demonstrative τοῦδε can hardly denote steps to the adyton inside the temple. L’s ὑπὲρ δέ (Biehl, with θυμέλης) is not attested in the meaning ‘in addition to (wondering)’.

138

Commentary

47 ἀφῆκεν ὠμότητα: Cf. Herc. 865–6, PV 315 ἃς ἔχεις ὀργὰς ἄφες. The focalisation through the Pythia continues: she judges that the removal of the baby would be cruel and therefore takes pity (or the feeling of pity makes the removal look cruel to her). 47–8 καὶ θεὸς συνεργὸς ἦν τῶι παιδὶ μὴ ’κπεσεῖν δόμων: Hermes’ seemingly casual aside is a strong affirmation of Apollo’s active role in the preservation of Ion’s life. The way in which Apollo exerted influence is not spelled out, but planting some impulse in a mortal’s mind is common across genres (Hipp. 27–8, Aesch. Ag. 385–6, Hom. Il. 1.58, Lys. 6.19, Lycurg. 1.91). The clause is not an independent sentence but a sentence-ending parenthesis (cf. Schwyzer (1939) 32; also 68); it interrupts the narrative at the transition from Ion’s rescue to his childhood: τρέφει δέ picks up from ἀφῆκεν. The parenthesis introduced by καί probably gives Hermes’ words the character of improvised spoken language (cf. Hel. 393, Or. 4–5, Solon IEG2 4a, Grünewald (1912) 246, Dorjahn/Fairchild (1972) 59). 51: Herwerden (1862) 144 recognised that the line is an interpolation arising from misconstruing the Pythia as subject of 49–50 (cf. Kovacs (1979) 111–12). The meaning of ἐπίσταμαι has no parallels: for ‘to know someone’ cf. Aesch. Ag. 1254, Ar. Eq. 1278; but what we need here is rather ‘to know who has the role of x’. The change of subject from τρέφει to οἶδε is not an obstacle: it is less harsh than the one that would occur from οἶδε to ἔφυ, if the line were to be retained. Moreover, the Pythia’s ignorance has already been expressed (44–5). 52–6 Hermes gives a (rose-tinted) sketch of Ion’s experience and occupation. No direct intervention by Apollo is mentioned in this section, but the idealisation of Ion’s happy life positively distorts his role. The boy is granted a childhood without obligations. Later he is integrated in the life of the sanctuary, fulfilling honourable duties in the service of the god. In the next scenes Ion’s words and deeds show that he is a temple slave of a much lower status: his duties are less solemn; he sleeps anywhere in the sanctuary (315); he does not perceive his life as purely σεμνός (e.g. 121–4); and he has to work from an early age (102–3). The high expectations raised by a glimpse of his character, however, will be confirmed: it describes him as reliable, loyal, and responsible. Hermes does not describe a historic Delphic official but an ideal (Bömer (1990) 47–8; Pleket (1979) 133 sees a distancing effect). Ion shares some tasks with a νεωκόρος from Oropus (LSCG 69.6–8, late 5th/early 4th cent.; cf. Wilamowitz on 55, Stengel (1920) 51) whose job is τοῦ τε ἱεροῦ ἐπιμελεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸν νόμον καὶ τῶν ἀφικνεμένων εἰς τὸ ἱερόν (cf. 640–1; ll. 22–4 im-



1–183 Prologue

139

ply supervision of financial transactions; cf. also Pl. Leg. 6.758E–759B, LSCG 101.4–7: the νεωκόρος has to keep out strangers). However, all these νεωκόροι are free or even noble. The lowly tasks we will see Ion perform and his slave status do not match this description. 52–3 ἀμφὶ βωμίους τροφὰς ἠλᾶτ’ ἀθύρων: ‘He roamed around the food from the altar, playing’; i.e. he played at his own sweet will near the place that fed him. ἀλάομαι normally carries negative connotations (cf. 576, 1089), but the aimlessness that daunts exiles is pleasing to a boy not burdened by responsibility and sorrow. Ion lives from the sacrificial meat (cf. 323). The supply of meat is one of the central aspects and functions of Greek public sacrifices, and there was an abundance of it in Delphi: cf. Achaeus I TrGF 20 F 12–13, CID 1.4, Stengel (1920) 115–20, Rosivach (1994) 9–67, Linders (1994). The first share of sacrifices normally went to the priests and cult personnel (cf. Lupu (2004) 100, Tsoukala (2009) 6–10, possibly CID 1.5), and in Delphi there must have been abundant provision. P corrects L’s ἀμφιβωμίους (for the mistake cf. Phoen. 1749). The ellipsis in Biehl’s ἀμφιβωμίους τροφὰς (sc. ἔχων) ἠλᾶτ’ ... is incomprehensible; his parallel Soph. OC 1685–8 does have a form of ἔχω. 53 ἀπηνδρώθη: Ion’s age is never made quite clear. Hdt. 1.123.1 describes the 16 or 17 year old (cf. Asheri et al.) Cyrus as ἀνδρευόμενος. δέμας: In Sophocles and Euripides the periphrasis with δέμας can lose the particular notion of corporality and becomes merely ornamental: e.g. Hec. 368 Ἅιδηι προστιθεῖσ’ ἐμὸν δέμας, Archel. fr. 228a.16 (more in Smereka II 71), Soph. Ant. 944, Trach. 908. But the connotation of physical maturity and ability to perform the job is relevant in this context (cf. 564). 54–5 χρυσοφύλακα ... ταμίαν τε πάντων πιστὸν: The responsibility that Hermes ascribes to Ion is disproportional to his status. No office of the name χρυσοφύλαξ is attested before Roman times (Cass. Dio 49.39.6). The word occurs in classical times only in Hdt. 4.13.1, 4.27 (gold-guarding griffins); perhaps Plut. Arist. 24.6 (θυλάκου χρυσοφύλακος, mockingly) is a genuine quote of Pericles or at least contemporary. The occurrences of the word suggest an actual guarding role, possibly comparable to Epidaurus’ φρουροί (LSCG 60.16; cf. Andr. 1098–9). The ταμίας, by contrast, both in Delphi and in Athens, was a treasurer who handled or checked the financial affairs of the sanctuary (CID 4.9 from 337, LSCG 14.17 from 418/7); the office possibly existed in 5th-cent. Delphi – though Euripides may be using terminology quite familiar to the Athenians. 55 ἀνακτόροις: For the meaning ‘temple’ cf. e.g. Andr. 1111, Tro. 15. The meaning ‘sanctuary’ can only be inferred from the context in 1224 (there Ion

140

Commentary

may be exaggerating), but not here: Hermes and Ion (315) clearly contradict each other. 56 καταζῆι: ‘to spend one’s life in a certain manner’: cf. PCG adesp. 1000, Pl. Symp. 192B. δεῦρ’ ἀεὶ: ‘all the time up to now’; once in Aeschylus: Eum. 596, but apparently a Euripidean favourite with a distinctly tragic air (hence mocked: Ar. Lys. 1135 = Erechth. fr. 363) matching Ion’s σεμνὸς βίος. 57–67a Having reached the present, Hermes takes up the other narrative strand and tells about Creusa’s life after the loss of her child. The section (as the one on Ion) ends with a verb in the present tense (66 ἥκουσι). Xuthus’ and Creusa’s childlessness and their intention to consult the oracle are reported only briefly. Most of the space is given to the circumstances of the marriage and its ambivalence: Xuthus is inadequate because he does not have the innate nobility of the autochthonous Athenian (cf. Seaford (1990b) 159), but his prowess and his services to Athens win him the honour of Creusa’s hand, and his descent from Zeus mitigates the mismatch. Hermes’ formulation reveals reluctance and some degree of compulsion on the part of the Athenians (συμφορᾶς, concessive οὐκ ἐγγενὴς ὤν; cf. Ion’s astonishment 293). 58 γαμεῖται συμφορᾶς τοιᾶσδ’ ὕπο: ‘He marries her under the following circumstances’: for this use of ὑπό cf. Med. 34, Hec. 597, Soph. Trach. 1077, K-G I 523(c). 59 Χαλκωδοντίδαις: On the form cf. Hdn. Gramm.Gr. 3.2 221 (=De Path. fr. 143) Χαλκωδοντίδης καὶ πλεονασμῶι τοῦ α Χαλκωδοντιάδης. Elsewhere (Hom. Il. 2.541, 4.464, Hes. fr. 204.53) the name denotes the members of the Euboean ruling house. Euripides reinterprets it as the name of the people, by analogy with Ἐρεχθεῖδαι etc., but apparently feels he must explain it in the next line. The war is primarily a convenient invention to explain how an outsider can become the husband of the heiress to the throne (Ermatinger (1897) 131): it explains why Xuthus is not despised by the chorus quite as much as Ion. Euripides needs to introduce a second war in addition to the one against Eumolpus, in which Erechtheus died (280–2 with n): if Xuthus’ arrival had been associated with the latter, the chronological clash with 14 would be obvious. A war against Euboea is barely known (Proxenus FGrH 425 F 2 τὸν δὲ Ἄλκωνα Πρόξενός φησιν Ἐρεχθέως· φυγεῖν δὲ αὐτὸν λέγει ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀττικῆς μετὰ τῆς θυγατρὸς Χαλκιόπης εἰς Εὔβοιαν, ἐξαιτοῦντος δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐκ ἐκδοῦναι τοὺς Χαλκιδέας). Owen reads the Euboean War as a reminiscence of the Athenian victory after the Euboean defection of 446



1–183 Prologue

141

(Thuc. 1.114.3), a remote event in the middle of the Peloponnesian War. Should any such allusions be sought, the revolt of 411 (Thuc. 8.95.7, ch. 4C) would be far more relevant. 61: ‘(the war) which he undertook (with Athens) and helped drive out of the country with his spear’; the accusative ὅν has two different functions (Owen): internal of a cognate word (i.e. πόνον πολεμίου κλύδωνος) after συμπονήσας and direct object with συνεξελών (i.e. the troubles of war, the war itself and possibly the enemy forces). Parallels (Med. 904 νεῖκος πατρὸς ἐξαιρουμένη, Phoen. 991 ἐξεῖλον φόβον) show that the text is good, against the assumption of a lacuna after 61 (Irvine (1999b) 377–8 after Benndorf). The story pattern with the princess as bride also requires that Xuthus ward off an invasion of Athenian territory. 62 γάμων Κρεούσης ἀξίωμ᾿: ‘the honour of marrying Creusa’; γάμων is epexegetic: cf. Or. 9 κοινῆς τραπέζης ἀξίωμ’ ἔχων. The privilege and reward of marrying into the royal household is both folktale motif and political objective: cf. Oedipus, IA 101, Hom. Il. 9.141–2, Finkelberg (1991). 63 οὐκ ἐγγενὴς ὤν: Cf. Suppl. 134–5 οὐκ ἐγγενῆ συνῆψα κηδείαν δόμοις. – ἀλλὰ ξένοις ἔδωκας Ἀργείας κόρας; This has normally been taken to mean that Xuthus lacked Athenian citizen status, which is not in fact a legitimate inference, irrespective of whether the Athenian society of the play is conceived as a monarchy or the 5th-cent. democracy (cf. 290n). Aἰόλου δὲ τοῦ Διὸς: Euripides rearranges the traditional mythical genealogy: cf. 1569–94n, ch. 3A. Diod.Sic. 5.8.1 knows a tradition that makes Aeolus the father of Xuthus (cf. Brancaccio (2005) 29–30; for Euboean origin of the story Cassola (1953) 287–90, Mele (1995) 436). There is, however, no further agreement with Euripides’ genealogy. 64 Ἀχαιός: The adjective can here be read as a toponym rather than a tribal affiliation, but after Athena’s speech the formulation becomes ironic in retrospect and reinforces the sense of Euripides’ deliberate play with the myth: for Athena announces that Achaeus will be one of Xuthus’ sons (1592); Torrance (2013) 211 sees in γεγώς a hint at Euripidean genealogical innovation parallel to Hec. 3 Πολύδωρος, Ἑκάβης παῖς γεγὼς τῆς Κισσέως. In traditional myth Xuthus’ father was driven out of Phthia in Achaea in Central Greece (Paus. 7.1.2), and Hdt. 7.94 locates Xuthus in the area Achaea in the Northern Peloponnese. χρόνια δὲ σπείρας λέχη: ‘having sown his seed in the marriage bed over a long time’; a combination of common tropes: the metonymy of ‘bed’ for ‘marriage’ (with χρόνια; cf. 304 εὐνήματα, Phoen. 14 λέκτρα) or ‘wife’ (cf. Med. 591, Smereka II 147–8) and the farming imagery of procreation (cf. e.g. Davies on Soph. Trach. 31ff, DuBois (1988) 68–70).

142

Commentary

65 καὶ Κρεούσ’: The addition of Creusa is correct only in one sense of the word ἄτεκνος, viz. ‘not having any children’; contrast 305 with the meaning ‘never having given birth’. On the range of meanings cf. Barone (1987) 62–4. 66 ἥκουσι: Xuthus and Creusa are in Delphi (ἥκω is resultative: cf. K-G I 136). For Xuthus the statement is slightly exaggerated (cf. 300) but conveys the idea that the action can begin. 67 ἔρωτι παίδων: Cf. e.g. 303n, 1227, Archel. fr. 228a.19–21 ἀπαιδίαι δὲ χρώμενος πατὴρ ἐμὸς Τήμενος ἐς ἁγνῆς ἦλθε Δωδώνης πτύχας τέκνων ἔρωτι. 67b–8 Apollo’s intervention at different points has already been mentioned (14, 47–8); now he is credited with the overall development. The statement renders ironic the mortals’ complaints about their bad τύχη (817, 1260, 1502) or Apollo’s forgetfulness and ambivalent the tone of much of the play. Hermes’ understated (but proud) declaration that despite his control over the affairs Apollo has not managed to keep the story secret produces another, more innocent, kind of irony. 67–8 Λοξίας δὲ τὴν τύχην ἐς τοῦτ’ ἐλαύνει: A paradox highlights Apollo’s deep involvement: τύχη, which (or who) is usually a driving force (El. 648, Herc. 509, Hel. 1636), is being driven by the god – if τύχη were just the course of events (‘the way things fall out’: Zacharia (2003) 143), the imagery would be lost. For τύχη being regarded as subordinate to the gods cf. Hcld. 934–5 τὴν ἐναντίαν δαίμων ἔθηκε καὶ μετέστησεν τύχην, Hipp. 1111–14, IA 390, Busch (1937) 34–5; for ἐλαύνω cf. Soph. Ant. 504 κἀμὲ μὲν δαίμων ἐλᾶι, Dem. 9.54 μή τι δαιμόνιον τὰ πράγματ’ ἐλαύνηι. The mortal characters in this play do not normally see τύχη as an independent, personal agent – in the one clear exception (554) the term used is πότμος (Giannopoulou (1999–2000) 264); 1514 is interpreted variously. The human characters fail to see the divine influence behind τύχη, but the turns of events are taken as an inexplicable given (only Xuthus once wonders how a situation has come about: 539). 67 δὲ: The particle is adversative: the emphasis is on Loxias, who is opposed to Xuthus and Creusa. The summarising aspect of the sentence is not encapsulated in δέ (pace Spira (1960) 38) but only in ἐς τοῦτ(ο). ἐς τοῦτ’: ‘to this state of affairs’, i.e. the result of all the preceding actions, with Ion and Creusa in Delphi (so Spira (1960) 38). Hermes draws the different strands of the narrative together before he explains the reason why Apollo has done so (cf. 69 γάρ).



1–183 Prologue

143

Neitzel (1988) 273–4 takes ἐς τοῦτο as cataphoric, anticipating the outline of the future according to Apollo’s plan: ‘Loxias treibt das Geschehen zu diesem (sc. Zukünftigen), und nicht verborgen ist es (sc. τοῦτο τὸ μέλλον), wie es scheint.’ But the next sentences describe Apollo’s own actions, for which the expression τύχην ἐλαύνει would seem odd. Moreover, Neitzel’s parallel Herc. 1294–5 ἐς τοῦτο δ’ ἥξειν συμφορᾶς οἶμαί ποτε· φωνὴν γὰρ ἥσει χθὼν κτλ. has future tense in both the cataphoric and the explanatory clause, as do the passages in Denniston 59 (3) (except Hom. Il. 8.147–8 τόδ’ αἰνὸν ἄχος κραδίην καὶ θυμὸν ἱκάνει· Ἕκτωρ γάρ ποτε φήσει ..., where the anxiety anticipates the act). By that interpretation the tense of λέληθεν, too, remains unexplained. 68 κοὐ λέληθεν, ὡς δοκεῖ: ‘And he has apparently not gone unnoticed.’ The understated remark encapsulates Hermes’ character as conveyed in the prologue: the λάτρις has again played a trick on his brother, who tried to keep his dealings secret (1–81n; cf. Erbse (1975) 40, Kraus 36). The sentence thus refers to the end of Apollo’s speech; Hermes’ narrative of events and the subsequent outlook on the plot become motivated by his pride at seeing through Apollo. λέληθέ μ᾿ (Schömann (1859) 25) makes the idea clearer but is unnecessary. ὡς δοκεῖ is best taken as ‘apparently’, without a specific object in mind (cf. Pherecrates PCG 164, Pl. Phlb. 32C, Erbse (1984) 75; on ὡς ἔοικα in this meaning cf. e.g. Soph. El. 516, Rösler (1983) 174–5), here ironic: Hermes’ speech itself shows as much. The alternative ‘as he thinks’ (Badham, similarly Herwerden, Biehl, Erbse (1975) 40) would highlight Apollo’s error and be at his expense rather than to Hermes’ credit. But the latter is what this prologue stresses, and whether Apollo finds out is of no import. Some scholars have given the parenthesis a very different meaning, with considerable ramifications for the interpretation of the play (cf. Leimbach (1971) 21 n.2 and Skiadas (1972) 374–6 for a synopsis of earlier discussions). Grammatically, the main controversy is over the subject of λέληθεν and the meaning of δοκεῖ. The most common interpretation (e.g. Burnett (1962) 101, Lee, Kovacs (2003)) takes τύχη (vel sim.) as subject and Apollo as object of λέληθεν (Verrall: ‘it has not escaped his observations, as it seems to have done’). By this reading the line serves as argument in the defence of Apollo against Creusa’s accusations: the first part only states what is clear from ἐς τοῦτ’ ἐλαύνει (and from 47–8); the second part carries the emphasis, contending that any criticism of Apollo is based on a lack of knowledge. But no criticism has been launched yet, so the subject of the belief (those to whom it seems that he has forgotten) are not identifiable at this stage. In addition, the change of subject from ἐλαύνει would be unexpressed and thus hard to account for.

144

Commentary

Other solutions will entail a change of text: καὶ λέληθεν (Page; Musso (1985a) has κεἰ) misses that Apollo’s action has not escaped Hermes; that the mortals concerned have not noticed his doing is obvious (cf. 49–50) and unremarkable. ὡς δοκεῖ becomes a mere filler. Dawe (apud Diggle) proposes λέληγεν, which gives γάρ a good sense: the action of the play is the story of his continued help. However, it also leaves ὡς δοκεῖ as an empty formula, and the information that Apollo has not ceased to help is made redundant by the prediction. A perfect tense of λήγω is not attested. 69–73 Hermes gives the outline of the action of the play as Apollo plans it – but only part of this will come to pass: Xuthus will receive the oracle and accept the boy as his son. But the recognition will not be delayed until Ion reaches Athens. The lines are therefore commonly read as a false announcement, but strictly speaking, Hermes does not make a prediction so much as a disclosure of Apollo’s plan (so rightly Méridier (1911) 78). Hermes’ preliminary sketch of the plot gives us to expect a recognition play, but shortcomings in the plan may already have raised eyebrows in the audience: the plan necessitates a change of place, which finds a parallel only in Aesch. Eum. (cf. Finglass on Soph. Aj. p. 11–20). More pressingly, the plot that is allegedly to unfold shows little potential for any dramatic conflict; cf. ch. 3Ac. A departure from the plan of Apollo may thus not come as a complete surprise, and the fact that Hermes is going to watch the unfolding of events (77) serves as another hint that something unexpected will happen. It is also not unusual that the preview given in a Euripidean prologue is not exactly fulfilled in the play (cf. Hipp. 42 and Ba. 52). The vague foreshadowing has been explained as a dramaturgical device to create suspense and guarantee that a certain level of dramatic tension be sustained (e.g. Dalmeyda (1915), Stuart (1918), Hamilton (1978), Goward (1999) 149–50). But in the other plays the differences are a matter of details, whereas in Ion the entire plot departs from what is intimated in the prologue: the failure of Apollo to foresee the future becomes apparent. This failure to foresee and anticipate all turns of events is vital in this portrayal of Apollo; it shows that the power of prediction of the god of prophecy is limited (1–81n). Apollo’s reputation is equally compromised by the doubtful veracity of his reponse. Attempts at explaining Hermes’ paraphrase in order to make the oracle true (70–1n) and Xuthus misinterpret Apollo’s words cannot explain away the deceitful intent of the response: Apollo wants Xuthus to understand that he has fathered Ion himself (1560–2). Athena’s appearance prevents Ion’s question ὁ θεὸς ἀληθὴς ἢ μάτην μαντεύεται; (1537 with n) from being answered in a way unflattering to Apollo (1553–1605n).



1–183 Prologue

145

The more promising line of defence (taken by Wassermann (1940) 595–7, Burnett (1962), Gellie (1984)) is to declare the lie to be necessary. Such a proposition, however, cannot solve the conflict entirely. It also falls short of Ion’s own standards, as for him the veracity of the oracle is an absolute requirement (1537, 1546; cf. PV 1032–3). Apollo’s ‘white lie’ is exceptional (cf. Mikalson (1991) 90–1): where the truthfulness of oracles is questioned, the doubts are revealed to be untrue (Hcld. 606, IT 711–13, Soph. OT 720–4; deceptive silence: Hel. 1625–6; in Aesch. fr. 350 Apollo’s prediction is not formally oracular and may be misleading although literally true), and in historical cases only the temple personnel is accused of a lie (Aeschin. 3.130, Plut. Mor. 402E; likewise, no doubts about the gods are raised also in Hdt. 1.48.2); Socrates in Pl. Ap. 21B rules out that the god could speak untruth. A justification in line with Ion’s own views is that Xuthus consults the oracle on a problem that might cause offence to Apollo: it is Ion who warns Creusa not to ask the god about something that may embarrass the god (365– 77). The same principle may apply to Xuthus’ question, but that explanation is never offered in the play. 69 δώσει: On the language of adoption cf. 1534n. γὰρ: The particle creates two possible connections: it may pick up οὐ λέληθεν (‘he has not gone unnoticed, for he will give’) or explain the motivation behind Apollo’s handling of τύχη (‘for he will give ...’: cf. Ba. 39). 70–1 πεφυκέναι κείνου σφε φήσει: Attempts to construct an ambiguity in Hermes’ words (and thus the oracle) are counter-intuitive, and it makes good sense that Apollo should be lying (cf. 69–73n): Neitzel (1988) 275 believes that κείνου can be reflexive and refer to either Xuthus or Apollo: cf. Alc. 17– 18, IA 129–30 οὐκ οἶδε ... ὅτι κείνωι παῖδ’ ἐπεφήμισα may be a valid parallel (direct reflexive in Thuc. 8.45.4; cf. K-G I 649). Hermes would reproduce the ambiguity of the oracle (both god and consultant could be referred to in oracles with the 3rd person: cf. Fontenrose (1978) 177–8). Xuthus, however, paraphrases δῶρον, ὄντα δ’ ἐξ ἐμοῦ; δῶρον and ἐξ both make things clearer and convince Ion (cf. 537–8). The confusion of δῶρον and Δῶρον (Gavrilov (2002)) could only help to introduce an ambiguity in 534–8 but not in Hermes’ words. Finally, Klotz (1917) 14–26 (refuted by Gauger (1977) 81–2) argues that φύω does not have to denote blood-ties. Ion’s doubtful response to Xuthus’ παῖδ’ ἐμὸν πεφυκέναι (536) seems to admit this possibility, but Klotz cannot produce a parallel in which the expression is used consciously for foster relatives. 71–2 μητρὸς ὡς ἐλθὼν δόμους γνωσθῆι: Dalmeyda (1915) assumes, without offering persuasive reason (ch. 3Ac), that Euripides is alluding to Sophocles’ Creusa, where the recognition supposedly took place in Athens.

146

Commentary

72 γνωσθῆι Κρεούσηι: ‘so that Creusa recognise who he is’. Sinos (1982) 129 mistranslates ‘recognise as king’. That meaning of the verb is not attested, and 1567–8 puts it beyond doubt that Apollo wants them to recognise each other as mother and son. 72–3 γάμοι ... πρόσφορα: ‘(so that) Loxias’ affair be a secret and the boy (in this way) have what suits him’, i.e. membership of Xuthus’ and Creusa’s family (1562/1) and hence the right to succession to the throne. The first clause states the condition of the second (a force ascribed only to τε ... καί by Denniston 515), as Creusa explains in 1541–3: only by keeping the secret is it possible for Ion to become the legitimate ruler and son. In this interpretation Apollo is the most prudent. Bayfield and Owen take it the other way round: ‘that the boy may have his rights without exposure of the secret.’ But without secrecy Ion would never become Xuthus’ successor. The announcement of the planned secrecy is a paradox – once again Hermes flouts Apollo’s wish to keep the story to himself. Athena, however, confirms that Xuthus will never learn that he was duped (1601–2). The passage works best if Euripides himself has created this version of the myth and Hermes ‘reveals’ that the common version (in which Xuthus is Ion’s father) is a cover-up that has lasted to the day of the play’s performance: cf. 1601–5n, A. Cole (1997) 90–1. Aphrodite has a similar plan to Apollo’s in Hom.Hym. 5.286–8, but Anchises is later punished for revealing the secret. [74–5] The prediction of the future beyond the play is the domain of the deus ex machina, not of the prologue speaker. That Athena corrects Hermes’ words and makes Ion’s descendants the colonists rather than himself (1581–6) may be a comparatively minor objection, but enough to dispel the argument that the frame around the play thus created makes the lines indispensable (so Biehl (1992) 14–15). The crucial flaw of the couplet is that it thwarts the effect of 80–1 (Kraus 36–7, preceded by Hartung (1837) 47 and Herwerden (1874) 177): Hermes drops the name in the last line of his speech, explaining it as ὄνομα οὗ μέλλει τυχεῖν. This is redundant if the name has already been mentioned. Ἴωνα ... ὄνομα κεκλῆσθαι θήσεται: Cf. 1594, Erechth. fr. 370.73–4 ὄνομα δὲ κλεινὸν θήσομαι κα[θ’ Ἑλλ]άδα Ὑακινθίδας βροτοῖσι κικλή[σκε]ιν θεάς. Bayfield’s translation of θήσεται as ‘will cause’ [sc. that his name will be Ion] makes better sense than a pleonastic combination of ὄνομα τίθεσθαι and ὄνομα κεκλῆσθαι/καλεῖν τινα (so LSJ s.v. τίθημι A IV): LSJ s.v. τίθημι B I 4 (‘make one do so and so’) offers no parallels for the middle voice. 74 κτίστορ᾿: a rare, highly poetic alternative to οἰκιστής: cf. Pind. Hyporch. fr. 105(a) and the parody Ar. Av. 926. Ion himself is not otherwise credited



1–183 Prologue

147

with colonisation or the foundation of cities, except in later texts that are likely to have taken the detail from this play (Vell.Pat. 1.4, Vitruv. 4.1.4; cf. Prinz (1979) 356–7, Ragone (1986) 183–4; schol. Phoen. 208 attributes to Ion the foundation of Euboea; cf. also 1581b–8n). Among the many accounts (Prinz p. 318–55) Herodotus comes closest to making Ion the colonist, saying (7.94) Ἴωνες δὲ ὅσον μὲν χρόνον ἐν Πελοποννήσωι οἴκεον ... ἐκαλέοντο Πελασγοὶ Αἰγιαλέες, ἐπὶ δὲ Ἴωνος τοῦ Ξούθου Ἴωνες; cf. 8.44). 76–81 Hermes takes the imminent appearance of Ion as his cue to leave (cf. Hipp., Hec., Ba.). Entrance announcements are unusual if only one person is on stage, but divine prologue speakers direct their words to the audience, even though the dramatic illusion is not explicitly breached (cf. Halleran (1985) 8; Jong (2007) 27 calls it a ‘diaphonic monologue’). Hermes is unique in hiding to watch the play: Aphrodite and Polydorus leave (Hipp. 53, Hec. 52), Thanatos enters the palace to kill Alcestis (Alc. 74). 76 δαφνώδη γύαλα: ‘the laurel-decorated recess’, i.e. the temple: cf. 219– 20; 233 and 245 should be read in the same way (cf. also Soph. Od.Ac. fr. 460 οὔτε μ᾿ ἐκ Δωδῶνος οὔτε Πυθικῶν γυ[άλων] τις ἂν πείσειεν). The demonstrative refers to the stage building. Wilamowitz instead reads it as evidence of trees on one side of the stage. There is, however, no other instance for γύαλον with the meaning ‘grove’ and it would be a more than unusual choice of word for a flat piece of ground with trees on it. γύαλον ‘hollow’ in the context of topography means ‘cavern’ (Hel. 189) or ‘valley’ (Aesch. Suppl. 550, Hom.Hym. 26.5). In the last sense a strong connection with Delphi (on the slope of Mount Parnassus) is established early on (Hes. Th. 499, Hom.Hym. 3.396). The precinct is called γύαλα in Andr. 1092–3 ὁρᾶτε τοῦτον, ὃς διαστείχει θεοῦ χρυσοῦ γέμοντα γύαλα, θησαυροὺς βροτῶν. The idea that γύαλα denotes a cavern in the adyton (Hülsemann) seems to be based on the old assumption that vapours rose from a chasm in the ground. This assumption has been rejected as later fiction (Courby (1927) 65–6, Parke/Wormell I 19–20) but revived more recently by Boer et al. (2001) and acknowledged by Ustinova (2009) 135–53. A certain scepticism is advisable on this point: cf. Bowden (2005) 19, Lehoux (2007). δαφνώδη does not mean ‘being/consisting of laurel trees’ but ‘rich in laurel’ or ‘adorned with laurel’ (e.g. Phoen. 1485–6, Ba. 12; cf. Hdt. 7.109.2 λίμνη ἰχθυώδης). The idea that a laurel tree stood in the adyton is only weakly attested (schol. rec. Ar. Pl. 213e φασὶν ὡς πλησίον τοῦ τρίποδος δάφνη ἵστατο; cf. Amandry (1950) 133–4) and probably wrongly transferred from Delos (Call. Hym. 2.1, Verg. Aen. 3.91; in Didyma: Günther (1971) 113). The meagre tree on some illustrations of Eumenides does not grow there: cf. LIMC Orestes 23–5, pace Trendall/Webster (1971) 47. Laurel decoration

148

Commentary

is, however, likely (on the tripod: schol. vet. Ar. Pl. 39h; cf. Amandry p. 126–7) and can be plausibly suggested to the audience: cf. Andr. 296 παρὰ θεσπεσίωι δάφνηι, 1115 δάφνηι σκιασθείς, Ar. Pl. 213 (=TrGF adesp. 61c), Hom.Hym. 3.396 γυάλων δάφνης (?), Philodamos Apoll. (GH 2.4) 10, ‘Daulis’ (P.Berol. inv. 11517) col. II 15–16 ὀμφαλὸς γῆς δάφνηι καταστεφόμενος. 77 κρανθὲν: both ‘ordain’ and ‘accomplish’, with a substantial overlap: what a god ordains is destined to be fulfilled (Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 369; cf. 464). Hermes already knows what has been determined but is interested in the execution – a possible hint that Apollo’s plan may not be implemented as intended. The paraphrase ‘how the oracular story about the boy’s identity will be interpreted’ (Dougherty (1996) 263) adds an element that is not in the text. ὡς ἂν ἐκμάθω: Eavesdropping need not have a comic touch: cf. El. 109, possibly Hipp. 601, Aesch. Cho. 20–1, Soph. OC 114 κρύψον κατ’ ἄλσος, τῶνδ’ ἕως ἂν ἐκμάθω. 78 ἐκβαίνοντα: When ἐκβαίνω is used in connection with an entrance (in Soph. El. 75 it means an exit by an eisodos), it is always from the skene, not from an eisodos: IT 1222, Hel. 858, Or. 1367 (with Willink), Ba. 636, IA 820, Ar. Av. 666. The word would, however, be appropriate with a side door. Ion probably enters through such a door, as Wilamowitz proposed. The following anapaests go well with Ion moving towards the centre stage, followed by the sacred officials: cf. the entrance of actor and chorus Hec. 59–89, Soph. El. 86–120. The second door would make the staging of several tragedies easier or more plausible: cf. Frickenhaus (1917) 11–16, Hourmouziades (1965) 21–5, Newiger (1965) 235–41, Dover (1966) 6–17, Olson on Ar. Pax p. xlvii; the opposite case is made by Dale (1969a), Taplin (1977) 439–40. The most common reconstruction of the staging – Ion entering through the central door – would be highly awkward, as he would have to store his broom and bucket inside (the Pythia also arrives from outside: cf. 41n). The Delphic noblemen cannot be leaving the temple, either, since they have to purify themselves before they enter it (97), and Ion would not have to point out that the Pythia is already on the tripod (91–3). With a second entrance Ion enters through a door different from the one through which Hermes is exiting, and other unusual or complicated arrangements can also be avoided: Owen has the temple officials enter from an eisodos and meet Ion in front of the temple, which produces an unusual choreography (it would be more usual that one party waits or calls the others out: cf. Ar. Vesp. 266–7); Halleran (1985) 115 n.72 has Hermes leave through a side door; Hourmouziades (p. 159) lets Hermes speak from the theologeion, but Ion entering through the central door still poses the problems just described.



1–183 Prologue

149

79 λαμπρὰ: Hermes anticipates the imagery Ion is going to use and starts a cluster of words with the stem λαμπ- (82, 83, 87), thus providing a transition from his speech to the monody; while Ion uses the semantic field for the sun and Delphi, Hermes applies it to Ion’s activity. πυλώματα: the wider entrance area (Hel. 789), including the steps to the temple. 81: Just before the end of the speech Hermes proves his pertness once more. The god who has proudly uncovered Apollo’s plans expresses his delight at being quicker than anyone else in revealing Ion’s name. He does not owe the knowledge of the name to Apollo (as he is the first of the θεοί to use it). The name will be bestowed on Ion in 661; up to that point he is simply παῖς (cf. 1320) or σύ (219); cf. Yoon (2012) 133–5. Ἴων’: Grégoire (followed by Biehl (1992) 15) thinks Hermes is naming Ion after his own act of leaving (‘en s’en allant’), in parallel to Xuthus’ own choice of the name from leaving the temple (661); in that case Hermes would show not only foreknowledge of the name, but in going himself would also anticipate the act that makes Xuthus bestow the name. Such a combination is, however, unlikely: ὀνομάζω (in figura etymologica: 800, Hcld. 86) does not mean ‘to give somebody a name’ here (as in 661) but ‘to call somebody by a name’ (cf. Dem. 23.41). Secondly, etymologies do not have to be decoded from the name (ἰών from Ἴων᾿) but the name from the explanation (as the name Athens in 9). : It is clear from the parallels that we need a pronoun. L. Dindorf infers from Triclinius’ ἔγωγε against Scaliger’s νιν. Both are possible: σφε can be used where νιν also would fit into the metre (Suppl. 1168) but is significantly rarer in Euripides. 82–183 Ion’s monody Ion enters from a side door (78n) ahead of a number of temple officials, carrying a broom of laurel boughs and a bow (both attributes of Apollo), and possibly a golden vessel. Movement, the content of the song, and metre are coordinated: during the initial recitative anapaests (82–111), probably accompanying the group’s march towards the centre of the acting area, Ion urges the sacred officials to cleanse themselves at the Castalian spring and then go to the temple because they are late. While the men are proceeding to the opposite eisodos, Ion outlines the tasks he is going to perform. Then he sings a strophic pair in aeolic metre (112–43) while sweeping the floor. When he starts sprinkling the ground, he changes to an astrophic system of lyric anapaests (144–83). Two more systems describe an eagle and a swan,

150

Commentary

then an unknown bird approaching. Ion shoos away all three to protect the precinct. The song picks up a motif from the prologue speech (Ion’s service in the sanctuary) and enacts it – a technique similar to El., Soph. Phil., and OC: Ion is characterised indirectly by giving his own perspective on his life and showing his main concerns and ‘inner attitudes’ (Barlow (1986) 17; on the scene type cf. Nestle (1930) 66). At the centre stand the themes of Ion’s duty and devotion towards Apollo: the song shows him in complete harmony and symbiosis with Delphi; his close contact with the sacred sphere, his concern with purity, and his seriousness in performing his tasks are fully consistent with Hermes’ characterisation of his life as solemn (54–6). However, the solemnity is undercut by reality being much more mundane than Hermes’ description: Ion lacks the responsibility and noble standing suggested in the prologue (Knox (1971) 79 = (1979) 259, Seidensticker (1982) 217–20; pace Athanassaki (2012), who overrates Ion’s chores to efface the incongruity). His tasks range between the protection of the oracle’s purity and the menial offices of a household servant’s job; the gravity of his pious devotion to his service is strangely set off by his similarity to common slaves in other tragedies (102n). Ion expresses the paradox of his life by describing his work in vocabulary that exaggerates the arduousness of his existence while emphasising its honourableness and dignity (128–40n). His gratefulness to Apollo prevails, and Delphi appears as the ideal place for his needs and concerns: his thoughts revolve only around the sanctuary and Apollo (cf. below) and the official life of Delphi resonates in the song with which he accompanies his simple activity (112–43n). As Synodinou (1977) 90 observes, this makes him the only slave in Euripides’ plays who completely embraces his personal situation. But the form of monody (reserved for characters of noble birth, even when enslaved) already shows that the slave role is not in conformity with his nature (E. Hall (2006) 305). Ion’s is the only unequivocally positive and optimistic monody in extant tragedy, confounding the audience’s generic expectation (Barner (1971) 285–7; contrast the laments of other monodists and Cassandra’s triumphant gloom in Tro.). It stands in contrast to Creusa’s lament (859–922), with which it is linked by metre, language, and motifs: the idealisation of Apollo in Ion’s song (setting up expectations to be undermined in the course of the play: Swift (2009a) 91) is balanced by Creusa’s accusations, but both characters sing in ignorance of the real facts. The irony in Ion’s monody is more obvious, but of a lighter variety, playing with different kinds of ambiguity: first of all with Ion’s close relationship with Apollo, which is of a different kind than he thinks (109–11, 136–40, 183). When the purity of the sanctuary seems in danger from birds (against Hdt. 1.159.3–4), Ion is about to kill the intruders to preserve it, but in this way himself threatens that purity (Hoffer



1–183 Prologue

151

(1996) 297–9) – and a similar bird will later prevent Ion’s death and thus pollution (cf. 162n). Ambiguity is also involved in Ion’s resemblance to the divine figures: he enters as a λάτρις like Hermes, carrying his equipment, including some of Apollo’s attributes, like a slave in comedy. Through this irony and ambiguity Euripides intimates the instability and deceptiveness of the situation. Ion grows up embedded in a world and living a life that seem ideal to him, but the spectator knows from Hermes’ speech that this state will soon come to an end. The birds can be read as foreshadowing the imminent irruption of new forces into and disturbance of Ion’s life (Graft Hanson (1975) 30–1, Giraud (1987), Hoffer (1996) 297). The sudden change of Ion’s previously peaceful behaviour to aggressiveness toward the birds has also been interpreted as the first show of the awakening hero in the otherwise quiet immature boy (Burnett (1971) 105), but that portrayal is again undercut when Ion admits that he cannot kill the birds. The irony, the play with the menial and the Apollinic, Ion’s happiness in Delphi: all this stands in contrast to the traditional image of Ion as the warrior who came to Athens’ aid (Hdt. 8.44.2, Paus. 7.1.5, Strabo 8.7.1). The song’s admixture of seriousness, irony, and light-heartedness is reflected in its form and language, which oscillate between low and high, juxtaposing menial status and the sacred (cf. Saïd (1992) 218). The song is partly the imitation of a paean (112–43n), the solemn hymn to Apollo, partly that of a solitary work song (cf. Bartelink (1963), Pordomingo (1994) 324–5) with its repetitiveness, the address to the tool, the description of the activity, and the general purpose and occasion (cf. e.g. PMG 869, Bücher (1899) esp. no. 55, N. Cohen (1993) 336–7; generally Mihaescu (1956)). The register is solemn and in part high poetic (112–13, 123, 145), but not without occasional affective, simple, or colloquial turns (e.g. 153, 167, 168, 171–2). Of the six sections of the song (recitative, aeolic strophe and antistrophe, and the three anapaestic systems) five end by paying reverence to Apollo; the imagery is dominated by light and brightness (the sun, gold, silver, etc.: cf. Barlow (1971) 46, Graft Hanson (1975) 30). The motifs of service and sacredness recur, giving the impression of a closed cosmos of ideas surrounding the sanctuary and its god. This effect is enhanced by the frequent repetition of vocabulary and phrases pertaining to these areas, e.g. λατρεύειν, βόσκω, μοχθῶ, δρόσος, βλάπτειν ἀναθήματα, φήμας, and most of all Φοῖβος (12 times). 82–111 Four runs of anapaests form a bridge between iambs and lyric. First the group marches towards the centre, then the Delphians proceed to the exit towards the Castalia (eisodos B: ch. 5). This recitative part has wrongly been called a ‘Vor- oder Scheinparodos’ by analogy with Hipp. 58–71 (Imhof

152

Commentary

(1966) 19): since the men never sing, the entrance of the actual chorus is not surprising; in addition, if Euripides was true to historical reality, their number would have been much smaller than that of the chorus (cf. 94–101n). It is equally mistaken to see in this part a soliloquy or monologue (imprecise e.g. Schadewaldt (1926) 17, 161): Ion is urging the Delphic officials; only in the fourth system does Ion focus on himself, and Euripides smoothes over the transition from the recitative to the lyric part. 82–8 Ion’s call conveys a sense of urgency: first he draws his company’s attention to the fact that the day has started already; only then does he explain how he can know that: from the reflection of the sun on the rocks. The sun itself cannot yet be seen (otherwise there is no need for 83 and 86–8). 82 ἅρματα μὲν τάδε: Ion’s speech is appellative (‘Look, the sun!’) with an exhortative undertone (83 ἤδη), with ellipsis of the verb and emphasis on the deictic; he does not address or marvel at the rising sun (so Schadewaldt (1926) 161, Zacharia (2003) 12). For ὅδε ‘look there’ cf. Hipp. 178–80 τόδε σοι φέγγος, λαμπρὸς ὅδ’ αἰθήρ ἔξω δὲ δόμων ἤδη νοσερᾶς δέμνια κοίτης, Cycl. 145, Hyps. fr. 752f.8, Aesch. Cho. 1048. The asyndeton Ἥλιος ἤδη is explanatory and makes a more concrete observation (cf. K-G II 345(ε); it may even be more urging: cf. Maehler (2000) 429). 83 Ἥλιος: It would be wrong to see a reference to Apollo (e.g. Zeitlin (1989) 146, Zacharia (2003) 129): nothing here suggests identity of the two gods, and later passages (886, 911, 1439) outright preclude it. The two gods still have a separate existence (SEG 33:115, Athens 3rd cent.; cf. R. Parker (2005) 203–4), even though literature can equate them: the identification of the two gods is securely attested for the first time in Pha. 224–5 ὦ καλλιφεγγὲς Ἥλι’, ... Ἀπόλλων δ’ ἐν βροτοῖς ὀρθῶς καλῆι, and the Orphics seem to know of it. Aesch. Suppl. 213–14 is more doubtful; cf. Diggle on Pha., Farnell (1896–1909) IV.136–8. ἤδη: The word indicates that Ion is spurring on his company because they are late. IA 156–9 ἴθι· λευκαίνει τόδε φῶς ἤδη λάμπουσ’ ἠὼς πῦρ τε τεθρίππων τῶν Ἀελίου imitates our passage in sense and wording; cf. Pha. 63, 75. λάμπει κατὰ γῆν: Early in the day, the rays of the sun shine across (not down on) the earth, i.e. parallel to the surface (κατὰ γῆν as the course of the stars Pha. 64); only elevations such as the Phaedriades catch the rays. The unobjectionable λάμπει and the imitation in IA 158 secure this interpretation. The transitive use of λάμπει with ἅρματα as object is unnecessary once the force of τάδε is understood: it produces an awkward image with Helios not being bright himself but letting his chariot shine (contrast Hel. 1128–31



1–183 Prologue

153

ἀνὴρ ... ἀστέρα λάμψας). κάμπτει (Wakefield, Matthiae (1789) 22) has often been adopted, but leaves τάδε with little force. 84–5: discussed by Diggle (1981a) 94–5, who translates: ‘The stars are put to flight into the holy night by this fire of aether.’ The flight metaphor means that the stars go down in the West (cf. Horsfall on Verg. Aen. 3.521 with more Latin examples), not that they are dimmed by the light (so Owen). The flight of stars recurs in 1157; cf. Pha. 66 (cj. Diggle), Hes. Op. 619 (with West: the Pleiades flee into the sea). 84 πυρὶ τῶιδ’ αἰθέρος: a causal dative (Bayfield), which leaves the exact workings appropriately vague. The case has been alternatively explained as free use in analogy to εἴκειν or χωρεῖν (Verrall), as instrumental (Owen), or as a dative of agent (Diggle’s translation above). The first ignores the passive character of φεύγω (Hdt. 4.125.4 φεύγοντας ὑπὸ Σκυθέων, Pl. Ap. 19C; cf. 1157) and smacks of desperation; the last ignores that in Euripides’ time the so-called ‘dative of agent’ was rather one of interest (George (2005) 79– 81). The latest attempt by White (2000) 65, who understands ‘Helios makes the stars flee from the aether,’ violates the Greek without producing sense. Pace Diggle, no allusions to pre-Socratic philosophy should be read into this passage (cf. Egli (2003) 119–20). It is common to describe the sun as the light of the aether without any philosophical implications: e.g. Phoen. 809, Soph. Ant. 415–6 ἐν αἰθέρι μέσωι κατέστη λαμπρὸς ἡλίου κύκλος. The genitive αἰθέρος denotes the area where the fire, i.e. the sun or the daylight, appears (or generally their close connection: K-G I 333–4). αἰθήρ in the meaning ‘sky’ is firmly founded in poetic tradition (West on Hes. Th. 697) and adopted by some philosophers (e.g. Xenophanes 21 B 30). By contrast, if the aether itself were fiery (epexegetic genitive; Heraclitus: Kirk et al. (1983) 198; Empedocles: O’Brien (1969) 291–2; but not Anaxagoras: Kingsley (1995)) the sun would play no role in the stars’ flight. 85 ἐς νύχθ’ ἱεράν: Androm. fr. 114 ὦ νὺξ ἱερά (=Ar. Thesm. 1065), Stesich. F 8a ἱαρᾶς ποτὶ βένθεα νυκτὸς ἐρεμνᾶς, Aesch. Heliad. fr. 69. Night is venerable, in particular as one of the prime constituents of the cosmos (e.g. Hom. Il. 14.259 Νὺξ δμήτειρα θεῶν, Hes. Th. 123 cf. Kirk et al. (1983) 17–20). The idea that one goes ‘to Nyx’ derives from a cosmogonic model in which Νυκτὸς ἐρεμνῆς οἰκία δεινά (Hes. Th. [744]) are located beneath the earth, irrespective of the time of day. 86 Παρνασσιάδες δ’ ἄβατοι κορυφαὶ: Euripides treats topographical details with some liberty (if not ignorance), blurring the Phaedriades – the rocks above Delphi – with the summits of Parnassus. All Ion could see from the temple platform are the twin peaks above him: cf. Soph. Ant. 1126, J. Schmidt (1949) 1595–1603, McInerney (1999) 40–6, 63–4. But they ‘do not catch the morning sun until well after sunrise’ (Lee), and the epithet is

154

Commentary

difficult: ἄβατοι means they are hard to climb or forbidden territory (Verrall, Owen). Neither interpretation seems to apply to the Phaedriades: the way to the Corycian cave passes one of these peaks (cf. Plut. Mor. 394F), and the Phaedriades were the place of rites (550, 716–7, 1125, McInerney (1997)), not closed off. Instead, other elevations of Parnassus meet the description on both counts, if we believe Pausanias 10.32.7: ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ Κωρυκίου χαλεπὸν ἤδη καὶ ἀνδρὶ εὐζώνωι πρὸς τὰ ἄκρα ἀφικέσθαι τοῦ Παρνασσοῦ· τὰ δὲ νεφῶν τέ ἐστιν ἀνωτέρω τὰ ἄκρα καὶ αἱ Θυιάδες (cf. 714n) ἐπὶ τούτοις τῶι Διονύσωι καὶ τῶι Ἀπόλλωνι μαίνονται. These must be Liakoura (2457m) and Gierontovrachos (2367m), the highest summits of Parnassus, or the Palaiovouna, the mountain of the Corycian cave (1644m, about 6km from Delphi). Strabo (9.3.1) reports that the entire Parnassus was regarded as sacred, and most of all the Corycian cave. Possibly the same confusion of Phaedriades and Parnassus can be found in Phoen., with 226–8 ὦ λάμπουσα πέτρα πυρὸς δικορύφων σέλας ὑπὲρ ἄκρων βακχεῖον Διονύσου against νιφόβολος (206, 234). Παρνησιάδες (L) is the result of a frequent (e.g. Andr. 1100) confusion with the Attic Mount Parnes. Parnassos is spelt with -σσ-: cf. Eust. in Od. 1872.52–3 (II 212.25–6 Stallbaum), Hdn. Gramm.Gr. 3.1 209.20–1 (=Pros. Cath. 8); cf. Mastronarde (1988) XXIII §20.2); with the long α of the local dialect e.g. [1267], Herc. 240, Thuc. 3.95.1, Philochorus 328 F 195; the exception is Aeschylus: cf. Björck (1950) 58. 87 ἡμερινὴν: L offers unmetrical ἡμέραν (and the gloss πραεῖαν in the margin). The choice is difficult between ἡμερίαν (Canter) and ἡμερινήν (Blaydes (1901) 173). ἡμερινός is not securely attested in pre-Hellenistic poetry (Carmen aureum 41, then Arat. Phaen. 1.851). However, it is used in a suitable context and with the right meaning in Pl. Rep. 508C τὸ ἡμερινὸν φῶς; analogous formations occur in Euripides: ἠρινός Hipp. 77, ὀπωρινός fr. 896. By contrast, as Musso (1985a) observes, ἡμέριος means ‘of one day, ephemeral’, not ‘of the day’, though cf. 123 παναμέριος, 1050 μεθαμερίων against μεθημερινός in Plato Tim. 45C et al. Mss can vary between the two words (Arat. loc.cit., Ar. Nub. 163). 88 ἁψῖδα: The noun is used early on for a felloe in place of the entire wheel (West on Hes. Op. 426; cf. Pha. 169) and here the ‘orb of the sun’ (Badham). The original meaning is a wide ‘mesh’ (cf. Kretschmer (1920) 233: ‘Ver­­schlingung, Gefüge’). Ion blurs Helios and his cart (cf. also 123n on the wings), which corresponds with the ‘shining chariot’ of 82 (cf. Ar. Thesm. 17 ἡλίου τροχῶι; ‘Euripides’ is speaking).



1–183 Prologue

155

89–93 Ion spurs on his company by making them envisage the oracle up and running, with only themselves as missing: The description starts from what is visible moving to something hidden inside the temple (the Pythia is awaiting the visitors). 91–3 gives a description of Delphi from the human point of view, corresponding with Hermes’ (5–7): the Pythia sits on the tripod as Apollo on the omphalos; she sings Apollo’s responses, while for Hermes Apollo sings himself. Later she will intervene on his behalf (cf. 1320–[68] n). 89 σμύρνης δ’ ἀνύδρου: Ion probably highlights the paradoxical exotic character of myrrh: it is dry, although it has waterlike qualities that are frequently alluded to in metaphors with liquids (sweat in 1175, drops in Soph. Laoc. fr. 370 βωμὸς ἀτμίζων πυρὶ σμύρνης σταλαγμούς, tears in Diosc. MM 1.64). Wilamowitz notes that Dioscorides (loc.cit.) distinguishes between ἀλιπής and λιπαρά myrrh, but the dry myrrh is there judged to be inferior, and it is implausible that Ion is making a negative comment. In Pha. 55–8 the housemaids’ sweeping the house and burning incense is decribed in language similarly dignified to Ion’s. Myrrh is appreciated for its aromatic and purifying (R. Parker (1983) 228) qualities: Sappho fr. 44, Theophr. HP 9.4.1–10, Pliny NH 12.70; cf. Pfister (1914) 278–85, Groom (1981) 1–21, Dalby (2000) 117–20. Plutarch, however, denies that it was used in Delphi (Mor. 397A), and the eternal fire in the temple was fed with pine and laurel only (385C). 89–90 εἰς ὀρόφους Φοίβου: effectively ‘upwards near the temple’, indicating current ritual activity. Not too much must be read into this, e.g. that the temple had an open roof (so Roux (1991) 300–1; but cf. Or. 1542 on smoke from inside the house): a hint to the eternal fire inside the temple (Plut. Mor. 385C) would be pointless, as it could not serve as an indicator of the time. If to anything specific, the formulation could be a reference to preparatory rites for the official blood-sacrifice (419–20). 90 πέτεται: of smoke or dust e.g. Aesch. Suppl. 783, Hom. Od. 11.208 (a shade). The transmitted Doric and Aeolic form πέταται (e.g. Sappho fr. 21.8, Pind. P. 8.90) is condemned by Atticists. The instances in mss of Attic drama are scribal errors, except Eubulus PCG 106.17, where it may serve a stylistic purpose: cf. Hunter ad loc. (=107.18). 91 θάσσει: The scene is invisible but known from pictures, e.g. Berlin Mus. 2538, Athens 440–30. 91–2 γυνὴ ... Δελφίς: The reference seems strangely frigid, given Ion’s attachment to the Pythia, as shown later. He highlights what she has in com-

156

Commentary

mon with the temple officials (94): being from Delphi (cf. 1323) seems to have been the only requirement for the office (Plut. Mor. 405C). 92 Ἕλλησι: The Greeks perceived Delphi as their oracle (Aesch. Eum. 31, Hom.Hym. 3.247–53), despite the veneration paid by foreigners: cf. Hdt. 1.14.1, 50–1. 92–3 βοάς, ἃς ἂν Ἀπόλλων κελαδήσηι: Apollo sings through the Pythia (6, Ba. 300–1). That the Pythia produced ‘frenzied utterances’ (Bayfield) caused by the vapours from the ground is fiction: cf. 76n. βοή can refer to a song (El. 879; of the Muses: Pind. P. 1.13, of instruments: Hom. Il. 18.495; cf. Soph. Trach. 640 καλλιβόας). κελαδέω as a poetic sound-word picks up the notion of loud singing: cf. Herc. 678–9, Pind. P. 2.62–3 εὐανθέα δ’ ἀναβάσομαι στόλον ἀμφ’ ἀρετᾶι κελαδέων. 94–101 Ion’s request to the temple officials to go to the Castalia before their service shows his great concern about the oracle’s purity. His piety will become a leitmotif; it influences his demeanour and ultimately the plot (esp. 1190–3). Nothing indicates that we see the men come back (despite 96; the entrance to the Delphic oracle seems to remain unrealistically empty throughout the play). However, Ion’s explanation in 413–16 suggests that they direct proceedings in the adyton and possibly instruct the inquirer, but also pronounce the response to him – either explanation matches the emphasis on their acts of speaking in 98–101. If we take Delphic reality as a criterion, Euripides here and in 413–16 blurs into one the ἱερεῖς/προφῆται and the five ὅσιοι from noble local families. The best information we have about the latter is Plut. Mor. 292D τὰ πολλὰ μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν δρῶσιν οὗτοι καὶ συνιερουργοῦσιν, ἅτε γεγονέναι δοκοῦντες ἀπὸ Δευκαλίωνος (cf. 437A, 438B; Roux (1976) 59–63). The plurals in 414–16 may be generalising (Hdt. 8.36.2–37.1 and Plut. Mor 438B speak of one προφήτης), but the inscriptions often mention ἱερεῖς, possibly the same people: cf. Parke (1940) 87–8. If the Pythia issued the oracles herself (cf. 99n), their duties are likewise unclear. 94  Φοίβου Δελφοὶ θέραπες: Delphic origin is mentioned as a mark of honour – Ion is also a θεράπων (111), but a slave: cf. Mikalson (1991) 200 with 298 n.232. θέραπες (for θεράποντες) only occurs in the nominative/vocative plural in classical times: Suppl. 762, Ion IEG2 27. 95 Κασταλίας: The Castalia of Euripides’ time was a fountain with four spouts but no basin, located outside the sanctuary in the middle of the ancient town, below the gorge of the Phaedriades (Strabo 9.3.3; cf. Glaser (1983) 97, 180 and fig. 184). The temple personnel washed or sprinkled



1–183 Prologue

157

themselves there (cf. e.g. LSCG 55.3–5, Phoen. 222–5 with schol.), and Lucian (Jup.Trag. (21) 30) speaks of it as a source of inspiration, but the Pythia drank from the Cissotis spring in the adyton (Paus. 10.24.7); cf. Amandry (1950) 135–7. 95–6 ἀργυροειδεῖς ... δίνας: imitated in IA [752] and deriving from epic ἀργυροδίνης, which became a standing epithet of Achelous, the father of Castalia, (Hes. Th. 340, Panyassis PEG F 2). The movement of the water from the gushing spring makes it white/silver, in contrast to stagnant water, which is called black. 98–101 ‘Watch your proper pure mouths so as to give proper responses from your own tongues to those wishing to consult the oracle.’ In asking the men to preserve εὐφημία Ion treats the temple officials as they do the inquirers: τῶι μὲν εἰς τὸ χρηστήριον ἐνταῦθα κατιόντι παρεγγυῶμεν ὅσια φρονεῖν, εὔφημα λέγειν (Plut. Mor. 378C). Unpropitious language during prayers and sacrifices mars their effect (cf. 1189–90, Soph. Phil. 9–10, Thuc. 3.23.1, LSCG 65.39, 151.A31; in Delphi Andr. 1144, Plut. Mor. 378C) – the purification at Castalia would become ineffective (cf. Aesch. Eum. 287–8, Suppl. 694–7). The preoccupation with purity of mouth and language is commonly Greek, but Ion is particularly scrupulous (cf. Hoffer (1996) 293–4), and this becomes relevant when it later saves his life (1190–2). Several elements of the text have been questioned, although the only necessary changes to the paradosis are the deletion of 99 τε and the reinterpretation of ἀποφαίνειν to ἄπο φαίνειν. φρουρεῖτε is the main verb and governs φαίνειν. 98 ἀγαθόν: The mouth remains ‘good’ inasmuch as it remains innocent of unpropitious words. The combination of στόμα with two adjectives is thus not ‘insipid style’ (Diggle (1981a) 10), because the adjectives are not coordinated: στόμα εὔφημον is one single phrase in Ba. 70 and Aesch. Ag. 1247 and can hence take another descriptor. Ar. Av. 1719 ἀνοίγειν ἱερὸν εὔφημον στόμα should be taken in the same way. In this way the two forms of ἀγαθόs (in 98 and 99) are parallel. 99 φήμας: Both here and in 413 (προφητεύει) the men are said to pass on the oracular responses to the inquirers, in terms similar to those used of the birds (180–1). The φῆμαι cannot be private conversations during the oracular procedure by which the officials defile themselves (so Badham, Lee), for the inquirers mentioned in 100 would not be interested in these. Other evidence suggests that the Pythia gave responses directly to the inquirer (Amandry (1950) 120–2, Maurizio (1995), Connelly (2007) 73–4, Flower (2008) 215–22; cf. Mel.Desm. fr. 494.13–5 ἐν Φοίβου τε γὰρ δόμοις

158

Commentary

προφητεύουσι Λοξίου φρένα γυναῖκες), but the idea that an intermediator (versifies and) communicates the Pythia’s words is not unknown (Strabo 9.3.5; cf. Parke (1940) 85–6). [τ᾿]: The connector may have been inserted as a result of the wrong interpretation of (ἀπο-)φαίνειν as having the force of an imperative (cf. the consequential error μαντεύεσθε in Ls.l.). 101 ἰδίας: ‘your own’, contrasting the mortal tongues and the divine messages that are in danger of being defiled. Suspicions about the text are unfounded: cf. Herond. 5.37 ἂ δ’ αὐτὸς εἶπας ἄρτι τῆι ἰδίηι γλάσσηι, Call. Ep. 56 νίκης ... ἰδίης, Dem. 21.52 (considered spurious), Joh.Chrys. Prooem in Psalm. 532 ἐμμέτρως κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τὸ ἴδιον τῆς ἰδίας γλώσσης. φαίνειν: Both the consequence and the purpose of their mouths remaining εὔφημα is that their φῆμαι will be undefiled, so the infinitive is consecutive or final. Epexegetic infinitive (so Diggle (1981a) 10, keeping L’s ἀποφαίνειν) would mean that they watch their words while speaking with inquirers. But Ion only cares about the preparations; they know best what to do or say in the temple (cf. 414). Diggle p. 11 states that the instances of infinitivus pro imperativo in Euripides are negligible (Tro. 422, Or. 624) and do not warrant the interpretation of (ἀπο-)φαίνειν as main verb. ἀποφαίνειν, the text of L, is unlikely: with φήμας in the meaning ‘oracle’ a possessive genitive γλώσσης makes little sense; a separative genitive with ἀποφαίνω is not attested, and the verb is rare in tragedy (in Euripides only Suppl. 335). By contrast, ἀπὸ γλώσσης is a common phrase in connection with various utterances (e.g. Ba. 1049, fr. 1044 ἀπὸ γλώσσης λόγον). For φήμας φαίνω cf. Soph. OT 473–5 ἔλαμψε γὰρ τοῦ νιφόεντος ἀρτίως φανεῖσα φήμα Παρνασσοῦ, Hdt. 1.116.5 ἔφαινε τὸν ἐόντα λόγον. 102–11 In stating his own tasks Ion explains his devotion: that Apollo has taken the nurturing role of a parent. The opening words may be said within earshot of the temple officials, but the content becomes purely introspective as they move away, and by 109 Ion is talking only to himself. The three tasks he outlines (sweeping, sprinkling, shooing birds) will be taken up in the same order in the lyric part (112–45, 146–53, 154–78). 102 πόνους: The accusative stands in apposition to the sentence, putting the specific actions in the context of his life; cf. 506, Rijksbaron 6–7 on Ba. 9. Sweeping and sprinkling the floor are typical slaves’ chores: cf. Hyps. fr. 752f.16–18 πότερα δώματος εἰσόδους σαίρεις, ἢ δρόσον ἐπὶ πέδωι βάλλεις οἷά τε δούλα, Cycl. 29–35, Andr. 166–7, Hec. 363, Pha. 54–6, Dem. 18.258 τὸ παιδαγωγεῖον κορῶν, οἰκέτου τάξιν, οὐκ ἐλευθέρου παιδὸς ἔχων.



1–183 Prologue

159

ἐκ παιδὸς: While Hermes gives Ion an idealised easy childhood (cf. 52–6n), Ion himself emphasises its burdensomeness. 103 δάφνης: The laurel is not just Apollo’s own plant but also the most sacred of trees and a powerful purifier: cf. R. Parker (1983) 228–9. 104–7 Sweeping and sprinkling are part of both cleaning the house (102n) and ritual cleansing (Hom. Od. 20.149–50, Verg. Aen. 6.229–30 idem ter socios pura circumtulit unda spargens rore leui et ramo felicis oliuae). Religious and household activities thus differ in attitude and details rather than form (cf. R. Parker (1983) 227), and in Ion’s case they coincide. The connection of physical and ritual purity also explains Ion’s apprehensions when birds threaten to sully the sanctuary. 104 στέφεσίν θ’ ἱεροῖς: Fillets keep together the laurel boughs (cf. Aesch. Cho. 1035, Theocr. Id. 24.98 θαλλῶι ἐπιρραίνειν ἐστεμμένωι ἀβλαβὲς ὕδωρ). Both the choice of plant and the sacredness of the fillets (cf. 1310) underline that every element of Ion’s activities is designed to secure the greatest ritual purity. 107 βλάπτουσιν: Ion maintains decorum by not naming the cause of the damage and all but repeats the formulation in 177. The acidic droppings caused considerable damage to precincts by fouling buildings, statues, and other offerings: cf. Aesch. Supp. 654–5, Ar. Eq. 1092–3, Av. 515 (with Dunbar), Hor. Serm. 1.8.37–9 (private estates: Ar. Vesp. 394). Spikes and μηνίσκοι (disks or umbrellas) attached to statues’ heads for protection (cf. Jos. BJ 5.224, Maxmin (1975), R. Cook (1976)). 108–11 108 ἐμοῖς ... θήσομεν: For the change between singular and plural cf. 1250– 1, Hipp. 244, and outside Euripides Ar. Ran. 213. φυγάδας: Ion’s warnings (158–73) and the list of trapping devices, condiments, and ways of cooking in Ar. Av. 526–38 show that the birds’ fate was, in fact, not quite so lucky. 109 γὰρ: explaining the nature of and motivation for his activities: they are a form of service to Apollo (θεραπεύω) in return for his care (θρέψαντας). ἀμήτωρ ἀπάτωρ: While Hermes (49–50) stressed Ion’s ignorance, he himself hints at the social and psychological void that Apollo fills. Nussbaumer (1938) 22–3 (cf. Smereka II 180–2) counts 43 examples of alliterations of adjectives with α privative, a common way to convey a sense of deprivation and isolation. The language approximates the lyric style, and the homoeo-

160

Commentary

teleuton and semantic analogy intensify the effect: cf. Or. 310 ἀνάδελφος ἀπάτωρ ἄφιλος, Hom. Il. 9.63, Fehling (1969) 237–9, West (1988) 156. 110 θρέψαντας: Cf. OT 264–5 ἀνθ’ ὧν ἐγὼ τάδ’, ὡσπερεὶ τοὐμοῦ πατρός, ὑπερμαχοῦμαι. The irony that he speaks of his real father as surrogate father is used here for the first time in the play. Food, both that which Ion receives (52, 137, 183) and that which he does not (962, 1372), is a leitmotif in the play and linked with the issues of parenthood and rescue. 111 θεραπεύω: The notions both of reverence and of active service are relevant here: Ion honours the god and his temple, paying respect by caring about it: cf. Archilochus (IEG2 1), who is also a worshipper and and an active servant of Ares. 112–83 Metre: 112–27~128–43 112~128 ⏑‒⏑‒⏑⏑‒ ^wil 113~129 ‒⏒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ gl 114~130 ‒‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ wil 115~131 ‒‒⏑⏑‒‒‖ reiz 116~132 ‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ ^wil 117~133 ⏕⏓‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ wil 118~134 ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ dodr** pher 119~135 ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒‒‖ 120~136 ‒⏓‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ gl 121~137 ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ gl 123~139 ⏓‒⏑⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏔⏑⏑⏑⏑‒ gl ia 124~140 ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑  pher 125~141 126~142 127~143

‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2mol? ‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2mol? ‒‒‒‒‒‒  2mol?

144–83 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 150bis 151

‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒ ‖? an ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‖? an ‒⏑⏑‒‒‒ doch ‒⏑⏑‒‒‒ doch ⏑⏑⏑⏑‒‒‒ doch ⏑⏑⏑⏑‒‒‒‖? doch ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^



1–183 Prologue

152 153

‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒‒‒  2an

154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169

⏑⏑⏑‒ extra metrum ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ ‖? 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ ‖? 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ‒‒‒‒ ‖? an ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒⏑⏑‒‒ 2an ⏑⏑‒‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ 2an ⏑⏑‒‒‒ ‖? an ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒ ‖? an ‒‒⏑⏑‒‒‒⏑⏑⏑ ‖ 2an ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒  2an^

170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183

161

⏑⏑⏑‒ extra metrum ⏑⏑‒‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ 2an ‒⏑⏑‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ ‖? 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ ‖ 2an^ ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑ an ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒‒‒ 2an ‒‒‒‒‒ < > ‖? ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒‒ 2an^

This is the only Euripidean monody in which recitative anapaests (82–111) precede a strophic song. The lyric section combines strophic and astrophic systems (the closest parallel is PV 561–608; Or. 960–1011 is debated). The first part consists of standard aeolic cola, which are at the same time suitable for songs of plain people (cf. West (1982) 116) and common in 5th-cent. paeans (I. Rutherford (2001) 78), and in this way fuse two aspects of the song. Clausular cola at regular intervals indicate period ends.

162

Commentary

The astrophic lyric part follows the usual pattern of Euripidean Klagana­ päste (although the tenor is markedly different: cf. 82–183n) and includes few dochmiacs (148–50bis). The metrical form, esp. 150–bis, connects the song with Creusa’s monody. Period ends are hard to establish, except 167 and the end of the system in 153 (and 169 in analogy) – catalexis will not play a role given the frequency of 2an^ (cf. Dale (1968) 51). So period ends are marked here tentatively in the places where metre, syntax, and action suggest them. Hermann’s attempt at reconstruction of strophe and antistrophe for 154– 69~170–83 is futile and against Euripidean practice. However, some internal structures may be detectable in each section of the anapaestic part: 144–53 is tripartite, with anapaests framing a dochmiac sequence. 146–7 repeat the metre of 144–5 and are, moreover, parallel in content; 151–3 take up the movement from catalexis to full anapaests. 154–69 shows a structure of ABBBA, with 167–9 as a shortened reprise of 154–7. The movement of this frame is taken up in 170–2 and slightly altered in 173–5. 179–83 depart from the preceding patterns, just as the content changes and Ion ceases to perform his duty. 113–4~129–30: I separate cola with Murray and Diggle, against e.g. Oliveira Pulquério (1967) 117 and De Poli (2011) 176, who have colon and word group coincide with hippon ^wil. The hipponactean would, however, indicate period end, which is undesirable in this place. With the colometry as given, the first two periods start with similar movements: ^wil gl/wil (112–13~128–9 and 116–17~132–3). 117~133: The responsion pattern is unique in wilamowitziani and generally rare, but securely attested in other aeolic metres: cf. Itsumi (1984) 67–9. 123~139: The context suggests an extended glyconic (cf. 1055~1068, 1060~1073). Diggle (1994) 470–1 objects to resolution of the first element of the choriamb and interprets the colon as 3ia. But even without the contrary evidence collected in Itsumi (1984) 78 the decision would be one between anomalies, as the iambic trimeter without caesura would itself constitute an exception (Diggle p. 476 n.158). The parallels for Biehl’s kaibeliani (⏑‒‒⏑⏑‒) are from dochmiac and iambic, not aeolic contexts. 125–7~141–3: The ephymnium cannot be classified (L. Parker (1997) 58, West (1982) 55) but is in line with other hieratic invocations often interpreted as spondaics or molossians (e.g. Wilamowitz (1921) 371; cf. PMG 1027c, P.Berol. 6870v=GH 12.4). The ambiguity also allows interpretation as anapaestic tripody (cf. L. Parker p. 58, 471) in transition to the second section. 150–bis: repeated in 896 and 905, each time preceded by a double-drag dochmiac. The pattern of resolutions is not otherwise attested in Euripides



1–183 Prologue

163

(cf. Conomis (1964)) and against the rule whereby the ancipitia of dochmiacs must not be resolved. Given the way it emerges from the preceding lines with the same number of morae, the colon would still be understandable as a freak form of the dragged dochmiac (cf. Dale (1968) 59–60; cf. Soph. Phil. 832~848 following ‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒). L. Parker (1997) 68 interprets the colon as a hybrid of anapaests and dochmiacs, which also makes sense in the context but is more complicated. The interpretation as iambics (Diggle (1974) 22 n.1 = (1994) 117 n.80) seems unnecessary given the uniform dochmiac context in all the occurrences. 160–3: West (1982) 121–2 divides into three dimeters. Period end with a short pause before the entrance of the swan is preferable. 167: Period end without catalexis is paralleled in Hipp. 1372, IT 231: cf. West (1982) 121 n.106. The pause is justified by the end of the syntactic unit and a slight change of tone (Wilamowitz (1921) 368 n.2, Diggle (1981a) 97). 175: The hiatus may be accepted as sign of a pause, in analogy to 860 and Hec. 191; cf. Diggle (1981a) 95–6. 178: Dale (1968) 60 and L. Parker (1997) 57 believe that the verse is complete with a clausular dragged dochmiac, a metre hardly fitting into the quite consistent metrical system. 112–43 The ephymnium 125–7~141–3 associates this song with the paeanic genre (S. Schröder (1999) 46, Ford (2006) 286–7, Swift (2009a) 92), and hymnic elements occur throughout (Furley/Bremer II 309; cf. Norden (1913) 143– 58): 2nd-person address, relative predication of sanctity, anaphora, magniloquent praise, and specification of the sacred locality. For sacred labour mentioned in paeans cf. I. Rutherford (2001) 249. The song is a further sign of Ion’s embeddedness in Delphi: the typical cult song of Delphic Apollo permeates his work song, and he is so much in harmony with Delphi that the rites resonate in his utterances even when he is alone and busy in a menial role. The hymnic-paeanic form is ironic and comically incongruous: while the recipient of the praise is Apollo, the formal addressee is Ion’s broom (‘para-hymnic’: Furley/Bremer I 322–3). Another form of incongruity, between the monodic performance and the supposed spirit of the paean as enhancing group solidarity, has been read as ‘a symbol for isolation and alienation from the community of Athens’ (I. Rutherford (1994–1995) 130; cf. also Pace (2009)); but the interpretation of the paean as an expression of a community is too rigid (cf. Swift (2009a) 64–8), and Ion shows no feelings of isolation or deprivation.

164

Commentary

112–24 The strophe (excluding the ephymnium) consists only of the address to the broom and subordinate clauses. This technique and the absence of a request at the end are common in Euripides’ hymnic apostrophes (cf. 492–506 with n, 714–18), but cf. also Soph. Ant. 781–800 and Aristonous’ paean to Apollo (GH 2.4) 1–8. 112 ὦ νεηθαλὲς ὦ: double invocation: Cycl. 266, Alc. 460, Med. 989. The metre justifies L’s (or possibly Triclinius’) correction from νεοθαλές (La.c.; cf. IA 188) on the analogy of e.g. νεηκονής (Soph. Aj. 820). νεοθαλές with long α to produce responsion ^wil~tl (Santé (2004)) is unacceptable prosody. 113–14 καλλίστας ... δάφνας: ‘appositive’ genitive (K-G I 264: the laurel is the προπόλευμα) with equal distribution of the epithets. ἅ still refers to the broom, although in grammatical terms the antecedent is δάφνη. καλός fits the laurel: cf. Call. Iamb. 4.9, 46, Anyte AP 726 καλὰ δάφνας εὐθαλέα φύλλα, Stob. 4.15b.25. Hence, pace Breitenbach 185, this is not a double enallage, where two nouns take each other’s adjectives. 113 προπόλευμα: The broom is addressed as if it were a living being (for parallels cf. Schmid/Stählin I.3 799 n.2, Barrett (2007a)). The hapax is an abstract in place of a person (πρόπολος), parallel to δούλευμα (748, Breitenbach 178). 114 θυμέλαν: Ion is sweeping the altar and the floor around it: cf. 105, 121. θυμέλη here refers to the stage altar (186–bisn), not to the sanctuary (pace Gow (1912) 227): the singular is used only here in this play and less general than e.g. in 46. ὑπὸ ναοῖς ‘at the foot of the temple’ means in the courtyard, i.e. the play area: cf. 79, 129, Hom.Hym. 2.270 νηόν τε μέγαν καὶ βωμὸν ὑπ’ αὐτῶι. 116 κάπων ἐξ ἀθανάτων: There is no reason to see more in this than a general reference to the sanctuary. Pindar calls the precinct of Olympia κᾶπος (O. 3.24; cf. P. 9.53, Soph. fr. 956), and ἀθανάτων conveys the notions of both evergreen (appropriate for laurel and myrtle: cf. 118 ἀέναον; on fire Ba. 523, Plut. Mor. 385C) and sacred. Wieseler (1857) 685 and later Wilamowitz believed that this was an allusion to the Cassotis, a spring above the temple whence the water sank into the ground to reappear and inspire the prophetess in the temple (Paus. 10.24.7). The location of the source has not been identified (Bommelaer (1991) 205) and Pausanias does not suggest that it lay in a grove.



1–183 Prologue

165

117–20 The emendation ἀέναον (Diggle thinks this may have been in L before Triclinius changed to ἀένναον) is an unproblematic restoration of the correct metre. But further difficulties have been perceived: 1) the antistrophe shows that there is a gap in 118; 2) the separation by a participle phrase of the verb (τέγγουσ(ι)) and its object (φόβαν) seems too great; 3) it appears awkwardly phrased that the laurel comes from a myrtle grove. 1) remains without remedy. Triclinius’ τὰν ἀένναον (L is illegible) has influenced many conjectures, although it has no authority. Fix’s ῥυτάν (wrongly attributed by Wecklein also to Fritzsche, who opposes it: (1857) 18), based on the similarity to Hipp. 123–4 παγὰν ῥυτὰν προιεῖσα κρημνῶν, leaves the text without a genitive depending on ἐκπρο- (cf. Phoen. 214, 1678). 147 offers γαίας παγάν, which (given our lack of knowledge about the topography) is as good a guess as any. The other two problems are interrelated; in the end no change is needed. Separation of the object from its verb is not without parallel (Breitenbach 259–60): cf. IA 1063–6 παῖδά σε Θεσσαλίαι μέγα φῶς μάντις ὁ φοιβάδα μοῦσαν εἰδὼς γεννάσειν Χείρων ἐξονόμαζεν; and the problem of the laurel in the myrtle grove is one of overly rigid logic: to show that two sacred plants grow in the garden, Ion’s formulation is sufficient and poetic enough – and the image of the watered myrtle garden may be a cliché (cf. El. 777–8). Those who reject ‘myrtle’ as sole object of τέγγουσ(ι) or accept that it is too far away from the verb need an additional object. Paley’s ἃν δρόσοι (1858), combined with Hermann’s μυρσίνας ἱερὰν φόβαν, produces a nearly impeccable solution, except that the relatives of 114 and 121 refer to the particular bough, his ἅν to sacred laurel in general. 117 δρόσοι: in tragedy transferred from dew to pure water, especially in lustral contexts (e.g. 1194, IT 1191–2). On the ritual uses of water cf. Eitrem (1915) 78–98. Theophr. Hist.Plant. 2.7.3 notes that myrtle and laurel are among the plants which need to be watered the most. 120 μυρσίνας: There is considerable demand of myrtle and laurel in the sanctuary, and it is plausible that the two grow together: while laurel wreaths are reserved for gods, myrtle is worn by gods and mortals alike (Kunze-Götte (2006) 39–40). Both are sometimes used together in smoke sacrifices, e.g. Ar. Thesm. 37, Plin. NH 15.120 (in the context of prophecy), though not included by Plutarch in the list of plants burnt by the Pythia (Mor. 397A); cf. Eitrem (1915) 208–10. φόβαν: lit. ‘hair’, but from Pindar (Dith. fr. 75.17) used for leaves: cf. Alc. 172, Ba. 684.

166

Commentary

121–4 Meanwhile Ion seems to have finished with the altar (114 θυμέλαν) and is now sweeping the floor (δάπεδον). The triple indication of time (all day long, from early in the morning, every day) stresses the amount of time Ion spends on his work, adding to the terms of hardship (λατρεύω, πόνος). 121 σαίρω: For insignificant repetition cf. θήσομεν 105, 108: Hübner’s change to ψαίρω (1983) is unnecessary. 123 παναμέριος: ‘all day long’, or more specifically ‘until the end of the day’: Hipp. 369, otherwise epic (e.g. Hom. Il. 1.472; cf. the mock-epic hexameter Cratinus PCG 149; πανήμερος in PV 1024). ἅμ’ ἁλίου πτέρυγι θοᾶι: poetic periphrasis for ἅμ᾿ ἡλίωι (cf. 41), complementing παναμέριος to state that Ion works from sunrise to sunset. Euripides uses ‘winged’ to describe both the day (Tro. 848–50 τὸ τᾶς δὲ λευκοπτέρου φίλιον Ἁμέρας βροτοῖς φέγγος; cf. Nyx in Or. 176, Pauer (1935) 141) and the chariot of the sun (Pha. 173 πτεροφόρων ὀχημάτων). The wings are really the horses’ (cf. 202, El. 466, in art e.g. LIMC Helios 11, Athens c. 480). 124 λατρεύων: Pace Meunier (1928) 221–4 the participle ought to be understood as defining everything that makes up Ion’s service, not just his sweeping: the three temporal expressions define Ion’s service in general rather than σαίρω alone. τὸ κατ’ ἦμαρ: ‘day by day’: El. 183 (with additional emphasis on daytime), Ba. 910, Soph. Phil. 1089. 125–7~141–3 On the ephymnium, the refrain of the paean including the cult-cry, cf. I. Rutherford (2001) 69–72: e.g. Philodamos Dion. (GH 2.5) Ἰὲ Παιάν, ἴθι σωτήρ, εὔφρων τάνδε πόλιν φύλασσ’ εὐαίωνι σὺν ὄλβωι. ἰή and Παιάν are distinctive genre markers: cf. Soph. Phil. 832, P.Berol. 6870 (GH 12.4), S. Schröder (1999) 50–1, 53; Formally, therefore, the song does not seem to lack any element of a full paean (pace S. Schröder p. 46). Anadiplosis is typical of ritual chants (Furley/Bremer II 311) but not alien to (in particular later) Euripidean lyric either: cf. Breitenbach 219–20, Ar. Ran. 1351–5. 126~142 εὐαίων: Cf. Soph. Phil. 829–30 εὐαὴς ἡμῖν ἔλθοις, εὐαίων, εὐαίων, Philodamos (above). The word means ‘of good life’, neutral as regards the grammatical voice (cf. Aesch. Pers. 711 βίοτον εὐαίωνα, 701n): here the active force prevails: ‘giving good life’ (schol. Soph. Phil. 829), as in Soph. Ter. (?) fr. 592 τὸν εὐαίωνα πλοῦτον.



1–183 Prologue

167

128–40 Ion muses over the positive side of his specific duty: it is pure (εὐφάμους), brings him close to the gods, and elevates his status (κλεινός). He vows to continue his service and, in dramatic irony, praises as his father the god who sustains him. 128 καλόν γε: Ion qualifies the description of 121–4, defining the potentially negative λατρεύων as an honourable activity (as 133): cf. e.g. Hel. 1633 with Kannicht. The resulting paradox καλὸς πόνος (cf. Pind. N. 3.12 χαρίεις πόνος) pervades the entire monody. 131 κλεινὸς: The discrepancy between Ion’s evaluation of his role and its menial character becomes obvious if compared with the epitaph of the noble Athenian priestess Lysimache (IG II2 3464.9–13, 3rd cent.): σεμνὴ δέ με μοῖρα ἤγαγεν εἰς ναὸν περικαλλέα Παλλάδος ἁγνῆς οὗ πόνον οὐκ ἀκλεᾶ τόνδε ἐλάτρευσα θεᾶι. 132–3 θεοῖσιν ... οὐ θνατοῖς ἀλλ’ ἀθανάτοις: The artificial phrasing with a tautology in paronomastic antithesis (Breitenbach 228 and 235–6) shows that Ion feels himself and his work distinguished by the majesty of his ‘master’. 134 εὐφάμους: roughly ‘taking place away from unsacred bustle and noise’; cf. Andr. 1144, Aisch. Ag. 636–7. The context and the other uses of -φημ- in this song guarantee a religious connotation. ‘[A]ccompanied by pious song’ (Wecklein, Furley/Bremer II 311) may be too narrow: the term should have negative force, denoting what the work is not accompanied by. Cf. Andr. 1144 κραυγὴ δ’ ἐν εὐφήμοισι δύσφημος δόμοις (on Delphi), Gödde (2011) 58–9, 241, and, on the relationship of paean and εὐφημία, 100 n.15. The dative εὐφάμοις δὲ πόνοις in L (Bayfield: modal dative) can be dismissed. The internal accusative (Porson apud Monk on Hipp. 301) is necessary as bearing the emphasis: only this kind of labour will Ion not tired from. 135 ἀποκάμνω: Participle construction (‘to tire while/by doing sth.’) is common, but infinitive can be used (Pl. Cri. 45B) for ‘to become tired of doing sth.’: cf. K-G II 75. 136–40 The train of thought runs as follows: 137 explains why Ion pronounces 136 (‘ I praise the one who nourishes me.’ Cf. Denniston 60); 139 explains the use of the word ‘father’, and 140 specifies the individual. Thus δέ in 139 continues the explanatory γάρ (taking the role of the second premise; cf. Phoen. 1600–3). The direct address to Apollo as biological father establishes a new level of irony, strengthened by the ple-

168

Commentary

onasm γενέτωρ πατήρ (on the literal level intensifying Ion’s expression of gratitude). 137–9: ‘For I am praising the one who nourishes me; the one who is good to me I call father.’ Commentators have taken surprising pains over these lines. Ion justifies calling Apollo γενέτωρ πατήρ by pointing out the good he has received from him (ὠφέλιμος being equivalent to ὁ βόσκων): the specific benefactor, the master of the sanctuary where Ion lives (κατὰ ναόν), takes the place of the unknown biological father. πατέρος ὄνομα λέγω is ‘I call (by the name of) “father”’, as in Pl. Crat. 404C λέγοις τὸ τῆς Ἥρας ὄνομα ‘you say “Hera”’: cf. Antiope fr. 223.112. Musgrave changed to τὸ δ᾿ ὠφέλιμον and offers the clumsy translation ‘patris nomen tribuo utilitati quam ex Phoebo templi incola percipio’ (with 139 Φοίβου τοῦ; cf. Badham: ‘I call by the name of father the kindness of Phoebus who dwells in the temple’). τό depersonalises the expression of gratitude and weakens the connection with 137. 140 Φοῖβον τὸν: an explanatory apposition to τὸν βόσκοντα/ὠφέλιμον. L (Φοίβου τοῦ) has assimilated it to πατέρος. The mistake is easy to make but ruins the whole point that Ion uses ‘father’ only as an honorary title for Apollo, but in reality he is Ion’s father. 144–83 The start of the next chore comes with the change to astrophic Klaganapäste, prominent in Euripides’ works of the second half of the 410s (Tro., IT, but already Hec.). The emotionality of other anapaestic monodies is here replaced by mimetic action. The sprinkling and in particular the shooing of birds is likely to have been enacted in a dance: ps.-Demetr. De Eloc. 195 κινήσεις πολλὰς παρέχει τῶι ὑποκριτῆι ὁ ἐπὶ τὰ τόξα δρόμος καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα ἀνάβλεψις τοῦ προσώπου διαλεγομένου τῶι κύκνωι, καὶ ἡ λοιπὴ πᾶσα διαμόρφωσις, CIL V.2 5889 (ch. 6A). 144 ἀλλ’ ... γὰρ: breaking off (Denniston 102–3) the first task and marking the start of the second. 145 ὁλκοῖς: a dative of advantage (cf. Hel. 1337–8 ἔπαυσ’ εἰλαπίνας θεοῖς βροτείωι τε γένει), with δάφνας ὁλκοῖς in the sense of δάφνηι ἑλκομένηι: cf. Phoen. 307 παρηίδων τ’ ὄρεγμα, Breitenbach 202. A dative of respect (Verrall) after (ἐκ-)παύω has no parallels, and ἐκπαύομαι μόχθων would be more appropriate in that case. ὁλκός as nomen actionis occurs here first, then probably Antiphanes PCG 234.3–4 ἕλκουσι γνάθοις ὁλκοῖς ἀπαύστοις, Nicand. Ther. 166; in Hdt 2.154 and Ar. Thesm. 779 it means visible strokes, i.e. lines.



1–183 Prologue

169

146 χρυσέων δ’ ἐκ τευχέων: Golden vessels are a manifestation of splendour and great wealth (434–5, 1175, IT 168–9; in a private context Andr. 166–7, Pind. O. 7.4; cf. Pritchard (1999)) and to be expected in Delphi, where they were put to practical use (Hdt. 1.51.2). For other precious metal in sanctuaries cf. Gill/Vickers (1994) 43–6. On the leitmotif use in Ion of gold imagery, especially with reference to Delphi and Apollo, cf. Thorburn (2000). Gold is another purifier and thus strengthens the ideas already expressed in connection with light, laurel, and water: cf. R. Parker (1983) 228. 149 Κασταλίας δῖναι: There is some inconsistency in the fact that Ion’s vessel is filled with water from Castalia, even though he enters from a different direction (434–6 offers no further help). Possibly any water in the sanctuary could be imagined as coming from Castalia. 150bis ὅσιος ἀπ’ εὐνᾶς ὤν: ‘pure, as I stay away from sexual union’: ὅσιος takes the participle (Or. 546–7 ἀνόσιος μητέρα κτανών); for the meaning of the preposition cf. Hom. Il. 2.292 ἕνα μῆνα μένων ἀπὸ ἧς ἀλόχοιο. The construction of ὅσιος with ἀπό (Lee) would be without parallel (contrast Hipp. 1003 ἁγνὸν λέχους, Aesch. Sept. 1010). The idea of purity forms the link between the sacred water and the specific disposition enabling Ion to perform his service properly. Physical purity and sexual abstinence contrast with the approaching birds, the latter also to Apollo (440). Ion’s permanent chastity goes beyond what would be expected from a priest: with few exceptions priests were chaste during certain periods only or for the limited tenure of office, and priestesses served in chastity either before or after a sexual life; cf. Fehrle (1910) esp. 162, R. Parker (1983) 86–91, M. Dillon (2002) 77–8, Connelly (2007) 39–41. The situation of temple slaves is unclear, but Ion’s dedication is probably meant to appear extreme. 151–3 Ion’s reluctance to give up Delphi is consistent with his attitude in 585–646 and shows awareness of the harmony between Delphi and himself. Immediately after Ion’s expressed wish that his life remain as it is, he reacts strongly when the birds seem to threaten the stability and order of the sanctuary; but he also unwittingly predicts his imminent future good fate. 153 ἀγαθᾶι μοίραι: equivalent to the common formula ἀγαθῆι τύχηι: cf. Pl. Cri. 43D, Men. Dysc. 422. So this is not the unconscious ambition of the scion of Erechtheus, which Wilamowitz supposes is surfacing here, but rather another pious gesture: a euphemistic precaution which signals his submission to any plans the god may have for him.

170

Commentary

154–83 In the last of Ion’s labours, the first two birds he protects the temple from are named as an eagle and a swan (the birds of Zeus and Apollo respectively); the last one remains unidentified. The space given to each bird increases, while their aggressiveness decreases. They mark the stages of Ion’s life: the threat of being killed by the claws of birds of prey (159 and 1495), the protection by Apollo, and the imminent arrival of the mother (172). This symbolism (detailed by Giraud (1987)) at this point in the play requires partly detailed knowledge of what is to come. There is no evidence as to whether the birds appeared on the scene, and there is no similar scene in extant tragedy. The experts on stagecraft unanimously reject the idea of naturalistic play: e.g. Taplin (1977) 34 contra Ruck (1976) 250. 154 ἔα ἔα: The interjection signals surprise at a sudden arrival or appearance: e.g. Herc. 815, Ba. 645; cf. Perdicoyianni-Paléologue (2002) 73, Nordgren (2015) 218–19. 155 Παρνασσοῦ: On the spelling cf. 86n. The existence of large bird populations around Delphi is confirmed by Aesch. Eum. 23, where the Pythia mentions the φίλορνις Corycian cave above Delphi; for birds in the sanctuary cf. 1197–8. 156 θριγκοῖς: a favourite term of Euripides, extending the narrow technical meaning ‘top of a wall’ or ‘cornice’ (cf. Jannoray (1940) 39) to the entire superstructure (Stieber (2011) 48–53 with detailed discussion). The birds may nest outside as well as inside the peristyle (i.e. in the χρυσήρεις οἶκοι). Wilamowitz prefers θριγκούς (taken ἀπὸ κοινοῦ to depend on εἰς) to the inconcinnity. Palaeographically the difference is negligible, and both phenomena have parallels in Euripides (Suppl. 368, Phoen. 823–4, Breitenbach 209–10; on this type of ἀπὸ κοινοῦ cf. Kiefner (1964) 27–9, 97). The same problem arises in Soph. OC 936 τῶι νῶι (mss plurimi, τοῦ νοῦ Meineke) θ’ ὁμοίως κἀπὸ τῆς γλώσσης, where recent editions disagree. Normalisation by a scribe is conceivable but not necessary. 157 χρυσήρεις οἴκους: Cf. IT 129 ναῶν χρυσήρεις θριγκούς. 158–60 The eagle is only briefly mentioned. Both its association with Zeus and the mention of the claws evoke its power and superiority. The claws also connote violence, with which Ion himself now threatens the bird. 158 αὖ: ‘in turn’: Ion has not killed this kind of bird before (so Wilamowitz) but announces that he will retaliate for the eagle’s transgressions against the temple or against others. The idea of reciprocity is stressed by the applica-



1–183 Prologue

171

tion to Ion of μάρπτω, the proper word for the eagle’s clawing: cf. Ar. Eq. 197–8 ὁπόταν μάρψηι βυρσαίετος ἀγκυλοχήλης γαμφηλῆισι δράκοντα. 159–60 ὀρνίθων γαμφηλαῖς ἰσχὺν νικῶν: The eagle both preys on other birds and is their king (Pind. O. 13.21; Hom. Il. 8.247 τελειότατον πετεηνῶν); cf. W.G. Arnott (2007) 2–4. 161–9 The swan is Apollo’s sacred bird since Alcaeus fr. 307.1c and Sappho fr. 208; cf. e.g. LIMC Apollon 342–4 (Athens 480–375). Ion threatens to kill it and tells it to fly off to Delos, Apollo’s second great sanctuary, which – in contrast to Delphi – is inhabited by swans (167n). M. Lloyd (1986) 36 n.18 links the shooing of the birds with the ἀποπομπή, a ritual in which a malevolent power is driven away by directing it to alternative places: cf. Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 1573 pointing to Theogn. IEG2 351–4, Hel. 360–1; in Fraenkel’s examples no specific places are named, so 167 may depart from the traditional form. A number of colloquial expressions show Ion in an agitated, irritable mood. 161 ὅδε ... ἄλλος ... κύκνος: ‘there ... another one, a swan’: cf. 1532, Soph. El. 708. ἐρέσσει: For the ‘rowing’ bird cf. IT 289, Aesch. Ag. 52. W.G. Arnott (1977) 151 reports from his own experience that ‘the powerful wing-beats of the mute swan produce a loud musical throb.’ Thus not only the movement but also the sound (cf. Aesch. Suppl. 723 λαῖφος παγκρότως ἐρέσσεται) may be evoked by the verb. The rhythm, breaking the predominance of spondees, may likewise draw attention to the sound. 162 φοινικοφαῆ: The significance of the parallel with the pigeon that reveals the intrigue (1205–7) is doubtful. The reversal – from Ion threatening a red bird that will cry αἰαῖ to a red-footed, αἰαῖ-crying bird revealing the attempt on his life – is undeniable, but the parallel is easy to escape a one-time audience, and the difference in the species diminishes the effect. J. Harris (2012) explains the epithet (he prefers Nauck’s φοινικοβαφῆ) as a combination of rhetorical figures, whereby the idea of blood spills over from the verb (168 assumed to be αἱμάξεις) and the general threat of violence to the description of the bird’s (as yet unbloodied) feet. His case collapses with the acceptance of αἰάξεις (cf. n), but even so the combination of catachresis, hypallage, and synaesthesia (p. 519) would be highly artificial, especially in a song that breathes simplicity. It is easier to accept that the inaccuracy of the biological details is a mistake arising from the Greeks’ lack of familiarity with the different (then still undomesticated) species of swans (W.G. Arnott (1977) 151, (2007) 122–4): the red feet (164) and probably the flapping of

172

Commentary

the wings (161) are those of the mute swan (cygnus olor), while the song is that of the whooper swan (cygnus cygnus). 165 σύμμολπος: The swan’s song is in harmony with Apollo’s lyre, i.e. the swan sings for Apollo: IT 1103–5, Ar. Av. 772, Hom.Hym. 21.1. This fact, however, will not help it (cf. Hom. Il. 1.28 μή νύ τοι οὐ χραίσμηι σκῆπτρον καὶ στέμμα θεοῖο). The clash between two attributes of the god, lyre and bow (Theognis TrGF 28 F 1, Heraclitus 22 B 51; cf. Petit (1992)), is ironic, but it indicates that the general affiliation with Apollo is here subordinate to the specific danger the bird poses to Delphi’s purity and thus to Ion’s responsibility. 166 πάραγε: ‘steer past’: cf. Xen. Hell. 4.5.11 παρὰ τὴν πόλιν τῶν Κορινθίων τοὺς Ἀμυκλαιεῖς παρῆγεν. 167 λίμνας ... τᾶς Δηλιάδος: The λίμνη τροχοείδης in Apollo’s sanctuary on Delos (Hdt. 2.170.2, Theogn. IEG2 7) was inhabited by swans: IT 1103. So Ion is here not so much trying to damage rival sanctuaries as directing the bird to the appropriate place. Ar. Av. 869 speaks of the ‘Pythian and Delian swan’ as if it belonged to Delphi, but this reference is unique. ἐπίβα: The short imperative form on -βα is colloquial (K-B II 45, Collard (2005) 365), highlighting both the mundane quality and liveliness of the action (note also the asyndeta throughout this section). 168–9: ‘You will wail those beautiful-sounding songs of yours, if you do not follow me.’ For the internal accusative cf. Herc. 1053–4 θρῆνον αἰάξετ’. That the dirge is καλλίφθογγος is not inappropriate (so Sansone (1984a) 339) but the distinctive paradox of the proverbial swan song (τάς because of its famousness); in drama e.g. Herc. 692–4, El. 151, Aesch. Ag. 1444–5. The formulation and construction, though elevated by the epithet, are nevertheless close to the colloquial οἰμώξει or κλαύσει (e.g. Andr. 577, 758, Ar. Av. 1207, Nub. 933 κλαύσει, τὴν χεῖρ’ ἢν ἐπιβάλληις). The paradosis αἱμάξεις ‘you will tinge those beautiful songs of yours red with blood’ has its charm (cf. Lee (1969), Kraus 37; cf. Phoen. 1299 φόνιαι ψυχαὶ δορὶ παλλομένωι πέσεα πέσεα δάϊ’ αὐτίχ’ αἱμάξετον). However, it diverts the emphasis from the prematurity of the swan song (Ion’s threatens the bird with killing it immediately) to the bloodiness of the death. Bayfield sees a double predication in the verb (‘thou shalt raise, and in blood’); but in his parallels the verb always describes the performance of the song (e.g. Soph. El. 122–3 τίν᾿ ἀεὶ τάκεις (λάσκεις Ll-J/W) ὧδ᾿ ἀκόρεστον οἰμωγάν; Jebb: ‘makest a languishing lament’), not an attendant circumstance such as the spilling of blood.



1–183 Prologue

173

170–8 None of the suggestions that have been made concerning the species of the third bird, for example a nightingale (Gavrilov (1994)) or a swallow (Irvine), is compelling. Since the animal is not described and unlikely to be visible, identification is probably not intended. More important is its symbolic significance: the bird is unknown to Ion and provides a new experience (καινός) – an intrusion into Ion’s contemplative calmness – and has motherly qualities (Gavrilov). 170 προσέβα: aorist with a verb of motion: the bird has arrived; cf. K-G I 167–8, M. Lloyd (1999) 44–5. 171–2 εὐναίας καρφηρὰς: ‘sleeping places made of dry twigs’. Feminine adjectives can be employed in ‘abstract’ use (not always a fitting description): cf. Wilamowitz on Herc. 681 τὰν Ἡρακλέους καλλίνικον ἀείδω, Aesch. Ag. 219, Ar. Eccl. 885, Theogn. IEG2 492. The sense of the missing noun can be inferred from the verb, in our case e.g. θήκη. The question of which adjective is used as a noun thus becomes irrelevant. The nest is given prominence in analogy to the focus on the place of Apollo’s and Creusa’s union: cf. 55, 155, 315, and esp. 899–900. For καρφηράς (L) Hesych. κ941 has the lemma καρφυραί (also κ939, on which see d’Arnaud (1730) 76–7), but the υ is wrong: the word is a hapax formed from κάρφω (τὸ κάρφος for the twigs of a nest: Ar. Av. 642), which makes καρφηρός the regular derivation. Adjectives on -υρος are formed from stems on υ; cf. Chantraine (1933) 232–4, De Poli (2011) 187. 172  θήσων: The colloquial ellipsis of the verb (Stevens (1945) 101) signals that Ion is indignant. Αdd προσβαίνεις from the preceding sentence. 173 ψαλμοί: a further play on the god’s attributes: used of the strings both of instruments and bows: cf. Herc. 1062, Ba. 783–4 τόξων χερὶ ψάλλουσι νευράς, Monbrun (2007) 50–3. 174–8 Both begetting and bearing children cause pollution and are hence prohibited in sanctuaries (R. Parker (1983) 49–50, 74), but this does not apply to birds (cf. Hdt. 1.159.3). Ion’s abhorrence thus is a result not so much of his reverence for sacred law but of his pride in his own chastity (150). As in 167 he refers the bird to places more appropriate for breeding: Zeus’ sanctuary of Olympia, situated at the bank of the river Alpheius, and the Isthmos with its sanctuary of Poseidon (Pind. I. 8.63 Ἴσθμιον νάπος). The gods are those whom he already knows to engage in extra-marital affairs, as we will hear later (446). So for the second-time spectators of the play this ἀποπομπή

174

Commentary

(161–9n) also expresses resentment against the gods he sees as defiled and confirms his belief in Apollo’s purity. 178: The parallel of 107 does not offer a clue as to the lacuna (cf. Metre), and the sense of the text is complete as it stands; an adjective is hence most likely. 179–81 Ion feels an inhibition (on this kind of αἰδώς cf. Cairns (1993) 200–1) because the birds are themselves venerable: his concern for purity puts him in the dilemma of having to choose between different kinds of pollution, through the birds’ death or the damage done through their foulings and sexual actvity (cf. Giraud (1987)). On ornithomancy in Delphi cf. Plut. Mor. 405D ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς ἐρωδιοῖς οἰόμεθα καὶ τροχίλοις καὶ κόραξι χρῆσθαι φθεγγομένοις σημαίνοντα τὸν θεὸν ... θεῶν ἄγγελοι καὶ κήρυκές εἰσι; it was even claimed to have been invented in Delphi (Paus. 10.6.1, Amandry (1950) 57–9). On the important role birds played as everyday alternative to oracles cf. Ar. Av. 716–22, esp. 722 ἡμεῖς ὑμῖν ἐσμὲν μαντεῖος Ἀπόλλων, Defradas (1968) 165–8, Pollard (1977) 116–29. 181 οἷς δ’ ἔγκειμαι μόχθοις: ‘(I will keep doing) the services that I am engaged in’. The relative clause is epexegetic (K-G II 437); the dative μόχθοις is attracted from an internal accusative with δουλεύσω. 183 τοὺς βόσκοντας: Cf. 137; the plural is generalising rather than poetic.

184–236bis Parodos As the opening sequence comes to a close, the parodos marks the transition to the start of the action. The chorus, divided into two groups, enter and sing their song (as in Alc. 77–111), reacting directly to what they see and calling each other’s attention to the features visible on stage. The song stands out among Euripides’ parodoi in several respects, which all have the effect of toning down its seriousness and tragic character: 1) The asymmetry of the second strophic pair (cf. Metre) comes as a surprise, weakening the rigidity of the tragic form. The broken balance in the pair is also unlikely to allow identical or symmetrical dance moves (Dale (1968) 213–14, but for some interesting parallels between strophe and antistrophe cf. Wiles (1997) 101–3).



184–236bis Parodos

175

2) The chorus do not respond to a situation of crisis and their entrance is not prompted (as elsewhere) by a summons, rumour, or shout – because no crisis exists and on the plot level nothing has happened yet (Hose (1990) 45). Instead, their motive is presumably curiosity (232–3). The conversation between the chorus and Ion apparently plays with tragic convention and forms an amusing clash between the guard and the intrusive chorus. 3) The situation thus allows a special characterisation by presenting the chorus under more ‘relaxed’ circumstances (contrasting with Creusa in her entrance: 241–4). The chorus represent lower status figures; they also act as not very serious characters and express themselves in a manner often below the standard lyric register: ‘Euripides seems to be experimenting with a completely “homely” portrayal of the chorus in a lyric format’ (Waś 246–7, comparing Andr. 126–34). Hence he portrays the chorus with some realism as simple Athenian maids, which, of his choruses, makes them one with the clearest personality, but also idiosyncratic. The absence of a crisis frees them up for more playful interaction (and makes the contrast to their later agitation all the more striking). Their behaviour has been compared to that of modern tourists (Seidensticker (1982) 221–2, Zacharia (1995) 50–1). Our knowledge of ancient practice suggests that the application of this concept is not an anachronism, as the visit to sanctuaries for public or private business was often combined with sightseeing (301, Andr. 1086–7; cf. Ehrenberg (1962) 257 n. 5, Braccesi (1987) 3, Montiglio (2005) 119). The parodos sustains the general upbeat mood of the monody. Only in the description of the images depicting epic themes does the register rise to create a contrast with the emotive performative elements of the language (cf. 206, 212, 213). In their low status and also in their naivety the chorus are similar to Ion, but they contrast with him in that they lack the solemnity of his devotion to Apollo and, in their excitement and curiosity, his intellectual reflection. There is no indication that Ion has left after his song. He may have resumed sweeping (still carrying his bow: 524), but anything except his presence near the temple in 219 is speculation. His statement that he expects visitors has prepared us for the chorus’ arrival (98–101; cf. Hose (1990) 43), but they do not immediately make contact. The loose connection between the solo scene and the parodos is, however, explained by the situation: when the chorus arrive, there is nobody they know, nor do they need to address Ion. The uneducated newcomers are captivated by the sight on their first trip out of Athens (similarly IA 164–302), and only when they have reached the point when their admiration of the artwork on the outside is sated and they cannot simply proceed to see the sights inside the temple do they turn to Ion (a

176

Commentary

similarly delayed address in a song is Soph. Trach. 94–140; cf. Mastronarde (1979) 33, Halleran (1985) 103). The remarks about the scenery and the temple are thus not a departure from the drama (so Garzya (1997) 58: ‘Qui [sc. in Ion alone] siamo già in clima pre-alessandrino, si pensa all’ekphrasis come παρέκβασις’) but a highly mimetic conveyance of the chorus’ impressions, based on plausibility (cf. 184–218n). While the song has no direct impact on the plot, it serves several functions, above all the programmatic foreshadowing of the disturbance of order and the clash between Earthborns and Olympians in the description of the decoration in the first part. It also continues the portrayal of the mood and the description of Delphi as a place of both splendour and restrictions; it also further illustrates Ion’s commitment as the temple’s guardian and ‘receptionist’. Beyond that, it brings the first direct meeting of the Delphic and the Athenian world and prepares for Ion’s encounter with Creusa. The separation of the two worlds is highlighted by the chorus’ athenocentric perspective on the new sights (184–218n (2)), but also emphasises the unexpected similarity between the places. The parodos ends with the first brief conflict: the refusal of admittance into the temple. By their willing obedience to θέμις, however, and the repeated expression of compliance (220–1bis, 230–1) the chorus avoid lasting confrontation. Metre: 184–93~194–204 184~194 ⏒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ 185~195 ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ 186~196 ‒⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ 186bis~197 ‒⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒ ‖ 187~198 ‒⏓‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ 188~199 ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ 189~200 ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒‒ ‖ 190~201 ⏓‒‒⏑‒‒ 191~202 ⏒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒‒ 192~203 ‒‒⏒‒⏑⏑‒‒ 193~204 ⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒ 

gl gl gl pher gl gl pher 2ba ~ mol ba hag hag** reiz

205–218~219–36bis 205~219 ⏒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ gl 206~220 ‒⏒‒⏑⏑‒⏒‒ gl 207~220bis ⏓‒⏓‒⏑⏑‒‒ ‖ hag** 221 Ion ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑ an 208~221bis †‒⏑‒⏑‒‒⏑‒† / †‒⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒‒‒‒† ‖ 222 Ion †⏑⏑⏑⏑‒† (an?) 209~223 ‒‒‒⏑‒⏑⏑‒ / ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ wil ~ gl



184–236bis Parodos

177

210~223bis ‒‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ / ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ ‖ wil ~ gl 224 Ion ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑ 2an 211~225 ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒‒ ‖ pher 226 Ion ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒ 2an 227 ‒⏑⏑‒‒‒⏑⏑‒‒ 2an 228 ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒‒ 2an 229 ‒‒⏑⏑‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑ 2an 211bis~230 ⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑⏑⏑ 2ia 212~230bis ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑ an 213~231 ⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒⏓ ‖ 2ia^ 232 Ion ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑ 2an 214~233 ⏑‒‒‒⏑‒ ba cr 215~233bis ⏑‒⏑⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ ‖ 2 ia 234 Ion ‒‒⏑⏑‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ 2an 216~235 ‒⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑⏑⏑⏔ 2ia 217~236 ⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒‖ 2ia^ 218~236bis ⏑‒‒‒⏑‒⏑‒‒ ba cr ba The first one and a half strophic pairs resume the aeolic movement of Ion’s monody. The second half of the second pair shifts to iambic metres, prepared by the isolated bacchei in 190~201. Change in the metrical genre coincides with the end of the inquiry and the start of a more explicative section in the antistrophe. In the second antistrophe the iambic movement is supplemented with recitative anapaests by Ion. The main problem is the division of the text and the attribution to different speakers. The first strophic pair can be neatly distributed between two semichoruses by the commands ἄθρησον and πρόσιδ᾿ (190, 193) and the response ὁρῶ (194). The second pair shows two irregularities: 1) Strophe and antistrophe are asymmetric: the lines of the chorus (taken alone) respond as regular. However, Ion turns the antistrophe into an epirrhematic amoebaeon by adding his anapaests and suspending the chorus’ song for the time he is speaking. His lines are preceded by period end (hiatus after 225) but stand in synaphia with the subsequent utterance of the chorus (cf. 219–36bisn). 2) The distribution of speakers is not identical. The strophe is again divided between half-choruses; in the antistrophe Ion converses with the undivided chorus: for the ones begging to ask a question must be the same as those then asking it (221bis–3). Strophic pairs with unequal speaker distribution are paralleled in Med. 1271–82~1283–92 (other possible instances are discussed by Di Benedetto (1961)). The places where Ion inserts his lines in the antistrophe can be used to identify changes of speaker in the strophe (cf. Page (1937) 96). In this way the strophe falls again into a neat dialogue between half-choruses with questions and answers; a division into further

178

Commentary

subsets of the chorus (or individual chorus members) is unnecessary. As the regular division into half-choruses would result in the same group starting and finishing the strophe (cf. Lammers (1931) 102), some do not add a change of speaker at 216 (not indicated in the unreliable L), while Kirchhoff inserts a lacuna and extra change before θέμις (220). But since the antistrophe is sung by the entire chorus and a clash is avoided, the problem may be imaginary (cf. Hense (1901) 396); alternatively, I tentatively attribute the last period (216–18), which does not have the question-and-answer format, to the undivided chorus. 184–6bis~194–7: The objection to synartesis of four successive colons (Buijs (1986) 53 based on Murray’s text) is partly obsolete, as Diggle’s OCT allows more instances. Buijs’s alternative suggestion (hipp ^gl gl pher) seems forced, given the similar structure of 188–9~199–200. 190~201: The isolated iambic line marks a sharp shift of attention with a strong deictic movement. For responsion bac~mol cf. e.g. Phoen. 1026~1050; more in Diggle (1981b) 86–7 = (1994) 201. 191–3~202–4: The hagesichorean sequence is paralleled in Herc. 644– 5~661–2. Both ^gl wil pher (O. Schröder (1928) 68) and tl polyschematist pher (L. Parker in Irvine p. 105–6) disturb and break up the coherent word groups and syntactic units. 206~220: The responsion of normal and dragged glyconic finds sufficient parallels (Danesin (1998) 179 n.145 counts nine in Euripides: cf. 1055~1068), so the doubts of Itsumi (1984) 75 and the restriction to the very late tragedies by Buijs (1985) 74 are unjustified. A short syllable at the end in synaphia (τείχε-/σι) should be avoided (cf. Danesin p. 172): El. 209 and Suppl. 992–3~1013–4 are all problematic. 208~221bis: Some form of glyconic responsion seems most likely: gl, hipp, or wil~gl (cf. n). 209–10~223–bis: On responsion of gl with its anaclastic form wil cf. West (1982) 117; wil in the strophe is much rarer than in the antistrophe: Danesin (1998) 179 n.147 and 183 Tab. 6.6. 212~230bis: Owen’s dochmiac and Irvine’s dodrans both require brevis in longo, but there is no reason to assume period end. For the change from iambs to anapaests and back cf. Andr. 296–9~304–7 2an 2ia 2an 3ia, Hel. 1120–1~1135–6 2an 2ia^ in mixed aeolic-iambic context.

217~236: For period end after pendant close and before a short syllable cf. Stinton (1977) 38–40 = (1990) 325–7.



184–236bis Parodos

179

218~236bis: ba cr ba at strophe end e.g. Suppl. 606–7~616–17, Aesch. Pers. 1025~1037; at period end e.g. Andr. 1198–9~1214–15. 221–34: Ion’s anapaests are recitative: apart from the proceleusmatic in 226 the passage does not show the characteristics of lyric anapaests (Doric colouring, ignoring of diaeresis, frequent contraction of bicipitia, catalexis within periods; cf. West (1982) 121). The language of the passage is largely free of poeticisms more typical for lyric. Proceleusmatics are indirectly attested for satyr plays and may indicate a less strict style (cf. West p. 123); in tragic recitative they are mostly suspected (Hec. 97, 145, Aesch. Sept. 827–8) or easily emended (El. 1319, Tro. 101, 1252, Aesch. Sept. 867, fr. 91), but El. 1322–3 and Aesch. Eum. 950 remain. 221: Ion’s lines stand in synaphia with the subsequent utterance of the chorus. So -αι at the end must be shortened; the next line starts on a vowel. 184–218 Euripides’ middle and later works contain at least two other ecphrases (El. 452–86, Phoen. 1104–40; IA 189–302 is possibly partly spurious: cf. Zeitlin (1994) 145–6; Hyps. fr. 752c may be the introduction to an ecphrasis), but the best parallels for the description of objects, the vivid conversation, and the many deictics can be found in lower genres: Aesch. Theor. fr. 78a.5–19 (assumed to be already a traditional motif by I. Rutherford (1998) 136), Herond. 4.21–38, Theocr. Id. 15.78: cf. Friedländer (1912) 30, opposed by Kranz (1933) 312, Palm (1965–1966) 132–3. Wolff (1965) 179 notes the parallels of ecphrases following epic characters’ arrivals (e.g. Hom. Od. 5.63–75). The description adds to the list of topographic features given in Ion’s monody (Palm p. 131). It proceeds from two groups of three to three pairs forming an ensemble. In the latter composition, the separation of smaller units imitates the ‘selective strategy’ (Stansbury-O’Donnell (1999) 64) of real perception. In many aspects mimetic realism overrides the ordered exposition of the scenery: Euripides does not provide a comprehensive description but a verbalisation and dialogisation of the maids’ natural recognition process in their movement from the eisodos to the centre of the orchestra. The chorus’ gaze closes in from the objects to the images on them, from the general (and large) to the details, and from the elements that grab the chorus’ attention because they are familiar and of greater personal importance (e.g. Athena) to the rest. Furthermore, only the iconographic items that are essential for recognition are mentioned, and Euripides dispenses with others that do not have any identifying function, e.g. Athena’s attack weapon: cf. Dörig (1967) 106.

180

Commentary

The temple, the altar, and the sculptures (cf. 190–204n) are noticed first as such. Upon arriving on stage the chorus also become aware of the content of the figurative decoration. The Hydra and Heracles are recognised before Iolaos; the patron goddess Athena is identified before Zeus and Dionysus. The progress from the statues to the pediment probably reflects the movement from the fringe to the centre of the stage, from which the pediment could be seen. IT 69–74 portrays a similar progress of recognition (temple, altar, spoils). The extra-scenic world of Delphi is not made part of the scene: the ‘sightseeing’ starts with the chorus’ arrival in the orchestra. On their approach to the temple (184–9) the chorus express their astonishment, as if nothing had caught their attention in the same way yet. In real Delphi, by contrast, the temple would long have been visible and the treasuries on the way might have prepared them for the coming splendour. Two other questions concerning realism are harder to determine: the visual representation on stage and the historical accuracy of the objects mentioned (on both questions Stieber (2011) 284–302 provides a full review of previous scholarship and an unoriginal discussion). As to the former, the presence of an altar in Ion is undoubted (cf. 186–bisn), and statues on stage (preferably close to the skene doors) have parallels in other plays (e.g. Hipp. 101, Aesch. Eum. 242, Soph. OC 59; cf. P. Arnott (1962) 66–8). The degree of detail in scenography, by contrast, remains unknown, and few solid arguments have been advanced. West (1987) 289–91 thinks that the mention of triglyphs indicates their visibility (cf. IT 113, Or. 1372; other architectural features are mentioned in considerable number from IT onwards). Sculptures in the pediment of the stage building are also mentioned in Hyps. fr. 752c. But beyond the architectural level, much scope has been given to the power of imagination, e.g. by Rehm (1992) 135–6 (cf. Allen (1919) 45–6, Dale (1969b) 125), who holds that the vividness of the scene and the linguistic markers ‘all suggest that the chorus create the sights primarily out of their words and gestures, and the spectators follow the verbal cues to project the sculptured images onto the conventional skene façade.’ Why the chorus should speak any differently if the figures in the pediment were visible is, however, unclear. Nor is it possible to use historical accuracy as an argument: there is no good reason why the sculptural decoration could not be visible even if it differed from the real temple (pace Hourmouziades (1965) 55–6). The degree of accuracy or truth to life has been the most contentious issue, although the temple that is described is that of mythical times, not the one contemporary with the play. The number of spectators familiar with the historical iconography may have been overestimated (the sanctuary was largely inaccessible to the Athenians during most of the Peloponnesian War: cf. Furley (1996) 79–81, Arnush (2005) 102); but in any case it makes little



184–236bis Parodos

181

difference if they see (or hear about) the wrong images; their tolerance need not be thought any less than the power of their imagination. The East (i.e. front) pediment of the 5th-cent. temple showed Apollo’s arrival at Delphi, while the West pediment contained a gigantomachy (LIMC Gigantes 3; cf. La Coste-Messelière (1931) 26). Thus the chorus do not describe the motif visible (in Euripides’ time) from their viewpoint. The problem may go deeper than the mere inversion of the temple sides: the iconography of the gigantomachy is likely to differ from that of the real temple, for which Ion has (in a circular argument) been seen as the best evidence (Koster (1976) 377–8; cf. 205–18n; Simon (1984) 5 believes that the decoration is that of the Siphnian treasury). Some features that are typically Athenian or younger than the pediment (192n, 216–17n) make it unlikely that a 6th-cent. work is being described. The absence of Apollo on his own temple should also give cause for doubts, and Euripides may produce a generic gigantomachy, using the iconography familiar from Athens (Zacharia (2003) 17). If there was any restriction to Euripides’ poetic freedom, it may have compelled him to use a motif that was very common in Delphi. But Euripides’ main concern is thematic; to attribute much importance to historical verisimilitude denies the parodos a close connection to the plot (cf. Immerwahr (1972) 285, Danek (2001) 50). The elusiveness, irony, and polysemy of ecphrases have become commonplaces, and literature on it is by now abundant. Similarly, the description of the sculptures poses a number of questions. If they were visible (however stylised), their exposition at the start of the play raised awareness of the pictorial programme, which could subsequently be read against the action transpiring underneath. The description invites interpretations with broad relevance for the play: 1) The opposition between earthborns (218) and Olympians has been read as a parallel to the conflict between autochthonous Creusa and Apollo; as such it could signify the prevailing of the Olympians: the gigantomachy was an established Athenian iconography symbolising the victory of order over chaos (Mastronarde (1975) 166 = (2003) 300: cf. 205–18n). However, the parallel is not unequivocal: the Athenians normally identified themselves with the Olympians, while Ion stresses the birth from the earth of Creusa’s family (and the Athenians at large). The significance of the iconography is further blurred: Iolaos is a mere mortal, Pegasus even earthborn. Attempts to read the iconography as straightforward anticipation of the triumph of Olympus over Creusa (Rosivach (1977) 288) are also in danger of playing down structural differences: Creusa does not revolt against Apollo (M. Lloyd (1986) 42, Danek (2001) 53–4) and at the end stands reconciliation, not subjugation. Hence the iconography is not a simple parallel or anticipation of the plot. Immerwahr (1972) 296 instead sees a contrast between the

182

Commentary

destructive and the benificent aspects of the earth in the gigantomachy as opposed to the Erichthonius story – a sign of ambivalence, irony, and the limits of human understanding. 2) The scene is exemplary for Euripides’ ‘epistemological concern’ with knowledge and revelation (Zeitlin (1994) 141; cf. also Danek and the ec­ phrasis of the tent: 1143–64), exemplifying the interplay between the spoken word and sight and the problem of how to ‘read’ what is visual. The scene highlights the selectivity and subjectivity of perception. The chorus stress the recognition of what they thought was typically Athenian, just as the plot will end with the discovery of a true-born Athenian in the guise of a Delphic temple slave. The way the chorus look at the pictures makes them focus on what they are already familiar with, and they end up with an Athenian version of Delphi. 3) Related to this problem is the situation of the onlookers, intermediary in their position between the audience and the visual object (analogous to Hermes in the prologue). While themselves agents in a myth, they stress the mythical character of the depictions (cf. Wolff (1965) 179). This has an alienating effect, highlighting the theatricality and irony of the scene. On the other hand, it sharpens the awareness of the importance and relevance of the parallel stories as meta- and sub-texts of the play and the characters’ identity (Zeitlin p. 147, 152). Recognition on one level goes together with blindness on another: whereas the chorus identify the giants as earthborn, it is not clear that they realise that the pattern runs through the entire pictorial programme. That task is left to the audience (Zacharia (2003) 19). 4) Apollo is conspicuous by his absence. He might be expected to feature around his temple, especially in the gigantomachy, which regularly includes him (Zeitlin p. 150). For a subtle hint at him cf. 213n. His invisibility affirms the notion of concealment and hidden interference that has pervaded the description of his behaviour in the prologue speech and the irony of Ion’s monody. 184–7 The structure ‘not only is there x in A, but also y in B’ (objected to by G. Müller (1975) 26) is illogical but not unparalleled: cf. Polyid. fr. 642 οὐ γὰρ παρὰ κρατῆρα καὶ θοίνην μόνον τὰ χρήματ’ ἀνθρώποισιν ἡδονὰς ἔχει, ἀλλ’ ἐν κακοῖσι δύναμιν οὐ μικρὰν φέρει. 184–5 ζαθέαις Ἀθάναις: an epic reminiscence (Il. 1.38 Κίλλαν ζαθέην; cf. Tro. 219, Breitenbach 274). 185 ἦσαν: The chorus’ previous assumption that Athens was the only place adorned with significant sacred architecture has proved wrong. This imperfect of realisation (colloquial: cf. Stevens (1976) 62) is normally accompa-



184–236bis Parodos

183

nied by ἄρα (cf. K-G I 146), but cf. Ar. Av. 1051, Theocr. Id. 5.79, Pl. Phdr. 227B. Dan. fr. 321 may be another instance (cf. Karamanou). 185–6 αὐλαὶ θεῶν: temples (Pind. Pae. 7 fr. 52g.3–4), not the heavenly abodes (e.g. PV 122, Hom. Od. 4.74); the two ideas are partly blurred in Hipp. 67–9 ἃ μέγαν κατ’ οὐρανὸν ναίεις εὐπατέρειαν αὐλάν, Ζηνὸς πολύχρυσον οἶκον. For the epithet εὐκίων cf. Erechth. fr. 369.5 περικίοσιν... θαλάμοις. 186–bis ἀγυιάτιδες θεραπεῖαι: lit. ‘(signs of) worship on the street’, i.e. altars in front of buildings (Ael.Dion. α 28; cf. Soph. Hermion. fr. 202, glossed as open, visible, Laoc. fr. 370); these street altars were sacred to Apollo Agyieus. The chorus here refer to the stage altar (ἀγυιεύς: Poll. 4.123; cf. G. Müller (1975) 26), which in Ion serves as the altar of the temple (184–218n; cf. 460). In several plays, e.g. Phoen. 631, actors adress Apollo Agyieus while turning towards the stage altar, and the altar probably resembled the pillar-like constructions outside Athenian houses with an attached base for sacrifices (cf. 1403n, Poe (1989) esp. 136). Referring to the Delphic temple altar of the dramatic fiction by the name appropriate for the stage decoration is likely to have a metatheatrical effect, challenging the dramatic illusion (similarly in Ar. Thesm. 748; cf. Poe p. 131). If the references were to street altars of Apollo Agyieus along the Sacred Way (cf. Hesych. α855, Dion.Attic. s.v. ἀγυιάτιδες θεραπεῖαι, Eust. in Il. 166.23–6 (I 256.28–257.2 v.d.Valk)) or two herms in front of the temple (e.g. Bousquet (1956) 574–5, Zeitlin (1994) 149 with n.31), the maidens would marvel at something rather unimpressive and refer to objects not mentioned again. 188–9 δίδυμον προσώπων καλλιβλεφάρων φῶς: ‘the double light of faces with beautiful eyes.’ This version removes the enigmatic and pleonastic elements of the expression of the paradosis (διδύμων προσώπων καλλιβλέφαρον φῶς). The reference is not to the temple fronts as commonly assumed but (in synecdoche) to eyes representing the sculptures described immediately afterwards (190–204n; for πρόσωπον used of a statue cf. e.g. Plut Mor. 397F). So in 184–9 the chorus mention the three main items of the acting area: temple, altar, and statues. The slight change of text restores the interlaced word order, with no difference in metre or Byzantine pronunciation. The majority of scholars follows Musgrave’s interpretation that the δίδυμα πρόσωπα of L are the two fronts and pediments of the temple (according to Ghiron-Bistagne (1984–1985) 242 represented by the parascen­ ia). This seems to find a confirmation in Pindar (O. 6.3 ἀρχομένου δ’ ἔργου πρόσωπον ... τηλαυγές in architectural imagery, P. 6.14). But the description of the artworks (cf. 184–218n) deals only with one pediment, pointed to as

184

Commentary

the ‘stone walls’. Other interpretations see allusions to items that are unlikely to be visible, never mentioned explicitly or immediately understandable from the text, and hence incomprehensible for the audience of the play: 1) the treasuries on both sides of the road (Wilamowitz, Simon (1984)); 2) the temples of Apollo and Athena Pronaia (Paley; but they do not face each other and the latter does not have a conventional façade; nor is it identified for those unfamiliar with the topography). Moreover, three of the four words point to the meaning eye/face; a predominantly architectural significance is hence unlikely; 3) colonnades enclosing the temple forecourt (Verrall); 4) two caryatids of a treasury (Karo (1909)). The presence of others are purely speculative: 5) herms (Grégoire (1914), the same as ἀγυιεῖς: Bousquet (1956) 575); 6) pictures of Apollo and Artemis on the temple wall (B. Heath (1762) 135); 7) the side walls of the temple (front and one side: Irvine). Finally 8) nothing in the language used points to the temple and altar (G. Müller (1975) 26). 189 καλλιβλεφάρων: A hapax, but the restoration is most likely correct: almost all Greek adjectives on -φαρος are compounds of βλέφαρον. φῶς: καλλιβλέφαρος goes more intuitively with the ‘light’ of the eyes than the reflection of the sun rays from the marble temple, which is preferred by most interpreters: cf. Herc. 640–1 βλεφάρων σκοτεινὸν φάος, Cycl. 633, Aesch. Pers. 150, Hom. Od. 16.15, Schuursma (1932) 84. 190–204 The chorus probably describe statues visible on stage (so already Hermann), the presence of which was suggested by Ion’s repeated reference to ἀναθήματα (107, 177). This interpretation also gives the most natural explanation for 188–9. As the parodos follows the chorus’ gaze, it is unlikely that Heracles and Bellerophon are depicted on metopes, as most scholars nowadays assume: for it is improbable that the maids, approaching from the side, would look at the (frontal) metopes first before they spot the (much bigger) pediment. It is, furthermore, implausible that they would designate the place of the gigantomachy as ‘stone walls’ (206–7) if they had been looking at the lower sections of the same walls. The suggestion of acroteria (C. Robert (1893) 36–7 n.23) has some justification in attested sculpture (201–4n), but would be part of the temple rather than an independent item in 188–9. The order of the two groups is equal to Hes. Th. 313–25, where the Chimaera is either the daughter of the Hydra or her sister from Echidna. 190–200 Killing the Hydra of Lerna is the second of Heracles’ labours. The episode is given broad space in Herc. (e.g. 419–21, 1274–5, also Hcld. 950). Trans-



184–236bis Parodos

185

mission of the myth is largely uniform in art and literature, and the elements mentioned here conform with the standard iconography (Kokkorou-Alewras (1990) 41–3). Heracles is one of the most popular sujets of art in Greece and Athens: the fight against the Hydra was depicted, for example, on the temple of Zeus in Olympia, an archaic pediment on the Acropolis, and the Theseum (LIMC Herakles 1705, 2021, 1706). It is astonishing, given the frequent occurrence of Iolaos, that the maids should know him from tales rather than images (196b–8). In Delphi no pre-Euripidean scultpure of the episode is firmly attested (the incomplete Heracles cycle on the Athenian treasury shows no traces of the Hydra: cf. La Coste-Messelière (1957) 104–40); the group of Tisagoras (Paus. 10.18.6) cannot be dated. 190 ἰδού: The notion of seeing has diminished, so that ἰδού is often juxtaposed with other words of similar meaning: cf. Bond on Hyps. fr. 764 (=fr. 752c), but cf. 1391. Battezzato (1995) 164 n.86 prefers ἰδοῦ (with Hec. 808 ἰδοῦ με κἀνάθρησον) but cf. Choerobosc. Gramm.Gr. 4.2 140.29–30 (Proleg.) τὸ γὰρ ἰδού τὸ δεικτικὸν ἐπίρρημα ὀξύνεται, τὸ δὲ ἰδοῦ τὸ προστακτικὸν περισπᾶσθαι εἶχεν. τᾶιδ’: I do not find an imperative of a verbum videndi with a demonstrative referring to a person or creature without an accompanying nominal expression (as in 202) in Euripides: contrast local δεῦρο in Hipp. 300 and neutral τάδε in Cycl. 354. Punctuation after ὕδραν, which would make τάνδ᾿ an option, would leave an awkwardly brief second sentence. The focus of the following explanation seems to be on the act rather than either party (L’s τάνδ᾿ and Milton’s τόνδ᾿). On the use of deictics in drama, esp. in particular in very vivid passages and satyr play cf. D’Alessio (2007) esp. 108–10. 191 ἐναίρει: repeated in 208, 213; an epic word but used in Aesch. Sept. 811 and common in Euripides. 192 χρυσέαις: Cf. Hyps. fr. 752f.37 τόξα τε χρύσεα (for actual weapons). Sculptures could be fully gilded (on the acroterion of the temple of Nike cf. Schultz (2001) 2–5; at Delphi Paus. 10.15.1, 10.18.7), but the gilt may also be applied to part of a statue or, as here, to the attributes (Ar. Av. 574, Paus. 2.2.6, 6.19.6). ἅρπαις: In the iconography of Heracles and the Hydra the sickle (the word in other myths e.g. Soph. Mom. fr. 424, Hes. Th. 175, Op. 573; in connection with the Hydra Quint.Smyrn. 6.218) seems typically Athenian: on non-Attic vases he uses the sword or club, with one single exception (Kokkorou-Alewras (1990) 42); instead it is Ioalos who handles the sickle. Hes. Th. 316–17, the oldest written version of the tale, has νηλέι χαλκῶι (normally a sword). Διὸς παῖς: repeated in 200. It stresses the opposition of Olympians and earthborns that pervades the parodos more than the name Heracles would.

186

Commentary

194–6a Iolaos was famous enough as Heracles’ companion not to require an introduction by name in Hcld. 7–8 πόνων πλείστων μετέσχον εἷς ἀνὴρ Ἡρακλέει, also 88–9, 457. For his role in Heracles’ labours, the slaying of the Hydra in particular, cf. e.g. Hes. Th. 317, and the metope at the Theseum. 194–5 πέλας ἄλλος αὐτοῦ: Cf. El. 1026, fr. 862 ἐν αὑτῶι, PV 276 πρὸς ἄλλοτ’ ἄλλον, 921, S-D II 427. The separation of preposition and (pro-) noun by more than a particle vel sim. is more common with adverbs that are used as prepositions, such as πέλας, e.g. Suppl. 1009, IA 675. 195 πανὸν: 1294, Aesch. Ag. 284, Soph. Hel.Gam. fr. 184, explained in Athen. 700D as wood split through and bound together. The correction of senseless πτανὸν is secured from Athenaeus’ reference to this passage. 196 τις: L has τίς at the start of the new sentence, which makes little sense. Early editors give αἴρει τίς. However, since ἄλλος forms the (linguistic) topic of the sentence, the clause-final interrogative lacks justification: cf. Dik (2007) 161–6. For the separation of ἄλλος from τις cf. e.g. Hcld. 496. ἆρ’ ὃς in ellipsis: El. 286, IT 1319. 196b–200 The remark conveys information on the chorus’ social position, as in Hipp. 125–9, Hel. 179–83; cf. Hose (1990) 136. References to weaving occur only in Euripides among the tragedians, but are common in his works (507–8, Hec. 471, IT 221–4, 814–17 and below on πήναις). 196–7 μυθεύεται: The word seems to be a Euripidean coinage: 265, Herc. 77. On the ‘metamythology’ of references to mythological tales in mythical tragedies cf. Wright (2005) 135–8. 197 πήναις: ‘weft’, in the plural ‘web, weaving’. The women are referring to the stories they listen to while weaving, not the picture they produce. The verb (as ἄιον in 508) denotes verbal utterance, and παρά describes the women at the loom better than the surface of the fabric (Tuck (2009) 153). The text need not imply that the story is also the motif woven into the textiles: the idea that the tale contains mnemonic or technical instructive devices for weaving (so Tuck p. 157) is not supported in ancient texts. Singing and telling stories at the loom is a common practice (cf. 507, IA 788–9, Hyps. fr. 752f.9–11, Hom. Od. 5.61–2, 10.221, 227, Theocr. Id. 24.77, Verg. Georg. 1.293–4, Ov. Tr. 4.1.13; for the cross-cultural perspective cf. Gioia (2006) 80–3). 198 ἀσπιστὰς: Iolaos appears with a shield on LIMC Iolaos 23 (Attic vase) and several times as a shieldless warrior; in Hcld. 88 he calls himself by the



184–236bis Parodos

187

military term παραστάτης, in 215 ὑπασπίζων. Heracles himself is ἀσπιστάς in Herc. 1192. 199–200 κοινοὺς ... συναντλεῖ: The stress on shared labour elevates the role of Iolaos. The maids may express their feeling of solidarity, highlighting the equal effort of lower-standing assistants like themselves to superior agents. συναντλέω is a hapax in classical Greek, but based on the common Euripidean πονοὺς ἀντλεῖν. 201–4 Homer and Hesiod already tell of Bellerophon’s and Pegasus’ fight against the Chimaera, a lion with a goat’s head on the back and a snake as tail (Hom. Il. 6.181, Hes. Th. 321–2, fr. 43a.87). In El. 472–5 the myth decorates Achilles’ armour. Of the numerous depictions of the myth, the most notable in our context is the (lost) bronze acroterion on the temple of Athena Nike on the Athenian acropolis, attested in IG I3.482 (LIMC Pegasos 147; cf. Boulter (1969)); it must have been in place when Ion was performed. Athenian vases show the same motif. Depictions of the myth in Delphi are not known. The chorus do not mention any names, but the widespread occurrence of the sujet should discourage us from thinking of them as not identifying the group (W.G. Arnott (1996) 114). 201 καὶ μὰν: The particle expresses assent before a new point in the same context is added (cf. Wakker (1997a) 227). The combination is not used elsewhere in Euripidean lyric (but Rh. 546, Aesch. Pers. 992) and seems informal in tone. 202 πτεροῦντος ... ἵππου: The forms of πτερόεις can be contracted in Attic drama: e.g. Hipp. 733; first in Aesch. Suppl. 1000. Both this phrase and πῦρ πνέουσαν for the Chimaera are used in Pind. O. 13.86–90 (for the latter cf. Hes. fr. 43a.87 cj. Wilamowitz). 204 τρισώματον ἀλκάν: On the inversion of noun and attribute cf. 145n, Breitenbach 202; for the periphrasis cf. 53n (with ἀλκή Herc. 806). The adjective is used for the three-headed Cerberus Herc. 24; elsewhere ‘three-bodied’. 205–18 The battle between the Olympian gods and the giants is one of the most popular themes of Greek art in the 6th and 5th cent. (a list in Ridgway (1999) 181–2 n.44), attested also by Phoen. 129–30 ( ἐν γραφαῖσιν). At Delphi several depictions were put up between 535 and 500. After the Persian Wars the motif develops into an allegory for the defence of Greece

188

Commentary

against the barbarians, e.g. on the Parthenon frieze, and expresses the city’s view of itself as a civilising power (Castriota (1992) 139, Giuliani (2000) 274–80). Xenophanes 21 B 1.20–1 and Bacch. 15.62–3 attest a moralising reading. 205 πάνται: This form merely restitutes the iota subscriptum. For parallels cf. Mastronarde on Phoen. 265; on the occurrence of πάντη cf. Threatte II 386–7. The proper Doric accentuation παντᾶι has been suggested since Musgrave (also demanded by Sansone (1984a) 340); cf. Apollod.Gramm. De Adv. 1.1, 175 Schneider. A definitive decision is impossible, and editors of other texts disagree (in Aesch. Suppl. 88 West against Page, Wilson has παντᾶι at Ar. Av. 345), but in general tragedians do not aim at accurate Doric: cf. Björck (1950) 358–61. τοι: assuring the other half-chorus of fulfilment (cf. Denniston 541). 205–6 διώκω: ‘I drive, set in swift motion’ (LSJ III), several times with feet: Or. 1344, Androm. fr. 114, Aesch. Sept. 371, Eum. 403. 206 κλόνον: a word with strong epic resonance, not otherwise used by Euripides; in drama only Aesch. Pers. 107, Ag. 404, Ar. Nub. 387 (Soph. OC 1358 cj.). 206–7 τείχεσσι λαΐνοισι: The juncture is found again in Tro. 1087–8, Phoen. 797, but in Herc. 1096 and Androm. fr. 125 τείχισμα λάινον has been emended. In most cases ‘stone walls’ are city walls (as usual for τείχη, and cf. Hom. Il. 12.177–8), but Or. 1620 has τείχη of a palace. Murray’s emendation should be retained. Diggle (1981a) 97 treats the doubts surrounding this formulation with admirable brevity: on the metre cf. above; the epic dative with -σσ- is securely paralleled in Euripides (e.g. Tro. 280; cf. Diggle (1974) 22 n.2 = (1994) 117 n.81), although the only ms attestations are Alc. 756 and Phil. fr. 791. 208: The text is corrupt and the attempted restorations have been bad or speculative; the corruption of the corresponding 222 precludes us from using the metre for the reconstruction. It seems likely that the metre was aeolic, as in the antistrophe, not iambic, and an aeolic colon can easily be restored: δερκόμεθ᾿ (Dobree) produces a glyconic, and Hermann, Wecklein, and Diggle (apud Irvine) replace the vocative so as to make it a hipponactean (which is easy to reconstruct in 222). ὧδε δερκόμεσθα, φίλαι forms a wilamowitzianus that may correspond with a non-anaclastic metre (as 209 and 210). The vocative φίλαι is more common without ὦ in Euripides. On the other hand, Murray’s inversion ὦ φίλαι, ὧδε δερκόμεσθα and the deletion of οὔδ᾿ ἄν in 222 keeps interference to a minimum. What remains remarkable is the use of the plural only here in the purely choral part.



184–236bis Parodos

189

ὧδε: ‘this here’: Soph. Trach. 402 οὗτος, βλέφ’ ὧδε, probably Hel. 682; ὧδε regularly means ‘hither’ (not ‘there’), but here it indicates what is ‘especially in the speaker’s mind’, as ὅδε often does (Ruijgh (2006) 151: cf. 82, Med. 905). 209–11 Athena’s participation in the gigantomachy is mentioned again in 1528–9. Enceladus is her standard opponent: Herc. 908, Hor. Carm. 3.4.56–7, Apollod. Bibl. 1.6.2, LIMC Gigantes 342, but cf. below. The scene was popular in pictorial art (e.g. a metope of the Parthenon: LIMC Athena 235) and woven into Athena’s panathenaeic peplos (schol. Ar. Eq. 566a = Suda π1006). The exact iconography there is unclear and may have changed from year to year. On the peplos cf. Barber (1992). On questions featuring a verb of perception that call attention to something – often answered by a verbal echo – cf. Mastronarde (1979) 15 (e.g. Hipp. 1395–6). In their excitement the second half-chorus seem to interrupt mid-sentence to supplement the name of the godddess, but the text we have is syntactically complete. 209 Ἐγκελάδωι: According to Callimachus (Aet. 1.36, also Apollod. above) Athena cast Sicily upon him. Despite the dominance of that duel in the Athenian consciousness, he is also said to have fought Zeus (Hom. Batr. 283) and (ironically) Dionysus (Cycl. 5–9). 210 γοργωπὸν: ‘with the piercing (Gorgo-)look’: the application of the epithet is an ironic Euripidean fusion of the literal meaning ‘round’ or ‘staring’ and the Gorgo’s head on the shield. El. 1257  γοργῶφ’ ὑπερτείνουσα σῶι κάραι κύκλον (cf. Or. 261) leaves no doubt that the chorus describe the gorgon-emblazoned shield (while in Hel. 1315–6 and Soph. Aj. 450 Γοργῶπις replaces the name Athena). This description of the head on the shield extends the semantics of the word (cf. Leumann (1950) 154–5): the adjectives on -ωπός and -ώψ denote a certain appearance (εὐώψ, oἰνώψ, φλογωπὸν πῦρ) or a kind of glance, but not something on the object. γοργωπός and γοργῶπις with objects are possible in the meaning ‘round’ (fr. 1009, Aesch. Ag. 302 λίμνην δ’ ὑπὲρ Γοργῶπιν) but more common with persons describing their fierce glare (Eumenides: Or. 261, Heracles: Herc. 868 etc.). The Gorgo on the shield produces an ironic inconsistency with 988–91, where the Gorgo is said to have been killed by Athena in the gigantomachy. πάλλουσαν ἴτυν: The synecdoche of the shield’s rim is used first by Euripides: Tro. 1197, El. 457. In Homer not shields, only spears are wielded in battle (e.g. Il. 3.19), but cf. Ba. 783, Hes. Scut. 321, Ar. Ach. 964–5 (Lamachus) τὴν Γοργόνα πάλλει. A pun on Pallas may well be intended – it is found in Pl. Crat. 406D–E, schol. Hom. Il. 1.199–200, P.Oxy. 20.2260 ii.4–6 (with a

190

Commentary

rival interpretation: fr. 1009a, Ibycus PMG 17; cf. Pfeiffer (1968) 262 n.8). Gods’ names are played upon e.g. Or. 1635, Ba. 27, Pha. 224–5, and already Aesch. Ag. 1080–2. 211 ἐμὰν θεόν: The formulation is unusual in Greek (453–4, Aesch. Ag. 1081/6, Luc. Podagr. (69) 99) and denotes the patron of a community (cf. the herald’s address to Hermes, Aesch. Ag. 514–15, Ar. Nub. 601) rather than a personal god; cf. Burkert (1996) esp. 10–11. 211bis–15 For Zeus in the gigantomachy cf. Vian (1952) 47–51, Vian/Moore (1988) 255, Arafat (1990) 9–29. Euripides seems to depart from the main line of tradition, which does not know of a fight between Zeus and Mimas: Zeus more commonly fights Porphyrion (Apollod. Bibl. 1.36, schol. Ar. Av. 1252), while Mimas is defeated by Aphrodite (LIMC Gigantes 105, Athens 560–50) or Ares (Ap.Rh. 3.1226–7, LIMC Gigantes 318, Athens 410–400). 211bis τί γάρ: transitional (Denniston 83), leading on to Zeus and continuing the previous question and answer. So λεύσσεις should be added to the following question from 209 and 211. κεραυνὸν ἀμφίπυρον: The double-ended thunderbolt is an old piece of oriental iconography (cf. A. Cook (1914) II 767) and standard in depictions of Zeus from late archaic times onwards (cf. LIMC Zeus 29e from c. 480; Hec. 473–4). The word is used for Dionysus in a different sense in 716. 212 ὄβριμον: mainly epic: Hom. Il. 3.357 ὄβριμον ἔγχος, Athena is ὀβριμοπάτρος e.g. 5.747; in tragedy apart from here Or. 1454, Aesch. Sept. 794, Ag. 1411. 213 ἑκηβόλοισι: The word reminds of the absent master of the temple. In epic (and in Soph. OT 163, Meleag. fr. 401) the epithet is firmly associated with Apollo. With Aesch. Eum. 628 it becomes a description of any missile (PV 711, in Euripides from Herc. 472), transferred here from the lightning bolt to the throwing hands. The old association is still clear e.g. in Or. 273. 215 Μίμαντα: According to Ap.Rh. 3.1227 Mimas was killed by Ares and buried under a mountain or an island, similar to Enceladus. καταιθαλοῖ: Suppl. 640 ὃν Ζεὺς κεραυνῶι πυρπόλωι καταιθαλοῖ, Tro. 60, Ar. Av. 1242 with Aesch. Nioba fr. 160. Koster (1976) 379 regards this unpicturable scene as proof that the description does not accurately describe a real pediment. However, the chorus might mention the start or the result of the depicted charge.



184–236bis Parodos

191

216–18 Dionysus is a regular participant in the gigantomachy: cf. Cycl. 5–8. Since pediments do not provide titles, the chorus cannot name the giant, and Dionysus does not have one specific opponent: Apollodorus (Bibl. 1.6.2) reports that Dionysus slew Eurytus; Horace (Carm. 2.19.23) speaks of Rhoetus; Nonnos (Dion. 25.89–90, 48.44) has Porphyrion, Enceladus (cf. Cycl. 7), and Alcyoneus. 216 Βρόμιος: The use of this epiclesis (‘roaring’) of Dionysus is not without irony, given that it describes a sculpture. The use of the article in Ba. 84–7  Βρόμιον παῖδα θεὸν θεοῦ Διόνυσον κατάγουσαι Φρυγίων ἐξ ὀρέων Ἑλλάδος εἰς εὐρυχόρους ἀγυιάς, τὸν Βρόμιον makes it clear that we need not understand the word as an adjective, as suggested by Wilamowitz. 216–17 ἀπολέμοισι κισσίνοισι βάκτροις: Dionysus’ thyrsus is attested only from the 5th cent. Before that time he holds a lance and a shield (Vian (1952) 83–5); its presence on the Delphic pediment is thus unlikely. ἀπολέμοισι:  in Aesch. Ag. 769, Cho. 55 in the passive sense ‘not to be fought, invincible’. The thyrsus is called or used as weapon repeatedly in Ba. (e.g. 25, 762–4); on the paradoxical image of the warlike Dionysus cf. Bierl (1991) 156, Riu (1999) 89–91. 218 Γᾶς τέκνων: With the last item of the series the chorus finally make explicit what the five duels have in common: the victims are all earthborn. ἄλλον does not need to refer to the giants only, but the chorus do not show that they have understood the pattern extends to the Hydra and the Chimaera. τέκνων for τέκνον (Elmsley on Med. 466 [= 479] n.u) is uncontroversial. Βακχεύς: Up until the Hellenistic period this rare variant of Βάκχιος is restricted to tragic lyric: Ba. 145, Soph. Ant. 1121, possibly Aesch. fr. 341. 219–36bis The chorus’ ebullient mood maintains when they try to extend their sightseeing tour to the inside of the temple and seek advice from a local. However, they are also pious and show respect and willingness to comply with the rules of the place throughout. After Ion’s sharp initial reply they engage in conversation. Ion can gauge from their demeanour and questions that they are not familiar with the place (220–bis, 223–bis) and therefore have not performed the preliminary rites. After stopping them he thus first patiently explains the place and its rules. On the unique, lively formal asymmetry cf. 184–236bisn. If the metre yields a clue about performance, then it supports the analyis: (metrical) period ends precede Ion’s utterances but synaphia follows (cf. Metre). The chorus follow on immediately after Ion has stopped

192

Commentary

speaking, while he briefly pauses before he starts: the animated chorus are in this way contrasted with the calm and considerate Ion. The conversation again touches ironically on matters of ignorance: the chorus and Ion appear to be on the same social level, and so they address him as their equal, not knowing that they are speaking with their future legitimate king; they interrogate him about Delphi much as he will question Creusa about Athens in the following epeisodion. In this way the irony is prolonged, and the gap of ignorance that is here demonstrated to exist between Athens and Delphi is closed by the audience’s knowledge of Ion’s identity. 219–22 Several times in tragedy choruses intend to enter the stage building but then hesitate or are prevented. In this way they draw attention to the convention that prohibits such an action: cf. W.G. Arnott (1984) 149–50. But a strong metatheatrical effect is doubtful, as this play with convention has apparently already itself become conventional: Pöhlmann (1995) 64–8 counts 12 instances in tragedy and two in comedy (starting with Aesch. Ag. 1344–71). However, the present instance is special as the possibility of entering is not raised by, e.g., a cry behind the scene, and is mentioned soon after the chorus’ entrance – it is merely the result of their curiosity about the building and satisfaction with observing its exterior (cf. W.G. Arnott (1982) 36). On the level of the plot it is the ritual prohibition that prevents the chorus from entering, paralleled in Soph. OC 138–69. 219 σέ τοι: They call peremptorily (Denniston 542) for Ion’s attention: cf. e.g. IA 855, Soph. Aj. 1228, Ar. Av. 274; for the colloquial ellipsis of λέγω cf. Collard (2005) 373. Note the contrast between the chorus’ blunt address to Ion and the polite conversation between Ion and Creusa (esp. 237–8), even though Creusa is far superior in status (cf. M. Lloyd (2006) 232–4). 220 θέμις: The term is commonly associated with the sacred sphere in post-Homeric poetry (cf. Med. 676, IT 1035), although the semantic is one of norms in general: cf. Vos (1956) 34. 220bis λευκῶι ποδί: ‘barefooted’ (already Wakefield): cf. Cycl. 72, Ba. 863 (both times for bacchants), and probably Ar. Lys. 664 (cf. Hopper (1960) 246, Irwin (1974) 124–6). It is likely that they refer to a ritual requirement, and barefootedness is widely attested: cf. Heckenbach (1911) 23–6 (with correct explanation of this passage), Picard (1984). The chorus thus emphasise that they are aware of rules of propriety. Elsewhere white is used of the female body, e.g. 891, Med. 1164. But if the reference here were to their feminine paleness and the inadmissibility of women, Ion could not state a few lines later, on what conditions they may enter. Being a woman is not an obstacle to Creusa’s consultation (335, 363–5), though perhaps for her per-



184–236bis Parodos

193

sonally entering the temple (but nothing is said about that); if so, Euripides must be inconsistent in this detail. γ᾿: If correct, the particle stresses that the women are willing to comply with the rules (‘May we enter? Of course we will take off our shoes.’). The position of γε at the end of the expression when the emphasised word is placed first has parallels in Euripides (e.g. Cycl. 283; cf. Denniston 150); the position of λευκῶι also supports the meaning ‘bare’. : None of the proposed restorations stands out, though we expect an accusative object: the genitive γυάλων would be unparalleled as object of ὑπερβαίνω: cf. 514 and Phoen. 1180 ὑπερβαίνοντα γεῖσα τειχέων (Suppl. 1049 is rightly emended). οὐδόν (Lindau (1839) 495) is a fine suggestion: it may have wandered into the next line as οὐδ’ ἄν; alternatively (and more likely) οὐδ’ ἂν αὐδάν (cf. below) may have caused its omission. The threshold of the temple seems to have been a significant feature (cf. Richardson on Hom.Hym. 3.296). However, οὐδός is not used elsewhere in tragedy and the phrase οὐδὸν ὑπερβαίνω is clearly epic (e.g. Hom. Od. 7.135). 1321 makes θριγκούς a possible alternative (with γ᾿ to be deleted). 221 ξέναι: Ion’s use of address would be more appropriate for free women and suggests that he views them as visitors rather than a visitor’s maids (the only exception is IT 646, where it may be a sign of friendliness and encouragement: cf. Kyriakou). When they talk of their masters he immediately asks their identity (234) and uses the form πρόσπολοι γυναῖκες (510): cf. also Dickey (1996) 146–9. 221bis οὐδ’ ἂν: ‘May I at least ...?’ introducing a second question after the rejection of a first one: IT 505, Ar. Plut. 924. The chorus’ αὐδάν and Ion’s τίνα seem to support each other, but the latter may also have been adjusted to match the former. If both are genuine, οὐδ’ ἄν looks like a mistake that was corrected, with both forms surviving in the text. No good solution offers itself, especially since it has to correspond with 208. It is difficult to avoid an end on ‒‒, which would make glyconic or wilamowitzianus in 208 impossible. αἰσθοίμαν (O. Schröder (1928) 68) produces responsion of dragged and regular glyconic (cf. 206~220 n Metre), testing the requirement of regularity for conjectures. The line needs to start with a vowel to make the -αι of the preceding line short (cf. 221 n Metre). By contrast, if οὐδ’ ἂν is sound, αὐδάν can go to the next line as αὔδα (Ηermann). By contrast, τίνα τήνδε θέλεις; (Musgrave) does not follow the certain instances in which τίς ὅδε refers to things visible (cf. 170) or utterances already made (757, Suppl. 600 τίν’ αὐδὰν τάνδε προσφέρεις νέαν; Phoen. 915). It may be doubtful that something not yet known can take the deictic (‘What is that news you just hinted at which you wish to hear?’).

194

Commentary

223–5 223–bis μέσον ὀμφαλὸν γᾶς: Cf. 6n, 461–2. 224 στέμμασί γ’ ἐνδυτόν: Tro. 257–8 ἐνδυτῶν στεφέων ἱεροὺς στολμούς. The net of woolly tufts around the omphalos (Strabo 9.3.6), referred to in the modern discussion as ἀγρηνόν: cf. J. Harrison (1900). ἀμφὶ δὲ: an epic formulation; adverbial ἀμφί: Hipp. 770, Phoen. 325 and Soph. Trach. 787. Γοργόνες: I retain the text of L in the assumption that the reference to the Gorgons is another poetic licence. They are not attested in Delphi except in a horrendous, exceptional image in Aeschylus (Eum. 46–8 πρόσθεν δὲ τἀνδρὸς τοῦδε θαυμαστὸς λόχος εὕδει γυναικῶν ἐν θρόνοισιν ἥμενος – οὔτοι γυναῖκας ἀλλὰ Γοργόνας λέγω). It is unlikely that Euripides has misunderstood Aeschylus, but he may be invoking a scene Athenians – just as the maids – may have seen or heard of. The sources speak of eagles on both sides (symbolising the myth that Zeus let two eagles fly from opposite ends of the world to find its centre, which turned out to be Delphi): Pind. P. 4.4, Pae. fr. 54 (= Strabo 9.3.6: eagles or crows), and the omphalos is depicted with a bird at each side e.g. on Athens EM 5 (=IG I3 137, from 422–16); according to schol. Luc. De Salt. (45) 38 the eagles are painted on the omphalos. Irvine (1999a) ingeniously construes an argument from Pind. Pae. 8 fr. 52i.70–1 (= Pae. 8 χρύσεαι δ’ ἓξ ὑπὲρ αἰετοῦ ἄειδον Κηληδόνες) that Euripides speaks of Keledons/Sirens, glossed as Γοργάδες. But he is likely to misinterpret a logographic tradition that does not in fact equate ‘Gorgads’ and Sirens. Moreover, Pindar is speaking of the mythical bronze temple, not that of his time, and the Sirens are placed on the pediment (αἰετός), not in the adyton. 225 φάτις: Cf. 197, 507. 226–9 The two conditions are the positive and negative formulation (μέν ... δέ) of the same event: one has to pay one’s share of a common sacrifice outside the sanctuary (cf. 419–20 with n and below on the πελανός). Once the goat that shows whether the day is propitious is slaughtered (Parke/Wormell I 31–2), procedures can begin. Interpreters since Badham have wrongly assumed that these lines describe two different stages in the preliminaries to the sacrifice: the collective sacrifice of a cake outside the sanctuary and then an animal sacrifice by each inquirer in the cella before entering the adyton (Gow (1912) 226, Winnington-Ingram (1976) 493–5, Lee). But by this interpretation the second part becomes redundant, since Ion recognises the maids’ ignorance, which means that they have not met the first requirement, and sees that they have no sacrifice with them; nor is it likely that Xuthus is taking one with



184–236bis Parodos

195

him when he consults the oracle (417). Moreover, Euripides does not seem to distinguish between cella and adyton (cf. 231n), so μὴ πάριτ’ ἐς μυχόν must mean entering the temple. There is no evidence that animals were slaughtered at the altar inside the temple (Andr. 1102, Paus. 10.24.4, Plut. Mor. 437B; cf. 510–11n), even if they were burnt there (Andr. 1113). We know too little about the actual proceedings to judge whether Euripides simplifies the procedure, as Ion has been used as the main source. There is, however, nothing in Herodotus (7.140.1 ποιήσασι περὶ τὸ ἱρὸν τὰ νομιζόμενα) or Plutarch that openly contradicts this account. 226 ἐθύσατε: a term of general applicability that can be combined with σφάζω (cf. 277–8). Stephanus’ emendation from nonsensical ἐδύσατε (ἐλύσατε above the line) is based on the use of the same phrase in Aesch. Pers. 204 and Hipp. 147 ἀθύτων πελανῶν. πελανὸν: The word came to denote a monetary contribution to a χρηστήριον κοινόν (419–20): cf. Rougemont on CID 1.1 p. 9 (first Amandry (1939) 190– 1), in Athens: SEG 21:527.30, 35 from 363/2. The inquirer is not required to perform his own individual sacrifice, but θύειν πελανόν means ‘to pay the fee towards the sacrifice’ which has to be conducted before any inquirer might enter the temple. Originally the word possibly denoted ‘thick fluids’ of any kind (oil, but also blood; cf. Fraenkel on Ag. 96 with more literature) – and is used for animal sacrifices in 707 (with n), Alc. 851, Aesch. Pers. 816. The meaning ‘sacrificial cakes’ (for πέμματα) is attested by Pausanias (8.2.3; possibly so in IG I3 78.36) as specifically Attic usage, but the only unequivocal occurrence in tragedy is Erechth. fr. 350 from an Athenian context. Amandry (1950) 88–91 suggests that the word denotes a particular manner of sacrifice rather than the offering of a particular object, viz. a θυσία ἄγευστος, where the meat was not distributed (a sacrifice offered mostly to chthonic gods). πρὸ δόμων: I.e. outside the sanctuary: cf. 420 πρὸ ναοῦ and 497 πρὸ ναῶν, Amandry (1950) 99, in contrast to 129. 227 τι πυθέσθαι χρήιζετε: The sacrifice is not an entrance fee: frivolous sightseeing without a serious oracular purpose is not permitted, but Ion senses that this is what they are up to. 228 πάριτ’ ἐς θυμέλας: Cf. 161 for the plural denoting the temple. Ion’s formulation is shorthand for entering the oracular area, i.e. the temple, and the action of consulting the oracle: cf. P.Derv. V 4 πάριμεν [εἰς τὸ μα]ντεῖον, Hdt. 5.72.3, but the verb is generally used for entering a house (Med. 1137). 228–9 ἐπὶ δ’ ἀσφάκτοις μήλοισι: ‘without the goat having been slaughtered’ (i.e. before the sacrifice): cf. Soph. Ant. 556 οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἀρρήτοις γε

196

Commentary

τοῖς ἐμοῖς λόγοις. The impersonal expression may be chosen because the sacrifice was ‘common’ to all those who wanted to consult the god (cf. 420). ἀσφάκτοις is a hapax, derived from σφάζω, which denotes the killing of an animal for a blood sacrifice by slitting the victim’s throat (Casabona (1966) 155–67). It thus works well with the original meaning of πελανός. 229 μυχόν: the temple and oracular chamber, as θυμέλας above; for a similarly extended meaning cf. Aesch. Eum. 180 with Taplin (1977) 373–4. 230–6bis 230 ἔχω μαθοῦσα: periphrastic conjugation for metrical reasons: cf. Or. 749, Soph. Ant. 1271, Aerts (1965) 143. θεοῦ δὲ νόμον: a very reverent expression for a sacred regulation: cf. R. Parker (2004). θεοῦ: On the synizesis here and in 233 cf. Diggle (1994) 475. 231 ἐκτὸς: The chorus are content with the outside, i.e. with what has been described (not ἐκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ νόμου, as Chadwick (1996) 102 wants). They do not distinguish between what they could see from outside peeping through the temple door (i.e. the objects in the cella) and what they could not: no distinction between the cella and the inner sanctum is drawn, and we need not assume that Euripides wants to draw a clear distinction anywhere in the play (cf. 512n, 1320–1, pace Winnington-Ingram (1976) 494–7). 232 ὅτι καὶ θέμις: ‘so far as is allowed/within the limits of θέμις’, not ‘everything that law permits’ (Kovacs) or, with reference to the entire sentence, ‘that is quite proper’ (Lee); for limiting καί after an indefinite relative (Denniston 295) cf. Thuc. 2.54.5 ὅτι ἄξιον καὶ εἰπεῖν (or ὅτι καὶ ἄξιον). 233 μεθεῖσαν: This should be ‘my mistress has given me leave’ rather than ‘sent me off’ (Lee): Creusa is not waiting for their report, and cf. Phoen. 89–91 σε μήτηρ παρθενῶνας ἐκλιπεῖν μεθῆκε ... στράτευμ’ ἰδεῖν. δεσπόται: According to Lee the plural expresses respect; but that tone does not always match the situation (755, Cycl. 163, Pha. 98, Andr. 127, 391), and it should be taken as a collective reference to the institution rather than an individual (‘generalizing plural’, Barrett on Hipp. 287), like ‘the lordship’. 234 κλήιζεσθε: On the closeness of ‘calling’ and ‘being’ cf. Tabachovitz (1960). 235–6 Παλλάδι σύνοικα τρόφιμα μέλαθρα: For the chorus the question is fully answered: their mistress is the Athenian queen. Ion, by contrast, has to profess his ignorance (238), as he does not grasp the implications of the



237–451 1st Epeisodion

197

formulation. Athena’s place is Athens, more specifically the Acropolis, Athena’s rock (12), or even the temple of Athena Polias, which was integrated (along with the sanctuary of Poseidon-Erechtheus) in the Erechtheion; cf. Hurwit (1999) 200–2 and the Erinyes’ δέξομαι Παλλάδος ξυνοικίαν (Aesch. Eum. 916) on their settlement at the Acropolis. Pausanias seems to speak of it as a ‘house’ rather than a temple (οἴκημα, 1.26.5), harking back to the idea of Erechtheus’ palace: Hom. Od. 7.81 (δόμος) and μέλαθρα in our passage. The reconstruction of the actual spatial relationship also helps to get rid of the nonsensical ms reading Παλλάδος ἔνοικα. Kovacs wishes to take τρόφιμα with the genitive τυράννων (cf. Tro. 1302), which then unusually refers to Creusa alone and her childhood; but that must be hard to understand and irrelevant for Ion. A boastful allusion to Athens’ role as giver of grain and nurturer of mankind (Suppl. 29–31; cf. Pl. Menex. 237D–8A, Isoc. 4.28–9) is more in line with the chorus’ thinking. 236 τυράννων: The term is not used for slavemasters but only for rulers. The maids signal that they belong to the royal household (cf. Phoen. 292) or that they are members of the Athenian community (cf. 452–509n). 236bis τᾶσδ’: Creusa, who has entered at some undefined moment, is now close to Ion and the chorus and is addressed by Ion immediately after the announcement. An announcement within a lyric system is unusual (Taplin (1977) 173–4, Hose (1990) 193). Here and in Alc. 233 the chorus announce the entrance of the character they had been speaking about (Halleran (1985) 67–8). In neither case is the name (or any exact descriptor) given.

237–451 1st Epeisodion The act is mainly expositional: Ion’s future family, Creusa and Xuthus, is introduced, and the three are seen together for the first and only time. The meeting enables the identification of Ion by Creusa in the 3rd epeisodion (794–5). The true importance of the act, however, lies in presenting the relation between the characters, especially Creusa and Ion: the interaction between these two is noticeably warm. The polite start gives way to real interest in and empathy with one another (cf. 237–400n), even trust (394–7), as they discover the similarity of their fates. Contrast that with the behaviour of Xuthus, who reduces Ion to his servile role, first ignoring him completely, then using him only as a provider of information. He is also left with less depth of character and a liminal position among the main characters. Both

198

Commentary

relationships will be reversed: Xuthus will embrace Ion in the next epeisodion, and the bond of friendliness between Creusa and Ion will later change to mortal enmity. The development of the relationships thus contributes to the overall reversal from the light-hearted, almost comical mood of the prologue and parodos to the hateful antagonism that nearly leads to a catastrophe. A tragic atmosphere of suffering and dark secrets displaces the serene atmosphere of the play’s opening: on Creusa’s part with her sudden outbursts, her sombre recapitulation of her family history, and her accusations against Apollo, on Ion’s with the confession (361) that the absence of a real mother is not easily compensated, in spite of what his monody suggested. The gloom that emanates from Creusa’s stories hits the unsuspecting Ion: her behaviour is atypical of the blissful visitors of Delphi that Ion normally meets (246 χαίρουσιν; cf. 639), and she also sows the first seeds of doubt in his estimation of Apollo. The epeisodion is made up of three scenes of unequal length: an exchange between Ion and Creusa (237–400), a dialogue after Xuthus’ arrival (401– 428), and a monologue (by Ion 429–51). However, it is bound together by the announcement of Xuthus’ later arrival (300) and, in the later parts (404, 431, 437–9, 442–3), by references and allusions to the opening especially. The ring composition from Creusa’s first outburst (252–4) to Ion’s rebuke of the god (439–47) highlights the problem of Apollo’s justice. The morality of the god’s actions is questioned and only partly reaffirmed for the audience through the dramatic irony that the mother unknowingly talks to the son whom she presumes lost; for within the dramatic fiction Creusa’s agony is real. 237–400 Dialogue Ion-Creusa Creusa and Ion, two complete strangers, engage in a long and personal conversation. They quickly become interested in what the other person has to tell, so that many commentators surmised that their kinship created a subliminal bond between them. They first talk about their seemingly very different biography and family background, and when Creusa hears that Ion may have been abandoned because he resulted from an illicit affair, she tells her story, pretending that it happened to a friend of hers. The audience are familiar with most of the information shared in the conversation, from Hermes’ speech and from standard Athenian mythology, and so they can focus on the manner in which the conversation is conducted. On the surface, each character seems lucky to the other person: Creusa is from a most noble, autochthonous Athenian stock, while Ion is well-mannered and has a respectable outward appearance. However, both describe their own state in very negative terms, and their spontaneous, emotional reactions to points that touch them reveal their unhappiness: while in Ion’s case the tender spot is the obscurity of his origin and his lack of a real mother (311, 319,



237–451 1st Epeisodion

199

325, 331, 361), Creusa offers information on the bloody history of the family and her marriage more freely than Ion feels comfortable with. Several times she bursts out in emotional distress, when she is reminded of the rape or her lost child (something only the audience realises, but inexplicable to Ion), but she conceals the story of her rape, partly excusing herself without a proper explanation (249–51, 256–7), partly hiding behind her alleged friend (330, 338). Ion repeatedly changes topic when the light tone of the conversation threatens to evaporate (most clearly in 275). His politeness and considerateness indicates the tone of the dialogue, which distinctly expresses the sympathy between the characters: mother and son unknowingly enact their hidden relationship through their friendliness and interest in each other’s story. Ion avoids confrontational topics but tries to flatter Creusa by expressing his admiration for her place of origin and by inquiring about her famous ancestry. His civility at the start is appreciated (247); she asks without condescension about his origins (308–18) and takes an interest in his situation (322–9). The tone is to some extent undercut by constant dramatic irony, which draws the audience’s attention to the real relationship between Creusa and Ion (similarly in other conversations without (mutual) recognition: El. 220– 89, IT 467–642): when Creusa speaks about her family (and her ‘friend’s’ child from Apollo) or Ion about missing his mother, the audience are made aware that the other person is affected unknowingly. The degree of similarity and synchronism of the two fates are noticed (330, 354, 359): Creusa’s ‘friend’, i.e. Creusa herself, is a mother who has exposed and lost her son, while Ion thinks he may have been exposed after an extramarital affair; moreover, he has the same age as the woman’s son. Thus recognition seems imminent. The technique of teasing the knowing audience is the same as in other plays, most of all in Soph. OT (cf. Dawe on OT p. 16; less pointed also in IT 467–642): the coincidence seems too blatant to be missed. The fact that the characters nevertheless fail to recognise each other shows their blindness (rather than the role of τύχη, as assumed by Solmsen (1934) 392–3, Erbse (1975), Giannopoulou (1999–2000)). The audience’s expectation of a happy ending, which has been raised by Hermes’ speech, becomes uncertain. 237–57 Creusa enters before the maids can finish their tour of the sanctuary, as she intends to consult the oracle ahead of Xuthus’ arrival (332). Twice she evinces her hidden feelings, her sense of having been wronged by Apollo, first by breaking into tears, then, when she tries to pass over the cause, by another eruption of emotion (252–4). Her gloomy reaction to the sight of the temple stands in marked contrast to the happy, carefree curiosity of the chorus. It

200

Commentary

cuts short Ion’s respectful salutation and delays the introduction until 258. Ion reacts with concern to Creusa’s emotionalism (257 φροντίδες), bewildered by Creusa’s unusually sad countenance in 241–6, and without comprehension in 255. Creusa tries to dismiss her outbursts, and Ion is polite enough to let her, although her comments leave a mark on him (cf. 430 αἰεί). 237–40 Ion’s politeness is expressed in the formal tone of his address. In only 13 (out of 107) first entrances in Euripides is the new arrival addressed by those already on stage (rather than vice versa). Often the higher status of the addressee is the reason (Taplin (1977) 397). Mastronarde (1979) 22 with n.16 rather highlights Ion’s particular eagerness, but his specific role as ‘receptionist’ (cf. 640–1) accounts sufficiently for his behaviour; and that Creusa is too caught up in grief to address Ion (Halleran (1985) 104) is not right: she is overwhelmed by her feelings only when she looks at the temple. 237 γενναιότητος: With this slight change, the line forms a compliment (‘Your appearance proves your nobility and character.’): the paradosis γενναιότης σοι, by contrast, is not just abrupt but means that Ion tells Creusa she is noble (with ἔστι or ἔνεστι to be added: so Skiadas (1972) 378), information she may not need to hear. In Phoen. 1680 γενναιότης σοι is a reaction to a statement, and qualified by the contrast μωρία δ’ ἔνεστί τις. Philodemus’ quotation (De Poem. 89.24–90.5 γενναιότ[±7] τρόπων τεκμ[ήριον τὸ σ]χῆμα ἔχεις τό̣δ’, ἥ[τις εἶ ποτ]’, ὦ γύ[ν]αι· γνο̣ίη [δ]’ ἂν ὡς [τὰ] πό[λλ’ ἂ]ν ἀνθρώπου [πέρι τὸ σχ]ῆμα ἰδών τις [εἰ πέφυκ]εν εὐγενής) does not confirm either text but it rules out some conjectures, which were made because the papyrus was overlooked by scholars between G. Schmid (1884) 50 and Janko (2000): firstly, the start of the quote is evidence against the loss of a line before 237, which Lloyd-Jones (1957) 97 assumed on account of the perceived abruptness of the transmitted text and the absence of an address at the start. The second point is not compelling: cf. IT 482–3 τί ταῦτ’ ὀδύρηι κἀπὶ τοῖς μέλουσι νῶιν κακοῖς σὲ λυπεῖς, ἥτις εἶ ποτ’, ὦ γύναι; Badham’s γενναιότητος τῶν requires another (unnecessary) change; it may be preferable that Ion ascribe nobility, not just noble manners, to Creusa. τεκμήριον: Throughout the play Ion attaches great importance to scrutiny and evidence (329, 540–55, 1410, 1546–7), and he demands the same interest from others (349). The frequency of τεκμήριον aphorisms and references in Euripides (cf. Oenom. fr. 574, Phoenix fr. 811 τἀφανῆ τεκμηρίοισιν εἰκότως ἁλίσκεται) accumulates over time, a reflection of the concept’s increasing importance in the legal discourse (Thomas (1997) 138), but also of a wider development in the construction of arguments based on evidence, detectable in the Hippocratic writings (e.g. Progn. 25.9–12), Thucydides,



237–451 1st Epeisodion

201

and Aristophanes (Eq. 33); for further evidence and discussion cf. Hornblower (1987) 100–7, Perilli (1991) 172–8. 238 τὸ σχῆμ’: ‘outward appearance’, implying dignity (as in Med. 1072; cf. Mastronarde ad loc. and on Phoen. 250–2). The reference to noble appearance is a standard in the salutation to strangers in earlier poetry (cf. Richardson on Hom.Hym. 2.213ff). τόδ’: ὅδε, when used for the second person, signals particular attachment: cf. Soph. El. 884, K-G I 644, 208n. ἥτις εἶ ποτ’: Such indefinite addresses are ‘almost a formula in pre-recognition scenes’ (Bond on Hyps. fr. I.i.5 [=fr. 752d.5]); Diggle (1981a) 99 gives more passages. ὦ γύναι: a neutral address, used for all social groups and degrees of respect (Dickey (1996) 86–7). 239 γνοίη δ’ ἂν: Nobility is discernible from one’s appearance: Hec. 379, Hyps. fr. 757.854–5, Soph. El. 664, Hom.Hym. 2.213–15. Kraus 38–9 (preceded by Owen) notes that 239–40 make Ion seem precocious and wishes to delete them. They do indeed hardly more than repeat the sense of 237–8, and their defence on grounds of ‘starke Herausarbeitung des dramatischen Moments’ (Biehl (1992) 15–16) is unconvincing. However, no major flaw can be seen in them and they seem perfectly Euripidean. Philodemus’ Pausimachus objects to the sound of repeated σχῆμα but ascribes the flaw to Euripides, not to interpolation (De Poem. 90.5–9). Ion’s obsession with nobility and the irony that his own nobility has not been recognised are in line with the rest of the scene. ὡς τὰ πολλ᾿ ἂν: The decision between the text offered by Philodemus and that of L (ὡς τὰ πολλά γ’) is difficult, as both readings make sense and either error can easily be explained by haplography/dittography and subsequent correction of the metre. Double ἄν may count as lectio difficilior; it reaffirms the notion of the potential (cf. Wackernagel (1953) I 67–70, Slings (1992) 102–5) after the modifier ὡς τὰ πολλά: cf. Hcld. 721 φθάνοις δ’ ἂν οὐκ ἂν τοῖσδε σὸν κρύπτων δέμας, Soph. El. 697. 241–6 Creusa starts to weep after Ion’s opening words: tragedy tends to mark the start of strong emotional gestures (Telò (2002a) 38), and the tenses here serve as confirmation. Ion’s response is prompted both by human compassion and by his role as guardian of the temple: Creusa’s reaction to the sight of the temple is unusual (as the chorus’ amazement in the parodos shows) and even potentially offensive to the god and his worshippers. For Apollo in particular dislikes sorrow: cf. 639, Suppl. 289–90, IA 1488–90 οὐ δάκρυά

202

Commentary

γέ σοι δώσομεν ἁμέτερα· παρ’ ἱεροῖς γὰρ οὐ πρέπει, schol. Phoen. 1028, Aesch. Ag. 1074–5 (with Fraenkel). In IT 860 the lament at the altar evidences the dreadfulness of the events described. 241 ἔα: Cf. 154; Ion is alarmed and surprised by the change on Creusa’s face. ἐξέπληξάς: instantaneous aorist (cf. K-G I 163–4, M. Lloyd (1999)) with the coincident aorists συγκλήισασα and ὑγράνασ(α): ‘Your shutting your eyes and crying is frightening me.’ ὄμμα συγκλήισασα: Tears and closed eyes could not be visually represented because of the mask, so they need to be described: cf. Cic. De Or. 3.221 sed in ore sunt omnia, in eo autem ipso dominatus est omnis oculorum; quo melius nostri illi senes, qui personatum ne Roscium quidem magno opere laudabant (5th-cent. Greek masks were thinner, though). All the characters with closed eyes in Taplin (2007) are blind, asleep, or dead. On references to tears cf. Medda (1997). 245–6 οὗ πάντες … χαίρουσιν: ‘where all the others rejoice when they look at the god’s temple’; Murray leaves the paradosis ὅ, but the inconcinnity with ἐνταῦθα is undesirable. What could be the antecedent? The temple, which would be the only topographical element near would require ἅ. And with ἐνταῦθα in the meaning ‘in this respect’ (Irvine) ὃ χαίρουσιν makes little sense. Owen is too strict when he claims that χαίρω takes the accusative only with participle (cf. 358, Dem. 18.292, Cratinus PCG 164), but in the other instances that accusative is a neuter plural. 247–51 By acknowledging Ion’s empathy and returning his polite address, Creusa establishes a relationship of mutual respect and kindness. Her formulations evade anything that could allow Ion to guess the nature of the past event in question and its relation to Apollo. 247 ὦ ξένε: This address is the expected form (Dickey (1996) 146) and considerably more polite than the chorus’ σέ τοι (219). There is a touch of irony in its use between mother and son. οὐκ ἀπαιδεύτως: Creusa commends Ion’s reaction for its tact and fine feeling. ἀπαίδευτος denotes a lack of civilised manners and refinement, i.e. of considerateness, inoffensive language, intelligence, and generally intellectual and social ‘education’; cf. Cycl. 493, Ar. Vesp. 1183, and Isoc. 12.218 on a person making offensive as well as stupid and inarticulate comments. 248: The line is interpolated, an explicative addition to the pregnant τὸ σόν in 247 (Cropp (1986), comparing IA 1402 τὸ μὲν σόν, ὦ νεᾶνι, γενναίως



237–451 1st Epeisodion

203

ἔχει). The plural θαύματα meaning ‘astonishment’ is a solecism. It is, moreover, unclear why Ion’s surprise at Creusa’s tears rather than his concern and sensitivity (257 φρόντιζε) should be οὐκ ἀπαίδευτον. 250 ἀνεμετρησάμην: ‘rehearse’, i.e. relive the memories, not ‘go all the way back’ (through the long interval to things παλαιά): cf. [1271], Or. 14 τί τἄρρητ’ ἀναμετρήσασθαί με δεῖ; 251 ἐκεῖσε: Her thoughts have wandered to the memory (250 μνήμη) of something that happened in the past and in a different place. ἐνθάδε forms the contrast with both the present and the current location (cf. 384). οἴκοι δέ (L) is a gloss rather than an error arising from itacism: Creusa keeps the reference vague and distant, and a reader felt the need to make it explicit. Parallels of the phrase are listed in Diggle on Pha. 265, (1981a) 98, and Sullivan (2000) 49. ἔσχον: L’s ἔσχομεν is unmetrical, and Stephanus’ emendation retains both the tense and the number of ἀνεμετρησάμην. With ἔχομεν (Biehl) Creusa would still be dwelling on the thoughts she wants Ion to believe are dispelled. περ: The concessive particle strengthens the contrast and the evocative potential of the old memory: it generally ‘serves to qualify an element in the sentence as one which might have been expected to invalidate it’ (Chadwick (1996) 241; cf. Bakker (1988) 67–100). The transmitted indefinite που can hardly go with οἴκοι (against Skiadas (1972) 378, Kraus 41) or ἐκεῖσε, and ‘somewhere here’ does not make sense after the recognition of the temple (contrast Aesch. Eum. 252 ὅδ’ ἐνθάδ’ ἐστί που καταπτακών). 252–4 Despite her attempt to ease the tension after her first confrontation with Apollo, Creusa again loses control of her emotions and bursts into a complaint about the defencelessness of women before the gods. The subversion of justice in the gods’ culpability and unaccountability will bother Ion at the end of the scene and be touched upon by Creusa in her monody. The lines are not an aside, although they are not addressed to anyone present (Bain (1977) 36–7): Ion does not understand Creusa’s complaint, but he hears it. 252 τλήμονες ... τολμήματα: a play with etymology (with a similar change of the grammatical voice as in 960). 253 τί δῆτα;: ‘And now?’, introducing the rhetorical conclusion (cf. Denniston 269), here demonstrating the consequences of the gods’ injustice. ποῖ δίκην ἀνοίσομεν: ‘To whom shall we refer the punishment (i.e. the restoration of justice)?’ If the god as the highest source of justice is himself an

204

Commentary

offender, there is no chance of redress for those wronged. The formulation has a double meaning: the traditional idea of gods as avengers (e.g. Hec. 1029–31, Herc. 772–4, Or. 1361–2; cf. Allan (2006)) is undermined if the gods are themselves unjust, for they will be unwilling to exact punishment. But more importantly, the gods would be the judges of their own offences, so their victims have no higher authority to which to turn. This thought underlies 439–51 and in particular the parenthesis in 444. Pace Bayfield and others, this is not exact legal language as attested in the orators: Pollux (8.28–9) knows δίκην φέρειν and γραφὴν ἀποφέρειν; the latter is attested in forensic speeches (e.g. Isocr. 15.103, Dem. 19.257). ἀναφέρω τὴν αἰτίαν (Antiph. 6.6, Lys. 12.28) or τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (Or. 76) means ‘to shift the blame’; the word denoting ‘blame’ or the charge must not be left out (in Dem. 47.31 add ὄφελος from ὀφείλων). For the use of ἀναφέρω in this passage cf. 543, 827, Or. 597–8, Lys. 12.81 φίλων, οἷς τὰς ἀπολογίας ἀνοίσει ‘friends to whom he will leave the defence’. The change from the transmitted ἀνήσομεν is tiny and the evidence all favours ἀναφέρω. 254 κρατούντων: Creusa means ‘if the gods are themselves compromised by their own injustice’, but Ion rather understands ‘when it comes to a case where the powerful abuse us ...’ κρατέω is frequently used of the gods (cf. 439, 446) but can denote anyone in power. Ion may think of a situation as in Hes. Op. 39, 221, where the kings are bribed to pass crooked verdicts. ὀλούμεθα: Braunlich (1962) 397 defends the paradosis ὀλοίμεθα by explaining the change of mood within the conditional period as conversationally informal. But the palaeographic mistake is easy, and the distanced tone and the notion of potentiality in the optative jar with Creusa’s indignation. 255–7 255 τί χρῆμ᾿: ‘Why ...?’ a meaning the phrase has only in Euripides’ tragedies (cf. esp. El. 831 τί χρῆμ’ ἀθυμεῖς;). The punctuation ‘What? Are you ...?’ (Musgrave, Biehl; cf. Andr. 901) does not suit this passage, as ἀνερμήνευτα does not make sense in the resulting second question. ἀνερμήνευτα: ‘unexplained’ or even ‘inexplicable’. ἀνερεύνητα (L) is unmetrical, and the emendation is plausible, if we assume that a scribe switched ηνευ to ευνη, later ‘emended’ by the deletion of μ. Other conjectures suppose the acceptability of a particle after τί χρῆμα, which Iakov (1975) 379– 82 has shown to be erroneous (his own ἀδιερεύνητα, attested in Plato and Xenophon, sounds prosaic). The verbal adjective is not defined as to voice, active or passive: cf. Bond on Hyps. I.iv.18 (=fr. 752h.18) and below 701n. δυσθυμῆι: only here and Med. 91 (again middle) in an Attic writer. The reason for the emotion is in the accusative, as with ἀθυμέω (cf. Thuc. 5.91.1, K-G I 298).



237–451 1st Epeisodion

205

256 οὐδέν: ‘It’s nothing’, trying to change the topic, evading an answer that would reveal too much (cf. 288, Med. 925, Collard (2005) 368). 404 ‘not at all’ is not a parallel: 1) There is no γε after οὐδέν; 2) οὐδέν answers a question-word question, not a polar question that could take the answer ‘no’. μεθῆκα τόξα: ‘I have spoken rashly.’ The shooting of missiles is a common metaphor used of an impetuous verbal attack (Hec. 603, Suppl. 456, Andr. 365, Mel.Desm. fr. 494.2, Pind. I. 5.46–8) and for blurting something out without due control: Tro. 444 (prediction), Aesch. Eum. 676 (arguments). Here the aggression is directed against the archer himself. Wilamowitz’ ‘den Bogen beiseite gelegt’ (thus literally in Soph. Phil. 975) underestimates Creusa’s irritability, e.g. in 284–6. τἀπὶ τῶιδε: The preposition can express a broad range of connections, and the scope should not be narrowed down, possible translations thus include ‘what lies behind it’, ‘what follows from (or after) it’, ‘what else could be said about it’. Creusa expresses that there would be more to say, but that she will not be pressed to say anything about it. 257 μὴ φρόντιζ’ ἔτι: Creusa shuts the case by expressing again her appreciation of Ion’s concern. L wrongly separates φρόντιζέ τι (cf. Ar. Pl. 215 and the possibly less formal aorist in e.g. Soph. Phil. 1404 with Headlam (1905) 31, 35). 258–369 The conversation, from 264 in strict stichomythia, shows the closeness, almost an intimacy, between Ion and Creusa. The two are again and again drawn to the point that joins them without their knowledge. Three times does the conversation touch on the story of Creusa’s rape, despite very different points of departure: Creusa’s hometown, her marriage, and Ion’s obscure biography (283, 305, 330). The length of the stichomythia (264–369, the longest in extant drama; the second longest is 934–1028) has been criticised as ‘too much of even the best of dialogue, and this lacks both cleverness and subject-matter’ (Hancock (1917) 19; similarly Gross (1905) 70). More recent criticism has been kinder and substituted functional for primarily aesthetic judgments (Schwinge (1968) 26, Collard (1980), M. Heath (1987) 129). The conversation proceeds in three steps, each showing a mistaken assumption being corrected. (For detailed structures differing from this one cf. Ludwig (1954) 58–9, Schwinge p. 293). In the first part (258–307), when Ion learns about Creusa’s origin and lineage, he admires her on account of this background. In learning more about the family and Creusa’s situation he recognises the deceptive appearance of high status. In the second section (308–25) Creusa has to retract the statement that the young man’s mother must be blessed because of her son. In the third part (330–62a) Creusa con-

206

Commentary

vinces a sceptical Ion that his high esteem of Apollo is not fully justified and that the god can act unjustly and has done so against a woman. All three parts form ring compositions, and the first two describe a similar learning process about the person asked (cf. 258~308, 305~319, 307 τλάμων~324 τάλαινα). In the final part (362b–9; the section continues beyond stichomythia to [380]) Ion advises Creusa to abstain from consulting the god about the dead child. Euripides provides variety in several ways: the role of questioner changes in each part (308, 331) before the informative stichomythia turns into an advisory one (362); the topic shifts from personal inquiry to myths, the story of ‘Creusa’s friend’, and finally the argument about the admissibility of her question to the oracle. Most of all, Euripides varies the mood, from relaxed serenity to renewed expression of Creusa’s suffering and the tension of near-recognition – where the gap of knowledge between audience and actors becomes particularly agonising. Partly in consequence of the lack of a clear aim and unified tone in the conversation (interpreted by Gould (1987) 173 as an innovative kind of theatricality), the stichomythia draws attention to its own length: the expectation that it may come to an end is raised by possible exit points and changes of pace, where longer utterances could easily interrupt the stichomythic format (most clearly 330). Recurrent forms of dramatic irony stress the point that the solution to the unhappiness of both characters is very close at hand: 1) Ion and Creusa speak the truth unknowingly or their words have a meaning they are not aware of (most artfully in 306). 2) Ion and Creusa speak of themselves when they comment on the son of ‘Creusa’s friend’ and Ion’s mother respectively. 3) The characters seem to be moving towards realisation of the truth, but they fail to understand the clues and coincidences. The audience are teased by the exceptionally long continuation of the stichomythic format and the hint at a possible shortcut to the dramatic resolution. But the seeming closeness of that resolution throws into relief the later conflict between the two characters, which almost prevents that recognition and happy ending. The spectators experience the constant change of tension and release, recognising the blindness of the characters and the fragility of their respective position, the ignominy of Ion’s bastardy and his lack of a sense of belonging and Creusa’s humiliating experience of powerlessness to obtain redress. The format also makes a particular kind of characterisation possible. In the rapid exchange it is easy to show direct engagement between the two characters: the way they keep asking in quick succession shows their sympathy and interest in each other. Their reactions to certain topics and to their respective responses offers a condensed illustration of their predispositions and the considerateness of each other (cf. 237–400n). The politeness and dignified behaviour this entails also reflects their natural nobility. The live-



237–451 1st Epeisodion

207

ly and at times colloquial style (275 τί δαί, 276, 343 τί χρῆμα, 297 κἆιτα), however, makes clear that their conversation transcends the boundaries of a purely formal and distanced relationship. 258–307 After the customary question about the identity of the new arrival, Ion shows remarkable knowledge about Athens in asking Creusa to confirm the stories he has heard. His questions show polite but genuine interest and a certain fascination with her illustrious origin and lineage. However, all his questions, covering personal matters, family history, and even Athenian topography, end in answers that reveal a dark side behind the façade of Creusa’s nobility. When she does not couch her answers in language of light conversation, Ion politely steers away and changes topic (275, 283, 289). In the end the ring composition is completed when Ion pities Creusa as he finally agrees that her good fortune is only appearance (264~307). 258–88 Ion politely does not follow up on Creusa’s outbreak and continues with the customary introduction. The mention of Athens and Creusa’s pedigree prompts him to ask about specific stories: the birth of Erechtheus, the sacrifice of the Agraulids, and Erechtheus’ death. Each of these includes death, and when even his inquiry about the seemingly innocuous Makrai provokes a gloomy answer from Creusa, Ion ends his inquiries about the past. 258–64 Ion follows the traditional Homeric set of questions about a person (e.g. Od. 1.170 τίς πόθεν εἶς ἀνδρῶν; πόθι τοι πόλις ἠδὲ τοκῆες;). The three affiliations are mentioned also in Hel. 87–8, if genuine, and Soph. OC 571–2. Parts of the set are found e.g. in Hel. 83 and IT 472–9. In the Odyssey passage and others (Aeg. fr. 1 ποίαν σε φῶμεν γαῖαν ἐκλελοιπότα πόλει ξενοῦσθαι τῆιδε; τίς πάτρας ὅρος;) the enquirer differentiates between the point of departure and the homeland. This seems to be the case in the transmitted version here (ἐκ ποίας πάτρας). But L. Dindorf rightly emended to ποίου πατρός. The order of Creusa’s answer is then exactly the reverse of the question. For a woman, even a queen, it must be rare to leave her city anyway, so the question about the place she is arriving from makes little sense. Diggle (1981a) 98 defends ποίας πάτρας on the grounds that ποῖος is used with the place of origin, not with kin. However, 574 ὁποίας ... γυναικός (also 803) invalidates this distinction; Diggle’s explanation of that phrase as ‘what sort of woman/mother’ is forced after Ion has just established that she is not a slave (556). Moreover, φύω (+ ἐκ) + gen. is used

208

Commentary

idiomatically with people, not places (Kovacs (1984) 240). Reading πάτρα as ‘clan’ (Verrall, Wackernagel (1953) I 485) presumes an unusual meaning and does not solve the other problems. 258 τίς δ’ εἶ;: The general question encompasses the other three specific ones: Creusa describes who she is by reference to her name, her father’s name, and her place of origin. 259 ὄνομα τί σε καλεῖν ἡμᾶς χρεών: Cf. Cycl. 548 εἰπὲ τοὔνομ’ ὅτι σε χρὴ καλεῖν. In regular Athenian conversation it would be a significant breach of etiquette to ask a woman for her name. Instead, τίς εἶ (IT 540, IA 825) gives the woman the possibility to say ‘x’s wife/daughter’: cf. Ar. Thesm. 605 and Iphigeneia’s reticence (IT 541, 773). But women holding public functions were nameable (Sommerstein (1980) 395–6 = (2009) 47). Clytemestra can give her name in the double function as future mother-in-law and queen (IA 827–8), Creusa as queen. 262 κλεινὸν: Here the adjective (together with γενναίων) expresses Ion’s motivation for his questions (contrast 30 with n): Creusa is from a famous city and a famous family in it. 263 θαυμάζω: ‘honour’: cf. Denniston on El. 84. 264 τοσαῦτα κεὐτυχοῦμεν: ‘In these respects I am happy.’ καί after demonstratives (Denniston 307) fits better than the contrast between ‘the objective reality of an idea and [...] the unreality of something else’, which Denniston himself proposes for this very passage (321–2: ‘Thus far I am fortunate.’). 265–74 Ion starts by asking about a famous episode of Creusa’s family history: when the Earth (Ge) had given birth to Erichthonius, Athena took him up, put him in a basket, and handed him over to the daughters of Cecrops, with the command that they not open the basket. When they disobeyed the order, the girls were killed (on variants in details of the mythical tradition cf. 272n). The story had been treated in the Danais (PEG F 2), Pind. fr. 253, and by Euripides himself in an uncertain play (fr. 925). On the use of the story as mirror of Ion’s birth cf. ch. 3B, 20–7n. Ion’s excitement at the story of Erichthonius and the opportunity to ask about it makes him appear of ‘an almost childish simplicity’ (Badham). He does not notice Creusa’s warning that she does not find her family history all that edifying (264 τοσαῦτα), and he asks questions that provoke unexpectedly negative replies.



237–451 1st Epeisodion

209

265 ἀληθῶς: in the same way at the start of mythological unravelling in 275, 281. In later Euripides a signal of incredulity or great surprise (Cycl. 241, IT 509, Or. 739). μεμύθευται βροτοῖς: Cf. 196–7n. 266: τί χρῆμ(α) is object of both ἐρωτᾶις (cf. 276) and ἐκμαθεῖν: ‘What is it you are asking, in a desire to know it’. Badham’s emendation (1852) from θέλω brings the line back in accordance with the convention of such ‘fillers’: μαθεῖν/εἰδέναι θέλω is used only by the inquirer in a stichomythia, not by the person ‘filling in’ until the question is complete (e.g. Or. 747, Soph. El. 317). The person who is asked does not show explicit curiosity about the question but rather politely invites finishing it. 267 πρόγονος: Euripides employs ambiguous language and thus leaves the exact generational succession open (as S. Cole (2008) 314 assumes, in order to accentuate the confusion in the tradition): the original meaning ‘born earlier’, suggested by 20–1, 1000, is redundant with ‘father’ (which is suggested by 1007–8), while the usual significance ‘ancestor’ insinuates an earlier generation. Gaps and unclarities in the royal succession are a constant feature of the Athenian genealogical myths (as demonstrated by R. Parker (1987) 200). In Athenian mythography, Pandion (I) was king between Erichthonius and Erechtheus, but he was probably a later invention (Harding (2008) 42). ἔβλαστεν: Ion uses a metaphor for child-birth current since Pindar (N. 8.7), which had, however, retained its agricultural connotation (e.g. Herc. 5, fr. 912), thus transferring the botanical idea to birth from the earth. On vase paintings since the time of the Persian Wars (cf. Kron (1976) 56; e.g. LIMC Erechtheus 1, 11), Erichthonius does not ‘grow’ but is handed over by personified Ge. 269 ἦ καί: ‘And did really ...?’ καί continues the story asked about in 267, but may also express a certain eagerness (Denniston 283). γῆθεν ἐξανείλετο: The double prefix ἐξ-αν- might evoke the idea that Athena pulled Erichthonius out of the earth. On the other hand, writing Γῆθεν would be closer to the scene as it is commonly depicted, with the goddess receiving the babe from the hands of Ge (above). Parallel formations of θεν-compounds with persons support the idea (e.g. Hel. 1505 διόθεν, 672 μητρόθεν). 270 παρθένους ... οὐ τεκοῦσά: With the repeated emphasis on virginity Creusa focuses on her own concerns, planting the idea of motherhood in the centre of the story. The answer to Ion’s question is only implied.

210

Commentary

271 ὥσπερ ἐν γραφῆι νομίζεται: ‘as is commonly depicted on paintings’; cf. the formula ὡς νομίζεται ‘as is customary’ (e.g. Alc. 99) and hence ‘commonly’. The accuracy of Ion’s statement is doubtful: extant pottery shows only two motifs, firstly Ge’s handing over of Erichthonius to Athena (sometimes in the presence of Cecrops and his daughters), secondly the flight and punishment of the Agraulids. The passage restates the importance of visual representations of myths (along with oral records in 273), already demonstrated in the parodos. References to art occur in the form of ecphrases (1163–5, Phoen. 1104–40), in comparisons (Phoen. 130, Aesch. Suppl. 282– 3, Ag. 242, Eum. 49), or, as here, when they state it as a source of knowledge (Hipp. 451, 1005, Tro. 687, Aesch. Eum. 50). A sculpture of Cecrops is also part of the decoration of Ion’s tent (1163–5, Zeitlin (1994) 155). Pausanias attests to Delphi’s richness in mural and panel paintings with mythological subjects (e.g. 10.25–31). On knowledge of myths from paintings in private houses cf. also Plaut. Capt. 998–9, Men. 143–4, Ter. Eun. 584–5. 272 Κέκροπός γε: The particle shows that Creusa does not simply finish the sentence for Ion in the usual way but interrupts him: ‘Yes, to the daughters of Cecrops’. Versions differ over how many daughters violated Athena’s order (one, two, or all three). The manner of death is reported in reconcilable versions: Apollodorus (Bibl. 3.189) tells that they were killed by the guardian snakes, but the snakes may have driven them over the cliffs, as on the pictorial record (LIMC Aglauros 15, 19). The location of the Aglaureion below the Eastern slope (Dontas (1983)) conveys the same idea. On the varying tradition cf. Sourvinou-Inwood (2011) 37–8, Kron (1976) 67–72; a full compilation of source texts can be found in Powell (1906) 56–86. 272 οὐχ ὁρώμενον: ‘the invisible boy’: ὁρώμενον is attributive and as such not part of the command (hence οὐχ): cf. Moorhouse (1948) 36. 274  τοιγὰρ: ‘and so’, implicitly answers the question and gives details of the tragic end before Ion can even ask. Again Creusa highlights the tragic aspects of the story. She does not mention divine involvement or the aspect of punishment in their death, which would only stress that the gods punish justly. 275–82 Since the story of Erchthonius has provoked an unexpectedly gloomy reaction from Creusa, Ion progresses to the next generation. But in the new story the head of the house suffers along with the daughters: in the story, the subject matter of Erechtheus, Creusa’s father sacrifices one of his daughters to ward off the invasion of Eumolpus; in the battle he is killed by Poseidon’s trident (or in a different version by Zeus’ thunderbolt at Poseidon’s request:



237–451 1st Epeisodion

211

Hygin. Fab. 46). Again Creusa twice gives the conversation a gruesome twist (278, 282), through the use of the word σφάγια and by responding to the euphemistic κρύπτει with the image of the wrathful god smiting her father. Creusa once more stresses the family’s difficult relationship with the immortals, offering more than Ion had asked after. 275 εἶἑν: ‘Anyway.’ Ion is taken aback by Creusa’s grim answer to his innocuous question and diverts to a different story. The interjection marks a shift of topic and is neutral in tone; it does not imply a positive attitude towards what precedes. Badham wishes to delete λόγος, as he thinks εἶἑν extra metrum was not suitable for an unimpassioned dialogue. But τί δαὶ τόδ(ε), a markedly colloquial Attic phrase (Stevens (1976) 45–6), is a sign that the dialogue is not as calm as Badham would believe. The phrase is entirely appropriate from an excitable character (cf. 265 πρὸς θεῶν) in this conversation. ἆρ’: Double questions can be introduced by ἆρα, especially if the second half is the opposite of the first, since each part can then be answered by yes or no, and the answer to one implies the answer to the other: Phoen. 424, Ar. Ran. 64, Men. Cith. 66–7; more often in Plato. ἀληθές: Cf. 265. More commonly an emotional one-word question with recessive accentuation, in response to a barely credible statement: Cycl. 241, fr. 885, Soph. Ant. 758, OT 350 and frequently in Aristophanes. μάτην: ‘false’: cf. 1537. It is easiest to explain the adverb by ellipsis of λέγεται: cf. Soph. Phil. 345 λέγοντες, εἴτ’ ἀληθὲς εἴτ’ ἄρ’ οὖν μάτην, El. 63, 1298, Pl. Leg. 657D; seemingly adjectival use also in Aesch. Cho. 521 μάτην ὁ μόχθος. 276 οὐ κάμνω: ‘I am not tiring of some leisurely conversation.’ The idea echoes Hec. 238 ἐρώτα· τοῦ χρόνου γὰρ οὐ φθονῶ. Cf. Pind. P. 1.90 μὴ κάμνε λίαν δαπάναις (‘Don’t be overly weary of expenses’). καὶ γάρ continues the invitation to ask (Denniston 108 §2 ‘in fact’): Creusa is characterised as welcoming and enjoying the questions about her family history – or as too polite to refuse them. 277 ἔθυσε: The tradition is not consistent (for a compilation of different versions cf. O’Connor-Visser (1987) 167–8): according to Phanodemus FGrH 325 F 4, two out of six daughters were sacrificed; in Erechtheus (fr. 370.69– 70 with Cropp) and the mainstream of sources only one daughter was killed; the others then committed suicide because they had sworn to do so (Apollod. Bibl. 3.203, Hygin. Fab. 46.4, 238.2). Dem. 60.27 and Demaratus FGrH 42 F 4, however, have versions similar to the one given here, so we need not assume an ostentatious act of innovation on Euripides’ part (so S. Cole (2008) 314–15): the oath and self-sacrifice of the Hyacinthides would make

212

Commentary

the baby’s escape more plausible, but Creusa presents the family history as an accumulation of violence. In this construction there is no space for self-inflicted death or for the mention of the Hyacinthides’ heroic honours (on which cf. Erechth. fr. 370.73–80, Kearns (1989) 201–2). Stories of other sisters (esp. Oreithyia, Procris) are also suppressed here. 278 πρὸ γαίας: Erechth. fr. 360.38–9 δώσω κόρην θῦσαι πρὸ γαίας, 370.40 πρὸ πόλεως, Rh. 154; otherwise in Euripides not with communities. The preposition covers both ‘die/sacrifice for’ and ‘instead of’: cf. Alc. 690 μὴ θνῆισχ’ ὑπὲρ τοῦδ’ ἀνδρός, οὐδ’ ἐγὼ πρὸ σοῦ. σφάγια: Creusa shifts the emphasis from Ion’s factual question to a more evaluative statement. The connotation of bloodshed and violence is highlighted in the root σφάγ- as opposed to the more neutral θύω (Henrichs (2000) 180). 280 ἦν: Jackson (1941b) 171 tries to change to ἦ, which seems to be standard in the 5th cent. But Herc. 1416, Alc. 655, Hipp. 1012 are other unobjectionable instances of this form: cf. Wecklein (1896) 517–18, E. Harrison (1942) 8, Barrett on Hipp. 700. ἐν ἀγκάλαις: Note the contrast to Ion, who was saved ‘in the arms’ of Hermes and the Pythia (1454bis, 1598). Having a baby ἐν or ἐπ’ ἀγκάλαις is the epitome of motherhood and protection (761, 962, 1375; cf. Cycl. 142, Hyps. fr. 757.841). βρέφος νεογνόν may be an allusion to the prologue (31). 281 πατέρα δ’ ἀληθῶς χάσμα σὸν: The strong hyperbaton πατέρα ... σόν and the grammatical ambiguity of the relation of σόν have led Bers (1974) 68 to connect the possessive with χάσμα (in enallage with ‘earth’). But the delay of the possessive is within the norm (cf. Devine/Stephens (2000) 95), and in Bers’ parallels (p. 23: Suppl. 631, Herc. 468, 876) the possessive always makes sense with the word to which it grammatically belongs, while σὸν χάσμα does not. κρύπτει: Cf. Erechth. fr. 370.59–60 κατὰ χθονὸς κρύψας Ἐρεχθέα. 282 τριαίνης ποντίου:  Cf. Erechth. fr. 370.55–6 αὐδῶ τρίαιναν τῆσδ᾿ ἀποστρέφειν χθονός, πόντιε Πόσειδον. 283–8 Since the family history has not proved to be a suitable topic for conversation, Ion turns from the noble family to the illustrious city and to a (seemingly) less delicate topic that is close to his heart: his god. Of all places in Athens he naturally mentions the Makrai, which are the place of Apollo Patroos/Pythios (285, giving the reply to Creusa’s ‘why’): they are the place



237–451 1st Epeisodion

213

with the clearest connection to Ion himself. But Creusa again does not have positive associations with the rocks, which horrifies Ion all the more. 283 ἔστ’: On the accent cf. 25n. 285 Ἀπόλλων: The name of the god (restored by Blaydes (1901) 176) is the one that could be most easily replaced by the unmetrical gloss Πύθιος: a scribe specified which Apollo’s place it was by adding his regular epithet (cf. 11–13n, also on ἀστραπαί) and this eventually replaced the original name. Πύθιος cannot be saved: 1) tragic synizesis of -ιο- is highly doubtful (K-B I 228); in Euripides consonantalisation of ι or υ occurs only with the form Ἐρινύων (IT 931, 970, 1456). Disyllabic Πυθίων is attested only in one, clumsily versified, inscription (CEG 83, Athens 5th cent.). 2) The metrical irregularity of trisyllabic Πύθιος must not be accepted, either: anapaests after the first foot (-ιος ἀστ-) are admitted in proper nouns and related adjectives (West (1982) 82, Descroix (1931) 198–9) but not in the ‘split’ form across two words. 286 τιμᾶι †τιμᾶ†: The text is impossible because τιμ- is long. A plethora of suggestions has not helped to a conclusive decision about the right text. Creusa probably confirms: ‘Yes indeed, he holds it in honour (sc. and how he does).’ One way to capture the strong emotion of her consternation would be a geminatio with a word intervening, e.g. τιμᾶι γε τιμᾶι: cf. Alc. 1093, Phoen. 584, Ba. 971. ὡς would have to go as a metrical interpolation, and it is not grammatically necessary (e.g. Soph. Phil. 969). This deletion will have the additional benefit of removing diaeresis after the second foot, which is rare in Euripides (although it becomes less exceptional from Med.: cf. Denniston (1936) 77–8); in addition, ὡς μή... in negative wishes is always placed at the start of trimeters. The first τιμᾶι could be thought to repeat Ion’s of 285 in an indignant or incredulous response, retaining the inflected form (cf. 951–2; on the pattern Diggle (1981a) 51); but the tone is not quite right: Creusa does not seem to question Ion’s statement or doubt the appropriateness of the term τιμᾶι. With τί and repetition (τιμᾶι; τί τιμᾶι; first proposed by Hermann) Creusa would question her own word: ‘He honours? Why do I say “honour”?’ or ‘What do I mean by “honour”?’ Cf. Alc. 807, IA 460, Bell. fr. 300 (with δέ). 287: For the answer to mean ‘it’s nothing’ or ‘for no reason’ (cf. 256n) the line has to form one single question: ‘How come you are so hostile towards the god’s favourite?’. Diggle follows Hermann in separating τί δέ; from the rest. But the question whether Creusa hates the cave (rather than why) sounds feeble after Creusa’s outburst. Hipp. 784, where τί δέ is (seemingly) followed by another asyndetic question, should be changed in the same way.

214

Commentary

289–98 Shocked by her brusqueness, Ion does not follow up Creusa’s remark but continues his inquiry about Creusa’s male relatives moving on to her husband. Creusa has already told him her own name, but for ordinary women it is by the name of the husband that they would be identified (cf. 259n). Ion’s mistaken assumption that the husband is an Athenian and his repeated surprise at the incorrectness of the guess (291, 293 καὶ πῶς, 297 κἆιτα) show that he considers the marriage something of a mismatch; the distinction Creusa draws between real Athenians and newcomers – instead of giving a straight answer – suggests a similar feeling on her part. 289 πόσις δὲ τίς: Ion makes a leap in the conversation, which is marked by the clause-initial position of the new topic with delay of the interrogative. Ion assumes as natural that Creusa is married to an Athenian (cf. El. 248 Μυκηναίων τίνι;). The fact that the assumption is wrong and her husband from outside emphasises the unusualness of the union. Questions based on wrong assumptions are not too common in tragedy (e.g. 318; the wider phenomenon is discussed in Dubischar (2007)), but that is no sufficient reason for a change of accent to δέ (with earlier editors) to produce ‘Did one of the Athenians marry you?’. The reply (without γε) shows that she does not answer the question but corrects it; and Xuthus is in some sense still Athenian, though not by blood (cf. 290n). For a woman like her it would be unusual to be unmarried (cf. Demand (1994) 12–13; unmarried adult women are deplored in tragedy: e.g. Soph. El. 961–2). 290 οὐκ ἀστὸς: In connection with ξένος this must mean that he was not a citizen at the time of the marriage and is still an outsider in terms of blood (and therefore not felt to be a member of the close-knit community: on ἀστός stressing membership in the community cf. Brock (2010) 95–6). It would be strange to deny him Athenian citizenship entirely (cf. 63n; supported by 670b–5: cf. n). The play superimposes democratic ideas of citizenship onto a monarchic constitution (blurring the periods of the myth and of the audience) and may not be entirely consistent in doing so (in 674 an ἀστός can come from outside), but having a non-citizen as king still seems too odd to be acceptable. In addition, contemporary Athenian equivalents to Xuthus were given citizen status as reward for their ἀνδραγαθία εἰς τὸν δῆμον (cf. the law paraphrased in Dem. 59.89). Osborne (1981–1983) III/IV 12–13 lists 16 naturalised benefactors (plus the men who fought at Arginusae) between 476 and the end of the Peloponnesian War, many of whom were in fact generals. Cf. Pl. Ion 541C–D, esp. Φανοσθένη τὸν Ἄνδριον καὶ Ἡρακλείδην τὸν Κλαζομένιον, οὓς ἥδε ἡ πόλις ξένους ὄντας, ἐνδειξαμένους ὅτι ἄξιοι λόγου εἰσί, καὶ εἰς στρατηγίας καὶ εἰς τὰς ἄλλας ἀρχὰς ἄγει. Xuthus’ putative citizenship explains why a son of his and Creusa’s is acceptable on a legal



237–451 1st Epeisodion

215

level: the son of a naturalised citizen and an Athenian woman is an Athenian with full rights; a son by a foreign woman would be a foreigner (Osborne p. 150–1). The legal position as an Athenian and thereby the recognition of one’s benefactions was no guarantee against resentment and prejudices: e.g. Andoc. 1.149, Dem. 23.200, Ar. Ran. 693–733, Lys. fr. 170.205–7. Euripides blurs Xuthus’ status by the use of the imprecise terminology tragedians frequently apply in matters of civic status: cf. Vidal-Naquet (1997) 109–12. 293 καὶ πῶς: often with a strong sense of surprise: cf. 958, Hec. 883, Denniston 310. Lee also senses mild indignation, as in Hcld. 254. ξένος: The term does not mean that he was not a citizen but that he was not an ἐγγενής Athenian; cf. 673–4, Soph. OT 452, Ar. Ran. 730, Pl. Ion 541C–D (above). The xenophobic attitude against liaisons with immigrants is a topos, in tragedy too: e.g. 589–94, 1058–60, Suppl. 134–7, Phoen. 341. ἔσχεν: ‘won’: aorist forms of ἔχω are ingressive (K-G I 155–6). 294 ἔστι: On the accent cf. 25n. πόλις: The word is used in poetry for territories, esp. islands: cf. 1590, Ba. 58, Tem. fr. 730, Euboea again in Critias TGrF 43 F 16 (= Eur. Rhad. fr. 658N2); on the concept cf. Hansen (1998) 124–32. The phenomenon is older (Hom. Il. 14.230) and extends to lower style (Ar. Pax 251); the only example in prose (Lys. 6.6) is problematic. 295 ὅροις ὑγροῖσιν: Cf. Aesch. Suppl. 258–9 ὅρος ὑγρᾶς θαλάσσης. 296 ἔπερσε: Nothing is known of a mythical capture of Euboea, and 61 sounds more like an invasion that has been fended off. But as the war is probably invented (cf. 59n), there may be room for poetic licence. κοινῶι δορί: ‘in alliance’: cf. Soph. Aj. 1195–6 στυγερῶν ἔδειξεν ὅπλων Ἕλλασιν κοινὸν Ἄρη. 297 ἐπίκουρος: Ion’s use of the term – and even more so Creusa’s application to Ion in 1299 – has a derogatory undertone. κἆιτα marks surprise (Denniston 311, Stevens (1976) 47) at the fact that such a man can gain the hand of the Erechtheid as a prize for his services. ἐπίκουρος is still used in the 5th cent., as in epic, for allied forces, but the scope of its meaning has become applicable also to mercenaries: there is no sharp dividing line, as both groups expect reward (Lavelle (1997), Wees (2004) 71–5). Before the 4th cent. there is only sporadic use of mercenary armies (e.g. Thuc. 1.115.4), and prominent generals who did not fight under a native command are exceptional: Agesias of Arcadia and Praxiteles of Mantinea, if they were mercenaries, served the Syracusan tyrants; Amorges (Thuc. 8.5.5) waged war for himself alongside the Athenians. In the 4th cent. we even find marriages

216

Commentary

between Greek mercenary commanders and daughters of Thracian kings (Anaxandridas PCG 42, Dem. 23.10, 129, Xen. An. 7.2.38). σὸν γαμεῖ λέχος: ‘he enters into marriage with you’: the quasi-internal accusative (λέχος~γάμος) specifies and (together with the position of σόν) emphasises that the marriage is with the king’s daughter. 298: ‘Yes, taking the dowry as prize for his help in war.’ φερνή is rare before Euripides: Aesch. Suppl. 979 (cf. Ag. 406 ἀντίφερνον), Hdt. 1.93.4. It is that which is brought – always in connection with a marriage – in most cases by the woman as dowry. The Homeric γέρας conveys a bitter undertone, as Creusa is treated like the captives of the Iliad: cf. e.g. Andr. 14, Hec. 41. 299–307 Creusa’s marriage is a transitional topic, by which Ion can shift to familiar and harmless territory: he moves on to the present situation of Creusa, which enables him to shift from the introductory conversation to business, i.e. the consultation of the oracle. 299–302 Xuthus is delayed because he first consults the oracle of Trophonius, situated in a cave at Lebadeia, just south of the road to Athens, c. 45 km from Delphi (full documentation in Turner (1994)). The drama condenses events and delays Xuthus’ appearance just long enough to allow Ion and Creusa their conversation, so that she can make an urgent request for silence on his arrival (392–7): in reality the purification preparing the consultation of Trophonius lasted for several days (Paus. 9.39.4). A double consultation need not have been out of the ordinary (cf. Hdt. 8.133–4, Bonnechere (2003) 341), and the route from Athens passing by makes Trophonius’ oracle a natural choice for Xuthus (cf. Gell. Noct.Att. 12.5.1). Trophonius and Delphi are connected by various oracular stories (Paus. 9.16.7, 40.1, Semus FGrH 396 F 10) and the myth that he was immortalised by Apollo for building the Delphic temple (Hom.Hym. 3.294–9, Pind. Isthm. fr. 2–3; cf. Bonnechere p. 341–2). Euripides suggests heroic status (cf. 300n), others call him divine or a δαίμων, just as his parentage is mortal for some, divine (Apollo’s son) for others (cf. Bonnechere p. 87–92, 116–17). 299 μόνη: Women can travel without their husbands for cultic purposes: cf. Antiope test. iii.7, Aristophanes’ Σκήνας καταλαβοῦσαι and the Thyiades (714–24n). 300 σηκοὺς: The term is used by the Lebadeians themselves in the 3rd/2nd cent. for the cella of the temple of Zeus (IG VII 3073.90, 94, SEG 22:440(a).48),



237–451 1st Epeisodion

217

in the 1st/2nd cent. AD for the precinct (IG VII 3077.2): cf. Hellmann (1999) 55. In prose it is applied only to heroes’ precincts, which may indicate Trophonius’ official status. †εὖ στρέφει†: The sense must be ‘is staying behind at’ or ‘is visiting/has turned off to’. All the conjectures offered, however, have deficiencies. The marginal note ἐνστρέφεται, written by Triclines, shows that the υ was a mistake made in copying from Λ (Zuntz (1965) 182; Arsenius’ ἐνστρέφηι is probably his own correction, since the Aldina has εὖ). So Badham’s σηκοῖς δ᾿ ὑστερεῖ (accepted by Diggle) ignores the tradition; it would also require an unparalleled pregnant use ‘he (is late because he) stays in ...’. στρέφω can be used as crypto-transitive, with ἵππους vel sim. to be added (1154, Soph. fr. 738; that use is not attested for ἐνστρέφει or ἐκστρέφει, which Reiske (1754) 147 proposes). I find no parallels for the word order σηκοὺς δ᾿ ἐς στρέφει Τροφωνίου, but σηκοὺς δὲ στρέφει (ΑΚ) is an option; for ἐστάλη cf. Med. 668, Herc. 107–9. The location of the sanctuary fits the idea of a detour. 301 πότερα: πότερον (in the testimonia) is used by Euripides only for metrical reasons, but frequently substituted in mss (e.g. Med. 502, Andr. 316). θεατὴς: On the chorus’ ‘sightseeing’ cf. 184–236bisn. Reports of travelling are frequent. Pausanias (9.39.14) stresses that he was not just a sightseer but consulted Trophonius. 302 ἓν ... ἔπος: lit. ‘just one response’, i.e. a response on the same matter. 303–7 303 καρποῦ ... παίδων: Ion asks about the issue of the consultation, suggesting two standard topics often attested among oracular responses: on barrenness cf. FdD III.1 560, in literature e.g. Med. 667–73, Phoen. 13–16, Archel. fr. 228a.20–1, Hdt. 5.92β.2, and Zeitlin (2008) 322. For consultation about crops cf. e.g. Hdt. 4.151.1, Paus. 2.30.4, Plin. NH 36.4.10. Even if not all of these instances are genuine, they were thought plausible. From Dodona we have tablets recording actual consultations: cf. Dieterle (2007) 346–53, Lhôte (2006) no. 74–79, esp. 77 πὲρ καρπο͂ν τᾶ[ς] γείας; on childlessness cf. Dieterle ibid., Lhôte no. 41–52. Hence there is no reason to doubt the text with Diggle (who suggests ποίων for παίδων) on the grounds that Ion anticipates the answer, although he cannot know it (which would, in any case, not be unusual; cf. the examples in Hancock (1917) 40). 304–5 ἄπαιδές ... ἄτεκνος: In this instance (though not generally: cf. Barone (1987) 59, 62) the meaning of the two words is clearly distinguished by their etymology: ἄπαις denotes simply the absence of children, be it as a consequence of barrenness or of their death (or even disinheritance: Alc.

218

Commentary

735); hence Ion’s question. ἄτεκνος is here used in a strict sense as the opposite of ἔτεκες, although its meaning can be as wide as that of ἄπαις (cf. 65). 305 οὐδὲν πώποτ’: Irvine suggests οὐδεπώποτ’, a conjecture worth considering since neither the meaning ‘nothing’ nor ‘not even a little bit’ seems to fit very well (the translation ‘not ... at all’ glosses over the problem). Cf. 319 οὐπώποτ’. 306 ἀπαιδίαν: Creusa evades a straight answer and reproaches Apollo in a way Ion cannot understand. However, the irony has an extra twist (cf. Seidensticker (1982) 224), as Apollo knows better than her whether she is childless. What is meant to be a concealed cry of desperation undercuts Creusa’s complaints because it stresses her own ignorance. 307 τἄλλ’ εὐτυχοῦσ’ οὐκ εὐτυχεῖς: in ring composition with 263–4: Creusa’s high origins have not saved her from misfortune or provided much compensation. 308–25 The roles are now reversed and the mood changes: Creusa asks about Ion’s fate. Where Creusa had an illustrious but burdensome family background, Ion’s is completely unknown. Again the ring composition ends with the inquirer revising her initial assessment (308 ὤλβισα ~ 324 τάλαινα) – ironically, that assessment concerns the same person (Creusa) and its revision is caused by the same association (with her rape) as in 258–307. True solidarity between the two characters can arise only now, because the social gap becomes unimportant as a consequence of their common experiences (cf. 312n, 320n): in the first round of questions Ion clearly remained her inferior. This passage can be read as a transformation of Hermes’ speech: the outward prosperity and comfortable position of Ion are contrasted with his inner impoverishment through lack of identity (and of a mother). 308–13 The absence of any family and social connection is mentioned three times: first Ion’s role as a slave, then his lack of any identity beyond that, thirdly his lack of knowledge about his parents. 308 σὺ δ’ εἶ τίς;: The inversion of the word order marks the inversion of the speaker roles, picking up on 258. Cf. e.g. the same formulation in Hel. 558 after 557 τίς εἶ, Ar. Av. 997: on the contrastive function cf. Rijksbaron 102 n.220, Dik (2007) 158. ὥς σου τὴν τεκοῦσαν ὤλβισα: What must appear as politeness to Ion (on the force of the aorist cf. M. Lloyd (1999) 40) is an expression of Creusa’s



237–451 1st Epeisodion

219

self-pity and in this concealed meaning further stresses her unhappiness and bitterness. The same irony of the mother’s unknowing praise of herself in Hyps. fr. 752d.5 ὦ μακαρία σφῶιν ἡ τεκο[ῦσ’, ἥ]τις ποτ’ ἦν. σου can be read both as object of ὀλβίζω denoting the cause (parallel to εὐδαιμονίζω: K-G I 390(d)) and as possessive (cf. Alc. 167 ὥσπερ αὐτῶν ἡ τεκοῦσ’ ἀπόλλυμαι). On the tendency of the enclitic ‘to migrate to the front of the sentence’ cf. Diggle (1977a) = (1994) 169–70. 309 δοῦλος: Ion humbly describes his activity in terms we know from his monody but not from Hermes. As a slave he is defined by his owner (in the genitive: cf. 1286) and is not able to answer the questions about his identity in the same manner as a free person, who would be defined by a father’s name (cf. 594n). εἰμί τ’: Cf. Aesch. Pers. 655–6 θεομήστωρ δ’ ἐκικλήισκετο Πέρσαις, θεομήστωρ δ’ ἔσκεν, Dio Chr. 31.58 καὶ θεοφιλεῖς ἅπαντες οἱ χρηστοὶ λέγονται καὶ εἰσίν, NT ep. Joh. 1.3.1. 310: Creusa/Euripides reduces Ion’s possible ways of coming to the sanctuary by blending the questions of who gave him to the sanctuary and how he was acquired: the sanctuary could buy slaves on the market or from parents who could not afford to raise the child (Plut. Luc. 20; cf. Soph. OT 1025 σὺ δ’ ἐμπολήσας ἢ τυχών μ’ αὐτῶι δίδως;); but slaves could also be consecrated, be it as votive offering or as part of war booty (Parke (1948) 86–9, Bömer (1990) 10–11; cf. Phoen. 203, 282, Aeschin. 3.108, in myth Diod. Sic. 4.66.5, Apollod. Bibl. 3.85, Paus. 7.3.1), again by private individuals or by states. It is hardly coincidence that the text describes the two most common procedures of ‘sacral’ manumission of slaves – consecration and pro forma-sale – although only the first is attested in Euripides’ time: a slave could be freed by being consecrated to the god ‘as free’, for which the expression ἀνατιθέναι ἐλεύθερον is the standard; he could also give money to the sanctuary, and the owner then sold (ἀποδίδομαι) him to ‘the god’ for that sum (cf. Bömer (1960) esp. 117–28; on the resulting de facto-freedom Zelnick-Abramovitz (2005) 86–96, esp. 91–6 and Lambrinoudakis (2005) 335–6). Consecration existed in Euripides’ time (IG V.1 1228, Cape Tainaron 450–20), but the pro forma-sale is not attested before the 3rd cent. The evidence of Ion suggests that these practices developed out of the acquisition of slaves. 311 οὐκ οἶδα πλὴν ἕν: For the extent of Ion’s ignorance cf. 317n. Λοξίου κεκλήμεθα: Ion repeats his last statement, with the difference that this time Λοξίου has the double sense of slave/son: he lacks the patronymic that could give him a civic identity; cf. 1286–7.

220

Commentary

312 ἄρ’: ‘if that is so (as I have just learnt from you)’: a logical connection following new information (Sicking/van Ophuijsen (1993) 121); cf. Herc. 581, IT 542. αὖθις, ὦ ξέν’, ἀντοικτίρομεν: αὖθις intensifies the prefix ἀντ- (Renehan (1976) 48–9). Creusa assures Ion of her sympathy and matches his compassion (307): their relationship is lifted to another level through the mutuality of their feelings and the awareness of it. In this way the distance created by his namelessness and expressed in the continued ξένε is overcome. 313 ὡς μὴ εἰδόθ’: ‘(you pity me) as one who does not know’, i.e. ‘because I do not know’: Ion joins in the lamentation, supplying the reason for Creusa’s pity; cf. Alc. [1094], IA 1446. The circumstantial participle in a generic (characterising) sense can take μή, esp. if it has a causal notion: cf. Soph. OC 1155, Braunlich (1956) 416–17, Moorhouse 331. ὅτου: denotes the father (cf. 261), as the form is not used for women (except El. 224, where the use is not gender-specific). 316–21 The temporal progression is straightforward: the questions about his origin are followed by those about his early years. Ion declares that he is ignorant about his arrival at Delphi and has not known his real mother, which prompts Creusa to realise the similarity in predicaments (320). 317 βρέφος: Ion’s answer reveals that he does not even know that he was a foundling (cf. 309–11) and that he has been given only rudimentary information by the unidentified δοκοῦντες εἰδέναι; so the basket in which he was exposed will not only provide him with τεκμήρια to find his parents (cf. 329) but also with the first clue as to how he came to the temple (1340). 318 τίς: Creusa asks for the type of person, not the name. Even so the question is based on the false presupposition that there is such a person, and thus allows for Ion’s emotional statement in 319. The wrong question and Ion’s correction correspond very closely to 289–91. However, it is in accordance with Creusa’s other questions – which often show her preoccupation with motherhood – that she shifts the perspective to the mother’s breast. On the importance of nourishment in the play cf. 110n and esp. 961–3. 319 οὐπώποτ’: The aspect of ‘never yet’ introduced by -πω- seems odd here and strengthens the connection with 305. ἔγνων μαστόν: ‘got to know’: cf. Pind. O. 13.3–4 γνώσομαι τὰν ὀλβίαν Κόρινθον. 320 νοσοῦσ’ ηὗρον νόσους: For a moment Creusa’s cover seems to slip. The imagery of sickness that runs through the play (discussed by Kosak



237–451 1st Epeisodion

221

(2004) 65–7) here unites the fates of Ion and Creusa, further diminishing the status difference between them. 321 Φοίβου προφῆτις: The syntax continues from 319 with the postponed antecedent (or antecedent in apposition), so that the two lines should be read as one sentence without punctuation. The change to προφῆτιν (Diggle following Reiske (1754) 147) is no improvement: in IT 1293–4 ὃν δ’ ἰδεῖν θέλεις ἄνακτα χώρας, φροῦδος ἐκ ναοῦ συθείς the relative clause likewise precedes the main clause and the metre guarantees that the interposed antecedent takes the case of the relative. μητέρ’ ὣς νομίζομεν: ‘I hold in regard as a mother’ (as in LSJ s.v. νομίζω II 2): cf. Lys. 12.9, Pl. Gorg. 466B, Leg. 879C τὸν δὲ προέχοντα εἴκοσιν ἡλικίας ἔτεσιν, ἄρρενα ἢ θῆλυν, νομίζων ὡς πατέρα ἢ μητέρα διευλαβείσθω. The sentiment corresponds to that expressed towards the ‘father’ in Ion’s monody (109–11, 136–40, 182–3); it is confirmed by his address in 1324. 322–7 (322–3, 314–15, 326–7) Creusa asks three questions about Ion’s subsistence, because his appearance now stands in contrast to the misery of his early years. She finds out that Ion’s apparent prosperity is deceptive and he lives in as precarious and dependent a situation as his slave status would give one to expect. In their original position, lines 314–15 interrupt the train of thought that runs from Ion’s origin to his upbringing. After 323, where the sequence is certainly disturbed, the couplet forms part of a sensible tricolon concerning Ion’s subsistence: food, shelter, clothing. Comparable combinations can be found in El. 304–9 and Phoen. 400–14. Moreover, adversative δέ in 326 is more plausible if the preceding statement suggests impoverishment or neglect (Wilamowitz: ‘Es geht dir aber [!] gut’, Kraus 41; Creusa justifies her assumption by γάρ) than after Ion’s reassurance that he receives food from the altar: Ion does not look like a person who lives in the sanctuary like a beggar. The transmission may have worked as follows: when 314–15 were missed out at one stage, they were written at the top of their column, which started with 316; then their place was taken by 324–5, which had likewise been omitted. 323 οὑπιών ἀεὶ ξένος: On the quick succession of strangers cf. 640–1. 314 τοισίδ’: The form is often corrupted in Euripidean mss (cf. Page on Med. 1295). There is no recognisable difference in register with τοῖσδε: cf. Hcld. 251 with Waś 57. The emphasis conveyed in L’s τοῖσδέ γ᾿ is unnecessary, as no risk of confusion exists. κατὰ στέγας: lit. ‘under the roofs’. Here, in contrast to other passages, the phrase does not mean ‘inside’ but ‘in a house’ as opposed to the temple.

222

Commentary

315 ἅπαν θεοῦ: ‘anywhere in the precinct’. The reply is a neither-nor: Ion sleeps rough when sleep overcomes him. The shocking answer explains Creusa’s concerned question about his welfare in 326. The construction is similar to Ar. Pl. 1151 πατρὶς γάρ ἐστι πᾶσ’ ἵν’ ἂν πράττηι τις εὖ, which shows that the narrow interpretation ἅπαν θεοῦ μοι δῶμα (e.g. Owen) is not necessarily what the audience would have understood. Some editors believe that a definite article would be required (cf. Seidler’s ἅπαν τὸ θεοῦ), but the paradosis would then mean ‘any place that is owned by Apollo’ and emphasise the close connection between the god and his servant. 326 βίοτον: ‘subsistence’ in a wider sense here than the usual ‘livelihood’ (cf. probably Hom. Il. 5.544 et al., possibly Ar. Av. 718), as can be seen from the combination of γάρ with clothing. ἤσκησαι: with clothes e.g. Alc. 161, Aesch. Pers. 182. 327 κοσμούμεθ’: On the elaborate and richly decorated costumes of tragedy cf. Brooke (1962) 64–6, Wyles (2010) esp. 248–52. 328–9, 324–5 Creusa is still preoccupied with the boy’s poor mother – seemingly her counterpart, in fact herself. Of the possible transpositions, the one suggested by C. Jacoby (1876) 186–9 is certainly correct. As a result, Creusa’s emotions gradually intensify: she wonders if Ion has not been searching for his parents; when she hears that there is no chance of finding them because Ion is lacking any clue of their identity she pities the mother in particular; finally she moans when Ion – describing Creusa’s own experience – suggests that he was the product of an extramarital union. 329 rules out a reunion of mother and son and thus prepares 324 τάλαινα; 324–5 must follow 329 also because 325 ‘is the perfect spark for Creusa’s ejaculation of sympathy’ in 330 (Diggle (1974) 19 n.1 = (1994) 112 n.69). The reference to the miserable mother in 324 ends the section, as it forms a frame with 308, within which Creusa reverses her initial judgment, much as Ion did in 264–307. The focus on the mother also makes an easy transition to the story of the ‘anonymous’ woman. By contrast, in Kraus’ (41–3) defence of the order, Creusa withdraws into an undesirable one-line soliloquy (324), which does not sufficiently cohere with 327 (pace Wecklein (1869) 193, (1874) 337, Madvig (1871) 264). No element prompts such a shift of focus from Ion to his mother. 328 οὐδ’: Creusa is astonished (cf. 541, Phoen. 404, Or. 1056) that Ion seems satisfied with the situation. This is not the case, as Ion does indeed express the wish to find his mother as soon as he believes that, in Xuthus, he has met a person who ought to know her (563–5).



237–451 1st Epeisodion

223

ἐξευρεῖν: explicative to ἔρευνα. γονάς: more commonly ‘offspring’, but also generally ‘lineage’ and ‘parentage’: cf. Tro. 1290, Aesch. Ag. 1565, Soph. Aj. 1094, El. 156. 329 τεκμήριον: Cf. 237n. The audience are given a hint that a recognition is not possible (yet) but is to come once the tokens (already known to the audience) are found. τεκμήριον is used for recognition marks and tokens in El. 575, IT 822, Soph. El. 904. 324 ἥτις ἦν ποτε: Cf. 238, IT 628 ὦ τάλας, ὅστις ποτ’ εἶ. The line as transmitted (τάλαινά σ’ ἡ τεκοῦσ’ ἥτις ποτ᾿ ἦν ἄρα) is metrically flawed, but a slight change of word order (Porson (1812) 269) is enough to restore a satisfactory sense and a Euripidean phrasing: cf. Diggle (1981a) 99–100. τάλαινά σ᾿ ἡ τεκοῦσα· τίς ποτ᾿ ἦν ἄρα (Jodrell (1781) 258, defended by Kraus 42) unnecessarily produces a real question and has ἄρα in the final position in the sentence, which is unparalleled in a question in Euripides (cf. e.g. Ba. 639 τί ποτ’ ἄρ’ ἐκ τούτων ἐρεῖ;). 325 του γυναικὸς: In 330 Creusa compares the fate of Ion’s mother with her own (i.e. her ‘friend’s’). So she takes the genitive to be objective (‘a wrong done to a woman’). Ion, by contrast, may suspect that his mother was not a mere victim in the conception of the child (subjective genitive: ‘a wrong done by a woman’; cf. 341 and the same wry realism in 1521–7). In any case, his point is that he may be illegitimate, regardless of whether the mother was acting voluntarily. For feminine του cf. Soph. OT 1107; IT 1064 is generalising. ἴσως: ‘attenuation retardée’ (Nuchelmans (1976) 241); Creusa does not pay attention to this qualification of the statement. 330–62a Creusa inadvertently complements Ion’s story by giving her part in it. She does not, however, tell it as happening to herself but hides behind a fictitious ‘friend’ (338). A similar situation occurs in Mel. Sap., where the protagonist tells her story as a hypothetical scenario (fr. 485; cf. Ter. Ad. 665–79): she pretends to conjecture that the mother exposed the children after a rape, out of fear of her father. In El. Orestes tells about his situation pretending to be someone else (228–36). 330–7 Creusa is overwhelmed because the case matches hers so well, and she reveals that she has come to ask the god about the fate of Apollo’s son (allegedly by another woman). As soon as he learns of the (putative) parallel, Ion is keen to learn more about it and help his fellow in misery. If Creusa

224

Commentary

were to go ahead with her plan, the play could not continue as it does – and Ion stops her (362b–73). 331 τίς; εἶπον· εἰ γὰρ ξυμβάλοι: ‘Who? Speak. For if she met with me ...’ The text demands that Ion wish for someone to share his misfortune. Meeting the woman may as such reduce the suffering and turn it into joy: Thuc. 7.75.6 ἡ ἰσομοιρία τῶν κακῶν, ἔχουσά τινα ὅμως τὸ μετὰ πολλῶν κούφισιν. The confusion of forms of ἔλαβον (L has ξυλλάβηι) and ἔβαλον is common (cf. 1253). εἶπον should be accepted (cf. Kraus 43–44): it is attested before Euripides in Pind. O. 6.92 (Simon. AP 808–9 is probably spurious) and later in New Comedy; in Attic prose it is equally rare and occurs not long after Ion in Pl. Men. 71D and Xen. Mem. 3.6.3 (Lautensach (1911) 111). For Euripides anticipating later forms cf. 1131 ἔστωσαν. He also regularly uses forms of εἶπα. For questions followed by εἰπέ cf. Suppl. 143, Soph. El. 671; from these parallels one expects γάρ, which may easily have been displaced by L’s μοι. Yxem’s conjecture (reported by Hermann) εἰ πόνου μοι ξυλλάβοι has been the editors’ favourite. But the idea that a strange woman will help him find his mother is absurd, given that Ion has just stressed that he has no way of finding her (contrast Or. 1172 ἑνὸς γὰρ εἰ λαβοίμεθ’, εὐτυχοῖμεν ἄν: ‘If we succeed in grasping this one thing, we will be fortunate.’). The irony that the woman is to help him find his mother – i.e. herself – would be dragged in at the expense of dramatic plausibility. With πόνου taken as mental toil, the clause means ‘if she eases my suffering’ (cf. Soph. Phil. 281–2 ὅστις νόσου κάμνοντι συλλάβοιτο; so not ‘share’), which renders the entire sentence tautological. 332 ἧς: The relative clause (as well as the participle clause in 334) is a spontaneous addition to a sentence that is actually finished (for the pattern cf. Mastronarde (1979) 53). Ion’s intervening questions are not fillers but prompt the further provision of information. 333 ὡς: = ἴσθι ὡς ‘you should know that ...’, as in 1404, common colloquially with ind. fut., mostly at the start of a reply (Collard (2005) 367). 333–5 ὑπουργήσω ... προξενήσομεν: Ion’s eagerness concerning the woman leads him to offer more than his station would seem to allow, in particular his offer to serve as proxenos (contrast 414–16), hardly appropriate for a slave. Widening the meaning of the word to the general sense ‘support’ (e.g. Med. 724) would be odd in the context of oracular consultation. The role of the proxenos is far from clear (551–2, Andr. 1103, Hel. 146) except that every visitor required a local who would take on that role. He possibly administered the oracle for those not qualified or unfit to enter the temple (cf. Parke/Wormell I 32, Fontenrose (1978) 216–17; Mack (2015) 69 n.157 does not commit himself).



237–451 1st Epeisodion

225

335 λέγοις ἄν: a respectful invitation to speak: cf. 1336, Soph. OT 570; a second person form of the optative of consent (on which cf. R. Lattimore (1979) 209–12, M. Lloyd (2006) 234). 336 ἀλλ’ αἰδούμεθα: Creusa is about to speak, as she interrupts herself (Denniston 8). The start (esp. 330 ἄλλη γυνή) leaves it uncertain to the audience if she is going to tell the story as her own: the ‘friend’ is only mentioned in 338 and, even there, late in the line (as noted by Verrall, Solmsen (1934) 393 n.2), and the diversion may be a concession to her sense of shame. By contrast, Ion is likely to understand her hesitation as modest reticence about sex (common in tragic women: Cairns (1993) 307). Creusa’s sense of shame concerning the rape (cf. 341 αἰσχύνεται) is a leitmotif in the play (395, 860, 934; cf. Scafuro (1990) 141–9 on the ‘shame-directed discourse’ in the play). The revelation to the human public of her past happens gradually, as she overcomes her sense of shame: she has spoken in innuendoes before (e.g. 306) and is now telling her own story as that of a ‘friend’ (330–56); then, in the monody, she spells out what happened, but only after 934 does she reveal it to a human audience (cf. 931–5n; cf. Murnaghan (2006) 108–9). 337 πράξεις οὐδέν: ‘accomplish nothing’ (e.g. Hec. 813, IA 1373), hence ‘you will make no progress (in your endeavour)’. ἀργὸς: Here, as in Dan. fr. 322 ἔρως γὰρ ἀργὸν κἀπὶ τοιούτοις ἔφυ φιλεῖ κάτοπτρα ... φεύγει δὲ μόχθους, the deity is not so much idle as circumscribing human action. For αἰδώς as an ambivalent, hindering force cf. IA 900–2, Erechth. fr. 365, Soph. fr. 928 αἰδὼς γὰρ ἐν κακοῖσιν οὐδὲν ὠφελεῖ· ἡ γὰρ σιωπὴ τὠγκαλοῦντι σύμμαχος, Hes. Op. 317–19. ἡ θεός: I.e. αἰδώς (so an interlinear gloss in L). The personification of a concept invoked by the other interlocutor is similar to Or. 398–9 Ορ. λύπη μάλιστά γ’ ἡ διαφθείρουσά με ... – Με. δεινὴ γὰρ ἡ θεός. ‘Shame’ is one of the most frequent personifications (cf. Hipp. 385–7, Herc. 556–7); she appears in literature from Hesiod (Op. 200), and has an altar in (4th-cent.) Athens: Dem. 25.35, Paus. 1.17.1, Istrus FGrH 334 F 25 with Jacoby. She remains an important presence in theogonic and civilisatory myths (Pl. Prot. 322C, Dem. 25.35). For a list of personifications in tragedy Mikalson (1991) 277 n.7 and in general Nilsson (1967) 812–15, Pötscher (1978), A. Smith (2011) 11–22. 338–44 Creusa’s brief narrative is punctuated by Ion’s expressions of shock and disbelief, first that Apollo is said to act in such a way (again 1521–7), then that it caused suffering to the woman.

226

Commentary

339 γυνὴ γεγῶσα: The lack of a verb indicates Ion’s perplexity: cf. 1408, Stockert on IA 833, Headlam on Hdn. 5.4. γυνή for ‘mortal woman’, as 341 ἀνδρός: cf. Hom. Il. 14.315 θεᾶς ἔρος οὐδὲ γυναικός. μὴ λέγ’: potentially outraged or even aggressive in tone: cf. Soph. Ant. 567, Ar. Pl. 127; Ar. Pax 648, to a god, is strong, but not disrespectful. ὦ ξένη: Ion slightly distances himself: up to this point, and again afterwards, he has consistently addressed Creusa as γύναι. 340 καὶ ... γ’: ‘And she also ...’, insisting on the veracity of 338 and adding a new element. γε serves ‘to stress the addition made by καί’ (Denniston 157): it does not mean that the second fact is even more outrageous than the first. λάθραι πατρός: The fact that Creusa mentions it indicates that it was both difficult and a matter of concern: cf. 14n, 1596, and on 898. 341 οὐκ ἔστιν: ‘Impossible!’ Cf. Alc. 539, Or. 1097, Ar. Ach. 1032. Stories of divine rape are apparently often suspected (Herc. 353–4, 1341–2, Hel. 17–21, Ba. 26–31, IA 793–800, Antiope fr. 210), but in fact characters in these passages express disapproval rather than disbelief (cf. Stinton (1976) = (1990) 236–64): similarly, Ion does not question that such things can happen (446–9), but he is reluctant to accept that Apollo could be the perpetrator. αἰσχύνεται: Shame can be felt about something one has suffered, not done (Cairns (1993) 302): cf. e.g. IA 848. 342 οὔ φησιν: ‘denies’, an uncontroversial correction by Seager (1819) 279 of ὅ φησιν (L): cf. 352, Ar. Ach. 614; elsewhere it means ‘disagree’. καὶ πέπονθεν: This is not parallel with καὶ ἔτεκε (so Biehl) but with φησί: Creusa is provoked by Ion’s doubts to insist on the ‘friend’s’ status as a victim. καὶ πέπονθεν denotes the exposure, the next event after the conception. ἄθλια: Cf. 958–65: the abandonment is painful for Creusa; she focuses on herself, not the fate of the child. πέπονθεν needs an object, hence Musgrave’s (1788) change from ἀθλία (contrast 355). 343 τί χρῆμα δράσασ’: ‘How did she suffer?’ Ion refuses to believe that the union with a (or: this) god could be a source of suffering and asks what caused it. δράω does not need to imply that she did something to deserve it (so e.g. Lee), otherwise the following sub-clause makes no sense (342 εἰ has a causal connotation, possibly with a sarcastic note: cf. Wakker (1994) 191–2). 345–62a (345–52, 357–8, 355–6, 353–4, 359–62a) Both Creusa and Ion are fixated on their counterpart in the story: Creusa was more interested in the mother than Ion; he curiously asks about the son – his suggestions about what could have happened unknowingly tell the right



237–451 1st Epeisodion

227

story: his own. At the end he too notes the remarkable similarity of the (apparently distinct) cases (330~360) and breaks off the topic as the memory of the loss of his mother becomes too painful. While Creusa pities the woman, Ion pities the child (so each themselves). Creusa’s level of confidence varies: first she says she is unsure about the boy’s fate, then gradually death seems to become a certainty (346 οἶδεν οὐδείς, 348 ἐλπίζει, then 358 and 354), before she implies that she is still hoping (389). The story also changes: the ‘beasts’ are later ‘birds’ (348 θῆρας, 504–5 (chorus) πτανοῖς θηρσί τε, 903 πτανοῖς, 917, 1494). 346 οὐκ οἶδεν οὐδείς: The double negative is particularly emphatic; contrast 1187 and IT 251 οὐδεὶς τόδ’ οἶδεν. ταῦτα καὶ μαντεύομαι: ‘That is just what I intend to inquire about.’ καί after οὗτος ‘binds the demonstrative more closely to the following words’, it is lively and typical for conversation (Denniston 307). 347 οὐκέτ’ ἔστι: The negative οὐ in a conditional clause has been explained in different ways without a clear solution emerging: Owen’s suggestion that οὐκέτ’ ἔστι forms a combination equalling τέθνηκε finds parallels in other expressions (cf. Moorhouse 321 on Soph. Aj. 1131 οὐκ ἐᾶι; but the explanation hardly applies e.g. to Alcmeon fr. 83 εἰ τοῦ τεκόντος οὐδὲν ἐντρέπηι πατρός). K-G II 189 assume that οὐ is used where a proposition is provisionally accepted (roughly: ‘of the two possibilities, let’s suppose he is alive’). This is not always obvious in their examples and where no clear difference with a conditional with μή is detectable the argument becomes circular (e.g. Lys. 13.62); the rule does not fit well with 388. The most detailed study of negative conditionals contends that μή in conditionals is ‘dynamic’ and carries the emphasis, whereas οὐ is ‘static’ and employed if the stress remains elsewhere, here on the question in the main clause (Koppers (1959) 60–1). That distinction, however, has found little approval. 348 ἐλπίζει: ‘she supposes’: the child’s death is not Creusa’s intention but her expectation: cf. 18n. She still speaks from the ‘friend’s’ point of view. Hence the change in the next line from ἔγνως (L) to ἔγνω is inevitable. 349 ποίωι ... χρωμένη τεκμηρίωι: After the vagueness of the preceding answers the hyperbaton indicates Ion’s scepticism and desire for good evidence. 352 καίτοι: The implied idea is: ‘ despite the fact that she searched everything.’ The particle rejects a possible expectation or objection (Slings (1997a) 122–5): οὔ φησι alone would leave open the possibility that she did not look properly. ἐπεστράφη πέδον: ‘wander over the ground’: cf. Hel. 768 ἃς ἐπεστράφην πόλεις.

228

Commentary

357–8, 355–6, 353–4: Only the double transposition restores smooth transitions: 357 gives a possible explanation for the absence of blood (following 351–2); 355 ἀδικεῖ responds to 358 οὐ δίκαια (Diggle (1974) 18 = (1994) 111 after Page); 353 picks up the temporal dimension of Creusa’s ὕστερον in 356 (cf. Lee (1991) 471); and the coincidence of age in 354 causes the observation of the προσωιδὸς τύχη in 359. Other, more violent, attempts at changing the order are refuted by Diggle (1974) 17–18 = (1994) 110–11. 357 τί δ’ εἰ: proposes an alternative explanation (Stevens (1976) 30–1) for the disappearance and forms the antithesis to 347. λάθραι: ‘without anybody’s knowledge’ (cf. LSJ s.v. λάθρῃ 2), not implying active stealth. 358: ‘In our union he enjoys the pleasure but (then) does not do the right thing when acting on his own.’ She anticipates the key idea of her monody (859–922n; cf. 384–6): Apollo takes his pleasure (χαίρω ~ χάρις) without the appropriate consequent action of saving the boy (cf. 354, 386); he only enjoys but does not requite. χαίρω takes the accusative only with participles or demonstratives in the neuter plural (cf. 245–6n), so τὰ κοινά is best explained as accusative of respect, denoting their union, contrasting with μόνος for his (in-)activity when alone. Scholars have taken the sentence as an answer to, rather than a rejection of, Ion’s suggestion: ‘(If he has taken the boy to another place) he acts unjustly in enjoying alone what belongs to both.’ (cf. Diggle (1974) 17 = (1994) 109, already Seidler). In this interpretation τὰ κοινά denotes the child, somewhat awkwardly and against the constructions of χαίρω; the word order is forced, with μόνος separated from its governing participle by the main verb. 355 ἀδικεῖ: Burnett (1962) 100 exculpates Apollo by suggesting that the human characters in this play mistakenly impose mortal standards of morality (i.e. justice) on the god, condemning a kind of behaviour that is appropriate for the god. Yet, Euripidean tragedy quite consistently expresses the idea that gods do not have a completely different set of moral values from men (Mastronarde (2005) 331): cf. e.g. IT 380–91, Herc. 342 ἀρετῆι σε νικῶ θνητὸς ὢν θεὸν μέγαν, 1341–6. Ion also supports this view (cf. also 1558n): when Athena in 1614–15 defends the gods by saying that their actions may not be as they seem, she thereby implies that if they were, the moral objections by mortals would be in place. Hermes’ use of the term βία even positively suggests trangression and thus the permissibility of Creusa’s later complaints (10–11n). Hence the play does not, as Swift (2009a) 99 claims, ‘demonstrate the absurdity of this premise [viz. that similar moral standards apply to gods and men]’. Above all, the entire plot, including the rape, is Euripides’ invention and thought experiment. Conclusions about admissible



237–451 1st Epeisodion

229

evaluations of divine behaviour are therefore based on a fictitious scenario (cf. e.g. Hose (2008) 108). νυν: Ion accepts Creusa’s condemnation of Apollo: with the particle he lends his words a certain note of conclusion (cf. S-D II 571, K-G II 118). The transmitted νιν, defended by Kraus 45, is a very easy mistake. The limitation of the injustice – as if done only to Ion – jars with the gist of the passage. 356 οὔκουν ... : continuing and explaining ἀθλία. ‘Wherever, in Attic, γε is lacking after emphatic οὔκουν, it should probably be supplied.’ (Denniston 424). 353 διαπεπραγμένωι: ‘done for’: in that meaning mostly in perfect, e.g. Hel. 858, Aesch. Pers. 517 (the exception is Cho. 1008); here more specifically ‘dead’. For the dative of the person concerned by an indication of time cf. Soph. Phil. 354, Hom. Il. 24.413, Thuc. 3.29.2, K-G I 424(f). 354 ταὐτὸν ἥβης ... μέτρον: ‘the same measure of youth’, i.e. the same young age: Alc. 1062–3 ταὔτ’ ἔχουσ’ Ἀλκήστιδι μορφῆς μέτρ’. ἥβης μέτρον goes back to Hom. Il. 11.225. εἴπερ ἦν: περ emphasises the close connection of protasis and apodosis, the categorical consequence of the truth condition (‘if he were alive, that would mean that ...’): cf. Bakker (1986) 152–6; to similar effect Wakker (1994) 320: ‘these εἴπερ-clasuses characterize the condition in question as the only relevant one.’ εἴπερ need not have the urgent tinge that Denniston’s ‘if really’ suggests – it is a straight unfulfilled condition: cf. Med. 586, Soph. El. 312, Isoc. 4.170. εἶχ᾿ ἂν: The elision of imperfect -ε before ἄν was suspected since Elmsley (on Med. 416 [=427] n.p), but cf. E. Harrison (1933), Diggle (1974) 16 n.5 = (1994) 109 n.61, (1981a) 100. 359 προσωιδὸς: ‘harmonising with’: the new story is like a matching voice. The word denotes accompaniment (Phoen. 1498 (corrupt?), Pleisth. fr. 631), a tune that is (from Ion’s point of view) added to one that is already there. Contrast ξυνωιδός (Med. 1008, 1269–70, Hel. 174b; Or. 133 announcing an amoibaion), which means contrapuntal tunes. 360 μητέρ’ ἀθλίαν: The emphasis is on the adjective, and takes up 342 and 355. The grammatical ambiguity of subject and object in the infinitive construction (Owen) should not also be detected on the semantic plane: Creusa does not need to tell Ion about his feelings, and the one who is ἀθλία is also the one who longs. 361 ἆ μή μ᾿: Ion shows himself ‘not yet ready for the full range of emotions to which Creusa could here awaken him’ (Segal (1999) 84). When he meets his father he no longer suppresses his desire (563–5). The same mistake (καὶ

230

Commentary

μή γε) occurs in the mss of Hipp. 503. καί is untenable, and while γε can enhance the force of the imperative (Denniston 125), we would desire an indication of the object. On ἆ as ‘sharp cry of protest’ Barrett on Hipp., as violent reaction to surprise Perdicoyianni-Paléologue (2002) 73: in a similar sense Alc. 526 ἆ, μὴ πρόκλαι’ ἄκοιτιν, Herc. 629, Hel. 445 ἆ, μὴ πρόσειε χεῖρα, Ba. 810. ἔξαγ’: Ion reveals that his happiness with his ‘foster family’ – Apollo as father and the Pythia as mother (cf. 109–11, 136–40, 321) – is superficial and cannot make up for the absence of a real mother. λελήσμεθα: With perfect tense μή μ’ ἐπ’ οἶκτον ἔξαγ’ assumes the pregnant meaning ‘do not cause me to feel pity (by stirring up a thought long-forgotten).’ Dobree’s change to pluperfect ᾿λελήσμεθα has been adopted by subsequent editors, but the objection that Ion cannot feel pity about what he has forgotten is pedantic: he asks Creusa not to disturb his quiet, which he might still preserve if she does not persist in pushing Ion into a state of (self-)pity (cf. Kraus 46). With pluperfect the processes of remembering and pitying are separated: ‘do not cause me to feel pity (having reminded me of the things ...)’, which seems frigid – as if he could start remembering without feeling the pain. In Ba. 188 ἐπιλελήσμεθ’ ἡδέως γέροντες ὄντες the old men – in the same paradox – talk about what they have forgotten: that they are old. 362b–[80] Ion tries to keep Creusa from consulting the oracle. First he presents the matter from the perspective of the god, who will not want to embarrass himself; then he speaks of the impossibility of finding a diviner willing to compromise the god and face his wrath. Creusa either does not comprehend or accept the first argument; instead she considers that Apollo is obliged to respond in his office as oracle god and that in the clash of interests the one who suffers more should prevail (her ‘friend’s’ ἄλγη versus Apollo’s αἰσχύνη). The conversation shows the dilemma that drives the plot: Apollo cannot give a true oracle if his plans are to be fulfilled, but he must for he is the god of the oracle. The ‘moral obligation’ of his role is irreconcilable with his personal interest. Ion is not trying to protect Apollo (so Gödde (2011) 239–40) but taking a pragmatic stance. He rather thinks that Apollo as the superior power will not tolerate being embarrassed in this way (cf. 444). The question whether the god is justified in preventing the inquiry (even by punishing the prophet) is not posed; whether he is κακός or not is irrelevant for his avoidance of the consultation. There is, however, no indication that Ion after 355 still assumes Apollo’s innocence (as contended by Yunis (1988) 128–9): 367 implies that



237–451 1st Epeisodion

231

Apollo has reason to be ashamed of ‘the matter’, and 436–51 reflect no doubts concerning the correctness of Creusa’s story. 362–3: The transmitted text lacks conversational coherence, which suggests that two lines are missing. We may wish to supplement the lacuna exempli gratia: Cr. ‘I won’t mention it again. but also tell me in full what I am asking you about.’ (σιγῶ·  πέραινε δ’ ...). 360–2 follow a similar pattern as IT 926–8: an uncomfortable and disturbing thought is rejected by the second speaker, followed by the first speaker’s σιγῶ and a question leading away from the topic. In the transmitted text, however, the part after σιγῶ does not fit in with what precedes. ἀνιστορῶ requires an actual question not, for example, the mere implication of 346 (that Creusa will need advice on how to consult the oracle; so e.g. Bayfield). Wecklein (1874) 399 realised that problem but offered a mistaken solution (ἀνιστορεῖς, which would mean that Ion continues asking). Furthermore, in similar situations of advice or information offered (Hipp. 89–91, Hec. 1006–8, Soph. Trach. 1185–91, Ar. Eccl. 542–7, Pl. Crat. 397E etc.), interrogative οἶσθ’ οὖν continues from a previous question or announcement followed by the other person’s invitation to speak. 361 does not conform to that pattern, and οὖν is unconnected; 362b does not encourage Ion to start a new topic but admonishes him not to stray from the one Creusa introduced. 362 πέραινε: always used for the continuation of a story vel sim. (1348, Med. 701, IT 781, Or. 1118), not for initiating a request for information. 363 κάμνει: ‘is amiss’ (Bayfield), synonymous to νοσεῖ in the next line; cf. the German ‘an etwas kranken’ 755, Med. 768, Hec. 306, IA 965–6. τοῦ λόγου: ‘thinking, reasoning’ (LSJ IV), i.e. presumably the plan to consult the oracle mentioned in the lacuna. 364 τῆι ταλαιπώρωι: Syntactically, τῆι ταλαιπώρωι best takes up σοι, so the audience can perceive Creusa talking about herself rather than her ‘friend’. Creusa thus all but breaches the fiction of Creusa talking about someone else. 365 λαθεῖν  βούλεται: Ion presumes the truth of the story (also in 367 αἰσχύνεται). 366 εἴπερ: For Creusa, Apollo’s position determines his duty to prophesy (on the force of εἴπερ cf. 354n). She implies that she trusts in the veracity of the oracle (the default attitude of all characters: cf. 69–73n, 825).

232

Commentary

κοινὸν Ἑλλάδος: Delphi is an international sanctuary, but with a primarily Greek, or even pan-Hellenic, character: cf. Suppl. 1204, Aesch. Eum. 31, Rosenbloom (2011) 369–70. 367 μὴ ’ξέλεγχέ: The expression implies a confrontation between Apollo and Creusa in forensic or eristic discourse. The confrontational style is corroborated by δέ  γ’ (a ‘lively rejoinder’: Denniston 153) and the response ἀλγύνεται after αἰσχύνεται, which forms a retort to the objection in Gorgianic style with rhyme and paronomasia (cf. Gorg. 82 B 11.4 λαβοῦσα καὶ οὐ λαθοῦσα). In Euripides such assonances are more common at the end of lines: Med. 408–9, 1478–9, Hcld. 541–2. 369–73 Ion tries a practical argument: the priests would be afraid of Apollo’s punishment and so unwilling to put her question to the god. One case is known where Apollo, by refusing the sacrifice, had made clear that he was not prepared to give an oracle and killed the Pythia who was forced to proceed (Plut. Mor. 438B). 369 οὐκ ἔστιν: The transition to the new argument is abrupt, with asyndeton and a lack of cohesion with the immediately preceding line, for τάδε must go back to the lacuna. Creusa has hinted at what she wants to ask in 332–46, too far back from this line to refer with a simple demonstrative. Ion’s reaction means that her question wants to expose Apollo, and 387–9 indicates that her question is whether the boy lives or not. 371 θεμιστεύοντά: I.e. the same who is concerned with the business of προφητεύειν (Fontenrose (1978) 216–17; i.e. the Pythia, the προφῆτις, or the priests, the προφῆται: cf. 42, 94–101n, Lys. fr. 23). The θεμιστεύων gives out θέμισται, mostly the god’s pronouncements (Minos’ in Hom. Od. 11.569). The word is rare before the Hellenistic period but then occurs repeatedly in close connection with Delphi: Simplic. in Arist. Phys. 2 333.16 ἐν Δελφοῖς δὲ καὶ προκατῆρχεν ἐν ταῖς ἐρωτήσεσιν ‘ὦ Τύχη καὶ Λοξία, τωιδέ τινι θεμιστεύεις;’, Diod.Sic. 5.67.4, Plut. Mor. 292F (Delphic Apollo), 435B (Pythia). 372 ἀπαλλάσσου: ‘Desist’ (sc. from your plan): an emphatic appeal in asyndeton, starting from a strong diaeresis in the middle of the line. Ion warns Creusa not to force entry. 373 θεῶι: Grammatically the formulation is ambiguous, but after the prohibition in 372 the dative is more likely to go with τἀναντί(α) (‘things that are against his interest’, with μαντεύομαι meaning ‘ask the oracle’). The dative of agent with οὐ μαντευτέον (‘not to be prophesied by the god’) would give an equally correct, though contextually less appropriate, statement: at the



237–451 1st Epeisodion

233

end of the play, when Ion is trying to breach his own prohibition (1546–50), the god again avoids giving such an oracle by sending Athena. [374–80] Ion returns to the argument of 365–7 that one ought not to ask the god a question he is disinclined to answer, i.e. to a point he had earlier put aside for the more practical argument of 369–73. Textual problems and awkward reasoning abound. The lines are probably the result of clumsy interpolation rather than multiple corruption. They do not contain anything essential, and the text is more succinct if they are deleted. 376–7, probably an interpolation explaining ἐκπονήσομεν, definitely need to go: the construction of both the infinitive and πτεροῖς is dubious (cf. below), and no satisfactory conjecture has been offered. Moreover, sacrifices and augury cannot be used in the same way as oracles to force a question on the gods and thus cannot explain (374 γάρ) by analogy why one should not ask questions antagonising the gods. 374–5 appear to be explanatory to 373: they state that asking for an oracle against the god (τῶι  γὰρ  θεῶι  τἀναντί[α]) is the degree of madness one enters into when one insists on asking (ἐκπονέω) against the will of the gods (ἄκοντας; cf. ἃ μὴ θέλουσιν). A question offensive to the god, however, is a special case of a question asked against his will, not a result of it, as the construction with ἐς τοσοῦτον would lead us to expect. Kraus 46 regards 374–7 and 378–80 as alternative versions, but the second passage makes no sense without the first (already Biehl (1992) 16–17); for otherwise there is a leap in the line of thought from the specific advice on the Delphic oracle (370–3) to general action in accordance with or against the gods’ will. This leap is most visible in the language (σπεύδειν, ἀγαθὰ κεκτῆσθαι), which seems ill-suited to the particular situation. 378–80 also lack intensity after 373, speaking only of working against the gods’ intentions after a consultation that is directly hostile towards Apollo and against his immediate interest. As an alternative to deleting the entire section, one may restore a combination of 374–5 and 378–80 to produce a logical sequence (with Badham’s τοὔσχατον γάρ, Brodaeus’ ἄκοντας, and Stephanus’ ἀνόνητα). But since the reconstruction requires several conjectures and still assumes interpolation, this solution seems unlikely. 374 ἐς γὰρ τοσοῦτον ἀμαθίας: With Badham’s ἐς τοὔσχατον γάρ Ion qualifies Creusa’s intended question as lacking in wisdom or sensitivity (for ἀμαθία e.g. Hipp. 951, Herc. 347, Or. 417). With the transmitted text the logic must remain irremediably loose (though something an interpolator may be capable of producing). Alternatively, Kovacs (1979) 115 translates: ‘It would be an equivalent pitch of folly to which we should come if we were

234

Commentary

to expend effort wittingly [ἑκόντες in 375] to make the gods say what they do not wish either by the slaughtering of animals or by divination through birds.’ For ‘equivalent’ we should expect a metrical version of ἐς ταὐτὸν or καὶ εἰ ἐς τοσοῦτον. By contrast, ἐς γὰρ τοσοῦτον is almost formulaic for a consecutive relation, used in rhetorical contexts and only by Euripides among the tragedians (Mastronarde on Phoen. 963, Bers (2009) 53–4). The putative parallels of haruspicy and auspicy have neither persuasive force nor any illustrative effect. 375 ἄκοντας: The transmitted ἑκόντας turns the sense on its head, and should not even be considered the interpolator’s formulation. Most editors change to ἄκοντας, which effectively reinforces the notion in ἐκπονέω that the gods do not enjoy being asked. This is at the centre of Ion’s argument, whereas ἑκόντες (reported in one later manuscript as a variant) states the obvious. ἐκπονήσομεν: ‘exert oneself or somebody’ (Stevens on Andr. 1052), here ‘pester’. The verb is unparalleled with acc. c. inf. (contrast 1355), and the phrase is easier to understand without it, viz. as a paraphrase of τἀναντία μαντευτέον. Elsewhere in Euripides the aspect is perfective rather than durative (Bremer (1972) 238). 376–7 προβωμίοις σφαγαῖσι: On divination in connection with sacrifices cf. Burkert (1992) 48–51. For the adjective cf. Hcld. 79 (as noun), Soph. fr. 817, Pind. Pae. 10 fr. 52l.20. 377 δι’ οἰωνῶν πτεροῖς: This nonsensical expression has been explained by translating πτεροῖς as ‘oracles’ (after Soph. OC 97, where, however, πτερόν is made clear by preceding σημεῖα). But the metonymic meaning does not stick out because the literal meaning fits the context (i.e. ‘wings’ in combination with ‘birds’) – the result is confusion. Another way round the problem is the assumption of a gloss (Wecklein πόρους, Hudson-Williams (1952) δι᾿ ἀέρων or δι᾿ αἰθέρων, Lee σκοπουμένοις). 378 ἃν: The transmitted conditional (ἄν) should be rejected: the syntax becomes clumsy, as the object is delayed until the main clause. In addition, the form ἄν for ἐάν occurs only sporadically in inscriptions (Threatte II 672) and too rarely in the mss of Euripides to be accepted. βίαι ... ἀκόντων: hardly more than a pleonasm without particular function. 379 ἀνόνητα: ‘to no profit’: Hipp 1145, Or. 1501. The transmitted ἄκοντα, corrected by Stephanus, seems too dull even for an interpolator; interpreting it as ‘unwanted’ (as in Soph. OT 1230, OC 240, 977: on such transfers of the adjective cf. Debrunner (1944) 40) is no significant improvement. The corruption is easy after the same word in 378 (and ἑκών in 375 and 380).



237–451 1st Epeisodion

235

381–3 The chorus’ interjection is a reaction to the two seemingly independent misfortunes that they have heard about. The required sense is: ‘Many different misfortunes befall mortals, whereas it is difficult to find even one single happy life.’ So while not particularly original, it is not a meaningless ‘tag’ that serves only to structure the dialogue (a position taken on tags generally by M. Heath (1987) 127–8). For the proverbial nature of the thought cf. Alc. 893–4 συμφορὰ δ’ ἑτέρους ἑτέρα πιέζει φανεῖσα θνατῶν, Suppl. 270 with Collard, Otto (1890) 375, Tosi (1991) 741. 381 πολλαί γε πολλοῖς: The elements of the polyptoton reinforce each other so as to be comprehensive (Gygli-Wyss (1966) 46–8): ‘many, and to many people’; cf. Med. 579, Hcld. 919–20. 382–3 ἕνα δ’ ἂν εὐτυχῆ ... βίον: ‘one (entirely) happy life’; the conjecture is B. Heath’s and finds a parallel in Suppl. 269–70 τῶν γὰρ ἐν βροτοῖς οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν διὰ τέλους εὐδαιμονοῦν. The reading of L ἓν δ᾿ ἂν εὐτυχὲς ... βίωι ‘one happy event in a life’ (with βίωι written above initial βίον) must be rejected, not so much because it is too pessimistic, as because βίωι without ἐν (supported by Kraus 47) has no certain parallel and βίον is supported by Stobaeus. εὐτυχέω βίωι (‘I am lucky as regards my life’; Bell. fr. 285.20, Men. PCG 817) cannot serve as a parallel, as it does not make much sense with either ἕν or ἕνα. A (conceivable) alternative may be ἀνθρώπου ᾿ν βίωι. 384–400 Creusa abandons the plan to consult the oracle because she realises that Apollo will not help. This personal reason for the change of topic coincides with Xuthus’ arrival. Creusa accuses Apollo of his apparent uncooperativeness, both after the boy’s birth and now: he does not allow Creusa to find her son or at least to perform the proper rites if he is dead (384–9). She breaks off the thought in a short formula (390–1) as Xuthus approaches and asks Ion not to tell her husband anything about her plans, lest she be shamed by her secrecy (392– 7). She ends on a general complaint about the undeserved bad reputation of honourable women (398–400). The short speech balances the outburst in 252–4 and picks up the two topics of Apollo’s injustice (οὐ  δίκαιος  εἶ ~ ἀδικίαις ὀλούμεθα; also 251 κἀκεῖ κἀνθάδ’ ~ ἐκεῖσε ... ἐνθάδ’) and the misery of womankind. While the passage at the start of the conversation was entirely incomprehensible for Ion, he now partly understands Creusa’s woes, although he still does not know that Creusa’s passion originates from the fact that she is herself concerned by Apollo’s behaviour (cf. 439–42).

236

Commentary

385 ἀποῦσαν ... πάρεισιν: a strong final assertion of the non-identity of Creusa and her ‘friend’. 391 ἃ βούλομαι already sounds more like a wish on her own behalf, no longer that of the other woman. 386: With eight sigmas, the line is comparable to the infamous Med. 476 for its sigmatism. We should be wary of ascribing any particular effect such as anger (Irvine) to the phonetic anomaly. These lines are not those with the most occurrences of the sound in Euripides, nor does his reputation as φιλοσίγματος (Eust. in Il. 1170.53 (IV 283.7 v.d.Valk); cf. Plato PCG 29, Eubulus PCG 26) stand statistic scrutiny: Hunter on Eubulus ad loc. n.1, Clayman (1987) 78. On earlier Greek sigmatism cf. J. Porter (2007). Eight sigmas, albeit in less obtrusive use, also occur in 806 (and [1276]). ὅς γ’ οὔτ’: The clause is obviously an explanation of 384 οὐ δίκαιος εἶ: ‘for you neither …’ The relative with γε offers just this meaning (K-G II 175–6), and it must be restored from the unclear transmission: the start of the line is not clearly legible in L (Diggle has identified *γ᾿ οὐκ, corrected to σ*γ᾿ οὐκ, where * looks like ου in ligature or γ) and Triclinius turns it into σύ γ᾿ οὐκ. But σύ γ᾿ is a weak connection, without the desired explicative sense. The correlation οὐκ ... οὔτε is rarely transmitted (Med. 1354, IA [978], 1323; Kannicht calls Hel. 1353 ‘unheilbar’ and Teleph. fr. 727c.40–1 οὔτ᾿ οὖν cannot be compared; cf. Denniston 509–10) and easily emended to οὐδέ; here 384 κἀκεῖ κἀνθάδ’ prepares the content of οὔτε ... οὔτε. 387 μάντις: For the god himself as seer cf. e.g. 682, IT 711, Aesch. Ag. 1202 (cf. 1422n). 388 οὐκέτ’ ἔστιν: Cf. 347. ὀγκωθῆι: Or. 402 τάλαιναν μητέρ’ ἐξώγκουν τάφωι and Andr. 1160  γῆς τε κοσμῆσαι τάφωι suggest just a mound, but stelai or other items can be added: cf. GVI 1286.2 κίοσιν ὠνκώθη, 1745, Euphorion AP 1810, Flaccus AP 3828, and for the archaeological evidence Kurtz/Boardman (1971) 105. Burial as a requirement for the shade to enter Hades is attested only in literary sources, but unlikely to lack correspondence in popular belief: cf. Sourvinou-Inwood (1995) 61 n.151. 389 ἔλθηι μητρὸς εἰς ὄψιν ποτέ: The wish is reciprocated: cf. 563. 390 ἀλλ᾿ ἐᾶν χρὴ τάδ᾿: ‘Well, then, we have to leave the matter there.’ Creusa acknowledges that their talk is futile and she is powerless against the god. To the already long list of conjectures I hazard to add my own, as it is not just palaeographically explicable by double saut du même au même but also paralleled in the usage of the particle combination. ἀλλ᾿ εἷα interrupts one’s line of thought (here the consultation of the oracle) and passes on to expressions of imperative force (σίγα): cf. Denniston 14, Ed. Fraenkel (1962) 108,



237–451 1st Epeisodion

237

Stevens (1976) 33; cf. Hel. 1429 ἀλλ᾿ εἷα· τοὺς μὲν Πελοπιδῶν ἐῶ νόμους with ἴτω in 1431, Phoen. 970–1, IA 435–9, Soph. Euryp. fr. 221. For the double ἀλλά in 390 and 392 cf. Herc. 622–4. The aspiration of εἷα is well attested (Kerkhecker on P.Oxy. 4639 fr. 1 col. ii.14). 392–400 The extended announcement of Xuthus’ approach does more than just bridge the time until Xuthus is close (so Ercolani (2000) 111); the length stresses the non-standard elements (cf. some even longer announcements, e.g. El. 962–87, with Taplin (1977) 297): firstly the request for Ion’s discretion, in order to save Creusa from shame; secondly the final lament about women’s fate. Both prepare later plot elements: the request to Ion characterises the relationship of Xuthus and Creusa, revealing secrets between them. Each of them will hide some of their past from the other and the fact (or belief) that Ion is their son (Halleran (1985) 104). But Creusa’s wish for silence also heightens the contrast with the monody when she no longer holds back with her story (859). The lament about women’s fate anticipates another motif of the monody, Creusa’s moral integrity and the ἀγῶνες ἀρετῆς (863): she is self-conscious about her reputation, which is much more under scrutiny than men’s (Apollo’s or Xuthus’). 392 ἀλλ’, ὦ ξέν’, εἰσορῶ γὰρ: ‘But (wait), sir, for I see ...’ γάρ states the reason for breaking off the thought, which is the force of ἀλλά (cf. Denniston 98–9). This is the only time an address interrupts the ἀλλ’ εἰσορῶ γάρ formula (Diggle (1977b) 292 = (1994) 172), made necessary because the person being asked a favour is a stranger. εὐγενῆ: A consipicuous contrast with Xuthus’ qualification as foreigner elsewhere, but in line with Creusa’s respect when she characterises him as ἐσθλός (977). 394 θαλάμας: lit. ‘dens’, but Euripides extends the use of the word to hollows of all kinds (Suppl. 980, Ba. 95, 561–2, Phoen. 931 about an oracle). The cave or grotto of Trophonius (on which cf. Ustinova (2009) 90–3) is described with a range of terms: oἴκησις κατώρυχος, χάσμα, σπήλαιον, οἰκοδόμημα (Charax FGrH 103 F 5, Strabo 9.2.38, Paus. 9.39.10–11, Luc. Dial.Mort. (77) 10.2). Those granted permission to consult him had to descend a narrow shaft. At the bottom they were ‘sucked into’ the chamber of the adyton (Paus. 9.39.4, Luc. loc.cit., Menipp. (38) 22). 395 αἰσχύνην  λάβω: Creusa has overcome her initial inhibition, but her sense of shame has not diappeared altogether (cf. 336n). 396 διακονοῦσα κρυπτά: ‘secretly rendering a service’ (sc. to her ‘friend’).

238

Commentary

προβῆι  λόγος: The following relative clause shows that Creusa fears that her story will be transformed contrary to the version that she told (οὐχ ἧιπερ ‘different from’). In particular, she is afraid lest Xuthus associate her with her friend, i.e. understand her as the victim of Apollo – and thus incidentally decode the truth in her fiction (cf. 399–400). ἧιπερ in a local sense (Kovacs: so that ‘the story [not] reach other ears than I intended.’) would be redundant with the request not to tell her husband. The parallels for the formulation concern the development (i.e. the continuation) of a story or speech that is being given: Hipp. 342 ποῖ προβήσεται λόγος, Hec. 154 ποῖ λόγος ἥκει; cf. Cratinus PCG 69, Hdt. 1.5.3. Here it is not Creusa’s speech act that is evolving (for she has completed it) but the way the story may evolve as it is spread.

397 ἐξειλίσσομεν: ἐξελίσσω ‘unroll’, hence ‘set out’ (Suppl. 141), denotes the exposition or explanation of a story or utterance. On the form cf. 40n. 398–400 Creusa states the principles on which she has to fear Xuthus learning about her ‘friend’ (καί in κἀν is explicative): men do not differentiate between good and bad women but the reputation of the latter taints the former: cf. Andr. 218–19 ἀπληστίαν λέχους πάσαις γυναιξὶ προστιθεῖσ’ ἂν ηὑρέθης, Hec. 1183–4, Mel.Desm. fr. 493 ἄλγιστόν ἐστι θῆλυ μισηθὲν γένος· αἱ γὰρ σφαλεῖσαι ταῖσιν οὐκ ἐσφαλμέναις αἶσχος γυναιξὶ καὶ κεκοίνωνται ψόγον ταῖς οὐ κακαῖσιν αἱ κακαί. This injustice and the resulting hatred, according to Creusa, are what make the position of women so difficult in relation to men. Misogyny, especially the frivolous accusation of sexual untrustworthiness and incontinence, is a common topos, as the chorus later complain (1090–8n). 398 πρὸς ἄρσενας: ‘before the judgment of men’: the position of women is difficult because of the way men judge them; cf. S-D II 511 (‘nach Maßgabe einer Person geistig vom Urteil’) on Dem. 19.226 τοῖς πρὸς ὑμᾶς ζῶσιν. 399 κἀν: For the preposition cf. Pl. Leg. 693A πάντ’ ἦν μεμειγμένα τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων γένη ἐν ἀλλήλοις. 401–28 Xuthus enters, with a number of servants (cf. 1106–1228n). His appearance ends the intimate dialogue between Creusa and Ion and shifts the tone and dynamic, highlighting the particular atmosphere of the preceding scene. Xuthus’ behaviour towards his wife and Ion marks him as a dominant and self-centred character, and he acts with much more focus than Creusa in aiming for the oracle, not letting himself be distracted on his way. He all



237–451 1st Epeisodion

239

but ignores Ion, using him as no more than a source of information (413), nor does he take notice of the undertones and ambiguities in Creusa’s words (cf. 510–675n; contrast Ion in 430–2). His presence on stage in this scene is brief – only 24 lines – and not rich in relevant action: he arrives, asks for the people in charge of the oracle, and leaves with some instructions for Creusa. 401 πρῶτον  μὲν: Greetings to the gods are customary at arrival either at one’s home or a sacred place: cf. e.g. Herc. 608–9, Aesch. Ag. 508–9, Eum. 1–20, Pulleyn (1997) 159–62. Due to his surprise μέν is not followed up: τε after πρῶτον μέν is common (e.g. Hcld. 337–40; Denniston 374–5), but σύ τ(ε) only adds Creusa as an afterthought: cf. Or. 464 Λήδα θ’ ἅμα. προσφθεγμάτων: West in his edition of Aeschylus (p. LII) proposes to write -γγμ-, the form provided by the inscriptions; I retain the conventional spelling, cognizant of the correct pronunciation. 402 ἀπαρχὰς: He gives the ‘first fruits’ of his speech and attention, i.e. the first words he speaks after his arrival, to the gods: the metaphor is from the primitial offering of anything edible (on which Beer (1914) 8–53, Burkert (1985) 66–8), just as Or. 382 πρωτόλεια for the first in a series of actions. For the priority of the gods over humans in action and speech cf. Mikalson (1983) 13–17. χαιρέτω: χαῖρε, the regular Greek greeting, also serves to establish χάρις, the function of prayers. So greetings and prayers blend into one another (Pulleyn (1997) 5–15 against Aubriot-Sévin (1992) 24). 403 μῶν: Xuthus is not expecting but hoping for the answer ‘no’ (cf. Hipp. 794 with Barrett). He may be reacting to a (not textually expressed) demeanour or gesture by Creusa that hints at anxiety, as she feels an urge to explain it (404); cf. the parallels 244, 582–3. From the outset Xuthus’ self-importance has a somewhat ironic colouring: he believes Creusa might be afraid because of his long absence; but her allusion to the start of her conversation with Ion (notably μέριμνα, as in 244) emphasises that his absence did not only not worry her but enabled her to pursue her own business; her last words to Ion (392–400) have also shown that Xuthus’ arrival is rather an inconvenience. On the other hand, Xuthus’ question shows a degree of marital care not frequent in tragedy. χρόνιος: an ironic, metatheatrical remark on the contraction of the dramatic time: Xuthus arrives less than 200 lines after Creusa (on the actual duration of consultation cf. 299–302n). The explicit reference to his leaving his wife alone outside the house also leaves him guilty of neglect or imprudence in the eyes of an Athenian (Lys. 1.8 with Todd p. 55) but could alternatively be read as a sign of trust.

240

Commentary

ὀρρωδίαι: a strong word (Mastronarde on Phoen. 1389), enhancing the effect of Xuthus’ misjudgment. 404 οὐδέν γ’: ‘not at all’: e.g. Ar. Av. 1360, Pl. Theaet. 208A; cf. Collard (2005) 368. ἀφίγμην δ’ ἐς  μέριμναν: ‘(No fear at all,) but I had become concerned’ (Diggle (1981a) 101). Creusa’s answer is polite and reassuring, but also evasive and furtive and, as such, informative about her attitude towards Xuthus: she does not tell a lie, but he must miss that her concern was caused by her memories. ἀφίκου (L) is explicable as Xuthus has just ‘arrived’ in a literal sense. In the phrase ἀφικνεῖσθαι ἐς + a state of mind, the respective emotion is that of the subject (Diggle (1981a) 100–1). So ἀφίκου (Owen: ‘you arrived when I was anxious’) is not possible; Owen’s parallel Herc. 533 τίν’ ἐς ταραγμὸν ἥκομεν describes a state of external, not emotional turbulence. Kraus 50 and Holzhausen (1999) 228 both try to retain the second person, assuming that Creusa interprets Xuthus’ question as sign of his own concern (‘du aber bist in Sorge geraten, ich könnte mich um dich ängstigen [...]’ and ‘hast du dir darum Gedanken gemacht?’). But Creusa does not give Xuthus time to answer, and the pluperfect would not describe his present condition (in a statement). 406 ὅπως: indirect interrogative depending on a verbum dicendi implied in θέσπισμα. σπέρμα συγκραθήσεται: The idea that both man and woman contribute to the seed is pivotal in this play, for only in this way can Ion inherit ‘Athenianness’ and autochthony. The ancient mainstream was that women provided only place and nourishment for men’s seed, as is suggested by social concepts of inheritance, in particular the principle that a woman does not normally continue her own family line; it is also presupposed in Aesch. Eum. 658–9. Philosophers debate the issue controversially (cf. Censorinus De die nat. 5.4, 6.8, G. Lloyd (1983) 86–94, Dean-Jones (1994) 148–53): Diogenes of Apollonia, Aristotle (Gen.an. 722b6–13, 764b10–20), and the Stoics see the entire procreative power resting with the man; Parmenides and Empedocles stress the woman’s role, as do the Hippocratics (Genit. 6 = 7.478 Littré κρατέεται τὸ ἰσχυρὸν καὶ μιχθὲν τῶι ἀσθενεῖ ἐς θῆλυ περιηνέχθη). Anaxagoras is variously placed in either camp: Censorinus 6.8 vs 59 A 107. 407–12 The primary purpose of Xuthus’ trip to Trophonius was to create an opportunity for the conversation between Creusa and Ion. But the oracle also destabilises audience expectations by revealing a faultline and possible conflict in the plot: the oracle creates a problem in connection with Hermes’ prediction



237–451 1st Epeisodion

241

that Creusa would recognise Ion only in Athens (71–2). A clash is inevitable if Creusa is to return home not knowing that Ion is her son; or Apollo’s plan must fail if Creusa is to believe that the oracle has come true. But the characters do not return to the prediction, and the incongruity is fleeting: the next scenes with their abundance of action and emotion do not provide room for reflection on Trophonius. The audience, by contrast, can easily make sense of the oracle. 407 τοῦ θεοῦ: attribute to μαντεύματα: cf. 421. The word order with hyperbaton stresses the superiority of Apollo over the hero. The alternative explanation, the genitive following προ-, is uncommon (Dem. 7.9, 45.6, Aeschin. 2.178 in the literal meaning of λαμβάνω: ‘to seize something earlier than another’). 408 δ’ οὖν: The statement combines a conclusion (ἕν: ‘just one thing’, for the rest would be anticipation) with a shift of focus (from what Trophonius does not say to what he does): cf. Alc. 72–3, Andr. 163. 409 οὐδὲ σ’: The separation of Creusa’s and Xuthus’ fate in this expression (instead of ‘we will not ...’) ironically anticipates a critical point in Xuthus’ later action (cf. 609, 658, 699–701, 773, 913–18). The delayed mention of Creusa at all reflects a certain self-absorption. 410–12 Creusa invokes Leto, expressing a hope rather than making a concrete request as in a prayer. Langholf (1971) 83 notes that Creusa never addresses Apollo himself except in an accusatory manner in 385 and in her monody. His mother is the person closest to the god and therefore the right alternative addressee. The address is partly ambiguous and incomprehensible for Xuthus (Kurtz (1985) 339–40): he must take νῶιν as denoting himself and Creusa (as his reaction in 413 shows), while she means her own private dealings with Apollo. Creusa expects some sort of compensation (note the mercantile imagery – in line with Ion’s thought experiment 444–7 and the χάρις rhetoric of the monody: cf. 859–922n): either to get a new son or to find Apollo’s (Diller (1962) 112 n.25; cf. 389), although the latter is not suggested by Trophonius’ response. To Xuthus the meaning of the dealings (συμβόλαια) that they have had with Apollo must be the ‘business’ of consultation and their hope in the oracle. 410 αἰσίως: ‘under good auspices’, i.e. with a positive outcome (contrast 421). 411 συμβόλαια: ‘conflicts’, followed by ἐς παῖδα τὸν σόν. The word means “a liability that is actionable in court and arises from a delict or a failure to

242

Commentary

perform the terms of a contract” or, as in this case, a dispute arising out of such a liability: cf. Harris (2015) 12. Creusa views Apollo as in a relationship of χάρις with her but not honouring his obligation (859–922n). 412 μεταπέσοι βελτίονα: ‘turn into something better’, more lit. ‘turn so as to be better’: a prolepsis anticipating the result of the change. The idea is clearer in comparable phrases with εἰς or ἐπί (e.g. Med. 911 ἐς τὸ λῶιον σὸν μεθέστηκεν κέαρ, Or. 1141). The metaphor may originate from the cast of dice (cf. Alc. 912–13, Aesch. Ag. 32–3, Soph. fr. 895), but the prefix μεταshows that the gambling image has probably receded. 413–16 Ion has been standing aside, minding his own business. Now he obliges, as is his duty, and steps in to provide the information in a polite and modest manner, emphasising the excellence of the officials in his sanctuary. For Xuthus he has been just a slave, a mute character like his own men. Only for the audience is Ion in any way special – thanks to the information given by Hermes. 413 ἔσται τάδ’: The expression is a general assent, in most cases after an order or request, but also as agreement to a wish, when the speaker joins in and expresses confidence in its fulfilment (Italie (1952), Ed. Fraenkel (1962) 77–8): Med. 89 (with schol.), Suppl. 1182, Ar. Av. 446, Nub. 431. προφητεύει: On the προφήτης cf. 94–101n. θεοῦ: equivalent to προφήτης ἐστί τινος: cf. IA 1242 ἱκέτευσον πατρός, Hdt. 7.111 οἱ προφητεύοντες τοῦ ἱροῦ, Dem. 21.173 τῆς μὲν Παράλου ταμιεύσας. 414 ἡμῖν  τά  γ’ ἔξω: Cf. IT 624 ἔσω ... οἷς μέλει τάδε (on the ministers performing the sacrifice). On Ion’s duties cf. 54–5 and 638–41. The change from ἡμεῖς (L) to ἡμῖν allows the construction ἀπὸ κοινοῦ of μέλει. Without it, it is difficult to find a verb that could be supplied: Ion can hardly say of himself προφητεύομεν: his chores outside have little in common with the being a προφήτης; he is already stretching his competencies with his offer to act as proxenos (335). Supplying μέλομεν is not a solution, either: the only occurrence with accusative is textually uncertain (Hom.Hym. 4.437, now defended by Vergados). 416 Δελφῶν ἀριστῆς: The plural points towards the group we saw marching off to perform the cleansing procedures in the introductory scene (94–101n), in historical terms, then the priest/prophet and the ὅσιοι. The ‘Daulis’ novel (P.Berol. 11517) speaks of τοὺ[ς λ]ο̣γ̣ιωτάτους Δελ[φῶν] (col. I 11–12; the reading preferred by Stephens/Winkler (1995) 386 over ἁ̣γ̣ιωτάτους).



237–451 1st Epeisodion

243

The change from the later nominative form ἀριστεῖς to the regular 5th(and early 4th-) cent. form is justified by the epigraphic evidence (Threatte II 239–41) and extant in part of the transmission (K-B I 449). οὓς ἐκλήρωσεν πάλος: The lot, being divinely led, determines the candidates for the post. At least in Athens the deity chose his or her priests from a shortlist in this way (Aleshire (1994) 333–4; cf. Pl. Leg. 759B). 417–21 Xuthus can enter the temple immediately, as he has the necessary information and the day is one of oracular business (418 καὶ γάρ for the additional requirement). For the sake of economy Euripides eliminates the business of a normal day of consultation: no other enquirers appear; historical corollaries such as a proxenos or a sacrifice are dispensed with (cf. 226–9n). For hints at a different picture cf. Aesch. Eum. 31–2, Plut. Mor. 414B–C. 417 καλῶς: ‘excellent’, here a positive, acknowledging answer to an offer (cf. Ar. Vesp. 785). ἔχω δὴ πάνθ’: Xuthus is ready to go, as he has received and understood all the information he needed (cf. e.g. Or. 749 τοῦτο πάντ᾿ ἔχω μαθών, 1120, IA 883, Ar. Av. 1460). The phrase signals general preparedness (Alc. 607, El. 610  ἐν χειρὶ τῆι σῆι πάντ’ ἔχεις καὶ τῆι τύχηι) and does not imply the possession of an object (as in 1018): there is no sign that he has got a victim or anything else. The common sacrifice, an additional requirement for consultation, is added with καὶ γάρ and does not form part of what he himself needs. The text is good as it stands, the asyndeton must not be removed by writing ἔχων (Badham) but is the rule with στείχοιμ’ ἄν (Diggle (1981a) 101–2. 419 χρηστήριον πέπτωκε: Cf. Aesch. Suppl. 450 δεῖ κάρτα θύειν καὶ πεσεῖν χρηστήρια. The preliminary sacrifice of a goat at the entrance to the sanctuary (πρὸ ναοῦ; cf. 226 with n) revealed whether the day was αἰσία (421): Plut. Mor. 435B, 437A–B. τοῖς ἐπήλυσιν: The formulation is casual and does not indicate a distinction between Delphians and others. The Delphians, too, consulted their oracle (e.g. Hdt. 7.178.1). 421 αἰσία: By accepting the sacrifice Apollo has indicated that the day may be one of consultation. In historical times oracular activity happened on the 7th day of each month (Plut. Mor. 292F, Parke (1943)) but was suspended during winter (Pind. P. 4.5, Plut. Mor. 389C; cf. Parke/Wormell I 11) or when Apollo had rejected the common sacrifice; cf. Parke/Wormell I 30–1, Amandry (1950) 105–6.

244

Commentary

422–4 The prayers Xuthus asks Creusa to perform will happen off-stage; we only hear them echoed in the chorus’ prayer of the 1st stasimon (cf. 452–509n). The placing of a branch serves as the visible sign of supplication to the gods (Naiden (2006) 56–7). 422 ἀμφὶ βωμούς: with εὔχου: cf. Herc. 1145 ἀμφὶ βωμὸν χεῖρας ἡγνίζου πυρί, IT 705. 422–3 δαφνηφόρους λαβοῦσα κλῶνας: ‘taking laurelbearing twigs’. The adjective is used instead of δάφνης and goes with κλῶνας, not with βωμούς; cf. Herc. 396–7 πετάλων ἄπο μηλοφόρων. 423 εὐτέκνους: both well-endowed with children (probably Hec. 620) and endowed with good children (e.g. Hec. 581, Aesch. Suppl. 275); cf. 470–1. 425–8 Xuthus does not wait for a reply but leaves through the temple portal. Creusa’s words are not meant to be heard by him; she speaks them aloud, however, since Ion catches them and is astonished at the recriminations (Bain (1977) 37–8, contra Mastronarde (1979) 30). He understands them as spoken on behalf of the ‘friend’ (not as a complaint about Creusa’s own barrenness, as Owen believes). Creusa declares that she will count a favourable response by Apollo as an attempt at reconciliation and redress for previous wrong (cf. 471n on oracles directly influencing events). She will be responsive and accept it, though without full (ἅπας) reconciliation and only because his power as a god is superior: the god can only force cessation of hostility; full forgiveness is not possible because her hurt (at the assumed death of the son) cannot be undone and continues to be felt (until she finds the son alive: 1609–10). The brief reflection shows the emotional ambivalence of Creusa: she is torn between the desire for a child and the grievance against Apollo, with more than just a sense of her dependence on his goodwill, which determines their relationship. The language of social relations (ἁμαρτία, φίλος) will be taken up by the key motif of χάρις in Creusa’s monody (cf. 859–922n). 425 ἔσται: Cf. 413. 426 νῦν ἀλλὰ τὰς πρὶν ἀναλαβεῖν ἁμαρτίας: After rape and neglect Creusa expects at least some compensation: ‘if he now at least wants to make good these old wrongs...’ For ἀλλά describing the second best option cf. Denniston 13 and, e.g., 978, Med. 1073. Here it goes with τὰς πρὶν ἀναλαβεῖν ἁμαρτίας, not with νῦν (with Denniston 13 and Owen ‘now at last’, which would be a unique inversion of ἀλλὰ νῦν): it is not the delay of compensation at issue but the uncertainty



237–451 1st Epeisodion

245

of Apollo’s intention to offer it. ἀναλαβεῖν denotes the correction of or compensation for a mistake: cf. Soph. Phil. 1248–9, Pherecrates PCG 155.18, Hdt. 8.109.1. 427 γένοιτ’ ἂν: The potential (in an open future construction considering reconciliation) softens the rejection of the god. 429–51 Creusa exits via eisodos A – Ion stays behind alone with the silent chorus. The closest parallel to the three actors leaving the stage one-by-one by the three different exits is in Rh. 636–74. Euripides signals the isolation of each character, in terms of personality and their several designs: Creusa and Ion say what Xuthus and Creusa respectively are not supposed to hear. The emphasis rests on Ion’s extended ‘tailpiece’ soliloquy (Halleran (1985) 105). For such act-closing monologues pondering on the preceding act cf. 1041–7, Hcld. 740–7, Herc. 339–47, IA 742–50 with Leo (1908) 28 and Schadewaldt (1926) 228–30. The speech picks up motifs of the preceding scene and indicates some changes. Creusa’s complaints against Apollo have made the greatest impression on Ion (pace Schadewaldt (1926) 228–30, who sees only a ‘Mindestmaß an Erregung’ in the monologue and interprets it as a new, purely literary form lacking realism): he wonders at her behaviour, then interrupts himself to continue with his work, but quickly returns to considering the content of Creusa’s words. Ion’s disturbance and shifts of thought are reflected in the delivery: for nine lines (433–41) there are – despite mostly short sentences – no strong syntactic breaks at line end and just one end of a subclause, against three heavy and several lighter enjambments (cf. similarly IT 660–8); in addition, we have continuous prosodical synaphia, i.e. no hiatus or brevis at line end (a late Euripidean technique: Battezzato (2008) 128–9). The tone repeatedly descends to an informal register. By the conclusion with its lawcourt imagery the train of thought becomes steadier once more. Ion comes to feel alienated from Creusa because of her attacks on Apollo, but then he too holds the god to account. Since Apollo himself is implicated in impurity – both the concern with the cleanliness of the sanctuary and the abhorrence of sex that were heard in the monody persist – Ion’s attitude towards the god has shifted, he takes a critical stance (as seen, e.g., by Imhof (1966) 28–9): his previous image of Apollo, idealised and favourable in comparison with the other gods (cf. 174–6), has been a delusion. 429 πρὸς τὸν θεὸν: ‘regarding the god’ (cf. K-G I 521) following λόγοι, rather than ‘to the god’: Apollo has been the addressee only of the tirade in 385–9.

246

Commentary

430 λοιδοροῦσ’: a strong term denoting abuse, possibly too strong to be common in tragic discourse: used only once in Aeschylus (Eum. 206), six more times in Euripides (once in Cycl.), but more frequently in comedy and prose. 431–2 ἤτοι ... γ’ ... ἢ καί: The second part adds a guess that may at first seem unexpected but turns out perfectly possible: Pl. Prot. 340E–341A κινδυνεύει γάρ τοι, ὦ Πρωταγόρα, ἡ Προδίκου σοφία θεία τις εἶναι πάλαι, ἤτοι ἀπὸ Σιμωνίδου ἀρξαμένη, ἢ καὶ ἔτι παλαιοτέρα. ἤτοι is vivid and avoided in the 5th-cent. in formal prose (Denniston 553). γε may be adding additional sharpness to the contrast. 432 σιωπᾶσθαι: On silence out of a sense of decency cf. 336n. The variation between σιωπάω and σιγάω is unremarkable: Hec. 533, Suppl. 298, Ar. Thesm. 27, 381, Ran. 915–16. 433–6a Ion tries to return to his routine, but the thought of Apollo’s morally wrong action haunts him in the middle of line 436. 433 ἀτὰρ: a colloquial, sharp change of topic (Denniston 51, Stevens (1976) 44), here an abrupt interruption of his own thoughts: cf. [Andr. 397], Ar. Nub. 693 ἀτὰρ τί ταῦθ’ ἃ πάντες ἴσμεν μανθάνω; 434 προσήκει γ’ οὐδέν: ‘She has nothing to do ’ (supply μοι from 433). The pun is in the narrower meaning ‘she is my kinswoman’. οὐδέν has been preserved (as οὐθέν) in ps.-Justin, γ᾿, recognisable in the τ of L’s τοὖδας, shows how Ion has to convince himself of the fact. 435 πρόχοισιν: a collective description of water jugs rather than a particular form of vessel: cf. schol.rec. Ar. Nub. 272 πρόχοοι μὲν οἱ ξέσται καὶ πᾶν ἀγγεῖον ἔχον ὑγρὸν καὶ προχέον αὐτό. On gold vessels in the temple and the purifying effect of gold cf. 146n. The form, a lectio difficilior preserved in ps.-Justin against πρόχουσιν in L, is found in one ms of Ar. Nub. 272 χρυσέαις ἀρύτεσθε πρόχοισιν (Ra.c.); cf. Soph. Ant. 430 πρόχου (the scholia read προχόου). Outside Athens the unambiguous form πρόχον is found in the Ionic alphabet (οἴνου πρόχον in SGDI II 1884.14=SIG2 854.14, Delphi, 2nd cent. and SEG 39:1279.18, Lydia AD 238/9). The only possible Attic attestation (IG II2 1648.35 προ]χους) is equivocal. Dover on Ar. loc.cit. compares χείμαρρος and supposes additional influence from nouns and adjectives on -οχος (from ἔχω). 435–6 εἰς ἀπορραντήρια δρόσον καθήσω: Ion leaves to refill the lustral vessels at the entrance to the sanctuary. On δρόσος cf. 117n; for καθίημι cf. 1034, IA [60]. ἀπορραντήρια occurs only here in literary texts, otherwise



237–451 1st Epeisodion

247

περιρραντήριον is used frequently, but cf. e.g. IG I3 317.5, IG II2 1425.306 and Hdt. 2.93.1 (ἀπορραίνω). Such ‘stoups’ are located mainly at the perimeter of sacred spaces and within sanctuaries around particularly sacred spots: cf. Pimpl (1997) 49–65, Ginouvès (1962) 299–310. In Athens we hear of the agora and the assembly place (Aeschin. 3.176 with schol.). For Delphi, however, their existence is uncertain (Pimpl p. 53–4). 436b–51 Ion’s Monologue Ion’s speech reflects his indignation and disappointment, even though he still speaks as a worshipper of Apollo (so rightly Langholf (1971) 82). There is no sign that he does not credit Creusa’s story (pace Yunis (1988) 129–30). He operates with explicit legal and moral categories: Apollo’s acts and the refusal to take responsibility are described as wanting ἀρετή, as a breach of the gods’ own laws and a failure by their very own standards. His argument looks back to Creusa’s lament at the start of the epeisodion, most notably to Apollo’s abrogated responsibility and the idea that justice is corrupted where the highest authorities are themselves compromised (253–4). He creates a hypothetical scenario in which these could be held to account for their deeds and envisages corruption of mortal morals arising from the precedent of the gods. Both his and Creusa’s accusations misjudge the god’s interest and sense of care: the γάμοι βίαιοι have indeed happened, but Apollo has not neglected the child or acted without προμηθία. Several scholars, following a furrow ploughed by Verrall, have claimed that Ion is speaking as Euripides’ mouthpiece here, since the shift ‘from naïve devotion to trenchant criticism’ (Meltzer (2006) 166) was implausible. Rather, all the attitudes expressed – esp. the high expectations of Apollo in contrast to Zeus and Poseidon (cf. 174–8n) – have been prepared for since Ion’s monody. Moreover, some of Ion’s accusations are incorrect and the plot is Euripides’ invention; hence the passage is not a nod to the extra-dramatic world or criticism of its gods. The ‘challenging-nouthetetic’ addresses to gods are typical for later Euripides (e.g. Hec. 488–91, IT 77–94, Androm. fr. 136; often in the form of questions: 681–4, IT 77–9, Hel. 1102–5; on the motif cf. Dale (1963) 312). Particularly similar is Antiope fr. 223.11– 14 ὃς τ]ὸ λαμπρὸν αἰθέρος ναίεις πέδον, [λέγω τ]οσοῦτον· μὴ γαμεῖν μὲν ἡδέως, [γήμαν]τ̣α δ’ εἶναι σοῖς τέκνοις ἀ̣ν̣ω̣φελῆ· [οὐ γὰρ κ]α̣λὸν τόδ’, ἀλλὰ συμμαχεῖν φίλοις. These passages have in common that at the end of the play the basis for the accusations turn out to be unfounded. Euripides thus contrives characters that think critically of the gods when they are in difficult situations – or he puts his characters in situations that make them conceive such criticism; we cannot say that the poet expresses his own attitude towards the gods. Winnington-Ingram (1969) 128 reads the speech as ‘a piece of cleverness’ and ‘sophisticated fun’; but in so doing he passes over the

248

Commentary

suffering underlying the complaints, the effect on the plot of Creusa’s embitterment at Apollo’s perceived injustice, and Ion’s disturbed state after his belief in Apollo has been shaken as the tragic knot becomes stricter. 436 νουθετητέος: to a god: Dict. fr. 340 Κύπρις γὰρ οὐδὲν νουθετουμένη χαλᾶι. 437 τί πάσχει: ‘What’s wrong with him?’ The phrase signals an incomprehensible action or conduct (Cobet (1876) 151, Stevens (1976) 41). It forms an independent question, and is here specified in the next two sentences (similarly in Hipp. 340, Herc. 965–7). Diggle prints it as an (unparalleled) indirect question following νουθετητέος, but τί πάσχει is an open reproach, not suitable for an indirect question. βίαι γαμῶν: Cf. 10–11n. 438 προδίδωσι: ‘lets them down’: he fails to fulfil the obligations that he has incurred with the act (Yunis (1988) 131). Creusa will fully elaborate the thought in her monody (cf. 859–922n). For gods letting mortals down cf. Herc. 342–3 ἀρετῆι σε νικῶ θνητὸς ὢν θεὸν μέγαν· παῖδας γὰρ οὐ προύδωκα τοὺς Ἡρακλέους, Tro. 1060–70, Aesch. Sept. 104, 170, 251. ἐκτεκνούμενος: For the prefix cf. 815 ἐκκαρπούμενος. 439b–43 Ion lectures Apollo with a double enthymeme: to the first premise (440–1 ‘The gods punish humans for their wrongdoing.’) one has to add a truism such as ‘it is not just not to follow the rules one gives’; the preliminary conclusion (442 οὖν: ‘Hence it is not just that the law-giving gods incur the charge of unlawfulness’) is then formulated as a rhetorical question. The idea ‘prefer just/moral over unjust action’ need not be stated to end up with the (already pronounced) second conclusion (440 ἀρετὰς δίωκε). 439 μὴ σύ γ’: μή with ellipsis of an imperative forms a colloquial rebuke and prohibition: e.g. 1335, Hec. 408, Men. Georg. 28. κρατεῖς: Cf. 254. Sexual abuse is described as typically tyrannical behaviour: e.g. Suppl. 452–5, Soph. OT 891, Thuc. 6.54.3, Isocr. 3.36. 440 ἂν: Again ps.-Justin has the correct text (as does Stobaeus), against L’s ὅστις ὤν with indicative. ὤν with πέφυκε is redundant, and the emphasis is on the general application (i.e. repetition): cf. K-G II 424–6. 443 γράψαντας: a quite exceptional formulation, as the gods are rarely regarded as legislators in a judicial sense (Burkert (1985) 248–9; cf. Dem. 23.70, 25.16, Antiph. 1.3; pace E. Harris (2004) 27–8, who confuses written and unwritten laws, δίκη and νόμος); elsewhere in tragedy and beyond they



237–451 1st Epeisodion

249

give unwritten ‘divine’ laws in affairs touching on religion and the honour of the gods (e.g. Aesch. Eum. 484; the evidence is collected in Mikalson (1991) 48, 194–6), but rape is not an issue in which the gods would be intrinsically interested. Their involvement in lawmaking happens in the form of oracular approval or selection between alternatives: Xen. Pol.Lac. 8.5, Arist. Ath.Pol. 21.6, IG II2 1283, IG II3 1, 292. ἀνομίαν ὀφλισκάνειν: ‘incur the charge of unlawfulness’: the verb has been transferred from a business and judicial (‘be a debtor’, e.g. of a legal fine, a δίκη) to a general metaphorical meaning ‘incur reproach for’: e.g. ἀμαθία, μωρία Herc. 1348, Phoen. 763. Euripides now reapplies it to the forensic discourse by joining it with ἀνομία: the image of owing legal fines is sustained in the following thought experiment. 444–7 Ion draws a forensic scenario: if the gods were tried for their acts, they would be fined so much that they would empty their sanctuaries, i.e. spend all their treasures on fines. The disclaimer οὐ γὰρ ἔσται harks back to the point of the gods’ superior power and unaccountability, not without overtones of frustration. 444 τῶι λόγωι δὲ χρήσομαι: ‘for the sake of the argument’: cf. Pl. Rep. 475A συγχωρῶ τοῦ λόγου χάριν. 445 δίκας ... δώσετ’: ‘Pay the penalty’ has etymologically stronger material connotations than τίνω ‘atone’ (on the etymology ‘avenge, punish’ cf. Beekes s.v. τίνω), but there is little difference in actual use. βιαίων ... γάμων: Cf. 437. Ion alludes to the δίκη βιαίων, which seems to have covered compensation for damage done to one’s household, including the harming of one’s wards (cf. Scafuro (1997) 211). Demosthenes mentions it alongside other charges of violent conduct (37.33 αἴκειαν καὶ ὕβριν καὶ βιαίων καὶ πρὸς ἐπικλήρους ἀδικήματα; cf. Pl. Rep. 464A ὑπάρχει τούτοις ἀστασιάστοις εἶναι, ὅσα γε διὰ χρημάτων ἢ παίδων καὶ συγγενῶν κτῆσιν ἄνθρωποι στασιάζουσιν; ... καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ βιαίων γε οὐδ’ αἰκίας δίκαι δικαίως ἂν εἶεν ἐν αὐτοῖς; cf. also Harpocr. β12 referring to a group of Lysianic λόγοι βιαίων that deal ‘not only’ ἐπὶ φθορᾶι παρθένων and Lys. fr. 299–302, 308.2–5, Lucian Hermot. (63) 81, who is probably classicizing where he has a young man narrowly escape a δίκη βιαίων for violating a free virgin. The use of βία here and in 437 for Apollo’s union with Creusa, as well as e.g. in Lys. 1.32 refers clearly to coercion as opposed to seduction (cf. 10–11n). This invalidates the claim of Omitowoju (2002) 63–71 that the word generally denotes violation of the rights of the κύριος. However, with regard to the law on rape her focus on the κύριος is justified, since in the δίκη

250

Commentary

βιαίων the assaulted woman was of equal standing to damaged goods and legally the κύριος the actual victim. 446 σὺ καὶ Ποσειδῶν Ζεύς θ᾿: Apollo is juxtaposed with the two most notorious philanderers on Olympus. 447 ἀδικίας: accusative of the crime: ‘(pay compensation) for your unjust acts’ (cf. LSJ I 5: e.g. El. 1189, IT 78, Hom. Il. 11.142, Theogn. IEG2 735); the genitive (singular) of the charge would need a word for ‘penalty’, e.g. δίκην (e.g. Herc. 733, Or. 531). κενώσετε: a wry statement exaggerating the number of victims, given the enormous value of temple treasures. Some scholars wish to read this as if Apollo emptied his temple of worshippers as well as dedicative offerings (Yunis (1988) 133, Lee), but the idea of people turning their backs on the god does not fit the notion of active compensation that is implied in τίνοντες. For the temple treasures as the gods’ wealth cf. Phil. fr. 794.2–3 θαυμάζεται δ’ ὁ πλεῖστον ἐν ναοῖς ἔχων χρυσόν. The fine for rape is reported as 100 drachmai (Plut. Sol. 23.1); cf. also Todd on Lys. 1.32–3, (1993) 276–7. 448–51 The application of human judicial categories and moral standards leads Ion to detect another kind of injustice in the gods’ behaviour: they negligently set a precedent, for by committing offences they license the same acts on the human level. As a consequence they pervert human moral standards and judgments, and evil can be justified by the example of the gods. The idea extends the thought of 439–43: not only do the gods lose the moral authority to punish humans who imitate their actions; they are even the party that is morally in the wrong by causing such behaviour and making it defensible. 448–9 τὰς ἡδονὰς γὰρ τῆς προμηθίας πέρα σπεύδοντες: ‘pursuing pleasure beyond what is prudent’: while enjoying themselves, the gods do not consider the moral consequences of their action and the perversion of moral standards. The following asyndeton is explicative, detailing the consequences of the violence against women and thus explaining why it is incautious to commit. πέρα is restored from ps.-Justin’s πέρας. πάρος (L) meaning ‘rather than’ produces a lame ‘pursue pleasure rather than cautiousness’, with σπεύδοντες προμηθίαν being close to nonsense. 449–50 οὐκέτ’ ἀνθρώπους κακοὺς λέγειν δίκαιον ... τὰ τῶν θεῶν κακὰ: The gods’ sexual indulgence is indeed used by the nurse in Hipp. to persuade Phaedra that it is rightful also for mortals (Hipp. 451–61). This analogy is meant to be shocking where it justifies morally reprehensible acts (cf. Herc. 1314–21, Phil. fr. 794, Mastronarde (2010) 172–3). Ion here turns it around to reproach the gods (and dissuade them from so continuing).



452–509 1st Stasimon

251

The existence of the basic idea that imitation of the gods’ behaviour sanctions bad actions by the human race commends Stephanus’ conjecture κακά. The transmitted καλά would have to be ‘what is pleasing to the gods’ (Wilamowitz (1875) 22 n.1: ‘quae apud deos bona sint’, after Lact. Div.Inst. 5.15.11 quae hic mala putantur haec sunt in caelo bona, often identified as a translation of our passage [=Eur. fr. 1118]). But that would mix moral (κακούς) and hedonistic (καλά) categories (and produce confusion especially over the meaning of τάδε). The passage does not exhibit other signs of similar sarcasm as the use of the positive καλόν for acts to be condemned. In addition, the meaning is impossible: καλόν ‘pleasing to sb.’ does not take an objective genitive but the dative (e.g. 1045, Suppl. 293). The genitive is subjective (‘the evil acts done by the gods’: cf. Herc. 1368 οὐδ’ ὤνασθε τῶν ἐμῶν καλῶν, Suppl. 300) – the only exception Or. 85 τὰ τούτου κακά means ‘the evil he is in’.

452–509 1st Stasimon As Ion leaves, the chorus remain alone and can speak what is on their hearts without fear of being overheard. They open their song with a prayer parallel to the one Creusa is performing off-stage at the same time (as noted by Hose (1991) 175; cf. 423–4). By asking Athena and Artemis to intervene with Apollo and request a child for Creusa they are trying to influence the action inside the temple. The antistrophe states the reason for the prayer: the desirability of children and a continued line. The epode then presents the consequences if the prayer remains unfulfilled and the suffering that accompanied conception, childbirth, and the loss of child in the particular case of Creusa’s ‘friend’. The ode thus evokes different aspects of sexuality and procreation: divine maidenhood, legitimate children, rape, and the death of one’s child. The song is strongly embedded in the plot and contributing to it: the chorus take their cues from the conversations of the preceding scene and comment on the story they have heard. The performance of a supporting prayer even makes the song a part of the dramatic action with a potential effect on the course of events. The prayer (as those later in the play) will be fulfilled and the house of Erechtheus will receive a son, though not in the way the chorus envisage (Mikalson (1989) 84, Hose p. 174: 714–20, 1048–60 work similarly): for the oracular response itself, viz. that Ion is Xuthus’ son, is the opposite of what they pray for, especially after Trophonius’ auspicious

252

Commentary

prophecy. By contrast, the horrific vision of the child’s exposure and the concluding gnomê will prove to have no basis in fact. If factually wrong, the song explains some of the motives and actions within the plot: it stresses the positive value attached to children so that the gap between the chorus’ and Creusa’s hopes and the reality that seems to unfold in the next two epeisodia widens. We better understand Creusa’s later disappointment at the oracle and the intensity of her feelings when the desired child seems to become unattainable and the house deserted or filled with strangers. The final gnomê, that the gods do not care about human children, generalises an assumption about human-divine relationships that is central to the play – until Athena shows that this assumption is erroneous and results from human ignorance. The audience’s knowledge of Apollo’s plan allows them to perceive the double dramatic irony: they can anticipate both the deep disappointment of Creusa and the later resolution, which is even happier than the chorus imagine: instead of receiving a ‘normal’ human child Creusa will return home with a recovered son who is semidivine. In this song the chorus show their double nature: after appearing primarily as Creusa’s maids in the parodos, they now act as independent people (even free citizens) with a desire for an intact family and a protected city (481–7). Their particular attachment to Creusa is expressed in the hope that the royal line of Erechtheus be continued (469–71). This hope could be motivated by either social status, as slaves in the household or as citizens ruled and protected by Creusa’s house (hence there is no conflict between the two loyalties or affiliations, pace Swift (2013) 145–53). Throughout the play they will combine – more than any individual character – the three perspectives of personal sympathy for Creusa, concern about the preservation of the autochthonous house, and the protection of the civic community. As characters that are not personally involved they can express feelings that Creusa must not betray in her conversation with a temple servant (or not at all publicly) if she wants to keep her secret to herself: a personal longing for children (contrast 304–6), deep empathy with the poor mother, and the sorrow about human-divine relationships. Their condemnation of Apollo the violator is stronger than that which Creusa permits herself to make, but they also invoke another side of him: as bringer of good oracles. Metre: 452–71~472–91 452~472 ⏑‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ wil 453~473 ⏓‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ ^wil 454~474 ⏑‒‒⏑⏑‒‒‖ pher 455~475 ⏑‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ wil



452–509 1st Stasimon

456~476 457~477 458~478 459~479 460~480 461~481 462~482 463~483 464~484 465~485 466~486 467~487 468~488 469~489 470~490 471~491

‒‒⏑‒⏑⏑‒ ^wil ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒‖ 2an^ ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ tl ‒‒⏒‒⏑⏑‒ ^wil ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒‖ reiz ‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ tl ⏓‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ tl ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏕ gl ‒‒⏑⏑‒‒‖ reiz ⏑‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ wil ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒/ ⏑⏑⏑‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ gl ~ wil ⏑‒‒‒†‒‒‒‒†/†⏑‒‒‒‒‒‒⏑ ⨯ ‒† ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ tl ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ tl ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒ 2an ‒‒⏑⏑‒‒ reiz

492–509 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 503b 504 505 506 507 508 509

‒‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ wil ⏑‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ ^wil ⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒‖ reiz ⏑⏑⏑‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ wil ⨯‒‒⏑‒⏑⏑‒ wil ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ 2ia ‒‒‒‒‒ 5 longs ⏑‒⏑‒⏑⏑‒ ^wil †‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒† ‒‒‒‒‒ 5 longs ‒⏑‒⏑‒‒ ‖ ithyph ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ Kurzvers ‒⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ gl ‒‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ wil ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ gl ‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑⏑ ‖ **gl ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑ ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑ ‒⏑⏑‒‒  10da^

253

The song is, again, mostly aeolo-choriambic. The strong presence of wilamowitziani gives it a character similar to the monody and the parodos. The rising start of most lines in the strophic pair allows seamless integration of anapaestic elements (457~477, 470~490), so Dale (1968) 167, (1981) 121–3 attempts to give the song greater unity by calling them all enoplians; but this

254

Commentary

is not just against modern views about that metric genre (West (1982) 175, Itsumi (1991–1993)) but also unnecessary. Cohesion, and thus unity despite constrasting moods, is also produced by the correspondence of periods: the first two periods in the strophe and the first period of the epode differ only in the clausula; 461–4~481–4 and 468–71~488–91 are again similar, and 458–60~478–80 is a shortened form. After the tightly structured strophic pair, the epode first seems to follow the same pattern but then breaks out of it. The dactylic exit, containing a gnomic utterance, is striking, but finding a close parallel, perhaps a reminder of the subject matter of epic song (cf. on 507–9). 457~477: Both the metrical pattern transmitted in the strophe (⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒) and the paroemiac of the antistrophe have parallels (cited by Diggle (1974) 19 = (1994) 112–13), but since Triclinius most editors have sought the mistake in the strophe. The affinity of the paroemiac with the particular realisation of reiz at the next period end (460~480) is noteworthy, and the same colon occurs in an aeolic context in Hipp. 144~154 and perhaps IT 431~448 (against Parker). 458–9~478–9: Editors have reiz wil, which suggests sense break in between. But Willink’s tl ^wil (in Kovacs’ translation) is more in harmony with the content: in the antistrophe period end after 477 is more likely than after πλοῦτον, and with 458–60 forming one period the delay of ἔνθα is less awkward. 466~486: On the responsion gl~wil cf. 209–10~223–bis n Metre. 467~487: Both lines, as transmitted, are rather extended and show an unusual preponderance of longs. 468–9~488–9: Initial resolution in tl occurs only in Euripides (Buijs (1986) 70), but there frequently, and in both aeolic and D/e contexts: Hec. 905/914, 910/919, Hel. 1113/1128, 1332, 1342/1358 (cf. Willink (2004) 66 n. 81). Bond compares his own colometry for Herc. 1206–7: ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ / ⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒ (/) ⏑‒⏑⏑‒ (likewise in a prayer, but in a largely dochmiac context). 497: the same colon in Suppl. 978 and El. 126. Glyconic interpretation (Dale (1981) 123) violates the prohibition of resolution of the initial long of the choriamb (cf. Diggle (1994) 470–1). For 2ia in aeolic context cf. e.g. Hel. 1308–9~1326–7 (following 5 longs; see next n). 498, 501: No suitable label has been found for this colon; the best parallels are Hel. 1307~1325 and 1462~1476. Dale p. 128 (on Hel. 1307~25) proposes contracted reiz, which would produce a more regular pattern of period ends (for the double clausula reiz ithyph 501–2 cf. Soph. OT 471–2~481–2;



452–509 1st Stasimon

255

double reiz in Hel. 1351–2~67–8) but seems an implausible label for 498, where the catalexis would produce a period end in the middle of a word group. On dochmiacs in aeolic contexts cf. below on 503. 502: The ithyph has the weak authority of Triclinius’ correction (where L is illegible). The change to pher (Biehl) or reiz (Hartung) supposes very common scribal errors (cf. Hec. 292). 503: The colon ⏕⏑‒⏑‒ is the same as in Hipp. 126–7~136–7 and should not be read as hypod. Unambiguous dochmiacs (i.e. not 5 longs), including hypodochmiacs, do not occur in contexts dominated by aeolic metres (the opposite, too, is rare: cf. West (1982) 113); occurrence in a mixed or different context is exceptional: Cycl. 656–62 (partly uncertain), Ba. 156–61. Sometimes dochmiacs occur after a song has changed its metrical character (Soph. Phil. 1092~1113 in a dactylic/iambic period after an aeolic one; in Herc. 734–821 in different strophes). IT 1247–9~1272–3 is D/e (so now Parker). An alternative for the rare metric form here would be the addition of (cf. ΙΤ 834–5) at the end, which would produce wil, give βρέφος an epithet, and emphasise the chorus’ pity. 506: The line can be described either as an anaclastic glyconic (West (1982) 31) or an aeolic colon following the scheme ...‒x‒x‒⏑⏑‒x‒x‒... (cf. Barrett on Hipp. p. 422). In either case we have brevis in longo, marking period end. Iambo-choriambic notation (ch ia) is not to be preferred, given the weak presence of iambics. 507–9: Some editors produce anapaests by making the colon start with ὕβριν. But this runs against the strong syntactical break. Hypsipyle’s largely aeolic monody (fr. 752f.9–14) ends on a ‘dactylisches Pnigos’ (Ed. Fraenkel (1917–1918) 186 = (1964) 191) that has significant similarities in content with these lines (cf. n). 452–71 While Creusa prays as part of a full ritual (422–4), the chorus perform a free-standing cletic hymn or prayer (on the form of the genre cf. Aubriot-Sevin (1992) 41–3, 221–33, Griffith on Soph. Ant. 100–61, 1115–54). By choosing Athena as the addressee the chorus make it very personal and Athenian, tailoring it to their specific needs (Furley (1999–2000) 150); they turn to their goddess in a rare prayer for intercession (Aubriot-Sévin p. 50; in Euripides only Hcld. 748–83): they call upon Athena to unite with Artemis and influence Apollo to give a favourable oracle and bestow children on the house of Erechtheus. The hymnic form finds its expression in the typical vocabulary (ἱκετεύω, μόλε) and predication in the second person, but the style

256

Commentary

is mostly simple, in accordance with the singers: the language is direct and the word order similar to prose, with few hyperbata. Several structural elements of the prayer are repeated, as the address shifts from Athena alone in the cletic part (μόλε 458) to Athena and Artemis in the actual request (ἱκετεύσατε 468). The invocation, likewise, is repeated (452–4, 465). The two instances of pars epica or argumentum blend in the reasons why these particular deities are asked for help with the praise/aretalogy: the pair’s virginity and Athena’s special birth from Zeus’ head both single them out and make them distinguished intermediaries in a request for children; the appellation as sisters of Apollo explains why they are appropriate to intercede with him. Underlying the choice of deities are their particular domains: Artemis is associated with childbirth, while Athena (Nike) is the personal goddess of the chorus (453 ἐμάν) and patron of the city that is to profit from a new generation; she also supervised the birth of Erichthonius and thus sowed the family. What is less clear is the reason for the stress on Athena’s inexperience with childbirth and on the virginity of both goddesses. But as virgins they share the position of those most typically praying for fertility: girls about to enter into marriage (R. Parker (2005) 242). 452 ὠδίνων λοχιᾶν: ‘birth-related labour pangs’; quasi-pleonastic, but cf. Ba. 88–90 ἐν ὠδίνων λοχίαις ἀνάγκαισι, Nicias AP 2766, Hymn.Orph. 26.5 Quandt. The adjective seems to be a medical term, not attested outside the Hippocratic corpus before Euripides. The separative genitive after an ἀνcompound repeats and specifies the idea of the adjective: (parallels in Brei­ tenbach 192–3; in prose e.g. Andoc. 1.117, Isoc. 12.126). λοχιᾶν is Tiberius Hemsterhuys’ reinterpretation of transmitted λοχίαν, in Alberti (1746) 359. 453 ἀνειλείθυιαν: Athena was ‘without Eileithyia’, i.e. she neither had nor caused birth pangs. Pinning the word exclusively to either meaning here impoverishes the text. Creusa’s freedom from pains (1596) was of a different kind. Eileithyia brings the labour pang and assists in both the painful and the easy birth (Hom. Il. 11.270–1, Hom.Hym. 3.115–19; more in Pingiatoglou (1981) 89). On her role in the cult of Athenian women cf. R. Parker (2005) 431. The word, restored by Heinsius (in Alberti (1746) 359) from the testimonia, follows the same pattern as ἀνυμέναιος (Hec. 416, IT 856) and ἀνήφαιστος (Or. 621). The feminine termination is rare with composite adjectives and derivatives on -ιος formed from appellatives (but cf. ἀρρήταν Hec. 201, Τυνδαρεία IT 5). ἐμὰν: That they use the unusual formulation twice (cf. 211n) stresses the strong bond between chorus/city and the goddess and prepares her appearance as dea ex machina.



452–509 1st Stasimon

257

455 Προμηθεῖ Τιτᾶνι: again later in Phoen. 1122, Soph. OC 56. On the ancient versions of the myth of Athena’s birth cf. Kauer (1959). Prometheus is mentioned in the function of Zeus’ ‘midwife’ by Apollod. Bibl. 1.20 and schol. Pind. O. 7.36 (=66 Drachmann), but both may go back to this passage. All other textual and archaeological sources, with the odd exception of schol. Pind. (which gives three different names), have Hephaestus (LIMC Athena 346, 349). However, that god sits uneasily with Athena’s virginity, as Erichthonius is the result of Hephaestus’ attempt to violate Athena (e.g. fr. 925, Amelesagoras FGrH 330 F 1, Apollod. Bibl. 3.188); members of the audience alert to the departure from the standard version may have understood the innuendo. This explanation of Prometheus is more likely than Euripides’ trying to depict harmony on Mount Olympus, with Zeus’ old enemy helping him (so Segal (1999) 85). Being as skilled as Hephaestus, Prometheus is a suitable replacement for the awkward god. 456–7 κατ’ ἀκροτάτας κορυφᾶς: lit. ‘down from’ rather than ‘out of’. Cf. Pind. O. 7.36 κορυφὰν κατ’ ἄκραν (in the same context). 457 †μάκαιρα: The responsion with 477 is flawed, and most editors have located the mistake here, starting with Triclinius (exceptions being Kirchhoff, Nauck, and Murray). The metre and the general and dispensable nature of the word suggest that μάκαιρα is wrong, possibly a gloss. Of the conjectures that have been offered Willink’s ὄλβιε (reported by Kovacs; with two terminations: Hyps. fr. 752g.27; as epiklesis Hipp. 1440, Aesch. Suppl. 526; for Athena: Luc. Podagr. (69) 99) fits Nike and explains the corruption, without incurring the metrical problems of Wecklein’s and Wilamowitz’s μάκαρ (for which cf. Hel. 375, Ba. 565, Ar. Av. 1722; their colometry departs from ours). Νίκα: Nike is the appropriate goddess to guarantee and symbolise the survival of the royal line and thus the fate of Athens; cf. the triumphant language of survival of the house (1464–7). Athena Nike is not to be distinguished or separated from Athena Polias (R. Parker (1996) 90; cf. Hcld. 352, Soph. Phil. 134, Ar. Eq. 581–90); her temple is in the vicinity of Parthenon and Erechtheion on the Acropolis (although construction was probably suspended at the time the play was performed: cf. Mark (1993) 76–7). As such Nike represents the chorus’ civic desire for an heir to the throne to secure the power of Athens and the continuity of the divinely favoured house of Erechtheus. When Ion’s true father is revealed at the end of the play, Creusa invokes Athena Nike again (1529), a sign that the chorus’ prayer has been fulfilled. Nike (as distinct from Athena) is depicted at the birth of Erichthonius in LIMC Nike 247–50 (5th/4th cent.) and in the gigantomachy (LIMC Nike

258

Commentary

239–42 from the 4 cent.). Neither link is strong enough to be deliberately evoked in this place, pace Mastronarde (1975) 167 = (2003) 301. th

458 μόλε: Appeals to a god to come often precede a more specific request (cf. Pulleyn (1997) 136; comparative material in West (2007) 318–20). 458–9 Οὐλύμπου: Willink (apud Kovacs, preceded by Wakefield) uses the Homeric form to change the colometry (cf. Metre). The structure of the new metrical period 458–60 helps understand the connection of ἔνθα with the indication of place dominating that period (οἶκον) rather than the one that is nearest (ἀγυιάς). In tragedy, Οὔλυμπος is unique to Euripides (HF 872, Tro. 215). 459 χρυσέων θαλάμων: Several scholars (Dobree, Musso, Willink apud Kovacs) think that the genitive requires a preposition (᾿κ χρυσέων). But Euripides knows the free use of the ablatival genitive with simple verbs of movement: cf. e.g. Med. 70 γῆς ἐλᾶν Κορινθίας, in Sophocles e.g. OT 142 βάθρων ἵστασθε and more in Bruhn §41, K-G I 395. 460 πταμένα: Nike is winged (Ar. Av. 574 and standard in art: cf. Moustaka (1992) 852; the Νίκη ἄπτερος on the Acropolis is exceptional) and thus fittingly described as flying (cf. Hermes Hom. Od. 5.49, Zeus as a swan Hel. 18; unwinged gods do not fly: Ar. Av. 572–6, 1175–6). Flying also denotes swiftness (Cycl. 71, Hipp. 760, already in Homer): Xuthus is already in the temple, about to receive his oracle. 461–2 γᾶς μεσόμφαλος ἑστία: ‘the hearth at the mid-navel of the earth’, a combination of the phrase ὀμφαλὸς γῆς and the adjective μεσόμφαλος (already OT 480–1 τὰ μεσόμφαλα γᾶς ... μαντεῖα). The genitive can be explained as depending on either ὀμφαλός (cf. Alc. 91 μετακύμιος ἄτης) or μέσος (cf. 910). Jebb wrongly compares Soph. El. 1386 δωμάτων ὑπόστεγοι (cf. Soph. Aj. 796): in that case the preposition and the noun that form the compound complement each other, whilst in our case the two are tautological. For the genitive depending on the second part cf. Aesch. Sept. 880–1 δωμάτων ἐρειψίτοιχοι. The hearth of Delphi is mentioned in Andr. 1067, Aristonous Hym.Hest. (GH 2.3) 2–4 Ἑστία ... μυ[χὸν γ]αίας μεσόμφαλον ... κατέχουσα. Aristonous may imitate Euripides’ formulation, but Hom.Hym. 24.1–2 could be another cultic text confirming the centrality of the hearth to Delphi (cf. also Soph. OT 965, Plut. Aristid. 20.4); the μεσόμφαλον ἵδρυμα described as πυρὸς φέγγος ἄφθιτον and ἑστία in Aesch. Cho. 1036–8 is another specific reference to it (Simons (1949) 36–40; ἐσχάρα in Andr. 1240, Suppl. 1200, Phoen. 284). The latter passage and Pausanias’ distinction of the hearth and the βωμός of Poseidon (10.24.4) should caution us against equating it with an altar for animal sacrifices.



452–509 1st Stasimon

259

463 παρὰ χορευομένωι τρίποδι: ‘at the tripod honoured in dance’: cf. Bacch. 4.4–5 παρ᾿ ὀμφαλὸν ... ἀ[είδε]ται, Pind. Pae. 6 fr. 52f.17 ὀμφαλὸν παρὰ σκιάεντα μελ̣π[ό]μεναι (with Radt), Aristonous Hym.Hest. (GH 2.3) 5 ναὸν ἀν᾿ ὑ[ψίπυλ]ον Φοίβου χορεύεις is probably influenced by Euripides. These parallels may suggest a change to the accusative, but they are not compelling. The tripod in the temple of Apollo was not accessible to simple worshippers and could therefore not be danced at in a literal sense. But choral dances took place in the sanctuary of Delphi ‘in honour of’ (cf. Soph. OT 1092, Aesch. fr. 204b**.1, Pind. I. 1.7) the tripod, i.e. of Apollo’s oracular activity. 464 κραίνει: On the double meaning ‘ordain’ and ‘make come true’ cf. 77n: by predicting offspring Apollo (metonymically: the hearth of his temple) guarantees that it will be produced. 465 Λατογενής: The matronymic (cf. Aesch. Sept. 147–9 Λατογένεια κούρα) emphasises Artemis’ status as sibling through both parents with Apollo. She was venerated as Artemis Lochia and Artemis Eileithyia by women throughout Greece for helping at delivery (parallel to Eileithyia; invoked as two goddesses by women giving birth in Argentarius AP 1384, Leonidas AP 1957, 2199); cf. Pingiatoglou (1981) 98–119, Demand (1994) 88–91. On her important Athenian cult at Brauron cf. R. Parker (2005) 228– 32. The birth-helper Artemis is called Hecate in Aesch. Suppl. 676, and the two goddesses are connected (Hes. fr. 23a.25–6+b) or identified (e.g. Phoen. 109–10, IG I3 383.124–6 Αρτέμιδος Ἑκάτης, 429/8) early on; this combination provides a connection with the mirror prayer in the 3rd stasimon. 466 δύο θεαὶ δύο παρθένοι: The two qualities are independent; the predications (including κασίγνηται) grow more specific. Anaphora of numeral occurs only here in Euripides’ lyric, but cf. Suppl. 1148 (ἅλις), Soph. Ant. 141 ἑπτὰ λοχαγοὶ γὰρ ἐφ᾿ ἑπτὰ πύλαις, Breitenbach 232, and on numerical coincidence Stevens on Andr. 516. 467 κασίγνηται †σεμναὶ Φοίβου†: One may wish to adopt κασίγνηται σεμνόταται Φ. ~ τροφαὶ κήδειοι τεκέων κεδνῶν (Fritzsche (1856) 29; Diggle alternatively proposes κηδείων τεκέων/γε τέκνων, deleting Φοίβου and κεδνῶν; cf. also 487n). No restoration can claim sufficient certainty to be accepted, and we cannot rule out double corruption here and in 487. Neither line has a satisfactory metrical shape, and Φοίβου may well have been added to make explicit the idea that the goddesses are called upon because of their close relation with Apollo. The superlative σεμνότατος is applied to Artemis in Hipp. 61, to Olympus Androm. fr. 114.5, and to Aither in Ar. Nub. 570, Pax 974 (in sophistic parody); the positive is highly common.

260

Commentary

469 παλαιὸν: an anachronism in which the indication of time is given as if spoken from the audience’s point of view. In the dramatic fiction the house of Erechtheus is not older than the (possibly) three generations since Erichthonius. 470 χρονίου: ‘late’, i.e. after long childlessness (cf. 64). καθαροῖς: After Ion’s monody and its stress on purity and euphemy (esp. 96–101), ‘purity’ is most naturally understood as a ritual quality of the responses, and as such sacred and unfailing. The word entails positive connotations and should therefore be interpreted as generally ‘propitious’. Specific reference to non-equivocation (so Verrall, Owen; cf. Ar. Vesp. 631 καθαρῶς λέγοντος, Isoc. 5.4 ἀκριβῶς καὶ καθαρῶς) may constitute part of this but does not exhaust the potential of the word here. An aside against Loxias’ obliqueness (cf. 36n) may not be likely to be well received in a prayer. 471 μαντεύμασι κῦρσαι: taking up 464: having stated the power of the oracle they now ask to profit from it. The dative is instrumental, as the response can be said to cause as well as reveal events: cf. Pind. P. 4.19–20, I. 7.14–15. The ambiguity in the word κραίνω (464), which insinuates that the prophecy may affect the course of fate, further supports the idea that Apollo can help the fulfilment of their wish. 472–91 The chorus state the reason for their prayer and its content (472 γάρ): the happiness of a house and the continuity of the line, as much as the safety of the polis, depend on the presence of children. Another political reason, by contrast, the continuity of the royal line, is not mentioned in this context. After stating the advantages of having children, the chorus express their loathing of childlessness and of people’s preference for it. The motif of childlessness provides the transition to the epode, where the abandonment of the child of Creusa’s ‘friend’ is bemoaned. The chorus combine a rather utilitarian and an emotional view of children: the explanation (481 γάρ) that the joy rests on the benefits children bring is framed with an emphasis on happiness (εὐδαιμονία) and care (κήδειοι, κεδνῶν, with some textual uncertainty). The views expressed are common in Greece (passages collected in Raepsaet (1971)) and reflected regularly in Euripides: Alc. 655–7, Andr. 418–20, Tro. 371, IT 697–8, Dan. fr. 316.5–8, Erechth. fr. 360.14–15. In forensic contexts parents adopt in order to secure themselves care in old age and after death (Rubinstein (1993) 64–76).



452–509 1st Stasimon

261

472–80 Children are taken as continuation of the line rather than as individuals. The chorus refer back several generations with πατρίοισι (‘ancestral’, not just the father’s) and ἐκ πατέρων; and the children are themselves only a link in the chain of future generations (καρποφόροι, ἑτέροις ἐπὶ τέκνοις, διαδέκτορα). The passage is phrased in mercantile terms, treating children as capital and producers of interest (for further analysis cf. Pedrick (2007) 135–8). But this notion is tempered later, when children are given priority over wealth (485, 490). The closest similarity is found at Meleag. fr. 518 καὶ κτῆμα δ’, ὦ τεκοῦσα, κάλλιστον τόδε, πλούτου δὲ κρεῖσσον· τοῦ μὲν ὠκεῖα πτέρυξ, παῖδες δὲ χρηστοί, κἂν θάνωσι, δώμασιν καλόν τι θησαύρισμα τοῖς τεκοῦσί τε ἀνάθημα βιότου κοὔποτ’ ἐκλείπει δόμους. 472 ὑπερβαλλούσας: In absolute use (Med. 127, Ba. 785, fr. 893) this denotes a high, excessive, or insuperable degree; cf. Dem. 21.109 ὑπερβολὴν ἀναιδείας. 474 ἀκίνητον ἀφορμάν: ‘untouchable capital’. The combined commercial metaphors describe children as the indispensable capital generating εὐδαιμονία: its withdrawal would result in happiness ‘drying up’. ἀφορμή is capital that yields profit (Korver (1934) 20–5, E. Cohen (1992) 114–19, 184): either the working capital necessary to run a business (cf. Med. 342) or the deposit at a bank for which interest is paid. χρήματα κινεῖν denotes the withdrawal of funds (often of sacrosanct status, i.e. temple property), usually in an act of financial desperation: Hdt. 8.36.1, Thuc. 1.143.1, 2.24.1, 8.15.1, Dem. 22.71. 475 οἷς: On the substitution of relative clauses for infinitive constructions or conditionals in general statements cf. Kannicht on Hel. 267–72, K-G II 441–2. καρποφόρων: L has καρποτρόφοι. With the conjecture of the word καρποφόρος Dobree offers a metaphor that is applicable to children and at the same time continues the financial imagery of ἀφορμή: the fruits/returns (LSJ καρπός II) that the children produce are, in one sense, εὐδαιμονία and, in another, the next generation of the family (cf. 815 ἐκκαρπούμενος). In terms of style, the nominative καρποτρόφοι (or the conjectures καρποφόροι and κουροτρόφοι) with νεάνιδες ἧβαι would be possible, as νεάνιδες is not itself an epithet but defining of the noun. If the emphasis is on age the adjectives do not make sense, however, as they designate offspring as such (and potential continuers of the line). The dative is equally insipid, as it would no more than repeat the idea expressed in the entire clause. 476 λάμπωσιν: Owen describes λαμπρός as a ‘natural epithet of children and young men’ (on the trope cf. D’Angour (2011) 141–8). It is suggestive

262

Commentary

of beauty in particular, but also of excellence in other areas: cf. Autol. fr. 282.10 λαμπροὶ δ᾿ ἐν ἥβηι καὶ πόλεως ἀγάλματα, Hipp. 1123, Ar. Nub. 1160 (on rhetorical skills), Pax 859, Thuc. 6.54. 478 διαδέκτορα: Only ‘riches that are received’ makes good sense. Nouns on -τωρ can be passive in meaning (cf. Aesch. Suppl. 1, perhaps Eum. 119 with Williger (1928) 52–4) possibly as denominatives of verbal adjectives on -τος. For the son as διάδοχος of the house and its wealth cf. Alc. 655. 479 ἕξοντες: constructio ad sensum after ἧβαι/τέκνων (Hec. 39, Tro. 535, Bell. fr. 286.7), continuing with the natural gender of the children. 480 ἑτέροις ἐπὶ τέκνοις: ἐπί denotes the purpose: ‘for the procreation of further (generations of) children’; the children of 475 are but one link in the chain of generations (for ἕτερος in that sense cf. Hec. 690, Hes. Op. 378, Pl. Symp. 208A–B). What is phrased as a general statement is at the core of Creusa’s desires: that the house continue and not be transferred to a different blood-line. 481–4 The chorus describe two positive effects of children, one psychological, one practical: they provide happiness to the parents and safety for the city. The second point is of great relevance to the house of Erechtheus, as the absence of a male heir has led to the installation of Xuthus as head of the city. The chorus, however, do not touch on this point until it becomes clear that the next generation will also come from outside (probably 721–4). 481 †ἀλκά: In connection with 483–4 the repetition appears intolerable. ἀλκή is conceivable in either phrase (cf. Andr. 28 ἀλκὴ κακῶν) but more likely to be wrong here: in 484 it could only be replaced with an equivalent, so the thought would remain repetitive. In addition, in 481 ἀλκά does not balance the adjective φίλον in the antithesis with 482 but produces inconcinnity: the position of τε ... τε suggests that φίλον is predicative, not an attribute to a corrupt noun. So while ἄλκαρ (Dawe and Willink) and ἄκος (cf. Fraenkel’s suggestion at Hyps. fr. 754b.6) are palaeographically close (cf. the conjecture Aesch. Sept. 762), they do not produce good text. γλυκερόν (cf. 731–2, Med. 1098–9 οἷσι δὲ τέκνων ἐστιν ἐν οἴκοις γλυκερὸν βλάστημ᾿) is not easily explained except in the way that a repeated (marginal?) ἀλκά crept into the text, but it would give the desired sense, style, and metre. 483 δορί: lit. ‘with the spear’, not just metonymically ‘in war’; cf. 1298, Bell. fr. 298 οὐδ᾿ ἂν ἐκ μητρὸς κακῆς ἐσθλοὶ γένοιντο παῖδες εἰς ἀλκὴν δορός, Hcld. 760–1, Phoen. 1097–8. The chorus describe a situation that would have spared Athens the present impasse: the city was lacking a son of Erechtheus, so she had no native leader, only Xuthus.



452–509 1st Stasimon

263

483–4 φέρει σωτήριον ἀλκάν: modelled on the more common δύναμιν φέρειν. 485–91 To the chorus children are preferable to affluence that comes with childlessness, an attitude echoed in Meleag. fr. 518 (above 472–80n). That wealth and power are insignificant goods is a common trope (in particular [578–9], [621–32], Herc. 642–8, Archil. IEG2 19, Anacr. PMG 361). 485 μὲν: The priority given to children contrasts with the childless lifestyle introduced by 488 δέ. The parallelism is not fully developed, as the reasons for childlessness are not given, and 489 presupposes that there is also such a thing as unwanted childlessness. For the position of the particle cf. Denniston 371–2. Owen instead assumes an implied ἄλλοις, but that is already expressed by ὧι τε δοκεῖ. 486 βασιλικῶν ... θαλάμων: I.e. marriage to a powerful man. The chorus act in character, taking a specifically female point of view: it is not power itself to which they are amenable, but marriage to royalty. 487 †κήδειοι κεδνῶν†: Possibly one of the adjectives is a gloss, and the best metrical shape to go with 467 would be produced by τροφαὶ κήδειοι (or κηδείων) τεκέων (cf. n). In tragedy κήδειος is used only for elements of the burial ritual (IT 147, Aesch. Cho. 87, 226, 538), but in Homer once for the description of dead brothers (Il. 19.294). The root κηδ- retains its connection to care and kinship, so that the word may here be applied in the sense ‘afforded to one’s own family’. κεδνός is applied to children before Euripides (Aesch. Sept. 407, 504, Pind. I. 8.22), but by himself only to wives, words, and deeds (which would require the form κεδναί). 489 ὧι τε δοκεῖ: Other Euripidean characters advocate this position: Alc. 882–8, Med. 1094–1104, Suppl. 786–93, Oen. fr. 571, fr. 908–b. Ancient arguments against having children have been collected by Lambert (1982). The wish for a modest life blessed with children is not necessarily indicative of the women’s particular (social) situation or the realism of that idea but in keeping with a common conception of a decent life: cf. Med. 123–30, Meleag. fr. 518; by sharing Creusa’s wish they intensify that motif (Hose (1991) 209–10). Although choruses can pronounce wishes that sit imperfectly with their identity (e.g. the old men’s wish for a wife like Alcestis, Alc. 472–6), tragic choruses do not step out of their personae. These wishes are not impossible to realise for them and they express ideals that pertain to a wider group. In our case, the unlikelihood that they will enjoy motherhood without financial troubles is mitigated by the women’s dual existence as ser-

264

Commentary

vants and Athenians, which emphasises different aspects at different times (cf. 452–509n). 491 ἐχοίμαν: ‘hold on to’, i.e. have and embrace that life, a more active process than simply living it (as in Herc. 479 βίον ἔχοιτ’ εὐδαίμονα): cf. Or. 782, Ino fr. 409. 492–506 The chorus shift back from the imminent announcement of the oracle to the previous conversation between Ion and Creusa. The story of sad motherhood complements the wish in the antistrophe for εὐπαιδία. The epode is thus antithetical to the strophic pair and reaffirms the prayer there (rather than deconstructing it, pace Stehle (2004) 143–4, who argues that the desirability of children is here denied): unsustained procreation as exemplified in the epode is opposed to εὐτεκνία, which is only accomplished by a succession of generations. The irony is that the chorus unknowingly sing about Creusa: strophe and epode describe the ends of the same story. The epode consists of one long apostrophe, first to Pan’s cave, then to the god himself, an extreme example of a recurrent Euripidean technique (on which Möller (1933) 73–4, Kranz (1933) 191–2, 238–40, Kannicht on Hel. 1451–64; cf. 112–24, 714–17). As in Hipp. 752–6 and IT 392–8, the ecphrastic continuation of the apostrophe contains narrative elements. The two parts of this ‘tail’ (495–502, 503–6) express a contrast: the idyllic world of Pan and the orderly commerce of the sexes serve as foil for the violent and destructive attack by Apollo. Both parts of that contrast are paradoxical, with the god of the wilderness exercising Apollo’s arts (cf. 881–4) and the master of song bringing suffering and death through his lust. 492 ὦ Πανὸς θακήματα: Cf. Ba. 952 Πανὸς ἕδρας ἔνθ’ ἔχει συρίγματα. The chorus describe the sanctuary of Pan very broadly, including the topographical description of its location. Precincts can be called the ‘seat’ (θᾶκος, ἕδρα, ἕδος, ἵδρυμα) of the deity: e.g. Andr. 135, Ba. 951, Aesch. Pers. 811, Soph. OT 886; cf. Scheer (2000) 21–3 on ἕδος (esp. for statues). The presence of a cult statue is not presupposed, and no remains of permanent structures are extant (Travlos (1971) 417). 493 παραυλίζουσα: πάραυλος means ‘alongside the court’ (contrast ἐναυλίζω) and thus generally ‘(outside) nearby’, with dative in Soph. Aj. 892, OC 785, Poimenes fr. 503. The term is particularly appropriate because of the similarity – or pun on – αὔλιον ‘cave’ (that of Pan: Cycl. 222, Ar. Lys. 721). πέτρα: The Makrai had themselves been described as πέτραι in 11–12. Here we probably have a shift of meaning by which πέτρα is not the entire rock



452–509 1st Stasimon

265

but the cave (cf. Cycl. 195, 324; 31 is ambiguous). So καί is explicative, not connecting different entities (Denniston 291). 494 μυχώδεσι: ‘cavernous’, a palmary conjecture from nonsensical μυχοὶ δαισί. μυχός is used for caves from Homer (Od. 5.226; cf. Cycl. [480], Hel. 424), but has particular resonances here through its associations with Apollo’s oracle or the μυχοὶ δόμων where legitimate intercourse takes place (fr. 1063.3). The suffix -ώδης no longer contributes to the meaning (Breitenbach 190–1; similarly 496 τρίγονοι). 495 χοροῖς: They tread the ground ‘in choruses’ or ‘in the chorus dance’: cf. Tro. 555 ἐμελπόμαν χοροῖσι, Soph. Ant. 150–2 ναοὺς χοροῖς ... ἐπέλθωμεν. The paradosis χορούς is often defended (e.g. by Wilamowitz, Page on Med. 206) on the assumption that χοροὺς στείβω forms one expression (~χορεύω) that takes the internal accusative object στάδια. But here χορούς would stretch the concept of the internal accusative, as στείβω (a particular dance move) is more specific than its qualifier; Greek dance includes not only steps but also, e.g., jumps, swings, and arm movements (cf. Prudhommeau (1965) 193, Lawler (1964) 11–12, Lonsdale (1993) 30, and the glossary in Naerebout (1997) 280–4). More importantly, the second accusative would still depend on στείβω, not on the combined expression. The alternative, χορός in the meaning ‘dancing ground’ (the Homeric πέπληγον χορόν), is not attested in tragedy. στείβουσι: ‘tread’, probably denoting the regular steps of a dance, not the stronger stomping (κρούω: El. 180, IA 1042–3). Elsewhere in Euripides intransitive (Hipp. 217, Hel. 869), but cf. Xen. An. 1.9.13 παρὰ τὰς στειβομένας ὁδούς and epic (e.g. Hom. Il. 11.534, Hym. 19.4). 496 Ἀγραύλου κόραι τρίγονοι: On the Aglaurids/Agraulids cf. 23n. Euripides may be transferring a practice of the arrhephoroi back to the mythical time: Calame (1977) I 237 identifies the στάδια with their attested ground for ball games (Plut. Mor. 839C). The Arrhephoria were to some extent a re-enactment of the Agraulids’ commission of the basket of Erichthonius (Burkert (1983) 151). Lucian mentions re-enactments of the Erichthonius myth in dance (De Salt. (45) 39), and there may have been regular cultic dances in honour of Erechtheus’ daughters (Erechth. fr. 370.80). 497 στάδια χλοερὰ: probably ‘green plains’, i.e. the place below the Acropolis where Creusa was picking flowers when she was abducted. The term στάδιον may originally denote a quality of the racetrack rather than the track itself: before the construction of the Panathenaic stadium in the 4th cent. the Athenians used the street cutting through the agora as race course (i.e. στάδιον). The term’s (possibly fallacious) connection with στάδιος ‘straight’ can suggest the plain ground to the North of the cave of Pan (cf. Hesych. σ1583, Chantraine s.vv. στάδιον, στάδιος, Kurtz (1985) 222). This is sup-

266

Commentary

ported by πρὸ Παλλάδος ναῶν: the plural ναοί (cf. 226) allows as the interpretation ‘outside the precinct of Athena’, i.e. at the foot of the Acropolis hill. 499 ὑπ’: For accompaniment by musical instruments cf. Phoen. 824, Ba. 156, IA 1038. αἰόλας: ‘variable, colourful’ (cf. Parmentier (1914) 424–5): the original meaning is ‘swift’ and hence ‘changeful’ (Irwin (1974) 214–15); for acoustic effects cf. e.g. PV 661, Soph. Inach. fr. 269c.32, Ichn. fr. 314.327 αἰόλισμα τῆς λύρας. ἰαχᾶς: In Euripides the regular scansion of ἰαχ- is ⏑‒ (Page on Med. 149), but the verb starts on ⏑⏑ in El. 707, Hel. 1147 (cj.), the noun in Pind. P. 3.17, Bacch. fr. [60.30] and hexametric poetry. 500–1 †ὕμνων ὅταν αὐλίοις συρίζηις†: The cluster of genitives συρίγγων ... ὕμνων is highly undesirable, and the explanation of ὕμνων as specifying apposition to συρίγγων (Irvine (1999b) 381) lumps together the musical form and the instrument. Either Badham’s ὑμνῶν or ὕμνους could form part of a good line. The key problem, however, lies in ὅταν αὐλίοις συρίζηις. The transmitted iterative (ὅταν + subj.) makes the dance all but a consequence of the music, with the girls following Pan’s order. Instead, word division after ὅτ᾿ with the subsequent change to συρίζεις is preferable. For the root αυλ- (e.g. Biehl’s ὕμνους ὅτ᾿ ἐναυλίους; cf. Ar. Lys. 721 ἧι τοῦ Πανός ἐστι ταὐλίον) the meaning ‘(in the) cave’ it would be pleonastic with ἐν ἄντροις (but cf. Ba. 122–3 Διογενέτορες ἔναυλοι, ἔνθα τρικόρυθες ἄντροις ...). For a connection with the instrument αὐλός (e.g. ‘on the flute’) the required form would be ἔναυλος, which produces an unlikely reizianum; flutes and pipes are, moreover, definitely distinguished (cf. Tro. 126–7 and esp. IA 576–8). Other conjectures cause similar problems: Irvine p. 378–81 suggests paratactic specification (nominal αὐλίοις ‘in caves’ subsequently specified by τοῖσι σοῖς ἐν ἄντροις as ‘in your caves’), but in his parallels the two elements are always connected by καί vel sim. Herwerden’s ἀναλίοις (‘without sun’, hence ‘on the north side’; accepted by Diggle) produces a questionable word order – a strong hyperbaton with predicative position of the adjective – with an unjustified emphasis. The false Doricism ἅλιος is attested securely only in Alc. 437 and unlikely elsewhere (Björck (1950) 246). †ὕμνων: Blowing the syrinx does not exclude performing ὕμνοι, as the latter word has the wider application of ‘songs’: cf. 6n, Theocr. Ep. 2 ὁ καλᾶι σύριγγι μελίσδων βουκολικοὺς ὕμνους ἄνθετο Πανὶ τάδε. 502 τοῖσι σοῖς: thus Triclinius (cf. Metre). There are only few faint and unclear traces of the original text in L after τοῖ; a ν under the first sigma of σοῖς is the only reasonably clear letter.



452–509 1st Stasimon

267

503 ἵνα: How can the chorus know this? Only Hermes had mentioned the cave as scene of the rape. This is possibly a case of the author’s inattention. Creusa’s strong reaction to the mention of the place and the obscure allusion to some event there (286, 288) have not been associated with her ‘friend’. 503bis παρθένος: Creusa (or the unnamed friend) is in a state that is paradoxical in a culture where loss of virginity and marriage are closely related and the same word means ‘virgin’ and ‘unmarried girl’. She can still be called a παρθένος since she has not been married (Loraux (1990) 199–200). [ὦ]: There is no metrical offence in the transmitted text (cf. Itsumi (1984) 71–2), but the sudden apostrophe is exaggerated and does not fit with the indefinite in the preceding line. 504 πτανοῖς: Creusa, who in 348 mentioned only θῆρες, will also speak of birds from 903. The motif of beasts (esp. dogs) and birds desecrating a dead or defenceless body goes back to epic (Hom. Il. 1.4–5; cf. Aesch. Suppl. 800–1; more in Huys (1995) 271–99). ἐξόρισεν: Cf. 46, 1459. The unaugmented form must be restored from L’s ἐξώρισεν. Mss tend to normalise such forms (Diggle (1981a) 65–6: e.g. IA 1066 ἐξονόμαζεν), of which Lautensach (1899) 179–81 counts 23 instances (not including ours) in Euripides. 506 δαῖτα: transferred from human meals, to bitter, sarcastic effect (Mac­ leod on Hom. Il. 24.42–3). πικρῶν γάμων: The adjective can qualify both the consummation and the consequence of the marriage (Mastronarde on Phoen. 949–50). A similar ambiguity applies to Med. 399, where the marriage ceremony ends in the bride’s death and the husband will suffer for the rest of his life. The juncture is common and goes back to Homer’s πικρόγαμος (Od. 1.266); in tragedy it becomes a standard motif (on which cf. Seaford (1987)). ὕβριν: best taken in apposition to the sentence: the exposure is an act of ὕβρις (as nomen actionis; cf. Chantraine (1933) 112) that results from a bitter union (so already Wilamowitz, Rijksbaron 7; it is certainly not an act of revenge in protest against that union, as Dirat (1973) II 782 n.36 thinks). This interpretation chimes with the connotation of cruelty in φοινίαν δαῖτα. The child is described as the ultimate victim of hubristic rape: in this way the word marks the transition to the pnigos, which deals with the suffering of the gods’ children. The connection becomes blurred if we take ὕβρις as the child, who stands metonymically for the violation of Creusa by Apollo (Owen’s ‘abstract for concrete’ in analogy to 45 ὠδῖνες); in which case the mother would be portrayed as the main victim (N. Fisher (1992) 413).

268

Commentary

507–9 ‘Neither at the loom nor at festivals(?) have I heard that mortal children have a share of happiness from the gods.’ Similar in metre and subject to Hyps. fr. 752f.9–11 οὐ τάδε πήνας, οὐ τάδε κερκίδος ἱστοτόνου παραμύθια Λήμνια Μοῦσα θέλει με κρέκειν. The passage does not contradict or cancel out the prayer (so Stehle (2004) 143: ‘a negatived euphemia can almost be heard’) but by contrast emphasises the earlier wish for sustained εὐπαιδία and happy motherhood without elevation of status. The chorus echo in general terms Creusa’s complaint that Apollo did not care about his child (354), which will be reiterated until the recognition. The complaint gains dramatic weight through its incorrectness in the current situation; the general notion will be disproved by the very case the chorus cite. Temporary vicissitudes thus lead them to making exaggerated generalisations about the gods (as happens also in Med. 424–6, Suppl. 610), and the sentiment is paralleled in tragedy: the chorus in Tro. 1288–90 complain about the fate of Zeus’ descendants and Amphitryon in Herc. 346 about a lack of help for Zeus’ friends. Where the gods are described as helping their children (Soph. Trach. 139–40 τίς ὧδε τέκνοισι Ζῆν᾿ ἄβουλον εἶδεν; help is considered possible in El. 673, Antiope fr. 223.2–3, Aesch. Suppl. 175) it is a call for perseverance strongly dependent on the context. Pind. I. 3.18b ἄτρωτοί γε μὰν παῖδες θεῶν expresses the attitude of a different literary genre. The chorus are right insofar as many demi-gods had to overcome existential danger, seemingly without help of their parents, e.g. Heracles and Theseus. To some extent the statement is self-referential and metatheatrical, as the suffering of children of gods is the subject of several tragedies (e.g. Herc., Bell.). But Hermes’ reassurance of Apollo’s caring has prepared the audience for the irony here. Kovacs (1979) 116 translates ‘Children from the gods possess no share of happiness for mortals’, and explains: ‘the chosen object of divine lust [τέκνα ~ intercourse] is never a blessing.’ The women’s suffering is more commonly acknowledged than the children’s (e.g. PV 894–7), but Kovacs fails to offer parallels for this meaning of μετέχειν, which essentially amounts to ‘bring’ or ‘allow a share’. His translation exemplifies the difficulty of making this construction comprehensible. 507 ἐπὶ κερκίσι: ‘at (work on) the loom’; ἐπί can indicate both the location and the occasion (cf. Tro. 542 below). The verb of hearing (ἀίω) strongly suggests stories told, not the subject of the patterns woven; cf. 197n, IA 788–9, against IT 814 ταῦτ᾿ οὖν ὑφήνασ᾿ οἶσθ᾿ ἐν εὐπήνοις ὑφαῖς; †λόγοις: probably a gloss. The most appropriate emendation would be a word referring to an occasion where myths were told (above all festivals; on such occasions cf. R. Parker (2011) 20–2). The text is open to criticism on different grounds: 1) linguistically, ἐπὶ λόγοις (in zeugma) does not exist in



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

269

the required meaning (Ar. Ran. 1496 means ‘by talking’), nor does prepositionless λόγοις (Hipp. 1004 λόγωι ‘verbally’ as opposed to ‘in pictures’). Irvine suggests an interpretation of λόγοις as instrumental dative depending directly on φάτις (comparing cases such as Pl. Rep. 397B διὰ μιμήσεως φωναῖς). But all these suggestions would entail the grave inconcinnity of occasion (weaving) and object (a story) with οὔτε ... οὔτε. 2) On the semantic level, the meaning of the word here is unclear. The stories at the loom are likely to be oral and would thus be included in λόγοι, so another more specific opportunity would produce a better balance with ‘weaving’. IT 221–3 juxtaposes textile production with dance as fields of female activity, and a religious occasion with ritual songs is most suitable for the dissemination of myths. χοροῖς (Reiske (1754) 149) is probably very close to the solution, even if ἐπὶ χοροῖς is unattested. Tro. 542 has ἐπὶ δὲ πόνωι καὶ χαρᾶι, but χαρά may be too vague here. οὐτ᾿ ἐλέγοις (Musgrave) is ingenious, especially after the discovery of Archilochus’ narrative elegy (P.Oxy. 4708), but ἔλεγοι in tragedy are always songs of mourning, and the chorus (i.e. Creusa’s maids) would not participate in symposia. Wright (2010) 176–7, however, notes that women choruses can be presented as literate (Alc. 966–9, IA 798–800). 508 ἄιον: an epic word used by Pindar and in tragic lyric (in trimeter only Soph. OC 304). Together with the dactylic metre it can evoke epic poems that contain said stories. 508–9 θεόθεν: with μετέχειν: the gods have not given them a share of their happiness. θεόθεν in tragedy is always used of something imparted by the gods, not as ‘children of the gods’ (Wilamowitz: genitival) or ‘born from the gods’ (Owen: add γενόμενα). 509 θνατοῖς: a free dative depending directly on τέκνα, with ὄντα (or γενόμενα) to be supplemented: cf. Or. 363, Soph. Ant. 571 κακὰς ἐγὼ γυναῖκας υἱέσι στυγῶ, with K-G I 427–8, S-D II 153.

510–675 2nd Epeisodion 510–16 517–62 563–8 569–667 668–75

Introduction False recognition Desire for the mother Aborted agon Ion’s acceptance and prospective reflection

270

Commentary

The epeisodion stands as a foil between the two encounters between Creusa and Ion: their first conversation full of warmth and the effusive happiness of their ‘proper’ recognition. The events here give a sense of unfulfilment; Ion’s emotions toward Xuthus are lukewarm, and overall the outcome unsatisfactory. Doubts and uncertainty prevail. Ion’s persistent inquiry and scepticism about Xuthus’ story are drawn out in comparison with its rather brief acceptance. Several questions remain open: Xuthus cannot account for the identity of the mother or go beyond guesses about the way Ion ended up at the temple. By questioning his ‘father’ Ion can reconstruct a story, but it remains without confirmation. Moreover, while the result is generally positive for him, it does not induce a feeling of happiness in Ion. His key desire, that for his mother (cf. 361), has not been fulfilled. Not knowing his mother also means that Ion’s status is not ultimately clear: he asserts Athenian citizenship, but it is of a kind that is potentially tainted, as he remains unaccepted by his fellow citizens (594) and self-conscious about his partly low birth (673–5). Hence he also feels uneasy about the prospect of going to Athens. Ion’s discontent is also accompanied by formal ‘irregularities’, breaches of generic conventions that characterise the present instance as flawed in comparison with the tragic norm. The metre in particular – the trochaics instead of the regular, more measured iambs – lends the scene a different tone. The absence of a duet that allows the expression of deep joy (as in all recognition scenes after El.) is insufficiently explained by the fact that here only, two male characters (who are not normally soloists: cf. E. Hall (2006) 309; but see 112–83) recognise each other. It ought rather to be understood as a sign of lack of enthusiasm; Ion’s embrace (560) seems half-hearted. Through all this, the relationship between Ion and Xuthus is strained. They have difficulties communicating: Xuthus misunderstands Ion (e.g. 544) and takes his sarcastic remark about birth from the earth (542) for a serious suggestion; Ion’s misinterpretation of Xuthus’ enthusiasm as the homoerotic advances of an intoxicated man makes Xuthus’ euphoria appear ridiculous; Xuthus in turn is unable to take the perspective of Ion, who cannot know the reason for his elation, and explain the situation. Both thus show how little they understand each other’s feelings. Ion’s resistance to the recognition is more tenacious than in comparable scenes and even includes the threat to kill Xuthus (524). The ‘father’ later underestimates Ion’s concerns (esp. the absence of a mother and his low standing in Athens), or fails to take them seriously (575, 670–5). Ion’s assent to follow Xuthus to Athens is the result of a command rather than persuasion, as Xuthus refuses to enter into a discussion (650). As a result, the end of the act, after much uncertainty and discontent, provides only feigned closure; the audience expectation formed



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

271

through earlier recognition plays makes the unsatisfactoriness of the recognition apparent, and the exodos confirms it in retrospect. The outcome of the recognition is an impasse, but only seemingly so: Apollo’s plan reaches a point where the action that was supposed to take place in Delphi is complete; the rest of the plan would have to be carried out in Athens (a near-impossibility in tragedy: cf. 69–73n). At the same time, the recognition provokes resistance, which from Hermes’ speech could not have been foreseen. On the one hand, Ion is reluctant to go to Athens, although he submits to Xuthus’ request. The chorus in 648–9, on the other hand, show a different – and eventually more dangerous – source of discontent, which will provide the basis for the play’s dominant conflict between Ion and Creusa: they sympathise with Creusa, who is isolated and whose fate becomes separated from Xuthus’ as he is given a son (cf. 609–10, 678–80, 704, 772–5, 818). In addition, Xuthus’ promise of Athenian kingship anticipates another motive for resistance: the anticipated appropriation of Creusa’s house (1058–60, 1303) by Xuthus, if his line is continued while hers is to die out. This epeisodion is the only substantial scene with Xuthus and as such central to his characterisation. Interpreters have felt that he is portrayed in a xenophobic manner, as a ‘butt’ (so Murray (1913) 119; cf. Knox (1971) 88 = (1979) 267–8, Seidensticker (1982) 229, Zacharia (2003) 76). His exaggerated behaviour when he identifies Ion as his son (517–27) makes him appear hilarious; his blind trust in Apollo and lack of inquisitiveness (539–41, 548–9) make him seem naïve in comparison with Ion; the only time he is sceptical of something – when he dismisses the possibility of birth from the earth (542) – he is wrong. In addition, he is easily fooled by both Apollo (71–3) and Creusa (395–6, 1601), who together foist their child on him. The portrayal, however, is not clear-cut. Xuthus in places even displays wit (557, 666–7). The seeming doltishness is the product of the particular circumstances, the foil that is presented, and the irony that the superior knowledge of the audience produces: convinced of the unambiguousness of the response he received he trusts the oracle no more than does Ion until Athena concedes it is wrong (cf. 557, 1537); the mother is not of great importance to him (575) – in contrast to Ion’s obsession with her identity. His effusive welcome to Ion shows traits of overenthusiasm, but the effect is heightened by Ion’s disgusted rejection based on a misconception. Finally, his scepticism about the literal truth of the Erichthonius myth (542) may have been shared by many Athenians. What this statement does prove, however, is his insensitivity: he does not perceive the tone of Ion’s question or understand the, at any rate symbolic, importance of birth from the earth in Athenian ideology, just as he is imperceptive to Ion’s desires (for the mother 563–5, the Delphic lifestyle 633–46) and underrates the dangers of antago-

272

Commentary

nising Creusa and the Athenian population (here represented by the chorus) despite Ion’s warnings (591–4, 607–11). 510–65 Around the time of Herc. Euripides revives the trochaic tetrameter, used by Aeschylus in Pers. and Ag., but employed by Sophocles only after Ion (OT 1515–30 is spurious). He progressively extends its use in later plays (ch. 4A), and Ion is the first play where it is used more than once (cf. 1250–60, 1606–[22]): cf. Krieg (1936) 43, Imhof (1956) 127, Drew-Bear (1968) 397. The change of metre generally signals intensification of dramatic speech or action. So the use at the relatively calm start of this scene may be surprising, but it corresponds with other trochaic entrance announcements (IT 1222–5, [Phoen. 1308–9], Or. 1549–50, Ba. 638–9, IA 1338–9) and indicates that something special is to come, forming the first step in a gradual accelerando. The higher pace, often ascribed to the tetrameter per se (Arist. Rhet. 1408b36–1409a1; cf. Wilamowitz (1921) 13), is here emphasised by the decreasing length of individual utterances: from four and three lines to stichomythia and antilabe, the most rapid form of sustained dialogue possible in the tragic repertoire. Significantly, it is not used when the focus is on action – i.e. during Ion’s misinterpretation of Xuthus’ approach – but when the two go through the evidence for Xuthus’ fatherhood and reconstruct events. This might warn against the equation of tempo and excitement (so e.g. Centanni (1995) 61–2; cf. 1606–20n). For the rheseis the metre switches back to iambics. 510–16 Ion returns from filling the lustral vessels through eisodos B. He walks towards the middle of the orchestra, where the chorus are standing next to the temple stairs (ἀμφὶ κρηπῖδας; on the question of the raised stage cf. 735–40n). The position is required so that he be close to Xuthus as the latter leaves the oracular chamber. His arrival just in time for Xuthus’ return exemplifies the divine guidance of the events. The question whether the oracle has already been given shows his continued interest in Creusa’s affairs. 510–11: The lengthy address explains why Ion is asking the chorus: they are watching on behalf of Creusa, so they would know any news concerning the woman who has aroused Ion’s interest. 511 θυοδόκων: Apart from this epithet nothing points to particular dignity or solemnity (pace Lee). The Euripidean coinage (after Pindaric models: P. 3.27 μηλοδόκoς, 8.61 πανδόκος for Delphi and the temple) is used again for the same temple in 1549 and Andr. 1157. Hesychius (θ910) explains it as ‘receiving incense (θυμιάματα)’, so not meat (cf. 226–9n, 461–2n).



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

273

φρούρημ’ ἔχουσαι δεσπότιν φυλάσσετε: ‘keeping watch you take care of your mistress’ business’. The two words differ in meaning (contrast 22): they watch (φρουρέω) what is going on to inform her, in this way safeguarding her interests (cf. φύλακες for Hecuba’s attendants: Tro. 462). The transmitted form ἔχοντα has been made to agree with δεσπότην (a corruption by homophony from δεσπότιν, corr. by Richards (1909) 294), but it can only describe the chorus’ activity, not Xuthus’. 512 τρίποδα: On the famous cylix depicting Aegeus consulting Themis (LIMC Aigeus 1, Athens 440–30), Aegeus stands next to the tripod, with no space between them. Roux (1976) 101–5 denies even the historical existence of an adyton (cf. also 231n). Accordingly, the οἶκος denotes the temple, as in 458 (cf. 514 δῶμα), not the inner sanctum. 513 ἱστορῶν ἀπαιδίαν: ‘inquiring about his childlessness’: cf. PV 632 τὴν τῆσδε πρῶτον ἱστορήσωμεν νόσον. 514 ἔστ’: The word end after long anceps is one of several instances of infringement of Havet’s Bridge (517, 557, 560, 1253), but these and other instances have either a monosyllable in fourth or a postpositive in fifth position, and the elision here may mitigate the effect, as in Porson’s Law: cf. Willink on Or. 804. So the change to ἔτ᾿ proposed by Cobet (1873) 595 and advocated by Diggle (in Mastronarde on Phoen. 588), is unnecessary. ὑπερβαίνει: ‘cross’, used for both entering and leaving, as if δῶμα were the threshold: cf. Barrett on Hipp. 782–3 on περᾶν. The present can be used after οὔπω in place of a resultative perfect (e.g. Hcld. 702 λῆμα μὲν οὔπω στόρνυσι χρόνος, 790) and also with verbs of arriving and departing (K-G I 136), to which ὑπερβαίνω is equivalent here. 516 δοῦπον: ‘We can hear the sound he makes as he is close to these exit gates.’ The sound of the man announces his entrance. Xuthus may be wearing military attire, with boots resounding on the temple floor – that means the heavy temple doors have been left open. τῶν πυλῶν depends on ἐξόδοισι (cf. πυλῶν ἐπ’ ἐξόδοις in Rh. 514, Aesch. Sept. 33, 58, Soph. El. 328), ὄντος on δοῦπον. The resulting interlaced word order, with one part ending the line, is regular (cf. Markovic (2006) 141, Stinton (1975) 86–9 = (1990) 103– 6, esp. on Rh. 790–1). Cf. in particular Soph. El. 1322–3 ὡς ἐπ᾿ ἐξόδωι κλύω τῶν ἔνδοθεν χωροῦντος, probably the earliest tragic instance of a noise announcing an entrance from the central door. Comedy sets the precedent (Ar. Eq. 1326, then Ran. 604 and as a stock motif in New Comedy), and Euripides follows suit: Hel. 859–60, Or. 1311. In contrast to the majority of cases, Euripides here (as Soph. El. 1322–3, Phil. 201–7, Ar. Pax 233) refers to the sound of the person leaving the house, not that produced by the door (ψoφέω or

274

Commentary

κτυπέω: cf. Bader (1971), but cf. Ba. 638 ψοφεῖ γοῦν ἀρβύλη). δοῦπος denotes a muffled sound (cf. the compound βαρύγδουπος; Kaimio (1977) 79, Tichy (1983) 96–7); in epic and in Soph. Aj. 871, it denotes footfall. 517–62 False Recognition The scene is designed as an imperfect forerunner that highlights the fulfilment of the ‘perfect’ reunion between Creusa and Ion in the recognition scene of the exodos (510–675n). Many verbal parallels (esp. 523 ῥυσιάζω~1406 ῥυσιάζομαι, 520 ἔμηνε~1400 θεομανής, 527 πίμπρη~1293 κἀπίμπρης) strengthen the connection. The unique false recognition shares many elements with the ‘true’ ones, but the modifications to the standard model make it clear that this one is flawed. If the departure from the set model is to be recognisable as play with the convention, Ion cannot stand early in the evolution of recognition scenes, but several examples must already have established the pattern. The form in El. is not fully developed, but IT, Hel., Soph. El., and possibly Alex. (cf. 1441n) and Hyps. create a horizon of expectation (ch. 4B). The features shared with other recognition scenes include the fact that the recognition is at first one-sided (IT 773–81, Hel. 564–621) and the approach by the knowing character (attempted embraces and kisses: cf. Kaimio (1988) 35–9) only reluctantly suffered by the other (El. 223, IT 795–810, Hel. 567, similarly Soph. El. 1206–16). The scrutiny of the evidence is followed by an embrace and salutation (560–1) (for a full analysis cf. Gmür (1920) 45). The departures from the standard are more significant. The recognition is not based on tokens, signs, or shared knowledge but only on Apollo’s oracular response; it works through Ion’s failure to refute that response: positive proof is absent. The decisive error lies in the premise that the oracle must be correct (and only Xuthus’ interpretation could be wrong). His behaviour indicates coolness on Ion’s part. That cannot be explained by the fact that this is the only recognition scene between two males, for Xuthus acts with as much excitement as would be expected in a male-female situation (or even with more: cf. 519). Formally, the customary recognition duet is replaced by an apostrophe to the unknown absent mother. Thus the conventional emotional climax of the recognition is missing: Ion does not seek extended physical contact or kisses (just 560). Before accepting Xuthus as his father, he draws out his sceptical objections; the intellectualised verification of the oracle destroys any sense that he has any desire to find his father, and to Xuthus’ taste it carries on too long (544). The father’s show of affection, by contrast, is vitiated by Ion mistaking it for homoerotic advances.



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

275

517–29 Xuthus leaves the temple and advances towards Ion to welcome him as his son, but Ion suspects that Xuthus has lost his mind and is engaging in erotic pursuit. The situation is not clarified until Xuthus states his claim of fatherhood (527). There is no reason to discard (with Lee) the erotic component recognised by Wilamowitz (cf. Knox (1971) 80 = (1979) 260): the unmotivated term τέκνον contrasts strongly with Xuthus’ earlier behaviour towards Ion (413–16n) and his physical approach seems to go beyond only affection. Wilamowitz’ interpretation can be put more specifically: Ion couches his rejection in language of heaven-sent madness and a lack of self-control, as if Xuthus had lost all inhibitions, e.g. through intoxication. Poole (1990) 112–15 gives parallels from other plays where drunken, half-civilised feasters approach young people (Syl. fr. 691–4, fr. 907, PCG adesp. 745). 517 τέκνον: Studies on the use of this vocative are inconclusive as to a specific tone. The address is perfectly acceptable as a father’s to a son but implies (to Ion) a familiarity he does not acknowledge: cf. Dickey (1996) 65–72. Cf. Ar. PCG 129 τουτὶ τί ἦν τὸ πρᾶγμα; – θερμούς, ὦ τέκνον. – ἀλλ’ ἦ παραφρονεῖς; χαῖρ’: later a standard in recognition scenes: cf. Gomme/Sandbach on Men. Perik. 824–5, to which add Pacuvius TRF Antiopa 20 (fr. 19 Schierl). γὰρ: The speaker reflects on the opening of his speech: cf. Med. 663, El. 1060. πρέπουσά: participle for finite verb (periphrastic conjugation with ellipsis); cf. PV 550. 518 χαίρομεν: ‘I am doing fine’, playing with the literal meaning of χαῖρε ‘greetings/farewell’; cf., e.g., 1604, Phoen. 618, Aesch. Ag. 538–9, Soph. Trach. 227–8. καὶ: ‘then’; the ‘apodotic’ use of καί (Denniston 308–9), introducing the main clause after a subordinate clause: we have to supplement the conditional εἰ εὖ φρονεῖς from the first part of the sentence. δύ᾿ ὄντ᾿: ‘both of us’, with a concessive tinge, emphasising that a supposed difference between two people does not exist: cf. El. 649, Hel. 647, also Pl. Gorg. 481D (the opposite e.g. IA 1390 μί᾿ οὖσα). 519 φίλημά: There is no reason to see anything in this but a kiss of Ion’s hand (pace Wilamowitz’ handclasp). That Xuthus’ effusiveness is irritating is not an argument against this interpretation but the relevant point: the breach of the rules of decency is another reason for Ion to believe that Xuthus is possessed; the kiss of hands at Men. Epitr. 273–4 is a similarly exaggerated gesture. Kissing someone’s hand is otherwise reserved for strongly emotional scenes (e.g. Hom. Il. 24.478, Od. 23.87; cf. Kaimio (1988) 38 n.23);

276

Commentary

in recognition scenes in the Odyssey it is combined with further kissing and performed mostly by people of lower rank (cf. Fernández-Galiano on Od. 21.224–5). The handclasp may be a relatively intimate gesture (Neumann (1965) 49–58), but is not on the same level; moreover, ‘kiss’ is the standard meaning of the word: cf. Cassanello (1993) s.v.; e.g. Andr. 416, Dan. fr. 323, Aesch. Myrm. fr. 135, Soph. Salm. fr. 537. ἀμφιπτυχάς: ‘[A]n embrace is the ultimate outward sign of love between two people’ (Kaimio (1988) 35), typical for enthusiastic welcomes (e.g. IT 902–3), final farewells (Alc. 350, El. 1325), and the climax of a recognition. 520 σωφρονεῖς: The usual practice of stichomythia suggests that the same verb should be used in 520 and 521; restoring the form σωφρονεῖς (εὖ φρονεῖς L) in 520 from 521 σωφρονῶ is the best solution. Instead, Diggle leaves the transmitted text in 520 and changes 521 to οὐ φρονῶ introducing a question (after Jacobs (1796) 190). But εὖ φρονεῖς is illogical in a question, after the same word has just been used in a command (518). The double use of εὖ φρονεῖν in El. 568–9 only confirms that repetition is likely, not that φρονέω must be the correct verb here too. σωφρονέω (unlike εὖ φρονέω) has the required range of meaning to fit both 520 and 521 (‘be of sound mind’ and ‘control oneself’) and suits an amorous context: cf. Hipp. 731, IA 1159; as contrast to μανία e.g. Hel. 97, Antiph. 2β5, Pl. Phdr. 244A ὁ μὲν μαίνεται, ὁ δὲ σωφρονεῖ. Xuthus tends to make affirmative, if blunt, statements rather than ask questions: cf. 523. μέν: ‘really’ (Fr. ‘encore’, Ger. ‘noch’) in questions, adding a note of reserve and doubt (Stevens (1976) 47; cf. Med. 1129, Hel. 1226, Ar. Av. 1214 ὑγιαίνεις μέν;); the implied continuation is: ‘otherwise you can leave me alone immediately’ (Denniston 367). ἔμηνε: in erotic contexts e.g. Hipp. 1274, Antig. fr. 161, Cret. 472e.9, Pl. Phdr. 244A (above). Diggle (1974) 35–6 = (1994) 136 unnecessarily wishes to write ἔμηνεν to avoid synizesis of θεός after a short syllable (cf. Battezzato (2000b) 51). θεοῦ τις ... βλάβη: The gods are perceived as able to influence human behaviour (cf. 47–8n). Love-stricken humans could be described as possessed by Eros/Aphrodite and thereby sent into a state of madness (Men. Dysc. 44, Xen. Symp. 8.37); cf. Dover (1974) 137–8. The allusion to θεοβλάβεια (cf. TrGF adesp. 296, Hdt. 1.127.2, Aeschin. 3.133) is particularly negative and hints only at the negative aspects and the destructive force of such infatuation – in line with Ion’s abhorrence of the sexual and pride in his purity (150bis, 174–7, 444–7). ξένε: the regular address (cf. 415): Ion maintains some degree of respect despite being upset by the stranger’s behaviour (cf. IT 798–9 ξέν’, οὐ δικαίως τῆς θεοῦ τὴν πρόσπολον χραίνεις).



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

277

521 τὰ φίλταθ’: an ‘endearment of some strength’ (Gregor (1957) 14) and another stock motif of recognitions: cf. 1409. 522 στέμματα ῥήξηις: Destroying a sacred object constitutes a sacrilege: cf. Dem. 21.147. A sacred garment protects its wearer, so the request not to touch it can stand for the prohibition to lay hands on the person: IT 799, Ar. Pl. 21–2. 523 κοὐ ῥυσιάζω: ‘I am not seizing.’ ῥυσιάζω in tragedy denotes the seizure of property that is not one’s own (Whittle (1964) 3; related to ἐρύω ‘drag’). There are occasional connotations of physical contact and ‘laying hands on’ an object (Aesch. Suppl. 412, Soph. OC 858–9), so οὐ ῥυσιάζω κτλ. justifies ἅψομαι: Xuthus has no reason to hold back, as Ion is rightfully his. The irony in this instance rests on the underlying meanings of Xuthus’ statement: he is indeed not seizing Ion, because he is given Ion with Apollo’s consent; but his claim that he is not appropriating what is not his rests on the false assumption that Ion is his son (cf. Taplin (1978) 138). The choice of word is particularly appropriate for the soldier Xuthus (ῥύσια means ‘booty’ in Hom. Il. 11.674, Aesch. Ag. 535). It does not appear in classical prose or Athenian legal contexts, but both Athenian and Delphic inscriptions from the 3rd cent. onwards (IG II2 1132.84, CID 4.70.11 et al.) know it in the context of asylia as seizure of a person. 524 τόξα: Ion has been wearing the bow over his shoulder throughout (cf. Teucer in Hel. 76). It would be conceivable that he has left it and now retreats to catch it, but the sudden seizure of props incidentally lying around is a modern, not a Greek tragic practice (on the case of Telephus cf. Cropp’s commentary, p. 25). πλευμόνων: The paradosis πν- (also 767) repeats a mistake made by the majority of mss in the medieval transmission, e.g. Herc. 1093, Or. 277, Soph. Trach. 1054; cf. modern Greek πνεύμονας. The form πλ- (cf. Latin pulmo) is attested in Soph. Trach. 567, IG IV2.1 122.56 (Epidaurus 4th cent.); cf. Chantraine s.v. πλεύμων. 525–7 ὡς τί δή; φεύγεις με; σαυτοῦ γνωρίσας τὰ φίλτατα ... κτεῖνε καὶ πίμπρη: ‘What are you doing? You are shunning me? Once you’ve recognised your dearest [...], then kill and burn me.’ The sequence of γνωρίσας and κτεῖνε is a witty paradox, similar to the juxtaposition κτεῖνε καὶ πίμπρη: Ion, albeit his killer, would have to take care of Xuthus’ funeral (cf. Verrall); for (γάρ) as his son Ion would be in charge of the incineration (cf. Hdt. 1.87.4). Xuthus here appears far from being a ‘doltish’ character (cf. 510– 675n). Xuthus seems surprised at Ion’s violent reaction, as if he were not aware that Ion is ignorant about the oracle. He then asks Ion (tongue-in-cheek) to

278

Commentary

suspend his judgment and only kill him in full knowledge that he is Ion’s father: sermo fractus (proposed by Hartwig (2007)) produces excellent sense; emendations to make the line syntactically complete are unnecessary and have been unsatisfactory: γνωρίσαι (Page, roughly ‘Why do you avoid recognising me as the one who is dearest to you?’) produces a construction of φεύγω that is not securely attested in tragedy (only Tro. 891, cj.), and φεύγω always denotes a deliberate and active avoiding (in erotic contexts e.g. Hel. 1230, Tro. 981, PV 855, Sappho fr. 1.21) that makes little sense with γιγνώσκω. Kock’s ingenious rearrangement 526/5/4 (making κτεῖνε answering the threat of shooting: (1873) 252–3) requires γνώρισον; transpositions of 525–6 (G. Schmid (1868) 413–14, Wecklein) are inferior. The first half of 525 must be split: ὡς τί δή is a formulation of astonishment, used only by Euripides and never in a complete sentence. The sense of purpose in ὡς has become facultative (cf. IA 1342). Joining τί with φεύγεις violates Wackernagel’s law for the position of με (Hartwig p. 478 n.4; cf. Phoen. 927 τί δή με δράσεις;). 526 οὐ φιλῶ φρενοῦν: Ion is threatening to ‘teach Xuthus sense’ with the bow. He is annoyed at the repeated φίλτατα and interrupts, denying any φιλία (Scaliger’s change from unmetrical ὀφείλω is palmary). The tone shifts markedly after 527, when it has become clear why Xuthus is behaving as he is. ἀμούσους: I.e. unsusceptible to the admonitions of Ion (implied in Alc. 760–3, Cycl. 426). 528 οὐ γέλως κλυεῖν: ‘Isn’t that a brillant joke?’ a dismissive remark, ‘dont le but est de détruire l’opinion de l’adversaire [...] pour rejeter avec indignation ce qui a été dit.’ (Arnould (1990) 182; cf. Zacharia (1995) 54 n.40): cf. Tro. 983 ταῦτα γὰρ γέλως πολύς. It picks up the ποῦ-question with ταῦτα. The tone matches that of the incredulous and patronising ποῦ (for πῶς: Hcld. 369, Soph. Aj. 1100). In 529 Xuthus rejects the comment and denies that Ion’s first question should be rhetorical. κλυεῖν is aorist (referring to the specific present act of hearing) and should be accentuated accordingly: cf. West (1984) 179. ἐμοί: dativus commodi rather than ethicus; ἐμοῦ (Murray’s ‘ludibrium mei’ = ‘turning me into a ridicule?’) is impossible, as the utterance is not Ion’s. 529 τρέχων ὁ μῦθος: ‘my account, if you let it unroll’; verba eundi in connection with expressions of speech can describe the evolution of a discourse (cf. 396n, Pl. Phdr. 265C ἀπὸ τοῦ ψέγειν πρὸς τὸ ἐπαινεῖν ἔσχεν ὁ λόγος μεταβῆναι). Xuthus asks for an opportunity to present the situation without Ion’s constant resistance. It is ironic that the request introduces the longest antilabe in Euripides, with Xuthus given even less of a chance for a well structured explanation. S. Cole (2008) 315 recognises in μῦθος a ‘meta-lit-



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

279

erary resonance’ raising awareness that this is the conventional version of the myth. The participle, however, specifies the meaning of μῦθος and thus rules out the meaning ‘myth’ in this context. ἄν: Double ἄν is used in cases of ‘pragmatic complexity’ (Slings (1992) 102–5), when there is more than one unit of information: the focus shifts in mid-sentence from the manner (τρέχων ὁ μῦθος) to the purpose (σημήνειεν) of the announced speech act. 530–55 Ion’s test of Xuthus’ claim assumes the tone and jargon of a cross-examination. 544 shows him uncompromising in testing the oracle. He scrutinises the evidence: first the grounds for Xuthus’ belief that Ion is his son (531–9), then – after the question about the mother terminates in aporia (540–4) – the possibility of a scenario based on the oracle (545–55). 530–9 Ion disputes that the oracle has pronounced him Xuthus’ son: first the fact that Apollo said so (532), then that this was the meaning of the oracle (533– 7), and finally that he was the son designated in this way (538). Xuthus, however, can assure him that no misunderstanding or mistake in his identification is possible. 530 καὶ τί μοι λέξεις;: probably not just an invitation to speak but a provocation. 532 μαρτυρεῖς σαυτῶι: ‘You testify for yourself.’ Cf. Dem. 54.35 οὐ γὰρ ἡμεῖς μαρτυρήσομεν ἀλλήλοις; Antiph. 87 Β 44 (=44c Pedrick) I.3–9. Ion questions Xuthus’ credibility, as his statement is in his own interest and not backed up by evidence or a proper witness. Litigants in Athenian trials were forbidden by law to give evidence on their own behalf (Dem. 40.58, 46.9 ἔργωι αὐτὸς αὑτῶι μεμαρτύρηκε, Harrison II 137–8) but presented their version of events in speeches with embedded supporting testimonies by others (cf. Humphreys (1985) 323–4, Thür (2005) 148–50). 533 οὐκ ἄρ’ ὄρθ’ ἀκούομεν: ‘Then I must have misheard.’ Ion (ἐσφάλης) outright denies that Xuthus has understood the oracle, but the latter returns the tactlessness and rules out ambiguity by mocking irony (ἄρα: cf. 542). Both the insistence here and the subsequent explanations are suitable to dispel the idea that the oracle is meant to be ambiguous (in which case it could also be truthful; cf. 69–73n). 534 συναντήσαντά: The type of answer is typical for oracles, paralleled in Parke/Wormell II no.s 23, 60, 78, 231, 381, 532. Hence Ar. Pl. 41–3 is

280

Commentary

unlikely to be paratragic or to parody this specific oracle (so still Rodríguez Alfageme (1999) 229 despite Rau (1967) 161). West (1981) 64 wants συναντήσοντα, by analogy with transmitted oracles that use future (Parke/Wormell II no. 381) or ὃς ἄν. As a consequence, however, the leading infinitive would also need to be changed to future. The chorus use the aorist ξυναντήσειεν without ἄν in 787, and the infinitive aorist is common after verbs of prophecy (e.g. IT 1014, Phoen. [1597], K-G I 195). 535  τίνα συνάντησιν: internal accusative, asking Xuthus to specify συναντήσαντα. Ion’s testing of the oracle’s correctness here has a touch of pedantry. 537 δῶρον: The term is ambiguous in the context: Ion is Apollo’s slave and can thus be given as a present by his owner; more pertinently, Ion asks if he was given to Xuthus in adoption (as Creusa will contend: 1534–6). δῶρον is not legal terminology, but 1534 δωρεῖται is unmistakeable and Isaeus knows δίδωμι (2.10, 42 τότε μὲν ἔδωκα ἐμαυτὸν ὑὸν αὐτῶι ποιήσασθαι). ἄλλως: ‘merely’: e.g. Tro. 476 οὐκ ἀριθμὸν ἄλλως ἀλλ’ ὑπερτάτους Φρυγῶν, Erechth. fr. 360.27, Soph. Phil. 947; cf. Waś 28. The phrase implies an idea of disparagement (demanded but not recognised here by Diggle (1981a) 102): blood-ties with Xuthus are superior to a transfer to new foster parents. In addition, Ion’s desire to know his (biological) parents would not be fulfilled. The conjecture ἄλλων (Seager (1819) 280, accepted by Diggle) poses more questions than it answers: who would these others be if not Apollo, the one who brought Xuthus and Ion together? And why should Xuthus evade the question implied in ἄλλων? δ᾿: Xuthus wittily reconciles what for Ion are necessarily alternatives: Apollo had taken care of a son he was not aware of and has now presented him with the boy. By Musgrave’s δ(έ) Xuthus contradicts Ion’s supposition that the alternatives are mutually exclusive. This disagreement must be marked, which is not the case with L’s original τ᾿ (supported by Biehl and Kraus 52). 538 πρῶτα: lit. ‘first thing’ rather than ‘me first’ (as in 663), but the adverb is often used instead of the adjective (K-G II 114(4)). Cf. Alc. 502 μάχην συνάψαι, πρῶτα μὲν Λυκάονι, Soph. Phil. 919 σῶσαι κακοῦ μὲν πρῶτα τοῦδ’. The oracles cited on 534 (cf. Liv. 1.56.10 imperium summum Romae habebit qui uestrum primus, o iuuenes, osculum matri tulerit) tend to have the adjectival form. ξυνάπτεις πόδα: ‘You set your foot to me.’ The formulations here are repeated almost verbatim in 662–3; cf. Phoen. 37, Ba. 198. 539 τύχη: One interpretation of ‘fate’ can quickly displace another or become blurred (cf. 554n): in this context the term denotes only the (peculiar)



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

281

course of events and the coincidence of what happened. Ion does not bring up divine intervention directly (Busch (1937) 50–1), in contrast to Xuthus in 569–70. 540–4 Ion’s old wound, his mother’s absence (cf. 361), breaks open again, and his constant preoccupation with it blights any particular joy about the (already underwhelming) discovery of his father. Questions of origin are of lesser importance to Xuthus, a mercenary who has fought his way into Athenian royalty. His failure to ask about the mother and Ion’s need to direct his attention to the question illustrate the incompatibility of their priorities; Xuthus’ dismissal of birth from the earth also shows his incomprehension of the attitudes of Creusa and the Athenians (also of the chorus and the Old Man). 541 οὐκ ἠρόμην: The right questions must be put to oracles, otherwise the answers could turn out unsatisfactory or insufficient: cf. Hel. 535–7, Xen. An. 3.1.6–7. Having an heir was of great importance (Isae. 2.10 ἐσκόπει ὁ Μενεκλῆς ὅπως μὴ ἔσοιτο ἄπαις, ἀλλ’ ἔσοιτο αὐτῶι ὅστις ζῶντά τε γηροτροφήσοι καὶ τελευτήσαντα θάψοι αὐτὸν καὶ εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον τὰ νομιζόμενα αὐτῶι ποιήσοι; but Golden (1990) 92–4 warns against too utilitarian a perspective). 542 γῆς ἄρ’ ἐκπέφυκα: ἄρα, as a mock conclusion, is potentially ironic or even sarcastic (533, particularly frequently in Plato; cf. K-G II 322). Xuthus seems to miss that nuance and answers the question as if Ion had put it in all earnestness. His dismissal of the suggestion can be read as ignoring the nobility of his autochthonous Athenian hosts (and the audience) or as enlightened rejection of an absurd mythological – and ideological – dogma (treated as indubitable truth in this play). In either case it reveals his indifference to and underestimation of Creusa’s and the chorus’ sensitivities. Ion’s sentence may also be punctuated as a statement; editors disagree and valid decision criteria are lacking (Sicking (1997) 167). By analogy with the Latin terrae filius, for people of uncertain descent, Lee suspects a proverb behind the expression γῆς ἐκφύεσθαι (Otto (1890) 344–5). Xuthus, however, does not appear to be familiar with any such proverbial import, and it would diminish the effect of the ambiguity with regard to Erechtheus; Alexis PCG 113.4–5 βῶλος, ἄροτρον, γηγενὴς ἅνθρωπος is spoken by a father complaining about his son’s rustic lifestyle; any allusion to illegitimacy would be undesirable. 543 ἀναφέρω: Cf. 253, 827. Xuthus inadvertently speaks the truth in ambiguous terms. He means ‘I leave the matter (sc. the question of how it is that you are my son) to Apollo’, and Apollo through his proxy, Athena, will

282

Commentary

answer it (1559–62/1); but the second meaning is: ‘I leave that (making Ion Xuthus’ son) to Apollo’, i.e. Apollo has invented the relationship. 544 λόγων ἁψώμεθ’ ἄλλων: Ion proposes ‘a different reasoning’: after the question about the mother has led to an impasse, he turns to a discussion of the likely circumstances. Xuthus, by contrast, is relieved that the interrogation is finished, as he understands ‘a different topic’ instead. 545–55 Ion is as inquisitive and sharp as in the preceding epeisodion (esp. 347–58); he checks whether there is a way in which Xuthus’ parenthood can be reconciled with his own present situation, i.e. how he could have ended up as a Delphian temple servant. He thus asks about the circumstances of his conception and tests the possibility of paternity by Xuthus. They come up with a simple and plausible solution and accept it. Ion takes the lead in the inquiry, not only by asking but also by suggesting the plausible reconstruction of events. Xuthus, more than anywhere else, here appears intellectually inert, unable or reluctant to go through the evidence methodically. When his only suggestion (550) meets with Ion’s own previous assumption (325) Ion regards the reconstruction as complete. With Xuthus’ hardly glorious past and Ion’s discovery of his ‘father’s’ exploits coupled with his own abhorrence at anything suggestive of sex, the situation becomes awkward for both of them (545, 546, 552). 545 μωρίαι γε τοῦ νέου: ‘it was, of course, through the folly of youth’: an exculpatory explanation, aiming to mitigate the offensiveness of the matter. Youthful folly resulting in sexual licence is well-established as a topos and plot-driving motif (Alc. 1052–4, Hipp. 118–19, 967–9, played upon in Ar. Vesp. 1351–5) before it becomes the major trigger of plots in New and Roman Comedy (e.g. Ter. Ad. 470 persuasit nox amor uuinum adulescentia, Cic. Cael. 43). In Old Comedy, however, the regular victims of rape are spouses or people of inferior status (exceptions can be explained within this frame); in New Comedy rape is restricted to unmarried citizen daughters, who will be married by their violators (Sommerstein (1998)). τοῦ νέου: ‘youth’ cf. 556, Andr. 184, Herc. 75 τῶι νέωι δ’ ἐσφαλμένοι ζητοῦσι τὸν τεκόντ’, Soph. OC 1229. 546 γέ πω: a strong double affirmation of his faithfulness. πω loses its temporal meaning: cf. Soph. OT 105, Ar. Pax 244, 1075, Ran. 668. 548: Line 547 must be moved: the temporal match is accepted as evidence for the correctness of Xuthus’ claim (554). In the transmitted order of the lines, ἆρα δῆτ’ ἐκεῖ must mean ‘So in an extramarital union ...?’, which does not match Xuthus’ ‘Timewise it fits.’ Ion’s remark also sound rather strong



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

283

for the meagre insight that Ion was born out of wedlook. In addition, ἐκεῖ sits awkwardly with δεῦρο in 548; with the Bacchic ἡδοναί (553) it is an exact reference to the occasion and connects well with ἵν’ ἐσπάρημεν. κἆιτα: I.e. after conception. δεῦρο: to Delphi. It has been established that Xuthus may have impregnated a woman; the next step deals with the birth place, the where; Delphi is the simplest solution, as it resolves the problem that Ion would have had to be brought there from a distance: διὰ μακρᾶς ... κελεύθου is said of the distance Ion would have covered (K-G I 481(b)). 549 κἄμ’: ‘(that bewilders) me too’ suits the emphasised pronoun better than ‘that does bewilder me’ (cf. Denniston 307): Xuthus has noticed the doubt in Ion’s question. ἀπαιολᾶι: ‘Dizziness’ serves as a metaphor for confusion, bewilderment, and the physical symptoms of mental stress (Collard (2006) 53): e.g. Ar. Ach. 581, Pl. Prot. 339E. Cf. Hipp. Mul. 2.174b δυσθυμέει τε καὶ αἰολᾶται τῆι γνώμηι. Physical conditions are often described by verbs on -άω. Hence Musgrave’s emendation of ἀπαιολεῖ is probably right, despite schol. vet. Ar. Nub. 1150c ἀπαιόλη] ἐκ τοῦ αἰολεῖν; αἰολέω seems to have the meaning ‘to colour’ (e.g. Pl. Crat. 409Α). The restitution of the text is made the more difficult by similar words and its flawed transmission: Hom. Od. 20.27 αἰόλληι (schol. Pind. P. 4.414b αἰόλλει), Pind. P. 4.233 ἐόλει (mss αἰόλλει, schol. αἰόλει). 550 δ’: replacing ἤ when adding an alternative to a previous question (Denniston 171; Ba. 560–4 should be a question). ἐς φανάς γε: ‘Yes, (even) to the torches’ (metonymically for the festival including a torch-procession; cf. Rh. 943, 1076n): Xuthus’ attendance at the rites increases the likelihood that he is Ion’s father – a first subtle hint at rape: the connection between a festival and illegitimate children is understandable because it is a topos. Women-only festivals were the one major occasion on which women were relatively unguarded by their husbands and male kin (Just (1989) 120–1). A παννυχίς with revelry and female choruses is probably the setting of the conception in Euripides’ Auge (fr. 272b: cf. Huys (1990b) 177–8, also Luppe (1986)). The oversexed and intoxicated young men (cf. 545–53) of New Comedy use these opportunities to violate women (Men. Epitr. 474, Phasma 95); cf. Lape (2001) 92–3. 551 προξένων δ᾿ ἔν του: ‘in the house of one of the proxenoi’; Xuthus’ words make explicit what is concealed in the question: ‘Yes, and he to Delphian girls’ (cf. K-G II 435(a)); so του must be indefinite. If Ion were asking ἐν τοῦ (Wilamowitz following Madvig (1847) 136), Xuthus’ answer ‘In the house of the one who ...’ would not answer the ques-

284

Commentary

tion for the man’s identity. The dative of the manuscript (ἐν τῶ(ι)) is an easy mistake with ἐν. κατέσχες: ‘you were lodging’: cf. El. 1034   ἐν τοῖσιν αὐτοῖς δώμασιν κατεῖχ’; lit. of steering ships into port. Δελφίσιν κόραις: Xuthus speaks of the participants of the celebration as Delphian girls, even though they were not all from Delphi – a fact that will give Ion great hope (cf. 670b–5). 552 ἐθιάσευσ’: ‘make part of a thiasos’ or ‘bring together (with girls) in a thiasos’: a Euripidean coinage, always in transitive use (Ba. 75, 379 θιασεύειν τε χοροῖς; cf. Rijksbaron 16). Ion interrupts and finishes the sentence in a way that does not allow Xuthus either to implicate the Delphians (esp. the proxenos) or to use words that lack propriety. His loyalty to Delphi (cf. 633–45) and his sense of εὐφημία are preserved intact. The missing letter is easily substituted to ms ἐθίασέ σ᾿; no such word θιάζω is extant. γε: Xuthus adds that the girls were in the state of maenadism and thereby stresses that he has not violated citizen girls at a normal time, implying that sexual contact was not (or was less) inappropriate in the Dionysiac context. The Bacchic rites are often associated with sexual licence: cf. Ba. 221–5, 686–8. τε (L) presupposes two separate groups, but the raving women of the thiasos are called ‘maenads’ (Soph. OT 212, Ar. Lys. 1283, Hom.Hym. 2.386) with ‘decidedly reprehensive connotations’ (Henrichs (1982) 146). 547 τῶι χρόνωι γε συντρέχει: ‘timewise it fits’, with dative of respect (K-G I 440(12)). Xuthus’ γε is meant as emphatic ‘the time is definitely a match’, but it can be read as limitative ‘the time is certainly right.’ 554 τοῦτ’ ἐκεῖν’: ‘That’s it (where I was conceived)’, a common colloquialism in drama and prose (Stevens (1976) 31–2; restored by Elmsley on Med. 97 [=98]), which can take its attribute in the form of a relative clause: Tro. 624, Ar. Ach. 41, Lys. 240, Pl. Symp. 210E. Hence Diggle’s punctuation before ἵνα, making Xuthus complete the new sentence, is unnecessary. πότμος [σ᾿] ἐξηῦρεν: ‘Destiny has uncovered it’, i.e. it has been found out because it was so destined. There is no conflict with the idea of a god directing affairs (569–70), and we do not have to assume a change of view on Xuthus’ part (pace Giannopoulou (1999–2000) 264): the Greeks had a flexible idea of fortune as an agent/force/result, as can be seen from Med. 669 τίς < – > σε δαίμων ἢ πότμος συλᾶι πάτρας; (cf. Busch (1937), Giannopoulou p. 257–61). ἐξηῦρεν is causative ‘had (it) found out’. As in 1117–18, the suppressed neuter object is interpolated.



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

285

555 ἴσως: The restriction at the end parallels the formulation of the same idea in 325. 556–62 As Xuthus’ paternity is acknowledged, Ion’s joy (expressed through some of the recurrent elements of recognition scenes) lacks enthusiasm and includes some revealingly reserved formulations (οὐκ ἀπιστεῖν εἰκός, τί βουλόμεσθά γ’ ἄλλο). It is outweighed by considerations about his more privileged situation: he is free and of great nobility. The lack of intimacy is shown further by the one-sidedness of the communication: Xuthus responds to Ion’s utterances, while Ion speaks as in a monologue. 556 τὸ δοῦλον: So far his status as a slave was no great concern to Ion, but from now on he becomes increasingly demanding as to his social standing (cf. 670–2). In Ion’s view, Xuthus’ acceptance frees him from slavery, irrespective of the unknown status of his mother: Ion still reckons that she could be a slave (1382) as well as one of the Athenian women participating in the revels on Parnassus (cf. 671n, 714–24n), but children of slave παλλακαί could be free νόθοι (Patterson (1990) 60–1), probably depending on the father’s acknowledgment. In that case Ion would not have to worry about the technical issues of his status. 557 οὐκ ἀπιστεῖν εἰκός: Ion coolly leaves it open whether he obeys out of unbroken faith in the oracle or only gives the appearance, without true conviction. The similar opportunism at 1522 (with n) suggests he is happy to leave behind the status of slave and the potential embarrassment of being the issue of a lowly mother (555–6). ‘Fittingness’ (τὸ εἰκός) covers a wide range from the general experience that the oracle speaks the truth to moral expectations and justice (cf. Hoffman (2008) 16). Irvine reports that N.G. Wilson wishes to move the line between 559 and 560. This would make a fitting conclusion to the recognition before the embrace, but the paradosis shows no deficiencies. εὖ φρονεῖς: gentle mockery from Xuthus looking back to the start of the recognition (518). 558 βουλόμεσθά: ‘What more do I wish?’ The longing for his mother has temporarily given way to delight at the elevation of his status. L was rightly corrected from subjunctive to indicative (as in IA 485): the question is not deliberative (‘What more am I to wish?’ with appeal character: cf. Goodwin 98, §287). 559 Διὸς παιδὸς ... παῖς: Literally read, the genealogy skips one generation. It is incidentally (and ironically) right for Ion’s true relationship with Zeus

286

Commentary

through his father Apollo. Kraus’ change to παίδων (53; cf. 1099–1100) loses both the dramatic irony and Ion’s flattery. 560 ἦ θίγω δῆθ’: This is far from the effusive embraces of other recognitions (cf. 1439–53bisn). The subjunctive is best read as introducing a polite request for permission (‘May I?’, often introduced by βούλει: cf. Soph. Phil. 761 βούλει λάβωμαι δῆτα καὶ θίγω τί σου;). Conclusive δῆτα marks the embrace as consequence of the recognition (cf. Denniston 269). οἵ μ’ ἔφυσαν: There is no strong enough reason to change (with Bothe and Diggle) to singular. The limits of the generic plural are hard to determine and subjective, in poetry especially. Similar cases do not show a significant generalising force: Hec. 402–3 μῆτερ, πιθοῦ μοι· καὶ σύ, παῖ Λαερτίου, χάλα τοκεῦσιν εἰκότως θυμουμένοις, Soph. OT 1184–5 ὅστις πέφασμαι φύς τ᾿ ἀφ᾿ ὧν οὐ χρή, ξὺν οἷς τ᾿ οὐ χρῆν ὁμιλῶν, οὕς τέ μ᾿ οὐκ ἔδει κτανών; cf. K-G I 18. Moreover, Ion would also embrace his mother, were she there. 561 φίλον γε φθέγμ’: A similar reply to Ion’s address is given by the other ‘false’ parent, the Pythia (1325), but not by Creusa in 1439–40. On the spelling of φθέγμα cf. 401n. 562 ἡμέρα θ᾿ ἡ νῦν παροῦσα: ‘(Greetings) also to this day.’ Cf. Aesch. (?) fr. 451k.2 ἱ]κν̣οῦμ̣αι φ̣έγγ[ος] ἡλίου̣ τ̣ό νῦν. The sentence continues from the last line, and χαιρέτω needs to be supplied, as in 402. For greetings to a special day cf. Tro. 860, Aesch. Ag. 508 (also Ar. Pl. 771 to the sun). γ᾿: The particle expresses assent and adds an extra observation, namely the day’s effect on Xuthus (cf. Denniston 137). Those who give the entire line 562 to Xuthus (Wilamowitz, G. Müller (1983) 45, Kraus 53–4; contra Mastronarde (1979) 53) are left with an awkward γ(ε) for γάρ. Xuthus would continue Ion’s syntax from 561, but only after saying φίλον γε κτλ. – an unparalleled and hardly comprehensible leap back. 563–5 The recognition is concluded without being completed: Ion’s anguish at the absence of his mother had been dormant since 361 but rewakes at the climax of the reunion with his father. He falls back into a state of resignation (Imhof (1966) 31) when he imagines not being able to find the mother. 563 πότ᾿ ἆρα: The redundant interrogative particle adds urgency: cf. IT 472 τίς ἆρα μήτηρ ἡ τεκοῦσ᾿ ὑμᾶς ποτε, Ino fr. 403, Denniston 45–6. 565 οὐδ’ ὄναρ: ‘not even in a dream’. The corrupt transmission (οὐδὲν ἂρ L) can be corrected for a text that expresses in a hyperbolic form that Ion will never see his mother, unable even to evoke her image in a dream (Parmentier (1922) 6–7, Harry (1923) 56–7). The interpretation receives support



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

287

from IT 518, where the high emotions lead to a similarly exaggerated ὡς μήποτ᾿ ὤφελόν γε μηδ᾿ ἰδὼν ὄναρ; cf. Alop. fr. 107. 566–8 The transition to a new segment of the plot is signalled by the change of metre to iambics. A choral tag regularly reinforces such a division (exceptions are Hel. 1641, Phoen. 1339, and Ba. 641). The present tag, however, takes on additional functions: the maids’ loyalty to Creusa (cf. 235–6) comes to the fore as they voice their discontent with the unequal distribution of good fortune. The lines cast shadows over the false recognition and anticipate Creusa’s aggrieved sense of being denied, preparing the chorus’ intervention in their next song. 567 ἐς τέκν’: ‘with regard to children’: e.g. 729, Or. 542 ζηλωτὸς ὅστις ηὐτύχησεν ἐς τέκνα. 568 ἐβουλόμην ἂν: ‘I should have hoped’: past potential (cf. K-G I 212–13). τούς τ’ Ἐρεχθέως δόμους: The chorus’ loyalty lies not only with their mistress but with the house of Erechtheus (cf. 469–71). The split between Xuthus and the royal family highlights the dynastic aspect and foreshadows the civic interpretation that the chorus in particular will give to the conflict between Creusa and Xuthus (and Ion: 721–4, 1074–89). Ion’s speech will develop this point (589–94) before it becomes prominent in the 3rd epeisodion. 569–667 Aborted Agon With the iambic trimeters the mode of speaking changes, with longer statements: Xuthus’ request that Ion follow him to Athens sparks disagreement and brings the action close to the configuration of a tragic agon. Ion presents a polished argument on why he now prefers to stay behind (against 153, 556). His speech is distinct from those of extant agones only in that it is not confrontative or antagonistic; he eschews anything that Xuthus could interpret as an attack and tries to persuade him. The chorus round off the rhesis with a two-line response, as is customary between the speeches of an agon. However, at this point Euripides deceives the audience’s expectation by breaking off the conventional form: no reply presenting the arguments to the contrary completes the antilogy, the chorus do not speak after Xuthus’ words, and no stichomythia continues the debate. Xuthus just repeats his order and dissolves the conflict by prerogative of his authority, making only some concessions to mitigate Ion’s fears: he will eventually elevate Ion to princely status (659–60) but will not confront Creusa with her stepson straightaway (657–8). The underlying problems, however, are not adressed:

288

Commentary

the inadequacy, in Athenian eyes, of Ion’s lineage and the impossibility for him of leading a happy and just life outside Delphi – and the former carries the seed of the play’s tragic conflict: Xuthus underestimates the cause for anxiety, while Ion predicts accurately the grievances that will soon haunt him (594, 607–11 with e.g. 683–4, 693, 699–701, 719–20, 837–8). The end of the scene contributes to characterisation, leaving Ion as the more rhetorical, slick, but also prudent of the two, while Xuthus seems ignorant of the (dramaturgical) conventions and generally more prone to imperatives than debates. His reaction also confirms that communication between the seeming father and the son is difficult. This aborted agon (cf. Soph. Phil. 1047 πόλλ’ ἂν λέγειν ἔχοιμι πρὸς τὰ τοῦδ’ ἔπη) is more than an ‘epideixis scene’ (so M. Lloyd (1992) 10, more fittingly on e.g. Andr. 390–463), as Ion’s speech is a proper attempt at persuasion; Lee’s more fitting description of it as one half of an agon (225) still underrates the abruptness with which Xuthus refuses to comply with the rules of the set piece, reproaching Ion for his rhesis (650 λόγοι) in an act of metatheatre. 569–84 Xuthus’ short speech proceeds in the neat structure of 3+6+3 lines: after he stresses the role of Apollo in the discovery and its unexpectedness (569– 71), he states that despite their shared desire to find the mother the priority is to get to Athens (572–7). After a short pause, in which Ion shows no positive reaction, he asks about the reason for his silence (582–4). Xuthus’ egocentrism is apparent in his dismissal of Ion’s quite apparent desire for his mother, which he acknowledges only to pass it over. He fails to take Ion’s perspective seriously, presuming that Ion will readily adopt his position (κοινόφρων) and be delighted to leave Delphi (ἀλητείαν)  – only to be surprised when he does not. Repeated inconcinnity (570–1, 573–4, 576) distinguishes the speech sharply from Ion’s polished plea. 569–70: ‘Son, the god has correctly directed affairs to your discovery ...’ Xuthus’ stress on Apollo’s role in the recognition is meant to convince the pious Ion to follow him to Athens. The ambiguity of κραίνω, between ‘predict’ and ‘ordain’ (cf. 77n) is shown in ὀρθῶς ‘correctly, truly’, used as with a verbum dicendi but describing an outcome: it has turned out as he had said in the oracle; cf. Hipp. 1170. 570–1 τε ... τ᾿: The connectors emphasise the mutuality of the happiness. The antithesis thereby loses in concinnity: the second element drops the notion of divine influence.



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

289

571 φίλταθ’: The formulation, used (once more: cf. 525) by Xuthus about himself, betrays his self-centredness, in that he overrates his importance to his son, and a certain arrogance, in that he tries to guide Ion’s sentiments. οὐκ εἰδὼς: I.e. he did not know whom he was looking for (cf. 328–9). The ‘recognition’ was, strictly speaking, an identification through a divine clue. 572–7 Xuthus seems conciliatory in agreeing to search for the mother, but rather aims to appease Ion. The formal acknowledgment of Ion’s wish is strengthened by the repetition of πόθος (from 564). 572 οἷ δ’ ἦιξας: The formulation ironically echoes 328 (as does ἀνεύρεσιν ~ ἐξευρεῖν). ἦιξας εἰς ἔρευναν there makes Herwerden’s οἷ (the indication of the direction) here preferable to transmitted ὅ, whether interpreted as an internal accusative (Verrall, Owen) or as an accusative of respect (Paley); transitive ἀίσσω means ‘to set in rapid motion’ (Or. 1429). τοῦτο: referring to σέ ... εἰσιδεῖν (564). Periphrastic expression of emotions with ἔχω can take the accusative of respect as well as a genitive: Ba. 1288 ὡς τὸ μέλλον καρδία πήδημ’ ἔχει, Soph. Phil. 686 τόδε μὰν θαῦμά μ’ ἔχει, Trach. 350. 573 ὅπως: epexegetic to τοῦτο, not parallel to ὁποίας (as Wilamowitz thought); cf. Tro. 1008 τοῦτ’ ἤσκεις, ὅπως ...: ὁποίας is subordinate and depends on εὑρήσω (to be extracted from εὑρήσεις). 575 χρόνωι δὲ δόντες: ‘leaving it to time’: for time as revealer cf. Hipp. 1051–2, Antiope fr. 223.107 μηνυτὴς χρόνος, Theogn. IEG2 967, [Plato] AP 628 αἰὼν πάντα φέρει, Otto (1890) 343. The grammatical connection of ταῦτ(α) is with δόντες, although it is ἀπὸ κοινοῦ by sense with εὕροιμεν: δίδωμι requires an object (IT 501 τοῦτο μὲν δὸς τῆι τύχηι, Antiph. 5.86 δότε τι καὶ τῶι χρόνωι, Hdt. 7.12.1, Mastronarde on Phoen. 21); ἴσως always stands at the start of a colon when combined with a potential (Nuchelmans (1976) 233 n.11). ἴσως εὕροιμεν ἄν: a very cautious statement, signaling Xuthus’ detachment: the god has given him what he wanted most urgently; anything else is a πόθος of lower priority. In a similar way the next lines stress that Ion should rather be happy to escape from an unsuitable existence than preoccupy himself too much with his mother. 576 ἐκλιπὼν: taking the place and the state in a light zeugma, which affirms the vividness of this short speech. ἀλητείαν: Xuthus exaggerates when he describes Ion’s life in strongly pejorative terms (cf. 1089): the usual meanings ‘erring’, ‘painful exile’, etc.

290

Commentary

are not strictly appropriate. However, the meaning ‘homelessness’ (Owen) is unattested. [578–81] Diggle (following Murray’s doubts about 579–80) rightly rejects these lines, and the deletion of 621–32 makes this step even more necessary: the passage is connected with and motivates the mention of riches and power. The metaphor of the double ‘illness’ is taken from 591 and modified in such a way that the two weaknesses have more general applicability (and are hence more relevant in the interpolator’s time). Ion in his speech, however, deals with Athens, not with riches. The passage is also in itself weak. It introduces an unexpected and undesirable shift of topic after Xuthus had practically finished his statement: ἀλλά followed by the imperative in 576 indicates the conclusion (Ercolani (2000) 215). Rhetorically, the seductive power of Xuthus’ contrast between Ion’s ἀλητεία in Delphi and the prospect of going to Athens is not enhanced by mentioning poverty and bastardy. The main arguments for authenticity as presented by Biehl, Matthiessen (1984), Kraus, and Lee are: 1) The lines are a ‘necessary explanation of X.’ behest that Ion follow him to Athens’ (Lee). But it seems natural that Xuthus wants his son to live with him. Moreover, at this point Xuthus does not see the necessity for an explanation: he is convinced that Ion felt a great desire to find his father (571) and that he wishes to end his ἀλητεία (576); he demands that Ion adopt his own reasoning (κοινόφρων). Only when Ion seems reluctant does Xuthus reveal to him the great advantages of being a member of the royal household (660). 2) ‘Ion’s silence and preoccupation seem unjustified in the absence of something more substantial for him to ponder’ (Lee), and the time in which Xuthus is talking is too short for Ion to ponder his reservations (Kraus). But Ion’s speech (later additions discounted) is a concise and precise answer to Xuthus’ negative description of Delphi: he lists the downsides Athens holds for him and the advantages of his present situation. For the pause between 577 and 582 to think and look down cf. Hipp. 296–7 λέγ’, ὡς ἰατροῖς πρᾶγμα μηνυθῆι τόδε. εἶἑν, τί σιγᾶις; then 300 δεῦρ’ ἄθρησον. Short pauses followed by questions about the silence or a visible reaction are frequent: e.g. Med 922, Phoen. 960, Hyps. fr. 757.7, fr. 1008, Soph. OC 1271; in the middle of a line: Soph. Phil. 805, 951, Ar. Thesm. 144; cf. Mastronarde (1979) 114–17, Montiglio (2000) 192. 3) The difference in the meaning of the ‘two illnesses’ between the speeches is considered irrelevant: Xuthus is characterising Ion’s life in Delphi and thus talking about a different situation from 591–2 (Kraus 54). This argument does not offer any positive evidence of authenticity or explain the awkward use of the same image for different matters.



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

291

On the other hand, the course of the debate is much clearer without this passage, i.e. if Xuthus raises the point about ruling only after Ion’s speech: Ion does not appreciate the prospect of leaving at 578; but when Xuthus answers his apprehensions by promising him not to alienate Creusa and to secure him royal status (656–60), Ion accepts (668). So kingship ought to be a new argument, after the prospect of coming to Athens – without any promises – has proved insufficient (cf. Kovacs (1979) 123). 578 ὄλβιον: does not qualify objects in Euripides (except for semi-personal ones such as ‘house’), but cf. Hyps. fr. 752g.27 (ἀρχή), Dict. fr. 332 (τυραννίς). 579 θάτερον: The phrase may be modelled on genuine lines (Hipp. 894 δυοῖν δὲ μοίραιν θατέραι πεπλήξεται, Andr. 383, PV 867), but it does not make sense. The Greek reads most naturally: ‘You will not be called both ignoble and poor, suffering from the one of the two illnesses.’ I.e. public opinion normally calls someone ignoble and poor, even if he is only one of these; and Ion will not have a reputation for being either. In this way the sentence repeats 578–9a twice (putting the benefits first in negative, then in positive terms), adding only an irrelevant and implausible thought about the public. The likely intended meaning ‘suffering from neither of two disabilities, you will not be called ignoble or poor’ is tautological. 581 πολυκτήμων βίου: A partitive genitive on the pattern of πλούσιος etc. is more likely than a genitive after πολυ- (cf. Soph. OT 83 πολυστεφὴς ὧδ’ εἷρπε παγκάρπου δάφνης). 582–4 Xuthus is surprised that Ion does not assent. Avoidance of eye contact manifests the will to avoid the potentially embarrassing conversation (cf. Rizzini (1998) 95–6) and can convey a sense of shame, the expression of disagreement by someone in an inferior position. 583 τ᾿ ... δὲ: The change of connector corresponds to the varying degree of cohesion: the first two elements (eyes down, worries) describe Ion’s reaction and should be linked by Dindorf’s τε (instead of transmitted δέ). The impact of that reaction on Xuthus is more loosely linked by δέ. 585–[647] Ion replies to Xuthus, describing his future life in Athens as a decline in fortunes: after his idyllic existence in the peace and harmony of Delphi he will be subjected to hostilities and disagreeable behaviour in Athens. He will be treated as an intruder into a family and a ‘pure’ people and anticipates the loss of the dignified and moral behaviour practised in Delphi. These disad-

292

Commentary

vantages sour the recognition and further detract from the positive impact of that discovery. The structure is lucid: 585–9a Introduction 589b–644 Argumentation 589–632 Disadvantages of Athens 589b–94 In public: contempt [595–606 Reactions to a possible public career from 595–7 the powerless 598–601 quietists 602–6 rivals] 607–[20] In private: the stepmother’s hatred [621–32 Tyranny 621–8 Fear for Ion’s life; tyrants’ bad company 629–32 Anxiety about money] 633–44 Advantages of Delphi 633 Introduction 634–41 Pleasant and useful activity 642–4a Possibility of being morally sound 644b–[7] Conclusion/appeal Ion’s negative reaction to Xuthus’ proposal is a surprising stumbling block for the plot: previously (153, 556–9) he did not seem averse to a change in status. The downsides that come into view once this wish is fulfilled and he notices the consequences (585–6) reveal the faultlines in and obstacles to Apollo’s plan: a mortal fails to subject himself easily to the oracle. Ion’s resistance is a slight against Xuthus but also an offence to the play’s audience. He describes the hostility to foreigners and the moral depravity in Athens. For Ion personally, the problem of non-acceptance by the people will be resolved once he is revealed to be a true Athenian; Athenian arrogance in general, however, persists, and the dominance of the mob and the obstruction of natural justice are not disputed later in the play. Some mitigation derives from the fact that the contrast is with the pure and sacred sanctuary of Delphi and from the irony that the speaker is himself a noble Athenian. The speech is the most polished piece of rhetoric in the play. The style is generally characterised by the attempt to dissuade Xuthus in all politeness from his intention. Ion is shown as gentle and thoughtful (587–8, 594, 608– 10, 646). The reason behind Athenian arrogance is so defined as to also express its more laudable origins: their nobility, which may justify the exclusivity of their citizenship. In places the tone becomes glib and sophistic: in addition to the clear structure and the strong signals of transitions (588–9,



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

293

633, 644–5), we find one prominent use of a Gorgianic figure (594~611) and a sophistic commonplace (642–4). This undermines the portrayal of the devoted servant of Apollo who is uncontaminated by urban civilisation. The conciseness and precision of the argument has been somewhat scumbled by extensive interpolations, which amount to more in length than the original text. The deletion of lines 595–606 and 621–32 (Kovacs (1979) 116–23) has not been convincingly refuted. Arguments against linguistic objections do not withstand further scrutiny (cf. n on 598, 600, 602, 602–3, 604). Moreover, the internal structure of the text does not make sense: the two passages cannot both be genuine, as the argument concerning tyranny is irreconcilable with the democratic scenario (Alt (1998); Hoffer (1996) 315–16 implausibly explains the inconsistency as Ion not speaking his mind but being interested only in staying in Delphi); nor does the argument of the second passage harmonise with Ion’s willing acceptance of the throne by Xuthus later on, and it also describes a form of monarchy not found elsewhere in the play. The passage rather smacks of the rhetorical school. The section on Ion’s fate in democratic Athenian politics is also at odds with the rest: Ion states that the quiet life at Delphi is what he most desires, but then he considers entering the minefield that is Athenian politics. He will be resented for being a nobody and intruder but still contemplates becoming a leading politician. Above all, the passage is not relevant to Ion’s situation and argument: it does not deal with the problems of illegitimacy and non-autochthony but is a general digression about the impossibility that a decent man could engage in politics. Podlecki (2004) 173–5 and others have condemned this last position as conforming to a modern (i.e. anachronistic) concept of relevance. But the argument is circular either way: a number of passages with political commonplaces in Euripides’ tragedy can be adduced to support either each other’s spuriousness or genuineness. It is thus the validity of further arguments for spuriousness that will decide the issue. In 595–606 we have a description of why a political career is generally undesirable, a topos against the bios praktikos. Lee contends (226) that it ‘is important that the unhappiness remain unfocussed [...] and not personalised as an attack on X[uthus]’. That Ion is not going to attack Xuthus is clear from the overall politeness of tone of the speech, but the other arguments are personalised: Ion stresses how he in particular, being non-Athenian (592), a stepson (607), and unprepared to give way to evil elements (636–7), finds Athens unbearable. Other defenders of the lines claim that their content is reconcilable with Ion’s character and attitudes (e.g. Zacharia (2003) 23–4) – and indeed the ‘critical attitude’ (Graft Hanson (1975) 38) and the ‘concern for good breeding’ (Lee) are expressed even outside the spurious sections. It is, however, atypical of Ion to enter into deliberation unprompted. With the deletion of the two passages the interpretion of Ion as the author’s mouth-

294

Commentary

piece becomes obsolete. Euripides does not covertly comment, for example, on the political competition in Athens (e.g. L. Carter (1986) 157–8, Kraus 58). 585–9a Ion expresses his dissent most respectfully and politely: he saves Xuthus’ face by first dressing his personal reservations in a general principle and then stressing the positive aspect of the situation, his joy at finding his father. Only then does he cautiously introduce his reservations, as personal impressions rather than as objective facts. 585 οὐ ταὐτὸν εἶδος: For a change of attitude on closer inspection cf. Pl. Rep. 602C ταὐτόν που ἡμῖν μέγεθος ἐγγύθεν τε καὶ πόρρωθεν διὰ τῆς ὄψεως οὐκ ἴσον φαίνεται; more specifically phrased Alc. 671–2, IA 489–90  ἄφρων νέος τ’ ἦ, πρὶν τὰ πράγματ’ ἐγγύθεν σκοπῶν ἐσεῖδον οἷον ἦν κτείνειν τέκνα. Lee wishes to see in this commonplace a programmatic statement matching the fundamental concerns of the play. However, in this speech and in the play in general the crucial factor of appearance is ignorance, not distance or a lack of detail. πραγμάτων: ‘things’ in general, not political affairs (pace Lee): here in particular the earlier thought of leaving slavery as opposed to the current prospect of joining Xuthus. 586 πρόσωθεν: The separative form is an attraction from ἐγγύθεν (Wackernagel (1926) I 57; cf. Soph. OC 1226–7 βῆναι κεῖθεν ὅθεν περ ἥκει). It is facilitated by the fact that the separative force of -θεν adverbs is often weak (cf. Sommerstein on Aesch. Eum. 297), if not confused with the similar suffix -θε(ν): cf. Lejeune (1939) 402–3. 588 ἀνευρών: His taking up Xuthus’ ἀνεύρεσις (569) is another sign of Ion’s politeness. 588–9 ὧν δὲ γιγνώσκω, πάτερ, ἄκουσον: ‘Listen, father, which matters I have had some thoughts about’, parallel to 633. Verbs of perception or judgment + gen. denote the matter about which something has been recognised etc. (K-G I 361), not the matter itself: cf. Pl. Ap. 27A, Xen. Oec. 16.3. Dobree assumes a palaeographic error from the abbreviation περ (πάτερ) to πέρι (L). The construction with περί has a different meaning (‘to judge about’: cf. Phoenix fr. 812.3 τἀναντί’ ἔγνων συμφορᾶς μιᾶς πέρι). Friis Johansen (1959) 137 n.119 defends πέρι as attraction from ἄκουσον περὶ τούτων ἅ, but Xuthus is to hear the considerations themselves, not about them; such an attraction of the relative with anastrophe of the preposition and preceding relative clause would, moreover, be unusual. The aorist ἄκουσον is less



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

295

direct than the present imperative, and politely colours the statement as a personal view (Rijksbaron 33–4, Ercolani (2001) 147). 589b–620 Ion’s status is a problem, both in public and in private. His predictions about Creusa’s and the Athenians’ reactions prove his foresight: the stepmother’s hatred goes so far as to induce the resolve to kill Ion, while the chorus (as representative of the Athenian populace; cf. 452–509n) disdain his presence in the city (esp. 692–3, 1069–73, 1087–9). 589b–94 Ion’s apprehensions correspond to Athenian attitudes towards foreigners as reflected in oratory and drama. Ethnicity and servile origin are of particular importance: Erechth. fr. 360.5–13, Ar. Vesp. 1076, Isoc. 8.50, Dem. 45.30, 72–3, 57.18–20 (cf. Whitehead (1977) 112–16); metics are expected to keep a low profile and not to quarrel: Suppl. 891–5, Med. 222 (with Page). Ion’s focus on the Athenians’ exceptional character as autochthonous anticipates the chorus’ stance (693, 721–4?). 589 †τὰς αὐτόχθονας: The text should mean: ‘They say that the famous Athens is autochthonous, not an immigrated people.’ In the transmitted text, however, Ion either declares to Xuthus the existence of Athens (‘there is the autochthonous, famous Athens’) or, if οὐκ ἐπείσακτον γένος alone is taken as predicative, produces a tautology (‘they say that the autochthonous Athenians are not an immigrated people’). Instead, Ion states that he has heard that they are not immigrants, and does so κατ᾿ ἄρσιν καὶ θέσιν. So αὐτόχθονας must be predicative to Ἀθήνας and lose the article: cf. Erechth. fr. 360.7–8 πρῶτα μὲν λεὼς οὐκ ἐπακτὸς ἄλλοθεν, αὐτόχθονες δ’ ἔφυμεν. γῆς may be a possible solution (cf. 1464): the same combination occurs only in the Septuagint (e.g. Ex. 12.19), but cf. Dem. 60.4 πατρίδα, ἧς αὐτόχθονες ὁμολογοῦνται εἶναι. 591 δύο νόσω: The two diseases (deficiencies) are descent from an immigrant, i.e. non-autochthonous, father (ἐπακτός in contrast to the οὐκ ἐπείσακτον γένος) and birth out of wedlock (cf. Antig. fr. 168 ὀνόματι μεμπτὸν τὸ νόθον, ἡ φύσις δ᾿ ἴση). Either would diminish his reputation and weaken his standing (hence the analogy of illness), although they do not seem to affect his rights as a citizen (ch. 4C, 670b–5n). Pace Ogden (1996) 207–8, there is no compelling example of a word play νόσος~νόθος in Euripides. Closest comes Androm. fr. 141 ἐγὼ δὲ παῖδας οὐκ ἐῶ νόθους λαβεῖν· τῶν γνησίων γὰρ οὐδὲν ὄντες ἐνδεεῖς νόμωι νοσοῦσιν.

296

Commentary

593 ἀσθενὴς: Ion will be virtually shut out from public discourse. The word denotes a lack of influence and power, which makes of people pawns in politics and everyday life: cf. Suppl. 433–5, El. 39, 267; in the political discourse: Lys. fr. 104 ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν Ἐπιγένης ἀσθενὴς τριηραρχεῖν ἠναγκάζετο, Dem. 21.221 οὐδέ γ’ εἰ μέγας ἢ μικρός, [ἢ] ἰσχυρὸς ἢ ἀσθενής, οὐδὲ τῶν τοιούτων οὐδέν, 22.26, 24.171. μὲν ὢν: The opposition is between public and private reactions in Athens to Ion’s double ὄνειδος (continued by 607 δέ). The reading is supported by the interpolator, who added ἢν δ(έ) to continue μέν. Diggle, by contrast, adopts μένων (Musgrave (1762) 34). But the verb is less flexible than the English ‘remain’ or ‘stay’: μένω + adjective expressing that something has not been affected by external influence is restricted to the words βέβαιος, ἥσυχος, and formations with α privative (mostly on -τος: 801, Cycl. 292, Ba. 391, Alcmene fr. 88a.5, Soph. Trach. 45). 594 μηδὲν κοὐδένων κεκλήσομαι: ‘How will I not be called a nobody and offspring of nobodies?’ With κοὐδένων Ion repeats the dichotomy of 591–2: on the one hand, his father is a nobody qua not being autochthonous; on the other hand, Ion is himself a nobody (τὸ μηδέν: cf. El. 369–70 εἶδον ἄνδρα γενναίου πατρὸς τὸ μηδὲν ὄντα, Herc. 634–5, Tro. 412; cf. Moorhouse (1965)) on account of his obscure birth. The formulation follows the standard format of names (e.g. Σωκράτης ὁ Σωφρονίσκου). At the δοκιμασία a candidate for public office had to state his father’s and mother’s name (i.e. presumably her father’s) and those of their fathers and the demes; cf. Arist. Ath.Pol. 55.3. The singular οὐδενός would be too offensive towards Xuthus; for the genitive plural cf. Andr. 700, IA 371; for the change οὐ-μή cf. Meleag. fr. 532, Soph. Aj. 1231. In the first iambic foot a leading question with οὐ is sharper than a statement introduced by αὐτός (Wilamowitz) or ἐγώ (Pohlenz) and supports better the rhetorical character of the passage. πῶς οὐ reaffirms the parallelism of the homoeoteleuton κεκλήσομαι – μισήσομαι (611); other additions, e.g. ἆρ᾿ οὐ, would also produce good Greek [595–606] The description of the hazards of political life remains unspecific and does not take Ion’s particular situation into account. It has little to say on the democratic system as such (ψήφοισιν being the only indication). If embarking on a political career, Ion expects hostility from three sides: those without power, those who keep a distance from politics, and those who rival Ion in prestige. Tripartition of the citizenship seems well-established: cf. Suppl. 238–45, Bell. fr. 285.3–5 (to the point of mockery: ἀριθμὸν γὰρ τοσόνδε προυθέμην), but in both instances only wealth and nobility are set up as categories. The



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

297

most positive characterisation is that of the second group, corresponding to the so-called apragmones (L. Carter (1986) 158; for their contemplative life cf. 633–44a) – it remains open why Ion should sympathise with them but still desire to engage in politics. 595 τὸ πρῶτον ... ζυγὸν: The helmsman, sitting on the poop deck, is placed higher than the rowers’ benches: cf. Phoen. 74 ἐπὶ ζυγοῖς καθέζετ᾿ ἀρχῆς, Aesch. Ag. 1617–18 (with Fraenkel), Casson (1971) 220, Kurt (1979) 123. For the leading politician as helmsman navigating the ship of state cf. e.g. Aesch. Sept. 2, Eum. 765, Pl. Rep. 488A–489A. 596 τις: ‘a somebody’, in contrast to τὸ μηδέν: cf. Phrix. fr. 820b.3 ὡς οὐδὲν ἴστε κεἰ λέγε̣ιν δοκεῖτέ τι, NT Gal. 6.3 εἰ γὰρ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὤν. ἀδυνάτων: a political catchword in the 5th and the 4th cent. (often with τῶι σώματι or εἰπεῖν): cf. Ar. Nub. 1077, Eupolis PCG 116, Hyp. 2.10 τοὺς δυναμένους εἰπεῖν τοῖς ἀδυνάτοις τῶν πολιτῶν κινδυνεύουσι βοηθεῖν, Isae. 9.35, Dem. 24.135, 190, 44.28. 598 χρηστοὶ: The application to those who do not engage in politics is against regular parlance; except a few instances in Sophocles (opposite of κακός: Ant. 520, Trach. 3), 5th-cent. texts suggest that the χρηστοί are those who participate in and contribute to public life: Ar. Pax 910–2, Eupolis PCG 129, Thuc. 6.53.2. Willingness to help is also suggested in fr. 928b ὦ Ζεῦ, τί τοῦτ’ ἐφόδιον ἀνθρώποις δίδως, τοῖς μὲν πονηροῖς πᾶσι τὴν εὐγλωσσίαν, τοῖς δ’ οὖσι χρηστοῖς ἀδυναμεῖν ἐν τῶι λέγειν; Class connotations (so Rosenbloom (2002)) can only be secondary. εἶναι σοφοί: The text is better left as transmitted: ‘Those who – being decent and able to afford to be wise – stay silent ...’ The participle δυνάμενοι requires a qualifying infinitive: they are men who know the right thing (χρηστοί) and are in a position to live their lives away from any unpleasant characters. δυνάμενοι cannot be ‘powerful’ (as in Or. 889, Lys. 12.57), as these men decline power; τε καὶ σοφοί (Holzhausen (1999) 228–9) is impossible: ὅσοι with adjectives would need a participle form of εἶναι (on the seeming parallel Ba. 701 cf. Rijksbaron 90; in Herc. 568–9 κακούς is predicative; Suppl. 575 and Tro. 32 have ellipsis of εἰσίν). Herwerden’s ὄντες, if taken as causal (‘capable since they are wise’), does not yield a satisfactory sense: the missing infinitive leaves open what it is they are capable of, and capable of being silent does not make sense, while capable of good governance seems already covered by χρηστοί and is not intelligible from δυνάμενοι alone. 599 πράγματα: Cf. 585n; the meaning ‘politics’ in tragedy only IA 366 (probably spurious).

298

Commentary

600 ἐν αὐτοῖς: The pronoun following cataphoric ὅσοι is exceptional, but cf. Eurysth. fr. 377.2–3 ὃς γὰρ ἂν χρηστὸς φύηι, οὐ τοὔνομ’ αὐτοῦ τὴν φύσιν διαφθερεῖ. λήψομαι: Both γέλως (e.g. Med. 404, 1049) and μωρία (e.g. Alc. 1093, IT 488) are regularly constructed with ὀφλισκάνω by Euripides and other authors (hence Nauck’s ὀφλήσομεν). 601 φόβου πλέαι: The apragmones have philosophical inclinations and avoid anxiety (cf. φρουρήσομαι) disturbing their minds. The suggestion ψόφου does not add much in meaning (cf. 630), so an emendation is unnecessary. ψόγου πλέαι (Musgrave) describes a propensity ascribed to Athens and other cities (El. 904 φιλόψογος πόλις, Theogn. IEG2 287), but criticism can attach to quietists as much as politicians. 602 λογίων: The meaning ‘eloquent’ is attested only late (Phryn.Att. Ecl. s.v. λόγιος; cf. Kovacs (1979) 118), and no good emendation is forthcoming. The solecism and metrical flaw (the anapaestic second foot is impermissible outside comedy; on synizeses cf. 285n) are probably the interpolator’s. χρωμένων τε τῆι πόλει: Kovacs (1979) 118 interprets the phrase as prosaic. An even stronger argument for deletion, perhaps, is that, of the several attested meanings, none suits the context: the desired meaning ‘politicians’ is not comprehensible from the formulation and not attested elsewhere. Meanings deduced from parallels do not fit: ‘have/inhabit a city’ (Thuc. 2.15.2, Pl. Leg. 835D), ‘treat a city in a certain way’ (with adverb: Xen. Hell. 2.3.13, Dem. 17.29, Aeschin. 2.28). 603 ἐς ἀξίωμα βὰς πλέον: ‘When I surpass the reputation...’: a successful career provokes the envy and the intrigues of defeated competitors. Construing πλέον as adjective (with a genitive of comparison τῶνδε) is superior to an adverb with φρουρήσομαι (‘I will guard myself even more’), though neither is unproblematic: in classical Greek ἀξίωμα takes forms of μέγας (e.g. Thuc. 1.130.1, 4.18.1), and the distance between the genitive and the comparative is clumsy; but πλέον as adverb with φρουρέω (instead of μᾶλλον) gives the rest the sense of ‘going against the reputation of ...’, which leaves open what serves as comparison. Verrall’s original explanation of πλέον as ‘full’ founders on the unattested sense of ἀξίωμα (as a political class). 603–4 φρουρήσομαι ψήφοισιν: ‘I will protect myself by votes’, i.e. in elections, assembly votes, and political trials; the middle indicates his personal interest. The military metaphor is sustained in 606 by πολεμιώτατοι. The use of ‘pebbles’ instead of a stone wall may be an attempt at a pun: cf. IA 738 ὀχυροῖσι παρθενῶσι φρουροῦνται καλῶς, Liban. Progym. 13.2.1 πᾶν ... φρουρεῖται τοῖς τείχεσι. LSJ s.v. and many commentators translate φρουρήσομαι as passive: ‘I will be checked’ (cf. Pl. Rep. 579B



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

299

φρουρούμενος ὑπὸ πάντων πολεμίων); but that form appears first in Plut. Caes. 27.10 and then again centuries later. ‘Pebble’ is often a dead metaphor for ‘a decision’ (cf. 1223n). But as an allusion to the ostracism (Owen), the reference to a form of ‘ballot’ different from the eponymous sherds would be confusing. 604 φιλεῖ: φιλέω ‘use to’ in main clauses never dispenses with the infinitive (normally γίγνεσθαι) in classical Greek (Kovacs (1979) 119); for a subordinate clause cf. Pl. Rep. 467B οἷα δὴ ἐν πολέμωι φιλεῖ. 607–11 Ion faces hatred also within the family, as Creusa becomes resentful when she will have to bear her personal misfortune alone. Her grievances derive from the direct personal effect of Ion’s arrival on her own life; Ion’s low and foreign birth are barely touched on (nor is the exceptional status of Creusa’s family as earthborn). Violence is a possibility implied in the idea of hatred; thus the potential for conflict is clear – the interpolator has elaborated on that hint. Continuing from the 1st epeisodion, Ion shows his compassion and empathy for Creusa and his respect for her nobility, appealing to Xuthus’ sense of obligation towards both himself and Creusa. He makes the same points that she and the chorus will make: Xuthus shared Creusa’s entire fate, her pains of unwanted childlessness as well as her hopes (609 συμφοράς, cf. 697–8 ἐλπίδων μέτοχος). He is now about to break with his previous solidarity with her, which she will perceive as betrayal equally hurtful as the consequence of lasting childlessness (772, 818, 864). 607 ἀλλότριον ἔπηλυς: ‘belonging to another’ (LSJ s.v. ἀλλότριος A I) vs ‘from abroad’ (cf. 419, IT 1021), combining the problems of the discontinuation of Creusa’s line and of Ion’s foreign origin. ἔπηλυς can stand in direct opposition to autochthonous people (Hdt. 1.78.3, 4.197.2, also underlying Herc. 257). 608–9 κοινουμένη τὰς συμφοράς: κοινόομαι in the meaning ‘to make common cause on equal terms’ takes the accusative (Parker on Alc. 426); hence Diggle’s change to genitive singular is unnecessary. Xuthus has shared all the experiences with Creusa, so the plural is appropriate. 609 ἀπολαχοῦσα: otherwise in tragedy only Herc. 331 (‘obtain one’s due portion’), but here the separative force of ἀπο- is stronger: ‘to be ballotted out’ (cf. Todd on Lys. 4.3), ‘having a separate lot’ (Owen): cf. S-D II 445–6 and e.g. ἀποκάθημαι in Hdt. 4.66. 611 μισήσομαι: Ion’s prediction about Creusa’s hostility will come true even sooner than expected (1270). On stepmothers also 1025, 1270, 1329–

300

Commentary

30. For homoeoteleuta similar to 594/611 cf. Med. 408–9, Andr. 740–3 (if the last line is accepted). [612–20] 612–17 form a tail to Ion’s first argument (cf. Martin (2010b) 36–9), doubling the ideas and several expressions of 607–10 but translating them into a concrete situation: Ion describes Creusa’s reaction when he physically enters her house (instead of her ‘house’/family). The order of the thought is peculiar, as 614–15 with κἆιτ’ (cf. Denniston 308–9, 9.ii) should be on the same syntactical and temporal level as 611. Ion is uncharacteristically impolite to Xuthus, blaming him for the potential break-up of the family (προδούς, συγχέας ἔχηις). 618–20 only make the pity expressed in 608–9 explicit. In addition, the idea that old age or Creusa’s noble birth may aggravate the problem is not revisited by Xuthus and irrelevant. 612 σοὶ μὲν ἐγγύθεν ποδός: Euripides employs the periphrasis ‘your foot’ for ‘you’ (Cycl. 6 ἐνδέξιος σῶι ποδὶ παρασπιστὴς βεβώς, Hipp. 661, Or. 1217, IA 627), but a pleonasm as here (instead of ποδί σου) is unattested. The use of ἐγγύθεν as a preposition is not classical (Aesch. Sept. 973 is corrupt; in archaic poetry Hom. Il. 11.723, [Simon.] AP 589, Solon IEG2 28, Theogn. IEG2 943, of which only the first is certainly authentic), and if taken as adverb with παραστῶ it leaves ποδός without connection. 613 τὰ σὰ φίλ’: Xuthus calls himself τὰ φίλτατα (525), but that lacks restraint and modesty; in the mouth of Ion in a context dealing with Creusa the phrase seems even more self-absorbed. 615 τἀμὰ: more than ἐμέ: ‘me and my rights and claims as your son’: cf. Mastronarde on Phoen. 774–7; similarly Andr. 235, Hel. 1194, Or. 296, Aesch. Myrm. fr. 138. συνγχέας ἔχηις: periphrastic construction equivalent to the active ‘you have confounded’ (Aerts (1965) 144: the perfect κέχυκα is very rare). Cf. Hipp. 812–13 εἰργάσω τοσοῦτον ὥστε τούσδε συγχέαι δόμους, Med. 794. 616–17: The formulation is partly modelled on 1250. The gnomê is odd in the proximity of Ion’s expression of pity for his stepmother: the interpolation may be independent from its surrounding. It conforms to Euripides’ image as misogynist (e.g. Med. 407–9, Andr. 952–3, Oed. fr. 544; cf. [843], Ar. Thesm. 85, C. Friedrich (1955) 115–16). 616 : This addition (B. Heath (1762) 138 and Tyrwhitt in Musgrave (1762) 167) is necessary not only for the metre but also for the syntax and sense; it is hence not advisable to think of θανᾱσίμων as ‘Interpolatorenprosodie’ (Jachmann (1936) 134–5 n.1).



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

301

618 ἄλλως τε: ‘besides’: cf. Suppl. 417, IA 491–2 ἄλλως τέ μ’ ἔλεος τῆς ταλαιπώρου κόρης ἐσῆλθε, Soph. OT 1114. In 608–9 Ion’s empathy is conveyed more subtly. 620 ἀπαιδίαι νοσεῖν: Ion cannot change the fact that Creusa will age childless. The only thing he could express is that he does not wish to witness that, but that can hardly be understood from the formulation. [621–32] A commonplace on tyranny, quoted in part by Stobaeus but to be rejected (Kovacs (1979) 121–3, Alt (1998)), as, probably, are sections on tyranny in other plays (cf. Kovacs (1982)). Ion claims that tyranny is not preferable to a civic existence, as it makes the ruler unhappy: the three arguments are 1) that tyrants live in constant fear of assassination (623–5a); 2) that, since decent people will try to kill him, he takes only rogues as friends (625b–8); 3) that wealth is no compensation but another source of anxiety (629–32). The internal structure is, however, muddled by the recurrence of fear, especially in the second point. The despotic rule presented here stands in contrast to the strongly constitutional monarchy in 670–5. The passage recalls clichés against tyranny found occasionally in tragedy (e.g. Hipp. 1016–20, Suppl. 444–6, PV 224–5; cf. Hdt. 3.80.2–5) but especially in 4th-cent. philosophy (Pl. Rep. 8.567A–8A, Xen. Hiero 4, Isoc. 4.26; cf. Wehrli (1968) 219–20) and the later declamatory tradition (Philostr. VS 481, Liban. Decl. 35.35; on Latin declamations Tabacco (1985) 33–41, 116–19). The topos that the fate of a commoner is preferable to power seems already conventional in Xen. Oec. 21.12 and Isoc. 8.115 and may be behind 485–7; on fear and dangers cf. Suppl. 444–6, Herc. 65–6, 207–9, Pel. fr. 605 (considered spurious by Kovacs), fr. 850, Soph. OT 584–602, and in general Lanza (1977) 45–9; on a tyrant’s friends Erechth. fr 362.18–20, Arist. Pol. 5.11.12 1314a1–2 πονηρόφιλον ἡ τυραννίς· κολακευόμενοι γὰρ χαίρουσιν. Other tragedies only know the tyrant’s greed (Suppl. 450–1, Herc. 259–60, Lanza p. 53–5). 621 τυραννίδος: In tragedy τύραννος does not denote outright despotism: cf. V. Parker (1998) 158–61, 1572n. 624 περιβλέπων βίαν: Stobaeus’ περιβλέπων (‘to look round for’, ‘to watch out for’: Soph. OC 996 οὐδὲ τοὔνδικον περιβλέποις for a justification) in combination with Stephanus’ change from βίον to βίαν picks up and explains δεδοικώς: cf. Phoen. 265–6 ὧν οὕνεκ’ ὄμμα πανταχῆι διοιστέον κἀκεῖσε καὶ τὸ δεῦρο, μὴ δόλος τις ἦι, Xen. Resp.Lac. 3.4 σιγῆι δὲ πορεύεσθαι, περιβλέπειν δὲ μηδαμοῖ. By contrast, παραβλέπων (L) with accusative means ‘having in the corner of one’s eye’, ‘seeing while looking elsewhere’: e.g. Ar. Ran. 409–10.

302

Commentary

625 αἰῶνα τείνει: ‘live a long life’, but negatively ‘his life drags on’: cf. Med. 670, Degani (1961) 55. δημότης: ‘commoner’: cf. IA 340, Soph. Aj. 1071, Ant. 690, Brock (2010) 97. 629 εἴποις ἂν: a typical phrase of rhetorical anteoccupatio: cf. Suppl. 184, Hel. [752], Soph. OC 431, Dem. 1.14, 4.25; similar formulae e.g. Hipp. 962, Tro. 916, Or. 665; cf. M. Lloyd (1992) 30–1. ἐκνικᾶι: transitive use only late (first Ael. VH 10.1); intransitive in Thuc. 1.3.2 and 1.21.1. 630 ψόφους: The one who has wealth – especially if it is compensation for a dangerous life – clings to it and is nervous about any treacherous noise: cf. Phoen. 269 τίς οὗτος; ἢ κτύπον φοβούμεθα (cf. also 624n). Brodaeus’ ψόγους suggests moral advisers criticising the tyrant’s wealth, but ἐν χερσὶ σώιζων supposes a real threat. κλυεῖν: Cf. 528n. 632: Lee wants to see an echo of the chorus’ hope in 490–1, but he reads too much into what is just a commonplace. For the idea that wealth brings new sorrows cf. Phoen. 552–3, Soph. Ter. (?) fr. 592, Theogn. IEG2 1153–4. εἴη γ’ ἐμοὶ μέτρια: μέν has been omitted in a saut du même au même. The correlation μέν ... δέ connects unequal elements but is acceptable as an interpolator’s choice. Alternatives (e.g. Lenting’s εἴη δ’ ἔμοιγε) do not comparatively improve the text, unless we assume ‘Interpolatorenprosodie’ μετρῑα (cf. [616]n). 633–44a The change of perspective (585–6) also affects Ion’s perception of Delphi: while he had previously described his tasks there as καλὸς πόνος (128), he now calls them σχολή, almost a contemplative life (cf. Di Benedetto (1971) 303–6, L. Carter (1986) 157–60). He continues idealising the sanctuary even though his esteem for Apollo has been tarnished: the place and the people there form an ideal union; the sanctuary allows an existence that reconciles occupation and self-fulfilment (638–41), will and necessity (643–4). Ion avoids naming Athens as the foil to Delphi, but she must be understood at least as one example. 633 ἄκουσόν: The transition to the second half of the speech recalls 588 through the address to Xuthus and the relative clause depending on ἄκουσον. 634 ἀνθρώποις: ἀνθρώπων (L) is untenable. The mistake is the same as in 1510.



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

303

634–5 σχολὴν ὄχλον: σχολή and ὄχλος form an antonymic pair describing different kinds of activity: σχολή denotes what one willingly fills his time with, while ὄχλος consists of the necessary jobs imposed from outside. Hence σχολή is here not ‘spare’ time: instead, duty and self-chosen activity coincide (cf. 641n). This is the word’s first attestation for positively connotated pursuits (as opposed to idle activity; cf. L. Carter (1960) 160). 635 μ’ ἐξέπληξ’ ὁδοῦ: ‘has pushed me from the way’. Inferior people are supposed to give way as a show of honour; hence Laius and Oedipus both feel treated disrespectfully as the other does not yield: cf. Soph. OT 804–5, esp. κἀξ ὁδοῦ μ’ ὅ θ’ ἡγεμὼν αὐτός θ’ ὁ πρέσβυς πρὸς βίαν ἠλαυνέτην, Phoen. 40, Hdt 2.40, Dem. 23.53, Pl. Rep. 563D with Gregory (1995) 144– 5. These examples should suffice to reject the condemnation of the lines (and all of 629–47) by L. Dindorf (1878) 324. For the separative genitive after ἐξ- cf. e.g. IT 773 μὴ λόγων ἔκπλησσέ με. 637 εἴκειν ... χαλῶντα: ‘give way, and so give in’: χαλάω means ‘give way’ (LSJ II 2) only in a metaphorical sense. 638–9: ‘I have been there serving cheerful, not sad people in praying to the gods and talking to men.’ For a discussion cf. Diggle (1981a) 102–3. ὑπηρετῶν ἦ should, however, not be taken as a mere periphrasis of ὑπηρέτουν (i.e. ‘I have been serving ...’) but ἦ is independent (pace Diggle p. 103; cf. Aerts (1965) 9–10, Soph. Phil. 643 οὐκ ἔστι ληισταῖς πνεῦμ’ ἐναντιούμενον); the datives are those of advantage, both after εἰμί and ὑπηρετέω. The main emphasis then lies on the pilgrims’ happiness (strengthened κατ᾿ ἄρσιν καὶ θέσιν in 641), not on his participation in prayers and conversations. The latter rather illustrates the positive character of people’s occupation. Mss frequently confuse λόγος (λόγοισιν ἦ was restored by Musgrave (1762) 35) and γόος, which in this instance is explicable from γοωμένοις: e.g. Or. 1022, Phoen. 1309. 640 τοὺς μὲν ... οἱ δ’: Ion describes the constant stream of visitors (irrespective of the limited period of the oracle’s operation: cf. 421n). 641 καινὸς ἐν καινοῖσιν: The polyptoton highlights the unity of work and pleasure for Ion: he enjoys the new contacts and is pleasant to them as a helper, fulfilling his purpose as slave. So it is not here a mannerism (as e.g. in Suppl. 593 στρατηλατήσω καινὸς ἐν καινῶι δορί, Soph. Trach. 613; cf. Denniston on El. 337, Gygli-Wyss (1966) 126–30, Breitenbach 222–4). 642–4a Only in Delphi does Ion’s lifestyle match that of his environment: his natural inclination and the norms of the place are compatible, and he can satisfy both demands at the same time (ἅμα). By implication, in other plac-

304

Commentary

es behaviour prescribed by convention (νόμος) is opposed to one’s natural impulses (φύσις; cf. Hajistephanou (1975) 103–4). Ion’s argumentation is a reaffirmation of his own and Delphi’s purity. This particular interpretation of the νόμος-φύσις dichotomy linked with the idea of justice had newly emerged when the play was staged, in Antiphon’s treatise On Truth (possibly composed around the same time as Ion: cf. Hoffmann (1997) 267–72): F 44(a) II.26–30 τὰ πολλὰ τῶν κατὰ νόμον δικαίων πολεμίως τῆι φύσ̣[ει] κ̣εῖται (cf. Pl. Gorg. 482E); φύσις and νόμος are opposed and it is impossible to do τὰ κατὰ νόμον δίκαια without violating the demands of nature (i.e. the maximisation of personal profit; cf. Auge fr. 265a ἡ φύσις ἐβούλεθ᾿, ἧι νόμων οὐδὲν μέλει). Applied to Ion, that means that in Athens people, if they have a choice, are corrupt and selfish rather than altruistic (cf. Antiph. 87 Β 44a V.1–15). It seems ironic and out of character that Ion uses a sophistic idea, but he is presented as a skilled speaker and the special twist he gives to the idea (namely that Delphi is different from the world described by Antiphon) fully matches his character and his concern for purity. It would be wrong to think (with Heinimann (1945) 168, Yunis (1988) 126–7, Hoffmann p. 269 n.273) that the νόμος-φύσις pair reflects the Hippocratic tradition in which the two (denoting conventions and natural conditions in a place or nation) are not opposed but complement each other (Ba. 895–6, Hipp. Aer. 14, 16, Hdt. 2.35.2). Both of these factors would make Ion just, in this interpretation. But this does not explain why he should not continue enjoying this effect of his upbringing in Delphi after he has moved to Athens. The older dichotomy would not also require the stressed ἅμα at the end of 643, which shows that Delphi is exceptional in reconciling νόμος and φύσις. On the pair in drama cf. Del Grande (1962), Berns (1973), Lee (1975), Schmude (1995). 642 κἂν ἄκουσιν ἦι: ‘even though it is not their will’: cf. K-G I 425. A consequence of the conflict between norm and nature in sophistic thought is the idea that people are just, i.e. obey the laws, involuntarily (Pl. Rep. 360C οὐδεὶς ἑκὼν δίκαιος ἀλλ’ ἀναγκαζόμενος). Ion alludes to this involuntary justice in man’s actions. Bornmann (1990) 97 compares the unwanted insight in Aesch. Ag. 180–1 καὶ παρ’ ἅκοντας ἦλθε σωφρονεῖν, but ἄκων also has the weaker legal meaning ‘without intention’: cf. Hipp. 1433 with Barrett. ‘[E]ven if they won’t admit it’ (J. Dillon (1984) 134, supposedly a dig against Antiphon) is not supported by the text; even less plausible is it to make δίκαιον εἶναι depend on ἄκουσιν (Assael (2001) 193, following Romilly (1971) 97 translating the rest ‘La loi et la nature m’ont, toutes les deux, consacré au dieu.’), if nothing else because it violates Wackernagel’s Law.



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

305

644b–[7] Ion’s peroration concludes with remarks concerning the preferability of Delphi and appeals to Xuthus to let him stay. 646 is a strong, pointed finish with an unexpected turn at the end after the syntactical break in the position of the median caesura (commonly with an extra effect: cf. 742, Stephan (1981) 77– 133 against Goodell (1906)). Ion manages to decline Xuthus’ order without offending him: he interprets it as an intended favour and asks for a different one – being allowed to stay – instead. 647 must go (cf. Martin (2010b) 32–4); otherwise the statement contradicts Ion’s essential argument that there is nothing pleasant about the life Xuthus proposes. Without 621–32 it is unclear what μεγάλοισι χαίρειν refers to; if the lines were genuine, the contradiction between the disadvantages and the pleasures of ruling would be even more blatant. 645 κρείσσω: After the sophistic trope of νόμος and φύσις, Ion’s belief in the strength of his arguments evokes Protagoras’ κρείσσων λόγος (80 B 6b; cf. Suppl. 486–7, Hel. 139, and on the meaning Schiappa (1991) 103–13). 646: Without the interpolation, the meaning of χάρις is ‘favour’; with 647 it changes to ‘blessing’. 647 σμικρά θ’ ἡδέως ἔχειν: ‘to take pleasure in having small things’. 648–9 The chorus continue from their statement of solidarity in 566–8, again advocating a solution that includes Creusa. Their relief about Ion’s position is combined with an acknowledgment of his considerateness. With εὐτυχήσουσιν they respond specifically to 608–10, as will Xuthus (657–8). Their expression of allegiance will be ignored by Xuthus, as is standard with such choral tags, but in this case it will be a mistake, as their loyalty will foil his plans concerning Ion. 648 εἴπερ: ‘insofar as’ (cf. 354n), here with a strong causal note. 649 ἐν τοῖσι σοῖσιν ... λόγοις: ‘through/in accordance with your words’ (cf. Soph. OC 800–1 πότερα νομίζεις δυστυχεῖν ἔμ’ ἐς τὰ σά, ἢ σ’ ἐς τὰ σαυτοῦ μᾶλλον ἐν τῶι νῦν λόγωι;), here more specifically: ‘under the conditions outlined in your speech’. λόγοις is reported in L as alternative transmission (of unknown age and authority) to φίλοις, which may have been influenced by φιλῶ. φίλοις is inferior: Lee takes it as masculine (‘along with those who are dear to you’, better: ‘among your friends’), but the speech expresses that there will be no friendship, as Ion and Creusa will be in different places. The neuter is accepted and interpreted variously: Biehl suggests the sanctuary; Kovacs translates: ‘Since the joy you choose means that ...’ (cf. Mirto: ‘se

306

Commentary

quel che è gradito a te significa la felicità ...’) is close in meaning to λόγοις. Both interpretations are hard to extract from the text itself. 650–67 Xuthus curtly refuses a discussion of the arguments and thus avoids a full agon. His ideas about what constitutes happiness are incompatible with Ion’s and signal that he does not understand Ion’s motivation: Delphi’s exceptionalism is dismissed in favour of material and social prosperity, but also familial union. With the last point the difference between Ion’s longing for his mother and his lack of enthusiasm towards Xuthus becomes apparent. Instead of arguments Xuthus gives more information about his plan, some of which responds to Ion’s concerns: he will make his son his successor (660) and promises a consensual solution with Creusa after a period during which Ion’s true identity is to be concealed (654–60). Again (as in 575) he does not explain how he means to accomplish his aims and counts on the time factor. What he offers is a convenient deferral (a ‘platte Scheinlösung’: Imhof (1966) 32), which is hardly practicable to enact without discovery and impossible to stage within the frame of a tragedy. The plot, which up to this point has followed the lines of Hermes’ prediction, has reached a dead end; Trophonius’ oracle seems forgotten and impossible to fulfil. 650–3 Xuthus is impatient at his son’s resistance to his plan, himself eager formally to initiate their relationship by a ritual act. He wishes to make good for the birth rituals that he never performed, not knowing of Ion’s existence. However, as their relationship is not yet to become official he replaces part of the family ceremonies with less formal acts of commensality. 650 παῦσαι λόγων τῶνδ’: a harsh formulation: cf. El. 1123a. 651 γὰρ: The particle is explicative with two possible points of reference, παῦσαι and εὐτυχεῖν: Ion’s resistance stands in the way of the execution of Xuthus’ plans and must therefore be brought to a stop; the feast is already part of the εὐτυχία which Ion is to enjoy. 652 κοινῆς τραπέζης: Commensality is a manifestation of guest-friendship, not just of family membership: cf. Or. 8–9 θεοῖς ἄνθρωπος ὤν (sc. Tantalus), κοινῆς τραπέζης ἀξίωμ’ ἔχων ἴσον, Hec. [793], Rh. 337. Ion becomes a visitor (656 θεατής) and private host (ξένος ἐφέστιος). Cf. the position of artists at the royal court, e.g. Pind. O. 1.16–17 παίζομεν φίλαν ἄνδρες ἀμφὶ θαμὰ τράπεζαν. πεσών: The use of this verb (in particular with the preposition πρός) is odd and does not seem to find a close parallel. Kovacs translates ‘recline’, Lee



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

307

‘taking my place at’. Perhaps we may compare πίπτω ἐς ‘get into (a certain state/situation)’ (Pal. fr. 578 ἔριν, El. 982 ἀνανδρίαν), hence ‘having got the opportunity of a shared meal’. 653 θῦσαί ... γενέθλι’: The sacrifice is distinguished from the meal: the Xe­ nia (805) are shared by Ion to mark his and Xuthus’ guest relationship; the Genethlia are performed by Xuthus alone. γενέθλια may here be a collective term for several birth-related sacrifices which Xuthus performs at once, as Ion was ‘born’ (i.e. found), accepted, and named on the same day. The term is never securely attested for a celebration of the day of birth (so Hamilton (1984) 247–8) but the use is inferred by Wilhelm Schmidt (1908) 7 from Aesch. Eum. 7, Hdt. 1.133.1; in Pl. Leg. 784D it could be a collective term, as here. The more common meaning is for the annual birthday (Pl. Symp. 203C, Xen. Cyr. 1.3.10, Pl. Alc. I 121C). The acceptance by the father and the naming were normally ritualised and celebrated at the Amphidromia and the Dekate. There may have been flexibility in the celebration, and depending on the gender of the child and the socio-economic situation of the family the two may have been celebrated together: cf. Golden (1986) 252–6, Ogden (1996) 88–98, E. Cohen (2000) 38–9. Significantly, all of these celebrations were performed before witnesses, as rituals served as declarations before the public (cf. Scafuro (1994) 158–65) – while here Xuthus expressly wants to keep Ion’s acceptance secret. 654–60 Xuthus outlines the process by which he intends to install Ion, presenting it as a result of his concern for Creusa. 654 δὴ: The particle draws Ion’s attention to the statement. It is Xuthus’ concession to Ion’s apprehensions about the Athenians’ acceptance of his arrival (593–4). 656 ὡς οὐκ: ‘as if you were not my son’: cf. IA 1427, Cret. fr. 472e.33 ὡς οὐ μεθέξων πᾶσι κηρύσσεις τάδε. Xuthus stresses the counter-factual, deceptive element in his plan; he thus acknowledges once again the relationship and reassures Ion that the reality is different. δῆθεν conveys the same idea of unreality (Denniston 265). So Xuthus repeats the point of 654 ὡς δή. οὐχ ὡς (Badham) is feeble in comparison. 658 ἄτεκνον: a key term for the description of Creusa’s plight, used by Ion (608), taken up by the chorus (680 ἄπαις, also 699 εὐτυχῶν) and even by Creusa herself (790), which lends this issue some priority over questions of nobility and ethnic purity. 659 προσάξομαι: ‘urge, induce’ (cf. Soph. OT 131).

308

Commentary

660 ἐᾶν ... σκῆπτρα τἄμ’: Xuthus underestimates the importance of the dynastic line: he has not, by marrying Creusa, taken over all the rights of kingship (cf. also [840]n). 661–3a By the act of naming Xuthus exercises his paternal privilege (on the Dekate cf. 653n). Xuthus here does it in a simple way: he chooses the name after the event that triggered the recognition, and he states both the name and the form from which he derives it (ἰών; contrast 9, 802). So on Xuthus’ level, there is no play on words; any implicit mockery of etymology (802n) is missing. The irony is rather in the reversal of cause and effect in Euripides’ refashioning of the myth: out of the name Ἴων he creates a story that (through the oracle) allegedly explains the reason for the name by a false etymology (of the original Ἰάϝων). Euripides is fond of etymologies: cf. Kannicht on Hel. 13–15, Looy (1973); a full list in Schmid/Stählin I.3 803 n.10, pre-Euripidean examples in Kranz (1933) 287–9.. 661 πρέπον: ὄνομα, added in L, must be understood. 663 ἴχνος συνῆψας: Cf. 538. 663b–5 Xuthus changes the topic halfway through line 663, as if in haste. He gives a twist to the idea of the Xenia, turning them into a farewell party for Ion. In this way Xuthus manages to disguise that they are meant to celebrate the close relations between himself and Ion: the initiative and the invitation will come from Ion and therefore draw less attention to the plan of Xuthus behind it. The comments here are spoken as if Xuthus were to part from Ion, although according to the messenger speech they leave together and Xuthus gives further directions (1122–32). The doublet is a narrative trick in order to delay mention of Xuthus’ absence from the celebration and the erecting of the tent. 663–4 τῶν φίλων πλήρωμ’: Xuthus seems oblivious to the fact that Ion has been a slave and unlikely to have friends of suitable standing – but Ion’s speech has shown that everyone in the sanctuary is dear to him, so he invites all the locals (1167). The periphrasis adds fullness of expression and suggests that the friends are to be numerous (instead of φίλους ἀθροίσας). 664 βουθύτωι σὺν ἡδονῆι: ‘with pleasure from the slaughter of cattle’, i.e. ἡδονὴ ἐκ τοῦ βοῦς θύειν. The adjectival formation is particularly common with verbs of slaying: e.g. Tro. 363 μητροκτόνους τ’ ἀγῶνας, Or. 1649, Aesch. Eum. 281 μητροκτόνον μίασμα.



510–675 2nd Epeisodion

309

666–7 Xuthus’ exit has sharpness and rhetorical wit, with the inconcinne construction making the second line a drastic, even sarcastic, aprosdoketon. He bids the chorus remain silent. In Greek tragedy this Schweigegebot solves the problem that the constant presence of the chorus makes secrets between characters impossible: where the ploy is such that support is not guaranteed (Med. 259–63, Hipp. 710–14), the chorus are asked to pledge silence before the plot is revealed. But the chorus are here not on the side of the bearer of the secret; they are given a loophole, so that they can break with the convention: instead of asking for an oath, Xuthus just tries to suppress the chorus’ sympathies with threats (a procedure probably paralleled in Alcmeon fr. 86 col. II 3–5). They retain the choice to weigh their lives against their loyalty. In the end, Athena’s Schweigegebot (1601–3) leaves Xuthus ignorant of their transgression: cf. Gauger (1977) 12–14, Barrett on Hipp. 710–12, W.G. Arnott (1984) 154, Hose (1990) 305–6. Nothing in the text indicates that Xuthus is leaving the scene not to return. He intends to join Ion at the feast (1130–2), but it will be interrupted before he can do so. Thus he disappears; Ion wishes to call him back in 1468–9, but that wish suffices to cause Creusa embarrassment. 666 λέγω: the verb in two different constructions and meanings, as command and statement: cf. Hel. 737–9 ἄγγειλον ... τάδ ὡς ἔχονθ᾿ ηὕρηκας οὗ τ᾿ ἐσμὲν τύχης μένειν τ᾿ ἐπ᾿ ἀκταῖς. For the construction in the legal sense cf. Aesch. Cho. 1032 οὐκ ἐρῶ τὴν ζημίαν, Ar. Lys. 1195–1200, Dem. 20.156, 39.12. 668–75 Although politely consenting to follow, Ion does not agree to his father’s line of thought. He repeats two major concerns: his longing for the mother and his discontent with Xuthus’ offer of kingship. He remains apprehensive concerning his status. His wish to be an Athenian in more than name alone reaffirms the importance of the Athenian bloodline; and his dissatisfaction otherwise (together with the audience’s knowledge that it does not in fact apply) builds up the tension to seek a resolution in the rest of the play. 668 στείχοιμ’ ἄν: Ion acquiesces with a polite optative of consent (R. Lattimore (1979) 209–12; perhaps better ‘potential of compliance’): cf. El. 669, Ba. 845. For the formulaic use cf. 418, 981 with n (but against the formulaic use, στείχω here does not just signal the imminent exit from the stage but the departure to Athens). 670 ἀβίωτον: ‘in which there is no life’, i.e. that makes life unliveable or not worth living: cf. Hipp. 821. For the causative meaning of the verbal adjectives in -τος cf. 783n. The pain is the same, for Ion without a mother and for

310

Commentary

Creusa without a child (764 ἀβίοτον); the adjective is otherwise rare: Alc. 242, Herc. 1257, ἀβίοτος Hipp. 821, fr. 953m.41. 670b–5 Ion is uneasy about going to Athens, not just because of hostility from others but also because his inner disposition prevents him from becoming integrated into the citizen community: if he is not a native Athenian, he feels inadequate and inhibited from speaking freely (παρρησία). These reservations do not depend on his official status but on his self-consciousness about being of alien blood: formal citizenship alone does not make him feel equal to the autochthonous Athenians and capable of facing them. So in addition (ἐπ-εύξασθαι) to finding his mother, Ion wishes that she give him Athenian lineage. παρρησία is a term of which Euripides is fond, but which is otherwise rare in the 5th cent.: it denotes the courage to speak up freely, not a legal right to speak: cf. e.g. D. Carter (2004) 214–15, Saxonhouse (2006) 86–9. Ion explicitly states that official citizen status (ἀστός) alone does not guarantee παρρησία. The problem is a psychological one affecting the ‘mouth’, an apprehension about raising one’s voice in an assembly situation. The Athenian mother would give Ion the confidence to debate as a true Athenian (cf. D. Carter p. 215). As a result of a misunderstanding of the concept of παρρησία, the passage has often been misinterpreted (e.g. Synodinou (1977) 79, Citti (1988) 461, Scarpat (2001) 35–6, Hülsewiesche (2004) 110–12). Some interpreters see an allusion to the Periclean citizenship law, which required both parents to be of full Athenian descent (e.g. Lee, Scarpat p. 37–9; on the citizenship law cf. Arist. Ath.Pol. 26.4). That position can be refuted on several levels: firstly, Ion does not call himself a slave (he is one no longer, since Xuthus has freed him; cf. κἂν ... ἀστὸς ἦι); only his mouth remains enslaved. That means Ion is not describing his status but a specific (in-)capacity of his mouth. Secondly, the Periclean law required citizens to be the issue of a formal marriage (Harrison I 62, Lacey (1968) 282 n.15, Patterson (1998) 109–10), but that would be possible only if Ion were Xuthus’ and Creusa’s son, which is not a question at this point; and he cannot hope that his parents marry in order to legitimate him ex post (cf. 1468–88n), since Xuthus is already married to Creusa. Thirdly, if someone’s mother is not Athenian, the clause κἂν τοῖς λόγοισιν ἀστὸς ἦι does not make sense in the context of the law, because he is by no definition an ἀστός. The exception are people who are enfranchised, but in that case the reference does not have to be specifically to the Periclean law. The Athenian monarchy in the play is of a rather constitutional type, as in other plays (esp. Suppl.; Easterling (1985) 2–3, Mills (1997) 97–104, D.



676–724 2nd Stasimon

311

Carter (2007) 84–9), and the concept of παρρησία points to a deliberative body. Ion’s hope reflects his particular destination: Athenian autochthony, i.e. ethnic purity (καθαρὰν πόλιν), makes it impossible to blend and become ethnically homogeneous with the host people. The topos thus serves to flatter the Athenian audience for their uniqueness. 671 ἐκ τῶν Ἀθηνῶν: In 551 the mother seemed to be a Δελφὶς κόρη, but the reference was to the participants of the Trieteris. Ion’s uncertainty rests on the fact that not just Athenian women but also Delphians and possibly others (R. Parker (2005) 82–3) performed the rites. The formulation using ἐκ emphasises the autochthonous element of that origin. 672 μητρόθεν: The problem is restated from 593–4. It is cautiously formulated so as not to offend Xuthus, who, as a ξένος, does not inspire in Ion the necessary confidence. 673 καθαρὰν: freedom from miscegenation (Thuc. 5.8.2; cf. Arist. Ath.Pol. 13.5); cf. Walsh (1978) 302 (though the connection he draws with 1333–4 is forced). ξένος: The word is used in the sense in which Xuthus is a ξένος: a citizen, but not a born autochthonous Athenian (cf. 293n). Compare ἀστός (674), which is a marker of civic status, also in legal contexts such as the Periclean law (Ath.Pol. 26.4; cf. Brock (2010) 95).

676–724 2nd Stasimon The hopes which the chorus expressed in their prayer for εὐτεκνία in the 1st stasimon have been frustrated. Now they strike up a disillusioned song that laments Creusa’s (presumed) ἀτεκνία and even leads to a curse against Ion, the very son that they had been hoping for. The song reflects the desperation and fear which the oracle and Xuthus’ designs cause the chorus. During their emotional response to the preceding epeisodion they are alone on stage and can thus express their thoughts without danger of transgressing Xuthus’ orders. As the song evolves, it becomes ever clearer that Apollo’s plan will be thrown into disarray and the seemingly stable situation it has produced is not going to last: the chorus give the audience a glimpse of possible plot developments that run against Hermes’ predicted story line, including the breach of the Schweigegebot and the (near-)death of Ion. The situation es-

312

Commentary

calates because they follow Ion’s misinterpretation of the oracle (608, 680, 700) and wrongly conclude that the response means childlessness for Creusa, which would entail the end of the house of Erechtheus and the city’s self-rule (692–3, 709–10, 721–4). Their reaction thus illustrates their loyalty ahead of their meeting with Creusa, and their empathy for their mistress (608–10) ultimately leads them to anticipate some of the factors that will make her break her silence about the past: childlessness, Xuthus’ ingratitude (701 ἀτίετος), and the loss of the house (cf. 859–922n). In addition, the political importance of an indigenous heir to the throne is raised here for the first time in the play. This motif is largely limited to the chorus: neither the Old Man nor Creusa consider the patriotic dimension of childlessness in the same way; Creusa even completely fails to acknowledge this particular, public aspect of what is, for her, her own personal tragedy: cf. 1463–7n. The three parts of the song are structurally coherent: in each part the chorus express a different emotion felt towards a character whom they perceive as hostile: suspicion against Apollo in the strophe, disappointment at Xuthus in the antistrophe, and xenophobia against Ion in the epode. At the same time the tone becomes more and more aggressive: passing from puzzlement and fear to accusations and finally to a deadly curse. The chorus (and their own feelings) gradually move into the foreground: first they show concern for Creusa (esp. 676–80) but then they become more active (695–6) and shift the focus to themselves (708, 719). Strophe and antistrophe follow the same movement: at the start the chorus think about Creusa (her reaction and whether to warn her); lines 6–7 form a bridge to the object of their anger and signal the dominant emotion; 8–9 present what enrages them; the rest is an elaboration and a more detailed expression of their feelings: anxiety and mistrust at Apollo’s oracle and anger at Xuthus’ betrayal. Metre: 676–94 ~ 695–713 676~695 ⏑‒⏑⏑⏑‒‒⏓‒ doch^^doch 677~696 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒⏑‒ 2doch 678~697 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒⏑‒ 2doch 679~698 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏓‒ ‖ doch 680~699 ‒‒⏑‒‒‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒ 3ia 681~700 ⏑⏔‒⏑‒⏑‒‒⏑‒ 2doch 682~701 ⏑⏔‒⏑‒ ‖? doch 683~702 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒⏑‒ 2doch 684~704 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒⏑⏓ ‖ 2doch 685~705 ⏒‒⏑‒⏒‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ ‖ iambel ⏑ ‒ 688~706 ‒‒‒‒⏑‒ mol cr



689~707 690~708 691 692~710 693~711 694~713

676–724 2nd Stasimon

313

⏕⏑⏑⏑⏔⏑⏔ 2cr ⏑⏑⏑⏕⏑‒⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ 2doch ‒⏑‒‒⏑ ‖ 2cr^ ⏑‒⏑‒⏒‒⏑⏒ ‖ 2ia ‒‒⏑‒‒‒⏑‒ 2ia ⏓‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒  2ia

714–24 714 ⏑‒‒⏑‒‒‒‒⏑‒ 2doch 715 ⏑‒‒⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ ‖ 2doch 716 ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒‒ ‖ ^D3 ‒ ‒ 717 ‒‒⏑‒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒‒ ‖ iambeleg ‒ ‒ 719 ‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ hypod doch 720 ⏑‒‒⏑‒⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ 2doch 721 †⏑⏑⏑‒†⏑‒⏑⏑⏑‒‒‒ 2doch? 722 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒< doch 723 > †⏑⏑‒†⏑⏑⏑‒‒⏑‒ 724 ⏑‒‒⏑‒  doch The preponderance of dochmiacs (with few iambic and D/e elements) shapes the character of agitation of the song: the metre reflects the chorus’ alarmed and anxious mood. The (seemingly) fractured syntax led Murray to divide the antistrophe into seven parts sung by different choreuts (O. Hense (1876) 26–7 had done so with the entire song), but distribution among different speakers is no license for incomplete syntax (cf. Page (1937) 96). 676~695: Willink’s notation as merged dochmiacs (doch^^doch: e.g. (1999) 426) suits cases of dragged responsion such as this (cf. the highly irregular Or. 145~158; also Willink on Or. 171~92) and makes obsolete distinctions between doch cr and ba doch (cf. also Medda (1993) 204). It also helps overcome Diggle’s reservations (1983) 347 n.33, (1984a) 62, (1990) 108–9 = (1994) 259 n.30, 292, 375–6 about cretics in the middle of dochmiac runs. 682~701: a possible period end, with a syntactic break at the end of both lines; the thought however, continues. On the difficulties of establishing period ends cf. on 689~707. 685~705: With the new metrical genre comes a change of tone and topic. Euripides uses the overlap between the dochmiac form ‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ and D/e in his lyrics from Tro. onwards at the end of cola (cf. West (1982) 113). Itsumi (1991–1993) interprets the line as enoplian (unparalleled ia-penth. erasm ‒), but the introduction of another metrical genre in addition to dochmiac, iambic, and D/e elements is uneconomical, and not all relevant cola fit neatly into that system: 717 has a longum in the penultimate position, in which,

314

Commentary

according to Itsumi, breve predominates, and 716 does not fit into his system at all. 689~707: Hiatus corresponding with synaphia is taken by West (1982) 110 as a sign that the meaning of period ends in dochmiac contexts may differ from that in other metres. Hiatus (as well as brevis in longo) is extraordinary in dochmiac runs without change of speaker (Diggle (1981b) 96–7 = (1994) 213 rejects all the examples of Stinton (1977) 46–7 = (1990) 334–6) and the free responsion between resolved and unresolved longa is atypical for dochmiacs, occurring otherwise only in Or. 691: For this (commonly clausular) colon, which is often notated as cr sp, in mixed dochmiac and iambic contexts cf. Herc. 898, 909, Tro. 283, 287, Phoen. 309, 334; more in Diggle (1976) 43 = (1994) 149–50. 716: The colon is a common constituent in dochmiac songs, apparently with anceps in the penultimate (^D3x‒): 1442, Andr. 480, Herc. 1205, Hel. 687 (cj., with preceding iambel.), Phoen. 184, Or. 1363~1547, IA 177 (Diggle); for similar structures cf. e.g. Hel. 644, Or. 1392 ^D4⏑x, Herc. 1197 ^D3⏑‒‒, and IT 1256~81 ^D3‒e. The end is hard to classify (cf. L. Parker (1997) 87); the notation ^ia^ (West (1982) 113) does not leave room for the variant with anceps. Interpreting the colon as catalectic would entail period end, which is desirable in 685~705 and in 717 and acceptable in 716; it might express breathlessness on the part of the chorus. 717: identical with 685~705, if the tail is described as x‒. For the same metre cf. Herc. 1185–7, Phoen. 121–2. 718/19: Hypod. at the start of a dochmiac run is unobjectionable: cf. 799, Hipp. 852, Hec. 694, Or. 140~153, and Conomis (1964) 31–4. 723: The context leads us to expect 2doch. 676–94 The chorus show their sensitivity by not only correctly anticipating Creusa’s reaction to the news, but also sensing the truth about the oracle: that Apollo and the oracle are not to be trusted. This mistrust is pushed aside by the actors (esp. Ion: 533, 557, 1537–8; cf. the Old Man in 825) and only revealed to be fully justified by Athena. In other respects the chorus are blind to the truth, and the resulting strong dramatic irony undercuts the sense of alarm. The answers to their outraged questions will exceed their previous hopes: the stranger will turn out to be Creusa’s son and autochthonous heir to the throne.



676–724 2nd Stasimon

315

676–80 The impulsive tone and rhythm contrasts with the complicated period, containing an antithesis in the subordinate clause. 676 ὁρῶ: ‘I see coming’: Hcld. 332 καὶ νῦν τόνδ’ ἀγῶν’ ὁρῶ πέλας, Suppl. 92, Aesch. Sept. 78 θρέομαι φοβερὰ μεγάλ᾿ ἄχη. 677 : The lacuna could be filled either with a genitive parallel to στεναγμάτων or with an accusative balancing ἐσβολάς. Triclinius (Tr2) seems to have written πενθίμους  στεναγμῶν [τ᾿] before changing τε to γε (L may have had ἄλλους, but this has been erased thoroughly and possibly early: the codex shows only very faint traces that look like υς, and P has nothing); Herman then emended ἄλλας γε to the widely accepted ἀλαλαγάς. Neither the authority of Triclinius’ addition nor the word ἀλαλαγή, however, inspire much confidence in this text. 1) It is unclear whether Triclinius’ supplement originates from a (flawed) copy text or is his own attempt at filling the lacuna indicated by the metre of the antistrophe. This is not one of the places where Triclines had left blank space for Triclinius to fill in (probably where he could not read the text; cf. 813), and it is doubtful whether Triclinius was in a position to draw on mss now lost (cf. Kannicht on Hel. I p. 102 n.17). In addition, Tr2 is concerned with emendations rather than collation (ch. 6A). 2) ἀλαλαγάς (on form and meaning cf. Tichy (1983) 238–9) is vulnerable on semantic, sociolinguistic, and morphological grounds. a) The cry ἀλαλαί has ‘eine ausgesprochen aktive Note’ and is ‘vorwärts gerichtet’, not a reaction (Deubner (1941) 5): a shout of war and an expression of joy (cf. Pind. Dith. fr. 78 Ἀλαλά, Πολέμου θύγατερ, Herc. 11, Hom. Il. 2.149). By contrast, the instances with negative connotations are either post-classical (e.g. Hdn. 4.70, Plut. Brut. 18.8) or suspect (El. 843 is no longer accepted: cf. Denniston), leaving only the odd juxtaposition σὺν ἀλαλαῖσι ... αἰαγμάτων (Phoen. 335). b) The ἀλαλ(αγ)ή is predominantly the cry of men (as opposed to the female ὀλολυγή); cf. Xen. An. 4.3.19 ἐπαιάνιζον πάντες οἱ στρατιῶται καὶ ἀνηλάλαζον, συνωλόλυζον δὲ καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες ἅπασαι; cf. Hdn. loc.cit. Defeminised women (the bacchants Ba. 1133, Athena Pind. O. 7.37) prove the rule; in Hel. 1344 the Charites’ cry has been suspected of having orgiastic undertones (Allan). Negative connotations and performance by women never coincide. c) In comparison, the objections against the word formation (Mastronarde on Phoen. 335) are minor and ὀλολυγή from ὀλολύζω a strong analogy. ἀλαλαγή seems metrically relatively certain in Trach. 206 (cf. Davies, Lloyd-Jones/Wilson (1990) 157). στεναγμάτων τ’ ἐσβολάς: ‘cause for lament’: ἐσβολή is not used for an ‘attack’ or fit of emotions. The use here is analogous to that with voces dicendi, where ἐσβολαί denotes the great number of matters to speak about: Suppl.

316

Commentary

92 καινὰς ἐσβολὰς ὁρῶ λόγων, Ar. Ran. 956 ἐπῶν, 1104 σοφισμάτων, Antiphanes PCG 189.21. 678 τύραννος: Euripides uses the masculine form for women, not just in a generic sense (as in 236): Hec. 809 τύραννος ἦ ποτ’ ἀλλὰ νῦν δούλη σέθεν. 679 ἴδηι: For the correction of the itacism ἤδη in L ἴδηι is preferable to Wakefield’s εἰδῆι: the eruption into tears fits a change in situation and the realisation of this by Creusa (and thus the ingressive aorist) better than a state of knowledge; cf. Or. 296, Antiope fr. 223.87, Hyps. fr. 752h.17 (against Andr. 146, where the sense alone would permit either). In the antistrophe the chorus intend to spare Creusa the unexpected confrontation with this situation, not the knowledge about it. The situation envisaged may have given rise to [612–13]. 680 ἄπαις ... λελειμμένη τέκνων: The chorus repeat the thoughts Ion himself had formulated in 608–10. In this way they confirm that he, as a stranger, had shown great empathy. λελειμμένη: ‘without’: an ossified use of literal ‘left behind’ (e.g. Suppl. 774); previous possession is no longer presumed: cf. Hel. 1246 λέλειμμαι τῶν ἐν Ἕλλησιν νόμων. 681–4 The nouthetetic apostrophe is similar to Ion’s (436b–51) in its reproachful tone and has the same question format. In both places the human accusers lack important knowledge (possessed by the spectators), which undermines their criticism. The chorus are right in questioning the oracle’s information, but wrong about Ion’s origin (693). 681 τίν’: a rhetorical question with a vituperative element (cf. e.g. Alc. 551– 2, Or. 526), expressing the chorus’ shock, puzzlement, and suspicion. πρόμαντι: There is no recognisable difference to μάντις (cf. 387n): in Thuc. 5.16.2 the term is applied to the Pythia; even the particular focus on foresight (πρόμαντις e.g. Andr. 1072, Hel. 338; cf. the verb προμαντεύομαι) is absent here. 683–4 πόθεν ... τίνος: πόθεν asks more generally about the place, τίνος about the mother: both questions have been discussed by Xuthus and Ion. The two questions can be taken as separate, though the former comprehends the latter. 683 παῖς: Ion is young enough to be called παῖς ‘boy’ (35, 77), but in this instance, as in 692 and 719, the meanings ‘slave’ (on the overlap cf. Golden (1985)) and ‘son’ may also be heard.



676–724 2nd Stasimon

317

684 τρόφιμος: Cf. 52. The inherent idea of τρέφεσθαι takes the prepositional phrase ἀμφὶ ναούς ‘brought up around (i.e. nursling of) the precinct’: cf. Diggle (1969) 52 = (1994) 24. 685–9 The two sentences form one whole, as indicated by the asyndeton in 688 and by 690 γάρ, which refers to 685 (cf. 690n): the chorus’ suspicions and uncertainty about what to make of the oracle increase their fear about the future. 685 οὐ γάρ με σαίνει: ‘does not allay my suspicions.’ θέσφατα is preferable to Apollo as the grammatical subject. In that way the apostrophe to Apollo is continued (cf. also 690n): γάρ justifies the question of 681–2 (after 683–4 has explained its critical tone). In any case, the agent is Apollo, who formulates the response. σαίνει literally translates as ‘it fawns on me like a dog’ but can include the notion of false reassurance and the suggestion of deceptive submission or friendliness (Soph. fr. 885 σαίνεις δάκνουσα καὶ κύων λαίθαργος εἶ; cf. Rh. 55). οὐ then does not negate the action of fawning but denies that it has the desired effect: the god’s response fails to allay the chorus’ suspicions that there is some cunning in the oracle. μή follows as after ὑποπτεύω and other words of fear in the widest sense (K-G II 390). 689 ἐφ’ ὅτι ποτὲ βάσεται: ‘which course it (sc. συμφορά/fortune) will take.’ L has ὅποτε, but copies from minuscule manuscripts easily skip τι before π (cf. Diggle (1981a) 18). The indirect question requires the indirect interrogative rather than the relative (K-G II 438–9: after verbs of fearing), so Badham’s and Wilamowitz’ ὅ ποτ᾿ ἐκβάσεται (cf. Polyid. fr. 639 μάτην γὰρ οἴκωι σὸν τόδ’ ἐκβαίη τέλος), while producing the smoother metre, must be rejected. βαίνειν is used as simplex pro composito (cf. Or. 978 μοῖρα βαίνει), which could be προβαίνειν (cf. e.g. Med. 1117) as well as ἐκβαίνειν. 690–4 The chorus explain their suspicions: the oracle bestows blessings inequitably. It benefits Ion undeservedly by ignoring the exclusiveness of being Athenian. 690 ἄτοπος ἄτοπα γὰρ: For the polyptoton cf. Or. 163. The adjective is common as a euphemism for κακόν from the 4th cent. onward (Xen. Cyr. 7.2.18, Men. Dysc. 288, Baton PCG 3; cf. W.G. Arnott (1964) 119–21), a use already attested in Ar. Av. 1207–8. Juxtaposition of words, esp. in polyptoton, can lead to postponement of the particle (examples in Denniston 96, Gygli-Wyss (1966) 138).

318

Commentary

παραδίδωσί: The ambiguity of the subject continues from 685: both god and oracles can ‘give’ the content of the response; cf. El. 1303–4 τίς δ’ ἔμ’ Ἀπόλλων, ποῖοι χρησμοὶ φονίαν ἔδοσαν μητρὶ γενέσθαι; Hel. 224–5 βάξις, ἅ σε ... παραδίδωσι. συμφορά, although the nearest subject, can be ruled out: firstly, it produces a paradox if it both develops (βάσεται) and conveys a fate (παραδίδωσι); secondly, γάρ connects 690 directly with 685 (cf. 685–9n). 691 τῶιδε δ᾿ εὔφημα: ‘but auspicious to him’, a neat antithesis to the preceding line. The bitterness with which they speak becomes understandable from the contrast in the way the oracle affects themselves and does Ion. The metre is unclear and the text of L (τόδε τ᾿ εὔφημα) ungrammatical. The text given here (cf. Martin (2016)) assumes only the confusion of words that were homophonous in Byzantine times (τόδε from τῶιδε) and the common change from δέ to τε (cf. Wecklein (1898) 419–21). The text of most recent editors (τάδε θεοῦ φήμα) is a palaeographically easy restoration but adds only syntactically redundant elements (causing Bayfield and Biehl to delete the line). 692 ἔχει δόμον τε γᾶν θ’: explicative asyndeton to 691: the oracle is εὔφημον for Ion as he has received both a family and a people to belong to and rule in, the same two groups that caused him to worry in 589–611. This forms a poignant contrast to the emphasis on ἄλλων in the next line: the chorus are indignant about a nobody and stranger taking over the house of the Erechtheids and Athens. The juxtaposition of the same two elements occurs in Med. 448  σοὶ γὰρ παρὸν γῆν τήνδε καὶ δόμους ἔχειν, where Jason accuses the foreigner Medea of forfeiting family and polis (more in Martin (2016) 67–8). δόμον was suggested by Tyrwhitt, and most editors give him the credit; Badham (1853) and Wecklein report it as Reiske’s (†1774) conjecture, but it has proved difficult to track down. Pleonastic δόλον τέχναν θ᾿ (Schömann (1863) 4) has been widely accepted, but it is easy to see how (after 685) δόμον was replaced. Diggle’s πλέκει instead of ἔχει is a cosmetic correction, but one that shows that ἔχει δόλον is not an ideal phrase in the meaning ‘hatches a plot’, so shortly after it meant ‘involves a plot’. The accusation that Ion conspired with the oracle is one that not even the Old Man (or Verrall) entertain; the chorus have witnessed Ion’s resistance to Xuthus’ approach, which had been implausible if he knew the oracle, and in 832–3 they only blame Xuthus. Even for the plan to smuggle Ion into the household Xuthus alone is made responsible; Ion is accused only of intending to become a member of Creusa’s house. 693 ἄλλων τραφεὶς ἐξ αἱμάτων: ‘raised from other people’s blood’; cf. Aesch. Sept. 141 σέθεν γὰρ ἐξ αἵματος. The reception of Xuthus’ illegitimate son into Erechtheus’ house and thus the transition of the house into the hands of people without blood-relations is irregular. Only under particular circumstances can an Athenian household be thus transferred: by adoption



676–724 2nd Stasimon

319

(which is still preferably performed within the family: cf. Gernet (1955) 130, Rubinstein (1993) 22–3, 1534n) or by marrying off an ἐπίκληρος, the heiress of a man without a son who could inherit the estate (Loraux (1990) 182; in reality it was desired by society that a close male kin marry her). The ἐπίκληρος then passes on the household to her children; for the complications cf. Scafuro (1997) 281–305. Either way, some element of continuity and the approval by the next male relative is secured, as the preservation of the bloodline and family tie is one of the principles of Athenian inheritance laws (Harrison I 130). In the case of Creusa, it is thought that she will have no children and the husband bequeaths her estate (effectively her dowry) to his son by another woman. This is a grey area of Athenian law, as normally the relatives could reclaim the estate where the woman had no offspring (Harrison I 56). However, Creusa’s case is constructed in such a way that she has no relatives at all, which must have been rare in Athens, but we have to accept that Euripides can present this case to the Athenians (cf. 1534n). 694 ξυνοίσεται: ‘agree’ (opp. διαφέρομαι): cf. El. 527, Soph. OC 641, Antiph. 5.42, Thuc. 6.13.1. The referent of τάδε is not ἔχει in the last sentence but the period 690–4 as a whole. The concluding question rounds off the thought that started in 685: the reason for the mistrust expressed in that line – the unequal distribution of burden and profit brought by the oracle – must meet general acceptance. 695–713 The chorus express their sympathy for Creusa and their loyalty to the house of Erechtheus; they turn against Xuthus and consider disregarding his threats and revealing his secret; they also curse him and his plans. The focus is on the different fates of the two spouses and Xuthus’ lack of loyalty: having benefited from his association with Creusa he leaves the union and care for her as soon as it is convenient for him. 695 πότερ’: The second part of the disjunction (introduced by ἤ) need not be expressed, if it can be supplied without difficulty (esp. ἢ οὔ): e.g. Alc. 675, IT 497; cf. K-G II 532 n.10. 696 ἐς οὖς: Cf. 1521. Whispering into people’s ears indicates secrecy and often malice; it need not imply the danger of being overheard and punished: Hipp. 932, Andr. 1091, Or. 616, TrGF adesp. 386; cf. Wille (2001) 295. 697–8: ‘With (i.e. while she had) a husband in whom everything rested for her, she shared his hopes, the poor woman.’ Those scholars who do not consider the text corrupt assume aposiopesis or anacoluthon (most recently De Poli (2008) 160–2: ‘che lo sposo, nel quale lei riponeva tutta la sua fiducia, condividendo le stesse speranze, misera, ... ?’). But if we allow ellipsis of

320

Commentary

ἦν in the relative clause, no change is necessary, and the elements perfectly match 699–701. They describe the situation of Creusa up to now, i.e. before the oracle produced a rift with Xuthus (corresponding to Ion’s words 608–9 κοινουμένη τὰς συμφορὰς σοι πρόσθεν ἀπολαχοῦσα νῦν): the hopes shared are balanced by the current συμφοραί; the position of Xuthus, as the one on whom for her everything depended, has changed into the contrast between her συμφοραί and his εὐτυχία, their togetherness into his forgetfulness (ἀτίετος) of her; νῦν δέ is set in opposition to the time defined by ἔχουσα. That means 696 τάδε refers back to the oracle and the new developments of the preceding epeisodion. If any change were desired, the word order could be simplified to πόσιν ἔχουσ’ ἐν ὧι ... 697 ἐν ὧι τὰ πάντ’: The expression occurs in Med. 228, similarly Alc. 278 ἐν σοὶ δ᾿ ἐσμέν, IT 1057, and expresses the idea that someone holds the key to another person’s happiness or woe, either through his will or because their fates are interlinked. 699–701 The main contrast of the sentence is between Creusa’s isolation in misfortune and Xuthus’ (supposed) forgetfulness of his wife (ἡ μέν ... πόσις δ(έ)). But the chorus’ pity and their dismay at Xuthus’ gloating are so strong that immediately after mentioning Creusa’s συμφοραί they add Xuthus’ happiness (ὁ δ(έ)): for the contrasting parenthesis cf. Alc. 1085 χρόνος μαλάξει – νῦν δ’ ἔθ’ ἡβάσκει – κακόν (pace Parker), and more examples in Bruhn §173. 699 ἔρρει συμφοραῖς: ‘ruined by the misfortunes’, with causal dative. They believe that Creusa will spend her life in misery (cf. Alc. 734). 700 πολιὸν ... γῆρας: The age groups of women were defined primarily by their fertility, old age being the stage past reproductive sexuality (Henderson (1987) 108–9). In this sense Creusa has just (suddenly: ἐσπεσοῦσα) entered old age in the chorus’ interpretation of the oracle, because, seemingly, it has become clear that she will not give birth any more (cf. 761–2). For the hardship of childless old age (implying no chance ever to have new children) cf. also Cycl. 306, Andr. 612 παίδων τ’ ἄπαιδας γραῦς ἔθηκας. 701 ἀτίετος φίλων: ‘without honouring his friends’: cf. Med. 659–60 ἀχάριστος ὄλοιθ’ ὅτωι πάρεστιν μὴ φίλους τιμᾶν; perhaps the same meaning should be understood in Soph. El. 1214 ἄτιμός εἰμι τοῦ τεθνηκότος. The chorus ignore Xuthus’ caution in 658. The family are the narrowest circle of φίλοι: cf. Isae. 4.18 φίλους τῶν πάνυ σφόδρα προσηκόντων περὶ πλείονος ἐποιήσαντο, Dirlmeier (1931) 9–16, Blundell (1989) 46. Elsewhere ἀτίετος is passive in meaning (Aesch. Eum. 385, 839/72). But for adjectives in -τος, in particular those starting



676–724 2nd Stasimon

321

with α privative, genus verbi is an inapplicable concept, as illustrated, e.g., by active ἄιστος in Tr. 1314 (cf. Gerschewitsch (1938) 187). 702–4 702 θυραῖος: The chorus retain the domestic perspective; they do not adopt an openly xenophobic polis-centred point of view here: only against Ion do they take the ‘civic’ stance (719, 1069–73). 704 ἴσωσεν τύχας: ‘makes their fates equal’, i.e. shares her fate. Wakefield’s emendation is superior to the paradosis (ἔσωσε τύχης), reiterating the idea of sharing in good and bad in 608–9, 698, 818. Hel. 613 τὸ μόρσιμον σώσασα, however, is a deceptive parallel, as it is about fulfilling one’s fate – and Xuthus cannot be accused of failing in this respect. 705–13 706 τύχοι: with participle: ‘succeed in’ (cf. Hom. Il. 23.466, Pind. N. 7.11), by analogy with other verbs of success and failure (cf. εὐτυχέω IT 329). A successful sacrifice, i.e. one that the deity accepts (cf. Aeschin. 3.111), heeding the accompanying prayers (Xuthus’ Genethlia: 653n), is signalled by a ‘fine’ flame (καλλίφλογα; cf. PV 498–9). In cases of defilement, by contrast, there is no proper flame (Soph. Ant. 1006–7). Ancient curses often contain a clause to the effect that the victim not be able to sacrifice, i.e. that its sacrifice be rejected by the gods: cf. Versnel (1985). 707 πελανὸν: The flames, the meal, and the references to cattle in 664 and 1132 show that this is as little a sacrificial cake as in 226. Ar. Av. 495 makes a meat sacrifice at the Dekate very likely; the menu of the Amphidromia is listed in Ephippos PCG 3. 708 τὸ δ’ ἐμὸν: This could be a self-contained phrase (as in 247) or accompany a missing neuter noun. Something with a threatening potential is required, e.g. hatred, determination, or even loyalty to their mistress, which the words immediately after the lacuna, at least, suggest. Ante 710: The diversity of the attempted supplements demonstrates how little we can infer about the contents of the lacuna. Deleting the corresponding line 691 (Bayfield, Biehl) disturbs the coherence of the text there and does not completely remove the gap here; so it is unhelpful. 711 ἤδη: As in 692, Reiske is given credit for the conjecture (from Matthiae onward), but I cannot locate it earlier than B. Heath (1762) 138. δείπνων: Diggle (1974) 21–2 = (1994) 115–6 calls δεῖπνον ‘not only insipid and inconsequential: it is a disastrous interruption of the chorus’ train of thought.’ He seems unaware of the significance of the feast in the process

322

Commentary

of Ion’s acceptance by his father, in which it marks the decisive ritual step (cf. 653n, 805–[7], 1124). The sacrifice and feast had been mentioned right at the end of Xuthus’ speech. That he will not participate is unknown to them – and the spectators – until 1128–31. Diggle instead prefers δεινῶν, the closeness of danger or evil being a tragic trope. This proves difficult, as the δεινά would more naturally be understood to be ‘terrible’ for the grammatical subject (father and son), not for the chorus. The paradosis makes the imminent menace for the true Athenians sufficiently clear. κυρεῖ: The participle of εἶναι can be omitted: e.g. Tro. 685, Phoen. 1067, Aesch. Pers. 598. 713 νέος νέου: The expression is short for παῖς καὶ πατὴρ νέος νέου παιδὸς καὶ πατρός, an extension of such brachylogic expressions as Andr. 637 ξηρὰ βαθεῖαν γῆν ἐνίκησε. νέος goes better with another singular than with L’s νέων. Ion is called νέος in [807], 1183, 1186, and καινός in 1123, 1202. The use of the latter and 1183 stress his newly acquired status, not his age. The chorus thus cast their scepticism in the language of newness; what is new is marked as unreliable or untrustworthy: cf. the new citizens in Ar. Ran. 718–33, Alexis PCG 77. This is particularly pertinent if the citizens pride themselves on the antiquity of their autochthonous family. 714–24 The topographical apostrophe to the place of conception links the epode with the 1st stasimon. The rape on Parnassus told here is, ironically, the misconstrued version of the same event that the chorus evoke in 492–506. Their lack of knowledge also leads them to curse Ion, whom there they had prayed for. Their wish that Ion die shows how they fully identify with Athens and take the role of patriotic members of the polis community; the servile aspect of their status is pushed into the background, as is the domestic perspective (cf. 676–724n). The wish must count as a prayer (pace Langholf (1971) and Mikalson’s ‘prayer-like request’: (1989) 84 n.15): the formulation may not explicitly request a deity to do anything, but ἀπ- and ἐξόλοιτο are used as curses with invocation of the divine (Ar. Pax 267, Ran. 86); the address to Parnassus can be regarded as equivalent to the address to a deity: cf. Din. 1.64 μαρτύρομαι τὰς σεμνὰς θεὰς ... καὶ τὸν τόπον ὃν ἐκεῖναι κατέχουσι, Cic. Mil. 85, and the Eastern practice of invoking places, reflected in Hom. Il. 3.276–8 (Weinfeld (1976) 394–7; even objects can be invoked: Fletcher (2012) 4–5). The god in possession of the rocks is clearly named and thus marks their sacredness. The chorus give a highly stereotypical picture of the revels on Mount Parnassus, where the Thyiades (cf. 671n) celebrated Dionysus every other year (Aristonoos, Paean to Apollo (GH 2.4) 37 τριετέσιν φαναῖς Βρόμιος;



676–724 2nd Stasimon

323

cf. Villanueva Puig (1986)). Several 5th-century plays allude to this event, drawing on the same pool of elements: torches, bacchants, ridges, saltation – often with verbal parallels (IT 1243–4, Phoen. 226–8, Ba. 306–8, Hyps. fr. 752, Aesch. Eum. 22–4, Soph. Ant. 1126–30, 1150–4, Ar. Nub. 603–6). Athenian participation might explain how the Athenian women of the chorus know about this celebration even though they have demonstrated only patchy knowledge of Delphi before. The end stresses the civic-‘patriotic’ theme of Erechtheus/Athenian purity and the ideal of self-sufficiency. The wish to see Ion dead is thereby justified; his fears that he would be rejected by the autochthonous Athenians (589–94) are confirmed. The mention of Erechtheus provides a bridge to the next scene featuring his pedagogue, but the exact line of thought cannot be reconstructed due to the lacuna. 714 ἰὼ: The metre commends the change from ἵνα (‘where’), as does the fact that the chorus cannot know that Xuthus intends to perform the sacrifice of 711 on Parnassus (cf. 654–5, 804, 1031, 1130–1). The exclamation calls for attention, introducing a summons for help (e.g. Cycl. 656–8, Ba. 576–7), esp. prayers (Tro. 1280–1 ἰὼ θεοί· καὶ τί τοὺς θεοὺς καλῶ; καὶ πρὶν γὰρ οὐκ ἤκουσαν ἀνακαλούμενοι; cf. Med. 1251–4, Suppl. 628–31, El. 1177–81). δειράδες Παρνασσοῦ: The revels took place on the heights of Parnassus, not on the plain above the Phaedriades (Paus. 10.4.3, 32.7, Plut. Mor. 953C– D). Aesch. Eum. 22–4 may suggest the latter, but tragedy can merge the two sites (cf. 86n, also on the form Παρνασσοῦ). 715 σκόπελον: a place with a good view, and as such any high location. This is the only time in the play the word is not used for the Athenian acropolis. οὐράνιόν:  ‘skyward’, hyperbolic for ‘high up’: cf. Alc. 229, El. 860, Ar. Vesp. 1492, 1530. Association with the gods is natural but not compelled. 716 Βάκχιος: It is particular to Bacchic revels that the god is regularly described as participant: Ba. 306–8, Hyps. fr. 752, Soph. Ichn. fr. 314.227, Ar. Nub. 603–6, Thesm. 987–8, Ran. 340–2. ἀμφιπύρους: ‘in each hand’ (changed from ms -πόρους; cf. Soph. Trach. 214); for a torch this is more plausible than ‘two-ended’ (as in 211). 717 νυκτιπόλοις: lit. ‘wandering in the night’; probably a collective term for the initiated: cf. Heraclitus 22 B 14 νυκτιπόλοις, μάγοις, βάκχοις, λήναις, μύσταις, Soph. Ant. 1150–1 σαῖς ἅμα περιπόλοις Θυίαισιν (‘raving around you’). ἅμα σὺν: ‘together (at the same time) with’, adverbial ἅμα reinforcing the preposition: cf. Med. 1143 σὺν τέκνοις ἅμ᾿ ἑσπόμην, Pl. Criti. 110A μετὰ σχολῆς ἅμ᾿, adverbially Soph. Ichn. fr. 314.76, S-D II 491; the order ἅμα σύν next in the 1st cent. AD.

324

Commentary

719 μήποτ’: Diggle follows Hermann’s μή ποτ’, which is palaeo­ graphically plausible (cf. 689) but metrically unnecessary: cf. Metre, Conomis (1964) 33. The supposed syntactical function of τι is obscure; Hermann’s ποτ᾿ for ποθ᾿, by contrast, is unquestioned. 720 νέαν δ’ ἁμέραν: The rendering ‘his young life’ (Lee) is correct (as shown by θάνοι), if purged of connotations. ‘Day’ and ‘life’ form a pair that can stand for each other (e.g. Med. 651, Hec. 364 and especially Soph. Aj. 622–3 παλαιᾶι μὲν σύντροφος ἁμέραι; for the opposite direction cf. 1136, for night 1466n); with λείπω e.g. Phoen. 1554 ἔλιπον φάος, Phoenix fr. 816.11. But Lee’s rendering captures only part of the metaphor: ἡμέρα can also be linked to joy and happiness (Aesch. Pers. 300–1 φάος μέγα καὶ λευκὸν ἦμαρ, Ag. 22–3), as the new-found status and family connection. ἡμέρα has the meaning ‘form of life’ in Hec. 364 λυπρὰν ἄγουσαν ἡμέραν μ’; cf. Hom. Il. 6.455 ἐλεύθερον ἦμαρ with Stoevesandt. 721–4 The reconstructions and conjectures that have been made are too optimistic, and their number and diversity discredits them; the thought is still obscure, and the length of the missing section is uncertain. What seems clear is that the chorus explain (γάρ) why they do not want Ion to enter Athens. The previous leader, Erechtheus, features – presumably in a reference to the war against Eumolpus (cf. 277–82n) – together with an arrival of allies (ξενικὸν ἐσβολάν), which makes a suitable parallel with Xuthus and Ion. But both the connection between 721–2 and 723–4 and the way in which the chorus deal with the fact that Xuthus came to the rescue of Athens in the war against Euboea are unclear: Athens’ military situation as described in the play would belie any proud claims of the sufficiency of the autochthonous forces and independence of outside help (cf. the conjecture ἅλις). However, it cannot be excluded that the portrayal of such a delusion was Euripides’ intention. 721 †στενομένα: Any emendation will fail to convince as long as the construction of the sentence is not known. A form of στένω is difficult to fit into the context: the πόλις is probably Athens, but it is not intelligible why she should wail (middle in Ba. 1372) or be wailed for – ἔχοι σκῆψιν suggests that the city has not reached the point where this would be called for. Whitman (1964) 259 suggests ‘a city which groans at a foreign invasion would have it (sc. invasion) as an excuse’ (sc. for killing Ion). This is hardly comprehensible from the Greek and overlooks that the chorus do not think of Athenians as Ion’s murderers yet. The interpretation as στενοχωρουμένη (‘when a city is in dire straits’; so Wilamowitz) lacks parallels, and this is not a fitting description of Ion’s approach. Grégoire’s στεγομένα would be an odd metaphor: the defensive function of ‘covering’ (cf. Aesch. Sept. 216)



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

325

is hardly suitable for the pre-emptive curse that demands Ion’s death, nor is the word ever used by Euripides in a military sense. ἔχοι σκῆψιν: ‘might have (as) a reason/excuse’. ξενικὸν ἐσβολάν may be that reason or part of the action taken as a consequence. The order of the word groups may favour the latter, with an infinitive to be added: Crit. TrGF 43 F 7.10–11 σκῆψιν ... ἔχοντα πρὸς πάτρα̣ν̣ μολεῖν; alternatives for the construction of σκῆψιν ἔχω would be a genitive (Dem. 1.6) or a relative clause (Dem. 54.17, 21) of the consequence, but then the accusative is hard to connect. 722 ξενικὸν ἐσβολάν: ξενικός is not attested elsewhere as being of two terminations, nor is this a common feature of adjectives in -ικός. But if we accept it as feminine, the meaning is probably ‘an assault of foreign allies’; this may be a sarcastic description of Xuthus’ attempt to install his family on the Athenian throne, using the military metaphor to characterise the plan of the ξένος Xuthus (293, 813) as a coup d’état. The meaning and use of ξενικός make it unlikely that this an invasion of foreign enemies, in particular an allusion to the Euboeans: cf. a ξεινικὸς στρατός of mercenaries in Hdt. 1.77.4. 723 ἀρχαγὸς: in Euripides mostly for military leaders: cf. Hipp. 151–2 τὸν Ἐρεχθειδᾶν ἀρχαγόν, τὸν εὐπατρίδαν, Tro. 1267, IT 1303. The chorus may evoke Erechtheus for different purposes: as representative of the pure lineage (that makes foreign influx unnecessary) or as the one who saved Athens in the war against Eumolpus (on which cf. Simms (1983)).

725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion After the 2nd stasimon the further development of the plot is completely open. The chorus have indicated that they are willing to transgress Xuthus’ Schweigegebot, which would thwart Xuthus’ intention of bringing Ion to Athens and mean an end to Apollo’s plan. The 3rd epeisodion is the act of the peripeteia, where this new plot turn is put into action in a series of rapid changes of action and emotion. Changes of metre and of form of communication coincide to form the structural elements: 725–62

Entrance and revelation of the main information (dialogue in trimeters)

326

763–[807] 808–[58] 859–922 923–1028 1029–47

Commentary

Detailed revelation (epirrhematic amoibaion) Reconstruction of the past (rhesis) Creusa’s monody (recitative anapaests and lyric) Recapitulation and decision to assassinate Ion (introduction and stichomythia) Planning (irregular dialogue)

The faultlines of emotional development, however, do not exactly correspond to this structure. After the chorus’ anguish and their statement of resilience, the suspense is heightened by the superficial lightness of tone of Creusa’s and the Old Man’s entrance (725–51), where their petty talk reflects their ignorance of the oracle. The farcical interlude provides a sharp contrast to the bad news, and Creusa’s succumbing to depression (752–969) appears all the more poignant: with the revelation of the oracle by the chorus Creusa descends into the passivity of a defenceless victim. Apollo’s response has not just (to all appearances) denied her a child of her own; it has isolated her by depriving her of Xuthus as companion in her sorrow (their fates separate: 772–5, 817–18 after 608–10, 704); she even sees him having his own wishes fulfilled and threatening to dispossess her family of its house. In her monody, the centrepiece of the entire play, she cries out her accusations against the man and in particular the god who she feels have betrayed her, but sees no possibility beyond the mere verbalisation of the injustice (971). The atmosphere changes again with the Old Man’s call to action (970–1047), his unwillingness to accept the injustice inflicted upon Creusa and the house of Erechtheus. Creusa empowers herself (with his help) by the decision to retaliate; the notion of becoming active overshadows the practical purpose of keeping the usurper Ion away from Athens. The act is dramaturgically condensed, which intensifies the portrayal of the emotional changes: there are no entrances or exits in mid-act, so the action concentrates on just two characters and the chorus, who have an essential role as catalysts of the action. As the Old Man and Creusa stand on the same side, there is no friction between them, and Euripides can allow them to represent different attitudes and outlooks: she is despondent and focused on herself, while he pulls both of them out of their depression and calls for action; he also widens the view on the significance of events, considering the fate of the whole house of the Erechtheids (810–1, 838, 966, 968, 1044). His concern is with that fate, hence Creusa can focus on her individual plight: for her the most horrific implication of the oracle is her own childlessness (790–1bis); of the reasons for a life with children mentioned by the chorus in the 1st stasimon Creusa cares only about the deeply personal joy of children (cf. 1227).



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

327

The Old Man’s loyalty and sympathy with Creusa goes so far as to make him identify his fate with hers (808). Although their relationship is one of slave and mistress (734), the difference in status seems, in places, smoothed away (984, 1022; cf. 725–34n; in the other intrigue plays the plotters are of equal status). He steps in for her by asking the chorus for the details of the oracle (772–801), so Creusa can lament without actively participating in the conversation. Then he reconstructs the past from the information given and introduces the motif of Xuthus a betrayer (808; picked up by Creusa in 864, 880). His hate-filled speech throws into relief Creusa’s extended silence, which is finally broken with her unexpected eruption into the monody. In the following stichomythia (934–1028) he acts as close confidant, elicits the full account of the rape from Creusa, and provides an empathetic audience. The two complement each other in amplifying the pathos in the narrative of rape and exposure. After the Old Man has initiated the change to revenge (970) the two again cooperate in developing their plan: while he proposes Delphi as scene for the execution of the intrigue, she selects the target and has the idea of using poison. Hence, the Old Man’s role is not to diminish Creusa’s guilt and thus make her reconciliation with Ion possible or preserve her in the audience’s sympathies (pace e.g. Burnett (1971) 111, Lee, Segal (1999) 88–9, Yoon (2012) 92–3) – in fact, she is held responsible by Ion and the Delphians (1220–5) and accepts responsibility herself (1256, 1291). Responsibility for the misconception of Xuthus’ supposed plot cannot be easily attributed to any character in the first place: the entire first half of the act is a gradual descent into unjustified suspicions, which only the chorus could (but fail to) refute and banish: they have witnessed the preceding epeisodion, Ion’s resistance to recognition, and the reconstruction of his conceiving before Xuthus’ marriage. But it is doubtful whether they are meant to appear as negligent or reckless when they do not point out the contradictions in the Old Man’s reconstruction of Xuthus’ plot: they also misinterpret the oracle before he does (761–2) and keep silent about their doubts concerning the truth of the response (cf. 685); they even seem convinced of the truth of what the Old Man says (832–5). His reconstruction, in turn, is entirely consistent with the information the chorus had given him (Leimbach (1971) 71–3, Gauger (1977) 23–6; cf. 808–[58]n). Euripides seems to rely on his audience’s forgetfulness or connivance in points that could save the actors from errors (as with Trophonius’ oracle or the relation between Ion’s age and Xuthus’ marriage). The fact that the frail, sententious old pedagogue causes the near-catastrophe is the last of the (tragi-)comic elements that pervaded the play up to this point (and that reappear in the exodos). The great irony of his speech lies in the Old Man’s main supposition, the truthfulness of the god (817–29n). The

328

Commentary

speech climactically highlights the irony of human ignorance and Apollo’s poor planning, which is at the root of ‘tragic’, unnecessary suffering (cf. Seidensticker (1982) 231–2). 725–62 The new epeisodion starts with the weakly motivated surprise entrance of a hitherto unmentioned character. The Old Man is introduced almost as a surrogate for Erechtheus (Zacharia (2003) 26): Creusa treats him as a father figure (733–4), accepting him as a quasi-family member and confidant (725–34n). He is also the person who most consistently thinks in terms of the fate of the house. Lee observes that, after Phaedra’s nurse, the Old Man is the slave most individually portrayed in tragedy, but in many respects he remains a typecast, combining elements of different stock characters, without full individuality: he shows the clichéd frailty of other aged characters (735–40n); his sententious manner of speaking is shared by other characters of low status (Med. 125–30, Aesch. Ag. 38–9, Cho. 757, 886, Soph. Ant. 232, 243, 319). His loyalty to his masters is also typical for slaves in tragedy (Brandt (1973) 21–2, Synodinou (1977) 62–4); in his case, it is loyalty towards his previous charge, Erechtheus, and thus to the house, as well as personally to Creusa. The mood contrasts strongly with the alarmed dochmiacs of the stasimon. The Old Man’s dragged movements slow down the action; the ‘excellent peasant-wit’ (Kitto (1961) 326) of his comments about his weakness delay the progress of the action and heighten the suspense: Creusa is unaware of the outcome of the oracle (730–1), and for the audience it is not yet possible to predict how the chorus will solve the dilemma of the silence imposed and their urge to support their mistress. When the chorus are prompted to report the mood shifts back to desperation, as they are now forced to decide. 725–34 Creusa’s lack of close friends is shown by the fact that her closest confidant, the one she chooses to share the joy or grief arising from the oracle with, is an old slave (rather than her husband, apparently). The alienation from Xuthus that is caused by the oracle will leave her completely isolated (cf. 608–9, 697–701). Her trust and emotional intimacy are explained by the Old Man’s father-like standing, which raises him above other slaves. The relationship is portrayed as exceptionally close on both sides (cf. Brandt (1973) 83–5, Yoon (2012) 93); hardly more than the title δέσποινα indicates that they are of different status: normally it is only the slaves who speak of the εὔνοια (732) towards their master, not the masters themselves; the Old Man also asks Creusa for help (alone of the slaves in tragedy: Phoen. 106 is a response to



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

329

Antigone’s offer); he laments his physical infirmity before her; and he later takes the liberty of correcting her (1022). 725 ὦ πρέσβυ: Conversations between entering characters in tragedy do not continue from off-stage but start at the entrance (with few exceptions: cf. Taplin (1977) 363–4, Poe (1993) 363–4). The Old Man and Creusa talk as if they had just met, with an elaborate address (introducing him to the audience) and a discussion of the steepness of the ascent, which would have started some time before. παιδαγώγ’ Ἐρεχθέως: Girls did not have pedagogues, so here and in El. (287, 488) the pedagogues are the fathers’. Boys at the age of six were entrusted to men of advanced age to accompany them to their lessons (N. Young (1990), H. Schulze (1998) 16). It is therefore unrealistic that Erechtheus’ pedagogue still be alive; the Old Man is a caricature. 726: The line is pedantic (and rightly removed by Sander (1837) 85): we hardly need someone to tell us that a pedagogue’s supervisees were alive. What we want, if anything, is a stress on the distance in time, but this is not provided. In similar formulations (e.g. Hec. 484 τὴν ἄνασσαν δή ποτ᾿ οὖσαν, Tro. 1221, Or. 973) the emphasis is on the fact that the described situation no longer exists. ὄντος ἡνίκ’ ἦν ἔτ’: The tautology in ὄντος is awkward but perhaps to be accepted; attempts at emendation have not been successful: ὢν τόθ’ (Wecklein (1874) 400) gives a slightly better, if still banal, sense. However, τότε is unlikely after ποτε; Wilamowitz’ ὁπηνίκ᾿ (after ὤν) is not attested in Euripides. 727 ἔπαιρε σαυτὸν: Elsewhere this is a formulation for telling people in sitting or kneeling position to stand up (Alc. 250, Hcld. 635, Andr. 717, 1077, Ar. Vesp. 996, Lys. 937; also Hec. 500 πλευράν). Here the upward movement concerns only the elevation of the route. 729 ἐς γονὰς: ‘with regard to’: cf. 567n. 731 ὃ μὴ γένοιτο: Diggle (1981a) 104 rightly points to this and ὃ μὴ τύχοι as standing apotropaic phrases (which justifies his rejection of ms ἅ here and in Hcld. 511, against e.g. by Braunlich (1962) 395). One may add variations such as Alc. 1023 πράξας ὃ μὴ τύχοιμι and the even larger number of instances in oratory (Lys., Dem., Din.), consistently in the singular. The position of the wish at the head of the sentence, preceding the conditional (or its equivalent), however, is exceptional (together with Dem. 25.32) and further emphasised by the delayed δ(έ). τυγχάνοι: ‘happen’: cf. 1511, Hec. 628, Aesch. Ag. 347 (and Alc. 1023 above).

330

Commentary

732: This memorable line was included early in anthologies, as the rich indirect tradition shows. The testimonies unanimously favour ἐμβλέψαι over εἰσβλέψαι, and the former (also taking the dative) seems to be better suited for contemplation as opposed to a mere glance: e.g. Dem. 34.19 εἰς τὰ ὑμέτερα πρόσωπα ἐμβλέποντα, Arist. MM 1213a21 εἰς τὸ κάτοπτρον ἐμβλέψαντες, Men. PCG 74 ἐμβλέποντας εἰς ἑαυτόν. The combination of the preposition εἰς with ἐν-compounds is not unusual (ἐμβάλλω e.g. El. 962, ἐμπίπτω e.g. Erechth. fr. 362.30, ἐμπλέκειν Or. 1422, ἐμβαίνω e.g. Hcld. 168, ἐμβιβάζω Herc. 856); εἰσβλέψαι can be explained as assimilation to the preposition. 734 ὅμως οὖσ’: ὅμως can stand in concessive constructions instead of in the main clause: cf. esp. Or. 680 καὶ γυνή περ οὖσ᾿ ὅμως, also Med. 280, Aesch. Sept. 712; for ὅμως preceding the participle cf. Soph. OC 666–7, Theogn. IEG2 1029, Thuc. 8.93.1, K-G II 85. ἀντικηδεύω πατρός: ‘I care for you as for a/my father.’ In Soph. El. 1361 Electra even wishes to call the pedagogue father. In the first half of the line the focus on her high position emphasises her graciousness. The compound stands for κηδεύω σε ἀντὶ πατρός (in 733 understand ὥσπερ καὶ σύ ἐκήδευες): the Old Man immediately responds calling her θύγατερ (in Euripides used only by relatives and confidants: El. 492, 563, Hel. 711, possibly Phoen. 834; in classical prose restricted to parents, but perhaps due to women’s rare appearances in public: cf. Dickey (1996) 64). Parents were legally entitled to care by their sons in old age (Harrison I 77–8); slaves, by contrast, had no guarantee that they would not be ejected from the house. The Old Man’s gratefulness in 735–6 indicates that his generous treatment is not a matter of course; cf. Sigismund/Cyrino (2011). Other translations would be possible, but do not make equally good sense: 1) ‘I tend you, in my father’s stead’ (cf. IT 28 ἔλαφον ἀντιδοῦσά μου); the stress on reciprocity, however, is clear in 733 and common to many ἀντιcompounds (ἀντιδουλεύω Suppl. 360–1, ἀντιδράω Suppl. 1179), makes this meaning unlikely. 2) ‘I tend you in requittal for my father (i.e. for what you have done for him).’ Cf. Hec. 57–8 ἀντισηκώσας δέ σε φθείρει ... τῆς πάροιθ’ εὐπραξίας, Suppl. 360–1 τοῖς τεκοῦσι γὰρ δύστηνος ὅστις μὴ ἀντιδουλεύει τέκνων, Hel. 159. But we may expect that in that case the idea of τροφεῖα (cf. 852) would be expressed more clearly. 735–40 The same markers of age recur in other scenes where old men enter the stage (cf. Spitzbarth (1946) 81, Paganelli (1995) 157–63): for the supporting stick, the request for assistance, complaints about their weakness, the hardship of moving, and failing sight cf. in Euripides alone Hcld. 602, 729–44, Andr.



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

331

551–3, Herc. 107–30, Ba. 364–5, IA [4–5], Cresph. fr. 448a.111–13, but also e.g. Aesch. Ag. 80–2, Ar. Ach. 219–22, Vesp. 230–9. The most extensive similarities are with the πρέσβυς of El. (cf. Harbsmeier (1968) 96): both men are the pedagogues of the respective heroine’s father and trusted confidants when the regular family proves hostile. The ascent to a building also has its closest parallel in El. 489. Greater variation can be found in Herc. 119–25, Ar. Lys. 286–8. Pace P. Arnott (1962) 27–30, however, this need not be read as indicating a real climb to a (low) raised stage (attested only for comedy, if at all: cf. Csapo/Slater (1995) 80): the ‘climb’ starts immediately after the entrance, with only the address preceding, and continues to at least 746; so it covers the way from the eisodos to the centre rather than only a few steps of a ladder. Climbing a stage would separate the actors from the chorus instead of bringing them closer, as is the case here; in addition, the similar ascent in Herc. is undertaken by the chorus, who are confined to the orchestra. Cf. Bodensteiner (1893) 696–703, Hourmouziades (1965) 65. 735 ἄξι’ ἀξίων γεννητόρων: Ion had recognised her nobility from her appearance (237–8); the Old Man discovers it in her conduct. The polyptoton expresses that she is a true continuer of her line: cf. 262, Or. 1676 εὐγενὴς ἀπ᾿ εὐγενοῦς, Soph. Phil. 874 εὐγενὴς γὰρ ἡ φύσις κἀξ εὐγενῶν. 737: Owen has seen that the line supplies καταισχύνασ(α) with its own object instead of ἤθη. As transmitted, it speaks of Creusa’s descendants; Biehl’s explanation of ἐκγόνους αὐτόχθονας as τοὺς ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς χθονός γεγενημένους is not Greek, a mark of hermeneutic desperation; Verrall’s translation of παλαιοί as a noun (‘ancestors’) is harsh and refers to just one or two generations (cf. 1007n). Attempts to restore a sensible text have failed: τοὺς σούς, παλαιῶν ἐκγόνους αὐτοχθόνων (Jackson (1955) 187, adopted by Diggle), wrongly distinguishes the original ‘earthborn’ generation of Athenians from the descendants, against 29, 529, Erechth. fr. 360.5–13, Ar. Vesp. 1076, Lys. 1082. 738 ἕλχ’ ἕλκε: El. 491 ἐξελκτέον, Soph. Phil. 291, also Hipp. 1361. For the action of pulling the hand or arm of an elderly person cf. Phoen. 103–6. The term is far stronger than κομίζειν, which is often used for leading someone without need of support (e.g. El. 1286). The asyndetic anadiplosis of verbs is less common in trimeters than in lyrics (e.g. 705; full list in Nussbaumer (1938) 117): it lends emphasis and urgency to imperatives (e.g. Med. 711; once with χρῆν: Hcld. 449). 739 αἰπεινὰ: ‘high up, hard to reach’ (cf. Lamberterie (1990) I 306–7). ‘Steepness’ is a characteristic of the way to such a place and the consequence of its position, but not the original meaning of the word: cf. Andr. 103 Ἰλίωι αἰπεινᾶι (as often in Homer), Pind. O. 9.108 σοφίαι μὲν αἰπειναί. A symbolic

332

Commentary

or programmatic reading (so Rehm (1992) 140–1) is unnecessary: the entire passage follows well-trodden paths. δὴ: δέ μοι (L) may have intruded from the second half of the line. The ‘interactional’ particle δή continues the train of thought and draws special attention to something that is visible to the dialogue partner (cf. Wakker (1994) 351). This pointer to the reason for the Old Man’s difficulties is appropriate in an appeal and supposes a change frequent in mss (e.g. Alc. 393, Med. 349, Or. 511). μοι is unnecessary, as the location of the oracle is an objective fact and the factor that makes his ascent particularly difficult (γήρως) is mentioned in the next sentence. Valckenaer’s τοι is probably not a viable alternative, as Creusa is hardly ‘ignorant, or temporarily oblivious’ to the fact (Denniston on τοι: 537); she only needs to be made aware of the effect it has on the Old Man’s movements. 740 συνεκπονοῦσα κῶλον: ‘Help me move my limbs.’ The limb must be the Old Man’s, not Creusa’s helping arm: ἐκπονέω does not take the tool as object (‘move your limbs to help’) but either the thing that something is done to or the outcome (cf. Bremer (1972) 236–7). 741–6 The comic effect of the entrance is not generated by the Old Man’s slow and difficult movement alone, as is shown by the many tragic parallels without such effect (cf. 735–40n) and the absence of any reference to that movement in 1171–3. It is produced within just a few lines by the way the Old Man’s physical problems are being talked about, proving his wit and prefiguring his later agility when it comes to intriguing: the Old Man rejects Creusa’s commands with reference to his physical inability, but he avoids straight replies and instead gives his remarks a gnomic form (rather than being an exhausted and breathless ‘abgerissene Redeweise’, as Kraus 67 argues). Hence his comments appear as truisms and wisecracking. While not opposing Creusa directly, he makes her encouragement and warning sound unjustifiedly patronising. 741 ἕπου: ‘[K]eep step with me.’ (Jerram): Creusa leads but does not necessarily go ahead of the Old Man: cf. 1616, Hipp. 1196 πέλας χαλινῶν εἱπόμεσθα δεσπότηι. ἴχνος: Cf. Phoen. 836–7 δεῦρ’ ἐς τὸ λευρὸν πέδον ἴχνος τιθεῖσ’ ἐμὸν πρόβαινε, μὴ σφαλῶμεν, [1718]. 742 ἰδού: The Old Man responds to both parts of Creusa’s request: he is mindful of the dangers and explains that his physical condition makes following difficult. The interjection draws attention to his efforts to follow the commands but is also a mild protest (‘How? Look!’: cf. Stevens (1976) 35,



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

333

Perdicoyianni-Paléologue (2002) 82, and Dover (1981) 18 = (1987) 20–1); it is mostly colloquial (though cf. Battezzato (1995) 164 n.86 on lyric El. 1230), a character shared by the periphrases τὸ τοῦ ποδός/νοῦ, which do not mean more than ὁ πούς/νοῦς: Stevens p. 20, Phoen. 1202 καλῶς τὰ τῶν θεῶν καὶ τὰ τῆς τύχης ἔχει, IA 1403. On the accent cf. 190n. ποδὸς ... νοῦ: On the mind-body dualism cf. Herc. 268–9, Hel. 160. On the swiftness of the mind cf. Ba. 670, fr. 1032 τὸ δ’ ὠκὺ τοῦτο καὶ τὸ λαιψηρὸν φρενῶν, going back to Homer (Il. 15.80, Od. 7.36). 743 βάκτρωι: Staffs are a stock attribute of the elderly in tragedy (men e.g. Andr. 588, Ar. Pl. 272; Hecuba in Hec. 66, Tro. 276; cf. Harbsmeier (1968) 113–14; pedagogue characters can hold a staff on vase paintings, even where it is not mentioned in the tragedy: Taplin (2007) e.g. no.s 31–3, 35 from Alc. and Med.). Drama imitates real life in this, as grave stelai show (cf. Couvret (1994)). ἐρείδου: As Diggle (1981a) 104 notes, the middle is always used intransitively, so no accusative is to be expected. περιφερῆ στείβων χθόνα: Badham’s conjecture makes Creusa refer once again to the ascent that is still slowing down the Old Man’s progress (last mentioned in 739). περιφερής (in Euripides only Hel. 430 for an encircling wall) denotes a curvature (elsewhere mainly for circular shapes, but cf. Hipp. Epid. 1.13 = 2.684 Littré on a bulge, Xen. Cyn. 4.1 on the ideal form of a dog’s neck) which aptly describes the slope on which the temple stands. The change from L (π. στίβον χθονός) can easily be explained as a homophonous corruption of the verb with subsequent emendation of χθόνα to remove one of the two accusatives. Against the connection περιφερῆ στίβον (‘curved path’, e.g. Musgrave, Hermann, Diggle) three points can be adduced: a) χθονός left alone is flat: where else but on the ground would the path be expected? b) The topography of the stage is unlikely to show a curving route, and such a path is not otherwise evoked in the text or likely to have been re-enacted; knowledge of Delphi is not generally presupposed in the play, so the reference would not be comprehensible; c) it is not apparent in which way a turn in the path would necessitate an extra walking aid. 744 καὶ τοῦτο: ‘it/this thing too’: the staff is a proper supporting staff, not a blindman’s stick (cf. Bayfield’s ‘circling staff’); so if he does not see where to set his foot, the staff is of no use. τυφλὸν: ‘not guided by sight’ Chadwick (1996) 290: e.g. Herc. 199, Phoen. 1699. ὅταν: The seemingly causal sense is a result of the clause describing a repeated condition under which the ‘blindness’ of the stick regularly occurs: cf. Laird (1922) 43 (contra Pearson (1912) 426–35).

334

Commentary

745 ὀρθῶς ἔλεξας: in Euripides introducing a concession (Or. 100). μὴ παρῆι κόπωι: ‘don’t slacken out of weariness’; the dative is causal: Phoen. 852 κόπωι παρεῖμαι, Ba. 634–5 κόπου δ’ ὕπο ... παρεῖται. The noun (from κόπτω) denotes the beating of one’s chest (Tro. 794, Aesch. Cho. 23) but is already applied to any blow one suffers that induces exhaustion and weariness in the earliest attestation (Aesch. Suppl. 209 κόπων οἴκτιρε μὴ ἀπολωλότας). The correct reading was found by Barthold (1875) 7–8, after several steps from μὴ ᾿πάρεσκέ πω, with Tyrwhitt’s breakthrough πάρες κόπωι (in Musgrave (1762) 168). Paley’s active παρῆις (1858, accepted by Diggle), restores the prohibitive but is not enough, as the parallels show: the active παρίημι is never intransitive or absolute but takes either an object or an infinitive (exceptionally subjunctive: Bell. fr. 308); positing that the form is reflexive will not do, as the occurrences of the active with κόπωι (Tro. 693, Ba. 634–5) are accompanied by the reflexive pronoun. 746 οὔκουν ... γε: Cf. 356n. τοῦ δ’ ἀπόντος: The truism used to defuse Creusa’s admonition coheres only loosely with the preceding lines. We may add ‘power’ as the leading noun, i.e. the power missing so that one will not παρίεσθαι κόπωι. 747–51 When Creusa turns to the chorus, the tone changes to a formal address and enquiry with a longer period, enjambments, and tragic periphrases: the decisive moment for Creusa is approaching, and she is desperate for good news and willing to heed it. The urgency of her query and the affirmation that she is prepared for a positive response reveal both her intense wish and her confidence. She uses captatio benevolentiae and a promise as if the chorus had influence on the oracle. 747 ἱστῶν ... καὶ κερκίδος: the two ‘tools’ of the weaver: loom and shuttle (the same combination in Ba. 118). The mistress supervises and weaves herself, together with a team of helpers (normally slaves). Collard (on Hec. 362– 3) is too strict when he says that slaves are not involved in the actual weaving but perform only the menial tasks around it: the lady of the house does not engage in the latter, but the weaving is not uniquely her prerogative: cf. Wickert-Micknat (1982) 40–2, Schumacher (2001) 143–4. R. Fisher (2016) 207–9 rather bizarrely wants to make the shuttle the second addressee, with κερκίδος serving as epexegetic genitive of 748 δούλευμα (taken as ‘doll-shape’). 749 βέβηκε: The perfect of βαίνω with participle gradually becomes a periphrastic filler in Euripides’ writing: in the earlier plays the dominant meaning is ‘to be gone’; that notion is weaker in IT 1478 φέρων βρέτας θεᾶς βέβηκ’



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

335

and Hel. 1521–2. The participle becomes the main carrier of meaning here and in Phoen. 1073–4 οὗ παρ’ ἀσπίδα βέβηκας αἰεὶ πολεμίων εἴργων βέλη, with only a faint idea of movement. παίδων: a loose genitive of relation (K-G I 334) with τύχην: ‘with respect to children’. 751 βαλεῖς χαράν: ‘you will instill joy’; the paradosis is good: the formulation follows the epic pattern ἵμερον ἔμβαλε θυμῶι (Hom. Il. 3.139) and can be compared to Phoen. 170 σ’ ἐμπλῆσαι χαρᾶς, Soph. Aj. 51–2 ἐπ’ ὄμμασι γνώμας βαλοῦσα, El. 906, Phil. 67 λύπην πᾶσιν Ἀργείοις βαλεῖς. The formulation is slightly pleonastic – the instilling of joy presupposes that Creusa is not ἄπιστος ‘sceptical’ – but easily comprehensible. With the conjecture χάριν (Elmsley on Med. 865 [=895]), ἀπίστους (in that case ‘untrustworthy’) refers to withholding a promised reward; but no such reward has been set out, and it constitutes an undesirable loose end. 752–62 The chorus do not say why they decide to reveal Xuthus’ secret, but from the preceding stasimon one may infer that sympathy for and loyalty to Creusa and patriotic revulsion at the idea of Ion as king are their motives. Another reason presumed by Pellegrino, suspicions at the veracity of the oracle, does not surface here or later and is not communicated to Creusa. The passage is not an Überredungsstichomythie (so Schwinge (1968) 78–80): the conversation is one-directional; the chorus hear Creusa but do not address her before 760 and instead deliberate among themselves whether to breach Xuthus’ command. M. Lloyd (2006) 238 (similarly Lee) interprets this hesitation as avoidance of impolite direct confrontation with bad news (Alc. 803–25, Hipp. 88–99), but the chorus are kept from straight talk by the fear of Xuthus’ threats (756–8), rather than the embarrassement of the message. The talk moves slowly but steadily towards the key news, Creusa’s (assumed) childlessness: of the two exclamations by the chorus, the first, unspecific one (δαῖμον) generally alerts Creusa of bad news, the second informs her that she is concerned directly (τλᾶμον). 756 shows that the chorus are prevented from doing something (δρῶμεν), and Creusa then asks about the reason (φόβος τίνων πέρι). Finally, it becomes clear that it is something the chorus are afraid to speak about, which they are then ordered to reveal. They do so after a line that comments on their ceasing to resist. The text of 755 is uncertain, and L wrongly gives 753 and 755 to the chorus. For a detailed discussion cf. Huys (1993) 422–8. The continuous development strongly suggests that the entire dialogue down to 762 is performed by the same interlocutors, i.e. the chorus and Creusa, and that 753

336

Commentary

and 755 are not spoken by the Old Man (as Hermann first proposed). This is affirmed by similar sections in other plays, where a stichomythia leads up to a report of news (i.e. primarily messenger speeches; in the only seeming exception, Andr. 1076–7, the chorus do not take over the conversation but react to Peleus’ breakdown; cf. Huys p. 424). The self-centred reaction in 755, moreover, seems inappropriate in the mouth of the Old Man: contrast 808, where he justifies a similar remark by stressing that he is also affected (on the conjecture νοσεῖ cf. below). In comparison, psychologising arguments, e.g. that the tone of 753 and 755 is too distanced for Creusa (Kraus 69), are difficult to validate. 753 φροίμιον: ‘a beginning, a prelude’: Fraenkel on Ag. 1216. Reference to a bad ‘prelude’ is a common Euripidean way in which a cry or negative utterance is characterised by an interlocutor at the start of a conversation: cf. esp. Hec. 181, Herc. 1179, Phoen. 1336. μὲν: The μέν solitarium (Denniston 380–1) looks ahead to the rest of the message. 755 ἀλλ’ ἦ: a necessary change by Scaliger from unmetrical ἀλλά. Barrett on Hipp. 858–9: ‘[A] speaker asks “ἀλλ’ ἦ X” when he has not been considering X as a possibility, and then it suddenly occurs to him that X is likely to be true.’ θεσφάτοισι †δεσποτῶν νοσῶ: The expression poses several problems. 1) θέσφατα δεσποτῶν in the meaning ‘the oracle given to the master’ is against Greek usage: genitive attributes of θέσφατα denote the mantic god or, exceptionally, the person affected by the oracle (IA 498, Soph. OT 906–7). The latter is unlikely in this passage: δεσπόται could refer to Xuthus alone, but since Creusa does not know anything about the content of the oracle, she cannot use it in this sense; alternatively it cannot denote the royal couple, either, because in combination with νοσῶ it mixes perspectives: δεσποτῶν would be said from the chorus’ point of view, while the first person νοσῶ expresses things from Creusa’s own (contrast 751 and Hipp. 590 τὴν δεσπότου προδοῦσαν ἐξαυδᾶι λέχος, where the slave-master relationship is crucial). Hence the otherwise attractive δεσπόταισι θεσφάτων (Radermacher (1891) 31) does not satisfy either. δεσποτῶν – most likely to be the flaw in the line, possibly a gloss – can be explained with L’s misattribution of the line to the chorus. Λοξίου as a correct attribute with θεσφάτοισι has been suggested independently by Wecklein and Huys, but Huys (1993) 427 himself admits that it is ‘colourless’. Alternatively, it may be possible to change to νοσεῖ and read δεσποτῶν as partitive genitive following τι (e.g. Bayfield, Wilamowitz, Kraus). Apart from the twisted word order, however, the first person works well with 754 τλᾶμον, an address to Creusa (Huys p. 426 with parallels, also Schwinge



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

337

(1968) 79). There is also no obvious reason why νοσεῖ should have been corrupted into νοσῶ: with the attribution of the line to the chorus (cf. 752–62n), the first person makes no sense and is more likely to be a remnant of the original wording. 756 εἶἑν: The particle marks a transition not just to a new topic but also to a new mode of utterance, from lament to deliberation: cf. Phoen. 1615, IA 454, Kraus 69–70. That means the matter has not been decided and the chorus (again, after 696) pose a real question. The change to αἰαῖ is unnecessary and does not match the much more rational subsequent thought process: contrast e.g. the lamenting interjections after Herc. 1025. τί δρῶμεν: In Euripides this is always a self-contained, complete question. The connection of ὧν ... πέρι with κεῖται is also smoother than with δρῶμεν, so Murray’s sermo fractus is preferable to taking the line as a single and complete question. κεῖται: Cf. Dem. 54.23 ἐφ’ ὧν ἐνίοις θάνατος ἡ ζημία κεῖται. 757 τίς ἥδε μοῦσα: ‘What sort of song is this?’: cf. IT 145–6 τᾶς οὐκ εὐμούσου μολπᾶς ‘intoned on a sad occasion’ (Kyriakou), ‘joyless’ (Parker), Med. 1085. The chorus’ lament is lyric (cf. the Doricism in 754), so that is what is described. μοῦσα meaning ‘tune’ is often joined with synonyms of wailing, e.g. IT 182, Phoen. 1499, Hyps. fr. 752h.7. 758 δράσομεν: The change to δράσωμεν is unnecessary. The future is often used in deliberative questions, even beside subjunctives: e.g. El. 967, IT 96–8, IA 442 (where Burges’ conjecture is likewise unnecessary), Soph. Aj. 403–4; cf. Wackernagel (1926) I 205. 759 εἴφ’: 758 makes clear that the chorus’ aporia concerns some piece of knowledge which they hesitate to share. Hence Creusa’s more concrete order and her hint at the inkling she has. ὡς ... γε: ‘for’: cf. Denniston 143, Waś 62. The conjunction is used paratactically (cf. Or. 68); in this instance the explanation with the ellipsis of ἴσθι (333n) is not viable. 760–2 In 760 the chorus are once more thinking aloud, deciding to reveal the oracle: when they do so in 761–2, they communicate its consequence for Creusa, i.e. the information which they regard as most pertinent to her (cf. 680), not the exact response. So the way they phrase it is not an attempt to inform Creusa without transgressing Xuthus’ prohibition (so Klotz (1917) 37–8) but most efficiently conveys the requested information. The development may be compared to the messenger scenes, where the messenger first summarily

338

Commentary

tells the main news, which is lamented over by the recipients; only then does he give the detailed account in a rhesis (1106–21n). The chorus repeat Ion’s and Xuthus’ misinterpretation of the oracle (608, 658). They err doubly: Creusa will have children (1589–94) and will even προσαρμόζειν Ion (an embrace in Suppl. 815–17, a kiss in Herc. 486, and thus a suitable description of her reunion with him: cf. 1437–43). 760 τοι: The particle responds to the command (Denniston 541, Wakker (1997a) 211–12): the chorus signal direct contact for the first time. διπλῆι: A trope with a certain freedom as to the number of deaths: Or. 1116 δὶς θανεῖν, Dem. 21.118 πῶς οὐ δεκάκις, μᾶλλον δὲ μυριάκις δίκαιός ἐστ’ ἀπολωλέναι; cf. Men. Dysc. 293–4, Dem. 19.110, Pl. Ap. 41A. On the form of the adverb K-B II 305–6. 761 ἐπ’ ἀγκάλαις λαβεῖν: Motherhood is here symbolised by the leitmotific gesture of protection and comfort (280, 962, 1375–6, 1454bis, 1598); cf. IT 1250–1 φίλας ἐπὶ ματέρος ἀγκάλαισι θρώισκων. 763–[807] Epirrhematic Amoibaion The amoibaion falls into two sections: in 763–70 Creusa bursts out in cries of lamentation, in reaction to the hurt caused by the chorus’ summary. The Old Man addresses her very briefly (a sign of particularly agitated movement: cf. Popp (1971) 263–4): his appeal to listen to the full account (769–70) makes it likely that he is trying to interrupt her wailing rather than joining her lament. The second section (772–805) is built very regularly and contains the actual information (following on from 770 μάθωμεν): the Old Man asks the chorus about what has happened, they answer, and Creusa reacts in lyric metres. The usual epirrhematic roles, with the iambics punctuating the song, are reversed, with the lyric being interspersed in a continuous dialogue in distichomythia. The information that is gradually revealed (772–805n) becomes ever worse for Creusa, exceeding by far the initial news of her permanent barrenness. At the end she no longer groans but wishes to escape, a code for death (797–9n). The change of tone in 797 may indicate that the last disappointment – that the young man she felt so close to is the cause of her future isolation – was the tipping point for her. Metre: Bold print marks the Old Man’s and the chorus’ utterances. ‘/’ indicates change of speaker/singer within the line. 763 764

‒‒⏑‒⏑ / ⏑⏑⏑ / ‒⏑‒ ia ⏑ doch ⏑‒‒⏑‒⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑ 2doch



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

339

765 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ ‖ doch 766 ⏑‒⏑‒⏑ / ⏑⏑ / ⏑‒⏑‒ ia ⏑ doch 767 ⏑‒‒⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ 2doch 768 ⏑‒‒⏑‒  doch iambel 769 ‒‒⏑‒‒ / ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒ ‖? 770 ⏑‒⏑‒⏑ / ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒  iambel 772–5 4x 3ia 776 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑ doch^^doch 777 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ doch 778–81 4x 3ia 783 ‒‒⏑⏑⏑‒‒⏑⏑‒‒‒ 2doch 784 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ doch 785–8 4x 3ia 790 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑ 2doch 791 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒‒⏑‒ doch^^doch 791bis ⏑‒‒‒‒ doch 792–5 4x 3ia 797 ⏑⏑⏑‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒‒‒ 2doch 798 ‒‒‒⏑‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ ‖ 2doch 799 ‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒  hypod doch 800–5 6x 3ia The first part could be described as two very short systems of strophic pairs linked by the opening iambic penthemimeres: 763–5~766–8 (with only a minimal difference in the speaker distribution) and 769~770. The second pair – the Old Man’s call to calmness – provides brief relief from the dochmiac genre and thus a momentary relaxation of the tension. Creusa’s dochmiacs show an accumulation of breves, a sign of agitation. Her utterances connect with the following spoken trimeters without hiatus or brevis in longo (with the exception of 770 and 799, both slightly calmer and at the end of the respective sections), possibly a sign of the pace of the performance. Creusa’s lyric interludes in the second part steadily increase in length (2.5 + 3 + 4.5 + 6 dochmiacs), a technique paralleled (less consistently) in Andr. 825–65 and Hel. 330–85. Without major changes to the text it is possible to reconstruct a pattern whereby the metre of Creusa’s parts grows organically out of the preceding ones. 763: The line conforms to the rule that at the end of the speaker’s part it could continue as an iambic trimeter (Barrett (2007b) 394). The transition into the dochmiac rhythm is seamless: the following ἐγώ even completes a full trimeter (hence Wilamowitz deletes συμφορᾶς). For double (and triple) antilabe in lyric cf. Herc. 105, Soph. El. 828–30/842–5, Phil. 201/210, OC 224, 539/546, Willink (2004) 55.

340

Commentary

766: αἰαῖ αἰαῖ is scanned ⏑‒⏑‒ for responsion. In other places, where intra metrum, it takes the shape of either ⏑⏑⏑‒ or ‒‒‒‒. But interjections are adaptable to the metrical context, and ἰὼ ἰώ is iambic in Suppl. 805 (a certain conjecture), Phoen. 310, [1723], [1725]. Paeonic scansion would produce ia doch, but with an undesirable change of speaker after the first syllable of the dochmiac. Trochaic scansion of τέκνον – required for 3ia^^3doch (Willink (2004) 55; cf. Herc. 80–1~102–4 and 90–2) – must be avoided (Conomis (1964) 38). 769–70: For the same division in iambelegiac cola cf. 1479, 1484, Herc. 1185–7, Hyps. fr. 759a.1609–10. 776: On doch^^doch cf. 676~695 n Metre. Seidler (1811) 68 restores a second dochmiac by adding another ἔλακες, which is unnecessary and prevents a linear increment of Creusa’s lyrics. 790–91bis: Given the rest of 776–99, purely dochmiac metre is preferable to isolated iambics. Willink (2004) 59 prefers B. Heath’s 2ia doch | ia cr doch. Diggle (1981a) 105–6 reconstructs a run of five dochmiacs, which contains an undesirable elision of ἔλακ᾿ (790n) and the phrase ἐρημίαι δ᾿ across dochmiacs. The solution presented here is closer to the paradosis than Diggle’s and fits organically into the development of the metrical system, also avoiding the unfortunate position of ἄρα at the start of a dochmiac. 763–8 Even before Creusa hears the details, she breaks out in lament, a sign that she already finds the idea of continued childlessness hard to cope with; the further news then becomes unbearable. She is comparable, for example, with Hecuba, who breaks down when it turns out she has lost not just Poly­ xena but also Polydorus (Hec. 670–720). In 763~765 the distribution of the text is disputed: ὤμοι θάνοιμι and διοιχόμεσθα are given to the Old Man by L and some modern editors (e.g. Wilamowitz, Owen, Italie, Biehl), although they need to be given to Creusa (cf. Huys (1993) 428–32): L is without authority, as seen from the fact that the feminine ὦ τάλαιν’ ἐγώ is also given to the Old Man. The value of many modern defences is diminished by idiosyncratic ideas of psychological plausibility (e.g. Kraus 70: ‘θάνοιμι liegt als kondensierter Ausdruck der Verzweiflung einem alten Menschen näher.’). Likewise the view that διοιχόμεσθα produces undue ‘bathos’ between Creusa’s cries (Barrett (2007b) 392 n.9) is disproved by Hipp. 591–5 ὤμοι ἐγὼ κακῶν· προδέδοσαι, φίλα ... αἰαῖ ἒ ἔ. By contrast, it is natural that Creusa reacts first and strongest to the news of her childlessness. The singular θάνοιμι would strike as odd if pronounced by the Old Man in the face of the much harder hit Creusa. Instead, the Old Man represents the voice of reason in 769–70, asking Creusa



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

341

not to moan – and is thus unlikely to cry out himself. By calling her τέκνον he is possibly trying to get through to Creusa (cf. 763–[807]n). 765 ἀβίοτον: Cf. 670n. φίλαι: Here and in 799 the chorus’ loyalty as well as Creusa’s state of distress and need of solidarity permit this slip in propriety. So far she has not addressed her maids in this status-levelling way (and cf. 1250), common as address to the chorus in situations of despair: e.g. Hec. 440, Hel. 627 (with Willink (1989) 48 and n.15). 767 ἔτυπεν: The strong aorist active occurs only here; cf. Lautensach (1911) 39–40. 767–8 πλευμόνων: Cf. 524n. 768 ἔσω: an intensifying (otherwise redundant) adverb: cf. Hel. 354, Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 1343. 769–70 769 μήπω στενάξηις: The Old Man asks Creusa to hold onto her: the request is one for the present situation, not a general call on her to keep her composure. Her interruption in the antilabic form underlines her exasperation. 770 μοι: a message ‘for me’: denominatives of verbs taking the dative can also take that case (K-G I 426). Rather than εἰπέ (Lee) one must supply μανθάνομεν from the preceding sentence. Willink (2004) 56 incredibly assumes an ethical dative ‘concerning/affecting me’. 772–805 The news progresses in four steps: 1) Xuthus will enjoy fatherhood, but without Creusa; 2) the son is already alive; 3) he was recognised by being the first person Xuthus met outside the temple; 4) this was the temple servant Creusa had met. Only at the very end is Creusa integrated in the dialogue: after 775 ταύτης the Old Man directs the chorus’ attention to her (793 ταλαίνης), they address her, and she (probably: cf. 799 with n) returns the address. However, she is listening all the time and reacts to the ever more hurtful revelations with ever longer expressions of lament: 776 τόδ’ ἐπὶ τῶιδε κακὸν and 791–bis ἐρημίαι δ’ ὀρφανοὺς δόμους are direct reactions to the information just given. 772–7 Creusa’s isolation and lonely fate have been the main point of empathy for Ion and the chorus (608, 699). Some formulations (τῆς συμφορᾶς κοινωνός, εὐτυχεῖ) recall these passages.

342

Commentary

772 ταὐτὰ πράσσων: ‘faring in the same way’; the same adverbial accusative with a different meaning Hel. 1393–4 ταὐτὰ (i.e. equally εὖ) γὰρ παροῦσά τε πράξεις τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν σὸν ἤν τε μὴ παρῆις. 775 ἰδίαι ... δίχα: For redundant δίχα cf. Herc. 104 ἐξίσταται γὰρ πάντ’ ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων δίχα, Mel.Sap. fr. 484. 776 ἐπὶ τῶιδε: I.e. in addition to the first information, her perpetual childlessness (761–2): ‘the peak of woe [...], coming on top of the other’ (Lee). To her, as to the Old Man in 768–72, her isolation is more important: ἄκρον ἄχος is predicative. 778–84 The Old Man asks if the child is alive because the aorist of 775 ἔδωκε suggested as much, but Xuthus consulted the oracle to learn how to beget a child. 780 ἐκτελῆ: ‘full grown’, in his prime: cf. Aesch. Ag. 105 (with West (1990) 175). 781 δίδωσιν αὐτῶι Λοξίας: Cf. 69, 1532, 1561. The chorus’ previous scepticism (685) has disappeared. παρῆ δ’ ἐγώ: The chorus signal that they can testify to the event (e.g. Lys. 8.15, 23.9): in the 4th cent., when there are no longer interrogations in court, παρῆν is a standard formula by which witnesses confirm their written affidavits (Thür (2005) 153; cf. 1410–38n). The restoration of the common 5th-cent. form without -ν is appropriate here (from L’s παρῆν; contrast 280). 783 ἄφατον ἄφραστον ἀναύδητον: ‘that which prevents speech’: the news is so horrendous that it is unutterable and renders speechless (cf. 670n, 699– 701). The alliterative tricolon of synonymous adjectives (cf. Ba. 995, Aesch. Cho. 55 ἄμαχον ἀδάματον ἀπόλεμον) stresses the idea, but here also in itself enacts the struggle to find the words to express and cope with the situation. The transmitted double ἄφατον is metrically implausible and produces anadiplosis in a position that is unusual in a dochmiac: cf. Diggle (1990) 109–10 = (1994) 376–8. ἄφραστον cures both problems and removes the awkward constellation of one repated and one unrepeated adjective. 785–91 After two open questions about the situation the Old Man now demands further specification. He asks two questions at once (πῶς, ὅστις), but they are answered separately by the chorus. 785–6: A more colloquial pronunciation of the sentence is conceivable with the direct question πῶς ... ἐκπεραίνεται; Then follows the imperative (cf.



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

343

750, Med. 693 = Pel. fr. 602 τί χρῆμα δράσας; φράζε μοι σαφέστερον), to which the indirect question is attached. In that way 785 is retrospectively integrated into the syntax, as if to say: πῶς...; φράζε μοι τοῦτο καὶ ὅστις ... 787 ξυναντήσειεν: Cf. 534n. ἐκ θεοῦ: ‘from the house of the god’: cf. 1039. 790 ὀτοτοτοῖ: Diggle (1981a) 106 remarks on scribes’ propensity to expand exclamations. τὸν ... ἔλακεν: The double change from the transmitted τὸ δ᾿ ... ἔλαβεν forges a close connection with the oracle, the topic of the four preceding trimeters. With ἔλακεν Creusa attributes the oracle directly to Apollo and links him with her continued childlessness. ἔλακεν is necessary after the rejection of τό, which is inevitable: the equation of τὸ ἐμόν ἔλαβεν with ‘I have received’ (defended by Wilamowitz) is untenable (cf. [615]n). δέ after an ὀτοτ- exclamation is attested only in Aesch. Pers. 1051–2, where the connection is to the preceding sentence. ἔλακ᾿ metri causa (Conomis (1964) 33; with L’s geminatio of ἄτεκνον to produce two dochmiacs) is unlikely: Willink (2004) 59 counts just one reasonably certain elision in a strong aorist of tribrach shape (ἔλαχ᾿ Or. 963; Phoen. 1576 if genuine) against c. 75 unelided examples. 791 βίον: the same mistake (βίοτον) as in Hec. 1028 (emended by Hermann). 791–bis ἐρημίαι δ’ ὀρφανοὺς δόμους οἰκήσω: lit. ‘I will inhabit my childless house in solitude.’ On the modal dative cf. Moorhouse 90–1. Creusa deplores a double personal misfortune: ἐρημία describes her own isolation (cf. Andr. 1216 ἄτεκνος ἔρημος, οὐκ ἔχων πέρας κακῶν), while ὀρφανοὶ δόμοι means ‘line without offspring’ (cf. Or. 664, Soph. fr. 943), i.e. the end of her family line. The line is not specified as that of Erechtheus, as for Creusa all that counts is her personal catastrophe. The family’s particular nobility is of no import in her context. 792–5 793 πῶς δὲ ποῦ: The question is geared to the answer: by asking about the mode and place of recognition, the Old Man ‘accidentally’ names the two points by which Creusa can identify the boy. For similar double questions cf. Alc. 213, El. 779–80. 794 οἶσθ’: The chorus start their explanation in the same way as Creusa in 936 and 987. They turn to her, as the Old Man has not met Ion and hence cannot understand the answer. The reference to his sweeping recalls the low standing of the boy and expresses their disdain.

344

Commentary

797–9 After the chorus’ last revelation Creusa moves away from the lament about what she is told and to the wish for death. The poetic trope of escape from present perils by flying away to a distant place comes at the climax of bad news. It is based on standard motifs: moist air and the flight westward to the stars. The only non-conventional element is the emphasis on the distance from Greece (cf. Andr. 861 Φθιάδος ἐκ γᾶς): a sign that she feels humiliated before Athens and the pan-Hellenic public of Delphi (cf. 366). In the tragic use of the trope (also 1238–9), the aim of flying is the escape from a perilous situation and relief from given circumstances: hence the flight is often juxtaposed with hiding in the caverns of the earth (cf. 1238–43n). Both scenarios frequently allude to death (e.g. Hec. 1105–6; cf. 798n). The motif goes back to Alcman (PMGF 26: cf. Kugelmeier (1996) 117; also Anacr. PMG 378), where, however, the speaker needs to fly because his legs no longer support him. 797 ἀν’ ὑγρὸν ἀμπταίην αἰθέρα: The ‘environmental’ use of the preposition comprises ‘on’ and ‘in’ (Willink (1999) 426): cf. 1494, Hipp. 17, 447, Hel. 180, Pha. 272. For ἀμπταίην cf. e.g. Or. 1375–6 πολιὸν αἰθέρ᾿ ἀμπτάμενος, Ar. Av. 1338 (=Soph. Oen. fr. 476), Anacr. PMG 378. These parallels could confirm the correction of ἄν πταίην, if proof were needed: the position of ἂν is as dubious as its function in a wish. For the regular occurrence of the optative in the trope cf. Padel (1974) 230. ὑγρὸν: Both liquid more generally and the aether are standard elements in escape wishes: cf. Pha. 168–70, Pind. N. 8.41 πρὸς ὑγρὸν αἰθέρα, CEG 535 (4th cent., Piraeus), Verg. Aen. 7.65 liquidum trans aethera, Hor. carm. 2.20.2, Renehan (1982) 134. We thus need not read the idea of the moist aether as influenced by presocratic philosophy, where the sky holds the moisture evaporated by and drawn to the sun (Ar. Nub. 1279–82, Anaximander 12 A 27, Diogenes of Apollonia 64 A 17: cf. Egli (2003) 70–1), and even less so the philosophical fancies of Assaël (2001) 45–60. Since Homer the aether was the sphere in between the firmament and earth that held the clouds: cf. Leaf on Hom. Il. II p. 599–600 and 85. 797–8 πόρσω γαίας: Preposition and noun form a word group, so the largely avoided word end after long second anceps in the dochmiac (cf. L. Parker (1966) 12, Lourenço (2011) 58) may be permissible here (pace Willink (2004) 62): another example is Phoen. 176 (accepted by Mastronarde, obelised by Diggle); Hec. 1060 even has a syntactic break. For πρόσω in the mss instead of πόρσω cf. e.g. Alc. 911, Ba. 392. It was written by Triclinius, who probably just deleted the same form at the end of the preceding colon to emend the colometry, as he often does.



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

345

798 ἀστέρας ἑσπέρους: The birds of the escape trope often flee to the stars (Hec. 1099–1106, Hel. 1489–90; cf. Or. 1376) or follow the westward course of the sun (Hipp. 738–43, IT 1138–9), to where the stars disappear to the underworld, another pointer towards death (cf. Soph. OT 175–77 εὔπτερον ὄρνιν ... ὄρμενον ἀκτὰν πρὸς ἑσπέρου θεοῦ). 799 οἷον οἷον: exclamatory: cf. 1474, Hipp. 845 μέλεος, οἷον εἶδον ἄλγος δόμων, 879 (anadiplosis), PV 908, K-G II 370–1, Monteil (1963) 190–3. ἄλγος ἔπαθον: Near-repetition frames Creusa’s lament (cf. 764 ἔπαθον ἄχος). φίλαι: Diggle doubts the text of the line, without offering details why. The only plausible one is that no clear trace of φίλαι is visible in L, which matches Wecklein’s claim that it is only a later addition in P. Some letters have been erased, and use of an UV-lamp reveals traces that may have been φι..α; the supplement (if it is one) is plausible after 764 (see n) and the chorus’ φίλη δέσποινα. 800–3 After the shock of 794–5 Creusa no longer reacts to new information from the chorus. So the distichic pattern of the Old Man and the chorus ends without lyric response (and instead the chorus’ utterance is prolonged by two verses). Creusa’s silence is a sign of the degree of her distress, as in Aesch. Pers. 290–2 σιγῶ πάλαι δύστηνος ἐκπεπληγμένη κακοῖς· ὑπερβάλλει γὰρ ἥδε συμφορά, τὸ μήτε λέξαι μήτ’ ἐρωτῆσαι πάθη. The focus of the Old Man’s question is not so much on the name itself as on the fact that Ion receives a name: without this christening act – an allusion to the Amphidromia (cf. 653n) – Xuthus has not validated (κυριόω) his acceptance of Ion as his son; not only would the stain of namelessness remain on Ion (cf. Yoon (2012) 133–40), but he would have no official claim to his new status. 800 ποῖον: Distinguishing ποῖος from τίς is not always possible: cf. Andr. 299 τίν’ οὐκ ἐπῆλθε, ποῖον οὐκ ἐλίσσετο. When asking for names τί seems more common with εἶναι, λέγειν etc., but cf. Ar. Av. 817 τί δῆτ’ ὄνομ’ αὐτῆι θησόμεσθ’; ποῖον with ὄνομα can prompt an explanation of the name (e.g. IT 499–500, Pl. Pltc. 291D–E). 801 ἀκύρωτον: ‘not made κύριον’, i.e. valid and legally binding, so more than just ‘undetermined’: cf. Eum. 639 τήνδε κυρῶσαι δίκην, Hdt. 6.130 ἐκεκύρωτο ὁ γάμος Κλεισθένεϊ, Andoc. 1.85. 802 ἤντησεν: The pseudo-etymological pun Ἴων-ἰών has been presented explicitly enough in 662 for this variation to be understandable to the audience; for the Old Man 787–8 must suffice as preparation. The alleged ety-

346

Commentary

mological root ἰέναι is now replaced by a synonym, making the derivation paradoxical (as with Athena in 9; cf. also 997n). The technique is typical for Euripides (e.g. Hel. 13–14 with Kannicht on 13–5). It ironises etymologies and the belief that name and substance are interrelated: if the synonym does not bear any resemblance with the proper name, the perception of a bond between names and like-sounding words becomes doubtful; this does not, however, imply the fundamental rejection of the validity of etymology: cf. O’Hara (1996) 13–16, Sedley (2003) 39–41. 803 μητρὸς δ᾿ ὁποίας: As in 574, the question does not specifically aim at the mother’s status and origin (pace Kraus 71): cf. Hel. 572. L divides the line between the Old Man and the chorus. The indirect interrogative would then be impossible but easily emendable (δὲ ποίας of Par. gr. 2817). Rather, the distichic format continues: the chorus state that they have no further knowledge concerning the recognition and thus bring this unit of the scene to an end. ἵν’ εἰδῆις πάντα then forms the transition to freer composition. ἔχω: Kraus 71, with an eye toward 540, wishes to change to ἔχει. That reading would make the tone even more deferential: if the chorus cannot name the mother, it is for lack of knowledge; if Xuthus cannot, it is a disgrace. But the chorus would fall out of their role as informers and shift point of view, away from the statement of facts to an evaluative judgment. This runs counter to their very subtle criticism, if it is criticism at all. 804–[7] For their plot it is essential that the Old Man and Creusa be informed about Ion’s activities and whereabouts. At the same time the matter gains extra urgency as Ion’s position is about to be established and cemented by ritual acts. 804–5 is the only brief indication of the parallel off-stage action. The next two lines are anticipatory interpolations (ch. 6B; cf. [982]). The reference to the tent comes as a surprise, since the order to erect one has not been issued and cannot easily be inferred by the chorus from 654–5. That order (given in 1129) and the description of the tent (1132–66) make better dramaturgical sense if the information is new. Wilamowitz already deleted 807 on the basis that two future participles (805 προθύσων, 807 ξυνάψων) cannot be left without a connector. In addition, the participle clauses produce redundancy in that the ξένια καὶ γενέθλια (805) already encompass the meal mentioned in 807 (ξένια καὶ γενέθλια correspond with the festivities of 653 and 664 respectively; cf. also 711). 804 ἵν’ εἰδῆις πάντα τἀπ’ ἐμοῦ: The chorus are no longer waiting to be asked but give the rest of what they know. They break the distichic dialogue,



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

347

and the formula brings to an end the unusually active role of the chorus and paves the way for the Old Man’s speech. τἀπ’ ἐμοῦ: proleptic: it comes ‘from’ them as it is being said; in English one might say ‘the knowledge that I hold’. 805 παιδὸς προθύσων ξένια καὶ γενέθλια: The chorus combine the Ge­ nethlia, which Xuthus says he will perform (653 with n), and Ion’s farewell celebration (665 πρόσειπε). While the Genethlia are defined by the occasion, Xenia is an unspecific umbrella term for the entertainment of guests (Schmitt-Pantel (1992) 40–1). παιδός is an attributive genitive, not dependent on προ- (so Bayfield, LSJ, but the construction is unparalleled); the meaning of that prefix is difficult to determine (cf. Casabona (1966) 107, Collard and Morwood on Suppl. 28–9): the sense seems to require ‘instead of Genethlia’ but ‘ahead of the Xenia’. The future participle after φροῦδος follows the analogy of verbs of movement (~ἀπῆλθε). 806 σκηνὰς ἐς ἱερὰς: On tents in sanctuaries cf. 1132b–66an. The description as ‘sacred’ (again [982]) is inappropriate: the tapestries happen to be temple property (again something the chorus cannot know), but nothing indicates that the tent as such is consecrated. Tents at festivals were apparently seen as private property (Andoc. 4.30, Plut. Alc. 12.1, Dion.Hal. Lys. 29); the sacred tent in Diod.Sic. 20.65.1 seems to be far more closely related to a religious function. λαθραίως: The only possible attestation with genitive dates from the Roman period and is rejected by editors (Alciphr. 2.24.1, with the majority of mss). 807 κοινὴν ... δαῖτα: Cf. 652. The paradosis (κοινῆ, παῖδα) seems too poor even for an interpolator. 808–[58] As Creusa stays silent, the Old Man draws his conclusions from the chorus’ account, partly commenting in her stead: in his opening remarks in particular (808–16) he expresses his dismay at the perceived humiliation of the entire family. He is the first to raise the idea of betrayal (808; cf. 864, 880); in picking up the chorus’ focus on nobility and the description of Ion as unworthy of the house of Erechtheus (683–4) he substitutes Creusa, who stays silent. W.-H. Friedrich (1953) 22 suggests that Creusa does not hear the Old Man’s speech. However, the monody seems more plausible as an immediate reaction to it than a delayed one to the chorus’ news: she, too, speaks of Xuthus’ noble behaviour at the start of the marriage (977) and thus follows the Old Man’s version that Xuthus changed after years of childlessness (817).

348

Commentary

Stealth is the leitmotif of the speech: 816, 819 λάθραι, 822 λάθοι; in addition 820 ἐξενωμένον, 825 ἐψεύσατο, 826 πλοκάς. The assumption of invisible dealings makes the speech virtually irrefutable and even turns the complete lack of evidence into an argument for its correctness: Xuthus’ silence out of ignorance (548–9) is interpreted as a sign of his furtiveness. The chorus do not even attempt to point out possible objections (cf. Gauger (1977) 19, 725–1047n); nor do they oppose the Old Man’s unjustified trust in the god, despite their previous doubts (685). The errors and the hateful rhetoric are allowed to precipitate the violent turn of events. The speech is biased and aggressively rhetorical. However, while the Old Man weaves together the few accepted facts – Ion’s position in Delphi (821– 2) and the supposed veracity of the oracle (825) – with a good deal of inventive reconstruction, his speech does not contain deliberate lies. Although his version of events is far from the truth, it is entirely consistent both in itself and with the input he has received (Leimbach (1971) 71–2, Gauger p. 23–8). His main error lies in the premise of 825: that the oracle is true, and that Xuthus has been pulling the strings. The Old Man is, however, malicious in fitting the story with the worst and most hurtful details for Creusa: Xuthus’ extramarital encounter is described not as a mere fling but as consequence of Creusa’s barrenness; Ion is denigrated as of the lowest possible origin and socially isolated (cf. 822n); even the plan to go to Delphi is taken as a lie to Creusa. The Old Man risks stirring her (or perhaps even intends to do so); Xuthus is portrayed as a liar (825) and manipulator (824) who is selfish and forgetful of all the good from which he, as a foreigner, has benefitted (813–14). In all this the Old Man is manipulative himself and adds some rhetorical flavour: e.g. the tricolon with homoeoteleuton of -όμεσθα in 808–11, the heavy three-word trimeter 810 (cf. Marcovich (1984) 111), the exaggeration of ἐκβαλλόμεσθα, and the self-referential transition in 816. The speech does, however, lack the smoothness of Ion’s, most notably when, after the powerful start, the first period fizzles out. 808 προδεδόμεσθα: Creusa will adopt the Old Man’s point and base her entire monody on the idea of προδοσία (864, 878–80), albeit with a shift of focus to Apollo. The term προδίδωμι attributes blame and thus marks a step beyond the mere statement that Xuthus’ and Creusa’s fates are no longer connected. The passive construction prevents the emphasis from falling on Xuthus, laying it instead on the gravity of Creusa’s situation. 809 μεμηχανημένως: ‘deceitfully’. The derivation of adverbs from participles (Frohwein (1868) 81–8) is already established in Homer (e.g. Il. 3.85 ἐσσυμένως, 7.317 ἐπισταμένως). In Euripides, however, the only other example of the perfect passive participle is IA 1021 λελογισμένως; cf.



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

349

Aesch. Suppl. 724 σεσωφρονισμένως, PV 65 ἐρρωμένως, Ar. Ach. 248 κεχαρισμένως. 810 ὑβριζόμεσθα: The word signals deliberate humiliation: Xuthus makes secret plans against Creusa; she is to lose her status in the household. His power to establish his own family and exclude Creusa from her own house constitutes ὕβρις against her: in Phoen. 620 Polyneices complains of ὕβρις immediately after Eteocles has prevented him from uniting with his family (cf. N. Fisher (1992) 428). 810–11 δωμάτων τ’ Ἐρεχθέως ἐκβαλλόμεσθα: The Old Man exaggerates the situation: he speaks as if Creusa were being expelled; rather, she will be isolated (608–10, 697–9, 791–bis) and lose control over the household and its future. The unconscious overlap with the terminology of exposure is ironic and all the more bitter for Creusa. 811b–12 A double captatio benevolentiae: the Old Man assures Creusa of his love for her and foregrounds his positive motivation rather than his hatred. If he appeared to aim at Xuthus as an outsider, he would stain his own ethos and alienate Creusa, in particular since she (as we learn in 977) has not lost respect for her husband. His words, however, can hardly conceal his intention of denigrating Xuthus: 813–16 summarise offences committed by Xuthus against Creusa and justify the Old Man’s frank speech; 817–[31] provide the narrative itself. 811 καὶ: The motivation is added as a parenthesis at the end of the sentence (cf. 47–8n). However, the speech does not return to the level of the first statement (i.e. ἐκβαλλόμεσθα), but each subsequent clause depends on the preceding one. 812 φιλῶν: The Old Man tries to back up his credibility by reference to his loyalty. The comparison is repeated in IA 871 καὶ σοὶ μὲν εὔνους εἰμί, σῶι δ’ ἧσσον πόσει to justify disloyal behaviour towards the absent party; cf. Erechth. fr. 360a φιλῶ τέκν᾿ ἀλλὰ πατρίδ᾿ ἐμὴν μᾶλλον φιλῶ. 813–16 The summary implies different offences by Xuthus against Creusa: infidelity and deception are aggravated by his lack of appreciation for the privilege of marriage, as a foreigner, into the (autochthonous) royal house; the humiliation of betraying the mistress of a δῶμα (and of Erechtheus’ at that) with a low woman is yet another slight. The synopsis ends at the same point as the narrative 817–29: the completion of the takeover of the city by handing the rule to Ion.

350

Commentary

813 ὅστις: ‘a man who’, almost ‘since he’: the indefinite relative referring to a definite person is often explanatory and probatory, abstracting from the individual to the nature of, and actions performed by, the person: cf. Hel. 847 (I, Menelaus,) ὅστις Θέτιν μὲν ἐστέρησ’ Ἀχιλλέως, K-G II 399 n.1, Friis Johansen (1959) 126 n.80. ξένος: Cf. 293n. The description as ‘foreigner’ increases the blameworthiness and makes the takeover of the land all the more outrageous: Xuthus has betrayed the woman thanks to whom he has risen to the status of an Athenian. The idea is strengthened by the prefixes in ἐπ-εισ-ελθών (cf. 590 ἐπείσακτον). πόλιν: In terms of grammar, the word should be read only as directional attribute of ἐπεισελθών for metrical reasons; but as part of Creusa’s παγκληρία the city is also object of παραλαβών. 814 παγκληρίαν: The term is particularly appropriate, given that the inheritance encompasses the rule over the city: cf. Suppl. 14, Soph. fr. 915. It is no more than an intensification of κλῆρος (cf. e.g. πανάθλιος, πανωλεθρία), without legal significance or even instances in classical prose: 1542, Aesch. Cho. 486. 815 ἐκκαρπούμενος: The verb καρπόω combines the metaphor of children as καρποί with the mercantile metaphor of yields (cf. 475). The plural παῖδας has an additionally malicious ring. 816 λάθραι πέφηνεν. ὡς λάθραι δ’: a variation of epanalepsis: cf. Cycl. 322–3 οὔ μοι μέλει τὸ λοιπόν· ὡς δ’ οὔ μοι μέλει ἄκουσον. The frame formed by λάθραι around the antithetical πέφηνεν creates a paradoxical effect, supporting the paradoxical argument whereby the lack of any evidence of a plot becomes proof that there is one (808–[58]n). πέφηνεν ... φράσω: The tenses adhere to the typical practice of oratory: the perfect underlines the incontrovertible character of established facts: 879n, Lys. 16.19, Dem. 19.294, 29.46; the future introduces a proof (or, as here, a narrative replacing a proof). 817–29 The speech becomes most ironical and irritating to the knowing audience by the fact that Apollo’s and Xuthus’ roles are reversed (cf. 825): the driving and controlling part ascribed to Xuthus is really the god’s (67–8), as are the individual actions: the engendering of the child, the transferral to Delphi, the lie, and the plot; even the investiture as king is part of Apollo’s ‘oracle’ in Athena’s speech (1572–3). Only the categorical and unjustified exoneration of Apollo enables the Old Man to put all the blame on Xuthus (Leimbach (1971) 72–3, Gauger (1977) 24–5). However, Apollo actually



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

351

defrauds Xuthus, not Creusa, by planting a child into his family without his knowledge. 817 ἄτεκνον: here best in the meaning ‘infertile’, as an inference from the absence of children: cf. Mel.Desm. fr. 491, Barone (1987) 62–3. 817–18 οὐκ ἔστεργέ σοι ὅμοιος εἶναι: ‘He was not content to be in the same position as you’: στέργω is not otherwise used with infinitive, but it is best to accept the anomaly; Owen’s explanation of οὐκ ἔστεργε as equivalent to ἔτλη is unconvincing. Herwerden’s deletion of 818 would require σε (cf. Andr. 468 μίαν μοι στεργέτω πόσις) and possibly aorist. 818 ἴσον φέρειν: The idea is the same as in 704. Cf. Erechth. fr. 360.20–1 οἶκος οὐ πλέον σθένει πταίσας ἁπάσης πόλεος οὐδ’ ἴσον φέρει, with μέρος El. 888 – the expression is analogous to ἔχειν ἴσον, e.g. [1318], Phoen. 547. 819: The Old Man makes two distinct accusations: the low status of the woman to whom Xuthus resorts and the secrecy of the ‘affair’. Secret unions are generally shameful: cf. Tro. 44 γαμεῖ βιαίως σκότιον Ἀγαμέμνων λέχος, 252, Eubulus PCG 67. δοῦλα λέκτρα: The formulation humiliates Creusa, depersonalising the woman while consigning her to the lowest class; it is far removed from the allegedly non-hateful attitude of the speech (811). The malicious assumption of the woman’s slave status (not inherent in the chorus’ report except possibly in the mention of Ion’s own servile standing) has the greatest possible alienating effect on Creusa. The interpolator of 839–41 draws out this effect. 820 ἐξενωμένον: lit. ‘brought to a host’, then ‘taken out of the country’: Hipp. 1085, Soph. Trach. 65. The expression distinguishes this transfer of the son from διδόναι (‘give up for adoption’), used elsewhere in the play (69, 781, 1532, 1561). The procedure resembles that of entrusting young sons to friends abroad for their safety (e.g. Orestes; Polydorus in Hec.). 820–1 τωι Δελφῶν: For the rare enjambment separating very closely connected word groups cf. Hec. 163–4 ποῦ τις / θεῶν ἢ δαίμων ἐπαρωγός; Several instances of enjambment in this passage may suggest the fast performance of a breathless rant. 822 ἄφετος: ‘let loose’, in a sense similar to ἀλάομαι (cf. PV 665–6 ἔξω δόμων τε καὶ πάτρας ὠθεῖν ἐμὲ ἄφετον ἀλᾶσθαι): this freedom is an ambivalent possession. In this instance the not being embedded in a regular household is a mark of Ion’s want of any social standing (cf. 1089). The negative connotations are clear, but the application to free cattle in Pl. Criti. 119D need not, as some think, be a common association evoked in this context.

352

Commentary

823–9 After the pre-history the Old Man deals with the present trip to Delphi, the oracle, and Xuthus’ ultimate plans for the future. Despite the key mistake of trusting Apollo, he comes to the correct conclusion concerning Xuthus’ plan. The text is heavily corrupt, but the basic meaning is discernible. 827 †ἁλοὺς: Editors suspect 828 but leave line 827 untouched. The difficulties, however, already begin here. The translations offered assume the sense: ‘if caught, he would have blamed (he meant/intended to blame) the god.’ But ἁλούς is most likely to be corrupt. The imperfect ἀνέφερ(ε) cannot be explained as de conatu, not even as conveying an intention or a hypothetical case without ἄν (K-G I 215–16, Goodwin 13, §38; cf. also Finglass on Soph. El. 914); that meaning would also make little sense: ‘if caught’ cannot refer to ἔπλεκεν (‘if caught weaving wiles’), as the clause states the contingency part of that plan; instead it must mean ‘if caught raising’ (to τρέφων) or ‘lying to’ (ἐψεύσατο); in neither case is there a possibility of denying and blaming the god if caught, since the verbs imply Xuthus’ intent. Moreover, for ἀναφέρω in the meaning ‘blame’, i.e. ‘ascribe blame’, we need an object denoting the charge (cf. IT 390, Or. 76); without it, the verb means ‘to refer to’, either in the sense of referring to an authority for justification or confirmation (without the notion of blame: 253 with n, 543) or in the sense that one leaves something to someone (to do: Or. 597). In a similar way, Xuthus may here be said to refer to the authority of Apollo’s oracle to confirm the existence and discovery of his son. ἁλούς then needs to be replaced by an object of ἀναφέρω, for example the declaration that Ion is Xuthus’ son: μένδέ (827–8) describes the temporal sequence of introducing Ion as his son and then making him his official heir. Palaeographically close, though possibly too succinct, would be τοίας· δόλους ‘the ruse (i.e. the announcement of the relationship) he leaves to Apollo.’ 828: The line is almost universally agreed to be corrupt. If we reject the idea of an unfulfilled condition in 827, the reconstruction of an antithesis (λαθὼν δέ: e.g. Musgrave, Badham, Kovacs) becomes obsolete. What we need instead is an indication of place such as ἐς οἶκον or Ἀθήνας. τὸν χρόνον ἀμύνεσθαι is a formulation that cannot be made sense of; those who try must assume Aeschylean obscurity: the same translation ‘parry the assaults of time’ has been explained by Bayfield as guarding against detection and by Owen (following Badham) as guarding against any danger to Ion’s succession; Kovacs (2003) 17 translates ‘ward off [the revelations of] Time’ (omitting the awkward article), which is incomprehensible without his addition in brackets. The best chance of hitting on a correct solution lies with those who orient themselves at 659, albeit in content rather than in the exact wording: λαβὼν δὲ καιρόν (Kovacs after Jacobs) may take the matter too far: it works



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

353

badly with θέλων and generally exposes the feebleness of the rest of the line. The spirit may be that of ἐλθὼν δ᾿ ἐς οἶκον καιρὸν ἀναμένειν θέλων ... [830–1] The lines have no particular dramatic effect (Page (1934) 71) but add to the recapitulation of the 2nd epeisodion. They are clearly interpolated: Ion’s name is irrelevant for the Old Man’s argument, and it is not suitable to trigger the chorus’ following remark (Kraus 72). In addition, the change of subject from name to person is awkward, the language unclassical. 830 ἀνὰ χρόνον πεπλασμένον: ‘(The name is new,) formed in accordance with the occasion.’ This corresponds with a regular meaning of the preposition, but the normal meaning of the phrase ἀνὰ χρόνον (e.g. Hdt. 1.173.3; more often in later historians) is ‘in the course of time’. πλάσσω ‘to form’ (cf. D. Müller (1974) 112) is an exceptional metaphor to be used with a name in classical poetry; on invented names cf. Aeschin. 2.153, Hellanicus FGrH 323a F 10a. 831 δῆθεν: with a notion of pretence (Denniston 264). 832–5 The chorus accept the Old Man’s story and the image of Xuthus that it creates (κακούργους), even though they could know better (cf. 725–1047n). What they say is, moreover, more rightly said about Apollo, and is ironical immediately before Creusa’s own plot. Against their usual preoccupations, they do not speak about the polis perspective; instead, they offer a bland moral reflection, which possibly implies an argumentum a minore: if Xuthus’ demeanour makes him unworthy of being a φίλος, he is all the more unworthy of being a husband. L gives the lines to the Old Man, but they interrupt the exposition of the specific case at a resting point for a generalising reflection of the kind choruses are wont to interject (often addressing the specific situation, but cf. e.g. Herc. 236–7, Hel. 1030–1). That the same speaker continues after the short interruption is rare in the presence of other actors, but not unheard of: Tro. 1209, IT 1078, Phoen. 1427, Or. 459. The continuation of the speech by the Old Man nevertheless draws extra attention to Creusa’s silence, and so there is no need to move the chorus’ lines before 859, as Diggle suggests. They fit better immediately after the Old Man has denounced Xuthus; the monody then is a reaction to the fact Xuthus makes a low-born nobody lord of the house (836–8). 833 μηχαναῖς: The tricks in question are the means to install Ion, i.e. the trip to Delphi and the stealthy introduction; the secretive procurement of an

354

Commentary

heir is the injustice (τἄδικ(α)). Euripides uses the term in his later plays in particular for the intrigue (1326, Hel. 813, 1034, Or. 1423; 1116 μηχάνημα). 834 φαῦλον χρηστὸν: The chorus’ observation becomes even more general and states a moral banality: a good but lowly man is better than a wicked successful one; cf. Andr. 639–41 κύδιον βροτοῖς πένητα χρηστὸν ἢ κακὸν καὶ πλούσιον γαμβρὸν πεπᾶσθαι καὶ φίλον. φαῦλος denotes an unrenowned man of no account (Hipp. 989, Andr. 379); when contrasted with the σοφός, the φαῦλος is often described as the preferable type (e.g. Andr. 481–2, Ba. 428–33, Lic. fr. 473; cf. Redard (1953) 100, Rosenbloom (2002) 290): the κακὸς σοφώτερος here is a man who gains power and influence through cunning. 836–[42] The Old Man has already made his point, but as Creusa does not react, he trumps his narrative denigration of Xuthus with an amplificatio (extended by an interpolator); his tone becomes openly spiteful and hyperbolic (ἁπάντων ἔσχατον), a rhetorical peroratio without much restraint. The basis of his attack changes: instead of Xuthus’ perfidious course of action it is now the low standing of his ‘son’ that is meant to disgust Creusa. The reaction thus matches the one Ion expected from his future fellow citizens in 592–4. The entire section is not free from problems, especially the Old Man’s change of tack and the fact that what he decribes as the ‘worst evil’ receives no mention at all in Creusa’s monody. In 839–42 the problems are so great that the text cannot be accepted as genuine: the train of thought loses sight of the general direction of the argument, wandering from one aspect to another by association. The focus of 836–8 (encapsulated in the derogatory tricolon ἀμήτορ’, ἀναρίθμητον, ἐκ δούλης τινὸς γυναικός, where the elements mutually reinforce each other) seems to be taken up in εὐγενοῦς, but then the thought swerves to Creusa’s possible consent. The second sentence (841b–2) does not provide a continuation of the idea of an ἁπλοῦν κακόν, but a contrast to πιθών σε. The argument of these lines is counterproductive and diminishes rather than enhances the effect of the strong rhetoric: that Creusa’s consent is conceivable undermines the condemnation of Xuthus’ disloyalty (817–18), as does the distinction between simple and worse κακά. It is salient that the requirement that the mother be Athenian (so that house and kingdom would remain in the hands of an Athenian) is omitted. Above all, it is entirely unclear what the Old Man intends to express in 841b–2. 836 ἔσχατον: The superlative is best understood as in the idiom ‘the most x of all previous ones’: e.g. Soph. Ant. 100–1, Hermippus PCG 77.4–5; cf. K-G I 23.



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

355

837 ἀναρίθμητον: ‘insignificant’, one who ‘does not count’: cf. El. 1054  οὐδ’ εἰς ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐμῶν ἥκει λόγων, Hel. [1679], Meleag. fr. 519, after Hom. Il. 2.202 ἐναρίθμιος. 838 δεσπότην: master of the land, but also master of the house. σὸν δῶμα and δεσπότην seemingly form a subtle paradox; the distinction between rightful and real power in the house makes the sidelining of Creusa all the more blatant. ἄγει: The transmitted infinitive ἄγειν would make Creusa bring Ion home: an additional subject is required and Xuthus is easily supplied from the Old Man’s last sentence before the chorus’ interruption (829). 839 ἁπλοῦν: I.e. not combining the multiple evils of secrecy, social humiliation, and expulsion from the family. 839–40 παρ’ εὐγενοῦς μητρός: This describes the real possibility for a man to have a legitimate biological child even if his wife was infertile (Poll. 3.21). Diogenes Laertius (2.26) mentions a decree that allowed Athenians – due to a shortage of men – to have legitimate children from women other than their first wives (Gellius 15.20.6: Euripides allegedly having two wives): cf. Harrison I 14–15, Just (1989) 53–4, Ogden (1996) 72–5, Carawan (2008) 402. These women were also wives, not παλλακαί (Patterson (1991) 285–7, Ogden p. 73 against Sealey (1984)). Thus if Xuthus’ child was from an Athenian woman, he might be able to pass on not just his but also Creusa’s entire inheritance. 840 πιθών σε: In fact, Xuthus intends to obtain Creusa’s consent before installing Ion (659–60). Like Creusa, Medea complains of not being asked about Jason’s new marriage (Med. 586–7). Both women are unusually powerful in their relationships: Medea on the grounds of Jason’s oath and his dependence on her in the quest for the golden fleece; Creusa as conveyer of the line and native of Athens. Even so, the repetition of the idea and Xuthus’ own consideration may suggest that women, while formally without rights, were expected to be consulted about their fates (e.g. Isae. 2.8, about their children: El. 264, Isae. 7.14). 842 τῶν Αἰόλου ... γάμων: This seems to be intended as an insult, referring to a marriage of inferior status. But the idea is unclear: should Xuthus have divorced and remarried, if he did not obtain Creusa’s consent? Not only does this (again) contradict the idea of spousal solidarity, but there is also no reason why the woman is then supposed to be from Xuthus’ own family. It is equally impossible that the Old Man suggests that Xuthus should have married an Aeolid in the first instance, as this is irreconcilable with the protasis. Nor can he mean that Xuthus should have taken a surrogate mother (γάμος in the meaning ‘intercourse’: cf. 10) from his own family. That would imply

356

Commentary

that the Old Man concedes Xuthus the right to proceed without Creusa’s consent. Is the Old Man transposing Athenian law onto Xuthus’ community of origin? If he weds one of his own tribe, the child will be a full citizen of that community and entitled to inherit (though not Creusa’s share of the inheritance). Marriage within one’s own family was accepted in Athenian law, but in Xuthus’ case the male line of his family is intact, and any woman would have done to produce an heir. [843–58] Murray and Page (1934) 71–2 suspect the section, Diggle deletes everything bar the first line: it is a vacuous amplificatio using material (and some formulations) from the plotting scene. The anticipation of the plot states the possible ways of, and the reason for, killing Xuthus and Ion (843–9) before the Old Man offers his help (850–3). A not very well connected commonplace on the equality of free men and slaves (854–6) concludes the passage. If genuine, the Old Man’s suggestion would make much of the discussion following the monody – about the target (esp. 976–7), the location (esp. 1020–6), and the manner (esp. 1029–36) of the assassination – redundant. For that scene to work it is essential that Creusa take no notice of the Old Man’s words here (cf. Schwinge (1968) 216–20). Some poor writing makes clear that the present passage is interpolated: the Old Man speaks of the necessary murder of father and child but offers his services only for the murder of the latter; the tricolon of methods of killing is inconsistent (844–5; a δόλος is a way of proceeding, not an instrument of murder as ξίφος and φάρμακον) and hard to tolerate in Euripides; the dual 848 is odd where Creusa is pitted against more than one enemy. On the linguistic plane, masculine θάτερον is unclassical; 847 has resisted all emendatory efforts; and more unusual usages of particles occur in close proximity (844, 850, 853). The arguments against deletion (Matthiessen (1984) 680, Biehl (1992) 21–2, Lee) are not convincing: 1) Without the lines, the start of Creusa’s monody is said to come abruptly. However, the concluding gnomê and the choral tag do not close the gap between the speech and Creusa’s song either, as they show no connection to the content of the monody. Moreover, the effect of abruptness seems intended through Creusa’s protracted silence, which heightens the impact of her lyric outburst in 859. 2) The repetitions in 972–1019a have been defended by the assumption of a difference in character and setting between the plot here (Biehl p. 21: ‘eine rein theoretische Erörterung’) and the planning after the monody. This distinction, however, is wrong (843 δεῖ σε δὴ κτλ. does not lack the character of an appeal), and the suggestions here are later presented as spontaneous ideas (cf. 971, 980, 984, 1020). Nothing in 843–57 motivates any later action that is not equally



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

357

motivated by some other passage (pace Biehl p. 22); to the contrary, nobody recurs to what is said here. Dramatically the plot is most sensibly mentioned only at the end of a development, after a continuous increment of pain and a culmination of bad news, and as the ultimate reaction to the monody; the poignancy is lost if the last resort – the plot against Ion – is revealed before the emotions are exhausted. 843: Pace Diggle, the line must go together with the rest of the passage. Left alone, without the explanation, it suffers from the same inconsequentiality as the rest of the speech, only with the undesirable comic effect that, if the murder plan is not set out and instead the monody follows, γυναικεῖον describes Creusa’s subsequent lament, not the plot. δὴ: The particle emphasises the following adjective rather than δεῖ: cf. Hipp. 688 ἀλλὰ δεῖ με δὴ καινῶν λόγων, Denniston 228, pace 215; nor is Owen’s and Lee’s interpretation with the stress (and accent) on σέ correct – nobody else in question could do something ‘womanly’. On δή emphasising a conclusion cf. Wakker (1997a) 216 n.17. γυναικεῖόν τι: Sententious comments about a typically female affinity to guile and trickery are frequent in, but not restricted to, Euripides, and made by both men and women: e.g. Med. 407–9, Andr. 85, IT 1032 δειναὶ γὰρ αἱ γυναῖκες εὑρίσκειν τέχνας; also Ar. Lys. 11–12, Eccl. 238. Of the following killing tools only poison is typically associated with women (outside tragedy: Antiph. 1, P.Oxy. 413). 844 γὰρ: The appositional particle may signal continuation of the construction after δεῖ: cf. Phoen. 952, Hude (1901) 314, Denniston 67. Diggle would rather expect ἤτοι, nor would a conclusive particle be inappropriate; but neither would decisively improve on the paradosis. 846 θάνατον ἐκ κείνων μολεῖν: Ion’s and Xuthus’ motive for killing Creusa remains wholly unclear. Contrast the explanation later when Ion does not understand her suspicion (1295–9). 847 εἰ γάρ γ’ ὑφήσεις τοῦδ’: This line and the following two were rejected independently by Dindorf and Badham before Murray deleted the entire section. Many object, but a good solution has yet to be found. In terms of content the line does not add to 846. γάρ γ(ε) – with γάρ written in space initially left blank, perhaps by Triclinius: cf. Zuntz (1965) 92 – is an impossible combination, and ὑφίημι is unparalleled in this meaning (Page (1934) 71, Alt (1966), Sansone (1977)). 848 εἰς ἓν ἐλθόντοιν στέγος: Cf. [612]. The metaphor is infelicitous if Xuthus is implied: he already lives under the same roof as Creusa.

358

Commentary

849 ἢ θάτερον ... ἢ θάτερον: Use of this form for the masculine is late. Owen follows Verrall in interpreting ἐχθροῖν as neuter (‘misfortune must attend one or the other’), but that is counterintuitive with ἐλθόντοιν. 850 μὲν οὖν: Diggle in his OCT objects to the particles: Denniston’s examples of ‘[ο]ὖν emphasizing an [...] affirmative μέν’ (475; cf. 478–9) show much stronger affirmation. 851 συμφονεύειν: The proposal sounds as if he wanted to take on the assassination by himself; the prefix is unnecessary and probably owed to a striving for polished style rather than serving to indicate coordinated action. In 1019–20 the idea that the Old Man is to help surprises him. ἐπεισελθὼν δόμους: The passage seems to take into account Xuthus’ order of 663–5. ὑπεισελθών has been suggested by Wakefield as the usual Euripidean formulation. Such consistency is not required in an interpolated passage, esp. since the verb has probably been taken from 813. 852 ὁπλίζει: The active is used in classical times only in the sense ‘to arm’; cf. 1124. 853 τε ... τε: rare as connector of alternatives (Denniston 515, contrast 858) in IA 56, Aesch. Suppl. 380, Soph. OC 488 (τε ... καί). [854–6] The concluding gnomê treats one of Euripides’ favourite topics (cf. Guthrie (1969) 155–60, Brandt (1973) 12–14, Rehm (2002) 185, Gregory (2002) 153–60): the question of whether the division of people into free men and slaves is incidental and one by name only or whether slaves are inferior by nature. In the present context, the issue seems to be whether a slave is noble (i.e. courageous) enough and worthy to participate in the plot: the Old Man claims that nothing prevents him as a slave from acting like the free. This assumption and the humanness of slaves have not been questioned in the play – quite the opposite (esp. 734). The gnomê is so general that it may easily have been taken from another play, although Stobaeus quotes it as coming from Ion. The argument against the inferiority of slaves is often made, albeit mostly in a way better integrated within the context: Hel. 728–33, Alex. fr. 57, Mel. fr. 511, Phrix. fr. 831 πολλοῖσι δούλοις τοὔνομ’ αἰσχρόν: cf. Synodinou (1977) 94–9, Baldry (1965) 37; the laments of the newly enslaved Trojans (e.g. Hec. 354–66, Tro. 474–510) also touch on the issue. Before the discovery of P.Oxy. 1364 the passage was assumed to be a reflection of Antiphon’s On Truth, but 87 Β 44b now shows that Antiphon speaks of how Greeks and barbarians are born equal but socialised differently (cf. Pendrick). Euripides is thus the second-earliest source for the view that slaves and free are not



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

359

different by nature, after Soph. Ter. fr. 591 ἓν φῦλον ἀνθρώπων ... τοὺς δ’ ὄλβος ἡμῶν, τοὺς δὲ δουλείας ζυγὸν ἔσχεν ἀνάγκας (before 414). The many formulations of the idea must not, though, be regarded as revealing Euripides’ stance: cf. Vogt (1972) 12–18, who sees the Old Man’s nobility disproved by his subsequent behaviour (p. 15), and Gregory (2002) 151–61, who finds the Old Man’s aims suitable to justify his actions (p. 155). From the 4th cent. we find similar remarks in Alcidamas (Mess. 1 Muir = fr. 3 Avezzù), [Philemon] fr. 95 Kock, and reported in Arist. Pol. 1253b21–2. 854 ἓν γάρ τι: Cf. Med. 381, Herc. 207, Dict. fr. 346 εἷς γάρ τις ἔστι κοινὸς ἀνθρώποις νόμος, Lys. 31.1. 856 ὅστις ἐσθλὸς ἦι: The subjunctive without ἄν in relative clauses conforms with Euripidean usage: e.g. Hipp. 427, Med. 516 (with Page); cf. K-G II 426 n.1, Bruhn §144 III, Bers (1984) 158. 859–922 Creusa’s Monody Creusa’s monody, the emotional high point of the drama, comes as a surprise: her lyric questions 859–61 are a sudden eruption of desperation after an extended silence. The lack of transition is dramaturgically highly effective: no choral lines round off the Old Man’s speech; Creusa does not slide into lyrics via spoken verse or recitative; and no entrance or exit precedes the song. Instead, the situation and the Old Man’s escalating rhetoric trigger an immediate extreme reaction. 859–61 Creusa’s dilemma (to her soul); lyric 862–80 Decision; recitative 862–9 Explanation 870–80 Announcement: Speaking out will bring relief 881–922 μομφή (to Apollo); lyric 881–906 Narrative 881–6 Address and announcement 887–96 Rape 897–901 Delivery 902–6 Death 907–22 Accusation 907–11 Address and announcement 912–22 Speech within the speech: recriminations The structure represents a process of thought (cf. Schadewaldt (1926) 217, Barner (1971) 312; against R. Rutherford (2012) 263: ‘uncontrolled outpourings’). Before she comes to the core of her lyric speech, the reproach of Apollo (881–922), Creusa soliloquises, convincing herself to launch into this μομφή.

360

Commentary

Only gradually does she reveal the subjects of her lyric speech – Apollo, the rape, and the exposure of the child – and only in the second lyric section, with the address to Apollo, do her allusions become clear (LaRue (1963) 130). In the first part, Creusa cries out her dilemma in a first sequence of Klag­ anapäste. Her two conflicting emotions – the shame and the urge to speak out – are struggling within her; the anaphoric rhetorical πῶς ‘how can I’ (859, 860) implies that neither speaking nor staying silent seems possible. After this desperate articulation of the problem Creusa changes to a calmer and more rational mode, justifying her decision before herself in recitative. The introductory lyrics thus express her inability to contain herself any longer, the anapaests that she has no reason to do so. In the second lyric part of the monody Creusa finally acts upon these considerations and brings herself relief by breaking her long suffering silence, denouncing Apollo for what he has done. While she presents her monody as a public pronouncement (886, 911), Creusa after 881 addresses only Apollo: she aims her statements at him, not the bystanders, and the Old Man will not grasp fully what she says (923– 65n). The song is an accusation of Apollo, directed towards him, after the hopes for compensation (cf. 425–9) have been dashed (cf. Bremer (1989) 68). As such it is part of a longer process of overcoming her shame and speaking about the past, which starts when Creusa tells her story as that of another (336) and ends with the full revelation to the Old Man and the chorus (934). The form is an inversion of the hymnic form (cf. LaRue), turning the usual praise into blame (μομφή, or ψόγος). However, the underlying argument is of a forensic rather than epideictic nature: the song is not a general ‘kakology’ of Apollo but an accusation of προδοσία. The first part provides a narrative of what happened; the second part is more directly recriminating, justifying Apollo’s designation as κακὸς εὐνάτωρ (912). This monody and Ion’s have been composed as complements: they show similarities in imagery, metre, hymnic form, motifs, and the central role of Apollo (Barlow (1971) 48; cf. the allusion to the paean in 906). The two songs are concordant in the divine portrayal of Apollo: he is equally associated with splendour and gold, the power of a god, and Olympic aloofness. However, they offer opposite views of the god’s moral qualities (Furley (1999–2000) 188, Swift (2009a) 94–6): Ion’s Apollo is benevolent and caring; to Creusa he appears egotistical and neglectful of his obligations towards her and their son; the purity of Delphi which Ion invokes seems sullied by the god’s actions which Creusa mentions. The two portrayals of the god suffer from the same limitations, that is the ignorance of the respective singers about their situation: the putative foster father’s generous treatment



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

361

of Ion is not as selfless as imagined, just as Creusa falsely assumes that he has neglected his son. Key to Creusa’s accusations against Apollo is the notion of χάρις (on that term in Euripides cf. MacLachlan (1993) 151–60), the charge itself is προδοσία (880; cf. Ion in 438). She claims alone to have offered the god χάρις, a favour or advance service, which has even caused her additional suffering later in the form of emotional distress. In her opinion she has thus won the right to ask for compensation (Gauger (1977) 34, 38). But instead, by giving a child to Xuthus, Apollo has bestowed good on him, who had himself rendered no service to the god, but even does Aphrodite χάρις (896), and none to Creusa. This thwarted reciprocity and the imbalance in the treatment of others constitutes the god’s betrayal and makes him a κακὸς εὐνάτωρ. The main directions in the interpretation of the ‘charge’ of the μομφή have, as a result of this underestimation of the role of χάρις and its violation, been mistaken: neither the conventional view that rape and neglect of the child as such are the causes of offence nor those who focus on the child (Burnett (1962) 91: Creusa’s charge ‘is not one of rape but of desertion and nonsupport’) have taken notice of the relationship between the two: it is the perceived inconsistency of Apollo’s action that Creusa complains about, the combination of intercourse and subsequent neglect and thus Apollo’s ἀχαριστία (contrasted with the favours done to others; cf. 880n). Hence the question of how Creusa perceived the union with the god misses the point: some scholars (e.g. Imhof (1966) 37–8, M. Lloyd (1986) 36–7) focus on the trauma that the rape caused Creusa. Others deny any trauma (Burnett (1962) 95–6, Taplin (1978) 119, Barlow (1986) 16, Thorburn (2000) 40–2). They point to the hymnic features such as the praising epithet ‘golden-haired’ as acknowledgment of the god’s greatness: Creusa felt pleasure at the union, as other mortal women do in the company of a deity, and complains only about Apollo’s desertion of the child. This position cannot be sustained (cf. Scafuro (1990) 145): it is refuted, for example, by Creusa’s cry (893). The song has also received different interpretations as to how its perspective is gendered. One feminist reading (Rabinowitz (1993) 198) contends that Euripides (as an author projecting the male view) undercuts and thus belittles the sexual violence. The more widespread view (e.g. Dunn (1990) 135, Zacharia (2003) 80–1) treats the monody as a woman’s breaking of her silence over male domination: the victim gives her own account of the rape. It is not, however, suggested by Creusa that Apollo and Xuthus are in some way representative of the male gender (only the chorus think so: 1090–1105), just so does she not propose her fate to be typical for women. Her case is highly individual, not an epitome of inter-sex relationships. More importantly, the monody is not cast in the discourse of sexual exploitation and female suppression, and Creusa does not (pace Zacharia p. 80) refuse

362

Commentary

‘the role of the object of exchange in male transactions’. As stated above, the quintessential accusation against Apollo is not the rape as such but his failure to fulfil his obligations in a mutual relationship of favours traded (as Creusa sees it: cf. the marriage imagery 891n). Nor is the way in which Xuthus treats Creusa described as male domination but again as a failure to honour his commitments. Another approach that has been adduced to explain the song is that of psychoanalytical interpretation: Creusa’s breaking of a long silence is seen as an eruption of knowledge repressed after a trauma (N. Weiss (2008) 43; cf. Zacharia p. 96). However, for all the psychological sensitivity we may accredit to Euripides, and for all the passion expressed, the process is described in terms of reasoned self-possession. Creusa does not suffer a mental breakdown or succumb to her frustrations but remains in control of her words. She gives a proper account of why she can reveal what she suffered: the external situation has changed in such a way as to no longer forbid her speaking: up to now her roles as wife and potential mother have imposed αἰδώς, the necessary consciousness of her reputation (863–9). At the same time speaking out provides relief (874n). In the rest of her speech the thought progresses in an orderly manner, and while her formulations are near repetitive – drawing on the same facts – the ideas she develops from them are distinct, clear, and consistent. Metre: 859–61 859 860 861

‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ ‖ 2an^ ‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒ ‖ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒‒  2an^

862–80 recitative anapaests 881–922 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892

‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ ‖ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑ 2ia †‒‒‒†‒‒‒‒ ‖ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906

‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ doch ‒⏑⏑‒‒‒ doch ⏑⏑⏑⏑‒‒‒ ‖ doch ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ ‖ 2an^ ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒ 2an ‒‒‒‒‒‒⏑ ‖ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒‒ ‖ doch ⏑⏑⏑⏑‒‒‒ doch ‒‒‒‒‒  doch

907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922

‒‒ extra metrum ‒‒‒‒‒ ‖ doch ‒‒‒‒‒ doch ‒‒‒‒‒ doch ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ ‖ 2an^ ‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒‒‒ 2an ‒‒⏑⏑‒‒‒‒ 2an^ ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒ an ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ ‖ 2an^ ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒⏑†⏑⏑‒† ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒‒‒ 2an ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 2an ‒⏑⏑‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒ 2an ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑ 2an ‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒‒ 2an^

363

The larger structure of the monody, with recitative not preceding but separating lyric sections, is unique (Barner (1971) 292) but matches the progress of her thoughts (cf. above). The lyric part consists of Klaganapäste, as did Ion’s monody, with which it is also linked by the interspersed dochmiacs, esp. the unique form ⏑⏑⏑⏑‒‒‒ (150–bis, 896, 905). However, Creusa here employs the anapaests in their common use as lament. Dochmiacs occur in particular when Apollo is mentioned (the rape 894–6, his calm and privilege in 905–8) and may be seen as marking Creusa’s agitation at thinking of the rape and of his neglect, especially as they show accumulations of shorts (894, 896, 905; cf. Tibaldi (1999) esp. 181, (2002) 142). The interpretation

364

Commentary

of the catalectic cola as indicating ‘disturbed, halting progress’ (Zacharia (2003) 89 applying the general remarks of West (1982) 122 to this song) is less appropriate here than in Ion’s monody, as Creusa’s reasoning is not obviously accompanied by physical motion. Period ends in 881–922 are in part difficult to establish. Those identifiable by hiatus or brevis in longo have in common that they occur after syntactic breaks and never follow 2an, but only 2an^ or doch (886, 901, 907, 911). This makes further period ends in 890, 896, 899 (?), 904, and 915 likely. Others may be desirable, esp. at 910 and 918. 859–61: There is period end despite syntactic cohesion after 860, so the interpretation of the three lines as stichic paroemiacs (Korzeniewski (1968) 95) is probably correct. Otherwise the hiatus in enjambment (cf. 175 n Me­ tre) would be particularly harsh and the explanation as a sign of Creusa’s breathlessness from exasperation would be forced. 889: Having rejected iambic interpretation in (1974) 22 n.2, Diggle changes his mind in (1981a) 96. The parallels IT 220 and 232 support his later view, and rule out a forced anapaestic interpretation (Dale (1968) 64, with dactylus-shaped φάρεσιν). 896: the same form of dochmiac as 150–bis. Again a double-drag dochmiac precedes. 904–6: The metre and colometry of the transmission have as the only weakness the ‘hexamakron’ (or anapaestic tripody: L. Parker (1997) 58), which Diggle (1974) 23–4, (1984b) 68 = (1994) 119–20, 315 vehemently attacks as a phantom (rejecting also the other possible instances: Hec. 158, Tro. 144, 148, IT 150, 154). With καί removed, the metre closely resembles the pattern of 148–50bis and 894–6. 907: With the interjection taken extra metrum (cf. CGFPR 240.30) a continuous line of dochmiacs is formed. ὠή forms a separating device as ἔα does in Ion’s monody (154, 170). The 2an^ with ὠή intra metrum would, however, also be unproblematic. 859–61 Creusa is in a dilemma: she feels the urge to speak and the obligation to remain silent, as she tries to retain her honour and virtue. We can apply what Cairns (1993) 327 says of Phaedra (cf. also Mastronarde (2010) 262): ‘it is aidôs, as the disposition which renders her sensitive to her own honour, to that of her kurios, and to the expectations of society, that motivates a woman’s observance of the norms which keep her in seclusion.’ The series of questions expressing the search for a way out of her misery is typical for the



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

365

monody of lament (e.g. Hec. 1056–62, Soph. Aj. 403–4; cf. Barner (1971) 298). 859 ὦ ψυχά: In Euripides first, the ψυχή is the seat of personality; the soul is addressed as ‘the source of words that [Creusa] is trying to stem’ (Sullivan (2000) 96; cf. IT 837–8 ὦ ... ψυχά, τί φῶ), but also as the main sufferer in the current situation (877; cf. Or. 466). In earlier literature the address to one’s inner self is mainly self-admonitory (e.g. Hom. Od. 20.18, in Euripides e.g. Alc. 837): cf. Leo (1908) 94–100, Birt (1931), Pelliccia (1995) 222. σιγάσω: The aorist of the deliberative subjunctive signals that Creusa is in an acute struggle, against both the inhibition from speaking and the urge to break her silence. 860 σκοτίας: a common adjective in Euripides; in connection with illicit sex Tro. 44, 252 after Hom. Il. 6.24 σκότιον δέ ἑ γείνατο μήτηρ (on the topos cf. Ebbott (2003) 20–8); the literal reading – events in the shadow of the cave being brought to light (ἀναφήνω; so Zacharia (2003) 87) – is subordinate; the metaphor is dead. 861 αἰδοῦς δ’ ἀπολειφθῶ: ‘(how) can I be left without shame’ (cf. Tro. 603 μάτηρ ἀπολείπεται ὑμῶν, Or. 80); the passive being a euphemism for ‘shed my sense of shame’ (transl. Lee). Throughout the play Creusa is fighting her αἰδώς (336n, Huys (1995) 98; cf. Cassandra in Aesch. Ag. 1203 πρὸ τοῦ μὲν αἰδὼς ἦν ἐμοὶ λέγειν τάδε). The shame is not shed completely until 934–6, and in the monody she addresses Apollo, not her environment, despite the declaration ‘to the light’ (886, 911). 862–9 τί γάρ gives the answer to the dilemma between the two ‘impossible’ choices of speaking and keeping silent: the basis of the shame, the wish to excel in public opinion through ἀρετή, which inhibited her from speaking, has fallen away and the shame become inoperative. In this way the urge to reveal her suffering prevails. Lines 863–9 explicate 862: Creusa was prevented from professing her ordeal by the desire to excel. ἀρετή has the general sense of ‘besthood’, to which αἰδώς serves as guidance (Cairns (1993) 340–2; cf. IA 380, 561–3, 859–61n). But now she has forfeited the contest of excellence because she has lost the stakes (and prospects thereof) with which she might contend: ‘house’ and children. On the centrality of an intact family for a woman cf. Andr. 373 ἀνδρὸς δ’ ἁμαρτάνουσ’ ἁμαρτάνει βίου. 862 τί γὰρ: The rhetorical question sets aside the doubts implied in πῶς ἀναφήνω and justifies doing so: one may add πῶς γὰρ οὔ ‘ For what ...?’. LaRue (1963) 129 calls the transition ‘a bit

366

Commentary

abrupt and elliptical’, but it is a regular feature with γάρ to omit the answer and only give the reason for it (cf. Denniston 76–7). ἐμπόδιον κώλυμ’: The pleonastic phrasing once more stresses the previous importance of the inhibition. ἐμπόδιον is best taken as predicative. 863 πρὸς τίν’ ἀγῶνας: The language is that of the public sphere, of staging contests (she competes herself, hence the middle τιθέμεσθ(α)): the desire for excellence is one for prestige in a system of externalised values (cf. Med. 403–6). This ἀρετή is not content with itself but is realised only through recognition by others. All the more must ‘defeat’ hurt. No ‘competitor’ is specified, but we have to think of womanhood in Athens or in general (cf. Liv. 1.57.9 muliebris certaminis laus penes Lucretiam fuit). The areas of this competition are children and the οἶκος, and 866–9 hint at her own hitherto unblemished reputation. Xuthus by his treachery decides the competition rather than partaking of it – he is neither the standard Creusa seeks to meet (so Owen, Gibert (1995) 173) nor has he ever been a source of great pride (cf. 289–98n). 864 προδότης: Between married couples the verb προδίδωμι covers accusations of very different intensity: from a neutral ‘abandon’ (Alc. 202 used by Admetus of Alcestis) to a mild reproach (Alcestis would let Admetus down, almost just ‘disappoint him’, were she not to die: Alc. 180 with Parker) and serious betrayal: Jason breaks an oath when leaving Medea for another wife (e.g. Med. 578). The immediately following connection of the word with Apollo (and the accusatory character of the song) suggests a more serious and culpable facet of the word. 865–9 The pattern of rhythmically identical anaphora with assonance, occurring twice in a short interval, makes of these lines a particularly intense and monotone lament. Cf. Diggle on Pha. 99 for the wider phenomenon; closer parallels are Med. 131, Phoen. 339–40, 1033–4 ἰάλεμοι δὲ ματέρων ἰάλεμοι δὲ παρθένων. 865 οἴκων: The vague formulation is best taken as lament about the house not being continued by her line. Women, too, attach importance to the future of their ‘house’ (cf. Soph. Trach. 911), something Athena responds to in 1575–94: cf. for the same concern Alc. 304 τούτους ἀνάσχου δεσπότας ἐμῶν (τρέφων Parker) δόμων. Thus both ‘house’ and ‘children’ denote the prospect or hope she mentions in 866: Creusa is not expelled from the house (810–11n, 791), but when it is transferred to her husband’s lineage it stops being hers (cf. 838, 1036, 1056–7, 1069–70, 1303; but cf. 693n). As in the preceding amoibaion (cf. 791–bisn), Creusa deals with the matter as a pure-



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

367

ly personal affair. The ‘civic’ and ‘dynastic’ dimensions are completely absent in the song. Never does Creusa speak of the extinction of the house as that of Erechtheus’ or the threat that Athens may be ruled by an outsider. It is the chorus and the Old Man who deal with this aspect (cf. 692–4, 719–24, 966–8, 1074–89). 866 ἐλπίδες, ἃς διαθέσθαι: Cf. Or. 722 προδέδομαι, κοὐκέτ᾿ εἰσὶν ἐλπίδες. The verb appears not to be part of the very high register: it occurs only here in tragedy but frequently in comedy and prose, not in Iliad and Odyssey, but in the Hymns and in Hesiod. 867 καλῶς: ‘well’: the adverb with διατίθημι describes the result, not the method or manner in which the action is conducted (‘honourably’): Ar. Lys. 895, Isae. 11.35, Dem. 19.18. ἐδυνήθην: The text has been patchily Doricised in the course of transmission (ἐδυνάθην La.c.; cf. 873 ἀκτάν, 877 ψυχά) to conform with the lyric parts, but the recitative section generally adheres to the Attic-Ionic tragic dialect. The Doric form ἐδυνάθην may then have been mistaken for a form of δυνάζω and ‘corrected’ to ἐδυνάσθην. 868–9 σιγῶσα ... πολυκλαύτους: a fine psychological touch at the end: firstly, the light tension between σιγάω and κλαίω condenses the contrast between Creusa’s inscrutable public appearance and her private grief. πολυsuggests that her secret mourning continued long after the events, possibly right until the present day. Secondly, the phrase does not stop after τόκους, as would be expected in the rigid pattern of anaphora with identical metre. But that would stop at the statement of facts, whereas the adjective adds a personal, ‘focalised’ perspective. 870–80 The reasoning is completed, but it would be wrong to see the oath as a sign of passion prevailing (so Schadewaldt (1926) 217, comparing the possibly spurious Med. 1059–61): emphatic though it is, the oath only introduces the conclusion of the argument constructed in 861–9, calling upon impartial witnesses and affirming Creusa’s resolve to carry out her decision to speak. 870–3 Creusa invokes a deity and two quasi-divine places as witnesses of her righteousness: the sky, which sees everything; Athena, who is both her patron goddess and the mistress of the rock where the incidents happened; and the Tritonian Lake, the touchstone of virginity, each have a specific function in Creusa’s plea. Hence the interpretation as invocation of the elements (Delcourt (1938) 200) seems unnecessarily abstract, especially as the Tritonian

368

Commentary

Lake can scarcely stand for water in general. On the traditional invocation of a triad cf. Usener (1903) 17–29. 870 ἀλλ’ οὐ: The invocation without μά is more common in Sophocles. For the subsequent repetition of the negation cf. El. 1239–40 ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τὰν θεὰν ... τόδε μὲν οὔποτ᾿ ἀξιώσω, Ar. Lys. 1171, Bruhn §159 VII, Moorhouse 47. Διὸς πολύαστρον ἕδος: Cf. 446, Androm. fr. 114 ἀστεροειδέα νῶτα ... ἀιθέρος; ἀστερόεις is formulaic with οὐρανός in Homer. The sky as seat of the gods (cf. 2, sometimes equivalent to Olympus: cf. Gibert on Androm.) has the connotation of a place whence Zeus watches: cf. Ba. 393–4 αἰθέρα ναίοντες ὁρῶσιν τὰ βροτῶν οὐρανίδαι, Mel.Sap. fr. 487 ὄμνυμι δ’ ἱερὸν αἰθέρ’, οἴκησιν Διός (cf. the invocation of Zeus as dweller of the sky, e.g. Phoen. 84–5). The sun (an ἄστρον e.g. Pind. O. 1.6; in oaths Verg. Aen. 2.154 with Horsfall, 12.197) is a traditional impartial and omniscient god of oaths (e.g. Med. 752–3, Aesch. Cho. 984–7). It (or he) is addressed in 886 and 911, so there is some continuity in the addressee. The traditional role of the sun renders uncompelling the interpretation that reads the oath as reversal of the Arrhephoria rite (ch. 3B), bringing back to light what was hidden in a cave (Zacharia (2003) 85–8). 872 Τριτωνιάδος: The Tritonian Lake, located in Libya, is Athena’s birthplace according to Aesch. Eum. 293, [Hes.] fr. 343.9–12 (the place she first visited according to Lucan 9.350–4). A second reference to a place of Athena is explained most easily by the account in Hdt. 4.180.2 that trials of virginity were held there. So the lake is to confirm Creusa’s innocence and thus the justness of her accusations against Apollo: he took the χάρις of her maidenhood (Delcourt (1938) 202; cf., in a context of sexual abstinence, Ar. Lys. 347). 873 πότνιαν: Only twice more in tragedy does this adjective not describe a goddess, both times personified nature (Dirce in Ba. 520, Earth in Aesch. Cho. 722–3 ὦ πότνια Χθὼν καὶ πότνι᾿ ἀκτή χώματος with Garvie). The phrase here is probably modelled on Aeschylus and exploits the close connection of the place with a goddess. 874 κρύψω λέχος: For women ‘hiding’ their sexual activities cf. e.g. Hipp. 394, Cret. fr. 472e.29–30. ὡς: introducing a purpose clause with future indicative (Cycl. 561, Ba. 784; cf. Goodwin 115–16, §324, K-G II 384 n.4). Creusa highlights the therapeutic psychological effect of launching the long-suppressed μομφή. Cf. Med. 473–4 ἐγώ τε γὰρ λέξασα κουφισθήσομαι ψυχὴν κακῶς σέ. The change to ὃ (Reiske (1754) 153) is unnecessary, as the object is easily understood. 875 ἀπονησαμένη: lit. ‘having unloaded’. A simple correction of the itazism of -νισ- in L restores a compound of νέω (LSJ s.v. νέω (C) and Beekes s.v.



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

369

-νέω 3; also νηέω: ‘to amass, pile up, load with sth.’) glossed in Hesychius, Photius, and the Lexicon Seguerianum as ἀποσωρεύσασα and ἀποθεμένη, probably a quote from Ion. ῥάιων ἔσομαι: a quasi-colloquial way of describing assuagement; cf. Stevens (1976) 50, Waś 192–3. We need not assume that Creusa (or Theseus in Herc. 1407, Dictys in Dict. fr. 332) is drawing on a medical term for relief from pain (e.g. Hipp. De Morb. 1.19 = 6.174 Littré), which may itself go back to ordinary language (cf. Wilamowitz on Herc. 1407 and in general Craik (2001)): cf. the Old Man’s similar imagery (927–9n) and Med. 473 (above). 876–7 στάζουσι ... ἀλγεῖ: The mention of physical symptoms underlines how she feels before freeing herself, having lost full control over her body: Herc. 1354–6 ὧν (sc. πόνων) οὔτ’ ἀπεῖπον οὐδέν’ οὔτ’ ἀπ’ ὀμμάτων ἔσταξα πηγάς, οὐδ’ ἂν ὠιόμην ποτὲ ἐς τοῦθ’ ἱκέσθαι, δάκρυ’ ἀπ’ ὀμμάτων βαλεῖν, IA 1466. Feeling ῥάιων she will be without these symptoms. 877 κακοβουληθεῖσ’: ‘victim of a plot’. Except in epic, verbs formed from compound nouns or adjectives terminate on -έω (Er. Fraenkel (1906) 177– 9), hence Barnes’ normalisation from κακοβουλευθεῖσ’. Two reasons have been offered for keeping the ms version (Hermann, Paley, Owen), neither very strong: 1) κακοβουλ- must be regarded as one unit: however, there is only one example for such an exception (βωμολοχεύομαι, e.g. Ar. Nub. 969, Isoc. 7.49). Moreover, if it were regarded as an established unit, the meaning would be different: κακόβουλος and κακοβουλία occur only in the meaning ‘(the state of being) ill advised’, so the verb here would rather need to be distinguished from it. 2) The -ευ- must be retained to distinguish the component βουλευ- from βουλ-: in addition to κακόβουλος, ἰδιοβουλέω (Hdt. 7.8δ.2) and κοινοβουλέω (Xen. Resp.Lac. 13.1) speak for the opposite. 878 ἔκ τ’ ἀνθρώπων ἔκ τ’ ἀθανάτων: Creusa has been wronged by a god and a man (the plural forms are generalising). This is more specific than the usual formulaic ‘polare Ausdrucksweise’ to signal comprehensiveness (cf. Kemmer (1903) 85–8, Breitenbach 203), where often only one part is relevant (cf. Finglass on Soph. El. 501–2). For auctorial ἐξ cf. K-G I 460(c). 879 οὓς ἀποδείξω: If the relative refers to both man and god – which is more plausible than making ἀθανάτων alone the antecedent – the announcement does not hold true for the rest of Creusa’s song: Xuthus is not described as actively betraying Creusa (913–15). The ‘performative’ future (cf. 886n) referring to the present song does not cover a backward reference (cf. Pfeijffer (1999) 43). The use here, similar to 816, is oratorical, found with this verb in Or. 1062, Ar. Vesp. 548 and many times in the orators.

370

Commentary

880 ἀχαρίστους: The idea of betrayal frames the anapaestic section (cf. 864): both Xuthus and Apollo enjoyed the union with Creusa but then deserted her. The idea of ungrateful gods is brought up by several characters in Euripidean tragedy, and sexual ties are a repeated issue (Herc. 344–7, Tro. 848–54). The emphasis on χάρις in this song fits in with the use of that concept in Euripides’ works. Presumably under sophistic influence, the mutuality and the binding force of χάρις become debatable and objects of negotiation (MacLachlan (1993) 152–3). On the centrality of the notion of χάρις cf. Herman (2006) 30–8 and the contributions in Gill et al. (1998), esp. R. Parker (1998) 108–14; on religion in hymns: Keyßner (1932) 152–3. For προδίδωμι cf. 438 and in another reproach of the gods Tro. 1062 (with Yunis (1988) 83–5). 881–922 LaRue (1963) has shown that the monody exploits the form and the elements of hymns; but it inverts them to serve a vituperative instead of a laudatory purpose, depicting Apollo’s divine glory as shallow. Creusa employs the form of communication that is standard with a god. However, since the conventional system of worship has (seemingly) been brought into disarray by the breakdown of reciprocal χάρις (859–922n), she adapts the form to the opposite end: the ‘prayer’ does not contain a request for favour but the complaint that the favour has not materialised; the perverted ‘aretalogy’ provides a narrative of the god’s foul deeds (881–906; cf. De Poli (2012) 91); the second part (907–22) inverts the topos of the god being honoured and loved for his benefactions. Each part is introduced – in the manner typical for the genre – by an invocation, continued by relative clauses. These are laudatory in tone but entail the accusations of idleness and giving objectionable oracles. The song uses the same technique of frequent repetitions as Ion’s monody (ἀχέω~εὐάχητος, μέλπω, ἔρρει, πτανά~οἰωνοί, εὐνά~εὐνάτωρ~ὁμευνέτας, αὐγά~χρυσανταυγής~χρυσοῦς, κιθάρα, χάρις~ἀχάριστος, δύστανος, μέλεος). And some of the imagery is the same, especially the splendour that is here explicitly referred to Apollo (gold in 887, but also 890, 909). But whereas in Ion’s song the imagery of brightness blends into one harmonious unity of Delphi and Apollo, the splendour now seems incongruous with the violence and death Apollo’s actions bring with them (cf. Barlow (1971) 49, Thorburn (2000) 40–1). 881–6 Apollo is addressed as god of music, but also as god of the outside: the carefree music will be turned into a reproach by the close of the strophe; the ‘wilderness’ (ἀγραύλων) mirrors the place of the rape.



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

371

881 ἑπταφθόγγου: In classical times both the kithara and the chelys-lyre most commonly had seven strings, in the pictorial record as well as in literature (e.g. Alc. 447, IT 1129, Pind. P. 2.70). The increase of the number of strings on the kithara from four to seven occurred in the 7th cent. and was credited to Terpander: Maas/Snyder (1989) 95, West (1992) 52–3, 175–7, Mathiesen (1999) 243–7. μέλπων: ‘letting sound’, with a noun of sound (song, cry). In the simpler meaning ‘sing’ Alc. 445–7 σε μουσοπόλοι μέλψουσι καθ’ ἑπτάτονόν τ’ ὀρείαν χέλυν. 882 ἅτ’: The ‘epic’ relative is rare in tragedy and in Euripides occurs only in lyrics as part of hymnic style: 908, Hec. 445, IT 1237, Or. 321, and for permanent states; cf. Ruijgh (1971) 1002–3, Diggle (1994) 325. ἀγραύλων: The Muses are often equated with (and may have developed out of) spring nymphs, esp. on Mount Helicon (Kees (1933) 692–3). About them is said Ἑλικῶνος ἔχουσιν ὄρος μέγα τε ζάθεόν τε (Hes. Th. 2); they visit the ἄγραυλος Hesiod (Th. 26); and vases show them and Apollo regularly in a natural environment, mostly symbolised by a rock of Mount Helicon (e.g. LIMC Mousa, Mousai 45, end-5th cent., with a fawn). Thus they can be said to ‘dwell in the fields’, even if they possess houses on Mount Olympus (e.g. Hes. Th. 63). L’s ἀγραύλοις deserves the emendation: otherwise κεράεσσιν has two epithets, against the principle of their equitable distribution; in addition, ἀγραύλοις disturbs the balance of the regular combination of noun + preposition + adjective (e.g. 25, 29, 806); and ἄγραυλος and ἄψυχος are mutually exclusive, as they describe two different points in time: ἀγραύλοις alone would be harsh enough as referring to a past state (‘the horns [once] living outside’), but with ἀψύχοις (‘horns [now] lifeless’) it becomes nonsensical. Verrall tried to salvage the text by taking ἀγραύλοις as an independent dative ‘to dwellers in lonely places’ – which would be an unknown form of Apollinic epiphany. Burges on Tro. p. 138 seems to have been the first to link Muses and wilderness, but in the course of a far more substantial revision of the text (ἀγραύλοις ἀχεῖ μούσαις). For equally wide hyperbata in Euripides’ lyrics cf. Breitenbach 243–7. 883 κεράεσσιν: Herodotus (4.192.1) reports that the Libyan nomads make the arms of their lyres from a certain type of antelope horn. The Greeks, too, may sometimes have used horns for the chelys-lyre (as opposed to the kithara in the narrow sense): cf. Soph. Tham. fr. 244, Cic. ND 2.144 in fi­ dibus testudine resonatur aut cornu, 149, Plin. NH 9.38. But hard types of wood (sycamore, oak) seem to have been more common: e.g. Soph. Ichn. fr. 314.316 (Radt’s text). Even so, ‘horns’ would still be a suitable description of the form. Cf. Maas/Snyder (1989) 81–2, 94, Mathiesen (1999) 238.

372

Commentary

The paradosis κέρασιν needs to be changed (and has been by Madvig (1871) 265): the α in κέρας is always long in tragedy, and anapaests with four shorts are securely attested only once (Hipp. 1372); cf. Diggle (1974) 22 n.2 and (1984b) 68 = (1994) 117 n.81, 315. On the corruption of the epic dative termination cf. 206–7n. ἐν ἀψύχοις: There is no parallel for ‘dead horn’, but the epithet is hardly unsuitable. So Wille (2001) 244 exaggerates when he says the expression is ‘nur dann verständlich, wenn durch das musikalische Spiel der Stoff des Instruments gewissermaßen mit Seele verbunden wird.’ 885 σοὶ: The target of the reproach is now revealed by the emphasised pronoun at the start of the main clause. It must come as a surprise to the internal audience that Creusa targets Apollo, after the Old Man had directed his attacks against Xuthus. 886 τάνδ’ αὐγὰν: For the sun as independent witness cf. 870n. αὐδάσω: Note the contrast to the appeal in other hymns: 454 ἱκετεύω, Phoen. 605 κλύετε, Hipp. 64 χαῖρε etc.; cf. De Poli (2012) 90. The ‘performative’ future refers to the present song (again in 911, Andr. 1199, Hel. 1108; contrast the announcement in 879); cf. Faraone (1995) with further references, Pfeijffer (1999) 33–43. 887–906 Creusa’s chronological narrative devolves all guilt onto Apollo: he is active, whereas her resistance is futile. While elsewhere she describes the exposure as a mistake or cruel on her part, she now presents it as a measure to hand the boy over to his father to give him a chance of survival, but Apollo is neglectful toward the son born to him (τίκτω ... σοι). Creusa’s victimhood is stressed by the self-characterisation as suffering in δύστανος, μέλεος, φρίκα, οἴμοι. 887–96 Creusa’s description contains few original elements, mainly where she implies an accusation of Apollo; otherwise the setting follows the cliché of the flower-picking maiden taken away by her violator from a meadow (Motte (1973) 207–14, Bremer (1975) 268–74, Calame (1999) 154–7): the archetypal instance is the rape of Persephone Hom.Hym. 2.6–7 (for parallels Segal (1999) 71), then e.g. Hel. 244–5, Hes. fr. 26.18–23, Apollod. Bibl. 3.199 (on Erechtheus’ daughter Oreithyia); in the human realm since Archil. IEG2 196a. For the meadow as an eroticised place cf. Hom. Il. 14.347–51, Cypr. PEG F 4 (cf. also below on the gold imagery). The interpretation of the meadow as locus amoenus in Swift (2009b) 365–8 confuses two tropes.



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

373

Creusa stresses her passivity and resistance against Apollo: the cry for help is a traditional element and serves to deny culpability or testify to innocence (893n). By contrast, Apollo is active in dragging her away (ἆγες) and in the intercourse (χάριν πράσσων). He enters into a ‘marriage’ with her (including the corresponding obligations), as is signalled by the gesture of the ‘hand on the wrist’ (though cf. 1474–6). 887 ἦλθές: This may be a sarcastic variation on ἐλθέ in cletic hymns (cf. 458). χρυσῶι: Apollo is simply the golden-haired one in Pind. O. 7.32. He has the epithet since perhaps Alcman PMGF S1 χρυσοκόμα φιλόμολπε (also [Tyrt.] IEG2 4.2.2). But a number of other deities (and exceptionally their horses) are also said to have golden hair (e.g. Dionysus Hes. Th. 947, Artemis Phoen. 191). Silk (1974) 159–60 notes that frequent use in relevant narratives (e.g. IA 548, Hes. loc.cit., Alcaeus fr. 327) has made the topos erotically charged. 888–90 εὖτ᾿ ἐς κόλπους κρόκεα πέταλα φάρεσιν ἔδρεπον †ἀνθίζειν χρυσανταυγῆ: ‘when I was picking crocus leaves, whose golden shine matched my robes, ’. Cf. Hel. 244–5 ὅς με χλοερὰ δρεπομέναν ἔσω πέπλων ῥόδεα πέταλα Χαλκίοικον. Sense and construction are sufficiently clear, even though no single emendation for the corrupt and dispensable ἀνθίζειν stands out. Metre requires ⏑⏑⏑ at the end of 889 (supporting ἔδρεπον) and a start of the next line with a vowel, but ἀνθίζειν ‘to deck’ or ‘to dye the robes with flowers’ would require a change to ἄνθεσι φάρεα vel sim. There may have been a different final infinitive taking the dative (e.g. ‘I was picking flowers to attach them to the robes’), but it seems more likely that φάρεσιν depends on -αντ-: ‘shining back golden at/returning the golden shine of the (gold-embroidered) robes’. ἀνθιζομένα ‘culling flowers’ (Diggle (1974) 23 n.2 = (1994) 118 n.81) is redundant and only attested late. 889 κρόκεα: Crocuses are common in the meadows of love: e.g. Hom. Il. 14.348, Hym. 2.6. 890 χρυσανταυγῆ: a hapax combining ἀνταυγής ‘shining back’ (Ar. Thesm. 902; cf. Or. 1519, Oed. fr. 540a.9) and χρυσαυγής ‘shining golden’ (Soph. OC 685 on the crocus): the crocus leaves themselves are bright yellow and thus ‘answer’ the gold of her garment. Hel. 182 πέπλους χρυσέαισιν αὐγαῖς θάλπουσ’ is corrupt but apparently similar. 891–6 The narrative of the rape is packed into one period with several participle clauses centred around the abduction. The act itself is hinted at with a euphemistic participle expression.

374

Commentary

891 λευκοῖς: here (as opposed to 221) a sign of her tender, female nature. ἐμφὺς καρποῖσιν: Here alone in Euripides does the word ἐμφύομαι denote physical contact in the sense of the Homeric ἔν οἱ φῦ χειρί (cf. Soph. OC 1113 ἐμφύντε τῶι φύσαντι). Apollo takes Creusa by the wrist, using a gesture of the Athenian marriage ceremony (dubbed χεὶρ ἐπὶ καρπῶι in modern discussions): the gesture is ambivalent, symbolising the transfer of guardianship from father to husband – itself a form of abduction (Neumann (1965) 59–66, R. Sutton (1981) 181–5, Jenkins (1983) 140, Oakley/Sinos (1993) 32) – but the connotations include protection: cf. Vérilhac-Vial (1998) 317, Boegehold (1999) 17–18. The use in the civic rite stresses the obligations which Creusa feels Apollo has incurred – the basis for her complaints. 892 χειρῶν: After the description of the meadow the genitive helps avoid the ambiguity of καρποῖσιν, but cf. also 1009. 893 κραυγὰν: Creusa emphasises the force used against her and validates her accusation against Apollo. The βοή or κραυγή as element of an early system of justice is a signal of resistance and a call for witnesses and helpers (to the father: Hom.Hym. 2.20–1; to earth: El. 1177–8, Aesch. Suppl. 890/900), particularly important in sexual assaults to distinguish rape from seduction; cf. W. Schulze (1918) esp. 487 = (1933) 166. The cry opens the possibility of claiming innocence and suing the violator (Sachsenspiegel 1.62.1 ‘daz gerüft ist der clage begin’); Helen in turn lays herself open to accusations because she did not shout out (Tro. 999–1000; cf. Or. 1510 on non-sexual violence). Ὦ μᾶτερ: For embedded short utterances in Euripides cf. El. 1215, Or. 1465, Führer (1967) 51–2; similar cries for help e.g. [Luc.] Asin. (39) 16 πολλάκις ὦ Καῖσαρ ἀναβοῆσαι ἐπεθύμουν, Persephone’s cry for the mother Ov. Met. 5.397, Fast. 4.447. αὐδῶσαν: as she is doing now (886): the ode renews the accusation inherent in the cry. 894 ὁμευνέτας: a neutral term: clearly positive in Med. 953. 895 ἀναιδείαι: Apollo did not restrain himself out of respect (αἰδώς) for her maidenhood (cf. Hom.Hym. 5.131–54): Creusa expects from others the same feeling that is so strong in herself. The qualification clearly indicates that the intercourse is forced (Scafuro (1990) 145, against attempts at relativisation: cf. 10–11n, 859–922n). But αἰδώς (‘sense of propriety’) towards women starts much earlier: Odysseus is ashamed to appear naked before Nausicaa and her companions (Hom. Od. 5.221–2) and in Euripides Achilles is abashed even to shake Clytemestra’s hand (IA 833–4). 896 χάριν πράσσων: For the euphemism cf. Ar. Ach. 792 Ἀφροδίται θύειν. But the formulation poignantly stresses Apollo’s ἀχαριστία by contrast: he favours



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

375

others at her expense. Cf. 36–7, El. 1133, Aesch. Cho. 834 προπράσσων χάριν. TrGF adesp. 402 βίαι δ’ ἔπραξας χάριτας ἢ πείσας κόρην; suggests a similar context (and has been attributed to the Auge by Wilamowitz and Jouan/Looy (F 22)), but the recipient of the χάριτες is unclear. χάριν πράσσω need not imply thanks for a previous favour but can stand at the start of a χάρις relationship: cf. El. 1133, Thuc. 2.40.4; Millett (1991) 123. 897–901 The pathos reaches its maximum in the exposure. The focus here is on Creusa’s miserableness rather than the boy’s, since the song is her personal censure of unreciprocated χάρις. 898 τὸν: used as relative pronoun: cf. S-D II 642–3, e.g. Alc. 883, Andr. 107, IT 183. φρίκαι ματρὸς: ‘in motherly horror’, i.e. her own fear for her child. Creusa hands him over to the father, suspecting that he will not save it – so the fear is not of discovery but of the consequences of exposure. The opposite view – that the genitive is objective and Creusa fears her mother (e.g. Paley, Hartigan (1991) 80, Kovacs) – is against the story pattern: the mother rarely appears in the exposure stories, and judging from similar narratives, it is the father whom she should fear (14, 1489–90 with n; cf. Huys (1995) 95). 899 βάλλω: ἐκβάλλω is a standard term for exposure (cf. 964 and 45 ῥῖψαι). So the word does not per se signal a particularly terrible act (pace Lee). 900 ἵνα μ’ ἐν λέχεσιν: L (ἵνα με λέχεσι) has impermissible word division between the brevia of a resolved longum in anapaests (cf. Diggle (1974) 22 n.2 = (1994) 117 n.81). μελέαν μελέοις: ‘wretched me on the wretched (bed)’, exploiting the ambiguity of the word. 902–6 The focus moves away from Creusa, and after the description of the misery of mother and child the song returns in ring composition to the bliss of the irresponsible father (σὺ δέ): Apollo sings the paean, a song frequently associated with healing (Käppel (1992) 62–4), which contrasts with and is undermined by the suffering he has caused (cf. Swift (2009a) 95). Creusa thus portrays him as indifferent to the outcome of his actions; the imagery of cultured idleness contrasts with the brutality of the child’s death. 902 καὶ νῦν: consecutive: as a result of leaving him to Apollo (e.g. Alc. 765, Andr. 41).

376

Commentary

904 μοι [καὶ] σὸς τλάμων: In this context (contrast 916) Creusa is concerned not with their shared parenthood but with her loss and Apollo’s neglect of his son (898–904). She laments that her son has disappeared, using the dative of disadvantage (cf. Tro. 107 ἧι πατρὶς ἔρρει); on the other hand, her son was unlucky to be Apollo’s (σός). So the two pronouns ought not to be brought in line: μοι καὶ σοί (Christ (1874) 296; printed by Diggle) is unsuitable, also because the combination moves the stress to the pronouns and would therefore require ἐμοί (cf. Ar. Eccl. 892 ἄξιον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ). τλάμων does not cause any problems if taken as a regular nominative – describing the child as another victim of Apollo – rather than as standing in place of a vocative referring to Apollo. 907–18 Creusa attacks Apollo explicitly, turning the invocation into abuse (κακὸς εὐνάτωρ) and the predication (given in relative clauses) into an accusation. In this part of the song the emphasis rests no longer on Apollo’s acts against her as such, but on the disparity between the treatment of Xuthus and of herself: the death of the son in 916–18 is told in formulations similar to 902–4, but there the contrast is with Apollo’s carefree way, here with the happiness of Xuthus’ putative son. 907 ὠή, τὸν Λατοῦς αὐδῶ: Creusa expresses her opinion of Apollo through her address: the tone is provocative; their dealings have put the two on the same level, so Creusa does not feel the need to show particular respect: she uses an informal address, far different from a hymnic invocation; both the interjection (Perdicoyianni-Paléologue (2002) 82) and, to a lesser extent, the verb (cf. 219–20, Herc. 499) can be used for attracting the notice of people of lower or equal rank, often by people outside the house to call those inside, but they seem inappropriate for calling a god. 908 ὅστ’: A slight interference with ὅς (L), in accordance with the hymnic style (cf. 882n), restores the metre; it beats the rearrangement ὀμφὰν ὅς (Buchholtz (1864) 15) in its simplicity. ὀμφὰν κληροῖς: The Delphic god uses lots on two occasions: 1) in the ‘bean oracle’, where Apollo answers questions on alternatives without involvement of the Pythia (Parke/Wormell I 18–19); 2) in the allotment of the order of enquiry (Aesch. Eum. 32). 909 πρὸς: ‘(I call you, i.e.) towards ...’. The construction takes up τὸν Λατοῦς αὐδῶ (Biehl, De Poli (2011) 195) and clarifies how Creusa can address the god: she calls at the gates of Apollo’s ‘house’ (θᾶκοι and ἕδραι in synecdoche) to attract the master’s attention (cf. 907n).



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

377

The preposition does not make sense if taken as depending on ὀμφὰν κληροῖς, unless one adds Page’s χρυσέους θάκους, which is bland and unnecessary. Those who take 909–10 together with 911 fail to explain how Creusa can address the temple and the sun at the same time (e.g. Wilamowitz; Musso (1985b) changes to ἐσιοῦσ᾿ to avoid this). In the interpretation given above she alerts Apollo (who is ‘in’ the temple) that she is going to unveil his injustice to the light of day. The θᾶκοι and ἕδραι are the god’s, not the priests’: θᾶκος in mantic contexts can be used of the ministers’ places (e.g. Phoen. 840, Ba. 347, Phil. fr. 795), but golden seats are reserved for gods (IT 1253–4 τρίποδί τ’ ἐν χρυσέωι θάσσεις, Zeus in Hom. Il. 8.442; also Hypnos in Hom. Il. 14.238–9; Cyrene Pind. P. 4.260). ἕδραι, ‘seats’, is used, as θακήματα (492n) and other derivatives of ‘sitting’, for shrines and temples (Cycl. 290, Or. 591, Ba. 951–2). In this case, with μεσσήρεις and the reference in 5–6, it could be the omphalos in particular, making the second phrase specify the first. 911 ἐς φῶς: The address to the sun here is clearer than in 871 and 886. The proclamation to the ‘light of day’ breaks with her previous silence (868–9) and the darkness of the cave. καρύξω: ‘proclaim, make a declaration’ for everyone to hear: of a similar secret Cret. fr. 472e.33, Meleager AP 4190. 912 Ἰὼ : Cf. Alc. 741 for the same omission in L against other mss. Diggle (1974) 23–4 = (1994) 118–19 notes that Euripidean anapaests have single ἰώ intra metrum only in monometers and dimeters. So we must change to either ἰὼ ἰώ intra metrum or ἰώ extra metrum. The former is preferable, to make clear that the interjection is part of the speech within the song; moreover ἰώ extra metrum occurs only at the start of anapaestic systems: Diggle (1981a) 107. εὐνάτωρ: The word does not have an unequivocally negative undertone of illegitimacy (cf. Herc. 97), but such a notion may be detected in Andr. 1040, Aesch. Sept. 293 δυσευνάτορας, and it is strengthened by the difference of root in the juxtaposition with νυμφεύται: Xuthus has Creusa as a wife (νυμφ-), Apollo only as a bed-fellow (εὐν-). For the nominative in the place of a vocative cf. K-G I 46(3). 914 χάριν οὐ προλαβὼν: Creusa rules out that the god had favours from Xuthus to reciprocate that might conflict with her demands. But according to Greek ethics the god would be expected to honour his obligations (on χάρις cf. 880n) – ethics that apply to the gods even though they enjoy greater freedom as they do not have to fear immediate repercussions (cf. 444–7). Where no reciprocation follows, humans complain (e.g. Herc. 344–7, Tro. 820–59, 1060–80, Phoen. [1757]).

378

Commentary

915 εἰς οἴκους οἰκίζεις: The verb is used properly in combination with integrating someone into a new household: Hec. 1022, IA 670. 916 γενέτας: for offspring also in Soph. OT 470; everywhere else it means ‘father’. †ἀμαθὴς: Diggle makes the wise decision to use cruces. The metre can be restored with Triclinius’ (for once fitting) γ᾿ after σός, but that does not remove the doubts about the meaning. The most attractive is a vocative ‘unfeeling’ (for the overlap of intellectual capacity and moral feeling cf. Denniston on El. 294–6). A passive sense ‘unheard of’ (Badham) is neither attested nor sensible with the subsequent mention of birds – the latter is also true for Kirchhoff’s ἀπευθής. Burnett’s ‘witless babe’ (1970) mistakes the negative connotations of the adjective, which prevent it from being synonymous with νήπιος. 918 [οἰκεῖα]: metrically disturbing and without point: maybe the reaction of a reader who did not understand ματέρος ‘made/given by his mother’. ἐξαλλάξας: lit. ‘change (sc. clothes)’ as in Hel. 1297; here ‘change place’, i.e. ‘pass away’ (cf. μεταλλάττω Isoc. 6.17, Lycurg. 1.50; also ἀνταλλάττω Phoen. 1633): the baby has left the life in swaddling bands for ‘another form’ of life (cf. 1068). 919–22 At the end of her perverted hymn Creusa starts a ritual λοιδορία, an expression of disappointment and anger (Eitrem (1924) 47–9, Versnel (1981) 37–42), normally used after unheeded prayers: it evokes her earlier, ineffective prayers and her frustrated hopes in Apollo. She inverts the hymnic topos of naming people who love or venerate the god (cf. Hom.Hym. 1.17–19, 4.574–5, 12.4–5, 16.4, 19.45–7, 22.4–5): not even those places and objects love him that are closest to him and receive honours on account of their connection with him. Creusa refers to the circumstances of Apollo’s birth: those who witnessed and supported his birth are appalled by the negligence he shows for his own child. 919 Δᾶλος: Delos allowed Leto to deliver her twins despite the danger of incurring Hera’s wrath (Call. Hym. 4.55–61, 203–4, Ov. Met. 6.332–6, Apollod. Bibl. 1.23). In Andr. 925 μισεῖ τε γαῖα Φθιάς the land stands for the people dwelling there, but not so here. 920 φοίνικα: According to the earliest versions, Leto gave birth to Apollo while clinging to a palm tree: Hom.Hym. 3.117, Theogn. IEG2 6. It is mentioned with the other two sacred trees, laurel and olive, in IT 1099–1102, and the three occur in varying constellations throughout antiquity (Hec. 458–9, Hom. Od. 6.162–3, Cic. Leg. 1.2, Plin. NH 16.240).



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

379

ἁβροκόμαν: the same epithet in IT 1100. Some types of palm tree have trunks covered in fine fibres: cf. Tomlinson (1990) 126. 921 λοχεύματα ... ἐλοχεύσατο: The internal accusative of the figura etymo­ logica does not affect the construction of the verb with the direct object σε (cf. Tro. 357 γαμεῖ με δυσχερέστερον γάμον, Hel. 835). σέμν’: The solemnity of the process derives from the presence and involvement of deities: by elevating the circumstances of Apollo’s (lonely) birth, Creusa heightens the dishonour he has done to its witnesses by condemning her to a shameful delivery. 922 Δίοισί ... κάποις: This may be a hint at a lost version of the story in which Zeus increases the vegetation of the island to protect Leto from discovery by Hera: schol. Hec. 458 states that the palm and the laurel grow as she enters Delos. Creusa thus blames Apollo for his son being born in circumstances much worse than those of his own birth (cf. De Poli (2012) 93). By contrast, Pind. Pae. 12 fr. 52m mentions a supporting role of Zeus in Apollo’s birth (I. Rutherford (1988) 71) but no gardens. Hom.Hym. 3.53–5, 72 and Call. Hym. 4.11–13 even stress the infertility of the island, while the gardens of Zeus are a plentiful place (Soph. Ion fr. 320). L has καρποῖς, which makes little sense if we consider that Apollo himself is the ‘fruit’ of the delivery. Only the suggestion δισσοῖσι (i.e. Apollo and Artemis) makes this an attractive reading, but the mention of Artemis would distract from the troubled relationship of the island and the god. 923–1047 The monody has provided the Old Man and the chorus with some clues about what happened in Athens. But the Old Man needs to ask for clarification (931–3), and Creusa gives her version of events for a third time after the ‘friend’s’ story and the monody (936–65). The Old Man’s consternation at the news leads (after a bridge: 966–70) to a deliberative stichomythia concerning first the right target for revenge, then the best way of killing Ion. The Old Man thus drives the emotional dynamic of the scene: after incredulity and (self-)pity there is a sudden turn (970) to exacerbated vengefulness. Later his aggressivity transforms the drama of intense feelings (Ion’s and Creusa’s longing for the missing half, Creusa’s disillusionment) into one of violence – a development foreshadowed repeatedly since the 2nd stasimon. The different sections are held together by the stichomythic format. The retrospective, recapitulating and the prospective, active parts are both introduced by the Old Man’s assertions of solidarity (935, 966–8), before the leading role is handed over to Creusa in 984.

380

Commentary

923–65 There may be some inconsistency between 923–35 and 936–65 concerning the information in the monody the chorus and the Old Man have understood: first they seem to have grasped the gist of the story, and they show the appropriate reaction. When Creusa tells the Old Man what had happened, however, he does not seem to have knowledge of parts of the monody which – to judge from his questions at the start – he has heard (932 τεκεῖν vs. 946, 932 (ἐ)κθεῖναι vs. 950). Perhaps the contradiction is not supposed to be resolved; the Old Man could, however, be portrayed as repeating some key words of the song that he has understood (Loxias, childbirth, abandonment) but as too shocked to connect Creusa’s now explicit story with the song. The repetition in spoken metre of material from a song is well motivated by the difficulty the internal audience finds in fully comprehending the content of that song, due to its particular mode of expression: Creusa had directed her accusation at Apollo and therefore presented the matter in ways difficult to comprehend for people without prior knowledge: 899–901 has no known reference point for those who are not aware of the existence of a child, and the language is unclear. In a similar way the oracular obscurity of Cassandra’s song in Tro. 308–41 is explained in 353–405; cf. also Aesch. Ag. 1072–1177/1178–1268 and the changes from introverted death experience or lament to the explanation to others Alc. 244–79/280–327, and the arrival of new people Tro. 98–152/153–229 (against Schadewaldt’s criticism (1926) 143–4). In this instance the dialogue conveys information and sparks the Old Man’s activity. The repetition helps disentangle two processes: Creusa’s emotional alleviation through the breaking of her long-endured silence in the song and the reaction to the news (including the triggering of new plot developments) in the dialogue. Creusa’s personal perspective is, in addition, presented before the Old Man supplements it with the dynastic point of view. 923–35 The chorus react first and more emotionally than the Old Man, who is overwhelmed by tears only in 966–7. Both express their horror at what they have understood, repeating the word κακός four times between them in 924–30 (rare, but surpassed by five-fold use in Hec. 585–95). 923–4 θησαυρὸς ...  κακῶν: ‘store of evil’; cf. Democr. 68 B 149 ἂν δὲ σαυτὸν ἀνοίξηις ἔνδοθεν, [...] κακῶν ταμιεῖον εὑρήσεις καὶ θησαύρισμα. θησαυρός has connotations both of a find and of something stored and hidden; for the history of the phrase cf. Gibert (1995) 174–80. The expression θησαυρὸς ἀνοίγνυται becomes common only with the Septuagint (e.g. Deut. 28.12), but cf. Timotheus PMG 791.232–3 θησαυρὸν πολύυμνον οἴξας



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

381

Μουσᾶν θαλαμευτόν. For a θησαυρός of negative things cf. TrGF adesp. 146a, Sept.Sap. 3(Chilon).6 Mullach τί ἐστι πλοῦτος; θησαυρὸς κακῶν. 925 θύγατερ, οἴκτου: ‘Daughter, (I am filled) with pity ...’ The transmitted text θύγατερ οὔτοι is metrically deficient and of questionable sense. ὦ was added already in P by Catrares (ch. 6A). Nauck’s οἴκτου (1854) echoes the chorus’ show of sympathy and makes 970 the perfect close of a ring composition. The transmitted version is still defended by some as ‘I cannot look my fill beholding you’, i.e. I will never have enough of looking at you (cf. Wilamowitz): for the meaning cf. Hom. Od. 11.452, for the construction Hipp. 664 μισῶν δ’ οὔποτ’ ἐμπλησθήσομαι. This text, however, makes little sense: it is not denied the Old Man to look at Creusa, and it is unclear what kind of desire, becoming to his status, he may have looking at her (cf. Owen’s ‘I cannot take my eyes off you.’). Kraus 74–5 understands ‘It’s not that I have enough of looking at you [sc. why I am covering my eyes].’ But that would be an absurd thing to say, and the Old Man is not yet covering his eyes: otherwise Creusa would take 40 lines to react to that gesture; in Euripidean practice the covering of a character’s head is verbalised immediately (cf. 966–9n); and the notion of inability is not expressed. 926 ἔξω δ’ ἐγενόμην γνώμης: ‘I am out of my senses’, i.e. the news has deprived him of his ability to think straight. The aspect of γνώμη relevant here is the mental capacity that would enable him to decide and act (cf. Snell (1924) 33, Huart (1968) 307). For the formulation cf. Ba. 853 ἔξω δ’ ἐλαύνων τοῦ φρονεῖν, also Tro. 367, Or. 1021. The aorist is instantaneous (of an emotion just experienced: cf. K-G I 163–4). 927–30 κακῶν ... κῦμ’ ὑπεξαντλῶν ... πρύμνηθεν ... ἐκβαλοῦσα: Two nautical metaphors describe that the news have moved from bad to worse when the Old Man has heard first of Xuthus’ recent breach of trust and then of Creusa’s past suffering. In the first image, the pieces of bad news are described as two surges of evil, the second of which hits the Old Man while he is trying to bail out the bilge after the first (927–8; cf. Med. 78–9 ἀπωλόμεσθ’ ἄρ’, εἰ κακὸν προσοίσομεν νέον παλαιῶι, πρὶν τόδ’ ἐξηντληκέναι); in the second image Creusa jettisons the burden on her heart to change course, but this new ‘course’ (i.e. the new topic: past troubles instead of new ones) is no better. The metaphors do not mix well: the ship is lifted by the ‘surge’ of Creusa’s words (i.e. the content of her song), which are the cargo of the second image. 927 κακῶν ... κῦμ’: For the metaphor κακῶν κῦμα cf. e.g. Alc. 91, Med. 362–3, Aesch. Pers. 599–600; Kurtz (1985) 403 with n.82, Péron (1974) 269–71. The conventionality of the trope commends the change from L’s redundant κακόν: any wave that swashes into the ship is bad; here the content of the news is particularly bad; cf. 60, Tro. 696.

382

Commentary

ὑπεξαντλῶν: For the nominativus pendens cf. K-G II 105–7, Diggle (1981a) 107, Slings (1992) 96–9, (1997b) 202–3. The metaphor of draining the bilge water is common in Euripides for getting to grips with a wide range of problems (e.g. 200, Cycl. 10–11, Hipp. 767–8, Nes (1963) 144, Pecz (1886) 144). The present expresses that the Old Man is still struggling to come to terms with the original bad news: he was still verbalising the problem in 842; the prefix emphasises the effort required to lift the water from the depth of the ship. φρενί: Cf. Herc. 1091 ἐν κλύδωνι καὶ φρενῶν ταράγματι. The dative is one of advantage: the φρήν, the seat of pain (Hcld. 483; Sullivan (2000) 30–1), is freed from the bilge water. 928 πρύμνηθεν αἴρει: The specification ‘from the stern’ underscores the perilousness of the ‘second surge’: the helmsman, positioned himself at the stern (cf. Aesch. Sept. 2–3, Suppl. 345), cannot see the wave approaching; his side is lifted up so that he loses control over the ship. αἴρει is more graphic than Bellios’ αἱρεῖ (apud Wecklein; advocated by Kraus) and supported by Aesch. Sept. 759–61 ἄλλο (sc. κῦμα κακῶν) δ’ ἀείρει τρίχαλον, ὃ καὶ περὶ πρύμναν πόλεως καχλάζει, on which Euripides likely modelled this passage (Kurtz (1985) 403). This model warns against a reinterpretation of the metaphor (the horrible news ‘energizes’ the Old Man: Gibert (1995) 182). 929 οὓς ἐκβαλοῦσα: Creusa in reaction to the news about Xuthus’ betrayal freed herself from the burden on her heart through the singing of her monody (cf. 875). By doing so, however, she set out on a perilous (the vague κακάς), no less painful (ἄλλων πημάτων) new course. The reason why the course is κακός is stated in the next sentence: she accuses the god. The metaphor describes the situation when a ship is lightened of its cargo to preserve it at times of danger: e.g. Diphilus PCG 42.12 φορτί᾿ ἐξέρριψ᾿ ὑπέραντλος γενόμενος, Arist. EN 1110a.8–11. For the transferred meaning cf. Aesch. Sept. 769–71, Ag. 1008–13, Nes (1963) 145–8; in connection with speech Tro. 1180, Pind. P. 2.81. τῶν παρεστώτων κακῶν: ‘(move) out of the present peril’: the genitive is separative with μετῆλθες, comparable to Hel. 1442 μετάστησον κακῶν, Hom. Od. 20.53 κακῶν δ’ ὑποδύσεαι (cf. White (2000) 65). The present situation seemed to be immoveable, with no way out, but Creusa with her monody manoeuvred herself out of it and onto a new course (ὁδούς is accusative of extent), albeit not a good one. Page (in Diggle (1981a) 109) interprets τῶν παρεστώτων as a set phrase ‘things being as they are’, and Diggle accordingly translates ‘our present evils being what they are’. For that meaning the presence of κακῶν would not be necessary.



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

383

930 ἄλλων πημάτων: ‘in/through further pain’: for the genitive of the wider area with words denoting ‘way’ cf. Phoen. [1], 842, Or. 633, 1003–4. 931–5 The Old Man’s three questions deal with the content of 887–901. He asks for clarification, giving Creusa an opportunity (936–65) to describe more fully and with more pathos the events mentioned already in the monody. Creusa hesitates out of shame (934 αἰσχύνομαι; the third time after 336 and 861): for now will be the first time she speaks openly about herself to someone who does not already know about the matter (934 σέ, i.e. not Apollo; cf. 336n). The last part of the monody – Creusa’s complaint about Ion being given to Xuthus, and the comparison between Xuthus’ and Creusa’s treatment by the god – is not mentioned again: the Old Man could understand that part of the monody, and it is not central to his concerns: instead, his focus is on Creusa’s suffering, isolation, and pain in the exposure. 931 τί φήις;: The question is normally the immediate (surprised, shocked, or insecure) reaction to an utterance. In this instance it is delayed by six lines in favour of a more urgent, deeper show of emotion in response to the entire monody (similarly El. 767–9). τίνα λόγον: λόγος is here used of the content of the speech and thus equivalent to τί, with the accusative of the charge after κατηγορέω (‘What are you accusing Loxias of?’): cf. Tro. 916–17 ἅ σ᾿ οἶμαι διὰ λόγων ἰόντ᾿ ἐμοῦ κατηγορήσειν. 932 ποῖον τεκεῖν φὴις παῖδα;: ‘What do you mean, you have borne a child?’ This is an extension of the colloquial use of ποῖος in repetitions of the ‘Crisis? What crisis?’-type (cf. Diggle (1981a) 50–1, Collard (2005) 363), repeating a key term of the monody. Such and other ποῖος-questions can signal incredulity or (ironic) scepticism: cf. Hel. 566–7 Ελ. ὦ χρόνιος ἐλθὼν σῆς δάμαρτος ἐς χέρας. – Με. ποίας δάμαρτος; Ar. Ran. 529. πόλεως: The genitive goes with ποῦ, not with ἐκ- (so Jerram): the cave is inside the Pelasgian Wall and thus within the oldest perimeter of the city. 933 θηρσὶν φίλον τύμβευμ’: ‘a thing pleasing to the beasts to bury’: a highly sarcastic expression: θηρσίν stands ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with φίλον and τύμβευμα (dative of advantage; cf. Rh. 515 γυψὶ θοινατήριον); τύμβευμα is passive (contrast Soph. Ant. 1220 ‘tomb’, but cf. 1495): the animals are thought of as ‘morticians’, as in Soph. El. 1488 ταφῆς. The Old Man is horrified at the whole idea; the perspective of the beasts devouring the potential successor to the house and throne (cf. 950) intensifies the scene, making it implausible that it has ‘kein besonderes Gewicht, sondern ist nur eine gesuchte Verzierung des sprachlichen Ausdruckes’ (Kurtz (1985) 215–16).

384

Commentary

ἄνελθέ μοι πάλιν: = Phoen. 1207b (‘return to the story’); a structuring formulation if a topic is to be revisited, not simply ‘to restate some fact (in more detail)’ (Mastronarde (1979) 67 n.46): in Phoen. the account of the second messenger speech is continued, not repeated. 935 ὡς ... γ᾿: γ(ε) suggests explanatory ‘for’ rather than ‘know that’ (cf. 759n) and justifies the request to go back to the story. φίλοις: The term is unusually employed upwards in an asymmetric relationship; it is acceptable here because of the intimacy presented at the start of the epeisodion (esp. 730; cf. 725–34n). 936–69 After the first answers have been supplied (939) the Old Man takes over the leading part of the information stichomythia. He occasionally gives the conversation a new direction, albeit much like a stooge (esp. 952) and without exploring ground not already covered by the monody. However, unlike the monody the dialogue lets Creusa find a responsive and sympathetic addressee. There is little sign that the stichomythic format serves in particular to portray Creusa as ashamed and reluctant to disclose the past (so Gross (1905) 80 n.60, Schwinge (1968) 217): she has shed that shame in 934, and now a certain resignation and wryness surface (947, 953, 957). Instead, the format has an amplificatory effect: the Old Man asks with horrified anticipation, but the answers even exceed his expectation (e.g. 946, 948, 954), provoking shock and tears of despair. 936–8  ἄκουε τοίνυν· οἶσθα Κεκροπίας πέτρας; – οἶδ᾿: ‘Listen. You know the Cecropian rocks? – I do ...’ The same pattern as in 987–8, the only times ἄκουε τοίνυν is used in Euripides. The invitation to speak is more frequently followed by δή νυν, but τοίνυν is attested too well in other authors to make it suspect of Itazism (pace L. Dindorf): cf. Denniston 571–2. The conversational function of the question has been misunderstood by both the interpolator of 937 and modern interpreters: it is not a request for information but introduces a distant (well known) starting point of a story/explanation. Hence there is no comic effect as one Athenian is asking another whether he knows the Acropolis (criticised by Wilamowitz). For a parallel see Hipp. 1315, where Artemis asks: ἆρ’ οἶσθα πατρὸς τρεῖς ἀρὰς ἔχων σαφεῖς; Her continuation (1316–17) presupposes that Hippolytus does know them; cf. IA 867, Pl. Phd. 68D οἶσθα, ἦ δ’ ὅς, ὅτι τὸν θάνατον ἡγοῦνται πάντες οἱ ἄλλοι τῶν μεγάλων κακῶν; To many, Diggle (1981a) 109–11 seemed to have closed the discussion about 936–7 by promulgating Page’s Κεκροπίων πετρῶν: ‘Do you know the northern cave belonging to the Cecropian rocks, which we call the Μακραί?’ (p. 111). But he belittles the problems. 1) The translation conceals the awk-



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

385

wardness of the arrangement of clauses: in Page’s Greek the description of the Makrai forms a frame and draws all the attention away from πρόσβορρον ἄντρον, the topic of the sentence. Such a separation of the relative clause from its antecedent must be extraordinary when the antecedent is a genitive attribute and the separating element the leading noun. 2) The point of reference of ἔνθα is the cave, but since Pan’s adyton is one part of the cave system, it can hardly be called ‘nearby’. As often happens in tragedy, the Old Man in 938 unwittingly says exactly what is needed to move the conversation forward (cf. 794n). White (2000) 66 takes πέτρα as ‘cave’: ‘Do you know the Cecropian cave, a north-facing cave, which we call the Μακραί?’ This awkwardly places the apposition between antecedent and relative. At the same time, the phrasing uses two names for the cave, while not indicating its proximity to the acropolis. 938 Πανὸς ἄδυτα καὶ βωμοὶ πέλας: The altar may have been outside the cave (possibly that of Zeus Astrapaios; cf. 11–13n with Strabo 9.2.11, Travlos (1971) 91) but the ‘shrine’ is the cave itself. 939 ἀγῶνα δεινὸν: Apollo seeking to unite with Cassandra is described as a wrestler in Aesch. Ag. 1206 (παλαιστής with West (1990) 139–40; cf. Prop. 2.15.4 rixa, Mart. 10.38.6 proelia, pugna). It is not entirely clear whether the Old Man understands Creusa’s (euphemistic) figurative language. His τίν(α) could ask ‘An ἀγών of which kind?’ (i.e. sex) or ‘An ἀγών with whom?’: the word order of the answer suggests the latter. 940 ἀπαντᾶι: The approach of tears is often mentioned, even when the further course of the conversation does not confirm that they become visible (Medda (1997) 407): e.g. Med. 906, Herc. 448–50, 742–3, Soph. Ant. 802– 3, El. 1230–1. 942: Recent editors are probably right to mark the line as a complete sentence, against Murray’s sermo fractus. The failure to communicate effectively (with the unclear point of reference of ταῦτα ἅ; cf. 275) shows the Old Man’s tension. The phenomenon has parallels and is all but ridiculed in IA 522–3 Αγ. ἐκεῖνο δ’ οὐ δέδοικας οὕμ’ ἐσέρχεται; – Με. ὃν μὴ σὺ φράζεις πῶς ὑπολάβοιμ’ ἂν λόγον; cf. Mastronarde (1979) 37–8. Creusa treats the question as finished; οὐκ οἶδα shows no sign of being an eager or hectic interruption. ἅ γ’ ἠισθόμην: Hermes had reported that pregnancy and birth went unnoticed by the father (14); here Euripides adds a bit of realistic human detail. It affirms both the close relationship between servant and young mistress (cf. 725–34n), and the care Apollo took to preserve secrecy. However, Cre-

386

Commentary

usa, too, made an effort to hide from those around her what had happened (ἔστενες λάθραι). 943 οὐκ οἶδ’: I.e. ‘I can’t say’, because the subject of the question is unclear: cf. IT 658–9 Ορ. Πυλάδη, πέπονθας ταὐτὸ πρὸς θεῶν ἐμοί; – Πυ. οὐκ οἶδ’· ἐρωτᾶις οὐ λέγειν ἔχοντά με. ἀληθῆ: ‘correct’ rather than ‘true’: with λέγεις. φαίημεν: ‘affirm’ (LSJ III). For the long form of the optative cf. Cycl. 132, Hel. 1010, Palam. fr. 582N2 (=incert. fr. 886–7 =Ar. Ran. 1448); TrGF adesp. 638.4 εἰδείημεν, Lautensach (1916) 106–7. 945 ταῦτ᾿: L has impossible τοῦτ᾿ (pace Biehl, Med. 547–8 is not a parallel). ταῦτα resumes the demonstrative of 942. Diggle prefers L. Dindorf’s τότ᾿, which would pick up the temporal ἡνίκα in 944 but misses the character of 943–4 as an insertion (cf. Schegloff (1972) 76–9) in the question-and-answer sequence. 946–9 After the conception the birth is chronologically the next step (κἆιτ(α)). The Old Man seems to be slow to draw the connection to 932; he does not expect Creusa to have delivered the child: 947 ἀνάσχου means ‘put up with it’ (cf. Alc. 304, Hcld. 380) and refutes the presupposition of the Old Man’s question, that the child was aborted. The passage needs to be added to the evidence for abortion in Greece. The significance of abortion (on the methods cf. Eyben (1980–1981) 10–12, Kapparis (2002) 7–31) is best understood from the legal position of children: they, as their mothers, were under the guardianship and control of the κύριος (i.e. normally the father), with whom rested control of their life and death. He, not the mother, was allowed to reject or abandon the child. Hence abortion was not prohibited per se (Eyben p. 20–2, Buis (2003) 58), but the woman was not entitled to terminate a pregnancy without her husband’s consent (Lys. fr. 19–24, Gal. Anim.Ut. 19.179.13–180.3, Cic. Cl. 32; cf. Kapparis p. 185–93, Buis p. 56). In the absence of the father of Creusa’s child, the κύριος is Erechtheus who is ignorant or dead (14 with n). 946 ἐξέκλεψας ... γάμους: In Euripides the verb always denotes clandestine physical removal (cf. 1244n), here of the unborn child. It does not describe hiding the pregnancy ‘to the end’ (Lee). γάμος is used metonymically for various people affected by a marriage (Med. 403–4, Hel. 1622; cf. Pecz (1886) 99), here for the child resulting from the union. 947 κλυών: Cf. 528n.



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

387

948 λοχεύει: causative active (‘to assist at birth’) to the middle in 921; cf. 1596, El. 1129. 949 μόνη κατ’ ἄντρον: The Old Man’s two questions are answered in the same sentence (cf. e.g. Alc. 483, Suppl. 758). Everywhere else in the play the birth is said or suggested to have taken place in the palace, including the immediately preceding monody (16, 344, 899, [1400]; but cf. 955n). Inattention on the part of the author may be the best explanation for the contradiction – and would not be unparalleled: cf. Scodel (1999) 118, Mastronarde on Phoen. 26. Nothing hinges on the ‘lie’: there has been a tendency to explain the discrepancy through Creusa’s desire to dramatise the account, but the other version is dramatic enough, and Creusa does not exaggerate on other details. Nor is there need either to assume (with Zielinski (1925) 25) that Euripides here includes an older tradition or to delete the couplet 948–9 with Wiskemann (1872) 33–4. μόνη: Giving birth alone is a sign of alienated misery, here more specifically of isolation, in El. 1129 αὐτὴ ’λόχευον κἄτεκον μόνη βρέφος of poverty. ἐζεύχθην γάμοις: Cf. 10. 950–9 Again, knowledge held by the Old Man (as implied in 932–3) seems lost now (cf. 923–65n). The passage repeats the contrast between, on the one hand, Creusa and her child, suffering physically and mentally, and, on the other hand, Apollo, who does not care (cf. 881–906). The portrayal of Creusa’s sense of isolation, anguish, and emotional strain, as expressed in 897–901, is further intensified: the Old Man, a household slave and confidant in other matters, cannot imagine that she exposed the child without another member of the house helping or at least noticing (cf. 942). Her plight is highlighted by the fact that she could not trust anyone (in analogy to other tragic heroines, e.g. Antiope, but in contrast to Alciphr. Epist. 3.27, Plaut. Cist. 166–7, Ter. Heaut. 629; cf. Eyben (1980–1981) 17, Huys (1995) 143–52. 950 ὁ παῖς δὲ ποῦ: The delay of the interrogative signals a change of topic, a temporary shift in the conversation away from Creusa’s perseverance. Firstly, the greatness of the loss is stressed by the hint at the potential of the child: it would have ended Creusa’s childlessness and thereby her private distress and the absence of an heir. Secondly, Apollo is named as the one responsible for the impasse: the surprised, outraged tone of 952 indicates that the Old Man expected him to have intervened (cf. 965). For the audience there is thus an allusion to Apollo’s real intervention and to an alternative, happy development of the plot, which will occur at the end of the play. ἵνα: ‘so that ’.

388

Commentary

952 τέθνηκ’: For the repetition of a key word in an ‘indignant or incredulous question’ cf. Diggle (1981a) 50–1 and above on 286. 953 παιδεύεται: Creusa adapts the (often sarcastic) trope of unwed girls ‘getting married in/to Hades’: cf. e.g. Med. 985, Or. 1109, Loraux (1987) 38, Rehm (1994). ‘Life’ in the underworld is different from but continuing the upper one (cf. 1068n, Garland (1985) 68–71): Pindar (Thren. 7 fr. 129) suggests dice, horses, gymnastics, and lyres as pastimes of his deceased clientele, not so different from their lifetime activities. 954 οὐ γὰρ δὴ: δή (much like ‘obviously’) asks Creusa to confirm the Old Man’s disbelief (cf. Denniston 243, Sicking/van Ophuijsen (1993) 52–3). The fact that Creusa must outright contradict him heightens the emphasis on the exceptional character of the circumstances. The question of whether Creusa had aides is about practicalities and her inner strength. It does not have moral implications (as Lee supposes): that could only be the case if the responsibility for the abandonment were shifted to another person, e.g. the father. A slave – an executant of orders – would not exculpate Creusa. 955 ἐν ὄρφνηι σπαργανώσαντες: The idea of darkness again suggests the cave as location of the secret delivery (cf. 949). The swaddling, following immediately after birth, is another hint that she had acted alone: she takes on a nurse’s duties (cf. Aesch. Cho. 752–60) in adverse conditions and fear of discovery. The continued emphasis on swaddling bands prepares for the main recognition item. 957 ξυμφοραί ... τὸ λανθάνειν: The personification of abstract nouns brings an abrupt change of register, just before the pitiful details are given: the frigid and distancing, impersonal tone creates a similar effect as do the pathetic touches in the rest of the passage. On Euripides’ complex use of personifications (not including abstract divinities as in 337) cf. C. Hense (1868), Breitenbach 171; for the personified infinitive τὸ λανθάνειν cf. Hipp. 247, Or. 782, Simon. F 308. 958 καὶ πῶς: a surprised question: cf. 293, 973. 959 πῶς [δ᾿]: For the repetition of the word see Diggle (1981a) 50–1 and 286n. Defenders of the paradosis refer to τί δ(έ) in Suppl. 124, Herc. 1232 (cf. Denniston 176, Owen); but in these two cases the answer is a new sentence without full syntactic cohesion with the question. 960–5 The interjection stops the flow of the conversation; the focus shifts to the description of the scene and to the baby, with the close-up view of the child



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

389

demanding the mother as the final intensification in the narrative of the abandonment. 960 τλήμων σὺ τόλμης: almost the same figura etymologica as in 252, here acknowledging Creusa’s endurance (cf. 958 ἔτλης). τλήμων is ambiguous, hence ‘enduring’ Creusa and ‘reckless’ Apollo can be characterised by the same word; τλήμων, therefore, does not entail censure of Creusa (pace Gibert (1995) 172). 961 εἰ ... γ᾿: ‘Yes, if ...’. Creusa specifies (almost corrects) under which condition the Old Man’s statement would be really (i.e. even more) true. An exact parallel is Phoen. 1346–7 Κρ. οἴμοι κακῶν δύστηνος, ὦ τάλας ἐγώ. – Αγ. εἰ καὶ τὰ πρὸς τούτοισί γ’ εἰδείης κακά; cf. also IT 866. By the shift to the irrealis Creusa implies that the Old Man cannot grasp her actual suffering. χεῖρας ἐκτείνοντά: Starting with Hermann, scholars have found fault with the new-born’s ability to reach out to his mother. Greek men must have known better, since they saw their children after at most ten days (cf. 653n), but that does not stop authors attributing purpose to accidental gestures; cf. infants smiling: e.g. Hdt. 5.92γ.3, Verg. Ecl. 4.66. μοι: a poetic dative denoting the aim of a movement: K-G I 406(2), Moorhouse 81–2. 962 διώκοντ’ ἢ ... πεσεῖν: The inconcinnity of the construction is softened, since both parts express purpose: first in the semantics of διώκω, then in the final infinitive. The disjunctive ἤ is thus superior to Bruhn’s ἦ (apud Owen), which is out of place in the middle of the sentence and blends the two distinct motifs of nurture and protection (on which 110n, 761n). 963: Creusa does not decide between the Old Man’s alternatives but comments only on the aspect of protection: her arm would have provided safety to the boy (as her mother’s arm had to her: 280). Deserting him is then tantamount to harming him (ἄδικ’ ἔπασχεν ἐξ ἐμοῦ), so Creusa accepts personal responsibility. 964 δόξ’ ἐσῆλθεν: Idiomatic εἰσέρχομαι with a neuter pronoun or a noun of thinking or feeling (cf. 1023, 1539, and in particular Cycl. 411 ἐσῆλθέ μοί τι θεῖον, Or. 1324 φόβος τις εἰσελήλυθ’) is correctly restored from L’s δόξης ἦλθεν. 965 ὡς ... σώσοντα ... γ’: causal construction (accusative absolute: cf. K-G II 95(d)), but answering the question about the purpose of exposure (964 ἐς τί with ἐκβαλεῖν: ‘to what end?’). The transmitted present participle σώ(ι)ζοντ᾿ must be rejected: such use of the present for the future is attested with the infinitive but not with participle (in S-D II 296(β) only after πέμπειν). ‘Prae-

390

Commentary

sens propheticum’ (Owen) would be strange while Creusa thinks that her expectation has been dashed. Kraus’ explains the present as denoting a permanent effect (76–7), but in his parallel (El. 1024–6 κεἰ μὲν πόλεως ἅλωσιν ἐξιώμενος ἢ δῶμ’ ὀνήσων τἄλλα τ’ ἐκσώιζων τέκνα ἔκτεινε πολλῶν μίαν ὕπερ) ἐκσώιζων is the immediate effect of the main action (ἔκτεινε), the benefit for the city (ὀνήσων) lies in the future. 966–9 The Old Man, already at the brink of open lament in 960, no longer holds back. The dynastic significance of the event, hinted at in 950, comes into full view and moves the narrative from a private story of Creusa to one concerning the house of Erechtheus. The fate of the house is more pitiful than assumed: it had seemed to lack an heir but in fact it has lost him. The Old Man veils his face to hide his tears. The gesture (often emphasised by bystanders’ remarks: Herc. 1111–12, Or. 280, IA 1122–3; cf. Spitzbarth (1946) 16, Cairns (2009) 47) supports the otherwise only verbal realisation of dramatic tears, which are invisibile because of the mask and the distance between actor and audience; cf. 241–2. Telò (2002a) 44 shows that scenes of veiling oneself have a clearly marked start and end. If that is so, we have to reckon with the Old Man unveiling his face in an ostentative gesture in 970. 966 χειμάζεται: For the image cf. Hipp. 315, Suppl. 269 (and 927–9n). 969: Creusa counters with a trite gnomê on the human condition; with some benevolence it may be described as a consolatory commonplace which helps her repress her trauma and maintain her composure. The topos of the changeability of human fate and its use in consolation start with Hom. Il. 24.527–30; on its history cf. Kassel (1958) 54–5. Tragedy, being so concerned with human suffering, is naturally susceptible to the thought (e.g. Hcld. 608–17, Herc. 102–3, IA 30–1, Ino fr. 415, fr. 1074 βέβαια δ’ οὐδεὶς εὐτυχεῖ θνητὸς γεγώς; cf. Vancamp (1996) 353). In the end Ion better exemplifies the opposite movement: cf. 1512–14. 970–86 In the conception of Euripidean intrigues the final plan is repeatedly preceded by two suggestions of an impracticable, blunt attack: Med. 376–85, IT 1020–31, Hel. 1032–51. The third suggestion, which is carried through, then involves guile. Resemblances are particularly strong with IT and Hel.: a man’s (Orestes’, Menelaus’) proposals are rejected, before a woman (Iphigeneia, Helen) makes hers; in all three cases there is a reference to guile being a female domain. The deliberation here is extended: the Old Man makes



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

391

three different suggestions and Creusa modifies the third so that it involves guile (987–1019). While in the escape plays the purpose and the target of violent suggestions are clear, Creusa’s case is more complex: she has no hopes for a change of the situation; she also has more, and more diverse enemies (similar to e.g. Medea). Each of the three suggestions is directed against a different character who has hurt her: Apollo by rape and neglect, Xuthus by deception, Ion by his intrusion (the order recalls the 2nd stasimon). The primary aim of the intrigue here is retaliation for its own sake (972; already Gauger (1977) 50) and the preservation of Creusa’s dignity (970); the idea that the assassination of Ion will keep him from Athens is only expressed in the dubious lines 1036–8 (for self-defence cf. [848–9]). The deliberation does not devolve any responsibility or ‘guilt’ from Creusa upon the Old Man (725–1047n), as is often argued. Their motives are very similar (Gibert (1995) 183 n.49), but the Old Man speaks about the personal and the dynastic dimension where Creusa focuses on the former (cf. e.g. 923–65n). The two also complement each other in forging the plot: Creusa is initially passive only because she is despondent and lacking confidence in her resources (971): she is lacking the right plan, not the will – she need not be pushed but is asking for instructions (cf. IT 1017–19, Hel. 1032–4). When the Old Man runs out of ideas she takes the initiative and finally conceives the plan. The two pick the easiest (and least deserving) target and do not face the enemy openly. This does not help to make their course of action respectable, but it reflects the respective standing of the two as a woman and as a slave (feebly excused in 1045–7, if genuine). 970 μή νυν: Rarely does the transition from resignation to activity happen as quickly as here (cf. Hec. 736–51, Or. 1074–99): without any change in the external situation the Old Man casts off his feelings of pity (in ring composition with 925). Gibert (1995) 182–3 reads this change of attitude as motivated by Creusa’s preceding gnomê (969), but for that the logical force of νυν is rather too weak and the connection between the proposition and the conclusion too vague. Instead, the particle with the command draws a consequence from the general situation described in the scene (cf. El. 408, K-G II 118). 971–5 Apollo has stood at the centre of Creusa’s accusations, so the Old Man turns against him first. Creusa is encouraged to take justice into her own hands. In this way Apollo would be punished as a subverter of order: the ἀχάριστος προδότης has his ‘house’, i.e. the temple, burnt down in a socalled ‘tumbling’ or Wüstung, an act of popular justice in circumvention of formal proceedings: cf. Socrates’ house in Ar. Nub. 1484–92 (also Med.

392

Commentary

378, Or. 1618–20; in Andr. 1095 also against Apollo in revenge) with Davies (1990), Schmitz (2004) 357–70. It is not mortal humility that makes Creusa shy away from burning the temple (which would mark her as a θεομάχος: Kamerbeek (1948) 281, Mikalson (1991) 176–7; cf. the giants using fire: Verg. Aen. 6.618 with Servius, Vian (1952) 146). Rather, she fears that retaliation against a god will lead to more suffering for herself (975). 971 ἀπορία τὸ δυστυχεῖν: ‘To be in a bad situation means a lack of resources.’ Hel. 813 ἐς ἄπορον ἥκεις· δεῖ δὲ μηχανῆς τινος in a similar situation. 972 τὸν πρῶτον ἀδικήσαντά: Athenian law allowed striking back in physical assaults: cf. Dem. 23.50 ἄν τις τύπτηι τινά [...] ἄρχων χειρῶν ἀδίκων, 47.7, 40, Lys. 4.11, Isoc. 20.1. The verb ἀποτίνου, however, is not used in the apparently technical sense ‘fine’ (cf. the law Dem. 20.155, 21.25, also Pl. Ap. 36B, Gorg. 480D against Xen. Cyr. 5.4.35). 973 ὑπερδράμω: ‘prevail over’ (Hel. 1524, Phoen. 578) with τὰ κρείσσω meaning ‘the power of the gods’ (cf. 254n). 975 καὶ νῦν: ‘even now’, i.e. ‘already’: cf. Hcld. 415, Ba. 500. 976–7 A plot against Xuthus directly is ruled out: αἰδώς, typical for φιλίαrelationships (including the family), is stronger than the anger at Xuthus’ actions. For similar instances of shame cf. Med. 439–40, Alope fr. 109, Critias TrGF 43 F 2, Hom. Od. 19.527, Cairns (1993) 273. 976 τὰ δυνατά: The Old Man withdraws from the implication in 973–4 that it is possible to harm Apollo. Cf. in another intrigue Hel. 811 τὸ τολμᾶν δ’ ἀδύνατ’ ἀνδρὸς οὐ σοφοῦ, 1043 ἀδύνατον εἶπας. 977 ἐσθλὸς: here not an innate (inherited) quality but something that is actualised through actions (as in [856]): cf. Dover (1974) 63. So Xuthus can be described as ἐσθλός during the period when he acted loyally to Creusa. 978–86 The third suggestion (cf. 970–86n) finds Creusa’s enthusiastic approval – even though Ion has not actively harmed her. His mere existence is a humiliation for her (836–8). For dramatic effect the section has been expanded by an interpolator. 981–2 must go, not only because the mention of the ‘sacred tent’ is irreconcilable with the Old Man’s state of knowledge (cf. 804–[7]n, 982n). The train of thought is also inconsistent, as the method and the occasion of Ion’s assassination become blurred: first, when she asks about the place (981), Creusa accepts the idea of an armed assault by slaves, yet in 983 she does



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

393

not reject the place proposed but the entire idea of open violence and the involvement of slaves (i.e. the content of 980). The discussion of the place of the attack is unsuitable here and jars with 1021–2, where Creusa’s first idea (Athens) is dismissed by the Old Man as too late. In addition, the use of στείχοιμ’ ἄν is against tragic convention (981n). 978 νῦν δ’ ἀλλὰ: ‘in that case then (at least)’: the Old Man is annoyed at Creusa’s repeated disapproval (cf. 984). It is not necessarily implied that he finds his new suggestion inferior to those that Creusa rejected (cf. Denniston 10). ἐπὶ σοὶ: ‘to your injury’ (Colby (1887)), not ‘as master over you’. 980 ξιφηφόρους: predicative to ὁπλίσασ(α) and anticipatory: she arms them so that they become sword-carrying. 981 στείχοιμ’ ἄν: The movement on stage would be unparalleled: Creusa sets off but stops at once because she realises she is missing essential information. The phrase indicates imminent departure (Diggle (1981a) 101 n.1); the only exception in the 5th cent. is El. 669, where Orestes immediately starts a prayer, which is, however, linked to the purpose of his leaving. In comparable cases (with ἀλλ᾿ εἶμι), the delay of the departure is either verbalised (Phoen. 766 ἓν δ’ ἐστὶν ἡμῖν ἀργόν) or motivated by a distraction from another person (Hcld. 678, Soph. Trach. 389); cf. also the dramatically effective portrayal of fear and abhorrence in Aesch. Ag. 1313–30. Conjectures to avoid the redundant movements (e.g. Herwerden’s στείλαιμ᾿ ἄν) do nothing to remove the other flaws of 981–2. γενήσεται: For the future in the sense of a subjunctive cf. 758n. 982 θοινᾶι φίλους: This corresponds to 663–5 and represents knowledge Creusa does not have: the chorus in 805 speak of Xuthus as leading the ceremony, and that is what Creusa mentions in 1031. Elsewhere in Euripides ‘to feast’ is always the middle θοινάομαι. 983 ἐπίσημον: ‘standing out’, i.e. clear for everyone to see, picked up in 985 by the notion of stealth (δόλια), just as ἀσθενές is by ‘effective’ (δραστήρια); hence not too ‘significant’ for weak slaves. ὁ φόνος: ‘this kind of murder’; the article specifies the method (980; cf. K-G I 58–9). τὸ δοῦλον ἀσθενές: Creusa generalises about slaves, in a way that contrasts with the egalitarian attitude elsewhere in Euripides (and [855–6]), but cf. Hec. 798  ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν δοῦλοί τε κἀσθενεῖς ἴσως, Or. 1115 οὐδὲν τὸ δοῦλον πρὸς τὸ μὴ δοῦλον γένος. That the Old Man goes on to undertake the attempt against Ion does not contradict the maxim: he enjoys higher esteem than normal slaves, and still he acts clumsily.

394

Commentary

984 κακίζηι: ‘you act cowardly’; an expression Euripides alone of the tragedians uses, but elsewhere (Med. 1246, El. 982; causative active IA 1435) only in negative (self-)exhortatory formulations or false and denigrating slander. For the servant such a damning statement seems bold, especially as Creusa has not been shying away but analysing her strengths. 984–5 φέρε, σύ νυν βούλευέ τι – καὶ μὴν: Cf. El. 618 σὺ δὴ τοὐνθένδε βούλευσον, γέρον. The Old Man sounds annoyed (cf. 978 νῦν δ’ ἀλλὰ) and provokes Creusa, who reacts accordingly: καὶ μήν is employed in reaction to a challenge. Creusa rejects the implication that she cannot come up with a better plan (cf. Wakker (1997b) 218, Erp Taalman Kip (2009) 124–7). The minor conflict (or rivalry) is revisited in 1022. 985 ἔχω γε: Dingel (1967) 147–8 notes the unusual technique of an inconspicuous or concealed prop suddenly gaining in importance (cf. Aesch. Cho. 231). The item may be handled in front of the audience for a considerable time so as to draw attention, before it is handed over around 1033 τόδε. 987–1038 987–1019a deal with the means of killing Ion, 1019b–38 with the execution (1019b–28 place, 1029–38 method). Creusa designs the plot alone, the Old Man’s role is that of an admiring inquirer (who gives Creusa the chance to connect the plot with some of the play’s leitmotifs: Erichthonius, snakes, etc.) and then of the executant. Their roles are reversed from 970–86, even where he criticises her plan (1022, with explicit reference to 983–4). The change of roles stresses how they complement each other and share the responsibility for the plot. 987–1019a The introduction of the poison happens with ‘slow, circumstantial monotony’ (Rosenmeyer (1963) 116), even when one discounts the spurious lines; it would be ‘perversely round-about and longwinded if Euripides were not deliberately playing upon the complex of motifs’ (Mastronarde (1975) 168 = (2003) 302–3; on this ‘ab ovo technique’ (1979) 43–4). Much of the story is Euripides’ own invention (or are at best a recherché variant) to link the giants, Gorgo, and the autochthonous Athenians and thus extend the web of myths connected with the house of Erechtheus. With the new elements he invests Creusa’s plot (and the resources she draws on) with symbolic importance, developing the connection between the (private) revenge and the importance for the polis. The paradoxical combinations of motifs defy an overarching interpretation: the double position of Creusa as Athena’s protégée and autochthonous ‘relative’ of the giants and Gorgo rules out any unequivocal association with either side. In particular, her poison, the gift



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

395

of Athena, signals the defeat of the earthborn Gorgo but is here employed against the intentions of the Olympian Apollo. In its elusiveness the passage matches the temple decoration in the parodos, with which it is linked by the reference to the gigantomachy. The dramatic effect of the digression, however, is clear: Creusa’s mobilisation of the full demonic power of her house illustrates her extreme vexation. On the other hand, it is mordantly ironic that she deploys it against the long-desired son and thus turns the weapons of the family against one of its members. The poison is as specific to the occasion (the protection of the house) as it is misplaced when used against a member of the house, a hint that the plot will not succeed. Instead, the bracelet provides a connection to the recognition: the necklace is presumably a copy of it (cf. 1030~1430 χρύσωμα, 1428n). 987 ἄκουε τοίνυν· οἶσθα: Cf. 936n. γηγενῆ μάχην: also Cycl. 5. For more compound adjectives instead of objective genitives cf. Herc. 1272–3 τετρασκελῆ ... πόλεμον, Aesch. Suppl. 1053 γάμον Αἰγυπτογενῆ, Williger (1928) 15. 988 Φλέγραι: The Phlegraean plain was the traditional scene of the gigantomachy (Herc. 1194, Aesch. Eum. 295, Ar. Av. 824, Pind. N. 1.67–8, I. 6.33, Ephorus FGrH 70 F 34). It is identified with Pallene on the Chalcidice (Hdt. 7.123.1, then Strabo fr. 25, 27, St.Byz. φ77), but in the Roman era sometimes confused with the Campi Flegrei in Campania: cf. Vian (1952) 189–91. 989 Γοργόν’: Euripides deals very freely with the Gorgo: in the standard account (Hes. Th. 270–6, Pind. P. 12.13) the Gorgons are the children of Phorcys and Ceto; the Medusa, who is killed by Perseus (e.g. El. 459–60, Hes. Th. 280), is one of them (cf. PV 798–800). Euripides’ version, repeated in 1478, does not seem to have had impact on pictorial art. In Greek literature it is repeated only in a commentary on Pindar (P.Oxy. 2536; cf. Calvani (1973) 144); Hygin. De Astr. 2.12 ascribes it to Euhemerus (who dates later than Euripides). Euripides even hints at his invention when the Gorgo’s head is paradoxically already on Athena’s shield in the gigantomachy (210). 990 θεῶν πόνον: ‘that pain of the gods’. This stands in apposition to Γόργον(α), and is not an antithetical parallelism to predicative παισὶν σύμμαχον, as shown by the genitive as opposed to the dative παισίν. 992–7 Many editors since Kirchhoff have moved 992–3 after 997, but the course of the conversation makes more sense in the transmited order: hearing of the Gorgo’s shape the Old Man remembers the myth that this monster became the aegis and asks for reassurance. For 995 ἐπὶ στέρνοις ἔχειν it is

396

Commentary

preferable that not just the killing (991) but also the form of the aigis has been mentioned (993). With Kirchhoff’s rearrangement, the Old Man would be familiar with the name aigis, its origin as the Gorgo’s skin, and its current place on Athena’s chest (994–5), but strangely not its shape. The problem that 993 seems to describe the aigis rather than the Gorgo (Wilamowitz) is not compelling (cf. n). Some features of these lines have raised suspicions, but Kraus’ (77–8) deletion of both 992–3 and 996–7 (let alone Ludwig’s (1954) 67 deletion of the entire section) is not well argued: he calls the question about the σχῆμα (992) badly motivated. But 989 τέρας is sufficient to prompt it. The answer in 993 is not syntactically incongruent (pace Kraus) but depends on ἔχουσαν: the myth that the Old Man has heard and is asking about in 994 refers not to the shape alone but to the entire story: from the killing to Athena donning the aegis that is distinctive because of the monster’s shape. Finally, ἀγρίας is no more a ‘sinnleeres Füllsel’ than many other epithets. 992 μορφῆς σχῆμ’: IT 292 μορφῆς σχήματ’; cf. Ba. 1358 δράκων δρακαίνης (cj. Nauck) ἔχουσαν ἀγρίας. 993 θώρακ’: ‘chest’ or ‘trunk’, as in Herc. 1095; cf. Müller-Graupa (1939). The tresses on the seam of the aegis (cf. 1423) are envisaged as previously a rim around the Gorgo’s upper body, from which the aegis was made. The singular ἐχίδνης is, however, peculiar. 994 μῦθος: S. Cole (2008) 315 may here be right in claiming that the reference to myth is an ironic signpost for an innovation on Euripides’ part (contrast 267/71). The emphasis on age and authority is subverted by the need to repeat the story and the fake etymology. 995 ταύτης ... δέρος: Originally, the head (Gorgo) and the skin (aegis) were probably parts of one creature, a goat slaughtered in sacrifice, skinned, and worn by the priestess: cf. Kerényi (1949) 303–6. In the pictorial evidence as well as in the literary standard account, however, our passage is unique in reflecting this connection, and the mythical transformation has displaced the ritual origins: the Gorgo’s head has been severed and attached to the aegis (Hes. Th. 280, Apollod. Bibl. 2.46). The aegis itself is said to consist of the skin of the giants Asteros (e.g. Merop. PEG F 5), Pallas (e.g. Apollodorus P.Köln III 126, Cic. De Nat.Deor. 3.59), or exceptionally a creature called Aigis (Diod.Sic. 3.70.3): cf. Koenen/Merkelbach (1976) 16–17, Fowler (1988) 107–8 n.39, 40, Robertson (2001) 42. ἐπὶ στέρνοις: Cf. Phoen. 1120 λέοντος δέρος ἔχων ἐπ’ ἀσπίδι, 1124. 997 ἦιξεν: Euripides/Creusa presents a wrong etymology of the word αἰγίς from ἀίσσω instead of αἶξ. L has ἦλθεν, which is probably a gloss: Euripides uses concealed etymologies (cf. 9, 661–3an, 802n), but if αἰγίς/ἀίσσω is an



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

397

ad hoc-invention, ἦλθεν requires too complicated a thought process to be understood in rapid stichomythia (compare the concealed etymology of 802, prepared in 661–2). Kraus 78 criticises the lack of a clear definition of aegis (used in 996 for the δέρος, in 997 for the monster). But etymologies often explain alternative names (Hel. 13–15), so the Gorgo had received (ἔσχεν) the second name Aigis at the gigantomachy and kept it when she was skinned. 998–1019a The Old Man is mystified as to the relevance of the excursus on the gigantomachy (as is the audience), since the link between the gigantomachy and Erichthonius is in all likelihood a Euripidean innovation: Creusa tells how drops of the Gorgo’s blood came down to her via Erichthonius. She does so in the same digressive fashion as before (987~999). Due to the stichomythic form the relevance of the back story is revealed only gradually. The drop with the potential to heal is the most enigmatic object in this combination of motifs: it is a red herring, never employed. Accordingly, it has provoked various interpretations, each as interesting as unprovable: Burnett (1971) 115–16 wishes to discover a negative characterisation of Creusa because she does not use the potential to do good; for Mastronarde (1975) 169 = (2003) 303–4 this neglect of what is good is a sign of the earthly, primitive force of man in general; Lee (on 1017) links it with his general interpretation of the play, that the beneficial and harmful are not always recognisable as such and often combined (similarly Zacharia (2003) 165). The motif of potent drops of blood is traditional (Ouranos’ blood in Hes. Th. 183–7, with West) and folkloric, as is the idea of two opposing powers: for an almost identical story about Chiron receiving two portions of blood with opposite forces cf. Apollod. Bibl. 3.120. 998 τοῦτο: The reference is to the preceding narrative, but in an unspecific way, comprising the entire story: the Old Man does not understand the point of the excursus. Other fellow-plotters ask in similar ways when they do not understand the first exposition of the intrigue: El. 655 καὶ δὴ τί τοῦτο μητρὶ προσβάλλει φόνον; Hel. 1055, Or. 1188, 1190. 999 ἢ : Without the supplement there would be aposiopesis, which is rarely accepted among modern scholars (e.g. Kraus 79) and produces crude naturalism in the conversation. The paradosis has little authority, given that the same mistake occurs in Hel. 916 and Bell. fr. 304a. τί δ’ οὐ μέλλεις: ‘How should you not?’ The self-correction is a conscious reminder of the artificiality of the question (Mastronarde (1979) 44), but not alien to real speech. Cf. Soph. Ant. 448 ἤιδη· τί δ’ οὐκ ἔμελλον; also Or. 1183 and the Platonic τί δ’ οὐ μέλλει;

398

Commentary

1000 ὑμῶν πρόγονον: As in 267, the succession of generations remains vague, but 1007–8 suggests that Erechtheus is thought of as Erichthonius’ son. 1002 †μέλλον: Up to this point, Creusa’s narrative is not more protracted than comparable ones, and hesitation in delivery is usually verbalised by the hesitant speaker (e.g. 336, Suppl. 295). In similar cases the interrupting question is motivated by curiosity and novelty (cf. esp. Or. 790 τί τόδε καινὸν αὖ λέγεις; Antiope fr. 223.90), so καινόν may be an option, although there is no obvious reason (except perhaps 999 μέλλεις) why it should have been replaced by μέλλον. 1004–19a 1010–17 is probably another histrionic interpolation (cf. Enthoven (1880) 51–5): the Old Man’s delight that Creusa has the poison with her (1018) is more plausible if it follows directly upon that revelation (1009, highlighted by γ(ε), ἐγώ). 1004–5 and 1010–15 preclude each other, with the balance (against some previous editors: cf. Ludwig (1954) 67) tilting towards the former: 1) The description of both drops as blood (1003) is irreconcilable with the distinction between blood and venom drawn in the second passage. The former is supported by 1055, where it is most natural to take the λαιμότομοι σταλαγμοί as the same substance. λαιμότομοι also sits uneasily with the claim that the poison came from the snakes, not the Gorgo’s own throat (1015). 1010–15 can be explained as rationalisation, because it is odd that the same substance can have opposite effects. 2) 1010 δίπτυχον ‘twofold’ presupposes a dichotomy, i.e. a distinction between the drops, although the Old Man cannot yet know of the opposite effects; the use as the mere numeral ‘two’ is restricted to the plural (e.g. IT 242). The question in 1004 is neutral in this respect. 3) 1012 χρῆσθαι is a flawed imitation of similar ‘fillers’ (cf. n). 4) 1010–15 vividly indulge in graphic description, similar to the dramatising effect of other interpolations (cf. [612–15], Page (1934) 116–17, West (1978) 121). The succinctness of the antithesis in 1005 strikes as more Euripidean. One could object that, with 1015 ἰός removed, 1016 αὐτόν (in Canter’s uncontroversial κραθέντ᾿ αὐτόν: (1571) 51) has no clear reference point. Even without the deletion, however, the pronoun is problematic and 1016 would require further emendation: the Old Man cannot ask ‘Are you carrying it (i.e. the poison, ἰός) mixed into one or separately?’; he must mean both drops, not just the poisonous one. In any case, the idea that Creusa could mix the two drops is absurd; it makes sense only as preparation for the rather flat punch-line of 1017. Commentators have read that line as programmatic, in



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

399

that it lays bare Creusa’s misconception of herself and the world (Burnett (1971) 115, Lee, Zacharia (2003) 165, Kindt (2007) 23). But we do Euripides the greater service of vindication if we (with Prevost in Musgrave’s Addenda) assume that it was not he who composed the couplet. 1004 ἔχοντας: The finite verb in L (ἔχοι γ᾿ ἄν, corrected from what may have been ἔχοιο ἄν) jars with the construction of the next line. ἔχοντ᾿ ἄν is closer to the paradosis than ἔχοντας but would be the only example of the dual in our context; and ἄν is no loss. ἀνθρώπου φύσιν: not a recent philosophical concept concerning an essence of humanity but formulaic for a specific physical (or ethical) substance/principle (Judet de la Combe (2006) 178–9): cf. Hec. 296, Or. 3, Antig. fr. 170, fr. 834, Soph. Aj. 760. 1006 ἀμφὶ παιδὶ: We may think of amulet bands (cf. 1007 δεσμοῖς) around children’s bodies, often depicted on the choes vases. A copy has been given to Ion by Creusa as necklace (cf. 987–1019an). The dative after ἀμφί does not have a different meaning from the accusative: cf. Pind. I. 7.8–9 ἢ ἀμφὶ πυκναῖς Τειρεσίαο βουλαῖς; ἢ ἀμφ’ Ἰόλαον ἱππόμητιν; and Kannicht on Hel. 182–3. σώματος: As the text stands, the genitive goes with καθάψασ(α). B. Heath (and others after him) have taken it as following ἐν τῶι (‘To which part of the body ...?’), but Creusa’s answer shows that ἐν τῶι is inquiring about the container. The text is acceptable, but with reservations: ‘attached it to the body, around the child’ is pleonastic at best. And the participle construction prolongs the sentence and returns to Athena in a quite circuitous way. A clean break with καθάπτει παιδὸς ἀμφὶ σώματι would be smoother. 1007 δίδωσ’ ἐμῶι πατρί: The direct hand-over is the clearest indication that Erechtheus is Erichthonius’ son (contrast 1000 with n). The mythology, however, ought not to be pushed too hard for consistency. 1010 κέκρανται: For this singular form of κραίνω cf. Hipp. 1255, Andr. 1272. The use ‘brought to pass’ for a material object is extraordinary. So is the technique of answering two questions in one sentence of sermo fractus, one of which is posed after the start of the sentence. δῶρον: The error δέρος (L) is undoubtedly an after-effect of the discussion about the aegis. 1011 κοίλης ... φλεβὸς: The term is used in a technical sense for the vena cava – here the superior, which transports blood from the head and upper body to the heart: cf. Poll. 2.225 τῶν δὲ φλεβῶν ἡ κοίλη καλουμένη μεγίστη τ’ ἐστὶ καὶ ἀπὸ καρδίας ἄρχεται, Guardasole (2000) 111–12. According to Craik (2001) 90 this occurrence may anticipate the technical use of the term:

400

Commentary

the description as ‘hollow’ could be based on ritual observation and thus need not denote a particular blood vessel. The frigid hysteron proteron in that case (the vein is κοίλη only after ἀπέσταξεν) may speak against such coincidence, especially if the text is post-Euripidean. ὅστις: The indefinite is hard to justify: it is not causal after a specific reference (813n). φόνος: We require a nominative masculine for ὅστις (after δῶρον) instead of ms φόνω: σταλαγμός is too far away (pace Owen). 1012 χρῆσθαι: The infinitive is not in line with Euripidean usage but an acceptable emendation of χρῆσθε if the line is spurious. The phrase imitates the likes of 1430 or Hel. 1242 but betrays its inferiority by the lack of syntactical coherence between the infinitive and the preceding line (as opposed to the final and explicative use in the parallels). One may interpret the text as the Old Man interrupting the (syntactically incomplete) answer to his first question because he has heard enough and asks another question depending on κέκρανται – an unco-operative behaviour inconceivable in authentic classical tragedy. δύνασιν: The rare noun – used only in lyric (Herc. 776, IA 1093, Sophocles, and the archaic lyricists) – is now changed to δύναμιν (after Calder (1975) 149) but perhaps rather to be regarded as a late stylistic blunder. 1014 ἀριθμὸς ὃν: ‘the item which’: Hel. 410 πολλοὺς ἀριθμοὺς ἄγνυται ναυαγίων. There is no need to agree with Nauck’s change to ὧν (cf. Braunlich (1962) 409–10), even less so since it is part of an interpolation. 1015 δρακόντων: δράκων is a peculiar choice of word, given that, where it is not used for snakes in general, it means non-venomous snakes (cf. [1262– 3]n). ἰὸς: On the double contradiction to 1003 cf. 1004–19an. A connection with (or play on) the name Ἴων (Ruck (1976) 247, Giraud (1987) 84) has little plausibility. 1016 ἐς ἓν: In Euripides this expression always means ‘to one place’, not blended ‘into one, so as to form one unity’: e.g. IT 1016, Hel. 742, Phoen. 462. On the odd singular αὐτόν cf. 1004–19an; ἐς ἓν αὐτόν (‘to one and the same place’) is pleonastic with no effect. φορεῖς: With Andrew Snape’s emendation (apud Wakefield) the interpolator resumes from 1009 φέρω to provide a bridge back to the original text. 1017 ἐσθλὸν: Cf. 977n. Moral quality as expressed by ἐσθλός does not seem to be relevant here. Contrast Aeol. fr. 21.3–4 οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο χωρὶς ἐσθλὰ καὶ κακά, ἀλλ’ ἔστι τις σύγκρασις. Szabó (1944) states that the line contradicts the gist of the play, viz. that good and evil do not appear in isolation in char-



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

401

acters; he uses the line as evidence that gnomic utterances must not be read as Euripides’ own opinion: a worthy argument, but an infelicitous choice of example. 1018 φιλτάτη: The address is a signal of the Old Man’s confidence: ‘He is relieved to know that the plot can hardly fail’ (Gregor (1957) 15). If all the preceding text were genuine, the rejoicing would be strangely delayed; directly after 1009 it fits well. 1019 τούτωι: sc. τρόπωι. This finishes the long introduction of the poison from 986. The second half of the line forms the transition to the administration of the lethal drop. The syntactic break exactly in the middle of the line lends the statement a definitive quality. 1019b–28 The discussion about the right place for the plot (1021–8) shows the Old Man and Creusa again co-operating to find a solution, with the Old Man taking liberties in the way he talks to his mistress: he disapproves of her idea to carry out the plot in Athens. Aside from the practical obstacles that he cites, a plot in Athens is dramaturgically near-impossible, as it presupposes a change of setting and a considerable delay known only from Eumenides (ch. 3Ac on assumed hints at the plot of Sophocles’ Creusa). The technique of presenting unsuitable suggestions before the eventual solution is found is common and looks back to 970–86 (cf. n). Points of the discussion will be brought up again by Ion and the Pythia in 1269–70, 1329. 1020 τί δράσας: Cf. 971. How Ion is to die has already been decided upon, so the question relates only to the way in which the poison is to be administered to him. The answer, the concrete plan, follows in 1029–38, after the second question (ποῦ) has been dealt with. 1021 δῶμ’ ὅταν τοὐμὸν μόληι: a recurrent image for the integration into a family: 607, 702, 813–14, 828(?), [851]. Creusa uses a conditional clause (ὅταν), albeit one in which realisation ‘is presented as very well possible’ (Wakker (1994) 174). 1022 καὶ σὺ γὰρ τοὐμὸν ψέγεις: The liberty he takes of criticising his mistress’ idea illustrates the Old Man’s special status as a kind of father-proxy (725–34n, 734n). In 983 she had rejected his suggestions (τοὐμόν), so (γάρ: ‘, for ...’: cf. Denniston 60) now he feels free to do the same. 1023 πῶς;: tantamount to: ‘What do you mean: “not well”?’; like πῶς εἶπας: cf. Andr. 581, Suppl. 943, Phoen. 1648. ὑπείδου: ‘sense, suppose’: they both foresee the danger of being suspected; cf. Hyps. fr. 757.868 εἰδὼς ἀφῖγμαι τὴν τύχην θ’ ὑπειδόμην.

402

Commentary

1024 κεἰ μὴ κτενεῖς: Not only would she be caught, she would even be suspected if something happened to the boy without her involvement. Hence ἵν’ ἀρνήσηι means ‘where you will deny’. 1025 μητρυιὰς: On the commonplace (φασί) cf. 1329n. 1027–8 (and 1035–8, 1043–7) There are no obvious indications of spuriousness, but the tone and quality of these lines make them suspect. In the deliberations about a safe and successful plot Creusa shows a sudden flash of the sadistic, in which the revenge becomes a source of pleasure. Her characterisation as eager to empower herself against the intruder into her house (972) is thereby undermined. The cruel tone recurs at the end of the next two utterances (1037–8, 1045–7). For the Old Man’s parting lines are scarcely irreproachable, either: while the idea of tit-for-tat is clear, what he says makes no sense and has proved difficult to emend. As a consequence, 1027–8, 1037–8 (or even 1035–8), and 1043–7 all need to be approached with caution. 1027 προλάζυμαι: a hapax that is to προλαμβάνω as λάζυμαι is to λαμβάνω: Creusa relishes the joy of seeing an enemy removed earlier than in her inital plan (cf. Colby (1887): ‘a foretaste of the pleasure by the time’); ἡδονῆς is a partitive genitive (as after e.g. ἀπολαύω); χρόνωι is a dative of respect, pleonastic to προ-: cf. Men. Asp. 142–3 τῶι χρόνωι προέχων, Thuc. 1.8.4 ὕστερον χρόνωι. 1028 ἅ: The sense requires ‘(in the same way) as’, which is difficult to reconcile with the transmitted form. An accusative of respect (Bayfield: ‘in a matter in which’) sounds forced, and a regular direct object with λαθεῖν (‘the same things about which he is eager that they escape you’) makes no sense, as different things are to escape each of them. Attempts at moderate emendation (as opposed to Kovacs’ (2003) 18–19 radical γνοῦσ᾿ ὅσα σπεύδει πόσιν) fail because of the metrical shape required (a short monosyllable ending on a vowel). Otherwise the line does not, in its epigrammatic style, read as uneuripidean. 1029–38 One long sentence comprises all the instructions that Creusa gives to the Old Man, and he will follow them exactly, as we learn in the messenger speech. Hose (1990) 301 notes that there is no appeal for silence, although this would be the right place for a more conventional Schweigegebot than 666–7. But it would be redundant, since the ‘enemy’ will appear only after the plot has been uncovered and the chorus will have no opportunity to show their loyalty.



725–1047: 3rd Epeisodion

403

1029 οἶσθ’ οὖν ὃ δρᾶσον: a formulaic colloquialism (e.g. Cycl. 131, Hel. 315, Ar. Eq. 1158; cf. Stevens (1976) 36. The grammatical explanations are discussed in Kannicht on Hel. 315, to which add Zangrando (1997) 204, Collard (2005) 363: an abbreviation for οἶσθ’ ὃ δεῖ δρᾶσαι seems most likely, though difficult to put into grammatical terms. That the construction is a sign of spontaneity (or haste) seems to be ruled out by its formulaic quality. 1030 ὄργανον: ‘work’: cf. Soph. Mant. fr. 398 μελίσσης κηρόπλαστον ὄργανον. 1031 ἡμῶν ... λάθραι: The sacrifice is not generally secret but to be kept secret specifically from Creusa: Battezzato (1998) has correctly restored ἡμῶν to qualify λάθραι. An ethic dative (transmitted ἡμῖν) does not render that; nor is the sacrifice performed for or against Creusa (dative of advantage or disadvantage). 1032 δείπνων: Cf. 711. For the transition from food to drink at the symposion and the introductory libations cf. 1170b–6n. 1033 τόδε: repeated from 1030. The unnecessary use of the strong demonstrative suggests that she is still holding and showing it. 1034 βαλὼν: West (1981) 64 objects to the pleonasm in combination with κάθες and proposes λαθών. But secrecy, too, is already implied in ἐν πέπλοις ἔχων. Two steps of the movement are described, rather: out of the container in his garment and into the cup. [1035]–8 These lines are, in their entirety, trivial and repetitive and may well be an interpolation. The only new thought is the motive for killing Ion (1036), which is not indispensable and stands to some degree in conflict with that of revenge (the motive stated in 972). The delight Creusa takes in Ion’s suffering, which the description of the poison running down his throat suggests, jars with the fact that he is only the third choice of target and thus an accidental victim (cf. 978). Even if we keep the rest, 1035 cannot be defended; it is an offence to the intelligence even of the Old Man and interrupts the connection of 1034 and 1036 (cf. Kraus 80–1). Wilamowitz identified it as a Byzantine dodecasyllable. Attempts at restoration are unsuccessful: Wakefield’s μή πᾶσι has been rejected (together with the preceding δέ) by West (1981) 64 as having no meaning; West’s own δέπασιν, however, does nothing to remedy the repetitiveness of the line, especially after ἐς πῶμα; how a drop could be divided and poured into several cups is obscure. His question of why anyone would interpolate the line is tricky – it seems a dispensable preparation

404

Commentary

of the messenger speech – but Euripides’ motive for writing it is no more obvious. 1037 λαιμόν: Lee notes that the word is used only here in Euripides in the context of drinking. However, this means little, for the only other instance where the word is not used in the context of a slit throat is undisputed (1065). 1039–47 The Old Man takes his station (τετάγμεθ’, στεῖχε, πολεμίους all potentially have a military ring to them). The command to his own foot is evidence of both his determination and his weakness. Creusa is removed to the proxenos’ house (cf. 551), so that the chorus will be alone with the messenger (on the dramaturgical effects: 1106–1228n). Her superior position is not compromised by his command to her: the Old Man does not mean disrespect but invites her to perform an action becoming to her status and expected of her; for it befits women to remain indoors if they have no business outside. σὺ μέν νυν is used in a similar way by the chorus addressing Electra in El. 873. 1040 ἐφ’ ὧι τετάγμεθ’: language used for recipients of orders, in the military but also for slaves: cf. Cycl. 483–4 τίς δ’ ἐπὶ πρώτωι ταχθεὶς δαλοῦ κώπην ὀχμάσαι, Alcmene fr. 93 κἀφ’ ὅτωι τεταγμένος εἴη τις (sc. δοῦλος), ἁνδάνοντα δεσπόταις ποεῖν. 1041 ὦ γεραιὲ πούς: = Tro. 1275a. The encouraging address to limbs is used where physical frailty or a lack of resolve needs to be overcome; for old people cf. Hcld. 740–1, Hec. 169, Herc. 268. νεανίας γενοῦ: The rejuvenation remains a wish; the Old Man’s physical ability does not improve and the signs of age will be clear in performance, e.g. in his limp (contrast Hcld. 858 βραχιόνων ἔδειξεν ἡβητὴν τύπον, Ar. Eq. 1321–32; pace Kaimio (1988) 13 n.10 et al.): he has recovered from the exhaustion after the climb to the temple, but the laughter he raises in the tent (1172–3) is owed to the contrast between his eagerness and his lack of powers. He can perform his task, but the years still show (1042 ἔργοισι vs χρόνωι: dative of respect); his job requires stealth and cunning, not physical fitness. 1043–7 The end of the little rhesis is, once again, weak. The way in which the address to the foot is prolonged is grotesque. The final gnomê risks lumping together different concepts; it also makes the Old Man go beyond legitimate self-defence and turns him into a ruthless cynic.



1048–1105 3rd Stasimon

405

1043 δεσποτῶν μέτα: If the ‘lordship’ is Creusa, the preposition means ‘in alliance with, loyal to’, which is unnatural next to a verb of movement (στεῖχε; contrast the examples in K-G I 506 ‘im Bunde mit’ with πολεμεῖν, εἶναι, στῆναι). If it is the Old Man himself, the foot is asked to follow its ‘owner’, which may be accepted as characterising hilarious awkwardness (though different from before: 741–6n); that the foot is to help him kill Ion is just bizarre. 1044 συμφόνευε καὶ συνεξαίρει: συν-compounds are popular with the interpolator(s): cf. [850–1]; their use here is not unjustified, as Creusa provides the poison and spiritual help. συνεξαίρει is used for a pre-emptive measure: Ion will be removed before he reaches the house. 1045–7: The gnomê is reminiscent of Ion in 1334, but with one notable difference: the Old Man here implies that killing Ion would not be εὐσεβές but still permissible for those in misery (if that is what the unclear contrast is supposed to mean; cf. Kovacs (2003) 19). Ion does not know such qualifications, and his statement is in accordance with common Greek ethics. The attack on an enemy is covered by Greek ideas of εὐσέβεια, regardless of the circumstances: cf. 1290–1, Med. 809–10, Hec. 1250–1, Herc. 585–6, 732–3, Soph. Aj. 1132–3, Thuc. 3.58.3 (one small restriction in Hcld. 965–6), Blundell (1989) 26–31. In war and in need norms become relative (an unspecific idea – cf. Egli (2003) 208 – and not even necessarily philosophical), and the requirements of ‘piety’ become less strict (Polyid. fr. 645, Thuc. 3.82.2, R. Parker (1983) 112, Habicht (2006)). However, professing that one does not at all (and need not) take heed of εὐσέβεια disdains the gods and is extremely provocative; it is reserved to exclusively villainous, uncivilised characters (cf. Cycl. 322–35) or the expression of a true dilemma (Med. 1383, El. 976–7). 1045 εὐτυχοῦσι: Kovacs’ ἔν γ᾿ ἔταισι (‘among citizens’) removes the strange contrast between those prosperous and those with enemies; but ethics among cititzens is not relevant in this context, and the statement about disregarding εὐσέβεια remains and is unexplained by the conjecture.

1048–1105 3rd Stasimon The song bridges the temporal gap while the plot is being executed and heightens the suspense before the outcome is announced (similar songs e.g. Hipp. 525–64, Hel. 1451–1511, Or. 807–43, Aesch. Cho. 783–837). The

406

Commentary

chorus have not commented on the situation for over 200 lines, including Creusa’s monody and the plotting scene, with the brief exception of 923–4; now they deal with several aspects of the last epeisodion. They endorse Creusa’s plan and add their own reasons for wishing Ion dead, resuming topics of the 2nd stasimon. The first strophe is a prayer to Hecate for the success of the plot. The following two stanzas set out the consequences in the case that the prayer goes unheeded: Creusa will commit suicide (ant. 1) and Ion will enter into the city’s political and religious heart (to her great shame: str. 2). In the second, loosely connected, antistrophe the chorus complain about the unjustified, misogynistic discourse in poetry: they undertake the vindication of women from the charge of licentious sexuality by pointing to Xuthus’ (alleged) betrayal of Creusa. The song thus falls into three parts surrounding Ion’s fate and origin, though Bornmann (1993) 570 has pointed out that some cohesion is provided by the placement of similar words and thoughts in corresponding places at the end of each strophic pair: 1060~1073, 1087–9~1103–5. Two different metatheatrical effects undercut the creation of suspense: firstly, the ironic distance between audience and stage through a difference in states of knowledge is affirmed. At the end of each stanza the chorus formulate a wrong premise, which undermines their demands in the eyes of the quasi-omniscient spectators and devalues their desires and the significance of their feelings (as stated by Hose (1991) 61–2). The disparity of appearance and reality is most poignant in the first strophe, where the prayer directly contradicts the chorus’ intentions (cf. 1048–60n), and the irony pervading the play – that the actors miss the solution, that is close to hand, to their conflict – finds its most cruel expression. Secondly, each part of the ode hints at its own theatricality. The first strophic pair proposes alternative plot developments and sketches possible outcomes. With the uncovering in the preceding scene of Apollo’s oracle and Xuthus’ plan the plot has taken an unexpected turn not announced by Hermes. The outcome has become unpredictable, and the audience is now presented with two possibilities for the continuation of the play. In either case (Ion’s death or Creusa’s suicide) the relationship between Ion and Creusa could not easily become common knowledge – which it was for the Athenians. In the second strophe the chorus self-referentially draw on their nature as an Athenian citizen chorus. While they remain formally in character, the hint at choral dance as a civic institution undercuts the identification of the chorus as Creusa’s maids. It evokes their extra-dramatic nature as citizens performing in an Athenian festival, and strengthens their authority when they take the civic role and show concern about their community (cf. 452–509n). At the end the chorus engage in a poetological discussion about gender representation, which pertains to the tragic tradition, most notably



1048–1105 3rd Stasimon

407

Euripides’ own oeuvre. The tragedian seems to discuss the truthfulness and the bias of his own genre, but the section is again undermined by the incorrectness of the chorus’ presuppositions. Metre: 1048–60 ~ 1061–73 1048~1061 ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒‒⏑‒‒ D‒e‒ 1049~1062 ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒‒ ‖ D ⏑ e^ 1050~1063 ‒⏓‒⏑⏑⏔ dodr** 1051~1064 ⏑‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ ^wil 1052~1065 ‒‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒‒ ‖ wil ⏑ ‒ ‒ 1053~1066 ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒ wil 1055~1068 ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒ ‖ gl ⏑ ‒ ‒ 1056~1069 ‒‒⏑‒⏑⏑‒ ^wil 1057~1070 ⏓‒⏑‒⏑⏑‒ ^wil 1058~1071 ‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ dodr 1059~1072 ‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒‒ ‖ arist 1060~1073 ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒‒‒  gl ‒ ‒ 1074–89 ~ 1090–1105 1074~1090 ⏒‒⏑‒‒⏑⏑‒ ia cho 1075~1091 ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒‒ ‖ D2 ⏑ ‒ ‒ 1076~1092 ‒⏑⏑⏑⏔⏑‒⏑‒ 2ia 1077~1093 ‒⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏔⏑‒ ‖ 2ia 1078~1094 ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑ ^D ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ithyph 1079~1095 ⏑⏑⏑⏔⏑‒‒ ‖? 1080~1096 ⏑‒‒⏑⏑‒‒ pher 1081~1097 ‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ ^wil 1082~1098 ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏓? ‖ pher 1083~1099 †‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑⏑‒ / ‒⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑‒† 1084~1100 ‒‒⏓‒⏑⏑‒ ^wil 1085~1101 ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ gl 1086~1102 ‒‒⏑⏑‒‒ ‖ reiz 1087~1103 ⏓‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ ^wil 1088~1104 ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ gl 1089~1105 ⏑‒‒⏑⏑‒‒  pher Both systems start with D/e and few iambic cola before the metric genre changes to give the song a predominantly aeolic character. The transition between D/e and aeolic metres is made smooth through the use of ambiguous cola and the alternation (common to both types) of single and double brevia, as well as through the frequent pendent (⏑‒‒) and choriambic (‒⏑⏑‒) endings, especially in the first strophic pair. Some period ends are difficult to es-

408

Commentary

tablish: syntactical and metrical breaks suggest period ends after 1079~1095 and 1082~1098 (where corruption leaves the matter uncertain). 1048–9~1061–2: The two lines form one D/e period; if the cola are taken separately, the second one can count as the catalectic form of the first. Both D/e and aeolic analysis (aristd) are possible in 1049~1062, and the ambivalence facilitates the transition from one genre to another (cf. Med. 432– 4~439–41). Enoplian interpretation (D‒e / erasm‒‒; Itsumi (1991–1993) 260) must be rejected for the same reason as above on 685~705. 1050~1063: Resolutions are rare in dodr, but cf. Med. 649~658 (‒⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑‒). In Soph. Trach. 636 Μηλίδα παρὰ λίμναν the unusual resolution is the only reason for rejecting παρά in favour of Triclinius’ highly irregular πάρ (cf. Kamerbeek). Synaphia with resolved final longum in an aeolic colon is permitted in late Euripides: Hel. 1348–9~1364–5, Phoen. 208–9 (all glyconics). 1052~1065: the anaclastic form of 1055~1068: the first of several extended aeolic cola in this ode (1055~1068, 1060~1073); cf. El. 736~746, Hel. 1452~1466, Or. 810~821. 1053~1066: For the resolutions cf. Hipp. 61, Hel. 1347~1363, Or. 842 (Willink), Ba. 874~894, IA 1037~1059, 1092. 1055~1068: a phalaeceus; cf. Hec. 446~457, Soph. Aj. 633~645. ⏑‒⏑‒‒ is clausular in aeolic metre: cf. Diggle (1994) 505. The sense breaks show that the same effect may also be assumed in 1049~1062, 1052~1065, 1059~1072, and probably 1075~1091. 1058–9~1071–2: The transmitted text of the antistrophe produces arist hipp in synartesis, but arist as the first element in synartesis is always followed by another arist. 1060~1073: Suppl. 957~965 and IT 1093~1110, both with simple gl preceding, back the analysis as a clausular extension of gl: cf. Itsumi (1984) 81–2, Willink (1997). Similar are Cycl. 510 gl‒‒ and Med. 158–9~183 cr gl‒‒, both at strophe end. 1074~1090: The position of the second breve does not match the regular description of gl**=wil. Itsumi (1982) 64–8 even disassociates the colon from the aeolic family altogether and rules out the lines here as from ‘an obvious “iamb-chor” period’ (p. 73). Excessive strictness here may be misplaced, as the colon can correspond with gl (Suppl. 1000~1023) and provides a good transition from the end of the first strophic pair. 1075~1091: The colon, also known as praxillean, constitutes the extension by another dactyl of 1049~1062; hence it can be described as arist2d. On



1048–1105 3rd Stasimon

409

colon ends separating the verb from the direct object cf. Stinton (1977) 61 = (1990) 354. 1077~1093: Diggle (1974) 26–7 = (1994) 123–4 rejects Stinton’s (1965) 142–5 = (1990) 11–15 analysis as 2da ia (using the transmitted text) together with other dactylic scansions with split resolution. On the change to create an iambic analysis cf. Diggle (1981a) 111 (and Dale (1971) 93, who uses Wilamowitz’ metrically equivalent text). 1079~1095: On fully resolved cretics (also 1449) cf. L. Parker (1997) 45. 1082~1098: The brevis in longo in 1082 is uncertain because of the corruption in the next line. However, period end is secured by the catalectic colon (with B. Heath’s simple change to περί) and the syntactic and argumentative caesura in 1098. The form of the aeolic base is attested from El. to IA (cf. Itsumi (1984) 72) and recalls the D/e movement of the start. 1083~1099: With minor changes (καὶ ποταμῶν ἀεναῶν ~ δείκνυσι γὰρ τοῦ Διὸς οὑκ) the text could be turned into 2cho; for this colon in aeolic context: Hcld. 353~362, Herc. 637~655, IT 435~452, Or. 839 (all at period start). Alternatively, κἀεναῶν ποταμῶν ~ δείκνυσι γὰρ Διὸς οὑκ gives D. 1087–9~1103–5: The almost exact repetition of the metrical pattern of 1084–6~1100–2 gives the song closure. 1048–60 As Creusa’s monody is the damning corollary to Ion’s paean of praise, so does this curse correspond to the prayer of the 1st stasimon: after the hopeful request to Athena and Artemis for εὐτεκνία the chorus now turn to Hecate and pray for the death of the ‘son’ given by the oracular response. The prayer (related to the ‘prayers for justice’, i.e. private curses against wrongdoers: cf. Versnel (1991), (2009), Gager (1992) 175–80) calls on the goddess with strong, emotive language (πότνια πότνι(α), δυσθανάτων) to support the magic of Creusa’s poison and prevent Ion from seizing power in Athens. By seeking divine support for the plot they become accessory in it. This explains why they later (1247–9) expect punishment not as mere confidants or for breaching Xuthus’ order of silence but as accomplices even. The traditional parts of the prayer (452–71n) are clearly recognisable: 1048–9 form the invocation and pars epica: Hecate’s power of assaults at night makes her a suitable helper, even if the current plot is being carried out during daytime. The specific request (1050–7) to facilitate the plot against Ion is followed by a more general wish (1058–60) against any usurpers and for the continuation of autochthonous Erechtheid reign over Athens. These two wishes are contradictory, and the one that corresponds to the chorus’ true intentions will be fulfilled (Mikalson (1989) 84–5).

410

Commentary

1048–57 The prayer for the success of the murder appropriately addresses a chthonic goddess. The argumentum of the prayer rests on what seems a paradox: the goddess is invoked for something (an attack at daytime) that is not within her responsibility. The extension of her competences is justified, though, by her being the goddess best suited for the kind of help requested. 1048 Εἰνοδία: At the time of Euripides the syncretism of the Thessalian Enodia and the Eastern Hecate is completed (cf. Th. Kraus (1960) 78). She is the patroness of witchcraft and poison (Med. 395–8, Soph. Rhiz. fr. 534; cf. Johnston (1999) 113). The name, derived from her altars at crossroads and in front of houses, is echoed in ἐφόδων and ὅδωσον. For a similar etymological play on a divine name cf. 210 with n. θύγατερ Δάματρος: The identification with Kore/Persephone is supported by Soph. Ant. 1199, Sophron PCG 7 νερτέρων πρύτανιν, Orph. PEG F 400 (cf. Wilamowitz (1931) I 169–70, Wortmann (1968) 158; another daughter of Demeter: Call. fr. 466) and was facilitated by her location beneath the earth. Elsewhere Hecate is the daughter of Perses and Asteria (Hes. Th. 411), or identified with Artemis: cf. 465n, Mejer (2009) 67. The variant here is apparently forced in order to strengthen the chthonic connections: Demeter is a frequent recipient of curses and ‘negative’ prayers from women (cf. Versnel (2009) 17). It is unlikely that this constitutes an allusion ‘to the preliminaries of the procession to Eleusis’ (Zeitlin (1989) 162), even if the audience knew that the second strophe would deal with the Iacchus revel. Rather, the genealogy given here motivates the choice of Eleusis – instead of e.g. the Dionysia – to be singled out later. Hecate plays a part in the literary treatments of the myth of Eleusis, most notably the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, but not, it seems, in the mysteries themselves (cf. Clinton (1992) 116–20). 1049 νυκτιπόλων: Hecate is a character of the night only (Hel. 569–70, Bacch. Hym. fr. 1b, GDK 54.3 ἐχθρὴ μὲν φωτός, νυκτὸς δὲ φίλη καὶ ἑταίρη) and associated with the moon: Soph. Rhiz. fr. 535, Theocr. Id. 2.10–12. So Diggle rightly accepts the punctuation of the oldest editions (after ἀνάσσεις; confirmed by the end of the metrical period), while most modern editors put a comma after μεθαμερίων (with Tr). ἐφόδων: Cf. Aesch. Eum. 370 for an attack by the Erinyes. Nightly fits and ‘attacks’ are called Ἑκάτης ἐπιβολαὶ καὶ ἡρώων ἔφοδοι (Hipp. De Morb. Sac. 1; cf. Hom.Hym. 2.227 ἐπηλυσίη with Johnston (1999) 168 n.18), but ἔφοδος is also a military term used by Thucydides. 1051 ὅδωσον: ‘direct the way to’; cf. Theocr. Id. 2.14–15 ἐς τέλος ... ὀπάδει.



1048–1105 3rd Stasimon

411

δυσθανάτων: The chorus are not content simply with Ion’ demise but wish that his death be also a cruel one: cf. El. 843 ἤσπαιρεν ἠλέλιζε δυσθνήισκων, Gal. In Hipp. Prorrh. I.3, II 19 CMG V 9,2 631 τὸ δυσθάνατοι σημαίνει μέν ποτε καὶ τὸ βραδυθάνατοι, σημαίνει δὲ καὶ τὸ σὺν ὀδύνηι θνήισκειν. 1052 πληρώματ’: a nomen actionis (cf. Soph. Trach. 1213, Long (1968) 80): the chorus ask that ‘the filling of the deadly mixing bowls’ succeed, i.e. that both the preparation of the cup (esp. 1034) and the effect (1037–8) be as desired. The meaning ‘contents’ (as in 1412) would skip the important step of the cup’s preparation, which will demand some effort on the Old Man’s part (1171–86). It would also cause problems for ἐφ’ οἷσι, which should be taken as expression of direct purpose (‘to which end’): Creusa has sent the poison to be mixed into the cup to deadly effect. Other explanations complicate the construction: neuter without antecedent (Badham: ‘for the ends for which’) only doubles the idea of δυσθανάτων; masculine in directional sense (e.g. Lee: ‘toward those against whom’; cf. Aesch. Sept. 714, Pind. O. 8.48) is pleonastic and colourless. 1054 χθονίας: Euripides uses a term that links the earthborn creature (989, Ba. 538, Soph. Aj. 202) with the addressees of the prayer and infernal intentions: Gorgo, daughter of Ge, is to despatch the victim to the chthonic gods. 1055 λαιμοτόμων: ‘from the cut-through throat’, passive, from λαιμότομος (against IT 444 λαιμοτόμος ‘throat-cutting’): cf. Hec. 208, IA [776] (‘with a cut throat’), exactly as λαιμότμητος (Phoen. 455, on the Gorgo, with Mastronarde). ἀπὸ: partitive in place of the object of πέμπει: cf. Hipp. 514 ἢ πλόκον τιν’ ἢ πέπλων ἄπο λαβεῖν, K-G I 457(3b). 1057 ἐφαπτομένωι: The term is used in quasi-legal contexts for the seizure of foreign property: Aesch. Suppl. 412, 728, Soph. OC 859, Pl. Leg. 915C. It implies a justification for the deadly prayer: Ion’s illegitimate appropriation of the house of Erechtheus. So while the prayer does not seek justice retroactively as the ‘prayers for justice’ do (1048–60n), it does seek to obstruct Ion’s illegal ambitions. 1058–60 No other dynasty is to rule except the Erechtheids. The statement contains a pun for the Athenian audience: while the chorus speak of the direct descendants of Erechtheus, they can understand the term in its wider meaning, encompassing all Athenians (cf. 24n). The wish can thus be read as a still valid expression of invincibility.

412

Commentary

1058–9 οἶκος: Murray deletes ἄλλων ἀπ᾿ and proposes οἶκος, though he leaves L’s οἴκων in his text. It is easier to understand ἄλλων ἀπ᾿ οἴκων as a single gloss replacing οἶκος. The partitive genitive in ἄλλος οἴκων would denote an obscure entirety of ‘the families’ and be awkwardly juxtaposed with another genitive (πόλεως). οἶκος can stand metonymically for the members of the family (cf. El. 1175–6 οὐδεὶς οἶκος ἀθλιώτερος τῶν Τανταλείων) and hence be active subject: cf. Phoen. 20 πᾶς σὸς οἶκος βήσεται δι᾿ αἵματος, Erechth. fr. 360.20– 1(?). Diggle prints his early conjecture ἥκων (from (1969) 49 = (1994) 20), deleting ἄλλων ἀπ᾿ – but ἥκω does not mean ‘immigrate’; even if it did, it would pointlessly reiterate the idea of πλὴν τῶν Ἐρεχθειδᾶν (i.e. except the autochthonous population). His rejection of the text given here quotes Owen: ‘it is easier to speak of an individual than of a family ruling the Erechtheidae’, which is arbitrary and strangely omitting of πλήν: ‘the Erechtheids’ perfectly balances οἶκος. 1059 πόλεως ἀνάσσοι: The chorus give the idea of the hijacked house a clearly political turn (contrast 1036): the issue is no longer with the head of a private house but of a dynasty and ruler of the wider community. On this transgression of their slave role cf. 489n. 1061–73 The antistrophe outlines what happens if the strophe’s prayer remains unfulfilled (εἰ δ᾿ ἀτελής). It is stressed that Creusa’s action in that case is self-determined (ἐξανύτουσα, οὐκ ἀνέχοιτο): she will take her life to avoid the pain (πάθεα) of having to put up with a foreign master of her house – any danger to herself after the discovery of the plot is not mentioned as a motive. However, when the plot has failed and her life is in danger (1250–56), she will show no inclination to escape her misery by ending her life. On suicide as a means to escape from all kinds of misfortune in Euripides cf. Valgiglio (1966) 53–5. Taking one’s life is regarded in drama ‘as the only means for deliverance from suffering, fear, anxiety, and despair’ (Katsouris (1976) 6); to this list add shame (cf. Hooff (1990) 107–20, Garrison (1995) 45), which Creusa may be assumed to feel in the same way as the chorus do (1074). Killing oneself is often regarded as ignominious, and even has legal consequences: cf. Aeschin. 3.244, Arist. EN 1138a12–14, Geiger (1888) 60 (more differentiated than Hirzel (1908) and Garrison (1991)). Hanging and stabbing oneself are the two common tragic ways of suicide (cf. Alc. 228–9, Andr. 841–4, Tro. 1012–13, Hel. 353–6, Or. 953, 1035–6), with men dying by the sword (Ajax, Haimon; but also Deianeira, Eurydice in Sophocles’ Antigone, and the Euripidean Jocasta), women mostly by the rope (Antigone, Jocasta in Sophocles, Phaedra, Leda in Hel. 134–6 et al.). Hermione in Andr. 811–13 tries both. Two other methods of suicide – jumping from



1048–1105 3rd Stasimon

413

a height (mentioned in Andr. 848–50, Suppl. 1013–17, Herc. 319–20, 1148– 9) and poison – may be too undignified for tragedy. Cf. Hirzel p. 19–30, Ed. Fraenkel (1932) = (1964) 465–7, Loraux (1987) 7–17, Hooff (1990) 64–72, Dover on Ar. Ran. 121. 1061 ἀτελὴς: a hapax in Euripides (with θάνατος Hom. Od. 17.546); here ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with θάνατος and σπουδαί, with changing voice (cf. 701n): Ion’s death is not accomplished (passive) nor do Creusa’s efforts find a τέλος (active). 1062 καιρὸς ἄπεισι τόλμας: ‘The opportunity for daring action will have passed.’ νῦν in the next line makes it clear that καιρός is temporal in meaning (cf. Race (1981) 212). 1063 ὧι: P’s ὢ suggests that L originally had ὧ or ὢ; the untypically flat base line of L’s (or rather Triclinius’) later ἀ with acute and circumflex and the loss of ink at the top right corner and the right end of the base line also point to a change by Triclinius from ω to α. Given the adjacent τόλμας, corruption would also be expected from ὧι to ἇι (vel sim.) rather than the other way round. Whatever the verb, the chorus’ and Creusa’s hopes have risen and will recede with the opportunity to redirect the course of events: hence καιρός is the suitable antecedent. ἐλπὶς: not the hope of 866 for continuation of the line (pace Lee), but the last hope of keeping Ion out: cf. 1021–6. 1063–4 ἐσεφέρετ’: ‘(on account of which hope) was raised’: cf. Hel. 1037 ἐσφέρεις γὰρ ἐλπίδας. Letters of similar forms in -ΙϹЄϹЄΦЄ- have been omitted (L only has φέρετ᾿). For the resolution cf. n Metre. Other conjectures change the verb completely, despite the above parallel. But in classical times φέρβω (Headlam’s ἐφέρβετ᾿) is never used with an abstract object; ἐλπίς is also rarely used in metaphorical expressions (in Euripides Tro. 1252; in Ba 671 ἐλπίσιν δ’ ἐβόσκετο hope is the food not the one fed). ἐφαίνετ’ (Diggle following Badham; with ἇς Wilamowitz) presupposes several stages of corruption and is colourless. Triclinius reversed ἐλπίς and φέρετ᾿ and added τε to produce responsion, deceiving editors down to Biehl. Both this rearrangement and the unmetrical original demand elision of -αι in φέρετ᾿. The defence of this feature here (Hose (1994) 41–2) relies on additional conjectures to solve the problem, and it is wiser not to trust an exception. The past tense has met with reservations since Herwerden, but is unobjectionable if we render νῦν ‘just now’ (LSJ A I 2), referring to the previous scene, as seems fitting: cf. Hec. 1144 and Demosthenes’ reference to Aeschines’ preceding speech at Dem. 18.13. 1064 θηκτὸν: for a quick and certain death: Or. 1036, Soph. Aj. 815–16, 820.

414

Commentary

λαιμῶν ἐξάψει βροχὸν ἀμφὶ δειράν: ‘will fasten the noose to (hang from) her throat, around her neck’: cf. Hipp. 769–70 κρεμαστὸν ἅψεται ἀμφὶ βρόχον λευκᾶι καθαρμόζουσα δειρᾶι, Hel. 136, LfgrE s.v. βρόχος on Hom. Od. 11.278. δαίμων (L) would describe Creusa as losing control over her fate, which would go against the gist of the strophic pair, and the change of subject in 1066 would not sit well. λαιμῶν comes close to being pleonastic with ἀμφὶ δειράν but is preferable nevertheless (cf. e.g. IT 370 ἐν ἁρμάτων ὄχοις). From this phrase we have to extract a suitable counterpart for stabbing (e.g. ὤσει as in Med. 379), as λαιμῶν ἐξάψει is specific to hanging: in antiquity people did not slit their own throats, they threw themselves onto their swords. 1066 πάθεσι πάθεα: With one final act of suffering Creusa will put an end to the long suffering she has endured as a result of the rape by Apollo, to the apparent betrayal of her husband, and to the destruction of her family: cf. Soph. Trach. 1021–2 ὀδύναν ... ἐξανύσαι βιότου. The polyptoton jingle is a Euripidean favourite (the same one: Hel. 173); δέ is delayed to create this effect (cf. Gygli-Wyss (1966) 138). The closest forerunner with resolved iambics is Aesch. Pers. 256 ἄνια ἄνια. 1068 ἄλλας βιότου ... μορφάς: Death as another form of life is a common euphemism, which may have some ground in the idea that one’s existence continues in Hades: cf. Med. 1039 ἐς ἄλλο σχῆμ᾿ ἀποστάντες βίου, Hipp. 195, IA 1507–8, Polyid. fr. 638, Phr. fr. 833. On continuing one’s activities below cf. 953n. The archaeological record depicting scenes from another life and articles of daily use as grave offerings contradict the view that the belief in ‘life’ in Hades is a literary phenomenon or Euripides’ formulation only a euphemism (cf. Garland (1985) 74–6, R. Parker (2005) 364–6). 1069–70 ἑτέρους ... ἀλλοδαποὺς: ‘others, from elsewhere’: cf. Herc. 1196– 7 οὐκ ἂν εἰδείης ἕτερον πολυμοχθότερον πολυπλαγκτότερόν τε θνατῶν, 161n. 1071–2 ζῶσά ... φαενναῖς ... αὐγαῖς: seemingly pleonastic, but death has just been declared another form of life. For αὐγαί in the meaning ‘light of day’ (=life) cf. e.g. Alc. 667, Ciani (1974) 70. L’s ὄμμασι is a gloss resulting from a misunderstanding of αὐγαῖς as ‘eyes’. Triclinius, writing ὀμμάτων ἐν to establish responsion with the strophe, is right about the preposition but fails to spot the gloss both here and in 1058. 1073 ἁ τῶν εὐπατριδᾶν: The reference to Creusa’s high birth in the tail of the sentence – balancing ἀλλοδαπούς – serves as explanation for her assumed determination to end her life. In Euripides εὐπατρίδης can denote nobility tout court (Alc. 920, IA 177; cf. Soph. El. 162, 859, Xen. Oec. 1.17).



1048–1105 3rd Stasimon

415

However, Creusa focuses on affiliation to specific families (οἶκοι, δόμοι). Hence it is suitable to recall the Athenian caste of Eupatridai, the members of Athens’ γένη (cf. Hipp. 152, 1283). 1074–89 The second strophe describes further consequences if the plot fails, widening the perspective from Creusa to Athens and integrating political aspects. The form, however, changes – abruptly, with asyndeton – from a prayer to a statement of the chorus’ own feelings: they dread Ion’s intrusion into the ritual and political centre of Athens as attendant of the Great Mysteries (1074–86) and prospective king (1087–8). The celebration Ion is to watch as pilgrim (not yet as king) is the pannychis revel of Iacchus/Dionysus following the procession to Eleusis. The apostrophe of Hecate as Demeter’s daughter (1048) connects the two strophes and motivates the choice of Eleusis as a cult representing the entire city. Ion is never denigrated as a barbarian (which alone, together with bloodguilt, would preclude him from taking part in the mysteries: cf. Hdt. 8.65.4, Isocr. 4.157). Rather, the chorus overreact again (cf. 761–2) and make the festival appear exclusively Athenian (Zeitlin (1989) 162): Ion’s dubious origin (1089, 1105) and the mere prospect of him once heading the festival (1087–8) make them fear defilement of the solemn celebration. The chorus’ resentment on the religious plane also implies rejection by the citizen body, as civic and religious Athenian community are one in the celebrations of both the Eleusinian goddesses and Dionysus/Iacchus (Smarczyk (1990) 261, Bierl (1991) 106). The significance of Ion’s attendance at the festival is enhanced by the projection of Eleusis/Athens as centre of the world in the nocturnal celebrations, where the cosmic elements unite in dance. The components seem traditional (recurring in Soph. Ant. and Ar. Ran.; cf. 1078–86n and Lada-Richards (1999) 102) and may reflect elements of the ritual practice at the dance that are no longer available to us (Clinton (1992) 27–8). 1074 αἰσχύνομαι: On shame before the gods as the emotional reaction to the breach of religious requirements (and incentive to prevent it) cf. R. Parker (1983) 189–90. 1074–5 πολύυμνον: ‘often mentioned in songs’ (Ibyc. PMGF S151, Ar. Eq. 1328, for Dionysus Hom.Hym. 26.7; cf. Pind. N. 2.5 ἐν πολυυμνήτωι Διὸς ἄλσει): Delphi is ὑμνοβρυής at the Dionysiac festival (Philodamos Dion. (GH 2.5) 19), just as the Great Dionysia themselves, which each year included twenty dithyrambs (i.e. hymns to Dionysus: Pickard-Cambridge (1968) 75–9, Burkert (1985) 162; contra Zimmermann (1992) 115–16) and

416

Commentary

the tragedies themselves, which are ὕμνοι, i.e. poetry/song (6n) celebrating Dionysus. Dionysus is equated with Iacchus, the orgiastic god of the Eleusinian mysteries, as is common from Soph. Ant. 1146–52 onwards (Soph. fr. 959, Philodamos ll. 27–36, schol. vet. Ar. Ran. 403b), and in literature either name can appear where the other identity might be considered the appropriate specific one (e.g. Ba. 725–6; more in Graf (1974) 51–4). In Ion the strong similarity between the revels on Parnassus (716–18) and at Eleusis underlines the identity of the two gods. Dissociating them (so Bierl (1991) 106–7, interpreting the former as a god embodying Athens, the latter as a wild deity) is against Athenian cult practice, Euripides’ technique of intratextual connections between the songs, and the general parallels between Eleusis and Dionysiac mysteries (on which cf. Burkert (1999)). 1075 Καλλιχόροισι παγαῖς: The well (Hom.Hym. 2.272, Paus. 1.38.6 φρέαρ τε καλούμενον Καλλίχορον, Suppl. 392, 619) is situated near the Great Propylaea of Eleusis: cf. Mylonas (1961) 97–9, Richardson on Hom. Hym. 2 p. 326–8. The reference to choruses at an Athenian religious festival and the use of καλλίχορος invite a meta-theatrical reading ‘of choral projection and choral self-reference’ (Henrichs (1996) 51). Since the chorus of Ion embody Athenians, intra- and extra-dramatic choral identity collapse particularly easily. 1076 λαμπάδα: Literary and documentary representations of the historical pannychis are scarce, in accordance with the secrecy of the mysteries. Extant are allusions (Paus. 1.38.6) and descriptions in the guises of an aetiological myth (Hom.Hym. 2.292–3) and of celebrations in the underworld in Aristophanes’ Frogs (313–459). Pictorial evidence is hard to pin down: it is controversial whether the Ninnion tablet (LIMC Demeter 392) depicts the mysteries (pro Deubner (1932) 74, Mylonas (1961) 257, Clinton (1992) 67–8; contra Simon (1983) 36). Eleusinian iconography in general shows torches in abundance (cf. R. Parker (2005) 350). θεωρὸς: Ion takes part as a pilgrim, lit. ‘onlooker’ (cf. ὄψεται and his description as a ‘sightseer’ in 656) of the celebration, not as a dancer himself. If Ar. Ran. 354–7 is an allusion to the event, his non-participation in the dance marks him out as uninitiated (cf. Lada-Richards (1999) 100) but possibly a candidate for initiation. This interpretation presupposes some changes to the text, but these are few and light (cf. below). Alternatives are not equally cogent: the torch as eye-witness (λαμπάδα θεωρόν: L, Owen) strains the licences of poetic imagery and deprives the chorus of a point to make. More problematic still (and hardly conciliable with any constitution of the text) is the view (Albinus (2000) 187) that Dionysus, himself the θεωρός, represents the initiates: even if Dionysus were to be envisaged as taking part



1048–1105 3rd Stasimon

417

in a ritual supervised by Ion (roughly ‘if Dionysus sees the torch ... where Ion hopes to rule’), the relative clause 1086–8, which bears much of the significance, would be long delayed; moreover, ἐλπίζει rules out that Ion already organises the festival. εἰκάδων: ‘of the 20th’. The ἐξαγωγὴ Ἰάκχου, the procession from Athens to Eleusis, took place on 20th Boedromion (schol. vet. Ar. Ran 323a, Plut. Camill. 19.10, Phoc. 28.2), followed by the reception (ὑποδοχή) of Iacchus and the revel. An Attic inscription (IG II2 1078.19, from the 3rd cent. AD) dating the procession of the ἱερά to the 19th probably refers to a different event. Against the common view that there was only one procession, commencing in the morning of the 19th and finishing after sunset, which would count as the next day, cf. Clinton (1988) 70. At the most likely time of performance of Ion (ch. 4), the procession did not take place because of the Spartan occupation of Deceleia since 413. The exception was in 408, when Alcibiades made it a matter of prestige for himself to display his service to the deities of the mysteries (Xen. Hell. 1.4.20, Plut. Alc. 34.5–6). 1077 ἐννύχιον ἄυπνος [ὢν] ὄψεται: Diggle (1974) 27–8 = (1994) 124–5 produces a metrically sound text (cf. Metre) with a clear and appropriate meaning. The two adjectives (both transmitted as nominatives) need to be distributed to λαμπάδα and θεωρός for the balance, and ἄυπνος suits the man as much as ἐννύχιος suits the torches of the pannychis. The participle ὤν was added naturally when the two adjectives had the same case. ἄυπνος: The revellers were sleepless (Hor. carm. 3.25.9 exsomnis, Nonn. Dion. 24.348 Μαιονίην τ’ ἐδίδαξεν ἑὴν ἄγρυπνον ἑορτήν), kept awake during the pannychis by the music: cf. Ar. Ran. 370–1 ἀνεγείρατε μολπὴν καὶ παννυχίδας (similarly 340). ὄψεται: For the focus on the act of seeing what is forbidden cf. Dem. 59.73 εἶδεν ἃ οὐ προσῆκεν αὐτὴν ὁρᾶν ξένην οὖσαν (on the wife of a Basileus, who performed the sacred marriage with Dionysus at the Anthesteria). In the reverse argument, participation in festivals is adduced in forensic speeches to prove citizenship (cf. Martin (2009) 268). 1078–86 The cosmos is united: the humans celebrating the (earth-)goddesses of the mysteries are joined by choruses from the air and the sea, which mirror the human revel with dance, worship of Kore, and torch light (cf. Seaford (1990a) 88; on the identificaton of the chorus with the cosmos Csapo (2008) 267–72, Ferrari (2008) 3–7, Seaford (2012) 43). The scene may describe a mystic experience: Dionysiac revels draw in their entire surrounding (the mountain and beasts: IT 1242–3, Ba. 114, 726–7; Philodamos Dion. (GH

418

Commentary

2.5) 19–20 πᾶσα δ’ ὑμνοβρύης χόρευε[ν Δελφῶ]ν ἱερὰ μάκαιρα χώρα). Dionysus leads the stars in the dance (Soph. Ant. 1146–52 and schol. 1146) or is a star himself (Ar. Ran. 343–4, Philodamos Dion. 21 ἀστε[ρόεν δ]έμας). Apuleius’ Lucius mentions that he journeyed through the elements during his initiation (Met. 11.23.7); on the role of the elements in (mainly) later mysteries cf. Eitrem (1926), (1927). The ancient writers have kept their vow of silence too well for us to know whether there is more in this than frenzied apparitions. A similar cosmic unity is portrayed by the tapestry in the tent, a parallelism that proves that Ion fits well into the Athenian order of things. 1078–9 Διὸς ἀστερωπὸς ... αἰθήρ: Cf. Zeus’ starry sky 870. Soph. Ant. 1146–7 πῦρ πνειόντων χοράγ᾿ ἄστρων (=Dionysus/Iacchus) combines stars and the fire of aether in the same context, but the stars’ ‘dance’ is often a metaphor for their regular movement: cf. El. 467 ἄστρων τ’ αἰθέριοι χοροί, Pha. 66 with Diggle’s supplement, Peirith. fr. 593 N2 (=Critias TrGF 43 F 4), Vries (1976). 1079 ἀνεχόρευσεν: The prefix underscores the ecstatic nature of the movement: cf. Ba. 862–4 ἐν παννυχίοις χοροῖς ... ἀναβακχεύουσα, 1153 ἀναχορεύσωμεν Βάκχιον, and Suppl. 719 not in mystic connection. 1080 χορεύει: Despite the change to transitive and the different aspect, the pattern is that of a compound followed by the simplex in the same meaning: cf. Ar. Av. 948–9, Eccl. 939–42. Greek examples and discussion in Renehan (1976) 11–27, K-G I 552 n.; on the figure’s indo-european roots cf. Watkins (1967); Diggle (1981a) 18 and (1994) 84 n.64 provides an ample bibliography. σελάνα: The moon often counts as a star: e.g. 1147–55, Democritus 68 A 86, Pl. Phd. 98A καὶ σελήνης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρων. 1081–2 πεντήκοντα κόραι Νηρέος: Fifty is the traditional number of the Nereids: e.g. Andr. 1267, Aesch. Hopl.Cris. fr. 174, first in Hes. Th. 240–64; but cf. the figure 100 in Pl. Criti. 116E (called an archaic view), Prop. 3.7.67, Ov. F. 6.499. In most cases they are associated with Aphrodite (Sappho fr. 5, Paus. 2.1.8, LIMC Nereides 437–8 Athens 5th/4th cent.); their connection with Dionysus is weak: with the group only Hym.Orph. 24.10–11 Quandt, with individual nymphs Hom. Il. 6.135–7, Od. 24.74–5, Stesich. F 276, Apollod. Bibl. 3.28. Barringer (1995) 65–6, 150–1 stresses the ‘eschatological connections’ (p. 150) of the Nereids, who bring heroes to the isles of the blessed and thus ensure their happy afterlife. In this function they are suitable participants in an Eleusinian rite. Their main function, however, seems to form the ‘marine’ element in the cosmic celebration. 1083 †ἀεναῶν τε ποταμῶν†: Apart from the metre, the line is flawless (cf. Metre): ‘(who dance on the sea) and (the eddies) of the ever-flowing



1048–1105 3rd Stasimon

419

rivers’. A small change to καὶ ποταμῶν ἀεναῶν or even κἀεναῶν ποταμῶν would suffice to restore a line that suits the metrical context. A deletion of τε without any further changes (‘in the sea of everflowing streams’, [AK]) gives the right metre, but ποταμοί, whether streams or a synonym for the Okeanos (cf. Hom. Il. 17.607, Od. 12.1), is different from the πόντος (‘sea’, but not ‘ocean’). 1084 χορευόμεναι: For the change from active to middle in a simplex post compositum-sequence cf. 1080n and e.g. Hom. Od. 3.390–3; for a compound followed by two simplicia cf. Soph. OC 841. The text may want elegance but is best left untouched: the Nereids’ dance is further described as (typically) taking place in the water: ‘when ... they who dance in the sea and eddies of the ever-flowing rivers dance in honour of Kore and Demeter’. The dance of the Nereid chorus in (the depth of) the sea is a recurring feature in Euripides (El. 434, Tro. 2, IT 427–9, IA 1054–7; already Bacch. 17.107–8). On its gradual emergence in art cf. S. Lattimore (1976) 28–9, Barringer (1995) 83–7. Attempts to make the text less repetitive have been more or less inspired guesswork: Verrall (1880) 283, who, like G. Müller (1983) 46 adopts Musgrave’s κορευόμεναι (actually ‘to become/be made a woman’), creates meaning only by his translation ‘to spend one’s maidenhead’; Badham’s πορευόμεναι is colourless. 1085 χρυσοστέφανον: Matthiae for χρυσεο- (after Elmsley). Homer and Pindar use the epithet most often of Aphrodite (and figuratively of Hebe). A crown of corn ears is worn by the Eleusinian deities (Blech (1982) 256), but χρυσοῦς does not seem to be an epithet of corn until very late. κόραν: That Euripides has Persephone as the dedicatee of the dance together with her mother increases the likelihood that she should be identified with the goddess in Ar. Ran. 378–80 ἀρεῖς τὴν Σώτειραν γενναίως τῆι φωνῆι μολπάζων. 1086 σεμνάν: a common epithet of Demeter and Persephone (e.g. Hom. Hym. 2.1, 478, 13.1) as well as for other chthonic deities (e.g. Ge, the Semnai Theai). 1087–9 1087–8 βασιλεύσειν ἄλλων πόνον [τ᾿] ἐσπεσὼν: Ion’s intrusion into the city is compared to the parasitic behaviour of drones (Borthwick (1990) 61), and his attendance may even be capped by his directing the festival: the (democratic) Basileus took a leading part in the organisation of the mysteries (SEG 21:494 = IE 250.43–4). πόνος (vel sim.) is regularly used in connection with bees (e.g. IT 165, Pind. P. 6.54), and the Greeks thought the queen was male (e.g. Arist. HA 553b4–6). ἐσπίπτω has a hostile, military sense

420

Commentary

in Herc. 954 and Phoen. 1469, but in most cases simply means ‘enter’ (e.g. 1196). L’s τ᾿ εἰσπεσεῖν is metrically flawed and probably results from inadvertent assimilation of the termination with βασιλεύσειν. With the connector τε gone, the verb must be subordinated, which at the same time eliminates the hysteron proteron. 1089 ἀλάτας: Cf. above 53, 576. As drones are expelled by the female workers, so Ion was by his mother; hence he has been ‘wandering’ away from home. 1090–1105 The chorus embark on a poetological statement, taking up Creusa’s complaint about women’s undeserved bad reputation (398–400): Xuthus’ putative unfaithfulness proves that the poets are wrong to portray women as morally inferior. Several key concepts are repeated (δυσκέλαδος, λέκτρα~λέχεα, μοῦσα) to illustrate that the accusations launched against women apply better to men. The complaint about ‘male domination of the poetic representation of women’ (E. Hall (2006) 111) strengthens the demand that the poetic discourse be reversed. For misogyny, esp. in poetry, cf. Hes. Op. 373–4, Semon. IEG2 7.48–9, 53, 110–11, Aesch. Cho. 594–601 (loving women destroying families), Ar. Thesm. 786 πᾶς τις τὸ γυναικεῖον φῦλον κακὰ πόλλ᾿ ἀγορεύει. The statement can even be read as a comment on Euripides’ own notoriety for portraying wanton women: ‘Aeschylus’ in Frogs (1043–4; cf. Thesm. 384–94) criticises him for staging such ‘whores’ as Phaedra, Stheneboea, and other women in love. On criticism of the poets’ tales (e.g. Herc. 1346, IA [794–800]) cf. Wright (2010) 179–80. On a metadramatic level the position of the chorus is self-contradictory, as precisely the female voice is heard in this and similar passages where the asymmetrical gender discourse is criticised (Med. 410–31 with striking verbal parallels, Mel.Desm. fr. 493, 494.1–3, 22–9). Their claim is further weakened in this instance by the chorus’ lack of knowledge about the real situation (on that problem cf. Mastronarde (2010) 110), which diminishes the relevance of what they say and its acceptance by the audience. The key evidence for their claim is wrong (1100n). 1090 ὁρᾶθ’ ὅσοι: ‘mark, you who’: cf. Herc. 1072, TrGF adesp. 624 (probably Euripides), with Riedweg (1990) 131. The change of topic, without transition or thematic connection to Creusa’s plot, and the shift from Ion to Xuthus come as a surprise. 1090–1 δυσκελάδοισιν κατὰ μοῦσαν ἰόντες ... ὕμνοις: ὕμνοις has two seemingly contradictory qualifiers, both using sound metaphors: formally (κατὰ μοῦσαν) it is song, even though the content sounds unpleasant (δυσκέλαδος). δυσκέλαδος occurs in Euripides only here (and 1098) and



1048–1105 3rd Stasimon

421

Med. 420 οὐκέτι δυσκέλαδος φάμα γυναῖκας ἕξει. The two passages are so similar in gist and phrasing that one may surmise a common intertext (perhaps Stesichorus: cf. 1096n). In juncture with ὕμνοι: Aesch. Sept. [868], Prometh. fr. 188a?. For κατὰ μοῦσαν (‘in song’) cf. Alc. 962 διὰ μούσας ... ἦιξα; the preposition means ‘in accordance with, meeting the demands of’: cf. Tro. 102 πλεῖ κατὰ πορθμόν, Thuc. 1.60.2 κατὰ φιλίαν. 1092 ἁμέτερα λέχεα: roughly ‘our sexual activity’. That the chorus take the position of women in general becomes apparent only in 1095. By the first person plural they implicate themselves (and express their solidarity) with the fallen women. 1092–3 γάμους Κύπριδος ἀθέμιτος ἀνοσίους: Adultery attracts the language of pollution and ‘religious’ misconduct: Hipp. 602, 653–5, Or. 575, Soph. Inach. fr. 269a.288. The liaisons are not all religiously offensive in a modern sense, but more generally confounding legitimate marriage and thus endangering public order: cf. Hipp. 764–6 (and 1094n). The effect on families and life is thus the chorus’ (and Greek society’s) main concern, not ritual pollution as consequence of adultery (cf. R. Parker (1983) 94–5, Fisher on Aeschin. 1.183, pace Mikalson (1991) 174). 1093 ἀθέμιτος: L now has ἀθέμιτας; Wecklein reports ἀθεμίτους Ls.l., and traces of erasure are still clearly visible, quite possibly of ους; P practically guarantees Wecklein’s reading. ἀθέμιτας is pleonastic with ἀνοσίους and violates the principle of equitable distribution of epithets; ἀθεμίτους is a vox nihili. 1094 εὐσεβίαι: for family relations: cf. Rudhardt (1992) 14. 1095 ἄδικον ἄροτον ἀνδρῶν: ‘men’s unjust tillage’ (cf. Tro. 135 τὸν πεντήκοντ’ ἀροτῆρα τέκνων). ἄροτος is used here for the act of ploughing (cf. Hel. 1328); the crop (in the sense ‘the existence of crop’) is not the point in 1092–3. The transmitted ἄροτρον ‘plough’ is not used in a metaphorical sense. 1096 παλίμφαμος ἀοιδὰ: Brodaeus credibly restores (from παλίμφαος) an allusion to Stesichorus’ original palinodes (F 90–1). The parallel with that song, the defence against female immorality, is compelling: Helen is absolved from the accusation of infidelity, as she had not been abducted by Paris but spent the time of the Trojan War in Egypt (cf. Euripides’ recent Hel.). The exoneration is here extended to all womanhood. 1098 περὶ: The preposition has been replaced by the unmetrical equivalent ἀμφί: cf. esp. Rh. 823 περί for ἀμφί (L sive Tr., P), Hcld. 756 for ὑπέρ with Wecklein (1895) 538–40.

422

Commentary

1099–1100 †δείκνυσι γὰρ ὁ Διὸς ἐκ παίδων†: The reference to Xuthus’ pedigree links him to Zeus, who has been mentioned in connection with male misbehaviour (174–5, 444–51). Xuthus’ nobility also makes him a significant specimen of the male sex and thus justifies the extrapolation from his case. For the possible restoration (τοῦ) Διὸς οὑκ παίδων cf. n Metre and 1573 ἐκ τῶν Ἐρεχθέως. 1100 ἀμνημοσύναν: The first occurrence of the noun (but Aesch. Sept. 606 ἀμνήμων): it combines memory and the feeling of moral obligation (cf. 916n) and distinguishes Xuthus from Creusa and her decision to spare him (977). However, the judgment is unfair, as Xuthus does take his wife’s feelings into consideration (657–8) and was not unfaithful (546). The corresponding objection in the ode in Medea is ἀπιστοσύνη (423), similarly signifying a lack of loyalty but with the additional component of Jason’s broken oath. 1101 κοινὰν τεκέων τύχαν: The chorus resume a recurrent motif: the separation of the fates of Xuthus and Creusa (610, 699, 704, 775, 817–18). The genitive is explicative to τύχαν, so the expression is pregnant: Xuthus does not father a child that would unite his and Creusa’s τύχη. 1101–3: δεσποίναι depends on κοινάν; οἴκοισι is dative of advantage with φυτεύσας. 1103–4 πρὸς δ’ Ἀφροδίταν ἄλλαν θέμενος χάριν: ‘doing another favour/ paying once again homage to Aphrodite’; ἄλλαν describes another sexual relation of Xuthus, in addition to that with Creusa. The echo of 896 is clearly noticeable. 1105 νόθου παιδὸς ἔκυρσεν: a reminiscence from the hopeful first prayer (470–1).

1106–1228 4th Epeisodion The messenger scene is predictable: the preceding song has sketched possible further developments and news about the outcome of extra-scenic murder plots is conventionally reported by messengers (Med., El., IT, Hel., Or.). It is desirable on several levels that the chorus be the sole recipients of the report (as in Alc. 141–212, Herc. 910–1015, Or. 1395–1502, Ba. 1024– 1152): in terms of dramatic consistency, there is no reason for Creusa to return from the proxenos’ house until she has learnt about the failed plot (cf.



1106–1228 4th Epeisodion

423

1250–1). The alternative – that Creusa stays idly on stage through the 3rd epeisodion, waiting for news together with the chorus – would be dramaturgically awkward; the chorus’ expression of loyalty in the 3rd stasimon is also more powerful if it is not felt to be influenced by her watching; finally, the political, ‘autochthonous’ considerations voiced by the chorus are (yet) to be kept separate from Creusa’s personal tragedy (cf. 452–509n). In terms of dramatic effect, Creusa’s absence means that it is the chorus whose reaction is conveyed, both in the dialogue 1106–1122 and in the subsequent ode (cf. Hose (1991) 63). Were Creusa on stage, she would have to react, either in speech or in song. However, the chorus’ thoughts and their desperation about the failure and the impossibility of flight coincide with hers (1238–43 ~ 1253), as they expect to be held accountable along with her (1120–1, 1229–30). So the content is similar to what Creusa might be expected to say, but her rushed entrance after the messenger speech and the choral song, just ahead of Ion, provides the more intense dramatic dynamic and action. The messenger is a servant of Creusa’s but had accompanied Xuthus and Ion after the first recognition scene (pace Rijksbaron (1976) 306), for he has served at Ion’s symposion (1194) as one of the men described by the Old Man as ὀπάονες (980). His loyalty to Creusa mirrors that of the chorus, and he includes himself in the group pursued for the assassination attempt (1111). Hence he preserves a critical distance to Ion, never calling him by his (new) name but only ‘the new son’ vel sim. (Jong (1991) 102, though see 1123n). That label, acknowledging Ion’s relationship with Xuthus, shows that it would be wrong to say (with Yoon (2012) 139) that the messenger ‘demonstrates his refusal to accept Ion’s “promotion” by denying him his name’. He communicates the outcome of the plot, first summarily in the dialogue section, then on the chorus’ request (1116) in a full rhesis. Only at the point where the poison is poured out (1190–2) does the fact of Ion’s survival become clearly assured (as seen by Hartigan (1991) 82). In the dialogue it is not mentioned because it is not essential for the original purpose of the messenger’s appearance: to warn Creusa that she is being sought. The narrative contains elements of the messenger’s personal interpretation: for him the god has uncovered the plot (1118, reaffirmed in 1227), and his narrative bears out the miraculous element in the setting and action. This additional function can explain the length of his speech (exceeded only by Ba. 1043–1152 and the Phrygian’s lyric speech Or. 1395–1502) and the focus on such (seemingly) peripheral aspects as the tent: the magnificence of the event, including the decoration of the tent (1142), the lavish use made of the sanctuary’s precious tableware (1165–6, 1175), and Ion’s miraculous rescue have all dazzled him and transform the occasion into a marvel. The

424

Commentary

characterisation of Delphi is similar to that in Ion’s monody: a place of gold, sacredness, and euphemia. The god’s presence corresponds with the elevated setting. The epic reminiscences (the sky 1143–58a, the formulation in 1170, the laughter at the limping cupbearer 1172; on epic resonances in the structure of the ecphrasis as such cf. Palm (1965–1966) 134–5) help to distinguish the described scene from the ordinary and hint at the significance of the action. The messenger’s style is accordingly solemn from the start, even when still hurried (e.g. 1106 κόρην Ἐρεχθέως, 1111 (ἐ)πιχώριοι χθονός). 1106–21 In line with convention, a short dialogue precedes the messenger speech, stating the core fact (1109 τί) before the detailed account is prompted by a question after the course of events (1116, 1119 πῶς); cf. Rassow (1883) 10, Jong (1991) 32–3. Before the messenger can start, he has to be asked by the chorus to report, since his intended addressee, Creusa, is absent. Such a change of addressee is unusual but necessary if the chorus are to remain alone; in other plays the wanted character steps out of the stage building (Hipp. 1156, IT 1307; similarly Hec. 486). The chorus can replace Creusa because their fate is intertwined with hers (1115 μεθέξεις; cf. 1106–1228n); their wish to hear the story is motivated by their own desire for certainty (paralleled in Alc. 138–40; similarly Andr. 1084, Hec. 517). The main point revealed in the dialogue section, apart from the fact that Creusa has been found out and is now being chased, is the messenger’s interpretation that she was convicted through Apollo’s intervention. The idea of divine interference forms the backdrop of the narrative. It is highlighted by a detour in the conversation: to the chorus’ πῶς in 1116 the messenger does not reply by the detailed narrative account, as would be conventional, but misunderstands it as a question about the means by which the plot was uncovered. A second πῶς (1119) clarifies the question and prompts the report. 1106–10 The messenger intends to warn Creusa and urge her to flee. Hence he does not lament or inform the chorus immediately. The rushed manner of his appearance makes them ignore his question and ask about the reason for his haste. His search for Creusa is not mentioned again once the relevance of the news for the chorus has been established. 1106 †κλειναὶ: The paradosis jars with the situation: the chorus identify the messenger as a fellow slave (1109), and his question concerning Creusa’s whereabouts indicates that he, too, recognises them (which excludes Dobree’s ξέναι). A decision for an emendation, however, is difficult: with his change to κλεινάν, Reiske (1754) 156 rids himself of the objectively inap-



1106–1228 4th Epeisodion

425

propriate epithet, but there is no good reason why a slave in front of his fellows should call the common mistress ‘the famous daughter of Erechtheus’ (contrast Phoen. 88, about the addressee herself). φίλαι (Elmsley (1826) 273) has a parallel in Soph. Aj. 719 ἄνδρες φίλοι, but the mistake in L would be difficult to explain. 1107 εὕρω: The deliberative subjunctive indicates a pregnant formulation: ‘Where am I to find her?’ Cf. Herc. 1158, IA 356, also Andr. 527 δύστανος, τί δ’ ἐγὼ μόρου παράτροπον μέλος εὕρω; The messenger expresses his desperation after he has searched everywhere, unsuccessfully; contrast the polite potential used by the messengers in Hipp. 1154, Hec. 485, who really ask for information. 1108 ἐξέπλησα: A place can be said to be ‘filled out’ when it is crossed or roamed over entirely (IT 81 δρόμους, 324, Or. 54 λιμένα, Phoen. 1470, Alex. fr. 62d.28). In this instance the accusative is lost in the lacuna; understanding ἄστυ from 1107 ἄστεως ought to be avoided: it violates the hierarchy of the verbs if the object of the finite verb is to be supplemented from the adverbial defining the participle (πανταχῆι ἄστεως). The lacuna might precede ζητῶν νιν (so Badham and later editors), but more likely follows it. κοὐκ: ‘and yet’ (Owen): cf. Hipp. 284 ἐς πάντ’ ἀφῖγμαι κοὐδὲν εἴργασμαι πλέον, Denniston 292; the adversative notion is, however, not intrinsic to καί (Blomqvist (1979) 39). λαβεῖν: simplex pro composito (καταλαμβάνω, ‘meet’): cf. Soph. Phil. 1051. 1111–21 The messenger, who fled at the end of the events he describes (1111 θηρώμεθ(α)), proves his loyalty by looking for Creusa despite the danger to himself, and the chorus, too, stands to suffer for siding with Creusa (1115 μεθέξεις). 1111 θηρώμεθ’: The hunting metaphor stresses the intensity of the chase: Creusa’s enemies are in hot pursuit of her (cf. IT 1426 ἄνδρας δυσσεβεῖς θηράσετε, Ba. 890). ἀρχαὶ δ’ ἁπιχώριοι: The body regulating the sanctuary yields power over the jurisdiction in the temple area: in Andr. 1097 ἀρχαῖσί τ’ ἐπληροῦτο βουλευτήρια (cj. Diggle) they prepare a pre-emptive strike against Neoptolemus. In historical times the judicial functions were taken by the leaders of the amphictyonic council, the hieromnemones and pylagoroi (Sánchez (2001) 496–507). 1112 πετρουμένη: ‘stoned’ (Or. 564, 946, Phoen. 1177), not ‘hurled off a cliff’: cf. 1222, 1237, against [1268]. People are stoned to expel them from

426

Commentary

the community whose order they have trespassed; here in particular, as after other religious crimes, the community is cleansed from defilement (e.g. Or. 49–50, Ba. 356, Alcaeus fr. 298.1–3, Ael. VH 5.19, Paus. 8.5.12). The execution follows a formal verdict and is not mob law: cf. Fehling (1974) 63, Gras (1984), Rosivach (1987b) 244, Schmitz (2004) 396–8; too narrowly linking stoning and pollution Hollmann (2012) 2–8. 1113 τί λέξεις: preceded by a lamenting interjection, in agitated anticipation of a bad story after news has been told: e.g. Hec. 511, Phoen. 1274. οὔ τί που: ‘We have not (been caught), have we?’ The chorus verbalise the implication of the messenger’s words while being puzzled by the idea (and reluctant to believe) that their plot has been uncovered (cf. the incredulous ὤφθη δὲ πῶς: Caspers (2010) 330). The mss of Euripides and Aristophanes in some passages (incl. this one) offer οὔτι που, without difference in meaning or use. Commentators often change to οὔ τί που (e.g. Willink and West on Or. 1510, the only other instance of οὔτι που in Euripides), and more faith in the consistency of the language than in the transmission is probably advisable. 1114 ἐκπορίζουσαι: The chorus phrase their solidarity as if they had been involved in the planning or execution of the plot: cf. 1229–49n. 1115 ἔγνως: ‘correct’: an elevated formulation (e.g. Andr. 883, Or. 1131, Soph. Trach. 1221) apparently not taken from the Attic vernacular but only found in tragedy. Contrast e.g. Ar. Av. 1458 πάνυ μανθάνεις, 1460 πάντ’ ἔχεις. 1117: A commonplace has been added to give ἐξηῦρεν an object (cf. 554). After the deletion (Kvíčala (1880) 114–15) the messenger answers the chorus’ question (πῶς ὤφθη; – ἐξηῦρεν ὁ θεός). Otherwise the meaning would be unclear: in the reading ἐξευρίσκω + participle the god found out that the unjust side (i.e. Ion) was being defeated; but while the biased messenger might describe Creusa’s cause as just, it contradicts the following statement that the sanctuary would have become polluted (1118). If the participle qualified τὸ μὴ δίκαιον (Biehl (1992) 25 cryptically translates: ‘[j]ede Gesetzwidrigkeit, die als solche gegenüber der (Anwendung der) Rechtsordnung nicht bestehen kann’), the messenger would confuse mortal and divine administration of justice; in addition, the condemnation of Creusa as morally inferior would be inconsistent with his general attitude (cf. Kraus 81). 1118 ἐξηῦρεν: ‘exposed’: causative, as in 554. ὁ θεός: The interpretation is correct (as messengers’ suspicions of divine intervention often are: cf. Jong (1991) 16, Scodel (2009) 423–4) and confirmed in 1565. By implication, the god is not immune to defilement. The Greek views in this respect are not entirely consistent: some sources (Herc. 1232, Soph.



1106–1228 4th Epeisodion

427

Ant. 1044) imply that the gods could not suffer pollution from humans, but this idea may be sophistic rationalisation (cf. R. Parker (1983) 145); in other places the gods seem susceptible to pollution (Hcld. 264, Erechth. fr. 368) and are said actively to shun it (the locus classicus is Hipp. 1437–9). 1120 πεπυσμέναι γάρ: This motivation is covered by dramatic convention (cf. 1106–21n; pace Winnington-Ingram (1969) 140 n.35) but may also be psychologically understandable: the chorus have no hope of escaping (1164–8, 1229–30) and wonder how that could happen. 1121 εἴθ’ ὁρᾶν φάος: The idea of the missing apodosis ἥδιον ἂν ζῶιμεν (i.e. without fear) has to be supplemented from the corresponding conditional. Cf. Soph. OT 91–2 εἰ τῶνδε χρήιζεις πλησιαζόντων κλύειν, ἑτοῖμος εἰπεῖν, εἴτε καὶ στείχειν ἔσω (sc. χρήιζεις, ἑτοῖμός εἰμι στείχειν ἔσω καὶ εἰπεῖν: cf. Kamerbeek). The second part of εἰ ... εἴτε is here an addendum of low likelihood and without need for further explanation. The interpretation as indirect question (‘when we know if we have to die or live’: Holzner (1895) 97) makes no sense, as the apodosis would imply the answer. 1122–1228 Messenger Speech The messenger’s initial rush and his intention to warn Creusa are forgotten; the purpose of the speech is the information of the chorus, and the messenger reports the events in every detail. As usual (cf. Riedinger (1995) 33), the scene is set before the significant action starts. The background is marked through repeated imperfect tense (1134, 1142, 1146, etc.; cf. Rijksbaron (1988) 250–4; 1166 is then transitional); the festive splendour and dignity contrasts with the danger for Ion (Ludwig (1954) 17). The full description of the tent irritated earlier interpreters, who failed to grasp that the length of the ecphrasis draws attention to it and indicates its intrinsic significance: the tent as marvellous setting connects with the momentous goings-on inside. The speech reports ex even­ tu (as often: Jong (1991) 29–30), so the earlier sections already reflect the significance of later incidents. For the consequences of the failed plot the place changes (1217) and attention shifts from the Old Man to Creusa: the messenger connects the narrative with the dramatic present; the action is brought back to the purely human level, on which Ion and Creusa will fight it out until Apollo intervenes again by sending the Pythia. The division of the three main sections is supported by the interplay between structural breaks and line ends: the start of the action and the shift to the present are marked by strong punctuation at the end of 1176 and 1216. Within the major units the messenger blends the individual sections and largely avoids heavy structural (and syntactical) breaks at line end, which

428

Commentary

would create time for pauses (Ludwig (1954) 17). Transitions are gliding, especially from Xuthus’ to Ion’s action (1132), from the decoration to the feast (1166), and in the second part from the actions of the Old Man to the libation (1187) and from the bird’s death to Ion’s investigation of the plot (1208). Resumptions bind the steps of the narrative together (1132 ὤιχεθ’, 1170 ὡς δ’ ἀνεῖσαν), and the Old Man’s activity covers both the end of the meal and the start of the symposion: 1122–76 Preparation 1122–32a Xuthus’ parting orders 1132b–66a Tent 1132b–40 Outer structure 1141–66a Decoration: tapestries and interior 1166b–76 Feast: first part 1166b–70a Meal 1170b–76 Intermezzo 1177–1216 Plot and discovery 1177–93 Libations 1194–1208a The bird’s death 1208b–16 Investigation 1217–28 Sanctions 1217–25a Trial and verdict 1225b–8 Pursuit (and concluding personal remarks) 1122–32a ἐπεί signals (cf. Henning (1910) 12, Rijksbaron (1976) 306–7) that the narrative picks up from an earlier scene, here the end of the 2nd epeisodion: having departed together with Ion from the temple area after 675 Xuthus soon leaves him to perform the announced sacrifice alone (cf. 653n). He is written out of the further course of events, both because the recognition and the content of the deus ex machina speech must be kept secret from him and because the third actor must be freed for the roles of the Pythia and Athena. The departure is emphasised (and Xuthus’ permanent absence thus hinted at) by the reduplication of information: Xuthus’ address (1130–1) repeats the important elements of 1125–7, which already give a rather circuituous account of Xuthus’ plans. The direct discourse reaffirms Xuthus’ insistence that Ion not wait for him. So Ion takes charge of the preparations for the Xe­ nia and will be responsible for the arrangements that are described. The continuation from the 2nd epeisodion, in particular Xuthus’ speech 650–67, is not fully consistent: Euripides inserts a second address by Xuthus to Ion, where it might have been more plausible that Xuthus gives all the orders at once. Some information is repeated: the announcement of Genethlia (653~1126–7) and the order to hold a farewell feast for his friends (663–



1106–1228 4th Epeisodion

429

5~1131). What is new (framed by the references to Xuthus’ departure) are the orders to erect a tent where Ion is to perform the feast and not to wait if he is late (παροῦσι δαῖτες ἔστωσαν). These could have been given in the 2nd epeisodion, but Euripides there dispenses with details of the celebration. The mention of the tent is deferred until the point where it becomes relevant: otherwise it would have created a loose end for almost 500 lines (cf. 804–[7]n). Its introduction here is immediately followed by the ecphrasis. 1123 παῖδα τὸν καινὸν: The messenger was present at the naming but ‘seems loath to use the name Xuthus gave his son’ (Jong (1991) 102). But Ion’s name and individuality are no concern of the messenger and the chorus too refer to him as Ion only when asked (802; cf. 1106–1228n). 1124: Rassow (1883) 73–4 deletes the line: even if Xuthus is planning to join the party afterwards, the formulation ὤιχετο πρὸς δεῖπνα is odd with the messenger’s knowledge in hindsight that he will never arrive there; nor does he take Ion with him to his solitary θυσίαι. The line is rather based on the passages where the two events are lumped together (652–3 and 805–[7]). 1125 Ξοῦθος μὲν ὤιχετ’: The repetition of the verb and the over-determination of the subject after πόσις Κρεούσης (cf. 1144) serve to reinforce the separation of the two characters in the μέν ... δέ dichotomy. 1125–6 πῦρ πηδᾶι θεοῦ βακχεῖον: The reference to the rites on Parnassus (with reminiscences of 716–17) makes it clear that Xuthus sacrifices at the place of Ion’s conception. 1126–7 πέτρας ... δισσὰς: On the Phaedriades cf. 86n. 1127 παιδὸς ἀντ’ ὀπτηρίων: ὀπτήρια are gifts to a new-born child or its parents (possibly also a birthday gift: Call. Hym. 3.74, Nonn. Dion. 5.139; Schol. Eum. 7 glosses ὀπτήριος as γενέθλιος δόσις), given probably at the Dekate (cf. 653n), when the child was first seen (schol.vet. in Call. loc.cit. = P.Ant. 20 ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἰδεῖν δῶρα): cf. Hamilton (1984) 247–8, Garland (1990) 94. The sources do not say anything about gifts made by the parents (as here by Xuthus). We may think of the sacrifice as the father’s contribution to the celebration or as a proxy for the gifts normally made by outsiders, since nobody is meant to know of the child. 1128–32a Xuthus’ direct discourse, which is stripped to bare commands, is essential and could not easily have been replaced by a paraphrase (pace Bers (1997) 83): the conditional ἢν μακρὸν χρόνον μείνω would sound irrelevant; the feigned accuracy of direct discourse, by contrast, justifies the inclusion of words that have little significance for the speaker but signal Xuthus’ per-

430

Commentary

manent absence to the audience. Xuthus’ own words also give additional weight to the order to erect the tent; in indirect discourse the iteration of information and the resulting emphasis would be impossible. 1128 ἀμφήρεις: ‘fitted all round’, from ἀραρίσκω; cf. Cycl. 15, Herc. 243 βωμὸν πέριξ νήσαντες ἀμφήρη ξύλα, Kurt (1979) 73, Stieber (2011) 303. 1129 τεκτόνων μοχθήμασιν: ‘through the labour of workmen’: a τέκτων is originally a carpenter, here generally an artisan (cf. Alc. 5 on the Cyclopes fabricating Zeus’ thunderbolt). These workers are not mentioned again and Ion becomes the master of the work, a kind of ἀρχιτέκτων (Stieber (2011) 306–7). All responsibility and final accomplishment is thus attributed to him. 1130 γενέταις θεοῖσιν: here ‘the gods of birth’; in Aesch. Suppl. 77 ‘the ancestral gods’. 1131 μείνω: Diggle (1969) 50 = (1994) 21–2 restores the required sense from μένω (L) with minimal interference: Xuthus’ absence is coextensive with the sacrifice (coincident aorist θύσας; cf. Barrett on Hipp. 289–92), so the finite verb needs to stand in the same tense. ἔστωσαν: Euripides uses a form of the imperative plural that is not attested before him (paralleled only in IT 1480 ἴτωσαν) and becomes Attic standard only in Hellenistic times; outside Euripides it is used in inscriptions from IG II3 1, 292.47–8 (from 352/1) and frequently in Xenophon (cf. S-D I 802). Normalisation of the seemingly anachronistic form (e.g. Herwerden’s δαῖτας σὺ σπεῦσον) would be excessive. 1132 ὤιχεθ’: Triple repetition without specific expressive force is not rare (Jackson (1955) 220–2), but here it need not even be unconscious on Euripides’ part but could be hammering home the hint at Xuthus’ departure. 1132b–66a The considerations concerning the construction and decoration of the tent reveal the care that Ion takes in his self-representation: all aspects of the textiles and statues ought to be read as expressions of Ion’s design. This uniquely detailed ecphrasis of a tent demonstrates its exceptional nature and its marvelousness as perceived by the messenger. Public tents (or pavilions), temporary structures in precincts equivalent to permanent banquet halls, are a regular presence at Greek festivals. They accommodate public dinners where meat from sacrifices is consumed but also serve as cities’ meeting points for negotiations and places of representation; cf. the command of IG IX.1 129 = LSCG 82 ἐν το̃ι ϝανακείοι θύοντα σκανε̃ν (Elateia, late 5th cent.), and generally Goldstein (1978) 8–60, Gribble (2012) 59–63. Hence it is not necessary to assume that Euripides is inspired by the tent of the Persian



1106–1228 4th Epeisodion

431

King (Hdt. 9.80.1–2; so e.g. Immerwahr (1972) 292). The Athenian tents attested at Olympia (Plut. Them. 5.4; cf. Currie (2011) 303 n.140) are much more pertinent, as are the tent the Ephesians gave Alcibiades at the Olympic Games of 416 (Plut. Alc. 12.1 σκηνὴν μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶι κεκοσμημένην διαπρεπῶς, Andoc. 4.30) and the stands or pavilions where meat from the Panathenaea was distributed before the erection of the Athenian Pompeion (Hoepfner (1976) 20, Parke (1977) 48–9; many more examples in Goldstein). 1132b–40 The messenger emphasises Ion’s skill (e.g. 1137) and circumspection (e.g. 1134–5). He uses several terms that have a technical ring to them and mimic the language of craftsmen (e.g. ὀρθοστάται, σκήνωμα, εὐγωνία). Part of the parlance is explicitly distanced from lay speech and attributed to ‘experts’ (σοφοί; cf. 1138–9n). Together with the ascription of the work to Ion alone and the praise for the execution (σεμνῶς, καλῶς), this serves to magnify his achievement. 1133 σεμνῶς: Ion’s seriousness and inner dignity are the same that he was credited with by Hermes (56). Any σεμνότης there, however, originated from his service to Apollo, while here, after his elevation of status, he acts in his own right. The messenger’s general admiration makes it unlikely that the word is to convey self-importance (as in Dem. 19.23). Zacharia (2003) 31 n.106 wants to understand the ‘ceremoniality’ with which Ion observes every aspect of the ritual correctness of the celebration. But the sacredness is nowhere harder to detect than here, where the protection from the sun is concerned. ἀτοίχους: The tent consists only of a framework of struts, onto which the tapestries are spread. σκηνωμάτων: identical in meaning with σκηνή, but the abstract makes the formulation sound more technical; the nominal formation in -μα is regular Euripidean practice, though. 1134 ὀρθοστάταις: ‘the struts’; similarly for the poles of a ladder Suppl. 497. Elsewhere the word denotes ‘the large upright blocks standing vertically on their long edges which serve as the first [...] course of masonry in an isodomic or ashlar wall’ (Stieber (2011) 35): apart from Herc. 980 and Hel. 547 it occurrs only in technical texts. Theophr. De Piet. fr. 2 Pötscher seems to have it as a kind of high cylindrical cake. 1134–5 ἡλίου βολὰς ... φλογὸς: = Or. 1259. The last words of 1134 and 1135 have been reversed in the transmission, as realised by A. Schmidt (1870) 174. The phenomenon is known from e.g. Hel. 309–10, Aesch. Sept.

432

Commentary

811–12 (at the beginning of the line). φυλάττω ‘observe’ amounts to ‘take measures against’. 1135–6 οὔτε πρὸς μέσας ... ἀκτῖνας: ‘not towards the south’; similarly Soph. OC 1247 ἀνὰ μέσσαν ἀκτῖν’. As 1142 κατεσκίαζε shows, this does not mean that the tent is erected in a shaded place (naturally covered from the south and west): it is still exposed to the sun, but the inside is protected by the tapestries. Instead, the opening for the entrance is toward the north or east (the latter would make the tent similar to a temple). Cf. Xen. Cyr. 8.5.3 τοῦτο ἐνόμιζε Κῦρος, πρὸς ἕω βλέπουσαν ἵστασθαι τὴν σκηνήν. The detail reveals that the time has not progressed (much) beyond midday (cf. Di Benedetto/Medda (1997) 304). The libation then takes place a while after the 3rd epeisodion, since the Old Man has arrived from the temple. The idea that the feast takes place on a new day (Fantuzzi (1990) 22–3 n.35) thus finds no evidence in the text. 1136 ἀκτῖνας ... τελευτώσας βίον: ‘the rays ... as they end their life’, a metonymy for the rays of the ‘dying’ sun: Aesch. Pers. 232 πρὸς δυσμαῖς ἄνακτος Ἡλίου φθινασμάτων, Arist. Poet. 1457b23–4; cf. Harry (1923) 59. 1137 πλέθρου ... μῆκος: The large dimensions, together with the lengthy description of the measurements, underscore the significant size of the tent: it is designed to accommodate all of Delphi (1140). A πλέθρον (in analogy to ποῦς: cf. 1139) can denote both a length of 100 feet or the area of a square with that edge length (i.e. 10.000 square feet: Hdt. 7.199, Pl. Tht. 174E). For comparison, in Andania the maximum size of private tents was 900 square feet: σκανὰν δὲ μὴ ἐπιτρεπόντω οἱ ἱεροὶ μηθένα ἔχειν ἐν τετραγώνωι μείζω ποδῶν τριάκοντα, μηδὲ περιτίθεμεν ταῖς σκαναῖς μήτε δέρρεις μήτε αὐλείας (LSCG 65.34–6, from 92). σταθμήσας: ‘having measured with the carpenter’s line (στάθμη)’: cf. 1514, D. Müller (1974) 46. εἰς εὐγωνίαν: ‘so as to form an exact square’: cf. Ar. Thesm. 954 ποσὶν ἄγ’ εἰς κύκλον, Thuc. 4.125.2 ἐς τετράγωνον τάξιν, Hdn. 3.1.6. The messenger again speaks admiringly of the skill displayed in Ion’s work. Elmsley’s emendation from εὐγώνιον (on Med. 1150–1 [=1181–2] n.n) is reasonably certain, even though εὐγωνία is a hapax: 1138 ἔχουσαν needs an antecedent, and σκηνή would have to be extracted from σκήνωμα (cf. the interlinear σκηνὴν δηλαδή in L) but is too distant to be intelligible. 1138–9: Since the lines provide no new information and because of the (alleged) inappropriateness of the title σοφοί and the feebleness of γε (Paley (1858), Page (1934) 72) the lines have been suspected. However, the messenger is portrayed as a simple slave stunned by the magnitude and splendour of the tent; not being a craftsman, he states the seemingly obvious



1106–1228 4th Epeisodion

433

and refers to people with expertise (for σοφοί as experts cf. fr. 944 ἑστίαν δέ σ᾿ (sc. Ge) οἱ σοφοὶ βροτῶν καλοῦσιν; more passages in Stieber (2011) 416–17). The restrictive γε is used in the ordinary way and specifies the type of μέτρημα: ‘the measurement, viz. in terms of the area’ (as opposed to length). So it does not qualify the entire phrase (for μέτρημά γε τ. μ.) and has the right position (pace Denniston 139). 1138 μέτρημ’ ... τοὐν μέσωι: The technical term for area seems to be χωρίον (known to the otherwise rather ignorant slave in Pl. Men. 82C–D); the term for the diagonal, however, is the analogous τὸ διὰ μέσου (ibid.); μέτρημα is also technical, attested in inscriptions from Didyma and Smyrna, e.g. SEG 4:446.12 (Didyma, 205/4). 1140 ὡς ... καλῶν: ‘(sc. so big) because he was intending to invite ...’; cf. 1166–8. 1141–66a The puzzling nature of the decoration’s iconography is reflected in the number of discussions, e.g. Immerwahr (1972) 291–4, G. Müller (1975) 39–42, Chalkia (1986) 105–8, Goff (1988), Zeitlin (1989) 166–9, 174–7, (1994) 152–6, Zacharia (2003) 34–9. The ceiling (1143–58a), the walls (1158b–62), and the entrance (1163–5) are described with decreasing elaborateness, while the symbolic importance of the motifs and their relevance for Ion’s story increase. The detailed description invites comparison with the sculptural decoration in the parodos, but here the unified theme is missing; the opposition of order versus disorder and conflict, which many wish to detect here as well (Mastronarde (1975) 169 = (2003) 304–5, Chalkia p. 105, Goff p. 43, Chiarini (2002) 45; similarly Immerwahr p. 294: darkness and light), imposes a simplistic dichotomy onto a multifarious text: the tent, even more than the parodos, illustrates the instability of meaning. The decoration is a web of motifs which, taken together, represent an entire cosmos that mixes the timeless (the universe), the mythical, and the historical; the divine, the heroic, and the mortal (and even the monstrous); the Athenian, the Greek, and the barbarian. The encompassing panorama of the display thus resembles the kaleidoscope of human experience on the shield of Achilles (Hom. Il. 18.478–608; cf. Taplin (1980) 11–12), which is a likely inspiration, in particular for the description of the night sky. The different motifs are intertwined so as to allow different associations: the mixed creatures of the barbarians provide a link to the biformous Cecrops, just as the mythical hunter Orion on the ceiling mirrors the hunting scenes on the wall. The relations extend to other parts of the play (Goff on details): the depiction of dusk and dawn resumes elements from Ion’s first

434

Commentary

entrance (84–5) and the mention of the Agraulids echoes the allusions to the birth of Erichthonius. The ‘networks of suggestive allusion’ (Zeitlin (1994) 153) of the motifs prevent any attempt at comprehensive decoding. Ion cannot easily be identified with any part of the displayed subjects. If anything, the tapestry presents the range of possibilities and constituents from which Ion’s identity can be pieced together (Goff p. 47; Zacharia p. 36–7 goes too far saying that Ion’s handling of the Athenian imperial imagery casts him in the role of the perfect leader). At the same time, the individual pieces deconstruct the categories of identity and to some extent indicate that the groups normally described as ‘other’ by Greeks are not all that different and share the same experiences. The tapestries thus work as θαύματα (1142), comprehensible in isolation but tantalisingly elusive if taken together (conveying the main effect of the entire play in a nutshell). The individual elements interact with each other and the rest of the play to allow different ‘readings’. Any symbolism can only tentatively be interpreted: the statue of Cecrops at the exit, for example, can symbolise Ion’s departure to Athens, whether it be a pre-emptive appropriation of the city (Zeitlin (1994) 154) or an homage to its great tradition (cf. 1163–6an). Reading it from Ion’s perspective (as yet a mere outsider and Xuthus’ guest) would rather suggest the latter. Interpretation is impeded further by an additional hermeneutic filter: the individual pieces have different origins and each thus its particular background and layer of significance. 1141 ὑφάσμαθ’ ἱερὰ: The description does not distinguish the clothes from profane ones in the sanctuary (which would be self-contradictory) but from private possession: in the Brauron catalogues the sacredness of a piece is only noted if that word is inscribed on it: IG II2 1514.35, 40, 69; cf. Paus. 5.12.4 (Olympia). The subsequent specification ‘from the treasury’ is a signal that they are not in use and thus in a better state. Hermes had suggested that Ion did not just have access to but controlled the treasures (54–5), so he knows what is available. 1142 θαύματ’ ... ὁρᾶν: Messenger speeches regularly draw attention to the wondrous character of what they describe: e.g. Med. 1167 δεινὸν ἦν θέαμ’ ἰδεῖν, Ba. 693 θαῦμ’ ἰδεῖν εὐκοσμίας. 1143–58a The tent’s ceiling consists in a depiction of the night sky, a compression of the period from dusk to dawn (framed by the impossible simultaneous view of evening and morning star). The elements are mostly standard in such descriptions, going back to Achilles’ new shield in Hom. Il. 18.483–9 ἐν μὲν γαῖαν ἔτευξ’, ἐν δ’ οὐρανόν, ἐν δὲ θάλασσαν, ἠέλιόν τ’ ἀκάμαντα σελήνην τε πλήθουσαν, ἐν δὲ τὰ τείρεα πάντα, τά τ’ οὐρανὸς ἐστεφάνωται, Πληϊάδας



1106–1228 4th Epeisodion

435

θ’ Ὑάδας τε τό τε σθένος Ὠρίωνος Ἄρκτόν θ’, ἣν καὶ Ἄμαξαν ἐπίκλησιν καλέουσιν, ἥ τ’ αὐτοῦ στρέφεται καί τ’ Ὠρίωνα δοκεύει οἴη δ’ ἄμμορός ἐστι λοετρῶν Ὠκεανοῖο (the old shield described in El. 464–8 contains sun, Pleiades, and Hyades). The cloth is read roughly from west to east (to judge from dawn and dusk). But the order is either not entirely lucid or negligent of the astronomical reality: the Hyades are situated between Pleiades and Orion on the sky (so in Hom. Il. 18.486=Hes. Op. 615), and the full moon positioned as described would outshine some of the constellations. The depiction of the sky has been seen as representing order (cf. 1141– 66an), especially as it has been seized by Heracles in his civilising fight against the Amazons (Chiarini (2002) 45; cf. the parallels for the sidereal sky on gowns etc. symbolising divine or royal powers: Eisler (1910) 58–9). However, the planetary movements are partly described in terms of flight and pursuit, and Orion is armed. So beneath the order of the sky lies internal unrest. 1143 πτέρυγα: LSJ III explains the metaphor from the protective function: the fabric covers the people underneath as fledglings are protected by their mother’s wings; cf. Tro. 750–1 τί μου δέδραξαι χερσὶ κἀντέχηι πέπλων, νεοσσὸς ὡσεὶ πτέρυγας ἐσπίτνων ἐμάς, Andr. 504–5, Lycophr. 291. περιβάλλει: Forms of the historic present (also 1193 bis, 1194, 1196, 1207, 1210, 1213) are too frequent to highlight only turning points of the story (cf. Rijksbaron (2006) 129, modifying Jong (1991) 38–45). Moreover, the description is still background-setting. The continuous emphasis on the significance of events, in particular from the viewpoint of the messenger as eye-witness (cf. Jong p. 8), is a more appropriate description of the function, overlapping with the traditional explanation of the historic present as conveying vividness (e.g. Erdmann (1964) 87–9). 1145 Ἀμαζόνων σκυλεύματ’: The fabric brings together the Greek arch-hero Heracles with the exotic Amazons. In a typically Euripidean twist the details frustrate rather than elucidate: Heracles’ encounter with the Amazons had as its purpose and main spoil the girdle of their queen Hippolyte: Herc. 408–18, Pind. fr. 172, Brommer (1986) 37–40. That he dedicated (otherwise unknown) spoils to the Delphic sanctuary alludes to the episode in which he tried to steal the tripod. Heracles’ fight may also evoke the Athenian amazonomachy, which is part of the city’s mythological heritage (e.g. Lys. 2.4, Dem. 60.8; Tyrrell (1984) 114–28) and ideology to exemplify the superiority and civilising power of Athens (Ridgway (1999) 156). As such it is on a par with the gigantomachy of the parodos. 1146 ἐνῆν: schema Pindaricum: a verb in the singular – most commonly ἦν and esp. at the start of the sentence – is followed by a subject in the plural

436

Commentary

(cf. Barrett Addendum on Hipp. 1255); first in Hes. Th. 321. Its position at the start of the description may signal a change to a higher poetic register. ὑφανταὶ γράμμασιν: so-called γραφαὶ ἀπὸ κερκίδος (Philostr. Imag. 2.5.2); γράφω has lost its original connotation of ‘scratching’ and denotes any figurative representation: cf. Ar. Ran. 938 (in a similar context), IG XII.6,1 261.24–6 (Samos 346/5) σπληνίσκον ὑπογεγραμμένον ἱππέα· σινδονίσκη ὑπογεγ̣ραμμένη ... παραπετάσματα δύο βαρβαρικὰ ποικίλα, IG II2 1514.8–9 (4th cent.) γράμ[ματα ἐ]νυφασμένα. γράμμα is then the image as the visible product of the artistic act (cf. Plat. Crat. 430E). 1147 Οὐρανὸς ἀθροίζων: The theme of the tapestry is stated at the start: a depiction of the sky. Throughout the section the messenger uses personifying language, but Ouranos should rather be imagined as the backdrop: the depiction of Ouranos holding a veil symbolising the firmament is attested only centuries later (LIMC Ouranos 4, Roman 20–17). The metaphorical language is paralleled in Hes. Th. 176 νύκτ᾿ ἐπάγων μέγας Οὐρανός. On the archaic conceptions of the sky cf. Worthen (1988). ἐν αἰθέρος κύκλωι: The aether is the area where the stars are (cf. 84n, El. 991–2), between the earth and the celestial dome (i.e. οὐρανός). On the sun as ἄστρον cf. 870n. 1148 ἐς τελευταίαν φλόγα: I.e. to the place where the chariot sends out the last rays; cf. 1136n. 1150 μελάμπεπλος δὲ Νὺξ: the same epithet in Alexis PCG 93, a tragic cliché based on the association of night with darkness (Bergson (1956) 131), mocked in Ar. Ran. 1337 μελανονεκυείμονα; with the stars, night is ποικιλείμων (PV 24); cf. Hipponax IEG2 47 λευκόπεπλον ἡμέρην. ἀσείρωτον ζυγοῖς: without trace-horses (ἵπποι σειραῖοι), i.e. a carriage and pair. 1151 ἔπαλλεν: ‘let it shoot forward’; intransitive in El. 476 (ἵπποι). θεᾶι: Cf. Or. 174, Androm. fr. 114 νὺξ ἱερά. Night is one of the earliest forces in theogonies (Hes. Th. 123, Musaeus 2 B 14, Epimenides 3 B 5, Ar. Av. 693). 1152 Πλειὰς: collective singular (as in IA 8, Or. 1005). μεσοπόρου: ‘traversed in the middle’: cf. Aesch. Pers. 504–5 ἡλίου κύκλος μέσον πόρον διῆκε. Barnes’ change to μεσοπόρος is unnecessary: the meaning is passive also in the only other occurrence Opp. Hal. 5.46 Κήτεα μεσσοπόροις μὲν ἐνιτρέφεται πελάγεσσι. 1153 ξιφήρης Ὠρίων: The line of stars to the right of Orion’s ‘body’ is interpreted as sword also e.g. in Arat. Phaen. 588, Ov. Met. 8.207, and the later



1106–1228 4th Epeisodion

437

astronomical tradition (cf. Boll (1903) 134). Hom. Od. 11.575 has the real Orion hold a club (also Arat. Phaen. 639, LIMC Orion 4, Attica 470–60). Hes. Op. 619–20 makes him pursue the Pleiades. 1154 Ἄρκτος στρέφουσ’ οὐραῖα χρυσήρη πόλωι: ‘the Bear turning her golden tail by the pole’. The two Bears are closest to the celestial pole and the only constellations that do not dip into the Ocean. Archaic and classical writers commonly mention ‘the Bear’ in the singular, probably referring to the brighter Ursa Maior. Her ‘tail’ is further away from the pole than her ‘body’ and so (seemingly) covers the greater distance; hence she can be said to ‘turn’ her tail. A reference to the Ursa Minor is less likely: her first certain attestation is by Critias TrGF 43 F 3 δίδυμοί τ᾿ ἄρκτοι, and στρέφουσ(α) would have to be intransitive (as the tail end is at the pole and does not turn); that requires Stephanus’ unlikely change to χρυσήρει, giving πόλωι the wider meaning ‘on the firmament’ in a context where, with the mention of the Bear, ‘pole’ is preferable. οὐραῖα would be an adverb (e.g. Badham ‘tail-wise’, ‘reversely’, Wenskus (1990) 76). 1155 ἠκόντιζ’: Intransitive ‘up-shooting’ (Verrall; cf. Or. 1241 εἴσω γῆς ἀκοντίζουσ’ ἀραί) fits Selene’s swift movement on her chariot. Transitive ‘darting her beams’ (so most modern commentators), with ἀκτῖνας to be supplemented, is awkward. 1156 μηνὸς διχήρης: Cf. Bacch. 9.29 νυκτὸς διχομηνίδο[ς] ... σελάνα, Ath. Ag. 16.56 Β b4 (1st half 4th cent.) μ̣ηνὸς ἀπὸ δι[χ]ο̣μ[η]ν̣[ίας] (on the mysteries). The full moon marks the middle of the lunar month, which started with the day of the new moon. Ὑάδες: The Hyades form the ‘head’ of Taurus, situated between Orion and the Pleiades. The identification as Erechtheus’ daughters in Erechth. fr. 370.107–8 is probably an invention improvised for that play (cf. Sonnino) and irrelevant here. The name’s most likely derivation is from ὗς (Kidd on Arat. Phaen. 173), but the popular etymology from ὕειν (schol. ad loc.) indicates their significance as a signal for seamen: their setting in late November was accompanied by storms; cf. Geminus Cal. 103.5 Aujac (29th Scorpio), Pancrates AP 2855–6; hence Verg. Aen. 1.744 pluviasque Hyadas. Hesiod names the setting of Hyades, Pleiades, and Orion as marking the start of the tilling and thus implicitly the end of navigation (Op. 614–17; cf. Morton (2001) 46–7, Beresford (2013) 11–13). 1158 διώκουσ’ ἄστρα: Daybreak is described in terms reminiscent of 84. Cf. also Androm. fr. 114 ὦ νὺξ ἱερά, ὡς μακρὸν ἵππευμα διώκεις ἀστεροειδέα νῶτα.

438

Commentary

1158b–62 Foreign tapestries were known for their preciousness and high craftsmanship: Men. Dysc. 923–4 παραπέτασμα βαρβαρικὸν ὑφαντόν [...] ποδῶν τὸ μῆκος ἑκατόν with Handley, Hdt. 9.82.1, Theophr. Char. 5.9, IG XII.6,1 261.26 (cf. 1143–58an); Greek textile fashion was increasingly influenced by Eastern (in particular Persian) designs in the later 5th cent. (already Pherecydes 7 B 2), with hunts, mixed creatures, and fighting scenes among the most popular motifs: cf. Lorentz (1937) esp. 198–212. The motifs on the walls derive from several (1159 ἄλλα) pieces of fabric. Lee and Goff (1988) 43 emphasise that three of them have in common the depiction of confrontation (Mastronarde (1975) 169 = (2003) 304 recognises the ‘taming of what is wild’); for the μιξόθηρες φῶτες the attractive association of a fight, e.g. the centauromachy, remains unconfirmed, and a purely decorative motif without narrative background may be envisaged (cf. Ar. Ran. 937–8 οὐχ ἱππαλεκτρυόνας, μὰ Δί’, οὐδὲ τραγελάφους, ἅπερ σύ, ἃν τοῖσι παραπετάσμασιν τοῖς Μηδικοῖς γράφουσιν). In a similar manner it is futile to speculate whether a specific naval battle was meant to be evoked by the ships. Interpreters have suggested a prefiguration of Salamis (e.g. Immerwahr (1972) 293), which would support a patriotic Athenian reading of the play; Owen prefers the battle of Lade (in 496), because a ‘barbarian’ cloth is likely to show a Persian victory. Likewise Persian/Phoenician involvement in the Peloponnesian War (from 412) may suggest more contemporary allusions (ch. 4C). However, the multplicity of possible perspectives and layers of time is the only point that can be deduced from Euripides’ allusive description. The uncertainty produced by the lack of specification may be just the desired effect, leaving the interpretation to the associations of the spectators. 1159 ἄλλα βαρβάρων: ‘others, of foreign making’: cf. 161n. 1160 εὐηρέτμους: The epithet is given only to the foreign ships; the possibility of ἀπὸ κοινοῦ attribution to the Greeks is not clear. 1163–6a The artwork that receives the briefest description is that with the most obvious symbolic significance for Ion: Cerops and his daughters, whose main role in myth is to guard Erichthonius and reveal him against Athena’s order – mentioned in 271–4. Openly, Ion pays reverent homage to his future host city’s and house’s great past (cf. 262–3); covertly, however, as Xuthus’ secretly designated successor, he signals his willingness to show himself in the tradition of the Athenian kings. Ultimately, the scene is a ‘prefigurazione, non intenzionale e dunque tragicamente ironica’ (Pellegrino (2003) 108) of Ion’s own affiliation to the royal house (though none of Ion’s direct relatives



1106–1228 4th Epeisodion

439

is mentioned). The birth of Erichthonius is the mirror image and sub-text to his own story as invented by Euripides (ch. 3B). The messenger does not explicitly state the art form of the depiction. The language suggests a statue group rather than another fabric: the description of the walls (1158) is completed; 1163 δέ leads on to a new section. The verb ἔστησε that links Cecrops and the golden cups is standard for setting up statues; notice also the change of tense from the background-setting imperfect (cf. 1122–1228n) to the narrative aorist, producing a seamless transition from the preparation of the venue to the event, i.e. the feast. 1163 κατ’ εἰσόδους: ‘at the entrance’: cf. of men Andr. 1143 στενοπόρους κατ’ ἐξόδους. 1164 σπείρας συνειλίσσοντ’: ‘rolling (his lower body) up into coils’. The accusative states the form the rolling produces: cf. Dion.Per. 979 ἀγκῶνας ἑλίξας (Euphrates). Diggle rejects the paradosis σπείραις συνειλίσσοντ᾿ in favour of Hermann’s σπείραισιν εἱλίσσοντ’. But it is not easy to see how the simplex is an improvement. Where ἑλίσσω stands in the reflexive meaning ‘to turn oneself’ (in dance) it takes the accusative of the person thereby honoured (Herc. 690, Or. 1379, IA 1480); truly intransitive use with compounds is rare and late (ἀνελίσσω Nic. Alex. 596, περιελίσσω Plut. Crass. 29.4). 1166 κρατῆρας ἔστησ’: The double function of the cups as pieces for display and objects of utility supports the transition to the feast. We hear of the importance of gold vessels for representational purposes in the episode concerning Alcibiades in Olympia 416 (Gribble (2012) 63–4). On gold vessels in Delphi cf. 144–83n. The mention of the opulence of the equipment affirms the stunning overall impression of the feast. 1166b–76 The feast is the final reaffirmation of Ion’s ties with Delphi, and its announcement by the herald secures public prominence. The description conveys the idea of plenty (ἐπληρώθη, κοσμηθέντες, εὐόχθου, ἐπλήρουν) and continues the motif of splendour and lavishness. Schmitt-Pantel (1992) 209–21 extensively discusses the public significance of the feast in its supposed threefold nature and function (hence a ‘repas bien étrange’): as Ion’s farewell party (663–5, 1131), the commencement of the ‘common table’ of Xuthus and Ion (652), and retroactive Ge­ nethlia (653). Part of this discussion is, however, invalid: the feast is clearly separate from the birth ritual (cf. 653n, 805n), which is the one Xuthus is performing on Parnassus. The common table, too, is not enacted, as Xuthus stays away; in addition, it was not planned as a ‘banquet civique’ (p. 216), since Ion was to be declared Xuthus’ guest friend, not his son (655–6; cf. 650–3n).

440

Commentary

1166 ἐν δ’ ἄκροισι βὰς ποσὶν: Walking on tiptoe serves to gain in height and thus attract attention, either for prestige or for practical purposes: El. 840, Oen. fr. 570, Soph. Aj. 1230 (to stay unheard: IT 266). 1167 τὸν θέλοντ’ ἐγχωρίων: Xuthus had encouraged Ion to invite his friends (663 φίλων), misjudging his position as a temple slave. Ion now bids farewell to the entire community of Delphi. The people attending are subsequently only called (fellow-)feasters, seen too critically by Schmitt-Pantel (1992) 219 as a hint at non-citizens: cf. 1172n and 1206, 1217. For Lobeck’s correction of L’s ἐγχώριον (on Soph. Aj. 1146) cf. IA 340 τῶι θέλοντι δημοτῶν, Mel.Desm. fr. 494.17. 1169 στεφάνοισι κοσμηθέντες: The sacredness of the environment (in the precinct: 1224–5) is stressed and enhances the solemnity of the celebration: crowns are normally put on only after the meal, for the symposion proper (Plato PCG 71.7–8, Men. PCG 209 τὰς τραπέζας αἴρετε, μύρα, στεφάνους ἑτοίμασον, σπονδὰς ποίει, Blech (1982) 63–74): the crowns at this point can be explained by the fact that visitors to Delphi wear crowns throughout their trip (Soph. Trach. 178–9, Ar. Pl. 22). εὐόχθου βορᾶς: ‘lavish food’; cf. Bacch. Pae. fr. 4.24 δαῖτας εὐόχθους ἐπέρχονται. Photius (ε2275) assumes that the metaphor is taken from the notion of rivers in spate. 1170 ψυχὴν ἐπλήρουν: ‘satisfy the heart’s desire (for)’: cf. Pl. Pltc. 286A τὴν τοῦ πυνθανομένου ψυχὴν ὁ βουλόμενος ἀποπληρῶσαι; more often ‘fill someone’s heart’ with some emotion or topic (e.g. Ar. Vesp. 380, Xen. Cyr. 3.3.51). 1170b–6 After the meal the preparations for the symposiac part of the celebration take some time. The details described (water for washing, aromatic essences, later libations, flutes, and mixed wine) match those mentioned in a comic fragment (Plato PCG 71, quoted in Athen. 15.665B–C to demonstrate the order of events at symposia): Α ἅνδρες δεδειπνήκασιν ἤδη σχεδὸν ἅπαντες. – Β εὖγε. – Α τί οὐ τρέχων σὺ τὰς τραπέζας ἐκφέρεις; ἐγὼ δὲ νίπτρον παραχέων ἔρχομαι. – Β κἀγὼ δὲ παρακορήσων. σπονδὰς δ’ ἔπειτα παραχέας τὸν κότταβον παροίσω. τῆι παιδὶ τοὺς αὐλοὺς ἐχρῆν ἤδη προχείρους εἶναι, καὶ προαναφυσᾶν. – Α τὸ μύρον ἤδη παράχεον βαδίζων Αἰγύπτιον, κἆιτ’ ἴρινον· στέφανον ἔπειθ’ ἑκάστωι δώσω φέρων τῶν ξυμποτῶν. νεοκρᾶτά τις ποιείτω. 1170 ἀνεῖσαν ἡδονὴν: playing on the Homeric formula ἐπεὶ πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο, which is, however, used after both eating and drinking have been completed. Since the drink and other amusements are still to come (1177, 1180), one would expect a specification (Reiske’s βορᾶς:



1106–1228 4th Epeisodion

441

(1754) 157) rather than one of the other, unnecessary, supplements to 1171 that have been proposed (e.g. στέγης Diggle, εὐθύς Fix). 1171 πρέσβυς: The Old Man uses the break before the drinks to take charge: having arrived late he was not appointed to command the slaves but now pushes himself into that role (1173, 1176 αὐτὸς αὑτῶι) – and his conspicuousness will contribute to his discovery (1211). He is not identified by the messenger as a known member of Creusa’s entourage, but the descripton as πρέσβυς makes it clear to the spectators of the 3rd epeisodion who he is. Owen guesses that details about the Old Man were given in a more extended lacuna after 1170, but πρέσβυς is used again in 1214. 1172 γέλων δ’ ἔθηκε: The Old Man resembles Hephaestus serving the gods in Hom. Il. 1.599–600: he limps around the feasters, drawing attention to himself. The laughter in the Homeric passage dissolves divine conflict and helps forget the mortal strife (cf. Halliwell (2008) 59–62); here the contrast between the Old Man’s plan and the relaxed laughter of the feasters creates a frightening contrast and suspense. συνδείπνοις: The prefix does not signal any participation of the messenger or the Old Man in the feast: cf. Plato PCG 71.8 ξυμποτῶν, said by a slave. 1173–4 ἔκ τε γὰρ κρωσσῶν ὕδωρ ... νίπτρα: Cf. Ar. Vesp. 1217 ἀπονενίμμεθ(α), Plato PCG 71.3. νίπτρα is predicative to ὕδωρ. Since the Greeks ate with their fingers, the washing of the hands is as important for physical as for ritual cleansing before the libation (cf. R. Parker (1983) 20– 1). 1174–6 ἔπεμπε ... κἀξεθυμία ... ἦρχ’: The Old Man goes round with difficulty busying himself, hence the imperfect forms (contrast 1171–2). 1174–5 κἀξεθυμία σμύρνης ἱδρῶτα: On the burning of myrrh cf. 89n. Plato PCG 71.6–7 speaks of unguents, probably used for the same purpose of spreading good smell (cf. Xen. Symp. 2.3, Athen. 687D). 1176 ἦρχ’: ‘exercised control’: in order to have the chance of choosing Ion’s chalice, pouring the poison in, and serving it (1182–6), he takes charge of all the cups. 1177–93 The symposion proper, where drinking and entertainment become central (1177–8), is introduced by a libation (cf. Pl. Symp. 176A σπονδάς τε σφᾶς ποιήσασθαι, καὶ ἄισαντας τὸν θεὸν καὶ τἆλλα τὰ νομιζόμενα, τρέπεσθαι πρὸς τὸν πότον, Xen. Symp. 2.1 with Huss, Rudhardt (1992) 240–5). The messenger tells the events with hindsight (cf. 1187 κοὐδεὶς τάδ’ ἤιδειν), including information familiar to the chorus from 1031–4: it shows the careful

442

Commentary

execution of the plot. The Old Man (in strict observance of Creusa’s orders) takes pains to make sure he is in a position to hand a cup to Ion himself: he has a new set of bigger cups brought, so he can take a particularly elaborate one that is suitable for the host (that he is the future master, as suggested in 1183, is not public knowledge) and use the general activity as opportunity to pour the poison into Ion’s cup unnoticed. 1177–8 κρατῆρά τε κοινὸν: Since the crater is ‘shared’ (cj. Valckenaer), the Old Man has to poison Ion’s cup in order to target him alone. He brings the wine to Ion to make sure it reaches the right person, and Ion’s suspicion can hence naturally settle on him later. 1178–80 Ἀφαρπάζειν ... φρενῶν: The language imitates the conversation of bustling slaves in the midst of serving: the supervisor’s abrupt order (impersonal χρεών) to his inferiors is balanced by the distance to the free men being served: the dismissive οἵδ(ε) supports the tone of the slave who sees in the change of cups only the masters’ desire for intoxication (Xen. Symp. 2.26 ἂν μὲν ἁθρόον τὸ ποτὸν ἐγχεώμεθα, ταχὺ ἡμῖν καὶ τὰ σώματα καὶ αἱ γνῶμαι σφαλοῦνται). Using bigger cups for the drinking part seems, however, to have been a normal procedure: cf. Diog.Laert. 1.104 Ἕλληνες ἀρχόμενοι μὲν ἐν μικροῖς πίνουσι, πλησθέντες δὲ ἐν μεγάλοις. 1179 οἰνηρὰ τεύχη: ‘vessels containing wine’: cf. Aesch. Cab. fr. 96 μήποτε κρωσσοὺς μήτ’ οἰνηροὺς μήθ’ ὑδατηρούς. 1181–2 ἦν δὴ φερόντων μόχθος ἀργυρηλάτους χρυσέας τε φιάλας: The interlaced word order imitates the bustle. 1182 φιάλας: the typical bowl for libations (Luschey (1940) 1027, Lissarague (1995) 133). 1183 ὡς ... δὴ: intimating pretence (cf. 654), for the real intention is to kill the boy. But this gesture of subservience is not plausible: Ion is officially just Xuthus’ friend, and the Old Man could not know officially that he was the νέος δεσπότης. 1184–6 εἰς οἶνον ... ἐκλίποι φάος: This part (not all of 1182–6, pace Jong (1991) 50) is reconstruction ex eventu, inserted now to preserve the chronological order of the narrative: it has come to light only during the interrogation. Hence βαλών is delayed (against the Greek habit of presenting the elements in a sentence in chronological order): the elements of the narrative which the messenger learnt later are thereby placed together. 1185 ὅ φασι: The phrase qualifies the purpose clause (ἐκλίποι being Creusa’s aim) rather than δοῦναι (so Jong (1991) 15) and thus indicates the uncertainty of such statements about third parties.



1106–1228 4th Epeisodion

443

δραστήριον: an echo of 985, as if the devoted Old Man repeated his mistress’ words. 1187 ἤιδειν: On scribes’ proclivity to leave out the -ν in 3rd person pluperfect (here imperfect) forms cf. Cobet (1858) 215–22, esp. 221, Jackson (1941b) 164. 1187b–93 The first of two remarkable incidents, an inappropriate interruption of the ceremony, saves Ion’s life. But the blasphemy would not have this effect without Ion’s great piety and sense of purity, as the messenger clearly indicates (1190): if he had used the rest of the wine in his cup for the new libation, it would have meant his death. The causation is indefinite: the messenger avoids explicit attribution of divine intervention to any specific event (as opposed to the unspecific 1118). The interpretation of the blasphemy as inspired by Apollo is only confirmed by Athena in 1565. 1188 τῶι πεφηνότι: Cf. 978; there, however, the participle is qualified by ἐπὶ σοί, which saves it from being meaninglessly general. Furthermore, μετ’ ἄλλων is redundant. So perhaps Paley (1874) should be followed in deleting the line. 1189 βλασφημίαν: This could be any profane interruption of the εὐφημία of the prayer (so Gödde (2011) 250; cf. 98–101n). Hence it need not be anything specifically unpropitious. But the fact that the messenger reports that it comes from one of the servants (presumably Creusa’s, as the messenger) suggests an utterance deliberately subverting the prayer for Ion’s well-being. 1188 παιδί is then a dative of disadvantage, otherwise one of standpoint (signalling his particular susceptibility to dangers of impurity: cf. 98–101 and the next n). 1190 ἐν ἱερῶι μάντεσίν τ’ ἐσθλοῖς: I.e. in an environment in which participants are constantly aware of issues of purity, surrounded by others who pay strict attention to every question of cleanliness. Ion’s closeness to the god and his relationship with the sanctuary have the effect of protecting him while he is trying to preserve their purity. His rescue is thus a contingent effect of Apollo’s caring after him since his birth. 1191 οἰωνὸν ἔθετο: ‘counted it as/decided that it was an omen’; cf. LSJ s.v. τίθημι B II (‘regard as’), but more actively here: he acts upon it as upon an omen. The use of ‘bird’ in the meaning ‘omen’ (cf. [377]n) prefigures the role of the animals immediately afterwards. ἄλλον νέον: ἄλλος often seems to be used pleonastically (Or. 345–6 οἶκον ἄλλον ἕτερον, Page on Med. 705), but here νέον specifies and stresses the

444

Commentary

thoroughness of Ion’s piety: emptying the phialai but keeping the wine in the crater is not enough; the new one must have no connection to the failed prayer. 1192 σπονδὰς θεοῦ: The most plausible god to receive Ion’s libation is Apollo, as the god to whom libations were poured at the start of a symposion could apparently be freely chosen: cf. esp. Athen. 692F πλείστων τῶν μὲν Ἀγαθοῦ Δαίμονος αἰτούντων ποτήριον, τῶν δὲ Διὸς Σωτῆρος, ἄλλων δὲ Ὑγείας καὶ ἑτέρων ἑτέρου ἐπιλεγόντων. Poll. 6.100 makes the three gods mentioned the recipients of consecutive libations: cf. esp. Lissarague (1995) 127; also Nilsson (1932) 228–9, Kircher (1910) 18, Rudhardt (1992) 241–2. Zeus seems to have been a standard, albeit rather at the end. 1193 ἐκσπένδειν: ‘pour out completely’ so that nothing is left, pace Casabona (1966) 248, who proposes a stress on the pouring being ‘brusque et soudain’. Eubulus PCG 71 ὁ δ’ ἱερεὺς εὐηγορῶν ἐν μέσοις αὐτοῖσιν ἑστὼς τὴν καλὴν σκευὴν ἔχων οἶνον ἐξέσπενδε κοτύλωι suggests a ritual meaning, but here the act is performed on wine defiled, hence explicitly not as part of a sacrifice. Normally only a small drop would be poured, the rest drunk: Hom. Il. 6.259–60, Antiph. 1.20. 1194–1208a Since the plot has gone unnoticed, a second impulse is necessary to advance the action. The birds living in the sanctuary have been described as carriers of divine words (180–1), and that function has just been recalled (1191). However, terms with a religious notion that might suggest that they are agents of Apollo are elusive (κῶμος, ἐν δόμοις  ναίουσι, ἐβάκχευσεν). The language becomes more elevated, with repeated tmesis, periphrasis, and epithets. 1194 σιγὴ δ’ ὑπῆλθεν: εὐφημία is restored for the second attempt at libation. For a pause of movement (esp. silence) before divine intervention or a critical moment in the narrative cf. Andr. 1145–6, Herc. 930, Soph. OC 1623, Erdmann (1964) 183, Dodds on Ba. 1084–5. ἐκ δ’ ἐπίμπλαμεν: The only first-person verb in the narrative marks the change in agency: the Old Man is no longer in the foreground performing noteworthy acts that separate him from the collective of servants. 1195 Βιβλίνου τε πώματος: a Thracian wine (Theocr. Id. 14.15, Athen. 31A–B), possibly particularly strong (cf. Pliny NH 14.53). For the different theories on the origin of the name cf. West on Hes. Op. 589. 1196 κἀν: ‘and during’; κἀν τῶιδε μόχθωι = Hel. 1537a, Phoen. 1396a (messenger speeches).



1106–1228 4th Epeisodion

445

ἐσπίπτει δόμους: the same formulation as used for Ion in 1088, which makes the change from δόμοις relatively certain; Euripides consistently uses ἐσπίπτω with accusative (occasional dative after ἐσ-, e.g. Herc. 242 ἐσκομισθῶσιν πόλει, IA [1580], S-D II 157): corruption is also easy with δόμοις at the end of the next line. 1197 κῶμος: On the one hand, the description as κῶμος equates the birds to symposiasts; on the other hand, the term stresses the sacred element in revelling. ἐν δόμοις: probably ‘in the precinct’, which also works for the preceding line (and for θυμέλαι in 46): cf. Diod.Sic. 16.27.2 τὰς τρεφομένας ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι περιστεράς. Objections against repetition of the word at the ends of 1196 and 1197 (e.g. Musso’s δοκοῖς (1985a) 172) are a modern qualm: cf. Jackson (1955) 220–2. 1198 ἄτρεστα: For the adverbial use of the neuter form cf. 538n. Sacrosanct birds in precincts are known from Ar. Av. 525, Hdt. 1.159.3. The indication of their habitat suggests that this is a domesticated form of the rock dove and as such identical with the domestic pigeon (W.G. Arnott (2007) 170–1). The proximity of the Phaedriades offers a suitable environment for such a change of habitat. 1198 †ἀπέσπεισαν: The formulation is impossible. The subject would change twice – without indication – from the birds to the human feasters and back, while the narrative would leap back in time for no good reason and repeat a fact that has already been described in detail. G. Schmid (1884) 24 writes οὗ δ᾿ ἀπέσπεισαν μέθυ ἐνταῦθα χείλη ... καθεῖσαν, a possible text (further improved by Nauck’s ἀπεσπείσθη), but one that makes the birds sink their beaks into the place rather than the liquid. Corruption of the verb seems more likely: ἀπέβλεψαν might be an alternative, but ἐς αὐτό would be clumsy and dispensable. AK proposes to make μέθυ the subject, e.g. ἀπέστιλβεν, which is stylistically superior (cf. Plut. Lys. 28.4 οἰνωπὸν ἐπιστίλβει τὸ χρῶμα), though the verb is not attested in tragedy. With the singular in the sub-clause the subject is always clear. 1199 χείλη: here first in the meaning ‘beak’, but cf. Hom. Il. 16.428 αἰγυπιοὶ γαμψώνυχες ἀγκυλοχεῖλαι. πώματος κεχρημέναι: ‘in want of drink’; cf. Cycl. 88 βορᾶς κεχρημένοι, Hom. Od. 20.378 σίτου καὶ οἴνου κεχρημένον. 1200 εἷλκον: ‘drank in long draughts’ (LSJ A II 4): cf. Cycl. 417, Phoen. 987, Ar. Eq. 107. The birds are thirsty, and they drink enough to make the act conspicuous (or the poison work).

446

Commentary

εὐπτέρους: a rare lyric epithet (Telestes PMG 806, Soph. OT 175), here used twice within a few lines as the tone becomes more elevated, the second time even close to epic periphrasis in εὔπτερον δέμας. 1203 εὐθὺς: indicating the strength of the Gorgonic poison. 1204 κἀβάκχευσεν: The word does not denote the consumption of wine per se but the state of possession by Dionysus (as in the mysteries: e.g. Ba. 251, Hdt. 4.79.4, 4.108.2), then generally a state of frenzy (e.g. Tro. 341, Or. 338). For Zeitlin (1989) 164 it is still a ‘Bacchic death’ in a setting ‘under Dionysos’ auspices’. 1204–5 ὄπα ἀξύνετον αἰάζουσ’: Cf. 168. The cry defies interpretation, another hint at birds’ capacity of telling omens (cf. IT 1092 εὐξύνετον ξυνετοῖς βοάν, of Halcyon): here any such message from the gods seems to the messenger to be missing. The uninterpretability of the bird’s cry is itself a bad omen: cf. Lee’s reference to Soph. Ant. 1001–2 ἀγνῶτ’ ἀκούω φθόγγον ὀρνίθων, κακῶι κλάζοντας οἴστρωι καὶ βεβαρβαρωμένωι. The paradoxical juxtaposition with ἀξύνετον shows that αἰάζω loses its onomatopoetic connection with the cry αἰαῖ (Arnould (1990) 154; cf. Hel. 186). 1205 ἐθάμβησεν δὲ πᾶς: The narrative of the bird’s death is briefly interrupted by a shift to the onlookers’ point of view, signalled first by focalised ἀξύνετον and reversed in 1207. ἐθάμβησεν: Messenger speeches have, proportionally, a much higher frequency of unaugmented forms than other trimeter texts (18 out of 20 undisputed cases in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides), which are commonly explained as epicising (Lautensach (1899) 168, Page on Med. 1141) or metri causa (Bergson (1953)). Here, however, L’s αἰάζουσα θάμβησεν is probably the wrong ‘correction’ of scriptio plena; the unaugmented form of the aorist should be avoided and removed (as usually done in the analogous Med. 1141, 1207, Hec. 580, 1153, Soph. Phil. 371): of the 20 instances 18 occur at the start of the line; Ba. 1134 and the instances rejected by editors but defended by Rijksbaron (2006) 147 are all placed directly at line end or followed only by a particle. None of these is the case here; in addition, emendation produces median caesura, which suitably highlights the contrast (a frequent function: Stephan (1981) 86) and the sudden shift of focus: cf. Soph. OC 462. 1207 ἀπασπαίρουσα: The heavy three-word trimeter describes the bird’s death (Marcovich (1984) 112), imitating its ever weaker death throes. The etymology of ἀσπαίρω has been traced back to ‘kicking with the heel’ (Lubotsky (2006) II 1008), and the word is frequently used in the context of dying in the Homeric poems: e.g. Od. 22.473 ἤσπαιρον δὲ πόδεσσι μίνυνθά περ, οὔ τι μάλα δήν; cf. El. 843, Antiph. 2.4.5. The compound is a hapax.



1106–1228 4th Epeisodion

447

φοινικοσκελεῖς: For epithets used at decisive points of messenger speeches with a close-up effect cf. e.g. Med. 1164, IT 312 εὐπήνους ὑφάς, Hel. 1570 εὐσφύρωι ποδί, Or. 1457 ἀμφιπορφύρων πέπλων, Jong (1991) 86–7. On the possible intratextual links with the third bird of Ion’s monody cf. 162n. 1208 χηλὰς παρεῖσα: ‘with the claws limp’: cf. Alc. 204 παρειμένη. 1208b–16 Ion immediately reads the situation and reacts with a spontaneous but carefully executed investigation. The importance he had attached to evidence before (237n) now manifests itself in a proper criminal procedure. He follows the rules of the Athenian ἀπαγωγή (on which cf. Hansen (1976) esp. 21–4) for a speedy conviction: he catches the suspect red-handed, secures the evidence, elicits a confession, and then hands the Old Man over to the authorities (as may be inferred from 1219). 1208–9 γυμνὰ δ’ ἐκ πέπλων μέλη ὑπὲρ τραπέζης ἧχ’: Cf. IT 1404 γυμνὰς ἐκ ἐπωμίδας (suppl. Markland). The adjective underlines the swiftness of Ion’s reaction and response. Presumably he jumps across the low table, baring his limbs (Rh. 797–8 ἵππων ἵεσαν φυγῆι πόδα); then he runs towards the Old Man to hold and search him. The time of running is covered by the direct discourse; that the movement is not mentioned increases the pace of the narrative. Most commentators assume that Ion just reaches out to the Old Man (El. 799 πρὸς ἔργον πάντες ἵεσαν χέρας). That not only requires the Old Man to be very close to Ion at that moment (which he has no reason to be after the plot has failed) but holding him across the table is impracticable; and it also disturbs the order of the narrative, as the grabbing (1213 λαβών) would plausibly have to precede the shouting (1210 βοᾶι). Why Owen believes the legs could not be bared through a jumping motion is unclear: the short chiton of Euripides’ time left part of the leg free, just as it had short sleeves for the arms (cf. Bieber (1928) 20–1). 1209 μαντευτὸς: ‘mentioned in the oracle (as son)’; cf. 1217 πυθόχρηστος. 1210 ἔμελλεν ... κτανεῖν: Cf. 1265; Phrynichus Attic. (Ecl. 313) and W. Dindorf object to μέλλω ‘intend to’ with aorist infinitive, but cf. Med. 393, Soph. OT 967, Ar. Av. 366–7. 1211 σὴ γὰρ ἡ προθυμία: Cf. 1173: not only was it the Old Man who brought Ion the poisoned wine, his behaviour also betrays that he was a knowing accomplice. 1213 ἐρευνᾶι: ‘search’ a person: of places Antiph. 5.29 (in an ἀπαγωγή), Dem. 25.61.

448

Commentary

1214 ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρωι: ‘red-handed’. The phrase (discussed by E. Harris (1994)) describes the necessary condition for an ἀπαγωγὴ κακούργων in Attic law (αἱρεῖν, λαμβάνειν, or ἐξελέγχειν ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρωι e.g. Aeschin. 1.91). Homicide could apparently be covered by that procedure: cf. Harrison II 222–5, Hansen (1976) 27, Gagarin (1979) 317–21. ἔχονθ’: Cf. Din. 1.29 εἰλημμένον ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρωι δῶρ’ ἔχοντα, 2.6. The object is lost in the lacuna. As an alternative, Musgrave proposed φάρμαχ᾿ ὡς ἔχονθ’; however, πρέσβυν is unlikely to be a gloss, as it would be too obvious to be required and, more importantly, the change of subject from ἕλοι to ὤφθη would be awkward. 1215 ὤφθη: sc. ἔχων (φάρμακα vel sim.): ‘was caught’; cf. 1116 (here for the doer rather than the deed), IT 933, Hipp. 321, Thuc. 4.74.2. μόλις: with κατεῖπ’, to stress the Old Man’s loyalty under pressure. ἀναγκασθείς approximates concessive sense: here it denotes the extraction of evidence through torture (cf. Lys. 13.25 βασανιζόμενος ἴσως ἀναγκασθήσεται; for non-violent means of forcing litigants to provide evidence e.g. Antiph. 6.23, Andoc. 1.22). μόλις is probably the only form used in late 5th-cent. drama and the change from L’s μόγις is advisable. μόγις occurs five times in the mss of Euripides: four times in the alphabetic plays (here and 1253, Cycl. 577, Hel. 653) and once (Phoen. 310) only in some recentiores. μόλις occurs 19 times as the only reading. In Sophocles μόγις does not occur against 15 examples of μόλις; in Aristophanes, there are 14 instances of μόλις, and only in one of them does a ms offer the reading μόγις. Only in the Aeschylean corpus is there a more balanced picture (with μόγις in some mss in two out of four occurrences: Pers. 509, PV 131, possibly Prom.Pyrk. fr. 204a.14). 1217–25a Creusa has been revealed as the mover behind the plot, so Ion convenes a trial before the leading men of Delphi. His short speech of accusation results in a death sentence against Creusa on two charges (1224–5): attempted violation of temple property (i.e. ἱεροσυλία) by assassinating Ion and defilement of the temple (i.e. ἀσέβεια: cf. 46). The judicial persecution evokes different scenarios: the Athenian ἀπαγωγή against the Old Man, the ad hoc-trial, the verdict of popular justice (cf. 971– 5n), but also the actual institutions of Delphi with their judicial powers: the amphictyony passed judgments where it felt that the rights, status, or worship of the sanctuary had been infringed (e.g. Aeschin. 3.122–4, Plut. Mor. 304E–F; Sánchez (2001) esp. 478–81).



1106–1228 4th Epeisodion

449

1218 πυθόχρηστος: ‘delivré, désigné, approuvé par l’oracle’ (Redard (1953) 100): Aesch. Cho. 900–1 Λοξίου μαντεύματα (i.e. responses) τὰ πυθόχρηστα, Plut. Mor. 163B πυθοχρήστου τῆς ἀποικίας ἡγεμόνος. 1219 κἀν κοιράνοισι Πυθικοῖς: Delphi has been described as a stratified society (416) but the constitutional form has not been defined. In interpre­ tatio Attica the κοίρανοι and ἄνακτες could be the magistrates in charge of the jurisdiction, i.e. archons and in particular the βασιλεύς for religious offences. The terms are otherwise used by Euripides for actual rulers, which would set them apart from the commoners (1140 λαός) and explain why they are not at the feast. 1220–1: Ion’s speech is reduced to the statement of the offence; Euripides dispenses with any argumentation or amplification. The arguments will be traded in the exodos. The very brevity intensifies the plea. 1220 Ὦ γαῖα σεμνή: γαῖα is specifically the land of Delphi that is invoked, not the goddess of the earth as such, hence no capitalisation. Ge/Chthon is invoked as witness five times in Euripides in connection with offences done or suffered (Langholf (1971) 49), but only in the invocations to particular areas here and Tro. 1302 (Troy) are no other deities added (contrast Med. 1251–2, El. 1177–82). 1220–1 τῆς Ἐρεχθέως ὕπο ξένης γυναικός: Creusa is referred to in a formal way: women are not named in public but identified by the name of their κύριος (cf. 259n). The regular mention of her place of origin is here replaced by the negative: she is not from Delphi. In both parts Ion avoids potential embarrassment: his sponsor Xuthus, Creusa’s formal κύριος as husband, is passed over just as Athens, the place to which he is heading. 1221 θνήισκομεν: virtually ‘they are trying to kill me’, similarly Or. 1301. 1222 ὥρισαν: ‘determined’, for any kind of regulation: e.g. Hec. 259, Soph. Ant. 452, Lycurg. 1.8, 127 ὁ θεὶς τὸν νόμον ... θάνατον οὐχ ὁρίσας. πετρορριφῆ: On stoning cf. 1112n. 1223 ἐμὴν δέσποιναν: After the relatively impersonal narrative a noticeable personal touch is reintroduced with the hint at the speaker’s relationship to Creusa, preparing the concluding statement. οὐ ψήφωι μιᾶι: probably ‘not just in one vote’, but on the two charges (cf. 1217–25an). For ψῆφος in the meaning ‘decision’, even of a monarch’s, cf. Andr. 518, Aesch. Sept. 198. ‘Not just by (a margin of) one vote’, i.e. by a large majority, is a possible translation: Ar. Vesp. 1207 ψηφοῖν δυοῖν ‘by two votes’. However, anything but a unanimous verdict would be surprising, and the information is irrelevant for Creusa’s fate.

450

Commentary

1224 τὸν ἱερὸν: Ion still counts as part of the temple property, despite being freed: cf. 310n on manumission. ἔν τ’ ἀνακτόροις: The meaning is apparently ‘amidst the temples’, i.e. ‘in the sanctuary’, but Ion in amplification makes it sound as if it had happened in the temple. Either way, the purity of the sanctuary has been in danger. 1225b–8 At the end of their speeches messengers regularly reveal their attitude towards the narrated events (Rassow (1883) 23, Jong (1991) 74–6). The messenger empathises with the reasons for Creusa’s action. He pities her fate and interprets it all as the result of her longing for a child. 1225 πᾶσα δὲ ζητεῖ πόλις: In Delphi the officials of the amphictyony could lead out the people to implement their verdicts: cf. Aeschin. 3.122. But the collective execution of sentence is a regular feature of similar cases and necessary where the sentence is stoning (1112n). 1226 ἀθλίως σπεύσασαν ἀθλίαν ὁδόν: The polyptoton is classed as ‘reines Klangspiel’ typical for Euripides by Gygli-Wyss (1966) 129, but the strong statement of Creusa’s miserableness fits the expression of a personal view. For ὁδός ‘course of action’ cf. Med. 1067. 1227 γὰρ: Owen (following Herwerden) deletes 1227–8 as poorly written, as if they explained ὁδόν. Rather, γάρ adds the text-immanent justification of his personal judgment (ἀθλίως/ἀθλίαν). Φοίβου πάρα: an ambiguous formulation full of dramatic irony: the messenger restates that he sees Apollo’s influence at work in the discovery of the plot (cf. 1118). But Apollo’s influence stretches further back than he knows and ultimately works to Creusa’s benefit. 1228 κοινῆι: used as preposition with dative: cf. Hel. 829, fr. 823. ἀπώλεσεν: Creusa has lost her life together with (the prospect of) children.

1229–49 Choral Ode Instead of a stasimon, the chorus bridge the time until Creusa’s arrival, which is now dramaturgically to be expected, with a short astrophic ode (on this type of song cf. Centanni (1991) 63–4); similar songs occur after mes-



1229–49 Choral Ode

451

senger speeches in Herc. 1016–38 and Ba. 1153–64, where the chorus were alone onstage with the messenger, and Hipp. 1268–82. The chorus react directly to what they have heard: the song does not contain any reflection that pertains beyond the present situation; it deals only with the consequences of the plot’s discovery. The lyric part (1229–43) does so with more emotional immediacy, while the anapaests (1244–9) are more pensive. The chorus are concerned about Creusa and for themselves, expecting as they do to be punished together with her. Just as the messenger did (1115), they identify their own fate with that of their mistress, since they feel fellow conspirators in the murder plot (as argued by Hose (1990) 208) and supported it by their curse in the 3rd stasimon (cf. 1235n). The more correct and more specific offence of contravening Xuthus’ order to stay silent is not brought up. Once again (as in the prayer of the 1st stasimon) the chorus speak in place of Creusa, anticipating her aporia on her arrival on stage in 1250. The lyrics draw a contrast between extreme alternatives: death or escape. The latter is described as unrealistic through two conventional ἀδύνατα of an otherworldly existence: the migration into the air and the hiding under the earth (1238–9). These are juxtaposed with the fastest realistic means of flight (1241–3). The next scene then presents further means of escape, first the temporary solution of supplication, then the resolution of the conflict through recognition. The fact that the chorus come up with an alternative to death immediately after the song (1255) shows that this possibility has been suppressed in the song to permit the chorus the expression of its desperation. Giving brief reflection on the situation to the chorus, Euripides will not later lose time on reflection again, when Creusa is present. It allows for a rapid start to the next scene, when the usual topoi of flight no longer need going through and Creusa is immediately put in a position in which supplication is the only option. The style shows some commotion at the start, with two anadiploses within three lines. The rest of the ode shows a calm progression of thought, in extended syntactic constructions (1231–4, 1238–43), with a series of dichotomies (1236–7, 1239–40, 1241–3) and simple word order throughout. Metre: 1229–43 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235

‒‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ wil ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒ ‖? pher ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑‒ gl ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒‒ pher ⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒ 2ion÷/anacr ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒†⏑‒† ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ gl

452

1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243

Commentary

‒⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ gl ‒⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒‒‒‒ ‖ gl mol ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ gl ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒ ‖ gl ba ⏑⏑‒‒⏑⏑‒‒ pher ⏑⏑‒‒⏑⏑‒‒ pher ‒‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ wil ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒‒  pher

The metre is almost entirely aeolic. The choice of that genre over dochmiacs chimes with the stylistic observation that the chorus do not seem panic-stricken but – despite their agitation – already muted and resigned to their fate. The frequency of resolutions, in particular at the beginning of cola is, however, conspicuous. Period ends cannot be established by hiatus or brevis in longo, but the ends of suitable clausular cola coincide with sense breaks at 1230, 1237, 1239 (cf. also on 1234). 1231: Buijs (1985) 70–1 proposes the necessary change to make the colon cohere with the metrical character of the song. Diggle (1994) 470 n.135 rejects this, but his interpretation as 2ia ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑‒‒, while metrically permissible, is undesirable and relies on W. Dindorf’s φανερὰ [γὰρ] φανερὰ τάδ᾿ ἤδη. 1233: For ionic metre (cf. 1240–1) in a glyconic context cf. Herc. 677~692. 1232 has led the way, being very close to 2ion. 1234: A clausular colon would be welcome: σταγόσιν could help produce another ionic colon; the deletion of φόνωι (WS) would then create a catalectic ionic dimeter. 1237, 1239: These cola should be analysed as compounds (cf. Itsumi (1984) 78–9). They serve as reasonably safe markers of period end. 1240–3: For very similar periods cf. Herc. 359–63~389–93, 375–9~403–7 (3pher gl pher), 419–24, 436–41 (4pher gl pher), Ba. 907–12 (gl 3pher ||? gl pher). The rhythm is ambiguous and could also be 2ion (on the ambiguity cf. West (1982) 127). 1229–30 1229  οὐκ ἔστ’ οὐκ ἔστιν: For the anadiplosis cf. Or. 1143, Bell. fr. 286 οὐκ εἰσίν, οὐκ εἴσ᾿. 1229–30 θανάτου παρατροπὰ: Cf. Andr. 526–7 μόρου παράτροπον (also Hel. 360) with the same objective genitive.



1229–49 Choral Ode

453

1230 μελέαι μοι: It comes as a surprise that the chorus speak of themselves after the immediate danger seems to be to Creusa. The threat to their own lives had not been mentioned since 1115. 1231–7 Their death seems inevitable to the chorus. The reason – the discovery of the plot rather than its failure – is apparently explained in the participle clause. By contrast, the use of γάρ is intratextual: it justifies the blunt statement of 1229–30 (cf. Denniston 60–1). 1231 φανερὰ γὰρ φανερὰ: Anadiplosis can be interrupted by a particle (Phoen. 103 ὄρεγέ νυν ὄρεγε, Or. 1500, Breitenbach 217–20). It is implausible that γάρ should have been added in the course of transmission. τάδε δὴ: Cf. Soph. OC 111 πορεύονται γὰρ οἵδε δή τινες. τάδε is anaphoric (cf. Aesch. Sept. 848 τάδ᾿ αὐτόδηλα), referring to the inevitability of death. The particle, in its basic meaning drawing attention to something clearly visible or understandable (‘clearly’: cf. Wakker (1997a) 216 n.17), supports φανερά. ἤδη (L) would have little power: given the following considerations it would not mean ‘before we have been told the verdict’ (they practically have been in 1115 and 1222–8) but ‘before any attempt at an escape.’ It is redundant if a causal/instrumental or temporal construction follows. 1232–4: The transmitted text (with σπονδάς) does not make sense, but a small reinterpretation of the letters (σπονδᾶς) suffices to fit almost the entire period into a genitive absolute explaining φανερά. The dative φόνωι has been taken by Hermann and others as instrumental (ruling σπονδᾶς), explaining φανερά and referring to the murder of the dove or Ion. But this changes the construction of the sentence at the last moment, when the listener has already settled with a genitive absolute, causing confusion without a substantial contribution to the sense. What is more, σπονδῆς φόνωι is harsh Greek and the objective genitive hardly possible. The dativus finalis which Owen seems to envisage (‘mingled murderously’) is equally poor grammar. Diggle (oraliter) proposes an adjective (e.g. φονίοις, which would give the same colon as Ba. 112~127). We may just dispense with the word altogether (cf. Metre). 1232 ἐκ: with a liquid: cf. Aesch. Suppl. 953 ἐκ κριθῶν μέθυ. 1233 θοᾶς ἐχίδνας: θοός is used by Euripides only of physical pace (for which cf. 997 ἦιξεν). So the interpretation as describing the quick effect of the poison (in line with 1203; so Lee) would require not only enallage (θοᾶς actually qualifying σταγόσι) but also an unusual sense of the adjective. Nauck’s τ᾿ὀλοᾶς (1854) may be a valuable idea.

454

Commentary

1235 θύματα νερτέρων: ‘offering to the nether gods’: in the 3rd stasimon Ion had been dedicated to the underworld in the appeal to Hecate. Subjecting someone to a curse is equal to a consecration to the deity (analogous to a sacrificial victim): cf. Versnel (1991) 72–81; e.g. CIL VIII 12505 (=Audollent 228) te rogo, qui infernales partes tenes, commendo tibi Iulia(m) Faustilla(m), Ma­ rii filia(m), ut eam celerius abducas et ibi in numero tu (h)a[b]ias, SGD 109, NGCT 89. The apposition 1236–7, equating θύματα and συμφοραί, confirms that the θύματα (‘victims’) cannot be the chorus in the way Amphitryon calls himself and his family in Herc. 453 (cf. Aesch. Ag. 1118 θύματος λευσίμου, Ar. Av. 901): they cannot be themselves συμφοραί. Instead, συμφοραί must here be ‘the cause of disaster’ (similar to ‘to be someone’s downfall’), as λεύσιμοι καταφθοραί means ‘the cause of her death by lapidation.’ 1238–43 An ἀδύνατον using highly stereotyped elements (cf. 797–9n) in a new combination: on the one hand, the women express that what they need is a supernatural escape (resumed in 1244–5), either being transformed into birds or sinking beneath the earth; on the other hand, all they have at their disposal are the common means of rapid human transport, by ship or by horsepower (cf. Med. 1122–3). The disparity between their needs and resources underlines the hopelessness of their situation. Only in Med. do we find a similar combination (loc.cit. and 1296–7), where the irony lies in the extraordinary potential for flight by means of Helios’ chariot. The topos of rescue through the air or underground is often connected with escape from shame (Hipp. 1290–3, Hec. 1100–6, pollution in Herc. 1157–8). The specification of the underground place as Hades in Hipp. and Hec. and the analogy of similar death wishes (Andr. 846–50, Suppl. 829–31, PV 582–3, 1040–53) suggests that instead of carefree life in a remote place the chorus long for death in order to deny their enemy victory (cf. Parry (1966) 321–2, Garrison (1995) 80–1). 1238 πτερόεσσαν: For escape imagery and the transformation into a bird cf. e.g. 797–8, Hipp. 733, Andr. 862; for wings: Hipp. 1292, Herc. 1158, Pha. 271. 1239 χθονὸς ὑπὸ σκοτίους μυχοὺς: ‘down to the shadowy recesses of the earth’ rather than ‘down below ...’, an all but formulaic use of the preposition: Hipp. 1290 ὑπὸ γῆς τάρταρα, Pha. 273 γᾶς ὑπὸ κεῦθος and in other contexts Hipp. 1416 = Aesch. Pers. 839 γῆς ὑπὸ ζόφον; hence Hartung’s change from genitive to accusative is correct. The idea derives from Hom. Il. 22.482 ὑπὸ κεύθεσι γαίης (cf. 4.182 τότε μοι χάνοι εὐρεῖα χθών). For the cliché of χθονὸς μυχοί (i.e. the underworld) cf. e.g. Hcld. 218, PV 433, from Hes. Th. 119, Anacr. PMG 395.9–10.



1229–49 Choral Ode

455

πορευθῶ: The deliberative subjunctive makes the question rhetorical: deliberation is futile; cf. Hec. 1099 ποῖ τράπωμαι, ποῖ πορευθῶ; Herc. 1157–8, Pha. 271–3. 1240 ἄταν: ‘disaster, bane’, with epexegetic genitive (cf. Soph. Aj. 1187–8 δορυσσοήτων μόχθων ἄταν ἐπάγων). Lee’s ‘disfigurement’ is an unnecessary limitation. 1242 ὠκιστᾶν χαλᾶν: The genitive of quality replaces an adjective similar in meaning to the epic ὠκύπους; cf. K-G I 264(c). The leading noun τεθρίππων follows ἐπιβᾶσ(α) (cf. Herc. 380), if it is not ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with πρύμνας ἔπι. 1243 πρύμνας: Both ends of ancient ships offer space to stand on (Tro. 1047, Hel. 1603 vs Hel. 1563, Teleph. fr. 727c.28), but on sailing ships, at least, passengers would rather be found on the stern (Casson (1971) 180). If the exact placement is of significance here, it is probably because the position at the stern allows to watch out for pursuers. 1244–9 οὐκ ἔστι connects the transitional anapaestic section with 1229, and the topics flight and punishment are taken up in reverse order. The anapaests have been suspected by Kranz (1910) 66 n.1 and again by G. Müller (1983) 47, mainly on the grounds that they merely repeat the ideas of the lyric part. However, the difference lies in the more reflective mindset that comes with the change from the lyric mode of expression to recitative: 1229–43 are the immediate reaction to the messenger speech, outlining the likely (extreme) consequences of the events reported; by contrast, the anapaests are not unequivocal, more prospective: the chorus wait for the dramatic action to unfold and contemplate the cause (i.e. their own involvement in the plot) and the reason for their predicament (the opposition from the god). They widen the perspective after the introspective lyrics. 1244–5 The chorus give a hint that only an external force – in tragic terms: a deus ex machina – can resolve the situation. But Euripides undermines such an expectation by the stalemate of the following supplication scene: a deity will come, but only much later and after the issue has changed as a consequence of the recognition. The chorus allude to the folktale motif of rapture (cf. Gieselbusch (1923)) particularly prominent in epic (but Hel. 44–5, Or. 1494–7). 1244 οὐκ ἔστι λαθεῖν: Calls to retain the paradosis λαβεῖν (most recently Neitzel (1989) 355–6) are caused by the misunderstanding of ὅτε μή, which here means ‘unless’ and goes with ἐκκλέπτει (on the conditional note of

456

Commentary

ὅτε cf. K-G II 447 n.1). χρήιζων (‘the god willing’), equivalent to θέλων, belongs to religious language and stands alone: Suppl. 597 ἢν μὴ τὸν θεὸν χρήιζοντ’ ἔχηι and Fraenkel on Ag. 664. Cf. Hom. Od. 16.197–8 ὅτε μὴ θεὸς αὐτὸς ἐπελθὼν ῥηϊδίως ἐθέλων θείη νέον ἠδὲ γέροντα. For ἐκκλέπτειν on raptures cf. IT 28, Aesch. Ag. 662, Eum. 153; in 946 in a different context. Neitzel’s interpretation of λαβεῖν (‘to seize’, i.e. us and Creusa) relies on μή going with χρήιζων and presupposes that the chorus have foreknowledge of Apollo’s intention to save Creusa. His translation of ἐκκλέπτειν ‘wenn der Gott (sie) fortstiehlt (sc. zu seinem Altar)’ is not just impossible to reconstruct from the Greek text without knowledge of the next scene but inappropriate: the object mentioned last is the chorus, not Creusa, and they can reach the altar without divine help. 1246–9 After the chorus have described Creusa’s stoning and their own misfortune as certain outcome (1236–7), they seem to take a step back, in expectation of its actual taking place. The anapaests are more reflective than the lyrics and take into consideration the question of the righteousness of the chorus: a rare moment of self-criticism before justice is hotly debated between Ion and Creusa in the following scene. 1246 ὦ μελέα δέσποινα: The thought of Creusa replaces an entrance announcement, which would slow down the fast pace of the action (a ‘talk of the devil’-link: Halleran (1985) 22, 45). μένει: ‘(What suffering of the soul) is awaiting you?’ μένω is the regular term for imminent suffering (e.g. Hcld. 60, Hipp. 369, Tro. 431 οὐκ οἶδ’ οἷά νιν μένει παθεῖν; with the same construction Soph. Aj. 641–3). The present tense (instead of μενεῖ) is also correct: cf. Ag. 1563–4 μίμνει δὲ μίμνοντος ἐν θρόνωι Διὸς παθεῖν τὸν ἔρξαντα. The chorus’ two questions, one about Creusa, one about themselves, stand in parallel (just as 1236–7) and through their similarity in meaning support each other’s interpretation. μένει (Portus (1599) 103) has been attacked by Neitzel (1989) 356–7 (who proposes ἀμελεῖ) and Holzhausen (1999) 231–4 (who accepts L’s μέλει), wrongly and against all modern editors. μέλει is a palaeographically easy mistake and may also be influenced by μελέα. Acc. c. inf. after μέλει is unparalleled. 1247 ψυχῆι: a dative of respect. The reference to the soul harks back to Creusa’s own words 859, 877. It is the seat of emotions (here esp. pain): cf. Med. 474, Hipp. 259, Tro. 640, fr. 908.8, Soph. Ant. 317, Sullivan (2000) 105. ἆρα: ‘Are we really...?’, signalling a hesitant or sceptical expectation; cf. Ba. 862 (with Rijksbaron). The thought and phrasing are so close to Antiphon 87 Β 58 ὅστις δὲ δράσειν μὲν οἴεται τοὺς πέλας κακῶς, πείσεσθαι δ’ οὔ, οὐ



1250–[1622] Exodos

457

σωφρονεῖ that coincidence is unlikely, though a common source in proverb may be possible (cf. Hoffmann (1997) 233; parallels for the thought from Hes. Op. 265–6 in Pedrick). The fragment from περὶ ὁμονοίας in its entirety argues that when trying to harm somebody, deliberation and hesitation are in place and a sign of σωφροσύνη, as the hope of getting away unscathed is illusory. The context seems to be a plea for civic concord and the renunciation of aggression. If Euripides is alluding to this intellectual background (on another possible point of contact cf. 642–4an), the chorus concur with the principle that force will provoke a reaction and accept that the plot will rebound upon them. The question of the justifiability of their action, i.e. whether they react to an unjust action by Ion, is irrelevant. ὥσπερ τὸ δίκαιον (‘as is fair’: cf. Pl. Laches 181C, Isyllus CA 84=IG IV2,1 128.84) is not to be understood as repenting for their unjust action, but of the risk-taking.

1250–[1622] Exodos The plot arrangement, with the recognition following the intrigue, unites contrary emotional extremes in one scene: the growing hostility between the main characters in their confrontation and the happiness of their recognition and reunion. Both parts end with the unexpected appearance of an emissary of Apollo: the conflict and debate (1250–1319) break off with the entrance of the Pythia, who forbids Ion to continue the persecution of Creusa and orders him instead to leave Delphi. At the same time she initiates the recognition by handing over the primary recognition token of the basket. The reunion (1369–1548) is rounded off by Athena’s appearance. She, too, brings a conflict to an end, as Ion is in doubt that Apollo is his father and that he has given an inaccurate oracle. In this way the deus ex machina structure is doubled (1320–[68]n); the impasses are broken, first on the human level, then – as the issues cannot be settled by human knowledge alone – through the intervention of a goddess. The regular functions of the deus ex machina are split between the Pythia and Athena: the former helps dissolve the basic conflict of the play by precipitating the reconciliation between Creusa and Ion; Athena then confirms Creusa’s statements and reveals the future beyond the frame of the dramatic action. The exodos demonstrates that coincidence (i.e. τύχη) has no major part to play: when the action is gridlocked, Apollo sends an emissary; the Pythia has kept and releases the recognition tokens at his will (1343–5), and

458

Commentary

Athena explicitly names him responsible for the action leading to the happy ending of the play (1565). Ion is destined by his father Apollo to go on and become a renowned figure. Hence the focus is strongly on Apollo’s actions and behind-the-scenes care for his son, as in the prologue. The frame of the divine speeches functions as a foil to the blindness that the uninformed mortal characters display during the plot – though Athena’s speech in particular is biased in favour of Apollo and glosses over some problems in his role (1553–1605n). 1250–1319 1320–[68] 1369–1548 1549–[1622]

Creusa’s and Ion’s confrontation The Pythia Recognition Dea ex machina and exit

The structure possibly resembles that of Alexandros, the action of which probably comprised Paris’ flight to the altar and the recognition with Hecuba (cf. Snell (1937) 48 n.4, Matthiessen (1964) 140, Collard on Alex. p. 41). In Ion the dramatic configuration is further complicated: 1) The confrontation of the characters is not a recapitulation of the intrigue, instead the initial aggressor (Creusa) becomes the suppliant fleeing from the previous victim (Ion); the roles are reversed, aggressor and victim no longer clearly identifiable: Creusa’s right to supplication in particular becomes questionable after her attack on Ion; the ground for an intensive debate is laid (1282–1319). The verbal duel between the main characters gains in intensity as both have strong arguments against the other. 2) The recognition of Creusa and Ion is not the climax of good news. It is the fulfilment of a long desire but will be outdone still by the revelation of Ion’s relationship with Apollo. His divine heritage is even more surprising to Ion than Creusa’s maternity. It elevates the plot and the happiness of the ending above other, only mortal, family reunions in tragedy (ch. 2). 1250–1319 Creusa’s and Ion’s Confrontation After the plot has failed, the conflict between Ion and Creusa comes to a head, and only Creusa’s supplication at the altar prevents an irreversible catastrophe. The supplication, though not mentioned among the escape options in the choral song, may not come unexpectedly to the audience: supplication scenes occur as a spontaneous way of suspending the conflict also in Alexandros and probably in Telephos (cf. Hel. 980–5). Taking refuge at the altar removes Creusa from immediate seizure by Ion (she is no longer χειρία: 1257), though only temporarily: the suppliant enjoys divine protection (1256 θέμις) until a hearing has been granted (Sinn (1993) 91–2, Naiden (2006) 105–6). The protective force of supplication is to some extent nego-



1250–[1622] Exodos

459

tiable or subject to interpretation (cf. 1312–19n): rejection and subsequent removal of the suppliant from the altar are possible (Naiden p. 148–9), although inhibitions are repeatedly reported (PCG adesp. 1032.18–25, Hdt. 1.160.4–5) and potential pollution may always pose a dilemma (R. Parker (1983) 183). Tragedy tends to emphasise the sacrosanct status of the suppliant (and pass over the possibility of rejection) in order to enhance the predicament of the supplicandus (Naiden’s term). Thus Ion’s complaint (1312–19) does not envisage the possibility of Creusa’s removal, although the extended discussion about the righteousness of the supplication indicates that it may well find justification: she has been condemned in a regular procedure by the authorities in charge of the temple, who now have to decide on her fate. Ion, by contrast, does not have the power to terminate the supplication – hence his discontent in 1312–19. Only when Creusa surrenders herself can he seize her (1402). The dramatic potential of Creusa’s supplication rests largely on the irony that mother and son confront each other unknowingly. The conflict itself is less emotive than situations in other dramas, in which helpless innocent characters try to escape oppression or violence at the hands of powerful villains (e.g. Andr., Suppl., Herc.): Creusa’s role as perpetrator and victim in the double plot (1250–1620n) mean that Ion and Creusa move in a morally grey area. The fact that she seeks protection from the god she offended (Ion’s point in 1286; cf. 1282–9n) makes her supplication the more problematic for the outsider, but her complicated history with the god (1285) lends ambivalence. In addition, many of the arguments, esp. concerning the motives for the mutual enmity, become obsolete as soon as the two have recognised each other, and most effectively highlight human blindness once more. Creusa can disprove many of Ion’s arguments and assumptions (1282–1319n), but her weak position as a convict is an obstacle to the resolution of the debate. At the end of the section the situation and the characters’ positions have not changed, as the debate has shown that neither party is entirely in the right; the tone, however, has become increasingly spiteful. Only an outside force can set the plot in its course again. Ion cannot kill Creusa on the altar or drag her away (1312–19n) – the sacredness of the sanctuary must remain inviolate – and Creusa is aware of that fact and of the pain this causes him (1306 and 1311). The Pythia’s entrance distracts from this situation, before Creusa, upon recognising the basket, breaks the deadlock by her surrender. The temporary protection under θέμις ends, but so does her liability to the verdict of the trial (1256 νόμος). 1250–60 After two epeisodia without entrances or exits in mid-act, we now have two dramatically very effective entrances within a few lines. Creusa approaches

460

Commentary

from the proxenos’ house (probably eisodos A) and echoes the main idea of the preceding song: the desperation over lack of escape routes. She sees that the conflict between the norms of supplication and the demands of the Delphic tribunal limit the effectiveness of refuge at the altar. The appearance of Ion cuts short the discussion of the problem. The running scene is exceptional in tragedy (closest to the Phrygian in Or.) and is not apposite to the solemnity of the genre (Battezzato (1995) 52). The brachylogic conversational style and the use of the trochaic tetrameter reflect the increased pace of the action and the characters’ agitation (Drew-Bear (1968) 400–1 comparing Phoen. 1335–7). 1251 Πυθίαι ψήφωι: L’s Πυθίω(ι) probably needs correction: Euripides knows Πύθιος only as adjective of three terminations (285, Phoen. 1043); on the other hand, adjectives from the sacred and oracular sphere can vary (cf. 461, Wecklein (1898) 404, Kastner (1967) 81–5). A further change to Πυθικᾶι (cf. 1219, Andr. 1000 Πυθικὴν ἀνὰ χθόνα) may be necessary: Πύθιος is associated with Apollo rather than Delphi (Hipp. 536, IT 1272). Bayfield’s Πυθίων would refer to the κοίρανοι Πυθικοί (1219) or Δελφῶν ἄνακτες (1222), but the term Πύθιοι is attested only for a category of Lacedaemonian envoys to Delphi (Hdt. 6.57.2, Xen. Resp.Lac. 15.5). For ψῆφος cf. 1223n. κρατηθεῖσ’: ‘defeated’ in a contest: cf. Hipp. 1016 ἀγῶνας μὲν κρατεῖν Ἑλληνικούς, Ar. Vesp. 539 ὁδί με τῶι λόγωι κρατήσηι (before the comic agon). Trials are viewed as contests (ἀγῶνες), but Creusa’s choice of the word ‘defeat’ seems odd since she lost by default. The actual contest of arguments is fought subsequently in the stichomythia. On the singular with a verb in the plural cf. 108n. ἔκδοτος: ‘outlawed’, originally ‘available for extradition’: hence she has no place that offers her protection; cf. e.g. Dem. 23.62. Aeschin. 3.61. 1252 ἵν’ εἶ τύχης: Cf. Suppl. 1012–13 ὁρῶ δὴ τελευτὰν ἵν’ ἕστακα. Scaliger’s palmary emendation of ἵν᾿ εὐτυχεῖς is paralleld e.g. in Hel. 738 οὗ (cj. Tyrwhitt; οἷ L) τ’ ἐσμὲν τύχης, Soph. Aj. 386 (cf. Diggle (1978) 167 n.23 = (1994) 186–7 n.23). The indirect question is a second object of ἴσμεν, effectively explicative to συμφοράς. 1253 γὰρ: The explantion shows that ποῖ φύγω is a rhetorical question: Creusa infers from her difficulty in leaving the house that escape is impossible (an argumentum a minore). προύβαλον ... πόδα: Diggle, while preferring transmitted προύλαβον to προύβαλον (G. Schmid (1884) 25), refers to three passages in Euripides where compounds of βάλλω are used with πόδα (Hcld. 661, El. 96, fr. 1010).



1250–[1622] Exodos

461

The confusion of λαβ and βαλ is common in mss (e.g. 331, Suppl. 578, Herc. 301, 1161). προ- has the force of ‘forth’ (cf. Soph. El. 740). 1254 κλοπῆι: On secret escape cf. 1245 ἐκκλέπτει, Or. 1498–9 ἐξέκλεπτον ἐκ δόμων πόδα, Soph. Aj. 247–8 κρυψάμενον ποδοῖν κλοπὰν ἀρέσθαι; Lysias (12.15–16) escaped via the back door, which is, however, described as an unusual feature of the house (cf. also Nevett (1999) 69–70, (2010) 79–81). διαφυγοῦσα πολεμίους: πολέμιοι is not used exclusively for enemies of the state (cf. Blundell (1989) 39), and Creusa does not yet move to the level of framing of the conflict as one concerning Athens as political entity. However, since she is from the city’s ruling dynasty, the connotations of military conflict involving the state can easily blend into the idea of the protection of Creusa’s house (1291–2; cf. 1046, 1334). 1255 ποῖ δ’ ἂν ἄλλοσ’: The chorus take up Creusa’s ποῖ φύγω but change the mood from deliberative to potential, as indicated by ἄν (sc. φύγοις; cf. Wackernagel (1926) I 224) and as appropriate for an advice. τί μοι πλέον: a colloquial phrase: cf. Hel. 322, Alcmeon fr. 84, Ar. Pl. 531. Creusa does not believe in the efficacy of the measure for the avoidance of punishment: she recognises that the law, i.e. the Delphians’ decision (1256 νόμωι), will ultimately prevail. Taplin (1978) 72 sees a different reason for her doubts: ‘she senses the paradox of such an act – how can she, who has denounced Apollo and attempted murder on his own ground, how can she now look for protection from him?’ But she makes no comments along these lines and later even reaffirms that she sees no problem in her supplication (1285, 1289). 1256 οὐ θέμις ... τῶι νόμωι δέ: Whereas the chorus highlight the momentary security, Creusa stresses that the protection is only temporary. Her point is not, as Lee believes, a sophistic argument about divine right and human law (which in the context of supplication are not opposed: cf. Naiden (2004), pace Chaniotis (1996) 66): instead she is clarifying the legal situation. The jurisdiction here referred to by νόμος is itself religious (1224–5). The seeming clash between it and the religious act of supplication is a temporary conflict between the administration of justice and an intervening measure with delaying effect. 1257 χειρία γ’ ἁλοῦσα: ‘if they seize you, after you have got off scotfree’, i.e. only if or when she loses the protection of the altar: cf. Andr. 411 προλείπω βωμὸν ἥδε χειρία, where equally the adjective denotes a state in which she can be seized rather than her actually being caught. The chorus continue the construction of Creusa’s sentence, with γε limiting the applicability of her statement (Denniston 143 (4)).

462

Commentary

καὶ μὴν: announcing a new, unexpected entrance; with the following form of ὅδε it draws attention to the entering character (Denniston 356, Erp Taalman Kip (2009) 117). ἀγωνισταὶ: only here in Euripides. Creusa all but announces the following stichomythic debate where the topic of discussion is Creusa’s guilt and the justification for the murder plot. 1258 ἵζε νυν: Cf. 1314, 1402. The seated position is found both in texts (e.g. Hcld. 33, Andr. 44) and in pictorial depictions. 1260 προστρόπαιον αἷμα θήσεις: ‘You will cause your killers to shed defiling blood’, i.e. you will cause them to pollute themselves; cf. Herc. 1161 τῶιδε προστρόπαιον αἷμα προσβαλών and Ba. 837 αἷμα θήσεις συμβαλὼν βάκχαις μάχην with Rijksbaron 102 on τίθημι ‘cause, create’. On προστρόπαιος as cause of pollution cf. R. Parker (1983) 108–9. The chorus suggest that if (or since) Creusa has to die, she should do so on the altar (ἐνθάδε) and bring harm to her enemies by the pollution incurred. Threats of killing oneself in a sacred place are used as leverage: it enforces the acceptance of supplications as a way of warding off defilement and divine punishment (cf. Hel. 982–7, Naiden (2006) 84–5). In Creusa’s case the pollution would also be a means of revenge (1311). οἰστέον δὲ τὴν τύχην: The chorus euphemistically accept Creusa’s assessment of her situation and the impossibility of escape. 1261–81 (1279–81, 1269–70, 1273–6) The text of the scene is a matter of intense debate and has probably been heavily edited. In the reconstruction given here Ion has been visible at 1257, and the chorus have called on Creusa in 1258 to take a position on the altar. It is sensible to assume that Creusa, in the face of the danger, follows the advice immediately (in accordance with the standard practice that the start of a supplication is announced: cf. Telò (2002b) 10). Ion then expresses his anger as soon as he sees her. The transmitted text, by contrast, seems to have been altered in order to intensify the impression that Creusa flees to the altar at the very last moment before she can be caught. It draws out the movements and supposes that the armed men do not try at once to capture Creusa and take relatively long to come close. Mastronarde (1979) 111 suggests a slow, stylised running, but that again stands in contrast to common dramatic technique (Bain (1981) 36). Kovacs (2003) 21–2 proposes the order 1261–5, 1269–74, 1266–8, 1279–81, 1275–8, which produces an awkward sequence: Ion descries Creusa close to the altar, ready to seek its protection, but instead of ordering her seizure, he launches into a rant against her and contemplates his luck. 11 lines pass before he finally gives the order. He seems surprised when she



1250–[1622] Exodos

463

jumps onto the altar, but if he had foreseen her next step, the rant seems even more out of place. A more promising approach has been to delete some of the text; once the dubious lines are excised, it is possible to rearrange the rest in a way so that a sensible sequence of events is produced. Firstly, the language of lines 1266– 8 is stylistically intolerable (cf. Bain (1979) 266 and n). In addition, the text proposes that Creusa be executed by being cast from the Phaedriades, which is an unnecessary and unprepared for variation on lapidation (1112, 1222, 1237). With this passage (and the command λάζυσθ(ε)) removed, it is no longer difficult to reconstruct a steady movement by Ion (instead of a sequence of entrance-advance-stop). Secondly, the irony concerning the seemingly distant mother in 1277–8 produces another snag: her mention is unmotivated and the play on ἄπεστιν is an obtrusive attempt at sounding especially Euripidean, which ends up in mere verbiage. The deletion does not have an effect on the staging or the train of thought. Thirdly, two further passages likewise do not make a significant difference to the action: the empty pathos of the declamatory 1261–5 and the patronising explanation of 1269–70 in 1271–2 (already deleted by H. Jordan apud Wecklein). If 1266–8 are a dramaturgical interpolation, as argued above, it is clear that 1279–81 have been moved from the start to the end of Ion’s speech (Bain (1979) 267, recanted in (1981) 35–6): as soon as Ion spots Creusa, he states what the situation is (especially if Creusa has just sat down on the altar) and vents his indignation at being forestalled. 1269–74 follow smoothly on τέχνη, dealing with the tricks he would have faced from her in Athens (though cf. n). The dramatic economy and the timing are superior: Ion has about 10 lines from his appearance to the start of the debate (1257b–1274). This is sufficient time for a normally paced approach to the altar – he does not have to run, because Creusa is already out of reach to him. And his addresses form a logical sequence (typical for Euripides: cf. Mastronarde (1979) 22–3): first – when he is still at the edge of the play area – he addresses his companions; then (from 1269; 2nd person form in 1274) he directs his words at Creusa, and finally, when he has arrived at the altar, the conversation proper begins (1275). The rearrangement is supported by the fact that Creusa’s response now follows directly on the threat in 1275–6 and thus forms an appropriate reaction. After 1279–81 it would be redundant at best: she would be forbidding Ion to kill her at the altar after he had just stated that by her flight she intended to avoid killing. [1261–5] The interpolator has drawn out the notion encapsulated in 1279 πανοῦργον. The apostrophe to Cephisus is poetically charged with periphrasis and animal comparisons, contrasting strongly with the rest of the speech, which

464

Commentary

is emotional but in a rather plain language (the only metaphor being 1273 περιβαλοῦσα). But the elevated register falters in details and ends in clumsy and catachrestic ornamentation. The relevance of Cephisus is not quite clear: as ancestor of Creusa he is an arbitrary choice and is not referred to in the rest of the play. Apostrophes are a frequent type of interpolation: cf. Haslam (1979) 99–100. Depending on their reconstruction (and arrangement) of the passage, interpreters assume that Ion has (Mastronarde (1979) 111, Bain (1979) 264, referring to 1262 τήνδ(ε)) or has not (e.g. Diggle (1974) 30 n.2 = (1994) 128 n.103) seen Creusa. The question does not arise in the text given here; in any case, since Creusa must have been close to the altar and thus in a central position in 1258, partial perception – with Creusa seeing Ion but not vice versa – is unlikely. 1261 ταυρόμορφον ὄμμα: The synecdoche ‘eye’ does not recognisably highlight a characteristic of the whole (as it usually does: cf. Long (1968) 101–2, Davidson (1986)), i.e. Cephisus’ eye has nothing to do with the moral deficiency of his daughter; it is also incongruous in the context of procreation (ἔφυσας; cf. G. Müller (1983) 47) and in conjunction with ‘bullformed’. In general, the periphrastic apostrophe to body parts is restricted to people that are present and visible: e.g. Alc. 1133, Tro. 1024, IT 983, Or. 225, 237, Aesch. Cho. 238. The neologism ταυρόμορφος is in line with Euripidean practice: for ταυρο- cf. Or. 1378, Ba. 100, IA 275, Cret. fr. 472.7 (all in recitative or lyr.); for -μορφος cf. e.g. Andr. 1155, Herc. 925. None of these instances, however, is followed by a synecdoche. On the bull-shape of Cephisus (Ael. VH 2.33, LIMC Kephisos I 1 shows a man with horns) and other river gods (IA 275, Soph. Trach. 11, 13; Oceanus: Or. 1378) cf. C. Weiss (1984) 59–67, Aston (2011) 78–89. Κηφισοῦ πατρός: Cephisus is the grandfather (Apollod. Bibl. 3.196) or father (Erechth. 370.63 (suppl.)) of Creusa’s mother Praxithea: either is possible here, since πατήρ and φύω are both used in an extended sense (cf. 267, ΙΤ 610). 1262–3 ἔχιδναν ... δράκοντ’: This comparison with a snake fits well, given Creusa’s descent from Erechtheus (cf. 1164), but is bizarre when the ancestor is called bull-shaped. The combination of two comparisons with different species of the same genus is against the practice of taking two different animals (or other objects of comparison) with similar properties (Or. 1401/6, Aesch. Cho. 994, similarly Ba. 1066; cf. Hom. Il. 2.455–83 with Moulton (1977) 27–33). Both ἔχιδνα and δράκων can be used for snakes in general, but more specifically they describe (venomous) vipers and non-venomous constrictors respectively (Gossen-Steier (1923) 532, 538). The viper is used



1250–[1622] Exodos

465

metaphorically mainly for domestic treachery (predominantly by women), because the female was thought to kill the male while mating and be killed by the offspring biting their way out of her womb (Hdt. 3.109.1–2; cf. Garvie on Aesch. Cho. 249, Borthwick (1967) 250–2, Devereux (1976) 177–8). Constrictors were noted for their deadly looks (Or. 479–80, Hyps. fr. 754a.2–3 and below; cf. Rakoczy (1996) 175–6). 1263 ἀναβλέποντα: with the internal accusative (K-G I 309(c); contrast 1467): her gaze sends forth murder, i.e. is deadly (Rakoczy (1996) 175–6): cf. Herc. 1266, Or. 479–80 δράκων στίλβει νοσώδεις ἀστραπάς, Aesch. Pers. 81–2, Theocr. Id. 24.18–19 ἀπ’ ὀφθαλμῶν δὲ κακὸν πῦρ ἐρχομένοις λάμπεσκε, Diod.Sic. 3.37.9. φοινίαν φλόγα: The original meaning of φοίνιος is ‘murder-’ (cf. 505) but it also has connotations of the colour red: Soph. Tr. 770–1 φοίνιος ἐχθρᾶς ἐχίδνης ἰός ‘lethal’; cf. Dürbeck (1977) 126, Rakoczy (1996) 175 n.634. 1265 Γοργοῦς σταλαγμῶν: The Old Man is supposed to have revealed to Ion what he had learnt from Creusa (cf. 1216). [1266–8] The rhetorical or poetic style is manneristic while clumsily imitative of Euripides. The content, by contrast, is not entirely irreconcilable with the rest of the text: lapidation (1112, 1222, 1237) does not rule out subsequent casting from a rock, and such is mentioned in the Life of Aesop (P.Oxy. 1800 fr. 2.49–51; cf. Gras (1984) 77 n.9 and Loraux’ answer p. 88–9, Andreassi (2001) 220). Precipitation is reported to have been a penalty for sacrilege in Delphi: Luc. Phal. A (1) 6, schol. Ar. Vesp. 1446. But Euripides is otherwise consistent in mentioning only lapidation in connection with Delphi (the three passages above and Or. 50, 59, 536, 564, 914, 946). 1266 ἀκηράτους: ‘unsullied’ (Paley): the word derives from a root meaning ‘destroy’ (as κεραίζω; cf. Beekes s.v. ἀκήρατος), not from κείρω (so not just ‘unshorn’). Ion seems to relish the prospect of the noblewoman’s perfectly coiffured hair becoming unkempt and dirty – but such petty and malicious sentiments are otherwise alien to Ion, who rather stresses the importance of the restoration of justice. 1267 καταξήνωσι: In application to the hair the underlying idea of carding wool (Blümner (1912) 110–11, D. Müller (1974) 199–200) is probably still prominent. However, the word is also used for stoning: e.g. Phoen. 1145, Aesch. Myrm. fr. 132c.2, Soph. Aj. 728, Ar. Ach. 320–1 (with Olson). Παρνασσοῦ: Cf. 86n.

466

Commentary

πλάκες: lit. the flat top of a hill (cf. Beekes s.v.). In late Euripides (Ba. 307 δικόρυφον πλάκα about the Phaedriades, 718–9) the word seems to denote a rock as well as its flat top, but only here does the original meaning make no sense, as the focus is on the slope alone. The assonance with the preceding line end enhances the poetic effect. 1268 πετραῖον ἅλμα δισκηθήσεται: ‘will be cast in a leap from the rock’; ἅλμα seems to denote a self-determined action and thus to jar with δισκέομαι ‘to be cast’, but cf. Hec. 1262 βιαίων τυγχάνουσαν ἁλμάτων. It is used for suicides in Suppl. 1014, Herc. 1148. δισκέω itself is a frigid expression, if not simply an error of stylistic judgment: before Diog.Laert. 1.118 ἐλθόντα εἰς Δελφοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ Κωρυκίου ὄρους αὑτὸν δισκῆσαι the word appears only in agonistic contexts: Hom. Od. 8.188 and Pind. I. 2.35; Anacr. PMG 364.3 is unclear. Ls.l. has the later form δισκευθήσεται (attested since Sositheus TrGF 99 F 3, 3rd cent.). An interpolator might have used the form, but it is impossible to decide whether Triclines’ correction is based on his manuscript or the fruit of his own linguistic feeling. The meaning of πετραῖον must be local, which is against Euripidean (if not general) usage: elsewhere the word designates material (‘of rock’) or means ‘living in/on a rock’. 1279–81 1279 ἴδεσθε: In tragedy this form always stands at the start of speeches, preceded only by vocatives or interjections (Herc. 1029, 1032, IA 1510, Aesch. Cho. 973, 980, PV 92, Soph. El. 977). It points to something coming into sight. By contrast, ἰδού can also introduce the reaction to a development within a speech addressing a group as well as individuals (Andr. 411, Hec. 1041, El. 749, Herc. 319). τὴν πανοῦργον: Cret. fr. 472e.46 λάζυσθε τὴν πανο[ῦργον. ἐκ τέχνης τέχνην: in particular the murder plot and the supplication. On the polyptoton with ἐξ describing a sequence of similar events cf. Gygli-Wyss (1966) 73–4. 1280 οἵαν ἔπλεξε· βωμὸν ἔπτηξεν: ‘... what (wile) she has woven (after the previous one): she has crouched at the altar.’ The asyndeton is explicatory, stating what the new τέχνη is. As Creusa seems to be sitting on the altar (1257, 1314, 1402) rather than crouching at it, the verb is disparaging the supplication as a cowardly act. Elmsley (1813) 214 makes the inevitable change from ἔπλεξ᾿· οὐ (i.e. ‘...: she has not shied away from the altar’): the transmitted text shifts the emphasis from the supplication itself to Creusa’s impertinence without explaining what she is doing that shows her lack of shame (viz. approaching the god she offended). What is more, this reading comments on a moral aspect; but the following ὡς οὐ ... δώσουσα (final/subjectively causal) deals with the



1250–[1622] Exodos

467

intended effect of her action, i.e. the supplication, which must be expressed. πτήσσω with accusative is unique in this meaning; contrast Suppl. 268–9 πόλις δὲ πρὸς πόλιν ἔπτηξε, Herc. 974 βωμὸν ὄρνις ὣς ἔπτηξ’ ὕπο, 984 ἀμφὶ βωμίαν ἔπτηξε κρηπῖδ’, Hel. 1203 ὑποπτήξας τάφωι, but βωμόν may be taken as a poetic terminal accusative, making Badham’s ἔπλεξ᾿ εἰς βωμὸν unnecessary. 1269–74 Ion continues about Creusa’s wiles, ascribing it to his good luck that he was attacked before reaching Athens, where he would have been without protection (a consideration complementary to 1024). Not even in this fast and heated scene does Euripides dispense with dramatic irony: Ion means an impersonal ‘fate’, while the audience can see Apollo in Ion’s rescue; κυρέω (1269) is used in 41 for a similar machination of the god, and several more times in connection with the oracle (471, 536, 711, 1105). However, it has been suggested (KR) that this passage needlessly intervenes between 1281 and 1275: the transition between those lines would be smooth, while the thought in between is not essential. The language is not entirely clear or at the pinnacle of Euripidean elegance. Incidentally, this would also make the interpolator’s intervention much simpler. 1270 χὐπὸ μητρυιὰν πεσεῖν: ‘fell under the power of my stepmother’: cf. Peliad. fr. 603.4 ὑπ᾿ ἀνδρὸς χλαῖναν; elsewhere more clearly for domination (Ba. 1022 (mss ἐπί), Polyb. 1.1.5). Here it means that in Athens he would have been completely at her mercy, while in Delphi he has his friends and allies to protect and support him. Calling Creusa μητρυιά draws on the cliché (cf. 1025); Ion had avoided the term before by calling her Xuthus’ wife, but now his attitude and the gentleness of 608–9 have changed. 1271–2: The lines are another interpolation, adding what seems like the contrast to the dangers at Athens: Delphi is more advantageous for Ion, as he can protect himself with the aid of the locals. But the opposition is misleading: Ion’s point is the maliciousness of his stepmother; the presence of (supposed) friends has been irrelevant for his rescue. The use of ‘allies’ (σύμμαχοι) is owed to πολέμιοι and makes Ion’s point weaker: it diminishes the stress on the verdict against Creusa and her crime, and instead characterises the jury as a partisan panel of friends, not as the official, unbiased Delphic court of justice. ἀνεμετρησάμην φρένας: ‘I have taken the measure of your mind’, employed similarly in El. 52–3 γνώμης πονηροῖς κανόσιν ἀναμετρούμενος τὸ σῶφρον ἴστω (cf. also 250). The expression also supports the argument for the lines’ spuriousness: reading in somebody’s mind how much of a pain

468

Commentary

they are does not make much sense: whether they are a πῆμα or not will be not a matter of their attitude but of their actions (cf. Med. 1368; also 372). 1272 πῆμα: The personification is idiomatic; the passage may have been inspired by 1396. δυσμενής τ’: a slight inconcinnity: ὡς must be supplemented from ὅσον. 1273 ἔσω ... δωμάτων: The preposition is separated from its noun e.g. in Hcld. 477, 584, but never as far as here. The hyperbaton imitates Ion’s being locked in the house. περιβαλοῦσα: Ion would have been trapped in Creusa’s house (for the wider employment of the concept of the house cf. 1021n). The verb is used in too many ways to make compelling the specific association with a net (Owen); general confinement in a house seems more plausible: cf. TrGF adesp. 623 ποῖος δ’ ἂν οἶκος τεκτόνων πλασθεὶς ὕπο δέμας τὸ θεῖον περιβάλοι τοίχων πτυχαῖς; The word slightly jars with ἐξέπεμψας, but one may say that after the entrapment and killing Ion would have left the house again only for the ἐκφορά. 1274 ἄρδην: ‘utterly’, common with ‘destroy’ or ‘kill’, (e.g. Hec. 887, PV 1050–1 εἰς δὲ κελαινὸν Τάρταρον ἄρδην ῥίψειε δέμας), but slightly awkward with ἐκπέμπω. In the literal meaning ‘up (high)’ in Alc. 608 φέρουσιν ἄρδην πρὸς τάφον τε καὶ πυράν – with ἐξέπεμψας it might reinforce the idea of the funeral cortege: Creusa buries Ion pretending to mourn. 1275–[8] 1275 should be retained, as it alone provides a sensible cue for Creusa’s reply in 1282. Diggle (1974) 29–30 = (1994) 127–8 deletes all four lines: because 1) he cannot make sense of 1276; 2) the reference to Ion’s mother has no purpose other than to produce feeble dramatic irony; 3) the first line seems impious and against Ion’s better knowledge that he will not drag Creusa away. The last point is wrong (1312–19n): Ion may not (and will not) remove Creusa by himself, but the protection by the altar is not permanent. The second point is fully justified, but it concerns only 1277–8; for a similar interpolation cf. Or. [663]. The σῶμα-ὄνομα contrast is utterly futile (cf. n) and smacks of forced Euripidizing (similar to [1266–8]). That leaves the first argument, which is problematic, hingeing on the critic rather than Euripides, as it does. 1275 βωμὸς ... δόμος: Altar and temple, the sanctuary in general, are two focal points of the stage (184–6), the two places where a suppliant is most likely to be found: cf. Andr. 161–2 κοὐδέν σ’ ὀνήσει δῶμα Νηρῆιδος τόδε, οὐ βωμὸς οὐδὲ ναός, ἀλλὰ κατθανῆι.



1250–[1622] Exodos

469

1276 ὁ δ’ †οἶκτος ὁ σὸς†: in the transmitted form ‘the pity with you’: cf. Andr. 61–2 φόβωι μέν ... οἴκτωι δὲ τῶι σῶι. The phrase would have to mean that the pity which people feel for Ion (or he for himself?) exceeds that which they feel for Creusa. But it is unclear why anyone should pity him and how that rules out that Creusa be spared. The same applies to Scaliger’s οἶκτος ὅσος, which has been adopted by Kraus 85–6. Should the solution be as simple as οἶκος? δέ would then (fittingly) introduce not the reason why the altar will not help but a balancing statement about Ion’s own future and one consequence of Creusa’s death (cf. 699): ‘and (in addition) your house is stronger/better off with me’, i.e. without Creusa (the schemer) and with himself as master the house will have both a strong and morally superior head. 1277–8 σῶμα ... τοὔνομ᾿: The typically Euripidean antithesis (e.g. Hel. 66– 7, Or. 390; cf. M. Kraus (1987) 145–6) is defended by Biehl (1992) 26 and Kovacs (2003) 21, but its introduction is forced: whence comes pity with Ion’s mother and how is it related with Creusa? Or, even more absurd, how does it render the supplication ineffective? The contrast contributes nothing to the thought and diverts from the starting-point of 1275. 1282–1319 Creusa’s claim that sparing her is in the interest of the god (1283) ignites a debate on her right to protection. The subject of the debate becomes transposed upon supporting arguments that are themselves contested. Creusa’s position is that her supplication is legitimate: 1) she has not offended Apollo by trying to kill his minister, since Ion was no longer the god’s (1282–9); 2) the murder attempt was justified as an act of self-defence against Ion’s aggression (and hence not impious; 1290–1305). The debate ends in a deadlock: several times Creusa appears to have the stronger case, especially as it turns out that Ion has misconceived Xuthus’ (and his own) position in her family. Ion repeatedly changes tack and turns to a different argument (1290, 1300) or abandons the discussion (1306). Nevertheless, he insists on Creusa’s arrest, while she toys with the idea of defiling the sanctuary, if she is to be killed. Having gone through the issues without a resolution of the conflict, the debaters try to hurt each other verbally by striking the weak spots they learned about in the 1st epeisodion (1306–11). The confrontation of the two main characters mirrors the stichomythia in the 1st epeisodion, reversing many of the features there: the interested inquiry has turned into a fierce contest of arguments; the gentleness and politeness have given way to the wilful infliction of hurt on the opponent; and the mutual empathy has become hatred. The scene finishes with a short speech (1312–19) that shows Ion defiant as regards the legitimacy of his pursuit of Creusa and the wrongfulness of her actions: he complains about the universal protection for suppliants.

470

Commentary

1282–9 By questioning Creusa’s juxtaposing of herself with Apollo (1283) Ion disputes that the protection afforded through the god’s altar applies to her. The discussion revolves around the question of what constitutes divine ‘property’ in order to define Ion’s and Creusa’s respective relationships with Apollo, which will determine the rightfulness of her supplication. Their respective claims to ‘belonging’ to Apollo are mutually exclusive: if Ion still belonged to Apollo, the attempt on his life was a sacrilege (cf. 1224) and Creusa’s supplication hypocritical. Creusa is right, even though she has the verdict of the Delphians against her: she has a special relationship with Apollo, although she remains reticent about it; the other half of her position is more difficult: the Delphians had accepted Ion as ἱερός and thus as the god’s (cf. 1224n), but Creusa may claim that Apollo has forfeited his rights by ceding him to Xuthus (as a natural father would do by giving his son away for adoption: cf. 1534–6). 1283 τ᾿ ... θ᾿: On the position cf. Soph. OT 253–4 ὑπέρ τ’ ἐμαυτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τε τῆσδέ τε γῆς, K-G II 245 n.5b. ἵν’ ἕσταμεν: Creusa forbids Ion to slay her ‘in the place where we are standing’; Lee has realised that the relative clause follows the verb. Most other translators follow Owen in making θεοῦ the antecedent: ‘(the god) in whose sanctuary we stand’. But if τοῦ is supposed to be the article to θεοῦ, the text bends the grammar (‘the god where’); if it is the genitive of τό (sc. ἱερόν) θεοῦ, it is illogical (‘for myself and the sanctuary of the god’). Cf. the similar hyperbaton Suppl. 1012–13 ὁρῶ δὴ τελευτὰν ἵν’ ἕστακα. 1284 τί δ’ ἐστὶ: The tone of this and the next question could be mocking but is rather astonished and vexed, as 1288 and 1290 seem free from irony: only from 1292 does the acerbity slowly increase. ἐν μέσωι: ‘in common’, with pleonastic κοινόν: cf. Hcld. 184 ἡμῖν δὲ καὶ τῶιδ’ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἐν μέσωι. 1285: ‘I surrender my body to him to have as sacred.’ Creusa dedicates herself to Apollo: cf. PCG adesp. 1032.12–13 ὦ φιλτάτη Δήμητερ, ἀνατίθημί σοι ἐμαυτόν, ἀξιῶ τε σώιζειν. Being ἱερός makes her the god’s property, as Ion before, and as such untouchable (cf. Burkert (1985) 269). Probably not much irony is to be felt in the fact that Creusa ‘has given herself’ to the god before (e.g. Kraus 87–8, Lee): ἱερὸν ἔχειν rules out any ambiguity. τῶι θεῶι δίδωμ(ι) is standard supplicatory language: cf. IA 1221 πρώτη δὲ γόνασι σοῖσι σῶμα δοῦσ’ ἐμόν, Hdt. 2.113.2. 1286 κἄπειτ’: καὶ ἔπειτα criticises Creusa for incongruity (cf. Med. 1398; κἆιτα 297, 1408): again Ion is astonished, this time more at Creusa’s chutzpah after she had shown no respect for the god’s own.



1250–[1622] Exodos

471

ἔκαινες: Aorist (L has unmetrical ἔκτανες) and imperfect are both paralleled in this play (cf. the imperfect 1300, 1500) and sensible. The imperfect de conatu here is preferable to retaining the tense (Wilamowitz’ ἀπέκτας) at the cost of a more radical change of the transmission. τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ: In this case the irony is much sharper than in the preceding line: ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ means both the slave/possession of the god (cf. Andoc. 1.17 Λυδὸς ὁ Φερεκλέους), which is the sense in which Ion and Creusa understand it, and his son. 1287 οὐκέτ’ ἦσθα: Creusa disputes that Ion was protected by divine right when she tried to kill him: he lost his status as the god’s own or temple property when he passed into Xuthus’ authority. Cf. Hel. 454 οὐκοῦν ἐκεῖ που σεμνὸς ἦσθ’, οὐκ ἐνθάδε. 1288 ἀλλ᾿ ἐγενόμεσθα [πατρὸς δ’ οὐσίαν λέγω]: ‘I became my father’s (i.e. Xuthus’) [, I mean in terms of property].’ It seems likely that glosses have replaced original content. The first part connects well with the preceding line. ἀλλ᾿ ἐγενόμεσθα (sc. πατρός) rejects ἦσθα πατρός: Ion defends his sacrosanct status as Apollo’s charge; his affiliation with Xuthus is, chronologically, secondary. The rest has been inserted for explanation (and imperfectly versified). In order to secure continuity with the preceding and following line, the replaced original should (a) provide an indication of the time when Ion was still Apollo’s slave, to match 1289 τότ(ε) (cf. τὸ πάρος: B. Heath (1762) 142); (b) be about his relationship to Apollo rather than Xuthus; for Creusa (concluding with οὐκοῦν) picks up that part saying: ‘So at that time (sc. when you became Xuthus’) you were (Apollo’s), but now I am.’ The word ‘Apollo’s’ must be supplemented from the lost second half of 1288, which must have contained Ion’s confession that he has stopped being Apollo’s. The line may have run roughly ἀλλ᾿ ἐγενόμεσθα, . The simplest change to the transmitted text that restores the metre, the deletion of δ(έ) (Canter (1571) 328), is awkward both in style and in the classification of Ion as property. The conjectures that assume only easy palaeographical errors make this and the next line incomprehensible: in Seid­ ler’s ἀλλ’ ἐγενόμεσθα· πατρὸς ἀπουσίαν λέγω ‘absence’ is a too dense explanation for ἐγενόμεσθα; Kirchhoff’s ἀπουσίαι λόγωι (adopted by Kraus 88) explains ἐγενόμεσθα Λοξίου, which is not what is meant, Kraus’ ‘ich war es gewesen’ is not what ἐγενόμεσθα means, and λόγωι is as meaningless as ἔργωι (G. Müller (1983) 47). 1290–1305 The issue changes from the validity of Creusa’s supplication to the underlying question of whether her attempt on Ion was justified as self-defence (hingeing on εὐσέβεια in 1290: her acts being εὐσεβῆ or not decides on the

472

Commentary

validity of her suppliant status): she first claims that she defended her house (1290–1300), then that her own life was threatened (1301–5). While Ion acts in good faith concerning his position, his argumentation is like that of a mean-spirited barrister: from now he persistently pours his mocking sarcasm (clear in 1300) over Creusa, using his superior position, and manipulates Creusa’s imprecise, metaphorical use of language. On the other hand, he is reacting to Creusa’s humiliating denial of his status as heir (cf. 1292n) and to her tone, which is spiteful throughout. 1290 εὐσεβεῖς δέ: Triclines had εὐσεβῆ γε and changed it to εὐσεβεῖς γε (s.l.). West (1981) 64 has seen that the text needs an adversative particle: after Ion has implicitly conceded that he deserved no particular protection, he returns to his original point of 1286, viz. that Creusa does not qualify as a suppliant because of a lack of εὐσέβεια (‘Anyway, you are (still) acting impiously.’). ‘Exclamatory’ οὐκ εὐσεβεῖς γε (Denniston 128) would have to be read as a comment on Creusa’s preceding argumentation (‘You are speaking impiously!’). εὐσεβεῖς is superior to εὐσεβής, proposed by L. Dindorf and accepted most recently by Kraus 88–9, as it produces concinnity with τἀμὰ ‘my actions’ (on which cf. [615]n), avoiding a shift from the description of a character to one of actions. 1291 ἔκτεινά σ᾿: ‘I killed you’ – phrased as a statement of fact to make the point vivid, looking at the act irrespective of outcome (Beetham (2002) 233) or intention (cf. 1444, 1500 ἄκουσα). The translation ‘I thought I had killed you’ (cf. K-G I 166–7: described as completed for emphasis: S-D II 280: ‘im Geiste’) is factually inaccurate. Soph. Aj. 1126–7 Με. δίκαια γὰρ τόνδ’ εὐτυχεῖν κτείναντά με; – Τευ. κτείναντα; δεινόν γ’ εἶπας, εἰ καὶ ζῆις θανών illustrates the ambiguity: Menelaus looks at the strike, Teucer at the effect. 1292 οὔτοι: ‘Conveying a criticism, favourable or unfavourable, of the previous speaker’s words’ (Denniston 542 on τοι): Ion is piqued at Creusa’s accusation, thinking that he was the rightful heir. σὺν ὅπλοις: Ion uses the rhetorical trick of employing in its narrow literal meaning a term (πολέμιος) used by his opponent in a looser sense: instead of someone with hostile intent he understands an enemy in war (cf. similarly 1293–4 κἀπίμπρης ... ποίοισι πανοῖς). 1293 μάλιστα: ‘very much so’; as French ‘si’, German ‘doch’, insisting on the underlying positive statement that Ion denies (viz. Ion’s characterisation as an enemy): cf. Ba. 656, Stevens (1976) 16. κἀπίμπρης: Fire is used as metaphor for the destruction of a ‘house’ in the sense of family, conflating the physical entity and the institution. On the practice of razing houses to the ground by fire cf. 971–5n. L offers the non-existent form ἐπίμπρας (κἀπίμπρας); the preterite tense matches the



1250–[1622] Exodos

473

surrounding verb forms; the imperfect (G. Schmid (1884) 25) is de conatu. Schmid’s other conjecture, the participle κἀμπιπράς governed by ἦλθον (cf. Kraus 89) also makes good sense: ‘You invaded, trying to set fire.’ Ἐρεχθέως: Creusa depersonalises the conflict and takes a more objective position by avoiding mention of ‘my house’ (as in 1021, 1036, 1291). The reference to her ancestor amplifies Ion’s offence by increasing the importance and age of the family and stressing its genealogical purity. In the debate, it is not rhetorically effective for Creusa to restrict herself to the personal level, thus do the ‘dynastic’ and ‘civic’ perspective enter into her arguments (cf. also 1254n). 1294 ποίοισι πανοῖς: Ion’s mocking tone reaches its climax, with the same rhetorical trick as in 1292. The scribe produced the Doric and non-sensical, but more familar πτανοῖς. The variant (or gloss) δαλοῖς (Lγρ) is inspired but cannot compete with Musgrave’s emendation, which is easier palaeographically and retains the alliteration: cf. Cf. 195, Aesch. Ag. 284. 1295–1303 (1295, 1300–1, 1296–9, 1304–7, 1302–3) A double transposition of lines restores the smooth progression of the stichomythic discussion. Two separate couplets 1300–1 and 1302–3 may have been left out and added next to each other at the bottom of the roll (or a two-columned codex) after 1299. Justifying the transmitted order requires mental and verbal acrobatics (e.g. Verrall, Owen, Kraus 91–2). The connection (spotted by Nauck) between μέλλειν in 1295 and 1300–1 makes each of the three lines a direct reply to the previous one: You were going to kill me. – So you wanted to kill me because I was going to kill you? – Yes, for I would have died, had you stopped ‘being going to’. In the following line 1296 Ion disputes his alleged motive for killing Creusa: he is the rightful heir and will receive the land with or without her consent. The transition between 1299 and 1304 can be discerned despite the textual corruption: in 1299 and 1305 Creusa speaks of Xuthus as a mercenary with no claim to Athenian land which he could bequeath to Ion. So 1304 must deal with the same point, doubting (or wondering at) Creusa’s statement, which she then affirms in 1305. Pace Nauck, one transposition (1295, 1300–3, 1296–9) is not sufficient to establish a continuous flow for the text. 1302–3 is not in the right place between 1301 and 1296: the notion of φθόνος is alien in this context. By contrast, the lines fit perfectly after Creusa reminds Ion of his motherlessness, as the two hurt each other in their respective vulnerable places: Ion reacts to the mention of his mother with a scoff at Creusa’s childlessness. The connection 1303/08 is corroborated by the repeated outlook into the future

474

Commentary

in combination with the typically stichomythic technique of anaphora, the aping tone of which here underscores the aggressiveness. 1295 οἰκεῖν τἄμ’: Creusa fears that she will be dispossessed: οἰκέω means both dwelling in and running a place, and the second part of the line makes clear the latter is meant. The phrase is based on the proverbial τὸν ἐμὸν οἶκον οἰκεῖν ‘manage my own house/affairs’ (e.g. Xen. Mem. 2.1.19) and the aggressive ἦ τὸν ἁμὸν οἶκον οἰκήσεις (Andr. 581, with Stevens). Creusa and Ion (1296) rhetorically sharpen the contrast by ignoring that, for the time being, the house will be controlled by Xuthus (whom Creusa accepts and who is legally a member of the house); but the head-to-head does not allow for differentiation. λαβών: not a filler but qualified by ἐμοῦ βίαι: cf. Cycl. 257–8 κἀδίδου πιεῖν λαβὼν ἑκὼν ἑκοῦσι, IA 702. λαχών (La.c.), defended by Kraus, contradicts Creusa’s continued claim of possession (τἄμα) and the idea of Ion illegally appropriating the house (1303). 1300 κἄπειτα: The phrase is antagonistic in portraying the conclusion drawn as extreme: Ion was only in the state of μέλλειν and, as we later hear, he believes himself to have a right. 1301–5 (1301, 1296–9, 1304–5) Creusa, no longer content to claim that Ion infringed on her estate, contends he was going to kill her. In that case her action would have legitimacy insofar as being pre-emptive. Ion is confused by Creusa’s claims and at first ridicules them. It appears that he underestimated Xuthus’ reservations when promising the throne (especially the unclear 659–60). With the trust in his entitlement to high position in Athens he also loses his argument that Creusa had no legitimate reason to assassinate him. He seems unsettled (1304); Creusa gains the upper hand and at the end even mocks him. Ion is outmanoeuvred in argument, or rather disillusioned, and has to change tack (1305). 1301 μέλλων: Creusa disputes that the cause of her plot was trifling and that she acted overanxiously: the meaning of μέλλω shifts from ‘intend’ to ‘wait/ hesitate’, as in Cresph. fr. 451, Dem. 6.15. 1296 πατρός γε γῆν διδόντος: ‘(Why,) when my father gives me the land ...?’ Ion continues Creusa’s utterance with a genitive absolute that he believes refutes her argument: since the inheritance (Athens) was to be passed down from his father, he as legal heir had no reason to remove Creusa. For the particle in such continuations cf. Alc. 48–9, Denniston 137–8. 1297 Αἰόλου ... Παλλάδος: Creusa disparagingly (πῶς: cf. 442, El. 527 ἔπειτα χαίτης πῶς συνοίσεται πλόκος) denies that Xuthus’ family could



1250–[1622] Exodos

475

be part of Athens (ἡ Παλλάδος, sc. γῆ): for μέτεστι in a similar context (concerning the inheritance rights of a bastard) cf. Ar. Av. 1649, 1666. The frame of mythical names forms another strong reference to autochthony and demonstrates Xuthus’ and Ion’s common status in comparison with her own noble pedigree. The underlying legal issue is that of ἔγκτησις, prohibiting any non-Athenian from acquiring land in Attica without special permission (Harrison I 237–8, Whitehead (1977) 30). 1298 οὐ λόγοις: The slight is against Creusa’s argumentativeness (cf. 1406), but also against Athens: the city cannot protect herself but has to invite allies such as Xuthus to help her out. The comment is strange if considered against Ion’s personality as seen so far: he appeared to be far more a man of the word than the weapon. But his criticism of fixation on words also concerns the typically Athenian fondness for verbal battling, censured in Thuc. 3.38.7. 1299 ἐπίκουρος: The word is highly pejorative here, opposed to native troops (297n). Stehle (1996) 209 wishes to recognise a tension in this passage between an older meaning ‘subordinate helper’ and a newer ‘rescuer (from outside)’, which develops in tragedy. But such a dichotomy is unfair to the κλεινοὶ ἐπίκουροι of the Iliad. Creusa is increasingly aggravated and disparages the man she was given to as a wife. Earlier in the play (977) she spoke about him with some fondness, but now she makes him no more than a mercenary and a useful tool. The insult also offends the Athenian perception of Xuthus, who enjoyed heroic status: Kearns (1989) 189, IG I3 255. A13. ἂν οὐκ εἴη: What pretends to be politely cautious is really sarcasm; the irony in the potential betrays Creusa’s aristocratic condescension; cf. Alc. 72 πόλλ’ ἂν σὺ λέξας οὐδὲν ἂν πλέον λάβοις. 1304 †ἡμῖν δέ γ’ ἀλλὰ πατρὶ†: The corrupt line must have expressed doubt and puzzlement about what was Xuthus’ and Ion’s (when the former promised his son the land). Creusa answers: shield and spear are all you can claim; so an insecure question containing L’s γῆς οὐκ ἦν μέρος is exactly what we would expect to precede her answer: ‘We had no share of land passed down to us from our father?’ ἡμῖν may be picked up by Creusa’s σοι in 1305 and thus also be sound. δέ γ’ ἀλλά, by contrast, is a combination not attested elsewhere; the purely adversative connection does not suit the sense particularly well, and we might rather expect a conclusive particle that then allows Creusa to affirm her statement of 1299. Nothing is wrong with Page’s conjecture ἡμῖν δέ γ᾿ ἅμα πατρὶ and Diggle’s modification χἄμα, but they sound rather dry. The Aldina’s πατρικῆς, adopted by most editors, misses the point that Xuthus turns out not to have anything to bequeath. It cannot mean that Ion is content with the father’s share of the couple’s property (so Owen).

476

Commentary

1305 ὅσ’: ‘just (shield and spear, that is your entire property)’; cf. IT 612–13 οὐδ’ ἐγώ, ξένοι, ἀνάδελφός εἰμι, πλὴν ὅσ’ οὐχ ὁρῶσά νιν, K-G I 412 n.7. For ὅσος in correlation with ὅδε cf. Ar. Av. 637 ὅσα δὲ γνώμηι δεῖ βουλεύειν, ἐπὶ σοὶ τάδε πάντ’ ἀνάκειται, Call. Aet. fr. 57 (=SH 264). The correlative is picked up by ἥδε, which is congruent with the predicative noun παμπησία: cf. K-G I 74. παμπησία: from *πάομαι, πέπαμαι, attested only in Aesch. Sept. 817, Ar. Eccl. 868, and in inquiries to the oracle in Dodona (cf. Lhôte (2006) 45–6). Both Wilamowitz and Hutchinson (on Aesch.), however, suspect it to be a rather common Attic word. 1306–11 (1306–7, 1302–3, 1308–11) Ion has been reduced to the position of an impostor by Creusa’s arguments, and the debate has reached a dead end, so Ion stops the (up to now coherent) flow of the dialogue and returns to his original request. The two characters deliberately offend each other, referring to the other’s particular sensitivities: Creusa starts by alluding to Ion’s motherlessness, which Ion counters by mentioning her childlessness, and they dispute each other’s integrity. At the end of the dispute each repeats their main accusation (1303, 1308). The escalation culminates in mutual threats over Creusa’s death: he wants to see punishment exacted from Creusa; she speaks of polluting the temple through her own death so as to cause maximum outrage. 1306 θεηλάτους ἕδρας: To avoid pollution, Creusa would have to leave the sacred precint; however, both in 1275 and eventually in 1401, the altar alone as the focal point constitutes the area of protection, in part certainly for dramaturgical purposes. There may also be a small hint at the omphalos, which symbolises the sanctuary and serves literally as Apollo’s seat (5–6). θεήλατος is not ‘[b]uilt for the gods’ (LSJ III), which would be unique, but ‘made or caused by the god’ (cf. 1392): the sanctuary (cf. 492n, 910) was established by Zeus when he had found out that the centre of the earth was there (Pindar Pae. fr. 54, Plut. Mor. 409E). 1307: a gruff reply to a request: Ar. Av. 1436 ὦ δαιμόνιε, μὴ νουθέτει μ’, ἀλλὰ πτέρου, Ran. 830. Creusa rejects both the substance of Ion’s order and his right to give her orders. Her rejoinder on Ion’s obscure origin and unfulfilled desire for his mother returns in kind the aggressiveness of his words, exposing the emptiness of his threatening command and the stalemate in the situation: in this way she shows that the exchange of arguments has ended without a resolution or decision. The rest of the altercation is a trading of blows. On the interlaced word order (not prolepsis, pace Panhuis (1984) 35 with n.13) cf. K-G II 579–80. The significant constituents of the sentence push



1250–[1622] Exodos

477

back less weighty elements and separate grammatically related words: σήν provides the linguistic focus of the sentence and the connection (by contrast) to Ion’s utterance; μητέρ(α), which has no essential function in the sentence, moves behind the pragmatically more important insult (‘bastard’): cf. Hcld. 41 ἡ δ’ αὖ τὸ θῆλυ παιδὸς Ἀλκμήνη γένος ... 1302: Instead of addressing the insulting substance of Creusa’s protest Ion ripostes, describing her as frustrated and jealous of other people’s luck. Diggle prints this as a question (with L, against most editors), but as a statement it is much more dismissive, as Ion glosses over the fact that he cannot refute Creusa’s argument and has to attack her directly. On φθονεῖς εἰ cf. K-G II 369. 1308 ὑφέξεις: ‘undergo’ a trial or punishment; the term is common in judicial contexts, and always used thus by Euripides. 1309–11 The disruption of the family and the disturbance caused by Apollo’s plan reach their climax. The entire situation is in danger of rebounding on the god as Creusa expresses her desire to bring pollution upon him. In accordance with common practice she agrees to abandon the supplication against the promise of a specified treatment; however, she perverts the idea by combining it with the threat of spreading defilement in order to take revenge on Apollo. In his reaction Ion, who is hurt in his religious feelings (or his attachment to Apollo), expresses his bewilderment. He does not recognise that she wishes to antagonise Apollo and must refer Creusa’s enigmatic expression 1311 τιν᾿ ὧν to himself. The sacrifice Creusa proposes is doubly perverted and meant to produce the utmost pollution and annoyance to Apollo (on the gods shunning death and pollution cf. 1118n, R. Parker (1983) 33). Firstly, sacrificial animals were not slaughtered inside temples, and even the burning rarely took place there (cf. Stengel (1920) 15, Andr. 1113 on Delphi). Secondly, the idea of human sacrifice is outrageous, not securely attested in historical times (Hughes (1991)), and even in tragedy (i.e. myth) performed only on virgin volunteers to guarantee the survival of the community (e.g. Erechtheus’ daughter, Iphigeneia, Polyxena, ‘Macaria’ in Hcld.). References in tragedy to perverted ritual often reveal a deeper crisis (cf. Foley (1985) 40), here the bitterness and the gridlock between the opponents, and the danger of killing within the family. 1309 ἤν γ’ ... θέληις: ‘Yes, but only if you are prepared to ...’ (cf. Denniston 141). Creusa refuses to become χειρία (1257) by leaving the temple area (ἀδύτων, as in 662).

478

Commentary

σφάξαι: the proper term for a bloody sacrifice: cf. Casabona (1966) 159, Hughes (1991) 4. Although frequently used metaphorically for killing in tragedy (Henrichs (2000) 180), σφάττω here denotes a proper, albeit perverted, ritual. 1310 τίς ἡδονή: Ion fails to see the motive driving Creusa or the benefit of her proposition. The phrase is formed after the formulaic τί κέρδος/ὄφελος (1350), but the choice of noun indicates that it is inconceivable for him that there may be any advantage, only an inexplicable desire. θεοῦ ... ἐν στέμμασιν: a reference to ritual slaughter in the temple of Apollo, i.e. on sacred ground: cf. Aesch. Eum. 39, Ar. Pl. 39 τί δῆτα Φοῖβος ἔλακεν ἐκ τῶν στεμμάτων. Fillets do not seem to have been a common feature on altars, pace Owen: schol. Pind. O. 9.112 (=167 Drachmann) θυσίαις καὶ στέμμασι τὸν Αἰάντειον βωμὸν ἐκόσμησεν is a misinterpretation of the poem. 1312–19 The aggressive hostility displayed in the preceding section has made it clear that no progress is possible. Neither side is willing to move, and for now the law of supplication cancels out the order to arrest Creusa. No further debate is possible after Creusa’s provocation: so the stichomythia ends with a short general reflection by Ion at the break in the action. Creusa’s quid pro quo offends him, and he laments the universality of divine law, which can be exploited to obstruct the administration of human justice. As part of the irony in the run-up to the recognition, Ion accuses the gods of lack of foresight, only to be proved wrong later: suppliants’ protection is the only way to save Creusa for the recognition (Mikalson (1991) 75–6). Many interpreters assume that Ion is about to strike Creusa or to drag her away, stopped only by the Pythia (e.g. Schwinge (1968) 232, Burnett (1971) 119–20, M. Lloyd (1986) 43, Nesselrath (1992) 152; contra e.g. Wilamowitz, Zacharia (2003) 40). On the contrary, he acknowledges the validity of divine law, even though he finds it reprehensible in this instance (οὐκ ἐχρῆν, a utopian wish for things to be different: Solmsen (1975) 66–82, esp. 72 on χρῆν, 75). It is thus not an inner conflict between the urge to punish Creusa and his religious scruples, either, that brings the play to a halt (so Halleran (1985) 108) but a clash of norms (cf. 1256n). Tragedy is inconsistent regarding the unconditional sacrosanctity of the suppliant against power and the demand of retribution for committed wrongs. The latter produces the greater moral dilemma, as right stands against right, and the criminal suppliant’s pollution may be said to contaminate the place of supplication (Aesch. Eum. 715–6 αἱματηρὰ πράγματ’ οὐ λαχὼν σέβεις, μαντεῖα δ’ οὐκέθ’ ἁγνὰ μαντεύσηι νέμων, Sinn (1993) 91). Tragic characters



1250–[1622] Exodos

479

can discuss the matter (Hcld. 259–60), and while in some sources protection seems to apply to everybody (Hcld. 260, Strabo 14.1.23), the opposite view (Oed. fr. 554a ἐγὼ γὰρ ὅστις μὴ δίκαιος ὢν ἀνὴρ βωμὸν προσίζει, τὸν νόμον χαίρειν ἐῶν πρὸς τὴν δίκην ἄγοιμ’ ἂν οὐ τρέσας θεούς· κακὸν γὰρ ἄνδρα χρὴ κακῶς πάσχειν ἀεί; cf. Hcld. 259, Aesch. Suppl. 196, Eum. loc. cit.) is supported by epigraphic evidence: IG I3 45.3–6, LSCG 124.10, LSS 115b.50–4, also Thuc. 4.98.6, Lycurg. 1.129. 1312 φεῦ: the ‘locutor’s lament at the realization of certain overarching principles unaccountable to traditional morality’ (Perdicoyianni-Paléologue (2002) 67): cf. Med. 330, Aesch. Sept. 597, Soph. Aj. 1266 – but also the expression of the pain that accompanies such a realisation. 1313 ὁ θεὸς: For the gods as lawgivers cf. 443n. Unless Ion wants to say that Apollo gave the law for his own temple (which is unlikely for a universal law), θεός expresses the general idea of divinity (François (1957) 120–2). ἀπὸ γνώμης σοφῆς: ‘based on wise judgment’; cf. Aesch. Eum. 674–5 κελεύω τούσδ’ ἀπὸ γνώμης φέρειν ψῆφον δικαίαν, Soph. Trach. 389, Viketos (1990). [1315–17] Diggle (1974) 30–1 = (1994) 128–9 doubts the genuineness of 1316–17 because of the lacking syntactical coherence of τοῖσι δ’ ἐνδίκοις: the antithesis it forms with either τοὺς ἀδίκους or (if Owen’s conjecture is accepted) with πονηρᾶι χειρί is not neat. Nor do the two lines add anything of worth – they ought to go, though not without 1315: the change of function of τοὺς ἀδίκους from subject of ἵζω (transitive use, proposed by Levy (1973) 283–4, is implausible, as nobody places suppliants on altars) to object of ἐξελαύνειν is awkward, and the perspective shifts briefly from that of the perpetrator to that of the persecutor, only to go back immediately with ψαύειν. The focus of the passage as a whole switches from justice (ἀδίκους) to pollution (ψαύειν, πονηρὰν χεῖρα); but pollution has not been Ion’s concern: he wishes to arrest Creusa, not to drive her away. The interpolation adds a clarifying instruction (ἐξελαύνειν) to the prohibition οὐχ ἵζειν and supplements a δέ to 1314 μέν (cf. 1318n). 1318–19 1318 καὶ μὴ: After τοὺς μὲν ἀδίκους the antithesis is continued with a comparison (τόν τ(ε) ... τόν τε), not with the opposite, hence μέν is followed by καί instead of δέ (cf. Denniston 374, Blomqvist (1979) 30–8). μή follows, οὐ (οὐχ ἵζειν) precedes χρή, without a clear difference in meaning.

480

Commentary

’πὶ ταὐτὸ τοῦτ’ ἰόντ’: We should take this as a general maxim calling for a differentiated treatment of people according to their moral integrity, not just in the special case of supplication (so Owen): for ἰέναι ἐπὶ ταὐτό ‘to get into the same position’ cf. Med. 564  ἐς ταὐτὸ θείην ‘give the same status’, Tro. 684 ἐς ταὐτὸν ἥκεις συμφορᾶς. ἔχειν ἴσον: ‘have equal rights’, ‘receive equal treatment,’ an expression especially of socio-political language: cf. Suppl. 408 χὠ πένης ἔχων ἴσον, Lycurg. 1.142 ὅταν νομίζηι δεῖν Λεωκράτης ἴσον ἔχειν ὁ φυγὼν ἐν τῆι τῶν μεινάντων πόλει (on the deserter demanding equal rights). 1320–[68] The Pythia An impulse from outside sets the action in motion again as the Pythia enters the scene through the central door. Her entrance is a calculated surprise (Halleran (1985) 20) at the climax of the supplication and the equivalent of a first dea ex machina (Schmid/Stählin I.3 554, Radt (1968) 17; cf. Orestes’ entrance in Or. 1567) resembles that of Amphiaraus in Hyps. fr. 757.853. 1322 Φοίβου προφῆτις is not only a means to identify her but hints that she has come at Apollo’s behest. She does not resolve the situation – as a god would – but distracts from the conflict and provides the means for the later resolution: the dialogue sidelines Creusa (who is present but silent) and her dispute with Ion. Instead, it soon focuses on the basket, whose relevance to the relationship between Ion and Creusa, including the potential to spark the recognition and break the deadlock, is not obvious to the characters. The audience, by contrast, are in a position to anticipate the significance of the Pythia’s entrance: the basket has already been set up as a possible means of recognition in the prologue speech (19n), and the exposed baby’s container may be an established precipitant of tragic recognitions: cf. Arist. Poet. 1454b25 (on a Tyro, possibly Sophocles’). In another respect, the audience is left in the dark: the Pythia never reveals if she knows about Ion’s and Creusa’s relationship. More than once her words are ambiguous, in true oracular fashion, and provide strong hints that she is aware of the truth, as Verrall noticed: she forbids Ion to indulge in his anger at Creusa, suggesting that his is a special case (1327–35, in particular the last line); and she has at least some knowledge of Apollo’s plans (1353). In the tone of the conversation, however, what is dominant is not the Pythia’s role as prophetess but as Ion’s foster mother. His respectful and warm politeness (1324, 1332, 1336) and his desire for her feedback (1326, 1328, 1332) shows a childlike devotion and obedience. It contrasts sharply with how he has just talked with his real mother. The strong desire for the real mother becomes all the more credible. Only when he does not understand her persistent objection to his revenge (1330, 1334) does his tone reveal a touch of exasperation.



1250–[1622] Exodos

481

1320–5 The Pythia stops Ion blaspheming. Her lengthy self-introduction may indicate that she is not immediately recognisable to the audience. However, in connection with Ion’s subsequent address she is already shown in her double role as Apollo’s voice and Ion’s foster mother, the same ambiguity that also characterises her advice and her actions: together with Apollo she has saved Ion and now takes care that he stay undefiled and recognise his real mother. While she claims that everything happened on the god’s order (1343, 1347, 1353), both the greetings and the farewell (1363) reveal motherly love and care. 1320 ἐπίσχες: We need not imagine Ion with a raised sword or clasping Creusa’s arm to drag her away (cf. 1312–19n): Ion has just complained about divine law being inadequate, and the Pythia’s interference prevents him from further offence. For ἐπίσχες cutting off an utterance cf. e.g. Phoen. 452, Ar. Ran. 851, Isae. 11.5. παῖ: Again the ambiguity of the Pythia’s role shows: Ion is both a nameless temple slave and her foster child. γὰρ: confirms and justifies her demand that he stop: ‘Hold on! for I have come out ...’; cf. 1022, Denniston 60. χρηστήριον: as adjective: Hel. 822, Aesch. Sept. 26. 1321 θριγκοὺς: The cornice (cf. 156n) is used metonymically for the temple (the demonstrative suggests a visible object). Those who understand a reference to the invisible inside, i.e. the ‘low kerb’ of the adytum (e.g. Owen after Hermann), take ὑπερβάλλω too literally: ὑπερ- is used by Euripides as prefix and preposition in the meaning ‘beyond’ in contexts of entering or leaving the house: cf. 514, Alc. 829, Willink on Or. 1370–2; on the missing differentiation of cella and adyton cf. 231n. 1322–3 νόμον σώιζουσα πασῶν Δελφίδων ἐξαίρετος: The formulation and the adherence to an ancient tradition is a remarkable parallel between Ion’s foster mother and his biological mother (20). The ‘law’ or ‘custom’ is her service as prophetess (Owen), not the selection from the Delphic girls (so Paley). We know nothing about the procedure or the criteria of the selection. Diodorus reports that the Pythiae were originally young maidens, but after one had been taken advantage of by an inquirer, they were replaced by women beyond their prime (16.26.6). It is denied that nobility is a prerequisite, a humble, uneducated origin is conceivable (Plut. Mor. 405C, Max. Tyr. 8.1b, Ael.Arist. 2.34–5), but the formal egalitarianism may be ideology rather than reality: cf. S. Schröder on Plut. Mor. 405C, Connelly (2007) 43–4, 73.

482

Commentary

1324 ὦ φίλη μοι μῆτερ: Ion accepts her in the place of his mother (cf. 321) and greets her in the same way as Creusa in 1443 (cf. Hec. 409; but φιλτάτη in 1437). μῆτερ can be used as a sign of respect to unrelated elder women (Dickey (1996) 78–9), but in this context Ion is more than just formally polite. οὐ τεκοῦσά περ: Cf. Hyps. fr. 757.842 πλὴν οὐ τεκοῦσα τἄλλα γ’ ὡς ἐμὸν τέκνον. περ is concessive (Denniston 485). 1325 ἀλλ’ οὖν λεγόμεθά γ’: ‘Even so (sc. despite not having given birth to you) I have that title’ – the best emendation of the transmitted ἀλλ’ οὖν λεγόμεσθ᾿ (Elmsley on Hcld. 689). For this usage of ἀλλ’ οὖν ... γε with a restriction cf. Denniston 442. The imperfect ἐλεγόμεθ᾿ (Badham 1851) is inferior: the Pythia is still called thus. The exhortative (Murray’s λεγώμεθ᾿) would better be followed by γάρ. φάτις: ‘name’, ‘title’: Archel. fr. 242.2?, Aesch. Aetn. fr. 6.3. 1326–35a The Pythia forbids Ion to persecute Creusa any further. She reprimands him because the normal rules for the treatment of an enemy, to which he refers in his justification, are inapplicable in his case. The density of gnomic statements, especially by Ion (1328–30, 1334), shows the difficulty of the specific case. When she declares an exception from the principle of the talio (1335), the Pythia seems to know the truth about Ion and Creusa, but by suppressing an explanation she leaves the discovery to them, investing them with greater responsibility: the god does not lose control (as it is obvious that he could initiate the revelation at any time), but they have to be active in finding out about and accepting their kinship – which also makes for far greater theatre. 1326–7 ἤκουσας ... ἤκουσα: Half protestingly against her order, half outraged, Ion wants to tell his story to his foster mother. He invites the Pythia to express agreement about the outrageousness of Creusa’s assault. The Pythia, however, refuses to comply and instead criticises him. How the news has reached her remains a mystery, and she may once more be hinting at her inspiration from Apollo. The tragedians commonly pay attention to their characters’ conceivable states of knowledge (e.g. Andr. 555–62). It would, however, be cumbersome if Ion had to tell the Pythia on stage what had happened. 1327 δ’: Adversative use (‘but you too’), contradicting Ion’s lopsided accusation, is preferable to purely emphatic γ᾿ (L). 1328 τοὺς κτείνοντας ἀνταπολλύναι: The lex talionis allows punishment in kind even where the first attempt failed (cf. Hirzel (1907–1910) 408 n.9).



1250–[1622] Exodos

483

Ion tries to make his statement unassailable by giving it a general, quasi-gnomic form through the use of the plural. 1329 προγόνοις δάμαρτες δυσμενεῖς: Against Ion’s sententious utterance on the talio the Pythia sets her own gnomê, which is meant to defuse Ion’s anger at Creusa by distracting from her as an individual: if her action was determined by her role, her responsibility is diminished and the difficulty in the relationship with Ion is not personal. The Pythia’s words can thus be read not only as an attempt to prevent Ion from staining himself (1333), but as direct preparation of the reconciliation when the role of stepmother becomes obsolete. Although direct evidence for violent or murderous stepmothers is scarce and dubious in classical Athens (Watson (1995) 54–71), the topos of their malevolence clearly exists: Alc. 309–10 ἐχθρὰ γὰρ ἡ ’πιοῦσα μητρυιὰ τέκνοις τοῖς πρόσθ’, Aeg. fr. 4. For the topos in Greek myth and proverb cf. Watson p. 223–38, Tosi (1991) 653–4; in Euripides cf. Medea (in Aegeus), Themisto (Ino), Siris (?, Mel.Desm.), Ino (Phrix. A+B). ἀεί ποτε: in gnomic statements on knowledge drawn from past experience: e.g. Antiope fr. 206.5–6 ἐγὼ τὰ πράγματα κρείσσω νομίζω τῶν λόγων ἀεί ποτε, fr. 1012. 1331 μὴ ταῦτα: The Pythia’s tone becomes sharper. On μή with ellipsis of the imperative (λέγε) cf. Collard (2005) 367. πάτραν: There is a deeper sense to the word than Ion can know, as he understands his supposed father’s residence, not his own place of origin. 1333 καθαρὸς: The Pythia argues that Ion must not impair his future position; at the same time she defends the purity of Athens (and the external audience); cf. Med. 846–50. The position at the head of the line stresses the importance of Ion’s purity (reinforced by ὑπ’ οἰωνῶν καλῶν), which coincides with Ion’s own preoccupations. καθαρός is used by the orators in the context of homicide: Lyc. 1.125, Dem. 23.55 πάλιν ‘ἂν ἐν πολέμωι’ φησὶν ‘ἀγνοήσας,’ καὶ τοῦτον εἶναι καθαρόν, paraphrasing the law (also Pl. Leg. 864E), though it is not clearly attested directly in the laws (Andoc. 1.95 τὸν ἀποκτείναντα ὅσιον εἶναι, SEG 12:87.11; cf. Martin (2009) 124). What is decisive in all passages is the status of the killer, not the manner of killing; hence the change from καθαρῶς (L) is justified. 1334 πολεμίους: Ion uses the term with which Creusa had described him (1254, 1291). This time the connotation of warfare is particularly relevant, for in war (in contrast to private enmity) there is no pollution (cf. 1045–7n, Pl. Leg. 869D πολέμιον ἀποκτείνας ἔστω καθαρός, R. Parker (1983) 113).

484

Commentary

1335 μὴ σύ γε: either a simple ‘Don’t!’ (436, Hec. 408, Phoen. 532, Soph. OC 1441) or with emphasis on the pronoun: ‘Not you!’ (possibly IA 1459; cf. Ar. Lys. 922). In the latter sense the Pythia seems to recognise the general truth of the statement and to be aware of the danger of matricide if Ion were responsible for Creusa’s death. 1335b–[68] The Pythia breaks off the discussion, which has not been the purpose of her appearance. She has deflected attention away from Creusa and cannot say more without anticipating the recognition (supposing that she knows more). She reveals to Ion that he was a foundling in the sanctuary and hands to him the container in which he was found. Ion’s repeated questions and her insistence that the revelation at this time, just as the previous secrecy (cf. 316–21n), is Apollo’s wish, reinforces the point that the god has always been taking care of the boy. With the basket Ion (for the first time: 329) acquires a means of finding his mother – and the obligation to do so. 1335b–9 1340–5 1346–9 1350–4 1355–[65]

Introduction of the basket Reasons for secrecy about it Reasons for keeping it Function Farewell

The Pythia’s comments have the character of oracular responses, except that they are issued without a consultation: they remain obscure, and she often avoids straight answers to Ion’s question; she also does not guide him to the purpose of the revelations (as may be possible from her ἐνθύμιον: 1347) but demands that he interpret and draw the conclusions himself (esp. 1344 με, 1351). The Pythia’s language contains some elements that otherwise occur only in Apollo’s speech in the prologue (31 λαβὼν βρέφος νεογνόν, 32 ἄγγος), which underpins her inspiration by the god. In this way she appears merely to be the god’s mouthpiece. Ion, by contrast, uses Hermes’ ἀντίπηξ (40), sustaining the congenial tone there had been between them (note λάτριν 4~1343). In contrast to the reticent and vague Pythia, Ion is looking for reasons and striving for certainty concerning Apollo’s wishes: he is similarly tenacious in his inquiry as when he tested Xuthus’ interpretation of Apollo’s oracle in the 2nd epeisodion. Due to the greater respect that the Pythia commands, he does not doubt or double-check what she says (except 1344). 1335 ἔκλαβ’: ‘learn’; cf. Pl. Leg 812E τὸ τῆς μουσικῆς χρήσιμον ἐκλήψεσθαι. 1336 λέγοις ἄν: a polite invitation to speak (cf. 335n), answering ἔκλαβ(ε).



1250–[1622] Exodos

485

1337 χερὸς ὑπ’ ἀγκάλαις: She is not carrying the basket before her (which is ἐν or ἐπ᾿ ἀγκάλαις, as one carries a baby) but under her arm (cf. the boy leading old Peleus Andr. 722, 747, but Ap.Rh. 4.137 οἵ τέ σφιν ὑπ’ ἀγκαλίδεσσιν ἴαυον). 1338 παλαιὰν: The basket itself and the fillets are later described as not showing signs of age (1391–3). Inattention on Euripides’ part is unlikely, as the consistency would become obvious in performance. Rather than physical age the description may either denote old-fashionedness or signs of the long period of storing. ἐν στέμμασιν: The fillets will be removed in 1389–91; they are necessary to cover the basket from Creusa’s view until the Pythia has left and the recognition between mother and son can take place. With the Pythia still present, not only would the recognition lose in intimacy, but she would also be in a position to answer the questions which remain open in the recognition (1454–6). The sacred bands have been put around by the Pythia (for their apotropaic function cf. Schuppe (1932) 2003). Hermes had left the basket open (39), and the fillets are not the swaddling bands, which remain inside (1351, 1412–13). On the similarity with the omphalos thereby produced cf. 19n. 1340 ὁ μῦθος εἰσενήνεκται νέος: A μῦθος can be a discourse often associated with particular authority (Lincoln (1997)) or just a dignified alternative for λόγος: cf. Andr. 757, Ba. 650 τοὺς λόγους γὰρ ἐσφέρεις καινοὺς ἀεί. The idea that a departure from traditional ‘myth’ in the modern sense is signposted here (so S. Cole (2008) 315) can be dismissed on the basis of the conventionality of such remarks. 1341 σιγῆι γὰρ: γάρ refers to νέος: Ion had been kept ignorant (cf. 316–21n, 329). σιγῆι means ‘without telling’ or ‘keeping silent about sth.’: cf. Med. 587, Hom. Od. 18.142 ὅ γε σιγῆι δῶρα θεῶν ἔχοι. αὐτά: presumably in the concrete meaning: the basket, as 1346 τάδε. 1342 τότε: With τότε, the temporal dichotomy of the time of exposure and the present is sustained (cf. 1341, 1344 νῦν δ’): ‘How – having taken it then – did you manage to hide it from me for so long?’ The use of a demonstrative (τόδε L, τάδε Hartung) is unnecessary and would be strange after the weaker αὐτά. The mistake was probably caused by the misinterpretation of ἡμᾶς as object of λαβοῦσα, whence an object of ἔκρυπτες (instead of ‘from me’) was desired. 1343 ὁ θεός σ’ ἐβούλετ’: in answer to πῶς: the god enabled her to hide it. Diggle (1974) 31–5 = (1994) 129–35 and (1981a) 111–12 – following Nauck – wants to move the pronoun after δόμοις to produce a pyrrhic start of the line, as he thinks that synizesis of θεός is possible only after a long syllable. But this theory rests on a flawed reading of the statistics (Battezzato

486

Commentary

(2000b) 47–9, Baechle (2007) 120–1 n.53). The late position of σ(ε) would also give ἐν δόμοις an undue emphasis as start of a new colon. 1344 νῦν δ’ οὐχὶ χρήιζει;: Apart from scepticism at the Pythia’s word, we can sense surprise and even consternation that the god does not want him as servant any longer: cf. his attachment to Apollo in his monody, especially his wish not to leave Delphi unless for a considerable improvement (151–3), which Athens does not seem to him to be (645). 1345 κατειπὼν: ‘make public’, i.e. reveal (Hec. 243) and denounce (Sthen. fr. 661.30); cf. 1215. The purpose of the (false) oracle is interpreted correctly: as proof that Apollo releases Ion. 1346–9 The Pythia ascribes the impulse to Apollo himself but avoids a clear statement on how Apollo instructed her or to what purpose. This is part of her general demeanour, not ‘reflection of contemporary speculation about the nature of prophecy’ (Hunter (2011) 34). Ion seems satisfied with the answers and returns to the object in hand. 1346 πόθεν: ‘What made you (keep it)?’ Cf. Alc. 95, Ba. 648, Aesch. Cho. 515. 1347 τότε: The sequence 1347–9 is not conventional sermo fractus with a filler (so Paley, Murray): the Pythia has finished her sentence (σώιζειν τάδε is to be supplemented from 1346). Ion fails to understand this and so asks. The Pythia, however, is unable or unwilling to say more. 1348: The question is particularly strong and urgent: Ion expects further revelations: for πέραινε cf. 362, Med. 701. On τί χρῆμα in excited and impatient questions cf. Bergson (1967) 83, Stevens (1976) 21–2. δρᾶσαι: so Musgrave; for L’s δράσειν: in direct speech the imperative would be aorist. 1349 ἐς τὸν ὄντα νῦν χρόνον: Hel. [1650] εἰς μὲν γὰρ αἰεὶ τὸν παρόντα νῦν χρόνον, Soph. El. 1293 τῶι παρόντι νῦν χρόνωι. 1350–4 Ion comes back to his preoccupation with finding his mother, although the Pythia avoids actively steering him in this direction: her answer in 1351 (seemingly) fails to answer (and be coherent with) the question, as it does not spell out the use of the basket: in common oracular fashion (1335b–[68] n) she only provides him with some information, but does not prejudice the way it is to be interpreted.



1250–[1622] Exodos

487

1350 ἢ τίνα βλάβην: The opposition of benefit and harm is conventional; the second element is added even where it is irrelevant for the context (Soph. Ant. 616–17, Pl. Lys. 214E, Phd. 107D; cf. Kemmer (1903) 231). Here, however, the mention of possible harm may hint at Ion’s wariness that Apollo’s ‘gift’ may have its disadvantage. His diffidence 1381–3 shows the same mistrust about his fate. 1352: Older editions print the line as a statement, but it is part of Ion’s ongoing inquiry and answered affirmatively (1353 γε). ζητήματα: regularly ‘search’ (as nomen actionis), but here the means of search, in Ba. 1139 the object searched; cf. Long (1968) 19. 1353 πάροιθε δ’ οὔ: depending on ἐξήνεγκον rather than ἐβουλήθη. 1354 ὦ μακαρία: The unexpected turn leads Ion to hail a day of wonders: cf. Tro. 860 ὦ καλλιφεγγὲς ἡλίου σέλας τόδε, El. 585, Soph. El. 1224 (more in Lejeune Dirichlet (1914) 42 n.4). Both L’s μακαρίων and Hermann’s μακαρία make sense, but the paradosis is weaker: 1) in a μακαρισμός the epithet goes naturally (and customarily) with the ‘addressee’ (cf. Shisler (1942) 281); 2) the sentence would be an exclamation, preferably with ὤ, not a (more common) invocation; 3) the connection between vocative and genitive is more meaningful if the genitive is causal depending on μακαρία, instead of one of quality. 1355–63 The Pythia sees Ion off with a warm farewell like a mother’s, not at all ‘brisk and businesslike’ (so Diggle (1981a) 115). The farewell formula καὶ χαῖρ’ is far from a general good-bye, but emphatic and emotional, used only when two close friends (Pylades and Orestes in IT 708, Or. 1068, Artemis to Hippolytus in Hipp. 1437) or family members part. In ring composition with 1324–5 the Pythia emphasises both her similarity with and distinctness from a biological mother (1363). 1355 ought to be close to 1363 (note the word play τεκοῦσαν ... ὡς τεκοῦσ(α)), not to be separated by Ion’s overenthusiastic exclamation in 1356. 1355 ἐκπόνει: ‘exert yourself (by searching)’; cf. [375]n. [1356–62] Diggle (1981a) 113–15 rightly suspects 1357–62: 1361 θνητῶν ... ἀνθρώπων is a formulation not used in tragedy; the valedictory formula καὶ χαῖρε should be preceded by a closely connected imperative (1355 ἐκπόνει; cf. 1363n); and the lines partly contradict themselves or the preceding stichomythia (cf. 1357–9n). Other parts merely replicate what has been said (τοῦ

488

Commentary

θεοῦ δ’ ἕκατι, ἀποδίδωμι, λαβεῖν, ἤιδει οὔτις), exceeding what Mastronarde (1979) 115 n.4 describes as the typical repetitiveness of farewell speeches. In addition, there is no good dramatic reason why the Pythia, against her oracular manner, should here expressly deny any knowledge. Biehl (1992) 26–8 defends the entire section by once more postulating implausible silent acting; the arguments put forth by Erbse (1984) 85–8 against Diggle are psychological hairsplitting. Kraus 92–4 accepts 1357–8 on the basis of ‘subtle irony’, which he perceives in γνώσηι τάδ’ αὐτός in reply to 1356. But ought we to permit such an inconsequential line as 1356 (not to mention the undesirable separation of 1355 and 1363)? Such a loose end would be surprising, and Diggle (p. 113) already mentions the possibility of deleting the line. The reference to Asia sounds like a weak anticipation of Ion’s wanderings as announced in [74–5] (against 1586–7). What is more, Ion is here overeager to search for his mother, only to deprive himself of any chance by abandonding the search in the next moment (1380–4) – without explaning or even addressing his change of mood and mind (contrast 1385). 1356 Ἀσιάδ’ Εὐρώπης θ’ ὅρους: = Tro. 927. 1357–9 τοῦ θεοῦ δ’ ἕκατί ... ἀκέλευστον μ’ ἐβουλήθη: The lines are not consistent concerning the degree of independence ascribed to the Pythia; Erbse (1984) 86 in over-subtle dialectics tries to make the Pythia act ‘unter Anleitung des Gottes’ and ‘selbständig’ at the same time. Her formulations (ἐβουλήθη, ἕκατι with LSJ s.v. ἕκητι I and IIa) presuppose influence by the god and knowledge of his will. Being his minster, she can then hardly have acted ἀκέλευστον (1359), much less if she recognised at the time that he sent her an ἐνθύμιον (1347). 1360 σῶσαί θ’: Most parts of the line have been proposed for deletion at some point. Unless we assume that the interpolator wrote an iambic foot too many, the easiest solution is to delete the first part: a pedantic addition to λαβεῖν repeating the word from 1346 and 1349. Problems persist if we delete λέγειν with Wilamowitz (cf. Reeve (1973) 150 n.13): οὐκ ἔχω alone would request further information (cf. e.g. Or. 1120); the construction with an indirect question is also doubtful. 1361–2: The lines repeat 1341. They are pleonastic, as nobody can know where a thing is, if its existence is unknown to them. 1363 καὶ χαῖρ’: In Euripides καί in this formula always connects χαῖρε with a preceding imperative (pace Ercolani (2000) 188; cf. Diggle (1981a) 114). Supposed exceptions prove the rule: in Alc. 1147–9 the relevant imperative



1250–[1622] Exodos

489

is εἴσαγ(ε); in Hel. 589–91 the syntax is coherent across a stichomythic ‘filler’. γάρ justifies the choice of the intimate (cf. 1355–63n) formula: cf. IT 708 καὶ χαῖρ’· ἐμῶν γὰρ φίλτατόν σ’ ηὗρον φίλων. ἴσον: ‘as much as’, adverbial: El. 994–5 σεβίζω σ’ ἴσα καὶ μάκαρας πλούτου, Herc. 667–8  ἴσον ἅτ’ ἐν νεφέλαισιν ἄστρων ναύταις ἀριθμὸς πέλει, Or. 882. ἀσπάζομαι: I.e. bid farewell in full form. Kaimio (1988) 35 n.1 assumes an embrace – the only one in tragedy between non-relatives – Spitzbarth (1946) 30 even a kiss. Physical contact (perhaps beyond dexiosis) is, however, not necessary, as the verb covers a range of expressions of farewell: cf. Erechth. fr. 362.33 καὶ χαῖρ’· ὑπ’ αἰδοῦς δ’ οὐ λίαν ἀσπάζομαι. [1364–8] Suspicions have been raised by H. Hirzel (apud W. Dindorf (1864) 148), renewed by Reeve (1973) 150–1, and upheld since, with few exceptions (Biehl (1992) 26–8, Matthiessen (2002) 179 n.1; a detailed defence in Erbse (1984) 82–5). A new series of directions by the Pythia is inappropriate, for the line starting καὶ χαῖρε is regularly followed immediately by a character’s departure (in 1604 Athena has fulfilled her remit and is ready to leave when she is stopped by Ion’s and Creusa’s enthusiastic approval). The Pythia would even guide Ion in the wrong direction if she told him to see whether his mother was a Delphic girl. 1364: The formulation is either void of meaning (‘Start seeking in the place where you have to seek your mother.’) or a harsh anacoluthon (a pending relative clause) with ἄρξαι as infinitive and imperative of the main clause: ‘As for the place from which you have to start searching your mother, ...’. 1367 Ἑλλάς: For persons Euripides always uses the feminine form Ἑλληνίς (nine times). 1368 ὃς μετέσχε τῆς τύχης: probably ‘who had influence on your fate’. As a repetition of 1343–7 this is feeble. If the allusion is to Apollo’s role as Ion’s personal protector and father (so Biehl (1992) 28), it is dramatically detrimental, offering Ion knowledge that he must not have at this point (cf. 1510–20n). In Ar. Pax 606 it means ‘suffer the same fate’. 1369–94 After her final words the Pythia re-enters the temple. Creusa remains on the altar during Ion’s soliloquy, silent and ignored. While beholding the wrapped basket he meditates on his birth and fate (1369–[79]). He realises that two of his main desires – his elevation in status and finding his mother – are potentially in conflict: the uncertainty of his origin brings him to the brink of

490

Commentary

abandoning the search, to avoid disappointment and a loss of status should he turn out to be the son of a slave woman. The dedication of the basket and the unseen recognition tokens would preclude for good identification of the mother (1380–4). However, the realisation that the search for the mother is the god’s wish causes him to break off the dedication; Ion’s piety reverses his priorities (1385–8). As he unwraps and beholds the basket, the miraculously unwithered plaiting confirms that the god has a hand in the matter (1389–94). The three factors influencing Ion in this passage – status-consciousness, attachment to his mother, and reverence for Apollo – have been his constant concerns. Both that he dispenses with opening the basket and that he reverses that decision show that his rationality prevail again. 1369–73 Being reminded of the things he missed, Ion starts a reflective speech with threnetic elements (Schauer (2002) 261). He is hurt by the ignominy of his life and the lack of acknowledgement: the focus is on the secrecy of his conception and abandonment, and of his anonymity as a slave – i.e. the absence of recognition from father and mother during his life up to now (cf. 556). The lack of a personal relationship with his mother is subordinate. 1369 φεῦ φεῦ: The interjection need not signal acute woe or pain but accompanies a more reflective mood. IT 576–7 φεῦ φεῦ. τί δ’ ἡμεῖς οἵ τ’ ἐμοὶ γεννήτορες; ἆρ’ εἰσίν; expresses similar nostalgia; cf. Med. 146. Biraud (2010) 110–11 interprets it as a sigh. 1370 ἐκεῖσε ... ὅθ’: ‘to the point when’ (ὅτε): cf. Herc. 1221–2 ἐκεῖσ’ ἀνοιστέον ὅτ’ ἐξέσωσάς μ’. ὅθι ‘where’ is restricted in tragedy to lyric and elided only in Soph. El. 709. 1371 κρυφαῖα ... λάθραι: References to secrecy frame the line: Ion is not granted a public existence, just as the mother does not accept him by refusing to fulfil her role as nurturer. On the internal accusative κρυφαῖα cf. K-G I 309–10. νυμφευθεῖσ’: ‘taken to wife’, a euphemism for rape: cf. 819, Ba. 28. ἀπημπόλα: ‘sold off’, not, as commonly taken ‘smuggled out’: Parker on IT 1360 rightly observes that Ion here envisages the ‘most [...] ignominious misfortune imaginable’, being sold by one’s mother. 1372 ἐπέσχεν: The emendation (from ὑπ-) seems sensible: cf. 1492, Andr. 224–5, Soph. fr. 1036a, and the opposite point of view Alc. 639 μαστῶι γυναικὸς σῆς ὑπεβλήθην; only Plut. Rom. 21.8 has ἡ λύκαινα θηλὴν ὑπέσχε. 1373 οἰκέτην βίον: the only instance where οἰκέτης is used as an adjective, as is frequent with δοῦλος: cf. 270, 819 (cf. Wackernagel (1926) II 53–8; not



1250–[1622] Exodos

491

to be confused with the combination with a general noun, the pattern ἄνδρες στρατιῶται, in El. 104 οἰκέτις γυνή). [1374–9] There are good reasons for following G. Müller (1983) 47 in deleting the lines. They lack a good motivation: they reduce Ion’s general reflections on his fate to narrow considerations about the motherly care he missed and evoke again, in more detail, the vision of the child in his mother’s arms. This idea was already implied in 1371–2, where the more relevant idea of being suckled was central; now it is only alluded to with τρυφῆσαι, τροφή. The gratuitous addition of the mother in 1378 is reminiscent of [1277–8]. Moreover, the dichotomy χρηστά vs. βαρέα is not well connected with the rest: the χρηστά, i.e. the god’s gifts, are not elaborated on; life in the temple (which Ion owed to the god rather than the δαίμων) had not been described as a positive experience in 1373. Finally, the lines interrupt the organic development from Ion’s memory of his servitude to the dedication of the basket out of fear that his mother’s status may cause him social disadvantage. They also lose the connection with the staging: Ion’s thoughts are no longer channelled by the basket he is holding. In 1369–73 the object in his hands had triggered the idea of his exposure and ignominy; here, when talking about missing out on maternal love, he turns away from it. 1374 τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ... δαίμονος: The theology here is difficult, as it dissociates part of Ion’s life (presumably his life in the sanctuary, not the recent oracle) from fate, as if the δαίμων did not cover one’s entire life. Elsewhere in Euripides the δαίμων (in the sense of ‘fate’) never works to the opposite effect of the gods’ intentions (cf. IT 202, Or. 394, 504, François (1957) 131); in the majority of occurrences it cannot even be separated from the θεός: cf. 1385~1388, Phoen. 413–4 Πο. ὁ δαίμων μ’ ἐκάλεσεν πρὸς τὴν τύχην. – Ιο. σοφὸς γὰρ ὁ θεός. In Ion the only other passage where δαίμων is not clearly used for a god is 1269, where the result is a pun; the three tragic passages where such a distinction seems to be made talk about major and minor deities (Med. 1391, Hec. 163–4, El. 1233–5). The ascription of good fortune to gods and bad fortune to δαίμονες, a common oratorical euphemism, is alien to tragic theology: cf. Mikalson (1983) 19, 60, (1991) 22, 26, R. Parker (1997). 1376 τι τερφθῆναι βίου: The construction is inelegant, regardless of whether we have a genitive depending on an internal accusative (τέρψιν τινὰ βίου = ‘take some pleasure in life’) or, in analogy to 451, as a partitive genitive after a direct object (‘take pleasure in something in life’; cf. Alc. 632 τι τῶν σῶν ἐνδεής). Owen’s third explanation, the imitation of the construction of ἀπολαύω, is hardly convincing.

492

Commentary

1378 χἠ: Schaefer corrects the nonsensical conjunction in θ᾿ ἡ (in note no. 316, p. 795 in Hermann’s edition of Viger (1802)). 1379 ἀπολέσασα: Ambiguity undercuts the pathos: the mother has suffered loss, but also herself disposed of the joy. 1380–4 The possibility that his mother could be found out to be a slave engenders in Ion apprehensions about the public reaction. Only as long as his origin is uncertain can it go unmentioned (1383 σιγῶντ’ ἐᾶν) and can ignominy and denigration (cf. 594) be certainly suppressed. Dedication of the basket and its contents would irreversibly (e.g. 1282–9n) remove them from anyone’s access and thus avert the danger of an unwelcome discovery. Ion is the same shrewd pragmatist as later in 1521–7, where he is prepared to accept a lie for social advancement. The importance he attaches to nobility also outweighs the often-stressed desire for the mother. Personal feelings do not enter his considerations here: there is no hint that his mother’s low status could diminish his own affection for her (1383 κάκιον expresses only social disadvantage). The level of suspense rises and the audience’s emotions are being played with, as the imminent recognition is almost averted. The idea that social status and the chance of finding his mother must be traded off against each other and cannot both be realised highlights the comprehensive happiness of the play’s ending. Either solution would be welcome and positive, but in Ion’s case the reconciliation of the two exceeds his expectations. 1380 καὶ νῦν: The phrase marks the transition from speech (i.e. reflection on the past: 1370) to physical action: cf. Alc. 765, Or. 294, Phoen. 484. 1382 δούλη: This worst possible case for Ion (the opposite of the hope expressed in 670–1) was mentioned first by the Old Man (819). Ion’s horror affirms that the play is not a comment about the Periclean citizenship law (cf. 670b–5n, ch. 4C); the only relevant distinction for that law is that between Athenian and non-Athenian. Ion’s differentiation between slave and free non-Athenian would not make a difference, as long as he was recognised by Xuthus (cf. Patterson (1990) 60). 1383 σιγῶντ’ ἐᾶν: ‘leave it at that and keep quiet about it’: cf. Aesch. Ag. 548 πάλαι τὸ σιγᾶν φάρμακον βλάβης ἔχω, Dem. 19.44 ὃ σιωπᾶν καὶ ἐᾶν εἰκὸς ἦν. In these cases the person advising silence knows about the matter, whereas Ion suggests that he cannot open the basket and then leave the matter (in contrast to 1521–2). 1384 ἀνατίθημι: The verb is rare in tragedy and occurs in the meaning ‘dedicate’ only in El. 1296 (and perhaps Hyps. fr. 758c.4); in inscriptions (e.g. the



1250–[1622] Exodos

493

private dedications IG I3, starting from no. 526) the use of ἀνέθηκε etc. abounds; cf. also PCG adesp. 1032.12–3 ὦ φιλτάτη Δήμητερ, ἀνατίθημί σοι ἐμαυτόν. 1385–8 Ion thinks better of it and decides to use the basket and its contents for finding his mother after all. His dedication is syntactically and formally complete, containing all the elements that are found in the countless inscriptions recording votive offerings. As such, it cannot simply be taken back (cf. Ar. Pl. 935–9). Ion must interpret the dedication as invalid: the god rejects the gift (as he may reject a sacrifice) because it contravenes his expressed will (1386 πολεμῶ). Ion’s piety and his respect for Apollo’s rules and orders compel him to keep the basket and once again save the day (cf. 1190). 1385 καίτοι τί πάσχω;: Cf. Med. 1049. καίτοι is used for sudden changes of mind (Denniston 557): with τί πάσχω (cf. 437n) Ion reproaches himself for going against the god’s intentions. There is no sign of divine influence in his new decision: only in 1391 does he find out that there is something miraculous about the basket. 1386 σύμβολ’: used also of the scar that allows recognition in El. 577. Ion transfers the term from the recognition tokens of guest friends: knucklebones or similar objects sawn in halves so as to serve as identifier upon reunion; cf. Med. 613, Hdt. 6.86α.5. ὅς ἔσωσέ μοι: Ion does not intend to fight the will of the very god who saved the recognition tokens. γε, added by Stephanus, has a causal sense, with the negative implied in the rhetorical question (‘I will not fight ... since’). The aorist conveys the same notion as the historic present in 1346 and ought to be retained. The perfect active σέσωκε (Dobree) is only attested from c. 350 (as noted by Paley (1886)): Isoc. 7.52, Pl. Leg. 776D. 1387 ἀνοικτέον: Cf. 39 ἀναπτύξας; the scene may be a deliberate reversal of the Erichthonius story: since the opening of the basket here is approved by the god, it does not spark a catastrophe comparable to the death of Cecrops’ daughters but brings about the resolution. τολμητέον: Elsewhere the expression is only used at the start of horrendous or daring undertakings (Med. 1051, IT 111, 121). It reaffirms that Ion sees a risk, but it is also ironic in that he ‘dares’ to do what brings him closer to his aims. 1388 τὰ γὰρ πεπρωμέν’: Here Apollo’s will and fate are explicitly declared identical. For the gnomê cf. Aesch. Sept. 719 θεῶν διδόντων οὐκ ἂν ἐκφύγοις κακά.

494

Commentary

οὐχ: οὐδ᾿ (L) has been described as difficult by Denniston 195. The word ‘is not used in high poetry purely for emphasis’ (Hutchinson on Aesch. Sept. 1035; cf. Denniston 197–8). 1389–94 As Ion strips the bands from the basket he notices (ἰδού) that the wrapping and the basket itself have not withered (but cf. 1338n). After the stylistically relatively plain preceding lines the register is elevated by the solemn address to the fillets and the basket, unusual compounds, abstract nouns on -μα, and the epithet εὐκύκλου: the sign of divine influence dignifies the objects of the action and raises the expectation of something extraordinary to come. The motif of the untarnished recognition token recurs in the tale of Aegeus’ unrotting sandal left to Theseus: Call. Hec. fr. 236 (=fr. 11 Hollis) πέδιλα, τὰ μὴ πύσε νήχυτος εὐρώς. The sandal is central to the Theseus myth, but its being undecayed is not – Callimachus may be imitating Euripides rather than draw on a common element of the myth. 1391 περίπτυγμ᾿: ‘wrapping’, a hapax denoting the σύνδετα around the basket: cf. Hec. 734–5 πέπλοι δέμας περιπτύσσοντες. The πλέγματα then indicate the plaiting (i.e. the reed) of the basket: cf. 19n. 1392 ἔκ τινος θεηλάτου: ‘from some divine influence’: cf. 1306. 1393 εὐρώς: For mould corroding a piece of cloth cf. Simon. F 261.3. 1395–1436/4 The mutual recognition is split in two parts: Creusa recognises that Ion must be her son (1395–1403) before he does. First he does not even understand what she is claiming (1404–9), then he rejects the claim. The two-step process is similar to IT 811–26 (Matthiessen (1964) 140) and Hel. 557–96, but the antagonistic way in which Ion struggles against the recognition is distinctive: he accepts Creusa as mother only after his attempts at refuting her claim have failed (1410–36). 1395–1403 Once the Delphic fillets (1338n) are removed and the Athenian content, i.e. the basket, has come to light, Creusa recognises it and immediately draws the right conclusion. Dingel (1967) 136 supposes the basket has been visible all the time, just hidden from Creusa, but this is impractical to stage and disproved by the text: Ion, too, discovers something not visible at first, and the reference to a ‘wrapping’ of the basket is unmistakable. As she understands that it is on her to take action (1397) she leaves the altar, despite the risk it poses. Ion, who does not comprehend her motiva-



1250–[1622] Exodos

495

tion, interprets her behaviour as the god making sure that she be brought to justice. Under normal circumstances suppliants leave the altar voluntarily if their request has been granted or they have received assurances (Hcld. 344–7, Herc. 332–8, Soph. OT 147–8). 1398–1400 are dispensable and should be regarded as an interpolation explaining Creusa’s sudden leap from the altar (cf. Martin (2010b) 29–32). The information given in these lines is unnecessary and even confusing: Ion does not respond in 1402; in 1406 and 1408 he does not even seem to have heard Creusa’s claim of maternity. By contrast, in 1409 he reacts immediately to the same statement. The stichomythia also becomes more regular without these lines, and deletion solves the problem that 1405 τῆσδε cannot refer to 1398 ἄγγος. 1399–1400, suspected by earlier scholars, provide additional difficulties: the emphasised pronoun at the start of 1399 lacks justification (who else could she mean?), and the topographical indications in 1400 have always troubled commentators. 1395 τί δῆτα φάσμα τῶν ἀνελπίστων ὁρῶ;: ‘What an apparition am I seeing, of the most unexpected things?’ φάσμα is used for the apparition as such (cf. Alc. 1127 ὅρα δὲ μή τι φάσμα νερτέρων τόδ’ ἧι, Soph. El. 644), not for the content (as Or. 879 ὁρῶ δ’ ἄελπτον φάσμ’). Biehl punctuates after τί δῆτα. Such phrases occur occasionally (253, Ar. Eq. 439, Nub. 1105, 1290 and instances in Plato) but are always followed by another question. 1396 σίγα σύ· πῆμα καὶ πάροιθεν ἦσθά μοι: σίγα σύ seems reasonably certain: 1397 μή με νουθέτει demands a preceding order (cf. 1306–7). The transmitted infinitive may be an adjustment following the error οἶσθα in L: infinitivus pro imperativo is exceedingly rare (101n). For the rest of the line πῆμα καὶ πάροιθεν ἦσθά μοι (Broadhead (1950) 122) is the best available guess, even though it relies on several emendations from πολλὰ καὶ πάροιθεν οἶσθά μοι. The meaning is ‘you were a pain even before’, i.e. before breaking her silence, since she was present but could not be seized. Now, drawing attention to herself, she annoys him all the more. Hartung’s πολλή does not have the meaning ‘meddlesome, a pain’, for which he wrongly gives the parallel Or. 1200. A lacuna (Kraus 95, wrongly thinking that Badham suggested it) is not more likely here than in any other corruption. 1397 οὐκ ἐν σιωπῆι τἀμά: ‘My affairs do not rest in staying silent’, i.e. ‘silence won’t help me’: cf. IT 1057 τἄμ’ ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν, Phoen. 1276 οὐκ ἐν αἰσχύνηι τὰ σά. μή με νουθέτει: The hurtful sharpness of 1307 has given way to motherly admonition.

496

Commentary

1398 οὑξέθηκ’: L has ὃὐξέθηκ᾿, which allows different interpretations. The correct resolution is ὃ ἐξέθηκα. However, in common usage only the child is said to be exposed, not the container; the use of γε for self-correction (‘the basket – or rather you’) is unparalleled. Cobet (1873) 568–9 believes that 1399 was added after the text was read as οὗ (‘where’) ἐξέθηκα. With this text σέ γ(ε) would again be highly unlikely: the double emphasis, by the emphasised form and the particle, on the pronoun is as unmotivated as the position late in the sentence. Finally, Barnes’ ὧι ᾿ξέθηκα brings the formulation in line with 1413, but the construction of the dative makes more sense with ἐνδυτά (cf. 1413n) than with ἄγγος. 1400 Κέκροπος ἐς ἄντρα καὶ Μακρὰς πετρηρεφεῖς: It takes some effort to turn this into sensible topographical information. The unparalleled Κέκροπος ἄντρα needs to be taken as a proper plural, ‘the caves of the Acropolis’ (which is called Cecropia), since there are several caves and Pan’s has no particular connection to Cecrops. καί ought then to add a specification; but the Μακραί are rocks, not caves (cf. esp. 13, 937; πετρηρεφεῖς describes the rock enclosing a cave in Cycl. 82, PV 300: cf. Citti (1994) 154), and do not aid in locating Pan’s cave. In addition the name ‘cave of Cecrops’ best fits the cave of the arrhephoroi (ch. 3B), which is some way to the East of the place of the rape (so rightly Owen). The licence taken by translators betrays the difficulties of the line: e.g. ‘in the cave of Cecrops roofed over by the Long Rocks’ (Lee), ‘nella grotta di Cecrope, presso le Rocce Grandi’ (Guidorizzi). 1401 κεἰ θανεῖν με χρή: Lee takes the reference to death as a façon de parler. However, in the closest parallels (760; cf. also 1404, Med. 393), the threat is real. 1402 θεομανὴς: Ion cannot explain Creusa’s action, so he ascribes it to the god (cf. 520). It is a recurrent motif that the gods infatuate those guilty of religious offences so that they deliver themselves to justice: cf. Lys. 6.19, Dem. 19.257, 24.121, Lycurg. 1.91–2 (incl. TrGF adesp. 296) with Martin (2009) 72–3. 1403 ξόανα: Cf. above 186–bisn on the stage altar with some form of pillar representing the ἀγυιεύς. This conforms well with the original meaning of the word (‘something carved’ from ξέω) and its wide application down to the 5th cent. A strong association with divine effigies (only IT 1359) is not detectable at that time: cf. Soph. Thamyras fr. 238 (for musical instruments), then Tro. 525, 1074, Groß (1967) 2140–1, Donohue (1988) 13–32. Statues integrated in the altar structure do not seem to be attested; reliefs on the shaft (Yavis (1949) 146–8, 158–60) may be an alternative explanation but make Ion’s formulation more artificial than a reference to the pillar.



1250–[1622] Exodos

497

δεῖτε δ’: an implicit stage direction: the guards have caught Creusa and restrain her (cf. Andr. 501–3, IT 468, Ba. 451) so that she cannot physically lay claim to Ion (1406 ῥυσιάζομαι). In 1440 she is free: either Ion frees her when embracing her in 1438 or the guards release her. The scene certainly gains if the opponents face each other with some distance in between, Creusa trying to get to her son but held back. 1404–9 Creusa’s passivity comes to an end and she takes the leading role in the conversation. She and Ion initially talk at cross-purposes: her excitement shows in the way she ignores the gap in knowledge between them; for him terms such as ἀνθέξομαι and φίλος remain without proper context and he adopts the same mocking tone as before (λόγωι, κἆιτα, 1290–1305n). Only when Creusa pronounces the words παῖς and τεκοῦσι (1409) can he make sense of her words and understand that she claims to be his mother. 1404 σφάζοντες οὐ λήγοιτ’ ἄν;: ‘Won’t you stop trying to kill me?’ Most editions (with the exception of Wecklein 1912, followed by Kraus 96–7) print a full stop, yet it is hard to imagine that Creusa spurs on the guards to kill her: the concessive in 1401 expresses that Creusa risks death, not that she desires it. For such rare questions (free of irony) in modus potentialis cf. Cycl. 581, IT 505. ὡς: Cf. 333n. 1404–6 ἀνθέξομαι ... ῥυσιάζομαι: Creusa protests against her arrest, laying claim to everything she exposed, including Ion. ἀντέχομαι is used to claim something as one’s own (e.g. Ar. Av. 1658 on an inheritance, Dem. 32.25). To Ion in his ignorance, that seems incongruous, so he uses ῥυσιάζω, which is appropriate for the seizure of foreign property. The passive means ‘I am claimed/treated as ῥύσιον’ rather than ‘ῥύσιον is taken from me’ (so Wilamowitz; cf. Hcld. 163 cj. Kirchoff, Aesch. Suppl. 424). 1405 τῆσδε: I.e. the basket (cf. Huys (1995) 216). Creusa lists what she once exposed: the container, the boy, and the additional tokens. The demonstrative cannot refer to the Pythia (so Whitman (1964) 257–8: ‘I will dispute the possession, both with this woman and with you too, of those things at least which you keep hidden’, with P’s τῶν γε σῶν): she had left at 1363 after handing the basket to Ion. τῶν τε σῶν κεκρυμμένων: ‘your hidden belongings’: from Creusa’s point of view, the order of objects exposed (basket, baby, tokens) makes sense. In Tyrwhitt’s τῶν τ᾿ ἔσω κεκρυμμένων (Musgrave (1762) 168) the adverb is strangely separated by σοῦ from its point of reference (τῆσδε). For the possessive cf. 1526, IT 958 τἀμὰ δυστυχῆ.

498

Commentary

1406 τάδ’ οὐχὶ δεινά;: ‘Isn’t this terrifying?’ The tone is mockingly frightened: cf. IA 331. A complaint (‘Isn’t this outrageous?’) would be possible but less consistent with the following irony. λόγωι: ῥυσιάζω (523n) describes a physical action, whereas ἀντέχομαι is a speech act: with the transmitted λόγωι Ion mocks Creusa’s claim in combination with her powerlessness to have it. With the conjecture δόλωι (Jacobs (1796) 197), the difference between the verbs disappears. Nor would it be clear what the trick (δόλος) is, for the claim of parenthood (cf. 1410) has not been pronounced yet. 1409 παῖς γ’, εἰ τόδ’ ἐστὶ τοῖς τεκοῦσι φίλτατον: Creusa answers Ion’s first question (ἐγὼ φίλος σός;), ignoring his second (κἆιτά μ’ ἔκτεινες λάθραι;). The provocative conditional clause shows her gaining confidence and elicits a harsh reaction from Ion. The sense is that of a causal clause, but the tone differs and is almost insolent: cf. 521. Wilamowitz’ παῖς γ’ εἶ· τό δ’ ... makes the second half of the line undesirably pedantic. 1410–38 Ion challenges Creusa’s seemingly guileful claim to being mother by an interrogation about the content of the basket (the interrogation of opponents was still practised in the Athenian lawcourts of the 5th century: cf. Bonner (1905) 46–8, Calhoun (1919)). At some point between 1394 and 1412 Ion has opened the basket and sees the items (1420), but he keeps them hidden until Creusa has correctly identified them (1424). The design of the dialogue reflects the mutual approximation of the characters on different levels: at first both confine themselves to stichomythia in a self-confident manner. Ion adopts an interrogatory tone, probing Creusa’s answers. He is surprised when Creusa unexpectedly identifies the piece of cloth correctly and becomes curious about the meaning of the objects before his excitement culminates in the acceptance of Creusa (1437). She, in turn, moves from single lines, in which she is not very forthcoming with information, to more expanded answers (for a similar development out of stichomythia cf. IT 822–6). She explains her connection with the objects and their deeper meaning, and this symbolic significance (on which cf. Hähnle (1929) 46–8, Dingel (1967) 138, Huys (1995) 219–24) is the main reason for their drawnout description: the tokens are woven into the imagery of the play (Mastronarde (1975) 169 = (2003) 306) and express Ion’s origin in Athens and the house of Erechtheus (cf. Mueller (2010); hardly plausibly, Sloan (2016) tries to match the items with his name, family, and origin respectively). In this way Ion is doubly proved to be Creusa’s son: by her knowledge about the basket’s contents and also by the items themselves, which define his place in the lineage of Erechtheus. Important steps in Athenian mythological history



1250–[1622] Exodos

499

are mentioned: Athena and her fight against the Gorgo, her gift of the olive tree in the contest against Poseidon about the supremacy of Athens (for the same two items symbolising Athens and Athena cf. Erechth. fr. 360.46), the birth of Erichthonius, and the death of the Cecropidae. Creusa thus turns the scene into a repatriation of Ion through a demonstration of how he is enmeshed in Athens’ mythical tradition. The objects become less exclusive to her: the bands are her own work, the snakes are a gift to her family, but the wreath is generically Athenian. 1410 παῦσαι πλέκουσα – λήψομαί σ’ ἐγώ – πλοκάς: ‘Stop – I will catch you out – weaving wiles’. πλοκάς for καλῶς (Jacobs (1790) 179), with the parenthesis λήψομαί σ’ ἐγώ, brings the passage in line with Euripidean usage and contains all the information required: Euripides and his contemporaries always provide an object for πλέκω: cf. 826, Diggle (1981a) 115 with more examples; some late prose examples of absolute metaphorical use, produced by White (2000) 66–7, mean little. The difficulties with the translation of καλῶς point to the awkwardness of the word: the colloquial ‘nicely’ (Cycl. 631, El. 965; cf. Stevens (1976) 55) denotes that something goes as hoped and is not appropriate for one’s own actions. For the meaning ‘successfully’ καλῶς ἀγωνίζεσθαι (Kraus 99 n.85) cannot serve as analogy, since λαμβάνω (in contrast to ἀγωνίζομαι) already implies the success of the act. The sentence makes good sense without καλῶς, and the verbal play on λήψομαι in the next line becomes comprehensible. Kovacs (2003) 23 objects that Creusa’s ἐς τοῦθ’ (reinterpreting λήψομαι as embrace) picks up the parenthesis, but this is possible: cf. Hipp. 936–7 φεῦ τῆς βροτείας – ποῖ προβήσεται; – φρενός. τί τέρμα τόλμης καὶ θράσους γενήσεται; 1411 τοῦθ’ ... τοῦδε: For the change of demonstrative cf. Med. 1046, Hel. 972, fr. 941 τοῦτον νόμιζε Ζῆνα, τόνδ’ ἡγοῦ θεόν; τοξεύω: ‘aim for’: cf. Tro. 643. τέκνον: The address reinforces Creusa’s point. Cf. 517n. 1412–25 The swaddling bands have been set up from the prologue for use in the recognition (32n; cf. 918, 955, 1351). Their low quality of weaving associates the cloth with Creusa’s own biography, illustrating her youth at the time of the rape. The iconography transfers upon Ion the mark of the true Athenian (irrespective of the yet unacknowledged mother): his swaddling bands are an imitation of Athena’s aigis, with snake tresses and the Gorgo’s head. The goddess herself is the protectress of both Ion and Erichthonius, a connection that will become more prominent later (1426–32a).

500

Commentary

1412: The question is introductory: the Pythia had spoken of the σπάργανα in 1351, and 1405 implies that the basket is not empty. 1413 ἐνδύθ’: The word is used as a noun (cf. Herc. 443 (cj.), Aesch. Eum. 1028, [Simon.] AP 3313), often about something out of the ordinary that is wound round the body, not a normal dress (Tro. 257, Ba. 111, Sommerstein on Aesch. loc.cit.). L has the accent on the first syllable, although it is not evident why the noun should be accentuated differently from the adjective (224); P writes ἔνδύτ’ [sic], and in Ba. 111 and IA 1073 the noun is oxytone. οἷσί: It is probably best to think (with Wilamowitz) of the ellipsis of a figura etymologica ἐνδύθ’, οἷσιν σ’ ἐξέθηκα (cf. 224): neither a dative of place nor the comitative dative as in 32 seems to fit. 1414 καὶ τοὔνομ’: Ion confirms that the answer is correct, though not precise enough. ὄνομα can denote the thing that goes by a name, here the specific form or type of ἐνδυτόν: cf. OT 1284 κακῶν ὅσ’ ἐστὶ πάντων ὀνόματ’, οὐδέν ἐστ’ ἀπόν. 1415 κἂν μὴ φράσω γε: Creusa displays confidence by not just giving the desired answer to Ion’s question but addressing the literal form (whether she will state the form). By so doing she also affirms her willingness and ability to prove her claim. The willingness to die now serves as a rhetorical ploy (contrast 1309). Ion is impatient (λέγ(ε)) and irritated by her boldness (τόλμα) in playing with his words. 1416 ἥδε τόλμα: In L. Dindorf’s text Ion reacts and refers to Creusa’s confidence: ἥδε is the attitude expressed in 1415 (cf. Herc. 552 πόθεν δ’ ἐς ὑμᾶς ἥδ’ ἐσῆλθ’ ἀθυμία;). The correction of unmetrical ἡ τόλμα γε requires more than one step, but once ἥδε was taken as ἡ δέ or misspelt as ἥγε, the rest was normalisation. For ὅδε referring to the second person cf. Hel. 709, IT 792, Soph. Trach. 409. Denniston 143 explains γε in ἥ γε τόλμα (Jodrell (1781) 263) as limitative in a causal clause; but there is neither a causal relationship nor a limitation. For emphatic γε, the right word to carry the emphasis would be δεινόν, not τόλμα (contrast 1312, Hec. 846). In addition, the placement of γε between article and noun is relatively rare. 1417 σκέψασθ’: Creusa draws in the chorus to create an audience of witnesses with a friendly disposition towards her (cf. the presentation of the culprit in Hipp. 943). The expression arouses attention and makes the audience attentive before a new argument or piece of evidence is introduced (e.g. Dem. 36.7). παῖς ποτ’ οὖσ’: Xen. Oec. 7.6 claims that a girl’s expertise at the time of marriage (i.e. around 15 years) consists only in weaving a cloak and handing out wool to slaves; cf. Golden (1990) 33–5.



1250–[1622] Exodos

501

1418: Ion suggests that Creusa states the obvious, something that would likely be in any such receptacle, and thus her ‘knowledge’ would not be significant but a trick (cf. 1420). 1419 οὐ τέλεον: Creusa’s emotional involvement makes her an uncooperative respondent (cf. 1404–9n; changing only with 1423). She answers to ποῖον, but not with an identifying description, as Ion intended her to do. 1420 μορφὴν:  The question suggests that he already sees the distinctive feature: he asks for the appearance to prompt Creusa to give a full description. On patterns woven or stitched into pieces of cloth cf. Pekridou-Gorecki (1989) 41–9. ὥς ... μὴ ταύτηι: ‘ lest in this way (viz. by giving evasive or vague answers) ...’ 1421 Γοργὼ: The continuation of the syntax is typical stichomythic brachylogy: from 1420 we have to add ἔχει, with the subject ὕφασμα, which is also the subject of 1423. Γοργώ is the simplest way to restore the accusative from Γοργών (L), where the scribe may have thought of an ellipsis of ἐστίν. ἠτρίοις πέπλων: a fine fabric: cf. Pl. Phdr. 268A, Gal. Hipp.Gloss. 19.98.16– 17 λεπτὸν δέ τι ὕφασμα τὸ ἤτριον καὶ ἄγριον; also Pl. Pltc. 310E εὐήτριος. If fine materials were used for a beginner’s practice piece, the mother must have come from a wealthy, i.e. noble, household. Blümner (1912) 150 translates more neutrally: ‘die durch Verschlingung von Ketten- und Einschlagfäden bewirkten Maschen oder Schlingen’. For redundant πέπλων cf. Hel. 1243 πέπλων ὑφάσμασιν, Hyps. fr. 752h.12–13. 1422–5 Ion’s surprise shows that he accepts the correctness of Creusa’s identification. He is still blind to Apollo’s agency and thinks of the events of the day merely as fate. Creusa then adds more detail, although Ion is already convinced, and salutes the cloth as Ion finally holds it up. 1422 ὦ Ζεῦ: Apollo predicts the future, but Zeus is the general god of fate, on whose behalf Apollo prophesies: cf. Aesch. Eum. 19 Διὸς προφήτης δ’ ἐστὶ Λοξίας πατρός. ἐκκυνηγετεῖ: possibly to be restored in Aesch. Eum. 231; for the simplex cf. Herc. 896. As in 554, fate (πότμος) is seen as something actively searching for its objects. 1423: The entire fabric is made to look like the aegis (αἰγίδος τρόπον: ‘in the fashion of the aegis’), with the Medusa’s head on and snake-formed tresses around it (LIMC Athena 171, Athens mid-5th cent.). κράσπεδον is used for the hem of clothes: e.g. Ar. Vesp. 475–6, Diphilus PCG 42.30.

502

Commentary

1424 τόδ’ ἔσθ’ ὕφασμα: ‘This is the fabric’, i.e. the one Creusa has described: τόδ(ε) is strongly deictic, as can be seen from ἰδού and Creusa’s ‘greetings’. One might prefer the explicit identification of the object with the one Creusa describes (‘It is (indeed) this piece of cloth.’), but the word order, with interposed predicate, does not suggest that the demonstrative is attributive. θέσφαθ’ ὣς: The text withstands all attempts at emendation (cf. Diggle (1969) 50–1; most recently Pötscher (2004)). It may be sound after all (cf. Italie, Kraus 99–100), except for Grégoire’s reinterpretation of the paradosis ὡς: ‘We find it like prophecies’, i.e. predicted correctly; cf. B. Heath (1762) 142: ‘Quasi divinitus dicta essent invenimus.’ Creusa’s prediction of what the cloth will look like has been fulfilled in every detail – and is thus what Ion expects from an oracle. 1425 χρόνιον: ‘after a long time’; in dramatic reunions: El. 585, Hel. 566. παρθένευμα: exclusively Euripidean and used in three different meanings (1473, Phoen. 1265). The following duet (1489–90) likewise emphasises Creusa’s youth and virginity. 1426–32a Ion returns to the interrogation. However, he is not as sharp and convinced of Creusa’s machination as before: the expressed wish to expose her lies (1418, 1420) is absent. The snakes have a counterpart in Erichthonius’ basket (cf. 20–6). Since his mother followed an Athenian/Erechtheid custom (ibid.), the boy thus stands in the succession of Erichthonius and will legitimately continue his line. More worrisome is that the snakes are an imitation of the bracelet containing the poison meant to kill Ion. 1426 μόνωι τῶιδ’ εὐτυχεῖς;: lit. ‘Are you happy through this alone?’, i.e.: ‘Do you have enough with the fabric?’; instrumental dative as in Androm. fr. 143 χρήμασιν γὰρ εὐτυχῶ· ταῖς συμφοραῖσι δ’, ὡς ὁρᾶις, οὐκ εὐτυχῶ = ‘Money adds to my happiness, but my misfortunes detract from it’; cf. Bell. fr. 285.12, 20, Phoen. 424, IT 850. εὐτυχέω in the meaning ‘to have good luck, to hit the mark’ with Usener’s accusative (in Enthoven (1880) 56 n.1) would produce: ‘lucky with (respect to) this one only’ (cf. 307, Hec. 989, Tro. 935, IT 841). But this would imply that there is another object and thus answer the first question (‘Is there something else?’). Supposed parallels for ‘to have good luck’ in McDonald (1978) 294 s.v. II are spurious or ought to be translated differently. 1427 ἀρχαίωι τι πάγχρυσον: Wilamowitz reconstructs the entangled word order (cf. 188–9) from the simplified version of L (ἀρχαῖόν τι παγχρύσω(ι),



1250–[1622] Exodos

503

insufficiently justified by Kraus 100). The indefinite can precede its noun because it comes second in the apposition (cf. Diggle (1999) 138–9). The text chimes with the next lines, which stress the age of the custom, and the reference to the age of Creusa’s family makes the gift from a deity more plausible. Porson (1815) 226, writing δράκοντε μαρμαίροντε πάγχρυσον γένυν (accepted by Diggle), does not produce a better result: the emphasis on the fangs is unwarranted, and presumably the snakes were entirely of gold (cf. 25). Biehl’s stammering Creusa (δράκοντες – ἀρχαῖόν τι – πάγχρυσοι – γένει) will hardly find a parallel. 1428: L continues the stichomythia, alternating between the two characters, but Ion clearly does not possess the knowledge required for 1428. An Athenian audience may have been flattered and pleased to hear (again) this aetiology of their custom. δώρημ᾿ Ἀθάνας: Euripides phrases inaccurately when he suggests that the necklace, rather than Creusa’s bracelet, is the original gift of Athena (1030 χρύσωμ᾿ Ἀθάνας) – or Creusa does so to strengthen the connection to her family. οἷς τέκν’ ἐντρέφειν: Cf. 25–6. L’s ἥ, continuing from Ἀθάνας, is an easy mistake, especially as the correct antecedent δράκοντες is one and a half lines removed. Athena as subject of λέγει, however, does not need to be expressed; by contrast, it is harder to supplement ‘in the snakes’ to ἐν(-τρέφειν). Page’s οἷς is superior to Wilamowitz’ ὧι: πάγχρυσον δώρημα is in apposition, and the relative refers directly to the leading noun: cf. 1441. 1429: Cf. Phoen. 341–2 Λαΐου τε τοῦ πάλαι (cj. Hermann), Soph. OT 1 Κάδμου τοῦ πάλαι νέα τροφή, 268. The line is in apposition to the relative clause: the custom of putting the snakes in the basket with the child imitates the myth of Erichthonius; the necklace is not here called an imitation of the snakes (pace Denniston 139): μίμημα is used for an action in Pl. Pltc. 274A; in tragedy elsewhere a lookalike (or soundalike: IT 294). 1430: The question has no function in the refutation of Creusa’s motherhood but reveals Ion’s excited interest, which is also reflected in the asyndetic questions and the parenthetical imperative. L. Dindorf’s χρυσώματι is an obvious emendation of χρυσώμια. 1431 δέραια ... φέρειν: Creusa does not give new information but explains the imprecise ἐντρέφειν. Aristotle (Poet. 1454b24–5) mentions περιδέραια as a type of recognition token. τέκνον: The address is strategically placed, as in 1411: Creusa adopts her tone to Ion’s new direction of asking, i.e. to the trust he shows through his curiosity.

504

Commentary

1432b–6 Ion no longer tests Creusa’s knowledge but expresses his desire to learn more (1432 ποθῶ) and clearly states that there is a third object, which Creusa correctly names as an olive wreath. She now switches to a narrative mode. On one level the gift reflects the Athenian tradition of attaching an olive wreath to the door when a boy was born (Hesych. σ1791); since Creusa could not do so without revealing her pregnancy, she hid it in the basket; Hähnle (1929) 50 speaks of an apotropaic function. On another level, the branch comes from the first olive tree, the one grown by Athena and standing in the Erechtheion. It points to the ‘home’ of Ion’s family (cf. 235–6n) and Athens’ patron goddess, as well as to the soil as the origin of Ion’s family. Its evergreenness symbolises the continuity (and rejuvenation: 1464–5) of the house of Erechtheus. Kraus 101 has seen that 1434 refers to the specific (sacred) olive tree, not olive in general, and must thus follow 1436. The relative in 1435 can then stand closer to its antecedent, not after σκόπελος, which would render the connections unclear. 1435 εἴπερ ἐστίν: ‘if indeed/in the particular case that it is the original one’; between scepticism (El. 557, Herc. 1345, Pha. 51) and assertiveness (366, Hcld. 563): cf. Wakker (1994) 319–22. οὔποτ’: The temporal notion of Barnes’ conjecture is highly desirable; transmitted οὔπερ is purely epic. ἐκλείπει: ‘lose its shoots’: cf. Ba. 1054–5 θύρσον ἐκλελοιπότα κισσῶι κομήτην αὖθις ἐξανέστεφον with Dodds, Rijksbaron 137. 1436 ἐλαίας ἐξ ἀκηράτου: The special provenance of the wreath is the reason why the leaves do not fall off. The olive trees supposed to be scions of the one in the Erechtheion were sacred and could not be felled; even the stumps had to be left untouched (Arist. Ath.Pol. 60.2; cf. Todd on Lys. p. 482–6). ἀκήρατος (cf. [1266]n) may both evoke the idea of sacred trees that could not be harmed and reinforce the idea of the ‘pure’ Athenians (cf. Broadhead on Aesch. Pers. 614–15 ἀκήρατόν τε μητρὸς ἀγρίας ἄπο ποτόν). 1434 πρῶτ’: Cf. Tro. 801–2 ὄχθοις ἱεροῖς, ἵν’ ἐλαίας πρῶτον ἔδειξε κλάδον γλαυκᾶς Ἀθάνα, Call. Iamb. 4.66–71 (=fr. 194), Hygin. Fab. 164, Apollod. 3.179; on the depiction on the Western Pediment of the Parthenon cf. Simon (1980), Castriota (1992) 147–8. For the adverb cf. 538. ἐξηνέγκατο: ‘brought forth’ (from εἰσ-: Scaliger apud Matthiae), elsewhere in the active: Aesch. Car. fr. 99, Hdt. 1.193.2, 3.65.7. Cf. Ov. Met. 6.80–1 simulat de cuspide terram edere cum bacis fetum canentis olivae. Brodaeus’ emendation σκόπελος is then a necessary consequence: cf. Diggle (1981a) 116. L’s σκόπελον εἰσηνέγκατο would imply that the tree had been brought



1250–[1622] Exodos

505

in from a cultivation elsewhere (similarly for wine Ba. 279) rather than made grow. 1437–8 The final acceptance: if we take the tense seriously, Ion has already approached and embraced Creusa. 1437 ὦ φιλτάτη μοι μῆτερ: At the moment of reunion Ion uses the most emphatic of his finely graduated greetings (cf. 561, 1324, 1443); in the same situation IT 795 ὦ φιλτάτη μοι σύγγον’, 826; cf. Schwinge (1968) 247 with more parallels. 1437–8 ἄσμενός ... ἀσμένας: polyptoton with one part transferred from person to body part: cf. Suppl. 42–3, Or. 222 ἀδέλφ’ ἀδελφῆι χειρὶ θεραπεύειν μέλη, Gygli-Wyss (1966) 127. 1438 πέπτωκα: The verb implies a downward movement; embraces described thus are of children or lying people (IA 1191, Soph. Trach. 938, προσπίπτω Alc. 350, 403), in addition to kneeling suppliants. Should Creusa have been kneeling on the ground (bound)? 1439–1509 Reunion Duet The recognition culminates in an epirrhematic song, in which as usual the female character sings while the male one speaks in iambics (cf. E. Hall (2006) 308–9, Chong-Gossard (2008) 32–7). Exceptions are rare: cf. Metre on 1500 (against too rigid a distinction between spoken and sung verses Barrett (2007b) 387–8, Hall p. 298–304). The form is used repeatedly in the period around 415–10 and in particular in the recognition scenes after El.: IT 827–99, Hel. 625–97, Hyps. fr. 759a.1584–1631, Soph. El. 1232–87; cf. Willink (1989) and on the wider type of the epirrhematic amoibaion Popp (1971) 264–6, Cyrino (1998). The presence of the song in this scene underlines the relief that the felicitous recognition brings after the song-less and unsatisfactory false recognition 517–62. The start of the song celebrates the reunion with motifs largely drawn from the stock elements of recognition duets (cf. 1439–53bisn); then the pair revisits the unhappy past and the circumstances surrounding Ion’s exposure. The song works its way backward in chronology. The earliest point, which also marks the middle of the metrical system (Irigoin (2002) 95) and constitutes the unique element that sets this song apart from those in other recognition plays, is the revelation about Ion’s father. This section stands at the centre of the song. Afterwards the chronology moves forward in time again to produce a ring composition.

506

1439–53bis 1454–67 1468–88 1489–1500 1501–9

Commentary

Exuberant joy at finding each other Ion’s birth, exposure, and rescue Ion’s father Birth and exposure Greatness of the reversal: end of the misery

Other reunion songs do not provide the ultimate resolution, normally because they stand at the start of the intrigue (Hyps. fr. 759a is a likely exception; Alexandros is, if there was a song). In Ion the ending becomes arrested, stuck on the expression of commonplaces about the reversal of fortune (1502–9, continued by the chorus and Ion 1510–17); suspense is generated by the remaining uncertainty about how Ion arrived at Delphi (1453–6) and his doubtful response to Creusa’s claim of Apollo’s parenting (1488). Both loose ends require the dea ex machina. While Ion’s happiness is much less restrained than in the first, false recognition, his demeanour is very similar: as in 548–55 he inquires about the circumstances of his birth and his arrival in Delphi; he desires the presence of the father to unite the family (1468–9), just as he desired that of the unknown mother (564); and when he learns that Xuthus is not related to him, he wishes to know the identity of the father. Metre: Bold print marks Ion’s utterances. ‘/’ indicates change of speaker/singer within the line. 1439–40 2x3ia 1441 ⏑‒⏑‒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒ iambeleg 1442 ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒‒ ‖ ^D3 ‒ ‒ 1443–4 2x3ia 1445 ⏑⏑⏑‒‒‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ 2doch 1447 ⏑‒‒⏑‒‒⏑‒‒⏑‒‒ 4ba 1448 ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒ ^D ⏑ e 1449 ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ ‖ 2cr 1450–1 2x3ia 1452 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ doch 1453 ‒‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑ / ‒⏑‒⏑⏑ ‖ 3ia 1453bis ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ ‖ doch 1454 ‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑‒ hypod doch 1454bis ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ doch 1455 ⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒‒⏑‒ ‖ 2doch 1456–7 2x3ia 1458 ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒ ^D ⏑ e ‒ 1459 ⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒ 3ia^



1250–[1622] Exodos

507

1460 ‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ 2doch 1461 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒⏑‒ ‖ 2doch 1462 3ia 1463 ⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒ 3ia^ 1464 ‒‒⏑‒‒‒⏑‒⏑‒‒ 3ia^ 1465 ⏑‒‒⏑‒‒ 2ba 1466 ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒ ‖ ^D3 ⏑ e 1467 ‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒⏑‒ ‖ hypod doch 1468–9 2x3ia 1470 ‒⏑‒ cr 1471 ⏑‒‒⏑‒⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ 2doch 1472 ‒‒⏑ / ‒⏑‒⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑ ‖ 2ia cr 1473 3ia 1474 ‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ 2doch 1475 ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒ an 1476 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒ ‖ lecyth 1477 3ia 1478 ‒‒‒⏑⏑‒ D 1479 ⏑‒⏑‒⏑ / ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒ iambel 1480 ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ ^D ⏑ ‒ 1481 ‒‒ / ⏑‒‒⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑⏑ ‖ 3ia 1482 ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒‒‒ ^D ⏑ ‒ sp 1484 ⏑‒⏑‒‒ / ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒‒‒ ‖ iambel sp 1485 3ia 1486 ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒ ^D ⏑ e 1487 ⏑⏑⏑‒‒⏑⏑‒‒‒ ‖ doch^^doch 1488 3ia 1489 ‒⏑⏑⏑†⏑‒†‒⏑‒ 1490 ‒⏑‒⏑⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒ hypod doch 1491 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒ doch 1492 ⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒ 3ia^ 1493 ⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒ 3ia^ 1494 ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒‒‒ ^D ⏑ ‒ sp 1495 ‒‒‒⏑‒⏑‒‒⏑‒ 2doch 1496 ‒‒‒‒‒ ‖ doch 1497 ‒‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑ / ‒⏑‒⏑‒ 3ia 1498 ⏑⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑⏑⏑‒‒‒ 2doch 1500 ‒‒⏑‒‒ / †‒⏑‒‒⏑⏑‒‒‒† 1502 ⏑⏑⏑‒‒‒⏑‒⏑⏑⏑‒ 2doch 1504 ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑ elegiamb. 1505 ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒ D⏑D 1506 ⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒⏑⏑ ‖ 2ia

508

1508 1509

Commentary

⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒ ⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑‒⏑‒‒‒ ^D5 ⏑ e ‒ ‒

Creusa’s lyric parts alternate with iambic trimeters (or parts thereof) by Ion. Her part is in D/e and the related families of anapaests, iambics, and dochmiacs, which are typical for the reunion duets of the 410s (on similarities with these songs cf. Cerbo (1989)). Many of the lines fit Itsumi’s (1991–1993) categories of ‘enoplians’, but the repeated ^D⏑‒ should warn against an analysis on the basis of his system (cf. also 685–705 n Metre): the colon could be interpreted as a catalectic form of Itsumi’s diom but is not part of his classification and has been integrated only by Lourenço (2011) 76. 1441: Creusa switches, within her lines, from spoken to lyric. Barrett (2007b) 388 assumes this happens between 1440 and 1441, but in fact the faultline may even lie within 1441 (as perhaps also in IT 828): the metre of that line is often divided between the speaking and the singing actor in epirrhematic songs, e.g. 769–70. The end of the iambic part is also where Creusa changes topic, from finding Ion to losing him. 1442: in a D/e context: Herc. 1205; as ^D3⏑‒: Or. 1363~1547, 1392.

1447: Bacchic runs – often of an appellative character as implied here by βοάσω and the preceding vocative – occur with some frequency in later monodies: Hel. 642–3, Phoen. 1536, Or. 1437–40; cf. Ar. Thesm. 1018–19, L. Parker (1997) 443. 1449: Cf. 1095 n Metre. 1453: The end of the line has brevis in longo splitting a syntactical unit. This may indicate that the delivery of the line (notably a trimeter) is close to spoken verse, even though Creusa finishes it; cf. 1481. Barrett (2007b) 392 notes the frequent division of the trimeter between the characters in lyric-iambic duets (763, 765, 1497, Herc. 910, 911, 914) with a change from the speaking to the singing character at hephthemimeres. 1466: Cf. Herc. 1017: an extended form of 1448, and itself prolonged in 1508–9. 1467: Hermann’s ἀελίου to produce 2doch lacks justification (cf. 718/19 n Metre). 1472: The metre is not beyond doubt but acceptable: Ion’s astonishment may account for the brief form of the interruption. Barrett (2007b) 394 proposes τί φήις; to produce 2doch. He rejects W. Dindorf’s addition γέγονας: the position of speaker change in the line would be unparalleled and Creusa’s part would irregularly form a complete lyric colon.



1250–[1622] Exodos

509

1478: On contraction of the first biceps in D (with word end after the contracted syllable) cf. West (1982) 134. 1479: The given colometry conforms to the rule that in lines divided between characters the iambic speaker comes first (Barrett (2007b) 394; contrast Diggle’s 1478 ἴστω ... ἔλεξας). 1480–1: D diom ‒ (Itsumi (1991–1993) 261) works only with his unnecessary acceptance of Wilamowitz’ lacuna. Moving θάσσει to 1481 fits in with the recurrent ^D⏑‒ and related metrical shapes and thus produces two good cola. 1482: Cf. 1494, Willink on Or. 171~192, 1363~1547. Moving Φοίβωι to this line frees up 1484 to follow the regular pattern of the iambic/lyric combination. 1484: Cf. on 1478–9. The same metre and point of division in Herc. 1185–7. 1486–7: Medda (1993) 137 divides in this way, against most editors but with L and in better analogy with the repeated occurrence of ^D⏑‒sp.

1500: Some reunion duets contain isolated lines in which the epirrhematic speaker uses lyric metre (Hel. 659, 680–1; perhaps IT 832) and Ion may ‘give[s] way for the moment when he thinks how near he came to matricide’ (Barrett (2007b) 401). Hence there is no need to restore 3ia (e.g. with Maas (1962) 54 (§76): οὐχ ὅσι᾿ ἔτλης; cf. El. 579), although the rhythm of the transmission (2ia doch) is unusual. 1508–9: a clausular run similar to 507–9. The position of δέ signals synaphia. 1439–53bis Recognitions begin with a rather uniform cluster of elements in often standardised formulations: address, embrace, kisses, and expression of the length of the separation and the unexpectedness of reunion; cf. El. 578–9, IT 795–7, 802, 827–8, 837–40, Hel. 566, 625, Soph. El. 1224–6, Matthiessen (1964) 135–8. Incomprehension of her luck and its coming about (1447–9) shows that Creusa has not yet realised Apollo’s role. 1439 φῶς: a common metaphor for a long-desired person, often with an undertone of rescue from peril: e.g. Herc. 531, IT 849, Soph. El. 1224, already Hom. Od. 16.23; cf. Shisler (1942) 282. Again (cf. 83) it is hard to see Apollo in the addressed ‘sun’. κρεῖσσον: The description of someone as surpassing a god recurs in Hellenistic poetry: Theocr. Id. 2.79, [20.25], Bion 1.93.

510

Commentary

1440 ἐν χεροῖν σ’ ἔχω: The phrasing of the embrace is typical: e.g. Alc. 1134, Hel. 650–7, Soph. El. 1226 ἔχω σε χερσίν, Men. Asp. 508, Kaimio (1988) 36. The regular response (‘I hold you too.’) follows in 1443. 1441 ἄελπτον: in recognitions: El. 579, Hel. 783 (also Alc. 1134); perhaps Alex. fr. 62 is from the duet between Alexander and Hecuba. 1441–2 ἐνέρων χθονίων μέτα Περσεφόνας τ’: ‘with the chthonic ones below and Persephone’. The idea of death is expressed pleonastically, irrespective of the chosen reading: the transmitted ἐνέρων χθόνιον μετὰ Περσεφόνας τ᾿ is obscure due to the intervening accusative (cf. Diggle (1981a) 117) and satisfactorily rectified by B. Heath (1762) 142. 1444 κατθανών τε κοὐ θανὼν: The compressed juxtaposition of assumed death and actual living produces a paradox (contrast Alc. 352 δόξω γυναῖκα καίπερ οὐκ ἔχων ἔχειν; in Hel. 138 the formulation reflects a real paradox in the case of the Dioscuri). The pattern of the jingle is very common in Euripides (307, 1452, more in Kannicht on Hel., Huys (1990a) 95-7; cf. also the pattern γάμος ἄγαμος) and ridiculed by comedians: Ar. Ach. 396-7, Ran. 1082, 1477–8, Plato PCG 182. 1445 αἰθέρος ἀμπτυχαί: the bright open (‘unfolded’) sky (contrast 1516); cf. Hipp. 601–2 ὦ γαῖα μῆτερ ἡλίου τ’ ἀναπτυχαί, οἵων λόγων ἄρρητον εἰσήκουσ’ ὄπα. The invocation of the sun or sky to witness of an extraordinary event is conventional (cf. also 870, 886). 1447 ἀύσω βοάσω: deliberative aorist subjunctives in an aporetic question; Creusa does not know how to praise the course of fortune. Similarly other characters in recognitions claim to be lost for words (IT 839 τί φῶ, Hel. 631). 1448–9 ἀδόκητος ... ἐλάβομεν χαράν: Cf. IT 842 ἄτοπον ἡδονὰν ἔλαβον, Hel. 634–5, 657. 1450–1: ‘Anything, rather than this, would have occurred to me, mother: that I am your son.’ Cf. LSJ s.v. παρίσταμαι B IV. The aorist should be treated as past potential (K-G I 212). Ion echoes his mother’s ἀδόκητος in a more sober manner. In his words may lie astonishment at his and Creusa’s blindness that has struck the audience since the 1st epeisodion. 1452 φόβωι: Creusa relives earlier fears, a feeling she shares with Hypsipyle (fr. 759a.1597 φόβος ἔχει με τῶν τότε κακῶν). οὐκ ἔχειν does not mean the fear of renewed loss, false reunion (as in Hel. 35–6, 611), or troubles ahead, as in recognition plays with subsequent intrigue (so Kopperschmidt (1967) 209). 1453 μῶν οὐκ ἔχειν μ’ ἔχουσα;: ‘ that you are not holding me, although you are (now)?’ μῶν signals that Ion finds the feeling strange but



1250–[1622] Exodos

511

possible: the expected answer is ‘no’ despite μῶν οὐ (K-G II 525), since the negation is closely connected with the verb. For continuation of a verb of fear with the infinitive cf. 628, 1564. 1454–67 Creusa revisits the past: she contrasts (1460 νῦν δέ) the distress and grief at Ion’s birth and exposure with the happiness and the positive effects of the reunion – though she is still confused by Ion’s rescue. In addition to the personal importance of discovering her son (μακαριωτάτας τυχοῦσ’ ἡδονᾶς) she comments for the first time on the dynastic and public dimension (1464–7). 1454–7 Creusa’s puzzlement about how Ion came to Delphi offers a suitable transition from the surprise at finding him (1448 ἀδόκητος etc.) to his birth and exposure: she had left the boy in an Athenian cave, whence he had disappeared without a trace (347–58). Ion, by contrast, still believes in the version he had reconstructed with Xuthus (that Creusa was a Thyiad: 548–55, 1468, 1474–5), even though her questions 1454–5 should make clear that it cannot be true. Her part of the story will be given in 1494–6; it remains for Athena to explain Hermes’ role (1599). 1454 ὦ: Wilamowitz’ minimal interference (from ἰώ) suffices to produce a metrically balanced line. The anadiplosis at the end and start of dochmiacs (following an established pattern: cf. Diggle (1990) 110 = (1994) 377) places the emphasis on the critical interrogative. The elimination of one πόθεν and addition of one ἰώ (Diggle after Burges (1813) 141 and Bothe (1824)) is possible but demands more changes without a better result. γύναι: Creusa apostrophises the absent Pythia: she has paid attention to the conversation between Ion and his foster mother, who she thinks would be in a position to provide information (cf. 317, 1339). 1455 τίν’ ἀνὰ χέρα: ‘On whose arm ...?’ The baby (or the basket) rests on the lower arm (1337 χερός; cf. the depictions LIMC Hermes 365–401, including the Praxiteles Hermes). 1456 θεῖον τόδ’: an ambiguity with dramatic irony: Ion means to divert from the delicate matter of his conception in the Dionysiac rite (‘wondrous’) and gives an evasive and possibly euphemistic answer. He changes topic with ἀλλά (cf. Sicking/van Ophuijsen (1993) 38) – against his usual propensity to deeper inquiry – and tries to put the issue behind him with a commonplace. In a literal sense, however, he is right: it was indeed a ‘divine’ act.

512

Commentary

1456–7 τἀπίλοιπα τῆς τύχης εὐδαιμονοῖμεν: ‘Let’s hope we will be fortunate in the future.’ Cf. IT 841 τὸ λοιπὸν εὐτυχοῖμεν ἀλλήλων μέτα. 1457 ὡς τὰ πρόσθ’ ἐδυστύχει: The change from the personal construction (εὐδαιμονοῖμεν) to the subject τὰ πρόσθε distances the agents from the past action (even with L’s syntactically inconcinne πρόσθε δυστυχῆ; cj. Bothe (1826)); Ion has no desire to go into the matter and avoids making any reproachful comments that concern the exposure. 1458–62 Creusa does not leave the past behind as Ion suggests but seizes on his distinction between past misfortune and present bliss. She exonerates herself implicitly by referring to her woe on exposing Ion (cf. 958). However, she turns the focus away from herself by passive constructions (ἐκλοχεύηι, ὁρίζηι). Ion shows his empathy by making these self-effacing formulations personal again (τοὐμὸν, τὸ σὸν); he thereby acknowledges her suffering and thus her motherly feelings. 1458 ἀδάκρυτος: The adjectives on -τος with α privative are neutral in terms of their genus verbi (cf. 701n); the tears are Creusa’s and denote emotional distress rather than the pain of labour (cf. 1596). The following δέ marks the transition to the exposure. Hence emendation is unnecessary. 1460 γενειάσιν πάρα σέθεν: Either Creusa has been locked in embrace with Ion all the time or she renews the embrace here (cf. Kaimio (1988) 37). Embraces seem to last some while, even if they are not always mentioned: only Helen and Menelaus keep referring to their holding each other (Willink (1989) 47 explains it with the marital, i.e. erotic, relationship), but IT 902–3 τὸ μὲν φίλους ἐλθόντας εἰς ὄψιν φίλων, Ὀρέστα, χειρῶν περιβολὰς εἰκὸς λαβεῖν seems to presuppose a continued embrace. 1463–7 Once her individual suffering and sorrow is finally brought to an end, Creusa is able to look beyond her personal plight and adopt the point of view which had thus far been reserved to the chorus and the Old Man: the consequences for the family and the city of her childlessness and the arrival of Ion. The new heir will occupy both the house and the throne; the autochthonous line (γηγενέτας δόμος) will be preserved and continue. 1463 ἄπαιδες ... ἄτεκνοι: The conventional double formulation (Suppl. 955–6 οὐκέτ’ εὔτεκνος, οὐκέτ’ εὔπαις, 966 ἄπαις ἄτεκνος) lends expressive fullness; a distinction in meaning is no more intended than in 305–6 or 1302–3 (cf. Breitenbach 195–6). Relevant for the following lines is the legal notion of ‘heirlessness’, which would be more closely associated with ἄπαις



1250–[1622] Exodos

513

(ἄτεκνος is not used in forensic speeches; cf. 304–5n, Barone (1987) 63): the procreative aspect inherent in the etymology of ἄτεκνος is not recognisably considered here. 1464 δῶμ[α δ]’: Explicative asyndeton (restored by Hermann) is required for metrical reasons; the particle may have been added to avoid hiatus in scriptio plena. ἑστιοῦται: a hapax throughout all Greek literature. The instrumental force of -όω compounds (Debrunner (1917) 99; cf. e.g. στεφανόω ‘equip with a crown’) makes this ‘is furnished with a (sc. operating) hearth’, i.e. there is someone to keep the fire alive. As the land has (future) masters, so the household and cult will be preserved. 1465 ἀνηβᾶι δ’ Ἐρεχθεύς: The phrase is framed by references to the fate of the house, so this formulation likely also describes the unexpected continuation of the line after the threat of its extinction. The house is rejuvenated and reinvigorated by the newly discovered young heir. There may be a chance of seeing Ion described metaphorically as the reincarnated Erechtheus, just as the parallels in the exposure make him the ‘new’ Erichthonius (ch. 3B). 1466 νύκτα δέρκεται: roughly ‘sees the dark’, i.e. ‘is in the dark’, ‘is extinct’; cf. El. 867 νὺξ ἣν ἐδερκόμην πάρος with a similar connotation of doom, Herc. 1071, Aesch. Sept. 403 νὺξ ἐπ᾿ ὄμμασιν πέσοι (after Hom. Il. 13.580); hence Markland’s (on Suppl. 321) change from plural νύκτας. The phrase inverts the frequent φάος εἰσορᾶν vel sim. for ‘to live’ (cf. 1186). 1467 ἁλίου δ’ ἀναβλέπει λαμπάσιν: ‘is recovering sight by the light of the sun’: cf. Rijksbaron 154. The family is alive again, back from the darkness: the line states the opposite of νύκτα δέρκεται. The construction is paralleled and illuminated by Ba. 1307–8 κατθανόνθ’ ὁρῶ· ὧι δῶμ’ ἀνέβλεφ’. The dative is instrumental (against e.g. S-D II 139 ‘Dativ bei Verben der Ruhelage’), and ἁλίου λαμπάσιν, while balancing νύκτα and its metaphorical meaning ‘death’, may also point to Ion (cf. 1439 φῶς). 1468–88 In the centre of the song the ground for new conflict is laid as Ion wishes that his supposed father Xuthus join them in their happiness. Creusa hints that there is a complication but delays the vital information about the father’s identity (1470–2), so Ion has time to be afraid that he is, after all, a bastard (νόθος) and of low birth (δυσγενής). His old fears about illegitimacy, which he thought overcome, are revived (with the status of father and mother reversed from 670–2, 1381–3). When Creusa finally reveals Apollo’s fatherhood, Ion accepts with only overtly weak reservations (1488 εἰ λέγεις ἐτήτυμα): he is willing publicly to concur with Creusa’s version as it is con-

514

Commentary

venient for him. The full extent of his doubts will become apparent only after the song has been finished (1521–7). 1471 οἷον οἷον: Cf. 799n. ἀνελέγχομαι: another hapax; the prefix expresses the thoroughness of the investigation. 1472 πῶς εἶπας: an expression of surprise (cf. e.g. El. 570): there are no examples conveying incomprehension, so Ion already realises that Creusa’s evasive statement is introducing unexpected news. 1473 νόθον: Ion implies that he counts as legitimate if Xuthus is his father, even if the parents have married after his birth. Euripides thereby anticipates the scenario by which the rape stories of New Comedy are channelled into a restorative of civic order: cf. Ogden (1996) 125, 1601–5n. Tragedy cannot end in this ‘bourgeois/conservative/reactionary’ manner. παρθένευμ᾿ ... σόν: = σὺ παρθένος οὖσα. For the periphrasis of a noun on -μα with a genitive (or possessive) for person + participle cf. Barrett (2007a) 354–5. 1474 οὐχ ὑπὸ λαμπάδων οὐδὲ χορευμάτων: Creusa’s phrasing is double-edged as she announces that Xuthus is not the father; the description of what did not happen (ὑπό for attendant circumstances: cf. 499, S-D II 529–30) excludes both the wedding ritual and the Dionysiac revel, for these were accompanied by torches and dance (Oakley/Sinos (1993) 26, Verilhac/ Vial (1998) 320 and 550n, 714–24n, 1076n; cf. on a wedding Hel. 639 ὑπὸ λαμπάδων, Hom. Il. 18.492). So she confirms that Ion was conceived out of wedlock, but at the same time denies that the conception took place in the compromised circumstances Ion assumed. 1475 ὑμέναιος: used of extramarital intercourse, although Hymenaios is the personified wedding ritual; cf. 10 γάμος. 1477 δυσγενής: ‘of low birth’; in addition to bastardy, Ion is afraid that his father should be a dalliance of Creusa’s youth, of a lower status than Xuthus (Soph. OT 1079 τὴν δυσγένειαν τὴν ἐμήν, while Oedipus believes he may be of servile origin; contrast ἐσθλός Sthen. fr. 661.2–3). This would bring him back roughly to the position before he learnt that Creusa was his mother (cf. 1380– 3); the only improvement is that he knows he is Athenian (cf. 594, 670–2). 1478–88 Creusa states the facts circuitously: she swears to their correctness by Athena, who is both the patroness of the polis and Creusa’s family and her neighbour on the acropolis, and thus, to some extent, a witness to Ion’s concep-



1250–[1622] Exodos

515

tion. Ion interrupts repeatedly, impatient of her distribution of information that delays the critical points to the end. 1478 ἴστω Γοργοφόνα: For the oath formula cf. IT 1077, Phoen. 1677. With Γοργοφόνα Creusa refers to the same mythological variant as in 991. For the composite adjective of three terminations cf. Soph. Aj. 172 Ταυροπόλα, Wackernagel (1926) II 49–50. 1479 τί τοῦτ’ ἔλεξας;: Ion does not understand the relevance and/or purpose of Creusa’s utterance, as the solemn invocation does not seem to provide adequate information and is incongruous with the tone of his question: its grandness anticipates an exceptional and possibly incredible story. 1479–80 σκοπέλοις ... πάγον: As in 274, σκόπελοι seems to denote a part of the acropolis, perhaps the top (in line with the original meaning ‘lookout’) as opposed to the rock in its entirety (πάγος). 1480 ἐλαιοφυᾶ: ‘which grows the olive tree’: a reference to the sacred olive (cf. 1434, Herc. 1178 τὸν ἐλαιοφόρον ὄχθον). Most compounds on -φυής are middle or passive in meaning, but cf. Pl. Pltc. 266E πτεροφυής ‘growing feathers’. The acc. sing. of adjectives on -υής need to be changed from -υῆ to -υᾶ (cf. Mastronarde, addendum on Phoen. 821, anticipated by W. Dindorf, K-B 1.433–4, S-D I 189). 1481 θάσσει: Cf. 492n. σκολιὰ κοὐ σαφῆ: σκoλιά, when referring to talk, has the connotation of falsity and ‘crookery’: e.g. fr. 913 σκολιὰς ἀπάτας, Theogn. IEG2 1147 ἀδίκων ἀνδρῶν σκολιὸν λόγον. With the juxtaposition with οὐ σαφῆ Ion restricts the meaning of σκολιά (Herwerden on Soph. OT 961 [=960]) to a description only of Creusa’s narrative style and thus makes it inoffensive. L has δόλια, but Ion is unlikely to be so unequivocally offensive to his mother as to say δόλια. 1483 παρ’: ‘by’, i.e. ‘at the foot of’: cf. IT 1089–91 παρὰ πετρίνας πόντου δειράδας. ἀηδόνιον: Creusa recalls the fate of Procne, the Athenian princess who killed her child Itys and was turned into a nightingale (a common lyric motif: Schauer (2002) 225–6). The bird’s song can symbolise the suffering of women in general (cf. Kannicht on Hel. 1007–12), but here it covers the parallel of the boy finding death at his mother’s hand (Loraux (1990) 197–8). So Procne’s song evokes Creusa’s laments for her son, whom she thought dead (Zacharia (2001) 106–7). 1484 τί Φοῖβον αὐδᾶις;: Ion’s sensitivity with respect to Apollo (cf. 287) has not changed. He has accepted the story about the ‘other woman’ (436b–51n), but now he is suspicious. Even if he does not voice his reserva-

516

Commentary

tions in front of everybody (cf. 1523–7). The same doubts are expressed less harshly (and without direct protest) in εἰ λέγεις ἐτήτυμα: Ion stays polite to his mother and does not confront her with open dissent (cf. Hel. 796 φίλα γάρ, εἰ σαφῆ λέγεις). Moreover, the news is positive for him, so he does not reject the version publicly. 1485 ὡς: ‘as’, regularly giving the reason for the imperative after λέγε. 1486 δεκάτωι: Cf. e.g. Ar. Thesm. 741–2, Hipp. Epid. 5.13 = 5.212 Littré: ten lunar months add up to about 41.5 weeks, so a regular birth takes place in the tenth month. 1487 κρύφιον ὠδῖν’: Cf. 45. 1489–96 Creusa ignores the undertone of doubt in Ion’s reply and continues her narrative, repeating earlier topoi in more detail – which lends them authenticity – and with a more personal turn: she expands on the swaddling bands and the feeding from her own perspective. Only in the exposure to the birds does the focus shift from her to Ion through the use of the passive (cf. 1458–9). 1489–91: probably: ‘This, your mother’s maiden work(?), I put around you as swaddling bands, a product of my erring shuttle.’ The point seems to be that (for lack of a more appropriate piece of cloth) her practice piece served as swaddling bands. So σπάργανα fits best as predicative; ἀμφίβολα is a neuter adjective in ‘adverbial’ use (with ἐνῆψα; K-G I 275). παρθένια may serve as a noun or the noun has been dropped; it stands as theme or topic at the head of the sentence and is resumed by τάδε. ματέρος is unobjectionable both as part of iambic or dochmiac metre and as explanation of παρθένια. The rest is difficult: ἐμᾶς is an aberration; the mention of Creusa’s mother is out of place (cf. 898n), so a supplement, as attempted by various interpreters (e.g. ἐμᾶς ματέρος: Jackson (1941a) 39), will not help: not only does the passage concentrate on the relationship of Ion and Creusa; the mother (and the fear of her) has no influence on the swaddling. ἐμᾶς χερός (WS) offers a novel tack and is worth considering. As in 1425, the description of her maidenhood and inexperience stresses Creusa’s young age and immaturity at the time. 1490 ἐνῆψα: ἐνάπτω is attested well enough to make a change unnecessary (e.g. Ar. Nub. 72, Eccl. 80 = Soph. Inach. fr. 281). Paley claims that ἀνάπτω is the usual word, whereas Bond claims the same for ἐνάπτω when he changes Herc. 549 περιβόλαι’ ἀνήμμεθα (with Scaliger). Diggle prints the conjecture in both instances.



1250–[1622] Exodos

517

1491 πλάνους: Owen disputes that there are negative connotations, but more often than not is the ‘wandering’ involuntary, and with the repeated emphasis on Creusa’s youth and the meagre quality of the cloth (1417, 1419, 1425) it becomes unnatural not to infer some lack of control and mastery. Contrast the more neutral Tro. 199–200 κερκίδα δινεύουσ’ ἐξαλλάξω. 1492–3 γάλακτι δ’ οὐκ ἐπέσχον οὐδὲ μαστῶι τροφεῖα ματρὸς: ‘I did not give motherly nourishment by breastmilk’: the breast is here instrumental dative of the means (K-G I 438(10); contrast 1372); γάλακτι ... μαστῶι ‘breastmilk’ is a true hendiadys, where both the combination and each part taken in isolation makes sense: cf. Sansone (1984b) 21–2. 1493 λουτρὰ χειροῖν: The first bath of mother and child immediately after birth (Paus. 1.38.9, 8.28.2, Hom.Hym. 3.120–1, Call. Hym. 1.15–17; cf. R. Parker (1983) 50–1) is another bond between the pair that Creusa and Ion have not experienced. 1495–6 εἰς Ἅιδαν: pregnant construction, similar to 1274: by casting him out Creusa causes him to go to Hades. For the accusative metri causa instead of Ἅιδου cf. Sthen. fr. 661.23. 1497–1500 At the climax of the retrospection Creusa is reconciled with her past and with Ion: she confesses that she (nearly) killed her son, but excuses herself with her fear; Ion, in turn, accepts her plea for forgiveness. He shows understanding of her suffering (τλᾶσα: cf. 44, 958) and seems to accuse himself so as to create an equilibrium of guilt (though the only mention of Ion’s intent to have Creusa executed occurs in a corrupt passage). The double self-accusation amounts to a declaration to put the past behind them and ends the treatment of the specific story: the rest of the song is a general reflection on the changeability of fate, not referring to any particular action or event. 1497–8 ἐν φόβωι ... καταδεθεῖσα:  Creusa denies that she had any other chance: ‘binding’ denotes detainment, often about magic spells that are meant to compel a person to actions (e.g. Aesch. Eum. 331–2~344–5 ὕμνος ἐξ Ἐρινύων δέσμιος φρενῶν, NGCT 3; cf. Cic. Tusc. 5.3 animos ... angori­ bus et molestiis implicatos). Thus she can claim to have acted ἄκουσα. Wilamowitz’ rearrangement of the transmitted word order suffices to restore the metre. 1498 ἀπέβαλον ψυχάν: a unique juncture in classical Greek, using the ‘casting’ language of exposure and death (cf. 45n, Hom Il. 1.3). 1500 ἔκτεινά σ’: a statement on the action without consideration of the outcome, as in 1291.

518

Commentary

οὐχ ὅσι’: Wilamowitz, Murray, and Owen delete these words, possibly rightly. They may denote Ion’s attempt to bring Creusa to justice (interpreted as matricide), but the only grammatical explanation offered (as an apposition to the verb: Kraus 105) is difficult. The unclear metre (cf. Metre) prevents a judgment as to whether the formulation is acceptable. But pending further conjectures, the position as emotional climax of the song is underpinned by Ion’s only lyric utterance. ἔθνηισκες: De conatu ‘I wanted you to die’ would be a false notion: again the focus is not on the attempt but on the fact that she was about to die. Cf. K-G I 141; here and in IT 27 ἐκαινόμην everybody thinks that they are dead. 1502–9 Generalising statements take the sting out of Creusa’s previous self-reproach; she ends up with clichéd gnomic phrases and images, rhetorically dressed up with antonyms and polyptota. After the change of fortunes she desires closure with the past and stability for the new family situation. The song ends on a calm note, with optimism but without the excitement of the opening. 1502–4 ... τότε ... τάδ’: Creusa euphemistically avoids any explicit mention of the exposure and the near-matricide. Matthiae’s is needed to specify the τύχαι as those between Ion and Creusa and to balance τάδε. Hermann’s is then the easiest way of mending the metre. 1504 ἑλισσόμεσθ’: for changing fortune: Herc. 671, Or. 358–9 κύκλωι γὰρ εἱλιχθεῖσαν ἀθλίως κακοῖς ... ἑστίαν (West: ‘circled about’), Pind. I. 8.14–15 δόλιος γὰρ αἰὼν ἐπ’ ἀνδράσι κρέμαται, ἑλίσσων βίου πόρον. 1504–5 ἐκεῖθεν ἐνθάδε: Or. 1264 ἐκεῖθεν ἐνθάδ’ εἶτα πάλιν, Hel. 1141 δεῦρο καὶ αὖθις ἐκεῖσε καὶ πάλιν, Andr. 618. 1506 πνεύματα: For the changing winds of fortune cf. e.g. El. 1147–8, Herc. 216, Androm. fr. 153, Aesch. Sept. 705–8, Pind. O. 7.95, P. 3.104–5, Nes (1963) 14–15, Péron (1974) 189–91. For μεθίσταται cf. El. 1201–2 φρόνημα σὸν μετεστάθη πρὸς αὔραν (also Hcld. 487, Aesch. Pers. 158). 1509 οὖρος marks the end of the tempestuous period: cf. Herc. 95–6 γένοιτο μέντἄν, θύγατερ, οὔριος δρόμος ἐκ τῶν παρόντων τῶνδ’ ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ κακῶν, Nes p. 7–11. 1508 τὰ πάροιθεν ἅλις κακά: Hel. 1446 ἅλις δὲ μόχθων οὓς ἐμοχθοῦμεν πάρος. 1509 γένοιτό: For Wilamowitz’ optative (instead of L’s ἐγένετο) cf. Herc. 96 above.



1250–[1622] Exodos

519

ἐκ κακῶν: ‘out of trouble’, not ‘after trouble’: the imagery is again that of the ship stuck in a bad position (cf. 929–30). 1510–20 The chorus and Ion pick up elements of the song (e.g. ἄελπτον, τύχη, δυστυχῆσαι~δυστυχίαισιν, μεταβαλοῦσα~μεθίσταται, καὖθις αὖ~πάλιν) and especially Creusa’s last remarks on the unpredictability and changeability of fortune. The topos distils the gist of the preceding events and forms a suitable concluding summary. In later comedy, Hunter (2011) 30 observes, this point with the contemplation about τύχη could mark the end, with the relatives reunited and all obstacles to a bright future removed: Ion’s worries have abated and his future role is secured. The gnomic commonplaces even recall the jingling codas at the end of many plays (e.g. Alc. 1159–63, fr. 761, Soph. Aj. 648, Archil. IEG2 122.5–6). As after the 2nd stasimon, Euripides has brought the state of things to a deceptive balance before a new complication gives events a different direction. There are loose ends, however, that make further development necessary if an entirely satisfactory closure is to be achieved. The role of Apollo has not been fully recognised by the characters: from their limited human point of view the turns in the play seem pure coincidence, and Ion explicitly ascribes them to τύχη as an independent, i.e. non-Olympian, force (1514; cf. Busch (1937) 51, Giannopoulou (1999–2000) 266–8); in the song itself Creusa has raised the question of how Ion came to Delphi (1454–5); in addition, Ion’s doubts of Creusa’s version have been phrased in a polite and guarded way, but they have not been dissipated. Only the deus ex machina speech will reveal Apollo’s role and bring any measure of certainty about the still open questions. 1511 ἄελπτον: For the same sentiment – probably also in a recognition, but without a speaker attribution – cf. Hyps. fr. 761 ἄελπτον οὐδέν, πάντα δ’ ἐλπίζειν χρεών. πρὸς: ‘in view of’, almost causal: cf. Hipp. 867–8, Hel. 1290, K-G I 519–20. 1513 δυστυχῆσαι ... πρᾶξαι: consecutive infinitives after μεταβαλοῦσα. καὖθις αὖ: a combination that emerges in the last third of the 5th cent. (restored here by Pierson (1752) 13): Hcld. 796, El. 597, and later; also Soph. Phil. 952, Ar. Ach. 854 and later. εὖ (L) makes little sense beside καλῶς. 1514 τύχη: Cf. Men. PCG 853 ὦ μεταβολαῖς χαίρουσα παντοίαις Τύχη. In cases like this τύχη is a ‘fleeting personification’ with aspects of both the sum of events and an acting force: cf. Giannopoulou (1999–2000) 261, 267, Vogt-Spira (1992) 25–6. On the changeability of τύχη cf. e.g. Archel. fr. 262, Soph fr. 871, TrGF adesp. 700.29 κυκλεῖ τύ̣χ[η.

520

Commentary

παρ’ οἵαν ἤλθομεν στάθμην βίου: ‘What a path of life we have come!’ παρὰ στάθμην means ‘along a straight line’ (originally the carpenter’s line: cf. 1137n): cf. Soph. Oenom. fr. 474, Theogn. IEG2 945–6 εἶμι παρὰ στάθμην ὀρθὴν ὁδόν οὐδετέρωσε κλινόμενος; D. Müller (1974) 45. Ion means that the line has not been straight at all but undergone the change from slavery to royalty. For the metaphor of the course of life cf. El. 956, Herc. 433 βίου κέλευθον, Suppl. 201–2 ὃς ἡμῖν βίοτον ... διεσταθμήσατο. With the meaning ‘finishing line’ for στάθμη (e.g. Bayfield, Lee) βίου makes little sense: Ion’s new life is just about to start. 1515: one of the less successfully interpolated explicative infinitives: the gist of the preceding lines was that lives can take turns from misery to happiness, and in 1516–20 Ion comments on finding the mother and attaining nobility, so the reference to the murder plot is out of place. In addition, it is entirely unclear what Ion has suffered that was ἀνάξιον: being plotted against (Italie, Pohlenz (1954) II 167) hardly is (contrast IA 852 καὶ παθοῦσ᾿ ἀνάξια, i.e. ridicule, Hel. 455); being abandoned (Biehl) does not match the context. 1516–20 The identity of his mother and his status had been related concerns each of similar weight to Ion (cf. 1369–94n); now he marvels at how both have been miraculously resolved. Although he has just pronounced the tragic cliché about the general changeability of τύχη (1512–14; cf. e.g. Antiope fr. 223.104 below), he struggles to cope with the exceptionality of the news concerning what had been his two great sore points; his newfound nobility exceeds even his best hopes (cf. 670–1). 1516 φεῦ· ἆρ᾿: The interjection reveals not just great surprise but also the uneasy feeling of incredulity: for ἆρ(α) then introduces a real question, not a veiled statement that the like happens all the time (as Owen and Lee would have it). Subsequently (1520) Ion distinguishes between the facts, which he is willing to accept and those of Creusa’s claims, which he is not. ἡλίου περιπτυχαῖς: I.e. the entire world, which (the course of) the sun is folded around (TrGF adesp. 91 πέπλων περιπτυχαί, Ar. Av. 1241 δόμων περιπτυχάς), in analogy to 1445 ἀμπτυχαί. 1517 πάντα τάδε: Ion is not referring to the events of the day but to what he has learned (μαθεῖν), primarily about his origins (1518–19), but one may also think of his exposure. καθ’ ἡμέραν: ‘every day’; cf. 124n, Antiope fr. 223.104 ὦ πόλλ᾿ ἄελπτα Ζεῦ τιθεὶς καθ᾿ ἡμέραν. καθ᾿ ἡμέραν μίαν (G. Müller (1983) 47) is tempting, but his point that μαθεῖν is not suitable for one’s own experiences is irrelevant: Ion is not speaking about experiences but about information.



1250–[1622] Exodos

521

1519 μεμπτόν: picking up Ion’s earlier fear of ὄνειδος etc. 593, 673–5, 1382–3, 1473, 1477: if he is Creusa’s son (τόδε: Creusa’s lineage, not his Olympian ancestry, which is τὰ ἄλλα), nobody can object to his position. ὡς ἡμῖν: ‘at least in my view’: cf. K-G I 421–2; often restricting, when the view in question may seem paradoxical to others (Soph. Aj. 395, Ant. 1161, OC 76). Limiting the positive judgment to himself further enhances the understatement of the litotes οὐδὲν μεμπτόν. 1521–7 Ion shows that his earlier questions about his descent were not just guided by a desire for high status but also by real curiosity; otherwise he could stop at this point. At the same time he appears pragmatic, shrewd, and self-interested, very different from the naïve boy of the first scenes. While he still secretly mistrusts Creusa’s version, he is happy for it to become official: about the actual truth, he inquires out of earshot of everyone, so that it not be divulged. His suspicion of an extramarital affair is the same he had voiced about the ‘friend’ (339–41). The long-winded sentence 1523–7, along with the careful euphemistic wording, shows him politely circling the issue, cautiously suggesting what may have happened: σφαλεῖσα, νοσήματ(α), and the description as a common phenomenon (ἃ παρθένοις ἐγγίγνεται) are all meant to limit his mother’s loss of face and diminish her inhibition to tell the truth. For another (mutilated) instance of a son suspecting his mother’s story of his conception cf. Pha. 51–3 εἴπερ πατὴρ πέφυκεν ... ἀρκεῖ· πέποιθα γάρ σε μὴ ψευδῆ λέγειν, with the actual doubt possibly expressed in 25 ]ἀ̣εὶ λέγ̣εις̣ (cf. Ov. Met. 1.753–4). For a similar story in a historical setting cf. [Aeschin.] Ep. 10.8. 1521 δεῦρ’ ἔλθ’: The staging is unclear: the last certain embrace was in 1443, but nothing suggests that Ion and Creusa have moved away from each other since. So Ion may just ask his mother to move her head closer to his lips. The à part-dialogue is frequent in Roman comedy (Bain (1977) 162–71), commonly introduced by concede huc, a direct translation of the Greek here. In extant Greek drama it has no parallels except Ar. Av. 1647–75 and, in modified form, Soph. Phil. 574–81. Bain p. 59–61, followed by Lee, denies any notion of secrecy, positing that the chorus and the attendants have blended into the background and Euripides is just establishing physical closeness. But the language (ἐς οὖς, περικαλύψαι) suggests furtiveness. The secluded dialogue is not on a par with monologic asides but can be staged in a naturalistic way as a real dialogue. Creusa immediately breaks the secretiveness and draws in the bystanders with her oath, perhaps a variation on an existing type.

522

Commentary

1522 περικαλύψαι τοῖσι πράγμασι σκότον: The characterisation of Ion here is of a calculating schemer: as in 1380–4, he sets prestige (i.e. social standing) above the truth: he longs for certainty about his origin, but is unwilling to publicise it. 1523 ὅρα σύ ... μὴ: μή with indicative after the future or imperative of verbs of seeing expresses a tentative suggestion and is not prohibitive: e.g. Hel. 119, Or. 208–9, Soph. Ant. 1253–4 εἰσόμεσθα μή τι ... καλύπτει; cf. K-G II 395, Goodwin 133, §369, Moorhouse 315–16. σφαλεῖσ’: She ‘tripped (into intercourse)’, which Ion belittles as a slip. In the same way Andromache exculpates Hector: Andr. 223 εἴ τί δε σφάλλοι Κύπρις. Mel.Desm. fr. 493 αἱ γὰρ σφαλεῖσαι ταῖσιν οὐκ ἐσφαλμέναις αἶσχος γυναιξί, however, has a strong vituperative note. σφαλεῖσ᾿ ἃ παρθένοις has been restored from σφαλεῖσα παρθένος by Musgrave (1762) 121. παρθένοις: For the ambiguity cf. 503bisn. 1524 νοσήματ’: The semantic range of the metaphor allows Ion to remain vague (cf. Padel (1995) 157–64): from a moral blemish (Antig. fr. 166 τὸ μῶρον αὐτῶι τοῦ πατρὸς νόσημ᾿ ἔνι) and love-sickness (Hipp. passim, Andr. 220–1, Soph. Achil.Amat. fr. 149) to a defect/weakness or a cumbersome position; Creusa can choose the degree of responsibility that she wishes to recognise in the formulation. For the ‘illness’ of pregnancy and labour cf. 1596n. 1525 προστίθης τὴν αἰτίαν: ‘And then you accuse the god (instead of the mortal who did it)’: Ion’s assumption is that no god was involved in the actual deed; the audience may also hear ‘you give the blame to the god (rather than taking responsibility yourself).’ Cf. Ar. Pax 640, Thuc. 3.39.6 καὶ μὴ τοῖς μὲν ὀλίγοις ἡ αἰτία προστεθῆι, τὸν δὲ δῆμον ἀπολύσητε, Alcidamas 2.8. 1528–31 In another strong oath (cf. 870–3, 1478–81), Creusa swears by Athena, here specified as the participant in the gigantomachy, where she won the poison Creusa used against Ion. The scene described is ‘depicted’ on the temple (209–11), but ποτε makes a direct reference to the depiction unlikely. 1528 μὰ: Informal oaths of the νὴ Δία-type add ‘affective flavor’ (Bers (2009) 113) and serve for intensification (Dover (1997) 62–3). Tragedy largely dispenses with them – perhaps the register is unsuitable and the gods have a presence in the tragic world (so Bers p. 110–11). When they occur, the deities are very carefully chosen for a particular connection to the matter, the invocation extended, and the truth value of the utterance (normally a denial) is essential: e.g. Med. 395, Hipp. 307, Phoen. 1006, Aesch. Ag. 1432–3, Soph. El. 626.



1250–[1622] Exodos

523

1528–9 παρασπίζουσαν ἅρμασίν ... Ζηνὶ: The two datives stand in the σχῆμα καθ᾿ ὅλον καὶ κατὰ μέρος (K-G I 289). In 5th-cent. depictions of the gigantomachy Athena is at the side of the chariot, which is mounted by Zeus and/or Heracles: cf. Vian/Moore (1988) 265. 1529 Νίκην Ἀθάναν: Cf. 457n. L has the later form Ἀθηνᾶν (corr. Matthiae; cf. 1434, Björck (1950) 242–3, Barrett on Hipp. 1120–5). 1530 οὐδείς: The transmitted ὅστις is syntactically impossible. οὔτις (Hartung) is palaeographically closer but in trimeters usually used only metri causa: the exceptions are Cycl. 334, possibly a pun on Οὔτις in Hom. Od. 9.366, and Phoen. 1148 (where οὐδείς would be permissible despite Porson’s Law). 1531 ἐξέθρεψε Λοξίας: Creusa argues on the basis of Ion’s previous closeness to the god, hinting at Apollo’s caring involvement in the past as evidence of his fatherhood. The roles of biological and social father are reunited, the tension between the two in Ion’s monody (109–11, 139) resolved. The Delphic name of the god underlines the special care Ion enjoyed at the oracle. 1532–48 Ion’s two initial questions show him disappointed as a son and as a worshipper respectively: 1) He does not understand why Apollo does not accept him publicly as a son. 2) He cannot believe that Apollo lied in his oracle. In her first answer (1534–6, taking Apollo’s perspective) Creusa tackles the former problem – plainly denying the lie – on a civic and legal plane, through analogy with a contemporary Athenian practice (καὶ γάρ: ‘for a friend, too, ...’; cf. Denniston 108). When Ion remains discontented, Creusa explains the benefits of this solution from his perspective (1539–45). But this utilitarian explanation of the second point still does not satisfy him, and he openly criticises the evasive argument as base or cheap (1546 φαῦλον): his piety is still too strong to allow a solution that compromises Apollo’s veracity, even if it is in his favour. Some critics (Wassermann (1940) 596, Burnett (1962) 92–3, G. Müller (1983) 36–7) are willing to adopt Creusa’s view, that Apollo arranged things in the best possible way for Ion (ch. 1), but even though Ion expresses his satisfaction, this passage reveals reservations and the conflict of piety and expediency. 1532 πῶς οὖν: The question here reveals indignation (cf. 442), reinforced by τὸν αὑτοῦ ‘his own’, rather than introducing philosophical or rhetorical argumentation. ἄλλωι πατρὶ: ‘another man to be the father’: cf. 161n.

524

Commentary

1534 πεφυκέναι μὲν οὐχί: The construction continues Ion’s φησί, but that does not mean that Creusa presumes to repeat Apollo’s words: she has not heard the oracle herself (cf. Erbse (1975)). In fact, she uses the same word as Hermes (70) but negates it, and she contradicts Xuthus (537). On the simplex taking up ἐκπεφυκέναι cf. 1080n. δωρεῖται: Creusa describes the process in terms of adoption, similarly to Hermes (69–71). The legal term in the orators for someone allowing a childless man to adopt him/his son is δίδωμι: e.g. Isae. 2.21 τίνα ποιήσασθαι ἐχρῆν τῶν συγγενῶν; πότερα τὸν ὑὸν τὸν τούτου; ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἂν αὐτῶι ἔδωκεν, ἄπαιδα αὑτὸν καθιστάς, also 2.10, 42; cf. 69, 1532, 1536, 1561. Creusa’s use of δωρέομαι may mitigate the cold technicality of the process and portray Apollo in a kinder light. Adoption was an important means of securing the preservation of one’s household and care in old age and in the cult of the dead. It also allowed men without male offspring to control their succession. Of the five attested cases of adoption inter vivos, four of the men were, or had been, married but seem not to have had any hope of male children: cf. Rubinstein (1993) 21–2. The secret, supposititious adoption of Ion may, therefore, lead the audience to think that no genuine offspring will issue from Xuthus’ marriage with Creusa (making the prediction about Dorus and Achaeus in 1589–94 all the greater a surprise). 1535–6 ἂν ... δοίη: The potential indicates a hypothetical parallel with a suppressed protasis (sc. ‘in a similar case’); such cases do exist, and a straight indicative would be possible. Of 31 cases in which we know something about the relationship between adoptive father and son (Rubinstein (1993) 117–25), there is only one in which the two are not related by blood or marriage: Isae. 4.18, however, speaks of the practice of adopting φίλοι (which can cover family), and there is a marriage link through Creusa. 1537–45 Creusa spontaneously (ἐσῆλθεν) reconstructs Apollo’s intentions, drawing a benign picture of the god as a benefactor to Ion, choosing the only possible way to ensure his son’s good fortune. In this way she excuses Apollo’s apparent neglect of his son and the oracular lie. Athena later confirms her interpretation (1560/2/1). Creusa describes the benefit of Apollo’s actions in legal categories: both the right to inherit ([842]n) and the use of the patronymic (594n) mean full integration in Athens as a citizen and son of a citizen. 1537 ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής, ἢ μάτην μαντεύεται;: ‘Does the god speak the truth or does he give untrue responses?’ For ἀληθής in the meaning ‘truthful’ cf.



1250–[1622] Exodos

525

Hipp. 927; with gods Or. 424 (with West’s θεός), Soph. Phil. 992–3 Φι. τοὺς θεοὺς ψευδεῖς τίθης. – Οδ. οὔκ, ἀλλ’ ἀληθεῖς, Hes. Th. 233. 1538 ἐμοῦ ταράσσει ... εἰκότως φρένα: ‘This question disconcerts my mind, and fairly so.’ The asyndeton gives the reason for the question in 1537 (cf. 971, 1340, Bussler (1887) 43–7), but the abrupt style also corresponds with Ion’s state of mind. The subject of ταράσσει is the preceding sentence, not ‘the god’; there is no need to connect the two sentences by εἰ for either ὁ or ἤ (first Reiske (1754) 159, most recently Kraus 107–8). Either would make a somewhat frigid period. 1540–1 ἐς εὐγενῆ δόμον: Creusa’s conspicuous use of general terms – as if any noble family would have been suitable for Ion – presents the benefits in a more objective way. 1541 τοῦ θεοῦ δὲ λεγόμενος: The argument that a god’s son would not be treated favourably by his community but end up without means is legalistic pedantry. One may understand ‘slave’ (cf. 309, 1286), but the best sense would be produced if ‘the god’s son’ were a (unattested) euphemism for a bastard. 1542 παγκλήρους δόμους: ‘the household with the entire inheritance’; cf. 814. On the legal construction in the case of ἐπίκληροι cf. 693n. There could be two solutions to the problem that the house of Erechtheus and the ἐπίκληρος Creusa cannot so easily be transferred to Xuthus: 1) Creusa has no relatives, so nobody can claim the inheritance; 2) Creusa acknowledges Ion in a son’s stead. This is what Xuthus promises to arrange (659–60, though it is doubtful whether such a declaration would be in the legal powers of an Athenian woman). In 1468–9 Ion seemed to imagine that Creusa was the victim of Xuthus’ rape, and by claiming this she would make him legitimate ex post (in the way of New Comedy: e.g. Men. Epitr., Ter. Hec.; cf. Ogden (1996) 125, Sommerstein (1998) 104–5, Leisner-Jensen (2002), 670b–5n, 1468–88n). This story then conforms with the traditional version of the myth in which Xuthus and Creusa are Ion’s parents (cf. 1601–5n). 1543 ὄνομα πατρός: The father’s name must here be meant as the form in the genitive used as part of one’s own name (cf. 594n). This use seems to have been the privilege of legitimate sons, conferred when the boys were accepted as such by the community; cf. Plut. Per. 37.2, 5, Ogden (1996) 93. οὗ γ’: The particle has explanatory force, making the relative clause the justification of the preceding question (Denniston 141–2 with close parallels, K-G II 175(7)): the exposure had deprived Ion of having the ceremony of formal recognition after birth (i.e. receiving ὄνομα πατρός) and of the chance of having a family and inheritance (δόμος).

526

Commentary

1544 ἔκρυπτον ... ἀπέκτεινον: Creusa refers to Ion’s conception and exposure, not to events at Delphi. The imperfect expresses that Cruesa undertook the deeds, irrespective of whether or not it was accomplished (cf. Goodwin 13, §38, 1500n). 1545 ὠφελῶν σε: Creusa concludes in ring composition (from 1540), having argued ex consequentibus: with Apollo’s interference, Ion is better off than he had been without. She reiterates the idea of Apollo as a benefactor, with a reminiscence of 139. προστίθησ’: The verb simply ‘connotes surrender or delivery to a new possessor or authority’ (Mastronarde on Phoen. 964). In legal contexts (Isae. 11.39, 45) the verb has a notion of giving in addition to what is due (προσ-), which is not applicable here. 1546–8 His esteem for Apollo leads Ion to reject Creusa’s expedient explanation of the oracular lie: despite his previous acceptance of Apollo’s fallibility with regard to the rape, he is still not easily convinced that the god would undercut his key domain and violate his duty. By his intention to consult the oracle he flouts his own warning to Creusa not to confront Apollo (369–73); at stake is his trust in Apollo, in addition to the desire for validation of Apollo’s paternity and of Creusa’s oaths (1478–87, 1528–31). 1549–52 Ion is moving to the temple to consult the oracle, when he sees Athena. He recognises her as a deity but not as herself (as is the case with other dei ex machina). The announcement of the goddess is doubly unique: firstly, Ion is the only individual in extant tragedy to announce the arrival of a deity (as opposed to the chorus: cf. Halleran (1985) 25–6). Secondly, elsewhere a deity’s approach is not announced if he or she intervenes in haste, as Athena does to stop Ion from entering the temple (1556; cf. IT 1435, Hel. 1642, Or. 1625). The stage action accounts for both anomalies: When Ion turns to enter the temple (i.e. the stage building), he is the first to see her (cf. Mastronarde (1990) 272). Her sight stops his movement; Athena no longer has to intervene. Athena flies in on a chariot (cf. 1570n; on the employment of the μηχανή in tragedy cf. Mastronarde). Its mention is casual and unnecessary; the idea that it had to be imagined (Vox (2003) 223–4) contravenes the economy of tragic diction and the repeated use of the device (Med. 1321–2, Bell. fr. 306– 8, PV 286, and presumably the instances where there is more than one deity: El., Herc., Hel.). Taplin (1977) 445 rejects the use of the crane altogether and wishes to delete all four announcements as adaptations to 4th-century theatri-



1250–[1622] Exodos

527

cal practice. Pace Taplin, however, not just Andr. and El., but also Herc. and Ion (1549 ὑπερτελής) refer clearly to the gods being in the air, and in Herc. the reference lies outside the announcement (872). Nor need the timing be too strict: in Ion alone of the four plays is the deity’s arrival rushed, but the crane only needs to move upwards into the sight of Ion during 1546–8 and can be turned to the playing area later. For the appearance and functioning of the μηχανή cf. Mastronarde p. 290–4, Lendle (1995) 169–71. 1549 ἔα: Cf. 154n. Upon noticing a deus ex machina: Hipp. 1391, Herc. 815. θυοδόκων: Cf. 510–11n. ὑπερτελὴς: ‘above’, not ‘on top of’, i.e. hanging from the crane, not standing on the theologeion: cf. in similar situations El. 1233 δόμων ὑπὲρ ἀκροτάτων (with references to flying), Herc. 817 ὑπὲρ δόμων. Herc. 872 πεδαίρουσ(α) clearly suggests that Iris flies back to Olympus on the μηχανή after Lyssa has dismounted to enter the house. 1550 ἀντήλιον: Athena’s face is radiant like the sun (Hesych. α5361 ὁ ἴσος καὶ ὅμοιος ἡλίωι φαινόμενος, possibly citing this passage); on gods with a gleaming appearance cf. 887–8, Hom. Il. 1.200, 206 γλαυκῶπις with Pulleyn. That Athena is looking eastward because she is on the front side of the temple (so Owen, from Hesych. α5360 οἱ πρὸ τῶν πυλῶν ἱδρυμένοι explaining Meleag. fr. 538; cf. Aesch. Ag. 519, Soph. Aj. 805) would be a rather pointless observation. Psilosis of compounds of ἥλιος is an Ionism (Cycl. 19 ἀπηλιώτης), on aspiration in Attic cf. K-B I 112, S-D I 220, Threatte I 494–5, 504–6. 1552 εἰ μὴ καιρός: Ion means ‘if it is not good for us’, i.e. ‘if it means danger’, as Athena’s reply (1553) presupposes that Ion regards her as hostile: after his own warning in 370–2 he may fear that the divine strikes back under his provocation. This is more than pious restraint and the avoidance of an inappropriate glimpse of the goddess (so Race (1981) 211). Seeing gods is dangerous only in special cases (Actaeon; Hom. Il. 20.131), and if the gods want to remain invisible to individuals they can (Hom. Il. 1.198, Od. 16.161, though cf. Call. Hym. 5.101–2). In El. 1292–3 the chorus are not afraid to see the Dioscuri but only to speak to them. 1553–1605 Athena’s Speech Athena’s appearance and her speech on Apollo’s behalf (including an oracle) render Ion’s consultation of the oracle unnecessary. The staging becomes straightforward, as a proper consultation, conducted behind the scenes and reported afterwards, is no longer required.

528

Commentary

1553–9 Introduction of herself and her commission 1560–94 Apollo’s message 1560–8 Story of the tragedy (to Ion) 1569–94 Oracle on the future 1569–70 Introduction (to both) 1571–4 Return to Athens (to Creusa) 1575–88 Fame through descendants (to Creusa) 1575–81a Ion’s sons: Athenian tribes 1581b–8 Further generations: colonisation of Ionia 1589–94 Creusa and Xuthus 1595–1600 Appraisal: Apollo’s interference around Ion’s birth (to Creusa) 1601–3 Schweigegebot (to Creusa) 1604–5 Farewell The speech combines Apollo’s message and Athena’s own additions and comments. In 1560–8 she addresses Ion alone (forms of σύ) to answer his questions (1532–3, 1537–8) and dispel his doubts: she confirms Apollo’s paternity (avoiding explicit mention of the rape) and Creusa’s surmise that he gave the oracle so as to integrate Ion into Creusa’s family. What is news to both Creusa and Ion is the story of Ion’s rescue through Hermes, the admission that the original plan (the recognition in Athens) failed, and the revelation of Apollo’s interference after the chorus had disclosed the oracle. This part of the address contains a number of echoes of Hermes’ prologue speech (cf. 1–81n). The second part of Apollo’s message (λόγοι) is an oracle for Ion and Creusa (1570 dual εἰσακούσατον) comprising firstly the command to return to Athens and crown Ion king, and secondly the prophecy about the future of the house: their descendants will inspire the organisation of Athens and colonise Ionia. The children of Creusa and Xuthus will be the ancestors of the rest of Greece. Athena ends with a personal message in her own voice: she commends Apollo’s taking care over Ion’s birth (again ignoring the rape) and commands that their relationship be kept secret. This part most clearly expresses the key message of the entire speech: it is an implicit but unequivocal (cf. Meltzer (2006) 181–3) defence of Apollo against the accusations raised in the play, insisting that he has watched over his offspring all along. The speech, then, resembles Hermes’ in its gist as well as its details. Both gods present themselves as go-betweens for Apollo; and both report his words: Hermes in direct, Athena in indirect discourse. And as Hermes’ speech revealed that Apollo was not in absolute control of the matter (as Hermes had found out everything against his brother’s will), so Athena’s appearance is itself a sign of vulnerability on Apollo’s part: it demonstrates the need for a



1250–[1622] Exodos

529

refutation of any accusations and the potential for conflict and dissent. By sending a proxy, Apollo avoids direct confrontation (1556–8). Delivery by Athena gives the speech a double voice. She presents Apollo’s announcement but can act as an independent and (seemingly) impartial authority, add her own third-personal view, and influence the judgment on Apollo in a way he could not have done himself: his account of events would have seemed biased and the assessment in 1595 would have been impossible. However, the announcement of the great future of Athens and the ruling family touches on Athena’s key competence as patroness of the city (stressed as motive for Athena as the chosen speaker by Iakov (2011) 134). The prediction contains three aetiologies: the origin of the Attic/Ionian φυλαί from Ion’s sons, the origin of the Ionians from the colonies founded by his further desecendants, and the origin of Dorians and Achaeans from his half-brothers. The aetiologies are equally relevant to the internal audience (Ion and Creusa) and to the spectators, and pronounced by the common patron goddess of both groups. The privileged position of the city among both the Attic-Ionian tribe and the Greeks as a whole seems affirmed. The divine prediction of Athenian glory more than fulfils the hopes of the characters and (through substantial rewriting of the traditional myths) the audience. However, the statements about the Ionians and the other tribes are ambivalent, and the position of Athens towards them can be read in ways that diminish the city’s claim to dominance: with a stress on the bonds between the Greek tribes and on Athenian dependence on the Ionians (cf. 1569–94n, ch. 1). Further elements of the speech are suitable to temper the triumphant mood (cf. Conacher (1959) 23, Wieland Schmidt (1963) 159–60): 1) Ion’s confusion about the reliability of the oracular responses, the starting point of the speech, turns out to be fully justified. 2) Apollo has proved incapable of foreseeing the future, although his omniscience defines him as the god of the oracle (6–7); his power is less than had been assumed, as the chorus’ revelation and the subsequent murder plot have thwarted his plan. This has been interpreted as demonstrating the god’s aloofness and his inability to empathise with humans and to factor in their emotional reactions (Burnett (1971) 128–9). 3) Apollo is likely described as perceiving his own superior standing to be at risk. Athena avoids any open attribution of guilt, but the natural reading of 1558 is that Apollo understands he has laid himself open to reproach (cf. n), justified or not. None of these issues is allowed to become prominent; they are suppressed or belittled in a fanfare of optimism in the speech and the subsequent submissive approval by Ion and Creusa. This silence has caused many interpreters to argue that the speech and the rest of the play resolve all issues and completely exonerate Apollo (ch. 1). Nicolai goes so far as to read the last part of the play as an imposed fairy tale-ending (contrasting the wartime

530

Commentary

reality: (1990) 15). But he, in contrast to the aforementioned critics, is not blind to the ironic quality of the speech: the excessive positivity conveyed by Athena also reveals cracks in the rhetorical veneer (p. 27–8; cf. Conacher p. 39, Wieland Schmidt p. 160). The positive tone is the result of the character of the speech as eulogistic defence of Apollo; Creusa and Ion, swayed by the happiness of their reunion and the bounty of promise, dismiss their earlier suffering and forget the open questions – the spectator is given the choice of whether or not to keep these in mind or attach importance to them at all. 1553–9 Athena begins by identifying herself and placating Ion’s fearfulness (1551– 2; cf. Herc. 822–4). The chiasmus οὐ πολεμίαν ... εὐμενῆ highlights her benevolence towards the pair and depicts how this attitude is universal, comprising Delphi as well as Athens. Both her eponymousness and benevolence underline Athena’s status as protectress of her city and motivate her arrival. 1555 σῆς: Athena addresses Ion alone, expressing key information early on by calling Athens his land: he is a native of it but also owns it and is destined to take power of it. The play on the etymology of her name (Pallas/Athena) forms the first parallel between her speech and Hermes’ (cf. 9). 1556 δρόμωι σπεύσασ’: Athena’s haste – unique among the dei ex machi­ na, as Leimbach (1971) 110 notes – suggests that Apollo has again failed to foresee a complication caused by human emotion, and Athena is sent to prevent worse (i.e. an embarrassment for Apollo). 1558 μὴ τῶν πάροιθε μέμψις ἐς μέσον μόληι: ‘lest any reproof about past actions be brought forth.’ Athena clouds the motive for Apollo’s absence in ambiguity, leaving unsaid who would reproach whom and whether recrimination would be justified (so already Yunis (1988) 136–7). She thus defuses any reproach or grievance that could impede the positive conclusion of the play. The vagueness is most plausibly a way of allowing Creusa to interpret the line as she wants to and allowing her and Apollo to save face, while advancing their reconciliation. The clause is among the most debated in Ion, since much of the play’s theology hinges on it. Given that Apollo has been criticised several times in the play by both Creusa and Ion (cf. 885 μομφάν), he is the more natural object of reproach (Matthiessen (2002) 181 n.1). If so, his absence proves that he at least sees why Creusa might want to criticise him (even if unjustifiably so). Ion describes Apollo as sensitive about the exposure of his failings (370–2) and the god confirms this by having sent Athena, just when Ion wishes clarification from him. Apollo’s acknowledgment of his personal failings (or of the fact that others may judge them as such) cannot be easily dismissed as ‘a humorous one, for it is hardly conventional for a powerful god to be ashamed of facing a woman and an adolescent boy’



1250–[1622] Exodos

531

(Swift (2009a) 98). It is better to see in Athena’s words a communicative manoeuvre that takes account of possible grievances on either side while preventing their being aired or directly acknowledging them. By a circular argument scholars have wanted categorically to rule out that the reproach could be directed against Apollo, because that would be irreconcilable with their theology of the play, i.e. the necessary exoneration of Apollo. Some argue that Apollo would have to rebuke Creusa (e.g. G. Müller (1974) 335, (1983) 34). However, if Apollo were the one doing the reproaching, he might just suppress his criticism. A more refined version of this argument is that Apollo does not want to cause Creusa shame for her past, unjustified recriminations (Spira (1960) 72 n.141). But the Greek text says nothing of shame, which may equally, moreover, be evoked by Athena. Others (Strohm (1957) 162 n.3, Biehl in his edition p. 81, approved by Lee) believe that Apollo is reluctant to expose himself to recriminations, not out of any ungodlike feeling such as shame but because the humans wrongly apply their moral standards to the divine. In this way the μέμψις would be an act of blasphemy which Apollo tries to prevent (so Erbse (1975) 43–4). Such a divide between different sets of morals is never brought up by anyone (except modern interpreters: cf. 355n, Wieland Schmidt (1963) 156–7): Ba. 1346 ἀλλ’ ἐπεξέρχηι λίαν shows that criticism of a god in the context of a deus ex machina speech is not inconceivable – and Dionysus justifies himself by saying that his dignity (as a god) had been offended (Ba. 1347 θεὸς γεγὼς ὑβριζόμην); he does not say that he is subjected to a different moral standard. 1560–8 Athena dispels Ion’s doubts with a definite answer to his questions about his father (1523–7) and about why he was finagled in as Xuthus’ son (1532–3), i.e. the questions he intended to put to the oracle (1532–48n). Echoing Creusa’s words (1540–1) Athena states the purpose of Apollo’s oracle (the reintegration of Ion into the Erechtheid family) without acknowledging the lie in the prophecy. The necessity of the exposure (1540–3) is passed over: Athena circumvents any offence, recrimination, and the intricacies of human, family law. In the recapitulation of the present day, Apollo is presented as saviour of the day, his role in causing the turbulences suppressed. By anticipating Ion’s questions and volunteering information on the events of the day Apollo shows himself co-operative, while at the same time providing information on his own terms. The question about the veracity of the oracle is answered only implicitly by confirming that Apollo called Ion Xuthus’ son (1562–1). Apollo thus avoids admitting to a lie – hardly avoidable in Ion’s formulation (1537) – and to his misjudgment of (or his not foreseeing of) Creusa’s reaction, with the result that he can save face (cf. 1558n).

532

Commentary

1560/2/1 The key information, the motive for the supposition of Ion to Xuthus (1562), ought to be given before 1561; οὐ φύσασί σε better trails at the end, following the pattern of 270 and 1324; πρᾶγμα also connects better with δίδωσιν if the two are not separated by another clause. In the transmitted order, ἀλλ(ά) connects a concessive participle (‘not because’ would require οὐχ ὡς φύσασι: cf. Med. 781) with a purpose clause; the result is inconcinnity and the use of ἀλλά without a contrast (diagnosed by McDiarmid (1947), but not solved correctly by the conjecture οὐκ ἀφείς γέ σε). The transmitted δ(έ) is a late, natural addition after the lines have been reversed and can be removed at very little cost. 1560 ὡς: at the introduction of indirect speech: cf. Phoen. 692, Aesch. Pers. 357, Antiphanes PCG 188.10. It explicates τοὺς λόγους (cf. Hel. 515–7). 1562 κομίζηι ᾿ς: The verb is used for making someone settle in a house or land, e.g. Andr. 1264, El. 1286 (from deus ex machina speeches). The correct text has been given by Wilamowitz, the correct explanation as second person passive by Morel (1933) 139. In this interpretation the change of subject after 1560 becomes smoother. Hence the remaining sigma is not a pronoun (σ᾿) but a preposition, required because of the figurative meaning of οἶκος. Other suggestions are less successful: the only parallel for transmitted νομίζη(ι)ς in the meaning ‘to live in sth.’ is equally corrupt (Aesch. Cho. 801). Kraus 108–9, separating νομίζηι (‘so that you are considered his son’) from ᾿ς by a comma, produces a clumsy double indication of the ‘recipient’ (οἷς ἔδωκεν; (ἐ)ς οἶκον εὐγενέστατον); the emphasised element (the nobility of Ion’s future house) becomes a subordinate addition; the content of νομίζηι (viz. υἱὸν εἶναι) is difficult to add from φύσασι. 1561 δίδωσιν οἷς ἔδωκεν: Expression of the object through a tautological relative clause frequently serves as euphemistic avoidance of a name, either because it is inauspicious or compromising (Denniston on El. 1141; an older device: Fehling (1969) 293). Xuthus is thus reduced to a mere instrument but also spared the humiliation of being declared a cuckold. His identity is masked further by the plural. For Ion this is the signal not to give too much thought to him. Change of aspect in this construction is paralleled (Hec. 1000), change of tense is not, but δίδωσιν may be described as ‘perfective’ historic present (cf. 18n). 1563–8 Athena confirms Hermes’ paraphrase of Apollo’s plan (71–3), adding details, and acknowledges that the planned recognition in Athens was subverted, so that Apollo had to interfere. It is her admission, not Apollo’s, as she is commenting in her own voice (change of tense after 1562/1; cf. also 1569n),



1250–[1622] Exodos

533

not acting as his mouthpiece. Athena does not specify the exact dimensions of Apollo’s intervention, only that there were μηχαναί that saved both Ion and Creusa (e.g. the blasphemy spoken at the symposion; her formulation clearly refers to events after 761). 1563 ἀνεώιχθη πρᾶγμα μηνυθὲν: ‘The matter, being reported, was made public.’ The ‘coincident participle’ in the aorist further explains the action of the verb: cf. Goodwin 52, §150, Barrett on Hipp. 289–92. μηνύω adds to the more general ἀνοίγνυμι the technical sense of denunciation (Andoc. 1.10, Thuc. 6.53.1; on the procedure of μήνυσις cf. Harrison I 171). Athena again uses vague language in order not to draw attention to the problematic issue of the oracle (Wilamowitz; the reference point is clearly the oracle and not ‘all of the play’s “openings” which required Apollo’s several μηχαναί’: Gibert (1995) 187). 1564 θανεῖν: For the infinitive cf. 628, 1453. 1565 μηχαναῖς: Apollo appears as the counter-schemer against Creusa (a meta-theatrical layer dealt with by Thorburn (2001)): cf. [833] with n, 1326. 1566 αὐτὰ: I.e. the content of 1560/2/1. διασιωπήσας: The prefix δια- emphasises the delay of the revelation. 1567 σοὶ: The less common causative use of γνωρίζω ‘cause someone to be recognised’ (cf. PV 487) was not recognised; hence L’s σήν. 1568 σέ θ’: The prolepsis softens the inconcinnity of the noun clause instead of σέ τ᾿ αὐτῆι: ‘and (about) you that you are son to her and to Phoebus, the father.’ 1569–94 Apollo’s oracular response (χρησμοί), the actual purpose of Athena’s coming (1570 ἐφ’ οἷσιν), no longer deals with Ion’s questions but the future. It is directed towards both Ion and Creusa (εἰσακούσατον), but subsequently addresses Creusa alone. First she receives the order to make Ion part of her house (for the pattern cf. Andr. 1238–52, 1253–62), then her previous accusations against Apollo concerning his ingratitude are refuted: she is given the prediction about her descendants, in particular their future role as eponymous heroes of tribes and regions. Instead of extinction her line can expect greatness. Apollo’s prophecy explains the naming of institutions and areas after persons that will be born to Creusa’s family; what distinguishes this from other aetiologies (e.g. El. 1275, IT 1453–7, Hel. 1670–5) is that the prediction amounts to a glimpse of Athenian history: it is only superficially concerned with the personages of the tragedy – as explaining Ion’s future fame (1575).

534

Commentary

The focus is on the three generations after Creusa, introducing another temporal layer between the play’s characters and the audience. The aetiology implies a privileged position of Athens in comparison with the other Greeks. This position is owed to a modification of Greek genealogy (ch. 3C). On the one hand, Euripides reverses the relative nobility of the ancestors of the Greek tribes (and thus the tribes themselves): in the traditional account Dorus is Xuthus’ brother and Ion’s uncle; Achaeus is Ion’s full brother. Euripides instead makes Ion the first-born and the others his half-brothers. Xuthus’ offspring are still descendants of Zeus but further removed from their divine ancestor, and Apollo is not part of their lineage. The Dorians and Achaeans are also given less prominence as only one generation is presented, whereas Ion’s line is followed through at least two further generations. The Ionians, on the other hand, are more manifestly subordinated to Athens as hegemonic power: the traditional idea of the relationship between Athens as metropolis and independent Ionian colonies of heterogeneous ethnic (Hellenic) composition (ch. 3C) is replaced by one of direct descent and divine sanction (cf. Smarczyk (1990) 616, J. Hall (1997) 56, (2002) 204); this gives extra strength to moral claims that the colonies owe loyalty and obedience (on which cf. Thuc. 1.25.3–26.3, Miller (1997) 272–5, Graham (1983) 213–15). Athena’s statement that the Ionians provide strength to Athens signals allegiance in military matters is also hinted at by Euripides’ main modfication of the myth, Apollo’s relationship with Athens: Apollo is the central deity of the Ionians and was originally the patron god of the Delian League (dislodged by Athena; cf. Hom.Hym. 3.147–55, Smarczyk p. 31–43): when he is made the ancestor of the Athenian king, he can serve as legitimation of Athenian leadership of the League. However, the idealisation of Athens through a radical departure from tradition only makes the wilful character of the modifications more obvious. As a result, the myth can be read ironically as pointing to its own untruth (cf. Dunn (2000) 27, branding the process ‘mystification’). Euripides’ changes – as well as some of his comments – can, moreover, be looked at the other way round. The new arrangements then emphasise the kinship of all Greeks: the Dorians’ shared descent from Creusa means that they partake of Athens’ autochthony, whereas in the conventional myth the Dorians were related to the Athenians via Hellen (and Xuthus). The change both ennobles and gives them closer ties to the Athenians, which in turn impacts on contemporary reception: the Peloponnesian War, which is framed mainly as a conflict of tribes (Thuc. 1.95.1; cf. Alty (1982) 3–11, Jones (1999) 30–1, Fragoulaki (2013) 1–2), is now, more than it was before, a war within the family. Athens’ enemies are not deprecated (as e.g. in Andr. 445–50) but praised (1590 ὑμνηθήσεται, 1593 κἀπισημανθήσεται); Sparta is all but mentioned by name (1590–1). In addition, 1584–5 can be read as stressing Athens’ dependence on her Ionian allies:



1250–[1622] Exodos

535

Mytilene had already tried to leave the League in 428, but her disloyalty became an existential risk after the defection of Chios, Miletus, Rhodes, and others in 412 (Thuc. 8.14–17, 44.2). So Athena’s words point out a weakness of Athens in her reliance on those she is supposed to lead. In this way we end up with a possible view of the genealogy that confronts the ideology of ethnic superiority with the ideas of interdependence and close relationship, perhaps even an idea of ‘pan-Hellenism’: Gibert (2011) 385–6 has argued that after 412 Euripides’ presentation of the divide between Greeks and barbarians changes to a more black-and-white dichotomy. Against this background, the creation of greater coherence between the different Greek ethnic sub-groups strengthens the contrast with those outside the Hellenic commonwealth. Irrespective of the date of composition, Euripides’ genealogy does not only affirm but also undercuts Athens’ distinctiveness; but after the Persian intervention in the war in 412, the conjoining of the Hellenes under a common Athenian ancestor gains poignancy; the invocation of Greek solidarity becomes more appealing (ch. 4C). 1569 ἀλλ’ ὡς: The self-referential comment serves as ‘second proem’ to Apollo’s λόγοι. The resumptive ἀλλ(ά) marks the section 1563–8 as spoken in Athena’s own voice. πρᾶγμα: almost ‘the job’: Athena distances herself from her commission, i.e. delivering Apollo’s oracle. πρᾶγμα and χρησμοί are not on the same level, but the one comprises the other (pace Kraus 109), and it is the prophecy alone that is to be heard. A scribe mistaking χρησμούς for a second object of περαίνω changed θεοῦ to θεῶ(ι) (corr. Scaliger apud Barnes); the verb περαίνω, however, is inapplicable to χρησμοί, as the prophecy only starts in 1571. 1570 ἐφ’ οἷσιν ἔζευξ’: The preposition expresses the purpose: cf. Andr. 1238 ὧν δ’ οὕνεκ’ ἦλθον σημανῶ, σὺ δ’ ἐνδέχου. Cavallini (1981) 81 prefers a (more complicated) tmesis for ἐπιζεύγνυμι and compares Aesch. Eum. 405 (allegedly an imitation of Sappho fr. 1.9). ἅρματ’: On the machine as chariot cf. 1549–52n. Lee suspects that the use of this item of machinery lends additional pomp and hints at Athena’s victory in the gigantomachy. The first part of this hypothesis is right, if the vase paintings of Helios’ chariot in Med. (LIMC Medeia 35–7, Taplin (2007) no.34–6) render a correct impression; the latter part may be correct in the eye of some beholders, but the association is arbitrary, as the image of Athena on a chariot is not tied to a specific event (e.g. Hom. Il. 5.745, LIMC Athena 174–80; cf. also 1528–9n on Athena’s position beside the chariot). 1571–4 Athena orders Creusa to arrange Ion’s integration into the household (cf. 1540–1, 1562). Since Ion will not be publicly known to be Creusa’s son this

536

Commentary

amounts to her tolerating Ion’s accession to the throne as planned by Xuthus (659–60). 1572 θρόνους τυραννικοὺς: In the tragic context such expressions need not have negative connotations and are used for morally unproblematic, inherited, and legitimate monarchy: cf. 236 and e.g. Andr. 303 τυράννων δόμων ἕδρας, Soph. OC 1293 πανάρχοις ... θρόνοις (mss, πάναρχος cj. Fraenkel): cf. V. Parker (1998) 158–61, Pattoni (1999) 261–2, Wenskus (1997) 27. 1573 ἵδρυσον: The term covers both the investiture of a ruler (Phoen. 1008) and the integration of new members into a family (Alc. 841). τῶν Ἐρεχθέως: Strictly speaking, the plural is wrong, because Creusa is the only person in question. The phrase evokes the additional meaning of the Athenian community beyond the dynasty (cf. 24n). 1574 τῆς: The pure article (Hartung) expresses everything that is to be expected here. The transmitted τῆσδ᾿ was already corrected by Triclines, and rightly so, as the deictic would be pointing to Delphi and stand in contradiction to ἐμῆς. τῆς γ᾿, however, leaves the particle void of a recognisable function as focus. 1575–88 The announcement of the future of Ion’s house, the temporal and geographic spread of his influence, and thus the power of the lineage, is framed by the idea of fame (1575 εὐκλεής, 1588 κλέος). Ion’s success proves the divine favour bestowed on the Erechtheid house by both Apollo and Athena; the fear of the extinction of the family (cf. 1465–6) is allayed by the stress on its permanence. The deadlock of Athenian kings dying without sons (Loraux (1990) 192, Zacharia (2003) 69) is finally broken by the suggestion of continuity down to the extra-dramatic present. 1575–81a Athena first predicts the four pre-Cleisthenic tribes. Their mention brings a shared institution of Athenians and Ionians to the foreground: the four names were common on both sides of the Ionian Sea (for local variations cf. Rhodes on Ath.Pol. fr. 3). In the contemporary view the four Athenian tribes pre-date the Ionian migration (Hdt. 5.66.2, Arist. Ath.Pol. 41.2), so that the names illustrate the dependence of Ionia from the metropolis in terms of social organisation. This view is a construction, possibly formed by Athenian propaganda (Nilsson (1951) 145, Prinz (1979) 336), and the Athenians may even have adopted the system of tribes and the names from the Ionians (Connor (1993) 197). The reference to the tribes has been taken as evidence for a date before the oligarchic revolution of 411, but it is unlikely that the



1250–[1622] Exodos

537

‘Ionian’ φυλαί would ever have been seen as an anti-democratic institution (ch. 4C). Little can be said about their significance in the late 5th cent. The φυλοβασιλεῖς retained ritual functions and some role in connection with the religiously influenced homicide procedures (IG II2 1357a.6–8, first half of the 4th cent., Arist. Ath.Pol. 57.4, Poll. 8.111=Arist. fr. 8.44.385.38–40; cf. Rhodes on Ath.Pol. 8.3, Roussel (1976) 193–220). In some sources (Arist. Ath.Pol. 41.2, Strabo 8.7.1) Ion himself, not his sons, is called the founder of the φυλαί; but they are eponyms in Hdt. 5.66.2 (apparently the common version: Plut. Sol. 23.5). The names are said to be occupational terms (i.e. castes): farmers (Hignett (1952) 50–4; nobility: Nilsson (1951) 147), soldiers, artisans, and shepherds. 1575 δ’: transitional δέ (L. Dindorf) for transmitted τ(ε) without clear connecting function. 1576 τέσσαρες ῥίζης μιᾶς: The proximity of the numerals stresses Athenian unity: the division into φυλαί does not overshadow the bond that holds them together. Hence also the focus on the acropolis (σκόπελος), the centre and focal point of the Athenian settlement (cf. 871), diminishing the diversity of the Attic population. 1577–8 ἐπώνυμοι γῆς κἀπιφυλίων χθονὸς λαῶν ἔσονται: ‘will give their names to the land and the people of the place in their tribes’; Paley (1874) has corrected the text from κἀπιφυλίου: λαῶν requires further qualification; moreover, γῆ and χθών need to be the same to be comprehensible, and the sons give their names to the people as well as the land (cf. 1580–1). 1579 Γελέων: The name may have derived from γελεῖν (which Hesychius glosses as λάμπειν, ἀνθεῖν), a name suitable for the highest caste. Τελέων (L; corr. Brubach 1558) is a common mistake, prompted by the similarity of Τ and Γ and the existence of a hero of that name (Boutes’ father: Ap.Rh. 1.95–6). It is sufficiently refuted by the epigraphic record and the greater share of the literary transmission: e.g. Hdt. 5.66, IG II2 1072.6, LSS 10.A35, 47, IEph. VI 2002 (= 93 McCabe), Kolophon 8*5 (McCabe), Teos 121 (McCabe), IPerinthos-Herakleia 61.28. < >: The most obvious explanation is a saut du même au même from Ὅπλης to Ὅπλητες. The lacuna (suspected by Badham (1852)) most likely comprised more than one line and contained the names of Hoples, Argades, and Aigikoreus, as well as the name of the first tribe, Geleontes. The syntax requires that the names of the sons and of the tribes be connected by a participle vel sim. (e.g. καλούμενοι), not (as Wilamowitz proposes) ἐξ ὧν καλοῦνται; for otherwise ἕξουσι hardly fits into the sentence. However, the text in L shows multiple corruption in these lines, and the mutilation of the text may be more complicated. Dispensing with the lacuna (e.g. Biehl) is

538

Commentary

not a viable alternative, even with several emendations: the transition from the sons to the tribes needs to be signalled, and ἐμῆς ἀπ’ αἰγίδος remains incomprehensible without a word meaning ‘name/naming’ on which the preposition depends. 1580 Ὅπλητες Ἀργαδῆς τ’: a straightforward correction of ὃ πάντες ἀργαλῆς, made by Brubach 1558 (ἀργαδῆς) and Canter (1571) 342–3 (ὅπλητες ἀργαδεῖς) from Hdt. 5.66.2, St.Byz. α101. ἐμῆς ἀπ’ αἰγίδος: The connection with the imagery of the rest of the play suggests that the etymology is Euripides’, not a popular belief. The supplement (Canter (1571) 343) is indispensable. 1581 φῦλον: The more common form is φυλαί: cf. Roussell (1976) 161–3. 1581b–8 The three regions mentioned (Cyclades, the coastline of Asia Minor, the two sides of the Hellespont) correspond to the regions of Ionian dialect. The summary does not follow exactly the ethnic or political divisions: for an unambiguous reference to the Delian League the non-Ionian Corcyra, Rhodes, and the Chalcidice are missing (contra e.g. Ingenkamp (1971) 82), while the omission of Euboea (defected from Athens in 411 and not to be counted among the Cyclades, pace e.g. Wilamowitz and Miller (1997) 186) speaks against a purely ethnic reading. The entire section is framed predominantly in language of kinship ties, but the remark on σθένος introduces a notion of military power inviting associations with the contemporary political context. Euripides increases the Athenian influence and strengthens the kinship ties with the Ionians. The description differs in several aspects from the common account of the 5th cent. and later: Herodotus dates the start of the colonisation to Ion’s own generation (7.94 ἐκαλέοντο Πελασγοὶ Αἰγιαλέες, ἐπὶ δὲ Ἴωνος τοῦ Ξούθου Ἴωνες; cf. 8.44), the expedition is led by Neleus, and the Ionians were a pre-existing tribe from Peloponnesian Achaea who had fled to Attica before migrating on to Asia (Hdt. 9.97, Prinz (1979) 337–40; cf. [74–5]n). Modern accounts of Ionian colonisation differ significantly, in that the Northern Aegean (the Bosporus region) was colonised later than the coast of Asia Minor and by the cities there. The direct relationship of the Athenians with the Ionians of the North Aegean is thus a fiction extending Athens’ moral claim (but not invented by Euripides). More recent research even proposes a model in which intensive cultural exchange gave rise to the close ties between Athenians and Ionians (Connor (1993) 197, J. Hall (2002) 70, already Sakellariou (1958) 30–5). 1582 σὺν χρόνωι πεπρωμένωι: The assurance that future events are determined by or in accordance with destiny lends authority to several deus



1250–[1622] Exodos

539

ex machina pronouncements (cf. Dunn (1996) 32). πεπρωμένος regularly occurs in the predictions: e.g. Andr. 1268, El. 1290, IT 1438, Hel. 1646. 1583 Κυκλάδας ... νησαίας: ‘(the cities of) the Cycladic islands’: Κυκλάδας defines another adjective (νησαίας), not πόλεις: cf. Aesch. Cho. 1066–7 τρίτος αὖ χειμὼν ... γονίας, Williger (1928) 14. 1584–5 ὃ σθένος τἠμῆι χθονὶ δίδωσιν: ‘Giving strength’ need not mean that the Ionians contribute ‘manpower’ (a meaning of σθένος not surely paralleled e.g. in Soph. Aj. 438). Since the summer of 412, with the revolt of Chios and – soon after – Miletus (Thuc. 8.6–17), the Athenian grip on the Ionians was weakening. But the prophecy makes sense before an Athenian audience, albeit as a warning rather than a pure statement of fact, at a point when the Athenians were fighting to restore their empire. Before the battles of Cynossema and Cyzicus late in 411 the Athenian oligarchs were prepared to surrender the Ionian mainland (Thuc. 8.56.4), but the victories changed that; in 410 the Athenians even rejected a Spartan offer of peace (Diod.Sic. 13.52–3, Philochorus FGrH 328 F 139, Bleckmann (1998) 393–5). Fighting for control of the coast of Asia Minor went on until Notium and the battle of Arginusae in 406, and Samos remained an operational base until the final stages of the war (ch. 4C). 1585 δίδωσιν: The use of the praesens propheticum instead of the future emphasises the certainty of the development, as if it were already happening. That use seems to be most common in the apodoses of conditionals (S-D II 273) and applies here: once possession has been taken of the islands, the city will be strong. ἀντίπορθμα: ‘on opposite sides’, lit. ‘on the other side of the strait’; only here in a mutually reflexive sense rather than in relation to a fixed spot (e.g. Meleag. fr. 515 Πελοπίας χθονὸς ἐν ἀντιπόρθμοις, Med. 210), but the meaning is clear from the dual; cf. e.g. ἀντίπαλος Thuc. 3.11, 3.49.1. 1587 Εὐρωπίας: ‘Europe’, not an adjective with γῆς, parallel to Ἀσιάδος: no unambiguous, i.e. masculine or neuter, form is attested; nominal use in Thes. fr. 381, Soph. Aichm. fr. 39. τοῦδε δ’ ὀνόματος: ‘his name’, not ‘this name’, since the name ‘Ion’ has not been mentioned for some time. 1589–94 Athena now gives the oracle that would have been the ‘true’ response to Xuthus’ query. Dorus and Achaeus are described as of Athenian descent (though only half-autochthonous) and characterised positively (cf. 1569– 94n). Each of Creusa’s three sons is assigned his eponymous dominion, but

540

Commentary

her sons by Xuthus are restricted to the mainland; the colonies go unmentioned. 1590–1 Δωρὶς ... πόλις: ‘Dorian territory’: cf. 294n. Euripides avoids too clear an allusion to the Peloponnesian War by not mentioning Sparta by name. Τhe text (even without κατ’ αἶαν Πελοπίαν; cf. next note) still evokes Sparta rather than (pace e.g. Owen, Miller (1997) 186) the Central Greek Doris, the metropolis of the Dorians (Hdt. 8.31, Thuc. 1.107.2, 3.92.3). πόλις κατ’ αἶαν Πελοπίαν [γ᾿]: Most earlier editors punctuate after πόλις and accept Scaliger’s Πελοπίαν δ᾿. But in that case Dorus would have no geographic attribute and Achaeus two (the Pelopian land and Rhion); it would also mean that Achaeus’ fame is limited to that area (κατ’ αἶαν Πελοπίαν ἐπισημανθήσεται), distracting from the main point: that Creusa and Xuthus have common offspring (γίγνεται κοινὸν γένος). δέ is not required either, as μέν (solitarium) is balanced by δεύτερος. 1592 γῆς παραλίας Ῥίου πέλας: The ‘Achaean Rhion’ (Thuc. 2.92.5, Strabo 8.2.3; cf. Freitag (1999) 280–4) lies on the Southern side of the strait that forms the entrance to the Gulf of Corinth. Its mythological significance is as the landing place of the Heraclidae on their way to Sparta (Paus. 8.5.6, Polyaen. 1.9). By comparison, its role in the Peloponnesian War is not significant enough for detectable allusions: in 429 Athens had won a naval victory here that remained a source of Athenian pride because of the public display of the spoils (Thuc. 2.84.4, Diod.Sic. 12.48.1, Paus. 10.11.5); much closer to the composition of the play was a less successful operation by Alcibiades in 419 (Thuc. 5.52.2). 1593–4 κἀπισημανθήσεται ... κεκλῆσθαι: ‘distinguished as bearing his name’ (Owen): cf. 8n, Ruijgh (1976) 386. For ἐπισημαίνω (only here in Euripides) cf. Pl. Pltc. 258C, Phlb. 25A. Marcovich (1984) 113 wishes to recognise a ‘hymnic, hieratic tone’ in the three-word trimeter with a heptasyllabic word. 1594 ἐπώνυμον: with ὄνομα and the genitive of the name’s origin: cf. Phoen. 636–7 ὄνομα Πολυνείκη πατὴρ ἔθετό σοι θείαι προνοίαι νεικέων ἐπώνυμον; cf. Soph. Aj. 430–1, Hom. Od. 7.54, Hes. Th. 144. Hence Kirchhoff’s change from ἐπώνυμος (L). 1595–1600 Several echoes of Hermes’ prologue speech (14~1596, 28~1599, 32~1598) give the impression of closure and order. After Athena has finished the delivery of the oracle and discharged Apollo’s commission, she adds her own evaluation and defence of her half-brother. Her assessment is presented in the form of a declaration: the goddess tells the mortals how they are sup-



1250–[1622] Exodos

541

posed to view events. She addresses and corrects Creusa, who has most gravely misjudged the situation: Apollo has not neglected her and her child (οὐδ’ εἴασεν) but played a crucial role in the reunion. At the same time Athena subtly reminds Creusa of her own reproaches to herself with regard to Ion (κἀπέθου ἐν σπαργάνοισιν; cf. 18n). She does not offer an unbiased account: the rape itself is suppressed; the period of uncertainty that caused suffering for Creusa is only mentioned briefly later (1604n). 1596 ἄνοσον λοχεύει σ’: Cf. 948, El. 656 λόχιά μου νοσήματα. Painless birth is a mark of privilege and divine favour: cf. 453n, Theocr. Id. 17.62–3. The root νόσος recalls the Old Man’s observation in 944 and raises the suspicion that Athena is whitewashing Apollo by deliberate inaccuracy. The distinction between a painless birth and sorrowful pregnancy (e.g. Owen, Lee) seems forced. 1598 ἁρπάσαντ’ ἐς ἀγκάλας: Athena curiously combines the imagery used elsewhere in the play for birds of prey killing Ion and for the mother figure respectively (280n, 903). 1601–5 Trophonius’ oracle (408–9) has finally come true in that both Creusa and Xuthus return home in the belief that they have a son. Another Schweige­ gebot reconciles the plot with the mythical tradition; silence – thus far a symptom of isolation (e.g. 859; cf. Ritoók (2001) 45) – is here the precondition for Xuthus’ and Creusa’s future life together. The secret explains the existence of the rival versions: the fiction of Apollo’s oracle, which makes Xuthus Ion’s father, will persist as the canonical genealogy; the secret second version arranges the mythical personages in a way much more satisfying to the Athenians. However, one departure from the conventional myth remains unpursued: there, Creusa figures as Ion’s mother. The possible solution – Creusa pretending that she was Xuthus’ victim in Delphi – is typical of New Comedy (cf. 1542n) but ignored by Euripides, who thereby withholds the comfort of all loose ends being tied up. 1601 νῦν οὖν: ‘With things as they now stand ...’, i.e. as a consequence of the new situation and knowledge; cf. Andr. 982. 1602 δόκησις Ξοῦθον ἡδέως ἔχηι: ἡδέως denotes Xuthus’ pleasant delusion, as if he were the grammatical subject. On δόκησις ‘delusion’ cf. Kannicht on Hel. 119. 1603 τὰ σαυτῆς ἀγάθ’: ‘your blessings’: generally the fact that her family will continue and flourish, but also specifically her son: if Xuthus learned that Ion is not his son, Ion could be deprived of his legitimacy and lose his birthright, citizenship, and heritage (Dunn (1996) 69).

542

Commentary

ἴηις: ‘leave’ with the emphasis on ἔχουσα: cf. Andr. 1100–2 ἡμεῖς δὲ μῆλα ... λαβόντες ἦιμεν. Wakefield (who also credits Porson) corrects L’s εἴη; Triclinius restores the second person (εἴης), but this instance would be a legitimate optative in a primary sequence (K-G I 252(3); pace Biehl). 1604 καὶ χαίρετ’: It is exceptional that Athena takes further part in the conversation (cf. [1364–8]n). Ion’s enthusiastic reply and Creusa’s demand for attention (τἀμὰ νῦν ἄκουσον) move her to stay. The acceptance of the deity’s speech, however, is a conventional part of the deus ex machina scenes (cf. 1606–13n). ἐκ ... τῆσδ’ ἀναψυχῆς πόνων: ‘(a blessed fate arising) out of this present relief from your labours’, i.e. the relief is the start of great happiness; the toil ends here. τῆσδε denotes the present moment, and ἀναψυχή is not a break but the end: cf. Hel. 1094 Ἥρα, δύ’ οἰκτρὼ φῶτ’ ἀνάψυξον πόνων (with Kannicht), Suppl. 615–17 κακῶν δ’ ἀναψυχὰς θεοὶ βροτοῖς νέμουσι, IT 1441b, Androm. fr. 146. The mention of πόνοι is the only, brief, acknowledgment of the earlier ordeal (cf. 1595–1600n), but Athena implicitly defends the hardship as being compensated by future happiness. γὰρ: referring to the literal meaning of χαίρετ(ε) as ‘rejoice’ (cf. 517). 1605 ἐξαγγέλλομαι: ‘I announce’: εὐδαίμον(α) then makes clear that the message is positive, i.e. a promise. 1606–20 The tetrameter section is difficult to fit into the patterns of such scenes: we find the metre at the end of Phoen., Aesch. Ag., and Soph. OT, but only the text of Aeschylus is genuine, and the choral clausula is never in tetrameters. Centanni (1995) 65–6 proposes that the metre signals the reintegration of the chorus into the conversation and thus emphasises the declarative, public character of the lines (‘delimitazione di particolari (intensi, agitati, complici) “a parte” scenici’); Imhof (1956) 135 sees an elevation of the tone (‘zu “äußerer” Hebung’, after Wilamowitz). But neither do the chorus join in the conversation nor is a clear change of register noticeable. The scene is enlivened by some movement (1612–13) and the spirit of the characters is eager, though perhaps not enough to justify the metre: formally, the tetrameter is required for the rapid antilabe which may suggest a higher degree of emotion and pace, but the exchange is not particularly fast or hectic. 1606–13 After the deus ex machina speech the mortal characters consent (cf. e.g. IT 1475–6, Hel. 1680–3, Antiope fr. 223.133–5). Creusa and Ion each respond to those parts of Athena’s speech that were meant for themselves: Ion ac-



1250–[1622] Exodos

543

knowledges that Apollo is his father (1560) and Creusa that he looked out for Ion (1595–1600). Previous doubts or criticism are set aside and even denied by Ion. Similar to Or. 1671–2, where Orestes welcomes Apollo’s order that he marry Hermione, whom he had just threatened to kill, the extreme reversal of mortals’ sentiments has provoked suspicions. Rehm (1992) 147 argues that the repeated use of litotes ‘suggests that the basic uncertainties in the play remain unresolved.’ Wilamowitz believes that the omissions (cf. 1595–1600n) and the lack of homage paid to Apollo express silent criticism. Such impressions are hard to underwrite, especially as Ion and Creusa explicitly approve of the course of events and Creusa’s main accusation against Apollo (the breach of the χάρις relationship) has turned out to have been unjustified. Creusa largely retracts her reservations expressed in 427 and her shying away from the temple (241–3; now she greets Apollo with προσεννέπω as if she had just arrived: cf. 401n); Ion loses his misgivings about Apollo’s oracular lie and the solution offered by Creusa (and Athena: 1540–5~1562/1), which he had dismissed as facile (1546). But enough loose ends remain for those in the audience with a critical disposition to mistrust Ion’s exaggerations and his willing submission to Athena’s interpretation of events. For example, Creusa does not suppress her previous attitude: while acknowledging Apollo’s benefactions of the day, she phrases her acceptance in a way that seems to affirm the previous accusations (1610 ἠμέλησε, 1612 δυσμενῆ). That means his good intentions do not fully cancel out her initial disappointment. As Yunis (1988) 137 states, the text remains enigmatic. The ending does not fully satisfy. 1607–8 πατρὸς Λοξίου καὶ τῆσδε: responding in particular to 1568. The redundancy of πατρός appears formal and solemn (cf. Hec. 4, Ba. 507, Archel. fr. 228a.17); it has a declarative character expressing acceptance. 1608 καὶ πρὶν ... δ’: Denniston 200 expresses doubts about δ(έ); Paley (1858) proposes γ᾿. The combination of particles is acceptable if δέ connects the sentences and καὶ πρίν means ‘even before’. The late position of δέ, however, raises suspicions. καὶ πρὶν: What sounds like a lie to appease the goddess, intensified by the repetition of the formulation, may just be a façon de parler: the same figure of assurance occurs in Ar. Av. 1674 δίκαι’ ἔμοιγε καὶ πάλαι δοκεῖς λέγειν; Hipp. 1443 καὶ γὰρ πάροιθε σοῖς ἐπειθόμην λόγοις probably makes a more substantive point. The changes of the text demanded by critics (e.g. Dobree: κεἰ πρὶν τοῦτ᾿ ἄπιστον ἦν ἐμοί) are less natural and unnecessary. Creusa, almost rudely, dispenses with such pleasantries: οὐκ αἰνοῦσα πρίν.

544

Commentary

1610–13 While speaking to Athena, Creusa is moving towards the temple door and touches it. Her tone is forthright and attention-seeking (νῦν ἄκουσον); she is by no means subdued, without shyness towards her goddess, and claims to be in a position to judge Apollo’s actions. She tells Athena what she wants to hear – the approval of Apollo – but she does not confess to personal wrongs and instead repeats her previous charges. 1610 ἠμέλησε: ἠμέλησα (B. Heath (1762) 142–3) avoids a disproved statement and has found much favour in the last century: e.g. Wassermann (1941), Erbse (1984) 80, Kraus 110. The conjecture can be rejected, as the passage deals with Apollo’s actions, not Creusa’s. The negative description of Apollo is confirmed by the similar formulation in Antiope fr. 208 εἰ δ’ ἠμελήθην ἐκ θεῶν καὶ παῖδ’ ἐμώ (cf. 439, Hel. 45; 36 μελήσει is relevant as an early rebuttal) and by δυσμενῆ, which imputes an even more negative attitude on Apollo’s part. The translation ‘Apollo seemed to neglect’ (Biehl: ὡς ἐδόκει; Huys (1995) 103 ‘he seemed once to have forgotten’; cf. Spira (1960) 75 n.150 ‘in meinen Augen’) puts interpretation before exact wording: Euripides notably dispenses with any indication that appearances were false. ἀμελέω is not used for the abandonment of children; hence ‘careless’ (Huys p. 103), referring to Creusa’s action, is impossible. ἀποδίδωσί: ‘gives back’: cf. Dem. 7.6. 1611 εὐωποὶ: ‘pleasant to see’, as εὐώψ in Soph. OT 189 εὐῶπα πέμψον ἀλκάν (in a purely aesthetic sense Or. 918). The adjective cancels out her upset reaction to the temple after 240. 1612 δυσμενῆ πάροιθεν ὄντα: As with ἠμέλησε, the statement is true from Creusa’s point of view, even though it has no objective basis. The temple is probably to be seen as representative of Apollo, the perceived hostility then covers the entire period of alienation from the god (i.e. since the rape and exposure), not just her time in Delphi. 1612–13 ῥόπτρων χέρας ἡδέως ἐκκριμνάμεσθα: Like medieval sanctuary knockers, door-knocks on temples could be touched by those seeking asylum. They feature in supplications, in analogy to statues or altars: cf. Hdt. 6.91.2, Traulsen (2004) 138–40, 339. Creusa is not in need of protection or even forgiveness but expresses her changed attitude (νῦν δὲ καί, i.e. against 427–8) towards the god of the temple: she enters into friendship with Apollo again. With the supplicatory gesture, she, in a sense, surrenders herself to the god (cf. Lys. 6.1), restoring physical contact: the gesture reminds of the χεὶρ ἐπὶ καρπῶι, with 891 ἐμφύς describing a similar position of the hand.



1250–[1622] Exodos

545

The same mistake in transmission (-κρημν- for -κριμν-; cf. Wilamowitz) occurs in Herc. 520. Nauck seems to have been the first to make the correction (Družinina (1999) 252). 1614–15 1614 ἤινεσ’: The goddess approves Creusa’s acceptance of her speech (cf. IT 1486). The aorist creates distance: contrast the more effusive present 1609, Hel. 1232 χρόνια μὲν ἦλθεν, ἀλλ᾿ ὅμως αἰνῶ τάδε. μεταβαλοῦσ’ †ἀεί που†: The end of the line remains a crux, despite numerous attempts. ἀεί does not appear to make sense with μεταβαλοῦσα in this context, where Creusa changes her mind just once. Grotius’ sentence break μεταβαλοῦσ᾿. ἀεί γέ που ... destroys the effect of the epigrammatic one-liner, and while πως qualifies χρόνια, the relativising που weakens the statement as a whole and does not seem to fit. We may expect the object of the said change (such as μεταβαλοῦσα σοὺς λόγους; cf. Cycl. 691 ὄνομα μεταβαλὼν καινὸν λέγεις), but nothing remotely close to the paradosis offers itself. 1615 χρόνια: The lateness of divine intervention is a commonplace of Greek thinking, mostly in connection with the exacting of punishment after human injustice (e.g. Hdt. 1.13.2). Late recompense for suffering is, however, implied in other neutral formulations such as Ba. 882–4 ὁρμᾶται μόλις, ἀλλ’ ὅμως πιστόν τὸ θεῖον σθένος, Philoct. fr. 800. Athena subtly rebukes Creusa’s impatience and previous lack of trust in the gods. She communicates indirectly, stressing the point in which Creusa was wrong, without saying that she was. ἐς τέλος: in adverbial use (‘in the end’: Solon IEG2 13.28, Theogn. IEG2 136, 1084, Hdt. 3.40.3) only here, [1621], and IA 162 (possibly spurious); Soph. Phil. 409 is different. A more common Euripidean formulation is τέλος δέ. 1616–18 The indications of speaker change in L (which post-date Euripides: Lowe (1962) 36–7) are incomplete and wrong: in 1617 there is a paragraphos at the start and a gap left blank in the middle of the line; other mid-line indications are incorrect. 1616 (Creusa – Athena) and the second half of 1618 (Ion) are not contentious, nor is the change of speaker in 1617. Hermann’s sequence, 1617 Ion – Creusa, 1618 Athena – Ion, stands out for its plausbility: it produces the repeated pattern Creusa – Athena – Ion; worthiness (ἀξία/ ἄξιον) is mentioned twice by the same character; the person with the greatest authority gives the command ἵζου; and φιλοῦσά γε πτόλιν is said neither by the loving person (i.e. Athena) nor by a newcomer to the city (Ion).

546

Commentary

1616 ἕψομαι: The play ends with another assertion of Athena’s patronage of Athens. The goddess accompanies Creusa and Ion to protect them on their way: cf. Hel. 1665, Or. 1683–5 (ὁδουρός here as protectress on the way; in the hostile sense ‘highwayman’ in Archel. fr. 260, Soph. Aeg. fr. 22). Her escorting Creusa and Ion to Athens symbolises her continued support. Moreover, the journey to Athens is also the return to her own city of residence (cf. IT 1488). The verb does not imply that the goddess follows behind but only that she does not take a guiding role (cf. 741n). ἕψομαι is the cue for the crane to lift Athena up (Mastronarde (1990) 180, comparing the above and El. 1347–50, Herc. 872, Tro. 92). If she remains visible while accompanying the characters on their way out (so Newiger (1989) 180), the crane must have been highly manoeuvrable, meaning that it had to reach over the stage building and down some way (cf. Ar. Pax 154): cf. Mastronarde p. 294, Lendle (1995) 171. 1619–[22] In many of the earlier plays, unique concluding remarks by the chorus announce their exit (ἴτε, στείχωμεν etc.). The coda of Ion stands out from the often suspected (quite radically Barrett on Hipp. 1462–6) standardised endings of other plays: the salute to Apollo marks it as specific to this play; the farewell to the place they are leaving is paralleled only by Tro. 1331, and the trochaic metre is unique. So even if other codas were interpolated to make the end conform with 4th-cent. tastes (so Barrett), 1619–20 is unlikely to be a later addition; the chorus’ departure to Athens is integrated in a dramaturgically suitable way (cf. Dunn (1996) 18–19). In addition, the gnomê connects back to 1615, with the gods restoring a family after συμφοραί: Creusa should not have ceased to show trust in and respect (σέβας) for Apollo in her monody. By contrast, the second part (repeatedly condemned for its intellectual feebleness: G. Schmid (1884) 48, Matthaei (1918) 72, Knox (1971) 87 = (1979) 267) does not follow from the plot or the first maxim: it seems to identify the well-born as the only ones worthy of divine help (cf. Hel. 1678– [9], apparently another later distortion with the same gist: cf. Kannicht); the lower classes will never enjoy luck (such a distinction is not inherent in 1619–20). If the pair ἐσθλός-κακός were meant morally (El. 1350–3; cf. 1319n, Soph. Aj. 132–3), the relevance for the plot would be even more dubious, given that the play ends happily for all the characters; moreover, none of the characters has exactly excelled in this type of ‘nobility’. An unmotivated return to traditional but not pertinent values and views (posited by Hunter (2011) 26) may be hard to account for. Defenders of the other codas providing a moral maxim (esp. the identical lines in Alc., Andr., Hel., Ba.; similarly Med.) ascribe some function to



1250–[1622] Exodos

547

the lines but do not show that they are genuine (e.g. Roberts (1987), Dunn (1996) 17–18; more cautiously Mastronarde (2010) 105–6). The clearly more relevant (and meaningful) texts, such as 1619–20 or Tro. 1331–2, should provide a benchmark. 1619 ὦ Διὸς Λητοῦς τ’ Ἄπολλον: The fullest address to the god in the play is saved for the solemn farewell after the resolution; cf. IT 1230 ὦ Διὸς Λητοῦς τ’ ἄνασσα παρθέν’. 1622 ὥσπερ πεφύκασ’: ‘as befits their nature’ (Lee, Kovacs).

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography References in bold are to Ion. In general, Classical works are cited in the order Ion, other plays by Eur., Aesch., Soph., other tragedians, comedians, other poetry, prose (roughly in chronological order within each group). Euripides’ extant plays are cited without indication of the author. Fragmentary tragedies are abbreviated in italics; other plays and titles are in italics when not abbreviated (including Ion, as opposed to the character Ion). The abbreviations used for extant plays in the Corpus Euripideum are the following: Alc. = Alcestis, Andr. = Andromache, Ba. = Bacchae, Cycl. = Cyclops, El. = Electra, Hec. = Hecuba, Hel. = Helen, Herc. = Heracles, Hipp. = Hippolytus, Hcld.= Heraclidae, IA = Iphigenia in Aulis, IT = Iphigenia in Tauris, Med. = Medea, Or. = Orestes, Phoen. = Phoenissae, Rh. = Rhesus, Suppl. = Supplices, Tro. = Troades. Where the quoted text is controversial or different systems of numeration exist, the editions of the repeatedly used texts are (s. also ‘Abbreviations’): Euripides extant plays J. Diggle (Oxford 1981–1994). fragments R. Kannicht (Göttingen 2004). Phaethon J. Diggle (Cambridge 1970; for line numbers only). Aeschylus extant plays M.L. West (Stuttgart/Leipzig 21998). fragments S. Radt (Göttingen 22009). Sophocles extant plays H. Lloyd-Jones and N.G. Wilson (Oxford 21990). fragments S. Radt (Göttingen 21999). Aristophanes extant plays N.G. Wilson (Oxford 2007). fragments PCG Menander F.H. Sandbach (Oxford 21990). Hesiod R. Merkelbach and M.L. West (Oxford 31990). Sappho and Alcaeus E.-M. Voigt (Amsterdam 1971). Simonides O. Poltera (Basel 2008). Stesichorus M. Davies and P. Finglass (Cambridge 2014). Pindar Epinicia B. Snell and H. Maehler (Stuttgart/Leipzig 81987). fragments H. Maehler (Leipzig 1989). Bacchylides H. Maehler (Munich 112003). Callimachus R. Pfeiffer (Oxford 1949–1953) Presocratics H. Diels and W. Kranz (Berlin 61951–1952). (Antiphon: Pedrick in brackets, where deviating). Lysias C. Carey (Oxford 2007). Lycurgus N. Conomis (Leipzig 1970). Galen C.G. Kühn (Leipzig 1821–1833). St.Byz. M. Billerbeck et al. (Berlin/New York 2006–2017). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110523591-004



Abbreviations

549

Spuriousness of entire works is not specifically marked, except where it seems highly relevant. Likewise, those passages of IA which Diggle marks as not certainly genuine are not consistently bracketed. Rh. and [Aesch.] PV (cited without indication of an author, grouped together with Aeschylus’ genuine plays) are considered plays by unknown tragedians.

Abbreviations Texts AP CA CGFPR CEG CMG FGrH GDK GH IEG2 PCG PEG PMG PMGF SH TrGF

The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic epigrams, ed. A.S.F. Gow and D.L. Page (Cambridge 1965). The Greek Anthology. The garland of Philip, ed. A.S.F. Gow and D.L. Page (Cambridge 1968). Further Greek Epigrams, ed. D.L. Page, rev. R.D. Dawe and J. Diggle (Cambridge 1981). Collectanea Alexandrina: reliquiae minores poetarum Grae­ corum aetatis Ptolemaicae, 323–146 a.C.: epicorum, elegia­ corum, lyricorum, ethicorum, ed. J.U. Powell (Oxford 1925). Comicorum Graecorum fragmenta in papyris reperta, ed. C. Austin (Berlin 1973). Carmina epigraphica Graeca, ed. P.A. Hansen (Berlin 1983– 1989). Corpus Medicorum Graecorum (Leipzig/Berlin, then Berlin 1908–). Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby (Berlin, then Leiden 1923–). Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der römischen Kaiserzeit, ed. E. Heitsch (Göttingen 21963). Greek hymns. Selected cult songs from the Archaic to the Hel­ lenistic period, ed. W.D. Furley and J.M. Bremer (Tübingen 2001). Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, ed. M.L. West (Oxford 21989–1992). Poetae comici Graeci, ed. R. Kassel and C. Austin, (Berlin/ New York 1983–). Poetarum epicorum Graecorum testimona et fragmenta, ed. A. Bernabé (Stuttgart 1987–2007). Poetae melici Graeci, ed. D. Page (Oxford 1962). Poetarum melicorum Graecorum fragmenta, ed. M. Davies (Oxford 1991). Supplementum Hellenisticum, edd. H. Lloyd-Jones et P. Parsons (Berlin 1983). Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, vol. 1, 2nd ed. ed. B. Snell, rev. R. Kannicht (Berlin 1986), vol. 2 ed. R. Kannicht and B. Snell (Göttingen 1981).

550 TRF

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

[N after the fragment number refers to A. Nauck’s 2nd ed., Leipzig 1889] Tragicorum Romanorum fragmenta, ed. O. Ribbeck (Leipzig 3 1897). 2

Inscriptions Audollent

A. Audollent, Defixionum tabellae quotquot innotuerunt tam in graecis orientis quam in totius occidentis partibus prae­ ter Atticas in corpore inscriptionum Atticarum editas (Paris 1904).  CID Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes (Paris 1977–2002).  CIL Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin 1863–). EM Epigraphical Museum, Athens (inventory number). FdD Fouilles de Delphes, T. 3 Epigraphie (Paris 1909–1985). GVI G. Peek, Griechische Versinschriften, I. Grabepigramme (Berlin 1955). IE K. Clinton, Eleusis. The inscriptions on stone (Athens 2005– 2008). IEph. Die Inschriften von Ephesos (Bonn 1979–1984). IG Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin 1873–). IPerinthos- M.H. Sayar, Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi) und Herakleia Umgebung. Geschichte, Testimonien, griechische und lateinische Inschriften (Vienna 1998). LSCG F. Sokolowski, Les lois sacrées des cités grecques (Paris 1969). LSS F. Sokolowski, Les lois sacrées des cités grecques. Supplé­ ment (Paris 1962). McCabe D.F. McCabe, The Princeton Project on the Inscriptions of Anatolia, (CD, Princeton 1991). NGCT D.R. Jordan, ‘New Greek curse tablets’, GRBS 41 (2000) 5–46. SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (Leiden, then Amsterdam 1923–). SGD D.R. Jordan, ‘A survey of Greek defixiones not included in the special corpora’, GRBS 26 (1985) 151–197. SGDI Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften (Göttingen 1884–1915). W. Dittenberger, Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum (Leipzig SIG2 2 1898–1901).

Papyri P.Ant. P.Berol. P.Hercul.

The Antinoopolis Papyri (London 1950–1967). Inventory of the Berlin Papyri (not published as a series). Herculaneum Papyri; cf. M. Gigante (ed.), Catalogo dei Papi­ ri Ercolanesi (Naples 1979).



Abbreviations

551

P.Derv.

K. Tsantsanoglou et al., The Derveni Papyrus (Florence 2006). P.Köln Kölner Papyri (opladen, then Paderborn 1976–). P.Oxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London 1898–). Chrest.Wilck. U. Wilcken, Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyru­ skunde. Erster Band: Historischer Teil. Zweite Häfte: Chres­ tomathie (Leipzig 1912).

Other ARV2

J.D. Beazley, Attic Red-figure Vase-painters (Oxford 21963).

Reference works K-B R. Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, 1. Teil: Elementar- und Formenlehre, rev. F. Blass (Hanover/Leipzig 31890–1892). K-G R. Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, 2. Teil: Satzlehre, rev. B. Gerth (Hanover/Leipzig 3 1898–1904). LfgrE B. Snell et al. (eds.), Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos (Göttingen 1955–). LIMC Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae (Zürich 1981–1999). LSJ H.G. Liddell et al., A Greek-English lexicon: with a supple­ ment (Oxford 91968, suppl. 1996). S-D E. Schwyzer and A. Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik (Munich 1939–1950). ThesCRA Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum, Los Angeles 2004– 2006. Works cited by author’s name without date Beekes, Robert S.P., Etymological dictionary of Greek (Leiden 2010). Breitenbach, Wilhelm, Untersuchungen zur Sprache der euripideischen Lyrik (Stuttgart 1934). Bruhn, Ewald, Anhang [to Schneidewin’ and Nauck’s edition of Sophocles] (Berlin 1899). Chantraine, Pierre, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots (Paris 1968). Denniston, J.D., Greek particles (Oxford 21954). Furley, William D. and Jan M. Bremer, Greek hymns. Selected cult songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period (Tübingen 2001). Goodwin, W.W., Syntax of the moods & tenses of the Greek verb (London 1889). Harrison, A.R.W., The law of Athens (Oxford 1968). Kraus, Walter, ‘Textkritische Erwägungen zu Euripides’ Ion’, WS 102 (1989) 35–110.

552

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Moorhouse, A.C., The syntax of Sophocles (Leiden 1982). Parke, H.W. and D.E.W. Wormell, The Delphic oracle (Oxford 1956). Rijksbaron, Albert, Grammatical observations on Euripides’ Bacchae (Amsterdam 1991). Schmid, Wilhelm and Otto Stählin, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur (Munich 1924–1948). Smereka, Jan, Studia Euripidea. De sermone. De vocabulorum copia. De elocu­ tionis consuetudinibus. De genere dicendi sive ‘stilo’ (Lwów 1936). Threatte, Leslie, The grammar of Attic inscriptions (Berlin/New York 1980– 1996). Waś, John, Aspects of realism in Greek tragedy, PhD thesis Oxford (Oxford 1983).

Cited editions and commentaries (with ‘on’; without reference means ‘ad loc.’) Ion (editions and commentaries):1 NN at Aldus Manutius (Venice 1503/4). I. Oporinus at I. Hervagius (Basle 11537, 21544, 31551). P. Brubachius (Frankfurt 1c.1558, 2c.1560). G. Stiblinus (Basle 1562). H. Stephanus (Geneva 1568).2 W. Canter (Antwerp 1571). H. Grotius [excerpts] (Paris 1626). J. Barnes (Cambridge 1694). M. Carmeli (Padua 1753). S. Musgrave (Oxford 1778). C.D. Beck (Leipzig 1778/1788). G. Wakefield (London 1794). 1

2

This list does not contain all editions of the play (not even all those consulted). Some editors report a substantial number of conjectures of colleagues, mostly communicated per litteras. Unless specified, conjectures by the following scholars are given by the editors in brackets: Brodaeus (Stiblinus), Victorius = Piero Vettori (Matthiae; taken from Vettori’s Aldina, now Bayer. Staatsbibliothek Rar. 1844), Duport (Barnes), Milton (Anonymous (1826)), Tyrwhitt (Musgrave (1762) 165–8 and (1788)), Seidler (Hermann), Page and Dawe (Diggle), Willink (Diggle and Kovacs). Scaliger’s contributions, transmitted in his copies of Canteriana (shelfmark Auct. S. 5.1; currently missing) and the Hervagiana (Auct. S. 4.11) in the Bodleian Library, were partly reported, partly passed on under his own or Duport’s name by Barnes (cf. Collard (1974); I am grateful to Solmeng Hirschi for double-checking the Hervagiana). Dobree’s notes have been collected posthumously (1833); for Livineius’ conjectures cf. Battezzato (2000a), for Valckenaer’s Finglass (2009a). This collection of annotations (also in the bibliography) is treated here and cited in the apparatus in the place of a commentary, due to its lemmatic form (accompanying the text of the first Hervagiana) and the number of conjectures taken from it. It is not to be confused with the edition of P. Stephanus (Geneva 1602), which does not provide anything of value.



Abbreviations

553

F. Hülsemann (Leipzig 1801). F.H. Bothe (Berlin/Stettin 1801, Leipzig 1826) A. Matthiae (Leipzig 1815/1824) L. Dindorf (Leipzig 1825) G. Hermann (Leipzig 1827). W. Dindorf (London 11830, Oxford 21851, London 31861, 41865, Leipzig 51869). W. Dindorf (Oxford 1833/1840) Th. Fix (Paris 1844). J.A. Hartung (Leipzig 1850). C. Badham (London 1851, London/Edinburgh 1853, London/Edinburgh 1861). A. Nauck (Leipzig 11854, 21857, 31871). A. Kirchhoff (Berlin 1855, Berlin 1868). F.A. Paley (London 11858, 21874, Cambridge 1886). H. v. Herwerden (Utrecht 1875). K. Kuiper (Leiden 1885). A.W. Verrall (Cambridge 1890). M.A. Bayfield (London/New York 1891). C.S. Jerram (Oxford 1896). N. Wecklein (Leipzig 1898, Leipzig/Berlin 1912) G. Murray (Oxford 1904). H. Grégoire (Paris 1923). U. v.Wilamowitz (Berlin 1926). A.S. Owen (Oxford 1939). L. Volpis (Milan 1934). G. Italie (Leiden 1968). A.P. Burnett (Englewood Cliffs 1970). W. Biehl (Leipzig 1979). J. Diggle (Oxford 1981). U. Albini and V. Faggi (Milan 1982). O. Musso (Turin 1993). J.A.D. Irvine (unpublished DPhil thesis on ll. 1–568, Oxford 1995). K.H. Lee (Warminster 1997). D. Kovacs (Cambridge MA/London 1999). G. Guidorizzi (Milan 2001). M. Pellegrino (Bari 2004). M.S. Mirto (Milan 2009).

Euripides (other extant plays) Alcestis L.P.E. Parker (Oxford 2007). Andromache P.T. Stevens (Oxford 1971). Bacchae E.R. Dodds (Oxford 1960). Electra J.D. Denniston (Oxford 1939). Hecuba C. Collard (Warminster 1991). Helen A.M. Dale (Oxford 1967). R. Kannicht (Heidelberg 1969). W. Allan (Cambridge 2008).

554

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Heracles U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (Berlin 1895). G.W. Bond (Oxford 1981). Hippolytus J.E. Monk (Cambridge 1811). S. Barrett (Oxford 1964). IA W. Stockert (Vienna 1992). IT P. Kyriakou (Berlin 2006). L.P.E. Parker (Oxford 2016). Medea P. Elmsley (Oxford 1818). D.L. Page (Oxford 1938). D. Mastronarde (Cambridge 2002). Orestes W. Biehl (Berlin 1965). C. Willink (Oxford 1986). M.L. West (Warminster 1987). Phoenissae R. Porson (Leipzig 1802). D. Mastronarde (Cambridge 1994). Supplices J. Markland (Oxford 1811). C. Collard (Groningen 1975). J. Morwood (Oxford 2007). Troades G. Burges (Cambridge 1807). K.H. Lee (Basingstoke 1976). W. Biehl (Heidelberg 1989).

Euripides (fragmentary plays) all plays F. Jouan and H.v. Looy (Paris 1998–2003). Selected Plays C. Collard, M.J. Cropp, K.H. Lee, and J. Gibert (Oxford 1995–2004). Danae/Dictys I. Karamanou (Munich 2006). Erechtheus M. Sonnino (Florence 2010). Hypsipyle G.W. Bond (Oxford 1963). Phaethon J. Diggle (Cambridge 1970). Aeschylus Persae H.D. Broadhead (Cambridge 1960). A.F. Garvie (Oxford 2009). Septem G.O. Hutchinson (Oxford 1994). Suppliants H. Friis Johansen and E.W. Whittle (Copenhagen 1980). Agamemon E. Fraenkel (Oxford 1950). J.D. Denniston/D. Page (Oxford 1957). Choephori A.F. Garvie (Oxford 1986). Eumenides A. Sommerstein (Cambridge 1989). PV M. Griffith (Cambridge 1983).



Abbreviations

Sophocles all plays R.C. Jebb (Cambridge 1889–1928). J.C. Kamerbeek (Leiden 1953–1984). Ajax Ch.A. Lobeck (Leipzig 21835). P.J. Finglass (Cambridge 2011). OT H. v. Herwerden (Utrecht 1866). R.D. Dawe (Cambridge 22006). Electra P.J. Finglass (Cambridge 2007). Trachiniae M. Davies (Oxford 1991). Aristophanes Acharnians S.D. Olson (Oxford 2002). Clouds K.J. Dover (Oxford 1968). Pax S.D. Olson (Oxford 1998). Birds N. Dunbar (Oxford 1995). Thesm. C. Austin and S.D. Olson (Oxford 2004). Frogs K.J. Dover (Oxford 1993). Eubulus

R.L. Hunter (Cambridge 1983).

Menander

A.W. Gomme and F.H. Sandbach (Oxford 1973).

Homer Iliad Il. 6 Il. 24

W. Leaf (London 1900–1902). M. Stoevesandt (Berlin 2008). C. Macleod (Cambridge 1982).

Hym. 2 Hym. 3–5 Hym. 4

N.J. Richardson (Oxford 1974). N.J. Richardson (Cambridge 2010). A. Vergados (Berlin 2013).

Hesiod Theogony Opera et Dies

M.L. West (Oxford 1966). M.L. West (Oxford 1978).

Pindar Pae. 6

S.L. Radt (Amsterdam 1958).

Theocritus

K.J. Dover (London 1971).

Aratus Phaenomena

D. Kidd (Cambridge 1997).

Herondas

W. Headlam (Cambridge 1922).

555

556

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Herodotus

D. Asheri et al. (Milan 1988–).

Antiphon

G.J. Pendrick (Cambridge 2002).

Lysias 1–11

S.C. Todd (Oxford 2007).

Aeschines 1

N. Fisher (Oxford 2001).

Xenophon Symposium

B. Huss (Stuttgart 1991).

Aristotle Ath.Pol.

P.J. Rhodes (Oxford 21993).

Plutarch De Pyth.Or.

S. Schröder (Stuttgart 1990).

Vergil Aeneid 3

N. Horsfall (Leiden 2006).

Bibliography Aerts, Willem J. (1965) Periphrastica. An investigation into the use of εἶναι and ἔχειν as auxiliaries or pseudo-auxiliaries in Greek from Homer up to the present day, Amsterdam. Alberti, Ioannes (1746) Hesychii Lexicon cum notis doctorum virorum … Tomus primus, Leiden. Albini, Umberto (1980) ‘Lo Ione, o dell’inventiva euripidea’, PP 35, 321–32. Albinus, Lars (2000) The house of Hades. Studies in ancient Greek eschatology, Aarhus. Aleshire, Sara B. (1994) ‘The demos and the priests: the selection of sacred officials at Athens from Cleisthenes to Augustus’, in: Simon Hornblower and Robin Osborne (eds.), Ritual, finance, politics. Athenian democratic accounts presented to David Lewis, Oxford, 325–37. Allan, William (2000) The Andromache and Euripidean tragedy, Oxford — (2006) ‘Divine justice and cosmic order in early Greek epic’, JHS 126, 1–35. Allen, James T. (1919) The Greek theater of the fifth century before Christ, Berkeley. Alt, Karin (1966) ‘Euripides, Ion 847’, Philologus 110, 133–4.



Bibliography

557

— (1998) ‘Ion und die Tyrannis. Zu Euripides Ion V. 621–632’, in: Christian-Friedrich Collatz (ed.), Dissertatiunculae criticae. Festschrift für Gün­ ther Christian Hansen, Würzburg, 23–32. Alty, John (1982) ‘Dorians and Ionians’, JHS 102, 1–14. Amandry, Pierre (1939) ‘Convention religieuse conclue entre Delphes et Skiathos’, BCH 63, 183–219. — (1950) La mantique apollinienne à Delphes. Essai sur le fonctionnement de l’oracle, Paris. — (1992) ‘Où était l’omphalos?’, in: Jean-François Bommelaer (ed.), Delphes. Centenaire de la “Grand Fouille” realisee par l’École Française d’Athènes (1892–1903). Actes du colloque Paul Perdrizet. Strasbourg, 6–9 novembre 1991, Leiden, 177–205. Andreassi, Mario (2001) ‘Esopo sulla scena: il mimo della Moicheutria e la Vita Aesopi’, RhM 144, 203–25. Anghelina, Catalin (2010) ‘The ancient representations of the Titan Atlas’, MH 67, 195–206. Anonymous (1826) ‘Joannis Miltonis emendationes in Euripidem’, Museum Criticum or Cambridge Classical Researches 1, 283–91. Arafat, K.W. (1990) Classical Zeus. A study in art and literature, Oxford. Arnaud, Georg d’ (1730) Lectionum Graecarum libri duo, in quibus Graecorum scripta passim illustrantur & castigantur, Den Haag. Arnoldt, Richard (1885) ‘Zur chronologischen Bestimmung von Euripides’ Ion’, Jahrb. f. class. Phil. 131, 590–1. Arnott, Peter D. (1962) Greek scenic conventions in the fifth century B.C, Oxford. Arnott, W. Geoffrey (1964) ‘The confrontation of Sostratos and Gorgias’, Phoe­ nix 18, 110–23. — (1977) ‘Swan songs’, G&R n.s. 24, 149–53. — (1982) ‘Off-stage cries and the choral presence: some challenges to theatrical convention in Euripides’, Antichthon 16, 35–43. — (1984) ‘Alcune osservazioni sulle convenzioni teatrali dei cori euripidei’, Dioniso 55, 147–55. — (1996) ‘Realism in the Ion: Response to Lee’, in: Michael S. Silk (ed.), Trag­ edy and the tragic, Oxford, 110–18. — (2007) Birds in the ancient world from A to Z, London. Arnould, Dominique (1990) Le rire et les larmes dans la littérature grecque d’Homère à  Platon, Paris. Arnush, Michael (2005) ‘Pilgrimage to the oracle of Apollo at Delphi: patterns of public and private consultation’, in: Jaś Elsner and Ian Rutherford (eds.), Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman & early christian antiquity. Seeing the gods, Oxford, 97–110. Assael, Jacqueline (2001) Euripide, philosophe et poète tragique, Louvain. Aston, Emma (2011) Mixanthrôpoi. Animal-human hybrid deities in Greek re­ ligion, Liège. Athanassaki, Lucia (2012) ‘A magnificent birthday party in an artful pavilion: lifestyle and leadership in Euripides’ Ion (on and offstage)’, in: V. Bers et

558

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

al. (eds.), Donum natalicium digitaliter confectum Gregorio Nagy septua­ genario, Washington DC, http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/4680 (accessed 28/09/2016). Aubriot-Sévin, Danièle (1992) Prière et conceptions religieuses en Grèce anci­ enne jusqu’à la fin du Ve siècle av. J.-C, Lyon. Bader, B. (1971) ‘The ψόφος of the house-door in Greek New Comedy’, An­ tichthon 5, 35–48. Badham, Charles (1852) ‘Coniecturae in Euripidis Ionem’, Philologus 7, 161–6, 277. Baechle, Nicholas (2007) Metrical constraint and the interpretation of style in the tragic trimeter, Lanham MD/Plymouth. Bain, David (1977) Actors & audience. A study of asides and related conven­ tions in Greek drama, Oxford. — (1979) ‘Euripides, Ion 1261–81’, CQ n.s. 29, 263–7. — (1981) Masters, servants, and orders in Greek tragedy. A study of some as­ pects of dramatic technique and convention, Manchester. Bakker, Egbert J. (1986) ‘Ὅσπερ en εἴπερ: een aspect van Attische conversatie’, Lampas 19, 142–58. — (1988) Linguistics and formulas in Homer. Scalarity and the description of the particle per, Amsterdam. Baldry, Harold C. (1965) The unity of mankind in Greek thought, Cambridge. Barber, E.J.W. (1992) ‘The peplos of Athena’, in: Jenifer Neils (ed.), Goddess and Polis. The Panathenaic festival in ancient Athens, Hanover N.J./Princeton, 103–17. Barlow, Shirley A. (1971) The imagery of Euripides. A study in the dramatic use of pictorial language, London. — (1986) ‘The language of Euripides’ monodies’, in: John H. Betts et al. (eds.), Studies in honour of T.B.L. Webster. Volume one, Bristol, 10–22. Barner, Wilfried (1971) ‘Die Monodie’, in: Walter Jens (ed.), Die Bauformen der griechischen Tragödie, Munich, 277–320. Barone, Caterina (1987) ‘L’ἀπαιδία in Euripide: terminologia specifica’, MD 18, 57–67. Barrett, W. Spencer (2007a) ‘A detail of tragic usage: the application to persons of verbal nouns in -μα’, in: Martin L. West (ed.), Greek lyric, tragedy, and textual criticism. Collected papers, Oxford, 351–366. — (2007b) ‘Lyric-and-iambic duets in Euripides’, in: Martin L. West (ed.), Greek lyric, tragedy, and textual criticism. Collected papers, Oxford, 386– 418. Barringer, Judith M. (1995) Divine escorts. Nereids in archaic and classical Greek art, Ann Arbor. Bartelink, G.J.M. (1963) ‘Werkliedjes uit de Oudheid’, Hermeneus 35, 35–9. Barthold, Theodor (1875) Kritische Besprechung einiger Stellen aus Euripides und seinen Scholiasten (Progr. Altona), Altona. *Bartoňková, Dagmar (2001–2) ‘Tricks in the plays Helen and Ion of Euripides’, SPFB(klas) 6–7, 35–40.



Bibliography

559

Bartosiewiczová, Jana (1979) ‘Euripides’ Ion und das Problem der Tyche’, GLO 11–12, 31–9. Basta Donzelli, Giuseppina (2000) ‘Euripide tra commedia e tragedia’, in: Maria Cannatà Fera and Simonetta Grandolini (eds.), Poesia e religione in Gre­ cia. Studi in onore di G. Aurelio Privitera, Naples, 63–9. Battezzato, Luigi (1995) Il monologo nel teatro di Euripide, Pisa. — (1998) rev. Lee (1997), BMCR 98.1.06. — (2000a) ‘Livineius’ unpublished Euripidean marginalia,’ Revue d’histoire des textes 30, 323–49. — (2000b) ‘Synizesis in Euripides and the structure of the iambic trimeter – the case of θεός’, BICS 44, 41–80. — (2003) Tradizione testuale e ricezione letteraria antica della tragedia greca. Atti del Convegno, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa 14–15 giugno 2002, Amsterdam. — (2008) Linguistica e retorica della tragedia greca, Roma. Baudy, G.J. (1992) ‘Der Heros in der Kiste. Der Erichthoniosmythos als Aition athenischer Erntefeste’, A&A 38, 1–47. Beer, Hans (1914) Ἀπαρχή und verwandte Ausdrücke in griechischen Weihinschriften, PhD thesis Munich. Beetham, F. (2002) ‘The aorist indicative’, G&R n.s. 49, 227–36. Beresford, James (2013) The ancient sailing season, Leiden. Berger-Doer, Gratia (1992) ‘Kreousa I’, LIMC VI.1, 117–20. Bergson, Leif (1953) ‘The omitted augment in the messengers’ speeches of Greek tragedy’, Eranos 51, 121–8. — (1956) L’épithète ornementale dans Eschyle, Sophocle et Euripide, Uppsala. — (1960) ‘Zur Bedeutung von ΑΝΤΙΠΗΞ bei Euripides’, Eranos 58, 12–19. — (1967) ‘Zum periphrastischen χρῆμα’, Eranos 65, 79–117. Berns, G. (1973) ‘Nomos and Physis (An interpretation of Euripides’ Hippolytos)’, Hermes 101, 165–87. Bers, Victor (1974) Enallage and Greek style, Leiden. — (1984) Greek poetic syntax in the classical age, New Haven. — (1997) Speech in speech. Studies in incorporated oratio recta in Attic drama and oratory, Lanham. — (2009) Genos dikanikon. Amateur and professional speech in the courtrooms of classical Athens, Washington DC. Bieber, Margarete (1928) Griechische Kleidung, Berlin. Biehl, Werner (1977) ‘Zur Planungsökonomie der Tetrameterszenen in Euripides’ Ion’, Philologus 121, 301–5. — (1992) ‘Textprobleme in Euripides’ Ion. Bemerkungen zu Versumfang und Personenverteilung innerhalb der Sprechpartien’, Philologus 136, 14–30. — (1996) ‘Quantitative Formgestaltung in den trimetrischen Partien des euripideischen Ion’, REG 109, 66–88. Bierl, Anton (1991) Dionysos und die griechische Tragödie. Politische und ‘metatheatralische’ Aspekte im Text, Tübingen. Biezuńska-Małowist, Iza (1971) ‘Die expositio von Kindern als Quelle der Sklavenbeschaffung im griechisch-römischen Ägypten’, JWG 1971, 129–33.

560

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Biraud, Michèle (2010) Les interjections du théâtre grec antique. Étude séman­ tique et pragmatique, Louvain-la-Neuve. Birt, Th. (1931) ‘Der Monolog und die Selbstanrede’, RhM 80, 237–52. Björck, Gudmund (1950) Das Alpha impurum und die tragische Kunstsprache. Attische Wort- und Stilstudien, Uppsala. Blaydes, Fredericus H.M. (1901) Adversaria critica in Euripidem, Halle. Blech, Michael (1982) Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen, Berlin/New York. Bleckmann, Bruno (1998) Athens Weg in die Niederlage. Die letzten Jahre des Peloponnesischen Kriegs, Stuttgart. Blomqvist, Jerker (1979) Das sogenannte καί adversativum. Zur Semantik einer griechischen Partikel, Uppsala. Blümner, Hugo (1912) Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern. Vol. I, 2nd ed., Leipzig. Blundell, Mary W. (1989) Helping friends and harming enemies. A study in Sophocles and Greek ethics, Cambridge. Bodensteiner, E. (1893) ‘Szenische Fragen über den Ort des Auftretens und Abgehens von Schauspielern und Chor im griechischen Drama’, Jahrb. f. class. Phil. Suppl. 19, 637–808. Boegehold, Alan L. (1999) When a gesture was expected. A selection of exam­ ples from archaic and classical Greek literature, Princeton, NJ. Bömer, Franz (1960) Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griech­ enland und Rom. Zweiter Teil: Die sogenannte sakrale Freilassung in Griechenland und die (δοῦλοι) ἱεροί, Wiesbaden. — (1990) Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom. Dritter Teil: Die wichtigsten Kulte der griechischen Welt, Wiesbaden. Boer, J.Z. de et al. (2001) ‘New evidence for the geological origins of the ancient Delphic oracle (Greece)’, Geology 29, 707–10. Bolkestein, H. (1922) ‘The exposure of children at Athens and the ἐγχυτρίστριαι’, CPh 17, 222–39. Boll, Franz (1903) Sphaera. Neue griechische Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Sternbilder, Leipzig. Bommelaer, Jean-François (1991) Guide de Delphes. Le site, Athens/Paris. Bonnechere, Pierre (2003) Trophonios de Lébadée. Cultes et mythes d’une cité bèotienne au miroir de la mentalité antique, Leiden. Bonner, Robert J. (1905) Evidence in Athenian courts, Chicago. Bornmann, Fritz (1990) ‘Appunti di lettura’, A&R n.s. 35, 95–101. — (1993) ‘Simmetria verbale e concettuale nelle responsioni dei canti strofici in Euripide’, in: Roberto Pretagostini (ed.), Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omero all’età ellenistica. Scritti in onore di Bruno Gentili. II, Rome, 565–76. Borowska, Małgorzata (1989) Le théâtre politique d’Euripide. Problèmes choisis, Warsaw. Borthwick, E. Kerr (1967) ‘A ‘Femme Fatale’ in Asclepiades’, CR n.s. 17, 250– 4. — (1990) ‘Bees and drones in Aristophanes, Aelian and Euripides’, BICS 37, 57–62.



Bibliography

561

Boswell, John (1988) The kindness of strangers. The abandonment of children in Western Europe from late antiquity to the Renaissance, New York. Bothe, Friedrich (1824) Euripides’ Werke. Dritter Band, Mannheim. Boulter, Patricia N. (1969) ‘The Akroteria of the Nike Temple’, Hesperia 38, 133–40. Bousquet, Jean (1956) ‘Inscriptions de Delphes’, BCH 80, 547–97. — (1964) ‘Delphes et les Aglaurides d’Athènes’, BCH 88, 655–75. Bowden, Hugh (2005) Classical Athens and the Delphic oracle. Divination and democracy, Cambridge. Bowlby, Rachel (2007) Freudian mythologies. Greek tragedy and modern iden­ tities, Oxford. Braccesi, Lorenzo (1987) ‘Sull’idea di turismo nel mondo greco’, A&R n.s. 32, 1–7. Brancaccio, Ida (2005) ‘Aioleis, Aiolos, Aiolidai: ampiezza di una tradizione’, in: Alfonso Mele et al. (eds.), Eoli ed Eolide tra madrepatria e colonie, Naples, 25–54. Brandt, Herwig (1973) Die Sklaven in den Rollen von Dienern und Vertrauten bei Euripides, Hildesheim/New York. Braunlich, Alice F. (1956) ‘Euripides, Medea 239 and 815: μή with the causal participle’, AJPh 77, 415–18. — (1962) ‘Notes on the text of Euripides’, AJPh 83, 393–411. Bremer, Jan M. (1972) ‘Euripides, Heracles 581’, CQ n.s. 22, 236–40. — (1975) ‘The meadow of love and two passages in Euripides‘ Hippolytus’, Mnemosyne ser. 4 28, 268–80. — (1989) ‘Apollo in de beklaagdenbank’, Sacris Erudiri 31, 65–76. Broadhead, H.D. (1950) ‘Notes on the tragic poets’, CQ 44, 121–2. Brock, Roger (2010) ‘Citizens and non-citizens in Athenian tragedy’, in: Edward M. Harris et al. (eds.), Law and drama in ancient Greece, London, 94–107. Brommer, Frank (1986) Heracles. The twelve labors of the hero in ancient art and literature, New Rochelle NY. Brooke, Iris (1962) Costume in Greek classic drama, London. Brown, Peter G. McC. (1991) ‘Athenian attitudes to rape and seduction: the evidence of Menander, Dyskolos 289–293’, CQ n.s. 41, 533–4. Browning, R. (1960) ‘Recentiores non deteriores’, BICS 7, 11–21. Brulé, Pierre (1987) La fille d’Athènes. La religion des filles à Athènes à l’épo­ que classique. Mythes, cultes et société, Paris. Buchholtz, Hermann (1864) De Euripidis versibus anapaesticis (Progr. Cott­ bus), Cottbus. Bücher, Karl (1899) Arbeit und Rhythmus, Leipzig. Bühler, Winfried (1964) ‘Archilochos und Kallimachos’, in: Archiloque, Vandoeuvres, 223–53 [incl. discussion]. Buijs, J.A.J.M. (1985) ‘Studies in the lyric metres of Greek tragedy’, Mnemo­ syne ser. 4 38, 62–92. — (1986) ‘Studies in the lyric metre of Greek tragedy’, Mnemosyne ser. 4 39, 42–73.

562

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Buis, Emiliano J. (2003) ‘Los límites de la γραφὴ ἀμβλώσεως: la (i)licitud del aborto en el derecho ateniense’, Argos 27, 41–62. Burges, George (1813) ‘In Tragicorum Graecorum Monostropha Commentarius’, The Classical Journal 8, 140–9. Burkert, Walter (1983) Homo necans. The anthropology of ancient Greek sacri­ ficial ritual and myth, Berkeley/London. — (1985) Greek religion, Oxford. — (1992) The orientalizing revolution. Near Eastern influences on Greek cul­ ture in the early archaic age, Cambridge MA/London. — (1996) ‘“Mein Gott”? Persönliche Frömmigkeit und unverfügbare Götter’, in: Hubert Cancik et al. (eds.), Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion. Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Band II. Griechische und römische Religion, Tübingen, 3–14. — (1999) ‘Eleusis und Bakchika: Staatliche und private Mysterien in der griechischen Antike’, in: Holger Sonnabend (ed.), Antike und moderne Re­ ligion. Vorträge und Beiträge als Grundlage für Deutung und Bewältigung heutiger Probleme, Stuttgart, 57–73. Burnett, Anne P. (1962) ‘Human resistance and divine persuasion in Euripides’ Ion’, CPh 57, 89–103. — (1971) Catastrophe survived. Euripides’ plays of mixed reversal, Oxford. Busch, Gerda (1937) Untersuchungen zum Wesen der Tyche in den Tragödien des Euripides, PhD thesis Heidelberg. Bussler, Erich (1887) De sententiarum asyndeti usu Euripideo, PhD thesis Halle. Buxton, R.G.A. (1982) Persuasion in Greek tragedy. A study of Peitho, Cambridge. Cairns, Douglas L. (1993) Aidôs. The psychology and ethics of honour and shame in ancient Greek literature, Oxford. — (2009) ‘Weeping and veiling: Grief, display and concealment in ancient Greek culture’, in: Thorsten Fögen (ed.), Tears in the Greco-Roman world, Berlin, 37–57. Calame, Claude (1977) Les chœurs de jeunes filles en Grèce archaïque, Rome. — (1999) The poetics of eros in ancient Greece, Princeton, NJ/Chichester. Calder III, William M. (1975) rev. of Christopher Collard, Supplement to the Allen & Italie Concordance to Euripides, CPh 70, 148–9. Calhoun, G.M. (1919) ‘Oral and written pleading in Athenian courts’, TAPA 50, 177–93. Calvani, Giovanna (1973) ‘Nota al P.Oxy. 2536 (Hypomnema a Pind. Pyth. XII, vv. 14–32), ll. 5–14’, QUCC 16, 142–5. Cameron, A. (1932) ‘The exposure of children and Greek ethics’, CR 46, 105– 14. Canter, Willem (1751) Novarum lectionum libri octo. Editio tertia recens aucta, Antwerp. Carawan, Edwin (2008) ‘Pericles the Younger and the citizenship law’, CJ 103, 383–406.



Bibliography

563

Carrara, Paolo (2009) Il testo di Euripide nell’antichità. Ricerche sulla tra­ dizione testuale euripidea antica (sec. IV a.C-sec. VIII d.C), Florence. Carter, David M. (2004) ‘Citizen attribute, negative right: a conceptual difference between ancient and modern ideas of freedom of speech’, in: Ralph M. Rosen and Ineken Sluiter (eds.), Free Speech in Classical Antiquity, Leiden, 197–220. — (2007) The politics of Greek tragedy, Exeter. Carter, L.B. (1986) The quiet Athenian, Oxford/New York. Casabona, Jean (1966) Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en grec. Des origines à la fin de l’époque classique, Gap. Caspers, Christiaan L. (2010) ‘The pragmatic funtion and textual status of Euripidean οὔ που and ἦ που’, CQ n.s. 60, 327–44. Cassanello, Maria Teresa (1993) Lessico erotico della tragedia greca, con la collaborazione di Giulio Guidorizzi, Roma. Cassola, Filippo (1953) ‘Le genealogie mitiche e la coscienza nazionale greca’, RDAA n.s. 28, 279–304. Casson, Lionel (1971) Ships and seamanship in the ancient world, Princeton. Castriota, David (1992) Myth, ethos, and actuality. Official art in fifth-century B.C. Athens, Madison WI. Cataudella, Quintino (1962) ‘Lettura dello “Ione” euripideo’, Dioniso 36, 15– 35. Cavallini, Eleonora (1981) ‘Il carro di Atena (Aesch. Eum. 397 ss.)’, GFF 4, 79–81. Ceadel, E.B. (1941) ‘Resolved feet in the trimeters of Euripides and the chronology of the plays’, CQ 35, 66–89. Centanni, Monica (1991) I canti corali infraepisodici nella tragedia greca, Rome. — (1995) Metro, ritmo e parola nella tragedia greca. Le scene in tetrametri trocaici, Lecce. Cerbo, Ester (1989) ‘La scena di riconoscimento in Euripide: dall’amebeo alla monodia’, QUCC n.s. 33, 39–47. Chadwick, John (1996) Lexicographica Graeca. Contributions to the lexicogra­ phy of ancient Greek, Oxford. Chalkia, Irène (1986) Lieux et espace dans la tragédie d’Euripide. Essai d’anal­ yse socio-culturelle, Thessaloniki. Chance, Thomas (1992) Plato’s Euthydemus. Analysis of what is and is not phi­ losophy, Berkeley/Oxford. Chaniotis, Angelos (1996) ‘Conflicting authorities. Asylia between secular and divine law in the classical and Hellenistic poleis’, Kernos 9, 65–86. Chantraine, Pierre (1933) La formation des noms en grec ancien, Paris. Chiarini, Gioachino (2002) ‘Il dono di Eracle. A proposito di Euripide, Ione 1143–58’, Dioniso 1, 36–47. Chong-Gossard, J.H. Kim On (2008) Gender and communication in Euripides’ plays. Between song and silence, Leiden. Christ, Wilhelm (1874) Metrik der Griechen und Römer, Leipzig.

564

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Ciani, Maria G. (1974) φάος e termini affini nella poesia greca. Introduzione a una fenomenologia della luce Florence. Cilento, V. (1953) ‘Una tragedia delfica. Jone di Euripide’, PP 8, 241–63. Citti, Vittorio (1988) ‘The ideology of metics in Greek tragedy’, in: Toru Yuge and Masaoki Doi (eds.), Forms of control and subordination in antiquity, Leiden, 456–64. — (1994) Eschilo e la lexis tragica, Amsterdam. Clavo, Maria T. (2003) ‘Comunicare a Delfi: lo Ione euripideo e le Etiopiche di Eliodoro’, in: Marcella Guglielmo and Bona Edoardo (eds.), Forme di comunicazione nel mondo antico e metamorfosi del mito: dal teatro al ro­ manzo, Alessandria, 299–321. Clayman, Dee L. (1987) ‘Sigmatism in Greek poetry’, TAPA 117, 69–84. Clinton, Kevin (1988) ‘Sacrifice at the Eleusinian mysteries’, in: Robin Hägg et al. (eds.), Early Greek cult practice. Proceedings of the fifth international Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26–29 June 1986, Stockholm, 69–80. — (1992) Myth and cult. The iconography of the Eleusinian mysteries. The Martin P. Nilsson lectures on Greek religion, delivered 19–21 November 1990 at the Swedish Institute at Athens, Stockholm. Cobet, Carel G. (1858) Novae lectiones quibus continentur observationes criti­ cae in scriptores Graecos, Leiden. — (1873) Variae lectiones quibus continentur observationes criticae in scrip­ tores Graecos. Editio secunda auctior, Leiden. — (1876) Miscellanea critica, quibus continentur observationes criticae in scriptores Graecos, praesertim Homerum et Demosthenem, Leiden. Cohen, Edward E. (1992) Athenian economy and society. A banking perspective, Princeton. — (2000) The Athenian nation, Princeton NJ. Cohen, Norm (1993) ‘Worksongs: a demonstration collection of examples’, in: Archie Green (ed.), Songs about work. Essays in occupational culture for Richard A. Reuss, Bloomington, 332–55. Colardeau, Th. (1916) ‘Ion à Delphes’, REG 29, 430–34. Colby, Frederic T. (1887) ‘Eur. Ion, 978, Eur. Ion, 1027’, CR 1, 115. Cole, A. Thomas (1997) ‘The Ion of Euripides and its audience(s)’, in: Lowell Edmunds and Robert W. Wallace (eds.), Poet, public, and performance in ancient Greece, Baltimore/London, 87–96. Cole, Spencer (2008) ‘Annotated innovation in Euripides’ Ion’, CQ n.s. 58, 313–15. Collard, Christopher (1974) ‘J. J. Scaliger’s Euripidean marginalia’, CQ n.s. 24, 242–9. — (1980) ‘On stichomythia’, LCM 5, 77–85. — (2005) ‘Colloquial language in tragedy. A supplement to the work of P. T. Stevens’, CQ n.s. 55, 350–86. — (2006) ‘Tragic persons in pieces, in fragments at first, and lastly in Choephori 211’, in: Douglas L. Cairns and Vayos Liapis (eds.), Dionysalexandros. Es­



Bibliography

565

says on Aeschylus and his fellow tragedians in honour of Alexander F. Gar­ vie, Swansea, 49–61. Conacher, Desmond J. (1959) ‘The paradox of Euripides’ Ion’, TAPA 90, 20–39. — (1967) Euripidean drama. Myth, theme and structure, Toronto/London. Connelly, Joan B. (2007) Portrait of a priestess. Women and ritual in ancient Greece, Princeton NJ/Woodstock. Connor, W.R. (1993) ‘The Ionian era of Athenian civic identity’, PAPS 137, 194–206. Conomis, N.C. (1964) ‘The dochmiacs of Greek drama’, Hermes 92, 23–50. Cook, Arthur B. (1914) Zeus. A study in ancient religion, Cambridge. Cook, R.M. (1976) ‘A supplementary note on meniskoi’, JHS 96, 153–4. Courby, F. (1927) La terrasse du temple. Vol. 2, Paris. Couvret, Simone (1994) ‘L’homme au bâton. Statique et statut dans la céramique attique’, Métis 9–10, 257–81. Craik, E.M. (2001) ‘Medical reference in Euripides’, BICS 45, 81–94. Cromey, R.D. (2006) ‘Apollo Patroos and the Phratries’, AC 75, 41–69. Cropp, Martin (1986) ‘Euripides, Ion 247–8’, CQ n.s. 36, 261. Cropp, Martin and Gordon Fick (1985) Resolutions and chronology in Euripid­ es. The fragmentary tragedies, London. Csapo, Eric (2008) ‘Star choruses: Eleusis, orphism, and new musical imagery and dance’, in: Martin Revermann and Peter Wilson (eds.), Performance, iconography, reception. Studies in honour of Oliver Taplin, Oxford, 262–90. Csapo, Eric and William J. Slater (1995) The context of ancient drama, Ann Arbor. Curnis, Michele (2008) ‘Philologica parerga 11–14. Paus. 2, 1, 8 – Eur. Ion (passim) – Scholia ad Aristot. Pol. 2, 1261a 32 – Val. Fl. Arg. 1, 671’, Quaderni del Dipartimento di Filologia Linguistica e Tradizione Classica “Augusto Rostagni” n.s. 7, 65–76. Currie, Bruno (2011) ‘Epinician choregia: funding a Pindaric chorus’, in: Lucia Athanassaki and Ewen Bowie (eds.), Archaic and classical choral song. Performance, politics and dissemination, Berlin/Boston, 269–310. Cyrino, Monica S. (1998) ‘Sex, status and song: locating the lyric singer in the actors’ duets of Euripides‘, QUCC n. s. 60, 81–101. D’Alessio, Giovan Battista (2007) ‘Ἢν ἰδού: ecce satyri (Pratina, PMG 708 = TrGF 4 F 3). Alcuni considerazioni sull’uso della deissi nei testi lirici e teatrali’, in: Franca Perusino and Maria Colantonio (eds.), Dalla lirica corale alla poesia drammatica. Forme e funzioni del canto corale nella tragedia e nella commedia greca, Pisa, 95–128. D’Angour, Armand (2011) The Greeks and the new. Novelty in ancient Greek imagination and experience, Cambridge. Dalby, Andrew (2000) Dangerous tastes. The story of spices, London Dale, A.M. (1963) ‘Note on Euripides, Helena 1441–50’, Maia 15, 310–13. — (1968) The lyric metres of Greek drama, 2nd ed., London. — (1969a) ‘An interpretation of Ar. Vesp. 136–210 and its consequences for the stage of Aristophanes’, in: A. M. Dale (ed.), Collected papers, Cambridge, 103–18.

566

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

— (1969b) ‘Seen and unseen on the Greek stage: a study in scenic conventions’, in: A. M. Dale (ed.), Collected papers, Cambridge, 119–29. — (1971) Metrical analyses of tragic choruses. Fasc. 1 Dactylo-epitrite, London. — (1981) Metrical analyses of tragic choruses. Fasc. 2 Aeolo-choriambic, London. Dalmeyda, Georges (1915) ‘Observations sur les prologues d’Ion et des Bacchantes’, REG 28, 43–50. Danek, Georg (2001) ‘Das Staunen des Chores: Götter und Menschen im Ion des Euripides’, WS 114, 47–58. Danesin, Cristina (1998) ‘Gliconei in responsione in Euripide’, MD 40, 145– 204. David, Ephraim (1996) ‚Four councils or four tribes? A note on Aristotle‘ Athe­ naion Politeia 30‘, RhM 139, 225–33. Davidson, John (1986) ‘A Sophoclean periphrasis’, Glotta 64, 20–4. Davies, Malcolm (1990) ‘“Popular justice” and the end of Aristophanes’ “Clouds”’, Hermes 118, 237–42. Dawe, R.D. (1964) The collation and investigation of manuscripts of Aeschylus, Cambridge. De Poli, Mattia (2008) ‘Per uno studio dell‘anacoluto e dell‘aposiopesi in Euripide (Eur. Alc. 122 ss., 466 ss.; Tr. 285 ss.; IT 208 ss., 895 ss.; Hel. 238 ss.; Ion 695 ss.)’, Lexis 26, 125–48. — (2011) Le Monodie di Euripide. Note di critica testuale e analisi metrica, Padova. — (2012) Monodie mimetiche e monodie diegetiche. I canti a solo di Euripide e la tradizione poetica greca, Tübingen. De Schutter, Xavier (1987) ‘Le culte d’Apollon Patrôos à Athènes’, AntCl 56, 103–29. Dean-Jones, Lesley (1994) Women’s bodies in classical Greek science, Oxford. Debrunner, Albert (1917) Griechische Wortbildungslehre, Heidelberg. — (1944) ‘Verschobener Partizipialgebrauch im Griechischen (Der Typus “café chantant” im Griechischen)’, MH 1, 31–46. Defradas, Jean (1968) ‘La divination en Grèce’, in: André Caquot and Marcel Leibovici (eds.), La divination, Paris, 157–95. Degani, Enzo (1961) ΑΙΩΝ da Omero ad Aristotele, Padova. Del Grande, Carlo (1962) ‘Euripide, nomos e physis’, Dioniso 36, 46–9. Delcourt, Marie (1938) ‘La pureté des éléments et l’invocation de Créuse dans “Ion” (vv. 870 sqq)’, RBPh 195–203. Delebecque, Édouard (1951) Euripide et la guerre du Péloponnèse, Paris. Demand, Nancy H. (1994) Birth, death, and motherhood in Classical Greece, Baltimore/London. Denniston, J.D. (1936) ‘Pauses in the tragic senarius’, CQ 30, 73–9. Deppert-Lippitz, Barbara (1985) Griechischer Goldschmuck, Mainz am Rhein. Descroix, Joseph M. (1931) Le trimètre iambique des iambographes à la comédie nouvelle, Macon.



Bibliography

567

Deubner, Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste, Darmstadt. — (1941) ‘Ololyge und Verwandtes’, SBBerlin 1–28. Devereux, George (1976) Dreams in Greek tragedy. An ethno-psychoanalytical study, Oxford. Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens (1981) ‘A new aspect of the evolution of the trimeter in Euripides’, TAPA 111, 43–64. — (1994) The prosody of Greek speech, Oxford/New York. — (2000) Discontinuous syntax: hyperbaton in Greek, Oxford/New York. Di Benedetto, Vincenzo (1961) ‘Responsione strofica e distribuzione delle battute in Euripide’, Hermes 89, 298–321. — (1971) Euripide: teatro e società, Turin. Di Benedetto, Vincenzo and Enrico Medda (1997) La tragedia sulla scena: la tragedia greca in quanto spettacolo teatrale, Turin. Dickey, Eleanor (1996) Greek forms of address. From Herodotus to Lucian, Oxford. Dieterle, Martina (2007) Dodona. Religionsgeschichtliche und historische Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Entwicklung des Zeus-Heiligtums, Hildesheim. Diggle, James (1969) ‘Marginalia Euripidea’, PCPhS 15, 30–59. — (1974) ‘On the Heracles and Ion of Euripides’, PCPhS 20, 3–36. — (1976) ‘Iphigenia in Tauris’, PCPhS 22, 42–5. — (1977a) ‘Heraclidae 147–50’, CQ n.s. 27, 236. — (1977b) ‘P. Hibeh 179 and Heracles’, ZPE 24, 291–4. — (1978) ‘Helen’, Dionysiaca. Nine studies in Greek poetry by former pupils presented to Sir Denys Page on his seventieth birthday, Cambridge, 159–77. — (1981a) Studies on the text of Euripides, Oxford. — (1981b) ‘On the Alcestis and Andromache of Euripides’, ICS 6, 82–101. — (1983) ‘On the Manuscripts and Text of Euripides, Medea’, CQ n.s. 33, 339– 57. — (1984a) ‘On the Manuscripts and Text of Euripides, Medea: II. The Text’, CQ n.s. 34, 50–65. — (1984b) rev. West (1982), CR n.s. 34, 66–71. — (1990) ‘On the Orestes of Euripides’, CQ n.s. 40, 100–23. — (1994) Euripidea. Collected essays, Oxford. — (1999) ‘Euripides, Bacchae 1063–9’, in: Juan A. López Férez (ed.), Desde los poemas homéricos hasta la prosa griega del siglo IV d.C. Ventiséis estu­ dios filológicos, Madrid, 135–48. Dik, Helma (2007) Word order in Greek tragic dialogue, Oxford. Diller, Hans (1955) Die Bakchen und ihre Stellung im Spätwerk des Euripides, Mainz. — (1962) ‘Erwartung, Enttäuschung und Erfüllung in der griechischen Tragödie’, Serta philologica Aenipontana 7/8, 93–115. Dillon, John (1984) ‘Euripides and Antiphon on Nomos and Physis: some remarks’, in: Greek Philosophical Society (ed.), Η Αρχαια Σοφιστικη. The Sophistic Movement, Athens, 127–36. Dillon, Matthew (2002) Girls and women in classical Greek religion, London.

568

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Dindorf, Ludwig (1878) ‘Über einiges Untergeschobene bei Sophokles und Euripides’, Jahrb. f. class. Phil. 117, 321–30. Dindorf, Wilhelm (1864) ‘Über eine Lücke im Ion des Euripides’, Philologus 21, 147–9. Dingel, Joachim (1967) Das Requisit in der griechischen Tragödie, PhD thesis Tübingen. Dirat, Maurice (1973) L’hybris dans la tragédie grecque, Lille. Dirlmeier, Franz (1931) ΦΙΛΟΣ und ΦΙΛΙΑ im vorhellenistischen Griechentum, PhD thesis Munich. Dobree, Peter P. (1833) Adversaria. Vol. II, ed. by James Scholefield, Cambridge. Dörig, José (1967) ‘Lesefrüchte’, in: Gestalt und Geschichte. Festschrift Karl Schefold zu seinem sechzigsten Geburtstag am 26. Januar 1965, Bern, 102– 9. Donohue, A.A. (1988) Xoana and the origins of Greek sculpture, Atlanta GA. Dontas, George S. (1983) ‘The true Aglaurion’, Hesperia 52, 48–63. Dorjahn, Alfred P. and William D. Fairchild (1972) ‘Improvisation in Isaeus’, CB 48, 59–61. Dougherty, Carol (1996) ‘Democratic contradictions and the synoptic illusion of Euripides’ Ion’, in: Josiah Ober and Charles Hedrick (eds.), Dêmokratia. A conversation on democracies, ancient and modern, Princeton, 249–70. Dover, Kenneth J. (1966) ‘The skene in Aristophanes’, PCPhS 12, 2–17. — (1974) Greek popular morality in the time of Plato and Aristotle, Berkeley. — (1981) ‘The colloquial stratum in classical Attic prose’, in: Gordon S. Shrimpton and David J. McCargar (eds.), Classical contributions. Studies in honour of Malcolm Francis McGregor, Locust Valley NY, 15–25. — (1987) Greek and the Greeks, Oxford. — (1997) The evolution of Greek prose style, Oxford. Drew-Bear, Thomas (1968) ‘The trochaic tetrameter in Greek tragedy’, AJPh 89, 385–405. Družinina, Jekaterina (1999) ‘A. Naucks nachgelassene Marginalien zu Euripides (nach der Vorlage V. K. Jernstedts)’, Hyperboreus 5, 238–56. Dubischar, Markus (2007) ‘“Microstructure” in Greek tragedy: from bad to worse — Wrong guesses in Euripidean stichomythia (including a comparison with Aeschylus and Sophocles)’, Mnemosyne ser. 4 60, 1–24, 196–212. DuBois, Page (1988) Sowing the body. Psychoanalysis and ancient representa­ tions of women, Chicago/London. Dürbeck, Helmut (1977) Zur Charakteristik der griechischen Farbenbezeich­ nungen, Bonn. Dunn, Francis M. (1990) ‘The battle of the sexes in Euripides’ Ion’, Ramus 19, 130–42. — (1996) Tragedy’s end. Closure and innovation in Euripidean drama, New York/Oxford. — (2000) ‘Euripidean Aetiologies’, CB 76, 3–27. Easterling, Patricia E. (1985) ‘Anachronism in Greek Tragedy’, JHS 105, 1–10.



Bibliography

569

Ebbott, Mary (2003) Imagining illegitimacy in classical Greek literature, Lanham MD/Oxford. Ebert, Joachim (1983) ‘Zu Euripides, Ion v. 1–3’, WüJbb n.F. 9, 49–51. Egli, Franziska (2003) Euripides im Kontext zeitgenössischer intellektueller Strömungen. Analyse der Funktion philosophischer Themen in den Tragö­ dien und Fragmenten, Munich. Ehrenberg, Victor (1962) The people of Aristophanes. A sociology of old Attic comedy, New York. Eisler, Robert (1910) Weltenmantel und Himmelszelt. Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Urgeschichte des antiken Weltbildes, Munich. Eitrem, S. (1915) Opferritus und Voropfer der Griechen und Römer, Kristiania. — (1924) ‘Die rituelle διαβολή’, SO 2, 43–61. — (1926) ‘Die vier Elemente in der Mysterienweihe [I]’, SO 4, 39–59. — (1927) ‘Die vier Elemente in der Mysterienweihe [II]’, SO 5, 39–59. Elmsley, Peter (1811) rev. of P. Porson, Euripidis Hecuba, Edinburgh Review 37, 64–95. — (1813) rev. of G. Hermann, Euripidis Hercules Furens (Leipzig 1810), The Classical Journal 8, 199–218. — (1826) ‘Annotatio in Euripidis Iphigeniam Tauricam ex recension Aug. Seidleri’, Museum Criticum 6, 273–307. Enthoven, Ludwig (1880) De Ione fabula Euripidea quaestiones selectae, PhD thesis Bonn. Erbse, Hartmut (1966) ‘Beiträge zum Verständnis der euripideischen “Phoinissen”’, Philologus 110, 1–34. — (1975) ‘Der Gott von Delphi im Ion des Euripides’, in: Beda Allemann and Erwin Koppen (eds.), Teilnahme und Spiegelung. Festschrift für Horst Rüdiger, Berlin/New York, 40–54. — (1984) Studien zum Prolog der euripideischen Tragödie, Berlin/New York. Ercolani, Andrea (2000) Il passaggio di parola sulla scena tragica. Didascalie interne e struttura delle rheseis, Stuttgart. — (2001) ‘Enunciati programmatici nel dialogo della tragedia attica’, in: Bernhard Zimmermann (ed.), Rezeption des antiken Dramas auf der Bühne und in der Literatur, Stuttgart/Weimar, 121–65. Erdmann, Gerd (1964) Der Botenbericht bei Euripides. Struktur und drama­ tische Funktion, PhD thesis Kiel. Ermatinger, Emil (1897) Die attische Autochthonensage bis auf Euripides. Mit einer einleitenden Darstellung der Bedeutung und Entwicklung der at­ tischen Sage bis auf Euripides, PhD thesis Zürich. Erp Taalman Kip, A. Maria van (2009) ‚καὶ μήν, καὶ δή and ἤδη in tragedy and comedy‘, in: Stephanie Bakker and Geri C. Wakker (eds.), Discourse cohe­ sion in ancient Greek, Leiden/Boston, 111–33. Eyben, Emiel (1980–1981) ‘Family planning in Graeco-Roman antiquity’, Anc­ Soc 11/12, 5–82. Eysert, Leopold (1880) Über die Aechtheit des Prologes in Euripides Ion (Progr. Neustädter Gymn. Prag), Prague.

570

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Fabrini, Pierangiolo (1970) ‘Su uno studio delle strutture nell’Ione di Euripide’, SCO 19–20, 310–24. Fantuzzi, Marco (1990) ‘Sulla scenografia dell’ora (e del luogo) nella tragedia greca’, MD 24, 9–30. Faraone, Christopher A. (1995) ‘The “performative future” in three Hellenistic incantations and Theocritus’ Second Idyll’, CPh 90, 1–15. Farnell, Lewis R. (1896–1909) The cults of the Greek states, Oxford. Farrington, Andrew (1991) ‘Γνῶθι σαυτόν. Social self-knowledge in Euripides’ Ion’, RhM 134, 120–36. Fehling, Detlev (1969) Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias, Berlin. — (1974) Ethologische Überlegungen auf dem Gebiet der Altertumskunde. Phallische Demonstration, Fernsicht, Steinigung, Munich. Fehrle, Eugen (1910) Die kultische Keuschheit im Altertum, Gießen. Ferguson, John (1969) ‘Tetralogies, divine paternity, and the plays of 414’, TAPA 100, 109–17. Fernandelli, Marco (2002) ‘Banchetto a teatro e teatro a banchetto: presenze dello Ione di Euripide nel libro I dell’Eneide’, Orpheus n.s. 23, 1–28. Ferrari, Gloria (2008) Alcman and the cosmos of Sparta, Chicago/London. Finkelberg, Margalit (1991) ‘Royal succession in heroic Greece’, CQ n.s. 41, 303–16. Finglass, Patrick J. (2009a) ‘Unpublished conjectures at Leiden on the Greek dramatists’, GRBS 49, 187–221. — (2009b) ‘Orthographica Sophoclea’, Philologus 153, 206–28. Fisher, N.R.E. (1992) Hybris. A study in the values of honour and shame in ancient Greece, Warminster. Fisher, Roger S. (2016) Women’s playthings: the meaning of δούλευμα in Soph. Ant. 756, Eur. Ion 748, and Eur. Or. 221’, Philologus 160, 197–216. Fletcher, Judith (2012) Performing oaths in classical Greek drama, Cambridge. Flower, Michael A. (2008) The seer in ancient Greece, Berkeley/London. Foley, Helene P. (1985) Ritual irony. Poetry and sacrifice in Euripides, Ithaca. Fontenrose, Joseph E. (1978) The Delphic oracle. Its responses and operations. With a catalogue of responses, Berkeley. Ford, Andrew (2006) ‘The genre of genres. Paeans and Paian in early Greek poetry’, Poetica 38, 277–95. Forehand, W.E. (1979) ‘Truth and reality in Euripides’ Ion’, Ramus 8, 174–87. Fowler, Robert L. (1988) ‘ΑΙΓ- in early Greek language and myth’, Phoenix 42, 95–113. Fraenkel, Eduard (1912) De media et nova comoedia quaestiones selectae, PhD thesis Göttingen. — (1917–1918) ‘Lyrische Daktylen I’ RhM 72, 161–97. — (1932) ‘Selbstmordwege’, Philologus 87, 470–3. — (1962) Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes, Rome. — (1963) Zu den Phoenissen des Euripides, Munich. — (1964) Kleine Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie. Erster Band, Rome.



Bibliography

571

Fraenkel, Ernst (1906) Griechische Denominativa in ihrer geschichtlichen Ent­ wicklung und Verbreitung, Göttingen. Fragoulaki, Maria (2013) Kinship in Thucydides. Intercommunal ties and his­ torical narrative, Oxford. François, G. (1957) Le polythéisme et l’emploi au singulier des mots ΘΕΟΣ, ΔΑΙΜΩΝ dans la littérature grecque d’Homère à Platon, Paris. Freitag, Klaus (1999) Der Golf von Korinth. Historisch-topographische Unter­ suchungen von der Archaik bis in das 1. Jh. v. Chr, Munich. Freytag, Gustav (1894) The technique of the drama. An exposition of dramatic composition and art, Chicago. Frickenhaus, August H. (1917) Die altgriechische Bühne, Strasbourg. Friedländer, Paul (1912) Johannes von Gaza und Paulus Silentiarius. Kunstbes­ chreibungen Justinianischer Zeit, Leipzig. Friedrich, Claus (1955) Die dramatische Funktion der Euripideischen Gnomen mit Hinweisen auf das Interpolationenproblem, Freiburg i. Br. Friedrich, Wolf-Hartmut (1953) Euripides und Diphilos. Zur Dramaturgie der Spätformen, Munich. Friis Johansen, Holger (1959) General reflection in tragic rhesis. A study of form, Copenhagen. Fritzsche, Franz V. (1856) De Euripidis choris glyconeo polyschematisto, Rostock 1856. — (1857) De choris Euripideis, Rostock 1857. Frohwein, Eugen (1868) ‘De adverbiis Graecis’, in: Georg Curtius (ed.), Stu­ dien zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik. Erster Band, Leipzig, 63–132. Führer, Rudolf (1967) Formproblem-Untersuchungen zu den Reden in der früh­ griechischen Lyrik, Munich. Furley, William D. (1996) Andokides and the herms. A study of crisis in fifth-cen­ tury Athenian religion, London. — (1999–2000) ‘Hymns in Euripidean tragedy’, ICS 24–25, 183–97. Gagarin, Michael (1979) ‘The prosecution of homicide in Athens’, GRBS 20, 301–23. Gager, John G. (1992) Curse tablets and binding spells from the ancient world, New York/Oxford. Garland, Robert (1985) The Greek way of death, London. — (1990) The Greek way of life. From conception to old age, London. Garrison, Elise P. (1991) ‘Attitudes toward suicide in ancient Greece’, TAPA 121, 1–34. — (1995) Groaning tears. Ethical and dramatic aspects of suicide in Greek tragedy, Leiden. Garzya, Antonio (1997) ‘L’ekphrasis nella tragedia greca’, in: Antonio Garzya (ed.), La parola e la scena. Studi sul teatro antico da Eschilo a Plauto, Naples, 47–58. Gauger, Barbara (1977) Gott und Mensch im Ion des Euripides. Untersuchun­ gen zum Dritten Epeisodion des Dramas, Bonn.

572

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Gavrilov, A.K. (1994) ‘Die delphischen Vögel im euripideischen Prolog (Eur. Ion 154–183) [Russ. with German summ.]’, Hyperboreus 1, 92–112. — (2002) ‘Apollons Orakelspruch im Ion des Euripides (Dramaturgie, Theologie und Politik)’, Hyperboreus 8, 43–71. Geiger, Karl A. (1888) Der Selbstmord im klassischen Altertum, Augsburg. Gellie, George (1984) ‘Apollo in the Ion’, Ramus 13, 93–101. George, Coulter H. (2005) Expressions of agency in ancient Greek, Cambridge. Germain, Louis R.F. (1984) ‘Apothesis ou enkthesis [!]. Problème de terminologie en matière d’exposition d’enfants’, in: Arnoldo Biscardi et al. (eds.), ΜΝΗΜΗ Georges A. Petropoulos (1897–1964), Athens, 387–98. Gernet, Louis (1955) Droit et société dans la Grèce ancienne, Paris. Gerschewitsch, I. (1938) ‘-t-, -ti-, -to- suffissi di nomina actionis in composti omerici e rigvedici’, SIFC 15, 131–61. Ghiron-Bistagne, Paulette (1984–1985) ‘La parodo dello Ione di Euripide: interpretazione, funzione’, Dioniso 55, 237–48. Giannopoulou, Vasiliki (1999–2000) ‘Divine agency and Tyche in Euripides’ Ion. Ambiguity and shifting perspectives’, ICS 24–25, 257–71. Gibert, John (1995) Change of mind in Greek tragedy, Göttingen. — (2011) ‘Hellenicity in later Euripidean tragedy’, in: David Carter (ed.), Why Athens? A reappraisal of tragic politics, Oxford, 383–401. Gieselbusch, Hermann (1923) Die literarische Form der griechischen Entrück­ ungsgeschichten, PhD thesis Hamburg. Gill, Christopher et al. (eds.) (1998) Reciprocity in ancient Greece, Oxford. Gill, David W.J. and Michael J. Vickers (1994) Artful crafts. Ancient Greek sil­ verware and pottery, Oxford. Ginouvès, René (1962) Balaneutikè. Recherches sur le bain dans l’antiquité grecque, Paris. Gioia, Ted (2006) Work songs, Durham NC. Giraud, M.H. (1987) ‘Les oiseaux dans l’“Ion” d’Euripide’, RPh 41, 83–94. Giuliani, Luca (2000) ‘Die Giganten als Gegenbilder der attischen Bürger im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v.Chr’, in: Tonio Hölscher (ed.), Gegenwelten zu den Kulturen Griechenlands und Roms in der Antike, Munich/Leipzig, 263–86. Glaser, Franz (1983) Antike Brunnenbauten (κρῆναι) in Griechenland, Vienna. Glotz, Gustave (1906) Études sociales et juridiques sur l’antiquité grecque, Paris. Gmür, Ansgar (1920) Das Wiedererkennungsmotiv in den Dramen des Euripid­ es, PhD thesis Fribourg. Gödde, Susanne (2011) euphêmia. Die gute Rede in Kult und Literatur der griechischen Antike, Heidelberg. Goff, Barbara (1988) ‘Euripides’ Ion 1132–1165: the tent’, PCPhS 34, 42–54. Golden, Mark (1985) ‘Pais, “child” and “slave”’, AntCl 54, 91–104. — (1986) ‘Names and naming at Athens: three studies’, EMC 30, 245–69. — (1990) Children and childhood in classical Athens, Baltimore/London. Goldstein, Michael S. (1978) The setting of the ritual meal in Greek sanctuaries: 600–300 B.C, PhD thesis Berkeley.



Bibliography

573

Goodell, Thomas D. (1906) ‘Bisected trimeters in Attic tragedy’, CPh 1, 156– 66. Goossens, R. (1962) Euripide et Athènes, Brussels. Gossen-Steier (1923) ‘Schlange (Arten)’, RE II A 1, 521–57. Gould, John (1987) ‘Form, meaning and performance in Euripides’ Ion’, in: European Cultural Center of Delphi (ed.), International meeting of ancient Greek drama. Delphi 8–12 April 1984, Delphi 4–25 June 1985, Athens, 171–4. Gow, A.S.F. (1912) ‘On the meaning of the word ΘΥΜΕΛΗ’, JHS 32, 213–38. Goward, Barbara (1999) Telling tragedy. Narrative technique in Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, London. Graf, Fritz (1974) Eleusis und die orphische Dichtung Athens in vorhellenis­ tischer Zeit, Berlin/New York. Graft Hanson, J.O. de (1975) ‘Euripides’ Ion: tragic awakening and disillusionment’, MusAfr 4, 27–42. Graham, A.J. (1983) Colony and mother city in ancient Greece, 2nd ed., Chicago. Gras, Michel (1984) ‘Cité grecque et lapidation’, in: Du châtiment dans la cité. Supplices corporels et peine de mort dans le monde antique. Table ronde or­ ganisée par l’École française de Rome avec le concours du Centre national de la recherche scientifique (Rome 9–11 novembre 1982), Paris, 75–89. Grégoire, Henri (1914) ‘Notes de philologie grecque’, Revue de l’Instruction publique en Belgique 57, 126–34. Gregor, D.B. (1957) ‘Ὦ φίλτατ᾿’, CR n.s. 7, 14–15. Gregory, Justina (1995) ‘The encounter at the crossroads in Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus’, JHS 115, 141–146. — (2002) ‘Euripides as social critic’, G&R n.s. 49, 145–62. Gribble, David (2012) ‘Alcibiades at the Olympics: performance, politics and civic ideology’, CQ n.s. 62, 45–71. Groh, Frantisek (1936) ‘De Euripidis Ione commentatiuncula’, in: Munera Phil­ ologica Ludovico Ćwikliński bis sena lustra professoria claudenti ab amicis collegis discipulis oblata, Poznań, 21–2. Groom, Nigel (1981) Frankincense and myrrh. A study of the Arabian incense trade, London/New York. Gross, Adolf (1905) Die Stichomythie in der griechischen Tragödie und Komödie. Ihre Anwendung und ihr Ursprung, Berlin. Groß, W.H. (1967) ‘Xoanon’, RE IX A.2, 2140–9. Grünewald, Cyriakus (1912) Die Satzparenthese bei den zehn attischen Red­ nern, Würzburg. Guardasole, Alessia (2000) Tragedia e medicina nell’ Atene del V secolo a.C, Naples. Guardì, Tommaso (1976) ‘La polemica antiapollinea di Euripide’, Pan 3, 5–23. Günther, Wolfgang (1971) Das Orakel von Didyma in hellenistischer Zeit. Eine Interpretation von Stein-Urkunden, Tübingen. Guthrie, W.K.C. (1969) A History of Greek Philosophy. Vol. III, Cambridge. Gygli-Wyss, Brigitte (1966) Das nominale Polyptoton im älteren Griechisch, Göttingen.

574

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Habicht, Christian (2006) ‘Versäumter Götterdienst’, Historia 55, 153–66. Hadzisteliou Price, Theodora (1978) Kourotrophos. Cults and representations of the Greek nursing deities, Leiden. Hähnle, Alfred (1929) ΓΝΩΡΙΣΜΑΤΑ, PhD thesis Tübingen. Hajistephanou, C.E. (1975) The use of physis and its cognates in Greek tragedy with special reference to character drawing, PhD thesis Nicosia. Hall, Edith (1997) ‘The sociology of Athenian tragedy’, in: Patricia E. Easterling (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Greek tragedy, Cambridge, 93–126. — (2006) ‘Singing roles in tragedy’, in: Edith Hall (ed.), The theatrical cast of Athens. Interactions between ancient Greek drama and society, Oxford, 288–320. Hall, Edith and Fiona Macintosh (2005) Greek tragedy and the British theatre, 1660–1914, Oxford. Hall, Jonathan M. (1997) Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity, Cambridge. — (2002) Hellenicity. Between ethnicity and culture, Chicago/London. Halleran, Michael R. (1985) Stagecraft in Euripides, London. Halliwell, Stephen (2008) Greek laughter. A study of cultural psychology from Homer to early Christianity, Cambridge/New York. Hamilton, Richard (1978) ‘Prologue prophecy and plot in four plays of Euripides’, AJPh 99, 277–302. — (1984) ‘Sources for the Athenian amphidromia’, GRBS 25, 243–51. Hancock, John L. (1917) Studies in stichomythia, PhD thesis Chicago. Hansen, Mogens H. (1976) Apagoge, Endeixis and Ephegesis against Kakour­ goi, Atimoi and Pheugontes. A study in the Athenian administration of jus­ tice in the fourth century B.C, Odense. — (1998) Polis and city-state. An ancient concept and its modern equivalent. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre. Vol. 5, Copenhagen. Harbsmeier, Dietrich G. (1968) Die alten Menschen bei Euripides. Mit einem Anhang über Menelaos und Helena bei Euripides, PhD thesis Göttingen. Harding, Phillip (2008) The story of Athens. The fragments of the local chroni­ cles of Attika, London/New York. Harris, Edward M. (1990a) ‘The constitution of the five thousand’, HSPh 93, 243–80. — (1990b) ‘Did the Athenians regard seduction as a worse crime than rape?’, CQ n.s. 40, 370–7. — (1994) ‘“In the act” or “red-handed”? Apagaoge to the Eleven and furtum manifestum’, in: Gerhard Thür (ed.), Symposion 1993. Vorträge zur griech­ ischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Graz-Andritz, 12.–16. Sep­ tember 1993), Cologne, 169–84. — (2004) ‘Antigone the lawyer, or the ambiguities of Nomos’, in: Edward M. Harris and Lene Rubinstein (eds.), The law and the courts in ancient Greece, London, 19–56. — (2015) ‘The Meaning of the legal term symbolaion, the law about dikai em­ porikai and the role of the paragraphe procedure’, Dike 18, 7–36. Harris, John P. (2012) ‘The swan’s red-dipped foot: Euripides Ion 161–9’, CQ n.s. 62, 510–22.



Bibliography

575

Harrison, E. (1933) ‘Elmsley’s law’, Cambridge University Reporter 54, 296. — (1942) ‘Attic ἦ and ἦν, “I was”’, CR 56, 6–9. Harrison, Jane E. (1900) ‘ÆGIS - ΑΓΡΗΝΟΝ’, BCH 24, 254–62. Harry, J.E. (1923) ‘The Ion of Euripides: emendations and interpretations’, AJPh 44, 56–61. Hartigan, Karelisa V. (1991) Ambiguity and self-deception, Bern/Frankfurt a.M. Hartung, Johann A. (1837) Euripidis Iphigenia in Aulide. Praemittuntur de Eu­ ripidi fabularum interpolatione disputationes duae, Erlangen. Hartwig, Andrew (2007) ‘Euripides Ion 525–7: a case of interrupted speech?’, Mnemosyne ser. 4 60, 478–82. Haslam, Michael W. (1979) ‘O suitably-attired-in-leather-boots. Interpolations in Greek tragedy’, in: Glen W. Bowersock et al. (eds.), Arktouros. Hellenic studies presented to Bernard M.W. Knox on the occasion of his 65th birth­ day, Berlin/New York, 93–100. Hawtrey, R.S.W. (1981) Commentary on Plato’s Euthydemus, Philadelphia. Headlam, Walter (1905), ‘Greek prohibitions’, CR 19, 30–6. Heath, Benjamin (1762) Notae sive lectiones ad tragicorum Graecorum veter­ um Aeschyli Sophoclis Euripidis quae supersunt dramata deperditorumque relliquias, Oxford. Heath, Malcolm (1987) The poetics of Greek tragedy, London. Heckenbach, Joseph (1911) De nuditate sacra sacrisque vinculis, Gießen. Hedrick, Charles W. (1988) ‘The temple and cult of Apollo Patroos in Athens’, AJA 92, 185–210. Heinimann, Felix (1945) Nomos und Physis. Herkunft und Bedeutung einer An­ tithese im griechischen Denken des 5. Jahrhunderts, Basel. Hellmann, Marie-Christine (1999) Choix d’inscriptions architecturales grecques, Lyon. Henderson, Jeffrey (1987) ‘Older women in Attic Old Comedy’, TAPA 117, 105–29. Henning, Erich (1910) De tragicorum atticorum narrationibus, PhD thesis Göttingen. Henrichs, Albert (1982) ‚Changing Dionysiac Identities‘, in: Ben F. Meyer and E. P. Sanders (ed.), Jewish and Christian self-definition, III. Self-definition in the Graeco-Roman world, London, 137–160, 213–36. — (1996) ‘Dancing in Athens, dancing on Delos: some patterns of choral projection in Euripides’, Philologus 140, 48–62. — (2000) ‘Drama and dromena: bloodshed, violence, and sacrificial metaphor in Euripides’, HSPh 100, 173–88. Hense, Carl C. (1868) Poetische Personification in griechischen Dichtungen mit Berücksichtigung lateinischer Dichter und Shakespere’s. Erster Theil, Halle. Hense, Otto (1876) De Ionis fabulae Euripideae partibus choricis commentatio, Leipzig. — (1901) ‘Zum Ion des Euripides’, Philologus 60, 381–401. Herman, Gabriel (2006) Morality and behaviour in democratic Athens. A social history, Cambridge.

576

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Hermann, Gottfried (1816) Elementa doctrinae metricae, Leipzig. Herwerden, Henricus van (1862) Exercitationes criticae in poeticis et prosaicis quibusdam atticorum monumentis, Den Haag. — (1874) ‘Adnotationes criticae et exegeticae in Euripidem. Pars altera’, in: Verslagen en mededeelingen der koninklijk akademie van weteschappen. Afedeeling Letterkunde. II/4, Amsterdam, 157–213. Higgins, Reynold A. (1980) Greek and Roman jewellery, 2nd ed., Berkeley/Los Angeles. Hignett, C. (1952) A history of the Athenian constitution to the end of the fifth century B.C, Oxford. Hirata, F.Y. (1995) ‘Un enfant abandonné: Ion d’Euripide’, in: Danièle Auger (ed.), Enfants et enfances dans les mythologies. Actes du VIIe colloque du Centre de Recherches Mythologiques de l’Université de Paris-X (Chantilly, 16–18 septembre 1992), Paris, 137–44. Hirzel, Rudolf (1907–1910) ‘Die Talion’, Philologus Suppl. 11, 405–82. — (1908) ‘Der Selbstmord’, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 11, 75–104, 243– 84, 417–76. Hoepfner, Wolfram (1976) Das Pompeion und seine Nachfolgerbauten, Berlin. Hoffer, Stanley E. (1996) ‘Violence, culture, and the workings of ideology in Euripides’ Ion’, CA 15, 289–318. Hoffman, David C. (2008) ‘Concerning Eikos: social expectation and Verisimilitude in early Attic rhetoric’, Rhetorica 26, 1–29. Hoffmann, Klaus F. (1997) Das Recht im Denken der Sophistik, Stuttgart. Hollmann, Alexander (2012) ‘Kleisthenes the stoner: Herodotus 5.67.2’, Mne­ mosyne ser. 4 65, 1–17. Holzhausen, Jens (1999) ‘Textprobleme im Ion des Euripides’, Hyperboreus 5, 227–37. Holzner, Eugen (1895) Studien zu Euripides, Vienna. Hooff, Anton J.L. van (1990) From autothanasia to suicide. Self-killing in clas­ sical antiquity, London. Hopper, R.J. (1960) ‘A Note on Aristophanes, Lysistrata 665–70’, CQ n.s. 10, 242–7. Horna, Konstantin (1932) ‘Metrische Bemerkungen zum Prolog des Ion’, WS 50, 175–9. Hornblower, Simon (1987) Thucydides, London. Hose, Martin (1990) Studien zum Chor bei Euripides. I, Stuttgart. — (1991) Studien zum Chor bei Euripides. II, Stuttgart. — (1994) ‘Zur Elision des αι im Tragödienvers’, Hermes 122, 32–43. — (1995) Drama und Gesellschaft. Studien zur dramatischen Produktion in Athen am Ende des 5. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart. — (2008) Euripides. Der Dichter der Leidenschaften, Munich. Hourmouziades, Nicolaos C. (1965) Production and imagination in Euripides. Form and function of the scenic space, Athens. Huart, Pierre (1968) Le vocabulaire de l’analyse psychologique dans l’oeuvre de Thucydide, Paris. Hude, Carl (1901) ‘Über γάρ in appositiven Ausdrücken’, Hermes 36, 313–15.



Bibliography

577

Hudson-Williams, A. (1952) ‘Euripides, Ion 375–7’, CR n.s. 2, 145–6. Hübner, Ulrich (1983) ‘Euripides, Ion 121’, RhM 126, 94–5. Hülsewiesche, Reinhold (2004) ‘Redefreiheit’, ABG 44, 103–43. Hughes, Dennis D. (1991) Human sacrifice in ancient Greece, London. Humphreys, Sally C. (1985) ‘Social relations on stage: witnesses in classical Athens’, History and Anthropology 1, 313–69. Hunter, Richard (2011) ‘Apollo and the Ion of Euripides: nothing to do with Nietzsche?’, TIC 3, 18–37. Hurwit, Jeffrey M. (1999) The Athenian Acropolis. History, mythology, and ar­ chaeology from the Neolithic era to the present, Cambridge. Huys, Marc (1990a) ‘Dood zijn en niet dood zijn tegelijk’, Hermeneus 62, 95–102. — (1990b) ‘Euripides, Auge, fr. 265, 272, 278, 864 N.2 and the role of Herakles in the play’, in: Maurice Geerard (ed.), Opes Atticae. Miscellanea philolog­ ica et historica Raymondo Bogaert et Hermanno Van Looy oblata (=Sacris erudiri, 31, 1989–90), Steenbrugge, 169–85. — (1993) ‘Euripides, Ion l. 752–755 and 763–765: Kreousa‘s reaction to the false news of her ἀτεκνία’, Hermes 121, 422–32. — (1995) The tale of the hero who was exposed at birth in Euripidean tragedy. A study of motifs, Leuven. Iakov (or Iakob), Daniel I. (1975) ‘Ευριπιδη Ιων 255’, EEThess 14, 375–86. —  (2011) ‘Fragmenting the self: society and psychology in Euripides’ Electra and Ion’, in: Andreas Markantonatos and Bernhard Zimmermann (eds.), Crisis on stage. Tragedy and comedy in late fifth-century Athens, Berlin, 121–37. Imhof, Max (1956) ‘Tetrameterszenen in der Tragödie’, MH 13, 125–43. — (1966) Euripides’ Ion. Eine literarische Studie, Bern/Munich. Immerwahr, H. R. (1972) ‘Αθηναικες εικονες στον Ιωνα του Ευριπιδη’, Helle­ nika 27, 277–97. Ingenkamp, Heinz G. (1971) ‘Zwei Studien zum Handeln euripideischer Gestalten’, WS n.F. 5, 74–90. Irigoin, Jean (2002) ‘Un révélateur métrique: le décompte des temps marqués dans la poésie lyrique grecque’, Pallas 59, 91–101. Irvine, James A.D. (1997) ‘Euripides’ Ion l. 1 and Pap. Herc. 1088 2 a reconsidered’, ZPE 117, 1–8. — (1999a) ‘Gorgons at Delphi? Euripides, Ion 224’, RhM 142, 9–15. — (1999b) ‘Two notes on Euripides’ Ion’, Hermes 127, 377–81. Irwin, Eleanor (1974) Colour terms in Greek poetry, Toronto. Italie, Gabriel (1952) ‘Ad Aeschyli Sept. 217’, Mnemosyne ser. 4 5, 221–3. Itsumi, Kiichiro (1982) ‘The ‘choriambic dimeter’ of Euripides’, CQ n.s. 32, 59–74. — (1984) ‘The glyconic in tragedy’, CQ n.s. 34, 66–82. — (1991–1993) ‘Enoplian in tragedy’, BICS 38, 243–61. Jachmann, Günther (1936) Binneninterpolation, Göttingen. Jackson, John (1941a) ‘Marginalia Scenica. I’, CQ 35, 29–51. — (1941b) ‘Marginalia Scenica. II’, CQ 35, 163–87. — (1955) Marginalia Scaenica, London.

578

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Jacobs, Friedrich C.W. (1790) Animadversiones in Euripidis Tragoedias, Gotha/ Amsterdam. — (1796) Exercitationes criticae in scriptores veteres. Tomus primus, Leipzig. Jacoby, Carl (1876) ‘Zu Euripides’, Jahrb. f. class. Phil. 113, 186–90. Jaeger, Werner (1934–1947) Paideia. Die Formung des griechischen Menschen, Berlin. Janko, Richard (2000) On poems, Oxford. Jannoray, J. (1940) ‘Nouvelles inscriptions de Lébadée’, BCH 64–65, 36–59. Jenkins, Ian (1983) ‘Is there life after marriage? A study of the abduction motif in vase paintings of the Athenian wedding ceremony’, BICS 30, 136–45. Jodrell, Richard P. (1781) Illustrations of Euripides, on the Ion and the Bacchae, London. Johnston, Sarah I. (1999) Restless Dead. Encounters between the living and the dead in ancient Greece, Berkeley. Jones, Christopher P. (1999) Kinship diplomacy in the ancient world, Cambridge MA/London. Jong, Irene J.F. de (1991) Narrative in drama: the art of the Euripidean messen­ ger-speech, Leiden. — (1997) ‘γάρ introducing embedded narratives’, in: Albert Rijksbaron (ed.), New approaches to Greek particles. Proceedings of the colloquium held in Amsterdam, January 4–6, 1996, to honour C.J. Ruijgh on the occasion of his retirement, Amsterdam, 175–85. — (2007) ‘Sophocles Trachiniae 1–48, Euripidean prologues, and their audiences’, in: Rutger Allan and Michel Buijs (eds.), The language of literature. Linguistic approaches to classical texts, Leiden/Boston, 7–28. Judet de La Combe, Pierre (2006) ‘An instance of Euripidean ‘modernism’: Orestes 1–3’, in: Douglas L. Cairns and Vayos Liapis (eds.), Dionysalexan­ dros. Essays on Aeschylus and his fellow tragedians in honour of Alexander F. Garvie, Swansea, 173–84. Just, Roger (1989) Women in Athenian law and life, London. Käppel, Lutz (1992) Paian. Studien zur Geschichte einer Gattung, Berlin. Kahn, Charles H. (1973) The verb “be” in ancient Greek, Indianapolis IN. Kaimio, Maarit (1977) Characterization of sound in early Greek literature, Helsinki. — (1988) Physical contact in Greek tragedy. A study of stage conventions, Helsinki. Kamerbeek, J.C. (1948) ‘On the conception of ΘΕΟΜΑΧΟΣ in relation to Greek tragedy’, Mnemosyne ser. 4 1, 271–83. Kanz, Joseph (1913) De tetrametro trochaico, PhD thesis Gießen. Kapparis, K.A. (2002) Abortion in the ancient world, London. Karo, G. (1909) ‘En marge de quelques textes delphiques’, BCH 33, 201–37. Kassel, Rudolf (1958) Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen Konso­ lationsliteratur, Munich. Kastner, Wolfgang (1967) Die griechischen Adjektive zweier Endungen auf -ΟΣ, Heidelberg. Katsouris, A.G. (1976) ‘The suicide motif in ancient drama’, Dioniso 47, 5–36.



Bibliography

579

Kauer, Sigrid (1959) Die Geburt der Athena im altgriechischen Epos, Würzburg. Kearns, Emily (1989) The Heroes of Attica, London. Kees, Hermann (1933) ‘Musai’, RE 16.1, 680–757. Kemmer, Ernst (1903) Die polare Ausdrucksweise in der griechischen Litera­ tur, Würzburg. Kerényi, Karl (1949) ‘Ziegenfell und Gorgoneion’, AIPhO 9, 299–312. Keyßner, Karl (1932) Gottesvorstellung und Lebensauffassung im griechischen Hymnus, Stuttgart. Kiefner, Gottfried (1964) Die Versparung. Untersuchungen zu einer Stilfigur der dichterischen Rhetorik am Beispiel der griechischen Tragödie (unter Berücksichtigung des σχῆμα ἀπὸ κοινοῦ), Wiesbaden. Kindt, Julia (2007) ‘Apollo’s oracle in Euripides’ Ion. Ambiguous identities in fifth-century Athens’, Ancient Narrative 6, 1–30. Kingsley, Peter (1995) ‘Notes on Air: Four Questions of Meaning in Empedocles and Anaxagoras’, CQ n.s. 45, 26–9. Kircher, Karl (1910) Die sakrale Bedeutung des Weines im Altertum, Gießen. Kirk, G.S. et al. (1983) The presocratic philosophers. A critical history with a selection of texts, Cambridge. Kitto, H.D.F. (1961) Greek tragedy. A literary study, 3rd ed., London. Klimek-Winter, Rainer (1996) ‘Euripides in den dramatischen Agonen Athens. Zur Datierung des Ion’, Gymnasium 103, 289–97. Klinkenberg, Joseph (1881) De Euripideorum prologorum arte et interpolatio­ ne, Bonn. Klotz, O. (1917) Untersuchungen zu Euripides’ Ion, PhD thesis Leipzig. Knox, B.M.W. (1971) ‘Euripidean comedy’, in: Alan Cheuse and Richard Koffler (eds.), The rarer action. Essays in honor of Francis Fergusson, New Brunswick, 68–96. — (1979) repr. of (1971) in: id., Word and action. Essays on the ancient theater, Baltimore/London, 250–74. Kock, Theodor (1873) ‘Veri similia’, in: Jahrb. f. class. Phil. Suppl. 6, 161–272. Koenen, Ludwig and Reinhold Merkelbach (1976) ‘Apollodoros (περὶ θεῶν), Epicharm und die Meropis’, in: Ann E. Hanson (ed.), Collectanea papyro­ logica. Texts published in honor of H. C. Youtie. Part one. Numbers 1–65, Bonn, 3–26. Kokkorou-Alewras, G. (1990) ‘Herakles and the Lernaean Hydra (Labour II)’, LIMC V.1, 34–43. Koppers, Bertha Th. (1959) Negative conditional sentences in Greek and other Indo-European languages, The Hague. Kopperschmidt, Josef (1967) Die Hikesie als dramatische Form. Zur motiv­ ischen Interpretation des griechischen Dramas, PhD thesis Tübingen. Korver, Jan (1934) De terminologie van het crediet-wezen in het Grieksch, Amsterdam. Korzeniewski, Dietmar (1968) Griechische Metrik, Darmstadt. Kosak, Jennifer Clarke (2004) Heroic measures. Hippocratic medicine in the making of Euripidean tragedy, Leiden.

580

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Koster, W.J.W. (1976) ‘Le temple d’Apollon à Delphes et l’Ion d’Euripide’, in: J. S. Boersma and et al. (eds.), Festoen. Opgedragen aan A.N. Zadoks-Jo­ sephus Jitta bij haar zeventigste verjaardag, Groningen/Bussum, 373–82. Kovacs, David (1979) ‘Four passages from Euripides’ Ion’, TAPA 109, 111–24. — (1982) ‘Tyrants and demagogues in tragic interpolation’, GRBS 23, 31–50. — (1984) rev. Euripides ed. J. Diggle, AJPh 105, 236–41. — (2003) Euripidea Tertia, Leiden. — (2005) ‘Text and transmission’, in: Justina Gregory (ed.), A companion to Greek tragedy, Malden MA, 379–93. Kranz, Walther (1910) De forma stasimi, Berlin. — (1933) Stasimon. Untersuchungen zu Form und Gehalt der griechischen Tragödie, Berlin. Kraus, Manfred (1987) Name und Sache. Ein Problem im frühgriechischen Denken, Amsterdam. Kraus, Theodor (1960) Hekate. Studien zu Wesen und Bild der Göttin in Klein­ asien und Griechenland, Heidelberg. Kretschmer, Paul (1920) ‘Literaturbericht für das Jahr 1916. Griechisch’, Glotta 10, 213–45. Krieg, Werner (1936) ‘Der trochäische Tetrameter bei Euripides’, Philologus 91, 42–51. Kron, Uta (1976) Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen. Geschichte, Mythos, Kult und Darstellungen, Berlin. Kugelmeier, Christoph (1996) Reflexe früher und zeitgenössischer Lyrik in der alten attischen Komödie, Stuttgart. Kunze-Götte, Erika (2006) Myrte als Attribut und Ornament auf attischen Vasen, Kilchberg. Kurt, Christoph (1979) Seemännische Fachausdrücke bei Homer. Unter Berück­ sichtigung Hesiods und der Lyriker bis Bakchylides, Göttingen. Kurtz, Donna C. and John Boardman (1971) Greek burial customs, London. Kurtz, Ewald (1985) Die bildliche Ausdrucksweise in den Tragödien des Eurip­ ides, Amsterdam. Kvíčala, Johann (1880) ‘Studien zu Euripides. Zweiter Theil. (Alkestis, Ion, Hekabe)’, SBVienna 30, 67–158. La Coste-Messelière, Pierre de (1931) Art archaique (fin): sculptures de tem­ ples, Paris. — (1957) Sculptures du Trésor des Athéniens, Paris. Lacey, W. K. (1968) The family in classical Greece, London. Lada-Richards, Ismene (1999) Initiating Dionysus. Ritual and theatre in Aristo­ phanes’ Frogs, Oxford. Laird, A.G. (1922) ‘On causal ὅταν’, CQ 16, 37–43. Lambert, Garth R. (1982) ‘Childless by choice: Graeco-Roman arguments and their uses’, Prudentia 14, 123–38. Lamberterie, Charles de (1990) Les adjectifs grecs en -υς. Sémantique et com­ paraison, Louvain. Lambrinoudakis, Vassilis (2005) ‘3.b. Consecration, foundation rites’, ThesCRA III, 303–46.



Bibliography

581

Lammers, Joseph (1931) Die Doppel- und Halbchöre in der antiken Tragödie, Paderborn. Langholf, Volker (1971) Die Gebete bei Euripides und die zeitliche Folge der Tragödien, Göttingen. Lanza, Diego (1977) Il tiranno e il suo pubblico, Turin. Lape, Susan (2001) ‘Democratic ideology and the poetics of rape in Menandrian comedy’, ClAnt 20, 79–119. — (2010) Race and citizen identity in the classical Athenian democracy, Cambridge. LaRue, J. (1963) ‘Creusa’s monody: Ion 859–922’, TAPA 94, 126–36. Lattimore, Richmond (1979) ‘Optatives of consent and refusal’, in: Glen W. Bowersock et al. (eds.), Arktouros. Hellenic studies presented to Bernard M.W. Knox on the occasion of his 65th birthday, Berlin/New York, 209–16. Lattimore, Steven (1976) The marine thiasos in Greek sculpture, Los Angeles. Lautensach, Otto (1899) Grammatische Studien zu den griechischen Tragikern und Komikern. Augment und Reduplikation, Hanover. — (1911) Die Aoriste bei den attischen Tragikern und Komikern, Göttingen. — (1916) ‘Grammatische Studien zu den attischen Tragikern und Komikern. Konjunktiv und Optativ’, Glotta 7, 92–116. Lavelle, Brian M. (1997) ‘Epikouros and epikouroi in early Greek literature and history’, GRBS 38, 229–62. Lawler, Lillian B. (1964) The dance in ancient Greece, London. Lee, Kevin H. (1969) ‘Two illogical expressions in Euripides’, CR n.s. 19, 13– 14. — (1975) ‘Euripides’ Andromache: observations on form and meaning’, An­ tichthon 9, 4–16. — (1991) ‘Euripides Ion 351–359’, Hermes 119, 469–71. — (1996) ‘Shifts of mood and concepts of time in Euripides’ Ion’, in: Michael S. Silk (ed.), Tragedy and the tragic, Oxford, 85–109. Lefkowitz, Mary R. (1993) ‘Seduction and rape in Greek myth’, in: Angliki E. Laiou (ed.), Consent and coercion to sex and marriage in ancient and me­ dieval societies, Washington DC, 17–37. — (2016) Euripides and the gods, Oxford. Lehoux, Daryn (2007) ‘Drugs and the Delphic oracle’, CW 101, 41–56. Leimbach, Rüdiger (1971) Euripides Ion. Eine Interpretation, PhD thesis Frankfurt/Main. Leisner-Jensen, Mogens (2002) ‘Vis comica: consummated rape in Greek and Roman comedy’, C&M 53, 173–96. Lejeune Dirichlet, Gustav (1914) De veterum macarismis, Gießen. Lejeune, Michel (1939) Les adverbes grecs en -θεν, Bordeaux. Lendle, Otto (1995) ‘Überlegungen zum Bühnenkram’, in: Egert Pöhlmann (ed.), Studien zur Bühnendichtung und zum Theaterbau der Antike, Frankfurt/Main, 165–72. Leo, Friedrich (1908) Der Monolog im Drama. Ein Beitrag zur griechisch-rö­ mischen Poetik, Berlin. Lesky, Albin (1972) Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen, 3rd ed., Göttingen.

582

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Leumann, Manu (1950) Homerische Wörter, Basel. Levinson (1862) Animadversiones ad Ionis Euripideae canticum primum et parodum (Progr. Ratibor), Racibórz. Levy, Harry L. (1973) ‘Euripides, Bacchae 1167’, Mnemosyne ser. 4 26, 282–4. Ley, Graham (2007) The theatricality of Greek tragedy. Playing space and cho­ rus, Chicago/London. Lhôte, Éric (2006) Les lamelles oraculaires de Dodone, Geneva. Lindau (1839) ‘Beitrag zur Erklärung und Kritik des Euripides’, Zeitschr. f. d. Alterthumsw. 6, 483–98. Linders, Tullia (1994) ‘Sacred menus on Delos’, in: Robin Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek cult practice from the epigraphical evidence, Proceedings of the sec­ ond international seminar on ancient Greek cult, organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 22–24 November 1991, Stockholm, 71–9. Lissarague, François (1995) ‘Un rituel du vin: la libation’, in: Oswyn Murray and Manuela Tecusan (eds.), In vino veritas, Rome, 126–44. Listmann, G.F. Karl (1910) Die Technik des Dreigesprächs in der griechischen Tragödie, PhD thesis Gießen. Lloyd, G.E.R. (1983) Science, folklore and ideology. Studies in the life sciences in ancient Greece, Cambridge. Lloyd, Michael A. (1986) ‘Divine and human action in Euripides’ Ion’, A&A 32, 33–45. — (1992) The Agon in Euripides, Oxford/New York. — (1999) ‘The tragic aorist’, CQ n.s. 49, 24–45. — (2006) ‘Sophocles in the light of face-threat politeness theory’, in: Irene J. F. de Jong and Albert Rijksbaron (eds.), Sophocles and the Greek language. Aspects of diction, syntax and pragmatics, Leiden, 225–39. Lloyd-Jones, Hugh (1957) ‘Euripidea’, CR n.s. 7, 97–100. Lloyd-Jones, Hugh and Nigel G. Wilson (1990) Sophoclea. Studies on the text of Sophocles, Oxford. — (1997) Sophocles. Second thoughts, Götttingen. Long, A.A. (1968) Language and thought in Sophocles. A study of abstract nouns and poetic technique, London. Lonsdale, Steven (1993) Dance and ritual play in Greek religion, Baltimore/ London. Looy, Herman van (1973) ‘παρετυμολογεῖ ὁ Εὐριπίδης’, in: Zetesis. Album am­ icorum door vrienden en collega’s aangeboden aan Prof. E. de Strycker, Antwerpen/Utrecht, 345–66. Loraux, Nicole (1987) Tragic ways of killing a woman (French orig. 1985), Cambridge MA/London. — (1990) ‘Kreusa the autochthon: a study in Euripides’ Ion’, in: Froma I. Zeitlin and John J. Winkler (eds.), Nothing to do with Dionysos? Athenian drama in its social context, Princeton, 168–206. Lorentz, Friedrich von (1937) ‘Βαρβάρων ὑφάσματα’, MDAI(R) 52, 165–222. Lourenço, Frederico (2011) The lyric metres of Euripidean drama, Coimbra. Lowe, J.C.B. (1962) ‘The manuscript evidence for changes of speaker in Aristophanes’, BICS 9, 27–42.



Bibliography

583

Lowry, Eddie (1988) ‘Euripides’ Ion and Rank’s hero myth’, CB 64, 15–20. Lubotsky, Alexander M. (2006) ‘Indo-European “heel”’, in: Raffaella Bombi et al. (eds.), Studi linguistici in onore di Roberto Gusmani, Alessandria, 1005–10. Ludwig, Walther (1954) Sapheneia. Ein Beitrag zur Formkunst im Spätwerk des Euripides, PhD thesis Tübingen. Lundgreen, Birte (1997) ‘A methodological inquiry: the great bronze Athena by Pheidias’, JHS 117, 190–7. Luppe, Wolfgang (1983) ‘Atlas-Zitate im 1. Buch von Philodems De Pietate’, CErc 13, 45–52. — (1986) ‘Παννυχὶς καὶ χορεία’, ZPE 64, 50. — (1998) ‘Nochmals zum Anfangsvers des ‘Ion’ bei Philodem’, ZPE 120, 17– 18. Lupu, Eran (2004) Greek sacred law. A collection of new documents, Leiden. Luschey, Heinz (1940) ‘Phiale’, RE Suppl. VII, 1026–30. Maas, Martha and Jane M. Snyder (1989) Stringed instruments of ancient Greece, New Haven/London. Maas, Paul (1962) Greek metre, Oxford. Mack, William (2015) Proxeny and polis. Institutional networks in the ancient Greek world, Oxford. MacLachlan, Bonnie (1993) The age of grace. Charis in early Greek poetry, Princeton. Madvig, Johan N. (1847) ‘I. N. Madvigii emendationes per saturam’, Philologus 2, 135–44. — (1871) Adversaria critica ad scriptores graecos et latinos. I, Copenhagen. Maehler, Herwig (2000) ‘Beobachtungen zum Gebrauch des Satz-Asyndetons bei Bakchylides und Pindar’, in: Maria Cannatà Fera and Simonetta Grandolini (eds.), Poesia e religione in Grecia. Studi in onore di G. Aurelio Pri­ vitera, Naples, 421–30. Magnani, Massimo (2000) La tradizione manoscritta degli Eraclidi di Euripide, Bologna. Marcovich, Miroslav (1984) Three-word trimeter in Greek tragedy, Königstein. Mark, Ira S. (1993) The Sanctuary of Athena Nike in Athens. Architectural stag­ es and chronology, Princeton, NJ. Markovic, Daniel (2006) ‘Hyperbaton in the Greek literary sentence’, GRBS 46, 127–46. Martin, Gunther (2009) Divine talk. Religious argumentation in Demosthenes, Oxford. — (2010a) ‘On the date of Euripides’ Ion’, CQ n.s. 60, 647–51. — (2010b) ‘Three deletions in Euripides’ Ion’, GRBS 50, 29–40. — (2015) ‘Weben und Wahrheit. Die Hermeneutik von Geweben in Euripides’ Ion’, in: Henriette Harich-Schwarzbauer (ed.), Weben und Gewebe in der Antike:  Materialität – Repräsentation – Episteme – Metapoetik. / Texts and textiles in the ancient world: Materiality – Representation – Episteme – Metapoetics. Ancient Textile Series, Oxford, 133–45.

584

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

— (2016) ‘Durch Konjektur zum Verschwörer. Zu Eur. Ion 690–693’, WS 129, 63–9. Mastronarde, Donald J. (1975) ‘Iconography and imagery in Euripides’ Ion’, CSCA 8, 163–76. — (1979) Contact and discontinuity. Some conventions of speech and action on the Greek tragic stage, Berkeley. — (1988) Euripides. Phoenissae, Leipzig. — (1990) ‘Actors on high: the skene roof, the crane, and the gods in Attic drama’, ClAnt 9, 247–94. — (2003) repr. of (1975) in: Judith Mossman (ed.), Oxford readings in classical studies. Euripides, Oxford, 295–308. — (2005) ‘The gods’, in: Justina Gregory (ed.), A companion to Greek tragedy, Malden MA, 321–32. — (2010) The art of Euripides. Dramatic technique and social context, Cambridge. Matthaei, Louise E. (1918) Studies in Greek tragedy, Cambridge. Matthiae, August (1789) Observationes criticae in tragicos, Homerum, Apollo­ nium Pindarum &c., Göttingen. Mathiesen, Thomas J. (1999) Apollo’s lyre. Greek music and music theory in antiquity and the Middle Ages, Lincoln NE. Matthiessen, Kjeld (1964) Elektra, Taurische Iphigenie und Helena. Untersu­ chungen zur Chronologie und zur dramatischen Form im Spätwerk des Eu­ ripides, Göttingen. — (1984) rev. Euripides ed. J. Diggle, Gnomon 56, 678–81. — (1989) ‘Der Ion - eine Komödie des Euripides?’, Sacris Erudiri 31, 271–91. — (2002) Die Tragödien des Euripides, Munich. Maurizio, L. (1995) ‘Anthropology and spirit possession: a reconsideration of the Pythia’s role at Delphi’, JHS 115, 69–86. Maxmin, Jody (1975) ‘Meniskoi and the birds’, JHS 95, 175–80. McDiarmid, J.B. (1947) ‘Euripides’ Ion, 1561’, AJPh 68, 86–7. McDonald, Marianne (1978) Terms for happiness in Euripides, Göttingen. McInerney, Jeremy (1997) ‘Parnassus, Delphi, and the Thyiades’, GRBS 38, 263–83. — (1999) The folds of Parnassos. Land and ethnicity in ancient Phokis, Austin TX. Medda, Enrico (1993) ‘Su alcune associazioni del docmio con altri metri in tragedia. (Cretico, molosso, baccheo, spondeo, trocheo, coriambo)’, SCO 43, 101–234. — (1997) ‘Il pianto dell’attore tragico’, RFIC 125, 385–410. Meier, Christian (1988) Die politische Kunst der griechischen Tragödie, Munich. Meineke, August (1863) Sophocles. Oedipus Coloneus. Cum scholiis Graecis, Berlin. Meinel, Fabian (2015) Pollution and Crisis in Greek Tragedy, Cambridge.



Bibliography

585

Mejer, Jørgen (2009) ‘Artemis in Athens’, in: Tobias Fischer-Hansen and Birte Poulsen (eds.), From Artemis to Diana. The goddess of man and beast, Copenhagen, 61–77. Mele, Alfonso (1995) ‘Tradizioni eroiche e colonizzazione greca: le colonie achee’, in: Alfredina Storchi Marino (ed.), L’incidenza dell’antico. Studi in memoria di Ettore Lepore. Atti del convegno internazionale Anacapri 24–28 marzo 1991, Naples, 427–50. Meltzer, Gary S. (2006) Euripides and the poetics of nostalgia, Cambridge. Méridier, Louis (1911) Le prologue dans la tragédie d’Euripide, Bordeaux. Meunier, J. (1928) ‘Problèmes de critique et d’exégèse concernant les tragiques grecs’, MB 32, 227–39. Mihaescu, H. (1956) ‘The work-song with the Greeks and Romans’, Rev. d’hist. litt. (Bucarest) 1, 107–18. Mikalson, Jon D. (1983) Athenian popular religion, Chapel Hill/London. — (1989) ‘Unanswered prayers in Greek tragedy’, JHS 109, 81–98. — (1991) Honor thy gods. Popular religion in Greek tragedy, Chapel Hill/London. Miller, Theresa (1997) Die griechische Kolonisation im Spiegel literarischer Zeugnisse, Tübingen. Millett, Paul (1991) Lending and borrowing in ancient Athens, Cambridge. Mills, Sophie (1997) Theseus, tragedy, and the Athenian Empire, Oxford. Möller, Clemens (1933) Vom Chorlied bei Euripides, PhD thesis Göttingen. Monbrun, Philippe (2007) Les voix d’Apollon. L’arc, la lyre et les oracles, Rennes. Monteil, Pierre (1963) La phrase relative en Grec ancien. Sa formation, son développement, sa structure des origines à la fin du Ve siècle A.C, Paris. Montiglio, Silvia (2000) Silence in the land of logos, Princeton. — (2005) Wandering in ancient Greek culture, Chicago. Moorhouse, A.C. (1948) ‘On negativing Greek participles, where the leading verbs are of a type to require μή’, CQ 42, 35–40. — (1965) ‘A use of οὐδείς and μηδείς’, CQ n.s. 15, 31–40. Morel, Willy (1933) ‘Bericht über die Literatur zu Euripides aus den Jahren 1925–1929’, JAW 238, 105–61. Morton, Jamie (2001), The role of the physical environment in ancient Greek seafaring, Leiden. Motte, André (1973) Prairies et jardins de la Grèce antique. De la religion à la philosophie, Bruxelles. Moulton, Carroll (1977) Similes in the Homeric poems, Göttingen. Moustaka, Aliki (1992) ‘Nike. Archaische Zeit’, LIMC VI.1, 852–9. Müller, Dietram (1974) Handwerk und Sprache. Die sprachlichen Bilder aus dem Bereich des Handwerks in der griechischen Literatur bis 400 v. Chr, Meisenheim am Glan. Müller, Gerhard (1974) rev. Hermann Rohdich, Die Euripideische Tragödie. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Tragik, Heidelberg 1968, Gnomon 46, 328–41. — (1975) ‘Beschreibung von Kunstwerken im Ion des Euripides’, Hermes 103, 25–44.

586

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

— (1983) ‘Bemerkungen zum ‘Ion’ des Euripides’, WüJbb n.F. 9, 33–48. Mueller, Melissa (2010) ‘Athens in a basket’, Arethusa 43, 393–8. Müller, Roman (1997) Sprechen und Sprache. Dialoglinguistische Studien zu Terenz, Heidelberg. Müller-Graupa, Edwin (1939) ‘Eurip. Ion v. 993’, PhW 59, 990–2. Murnaghan, Sheila (2006) ‘The daughters of Cadmus: chorus and characters in Euripides’ Bacchae and Ion’, in: John Davidson et al. (eds.), Greek Drama III. Essays in honour of Kevin Lee, London, 99–112. Murray, Gilbert (1913) Euripides and his age, London. Musgrave, Samuel (1762) Exercitationum in Euripidem libri duo, Leiden. Musso, Olimpio (1985a) ‘Correzioni al testo dello Ione euripideo’, Ítaca 1, 167–75. — (1985b) ‘Euripide, Ione, v. 911’, SIFC 3a ser. 3, 184–5. Mylonas, George E. (1961) Eleusis and the Eleusinian mysteries, Princeton NJ. Naerebout, F.G. (1997) Attractive performances. Ancient Greek dance. Three preliminary studies, Amsterdam. Naiden, F.S. (2004) ‘Supplication and the law’, in: Edward M. Harris and Lene Rubinstein (eds.), The law and the courts in ancient Greece, London, 71–91. — (2006) Ancient supplication, New York/Oxford. Neitzel, Heinz (1988) ‘Apollons Orakelspruch im ‘Ion’ des Euripides’, Hermes 116, 272–9. — (1989) ‘Euripides, Ion 1244–1249’, Hermes 117, 354–9. Nes, Dirk van (1963) Die maritime Bildersprache des Aischylos, PhD thesis Utrecht. Nesselrath, Heinz-Günther (1992) Ungeschehenes Geschehen. Beinahe-Epi­ soden im griechischen und römischen Epos von Homer bis zur Spätantike, Stuttgart. Nestle, Walter (1930) Die Struktur des Eingangs in der attischen Tragödie, Stuttgart. Neumann, Gerhard (1965), Gesten und Gebärden in der griechischen Kunst, Berlin. Nevett, Lisa C. (1999) House and society in the ancient Greek world, Cambridge. — (2010) Domestic space and social organisation in classical antiquity, Cambridge. Newiger, Hans-Joachim (1965) ‘Retraktationen zu Aristophanes’ “Frieden”’, RhM 108, 229–54. — (1989) ‘Ekkyklema e mechané nella messa in scena del dramma greco’, Di­ oniso 59, 173–85. Nicolai, Walter (1990) Euripides’ Dramen mit rettendem Deus ex machina, Heidelberg. Nilsson, Martin P. (1932) ‘Die Götter des Symposions’, in: Axel Nelson (ed.), Symbolae philologicae Olaf August Danielsson octogenario dicatae, Uppsala, 218–30. — (1951) Cults, myths, oracles, and politics in ancient Greece, Lund.



Bibliography

587

— (1967) Geschichte der griechischen Religion. Erster Band. Die Religion Griechenlands bis auf die griechische Weltherrschaft, Munich. *Norcia, Giuseppina (2000) ‘Lo Ione di Euripide. Ierogamia e autoctonia nell’intreccio drammatico’, Sungraphe 2, 43–64. Norden, Eduard (1913) Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede, Leipzig/Berlin. Nordgren, Lars (2015) Greek interjections. Syntax, semantics and pragmatics, Berlin. Novo Taragna, Sandra (1995) ‘λάτρις, δοῦλος: connessioni lessicali e tematiche nello Ione di Euripide’, in: L. Belloni et al. (eds.), Studia classica Iohanni Tarditi oblata, Milano, 918–30. Nuchelmans, J. (1976) ‘Quelques observations sur l’emploi de l’adverbe de modalité ἴσως dans la tragédie grecque’, in: Jan M. Bremer et al. (eds.), Miscel­ lanea tragica in honorem J.C. Kamerbeek, Amsterdam, 225–47. Nussbaumer, Johannes E. (1938) Die Figuren des Gleichklangs bei Euripides, Sarnen. O’Brien, D. (1969) Empedocles’ cosmic cycle. A reconstruction from the frag­ ments and secondary sources, Cambridge O’Connor-Visser, E.A.M.E. (1987) Aspects of human sacrifice in the tragedies of Euripides, Amsterdam. O‘Hara, James J. (1996) True names. Vergil and the Alexandrian tradition of etymological wordplay, Ann Arbor MI. Oakley, John H. and Rebecca H. Sinos (1993) The wedding in ancient Athens, Madison WI. Ogden, Daniel (1996) Greek bastardy in the classical and Hellenistic periods, Oxford. — (1997) ‘Rape, adultery and the protection of bloodlines in classical Athens’, in: Susan Deacy and Karen F. Pierce (eds.), Rape in antiquity, London, 25–41. Oliveira Pulquério, Manuel de (1967) ‘Características métricas das monódias de Eurípides’, Humanitas 19–20, 87–168. Omitowoju, Rosanna (2002) Rape and the politics of consent in classical Ath­ ens, Cambridge. Osborne, M.J. (1981–1983) Naturalization in Athens, Brussels. Otto, August (1890) Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer, Leipzig. Pace, Giovanna (2009) ‘Un peana “anomalo” in tragedia: Eur. Ion 112–143’, Paideia 64, 369–80. Padel, Ruth (1974) ‘”Imagery of the elsewhere”. Two choral odes in Euripides’, CQ n.s. 24, 227–41. — (1995) Whom gods destroy. Elements of Greek and tragic madness, Princeton. — (1996) ‘Ion: lost and found’, Arion 4, 216–24. Paganelli, Leonardo (1995) ‘La tragedia’, in: Umberto Mattioli (ed.), Senectus. La vecchiaia nel mondo classico. Vol. I – Grecia, Bologna, 145–67. Pagani, Giacomo F. (1962) ‘Ione, il dramma di un giovane’, Dioniso 36, 152–62.

588

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Page, Denys L. (1934) Actors’ interpolations in Greek tragedy. Studied with special reference to Euripides’ Iphigeneia in Aulis, Oxford. — (1937) ‘The chorus of Alcman’s Partheneion’, CQ 31, 94–101. — (1961) ‘Various conjectures’, PCPhS 7, 68–9. Palm, Jonas (1965–1966) ‘Bemerkungen zur Ekphrase in der griechischen Literatur’, Årsbok (Kungl. humanistiska vetenskapssamfundet i Uppsala) 108–211. Panhuis, Dirk (1984) ‘Prolepsis in Greek as a discourse strategy’, Glotta 62, 26–39. Parke, H.W. (1940) ‘A Note on the Delphic Priesthood’, CQ 34, 85–9. — (1943) ‘The days for consulting the Delphic oracle’, CQ 37, 19–22. —  (1948) ‘Consecration to Apollo. Δεκατεύειν τῷ ἐν Δελφοῖς θεῷ’, Hermath­ ena 72, 82–114. —  (1977) Festivals of the Athenians, London. Parker, L.P.E. (1966) ‘Porson‘s law extended’, CQ n.s. 16, 1–26. — (1997) The songs of Aristophanes, Oxford. Parker, Robert C.T. (1983) Miasma. Pollution and purification in early Greek religion, Oxford. — (1987) ‘Myths of early Athens’, in: Jan M. Bremmer (ed.), Interpretations of Greek mythology, London, 187–214. — (1996) Athenian religion. A history, Oxford. — (1997) ‘Gods cruel and kind: tragic and civic theology’, in: Christopher B. R. Pelling (ed.), Greek tragedy and the historian, Oxford, 143–60. — (1998) ‘Pleasing thighs: reciprocity in Greek religion’, in: Christopher Gill et al. (eds.), Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, Oxford, 105–26. — (2004) ‘What are sacred laws?’, in: Edward M. Harris and Lene Rubinstein (eds.), The law and the courts in ancient Greece, London, 57–70. — (2005) Polytheism and society at Athens, Oxford. — (2011) On Greek religion, Ithaca. Parker, Victor (1998) ‘Τύραννος. The Semantics of a Political Concept from Archilochus to Aristotle’, Hermes 126, 145–72. Parmentier, L. (1914) ‘Sur le sens méconnu de quelque mots homériques (αἰόλος et ses dérivés)’, RBPh 1, 417–28. — (1922) ‘Notes sur deux passage d’Euripide’, RBPh 1, 1–7. Parry, Hugh (1966) ‘The second stasimon of Euripides’ Hippolytus (732–775)’, TAPA 97, 317–26. Patin, H. (1883) Études sur les tragiques grecs. Euripide, Paris. Patterson, Cynthia (1990) ‘Those Athenian bastards’, ClAnt 9, 40–73. — (1991) ‘Response to Claude Mossé’, in: Michael Gagarin (ed.), Symposion 1990. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Pa­ cific Grove, California, 24.–26. September 1990), Cologne, 281–7. — (1998) The family in Greek history, Cambridge MA. Pattoni, Maria P. (1999) ‘Sofocle, Edipo a Colono 1293’, RFIC 127, 257–62. Pauer, Karl (1935) Die Bildersprache des Euripides, PhD thesis Breslau. Pearson, A.C. (1912) ‘On the use of ὅταν with causal implication’, AJPh 33, 426–35.



Bibliography

589

Pecz, Wilhelm (1886) Beiträge zur vergleichenden Tropik der Poesie, Berlin. Pedrick, Victoria (2007) Euripides, Freud, and the romance of belonging, Baltimore. Pekridou-Gorecki, Anastasia (1989) Mode im antiken Griechenland. Textile Fertigung und Kleidung, Munich. Pellegrino, Matteo (2003) ‘Nel segno degli antenati: Ione 1163–1165’, in: Onofrio Vox (ed.), Ricerche euripidee, Lecce, 93–114. Pelliccia, Hayden (1995) Mind, body, and speech in Homer and Pindar, Göttingen. Perdicoyianni-Paléologue, Hélène (2002) ‘The interjections in Greek tragedy’, QUCC n.s. 70, 49–88. Perilli, Lorenzo (1991) ‘Il lessico intellettuale di Ippocrate. σημαίνειν e τεκμαίρεσθαι’, Lexicon Philosophicum 5, 153–80. Péron, Jacques (1974) Les images maritimes de Pindare, Paris. Pertusi, A. (1956) ‘Selezione teatrale e scelta erudite nella tradizione del testo di Euripide’, Dioniso 19, 111–41, 195–216. — (1957) ‘Selezione teatrale e scelta erudite nella tradizione del testo di Euripide’, Dioniso 20, 18–37. Petit, Alain (1992) ‘La figure d’Apollon dans les fragments d’Héraclite’, Archi­ pel égéen 1–22. Pfeiffer, Rudolf (1968) History of classical scholarship. From the beginnings to the end of the Hellenistic age, Oxford. Pfeijffer, Ilja L. (1999) First person futures in Pindar, Stuttgart. Pfister, Friedrich (1914) ‘Rauchopfer’, RE I A, 267–86. Picard, Gilbert (1984) ‘Les officiants aux pieds nus’, BSAF 64–71. Pickard-Cambridge, Arthur W. (1968) The dramatic festivals of Athens, Oxford. Pierson, Joannes (1752) Versimilium libri duo, Leiden. Pimpl, Heidrun (1997) Perirrhanteria und Louteria. Entwicklung und Verwend­ ung großer Marmor- und Kalksteinbecken auf figürlichem und säulenarti­ gem Untersatz in Griechenland, Berlin. Pingiatoglou, Semeli (1981) Eileithyia, Würzburg. Pleket, H.W. (1979) ‘Godsdienstgeschiedenis als Mentaliteitsgeschiedenis. De ‘gelovige’ als onderdaan van de Godheid in de Griekse Wereld’, Lampas 12, 126–51. Podlecki, Anthony J. (2004) ‘Political and other so-called “digressions” in Euripides’, in: Juan A. López Férez (ed.), La tragedia griega en sus textos. Forma (lengua, estilo, métrica, crítica textual) y contenido (pensiamento, mitos, intertextualidad), Madrid, 173–95. Poe, Joe P. (1989) ‘The altar in fifth-century theater’, ClAnt 8, 116–39. — (1993) ‘The determination of episodes in Greek tragedy’, AJPh 114, 343–96. Pöhlmann, Egert (1995) ‘Der Chor der Tragödie an den Grenzen der Bühnenkonventionen des 5. Jh’, in: Egert Pöhlmann (ed.), Studien zur Bühnendich­ tung und zum Theaterbau der Antike, Frankfurt a.M., 63–71. Pötscher, Walter (1978) ‘Personen-Bereichdenken und Personifikation’, Litera­ turwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch 19, 217–31.

590

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

— (2004) ‘Zu Euripides, Ion 1424. Interpretatorisches und Textkritik’, Act.Ant. Hung. 44, 1–4. Pohlenz, Max (1954) Die griechische Tragödie, 2nd ed., Göttingen. Pollard, John (1977) Birds in Greek life and myth, London. Poole, William (1990), ‘Male homosexuality in Euripides’, in Anton Powell (ed.), Euripides, women and sexuality, London, 108–50. Popp, Hansjürgen (1971) ‘Das Amoibaion’, in: Walter Jens (ed.), Die Baufor­ men der griechischen Tragödie, Munich, 221–75. Pordomingo, Francisca (1994) ‘La lírica popular en Eurípides’, in: Actas del VIII congreso español de estudios clásicos (Madrid, 23–28 de septiembre de 1991), Madrid, 323–32. Porson, Richard (1812) Adversaria. Notae et emendationes in poetas graecos, ed. by Jacob H. Monk and Charles J. Blomfield, Cambridge. — (1815) Tracts and miscellaneous criticisms of the late Richard Porson, Esq., ed. by Rev. Thomas Kidd, London. Porter, James I. (2007) ‘Lasus of Hermione, Pindar and the riddle of S’, CQ n.s. 57, 1–21. Portus, Aemilius (1599) Breves notae in omnes Euripidis tragoedias, Heidelberg. Powell, Benjamin (1906) Erichthonius and the three daughters of Cecrops, PhD thesis Cornell. Prauscello, L. (2006) Singing Alexandria. Music between practice and textual transmission, Leiden. Prinz, Friedrich (1979) Gründungsmythen und Sagenchronologie, Munich. Pritchard, David M. (1999) ‘Fool’s gold and silver: reflections on the evidentiary status of finely painted Attic pottery’, Antichthon 33, 1–27. Probert, Philomen (2003) A new short guide to the accentuation of ancient Greek, Bristol. Propp, Vladimir (1984) ‘Oedipus in the light of folklore (orig. Russ. 1944)’, in: Lowell Edmunds and Alan Dundes (eds.), Oedipus. A folklore casebook, New York/London, 76–121. Prosser, P.L. (1981) ‘Menander’s Epitrepontes: the “three possibilities” of line 719’, CPh 76, 35–6. Prudhommeau, Germaine (1965) La danse grecque antique, Paris. Pulleyn, Simon (1997) Prayer in Greek religion, Oxford. Quijada Sagrado, Milagros (2003) ‘El elaborado tratamiento narrativo del Ión de Eurípides: ¿final de una época?’, in: Jesús-Maria Nieto Ibáñez (ed.), LÓGOS Hellenikós: homenaje al Profesor Gaspar Morocho, Leon, 375–85. Rabinowitz, Nancy S. (1993) Anxiety veiled. Euripides and the traffic in women, Ithaca/London. Race, William H. (1981) ‘The word καιρός in Greek drama’, TAPA 111, 197– 213. Radermacher, Ludwig (1891) Observationes in Euripidem miscellae, PhD thesis Bonn. Radt, Stefan L. (1968) Euripides Ioon. De interpretatie van een kunstwerk, Amsterdam.



Bibliography

591

Raepsaet, Georges (1971) ‘Les motivations de la natalité à Athènes aux Ve et IVe siècles avant notre ère’, AC 40, 80–110. Ragone, Giuseppe (1986) ‘La guerra meliaca e la struttura originaria della lega ionica in Vitruvio 4, 1, 3–6’, RFIC 114, 173–205. Rakoczy, Thomas (1996) Böser Blick, Macht des Auges und Neid der Götter. Eine Untersuchung zur Kraft des Blickes in der griechischen Literatur, Tübingen. Rassow, Johannes (1883) Quaestiones selectae de Euripideorum nuntiorum narrationibus, PhD thesis Greifswald. Rau, Peter (1967) Paratragodia. Untersuchung einer komischen Form des Aris­ tophanes, Munich. Redard, Georges (1953) Recherches sur χρή, χρῆσθαι. Étude sémantique, Paris. Rees, Kelley (1911) ‘The significance of the parodoi in the Greek theater’, AJPh 32, 377–402. Reeve, Michael D. (1972a) ‘Interpolation in Greek tragedy, I’, GRBS 13, 247– 65. — (1972b) ‘Interpolation in Greek tragedy, II’, GRBS 13, 451–74. — (1973) ‘Interpolation in Greek tragedy, III’, GRBS 14, 145–71. Rehm, Rush (1992) Greek tragic theatre, London. — (1994) Marriage to death. The conflation of wedding and funeral rituals in Greek tragedy, Princeton NJ/Chichester. — (2002) The play of space. Spatial transformation in Greek tragedy, Princeton. Reiske, Johann J. (1754) Ad Euripidem et Aristophanem animadversiones, Leipzig. Renehan, Robert (1976) Studies in Greek texts. Critical observations to Homer, Plato, Euripides, Aristophanes and other authors, Göttingen. — (1982) Greek lexicographical notes. A critical supplement to the Greek-En­ glish lexicon of Liddell-Scott-Jones. Second series, Göttingen. Richards, Herbert (1909) Aristophanes and others, London. Ridgway, Brunilde S. (1999) Prayers in stone. Greek architectural sculpture ca. 600–100 B.C.E, Berkeley/London. Riedinger, J.-C. (1995) ‘Technique du récit et technique dramatique dans le récit du messager d’Euripide’, Pallas 42, 31–54. Riedweg, Christoph (1990) ‘TrGF 2.624 – A Euripidean Fragment’, CQ n.s. 40, 124–36. Rijksbaron, Albert (1976) ‘How does a messenger begin his speech? Some observations on the opening lines of Euripidean messenger speeches’, in: J. M. Bremer et al. (eds.), Miscellanea tragica in honorem J.C. Kamerbeek, Amsterdam, 293–308. — (1988) ‘The discourse function of the imperfect’, in: Albert Rijksbaron et al. (eds.), In the footsteps of Raphael Kühner. Proceedings of the international colloquium in commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Raphael Kühner’s Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, II. Theil: Syntaxe. Amsterdam 1986, Amsterdam, 237–54.

592

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

— (2006) ‘On false historic presents in Sophocles (and Euripides)’, in: Irene J. F. de Jong and Albert Rijksbaron (eds.), Sophocles and the Greek language. Aspects of diction, syntax and pragmatics, Leiden, 127–49. Ritoók, Zsigmond (2001) ‘Das Schweigen in den Dramen des Euripides’, in: Siegfried Jäkel and Asko Timonen (eds.), The language of silence, vol. I, Turku, 41–9. Riu, Xavier (1999) Dionysism and comedy, Lanham MD/Oxford. Rizzini, Ilaria (1998) L’occhio parlante: per una semiotica dello sguardo nel mondo antico, Venice. Robert, Carl (1893) Die Iliuspersis des Polygnot, Halle. Robert, Fernand (1939) Thymélè. Recherches sur la signification et la destina­ tion des monuments circulaires dans l’architecture religieuse de la Grèce, Paris. Roberts, Deborah H. (1987) ‘Parting words: final lines in Sophocles and Euripides’, CQ n.s. 37, 51–64. Robertson, Noel (2001) ‘Athena as weather goddess: the aigis in myth and ritual’, in: Susan Deacy and Alexandra Villing (eds.), Athena in the classical world, Leiden, 29–55. Rodríguez Alfageme, Ignacio (1999) ‘El prólogo del Pluto’, in: Juan A. López Férez (ed.), Desde los poemas homéricos hasta la prosa griega. Ventiséis estudios filologicos, Madrid, 221–38. Rösler, Wolfgang (1983) ‘Der Anfang der ‘Katharmoi’ des Empedokles’, Her­ mes 111, 170–9. Romilly, Jacquline de (1971) La loi dans la pensée grecque des origines à Aris­ tote, Paris. Rosenbloom, David (2002) ‘From Ponêros to Pharmakos: theater, social drama, and revolution in Athens, 428–404 BCE’, ClAnt 21, 283–346. — (2011) ‘The panhellenism of Athenian tragedy’, in: David M. Carter (ed.), Why Athens? A reappraisal of tragic politics, Oxford, 353–81. Rosenmeyer, Thomas G. (1963) The masks of tragedy. Essays on six Greek dra­ mas, Austin. Rosivach, Vincent J. (1977) ‘Earthborns and Olympians. The parodos of the Ion’, CQ n.s. 27, 284–94. — (1987a) ‘Autochthony and the Athenians’, CQ n.s. 37, 294–306. — (1987b) ‘Execution by stoning in Athens’, ClAnt 6, 232–48. — (1994) The system of public sacrifice in fourth-century Athens, Atlanta GA. Roussel, Denis (1976) Tribu et cité. Études sur les groupes sociaux dans les cités grecques aux époques archaïque et classique, Paris. Roux, Georges (1976) Delphes, son oracle et ses dieux, Paris. — (1991) ‘L‘autel dans le temple’, in: Roland Étienne and Marie-Thérèse LeDinahet (eds.), L’espace sacrificiel dans les civilisations méditerranéennes de l’antiquité. Actes du colloque tenu à la Maison de l’Orient, Lyon, 4–7 juin 1988, Paris, 297–302. Rubinstein, Lene (1993) Adoption in IV. century Athens, Copenhagen. Ruck, Carl A. P. (1976) ‘On the sacred names of Iamos and Ion: ethnobotanical referents in the hero’s parentage’, CJ 71, 235–52.



Bibliography

593

Rudhardt, J. (1992) Notions fondamentales de la pensée religieuse et actes con­ stituifs du culte dans la Grèce classique, 2nd ed., Paris. Rückert, Birgit (1998) Die Herme im öffentlichen und privaten Leben der Griechen. Untersuchungen zur Funktion der griechischen Herme als Grenzmal, Inschriftenträger und Kultbild des Hermes, Regensburg. Ruijgh, C.J. (1971) Autour de “te épique”. Études sur la syntaxe grecque, Amsterdam. — (1976) ‘Observations sur l’emploi onomastique de κεκλῆσθαι vis-à-vis de celui de καλεῖσθαι notamment dans la tragédie attique’, in: Bremer Jan M et al. (eds.), Miscellanea tragica in honorem J. C. Kamerbeek, Amsterdam, 333–95. — (2006) The use of the demonstratives ὅδε, οὗτος and (ἐ)κεῖνος in Sophocles, in: Irene J. F. de Jong and Albert Rijksbaron (eds.), Sophocles and the Greek language. Aspects of diction, syntax and pragmatics, Leiden, 151–61. Rutherford, Ian (1988) ‘Pindar on the birth of Apollo’, CQ n.s. 38, 65–75. — (1994–1995) ‘Apollo in ivy: the tragic paean’, Arion 3, 112–35. — (1998) ‘Theoria as theatre: pilgrimage in Greek drama’, in: Francis Cairns and Malcolm Heath (eds.), Papers of the Leeds International Latin Semi­ nar. Tenth volume 1998. Greek poetry, drama, prose. Roman poetry, Leeds, 131–56. — (2001) Pindar’s Paeans. A reading of the fragments with a survey of the genre, Oxford. Rutherford, Richard B. (2012) Greek tragic style. Form, language, and inter­ pretation, Cambridge. Saïd, Suzanne (1992) ‘Le bestiaire tragique’, SIFC 10, 201–33. Sakellariou, Michel B. (1958) La migration grecque en Ionie, Athens. Sánchez, Pierre (2001) L’Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes. Recherches sur son rôle historique, des origines au IIe siècle de notre ère, Stuttgart. Sander, August (1837) Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung der griechischen Dra­ matiker. Erstes Heft, Hildesheim. Sansone, David (1977) ‘Euripides, Ion 847’, Philologus 121, 157–8. — (1984a) rev. Euripides ed. J. Diggle, CPh 79, 335–340. — (1984b) ‘On hendiadys in Greek’, Glotta 62, 16–25. Santé, Paolo (2004) ‘Eur. Ion 112 ~ 128’, AION(filol) 26, 227–9. Saxonhouse, Arlene W. (1986) ‘Myths and the origins of cities. Reflections in the autochthony theme in Euripides’ Ion’, in: J. Peter Euben (ed.), Greek tragedy and political theory, Berkeley, 252–73. — (2006) Free speech and democracy in ancient Athens, New York/Cambridge. Scafuro, Adele C. (1990) ‘Discourses of sexual violation in mythic accounts and dramatic versions of “the girl’s tragedy”’, differences 2, 126–59. — (1994) ‘Witnessing and false witnessing: proving citizenship and kin identity in fourth-century Athens’, in: Alan S. Boegehold and Adele C. Scafuro (eds.), Athenian identity and civic ideology, Baltimore/London, 156–98. — (1997) The forensic stage. Settling disputes in Graeco-Roman new comedy, Cambridge. Scarpat, Giuseppe (2001) Parrhesia greca, parrhesia cristiana, Brescia.

594

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Schaaf, Lothar (2002) ‘Späteuripideische Dramenformen und ihre Fortsetzung in der Neuen Komödie’, WüJbb n.F. 26, 39–51. Schadewaldt, Wolfgang (1926) Monolog und Selbstgespräch. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte der griechischen Tragödie, Berlin. Schauenburg, Konrad (1988) ‘Kreusa in Delphi’, AA 633–51. Schauer, Markus (2002) Tragisches Klagen. Form und Funktion der Klage­ darstellung bei Aischylos, Sophokles und Euripides, Tübingen. Scheer, Tanja (2000) Die Gottheit und ihr Bild. Untersuchungen zur Funktion griechischer Kultbilder in Religion und Politik, Munich. Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1972) ‘Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place’, in: David Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction, New York/ London, 75–119. Scheidweiler, Felix (1943) ‘Textkritisches zum Ion des Euripides’, RhM 92, 179–83. Schiappa, Edward (1991) Protagoras and Logos. A study in Greek philosophy and rhetoric, Columbia SC. Schliack, Karl F.G. (1874) De locis quibusdam Euripideis quaestiones criticae et exegeticae, PhD thesis Halle. Schlichtmann, Anne (2007) ‘Ion im Doppelpack. Blosse Bearbeitung oder zwei Originale? Euripides’ und A.W. Schlegels Ion’, ARF 9, 55–68. Schmid, Georg (1868) ‘Zum Ion des Euripides’, Jahrb. f. class. Phil. 97, 412–15. — (1869) ‘Der Prolog zum Ion des Euripides’, Jahrb. f. class. Phil. 99, 520–2. — (1884) Euripidea. De Ione, Leipzig. Schmidt, Albert (1870) ‘Zu Euripides’ Ion’, RhM 25, 172–4. Schmidt, Friedrich W. (1886) Kritische Studien zu den griechischen Drama­ tikern, nebst einem Anhang zur Kritik der Anthologie. Zweiter Band. Zu Euripides, Berlin. Schmidt, Hans W. (1971) ‘Die Struktur des Eingangs’, in: Walter Jens (ed.), Die Bauformen der griechischen Tragödie, Munich, 1–46. Schmidt, Johanna (1949) ‘Parnassos [1]’, RE 18.4, 1573–1663. Schmidt, Margot (1979) ‘Ein Danaidendrama (?) und der euripideische Ion auf unteritalischen Vasenbildern’, in: Alexander Cambitoglou (ed.), Studies in honour of Arthur Dale Trendall, Sydney, 159–69. Schmidt, Wilhelm (1908) Geburtstag im Altertum, Gießen. Schmidt, Wieland (1963) Der deus ex machina bei Euripides, PhD thesis Tübingen. Schmitt-Pantel, Pauline (1992) La cité au banquet. Histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques, Rome. Schmitz, Winfried (2004) Nachbarschaft und Dorfgemeinschaft im archaischen und klassischen Griechenland, Berlin. Schmude, Michael P. (1995) ‘Nomos und Physis auf der Bühne. Entwicklung und Gestaltung einer Antithese von der klassisch-griechischen Tragödie zur hellenistischen Neuen Komödie (Eine Skizze)’, Eos 83, 77–83. Schöll, Adolf (1839) Beiträge zur Kenntniss der tragischen Poesie der Griech­ en. Erster Teil. Kenntniß der tragischen Poesie der Griechen. Erster Band. Die Tetralogien der attischen Tragiker, Berlin.



Bibliography

595

Scholten, Helga (2003) Die Sophistik. Eine Bedrohung für die Religion und Politik der Polis?, Berlin. Schömann, Georg F. (1859) Scholia in Ionis Euripideae prologum, Greifswald. — (1863) ‘Animadversiones diorthoticae’, Index Scholarum Univ. Greifswald 1863/4, 3–18. Schröder, Otto (1928) Euripidis Cantica, Leipzig. Schröder, Stephan (1999) Geschichte und Theorie der Gattung Paian. Eine kritische Untersuchung mit einem Ausblick auf Behandlung und Auffassung der lyrischen Gattungen bei den alexandrinischen Philologen, Stuttgart. Schultz, Peter (2001) ‘The akroteria of the temple of Athena Nike’, Hesperia 70, 1–47. Schulze, Harald (1998) Ammen und Pädagogen. Sklavinnen und Sklaven als Erzieher in der antiken Kunst und Gesellschaft, Mainz. Schulze, Wilhelm (1918) ‘Beiträge zur Wort- und Sittengeschichte’, SBBerlin 320–32, 481–511, 769–91. — (1933) ‘Beiträge zur Wort- und Sittengeschichte’, in: Kleine Schriften, Göttingen, 148–210. Schumacher, Leonhard (2001), Sklaverei in der Antike. Alltag und Schicksal der Unfreien. Munich. Schuppe, Ernst (1932) ‘Taenia’, RE IV A2, 2002–6. Schuursma, J.A. (1932) De poetica vocabulorum abusione apud Aeschylum, Amsterdam. Schwinge, Ernst-Richard (1968) Die Verwendung der Stichomythie in den Dra­ men des Euripides, Heidelberg. Schwyzer, Eduard (1939) Die Parenthese im engern und im weitern Sinne, Berlin. Scodel, Ruth (1999) Credible impossibilities. Conventions and strategies of verisimilitude in Homer and Greek tragedy, Stuttgart. — (2007) ‘Lycurgus and the state text of tragedy’, in: Craig Cooper (ed.), Pol­ itics of orality (Orality and literacy in ancient Greece, vol. 6), Leiden/Boston, 129–54. — (2009) ‘Ignorant narrators in Greek tragedy’, in: Jonas Grethlein and Antonios Rengakos (eds.), Narratology and interpretation. The content of narra­ tive form in ancient literature, Berlin/New York, 421–47. Scullion, Scott (1999–2000) ‘Tradition and invention in Euripidean aitiology’, ICS 24–25, 217–33. Seaford, Richard (1987) ‘The tragic wedding’, JHS 107, 106–30. — (1990a) ‘The imprisonment of women in Greek tragedy’, JHS 110, 76–90. — (1990b) ‘The structural problems of marriage in Euripides’, in: Anton Powell (ed.), Euripides, women, and sexuality, London/New York, 151–76. — (2012) Cosmology and the polis. The social construction of space and time in the tragedies of Aeschylus, Cambridge. Seager, John (1819) ‘In Euripidem commentarii’, Classical Journal 20, 271–85. Sealey, Raphael (1984) ‘On lawful concubinage in Athens’, ClAnt 3, 111–33. Sedley, D.N. (2003) Plato’s Cratylus, Cambridge.

596

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Segal, Charles (1999) ‘Euripides’ Ion: generational passage and civic myth’, in: Mark W. Padilla (ed.), Rites of passage in ancient Greece: literature, religion, society, Lewisburg/London, 67–108. Seidensticker, Bernd (1982) Palintonos Harmonia. Studien zu komischen Ele­ menten in der griechischen Tragödie, Göttingen. Seidler, August (1811) De versibus dochmiacis tragicorum Graecorum, Leipzig. Shapiro, H. Alan (1998) ‘Autochthony and the visual arts in fifth-century Athens’, in: Deborah D. Boedeker and Kurt A. Raaflaub (eds.), Democracy, em­ pire, and the arts in fifth-century Athens, Cambridge MA/London, 127–51. Shisler, Famee L. (1942) ‘The technique of the portrayal of joy in Greek tragedy’, TAPA 73, 277–92. Sicherl, Martin (1975) ‘Die Editio princeps Aldina des Euripides und ihre Vorlagen’, RhM 118, 205–25. Sicking, C.M.J. (1997) ‘Particles in questions in Plato’, in: Albert Rijksbaron (ed.), New approaches to Greek particles. Proceedings of the colloquium held in Amsterdam, January 4–6, 1996, to honour C.J. Ruijgh on the occa­ sion of his retirement, Amsterdam, 157–74. Sicking, C.M.J. and J.M. van Ophuijsen (1993) Two studies in Attic particle usage. Lysias and Plato, Leiden. Sigismund, Marcus and Monica S. Cyrino (2011) ‘Alter/Altersversorgung’, Handwörterbuch der antiken Sklaverei. Lieferung I–III 60, 81–101. Silk, Michael S. (1974), Interaction in poetic imagery special reference to early Greek poetry, London. Simms, Robert M. (1983), ‘Eumolpos and the wars of Athens’, GRBS, 24, 197– 208. Simon, Erika (1980) ‘Die Mittelgruppe im Westgiebel des Parthenon’, in: Herbert A. Cahn and Erika Simon (eds.), Tainia. Roland Hampe zum 70. Geb­ urtstag am 2. Dezember 1978 dargebracht von Mitarbeitern, Schülern und Freunden, Mainz, 239–55. — (1983) Festivals of Attica. An archeological commentary. Madison WI. — (1984) ‘Ikonographie und Epigraphik. Zum Bauschmuck des Siphnierschatzhauses in Delphi’, ZPE 5, 1–22. — (2009) ‘Ion’, LIMC Suppl. 2009.1, 296. Simons, Lyda M.R. (1949) Flamma aeterna. Studie over de betekenis van het eeuwige vuur in de cultus van de Hellenistisch-Romeinse oudheid, Amsterdam. Sinn, Ulrich (1993) ‘Greek sanctuaries as places of refuge’, in: Nanno Marinatos and Robin Hägg (eds.), Greek sanctuaries. New approaches, London/ New York, 88–109. Sinos, Dale S. (1982) ‘Characterization in the Ion: Apollo and the dynamism of the plot’, Eranos 80, 129–34. Skiadas, Aristoxenos D. (1972) ‘ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΕΙΑ. Κριτικὰ καὶ ἑρμηνευτικὰ προβλήματα τῆς τραγῳδίας “Ἴων”’, in: Τιμητικὸν ἀφιέρωμα Κωνστανίνῳ Ι. Μερεντίτῃ ἐπὶ τῇ τεσσαρακονταετηρίδι τῆς ἐκπαιδευτικῆς αὐτοῦ δράσεως, Athens, 373–92.



Bibliography

597

Slings, Simon R. (1992) ‘Written and spoken language: an exercise in the pragmatics of the Greek sentence’, CPh 87, 95–109. — (1997a) ‘Adversatie relators between PUSH and POP’, in: Albert Rijksbaron (ed.), New approaches to Greek particles. Proceedings of the colloquium held in Amsterdam, January 4–6, 1996, to honour C.J. Ruijgh on the occa­ sion of his retirement, Amsterdam, 101–29. — (1997b) ‘Figures of speech and their lookalikes. Two further exercises in the pragmatics of the Greek sentence’, in: Egbert J. Bakker (ed.), Grammar as interpretation. Greek literature in its linguistic contexts, Leiden, 169–214. Sloan, Michael C. (2016) ‘Token questions of identity in Euripides’ Ion’, CPh 111, 262–4. Smarczyk, Bernhard (1990) Untersuchungen zur Religionspolitik und politischen Propaganda Athens im Delisch-Attischen Seebund, Munich. Smith, Amy C. (2011) Polis and personification in classical Athenian art, Leiden/Boston. Snell, Bruno (1924) Die Ausdrücke für den Begriff des Wissens in der vorpla­ tonischen Philosophie (σοφία, γνώμη, σύνεσισς, ἱστόρία, μάθημα, ἐπιστήμη), Berlin. — (1935) ‘Zwei Töpfe mit Euripides-Papyri’, Hermes 70, 119–20. — (1937) Euripides Alexandros und andere Strassburger Papyri mit Fragment­ en griechischer Dichter, Berlin. Solmsen, Friedrich (1934) ‘Euripides’ Ion im Vergleich mit anderen Tragödien’, Hermes 69, 390–419. — (1975) Intellectual experiments of the Greek enlightenment, Princeton. Sommerstein, Alan H. (1977) ‘Aristophanes and the events of 411’, JHS 97, 112–26. — (1980) ‘The naming of women in Greek and Roman comedy’, QS 11, 393– 418. — (1998) ‘Rape and young manhood in Athenian comedy’, in: Lin Foxhall and John Salmon (eds.), Thinking men. Masculinity and its self-representation in the classical tradition, London/New York, 100–14. — (2006) ‘Rape and consent in Athenian tragedy’, in: Douglas L. Cairns and Vayos Liapis (eds.), Dionysalexandros. Essays on Aeschylus and his fellow tragedians in honour of Alexander F. Garvie, Swansea, 233–51. — (2009) Talking about laughter and other studies in Greek comedy, Oxford. Sourvinou-Inwood, Christiane (1995) ‘Reading’ Greek death. To the end of the classical period, Oxford. — (2011) Athenian myths and festivals. Aglauros, Erechtheus, Plynteria, Pana­ thenaia, Dionysia, Oxford. Spira, Andreas (1960) Untersuchungen zum Deus ex machina bei Sophokles und Euripides, Kallmünz. Spitzbarth, Anna (1946) Untersuchungen zur Spieltechnik der griechischen Tragödie, Zürich. Spranger, J.A. (1939) ‘A preliminary skeleton list of the manuscripts of Euripides’, CQ 33, 98–107.

598

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

— (1939–1946) Euripidis quae in codicibus Palatino Graeco inter Vaticanos 287 et Laurentiano Conv. soppr. 172 inveniuntur phototypice expressa, Florence. Stansbury-O’Donnell, Mark (1999) Pictorial Narrative in Ancient Greek Art, Cambridge. Stehle, Eva (1996) ‘Help me to sing, Muse, of Plataea’, Arethusa 29, 205–22. — (2004) ‘Choral prayer in Greek tragedy: euphemia or aischrologia?’, in: Penelope Murray and Peter Wilson (eds.), Music and the Muses. The culture of ‘Mousikê’ in the classical Athenian city, Oxford, 121–55. Stengel, Paul (1920) Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer, Munich. Stephan, Gotthard (1981) Die Ausdruckskraft der caesura media im iambischen Trimeter der attischen Tragödie, Königstein. Stephanopoulos, Theodoros K. (1980) Umgestaltung des Mythos durch Eurip­ ides, Athens. Stephanus, Henricus (1568) Annotationes in Sophoclem et Euripidem, Geneva. Stephens, Susan A. and John J. Winkler (1995) Ancient Greek novels. The frag­ ments. Introduction, text, translation, and commentary, Princeton. Stevens, P.T. (1945) ‘Colloquial expressions in Aeschylus and Sophocles’, CQ 39, 95–105. — (1976) Colloquial expressions in Euripides, Wiesbaden. Stieber, Mary C. (2011) Euripides and the language of craft, Leiden. Stinton, T.C.W. (1965) ‘Two rare verse-forms’, CR n.s. 15, 142–46. — (1975) ‘Agamemnon 1127 and the limits of hyperbaton’, PCPhS 21, 82–93. — (1976) ‘“Si credere dignum est”: some expressions of disbelief in Euripides and others’, PCPhS 22, 60–89. — (1977) ‘Pause and period in the lyrics of Greek tragedy’, CQ n.s. 27, 27–66. — (1990) Collected papers on Greek tragedy. Ed. by Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Oxford. Strohm, Hans (1957) Euripides. Interpretationen zur dramatischen Form, Munich. — (1976) ‘Epikritisches zur Erklärung von Euripides’ Ion’, WS n.F. 10, 68–79. Stuart, Donald C. (1918) ‘Foreshadowing and suspense in the Euripidean prologue’, SPh 15, 295–306. Sullivan, Shirley D. (2000) Euripides’ use of psychological terminology, Montreal/London. Sutton, Dana F. (1984) The lost Sophocles, Lanham MD. Sutton, Robert F. (1981) The interaction between men and women portrayed on attic red-figure pottery, PhD thesis Chapel Hill NC. Swift, Laura (2009a) The hidden chorus. Echoes of genre in tragic lyric, Oxford. — (2009b) ‘The symbolism of space in Euripidean choral fantasy (Hipp. 732– 75, Med. 824–65, Bacch. 370–433)’, CQ n.s. 59, 364–82. — (2013) ‘Conflicting identities in the Euripidean chorus’, in: Renaud Gagné and Mariann Govers Hopman (eds.), Choral mediations in Greek tragedy, Cambridge, 130–54. Synodinou, Katerina (1977) On the concept of slavery in Euripides, Ioannina. Szabó, Árpád (1944) ‘Euripidea’, Egyetemes Philologiai Közlöny 68, 8–15.



Bibliography

599

Tabacco, Raffaella (1985) Il tiranno nelle declamazioni di scuola in lingua lati­ na, Turin. Tabachovitz, David (1960) ‘“Heissen” und “sein” im Griechischen’, Eranos 58, 9–11. Taplin, Oliver (1977) The stagecraft of Aeschylus. The dramatic use of exits and entrances in Greek tragedy, Oxford. — (1978) Greek tragedy in action, London. — (1980) ‘The shield of Achilles within the “Iliad”’, G&R n.s. 27, 1–21. — (2007) Pots & plays. Interactions between tragedy and Greek vase-painting of the fourth century B.C, Los Angeles. Tarrant, Dorothy (1946) ‘Colloquialisms, Semi-Proverbs, and Word-Play in Plato’, CQ 40, 109–17. Telò, Mario (1998) ‘La scena di riconoscimento nello Ione di Euripide e Plauto, Rudens 1134’, SCO 46, 909–17. — (2002a) ‘Per una grammatica dei gesti nella tragedia greca (I): cadere a terra, alzarsi, coprirsi, scoprirsi il volto’, MD 48, 9–75. — (2002b) ‘Per una grammatica dei gesti nella tragedia greca (II): la supplica’, MD 49, 9–51. Theiler, Willy (1966) ‘Die ewigen Elektren’, WS 79, 102–12. Thomas, Rosalind (1997), ‘Ethnography, proof and argument in Herodotus’ His­ tories’, PCPhS, 43, 128–48. Thorburn, John E. (2000) ‘Euripides’ Ion: the gold and the darkness’, CB 76, 39–49. — (2001) ‘Apollo’s comedy and the ending of Euripides’ Ion’, AClass 44, 221– 36. Thür, Gerhard (2005) ‘The role of the witness in Athenian law’, in: David Cohen and Michael Gagarin (eds.), The Cambridge companion to Ancient Greek law, Cambridge, 146–69. Tibaldi, Antonella (1999) ‘L’associazione docmio-anapesto in Eur. Hec. 154– 176 = 197–215, 177–196 e 1056–1108’, SCO 47, 175–84. — (2002) ‘Associazione del docmio con l’anapesto nella tragedia attica di V secolo’, SCO 48, 99–162. Tichy, Eva (1983) Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen, Vienna. Todd, Stephen C. (1993) The shape of Athenian law, Oxford. Tomlinson, P.B. (1990) The structural biology of palms, Oxford. Torrance, Isabelle (2013) Metapoetry in Euripides, Oxford. Tosi, Renzo (1991) Dizionario delle sentenze latine e greche. 10,000 citazioni dall’antichità al Rinascimento nell’originale e in traduzione, con commen­ to storico, letterario e filologico, Milan. Traulsen, Christian (2004) Das sakrale Asyl in der Alten Welt. Zur Schutzfunk­ tion des Heiligen von König Salomo bis zum Codex Theodosianus, Tübingen. Travlos, John (1971) Pictorial dictionary of ancient Athens, London. Trendall, A.D. and T.B.L. Webster (1971) Illustrations of Greek drama, London.

600

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Troiano, Edna M. (1985) ‘The Ion: the relationship of character and genre’, CB 61, 45–52. Tsoukala, Victoria (2009) ‘Honorary shares of sacrificial meat in Attic vase painting. Visual signs of distinction and civic identity’, Hesperia 78, 1–40. Tuck, Anthony (2009) ‘Stories at the loom: patterned textiles and the recitation of myths in Euripides’, Arethusa 42, 151–59. Tuilier, André (1968) Recherches critiques sur la tradition du texte d’Euripide, Paris. Turner, Lee A. (1994) The history, monuments and topography of ancient Leb­ adeia in Boeotia, Greece, PhD thesis Philadelphia. Turyn, Alexander (1957) The Byzantine manuscript tradition of the tragedies of Euripides, Urbana. — (1964) Codices Graeci Vaticani saeculis XIII et XIV scripti annorumque no­ tis instructi, Vatican State. Tyrrell, William Blake (1984) Amazons. A study in Athenian mythmaking, Baltimore. Usener, Hermann (1903) ‘Dreiheit’, RhM 58, 1–47, 161–208, 321–62. Ustinova, Yulia (2009) Caves and the ancient Greek mind. Descending under­ ground in the search for ultimate truth, Oxford. Valgiglio, Ernesto (1966) Il tema della morte in Euripide, Torino. Vancamp, Bruno (1996) ‘Κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχειν. Ζur Herkunft einer platonischen Redewendung aus dem Bereich der Ideenlehre’, RhM 139, 352–4. Vérilhac, Anne-Marie and Claude Vial (1998) Le mariage grec du Vie siècle av. J.C. à l’époque d’Auguste, Athens. Verrall, A.W. (1880) ‘On some Ionic elements in Attic tragedy’, JHS 1, 260–92. Versnel, Henk S. (1981) ‘Religious mentality in ancient prayers’, in: Henk S. Versnel (ed.), Faith, hope and worship. Aspects of religious mentality in the ancient world, Leiden, 1–64. — (1985) ‘“May he not be able to sacrifice...”. Concerning a curious formula in Greek and Latin curses’, ZPE 58, 247–69. — (1991) ‘Beyond cursing: the appeal to justice in judicial prayers’, in: Christopher A. Faraone and Dirk Obbink (eds.), Magika Hiera. Ancient Greek magic and religion, New York/Oxford, 60–106. — (2009) Fluch und Gebet: Magische Manipulation versus religiöses Flehen? Religionsgeschichtliche und hermeneutische Betrachtungen über antike Fluchtafeln, Berlin. Vian, Francis (1952) La guerre des géants. Le mythe avant l’époque hellénis­ tique, Paris. Vian, Francis and M.B. Moore (1988) ‘Gigantes’, LIMC IV.1, 191–270. Vickers, Michael (2014) ‘Politics and challenge: the case of Euripides’ Ion’, CW 107, 299–318. Vidal-Naquet, Pierre (1997) ‘The place and status of foreigners in Athenian tragedy’, in: Christopher B. R. Pelling (ed.), Greek tragedy and the histori­ an, Oxford, 109–19. Viger, François (1802) De praecipuis graecae dictionis idiotismis liber, ed. G. Hermann, Leipzig.



Bibliography

601

Viketos, Emmanuel (1990) ‘Sophocles, Trachiniae 389 again’, Hermes 118, 128. Villanueva Puig, Marie-Christine (1986) ‘À propos des thyiades de Delphes’, in: Ecole française de Rome (ed.), L’Association dionysiaque dans les so­ ciétés anciennes. Actes de la table ronde, Rome, 31–51. Vitelli, Girolamo (1894) ‘Indice de’ codici Greci Riccardiani, Magliabechiani e Marucelliani’, SIFC 2, 471–570. Vogt, Joseph (1972) Sklaverei und Humanität. Studien zur antiken Sklaverei und ihrer Erforschung, Wiesbaden. Vogt-Spira, Gregor (1992) Dramaturgie des Zufalls. Tyche und Handeln in der Komödie Menanders, Munich. Vox, Onofrio (2003) ‚Il carro alato di Medea‘, in: Onofrio Vox (ed.), Ricerche euripidee, Lecce, 209–33. Vries, G.J. de (1976) ‘Dancing stars (Soph. Ant. 1146)’, in: Jan M. Bremer et al. (eds.), Miscellanea tragica in honorem J.C. Kamerbeek, Amsterdam, 471–4. Wackernagel, Jacob (1926) Vorlesungen über Syntax. Mit besonderer Berück­ sichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch, 2nd ed., Basel. — (1953) Kleine Schriften, Göttingen. Wakefield, Gilbert (1789) Silva critica sive in auctores sacros profanosque com­ mentarius philologus. Vol. 1, Cambridge. Wakker, Gerry (1994) Conditions and conditionals. An investigation of ancient Greek, Amsterdam. — (1997a) ‘Emphasis and affirmation. Some aspects of μήν in tragedy’, in: Albert Rijksbaron (ed.), New approaches to Greek particles. Proceedings of the colloquium held in Amsterdam, January 4–6, 1996, to honour C.J. Rui­ jgh on the occasion of his retirement, Amsterdam, 209–31. — (1997b) ‘Modal particles and different points of view in Herodotus and Thucydides’, in: Egbert J. Bakker (ed.), Grammar as interpretation. Greek lit­ erature in its linguistic contexts, Leiden, 215–50. Walsh, George B. (1978) ‘The rhetoric of birthright and race in Euripides’ Ion’, Hermes 106, 301–15. Wassermann, Felix M. (1940) ‘Divine violence and providence in Euripides’ Ion’, TAPA 71, 587–604. — (1941) ‘Euripides, Ion, 1610’, AJPh 62, 229. Watkins, Calvert (1967) ‘An Indo-European construction in Greek and Latin’, HSPh 71, 115–19. Watson, Patricia A. (1995) Ancient stepmothers. Myth, misogyny and reality, Leiden. Webster, T.B.L. (1966) ‘Chronological notes on Euripides’, WS 79, 112–20. — (1967) Monuments illustrating tragedy and satyr play, 2nd ed., London. Wecklein, Nikolaus (1869) Ars Sophoclis emendandi. Accedunt analecta Eurip­ idea, Würzburg. — (1874) ‘Studien zu Euripides. Mit einem Anhang zu Aeschylus, Sophokles und den Bruchstücken der griechischen Tragiker’, Jahrb. f. class. Phil. Suppl. 7, 305–448.

602

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

— (1895) ‘Beiträge zur Kritik des Euripides. I’, SBMunich, 479–543. — (1896) ‘Beiträge zur Kritik des Euripides. II’, SBMunich, 449–538. — (1897) ‚Beiträge zur Kritik des Euripides. III‘, SBMunich I, 445–96. — (1898) ‘Beiträge zur Kritik des Euripides. IV’, SBMunich II, 385–440. Wees, Hans van (2004) Greek warfare. Myths and realities, London. Wehrli, Fritz (1968) ‘Zur politischen Theorie der Griechen: Gewaltherrschaft und Hegemonie’, MH 25, 214–25. Weinfeld, Moshe (1976) ‘The loyalty oath in the ancient Near East’, Ugarit-For­ schungen 8, 379–414. Weiss, Carina (1984) Griechische Flussgottheiten in vorhellenistischer Zeit. Ikonographie und Bedeutung, Würzburg. Weiss, Naomi (2008) ‘A psychoanalytical reading of Euripides’ Ion: repetition, development and identity’, BICS 51, 39–50. Welcker, Friedrich G. (1839) Die griechischen Tragödien. Mit Rücksicht auf den epischen Cyclus geordnet, Bonn. Wendel, Thilde (1929) Die Gesprächsanrede im griechischen Epos und Drama der Blütezeit, Stuttgart. Wenskus, Otta (1990) Astronomische Zeitangaben von Homer bis Theophrast, Stuttgart. — (1997) ‘Das Haus als Bereich der Frauen und Tyrannen in der griechischen Tragödie’, Philologus 141, 21–8. West, Martin L. (1978) ‘Tragica II’, BICS 25, 106–22. — (1981) ‘Tragica V’, BICS 28, 61–78. — (1982) Greek metre, Oxford. — (1984) ‘Tragica VII’, BICS 31, 171–92. — (1987) ‘Problems in Euripides’ Orestes’, CQ n.s. 37, 281–93. — (1988) ‘The rise of the Greek epic’, JHS 108, 151–72. — (1990) Studies in Aeschylus, Stuttgart. — (1992) Ancient Greek music, Oxford. — (2007) Indo-European poetry and myth, Oxford. Westra, Haijo J. (2006) ‘The irreducibility of autochthony: Euripides’ Ion and Lévi-Strauss’ interpretation of the Oedipus myth’, in: John Davidson et al. (eds.), Greek Drama III. Essays in honour of Kevin Lee, London, 273–9. White, H. (2000) ‘Notes on the text of Euripides’, Myrtia 15, 51–67. Whitehead, David (1977) The ideology of the Athenian metic, Cambridge. Whitman, Cedric H. (1964) ‘Two passages in the Ion of Euripides’, CPh 59, 257–9. — (1974) Euripides and the full circle of myth, Cambridge MA. Whittle, E.W. (1964) ‘An ambiguity in Aeschylus. Supplices 315’, C&M 25, 1–7. Wickert-Micknat, Gisela (1982) Die Frau [= Archaeologia Homerica. Die Denkmäler und das frühgriechische Epos, Bd. III, Lief. R], Göttingen. Wieseler, Friedrich (1857) rev. J.J. Merian, Die Topographie von Delphi, Basel 1853 and J. Kayser, Delphi, Darmstadt 1855, Jahrb. f. class. Phil. 75, 665–94.



Bibliography

603

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von (1875) Analecta Euripidea, Berlin. — (1921) Griechische Verskunst, Berlin. — (1931) Der Glaube der Hellenen, Berlin. Wiles, David (1997) Tragedy in Athens. Performance space and theatrical meaning, Cambridge. Wille, Günther (2001) Akroasis. Der akustische Sinnesbereich in der griech­ ischen Literatur bis zum Ende der klassischen Zeit, Tübingen. Willetts, R.F. (1973) ‘Action and character in the Ion of Euripides’, JHS 93, 201–9. Williger, Eduard (1928) Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu den Komposita der griechischen Dichter des 5. Jahrhunderts, Göttingen. Willink, Charles W. (1989) The reunion duo in Euripides’ Helen’, CQ n.s. 39, 45–69. — (1997) ‘Sophocles, Electra 137–9’, CQ n.s. 47, 299–301. — (1999) ‘Further critical notes on Euripides’ Hippolytus’, CQ n.s. 49, 408–27. — (2004) ‘Euripides, Hecuba 905–22, Ion 763–803, Bacchae 402–33. Text and metre’, Mnemosyne ser. 4 57, 45–79. Winnington-Ingram, R.P. (1969) ‘Euripides: Poiêtês Sophos’, Arethusa 2, 127– 42. — (1976) ‘The Delphic temple in Greek tragedy’, in: Jan M. Bremmer et al. (eds.), Miscellanea tragica in honorem J.C. Kamerbeek, Amsterdam, 483– 500. Wiskemann, August K. (1872) De nonnullis locis Ionis fabulae Euripideae, PhD thesis Marburg. Wolff, Christian (1965) ‘The design and myth in Euripides’ Ion’, HSPh 69, 169–94. Worthen, Thomas (1988) ‘The idea of ‘sky’ in archaic Greek poetry. ἐν δὲ τὰ τείρεα πάντα, τά τ᾿ οὐρανὸς ἐστεφάνωται. Iliad 18.485’, Glotta 66, 1–19. Wortmann, D. (1968) ‘Die Sandale der Hekate-Persephone-Selene’, ZPE 2, 155–60. Wright, Matthew (2005) Euripides’ escape-tragedies. A study of Helen, An­ dromeda, and Iphigenia among the Taurians, Oxford. — (2010) ‘The tragedian as critic: Euripides and early Greek poetics’, JHS 130, 165–84. Wycherley, R.E. (1978) The stones of Athens, Princeton. Wyles, Rosie (2010) ‘The tragic costume’, in: Oliver Taplin and Rosie Wyles (eds.), The Pronomos vase and its context, 231–53. Yavis, Constantine G. (1949) Greek altars. Origins and typology, St. Louis. Yoon, Florence (2012) The use of anonymous characters in Greek tragedy. The shaping of heroes, Leiden. Young, Norman H. (1990) ‘The figure of the paidagogos in art und literature’, Biblical Archaeologist 53, 80–6. Young, Rodney S. (1941) ‘ΑΝΤΙΠΗΞ: a note on the Ion of Euripides’, Hesperia 10, 138–42. Yunis, Harvey (1988) A new creed. Fundamental religious beliefs in the Athe­ nian Polis and Euripidean drama, Göttingen.

604

Conventions, Abbreviations, Bibliography

Zacharia, Katerina (1995) ‘The marriage of tragedy and comedy in Euripides’ Ion’, in: Siegfried Jäkel and Asko Timonen (eds.), Laughter down the cen­ turies. Vol. 2, Turku, 45–63. — (2001) ‘”The rock of the nightingale”. Kinship diplomacy and Sophocles’ Tereus’, in: Felix Budelmann and Pantelis Michelakis (eds.), Homer, trage­ dy and beyond. Essays in honour of P.E. Easterling, London, — (2003) Converging truths. Euripides’ Ion and the Athenian quest for self-defi­ nition, Leiden. Zangrando, Valentina (1997) ‘A proposito della dimensione colloquiale nella letteratura greca’, SIFC 3a serie 15, 188–207. Zeitlin, Froma I. (1989) ‘Mysteries of identity and designs of the self in Euripides’ Ion’, PCPhS 35, 144–97. — (1994) ‘The artful eye. Vision, ecphrasis and spectacle in Euripidean theatre’, in: Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne (eds.), Art and text in ancient Greek culture, Cambridge/New York, 138–96. — (2008) ‘Intimate relations: children, childbearing, and parentage on the Euripidean stage’, in: Martin Revermann and Peter Wilson (eds.), Perfor­ mance, iconography, reception. Studies in honour of Oliver Taplin, Oxford, 318–32. Zelnick-Abramovitz, Rachel (2005) Not wholly free. The concept of manumis­ sion and the status of manumitted slaves in the ancient Greek world, Leiden. Zielinski, Tadeusz (1925) Tragodumenon libri tres, Krakow. Zimmermann, Bernhard (1992) Dithyrambos. Geschichte einer Gattung, Göttingen. Zuntz, Günther (1955) The political plays of Euripides, Manchester. — (1965) An inquiry into the transmission of the plays of Euripides, Cambridge.

General Index References to the Introduction are in italics; those to the commentary indicate only the first relevant lemma within a longer section (with few exceptions). M denotes lemmas within the sections on metre. Square brackets in lemmas have been left out. Aetiology 21, 20–7, 74–5, 1428, 1553– 1605, 1569–94, 1575–81a, 1589–94; see also Names Agraulids 21–2, 23, 265–74, 496, 1163–6a, 1410–38 Ambiguity by Euripides 24, 70–1, 82–183, 267, 1456, 1553–1605 by Characters 325, 410–12, 543, 1285, 1558; see also Pythia – Oracular Style, Metre – Ambiguities Apollo 8–13, 29–36a, 387, 881–6; see also Oracle – Veracity Absence 1–81, 184–218, 1558 and Helios 83, 1439 Interventions 9, 14–27, 47–8, 67b–8, 950, 1106–1228, 1187b–93, 1250–1622, 1326–35a, 1335b–68, 1368, 1369–94, 1563–8 Judgments about 7, 8–10, 10–11, 358, 362b–80, 384–400, 859–922, 1553–1605, 1558, 1595–1600, 1606–13 Plan 69–73, 407–12, 585–647, 1563–8 Pythios/Patroos 11–13, 283–8 Truthfulness 1–81, 69–73, 362b–80, 817–29, 1532–48, 1537, 1560–8 Archaeological Evidence 15, 20, 6, 11– 13, 23, 271, 388, 512, 1006, 1076, 1084, 1132b–66a, 1141, 1158b–62 Arrhephoria: see Agraulids, Erechtheus/ Erichthonius Athena on the Acropolis 9, 235–6, 1478–88 and Hermes’ Speech 1–81, 1553– 1605, 1595–1600 Patron Goddess 9, 211, 452–701, 1478–88, 1553–1605

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110523591-005

Athens; see also Autochthony Identity/Ideology 10, 22, 24, 510– 675, 585–647, 721–4, 1141–66a 1145 Sanctuary of Pan 11–13, 492, 938, 1400 Makrai 11–13, 283–8, 493, 936–8, 1400 Xenophobia 293, 510–675, 589b– 620, 670b–5, 702, 813, 1074–89, 1087–8 Autochthony 6, 10, 21, 22–3, 29 184–218, 542, 589, 607–11, 714–24, 721–4, 1297 Birds 82–183, 504, 1191, 1198 χάρις motif 410–12, 425–8, 859–922, 872, 880, 881–922, 914, 1100, 1606–13 Children Abortion 946–9 Adoption 69, 535, 1282–9, 1534 Childlessness 452–509, 472–91, 541, 676–724, 699, 763–8, 1225b–8, 1463 Desirablity 481–4, 485–91 Chorus Anticipating Developments 566–8, 589b–620, 676–94, 836–42 Characterisation 184–236bis, 219–22, 676–94, 752–62 Comments 381–3, 566–8, 648–9, 830–1, 832–5 Complicity with Creusa 1048–60, 1106–1228, 1229–49 Identities as Slaves and Citizens 196b–200, 452–509, 714–24, 1048–1105, 1059 Loyalty 510–675, 566–8, 648–9, 666–7, 752–62, 765; see also Plot, Tragic – Civic, Dynastic, and Personal Dimension

606

General Index

Citizenship 30, 290, 591, 670b–5, 1382, 1537–45 Colonisation 10, 23, 30–1, 74, 1569–94, 1581b–8 Creusa and Apollo 252–4, 384–400, 410–12, 425–8, 859–922, 904, 1282–1319, 1309–11 Isolation 14–27, 607–11, 680, 699–701, 725–34, 791–bis, 810–11, 950–9 Relationship with Ion 237–400, 247–51, 258–369, 429–51, 607–11 Responsibility and Guilt 18, 725– 1047, 887–906, 887–96, 970–86, 987–1038, 1250–1319, 1497–1500 and Xuthus 392–400, 401–28, 607–11, 654–60, 695–713, 699–701, 808–58, 813–16, 863, 976–7, 1100, 1297 Curse 695–713, 706, 714–24, 1048–60, 1235 Date 24–32, 30, 59, 517–62, 1075, 1158b–62, 1569–94 Delphi; see also Oracle Greek Character 366 Officials 42, 52–6, 82–183, 226–9, 371, 414, 551, 1111, 1217–25a, 1322–3; see also Pythia Omphalos 5, 89–93, 224, 1306 Rites 89–90, 226–9, 1310 Stoning 1112, 1266–8 Temple 34, 38, 89–90, 184–218, 461–2 Thyiades 551, 671, 714–24 Topography 76, 739 Castalia 95, 149 Corycian Cave 86, 155 Phaedriades/Parnassus 86, 714–24, 1126–7, 1267 Dialogue Conversation Technique 258–307, 275, 289, 308, 362–3, 556–62, 650–67, 741–6, 936, 1290–1305, 1309–11, 1355–63, 1404–9, 1478–88, 1558 Politeness 308, 404; see also Ion – Conduct Stichomythia Composition 258–369, 266, 520, 785–91, 793, 936–69,

987–1019a, 1010, 1295–1303, 1347, 1432b–6 Fillers 266, 1004–19a, 1347 Questions and Answers 256, 266, 286, 289, 310, 318, 332, 403, 542, 936–8, 999, 1106–21, 1302, 1412, 1420 sermo fractus 525–7, 756, 942, 1010, 1347 Dionysus 216–18, 552, 714–24, 1074– 89, 1078–86, 1204 Dorians 11, 14, 23, 32, 1569–94 Earthborn: see Autochthony Ecphrasis 27, 184–218, 492–506, 1122–1228, 1132b–66a, 1141–66a Erechtheus/Erichthonius (see also Agraulids) 10, 20–2, 40, 267, 714–24, 721–4, 1000, 1163–66a, 1387, 1410–38, 1426–32a House of 481–4, 568, 808–58, 865–9, 1058–60 Escape Trope 797–9, 1229–49, 1238–43 εὐφημία 98–101, 134, 552, 1189, 1194; see also Ion – Piety Exposure (of Children) 14–27, 506, 887–906, 1489–96 Historical 28–40, 41 Role of Father 14, 898 Fate/τύχη 9, 67b–8, 539, 554, 704, 1250–1622, 1374, 1388, 1422–5, 1502–9, 1510–20, 1582 Genealogy 6, 10, 13–20, 22, 1–81, 1–4, 63, 559, 1553–1605, 1569–94 Genre; see also Songs Comic Elements 11–12, 725–1047, 741–6 Generic Expectations 510–675, 569– 667, 970–86, 1019b–28, 1250–1319 Rhetoric 569–667, 585–647, 621– 32, 808–58, 836–42, 859–922, 879, 1220–1, 1282–1319, 1290–1305 Gnomê 452–509, 741–6, 854–6, 969, 1017, 1043–7, 1326–35a, 1502–9, 1619–22 Gods 14, 453, 457, 1048, 1374; see also Apollo, Athena, Dionysus, Style – Personification and their Children 507–9 deus ex machina 1244–5, 1250– 1622, 1320–68, 1510–20



General Index

and Justice 253, 355, 436b–51, 444–7, 448–51, 914, 1117, 1250– 1319, 1402, 1558, 1615, 1619–22 Morality 174–8, 355; see also: Apollo – Judgments about, χάρις motif and Sex 10–11, 174–8, 446, 449–50, 887–96, 1521–7 Gorgo 12, 210, 224, 989, 992–7, 1410–38 Grammar Accusative Absolute 965 Adverbial 772, 1489–91 criminis 447, 931 Internal 6, 168–9, 495, 1371 Adjectives for Abstract Nouns 171–2 Terminations 453, 1478 ἄν, Double 239, 529 Aorist Distancing 1614 Instantaneous 241, 926 in Prophecies 534 Unaugmented 504, 1205 Apposition to Sentence 102, 506, 1429 Conditionals with Causal Connotation 342, 744, 1409 constructio ad sensum 479 Dative after Denominatives 770 of Direction 961 Ethical 770 Free 509 after Indication of Time 353 Modal 791–bis Demonstrative 1411 with Correlated ὅσος 1305 (non-Attic) Dialect Forms 40, 86, 90, 205, 458–9, 1266, 1550 Future Performative 879, 886 for Subjunctive 758, 981 Genitive Appositive 113–14 ‘des Bereichs’ 84 Chorographic 12, 32 with Compound Adjectives 461–2 Partitive 581, 1027, 1376 of Relation 749

607

Separative 452, 459, 929 Subjective 898 after Verbs of Perception or Judgment 588–9 Imperfect 1174–6 Background Setting 1122–1228, 1163–6a de conatu 1286, 1293 of Realisation 185 Infinitive after Verbs of Fear 1453 Later Forms, Early Attestation of 331, 1131 Negatives 274, 347, 594, 1453, 1523 Nominative pendens 927 for Vocative 912 Optative of Consent 335, 668 Parenthesis 1430 Participle Circumstantial 313 Coincident 241, 1131, 1563 for Finite Verb 517 Periphrastic Conjugation 230, 615, 749 Potential, Past 568, 1450–1 Prepositional Phrase 684 Past Tense Indicative Forms of Unfilfilled Actions 1291, 1544 Present Historic 18, 1143, 1561 for Perfect 514 Prophetic 1585 Pronoun Personal, Following ὅσοι 600 Relative 813, 822 Psilosis 1550 Purpose Clause 1603; see also ὡς Questions, Double 550, 695, 793 Relative Clause for Infinitive or Conditional 475 schema Pindaricum 1146 simplex post compositum 1080, 1084, 1534 simplex pro composito 689, 1108 Subjunctive without ἄν in Relative Clauses 856 Deliberative 859, 1107, 1239 in Polite Requests 559

608

General Index

Voice of (Verbal) Adjectives 126~142, 255, 670, 701, 960, 1061, 1458 Word Order 196, 220bis, 289, 308, 358, 452–71, 525–7, 731, 950, 1184–6 Interlaced 188–9, 516, 1181, 1307, 1427 Happy Ending 6, 11, 1–81, 1380–4, 1516–20, 1553–1605 History Allusions 28–31, 59, 603–4, 670b–5, 1076, 1158b–62, 1569–94, 1575–81a, 1581b–8, 1592 Anachronism 290, 469, 1158b–62 Historical Accuracy 52–6, 94–101, 184–218, 297, 299–302, 310, 417–21, 594, 1534, 1581b–8 Hymn: see Prayer/Hymn Ignorance/Human Blindness 9, 184–218, 219–36bis, 258–369, 308, 452–509, 725–1047, 1048–1105, 1090–1105, 1250–1319, 1368 Invocation 410–12, 870–3, 907, 1220, 1354, 1445, 1478, 1528–31; see also Prayer/Hymn, Style – Apostrophe Ion and Apollo 15–18, 82–183, 102–11, 109, 137–9, 258–369, 362b–80, 429–51, 436b–51, 1282–1319, 1344, 1484, 1532–48, 1546–8 Conduct, esp. Politeness 237–400, 237–40, 247–51, 258–307, 258–64, 413–16, 520, 533, 585–647, 585–9a, 644b–7, 668–75, 680, 1290–1305, 1481, 1510–20, 1606–13 and Delphi 82–183, 112–43, 642–4a, 1166b–76 as New Erichthonius/Erechtheus 1412–25, 1465 Inquisitiveness 237, 329, 349, 545– 55, 1335b–68, 1410–38, 1439–1509, 1456, 1521–7 Longing for Mother 237–451, 237–400, 308–25, 328, 345–62a, 540–4, 1350–4, 1369–94, 1516–20 Name: see Names Piety 94–101, 179–81, 642–4a, 1133, 1187b–93, 1312–19, 1385–8 as Pragmatist 362b–80, 557, 1380–4, 1521–7

Status 6, 54–5, 72, 82–183, 258–369, 322–7, 556, 569–667, 591, 668–75, 670b–5, 800–3, 1074–89, 1087–8, 1290–1305, 1369–94, 1380–4, 1410–38, 1468–88, 1516–20; see also Servant/Slave Tasks 52–6, 82–183, 102–11, 128–40, 241–6, 333–5, 414, 641, 1141 and Xuthus 237–451, 413–16, 510–675, 1468–88 Ionia 6, 10, 14, 22–3, 30–1, 1569–94, 1575–81a, 1581b–8 Irony; see also Ignorance/Human Blindness, Style – Irony Dramatic 11–12, 67b–8, 110, 136– 40, 219–36bis, 237–451, 237–400, 239, 259–369, 306, 308, 331, 434, 452–509, 492–506, 507–9, 523, 559, 585–647, 676–94, 714–24, 817–29, 987–1019a, 1227, 1250–1319, 1269–74, 1286, 1312–19 Euripides Playing 16, 24, 64, 82–183, 165, 184–218, 529, 572, 661–3a, 802, 989, 994, 1058–60, 1553–1605, 1569–94 Incongruity 112–43 Law/Legal Matters 10–11, 253, 429–51, 436b–51, 444–7, 532, 670b–5, 781, 893, 971–5, 1208b–16, 1217–25a, 1251, 1297, 1308, 1333, 1410–38 Laws by Gods 443, 1313 Inheritance 693, 839–40, 1537–45 Leitmotif 5, 1–81, 94–101, 110, 146, 336, 761, 987–1038 Metatheatre 24, 186–bis, 219–22, 403, 529, 569–667, 1048–1105, 1090– 1105, 1565 Metre ‒‒‒‒‒ 498M Aeolic arist 1058–9~1071–2M dodr 1050~1063M gl 206~220M tl 468–9~488–9M wil 26, 117~133M, 209– 10~223–bisM , 1074~1090M Ambiguities 1048–9~1061–2M, 1240–1M, 1048–1105M, 1048– 9~1061–2M, 1233M, 1240–3M



General Index

Anapaests Klaganapäste 112–83M, 859–922 Proceleusmatic 221–34M Recitative 221–34M Dactylic Pnigos 507–9M Dochmiac 26 ⏑⏑⏑⏑‒‒‒ 150–bisM, 859–922M doch^^doch 676~695M, 776M hypod 718/19M ‘Enoplians’ 452–509M, 685~705M, 1048–9~1061–2M, 1439–1509M Genre, Change of Metrical 190~201M, 685~705M, 1048– 1105M Iambic 2cr^ 691M ba 190~201M, 1447M cho 123~139M in Aeolic Context 497M Period Composition 184–236bisM, 452–509M, 763–807M, 1087– 9~1103–5M Period End 112–83M, 167M, 217~236M, 689~707M, 859–922M, 1048–1105M, 1229–43M Split Lyric-and-Iambic Lines 763–807M, 1453M Synaphia 219–36bis, 429–51, 763–807M Synizesis 230, 285 Tetrameter, Trochaeic 25–7, 510–65, 1250–60, 1601–5 Change to Trimeters 556–8 Havet’s Law 514 Trimeter 24–5 caesura media 372, 664b–7, 1019, 1205 Licences 21 Line Break and Sentence Break 2–3, 1122–1228 Porson’s Law 1, 1530 Myth; see also Gorgo Eumolpus 59, 275–82, 721–4 Gigantomachy 12, 184–218, 205–18, 987–1019a, 998–1019a, 1528–31 Innovation 7, 11, 59, 994, 998– 1019a, 1340, 1569–94, 1601–5

609

Names 9, 23, 259, 311, 800–3, 1543, 1555, 1577–8, 1593–4 (Fake) Etymology 81, 661–3a, 802, 997, 1048, 1580 Nourishment 52–3, 322–7, 1374–9 Old Man Age 725–62, 735–40, 1041 Character 726–62 Close to Creusa 725–34, 942, 950–9 at Ion’s Feast 1171 Loyalty 725–1047, 811b–12, 923–1047 Surrogate for Erechtheus 725–62, 1022 Oracle Oracular Language 35, 534 Ambiguous 70–1, 535 Rules, Functioning 92–3, 99, 179–81, 417–21, 541 Topics of Consultation 303 Trophonius 299–302, 407–12 Veracity: see Apollo – Truthfulness Philosophy 406, 621–32, 642–4a, 854–6, 1045–7, 1247 Plot, Tragic Civic, Dynastic, and Personal Dimension 20–7, 568, 676–724, 702, 714–24, 725–1047, 725–62, 752–62, 791, 832–5, 865–9, 923–65, 966–9, 1059, 1074–89, 1106–1228, 1293, 1463–7, 1575–88 Conflict 4, 1949, 69–73, 569–667, 1468–88 Development 3–5, 27, 69–73, 650–67 725–1047, 1510–20, 1542, 1553–1605 Inconsistencies 14, 407–12, 503, 650–67, 725–1047, 949, 1183 Mirror Scenes 5, 1–81, 82–183, 859–922, 1048–60, 1439–1509, 1553–1605 Preparation/Foreshadowing 5, 43, 1–81, 32, 69–73, 82–183, 184– 236bis, 184–218, 392–400, 453, 566–8, 589b–94, 1029–38, 1229–49, 1244–5, 1329; see also Chorus – Anticipating Developments, Recognition – Tokens Suspense 12, 69–73, 258–369, 725–1047, 725–62, 1048–1105, 1380–4, 1439–1509

610

General Index

Politics 22–3, 28–32, 43, 595–606, 621– 32, 670b–5, 1569–94, 1575–81a Pollution/Purity 82–183, 89, 98–101, 103, 104–6, 174–8, 470, 1092–3, 1117, 1260, 1306, 1309–11, 1333 Prayer/Hymn 402, 410–12, 422–4, 452–509, 452–71, 705–13, 714–24, 859–922, 919–22, 1048–1105, 1048–60, 1048–57; see also Curse Pythia; see also Delphi – Officials as Foster Mother 41–51, 1320–68, 1355–63 Oracular Style 1320–68, 1335b–68, 1350–4, 1356–62 Sharing Apollo’s Language 1335b– 68 Recognition 27, 510–675, 1250–1622, 1439–53bis False Recognition 27, 510–675, 517–62, 530–9, 563–5, 1439–1509 Tokens 1–81, 20–7, 32, 955, 987–1019a, 1320–68, 1335b–68, 1410–38, 1412–25 Religion; see also Delphi – Thyiades, Gods, Prayer/Hymn Mysteries 550, 1074–89 Rites 161–9, 650–3, 711, 800–3, 805, 1127, 1493 Sacred Laws 46, 174–8, 220, 1250–1319, 1282–1319, 1312–19, 1612–13 Schweigegebot 9, 14, 666–7, 676–724, 1029–38, 1048–60, 1601–5 Servant/Slave 1–81, 4, 24, 67–8, 150bis, 309, 854–6, 983 Sexuality 150bis, 174–8, 452–509 Marriage 887–96, 1474 Rape 21–2, 10–11, 439, 545, 1553–1605 Virginity 270, 452–71, 503bis, 872, 1425 Shame/αἰδώς 179–81, 336, 341, 395, 582–4, 859–922, 859–61, 895, 931–5, 936–69, 976–7, 1074, 1280, 1558 Ships 928, 1243 Sky 1, 84, 870, 1078–9, 1143–58a Snakes 23, 1015, 1262–3 Songs Mimetic 184–218

Paean 82–183, 112–43, 125–7~141–3, 902–6 Work Song 82–183 Sophocles Creusa 18–20, 71–2, 1019b–28 Staging Acting/Gestures/Weeping 241–6, 403, 519, 1033, 1460 Aside 1521 Dramatic Time 1135–6 Entrance/Exit 33–5, 1–4, 76–81, 392–400, 429–51, 516, 725–1047, 1250–60, 1261–81 Movements 82–183, 144–83, 154– 83, 184–236bis, 237–57, 510–16, 735–40, 981, 1261–81, 1312–19, 1320, 1369–94 1549–52 Props 82–183, 524, 743 Skene 33, 5–7, 76 Set 33, 78, 184–218, 186–bis, 188–9, 190–204, 1275, 1403 Stepmothers 589b–620, 1270, 1329 Style Address 29, 113, 219, 221, 237–40, 247, 339, 392, 517, 859, 907, 1041, 1320 Alliteration 109, 783 Anaphora 112–43, 466, 865–9, 1295–1303 Antithesis 1004–19, 1277–8, 1315–17 Apostrophe 112–24, 492–506, 681–4, 714–24, 1261–5; see also Invocation Assonance 367, 865–9 Asyndeton 82, 372, 417, 448, 685–9, 692, 1280, 1464, 1538 Catachresis 162 Ellipsis 219, 339, 439, 517, 697–8, 1413 Enjambment 2–3, 429–51, 747–51, 820–1 Epanalepsis 816 Epithet 30, 210, 213, 887, 920, 1085, 1150, 1207, Equitable Distribution 882, 1093 Euphemism 275–82, 690, 891–6, 939, 1068, 1260, 1502, 1521–7, 1561 figura etymologica 252, 921, 960



General Index





Geminatio 286, 1066 Homoeoteleuton 594, 611, 808–58 Hyperbaton 117–20, 194–5, 281, 349, 407, 882, 1273, 1283 Hyperbole 565, 836–42 Imagery, Metaphors Agricultural 267, 815, 1095 Craft 1514 Day/Night/Light 720, 1439, 1467 Gambling 412 Gold 9, 54–5, 82–183, 146, 887, 909, 1106–1228, 1427 Hunting 1111 Illness 320, 363, 549, 578–81, 591, 1524 Legal 429–51, 443 Mercantile 443, 472–80, 1015 Military 722 Nature 1087–8, 1143, 1169, 1262–3 Nautic 551, 595, 927–30 Sound 1090–1 Water 89 Innuendo 336, 455 Irony 1–81, 68, 533, 817–29, 1299; see also: Irony κατ᾿ ἄρσιν καὶ θέσιν 132–3, 226–9, 579, 1467 Metonymy 45, 64, 464, 550, 946, 1058–9, 1136, 1321, Mockery 557, 1284, 1294, 1301–5, 1404–9 Parenthesis 1–81, 30, 47–8, 68, 699–701, 1410, 1430 Paronomasia 132–3, 367 Periphrasis 19, 29–36a, 53, 123, 204, 612, 663–4, 747–51, 992, 1194–1208a, 1261–5, 1473 Periphrastic Conjugation 230, 517, 615 Personification 113, 337, 957, 1147, 1272 Pleonasm 378, 612, 751, 862, 1064 Polyptoton 381, 641, 690, 735, 1066, 1226, 1279, 1437–8, 1502–9 Pun 8, 210, 493, 603–4, 683 Register 1–81, 82–183, 184–236bis; see also Genre – Rhetoric

611

Colloquial 35, 161–9, 171–2, 219, 258–369, 275, 333, 433, 439, 554, 742, 932, 1029, 1255 Elevated 37, 82–183, 1106– 1228, 1194–1208a, 1261–5, 1389–94 Lyric/Poetic 29–36a, 56, 74, 92–3, 109, 123, 183, 508, 1446 Simple 1–81, 452–71 Technical 19, 1132b–40 Repetition 2–3, 923–35, 1090–1105, 1132 Ring Composition 27, 237–451, 258–369, 258–307, 308–25, 902–6, 925, 1355–63, 1439–1509, 1545 Sarcasm 933, 953, 1290–1305, 1299 Sigmatism 386 Speech in Speech 29–36a, 893, 1128–32a Synecdoche 46, 88, 188–9, 210, 909, 1261 Zeugma 576 Suicide 1061–73 Supplication 422–4, 1229–49, 1250– 1622, 1250–1319, 1250–60, 1275–8, 1282–1319, 1282–9, 1309–11, 1312–19, 1315–17, 1395–1403, 1612–13 Symposion, Feast 650–3, 711, 1032, 1166b–76, 1170b–6, 1177–93 Tent 806, 978–86, 1106–1228, 1122– 1228, 1132b–66a Text Corruption, Double 467 Distribution of Lines 184–236bisM, 832–5, 1428, 1615 Glosses 87, 251, 285, 337, 377, 457, 487, 507, 755, 997, 1058–9, 1071–2, 1214, 1288, 1294 Interpolation, Second Order 43, 616–17, 1360 Transmission 36–43 Eustathius 38 Λ 38–9, 41, 23, 300 L 39–41, 44, 912 P 39–41, 44, 52–3, 1063 Triclines, Nicolaos 39, 1268 Triclinius, Demetrius 38–9, 677, 847 Trophonius 299–302, 394, 407–12, 650–67, 1601–5

612

Index of Greek Words

Tyranny, Monarchy 63, 290, 439, 578–81, 621–32, 1572 Weaving/Textiles 507, 747, 1158b–62 Women 299, 486, 839–40, 862–9; see also Sexuality Feminist Readings 859–922 Reputation 384–400, 398–400, 616–17, 1090–1105

Xuthus Behaviour/Character 237–51, 401–28, 510–675, 525–7, 540–4, 545–55, 557, 569–667, 569–84, 699–701, 808–58 Incomprehension towards Others 401–28, 410–12, 525–7, 542, 582–4, 650–67 Inferiority of Descent 57–67a, 289–98, 813–16, 1297 Status 63, 290, 392, 660

Index of Greek Words αἰάζω 168–9, 1204–5 αἰθήρ 84 ἀλαλαγή 677 ἀλάομαι/ἀλήτης 52–3 ἄλλος 161 ἀμφί 224 ἀνά 797 ἀναφέρω 253, 827 ἀντίπηξ 19 ἀπασπαίρω 1207 ἀπό 1055 ἆρα 275 ἄρδην 1274 ἀστός 670b–5 βία 10–11, 445 βοή 92–3, 893 γάρ 8, 69 γε 1386 γιγνώσκω 72 εἶἑν 756 εἰμί 25, 280 εἴπερ 354 εἷς 2–3 ἐκεῖνος 70–1 ἑλίσσω 40, 1164 ἐμόν, τὸ 708, 1290 ἐπίκουρος 297, 1299 ἐπίσταμαι 51 ἕπομαι 1616 ἐς 17, 732 ἐσθλός 1017, 1619–22

ἑστιόω 1464 ἤτριον 1421 θεήλατος 1306 θριγκός 156, 1321 θυμέλη 46, 114, 228 ἴδιος 101 ἰδού/ἰδέσθε 190, 1279 καί 232, 346, 518 καὶ μήν 201 καλέω 11–13 καρφηρός 171–2 κλεινός 30 κραίνω 77, 464, 569–70 λέγω 666 λόχιος 452 μαντεῖον 42 μένω 593 μόλις 1215 ξένος 293, 339, 813 ξόανον 1403 ὅδε (ὧδε) 82, 190, 208, 238, 314, 1416 ὅμως 734 ὄνομα 1414 οὐδείς 256, 594 παμπησία 1305 πελανός 226, 707 περ 251, 1324 πετραῖος 1268 πλάξ 1267 πλήρωμα 1052 ποῖος 258–64, 932

π(τ)όλις 30, 294 πρόχος 435 Πύθιος 1251 πω 546 ῥυσιάζω 523, 1404–6 σαίνω 685 σηκός 300 στάθμη, σταθμάω 1137, 1514

Index of Greek Words

σφάλλω 1523 τέκτων 1129 τύραννος 621, 678, 1572 ὑμνωιδέω 6 χαίρω 245–6, 358 χρήιζω 1244 ὡς 18, 333, 759, 965

613